The Authoritarian Agenda Behind Attacks on Contraception


In a recent piece for the American Prospect, Sarah Posner outlined how the fringe of the religious right increasingly dictates the larger conservative agenda, as evidenced by the bold Republican push towards open war on contraception.  Sarah writes about the reason for the attacks on Planned Parenthood:

It is not solely about shutting down Planned Parenthood’s federal funding because the organization provides abortion services (indeed federal funding of abortion is already banned by the Hyde Amendment). It’s about shutting down Planned Parenthood because it provides contraceptives. That is a target because, as Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has put it, “an arrogant corrupt Washington elite” has “declared war on marriage, on families, on fertility, and on faith.”

Mike Huckabee has started to join the chorus of anti-contraception voices as well, calling Planned Parenthood “Planned Barrenhood”—basically signing off on the idea that any attempt to control fertility is wrong, no matter how you do it.  While the official argument is that this is still just about abortion, the mask slips more and more all the time, and the public is beginning to be clear about how radical the anti-choice agenda really is. And the thing is that when you drop the bloviating about fetal life and attack contraception head on, it’s much harder to distract people from how viciously misogynistic this agenda really is. 

Take, for instance, the reaction of the California Catholic Daily to a new Guttmacher report demonstrating no real difference in contraception use between religious and non-religious women, even Catholics.  Ninety-eight percent of Catholic women use contraception, only one percentage point less than the public at large.  Instead of viewing this as evidence that church teachings are sexist, out of date, and have no relationship to women’s actual needs and lives, California Catholic Daily lashed out at women for being disobedient to the dictates of the celibate men who are supposed to know better than women what they need for their lives:

Basically, the report said, Catholic women have ignored their bishops. “In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible,” the Guttmacher news release quoted Rachel K. Jones, the report’s lead author, as saying….

The Institute seemed to take some glee from the finding that Catholic women are ignoring Church teachings.

No evidence was produced of the “glee” that the notoriously sober-minded researchers at Guttmacher were accused of demonstrating.

But what I find most interesting about this is how the feigned concern for the fetus has been dropped completely, and the entire focus is on controlling women.  Catholic women are criticized solely for disobedience, solely for not blindly following the dictates of leaders who don’t know or care much about the actual circumstances of women’s lives.  Women seem to exist solely to obey without asking questions, and the fact that women don’t actually do this is treated like an embarrassment for the Catholic Church.  The perception that the Guttmacher Institute is laughing at the Catholic Church stems mainly from this humiliated stance; the author seems to be cringing because they’ve been called out for not keeping “their” women on a tighter leash.

I fail to see how this is not misogyny. Casting women in a role of supplicants who should simply reproduce as much as their masters tell them without daring even a peep of protest—and suggesting that women’s failure to comply to hateful, unmanageable rules is a humiliation for their masters—strikes me as misogyny distilled.  The reaction to Guttmacher’s study on other right wing sites didn’t do much to dissuade me from seeing the objection to reproductive rights as simply a display of dominance over women.  In fact, the humiliated stance was so great that some bloggers denied that women who use contraception are really Catholic, saying things like, “Now, Guttmacher determined that anyone who went to services at least once a month was an observant member of their religion (ha!), so we don’t know just how ‘Catholic’ these self-described Catholics are,” even though by putting “Catholics” and “contraception users” into separate cateogories means that only 2 percent of Catholic women are Catholic.

Catholic Culture reacted to the news with ad hominem attacks on Alan Guttmacher though he’s been dead for 37 years.  They couldn’t dispute the findings, so it was more a reaction along the lines of, “Yeah, we can’t control our women but your mom is ugly neener neener neener!” 

Anti-choice commenters reacted to the news in similar fashions, denying the findings without evidence or making ad hominem attacks.  But above all things, Catholic women were criticized for their lack of blind obedience. A commenter at California Catholic Daily compared women to naughty children refusing to eat their vegetables:

Their point is simply an immature view which any parent has heard arguments like that from their children from time to time.

Women who rejected church teachings had their intelligence insulted:

The reason Catholic couples use artificial means is because they are unaware of Church teachings and most don’t understand NFP.

I think a better explanation is that women do understand NFP and know that it’s not for them, and have chosen an option that fits with their lifestyles. The assumption that 98 percent of Catholic women are too stupid to know what’s best for them is pure misogyny.  Indeed, the fact that NFP doesn’t work for the vast majority of women was presented as the main reason that it should be their only option:

When people are truly educated on the dignity of men and women, the awesome privilege of cooperating in creating another soul for heaven, and on the benefits of Natural Family Planning (which requires sacrifice, a dirty word today, but helps married couples develop respect for their spouse) contraception will be a thing of the past.

In other words, the reason the commenter supports natural family planning is he assumes that it will fail and pregnancy will come from it.  That, and sacrificing—your health, the happiness of your marriage, your family’s financial future, your sexual pleasure—is an end in and of itself.  If you wonder why suffering is just good for its own sake, then this commenter has an answer for you: stop asking questions.

Please, Lord, give us courageous rectors of seminaries who will teach the men all they need to know.I grew up when “the Church teaches it, do it, and that’s the end of it, or you’ll end up in hell.”

And this is all what’s underlying the war on contraception: misogynist authoritarianism. In other words, the war on contraception is a war on the bedrock values this country stands for—equality, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, and democracy—and looks to replace those things with blind obedience to authority and second class status for women.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • crowepps

    When people are truly educated on the dignity of men and women

    Now this is just mindboggling.  Dignity is “the quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect.”  Apparently women who don’t reserve sex exclusively for reproduction aren’t worthy of esteem or respect because 98% of women are too slutty to deserve that — the ones who aren’t obeying their “parent” Church fast enough.

     

    It is just amazing to me that more Catholic women don’t see that their Church holds women in contempt and disrespects them as children who should shut up and do what they’re told.

  • amanda-marcotte

    People’s reasons for sticking by religions they disagree with are complex and mainly social. You may think the Pope is full of it on birth control, but you still want to have access to weddings, baptisms, and community that the church provides.

  • johannahatch

    I think it’s also important to remember that, as with any religious tradition, Catholicism looks very different in different communities (for instance, Mass with a progressive women’s religious community or lay-led community is very different then a conservative Latin Mass).  Additionally, there are many reform movements within the Catholic Church working to change teachings on sexuality, reproduction, and women’s roles within the church.

    Many Catholic women DO see just what you are talking about, and are working to change it, either through direct advocacy or through living their lives in line with their conscience, and not giving the hierarchy power over their most intimate decisions.

  • starrsitter

    One of my major problems with NFP is that it inherently requires a woman to NOT have sexual intercourse with her partner at what tends to be the time she is most desirous UNLESS she wants to get pregnant.  I mean, this fits in with the whole pregnancy-as-punishment-for-sex attitude that its major proponents seem to have, but in and of itself it seems misogynist.

  • elburto

    We’re animals, biologically programmed to feel arousal most when we’re fertile. Telling women “Well if you insist on disobeying God’s plan for you to keep popping out babies until you die, then you deserve the frustration and tension and lack of sex”

    Add to that the heterosexist trope that sex is penis in vagina, that masturbation is wrong, and there’s further pressure on women to either suffer sexual frustration or risk unwanted pregnancy. Yeah, NFP sounds AWESOME!

  • amanda-marcotte

    I think what that commenter was referring to when he said “sacrifice”. NFP is advocated because it’s just using abstinence—the end goal is making sure that you don’t have sex when you want.

  • crowepps

    Many Catholic women DO see just what you are talking about, and are working to change it, either through direct advocacy or through living their lives in line with their conscience, and not giving the hierarchy power over their most intimate decisions.

    Passive resistance isn’t working — instead it’s inspiring the Church to gobble up hospitals so it can force the doctors to deny women reproductive choices, try to get laws passed that enable those hospitals to deny pregnant women care that will save their lives, and pressure pharmacists to be ‘good Catholics’ and stop providing birth control.  Since its laity are “not giving the hierarchy power” the Church has shifted to trying to control the most intimate decisions of ALL women.

  • crowepps

    It changes the focus of a woman’s life as well, since her first thought in the morning has to be “take my temperature and chart it” and she has to dabble in her cervical mucus daily.  Her focus is forced to remain on the possibility of reproduction even during the 20 or so years AFTER she has her two or four or six wanted children and her family is complete.

     

    This has the secondary benefit of eliminating the bonding and relationship affirming aspects of sex, making the husband and wife adversaries in negotiating sex, and changing the focus back to what the Church prefers, a constant reminder to women that as inferiors they have no escape, that their mere existence is corrupting because their being female distracts their husbands from spiritual things, and so they must justify their existence by accepting a role as breeding stock and being of ‘service’ to their husbands.

  • forced-birth-rape

    “Mike Huckabee has started to join the chorus of anti-contraception voices as well, calling Planned Parenthood “Planned Barrenhood”—“

     

     

    ~ Mike Huckabee is a pro-rape, rapist coddler, and a pro-female submission southern baptist creep, he can not get pregnant or give birth.

     

    But he, with his egocentric christian man arrogance, condemns women who do not want their vaginas used and abused. Women and girls do not have to be pregnant and give birth to satisfy the misogynistic christians sadomasochistic pornographic pregnancy and birth fetish.

     

    Mike Huckabee is a American christian taliban.

     

    Atheist women and their daughters do not have to be subject to christian rule, we have a right to birth control, abortion, and Planned Parenthood, and it is none of the misogynistic christians damn business. They are just pissed that we are not interested in them and their sick religion, after growing up in church and christianity I believe churches should be closed down.~

  • tefinnegan

    AND I want “In God We Trust” off of MY money

    AND I want “Under God” out of my National & State Pledge of Alligiance.

     

    One of the main principles this country was founded upon was freedom FROM religion.

  • tefinnegan

    I grew up in a church, as well.  With my great-uncle performing my baptism.  I got out as soon as I noticed all the hypocrisy.  Now I am all about personal choices and persoanal responsibility.  

     

    However, this is still the U.S.A. and everyone has the right to believe or not, practice or not.  I don’t think closing all religious organizations is the answer.  I do believe that they should be taxed at the highest rate.  No more free ride. 

     

     

  • naturefreak799

    As a 40 year man who has always been passionately pro reproductive freedom, my biggest mistake about the anti choice movement was believing it was primarily about abortion and their supposedly sincere belief abortion is wrong. While i have met and do know some persons in which that is the case, I would say that a large majority of rank and file as well as leaders of the anti choice community are using abortion on a concious or subconcious level as a surrogate for what they really want, a return to so called “traditional American christian values”.

    The changes in the 1960′s (they had been going on since the 19th century but rapidity accelerated) were nothing less than a (well needed) major social revolution occuring across the globe, especially in the west. I know to many of the older members of my family these changes were not easy and many will never totally come to terms with this societal shift.  American society is still fighting the battles of the 1960′s, and considering the scope and intensity if the changes, no one should be shocked (it is scary nonetheless)at the current backlash towards reproductive freedom. Also in the mix is the fact that as the birth rate drops for all groups in the west and especially for non Hispanic whites there is a serious ethnic and racial aspect to this battle which is not always vocalized by the religious right but is there nonetheless.

    Social conservatives are rightfully ridiculed when they speak out against the so called “evils” of controception, cohabitation, sex out of wedlock by concenting adults, etc.  And overt racism is frowned upon by most in our culture. The  anti choice movement becomes a surrogate and is being used as a more socitial accepted way of vocing frustration and hatred of sexual liberation as well as fear of ethnic shifts in demographics.

    What i find interesting is the anti choice movement becoming more public about their hatred of contraception. While scary, i believe it is to our benefit  for them to be open about this as their contraceptive beliefs will marginalize the anti choice movement to many people, including to many conservatives who do not buy into the whole religious right agenda. Maybe what is fueling the anti contraceptive movement is that most religious right types only socialize around their own kind, never hearing other points of view. This promotes radicalism as they actually begin to believe that a silent majority feel their way.

      Ultimately, as generational shifts continue in our society as many of the older social conservative types die off, I am feeling pretty good about the long term future of reproductive/ gender freedom. Despite this, i will continue to speak out. Just because I am optimistic over the long hall does not mean we should stop fighting. Deeply wounded institutions (i.e religious right) can cause lots of ugly damage in the short term.

  • ninevehuk

    Not to mention the corollary of “a woman can’t have sex when she most wants it” – that if she is to have PIV sex with her husband, she will have to do it when she least wants it. Which in a lot of cases, no matter how good the relationship is not going to be a particularly good experience, so punishment again!

  • arekushieru

    I think FBIR is referring to churches/the whole structures of organized religions, themselves, not those who practice the faith, what have you.  They are still free to practice their faith and follow their beliefs, though.

    The reason why I suspect this: I’m a Christian and FBIR knows that and has had no problem with it in the past.  :D

  • arekushieru

    Yup, that’s what freedom of religion means, freedom from and freedom to religion, same with freedom of speech!

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ I was kinda being sarcastic because the catholic church thinks it should not be closed down, even though it is rampant with child rape.

     

    And I grew up in the southern baptist convention and it is rampant with wife beating. But these two self-righteous organizations wants to say Planned Parenthood should be closed down. ~

     

     

    As t.e. said,

    “I noticed all the hypocrisy.” SO True! 

  • pragmatic-realist

    I posted this comment over at “Common Dreams”, but I thought it was important to copy it over to the original place where the article came from. I was a professional minister in a mainline protestant denomination for a long time, so I know a little bit about what I am talking about. People need to understand that this issue with contraception is not out of an extreme fundamentalist place, it is out of a long tradition of Catholic christian theology. You have to understand that you are dealing with very serious basic issues, and the reaction will be desperate.

     

    It is very important to understand the underlying theological argument here. According to Augustine human beings are born with a fundamental flaw, in us from the first instant of life, an “original sin”: concupiscence, self centered desire. Sexual desire is the most intense expression of this, and anything that encourages this encourages and intensifies sin.

    Having any kind of sexual experience intensifies the sinfulness of the already sinful person. On the other hand, God, for his own reasons, made it necessary to have sexual intercourse to propagate the human race, so the only way sex can be experienced legitimately is for propagation. Any way of having a sexual experience without its being at least open to propagation (abortion, contraception, masturbation or homosexually) is encouraging and feeding sin.

    All the things you have said about patriarchal authoritarianism are true, but you are not going to get anywhere without overturning the doctrine of original sin and the substitutionary atonement.

    I am not joking at all. It may be antiquated rubbish to some, but to them it places contraception into the core foundation of their whole faith. You can disregard and mock it if you want, but you will lose. I am not advocating the idea that this theological theory is true or accurate as an interpretation of the Christian faith, I am just trying to explain how all of this goes together.

    If we had understood it, we would not have been shocked or taken unaware when they moved the goalposts from abortion to contraception, and how same-sex-marriage and even sex education in school fits into the whole thing. It is important to understand how desperately they have to fight to keep this together. It is not just a piece of modernization to get rid of an “antiquated” idea.

    There are valid alternate theologies that could be promoted to avoid the whole issue, but you have to understand what you are talking about. Smart people get stupid when they get angry and afraid. By the way, restricting divorce will be the next goal on their list. Don’t be surprised when it comes up in some state legislature.

  • jodi-jacobson

    For this comment.

    I agree that this is the fundamental perspective behind much of this, though I think others are motivated as well by a focus on “women as sinners” with Eve being the original sinner and temptress, and therefore the intention of shaming women but “forgiving” men (John Ensign, Mark Sanford, David Duke to name three), a practice especially prevalent among those who are either directly or indirectly affiliated with groups of the “C Street” ilk.

    I also believe that an ideology focused on “saving souls” no matter what you put people through to do this is a thread running through the whole focus on forcing women to give birth even to babies that are doomed to die at or within minutes of birth. Notice the focus on “fetal pain” at the expense of the pain and suffering of a born baby that suffers and dies (this being the “better course” according to fundamentalist extremists).

    I think your points are valid; I don’t however think they negate the points made by Amanda and others here and elsewhere because while these folks want to dominate the world as it is and make it in the image they seek, the rest of us do not have to and most do not comply. the end result, irrespective of their intention, is authoritarian, so while the basis is in fact important to note, the outcome is the same.

    best wishes,

    Jodi Jacobson

  • arekushieru

    I can understand where you’re coming from, PR.  It is too bad, though, that they don’t realize that the Original Sin is disobedience to God, not prostitution or sexual intercourse for its own sake.  The sin was that Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, in disobedience to God.  

    Of course, as a former Catholic, myself, I am well aware of how much more strongly one tries to hold onto their beliefs the more unstable what was once a firm foundation becomes as it is undercut from beneath them. 

  • arekushieru

    Although, if Eve was the original sinner, she was certainly not the greatest sinner.  After all, another human (Eve) deceived Adam, while Satan deceived Eve.

  • crowepps

    By the way, restricting divorce will be the next goal on their list. Don’t be surprised when it comes up in some state legislature.

    They have already been trying to abolish divorce for over 15 years by passing laws to establish ‘covenant marriages’ which have requirements that hold the children hostage to prevent women from escaping.

     

    Lousiana established covenant marriage in 1997, and similar laws have been passed in Arkansas and Arizona.  Legislation has been introduced to create legal covenant marriage in 21 other states but has not yet passed.

     

    The ultra conservative Catholics want to reestablish a Catholic World Order like the good old days, with the Pope in charge of the Christian world, and they are absolutely serious about it.  If you have a strong stomach, here’s a connection to Michael Voris explaining that the problem with democracy is that everybody gets to vote, instead of only ‘the informed’:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSnJi6SpzLo

  • plume-assassine

    “Covenant marriage” has always really creeped me out. But don’t both parties have to opt for that type of marriage? I mean, when someone is married in Louisiana, it doesn’t automatically mean their marriage is the “covenant” type, does it?

     

    The ultra conservative Catholics want to reestablish a Catholic World Order like the good old days, with the Pope in charge of the Christian world, and they are absolutely serious about it.  If you have a strong stomach, here’s a connection to Michael Voris explaining that the problem with democracy is that everybody gets to vote, instead of only ‘the informed’

    I’m too afraid to click the link just yet, but this reminded me of a Catholic anti-choice poli-sci professor at my school who believes that Christianity is the foundation of Democracy itself. This is just a nicely dressed up way of advancing a Christian dominionist agenda. Apparently, he’s also never heard of the ancient Greeks…

  • crowepps

    Covenant marriage isn’t popular, is chosen by only about 1% of those getting married, and, yes, both parties do have to agree.  Personally, if a man is insisting that ‘if it’s really love’ she will agree, I would suspect he was an abuser and recommend she dump him altogether.

  • ladystardragon

    I, for one, am PROUD and HAPPY that my mom quit the Catholic Church when I was a baby.

     

    Talk about F***ing hypocrites!! Since when are these priests and Bishops so good at being CELEBATE!! Just because the proof cannot bulge out their tummy in nine months time… does not mean that they are CELEBATE!! HOW MANY YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN have been violated by these LECHEROUS OLD BASTARDS!! How many have never come forward out of fear of the clergyman himself, or of the fabricated “wrath of God”claimed by the scumbag in ministerial garb??

    I assure you God has a SPECIAL PLACE IN HELL for these pious A**holes!!

     

    Nothing says that because I am on birth control that I’m out being promiscuous… and if I am that is between me and my God!! I answer to NO MAN!! I answer ONLY to God!!

    Keep your laws off my UTERUS!! 

  • ladystardragon

    It is true that there is much hypocrisy in religion… and though I am a believer in God, I totally understand your dismay at these jerks trying to dictate to everyone.

    I have always said, “You can’t legislate morality,” though these SOBs will try.

    I don’t believe that abortion is any kind of “good” answer… but, I believe that it should ALWAYS remain legal and affordable.

    Too many women died from botched abortions when they were illegal!! But the right-wing, they yearn for “the good ole days” when the Great Depression weeded out the temporarily lucky wealthy folks, when “Robber-Barrons” became the moguls of the day, when child labor went unchecked, and women and blacks couldn’t vote! Ah! The good ole days!!

  • ladystardragon

    Having been married to an abusive prick in the past… I assure you that he would love to trap some woman in his personal little HELL, via COVENANT MARRIAGE!!

    This SOB tried to kill me, and foiled my plans to leave him with my daughter. Soon after, I found out I was pregnant again, and he told me that it was not his child! I was so angry, I told him, “You’re right it’s not yours!!” He tried to kill me a second time. Shortly after that, he left, taking my daughter with him. Then, like an idiot, I took my pastor’s advice and let him file for the divorce… He claimed that I mentally and emotionally abused him and that our daughter would be better off with him (Full Custody). He totally killed my daughter’s self-esteem.

    Later threatened his second wife with a firearm, in front of four little children! He was fired from the Illinois Dept of Corrections because of the incident. She finally left him after maybe 10 years of garbage… he always threatened to keep their son from her… but, she finally found her strength and she keeps the son. Now he’s preparing to marry his brother’s ex-wife (he cheated with both brothers’ wives while with the second wife).

    Like so many abusive A**holes, he is THE MOST CHARMING MAN, when he wants to be! He traps you, and then he “flips the switch.” There should be a way to tattoo “ABUSIVE JERK” on this guy’s forehead… DON’T BUY THE COVENANT MARRIAGE CRAP!! It too is a trap!!

  • kj

    While I would love to believe that progressive women have influnce with the church, I can tell you I don’t see the Pope or bishops changing one iota, despite all the work of progressive catholics. I went to a catholic school and quite a few of my teachers were on the progressive side of things (in fact, my religion teacher said ‘if you don’t think birth control is a sin, there is no reason not to use it.’) but despite all that, they still had to bring in priests to conduct mass and couldn’t openly address certain issues (the same religion teacher told me she would love to bring in someone from PP to speak but that she would be fired if she did it.)  I think the catholic church will only wake up when parishioners go into open revolt, by leaving in droves.  Quiet disobidence, as practiced by many, or the ‘cafateria catholic’ approach has failed.  But sadly, most Catholics I know are so brainwashed by the church that leaving is unimaginable, even if they disagree with and passivly resist 90% of church doctrines.  It is sad.

  • beenthere72

    I need a shower after watching that. 

  • prochoiceferret

    While I would love to believe that progressive women have influnce with the church, I can tell you I don’t see the Pope or bishops changing one iota, despite all the work of progressive catholics.

     

    I think it’s more about defining the church less in terms of the formal Church’s teachings than in terms of what the laypeople believe. It’s going to be centuries before the hierarchy falls into line (just look at how things played out with Galileo), but until then, the laypeople and enlightened clergy have to be ahead of the curve.

     

    Of course, the Church will scream and holler and say, “No, the church is what we say it is!” and people will just have to smile and nod while they continue working to marginalize the old boys’ club.

  • colleen

    I don’t see the Pope or bishops changing one iota, despite all the work of progressive catholics

    I see them changing but in the opposite direction. Indeed there was a decade or so of hope that the Church would do something remarkable like actually help the poor. Fat chance. The Church has become more authoritarian and far more right wing during the past 35-40 years. Their contempt towards women and Democracy is palpable as well as their increasingly destructive (and greedy) involvement in US politics and in our judicial system. What sort of men would equate ordaining a woman with a career of clerical pedophilia?

    We used to be a nation where the Church and state were separate. Now we have a majority conservative Catholic SCOTUS and Scalia at least has NO problems with the death penalty even when he KNOWS the verdict was tainted and the man or woman who is going to be murdered by the State is, in fact, innocent. We certainly don’t see the USCCB threatening to withhold communion from ‘Justice’ Scalia.

    What’s REALLY sad is that the progressive Catholics have been unable to prevent the Church from enabling the rape of children by it’s clergy or spending a good deal of money interfering with attempts  to extend the statute of limitations  so that  adult victims of sexual abuse can seek justice. What’s even sadder is that so many in the laity defend the practices of the hierarchy and, despite an Everest sized mountain of international evidence , are still in denial, still blame the victims and as a final demonstration of their astounding ignorance and bigotry, some blame  the entire debacle on gay men.

    The notion that those of us who aren’t Catholics are expected to respect the Church, comply with it’s social doctrine and obey it’s clergy is PRECISELY what the ‘pro-life’ movement  is arguing. If not the Catholic church than one of it’s far right Protestant allies on social issues (LDS, SBC etc). Their contempt for women is so great that we aren’t even entitled to freedom of conscience or a voice in the matter. If this is Christianity I want no part of it.

     

  • thehammer

    It is mind boggling to you, because you do not bother to educate yourself.

     

    By the very definition listed in your own post, the Catholic Church has a very long history of respect and dignity for women. As an example, Catholics treatment Mary, not to mention nearly untold amounts of female Saints.

    Find me another religion, that hold women in such high esteem.

     

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Find me another religion, that hold women in such high esteem.

     

    Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia. Their hold their women in such high esteem, they make sure that an unrelated male always accompanies them when they leave the house, and that they are protected from the sordid machinations of driving and voting. After all, there is nothing more important than a woman’s honor and purity! I’m sure they would find Mary a very agreeable woman.

  • thehammer

    They do find Mary very agreeable. Again, educate yourself.

    Catholic women saints are not all submissive, shrews; witness Joan d’Arc and Catherine of Sienna who chided the Pope for various failings of his.

    You are so caught up in your ‘rights’ that you fail to see beyond your selfish and immediate ‘needs’. Modernism, with it’s emphasis on the individual, sans God, has done none of us any favors, least of all women. It is endlessly ironic that this forum and others, spews forth an endless stream of complaints and yet the true villian remains unsaid and unmasked. 

     

    Base greed and boundless hubris.

     

  • colleen

    Again, educate yourself.

    We’re educated enough to know that the Church tortured and then burnt Joan of Arc at the stake  for her uppity ways and particularly for wearing men’s clothing. Perhaps you should read some Church history before lecturing others. Start with anything by Karen Armstrong. She was, after all, a former nun and she understands fully the contempt the Catholic hierarchy holds towards women.

    You are so caught up in your ‘rights’ that you fail to see beyond your selfish and immediate ‘needs’.

    Oh well.  At least we don’t take our spiritual instruction from men who, as a matter of institutional policy,  protect, enable and and defend child rapists.

     

     

  • thehammer

    Oh wow. I am underwhelmed.

    Seriously? That’s it?

    A call to mythology, another call to read yet another polemicist and finally the obvious smear campaign.

    Laughably predictable. Yawn.

    Got anything else?

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    You are so caught up in your ‘rights’ that you fail to see beyond your selfish and immediate ‘needs’.

     

    I’m sure you said that a lot to the civil-rights movement, too.

     

    Modernism, with it’s emphasis on the individual, sans God, has done none of us any favors, least of all women.

     

    Let me guess… you’re not a woman?

     

    It is endlessly ironic that this forum and others, spews forth an endless stream of complaints and yet the true villian remains unsaid and unmasked.

     

    Yes, I’m sure that all rights advocacy strikes you like a bad episode of Scooby Doo.

     

    Base greed and boundless hubris.

     

    Whereas I have respect for women as human beings.

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ Well get lost if it is a yawn you pro-child-rape catholic creep! ~

    ~ Every time a catholic hears a little girl has been raped they pray she is now pregnant. Nothing makes catholics hornier then raped nine or ten year old little girls giving birth. ~

    ~ This is a pro womens and little girls rights website, why dont you go over to a pro-child-rape website, you know a catholic website. ~

  • colleen

    Seriously? That’s it?

    There is no point in wasting time trying to reason with a walking, breathing insult.

  • crowepps

    “the Catholic Church has a very long history of respect and dignity for” VIRGIN “women.”

     

    Women who aren’t virgins, however, can be allowed to die with no regrets. 

  • crowepps

    You are so caught up in your ‘rights’ that you fail to see beyond your selfish and immediate ‘needs’.

    Oh, golly, women aren’t willing to be martyrs anymore!  Don’t they understand that they exist to serve men?  Don’t they understand they are supposed to be breeding stock?

     

    It’s hard to think of a more egregious example of hubris than withholding necessary medical care and letting a woman die because “It is not better that the mother live the rest of her existence having had her child killed.”

  • rebellious-grrl

    Wrong hammer. Crowepps is spot on with her post. I’m someone who was indoctrinated in the Catholic church, hence me being an ex-Catholic. I know very well how women are disrespected in the church.

    And..Wicca is a religion that respects and empowers women way more than the Catholic church.

  • ahunt

    Now wait a sec, here…

     

    Hammer, can you elaborate on the historical RCC respect of women?

  • kj

    Well, Joan of Arc was a virgin and they killed her.  So quiet, submissive virgins might be safe, but not pant-wearing, sword-carrying virgins. 

  • arekushieru

    YOU brought up Joan of Arc.  Maybe this nun isn’t the polemicist but the Catholic Church, itself?  Never thought of that, eh?  Obvious smear campain?  I’m laughing, seriously.  Since your attempt was an obvious whitewashing of the Catholic Church.

     

  • arekushieru

    They do find Mary very agreeable. Especially when they’ve put her through the Catholic Church’s washing.  But, in fact, Mary was a feminist.  She chose to have Jesus.  She imparted her own values to Jesus, values for which God believed she would be the best mother to His son.  And why Jesus is also a feminist.

    You obviously don’t know what true greed and hubris are.  The anti-choice movement is BUILT upon forcing others to live the way they wish them to live. Pure greed.  The anti-choice movement is FOUNDED upon a basis of superior morality (as in, My Abortion is the Only Moral Abortion).  Plain hubris.  Thanks.   

  • arekushieru

    Just because the proof cannot bulge out their tummy in nine months time… does not mean that they are CELEBATE!

    Yup, that’s an excellent example of their hypocrisy.  If it was all about life and not misogyny and punishment, women wouldn’t be the only ones held hostages to their bodies, simply because there is no ‘natural’ corollary that is as identifiable and burdensome in any other group of humans as pregnancy is in women.

  • arekushieru

    Or that it is any kind of ‘bad’ answer?  Although, this does hold true for any choice you can make concerning an unplanned/untenable pregnancy.

  • prochoiceferret

    But, in fact, Mary was a feminist.  She chose to have Jesus.

     

    Hmm. I do seem to recall something about how when the angel Gabriel told her she was pregnant, she was scared, but decided to go through with it. Any Bible-bibliophiles here know if there might be a good verse to emphasize the fact that Mary made a choice?

  • arekushieru

    Well, it was an awesome prospect!  Bearing the son of God, that is.  So I think there is some truth to the scariness of it all, in that sense.

  • forlife

    Thanks for your sympathy for me as a poor, oppressed Catholic woman. But the truth is, contraception sucks. People are also trying to push more and more contraception and make it cool. But no one wants to use it, and when people do, it fails anyway quite often.

     I will not even put non-organic food into my body, let alone jack up my body with birth control hormones everyday. If the Pope declared tomorrow that BC was the best thing in the world, I still would not use it. Plus, condoms are gross..who wants to have sex with a balloon between them and their partner?  My girlfriend has an IUD and says her husband can feel it during sex. Sexy.

    Sex au naturel is the best thing ever, and if the majority of Catholic women do not want to do it naturally, that is their loss.

  • purplemistydez

    Contraceptions have a small percentage of failure if used correctly.  I have used condoms and they feel fine.  Just need to find the ones that work for you. Most people who use it want to prevent pregnancy and STIs.  Sex is great and fun, but you need to be careful.  If contraceptives are too complicated for you, then you should get tested more often.

  • prochoiceferret

    Sex au naturel is the best thing ever, and if the majority of Catholic women do not want to do it naturally, that is their loss.

     

    Yes, I’m sure they’ll lament the loss of all the wonderful STIs and unwanted kids they could have racked up “au naturel.”

  • colleen

    Thanks for your sympathy for me as a poor, oppressed Catholic woman.

    Where is anyone expressing sympathy towards you?

  • swgmigraines

    No one wants to use it? Tell that to the 99% of American women who’ve used contraception at one point in their life or another.

     

    I use condoms AND a NuvaRing. Sex might feel a little better without the condoms, and I might want it more often if I weren’t on BC. I’d also probably have a kid or two and maybe a nice STI without BC. BC gives me peace of mind to enjoy the kind of sex I’m having now without worrying about if I’m pregnant later. Speak for yourself next time.