I saw this a long while ago and thought it was wonderful social satire.
It reminded me just a little of myself after my college graduation in 1960, when women’s voices were devalued. That was before the feminist movement. I married right after I graduated college and aspired to be the perfect wife. I wasn’t very good at it but it took a long time to figure that out. I identified with the woman in this video.
It is funny. You deserve a laugh today.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
That is too funny for words. But, alas, it wasn’t so far off the mark. That’s why EVENTUALLY so many of our age-mates got divorced–leave or drown.
I don’t find this clip funny. I think it’s disgusting.
Gross, even! Sorry, my friends, couldn’t resist such an easy target.
Yes, it is horrifying now because it cuts so close to reality. Many of us who lived that life can now laugh. Those who are still too close to the reality can’t.
Carol, the clip was a dead-on, precisely executed satire of actual social engineering films that were made back in the day. Perhaps if you watched one of those, you might better appreciate the joke.
Here’s a real such film — you will find it equally “disgusting” — that teaches men the proper etiquette required when integrating women into the workplace:
(100% real, not a parody)
Oooh, that Myrtle Malloy! She really wrecked that male-only workplace!!!
Someone with high school or middle school children…Are girls allowed to appear as bright as or brighter than boys?
That was hilarious. But I think I remember a similar film from my 7th grade health class, with equally helpful behavioral tips for the gals. Thanks for the laugh in the midst of the summer of angst.
Very funny. Thanks for that one.
Less funny when you realize women are still paid less than men for the same work. Less funny when you realize we have yet to elect a woman president. Beyond our little corner of “paradise,” the world is still a very patriarchal place. How’s that for being a wet blanket? Yeah, I found it funny, too.
While funny, it is really not funny that women are still fighting many of those same sexist stereotypes. It is shocking to me that some women remain allied with the conservatives.
I just got finished watching a teleplay on the life and career of Gloria Steinem on PBS. I highly recommend it for those that are trying to stay home. I haven’t seen the other teleplay on Ann Richards, but I intend to see it too. She was another female trailblazer. https://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/about-ann-and-gloria-a-life/10438/
I think K McEnana’ book will be better than Hope Hick’s. Surely she knows how strange she looks doing her job. Surely she is planning a book reflecting how bright she actually is.
LOL!!!
Twitter has dubbed her “Boogaloo Barbie.”
LOL!!!
Anne,
Thanks for the laugh.
I’m still laughing at that one!!!
ROFL!! Only works w/a Brit accent tho.
Thanks….most of us here in Jefferson County, south of St. Louis, believe Australian Hugh Jackman is good to imitate for the best British accent.
Diane: Thanks for that. I’m using the first man-woman skit with a group of people exploring the relationship between images and theory formation. . . . as in cognitional theory? I’ll be able to pick out the sexist-unconverted by watching who laughs and who takes it seriously.
But thanks for reminding me why I’m not married any more. I beat him in chess the first month of our marriage, and though I didn’t know it then (he spent 2 hours in the bathroom), it was probably the beginning of the end. Tra-la. CBK
Oh! i just remembered! Today is our anniversary. It would have been 40 years. CBK
A Facebook page (year-2020) for the Ohio Catholic Conference has a photo and the statement, “Bishops Urge Immediate Action on EdChoice Program”. The picture includes a leader (priest, priestesses unavailable) and, 10 students. Nine appear white and, the lone person of color, a girl, has long, straight, black hair. Three of the 4 boys were posed in shirt and tie. All six girls were wearing the attire I associate with- well, I’ll let anyone whose interested decide the rank, for him/herself after looking at the photo.
A question for Mike Petrilli, Robert Pondiscio and Steve and and Matt Huffman (Ohio state senators who are first cousins). Does the photo look like what you were striving to achieve with your support for Ed Choice?
Happy Birthday, Diane. 🎂🥂🍾
Thanks for all you do for children, teachers, parents and society.
The video was funny, but a flashback to memories I filed away in a file labeled:
“Guilt from Ring Around the Collar”.
Remember having to be be the coffee girl.
A principal would not allow me to ride my big motorcycle to work, un-lady like.
Asked during a job interview if I was going to be pregnant soon.
Women teachers couldn’t wear pants 1968-1996.
Autism was the cause of “Refrigerator Mothers”.
College Basketball for women were ONLY allowed 3 dribbles and then the ball had to be passed to another player….women had periods and couldn’t play like men.
The ‘period’ logic discrimination kept us away from just about everything….only 50+ years ago.
Oh, the good old days.
Thanks for the crazy memories.
Hanna
Our voices are still devalued.
Any religions you know that are guilty of that?
New polling results reported by Pew-
47% and 69% of white Catholics and evangelicals respectively view Trump’s presidency as great or good… (approx. 30%-40% of American voters). Respectively, 31% and 12% of white Catholics and evangelicals view his presidency as terrible.
Among atheists and agnostics, only 12% view Trump’s presidency as great or good and 73% think its terrible. Of those, who say regarding religion, they are “nothing in particular”, 25% viewed Trump’s presidency as great or good and 47% thought Trump’s presidency was terrible.
So, in general, what should we conclude about the value system of the Godless as contrasted with the value system of the Godfull?
EVERYONE: There’s Linda’s broad brush again. CATHOLIC CATHOLIC CATHOLIC. CBK
CBK,
Ignore them.
My many Catholic friends are social progressives.
Diane Exactly the point. The irony is that Linda keeps playing in the same ballpark as the right-wing Catholic block. I’d like to hear more about the workings of the Federalist Society, for instance, and, BTW, the change-of-heart of people like George Conway (an easy-google/and see wikipedia on that).
The Federalist Society is filled with reactionary, arrogant, old-world Catholics (among many others). But a focus on Catholicism-only or as such is a red herring, and is hardly the point to what’s going on there that is truly anti-secular and anti-democratic in the extreme.
Totalitarianism is a warped condition of the human mind not limited to any one ideological or religious camp. For instance, it’s not Barr’s Catholicism as such that is the problem with him. It’s his warped extreme views. I understand that huge numbers of lawyers for every law school in the nation has signed a petition against him and his political movements since becoming head of the Department of Justice. (What a conflict that is: Barr and Justice?)
But I think Linda is impervious. So “DELETE” in most cases when I see her name at the head of notes here. CBK
You might add John Roberts, Joe Biden, and the Kennedys as Catholics who are not rightwing reactionaries.
Diane Yes, them, and then there’s Nancy Pelosi? The point is that the truths in Linda’s arguments (which do hold some truth), are not essentially about “the Catholics” as she apparently, in her extreme anti-Catholic bias, would have others believe. CBK
Diane Remember that this thread started with a lighthearted set of British videos; and then somehow (?) turned into a diatribe against Catholics–an all too common event.
But if I may, let me post a link to what has probably been posted here before, and a whole note below . . . of what I have found an exceptional source in my mailbox. Whoever posted it here before, I thank you: CBK
https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/?emci=c0c197e0-83bc-ea11-9b05-00155d039e74&emdi=7fefb8bd-8abc-ea11-9b05-00155d039e74&ceid=8429922
ALL QUOTED BELOW from In the Public Interest.org:
“After declaring ourselves wholeheartedly “pro-public” back in January, we heard from you about the dire need for a government that works for all of us.
“Then a pandemic broke out, claiming the lives of over 130,000 Americans and counting. And then, a powerful black-led, multiracial movement erupted after the police killing of George Floyd.
“If the past few months have revealed anything, it’s that the 40-year corporate attack on public institutions has endangered everyone.
“State and local governments are starving for funding after decades of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Budgets for crucial public goods like public health and education are woefully inadequate compared to what’s needed. Spending on the criminal justice system and the military is squeezing out critical needs like clean water, transit, parks, libraries, and the arts.
“But corporate leaders, right-wing organizations, and conservative politicians didn’t stop at tax cuts. They’ve also waged a rhetorical attack that helped plunge trust in government to an all-time low, making the worst public health crisis in a century even worse.
“Even before all of that, though, racism was and continues to be this country’s enduring affliction. After the successes of the Civil Rights movement, racism became less visible and more systemic, woven into the fabric of laws, rules, and policies. Just one example: municipalities that rely heavily on revenue from police tickets, court fees, and other fines have a higher than average percentage of black and Latino populations.
“The path forward is clear: We must foreground and confront the deep history and impact of structural and cultural racism.
“We must make full-throated arguments for the role of public goods, public institutions, and democratic decision making in all communities, especially those who historically have been left out.
“We must expose efforts by corporations and private investors trying to take control of public goods.
“We must develop and support new rules and revenue generators to expand access to public services, rebalance economic power, and eliminate the corrupting influences of money on democracy.
“And we must spotlight the work of the public servants who matter so much to our communities—teachers, postal carriers, trash collectors, librarians, and other public workers.
“To those ends, we’re refocusing and rebranding our email newsletter.
“Pro-Public is a newsletter for people who think government should work for all of us. If you’re already subscribed to our weekly emails, you don’t have to do a thing. (If you aren’t subscribed, sign up here.)
“Starting next week, we’ll dig into one story highlighting the value of public goods, the need for more public resources, or the harms caused by privatization. We’ll also include other stories and ways to get involved in pro-public campaigns and more.
“We can’t do this alone—so we need your help:
“Got tips or stories? If you read a story about a school food service manager preparing meals kids during the pandemic, an analysis of a new progressive tax policy, or a new campaign to stop privatization, send it our way: info@inthepublicinterest.org
“If you know a public worker, a public school parent, an elected official, a community organizer—anyone who believes that the government should work for all of us—please forward them this email. (They can sign up here.)
“But rebranding won’t be enough. Ideas must become action. We’ll continue to support campaigns and policy ideas that prevent privatization and protect and enhance public institutions. We’ll also call attention to how structural and cultural racism is used to exclude certain communities and prevent public goods from being available to all.
“The millions of people, many of them young, flooding the streets right now give us hope. They are fighting for a safer, more equal, more democratic society. They are demanding that our public institutions do the right thing.
“We stand wholeheartedly with them. – In the Public Interest”
END QUOTE
Yeah, I think Greg has used that technique with another frequent contributor, so he should understand your not wanting to listen to a constant barrage of anti-Catholic rhetoric. Just hit delete. If there was something of general interest in the post, someone else will comment on it.
What is incorrect about Linda’s comment?
GregB Probably nothing (I haven’t checked the information). The problem is that virtually every post from Linda has something negative about Catholics, even if the original post is not about anything religious or Catholic, . . . . NOT right-wing extreme Catholics (or right-wing evangelicals), and never balanced with anything good about the Church, of which there is plenty. But cumulatively, it’s an obsessive DIN and is an excellent example of cherry-picking and Catholic-bashing. I am offended by it; however, the DIN and cherry-picking makes it just another form of bigotry, only in this case, it’s against religion and Catholicism.
About this particular polling information . . . I can guess, with some evidence for it, that many religious people don’t like to admit to strangers on the phone that they are unhappy with some of their church’s political activities. It’s a group thing, sort of like criticizing your family to outsiders, especially for “cradle Catholics.”
We’ll see at the voting booth on that one (professional poling people know about reluctance to say issues)–and I have to think that many finally think Trump crossed the line with the Russians paying for troop deaths in Afghanistan and Trump twiddling his thumbs about it. (He crossed the line with me, however, AND WITH MANY OTHER CATHOLICS the day he came down the elevator–I’ve never thought he WASN’T a low-life buffoon.)
It seems to me, however, that, besides Linda’s long-term negative DIN about Catholics, she has it turned-around anyway–sexism and many other political and bias issues are more about being human, socio-cultural, and historical; and many existed in one form or another long before Jesus walked the earth and so were not generated by anything Christian. But for Linda, everything BAD begins and ends with those horrible Catholics.
I’m certainly NOT giving the Catholic Church a pass on sexism or many other issues (who could do that in their right mind?) or evangelicals (who as late as the 80’s, actually had formal courses on teaching their women parishioners to be submissive to their husbands–gag).
But I’ve said all this before here . . . I enjoy this blog and those on it, but just get fed up with the DIN after awhile. Linda kills what might be a part of a good meal by trying to force too much of one course down everyone’s throats, over and over again.
It finally occurred to me that her obsessive bias AGAINST Catholics rivals anything I’ve seen in the Church or in evangelicals that is FOR right-wing causes. CBK
I would argue that your defensive posture falls into the category of “hear no, see no, speak no evil about Catholicism.” I think you do give a pass on the sexism, et al (you will not, I notice, state out loud anything about the proven, admitted sexual abuse, which is far different from sexism). It seems to me that the truth is somewhere in between the polar opposites of the arguments you and Linda make (as you would, I think you agree, I apologize in advance if you don’t). As I have argued, I think consistently, the majority of Catholics are progressive and morally consistent, but the doctrine of their faith is controlled and espoused effectively by a smaller minority that is not. The four Catholics on the Supreme Court, the Dolan-like equivocators and Fox priests seem to bear that out. It’s not either or, it’s shades. And the darker shade seems to (and does, in my view) have a disproportionate influence and voice that tars all Catholics whether they like it or not. The statistics that Linda cites seems to bear that out. I don’t hate Catholics as a whole, I respect the vast majority of them. I just wish they’d speak up and stand up against the worst elements of the faith they claim to espouse. They can start with Steve Scalise, who graduated from the same high school I did, arguably the most evil and destructive institution with which I have ever had personal experience. David Duke sympathizers virtually all and a football team ostensibly attached to a high school.
GregB “It’s not either or, it’s shades.” But as I said, it’s not even about Catholicism. The focus is about social/ethical/cultural and political issues. And, Greg, I have stated what I think, and you say “I hear no evil”? I cannot help it if you don’t read what I said. CBK
I failed to make one point: I hope you will admit the “cherry-picking” goes both ways.
Greg-
Right wing media, before George Floyd’s death, advised its audience that the path to racial equality was race blindness achieved by silence about racial discrimination. This blog subscribes to the same theory about religion.
You and I understand that It is dangerous for the nation to ignore William Barr’s statement, religion should be introduced at every opportunity. The Supreme Court ruling in Espinosa is one of many indicators of theocracy’s recent gain in power. The next SCOTUS case to make the point may be Biel v. St. James Catholic school (and, the accompanying case, Morrisey-Beurre v. Our Lady of Guadalupe).
Related- Robert P. George, author of the Manhattan Declaration (signed by evangelical leaders and the Catholic bishops of 15 major U.S. cities) joined the board of the Koch’s Heritage Foundation.
Linda Look up “false equivalence.” It relates directly to your juxtaposing race blindness to arguments given here. Better to reflect on the essential differences between secular and religious concerns. CBK
I do read what you write, that’s why it confounds me and compels to respond at times.
According to a 2018 Pew Research study of American Catholics: 76% support allowing use of birth control. What is the Church’s official doctrine? 62% support allowing priests to marry. What is the official doctrine? 62% support allowing divorced Catholics to remarry without getting an annulment. What is the official doctrine? 61% support allowing cohabiting adults to receive communion. What is the official doctrine? 59% support letting women become priests. What is the official doctrine? 46% support gay marriage. What is the official doctrine? I suspect those numbers would be higher now.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/10/7-facts-about-american-catholics/
A 2019 Pew study found vast gulfs of differences between Catholics who identify as Democrats and those who identify as Republicans. Which side does Catholic leadership and policy generally support unconditionally.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/24/like-americans-overall-u-s-catholics-are-sharply-divided-by-party/
I can’t speak for Linda, but I am concerned when people cite people like Cardinal Dolan as authorities when he has been integral in trying to cover up and diminish the issue of serial pedophilia in the Church. I am concerned when strong conservative forces drag their feet and outright belittle the reforms Pope Francis is attempting to institute, many of which he waters down because he understand the strength of a significant minority that fights him consistently.
GregB “I am concerned when people cite people like Cardinal Dolan as authorities when he has been integral in trying to cover up and diminish the issue of serial pedophilia in the Church” . . . and push against Pope Francis’ reforms. In spades for huge numbers of people within the Church. It is a powerful organization and has dragged its feet in its understanding of doctrinal and historical meaning on too many issues for too long. But it IS undergoing change.
The problems in the Church are human problems of living between dynamic extremes that tend to come forward in any organization, religious or otherwise. We live in a secular-democratic culture where, fortunately, it’s become a gross abstraction to talk about “the Jews” or “the Catholics,” or the “the evangelicals,” but especially with so much animus, and when all argument is broad brushed to imply the inclusion of ALL who belong to the Church, and to be washed clean of nuance.
I appreciate your note because it at least suggests we can move beyond that way of viewing the world. Linda has some good arguments–I hope people here discern and read through them.
What is important is what is consistently absent from her DIN of anti-Catholic notes. But she is living wholly in the same historical time-frame as the old-world Catholics that are her constant cherry-picked focus. And Diane is right–it’s silly to argue with her . . . she just keeps on with the same entrenched ideologue arguments. CBK
I agree with Diane’s response to those who don’t like what I write about theocracy. My arguments live or die on their own merits. Accumulating evidence convinces or, it doesn’t.
Either the Espinosa case happened or, it didn’t. Either the largest Catholic laity organization in the world opened its papal shrine for a Trump photo op or, it didn’t. Either GOP geofencing occurs at Catholic Churches or, it doesn’t. Either Catholic organizations are the 3rd largest U.S. employer whose employees’ rights are threatened by the SCOTUS Kristin Biel case or, that’s fake news. Either the head of the USCCB and an overwhelming majority of the bishops have political influence that they wield while rejecting the humanitarian values of their parishioners, as Greg identifies or, that’s a fake interpretation. Either state Catholic Conferences, the political arm of the bishops, are in coordination with the Koch network/GOP/ wealth-concentrating anti-woman rights churchgoers or, they’re not.
Linda: Either there is much dissent within the Catholic Church, or there is not. Either the issues are more about the extreme voices of people (like yours) within or without churches, or it’s not.
07-02-20: “CATHOLIC PRIEST SUSPENDED AFTER CALLING BLM PROTESTERS ‘MAGGOTS’
“A Roman Catholic priest in Indiana was suspended from public ministry after calling Black Lives Matter organizers ‘maggots and parasites’ in a message to his parishioners. The Rev. Theodore Rothrock, who was assigned to St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church in Carmel, Indiana, wrote a fiery bulletin post on Sunday that disparaged Black Lives Matters organizers for protesting what Rothrock called ‘alleged systemic racism.’ Bishop Timothy L. Doherty of the Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana issued the suspension from public ministry in the diocese. [HuffPost]” CBK
Question-
Bishop Doherty/Indiana Catholic Conference political influence in
(a) promoting the Manhattan Declaration agenda (b) the Espinosa decision and, (c) church exemption from civil rights employment law (Kristin Biel case)?
Linda In this case, it doesn’t matter what else the Bishop thinks.
But to your off-point question, I don’t know . . . you’ll have to ask him; and then be sure to ask all those lockstep unthinking Catholic parishioners (if some really do exist) who, as it turns out, are really having trouble knowing whom to blindly believe–precisely because there is so much intelligent dissent going on. . . .
You keep wanting everyone here to follow your lead; that is, to broad brush all Catholics by that lowest common denominator that, BTW, exists in any organization, religious or not, along with good and reasonable thought, decision-making, and actions.
And BTW, every one of your own “if-thens” is an invitation for authentic critique on several grounds. Sigh . . . another time, perhaps. CBK
Responding to CBK, last para of 7/2 1:12am entry:
You’re starting to get at it here: “her obsessive bias AGAINST Catholics rivals anything I’ve seen in the Church or in evangelicals that is FOR right-wing causes.”
This is actually common among those for whom atheism is an ideology (as opposed to simple absence of theism). I was raised in rural NYS where fundamentalist Baptism et al rw Protestantism was a lot more prevalent than any flavor of Catholicism. Many folks I know raised fundamental flipped to atheism later. Still conservative – usually spouting libertarianism – & pursuing atheism w/the same rigidity/ BW lens as was imposed on them in youth from the other side. Purists. Once out in college/ world, I began to meet a fair # of cradle Catholics who’d similarly flipped, but usually specifically anti-Catholic church/ institution. That’s just anecdotal, but it makes sense as Catholic church is monolithic by comparison to the many brands of fund Prot.
Easy enough for me, a Catholic, to pontificate. I was raised in a family where parents/ grandparents were an intermarried mix of everything. Dad was exposed to anti-Catholic KKK rurals in ’30’s, I had a great-aunt who was a mother superior. Ran the gamut. What united the clans on all sides was a sort of ornery rural respect for independent thought – you choose – your religion is your biz. If it gets shoved down your throat from Day One, you’re going to have a different attitude.
bethree5 I looked into it a few years ago–there are libraries with whole shelves of “I was once a Catholic, but no longer” books. And then you say;
“What united the clans on all sides was a sort of ornery rural respect for independent thought – you choose – your religion is your biz.”
Anecdotal or not, a very American idea; . . . and there’s the also-American differentiated understanding of secularity and religion . . . though it’s often ALSO laced with a kind of rights-only adolescence . . . the heck with responsibility (as with mask wearing). CBK
CBK, as I hope you will agree with my last comment and other comments I have made, I am NOT lumping all Catholics together, nor would I do so with any group of human beings (scientology excepted).
GregB I hear THAT about Scientology. But even that group has its “from-one-extreme-to-the-other” reactionaries. (I have two personal friends “there.” It’s painful to watch sometimes.) CBK
speduktr, “us[ing] that technique with another frequent contributor” I assume is about my comments on COVID-19 and the response to it. If you look back, I was focused on the uncertainty that existed and the potential effects ignoring that uncertainty could be deadly and more catastrophic. I think our current situation reflects my concerns. “That tecnique” is explaining my position, something about which I believe I have been consistent. If others choose to twist my remarks for their own purposes, there’s not much I can do about that in this forum.
I did not express myself well. I was referring to ignoring the posts of someone whose posts are hard for one to stomach.
Greg,
“An attack on one is an attack on all” – tribalism
You and I have repeatedly made the point that we don’t “lump” all Catholics together. Some commenters can’t distance themselves enough from their sense of group belonging to process that information.
An example of selective listening and skewed information processing was evident recently when blog commenters immediately and mistakenly assumed Bishop Anthony (shrine photo op) was the representative spokesperson for the church. In truth, he recognized himself as a minority within the leadership and was criticizing the church hierarchy as complicit with Trump.
Fr. Peter Daly expressed partial understanding of the situation, which he posted at NCR online. He identifies the names of the complicit and tells readers that Bishop Gregory is under attack by LifeSiteNews and Church Militant. Daly’s words about the complicit that he names, “a tin ear to the controversy over racism” and “a stick in the eye of the heavily African American local church”.
CBK, re: your 7/1 2:01pm post:
Great citation.
Now is finally the time to start turning this around. It is taken over 40 yrs of steady assault on public goods for the harm to affect the middle class to a significant degree. When the gouging is restricted to wkg & poor classes, they can be manipulated to turn against each other as always, assigning blame to whoever seems to be stealing food off their plate at the moment. And the middle class can be counted on to remain oblivious, or chalk wkg/poor-class plight up to failing to take advantage of opportunities used by their own forebears to pull themselves up to the middle.
To wake up the middle class, it takes reverse social mobility in one generation – seeing those opportunities dry up for your own kids – seeing them unlikely to attain by 55y.o. the milestones you yourself attained by 30y.o. That’s where we’re at now. The middle/ upper-middles won’t be blaming that on lower classes/ blacks/ immigrants etc. Their social contract w/ the govt has been broken; they now see the same govtl corruption lower classes rarely fought (because that’s how things always were) turned against them.
The mightiest political force lies w/ the affected children of middles/ upper-middles. Those raised w/parental expectations that don’t match reality. Parents are mostly sidelined, invested via 401k’s & high-valued homes into the old paradigm, scrambling to preserve some kind of future for their offspring. But the kids– millennials & younger! Their experience puts them in square solidarity w/wkg/poor classes. And the perspective gleaned thro upbringing shows them where the true fault lies. And many of that older [millennial] group’s parents conveyed liberal ideals together w/the buoyant, late-’60’s experience that peaceful activism can change entrenched govtl policy.
“The mightiest political force-children”- history- the mechanism for control within Ireland’s population during the great hunger, is the same scheme for America in 2020.
Please don’t lump in that crowd.
lump me in
Beth Yes, it’s changed, but it’s far from over. CBK
“Changed”-
A teacher at a Catholic school in the Indianapolis diocese was fired in 2019 after 13 years teaching at the school. The teacher says he was fired for being gay. Based on newspaper reporting, quotes from his employer, a reclassification of teachers to include a ministerial role and, the 2020 settlement between the man and the diocese, I think it’s highly likely that he was fired for being gay.
“Changed”-
Taxpayers are paying for religious education. $6.000 per student in Ohio.
Beth-
In the U.S. House, there are only 13 GOP women and 186 GOP men.
Polling suggests that without white voters who identify as Catholic and evangelical, Democratic candidates would win much more frequently.
My view is that sexists and racists govern the GOP platform and that that agenda can be fought by exposing to its religious followers, the inconsistency between their voting and Christ’s teachings about social justice and compassion. The alternative to my premise is acceptance that a substantial number of white Catholics and evangelicals will never abandon their leaders’ call for Republican voting.
Evidently, many think America can return to modernism and pluralism by ignoring its powerful enemies. Public education’s survival can be achieved, in their view, by singling out billionaire privatizers for focus and, by keeping the attacks from state Catholic Conferences and Catholic bishops (which appears to possibly be in coordination with the Koch network) on the down low. This is despite the fact that the billionaire’s ed organization published a report that recommended reformers should reach out to churches to achieve success.
We will never know what might have happened if not one but, both of public education’s enemies had received scrutiny. It’s possible that if exposed, religious tribes would have attacked public education even more voraciously.
“Our voices are still devalued.” I guess I’m much older than you. The change is huge since I entered adulthood 50 yrs ago. Then, there were no – zero – females in anchor or “talking- heads” positions on TV news. No female CEO’s or even “spokespersons,” period. The only female college presidents headed up all-female colleges. The rare female US Senator or state govr was elected to fill in for her dead husband. There were 3 female engrg students when I graduated from Cornell– today when i overhear my corp engrg hubby’s conference calls there are always a couple of women engrs speaking. When I entered college in 1966, the expectation for female graduates had long been – & still was – either immediate marriage/ raising family, or a few yrs working– or a few yrs studying for an advanced degree– then marriage/ raising family. Just 4 yrs later there was a rush of female humanities BA’s entering law school, & science BS’ s heading for med school. W/n 2 yrs, I took a new program at Katharine Gibbs called “Entree,” specifically designed for female BA’s/ BS’s to learn sufficient shorthand/ typing to land secretarial jobs & find their way into a corp career ladder. I transited to a tech position w/n a year, & 10 yrs later was making the same salary as the engr I married. When I graduated college there were about 15 female US Congresswomen. Today there are 137.
You are just a couple of years ahead of me. The world was much different, and we have come a long way. It just takes so dang long! We still do not make as much as men for comparable work, and we still have not elected a woman president. There sure are a lot more potential candidates in the pipeline, though, including many capable women of color.
Greg and Linda….I wonder how much you agree about catholic schools’ effect on public education. I reluctantly include the charter schools, which now “educate 12,000 of the district’s 33,000.
(I was speaking of St. Louis)
Whoo-boy! St. Louis. Perhaps the strangest city, socially speaking, in the U.S. I attended a Jesuit university and had lots of friends from St. Louis. I think it’s the only place (excepting NE boarding schools) where one’s identity and social status is wrapped up into where one went to high school. I always got a kick out of the first exchange between people from St. Louis in college, “Where’d you go to high school?” If you said DeSmet or SLUH, you were golden. If you said a public school or working class Catholic school, you were not.
In my limited experience, those who attend Catholic schools have no interest and believe they have no stake in public education. But I guess that’s universal. That’s my only thought on the subject. And I do love the ribs at Pappy’s and Bogart’s (which also has fantastic pork rinds!)–and the beer, ironically, is too watery.
Joe-
Thanks for asking an excellent question.
The effect that you reference- does it refer (1) to institutional effect i.e. community tax money going to religious organizations where local people have no representation (2) to student impact i.e. knowledge/curriculum and cultural/ social indoctrination (3) to the re-creation of religion-based communities i.e. the Betsy DeVos goal to return to a time 70+ years ago when people felt total subjugation to priest/pastor edicts (4) to the fostering of political tribalism based on religion (5) to erosion of civil rights in employment e.g. Kristin Biel v. St. James Catholic school (6) to decimation of middle class jobs in the public sector where collective bargaining is much more likely (7) to starvation of funding for public schools,….?
Linda Read GregB’s earlier note for a more moderated view of the content of your note here. May the saner voices in the Church prevail. CBK
Summed up better than I ever could, Linda. Funny, I thought we all generally agreed about these indisputable facts around here.
I think we pretty much agree on the separation of church and state, which currently is being eroded. that is not the issue.
Greg-
An apparent bias that taints assessments and that rejects objectivity?
This has been a “through the Looking Glass” experience, hasn’t it, Linda? First we continue to be mischaracterized (lied about?) as tarring all members of one religion. This is patently false. When I asked if anything you wrote was incorrect, the answer was “Probably nothing” followed by reasoning–shall we call it that?–that since your factual criticisms are not valid because you “never say anything good about the Church.” Is that the new standard? When we criticize Betsy DeVos, for example, are we obligated to balance it by saying something positive about her? The Idiot? Moscow Mitch? Netanyahu? And then when I make a clear explanation, once again, that there is nothing all encompassing about any group of people, I am accused of using a “technique.” We are presented with the story of a priest who was viciously critical of BLM and suspended by the bishop as some sort of blanket absolution for all (see what I did there?). You specifically point out how that bishop opposes three of the fundamental issues that I thought were issues virtually everyone here agrees are detrimental to public education and countered with the statement that it doesn’t matter what the bishop thinks. But I thought we were all supposed to scream Huzzah! when he suspended the priest. Which is it? Then we are told–get this–on the same day when three consecutive posts on this blog decry the decision delivered by Justice Roberts, one that essentially guts a major provision of the first amendment, that he is not a right wing reactionary and on par with Joe Biden and Kennedys because they are Catholics all. If gutting an important part of the first amendment is not reactionary, what is? When I make clear that Pope Francis is doing great things, that the majority of American Catholics support allowing use of birth control, allowing priests to marry, allowing divorced Catholics to remarry without getting an annulment, allowing cohabiting adults to receive communion, and support letting women become priests, I (and you) are accused of having monolithic views about entire class of people, when all we do is point out the hypocrisies of many of its leaders and their political benefactors. I think Alice had an easier time of it than we do. What make it sadder is that well-meaning, normally even-keeled people are starting to make the Mad Hatter seem pretty reasonable and objective.
Greg-
Is Catch 22 too far afield for analogy?
btw
Carmel, Indiana’s Fr. Rothrock was previously president of a Catholic school. If I was a community member marching in a BLM rally, and Rothrock was running the school, I would be very angry that my taxes paid $8.000 per student to his school and I had no way to influence his firing.
I am pretty close to losing whatever faith I had left in humanity. This place brought it back for a while, but it seems to be becoming another haven for willful ignorance and intolerance. Starting to remind me of the hypocrisy of the (gasp) Catholic high school I had to the misfortune to graduate from, a haven of racism, intolerance and hypocrisy (which is why they are so proud of Steve Scalise, he embodies the indoctrination they sought to instill). It’s certainly not a place for honest discussion anymore. I’m beginning to relate more and more to Kurt Tucholsky’s final note before he committed suicide. Three ascending steps with a word on each step: Eine Treppe, Sprechen, Schreiben, Schweigen (A Staircase, Speak, Write, Silence). https://boschblog.de/2011/01/09/sprechen-schreiben-schweigen/
I’m not Catholic. My husband says he is a recovering/recovered Catholic after bad experiences with a couple of large Irish Catholic families who sent their boys to the local Catholic school and made his life miserable with their bullying. The only response that was needed to CBK was an apology for offending her and a suggestion that she avoid certain posts. Since Linda’s post inevitably include some sin of the Catholic church, that would be relatively easy. It’s a little disingenuous to claim that it was never claimed that all Catholics are bad when all are blamed for not speaking out loudly enough about each and every incident that is enumerated. The only Catholic I have heard spoken of in positive terms was the pope and even he has been chastised for caving in to more conservative voices. You came back to the blog, Greg, after leaving in disgust over another poster’s comments. I was sad to see you go and glad you returned. There is so much more to this blog than whether we all agree on religious questions. We do not need to agree about everything. We should be able to express our frustrations without having our right to feel offended questioned. You had a right to fell offended and made that clear. No one questioned your right to feel that way. CBK felt offended and made it clear. Can we move on? I am pontificating when I probably should have kept my mouth shut.
Agree. This subject (religion) has been exhausted and won’t be settled here. Move on.
Greg, stay off that staircase.
“It’s a little disingenuous to claim that it was never claimed that all Catholics are bad when all are blamed for not speaking out loudly enough about each and every incident that is enumerated.”
This sentence is a perfect example of my frustration with this entire episode. I have never, NEVER, claimed that all Catholics are bad or to be blamed for not speaking out loudly enough, etc. That opinion has been imposed on me and accepted unconditionally by others here, including CBK, Diane and you. I’ll try once again. That view is imposed by a minority of Catholics, especially its leaders, a substantial minority I will admit, that the majority will not push back against. How is this different from the minority of Americans who voted for the Idiot, yet the rest of us have to live with the consequences of it because of an idiotic electoral college system? Yet those of us who understand this oppose the Idiot and the minions he has put in positions of power.
As I have argued before, and I think where I am in complete agreement with Linda, is that the last election was decided on the margins. And any reputable analysis would agree that those margins included small factions, especially in Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. And when one looks at the makeup of those small factions, it is inarguable that those Obama voters who voted for the Idiot came from overwhelmingly Catholic constituencies who felt disaffected and were influenced by the priests and bishops who tapped into latent racism and intolerance to justify support for the Idiot. A few tens of thousand of votes one way or the other determined the fate of the nation. We have now endured more than three years of utter destruction of countless pillars that prop up this nation. There is ample evidence that the Catholic leaders influencing those constituencies colluded (cooperated, supported, whatever) with the Idiot’s campaign to focus on abortion, class and racial resentment, and economic insecurity to move those voters to vote Republican while voting against their own economic and social interests. That’s just a fact. And when Linda points that out, and I support her on this, we are characterized as being anti-Catholic, writ large. I provide examples of the hypocrisy of this view in my comment above.
I thought this was a place that understood nuance. I oppose negative views expressed here about Mormons, about Jews, about any religion (scientology excepted), about how Democratic Socialists have shot themselves in the foot by not adopting the real description of their politics: social democrats, I point how Germans were overwhelmingly supportive of Naziism in the 30s and 40s, but there are great lessons for posterity among the relatively small numbers of resistors and how modern Germany should not be tarred with images of Naziism because of actions and history. I believe I am consistent in my arguments. I haven’t been proven otherwise yet. I am a student of American history, especially its constitutional and political history, and am aware of its many flaws. But I have had faith, until now, in the conception of the American Experiment; that it evolves and is progressive. Now I realize this country is dying a fast death. And a significant minority of religious zealots, Protestants (we don’t argue that around here because it is too obvious thanks to Fox and evangelicals like Franklin Graham, Robert Jeffries, et al, and their congressional lackeys) and Catholics alike, not to mention Israel-first American Jews, are largely responsible for providing the electoral margins that have gotten us to where we are. As I have argued here before, I truly believe in both the right to life and dignity (economic and moral) of living human beings and not imposing some doctrinaire, ideological “pro-life” hypocrisy on people in whose shoes I do not walk. End of sermon.
Thank you, Greg. I never criticized you. I did take issue with Linda’s repeated anti-Catholic comments.
I think the extremists in every religion are dangerous, in that they seek to impose their views on others and/or they wield power to achieve their end, by bloc voting, by violence, by intimidation. I include the doctrinaire Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims.
I just wish we could stop arguing about religion.
” I did take issue with Linda’s repeated anti-Catholic comments.”
Which is what I was trying to explain to Greg. I was not referring to comments he had made. I should have minded my own business and let CBK handle it.
speduktr Frankly, I was relieved to read your reasonable comments and thank you for them. (I haven’t been reading this thread but peeked in to see if there were others’ comments besides “Linda” whom I have avoided even reading as suggested by you and Diane.) CBK
Thank you for your kind response. I’m glad you understood what I was trying to say however badly I was able to explain myself.
Greg-
I don’t intend to give my power away and, I don’t want you to, either, certainly not based on unfair criticism.
Your statement is cogent, its logic unassailable and, the illustrative examples beyond dispute. The understanding that is superbly structured in your statement provides a how-to for stopping the fascism that is gaining ground in the nation.
I want to believe that Pastors for Texas Children is the strategic response to fight the attack on public education from the state Catholic Conferences and bishops. I want to believe that a very effective commanding officer has not abandoned any battle plan against an enemy, choosing instead, to wish it away. I want to believe that those above my pay grade have assessed the best way to defeat the political activities of the Catholic church and are achieving success with their plan.
This forum provides a service. It enables the dissemination of evidence about the enemies’ plotting, although the Catholic Church has been publicly very forthcoming about its battle plans.
I’ve found humor in one of the tribe’s points- grumbling within the ranks is cause to ignore their battalion’s advance.
speduktr-
“The only response needed was an apology to…”
I made no personal insults to commenters, in any of the threads related to religion, why do you ask me, who has been personally insulted, to apologize?
Never has there been a more absurd statement that found its way into palatable excuses than, “It wasn’t my intent to offend.” People who have an intent to offend are likely on the sociopathic continuum. The statement, “I’m sorry you were offended”, is equally absurd for other reasons.
What is wanted from me has been stated, “There’s good and bad in the religion”. Greg covered that territory and added by drawing an analogy to a journalist prefacing every article with a similar disclaimer.
As an American, I kneel before no man’s king nor god, and that includes ingratiating myself to their followers.
Apologizing to someone does not imply that you were wrong or that you ware abasing yourself to anyone. It just means that your intention was not to offend. I’m assume you had no intention to offend CBK. I’m sorry I didn’t keep my mouth shut!
Diane-
Do you take issue with the politicking by state Catholic Conferences that leads to cases like Espinosa, Little Sisters of the Poor, Kristin Biel, the case that resulted in Catholic adoption organizations right to discriminate,…?
Their ability to be heard is far greater than mine.
These cases are funded not by the Catholic Church but by rightwing billionaires like the Waltons, DeVos, and Koch, among others, none of who are Catholic. If you are going to name bad guys, aim more broadly.
NASCCD- “A Church agency representing the dioceses and eparchies within a state to provide for the coordination of the public policy concerns of the Church. State Catholic Conferences communicate with state governments,…”