August 01, 2004

• cited Scripture suggesting that a married couple's existence in heaven would be celibate Eewww. Remind me not to die.
• PF: don't die.
• Wha...? Oh, shit! Dude, that was close. Thanks. I owe you one.
• I've got your back.
• I told you Hell's gonna be a lot more fun...
• I will say of Pope John Paul That his horizons are hella small.
• "Dear bishops," wrote the Vatican, "the feminazis are at again one, disrupting of the peace, two, a-breeding lies and fleece, ahem, lice and fleas, in their disgusting hairy pits, bare unlingerie'd breasts, and hair, and three, what's worst to Me, they're fucking with the family." He rolled up his scroll, and slid down his pole, put his note in the mail, not knowing it would fail to draw the least attention, or get the smallest mention, in the feminazi clubs or the lezzie tranny pubs or any other place where he'd never show his face, his roly poly holiness, with all his wit and pithiness, where life, it's sad to say went on just like on yesterday.
• The funny thing is that in the "Recently Posted" sidebar, the text "women's place" is right under "bone eating worms". I think that sums up my opinion about you bitches. JOKING
• Well, in my sidebar, it's under "Build-to-Suit: A Castle". Draw your own conclusions, ladies!
• The pope is a fool.
• (with the disclaimer that all I know about this recent Popey document is what was in the G&M article) Interesting blend between concordance with progressive feminist thought (e.g. the necessity of recognising social and sexual difference between genders, need to value traditional "women's work" such as motherhood and work in the home equally with "real" work, creating space to have both a career and family) and diametrical opposition of the most fundamental kind. I'm curious what the differences are between men and women, if not sex (and the consequent socially-constructed biases manifesting themselves in gender roles).
• This article provides a useful round-up of Catholic reaction to the document. I agree with the commentator who sees it as "essentially a critique of certain aspects of old-line '70s feminism that have long since faded". For example, the document attacks what it calls "a certain type of feminist rhetoric" which is self-centred and "views men as enemies to be overcome". Ironically, it also takes on board some of the insights of 70s feminism, e.g. it implicitly recognises, and rejects, the way that the figure of the Virgin Mary has traditionally been used to consign women to a passive role. In effect, the document is a sop to liberals in the Catholic church. The message is "we won't make any concessions on the big issue (= the ordination of women), but we are prepared to make concessions on other issues (= the equality of women in the workplace)". Taken as a whole, it is of course a very conservative document; but if you read it selectively, there are a lot of surprisingly liberal ideas floating around in it.
• I hate to sound like the bitter "I was raised Catholic" Catholic, but this kind of policy is what led me to leave the church in the first place. When I was maybe eight or nine, I went to the National Catholic Cathedral in Washington, D.C. On the tour they took us to the high altar way in the back of the church. There was a kind of decorative cage all the way around it. In this cage there were three doors or gates. When I asked the tour guide about why there were three, she told me that the one at the front was for the hierarchy of the church (bishops, cardinals or higher). The one on the right was for everyday priests. The one on the left was for altar boys. Women were never allowed on the altar for any reason. The altar was too holy for that, she said. I hate to sound like a radical feminist, but I just don't understand how I am inferior. And I am just not buying that seperate but equal argument that the Pope seems to be selling.
• I hate to sound like a radical feminist, but I just don't understand how I am inferior. You sound like a human being. You sound like my sister or mother or lover or friend. You sound like me.
• path: yes, women have always worked. (I'm not speaking from the wisdom of age, but at least from reading a few history books), inside and outside the home (well, except for the upper classes - by their men didn't work either). Housewifery before the twentieth century was more than simply cleaning (a big effort in itself) - it could mean some pretty serious manufacturing - such brewing or dairying. They say men and women in the Tudor times wouldn't stay as widows or widowers for long if they had any choice, because women needed men to work outside the home (because women were ecluded from many jobs, and paid less), and men needed women to do the home based manufacturing.

• I hate to sound like a radical feminist, but I just don't understand how I am inferior.

  That's radical femisism? Hey, everyone, looky, looky, looky! I'm a radical feminist, too!
• The day that statement becomes radical feminism, we'll be back to wearing floor-length skirts and men will be getting nosebleeds from a glimpse of a womans's ankle. Mark my words.
• Quit it with the spoilsporting, Alnedra. I was *enjoying* being a radical feminist. I was going to quit shaving my legs and burn my wife's bra.
• Burn your own damn bra!
• jb, my point was that women have worked outside the confines of the house since homo sapiens began. Especially in the fields with men, as well as other places. It isn't as though suddenly, 60 years ago, women decided that they should be allowed to work outside the home, they'd always done that out of necessity, in spite of strictures imposed by society. Not upper class women if course, though some chose to work in male oriented fields, but the majority of women. What I was reacting to is "But it also said that women who choose to work should be granted an appropriate work schedule and
• Because I expect this to appear in my own life as a brief and uncomfortable exchange with someone near and dear who happens to swing that way I looked up the original so that I wouldn't be limiting myself to news accounts and pre-chewed conclusions. So far i have yet to read the thing. But, as much as I want to knee-jerk dogpile on Il Papa, I want to make sure my previous experience in ranting about the inherent ludicrousness of Original Sin or the admitting-Galileo-was-right-in-1956 doesn't repeat itself. (It was poorly recieved, you see) I hate to sound like a radical feminist, but I just don't understand how I am inferior. saddest.thing.ever. Welcome Elsbet, have a banana and some Col. Kwik-E-Mart's Olde Kentucky Shark whiskey with us. sidebar: "geek girl style" leads into this one - oh, and quidnunc wins again.
• the blue weighs in
• I hate to sound like a radical feminist, but I just don't understand how I am inferior. And I am just not buying that seperate but equal argument that the Pope seems to be selling. What never ceases to amaze me is the number of strong women out there, women who don't take the slightest bit of shit from any man, Monday through Saturday, who will nevertheless spend one day a week in a place of worship that tells them they are not equal in the eyes of God. I've got a couple of friends who are this way, women who could kick. Your. ASS. Yet they don't think twice about worshipping where they're second-class citizens.
• Path - I was agreeing, and just pointing out that even women who did not work specifically for wages (such as middling sort women) have always worked a great deal in ways that contributed to the household economy as much as the man. The idea of a middle class woman at home with spare time on her hands is a nineteenth (via servants) and twentieth century (via labour saving devices) thing. I wondered if this is one of the reasons debates on women's equality gained strength in this period - before, they were just too damn busy.
• But why is it so bad that women have moved into responsible jobs, similar to men's jobs? Who says it's bad? Look, why don't you read the document, instead of relying on the partial summary in the link above? On the question of women's work, what it says is this: Women should be present in the world of work and in the organization of society, and .. should have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the policies of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems. As I said above, it is a very conservative document in some ways -- but it's not saying that "women should stay home with the children". Read it and see.
• That's true, SlightlyFoxed. In many ways, this proclamation is very progressive, for a massive, slow-moving institution. They essentially are saying that women should be welcome to work inside or outside the home. What I think path was saying is that they are a little late (by about 2000 years), since women have worked outside the home since the beginning of time. As for other aspects of the document - If you believe that the genders are the same in everything that really matters (as I do), you would probably be offended by the Vatican's insistence on the importance of the differences. But the most disturbing bits for those who wish for gender equality is the emphasis of the maleness of Christ (God as well? Not in the document, but perhaps), and what that means for women in the Church, and the reasons they insist on the differences between men and women (to justify discrimination against gays and gay couples).
• I think I should have said "insistance on the maleness of Christ" - which would be more accurate, if more repeditive.
• So why can't women be priests? Preistesses?
• Because jesus talks to us through our penises. *unzips pants, waits for instruction from The Lord*
• Agreed, jb; and if you look at my comment above, you'll see that I was saying much the same thing, that this is an essentially conservative document, but with a number of liberal ideas floating around in it. I don't think the Catholic Church has traditionally forbidden women to work outside the home. That sort of kirche, kuche, kinder ideology is a much more recent invention. (Your point about widowhood, above. The current view, among historians of the early modern period, is that widows tended to remain unmarried when they could afford to do so. But of course not all widows had that option: so your general point is correct.) On preview: justifying the testicular priesthood, yes, that's the big issue as far as the Vatican is concerned, and that's the main agenda behind this document.
• Because jesus talks to us through our penises. is *that* what that is?? Sheesh and here I thought I was just horny all the time. No seriously, why shouldn't anyone be completely outraged that this religion specifically says women aren't good enough to preach? ("good", "holy", whatever it is - citing vatican proclamations earns extra points)
• Just read the first line: The Church, expert in humanity, has a perennial interest in whatever concerns men and women. expert in humanity? EXPERT . . in HUMANITY?! Well fuck me then. Talk about starting on the wrong foot.
• ah . .has anyone read the original letter from the Pope? I'd like to discuss it but there are several passages like this: 2. Recent years have seen new approaches to women's issues. A first tendency is to emphasize strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism: women, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men. Faced with the abuse of power, the answer for women is to seek power. This process leads to opposition between men and women, in which the identity and role of one are emphasized to the disadvantage of the other, leading to harmful confusion regarding the human person, which has its most immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family. So - is it accepted that men abuse their power? Are "conditions of subordination" accepted as normal and right? seriously. I'm a-confused.
• In fact, pete, there were some distinguished women preachers in the Middle Ages (only last week I was at a conference on medieval preaching, where I heard a dull but worthy paper on Hildegarde of Bingen's sermons against the Cathars), and there are some splendid Dominican nuns who carry on the tradition today. But the present Church leadership does not encourage women preachers. And I agree with you -- it's outrageous. The phrase "expert in humanity" (originally coined by Pope Paul VI, I think) is much used by the present Pope. There is some value in it -- e.g. it's a way of justifying the Church's right to speak out against political or economic oppression, on the grounds that even though the Church is not an expert in politics or economics, she is an expert in humanity. But again, I have to agree with you -- it's often used as the pretext for a line of pious bullshit about the Church's profound wisdom and understanding. One of my friends at university was a liberal Catholic who used to tie himself into knots in an effort to defend each new pronouncement from the Vatican. "Yes, I know the Pope has said that the moon is made of cheese. But if you look at it carefully, it's really quite a liberal statement, because it doesn't say anything about the colour of the cheese, so it's really a defeat for the conservative French bishops who believe that the moon is made of Camembert. And you have to realise that this is only a pastoral letter, so it doesn't carry the full weight of papal infallibility .." (etc etc) Eventually the strain became too much for him. He's now a Buddhist. Unlike a lot of people here, I'm generally sympathetic to the Catholic Church -- but there are some aspects of its teaching that I can't, and won't, defend.
• Faced with the abuse of power, the answer for women is to seek power. This process leads to opposition between men and women, in which the identity and role of one are emphasized to the disadvantage of the other, Looking at just this bit here (and ignoring the bits about the structure of the family, which is bs), this is an important statement. I think it's just saying that feminism, in seeking to correct the ills of the past towards females, should not seek to perpetuate ills towards males (and extreme feminists do - it's why many men and women are beginning to be loathe to identify as feminist). That means we shouldn't ignore our boys in schools because we are always paying attention to how well the girls are doing (something men of my generation experienced growing up in the 80's), or project negative stereotypes onto men, any more than women want to be boxed into female stereotypes. We are all people. (Actually, rereading the Vatican's sentance, it could be saying not just that some feminists go too far, but that all do - which is patently not true.)
• sure, but my confusion over this, as an example: A first tendency is to emphasize strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism: What is that really saying? I read it as "women who are subjected to unfair treatment are now making much too big a thing of it in order to 'get back at' men. As God intended women to be subordinate, this is against the church and . . burn the women!!" Well, okay maybe not that last part but in general I don't know where the church is coming from specifically - therefore it's hard not to jump to conclusions, n'est ce pas?
• Also (apologies for the slight OT-ness), but isn't it the case that if you don't believe each and every . .umm . dogma . . papal bull . . credo . . thing in Catholicism that technically you're "not" a Catholic? I mean, if I say I'm Catholic but I, say, vote for the death penalty, (I wanted to avoid the abortion topic) can I still take communion and whatever else without consequence? Is it a matter of being "caught" not behaving as a Catholic? All I know is there are a lot of rules and if you don't follow them there'll be hell to pay. Somehow.
• Whoa!!! Way to rhyme it, PF! IMHO, you just found yourself a pedestal next to Beeswacky for penning that fantastic poem. Quid-kid: You sound like a human being. You sound like my sister or mother or lover or friend. You sound like me. You really impressed me with that statement. I thought it was very sensitive and profound-- unlike your usual smartarsed comments. Because jesus talks to us through our penises. *unzips pants, waits for instruction from The Lord* Back to the regularly scheduled Quidnunc. SlightlyFoxed: ...this is an essentially conservative document, but with a number of liberal ideas floating around in it. Sorry, this is the usual vague pronouncement that can be interpreted and debated to death by the Catholic hierarchy, while women go on doing what they need to do to survive and help their families with little or no support from church structure. From the standpoint of an ex-Catholic woman, I can't see that this says anything of importance. Wake me up when the Pope makes a proclamation FOR birth control. THAT will be a statement that will positively alter the lives of Catholic women and children. and another great tagline: Monkeyfilter: Burn your own damn bra!

• Hildegarde of Bingen's sermons against the Cathars

  Oh, the irony.
• *blushes*
• The Vatican's statement about the role of women has been greeted with worldwide astonishment. But there's no reason to despair, says Germaine Greer - this could be the best thing that has happened to feminism in years.
• Men and Women Women and Men Can't have one Without the other Gender differences are never going away. I see no difference in intelligence (one gender smarter than the other), no difference in ability to achieve. I rejected all organized religion years ago. For many reasons, but one being the idea that women are beneath men. I was raised with all boys and no good female role model. I believe with all my being there is nothing a man can do that I can't. Except produce sperm. Yes I can pee standing up. A friend argued *Men are stronger* as a reason that women should be subordinate to men. HA! Physical strength is not a good measure for a person's worth. The 130 pound male who is unable to keep up with the 200 pound male is still better than a woman in his opinion, even if the woman is more than capable of stomping the 130 pound male's ass. I laughed and laughed, so ignorant. I was raised on the farm, I worked the fields beside the menfolk. I was treated no different than my brothers and cousins until I turned 15. Then I was to put on the dress and be a lady, stay out of the fields and work in the house and marry the pig farmers son next door. I laughed and laughed, so ignorant. I was not expected to go to college or work outside the home. No, I was to get married and have babies. That was my purpose in life. I laughed and I laughed, so ignorant. Well I never bought it, still don't. I didn't give into that dress and I despised the pig farmers son. Men are different from women, gender wise. Our differences in behavior, and thinking are taught to us. I believe we are conditioned as children to be different in our behaviors and outlooks. Not preordained in my opinion.
• Bratcat--WOW, you can pee standing up? That's kinda cool. Well, in a way it is. In another way, I think, damn, if the other fifty percent of the population does it, the back of the toilet will NEVER be clean.
• BlueHorse, comes in handy when camping and squatting can get you into poison ivy.