Were these things worth pointing out at school?

[otjm]

Some people seem to think that stupidity is a recent phenomenon. It isn’t.

I am reminded of the Prayer of St. Francis; it might seem to apply here. In particular, the issue about the widom to know the difference.

If a professor (or grad student teaching assistant) spouts off with something that you think is unfair, you have several choices. One is to spout off back, and be held up for a fool because you ahve not been able to marshall the facts and present them in a cogent, short and to the point rebuttal. Not particularly a stellar presentation.

Another is to research the issue and respond in the next class to correct the record; you had better be prepared with citations and quotes, and be good at extemporaneous debate because often the other side has been steeped in the misinformation and may take you on to try and make you look like a fool. Which then leads to the old addage - never argue with a fool; a bystander may not be able to tell which is the fool.

A third is to discuss it with other classmates if they are at all open to discussion; again, you had better be well armed and articulate if you want to trod the path.

A fourth is to understand that the time you spend on the above is time you ar not spending on your primary objective - which is to take the class and get an acceptable grade. Just because someone spouts a lie does not mean that you of necessity need to try and correct it; the world is full of lies about the Church. Bill O’Donovan (I am writing this without my reference at hand) belongs to a small group that takes on the public speakers and the press, and quite well; most of us are not in his league and that is not our primary function. If you try to get into it with the prof every time some off-the-wall malarkey about the Church comes out, you are going to get yourself sidetracked from why you are in school. Let go and let God can do wonders to keeping your focus where it needs to be - on the academics and not on the polemics. The likelyhood you are going to change the prof or get him or her to recant are minimal at best, and may be best conducted outside of class. And after you have had a chance to marshall your evidence…

 

[edjco]

You should first understand that this is happening everywhere and it is discussed (especially on conservative talk shows) daily.
You may also find that you have more allies among your classmates than you think. I think sometimes we understimate our young people. The majority of kids my son goes to school with I think will be a terror to a professor like that when they get to college. Of course, he goes to a Catholic high school and has a shade-tree apologist for a father…

 

[crenfro]

Many blessings to all of you. I love reading all your replies, even the ones I disagree with.

Thanks so much for listening to me and your support.

 

[newbetx]

I just don’t understand why some people are being anti-Catholic, especially at school. Makes no sense to me.

“They” almost have to be. Personal Opin here but say one is a Mormon. The basis of that faith is that the Catholic church went bad. If Protestant, didn’t Luther leave because he felt the church had gone wrong? If you are non-religious, a the “rules” of a strong religion is nothing you wish to be subject to. So it’s a kind of self defence mechanism. The Church used to be seen as a respectful “power”. I don’t know that it is anymore. But no matter, some see Catholics as a threat to their beliefs, way of life, or as a group to be mocked because nobody fights back. Thanks for standing up for us when you had the chance!

 

[Exalt]

The first was a reference to a typical Catholic as a “homosexual pedophile” in an exercise in a class over “values.”

That’s way out of line. If you stood up and said something to him - good job.

The second was a statement in an introductory history class which said that the medieval Catholic church was oppressive to women, which I disagreed with the teacher over, and who (who = teacher) then put me down, then a few days later made some conciliatory comments without the put-downs. The teacher said he was just being honest and “telling things the way they were,” but I didn’t agree with the what the book said.

Um. The Catholic Church was oppressive of women in the Middle Ages. That’s pretty much a historical fact. Then again, *everyone *was oppressive of women so, I guess it’s not “that bad.”

But, your teacher “putting you down” - may have been out of line. Then again, if back in college I was in a mathematics class and I said that imaginary numbers are bad math - I’d get made fun of too. I’m not with you on this one. Sorry.

 

[Oakleaf]

It sounds like the teacher was painting with a very broad brush, and probably has not ever studied the real history of the middle ages in a university setting. Some folks on this thread have put out some fascinating facts that are new to me too, so thanks for that.

It’s popular these days to paint any prior epoch as “oppressive” of one thing or another. In this kind of lazy/slack discourse, the 1800’s is seen as the equivalent of the middle ages or any other epoch. This is all intellectual laziness and it is pretty silly.

The Middle Ages saw the birth of chivalry, the romantic/bardic tradition that elevated women. It also kept the tradition of Mary the Mother of God.

Were these ideas “oppressive”? What does that word even mean? A woman told me when she was a girl, she thought the idea of a “virgin” Mary was oppressive and offensive. How so? What exactly is “oppression” that everyone is talking about? Setting role models that people dislike? That’s what it sounds like in that case I had in mind.

Some of the medieval ideas that modern feminists find offensive were actually images of female power. The medieval idea that it was Eve’s female proclivity to sin caused the Fall, that’s an image of a scary powerful female. Is it “oppression” to say a class of people is in power? Apparently so. (So do I oppress a policeman by calling him “Sir” or “Officer”?)

Feminism is a reaction to the 1950’s more than anything else. It is a reaction of some women sitting around at home and getting bored and wanting to do more with their lives, instead of using consumer products and baking cakes. I bet that most medieval women (even the nobility of the day) would jump at the chance for such a materially easy existence. Medieval women had bigger problems to worry about, like plagues, marauding barbarians, back-breaking work, and so on. Boredom was perhaps not chief among their problems.

Anyway, we humans have a tendency to imagine history according to our own (teeny tiny) experiences of the world. Real life is much, much, much more complex and interesting than any stereotypes we can dream up.