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

[let_go_let_God]

True feminism = what the feminism is actually about. It's about equality and women's rights as human beings. Equality does not equal sameness, and it does not equal treating men and women as if there are no differences. There are differences, but they are complimentary to each other (Unless we're talking about the nine million soaps they have in the bathroom. That's simply not complimentary), and we should respect the differences for what they are. But having differences doesn't mean one is above the other, either.

 

Anyway, that, to me, is what feminism represents. It doesn't represent marriage equality, declaring that women are in charge of their bodies and men have no say, and it doesn't mean conveying a despising attitude towards men. Hating men is the last thing the feminist leaders wanted to happen. They wanted equality and fairness and to stop hate, not simply turn the tables.

 

I know I'm coming to the party late and all, but FP makes a really good point.

 

I know of a group of women who are trying to achieve these very goals by essentially making a holistic clinic center which is a complete opposite to Planned Parenthood and through positive education and advocacy on women's and pro-live issues. It's called The Guiding Star Project. They are definitely not your typical feminists.

 

God bless-

LGLG

[HisChildForever]

It really irritates me in these discussions when the ONLY reasons given for working married women are a, they're seeking personal fulfillment "outside the home" and/or b, financial necessity. Uh, how about c, these women spent years working on their education and feel called to use it for the betterment of the community? or they have a passion they want to share with others? Moms have a right to pursue a career if they aren't selfish about it (and the same applies to dads), period amen. Why there have to be these caveats to a mother's decision to work are unnecessary and off-putting. Personally, I didn't spend 7 years in higher education to do nothing with my degrees. Because surprise! I WANT to do something with them.

 

It makes me sad when women fight against it by taking birth control for the sole purpose of disrupting this system in order to conform their bodies to an ideal that is set by men who dont have to worry about it.

 

Want to know what makes it more ironic? Men are the ones fertile 24/7. I don't get why these women aren't demanding that men figure out some kind of birth control for their reproductive system.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Want to know what makes it more ironic? Men are the ones fertile 24/7. I don't get why these women aren't demanding that men figure out some kind of birth control for their reproductive system.

 

 

...There already is one. It involves a needle.  :eek:

[Basilisa Marie]

I need feminism because without them sandwich jokes would never exist and the world would be a dark, cold place.

 

And totally random: Can guys label themselves as feminists, or do they just support them?

 

Haha, of course men can be feminists.  :)  

[Basilisa Marie]

1.  I'm not reducing women to gold-diggers or saying that it is the main reason why a wife clings to her husband.  Hopefully they have more in common than a shared financial destiny!  But it does de-incentivize divorce.  As a woman who depends on her husband's income, I do not view him as just a paycheck and he is worth so much more to me than just someone who brings home the bacon.  But the fact that I need him makes me more likely to choose my battles wisely and put up with his annoying habits.  And even though in this arrangement my husband does not depend on me for his financial well being, he makes it clear to me that he does need me in other ways... A good man values his wife and sees her as "the glue" that holds the house together and keeps things running smoothly.  It is important that both spouses value each other.

 

2.  There are some cases where it is necessary for a woman's safety (or her childrens' safety) to leave her husband.  I know this is why my mother left my father.  She had a job but was far from financially secure without my dad, and it really was difficult for her.  Thankfully she was able to move back in with her parents, who were retired and took care of me while my mom worked.  It was my their support that allowed my mom to finish her college degree and now that my grandma is 93, my mom and I take care of her.  I am grateful that my mom had a strong family to fall back on after my dad lost his mind.

 

3.  The husband holding his end of the bargain is key, and should be emphasized. 

 

4.  Saying someone has more power does not automatically assume they are going to use their power for evil.  Challenging men not to abuse their power is certainly a good thing, but that does imply that men are endowed with power that women do not have... 

 

5.  It is true that often women work outside the home not for selfish reasons, but because they need to pay their bills.  This does not contradict my first premise because it is a lot harder in our current economy to raise children on one income than it was several decades ago.  I'm not an economist and cannot tell you why.  But I also know many moms who work, not because they need to but because they prefer the company of other adults to their children.  They think that if they put their careers on hold they will lose their identity.  The paycheck is part of the reason why they work, but after you factor in daycare, commuting.... the $$$ isn't as significant as it is if you don't have kids.  

 

1. If financial dependence reasons aren't main reasons why people stay together, and if a husband is so much more to his wife than a paycheck, then why bring up financial dependence at all?  You acknowledge that some women need to leave their husbands, and that they can find a job to support themselves afterward.  So how having a job or job skills so that one can leave an abusive relationship any different than having a job or job skills that one capitalizes on if one gets divorce for other reasons?  And what about all the things we say about the sacrament of matrimony, isn't that the biggest de-incentive against divorce?  Any way you look at it, financial dependence is incidental in any divorce considerations.  

 

Of course it's important that spouses value each other.  But why must a woman's dependence be financial? Financial dependence is incidental to why couples stay together, because when push comes to shove they'll find a way around it.  

 

2. Right, okay, we agree on this point.  Women sometimes need to leave their husbands, and they have to have some kind of safety net to fall back on, whether that be family or a job or skills for a job.  Ideally, it would be a combination of all three, but I think it's wrong to discourage women from pursuing a job or job skills, just as it's wrong to discourage women from being stay at home moms, if that's what they want to do. 

 

3.  Good! Then we agree on this point. :) 

 

4. Right, and I don't have a problem with men having power that women don't...it's pretty obvious from the way society runs that they do. But it still doesn't change the fact that women don't need "protection" from men if men don't abuse their power.  That should be the focus of the "protection" discussion, not how we can protect women from men.  

 

5. Okay, sure, there are women who view their job as part of their identity.  But there's nothing wrong with that.  Should a woman who is a doctor give up her practice to be a stay at home mom? A teacher?  That's completely up to her.  Vocations aren't one size fits all.  There are many ways to be a mother.  If women have the right to choose to be a stay at home mom, they also have the right to keep their jobs.  Must all women who are mothers find their life's fulfillment in staying home to raise their children? And what about women who make more money than their husbands? Or what if she's more invested in her job than he is? What if a woman is a doctor, and her husband is an insurance salesman?  If they decide it would be best for him to stay home and her to go to work, is that wrong?  

[PhuturePriest]

Haha, of course men can be feminists.   :)

 

Then much to what would have been my despair four years ago (And what still would be my family's despair since they don't understand feminism), I hereby declare myself a feminist.

 

Also, one of the signs the students made caught my attention. It was the one relating to Harry Potter, and how J.K. Rowling was told to use "J.K." and not "Joanne" because they didn't think people would buy it. To be fair, that may not have been entirely sexist. Joanne just isn't a very elegant and sophisticated name. I would have no qualms with buying a book from a Katherine Rowling, but you just don't expect a girl with a name like Joanne to be good at writing books.

 

Then again, maybe I'm just weird and this is yet another example of my weirdness. :P

[ploomf]

So many posts I want to prop and I'm out of props. :( Anyway I need feminism because "Fascinating Womanhood" is still an insanely popular book in my neck of the woods. This is a book that contains such gems as,

 

"If you are like most of today's mothers, you have this list made in your mind with all the reasons you need to have your daughter train for a career - she may have an emergency, she may get divorced, her husband may die, her husband may get disabled...on so on. There are serious consequences to this action. Here is the flip-side of the coin: It Will Make Her Independent: As we have learned, one of the traits of a fascinating woman is dependency. Training for a career and a job outside the home teaches her just the opposite. She becomes independent and without the need for manly care. She has taken over one of the duties of a man and is in danger of acquiring masculine efficiency."

 

and

 

"Love is not reserved for the young, the single, nor the beautiful. It is reserved for those who arouse it in a man. If a man does not love with his heart and soul, it is entirely the woman's fault."

 

and

 

"Some very fine men have violent tempers. But if you could understand what he suffers and why, you would be more sympathetic. He doesn't become angry with you without reason. You may have hurt his pride, or trampled on his freedom, or stolen from him his right to rule his own children. Whatever the reason, he is provoked at you and it is a very frustrating feeling."

 

and finally

 

"Remember that by nature you are not capable. If you have any masculine capabilities, you have acquired them unnaturally. God did not create woman for the strenuous masculine responsibilities."

 

This book is horrible and yet it is still extremely popular. I don't know a single woman who got married in my former church who didn't get a copy of this book from someone. I can't even hear the name of the book now bad things happening to my blood pressure. :pinch:

 

[ploomf]

Speaking of which, this always makes me laugh. :p

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

[HisChildForever]

That book sounds like something Richard Williamson (is he still considered a bishop or was he defrocked/excommunicated?) would love. In his opinion, women shouldn't go to college because they'd be too distracting to the male students. lolwut.

[Apotheoun]

That book sounds like something Richard Williamson (is he still considered a bishop or was he defrocked/excommunicated?) would love. In his opinion, women shouldn't go to college because they'd be too distracting to the male students. lolwut.

Once a bishop always a bishop according to Western sacramentology.

[beatitude]

"Some very fine men have violent tempers. But if you could understand what he suffers and why, you would be more sympathetic. He doesn't become angry with you without reason. You may have hurt his pride, or trampled on his freedom, or stolen from him his right to rule his own children. Whatever the reason, he is provoked at you and it is a very frustrating feeling."

 

Oh hai, domestic violence.

 

Please tell me that this is not a Christian book. Pride was a sin, last I checked. And so is getting violent with your wife.

 

On a more humorous note, 'in danger of acquiring masculine efficiency' is going somewhere on my office wall.

[ploomf]

It was written by a Mormon but I know a lot of Southern Baptist and other conservative protestant women who love it too.

[CrossCuT]

Personally, I didn't spend 7 years in higher education to do nothing with my degrees. Because surprise! I WANT to do something with them.

 

Personal fulfillment :)

 

 

Want to know what makes it more ironic? Men are the ones fertile 24/7. I don't get why these women aren't demanding that men figure out some kind of birth control for their reproductive system.

Even though men are always fertile,they never get pregnant. So if something goes wrong they technically have nothing to use vs the women who will get pregnant. The outcome is undesired so instead of relying on the men to take initiative on this front the women have taken it upon themselves to ensure their own "safety" from the pregnancy abomination.

[Basilisa Marie]

Then much to what would have been my despair four years ago (And what still would be my family's despair since they don't understand feminism), I hereby declare myself a feminist.

 

Also, one of the signs the students made caught my attention. It was the one relating to Harry Potter, and how J.K. Rowling was told to use "J.K." and not "Joanne" because they didn't think people would buy it. To be fair, that may not have been entirely sexist. Joanne just isn't a very elegant and sophisticated name. I would have no qualms with buying a book from a Katherine Rowling, but you just don't expect a girl with a name like Joanne to be good at writing books.

 

Then again, maybe I'm just weird and this is yet another example of my weirdness. :P

 

Welcome to the dark side, would you like some cookies?  :hehe2: 

She was told to use initials because her publisher didn't think boys would want to read a book written by a woman...even though it had an obvious male protagonist.   I think "Katherine" is actually her grandmother's name or something. Her real name is Joanne Rowling.  

 

It has to do with how we tell girls it's okay to be a tomboy, but it's insulting for boys to be associated with anything girly.  That basically tells us that it's bad to be a girl, and it's good to be a boy. 

[beatitude]

Personal fulfillment :)

 

Even though men are always fertile,they never get pregnant. So if something goes wrong they technically have nothing to use vs the women who will get pregnant. The outcome is undesired so instead of relying on the men to take initiative on this front the women have taken it upon themselves to ensure their own "safety" from the pregnancy abomination.

 

Contraception was invented by male doctors in a male-dominated medical field, so it was hardly women 'taking it upon themselves', For some feminists (especially radical feminists) it is not an unqualified good, and I know very few feminists who would call pregnancy an 'abomination'. (In fact, I don't think I know any, and I've met hundreds.) This unfair cariacaturing of feminist women makes me very sad at times.

[PhuturePriest]

Welcome to the dark side, would you like some cookies?  :hehe2: 

She was told to use initials because her publisher didn't think boys would want to read a book written by a woman...even though it had an obvious male protagonist.   I think "Katherine" is actually her grandmother's name or something. Her real name is Joanne Rowling.  

 

It has to do with how we tell girls it's okay to be a tomboy, but it's insulting for boys to be associated with anything girly.  That basically tells us that it's bad to be a girl, and it's good to be a boy. 

 

If they are chocolate chip and soft, then yes. But if they are hard or are not chocolate chip, don't bother. ;)

 

I honestly kept forgetting a woman wrote it as I read it. Those sorts of stories are usually written by men, and her writing struck me as somewhat masculine in style. But if makes no difference to me if the author is a man or woman. I just finished reading Anne of Green Gables today, for goodness' sake. :P

 

And I've actually never thought about that. My first thoughts are that girls and boys should embrace femininity and masculinity, but we have to make a distinction on what is truly masculine and truly feminine. I don't think things like running outside barefoot and playing in the mud is masculine, but many do, and they label girls that want to do that as "tomboys". I honestly don't get why. I did all sorts of activities from playing with guns to playing with Barbies with my cousins. I turned out just fine.

[CrossCuT]

Contraception was invented by male doctors in a male-dominated medical field, so it was hardly women 'taking it upon themselves', For some feminists (especially radical feminists) it is not an unqualified good, and I know very few feminists who would call pregnancy an 'abomination'. (In fact, I don't think I know any, and I've met hundreds.) This unfair cariacaturing of feminist women makes me very sad at times.

 

I suppose I should have clarified that I wasn't intending to be that literal. More in an ideal sense because as I said...men dont get pregnant. :|

 

I am also sorry if "abomination" offended you; Ill admit to it being an over-embellishment but to imply that pregnancy and the fight surrounding a womens body isnt a main battle for modern feminism is silly. Where have you been?

Contraception is worshiped and even been considered "liberation" by some pro-contraception feminists.

[Socrates]

Ok I have a pretty big problem with a lot of this. 

 

 

1. So you're saying that a major incentive for women to stay with their husbands is so that they can be provided for?  You make it sound like financial reasons are the biggest reason why women cling to their husbands.  That reduces women to gold-diggers who may or may not have some semblance of mild affection for their men.  Last time I checked, that's not how my parents' marriage, or any other strong marriage in my community works, and all the examples I'm thinking of have wives who are homemakers. Financial reasons ARE a major cause for divorce, but it's not that women are suddenly not completely dependent on their husbands for survival.  It's not talking about money beforehand, not making sound financial decisions with their money, or gross financial style incompatibility (one is a huge spender, the other is a saver, and they don't communicate).  
 

2. So let's say a husband turns abusive. A woman who is completely dependent on her husband will have a much harder time leaving that situation, let alone finding a job after she does leave him, because she's planned on being a stay at home mom her whole life and has no way of figuring out how to support herself. 

3. Obeying her husband only works if her husband does HIS job of taking her needs and desires into account. There's no way that a woman can even hope to find spiritual peace and grace if she has no say in her marriage or family.  This kind of mindset builds the foundation for enabling wives, abused wives, and/or spiritual unfulfilled wives, unless you base it on the contingency that a man is doing a good job at his end of the deal first.  A much better approach would be mutual submission in Christ, which is also talked about in the Bible. 

 

 

4. Assuming that women need men to protect them also assumes that men are inherently violent, powerful, evil beings.  The only way a woman needs protecting from men is if men abuse their power over women...which, last time I checked, is the exact definition of patriarchy that feminists use. It's not only misogynistic, but misandrist, to think that women need protection from men.  It doesn't even address the real problem of men abusing their power.  It's complacent with the status quo.  Instead, we should be challenging men to not abuse their power.  

 

 

5. Most of the time, when women work outside the home, it's not for selfish reasons.  It's because they can't afford to raise a family on a single income.  Again, this contradicts your first premise, that women work outside the home primarily to seek personal fulfillment. 

 

 

6. Feminists do not see rape culture and modesty as two different things.  Asking a rape victim "What were you wearing?" implies that a victim's clothes have something to do with why she was raped.  This victim-blaming only serves to obscure the only responsible party in a rape - the rapist.  Feminists actually care a lot about a woman's right to wear clothes that make her feel dignified...which is the definition of modesty.  There's actually a movement in support of Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab.  

 

First, I’ll have to say that I agree with everything Photosynthesis has said, both in her original post and in her response to yours.

 

 

1, 2 and 5:  While unfortunately, it’s not always a feasible option, I definitely agree that the ideal situation for the raising of children is for the mother to stay home and take care of the children, while the man is the breadwinner.  It’s best that young children have a mother to take care of them full time.

 

Economic and other issues can necessitate mothers working.  (Currently, my wife is working, as I need to find a better job, but this is a situation we’re working to change – it’s definitely not ideal.) 

The best thing is for children to be raised at home by their own mothers, which has become increasingly rare as more mothers work full time.

 

No, feminism is not the sole cause for this problem, but  feminist ideology has definitely contributed to this problem by pushing women to seek career over family, and even actively attacking and disparaging women who choose to stay home to raise their children.

It’s also contributed to more women, by putting career first, not getting married, or waiting until it is too late, to their own regret.

 

With feminist ideology tending to regard men as superfluous to women's lives, it has also contributed to the decline of marriage, and more and more women choosing to have children without marriage, or a committed father staying around.  Fatherlessness and the increase in single motherhood is also the cause of many of the problems of modern society.   The flip side of feminist ideology is that men are no longer encouraged to take responsibility and commit and be breadwinners to the extent that they were in the past.

 

This has also contributed to the growth of government to take on roles in women's lives traditionally belonging to husbands (note Obama's infamous 2012 "Julia" campaign aimed at women).

 

No, women should not be gold-diggers, but that's not the same thing as the ideal of the man as breadwinner.

 

 

3)  The man has always traditionally been the head of the household, and the Church upholds this ideal.  This, of course, is explicitly stated by St. Paul in Colossians, who tells wives to be submissive to their husbands.  Of course, the other part of the bargain is that men love their wives as themselves.  This does not give men a license to be abusive tyrants, nor does it mean a woman has to put up with a genuinely abusive husband.  If you have a problem with this, take it up with the Holy Spirit, Who inspired the canonical letters of St. Paul the Apostle.

 

 

4)  I’m afraid I must take particular objection to this one.  The idea of men protecting their wives (and women in general) is a good and noble one, and is demeaning to neither women nor men.  

 

It’s a simple biological truth that men in general tend to be physically stronger than women in this respect.  And unfortunately, the truth is that there are in fact evil and violent men out there.  (That fact does not, of course, imply that all or most men are violent or evil.)  It is natural and good that men should be willing and prepared to do what they can to protect their wives, should the need arise.  Nor is there anything wrong with women looking to their men for protection.  (My wife specifically said she wanted a man willing to protect her, and she’s no helpless weakling.)

 

Men being ready and willing to protect their women no more implies that men are all violent, evil thugs than training with a firearm or in other means of self-defense implies that everyone is violent or evil.

 

Attacking the entirely good and natural ideal of men as protectors of women is quite simply wrong.

 

 

6)  Yes, it is wrong for women to be blamed for rape, and Photo agrees on that.  However, modesty in dress remains a good in itself, and should be encouraged by Christians.  That’s the only point she was making, unpopular as it may be.  The Church has always stressed the importance of modesty in dress as well as behavior, and Catholics would do well to support this, rather than to attack the whole concept of modesty in dress..

 

 

In conclusion, I think feminist ideology has been harmful to society insofar as it has encouraged women to put career ahead of motherhood and family, devalued the role of men as providers and as protectors of women, and devalued the virtue of modesty.

[Socrates]

4. Right, and I don't have a problem with men having power that women don't...it's pretty obvious from the way society runs that they do. But it still doesn't change the fact that women don't need "protection" from men if men don't abuse their power.  That should be the focus of the "protection" discussion, not how we can protect women from men.  

 

Of course, men shouldn't abuse their power or physical strength, and should definitely be taught not to do so.

 

However, it does not follow that it is wrong for men to want to defend women from those who would abuse their power, or that it is wrong for women to want their men to protect them from harm.

 

You set up a false dichotomy.  If no men abused their power, or acted in aggression towards women, of course they would not need to be protected.

But in our real, fallen world, unfortunately, there will always be men who will act in evil aggression towards women, and it is right for men to want to defend them against such aggressors.

 

This is like saying it's wrong to own arms or learn self-defense because if nobody acted wrongly, there'd be no need for self-defense (well, actually, I've heard such asinine arguments, but nvm).  Or saying that there should be no cops because if people committed no crimes, there'd be no need for law enforcement.  (Ok, you get the idea - don't want to turn this into yet another gun control or anarchy debate.)

 

We should teach against unjust aggression, but also be prepared to defend against aggression, which unfortunately do occur.

 

I think it's definitely better for boys and men to be taught to protect and defend women, rather than teach them an attitude of everyone fend for themselves.

The attack on chivalry is part of the decline of our civilization.

[homeschoolmom]

 

Also, one of the signs the students made caught my attention. It was the one relating to Harry Potter, and how J.K. Rowling was told to use "J.K." and not "Joanne" because they didn't think people would buy it. To be fair, that may not have been entirely sexist. Joanne just isn't a very elegant and sophisticated name. I would have no qualms with buying a book from a Katherine Rowling, but you just don't expect a girl with a name like Joanne to be good at writing books.

 

 

I'm sorry, but what the heck?? Who decides on the merits of a book based on the author's name? And what's wrong with Joanne?