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

[Gabriela]

Two hundred million baby girls have been murdered in China since 1978. China needs feminism.

 

No. China NEEDS Christ.

[Gabriela]

I'm listening to Peter Kreeft's Lighthouse Catholic Media talk called "Winning the Culture War," and he just said this (speaking as a modern Screwtape):

 

Calling these people feminists is like calling cannibals chefs. For they are the bitterest enemies of everything feminine. They resent their wombs because they want to be as randy and selfish and irresponsible as the men who use them and abuse them. Far more than any male chauvinists do, they hate and fear God's masterpiece: femininity. So naturally they claim to be the lovers and defenders of it. We must help them to replace THE Madonna with Madonna, as their image of what a woman is. Replacing the Virgin Mother with the anti-virgin anti-mother is the first step towards replacing Christ with anti-Christ. Persuade them to treat Mary as a soft, sugary-sweet, fragile, harmless object of devotion for little old ladies and little old men. Don't let them see her as God's greatest weapon against our father below.

 

It goes on for quite a while, but I hate transcribing, so you'll have to go listen to it yourself.

 

I would like to know: What problem has feminism solved that following Christ does not solve?

 

And if you can come up with one for that question, then answer this: Of all the problems that feminism has created, is there any that simply following Christ does not solve?

[Maggyie]

I think that the problem with feminism is that it is actually not liberating women, it is binding them. At least the feminism that I am familiar with. The feminism that says a women's worth is found in how much like a man she can be. In other words, her dignity is not in that as a women, she is given the wonderful ability to bear children, to have incredible emotional sensitivity, to have the capacity to love and care for children the way a man never could. Instead, feminists want women to be like men. They say that women aren't being properly respected unless women open doors for themselves (becuase obviously if we admit we aren't as strong as men then we have less worth) or that we need to be just like men and find dignity and worth in careers. Why would I want to find my dignity and worth sitting at a desk all day doing something that ultimately has NO MEANING instead of raising children with immortal souls and being probably one of the greatest factors in their lives as to whether they are eternally in heaven or hell? Me, I choose to find my dignity and worth in the UNIQUENESS of my femininity. 

 

There have been studies and stuff that show that when a mother works instead of being home with her children, the children suffer. Same with divorces, same-sex parents, etc. Is your career (which is really at the end of your life pretty meaningless) worth more to you than the harm caused to your children by having no mother home with them?

 

Now please don't misunderstand, I'm not judging women who do choose careers. Especially since I have no idea what their particular circumstances are, reasons why they are working, etc. Of course it is far better for a mother to work than for her children to starve! I think it is better all around for a mother to be at home though, and that a woman who chooses to be a mother will be more fulfilled. God created us to be mothers, if we are not fulfilling what we are created to do, we won't be as fulfilled.

 

Okay I have a very different perspective than the perspective shared in this post.

 

as a women, she is given the wonderful ability to bear children, to have incredible emotional sensitivity,

 

not all women have the ability to bear children and some women have very little emotional sensitivity.

 

 

Why would I want to find my dignity and worth sitting at a desk all day doing something that ultimately has NO MEANING instead of raising children with immortal souls and being probably one of the greatest factors in their lives as to whether they are eternally in heaven or hell? Me, I choose to find my dignity and worth in the UNIQUENESS of my femininity. 

 

There have been studies and stuff that show that when a mother works instead of being home with her children, the children suffer. Same with divorces, same-sex parents, etc. Is your career (which is really at the end of your life pretty meaningless) worth more to you than the harm caused to your children by having no mother home with them?

 

 

 

This is pretty offensive and actually heretical (not intentionally I'm sure). Work in an office, or any type of honest work in fact, is full of meaning and directly affects whether souls wind up in heaven or hell! The Church feels very, very differently than you do about the dignity and spiritual value of work.

 

Here is a great resource of you to expose yourself to what the Church teaches about work. There are Scripture resources, links to Church documents including Bl. John Paul II Laborem Exercens, even a prayer for work! The key quote is "Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God’s creation." Sounds pretty meaningful to me!

 

Why do you direct this attitude towards women only? Are men somehow putting their careers above the harm caused by children not having their father with them? Why is it always a matter of "are the kids going to be in day care or is mom going to stay home" - don't fathers have some role to play in this scenario?

 

I think it is better all around for a mother to be at home though, and that a woman who chooses to be a mother will be more fulfilled. God created us to be mothers, if we are not fulfilling what we are created to do, we won't be as fulfilled.

 

Yes, God created us to be mothers. But a mom who works is still a mom. And spiritual motherhood is the highest form of motherhood, the form  practiced by consecrated women, childless women and women who are raising children alike!

 

Needless to say, a woman doesn't have to stay home... with anyone... to be an effective spiritual mother and win souls for Christ. In fact her career may be key to fulfilling this part of her vocation.

 

Edited to add resource link.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Maggie

[Kia ora]

This sums up the main point I was trying to make earlier, but which perhaps got lost in debate over peripherals.

 

Men don't need feminist ideology to know that it is wrong to abuse, hurt, disrespect, harass or make lewd passes at, or rape a woman or girl, and that men should honor and defend women.

 

According to the code of Christian chivalry, which predated feminism by many centuries, all these things were regarded as completely dishonorable and unbecoming to a Christian gentleman, not to mention immoral and sinful.

 

The idea that feminism is necessary to prevent bad behavior against women is absolute nonsense.

 

Of course, detractors can point out how there were always boys/men who disregarded ideals of Christian chivalry and morality - but plenty of men also could care less about the tenets of feminism.

 

 

And I can say as a man that most boys and men will find a lot more motivation in the ideals of chivalric manhood and honor than they will in feminist rhetoric about "partriarchy," "gender politics," and "womyn's liberation."

 

Feminism may not be necessary to prevent bad behaviour against women, but it is necessary to prevent bad ideas about women and men. Like this idea of chivalry and manhood and honour, which has done a lot of harm to both genders. Those are old ideas, true. They predate feminism by centuries. And they belong there in the past.

[HisChildForever]

This is pretty offensive and actually heretical (not intentionally I'm sure). Work in an office, or any type of honest work in fact, is full of meaning and directly affects whether souls wind up in heaven or hell! The Church feels very, very differently than you do about the dignity and spiritual value of work.

 

Here is a great resource of you to expose yourself to what the Church teaches about work. There are Scripture resources, links to Church documents including Bl. John Paul II Laborem Exercens, even a prayer for work! The key quote is "Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God’s creation." Sounds pretty meaningful to me!

 

Just like the home, the workplace needs balance. Women deserve to have their voices heard. As valuable members of the community, we too have the right (and imo the obligation) to share our thoughts, feelings, perspectives, and professional opinions, whether this be in the faculty room at the high school, the back office of the medical clinic, or the town board meeting as a member of the council. We are just as knowledgeable, intellectual, hard-working, and dedicated as men. And real men will respect and value our contributions, in fact they'll welcome our voices and encourage us to speak out.

[Basilisa Marie]

I can be anti-slavery and not be an abolitionist. Abolitionists are a radical group that go around killing slave holders and attacking US army gun depots. I can work towards the equality between the races and the tyranny of slavery without being an abolitionist. 

 

Not necessarily.  Being abolitionist just means that you're for the abolition of slavery as an institution.  You can be an abolitionist without killing people and attacking US army gun depots.  My great-great-whatever-grandfather was an abolitionist, but he was also a strict Puritan minister.  I don't think killing people was on the agenda for him.  But passing around tracts and preaching against the institution of slavery totally was. 

 

My point being you can be a feminist without being a crazy negative, anti-Catholic stereotype.  And I suppose I have to admit that you can also not identify as a feminist but support women's rights, gender equality before the law, sexist cultural problems, etc.  

 

So I'll stop trying to get everyone to identify as feminist.  :)  But I hope in return, people quit acting like identifying as a feminist automatically means you hate men and hate the Church and hate motherhood.  Sound good? 

[CrossCuT]

[BG45]

Not necessarily.  Being abolitionist just means that you're for the abolition of slavery as an institution.  You can be an abolitionist without killing people and attacking US army gun depots.  My great-great-whatever-grandfather was an abolitionist, but he was also a strict Puritan minister.  I don't think killing people was on the agenda for him.  But passing around tracts and preaching against the institution of slavery totally was. 

 

My point being you can be a feminist without being a crazy negative, anti-Catholic stereotype.  And I suppose I have to admit that you can also not identify as a feminist but support women's rights, gender equality before the law, sexist cultural problems, etc.  

 

So I'll stop trying to get everyone to identify as feminist.   :)  But I hope in return, people quit acting like identifying as a feminist automatically means you hate men and hate the Church and hate motherhood.  Sound good? 

 

Totally unrelated to the topic, but also people who are anti-death penalty use the word "abolitionist" a lot any more as a self identifier as they want to "abolish" the death penalty.  The first time someone introduced himself to me as such, I thought he was going to talk to me about human trafficking, since it's modern day slavery...

 

Interesting little historical tidbit, the attack on the US army depot at Harper's Ferry, by John Brown and his group, was crushed by an officer who would be well known in the Civil War a few years later (and in attendance at the execution was a Who's Who of Civil War figures).  Colonel Robert E. Lee led the U.S. Marines in crushing the raid, later one of the Confederacy's top generals.  Also present for the execution for treason were future Confederate generals Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart.  A man who borrowed a militia uniform to witness the execution?  Future assassin of President Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth.  One of the last things Brown wrote prior to his execution was, "I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done."  Within four years, the United States would enter into the bloodiest conflict in its history...

 

 

And I agree with your post.

[Gabriela]

I would like to know: What problem has feminism solved that following Christ does not solve?

 

And if you can come up with one for that question, then answer this: Of all the problems that feminism has created, is there any that simply following Christ does not solve?

 

Feminism is an unnecessary social movement. It has created more problems than it's solved. Why a Christian would bother with it when following Christ achieves all the same ends without any of the problems, I do not understand. Please help me to do so.

[PhuturePriest]

Ahhh, FP, how young you are. This, too, is one way the sexes complement each other: We need all those soaps to scrub you filthy brutes clean.

 

But you can do that with one type of body wash and one type of shampoo.

[Gabriela]

But you can do that with one type of body wash and one type of shampoo.

 

Are you hitting on me? I am old enough to be your mother, young man!

[Amppax]

Well he IS a fetus...

[Basilisa Marie]

Feminism is an unnecessary social movement. It has created more problems than it's solved. Why a Christian would bother with it when following Christ achieves all the same ends without any of the problems, I do not understand. Please help me to do so.

 

Because even non-Christians need to know that treating women like crud is wrong.  And plenty of Christians treat women like crud, often cherry-picking scripture to justify their actions.  Ergo, they aren't doing Christianity right, or they won't be doing Christianity in the first place.  Feminism addresses the problem directly, and may or may not include Jesus with it, depending on how you want to do feminism.  For example, New Feminism emphasizes the complementary differences of the sexes while working to end sexism and promotes the dignity of ALL human persons, includes a lot of Catholic thinkers, and many new feminists base their ideas off of the writings of Catholics, like John Paul II.  That's the point of feminism, at least according to myself, a pro-feminism type of person. 

[Gabriela]

Because even non-Christians need to know that treating women like crud is wrong.  And plenty of Christians treat women like crud, often cherry-picking scripture to justify their actions.  Ergo, they aren't doing Christianity right, or they won't be doing Christianity in the first place.  Feminism addresses the problem directly, and may or may not include Jesus with it, depending on how you want to do feminism.  For example, New Feminism emphasizes the complementary differences of the sexes while working to end sexism and promotes the dignity of ALL human persons, includes a lot of Catholic thinkers, and many new feminists base their ideas off of the writings of Catholics, like John Paul II.  That's the point of feminism, at least according to myself, a pro-feminism type of person. 

 

Calling oneself a Christian does not equate to actually following Christ. It seems to me that the energy spent on attempting to get people to embrace feminism would be better spent on attempting to get people to embrace Christ—but really embrace Him, i.e., really follow Him, not just assume the name "Christian". That would bring with it all the advantages of feminism, and none of the disadvantages.

 

Don't get me wrong: I don't think that attempting to create social change is a bad thing. But I do think it should be done in His name, not the name of some secular movement. I am myself a Libertarian, and a staunch one at that, as many people here know. The difference I see between Libertarianism and feminism is that feminism is almost exclusively a social movement that tells us how men and women ought to behave towards one another. But the Church already tells us that. Libertarianism, on the other hand, proposes not a social arrangement, but what the limits of government power ought to be. The Church says some things on that, but not nearly as much as She does about social relationships, and what She does say about government is thoroughly consistent with Libertarianism—not so much with either Democrats or Republicans. Thus, the main difference is that Libertarianism, while a "movement", picks up where the Church leaves off. Feminism presumes to establish things that the Church has already taught (sometimes, taught against). Why, then, should we promote justice for women under the banner of feminism when we can and ought to promote it under the banner of Christ?

 

Here's the objection I see coming: Feminism is also active at the government level. Yes, I understand that feminists do seek to influence government. But what they seek to influence at the government level is the regulation of social relationships. Which brings us right back to feminism's primary concern with how men and women treat one another. Which has already been taught by the Church.

 

If you want justice for women, turn people's hearts towards Christ. That will be much more effective than the constantly changing, bickering, culture-dependent social whims of feminism—or any secular movement, for that matter.

[Lil Red]

we need feminism because of stuff like this:

 

The "Christian movement" that tells husbands to spank their wives "to correct misbehavior"

 

The trend is called Christian Domestic Discipline and much of what is known about the practice is published on the website Learning Domestic Discipline, published by husband and wife CDD duo, Clint and Chelsea.

 

The website states: 'It is an arrangement between two adults who share the belief that the husband is the head of the household and with that position comes the right to enforce his authority.'

 

In the packet they describe CDD as a ‘practice between two consenting life partners in which the head of household (HoH) takes the necessary measures to achieve a healthy relationship dynamic.’  

 

That translates to all methods of punishment, not exclusive to spanking. Clint and Chelsea advocate lecturing, removing privileges, corner and bedroom time – essentially the ways most people discipline their children. 

 

For CDD enthusiasts, this type of punishment isn’t sexual in nature.

 

(more at the link)

Edited June 23, 2013 by Lil Red