What Is a Catholic Feminist? (A thoughtful blog post I wanted to share)

[TFK_Emery]

Wasn’t able to read all the pages of this. Wow, how did I miss out on a thread with “feminist” in the title??

I’m a feminist. I didn’t used to consider myself one, but you can only scream “misogynist” out in class so many times without getting labeled. I overanalyze things, am obnoxious, and have no sense of humor. I fit the profile, I guess

“Feminist” does not just mean “in support of women’s rights,” but it also doesn’t mean subscription to this or that political agenda. It means, in my opinion, an individual who is passionately in support of improving the treatment towards and options open to women. Personally, as a feminist, I am disgusted by the idea of Planned Parenthood, a corporation that protects sex offenders, getting extra money from the state. I am apalled at the thought of women being denied their right to be informed about a risky surgery. I’m saddened by the fact that men have been given yet another opportunity to run off on their responsibilities and leave, as usual, women to deal with the pain.

Feminists do not all support abortion. IMO, it is the most misogynistic industry on the planet; even if we choose not to focus on the fact that they’re slaughtering infants, they’re certainly not helping women.

 

[stevicus]

Wasn’t able to read all the pages of this. Wow, how did I miss out on a thread with “feminist” in the title??

I’m a feminist. I didn’t used to consider myself one, but you can only scream “misogynist” out in class so many times without getting labeled. I overanalyze things, am obnoxious, and have no sense of humor. I fit the profile, I guess

“Feminist” does not just mean “in support of women’s rights,” but it also doesn’t mean subscription to this or that political agenda. It means, in my opinion, an individual who is passionately in support of improving the treatment towards and options open to women. Personally, as a feminist, I am disgusted by the idea of Planned Parenthood, a corporation that protects sex offenders, getting extra money from the state. I am apalled at the thought of women being denied their right to be informed about a risky surgery. I’m saddened by the fact that men have been given yet another opportunity to run off on their responsibilities and leave,** as usual,** women to deal with the pain.

Feminists do not all support abortion. IMO, it is the most misogynistic industry on the planet; even if we choose not to focus on the fact that they’re slaughtering infants, they’re certainly not helping women.

I’ve been taking a casual interest in this thread, reading the different points of view, but what I can discern is that there seems to be a lot of lingering confusion over just what “feminist” is supposed to mean.

When I think of the word “feminist,” I’m thinking mainly of someone who adheres to a particular political ideology which uses its own terminology and definitions. We hear about “second wave” and “third wave” feminism. Some feminists go at it full tilt, taking college-level courses on the subject and coming off like political ideologues.

One problem I have with feminism is that it seems to generate certain blanket attitudes about men in general. I note your use of the phrase “as usual,” implying that men are “usually” horrible people. Quite frankly, I don’t need feminism to dictate my morals and ethics as a man; I’ll defer to the teachings of the Church in that regard.

Some men are misogynists, but not all of them are. But I don’t think that just because someone might have a more traditional viewpoint (aka “chauvinistic”), it doesn’t mean that they hate women. Some might see it as just the opposite.

On the other hand, there are men who accept that feminism is here to stay, and all they would really ask is that the concepts of gender equality and gender neutrality be practiced equally and consistently. They see inconsistencies and double standards in society, so they react against it, and it’s from there that most of the complaints about feminism seem to emanate.

 

[severus68]

I’ve been taking a casual interest in this thread, reading the different points of view, but what I can discern is that there seems to be a lot of lingering confusion over just what “feminist” is supposed to mean.

When I think of the word “feminist,” I’m thinking mainly of someone who adheres to a particular political ideology which uses its own terminology and definitions. We hear about “second wave” and “third wave” feminism. Some feminists go at it full tilt, taking college-level courses on the subject and coming off like political ideologues.

One problem I have with feminism is that it seems to generate certain blanket attitudes about men in general. I note your use of the phrase “as usual,” implying that men are “usually” horrible people. Quite frankly, I don’t need feminism to dictate my morals and ethics as a man; I’ll defer to the teachings of the Church in that regard.

Some men are misogynists, but not all of them are. But I don’t think that just because someone might have a more traditional viewpoint (aka “chauvinistic”), it doesn’t mean that they hate women. Some might see it as just the opposite.

On the other hand, there are men who accept that feminism is here to stay, and all they would really ask is that the concepts of gender equality and gender neutrality be practiced equally and consistently. They see inconsistencies and double standards in society, so they react against it, and it’s from there that most of the complaints about feminism seem to emanate.

May I know what you mean by a “traditiona” viewpoint please?
It is understandable that there is reaction against double standards, why would any Catholic complain about that?

 

[TFK_Emery]

One problem I have with feminism is that it seems to generate certain blanket attitudes about men in general. I note your use of the phrase “as usual,” implying that men are “usually” horrible people. Quite frankly, I don’t need feminism to dictate my morals and ethics as a man; I’ll defer to the teachings of the Church in that regard.

Not what I meant What I mean by “as usual” is that society usually gives men more “outs” and is less judgemental of them. For example, if a man is sleeping around, he’s looked at (by modern, secular society) as a champion/conquerer. If a woman does the same, she’s a “slut.” She “got nailed.” Promiscuity is wrong in both genders, of course, but it’s not fair to attach a double standard to it. A man who dedicates most of his time to his career is applauded for changing one diaper a week. If a woman does the same, she’s a horrible, career-driven mother. But if she decides to stay at home, she has no self-respect, whereas a man who does this is unconventional in an interesting way and clearly cares about his family. A man who takes care of his looks is together and professional (as long as it’s not overboard) and looking like he just rolled out of bed is cool. A woman who cares about her appearance is labeled superficial, but letting herself go stops her from being taken seriously. I could go on . . . this is what I mean by overanalyzing

But anyways, what I meant by “as usual” was that this is another example in which a man has two “outs” (both immoral) and a woman has none. If he denies fatherhood and walks out on his responsibility, sure he’s a heel, but he’ll probably get away with it. Or he can shove five hundred dollars in her face and give her directions to the local clinic. He can (and should) care for the child or decide with the mother to put the baby up for adoption. But there is no “out” for the mother. She can hardly deny motherhood, and will most likely deal with Post Abortion Syndrome if she went through with an abortion.

I did not by any means mean to imply that men are usually horrible people, just that they usually can do more and get judged less than women. I am an egalitarian, and believe that men and women are equal, and that the (non-biological) differences between them are more statistical tendencies than hard-and-fast rules. Nor am I saying that there aren’t double standards slanted towards women. Personally, I’m sick of reading books in which women can get away with what is, basically, rape, without judgement or punishment. But the system does still favor men. The difference is that nowadays, they call it “girl power”, and the ones who complain are either labeled as sexist or extremists.

 

[stevicus]

May I know what you mean by a “traditiona” viewpoint please?

I suppose one can look at it in many ways, but I was thinking in terms of the prevalent viewpoint prior to the 1960s. For example, my grandparents’ generation had much different views on this subject than what is generally regarded as the “modern view.”

It is understandable that there is reaction against double standards, why would any Catholic complain about that?

I don’t know. That’s kind of what I was asking, so perhaps you can tell me.

 

[severus68]

I suppose one can look at it in many ways, but I was thinking in terms of the prevalent viewpoint prior to the 1960s. For example, my grandparents’ generation had much different views on this subject than what is generally regarded as the “modern view.”

Perhaps the fear of change, of loss of control.

 

[stevicus]

Promiscuity is wrong in both genders, of course, but it’s not fair to attach a double standard to it.

Society encompasses a great deal of different factions and attitudes. It just depends on which group you’re dealing with at any given time. If we look at the actions of government and media to be the indicator of society’s mainstream viewpoint, then your analysis may be incomplete. Those who would call a woman a “slut” are more inclined to be condemned by mainstream society than those who engage in promiscuity. Popular culture also has terms for promiscuous men, such as “man whore.”

I agree that promiscuity is wrong in both genders, and I agree that double standards are wrong, too. But just because one group held to a double standard 50 years ago doesn’t mean that it’s right to hold to reverse double standards today. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

But anyways, what I meant by “as usual” was that this is another example in which a man has two “outs” (both immoral) and a woman has none.

…

But there is no “out” for the mother. *

A man who walks out on his responsibilities would still be a heel. Maybe he’ll get away with it, maybe not. But legally, he could still be subject to a paternity suit, as society would demand.

While I realize that there will always be men who are heels, I also know that society does not tolerate it. If a mother decides to press her rights in court and she can prove who the father is, then as far as society’s view is concerned, the father will be compelled to fulfill his responsibilities. There have been severe penalties imposed on fathers who fail to pay child support, and I actually agree with that.

So, if they get away with it, it’s definitely not because society allows it. While I realize that society allows abortion, no one is ever forced to undergo an abortion. The choice is strictly up to the individual woman to make. She has every right to go to court and compel the father to pay child support, if she so chooses. Adoption is another option.

Whether or not the father gets away with it is strictly up to the individual woman he’s involved with, and it’s not society’s choice at all. Even if a father is perfectly willing to live up to his responsibilities, the woman can still have an abortion no matter what he says or feels. He really has no say in the matter. Even if he wants to walk away, he can’t, because the law will follow him.

I did not by any means mean to imply that men are usually horrible people, just that they usually can do more and get judged less than women. I am an egalitarian, and believe that men and women are equal, and that the (non-biological) differences between them are more statistical tendencies than hard-and-fast rules. Nor am I saying that there aren’t double standards slanted towards women. Personally, I’m sick of reading books in which women can get away with what is, basically, rape, without judgement or punishment. But the system does still favor men. The difference is that nowadays, they call it “girl power”, and the ones who complain are either labeled as sexist or extremists.*

Oh, I know what you mean, and I’m not taking “society’s” side in this either. But I think to say that the system still favors men is an oversimplification. The system generally favors the haves over the have-nots, no matter if they’re women or men.

I also tend to support the egalitarian viewpoint, as I believe in equal rights for all citizens. Even if I didn’t believe that, I would still be bound to follow the law and the Constitution. I have no choice but to go along with it. There are also peer pressures and political correctness which would also compel equal treatment and gender-neutral perceptions. Men have to watch every little thing they say nowadays, because if they say one wrong thing, they’re toast. Women don’t really have to worry about that so much.

Still, there’s a downside to all of this which doesn’t seem to get addressed nearly enough. There are consequences to society whenever fundamental changes are made to the dominant paradigm.

For example, you mentioned guys who walk away from their responsibilities as a father. Back in the old days, such a man would not only be a heel, but downright cruel for abandoning a woman with child in a society where she’s treated as a second-class citizen with no visible means of support.

But now that men have been inculcated with the idea of total gender equality, then they feel somewhat absolved of that responsibility and that it’s no big deal, since they’ve been led to believe that women don’t need men to raise their children and that women are perfectly capable of working and generating their own sources of income. As men give up their power in society, they believe that their responsibilities will also be reduced. I’ve seen this for myself, and I’ve heard similar complaints from women about men who fit into this mold, whether they’re irresponsible, apathetic, or in a permanent state of adolescence. I’m not saying that I condone this or agree with it, but I’m just saying that it’s one of the downsides that should be looked at.

I don’t like the way things are going either. I think the state of the Western “superfluous male” is in sorry shape nowadays. A lot of men are just plain greedy, narcissistic, hedonistic, angry, disgruntled, or they plain just don’t care about anything. That didn’t just happen overnight.

 

[stevicus]

In every generation, there is always the “modern” view. I am not talking here about fashion and the like but a sort of development of thinking, a bettter understanding of what is right. An example was the inability of some, both men and women, that the right to vote was a right that women were entitled to too.

Yes, I’ve encountered some who feel this way, but I wasn’t really referring to that.

But even if someone did believe that women shouldn’t have the right to vote, does that automatically justify labeling that person a “misogynist” who hates women? I don’t think that would be true at all, and yet, this is the mindset fostered by the “modern” view.

Perhaps the fear of change, of loss of control.

That may be part of it, but I think it goes deeper than that. With equal rights, there are equal responsibilities. I have no objection to the loss of control, because I don’t really have any control over society anyway. If a woman President can do a better job than the men we’ve had recently and pull this country out of the mess we’re in, I certainly would not stand in the way of that. As a practical man, I’ll support whatever it takes to get America back in shape, even if it means change and the loss of control.

All I’m saying is that whatever ideals we’ve held in this society in recent decades have obviously been wrong. America and the West overall have been on the wrong path, a path which is leading us to the brink of disaster, economically, morally, and politically. This country is in deep, deep trouble. It would be nice if feminists could temporarily abandon gender politics in order to pull together for the home team, so if they’re not doing that, I would wonder why.

 

[severus68]

Yes, I’ve encountered some who feel this way, but I wasn’t really referring to that.

There is nothing wrong with equal responsibilities. I was not referring to control over society, it is about control over women and thus contol over their lives for some. Everyone has some control over the society he lives in.

I do not live in the US so I will not comment on US society.

Feminism is not about gender politics. Feminism is not the cause of society going on the wrong path as you put it. Its to easy to say that.

 

[severus68]

I agree that promiscuity is wrong in both genders, and I agree that double standards are wrong, too. But just because one group held to a double standard 50 years ago doesn’t mean that it’s right to hold to reverse double standards today. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[stevicus]

I am not sure what you were referring to then. Yes, I would term someone who does not respect women enough, who does not consider her entitled to equal rights, as a misogynist.

Then I would consider that to be an unfair and hasty judgment. There may be many reasons why someone would take a particular political stance, but it does not necessarily indicate hatred or disrespect. It could be motivated just as much by a desire to love and protect.

There is nothing wrong with equal responsibilities. I was not referring to control over society, it is about control over women and thus contol over their lives for some. Everyone has some control over the society he lives in.*

Whose control over women? I have no control over the women in my life. Even my father and grandfathers didn’t actually control women, not even their wives or daughters. Even if they could control them, I don’t think they would. So, I’m not really sure what you mean by “control over women.”

If you’re talking about society’s control, then we’re all in the same boat in that respect, both men and women.

I do not live in the US so I will not comment on US society. *

Very well, but if you live in a Western country (or perhaps in the Anglosphere), then my points would probably be applicable to your country as well, since Western countries have been influenced by similar social movements.

Feminism is not about gender politics. *

I beg to differ. Feminism is the very essence of gender politics. There would be no gender politics without feminism.

Feminism is not the cause of society going on the wrong path as you put it. Its to easy to say that.*

I didn’t specifically say that feminism is the cause of society being on the wrong path, but it’s not helping the situation either. Either feminists can choose to be a part of the problem or a part of the solution. Which choice will they make?

 

[JaneGrey]

Then I would consider that to be an unfair and hasty judgment. There may be many reasons why someone would take a particular political stance, but it does not necessarily indicate hatred or disrespect. It could be motivated just as much by a desire to love and protect.

A desire to love and protect, meant well, can be misguided, especially when related to adult women. We all desire to love and protect children, for instance. Treating adult women like children who dont know better for themselves (not saying you think this, just giving a vague example at this point) is not hateful, as people adore children. However it is even at best, patronising. To patronise is to disrespect to an extent. It may not be a malicious form of disrespect, but it is insulting nevertheless.

Whose control over women? I have no control over the women in my life. Even my father and grandfathers didn’t actually control women, not even their wives or daughters. Even if they could control them, I don’t think they would. So, I’m not really sure what you mean by “control over women.”
Well I am happy for you that the men in your family are not controlling. However it is a sad fact that this is simply not the reality for everyone. If it was we wouldnt be discussing this.
If you’re talking about society’s control, then we’re all in the same boat in that respect, both men and women.

Very well, but if you live in a Western country (or perhaps in the Anglosphere), then my points would probably be applicable to your country as well, since Western countries have been influenced by similar social movements.

I beg to differ. Feminism is the very essence of gender politics. There would be no gender politics without feminism.

I didn’t specifically say that feminism is the cause of society being on the wrong path, but it’s not helping the situation either. Either feminists can choose to be a part of the problem or a part of the solution. Which choice will they make?

Labelling feminists as being either part of the problem or the solution does not quite work IMO. Feminists are not a homogenous group. They make up people from all walks of life, all doing different things. These different things might have similar goals, however they are done differently. One thing might be contributing to the problem, another might be actually helping.

Is there a specific aspect of feminism you believe to be contributing to the problem?

 

[severus68]

Then I would consider that to be an unfair and hasty judgment. There may be many reasons why someone would take a particular political stance, but it does not necessarily indicate hatred or disrespect. It could be motivated just as much by a desire to love and protect.

I didn’t specifically say that feminism is the cause of society being on the wrong path, but it’s not helping the situation either. Either feminists can choose to be a part of the problem or a part of the solution. Which choice will they make?

Isn’t that rather an odd statement? How is advocating gender equality the cause of social problems? How would you suggest feminists help solve social problems? I would really like your view.

 

[stevicus]

Unfortunately, there are still double standards practised today.

I find this hard to believe, especially in our litigious society in which lawsuits are brought forth at the drop of a hat.

Yes, absolutely, two wrongs do not make a right. However who but a few maybe want reverse" double standards"?

I can’t say how “few” that number might be, but reverse double standards can and do exist.

It is one thing for a court to order maintenace, its quite another thing to enforce it.

The law has teeth, and it can and will be enforced.

Whatever happens, it is of course always the woman left holding the baby, literally.

Not always. I know of cases where just the opposite is true.

So isn’t it better today for a woman who is left by a heel with more financial independence and more legal recourse?

Yes, and that’s precisely why I would question the continued need for feminism. Things have changed immensely over the past half-century, yet feminists still act as if nothing has changed at all. Their rhetoric has mostly fossilized and remained unchanged since the 1960s. Here’s an an example

Gender equality can only be a good thing. There are men who will shirk responsibility as there are women who will do so. Why should any man feel absolved of responsibility for children when they were involved in the conception of those children. *

I’m not saying that men should feel absolved of their responsibilities to their children, but the prevailing attitudes in society are such that it’s considered “no big deal” if they do, just as long as they pay child support. The man can just pay money to feel absolved of his responsibility as a father, as this is what our society has come to. In some cases, fathers are required to pay child support, yet still forbidden from being an active presence in their children’s lives. If society deems such a situation to be acceptable, why would anyone be surprised if there are men who go along with that view?

When women say “this is what we want,” are men supposed to disregard and disbelieve them? Feminists say that women don’t need men and that they can raise a child all by themselves, so men are merely taking them at their word. Maybe some men are being passive-aggressive about it, but that’s to be expected under the circumstances. If men are made to feel useless or unneeded, then that’s exactly what they will become.

While a few women may choose to raise children on their own although they have the the real option to raise them with good fathers, that is a minority.

Enpowering women is not about disenpowering or emasculating men.

I agree that it doesn’t have to be that way. I wouldn’t even suggest that men are necessarily disempowered or emasculated by feminism (although there are indications of that in today’s society). I think the state of Western men seems more self-centered and somewhat apathetic about the world around them. It’s widespread apathy and malaise that I see. A lot of men who are more than capable of stepping up to the plate and making a difference in this society are refraining from doing so, because they stopped caring a long time ago. The most they’ll do is obey the law and take personal responsibility for their own actions, but that’s as far as it goes. They won’t do anything beyond that; they won’t go out and make a difference, which is everyone’s loss. Considering the state of affairs in the country right now, I believe their absence is sorely missed.

There are many heels who might have been heroes if only they had the right kind of guidance and encouragement.

 

[LemonAndLime]

In reference to double standards/unequal pay - does outlawing something mean it doesn’t happen?

In the USA, women do not have equal rights in employment by law, like we do in the UK. That doesn’t mean that businesses have to have 50% of each either.

In the UK, despite the fact that the government have statistics which prove women are paid less, it is hard to prove and very hard to prosecute for. Sometimes women are less likely to get bonuses, or raises. Only one case has been successful.

But still, in the USA, for every 31 days worked, a woman will only be paid for 30 compared to her male counterpart.

 

[severus68]

I find this hard to believe, especially in our litigious society in which lawsuits are brought forth at the drop of a hat.

I can’t say how “few” that number might be, but reverse double standards can and do exist.

The law has teeth, and it can and will be enforced.

Not always. I know of cases where just the opposite is true.

Yes, and that’s precisely why I would question the continued need for feminism. Things have changed immensely over the past half-century, yet feminists still act as if nothing has changed at all. Their rhetoric has mostly fossilized and remained unchanged since the 1960s. Here’s an an example

I’m not saying that men should feel absolved of their responsibilities to their children, but the prevailing attitudes in society are such that it’s considered “no big deal” if they do, just as long as they pay child support. The man can just pay money to feel absolved of his responsibility as a father, as this is what our society has come to. In some cases, fathers are required to pay child support, yet still forbidden from being an active presence in their children’s lives. If society deems such a situation to be acceptable, why would anyone be surprised if there are men who go along with that view?

When women say “this is what we want,” are men supposed to disregard and disbelieve them? Feminists say that women don’t need men and that they can raise a child all by themselves, so men are merely taking them at their word. Maybe some men are being passive-aggressive about it, but that’s to be expected under the circumstances. If men are made to feel useless or unneeded, then that’s exactly what they will become.

I agree that it doesn’t have to be that way. I wouldn’t even suggest that men are necessarily disempowered or emasculated by feminism (although there are indications of that in today’s society). I think the state of Western men seems more self-centered and somewhat apathetic about the world around them. It’s widespread apathy and malaise that I see. A lot of men who are more than capable of stepping up to the plate and making a difference in this society are refraining from doing so, because they stopped caring a long time ago. The most they’ll do is obey the law and take personal responsibility for their own actions, but that’s as far as it goes. They won’t do anything beyond that; they won’t go out and make a difference, which is everyone’s loss. Considering the state of affairs in the country right now, I believe their absence is sorely missed.

There are many heels who might have been heroes if only they had the right kind of guidance and encouragement.

1. There are “reverse” double standards as there are double standards. I would think more of the former.
2. The law has limited resources. It takes time and manpower to get to those who fail to pay maintenance for their own children.
   There are some women who will happily dump their children but these are few and far between.
3. There have been changes I agree but change should continue and benefit everyone everywhere. While I do not agree with everything Jane Fonda says there, I do not think she was completely wrong.
4. You are generalising about feminists. Feminists are not wanting men out of the picture. That would be self defeating and partly self hating as many men support equality for women.
5. Why are many men being indifferent and apathetic as you say? Why would giving hal the population equal rights and opportunities turn these men into feeble beings? Heels are heels.

 

[stevicus]

A “desire to love and protect” as a reason to try to deny women rights, could well be seen as being patronising, treating women more like children.

Perhaps so, but it does not imply hatred or a lack of love, so to refer to such a person as a “misogynist” is patently unfair.

The whole world is affected by social movements. Why is social change necessarily a bad thing?

It doesn’t have to be a bad thing, but I would equally caution that change just for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing either. There’s an old saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Trouble is, in our society nowadays, we go out of our way to fix the things that aren’t broken, while wantonly ignoring the things that are broken.

I suppose feminism can be about said to be about gender politics as its focus is on the equality of women.

Yes, but the implication in that focus is that women are or were unequal in society, and that this inequality is the direct result of actions by men. Feminism is not some kind of women’s sewing circle. It necessarily involves addressing, challenging, and confronting men directly. It’s nothing more than a list of grievances and demands, carrying the implication that either men must go along with this - or else. It’s a list of instructions of what men “should do,” while giving no practical reason or incentive for men to go along with it at all.

It might be different if feminists had adopted a world view which encompassed the whole of society, rather than just a selected portion of it. If feminists had said, “we want equality because of what we can do with it and make the world a better place,” then I would be applauding enthusiastically. But when it’s “we want equality just because we want it,” then that’s not good enough.

There’s also the question of whether or not they want equality on a consistent basis, or whether they only want it when it works to their advantage. This is where most of the dissension seems to emanate from, as there are too many mixed messages out there. That’s why I think it’s unreasonable to complain that men don’t really understand “feminism” in terms of its definitions and beliefs.

Isn’t that rather an odd statement? How is advocating gender equality the cause of social problems?

Feminists have suggested that gender inequality is a serious social problem, so in their activist efforts to change that particular social problem, they may have caused other social problems in the process. Sometimes change has side effects.

It may not be a matter of what is being advocated as much as how it is being done. By zealously reacting against the old order, it’s unclear if they had any coherent idea as to what to replace it with, leaving us with more questions than answers. Even as bad as the old order might have been in terms of gender inequality, it would have been wiser to consider just how it got that way to begin with and what the consequences might be in changing it.

I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be changed, nor am I specifically arguing against gender equality. I just think it should have been done more carefully and thoughtfully, giving consideration to the possible consequences.

How would you suggest feminists help solve social problems? I would really like your view.*

It really goes beyond social problems. There are also geopolitical problems, economic problems, terrorism, environmental issues, corruption, crime - you name it. What is the feminist position on these issues, if any? Feminists are part of this world, too, so don’t they have anything to say about it beyond gender politics?

Even if everything that feminists say about men and patriarchy is correct, it still leaves us with the question of where to go next. Even if men are responsible for all the damage and destruction in this world, the question still remains, are feminists willing to help us fix it, or are they going to go on yelling at us instead?

 

[stevicus]

1. There are “reverse” double standards as there are double standards. I would think more of the former.

I’m not sure what you mean here.

1. The law has limited resources. It takes time and manpower to get to those who fail to pay maintenance for their own children.
   There are some women who will happily dump their children but these are few and far between.

Of course, it’s a given that the law can’t enforce things 100%. But I think it’s a fallacy to believe that just because the government can’t enforce Law A 100%, that it necessitates making a Law B. If they can’t enforce Law A, then they can’t enforce Law B.

The problem is feebleness of government, not the actual written law.

1. There have been changes I agree but change should continue and benefit everyone everywhere. While I do not agree with everything Jane Fonda says there, I do not think she was completely wrong.

She’s wrong in that she promotes dissension between genders, as if to make it “us vs. them.” It’s been like that for as long as I can remember.

1. You are generalising about feminists. Feminists are not wanting men out of the picture. That would be self defeating and partly self hating as many men support equality for women.

I’m not saying that all feminists believe this, but there are enough who do. I agree that it’s self-defeating, and to be honest, that’s the entire point I’ve been making all along in this discussion.

1. Why are many men being indifferent and apathetic as you say? Why would giving hal the population equal rights and opportunities turn these men into feeble beings? Heels are heels.

So, what are you saying? Are heels born that way? If so, then I disagree with you. I think they’ve been molded and shaped into what they are by their parents and the ideals of the society around them. Because of this, I think it would be wise to take a long and hard look at the kind of ideals which have shaped this society and the people who have been raised within it.

 

[severus68]

I’m not sure what you mean here.

Everyone has baggage, not everyone becomes a criminal or chooses to shirk his/her obligations. People should not use their weaknesses as an excuse. Not everthing in society is wrong. People are raised by their parents to follow the values taught.

 

[severus68]

Perhaps so, but it does not imply hatred or a lack of love, so to refer to such a person as a “misogynist” is patently unfair.

These problems and issues have always been there. Feminists have not stopped being human beings in their fight. It is not a matter of thinking that until all gender inequality is gone they will not care or bother about the other ills in the world.