What would this world be like if there was never any Feminist?

[silentfactor80]

In that case, I wouldn’t be able to vote, own property, have the decent job I have, wouldn’t have gotten the education I did . . . seriously, somebody thinks that would be a better world?

You could have had that if the movement was simply about civil rights. It didn’t need to be feminist. In fact they didn’t even use the term back then.

 

[ljwahn]

Would it be a better or worse society. I believe that feminism was planned and has forever altered the way men and women view each other. Now that feminism has run its course, we have new issues changing the way people view gays. It’s all in the name of equality.

I question if feminism has run its course. I think women should pattern themselves after the Blessed Virgin Mary as a model of feminism. Men should look upon women and honor them as they would the Blessed Virgin Mary. I have not always done that in my own marriage. i am changing that now.

 

[Gods_Servant1]

Allowing women to vote and own property is of the devil?

Did I mention this? No.
Modern Feminism is probably of the devil, or just some insecure women.
They all ready have equal rights to us men, they can vote, own property, etc.

 

[Nimzovik]

I have been unable to find a Feminist group that is in compliance with Catholic Teaching. (Feminists for Life included.) From this I deduce that fundamentally Feminism is intrinsically anathema to our Faith. If Feminists had the good of all in mind, perhaps they would instead call themselves We-ists. Or Us-ists. As I have observed Feminism to date, it has declared itself to be a self serving, special interest lobbying faction. Is not Abortion a plank of the Feminst doctrine? What does that say?

If it is* not* from God, then Feminism is from who? Ahmmmmm?

Whatever ‘good’ is done in the name of Feminism, methinks we Christians call that ‘good’ being 'Christic.’ We Catholics, when we do ‘good,’ give the glory to God. Not to Gloria Steinem.

Can one claim the title of being a Feminist (a title that excludes 50% of the worlds population) and also claim one is **authentically **Catholic?

Methinks not.

Reasoning for this assertion delineated here: catholiceducation.org/articles/feminism/fe0025.html

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I don’t believe those things were mentioned in his/her post.

His post started out with, “Can you not all see feminism,…” Voting and wanting the right to own property basically started the feminist movement.

 

[TimeEntrance]

It’s acknowledged that a lot of Creole women ran slave plantations in Louisiana. In Creole culture of old, the family business was passed on to the smartest of the children irrespective of their sex.

In the U.S. Creole generally connotes brown skinned or light coffee skinned color people. But a lot of Creoles were white in pigmentation and as best I can tell slightly differed between French and Spanish conception and cultures regarding Creoles.

Throughout Spanish America the Creoles (whites) were hostile to the Spanish crowns greater courtesy towards and protection of the blacks and Amerindians. So, the Creoles rendition of the history of the Spanish crown may be a little biased. Before Mexican Creoles took over Mexico the nation of Mexico was up there with the United States and well run and crowning achievement of the Americas. It rapidly declined under Creole rule that broke from the crown. But I digress.

Overall feminism was needed as a movement to achieve federally protected suffrage for women. And that did not come until 1920. So, it may be fair to say the U.S. did not become a democracy until 1920, given prior to that roughly half its population (female) were denied the right to vote. At least federally assured right. Black and Indian men I believe… had already had the right to vote before 1920 although various obstacles were put in place by local Southern (few blacks lived in the North then) white ruling authorities to ensure they would not vote.

Throughout most human history most men never owned property per se (certainly not land owners), and never had the right to vote. Though, feminism may give the impression most men throughout the world have been land owners or working jobs with the feet kicked up on desks, and voting in men to represent them, that’s not true.

But here is a little info on Creole women in Louisiana in the past.

1. louisianastories.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/vacherie-louisiana-laura-plantation/

Laura Plantation is a Creole Plantation in Vacherie, Louisiana. The Creole culture is a blending of three different influences; the French, West African and Native American. It was class and not race that determined social status in Creole Louisiana. Creole Women were very independent and successful as Plantation managers.

Four generations of the Duparc women ran the plantation after Guillaume Duparc’s death in 1808. When it came into Laura’s hands, she had to sell the plantation during an economic downturn. She married a protestant man from St.Louis where she lived out her life, she had become an American housewife. She had sold the plantation to an Alsatian family, the Waguespack’s and stipulated in the sale that the name of the plantation had to remain, The Laura Plantation. The Waguespack’s kept it as a sugar plantation until 1981. Descendants of the slaves from Laura Plantation still live in this area. Laura had written a 5,000 page memoir with all the documentation of the property’s history and it found its way to the current owners through all their efforts and research which led them to find more about the family.

1. frenchcreoles.com/CreoleCulture/freepeopleofcolor/freepeopleofcolor_NEWwomen.html

The Creoles

Creole is the non-Anglo-Saxon culture and life-style that flourished in Louisiana before it became a part of the United States in 1803.

Louisiana Creole is a blending of three different ethnic influences: the west European, west African, and includes a significant (name removed by moderator)ut from the Native American.

The Creole functioned in an elitist structure, based on family ties. In its philosophy, economics and politics, European custom and modern thought were thrown out and, in their place, strict, self-serving pragmatism, born out of the isolation and desperation that characterized Louisiana in her formative years.

Creole Louisiana was a place where class, not race, determined social status, where rural life conformed to rigid disciplines, where human bondage created wealth, where adherence to the family business and tradition was paramount, where women ran businesses and owned property, where democratic ideals and individualism were held in contempt and where, until the 20th century, people spoke French and lived this way, separate from the dominant White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant American culture.

So, without feminism Creole women would have ran businesses and presumably owned businesses. But Creole women only made up a small fraction of women in the U.S. as a whole.

The Southern Belle culture (Creole women probably were closer to these women culturally and in mannerisms than contemporary feminism) produced “strong” women too, but strength was not considered to be in the form of a loudness or obnoxiousness or rebelling against everything, as it is today among young feminist females. Southern Belle regarded “strength” as a form in which a woman used her femininity and smarts to persuade men, in the ability as well of a woman to carry a conversation politely with a shy man.

But there are a lot of nations on this earth that could use a little infusion of feminism. India is but one among many.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This:

I believe that the majority of “feminists” today are, unknownst to themselves, in actuality “masculinists”. So no, they have not helped society and we would be better off if they stepped aside and let the true feminists back in. (what they do now from what I see, is just call them pawns of men, which is woefully ironic)

This was essentially my point on the “Feminine Mystique” thread in World News.

 

[agnes_therese]

You could have had that if the movement was simply about civil rights. It didn’t need to be feminist. In fact they didn’t even use the term back then.

The OP said he was including everything “feminist.” That includes my g/grandma who marched for the right to vote.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Is it OK to be a masculinist?

Are there any current feminists who are not worshipers of the Democratic Party Platform on all issues even if those issues might be at odds with feminism?

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Is it OK to be a masculinist?

Are there any current feminists who are not worshipers of the Democratic Party Platform on all issues even if those issues might be at odds with feminism?

There are pro-life feminist groups. Feminists for Life is one of them.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I can’t believe we’re even discussing this.

What’s the next conversation, what would the U.S. be like if there wasn’t a civil rights movement for blacks? Would that be a better world, too?

Yeah, I think it’s a good thing that women aren’t treated like cattle.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I can’t believe we’re even discussing this.

What’s the next conversation, what would the U.S. be like if there wasn’t a civil rights movement for blacks? Would that be a better world, too?

Yeah, I think it’s a good thing that women aren’t treated like cattle.

Next up: Gay rights. It’s all planned, as was the feminist movement. .

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Isn’t it unfair that more male cows are sacrificed for meat then female cows because they are preserved to make milk?

Should feminists who are interested in equality try to get laws passed to address this injustice or should they be in solidarity with their heifer sisters from the animal bovine kingdom?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Next up: Gay rights. It’s all planned, as was the feminist movement. .

So what you’re telling me is that this is all a grand conspiracy?

It started with the equality of black people, and then the equality of women, and now of homosexuals?

Surely, you would not like to go back to a time when black people and women were treated as property. Right?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Isn’t it unfair that more male cows are sacrificed for meat then female cows because they are preserved to make milk?

Should feminists who are interested in equality try to get laws passed to address this injustice or should they be in solidarity with their heifer sisters from the animal bovine kingdom?

So now we’re comparing the rights of women to vote, to own property, to run for office, etc. to the rights of cows? Are you serious?

 

[KendraDZ1902]

So now we’re comparing the rights of women to vote, to own property, to run for office, etc. to the rights of cows? Are you serious?

 

[KendraDZ1902]

So now we’re comparing the rights of women to vote, to own property, to run for office, etc. to the rights of cows? Are you serious?

If a woman were to compare a man to an animal, they would be called radical feminists. LOL. I don’t know if I should burn my bra or if I should find a pasture to live in.

 

[Aviatrix]

Isn’t it unfair that more male cows are sacrificed for meat then female cows because they are preserved to make milk?

Should feminists who are interested in equality try to get laws passed to address this injustice or should they be in solidarity with their heifer sisters from the animal bovine kingdom?

This is a joke, right? A feminist is simply defined as someone who advocates for “social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men”. Note “women” and “men”, not heifer and steer.

The name feminist does not exclude 50% of the population. 99% of the people I know fit in the definition of feminist, including the men I know. Like in all things, the radicals are the ones that get all the attention and thus colour the general perception of the group. Yes “man-hating” feminists exist. No, not all feminists are man-hating. A lot of feminists are against discrimination that also harms men. People reject being labelled as feminist because they do not want to be associated with the man-hating, extreme, female only connotations and rightly so, but they still fit into the actual definition of feminism.

 

[Robert_Sock]

So what you’re telling me is that this is all a grand conspiracy?

It started with the equality of black people, and then the equality of women, and now of homosexuals?

Surely, you would not like to go back to a time when black people and women were treated as property. Right?

No, I’m all for liberation. No conspiracy, I guess, but a lot of directing. I don’t feel that any of the liberation movements were without lots of direction. Call that a conspiracy theory if you wish, but I call it ‘social engineering’ as usual. (I’m not using ‘social engineering’ in the dictionary sense, but contrived). To think of it in any other sense is absurd!

 

[Seeker1961]

This place gets more interesting every day. So is the theory now that anything but rights for Conservative Catholic Straight White Men Only is part of grand Satanic conspiracy?

You can’t make this stuff up.