Spare me the 'feminist ethics'

One of the frustrating parts of 'blogging' is that one tends to find oneself using the same ideas again - not intentionally, but because one's best blog work probably dates back to the blog's beginning. I shall admit that my Mars and Venus Balderdash post, to which I also linked in the header, is of better quality than what I'm likely to dash off today. That post will clarify, in case anyone wondered, that I most definitely cannot be accused of thinking that women are inferior to men. (In particular cases, my question would be 'which woman and which man, and in relation to what?')

I've always had an interest in moral theology, though it is not a topic I have studied extensively in the past. My overall approach is Thomas Aquinas (based on use of our faculties and to where the will is turned), heavily flavoured by Alphonsus Liguori (who treated, in some depth, the factors that could hamper knowledge or use of will.) I have not read much on the subject in recent years, largely because I am weary of everything focussing on sex (not because it is an obsession of moralists, who have their hands full already with medical ethics, but because it is the area about which people are most likely to ask questions or create tumult.) I decided that pursuing the matter in more depth, and incorporating the extensive writings of current philosophers and theologian, was overdue.

Undoubtedly, I shall write more of this along the way, but allow me to 'vent' once more. In case this was not apparent, I am hardly a shrinking female with any lack of confidence or initiative, who needs 'help' to realise that she is 'oppressed.' Yet, in recent decades, studies of any area of theology always have to include a 'feminist perspective' section.

In many of my varied theological studies, I've often found it interesting, with hindsight, that treatment of a particular area, which was perfectly sound in its context, was distorted when it was applied in other treatments. For example, as I've commented in other posts, frequently intriguing, even brilliant, philosophical arguments were used in a fashion which led to pastoral disasters. I'm even amazed at how instructions related specifically to liturgy and the sacraments were stretched out of all shape - a cope becoming a straitjacket.

At the moment, I'm studying some quite fascinating writings on Christian Ethics, and you'll hear about them soon. But I'd like to excise most of what was in the 'feminist perspective' section and use it to line the cat box. What I find tragic is that many women, exposed to such ideas in settings other than the academic (..I've attended many 'workshops' in the past...), can fall into two dangers if the speaker is sufficiently persuasive. First, there is the severe problem of seeing 'what isn't there' - and I don't mean visions. One popular attitude in the 'women only ethics' writings is that a woman's ultimate moral development is caring for her needs as much as those of others... as if all women put others first... I've seen great extremes in that department. I'm thinking of some women I knew well, to whom one could not so much as extend an invitation for a cup of tea without their thinking this was manipulation or some curtailment of their 'quality time,' not to mention a lack of acknowledgement for their enormous schedules. Or of one, whose beau is a charming and generous man for whom many unattached women would queue, who (in a manner I've seen on other occasions - this is merely an example) happened to be rather 'down' one week. When her beau invited her to go dancing on the weekend (a pursuit both of them love), and also committed the unpardonable crime of sending her flowers with a card reading "I love you," she screamed at him, "Don't fix me!"

I'm not suggesting that true manipulation is not to be recognised and avoided. Still, I think seeing manipulation in circumstances where there is none (one is always free to decline an invitation, nor will refusal of a cup of tea break hearts), much less seeing generosity as so inherently negative that it must be seen as brutal (oh, sorry, I forgot... only women are generous... please don't email me for the name of the man I mentioned in the last paragraph, whom I'd snap up in a minute were I in the market), is tragic.

Supposedly, based on these writings on 'ethics,' women sin against themselves denying their self hood (where it would seem to me that, in any life, those whom we love, or with whom we have other relationships, are very much a part of who we are.) Then again, some trends in ethics make it seem that women are guilty of sins only against themselves. Odd - some of the 'sins' condemned in the writings were not those I'd have thought unique to women. Believe it or not, I've known men who were sentimental (especially in the religious realm... I'd no sooner recite "Lovely Lady Dressed in Blue" than I would sing "Good-night, Sweet Jesus") - just as one example.

In the course of my life, I've been happy to know some people whom I would consider to be especially generous to others. Their personalities differed, of course, but there were two traits I noticed all of them possessed. They took joy in the generosity, and they had an obvious element of gratitude (for whatever they had... and if you think I necessarily mean health, wealth, and prosperity, none of which I possess, you must be new to the blog.)

Now on to what will make me lose half my readership.... The women I have known who were the 'martyrs' (and I do not at all mean this is universal) did not at all give me the impression that their 'sin' was 'thinking of their own needs last.' The exasperating ones not only placed their own needs (to play ego games, be honoured, control spouse or children, be known as saints, whatever) above all things, but needed to be sure everyone knew what enormous sacrifices every bit of giving involved. The worst were those who inflicted their 'sacrifices' on others - dragging children to 6 AM Mass and night vigils, for example, with the result that the kids grew up to want no part of church at all (oh, but didn't Mum love how the few people there beamed at her lovely little family.)

Of course, honesty forces me to admit that I've known my share of people, of both sexes, who unfortunately were taught in youth (in Catholicism flavoured by Calvin and Jansenism) that what God most wants is sacrifice. There always is the possibility, especially since everyone was taught the importance of 'good example,' that someone makes sure everything is 'sacrifice' and known as such. But where is the joy and gratitude of true giving?

The idea of 'you know my needs as long as we both are of the same sex' was treated in the previous post of mine, so I'll not expound here. I had not realised to what extent 'feminist ethics' dwelt on how women (apparently unlike men) are 'relational' because of their relationships with their mothers. (Funny - I thought far more women out there were in nasty competition with other females in the family.) The idea that all women understand all other women is absurd. Still, I wonder if the ideas about this approach to ethics, when they were in their infancy thirty years ago, indirectly influenced the disasters I saw when, for example, it seemed every other religious Sister I knew suddenly was promoting agendas by setting herself up as a spiritual advisor - her only credentials being her sex.

I doubt too many people of either sex devote much time to studying moral theology, and that those who do (who well may be confessors and spiritual guides) have a strong dose of pastoral theology into the bargain. Yet the very ideas I found so boring could feed into the 'pop psychology' culture you've often heard me disparage, and make selfishness and self absorption appear to be virtues.