Feminism

A GROUP asked me recently to give them a talk about feminism. I frankly did not know why they asked me, since I’m no expert in that issue, not having made any serious study of it. They said it was part of their continuing formation, and I felt I was their most convenient, definitely not the best, resource. Anyway, I just said, yes.

            I first summarized for them everything written about it in the Wikipedia. That already took care of half of the hour allotted for the talk. The literature there was already quite extensive and complex, allowing me to savor the crux and intricacy of the issue.

            Feminism is a collection of movements that broke out, like a burst of pent-up sentiments, first in Europe and in the US before it spread like wild fire to the rest of the world. It’s like one of those springs of protests that seem to be the vogue in many places today.

            It, of course, deals with women issues—equal political, economic and social rights for women. There’s a lot of valid and legitimate reasons for their actions, thus feminism as a movement quickly gained support not only from women but also from men.

            It started with women’s right to vote, a very valid issue, and then it continued to define, establish and defend many other rights considered not yet given and enjoyed by women.

            The one thing that I thought posed as a fundamental problem is that the feminist theory seems to tackle the nature of gender inequality (referring more to women) from the point of view of women’s social roles and lived experiences. To me, that’s framing it inadequately.

            The role of women in the world in general, just like the role of everybody else, just cannot be defined from purely social and experiential bases. These are no terra firma foundations. They are highly subjective and dependent on people’s changing moods and situations.

            It’s precisely with this kind of approach that to me gave rise to a very disturbing claim from some feminists who say that the biological sex of a person, for example, is not part of that person’s essence, and that the body’s physiology is “caught up” in processes of social construction. Wow!

            It’s clear that when an issue is tackled away from its fundamental base of our core beliefs and our religion, and we allow only our reasoning and subjective observations to make their own conclusions, we can end up with funny views that can be immediately repudiated by direct evidence.

            So now to be a boy or a girl does not depend anymore on what genitals one has. It now depends on how one considers oneself to be, what they call “sexual orientation” which to my mind is actually just one’s subjective preferences.

            “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman,” says one well-known feminist. I wonder how you call a person before that person declares oneself a man or a woman.

            In short, a person can be a he, a she or a bi or even anything else that can come to the mind of a person. He can be a complete neuter. This is not only going too far. This is simply wrong.

            I’m afraid that while the feminist movements started with something good, they now appear to enter into dangerous territories—reproductive rights, this funny distinction between sex and gender, prostitution rights, gay rights. This could be the reason the feminist movement is losing steam lately. It’s facing a deadend.

            There’s always a need to frame the discussion of any issue within the scope of our core beliefs and religion. We just cannot frame it on the basis of economics, politics and social observations and experiences. These are shifty, unreliable bases. They can shed some light, but definitely they cannot give the over-all and ultimate picture.

            However you look at a person, he or she is much more than his/her economic, political and social conditions. As a person, he/she is spiritual, not only material. As spiritual, he/she is generated and has to live with the original spirit, which definitely is not ourselves.

            Our Christian faith offers the fundamental truths about man and woman. If only we bother to review the pertinent doctrine of our faith, which is not man-made but is revealed, then we can see and distinguish things more clearly.

            By the way, the second half of my talk centered more on my observations, based on my priestly experience, about the general differences between how men and women think and behave. This actually drew more interest from the group.