« Believing God's promises | Main | John Paul's last gift to America »


Terry LaForest Lynch

Back in the pre Roe days, I fancied myself a feminist. I attended "conciousness raising" meetings in both a blue-collar town(Saginaw) and in Ann Arbor (no description needed). The emphasis then was not entirely placed on abortion. Changing rape laws was one of the big issues. One other big issue had to do with language. Replacing "man" with person was essential until the ridiculus nature of the language got too much even for them-fireperson, mailperson then postal person because mail sounds like male. But the underlying agenda was not abandoned. The people I heard and read were quite open about their plan. All the secular issues were frosting. The meat and potatoes was to affect the Church. Everyone admitted that women in the pews who heard "man" or "brothers" understand that this included them. The first step was to convince those women that they were being excluded. Another part of the plan was to attack fatherhood. The final goal was to replace the worship of God with the worship of a goddess. The women involved made no attempt to hide this, they spoke openly of it in meetings and wrote of it in articles and books directed to each other. To outsiders, they maintained the deception of "equal rights". For this reason and because of the equating of freedom with abortion, I am one of the many women who will never identify with feminism again.


Thank you for this article. I had long thought that modern day feminism had its roots in Marxism, which actually seeks to androgynize culture.

Terry, you bring up great points and ones I've recently had to deal with within my church. All of my mothers, (mother, grandmothers aunts, teachers, etc.), when teaching from Scripture always used the language of Scripture and had a great love for our Father and His Son. It was understood that we had equally dignity and an equal share in the Kingdom. Nothing in what they taught diminished me in any way. I cannot have a relationship with an "it" god, God must be a "person," and teaching from the beginning has always taught that God is He.

And then came my recent experiences of the replacement of "man" and "Father" in biblical text. I see this as an invitation to be angry when I read the Bible or participate in Mass. This cannot be good or right. I see it as the primordial invitation by Satan himself to Eve, "You can be like gods." Two deceptions occurred here: #1. That God the Father is a liar. #2. That you can be like Him (since, He was the only god she knew, she rejected her own unique grace of womanhood). Adam is not off the hook. Where was he? They were separated from one another -- in a word, divorced. His response was a rejection of his grace in manhood... he was impotent! Men are called potent or impotent (and God OMNIPOTENT!), women are called fertile or infertile.

So of course it makes sense that the Redeemer came through a woman, the "new" Eve. He could have just plopped from the sky, but he required her cooperation, her acceptance of her grace as woman, to participate in the redemption of us all.

Jim Kalb

If you look at radical feminists you'll think feminism is Marxist, but then it's hard to understand why it was accepted so quickly and easily by all major American institutions.

I think feminism is at least as capitalist as Marxist. The world of capitalism has profit-seeking producers and gratification-seeking consumers. If you're a producer you try to expand markets and organize production rationally. It expands markets if people buy childcare and McDonalds hamburgers instead of providing for themselves at home, and it helps organize production rationally if employees are interchangeable and don't have interests or connections apart from their careers and money. If you're a consumer seeking gratification you'll play along with that so you'll make more money, and you'll look at life as a matter of fun and personal choice.

All those things cut against sex roles, family connections, and principles and loyalties of any kind. They turn us into interchangeable and manipulable human resources on the one hand, and endlessly appetitive consumers on the other. And that's what capitalism in and of itself wants. It seems to me the problem is less Marxism or capitalism than the hedonistic and materialistic view of the world both share. To escape from that you have to put non-economic values first, and we don't do that in American public life.


insert "www" after "http://" to make the link in the original remarks work. The entire link is then http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=694&cid=12&sid=53

Dale O'Leary

Radical Feminists were not economic Marxists, but social Marxists. Building on a few lines from Engels they dreamed of a sex class revolution where women would gain control of the means of reproduction overthrow the ruling class (men) and establish a sex classless society. Shulamith Firestone's book The Dialectic of Sex explained the entire agenda.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Speaking Engagements

  • Contact info
    Kindly email me at gskineke [at] gmail.com for me to speak to your parish or women's group.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter


    • From Benedict XVI
      “People have realized that the complete removal of the feminine element from the Christian message is a shortcoming from an anthropological viewpoint. It is theologically and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity."
    • Anger and Patrimony (from Donna)
      This is just another of the unintended consequences of the cultural acceptance of contraception and abortion! Men's sexuality has been robbed of its creative essence. It is now viewed as something that imposes a burden on women (when conception happens to occur), something used to control women or something that is purely recreational. Why would men bother?? In taking away their responsibility, we've also robbed them of their significance! In the big picture of humanity, men have been made into nothing more than a nuisance women have to figure out how to control in order to bring about the next generation. Men don't see it as their task to protect the vulnerable because they see themselves as the vulnerable ones. A few well preserved vials of sperm would make men entirely obsolete in the world's ethos today!!
    • Excellent, Dom! (from Teresa)
      That is astounding Robin, and good for you for standing up. At the heart of that matter, I think, is even worse than a gender mixing message. There is an increased sharper and sharper focus on the "self." Solid Catholic teaching returns our focus away from ourselves to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The original sin, Eve denied her womanhood when she desired to be like "gods." Since the only god she knew was the Father. Where was Adam? He stood impotent... in other words, they were divorced. There's a young girl at Robin's son's high school who was just told that she is the center of the universe and it's a tragic disservice to her.
    • Find the logic (from "me")
      Ditto what Mary said! A lot of high schools have very poor math and science depts, for boys and girls. I also am educated as a chemical engineer, but chose to teach the two years before we had children because its hours were more suited to spending time with children. (I was looking ahead). When it came time and I was pregnant with our first, I realized that I did not want to leave him with someone else, and was able to stay home full time. I am not sure it would have been that easy if we were used to another engineering income and not just a private school teacher income. Also some of my first job offers were out on oil rigs - I had no interest in that at all even though I enjoyed my engineering classes and did well in them. No one discouraged me from an engineering job, on the contrary I got a lot of flack for my decision not to pursue an engineering career.
    • Find the logic (from Mary)
      I've been lurking, but this is one that irritates me. Beats the heck out of me what these "barriers" are. I was educated as a chemical engineer, where 1/3 of our class was women. However, in electrical engineering, only 1 or 2 out of 30 were women. Is it possible that women are Just Not Interested in some areas? Nah, it must be The Man keeping us down so we must legislate (and, I agree -- when they say "legistlate", I hear "quota"). And actually, I have a friend that was also a chemical engineer. When she lost her job, she decided not to go back into engineering and started working from home so she could spend more time with her 3 kids. Also, if nothing else, there are all kinds of incentives for women to enter science and engineering -- scholarships not available to men, guaranteed housing on campuses that do not guarantee housing to the general population, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that schools in general are not preparing students for the hard sciences. It is truly a sad state of affairs, the lack of science education these days.

    Subscribe here

    • My Catholic Homepage