Negative views of female sexuality: origins, I
- Thread starterCuster Laststand
- Start date
The case for Catholicism — more specifically, the Vatican — being an implementor and perpetuator of historical as well as present oppression of women, and a promoter of patriarchal hierarchy that I outlined in posts 1 through 5 at the beginning of this thread, is made in an excellent OP-ED column by Nicholas D. Kristof in the 17 April 2010 New York Times. Kristof's column, headlined "A Church Mary Can Love," can be found here:
Op-Ed Columnist - A Church Mary Can Love - NYTimes.com
or, alternatively, google
"NY Times, Nicholas D. Kristof, A Church Mary Can Love, 17 April 2010".
Op-Ed Columnist - A Church Mary Can Love - NYTimes.com
or, alternatively, google
"NY Times, Nicholas D. Kristof, A Church Mary Can Love, 17 April 2010".
Warning - Godwin's Law has been envoked.
It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Update...
I began this thread making the point that negative views of female sexuality are rooted in the ancient religious-based philosophy and practice of patriarchy which included married women being (for all practical purposes) the property of their husbands, and broad denial of rights to all women.
From time to time illustrations of these ancient roots of systematic religious-based discrimination against women, carried through to modern times in our supposedly enlightened western societies, emerge with stunning clarity. Today is such a day. See:
“Pope Assails ‘Disobedience’ Among Priests”
by Rachel Donadio, NY Times, 5 April 2012, here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/world/europe/pope-assails-disobedience-among-priests.html?_r=1
Which begins:
“ROME — Striking the tone that once earned him the nickname “God’s Rottweiler,” Pope Benedict XVI in a stern Holy Thursday homily denounced “disobedience” in the Roman Catholic Church, chastising priests who sought the ordination of women and the abolition of priestly celibacy.”
and includes:
“While there was nothing new in the contents of Benedict’s message, it was one of the strongest — and most direct — speeches of a seven-year-old reign that has more often been dominated by a sexual abuse scandal, repeated tangles with other faiths and a Vatican hierarchy in disarray.” …. etc ….
See also:
“Catholic Fund Cuts Off Groups Whose Ties Unsettle Church”
by Dan Frosch — NY Times, 5 April 2012, here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/us/catholic-fund-heightens-scrutiny-of-recipients-ties.html?hpw
which includes:
"…. The Catholic Campaign, which doles out $8 million annually to about 250 groups nationwide, has been under increasing pressure from conservative Catholic groups to ensure that it is not unwittingly aiding organizations that run afoul of church positions on issues like birth control and marriage. While the amount lost is often relatively small, it can account for a significant chunk of a group’s budget. And it is not happening in a vacuum, coming at a time when other nonprofit organizations, like Planned Parenthood, also find themselves under fire from social conservatives trying to choke off their financing. …."
I began this thread making the point that negative views of female sexuality are rooted in the ancient religious-based philosophy and practice of patriarchy which included married women being (for all practical purposes) the property of their husbands, and broad denial of rights to all women.
From time to time illustrations of these ancient roots of systematic religious-based discrimination against women, carried through to modern times in our supposedly enlightened western societies, emerge with stunning clarity. Today is such a day. See:
“Pope Assails ‘Disobedience’ Among Priests”
by Rachel Donadio, NY Times, 5 April 2012, here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/world/europe/pope-assails-disobedience-among-priests.html?_r=1
Which begins:
“ROME — Striking the tone that once earned him the nickname “God’s Rottweiler,” Pope Benedict XVI in a stern Holy Thursday homily denounced “disobedience” in the Roman Catholic Church, chastising priests who sought the ordination of women and the abolition of priestly celibacy.”
and includes:
“While there was nothing new in the contents of Benedict’s message, it was one of the strongest — and most direct — speeches of a seven-year-old reign that has more often been dominated by a sexual abuse scandal, repeated tangles with other faiths and a Vatican hierarchy in disarray.” …. etc ….
See also:
“Catholic Fund Cuts Off Groups Whose Ties Unsettle Church”
by Dan Frosch — NY Times, 5 April 2012, here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/us/catholic-fund-heightens-scrutiny-of-recipients-ties.html?hpw
which includes:
"…. The Catholic Campaign, which doles out $8 million annually to about 250 groups nationwide, has been under increasing pressure from conservative Catholic groups to ensure that it is not unwittingly aiding organizations that run afoul of church positions on issues like birth control and marriage. While the amount lost is often relatively small, it can account for a significant chunk of a group’s budget. And it is not happening in a vacuum, coming at a time when other nonprofit organizations, like Planned Parenthood, also find themselves under fire from social conservatives trying to choke off their financing. …."
Well, Custer, I have to say I agree with your basic premise.
I remember back in the 1970s when black people began addressing each other with the "n" word. It was a way of disempowering that word.
The word "slut" is just a pejorative patriarchal term for a woman who freely owns her own sexuality. The way to disempower it is to ASSERT (notice that I did not say "admit"), and I mean joyously ASSERT.... that a SLUT is what you are.
I started using the word to describe myself when I first embraced the lifestyle some years ago, waiting out my divorce settlement at my little condo in Hawaii. I have not been afraid to use the "S" word in any number of situations, and have even described myself as such when in the presence of co-workers.
As some of you know, I like to go to night classes at the local junior college to meet potential lovers. I freely describe myself with the "S" word when I am in those situations.
Take back the night, girls! Our time has come!
Maria the SLUT
I remember back in the 1970s when black people began addressing each other with the "n" word. It was a way of disempowering that word.
The word "slut" is just a pejorative patriarchal term for a woman who freely owns her own sexuality. The way to disempower it is to ASSERT (notice that I did not say "admit"), and I mean joyously ASSERT.... that a SLUT is what you are.
I started using the word to describe myself when I first embraced the lifestyle some years ago, waiting out my divorce settlement at my little condo in Hawaii. I have not been afraid to use the "S" word in any number of situations, and have even described myself as such when in the presence of co-workers.
As some of you know, I like to go to night classes at the local junior college to meet potential lovers. I freely describe myself with the "S" word when I am in those situations.
Take back the night, girls! Our time has come!
Maria the SLUT
Hi Ms. Maria,
Cool... thank you for saying so.
So that's the rationale. I've heard that on a few rare occasions... not often... and it has always struck me as sort of curious.
I agree.
I'll have to take your word for it, I guess. I definitely agree that asserting you're a "normal woman with a healthy sex drive" is way too wordy.
Awright... that's admirable. I like it.
Yes, I remember you deciding on that strategy in your thread a while back. From time to time I've wondered how it's been going (although I'll admit I haven't been preoccupied with that). I've suspected you've been handling it well.
I think so... although the religious right wing including the Catholic Bishops are still out there, and they're fighting as vigorously as possible to roll back women's rights. They never give up. Thus, women still have a long way to go. For instance, the percentage of progressive Democratic women in the U.S. Congress is still quite small (about 17%, I think) and increasing VERY slowly.
How many Catholic Bishops are there in the U.S. anyway, none of them female, somehow presuming to speak for all U.S. Catholic and even lots of non-Catholic women...? On the order of a few hundred...?
Returning to the subject of pejorative words... "slut," "*****," etc... being attempts by the religious-based patriarchy... most strongly represented at present by the religious right... to put down women who express their sexuality freely, thereby being, in essence, attempts to re-assert male dominion over (if not ownership of) women: a good article on the underlying right-wing religious basis of Rush Limbaugh's infamous multi-day nation-wide smearing of Sandra Fluke can be found here:
OpEdNews - Article: Why Rush Limbaugh went off on Sandra Fluke - and what the hell is up with the GOP?
The author, Ms. Ruth Lopez, makes a point I haven't seen stated this directly before. I suspect rather-strongly she has it right.
—Custer
Richard and Maria Pike said:
Cool... thank you for saying so.
Richard and Maria Pike said:
So that's the rationale. I've heard that on a few rare occasions... not often... and it has always struck me as sort of curious.
Richard and Maria Pike said:
I agree.
Richard and Maria Pike said:The way to disempower it is to ASSERT (notice that I did not say "admit"), and I mean joyously ASSERT.... that a SLUT is what you are.
I'll have to take your word for it, I guess. I definitely agree that asserting you're a "normal woman with a healthy sex drive" is way too wordy.
Richard and Maria Pike said:I started using the word to describe myself when I first embraced the lifestyle some years ago, waiting out my divorce settlement at my little condo in Hawaii. I have not been afraid to use the "S" word in any number of situations, and have even described myself as such when in the presence of co-workers.
Awright... that's admirable. I like it.
Richard and Maria Pike said:As some of you know, I like to go to night classes at the local junior college to meet potential lovers. I freely describe myself with the "S" word when I am in those situations.
Yes, I remember you deciding on that strategy in your thread a while back. From time to time I've wondered how it's been going (although I'll admit I haven't been preoccupied with that). I've suspected you've been handling it well.
Richard and Maria Pike said:
I think so... although the religious right wing including the Catholic Bishops are still out there, and they're fighting as vigorously as possible to roll back women's rights. They never give up. Thus, women still have a long way to go. For instance, the percentage of progressive Democratic women in the U.S. Congress is still quite small (about 17%, I think) and increasing VERY slowly.
How many Catholic Bishops are there in the U.S. anyway, none of them female, somehow presuming to speak for all U.S. Catholic and even lots of non-Catholic women...? On the order of a few hundred...?
Returning to the subject of pejorative words... "slut," "*****," etc... being attempts by the religious-based patriarchy... most strongly represented at present by the religious right... to put down women who express their sexuality freely, thereby being, in essence, attempts to re-assert male dominion over (if not ownership of) women: a good article on the underlying right-wing religious basis of Rush Limbaugh's infamous multi-day nation-wide smearing of Sandra Fluke can be found here:
OpEdNews - Article: Why Rush Limbaugh went off on Sandra Fluke - and what the hell is up with the GOP?
The author, Ms. Ruth Lopez, makes a point I haven't seen stated this directly before. I suspect rather-strongly she has it right.
—Custer
