Best definition of feminism

[Daniel]

If women are "inferior" to men, then why is it that women have bodily organs which men lack? And why is it that women can do things that men cannot do? Clearly it is not the case that women are merely imperfect instantiations of the male form. Rather, there more likely exists a female form distinct from the male form. These two forms are incomparable, so I'm not seeing how one can be labelled as "superior" and the other "inferior". The fact is, women aren't supposed to be men, and men aren't supposed to be women.

[Maximilian]

If women are "inferior" to men, then why is it that women have bodily organs which men lack? And why is it that women can do things that men cannot do? Clearly it is not the case that women are merely imperfect instantiations of the male form. Rather, there more likely exists a female form distinct from the male form. These two forms are incomparable, so I'm not seeing how one can be labelled as "superior" and the other "inferior". The fact is, women aren't supposed to be men, and men aren't supposed to be women.

This post is representative of thinking which is:
- Not Catholic
- Not traditional
- Not making any effort to find out what men of the past like Thomas Aquinas or Aristotle thought.
- "I'll just make up something up off the top of my head."

[Daniel]

What are you talking about? Aristotle is the one whose thinking isn't Catholic. (And Aquinas's thinking isn't much better.) And I didn't make any of that up; common sense tells us that women are not men, and most likely the hierarchy of natures is not set up like a simple ladder either.

[nmoerbeek]

If women are "inferior" to men, then why is it that women have bodily organs which men lack? And why is it that women can do things that men cannot do? Clearly it is not the case that women are merely imperfect instantiations of the male form. Rather, there more likely exists a female form distinct from the male form. These two forms are incomparable, so I'm not seeing how one can be labelled as "superior" and the other "inferior". The fact is, women aren't supposed to be men, and men aren't supposed to be women.

You are making the claim that these men and women are incomparable.

Max is stating that they are, and men are superior to women in this comparison.

Men and women are comparable, they are not totally different.  Men and women can be compared in how fast they run, how much strength they have etc.  We cannot compare men and women on who the superior child bearer is, that is a role totally unique to women.  We can compare who is the more important parent in the raising of children, there have been studies that make such comparisons.

We know for a fact that men in marriage are superior and made as the head of women in Ephesians 5:22.  God so ordered the relationships so that women are the subordinates to men in marriage always.  So women are rightly called inferior to men, as men have been delegated by God to be their superiors within a relationship.

These things shouldn't bother us or upset us.  Its not misogynistic to say that men are both in nature and in divine revelation the "superior" sex.  Besides, it is the Christian duty to love and help those who are weaker than oneself, and acknowledging the fragility of the female sex is good for both individual relationships such as marriage, and society as a whole (like should women be drafted into military actions).

[Kreuzritter]

There's a big difference between superiority in authority, which is a consequence of the Fall, and superiority in "perfection" - and more so when this "superiority" is named in an alleged absolute sense without qualification!

Let's also not forget the total biological bunkum that the Aristotelian claim of female inferiority regurgitated by St. Thomas is based in (semen, being male, naturally tends to produce males, therefore the production of a female is a defect), and regardless of the irrational awe in which Medieval Westerners held that old pederast, let's stop confusing his philosophy with Christianity.

[nmoerbeek]

There's a big difference between superiority in authority, which is a consequence of the Fall, and superiority in "perfection" - and more so when this "superiority" is named in an alleged absolute sense without qualification!

Let's also not forget the total biological bunkum that the Aristotelian claim of female inferiority regurgitated by St. Thomas is based in (semen, being male, naturally tends to produce males, therefore the production of a female is a defect), and regardless of the irrational awe in which Medieval Westerners held that old pederast, let's stop confusing his philosophy with Christianity.

I am willing to stipulate that superiority in an absolute sense without qualification will lead to imprecision.  We are speaking in generalities that even the Bible is comfortable in making.  In Psalm 8:5 when describing the coming Messiah it says "Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour"    However, Max already qualified himself and gave examples of times where in the life of grace things are different.  In fact his argument is similar to that of Plato I believe  moral goodness we must adhere to (honesty for example) is the same for men and women.

I provided examples of many times that women are inferior to men in comparisons of Strength, and that this ability to categorize inferior to superior benefits the common good (such as the military draft).  St. Clement of Alexandria in one of his works basically makes this distinction: we can compare men and women as human beings, but that a womens nature is not to be that of a man's.  Please forgive the lack of a reference.

As to defending Aristotle I will leave that to others, as my reading and study have lead me elsewhere than his works.   It is unfair to St. Thomas though to limit his remarks to Aristotelian biological claims as he made many of his arguments on this topic in regards to facts in Divine Revelation not just making reference to Aristotle.

[Miriam_M]

many women have become great saints while most men go to hell. Prof. Marie George points out that those women became holy not by proclaiming their own superiority or independence, but by recognizing their inferiority, and by loving it, and by serving.

Professor Marie George is incorrect in making such a limiting assertion.  State in Life and role in life are two essential realms of holiness but only two.  Much more difficult and more universally determinative for salvation (men and women) is progress in acquisition of virtue -- a test much more arduous and comprehensive than merely

recognizing their inferiority, and by loving it, and by serving.

There are plenty of subordinate women who don't come close to holiness, although accepting of their role.

[Kreuzritter]

I am willing to stipulate that superiority in an absolute sense without qualification will lead to imprecision.  We are speaking in generalities that even the Bible is comfortable in making.  In Psalm 8:5 when describing the coming Messiah it says "Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour"    However, Max already qualified himself and gave examples of times where in the life of grace things are different.  In fact his argument is similar to that of Plato I believe  moral goodness we must adhere to (honesty for example) is the same for men and women.

I provided examples of many times that women are inferior to men in comparisons of Strength, and that this ability to categorize inferior to superior benefits the common good (such as the military draft).  St. Clement of Alexandria in one of his works basically makes this distinction: we can compare men and women as human beings, but that a womens nature is not to be that of a man's.  Please forgive the lack of a reference.

This is all fine, and I haven't raised any objections to the specific examples, true or not.

As to defending Aristotle I will leave that to others, as my reading and study have lead me elsewhere than his works.   It is unfair to St. Thomas though to limit his remarks to Aristotelian biological claims as he made many of his arguments on this topic in regards to facts in Divine Revelation not just making reference to Aristotle.

My apologies to the Angelic Doctor for stating it that way. Part of his notion of superiority of men is Biblical, but as it pertains to notions of an absolute, if you will ontological, "superiority" in men being "more perfect" than women, it's inherited from Aristotle, who was a woman-hating, boy-loving faggot and is most certainly not living out the afterlife in a limbo of virtuous pagans. If people want to believe Aristotle, fine, just as if people want to believe the Stoics, but please don't call ideas which are demonstrably derived from them and not from the Hebrews "Christian".

[Geremia]

The good order of the world depends upon the fidelity with which each one of us performs the duties of our state in life. All disorder originates in negligence upon this point.

Men and women not in their proper places causes so much disorder!