The Church and Women

[Equites_Christi]

Since this thread had got caught up on the issue of suffrage, I would just like to point out:

Women are not the only ones who were denied suffrage. In the past, if you were black, hispanic, or generally non-white, you could not vote, regardless if you were a man.

Heck, in a lot of states, you could be white AND male, but if you didn’t own property, you couldn’t vote.

So while women may have been among the last groups to be denied suffrage, they weren’t the first.

 

[edwest2]

I think it is great, that I don’t have get coffee for my boss. If there is a meeting, I’m not the designated note taker. If there is a social event at work, I’m not the necessarily the hostess. If a promotion comes up, and I and a male have the same qualifications…I’m not on the outs, because he has a wife and kids (that was the excuse for not selecting a woman for a promotion). My mother too, put down a cinderblock foundation, built a fence, can use any power tool you hand her and she is now 81 and was doing all of these things from age 60…on. She doesn’t knit, rock in rocker and never ask my father “permission” for anything. She asked for his opinion…never permission.

It was suffregettes who made this possible, starting with the “right” to vote. My mother recalls in the 40’s when the husband went off to war and he was killed, she found herself in the street with the kids because she had no way to pay the rent. She has seen men snap their fingers in their wives faces if they had a thought and spoke it.

My mother has stories too, Ed. She was born and raised in the south, where a woman was not encouraged to “think”.

You obviously want things to be your way. Again, do you have a percentage of men that treated their women a certain way?

It appears what is being described is not equality but a power struggle. And a struggle on your part to ensure that no woman ever asks a man for permission again. That’s why I suggest women should start a town of their own, exclude men and just do what they like. If a man should wish to enter, he should be photographed, fingerprinted and kept under surveillance at all times. And sign an agreement to not speak to anyone unless he has specific business with a specific person.

Regards,
Ed

 

[Biedrik]

Thank you for the explanation concerning ad hominum arguments. I had noticed how prevalent they were in online discussion and that is actually the reason I came up with my “mystery persona”. I had originally intended to reveal no personal information at all. I had a theory that this would force people to stick to discussing ideas. You can see how that turned out.

Over time, I have let bits of information out, but I have managed to keep the male/female bit concealed. I am still fascinated by my sexless persona and the reactions it gets, so I don’t foresee any revelations soon. At least not deliberate ones.

Prevalent in online discussions? Please, they’re just as common in real life. I sometimes feel that learning proper rhetoric and logical fallacies should be a mandatory part of education. Ah well…

But in defence of floresco, he/she (it?) is not saying anything definite against or for the suffrage of women. All he/she is saying is that there were a fair amount of women who did not care about suffrage, or flat out rejected it. Right or wrong this may be, but you can’t claim that he/she is against women’s suffrage. So instead of flinging about ad hominem arguments or jumping to conclusions about what he/she believes, try to find some legitimate way to disprove floresco, if there is one. Perhaps he/she is right, maybe it wasn’t that much of an issue for most women. Or maybe he’s wrong. Who knows? Either way, I’d just like to encourage a more civilized and sensible debate about this, instead of what has essentially been two vaguely linked monologues with some ad hominem arguments thrown in.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Extrapolating would be saying "80% of the people who voted were in favour of suffrage therefore 80% of total women are in favour. What the author did was not extrapolating.

From the Merriam-Webster entry for “extrapolate” (see here):
1 : to infer (values of a variable in an unobserved interval) from values within an already observed interval
2 a : to project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area b : to predict by projecting past experience or known data
What the author did was indeed extrapolating. (Definition 2a if it isn’t obvious.)

Nor did she claim that 96% of women were opposed. She said they were either opposed or indifferent. She was saying that 4% were “for” and 96% were not “for”. The data does support this.

Without any evidence that “not voting” implies “indifferent”, the data supports no such conclusion.

Consider the following internet poll regarding the new prime minister of Austrialia (see here):
Are you more or less likely to vote for Julia Gillard given she is an atheist?

More likely — 53% — 7118 votes
Less likely — 24% — 3311 votes
It’s not important — 23% — 3099 votes

13528 votes since Jun 28 2010
Now consider the following claim: Of the millions and millions of people on the Internet who could have voted that Julia Gillard was less electable because she is an atheist, only 3311 people did so. Thus, 99% of people either support Julia Gillard’s atheism or don’t care.

This is the kind of reasoning that the first article on women’s suffrage is doing.

 

[floresco]

From the Merriam-Webster entry for “extrapolate” (see here):
1 : to infer (values of a variable in an unobserved interval) from values within an already observed interval
2 a : to project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area b : to predict by projecting past experience or known data
What the author did was indeed extrapolating. (Definition 2a if it isn’t obvious.)
.

I was using it as a technical terms for statistics, not in its general sense. I was making a comment about validity of sampling methods. Yes, we could say the author was extrapolating in the general sense, but it has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Without any evidence that “not voting” implies “indifferent”, the data supports no such conclusion.

Consider the following internet poll regarding the new prime minister of Austrialia (see here):
Are you more or less likely to vote for Julia Gillard given she is an atheist?

More likely — 53% — 7118 votes
Less likely — 24% — 3311 votes
It’s not important — 23% — 3099 votes

13528 votes since Jun 28 2010
Now consider the following claim: Of the millions and millions of people on the Internet who could have voted that Julia Gillard was less electable because she is an atheist, only 3311 people did so. Thus, 99% of people either support Julia Gillard’s atheism or don’t care.

This is the kind of reasoning that the first article on women’s suffrage is doing.

Just what would you consider evidence that there was indifference? Contemporary accounts that claim there was indifference? We have that.

In your example of the internet poll, it is likely that the vast majority of people on the internet have never heard of it, so it is not valid to conclude indifference from the results. We don’t conclude indifference because we know of an alternate explanation. The contemporary authors, who presumably know of the conditions surrounding the referendum, say it shows indifference and add their observations that indifference existed. We have no evidence of alternate explanations. Therefore it is a reasonable to think there was indifference

 

[Redratfish]

The Church (and all society) “mistreated” women in the past according to modern man because modern man thinks that women should be the same as men and men the same as women. On the contrary, to respect the dignity of either, one ought to emphasize their proper roles in society and the Church rather than trying to make them an homogeneous unit, which they are not. Each is created with a different purpose. Each should fulfill his natural and supernatural purpose in life in a different way, as ordered by God in the creation of Adam and Eve and explained by St. Paul in I. Cor. xi.

QFT

 

[Just_Lurking]

I was using it as a technical terms for statistics, not in its general sense. I was making a comment about validity of sampling methods. Yes, we could say the author was extrapolating in the general sense, but it has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Just FYI, the term “extrapolation” in statistics is used for any mathematically-based estimation formula of a population characteristic based on a sample, and not just the particular estimation formula (80% of sample → 80% of population) that you referred to. When more precision in terminology is required, mathematicians refer to the statistical properties of a particular estimation formula, for example, the Maximum Likelihood Estimator (MLE) or the Uniformly Minimum Variance Unbiased (UMVU) estimator.

We don’t conclude indifference because we know of an alternate explanation.

There are many possible alternative explanations for the lack of voting in the suffrage vote. We don’t have any evidence of regarding any of the proposed explanations, so I don’t understand your attacking my suggestions for lack of evidence when your suggestion suffers from the exact same lack of evidence.

The contemporary authors, who presumably know of the conditions surrounding the referendum, say it shows indifference and add their observations that indifference existed.

The contemporary author presumably knew how many women actually voted against suffrage, but carefully refrained from mentioning it. It is quite clear that the author you cite is only presenting one side of the case, and offering support only for that side, and deliberately not mentioning any facts that would support the other side of the argument.

Going back to my example of the recent Internet poll about the new prime minister of Australia, anybody who would write an article that only mentions the 3311 votes against atheism out of the millions of potential votes, and fail to mention the 7118 actual votes in favor of atheism due to its “lack of significance” (your phrase from post 56) concerning the matter, clearly has an axe to grind.

Finally, if we are to replace the lack of actual facts with our unsupported speculation, my speculation is that the vast majority of women were indifferent to the vote (which was more of an opinion poll or at most a non-binding referendum), and not necessarily to the issue of suffrage itself. For example, suppose a modern day ballot in an off-year election included a non-binding referendum about an issue, and still received a typical low off-year election turnout, say 5% of registered voters. That does not mean that voters are indifferent about the issue - it’s just that they didn’t care to take the time to vote because their vote wouldn’t accomplish any concrete results.

 

[white_sheep]

Really? How do you know this? Did you ask them? Women were “jailed” if there was even a whiff they were meeting to push the idea that women should vote. Are you ok with that? Women aren’t interested in politics…so therefore they wouldn’t be interested in voting? I guess while the men smoke their cigars in the den and talk about world affairs, the women should head to the kitchen and wash the dishes and talk about laundry, teething , potty training, cloth vs. disposable and the latest pot roast recipe. You’ve got to be kidding me? I bet you gave your wife and iron for her birthday.

The women I know would rather keep their house in order than sit in the den smoking cigars and talking about world affairs.

 

[white_sheep]

I don’t see how women are under-represented by having the head of their household vote.

 

[rwoehmke]

I had a guy in my car pool who bought his wife a rototiller for mother’s day. She ended up buying him a dress for father’s day. Some guys are just plain “thick.”

 

[cecilia97]

Every time I look at cultural references of women and the Church (books/movie,etc), in the past, it has always been negative. This has me wondering how much of it is true? Now I am in no way interested in supporting female priests, abortion or the like and I’m not looking for a debate on that. But I’m worried about how the Church did treat women in terms of what they *do *have a right to and their dignity as a person.

I keep in mind that The Virgin Mary is an important figure to the Church then and now, and that St. Paul very much introduced the idea of having to loving your wife.

My question is, has our culture and how the Church treats women in the Church been overblown/false/out of context? As well could you provide me with any sources for furthur reading on the topic (online or books)?

Thank you very much and God Bless

Some of the ancient pagan religions which Christianity replaced used women as temple prostitutes. Christianity understood women and men as equal in dignity as BOTH are made in the image of God.

Church laws about divorce and annulment have, historically, protected the rights of women and children. Suddenly, a wife could not be “put away” because of barrenness or for merely lustful reasons. Her children could not be disowned.

Henry VIII waged war against the Church in his country because it upheld his wife’s rights over his own.

I can’t be a ordained a priest because I’m not the right “matter” for the sacrament…not because I do not have enough dignity. Just as bread must be used for the Eucharist, a man must be ordained as a priest. BUT…the women in my parish are the ones who make things “go”. I lead three ministries, with the advice, guidance, and support of three wonderful priests.

When my non-Catholic or liberal friends ask me about the state of women in the Church, and about clergy celibacy, I’m always struck by the paradox. They seem to think priests are horribly overworked (which they probably are) and also mistreated because they are “denied” sex. Then, in the same breath, they ask if I’m upset that I can’t be a priest! Which IS IT??

 

[Julianna]

I had a guy in my car pool who bought his wife a rototiller for mother’s day. She ended up buying him a dress for father’s day. Some guys are just plain “thick.”

I remember my mom (back in the day) commenting that one of her friends husband bought her an iron “pre-permanant press clothes” for her birthday. My mother was and told her “appliances aren’t gifts, their a necessity”.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I don’t see how women are under-represented by having the head of their household vote.

What about single women, widows and nuns?

 

[Julianna]

I don’t see how women are under-represented by having the head of their household vote.

he could vote for candidate A and she could vote for candidate B

 

[kozlosap]

No, I don’t want to smoke a cigar or anything else, however, I would rather sit and talk about world affairs with other adults (male or female) than be in the kitchen discussing laundry detergent. As a person with a graduate degree and who has been in the workplace my entire adult life (and also raised a child with NO child support), I have many different life experiences and I’m a pretty darn interesting person. If being able to support one’s self and their children and being educated means that I’m a radical feminist, then call me whatever you want. BTW, more women vote than men in national elections!

 

[Julianna]

No, I don’t want to smoke a cigar or anything else, however, I would rather sit and talk about world affairs with other adults (male or female) than be in the kitchen discussing laundry detergent. As a person with a graduate degree and who has been in the workplace my entire adult life (and also raised a child with NO child support), I have many different life experiences and I’m a pretty darn interesting person. If being able to support one’s self and their children and being educated means that I’m a radical feminist, then call me whatever you want. BTW, more women vote than men in national elections!

:clapping:

 

[floresco]

There are many possible alternative explanations for the lack of voting in the suffrage vote. We don’t have any evidence of regarding any of the proposed explanations, so I don’t understand your attacking my suggestions for lack of evidence when your suggestion suffers from the exact same lack of evidence.

You did not answer my question about what you would consider evidence of widespread indifference. There are contemporary pro-suffrage sources which try to convince women that they ought to want to vote. There are contemporary anti-suffrage sources which state that most women are indifferent. (The source which you cited also claimed there was wide-spread indifference and my impression on a cursory reading was it was pro-suffrage.) There are first hand accounts of women saying they are indifferent, as well as women writing about being strongly opposed. I’m not sure which of these I can find online and it will take some effort to look so I would like to know which you will accept before I bother. So far, there have been no indications of anything you would accept as evidence. If there is nothing that you will consider evidence, then obviously I cannot supply it.

While the Massachusetts referendum results do not prove indifference, they are consistent with it. Since all these other kinds of evidence exist in support of that interpretation, it is a reasonable one to take.

 

[jmcrae]

My mother could mix concrete, do carpentry and paint the house.

So could my grandmother. Even so, she wasn’t allowed to buy the paint with her own money - she had to give her paycheque to my Dad for him to deposit in the bank, and then ask him to take out the amount that she needed for her projects. And she had no say in who would be in charge of the zoning laws where she was building, because she wasn’t permitted to vote.

So, yeah - women doing all the work, men getting all the credit. Things haven’t actually changed all that much, have they?

 

[Just_Lurking]

You did not answer my question about what you would consider evidence of widespread indifference.

Social science often measures indifference through questions of the following sort: “How important do you consider the issue of women’s suffrage? (a) extremely; (b) moderately; (c) somewhat; (d) a little bit; (e) not at all.” Or the issue can be compared with other issues of the day: “Rank the following issues in order of importance: (1) women’s suffrage; (2) federal taxation; (3) restricting alcohol production and consumption; (4) immigration.”

I don’t see how or why the question is any different now versus then. What would you consider evidence of the indifference of Australians to the atheism of their new prime minister?

 

[floresco]

Social science often measures indifference through questions of the following sort: “How important do you consider the issue of women’s suffrage? (a) extremely; (b) moderately; (c) somewhat; (d) a little bit; (e) not at all.” Or the issue can be compared with other issues of the day: “Rank the following issues in order of importance: (1) women’s suffrage; (2) federal taxation; (3) restricting alcohol production and consumption; (4) immigration.”

But there were no surveys of that sort taken a hundred years ago. If that is the only sort of evidence that you will accept, then, no matter how true it were that most women were indifferent, you would be unable to determine this. The only possible outcome, as far as you are concerned, is that there will be a lack of evidence that women were indifferent.

While social scientists have the option of designing polls to get at the information they want, historians have to deduce things from existing writings and information. I do not think you have a reasonable standard of evidence for considering historical questions. On the bright side, this saves me having to search all over the net for online examples of all the things that I consider evidence.