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

[Basilisa Marie]

 

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.

 

 

I could also say that if you have a problem with mutual submission, take it up with the Holy Spirit.  Ephesians 5:21, which is the verse that comes directly before the "family" section.  If you read chapters 5 and 6, you see that it's about everyone submitting to each other, in Christ, albeit in different ways.  

 

 

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.

 

 

So women are responsible for the failings of men to be fathers?  

[jazzytakara]

I found some of their quotes very good, others not so much. My experiences with feminism is that there are different types. There is the type of feminism which fights for women's rights, such as the right to vote, equal pay, the right to choose, etc. It's often called Liberal Feminism and is more about ensuring women are treated equally to men and are treated as people with the same rights. There are feminist groups that focus on the multicultural aspects of feminism and go to other countries with limited (and in some cases no) women's rights and try to promote them and have them set up in those countries. There are also more radical forms of feminism where some women wish for male-female segregation for whatever reason. I've also met feminists who believed that the past way to 'beat the patriarchy' is to embrace sexuality and promiscuity as form of liberation; for instance, I have met some women who believe women should have multiple sex partners, casual sex, etc. as being overtly promiscuous should not be just for men (yet many still believe its wrong for men to do so, but okay for women to do so). Originally the feminist movement was meant to give women the right to choose what they did with their lives, yet today so many women disrespect my right to choose wanting to get married and have children early on. I had a roommate that found the idea of having children before thirty ridiculous. I agree with the older version of feminism, equal rights, etc. However, modern feminism seems to be more about being overly sexual, abortion 'rights', and denying maternal roles. Kind of frustrating...

[Basilisa Marie]

Seriously guys.  New Feminism.   You'll love it.  

 

New feminism is a philosophy which emphasizes a belief in an integral complementarity of men and women, rather than the superiority of men over women or women over men.^[1]

New feminism, as a form of difference feminism, supports the idea that men and women have different strengths, perspectives, and roles, while advocating for the equal worth and dignity of both sexes. Among its basic concepts are that the most important differences are those that are biological rather than cultural. New Feminism holds that women should be valued in their role as child bearers, both culturally and economically, while not being viewed as a "home maker" in the broader sense of the meaning.^{[citation needed]} It main aim is to promote the idea that women are individuals with equal worth as men; and that in social, economic and legal senses they should be equal, while accepting the natural differences between the sexes.

 

 

[CrossCuT]

I've been studying feminism and hanging out with a bunch of radical feminists inspired by the women of the second-wave movement.

 

The radical feminist community is staunchly pro-breastfeeding and pro-midwifery. Motherhood is celebrated, but not in any sexist way - there is no shaming of childless women, or insinuations that a woman has to give birth to find fulfillment, or anything like that. And radical feminists, while they believe there is a need for contraception in society as it stands currently, don't treat it as liberation but rather as a way for men to secure sexual access to women in an exploitative way. There are several radical feminist critiques out there on contraception. Even many liberal feminists wouldn't view it as 'liberation', despite being a lot more positive about contraception generally. There seems to be a tendency amongst some people to label any woman who talks enthusiastically about birth control as a feminist, even if her overall politics are at odds with key aspects of feminist thinking. There are frictions between Catholicism and ideas carried by certain streams of feminist thought, but these are not necessarily the frictions that people would initially imagine or expect.

What is the relative size of this second wave movement? I am not aware of it. 

[Lil Red]

Also: New Wave Feminists. https://www.facebook.com/NewWaveFeminists :) 

[CrossCuT]

I like this new wave! I hope it catches fire!

I have not observed it on any large scale so I didnt know it was a thing.

[the171]

Ugh. Just shut up. Most of you are either being fabulous or making yourself look bad. ;)

[Socrates]

You're also setting up a false dichotomy - it's not that either men defend women or everyone fends for themselves.  People need to protect each other, regardless of gender.  My problem with the whole "protection" idea is that it almost always stops there.  I hardly ever hear people who talk about protecting women also talk about holding men accountable for their actions.  I also almost always hear people who talk about protection talk about women as if they are beautiful, perfect, pillars of virtue, frail and weak.   And I'm not that kind of woman, and I don't think it makes me less feminine.  It seems to me that men have come up with this idea of what "real" femininity is, and feel good about protecting it.  It's not bad that men feel good about protecting women, but if they do it they have to treat us like persons, not dolls.  

I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea of men protecting women, in itself. I'm not stupid - the reality is that I'm less likely to get harassed or attacked if I'm walking home with my boyfriend than if I'm alone.  My problem lies with all the stuff that usually surrounds the "protection" philosophy, or the way it gets put into practice.  

 

You're attacking a lot of things here that were never stated or implied in either Photosynthesis's or my own posts, and really, are completely alien to my own experiences.

 

Photo was originally defending the chivalry towards women, which I believe is a good thing, which shows respect and honor towards women, rather than demeans them (whatever feminist ideology might claim).

 

The idea of respecting and honoring women, not attacking or abusing them, and of protecting and defending them all go together.

 

One of the first things I remember being taught as a little boy was, "Never hit a girl."  

We were taught never to hurt or mistreat a girl or woman, and that to do so was exceptionally wrong and dishonorable.  We were also taught that it was the duty of men to protect and defend women, and that to fail to do so was shameful.

It used to be that everyone was taught this way.

 

This does not have to do with women being perfect, or "frail and weak."  (As you acknowledge, in general, most women are not as physically strong as men, and thus may need more protection, but treating a woman right does not depend on her being perfect, her physical beauty, nor her level of physical strength.)  It does have to do with seeing the goodness inherit in all women, which is worthy of the respect of men.

 

In my experience, those who believe that men have a duty to protect women are also those who hold men to the highest standards of accountability in their own behavior - it's all part of the same package.

 

Chivalric behavior was also encouraged at the conservative Catholic school I attended, and was regarded as honoring women, rather than demeaning them.  And lets just say that "date rape" and abuse of women was virtually non-existent on that campus.  Most women I've known appreciate chivalric gestures such as opening doors, rather than be offended by them.

 

I'm not sure who these people are you've known, but in my experience those who believe in basic chivalry and that men should protect and defend women tend to be those with the highest general moral standards, and the least likely to treat women in an abusive or degrading manner.

[Socrates]

I could also say that if you have a problem with mutual submission, take it up with the Holy Spirit.  Ephesians 5:21, which is the verse that comes directly before the "family" section.  If you read chapters 5 and 6, you see that it's about everyone submitting to each other, in Christ, albeit in different ways.  

 

 

 

 

I said nothing against mutual submission - just pointing out that men being heads of the household is not in itself evil, and is in accord with Scripture.  Like everything else, it needs to be placed in its proper context.

 

 

So women are responsible for the failings of men to be fathers?  

 

No.

 

I said that feminist ideology (which is not the same thing as women - yes, kids, there is a distinction) was a contributing factor to the breakdown in the family.

 

If marriage is degraded, and regarded as unnecessary to raising a child, and if fathers are likewise seen as optional, men will have less incentive to "man up," settle down and support a family.

 

Both men and women are part of the problem, and both will need to be part of the solution.  The solution is a return to "traditional" standards of morality and family - which has been widely attacked by feminism and other modern ideologies

[Basilisa Marie]

You're attacking a lot of things here that were never stated or implied in either Photosynthesis's or my own posts, and really, are completely alien to my own experiences.

 

Photo was originally defending the chivalry towards women, which I believe is a good thing, which shows respect and honor towards women, rather than demeans them (whatever feminist ideology might claim).

 

The idea of respecting and honoring women, not attacking or abusing them, and of protecting and defending them all go together.

 

One of the first things I remember being taught as a little boy was, "Never hit a girl."  

We were taught never to hurt or mistreat a girl or woman, and that to do so was exceptionally wrong and dishonorable.  We were also taught that it was the duty of men to protect and defend women, and that to fail to do so was shameful.

It used to be that everyone was taught this way.

 

This does not have to do with women being perfect, or "frail and weak."  (As you acknowledge, in general, most women are not as physically strong as men, and thus may need more protection, but treating a woman right does not depend on her being perfect, her physical beauty, nor her level of physical strength.)  It does have to do with seeing the goodness inherit in all women, which is worthy of the respect of men.

 

In my experience, those who believe that men have a duty to protect women are also those who hold men to the highest standards of accountability in their own behavior - it's all part of the same package.

 

Chivalric behavior was also encouraged at the conservative Catholic school I attended, and was regarded as honoring women, rather than demeaning them.  And lets just say that "date rape" and abuse of women was virtually non-existent on that campus.  Most women I've known appreciate chivalric gestures such as opening doors, rather than be offended by them.

 

I'm not sure who these people are you've known, but in my experience those who believe in basic chivalry and that men should protect and defend women tend to be those with the highest general moral standards, and the least likely to treat women in an abusive or degrading manner.

 

Look, Socrates, you're pretty fortunate to not have had to deal with the problems that go with the whole "protecting women" thing.  And there are plenty of women that like it.  But not all of us do, because it's used as an excuse to keep us from doing certain things, or for objectifying women.  I'd venture to guess that you're someone who's doing it right, who isn't objectifying women or any of that.  But I've also run into a LOT of men who say they subscribe to the "protection" philosophy and abuse it, using it as justification for why women shouldn't go to college, pursue any career ever, study theology, live on their own, wear pants, all kinds of things.  It's insane.  Men use it as a way to take away women's ability to make decisions about their lives.  And most of these people that do this that I've run into are Catholic.  

So that's why I think that when we talk about "protection" stuff, we have to qualify it in ways that prevents people from abusing it.  

[Socrates]

Look, Socrates, you're pretty fortunate to not have had to deal with the problems that go with the whole "protecting women" thing.  And there are plenty of women that like it.  But not all of us do, because it's used as an excuse to keep us from doing certain things, or for objectifying women.  I'd venture to guess that you're someone who's doing it right, who isn't objectifying women or any of that.  But I've also run into a LOT of men who say they subscribe to the "protection" philosophy and abuse it, using it as justification for why women shouldn't go to college, pursue any career ever, study theology, live on their own, wear pantaloons, all kinds of things.  It's insane.  Men use it as a way to take away women's ability to make decisions about their lives.  And most of these people that do this that I've run into are Catholic.  

So that's why I think that when we talk about "protection" stuff, we have to qualify it in ways that prevents people from abusing it.  

 

Sounds like you've been around a lot of "rad-trad" types (or maybe ultra-conservative protestants with similar views).

 

Not everyone who holds to basic chivalry and such subscribes to all the views you describe (obviously, a co-ed Catholic college would not oppose women having a college education, for instance).  Most of the Catholics I grew up withw ere conservative in social views, but not quite that extreme.

 

So, you're probably talking about something somewhat different than Photosynthesis and I, or at least bring different baggage with it, so we might be talking past one another to a certain extent.

 

I still think even the "rad-trad" views for the most part are still preferable to the dominant secular ideology, and that women tend to be treated with more respect and less objectified among Catholics/Christians who believe in chivalry and "traditional" sex roles, than among the secular liberal crowd who think "protecting women" involves a condom.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Look, Socrates, you're pretty fortunate to not have had to deal with the problems that go with the whole "protecting women" thing.  And there are plenty of women that like it.  But not all of us do, because it's used as an excuse to keep us from doing certain things, or for objectifying women.  I'd venture to guess that you're someone who's doing it right, who isn't objectifying women or any of that.  But I've also run into a LOT of men who say they subscribe to the "protection" philosophy and abuse it, using it as justification for why women shouldn't go to college, pursue any career ever, study theology, live on their own, wear pantaloons, all kinds of things.  It's insane.  Men use it as a way to take away women's ability to make decisions about their lives.  And most of these people that do this that I've run into are Catholic.  

So that's why I think that when we talk about "protection" stuff, we have to qualify it in ways that prevents people from abusing it.  

 

This is true in some cases. My aunt was constantly checked on by her parents during a time when she owned her own place and had a good job (while getting paid more than her bosses' bosses lol). They would always worry about her because she never had a man in her life. She became especially peeved by the fact that they never paid as much mind to her brother, who had a gambling problem and was living with her because he couldn't afford his own place. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

i should have clarified that by "aunt" i meant a female relative that's older than me. I tend to call them all my "aunts". Lulz, sorry for the confusion. 

Edited June 21, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[photosynthesis]

Also: New Wave Feminists. https://www.facebook.com/NewWaveFeminists :)

 

I can get behind this.  Support a woman's right to listen to the Talking Heads and Duran Duran!

[the171]

Are you freaking kidding me...