Why is the USCCB so big on women working?

[seekerz]

Well I certainly agree that bride burning, female infanticide and female ‘circumcision’ should be relegated to the dustbin of history, the reality is that it’s not happening here other than an occasional nutjob who is bringing his 3rd World practices to the US. This myth that females are oppressed in America is IMO laughable. There are now more women in college and graduating than men. Women were far less impacted by the economic downturn than men. Women live longer than men. I dunno…seems like we have it pretty good here.

As to laws made by men that women must live under, please provide some evidence that this oppresses WOMEN. Aren’t laws equally applicable to both sexes? If I drive drunk, shoot someone or steal am I subject to a greater punishment than men? In contrast there are many laws that give women special privileges and rights…requiring companies to provide for breast feeding, pumping, pregnancy leave, lowered standards for physical ability in first responders, etc. Not saying there is anything wrong with accommodating women’s special nature and child bearing but quite honestly I think our society is very careful to protect women. And speaking of “women’s rights” look at the VICIOUSNESS that accompanies any infringement on a WOMAN’S (not men are not allowed to weigh in even if they are the father) the “right” to kill their unborn baby? Oh and women apparently have the “right” to engage in unlimited sexual behavior on our nickel or so says the law student called to testify on behalf of the HHS Mandate…IMO absolutely laughable. She should have been embarrassed to make such a statement. Absolutely ridiculous.

The ‘double standard’ with respect to women’s sexual activity is oppression? Really? You don’t think men are demeaned and punished for sexual indiscretions? Really? How many politicians have lost their careers over IMO idiotic behavior? Can we say Anthony Wiener? Herman Cain? The list is endless.

Honestly I’m sort of amazed by what you consider oppression. Please look around and see how much better off you are than your sisters overseas. I had a great deal of personal contact with our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. What they’ve said about those societies is sickening. I thank God every day I was born in America.

Lisa

I didn’t specifically refer to laws, I was referring to standards of behavior - the “what people think” of our society. A man losing his job over sexual indiscretions still doesn’t make him a ‘slut’ or ‘prostitute’ - you are confusing perceptions and consequences. A woman in the same position would have lost her job too, in addition to being called all kinds of names, for some of which our language does not even have a male version.

Just because the situation is much worse in some parts of the world (and this part of the thread was addressing ‘universal’ oppression) does not nullify discrimination which exists in our society. That’s like saying we should not acknowledge the need for nutrition standards for kids here because there are children starving to death in Sudan.

 

[seekerz]

Is religious liberty necessarily a gender specific issue? Really? You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking the issue was contraception. It wasn’t.
Lisa

Women don’t exercise religious liberty from a position of authority in the Church? Whither our nuns?

 

[seekerz]

That’s what happens when you get females who are the head of Planned Parenthood and other pro abortion groups to make up such panels. An echo chamber.

Lisa

Really? I suppose that having men in those positions of authority would have produced better decisions?

Whether women were consulted or not is immaterial, a public voice was sought and theirs should have been heard. Who knows, maybe their contributions rather than the panel’s composition, would have captured the headlines…

 

[LisaA]

I didn’t specifically refer to laws, I was referring to standards of behavior - the “what people think” of our society. A man losing his job over sexual indiscretions still doesn’t make him a ‘slut’ or ‘prostitute’ - you are confusing perceptions and consequences. A woman in the same position would have lost her job too, in addition to being called all kinds of names, for some of which our language does not even have a male version.

Just because the situation is much worse in some parts of the world (and this part of the thread was addressing ‘universal’ oppression) does not nullify discrimination which exists in our society. That’s like saying we should not acknowledge the need for nutrition standards for kids here because there are children starving to death in Sudan.

Well you’ve still not provided any evidence of OPPRESSION in this country which was the claim. “Universal oppression” was the term which indicates the poster thought this was happening all over the world including the US.

As to social mores, what people might think about a promiscuous woman vs a promiscuous man is hardly oppression. Or maybe you think we should find all sexual behavior equally appropriate? I truly don’t see any admiration or even the laughing off of promiscuous, adulterous, or abusive sexual activity on the part of men. Perhaps the terminology is different…a woman is a “slut” where a man is an #&(#&. Not sure how that makes much difference. Despite our rather libertine standards, I still see men behaving badly demeaned, demoted and disgraced…again can we say Anthony Wiener? Herman Cain? Do you truly think the names those men are called and the disgust with which they are viewed is that much different? Recently there was a story of a 41 year old married teacher who had left his family and moved in with an 18 year old former student. The comments about that relationship were CLEARLY focused on the disgusting behavior on the part of the man (and I sure agree!) I didn’t hear ANYONE saying the girl should have behaved differently. In fact she is being treated like a victim with great sympathy.

What you’re saying may have been true 30 years ago but I don’t see this kind of “oppression” happening now. When I was in middle school the girls who got pregnant were not ostracized but clearly there was some societal criticism of the girl. Now we have a prime time show featuring “Teen Moms” with related features in magazines as if there is something admirable about their status. IMO the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Women who behave irresponsibly are now given the “pass” that was allowed males who engaged in such behavior. I’m not sure how that elevates society.

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

Well you’ve still not provided any evidence of OPPRESSION in this country which was the claim. “Universal oppression” was the term which indicates the poster thought this was happening all over the world including the US.

As to social mores, what people might think about a promiscuous woman vs a promiscuous man is hardly oppression. Or maybe you think we should find all sexual behavior equally appropriate? I truly don’t see any admiration or even the laughing off of promiscuous, adulterous, or abusive sexual activity on the part of men. Perhaps the terminology is different…a woman is a “slut” where a man is an #&(#&. Not sure how that makes much difference. Despite our rather libertine standards, I still see men behaving badly demeaned, demoted and disgraced…again can we say Anthony Wiener? Herman Cain? Do you truly think the names those men are called and the disgust with which they are viewed is that much different? Recently there was a story of a 41 year old married teacher who had left his family and moved in with an 18 year old former student. The comments about that relationship were CLEARLY focused on the disgusting behavior on the part of the man (and I sure agree!) I didn’t hear ANYONE saying the girl should have behaved differently. In fact she is being treated like a victim with great sympathy.

What you’re saying may have been true 30 years ago but I don’t see this kind of “oppression” happening now. When I was in middle school the girls who got pregnant were not ostracized but clearly there was some societal criticism of the girl. Now we have a prime time show featuring “Teen Moms” with related features in magazines as if there is something admirable about their status. IMO the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Women who behave irresponsibly are now given the “pass” that was allowed males who engaged in such behavior. I’m not sure how that elevates society.

Lisa

I agree with some of what you’re saying, but we seem to differ in our definition of oppression. Let me put it this way:

Men used to make the rules, optional for themselves, but which women were expected to live by. Now that women have revolted, rather than insisting on having a say in framing and implementing the rules, too many seem to simply treat them as optional too. This is a generalization of course, but oftentimes this is what feminism looks like to me. Ideally, both sexes should have to adhere to the same rules of conduct (and equally exercise the freedom to be who God created them).

Lastly, in any society, being held to a different standard qualifies as discrimination I believe.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

There are two sides to the issue: employer and employee. No issue is one-sided. Besides, Church leaders represent the whole body of Christ - they would have no argument without the men AND women in every US congregation - therefore, women should have had a voice even from the employer standpoint.

First women were heard, and as the article show there are women, many women who disagree with this mandate. Many more who have just not made their voice heard. There are other petitions out there with many women’s signatures. Many popular Catholic speakers are speaking out most every day regarding this issue and praying for the Obama administration to turn this around.

The priests and the bishops of the Catholic church follow church teaching and they are the heads of the church. They are the ones who are to lead us. If it became just an issue where we bring in some Catholic bishops and some Catholic women, that would make their argument of how many women use birth control stronger. It would be, oh you found some women to agree with you, we found more women to agree with us. It becomes a vote.

Church teachings aren’t based on popularity or votes. I am extremely grateful for those men standing up to defend, protect and guide us.

 

[seekerz]

First women were heard, and as the article show there are women, many women who disagree with this mandate. Many more who have just not made their voice heard. There are other petitions out there with many women’s signatures. Many popular Catholic speakers are speaking out most every day regarding this issue and praying for the Obama administration to turn this around.

The priests and the bishops of the Catholic church follow church teaching and they are the heads of the church. They are the ones who are to lead us. If it became just an issue where we bring in some Catholic bishops and some Catholic women, that would make their argument of how many women use birth control stronger. It would be, oh you found some women to agree with you, we found more women to agree with us. It becomes a vote.

Church teachings aren’t based on popularity or votes. I am extremely grateful for those men standing up to defend, protect and guide us.

No one is asking to turn the Church into a democracy, but this was not a Church event - it was held in a democratic institution and only 2 women were included (in the second panel; the initial one was all-male; not all-Catholic but all-male). That is my point.

 

[Diana_Catherine]

No one is asking to turn the Church into a democracy, but this was not a Church event - it was held in a democratic institution and only 2 women were included (in the second panel; the initial one was all-male; not all-Catholic but all-male). That is my point.

You’re right. It was not a Church event, but it was the Church being called to defend itself.

 

[LisaA]

You’re right. It was not a Church event, but it was the Church being called to defend itself.

I think in addition the Church and other religious leaders were called to explain why the mandate violated religious liberty. It seems more important to have experts in the field of various faith traditions (I saw the panel and noted several religions were represented) and their teachings than to have “diversity” in reproductive equipment.

The Left is all about identity politics and victimhood. Having a group of male religious leaders probably failed both tests so needless to say there is a hue and cry about the sex of the panelists.

LIsa

 

[seekerz]

The Left is all about identity politics and victimhood.

LIsa

That took rather long…

The matter did not just affect religious leaders - or people of faith for that matter. In any event, women number among the former and the latter AND it was regarding a matter that concerned working women and their employers. It doesn’t take an ideologue to recognize that women should have been better represented.

 

[LisaA]

That took rather long…

The matter did not just affect religious leaders - or people of faith for that matter. In any event, women number among the former and the latter AND it was regarding a matter that concerned working women and their employers. It doesn’t take an ideologue to recognize that women should have been better represented.

You are right the matter didn’t just AFFECT religious leaders. The violation of religious liberty is an outrage to every American male or female. But you keep mixing up the issue being debated with extraneous subjects. The issue is not women’s health. The debate was not about whether or not contraception is necessary for women’s health. The debate was not about whether insurance plans should include contraception, abortifaciants and sterilization procedures. The debate was whether the HHS Mandate was a violation of religious liberty. The Left has done a masterful job at trying to confuse the issue but it is not an issue of what a woman does or doesn’t do with her uterus.

I just do not see religious liberty as being a gender specific issue. Had the debate been about the advisability of contraception then yes it would have been far more important to have women. But in this case finding experts in the subject seems far more important than whether the panelists were male or female.

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

You are right the matter didn’t just AFFECT religious leaders. The violation of religious liberty is an outrage to every American male or female. But you keep mixing up the issue being debated with extraneous subjects. The issue is not women’s health. The debate was not about whether or not contraception is necessary for women’s health. The debate was not about whether insurance plans should include contraception, abortifaciants and sterilization procedures. The debate was whether the HHS Mandate was a violation of religious liberty. The Left has done a masterful job at trying to confuse the issue but it is not an issue of what a woman does or doesn’t do with her uterus.

I just do not see religious liberty as being a gender specific issue. Had the debate been about the advisability of contraception then yes it would have been far more important to have women. But in this case finding experts in the subject seems far more important than whether the panelists were male or female.

Lisa

I get all that you’re saying and agree with much of it. Even social outrages affect women as well as men, and the nature of the issue being debated does not justify favoring men’s voices: whether it’s the price of cheese or the freedom to ring church bells.

That’s not all: from the churches point of view, it is a religious liberty issue. That’s only ONE point of view; large numbers of women see it (rightly or wrongly) as a health issue or a rights issue.

I really don’t have any difficulty siding with my Church on the substance AND pointing out the gender bias in the process - none, whatsoever.

 

[LisaA]

I get all that you’re saying and agree with much of it. Even social outrages affect women as well as men, and the nature of the issue being debated does not justify favoring men’s voices: whether it’s the price of cheese or the freedom to ring church bells.

That’s not all: from the churches point of view, it is a religious liberty issue. That’s only ONE point of view; large numbers of women see it (rightly or wrongly) as a health issue or a rights issue.

I really don’t have any difficulty siding with my Church on the substance AND pointing out the gender bias in the process - none, whatsoever.

The only reason anyone thinks the issue is “women’s health” is because of the MSM and people like Barbara Boxer have the bully pulpit and knowing they cannot win on the Constitutional aspect want to make this an “attack on women’s health.” The media is manipulating you and many others if what you see is a debate on the merits of birth control vis a vis our fundamental liberties.

BTW have you heard about the “student” who was testifying? She was first described as a 23 year old law student as if she were plucked out of the masses for no particular reason. In fact she is 30 years old, has a long history of activism in women’s issues, and deliberately enrolled at Georgetown knowing the Jesuit based institution did not cover birth control. Her objective was to change the school’s policy and this issue has given her that platform. Even President Obama has jumped into the mix by calling her and encouraging her. Golly isn’t he just the best?

A 30 year old woman who is obviously an intelligent, capable individual thinks WE should provide her with free birth control so she can have sex while at law school? Really? I mean really? Does anyone else see how ridiculous this entire discussion has become? Women who demand EQUALITY turn into quivering bowls of jelly incapable of finding birth control that’s available everywhere and for a very low price?

I sometimes wonder how this country has come to this point in time. But hey if people want to believe the MSM is their advocate well God bless’em.

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

The only reason anyone thinks the issue is “women’s health” is because of the MSM and people like Barbara Boxer have the bully pulpit and knowing they cannot win on the Constitutional aspect want to make this an “attack on women’s health.” The media is manipulating you and many others if what you see is a debate on the merits of birth control vis a vis our fundamental liberties.

BTW have you heard about the “student” who was testifying? She was first described as a 23 year old law student as if she were plucked out of the masses for no particular reason. In fact she is 30 years old, has a long history of activism in women’s issues, and deliberately enrolled at Georgetown knowing the Jesuit based institution did not cover birth control. Her objective was to change the school’s policy and this issue has given her that platform. Even President Obama has jumped into the mix by calling her and encouraging her. Golly isn’t he just the best?

A 30 year old woman who is obviously an intelligent, capable individual thinks WE should provide her with free birth control so she can have sex while at law school? Really? I mean really? Does anyone else see how ridiculous this entire discussion has become? Women who demand EQUALITY turn into quivering bowls of jelly incapable of finding birth control that’s available everywhere and for a very low price?

I sometimes wonder how this country has come to this point in time. But hey if people want to believe the MSM is their advocate well God bless’em.

Lisa

It doesn’t really matter why people believe what they believe - that does not nullify their right to voice it in a democratic proceeding.

The MSM did not define women’s health services. In case you missed it, contraception had been part of those services for decades, women go to doctors (not stores or even pharmacy aisles) for the prescriptions and the costs are reimbursed by health insurance companies. You might argue that it shouldn’t be so, but it’s ludicrous to imply that the powers that be or the media, made it so just to push the mandate.

Abortion and contraception have been with us for decades, and the push to make it available to all has been pervasive and global with the US as a major player. While I do not support the mandate, it would be denial of the highest order to pretend that this concept of women’s health and reproductive rights was invented in last year or two.

 

[LisaA]

It doesn’t really matter why people believe what they believe - that does not nullify their right to voice it in a democratic proceeding.

The MSM did not define women’s health services. In case you missed it, contraception had been part of those services for decades, women go to doctors (not stores or even pharmacy aisles) for the prescriptions and the costs are reimbursed by health insurance companies. You might argue that it shouldn’t be so, but it’s ludicrous to imply that the powers that be or the media, made it so just to push the mandate.

Abortion and contraception have been with us for decades, and the push to make it available to all has been pervasive and global with the US as a major player. While I do not support the mandate, it would be denial of the highest order to pretend that this concept of women’s health and reproductive rights was invented in last year or two.

No one said Ms Fluke didn’t have the right to speak her mind. Where did you read this? You are right, people believe what they want to believe regardless sometimes of the facts.

No one said the MSM defined women’s health services. Where did you read that? I said the MSM has tried to manipulate the debate about the HHS Mandate from that of an infringement on religious liberty to a debate about birth control. They know they can’t win on the merits, so they obfuscate the issue. Further many in both the MSM and our politicians (including my own Senator Merkley) claim that “a small group of right wingers is PREVENTING women from access to birth control” A lie. But as you said people can say whatever they want. It’s a free country…so far.

Again you continue to try to frame the debate about availability of birth control. Birth control IS available. Do you truly think a 30 year old college graduate, apparently at the top of her class is incapable of accessing birth control without this mandate? Why should the religious liberty of many institutions be infringed upon to provide a product that is literally available on every street corner and free if one is unable to pay for it?

Do you believe that religious institutions should have to compromise their strongly held beliefs so that Ms Fluke and others like her get free birth control? Is there some vital national interest at stake ensuring Ms Fluke and her like minded friends have someone else pay for their choice to have sex?

Again please stop trying to make this a debate about birth control. It’s not. I hope you think our fundamental freedoms are more important than a government gimme program.

Lisa

 

[quilisma]

I agree with some of what you’re saying, but we seem to differ in our definition of oppression. Let me put it this way:

Men used to make the rules, optional for themselves, but which women were expected to live by. Now that women have revolted, rather than insisting on having a say in framing and implementing the rules, too many seem to simply treat them as optional too. This is a generalization of course, but oftentimes this is what feminism looks like to me. Ideally, both sexes should have to adhere to the same rules of conduct (and equally exercise the freedom to be who God created them).

I would also like to point out that modern “feminists” are STILL letting men make the rules, or to put it another way, their ideology is bedrock-based on the premise “masculine = good, feminine = bad”. If a man can’t get pregnant, then pregnancy is a bad thing and must be suppressed. If working outside the home was seen as primarily a masculine thing a generation or two ago, then working outside the home is better than homemaking. In the “feminist” thought-cocoon, “masculine” is the standard, and anything that isn’t “masculine” is defective and must be eliminated or at least covered up. To me, THAT’S sexism.

 

[LightBound]

seekerz;9027915:

I agree with some of what you’re saying, but we seem to differ in our definition of oppression. Let me put it this way:

Men used to make the rules, optional for themselves, but which women were expected to live by. Now that women have revolted, rather than insisting on having a say in framing and implementing the rules, too many seem to simply treat them as optional too. This is a generalization of course, but oftentimes this is what feminism looks like to me. Ideally, both sexes should have to adhere to the same rules of conduct (and equally exercise the freedom to be who God created them).

I would also like to point out that modern “feminists” are STILL letting men make the rules, or to put it another way, their ideology is bedrock-based on the premise “masculine = good, feminine = bad”. If a man can’t get pregnant, then pregnancy is a bad thing and must be suppressed. If working outside the home was seen as primarily a masculine thing a generation or two ago, then working outside the home is better than homemaking. In the “feminist” thought-cocoon, “masculine” is the standard, and anything that isn’t “masculine” is defective and must be eliminated or at least covered up. To me, THAT’S sexism.

:yup: ^ This!

 

[seekerz]

Lightbound, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying for years. It isn’t true liberation is all you want to do is become someone else while that someone else is busy being who they choose to be. That’s not equality, that’s mimicking.

 

[seekerz]

No one said Ms Fluke didn’t have the right to speak her mind. Where did you read this? You are right, people believe what they want to believe regardless sometimes of the facts.

No one said the MSM defined women’s health services. Where did you read that? I said the MSM has tried to manipulate the debate about the HHS Mandate from that of an infringement on religious liberty to a debate about birth control. They know they can’t win on the merits, so they obfuscate the issue. Further many in both the MSM and our politicians (including my own Senator Merkley) claim that “a small group of right wingers is PREVENTING women from access to birth control” A lie. But as you said people can say whatever they want. It’s a free country…so far.

Again you continue to try to frame the debate about availability of birth control. Birth control IS available. Do you truly think a 30 year old college graduate, apparently at the top of her class is incapable of accessing birth control without this mandate? Why should the religious liberty of many institutions be infringed upon to provide a product that is literally available on every street corner and free if one is unable to pay for it?

Do you believe that religious institutions should have to compromise their strongly held beliefs so that Ms Fluke and others like her get free birth control? Is there some vital national interest at stake ensuring Ms Fluke and her like minded friends have someone else pay for their choice to have sex?

Again please stop trying to make this a debate about birth control. It’s not. I hope you think our fundamental freedoms are more important than a government gimme program.

Lisa

Where did I reference Ms Fluke? I have consistently said the same simple thing: in this matter, whether you perceive it as a question of religious liberty or birth control, women deserved a proportional voice on the panel. What they got actually seemed like an afterthought.

You are the one delving into the substance of the argument. My simple stance is that women deserve an equal voice in democratic debate - regardless of the issue. To suggest that I came to this conclusion as a result of media manipulation is to insult my intelligence as a woman - or were the men on the panel similarly manipulated?

 

[BRZ]

Where did I reference Ms Fluke? I have consistently said the same simple thing: in this matter, whether you perceive it as a question of religious liberty or birth control, women deserved a proportional voice on the panel. What they got actually seemed like an afterthought.

You are the one delving into the substance of the argument. My simple stance is that women deserve an equal voice in democratic debate - regardless of the issue. To suggest that I came to this conclusion as a result of media manipulation is to insult my intelligence as a woman - or were the men on the panel similarly manipulated?

Sorry Seeker, but I believe you to be wrong. I understand what Lisa is trying to say. The issue at large is a religious issue, the right of religious freedom, not an issue on contraception or anything else. Since it is a religious issue, it should be handled by our religious leaders. Our religious leaders DO NOT include nuns. Our religious leaders are our Bishops. They do not need to include anyone else. Why would they need the opinions of any particular gender?

You keep getting hung up on “gender” but what I think you should do is forget about the fact that our Bishops are male and not female. Just recognize them as our religious leaders, the ones who are qualified and have the authority to represent all of the Church (both male and female) in religious matters. Bringing gender into the equation is only playing the game of the opposition who want to appeal to the masses. They want people to think it is an issue of gender because they know they can’t win pushing a religious, strictly genderless, issue and have a far better chance of swaying opinion with their current strategy. I hope that clarifies it.