Letter to the Bishops
Aug. 2nd, 2004 05:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dreamer_easyJust heard poor Cardinal Pell trying to stick up for the Vatican's new anti-feminist effort. He didn't huff but he did waffle, leaving me with little clue as to the Church's argument. To his credit he acknowledged that feminists and feminist opinion are diverse.
Anywho, the document appears to be an effort to sell subjugation as equality, in the guise of division of labour, with a side of flattery and a generous helping of biological determinism. Intriguingly, I have read pretty much the same argument from Islamic sources. Even more intriguingly, the idea that male and female are distinct and concrete spiritual realities sounds like Wicca!
Some Pagan writers have used the term "virgin" to mean "belonging to oneself alone" - not married or in a relationship. This contrasts with the letter's discussion of virginity; as a creature who, by nature, exists for others, women can only be mothers or virgins. To be blunt, if we fuck with a condom, we're doing something for ourselves alone. It's unconvincing to conclude that both men and women are ideally supposed to live for the other when men are not called on to choose between fatherhood and virginity.
I'm also disturbed by the suggestion that it's all right for men to have power over women as long as they don't abuse that power; I'd counter than this inequality is in itself an abuse of power. The explicit statement that feminism views "men as enemies" and is "mistrustful and defensive" is a familiar one. Perhaps a first step to dispelling that enmity and mistrust would be for men to cease sexual violence against women. In other words, we're not the ones who created an atmosphere of hostility and distrust between the sexes.
Interestingly, I have the impression that in some traditional cultures, women and men do have a sharp division of labour, but women have an equal role in decision making - a different alternative to either patriarchy or what the letter espouses.
I didn't actually intend to have quite so much to say on the subject. And now I have to go and wash up!
Anywho, the document appears to be an effort to sell subjugation as equality, in the guise of division of labour, with a side of flattery and a generous helping of biological determinism. Intriguingly, I have read pretty much the same argument from Islamic sources. Even more intriguingly, the idea that male and female are distinct and concrete spiritual realities sounds like Wicca!
Some Pagan writers have used the term "virgin" to mean "belonging to oneself alone" - not married or in a relationship. This contrasts with the letter's discussion of virginity; as a creature who, by nature, exists for others, women can only be mothers or virgins. To be blunt, if we fuck with a condom, we're doing something for ourselves alone. It's unconvincing to conclude that both men and women are ideally supposed to live for the other when men are not called on to choose between fatherhood and virginity.
I'm also disturbed by the suggestion that it's all right for men to have power over women as long as they don't abuse that power; I'd counter than this inequality is in itself an abuse of power. The explicit statement that feminism views "men as enemies" and is "mistrustful and defensive" is a familiar one. Perhaps a first step to dispelling that enmity and mistrust would be for men to cease sexual violence against women. In other words, we're not the ones who created an atmosphere of hostility and distrust between the sexes.
Interestingly, I have the impression that in some traditional cultures, women and men do have a sharp division of labour, but women have an equal role in decision making - a different alternative to either patriarchy or what the letter espouses.
I didn't actually intend to have quite so much to say on the subject. And now I have to go and wash up!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-02 09:22 pm (UTC)Excuse me? And just who has decided that The Church is "expert in humanity"? Did they ask *all* the humans?
Moving on [to a complaint about feminism]
And this is a *bad* thing? Seems odd, coming from a Church that puts such an emphasis on celibacy/purity. Isn't *that* denying the physical in favor of something spiritual/cultural? They ought to make up their minds.
I stopped reading after this point, which is probably a good thing. If I hadn't this comment might be very long indeed. And I'd be up all night, but drox up all night ranting is not an unusual thing.
On to Kate's comments...
...if we fuck with a condom, we're doing something for ourselves alone.
I'm assuming this also applies to the man who uses a condom? Since it, erm, takes two and all.
Then again, perhaps I shouldn't make such assumptions, considering who's making the argument. Consistency does not appear to be their strong suit.