'Sexy' Vatican video hits sour note in attempt to include women

[pnewton]

And you know what I consider belittling and demeaning when the Bishop of Rome gives out these little gems. … It is disheartening for me to hear that in the 21st century that the Catholic Church still doesn’t support professional women and subtly pressures women to remain at home and have large families.

You are reading into this something that does not exist. Men who work also are critical to the family, yet you don’t hear them complaining that they feel demeaned ever time the importance of fatherhood is mentioned.

The Catholic Church is not making stuff up. If you do not believe this, then your issues go far deeper than feminist issues. The theology of the body is a discernment of object reality as revealed by God. Again, if you feel God has demeaned you by making you a woman, then your problems run deep. The Catholic Church supports women receiving equal dignity. This means valuing their role, not only at home, but also in the work place, the right to equal pay, and the right to work without harassment.

I am hoping that you are not seeing one side, that is, reading into what is not said something you think is meant, because of any feelings of guilt. If so, realize it is not the Church, but usually people in one’s life that brings pressure to bear on one to conform to some stereotype. Again, this is not exclusive to women. Most people have to deal with such pressures from time to time. God does not call all women to the role of mother, just as all men are not called to be fathers.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

And you know what I consider belittling and demeaning when the Bishop of Rome gives out these little gems.

We cannot forget the irreplaceable role of women in the family,” the Pope said. “The qualities of gentleness, of particular sensitivity and tenderness, which is abundant in the female soul, represent not only a genuine force for the life of families, for the irradiation of a climate of peace and harmony, but also a reality without which the human vocation would be unfeasible.

So what part of this is so terrible a thing to say about women? They they are gentle and sensitive and tender? That the nature of women’s souls is not good for families? That women are not capable of irradiating a climate of peace and harmony – isn’t that something we need to offset the testosterone-driven male ogres that cause wars and other violence?

What do you want women to be? Angry and mean? That’s what they accuse men of being. Why are some women angry when portrayed as being different than those they scorn – and having attributes that actually make them very holy? :whacky:

This is what has gone wrong with feminism. It’s no longer about equality – it’s about trying to “out-man” men or something. I really don’t know but I got quite a dose of it in last semester’s developmental psych class. One mainstream feminist actually believes it is an “act of terror” to instruct a young woman on how to stay out of dangerous situations, because first of all it’s telling her she’s in a world where she has to be afraid of men, and second of all it’s easier for men to “make it the woman’s fault” by giving them that information, rather then just becoming better men. Because if we say a woman shouldn’t get drunk and go naked behind a rowdy sports bar at one in the morning, and she end up getting attacked, then we “blame the victim” rather than the attacker. Seriously. It is “misogynistic” to tell women how to avoid dangerous situations. This is what’s being promoted and I hope you don’t support it.

I support “equity” feminists; I actively oppose “gender” or “victim” feminists which are generally the loudest and most quoted, and IMO do not speak for very many women at all. I use the terms as defined by Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, Ph.D. in her book Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women

My wife more than lives up to these characteristics, but then again she married a “man” so right there she made herself a victim, I suppose, and I’m just projecting all this on her.

MS

Edit: just thought of this question: is it the idea of women being part of a “family” that is the problem?

 

[sttcatherinefan]

You are reading into this something that does not exist. Men who work also are critical to the family, yet you don’t hear them complaining that they feel demeaned ever time the importance of fatherhood is mentioned.

Yes and I rarely if ever hear Church leaders suggest that men shouldn’t have ambitions outside the home or should discern that they should be stay at home daddies.

The Catholic Church is not making stuff up. If you do not believe this, then your issues go far deeper than feminist issues. The theology of the body is a discernment of object reality as revealed by God. Again, if you feel God has demeaned you by making you a woman, then your problems run deep.

I am not a fan of the Theology of the Body which I find anti-woman. It really denies the idea that women are sexual beings and that we can enjoy sex. Here is a feminist perspective of the entire situation. questionsfromaewe.blogspot.com/2013/10/reflections-on-theology-of-body.html

And no I am happy God made me a woman (outside the monthly cycle) but I am sad that the Catholic Church has such a narrow view of what being a woman means that it is entirely focused on reproduction.

The Catholic Church supports women receiving equal dignity. This means valuing their role, not only at home, but also in the work place, the right to equal pay, and the right to work without harassment.

Actually, no the Church hasn’t been supportive of such laws because they undermine the traditional family (aka encourage women to work.) Recently the Polish bishops refused to support a Polish law against domestic abuse because of “gender ideology.” Looking at the bill, it seems that the education part was pretty tame, but did suggest education in non-traditional gender roles. I take this to mean encouraging women to be more than stay-at-home mommies and encouraging men to help out with the families and household chores.

I am hoping that you are not seeing one side, that is, reading into what is not said something you think is meant, because of any feelings of guilt. If so, realize it is not the Church, but usually people in one’s life that brings pressure to bear on one to conform to some stereotype. Again, this is not exclusive to women. Most people have to deal with such pressures from time to time. God does not call all women to the role of mother, just as all men are not called to be fathers.

Actually, I’ve grown up in the Church so I know the code that these guys speak in. I’ve dealt with the code for 33 years. I remember going to school in the late 1990s and us women were encouraged to stay-at-home with our children regardless of our professional career prior. I also remember getting told by a few boys in high school that I’d be a great wife and mother unironically; they didn’t understand how offensive this was especially given that I graduated pretty top of the class.

And Pope Francis doesn’t have a great record on women. He regularly says offensive things about women like comparing professional academics to fruit and doesn’t seem to regard women outside of motherhood. The sexism in the Church seems obvious when men, including fathers, are also allowed to have professional goals and dreams and are described in both terms while women even professional women are only described as mothers. Even women who want to be mothers have a right to have an individual adult identity that isn’t linked to their reproductive function. Men certainly are allowed that.

 

[pnewton]

Saint Pope John Paul spent more time meditating on his Theology of the Body than any feminist. I suspect he will be declared a Doctor of the Church someday based on his work. I understand what it is like to disagree with something that the Church teaches. In such a situation, faithful Catholics are obliged to follow their conscience, but at the same time strive to understand why the Church teaches as she does.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Actually, I’ve grown up in the Church so I know the code that these guys speak in. I’ve dealt with the code for 33 years. I remember going to school in the late 1990s and us women were encouraged to stay-at-home with our children regardless of our professional career prior. I also remember getting told by a few boys in high school that I’d be a great wife and mother unironically; they didn’t understand how offensive this was especially given that I graduated pretty top of the class.

Wow, where did you grow up? My wife chose to be a “stay at home mom” partly because they unfairly fired her the first time she got pregnant, then she was sick for a while, then I got sick so she had to take care of me.

Stay at home mom’s love to hear the question, “what do you DO?” Or better yet, “do you WORK?” More like: “do you receive a paycheck?”

Also they “have to work” when school activities are planned, and they just “expect” the ever decreasing numbers of stay-at-home moms to pick up the slack. Or they will sign up for something, and then at the last minute, call a “stay at home mom” and ask if she can drop everything and go instead because it turns out “they have to work.”

Frankly when I was in the “rat race” I could not see why women would want to subject themselves to some of these amazingly horrible people, compared to staying at home. I’d have been a stay-at-home daddy if she made enough to pay for us both; as fate would have it, due to disability we ended up both being “stay at home parents” as as bad as that was living below the poverty level, it was excellent for a close family.

You realize why the Rockefellers actually funded a great deal of early feminist movements? The “real” reason? To get all the work force paying taxes instead of only half of them, and gain earlier access to children in the public education system.

Even women who want to be mothers have a right to have an individual adult identity that isn’t linked to their reproductive function. Men certainly are allowed that.

Says who? Do you think Hillary Clinton does not have an “individual adult identity” even though she has chosen to be a mother? Or at least she is one, whether or not she “chose” or if as some feminists say, was “raped” by her husband, since “all sex is rape” according to the likes of Andrea Dworkin.

Oh yeah I forgot. Hillary’s power stems entirely from her relationship with her husband, so she’s not a good feminist example. Oprah is a better example of a “self-made” feminist than Hillary, IMO.

 

[eViLpOpTaRt]

So just how is this Vatican video sexy? Is it because she’s a blonde? Is a blonde woman de facto sexy?

Much ado about nothing.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

So just how is this Vatican video sexy? Is it because she’s a blonde? Is a blonde woman de facto sexy?

Much ado about nothing.

Exactly. :yawn:

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Saint Pope John Paul spent more time meditating on his Theology of the Body than any feminist. I suspect he will be declared a Doctor of the Church someday based on his work. I understand what it is like to disagree with something that the Church teaches. In such a situation, faithful Catholics are obliged to follow their conscience, but at the same time strive to understand why the Church teaches as she does.

The Theology of the Body is not the same level of Catholic teaching as the Trinity or even the ever popular Humane Vitae. I think that it is fine to criticize JPII’s discussion of women as unrealistic and sort of condescending.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

So what part of this is so terrible a thing to say about women? They they are gentle and sensitive and tender? That the nature of women’s souls is not good for families? That women are not capable of irradiating a climate of peace and harmony – isn’t that something we need to offset the testosterone-driven male ogres that cause wars and other violence?

What do you want women to be? Angry and mean? That’s what they accuse men of being. Why are some women angry when portrayed as being different than those they scorn – and having attributes that actually make them very holy? :whacky:

I’ve met many men who are tender and gentle and who work in various sorts of caring professions. And I know women myself included who are logical and organized. I’m a woman who doesn’t get all gaga over people’s babies and I don’t cry at sappy romantic movies. Sorry, that is just who I am.

I think that stereotypes, even good stereotypes, can end up pigeonholing people into certain roles rather than allowing them to develop their own talents. You wouldn’t use such stereotypes to describe a black person so how is a woman any different.

This is what has gone wrong with feminism. It’s no longer about equality – it’s about trying to “out-man” men or something. I really don’t know but I got quite a dose of it in last semester’s developmental psych class. One mainstream feminist actually believes it is an “act of terror” to instruct a young woman on how to stay out of dangerous situations, because first of all it’s telling her she’s in a world where she has to be afraid of men, and second of all it’s easier for men to “make it the woman’s fault” by giving them that information, rather then just becoming better men. Because if we say a woman shouldn’t get drunk and go naked behind a rowdy sports bar at one in the morning, and she end up getting attacked, then we “blame the victim” rather than the attacker. Seriously. It is “misogynistic” to tell women how to avoid dangerous situations. This is what’s being promoted and I hope you don’t support it.

I don’t think that men should get drunk and go naked behind a sports bar either. Do you criticize men for pulling such antics or just women? And yes, women can be at greater risk than men, but that doesn’t mean that women shouldn’t be allowed to take risks. I spent quite a bit of time travelling through Europe alone when I was in graduate school. Should I have been criticized for doing that because there are risks to a woman travelling alone?

I support “equity” feminists; I actively oppose “gender” or “victim” feminists which are generally the loudest and most quoted, and IMO do not speak for very many women at all. I use the terms as defined by Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, Ph.D. in her book Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women

Yes… Shocking so you support the idea of feminism that would leave women in the 1950s as argued by an ultra-conservative writer. Sorry, but I appreciate second wave feminism myself. I like the fact that I could take STEM classes and play sports because of Title IX. I enjoy the fact that there are domestic violence laws and strong laws against rape and sexual harassment. I am glad that I receive equal pay and that there is family leave.

My wife more than lives up to these characteristics, but then again she married a “man” so right there she made herself a victim, I suppose, and I’m just projecting all this on her.

So you are a guy and yet you feel the need to lecture women on “their correct response” to the Vatican and what we should do.

Edit: just thought of this question: is it the idea of women being part of a “family” that is the problem?

No the issue is the Pope lecturing women about how their only duty is to pop out babies and tend to their families. And stating how us “strawberries” will all feel better if we stuck with traditional roles like washing the altar linens and teaching little children.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

I don’t think that men should get drunk and go naked behind a sports bar either. Do you criticize men for pulling such antics or just women?

My guess is a naked man could also be at risk of becoming a target; some people just look for a fight and that would be a good a reason as any to trigger somebody. So I agree with you that neither men nor women should put themselves in risky situation.

And yes, women can be at greater risk than men, but that doesn’t mean that women shouldn’t be allowed to take risks. I spent quite a bit of time travelling through Europe alone when I was in graduate school. Should I have been criticized for doing that because there are risks to a woman travelling alone?

I don’t know what risks you took; I haven’t traveled overseas myself but my daughter studied a couple months in Paris and had quite some stories to tell. But she’s tough and she made it, and I don’t think she’d want to have missed the experience.

You may take risks if you want. My point is that some feminists are saying a women should not even be told of the danger, because that amounts to “blaming the victim.” I consider more information, not less, as “empowering the victim.”

Police and fire departments tell us how to reduce risk of disaster in our houses. We get alarms and other protection devices because they are bad people in this world. Women take personal self-defense classes. And yet to at least one feminist author, it is an “act of terror” to tell women of these dangers growing up. I hope you don’t agree with the “keep them in the dark so it can never be blamed on them” mindset of addressing the problem of evil.

Don’t believe me? Check out this feminist reaction to the rumor that some team or researchers was developing a “date rape drug” detector – fingernail polish that would change color and warn a woman. It actually doesn’t exist yet, but she hates the idea because then if a woman gets raped and she wasn’t wearing it, it’s her fault and we blame the victim. :whacky:

I enjoy the fact that there are domestic violence laws and strong laws against rape and sexual harassment. I am glad that I receive equal pay and that there is family leave.

Ok. Who doesn’t?

So you are a guy and yet you feel the need to lecture women on “their correct response” to the Vatican and what we should do.

I really don’t care what you think of the Vatican, or how you respond to the video. If I have acted like I have cared thus far I probably have but I’m trying hard to care less right about now.

No the issue is the Pope lecturing women about how their only duty is to pop out babies and tend to their families. And stating how us “strawberries” will all feel better if we stuck with traditional roles like washing the altar linens and teaching little children.

I would love to see a quote from a reputable source, of the Holy Father saying this is the function of women. If this is just your take on it, then I don’t care because frankly I think we’ve heard enough of each others’ “take” on it. :slapfight:

 

[pnewton]

The Theology of the Body is not the same level of Catholic teaching as the Trinity or even the ever popular Humane Vitae. I think that it is fine to criticize JPII’s discussion of women as unrealistic and sort of condescending.

It is doctrine, not dogma, so you are right. But it is Church doctrine. If one is not as steeped in theological understanding as the late pontiff, then criticism will be coming from ignorance, though. The humility we should possess as Catholics should slow us from elevating an opinion of ours above doctrine. Our duty to form our conscience means that we have to try and understand that doctrine we find to be wrong.

You used the word “unrealistic”. I understand your usage to be more that of being impractical, but that which is doctrine is what is actually “real”. Our own opinions are not “real”, though they may be practical. Doctrine is about the “real”, as in Truth. Living in the realistic world should mean, if we were not fallen and deformed, living in accordance to that which is real, as in Truth. We only use the term “realistic” because living a perfect life, the most realistic living, is difficult.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

It is doctrine, not dogma, so you are right. But it is Church doctrine. If one is not as steeped in theological understanding as the late pontiff, then criticism will be coming from ignorance, though. The humility we should possess as Catholics should slow us from elevating an opinion of ours above doctrine. Our duty to form our conscience means that we have to try and understand that doctrine we find to be wrong.

You used the word “unrealistic”. I understand your usage to be more that of being impractical, but that which is doctrine is what is actually “real”. Our own opinions are not “real”, though they may be practical. Doctrine is about the “real”, as in Truth. Living in the realistic world should mean, if we were not fallen and deformed, living in accordance to that which is real, as in Truth. We only use the term “realistic” because living a perfect life, the most realistic living, is difficult.

As I said, Theology of the Body makes women lesser than men and makes our entire purpose in life to be mothers. I reject that I don’t think that it is the Truth of God. I think that we all have individual talents and that some women have been blocked from using their individual talents by the Church or condemned for using them because they aren’t considered ladylike or traditional women’s roles.

 

[pnewton]

As I said, Theology of the Body makes women lesser than men and makes our entire purpose in life to be mothers. I reject that I don’t think that it is the Truth of God.

You would be right to reject that if it were true.

 

[waterbender]

There is absolutely nothing sexy about this woman. Anyone who labels her “sexy” is a chauvinist or perhaps even misogynist.

She is professional, fully dressed, calm, speaks well. She even reminds women “of their importance”.

Anyone who has issues with this video has some serious mental health issues that need to be reevaluated and eliminated. What if you all stop reading biased news stories and actually think for your self?

There are professional trolls who go around Catholic sites and leave negative feedback you know? Stop listening to them. Think for yourself.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

There is absolutely nothing sexy about this woman. Anyone who labels her “sexy” is a chauvinist or perhaps even misogynist.

She is professional, fully dressed, calm, speaks well. She even reminds women “of their importance”.

Anyone who has issues with this video has some serious mental health issues that need to be reevaluated and eliminated. What if you all stop reading biased news stories and actually think for your self?

There are professional trolls who go around Catholic sites and leave negative feedback you know? Stop listening to them. Think for yourself.

 

[Sarabande]

There is absolutely nothing sexy about this woman. Anyone who labels her “sexy” is a chauvinist or perhaps even misogynist.

She is professional, fully dressed, calm, speaks well. She even reminds women “of their importance”.

Anyone who has issues with this video has some serious mental health issues that need to be reevaluated and eliminated. What if you all stop reading biased news stories and actually think for your self?

There are professional trolls who go around Catholic sites and leave negative feedback you know? Stop listening to them. Think for yourself.

I watched the Italian version of the video and saw nothing “sexy” about her. She wasn’t dressed provocatively. In fact, she was dressed in a modest, baggy blue top. I also looked up this Italian actress. She is in her 50s. It’s not like they got some young, hot bombshell actress scantily dressed to represent women in the video. They chose a mature-looking, attractive, well-known Italian actress at least in Italy. Whether or not we liked the quality of video editing, etc., I thought she sounded and looked intelligent, professional and eloquent. What makes her sexy to the critics? Is it the fact that she was blond and in shape for a 50-something? Would they have felt better if they chose someone who was not as attractive or as in shape? Why does the use of an attractive, older woman suddenly make the message un-listenable?

 

[ProVobis]

There is absolutely nothing sexy about this woman. Anyone who labels her “sexy” is a chauvinist or perhaps even misogynist.

She is professional, fully dressed, calm, speaks well. She even reminds women “of their importance”.

Anyone who has issues with this video has some serious mental health issues that need to be reevaluated and eliminated. What if you all stop reading biased news stories and actually think for your self?

There are professional trolls who go around Catholic sites and leave negative feedback you know? Stop listening to them. Think for yourself.

I’d be interested in your opinion on this video.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ezdpcm-C-Zg

Do you think it’s effective in spreading her message?

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

I’d be interested in your opinion on this video.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ezdpcm-C-Zg

Do you think it’s effective in spreading her message?

Vote “no” for me. After such a grand introduction, I expected Big Things from this woman but she failed to deliver IMO. I couldn’t even finish it.

I tried to watch it, but after almost 2 minutes she hadn’t done much other than have a painfully lengthy and uninteresting introduction, and then I think she was trying to be a “Rosanna Rosannadanna” wannabe or something by talking about how bored she used to be at Latin Mass. And suddenly I was thoroughly bored, so I skipped ahead and two more three-second snippets failed to catch my attention – instead she was doing some bizarre gesture with her hands over her head. So yeah to me it came across as just some random YouTuber.

So yeah for me I’d rather spend my time typing about how boring the first two minutes was, than watch the last six of the video in case she suddenly became inspiring, and during which presumably we might have had some movement toward a topic.

 

[ProVobis]

Vote “no” for me. After such a grand introduction, I expected Big Things from this woman but she failed to deliver IMO. I couldn’t even finish it.

I tried to watch it, but after almost 2 minutes she hadn’t done much other than have a painfully lengthy and uninteresting introduction, and then I think she was trying to be a “Rosanna Rosannadanna” wannabe or something by talking about how bored she used to be at Latin Mass. And suddenly I was thoroughly bored, so I skipped ahead and two more three-second snippets failed to catch my attention – instead she was doing some bizarre gesture with her hands over her head. So yeah to me it came across as just some random YouTuber.

So yeah for me I’d rather spend my time typing about how boring the first two minutes was, than watch the last six of the video in case she suddenly became inspiring, and during which presumably we might have had some movement toward a topic.

And how is the mode of presentation (not the content) any different than the OP?

Could a man be just as effective in either?

 

[weller2]

I do not think it is true that the Church does not want to hear from women, and this video is evidence that they do.

As someone who has extensive contacts with various bureaucracies, I can immediately tell a difference between a request for comments organized to actually study the public opinion on the subject, and a request for comments organized to satisfy the legal requirements of doing one. This looks like the latter.