I've come to really enjoy going to church on Sunday. It's the one time of the week that I remember to take substantial time to think about the important things and steer myself back to them. The homilies over the past few weeks have also been really good and thought-provoking. Last week, we got a really good one on forgiveness and the poisonous destruction of hate that made for a beautiful reflection on Sept 11th.
This week, I didn't get so lucky. Instead of the presiding priest giving the homily, he got to take a break and the presiding deacon gave the homily. These homilies are usually not terrific, but rather simple and t0 the point: forgive each other, pray---it's good for you, don't judge other people etc. They are not terribly inspiring, but they generally get their message across, and their message is usually a good one.
This week however the deacon somehow started talking about equal pay (well, actually to be fair, it actually makes perfect sense when one remembers the parable Jesus uses in the gospel: Matthew 20:1-16). As he ran through a list of real world examples about arguments over equal pay, he let this slip: "During the so-called women's movement, people were concerned that women were not getting equal pay for doing the same job as men." Or something to that effect. The part I do remember him saying verbatim is: "the so-called women's movement."
What is that about?
What is so "so-called" about the women's movement? By saying this instead of saying "the women's movement" or "the women's movement of the ##s," he implies there is something dubious or illegitimate about the women's movements of the past several decades, and their struggles for equal pay. Why?
The women's movement happened. It consisted of women. They fought for equal pay for women. They, being women. Fighting during the movement everyone calls "the women's movement." What is there to dispute about the statement: "During the women's movement, people were concerned that women were not getting equal pay for doing the same job as men"?
It is a factual statement and a fitting example to use in his discussion of equal pay struggles in life. By saying this statement, he is not saying that he likes the women's movement, agrees with all or any of their other efforts, or even that all women agreed with everything in the women's movement and that everything they did lead to rainbows and peace on earth. It is a mere reportage of fact that requires no personal commitment or implication of endorsement on his part or that of the Church.
So why add the "so-called"? The only purpose that serves is to demonstrate that he does not recognize the women's movement as a legitimate cause worthy of his respect. Rather he casually antagonizes the entire women's movement--- homogenizing all its myriad causes (or dismissing them all, save the One)---- by insinuating his disapproval and by his example, signalling that the congregation should follow suit. To me this is disrespectful, shallow, patronizing, and harmful.
I understand that his motivation for all of this is probably his belief in the immorality and sinfulness of abortion. (Or at least I hope that is where this is coming from, and not from some old fashioned conservative patriarchy--- which considering the track record of the Church in general in this regard, is possible.)
But my problem is that he is not actually making this point (i.e. abortion is bad and encouraging women to engage with it is not actually in their best interest), but rather is, as an authority in the parish, making a vague insinuation about the suspicious, untrustworthy, illegitimate, and maybe immoral nature of all women's movements--- basically making a random dig at feminists. And even ignoring the fact that is had nothing to do with the subject or structure of his homily in the first place, this is grossly unfair.
The women's movement and feminists have done a hell of a lot of good. They have improved labor conditions for women, worked to reduce domestic and sexual violence, championed efforts to improve the health, safety and education of children, reformed rape and divorce laws, striven to reduce delinquent fatherhood, fought against stigma and victim blaming, and the list goes on and on. And many of the women who worked to make these positive changes in the nation, in communities, in families did so while being moral and Christian people.
By equating 'feminists' and 'women activists' with 'pro-abortion,' and failing to recognize the good and Christian efforts of many women due to this miscalculation, the deacon unfairly tars all women and women activists with the same brush, fails to give them respect and consideration by giving them the benefit of the doubt before learning more about them, and most importantly, makes it clear that they are automatically under suspicion, will not be trusted and that they will have something to prove before they will be considered good and righteous members of the Church.
It seems like a small thing, that simple addition of "so-called," but it is things like this that alienate women (and men) from the Church, blocks them from hearing the positive messages and teachings, renders them fearful of being open about their spirituality, doubts, and struggles, and prevents them from feeling truly welcome. I hope that Church leaders will some day soon begin to take this problem seriously.
So in fact, who cares about the bag she is wearing? I don't.
I also liked (well, not liked, but acknowledged and appreciated) the symbolism of cutting the women into pieces to be appraised and assembled at the discretion of a consumer.
It kinda reminds me of stained glass.
I've only seen him as the scruffy characters he's played in Deadwood and Winter's Bone, but cast as the older but irresistible leading man in the spread, he looks fantastic! The copy describes the spread as "Hickcockian" and that is best way I can think of describing him. Here he's got class, he's got character, he's got mystery and a versatility that could make him an villainous art smuggler or the dashing detective. I almost wish the model and all her fashion would just get out of the way so he could do this thing! It makes me so pleased that he is here, making my Vogue so much more dynamic and alive! I may actually even write to Vogue to congratulate them on featuring him; that is how pleased I am!
Here she is with Ed Westwick from the March Tatler. The girl has got some serious sparkle!
Like Carrie Mulligan, I've been following Felicity Jones' career for a little while now and am really excited to see her getting some of the attention she deserves!
The casting directors sure earned their salaries this month!
