http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28dowd.html

Anybody else find this offensive?

learning,

i thought it was an interesting spin, but am curious as to what about it that particularly causes you to characterize it as offensive?

regards,

ron

I think she is saying that if women had equal status in the Church, the abuse would not have occurred or it would have been handled more appropriately.

A subtle propagation of the myth, "Women don't abuse."

Wow, good catch! I agree.

There may be other reasons to argue for equal status of women in an organization; but "because there would be less child abuse" surely can't be one of them.

Just talk to anyone who was abused by a female and get their opinion..... (Personally, as a victim of a female, I feel the writer of the article is naive. I'd say stupid too, but that would just be mean).

Such a statement is both ignorant and sexist. Flip that kind of statement around, suggesting something would be better if a man.... and there would be so much public outcry it would be crazy!

sorry guys i missed that one by a mile. when i read the article my mind immediately doted on the mythical female pope joan and i missed the obvious. true, the statements are incredibly insensitive.

man are we ever seeing the world differently than most, ie, as it really is?!

sometimes it is excruciatingly painful, being a survivor and realizing this stuff and how the world reinforces it. woe is us!

warm regards,

ron

I don't think so!!

When women do abuse they are more vicious than men who abuse! Is that true? It is not capable of proof.

Anyway, what would you call her? Not "Nope", that doesn't have any class. How about "Popess", or "Popette". No those wouldn't do either! Those names would be easily corrupted by the riffraff.

Allen

Just "Pope", I think. I imagine such a woman would be called "The Holy Mother" rather than "The Holy Father", though - which may cause some confusion, as Mary (to my knowledge) is already known as "The Holy Mother". Hmm, I don't know - it would be weird for a while I suppose.

You have to remember her schtick is to be coy and cute while showing off her nimble mind with her articles. She is bright but she plays her writing for the laugh more than the stern. I am not defending her I sent her an email chastising her.

I can tell you are not defending her. I agree that part of the problem is the genre. Just as comedians should be funny, columnists need to be snappy, catchy, and provocative.

But that also means that they need to be careful what they suggest, unless they are willing to back it up or at least own up to what they are suggesting.

Did she respond to your e-mail?