Best definition of feminism

[Geremia]

I've heard many definitions of feminism. The ideology of

• misandry (hatred of men)
• women wanting to be like men
• misogamy (hatred of marriage)
• hatred of motherhood and fatherhood
• advocating socioeconomic equality of the sexes

I don't see what's wrong with #2, since men are the more perfect sex and everyone, including women, must strive for perfection. St. Thérèse of Lisieux, for example, had a very manly spirituality, even desiring to be a priest, which she knew is only for men.
#5 comes closer to the best definition, but it's not broad enough.
But recently I heard feminism defined as the ideology of not thinking there is a difference between males and females. This seems to be the essence of feminism.

[kmo_9000]

It's basically egalitarianism between men and women. Feminists want 50/50 equality in everything, regardless of practicality or how things work in reality.

[clau clau]

Feminism is cancer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fisherman_and_His_Wife

Another definition:

Feminism is: a conspiracy hatched by cats to recruit owners.

[Daniel]

since men are the more perfect sex

This claim is based in outdated science and is probably not true.

everyone, including women, must strive for perfection

Even if men are more perfect than women, it still doesn't follow that everyone must strive for undue perfection. I'd think it's wrong for a woman to want to be a man for the same reason that it's wrong for a man to want to be an angel or a god.

But recently I heard feminism defined as the ideology of not thinking there is a difference between males and females. This seems to be the essence of feminism.

It's basically egalitarianism between men and women. Feminists want 50/50 equality in everything, regardless of practicality or how things work in reality.

I think that this just about sums it up. (Though in practice it seems that feminists oftentimes place women above men...)

[Miriam_M]

I've heard many definitions of feminism. The ideology of

• women wanting to be like men

I don't see what's wrong with #2, since men are the more perfect sex and everyone, including women, must strive for perfection. St. Thérèse of Lisieux, for example, had a very manly spirituality, even desiring to be a priest, which she knew is only for men.

I doubt that Our Lady ever "wanted to be like a man."     She wanted to, and was given the grace to, perfectly fulfill her womanly -- not manly -- role.  She is the essence of feminism, which too many think is complete dependency on human and divine protection and intervention. 

You and I, I guess, politely differ on our interpretation of Therese of Lisieux.  I do not see a manly spirituality in her.  If you asked me to compare her with her similar namesake, Teresa of Avila, I would say that the latter, in her sense of independence, initiative, and leadership, was more "manly," even though in neither case is manliness an apt descriptor, in my view.

God created human beings with certain common abilities and common virtues for which to strive:  virtues like the four cardinal ones, to which we are all called, even though some women may assume that prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice more logically apply to the male role and temperament.  But that is not true.  Women are called to develop these same virtues. It's just that we are called to develop them within our legitimate spheres of influence (roles at home, at work, at church, and in our social lives) and within whatever limitations of authority would be naturally appropriate -- such as in a marriage -- or ecclesiastically appropriate -- such as in a church setting.

The full human being is a beautiful blend of "male" and "female" attributes -- so there's an aspect of your argument which I appreciate, Geremia, but the context of those attributes varies within the assignment of roles; the necessity of charitable, just, prudent, and courageous action in a given situation; and the native assets of the individual person which God has implanted for His glory.

I don't agree that man is "more perfect" than woman, because that would be implying that God's creation is somehow deficient.  Every creature, as a creature, has a certain perfection in itself.  (Fr. Ripperger's sermons mention this.)  Perfection doesn't mean the encompassing of all roles.  A moth does only what a moth is supposed to do; it is not "less perfect" than a bee, and a male insect is not "more perfect" than a female insect; each is perfect in its qualities and unique role, and in harmony, they represent the perfection of that species. 

The point of humanity is that male and female are complementary as creatures of the same species, each sex with its own "perfection" in its distinct qualities as that sex, and each person should develop those distinct qualities, because that is what is called ordered creation.  When a woman is imprudent, unjust, immoderate, or cowardly, she is not behaving in a womanly (feminine) way at all.  She is behaving in a disordered way.  Most likely, those four failings I just named have manifested themselves in sins she has committed.

When a father neglects to notice and respond, or is insensitive, to a son or daughter needing his praise, he is failing in prudence and in charity.  His lack of sensitivity does not make him "more manly."  It makes him temporarily a father manifesting his own defects. 

I'm actually glad you brought this up, because I do think there's a misunderstanding out there about Catholic fathers in particular.  Addressing fathers in general, you are not "more Catholic" or "more Traditional" when, in public environments, you allow your many children to run rampant and misbehave "because that's your wife's duty; childcare is her sphere of influence."  Wrong.  It's equally your sphere, but particularly in a public environment.  You have a leadership role to play, and part of your duty as a father is to show your children what are the limits of acceptable public behavior.  Furthermore, in the prudence and justice categories, your wife has two hands and one body -- not several of either, to manage your several under-age-10 children.  You're not "more manly" by being cruel to her and allowing your children to embarrass themselves publicly.  This is a real problem among traditionalists in social environments. 

Regarding Therese again:  The intensity of love that a person can reach in the love of Jesus Christ could logically extend to wanting to consecrate bread and wine and being bestowed with the charism of the Catholic priesthood (special graces, special "embodiment" of the ministerial "personhood" of Jesus Christ).  I think that just demonstrates a person's degree of yearning for union and service.  For that matter, many laymen yearn for that (I've met them) but don't have the calling; that's also a sign of desire.  For Therese, it was about desire, not about gender roles.  Her spirituality is recognizably feminine.

Your question about the term "feminism."  As a term, I hate it, and not only because it tends to separate men from women, but mostly because the "ism" suffix of any word implies either a philosophy or a political movement.  If I accept "feminism" in any understanding, it would be the understanding of personal identity as a female, in a psychological, practical, and spiritual sense, not anything having to do with politics or "power."  A woman who is fully a woman is quite powerful, non-politically.  Our Lady is the best representation of that.  During her time on Earth that was manifest in her Son's public recognition of her.

[Maximilian]

Feminism is the refusal of women to serve men. It is the rejection of the nature of creation in which Eve was created to be the helpmate of Adam. Feminism is the denial of the words of the Holy Ghost:

1 Corinthians 11:
7 The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.

1 Timothy 2:
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed; then Eve.
14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression.
15 Yet she shall be saved through child bearing; if she continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

[Miriam_M]

Feminism is the refusal of women to serve men.

While it is that, it is more than that.  It is also refusal of her affirmative role as a woman.  You will see language in "feminist" writing and contemporary news broadcasts that the feminine role (such as nurturing of her own dependents, such as domesticity of any kind) is somehow degrading.  Thus, it is not only a rejection of serving men; it is also a rejection of serving anyone, including her own progeny.

That's not feminine, womanly, or "feminist."  It's selfishness and avarice. 

[Maximilian]

I don't agree that man is "more perfect" than woman, because that would be implying that God's creation is somehow deficient. 

https://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/12/what-aquinas-really-said-about-women

WHAT AQUINAS REALLY SAID ABOUT WOMEN
by Marie I. George
December 1999

In several passages in the Summa Theologiae and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas asserts that the inferiority of women lies not just in bodily strength but in force of intellect. To top this off, he maintains that feminine intellectual inferiority actually contributes to the order and beauty of the universe.

Aquinas argues that "perfection" can mean two different things: first, that a being has all the parts and powers it ought to have; and second, that its parts and powers are greater than those of another being. A plant that has all the attributes and abilities it ought to have (e.g., to grow, to reproduce) is a perfect plant, but compared to a dog, which not only grows and reproduces but also sees and moves about, it is a less perfect being. In the same way, the general intellectual inferiority of women does not make them defective or inferior simply speaking, but only in the particular natural order, in comparison to most males and to beings with a more perfect nature—namely, the angels.

Far from denigrating women because of their intellectual imperfection, Aquinas sees it—and all imperfection—as an instance of divine wisdom:

God, through His providence, orders all things to divine goodness as to an end; not however in such a manner that His goodness increases through those things which come to be, but so that a likeness of His goodness is imprinted in things insofar as it is possible, for indeed it is necessary that every created substance fall short of divine goodness, so that in order for divine goodness to be communicated to things more perfectly, it was necessary for there to be diversity in things, so that what is not able to be perfectly represented by some one [thing] is represented in a more perfect manner through diverse things in diverse ways. (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 97)

Regardless of whether we agree with Aquinas' position on woman's intelligence, there is at least one important thing we can learn from him about relative inferiorities—we should love our own. God wants inequalities in rational beings, and if we love God we should conform our will to His. It is pride, the excessive desire of our own excellence, that tends to make us sad when another has some perfection or grace we do not have. To sorrow at the good is intrinsically evil. In our discussions of the differences between the sexes, we must avoid yielding to impulses of envy, but strive rather to love whatever littleness we may have due to our sex, as God loves it.

Those who fail to see the goodness of relative imperfection often do so because they focus on the parts of the universe and overlook that it is the universe as a whole that best reflects God. Aquinas argues that without imperfection there would be no diversity, and without diversity the universe would not represent God in the best possible way.

[Miriam_M]

I don't agree that man is "more perfect" than woman, because that would be implying that God's creation is somehow deficient. 

https://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/12/what-aquinas-really-said-about-women

WHAT AQUINAS REALLY SAID ABOUT WOMEN
by Marie I. George
December 1999

In several passages in the Summa Theologiae and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas asserts that the inferiority of women lies not just in bodily strength but in force of intellect. To top this off, he maintains that feminine intellectual inferiority actually contributes to the order and beauty of the universe.

Aquinas argues that "perfection" can mean two different things: first, that a being has all the parts and powers it ought to have; and second, that its parts and powers are greater than those of another being. A plant that has all the attributes and abilities it ought to have (e.g., to grow, to reproduce) is a perfect plant, but compared to a dog, which not only grows and reproduces but also sees and moves about, it is a less perfect being. In the same way, the general intellectual inferiority of women does not make them defective or inferior simply speaking, but only in the particular natural order, in comparison to most males and to beings with a more perfect nature—namely, the angels.

Far from denigrating women because of their intellectual imperfection, Aquinas sees it—and all imperfection—as an instance of divine wisdom:

God, through His providence, orders all things to divine goodness as to an end; not however in such a manner that His goodness increases through those things which come to be, but so that a likeness of His goodness is imprinted in things insofar as it is possible, for indeed it is necessary that every created substance fall short of divine goodness, so that in order for divine goodness to be communicated to things more perfectly, it was necessary for there to be diversity in things, so that what is not able to be perfectly represented by some one [thing] is represented in a more perfect manner through diverse things in diverse ways. (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 97)

Regardless of whether we agree with Aquinas' position on woman's intelligence, there is at least one important thing we can learn from him about relative inferiorities—we should love our own. God wants inequalities in rational beings, and if we love God we should conform our will to His. It is pride, the excessive desire of our own excellence, that tends to make us sad when another has some perfection or grace we do not have. To sorrow at the good is intrinsically evil. In our discussions of the differences between the sexes, we must avoid yielding to impulses of envy, but strive rather to love whatever littleness we may have due to our sex, as God loves it.

Those who fail to see the goodness of relative imperfection often do so because they focus on the parts of the universe and overlook that it is the universe as a whole that best reflects God. Aquinas argues that without imperfection there would be no diversity, and without diversity the universe would not represent God in the best possible way.

Oh, I definitely agree with the importance of inequalities in creation.  Just understand that the inequalities complement each other because they were intended to.  It is not an accident or a deficiency that there are inequalities, because the inequalities are differentiated.  Where men are "deficient," women are (comparatively) "superior" -- not morally, politically, or spiritually -- but with regard to that assigned (ordered) sphere of influence.  And obviously vice-versa.  That's what complementariness means.

Be clear that "feminism" does NOT love its own; that was my overall point.

I especially like your last paragraph, Max.

[Maximilian]

Feminism is the refusal of women to serve men.

While it is that, it is more than that.  It is also refusal of her affirmative role as a woman.  You will see language in "feminist" writing and contemporary news broadcasts that the feminine role (such as nurturing of her own dependents, such as domesticity of any kind) is somehow degrading.  Thus, it is not only a rejection of serving men; it is also a rejection of serving anyone, including her own progeny.

The "affirmative role as a woman" is to serve men. That is the purpose for which she was created. "Feminine roles" such as nurturing children and domesticity derive from serving men. When women cease to serve men, then they cease to perform any other feminine roles. Those other roles that appeared to be feminine were actually an outgrowth of their service to men. Once they were "liberated" from the authority of men, they ceased to nurture children or to create domestic tranquility. They were free to murder their children and abandon the ones that were born. They could choose to live in squalor as "single mothers."

When you watch a British period drama, it appears that domestic roles like shining shoes and polishing silver and making fancy dinners comes naturally to English butlers and maids. But the reality is that all those things were simply products of their service to their masters. Once they were freed from serving their masters, no more shoes were shined, no more silver was polished, no more fancy meals were made. The children of those servants preferred to live in squalor on council estates rather than to serve their betters. And so all those little callings that appeared to be natural when they were in service ceased to exist as soon as they were released from authority.

[Miriam_M]

Feminism is the refusal of women to serve men.

While it is that, it is more than that.  It is also refusal of her affirmative role as a woman.  You will see language in "feminist" writing and contemporary news broadcasts that the feminine role (such as nurturing of her own dependents, such as domesticity of any kind) is somehow degrading.  Thus, it is not only a rejection of serving men; it is also a rejection of serving anyone, including her own progeny.

The "affirmative role as a woman" is to serve men. That is the purpose for which she was created. "Feminine roles" such as nurturing children and domesticity derive from serving men. When women cease to serve men, then they cease to perform any other feminine roles. Those other roles that appeared to be feminine were actually an outgrowth of their service to men. Once they were "liberated" from the authority of men, they ceased to nurture children or to create domestic tranquility. They were free to murder their children and abandon the ones that were born. They could choose to live in squalor as "single mothers."

I don't disagree as to the cause/origin, Max.  And when you trace backwards the arguments that modern feminists use, they will acknowledge that what they're rejecting is a definition of their role that proceeds from the male perspective.  (They prefer to "define themselves" and "create their own order.")  I'm more interested in the effects of contemporary feminism because the effects demonstrate the consequences.

I need to be clear about one thing, however.  I have not met, read, or heard a traditionalist priest state or imply with any authenticity (support from Tradition) that any imperfection or subordination in the hierarchy of an ordered universe translates to spiritual imperfection, relative to men.  Otherwise, forget Our Lady, all those female Saints, etc.  Hell and Heaven are both riddled with male and female souls.  When we live out both our roles assigned by sex and our universal spiritual roles, we attain perfection.  Until then, we are imperfect.

Second point of clarity:  Leadership is a term often perverted or narrowly understood.  Men who lead (in any sphere) are serving by doing so, and proper leadership, including within a family, is within a context of service.  If he fails to lead, he fails to serve.  If he leads abusively, he fails to serve.  If she fails to lead her children while he's away or at work, she fails to serve.  She is not more holy by waiting until he returns to manage the children. 

State in Life is a big deal in Catholic moral theology, for both men and women.  Many sins are committed by both sexes in this regard.

[Maximilian]

Oh, I definitely agree with the importance of inequalities in creation.  Just understand that the inequalities complement each other because they were intended to.  It is not an accident or a deficiency that there are inequalities, because the inequalities are differentiated.  Where men are "deficient," women are (comparatively) "superior" -- not morally, politically, or spiritually -- but with regard to that assigned (ordered) sphere of influence.  And obviously vice-versa.  That's what complementariness means.

Be clear that "feminism" does NOT love its own; that was my overall point.

I especially like your last paragraph, Max.

Because you offered me such a nice compliment, I would like to reciprocate by agreeing with you. And I think we are primarily in agreement. However, I think there is still another hurdle to overcome.

Yes, it is true that God created male and female to be complementary. And it's true that God intended these natures to be complementary.

However, one of these complementary natures is superior and one is inferior. This also was intended by God.

It is necessary for us to have:

1. an intellectual recognition of the superiority of man over woman, 
2. a love for this inequality that was created unequal by God,
3. a decision by the will of the inferior to serve the superior.

[Miriam_M]

However, one of these complementary natures is superior and one is inferior. This also was intended by God.

It is necessary for us to have:

1. an intellectual recognition of the superiority of man over woman, 
2. a love for this inequality that was created unequal by God,
3. a decision by the will of the inferior to serve the superior.

I do not agree that it is comprehensive superiority, including spiritual/moral superiority.  Otherwise, there would be no point in God creating free will for both men and women.  Salvation is equally a process for both of us.  Language can be ambiguous, and the terms "superior" and "perfect" are understood much differently in Catholic philosophy than they are understood in the moral arena, to which we often assign the meanings of "superior" and "perfect." 

In the practical arena, I don't like the terms inferior or superior, because they are misleading and inaccurate. In the animal kingdom, which includes us in the scientific realm, males and females perform different functions.  Each has perfection within the separate functions.  There's a reason why the male lion has that gorgeous mane and the lioness does not.  She is subordinate to him but she also fulfills functions that he does not, and part of his perfection is that --if he had "desire," which he does not--- he would not and does not desire any of her functions.  (Similarly for her. He is perfect in not infringing on her role; she is perfect in not infringing on his. She is not "imperfect" or "inferior" in the moral order of the universe by the fact that she, as a lioness, rigorously remains within her subordinate role.)  The fact that he cannot perform her functions does not make her superior or inferior to him. The perfection for each lies in the fulfillment of divinely ordered roles.

There are qualities rightly assigned to men in the worldly sphere that are not assigned to women, and vice versa.  He is not inferior or imperfect by the absence of womanly qualities in himself, nor is she inferior or imperfect by the absence of male qualities.  Again, if males are perfect and complete, there is and would have been no orderly reason for the creation of the female.  Males are superior in certain regards and "imperfect" (or, limited, constrained) in other regards.

In Heaven, we are told, there is and will be a hierarchy of perfection, reflecting advancement of those souls on earth.  There will be some females with higher reaches of perfection than some males, and vice versa.

[Graham]

Max has been clear that hes discussing superiority in the natural order, not the moral.

To make the distinction perfectly clear, we could put it this way. Fallen angels are more perfect, in the natural order, than saintly men. They have an angelic nature which is more intellectual and powerful, more naturally perfect than a human nature. Likewise evil men are more perfect, in the natural order, than saintly women.

[Maximilian]

I don't disagree as to the cause/origin, Max.  And when you trace backwards the arguments that modern feminists use, they will acknowledge that what they're rejecting is a definition of their role that proceeds from the male perspective.  (They prefer to "define themselves" and "create their own order.")  I'm more interested in the effects of contemporary feminism because the effects demonstrate the consequences.

Perhaps it's a masculine perspective to focus on the "cause/origin" rather than the effects. lol The effects and/or consequences of a thing are an unfolding of the ontological nature of the thing. So often we are baffled when we witness the consequences that are materializing around us because we failed to understand the nature of the thing, and so we didn't realize we were violating its nature.

I need to be clear about one thing, however.  I have not met, read, or heard a traditionalist priest state or imply with any authenticity (support from Tradition) that any imperfection or subordination in the hierarchy of an ordered universe translates to spiritual imperfection, relative to men.  Otherwise, forget Our Lady, all those female Saints, etc.  Hell and Heaven are both riddled with male and female souls.  When we live out both our roles assigned by sex and our universal spiritual roles, we attain perfection.  Until then, we are imperfect.

One can only reach their own perfection by recognizing their own status.

Children are inferior to adults. Yet some children have been canonized, while most adults go to hell. But children can only become perfect by recognizing their inferiority to adults. They cannot become holy by proclaiming their superiority or their independence.

Humans are inferior to angels. Yet some humans have attained the highest states in heaven while many angels have been permanently cast into hell. Those humans became saints by recognizing their own inferiority. Those angels were cast into hell for failing to recognize their own relative inferiority.

Women are inferior to men. And yet 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.