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

[Gabriela]

What is a purity ball?

 

I second that.

 

I'm moving this to the debate table...

 

Good call. I'd been wondering...

[Gabriela]

It's like a father daughter dance, only really weird. Lots of emphasis on fathers protecting their daughters' purity until they are under the protection of their husbands. You can youtube it but, although I think purity balls are totally weird, most of the docs are like ZOMG RELIGION IS TARRIBLE! COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED! CONDOMS!

 

LOL! I was thinking some sort of magical confection.  rotfl 

[Ice_nine]

Sometimes the way religious people talk about women, my feels hurt.

 

I'm probably just on my period.

[Basilisa Marie]

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.

 

I think that's a reasonable argument.  But my problem is that it's hard to get people to see that authentically following Christ means treating all persons in a way that reflects their dignity and what those ways are and aren't.  Feminism in a Catholic context would be the thing that actively points out how to connect the dots between loving Jesus and loving your neighbor (female, male, etc).  So you could still do the "learn to follow Christ" authentically while incorporating feminist ideas or focusing on feminist things.  It's doesn't have to be a dichotomy, we can work under the banner of Christ to address feminist concerns.  Which is I guess what you're saying, except you don't want to call it feminism and I do?   

 

No matter how we talk about it (any truly good ideology will be, in some way, Christological), I do think it's important to talk about feminism as distinct from just talking about being a good disciple of Jesus, as a distinct subset within discipleship.  At the bare minimum, the word functions like a category, so that people have an easier way to talk about issues that concern human dignity, particularly issues that affect women.  It's a way to talk about women within Christianity, the roles of women in the Church, Christ's relationship with women, biblical portrayals of women, the different vocations women have, the nature of physical and spiritual motherhood, I could go on and on.  Those are all issues that feminist theologians tackle (and that doesn't mean they always have an agenda to fight with the Church on things, either).  It isn't just social-justice-y, shake up government and social order, I wanna work AND be a mom type of stuff.  Studying "women's issues" is how people talk about positive and negative ways women Christians are treated or understood, and ideally, the Christian-flavored feminist social-justice-y argument grow out of study of those positive or neutral "women's issue" topics.  

Finally, I also think feminism is necessary because we live in a world where not everyone is a Christian, and until we do, I think some forms of feminism are quicker at getting people to change their behaviors and thought processes about women (and other humans).  I mean, yes, ultimately our job is to get people into relationship with Christ, I won't ever deny that.  But I can't convince people to have an experience of Christ. It's a lead a horse to water but I can't make him drink sort of thing.  I do think I can get people to understand how to treat women and other humans better with my words, while working with them and waiting for them to have an authentic experience of Christ, and willingly choose to grow in an intimate relationship with him and his Church. 


TLDR:  Good post, but I don't think the two are entirely mutually exclusive.  Authentic feminism is christological, though I think feminism gets to the points of concern quicker than getting someone to be a better Christian. Maybe one can work within the other, in a "short term" and "long term" sort of strategy.  

Edited June 24, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[Basilisa Marie]

What is a purity ball?

 

 

It's like a father daughter dance, only really weird. Lots of emphasis on fathers protecting their daughters' purity until they are under the protection of their husbands. You can youtube it but, although I think purity balls are totally weird, most of the docs are like ZOMG RELIGION IS TARRIBLE! COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED! CONDOMS!

 

Yeah, they're usually big in fundamentalist protestant circles.  Like in the South, especially.  I don't even think protecting is a strong enough word.  At some of them (not all, to be fair, and maybe not even most, idk), the father is literally in charge of a daughter's purity.  It has heavy undertones of taking the decision making out of her hands, taking over her purity for her.   It has strong connotations of overruling her free will. The ones I've read about also don't leave any room for if a daughter makes a mistake or worse is sexually assaulted.  It's the other end of the objectification spectrum.  

One good thing about them is that they focus on fostering strong relationships between daughters and fathers.  That's absolutely invaluable.   It'd just be nice if they focused on strong daddy-daughter relationships, without all the "My father is the owner of my sexuality!" crud.  

[Gabriela]

I think that's a reasonable argument.  But my problem is that it's hard to get people to see that authentically following Christ means treating all persons in a way that reflects their dignity and what those ways are and aren't.  Feminism in a Catholic context would be the thing that actively points out how to connect the dots between loving Jesus and loving your neighbor (female, male, etc).  So you could still do the "learn to follow Christ" authentically while incorporating feminist ideas or focusing on feminist things.  It's doesn't have to be a dichotomy, we can work under the banner of Christ to address feminist concerns.  Which is I guess what you're saying, except you don't want to call it feminism and I do?   

 

No matter how we talk about it (any truly good ideology will be, in some way, Christological), I do think it's important to talk about feminism as distinct from just talking about being a good disciple of Jesus, as a distinct subset within discipleship.  At the bare minimum, the word functions like a category, so that people have an easier way to talk about issues that concern human dignity, particularly issues that affect women.  It's a way to talk about women within Christianity, the roles of women in the Church, Christ's relationship with women, biblical portrayals of women, the different vocations women have, the nature of physical and spiritual motherhood, I could go on and on.  Those are all issues that feminist theologians tackle (and that doesn't mean they always have an agenda to fight with the Church on things, either).  It isn't just social-justice-y, shake up government and social order, I wanna work AND be a mom type of stuff.  Studying "women's issues" is how people talk about positive and negative ways women Christians are treated or understood, and ideally, the Christian-flavored feminist social-justice-y argument grow out of study of those positive or neutral "women's issue" topics.  

Finally, I also think feminism is necessary because we live in a world where not everyone is a Christian, and until we do, I think some forms of feminism are quicker at getting people to change their behaviors and thought processes about women (and other humans).  I mean, yes, ultimately our job is to get people into relationship with Christ, I won't ever deny that.  But I can't convince people to have an experience of Christ. It's a lead a horse to water but I can't make him drink sort of thing.  I do think I can get people to understand how to treat women and other humans better with my words, while working with them and waiting for them to have an authentic experience of Christ, and willingly choose to grow in an intimate relationship with him and his Church. 


TLDR:  Good post, but I don't think the two are entirely mutually exclusive.  Authentic feminism is christological, though I think feminism gets to the points of concern quicker than getting someone to be a better Christian. Maybe one can work within the other, in a "short term" and "long term" sort of strategy.  

 

Most of this I would agree with, since most of it simply says: It's important to talk about women's issues within the Church. Absolutely. I don't guess we'll agree on preferred terminology. I think that the term "feminism" has been forever-tainted by Second Wave feminists. And given the connotations that word has for so many people today, I think it important for clarity that, when a Christian promotes justice for women, s/he do so with a term that acknowledges Christ. So "Christian womanism"? I dunno. Take your pick. Personally, I think "Christian" is enough.

 

You also seem to imply that feminist ideas are somehow different from Christian ones. Here, for example:

So you could still do the "learn to follow Christ" authentically while incorporating feminist ideas or focusing on feminist things.

In fact, the only feminist ideas worth accepting were Christian before they were feminist. And the ideas that are feminist that are not Christian are not worth accepting. So again, why not just go Christian all the way and leave the feminists out of it?

 

The main beef I have with your post, though, is the short-term, quick-fix argument. We could get a lot of people to accept Jesus as Messiah much faster if we just left out that Jesus-is-also-God bit. I mean, the sacrifice follows naturally from the temple sacrifices. But God made man? That's a hard one to swallow (no pun intended). So, as I see it, by your reasoning, we ought to try to convince people to become Jehovah's Witnesses. Then we'll just really hope that they make their way to the True Faith eventually, cuz it's too hard and time-intensive for us to work on now. And hey, Jehovah's Witness-ism is at least a step closer, right?

 

Of course we can't convert people's hearts ourselves. God does that. But we can pray that He will do it. And we can set a good example for them. Publicly allying ourselves in name with social movements widely considered to support abortion and man-hating would probably only confuse that example. Just call yourself a Christian, and work for justice for women, and people will see that the Catholic Church is not "backwards" after all.

 

And finally: To me, the short-term, quick-fix is downright dangerous. If you give people feminism in order to solve the justice problem, then women are still at the center of that philosophy. From there, simple logic leads to things like abortion. You can't tell people to adopt just part of a philosophy. Our minds naturally work to create consistency in our worldviews. If justice for women is at the heart of one's social views, then things like justice for men and justice for children will get shoved aside. Just plain justice—the Christian view—is the only way to achieve real justice for all.

 

We should not give up attempting to bring people to Christ just because it is difficult and takes a long time. If I were dying, and someone came to me and told me, "Here, take this, it'll keep you alive for a few more days," I would be happy. But I would still die. So also with any short-term fix for injustice. We have an opportunity to solve the problem of injustice completely and perfectly by bringing souls to Christ. Don't settle for anything less, BM. :-)

 

 

 

 

 

BONUS ANECDOTE! ;-)

It was a Turk who initially led me to the view I now hold. We were standing in the hallway of the Philosophy Department at Virginia Tech, and all the men around us were proudly declaring how feminist they were, I guess in order to impress me so I'd join the program (I suppose that, in their narrow minds, they could not imagine an anti-feminist woman). When the turn-taking came around to the Turk, he said, "I am not a feminist. I am simply for social justice for all." Given all the man-hating I'd seen in my feminist days, and having commiserated with the struggles of the "New Man" movements, I was impressed by this statement. Unfortunately, as soon as that Turk found out I am Israeli, he took rather a disliking to me. Which I find terribly ironic.  :lol4: 

Edited June 24, 2013 by curiousing

[Gabriela]

Just plain justice, on the basis of HUMAN dignity, not womanhood—i.e., the Christian view—is the only way to achieve real justice for all.

 

Tried to edit. Wouldn't let me!

[adt6247]

I'd like to state, as Photosynthesis's husband, she won't be contributing further to this thread on my orders not to engage in argument with idiots who like to define words however they like, ignoring the meanings that the society they live in ascribe to them when they hear said words.

 

Anyone who would like to continue this debate with her would be welcome to join her in baking me pie while basking in my supreme manliness.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I'd like to state, as Photosynthesis's husband, she won't be contributing further to this thread on my orders not to engage in argument with idiots who like to define words however they like, ignoring the meanings that the society they live in ascribe to them when they hear said words.

 

Anyone who would like to continue this debate with her would be welcome to join her in baking me pie while basking in my supreme manliness.

 

I was imagining your name would be something more fitting, like "respiration". 

Edited June 24, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Lil Red]

I'd like to state, as Photosynthesis's husband, she won't be contributing further to this thread on my orders not to engage in argument with idiots who like to define words however they like, ignoring the meanings that the society they live in ascribe to them when they hear said words.

 

Anyone who would like to continue this debate with her would be welcome to join her in baking me pie while basking in my supreme manliness.

 

naw, i don't like baking. but i'm good with having a drink. ;) 

[Socrates]

Somehow, I'm not quite so convinced that lots of abusive, dirty sexist male chauvinist pig types who reject Christ, or are selective about His teachings, will be so much more eager to embrace feminism and thus change their dirty sexist pig ways.

 

Jesus Christ has a power to change the hearts and minds of men that Gloria Steinem [or insert feminist activist of your choice] simply does not.

 

 

Also, for the record, I really don't have a problem with Catholics identifying themselves as "New Feminists" or "Catholic Feminists," or what have you, nor do I think all aspects of feminism are necessarily evil.

My beef is with the contention that feminist ideology is necessary, or that we all need to be feminists, or identify as such.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Socrates

[Lil Red]

just posting to say that I agree with everything Basilisa is posting. 

[photosynthesis]

Oh no!  My husband's on this thread!  Better take my apron off and put on some lipstick!

 

Anyone who would like to continue this debate with her would be welcome to join her in baking me pie while basking in my supreme manliness.

 

Blueberry pie, or coconut custard, my dear?

[Lil Red]

i'll take a glass of wine. thanks.

[photosynthesis]

I think we all need a drink