"i Need Feminism Because..." Cambridge University Students Sha

[beatitude]

"Some very fine men have violent tempers. But if you could understand what he suffers and why, you would be more sympathetic. He doesn't become angry with you without reason. You may have hurt his pride, or trampled on his freedom, or stolen from him his right to rule his own children. Whatever the reason, he is provoked at you and it is a very frustrating feeling."

 

Oh hai, domestic violence.

 

Please tell me that this is not a Christian book. Pride was a sin, last I checked. And so is getting violent with your wife.

 

On a more humorous note, 'in danger of acquiring masculine efficiency' is going somewhere on my office wall.

[ploomf]

It was written by a Mormon but I know a lot of Southern Baptist and other conservative protestant women who love it too.

[CrossCuT]

Personally, I didn't spend 7 years in higher education to do nothing with my degrees. Because surprise! I WANT to do something with them.

 

Personal fulfillment :)

 

 

Want to know what makes it more ironic? Men are the ones fertile 24/7. I don't get why these women aren't demanding that men figure out some kind of birth control for their reproductive system.

Even though men are always fertile,they never get pregnant. So if something goes wrong they technically have nothing to use vs the women who will get pregnant. The outcome is undesired so instead of relying on the men to take initiative on this front the women have taken it upon themselves to ensure their own "safety" from the pregnancy abomination.

[Basilisa Marie]

Then much to what would have been my despair four years ago (And what still would be my family's despair since they don't understand feminism), I hereby declare myself a feminist.

 

Also, one of the signs the students made caught my attention. It was the one relating to Harry Potter, and how J.K. Rowling was told to use "J.K." and not "Joanne" because they didn't think people would buy it. To be fair, that may not have been entirely sexist. Joanne just isn't a very elegant and sophisticated name. I would have no qualms with buying a book from a Katherine Rowling, but you just don't expect a girl with a name like Joanne to be good at writing books.

 

Then again, maybe I'm just weird and this is yet another example of my weirdness. :P

 

Welcome to the dark side, would you like some cookies?  :hehe2: 

She was told to use initials because her publisher didn't think boys would want to read a book written by a woman...even though it had an obvious male protagonist.   I think "Katherine" is actually her grandmother's name or something. Her real name is Joanne Rowling.  

 

It has to do with how we tell girls it's okay to be a tomboy, but it's insulting for boys to be associated with anything girly.  That basically tells us that it's bad to be a girl, and it's good to be a boy. 

[beatitude]

Personal fulfillment :)

 

Even though men are always fertile,they never get pregnant. So if something goes wrong they technically have nothing to use vs the women who will get pregnant. The outcome is undesired so instead of relying on the men to take initiative on this front the women have taken it upon themselves to ensure their own "safety" from the pregnancy abomination.

 

Contraception was invented by male doctors in a male-dominated medical field, so it was hardly women 'taking it upon themselves', For some feminists (especially radical feminists) it is not an unqualified good, and I know very few feminists who would call pregnancy an 'abomination'. (In fact, I don't think I know any, and I've met hundreds.) This unfair cariacaturing of feminist women makes me very sad at times.

[PhuturePriest]

Welcome to the dark side, would you like some cookies?  :hehe2: 

She was told to use initials because her publisher didn't think boys would want to read a book written by a woman...even though it had an obvious male protagonist.   I think "Katherine" is actually her grandmother's name or something. Her real name is Joanne Rowling.  

 

It has to do with how we tell girls it's okay to be a tomboy, but it's insulting for boys to be associated with anything girly.  That basically tells us that it's bad to be a girl, and it's good to be a boy. 

 

If they are chocolate chip and soft, then yes. But if they are hard or are not chocolate chip, don't bother. ;)

 

I honestly kept forgetting a woman wrote it as I read it. Those sorts of stories are usually written by men, and her writing struck me as somewhat masculine in style. But if makes no difference to me if the author is a man or woman. I just finished reading Anne of Green Gables today, for goodness' sake. :P

 

And I've actually never thought about that. My first thoughts are that girls and boys should embrace femininity and masculinity, but we have to make a distinction on what is truly masculine and truly feminine. I don't think things like running outside barefoot and playing in the mud is masculine, but many do, and they label girls that want to do that as "tomboys". I honestly don't get why. I did all sorts of activities from playing with guns to playing with Barbies with my cousins. I turned out just fine.

[CrossCuT]

Contraception was invented by male doctors in a male-dominated medical field, so it was hardly women 'taking it upon themselves', For some feminists (especially radical feminists) it is not an unqualified good, and I know very few feminists who would call pregnancy an 'abomination'. (In fact, I don't think I know any, and I've met hundreds.) This unfair cariacaturing of feminist women makes me very sad at times.

 

I suppose I should have clarified that I wasn't intending to be that literal. More in an ideal sense because as I said...men dont get pregnant. :|

 

I am also sorry if "abomination" offended you; Ill admit to it being an over-embellishment but to imply that pregnancy and the fight surrounding a womens body isnt a main battle for modern feminism is silly. Where have you been?

Contraception is worshiped and even been considered "liberation" by some pro-contraception feminists.

[Socrates]

Ok I have a pretty big problem with a lot of this. 

 

 

1. So you're saying that a major incentive for women to stay with their husbands is so that they can be provided for?  You make it sound like financial reasons are the biggest reason why women cling to their husbands.  That reduces women to gold-diggers who may or may not have some semblance of mild affection for their men.  Last time I checked, that's not how my parents' marriage, or any other strong marriage in my community works, and all the examples I'm thinking of have wives who are homemakers. Financial reasons ARE a major cause for divorce, but it's not that women are suddenly not completely dependent on their husbands for survival.  It's not talking about money beforehand, not making sound financial decisions with their money, or gross financial style incompatibility (one is a huge spender, the other is a saver, and they don't communicate).  
 

2. So let's say a husband turns abusive. A woman who is completely dependent on her husband will have a much harder time leaving that situation, let alone finding a job after she does leave him, because she's planned on being a stay at home mom her whole life and has no way of figuring out how to support herself. 

3. Obeying her husband only works if her husband does HIS job of taking her needs and desires into account. There's no way that a woman can even hope to find spiritual peace and grace if she has no say in her marriage or family.  This kind of mindset builds the foundation for enabling wives, abused wives, and/or spiritual unfulfilled wives, unless you base it on the contingency that a man is doing a good job at his end of the deal first.  A much better approach would be mutual submission in Christ, which is also talked about in the Bible. 

 

 

4. Assuming that women need men to protect them also assumes that men are inherently violent, powerful, evil beings.  The only way a woman needs protecting from men is if men abuse their power over women...which, last time I checked, is the exact definition of patriarchy that feminists use. It's not only misogynistic, but misandrist, to think that women need protection from men.  It doesn't even address the real problem of men abusing their power.  It's complacent with the status quo.  Instead, we should be challenging men to not abuse their power.  

 

 

5. Most of the time, when women work outside the home, it's not for selfish reasons.  It's because they can't afford to raise a family on a single income.  Again, this contradicts your first premise, that women work outside the home primarily to seek personal fulfillment. 

 

 

6. Feminists do not see rape culture and modesty as two different things.  Asking a rape victim "What were you wearing?" implies that a victim's clothes have something to do with why she was raped.  This victim-blaming only serves to obscure the only responsible party in a rape - the rapist.  Feminists actually care a lot about a woman's right to wear clothes that make her feel dignified...which is the definition of modesty.  There's actually a movement in support of Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab.  

 

First, I’ll have to say that I agree with everything Photosynthesis has said, both in her original post and in her response to yours.

 

 

1, 2 and 5:  While unfortunately, it’s not always a feasible option, I definitely agree that the ideal situation for the raising of children is for the mother to stay home and take care of the children, while the man is the breadwinner.  It’s best that young children have a mother to take care of them full time.

 

Economic and other issues can necessitate mothers working.  (Currently, my wife is working, as I need to find a better job, but this is a situation we’re working to change – it’s definitely not ideal.) 

The best thing is for children to be raised at home by their own mothers, which has become increasingly rare as more mothers work full time.

 

No, feminism is not the sole cause for this problem, but  feminist ideology has definitely contributed to this problem by pushing women to seek career over family, and even actively attacking and disparaging women who choose to stay home to raise their children.

It’s also contributed to more women, by putting career first, not getting married, or waiting until it is too late, to their own regret.

 

With feminist ideology tending to regard men as superfluous to women's lives, it has also contributed to the decline of marriage, and more and more women choosing to have children without marriage, or a committed father staying around.  Fatherlessness and the increase in single motherhood is also the cause of many of the problems of modern society.   The flip side of feminist ideology is that men are no longer encouraged to take responsibility and commit and be breadwinners to the extent that they were in the past.

 

This has also contributed to the growth of government to take on roles in women's lives traditionally belonging to husbands (note Obama's infamous 2012 "Julia" campaign aimed at women).

 

No, women should not be gold-diggers, but that's not the same thing as the ideal of the man as breadwinner.

 

 

3)  The man has always traditionally been the head of the household, and the Church upholds this ideal.  This, of course, is explicitly stated by St. Paul in Colossians, who tells wives to be submissive to their husbands.  Of course, the other part of the bargain is that men love their wives as themselves.  This does not give men a license to be abusive tyrants, nor does it mean a woman has to put up with a genuinely abusive husband.  If you have a problem with this, take it up with the Holy Spirit, Who inspired the canonical letters of St. Paul the Apostle.

 

 

4)  I’m afraid I must take particular objection to this one.  The idea of men protecting their wives (and women in general) is a good and noble one, and is demeaning to neither women nor men.  

 

It’s a simple biological truth that men in general tend to be physically stronger than women in this respect.  And unfortunately, the truth is that there are in fact evil and violent men out there.  (That fact does not, of course, imply that all or most men are violent or evil.)  It is natural and good that men should be willing and prepared to do what they can to protect their wives, should the need arise.  Nor is there anything wrong with women looking to their men for protection.  (My wife specifically said she wanted a man willing to protect her, and she’s no helpless weakling.)

 

Men being ready and willing to protect their women no more implies that men are all violent, evil thugs than training with a firearm or in other means of self-defense implies that everyone is violent or evil.

 

Attacking the entirely good and natural ideal of men as protectors of women is quite simply wrong.

 

 

6)  Yes, it is wrong for women to be blamed for rape, and Photo agrees on that.  However, modesty in dress remains a good in itself, and should be encouraged by Christians.  That’s the only point she was making, unpopular as it may be.  The Church has always stressed the importance of modesty in dress as well as behavior, and Catholics would do well to support this, rather than to attack the whole concept of modesty in dress..

 

 

In conclusion, I think feminist ideology has been harmful to society insofar as it has encouraged women to put career ahead of motherhood and family, devalued the role of men as providers and as protectors of women, and devalued the virtue of modesty.

[Socrates]

4. Right, and I don't have a problem with men having power that women don't...it's pretty obvious from the way society runs that they do. But it still doesn't change the fact that women don't need "protection" from men if men don't abuse their power.  That should be the focus of the "protection" discussion, not how we can protect women from men.  

 

Of course, men shouldn't abuse their power or physical strength, and should definitely be taught not to do so.

 

However, it does not follow that it is wrong for men to want to defend women from those who would abuse their power, or that it is wrong for women to want their men to protect them from harm.

 

You set up a false dichotomy.  If no men abused their power, or acted in aggression towards women, of course they would not need to be protected.

But in our real, fallen world, unfortunately, there will always be men who will act in evil aggression towards women, and it is right for men to want to defend them against such aggressors.

 

This is like saying it's wrong to own arms or learn self-defense because if nobody acted wrongly, there'd be no need for self-defense (well, actually, I've heard such asinine arguments, but nvm).  Or saying that there should be no cops because if people committed no crimes, there'd be no need for law enforcement.  (Ok, you get the idea - don't want to turn this into yet another gun control or anarchy debate.)

 

We should teach against unjust aggression, but also be prepared to defend against aggression, which unfortunately do occur.

 

I think it's definitely better for boys and men to be taught to protect and defend women, rather than teach them an attitude of everyone fend for themselves.

The attack on chivalry is part of the decline of our civilization.

[homeschoolmom]

 

Also, one of the signs the students made caught my attention. It was the one relating to Harry Potter, and how J.K. Rowling was told to use "J.K." and not "Joanne" because they didn't think people would buy it. To be fair, that may not have been entirely sexist. Joanne just isn't a very elegant and sophisticated name. I would have no qualms with buying a book from a Katherine Rowling, but you just don't expect a girl with a name like Joanne to be good at writing books.

 

 

I'm sorry, but what the heck?? Who decides on the merits of a book based on the author's name? And what's wrong with Joanne?

[CrossCuT]

ROFL

[beatitude]

I suppose I should have clarified that I wasn't intending to be that literal. More in an ideal sense because as I said...men dont get pregnant. :|

 

I am also sorry if "abomination" offended you; Ill admit to it being an over-embellishment but to imply that pregnancy and the fight surrounding a womens body isnt a main battle for modern feminism is silly. Where have you been?

Contraception is worshiped and even been considered "liberation" by some pro-contraception feminists.

 

I've been studying feminism and hanging out with a bunch of radical feminists inspired by the women of the second-wave movement.

 

The radical feminist community is staunchly pro-breastfeeding and pro-midwifery. Motherhood is celebrated, but not in any sexist way - there is no shaming of childless women, or insinuations that a woman has to give birth to find fulfillment, or anything like that. And radical feminists, while they believe there is a need for contraception in society as it stands currently, don't treat it as liberation but rather as a way for men to secure sexual access to women in an exploitative way. There are several radical feminist critiques out there on contraception. Even many liberal feminists wouldn't view it as 'liberation', despite being a lot more positive about contraception generally. There seems to be a tendency amongst some people to label any woman who talks enthusiastically about birth control as a feminist, even if her overall politics are at odds with key aspects of feminist thinking. There are frictions between Catholicism and ideas carried by certain streams of feminist thought, but these are not necessarily the frictions that people would initially imagine or expect.

Edited June 20, 2013 by beatitude

[PhuturePriest]

I'm sorry, but what the heck?? Who decides on the merits of a book based on the author's name? And what's wrong with Joanne?

 

I wasn't being serious. I would just more naturally read from a Katherine rather than a Joanne, because I don't like the name Joanne. I don't find it very elegant or feminine. But you have to remember I'm one of the pickiest people about names you'll ever meet. I have no clue how I will ever name my children, because I like so few names.

[Basilisa Marie]

Of course, men shouldn't abuse their power or physical strength, and should definitely be taught not to do so.

 

However, it does not follow that it is wrong for men to want to defend women from those who would abuse their power, or that it is wrong for women to want their men to protect them from harm.

 

You set up a false dichotomy.  If no men abused their power, or acted in aggression towards women, of course they would not need to be protected.

But in our real, fallen world, unfortunately, there will always be men who will act in evil aggression towards women, and it is right for men to want to defend them against such aggressors.

 

This is like saying it's wrong to own arms or learn self-defense because if nobody acted wrongly, there'd be no need for self-defense (well, actually, I've heard such asinine arguments, but nvm).  Or saying that there should be no cops because if people committed no crimes, there'd be no need for law enforcement.  (Ok, you get the idea - don't want to turn this into yet another gun control or anarchy debate.)

 

We should teach against unjust aggression, but also be prepared to defend against aggression, which unfortunately do occur.

 

I think it's definitely better for boys and men to be taught to protect and defend women, rather than teach them an attitude of everyone fend for themselves.

The attack on chivalry is part of the decline of our civilization.

 

You're also setting up a false dichotomy - it's not that either men defend women or everyone fends for themselves.  People need to protect each other, regardless of gender.  My problem with the whole "protection" idea is that it almost always stops there.  I hardly ever hear people who talk about protecting women also talk about holding men accountable for their actions.  I also almost always hear people who talk about protection talk about women as if they are beautiful, perfect, pillars of virtue, frail and weak.   And I'm not that kind of woman, and I don't think it makes me less feminine.  It seems to me that men have come up with this idea of what "real" femininity is, and feel good about protecting it.  It's not bad that men feel good about protecting women, but if they do it they have to treat us like persons, not dolls.  

I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea of men protecting women, in itself. I'm not stupid - the reality is that I'm less likely to get harassed or attacked if I'm walking home with my boyfriend than if I'm alone.  My problem lies with all the stuff that usually surrounds the "protection" philosophy, or the way it gets put into practice.  

[KnightofChrist]

The only "ism" that anyone needs is Catholicism. Most of the good reasons I've seen for believing in a need for Feminism can be found perfected in Catholicism.