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

[Betterave]

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 is a non sequitur. Whether or not the story has anything to do with feminism is obviously a matter of fact that is independent of the whether I can prove it.

Anyway, your comment ignores the context in which my comment was made.

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.

Well there you go! The abhorrent reality is real! You think that the words ‘him’ and ‘her’ are oppressive? You think gender-specific colors and toys put inappropriate pressure on children? WHY?? (I believe and am prepared to argue that that is insane! )

 

[Betterave]

Equality is about equal rights and equal opportunities.

‘Equality’ (and your phrase: “equal[ity] in all aspects”) is obviously in fact a broader concept than ‘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?

I think that it is very clearly a fact that your formulation here is so vague as to be useless for addressing the difference between us. Feminism is a reality that is much more concrete than this and your insistence on pretending that you can adequately summarize the real, concrete feminist programme in these vague terms is simply silly. Think of the rights rhetoric surrounding ‘gay marriage,’ for example. Of course I believe in rights, but the issue is about the particular way in which rights are understood within different paradigms. Insofar as feminism, as it really exists, can be said to present a particular paradigm for understanding rights, I am claiming that this paradigm is unacceptable from a Catholic perspective.

 

[LemonAndLime]

That is a non sequitur. Whether or not the story has anything to do with feminism is obviously a matter of fact that is independent of the whether I can prove it.

No it isn’t. You implied it was to do with feminism, I corrected you that it wasn’t. The school have not said they’re doing it for feminist reasons. You can prove that it has something to do with feminism by say, getting a quote from the founder saying “I’m doing this because I’m a feminist.”

Anyway, your comment ignores the context in which my comment was made.

Um, no. That story has nothing to do with feminism, has no links to feminism that you can prove. And as you are the one asserting that it has some relevance to this thread, the onus is on you to prove that.

Well there you go! The abhorrent reality is real! You think that the words ‘him’ and ‘her’ are oppressive? You think gender-specific colors and toys put inappropriate pressure on children? WHY?? (I believe and am prepared to argue that that is insane! )

“You”? What made you think I approved?

I disagree with colouring every girls toy pink and thinking that all girls just want to play with dolls. As a child myself I played with dragons and cars. I’m not a lesbian, so it didn’t “masculinise” me. The only part of this school’s ideology I disagree with is refusing to give the children any kind of gender identity.

 

[Hastrman]

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.

Yes, because the only difference between the sexes is their genitals—never mind the overwhelming evidence that it’s only sex-role specialization that got us where we are today. You know Neanderthals? Yeah, well they all, male and female, hunted. Cro-Magnon “pressured” their sexes into “conforming to stereotypes”—males hunted, females gathered vegetables—and, therefore, they were more efficient in acquiring nutrients.

We’re not descended from Neanderthals. Gender-neutrality is anti-progressive.

I know you hate to be told of the Marxist influence on the actual feminist movement as it exists in space and time rather than the Platonic Realm of Form, but that is what that school is doing, blatant Marxist social engineering. Sort of like replacing “Mister” with “Comrade”, prawda?.

Understand, you assert a false dichotomy. One is not either a feminist or a foe of women having rights, any more than one must either support the Bolsheviks or the Robber-Barons.

 

[Betterave]

No it isn’t. You implied it was to do with feminism, I corrected you that it wasn’t. The school have not said they’re doing it for feminist reasons. You can prove that it has something to do with feminism by say, getting a quote from the founder saying “I’m doing this because I’m a feminist.”

Why would I do that??

[btw, it very clearly *was a non sequitur - you must not know what a non sequitur is if you choose to deny that. Please look up terms you don’t understand.]

Um, no. That story has nothing to do with feminism, has no links to feminism that you can prove. And as you are the one asserting that it has some relevance to this thread, the onus is on you to prove that.

Um, yes. Try to be more open-minded, could you? The link to severus’ vague formulation of what feminism is is perfectly obvious.

“You”? What made you think I approved?

The context.

I disagree with colouring every girls toy pink and thinking that all girls just want to play with dolls. As a child myself I played with dragons and cars. I’m not a lesbian, so it didn’t “masculinise” me. The only part of this school’s ideology I disagree with is refusing to give the children any kind of gender identity.

So what? Do other schools forbid boys to play with dolls and forbid girls to play with cars? I used to have tea-parties with my sister and her friends - so what?? That is irrelevant to what I find problematic about the radically ‘egalitarian’ ideology being promoted at this school (and in general in Swedish society, where women are economically pressured to put their children in daycare and where the parliament - I believe - is required to be 50-50 male-female representation).

 

[LemonAndLime]

Why would I do that??

[btw, it very clearly *was

a non sequitur - you must not know what a non sequitur is if you choose to deny that. Please look up terms you don’t understand.]

Um, yes. Try to be more open-minded, could you? The link to severus’ vague formulation of what feminism is is perfectly obvious.

The context.

So what? Do other schools forbid boys to play with dolls and forbid girls to play with cars? I used to have tea-parties with my sister and her friends - so what?? That is irrelevant to what I find problematic about the radically ‘egalitarian’ ideology being promoted at this school (and in general in Swedish society, where women are economically pressured to put their children in daycare and where the parliament - I believe - is required to be 50-50 male-female representation).

I understand what it means, but I’m not sure how giving my argument a label means anything in the grand scheme of things.

Prove how its relevant to this thread and feminism please, or I will cease discussion with you.

 

[Betterave]

I understand what it means, but I’m not sure how giving my argument a label means anything in the grand scheme of things.

Then what: you were intentionally lying when you denied that your argument was a non sequitur? You made a fallacious argument, then you denied doing so, now you’re pretending like it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t “mean anything in the grand scheme of things.” You certainly are showing a continuing pattern of intellectual dishonesty here.

Prove how its relevant to this thread and feminism please, or I will cease discussion with you.

You’re asking me to prove what is perfectly obvious. Why should I attempt to do that? Why beat a dead horse?

Your ceasing discussion with me suits me just fine. I don’t enjoy pointless discussions with people like yourself who are belligerently irrational.

 

[severus68]

‘Equality’ (and your phrase: “equal[ity] in all aspects”) is obviously in fact a broader concept than ‘equal rights and equal opportunities.’

I think that it is very clearly a fact that your formulation here is so vague as to be useless for addressing the difference between us. Feminism is a reality that is much more concrete than this and your insistence on pretending that you can adequately summarize the real, concrete feminist programme in these vague terms is simply silly. Think of the rights rhetoric surrounding ‘gay marriage,’ for example. Of course I believe in rights, but the issue is about the particular way in which rights are understood within different paradigms. Insofar as feminism, as it really exists, can be said to present a particular paradigm for understanding rights, I am claiming that this paradigm is unacceptable from a Catholic perspective.

I notice this about your posts/responses. Everyone’s else’s statements are vague and useless and now a pretence?? Please come out and say exactly what you think and believe in instead of replying to questions with questions etc.

Equality in all aspects does mean equality in rights (which are God given) and in opportunities (which should be a given). A woman should be able to choose her own life, her own career as a man does. A man, if he wants children should be prepared to share equally in child rearing, including waking up nights, changing diapers. A woman should go as high as she wants in education.

You now claim all these are unacceptable as Catholics? I was a Catholic and choose to remain one, I did not choose to be a fundamentalist Muslim.

BTW I do not believe a woman must submit in a marriage but that both should submit to each other and to God. I hate guns and I think toy guns should be banned for all kids. I dislike stereotyping.

 

[severus68]

Then what: you were intentionally lying when you denied that your argument was a non sequitur? You made a fallacious argument, then you denied doing so, now you’re pretending like it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t “mean anything in the grand scheme of things.” You certainly are showing a continuing pattern of intellectual dishonesty here.

You’re asking me to prove what is perfectly obvious. Why should I attempt to do that? Why beat a dead horse?

Your ceasing discussion with me suits me just fine. I don’t enjoy pointless discussions with people like yourself who are belligerently irrational.

You first say LemonandLime is ignorant and now accuse him/her of lying and irrational.

If its so obvious why not explain to all we ignoramuses.

I think you should read what you post before accusing others of belligerency.

 

[Betterave]

You first say LemonandLime is ignorant and now accuse him/her of lying and irrational.

If its so obvious why not explain to all we ignoramuses.

I think you should read what you post before accusing others of belligerency.

If you have a problem with anything that I have said, please say what specifically you have a problem with and why. If I claim something is obvious, it is because I think it is. I understand, because of what I’ve been doing ‘professionally’ for the last few years, that my critical thinking skills are much better than the average person’s, and that the average person’s are very poor, even when they’ve taken a course in critical thinking. That said, if you can’t see something that I think is obvious, please tell me: “I don’t think what you said in post #whatever is obvious. Can you explain why you think it is?” As it is, it seems like you’re just whining here. You really can’t see what is obviously irrational about committing a non sequitur, falsely claiming you didn’t (which implies either ignorance or dishonesty - do you understand that?), then dismissing the whole issue as if it doesn’t matter? Seriously?? I await your clarification.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Betterave:

I think that it is very clearly a fact that your formulation here is so vague as to be useless for addressing the difference between us. Feminism is a reality that is much more concrete than this and your insistence on pretending that you can adequately summarize the real, concrete feminist programme in these vague terms is simply silly. Think of the rights rhetoric surrounding ‘gay marriage,’ for example. Of course I believe in rights, but the issue is about the particular way in which rights are understood within different paradigms. Insofar as feminism, as it really exists, can be said to present a particular paradigm for understanding rights, I am claiming that this paradigm is unacceptable from a Catholic perspective.

Of course, there is a problem here. I always take any definition of an ideology with a grain of salt when that definition comes from one who opposes it. You can’t just draw a line around every aspect of what may be called feminism that you doin’t like, call it feminism, and dismiss it in its entirity. You may be associating feminism with certain moder strands of the movement, but one may just as easily say that the crux of feminism is about access to education, right to own property, right to work, right to vote, right not to be raped by one’s husband, etc. One could call all of these accomplishments of feminism, and the general acceptance of these rights today in western society might be ascribed to the success of a justified feminist paradigm. The abortion rights movements and other unsavory movements championed by so many today may just as easily be viewed as the fringe in the grand scheme of things.

So by what criteria do you include or exclude an aspect of feminism in the “abhorrent reality” of feminism? Sometimes, when discussing ideologies, it seems people just don’t like the word, and carve out a meaning for it just to justify dismissing it.

 

[severus68]

If you have a problem with anything that I have said, please say what specifically you have a problem with and why. If I claim something is obvious, it is because I think it is. I understand, because of what I’ve been doing ‘professionally’ for the last few years, that my critical thinking skills are much better than the average person’s, and that the average person’s are very poor, even when they’ve taken a course in critical thinking. That said, if you can’t see something that I think is obvious, please tell me: “I don’t think what you said in post #whatever is obvious. Can you explain why you think it is?” As it is, it seems like you’re just whining here. You really can’t see what is obviously irrational about committing a non sequitur, falsely claiming you didn’t (which implies either ignorance or dishonesty - do you understand that?), then dismissing the whole issue as if it doesn’t matter? Seriously?? I await your clarification.

The critical thinking skills of the average person is very poor you say. Seriously???

I am just whining you say, you are implying I am ignorant or dishonest. Well I would suggest that you continue to sit on your high horse hurling insults and making non statements. I, being one of the lesser beings will henceforth refrain from addressing you, lol.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Then what: you were intentionally lying when you denied that your argument was a non sequitur? You made a fallacious argument, then you denied doing so, now you’re pretending like it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t “mean anything in the grand scheme of things.” You certainly are showing a continuing pattern of intellectual dishonesty here.

Um, no. I gave you my argument. You decided an appropriate response was to label it, as if that meant something - and thus avoiding confronting my point. I think if anyone is guilty of dishonesty here, it is certainly not myself.

You’re asking me to prove what is perfectly obvious. Why should I attempt to do that? Why beat a dead horse?

Well if it’s obvious, it shouldn’t be a problem them. Still waiting for my proof that the pre-school story is because of feminism.

Your ceasing discussion with me suits me just fine. I don’t enjoy pointless discussions with people like yourself who are belligerently irrational.

How irrational of me to ask for proof when someone asserts a fact.

Don’t insult me again.

 

[Betterave]

Um, no. I gave you my argument. You decided an appropriate response was to label it, as if that meant something - and thus avoiding confronting my point. I think if anyone is guilty of dishonesty here, it is certainly not myself.

So the label “non sequitur” means nothing now? That is certainly not true. As I said, you can only say this because you are either ignorant or dishonest. This is a very simple point.

Well if it’s obvious, it shouldn’t be a problm them. Still waiting for my proof that the pre-school story is because of feminism.

LOL! Wait all you want. I’m still waiting for you to start being honest and rational.

How irrational of me to ask for proof when someone asserts a fact.

That is not in general irrational; it is in this case. Nice try though.

Don’t insult me again.

Stop being so ridiculous. I have not once insulted you. You have no right to be offended by plain facts. If you choose to dispute the facts, then do so, rationally.

 

[Betterave]

The critical thinking skills of the average person is very poor you say. Seriously???

Yeah! Seriously!!! I think I can legitimately claim to know this after having marked thousands of university exams on critical thinking over the last few years. Why should that be shocking to you?? Seriously??

I am just whining you say, you are implying I am ignorant or dishonest. Well I would suggest that you continue to sit on your high horse hurling insults and making non statements. I, being one of the lesser beings will henceforth refrain from addressing you, lol.

You are just whining now. Before I said it seemed that way, which was an invitation for you to offer some substance. I have not hurled any insults, so your claiming I have proves that you are ignorant or dishonest. That’s just a fact, not an insult.

 

[Betterave]

Of course, there is a problem here. I always take any definition of an ideology with a grain of salt when that definition comes from one who opposes it. You can’t just draw a line around every aspect of what may be called feminism that you doin’t like, call it feminism, and dismiss it in its entirity. You may be associating feminism with certain moder strands of the movement, but one may just as easily say that the crux of feminism is about access to education, right to own property, right to work, right to vote, right not to be raped by one’s husband, etc. One could call all of these accomplishments of feminism, and the general acceptance of these rights today in western society might be ascribed to the success of a justified feminist paradigm. The abortion rights movements and other unsavory movements championed by so many today may just as easily be viewed as the fringe in the grand scheme of things.

So by what criteria do you include or exclude an aspect of feminism in the “abhorrent reality” of feminism? Sometimes, when discussing ideologies, it seems people just don’t like the word, and carve out a meaning for it just to justify dismissing it.

We’ve already addressed this point repeatedly in the thread. Obviously you’re right to take any particular definition of an ideology with a grain of salt. But my criteria (and that of others) is simply the reality of what is understood by those who call themselves ‘feminists’ and are generally recognized as such. Obviously this reality is diverse, but not so diverse as to prevent there being a definite and distinctly unsavory content which people familiar with the actual, living, historical reality ought to associate with the word. I suggest reading the thread to see how this point has been covered already.

 

[LemonAndLime]

So the label “non sequitur” means nothing now? That is certainly not true. As I said, you can only say this because you are either ignorant or dishonest. This is a very simple point.

Correct, it means nothing. You’re using the word as if it dismisses what I’m saying. It’s not a “checkmate” card, it doesn’t end the argument.

LOL! Wait all you want. I’m still waiting for you to start being honest and rational.

That is not in general irrational; it is in this case. Nice try though.

How am I being irrational? Either provide proof, or admit you have none.

Stop being so ridiculous. I have not once insulted you. You have no right to be offended by plain facts. If you choose to dispute the facts, then do so, rationally.

So when you called me irrational, dishonest, unintellectual and ridiculous, you weren’t insulting me?

Okay, cool, well I’ve reported this to the moderators for them to decide.

 

[Betterave]

Correct, it means nothing. You’re using the word as if it dismisses what I’m saying. It’s not a “checkmate” card, it doesn’t end the argument.

LOL! Incorrect, it does not mean nothing. LOL!

How am I being irrational? Either provide proof, or admit you have none.

Done and done.

So when you called me irrational, dishonest, unintellectual and ridiculous, you weren’t insulting me?

That is correct! As I’ve repeatedly explained, I was pointing out the logical consequences of your statements, that is all.

Okay, cool, well I’ve reported this to the moderators for them to decide.

Sounds good to me.

 

[severus68]

Yeah! Seriously!!! I think I can legitimately claim to know this after having marked thousands of university exams on critical thinking over the last few years. Why should that be shocking to you?? Seriously??

 

[LemonAndLime]

I would be more than happy to have a respectful, real discussion with anyone who wants to. I do not think that you want one. You try to bring yourself up by putting others down. Say I am whining, that I am ignorant or dishonest, it does not matter to me. It just says a lot about you. Being rude and insulting does not win you points in a discussion.

Agreed. I think it is telling that more than one member has been offended. Clearly, if more than one person is offended, there is a problem.