KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS-WHY CAN'T WOMEN BECOME MEMBERS?
Eileen C Nelson
Dcheney
(Eileen C Nelson) writes:
> KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS-WHY CAN'T WOMEN BECOME MEMBERS?
Simply because the Knights began as a Fraternity and we have seen no
need to change the current makeup of the organization.
-David (Grand Knight, St. Austin's K of C Council 10776)
P.S. Most councils (at least in this area) have many activities for
the entire family. Only business meetings and ceremonials are
generally restricted to members.
-David +-------------------------------------+
+-------------------+ "I came so that they might have |
| David M. Cheney | life and have it more abundantly." |
| dch...@aol.com | -John 10:10 +------------------+
+-------------------+---------+--------+ May the peace of |
| #include <std.disclaimer.h> | Christ be with you always |
+-----------------------------+---------------------------+
J.J. Ursic
> P.S. Most councils (at least in this area) have many activities
> for the entire family. Only business meetings and ceremonials are
> generally restricted to members.
Catholics who happen to be female from attending or participating? -J.J.
Lou Nunez
Why don't you join and find out?
-lou
Dcheney
<UR...@CLACK.CS.HH.AB.COM> writes:
Unfortunately I'm not free to discuss the particulars of the meetings
or ceremonials. In general I do not perceive any practical problems
with women Catholics being admitted.
Dr. Francis O'Hara
> In article <Cr38v...@ns1.nodak.edu>, ene...@badlands.NoDak.edu
> (Eileen C Nelson) writes:
> > KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS-WHY CAN'T WOMEN BECOME MEMBERS?
CWL - WHY CAN'T MEN BECOME MEMBERS?
__
Mir.
Richard S Ellis
let's start a thread on why men do not become members of the Knights of
Columbus.
--Richard Ellis
Ed Sayre
> Dcheney <dch...@AOL.COM> writes:
> > P.S. Most councils (at least in this area) have many activities
> > for the entire family. Only business meetings and ceremonials are
> > generally restricted to members.
> What occurs at these meetings and ceremonials that would preclude
> Catholics who happen to be female from attending or participating? -J.J.
Perhaps what exempts me from joining the Girl Scouts? You know how people
are particular about plumbing. :) Actually, I was part of a sorority for
a while...houseboy (got to clean up after sorority women), which is sort
of like a mascot.
Peace,
Ed Sayre internet: ed.s...@m.cc.utah.edu
"Most people who fly from temptation leave a forwarding
address." --Anonymous
Dcheney
(Dr. Francis O'Hara) writes:
> CWL - WHY CAN'T MEN BECOME MEMBERS?
The qualifications for membership are as follows: "Only practical
Catholics in union with the Holy See shall be eligible to and
entitled to continue membership in the Order. An applicant for
membership shall not be less than 18 years of age on his last
birthday." (Section 101, Laws of the Order).
J.J. Ursic
>Columbus.
Here are my answers:
1) I'd probably be viewed as a trouble maker as I was instrumental in
changing membership requirements in my college fraternity to allow
women to join.
2) I've never been asked.
3) My mother-in-law has been president of the Ladies Auxilary of the
Knights of St. John for 30 years (parish chapter). It took me 12 years
to convince my wife to drop out of that club (she always came home from
meetings pissed off). (This is just a personal bad experience with a
Knights of Something group:-)
4) I've always thought of them as a retirement group (sort of like the VFW).
5) I'd prefer a group that would let us join as a couple.
6) I don't know the secret handshake:-) -J.J.
Gordon Zaft
>Here are my answers:
>1) I'd probably be viewed as a trouble maker as I was instrumental in
>changing membership requirements in my college fraternity to allow
>women to join.
I'm forced to agree with your self-assessment.
>2) I've never been asked.
Please join the Knights of Columbus.
There, that was easy!
>3) My mother-in-law has been president of the Ladies Auxilary of the
>Knights of St. John for 30 years (parish chapter). It took me 12 years
>to convince my wife to drop out of that club (she always came home from
>meetings pissed off). (This is just a personal bad experience with a
>Knights of Something group:-)
I don't see how this is relevant.
>4) I've always thought of them as a retirement group (sort of like the VFW).
Well, I joined at age 24.
>5) I'd prefer a group that would let us join as a couple.
Well, this is a problem.
>6) I don't know the secret handshake:-) -J.J.
How can you know the handshake before you join?
GZ
--
Gordon C. Zaft | za...@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (school)
EE grad student |
"... et resurrexit tertia die...."
Jim McIntosh
In article <2t7o39$e...@search01.news.aol.com>, dch...@aol.com (Dcheney) says:
>Unfortunately I'm not free to discuss the particulars of the meetings
>or ceremonials. In general I do not perceive any practical problems
>with women Catholics being admitted.
In chapter four of "Bigger Secrets" (ISBN 0-395-38477-X) William
Poundstone relates what he describes as the KofC initiation ritual. It
involves fake priests, fake secret service agents, a fake operation and a
fake murder. If this is true, the reason women aren't allowed in probably
because they'd be too busy laughing. :-)
By the way, the book says "the Knight's secret handshake is coventional,
but one person tightens his grasp twice in quick succession and the other
person responds with a single application of pressure. You're suppose to
ask 'What council do you belong to?' when giving this handshake."
Jim McIntosh, sfo (j...@american.edu)
The American University
Washington DC 20016-8019 USA
Steve Creps
Eileen C Nelson <ene...@badlands.NoDak.edu> wrote:
>
(I guess the subject line really did say it all.)
Women can't become Knights of Columbus because it is a men's
organization. Why not try the Daughters of Isabella, which is the
women's counterpart to K of C?
- - - - - - - - - -
Steve Creps, Indiana University
cr...@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu
J.J. Ursic
>Women can't become Knights of Columbus because it is a men's organization.
Why do we need to have "men's" organizations? If the mission of the group
was specifically limited by some physical aspect of a man, then perhaps I
could understand. What does a Knight do, that requires maleness? -J.J.
KATHY HUTCHINS
Oh for pity's sake. How about because people like it that way? Have
you ever heard of freedom of assembly? Believe me, J.J., they don't
want you in the Women's Club either. The last thing they need during
the Fashion Show get-together is some bleating Alan Alda wannabe
horning in on their frozen daquiris.
Or do you perceive some hideous injustice being perpetrated
by men in red hats against Catholic women because they meet on
Tuesday nights in the Parish Hall instead of on Wednesday nights
in the School Library?
Kathy Hutchins
khut...@vax1.iupui.edu
Ed Sayre
> Steve Creps <cr...@LATERAN.UCS.INDIANA.EDU> writes:
> >Women can't become Knights of Columbus because it is a men's organization.
>
> Why do we need to have "men's" organizations? If the mission of the group
> was specifically limited by some physical aspect of a man, then perhaps I
> could understand. What does a Knight do, that requires maleness? -J.J.
What does a sorority require that you need be a female?
David M. Desroches
Why do we have women's organizations? Why do we have clubs for
Italian-American, Franco-American, ?nationality?-American? Why do we
have gardening clubs?
Simple, people wish to associate with others who hold similar views,
lifestyles, activities, etc. It gives them a common base from which
other conversations and activities may happen.
Membership requirements, in and of themselves, are not necessarily
discriminatory, how they are applied may be (i.e. country clubs
excluding Jews, Catholics, blacks, etc.).
--
**************************************************************************
* David M. Desroches * So we are to use our different gifts in *
* dmdes...@jake.wpi.edu * accordance with the grace that God has *
* Worcester Polytechnic Int. * given us. If our gift is to speak God's *
* (508) 831-5487 * message, we should do it according to the *
* * faith that we have. Rom 12:6 *
**************************************************************************
J.J. Ursic
>Oh for pity's sake. How about because people like it that way?
But isn't that the reason given for people committing most sins?
>Have you ever heard of freedom of assembly?
I didn't know that it included the freedom to discriminate.
>Believe me, J.J., they don't want you in the Women's Club either.
Now I'm hurt. How much more rejection can I take.
>The last thing they need during
>the Fashion Show get-together is some bleating Alan Alda wannabe
>horning in on their frozen daquiris.
Fashion shows are so materialistic, just sinful if you ask me.
>Or do you perceive some hideous injustice being perpetrated
>by men in red hats against Catholic women because they meet on
>Tuesday nights in the Parish Hall instead of on Wednesday nights
>in the School Library?
Hideous or not, an injustice all the same. -J.J.
J.J. Ursic
>Kathy...you do have a way with words! "Alan Alda wannabe..." I like it!
I took it as a compliment as I wouldn't want to be caught dead at
some sexist fashion show...simply avoiding near occasions to sin.-J.J.
J.J. Ursic
>Why do we have women's organizations?
Because women weren't allowed to join the original "men" organizations.
>Why do we have clubs for Italian-American, Franco-American, ?nationality?
>-American?
Probably because the immigrants were not welcomed with open arms by
the original colonists and felt compelled to band together to promote
their own interests. I'd say of the clubs I know of they do a lot
to promote discrimination among ethnic and racially different people.
>Why do we have gardening clubs?
For _all_ people who like to garden.
>Simple, people wish to associate with others who hold similar views,
>lifestyles, activities, etc. It gives them a common base from which
>other conversations and activities may happen.
So why should this prevent a woman from joining the Knights. What
view, lifestyle, activitiy, etc., do Knights do which would exclude
women.
>Membership requirements, in and of themselves, are not necessarily
>discriminatory, how they are applied may be (i.e. country clubs
>excluding Jews, Catholics, blacks, etc.).
I agree, but why have two(or more) organizations within the Catholic
community which provides the same function and whose only difference
is the sex of its members. -J.J.
Ed Sayre
> KATHY HUTCHINS <KHUT...@VAX1.IUPUI.EDU> writes:
> >Oh for pity's sake. How about because people like it that way?
>
> But isn't that the reason given for people committing most sins?
I thought that was reason you wanted to go against the Pope, so
score one for you. :)
>
> >Have you ever heard of freedom of assembly?
>
> I didn't know that it included the freedom to discriminate.
Psst, J.J., it does. The Armed Forces can discriminate against
obese people, the Girl Scouts can discriminate against boys, the Mosque
can discriminate against non-Muslims, and in your own free time you
discriminate all the time--you don't allow people you hate into your own
home, unless it's your in-laws. :)
>
> >Believe me, J.J., they don't want you in the Women's Club either.
>
> Now I'm hurt. How much more rejection can I take.
>
If you feel this is an unfair discrimination (you seem to feel
there is NO fair discrimination), then why don't you file a suit against
the women's clubs? After all, it would be just.
> >The last thing they need during
> >the Fashion Show get-together is some bleating Alan Alda wannabe
> >horning in on their frozen daquiris.
>
> Fashion shows are so materialistic, just sinful if you ask me.
>
Right. Show me your bank account, and I'll show you mine. :)
And just how do you get around, Gandhi? :)
> >Or do you perceive some hideous injustice being perpetrated
> >by men in red hats against Catholic women because they meet on
> >Tuesday nights in the Parish Hall instead of on Wednesday nights
> >in the School Library?
>
> Hideous or not, an injustice all the same. -J.J.
And you don't do anything about it.
Ed Sayre
There's male models too, silly. I guess my legs were just not
good enough. *sniff*
J.J. Ursic
> There's male models too, silly. I guess my legs were just not
>good enough. *sniff*
The male models' fashions can be just as sexist as those for females.
Suggestive clothing is cut both ways. -J.J.
John Hutchins
>I agree, but why have two(or more) organizations within the Catholic
>community which provides the same function and whose only difference
>is the sex of its members. -J.J.
Because sometimes men like to get away from women and women like
to get away from men. Why do you have to but your nose into their
affairs and pass moral judgements on them? You have the mentality
of a postal clerk, JJ. Have you ever considered applying for a
job as a minor civil servant?
Steve Creps
(J.J. omitted my remark that there is a corresponding Daughters of
Isabella organization for women only). A question for you, J.J.: do you
believe that men should never be able to get together in a group with
just men, and that women should also never be able to form a group with
just women? Why or why not?
John Hutchins
>KATHY HUTCHINS <KHUT...@VAX1.IUPUI.EDU> writes:
>>Oh for pity's sake. How about because people like it that way?
>
>But isn't that the reason given for people committing most sins?
So wanting to "hang out with the guys" is a sin? Jeez, JJ
you're worse than Justin Long, Andy Byler or any of the other
legalists ever were. Is there anything that isn't sinful
according to the Book of JJ?
>>Have you ever heard of freedom of assembly?
>
>I didn't know that it included the freedom to discriminate.
You don't seem to know much.
>>Believe me, J.J., they don't want you in the Women's Club either.
>
>Now I'm hurt. How much more rejection can I take.
>
>>The last thing they need during
>>the Fashion Show get-together is some bleating Alan Alda wannabe
>>horning in on their frozen daquiris.
>
>Fashion shows are so materialistic, just sinful if you ask me.
Yes, they would be.
>>Or do you perceive some hideous injustice being perpetrated
>>by men in red hats against Catholic women because they meet on
>>Tuesday nights in the Parish Hall instead of on Wednesday nights
>>in the School Library?
>
>Hideous or not, an injustice all the same.
In other words, no one is allowed to associate on any terms
except those dictated by you. You know, you and Julian ought
to start a club.
Ed Sayre
Not the bleeding thread/cloth/needle thread again! :)
Ed "I'm too sexy for b.l.c." Sayre internet: ed.s...@m.cc.utah.edu
John Vogel
Perhaps the only real issue is one in which women are prevented
from some non social advantage by being blocked from memberships. If all
decisions for the parish are really made in the Knight's council
meetings, then the women have a legit beef. If the men drink and get
silly, then women should be thankful to be left out.
Dcheney
> Why do we need to have "men's" organizations?
We do not "need" them. Nor, at the most fundamental level, do we
"need" books, modern medicine, cooked food, or organizations of any
kind. However I enjoy, "want", and indeed partake of all of these
from time to time.
> If the mission of the group
> was specifically limited by some physical aspect of a man, then
perhaps I
> could understand. What does a Knight do, that requires maleness?
-J.J.
In my humble opinion nothing at all. But, as I have stated before,
the Knights of Columbus began as a fraternity and the members
(including myself) have seen no reason to change that.
-David Cheney
(Grand Knight, St. Austin's K of C Council #10776)
Gordon Zaft
>view, lifestyle, activitiy, etc., do Knights do which would exclude
>women.
Sheesh, J.J., are you telling me you refuse to join any
organization that doesn't allow anyone as a member?
What view, lifestye, activity, etc., do Knights do which would
exclude Jews, Muslims, etc?
Part of the answer is that Catholic men (especially today!) need
help in being just that -- Catholic men. Men who are devoted to Christ
and his Church, who can reinforce each other to be good Christians, good
fathers, good husbands, good single men.
>
>I agree, but why have two(or more) organizations within the Catholic
>community which provides the same function and whose only difference
>is the sex of its members. -J.J.
How do you know this? This isn't true.
Dr. Francis O'Hara
Discrimination of itself is not always an evil thing. Is excluding
women from the K of C discriminatory? Yes. SO WHAT?
__
Mir.
J.J. Ursic
>Because sometimes men like to get away from women and women like
>to get away from men.
I think this attitude runs along the line of the "divorce mentality"
which is akin to the contraceptive mentality.
> Why do you have to but your nose into their
>affairs and pass moral judgements on them?
I pass no moral judgements on same-sex clubs. I would certainly
caution their members that it presents a near occasion to sin. What
come to mind are the times when a man might say or do something except if
there was "a lady present". I'm sure this applies to the "ladies" as
well:-)
> You have the mentality
>of a postal clerk, JJ. Have you ever considered applying for a
>job as a minor civil servant?
As long as we're giving inaccurate speculations of each other, let me
guess that you're really pissed that Kathy's having a girl and you're
not going to able to take her to your Kla..er Knight meetings when you
get older. -J.J.
David M. Desroches
But, J.J., they _like_ to wear their clothes that way. How can you
make a negative comment about their preferences?
--
****************************************************************************
* David M. Desroches * Your life in Christ makes you strong, and *
* dmdes...@jake.wpi.edu * His love comforts you. You have fellowship *
* Worcester Polytechnic Int. * with the Spirit, and you have kindness and *
* (508) 831-5487 * compassion for one another. Phil 2:1 *
****************************************************************************
J.J. Ursic
>A question for you, J.J.: do you believe that men should never be
>able to get together in a group with just men, and that women should
>also never be able to form a group with just women? Why or why not?
There are some topics that either sex may feel uncomfortable talking
about in the presence of the opposite sex. (Unless that person is
their doctor or priest which increases confidence apparently.)
I also know that the physical strengths of most men and women are
different and sporting activities could be unfavorably biased if
men and women had to compete on equal terms.
Therefore I would never say "never be able to", however, I had heard
nothing of what the Knights do that would be included among these
sensitive topics or activities. The closest I've heard so far is
that the Knights teach you how to be a good "father", yet I'd need
to hear how this differs from being a good "parent" which both
male and female could benefit from before I'd consider that that was
a justifiable reason for prohibiting women from joining. -J.J.
J.J. Ursic
> Sheesh, J.J., are you telling me you refuse to join any
>organization that doesn't allow anyone as a member?
No, I'm not telling you that. But we do need to look at the
reasons why we don't allow someone as a member.
> What view, lifestye, activity, etc., do Knights do which would
>exclude Jews, Muslims, etc?
How about a Catholic lifestyle. I doubt those you listed attend
Catholic Masses and recieve communion:-)
> Part of the answer is that Catholic men (especially today!) need
>help in being just that -- Catholic men. Men who are devoted to Christ
>and his Church, who can reinforce each other to be good Christians, good
>fathers, good husbands, good single men.
What is taught that would differ from being a good parent, spouse or
single Catholic person? If 99.5% of the info applies to either sex
why shouldn't all be included?
>>I agree, but why have two(or more) organizations within the Catholic
>>community which provides the same function and whose only difference
>>is the sex of its members. -J.J.
>
> How do you know this? This isn't true.
Steve told me. He gave me no indication that the function of
the Daughters of Isabelle is not the same or that they do anything
different except for excluding males. -J.J.
J.J. Ursic
>make a negative comment about their preferences?
If they like it because it feels comfortable, OK, if they like it because
it arouses the sexual passion in someone other than their spouse, then
it's not OK. (It really getting deep in here:-) -J.J.
David M. Desroches
> Gordon Zaft <za...@BIGDOG.ENGR.ARIZONA.EDU> writes:
>> Sheesh, J.J., are you telling me you refuse to join any
>> organization that doesn't allow anyone as a member?
> No, I'm not telling you that. But we do need to look at the reasons
> why we don't allow someone as a member.
>> What view, lifestye, activity, etc., do Knights do which would
>> exclude Jews, Muslims, etc?
> How about a Catholic lifestyle. I doubt those you listed attend
> Catholic Masses and recieve communion:-)
But that's discriminatory J.J., we certainly can not allow that.
>> Part of the answer is that Catholic men (especially today!) need
>> help in being just that -- Catholic men. Men who are devoted to
>> Christ and his Church, who can reinforce each other to be good
>> Christians, good fathers, good husbands, good single men.
> What is taught that would differ from being a good parent, spouse or
> single Catholic person? If 99.5% of the info applies to either sex
> why shouldn't all be included?
Of course, this argument is only valid if your premise that there is
virtually no difference between being a mother and a father (excluding
the physical differences) is true. I have seen no evidence to support
this claim, and have had evidence that there are differences.
Contrary to your belief, J.J., men and women are different in ways
other than physical attributes.
>>> I agree, but why have two(or more) organizations within the
>>> Catholic community which provides the same function and whose only
>>> difference is the sex of its members. -J.J.
>> How do you know this? This isn't true.
> Steve told me. He gave me no indication that the function of the
> Daughters of Isabelle is not the same or that they do anything
> different except for excluding males. -J.J.
Kathy Hutchins
> John Hutchins <jchu...@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>writes:
>> Because sometimes men like to get away from women and women like
>> to get away from men.
> I think this attitude runs along the line of the "divorce mentality"
> which is akin to the contraceptive mentality.
and then has the unmitigated gall to add
> I pass no moral judgements on same-sex clubs.
No, of course you pass no moral judgements. You call men who
choose to spend a couple of hours a month in the exclusive
company of other men all kinds of demeaning names, but you're passing
no moral judgements.
And now I believe we've attained the pinnacle of J.J.esque
insult:
> As long as we're giving inaccurate speculations of each other, let me
> guess that you're really pissed that Kathy's having a girl and you're
> not going to able to take her to your Kla..er Knight meetings when you
> get older. -J.J.
Instead of replying to this message the moment I read it, I went through
the whole stack. Today's gospel message has made me retract the response
that initially came to mind. It was an anglo-saxon verb in the imperative
voice. I'll just point out that the Klan admits women. It's blacks,
Jews and Catholics that it has a problem with. You see, they decided
that admitting them would interfere with the mission of the group.
(As I write this, I cannot put the image of Cleavon Little wearing
that hood in _Blazing Saddles_ out of my mind.)
The KC can't win under JJ's rules, just like the Klan. If there's "no
good reason" not to admit women, they're being unjust by not admitting
them. But if they say there _is_ a good reason for not admitting
women, that's just proof that they're a bunch of sexist jerks.
You really want to know the reason KC doesn't admit women, JJ? It's
because Catholic women who have husbands that need to get out of
the house for a few hours would much rather they spent those few
hours with the rest of the guys from the parish instead of
hanging out at Moe's Tavern. ("Amanda Hugginkiss? Where's Amanda
Hugginkiss? Oh why can't I find Amanda Hugginkiss?" Never mind,
inside joke.)
Kathy Hutchins
khut...@vax1.iupui.edu
David M. Desroches
But if they wish to arouse the passion in their spouse it's certainly
not _their_ fault that someone else might be aroused. They're not
hurting anybody with their clothes and should be allowed to wear
whatever they want! If someone else can not keep their passions in
check, well that's too bad for them!
(this line is getting tougher to maintain with a straight face)
J.J. Ursic
>'Joseph J.' <UR...@CLACK.CS.HH.AB.COM> writes:
^^^^^^
Oh-No, now I'm in trouble, and from a tag team, no less:-)
>No, of course you pass no moral judgements. You call men who
>choose to spend a couple of hours a month in the exclusive
>company of other men all kinds of demeaning names, but you're passing
>no moral judgements.
Yeah, that's right, whatever you say.
>And now I believe we've attained the pinnacle of J.J.esque
>insult:
Nice of you to delete your hubby's endearing words to me.
>Instead of replying to this message the moment I read it, I went through
>the whole stack. Today's gospel message has made me retract the response
>that initially came to mind. It was an anglo-saxon verb in the imperative
>voice.
Great, now when little Annette is colicky, at least you can blame her
screaming on me for raising your blood pressure during your pregnancy.
Maybe you should give up the net until the only person you can
upset is yourself. (Or as a minimum, killfile me)
>You really want to know the reason KC doesn't admit women, JJ? It's
>because Catholic women who have husbands that need to get out of
>the house for a few hours would much rather they spent those few
>hours with the rest of the guys from the parish instead of
>hanging out at Moe's Tavern.
I don't have that urge to get out of the house, nor would I not
trust my spouse if she left to go to a meeting which had both
sexes present. I certainly don't think that my wife worries when
I go to a parish council meeting which has about an equal number
of males and females. I guess I can understand your concern for
your spouse drinking, but why not a coed KC? -J.J.
J.J. Ursic
>> Catholic Masses and recieve communion:-)
>But that's discriminatory J.J., we certainly can not allow that.
This is true, all should be allowed to receive Him...but we don't
make the rules:-) -J.J.
Kathy Hutchins
> Nice of you to delete your hubby's endearing words to me.
He called you a postal clerk. You called him a Klansman.
If you think the two are insults of similar magnitude,
I guess your dog isn't the only one who bites the mailman.
> Great, now when little Annette is colicky, at least you can blame her
> screaming on me for raising your blood pressure during your pregnancy.
Unlike some prominent b.l.c. posters, I don't go in for
19th century obstetrical folklore. The best evidence suggests
that colic is either due to an immature nervous system or
lactose intolerance. Rachel was colicky, and I didn't need
anyone to blame.
> Maybe you should give up the net until the only person you can
> upset is yourself. (Or as a minimum, killfile me)
I'm too stupid to write a VAX mail filter. There are more
substantial irritants in my life, anyway. Maybe reading you
is like hormesis.
> I guess I can understand your concern for
> your spouse drinking,
Yes, I am concerned that he's not drinking enough. I think an
expectant father should at least allow himself a glass of wine
now and again, don't you?
> but why not a coed KC? -J.J.
Because I am perfectly content to let other people do as they
please in innocent matters such as fraternal societies,
ladies' garden clubs, and even internet discussion groups.
Kathy Hutchins
khut...@vax1.iupui.edu
John Hutchins
>I think this attitude runs along the line of the "divorce mentality"
>which is akin to the contraceptive mentality.
I'm not surprised you think so. You seem utterly incapable
of interacting with another human being without an eye to
"power relationships" between them.
You may not believe it, but there are people, men and women, who
simply like to spend a bit of time with members of their own
sex but, nonetheless, enter into loving marriages. I wonder what
the divorce rate is for members of the K of C?
>I pass no moral judgements on same-sex clubs.
Yes you do. You called them unjust. Do you deny that you said
this or do you not know what a moral judgement is?
> I would certainly
>caution their members that it presents a near occasion to sin. What
>come to mind are the times when a man might say or do something except if
>there was "a lady present". I'm sure this applies to the "ladies" as
>well:-)
You obviously don't understand at all what motivates a man to want
to join a group like the Knights of Columbus. That's not surprising,
lots of people don't. You aren't the sort of person who is attracted
to the Knights of Columbus...neither am I. The difference between us
is that you don't seem to be willing to try to understand anyone but
yourself, or even acknowledge that anyone can be unlike you (except
to the extent that they are pigs).
>As long as we're giving inaccurate speculations of each other, let me
>guess that you're really pissed that Kathy's having a girl and you're
>not going to able to take her to your Kla..er Knight meetings when you
>get older.
No, I'm glad Kathy's having a girl. I'm not a member of the Ku Klux
Klan or the Knights of Columbus. Unlike you, I'm not prepared to
slander fellow Catholics by implying that the two groups appeal to
the same instincts.
Ed Sayre
[snip]
>
> I pass no moral judgements on same-sex clubs. I would certainly
> caution their members that it presents a near occasion to sin. What
> come to mind are the times when a man might say or do something except if
> there was "a lady present". I'm sure this applies to the "ladies" as
> well:-)
>
> > You have the mentality
> >of a postal clerk, JJ. Have you ever considered applying for a
> >job as a minor civil servant?
>
> As long as we're giving inaccurate speculations of each other, let me
> guess that you're really pissed that Kathy's having a girl and you're
> not going to able to take her to your Kla..er Knight meetings when you
> get older. -J.J.
Well, JJ, if you wish to compare the Klan to the KoC, I wish you'd
take it back. I'll give you a scenario: The KoC actually offered to
help me, even though I wasn't a member. The Klan would probably kick the s***
out of me, because I'm one of those dirty little foreigners. Which one
reflects your posts more accurately lately?
Peace,
Ed Sayre internet: ed.s...@m.cc.utah.edu
Ed Sayre
> J.J. writes:
>
> > Ed Sayre <Ed.S...@M.CC.UTAH.EDU> writes:
> >> There's male models too, silly. I guess my legs were just not good
> >> enough. *sniff*
>
> > The male models' fashions can be just as sexist as those for
> > females. Suggestive clothing is cut both ways. -J.J.
>
> But, J.J., they _like_ to wear their clothes that way. How can you
> make a negative comment about their preferences?
Because t's not the way _JJ_ likes it, silly. :)
John Ockerbloom
don't want women in the organization. (The main responses I've been
getting from this thread is "we just don't, okay?" and "it's nice
to have some time apart from spouses". The latter has numerous
other solutions, and the former could also be used as justification
for groups excluding blacks, Catholics, or what have you.)
So, fine. The Knights can make up whatever rules they like, without
me having to like them. I simply won't join the group.
But... I also remember a few years ago finding a brochure describing
the Knights, aimed at potential new members. The brochure noted that
the Knights organized "the largest pro-life organization in the
country", and that this was an important issue for the KofC. I may be
misremembering the details at this point, but this was the gist I got.
It occurs to me that if this is the case, the Knights are really
shooting themselves (and the pro-life movement) in the foot. If the
largest anti-abortion group in the US is also a group that excludes
women, for reasons that aren't particularly clear to many people,
what sort of a message does this send to those Americans who
already suspect, rightly or wrongly, that the anti-abortion movement
largely ignores women's interests?
John Ockerbloom
--
==========================================================================
ocker...@cs.cmu.edu 4209 Murray Ave., Pittsburgh PA 15217
David M. Desroches
Now who's cutting posts to imply something different. The post did
not deal with who was receiving Him, it dealt with who could be a
member of the KofC. If someone who is not Catholic, but is otherwise
qualified for membership, wishes to join, they can become Catholic.
Despite your mild argument in a different post that all-one-sex groups
_might_ be ok (under some circumstances), I find it hard to believe
that you could ever forsee those circumstances.
Do you ever want to be with just men for social purposes? For worship
purposes? Do you prevent your children from playing with only their
male or female friends, or do you mandate that they must always play
in mixed groups?
--
***************************************************************************
* David M. Desroches * O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us *
* dmdes...@jake.wpi.edu * from the fires of hell, and lead all souls *
* Worcester Polytechnic Int. * into heaven, especially those in most need *
* (508) 831-5487 * of Thy mercy. Our Lady of Fatima, 1917 *
***************************************************************************
Thomas Bridge
>the Knights, aimed at potential new members. The brochure noted that
>the Knights organized "the largest pro-life organization in the
^^^^^^^^^
>largest anti-abortion group in the US is also a group that excludes
>women, for reasons that aren't particularly clear to many people,
>what sort of a message does this send to those Americans who
>already suspect, rightly or wrongly, that the anti-abortion movement
>largely ignores women's interests?
I think the word organised is important. If the KoC organised the
group, that's not the same thing as being the group. For example, one
of my priests at home organised a young adult's group. That doesn't
mean he's confining membership to other priests :-)
--
Thomas Bridge | Bray Wanderers AFC, FAI Cup Winners 1990 |
tho...@maths.tcd.ie| Division 1 Champions: 1986 |
-------------------| | PGP key available on request |
My opinions| The Irish soccer mailing list is now running. Mail me to join. |
Steve Creps
J.J. Ursic <UR...@CLACK.CS.HH.AB.COM> wrote:
>>>I agree, but why have two(or more) organizations within the Catholic
>>>community which provides the same function and whose only difference
>>>is the sex of its members. -J.J.
>>
>> How do you know this? This isn't true.
>
>Steve told me. He gave me no indication that the function of
>the Daughters of Isabelle is not the same or that they do anything
>different except for excluding males. -J.J.
That isn't what I said.
J.J. Ursic
>>> How about a Catholic lifestyle. I doubt those you listed attend
>>> Catholic Masses and recieve communion:-)
>> But that's discriminatory J.J., we certainly can not allow that.
> This is true, all should be allowed to receive Him...but we don't
> make the rules:-) -J.J.
>Now who's cutting posts to imply something different. The post did
>not deal with who was receiving Him, it dealt with who could be a
>member of the KofC. If someone who is not Catholic, but is otherwise
>qualified for membership, wishes to join, they can become Catholic.
But then they wouldn't be jews, moslems or whatever anymore. (referring
to religion, not nationality) I thought that you meant they should
be allowed to be members of the K of C even if they still practiced
there own religions other than Catholic. So when you suggested that
it was discriminatory not to let them "attend Catholic Masses and receive
communion" I thought this included those who professed those other
faiths. Misunderstanding seems to be rampant around here:-)
>Despite your mild argument in a different post that all-one-sex groups
>_might_ be ok (under some circumstances), I find it hard to believe
>that you could ever forsee those circumstances.
I'll give one example, a woman's baseball league. If men were allowed
to join, the women who may not have the physical strength to compete
equally with the men would be forced out, more than likely leading
to a predominantly male league with a few women. This would deprive
most women who just enjoy playing the game from competing. Have I
made a believer of you now?:-)
>Do you ever want to be with just men for social purposes?
I guess it's not the sex of the company, but the activity which
governs who I'm comfortable with. If I'm at a baseball game, I'd
like to be with a person who likes baseball. I can't think of
many activities the there wouldn't be a female who might enjoy
being there. Perhaps a stag party prior to a wedding...hmmm, no,
there's women there too:-)
>For worship purposes?
Are ther really men who only want to worship with other men????
>Do you prevent your children from playing with only their
>male or female friends, or do you mandate that they must always play
>in mixed groups?
The kids leagues I've managed were broken down by sex, then age. But
this gets into physical ability again. The younger age groups could
have played side by side with little difference in ability. The difference
is more noticable as there bodies matured:-)
I never mandated who my children played with, but I don't think they
payed much attention to who they were playing with as much as what they
were playing. -J.J.
BTW, where's that list of non-physical differences between mothers and
fathers?
Anne E. Skove
: 'Joseph J.' <UR...@CLACK.CS.HH.AB.COM> writes:
[stuff about men & women & love & sex & death & K of C]
J.J., the most basic difference between men & women that I have seen (and
I *have* seen this, living w/in walking distance of VMI) is that men are
wont to dress up in uniforms, join secret clubs, and carry flashy weapons.
Women see no reason for this. I myself dislike such rituals and habits,
but have decided, after much soul-searching, to simply laugh the tendancy
off. In fact, I have just decided that it is *this* gender difference
which prohibits women from being priests. Women would never wear a lime
green robe in front of several people on a hot day, much less sport a
miter. (OK, we women do wear impractical shoes, sequins, and hair
ornaments, but I hold that these are different from ritual costumes.)
And then Kathy has the good sense to point out:
: You really want to know the reason KC doesn't admit women, JJ? It's
: because Catholic women who have husbands that need to get out of
: the house for a few hours would much rather they spent those few
: hours with the rest of the guys from the parish instead of
: hanging out at Moe's Tavern. ("Amanda Hugginkiss? Where's Amanda
: Hugginkiss? Oh why can't I find Amanda Hugginkiss?" Never mind,
: inside joke.)
It's true. Men need to be in groups and wear funny costumes and brandish
swords. Women like to be alone.
"Mr. Butz? Seymour Butz?"
Anne
Donald Masselli
The (highly edited) conversation went:
>J.J. Ursic wrote:
>> What occurs at these meetings and ceremonials that would preclude
>> Catholics who happen to be female from attending or participating? -J.J.
Ed Sayre responded:
>Perhaps what exempts me from joining the Girl Scouts? You know how people
Ed, you are not exempt from joining the Girl Scouts. From 1983-1986 I
was a member and I was then and still am (last time I checked) a male.
Floyd Ferguson
And then Kathy has the good sense to point out:
: You really want to know the reason KC doesn't admit women, JJ? It's
: because Catholic women who have husbands that need to get out of
: the house for a few hours would much rather they spent those few
: hours with the rest of the guys from the parish instead of
: hanging out at Moe's Tavern. ("Amanda Hugginkiss? Where's Amanda
: Hugginkiss? Oh why can't I find Amanda Hugginkiss?" Never mind,
: inside joke.)
It's true. Men need to be in groups and wear funny costumes and brandish
swords. Women like to be alone.
Except Amanda. Which is why *my* wife puts up with the swords. :-)
Jane Wallace Mayo
>J.J., the most basic difference between men & women that I have seen (and
>I *have* seen this, living w/in walking distance of VMI) is that men are
>wont to dress up in uniforms, join secret clubs, and carry flashy weapons.
>Women see no reason for this. I myself dislike such rituals and habits,
When I was in the second grade, I joined the Jr. Girl Scouts, known as
Brownies. I dressed up in a dreadful brown uniform, joined a secret
club consisting of my best friend and me (we swore not to attend another
stupid meeting, to hang out together at the corner store on meeting day
where we could spend our 5 cent dues on candy, and not to tell our moms),
and we always carried the pearl handled switch blade knives the Brownie
leaders gave us for Christmas. Are the Knights of Columbus anything
like this? If so, I want to join, but I *won't* wear that hat.
Jane Wallace Mayo
ma...@cs.utk.edu
Thomas McGinnis
Which hat? The cool admiral-type hat a Knight wears, or the lame beanie
sported by a Brownie?
Pax et Bonum,
Tom.
(Whose parish has a Holy Name Society instead of Knights of Columbus, and
who is cursed to remain forever a Webelo since his local Boy Scout troop
disbanded the day he turned twelve....)
--
Thomas F. McGinnis tfm+Ca...@cmu.edu
Ctr for Machine Translation/Carnegie Mellon/5000 Forbes Ave/Pgh, PA 15213-3890
Any opinions are mine except where noted, and not necessarily those of CMU.
spes mea in Deo nunc scripsi totum da mihi potum
Bryan D. Boyle
In article <2tnv9j...@mayo.cs.utk.edu>, ma...@cs.utk.edu (Jane Wallace Mayo) writes:
|>like this? If so, I want to join, but I *won't* wear that hat.
At least the KoC 'Hat' is stylish (in a bad-hair sort of way); you should see
the plumed beauty a papal knight (Knights of Malta, Knights of St. Gregory, et
al) end up with (yes, I have one...)
--
Bryan D. Boyle |Physical: ER&E, Clinton, NJ (908) 730-3338
#include <disclaimer> |Virtual: bdb...@erenj.com
"If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking." -Patton
'Unix soit qui mal y pense' -Unknown
J.J. Ursic
>J.J., the most basic difference between men & women that I have seen (and
>I *have* seen this, living w/in walking distance of VMI) is that men are
>wont to dress up in uniforms, join secret clubs, and carry flashy weapons.
I guess I should feel emasculated as I have no flashy weapon:-) -J.J.
David M. Desroches
> "David M. Desroches" <d...@BIGWPI.WPI.EDU> replies:
>> "David M. Desroches" <d...@BIGWPI.WPI.EDU> writes:
>>> I wrote:
[snip]
>> Despite your mild argument in a different post that all-one-sex
>> groups _might_ be ok (under some circumstances), I find it hard to
>> believe that you could ever forsee those circumstances.
> I'll give one example, a woman's baseball league. If men were
> allowed to join, the women who may not have the physical strength to
> compete equally with the men would be forced out, more than likely
> leading to a predominantly male league with a few women. This would
> deprive most women who just enjoy playing the game from competing.
> Have I made a believer of you now?:-)
But denying the men the right to play the game in _any_ league would
be an injustice (I am using your rules here, J.J., not mine). How can
you justify this for a womens-only league, but not for social or other
clubs? The fact that a woman may not be as strong as a man is not the
man's fault after all. Why should he not be able to play?
In case you do not realize it, J.J., I think your arguement is a
little weak here. You can not have it both ways, if there are no
legitimate reasons to bar women from the KofC, then there would be no
legitimate reason to bar them from your only-womens baseball league.
The same principles of justice apply.
[snip]
> BTW, where's that list of non-physical differences between mothers
> and fathers?
I did reply to this in another post where I discussed studies I had
been exposed to during various courses/seminars I have taken. As I
said then, any list I might provide you, you would not accept as you
do not believe that men and women do have differences in their
non-physical attributes. What is the point in creating a list that
you will not believe (also, others have posted various traits that men
and women show different levels of dominance in).
--
************************************************************************
* David M. Desroches * For our struggle is not with flesh and *
* dmdes...@jake.wpi.edu * blood but with the principalities, with *
* Worcester Polytechnic Int. * the powers, with the rulers of this *
* (508) 831-5487 * present darkness, with the evil spirits *
* * in the heavens. Eph 6-12 *
************************************************************************
Bill Gunshannon
|>
|> J.J., the most basic difference between men & women that I have seen (and
|> I *have* seen this, living w/in walking distance of VMI) is that men are
|> wont to dress up in uniforms, join secret clubs, and carry flashy weapons.
|> Women see no reason for this.
This would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
Then why have women forced their way into West Point?? Why would a woman
who has no interest in any of the above fight in court to get into the
Citadel? (sp?) And if VMI is still all male at this point, I do not expect
it will remain that way for much longer.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bi...@cs.uofs.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Anne E. Skove
: When I was in the second grade, I joined the Jr. Girl Scouts, known as
: Brownies. I dressed up in a dreadful brown uniform, joined a secret
: club consisting of my best friend and me (we swore not to attend another
: stupid meeting, to hang out together at the corner store on meeting day
: where we could spend our 5 cent dues on candy, and not to tell our moms),
: and we always carried the pearl handled switch blade knives the Brownie
: leaders gave us for Christmas. Are the Knights of Columbus anything
: like this? If so, I want to join, but I *won't* wear that hat.
Hey, my Brownie leader never let us have knives!!! We just had to wear
the silly beanies! No fair!
Anne
Anne E. Skove
: In article <1994Jun15.1...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu>, ask...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu (Anne E. Skove) writes:
: |>
: |> J.J., the most basic difference between men & women that I have seen (and
: |> I *have* seen this, living w/in walking distance of VMI) is that men are
: |> wont to dress up in uniforms, join secret clubs, and carry flashy weapons.
: |> Women see no reason for this.
: This would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
: Then why have women forced their way into West Point?? Why would a woman
: who has no interest in any of the above fight in court to get into the
: Citadel? (sp?) And if VMI is still all male at this point, I do not expect
: it will remain that way for much longer.
Well, for one thing, I was kidding, sort of.
Also, I didn't say that no women are attracted to what are traditionally
"male" things. So what?
Finally, you are very, very mistaken to think that VMI will be allowing
women to grace their halls in this lifetime. No way. They won their
fight. And now there's a big sign hanging from their bridge: "No Girlz
Allowed!"
The best thing I can think of at this point is the secret club of Calvin
& Hobbs... :)
Anne
Jane Wallace Mayo
<...>
>The best thing I can think of at this point is the secret club of Calvin
>& Hobbs... :)
Calvin & Hobbs seem to be in reruns in our local paper. This is
incredible since it's neither Advent nor Lent, and I can see no
reason for this enforced penance. I may complain to the Bishop.
Since I'm on the topic of reruns, husband Claxton and I are having a
rerun of our own tomorrow, June 20. We will have been married thirty
years if he can just hold out a few more hours. Think we'll make it?
Wallace Mayo
ma...@cs.utk.edu
Bryan D. Boyle
In article <2u2ckb...@duncan.cs.utk.edu>, ma...@cs.utk.edu (Jane Wallace Mayo) writes:
|>Since I'm on the topic of reruns, husband Claxton and I are having a
|>rerun of our own tomorrow, June 20. We will have been married thirty
|>years if he can just hold out a few more hours. Think we'll make it?
God bless, Wallace. Of course you'll make it. May He watch over you and
keep you safe and loving for many more to come.
Anne E. Skove
: >The best thing I can think of at this point is the secret club of Calvin
: >& Hobbs... :)
: Calvin & Hobbs seem to be in reruns in our local paper. This is
: incredible since it's neither Advent nor Lent, and I can see no
: reason for this enforced penance. I may complain to the Bishop.
True enough--Bill Watterson is on vacation. What, coming up with all
those ideas 7 days a week is *difficult*??? Sheesh. :)
: Since I'm on the topic of reruns, husband Claxton and I are having a
: rerun of our own tomorrow, June 20. We will have been married thirty
: years if he can just hold out a few more hours. Think we'll make it?
Congratulations!!!
(a few days late, sorry)
Anne
JohnC7541
<UR...@CLACK.CS.HH.AB.COM> writes:
Dear JJ -
Being a member of the Knights of Columbus and a Past Grand Knight, I asked
that questions many times. Although it is not like the Mason's
ceremonies, the Degees confered upon new members loses its effect if they
were common knowledge and open to the public. As far as a question for
women in particular, the Knights of Columbus is a Fraternity. This in
itself limits the participation of women in its meetings and ceremonials,
but women are fully involved in almost all of the social and charitable
functions of the Knights. You may not like the principle behind a
fraternity, but that would be beyond the scope of the Knights of Columbus
itself. If you have any questions about the Knights, please feel free to
write at AOL my name is JohnC7541. - John Caufield
alvar...@gmail.com
Other than sororities, which I find ridiculous, what organizations that are exclusive for women are out there? And if there are, if they are geared to conduct altruistic activities, why make the exclusive for either sex? Not much different from secret societies.