about feminsim

[avemaria40]

Before i begin this, I just want to say that I do not subscribe to radical feminism at all. i am proud of my femininity, am pro life, Catholic, who loves Jesus (though not enough most days), and I stand strongly for modesty, chastity , and the dignity of women.
However, I feel alot of times that people are to quick to judge those radical feminists. I don't condone what they are doing at all since killing babies, damaging fertility, and mistreating femininity is horrible, however I understand why they do what they do.
For thousands of years, women were thought to be men's property. We were taught to obey, be submissive to all men, and to do what we're told. We were the ones most affected by war, as it meant we would end up enslaved for life, and used for the most degrading purposes. We weren't allowed to vote, were not allowed to have a voice, and were only considered good for cleaning, sex, and raising children. We never had choices. Even today, women are objectified in pornography and in marketing, and men are always told to "get some" but if someone lies about a girl doing the same thing, she gets called horrible names and has to suffer the loss of her good name.
I see that the dignity of women has always been threatened. Sadly, many radical feminists buy into the fact that abortion, birth control, etc. will give them equality. The truth is, it's another way to keep women in the shackles of inequality, and leaves a trail of heartache, disease, and millions of innocent children who never got to feel the warmth of their mother's arms, but instead would meet the world at the end of a knife.

Radical feminism should not be condoned, but we should pray for those who subscribe to it, because all they want is to be able to be considered equal to men, to be assured of their rights as human beings, and to be free of objectification. It is our duty to pray that they may see that they really do have dignity as women and that they find peace.

Anyone want to discuss this?

[photosynthesis]

well, I agree with you...

I was a radical feminist for a few years... a hardcore academic one at that, until I got kicked out of my college's Women's Studies department after I became pro-life.

But it all started because as a young teenager it always seemed that people thought a woman always needed a man to be happy and have a fulfilling life. I didn't like this idea that a woman's only dignity was a boyfriend, a husband, a father. I never had a real father so I felt like I had no dignity.

Sadly, I got sucked into radical feminism, where I read that the solution to this problem was the end of chastity, marriage and traditional family life.

The truth is, though, that a woman doesn't need a man to be happy. She needs God. Once I discovered just how much chastity elevates the dignity of a woman I left radical feminism and came back to the Catholic Church.

[Church Punk]

One thing is wanting to be equal to men. Trying to become men, ie. taking on the traditional roles of men in society is not the answer as many of these feminist have done. They claim what ever men can do, women can do just as good or better.

They fail to realize that there is a whole world out there that they are already leaps and bounds better than men at! Trust me I know. Like multi-tasking, talking to people etc.

I think we need to call a spade and spade her, women are good at a lot of things that men are not. Men are good at a lot of things women are not.

I think there needs to be a reality check here. Just as some examples of how this has found its way everywhere. My friend was being tested for both the police force and fire fighting, he was dumb founded when he realized they actually lowered all the physical standard requirements so they could hire more women in the forces. My friend ended up shattering their 10 year records for both the physical and intellectual tests and did not get hired. Instead they hired several woman and other minorities. Some even failed the test but were elevated and passed on accound of their gender. We need to get our heads straight, how safe do you feel now that their is going to be un-qualified female fire fighters on the force just because its the feminist and politcally correct thing to do. Just messed up!

Edited January 30, 2006 by Church Punk

[photosynthesis]

Yes, women are good at a lot of things that men are not good at, and vice versa. However, I think the issue feminists have is that the things men are good at (business, politics, math, science) are perceived by society as better than the things women are good at (caring for others, teaching, relationships, psychology, literature). Our culture does NOT appreciate the feminine genius, and this is where the real problem lies. If society really appreciated the full range of things women have to offer the world, then women would not have to frustrate themselves by trying to be masculine.

In the past, men have often perceived women as only good for producing children, cooking and cleaning, and this is an abomination....just as it would be to only see men as good for making money and carrying your stuff. But now in the present, feminists are eschewing the very things women are good at--meaningful, intimate relationships, raising children, caring for others' needs--in favor for manly things.

[avemaria40]

It's one thing if a woman is really that strong, but the politcally correct stuff is really scary since it can compromise the kind of service you get.

[benedictaj]

Yes, I find it really interesting.

At the moment, a group of women here are trying to develop a new "womens viewpoint" in the media, and modern culture. They are pro-family, pro-life, pro-marriage etc. They believe, that the radical and gender feminists have taken true feminism to extremes.

I can't imagine how horrified the suffragettes would be today, if they saw what has happened. The suffragettes fought for, and gave their lives for equality of the sexes. Not that women might be used and abused as sex objects. They wanted women to have the right to vote, the right to be respected as fully human beings!

A friend says that it was in the post war world that the balance became its best - women could vote (in the majority of western countries) women had had the freedom to try working, but many also remained as wives and mums. But then it was the sexual revolution, in the 60's-70's? (I'm a bit hazy on this, its her theory that I'm trying to regurgitate.) When women thought (falsely) that contraception (and even abortion??) would liberate them from the "oppressive men."

It's such a shame though. Same with modesty, young girls now don't understand that the way they dress is affecting men and is creating a more male dominated society - on the basis that women can do what they want/dress how they want (its my body etc) when they are just further enslaving themselves and future generations to be controlled by men......

(nb: feminism isn't my strong point, I'm better at discussing evangelising Catholics - this is my friends favourite "thing" to argue over. )

[Tata126]

I'm an old-style feminist. That means I want to be respected as a woman, not as a man.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Church Punk' date='Jan 30 2006, 11:58 AM']One thing is wanting to be equal to men. Trying to become men, ie. taking on the traditional roles of men in society is not the answer as many of these feminist have done. They claim what ever men can do, women can do just as good or better.

They fail to realize that there is a whole world out there that they are already leaps and bounds better than men at! Trust me I know. Like multi-tasking, talking to people etc.

I think we need to call a spade and spade her, women are good at a lot of things that men are not. Men are good at a lot of things women are not.

I think there needs to be a reality check here. Just as some examples of how this has found its way everywhere. My friend was being tested for both the police force and fire fighting, he was dumb founded when he realized they actually lowered all the physical standard requirements so they could hire more women in the forces. My friend ended up shattering their 10 year records for both the physical and intellectual tests and did not get hired. Instead they hired several woman and other minorities. Some even failed the test but were elevated and passed on accound of their gender. We need to get our heads straight, how safe do you feel now that their is going to be un-qualified female fire fighters on the force just because its the feminist and politcally correct thing to do. Just messed up!
[right][snapback]870164[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This politically correct, "gender affirmative action" in things such as law-enforcement, fire-fighting, and the military has disasterous and tragic results in real life.
Women should not be involved in such dangerous fields just for the sake of fulfilling quotas and some rad-feminist "dream" of total equality (meaning "sameness") with men.
I've seen this first hand in OCS training.
In real-life combat situations, women can get hurt, killed, or raped.
This does aboslutely nothing to advance the dignity of women but degrades them.
Feminism is based on lies and falsehoods - and it is the women, not the men, who get hurt once harsh reality enters.

[Socrates]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jan 30 2006, 12:11 PM']Yes, women are good at a lot of things that men are not good at, and vice versa.  However, I think the issue feminists have is that the things men are good at (business, politics, math, science) are perceived by society as better than the things women are good at (caring for others, teaching, relationships, psychology, literature).  Our culture does NOT appreciate the feminine genius, and this is where the real problem lies.  If society really appreciated the full range of things women have to offer the world, then women would not have to frustrate themselves by trying to be masculine.

In the past, men have often perceived women as only good for producing children, cooking and cleaning, and this is an abomination....just as it would be to only see men as good for making money and carrying your stuff.  But now in the present, feminists are eschewing the very things women are good at--meaningful, intimate relationships, raising children, caring for others' needs--in favor for manly things.
[right][snapback]870166[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I pretty much agree with you here. However, I think part of the problem is the materialism of society. The things men are good at are valued mainly, I think, because they in general make more money. Money is perceived as the sole measure of one's worth, and women feel the need to make it good on their own, without the help of a man.

As for women being perceived as only good for baby-making, cleaning, etc., I would not say the women were as devalued in the past as modern feminism makes them to be. Being a mother and house-wife has become grossly under-valued in modern society, especially by feminists.
I think being a mother is a woman's greatest role - something no man can do. Feminism despises motherhood, and wishes to make women into men, instead. This is seen in feminism's celebration of such things as abortion and lesbianism.

(And, unfortunately, it seems a lot of women do only value men for making money and carrying their stuff. There's a lot of self-centered women out there who value men only according to their income.)

On a side note, I would say your listing of "literature" as something in which women are better than men at isn't entirely accurate.
While it is true there have been great woman writers (Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, etc.), the fact is that the vast bulk of the world's great literature was written by [b]men[/b]. (Homer, Virgil, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Goethe, Swift, Dickens, Twain, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Tolkien, to name just a few). Of course feminists will claim this was because of sexism or limited opportunity for women writers, but to simply say that women are "better at" literature is a highly dubious and debatable assertion.

[avemaria40]

I still believe that a woman should be able to work if she wants to. Yes, being a mother is a wonderful thing and it is remarkable that we can carry a child in our wombs for nine months and give that same child nothing but the milk from our own bodies for over six months and have them be in perfect health. However, even though military is mostly a man's thing, there have been exceptional women in the military, like my patron saint, Joan of Arc, and Harriet Tubman was a spy for the Union during the Civil War. And I'd rather have a woman doctor than a male doctor, for the sake of modesty and if I had to ask questions about my body, i wouldn't feel funny asking a woman since the same thing happens in her body too.
There are many women with brains out there. Most of my female friends and I are in AP and honors classes, in National Honor Society, and are intelligent and hardworking. We all have huge dreams for our lives, whether we want to be doctors, psychologists, scientists, have our own magazines, sing, w/e. That doesn't mean we don't want to be married and moms or anything, but we do want to use our talents to better this world. And we're not FemiNazis either, we love our femininity and want to get married and have families.
Since the age of 5 or six, there have been many extraordinary women I loved learning about and admired. If they had stayed home and did what they were told, they couldn't have made the changes they made. St. Joan wouldn't have helped free France from English oppression, Harriet Tubman wouldn't have ran away to freedom and freed 300 slaves, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton wouldn't have fought for the right to vote, St. Catherine wouldn't have taken a stand for Christianity by debating those Roman philosphers and converting them even though it cost her life, and Sojourner Truth wouldn't have stood up for women's rights and abolitionism.
Yes, some of these women were moms who were dedicated to children, but some were not. Some were single women who had no intention of marrying or having kids. And those who were moms had stood up for the right to vote.
I believe wholeheartidly in the dignity of women, I love being a Catholic girl, I stand for modesty, I stand for purity, I stand for life, and I stand for women. I feel that whenever people say that a woman's place is the home, that's great if that's her calling, but not every woman's place is home. There are those who are called to other things, like some of the women I have mentioned.

If a girl is really good a math and science (and there are many of us, at least in my school), and she has a lot of compassion for others, who has the right to tell her she can't be a doctor because her place is at home? Who has that right?

[shortnun]

AMEN!

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='memtherose' date='Jan 30 2006, 07:51 PM']A friend says that it was in the post war world that the balance became its best - women could vote (in the majority of western countries) women had had the freedom to try working, but many also remained as wives and mums. But then it was the sexual revolution, in the 60's-70's? (I'm a bit hazy on this, its her theory that I'm trying to regurgitate.) When women thought (falsely) that contraception (and even abortion??) would liberate them from the "oppressive men."
[right][snapback]870376[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm not sure about other Western societies, but in America, the 50's were full of naivete, repression and puritanism. Because American values came out of Puritan values, the society doesn't have a healthy attitude towards human sexuality. It's almost like it swings like a pendulam between two extremes... the belief that sex is bad and that all urges must be controlled and stifled... and the belief that sex is so good that we do not need to be responsible for our actions.

Also, in Ameria during the 50's, women didn't have the kind of choices they had today regarding jobs. You either became a teacher, a nurse or a secretary... otherwise, you stayed home with the kids. That's how it was, most of the time. of course there are exceptions but that was the norm. The problem with the feminism of the 2nd wave (1970's feminism) was that they wanted liberation without having to take responsibility for their actions.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 30 2006, 08:41 PM']I pretty much agree with you here.  However, I think part of the problem is the materialism of society.  The things men are good at are valued mainly, I think, because they in general make more money.  Money is perceived as the sole measure of one's worth, and women feel the need to make it good on their own, without the help of a man.

As for women being perceived as only good for baby-making, cleaning, etc., I would not say the women were as devalued in the past as modern feminism makes them to be.  Being a mother and house-wife has become grossly under-valued in modern society, especially by feminists.
I think being a mother is a woman's greatest role - something no man can do.  Feminism despises motherhood, and wishes to make women into men, instead.  This is seen in feminism's celebration of such things as abortion and lesbianism.
[right][snapback]870417[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I do agree with you about how feminism has devalued women's roles as mother and caretaker. But women have often been stereotyped as irrational, overemotional and intellectually inferior, especially by modern psychology, which defines the pinnacle of human development as being autonomous and disconnected from others. However, women by nature are inclined towards relationships, connection and caring for others. Most major theories of psychological development don't recognize the ways women develop differently and so women are often perceived as intellectually "less developed" than men. The reason why women weren't allowed to vote in the first place was because women weren't deemed as capable of understanding politics.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 30 2006, 08:41 PM']On a side note, I would say your listing of "literature" as something in which women are better than men at isn't entirely accurate.
While it is true there have been great woman writers (Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters, etc.), the fact is that the vast bulk of the world's great literature was written by [b]men[/b]. (Homer, Virgil, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Goethe, Swift, Dickens, Twain, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Tolkien, to name just a few).  Of course feminists will claim this was because of sexism or limited opportunity for women writers, but to simply say that women are "better at" literature is a highly dubious and debatable assertion.
[/quote]
It's really difficult to write a masterpiece when you're illiterate. Most of the world's greatest authors lived in societies where most women didn't know how to read or write.

I said that women were better at literature because now that women have equal access to education, women tend to do better in literature, the arts and the social sciences than they do in math or natural sciences. That's not to say that men stink at writing. But when people think of mens' strengths, I'd say they're really great at warfare, math, natural sciences, and computers.

[Aloysius]

[quote]Career Women

Just a dozen years ago or so, even Chesterton's followers considered his views about womankind quaintly outdated. His detractors found his notions about "women's rights" hopelessly repressive and bigoted. Many accepted the doctrine that women can find fulfillment and happiness only in professional careers. The role of wife, mother, and homemaker was mercilessly attacked and belittled.

As usual, Chesterton's view was not exactly what you might remember or expect. His main argument about careers for women was that the feminist view is simply the masculine view applied to women. Rather than follow a revolutionary course with truly feminine ideals, the feminists of his day and ours simply demand to have what men have. If men have careers, then women must have careers, for if men have economic independence women must have the same.

It was quite clear to Chesterton that having a job might make a woman independent of husbands and families, but it also made them dependent on employers, dependent on wage-earning, and servants to a business as most men already were. The feminists, he said, always talk as if holding down a job

    were a beatific benefit first bestowed on men in a spirit of favouritism and then withheld from women in a spirit of repression.

Today, the feminist view is starting to fade. More and more women are discovering that real happiness and "personal fulfillment" are not to be found in the factory or office, and that few jobs offer beatitude but, rather, boredom, drudgery and stress. Women are saying in ever greater numbers that they want marriage and family, and that they want to devote full time to it. Those who have to keep working wish it were otherwise. [J.P.][/quote]

"I would give a woman not more rights, but more privileges. Instead of sending her to seek such freedom as notoriously prevails in banks and factories, I would design specially a house in which she can be free." - GK Chesterton

careers are not the ultimate test of success and life, especially for the feminine of our species. whether or not a woman has as much a chance at this or that carreer or job is not a test of how free a woman is.

"A good man's work is effected by doing what he does, a woman's by being what she is." -Chesterton again

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jan 30 2006, 11:21 PM']"I would give a woman not more rights, but more privileges. Instead of sending her to seek such freedom as notoriously prevails in banks and factories, I would design specially a house in which she can be free." - GK Chesterton

careers are not the ultimate test of success and life, especially for the feminine of our species.  whether or not a woman has as much a chance at this or that carreer or job is not a test of how free a woman is.

"A good man's work is effected by doing what he does, a woman's by being what she is." -Chesterton again
[right][snapback]870571[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
AMEN!!!!

as a woman who just graduated college.... I'm kind of jealous of the women of long ago. It would be nice to be married and raise kids. Jobs are lame.

However, I don't see how women are more free than men if they don't have jobs. Life always has its responsibilities... Housekeeping has its own drudgeries and boring routine, and children can be difficult to raise.

[Socrates]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jan 30 2006, 09:09 PM']I'm not sure about other Western societies, but in America, the 50's were full of naivete, repression and puritanism.  Because American values came out of Puritan values, the society doesn't have a healthy attitude towards human sexuality.  It's almost like it swings like a pendulam between two extremes...  the belief that sex is bad and that all urges must be controlled and stifled...  and the belief that sex is so good that we do not need to be responsible for our actions.[/quote]
This passage reads just like the typical liberal textbook book drivel, and is, quite frankly, nonsense.
You were not around in the 1950s, and neither was I, but both my parents grew up in the '50s, and I've heard plenty about that time in America from them and from others of my elders who actually lived at that time.
And they'd all agree that the '50s, while far from a perfect utopia, were overall much better and saner morally, culturally, and spiritually, than our own time.
The Puritans lived in the 1600s (and only in New England), and really had little to do with anything by the 1950s. "Puritan" is largely used as an epiphet by liberals to refer to anyone believing in traditional Christian sexual morality.
No one beleived that "all sex was bad" or any such nonsense. (The '50s were actually more sexually "liberated" than any prior time in American history - they are only seen as "prudish" because they directly preceded the full-blown "sexual revolution" of the "swingin' '60s.")

What was so horrible and "repressed" about the 50s?
That people for the most part had an ideal of saving sex until marriage?
That, by-and-large, society had mores concerning sexual behavior, and looked down on "sleeping around" and casual promicuous sex?
That divorce was still largely seen as a horrible tragedy, not as a normal end for marriage?
That children largely grew up in intact, households with both a mother and a father?
That homosexuality and other perversions were not seen as "normal, healthy" behavior, and were not even discussed in polite company?
That abortion was regarded by nearly everyone as an unspeakable crime, not a universal "women's right"?

Look up any statistics on crime rates, illegitimacy, drug use, divorce, etc., from the '50s until today, and tell me we have made any kind of moral progress since then. Each decade since the 50s has seen an ever deeper descent into immorality.

The 50s are mythologized and demonized as a horrible repressive era by social liberals who see "progress" in unchecked sexual libertinism and all its attendant horrors - rampant promiscuity, contraception, abortion on demand, homosexuality, etc., etc.

[quote]Also, in Ameria during the 50's, women didn't have the kind of choices they had today regarding jobs.  You either became a teacher, a nurse or a secretary...  otherwise, you stayed home with the kids.  That's how it was, most of the time.  of course there are exceptions but that was the norm.  The problem with the feminism of the 2nd wave (1970's feminism) was that they wanted liberation without having to take responsibility for their actions.[/quote]
Maybe true overall, but is the age of the career "super-mom" with little time to raise children really that much of an improvement.
Much of the social problems in the modern world are the result of the breakdown of the family and lacl of family invovlement.

[quote]I do agree with you about how feminism has devalued women's roles as mother and caretaker.  But women have often been stereotyped as irrational, overemotional and intellectually inferior, especially by modern psychology, which defines the pinnacle of human development as being autonomous and disconnected from others.  However, women by nature are inclined towards relationships, connection and caring for others.  Most major theories of psychological development don't recognize the ways women develop differently and so women are often perceived as intellectually "less developed" than men.  The reason why women weren't allowed to vote in the first place was because women weren't deemed as capable of understanding politics.[/quote]
It seems most psychology and other science today is politically correct to the point of absurdity. I have never read anything reason claiming women are intellectually inferior, etc. Seems you're talking about things written 100 years ago.

[quote]It's really difficult to write a masterpiece when you're illiterate.  Most of the world's greatest authors lived in societies where most women didn't know how to read or write. 

I said that women were better at literature because now that women have equal access to education, women tend to do better in literature, the arts and the social sciences than they do in math or natural sciences.  That's not to say that men stink at writing.  But when people think of mens' strengths, I'd say they're really great at warfare, math, natural sciences, and computers.
[right][snapback]870555[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Again, that was a side point, and really neither here nor there with regards to the feminism issue. I was just pointing out facts.
While women may tend more to major more in literature and such in college, the fact remains that most of the world's great literature is written by men.
Unless you can truly argue that women's literature has been consistently superior to that written by men, I think the argument that women are intrinsically superior at writing literature is an unproven hypothesis at best.
Literary skill is measured by actual literary works, not by college grades and degrees.