What makes a feminist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Midwest88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Midwest88

Guest
So if one believe in equal pay, equal rights and opportunities does that make one automatically a “feminist”?

Per dictionary definition this is what is said. It is too wide of a label and acts as an umbrella term? Maybe distinctions should be made of what “wave” one supports and express feelings about current tactics and goals?

I ask because when people say they aren’t feminist (be it male or female) and admit that they think females should be treated equally they’re met with “Well, you’re a feminist, then.”
 
Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
When i remember these words, they seem to take me to another place. Past all the isms.
I wonder if they would call me a feminist?
 
This is an impossible question to answer, since there are dozens of kinds of feminisms.

There are essentially TWO kinds of directions that this can take:

(a) Kantian individual rights-based approach: treat all persons equally. MAKE equality, if need be (for example, provide women with adjustments to allow them to “compete” with men—for example, the US Post Office lowering the weight of carrier sacks).

(b) Special treatment based on female biological facts. Women “are better” are certain things than men, so acknowledge this.

The “devil” in feminism is striving for perfection in our imperfect world. Perhaps also the desire to have your cake and eat it, too. . . and the classic, human “the grass is greener on the other side of the fence” thing, fantasizing that men have it so good.

I think the shark’s jumped on feminism, when one looks at academic achievement.
 
Midwest88 said:
So if one believe in equal pay, equal rights and opportunities does that make one automatically a “feminist”?
Click to expand...
If you identify as a feminist, and those are your criteria for being a feminist, then I guess you would be a feminist.

Of course, there is a wide range of beliefs as to what qualifies as feminist. The label you apply to yourself may not be accepted by others. Similarly, you may not accept the label which someone applies to you.

I think the same is true of any group category. When someone identifies themself as Christian, it tells us that he or she values that identity. But it doesn’t really tell us what he or she believes, the values they live by or how they behave. The term “feminist” doesn’t seem to be any different.
 
It’s not vague. I lived through the “Women’s Liberation Movement” during the 1970s. It’s key points:
  1. All men, especially those in leadership roles, including the Church, were to be overthrown. They were referred to as “the patriarchy” and the common man as “male chauvenist pigs.”
  2. The approach was the classic Marxist warfare division of an imagined (in many cases) Eternal Victim Class: Women, and the Eternal Enemies Class: Men.
  3. This meant there was no trust or a solution oriented approach regarding the enemy. Had the Women’s Libbers sought to help solve the very real problems that existed between some men and some women, that would have been good.
  4. In the 1970s, feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, who co-founded Ms. Magazine - yes, that’s where that divisive word came from, denied a species relationship between the sexes: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Ms. was a kind of Playboy for women. Now in her 70’s, Ms. Steinem is still quoted regarding the ongoing struggle.
Recently, a Michigan news publication quoted a women’s business leader who stated that after all these years, women still did not control most businesses. That doesn’t sound like equality.

So, by sowing fear and doubt in the 1970s that all men were out to use and abuse all women, it created fertile ground when No-Fault Divorce was created out of thin air, meaning not by the people.

It also caused a great deal of confusion regarding how men and women should conduct themselves regarding relationships. As one young lady put it to me, she thought the goal was to take advantage of the man before he took advantage of her. So, an assumed level of mistrust was there from the start, sabotaging the possibility of friendship and trust, causing confusion at best and a sense of hopelessness at worst. After her abortion, this young lady came back into the Church and kept her next baby.

So I heard on Catholic Radio that at least a few young Catholic men would like to be married and are willing to make it a lifelong commitment but despair at finding a woman who would be willing to do the same.

That is the kind of feminism championed and amplified by the media and at colleges where they have courses on “Women’s Studies.” I wonder if any have courses on “Men’s Studies.”

Peace,
Ed
 
I sort of remember the bit during the 70’s. I graduated high school in 1980. At the time I was all for it, equality was my catch word. But after high school, I started learning about the not so nice stuff with the movement. Also, the civil rights amendment already gives equality to women. The women were, like has already been said, wanting to take over and bully the men for a change. They weren’t really for equal rights, they were wanting superior rights. “Let’s castrate the men and start telling them how no good they are.” So the word “feminist” is a word that gives me the chills. I don’t want to go back to those days. But there will always be those who hate men. Just like there are men out there who hate women. It’s a two sided fence we have here.
 
Christy_Beth said:
I sort of remember the bit during the 70’s. I graduated high school in 1980. At the time I was all for it, equality was my catch word. But after high school, I started learning about the not so nice stuff with the movement. Also, the civil rights amendment already gives equality to women. The women were, like has already been said, wanting to take over and bully the men for a change. They weren’t really for equal rights, they were wanting superior rights. “Let’s castrate the men and start telling them how no good they are.” So the word “feminist” is a word that gives me the chills. I don’t want to go back to those days. But there will always be those who hate men. Just like there are men out there who hate women. It’s a two sided fence we have here.
Click to expand...
I’m of that era also. Radical feminism as it was practiced then only really lasted a generation because when the women promoting it began to get married and have little boys and little girls of their own, it became self evident that these little creatures need the support of a culture that recognises their different qualities as complimentary and healthy for them to be happy and the world to work.
 
LongingSoul said:
I’m of that era also. Radical feminism as it was practiced then only really lasted a generation because when the women promoting it began to get married and have little boys and little girls of their own, it became self evident that these little creatures need the support of a culture that recognises their different qualities as complimentary and healthy for them to be happy and the world to work.
Click to expand...
Radical feminism is still alive and still a threat.

They are against the defense of marriage.

They are pro gay rights.

They are for abortion.

They are for over the counter sales of the contraceptive referred to as Plan B.

They are seeking what they call “positions of power.”

They are looking for national campus organizers.

Dated 2013: “I don’t know why people are so reluctant to say they’re feminists. Maybe some women just don’t care. But how could it be any more obvious that we still live in a patriarchal world when feminism is a bad word?”

Go to the web site for the National Organization for Women.

Peace,
Ed
 
Feminist has become a pejorative that is applied to anyone who is seen as trying to upset the status quo.

My grandmother had to work after the Crash because my grandfather was disabled. The best job she could get was as a secretary for the Pullman company. My mother had to work because my father couldn’t keep a job ( manic-depessive) and 3 kids to feed. She once was told that a man deserved more money than she did because he had a family to support. She was a secretary, one of other most common fields for women (teaching, nursing, & clerical).

My husband had severe health problems that eventually led to his death. I had to support him and our children. Lucky for me, I was not limited to being a secretary. I am a computer programmer, a male dominated field.

Not all ‘feminists’ want to be ‘feminists’. Many of us who have to work outside the home while still working inside the home would like to do one only. Not all ‘feminists’ support abortion. Not all ‘feminists’ hate men. Not all ‘feminists’ want children outside of marriage.

Like all pejoratives, there is no such thing as a ‘feminist’.
 
Modern Western feminism, sometimes called radical feminism, may be rooted in a psychological schizophrenia that simultaneously hates and adores masculinity.

On the one hand, some of these feminists spit venom against males, scoff at clergy as a bunch of “octagenarian” or “celibate males;” who think men cannot judge women fairly by their nature; who think the characters on Mad Men are how “men” are––ready to abuse, manipulate, and deny any positive quality in women; who are quick to attribute to disputes or desire to protect women to sexist male testosterone; believe any male who is against abortion or contraception is only so because of an inherent defect of male blindness; etc…

On the other hand, such feminists are vocal about the notion that women can do everything men can do, script fictional female characters who “fight” indistinguishably with men, with weapons, are “tough,” and even punch out men twice their size in movies; who paint as superior women who accomplish things men have historically accomplished (such as business ownership); who believe not-being-pregnant––like men––is a woman’s goal, that she might be career-focused like they perceive men to be, or with a certain carefreeness that they perceive men to have; who resent the theology of the obedience of the Virgin Mary; who sometimes even openly chastise women who have husbands and children (such as did blogger Amy Glass), etc… You can find examples of all of the preceding.

So there is a tension between tearing down masculinity and praising females who do “masculine” things.

In his book Mary: The Church at the Source, Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), touches on this inconsistent character:
*For in today’s intellectual climate, only the masculine principle counts. And that means doing, achieving results, actively planning and producing the world oneself, refusing to wait for anything upon which one would thereby become dependent… What we need, then, is to abandon this one-sided, Western activistic outlook, lest we degrade the Church to a product of our creation and design. The Church is not a manufactured item; she is, rather, the living seed of God that must be allowed to grow and ripen. (Mary: The Church at the Source, p. 16-17)*In other words, one of the keys of true femininity is lacking in today’s society––the notion of receiving, pondering, and nurturing, just as Our Lady did in receipt of the Word. One can see this in the very movement against motherhood. Abortion has been called a “sacrament” by some of these modern Western feminists––these same women would quickly claim that any male who disagreed with this dogma of suffering from an inherent blindness due to being a male incapable of understanding. As they strive to be un-feminine and more-male on the one hand, they try to aggressively smite males on the way. As Elizabeth Scalia wrote last year, these modern Western feminists “have succeeded in becoming the men they hated.”
 
There are two major types of feminism in the modern world. Both strive for equal pay for equal work, removal of unjust discrimination, etc. However, where they disagree is on the unequal way society treats sex (discouraging women from having it and slandering them when they do, encouraging men to have it and celebrating when they do):

The first, sex-positive feminism, believes that by “sexually liberating” the woman, she will be free to exercise her “rights” in the same way that men supposedly do currently. They support universal access to birth control, abortions, etc., and believe no one’s sexual activity should be judged.

The second, sex-negative feminism, believes that the root of the problem is in the very encouragement of sex itself, no matter what gender it’s aimed at. They seek to provide the same discouragement aimed at women towards men, while also trying, out of charity, to reduce the name-calling that is aimed at promiscuous women, especially college-aged women. Their main goals are to stop the objectification of women and to exemplify sex in marriage and discourage any sexual activity outside of it. They oppose birth control, abortions, and usually divorce.

Sex-negative feminism is perfectly licit to follow. Sex-positive feminism is not licit by any means.
 
Pope John Paul II:

“In our times the question of “women’s rights” has taken on new significance in the broad context of the rights of the human person. The biblical and evangelical message sheds light on this cause, which is the object of much attention today, by safeguarding the truth about the “unity” of the “two”, that is to say the truth about that dignity and vocation that result from the specific diversity and personal originality of man and woman. Consequently, even the rightful opposition of women to what is expressed in the biblical words “He shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the “masculinization” of women. In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not “reach fulfilment”, but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. It is indeed an enormous richness. In the biblical description, the words of the first man at the sight of the woman who had been created are words of admiration and enchantment, words which fill the whole history of man on earth.”

Source: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

Peace,
Ed
 
Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Feminism and its spurious egalitarian ideology is the bane of the contemporary Western world and should be denounced in the strongest terms by the Catholic faithful. Alas, its poisonous tenets have been embraced by many women (and men) who profess the holy religion of Christ, especially the ‘progressive thinking’ youth within the Church.

The Catholic faithful, dear friends, should be under no illusions respecting the sinister face of godless secular feminism, for it is a rebellious and flat repudiation of the true God-given nature of women - a denial of their very essence. Moreover, it confuses the natural and supernatural relations between the sexes and embarks upon a very deviant path, the end result of which is suicide of thought and the demise of authentic femininity and womanhood. In its fanatical and misguided desire to obliterate any real distinction between the sexes and to be liberated from what it perceives to be outmoded ‘gender stereotypes’ it has become a deleterious force in the modern age. It results, for example, in the repudiation of the God-given primacy and headship of the husband and the proper submission of the wife within the home, to mention but one of its many errors.

Secular feminism, dear friends, depreciates the value, purpose and aim of authentic womanhood and is a force hostile to our Catholic Faith. It is a vain and foolish attempt at masculinity at the expense of a very tragic loss of femininity. Indeed, feminism is not the exaltation of woman but actually her obliteration, for it ends in the reduction of the true feminine character to that of the masculine. An example of this is shamefully allowing women to be able to fight on the frontline in combat zones, along with their male colleagues - the very ultimate in womanly degradation. Unfortunately, this is where radical feminism eventually leads us, for it is a travesty of nature inasmuch as it arrogantly refuses the true nature of women as part of the divine providential plan. Moreover, it has utterly failed to understand the freedom, nature and essential distinctions involved in a proper evaluation of the whole notion of equality - hence its abundant errors and distortions.

Whilst, dear friends, Baptism confers equality upon all individuals from the point of view of religion, both in society and the family (the smallest and most important unit) there is a natural God-given hierarchy and it is this which is anathema to the radical feminists. Equality and identity should never be confused. We are clearly different from one another and we compliment one another in the distinctive qualities of our own sexuality, psychological as well as physiological. In point of fact it is this that forms the basis of our different and appropriate roles within society. Now owing to false views of equality, your feminist refuses to accept that equality of worth is not identity of role. Since the time that the feminist movement gathered momentum in the Sixties, it has never tired of telling us that when we investigate male/female roles we must not acquiesce in ‘gender stereotypes’ which our particular culture has developed. These are all wrong and demeaning to women, so the argument runs, and stem from a male dominated society. However, what is conveniently overlooked is that these much maligned ‘stereotypes’ are themselves the product of Christian theology and the Christian consciousness throughout the ages. However, this is of no consequence to radical feminism because it is essentially iconoclastic and like most radical movements its mission is to break with past and its supposedly obsolete notions. Sadly, the modern feminist movement is looking for an excuse to rebel against societal norms, informed by the Christian consciousness over many centuries, because they arrogantly refuse to submit themselves to the God-given roles that have been assigned to them by nature. Indeed, this why the very notion of a division of labour is so abhorrent to them and why they refuse to accept that women are naturally adapted to undertake domestic type tasks such as shopping, cooking and cleaning and why they are best fitted for the nurturing of children. Incidently, it also explains why the modern aberration of ‘house-husband’ has emerged on the scene, itself a denial of true masculinity. To former generations this oddity would have been rightly frowned upon and regarded as very unmanly and risible, but not in our own age, I am afraid. Of course, it is said by way of reply, that this is progress as the result of more enlightened thinking about such matters, well many of us would beg strongly to differ. It is iconoclastic rebellion against God-given roles and the authentic nature of manhood and womanhood, which it is not for us to set aside and rail against on the pretext that it is antiquated dogma. Men may vociferously argue that we must move with the times, but surely we can only do that, dear friends, if moving with the times is for the better and not the worse.

Finally, dear friends, the urgent need of the hour is for men and women to realize afresh that they are complimentary and that for this reason there can be no question of the identity of one with the other. Men and women have been created male and female and they should gladly acknowledge their differences and not impiously and arrogantly usurp one another’s distinctive God-given roles. Masculinity and femininity complement each other and what God has joined together man must not put asunder.

God bless and may I wish all contributors and viewers a jolly splendid and relaxing weekend, whatever are your plans. Goodbye.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

In Christos
 
DaddyGirl said:
Yes. A feminist is a person, male or female, who believes women should be given equal rights–voting, job pay, opportunities, ability to own land, entrance in schools, etc.

We don’t really have a need for that term anymore since we have achieved those things–it’s out of date, which is a good sign!
Be every underdog group needs a title and that was it.
Now, it’s basically a person who wants everyone to get a fair opportunity…now, a feminist would more be called a humanist.

.
Click to expand...
Out of date? Not according to the new feminists.

msmagazine.com/blog/2013/12/30/10-ways-to-keep-up-the-feminist-fight-in-2014/

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Out of date? Not according to the new feminists.

msmagazine.com/blog/2013/12/30/10-ways-to-keep-up-the-feminist-fight-in-2014/

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
And who exactly reads or cares what Ms. Magazine says? My 29 year old daughter who is an attorney, just laughed when I asked her if she or any of her friends read it or would take it seriously. If your definition of feminism is educated women who both love their families and careers, then I venture to say there are many of those evil feminists in her generation.
 
I tend to view feminism the way I view labor unions.

Both arose to address real evils that have happened and still is happening. However they in turn have brought about their own problems.

However, I feel like hypocrite when I say these things since I am single and not a mom and a housewife.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top