about feminsim

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 31 2006, 12:01 AM']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"?
[/quote]
You seem to talk to me as if I am a person who is against all of these things. So that's weird. I am insulted. I wasn't really saying that the 50's were [i]bad[/i], but just not 100% in line with how the Church understands human sexuality.

It's true that neither of us were around in the 50's, but I've heard a lot of stories coming from people who didn't even learn where babies really came from until they were in high school. It seems like from what I have read and heard about the 50's, even though all of the things you said above are true, people still saw sex as something dirty.

As far as I see it, America has never gotten it right when it comes to sex. Somehow, people end up devaluing the body or the soul. Right now the body is favored more than the soul, and sex has been lowered to a commodity. There were also times in the past where the soul was lifted above the body, to the point where people devalued normal human sexuality. Pope Benedict XVI writes about this in his new encyclical:
[quote name='Pope Benedict XVI' date=' Deus Caritas Est']This is due first and foremost to the fact that man is a being made up of body and soul. Man is truly himself when his body and soul are intimately united; the challenge of eros can be said to be truly overcome when this unification is achieved. Should he aspire to be pure spirit and to reject the flesh as pertaining to his animal nature alone, then spirit and body would both lose their dignity. On the other hand, should he deny the spirit and consider matter, the body, as the only reality, he would likewise lose his greatness.
[/quote]
You can't separate your body from your soul, because if you do, you're dead
[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 31 2006, 12:01 AM']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.
[/quote]
I'm not saying things were better or worse. I'm just saying that since people in the past have failed to appreciate women and the gift of sexuality, now we have to deal with all of these problems caused by feminism's lack of insight. As I said before, I don't think Americans have ever gotten it right.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 31 2006, 12:01 AM']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.
[right][snapback]870593[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
But I wasn't actually saying women are better at literature than men. I was just saying that that's something I perceive to be one of women's strengs... something that we are good at. Whereas literature and writing aren't the first things I think of when I think of the strengths of men. Actually, I think that society to some degree perceives male literary types to be somewhat unmasculine, especially the poets.

[Deeds]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jan 30 2006, 06:11 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.
[right][snapback]870166[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree with that and I think we also need to recognise that not all men or women are good at the same things. For example, some women are excellent at math and some men are great teachers. If a man/woman wants to achieve something with their life that doesn't exactly fit in with our perceptions of gender strengths and roles, I say more power to them.

I'm sick of hearing that classical feminism was all about women wanting to be men. Wanting the right to vote, to earn a wage, and to be able to own property was not about wanting to be men, it was about redressing the balance of human rights that men had and that women were unfairly denied.

[peacenluvbaby]

Interestingly, how feminists are seen to undermine or devalue women's work. Actually, you all should read some modern (not 70s) feminist research on the effects of the masculine capitalisation (as in capitalism) of society and measures of GDP and development, even "standards of living". There are for instance very good critiques by Ann Tickner of the way in which international relations, and the study of world politics is almost completely masculine in its viewpoints and approaches and thus precludes the possibility of more caring or peaceful resolutions to international crises or alternative decision making bodies/cooperations etc. because the construction/perspective of the so-called real world is one of men - aggressive, dominating, a zero-sum game of winners and losers, instead of a potential arena for cooperation.

As far as the economics are concerned there is a nice evaluation of how GDPs are calculated and the measurements of the "development" of a society are constructed in such a way that "female contributions" such as child raising, household tasks, care taking, are completely ignored and marginaliezed because it has not been commodified in the way that male labor has. (Marilyn Waring, "If Women Counted") So I say, let's decommodify!!!!!! Don't commodify womens labor to be like mens, but lets restructure a society that is much less based on commodification and valuation of labor solely on wages and cares more for the shared quality of life.

Peace out people!
Love you all, even those I suspect will call me a pink socialist commie in a future post....

Edited January 31, 2006 by peacenluvbaby

[Sojourner]

Pope John Paul II had some fantastic writings on women and on feminism. Here's a bit from [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html"]Evangelium Vitae[/url]:
[quote]99. [b]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.[/b]
Making my own the words of the concluding message of the Second Vatican Council, I address to women this urgent appeal: "Reconcile people with life". You are called to bear witness to the meaning of genuine love, of that gift of self and of that acceptance of others which are present in a special way in the relationship of husband and wife, but which ought also to be at the heart of every other interpersonal relationship. The experience of motherhood makes you acutely aware of the other person and, at the same time, confers on you a particular task: "Motherhood involves a special communion with the mystery of life, as it develops in the woman's womb ... This unique contact with the new human being developing within her gives rise to an attitude towards human beings not only towards her own child, but every human being, which profoundly marks the woman's personality". A mother welcomes and carries in herself another human being, enabling it to grow inside her, giving it room, respecting it in its otherness. [b]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, such as usefulness, strength, intelligence, beauty or health. This is the fundamental contribution which the Church and humanity expect from women.[/b] And it is the indispensable prerequisite for an authentic cultural change.[/quote]
Then, in his general audience from Nov. 24, 1999, titled
[url="http://www.udayton.edu/mary/resources/6wommasterpiece.html"]"Woman as Masterpiece of God's Creation,"[/url] he says,
[quote]In the second creation narrative, through the symbolism of the woman's creation from the man's rib, Scripture shows that humanity is not complete until woman is created (cf Genesis 2:18-24).  She receives a name that, according to the verbal assonance of the Hebrew language, is relative to the man (iš/iššah).  "Created together, man and woman are willed by God one for the other" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 371).  Woman's presentation as a "help similar to him" (Gen 2:18) does not mean that woman is man's servant -- "help" does not equal "servant"; the Psalmist says to God:  "You are my help" (Psalms 70:6; cf 115:9-11; 118:7; 146:5).  Rather, the expression means that [b]woman is worthy of collaborating with man because she is his perfect correspondence.  Woman is another type of "I" in a common humanity, constituted in perfect equality of dignity by man and woman.[/b][/quote]
[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/feminism/fe0004.html"]In an article for Crisis magazine,[/url] Mary Ann Glendon explores the pope's teachings on the dignity of women, referencing the [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html"]pope's Mulieris Dignitatem[/url] from 1988, among other writings. She says:
[quote]Where women's changing roles are concerned, the pope's writings contain no trace of the dogmatism that often characterizes the rhetoric of organized feminism and cultural conservatives alike. He affirms the importance of biological sexual identity, but gives no comfort to those who believe men's and women's roles are forever fixed in a static pattern. On the contrary, [b]he has applauded the assumption of new roles by women, and stressed the degree to which cultural conditioning has been an obstacle to women's advancement[/b]. [/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jan 30 2006, 11:24 PM']You seem to talk to me as if I am a person who is against all of these things. So that's weird.  I am insulted.  I wasn't really saying that the 50's were [i]bad[/i], but just not 100% in line with how the Church understands human sexuality.[/quote]
My intent wasn't to be insulting - but to correct errors and make you think. What you said about the "Puritanical, repressed" '50s sounded to me just like the "party-line" of those social liberals who think the "sexual revolution" of the '60s was the greatest thing to happen to America.

You seemed to be implying that the 1950s somehow were too restrictive about sex or something.
I was asking what it was about '50s sexual mores that you thought should be looser or different. As I pointed out, '50s sexual mores were a lot closer to Catholic moral teaching than those in the decades since.
(In fact, in the '50s, many Catholics complained about the loosening sexual morals of the time!)

[quote]It's true that neither of us were around in the 50's, but I've heard a lot of stories coming from people who didn't even learn where babies really came from until they were in high school.  It seems like from what I have read and heard about the 50's, even though all of the things you said above are true, people still saw sex as something dirty.[/quote]
I'm not sure who you talked to, but I'd be surprised if they weren't people mocking the '50s for its supposed prudishness and praising the joys of "sexual liberation."
As for the people not learning "where babies come from" until high-school, in a sane society is there any reason for kids to know all the details of the "facts of life" prior to their teen years? In mainstream '50s society, almost no one would be having sex before their high-school years. It was a more innocent time. This situation certainly sounds preferable than classrooms of first graders learning about the details of sex in graphic detail.

As for sex being seen as "dirty" - it was seen as something private and not something to be talked about or displayed in public. This is actually the virtue of modesty. A world flooded with endless talk of sex, and portrayals thereof (such as our own) is hardly conducive to morality.

And lots of people were marrying and having babies at this time, so lack of sex hardly seems to have been a problem.

[quote]As far as I see it, America has never gotten it right when it comes to sex.  Somehow, people end up devaluing the body or the soul.  Right now the body is favored more than the soul, and sex has been lowered to a commodity.  There were also times in the past where the soul was lifted above the body, to the point where people devalued normal human sexuality.  Pope Benedict XVI writes about this in his new encyclical:

You can't separate your body from your soul, because if you do, you're dead  

I'm not saying things were better or worse.  I'm just saying that since people in the past have failed to appreciate women and the gift of sexuality, now we have to deal with all of these problems caused by feminism's lack of insight.  As I said before, I don't think Americans have ever gotten it right.[/quote]
People in general have never "gotten it right" ever since the fall - "They saw that they were naked and were ashamed."

[quote]But I wasn't actually saying women are better at literature than men.  I was just saying that that's something I perceive to be one of women's strengs...  something that we are good at.  Whereas literature and writing aren't the first things I think of when I think of the strengths of men.  Actually, I think that society to some degree perceives male literary types to be somewhat unmasculine, especially the poets.
[right][snapback]870699[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I wasn't meaing to downplay women's literary talent - I was simply stating that I don't think it's really a solid fact that literature is something women are "better at" than men. I'd actually say it isn't really specifically a masculine or a feminine talent. Women do overall tend to be better with verbal abilities (including written), but there's much more to great literature than just skill with words. And women and men tend to be better respectively at different types of writing.
And I'd disagree that overall men with literary talent are unmanly or effeminate. That stereotype, I'd say, would historically be quite recent (no earlier than the late 19th century), and would only apply to a certain effete "literary type," not the majority of male writers. (And it speaks more about the decadence of modern "literary" circles than about writing itself.)
Many writers have been quite masculine, even "macho" (think Kipling or Hemingway, for example.) Using inaccurate stereotypes does not help your case. (It would be like someone arguing against feminism by claiming "society perceives women to be irrational, weak, and mentally inferior.")

[Socrates]

[quote name='peacenluvbaby' date='Jan 31 2006, 06:54 AM']Interestingly, how feminists are seen to undermine or devalue women's work.  Actually, you all should read some modern (not 70s) feminist research on the effects of the masculine capitalisation (as in capitalism) of society and measures of GDP and development, even "standards of living".  There are for instance very good critiques by Ann Tickner of the way in which international relations, and the study of world politics is almost completely masculine    in its viewpoints and approaches and thus precludes the possibility of more caring or peaceful resolutions to international crises or alternative decision making bodies/cooperations etc. because the construction/perspective of the so-called real world is one of men - aggressive, dominating, a zero-sum game of winners and losers, instead of a potential arena for cooperation. 

As far as the economics are concerned there is a nice evaluation of how GDPs are calculated and the measurements of the "development" of a society are constructed in such a way that "female contributions" such as child raising, household tasks, care taking, are completely ignored and marginaliezed because it has not been commodified in the way that male labor has.   (Marilyn Waring, "If Women Counted") So I say, let's decommodify!!!!!! Don't commodify womens labor to be like mens, but lets restructure a society that is much less based on commodification and valuation of labor solely on wages and cares more for the shared quality of life.  

Peace out people!
Love you all, even those I suspect will call me a pink socialist commie in a future post.... 
[right][snapback]870818[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Love you too, my pinko socialist commie friend!

Quite frankly, I'm not at all impressed by feminist socialist theory (which is pure, unadulterated nonsense).
Socialism is a system which soes not work, never has worked, and will never work! (As well as being intrinsically unjust and condemned by the Church - see my signature).

Dressing socialism up in feminist language doesn't make it any better - feminism is in fact a rather dumb reason to promote socialism. ("Capitalism's bad because it's '[b]masculine[/b]'!")

By all means, let's appreciate the importance of child-raising, care-taking, and other feminine contributions to society, but that is no reason to have a socialist "restructuring" of society under "alternative decision making bodies/cooperations etc." (read "socialistic government beaurocracies")

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 31 2006, 07:59 PM']My intent wasn't to be insulting - but to correct errors and make you think.  What you said about the "Puritanical, repressed" '50s sounded to me just like the "party-line" of those social liberals who think the "sexual revolution" of the '60s was the greatest thing to happen to America.
[/quote]
Except I'm not one of those people. I don't think the 60's were the greatest thing to happen to America. By all means, the social mores of the 50's are much better than those that exist now (or the lack thereof. However, sexual revolutions don't come out of nowhere, they develop over years of tension and unrest. I am not coming from the perspective of academic gender feminism and liberal pundits but more along the lines of Theology of the Body. Many ToB scholars like Christopher West, as well as JPII himself, have admitted that in the past people have had repressive attitudes about sex and pregnancy and that such attitudes have contributed to the sexual licentiousness of today and the contraceptive mentality.
[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 31 2006, 07:59 PM']I wasn't meaing to downplay women's literary talent - I was simply stating that I don't think it's really a solid fact that literature is something women are "better at" than men.  I'd actually say it isn't really specifically a masculine or a feminine talent.  Women do overall tend to be better with verbal abilities (including written), but there's much more to great literature than just skill with words.  And women and men tend to be better respectively at different types of writing.
[/quote]
I wasn't saying that women are better at literature than men. I'm just saying that it's something women tend to be good at.
[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 31 2006, 07:59 PM']Using inaccurate stereotypes does not help your case.  (It would be like someone arguing against feminism by claiming "society perceives women to be irrational, weak, and mentally inferior.")
[right][snapback]871435[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I wasn't saying that I personally thought male writers were effeminate. If I did, then why would I always date Literature majors? But in a lot of my literature classes, the teacher would introduce a work by talking about the author, and usually he'd say something about the author's alleged homosexual inclinations. One of my classmates joked, saying "They should have named this class 'Gay Literary Classics'

And it doesn't take an acclaimed scholar to point out that in the past women HAVE been stereotyped as weak, irrational and mentally inferior. A lot of women in my age group, when asked if they are feminists, reply, "Women already have all the rights they need. There's no need for feminism anymore." And they are right. Women have equal opportunities in the workplace, we can vote, and we have demonstrated intellectual strength and excellence in many fields.

While women have so many rights and privileges now, it doesn't erase the pain and frustration that women have gone through in the past. Women have been oppressed, they have been grieved and deprived of their dignity. That's why today's feminists are still so angry--they are carrying a lot of unforgiveness towards men for what they did to women years ago.

There is no need for feminism in society. But we do need reconcilliation and an appreciation of human dignity. Men need to see Christ in women, and women need to see Christ in men. Women need to practice the virtue of obedience in their marriages, and they must always put their families first. Men need to exercise their authority justly in family life. They need to treat women as human beings, not posessions.

[Socrates]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jan 31 2006, 07:30 PM']Except I'm not one of those people.  I don't think the 60's were the greatest thing to happen to America.  By all means, the social mores of the 50's are much better than those that exist now (or the lack thereof.  However, sexual revolutions don't come out of nowhere, they develop over years of tension and unrest.  I am not coming from the perspective of academic gender feminism and liberal pundits but more along the lines of Theology of the Body.  Many ToB scholars like Christopher West, as well as JPII himself, have admitted that in the past people have had repressive attitudes about sex and pregnancy and that such attitudes have contributed to the sexual licentiousness of today and the contraceptive mentality.
[right][snapback]871528[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I wan't referring to you personally, but to the sources you got your ideas about the '50s from. (Obviously, they did not come from your own personal memories of the decade.)
I've read that kind of stuff plenty of times, and it's always from some liberal (and often from those too young to have any meaningful meory of the decade) who beleives in "sexual liberation" and all that goes with it.

The sexual revolution did have its roots in the '50s, but I don't think the main problem was "repressiveness" (whatever that means). The "sexual revolution" was largely made possible by the invention of "the pill" which was first put on the market in 1960. Scientists had been working on the pill during the '50s. With easy contraception, women felt free to have sex without worrying about the complications of pregnancy.
Also, in 1949 and 1954 were the publication of Kinsey's infamous "Reports" which did much to lead to widespread acceptance of sexual immorality and perversions of all kind as normal and acceptable.
Also, in 1953, Hugh Hefner launched [i]Playboy[/i] magazine, which did much to "legitimize" porn and the "swinging" lifestyle.

By the later '60s, the dam had broken and the sexual revolution was in full swing.

[Era Might]

John Paul II uncovered the naked frescoes in the Sistine Chapel that his more prudish predecessors had covered up.

The ironic thing about the original feminists was that they were vehemently against abortion and pornography.

Edited February 1, 2006 by Era Might