Feminists?

[Galloglasses' Alt]

In an addition to Maximillianus' post: Devaluate the roles' importance altogether for both sexes, in the sense that the idea fo Roles are 'sexist' in nature.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Galloglasses' Alt

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1709834' date='Nov 24 2008, 04:00 PM']but I also don't think we ought to have nearly as many women in the workforce as we do.[/quote]

So then am I to assume that you believe a woman's place to be in the home? That women who do not become sisters (or nuns) are to be housewives?

Let me throw something out there. You have a married couple, and they have three children. With your reasoning, the woman does not have a job. Heck, let's say she didn't even finish college because halfway through she got married, conceived, and obviously needed to stay home while her husband, who is slightly older, is working full-time. What if something horrible happens? he dies? or there is domestic abuse? How on earth can this mother now support three children with no decent college education, and no professional work experience?

My point is that it is more than just sexist to say that a woman should stay at home and have the kids and raise them, while the man is allowed to enjoy being a husband, a father, and a businessman. But it is downright foolish and unrealistic.

[quote]With so many women now working, everything is geared more towards a two income family, and this creates very difficult situations for women who want to stay at home.[/quote]

I [i]really[/i] disagree with this. Everything is geared more towards a two-income family because living expenses have gone up, and many people simply can not afford to rely on one income. Women working does NOT create difficult situations for women who want to be stay-at-home moms! It all depends on how good the one-income salary is.

[quote]Now women that want to stay at home are some times forced to work,[/quote]

Correct. Because not only are they living on one salary, or because of high living expenses, but also because of the amount of children they have and all the expenses that go with that.

[quote]and instead of having the right to work, now they have the obligation to work to support the family.[/quote]

See above.

[quote]Many men can't get jobs high paying enough to support a single income family, and even those that can, many of them it takes two incomes to first pay off college debt and a couple of years for the man to progress in the work field before the woman really has the option of being a stay at home mom.[/quote]

Correct. Living. Expenses. I don't know how many times I'm going to say it.

[quote]This is what I'm looking at now. Graduating with 80,000 in loans, my girlfriend graduating with 40,000. That's 120,000 in loans. If I were to try and raise a single income family from day one, it would be near impossible, which is really unfortunate since my current girlfriend would love even to conceive on her wedding night. Personally, I'm getting a second degree in a higher paying field just so that I can really support a family. My job will not be something that I truly have a desire to do, but it is what I will need for the sake of my family.

For a lot of young Catholics, it means starting off marriage for a couple years with NFP, not getting married until years out of college (even though the relationship and maturity of the couple is appropriate for marriage), or the wife not having the option of staying at home after having the first child.[/quote]

That's life.

I just really don't appreciate you "blaming" women for the necessity of a two-income family.

[quote]If feminism didn't push so hard for equality in the workforce, I don't think there would be such a problem in trying to raise single income families, which is what culture has seen for the past thousands of years not including 1930's and on. Not only has feminism given women the option of working, but in many cases, the obligation.[/quote]

So you don't believe women should have equality in the workforce.

I wonder how you would react if your gender was the one oftentimes looked down upon and discriminated against. You would be singing a different tune.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

Wow HCF, you really are getting worked up over his post a bit much. You take one thing and say it implies another. Example when Slappo said he didn't believe that there should nearly be as much women in the workforce as there are now, [b]he was not saying that they should be at the home as you were implying.[/b] We know you are passionate about this subject but please, stop putting words in people's mouths and calm down.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1710075' date='Nov 24 2008, 07:58 PM']Wow HCF, you really are getting worked up over his post a bit much. You take one thing and say it implies another. Example when Slappo said he didn't believe that there should nearly be as much women in the workforce as there are now, [b]he was not saying that they should be at the home as you were implying.[/b] We know you are passionate about this subject but please, stop putting words in people's mouths and calm down.[/quote]

You think that's me being worked up?

I'm not putting words in his mouth. I never said "You said X and Y." I'm drawing thoughts from his statements and I'm asking for clarification.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Deb' post='1708850' date='Nov 23 2008, 07:30 PM']Feminism is the worst thing that ever happened to women. It took them from trying to be treated with the respect and dignity one would treat an equal to become people not really deserving of respect and dignity.

Before anyone jumps all over me for that. It is not all women, but take a look at the secular world. Stopping sexual harrassment was a goal for women and badly needed. Now, women seem to stand for nothing much more than what they can offer sexually.

Women wanted to stop being second class citizens. Now, no class citizens. Now that women are equal in the ways of work and education, they find themselves alone and empty. They got the money, they have the material things but, they also got their casual sex, their abortions, their emptiness and their prozac.[/quote]

I think, as you see with almost any social movement, the womens' rights movement was a good thing that evil slipped into and twisted-namely, abortion. However, I don't think feminism itself is the worst thing to happen to women-the original feminists were fighting, as you say, to be treated with respect and dignity, as an equal. Without the efforts of many of those women, we would still be second class citizens. I totally agree that extremism came about in the movement, but the original movement was a good one. -Katie

[Maggyie]

Meg I admire your self-discipline in staying off the threads that you know will not be edifying for you. Honestly the reason that I click on to these threads is that it seems like they are always bumped to the top and I get sucked in so easily, even though the endless circular arguments really irritate me and I KNOW that I am going to feel worse after reading them.

HCF, I don't think you mean to put words in people's mouths, it just comes off that way because sometimes when one is passionate about something, one interprets the arguments of the people who disagree in the worst possible way. Slappo's statements about how women moving into the workforce caused wage deficiencies isn't meant to "blame" women for the necessity of two-income households, it is just an observation of wage competition. When the labor pool gets larger and the number of jobs available stays the same, there are wage problems. I imagine if the number of women in the workforce dropped to 50s levels, there would be heavy adjustments to wages as employers started having to compete for the services of a smaller labor force.

And he wasn't saying he doesn't think that women should have equality in the work force, he was just pointing out that it has been a mixed bag and not an unmitigated good. Surely you can admit that there are many social problems (as well as social goods) that have arisen from the current arrangement. I don't know anyone who looks down on women - do you? And I don't mean the neighborhood Neo Nazi or cranky old grandpa. I have never encountered a situation where women were discriminated against, and although I am sure it exists in the USA it must be pretty rare, certainly not "often" as you state. In fact most major companies really strain themselves trying to fill management positions with women.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Maggie

[HisChildForever]

Meg summed up the discrimination quite well.

[quote]Have we got the same freedoms as a man? To an extent yes, however, we are still paid less than men (which is improving but still is less), we are still looked down upon in certain professions (medical schools tend to work women harder than men to try to weed them out) and in many ways we are still seen as inferior.[/quote]

I can definitely elaborate on the inferiority she mentioned. Has a man ever "cat-called" you before? If the answer is yes, then you've experienced a form of discrimination: being objectified, being seen as a piece of meat, a body looked at for one's selfish pleasure. The man will do this and gain a sense of power because he knows the female (in many cases) can not physically beat him up the way a man can. He gets sick pleasure and drowns himself in her weakness and inability to fight back.

The belief that a woman's place is in the kitchen is also discrimination. That all she is only good for is reproducing and serving her husband. (Before I get flamed for this, I want to be explicitly clear that there is nothing wrong with housewives. But there is something wrong with the belief that a woman can and should only be a housewife.) Furthermore, the belief that a woman is incapable of handling a professional job because she is a woman, and all the colorful stereotypes surrounding that ("she's too fragile" and "she's not as smart as a man" etc.). A woman cannot be President because of her "hormones." Yep, heard that one before. And how many times has some guy made a snide comment "Oh, it must be that time of the month" as if a woman has no right to get angry and defensive. Building on that, an outspoken and opinionated woman is oftentimes called the b-word, whereas an outspoken and opinionated man is considered aggressive and intelligent.

[rkwright]

Is being a housewife as "good" as having a career?

Do children need to have a parent at home?

If yes, which of the two spouses is better suited for raising the children, and which of the two is better suited for providing income?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1710348' date='Nov 25 2008, 01:38 AM']If yes, which of the two spouses is better suited for raising the children, and which of the two is better suited for providing income?[/quote]

If both parents are working, and one needs to stay home, then the one with the higher income should be the working parent.

If you are insinuating that women are better suited for raising children over men, this severely downplays a man's role as both husband and father. And it is also a stereotype.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='picchick' post='1709647' date='Nov 24 2008, 02:22 PM']Maggie,
If you are tired of these sort of threads why did you post in here? Why not ignore it? I feel the same way about the homosexual threads and the abortion threads. They become overworked and what not and just get annoying. So I ignore them. It makes me think that despite your sentiment, there might be something worth talking. I am not condemning or anything, just stating my observations.

To all:
Let me start out by saying my definition of feminist: being totally happy, totally in love with being a woman. As being a woman, we are equal to man because we are also human. We can excel in all the areas that men can, maybe not always physically but definitely intellectually. We fight for rights because our past history shows that we have been stripped of them. Have we got the same freedoms as a man? To an extent yes, however, we are still paid less than men (which is improving but still is less), we are still looked down upon in certain professions (medical schools tend to work women harder than men to try to weed them out) and in many ways we are still seen as inferior.

Being a feminist does not mean that we tear down males. I believe that each gender needs to uphold the other and support them. If we are equal, then fighting for equality does not mean that we make the other inferior. This would then negate our whole mission. Instead of raisng us to a position of respect, we are lowering us to that inferior position that we put men at. Furthermore, being a feminist does not mean that we want to be LIKE males. Honestly, I really don't want to be a man. Although we do have many things in common. I like being a woman way too much.

The feminist movement today, I find, do not fit these categories. The common view of feminists are men haters, birth control pushers, reproductive "right" supportors. However, this is getting away from being a woman no? How are we suppose to fight for equality if we make men inferior? How are we suppose to be equal if we hate men? Does that mean we would hate women as well? If we state that men are pigs then does that mean we are fighting for women to be pigs too?

As far as birth control goes, I do support it for medical reasons if all other paths are exhausted. I think that in today's society it is being pushed and taken like candy, similarly, I believe to antidepressants. I do not think that it should be used as birth control. We are women. Isn't that what we were made to do? Why would women want to dumb synthetic hormones, chemicals, into their bodies for the sake of repressing what we are made to do? There are more natural ways to go about things reproductively than to resort to that. Cancers that strike primarily women (breast, ovarian, endometrial) can all be caused by birth control as well as outside factors. We we start messing with our natural hormonal cycle, things go awray. Has these women seen someone with ovarian cancer? It is horrible. Absolutely horrible. If caught early, breast cancer can be cured. No cancer is good. It is better to prevent it than to add to the cause of it.

I do not know why women fight for reporductive rights. A woman does have control over her reproductive system in a sense. You just have to know how to do it. I really cannot comprehend this new "right" it very well. I actually have to chuckle at this. I mean honestly, what are they talking about? I know what they are getting at but it is going against what their claim their movement is about. I think instead we should fight the objectification of women in ads, movies, television shows, et. al. Isn't that we want to be seen as equal human beings rather than an object to be guawked at? So I am a bit confused. If we want to be viewed as objects, then of course men are going to look at us as objects. And from this view we take on a subhuman form. They could do anything to us because we are inferior to them. However, if we do not see ourselves as objects then they will not view us as objects. By doing so we will demand respect.

Another thought on why women may feel empty when the are in the work force rather than staying at home. Maybe they are practicing "reproductive rights"? There are more things to the issue than just the fact of working rather than staying at home.

Thanks all!
Meg[/quote]

Very well put As for staying home vs working-I truly think the "best" situation is the one that fits the individual. For example, I nanny for a relative who works at a Ph.D level job. I know how devoted she and her husband are to their children but I also know that they worked for eons to be professionally fulfilled and both enjoy their jobs. I don't know that it would be a great situation if either of them stayed home full time; I think they would become restless and I don't truly feel they'd be able to focus completely on their children. On the other hand, they take measures to spend as much time with them as possible, including their mother (my cousin) working from home one of her regularly scheduled work days. On the other hand, my mother left her job when she had me and was and is a full time homemaker. In her case, I don't think she could've stood to work out of the home and I think it was most definitely the best situation for our family. God gave all of us different talents, hopes and roles and I think, with prayer and an open ear, He'll guide each of us on the right path. -Katie

[Tinkerlina]

Sorry, double posted.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Tinkerlina

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1710362' date='Nov 25 2008, 02:07 AM']If you are insinuating that women are better suited for raising children over men, this severely downplays a man's role as both husband and father. And it is also a stereotype.[/quote]

Some stereotypes are true. A man can be a great husband and father but still not suited to being a stay at home parent. Saying women are better suited for raising children does not diminish the value of fatherhood. Both parent's play a role in the raising of children, but when it comes to staying at home, in the vast majority of cases, women ARE better suited to raise the children. (Just because you don't want to doesn't mean that it's not true. There are exceptions to every rule.) Sure, there are some exceptional dads who step up so their wives can work, especially if the wife can earn a bigger paycheck, but they are not the norm.

[johnnydigit]

i am a guy and i'll admit i voted for "evil" because of the general negative connotation it displays in current society. many of the ideals of the common feminist are disordered and are not in line with Church teachings.

i think femininity can be understood properly if you understand Ephesians 5:21-28,

[b]21
5 Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. 6
22
Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.
23
For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body.
24
As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.
25
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her
26
to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
27
that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
28
So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.[/b]

if you are Catholic and following the teachings of the Church, you will not subscribe to the pitfalls of the common feminist. of course, there is nothing wrong with wanting to go a step further and wanting to advocate the proper Catholic teachings on femininity, masculinity, or anything else that society needs to improve on. as far as calling yourself a "Catholic feminist", consider what Pope Benedict XV said about "labels":

AD BEATISSIMI APOSTOLORUM ("APPEALING FOR PEACE")
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV
[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_01111914_ad-beatissimi-apostolorum_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict...tolorum_en.html[/url]

"24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself. "

[picchick]

I am using the word feminist as it is. I am woman. I am proud do be such. I am a feminist. There is nothing wrong with that and it is not against the Church.

[franciscanheart]

There is such a thing as Catholic feminism, though it is radically different than feminism as it is typically understood in our society today.