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

[Betterave]

I know the biblical passages referred to in support. As I said I have not read much. I would appreciate any links to Vatican or other sites which explain this and explain the Church’s position. Not someone’s commentary please. I can’t take issue with an interpretation I do not understand/know.

I agree, and your point here is the same as my original point in response to Contarini’s post: we can’t (sensibly) take issue with a doctrine that we don’t understand/know.

 

[severus68]

I agree, and your point here is the same as my original point in response to Contarini’s post: we can’t (sensibly) take issue with a doctrine that we don’t understand/know.

Can’t disagree with that except for your use of the word ‘doctrine’ since that presupposes that there is some doctrine on this. If you say there is, where are the links I requested please.

 

[Betterave]

Can’t disagree with that except for your use of the word ‘doctrine’ since that presupposes that there is some doctrine on this. If you say there is, where are the links I requested please.

The word ‘doctrine’ need not refer to an official Church doctrine. As for texts, I tend to think the NT is a pretty important one, even if it’s not always clear what it means.

 

[severus68]

The word ‘doctrine’ need not refer to an official Church doctrine. As for texts, I tend to think the NT is a pretty important one, even if it’s not always clear what it means.

As a Catholic talking to a Catholic, that would be the only way I would understand that word to mean.

You have not really answered my question but thats ok, I have my answer.

 

[Betterave]

As a Catholic talking to a Catholic, that would be the only way I would understand that word to mean.

It shouldn’t be when we have explicitly been discussing how to understand a Thomist doctrine, and how/whether that doctrine concords with official Church doctrine.

 

[Catmando]

Frankly, I think it’s a little misleading to call yourself a feminist. It implies that you support the “woman” side of the rights spectrum more so than the male side or the middle. I think it would be better to say you’re egalitarian. You want equality with men, not any sort of superiority. Certainly when most people hear feminism (as I did, and immediately thought of Ann Rice) they think you’re some sort of ultra-liberal.

 

[severus68]

Frankly, I think it’s a little misleading to call yourself a feminist. It implies that you support the “woman” side of the rights spectrum more so than the male side or the middle. I think it would be better to say you’re egalitarian. You want equality with men, not any sort of superiority. Certainly when most people hear feminism (as I did, and immediately thought of Ann Rice) they think you’re some sort of ultra-liberal.

Christian egalitarianism is construed by some a we are all equal but men are more equal than women. I am not sure why you refer to Ann Rice and what you mean by an ultra liberal . However the definition of feminism is the advocating and the fight for equal rights for woman. It is not about pushing men down while pushing women up. Men can be feminists too. Yes some feminists take radical stands perhaps after a liketime of frustrations with attitudes of some men and women and some feminists get lost.

 

[Betterave]

Christian egalitarianism is construed by some a we are all equal but men are more equal than women. I am not sure why you refer to Ann Rice and what you mean by an ultra liberal . However the definition of feminism is the advocating and the fight for equal rights for woman. It is not about pushing men down while pushing women up. Men can be feminists too. Yes some feminists take radical stands perhaps after a liketime of frustrations with attitudes of some men and women and some feminists get lost.

I think you’re ignoring a lot of what has been pointed out in this thread. You are again referring to an abstract definition of feminism in order to counter a well-justified abhorrence of the reality of feminism, and indeed, of what feminists have generally understood/come to understand to be entailed precisely by the abstract formulation of their programme that you use: “equal rights for women.”

 

[JaneGrey]

I think you’re ignoring a lot of what has been pointed out in this thread. You are again referring to an abstract definition of feminism in order to counter a well-justified abhorrence of the reality of feminism, and indeed, of what feminists have generally understood/come to understand to be entailed precisely by the abstract formulation of their programme that you use: “equal rights for women.”

I have been following this thread from the beginning and I dont see what you have an issue with in that post. Feminism, like all other terms and labels, can be co-opted to mean a lot of things but the true, original meaning, at least for most women, had nothing to do with superiority over men. How could women who were seen as inferior to men even think about becoming superior?

 

[kozlosap]

I have been following this thread from the beginning and I dont see what you have an issue with in that post. Feminism, like all other terms and labels, can be co-opted to mean a lot of things but the true, original meaning, at least for most women, had nothing to do with superiority over men. How could women who were seen as inferior to men even think about becoming superior?

:thumbsup:Exactly!

 

[Betterave]

LOL! Wow. Here’s what I said:
Originally Posted by Betterave forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I think you’re ignoring a lot of what has been pointed out in this thread. You are again referring to an abstract definition of feminism in order to counter a well-justified abhorrence of the reality of feminism, and indeed, of what feminists have generally understood/come to understand to be entailed precisely by the abstract formulation of their programme that you use: “equal rights for women.”

Note: nothing about “superiority over men” here.

Now here’s your response:

I have been following this thread from the beginning and I dont see what you have an issue with in that post. Feminism, like all other terms and labels, can be co-opted to mean a lot of things but the true, original meaning, at least for most women, had nothing to do with superiority over men. How could women who were seen as inferior to men even think about becoming superior?

Forget about following this thread from the beginning: you’re not even following the post you’re directly responding to!

And here’s kozlosap’s response to your response:

:thumbsup:Exactly!

Again: Exactly what??

 

[severus68]

I think you’re ignoring a lot of what has been pointed out in this thread. You are again referring to an abstract definition of feminism in order to counter a well-justified abhorrence of the reality of feminism, and indeed, of what feminists have generally understood/come to understand to be entailed precisely by the abstract formulation of their programme that you use: “equal rights for women.”

I have been following this thread as you well know. A lot could have been said that is not true or accurate and so I do not accept that. “Well justified abhorence”? I believe people hate what they fear and they fear what they do not understood.

It does not matter to me if some take the concept of feminism to sometimes in my opinion, ridiculous extents. It does not take the fact that feminism has always been about the equality of women.

 

[severus68]

LOL! Wow. Here’s what I said:
Originally Posted by Betterave forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I think you’re ignoring a lot of what has been pointed out in this thread. You are again referring to an abstract definition of feminism in order to counter a well-justified abhorrence of the reality of feminism, and indeed, of what feminists have generally understood/come to understand to be entailed precisely by the abstract formulation of their programme that you use: “equal rights for women.”

Note: nothing about “superiority over men” here.

Now here’s your response:

Forget about following this thread from the beginning: you’re not even following the post you’re directly responding to!

And here’s kozlosap’s response to your response:

Again: Exactly what??

Would like to ask you a couple of questions? Do you think feminists as wanting to be superior to men? Do you believe that women should be equal in all aspects with men? I am excluding ordination to the priesthood.

 

[JaneGrey]

LOL! Wow. Here’s what I said:
Originally Posted by Betterave forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I think you’re ignoring a lot of what has been pointed out in this thread. You are again referring to an abstract definition of feminism in order to counter a well-justified abhorrence of the reality of feminism, and indeed, of what feminists have generally understood/come to understand to be entailed precisely by the abstract formulation of their programme that you use: “equal rights for women.”

Note: nothing about “superiority over men” here.

Now here’s your response:

Forget about following this thread from the beginning: you’re not even following the post you’re directly responding to!

And here’s kozlosap’s response to your response:

Again: Exactly what??

Well what exactly is the ‘abhorrent reality’ of feminism you were referring to then?

 

[Betterave]

A lot could have been said that is not true or accurate and so I do not accept that.

I agree with this general observation, but it is so vague that it is not at all a useful statement.

“Well justified abhorence”? I believe people hate what they fear and they fear what they do not understood.

See previous comment.

It does not matter to me if some take the concept of feminism to sometimes in my opinion, ridiculous extents. It does not take the fact that feminism has always been about the equality of women.

See previous comment. Also, your argument here completely ignores what I said:
You are again referring to an abstract definition of feminism in order to counter a well-justified abhorrence of the reality of feminism, and indeed, of what feminists have generally understood/come to understand to be entailed precisely by the abstract formulation of their programme that you use: “equal rights for women.”

 

[Betterave]

Would like to ask you a couple of questions? Do you think feminists as wanting to be superior to men?

I think this is true of some feminists, but I make no such generalization about feminists in general.

Do you believe that women should be equal in all aspects with men?

“…in all aspects”? No, most certainly not. I don’t think women should be equal *in all aspects *with other women either. I think that such sweeping ‘equality’-imperatives are unrealistic and dangerous. I think each person should be respected for his or her unique gifts and that we shouldn’t try to determine a priori, based on some axiom of ‘equality,’ what those gifts are. What do you believe?

 

[Betterave]

Well what exactly is the ‘abhorrent reality’ of feminism you were referring to then?

Do you remember the link someone posted to a review of a book on the history of Catholic feminism? That is what I am referring to.

 

[Betterave]

Do you believe that women should be equal in all aspects with men?

Some people really do believe that women should be equal in all aspects with men:
lifesitenews.com/news/gender-madness-swedish-pre-school-bans-him-and-her?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=04b927c43b-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines06_27_2011&utm_medium=email

Do you?

 

[severus68]

I think this is true of some feminists, but I make no such generalization about feminists in general.

Equality is about equal rights and equal opportunities. No one is born with the same gifts/talents and in the same circumstances, obviously.
I believe that all, men and women have equal rights and should be given equal opportunities.
So what do you believe?

 

[LemonAndLime]

Some people really do believe that women should be equal in all aspects with men:
lifesitenews.com/news/gender-madness-swedish-pre-school-bans-him-and-her?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=04b927c43b-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines06_27_2011&utm_medium=email

Do you?

I do. To be blunt, just because I have female gentials doesn’t mean I am worth less or am capable of less.

The story you’ve posted has nothing to do with feminism. Unless you can prove it has? That pre-school is doing what it’s doing in an attempt to stop MALE AND female children from being pressured into conforming to stereotypes, by refusing to use gender-specific toys/colours and not using the words him and her.