Spirituality and Feminism

Even though we talk about post-feminism today, patting ourselves on the back because we supposedly live in a society where genders are equal, I guess many vital questions remain unresolved. For instance, introducing a female substitute for the male God—some kind of goddess, a Diana who hunts alone and such—it feels like it just deepens the existing dualism. These newer pagan movements or similar faiths that promote matriarchy and a dominant image of women are often perceived as "the other" compared to the religious mainstream, which, well, remains patriarchal. There is also the issue inherent in language itself; as Master John once noted, language is necessarily dualistic because, I suppose, "no one has invented a non-dualistic language yet," so even within our speech, the feminine is understood as the "other." Perhaps a new feminist spirituality should move away from symbolic language entirely as a means of communication and instead utilize other mediums to convey spiritual truth, like music, for example. It is interesting to note that even Chinese and Japanese Zen seemed somewhat averse to women, which is why we have so few female Zen masters or nuns. Even though Zen, in principle, should transcend the male-female dualism, it seems that sexual instinct is often too much of an issue in Zen monastery settings to allow them to be co-ed. There is that famous story about a Zen master who was only accepted into a monastery after she intentionally disfigured her beautiful face—not just to prove the sincerity of her devotion, but perhaps to ensure she wouldn't trigger desire in the other monks. And so we arrive at the fundamental dilemma of feminism, and indeed spirituality—can a beautiful woman truly be a feminist or a nun? Does it even make sense, given that, from birth, the earthly gates of admiration from the entire male population are essentially open to her? Does it make sense, despite everything?

Lately, we see Angelina Jolie stepping into the role of a human rights advocate fighting for abused children, and I suppose Nives Celsius has started following somewhat in those footsteps. But, in my view, it all stays at the level of attracting attention through a beautiful face and body, without much in the way of spiritual substance. On the other hand, it would be difficult to take them seriously in the role of Mother Teresa, who, God rest her soul, was a physically very unattractive woman, a real Yaga, though they might be more easily perceived as a Diana or a goddess of fertility. I wonder, does a woman's physical appearance dictate the type of spirituality she can realize? I suspect feminists would be quite incensed if that were actually true—but maybe it is. 😍

dustyskipper3 said:Even though we talk about post-feminism today, patting ourselves on the back because we supposedly live in a society where genders are equal, I guess many vital questions remain unresolved. For instance, introducing a female substitute for the male God—some kind of goddess, a Diana who hunts alone and such—it feels like it just deepens the existing dualism. These newer pagan movements or similar faiths that promote matriarchy and a dominant image of women are often perceived as "the other" compared to the religious mainstream, which, well, remains patriarchal. There is also the issue inherent in language itself; as Master John once noted, language is necessarily dualistic because, I suppose, "no one has invented a non-dualistic language yet," so even within our speech, the feminine is understood as the "other." Perhaps a new feminist spirituality should move away from symbolic language entirely as a means of communication and instead utilize other mediums to convey spiritual truth, like music, for example. It is interesting to note that even Chinese and Japanese Zen seemed somewhat averse to women, which is why we have so few female Zen masters or nuns. Even though Zen, in principle, should transcend the male-female dualism, it seems that sexual instinct is often too much of an issue in Zen monastery settings to allow them to be co-ed. There is that famous story about a Zen master who was only accepted into a monastery after she intentionally disfigured her beautiful face—not just to prove the sincerity of her devotion, but perhaps to ensure she wouldn't trigger desire in the other monks. And so we arrive at the fundamental dilemma of feminism, and indeed spirituality—can a beautiful woman truly be a feminist or a nun? Does it even make sense, given that, from birth, the earthly gates of admiration from the entire male population are essentially open to her? Does it make sense, despite everything?

Lately, we see Angelina Jolie stepping into the role of a human rights advocate fighting for abused children, and I suppose Nives Celsius has started following somewhat in those footsteps. But, in my view, it all stays at the level of attracting attention through a beautiful face and body, without much in the way of spiritual substance. On the other hand, it would be difficult to take them seriously in the role of Mother Teresa, who, God rest her soul, was a physically very unattractive woman, a real Yaga, though they might be more easily perceived as a Diana or a goddess of fertility. I wonder, does a woman's physical appearance dictate the type of spirituality she can realize? I suspect feminists would be quite incensed if that were actually true—but maybe it is. 😍

Dualism will persist as long as our race is ruled by muscles, and as long as those notions are woven into our very minds and ways of thinking.

As we overcome our ego, more unisex approaches begin to emerge. So, dissolving duality isn't really a task for "feminist spirituality" specifically, but rather for spirituality in general, regardless of gender. After all, spirituality doesn't wear pants...

dustyskipper3 said:Even though we talk about post-feminism today, patting ourselves on the back because we supposedly live in a society where genders are equal, I guess many vital questions remain unresolved. For instance, introducing a female substitute for the male God—some kind of goddess, a Diana who hunts alone and such—it feels like it just deepens the existing dualism. These newer pagan movements or similar faiths that promote matriarchy and a dominant image of women are often perceived as "the other" compared to the religious mainstream, which, well, remains patriarchal. There is also the issue inherent in language itself; as Master John once noted, language is necessarily dualistic because, I suppose, "no one has invented a non-dualistic language yet," so even within our speech, the feminine is understood as the "other." Perhaps a new feminist spirituality should move away from symbolic language entirely as a means of communication and instead utilize other mediums to convey spiritual truth, like music, for example. It is interesting to note that even Chinese and Japanese Zen seemed somewhat averse to women, which is why we have so few female Zen masters or nuns. Even though Zen, in principle, should transcend the male-female dualism, it seems that sexual instinct is often too much of an issue in Zen monastery settings to allow them to be co-ed. There is that famous story about a Zen master who was only accepted into a monastery after she intentionally disfigured her beautiful face—not just to prove the sincerity of her devotion, but perhaps to ensure she wouldn't trigger desire in the other monks. And so we arrive at the fundamental dilemma of feminism, and indeed spirituality—can a beautiful woman truly be a feminist or a nun? Does it even make sense, given that, from birth, the earthly gates of admiration from the entire male population are essentially open to her? Does it make sense, despite everything?

Lately, we see Angelina Jolie stepping into the role of a human rights advocate fighting for abused children, and I suppose Nives Celsius has started following somewhat in those footsteps. But, in my view, it all stays at the level of attracting attention through a beautiful face and body, without much in the way of spiritual substance. On the other hand, it would be difficult to take them seriously in the role of Mother Teresa, who, God rest her soul, was a physically very unattractive woman, a real Yaga, though they might be more easily perceived as a Diana or a goddess of fertility. I wonder, does a woman's physical appearance dictate the type of spirituality she can realize? I suspect feminists would be quite incensed if that were actually true—but maybe it is. 😍

... which just goes to show how provocative and stimulating your statement is. 😍 👍 Tradition might say that’s a quality more typical of Eve, since she is stereotypically the queen of stirring things up.

I believe you're a man, so you couldn't technically be a feminist, but through your own spirituality, you've contributed more than any of us here to dissolving that dualism by embracing oneness, or the unity of beings.

Of course, a person's spirituality—their inner essence—illuminates and radiates outward, piercing right through a computer screen to the other side of the world to shape the landscape of their external self. This includes their physical reflection, body language, diction, and so on.

By choosing this thread title, you're highlighting that exact issue: that very duality.

Lisa Morales4 said:Dualism will persist as long as our race is ruled by muscles, and as long as those notions are woven into our very minds and ways of thinking.

As we overcome our ego, more unisex approaches begin to emerge. So, dissolving duality isn't really a task for "feminist spirituality" specifically, but rather for spirituality in general, regardless of gender. After all, spirituality doesn't wear pants...

... which just goes to show how provocative and stimulating your statement is. 😍 👍 Tradition might say that’s a quality more typical of Eve, since she is stereotypically the queen of stirring things up.

I believe you're a man, so you couldn't technically be a feminist, but through your own spirituality, you've contributed more than any of us here to dissolving that dualism by embracing oneness, or the unity of beings.

Of course, a person's spirituality—their inner essence—illuminates and radiates outward, piercing right through a computer screen to the other side of the world to shape the landscape of their external self. This includes their physical reflection, body language, diction, and so on.

By choosing this thread title, you're highlighting that exact issue: that very duality.

But does spirituality have any connection to sexuality at all? 😍

dustyskipper3 said:Even though we talk about post-feminism today, patting ourselves on the back because we supposedly live in a society where genders are equal, I guess many vital questions remain unresolved. For instance, introducing a female substitute for the male God—some kind of goddess, a Diana who hunts alone and such—it feels like it just deepens the existing dualism. These newer pagan movements or similar faiths that promote matriarchy and a dominant image of women are often perceived as "the other" compared to the religious mainstream, which, well, remains patriarchal. There is also the issue inherent in language itself; as Master John once noted, language is necessarily dualistic because, I suppose, "no one has invented a non-dualistic language yet," so even within our speech, the feminine is understood as the "other." Perhaps a new feminist spirituality should move away from symbolic language entirely as a means of communication and instead utilize other mediums to convey spiritual truth, like music, for example. It is interesting to note that even Chinese and Japanese Zen seemed somewhat averse to women, which is why we have so few female Zen masters or nuns. Even though Zen, in principle, should transcend the male-female dualism, it seems that sexual instinct is often too much of an issue in Zen monastery settings to allow them to be co-ed. There is that famous story about a Zen master who was only accepted into a monastery after she intentionally disfigured her beautiful face—not just to prove the sincerity of her devotion, but perhaps to ensure she wouldn't trigger desire in the other monks. And so we arrive at the fundamental dilemma of feminism, and indeed spirituality—can a beautiful woman truly be a feminist or a nun? Does it even make sense, given that, from birth, the earthly gates of admiration from the entire male population are essentially open to her? Does it make sense, despite everything?

Lately, we see Angelina Jolie stepping into the role of a human rights advocate fighting for abused children, and I suppose Nives Celsius has started following somewhat in those footsteps. But, in my view, it all stays at the level of attracting attention through a beautiful face and body, without much in the way of spiritual substance. On the other hand, it would be difficult to take them seriously in the role of Mother Teresa, who, God rest her soul, was a physically very unattractive woman, a real Yaga, though they might be more easily perceived as a Diana or a goddess of fertility. I wonder, does a woman's physical appearance dictate the type of spirituality she can realize? I suspect feminists would be quite incensed if that were actually true—but maybe it is. 😍

What a lovely post.😍 Spot on...

Regarding the answer to the bolded question: I think about this almost constantly, and the more I reflect on it, the more it seems to me... that being physically unattractive, or at least plain Jane, makes it much easier to strive toward reaching a higher level of spirituality (at least the kind of spirituality that I personally find attractive and interesting).

But then again, everyone has their own battles to fight or finish (if not those, then something else, right?) ...so in the end, it all comes back to the same thing.

lonegardener said:But does spirituality have any connection to sexuality at all? 😍

The physical realm and the spiritual realm are mutually exclusive by definition—at least, that's my take on it!

Susan Price30 said:The physical realm and the spiritual realm are mutually exclusive by definition—at least, that's my take on it!

🤷 Is sexuality strictly a physical matter? 🤔

lonegardener said:🤷 Is sexuality strictly a physical matter? 🤔

If it's limited to that one special person we've pledged ourselves to before the altar till death do us part then no.😁

(for certain types of spirituality, obviously)

Susan Price30 said:What a lovely post.😍 Spot on...

Regarding the answer to the bolded question: I think about this almost constantly, and the more I reflect on it, the more it seems to me... that being physically unattractive, or at least plain Jane, makes it much easier to strive toward reaching a higher level of spirituality (at least the kind of spirituality that I personally find attractive and interesting).

But then again, everyone has their own battles to fight or finish (if not those, then something else, right?) ...so in the end, it all comes back to the same thing.

So, you mean people don't take you seriously because you're just too sexy? 😍

Lisa Morales4 said:So, you mean people don't take you seriously because you're just too sexy? 😍

And they actually listen to you because you aren't? *smirk* (though that wasn't even what she meant)

Maybe it would be a better idea if we didn't turn this debate into a personal attack, sis.🙂

Susan Price30 said:And they actually listen to you because you aren't? *smirk* (though that wasn't even what she meant)

Maybe it would be a better idea if we didn't turn this debate into a personal attack, sis.🙂

Sorry, I should have clarified—please don't take this personally.
Weren't you trying to suggest that it's harder to be spiritual if you happen to be a woman?

I reacted that way because I've always found myself reflecting on that exact thing: the idea that it's harder for a sexy blonde to prove she's intelligent, simply because everyone assumes she's just there to look pretty for some corporate executive.

But I've come to realize that when it comes to spirituality, that isn't the case at all.
Not that I'm being indiscreet, sis, but I consider myself "advanced sexy"—and specifically because of my approach to spirituality, I've never felt like people only see the surface or the packaging.

And that also serves as an answer to lonegardener's question about whether sexiness can be something spiritual: it doesn't just *can* be, it absolutely *is*.

Sexiness comes from within.
The guys could probably speak more to that, considering how many women are absolute knockout visuals on the outside but leave them feeling empty inside—what does that actually stir up in them?
I suppose the answer depends on the men's own level of spirituality: if they're hollow, then a superficial secretary will be the peak of their existence.

I’ve always leaned toward the idea that you don't need any specific movement (not even feminism), institution, or set of beliefs to achieve "higher" spirituality. To me, fighting for fundamental human rights—rather than just women's rights—is more about having basic decency and culture than it is about spiritual depth.
Whether I feel more or less sexy is honestly just a tiny drop in the ocean of self-reflection. It can lead to total frustration or even slip into narcissism, mostly because we get so caught up in how the world perceives us.
People love to say that women are driven by intuition while men are driven by logic. But in my opinion, as long as we’re only leaning on one side of that coin (regardless of gender), our spiritual growth is going to be seriously limited.

Lisa Morales4 said:Sorry, I should have clarified—please don't take this personally.
Weren't you trying to suggest that it's harder to be spiritual if you happen to be a woman?

I reacted that way because I've always found myself reflecting on that exact thing: the idea that it's harder for a sexy blonde to prove she's intelligent, simply because everyone assumes she's just there to look pretty for some corporate executive.

But I've come to realize that when it comes to spirituality, that isn't the case at all.
Not that I'm being indiscreet, sis, but I consider myself "advanced sexy"—and specifically because of my approach to spirituality, I've never felt like people only see the surface or the packaging.

And that also serves as an answer to lonegardener's question about whether sexiness can be something spiritual: it doesn't just *can* be, it absolutely *is*.

Sexiness comes from within.
The guys could probably speak more to that, considering how many women are absolute knockout visuals on the outside but leave them feeling empty inside—what does that actually stir up in them?
I suppose the answer depends on the men's own level of spirituality: if they're hollow, then a superficial secretary will be the peak of their existence.

Truth be told, it’s hard to wrap standard garbage in pretty pink cellophane... because more often than not, that cellophane is transparent enough that you can smell the stench from an airplane away. sister.

No matter how many layers of camouflage you apply... because, as some people so vividly put it: it's full of shit.

Anonymous said:I’ve always leaned toward the idea that you don't need any specific movement (not even feminism), institution, or set of beliefs to achieve "higher" spirituality. To me, fighting for fundamental human rights—rather than just women's rights—is more about having basic decency and culture than it is about spiritual depth.
Whether I feel more or less sexy is honestly just a tiny drop in the ocean of self-reflection. It can lead to total frustration or even slip into narcissism, mostly because we get so caught up in how the world perceives us.
People love to say that women are driven by intuition while men are driven by logic. But in my opinion, as long as we’re only leaning on one side of that coin (regardless of gender), our spiritual growth is going to be seriously limited.

XX

Anonymous said:I’ve always leaned toward the idea that you don't need any specific movement (not even feminism), institution, or set of beliefs to achieve "higher" spirituality. To me, fighting for fundamental human rights—rather than just women's rights—is more about having basic decency and culture than it is about spiritual depth.
Whether I feel more or less sexy is honestly just a tiny drop in the ocean of self-reflection. It can lead to total frustration or even slip into narcissism, mostly because we get so caught up in how the world perceives us.
People love to say that women are driven by intuition while men are driven by logic. But in my opinion, as long as we’re only leaning on one side of that coin (regardless of gender), our spiritual growth is going to be seriously limited.

Exactly—spirituality is where intuition and intellect finally merge.

Anonymous said:I’ve always leaned toward the idea that you don't need any specific movement (not even feminism), institution, or set of beliefs to achieve "higher" spirituality. To me, fighting for fundamental human rights—rather than just women's rights—is more about having basic decency and culture than it is about spiritual depth.
Whether I feel more or less sexy is honestly just a tiny drop in the ocean of self-reflection. It can lead to total frustration or even slip into narcissism, mostly because we get so caught up in how the world perceives us.
People love to say that women are driven by intuition while men are driven by logic. But in my opinion, as long as we’re only leaning on one side of that coin (regardless of gender), our spiritual growth is going to be seriously limited.

True, spirituality eventually weaves itself into the fabric of general culture.

Anonymous said:I’ve always leaned toward the idea that you don't need any specific movement (not even feminism), institution, or set of beliefs to achieve "higher" spirituality. To me, fighting for fundamental human rights—rather than just women's rights—is more about having basic decency and culture than it is about spiritual depth.
Whether I feel more or less sexy is honestly just a tiny drop in the ocean of self-reflection. It can lead to total frustration or even slip into narcissism, mostly because we get so caught up in how the world perceives us.
People love to say that women are driven by intuition while men are driven by logic. But in my opinion, as long as we’re only leaning on one side of that coin (regardless of gender), our spiritual growth is going to be seriously limited.

That's why you shouldn't worry about what's around you; it’s enough to first know yourself, and then simply have one person in your life who serves as a sufficient mirror.

In the "world at large," hardly anyone cares whether you are male or female anymore.

In fact, even within the Catholic Church, women aren't in the shadow of men. Quite the opposite, actually—given the sheer volume of their energy and commitment to church life, women are often leading the way. They hold roles ranging from special ministries to reading, managing the entire music program, various liturgies, leading youth groups, prayer circles, and social or charitable organizations. They are responding to the call for "all the baptized to be aware of their active contribution and responsibility in the life of the Church" (Millennium Ineunte, no. 46).

Women are answering the call to collaborative service within the Church, where "a mature Christian expresses unity in Christ by working together to fulfill His mission in the world" (from Word to Deeds, USCCB).

Anonymous said:I’ve always leaned toward the idea that you don't need any specific movement (not even feminism), institution, or set of beliefs to achieve "higher" spirituality. To me, fighting for fundamental human rights—rather than just women's rights—is more about having basic decency and culture than it is about spiritual depth.
Whether I feel more or less sexy is honestly just a tiny drop in the ocean of self-reflection. It can lead to total frustration or even slip into narcissism, mostly because we get so caught up in how the world perceives us.
People love to say that women are driven by intuition while men are driven by logic. But in my opinion, as long as we’re only leaning on one side of that coin (regardless of gender), our spiritual growth is going to be seriously limited.

So, I wonder... who is actually more spiritual in the end? Is it Angelina Jolie, or maybe Rade Šerbedžija, who supposedly invited her over to America? Or was she perhaps invited through her connections as a UN Goodwill Ambassador by a former American Minister of Justice, Ivan Šimonović—a very spiritual type (some might even say Jesuit-like) who just became a UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights? And then, she sort of broke free from that control, opting instead to grab some good street food in a local market district. American everyday spirituality always feels somewhat synthetic to me, like a spirit in a bottle that you have to constantly shake and call the press for just to get it to show up. Honestly, those old-school, smoky little corner markets were always more spontaneous and soulful than all the big fancy festivals in cities like New York or Los Angeles combined. And I think Angie recognizes that. After all, why else would she wear a drop of her husband Billy Bob's blood in a special pendant around her neck? That seems like a truly primal way to express spiritual connection and devotion. Not to mention the S&M rituals, which probably involved actual physical binding; I guess Angie had to spiritually "rise above" and sublimate those emotional traumas—which manifested as an obsessive-compulsive erotic relationship—into something positive and universal in order to become a spiritual person. And in a way, she did achieve those feminist ideals of being a "strong woman," where a handsome guy like Brad Pitt is just a sort of accessory, much smaller than that little vial of blood she used to wear around her neck.

dustyskipper3 said:Even though we talk about post-feminism today, patting ourselves on the back because we supposedly live in a society where genders are equal, I guess many vital questions remain unresolved. For instance, introducing a female substitute for the male God—some kind of goddess, a Diana who hunts alone and such—it feels like it just deepens the existing dualism. These newer pagan movements or similar faiths that promote matriarchy and a dominant image of women are often perceived as "the other" compared to the religious mainstream, which, well, remains patriarchal. There is also the issue inherent in language itself; as Master John once noted, language is necessarily dualistic because, I suppose, "no one has invented a non-dualistic language yet," so even within our speech, the feminine is understood as the "other." Perhaps a new feminist spirituality should move away from symbolic language entirely as a means of communication and instead utilize other mediums to convey spiritual truth, like music, for example. It is interesting to note that even Chinese and Japanese Zen seemed somewhat averse to women, which is why we have so few female Zen masters or nuns. Even though Zen, in principle, should transcend the male-female dualism, it seems that sexual instinct is often too much of an issue in Zen monastery settings to allow them to be co-ed. There is that famous story about a Zen master who was only accepted into a monastery after she intentionally disfigured her beautiful face—not just to prove the sincerity of her devotion, but perhaps to ensure she wouldn't trigger desire in the other monks. And so we arrive at the fundamental dilemma of feminism, and indeed spirituality—can a beautiful woman truly be a feminist or a nun? Does it even make sense, given that, from birth, the earthly gates of admiration from the entire male population are essentially open to her? Does it make sense, despite everything?

Lately, we see Angelina Jolie stepping into the role of a human rights advocate fighting for abused children, and I suppose Nives Celsius has started following somewhat in those footsteps. But, in my view, it all stays at the level of attracting attention through a beautiful face and body, without much in the way of spiritual substance. On the other hand, it would be difficult to take them seriously in the role of Mother Teresa, who, God rest her soul, was a physically very unattractive woman, a real Yaga, though they might be more easily perceived as a Diana or a goddess of fertility. I wonder, does a woman's physical appearance dictate the type of spirituality she can realize? I suspect feminists would be quite incensed if that were actually true—but maybe it is. 😍

Look, feminism isn't some single, monolithic entity—it doesn't exist as one unified body. It splits off into all sorts of directions. You've got feminists who are poised and feminine, and then you've got those who aren't. It's not all one thing.

Brandon Wright54 said:Look, feminism isn't some single, monolithic entity—it doesn't exist as one unified body. It splits off into all sorts of directions. You've got feminists who are poised and feminine, and then you've got those who aren't. It's not all one thing.

It's true, I think. There is such a thing as militant feminism, and then there is the more "feminine" approach—where women might still choose to be soft and graceful, though I guess that doesn't make them any less 'strong' in the end.

dustyskipper3 said:Even though we talk about post-feminism today, patting ourselves on the back because we supposedly live in a society where genders are equal, I guess many vital questions remain unresolved. For instance, introducing a female substitute for the male God—some kind of goddess, a Diana who hunts alone and such—it feels like it just deepens the existing dualism. These newer pagan movements or similar faiths that promote matriarchy and a dominant image of women are often perceived as "the other" compared to the religious mainstream, which, well, remains patriarchal. There is also the issue inherent in language itself; as Master John once noted, language is necessarily dualistic because, I suppose, "no one has invented a non-dualistic language yet," so even within our speech, the feminine is understood as the "other." Perhaps a new feminist spirituality should move away from symbolic language entirely as a means of communication and instead utilize other mediums to convey spiritual truth, like music, for example. It is interesting to note that even Chinese and Japanese Zen seemed somewhat averse to women, which is why we have so few female Zen masters or nuns. Even though Zen, in principle, should transcend the male-female dualism, it seems that sexual instinct is often too much of an issue in Zen monastery settings to allow them to be co-ed. There is that famous story about a Zen master who was only accepted into a monastery after she intentionally disfigured her beautiful face—not just to prove the sincerity of her devotion, but perhaps to ensure she wouldn't trigger desire in the other monks. And so we arrive at the fundamental dilemma of feminism, and indeed spirituality—can a beautiful woman truly be a feminist or a nun? Does it even make sense, given that, from birth, the earthly gates of admiration from the entire male population are essentially open to her? Does it make sense, despite everything?

Lately, we see Angelina Jolie stepping into the role of a human rights advocate fighting for abused children, and I suppose Nives Celsius has started following somewhat in those footsteps. But, in my view, it all stays at the level of attracting attention through a beautiful face and body, without much in the way of spiritual substance. On the other hand, it would be difficult to take them seriously in the role of Mother Teresa, who, God rest her soul, was a physically very unattractive woman, a real Yaga, though they might be more easily perceived as a Diana or a goddess of fertility. I wonder, does a woman's physical appearance dictate the type of spirituality she can realize? I suspect feminists would be quite incensed if that were actually true—but maybe it is. 😍

Look, the concept of physical beauty carries way more weight in a woman's world than it does in a man's. There is nothing worse than a woman feeling ugly. Especially when she's young.☕
How do you grab attention? How do you gain social status?
Some women push their "spiritual" side to the extreme, claiming it totally overrides physical looks. Others just retreat inward, believing—thanks to what the media pumps out—that they are completely unattractive and that their supposed "ugliness" makes them uninteresting as people. The ones who win? They're the ones who consider themselves beautiful, regardless of trends, fashion, or what's around them. When you combine that with actual personality, intelligence, and humor, there's no stopping them.
So yeah, physicality absolutely impacts spirituality—or more accurately, the *flavor* of that spirituality.
A beautiful woman (by standard measures) isn't going to cling to some spiritual crutch like "only ugly women can be smart" or "my looks don't matter."😁

Mark Torres14 said:Look, the concept of physical beauty carries way more weight in a woman's world than it does in a man's. There is nothing worse than a woman feeling ugly. Especially when she's young.☕
How do you grab attention? How do you gain social status?
Some women push their "spiritual" side to the extreme, claiming it totally overrides physical looks. Others just retreat inward, believing—thanks to what the media pumps out—that they are completely unattractive and that their supposed "ugliness" makes them uninteresting as people. The ones who win? They're the ones who consider themselves beautiful, regardless of trends, fashion, or what's around them. When you combine that with actual personality, intelligence, and humor, there's no stopping them.
So yeah, physicality absolutely impacts spirituality—or more accurately, the *flavor* of that spirituality.
A beautiful woman (by standard measures) isn't going to cling to some spiritual crutch like "only ugly women can be smart" or "my looks don't matter."😁

I suppose... if we look at things through a certain lens, physical beauty is what defines women, whereas for men, it’s intelligence and capability. This makes me wonder, maybe, if men who lack those specific traits cultivate a very particular kind of spirituality—one where only the incapable can truly be considered "spiritual." Perhaps that’s why the Church finds it so difficult to recruit more capable people into their ranks. It’s not exactly a new phenomenon, either. Back in the day, in rural American farming communities, families would sometimes send one child into the priesthood simply because there wasn't enough bread to go around for everyone. And the girls? They often joined convents because they weren't seen as marriage material. That's been happening for a long time. In a way, spirituality seems to have formed around people who had nothing else left to turn to. It was born out of material necessity and a desperate need to survive. Among them, I guess, there were only a few who felt a genuine, true calling within themselves. Then again, you also had cases where a lady of the court or a noblewoman would retreat to a convent due to some social scandal, or perhaps because she had crossed someone more powerful than herself. Or maybe just in search of peace. It reminds me, somewhat, of these sudden spiritual transformations we see from modern-day celebrities. Only, nowadays, it feels much more like a business move—a way to maintain relevance and stay in the spotlight. Some people just become addicted to that attention, I suppose. It's less about strict social norms forcing your hand and more about a desire to stay famous.

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose... if we look at things through a certain lens, physical beauty is what defines women, whereas for men, it’s intelligence and capability. This makes me wonder, maybe, if men who lack those specific traits cultivate a very particular kind of spirituality—one where only the incapable can truly be considered "spiritual." Perhaps that’s why the Church finds it so difficult to recruit more capable people into their ranks. It’s not exactly a new phenomenon, either. Back in the day, in rural American farming communities, families would sometimes send one child into the priesthood simply because there wasn't enough bread to go around for everyone. And the girls? They often joined convents because they weren't seen as marriage material. That's been happening for a long time. In a way, spirituality seems to have formed around people who had nothing else left to turn to. It was born out of material necessity and a desperate need to survive. Among them, I guess, there were only a few who felt a genuine, true calling within themselves. Then again, you also had cases where a lady of the court or a noblewoman would retreat to a convent due to some social scandal, or perhaps because she had crossed someone more powerful than herself. Or maybe just in search of peace. It reminds me, somewhat, of these sudden spiritual transformations we see from modern-day celebrities. Only, nowadays, it feels much more like a business move—a way to maintain relevance and stay in the spotlight. Some people just become addicted to that attention, I suppose. It's less about strict social norms forcing your hand and more about a desire to stay famous.

I disagree.
The same logic applies to men, just on a smaller scale. A guy can be both stupid and useless, yet still be attractive because of his looks or some other vibe he puts off.
The real issue with this thread you started is that "spirituality" is such a vague, undefined term. It lets feminism—which is basically just a closed circle of frustrated women who can't build their own personalities without tearing everyone else down—express itself in a million different, messy ways.

dustyskipper3 said:It's true, I think. There is such a thing as militant feminism, and then there is the more "feminine" approach—where women might still choose to be soft and graceful, though I guess that doesn't make them any less 'strong' in the end.

Some feminists even lean into that femininity just to mock it—turning it into this exaggerated caricature to make it look fake...