On "New Feminism:" The Pope's "Progressive" View of Women

One of the greatest criticisms of the Catholic church is its archaic view of gender roles. Historically, the Catholic church has been oppressive of women for as long as it has been around; more recently, they have also rejected attributes of feminist movements, such as birth control and abortion. And still... to this day... women cannot be priests. Interestingly, the church has somehow recently convinced itself that it regards men and women as complete equals, and it rejects male "domination," as has been historically accepted by the church in marriage, life, and everything. The basis of this "New Feminism" is John Paul II's Mulieris Dignitatem, an apostolic letter on the dignity of women.


But upon reading this letter, all I concluded was that the church has done nothing except make a flowery statement that women have dignity. There is no mention of their changing role in society or of their capacity as professionals or individuals. There will be no change in the power structure of the church, and no change in the doctrines against birth control and abortion, which have been instrumental in the women's liberation movement during this last century.

One thing that the Pope asserts is that women and men are inherently different, and this biological fact should determine their identities and roles in society and family. The idea that a woman is made with the capacity to be a mother, according to the Pope, means that she holds inherent nurturing characteristics unique to womanhood. He calls it the "genius" of women: compassion, warmth, and humility. Feminists of the time criticized him for a view based on biological determinism, or the idea that your biological features determine your identity and capabilities. (Maybe that's because... that's exactly what he's saying.)

Now, let's say, hypothetically, that I could appreciate this as a form of "difference feminism." There are a lot of other feminist movements that do acknowledge different inherent characteristics of men and women. But my main problem with "New Feminism" is the emphasis on motherhood. A large portion of this letter is spent glorifying this motherly-nurturing idea of woman  (which, by the way is God's design). And to me, this does nothing but reinforce gender roles and the idea of a nuclear family. If any change is suggested by this document, it is to make husbands "appreciate" women for their feminine beauty and pain during childbirth. And also, for their inherent capacity to be mothers. (Which comes with the uterus, right? Because, mine came with a parenting manual. I don't know about yours.) I think in order for women to be considered equal, they must be thought of as more than just "motherly" and "nurturing." The mere potential for our bodies to give birth does not mean that every woman should have children, nor does it mean that our personalities are suited to "compassionate" tasks. It's sad that the Catholic church uses God and the Bible to reinforce gender stereotypes... and even sadder that women attach themselves to this message and call it "empowerment."

Here's what I say... I'll believe Catholic "feminism" when the Pope comes out and says it's just as okay for dads to raise kids as it is for moms. When the woman has the right to be fulfilled by a profession instead of rearing children. When women's capabilities are equal to men's and not defined by biology. Because while he doesn't come out and say it, the Pope is implying all of these archaic stereotypes under the guise of his "New Feminism." Maybe if more people could see through the poetic religious flower-speak of the Catholic Church, more people would realize what is actually being said.

Jane Eyre: Yet Another Reading! Commentary on Helen Burns

Over break I re-read Jane Eyre, interested to discover new things and see how the book seemed different in my current stage of life.

Even though it was maybe the 3^rd or 4^th time I’ve read the book, I was more emotionally invested in it than in previous readings, and certain characters and events struck me differently than they had before.

            One interesting change was my reaction to Helen Burns, Jane’s friend and role model at Lowood. Her humble demeanor and deeply religious outlook on life had always been positive traits for me in previous readings. But this time, I was a little bit frustrated with Helen, finding her passivity aimless and her transcendent attitude too idealistic. There are moments when Helen is punished harshly for minor faults, and she takes the punishment completely, admitting that she deserved it. While this shows humility and willingness to accept personal faults, it also goes too far, into what I would consider a failure to distinguish between lawful goodness and moral goodness. While it’s admirable to accept consequences, it almost seems like Helen fails to even see the frivolity and error in her superiors’ choices.

            Later, Helen advises Jane to forgive Mrs. Reed for her cruel actions, because, as Helen says, “life is too short too be spent in nursing animosity.” While Helen’s advice may lead to a personal sense of peace, I couldn’t help but think that this attitude also just perpetuates the injustice that she endures. By accepting her punishment and refusing to fight back, Helen’s oppressors would not change their ways at all; her life is simply an endless cycle of suffering which she does nothing to prevent. In the novel, Jane admires Helen, and Bronte treats her as a sort of saint. But I think that, on a philosophical level, I would have to disagree with complete admiration of Helen.

            While I’m sure Helen feels peace of mind with the idea that earthly suffering can be overcome, her outlook on life almost suggests that nothing on earth actually matters, which I think is wrong. No doubt, Helen’s take on human suffering comes from the New Testament, specifically Christ’s instruction to “turn the other cheek.” But this does not have to mean accepting punishment with no resistance to greater evil. In fact, some of the most ardent activists for human rights (Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day) advocated acceptance of personal suffering. But, they also believed in a responsibility to end pointless human suffering on a large scale. It seems that Helen lacks this deep obligation to social justice, because she is too busy being "humble" and taking punches from her cruel superiors. Helen, to me, is a perfect example of the radical pacifist; to her, fighting injustice is pointless because it emphasizes feelings of hate and resistance, instead of peace of mind. But in the larger picture, Helen’s reaction of “peace” is actually more like “complacence,” and her understanding of resistance is limited to impulsive reactionary action.

            Overall, I think Bronte oversimplifies the dichotomy between Helen and Jane’s attitudes. Bronte suggests through Helen and Jane’s dialogue that spiritual transcendence and resistance to injustice are mutually exclusive, but more modern movements based on nonviolence suggest that the two can actually coexist.