[Please welcome Amanda Marcotte to our comments. -- dn]
Damn, I wish we'd had this book 20 years ago.
Back in the '70s and '80s, an earlier generation of young feminists donned sturdy discrimination-proof (at least, we hoped) dark suits, sensible heels and floppy bow ties; armed ourselves with graduate degrees, expensive briefcases and game smiles; and set out for the newly-opened wilderness of the working world in the jaunty assurance that with just the right amount of spunk, smarts, and sex appeal, we'd soon convince the boys that there was plenty o' room in the wide world of commerce for everybody. Sure, there'd be adjustments -- and the odd snake-in-the-grass or dinosaur encounter to tell your granddaughters and the EEOC about -- but by and large, we were pretty convinced that taking or rightful place alongside the men was going to be good for everyone, once the guys got over the initial shock of seeing us there.
Of course, the old joke says that you can always tell the pioneers by the arrows sticking out of their backs. It soon became clear that the wilderness we were breaking wasn't a wide-open prairie readily welcoming new homesteaders; it was a treacherous swamp, dark and mysterious and filled with venomous creatures we'd never seen before -- stealthy and dangerously territorial beasts that would rise suddenly out of calm waters, drop unexpectedly out of trees, or come streaming out of the ground in numberless hordes to halt your progress at the moment you least expected it.
It was a jungle. And the weapon we needed most was the one we were most specifically forbidden to wield: a sharp sense of humor, flexible enough to adapt to a vast range of circumstances and pointed enough to draw some real blood and stop predatory critters in their tracks.
Amanda Marcotte, who broke a lot of tough new trail herself as member of the first wave of progressive feminist bloggers, has finally written the guidebook to this jungle as it stands now (and oh, yes, you better believe it still stands) in 2008. It's A Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments is a brave, insightful, and comprehensive tour of the whole swamp. And what I got out of it was what Sheena, Queen of the Jungle, knew all along -- that floppy bow ties, sensible heels, and even graduate degrees won't get you nearly as far in this jungle as a cheetah-print loincloth, matching gold bicep cuffs, and swift and deadly aim when sinking a well-honed arrow of laughter straight into the black heart of looming and fearsome stupidity.
And oh my goddess, is that stupidity ever out there. Marcotte has an uncanny instinct for homing in on the various double binds and rank hypocrisies that sustain the patriarchy, and there's not a rock, bush, or thicket of modern feminist life she leaves unexplored. High school. College. Abstinence-only education, the anti-choice cult, and other high fundamentalist weirdness. Obnoxiously conservative family members who ask unanswerable questions about your love life, family intentions, or politics. Dating strategies -- and the men who try to run "feminist" head-fucks on us. Men's rights activists, women's magazines, Playboy, and the Girl Scouts. And the full range of modern female bonding rituals, including cooking, shoe shopping, sororities, motherhood, and weddings.
Marcotte, who grew up in West Texas and now lives in Austin, says that she set out to make feminism appealing to younger women who are facing a different landscape -- and have recourse to different weapons and tactics. I was hooked in the very first chapters, when she went straight to a truth that's been formative in my life, but I've never seen discussed in any feminist book in the Official Canon. That truth is that Red America is, if anything, more intransigently patriarchal than ever -- but also produces feminist heroes of its own, and offers its own unique contexts (e.g. when all the women are stuck in the kitchen together doing dishes while the men laze around the porch) for feminist dialogue. Feminism does exist out there in the boonies; it just doesn't look, dress, or talk anything like the feminism you see in more educated and urban areas. It has different issues, and it deals with them in different ways, many of which are invisible to feminists from the city. As a result, America's two feminisms tend to talk right past each other, when they're not eyeing each other with deep suspicion and contempt.
An early musing on country music stars brings this home. "It's a sick obsession and I know I should abandon it, but it's hard," writes Marcotte. "Many of them are Republicans. Many of them are badly educated rednecks. And pretty much all of them are sanctimonious Christians. But I love me some sassy female country music stars. And they are a source, for many a red-state-surviving feminist, of tips for hanging in and kicking ass."
As a daughter of the rural West myself, I've always known that that the sturdy ranch women who raised me were unbelievably independent and tough, and had their own ways and means of keeping the men on their side and out of their way -- most of which would never be found in any women's studies syllabus. But Marcotte knows that towns like Lubbock are where the biggest battles are still being fought -- and that country music stars are probably doing a better job than anyone of pointing up the similarities between the two camps.
Deconstructing consumer culture is a fine old feminist sport, but Marcotte skewers its seductions with a light and easy hand that's seldom angry or mean. By now, it's a given that $27,000 weddings, four-inch-heels, and college sororities are symbols of patriarchal oppression. Nobody needs to tell us that anymore. So Marcotte spares us the academic exegesis and goes straight to the more visceral point, which is: this stuff is patently, simply, undisputably absurd. It's expensive, distracting, and adds almost nothing to a life well-lived. Decades carefully-inculcated princess dream bubbles have proven surprisingly durable in the face of stern feminist finger-wagging; but Marcotte shows just how fast a quick spritz of derisive laughter can make them pop.
Your mileage will no doubt vary, but the part of the book that spoke most deeply to me was Marcotte's deft explanation of why and how we ended up in that 1980s work jungle without the most devastating and useful weapon of all -- our sense of humor. The root of the problem, she notes, is a double standard in how we define "a sense of humor." Men are display their sense of humor by telling jokes. Women show theirs by laughing at men's jokes. Which sets up a great double bind where:
- Women who don't laugh at men's jokes (even when they're mean and sexist and not funny) are Not Funny.
- Women who tell their own jokes are, by definition, Not Funny.
- Women who tell jokes that make fun of individual men, the patriarchy, or men's sacred cows are dangerously, seriously Not Funny.
I learned this hard way once -- I gently teased a hip, young, high-tech CEO in front of other people. (Actually, the remark was self-depricating; but he misinterpreted it to think I was talking about him -- it's always about them -- and not myself.) Miscommunication aside, I'd been at the company for quite a while -- long enough to know men at all levels kidded this guy all the time, in ways that were far rougher than anything I'd dare to dish out. But coming from a woman, it was Not Funny. In fact, it was so Not Funny that the entire executive staff was outraged at my apparent cheek....and I was out on the street in a matter of weeks.
Marcotte lays out the consequences for would-be subversives. Being a funny woman makes you insufficiently pious, possibly crazy, and almost certainly unfuckable -- though men won't hesitate to steal your jokes if they're the least bit good, and completely forget that they didn't think them up themselves. It also makes you a mortal threat to male pretensions of competence and power. The more seriously a man takes himself, the more viscerally he dreads being laughed at.
And that's what makes funny feminists like Marcotte an asset to the struggle. It's a Jungle Out There is a fast, easy, breezy, and very rewarding read that clarifies where our battles remain -- and ensures that the next feminist generations won't be sent out into that wilderness unarmed.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Welcome Amanda! It’s great to have you here.
Hi, Amanda and Sara!! Looking forward to the discussion!
Thanks for having me!
Love the observations about humor, Sara. Wasn’t it Margaret Atwood who suggested that the thing men fear most from women is that we’ll laugh at them?
Amanda — welcome to firedoglake! Wonderful to have you here.
Welcome to the Lake, Amanda. Your book is excellent — recommended for the white males out there too. Especially the complacent ones.
Welcome Amanda!
What a nice introduction Sara
Amanda, I will cop to the fact that I’m still reading the book — although I’m in the final pages now. I particularly liked your dissection of the men’s rights activists (who, as you point out, tend to be Nice Guys gone toxic). “Child support is the greatest evil the world has ever known.” And the delicious irony that the same men who complain of being seen as “success objects” are the same one heading off to Russia to look for mail-order brides (who, ostensibly, won’t see them that way?)
The ironies abound, and I’m astonished by your eye for them. How long did it take you to pull together such a comprehensive list?
The humor point is an interesting one. Even as a man, I find that jokes that poke fun at privilege really, really piss people off, regardless of who they come from.
Hey Sara and Amanda, welcome to Saturday at FDL!
Amanda, have you seen any reviews of your book by MRA groups?
Somehow, I don’t think they would understand your message or appreciate it.
(Note: I have not had an opportunity to read your book as yet)
It may have been Atwood; but whoever it was, she was prophetic. I do think it’s the thing they fear most: that we won’t be sufficiently respectful.
Oo, DK, good question.
Physioprof, my own observation is that the flip side of this is that men really, desperately want women’s approval. And the ones who seem to be most indifferent to that are the ones who are the hungriest for it.
Blogging is really a great way to hone your ideas over time. I got the list by examining what issues kept coming up on feminist blogs and what got a lot of comments, traction, links, and just bile. A lot of feminist bloggers lament that you’ll get more comments, say, by talking about silly wedding customs than something deep and important. But I don’t regret that so much as think that shows that wedding customs are far more likely to trip up defensive reactions, contradictions in thinking, and hypocrisy, especially the kind that upholds the patriarchy. Where people squirm the most is where I tend to linger.
The feminist wave of the sixies and seventies had a lot of humor in it, but maybe when the majority retired from politics do to other things, only the Really Serious people were left. Certainly the issues became divided and subdivided until they were almost incomprehensible to outsiders.
Can we get our sense of humor back? Would it help to be tickled?
And I’d argue that things like wedding customs are deep and important, because they’re rituals that embed and crystallize so many of our other attitudes about gender relationships.
There were a couple nasty comments at Amazon, but they got deleted because obviously the MRAs who wrote them hadn’t read the book. Nor do I think they will. It’s not worth their time, and all it will do is challenge their delicately sewn together myth that men are the ones who are really oppressed by all-powerful feminazis.
I guess I’ve spent too much time at the Lake, no lack of humor here.
Egregious, one of the things I liked best in the book were the chapters on the ways those funny women — especially those early ones — were marginalized as something other than “real women” because they were funny. Comediennes are fat, ethnic, or otherwise unfuckable.
Has Ann Althouse attacked this book yet, seeing as there are breasts on the cover?
Really good point. And I think one reason it confuses people is that marriage is such a sexist institution historically speaking, and the assumption from feminists for a long time was that it would basically just disappear. But instead, as you see with the gay marriage thing, society has chosen instead to remake it. We hope that it can be egalitarian, but time and time again we just ape old, sexist traditions. It’s a difficult, uphill battle.
I have some fun in the book with people I think mean well but just fail miserably to really remake old, sexist traditions in a new way that’s more equal. Like whoever thought of bringing men to baby showers was nuts. Bringing men just makes the whole childish aspect of the tradition more embarrassing. Better would be to do what Miranda did on Sex and the City, and have fried chicken and beer at your baby shower.
I almost tore someone’s head off for saying he thought feminazi was funny - by the time I got through he looked as if had been through the entire cycle in the dishwasher.
what about Murine Dowd, too?
I think one reason a lot of humor fades over time is that comedy often doesn’t age as well as drama. It relies very heavily on timeliness 99% of the time. I know it, as a humorist, and just went with that in the book.
Dowd is way too busy working on those Obambi jokes.
Amanda’s book is great — not surprising to anyone familiar with her blogging. I’d like to suggest it would make a terrific graduation present, for the male and female graduates on your list. I don’t laugh aloud while reading many books, but this was one of them.
The three-page chapter entitled “How to Decide Whether to Out Someone” was worth the price of admission.
Thanks for this book, Amanda, and thank you, Sara, for a wonderful introduction.
Men don’t respect us if we laugh at them. I think that is really funny.
When men are by themselves, the humor tends very much towards one-upmanship and displays of dominance through “kidding”. Is women’s humor fundamentally different from this, you think, or similar?
I concur with Teddy. I’m planning on handing my review copy off to my daughter, who graduated last night from high school. (The grad ball’s tonight. Am moderating this, along with a hairdo disaster — she just went back to the shower to start over.)
Isn’t all women’s solo humor about the ABSURDITY of the penis?
Christopher Hitchens openly stated that women he found sexually attractive and women he thought were funny were mutually exclusive categories. People point to conventionally attractive female comedians that have emerged in recent years—Amy Poehler, Tina Fey, Sarah Silverman—and that pretty much settles that argument. I wish there was a more delicate was to talk about that, a way that doesn’t degrade the looks of women that aren’t bone thin, young, etc., but that’s the sort of hair-splitting that makes the funny disappear.
It’s really weird. In my real world life, being funny is WHY I’m ever considered attractive. I make the dudes laugh, and they like me. But when I started to ply it online, suddenly I tripped over the fact that I was a huge threat. And I think I realized how much I honed my sense of humor in matriarchal environments of the kind Sara describes in the introduction. When I was growing up, women would get together without men and laugh and crack foul jokes and carry on. So I got the message that women should be funny. Less the message that we shouldn’t scare men with it. But then again, once I was out in the world, I was living in a liberal city where there’s lots of men who like funny women.
Or is it simply about absurdity generally? Being female is, at its core, a pretty damned absurd experience.
Welcome to the Lake, Amanda.
Looking back to humor I saw women peddle growing up, it had that element of one-upmanship, but honestly, it was about “surviving”. Which is why I wanted to write a survival guide. Life is really absurd for a lot of women living under sexism, and so like getting together with other women and making fun of the world was a release more than a game. Less MarioKart, more Katamari Damacy.
It seems possible that not taking yourself seriously is one of the major differences between liberal men and conservative men. Conservative men seem to take themselves much more seriously — and react badly when we’re insufficiently respectful of their gravitas.
Of course, that said, I have no compunction about one upmanship with men now that I’m an adult. That’s why I was on the speech team in high school and not a cheerleader.
A continuation of the competitiveness of young boys?
What a great gift to give to each of my two nieces, one graduating from high school, the other college! As well as for myself. Part of the 4 choice generation of women: wife/mother, teacher, nurse, and secretary.
This is so well timed post all the HRC discussion.
As a liberal man, I’m not entirely sure the liberal men are as self-effacing as you’re optimistically suggesting. I’d say that IF a man doesn’t take himself seriously, THEN he’s probably liberal, but I wouldn’t say the assumption goes the opposite direction.
Ugh. Christopher Hitchens. Now there’s a model of maleness …
One thing I’ve noticed about conservative men vs. liberal men in using humor as a one upmanship thing is that conservative men are far more likely to aim it at people they think are their social inferiors. So, racist jokes, sexist jokes, male bonding. But liberal men I know have honed the art of trash-talking amongst themselves in a controlled situation like a game. But that’s just my experience.
Racist and sexist jokes in conservative environments are also a gate-keeping mechanism. If someone makes one and you don’t laugh, you are given shit. It’s not about being funny for its own sake, but about controlling the boundaries and surpressing dissent.
Isn’t part of the “problem” with women being funny that funny = smart? Men who think they are funny, and thus smart, may simply not want to share yet another arena with women. It’s their loss, of course.
HAHAHAH! Amanda, I am too fucking old for many of your pop culture references (which I assume that is)!
Undoubtedly.
Sara, Amanda, welcome to the Lake.
SUZ!!! where’s the brain bleach?
Well, actually, I would rephrase as follows:
Young boys practicing for the competitiveness of adult males.
Yeah, it’s a video game reference. MarioKart is usually a vicious party game, all competition. Katamari Damacy is like the ideal stoner game. You just roll a big ball around collecting stuff. It’s not really very competitive, but weirdly relaxing.
Auguste, I’m not sure I implied causality; I certainly didn’t intend to. But the correlation seems pretty strong: men who are comfortable with themselves don’t feel nearly so assaulted when a woman teases them, or makes jokes about men. And they’re also more open to the world generally, which usually does mean liberal in their worldview.
For fifteen years I have been getting together with my women friends the first Tuesday of every month for martini night. We are from 45 to 80 years old. Our daughters can come. No men ever. We are the nastiest funniest peeps I know. We are without constrain and mostly post menipausal. And we are dangerous.
No, I guess what I was saying was: Don’t give liberal men too much credit.
It’s also about being allowed among the permitted oppressed, thus Andrew Sullivan’s love of South Park, which prominently features — and has made mainstream — the phrase “That’s so gay.”
I like Lily Tomlin’s joke so much better,
Actually, if you know either game, you know the analogy is dead spot on. Women’s humor — like our lives — tends to be more spontanous and non-zero-sum.
I really hate the way W uses humor to keep people in their place. Since I’ve become aware of that, I notice other high-status men doing it, too, and find it really offensive.
I find them boring. Same thing with a lot of the conservative women I know. Both are so full of themselves they’ve either forgotten or fail to see that there are so many little things in our lives that are funny.
Spending more time on the blogosphere I am finding it hard to tell at times whether the person behind the pseudonym is male or female when there are no clues in an androgynous self-title. I had a discussion on one progressive website and was about to congratulate a guy for being so evolved… and it was a woman commenter. Aha. In a way, this veil before us in posting brings a bottom-line honesty without the subliminal assumed and maybe unwitting stereotypes of sexism and the reverse, ageism and the reverse, and racism and the reverse.
I’ve noticed a marked increase lately in the level racial and sexual hostility just in the email jokes that are sent to me by men I know who happen to be Republicans. Nastier than ever, anyone else feeling this, too?
This is a bit OT, but Digby has some wistful regrets about allowing herself to be gendered. Being completely without gender gave her a freedom that she misses. And she says she definitely takes more shit now than she did when people weren’t sure.
Heh, I use humor to police the comments at my blog. Trolls are, to my mind, a socially acceptable group to just relentlessly mock to their virtual faces.
I found long ago that people stopped sending these when I responded immediately, “Don’t send me stuff like this, ever again.”
wow. That’s telling.
I did enjoy when you would “dis-emvowel” the trolls who persisted in their idiocy.
Any particular troll-busting tactics you’d care to pass on?
Absolutely. And instead of just deleting them and cutting the sender some slack I am ONLY beginning to gently respond with a proactive assertion of why it made me uncomfortable. I think it is going to cut down on my mailbox inflow. But I think I need to stop “enduring” prejudice from extended family and acquaintances and “BE THE CHANGE”.
I’ve noticed that, too. I dread reading any forwarded emails lately. They used to more reliably be a mix of stupid jokes, treacly “inspiring” stories, and other such stuff. Now, more racist jokes. I think I blame the conservative attempts to turn Mexican immigrants into this year’s bogeyman more than I do anything else.
Amanda, you share something with my favorite comedian, Kathy Griffin: the wrath of the odious Bill Donohue. I wonder if you have ever compared notes with Kathy about your experiences?
Disemvowelment has gotten around. Amanda, was that your innovation?
shades of gray - nuance - appreciating, studying differing and varied points of view goes with liberalism and a broader sense of humor.
Seeking black and white distinctions - often based on tribalism, mores or folkways - is aligned with conservatism and a narrowed perspective - fostering the inability to appreciate any humor beyond fart jokes.
when I first jumped into the Lake, I deliberately chose a ambiguous name.
I’m going to remember this, being the troll lover I am. Hmmmmmm…
I’m getting the idea the trolls are in for a baaddd time here shortly.
How interesting is that! I know we women were raised to give men more full and patient attention and cut them more slack. But the double standard still stalks us. And yet I do want to assert my gender, since it is a big part of my character building when I share. I know some men of my acquaintance don’t like “libbyliberal”. Told me it wasn’t serious enough. I like the alliteration, and I am making a statement that I don’t make an apology for being liberal. But it would be interesting to have an androgynous moniker, too.
No, it was invented, I do believe, by the people at Making Light. There’s a website where you can c/p their comments into it, have them automatically disemvowled, and then c/p it back into the edit field.
Fighting trolls one on one is hard to boil down. Some you really don’t want to provoke, because they are crazy stalker dudes who will completely come undone if bested by a woman cracking jokes at their expense. But some will be shamed enough to slink off….temporarily. One thing I’ve learned about conservative men is that they really do feel entitled to feel like the smartest, most important people in the room even if all evidence to the contrary is glaringly obvious.
I consider it also fair to mercilessly mock demented fucking right-wing wackaloon assholes, even if they are not “trolls”.
I think this is a key insight.
I really believe that Roman Catholicism exerts too much patriarchal influence, because of it’s closed ecclesiology, a pope who is by canon law required to be male and celibate. It’s tough for the other mainline Xtian denominations to get much traction. FWIW, the pope respects the sacraments of Eastern Orthodox Catholics who reject his authority. They have married priests, but sadly still restrict ordination to one gender. Mainline protestants have made much greater headway in ordaining both genders and Luther was always open to married ministers. As someone who was raised RC, it’s always bothered me that a denomination that invested so much in education remained so damn patriarchal. BTW, the quality of RC priests is just terrible. It’s not that they’re all child molesters. It’s just that they are for the most part so overwhelmingly (for lack of a better term) dumb.
Nice catch on the feminism in CW music.
Just be careful though; not everyone who disagrees or is disagreeable is actually a troll.
In fact, often, troll is over used as a descriptor.
And the intensely religious and sentimental and superstitious all mixed up into one. Those alarm me as much as the malicious ones. The all or nothing, no shades of gray, “patriotic” mandates still come frequently.
I hang out on a college football blog and you bet I can confirm it.
respectfully disagree.Think of the Jesuits
I think it was a good thing on the whole for Griffin, but maybe I’m wrong. It probably was good in the long run for me—gave me focus on what to do with my life, and campaign work ain’t it. In the short term, giving up a good job and becoming Public Enemy #1 was not fun.
But like the proper egotist humorist I am, I got a little jolt of pride ever time a newscast or article mentioned my joke about the Holy Spirit. You just don’t repeat a joke like that over and over unless it’s a good one. Donohue has a real knack for getting offended at stuff that’s genuinely funny. Griffin’s joke made me smirk. I think he realizes the funnier the joke that he gets mad at, the more traction it gets in the media, because a good joke has repeat value, even if you’re clutching your pearls at it. Does that make sense?
Amanda, that squares with my experience at Orcinus, where we got lots and lots of conservative male trolls. Being the only woman there was rough and tumble at times, but I found that drawing on that red-state-woman thing helped a lot.
One of the amazing things is how easy it is to sexually intimidate men. They want to be in control. And all you need to do is suggest that maybe they won’t be if you’re around, and they just sort of shrivel up and hiss.
Bullseye.
Oh, I wait until I can determine the difference between someone who sincerely believes what they write and one who’s just here to create hate and discontent. I don’t mind engaging someone who’s serious, of whatever stripe, but I’m gonna give it to a troll. There’s just something about them that puts my back up.
I think bunnying (replacing the offending comment with a youtube video of a bunny) was invented by Chris Clarke while blogging at Pandagon, though.
Wasn’t it Margaret Atwood who suggested that the thing men fear most from women is that we’ll laugh at them?
or, even worse, laugh and point towards their nether regions
Of course, some of our trolls aren’t just “conservative” …
Thanks, Elliot. I was struggling to come up with a better word than androgynous. Ambiguous.
I think people do pick up soon enough on gender with at least more self-disclosing types soon enough. But an interesting option to try.
I think you and I had really similar experiences being brought onto blogs that were run by men before. When I joined Pandagon, Jesse was downright confused how many emails he’d get from guys who would use this “Just between us men” tone and ask him to get rid of me. Some of them seemed not to understand that he’d asked me to join. The only way to describe it was that they seemed to think I used my feminine wiles to trick him into allowing me onto his blog. Which makes no sense at all, since we hadn’t met in person at the time.
I’ve got a young lady at work who dings me every chance she gets. We have a great time.
I think people who are truly funny need to be able to enjoy pissing people off, and gain ego gratification from people talking about them, even when what they are saying is “What a fucking asshole!”
Welcome, Amanda, and thanks very much Sara.
Yes, I think the arrows Digby took for being gender ambiguous were minor compared to those she suffered once people knew she was a woman. I myself always cited her as a man who wrote well about women’s issues before I knew who she was. Once she came “out” she was subject to a lot of bullying and disrespect that she just didn’t suffer before.
Of course, I think the online conversation has really degenerated recently, so maybe that’s a part of it.
Which is all a roundabout way of saying that some odious wingnuts seemed to think they could appeal to Jesse’s gender as a trump card, like he had more in common with them (penises) than he did with me (sense of humor, values system).
And some of our conservatives aren’t just trolls!
It’s both a source of inspiration and a coping mechanism. Every time Bill O’Reilly has decided I’m a menace to society, I try to remember what Oscar Wilde said and just tell people, “At least he pronounces ‘Marcotte’ right.”
But “issues with women” seems to be a unifying theme with them — and the farther out on the loony right they are, the truer that seems to be.
Oh, how true (that they feel entitled to be the smartest, most powerful, particularly in a public setting.) One of the most delicious comments aabout me during my activist years (60, 70, 80’s) was made by an adversary (male) describing me to someone (a male) who had to deal with me on a public board. After running me down, he said, “but don’t underestimate her”… I roll that around in my head with silent chuckles.
I really admire your willingness to put yourself out there like that.
IMHO, Benny 16 and JP2 effectively destroyed the Jebbies. I don’t have a problem with celibacy. As Jebbies know, it’s mandatory celibacy that is so ahistorical.
It wasn’t mandatory until the 11th Century.
Their willingness to enable the ordination of only one gender is unacceptable in the West, especially after they pray at Mass for more vocations. RC Church is arm-pit deep in highly qualified vocations that they refuse to ordain. Pedro Arrupe, S.J. was a great man, but institutionally, you don’t survive only ordaining one gender and within that subset make them promise to be permanently celibate. Talented people don’t like to live like that. Plus it symbolically sends a horrible message about sex and women to RC men, women, boys, and girls.
Yeah, look at it this way: People stopped trying to delete your Wikipedia article and now they just vandalize it. That’s the difference between obscurity and fame.
Dave doesn’t even get that much respect usually — either with pronunciation or spelling.