Feminists?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='picchick' post='1711262' date='Nov 26 2008, 02:39 AM']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.[/quote]

Agreed.

[dominicansoul]

fem·i·nist (fm-nst)
n.
A person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism.
adj.
Relating to feminism.

fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1895
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

according to meriam webster

there is absolutely nothing wrong with calling yourselves feminist, as it looks, by the definition that all women are feminist...

it seems only in the political sense does the word bear a negative connotation to some groups...

[HisChildForever]

I defined this earlier.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1711581' date='Nov 26 2008, 02:46 PM']I defined this earlier. [/quote]

...oops

I am slow!

[XIX]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1709972' date='Nov 24 2008, 06:33 PM']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?[/quote]
Life insurance?
[quote]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]
I don't recommend putting the words "businessman" and "enjoy" in the same sentence.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

Its more fun then Factory work.

11-12 hour days are not fun.

[Tinkerlina]

Regarding "subordination" and "subjection"-this is just something that occured to me-I'm thinking that God is calling BOTH parties to make themselves subject to one another, no? I mean the Church is the servant of God and God makes Himself servant of the Church; it's a mutual relationship (though yes, of course God is greater but God is a unique Person). God created us all and called us all to serve eachother. I can't imagine that he intends for a marriage to truly have one person calling the shots. I have seen the meaning of "wives, be submissive to your husbands" been used in a lot of unhealthy, disrespectful ways -and I have also seen woman who treat their husbands disrespectfully and in a domineering way . The bottom line is for both persons to recognize the God given dignity of the other and serve each other in the spirit of love and for the glory of GOd.

I always shied away from the word feminist in the past because of the many ways it can be interpreted, but at the end of the day, everyone can interpret any word the way they want and it's not my problem if someone misinterpret my calling myself a feminist. True, many people associate it with radical things such as birth control, abortion etc. However, these are examples of instances where "feminism" was simply a label stuck on to make something sound good while it was not actually espousing true feminism. Think about the original womens' rights workers-suffragettes. Not only did they work for a woman's right to vote, they did a lot to bring attention to important social issues, including the plight of child laborers, unfairly paid workers during the age of Industrialism, etc. -Katie

Edited November 26, 2008 by Tinkerlina

[rkwright]

[quote name='picchick' post='1711262' date='Nov 26 2008, 01:39 AM']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.[/quote]


[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1711578' date='Nov 26 2008, 02:44 PM']fem·i·nist (fm-nst)
n.
A person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism.
adj.
Relating to feminism.

fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1895
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

according to meriam webster

there is absolutely nothing wrong with calling yourselves feminist, as it looks, by the definition that all women are feminist...

it seems only in the political sense does the word bear a negative connotation to some groups...[/quote]

Pic... if you say you're using "feminist" to mean woman, why not just say "I am a woman". Or "I am a strong woman".

I have a problem with this. If people generally equate feminism with the radical feminism that we see today, I would be hesistant to call a Catholic a feminist. Its like saying "I'm a feminist, but not the feminist you're thinking of - a different one" If this is the case why even call yourself a feminist?

Say for example I said "I'm pro-choice - but not the kind of pro-chocie you're thinking about. I'm pro the ability of all people to exercise their free will. I am also pro the government protecting the unborn. So yes I'm pro-choice but also pro-life." While all this may be true, and after explaining it makes sense, this really isn't the common meaning of the word.

I guess it is sad that the word has connotations like it does, but it does.

Bottom line, it looks like word games to me.

Edited November 27, 2008 by rkwright

[Galloglasses' Alt]

The term feminist is now drafted in the language wars. Huzah!

Kidding.

but rkWright has a point, the word 'Feminist' in and of itself is a spoiled brand, (The NAME, not the ideas it capitulates), because it is most commonly associated with Radical Feminists these days that its pretty much a by-word.

Think of it this way, I am a conservative, but the word conservative is a spoiled brand because it automatically conjurs up images reminiscent of Neoconism and the worst possible interpretations of George Bush's actions and theo-fascism. Not my fault, but I cannot call myself a conservative without having the pejorism of the term associated.

[picchick]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1711902' date='Nov 26 2008, 09:17 PM']Pic... if you say you're using "feminist" to mean woman, why not just say "I am a woman". Or "I am a strong woman".

I have a problem with this. If people generally equate feminism with the radical feminism that we see today, I would be hesistant to call a Catholic a feminist. Its like saying "I'm a feminist, but not the feminist you're thinking of - a different one" If this is the case why even call yourself a feminist?

Say for example I said "I'm pro-choice - but not the kind of pro-chocie you're thinking about. I'm pro the ability of all people to exercise their free will. I am also pro the government protecting the unborn. So yes I'm pro-choice but also pro-life." While all this may be true, and after explaining it makes sense, this really isn't the common meaning of the word.

I guess it is sad that the word has connotations like it does, but it does.

Bottom line, it looks like word games to me.[/quote]

Feminist is easier to say

Seriously though. The "radical feminists" are not feminists. The world needs to see this. That is why I am a feminist. I am a woman. I believe in strong women who uphold their womenhood in all aspects. The "feminists" today do not uphold that. My meaning is much more than just "I am woman" and "I am a strong woman".

I do not play games. I am not playing word games. Sure someone can say that the word today means abortion supportor or what have you.

Bottom line: In order to be a feminist, you need to support women, support being a woman, and uphold womanhood. I am a feminist.

[CSLF]

" Ironically, at that same time, women were encouraged to become more and more like men. They were to find their fulfillment in jobs rather than in motherhood."

I don't know if it was intended, but this statement seems to assert that fulfillment, for women, is motherhood and fulfillment from a job is a corruption of fulfillment. Obviously I wouldn't exclude motherhood as one form of fulfillment for women, but why would God go to the trouble of giving women gifts that are more applicable to a career if motherhood is the sole or primary form of fulfillment for women.
For example, if a women is particularly good at math/accounting, should she just budget for her own household? What if she can offer other families the opportunity to be more financially secure by having a job that suits her talents?

Just wondering...

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CSLF' post='1712636' date='Nov 28 2008, 01:56 AM']" Ironically, at that same time, women were encouraged to become more and more like men. They were to find their fulfillment in jobs rather than in motherhood."

I don't know if it was intended, but this statement seems to assert that fulfillment, for women, is motherhood and fulfillment from a job is a corruption of fulfillment. Obviously I wouldn't exclude motherhood as one form of fulfillment for women, but why would God go to the trouble of giving women gifts that are more applicable to a career if motherhood is the sole or primary form of fulfillment for women.
For example, if a women is particularly good at math/accounting, should she just budget for her own household? What if she can offer other families the opportunity to be more financially secure by having a job that suits her talents?

Just wondering...[/quote]

Very well said. This is always my argument.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

Both of you just took what was said out of context, what was said was more implying how women are being pressured into the workplace to the point where motherhood is implied in a negative fashion.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1712912' date='Nov 28 2008, 02:17 PM']Both of you just took what was said out of context, what was said was more implying how women are being pressured into the workplace to the point where motherhood is implied in a negative fashion.[/quote]

If women are being pressured into the work force when they would rather be stay-at-home mothers, this is because of living expenses, not because the women who [i]want[/i] to work "ruined" it for them.

[XIX]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1712913' date='Nov 28 2008, 03:21 PM']If women are being pressured into the work force when they would rather be stay-at-home mothers, this is because of living expenses, not because the women who [i]want[/i] to work "ruined" it for them.[/quote]
Correct me if I am wrong, but are living expenses really that different from what they were 40 years ago. Do you have any substantial data to back up the claim that our basic needs are substantially more expensive than they used to be?

I mean, what do you assert happened? Does food cost more? (with reagrds to inflation, of course) Do houses cost more? Auto expenses?

Or are people nowadays more inclined to blow a lot of money on a nice but ultimately useless gift? Maybe people view cable TV and high-definition as "necessities." Perhaps we just have 200 music CDs or DVDs, a family vacation every year, expensive hobbies, etc.

I don't know for sure if the expense of our necessities has increased, but I seems as if our creature comforts have become exponentially more expensive. Consumerism is on crack from Black Friday through New Year's--meanwhile, we give ten bucks to some charity to make us feel good. So I definitely think that expenses on that front have increased.

I'm not sure about other expenses. I can't really think of anything that jumps out at me as a necessity that's way out of whack with what it should be. Maybe gas prices are more expensive, but even when it was $4, was it ever that bad where most peoples' lifestyles were knocked down a peg or two? College prices are out of control, but you can always send the kids to a state school, have them pay for part of it, take out loans, etc. I'm sure things are tougher on people who were living on the brink to begin with.

If living expenses are up, is it for any reason beyond our heightened snese of consumerism? Because I'm skeptical that our [i]needs[/i] have become much more expensive. I'm just curious as to why you say that living expenses are up.