- \n
- Are women so inferior<\/span><\/strong> that the \u201cbest\u201d woman in the whole world is really a disfigured man?<\/li>\n
- Or\u00a0are women so superior<\/span><\/strong> that only a woman can fairly interpret the teachings of Christ?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
![\"By](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/148\/2015\/10\/Woman-power_emblem-185x300.jpg\")
<\/a>By AnonMoos, toa267 [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons<\/figcaption><\/figure>Both viewpoints have made it onto the Internet this week;<\/strong> and frankly, I find both viewpoints equally distasteful.<\/p>\n - \n
- If a man is inherently superior<\/span> to\u00a0his wife,<\/strong> an attitude against which mainstream feminism rails, then women\u2019s exclusive role as life-bearer and nurturer is unimportant, and women\u2019s role as equal to men in the workplace is socially impossible.<\/li>\n
- But on the other hand, if women are superior<\/span><\/strong> to their male counterparts, that likewise\u00a0denies the God-given spark which illuminates each person as a divine creation, made in His image.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Myself, I think we\u2019re all\u2013men and women alike\u2013damned amazing.<\/strong> It is not a default inferiority of either gender that holds us (either men or\u00a0women) back from achieving our personal best; rather, it\u2019s \u00a0our own lack of creativity or lack of persistence or lack of effort. Feminist whiners who demand the right to be exactly what men are, rather than insisting that their unique gifts and charisms be valued, are abrasive and just plain wrong.<\/p>\n
* \u00a0 \u00a0 * \u00a0 \u00a0 * \u00a0 \u00a0 * \u00a0 \u00a0 *<\/p>\n
But on November 3, Glamour<\/em><\/a> magazine is expected to announce\u00a0its selection for \u201cWOMAN OF THE YEAR\u201d who just happens to be\u2013get this!<\/em>\u2013a MAN<\/span>.<\/strong><\/p>\n
.<\/strong><\/p>\n
And if you, dear ladies, don\u2019t find it\u00a0insulting<\/strong> to think that a women\u2019s fashion magazine which depends on women\u2019s subscription dollars can\u2019t find a single female<\/span> on the planet who is a better \u201cwoman\u201d than a cross-dressing, physically mutilated and psychologically stunted man, then I can\u2019t imagine what could possibly get under your skin.<\/p>\n
.<\/strong><\/p>\n
In a hilarious and brilliant op-ed in The Federalist<\/em><\/a>,<\/strong> Nicole Russell voices what we all really knew all along: Caitlyn Jenner can\u2019t be \u201cWoman of the Year.\u201d Russell reminds me\u00a0of the little boy who realizes that the Emperor isn\u2019t wearing any clothes, and hence brings the parade-goers to their senses.\u00a0\u201c<\/em>Jenner cannot be woman of the year,\u201d<\/em>\u00a0Russell writes,\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026because\u2014kids, close your eyes\u2014he has a penis. Jenner might\u00a0<\/span>feel\u00a0like he is a woman, he might want to\u00a0<\/span>be\u00a0a woman, he might be\u00a0<\/span>living\u00a0as a woman, but thoughts do not generate biology or reality. (I\u2019d like to think I\u2019m a millionaire and living in Turks and Caicos year-round, but that doesn\u2019t make it so.)\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Russell hits the nail on the head,<\/strong> identifying the reason that ordinary women are enraged by the selection:<\/span><\/p>\n
\u201cBy choosing Jenner as woman of the year, Glamour endorses the idea that men are better at being women than we are\u2026.\u00a0Apparently real women can\u2019t cut it, so we\u2019ve got to import men into our ranks to win awards.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Glamour<\/em> has gotten a lot of criticism from the pundits and talking heads<\/strong>\u2013people in media, whose job it is to analyze stuff like this. I hope their combox and mailbox are filling up with complaints from readers, as well.<\/p>\n
.<\/strong><\/p>\n
I hope, in fact, the whole idea falls so flat with American readers and advertisers<\/strong> that Glamour<\/em> is forced to abandon its featherbrained\u00a0plan and make a wiser choice. I don\u2019t really expect<\/span> that to happen, but that\u2019s what I\u2019d like to see.<\/p>\n
\u00a0* \u00a0 \u00a0 * \u00a0 \u00a0 * \u00a0 \u00a0 * \u00a0 \u00a0 *<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, over on the \u201cCatholic Authenticity\u201d blog<\/a>,<\/strong> fellow Patheos blogger Melinda Selmys takes the opposite view. I sort of hope I\u2019m misunderstanding what she means, when she says that<\/p>\n
\u201cI would go so far as to say that the failure to meaningfully include female voices is a significant contributing factor to most of the major issues the Church is struggling with today. From the rejection of the teaching on contraception, to the lack of community and fellowship in our parishes, to the crisis of the family, I honestly don\u2019t think that real progress is going to be made without harnessing the incredible and largely untapped resources of what John Paul II called the \u201cfeminine genius.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
First, Melinda, tell me that you don\u2019t<\/em><\/span> mean<\/strong> that\u00a0this paucity of female perspective is the cause of such terrible things as the Catholic Church\u2019s opposition to contraception. I pray that your familiarity with the Theology of the Body persuades you that the joy of the sexual embrace is a God-given gift, a means by which\u00a0a married couple show their love and welcome to one another, totally and without reservation. The husband is dedicated to his wife, promising to love all of her\u2013including her fertility. The wife gives all of herself to her husband\u2013including the new life which their love may engender. Neither denies any part of the other; and God sometimes, if it be His will, blesses their union with a new life\u2013the most beautiful of all gifts.<\/p>\n
.<\/p>\n
Remember how TOB discusses the \u201cunitive and procreative\u201d purposes of human sexuality?<\/strong> Remember\u00a0Peter, Paul and Mary, celebrating the unitive and the procreative in Noel Paul Stookey\u2019s \u201970s folk ballad\u00a0\u201cThe Wedding Song\u201d<\/a>?<\/p>\n
\u201cAs it was in the beginning, is now until the end, woman draws a\u00a0life from man and gives it back again. And there is love. There is love.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
No, it is not the Church\u2019s \u201csubordination of women\u201d which has led to more Catholic couples practicing birth control.<\/strong> That tragedy, that sin, is the result of poor or rejected catechesis, the pursuit of earthly goods and the lifestyle which mandates that women work full-time rather than fulfilling their most meaningful role as welcomers of new humans to the planet. It\u2019s the result of feminism which denigrates the life-giving role of a woman, even though it is only our children, not earthly goods or wealth or fame, that we can take with us to eternity.<\/p>\n
.<\/strong><\/p>\n
Melinda writes about the \u201chistoric exclusion of women\u201d in the Church as sinful.<\/strong> She thinks that women are rebelling against the clerical mindset that relegates women to back-seat roles:<\/p>\n
\u201cAs a group, women have said \u2018No.\u2019 No, we will not organize the parish dinner, and run the parish lottery, and host the parish ladies\u2019 night, and staff the children\u2019s liturgy, and pop out the next generation of good Catholics, and pray, pray, pray for vocations and for the needs of the Church unless, until, we actually get a say.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Balderdash, Mindy.<\/strong> You are correct that there may, in fact, be a dearth of volunteers to sustain\u00a0parish activities; and in a sense, this is<\/span> related to the changing women\u2019s roles in society. It\u2019s hard to be a volunteer if you\u2019re also raising a family and<\/span> working a full-time job. As everyone, both male and female, is increasingly burdened by societal pressures to work longer hours, there are fewer people to fill volunteer posts. Parishes ultimately may have to meet the need by streamlining their operations, increasing their paid staff, or abandoning some projects altogether.<\/p>\n
.<\/strong><\/p>\n
But you can\u2019t convince me that what we\u2019re seeing is some kind of \u201cwomen\u2019s strike\u201d<\/strong> against the Catholic Church. You yourself write of the many contributions which women have made and continue to make in the Church: women\u2019s religious orders that provide for the education of children, the care of the sick, and the support of the poor, and more.<\/p>\n
.<\/strong><\/p>\n
And I hope you\u2019re not saying<\/strong> that women would be clearsighted with regard to Church policies, whereas male clergy are hopelessly ineffective. Because see, if that\u2019s your point, how does that differ from the rejected perspective that men are better thinkers or workers? I am a firm supporter of gender neutrality, so I truly believe that both men and women who are devoted to God and committed to His Church are\u00a0valuable servants, and that we need not spend any more time demanding\u00a0a 50\/50 split.\u00a0Sexism, whether directed toward women or toward men, is repulsive.<\/strong><\/p>\n
.<\/strong><\/p>\n
And in reality, women are already serving in important roles in the Church.<\/strong>\u00a0Renee M. Lareau, in a 2011 article\u00a0in U.S. Catholic<\/em><\/a>, reported that<\/p>\n
\u201cThough most U.S. Catholics would not be surprised to learn that women comprise 83 percent of those engaged in parish work, many are not acquainted with the increasing number of women who hold high-level administrative church positions in dioceses, social service agencies, and faith-based organizations. These pioneering women carry with them an enormous amount of decision-making power by virtue of the positions they hold.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I can\u2019t see how the \u201cwomen\u2019s strike\u201d<\/strong> of which you write holds any validity,<\/strong> in light of these statistics. Lareau\u2019s article includes interviews with a woman who was associate general secretary of the USCCB, a female canon lawyer, a female chancellor in the Archdiocese of Dallas, a female pastoral administrator in Portland, Oregon, and a pastoral associate in Dayton, Ohio. \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n
.<\/strong><\/p>\n
The International Business Times<\/em><\/a>,<\/strong> hardly an insightful analyst of Catholic Church organization, published an article for International Women\u2019s Day 2015 which made the claim that women still hold only 20 percent of Vatican positions. This seems appropriate, considering that many positions are occupied by bishops and priests; but even at that, the IBT noted that\u00a0the number of women employed by Vatican City has nearly doubled<\/strong> over the past decade from 195 in 2004 to 371 in 2014.<\/span> \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n
.<\/strong><\/p>\n
Lastly, if you think for a minute that \u201cmore women in authority\u201d would resolve the Church\u2019s problems,<\/strong> let me hold out our nation\u2019s leading example of feminine leadership:\u00a0Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the United States. The\u00a0Rev. Charles Alley<\/a>, an Episcopal priest from Richmond, Virginia, has said\u00a0that under her leadership, his church has been\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
- But on the other hand, if women are superior<\/span><\/strong> to their male counterparts, that likewise\u00a0denies the God-given spark which illuminates each person as a divine creation, made in His image.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Or\u00a0are women so superior<\/span><\/strong> that only a woman can fairly interpret the teachings of Christ?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
![\"By](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/148\/2015\/10\/Woman-power_emblem.jpg\")
<\/a>