Ross Douthat, the conservative columnist for the New York Times, rose to fame for his blogging on the website of The Atlantic. After six months away from blogging, Douthat now has a new blog, "Evaluations," on NYTimes.com.
In one of his first entries, "Pro-Lifers and the Patriarchy," the Catholic Douthat makes some observations that are undoubtedly correct:
Conservative Christians’ attitudes toward women in the workplace, in particular, have evolved dramatically across the last two decades, even as their pro-life convictions have remained essentially constant. . . .During the ‘08 election, you’d often hear media types buzzing about how [Sarah] Palin was a bad mother for putting her political ambitions ahead of her family; you’d almost never hear that from pro-lifers. Some of this reflects partisan biases, obviously—but some of it reflects a real sea change in how religious conservatives view women in the workplace.
While Douthat does not come right out and say it, he seems to regard these changes in "attitudes" as moves in the right direction:
Indeed, you might say that the pro-life movement has done an impressive job of embracing, albeit slowly, the positive achievements of the feminist revolution, while remaining steadfast in its opposition to that revolution’s darker consequences. (Well, O.K., you might not say that, but I probably would.)
What Douthat does not consider in the course of the post is whether there might actually be a reason for "religious conservatives" (let alone Catholics like myself and Douthat) to view such developments with skepticism. He uses the term "revolution" in conjunction with feminism, yet he speaks simply of embracing "positive achievements" and opposing "darker consequences."
But what if the "positive achievements" of the "feminist revolution" go hand-in-hand with the "darker consequences"? Working women, for instance, tend to have fewer children than stay-at-home moms; they also tend to have a somewhat higher abortion rate. Support for the pro-life cause is higher among stay-at-home moms; divorce rates are lower.
Even more, for the Christian (and particularly the Catholic), there are deeper questions to consider. Discussing Sarah Palin's vice-presidential candidacy in September 2008, I wrote:
From a Catholic understanding of the complementarity of the sexes, should a woman ever find herself in the position where she has to choose between her vocation as a wife and mother and political service? Even considering this a choice that needs to be made implies that, at best, motherhood and political service are of equal value.But they aren’t—not in the eyes of the Church. That is not to demean wives and mothers, but to raise their vocation to its proper dignity—a dignity that dwarfs any that may once have been attached to politics.
Douthat's post seems to suggest that pro-lifers and religious conservatives have abandoned this traditional Christian understanding of the complementarity of the sexes, and he's almost certainly right. They have done so, however, as Douthat himself seems to do in his post: with little thought given to the truth of the traditional view, much less the consequences.
And those consequences run deep—indeed, to the point of blinding us to the truth of the Christian teaching. If Christians divorce such changes from their belief in Christ, they make it much harder, if not impossible, to oppose the "darker consequences" of social change. To take one example which I discussed in a speech this weekend entitled "Beyond the Pro-Life Movement":
Abortion has become a moral "issue"; a political "question"; a cultural "problem" to be solved. It has taken on a life of its own, separate from Christian teaching. Indeed, when pro-abortion zealots claim that opposition to abortion is simply Christian obscurantism, the usual response of Christian pro-lifers today is to point to Jewish and Muslim and even atheist pro-lifers, to declare that abortion is a matter of "civil rights" or "human rights," to compare it to slavery and point out that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s niece is a pro-lifer, to decry the unequal impact that abortion for sex selection has on unborn baby girls and to argue that any true feminist must, for that reason alone, be pro-life.What they will not do is simply say, "Yes. And what of it?" At the time of Christ, both chemical and mechanical abortion, as well as infanticide (primarily by exposure) were practiced in the Roman world; by the time that Christianity was declared an official religion of the Roman Empire by Constantine the Great, and for well over a millennium afterward in the Western world, such practices were virtually unknown. How did that change come about? Through the widespread conversion of Romans to Christianity.
Blithely "embracing . . . the positive achievements of the feminist revolution" may well mean throwing the literal baby out with the metaphorical bathwater. It certainly means the reconstruction of modern society in such a way that both men and women become less likely to listen to the Gospel of Christ and to conform their lives to the teachings of the Church.
Most Christian conservatives now accept the entire feminist agenda except for abortion and promiscuity with the destructive results you describe. Abominations like leaving six-week old babies at daycare centers, sending mothers (or any women, for that matter) into combat zones, and stay at home dads who do the domestic chores while their wives hold down high-powered corporate jobs are now mostly viewed as being perfectly legitimate. And if you think many of the clergy are reluctant to discuss something like contraception, only the most fearless seem willing to point out that orthodox Christianity and feminism are not compatible.
“The Holy See would like to reiterate its support for what it called “the living heart” of the Beijing Platform for Action: the recognition of the dignity of women, the importance of strategies for development, ending violence against women, access to employment, land and capital, and the provision of basic social services. These objectives bear a close correspondence to the social teaching of the Holy See… Respect for the right to freely enter into marriage and raise a family, to seek employment and just wages and to be protected from abuse and exploitation, is a prerequisite to women’s contribution to economic development.”
Intervention by Joan McGrath-Triulzi
at the United Nations, October 19, 2001
1) There has never been a time, ever, under any circumstances, where women have not had to work for money. Sometimes, it’s money under the table. Sometimes, it’s money handed out by a “husband” who doesn’t quite get how marraige works. Sometimes, it’s work performed at home, but for cash. Sometimes, it’s work outside the home. But, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER have women not labored for the a livlihood. Feminism’s greatest POSTIIVE, PIOUS, JOYFUL, PRO-CHRISTIAN achievement is getting humanity to the point that women, finally, sometimes, actually get paid fairly for our ongoing, endless work, and finally get to fully vested adults in control of our own finances (or, in co-control, if we’re married).
2) Single women have always existed. Single women will always exist. The single vocation, voluntary or involuntary, is recognized by the Catholic Church as one of the ways we can serve God. Feminism’s greatest POSTIIVE, PIOUS, JOYFUL, PRO-CHRISTIAN achievement also ensures that single women are not doomed to live in poverty, or to suffer continual exploitation. Darn right, this is something everyone should be happy about (she said, paraphrasing the Vatican).
3) The existence of women who actually work for cash is not something to be mourned, but celebrated. There are as many ways for women to contribute as there are women on the earth. Full-time motherhood is only one of myriad, legitimate possibilities.
4) Mr. Richert does not speak for all Catholics, and he does not speak for all Conservative Catholics. For a look at ideas that are pious, conservative, Catholic AND feminist, visit the following:
The Angels Are Amused: Pious Catholic Feminism & Art
The Magdalene Sisters blog
God bless us, everyone, including all those women bringing home paychecks, and all those men who just don’t get why this is a good thing.
I was born in 1972 and I grew up in a time where women staying home has been unfairly looked down upon. In school I had to do oral reports on what career I wanted after I left school. I never had a desire to have a career and I still don’t. The only thing I care about is taking care of my husband and family and I still hear it constantly that it’s a sign of laziness to not want to be out working but I don’t care what anyone else says. I’m engaged to a wonderful man that shares my values and we are getting married next year in the Catholic Church and I will stay home and take care of him and our children.
Perhaps divorce rates are lower among stay at home Christian ladies because they CANNOT leave, even if they wanted to – they are not economically empowered? I think he misses the point – to me it is not about the church but about Jesus, and let us face it, Jesus fought against the disempowerment and marginalisation of women, children and servants in his society – as Christians, should we not do the same in ours? In Luke 8:3 the bible talks about the women who “provided for them (Jesus and the disciples) out of their own funds”. To call daycare facilities an “abomonation” is so sad – imagine if someone is a widow – shall we revert to where women have to go in fear to pick up scraps away from others on the fields (or the equivalent to that in todays terms)?? Get real, the feminist movement has done what men were either to apathetic or to self-centered to do themselves. As to linking it to the right to life – I can assure you, there are many, many non-feminist women who have either partaken in abortion due to their own disempowere circumstances, out of desperation and there are many feminist who have elected not to have an abortion.
Tertia,
Women in abusive relationships are able to receive help through Catholic charities. They never have to stay in an abusive relationship. Whether or not a woman is a feminist, abortion is always an act of despair. I don’t agree with you that men are self centered. It’s far more self centered for a woman to put her own desire for self satisfaction above the needs of her family. Women should have the right to have a career but a career should not have a higher priority to raising children to become healthy functional adults with morals.
Laura, in part I do agree with you, because I have, as a mother elected to give up my job to be with our little girl who really does need me to – BUT I am aware of the fact that if it was not for the Feminist movement that choice would have been denied to me. And, you know, I know a number of women who work FOR THEIR FAMILIES either because circumstances demands it or because they elect to do it, in order to be better parents to their children. They too have the choice because of Feminism. As for abortion, I really would like to say that I would never have an abortion, but I do believe that until you have walked a mile in another person’s shoes you should not judge. And by the way THAT is whay Jesus teaches too.
Tertia,
You say that we should not judge but isn’t that what you are doing when you said, “men were either too apathetic or to self-centered to do themselves”?
That appears to be a judgement to me. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Men should have the right to have a career but a career should not have a higher priority to raising children to become healthy functional adults with morals.
In the past, a man had to marry a woman whom he impregnated. Feminism has spared men from that need. So would it be accurate to say that certain men benefit
from Feminism, and were equally as responsible for inventing it?
The government also benefits, because now it can tax two incomes.
I can’t understand how Feminism can be credited for creating the possibility of staying at home with children. This is something which Feminism has only worked to uproot.
I could also add that Feminism promotes contraception, abortion, and cohabiting outside marriage, all of which is opposed by Catholic Church dogma. Thus, it is confusing to me as to why this debate is occurring amongst Catholics.