Neither Left nor Right, but Catholic
TIME FOR A NON-FEMINIST REAPPRAISAL OF THE ROLE OF WOMEN
By Stephen M. Krason
The rank confusion spawned by the push for transgenderism is a direct result of the contemporary feminist movement, which came to the fore and started to transform American life fifty years ago. It is one of the most insidious effects of feminism and underscores the urgency of putting forth a reasonable, non-feminist—indeed, non-ideological—understanding of women’s role in society. It should be set out and insistently argued for in public and private discussion so that the feminist foundations of current social thinking can begin to be undermined.
This is a big topic, so I single out only a few major areas to comment on: women and work, women in the military, women in the Church, and the effects of the wholesale embracing of the contraceptive ethic and the 1960s sexual revolution—which contemporary feminism spun off from—on women.
As far as work is concerned, a sensible view would reject the feminist mantra that men and women are essentially interchangeable. It is foolish to claim that relative differences in physical strength have no bearing on some jobs or—even though it is now considered outrageous and irrational to even suggest this—that some situations are not appropriate for women. So, while it is fine and good for women to be in the professions (where their numbers have exploded), the academy, journalism, politics, finance, etc. maybe it’s not so desirable for them to be coal miners, construction workers, trash collectors, or even firefighters (indeed, as someone said to me recently, couldn’t a woman firefighter’s lack of sufficient physical strength be the difference between a person caught in a fire being rescued or not). Isn’t the dignity of women something to keep in mind, as well? Is it desirable for women to be subjected to the crudeness that one encounters among men in certain rough occupations? While women historically have been an elevating moral force for men, when they are overwhelmed by this in certain job situations they may just be swept into it. Is that part of the reason—along with the general breakdown of male-female differences under feminism’s onslaught—why we now see a coarsening of women’s manners and attitudes?
In talking about women and work, it’s time for a new vision that emphasizes the fact that the innate nurturing character of women—part of their nature because they are the ones who are mothers—has meant that certain jobs are especially going to be attractive to them, such as those involving patient-care in the health care field and the teaching of younger children. We should commend women who go into those fields, instead of being dismissive of them as feminists often are. Moreover, perhaps above all else, we need to stress the need to respect women who choose to be stay-at-home mothers. Feminists have long routinely denigrated such women. Not only do these views need to be vigorously opposed, but we need to pointedly applaud such women and stress the importance of full-time motherhood. In doing so, of course, we are following what the Church has said. Also, remembering that the economy is meant for persons and not the other way around, we should stress something that John Paul II said: because the family is so vitally important for society work should be restructured so that women who leave the workforce to raise a family—this is especially pertinent to professional women—should be permitted to reenter it later on without facing considerable disadvantage.
The consequences of America’s rush to “sexually integrate” the military were exposed by Brian P. Mitchell as long as thirty years ago in his book Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military, which garnered much attention. Occasionally, additional exposés come out showing how physical standards are lowered for women, women in the military experience have more health and injury problems than men (and are discharged for them much more frequently), discharges for pregnancy are frequent (and married military women wanting to conceive have heightened fertility problems), the overwhelming number of problems found in sex-integrated units and in combat effectiveness when women are on the front-lines with men, the weakening of readiness caused by the fact that military training has become—to use the term of some critics—“kinder and gentler” to accommodate women, and the likely physical and sexual abuse that women captured by enemy nations in combat would very likely be subject to (it is astounding that feminists are oblivious to such a thing). Nevertheless, there is hardly any debate about the role of women in the military, whether they should be in combat units, or whether the military is appropriate for women at all. It is said that if male officers raise any of these questions their careers could soon be over.
What is needed is an insistent, courageous public questioning about such matters as these as one part of a renewed inquiry about the role of women after the cultural carnage caused by feminism. The aim, of course, is to build a new understanding of women’s role that comports with reality and the nature of man and woman, is reasonable, and is encumbered neither by feminist ideology nor by unreasonable older attitudes that inappropriately limited women and which helped propel feminism in the first place.
As far as women in the Church is concerned, the current consideration of women in the diaconate is certainly misplaced. Almost certainly, the “deaconesses” of the early Church were not the equivalent of today’s deacons, men in Holy Orders. They did not receive any kind of sacramental ordination. This question should be put to rest, and more attention given to something like restoring and strengthening women’s religious orders that have been decimated since Vatican II—in no small way because of the seeping of feminist thinking into the Church. A change that should be made—reversing a troublesome decision of John Paul II’s, perhaps made as a way to stave off resistance to his doctrinal reaffirmation that the priesthood is limited to men—is that altar girls should no longer be permitted. The key point here is symbolism, the importance of which should never be underestimated. Altar boys were once referred to as “little priests.” One can’t underestimate the tendency in a generally poorly catechized generation to be open to the false notion that women can become priests or deacons because they see girls around the altar (indeed, we hear that in some parishes the servers are mostly girls because as their numbers have increased the boys have come to see it as a “girls’ thing”). In almost every parish, women do commendable work, mostly as volunteers—in fact, one almost thinks they are the ones keeping parishes going in their day-to-day operations. Again, as with jobs, shouldn’t we take advantage of the innate strengths of girlhood and womanhood in our parishes? For example, wouldn’t there be a stronger spirit of welcoming in parishes if people coming to Sunday Mass were met by young girls acting as “greeters” instead of altar servers?
Finally, it’s time to stop being intimidated by those ridiculing the defenders of traditional—that is, true—sexual morality. There is a need to become ever more courageous and emphatic in defending it. What’s necessary, however, is not just to state it, but to instruct—that is, to explain why it is correct. A good place to start, which might get the attention of some of those not readily inclined to listen, is by talking about the consequences of discarding it. The evidence for that is abundant, all around us. More, people have to speak up about this and even bring it up when appropriate in all kinds of contexts (including in their private social and friend/acquaintance circles). The defenders of true sexual morality too often make the same mistake as conservative politicians do: they oppose, but fail to educate. It needs to be conveyed to women—young women, particularly—how they are the main victims of the sexual revolution, how it has been their dignity that has been undermined. It is they who are objectified, they who are mostly the ones who are used, they who bear the burdens of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies, and they who face the often ongoing economic disadvantages that result from this and also—something that even not-so-young women might pay attention to—how part of the fall-out of the sexual revolution was no-fault divorce (which usually leaves women as the losers). The case needs to be made as to how virginity and sexual abstinence before marriage are what truly uphold a woman’s dignity and how “hooking up,” sexually provocative behavior, and even immodest dress don’t.
About contraception, it is necessary to drive home to women the much suppressed fact—the medical profession has been the worst culprit in this—of the physical health consequences of its use. This might make young women wonder if even “protected” nonmarital sex is really worth it. Contracepting married women who are against abortion—many are Catholics and evangelical Protestants—should be resolutely informed that many birth control pills are abortifacient. There also shouldn’t be a reluctance to inform them that natural family planning is effective and not onerous. That might motivate them to reevaluate their contraceptive use. Probably the opening assault on the sexual revolution has to be an assault on contraception.
Feminists claim that men have nothing to say about women’s role. It’s almost as if men are not allowed to be concerned about the most fundamental of human relationships, that between men and women—which so fundamentally determines the course of human civilization. I’m sorry to disappoint them that I’m one man who won’t buckle under to them, and it’s time for clear-thinking members of both sexes to challenge them and help enunciate the kind of reasonable vision of the role of women that I have been speaking about.
Stephen M. Krason’s “Neither Left nor Right, but Catholic” column appears monthly (sometimes bi-monthly) in Crisis. He is Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies and Associate Director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University of Steubenville. He is also co-founder and President of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists and a lawyer. Among his books are: Abortion: Politics, Morality, and the Constitution; Liberalism, Conservatism, and Catholicism; The Transformation of the American Democratic Republic; Catholicism and American Political Ideologies, and a Catholic political novel, American Cincinnatus. The views expressed here are his own.
Stephen Krason's Blog 
TIME FOR A NON-FEMINIST REAPPRAISAL OF THE ROLE OF WOMEN
Neither Left nor Right, but Catholic
TIME FOR A NON-FEMINIST REAPPRAISAL OF THE ROLE OF WOMEN
By Stephen M. Krason
The rank confusion spawned by the push for transgenderism is a direct result of the contemporary feminist movement, which came to the fore and started to transform American life fifty years ago. It is one of the most insidious effects of feminism and underscores the urgency of putting forth a reasonable, non-feminist—indeed, non-ideological—understanding of women’s role in society. It should be set out and insistently argued for in public and private discussion so that the feminist foundations of current social thinking can begin to be undermined.
This is a big topic, so I single out only a few major areas to comment on: women and work, women in the military, women in the Church, and the effects of the wholesale embracing of the contraceptive ethic and the 1960s sexual revolution—which contemporary feminism spun off from—on women.
As far as work is concerned, a sensible view would reject the feminist mantra that men and women are essentially interchangeable. It is foolish to claim that relative differences in physical strength have no bearing on some jobs or—even though it is now considered outrageous and irrational to even suggest this—that some situations are not appropriate for women. So, while it is fine and good for women to be in the professions (where their numbers have exploded), the academy, journalism, politics, finance, etc. maybe it’s not so desirable for them to be coal miners, construction workers, trash collectors, or even firefighters (indeed, as someone said to me recently, couldn’t a woman firefighter’s lack of sufficient physical strength be the difference between a person caught in a fire being rescued or not). Isn’t the dignity of women something to keep in mind, as well? Is it desirable for women to be subjected to the crudeness that one encounters among men in certain rough occupations? While women historically have been an elevating moral force for men, when they are overwhelmed by this in certain job situations they may just be swept into it. Is that part of the reason—along with the general breakdown of male-female differences under feminism’s onslaught—why we now see a coarsening of women’s manners and attitudes?
In talking about women and work, it’s time for a new vision that emphasizes the fact that the innate nurturing character of women—part of their nature because they are the ones who are mothers—has meant that certain jobs are especially going to be attractive to them, such as those involving patient-care in the health care field and the teaching of younger children. We should commend women who go into those fields, instead of being dismissive of them as feminists often are. Moreover, perhaps above all else, we need to stress the need to respect women who choose to be stay-at-home mothers. Feminists have long routinely denigrated such women. Not only do these views need to be vigorously opposed, but we need to pointedly applaud such women and stress the importance of full-time motherhood. In doing so, of course, we are following what the Church has said. Also, remembering that the economy is meant for persons and not the other way around, we should stress something that John Paul II said: because the family is so vitally important for society work should be restructured so that women who leave the workforce to raise a family—this is especially pertinent to professional women—should be permitted to reenter it later on without facing considerable disadvantage.
The consequences of America’s rush to “sexually integrate” the military were exposed by Brian P. Mitchell as long as thirty years ago in his book Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military, which garnered much attention. Occasionally, additional exposés come out showing how physical standards are lowered for women, women in the military experience have more health and injury problems than men (and are discharged for them much more frequently), discharges for pregnancy are frequent (and married military women wanting to conceive have heightened fertility problems), the overwhelming number of problems found in sex-integrated units and in combat effectiveness when women are on the front-lines with men, the weakening of readiness caused by the fact that military training has become—to use the term of some critics—“kinder and gentler” to accommodate women, and the likely physical and sexual abuse that women captured by enemy nations in combat would very likely be subject to (it is astounding that feminists are oblivious to such a thing). Nevertheless, there is hardly any debate about the role of women in the military, whether they should be in combat units, or whether the military is appropriate for women at all. It is said that if male officers raise any of these questions their careers could soon be over.
What is needed is an insistent, courageous public questioning about such matters as these as one part of a renewed inquiry about the role of women after the cultural carnage caused by feminism. The aim, of course, is to build a new understanding of women’s role that comports with reality and the nature of man and woman, is reasonable, and is encumbered neither by feminist ideology nor by unreasonable older attitudes that inappropriately limited women and which helped propel feminism in the first place.
As far as women in the Church is concerned, the current consideration of women in the diaconate is certainly misplaced. Almost certainly, the “deaconesses” of the early Church were not the equivalent of today’s deacons, men in Holy Orders. They did not receive any kind of sacramental ordination. This question should be put to rest, and more attention given to something like restoring and strengthening women’s religious orders that have been decimated since Vatican II—in no small way because of the seeping of feminist thinking into the Church. A change that should be made—reversing a troublesome decision of John Paul II’s, perhaps made as a way to stave off resistance to his doctrinal reaffirmation that the priesthood is limited to men—is that altar girls should no longer be permitted. The key point here is symbolism, the importance of which should never be underestimated. Altar boys were once referred to as “little priests.” One can’t underestimate the tendency in a generally poorly catechized generation to be open to the false notion that women can become priests or deacons because they see girls around the altar (indeed, we hear that in some parishes the servers are mostly girls because as their numbers have increased the boys have come to see it as a “girls’ thing”). In almost every parish, women do commendable work, mostly as volunteers—in fact, one almost thinks they are the ones keeping parishes going in their day-to-day operations. Again, as with jobs, shouldn’t we take advantage of the innate strengths of girlhood and womanhood in our parishes? For example, wouldn’t there be a stronger spirit of welcoming in parishes if people coming to Sunday Mass were met by young girls acting as “greeters” instead of altar servers?
Finally, it’s time to stop being intimidated by those ridiculing the defenders of traditional—that is, true—sexual morality. There is a need to become ever more courageous and emphatic in defending it. What’s necessary, however, is not just to state it, but to instruct—that is, to explain why it is correct. A good place to start, which might get the attention of some of those not readily inclined to listen, is by talking about the consequences of discarding it. The evidence for that is abundant, all around us. More, people have to speak up about this and even bring it up when appropriate in all kinds of contexts (including in their private social and friend/acquaintance circles). The defenders of true sexual morality too often make the same mistake as conservative politicians do: they oppose, but fail to educate. It needs to be conveyed to women—young women, particularly—how they are the main victims of the sexual revolution, how it has been their dignity that has been undermined. It is they who are objectified, they who are mostly the ones who are used, they who bear the burdens of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies, and they who face the often ongoing economic disadvantages that result from this and also—something that even not-so-young women might pay attention to—how part of the fall-out of the sexual revolution was no-fault divorce (which usually leaves women as the losers). The case needs to be made as to how virginity and sexual abstinence before marriage are what truly uphold a woman’s dignity and how “hooking up,” sexually provocative behavior, and even immodest dress don’t.
About contraception, it is necessary to drive home to women the much suppressed fact—the medical profession has been the worst culprit in this—of the physical health consequences of its use. This might make young women wonder if even “protected” nonmarital sex is really worth it. Contracepting married women who are against abortion—many are Catholics and evangelical Protestants—should be resolutely informed that many birth control pills are abortifacient. There also shouldn’t be a reluctance to inform them that natural family planning is effective and not onerous. That might motivate them to reevaluate their contraceptive use. Probably the opening assault on the sexual revolution has to be an assault on contraception.
Feminists claim that men have nothing to say about women’s role. It’s almost as if men are not allowed to be concerned about the most fundamental of human relationships, that between men and women—which so fundamentally determines the course of human civilization. I’m sorry to disappoint them that I’m one man who won’t buckle under to them, and it’s time for clear-thinking members of both sexes to challenge them and help enunciate the kind of reasonable vision of the role of women that I have been speaking about.
Stephen M. Krason’s “Neither Left nor Right, but Catholic” column appears monthly (sometimes bi-monthly) in Crisis. He is Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies and Associate Director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University of Steubenville. He is also co-founder and President of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists and a lawyer. Among his books are: Abortion: Politics, Morality, and the Constitution; Liberalism, Conservatism, and Catholicism; The Transformation of the American Democratic Republic; Catholicism and American Political Ideologies, and a Catholic political novel, American Cincinnatus. The views expressed here are his own.