After reading a few articles on my website ("Inclusive Language" vs. Liturgical, and Is "Inclusive Language" Inclusive?) some may be under the impression that I am male chauvinist. Such an impression can only be had if one does not interpret these articles from a Christian perspective. I have a very high regard and respect for the female gender of the human race, and I abhor anything that is disrespectful or abusive towards women.
One source of disrespect and abuse towards women is actually women that commonly call themselves feminists. Like the term inclusive language, the term feminist can be misleading, and more often is used to describe people that are not feminists. A more correct term for what is commonly refereed to as a feminist would be a female pseudo-masculinist.
So-called "feminists" are not interested in being feminine, but want to be what they believe is masculine. The masculine attributes they are envious of are actually a corruption of masculinity. God created men and women to love and to serve. When a man and woman are joined in marriage, their primary duty is to love and serve their family. The primary duty of single men and women is to love and serve the larger human family.
Throughout history, men have strayed from their primary duty, and began to love and serve themselves by striving for personal wealth, glory, and power. Some women were envious of these selfish men, and became even more selfish by wanting to exclude men from these vices. So-called "feminists" are really only interested in be allowed to sin as much as the most sinful men.
A man's career should not be the centre of his life, but only the means of providing for the centre of his life, his family. The same can be said for women, but the question must be asked: can a woman better serve her family with a career, or by being a full-time mother? The answer to this question depends on each individual set of circumstances, and the same question must be asked of men. Anytime a person's life becomes centred on a career, whether male or female, this life is meaningless. A person's life should be centred on loving and serving, and a career is only a means to achieve this love and service.
The career of a religious (a nun, monk, or priest) is a very special one. Again, this type of career should not become the centre of one's life, but as an extraordinary gift from God, the centre of this type of career is also the centre one's life, love and service to family. In this instance, the definition of family is the broad one. In the strict definition of family, this type of career can be likened to the career of father and mother, but the roles of father and mother are so extraordinary that they should not be depreciated by the term career.
The most obvious indication that so-called "feminists" are not interested in being feminine is their repulsion of what makes them female, the ability to be a mother. Motherhood is a wonderful gift from God. Being able to co-create a new life, and to nurture and love that life is the greatest accomplishment humanly possible. I am completely dumfounded as to why any woman would choose a meaningless career over the most meaningful imaginable achievement, especially when they choose to kill a life in pursuit of their career.
I feel women are a special gift from God, and should be treated as such. I open doors for women. I let women go ahead of me. I put gas in the car while my wife sits in it. It would be ludicrous to think I do these things out of disrespect. I would show this same kind of respect to Jesus if he were physically with me.
Out of respect for women, I no longer use so-called "inclusive language." Before I realised how abusive so-called "inclusive language" was towards women, I did use it; particularly the plural they, their, and them for the singular neutered function of he, his, and him. When I was correcting some of these grammatical errors found on my website, I even found a case where I used them in place of it. It seems that so-called "feminists" succeeded in ingrained this error of grammar into my head, and it may take some time to correct it. I will correct it out of respect for women, and if you see any so-called "inclusive language" in my writing, it was unintentional, and I humbly apologise to all women for any insult it may have caused.
I am happy to learn that there are vocal groups of women that call themselves feminists that actually are feminists. One such feminist is Mary Ann Glendon, a Professor of Comparative Law at Harvard University, and the Vatican representative at the U.N. Beijing Conference. Here are some of her encouraging words:
The great limitations of the feminist movement of the 70s stem from the dogmatism of its ideology. The idea of freeing yourself from the responsibilities of woman and mother to replace man was an error. The result has been to confuse feminine identity, leaving women alone to face the difficulties of work and family.
At present, the majority of young women of the new generations reject the feminists' definition. They reject the idea of living in constant antagonism with men. They do not accept the necessity of being closed to marriage and the family, and they are especially opposed to the intolerant and radical attitude that is typical of some feminists.
On the political and legislative front, there are ever more countries that are adopting feminist ideology, precisely when it is all the more necessary that families, and mothers in particular, have more time to spend educating their children and taking care of the family. The greatest problem for women is reconciling an intense work activity with a commitment to the family and children, a commitment that is no less demanding.
This is real feminism, and I stand behind it 100%.
As I write this (May 19, 2000), the Pontifical Athenaeum "Regina Apostolorum," in Rome, is holding an international Congress on the topic "A New Feminism for a New Millennium." It looks like the term feminist is beginning to be use properly.