Let’s be honest here.
The “Catholic Feminism” may not necessarily be (overtly) atheistic, but it does indeed derive from principles that presume necessary skepticism re: absolutes, the supernatural, the Good, etc. I think the feminism of many Christians is probably more tied to an implicitly assumed egalitarianism that they likely picked up through the culture at large. Their main concerns seem to be in promoting “freedom,” which, according to liberal theory, is not defined as the ability to do good, but instead as mere autonomy. So the goal becomes simply to maximize the total amount of choice for individuals with different-but-equal values (which, for women who believe all male dominance is oppression, amounts to female-centered egalitarianism, or “feminism”). Egalitarian liberalism is in part an attempt to achieve neutrality through tolerant non-judgment. It ends up reducing goodness to preference, or the “freedom” to maximize the pursuit of one’s hyper-individualized preferences in a fundamentally atomistic society. (I’m summing up complex theories and history pretty briefly here, so please permit the simplifications I’ve made in this short post.)I must I say, am always fascinated when a Catholic refers to themselves as a Feminist.
There are non atheist based pro woman groups that **far **more represent the Christian context rather than the those termed as ‘Feminist’ by todays’ standards, I should think.
It is hard for me to* not* associate* A*bortion and Planned Parenthood with the likes of today’s such ‘Feminist’ Icons as Margaret Sanger, Sebellius and Pelosi. And yes I say ‘Feminism’ as defined by Modern Day Feminists, is, fundamentally entwined with Atheism just as it is fundamentally entwined with Planned Parenthood. I personally equate Atheism with Planned Parenthood. How can one not? It is certainly not a Christian ideal, now is it?
I do realize that perhaps many may take umbrage with what I just said. Many will say such things like " I just admire the ‘equal pay for equal work’ aspects of feminism, that is why I call myself a Feminist.
Interesting it is, how Feminism can be such an amorphous entity isn’t it? A flex elect philosophical system that adapts itself to any crowd with whom one may be speaking.
I should think that a Catholic would rather want to say " I am a member of the "Holy Family"model of feminity that advocates for the sanctity and grace and equality of women as per the teachings of Christ. Or at least some similar descriptor. A descriptor that, renders glory to Our Lord, as opposed to …Gloria Stienem.
And of course there is the term Feminism itself, as I have posted elsewhere, that by it’s very definition is exclusionary in regard to it’s very title. At no juncture in the term Feminsim, do I see the male being advocated for as well. Ergo methinks that Feminism as defined today, is just another self interest serving lobbying group that says me, me me. If not so, then why not, instead of Feminist, be called We-ist or Us - ist?
Why would any Catholic wish to be even remotely connected to such a, well, shall we say dubious, at best, organization****
I do understand however, why Atheists call themselves Feminists.
Just because someone is not a natural leader, does not make him or her less than another. We can’t all lead and we can’t all follow.
Figures.
I must I say, am always fascinated when a Catholic refers to themselves as a man.
It is hard for me to not associate abuse and serial infidelity with the likes of modern men, who create the need for feminism to secure the defense of women. And yes I say ‘men’ as defined by Modern Day Masculinity, is, fundamentally, entwined with abuse and serial infidelity just as it is fundamentally entwined with a “Might makes right, women must submit” family management philosophy. I personally equate abuse with Masculinity. How can one not? It is certainly not a Christian ideal, now is it?
I do realize that perhaps many may take umbrage with what I just said. Many will say such things like “I just admire the ideal of traditional marriage where men love and protect their wives, that is why I call myself a Man.”I do realize that perhaps many may take umbrage with what I just said. Many will say such things like " I just admire the ‘equal pay for equal work’ aspects of feminism, that is why I call myself a Feminist.
Interesting it is, how Feminism can be such an amorphous entity isn’t it? A flex elect philosophical system that adapts itself to any crowd with whom one may be speaking.
I should think that a Catholic would rather want to say "I am a member of the “Holy Family” model of masculinity that advocates for the sanctity and grace and equality of spouses as per the teachings of Christ. Or at least some similar descriptor. A descriptor that, renders glory to Our Lord, as opposed to … John Edwards.I should think that a Catholic would rather want to say " I am a member of the "Holy Family"model of feminity that advocates for the sanctity and grace and equality of women as per the teachings of Christ. Or at least some similar descriptor. A descriptor that, renders glory to Our Lord, as opposed to …Gloria Stienem.
And, of course, you ignore the fact that I effectively countered your point elsewhere -
Once again - if you must resort to intellectual dishonesty to win the argument, you haven’t actually won the argument.
Why would any Catholic wish to be even remotely connected to such a, well, shall we say dubious, at best, categorization.Why would any Catholic wish to be even remotely connected to such a, well, shall we say dubious, at best, organization**
I do understand however, why Atheists call themselves Feminists.
Are you seriously saying men should hesitate to call themselves men? Being a man is something to be ashamed of these days?
Why?I must I say, am always fascinated when a Catholic refers to themselves as a Feminist.
There are non atheist based pro woman groups that **far **more represent the Christian context rather than the those termed as ‘Feminist’ by todays’ standards, I should think.
It is hard for me to* not* associate* A*bortion and Planned Parenthood with the likes of today’s such ‘Feminist’ Icons as Margaret Sanger, Sebellius and Pelosi. And yes I say ‘Feminism’ as defined by Modern Day Feminists, is, fundamentally entwined with Atheism just as it is fundamentally entwined with Planned Parenthood. I personally equate Atheism with Planned Parenthood. How can one not? It is certainly not a Christian ideal, now is it?
I do realize that perhaps many may take umbrage with what I just said. Many will say such things like " I just admire the ‘equal pay for equal work’ aspects of feminism, that is why I call myself a Feminist.
Interesting it is, how Feminism can be such an amorphous entity isn’t it? A flex elect philosophical system that adapts itself to any crowd with whom one may be speaking.
I should think that a Catholic would rather want to say " I am a member of the "Holy Family"model of feminity that advocates for the sanctity and grace and equality of women as per the teachings of Christ. Or at least some similar descriptor. A descriptor that, renders glory to Our Lord, as opposed to …Gloria Stienem.
And of course there is the term Feminism itself, as I have posted elsewhere, that by it’s very definition is exclusionary in regard to it’s very title. At no juncture in the term Feminsim, do I see the male being advocated for as well. Ergo methinks that Feminism as defined today, is just another self interest serving lobbying group that says me, me me. If not so, then why not, instead of Feminist, be called We-ist or Us - ist?
Why would any Catholic wish to be even remotely connected to such a, well, shall we say dubious, at best, organization**
I do understand however, why Atheists call themselves Feminists.
For a bit of context.
Oh I see. Why is this In Spiration guy still on CAF?
Regardless of its roots, the unqualified term “feminist” has become virtually synonymous with being “pro-choice” in mainstream society. I do understand how authentic Catholic women would like to “reclaim” the word, but unless the statement is qualifed by a statement denoting otherwise, generally people won’t understand that one means a feminist in the JPII sense of being pro-woman, pro-life. Indeed, any mainstream feminist will tell you that the very fact that you believe in a fetus’ right-to-life “trumping” a woman’s right-to-choose means that you are certainly not a feminist, and are, in fact, most likely an internalized misogynist!I must I say, am always fascinated when a Catholic refers to themselves as a man.
There are non abuse-based categorizations that far more represent the *Christian context *rather than those termed as ‘men’ by today’s standards, I should think.
(You DO realize, don’t you, that the original feminists who claimed the label were Christian and pro-life? If you need to resort to intellectual dishonesty to win the argument, you haven’t won the argument at all.)
It is hard for me to not associate abuse and serial infidelity with the likes of modern men, who create the need for feminism to secure the defense of women. And yes I say ‘men’ as defined by Modern Day Masculinity, is, fundamentally, entwined with abuse and serial infidelity just as it is fundamentally entwined with a “Might makes right, women must submit” family management philosophy. I personally equate abuse with Masculinity. How can one not? It is certainly not a Christian ideal, now is it?
I do realize that perhaps many may take umbrage with what I just said. Many will say such things like “I just admire the ideal of traditional marriage where men love and protect their wives, that is why I call myself a Man.”
Interesting it is, how Masculinity can be such an amorphous entity isn’t it? A flex elect philosophical system that adapts itself to any crowd with whom one may be speaking.
I should think that a Catholic would rather want to say "I am a member of the “Holy Family” model of masculinity that advocates for the sanctity and grace and equality of spouses as per the teachings of Christ. Or at least some similar descriptor. A descriptor that, renders glory to Our Lord, as opposed to … John Edwards.
(Except for the fact that such a descriptor would never work in casual conversation - too ungainly. Before arguing further on the language front, please learn some basic principles of how language develops, how it is used, what words signify, and also what they don’t signify.)
And, of course, you ignore the fact that I effectively countered your point elsewhere -
Once again - if you must resort to intellectual dishonesty to win the argument, you haven’t actually won the argument.
Why would any Catholic wish to be even remotely connected to such a, well, shall we say dubious, at best, categorization.
I do understand, however, why Abusers call themselves men.
Men should hesitate, it is after all a New World. Women are smarter than men, If women ruled the world there would be no wars. Being a man is shameful.
It is not Catholic doctrine that the wife should submit to her husband. It does not say so in the CCC as explained by its Compendium. JPII spoke of mutual submission.
Rather a broad and sweeping generalization -yes?
Indeed? How about the ‘valuable tradition’ of treating men like Army Ants to fight wars? Please! Do not give me the non plausible stuff about how women do not inflict war! What about Maggie Thatcher and the Falklands?Valuable traditions like arranged marriages
I can have fun with all of these.I must I say, am always fascinated when a Catholic refers to themselves as a man.
There are non abuse-based categorizations that far more represent the *Christian context *rather than those termed as ‘men’ by today’s standards, I should think.
(You DO realize, don’t you, that the original feminists who claimed the label were Christian and pro-life? If you need to resort to intellectual dishonesty to win the argument, you haven’t won the argument at all.)
It is hard for me to not associate abuse and serial infidelity with the likes of modern men, who create the need for feminism to secure the defense of women. And yes I say ‘men’ as defined by Modern Day Masculinity, is, fundamentally, entwined with abuse and serial infidelity just as it is fundamentally entwined with a “Might makes right, women must submit” family management philosophy. I personally equate abuse with Masculinity. How can one not? It is certainly not a Christian ideal, now is it?
I do realize that perhaps many may take umbrage with what I just said. Many will say such things like “I just admire the ideal of traditional marriage where men love and protect their wives, that is why I call myself a Man.”
Interesting it is, how Masculinity can be such an amorphous entity isn’t it? A flex elect philosophical system that adapts itself to any crowd with whom one may be speaking.
I should think that a Catholic would rather want to say "I am a member of the “Holy Family” model of masculinity that advocates for the sanctity and grace and equality of spouses as per the teachings of Christ. Or at least some similar descriptor. A descriptor that, renders glory to Our Lord, as opposed to … John Edwards.
(Except for the fact that such a descriptor would never work in casual conversation - too ungainly. Before arguing further on the language front, please learn some basic principles of how language develops, how it is used, what words signify, and also what they don’t signify.)
And, of course, you ignore the fact that I effectively countered your point elsewhere -
Once again - if you must resort to intellectual dishonesty to win the argument, you haven’t actually won the argument.
Why would any Catholic wish to be even remotely connected to such a, well, shall we say dubious, at best, categorization.
I do understand, however, why Abusers call themselves men.
Thanks for that. Perhaps some of those that need to will actually read it!
