Vatican Fears Feminism Threatens Families....
Moderators: wldspirit, root'n toot'n
18 posts • Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
I realize the message about feminism and the church is three years old... but I feel compelled to respond to some of the points Root N Toot N made.
I feel your arguments have fallen victim to seeing everything in the past with rose colored glasses. Yes feminism and the civil rights movement changed women, how they saw themselves and the options afforded them by the world around them. Yes, some changes have negatively impacted women and society. Many others are positive. BUT one cannot say that all was better and ideal before these changes occurred.
You site many statistics:
For these statistics to show that feminism has destroyed the family structure of America, one must believe that before 1960
All children were conceived to happily married couples who welcomed them, loved them, provided for them. That there was no premarital softball. That fathers were never absent. That women and children were not abused. That people married for love and stayed married because of their commitment to one another and their family. That mothers and fathers never left their children to be raised by aunts/ uncles/ grandparents or older siblings. That babies weren't left in hospitals, and there were no orphanages. That men didn't cheat, and neither did women.
I don't believe this was ever the case. I don't have studies or statistics to back up this claim, but I am sure that this has never been the case. I have read enough literature and history to make this claim.
I also think that some of the problems with families you site can be blamed on MEN not women.
Yes, there are women who are choosing to have children outside of marriage. THIS is usually older, educated, affluent women. NOT mothers of the young men who fall victim to street violence because of absent fathers. MOST women ideally would not choose to raise children alone. It is a huge undertaking for a couple! I can not imagine raising my children without my husband, and extended family for that matter.
I just read an article in my local newspaper last week that sited that many young teen girls who become pregnant were WILLFULLY impregnated by abusive men. http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/390971.html
Years ago these young women would have ended up married to the man. Now, maybe they will have a chance at living life free of such abuse.
Here I agree with you 100%. ONe of my biggest criticisms of many American feminists is that they have not given enough credit and done enough to show how important "traditional" women have been to the maintenance of our society.
I don't think feminism set out to undermine this contribution. I think it is values of American Society that have. Ideally many feminists have supported and sought to further the cause of women in all their various societal roles.
My grandmother had 7 children, she canned all the families food, which she grew, and literally worked from dawn to dusk... actually I think the old saying was men work from dusk to dawn; a woman's work is never done!
That role of women of the first quarter of this centuries has changed. We have washing machines, dish washers, frozen food, vacuum cleaners, we don't iron like we used to, we have different items in our grocery store shelves and cars to bring us there. One cannot credit feminism with all of these changes.
My family HAS always seen the raising of children as the most important role of the family, and in this the mother is the head, but I don't think she has ever been alone in this endeavor. I am fortunate that my family has also always appreciated and valued and honored "women's work". I don't think this has been the case for society in general. Women's work is hard work. AND it is often invisible, thankless work.
Take preparing a holiday meal. It can take weeks to plan and prepare for. Everyone eats it up and three hours later you're back in the kitchen doing dishes, making coffee and getting ready to serve more food. If you're lucky you receive thanks, and can see the pleasure on your dining guests' faces. BUT many don't realize all that went into the event. Many women would rather go out or order out or have someone else do the cooking.
Your reference to Marx and Lenin are aptly placed, because largely it was the "working class" woman who did such work. Higher class, wealthy women, have never worked like this. They always had maids, nannies, cooks etc. They even left the nursing to someone else.
One night as my husband and I were finishing dinner and getting ready for baths, cleaning the kitchen, and all our nightly chores. I said to him, if we were rich at this point we'd kiss the kids good night and we could go sit, our maid would do the dishes and the nanny would bathe and put the kids to bed. I'm tired at that point in the day even if I haven't gone to work outside our home.
Yes, the family was and IS dependent on everyone playing a role. Those roles have changed, from feminism but also from changes in the work force. Even in those good old days, when "child rearing was their major job" they could not do it ALL single handedly. There was too much work to do. They had help, maybe it was the grandmother, or sister-in-law or the older children looking after the younger. In any event the mother was not the only one doing the mothering and sometimes worked outside the home. My grandmother did seasonal work canning sardines. My other grandmother did seasonal work packing fruit. Had they ever been asked their occupation, it would have been mother, house wife, AND working provided for their families so was an extension of that primary role.
How is this new? As far as your questions as to why this is undermining th family...
They "Why" depends on the family. Some may be over consumers...but this is a result of capitalism gone astray not feminism. SOme may be poor (the poor have always worked more and their children have always suffered consequences) and job opportunities have to do with education AND locale. The "Who is raising" depends on the family. The "nuclear" family has not ceased to exist. It exists to this day. The extended family is what if anything has changed. Was grandma who lived with mom and dad and looked after the little ones while mom was off working in the fields part of the nuclear family. Was the sister in law who acted as house cleaner part of the nuclear family? Was the cousin who came over on wash day part? Taxes... well they say there are only two things we can count on. I personally am glad that we can support ourselves and if some goes to help those that can't... well so be it.
I am thankful that there was a civil rights movement and feminist movement, without these, I may not have had many of the opportunities I had to become educated, to travel and to work in a profession that is intellectually satisfying.
I am a high school teacher. I am the first female in my family to graduate college. Deciding how to balance my role as mother and my career has not been easy. It was largely expected that I would just quit.
I have opted for part time work with extended maternity leaves (unpaid- the six week paid leave is ridiculous, most developed nations give a year!) for each of my children. I am currently on maternity leave.
I am mother wife daughter and teacher. Of course my children come first, but I cannot provide for them, and I am not solely talking financial provision, without continuing my career. What message do I send my daughter if I stop being who I was before marriage and children? You go to college to meet a man? (to learn to drink and swear... as was suggested in another post) You get married and the rest just stops? If so, what was the point of earning advanced degrees and establishing myself in my profession?
Yes, I do have to have help, from aunts, grandparents, etc. in caring for my children. I don't though think things have changed much. I am still primarily mother and wife, everything else fits around this, only I don't have time to can food and raise a crop that will provide for my family through the winter as my grandmother did.[/quote]
I feel your arguments have fallen victim to seeing everything in the past with rose colored glasses. Yes feminism and the civil rights movement changed women, how they saw themselves and the options afforded them by the world around them. Yes, some changes have negatively impacted women and society. Many others are positive. BUT one cannot say that all was better and ideal before these changes occurred.
You site many statistics:
In 1999, 41 percent of all first births were born to premarital parents.
Of females ages 15 to 29, 53 percent of first children were conceived out of wedlock.
Press-Release (CB99-213), U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Information Office, December 20, 1999.
Fifty-three percent of high school girls say it is worthwhile to have a child out of wedlock.
“Snapshot of America,” Rutgers University study, The Barna Report, July-Sept. 1999.
An estimated 25 million (40 percent) children are growing up without fathers in the home.
“American Agenda,” World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, December 13, 1994.
Boys living in a fatherless home are two to three times more likely to be involved in crime, drop out of school, and get divorced. Girls living in a fatherless home are two to three times more likely to become pregnant teenagers and have their marriages end in divorce.
“Heading Toward a Fatherless Society,” by Barry Kliff, MSNBC News, http://www.msnbc.com, March 31, 1999.
For these statistics to show that feminism has destroyed the family structure of America, one must believe that before 1960
All children were conceived to happily married couples who welcomed them, loved them, provided for them. That there was no premarital softball. That fathers were never absent. That women and children were not abused. That people married for love and stayed married because of their commitment to one another and their family. That mothers and fathers never left their children to be raised by aunts/ uncles/ grandparents or older siblings. That babies weren't left in hospitals, and there were no orphanages. That men didn't cheat, and neither did women.
I don't believe this was ever the case. I don't have studies or statistics to back up this claim, but I am sure that this has never been the case. I have read enough literature and history to make this claim.
I also think that some of the problems with families you site can be blamed on MEN not women.
Almost 70 percent of young men in prison grew up without fathers in the home.
“American Agenda,” World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, January 12, 1995.
Only 5 percent of the single parent family population attend church regularly.
The Hidden Mission Field, by Theresa McKenna, Winepress Publishing, 1999.
Yes, there are women who are choosing to have children outside of marriage. THIS is usually older, educated, affluent women. NOT mothers of the young men who fall victim to street violence because of absent fathers. MOST women ideally would not choose to raise children alone. It is a huge undertaking for a couple! I can not imagine raising my children without my husband, and extended family for that matter.
I just read an article in my local newspaper last week that sited that many young teen girls who become pregnant were WILLFULLY impregnated by abusive men. http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/390971.html
Years ago these young women would have ended up married to the man. Now, maybe they will have a chance at living life free of such abuse.
Those who think that women who work cannot have family do not know the history of the world very well where women have always worked and raised children...only that work was closer to home and unpaid. They tilled the fields, farmed, preserved the foods, worked from dawn to dusk....they always worked. Yet child rearing was their major job and the family was dependent upon everyone playing a role...even the women. If the world tomorrow is dependent upon the children raised today, does this not mean that child raising is an important skill in society and not to be condemned by those who think working outside the home is the only way a woman can be equal?
Here I agree with you 100%. ONe of my biggest criticisms of many American feminists is that they have not given enough credit and done enough to show how important "traditional" women have been to the maintenance of our society.
I don't think feminism set out to undermine this contribution. I think it is values of American Society that have. Ideally many feminists have supported and sought to further the cause of women in all their various societal roles.
My grandmother had 7 children, she canned all the families food, which she grew, and literally worked from dawn to dusk... actually I think the old saying was men work from dusk to dawn; a woman's work is never done!
That role of women of the first quarter of this centuries has changed. We have washing machines, dish washers, frozen food, vacuum cleaners, we don't iron like we used to, we have different items in our grocery store shelves and cars to bring us there. One cannot credit feminism with all of these changes.
My family HAS always seen the raising of children as the most important role of the family, and in this the mother is the head, but I don't think she has ever been alone in this endeavor. I am fortunate that my family has also always appreciated and valued and honored "women's work". I don't think this has been the case for society in general. Women's work is hard work. AND it is often invisible, thankless work.
Take preparing a holiday meal. It can take weeks to plan and prepare for. Everyone eats it up and three hours later you're back in the kitchen doing dishes, making coffee and getting ready to serve more food. If you're lucky you receive thanks, and can see the pleasure on your dining guests' faces. BUT many don't realize all that went into the event. Many women would rather go out or order out or have someone else do the cooking.
Your reference to Marx and Lenin are aptly placed, because largely it was the "working class" woman who did such work. Higher class, wealthy women, have never worked like this. They always had maids, nannies, cooks etc. They even left the nursing to someone else.
One night as my husband and I were finishing dinner and getting ready for baths, cleaning the kitchen, and all our nightly chores. I said to him, if we were rich at this point we'd kiss the kids good night and we could go sit, our maid would do the dishes and the nanny would bathe and put the kids to bed. I'm tired at that point in the day even if I haven't gone to work outside our home.
Yes, the family was and IS dependent on everyone playing a role. Those roles have changed, from feminism but also from changes in the work force. Even in those good old days, when "child rearing was their major job" they could not do it ALL single handedly. There was too much work to do. They had help, maybe it was the grandmother, or sister-in-law or the older children looking after the younger. In any event the mother was not the only one doing the mothering and sometimes worked outside the home. My grandmother did seasonal work canning sardines. My other grandmother did seasonal work packing fruit. Had they ever been asked their occupation, it would have been mother, house wife, AND working provided for their families so was an extension of that primary role.
Now, there are two people in each household working to make ends meet.
How is this new? As far as your questions as to why this is undermining th family...
Why? Is it because they are the product of a poor or underachieved education? Are they consumers without control because they live beyond their means? Who is raising their children since the nuclear family ceased to exist? What are they paying in taxes to support others who cannot support themselves? and on and on.
They "Why" depends on the family. Some may be over consumers...but this is a result of capitalism gone astray not feminism. SOme may be poor (the poor have always worked more and their children have always suffered consequences) and job opportunities have to do with education AND locale. The "Who is raising" depends on the family. The "nuclear" family has not ceased to exist. It exists to this day. The extended family is what if anything has changed. Was grandma who lived with mom and dad and looked after the little ones while mom was off working in the fields part of the nuclear family. Was the sister in law who acted as house cleaner part of the nuclear family? Was the cousin who came over on wash day part? Taxes... well they say there are only two things we can count on. I personally am glad that we can support ourselves and if some goes to help those that can't... well so be it.
I am thankful that there was a civil rights movement and feminist movement, without these, I may not have had many of the opportunities I had to become educated, to travel and to work in a profession that is intellectually satisfying.
I am a high school teacher. I am the first female in my family to graduate college. Deciding how to balance my role as mother and my career has not been easy. It was largely expected that I would just quit.
I have opted for part time work with extended maternity leaves (unpaid- the six week paid leave is ridiculous, most developed nations give a year!) for each of my children. I am currently on maternity leave.
I am mother wife daughter and teacher. Of course my children come first, but I cannot provide for them, and I am not solely talking financial provision, without continuing my career. What message do I send my daughter if I stop being who I was before marriage and children? You go to college to meet a man? (to learn to drink and swear... as was suggested in another post) You get married and the rest just stops? If so, what was the point of earning advanced degrees and establishing myself in my profession?
Yes, I do have to have help, from aunts, grandparents, etc. in caring for my children. I don't though think things have changed much. I am still primarily mother and wife, everything else fits around this, only I don't have time to can food and raise a crop that will provide for my family through the winter as my grandmother did.[/quote]
- jenna
- new arrival
- Posts: 23
- Joined: 3:09 am, Sep 14 2007
also getting into teh fray rather late...
i don't think a lot has been made of which gender is better than the other here. but why not jusyt admit that we are equal in the eyes of god? we have equal rights nad responsibilities as well.. there are biological differences. men cannot have children. but that doesn't mean men c an't help raise teh children. these decisions need to be made responsibly by each couple.
on another track, gloria steinham, one of teh original feminists in the us, has been largely misunderstood. she never said women should give up their families or stop raising children. in fact, she spent a great deal of her adult life caring for her father and doesn't regret it.
i don't think a lot has been made of which gender is better than the other here. but why not jusyt admit that we are equal in the eyes of god? we have equal rights nad responsibilities as well.. there are biological differences. men cannot have children. but that doesn't mean men c an't help raise teh children. these decisions need to be made responsibly by each couple.
on another track, gloria steinham, one of teh original feminists in the us, has been largely misunderstood. she never said women should give up their families or stop raising children. in fact, she spent a great deal of her adult life caring for her father and doesn't regret it.
- iluvitaly
- virtual tourist
- Posts: 165
- Joined: 10:44 pm, Jun 18 2004
18 posts • Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot] and 0 guests