Archbishop warns culture of extreme feminism denigrates meaning of motherhood

[Voegelin]

Catholic News Agency


Buenos Aires, Oct. 19, 2006 (CNA) - Commenting on the celebration of Mother’s Day in Argentina, Archbishop Hector Aguer of La Plata said this week “the culture of extreme feminism, which is a culture of death and destruction of the family and of the natural order” strips motherhood of its true meaning . . .

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=7866

 

[QuantaCura]

In my opinion, he is absolutely right--God bless his excellency

 

[Globalnomad]

Note that he speaks of extreme feminism - the feminism "that regards motherhood as a curse and a burden". That's an extremist minority. Don't take it as an excuse to bash feminism in general. Real feminism finds joy in children and motherhood - it just wants the circumstances altered.

 

[princess_ballet]

I agree with him.

Note that he speaks of extreme feminism - the feminism "that regards motherhood as a curse and a burden". That's an extremist minority. Don't take it as an excuse to bash feminism in general. Real feminism finds joy in children and motherhood - it just wants the circumstances altered.

 

[QuantaCura]

Unfortunately for all the good "feminists," the term feminism has become associated with the pro-abortion, pro-contraception, pro-no fault divorce, pro-career first, family second, crowd. If one is simply against any unjust discrimination based on sex, then one should probably avoid scandal by not using the label "feminist." Just as non-racists don't need a special label, non-sexists don't need one either

 

[Renton405]

A true christian would never support feminism. It says much against it in scripture, espesially what St. Paul writes. I blame lots of this on the abomination of homosexuality and lesbianism tho..

 

[Globalnomad]

Unfortunately for all the good "feminists," the term feminism has become associated with the pro-abortion, pro-contraception, pro-no fault divorce, pro-career first, family second, crowd. If one is simply against any unjust discrimination based on sex, then one should probably avoid scandal by not using the label "feminist." Just as non-racists don't need a special label, non-sexists don't need one either

I have not yet given up that fight, QC. I have not yet abandoned the word "feminist" just because the true woman-haters and mysogynists have been so successful in blackening it, managing to brainwash a lot of good people like you in the process. I think we still need the term feminism, very much. It's up to us not to surrender to those who are trying to make it an object of ridicule.

 

[willard3]

Unfortunately for all the good "feminists," the term feminism has become associated with the pro-abortion, pro-contraception, pro-no fault divorce, pro-career first, family second, crowd. If one is simply against any unjust discrimination based on sex, then one should probably avoid scandal by not using the label "feminist." Just as non-racists don't need a special label, non-sexists don't need one either

QFT.

I like feminism, but not mainstream feminism. Women should be the same as men in many respects, but the fact remains that men and women are different, something that mainstream feminism fails to see. Hence why the ERA should have and was stopped. Phyllis Schlafly FTW. (random tangent, I know)

 

[Fantine]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Archbishop Aguer warned that “ultra-feminist ideologies” distort cultural traditions by treating motherhood as a burden and a problem, ignoring mothers who confront burdens and problems with joy.[/FONT]

I think that modern day women in Western Europe, North America, and the Pacific Rim believe that motherhood is a joy and a gift and a privilege, but that motherhood is just one of many responsibilities they will have in their lives.

In the first place, they get married later, after having completed many more years of schooling, and perhaps, having several years building a career.

In the second place, they live longer, and may look forward to years of a productive career and retirement after their children are grown.

Many years ago, all of a woman's adult life was spent mothering--from the age, perhaps, of 16, until 50 or so.

Families were larger. Lifespans were shorter.

And so, because women see that motherhood will be just one chapter in a long life, they tend to compartmentalize it, and seek to make it manageable. They may have fewer children at an older age, for example.

Nevertheless, I think most mothers are as unconditionally loving and dedicated to their children as women of prior generations have been.

 

[Globalnomad]

What Fantine says is so true. Up to a hundred years ago, our life-expectancy was about 50, and we had to bring 10 children into the world to make sure that three or four survived.

AND we had no electricity (washing machines, freezers, electric irons etc.), which meant that housework took about three times as long as it takes today.

Being a housewife and mother was truly a lifetime, full-time (backbreaking) job. Today it is no longer full-time (unless you homeschool), and definitely not life-time.

 

[Woodsy]

Whatever the case, today women have bought the idea of motherhood put across by what are today called feminists - putting off parenthood until it becomes less and less likely. My wife's friends are all Liberal and they all confide in her that they are now in their 40's, tired of dating jerks, feel empty, and envy her "conservative" lifestyle.
As women get older, the likelihood of genetic abnormalities in their children increases - we had some scary test results when my wife was pregnant with our youngest.

"Feminism" today means the whole Liberal Democrat ball of wax. If it means spiting George W. Bush, today's "feminists" are willing to defend wife-mutilating cultures full of "honor killings" and violence-enforced burqa wearing. They are also happy to completely abandon and scorn feminists like Tammy Bruce, who don't toe the party line like a good Democrat.
It's really a shame.

 

[Globalnomad]

"Feminism" today means the whole Liberal Democrat ball of wax. If it means spiting George W. Bush, today's "feminists" are willing to defend wife-mutilating cultures full of "honor killings" and violence-enforced burqa wearing.
It's really a shame.

Domi_adsum, I take that remark personally, in view of what I have just contributed on another thread.

First of all, thanks very much.

Secondly, no culture is fully bad. Yes, I will defend the positive aspects of those cultures. Even more so, I will defend the human rights of any honor-killer and burqa-enforcer, lest I fall to his level.

And it has nothing to do with my feelings for Bush. Bush will be the first, in any case, to defend the rights of any honor-killer and burqa-enforcer if he is his partner in an oil venture. Look at his relationship with Saudis.

 

[Woodsy]

Domi_adsum, I take that remark personally, in view of what I have just contributed on another thread.

I don't know what you contributed to another thread.
It wasn't directed at anyone personally.

 

[Fantine]

Whatever the case, today women have bought the idea of motherhood put across by what are today called feminists - putting off parenthood until it becomes less and less likely.

What you say is "putting off parenthood until it becomes less and less likely" might instead, be putting off parenthood until one's education is completed, or until one has started a career, or until college loans are paid off or a downpayment for a home is saved up (I grew up on Long Island, NY--I no longer live there--but I don't know how in the world the average young couple could ever save up enough money to buy an extremely modest starter home for half a million dollars.)

Perhaps the increased educational demands of a technological society and technological careers are God's way of telling young couples that "being fruitful and multiplying" in a technologically advanced society might mean multiplying by "1" or "1.5" or, at most "2."

Eight-children families are not what the world needs today in technologically advanced societies. And the educational requirements and the need to prepare for careers when the children leave home--even for stay-at-home Moms--is God's way of telling us, "Be fruitful and multiply a little."

Just as God wouldn't have wanted Adam and Eve to plant trees too close together in the forest, so that they would choke one another and shade out the sunlight, maybe smaller families are part of God's plan for growth on a finite planet with finite resources.

And maybe those who are cooperating with God's plan best are the families who study hard, build a nest egg, have a few children and raise them well.

(We multiplied by 1.5 when we had our children, and I think that was prudent for us and for the world.)

 

[holyorders]

What you say is "putting off parenthood until it becomes less and less likely" might instead, be putting off parenthood until one's education is completed, or until one has started a career, or until college loans are paid off or a downpayment for a home is saved up (I grew up on Long Island, NY--I no longer live there--but I don't know how in the world the average young couple could ever save up enough money to buy an extremely modest starter home for half a million dollars.)

Perhaps the increased educational demands of a technological society and technological careers are God's way of telling young couples that "being fruitful and multiplying" in a technologically advanced society might mean multiplying by "1" or "1.5" or, at most "2."

Eight-children families are not what the world needs today in technologically advanced societies. And the educational requirements and the need to prepare for careers when the children leave home--even for stay-at-home Moms--is God's way of telling us, "Be fruitful and multiply a little."

Just as God wouldn't have wanted Adam and Eve to plant trees too close together in the forest, so that they would choke one another and shade out the sunlight, maybe smaller families are part of God's plan for growth on a finite planet with finite resources.

And maybe those who are cooperating with God's plan best are the families who study hard, build a nest egg, have a few children and raise them well.

(We multiplied by 1.5 when we had our children, and I think that was prudent for us and for the world.)

Aye, Its the old Malthusian "good for all humanity to have less children" argument.

Sometimes I think its better to have less technology in the world if it means we have to have our reproductive organs controlled by demographers and eugenic tacticians.

 

[Fantine]

Sometimes I think its better to have less technology in the world if it means we have to have our reproductive organs controlled by demographers and eugenic tacticians.

Young people's reproductive organs are not controlled by demographers and eugenic tacticians. They are controlled, perhaps, by common sense, and the need to achieve their educational and career goals.

And while the actions of the Chinese government in regulating population is indeed heinous, it is equally heinous to pressure, cajole, and threaten young couples into having children before they are ready, or having more children than they feel prepared to raise.

I am perfectly happy to see large families, medium-sized families, or small families, as long as the decision was the couple's--not the government's, not their church's, not their parents'.

If they are old enough to marry, they are old enough to make their own decisions without governmental--or religious--coercion.