EPIC HEADDESK. via libilou @ flickr
I feel so ignorant. I really did not know that the time had come for a new feminism. Pardon me, it is properly referred to as yes feminism.
What, you might be asking, is yes feminism? Let’s just say that we ladies will need to check our egos at the doors:
The old feminism was based on egocentric individualism, often egotistical.
Those are the words of Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, the President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, speaking at the First International Conference on Woman and Human Rights. Putting aside the fact that “egotistical individualism” would seem to, by necessity, always be egotistical, I think it’s safe to say that His Eminence just does not understand what feminism is. And maybe that shouldn’t come as a surprise. But it’s still disheartening, given that he represents the official hierarchy of a religion followed by one billion people.
Cardinal Martino does not disparage all feminism, however. He is in favor of what he calls “yes feminism.” Yes feminism is, in a nutshell, yes to the status quo, yes to submission, yes to patriarchy. If that’s not feminism, I don’t know what is!
There are multiple elements worth parsing here, so let’s pause to tackle a few from the article that reported the Cardinal’s remarks (direct quotes within quotation marks):
The cardinal described the outline of a new feminism that brings together the best intuitions from the process of woman’s emancipation, while denying that which is contrary to the true dignity of a person.
I don’t think I am going out on a limb to say that Martino probably includes the “unborn” in the whole ‘true-dignity-of-a-person’ bit. This is the same man who urged Catholics to withhold donations from Amnesty International because it reaffirmed “its support of the rights of women and girls to be free from threat, force or coercion as they manage all consequences of rape and other grave human rights violations.” Is it too much of an extrapolation to align “denying that which is contrary to the true dignity of a person” with anti-choice positions? I really don’t think so, as he represents a mindset that confers personhood onto clusters of cells. And, as we all know, “women’s emancipation” leads to feminism which leads to baby-killing. So on with a new and improved feminism!
“The old feminism was based on egocentric individualism, often egotistical. The new feminism must be interlaced with love for life, for the family, for others; a feminism regulated by charity, the queen of the virtues.”
Yes, I’m coming back to this quote. There’s nothing quite like the red herring that feminism means the destruction of families. The “new feminism” is wedded to family, meaning that the “old feminism” does not endorse family. Feminism hates motherhood, feminism hates marriage, etc. I’m kind of shocked that the Cardinal does not include the love for shaving legs and not burning bras as a part of the “new feminism.” I mean, that’s what we all do for fun when we’re not busy destroying happy families.
“When nature is denied, the human person is no longer a project, but becomes inexorably a product either of culture or of technology.”
Again, nature equals family, and you feminists better stop fucking with it.
“There will be no new feminism without God, especially if God is not discovered as Love.”
Hear that, atheists? You can no longer be feminists.
[Yes feminism] encompasses a “yes” to God, Father of the whole of humanity and Creator of man and woman in his image and likeness, a “yes” to life, to all life and to everyone’s life, always, a “yes” to the family founded on marriage, a unitive and fruitful love between a man and a woman, and a “yes” to women and to their genius.
Yes to patriarchy! Whoo, patriarchy! Gimme a P! Gimme an A! Gimme a T! Etc.
A “‘yes’ to the family founded on marriage…love between a man and a woman….’” Yeah, this kind of feels like the crux (not to be blasphemous) of the issue. Yes feminism means saying yes to a life that is incomplete without accepting the identity of a wife, a mother, and a cog in the big male-dominated machine. If you say no, you are not a true feminist — or, at least, you are following a feminism that is invalid in the eyes of God. Your very ability to say no is a rejection of what this new feminism encompasses. Your ability to exercise choice by rejecting the “yes” aspect of these dictates is not allowed.
So forget all you thought you knew and understood about feminism. We have apparently been laboring under the delusion that feminism is actually good for women. Thank God the Vatican has sent us a man who can set us straight.
I liked “New Coke” better than I like the new feminism. And I fuckin’ hated New Coke.
One tall, cool glass of Feminism Classic, please!
So the New Feminism is the same as the Old Patriarchy. Headdesk, indeed.
I hate that cardinals use titles like “Eminence” and the pope is “Holiness”.
I’d rather refer to them by their names, like Martino in this case. I don’t acknowledge the eminence of anybody over anybody else. I don’t care that that’s his title.
Same thing goes for you, Dali Lama.
sorry Dalai Lama
@Rodriguez: Yeah, I don’t actually believe that Martino has some real “eminence” over peons like me. But I guess it’s the former theology major in me that caused that to show up in the post.
@SarahMC: The more things change…
Even as a person who believes that feminism could use a few tweaks, I’m running as fast as I can the other way from this nonsense.
@Hill Rat: What kind of tweaks? Tweaks to the theory of feminism that advances equality for women, or tweaks to what you think the are methods used to achieve that equality?
@sarah.of.a.lesser.god
Yes it’s the unconscious aspect of it that makes it pernicious. It’s the same problem with gendered language, as I see it.
I’m pretty okay with my old, godless feminism, thank you very much. I believe it allowed me more choices… including the choice to be an atheist. Religious AND feminism version freedom FTW.
Withhold donations to Amnesty International? For real??? I feel like lately there is a new outrage involving the RC’s every week.
@bluebears: In defense of Cardinal Martino, they’re not granting any amnesty to embryos! They’re using false advertising! Damn those fake amnesty people!
It’s like he put a spit-shine on Feminism, but with out the shine part.
@s-o-a-l-g: teheheheheheh. good point. I’m getting the better business bureau on the line this INSTANT!
I’m no good when it comes to mathematical conundrums but how is it that Yes Feminism appears to equal No Feminism?
@Hill Rat: And what is this monolithic “feminism” of which you speak?
jsut had to say, the title of this post is hilarious, and awesome and excellent
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
When I’m Pope, I think I’ll defrock his sorry, obfuscatin’ ass. Did you see how he kinda swiped some feminist concepts like “dignity” and the idea of women as “human person[s]” to advance the patriarchy? Did you see what he did there?
I’m sure we all saw what he did there.
Wow! He just swooped in and changed the rules of our game, as if he had the authority to change the rules of our game. Like, Johnny, quit chasing your brother with that stick!!
There was a time when I’m sure that would have worked, like um . . . the 1600′s?, but does the Catholic church really not see that we’re long past church as parent?
@sarah.of.a.lesser.god
A bit of both.
@Tiny Danza
As far as I know there is no singular, universally accepted definition for “feminism,” it’s a word that seems to have almost as many definitions as the people who use it. If you ask Gloria Steinem what feminism means you’ll get a totally different answer than what you would probably be told by bell hooks. I’m only speaking about my own (limited) knowledge of what feminism is.
@Hill Rat: What tweaks do you propose as far as the theory of feminism goes?
@sarah.of.a.lesser.god
Mostly I think that feminism needs to cast its net a bit wider to make sure that it includes Black feminist thought. Specifically incorporating the idea that race, class, and gender are (to quote Patricia Hill Collins), “interlocking systems of oppression.”
@Hill Rat: It sounds like you’re talking about feminist actions, whereas this discussion is more about feminist theory. What Cardinal Martino proposed was a new feminist theory, which is how this discussion has been framed. I wholeheartedly agree that all different kinds of feminist thought (not just Black, but also Arab, queer, and many other groups) must be under the umbrella. But as for the original feminist theory of women’s equality and championing their accomplishments, I am not sure what tweaks you would propose.