Vatican Says Modern Feminism Threatens Families

[Devastated]

Plenty of moral guidance right here on the ship.

[tansi]

wishful thinking...doesn't really mean much

Do you believe this in any way supports your argument?

[Lord Moon]

Of course it does just as much as devaluing people because you dislike the way they dress....

[tansi]

Their dressing up in costume does not actually disturb me (though I think that's an amusing irony considering their stand about other males who do), it's the fundamental hypocrisy of their position that does. I'll give you that point, if you can post one unarguable point that supports the Church's position relevant to this topic. I said one small thing that was sarcastic and arguably irrelevant. You haven't made a relevant case at all to date.

Just how does feminism harm the modern family? How does the Church help it?

I can argue the Church itself has actually harmed modern families. It attempts to keep women (and men!) trapped in abusive, dysfunctional situations. It offers no help with family planning, which keeps people (men and women both) trapped in a cycle of poverty. Once the babies its radicals have "saved" from abortion and family planning are born, it offers little to no ongoing support for these children or their parents. It uses guilt, fear and shame to suck dollars out of the hands of the poorest into weekly collection plates (and very little of that money goes back to the poor). Its own priests have violated their vows in stunning numbers, leading to the payouts of millions if not billions of dollars to victims of abuse. It has shuffled pedophile priests around from one parish to another in a vain effort to protect its divine assets, while dismissing the victims and failing them utterly ... this is a profound, sad, ironic case of the pot desperately looking for a kettle. Attacking feminism is nothing but a cynical scapegoat to direct attention away from its own multitude of sins.

Are some tenets of feminism hostile to traditional views of the family? You betcha. Feminists do believe that women ought to have the same rights as men, we ought to have the same right for self determination, we ought to have the right to decide on our own reproductive future. These things are arguably hostile to the traditional view. Are they actually hostile to families in the real world? Quite the opposite.

The only beef I have with some feminists is that they do look down on women who choose a more outwardly traditional role of housewife and mother. I do think this choice is a noble one, and I do think it is vital that young children have at least one parent at home in the early stages of life. But I also recognize the reality that these days it often takes two incomes to simply make ends meet, never mind find the American Dream. The Church on the other hand does little if anything to address that reality.

[shecoda]

"The document called for greater recognition of a woman's role as a mother and urged society to value it as real work."

SO, is the Vatican, with all its wealth, going to cut these women a paycheck so their families can make ends meet?

AS a woman who was a stay at home mom, let me tell you I was perceived as a slacker, "Oh other woman (especially other woman) would sniff. It's not like it's real work." Well I've done both and let me tell you staying at home with the kids, without other adult contact until my husband came home at night was one of the tougher things I have ever done. The few times I worked outside of the home while raising the children, work was by far the easier choice. And I loved being with my kids. I appreciate that woman more often than not have to work while being mothers just to make ends meet, and I applaud all of them for their efforts. But don't denigrate stay at home moms either. It is real work.


By the way we weren't living in the lap of luxury when I was at home. It was hard work deciding what we could safely cut out of our lives so I could stay at home. We drove old used cars. We still don't own our own house. That was one of the sacrifices we made to make raising our own children ourselves and not using daycare possible.

[daboodaddy]

Shecoda, thats why I said what I did.
I never wanted children, never had any. I based that which you quoted on observation, not personal experience.
"Womens' work" DOES have monetary value.
Price the services of a Maid, Nanny, and Cook.
Kind of expensive, eh?
Yet women(stay @ home moms) are still taken for granted.

[Lord Moon]

Feminism like lots of other ideologies, that have come before it, it believes that it must destroy the family in order to save women, that the family enslaves women, and that men are the oppressors of women...


Actually 90% of all perps are women....who abuse or neglect their children are women, statistically there are two crimes women are likely to commit shoplifting and killing their kids...I've never seen one man or a priest for that matter before a judge... I've know other's who were handeling cases like that but they were extremely rare..

Though usually women try to qualify as a victim as a way to absolve them selves...because of the feminist belief that victims should not be held accountable for mudering innoscents..

Yes, some priests have commited crimes, but that doesnt' implicate all priests, just as it doesnt' implicate the pope...

Feminism is anti family because it trys to interject state control of relationships into the home and devalues emotinal relationships in economic terms..It justifies the oppresion it creates of women children, and men because of historical conditions that did not exist...and is directly responsible for the drugging of children against their will.

Feminsim despises the idea of "mothering", yet doesn't offer any viable or healthy psychological alternative for rearing healthy children, either morally or socially.

Love without responsiblity is useless, it's just a hollow promise..

[tansi]

Feminism like lots of other ideologies, that have come before it, it believes that it must destroy the family in order to save women, that the family enslaves women, and that men are the oppressors of women...

I'm not an expert on feminism. But that is not exactly how I view most feminist ideology. I see it simply as "All people, male, female, of any race, creed, religion, or sexual preference, should be judged and treated on an equal basis, according to the merit of their deeds,a nd that all deserve the right to make their own life choices outside of religious, political or social pressure."

Actually 90% of all perps are women....who abuse or neglect their children are women, statistically there are two crimes women are likely to commit shoplifting and killing their kids...

Here are some statistics I found:

In 1994 women were about two-thirds as likely as men to be
victims of violence. Of the 10.9 million crimes of violence in
1994, 4.7 million were against women. The rate of victimization
was 43 per 1,000 women about two-thirds the 60 violent
victimizations per 1,000 men. - http://blackstone.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fvvc.txt

Sexual abuse happens to men as well as women. In fact, by most estimations, 5% to 10% of sexual abuse committed in the United States involves male victims. http://www.newbeginningsnh.org/sa_male.html

This page contains a whole bunch of different studies, the highest rates for violence of women against men being 50%, and those studies fail to take into account the actual damage caused, etc http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/grandi97.htm ... even if you were correct with your wildly specualtive figure (and you have the actual rates on their head), you are not accounting for the fact that there is a difference in the type of violence, and the capability for causing physical damage. There is a difference betweeen a man's punch and a woman's (Lalia Ali being perhaps an exception to prove the rule).

I've never seen one man or a priest for that matter before a judge... I've know other's who were handeling cases like that but they were extremely rare..

It's on the news every night. I don't know what court you are watching.

Though usually women try to qualify as a victim as a way to absolve them selves...because of the feminist belief that victims should not be held accountable for mudering innoscents.

I decry the victim mentality as much as anyone. I do think it can be argued some of this mindset has been supported by some feminist thinking - but not all feminists think this way.

Yes, some priests have commited crimes, but that doesnt' implicate all priests.

Nor does the fact that some women have commited crimes and failed to take responsibility for them indict all women or even all feminists, even allowing for the in-credible "statistics" you mentioned.

just as it doesnt' implicate the pope...

Where does the coverup buck stop?

Feminism is anti family because it trys to interject state control of relationships into the home and devalues emotinal relationships in economic terms...

Exactly where do you see this happening in real terms? I see the opposite. I drove past an obnoxious anti-abortion rally today - those people are sticking their noses straight into the bedroom. MY bedroom! I don't want Church or State control of my bedroom or yours ... period.

It justifies the oppresion it creates of women children, and men because of historical conditions that did not exist...and is directly responsible for the drugging of children against their will.

Again, justify this opinion with some facts. Where have feminist writers advocated such things?

Feminsim despises the idea of "mothering", yet doesn't offer any viable or healthy psychological alternative for rearing healthy children, either morally or socially.

Again, justify this opinion with some facts. Have all feminist writers advocated such things? As was pointed out, the occasional wacko might hold these views - they don't speak for the others, any more than I would presume Jerry Fallwell, Jimmy Swaggart or the Pope speak for all Christians.

Love without responsiblity is useless, it's just a hollow promise..

Like the one the Church and its anti-abortion protesters offer to women who keep their children? Keep the baby and we'll take care of you? (snort) ... yeah riiight.

[shecoda]

The women's Suffrage movement came about because the old patriarchal system of doing things wasn't working. Not having equal rights woman left without husbands, brothers, fathers, even brothers-in-law to care for them, were frankly screwed. So were their children. Their land could be taken, businesses left by dead husbands could be shut down, homes women had lived in for years belonged to the nearest male relative of the dead man. Women really existed with any type of quality of life only by dint of living with some man. And if he died, oh well. This quite often left the woman forced to marry the next available male whether she preferred him or not, whether he treated her or her children well or not just so she and her kids could survive.

Feminism was a further evolution of the Suffrage movement. I personally believe that the fact that divorce became increasingly more prevelant in the fifties and sixties, men discarding their wives, had as much to do with the feminist movement as did the whole women in the workforce in WWII situation. Women simply firgured out they could do it themselves.

Feminism has now evolved into a more equal system of living for the woman. She can have her job (financial security in case of divorce), her children (family) and take care of herself. She can choose to marry or not marry, but at least if she does its the man of her choice. The end result of this is that we don't need a huge ongoing feminist movement anymore so it has been relegated to the fringe. We also don't have to live with men who treat us badly if we made a mistake in choosing a partner. Feminism therefore has more or less accomplished its goal and is no longer needed as it was when it first appeared so it has been relegated to the fringe.

Just as the Suffrage movement layed the groundwork for the Feminist movement, now that euality has mostly been achieved, I truly think that more and more a return to the whole family, i.e. mother, father, children will return as the ideal as that is a choice that can be made also within the freedom of equality.

But here is something to think about. If men had treated women-all women not just their women-with decency and respect and allowed them some way of surviving besides prostitution or being forced to choose a man who didn't suit them, if man had worked out a system whereby a woman and her children were taken care of if they had no male relatives who would do so, so that older woman whose men had died were allowed to live with some decency, if men had stopped other men from beating their wives and hurting their children, there would have been no need for a woman's equality movement.

[mudwoman]

From the National Center for Victims of Crime

CHILD MALTREATMENT

# Approximately 903,000 children were found to be victims of maltreatment (neglect or abuse) in 2001.

# Fifty-seven percent of child victims of maltreatment suffered neglect; 19 percent were physically abused; 10 percent were sexually abused; 7 percent were psychologically maltreated; and 2 percent suffered medical neglect.

# In 2001, female children accounted for 52 percent of the victims of child maltreatment, and males accounted for 48 percent.

# Half of all child victims of maltreatment were White; one- quarter were African American; 15 percent were Hispanic. American Indian/Alaska Natives accounted for 2 percent of victims, and Asian/Pacific Islanders for 1 percent of victims.

# The majority of perpetrators of child maltreatment in 2001 were women (59 percent), while men made up 41 percent of perpetrators.

# Eighty-four percent of reported child victims were abused by a parent or parents. The mother was the sole perpetrator in 41 percent of cases, and almost one-fifth (19 percent) of child victims were maltreated by both parents.

# Approximately 1,300 children died of abuse and neglect during 2001. Eighty-five percent of child fatalities were younger than 6 years of age.

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbNa ... ntID=38709

[Lord Moon]

While it's true that women are more likely to be victims of violence, it is not true that the same thing applies to children..

In Los Angeles County Childrens Court where I have spent many years dealing with women who murder children with immpunity, and without prosecution, it is quite clear that when it comes to violence against children women are many many times more likely to murder their children than men...

of 70,000 to 80,000 children detained from homes per year in Los Angeles County 90% result from abuse or neglect by the mother....and it's just the tip of the Ice Berg... when you consider that 40,000,000 abortions have been comitted in the good old USA, since 1973... the clear message iswomen can kill children because qualifying as a victim absolves one of responsiblility....

It's also in the News Every day of a women bludgeoning her baby or tossing it into the trash....Yesterday there was another one.. of a women who murdered her newborn and tossed it into the trash... while on a pleasant outing to Catalina...

I have personally witnessed hundreds of the most heinous cirimes commited by women against children who were never prosecuted, or never made it to the papers becuase they were too gruesome... from boling childrens hands off to tearing the flesh off her childs face with a set of vise grips....while it's true that man do comit dmestic violence it's also true that women murder their children.

Reality is not the wishful thinking and rationalization that one finds in texbooks... the next time I have to serve a warrant to some crack whore whose mothered 10 children and abused them all, or decied it's easier to live on welfare with them than walk the streets, I'll wonder where in our ideology there is room for the truth - Victims
An estimated 896,000 children were determined to be victims of child abuse or neglect in 2002. The rate of victimization per 1,000 children in the national population has dropped from 13.4 children in 1990 to 12.3 children in 2002.

More than 60 percent of child victims experienced neglect. Almost 20 percent were physically abused; 10 percent were sexually abused; and 7 percent were emotionally maltreated. In addition, almost 20 percent were associated with "other" types of maltreatment based on specific State laws and policies.2

Children ages birth to 3 years had the highest rates of victimization at 16.0 per 1,000 children. Girls were slightly more likely to be victims than boys.

American Indian or Alaska Native and African-American children had the highest rates of victimization when compared to their national population. While the rate of White victims of child abuse or neglect was 10.7 per 1,000 children of the same race, the rate for American Indian or Alaska Natives was 21.7 per 1,000 children and for African-Americans 20.2 per 1,000 children.

Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect
In 2002, an estimated total of 2.6 million referrals concerning the welfare of approximately 4.5 million children were made to CPS agencies throughout the United States. Of these, approximately two-thirds (an estimated 1.8 million) were accepted for investigation or assessment; one-third were not accepted.

More than one-half (56.5 percent) of all reports that alleged child abuse or neglect were made by such professionals as educators, law enforcement and legal personnel, social services personnel, medical personnel, mental health personnel, child daycare providers, and foster care providers. Such nonprofessionals as friends, neighbors, and relatives submitted approximately 43.6 percent of reports.

Approximately 30 percent of the reports included at least one child who was found to be a victim of abuse or neglect. Sixty-one percent of the reports were found to be unsubstantiated (including intentionally false); the remaining reports were closed for additional reasons.

Fatalities
Child fatalities are the most tragic consequence of maltreatment. For 2002, an estimated 1,400 children died due to abuse or neglect. Three-quarters (76 percent) of children who were killed were younger than 4 years old; 12 percent were 4 to 7 years old; 6 percent were 8 to 11 years old; and 6 percent were 12 to 17 years old.

Infant boys (younger than 1 year old) had the highest rate of fatalities, nearly 19 deaths per 100,000 boys of the same age in the national population. Infant girls (younger than 1 year old) had a rate of 12 deaths per 100,000. The overall rate of child fatalities was 2 deaths per 100,000 children. One-third of child fatalities were attributed to neglect. Physical abuse and sexual abuse also were major contributors to fatalities.

Perpetrators
More than 80 percent of perpetrators were parents. Other relatives accounted for 7 percent, and unmarried partners of parents accounted for 3 percent of perpetrators. The remaining perpetrators include persons with other (camp counselor, school employee, etc.) or unknown relationships to the child victims.

Female perpetrators, who were mostly mothers, were typically younger than male perpetrators, who were mostly fathers. Women also comprised a larger percentage of all perpetrators than men, 58 percent compared to 42 percent.

Of all parents who were perpetrators, less than 3 percent were associated with sexual abuse. Of all perpetrators of sexual abuse, nearly 29 percent were other relatives, and nearly one-quarter were in nonrelative or nonchildcaring roles

WHEN MOTHER'S BOYFRIEND - WHOM MOM OFTEN TRIES TO GET TO TAKE THE FALL FOR HER IS ADDED TO THE STATISTICS IT RAISES THE STATISTICS SIGNIFICANTLY... BECAUSE THE MOST DANGEROUS LIVING SITUATION FOR CHILDREN IS THE ONE IN WHICH MOTHER COHABITS WITH A LIVE IN

[mudwoman]

This is slightly off topic.

Men want to protect women. Boys want to protect their mothers. I belive it is in their nature to do so. Here is an interesting statistic:

63% of all males between the ages 11 and 20 who are serving time for homicide in the U.S. are incarcerated because they killed their mothers’ abusers.

(Sarah M. Buel, “The dynamics of Domestic Violence Cases in the United States of America: An overview” in Defending Battered Women in Criminal Cases, American Bar Association, Section of Criminal Justice, 1992)

[tansi]

While it's true that women are more likely to be victims of violence, it is not true that the same thing applies to children..

Again, you've posted much that is utterly irrelevant to the stated topic of the thread. This thread was "Vatican Says Modern Feminism Threatens Families". Your argument seems to be "Most if not all women are evil". My apologies if that was not the point you intended - that is the message I'm getting.

We are all aware that some women perpectrate crimes and abuse, probably at higher rates than is commonly believed. What feminism has or does not have to do with ANY of these evils you still have NOT established. These evils have always been with us. The only difference is now it is okay to report it, people are coming formard in greater numbers, they are now free to leave, when before they were utterly trapped. That is a good thing.

You spoke of responsibility ... but what of the responsibility of the Church to all these broken people you speak of? When an abused spouse goes to the parish priest for help, will she be sheltered and kept safe, or given a sermon about her wifely duties and sent back to her spouse? Will a child victim of sexual abuse by either parent be believed, or will they be returned to their abusive mother or father? What kind of organized support or ministry has the Church ever offered these people?

Was there any ministry to the victims of pedophile priests? Instead of comfort and support they universally report being ignored, while the crimes of priests were diminished, dismissed and ignored. Pedophile priests were shuffled from one parish to another by bishops whose unimaginable excuse was that they did not know that what they were doing was wrong. I recall the one bishop saying on CNN that he somehow did not realize this heinous thing was either crime or sin!

In the face of its abominable record of utter indifference to the state of the modern family, on what moral authority does the Church think it has to speak out on these topics? Isn't there something in the Bible about specks, planks and eyesight that might be relevant to this debate?

[Lord Moon]

No these evils have not always been with us... abuse of children has increased 134% since 1980..and is a direct result of the destruction of the family and also the institution of marriage, which has been historically devalued by feminsim, while the traditional family iself is considered to be explotive of women...tell me where feminsim supports traditional family values, because the destruction of children, is a direct result of the destruction and devauling of the traditional family roles of women as mothers and men as fathers. This is the issue that the Vatican talked about... and this is why...raising children to become healthy adults requires love and responsibility, this happens best in intact families, families who have values, and morals, and social support...feminsim has become a threat to our society just because of this..

Yes those priests deserve punishment, I have yet to hear of one who tried to duck his responsibility by claiming to be a victim of patricarchial oppression... yes the catholic church can be hypocritical... just as humankind can be, but this doesn't justify the behavior of some perp whose been hiding as a cleric... Yet it is one thing to espose the destruction of the family and an other to decry that destruction..

[shecoda]

Actually these ills have always been with us. Since you have no statistics from earlier generations, you actually have nothing to compare these stats with. This has always happened but has gone unreported. There are also far more people on this planet than ever before and therefore incidents probably happen more and are reported more just because there are more people.

As far as the statistics climbing since the 1980's I would suggest that there are more aware people, reporting is easier than ever before with the advent of cell phones and there are more and stronger laws requiring teachers, school administrators, health care workers, etc to report any suspected abuse. Many of these laws weren't enacted in the early 80's and weren't implemented in some areas until the late 90s. In short abuses have always gone on but were not as commonly reported as it is today. I would suggest that the seeming increase in incidents is nothing more than an increase in reporting.

In other words, statistics can be read any way someone wants to read them, but realistically there can be any number of reasons for a seeming jump in a stastic that has nothing to do with an actual increase in the incident rate.

And by the way, even if women are the perpetrators of more incidents, remember for every unwed mother there is also an unwed father quite often ignoring his responsibilities as a father. If more men would stick around and do their duty by their children instead of moving across country to escape their responsibilities, creating new families with other women and ignoring the children from previous relationships, or just plain quit disappearing, and take some of the total child rearing responsibility off the women who are raising their children, a lot of these problems would go away. At the very least men could be around to detect if abuse is going on with their children and could do something about it.

There is another point. Since women are the main caretakers of children it is obvious that more women are going to be turned in. And realistically women are going to appear to be the main abusers just because of the sheer numbers of children taken care of by women. Don't kid yourself. If men suddenly became the main caretakers of children, the stats would reflect this also with increased incidents involving men. So don't just blame the women. In fact since it is the women who are the main caretakers and men aren't really far behind statistically, I put to you if men were the main caretakers there would be more abuse to be reported. This is a societal ill that cuts across both genders and both genders are equally responsible for it. And none of this negates the fact that the vast majority of mothers are not child abusers.

Now, shall we talk about who exactly is the main abusers of women and wives? Perhaps there is a real reason women have felt the need to be able to take care of themselves and their children.