You can't be both a Catholic and a Feminist

  • Thread starter Thread starter kev7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
ncjohn:
There are two answers that spring immediately to my mind. The first is to clear up the misconception of what “feminism” is and to show that true feminism is in line with Catholic teaching, as you note. Just because some feminists have added other baggage to their definition does not change its inherent meaning. I guess it kind of becomes like the “Taking back the Rainbow” concept that many here have adopted.

I think the second–and ladies please correct me here if I misstate–is that because true feminism was not practiced for so long and women were not treated with equal dignity, women had to join together-- just as workers did in the labor movement–to bring attention to and rectify that situation.

Ideally, we’ll get to a point over time where dignity is afforded to all and these labels and distinctions won’t be even useful, much less necessary.

Peace,

p.s. Come and have some cake fix, it’s really good!
Thos are reasonable arguments, but on a very visceral level adopting the term seems to some to be analgous to those struggling with same sex attraction and remaining chaste calling themselves “gay”. Why do oneself a disservice, unless one agrees with the political movement behind the term or one is attempting to *retake *the term and redefine it for a more noble end?
 
40.png
fix:
Thos are reasonable arguments, but on a very visceral level adopting the term seems to some to be analgous to those struggling with same sex attraction and remaining chaste calling themselves “gay”. Why do oneself a disservice, unless one agrees with the political movement behind the term or one is attempting to *retake *the term and redefine it for a more noble end?
That’s a good point fix, and I’m not sure I really know why we feel a need to attach any label to ourselves. My best friend is actually in exactly the boat you note above, and does choose to denote himself as gay despite the pain that brings upon him. I can’t say for sure but I think it is because it is the broad category he falls into, and he is willing to take the time to explain where in that spectrum he falls. Part of it is probably exactly what you note–an attempt to take back the term for the “noble end.” I personally feel that is what I am doing here with the feminist term, though I obviously cannot speak for anyone else.

It’s a very dangerous tendency to start stereotyping and lumping subgroups into a larger category, and we probably need to be reminded from time to time that it doesn’t work very well.

Peace,
 
40.png
fix:
…Why do oneself a disservice, unless one agrees with the political movement behind the term or one is attempting to *retake *the term and redefine it for a more noble end?
Many, who have no need to retake their philosophy and redefine it, because they have consistently held it toward a noble end, do not see this as a disservice toward themselves. They know what true feminism is, they know it is completely compatible with true Catholicism, and while they appreciate others’ concern, they know in their own cases that said concern is entirely misplaced.
 
Joseph Bilodeau:
Many, who have no need to retake their philosophy and redefine it, because they have consistently held it toward a noble end, do not see this as a disservice toward themselves. They know what true feminism is, they know it is completely compatible with true Catholicism, and while they appreciate others’ concern, they know in their own cases that said concern is entirely misplaced.
I really am trying not to take a side in this debate, but your post really strikes me as odd. The term feminist really brings to mind certain ideas in most folks minds. Those ideas are not mostly good ideas. If one wants to recapture the term for a better end, then I guess that is fine, but to claim it has always had a good reputation in the last four decades seems disingenuous.
 
40.png
fix:
I really am trying not to take a side in this debate, but your post really strikes me as odd. The term feminist really brings to mind certain ideas in most folks minds. Those ideas are not mostly good ideas. If one wants to recapture the term for a better end, then I guess that is fine, but to claim it has always had a good reputation in the last four decades seems disingenuous.
Yeah, the early feminists were OK with the term abortion. That wasn’t winning the public over so they changed it to pro-choice, and boy did we fall for it. We changed it back to pro-death and they don’t like it at all.
 
40.png
fix:
I really am trying not to take a side in this debate, but your post really strikes me as odd. The term feminist really brings to mind certain ideas in most folks minds. Those ideas are not mostly good ideas. If one wants to recapture the term for a better end, then I guess that is fine, but to claim it has always had a good reputation in the last four decades seems disingenuous.
Quite understandable. Among certain anti-Catholic groups the term Catholic brings to mind ideas which are mostly not good. But this is not about folks who have warped ideas either about Catholicism or Feminism. This is about people who, as has been previously been explained, understand and agree with authentic Catholicism and authentic Feminism. People like Pope John Paul II.

The fact that some people have been using both terms wrongly for any amount of time past should not deter us from using both these terms rightly now.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Yeah, the early feminists were OK with the term abortion. That wasn’t winning the public over so they changed it to pro-choice, and boy did we fall for it. We changed it back to pro-death and they don’t like it at all.
Which early Feminists? Certainly not these:
Susan B. Anthony

In her publication The Revolution, was written:

“Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!”

Abortion was referred to as “child murder.”
The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

“We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil…It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed.”
The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

“All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy.”
The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

She classified abortion as a form of “infanticide.” The Revolution, 1(5):1, February 5, 1868

“When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.”
Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe’s diary at Harvard University Library

“There must be a remedy even for such a crying evil as this. But where shall it be found, at least where begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?”
The Revolution, 1(10):146-7 March 12, 1868

Emma Goldman

“The custom of procuring abortions has reached such appalling proportions in America as to be beyond belief…So great is the misery of the working classes that seventeen abortions are committed in every one hundred pregnancies.”
Mother Earth, 1911

Mattie Brinkerhoff

“When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society - so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged.”
The Revolution, 4(9):138-9 September 2, 1869

Victoria Woodhull

The first female presidential candidate was a strong opponent of abortion.

“The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus.”
Woodhull’s and Claffin’s Weekly 2(6):4 December 24, 1870

“Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth.”
Wheeling, West Virginia Evening Standard, November 17, 1875

Sarah Norton

“Child murderers practice their profession without let or hindrance, and open infant butcheries unquestioned…Is there no remedy for all this ante-natal child murder?..Perhaps there will come a time when…an unmarried mother will not be despised because of her motherhood…and when the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with.”
Woodhull’s and Claffin’s Weekly, November 19, 1870

Mary Wollstonecraft

As early as 1792, Mary Wollstonecraft wrote “A Vindication of the Rights of Women,” which Susan B. Anthony admired enough to serialize in The Revolution. After decrying, in scathing 18th century terms, the sexual exploitation of women, she said:
“Women becoming, consequently, weaker…than they ought to be…have not sufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother; and sacrificing to lasciviousness the parental affection…either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast if off when born. Nature in every thing demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity.”

Matilda Gage

“[This] subject lies deeper down in woman’s wrongs than any other…I hesitate not to assert that most of [the responsibility for] this crime lies at the door of the male sex.”
The Revolution, 1(14):215-6 April 9, 1868

Alice Paul

The author of the original Equal Rights Amendment (1923) opposed the later trend of linking the E.R.A. with abortion. A colleague recalls her saying:
“Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”
 
Joseph Bilodeau:
Which early Feminists? Certainly not these:
Susan Anthony was pro-life. I am referring to the feminists of the 60’s to today.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Susan Anthony was pro-life. I am referring to the feminists of the 60’s to today.
No, you are only refering to some of the feminists of the 60’s to today. Proponents of authentic feminism have no obligation to abdicate their identification just because undesirable neighbors, latecomers at that, have encroached.
 
Joseph Bilodeau:
No, you are only refering to some of the feminists of the 60’s to today. Proponents of authentic feminism have no obligation to abdicate their identification just because undesirable neighbors, latecomers at that, have encroached.
Yes, but these feminists seized on the good name and took it to an evil purpose.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Yes, but these feminists seized on the good name and took it to an evil purpose.
So what? We’re supposed to get scared of them and run away?

As you have just said, it is a good name.
 
40.png
buffalo:
You are forgetting the part about society forcing choices on women that are contrary to the family, and that society should be looking for ways to help mothers be at home with their children, instead of having to make the choice to work.
I actually want those choices. I am a stay at home mom and my husband supports me 100%. But what if something should happen to my husband and I was left to raise my children alone? I would really like to be assured that I won’t have to give my measurements before I take a job as a secretary, or that I will be paid the same amount with benefits that a man in my same employment position is. True, some women have different ideas than me about what constitutes equality. That doesn’t keep me from appreciating what progress has been made, nor does it keep me from trying to fix what is not right.
 
Michael Welter:
First of all, none of us get what we deserve. We are a sinful people, and we deserve to burn in hell for eternity. Thanks be to God, that we don’t get what we deserve.

Second, men and women are not the same. If that’s what you mean, then I agree. However, from a political, social, and economic point of view, they are equal. Men and women deserve to be treated with equal dignity. That’s political equality. Men are not above or below women socially; they are equal. And they both should be paid the same for equal work; that’s economic equality. And that is in line with Catholic teaching.
Men and women are treated with the same dignity, that is because they both deserve the same dignity cause they are human. Men are not above or below women socially, but they are not equal. I don’t see that anyone is paid for equal work., I mean if you think there should be an income tax gradually increased for those that make more. Thats not equal pay for the same work, but many would say thats more equitable.

Trying to make things equal is very close to being a good thing, but it hurts those that need more care. It focuses attention on the wrong problems. Equity and fairness is better.
 
40.png
migurl:
I think that the only reason the Pope used that phrase was because it was the only way to get the message across. I mean, the term feminism means something pretty universal, so he used it in order to hit that point, just like I use certain words and stories when teaching my little sisters math, science and religion, the term may not be exactly right or the analogy may be flawed, but because i use terms they understand and recognize they get the point I am trying to make. the only real feminism that exists is what society creates, the Catholic church does not NEED the term because within its teachings are all the rights, and roles a woman could want. We don’t need a worldly term to describe what is already given to us by Christ and His church. The word is something the world came up with to describe the general rights, liberties and roles of women in the world, not the church.
I would agree with this. In todays world anyone who says anything against feminism is labeled a male pig of some kind. This thread is a good example of that.
 
40.png
beckyann2597:
Kev,
I am surprised that you have not responded to my article link. Here is a point of interest for discussion. In paragraph 99 of Evangelium Vitae (“The Gospel of Life”), written by Pope JP2 it says,
“In transforming culture so that it supports life, women occupy a place in thought and action which is unique and decisive. It depends on them to **promote a ‘new feminism’ ** which rejects the temptation of imitating models of ‘male domination’ in order to acknowledge and affirm the true genius of women in every aspect of the life of society and overcome all discrimination, violence and exploitation.”

So I ask you, how can I promote a ‘new feminism’ if I can’t call myself a feminist. If it was good enough for Pope Jon Paul II, then its good enough for me. But according to you I guess even the Pope wasn’t Catholic since he believed in feminism. The kind of feminism I promote.
You can promote this new feminism by not associating yourself with existing feminism and promote the teachings of the catholic church.

The argument I have is that pope John Paul II defends and protects women from the stand point of a Catholic and not as a feminist. He is trying to make it clear that there needs to be a “new feminist:” concept. The one that is currently in existance isn’t one that he supports as a whole.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Nobody is saying that the Catholic Church needs the term. After all, Mother Teresa didn’t.

kev7 is trying to claim that any Catholic who uses the term “feminist” is not being faithful to what the Church teaches. Thus, kev7 has accused Pope John Paul II of not being faithful to what the Church teaches.

To me, this is enough to conclusively prove that kev7’s arguments are completely bogus, and that they reflect an anti-feminism attitude stronger than, and inconsistent with, what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
What I am trying to claim is the any catholic that supports an organization that in part opposes the catholic church isn’t being faithfull.

John Paul II did not support the orgainization of feminism. He was simply trying to make the point that as a catholic he supports and protects women and in doing so he can be considered to be a feminist. He was trying to make the point so the feminists that he supports “some” of their views.

The problem here is that there are many feminists who would never even consider John Paul II to be a member of their ranks.
After all he does not support the mock ordination of women. The fast majority of feminsts have a hard time with the church because it does not allow women to be priests.
 
40.png
kev7:
What I am trying to claim is the any catholic that supports an organization that in part opposes the catholic church isn’t being faithfull. John Paul II did not support the orgainization of feminism.
Kev7,
There is no one “Feminist organization”. THATS what we are saying. Have you ever googled feminists? There are so many different groups that all believe in ONE single thing, but not everything. They all believe that women should be equal in both dignity and respect as men. There are tons of different organizations that say they are feminists and say that being a feminists is different than everything that I believe. Its like saying you are Christian. I won’t say that a friend that belongs to the non-denom church down the street is not Christian, would I? No, They are! But are they the same kind of Christian that I am? NO!
You’re right, JP2 didn’t “support the organization of feminism” because ther isn’t an organization. It is an ideology that ANYONE can support. It isn’t a religion. Its not like Scientology that is another religion that conflicts with Catholisism.
JP2 was not supportind a specific feminist organization, but he was supporting the idea that women should the equal rights and dignity that men have. He was supporting REAL FEMINISM (like the beliefs of feminist for life, which IS an organization, BTW)
Please understand what we are saying, Please open your mind to what the Late Great Holy Father was talking about!
 
40.png
ncjohn:
Hey Kev7,
The second question addresses your list. Is there any item on your list that is a requirement for one to believe to be a “feminist?”
I would submit that like every other group in the world, feminists are not homogeneous and have different constituencies that hold different things to be important. Within the Catholic church we are not homogeneous–we have people who prefer Latin or vernacular; kneeling or standing for communion; receiving in the hand or on the tongue; etc. These things do not affect our *core beliefs * or make us more or less Catholic. Do any of the items on your list fall into the *core belief * category to be a feminist? I would strongly suggest that they don’t, and those on this thread who proclaim themselves to “be” feminists–myself included–would say they do not. I think that the only “required belief” to be a feminist is that you believe in the inherent equality in dignity of women. Yes, there are feminists that are pro-choice, believe that women should be priests, or don’t accept papal infallibility. But none of those are core beliefs of feminism. I believe if you ask, all feminists will agree on the equality issue; I doubt that you will find any other issue that all feminists will agree on, which leads to a conclusion that there are no other issues that “define” a feminist.
I never said that there was a requirement for feminism. I think that feminism is transient and relative to a person There is a core concept that supports women that makes it very attractive and Nobel. I don’t have a problem with that and I don’t think the Pope does either. The problem is that these core fundamentals are used to promote it to the masses and make it attractive.

Feminism or even true feminism does not have limits and that is the danger of it and that is what I am against.

I still think that my bucket example explains my viewpoint on the whole subject. Sure, there are some good apples in that bucket (some that even the pope agrees with) but there is no question that there are some dangerous ones.
 
40.png
beckyann2597:
Kev7,
There is no one “Feminist organization”. THATS what we are saying. Have you ever googled feminists? There are so many different groups that all believe in ONE single thing, but not everything. They all believe that women should be equal in both dignity and respect as men. There are tons of different organizations that say they are feminists and say that being a feminists is different than everything that I believe. Its like saying you are Christian. I won’t say that a friend that belongs to the non-denom church down the street is not Christian, would I? No, They are! But are they the same kind of Christian that I am? NO!
You’re right, JP2 didn’t “support the organization of feminism” because ther isn’t an organization. It is an ideology that ANYONE can support. It isn’t a religion. Its not like Scientology that is another religion that conflicts with Catholisism.
JP2 was not supportind a specific feminist organization, but he was supporting the idea that women should the equal rights and dignity that men have. He was supporting REAL FEMINISM (like the beliefs of feminist for life, which IS an organization, BTW)
Please understand what we are saying, Please open your mind to what the Late Great Holy Father was talking about!
Who is to say what REAL feminism is? There are already several posts on here that suggest that even the early feminsts are just as bad as the ones today.

I never said that there is just one organization. I never claimed that at all. I said that it is just like paganism. Everyone takes what they want from it and then they use its core fundamentals (which are catholic fundamentals) to defend it regardless of how extreme that person or group of people become. Such are the dangers relativism

I think that before I support feminism. They should create a bunch of denominations and each should have a list of things that it does and does not support. Until such time I can only evaluate its validity based on the fact that is is a relative ideology. You are not required to interpret it in anyway according to any specific doctrine and THAT is what is so disturbing about it.
 
Feminism is a diverse collection of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies, largely motivated by or concerning the experiences of women, especially in terms of their social, political, and economic situation. As a social movement, feminism largely focuses on limiting or eradicating gender inequality and promoting women’s rights, interests, and issues in society.
Within academia, some feminists focus on documenting gender inequality and changes in the social position and representation of women. Others argue that gender, and even sex, are social constructs, and research the construction of gender and sexuality, and develop alternate models for studying social relations.
Go here and read all the different versions of feminism. :rolleyes:

There is NO single definition of it. Ridiculous!

If you are a feminist and you want to make a point. Go to that site and then tell me what kind of feminist you are so that I may understand how your views correlate with that of the catholic church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top