PDA

View Full Version : Women Criticize Vatican Document on Feminism


Perun
08-01-2004, 07:26 PM
Feminists always have to have something to complain about! :rolleyes:



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=32&u=/nm/20040801/ts_nm/pope_women_dc_4

Women Criticize Vatican Document on Feminism

By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Women have reacted with anger and amusement to a Vatican (news - web sites) document on feminism, with some saying the Catholic Church is run by men who live in a time warp and want to keep women in their place.


The document, issued Saturday, said modern feminism's fight for power and gender equality was undermining the traditional concept of family and creating a climate where gay marriages are seen as acceptable.


Frances Kissling, president of the U.S.-based Catholics for a Free Choice, said she thought she had "passed through a time warp" when she read the document.


"I thought for sure I was the 1960s and Archie Bunker had been appointed theologian to the Pope," she said, referring to the character in an old American TV series whose bigoted views included opposition to any form of women's rights.


In a 37-page document "On the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World," the Vatican said women should be respected and have equal rights in the workplace, but differences between the sexes must be recognized and exalted.


The document, which re-stated Catholic Church positions, including the ban on female priests, said that many women felt they had to be "adversaries of men" in order to be themselves.


It criticized feminism's attempt to erase gender differences, saying it had inspired ideologies questioning the traditional family structure of a mother and a father and making homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent.


"Such observations could only be made by men who have no significant relationships with women and no knowledge of the enormous positive changes the women's rights movement has meant for both men and women," Kissling said.


YESTERDAY'S WORLD?


Emma Bonino, a former European commissioner and current member of the European parliament, said the Vatican was writing about a world that she said no longer exists.


"This letter could easily have been written by an imam of al-Azhar," she said referring to Sunni Islam's most respected institution of religious learning in Cairo.


"To be fair to the Catholic Church, no religion is a great friend of women," she told the Corriere della Sera newspaper. "They pay you a lot of compliments but when push comes to shove they ask you to stay in your place: wife, nurse, mother and grandmother."


The document said that although motherhood is a "key element of women's identity," women should not be considered from the sole perspective of procreation.


It said women who choose to be full-time mothers should not be stigmatized and it appealed to governments to make it easier for mothers to hold outside jobs without "relinquishing their family life."


Some women suggested that the Vatican was taking a patronizing attitude that it would not take toward men.


"Everyone knows that men and women are different and the feminist movement has always held this view," said Chiara Saraceno, a professor of sociology at the University of Turin.


"What continues to shock me is this teaching attitude that is always directed at women and never at men," she told the leftist newspaper L'Unita.

otto_von_bismarck
08-01-2004, 08:00 PM
From freerepublic (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1182314/posts)

The Vatican said women who choose to be full-time mothers should not be stigmatised, but at the same time, it appealed to governments to make it easier for mothers to hold outside jobs without "relinquishing their family life".

Translation: More paid time off and taxpayer-funded jobsite daycare. Sorry, guys, you can't have it both ways. You can't have traditional Christian family life and socialism. Haven't they learned *anything* from the last 150 years in Europe?-Taxchick

Vatican is working the right's rubes again, they should have said explicitly women should stay the **** home unless they had no other option.

otto_von_bismarck
08-01-2004, 08:01 PM
Also via taxchick Is it just me (not nearly enough sleep ...) or is this bordering on drivel?
In this way, women who freely desire will be able to devote the totality of their time to the work of the household without being stigmatized by society or penalized financially,

Are they talking about salaries or stipends for SAHMs, as some socialist countries have done? Or I suppose it could mean tax credits. Either way, they're suggesting that the reality that those who don't work for pay are "penalized financially" can somehow be finessed.

while those who wish also to engage in other work may be able to do so with an appropriate work-schedule, and not have to choose between relinquishing their family life or enduring continual stress, with negative consequences for one's own equilibrium and the harmony of the family.

I suppose that could mean work hours during the school day, but that assumes outside schooling as the norm, and the subordination of the family to the institution of the school.

And how can you not have stress, or "negative consequences for the harmony of the family," when you're dividing your loyalties between home and employer? We have stress in our family because of the inadequate boundaries between my husband's job and our home ... any employer will eat your entire life, if you let him. If both of us had outside jobs, it would be twice as bad.

As John Paul II has written, “it will redound to the credit of society to make it possible for a mother – without inhibiting her freedom, without psychological or practical discrimination and without penalizing her as compared with other women

Thomas Sowell would nuke JPII for suggesting that "society" has the obligation or ability to make anything possible! And isn't he using the world's definition of "freedom" here: the ability to do whatever you want without experiencing any consequences? As opposed to the Christian definition of freedom - the ability to make the RIGHT choices without coercion?

I'm sorry, but it sounds to me as if they've gone negative on the word "feminism," while swallowing all the assumptions of its concept: that any "choice" women make must be treated with approval, and supported morally and financially by "society." I don't like this at all. They had an opportunity to point out much more Catholic economic opportunities for women and children, such as family businesses, but instead they seem to have gone the "You can have it all, baby!" route of MS. Magazine.

Typical Vatican crap.