wow. just wow.

'Feminism refuses the true nature of woman, confuses the natural and supernatural relations between the sexes and embarks upon a deviant path at the end of which the suicide of thought and the death of womanhood is inevitable,'

obviously the problem here is all those uppity women ghosts disturbing the supernatural relations between the sexes!

'Feminism refuses the true nature of woman, confuses the natural and supernatural relations between the sexes and embarks upon a deviant path at the end of which the suicide of thought and the death of womanhood is inevitable,'

obviously the problem here is all those uppity women ghosts disturbing the supernatural relations between the sexes!

Yeah, once I went to a church with a friend, because I cared enough about my friend to participate in this request. It was a picnic I went to and every one was so nice. There was diversity in this church and environmental consciousness. I briefly thought to myself, perhaps I could go here...

Then a couple stood up and the wife said, "I am so grateful to G-d that I may be submissive to my husband."

I got the first ride from a stranger out of there, dust kicking up at my heels too!

I too vote for deviancy. There is no way I'll ever be cool with a religion/person that needs me to not think and follow a penis in order to maintain the fabric community.

Who buys this sh!t anymore?

And my Mom wonders why I'm not a Catholic anymore...gah! Women can't be in authority positions over boys, meaning that a teenage boy is, by default of his gender, superior to an adult woman? And what the hell do they mean, feminism leads to "suicide of thought"? Doesn't telling women that they should obey their husbands in all respects lead to the death of free thinking?

How can women fulfill their natural roles as mothers if they are not permitted to be in authority positions over boys?

I went to a St. Pius X elementary school, though in a different state. Ironically enough, I think they actually had more sports teams for girls than boys.

What the hell is "suicide of thought"? Speaking as an English teacher, "thought" does not have any agency; therefore it cannot kill itself.

Of course, I'm a woman, so despite my expertise, I'm sure I don't have the authority to correct the writer.

I honestly can't believe that people like this can still operate in the 21st century. Does this mean that they have no female teachers?

And, OK, there's a dangling modifier in my comment. But thought still can't commit suicide.

Miraculously, this was not my experience of Catholicism when I was growing up. Probably because my grandmother had a high lay position within our diocese, and since I had zero desire to be a priest I didn't consider why the option wasn't open to women.

Then I got to my Catholic college and realized we were just as crazy as all the other religious sects I'd been wary of.

Ugh, if you think that's bad, add in this gem from another part of the FAQ's

"A debt in justice obliges under pain when a serious matter or quantity is owed. However, marriage relationships are a serious matter and of great importance. Furthermore, the refusal of the marriage debt [read: sex] may cause a danger of incontinence. Consequently, it is a mortal sin to deprive one’s spouse of these relationships. The typical example of this is when a wife feels that she is justified in withholding the marriage debt because her feelings are hurt, or she is not appreciated enough. "

I'm pretty sure this isn't a typical Catholic belief, just some tangent this particular group went on. Just goes to show, though, that when groups start talking about submission and "suicide of thought" it's not long before they make the jump to removing all sexual autonomy.

As a recovering Catholic myself, I can say that it's EXACTLY this type of bullshit that caused me to stop going to church at age 12 (along with my mom, she had enough at that point too).

However, doesn't anyone else think it's ironic (at least ironic in an Alanis Morrisette type of way) that right next to that article there's a different article talking about the "NHL's Hottest Women"?

SarahMC:
I was wondering the same thing. Then it occurred to me that any woman of worth will be married to a man and thus, she will be submitting to his authority and he can guide her in how to raise her son. Or something.
I just find it hilarious that an adult woman is considered inferior to a group of teenage boys. Have y'all ever been around teenage boys? They are, for the most part, so goofy.

A debt in justice obliges under pain when a serious matter or quantity is owed.

What? What? I...know I should be focusing on the justification of marital rape, but I can't help it. My head exploded way before I got there because this pathetic excuse for a sentence makes no sense! What does this mean? The grammar doesn't work! It's completely incoherent!

So not only will they teach your kid misogyny, they won't teach him or her how to write a decent sentence. Great school you got there, guys.

I'd like to make a small correction to the post and some of the comments. This is NOT a Roman Catholic school. It is a religious school that follows the laws the Society of Pius X, a separate entity from the catholic church. The founder of this sect was excommunicated from the church and the sect has been known for its extremism against women and Jews. There are many valid criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church and as a Catholic I often struggle with the teachings, but this level of extremism is not directly connected.

I should add that, while I did not attend Catholic school myself, my father was CERTAINLY subservient to nuns who taught him during his teenage years.

Thank you, e. I was looking to post a same comment to that effect.

I do hope that the original story is edited to remove "Roman Catholic" from the school's description. These people were too nuts even for John Paul II, (not really known for his progressive views) so he kicked them out. Until Pope Ratzinger lets them back in (there's some talk he might), they aren't part of the Roman Catholic church.

To echo e, I agree that there are many valid criticisms against the Roman Catholic Church, which is why I am involved with Women's Ordination Conference and Catholics for a Free Choice, but Society of Pius X IS a radical conservative fringe group. Their beliefs are not part of the Catholic mainstream. And they're stupid and shouldn't get to play in the league if they discriminate against refs.

I think the original article was in error by not more clearly demarcating the difference between Roman Catholics in general and SSPX.

Count me in as another progressive Catholic who would like the post edited to state that these folks are not actually Roman Catholics.

While women certainly do not have the same rights as men in the RC church, I was never taught anything about submitting to a husband's leadership or not refusing sex with a man.

I went to an uber-cool progressive parish in NYC that was openly in favor of gay rights and the participation of laity in church activities.

Most Catholics are nothing like the wackos in the post, and half of us are pro-choice (really!).

E (and others) -

Thanks for clarifying the fact that SSPX is a separate entity from the Catholic church. I do hope the original post is corrected.

This is completely outrageous and if that school gets any government funding, it should be yanked immediately.

And, OK, there's a dangling modifier in my comment.

I find it freeing to occasionally dangle my modifiers (I also rather enjoy splitting infinitives).

Yeah, thanks for the clarification because I was incredibly confused as everybody I know who went to Catholic School was taught by nuns and those women certainly had authority over teenage boys!

Looks like this might be the same school that took a forfeit in a football game rather than a play against a team with a girl on it.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/B005cpForfeitFootball.htm

Yes, thanks. I may be a heathen now, but I was raised in the Church and went to Catholic schools all my life. The SSPX are a bunch of lunatic fringers. I was taught in HS by Dominican nuns and the odd Jesuit priest, and let me tell you, there was no talk of submitting to anything or anyone except (lol) the authority of the Church. It was really shocking for me to read this story all over my blogs.

"... the nature of a woman makes her much more prone to the temptation of vanity, to show off her body, and the nature of a man makes him much more tempted by seeing this. Consequently, the gravest and most dangerous offenses against modesty, understood in its fourth and most restricted meaning, namely as against purity, are by women."

That's apparently one of the reasons it's more important to address what women wear more than what men wear.

This one is also mind-blowing:

"... there is a special form of immodesty that is characteristic of our modern times, and it is the immodesty of women wearing men’s clothes, most notably pants and shorts... It is this form of immodesty which is ultimately by far the most destructive of human relationships and of the virtue of purity."

I really don't understand how pants are "immodest," but then again, I really don't understand how ANY of the things on that list can actually be seriously believed by people.

I think I'm pretty done making my brain explode reading that list.

uplate6674- Do you mind me asking which parish? That sounds very interesting...

I think this part of the article is where the confusion of the school's sect/religion originated:

St. Mary's Academy, about 25 miles northwest of Topeka, is owned and operated by the Society of St. Pius X, which follows older Roman Catholic laws. The society's world leader, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, was excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in the late 1980s.

As a lecter at my Catholic church (oh, that rarity of pop culture--the Catholic feminist!), I had to do to "wives, be subservient" reading this summer. My priest had to deal with an eye roll and an 'oh, really?' look from me, and was quick to invoke me in his sermon. That's got to be one of the most difficult readings for the modern church, to make sense of what that means now. I have so much respect for every church member (though maybe not the church itself) that steps out of the box and tries to make sense of this old fashioned religion in a modern context.

I do feel the need to point out that not all Catholic schools, or even religious schools in general, are like this. Since they rely fully on tuition payments, most are smart enough not to be jackasses like this and piss off the payers!

by:e, it's St. Paul the Apostle Church, near Columbus Circle. It's a Paulist parish, as opposed to an Archdiocesan one. (I hate the 'preach down' homiletic style of the Archdiocese of New York).

GottaBeMe - oh yes, those OLD laws. Meaning pre-Vatican II. Those would be Traditionalist Catholics, i.e., these are the same type of people as Mel Gibson. They believe that the reforms of Vatican II should never have happened and adhere to all the old-school rules and worship practices (including women wearing head coverings during Mass, priest speaking in Latin with his back to the congregation, praying for the conversion of the Jews, all that lovely stuff).

Note that TraditionalIST is different from TraditionAL. A Traditional Catholic believes in and adheres to every and all rules, practices, and opinions held by the *current* Church.

A liberal or progressive Catholic (sometimes disparagingly referred to as a 'cafeteria Catholic' because they pick and choose which rules make sense for them and which don't - and I proudly wear that label) disagrees with some or many of them and would like to see them change.

Despite what the party line is, we're definitely not all the same.

I have played sports all my life, and rugby the past three, and never once (in rugby anyway) have I had a woman referee. It is always a man, which is why I don't understand this. If a man can referee a women's game, why can't a woman referee a men's game? I know this school refused her on religious grounds, but I have heard this view from non-religious people, that women somehow are incapable of fully understanding or making correct calls in a sporting event. I want to see a woman referee the super bowl!

If a man can referee a women's game, why can't a woman referee a men's game?

It isn't about whether women are capable of making good calls, these folks believe men have a natural authority over women.
Women are supposed to submit to men (and like it!). Letting women referee a man's (or even boy's) game...that would madness, I tell you... madness!

God I saw this a couple days ago and it made me wanna vom. I grew up in the (presbyterian) church and never EVER heard anything about women being subservient to their husbands. This woman apparently isn't just subservient to adult men, but teens as well. Fuck that.

I also find it weird when religions obsess over male/female power dynamics instead of, oh I don't know, thinking about things that Jesus said about compassion, gratitude, forgiveness and generosity.

They are still dilly-dallying about what sanctions to give to the school. Officially, they should pull the school from the district competitions. They do not allow schools to pull refs if they are jews or muslims refing a catholic game. Nor on race. Let's see if women are human beings or if we will support women hating on some religious reason.

"How can women fulfill their natural roles as mothers if they are not permitted to be in authority positions over boys?"

I got the impression that some cultures out there believe the "natural role" of a mother is not an authority position over her sons and daughters but is a submissive position under her husband along with her sons and daughters (especially if her father gave her away to her husband).

"A debt in justice obliges under pain when a serious matter or quantity is owed. However, marriage relationships are a serious matter and of great importance. Furthermore, the refusal of the marriage debt [read: sex] may cause a danger of incontinence. Consequently, it is a mortal sin to deprive one’s spouse of these relationships. The typical example of this is when a wife feels that she is justified in withholding the marriage debt because her feelings are hurt, or she is not appreciated enough."

...or because she believes that abstinence is the only moral birth control?

"I really don't understand how pants are 'immodest,'"

Easy: trousers slow down access to an unwilling woman's or girl's vagina. No wonder some sexists don't like it when we wear trousers...

It isn't about whether women are capable of making good calls, these folks believe men have a natural authority over women.
oh i know that's what the story was about, that the issue was that she had authority over men. I was talking about other sports in general, like, professional and public school sports. In that arena, I don't think its about authority, I think its about the myth that men are better at sports.

I'm blaming this on Kansas more than on Catholicism itself. Catholic schools have a lot of leeway in how they conduct themselves. My Catholic high school was very liberal. Despite the squawking of a few (too conservative for Northern California) parents, there was a GLBT group on campus, we read books by such deviants as Truman Capote, and we learned real, not religionist, science.

Hell. Even in religion class, we learned that at least one, if not two, gospels were not actually written by Jesus' apostles.

Vanessa, this is a crazy situation, thanks for posting it.

For those who would defend Catholics and say that this is more of a commentary on midwestern sexism, I offer you only this:

Pope Benedict and many leading officials have said that they would oppose an AIDS vaccine or cure because it encourages sex outside of marriage.

Frankly, I go to a Catholic school and respect the people that I work with there (both who are my student peers and the teachers who practice the religion), but my open contempt for the church as a whole is something I've never covered up. I do it for the opportunity to expand my fluency as an atheist and challenge my ideas, as well as for the quality of education.

Frankly, I'm disgusted by this kind of crap every time I come on, and it's the reason I keep coming back, because I feel oblidged to know.

If men can ref and coach women's basketball (or any other sporting event), why can't women do the same.

Yet another example of a glass cieling, that keeps women from moving into the markets they deserve to be in often more than men.

Ok, I hope this doesn't come across as harsh, but I truly do not understand something here. I don't want to make it personal, so I will speak in general terms.

There are some people posting here who are concerned about labeling this school as Catholic when it is actually not. For the sake of accuracy, sure, it should be fixed.

What I don't understand is why people who are NOT OK with the schools decision ARE OK with the blatant misogyny in the bible? Just because your preacher or pastor or priest doesn't focus on the particularly repulsive anti-woman passages in the bible does not mean that those passages do not exist. Since Catholics and christians in the vast majority of denominations and divisions have the bible at the base of their faith, presumably since it in part contains the word of the god they worship, it would seem to me that the logical conclusion is that catholosicm and christianity, insofar as following the bible goes, are in direct conflict with feminism.

If I were a christian or catholic woman, how could I be less than and equal to at the same time? That's kind of like being dead and alive at the same time... it's just not possible.

My brother, sister, and I spent nearly all of my elementary and secondary school years at Catholic schools in both Australia (which is largely Catholic) and in California. Not once was sexism so blatant and ridiculous as what happened in this article. My siblings and I had teachers and school officials of both genders. I don't think a school with the above stated policies would ever get a student in either Australia or California. Catholics may be backwards in a lot of ways but there aren't THAT many assholes in charge of schools. After all of my Catholic schooling (and during) I still ended up being an independent thinker, and atheist and a feminist. I hope the students at uptight schools realize they have choices.

Ayla,

I'll try to tackle this though it is obviously a difficult subject. Rationalizing BELIEFS is always a difficult thing.

The Bible was written by many different authors a VERY LONG TIME AGO. It contains blatant contradictions makes declarations that are close to ridiculous in modern times. Many (maybe most?) Christians understand this and understand the Old Testament (which contains the passages you speak of as well as weird rulings on how hair should be worn and what fabrics are acceptable and how sinful eating shellfish is...) to be metaphorical. It is a story about God's role in history and not a literal dictate on how we should live our lives. More specific beliefs tend to be taken from the more liberal New Testament-largely a preaching on non-violence, forgiveness and caring for the less fortunate.

That is my personal view of the Bible. No where in my experience of Catholicism have I been taught that I am lesser than male church members. This may be different for others, but it is my experience.

As for the church teachings regarding contraception and homosexuality, I am very opposed to these. I don't , however, think that having different views from my church leaders or even from certain passages in the Bible makes me any less of a Catholic or a Christian. Everyone looks at the world through their own individual framework and I think religion is no different.

Ayla - the issue is interpretation. Fundamentalist proestants and Catholics (I believe) read the Bible literally. More mainstream Protestants (like the church I grew up in) do not. That's why people at my church like, don't believe Eve was REALLY made from Adam's rib and what not. Additionally, many mainstream and progressive Christians think that Jesus kind of overrules the Old Testament, which is why Christians don't keep kosher and, uh, keep slaves and stone their children. There are a lot of crazy-assed things in the OT that to us, have been phased out b/c Jesus' teachings are more important. And I've never read (or been taught at church) that Jesus thought women were subservient (some of his closest friends were women, and "loose women" at that), or like hated gays or anything.

Does that make sense? I totally understand your questioning and the criticism of a lot of parts of Christianity, but I think everyone needs to realize that there are SO MANY different denominations and beliefs. If I had ever heard at church or Sunday school that I was subservient or not worth anything, I would have walked out and never returned. But, uh, the church I go to these days has a special sermon on Gay Day celebrating gays and like, affirming how they deserve equal rights, so I'm cool with it.

I've read the Bible and there are a few verses in the NEW testament that make me wonder, verses that put men over women in church and in marriage. Though yes, overall the New Testament does make more sense than the Old Testament. If only more of the people who say they follow it actually acted like they do instead of seeming hateful and judging (like the anti-choice people who talk about God and then harass and judge people). I think this is one of the things that turns people away from religion.

Okay, totally off-topic but I have at some point wondered the same thing about the Bible and seemingly sexist verses.

Ayla, where did I say I was OK with the misogyny in the Bible? Of course I'm not. The post we are commenting on is not about misogyny in the Bible, so that's why none of us are talking about it.

The Bible was also written a long time ago, by men, in a specific time and place that is very different from our own. I read it with that in mind.

I believe the Bible was divinely inspired, not divinely dictated. The men who wrote it were writing in the spirit of God, not on a line-by-line mandate coming from God. So the fundamentalist view that each and every line is to be taken literally (not metaphorically, historically, or poetically, or as an allegory, which is in fact what many stories/verses/songs in the Bible are) with the same literal meaning as the day it was written, for every single time and place to come, does not make any sense to me. So I don't read the Bible that way.

As others have said, my Christianity is about working for social justice and following Jesus' teachings about love and concern for the poor, not about using the Bible to justify sexism.

Husbands will consequently take responsibility and leadership, even when they feel inadequate, and wives will take delight in denying their own will and obeying their husbands,' Father Peter R. Scott answered.

I just want to point that out again: and wives will take delight in denying their own will and obeying their husbands,

Notice he said DENYING THEIR OWN WILL, which means that women have a will that NATURALLY runs counter to the way they think women SHOULD behave. He's saying that it's not in women's nature to do obey and submit to their husbands, but that they will delight in denying this naturally given will in order to do it. Wiskey Tango Foxtrot to the infinite power.

I wonder if these people can taste their own bullshit.

"Fundamentalist proestants and Catholics (I believe) read the Bible literally."

Just a minor quibble, actually for Roman Catholics you are able to interpret the Bible.

mybabypanda,

Thank you for putting it in conditional language, but when you said "Fundamentalist proestants and Catholics (I believe) read the Bible literally," you were absolutely wrong. Except for a very narrow minority, Catholics absolutely do not read the bible literally. Even my Aunt, a Traditional Catholic, does not. Particularly not the old Testament. That was a Protestant innovation, and as you stated, not one that all Protestants practice.

No where in my experience of Catholicism have I been taught that I am lesser than male church members.

Really? You never noticed that only men are allowed to become priests, bishops, cardinals, etc.? Disallowing women prominent and power-carrying positions within the church is very clearly saying women are lesser than men. (and that's just one example of sexism in the church) Catholicism is steeped in sexism and misogyny, they may not have included it in your Sunday mass or school curriculum, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there and that women and girls don't get the message.

Same with the bible (old or new testament). It is full of racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, and classism. You (and I mean the generic, sweeping def. of "you" here) may choose to use the bible for your own religious purposes, that is certainly your right, but it doesn't excuse or change the fact that it's there in black and white (and sometimes red). And it certainly doesn't change the fact that the bible and it's words have been used to oppress women and other minorities around the world since it's first appearance.

uplate6674 - i have some good friends who attend st. paul the apostle. i went to their wedding there last summer. i knew it had to be a pretty rad church (relatively speaking) for them to be into it.

uplate6674, where did I say that you did?

ShelbyWoo... exactly. It actually kind of scares me that people can just ignore all that stuff. It seems so obvious to me, and that's not just something I think because of the appalling manner in which nearly every Christian I've ever met has acted. I recognize that what people think isn't always what the bible states. So, it's based on my OWN observations of what the bible itself says. There are a million examples, but just one is enough to illustrate my point. How is denying women the right to be a priest NOT misogynist? No matter what the reason, the bottom line is that men get to do something that women don't get to do. In my book, that's sexist and I'm not sure how a feminist could belong to a sexist group without going crazy. I can't even stand to be around sexists, much less hang out with them every Sunday morning while they tell me I'm a sinner.

" I'm not sure how a feminist could belong to a sexist group without going crazy."

I'm part of the USA, which is a sexist group, founded upon patriarchy and misogyny.

I'm also a Catholic, which is a sexist group, founded upon patriarchy and misogyny (although arguably to a lesser extent; there is evidence of early Church leaders, priests and even popes being female such as Mary of Magdalene (sp?); there are no such American counterparts).

For both, I don't simply renounce my membership and look for greener pastures. There are parts of the USA and of Catholicism I love. I work from within to change views and laws that I believe are wrong and unconstitutional or not in the spirit of the teachings of Jesus.

Ismone - Thanks for the clarification. I actually know absolutely very little about Catholicism so shouldn't have made that assumption. I guess I just extrapolated that they're both very conservative for the same reasons.

I’m writing this before reading the reactions to my comment because I can imagine people have taken it personally. I don’t think I worded it very well and it doesn’t seem to make the point I wanted to make. I’m going to try to explain myself as best as possible.

Participating in an institution or tradition (or whatever it maybe) that has a history of sexism and misogyny doesn’t, I repeat…does not, make you any less of a feminist than someone who doesn’t participate. Just as your partaking (as a feminist) in the institution/tradition doesn’t negate the sexism and misogyny of it. I do, however, take exception to those who can’t or won’t acknowledge and talk about said sexism/misogyny despite their participation. It’s a disservice to the overall goal of feminism. If we can’t talk about and recognize it, we can’t expect it to change. In other words, the problem is with those that say “But X can’t be/isn’t sexist because I play a part in it and I am not sexist!� not with the participation itself. I hope that makes more sense.

Leah, I live in the USA but I do not consider myself a "part" of it. It's not something I chose, this is just where I was born and as such I don't see it as being something I belong to. I'm just here.

If you only love parts of Catholicism, why be a part of it? I like the parts of Christianity that say we should be kind to our neighbors, but I'd kill myself before I'd join a group which would not allow me the same rights as a man. I can be nice to my neighbors and do all of the other good things that christianity teaches without being a part of christianity.

Ayla - I understand what you're saying. I could never be part of a church that did not allow me the same rights as a man. I'm Christian, but could NEVER be Catholic because my values just don't line up with at church's. That's why when I recently moved, it was important to me to find a liberal church. My presbyterian church now (which, ok, I go to a couple times a year - I'm not very devout) is part of networks of churches called More Light Churches Network and "Presbyterian Welcome" that advocate for gays' full inclusion in the church (as ministers, members, getting married, etc). And the head minister is an old dude, but there are also women ministers on staff. They also use gender-inclusive language, which isn't really important to me, but says something about their philosophy.

Anyway, I think it's important for you and others to know that not all Christians are anti-gay and anti-woman. I know I wouldn't be able to be part of an organization that saw me as inferior either, which is why my church rocks.

Ayla and MyBabyPanda,

The Catholic Church allows me the EXACT same rights as male worshipers. Outside the clergy there is no discrimination in the Catholic Church. I recognize that the fact that women cannot be priests is sexist but I also recognize that this is a church tradition based on the fact that Christ, who performed the first mass was a male, and therefore men continue the tradition of performing the mass. This is NOT church dogma, and therefore may be changed as views within the church change. I can see the faults of my church and of any organized religion, but I also see the potential for progress from within. Isn't that what this site is about? Making progress and changing faulty systems rather than simply opting out of any are of life that may be perceived as misogynist?

I also want to stress that a WOMAN holds the second most revered position in the beliefs of the Catholic church, second only to Christ. Catholics are taught to pray to the Holy Mother and by this belief women are very revered within the church.

"If you only love parts of Catholicism, why be a part of it?"

For some people religious affiliation is more like ethnicity than like political party membership, and for some people their congregation is a big part of their social lives.

I recognize that the fact that women cannot be priests is sexist but I also recognize that this is a church tradition based on the fact that Christ, who performed the first mass was a male, and therefore men continue the tradition of performing the mass.

Why are you making excuses for it? How will this change come about if you can’t even acknowledge that it’s real?

This is NOT church dogma, and therefore may be changed as views within the church change.

The earliest Catholic church was believed to be founded around 380 AD… over 1600 years isn’t dogma? How many more thousands of years will it be before there is a female bishop or cardinal or *gasp* pope?

MyBabyPanda, I think what most confuses me when talking about things like this is that it seems that by changing the rules, so to speak, that what you're practicing isn't the same thing anymore. Does that make sense? I don't think I'm saying it correctly. I guess the question is, as you get further away from the "original" or at least the oldest known teachings of a religion, at what point does it become something else entirely? It seems like there should be a different word for it because the biblical christianity that I have heard about and been exposed to my entire life and the type of thing you are talking about at your church don't even seem to be on the same planet to me.

on a different but definitely related note, does your denomination believe that sex outside marriage is wrong?

Perhaps "parts" was not the correct word; I love most of it.

I still think my analogy is apt. If penniless immigrants can move to the US, surely anyone born here can move out if they so desire. It is not only location of birth that keeps citizens in the U.S. Likewise I was born in the Church (not literally of course) which is a society and system of beliefs, yes, but also an organization in many ways like a nation (although unlike a nation the laws are not enforced by a domestic police force but rather by personal choices and social influences). It is a culture as well. I believe in the basic tenets and religious views of the Church, and work to change those rules that are unjust.

Shelby, read my earlier post...there were church leaders that were female in the early church, and perhaps even popes. A lot of records have been lost, or destroyed for concealement, but some survivors indicate that women used to have a much larger role in the Church. I would also contest that the tradition is based on the fact that Jesus was male. It is based on patriarchy; that is just the justification.

Ugh my last two sentences didn't make sense. I meant to say "I would also contest THE IDEA THAT the tradition of male priests is based on the fact that Jesus was male" In other words I don't think that's true.

I would like to add to the general discussion here by talking about a lecture I just attended called "Sexism and the Bible." The world of the ancient Israelites (in the Old Testament) and that of Jesus (the Roman empire) were both patriarchal, giving almost no power to women, and while reading the Bible we have to realize the cultural context it comes from. However, throughout the Bible women have played an important role, as judges (Deborah), saviors of their people (Esther), followers of Jesus (the women were the first to see him after he rose), deacons (Phoebe), and heads of early churches (Prisca). Yes, there are statements in the New Testament that some have used to keep women subservient, just as some used the Bible as a justification for slavery, but I really don't think that's the overall message.

Most Christians and churches don't believe that women are lesser than men, because after all, both man and woman were created in the image of God. In my church there has always been at least one female pastor. The professor who gave the lecture I reffered to earlier is a male, otherwise conservative, Evangelical, but he promotes the egalitarian view (meaning that men and women are equal both in status and in function).

I am not making excuses for it; I acknowledged that it is a sexist practice, but I also tried to educate you that many other teachings of the church are decidedly pro-women. Like many things in life this isn't a one sided issue. It's important to look at the positive as well as the negative.

In Catholicism, Dogma is a church rule made by a pope exercising papal infallibility- meaning that what the pope decrees at that time is the decree of God. Therefore it is not the belief of the Church that God has declared women ineligible to be priests, it is simply a tradition. The Catholic church does modernize and evolve. It happens slowly, but it does happen.

As some other people in the comments have pointed out, Catholicism is a part of my identity and culture rather than something I just took on and can just as easily cast off. I don't claim that I am not an American or that I hate America just because I see some major flaws in the system and I feel the same way about my religion. We all work with what we have in our own cultures and lives. I am very offended by the insinuations in this thread that I cannot practice my religion alongside my feminism.

I don't feel comfortable telling women what religions they can and cannot follow. To me that is less feminist than trying to change your religious tradition for the better instead of just ditching it when you encounter problems.

idyllicmollusk, I don't think anyone here is trying to dictate which religion people can or can't be a part of. At least, I can say for sure that I am not trying to do that. I recognize everyones right practice the religion of their choosing. I also, however, have my own right to examine these religions from a feminist perspective and call 'em like I see 'em.

Shelby, read my earlier post...there were church leaders that were female in the early church, and perhaps even popes. A lot of records have been lost, or destroyed for concealement, but some survivors indicate that women used to have a much larger role in the Church.

I am aware that there is some evidence that there were female leaders in the early church and I am aware the church has gone out of it’s way to actively conceal it and, until the information age, were able to successfully. Even if it were true (and, for the record, I believe that it is) that there were some female leaders, they weren’t common and the church certainly didn’t want the masses knowing about them. So, my statement stands that Catholic women have been waiting for female leaders for over 1600 years. Waiting just doesn’t seem to be working. I do see that changing somewhat due to the large shortage of priests. But, I truly believe that before woman are allowed to become actual priests, they’ll remove the celibacy requirement for men. I really think it’s most important to the church that a man is in those power positions, rather than a dedicated, pious woman.

I am not making excuses for it; I acknowledged that it is a sexist practice, but I also tried to educate you that many other teachings of the church are decidedly pro-women.

Having been raised Catholic, I don’t need you to “educate� me, but thank you.

I am very offended by the insinuations in this thread that I cannot practice my religion alongside my feminism.

Not once have I, nor anyone else, implied or insinuated that you can’t practice your religion and be a feminist, in fact, I said quite the opposite if you read one of my prior posts. You acknowlege that the church is sexist, so why are you taking it personally that I also disagree with the sexist practices of the Catholic church?

Ayla - I definitely don't think I'm practicing the same religion that was practiced hundreds of years ago! I mean, religion isn't impervious to culture, so it makes sense to me that religion has changed over the years. I don't really identify with like, Martin Luther or anything like that - that's just not what religion means to me. But the basic tenants, like that Jesus was the son of God and ascended into heaven, are still the same.

And about premarital sex - when I was younger they did talk about waiting until marriage, but it wasn't a focus at all. Like, it'd be one youth group lesson a year or something. I find it SO WEIRD that the evangelicals are so obsessed with sex! Like, at my old church they always focused more on being kind to others, serving others and donating, forgiving people who wronged you, etc. Like, you know, the things Jesus actually talked about. The church I go to now, which is far more progressive, probably really doesn't care about sex - I've never heard it brought up in a service. I think that the whole "chastity" thing is more cultural than religious anyway.

By:e - What makes me think the Catholic church is anti-woman isn't just that women aren't allowed to be priests, but the church's opposition to abortion, stem cell research, contraceptives, end-of-life rights, gay rights, etc. I mean, one of my best friends is Catholic and is also very liberal - I really don't know how she can reconcile her social values with the Church's. I know all Catholics don't agree with the Pope on these things, but I couldn't be part of a church whose leadership's views were so at odds with my own.

ShelbyWoo,

I was definitely unclear in that statement. I didn't mean that I intended to educate YOU but that I hoped for my posts to educate people in this thread, including the original poster, who don't seem to clearly know the Church's teachings and the interpretation of the bible. My apologies for making the statement seem so personal.

You have not said anything that has directly offended me but another poster did state that Catholicism and Christianity are "in direct conflict with feminism". I'm sorry if I shouldn't have taken that personally but it does seem to me to be a pretty loaded statement.

I'm completely open to discussion of this topic, which is why I've remained engaged in this thread for so long. It is an debate that I have had with myself many times. For all of this, I believe my Catholicism make me a better person. It teaches me to love others, treat others as I would want to be treated, and help people in any way that I can. In a way, I think that part IS very feminist.

e: My apologies as well. I shouldn’t have assumed you were referring to me and I had not seen that statement.
I absolutely believe you can be religious and feminist. I believe you can be feminist and be anything, (in my best hippy-stoner voice) that’s what feminism is all about, man! The Catholic church has a looooong way to go in treating women and men as equals. I think that participation in the church without actively trying to change that culture (even if it’s just talking about it) does a disservice to women.

"at the end of which the suicide of thought and the death of womanhood is inevitable"

Ahhh, so their anti-feminist crap is really all for our own good!

e, I just wanted to paste my full statement here because when I typed it, I specifically went back and edited it before posting, adding the "insofar as following the bible" part, because I wanted to make the distinction that I was referring to specific things I had read in the bible and not just speaking generally of actual human beings who are catholics or christians. my beef is with the institution in this case, not the individuals. I hope that makes sense.

oops, all that and I forgot to paste the quote (ridiculous typo left intact)

"...it would seem to me that the logical conclusion is that catholosicm and christianity, insofar as following the bible goes, are in direct conflict with feminism."

Ayla,

I understand and I'm not trying to be contentious because this is simply something that is difficult to explain. It can be hard to distinguish sweeping criticisms of the institution of Christianity from criticisms of it's followers. After all, it is something that I believe deeply in. That doesn't make my side right, I think it's just important for you to know where believers are coming from in this debate.

As often happens on the internet, I suspect we may all be arguing the same sides, just from different points of view. There are parts of the church that are sexist and homophobic, I hope I never seemed to deny this. However, what I hoped to stress with my discussion of Dogma is the fact that these aspects of the church are not believed to be the word of God. They can be changed. I don't know that they will change, but there is hope. No institution can change if it's progressive thinkers all turn their backs. So as a final answer to those who asked how I can be a part of a sexist religious institution, there ya go. I think the Catholic Church does valuable work and I think that through continued discussion and education that the Church can update its teachings and become even more just and compassionate to everyone.

It is always a man, which is why I don't understand this. If a man can referee a women's game, why can't a woman referee a men's game? I know this school refused her on religious grounds, but I have heard this view from non-religious people, that women somehow are incapable of fully understanding or making correct calls in a sporting event. I want to see a woman referee the super bowl!

I think refs at the pro level should be required to have playing experience at the pro level before being appointed to that job, and that goes for both men and women.

I think refs at the pro level should be required to have playing experience at the pro level before being appointed to that job, and that goes for both men and women.

I’m not sure what that would accomplish except to effectively shut women out of certain refereeing positions (pro football, hockey, baseball). You don't have to play professionally to be able to understand and enforce the rules. That’s like saying police officers should be required to be lawyers first, so they can properly enforce the law. They don’t have to have practiced law in order to arrest someone for breaking it (nor are they required to live as criminals).

I've written this before, but I'm going to post it again.

I am very, very disturbed and offended by the number of comments here that seem to want to offload the sexism and the misogyny of the Bible onto the Old Testament. First of all, the Old Testament is part of the Bible--in fact, it is the largest part of the Bible. Christianity, which began as a splinter sect of Judaism, did not throw out the Hebrew scriptures because "Jesus's word trumps all else" or anything like that. These texts are in the Christian Bible--own them and take responsibility for what they say as well.

Furthermore, and what's more important to me as a Jew--as bad a Jew as I am--is the noxious tone of anti-semitism I hear permeating these comments--the Old Testament, you'll remember, has not been superceded by Jesus's word for the Jews. It is, in fact, a very Christian-centric word for the Jewish scriptures, comprised of the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim. When I read a lot of Christians claiming that the misogyny of the Bible is all a part of the barbaric, primitive ideology of the Old Testament, what I cannot help but hear is "It's not us! We're civilized! It's those barbaric, primitive Jews!" Christians have a long and horrible history of projecting their own faults, their own violence, their own cruelties onto the Jews, and I don't want to see this crap echoed in any way among feminists.

Take a look at some of these comments:

Many (maybe most?) Christians understand this and understand the Old Testament (which contains the passages you speak of as well as weird rulings on how hair should be worn and what fabrics are acceptable and how sinful eating shellfish is...) to be metaphorical. It is a story about God's role in history and not a literal dictate on how we should live our lives. More specific beliefs tend to be taken from the more liberal New Testament-largely a preaching on non-violence, forgiveness and caring for the less fortunate.

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that Judaism contains a lot of "weird" edicts--but I'm not willing to accept such a judgment from someone who believes in Christianity. Really? Edicts about eating shellfish are "weirder" than, say, a virgin giving birth? "Weirder" than Jesus noting that if his followers don't hate their families, then they can't possibly love him? The Old Testament isn't there to be a "metaphor" for Christians; it is a redacted collection of a number of early documentary sources recording early writers' understanding of the history of the Jews--the history of the community that gave rise to your Christ. Is it an ugly history? Sure. It was a brutal, violent time to live in.

Additionally, many mainstream and progressive Christians think that Jesus kind of overrules the Old Testament, which is why Christians don't keep kosher and, uh, keep slaves and stone their children. There are a lot of crazy-assed things in the OT that to us, have been phased out b/c Jesus' teachings are more important.

I'm sorry, did you just compare keeping Kosher with owning other human beings and stoning children? And did you just claim that the reason contemporary progressive Christians don't do any of those things is because they're lucky enough to believe that the word of Jesus overrules the "crazy-assed" records of the Jews? Because I'm fairly certain from my knowledge of history that Christians carried on keeping slaves long after they stopped keeping Kosher.

But I guess that does explain why my Aunt and Uncle and the rest of my observant friends and family who keep Kosher also still own slaves and stone their own children, doesn't it? Oh, wait, except they don't, do they? Jews who keep Kosher, who don't believe one crazy-ass word out of Jesus's mouth, have still managed to reach that stage of enlightenment that involves recognizing that owning people and child-killing are immoral. Not only that, but they've also realized that they are not like following traditional dietary rules.

Though yes, overall the New Testament does make more sense than the Old Testament.

At this point, I just want an icon captioned "O RLY?" Revelations makes more sense than Exodus? The entire concept of virgin-birth-son-of-God (which is, in any case, simply the fulfilling of a prophecy in the Jewish scriptures)-raising-the-dead-water-into-wine-resurrection makes more sense than saving-the-Egyptians-from-famine-burning-bush-escape-from-slavery-wandering-in-the-desert-warring-for-survival-among-ancient-tribes? Really?

As you can probably tell from my tone, I'm quite pissed about this. And I don't even practice the Jewish religion. Christianity is patriarchal and sexist. Accept it. Say that you don't take every word of the Bible literally. Say that you put the sexism and misogyny into historical context rather than accepting it as transcendent. But I've really had enough of this "Blame the Hebrew Scriptures" crap. Christians did not eject the Jewish scriptures from their holy texts--and that's no accident. We now know quite a lot about how the Church excluded certain gospels and included others in its effort to consolidate power. The "Old Testament" is part of what they included. It's part of your scriptures.

I swear. A few months ago, a colleague mentioned in passing that she found the term "The Old Testament" offensive when used in general, rather than Christian-specific, parlance because, hey, that testament is still current for the Jews. I shrugged it off and thought she was being over-sensitive. But after reading the way the term is being used in this thread, I'm agreeing with her. I'm mad enough to spit nails.

Oh...one more thing:

including women wearing head coverings during Mass, priest speaking in Latin with his back to the congregation, praying for the conversion of the Jews, all that lovely stuff

Actually, the current Catholic Church continues to pray for the conversion of the Jews. The current Pope just issued a new translation/version of one of the prayers making that wish quite clear. What Vatican 2 did, that these nutbars reject, is admit that, in fact, Jews did not kill Christ. Too little, too late, as far as every Jew I know is concerned (I mean, really? How many Jews died at the hands of Christians because of this crap over the past several hundred years, and now you say, oops, sorry, our mistake? Gee, thanks.), but apparently that's just too fucking conciliatory for these guys.

EG - I'm sorry you were offended by anything I said and while you are definitely entitled to your own feelings and interpretations, I think you are reading into my comments a little too much. I won't speak for what anyone else was trying to say, but I was speaking about Christianity NOT about Judaism. I don't have a very deep knowledge about Jewish beliefs, but I obviously know that they do not stone their children and keep slaves and I would NEVER imply such nonsense. I did NOT say that keeping Kosher and stoning children are the same thing - to suggest that is, frankly, a little ridiculous.

I still stand by what I said. A minister I spoke to about this did in fact did tell me that the reasons mainline Presbyterians (I won't speak for all Christians) don't believe those things is because we focus on Jesus' teachings more than what is in the OT. Since we see him as the son of God, if he didn't say it, we kind of ignore it. This is why we don't have dietary restrictions and keep slaves. I am fully aware that Jews do not keep slaves either, but I do not know the religious reason that Jews ignore those parts of the Torah while some still keep Kosher and follow other laws. Perhaps you could explain that to us.

Side note - The high school from this story's website has a FAQ section that actually says that slavery is not morally wrong!!! Ridiculous!

Lastly, I'm afraid that like it or not, the OT IS more misogynistic than the NT. That is NOT to say that Jews are more sexist than Christians, but rather explains why some Christian sects are more sexist than others, depending on their interpretation of the Bible. And you're right, Christians didn't totally drop the OT from their scripture, but in every church I've ever been to, the majority lessons and teachings are drawn from the New Testament, while the OT was used more historically. Again, I can only speak from MY experiences, not those of Catholics, Evangelicals, or any other group.

So, I am not apologizing for anything I said, but I do apologize if you misinterpreted my argument. I would never "blame Jews" for misogyny in the Bible and would never even make any statements about Judaism I don't know enough about the faith.

So, I am not apologizing for anything I said, but I do apologize if you misinterpreted my argument.

OH, don't give me this bullshit apology. It's the kind of thing that politicians employ: "I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my argument." "If." "You." You're apologizing to me for my actions? You've clearly stated that you don't think you did or said anything wrong? Then don't bother with this pseudo-apology. It's condescending crap.

I did NOT say that keeping Kosher and stoning children are the same thing - to suggest that is, frankly, a little ridiculous.

Read your sentence. You did. You put keeping kosher together with stoning children and owning slaves as things that the word of Christ has released you from doing. By writing that, you specifically allied keeping kosher with owning slaves and stoning children. Those are your words and your sentence construction--and, by the way, it's a fundamentally ridiculous argument, as Christians continued to own slaves for hundreds of years after Jesus.

But sure, God forbid you should think carefully about the history of Christian-Jewish relations and actually take those into account before you open your mouth. God forbid you should think about the ways Christians have used and abused Jewish scriptures and Jewish people. It's not like we're talking about some kind of power dynamic involving a dominant and a subordinated group that deserves careful consideration, is it?

I am fully aware that Jews do not keep slaves either, but I do not know the religious reason that Jews ignore those parts of the Torah while some still keep Kosher and follow other laws. Perhaps you could explain that to us.

Seriously? Seriously? You want me to explain to you why Jews think that keeping slaves is morally wrong? Again, talk about offensive and condescending statements: "How have you strange people come to the conclusion that owning people isn't acceptable? Surely it must be an entirely different moral process than we Christians used in arriving at the same conclusion."

Really? You think slavery is wrong because Jesus says so? Despite the fact that slaveowners in this country managed to find Christian support for their beliefs and slaves turned to the Old Testament for support? By the way, Jesus never condemned slavery--have a look at Matthew 10:24-25 and Luke 12:47. So...if Jesus had come right out and said "Hey, slavery, why not?" you'd think it was OK? That's...disturbing. Read Corinthians with respect to women and then try to tell me that the New Testament washes away all the misogyny of the Old.

In any case, no, you cannot make the claim that Biblical excuses for misogyny are part of the Old Testament and then claim that you're not blaming Jews. That's exactly what you're doing: you're off-loading the misogyny of Christianity onto the part of their scriptures that are, in fact, the Jewish scriptures. These scriptures are the basis for Judaism, the texts still studied by religious Jews. They are living texts.

Given that they also make up fully 75% of the Christian Bible, I again reject the notion that it is in any way intellectually honest for Christians to say that they aren't relevant to their religion. That's back-pedalling to an extraordinary degree. And the fact that your minister echoes these beliefs doesn't impress me in the least; Christian religious leaders don't have a history of being particularly thoughtful about how their religion uses Jews and Jewish thought.

Side note - The high school from this story's website has a FAQ section that actually says that slavery is not morally wrong!!! Ridiculous!

Indeed. And here we see the folly of claiming that this is all about the Jewish scriptures which Christians don't have to follow anymore. Jews don't claim this, despite their reliance on what you call the "Old Testament." Wacko extremist Christians make claims like this.

And oh--I'm "reading too much" into your comments.

Where have I heard that sort of thing before? Oh, I know--from every man resisting feminist analysis how his words or the words of a man he admires are perpetuating sexism.

Aware of your privilege much?

Before everyone gets too excited, finding out what actually happened might help:

http://www.americanpapist.com/2008/02/commentary-sspx-hs-refuses-to-allow.html

But hey, don't let me make the facts interrupt you.

The facts? You mean /this/, American Papist?:

"Apparently, it was reported that she couldn't ref the game because she would have authority over them. THAT IS NOT WHY. It is because the school has a policy of not playing sports with women (a ref on the basketball court is almost as involved as the players) They believe that because women are naturally weaker than men, they should be protected and treated better than men. They believe that sports diminishes the respect (due to women by virtue of their femenine nature) in the eyes of the boys"

You actually expect /that/ to help save this school's face on this site? Ahahahahahahahaha.

Anyway, EG, I was raised Christian (Presbyterian, even) and I happen to /agree/ with your points of how ridiculous it is when modern, more progressive Christians try to disown the OT and claim that the NT is totally different. If you have to deny so much of what your faith has meant to those who identified with it past and present, how do you benefit from continuing to idntify with it?

Anyway, this site is a joke in the same vein as The Onion, but I think this particular article is pretty relevant to this discussion:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/nosissy.html

I could be completely wrong on this, but it was always my understanding that with the birth of Jesus, a new covenant was made, rendering the OT rules and whatnot null for Christians, but that it is included as a historical text. That's what I was taught at my Catholic grade school, junior high, and high school, and was part of many discussions at my Jesuit college.

That doesn't make the institution of Catholocism or Christianity less misogynist or anything, I just thought I'd throw it out there.

Anyway, the one thing I'd like to ask of other posters here (and I mean this in completely good faith, no sarcasm or anything): What do you want from me? As a Christian feminist, it's really hard to hear so much vitriol directed at Christians, especially when we're called out for hypocrisy by the women I consider to be my allies. At the same time, I don't want to argue, because I understand it. Christians have caused women and others a lot of pain, and the anger is not misplaced, and it's utterly justified.

But when I try to explain (only when asked) that I don't subscribe to the beliefs that women are less, nor do I pay attention to scripture that isn't the word of Christ Himself (Sermon on the Mount for instance, parables about the Good Samaritan and the woman who was not stoned), I'm told that I'm not Christian then, or asked why I even bother calling myself Christian. For me, Christianity is the worship of Christ, which I do. And I try to live my life the way Christ did or would, which is with complete respect for other people and active work to try to better the world. I'm trying to get a job at a women's crisis center, I'm an environmentalist, and clearly a feminist. All of these are fed into by what I believe and admire and aspire to in Christ.

Regardless, that isn't enough for many other people, and I honestly want to know what do you want from me or other feminist Christians when you ask these questions? I know that the Church is awful. I don't go. I admire the women who have been ordained (and subsequently excommunicated) so much. They are serious revolutionaries as far as I'm concerned. But just like there are many different kinds of feminists (pro and anti-porn for instance), and we (hopefully) don't demand that some feminists stop calling themselves that, why would someone who isn't Christian demand that I not call myself Christian just b/c I don't fit their experience of what Christians are?

What can I do? Is it better if I simply don't enter into the discussion? There's nothing I can do to ameliorate the experiences you have, and I feel like Christian feminists end up bearing the brunt of your anger b/c we're the ones willing to talk about it, but I feel useless in the face of these conversations, b/c nothing I say is ever satisfying, and I feel terrible that other people caused so much pain in the name of someone who never would have (Christ).

I'm not meaning this to sound like a poor-me rant, I really don't know what I can do to make things better, or what is it that you're looking for when you ask questions.

Well personally, kissmypineapple, I think at least saying that you have your own beliefs in which Christianity isn't __X__ (sexist, whatever) is at least honest. Same thing with your beliefs about Christ. Because other people can read the "histories" and come up with very different interpretations of what exactly Christ wanted. (Like the link I provided above)

For me personally, it's really only the people who try to argue that Christianity as an entity /isn't/ sexist (or whatever) that I think are silly, since everyone seems to have their own interpretation of it, and it's certainly possible to get sexist interpretations out of it.

I don't understand the appeal of calling oneself Christian, personally, when one disagrees with a lot of historical (and even some modern) mainstream Christian beliefs, but hey, I guess that's up to the individual. I find it much more empowering, personally, to explore other religions for which I identify much more with most of the philosophy/beliefs (like Wicca or other alternative more earth-centered, equality of the sexes religions)...

AmericanPapist, you have seriously got to be kidding me? You accuse Feministing of getting the facts wrong, which is, as far as I can tell, not even a sure thing [based on biased, basically anonymous sources?]. Then you link to an article that spouts just as much gender discrimination [and arguably more- women are WEAKER than men? She's an adult, they're teenagers. And she's obviously been deemed fit to be a ref by a non-freaky, non-biased organization....unlike this crazed school.]and expect that to explain away the situation. Not a chance.

kissmypineapple - I totally know EXACTLY what you mean. I feel the same way myself. I mean, I'm completely a progressive liberal who goes to a progressive church, and yet somehow, whenever I mention ANYTHING about my faith, I'm smacked down! And like you, I don't go around telling people I'm Christian and I don't even go to church that much anymore. I understand other people may have had bad experiences at a church, but I have NEVER been exposed to hateful language at church and, if I had, I wouldn't go! And I also love when I'm told by non-Christians that I'm not a Christian because I don't believe every word of the Bible. That's awesome.

I guess I'm torn b/c on the one hand my faith is super personal and I don't like going around talking about (and getting shot down by people whenever I do), but I also feel like it's important to show that there are non-crazy Christians and that all churches aren't sexist. I guess my experiences with some commentators here confirm that it's probably best to just not say anything at all - too many people are just looking for arguments and refuse to consider alternate viewpoints. :(

I said, "Though yes, overall the New Testament does make more sense than the Old Testament." Now I'm trying to remember what I was thinking when I said that. I can't say objectively that one makes more sense than the other but that when read some of what Jesus said can be related to our lives more than what is written in the OT. Anyway, I can't speak for others but when reading the OT, there was more of a question of "what can I do with all this information?" and "Why did God do this or that?" I certainly don't see how one is any more or less sexist than the other though.

"I really don't know what I can do to make things better, or what is it that you're looking for when you ask questions."

Eh, what you said sounds good. I agree with the argument somewhere above about how we all belong to our country, which is sexist and patriarchal, but most of us don't leave it though we are perfectly capable. Why would it be so different for people who feel a strong connection to their religion? If you don't have a religion, would you easily join one?

I'm on exchange in Sweden from Canada. No where is perfect but for example, here I see fathers with children possibly more than mothers, I've heard about fantastic sex-ed, equal numbers in politics, etc etc. but so far I don't plan on moving here. Change is big.

lyndorr,

Some of us idealists do plan to move out of the U.S. eventually, partially do to political reasons (yes, I mean me)... As it is I have lived in various regions of the country, and have found my life in say, San Francisco to be far better than existence in the bible belt...

But anyway, I'd argue what religion you identify with is a far smaller change than relocating to another country geographically. Changing religion is more like... changing political party affiliation, in my mind. Sure, I know people who choose not to change their party affiliation, even when a lot of their beliefs match the other party's... but well, I don't really "get" that either. It's just a personal thing, I guess. I feel like people -at least people who know something about a variety of religions, know more about me in a meaningful way if I say that I'm interested in Wicca, than if I said I was Christian (which is how I was baptized as an infant)

Well sure, I can see how changing religion could be a smaller change than moving to another country. Still, it seems like it's seen as easier to leave a religion than adopt one. Would you expect a person to easily become Christian? Of course not. If religion is a way of life and most things in a religion are agreed with, it still seems a bigger change than people acknowledge to change or let go of religion.

Where do you hope to move to? When I was quite young I would wonder why people don't just move when they are unsatisfied with where they are living, if there is somewhere better. Then I realized it would take a lot of dissatisfaction for me to leave my country, particularly if I had to learn another language. I admire those who do. Like two Greek girls I know who are learning Swedish so that they can get their degree here where tuition is free. Tuition is free in Greece too but education is terrible they said.

"I guess my experiences with some commentators here confirm that it's probably best to just not say anything at all - too many people are just looking for arguments and refuse to consider alternate viewpoints. :("

Sorry, but I just can't let that slide, since it seems directed at EG, after that exchange between the two of you. I have been around this site for a couple years now, and while I don't literally "know" her, I am quite serious when I say EG is probably the last person I would ever describe as "looking for an argument" or "refusing to consider alternate viewpoints." She is cautious, fair, reasoned, and *damn* informed, consistently. Like, ridiculously informed! Makes me ashamed of myself, frequently!

For all of us, things get intensely personal now and again, but that doesn't make a heated or taking-to-task response any less valid - in fact, it makes it more so. Not taking EG's comment seriously is *perfectly* analogous (as she said) to a man not taking a woman seriously when she identifies something as sexist or misogynist based on her LIVED UNDERSTANDING of those systems of discrimination and oppression, and her well-honed ability to identify markers of it that are both blatant and subtle. EG is not being overly sensitive or reactive, she is calling your attention to something important - important to anyone, but damn important to a feminist - or so it should be. We *all* have to be open to stuff being pointed out; we ALL make mistakes based on our privilege and lack of awareness / understanding of other cultures, religions, and what have you. If *we* as feminists can't hear that feedback and self-reflect, there really is no hope for anyone else, don't you think?

Charity - I'm sorry, I did NOT find EG's response to me to be reasonable or well-thought-out. Perhaps her other posts have been - I don't follow her comments. It's not that she disagreed with me or questioned me on something, but the way she twisted my words made me say she was looking for an argument and her tone effectively shut down any reasonable, calm conversation. Her first comment was definitely valid, and I tried to address her issue with my comment while making it clear that it was not my intention to imply anything about other religions, and gave her the opportunity to explain something about her own faith. Perhaps it's just a pitfall of internet communications, but she responded to me as if I was trying to be a huge asshole or something, even though my response was truly genuine.

While I did welcome her first response as pointing out an issue with my reasoning, even though I felt that my comments were misread, I can't even respond to her second comment because it is so inflammatory and accusatory. Ayla, on the other hand, disagreed with me and some others on a few points, but never responded to me in such a tone.

Anyway, on some other feminist sites I post on, the conversation has digressed in a similar way when the topic of religion has come up. It really upsets me that even in socially progressive circles so many people lose their heads over the topic of religion.

Some of the recent posts on feministing have made me very grateful that I'm not from a more conservative area. I went to a Catholic school from 3rd through 8th grade and I hated it, but the people that ran my school were not bigots. We always had female P.E. teachers and both boys and girls were encouraged to succeed.

Not many stories on here make me want to comment - I'm mostly a lurker - but this story... I just couldn't let it go by.

I'm the daughter of a "recovering Catholic" and crap like this (although I know that this particular group isn't a part of the Church), is exactly why my mother calls herself a recovering Catholic.

And my favorite quote on the FAQ website? "The Church has always been, historically, a great defender of woman."

Yeah. If that's the defense I'm getting, I'd rather take care of things on my own, thankyouverymuch.

Faith is not the same thing as reason. Attempting to understand another person's faith by way of one's own reasoning processes invites misunderstanding.

I am convinced that this conversation, as controversial and impassioned as it is, is important. I have little to add, but I thank those of you who have been willing to ask hard questions and attempt difficult answers (as well as point out how one person's experientially-innocuous expression of her faith can cause another to feel targeted and marginalized -- I SO get this).

I do not understand how people reconcile their faith with their feminism. Because this is a very personal subject, and prone to backfiring, I do not often get opportunities to learn about it.

I feel bad for the girls at the school, but at least the other (male) referee walked off with her.

In regards to the Bible/New Testament sexism and feminism:

I, like, Ninapendamaishi, would tend to describe myself as "wiccan," "a nature/goddess worshiper" or something of the like.

I was brought up Christian. My mother was a Christian until she died (my Catholic father says he saw Saint Peter with a sword as she ascended to heaven!) and my godmother would also identify as Christian (although her church uses the term "Godde" so it can be interpreted as either God or Goddess -- very cool).

But, I do personally feel that there is a lot of sexism in the New Testament/Church teachings that can't be "cancelled out" by Jesus and personally have trouble seperating the chaff from the wheat.

Examples that make me feel like vomiting in my mouth:

1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2:9 - 15
9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

And this isn't the worst of them even.

I'm not trying to make anyone feel defensive or that they can't be christian and feminist, I like EG and others just think it is IMPORTANT for Christian Feminists to be aware and working to change sexist beliefs in the church.

I think Catholics for Free Choice is a great organization that does that, for example.

I think there is a place for changing things WITHIN the church. I just am too disgusted by the sexism and it is bad for my self-esteem to actually engage with organized religion myself.

I do think it is interesting that the Timothy passage I posted (which is in the New Testament) seems to be the one the school used to discriminate against the female ref!

(Sorry for the long post :(

priestess -

Ok this is going to be my last post on this thread because I'm going to yoga and can't keep getting fired up by reading other people's comments (not referring to yours at all, just the whole convo has gotten a little too heated for me).

Personally, the reason that I don't "own up" to sexism in the Bible is because I have never been to a church that espoused these views. If I sat in church and was told that I should submit to my husband, stay silent in church or dress modestly, I definitely would not go back! I don't identify at ALL with Christian groups that teach this, so I can't like, explain it or accept it. My experiences with churches have been the exact opposite, so I guess I resent being lumped into the same group as more right-wing groups. And I know from an outside perspective it's easy to say, "Well it's in the Bible, which is your scripture", but I guess I've just never had it presented to me in that sense.

As I said before, I go to church and hear the pastor like, read the story of Jesus preventing a woman from being stoned and then discuss how we shouldn't judge others, for we all make mistakes. Or read about Jesus hanging out with lepers and then talk about how volunteering our time with people different from us helps us see the humanity in everyone. I know one doesn't need to go to a Christian church, or ANY house of worship, to agree with these ideals, but for me, I find a lot of peace in hearing this when I do go to church (which really isn't very often.)

So, I guess when you say that Christian feminists like myself should be aware of sexism in the Bible and work to change it within our churches, I run into a wall, because my church doesn't teach that, you know? The pastor focuses on the things that actually matter, like generosity, acceptance, forgiveness, nonjudgement, etc. And like I said, if I went to a church that DID try to oppress me, I'd leave and never come back. And if I lived somewhere where these types of churches were the only option, I would probably migrate away from the faith entirely. Perhaps I've been lucky in that I've been able to find churches whose teachings align with my social values.

Priestesssarah, I understand what you're saying, and I know many people here are being as diplomatic as they possibly can be, but this is exactly what I'm talking about:

I'm not trying to make anyone feel defensive or that they can't be christian and feminist, I like EG and others just think it is IMPORTANT for Christian Feminists to be aware and working to change sexist beliefs in the church.

It seems like non-Christian feminists assume that Christian feminists *don't* know how sexist the bible and church is. I do! I swear I do! And it's treated like I'm just totally okay with that. But I'm not, and I do work to change things. For me, that starts with the attitudes of my fellow Christians. I will not be able to change what was written by a bunch of dead men a thousand years ago. I can not overthrow the Pope. I can, however, live my faith the way I believe in my soul that Christ wanted his followers to live. He did not write the bible. So, I have no problem separating him from scripture.

It's like non-Christian feminists honestly believe that I live in some fantasy bubble with my Christianity. That I'm not trying hard enough or that I don't know about the abuses of the church. But why should I give up my faith, which is founded only in the life of Christ, and not what the human people around him have done in his name? Why should I give something up that has strengthened my resolve to work for the betterment of our world? For the betterment of women's lives? Just because there are people who call themselves Christian who do evil things? I should just let them win that way?

Since you don't personally know me, and can't know what I actively do to change the way Christianity is lived out, and since I can't overthrow the pope or bishops or stomp in to the vatican tearing the bible apart and rewriting it myself, what do you want from me? Isn't it enough to know that there are Christians who *are* feminist and are advancing feminist ideals? That you have Christian allies, just as you have allies from other communities? That I, as a Christian, believe unendingly in the equity of women? That I am just as thoroughly disgusted as you are with the Church's actions throughout history? That I don't believe a word of the bible that doesn't espouse equality and love and service to others?

I know that I can't change the minds or experiences of others here and I don't want to. EG, and others, I know that your anger is justified. But just as the criticisms from unenlightened Christians will never force me to give up feminism, I won't be giving up my faith anytime soon either. They are inseparable for me.

(And BabyPanda, you really ought to go back and read many of EG's posts. They are impeccable! She, along with SarahMC are the two women I look up to around here, and she rarely loses her shit about anything, so when she does, it's safe to say that she's not just picking a fight.

MyBabyPanda-

I live in the Bible Belt, so there are few churches that “align with my social values.� The churches in my area that I have been to did seem oppressive, so I didn’t go back (I don’t think we are that different in that regard, really).

I see how a positive, non-sexist church could help a person integrate their Christianity and feminism more than sitting alone with a Bible would, but sadly, I’ve had more experience with the latter.

Kissmypineapple-

My post was not directed at you personally. I was not trying to imply that you were unaware of the sexism in the Bible or that you were not working to change the minds and hearts of other Christians. And I certainly would never want anyone to give up their faith. I don’t want anything from you, but dialogue. :)

I am proud of you for being a Christian and a feminist and so articulate about both. I am glad to have you as an ally.

Both of you-
Thank you for responding to my post. I hope that I didn’t offend either of you. My first message was in response to some comments by other posters I saw earlier in the thread that I took as implying that all the misogyny and sexism in the Bible that we should be worried about was located in the Old Testament, which was canceled out by Jesus/the more “liberal� New Testament. I was only trying to point out some problems that I have with the New Testament.

Charity, kmp, Nina,

Thank you so much for vouching for me! I was actually so angry that I needed to shut down my computer and walk away for a couple of days; sometimes it just feels as though too many people in the US no longer think of being Jewish as being part of a subordinated group living in the country of a very large, very dominant, and rather hostile dominant group. I know that it's nothing like what black people in this country endure, but it is nonetheless something that figures into every part of one's lived experience.

Personally, I would never ask a Christian feminist to give up her religion--it just doesn't make sense to me. If her religion is an important part of her life and it brings her comfort, and she's not hurting anybody, who am I to make such a demand? And why should I? It's not a problem for me. As a Jew, I am particularly aware of the threat that Christians have historically posed to Jews, but I know too many kind, feminist, Christian women whom I respect and admire to confuse my allies with such anti-semites.

Which is exactly why I lost my shit on finding those kind of comments on a feminist website where I usually find my allies. I live in NYC and have taken pains to lead the kind of life in which Judaism is considered normal--and I have still encountered anti-semitism, and so have my friends. Sadly, it is by no means a dead prejudice, and I think that too often it is treated as such in mainstream culture.

Lyndorr,

I really appreciate your clarification of your comment, and saying that you have always found the words of the New Testament to be more personally relevant to you is of course a very different thing indeed--though of course I am sure you know that there are many people whose experience is quite different. The few times I have been to synagogue (usually for family events), I have been surprised at the way that Jews continue to wrestle with and find meaning in the Torah and its accreted glosses, commentaries, and debates. Everyone phrases things poorly sometimes; I really do appreciate you taking the time to clarify what you meant.

"The few times I have been to synagogue (usually for family events), I have been surprised at the way that Jews continue to wrestle with and find meaning in the Torah and its accreted glosses, commentaries, and debates."

In my comment, I also tried to say that I can see how the opinion that the NT "makes more sense" even for non-Christians can have to do with how we've grown up in a Christian-based society so even if we haven't gone to church and whatnot, the NT "makes more sense" to most because of the background we have. I didn't say this because I couldn't form the words but I think you know what I mean.

I do know what you mean--certainly, any familiarity I have with the New Testament is a result of being a reader, and reading English-language literature means learning New Testament stories and references. But on the other hand...while the culture forces a certain familiarity, I haven't actually seen in practice non-Christians feeling a more immediate kinship with the New Testament than the Old. But, y'know, people's experiences are different.

Triskelion, you are correct. This same team in 2004 forfeited a football game because the other team had a female player.

In this case, however, it was a female employee (referee) of Kansas State High School Activities Association a nonprofit/private group that is at issue. Why would that group would grant St. Mary's request, to me, is the larger question. Although private this group receives public money indirectly through the public schools it serves through its various programs.

Why didn't St. Mary's just forfeit again? Would it be because then the male coaches would be under female authority? hummm?

Although I have appreciated the comments distinguishing the differences within Catholism I am more concerned that KSHSAA allowed the discrimination.

This is an excellent example of religious bullying. And like all bullies, St. Mary's should not be catered to. KSHSAA owes an apology to the referees, to the schools and their students, and to the taxpayers for a grievous lack of judgement in allowing this to become an issue at all.