I was reading an article called Vatican Assails Feminism and I found a few of the passages interesting:



Now, I'll start by saying I completely disagree with the Pope's position, but it does raise a few questions in my mind that I don't really have answers to. As an interesting aside it appears the pope is indirectly blaming feminism for homosexuality, which is patently absurd.

Questions for debate:
1. How would you define equality of the sexes? Do you think we are there yet, or do we have a long way to go according to your definition?

2. Do you agree or disagree with the Vatican's position that men and women are fundamentally different and they each have a "place" (for women that is in the home with the family)? Why or why not?

1. How would you define equality of the sexes? Do you think we are there yet, or do we have a long way to go according to your definition?

the opportunity to be whatever you are actually able to be (not whatever you want to be), without having to be helped all the time, and without unduly infringing on the rights or safety of others.

2. Do you agree or disagree with the Vatican's position that men and women are fundamentally different and they each have a "place" (for women that is in the home with the family)? Why or why not?

I believe that women are better at the nurturing aspect of parenthood, but I also believe that we men can learn it. We can't, however, give birth or breastfeed.
I don't think the Pope or any other religious leader should be dictating these kinds of things. Denying people their free agency goes against what I think the important parts of the scriptures say, those parts being the actual teachings of Christ as found in the 4 gospels. I would exclude Paul's teachings in a lot of areas.

This definition describes it best for me:
Entry: lib·er·ty
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French liberté, from Latin libertat-, libertas, from liber free -- more at LIBERAL
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

I believe we are pretty close to being there as a society, in regards to our laws and civil rights. Where I see much room for improvement still, lies in our personal perceptions of women/the way we view and treat woman on an interpersonal level. I believe the only way to combat this level of sexism is in the family unit, as more enlightened men and woman rear their male and female children as equals our society will finally make the real shift to equality of the sexes. When the concept of the "prodigal son" becomes the "prodigal child" we will have achieved equality. I believe we have come along way though still have a ways to go.



For some reason I venture to guess that they are not just pointing out the biological differences, So NO I do not agree. As to woman having their place in society, well maybe in the days of hunter/gathers, I might have seen their point, though their position being expressed in this day and age, just makes them look like a bunch of fossils, sitting in a celibate gilded cage Come on! Woman have contributed nothing to society, therefore ya better all get home and do the dishes, please would one of them pick up a newspaper and get a clue. I will say that such press releases do little for Vatican PR

Hmmm, I tried reading the entire text of the papal letter in question, in order to try and gather a sense of just exactly what it is that the Vatican is trying to say. If anyone else is interested, they can find the full text here:

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1201

The piece draws heavily from quoted scripture and seems to be relying on it heavily for the underlying basis of the "argument," if it could be construed as such. As a result, if you place a lot of faith in scripture, you might find it convincing, whereas if you don't, you'll probably find it unpersuasive.

Here is one excerpt I thought I might share:

As a Catholic, I tolerate the gender prescriptions by the Church, because I do not want to be a priest (any more than I want to be President). I do not agree with all of the pronouncements, but the Catholic Church is still better than Protestant Fundamentalism, which is remarkably similar to the Taliban in some cases.

I was told at Bob Jones University back in the 1970s that since my (then) husband was only taking a non-degree, ministerial certificate program, that it would be wrong for me to get a bachelor's degree in education. I would be placing myself "above [my] husband, and he would resent [me]." I did not pursue an education there.

Society needs to continue striving for gender equality, especially in the courts and in the work force.

But in this country, religion is (for me, anyway) a voluntary exercise. I will leave the struggle to more vigorous women who are dedicated to changing the Church. If (or when) the Church becomes too constricting for me, I will vote with my feet.

(Edited to add: I am happily married to my soul-mate (different husband). He has never tried to hold me back, and he is my greatest support regarding furthering my education. I recognize that many, many, people don't have it that good. )

I've read the man is the head of the family and similar dysphemisms, but suggesting one sex is supposed to be dominated is new to me. Instead of "revealing" how bold feminism has grown over the years the pope inadvertently reaffirms the need for political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. Has the old chap been sneaking John Norman books into his study? Ezra wasn't appointed to deliver her people, Deborah the prophetess wasn't asked to join a warlord, and God didn't deliver the enemy to Sisera so she could drive a tent peg through his head with a hammer because there was a shortage of men in the vicinity.

How would you define equality of the sexes?

Shorthand answer: equal rights, opportunities and responsibilities.

Do you think we are there yet, or do we have a long way to go according to your definition?

I think we're close to there, in law if not in practice. The attitudes brought from abroad by immigrants are hardest to shake. One of my favorites is "she's paid less because she's a woman."

Do you agree or disagree with the Vatican's position that men and women are fundamentally different and they each have a "place" (for women that is in the home with the family)? Why or why not?

I'll agree men and women are different, not fundamentally different and therefore unequal. Reserving the home for women is like reserving the workplace for men. Stereotypes are burdensome, boxes men and women into roles they may not want. It invites jeering like: "You stay home to take care of kids? What kind of man are you!" I've no problem with traditional homemakers. I've a problem with prescribing one-size-fits-all gender roles.

1. How would you define equality of the sexes? Do you think we are there yet, or do we have a long way to go according to your definition?
I would say if the sexes do what they want, have the relationship they want, and are happy then there is equality. If one is told that they have to partake in a particular role because of their gender then that would be sexist. As long as the roles are chosen then all is good. In this country I think we are pretty close to my definition. Although there may be a few bad apples (cough cough Adam) that want women to accept their place as subservient, I think those are becoming fewer and farther between.

2. Do you agree or disagree with the Vatican's position that men and women are fundamentally different and they each have a "place" (for women that is in the home with the family)? Why or why not?
No, first I am not a very religious person and was not raised Roman Catholic so I tend to not really pay attention when the Pope speaks. When reading this thread I kept thinking of "Girls Rule, Boys Drool" and wondered if the Pope felt the same way? Honestly if the Vatican wants to keep women bare foot, pregnant, and in the kitchen then that is their purgative. Just don't expect me to be running to convert nor as Azure said, expect me to be persuaded.

edit to remove a word that was opposite what i meant! Oh dear!
2nd edit: Oh my Oh my, per Daffy's request another blunder (purgative) will remain as I think I subconsciously meant it that way.

1.How would you define equality of the sexes? Do you think we are there yet, or do we have a long way to go according to your definition?

When men and women are offered the same educational opportunities, are represented equally in government, earn the same salary for the same work, “traditional” men’s and women’s roles are valued equally, reproductive rights are fully recognized, then maybe we will be closer to true equality. Yes, we have a long way to go, but we have also come a long way. But other countries seem to be much more active in pursuing the goal of gender equality than America; the European Union has created a charter that "Equality between men and women must be ensured in all areas.". The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)’s defines their mission this way:


Search for “gender equality” on Google, and not one US site (about the US) comes up on the first two pages. Sixteen countries (14 in EU, Australia and New Zealand) granted women the right to vote before the US did.

But August 26 is Women’s Equality Day here in America, celebrating the 84th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote.

2.Do you agree or disagree with the Vatican's position that men and women are fundamentally different and they each have a "place" (for women that is in the home with the family)? Why or why not?

No, I absolutely do NOT agree with the Vatican and their out-of-touch, archaic notions of a woman’s “place”.

I found this interesting site with quotes from a book titled "The War Against Women" that has some very interesting facts about the origins of the Church’s mission to keep women "in their place."



Being a wordsmith, I had to do this: I love the misspelling in this sentence, because it is so apropos!!! Purgative:Tending to cleanse or purge, especially causing evacuation of the bowels.

P.S. I think you meant "prerogative", but please don't change it!!

Freedom to pursue goals, without barriers based on gender. Freedom from
discrimination based on gender. Basically, the mere freedom to be who and
what we want to be, despite our physical anatomy.



We have reached equality "on paper," perhaps. But, in our personal thoughts,
beliefs, etc. I think we have some work to do.



When it comes to the Vatican, and the Catholic Church, as an
organization, I have little respect and/or agreement with any stance they take.
They have messed up this world in a huge way, but that's for another debate, altogether.

It is in the best interest of children to be primarily cared for by their moms,
in the first few years of life. Being a stay-at-home mom may not be glamorous
and exciting, but it is the most important job a woman could ever have.

If the job of child-rearing were valued more, maybe women wouldn't be
so compelled to enter the work-force to compete for recognition and a sense of self-worth.

Agreed.

The institution of which we speak has had some pretty peculiar ideas about women. For a while, men thought women did not possess souls but were more like domesticated animals, so there has been progress, but not as much as I would desire.

I belong to the Church because of its teachings about Jesus Christ, not its attitudes about women. I value its teachings about the dignity of humankind, the message of redemption, and the importance of living according to the Golden Rule.

However, I do not expect the male priests to understand the full nature of women. As a matter of fact, I don't think the Church grasps the importance of men being able to "be fruitful and multiply" as evidenced by their insistence that priests remain celibate. Married priests would not be a problem for me.

The institution is striving to preserve tradition in much the same way as historical societies try to preserve and restore pieces of architecture. It is the uniqueness and historicity of the structures that make them all the more important to retain.

To many, the Church is an anachronism, but it provides a choice for those who do not agree with modern attitudes and practices and who desire a simpler, more devout way to live.

My definition of equality of the sexes is strictly legal. Equal protection and equal freedoms under the law.

We have a long way to go as a society, but I do see civil law as coming more to the notion of equality. A woman runs HP; many other companies have female officers. A woman could run for President. Still, it's a statistical reality that women generally earn less than men in the same kinds of positions, and it's unlikely that a woman will be President for some years to come.

Socially speaking, I see what's happening as a zigg-zaggy movement forward. Still, it's a moving forward.



I not only believe men and women have fundamental differences, I know this to be a true fact! [The crowd gasps in astonishment.]

And I don't need any religious leader who has never shared bedroom, bathroom, vehicle, or closet with the opposite sex to tell me this. Some of this might be cultural, such as a particular man's inability to discern a lived-in patina from dirt, or a particular woman's inability to understand the draw of BBQ smokers.

Women and men have obviously different hormones and drives, or so it has been my experience. Whether these hormones and drives naturally lead to set family roles I do think is up to question. I mean, do most women want to grind corn because it makes them feel like real women? Do most men want to kill big animals to feel like real men?

Or do we as a species change roles quite a bit, and this ability has resulted in our success?

I don't agree with the Pope. What roles we land upon in the family depend on the circumstances in which the family finds itself. It also depends on the strengths and weaknesses of all involved. Family is a pretty darn big thing even with just one parent and one child. The more family members added, the more complex things get.

The Pope might as well ask all us men to simply go back to working for the same outfit for 40 years, like we did back in the Pope's youth. Or how about heading back to the family farm like we did in the Pope's father's youth?

The Pope -- and really all religions -- need to face the facts of modern life. Things change and change very quickly. They ain't slowing down. Oftentimes you neither get what you want or need.

Honestly. I wish we could go back to family farms. I'd love to drive a tractor and keep it running -- makes me feel like a real man. It's not going to happen.

I have my problems with the church but trying to preserve the traditional family is not one of them. When the Catholic Church was really picking up steam an getting powerful it started a movement to convert pagans. They pushed a campaign to destroy the ideas of the sacred feminine in which they were cherished as life bringers and the essence of beauty. Woman were to blame for original sin. Words like sister derived from the root of the word sinister and so forth.

Our last effort to put woman where they belong.. on a pedestal.. is long dead. Of course I'm speaking of chivalry. You can thank the feminist for that one ladies...

I have friends that don't repress their motherly instincts and want only to stay home and cook and take care of the kids. These girls are ridiculed by their other more self righteous and independent girls daily.

The female in almost all species are the nurturers. Women have been for thousands of years.


I'm not against woman working or being being in a public office. I'd vote for Connie Rice in a heartbeat. I do however think that the transition has been too quick and drastic and that the it's the families an the children that are suffering.

It's not that they aren't as smart or motivated or whatever. We all know they are. No one is going to argue that. What I will argue however, is that they are more companionate and nurturing and understanding then any man could ever be. It's not social its biological.

I don't object to women working. It's the stigma associated in the label of House Wife. It's the death of chivalry. It's the apathy for raising you're own children. It's the deterioration of our most important tradition, family.

I define equality as not being held to pre-conceived ideas about what roles you may have based on genitalia; being allowed the freedom to be who you are and not pigeon-holed into stereo-typed roles. Not being restricted in what I can do due to gender. Being able to earn equal pay for equal work. Being seen as a human first and not as body parts.

We have come a long way, at least here in the western world. We still have a long way to go, and currently we are dealing with a lot of backlash which slows down the process and even sends it back a few steps. I think we'll get there some day, but not likely in my lifetime.



I'm the perfect example of why this is archaic hogwash:

At the moment I'm doing the stay-at-home mom thing -- not because I am more nurturing than my husband, but because he was earning more than I was at the time I had our baby. We both decided that we didn't want our child put in daycare until at least the age of 2,and there's the added convenience of being able to breast feed full time if I'm at home.

Our plans when she reaches the age of two are for me to go to work full time and my husband to work part time so he can spend more time raising our daughter.

My husband is much more nurturing with our daughter than I am.

My husband enjoys housework, I do not.

I like to go out and do things, my husband is much happier at home than going out all the time.

It makes more sense that I go out in the world to work and he spends more time raising our daughter. He is more suited to it. Our personalities that are at odds with the typical gender roles that society wants to foist on us, and we are far from alone -- I know several people who would not fit into these stereotyped family roles.

If the stereo-typers had their way, we would both be unhappy not being able to do the things we want.

I think it's basically a cop-out. It's easier to say that group A is better suited to one thing and group B the other instead of looking at how different each individual is. It's easily embraced by those that think in terms of "black and white" when our personalities, dreams and needs are rainbow-colored.

I also think it's an easy blame for the pope -- and very misguided. Homosexuality has existed from the beginning of time. Feminism (other than some matriarchal societies) is a relatively new phenomenon that has nothing to do with it.

1. How would you define equality of the sexes? Do you think we are there yet, or do we have a long way to go according to your definition?

When, on average, a woman is in the White House about half the time, and when, half the time on average, the CEO of any given company is female, and when half, more or less, of my representatives are female, I'll think we're there.

2. Do you agree or disagree with the Vatican's position that men and women are fundamentally different and they each have a "place" (for women that is in the home with the family)? Why or why not?

I disagree. I think it's like saying whites are fundamentally different from every other race. It's like saying asians have a 'place' in the sciences, african americans have a 'place' in sports, and Jews have a 'place' in banking. It's just as bigoted and stupid to me as that.


I'm terrible with kids, while a very male friend of mine is great with them.

1. How would you define equality of the sexes? Do you think we are there yet, or do we have a long way to go according to your definition?

Well, I guess I would like to see the world definition of equality the same as the actual equality between me and my wife- we have different abilities and plumbing (viva la difference! ) but we play to each others strenghts. I am a horrible record keeper, but an awesome money manager. I am more patient with my kids, but can't breast feed (WHEN will they make a pill to let us do that- not for any other reason than practicality- I think God flubbed this one, we would
BOTH get more sleep if we just could both breast feed dammit! LOL)

Equality would be when you look at individual strenghts and are gender neutral when making decisions on ability.

I think, as a culture, we, as Americans have an enormous way to go. For all the talk about womens rights, there is no equal discussion/debate on men's rights- for all that women are (wrongly so) treated as pure sex objects in our society- men are treated as success objects (and wrongly so) - now- I KNOW this is a generalization that doesn't apply to many folks- but I think equality will begin when men stop totally focusing on a womans but for shape, and a woman stops paying attention solely to his wallet (also, on his butt interestly enough )


2. Do you agree or disagree with the Vatican's position that men and women are fundamentally different and they each have a "place" (for women that is in the home with the family)? Why or why not?

I think that IGNORING the biological differences between women and men is silly and asinine- but we, as humans, can overcome our biology and physical/hormonal constraints when we try. This is what makes us uniquely human.

The pope is SOOOOOO dead wrong as to "feminism" taking the mother out of the home- to those who are Catholic, I apologize- but, WHAT A MORON- they are out working because they will lose thier home if they don't!

Women joined the workforce, not by choice, but by neccesity. If the Pope wants to adress homemakers- he should give ol' GW a call and ask him how the economy is doing!