Feminists?

[Galloglasses' Alt]

Lets put it this way, I could propagate assertiveness in male attitudes and self pride in being a man, (lets face it, most males aren't men these days), and a high reverence for the widely arching code of chivalry and call it Chuvanism. It would still give the wrong idea.

[picchick]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1715150' date='Nov 30 2008, 06:31 PM']So an assertive attitude. Right. I can agree with that. But you cannot label that to Feminism itself, the word is a spoiled brand. A largely negative one at that. For example, Chuvanism used to imply the national pride one had in the sense that they believed their nation was superior to all others and now it is associated to a largely negative and unchivalric behaviour of men. Its a spoiled brand. As long as you are calling your ideas 'Feminist' it will give people the wrong impression. But this is getting into word play and semantics again.... vicious bloody cycle.[/quote]


[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1715166' date='Nov 30 2008, 06:40 PM']Lets put it this way, I could propagate assertiveness in male attitudes and self pride in being a man, (lets face it, most males aren't men these days), and a high reverence for the widely arching code of chivalry and call it Chuvanism. It would still give the wrong idea.[/quote]

I agree with what you are saying. Perhaps I am living in my own world were I think that I can change the word through example. Maybe I feel that the word feminism can be changed because it is in the "early" stages of meaning. I don't know. I just feel that I am a feminist in the true sense of the word.

I think that I have stated my side as well as I can. I think if I continue it will turn into the semantic cycle as you say. If I did not state something clear enough for anyone let me know and I wil clarify. Otherwise, I think I am done with this debate.

Thank you all!
Meg

[Galloglasses' Alt]

I got what you were saying, it was the label your where trying to deifne that I felt questionable, not the ideas. The word feminist is definately not in the early stages of meaning, even if its negative connotations does not equate to true 'Feminism'

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1715150' date='Nov 30 2008, 06:31 PM']For example, Chuvanism used to imply the national pride one had in the sense that they believed their nation was superior to all others and now it is associated to a largely negative and unchivalric behaviour of men. Its a spoiled brand.[/quote]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1715166' date='Nov 30 2008, 06:40 PM']Lets put it this way, I could propagate assertiveness in male attitudes and self pride in being a man, (lets face it, most males aren't men these days), and a high reverence for the widely arching code of chivalry and call it Chuvanism. It would still give the wrong idea.[/quote]

Chauvinism started out as a negative thing. The belief that one's [b]nation[/b] is [u]superior[/u] to [i]other nations[/i].
Chauvinism will continue to be a negative thing. The belief that the [b]male gender[/b] is [u]superior[/u] to the [i]female gender[/i].

Feminism started out as a positive thing and the root will always be positive. This is real feminism.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

Believing your nation is superior to other's is not entirely negative. Its basically a stronger form of nationalism. In this sense, all French people are Chuvanists, this makes them annoying but not bad.

Ad the root of Conserativism is good, but the brand is still spoiled, I'm sorry HCF, regardless of the nobility of Feminism's roots, it has meaning has definately been warped. This is why I don't even call you a feminist, I would veiw that as insulting your integrity.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1715166' date='Nov 30 2008, 07:40 PM']Lets put it this way, I could propagate assertiveness in male attitudes and self pride in being a man,[/quote]

I don't think feminism is necessarily assertive. There are times when, in standing up for what one believes, one must be assertive. However, I don't think a person must be assertive in order to be a feminist.

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1715166' date='Nov 30 2008, 07:40 PM'](lets face it, most males aren't men these days)[/quote]

Could you clarify that? I think that's a pretty broad statement. -Katie

[Galloglasses' Alt]

What i meant by what most males aren't being men is that most males these days aren't worthy of being called men, they're still pubescent boys unworthy of the title or worse. What I am saying is that most men these days have little honour. (I count myself among their number in life sometimes)

and the assertiveness issue was primarily aimed at Pichcick's definition Tink.

Edited December 1, 2008 by Galloglasses' Alt

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1715213' date='Nov 30 2008, 08:09 PM']What i meant by what most males aren't being men is that most males these days aren't worthy of being called men, they're still pubescent boys unworthy of the title or worse. What I am saying is that most men these days have little honour. (I count myself among their number in life sometimes)[/quote]

Interesting. Why is it, though that they have little honor? Explain a little more please. -Katie

[Galloglasses' Alt]

We're getting way off thread topic but ok.

What I mean to say is that most males these days are hyper-active pups with mor ebark then bite, who objectify women and general act in a disgraceful manner, (by both word and deed), with little or no respect for higher authority, (in some cases no authority at all), and are more likely to snidely comment on a person behind their backs rather then up front, (regardless of bluntness being a stereotype of men its actually a virtue, the blunt man is often the more honest one), the glorify licentiousness and idolise the reckless infidelity that is common in popular culture. They are not in any way chivalrous and the worst kind are even the antithesis of chivalric t all. This is how I judge alot of males and myself at times, hence why I still don't refer to myself as a man.

Not all males are like this, some of the men here on Phatmass are perfect examples of the honourable silliness of what a man can be, but in general, this sadly tends to be true, popular veiw looks down upon what it means to be a 'man' these days as chuvanistic, draconian, or just 'morally wrong', which is ironic when you consider popular culture these days...

Edited December 1, 2008 by Galloglasses' Alt

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1715226' date='Nov 30 2008, 08:22 PM']We're getting way off thread topic but ok.

What I mean to say is that most males these days are hyper-active pups with mor ebark then bite, who objectify women and general act in a disgraceful manner, (by both word and deed), with little or no respect for higher authority, (in some cases no authority at all), and are more likely to snidely comment on a person behind their backs rather then up front, (regardless of bluntness being a stereotype of men its actually a virtue, the blunt man is often the more honest one), the glorify licentiousness and idolise the reckless infidelity that is common in popular culture. They are not in any way chivalrous and the worst kind are even the antithesis of chivalric t all. This is how I judge alot of males and myself at times, hence why I still don't refer to myself as a man.

Not all males are like this, some of the men here on Phatmass are perfect examples of the honourable silliness of what a man can be, but in general, this sadly tends to be true, popular veiw looks down upon what it means to be a 'man' these days as chuvanistic, draconian, or just 'morally wrong', which is ironic when you consider popular culture these days...[/quote]

I don't really know you but it seems like you're judging yourself by pretty harsh standards. I'm sure you're fine. I guess "what it means to be a man" can mean different things. -Katie

[KnightofChrist]

Most men should be held held to higher standards than they are at today. Namely the standards of Christ.

Edited December 1, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Galloglasses' Alt]

Ditto.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote]I am sorry if this sounds rude, but have you ever thought that maybe women WANT to work? It seems like you hold this very negative view towards working women (not the individuals per se but the idea). It is almost "reverse feminism" (if we equate "feminism" with your personal definition, which comes off as negative).[/quote]

I am aware that women want to work. The idea of not working probably occurs to the minority of young girls as they grow up now. Success, wealth, fashion, and status are seen as superior and idolized in our time. Carrie Bradshaw’s life from Sex and the City is looked upon by the majority of women, it seems, as the ideal life to lead and strive for. They do want to work. It hardly enters their mind to be “simply” a mother and a wife. Is this because of living costs? No. Is this because they have some inward desire to exert themselves for eight hours every day? No. I think many – the majority - are motivated by the spirit of our time which shallowly glorifies strength and success. Kudos to the women who actually want to do something through working to benefit the world, which I find very few considered to the other or it is just a bonus that occurs when they actually work for their true motives.

I have no such negative view toward the idea of working women. I myself work as a secretary part-time for my father’s construction company, and I have seriously thought of in the past pursuing a career in business. I said that the above reason (that of the glorification of strength and success in our time) is why women are pressured into the work force. Unfortunately many women (as well as men) have eaten up the hierarchy of values that self-proclaimed feminists have supported and encouraged in the last sixty/seventy years. Perhaps coerced would be the better way to describe it, rather than pressured. It is undeniable that in secular society anyone who has not achieved success, power, great money, and a high education (or at least one of the proposed) is considered a failure. So these young people, particularly women, have sought after these things because “women are not weak and failures.” They can “do” something with their life. So a good majority go after degrees and seek good jobs to attain the secular notions of success and to be “someone.”

I am not against high-education for women, nor do I look negatively on the idea of a woman working. I do look negatively on the motives most women seem to have for working; which seem to be the above. Many of my friends who have gone to college and university seeking degrees and hoping for such and such a job desire to “be someone” and gain material objects for their supposed happiness. They want to be “strong” and “independent.” While they are seeking after materialism and society’s idea of “someone” they have lost the knowledge of knowing what a priviledge it is to be a woman. They do not know the mission of women. Being a mother or a obedient wife is so “old-fashioned” that it is not considered (they would much rather just have hubby and a dog) or, if not, it will come after they have achieved the most important thing which cannot possibly wait: their success. I don’t at all like the fruits of the “feminist” movement I see in my friends and co-workers. The feminist movement has done far worse for women then it has done good. It has done far worse for society then it has done good.

[quote]I have to really disagree with you on this one. Where do you get this idea that women are pressured/told that mothers and wives are "simple" and "weak?" I definitely do not see this in popular culture, particularly Hollywood where many women are having children while continuing their careers. The media is not portraying them as simple or weak. So where is this being portrayed?

And please do not associate a working woman with a woman who wants to be masculine. That is just offensive.[/quote]

Exactly in popular culture, women who have careers first and are also mothers and wives are glorified. However… where are those women who do not have careers? They are “just” mothers and wives. Are they glorified? Are they put on magazines? No.

Women are told that being a mother and a wife is simple and weak or at least not possibly fulfilling enough for the woman. To be a good mother and wife one has to sacrifice abundantly, loving without return sometimes, work very hard, be obedient to your husband, be humble, be chaste and modest… these are not characteristics that are glorified in our culture. Rather immodesty, strength, success, power, pleasure, and so on are. Just being a mother and a wife is not going to fulfill the woman. That is what women are told. She needs more. She needs to have a career. She needs to be “a success” and “have it all.” Your exactly right: pop culture says it all. The woman is not truly all the woman can be unless she “has it all.” That is what we are told. And that is simply wrong.

And I did not associate a working woman with a woman who wants to be masculine. I said the feminist movement and it’s “emancipation of women” was really a “masculinization of women.” And I don’t apologize for saying that. It is true. In many ways that is what it truly sought after and unfortunately in the case of many women and the majority of our society, what it achieved.

"The whole tragedy of contemporary feminism - which Cardinal Josef Ratzinger considers one of the greatest threats menacing the Church - stems from the lack of faith and a loss of the sense of the supernatural. Feminism is inconceivable in a word rooted in Judeo-Christian values. But it is in the New Testament that the full glory of the female mission and vocation shines in the persion of the Holy Virgin of Nazareth who accepted to become the mother of the Redeemer while reminaing a virgin. Once spiritual eye sight, severely distorted by original sin, has been corrected by the lenses of faith, we are in a position to understand God's creation as He meant it to be and to reject with horror the view offered by the deforming lenses of secularism." - Dr. Alice von Hildebrand

The feminism movement in it's majority has lost the sense of the supernatural. They no longer seek to be like the Virgin in all things. They seek to be like the man in all things.

Edited December 3, 2008 by TotusTuusMaria

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1717779' date='Dec 3 2008, 06:43 PM']So a good majority go after degrees and seek good jobs to attain the secular notions of success and to be “someone.”[/quote]

I agree that for either a man or a woman, materialism isn't a valid motive, but wouldn't having a sense of fulfillment be meaningful and valid?

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1717779' date='Dec 3 2008, 06:43 PM']They do not know the mission of women.[/quote]

Could you elaborate a bit on the misison of women? I don't think I'm familiar with that phrasing and not sure exactly what it is.



[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1717779' date='Dec 3 2008, 06:43 PM']Feminism is inconceivable in a word rooted in Judeo-Christian values.[/quote]

I understand and agree with what you're saying about society glorifying wealth, success, outer appearances, etc and I agree that "modern" feminism is misguided and focused on things like this but isn't the term "feminism" in and of itself a reference to the equality of men and women? I agree that "contemporary" feminism (abortion, etc) is incompatible with the Church but isn't true, fundamental feminism good, despite its having been perverted by extremism? -Katie

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1717779' date='Dec 3 2008, 05:43 PM']So these young people, particularly women, have sought after these things because “women are not weak and failures.” They can “do” something with their life. So a good majority go after degrees and seek good jobs to attain the secular notions of success and to be “someone.”[/quote]

I think this applies to men on the same exact level it applies to women. Men are "tough" and thus have to go out, get that award-winning job, collect a fat paycheck every week, etc. Therefore, young men also seek good jobs for wealth, power, and status.

[quote]I do look negatively on the motives most women seem to have for working; which seem to be the above.[/quote]

I think you should look negatively on the motives of [b]people[/b] who want to work for selfish, secular reasons.

[quote]Many of my friends who have gone to college and university seeking degrees and hoping for such and such a job desire to “be someone” and gain material objects for their supposed happiness. They want to be “strong” and “independent.” While they are seeking after materialism and society’s idea of “someone” they have lost the knowledge of knowing what a priviledge it is to be a woman.[/quote]

Then that is their fault for relying on materialism as a means towards happiness. How does this correlate with motherhood?

[quote]They do not know the mission of women. Being a mother or a obedient wife is so “old-fashioned” that it is not considered (they would much rather just have hubby and a dog) or, if not, it will come after they have achieved the most important thing which cannot possibly wait: their success. I don’t at all like the fruits of the “feminist” movement I see in my friends and co-workers. The feminist movement has done far worse for women then it has done good. It has done far worse for society then it has done good.[/quote]

I think the feminist movement is wonderful. Women have talents and skills just like men and should not be hindered from using them in college and the work place. These talents can, should, and are used to help run our world (from business to politics to law enforcement to education, you name it, women are involved). True feminism is not about destroying motherhood but about showing women that we have the capabilities to work next to men, and to work well. We can touch the world with our actions out there in the public. Not every woman is called to marriage and children. Women used to be raised with the idea that this was all they could do, and that men were the ones who would operate society. What of the women who did not desire this motherhood? Is it right to force a woman into a marriage when she is unwilling? Is it right to tell a women that she is not fit to work because it is her "mission"?

In my opinion, you do not see the fruits of feminism in your friends and co-workers, you see the fruits of secularism.

[quote]And I did not associate a working woman with a woman who wants to be masculine. I said the feminist movement and it’s “emancipation of women” was really a “masculinization of women.” And I don’t apologize for saying that. It is true. In many ways that is what it truly sought after and unfortunately in the case of many women and the majority of our society, what it achieved.[/quote]

So due to the opportunity to pursue a career, a woman has become more manly? I am confused with your reasoning.

[quote]The feminism movement in it's majority has lost the sense of the supernatural. They no longer seek to be like the Virgin in all things. They seek to be like the man in all things.[/quote]

I certainly do NOT seek to be a man, not in one thing, not in "all things." But if preferring to pursue a career as opposed to motherhood lumps me in this category, then whatever. No sense arguing.