What does God make of feminism?

[goodknight439]

Unless you’re referring to a song by the Rolling Stones, there is no evidence for that occurring in large numbers. Tranquilizers were prescribed when medically necessary. But my experience with health care is that most doctors were and still are reluctant to prescribe tranquilizers. I suspect you’ve been taken in by a mythology involving bored suburban housewives
Facts are good.

God bless,
Ed

Good point Ed,
Valium was a “fad” of sorts. You are right, it wasn’t that the life style “drove women to pills” True the 60’s was a transitional period in lifestyle as has been discussed ad nauseum here. But the stresses of today’s hurry up world on women (and men) are much greater than ever before, even then. Back then as life was getting stressful, the medical community didn’t realize how harmful and addictive those “little yellow pills” were so they were innocently dolled out as they were thought to be harmless. It is also likely that some of those women back then who were prescribed Valium etc. legitimately needed anti depressants or anti-anxiety medication. These Meds are now shown on TV every half hour, we have all seen them: Cymbalta, Zoloft, Celexa, Wellbutrin, etc. However in the 60’s drugs for mental illness treatment were not common outside of psychiatric facilities and were not very safe medications either.

Now I am waiting to hear the outcry that tranquilizers were a man (male) made plot to subdue women.

 

[goodknight439]

I wstn chiding -just pointing out that for the most part people re arguing past each other is this thread

I have two daughter and believe me for most of their teen years it seemed like I had no power at all-but it all turned out OK.

Nothing you said in your post would be construed as chiding by most people Bob. In fact you are one of the most level headed sincere people in the CA Forums.

• my daughter is turning out ok too!

 

[edwest2]

The problem with this thread is there is no agreed on definition of feminism. On one side we see those who view feminism as abortion, promiscouity , single motherhod, etc. On the other side we see people thinking feminsim is simply a matter of equal rights and eqaul pay for equal work . Since everyone is arguing based on their perception of feminism the discussion causes a lot more heat that light.

Not so, Bob. The feminism that created Ms. as a separate title for women who were “liberated” from the patriarchal society, the patriarchal Church and from the enemy, men, is what I’m talking about. To have sex when they want with who they want whenever they want - I think I’ve mentioned Sex and the City often enough. I’ve also written that if they (feminists) can’t trust men, then they should start some sort of self-funded commune and just spend time enjoying each other’s company.

I’m all for equal pay for equal work and equal access to jobs based on ability. I have no problem with that. But just look up the National Organization for Women.

God bless,
Ed

 

[marietta]

edwest2 and estesbob:

One of you believes there is only one feminism, an evil design to jettison men from the comfort of their safe and tidy earthly homes. The other seems to believe that there are perhaps two faces of feminism, one rather benign and the other quite malignant.

If you place 100 women in a conference room and ask each individually what she understands feminism to be, you may not get 100 different answers, but you might get 75 different answers.

Personally, I would hope for 100 different answers.

marietta

 

[edwest2]

Good point Ed,
Valium was a “fad” of sorts. You are right, it wasn’t that the life style “drove women to pills” True the 60’s was a transitional period in lifestyle as has been discussed ad nauseum here. But the stresses of today’s hurry up world on women (and men) are much greater than ever before, even then. Back then as life was getting stressful, the medical community didn’t realize how harmful and addictive those “little yellow pills” were so they were innocently dolled out as they were thought to be harmless. It is also likely that some of those women back then who were prescribed Valium etc. legitimately needed anti depressants or anti-anxiety medication. These Meds are now shown on TV every half hour, we have all seen them: Cymbalta, Zoloft, Celexa, Wellbutrin, etc. However in the 60’s drugs for mental illness treatment were not common outside of psychiatric facilities and were not very safe medications either.

Now I am waiting to hear the outcry that tranquilizers were a man (male) made plot to subdue women.

You know, I spent over an hour hearing different women on Catholic radio talk about home schooling their children, today, 2008. The pressures you speak of are often self-inflicted. Now, on the weekend, the Church parking lots aren’t full, but they are full at the new places of worship called malls. Does your daughter need a $100 cell phone? Or designer clothes? Or other junk? Seriously. In the 1960s, we got two presents at Christmas and we were happy. Our friends got the same and they were happy. We weren’t waiting for new stuff every weekend. Christmas, birthdays, Easter, that was it. You could count on mom and dad for some change to get soda pop and chips. Allowances were rare and meant doing extra work. If you wanted extra money you went around the neighborhood with a push lawn mower and cut the grass for the neighbors or shoveled snow in the winter.

Today, too many parents view their children as some sort of inconvenience. Sure, they give them food, clothing and shelter but they let them run pretty wild otherwise. And today, why get married? Yeah, we’ll just shack up. That’s the ticket! And why bother having kids? Life is meant to be fun 24/7. And besides, we both work. So we’ll just have lots of sex and when you get tired of me or I get tired of you, we’ll just move on. No harm, no foul. It’s all good!

God forbid.

Tranquilizers a fad? Seriously, I knew a doctor from the time period. You are correct that mental health was not as manageable with medication as it is now, which led to the closure of many mental health facilities, but to say doctors didn’t know? A few overdoses, accidental or otherwise, and trips to the emergency room would have given the family doctor (yes, everyone I knew had a family doctor in the 1960s) a clue that the medication was causing problems. The doctor I grew up with actually made house calls and knew his patients. So I find it doubtful that doctors then would not monitor the progress or lack thereof, of their patients. It was typical and common. I was there and I heard the doctor say, “Take these and let me know how you feel in the next week or so.” They really cared. (Not to imply anything bad about doctors today.)

What you call a “lifestyle” change was some people turning their back on the Christian foundation of their lives and giving it over to sex, drugs and rock & roll. I watched, in the 1960s, as a friend’s older brother introduced him to marijuana and heard how others were having sex outside of marriage. They were waiting for a Woodstock Nation that was replaced by adult bookstores. It was more than a lifestyle change, it was the poisoning of the body and soul over four decades. The fruit of it is all around you, at the movies, on TV and on your radio.

For Catholics, however, the call for a New Pentecost has been heard.

God bless,
Ed

 

[goodknight439]

But just look up the National Organization for Women.
God bless,
Ed

I did Ed, it was very interesting and quiet unsettling.

From the children’s book section:
http://www.now.org/store/images/items/bk-hh2.jpg

How classy can a “feminist” get? I can’t paste the image because of the offensive language on the t-shirt.

now.org/cgi-bin/store/TS-DMB.html

So much for a supportive husband:
now.org/cgi-bin/store/BS-BES.html

Answer : Perhaps because God made men and women to be together?
Question: now.org/cgi-bin/store/BT-ETM.html

 

[marietta]

edwest2:

Didja walk to school uphill both ways in the snow? :tissues:

marietta

 

[edwest2]

Of course I did. Everybody did. We trusted our mom and dad for the most part, and when I got older, I realized they were 97% right, along with my friends’ moms and dads. No one was perfect, but you know what the really big difference was back then? People tried. They really tried to serve God, to love their neighbor, to control themselves and to turn away from sin. They really, really tried. Even as a kid I could see that. And it was a very good example.

God bless,
Ed

 

[goodknight439]

You know, I spent over an hour hearing different women on Catholic radio talk about home schooling their children, today, 2008. The pressures you speak of are often self-inflicted.

No argument there. However work/careers are more demanding of us than our parents generation. That is what my Dad said for years. They of course worked extremely hard- perhaps what I mean is the demands of work are much different.

Today, too many parents view their children as some sort of inconvenience. Sure, they give them food, clothing and shelter but they let them run pretty wild otherwise. And today, why get married? Yeah, we’ll just shack up. That’s the ticket! And why bother having kids? Life is meant to be fun 24/7. And besides, we both work. So we’ll just have lots of sex and when you get tired of me or I get tired of you, we’ll just move on. No harm, no foul. It’s all good! God forbid.

Again, no disagreement. Many couples my age (40 something) and younger allow their their lives to be run by their children’s activities or sluff their children off as an inconvenience. We also saw so many people in our old Parish, who go there as an errand of sorts like shopping or a soccer game. Some even appear to be there as a chore where they go and get their card stamped so to speak. I am not sure why they go at all. The moral relativism that you mention is also quite unsettling.

Tranquilizers a fad?

Poor choice of words on my part. The docs intentions then were genuine- do no harm, they justs didn’t have the data on exactly how dangerous they really were but realized it very soon after. Then tranquilizer use dropped sharply. I did not intend to imply it was not monitored well.

What you call a "lifestyle" change was some people turning their back on the Christian foundation of their lives and giving it over to sex, drugs and rock & roll. I watched, in the 1960s, as a friend's older brother introduced him to marijuana and heard how others were having sex outside of marriage. They were waiting for a Woodstock Nation that was replaced by adult bookstores. It was more than a lifestyle change, it was the poisoning of the body and soul over four decades. The fruit of it is all around you, at the movies, on TV and on your radio.
For Catholics, however, the call for a New Pentecost has been heard.

I do not disagree with you. When I mentioned “lifestyle” change I wasn’t advocating it; it is just a fact. Please know I really appreciate your posts.

 

[Sair]

It occurs to me that a lot of the problems that arise in contemporary society regarding relationships between men and women are largely the result of failure to communicate. There are still assumptions about what men and women should want, so if one wants and/or needs something that goes against the prescribed norm, communicating this becomes an object of some trepidation, and in some cases, avoidance.

Is it really any wonder, in this light, that misunderstandings occur between the sexes? When you have perameters that make some choices ‘shameful’, how do you go about communicating needs that don’t fit the ‘norm’? I am immensely lucky, in that my fiance is very understanding, and very much not the stereotypical ‘bloke’ (if I can put it in an Australian context).

How do you explain to someone who subscribes to the idea that certain social norms are ‘right’, that they are not right for you as an idividual?

 

[estesbob]

edwest2 and estesbob:

One of you believes there is only one feminism, an evil design to jettison men from the comfort of their safe and tidy earthly homes. The other seems to believe that there are perhaps two faces of feminism, one rather benign and the other quite malignant.

If you place 100 women in a conference room and ask each individually what she understands feminism to be, you may not get 100 different answers, but you might get 75 different answers.

Personally, I would hope for 100 different answers.

marietta

Actually i believe that heir are about as many different views of femiism as there are people. Which is why we should be discussing specifics rather than labels.

 

[edwest2]

A desire for 100 different answers is a description of anarchy. Not a good way to order a society.

The Pope has also spoken about indifference as evil. The I’m OK you’re OK idea. As Catholics, this sort of relativism is not what we are taught. As I’ve written before, there are people doing whatever they want around the world and they don’t need the permission of the Church.

A properly formed conscience can tell you when something you want to do is good or bad. I’m talking to Catholics and non-Catholics here. For Catholics, this specifically refers to being raised in a proper Catholic household where the parents hold to the teachings given in the Catechism, take their kids to church and live a worthy example of Catholic parenthood. The Hippies, Radicals and Feminists took this away.

Recently, feminist icon, Gloria Steinem was asked what she thought women should be doing. Her reply, “Whatever the f*** they please.”

A few thoughts from the 1960s. “Let it all hang out, man. Hey, whatever floats your boat.” No one is right, no one is wrong. This is wrong. Without boundaries and guidelines for each of us, the society tends toward anarchy, everyone flying off in their own direction.

God bless,
Ed

 

[marietta]

A properly formed conscience can tell you when something you want to do is good or bad. I’m talking to Catholics and non-Catholics here. For Catholics, this specifically refers to being raised in a proper Catholic household where the parents hold to the teachings given in the Catechism, take their kids to church and live a worthy example of Catholic parenthood.

My parents raised me exactly as you describe with two notable exceptions: there was never any discussion about sexuality, and there was the constant pall of very active alcoholism hanging over the family night and day.

These are variables which turned three of the four children to behaviors outside the parameters of “goodness”. My father was a Marian. He was also a drunk. What does one do with that?

marietta

 

[edwest2]

Each individual will face trials. The Bible tells us we will be refined like gold. I know of no one who has had what some might call an easy life, whether affected by alcoholism, cancer, or death in the family. As Christians, we all turn to God in the middle of our crisis. Some will go to Church sponsored recovery groups for those affected by alcoholism, drug addiction and divorce, among others. We are told to help bear one another’s burdens and I know people who are doing this.

May you heal from whatever harm has come to you and members of your family.

God bless,
Ed

 

[estesbob]

These are variables which turned three of the four children to behaviors outside the parameters of “goodness”. My father was a Marian. He was also a drunk. What does one do with that?

marietta

The best we can. My parents were fantastic parents and great role models-yet I still ended up a drunk.

 

[Sair]

Or women cold just not work and take care of the kids…there I said it.

And you are to be commended for your courage in so decisively nailing your colours to the mast and making yourself a mouthpiece for every small-minded, chauvinistic, neo-Fascist out there.

Vladi, there is a political system that would bring about the conditions for which you are longing, and it’s one that doesn’t even require you to worry about anything so inefficient as elections. It’s called a fascist dictatorship, and it has been tried before. Fortunately for every sane person in the Western world, it failed.

Seriously, though, if the views you express are indeed your honest-to-God opinion, then you need to get help. Not only are they breathtakingly sexist and racist, but also pathetically simplistic. For God’s sake, read some history or sociology, anything that will give you some grasp of the complexities of human societies. Social harmony comes down to much more than birthrates and matching skin colours.

And what would you expect to achieve by forcing women back into domestic servitude? Some kind of patriarchalist paradise? The idea would be laughable if it wasn’t for the tragic reality that there are other people who think the way you do.

 

[Salonika]

And what would you expect to achieve by forcing women back into domestic servitude? Some kind of patriarchalist paradise? The idea would be laughable if it wasn’t for the tragic reality that there are other people who think the way you do.

And even more tragic is that in some countries these people have come to power (eg the Teleban in Afghanistan) and been able to implement their anti-women policies.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Not that I am advocating for the position, but to a lot of us mothers out there the concept of having children, staying home with them at least until they go off to school, or longer if possible. . .is not ‘domestic servitude’.

You see, this is where the ‘rhetoric’ meets the road, so to speak. Terms like ‘domestic servitude.’ What about the man going off to work in the factory? Is he ‘indentured servitude?’ The husband who stays home with the children --is HE in 'domestic servitude?"

You see, it is laudable that you appear to want people to ‘live to their fullest potential as humans.’ It is.

Where you fail (IMO) is assuming that ‘living to their fullest potential’ automatically rules out–for all women–the idea of being ‘wives and mothers, taking care of their children’ as this is DOMESTIC SERVITUDE.

You know, children need care. . .they do. They can’t operate as adults. They need ‘domestic care.’

So… . .the mother who is to be ‘freed from domestic servitude’ to ‘live up to her fullest human potential’ still has to arrange care for these children, right?

So what happens? Usually the mother finds a sitter, or a day care, or some such. Usually the sitter, or day care workers, are women. Usually, the wages are low.

So, in order to free Mrs. X from DOMESTIC SERVITUDE, you have her give the children to Ms. Y the sitter or to the workers Ms. A, B, and C at the local day care.

Meaning that those women are now in domestic servitude. . .being paid low wages to watch other people’s children. . .often having to put their own children out to watch, or ‘sharing’ their care with that of those they are PAID to watch.

And Mrs. X, freed from domestic servitude, has to take from her (usually not all that high) wages to pay the child care. She has to work her children ‘around’ her job demands. She has to work all the ‘domestic duties’ around her job, instead of having the time to relax and enjoy–yes, enjoy–making a home without the demands of that job, getting the children to and from care, etc.

Mind you, there are all too many women who are forced into ‘indentured servitude’ and thus (being single parents often) into having to send their children to others for ‘care’ in order to make a living. And most of those women would far rather live in domestic servitude in a stable marriage than be out there in a dead-end ‘job’ trying to pay the rent and barely having time to do those chores which have to get done ANYWAY and still have time to care for their children.

Just a thought from another perspective. Don’t be so quick to dismiss the raising of children and making a home as ‘domestic servitude’, please. That is unfair and unkind to many women who, both historically AND today, have found such to be indeed living their lives to their fullest potential.

 

[estesbob]

Not that I am advocating for the position, but to a lot of us mothers out there the concept of having children, staying home with them at least until they go off to school, or longer if possible. . .is not ‘domestic servitude’.

You see, this is where the ‘rhetoric’ meets the road, so to speak. Terms like ‘domestic servitude.’ What about the man going off to work in the factory? Is he ‘indentured servitude?’ The husband who stays home with the children --is HE in 'domestic servitude?"

You see, it is laudable that you appear to want people to ‘live to their fullest potential as humans.’ It is.

Where you fail (IMO) is assuming that ‘living to their fullest potential’ automatically rules out–for all women–the idea of being ‘wives and mothers, taking care of their children’ as this is DOMESTIC SERVITUDE.

You know, children need care. . .they do. They can’t operate as adults. They need ‘domestic care.’

So… . .the mother who is to be ‘freed from domestic servitude’ to ‘live up to her fullest human potential’ still has to arrange care for these children, right?

So what happens? Usually the mother finds a sitter, or a day care, or some such. Usually the sitter, or day care workers, are women. Usually, the wages are low.

So, in order to free Mrs. X from DOMESTIC SERVITUDE, you have her give the children to Ms. Y the sitter or to the workers Ms. A, B, and C at the local day care.

Meaning that those women are now in domestic servitude. . .being paid low wages to watch other people’s children. . .often having to put their own children out to watch, or ‘sharing’ their care with that of those they are PAID to watch.

And Mrs. X, freed from domestic servitude, has to take from her (usually not all that high) wages to pay the child care. She has to work her children ‘around’ her job demands. She has to work all the ‘domestic duties’ around her job, instead of having the time to relax and enjoy–yes, enjoy–making a home without the demands of that job, getting the children to and from care, etc.

Mind you, there are all too many women who are forced into ‘indentured servitude’ and thus (being single parents often) into having to send their children to others for ‘care’ in order to make a living. And most of those women would far rather live in domestic servitude in a stable marriage than be out there in a dead-end ‘job’ trying to pay the rent and barely having time to do those chores which have to get done ANYWAY and still have time to care for their children.

Just a thought from another perspective. Don’t be so quick to dismiss the raising of children and making a home as ‘domestic servitude’, please. That is unfair and unkind to many women who, both historically AND today, have found such to be indeed living their lives to their fullest potential.

Great Post!

 

[Kaninchen]

Not that I am advocating for the position, but to a lot of us mothers out there the concept of having children, staying home with them at least until they go off to school, or longer if possible. . .is not ‘domestic servitude’.

. . . .

Just a thought from another perspective. Don’t be so quick to dismiss the raising of children and making a home as ‘domestic servitude’, please. That is unfair and unkind to many women who, both historically AND today, have found such to be indeed living their lives to their fullest potential.

It’s ‘domestic servitude’ if it’s not what you wanted, or if it’s what you come to realize that there are other options but you’re stuck with it.

I’ve been a SAHM, then I worked part-time around my children’s lives when they were both in school, then for years I worked part-time and later full-time when we judged that they could cope. I enjoyed being a SAHM, partly because I knew that I had the choice of having a career in the future and, partly, because we did exciting things like living in other countries. So, I didn’t look on it as ‘domestic servitude’ - had it been all that I could have ever expected from life, I would have looked at it that way.

If what you want is to be a SAHM and a domestic life then, of course, it’s the opposite of ‘servitude’.