What does God make of feminism?

[marietta]

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

The problem with this statement is that it is, again, a blanket statement open only to the interpretation that the poster wishes all women would get out of the workplace and resume their roles as wives and mothers.

Sair’s response, which I read as one of horror and disgust, seems appropriate. Vladi throws all women into one box and tapes the lid shut. No progress can be made in this arena unless and until men and women alike understand that we are each unique, and the vocations which call person A will not necessarily be those that call peson B and that’s the way is should be.

I admit to being disgusted at Vladi’s posts and thought this surely was the work of a troll; but really, it doesn’t matter because the discussion is, for the time, still open, and we each still have an opportunity to share ideas which might make the world a better place rather than one of regression and repression.

marietta

 

[Salonika]

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

Exactly.

 

[Sair]

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.

I have never claimed that the act of raising children and creating a home is not a worthwhile and highly enjoyable pursuit, for those who freely choose to do it because they want to. Where it becomes ‘domestic servitude’ is when a person is forced into it against their inclination because it is the only thing society allows them to do (at least without being vilified). Vladi seemed to be suggesting, amongst other things, that the only right place for a woman was in the home - my post was a response to that opinion specifically.

As for indentured servitude, while we live in a capitalist society that is obsessed with consumerism and while the cost of living and raising a family usually requires two incomes, wage slavery remains an unfortunate necessity.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Where it becomes ‘domestic servitude’ is when a person is forced into it against their inclination because it is the only thing society allows them to do (at least without being vilified)

But this I don’t understand. Are you saying that now there is a majority, or even a statistically significant minority, of women who are 'forced into marriage and motherhood against their inclination because it is the only thing society allows them to do without being vilified?

I do not think that is the case in most societies. And in the cases (modern) that I know some will bring up, like the Taliban. . .that particular society is not a ‘normal’ society. It is a diseased society. Because it not only does ‘keep women down’ but makes them–whether married or not–into ‘lesser beings’ it is emphatically not like any other normal society in which men and women played different ROLES but that both–men and women–were HONORED for their respective roles. Where women’s contributions in being women–hopefully wives and mothers in order to help society ‘grow’ but still honored as women even when children, or when single or widowed, and respected. . . those societies, even if there were not as MANY 'opportunities for a given woman (and often not very MEN had a lot of opportunities either, based on their age, religion, race, or ‘class’, either) can be judged, for the TIME and the CONTEXT of that time, to be worthwhile.

There will never be the kind of equality that will permit every single person to do everything --or even many things–that person may want to do. Sometimes what will stop them is lack of ability. Would you believe I’m still not America’s greatest living stage actress? Sometimes it is lack of finances, lack of time, lack of opportunity. Sometimes there is too much ‘competition’ in a certain field, sometimes the job itself is either too ‘common’ or too ‘uncommon’ to pay as well as we’d like, etc. etc.

We have to accept that even the women who is sure she ‘wants to be a wife and mother" at age 24 is going to feel differently when she is 34, or 44. . .for many different reasons–but that it is no reason to blame the ‘wife and mother’ part rather than many other factors. . not the least of which is a certain sense of entitlement that has crept into most people’s consciousness, an envy of others, a shortened ‘attention span’, a ‘fast food mentality’ and "sitcom’ mentality’ that things need to be 'my way–and NOW" and ‘everything needs to be perfect and crises are solved in 30 minutes or less–and no reruns until summer’.

 

[estesbob]

I
As for indentured servitude, while we live in a capitalist society that is obsessed with consumerism and while the cost of living and raising a family usually requires two incomes, wage slavery remains an unfortunate necessity.

So if one works for a living they are a wage slave But if they stay at home to take care of their children they are an indentured servant. Sounds like a lose lose situation to me.

I own my own business so does that make me both master and slave?

 

[marietta]

But this I don’t understand. Are you saying that now there is a majority, or even a statistically significant minority, of women who are 'forced into marriage and motherhood against their inclination because it is the only thing society allows them to do without being vilified?

It makes no difference whether these women represent a majority, a significant minority, or a single individual - oppression is wrong.

marietta

 

[estesbob]

It makes no difference whether these women represent a majority, a significant minority, or a single individual - oppression is wrong.

marietta

In general are women who stay home and take care of their children opressed.?

 

[marietta]

That is precisely the wrong point.

A woman who stays home because her husband expects her to take care of the children, who cooks because her husband demands it, who continues to become pregnant because her husband wants more children, who is stuck at home because her husband takes their only car to work . . .

THESE ARE THE WOMEN WHO ARE OPPRESSED.

Any woman who does any of the things listed above because she chooses to and she is gratified by doing so . . .

THESE ARE WOMEN WHO ARE NOT OPPRESSED unless they are Academy Award winners.

Get it?

marietta

 

[Kaninchen]

But this I don’t understand. Are you saying that now there is a majority, or even a statistically significant minority, of women who are 'forced into marriage and motherhood against their inclination because it is the only thing society allows them to do without being vilified?

I agree, you don’t seem to have understood.

 

[Salonika]

marietta:

A woman who stays home because her husband expects her to take care of the children, who cooks because her husband demands it, who continues to become pregnant because her husband wants more children, who is stuck at home because her husband takes their only car to work . . .

THESE ARE THE WOMEN WHO ARE OPPRESSED.

Any woman who does any of the things listed above because she chooses to and she is gratified by doing so . . .

THESE ARE WOMEN WHO ARE NOT OPPRESSED unless they are Academy Award winners.

Get it?

marietta

I certainly get it and agree with it - but maybe you’ve said it too clearly for some people to understand.

To me feminism also means being able to change your choices without being criticised or being told “you’ve made your bed now lie in it”. Of course, proposed changes (whoever wants to make them) need to be worked through with those directly involved.

 

[elts1956]

Well, you are rather doomed to a kind of “Woe! Woe! And thrice Woe!” approach to life if all you can do otherwise is come up with wish lists.

Edwest’s “wish list” was a reality at one time. But now we have the repercussions from the sixties, the hippie generation which has never ended, but now lives on in the form of relativism. The feminist movement, which legally gave the female the right of choice, not the right choice, I maintain, but a choice. The result of women gaining more monetary independence resulted in the realization they no longer had to depend on a man for a livlihood. A mixed blessing resulting in the dissolution of the family.

There are all sorts of forces fighting ed’s “wish list” and it will take generations to honor that list again. I hope it is possible.

 

[elts1956]

Well, you are rather doomed to a kind of “Woe! Woe! And thrice Woe!” approach to life if all you can do otherwise is come up with wish lists.

In general are women who stay home and take care of their children opressed.?

Not if that is what they really want to do.

 

[KingAlfred]

I praise the Church for opposing feminism. Feminism, like many other causes, tends to promote idolatry. While we should always fight for justice, the precursor of true peace, we must never misconstrue our ‘cause’ as a substitute for God. I’ve known feminists who were dangerously obsessed.

 

[Kaninchen]

Edwest’s “wish list” was a reality at one time. But now we have the repercussions from the sixties, the hippie generation which has never ended, but now lives on in the form of relativism. The feminist movement, which legally gave the female the right of choice, not the right choice, I maintain, but a choice. The result of women gaining more monetary independence resulted in the realization they no longer had to depend on a man for a livlihood. A mixed blessing resulting in the dissolution of the family.

There’s an assumption behind all this that the 50’s were a ‘modern’ face of all the past generations - this is more than highly questionable, they were where capitalism was at the time. Neither did the the 60’s just turn up as some kind of deus ex machina to spoil it all. The history, even more distant history, of it all is more complex than that.

There are all sorts of forces fighting ed’s “wish list” and it will take generations to honor that list again. I hope it is possible.

I expect that you do.

 

[Salonika]

I praise the Church for opposing feminism. Feminism, like many other causes, tends to promote idolatry. While we should always fight for justice, the precursor of true peace, we must never misconstrue our ‘cause’ as a substitute for God. I’ve known feminists who were dangerously obsessed.

Seems we also have a number of posts on this thread from the other extreme - those who are obsessed, even dangerously obsessed - with opposing feminism.

King Alfred - does your comment also apply to them?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think that one major problem, which has still not been addressed, is that there are many definitions of ‘feminism’. Yours probably differs in some details from mine, mine may differ from another poster’s, etc. There are some points that virtually every one is in agreement on (equal pay for equal job I do not think that anybody would argue about), and some which are very ambiguous, and seen as meaning one thing by one poster and another by another poster. What exactly does the word ‘equality’ mean, for example. And some things are absolutely antithetical not only to Catholic or nonCatholic Christian teaching, but to civilization itself. . .but still cause dissention. I think that nobody here would say that they LIKE abortion, and almost everybody would think it evil. The thing is, some people would say it could be a ‘necessary’ evil, some would say it is only evil in certain circuumstances, some say it doesn’t matter if the person doing it is doing it for a ‘good’ reason, or that it is a ‘worse’ evil to have the child, etc. etc. etc.

The whole topic is too murky. You can’t really have a discussion if nobody agrees on exactly what is being discussed.

 

[KingAlfred]

Seems we also have a number of posts on this thread from the other extreme - those who are obsessed, even dangerously obsessed - with opposing feminism.

King Alfred - does your comment also apply to them?

“Feminism” itself, as a label, is eerily controversial. I prefer, “Equal Opportunity”. “Feminism” suggests a separate, exclusivistic agenda. For example, WHAT IF…the feminst in charge is an atheist???

 

[edwest2]

There’s an assumption behind all this that the 50’s were a ‘modern’ face of all the past generations - this is more than highly questionable, they were where capitalism was at the time. Neither did the the 60’s just turn up as some kind of deus ex machina to spoil it all. The history, even more distant history, of it all is more complex than that.

I expect that you do.

Too complicated to understand? No. I watched as the body of Christ on earth was slowly, gradually poisoned. If we had gone from 1965 to porn on the internet and cable a few years later, there would have been an immediate outcry. No, all of us frogs sat in our cool pots of water as secularists gradually turned up the heat, which we then got used to, and then they turned it up a little more, a little more, a little more.

Dating, courtship and marriage were understood to be respected. There were chapperones at teenagers’ parties, why? Because adults knew that because they themselves had been teenagers at one time, that teenagers in the 1950s and 1960s were likely to not be able to make wise choices regarding their sexuality. They didn’t need some group of experts to tell them that.

They also didn’t need colorfully dressed anarchists to tell them sex with anyone was OK. The Pill would set you free! Yes, to make bad choices.

1968 Humanae Vitae is released and guess what? Theologians are telling Catholics, it’s up to you and your conscience. Let’s just forget about long-standing Church teaching. Let’s get with The Pill and “modern” living. Things have “changed.” Pope Paul VI wrote about how things would change and he was right.

Free love! (sex with anyone). Don’t trust anyone over 30 (mom, dad, priests, nuns; they don’t know anything). Off the pigs! Smoke reefer! (Hey, man? You gotta roach clip?)

I watched fellow students gradually try and, in some cases, get addicted to illegal drugs. Everyone (or so they thought) was telling them it was OK!

One of my classmates, we found out, was living with his girlfriend. People objected. “But I love her,” he said.

“We will burn this country down if we have to! Down with the Establishment!”

Dr. Timothy Leary likes LSD, you should try it for its “mind expanding” properties.

And the media joined in. A few confused Catholics joined in.

1973 Adult bookstores with various publications showing prostitutes performing graphic sex acts appear all over the country. Abortion legalized (have pity on those poor girls whose only choice is a back-alley abortion). We had compassion for rape and incest. The Catholic Legion of Decency closes its doors and Hollywood with its newfound “freedom” begins making dirtier and dirtier movies.

1978 “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!” Men are demonized - all men. A war has been declared between the sexes (the media labels it “battle between the sexes”) by the National Organization for Women. Women’s Libbers threaten to burn their bras. All women are or will be, victims of men. Which lays the groundwork for the kind of mistrust and suspicion that leads to…

1980s No-Fault Divorce completes its sweep of the country. Dozens of ads appear in local newspapers “No Kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE”
Porn on cable in motels. Sue Ellen on Dallas drinking liquor straight out of the bottle while driving.

1990s Profanity and partial nudity on network TV. Filth coming out of the radio. They call it rap and Shock Jocks. Increase in porn access through the internet. Divorce among Christians is the same or higher as among non-Christians. In terms of day to day living, it’s hard to tell a Christian from a non-Christian.

2000s Into the abyss. Malls become the new places of worship on the weekends. So-called comedians promoting profanity and endless, graphic sex jokes. Everything in the media and even in public, is hyper-sexualized. The Sports Illustrated “swimsuit” issue shows models wearing nothing. Women are paying money for a piece of string and calling it underwear. Movies tell everyone: boy meets girl, they fornicate, become a couple. Even Oprah has guests talking about ther adulterous (open) marriages.

The fruit of the Hippie/Sexual Revolution of the 1960s? It’s there for all to see.

However, for Catholics, there is hope. The Holy Spirit is moving through the Church. The social engineering project of 1968 is being exposed. Even a priest who was being coerced by other priests into signing a statement against Hamanae Vitae is speaking out. Signs of renewed life and vigor are showing within the Church.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Kaninchen]

Too complicated to understand?

It would seem obvious that, for some people, that is very much the case.

No. I watched as the body of Christ on earth was slowly, gradually poisoned.

Perhaps you might have saved that for a reply to a Christian poster - I just move into ‘here we go again’ mode.

The thing is, edwest, that virtually every response from you tends to come over to me as: “50’s and 60’s - The Movie: Part XVIII - The Wrath of Ed”. Where “damned hippies/feminists!” (or whatever) stands in for any kind of social/cultural (never mind economic) analysis.

Where, to take a few examples, is there any consideration of the the Second World War and its effects? They were considerable in America and enormous in Europe? Where is any analysis of the Cold War on social attitudes? Where is any analysis of the changing nature of the economy?

No, to Ed, it’s all hippies and feminists.

However, for Catholics, there is hope. The Holy Spirit is moving through the Church. The social engineering project of 1968 is being exposed. Even a priest who was being coerced by other priests into signing a statement against Hamanae Vitae is speaking out. Signs of renewed life and vigor are showing within the Church.

So American Catholics are, for example, going to dis-invent technology and return the economy to the 1950’s. Or not.

 

[fix]

The thing is, edwest, that virtually every response from you tends to come over to me as: “50’s and 60’s - The Movie: Part XVIII - The Wrath of Ed”. Where “damned hippies/feminists!” (or whatever) stands in for any kind of social/cultural (never mind economic) analysis.

So, it is not that his analysis is wrong it is that you do not like it?