men v. women

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Feb 23 2005, 12:53 PM'] Oh please, do share.

Since this is the definition of feminism:




I'd like to know how your "true feminism" differs. [/quote]
Hi Burnsspivey,

I don't have a lot of time, to delve deeply into this right now, but mull over this for a moment. Feminism in its current instantiation is inimical to women. Most feminists today argue that the right to abortion is central to feminism. That women are equal to men, and no different, denying the dignity that is granted specifically to them in virtue of their femine nature. This feminine nature is what John Paul II calls "the genius of woman."

This is from a paper I gave at Notre Dame U a few years ago and is a part of a book I'm writing, it only scratches the surface, but have a look. What I refer to in the paragraph as "Catholic Feminism" is even if you distill out the Catholic bit, true feminism.

QUOTE from: The "F" Word: Defining a Catholic Feminism

"Catholic feminism is the active promotion of the inherent dignity of women granted them as children of God, created in the image of God. It recognizes the unique dignity of women and their role in the salvation of humankind, and the unique contribution they make in the life of the Church because of their capacity to be wives and mothers. Catholic feminism is pro-life and pro-family, but it does not define their women solely in relation to their roles in the family, nor does it vilify women who choose not to take on familial roles. A woman cannot be valued or “defined by her role as wife nor by her role as mother, friend, partner, colleague, competitor, or even as cheap [or in the case of some homemakers, free] labor…Her value is determined by the God from whom she comes and for whom she exists. That is why a woman does not exist in the end for the sake of man, nor even for the sake of the family….She does not receive value, dignity, prestige, or position through man. In herself she has value and dignity.” [6 Kasper, Walter, The Position of Woman as a Problem of Theological Anthropology in The Church and Women: A Compendium (San Francisco: Ignatius Press 1988) 57-58.] Catholic feminism is about making an active choice to support women in their particular vocation and in the life of the Church. It recognizes that a woman’s attitudes of obedience toward the Church’s authority and teachings stem not from an inferior status or attitude of servility to men, but from an active choice of service to Christ. The Church’s understanding of the inherent dignity of women gives them a freedom and position that women are not granted through any secular feminism."


Also JPII in Evangelium Vitae speaks of women and feminism, here's an excerpt from section 99...

“In transforming a 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. . . . Women first learn and then teach others that human relations are authentic if they are open to accepting the other person: a person who is recognized and loved because of the dignity which comes from being a person and not
from other considerations . . . This is the fundamental contribution that the Church and humanity expect from women. And it is the indispensable prerequisite for an authentic cultural change."

Once you've digested all of this we can chat further.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Feb 24 2005, 03:49 PM'] Hi Burnsspivey,

I don't have a lot of time, to delve deeply into this right now, but mull over this for a moment. Feminism in its current instantiation is inimical to women. Most feminists today argue that the right to abortion is central to feminism. That women are equal to men, and no different, denying the dignity that is granted specifically to them in virtue of their femine nature. This feminine nature is what John Paul II calls "the genius of woman."

This is from a paper I gave at Notre Dame U a few years ago and is a part of a book I'm writing, it only scratches the surface, but have a look. What I refer to in the paragraph as "Catholic Feminism" is even if you distill out the Catholic bit, true feminism.

QUOTE from: The "F" Word: Defining a Catholic Feminism

"Catholic feminism is the active promotion of the inherent dignity of women granted them as children of God, created in the image of God. It recognizes the unique dignity of women and their role in the salvation of humankind, and the unique contribution they make in the life of the Church because of their capacity to be wives and mothers. Catholic feminism is pro-life and pro-family, but it does not define their women solely in relation to their roles in the family, nor does it vilify women who choose not to take on familial roles. A woman cannot be valued or “defined by her role as wife nor by her role as mother, friend, partner, colleague, competitor, or even as cheap [or in the case of some homemakers, free] labor…Her value is determined by the God from whom she comes and for whom she exists. That is why a woman does not exist in the end for the sake of man, nor even for the sake of the family….She does not receive value, dignity, prestige, or position through man. In herself she has value and dignity.” [6 Kasper, Walter, The Position of Woman as a Problem of Theological Anthropology in The Church and Women: A Compendium (San Francisco: Ignatius Press 1988) 57-58.] Catholic feminism is about making an active choice to support women in their particular vocation and in the life of the Church. It recognizes that a woman’s attitudes of obedience toward the Church’s authority and teachings stem not from an inferior status or attitude of servility to men, but from an active choice of service to Christ. The Church’s understanding of the inherent dignity of women gives them a freedom and position that women are not granted through any secular feminism."


Also JPII in Evangelium Vitae speaks of women and feminism, here's an excerpt from section 99...

“In transforming a 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. . . . Women first learn and then teach others that human relations are authentic if they are open to accepting the other person: a person who is recognized and loved because of the dignity which comes from being a person and not
from other considerations . . . This is the fundamental contribution that the Church and humanity expect from women. And it is the indispensable prerequisite for an authentic cultural change."

Once you've digested all of this we can chat further. [/quote]
I see. You're trying to subvert the ideas of feminism and calling it "true feminism" to cover your shameful act.

Feminism is not inimical to women; it is a boon. The idea is not that women are the same as men, but that they are equal socially, legally, and politically. Anyone who argues that gender roles are essential is not arguing from feminism. Whether or not abortion is central to feminism doesn't change the nature of feminism and I honestly don't know why it was brought up here. It seems rather out of place, to tell the truth. As if it were just thrown in there to associate feminism with abortion and further vilify it.

[Birgitta Noel]

I am not saying that women are not equal to men, they are. They are equal in dignity which means they are equal as you say, "equal socially, legally, and politically." I am not trying to argue that gender roles are essential, but it is foolish to ignore them which is what much of feminism tries to do. I say that we must recognize the capacity of women to be wives and mothers, but that we should not base their value on these roles. The same as we should value men for their abilities to be husbands and fathers, but we do not value them solely for this ability (unless we are lesbians and are in need of sperm, but I digress).

Feminism in its original form IS a boon to women. I agree, but that boon was subverted to include the demand for things such as abortion rights and contraception as a means of "leveling the playing field" so to speak. Abortion and contraception have not leveled the field and in fact have made it more uneven. Whether or not abortion is central to feminism IS important, if it were not important why then would so many political groups such as NOW demand it? It is considered as part of the ERA. This is why I bring up abortion. The majority of feminists today would argue that if one doesn't support abortion that they are not a feminist.

What is my shameful act? I see nothing shameful in recognizing that feminism has a place in the Church and promoting the idea of the full equality of women in all aspects of society. The large majority of women are hesitant to identify themselves as feminists. Why do you think that is? Surely women think they are equal, no?

[Socrates]

Someone has noted that all modern feminism has done is create a utopia for caddish men.

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 24 2005, 08:58 PM'] Someone has noted that all modern feminism has done is create a utopia for caddish men. [/quote]
That is often the case. Contraception and abortion have allowed many (note not all) men to abdicate any responsibility for thier actions.

[thirsty-for-orthodoxy]

Thankyou Birgitta,
You hit the nail right on the head.

Burnsspivey, if you want to understand this more, look into some books on PJP II's Theology of the Body by Christopher West. It should clear things up for you.

Sorry, gotta go.

Kenny

Edited February 25, 2005 by thirsty-for-orthodoxy

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Feb 24 2005, 08:54 PM'] I am not saying that women are not equal to men, they are. They are equal in dignity which means they are equal as you say, "equal socially, legally, and politically." I am not trying to argue that gender roles are essential, but it is foolish to ignore them which is what much of feminism tries to do. [/quote]
Gender roles aren't essential and they can be accepted or discarded at will. That is what feminism promotes. Feminism certainly doesn't ignore gender roles -- it pays a lot of attention to them, actually. What it doesn't do is promote them as natural or necessary.

[quote]I say that we must recognize the capacity of women to be wives and mothers, but that we should not base their value on these roles.  The same as we should value men for their abilities to be husbands and fathers, but we do not value them solely for this ability (unless we are lesbians and are in need of sperm, but I digress).[/quote]

Just as a side note, lesbian parents tend to take more care to make sure that their children have a male role model than do heterosexual single mothers.

[quote]Feminism in its original form IS a boon to women.  I agree, but that boon was subverted to include the demand for things such as abortion rights and contraception as a means of "leveling the playing field" so to speak.  Abortion and contraception have not leveled the field and in fact have made it more uneven.[/quote]

Indeed, reproductive rights have tipped the scales. Women now have more power than men in that realm. I don't think that that is fair, either, but to date a solution hasn't been found. I'm working on a theory at the moment, but it's rather incomplete.

[quote]Whether or not abortion is central to feminism IS important, if it were not important why then would so many political groups such as NOW demand it?  It is considered as part of the ERA.  This is why I bring up abortion.  The majority of feminists today would argue that if one doesn't support abortion that they are not a feminist.[/quote]

Most feminists would note that someone who is anti-choice is not feminist on that particular issue, but could still be a feminist. Yes, reproductive rights are a feminist issue -- if women don't have control over their own bodies then they are essentially second class citizens.

[quote]What is my shameful act?  I see nothing shameful in recognizing that feminism has a place in the Church and promoting the idea of the full equality of women in all aspects of society.  The large majority of women are hesitant to identify themselves as feminists.  Why do you think that is?  Surely women think they are equal, no?[/quote]

No, the shameful part is trying to relegate feminism to lesser status by using the term "true feminism" for your brand. There are many different types of feminism and yours is simply one of them. Calling it "true" instead of "catholic" belies the fact that it's base in catholicism. It's misleading and shameful.

People who don't want to call themselves feminist are afraid because people like you mislead them about the true nature of feminism. It's sad that it gets so much bad press.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Feb 24 2005, 09:52 PM'] That is often the case. Contraception and abortion have allowed many (note not all) men to abdicate any responsibility for thier actions. [/quote]
Actually, with the advent of DNA testing, men have even less chance of abdicating parental responsibility. All the power is now in the hands of women instead of men.

Note that I think that this is wrong, too. There should be balance in all things.

[Socrates]

It's interesting to note how it's the women here who are arguing against modern feminism, while a male is arguing the "feminist" line!

I suppose these Catholic women are just too dumb to know how oppressed they are!

All the evidence is that "gender roles" ARE in fact natural and necessary. They have existed in every human society. What is unnatural is the modern movement to overturn or discard these roles.

And all this talk of "choice" and "reproductive rights" is so much euphemistic drivel.
Abortion is the killing of an innocnet human person.
A woman has no more "right to choose" to have an abortion than I have the "right to choose" to put a .44 round in the head of someone who inconveniences me.

Let's start discussing facts and cut the silly euphemistic rhetoric.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 25 2005, 11:44 AM'] It's interesting to note how it's the women here who are arguing against modern feminism, while a male is arguing the "feminist" line! [/quote]
I'm sorry, are you talking about me? Try again.

[quote]I suppose these Catholic women are just too dumb to know how oppressed they are![/quote]

You have been increasingly snarky and hateful to me. This is entirely uncalled-for. Perhaps you should rethink your attitude before replying next time.

[quote]All the evidence is that "gender roles" ARE in fact natural and necessary.  They have existed in every human society.  What is unnatural is the modern movement to overturn or discard these roles.[/quote]

They have not been strictly enforced and followed in every human society. In some they are reversed and in others they are easily discarded. Do some research before making such statements next time.

[quote]And all this talk of "choice" and "reproductive rights" is so much euphemistic drivel.
Abortion is the killing of an innocnet human person.
A woman has no more "right to choose" to have an abortion than I have the "right to choose" to put a .44 round in the head of someone who inconveniences me.[/quote]

I'm not getting into this debate here. Reproductive rights are the right of a woman, in consultation with her doctor, to decide what to do with her body. It is not the right of you, me or anyone else to tell another human being what to do with their sperm or eggs. We simply disagree on this subject and no amount of discussion is going to reconcile that.

Furthermore, anyone who take such a position, should be an iron clad pacifist. If killing is wrong then it is wrong in all cases. The death penalty should be abolished, war should be stopped, etc. But, strangely, most people who take your position don't follow their own line of logic to its end.

[quote]Let's start discussing facts and cut the silly euphemistic rhetoric.[/quote]

When you have some facts to discuss, let me know.

[Socrates]

Being against abortion does not necessarily imply being a strict pacifist or going against the death penalty.

It is the taking of an [b]innocent[/b] human life that is always wrong. An innocent baby is not on the same level as an armed combatant or a convicted mass murderer. These other issues can be debated, but I think most would agree that taking innocent human life is wrong and is not a fundamental human right.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 25 2005, 12:50 PM'] Being against abortion does not necessarily imply being a strict pacifist or going against the death penalty.

It is the taking of an [b]innocent[/b] human life that is always wrong.  An innocent baby is not on the same level as an armed combatant or a convicted mass murderer.  These other issues can be debated, but I think most would agree that taking innocent human life is wrong and is not a fundamental human right. [/quote]
I like that you differentiate and say that some people are more worthy of life than others. Good job on the "judge not".

However, even if that is a given the following point stands: most people who are anti-choice are also anti-birth control because there's a chance that a fertilized egg may be rejected by the woman's body. This seems to imply that no one should take the chance that an "innocent" will die. The same can be said of war and the death penalty.

And as to the rest of my points?

Edited February 25, 2005 by burnsspivey

[Mary's Knight, La]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Feb 25 2005, 11:30 AM'] Gender roles aren't essential and they can be accepted or discarded at will. That is what feminism promotes. Feminism certainly doesn't ignore gender roles -- it pays a lot of attention to them, actually. What it doesn't do is promote them as natural or necessary.

[/quote]
Hmmm let's see... are gender roles natural? The way nature is set up only a woman can give birth to a child... Only a woman caries the child within her... There is no process known natural or otherwise for a man to carry or give birth to a child... I'm afraid the conclusion is certain gender roles are mandated either by nature or by nature's Author...

Okay that leaves us with the question of necessity... A child is necessarily incapable of existing without the fusion of elements from a man(well a male at least) and a female... A child once conceived cannot live without an environment only naturally found in females... ummm i'd say that's pretty darn necessary...

you see nobody is going to argue with your definition of feminism because it's right, what we'll argue against is your implementation because your implementation is not natural or moral.

feminism doesn't need the possibility of discarding gender roles it needs the recognition that both genders have an equal obligation and an equally unique gift to offer.

your 2nd class citizen arguement is hypocritical because to follow your suggestion would reduce children in the womb to second class citizens, by the logic you use to justify abortion we should also kill the infirm and anyone receiving federal assistance with health care because using our tax dollars to support them turns us into second class citizens.

Abortion and the kill-the-baby pill(s) allow men to have sex without worrying about having to supporrt a child... the allow women to have sex without worrying about raising a child provided they are willing to risk an increased vulnerability to various medical problems not the least of which is the problem of the medical procedure used to kill the unwanted child also killing the mother. Men however don't suffer a risk to life or health from it. you do the math and see who benefits.

No if you want true equality then make it to where the father and mother both raise the child or allow couples desiring to be parents to adopt the child. There's a reason the women I know don't want to be single mom's raising a child is a two person job. feminism in it's moral implementation requires both people fulfill their obligation.

[Socrates]

Obviously, killing a murderous attacker in defense of oneself, or one's loved ones, etc., is not the same as killing an innocent person. This is obvious, and you're just playing games to avoid facing the issue.
War and the death penalty should not be used lightly, and there are in fact pro-lifers who oppose these things. That is a whole other debate.
Killing may only be done when it is the only possible means of protecting the innocent. It should not be done for any other reason.

Do you believe all innocent human persons have a right to life which should be protected?
What makes your life more worthy of protection than an unborn child's?

As to your other "points," you have given nothing specific to argue.

[bookwyrm]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Feb 25 2005, 01:08 PM'] They have not been strictly enforced and followed in every human society. In some they are reversed and in others they are easily discarded. Do some research before making such statements next time. [/quote]
I'd be interested in hearing some examples, please.