A virus of misogyny

beauf

I would assume the Anglican church is quite different to the RC in a lot of ways that would make less likely to survive. I've never thought much about it tbh.

ezra_

beauf wrote: »

I would assume the Anglican church is quite different to the RC in a lot of ways that would make less likely to survive. I've never thought much about it tbh.

Maybe.

I just found that the principles and beliefs behind CoI worship align closely with my own beleifs.

However, when you have the conversation with someone who says:

a) I believe in God
b) I think my connection with God is a close one and doesn't require many 'links in the chain'
c) I believe in equality of men and women
d) I don't believe in a lot of the rules of the RC church

but still insists that the RC modernizes... I say have a look at alternative Christian religions and socio-historical reasons are thrown as the reason why that isn't possible.

Peregrinus

looksee wrote: »

Why do you say 'merely' a patriarchal organisation, as though this is just a societal quirk?

Patriarchy reserves all power for men. In this case the power is over the maintenance of a belief-based organisation so it is arguable that if women do not want to be subject to this patriarchy they just leave the church and the men to get on with it. However these belief systems are so deeply ingrained in both the structure and the laws of society that they are not easy to ignore or get away from.

It's not as straightforward as this, I think.

Couple of points, in no particular order:

1. Women are formally excluded from leadership positions in the Catholic church. That's extremely unusual in this day and age. But of course women are effectively excluded from or marginalized in leadership in a wide range of social, political, economic, etc organisations. The church is unusual in being explicit about it, and probably being explicit is in itself an additional offence but, still. If you don't like being subject to patriarchy, you can't just opt out. That's not how the world works; patriarchy is pervasive. Even being driven to opt out of a particular organisation that you would otherwise prefer to remain in, but for its patriarchy, is it itself to be oppressed; the patriarchy has succeeded in excluding you. So opting out of a particular organsiation isn't much of an escape from patriarchy, really.

2. While women are excluded from the higher ranks, they are not only admitted to the middle and lower ranks; they substantially predominate there. The overwhelming majority of professional religious are women - there are many more nuns than priests. And women also predominate in the pews; active Catholics are much more likely to be female than male (and the same is true in other churches). All of which suggests that, in fact, the patriarchy isn't driving them out; men seem far more likely to disengage from the church or formally leave it than women do. Women seem far more likely to commit to church careers than men are.

3. I don't think we can explain this by saying that "belief systems are so deeply ingrained" that the women simply don't have the agency to walk away from the church. We'd have to explain why the men do have the agency, or at any rate more of them do. (Plus, an explanation which asserts that women lack agency is itself patriarchal, is it not?)

4. I have already pointed to what I think is part of the explanation. The explcitness notwithstanding, patriarchy in the church in regard to leadership roles is just a particular illustration of a much wider patriarchy in regard to leadership that pervades our society. Women don't feel that leaving the church will do much to effect an escape from the subjection of patriarchy. In fact they may feel that leaving the church is to accept that subjugation; if the patriarchy wants to exclude you, do you not reinforce the patriarchy by accepting your exclusion?

5. The other thought I have is that people's engagement with the church, for most people, most of the time, is not mainly about attaining positions of leadership. People may be offended that they are barred from becoming priests, bishops, cardinals or popes, even if they cherish no such ambition to begin with. But if in fact they cherish no such ambition, then their reason for being active in or engaged with the church must be something different, and they offence they feel at being excluded from the ranks of the clergy may not eclipse whatever it is that draws them to the church, or to religion, in the first place.

6. Look at what happened when women were given the vote in western democracies. Expectations of new political parties, or of an influx of women into Parliament, government, etc, were not borne out. But what did happen, over a generation or so, was a significant shift in public policy, away from a focus on military expenditure, power projection, international relationships and toward social issues, education, healthcare. Women's wishes and influence were felt, not in the selection of female leaders, but in shaping the policies and policy priorities which the largely male leaders would follow.

7. If we look past the offensively patriarchal leadership structures of the church at what the church actually does, about what engagement with the church involves, maybe this is what appeals to women more than to men. Church engagement is largely about community and local relationships, and on a professional level the church workforce (volunteer and professional alike) is largely engaged in education, healthcare and social care of one kind or another. If you value this, find it rewarding and wish to support it or be involved in it, why would you give it up just because you will never be allowed to wear the episcopal purple?

8. None of which is to say that patriarchy or misogyny in the church is not offensive. But its clearly not offensive enough to drive women away since, taken as a whole, the church is overwhelmingly female.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not as straightforward as this, I think.

Couple of points, in no particular order:

1. Women are formally excluded from leadership positions in the Catholic church. That's extremely unusual in this day and age. But of course women are effectively excluded from or marginalized in leadership in a wide range of social, political, economic, etc organisations. The church is unusual in being explicit about it, and probably being explicit is in itself an additional offence but, still. If you don't like being subject to patriarchy, you can't just opt out. That's not how the world works; patriarchy is pervasive. Even being driven to opt out of a particular organisation that you would otherwise prefer to remain in, but for its patriarchy, is it itself to be oppressed; the patriarchy has succeeded in excluding you. So opting out of a particular organsiation isn't much of an escape from patriarchy, really.

2. While women are excluded from the higher ranks, they are not only admitted to the middle and lower ranks; they substantially predominate there. The overwhelming majority of professional religious are women - there are many more nuns than priests. And women also predominate in the pews; active Catholics are much more likely to be female than male (and the same is true in other churches). All of which suggests that, in fact, the patriarchy isn't driving them out; men seem far more likely to disengage from the church or formally leave it than women do. Women seem far more likely to commit to church careers than men are.

3. I don't think we can explain this by saying that "belief systems are so deeply ingrained" that the women simply don't have the agency to walk away from the church. We'd have to explain why the men do have the agency, or at any rate more of them do. (Plus, an explanation which asserts that women lack agency is itself patriarchal, is it not?)

4. I have already pointed to what I think is part of the explanation. The explcitness notwithstanding, patriarchy in the church in regard to leadership roles is just a particular illustration of a much wider patriarchy in regard to leadership that pervades our society. Women don't feel that leaving the church will do much to effect an escape from the subjection of patriarchy. In fact they may feel that leaving the church is to accept that subjugation; if the patriarchy wants to exclude you, do you not reinforce the patriarchy by accepting your exclusion?

5. The other thought I have is that people's engagement with the church, for most people, most of the time, is not mainly about attaining positions of leadership. People may be offended that they are barred from becoming priests, bishops, cardinals or popes, even if they cherish no such ambition to begin with. But if in fact they cherish no such ambition, then their reason for being active in or engaged with the church must be something different, and they offence they feel at being excluded from the ranks of the clergy may not eclipse whatever it is that draws them to the church, or to religion, in the first place.

6. Look at what happened when women were given the vote in western democracies. Expectations of new political parties, or of an influx of women into Parliament, government, etc, were not borne out. But what did happen, over a generation or so, was a significant shift in public policy, away from a focus on military expenditure, power projection, international relationships and toward social issues, education, healthcare. Women's wishes and influence were felt, not in the selection of female leaders, but in shaping the policies and policy priorities which the largely male leaders would follow.

7. If we look past the offensively patriarchal leadership structures of the church at what the church actually does, about what engagement with the church involves, maybe this is what appeals to women more than to men. Church engagement is largely about community and local relationships, and on a professional level the church workforce (volunteer and professional alike) is largely engaged in education, healthcare and social care of one kind or another. If you value this, find it rewarding and wish to support it or be involved in it, why would you give it up just because you will never be allowed to wear the episcopal purple?

8. None of which is to say that patriarchy or misogyny in the church is not offensive. But its clearly not offensive enough to drive women away since, taken as a whole, the church is overwhelmingly female.

This, in my opinion, is a brilliant posting. Really well thought out.

In point number 8 you seem to imply that misogyny and patriarchy are inextricably linked. My question is: Are they?

Peregrinus

Well, there's obviously going to be some link/overlap, but identifying it is going to require definitions of "misogyny" and "patriarchy". And arguments about definitions stop being interesting or useful pretty early on, in my view.

Still, for what it's worth: I suggest "misogyny" refers to attitudes, emotions, a state of mind: a dislike/disdain/dismissal of women and their concerns, interests, perspectives, etc. "Patriarchy" refers more to structures, and actions; mechanisms which exclude, marginalise or suppress women by concentrating power, authority, influence in the hands of men.

There are at least two links that I can think of. One is that holding misogynistice views will tend to lead people to establish or support patriarchies. And the other is that the operation of a patriarchy will tend to foster or reinforce misogynistic views, particularly (but not exclusively) among those who experience the patriarchy is benevolent. (Who, in the nature of things, will mostly be men.)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

None of which is to say that patriarchy or misogyny in the church is not offensive. But its clearly not offensive enough to drive women away since, taken as a whole, the church is overwhelmingly female.

While it may not have been offensive enough to drive women away in the past, most progressive societies are becoming increasingly intolerant of various types of discrimination. Given declining church attendances among the indigenous Catholic population in this country, are you confident that the misogynistic behaviour that McAleese describes is not a contributing factor? While Catholicism may not be in decline worldwide, as per Avatar MIA's post, it fares best in poorer less developed societies. As I posted previously, it would seem that Diarmuid Martin is broadly sympathetic to McAleese's position. It seems rather shortsighted to dismiss McAleese's speech as a rant on that basis, as some here seem keen to do.

Bob_Marley

McAleese also preaches the Catholic Church should not be anti abortion and should be pro homosexual sex and pro same sex marriage.

Their church their rules, don't like Catholicism ? don't be a Catholic, there's plenty of other Christian denominations to choose from or you can start your own.

The Church isn't about populism.

The Anglicans in the UK fell over themselves to pander to extreme feminist and LGBT propaganda since 70's and yet it's membership is still collapsing ever since.

She is just another shrieking attention seeking misandrist/feminist looking for a UN platform, and after she's long gone the Catholic Church will still be here.

" I’m not even going to be bothered arguing it " is her "educated" argument.

The majority of Catholic congregations these day are women. (Mass going Catholic women are not as stupid as McAleese and the media like to make out, they also refused to participate in the feminist boycott of Irish masses a few years ago.)
The last three doctors of the Church were woman, and have had an extremely influential effect in the Church.
No other denomination has produced anyone like Mother Teresa, or the now worldwide Catholic EWTN television network that was female founded and female run by Mother Angelica and her nuns.
Just as many of the greatest and revered saints in the Church are women, and no other Christian denomination elevates the mother of Jesus to the status she has in the Catholic Church.

Bob_Marley

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Worldwide Catholicism is on the increase in poor countries and in decline in more prosperous countries.

As is Christianity/theism as a whole, and not surprising the message/reminder sits pretty uncomfortably with the wealthy.

The numbers fall and rise in various specific geographic areas of time, but worldwide the numbers of Catholics are growing.

Nick Park

Bob_Marley wrote: »

McAleese also preaches the Catholic Church should not be anti abortion

https://www.irishcatholic.com/mcaleese-not-make-pro-abortion-remark/

Bob_Marley

Nick Park wrote: »

https://www.irishcatholic.com/mcaleese-not-make-pro-abortion-remark/

Mrs McAleese is said to be wrongly reported by the BBC, RTÉ the Irish Independent, Breitbart the South China Morning Post and many others today

Good old 'mainstream' media - why did they put out the spin they did then - For the good of Catholics, yeah right.

And why have RTE etc not retracted and corrected it ?

It is believed what she actually said was that she fears the Catholic Church’s hierarchy has “reduced Christ to this rather unattractive politician who is just misogynistic and homophobic and anti-abortion”.

Makes no difference, her non argument is still rubbish. So Christ was not / should not have been anti abortion, yeah right, dream on McAleese.

In reality Catholic Church rarely speaks about these subjects, it's position is already well known, it's the media that speaks of nothing else regarding Catholicism.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

While it may not have been offensive enough to drive women away in the past, most progressive societies are becoming increasingly intolerant of various types of discrimination. Given declining church attendances among the indigenous Catholic population in this country, are you confident that the misogynistic behaviour that McAleese describes is not a contributing factor?

On the contrary, I think it probably is a contributing factor.

smacl wrote: »

While Catholicism may not be in decline worldwide, as per Avatar MIA's post, it fares best in poorer less developed societies. As I posted previously, it would seem that Diarmuid Martin is broadly sympathetic to McAleese's position. It seems rather shortsighted to dismiss McAleese's speech as a rant on that basis, as some here seem keen to do.

Some may be, but I am far from dismissing it.

lalababa

In the end of the day women are not seen as good enough to be priests. They are seen as lesser beings. That's pretty <snip>

ABC101

Nick Park wrote: »

https://www.irishcatholic.com/mcaleese-not-make-pro-abortion-remark/

Ms McAleese was one RTE Radio with Sean O'Rourke this morning.

Sean asked her about her position on the 8th Amendment.

Achasanai

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Their church their rules, don't like Catholicism ? don't be a Catholic, there's plenty of other Christian denominations to choose from or you can start your own.

The Church isn't about populism.

It may not be about populism (I'd disagree, but I can understand both sides) but the RCC isn't (or shouldn't) be understood as simply the institution. The RCC is (or should be) understood as its followers too. You can see this in history, and completely refutes your point, where the RCC has continually shifted its viewpoint on a number of issues, and not necessarily the minor things either.

Bob_Marley wrote: »

The Anglicans in the UK fell over themselves to pander to extreme feminist and LGBT propaganda since 70's and yet it's membership is still collapsing ever since.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Bob_Marley wrote: »

The majority of Catholic congregations these day are women. (Mass going Catholic women are not as stupid as McAleese and the media like to make out, they also refused to participate in the feminist boycott of Irish masses a few years ago.)
The last three doctors of the Church were woman, and have had an extremely influential effect in the Church.
No other denomination has produced anyone like Mother Teresa, or the now worldwide Catholic EWTN television network that was female founded and female run by Mother Angelica and her nuns.
Just as many of the greatest and revered saints in the Church are women, and no other Christian denomination elevates the mother of Jesus to the status she has in the Catholic Church.

This has no bearing on whether the RCC is misogynist and patriarchal. It's self-evident that it is (women cannot fulfill the role of priest, because she must be subservient to men).

ezra_ wrote: »

However, having had this discussion with quite a few 'Catholics' (belief in God but issues with the institution and who would only attend a couple of masses per year), the general response is 'well I can't attend a morning service because... Protestants'.

Which is particularly amusing, as the Church of Ireland considers itself to be (reformed) Catholic.

Peregrinus

Achasanai wrote: »

This has no bearing on whether the RCC is misogynist and patriarchal. It's self-evident that it is (women cannot fulfill the role of priest, because she must be subservient to men).

Not to nitpick or anything, but this is not in fact the Catholic account of why women can't be priests. Their rationale has nothing to do with subservience of women to men.

Does this matter? Well, yes. If we are discussing the church as a vehicle for misogyny, what they actually think and preach is at least as relevant as what they do, and how other people feel about it.

c.p.w.g.w

I'd be more concerned about the virus of hiding and moving sex offenders to new grounds in order to "protect" them...That's a real virus that needs addressing...

Peregrinus

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

I'd be more concerned about the virus of hiding and moving sex offenders to new grounds in order to "protect" them...That's a real virus that needs addressing...

Undoubtedly. But that is being acknowledged and addressed in a way that the rules about women priests are not.

smacl

In a poll of 1,000 people taken by RTE yesterday, 78% agree with McAleese's statements regarding the misogynistic position of church whereas just 14% don't. Source. She would seem to have struck a chord with the Irish people on this one. Also calls in the same piece that were the Pope to visit he should visit Newry where abuse took place. Could make for an interesting visit.

Peregrinus

Just to add to what I said earlier - yes, I do think that perceptions of the church's misogyny play a part in people's decision to leave the church. What's interesting about McAleese's intervention, though, is that she calls out the church's misogyny as she sees it, while not leaving the church. Up to now, people distressed by misogyny fell largely into two camps - you either called it out, and left, or swallowed hard and stayed because you found something there even more important to you. McAleese stands for what I suspect will be a growing camp of "nasty women" (as that term was claimed by Hilary Clinton) - she won't shut up and she won't be pushed out.

beauf

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

I'd be more concerned about the virus of hiding and moving sex offenders to new grounds in order to "protect" them...That's a real virus that needs addressing...

I'd agree that a much bigger issue.

But its different topic to this one.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

McAleese stands for what I suspect will be a growing camp of "nasty women" (as that term was claimed by Hilary Clinton) - she won't shut up and she won't be pushed out.

Apparently "nasty woman" was a term used by Trump referring to Clinton in the 2016 campaign, which would leave the Vatican in the role of Donald. Seems about right.

Safehands

smacl wrote: »

In a poll of 1,000 people taken by RTE yesterday, 78% agree with McAleese's statements regarding the misogynistic position of church whereas just 14% don't. Source. She would seem to have struck a chord with the Irish people on this one.

Nothing RTE do surprises me.
On what is basically the same show, they knobbled Sean Gallagher's presidential campaign. (different debate)

Do people understand what misogyny is?

smacl

Safehands wrote: »

Nothing RTE do surprises me.
On what is basically the same show, they knobbled Sean Gallagher's presidential campaign. (different debate)

Do people understand what misogyny is?

Sorry but that post makes no sense whatsoever. A current affairs show carries out an opinion poll, why would that surprise anyone? The same channel were in error at some point in the distant past on some unrelated issue, so what? You suggest that the 1,000 people polled don't understand the meaning of the word misogyny even though it was qualified in this context with the phrase 'determined that women will always be second class'. Given that misogyny is defined as 'dislike of, contempt for, or prejudice against women' and this is clearly prejudice against women, the term is correct. Are you suggesting those polled failed to grasp the rather simple question and if so, on what basis?

Safehands

smacl wrote: »

Sorry but that post makes no sense whatsoever. A current affairs show carries out an opinion poll, why would that surprise anyone? The same channel were in error at some point in the distant past on some unrelated issue, so what? You suggest that the 1,000 people polled don't understand the meaning of the word misogyny even though it was qualified in this context with the phrase 'determined that women will always be second class'. Given that misogyny is defined as 'dislike of, contempt for, or prejudice against women' and this is clearly prejudice against women, the term is correct. Are you suggesting those polled failed to grasp the rather simple question and if so, on what basis?

Did Christ treat women as "second class"?

smacl

Safehands wrote: »

Did Christ treat women as "second class"?

I gather one argument put forward for exclusion of women from the Catholic hierarchy was that none of the apostles were women. If you accept that argument for discriminating against women, then yes, it started with Christ.

Safehands

smacl wrote: »

I gather one argument put forward for exclusion of women from the Catholic hierarchy was that none of the apostles were women. If you accept that argument for discriminating against women, then yes, it started with Christ.

Whether you accept that argument or not, Christ didn't have women in prominent positions. Did he therefore discriminate against women in his choices?
Christ was not a misogynist, obviously. This is my whole point. It is possible to be part of a Patriarchal culture without being misogynist.

Defunkd

Safehands wrote: »

Former president Mary McAleese has told a conference in Rome that the Catholic church has become a "primary global carrier of the toxic virus of misogyny".

Is she right or is the church merely a patriarchal organisation the same as many other older world religions?

Haven't read her speech beyond newspaper quotes but it seems the archbishop who denied her access to the initial planned event was correct in doing so. I wouldn't invite someone into my home or workplace if they were going to accuse me of hating women.

Peregrinus

Defunkd wrote: »

Haven't read her speech beyond newspaper quotes but it seems the archbishop who denied her access to the initial planned event was correct in doing so. I wouldn't invite someone into my home or workplace if they were going to accuse me of hating women.

Defunkd, if somebody's going to accuse you of hating women, I don't think the most pressing question is whether you would be "correct" in not inviting them into your home. Surely the most pressing question is whether the accusation is well-founded?

Defunkd

And how do you show that you don't hate someone or see them as inferior? I'm sure the rcc has an extensive list of reasons why women aren't priests and mary, being a canon lawyer would have had access to those reasons. She doesn't accept them but is that good enoughreason to accuse everyone of being misogynist.

Peregrinus

Defunkd wrote: »

And how do you show that you don't hate someone or see them as inferior? I'm sure the rcc has an extensive list of reasons why women aren't priests and mary, being a canon lawyer would have had access to those reasons. She doesn't accept them but is that good enoughreason to accuse everyone of being misogynist.

Well, I haven't read her speech. You may have. From the media reports, though, she doesn't "accuse everyone of being misogynistic"; she says that the Catholic church is a "primary global carrier of the toxic virus of misogyny".

It's of course possible to be a carrier of a virus without being aware of it, or without being intentional. To see what McAleese was actually saying, you'd need to read her speech and look behind the metaphor. But it's certainly possible for someone to have no animus against women themselves, but to engage in speech or behaviours which inflame or exacerbate misogyny in others.