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

[Monte_RCMS]

Interesting new book: “The Flipside of Feminism” by Venker and Schlafly

Has some useful and somewhat unique and also welcome insights.

 

[Joan1969]

How is the majority feminist movement socialist?

I’m still going to refer to myself as a feminist. You can’t reclaim a word without using it. And like I said above, it’s like saying you refuse to be identified as a human being because other humans commit murders.

I would see Marxism as being, at its root, about encouraging some sort of rebellion among a group who is encouraged to see itself as victims, much as the workers of the 19th and 20th centuries. As with those industrial-era workers, the real problems may be extreme. But Marxism, unfortunately, fosters a sense of emnity, victim versus opressor. It also favors statist government as the solution.

I do see strong elements of this in the feminist movement as it has existed in the USA. That doesn’t mean that most feminists are Marxists, which is why I qualified the term with “quasi”. I would say most feminists will deny being anti-man; their big enemy is the establishment, or traditional values. They agressively embrace abortion and lesbianism against Church and family. This is not you, but is is the more common scenario among self-proclaimed feminists.

Another aspect of socialism is an overemphasis on the value of work, captial and production as being the principal goods available to human beings. This is in big contrast to the Catholic Faith, which sees union with God as the ultimate good. Insofar as women are pushed into paid employment, and insofar as feminists complain not to see women represented 50% across the work force, they reflect this. The assumption is clear- that virtually no woman would actually want to live out a more traditional role. But millions of women do make that choice to some degree or another, and it’s reflected in the employment stats.

As far as the “human being” analogy, I can only say that the term “human” does not refer to murder. Irishmen have committed murders, but people can obviously proudly identify as Irish of course. But feminism means, according to the majority of feminists, the radical attempt to equalize men and women totally. This is not realistic, and it does harm to women, men and children alike where it is embraced.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[LemonAndLime]

I would see Marxism as being, at its root, about encouraging some sort of rebellion among a group who is encouraged to see itself as victims, much as the workers of the 19th and 20th centuries. As with those industrial-era workers, the real problems may be extreme. But Marxism, unfortunately, fosters a sense of emnity, victim versus opressor. It also favors statist government as the solution.

I do see strong elements of this in the feminist movement as it has existed in the USA. That doesn’t mean that most feminists are Marxists, which is why I qualified the term with “quasi”. I would say most feminists will deny being anti-man; their big enemy is the establishment, or traditional values. They agressively embrace abortion and lesbianism against Church and family. This is not you, but is is the more common scenario among self-proclaimed feminists.

Another aspect of socialism is an overemphasis on the value of work, captial and production as being the principal goods available to human beings. This is in big contrast to the Catholic Faith, which sees union with God as the ultimate good. Insofar as women are pushed into paid employment, and insofar as feminists complain not to see women represented 50% across the work force, they reflect this. The assumption is clear- that virtually no woman would actually want to live out a more traditional role. But millions of women do make that choice to some degree or another, and it’s reflected in the employment stats.

As far as the “human being” analogy, I can only say that the term “human” does not refer to murder. Irishmen have committed murders, but people can obviously proudly identify as Irish of course. But feminism means, according to the majority of feminists, the radical attempt to equalize men and women totally. This is not realistic, and it does harm to women, men and children alike where it is embraced.

God Bless,
Joan

I think your link with feminism and socialism is very weak, but I see what you’re trying to say.

First it’s quite hard to quantify what “most” feminists think what feminism means. The majority of people believe in women’s rights in the Western world, so actually, the opinion of a majority of feminists may be different to what the feminist organisations say.

But to continue with what you’re saying, why is it harmful for men and women to be equal? Are you talking about legally and culturally? I think men and women should be.

Also, I think my analogy still makes sense. For example in a recent survey, the majority of Americans were in favour of gay marriage. Does that mean that all Americans do believe in gay marriage? Does that mean you can no longer call yourself an American just because you’re a minority?

I know you might not agree but do you understand what I’m saying?

 

[Jesus_123]

:bible1:
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
James 1:8
Contact information -

:nun1: Prioress Mother Assumpta Long, O.P.
Dominican Sisters of Mary
Mother of the Eucharist
4097 Warren Road, Ann Arber, MI 48105
Phone: (734) 930-444
www.sistersofmary.org

---

**Contact Information - **

Email address for comments, questions,
suggestions, and requests for information
are listed below:

:nun2: **EWTN Information & Viewer Response Department **
For general information about EWTN as a whole
and EWTN’s television ,radio & website programming in particular.
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
Email: viewer@ewtn.com

---

**ADDRESS OF
HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON THEIR “AD LIMINA” VISIT
Friday, 2 July 1993 **
5. … [Paragraph 3]

What is certain is that the question cannot be resolved through a compromise with a feminism which polarizes along bitter, ideological lines. It is not simply that some people claim a right for women to be admitted to the ordained priesthood.

In its extreme form
it is the
Christian Faith Itself
which is in danger of being undermined.

Sometimes forms of nature worship and the celebration of myths and symbols take the place of the worship of the God revealed in Jesus Christ. Unfortunately this kind of feminism is being encouraged by some people in the Church, including some women Religious, whose beliefs, attitudes and behavior no longer correspond to what the Gospel and the Church teach.

As Pastors we are to challenge individuals and groups having such beliefs and to call them to the honest and sincere dialogue that must go on, within the Church, on women’s expectations.

:compcoff: Computer link: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1993/july/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19930702_ad-limina-usa-6_en.html

+​

 

[Gift_from_God]

Interesting new book: “The Flipside of Feminism” by Venker and Schlafly

Has some useful and somewhat unique and also welcome insights.

If it has Schlafly as an author, I got no interest

 

[Darryl1958]

People will identify feminism with what the largest, most powerful, and most prominent Feminist organizations identify feminism as. It stands to reason that these organizations are what define mainstream feminism. They will be the ones turned to by the media to supply the quotes and statements and ‘party line’ on any current events that make the news concerning women’s issues. Included in these organizations would be the point of view of the Feminist Studies courses at higher institutes of education.

Once the most mainstream feminist organizations are identified, once it is noted which organizations are most turned by the media to get the feminist point of view, then Catholics who believe in the dignity of women and the infinite value that both man and woman have in the eyes of God are in a position to ask themselves:
is there any difference between the feminism that they live, and the feminism that is set forth by the most prominent feminist organizations?

If there is a objective difference between the Catholic self-definition and the feminism of mainstream organizations, then it should be no surprise that people will come to the wrong conclusions about them, nine times out of ten.

 

[stevicus]

Of course they’re taken into consideration. They compare women and men working the SAME jobs on the SAME level and they also include bonuses.

The last such study I looked at which did the above found that for every 30 days a man and woman worked, the woman was only paid for 29 of them.

Perhaps there are some companies which still discriminate, but with most companies I’m familiar with, they have a set wage scale which takes away the guesswork and potential for favoritism. They do that just so they can avoid any accusations of discrimination, since it’s just a matter of looking at the numbers and doing the math, without giving consideration to one’s gender.

They’re wary of lawsuits. If there is some company which is discriminating against its female employees, then they could be sued, too. Legally, the law is already on the side of the feminists, so if these surveys are finding evidence of discrimination, I would still wonder why they haven’t utilized the court system and called upon the already-existing law to correct this situation.

At this point, it just seems a matter of going after specific cases where discrimination is provable, but I don’t see that it would necessitate that feminists need to change society more than they already have. The way I see it, feminists are still fighting a war that they already won decades ago. Things have changed immensely since the 1950s, but feminist rhetoric seems to be directed at the old “patriarchal” order that doesn’t even exist anymore.

Right now, in 2011, I would consider the feminist perspective to be largely anachronistic. The rhetoric hasn’t really changed much or caught up with the times. It reminds me of when I visited the Soviet Union many years ago. In order to show just how evil and horrible capitalism was, they would use photos of American bread lines from the 1930s.

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

I have always considered myself a feminist. My parents both called themselves feminists as well. Dad was a pro-life activist, so Mom was the breadwinner for a significant portion of my childhood. One of the things that has been most interesting to me, is that it is never the self-avowed feminists who push out people who disagree about specific issues- even issues as important as abortion. I have never been told by a self-avowed feminist that I cannot or should not be a pro-life feminist. I have often been told that by others.

Obviously, being a feminist, at core, means that we support women’s equality, that is the same economic, political and social rights available to men should be available to women. A lot of progress has been made in recent generations. Those who would disregard feminism as evil painfully ignore the fact that important progress, most of which most here would support, has been made.

There are still problems. Equal pay has been brought up, as has abuse and repression internationally. Both are feminist issues.

I heard a man ask my mother, when I was a child, how she could call herself a good mother since she had to work. That attitude is more prevalent than many here would like to admit. Can anyone honestly say they have never encountered it? It is frustrating from my perspective, that the pro-lifers and the feminists are here and elsewhere seen as opposite and enemies. The attitude of that man, and many others I have met since, enrages me. Women can be good mothers and work full time.

The notion of the disparity between the sexuality of men and women can also be very wrong. Men and women are different, but we both have to fight against sexual sins. I have, on more than one occasion, in confession, been told that my specific sexual sin is worse than the sin of the male I was with because women naturally have more willpower. He could not help himself, but I should have been able to. I would not have objected if he had wanted me to take full responsibility for my sins. In fact, that is why I was there. But he went a step further to condemn me for the sin of another, and even a step beyond that to exonerate the other. It is my job (as a Catholic, not as a woman specifically) to help my neighbors, attain virtue and to the extent I can to help them avoid sin. When I fail, however, it does not somehow exculpate their own guilt.

These are both easy and personal examples, from which we cannot extrapolate pattern. We can say that these attitudes still exist and they are wrong. There are others as well. the “slutwalks” happening all over the place are a feminist issue. Feminists, even those mainstream feminists that conservatives love to hate, are addressing these, and other issues. They worry about fashion- is is fair that people talk more about Sarah Palin’s appearance than her politics? (It true, no.) Is that less true now than it was a decade ago? (yes.) It is exciting to see more women entering politics- especially women on the right since it breaks offensive stereotyping. It is a fruit of feminism.

Finally, while I was interested in the argument that changing word meaning confuses more often than it is helpful, I would argue that pro-life, Catholic feminists are not trying to change the word feminism. They are exposing the lie that feminism is a narrow group of men-hating leftists with a pro-abortion agenda. It is, and always has been, a lie. Internally, feminists generally exalt in the diverse group that we are. The roots of the movement are ours. The current direction remains to be claimed. People who think feminism equals abortion, side with the pro-abortion hoards in their ludicrous claim that demanding equality is impossible unless we can deny our femininity; unless we change or suppress our natural bodily health.

 

[Dale_M]

Sometimes forms of nature worship and the celebration of myths and symbols take the place of the worship of the God revealed in Jesus Christ. Unfortunately this kind of feminism] is being encouraged by some people in the Church, including some women Religious, whose beliefs, attitudes and behavior no longer correspond to what the Gospel and the Church teach.

Yes, as your quote from Pope John Paul II says, if a feminist embraces nature worship in the place of worshiping God, or embraces myths and symbols as a substitute for the revelations of Christ, they are going against Church teaching.

If it has Schlafly as an author, I got no interest

Phyllis Schlafly has long held that it is impossible for a wife to be raped by her husband. In getting married, Schlafly believes that a woman has given permanent consent to sex with her spouse.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Phyllis Schlafly has long held that it is impossible for a wife to be raped by her husband. In getting married, Schlafly believes that a woman has given permanent consent to sex with her spouse.

Sadly, this was legally true in the UK up until the 1970s.

 

[stevicus]

Finally, while I was interested in the argument that changing word meaning confuses more often than it is helpful, I would argue that pro-life, Catholic feminists are not trying to change the word feminism. They are exposing the lie that feminism is a narrow group of men-hating leftists with a pro-abortion agenda. It is, and always has been, a lie. Internally, feminists generally exalt in the diverse group that we are. The roots of the movement are ours. The current direction remains to be claimed. People who think feminism equals abortion, side with the pro-abortion hoards in their ludicrous claim that demanding equality is impossible unless we can deny our femininity; unless we change or suppress our natural bodily health.

You make some excellent points. The one thing that’s always kind of confused me about feminism is that it has led to a tendency to promote an “us vs. them” mentality. Growing up in the 1970s, it seemed like everything was the “battle of the sexes,” almost like men and women were at war with each other. Even when I was a little kid, I felt like I was being blamed for things that happened before I was born and had no control over.

Even knowing that some men have been horrible and tyrannical in how they ran their households (and could virtually get away with it in the previous “patriarchal” society), it never meant that all men were like that. Most reasonable women I’ve known don’t do this and would never lump the innocent men in with the guilty ones. But there are more than a few who still do this.

I know that women are not all the same, that they have their individual conscience, ideals, perspectives, and value system. But feminist rhetoric seems to imply that all women are some sort of unified, cohesive collective all marching in lockstep behind the same idea. There’s still the “us vs. them” mentality at work, even if it might concealed or subtle. I recently read a site which had a text of a speech made by Jane Fonda to the National Organization for Women which made it seem like she was calling all women to war.

Why does it have to be that way? If, for example, someone might oppose the idea of women reporters in male locker rooms, they’re called “sexist” and practically treated like they’re some kind of wife-beater. Why does it have to come to this?

 

[Joan1969]

…But to continue with what you’re saying, why is it harmful for men and women to be equal? Are you talking about legally and culturally? I think men and women should be.

Also, I think my analogy still makes sense. For example in a recent survey, the majority of Americans were in favour of gay marriage. Does that mean that all Americans do believe in gay marriage? Does that mean you can no longer call yourself an American just because you’re a minority?

I know you might not agree but do you understand what I’m saying?

Hi Lemon and Lime,

In many respects, men and women should definitely be equal. Giving equal testimony in a court of law, equal property rights, equal rights to work, vote, marry according to choice and run for office- these are not controversial, and believing this way does not make one a feminist (or 99.9% are feminists).

But God has not made male and female the same. The fact that women can get pregnant, give birth and nurse children is the most obvious reality. Males also have more testosterone, which results in differences in physiology. There are also differences in psychological tendencies, though individuals obviously can vary a great deal based not only on inborn traits but also culture and personal choice. More women than men simply want to be at home with the kids for longer hours. Men often have a strong drive to work and accomplish in the larger world. I know it’s that way in my family; for my husband and me to switch roles would make the whole family quite unhappy.

The feminist movement, as it has been presented to the public over the past fifty years, resists this. I do not think it should be resisted, but embraced. Those women, of course, who want “traditionally male” careers or hobbies should be free within reason (compelling male sports teams to accept females is an example of something not within reason). However, we need to admit that if the vast majority of people are choosing tiny families or no families in order to make room for jobs and individualism then we have a problem. The developed world is dying out demographically. And in many countries almost all non-elderly women work outside the home, often for reasons of necessity.

I reject the “American” analogy as well, because it involves citizenship not ideas. “Catholic” might be a better analogy. Being an observant Catholic means adopting certain ideas. Granted, the feminist movement is much more loosely organized than our Church, but I still think it comes closer as an analogy.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[TrueLight]

Perhaps there are some companies which still discriminate, but with most companies I’m familiar with, they have a set wage scale which takes away the guesswork and potential for favoritism. They do that just so they can avoid any accusations of discrimination, since it’s just a matter of looking at the numbers and doing the math, without giving consideration to one’s gender.

They’re wary of lawsuits. If there is some company which is discriminating against its female employees, then they could be sued, too. Legally, the law is already on the side of the feminists, so if these surveys are finding evidence of discrimination, I would still wonder why they haven’t utilized the court system and called upon the already-existing law to correct this situation.

At this point, it just seems a matter of going after specific cases where discrimination is provable, but I don’t see that it would necessitate that feminists need to change society more than they already have. The way I see it, feminists are still fighting a war that they already won decades ago. Things have changed immensely since the 1950s, but feminist rhetoric seems to be directed at the old “patriarchal” order that doesn’t even exist anymore.

Right now, in 2011, I would consider the feminist perspective to be largely anachronistic. The rhetoric hasn’t really changed much or caught up with the times. It reminds me of when I visited the Soviet Union many years ago. In order to show just how evil and horrible capitalism was, they would use photos of American bread lines from the 1930s.

I know from experience that this sort of discrimination still takes place. I and this guy essentially do the same work, but I have an MBA. His title was changed only slightly so that he was able to move into a different pay scale. So one can say of course he makes more, he was promoted. However this was only done to allow him to make more.

Another example: this woman I know is a star in her field. She gets all the hard projects. Everyone on the team comes to her. She wanted to get a certification that would make her a lot more marketable and would allow her to get a senior position. They used all sorts of excuses to not pay for her certification. At the same time, even though she was essentially in the role of a senior person and everyone leaned on her, they would not promote her to that level without the certification.

Eventually, the gave the position to a guy.

She still continues to be an unofficial manager of the team.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I think you hit the nail on the head. You are pro-woman, but you cannot redefine feminist to mean something that it’s not. There are “feminist” studies - it’s a whole branch of educational study that teach about modern feminism. The word feminist already has its place and meaning. It annoys me when people say they are feminist - but with stipulations, they are a CERTAIN KIND of feminist. It’s just not possible to disassociate the word from its literal and social meaning. Sorry.

I am that “other kind” of feminist that you guys are trying to distinguish yourselves from, and the world is always going to think of that “other kind” of feminist when you say that you are one.

Definitely true. Linguistically speaking, once a term has been used in a certain way, especially for decades, it is nearly impossible to “take it back” and re-define it. It’s kind of a pity, but it’s definitely a certainty.

“Gay” is one word that will never again mean, “light-hearted, happy.”

 

[Darryl1958]

Definitely true. Linguistically speaking, once a term has been used in a certain way, especially for decades, it is nearly impossible to “take it back” and re-define it. It’s kind of a pity, but it’s definitely a certainty.

“Gay” is one word that will never again mean, “light-hearted, happy.”

Too true, sadly.
What patrirotic young leftist German these days would call herself a national socialist?

Feminism has got a history now that has made war on the Judeo-Christian ethics and morality, that has been highly critical of the ‘paternalism’ of God the Father, that has called for the freeing of women from the bonds of marriage and the shackles of children.

As much as we all might want to celebrate the positives, the word is associated with so many negatives and so many strong images, reinforced time and again through the radical feminist voice in the media, that it is impossible not to distance oneself from the obvious associations.

Bubbly and light-hearted though I may be, the moment I call myself gay, people will automatically raise their eyebrows and come to the obvious, though wrong, conclusion.

 

[stevicus]

I know from experience that this sort of discrimination still takes place. I and this guy essentially do the same work, but I have an MBA. His title was changed only slightly so that he was able to move into a different pay scale. So one can say of course he makes more, he was promoted. However this was only done to allow him to make more.

Well, this is clearly not fair, and it’s an indication of favoritism. I don’t have an answer for this, but it does look like you might have a case for discrimination here. There may be a legal solution. Have you discussed this with a lawyer?

Another example: this woman I know is a star in her field. She gets all the hard projects. Everyone on the team comes to her. She wanted to get a certification that would make her a lot more marketable and would allow her to get a senior position. They used all sorts of excuses to not pay for her certification. At the same time, even though she was essentially in the role of a senior person and everyone leaned on her, they would not promote her to that level without the certification.

Eventually, the gave the position to a guy.

She still continues to be an unofficial manager of the team.

I believe you, and I’m sure that there are a few bad apples left. Perhaps there are a few businesses owned by old-timers in their 70s and 80s who missed the indoctrination that some of us younger folks got. But I would consider that these must be exceptions rather than the rule.

What I find even more interesting is that, on a political level, feminists don’t put seem to put much of an emphasis on economic equality. As much as they say “women make X amount compared to men,” their primary emphasis still seems fixated on abortion, letting women reporters into male lockers (because after all, there’s no difference men and women), forcing all-male schools to accept women, and other such silliness as that.

If feminists would just separate the wheat from the chaff and do a better job of policing their own ranks, it wouldn’t be that bad. The good feminists would do well to do a better job of confronting and criticizing the bad feminists in their midst.

 

[Contarini]

That’s not how most self-proclaimed feminists define it. I think the specifics change a great deal depending on the individual, but I’d broadly say that modern feminism has to do with the attempt to achieve interchanability with men. It has to do with the creation of a “genderless” person.

No. That’s what many people call “second wave feminism.” Most contemporary feminists would reject the idea of interchangeability with men, although they might argue that gender is highly fluid and that people can’t be neatly divided into male and female (hence the great attention presently paid to transsexuals, “intergendered” people, etc.).

Contemporary “third wave” feminism is a mixed bag. In many ways it’s not so much a single movement as a more mature and hence a more diverse expression of feminism. That’s one reason why more conservative women feel freer to identify themselves as feminists. The typically third-wave concern with toxic “male” patterns of behavior (very different from the second-wave tendency to want women to look more like men) can be the basis for a robust prolife feminism (prolife feminists argue that abortion is one of the most horrific examples of violence against the female body, and against the helpless generally whether male or female, and thus that feminists who support abortion as an expression of women’s autonomy are selling out to the violent, toxic, male-dominated culture), for opposition to pornography, even for the glorification of chastity as an expression of women’s dignity and independence from men. At the same time, much third-wave feminism has gone in directions that are radically incompatible with orthodox Catholicism. This is particularly the case with regards to homosexuality and questions of gender identity, but also sexual morality generally and often abortion as well (most feminists remain prochoice, alas, and third-wave prochoice feminists are often less restrained in their advocacy of abortion than second-wave feminists for whom it was simply a regrettable necessity to defend women’s autonomy).

If you want a basic definition of feminism in Christian terms: the one given me by a friend in grad school (and a convert to Catholicism, incidentally) was: “feminists believe that women are made in the image of God.” In Thomistic terms, feminists would say that women are made in God’s image not only in the principal sense (which is uncontroversial) but in every way whatsoever. (In the link I provided, see article 4, reply to objection 1, where Aquinas distinguishes between the “principal” and secondary meanings of the divine image.) That’s why it’s pretty hard to be a feminist and not believe in women’s ordination. The Catholic denial of women’s ordination seems intrinsically tied to the Thomist belief that women are, in a secondary sense, not made in God’s image but rather ordered toward men. I think that the other places where many feminists contradict Catholic doctrine–sexual morality and abortion chief among them–are not intrinsic to feminism. One can certainly make a case that denial of women’s ordination has nothing to do with qualifying the affirmation that women are made in God’s image, but I have never found these arguments convincing.

Edwin

 

[nordskoven]

Susan B. Anthony, along with the American Medical Association, got abortion outlawed. Feminism was co-opted; undermined by well-financed Russian Communist-trained Gloria Steinem, who had her brains washed in Russia before starting up MS Magazine, financed by such things as Planned Parenthood and the Playboy Foundation. This is the precise thing one would expect, a demonic war against the Woman & Seed with their/our Genesis 3:15 mandate to conquer Lucifer and his minions.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Susan B. Anthony, along with the American Medical Association, got abortion outlawed. Feminism was co-opted; undermined by well-financed Russian Communist-trained Gloria Steinem, who had her brains washed in Russia before starting up MS Magazine, financed by such things as Planned Parenthood and the Playboy Foundation. This is the precise thing one would expect, a demonic war against the Woman & Seed with their/our Genesis 3:15 mandate to conquer Lucifer and his minions.

All feminists, especially the pro-choice ones, are against Playboy magazine, etc.

Another thing - I’ve realised that all American enemies are called a communist sooner or later. Sigh.

 

[PerfectTiming]

Another thing - I’ve realised that all American enemies are called a communist sooner or later. Sigh.

I’ve noticed that too. It’s like ‘we don’t like it, therefore it must be Communist!’