<p>"And anyway, aren't Jesuits, Dominicans, etc. usually priests or brothers and, therefore, men?"</p>
<p>Well, yes, and that was rather my point. In what way was I not clear? Catholic institutions, from the local Knights of Columbus, to Notre Dame University, to the Vatican, have tended to be rather male-dominated, would you not agree? Historically, Catholic women were relegated to subservient positions; e.g., nuns have answered to priests -- there were no male nuns or female priests.</p>
<p>Well, yes, and that was rather my point. In what way was I not clear? Catholic institutions, from the local Knights of Columbus, to Notre Dame University, to the Vatican, have tended to be rather male-dominated, would you not agree? Historically, Catholic women were relegated to subservient positions; e.g., nuns have answered to priests -- there were no male nuns or female priests.</p>
<p>What was not clear was how you connect Catholicism to conservatism. I am a woman and heavily involved in conservative politics and I can tell you that the party is not male dominated and neither is the public face of conservatism.</p>
<p>Okay, I'm beginning see your point. So, you would not agree that the tradition of subjugating women, as in the examples I gave, would generally be labeled "socially conservative." Would your party, for example, support women in the priesthood? A woman for pope?</p>
<p>If so, I've apparently missed recent progress in conservative political thought.</p>
<p>Cello, I'm not Catholic so I can't comment on either of those questions. What I CAN say is that my the senior member of my personal pastoral team is a woman with a doctorate whom I love and admire. The bishop with whom my family met recently (see the thread on essay topics I posted a couple of days ago) is also a woman of much accomplishment. Not being Catholic, I don't feel that I have the right to question their faith, but I do wonder why anyone wouldn't want the opportunity to have a female member of the clergy. I don't think subjugation of women has anything to do with conservatism. We're about individuals doing their thing however they choose, and subjugation isn't part of that. If anything, I think feminism pigeon-holes and artificially defines women.</p>
<p>"Cello, I'm not Catholic so I can't comment on either of those questions. What I CAN say is that my the senior member of my personal pastoral team is a woman with a doctorate whom I love and admire. The bishop with whom my family met recently (see the thread on essay topics I posted a couple of days ago) is also a woman of much accomplishment. Not being Catholic, I don't feel that I have the right to question their faith, but I do wonder why anyone wouldn't want the opportunity to have a female member of the clergy. I don't think subjugation of women has anything to do with conservatism. We're about individuals doing their thing however they choose, and subjugation isn't part of that. If anything, I think feminism pigeon-holes and artificially defines women."</p>
<p>Nor am I Catholic. Or politically conservative. Or Moslem for that matter. Yet I feel comfortable interpreting the historically supported views of those groups. My interest is not personal, but philosophical. And my post was not concerned with male/female leadership in conservative political groups but in male/female leadership in universities.</p>
<p>The OP was interested in assessing social atmosphere. I suspect s/he "slipped" when s/he mentioned that "Catholics know how to educate, especially the Jesuits, the Franciscans, and the Dominicans. They are brilliant men." This was a blatantly sexist statement of course, but defensible because in fact first-tier Catholic schools have been dominated by men. ND, for example, has made great strides recently to achieve something closer to gender equity (as have secular schools such as Harvard and Yale). ND just has a little further to go than they do. Perhaps it's as much about football as about academics.</p>
<p>You say that "feminism" pigeon-holes and articially defines women. That is the typical conservative response to those of us championing gender equity. What is your response to the recent survey of Notre Dame women who report:
"Notre Dame women are:
Less likely to agree that women faculty are treated fairly here (49% Notre Dame vs. 71% nationally)
More likely to agree that this institution should hire more women faculty (94% Notre Dame vs. 68% nationally)
Less likely to agree that my research is valued by faculty in my department (61% Notre Dame vs. 68% nationally)
Less likely to agree that my teaching is valued by faculty in my department (76% Notre Dame vs. 84% nationally)"?</p>
<p>Catholics know how to educate, especially the Jesuits, the Franciscans, and the Dominicans. They are brilliant men." </p>
<p>I don't see anything wrong with that statement. I thought we agreed that Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans ARE men. I don't have a problem with saying that the New York Yankees are talented men. I'm really not getting your connection between Catholicism and conservatism. They aren't interchangeable. How on earth could I speak to what happens at Notre Dame? It is a Catholic, not a conservative, institution.</p>
<p>"Catholics know how to educate, especially the Jesuits, the Franciscans, and the Dominicans. They are brilliant men"</p>
<p>LOL
zoosermom i agree with you in general...but the sentence is unclear, "brilliant men" could refer to "Catholics" OR "the Jesuits, the Franciscans, and the Dominicans."</p>
<p>LOL
zoosermom i agree with you in general...but the sentence is unclear, "brilliant men" could refer to "Catholics" OR "the Jesuits, the Franciscans, and the Dominicans."</p>
<p>You are right! I respectfully concede the point.</p>
<p>"I don't see anything wrong with that statement. I thought we agreed that Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans ARE men."</p>
<p>No, we didn't agree that. Certainly there are women in those religious orders. The women are nuns, and where they have been "allowed" to serve outside the convent they have functioned mainly as elementary teachers, nurses, and -- housekeepers for priests! They are subservient to the men. Always have been. This is the official Vatican position. That strikes me as socially conservative. Okay?</p>
<p>That strikes me as socially conservative. Okay?</p>
<p>Not okay. Not conservative, either. I still don't see how you are making this connection. It looks to me that you have a bias against both Catholicism and conservatism and choose to lump them together under the banner of things you don't like even though the only connection is that you don't like both.</p>
<p>Isn't sticking to outdated conventions social conservatism?</p>
<p>Isn't sticking to outdated conventions social conservatism?</p>
<p>Nope, but stereotyping is certainly modern-day liberalism.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that I was being facetious.</p>
<p>"It looks to me that you have a bias against both Catholicism and conservatism and choose to lump them together under the banner of things you don't like even though the only connection is that you don't like both."</p>
<p>Nope. Not at all. Not a lumper, not a splitter, just trying to be an informed observer. Notre Dame has a long reputation as an intellectual powerhouse, and not coincidentally so do the Jesuits. Duh. Of all Catholic orders, the Jesuits are historically (by far) most "liberal" -- in the sense of being willing to question the existing order. So if we're setting up a number line, with "conservative" campuses on one end (BYU?) and "liberal" on the other -- and I'm aware these terms can be variously defined, but don't most of us agree that "conservative" means striving to maintain the old social order and "liberal" is more open to change -- then Boston College is slightly to the right of Notre Dame, but both of these esteemed institutions are right of, say, Reed College?</p>
<p>That seems to be the question we're trying to debate in this thread.</p>
<p>"liberal" on the other -- and I'm aware these terms can be variously defined, but don't most of us agree that "conservative" means striving to maintain the old social order and "liberal" is more open to change </p>
<p>Not really. I also would bet that we wouldn't define "old social order" in the same way. But I do get what your saying now, although I don't agree, and I thank you for clarifying.</p>
<p>"nope, but stereotyping is certainly modern-day liberalism."</p>
<p>sorry to double-post (consider me slapped-down), but, speaking of stereotyping, this is a great example.</p>
<p>sorry to double-post (consider me slapped-down), but, speaking of stereotyping, this is a great example.</p>
<p>It was intended to be. To show that the other side can have an argument that is just as meaningless and guilty of stereotyping.</p>
<p>You liberals are hilarious lol.</p>
<p>Zoosermom,</p>
<p>You are a wonderful example of the thinking and reasoning conservative. Bravo. </p>
<p>Not everyone is a strawman-woman.</p>
<p>Zoosermom,</p>
<p>You are a wonderful example of the thinking and reasoning conservative. Bravo. </p>
<p>Why thank you!</p>