I have to confess that up until now I had never heard of Women Church World, and didn't know that L' Osservatore Romano had a women's section. At first I felt righteous indignation at what seemed blatant sexism. But something tugged at my memory bank.
The childhood memory was of a farming and ranching magazine that my dad used to subscribe to. It had a section called The Farmer's Wife. It was about recipes and gardening, holiday crafts, and you could send for sewing, crocheting, and embroidery patterns. The recipes were good, and my mom and I enjoyed The Farmer's Wife. But it was a period piece. The farming and ranching magazines which survive do not have a "women's section". They sometimes have recipes and gardening articles. But men sometimes cook and garden, too. And they recognize that women sometimes drive tractors and herd cattle. They did back in former days, too. The publications nowadays recognize that farming is an equal opportunity enterprise.
It turns out that someone else's mind was moving along those same lines. Rita Ferrone of Commonweal this to say in her article, Don't Blame Patriarchy:
"There are independent-minded women on both sides of this story. The goal—or so I thought—was the robust inclusion of women in this venerable if rather stuffy Vatican newspaper. It seems to me that this goal is being pursued by the current editor. Ironically, the complaint about “male control” seems to be focused on protecting a separate fiefdom for women, rather than promoting women as equals across the board."
"Which brings me back to the idea of a “women’s supplement.” Monda has said that it will continue, and this may work out fine. But I wonder if a segregated initiative is really such a good idea over the long run. I would rather see the concerns, expertise, and thoughtfulness that go into the supplement poured into the main publication, and have women’s issues established as an integral part of its usual reporting rather than sequestered in a separate publication. Is having a women’s issue “on the side” not just another way of saying that men need not pay attention?"
I did agree with what Jamie Manson said here: "Regardless, as someone who wishes there were more openly feminist women in Catholic journalism, I can only hope that Lucetta and her team are plotting to regroup, create their own media outlet and carrying on the war against the Catholic patriarchy that she declared that October morning." If they want to have a magazine not under Vatican control and in which they are free to do their own thing, they should go for it. I don't think anyone is stopping them.
I think I'd rather read "The Farmer's Wife," than "The Bishop's Wife."
ReplyDeleteMe too!
DeleteHow about a special pub called "The Bishop's Husband".
DeleteI've never heard of this particular controversy, but it's an age-old squabble among feminists: Shall we have our own "girl's club" thing within the dominant male heirarchy? Or insist that the dominant male hierarchy assimilate "women's issues" into the mainstream?
ReplyDeleteNot sure why this has to be a point of contention, as I see both goals as equally valuable.
I enjoyed my time as a contributor to Belletrista, a lit magazine in which only women wrote about women's lit.
But I am gratified that lit survey course texts now offer a much greater mix of gender (and ethnic) diversity.
I loved Michigan State University's Women's Lounge, with it's pink-and-gilt walls, fireplace, seedy but incredibly comfy overstuffed sofas and armchairs with ivory fringe, and bulletin boards covered with women's events. One of those conservative male provocateurs on the faculty got the place shut down, and I hope he fries in hell.
But I also understand women who felt that the lounge, for some women, represented certain chauvinistic notions that women *needed* this space for protection or privacy. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/08/08/michigan-state-sets-debate-eliminating-womens-lounge-student-union
I suppose for women working in the hyper-male-dominated Vatican, all of this comes into sharper relief. There is value in women being part of that enterprise. A separate publication not under Vatican control sounds fine, but it skirts the issue of how women can and should be able to operate within the Vatican's publications.
I wish putting women in positions of power, whether in Church or Nation, would fix everything but I am skeptical. Women in power seem to be no different or better than men in power. So then why not put them in power? At least you have double the population to pick from. I don't think AOC is good because she's a woman. I think she's just good. Same for Warren (just stay away from the beer photo-ops). One thing I like about AOC's gender, she gives the olde scrotes AFIB.
ReplyDeleteEven if I don't agree with AOC on everything, I do enjoy watching her give them AFIB!
DeleteBetsy DeVos is a woman with power. Elaine Chao is a woman with power. Ivanka Trump is a woman with a lot of power-- and a sketchy security clearance.
DeleteThe object of putting women in power isn't "to fix everything." Women, at least this woman, are sick of cleaning up other people's messes.
DeleteIn the Church, the lives and experiences of women have been overlooked and misunderstood. Maybe we'd end up with the same teachings if women theologians had had a crack at interpreting, Scripture and tradition. But to bar half of God's creatures from the process strikes me as a sacrilege.
In a democracy, the idea is to include as many people as possible in the decision pool. Things will still be screwed up, but everybody at least has a stake in the outcome. Women failed to prevent Trump and Kellyanne Conway. But they seem less likely to let it happen again.
Trust L' Osservatore Romano to have the world's last women's section. If you'd look around the manly areas you'd probably find a spittoon or two.
ReplyDeleteAt La Croix International, longtime Vatican correspondent Robert Mickens has a version very different from Manson's:
ReplyDelete[Scaraffia] claims that Monda tried to take over Donna Chiesa Mondo, but has offered no proof of that. The new editor has denied the charge.
............................................
As the paper's new director, [Monda] sought to understand the work his employees were doing. But Scaraffia would not even allow him to attend a single editorial meeting of the women's monthly. The reason was simply because he is a man.
............................................
Scaraffia has claimed that all the women associated with Donna Chiesa Mondo decided unanimously to resign. But this is absolutely false.
Two women, who are journalists and the only full-time staff members of the monthly magazine, are absolutely livid that she "dragged them into this mess," as one person at L'Osservatore Romano told me, referring to the resignations and the statements Scaraffia has issued. These two have not resigned.
.............................................
It will probably come as a surprise to Church reform groups who have suddenly hailed her a martyr of male dominance and the clericalist system, but Lucetta Scaraffia probably would neither endorse nor agree with most of the issues they espouse.
She is a doctrinally conservative Catholic (despite being twice married) who supports the teaching of Humanae Vitae and opposes such things as in vitro fertilization and gay marriage.
She embraces the principle of "non-negotiable" moral issues, as put forth by Benedict XVI...
Scaraffia also opposes the ordination of women – even to the diaconate.
...........................................
What is at issue here is whether she and her all-female staff and editorial board were being controlled or delegitimized by Andrea Monda. Of that, there is absolutely no proof.
https://international.la-croix.com/news/why-the-women-threw-in-the-towel-and-quit-losservatore-romano/9790
Thanks for linking and quoting from the Mickens article, Gene. He and the article by Rita Ferrone are in agreement on several points. Mickens makes a very good case that Ms. Scaraffia and her editorial board were not delegitimized by Andrea Monda.
DeleteI was born and raised in a small upper-Midwest faming community and lived there until I went away to university. The women I knew, "townies" and farmers, were all workers, particularly the farmers. They did as much of the work around the farm and OUTSIDE of the home as did the men. My cousin and her husband had 8 kids and both genders did chores in and out of the house. I knew NO women who were only "homemakers."
ReplyDeleteMy mom was a homemaker. None of my sisters are. My wife isn't now - although I'll say a bit more about that below. I'll be amazed if any of my daughters end up as homemakers.
DeleteThere are some women in the suburban community where I live who are homemakers - certainly not all of them, and probably not a majority of the working-age women, but enough to volunteer at schools and the library during the daytime. Their presence and engagement in the local schools and community makes a big difference for the community's quality of life.
My wife did step out of her career, after we reached a critical mass of young children at home, and stayed home with the kids for a decade or so. I guess we could call her a homemaker during those years, although the way we put it was "staying home with the kids". During those years, she did the school volunteer thing as she was able - she was a "playground mom" and a "library mom" at the elementary school. She'd drop off the kids at school, and then go shop at Target or the grocery store, where the other shoppers were women in her situation.
She didn't describe herself as "full-time homemaker" because it was never her intention to stay home for the rest of her life. After the kids got past a critical age, she re-entered the workforce. It wasn't easy for her. She has an MBA from the University of Chicago - she's very bright. But employers weren't very interested in her because she hadn't worked for a decade - her career is in technology, and her skills weren't fresh anymore. She sold shoes at a local department store for a few years, which was really uncomfortable for her, because she's not an extrovert, and she was competing against salesperson hustlers for commissions. Then she got a job as a customer service outside contractor, answering phones and helping customers for an insurance company. She was still underemployed but in retrospect it was valuable because she learned the business. After a year or two as a contractor the company hired her full time - and then promotion opportunities started opening up to her. Today she is back in an IT role, at a level that is more appropriate to her abilities. And because of her customer service experience, she has a client-centered approach that is unusual and valuable in the IT world. But it took a long time for her to get back to that point.
There is also the factor that, while my wife was staying home, our household income nosedived. This was the time when we transitioned our kids from the Catholic schools to the public schools, because with a single income and four kids in school, we just couldn't swing the tuition anymore.
My take is that, these days, being a full-time homemaker is a luxury option. Most people in the US can't afford it, or when a woman is staying home, either by choice or necessity, it might be like our situation where it is temporary rather than permanent. In my mom's child-rearing days (1960s and 1970s) the possibility of full-time homemaker seemed more in reach of the middle class than it is now. I attribute that to an economic aligning-of-the-stars - a confluence of high wages domestically and lessened competition overseas that allowed the middle class to enjoy some lifestyle perks that are no longer within reach now that the stars aren't aligned anymore.
Unfortunately even staying at home while the kids are preschoolers is sometimes a luxury option now. Some moms do like my daughter-in-law is doing. She is doing in-home day care while their daughters are young. She's good at it, and makes more money than she could at an outside job when you figure in day care and after school care for the girls. Sbe is licensed and does the food program. Her youngest will be in kindergarten next fall, will be interesting to see if she continues the day care after the kids are all in school full days. She is her own boss, but hard to take time off for sick days or vacation.
DeleteIt was easier for me to stay home when our kids were little, because I didn't have a career established yet. We only had one car and lived in a rented house. I told myself that we weren't poor, but we were, kinda.