Does this television sequence sound familiar?

Night time. A woman brushing her teeth in the bathroom. A dark shadow appears behind her. A gloved hand clamps over her mouth. A struggle. A knife. Cut to morning. Bloodied body on the floor. Enter detective, with dumb ‘witticism’ along the lines of “Had a hard night.” Cut to commercials.

Prime-time television makes a fortune out of women being stalked, beaten, raped, tortured, and murdered.   All in high-def detail, of course. Programs such as Law and Order’s sleazy ‘Special Victims Unit’ spinoff and the even sleazier Criminal Minds are huge money-making franchises, every episode sold on first to cable and then throughout the world.

Mandy Patinkin, one of my favorite actors, walked out on Criminal Minds after its first two years, calling it a huge mistake to have ever accepted a starring role on it. “I never thought they were going to kill and rape all these women every night, every day, week after week, year after year,” he said. “It was very destructive to my soul and my personality.”

It is very destructive to all our souls and personalities.

So why don‘t all the other actors walk out? (I know — money makes their world go round). Why in fact does anyone watch these programs? (I may not really want the answer to that.) Why do advertisers pay to be in those commercial breaks? (oh yes: because people watch.) And what exactly is going on in the minds of those who write and produce and air such programs?  Doesn’t anyone in television-land realize that they‘re presenting violence against women as entertainment?

Or worse still, do they realize it very well?

No, I’m not saying that such programs create rapists and murderers, or that they present rape as okay.  Their ostensible focus is on the horror of rape, and at least on the surface, they seem to be raising consciousness of how brutal a violation it is.

Beneath the surface, though, there’s a deeply creepy fascination with rape, one that feels darkly voyeuristic.  So what I am saying is that such programs are a very visible part of a world-wide culture that still does not take rape with full seriousness — a culture that still doesn‘t register it for what it is:  not “sexual assault” nor “sex crime,” but brutality.  Rape is not about sex; it’s about brutalizing women.

There has to be someone out there who is as pissed as I am at this but with far better organizing skills.  Someone who can get at those who make such programs where it really hurts:  not in their balls, but in their pocketbooks.  Someone who can create a campaign to pressure advertisers to stop supporting programs that use violence against women as entertainment.

Imagine a boycott of the goods and services of all such advertisers.  Imagine stickers pasted on toilet paper and antacids and “feminine-care” products in supermarkets saying “This product pays for rape as entertainment.”  Imagine the publicity, the “bad PR,” the panic this would induce among directors of marketing.  They’d cave.

What Mandy Patinkin did, we all need to do. We all need to walk out on this sleaze.

The video is chaotic.  It shows a woman being stripped, tossed around, hit, kicked, held down, penetrated, beaten into unconsciousness by a mob in Cairo.  It’s described in this New York Times report, which avoids any link to the video itself.  In fact the original YouTube upload has been deleted.  Deleting it, however, is just another way of trying to cover it up.  As I write, this one is still active.  And yes, you are warned, it’s brutal.  As all rape is.

I know that those who read this blog, men and women alike, will be incapable of watching these couple of minutes with anything but horror.  But I also know that part of the reason it went viral when first posted is that there are men out there who are turned on by it.

Just the thought of that makes me want to gag.  As does the boys-will-be-boys response to it from an Egyptian TV host, who said, with a stupid giggle:  “They are happy.  The people are having fun.”

This isn’t “just” an Egyptian problem.  Or a Nigerian or Somali or Brazilian or Turkish or Italian or Swedish or Indian or Pakistani one.  My first association was with last year’s photo of an unconscious near-naked girl being lugged around by wrists and ankles, like a carcass, by high-school rapists in apple-pie Steubenville, Ohio.

This sickness infects some men, but affects every woman.  Yes, all women.  The Twitter hashtag #YesAllWomen took off in response to the misogynistic shooting rampage in Santa Barbara, California two weeks ago, and here’s the formidably intelligent Rebecca Solnit on what it means.

Solnit was in Seattle last week talking about her new book, Men Explain Things To Me, and when she mentioned her unease at finding herself alone on an elevator at night with a strange man, there was a lone weird laugh from a man behind me in the audience.  It wasn’t clear what he found so funny.  Perhaps he simply couldn’t understand this kind of unease.  But every woman can.  It’s the year 2014, and yet it’s still not “wise” for a woman to go down a dark street at night, or ride in an empty subway car, or walk in the woods.  What was most remarkable about Wild, Cheryl Strayed’s account of hiking the Pacific Crest Trail, was not the length or the difficulty of the hike, but the fact that she was a woman walking alone.  If she had been male, there would have been no book to be written.

It’s absurd that the onus is still on women to avoid being subjected to violence.  One way and another, we are told to avoid this, avoid that, take care, take karate classes, be on the alert, be afraid.  Don’t go out at night, say some.  Stay home, lock yourselves in, adopt the behavioral equivalent of a chador.  (Don’t go out at night?  An equally rational ‘solution’ would instead be to tell men not to go out at night.)

But there’s an antidote.  And it comes from men — men who really do respect women, and who know that to remain silent in the face of woman-hatred is only to give it free rein.  As former president Jimmy Carter put it in A Call to Action, violence against women is not only a woman’s issue;  it affects us all, and the only way to win this battle is to work together.  I take heart from this photo that artist D.K.Pan posted on his Facebook page after the Santa Barbara massacre.  Women are finally speaking out;  we need more men like Jimmy Carter and D.K.Pan to speak out with us.

Remember how Todd Akin thinks you can’t get pregnant if you’re “legitimately raped“?  Best comment yet is this satire on TV pharmaceutical ads for “feminine products.”  Presented with a megawatt Republican smile.

(Do read the small print at the end.  This idiocy isn’t just Akin’s;  the whole Republican party has gone totally Neanderthal.)

Worst comment yet:  Polls show Akin currently trailing in the Missouri senatorial race by 1%.  Yes, all of one percent.  Way to go, Missouri.

Since Joe Nocera in today’s NYT puts it better than I can right now, I’m running (below) part of his response to the egregious Bernard Henri-Levy‘s hysterical crowing about l’affaire DSK (Strauss-Kahn was dragged “lower than the gutter,” his treatment was “pornographic,” perfidious America etc).   Ironically, BHL’s screed was published the same day his dear, maligned, noble friend DSK was charged with another count of attempted rape in France, where his accuser, indisputably white and part of the same privileged upper-class elite, described his behavior as that of “a chimpanzee in rut.”

BHL is outraged — outraged! — that New York District Attorney Vance took the word of a mere hotel maid over that of an esteemed member of the French establishment.  He also blithely ignores the DNA evidence and the maid’s injuries, assuming that if she had lied in the past, on her asylum application, she must of necessity be lying now.

(Word of warning to all women:  never tell a lie in case you get raped, because we all know that it’s impossible for women who lie to be raped.)

Nocera rightly calls out BHL on his elitism.  And takes pride in the fact that the case is in jeopardy not because of DSK’s multi-millionaire lawyers, but because of  the hard work of DA Vance’s horribly underpaid team.

It’s just a pity Nocera’s piece didn’t run yesterday, Independence Day:

I can’t see what Vance did wrong. Quite the contrary. The woman alleged rape, for crying out loud, which was backed up by physical (and other) evidence. She had no criminal record. Her employer vouched for her. The quick decision to indict made a lot of sense, both for legal and practical reasons. Then, as the victim’s credibility crumbled, Vance didn’t try to pretend that he still had a slam dunk, something far too many prosecutors do. He acknowledged the problems.

Lévy, himself a member of the French elite, seems particularly incensed that Vance wouldn’t automatically give Strauss-Kahn a pass, given his extraordinary social status. Especially since his accuser had no status at all.

But that is exactly why Vance should be applauded: a woman with no power made a credible accusation against a man with enormous power. He acted without fear or favor. To have done otherwise would have been to violate everything we believe in this country about no one being above the law.

As for Strauss-Kahn’s humiliation, clearly something very bad happened in that hotel room. Quite possibly a crime was committed. Strauss-Kahn’s sordid sexual history makes it likely that he was the instigator. If the worst he suffers is a perp walk, a few days in Rikers Island and some nasty headlines, one’s heart ought not bleed. Ah, yes, and he had to resign as the chief of an institution where sexual harassment was allegedly rampant, thanks, in part, to a culture he helped perpetuate. Gee, isn’t that awful?

The point is this: We live in a country that professes to treat everyone equally under the law. So often we fall short. The poor may go unheard; the rich walk. Yet here is a case that actually lives up to our ideal of who we like to think we are. Even the way the case appears to be ending speaks to our more noble impulses. Vance didn’t dissemble or delay or hide the truth about the victim’s past. He did the right thing, painful though it surely must have been.

To judge by his recent writings, Bernard-Henri Lévy prefers to live in a country where the elites are rarely held to account, where crimes against women are routinely excused with a wink and a nod and where people without money or status are treated like the nonentities that the French moneyed class believe they are.

I’d rather live here.

————————

Making the same point:  Peter Beinart in today’s Daily Beast.

It’s a whole new generation of feminists.  They’re foul-mouthed (some of them), outrageously dressed (or undressed), with green and purple and orange hair (or just regular hair).  They’re straight and lesbian and both.  They’re young — in their early twenties mainly.  And dynamite — these are not women you want to mess with.

A cynical press was quick to label a “new wave” of feminists in the 1980s as “fuck-me feminists” (aka, with weird decorousness here in Wikipedia, “sex-positive feminists”).   Well, as the new generation of feminists would say, fuck that.

These are the fuck-you feminists.  The SlutWalk feminists.  There was lots of skin on display here in Seattle on Sunday, and great tattoos.  There were ripped fishnet stockings and day-glo pink platform boots and deliberately slutty thrift-store bras and teddies.  Five-year-olds with signs saying “Free to be me.”  A super-sexy Superwoman.  A woman in full Amish dress and bonnet carrying a sign saying “How I dress does not mean Yes.”  And lots of people with black teeshirts with “This is what a feminist looks like” in white lettering — many of them men.

“The radical notion that no-one deserves to be raped,” read one ironic banner.   “Fuck shame,” read another.  And “Jesus loves sluts” (directed at the nutters from Westboro Baptist Church — the ones who picket military funerals — who gave up and took their “Jesus hates fags” signs to a gay picnic instead).

Shameless?  You bet.  These new feminists are taking all the old insults — slut, bitch, whore, dyke — and running with them, turning them inside out.

Rocking and shocking their feminist forebears?  Definitely.  Too many older feminists have criticized the SlutWalk movement for feeding into the over-sexualization of women — which makes them  sound alarmingly like their own mothers criticizing them when they first took to the streets in protest (“I didn’t raise my daughter so’s she could go parading around like this in public…”)

Hey, the founding generation of feminists — my generation — don’t “own” feminism.  That’s the whole point of founding a movement.  You hand it on.  Younger women take the reins.  They reshape it, fight sexism in their own ways, redefine what it is to be free and female.  They make the movement their own.

So what if most of the SlutWalkers haven’t read ‘Against Our Will,’ Susan Brownmiller’s classic on rape?   They get it.  Stop blaming the victim;  blame the rapist.  Stop shaming the victim;  shame the rapist.  You don’t get raped because of what you wear;  you get raped because a rapist attacks you.  It’s not a sex crime;  it’s a crime of violence.

“I’m just sorry we still have to be out here saying this,” said one of the dozen or so women over forty in the crowd of over a thousand.   I knew what she meant.  In a perfect world, we’d be rid of rape.  But it takes more than one generation.  And this one’s going about it with an in-your-face directness that I totally admire.

So me, I just stood there beaming, aware of am alarming sense of absurdly maternal pride whelming up in me.  I was so damn proud of this new feminist generation.  Happy just to stand there and be part of their protest.  And as ready as they were to stand up to any police officer who asks what a woman was wearing when she was raped and say “Fuck that.”

——————

Later the same day, for those with ethical reservations:

Was just in Elliott Bay Bookstore and came across this:

And smiled.

Sometimes I wonder what year it is.  2011, or 1911?

Item:  former IMF director Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s legal team is about to spend at least half a million dollars trying to discredit the immigrant chambermaid who accused him of rape and sexual assault.  Presumably, they’ll try to use her sexual history against her.  After all, she’s a widow with a 15-year-old child.  That is, she’s no virgin.

Item:  the so-called virginity tests forced on women protestors in Cairo by the military.  In fact these were officially sanctioned rape, even if no penetration was involved.  They were a deliberately chosen means of intimidating, humiliating, and attempting to control women.  To say that virginity has nothing to do with political activism is to belabor the point.  It’s not as though those who “passed” the publicly administered “test” were released with the military blessing to go demonstrate in freedom.  It was yet another means of repression.

For those who might think this is a peculiarly Islamic thing, consider that Muhammad’s first wife, Khadija, with whom he lived monogamously for 19 years, was twice widowed by the time they married.  And that of the nine women he married after her death, only one was a virgin at marriage (the others were all divorced or widowed).  Since virginity was clearly a non-issue to Muhammad himself, any religious argument for it is hard to make.

As for those virgins in paradise, well, see my TEDx talk for that.

The same applies in Christianity.  Yes, of course I know about the Virgin Mary — I wrote a book about her.  But as I pointed out there, to reduce the concept of virginity to the existence of a biologically useless membrane called the hymen is worse than absurdly literal.  It totally misses out on the grand metaphor of virginity, which existed around the world at the time.  As with a virgin forest, it stood for incredible fecundity, for a surfeit of growth and reproduction, untamed and unfettered.  That is, virginity was the miracle of fertility, and in that respect, the Virgin Mary is the last in a long and once-powerful line of mother goddesses.

So let’s not blame religion.  That’s just the excuse.  Nor such a thing as a “Middle East mentality.”   Because…

Item: as late as the 1970s, British officials were administering virginity tests too.  And again, the purpose was to intimidate women — to deter them from entering the country as immigrant brides (if they weren’t virgins, it seemed, they had to be lying about their reasons for entering the U.K.).   And while we’re talking about Brits, by the way, how weird is it that at that same time, the early 1970s, Richard Branson chose the name Virgin for his enterprises?  Flying the friendly skies?

Perhaps all this means that in forty years’ time, the confusion of virginity with virtue will be as outmoded in Egypt as it now is (Branson excepted) in England.  But then of course it’s not about virtue, and never was.  It’s about the peculiar desire of some men (thank God not all) to control women — their sexuality, their behavior, their freedom of choice.  That is, it’s about not about women as people, but as possessions.

Item:  A commenter on this blog, fulminating against Islam with such blatant racism that I had to bar him as spam, summed up his argument this way:  “We know how to treat our women.”  That “we” evidently referred only to men, specifically to non-Muslim western men who think of women as possessions — “ours” — and as such, to be (mis)treated as “we” see fit.   He was, he made clear, a fundamentalist Christian.

So tell me, what year are we living in?  Scratch the years I gave at the top.  If you go see Werner Herzog’s new movie, Cave of Forgotten Dreams (about the prehistoric paintings on the walls of that cave), you might discover that even Neanderthals had more respect for women than this.  And they lived 35,000 years ago.

What happens now that IMF director Dominique Strauss-Kahn (as of today, make that former director) has posted $1,000,000 bail while hiring the world’s most expensive defense lawyers for his rape trial?

Now the victim gets pilloried.

Her name has been published in France and on the web, where fantasies of her being a whore are rampant (apparently it’s okay to rape a prostitute).  The French gang of good ole boys (and, doubly shamefully, gals) have proclaimed themselves in shock — shock! — that a pillar of society like DSK could be treated by the NYPD like a common criminal.  So what if rape is criminal assault?   Handcuffs are fine for the lower classes, but for the privileged few?  How dare those Americans!  Can’t they see she’s just a maid?

Once again, as DSK’s lawyers dig up every detail of the victim’s life and twist it to make it appear slutty, it’ll be clear why rape is so drastically under-reported.  This woman has real courage.  Most victims simply can’t face the idea of being picked apart and violated again and again in the press and by the defense, who will do everything they can to “prove” that she is a lying, vengeful, publicity-seeking slut.  Like the mob that raped CBS reporter Lara Logan in Tahrir Square, they will do their best to pull her apart.

Could you pass the slut test?

Imagine it:  every detail of your personal and work life put on public view and twisted into leering ‘significance.’  Every date, every drink, every tittle and every tattle of gossip or innuendo, every misstep you ever made will be paraded as “proof.”  Only a hermit could pass this test.

You’ve had sex before — guilty.

You are poor — guilty.

You are black — guilty.

You are a single mother — guilty.

You have breasts and a vagina — guilty.

You are human — guilty.

How did you even dream of daring to bring such a charge against a wealthy, powerful, white man?  Who do you think you are?  You’re just a cleaning woman.  Just a nobody.  Just another lying slut.

This sentence really struck me in President Obama’s Middle East speech this morning:

We have a chance to show that the US values a street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of a dictator.

And now we have a chance to show that we value the dignity of an immigrant maid more than the assumed privilege and entitlement of wealth and power.  How dare they treat him like a common criminal?  Because if he is indeed found guilty — and for the NYPD to act with such alacrity in a rape case, you can be sure the evidence is very solid — then that is exactly what he is.  A criminal.  And all too common.

Surprise!  Dominique Strauss-Kahn (the head of the International Monetary Fund, now sitting in a Rikers jail cell after assaulting a housekeeper at the Sofitel hotel in New York), has fallen back on the same old rapist’s excuse: “She was asking for it.”

In case you come across yet another of these dinosaurs who still have the gall to insist that they’re the innocent victims of slutty women provoke them to rape, here’s a quick checklist:

— a toddler in the Congo: provocatively dressed?
— a prisoner being tortured: provocatively dressed?
— a 90-year-old great grandmother: provocatively dressed?

— Abner Louima: provocatively dressed?
— the newest arrival in the penitentiary: provocatively dressed?
— a civilian in wartime: provocatively dressed?

— Ned Beatty in ‘Deliverance‘: provocatively dressed?
— Catholic nuns in El Salvador: provocatively dressed?

— a hotel housekeeper: provocatively dressed?

Excuse me while I go throw up.  More later.

Just five hours before President Obama announced Sunday night that Bin Laden was dead, instantly capturing the collective mind of the world, there was something else on American television that I wish would capture the world mind just as effectively.   CBS reporter Lara Logan spoke out on the news program ’60 Minutes’ about her extended mass rape in Tahrir Square in the middle of the celebrations on February 11, the night of Mubarak’s resignation.

I’m running the clip here partly in shame, because I was among those whose first reaction was to say “Oh, she’s exaggerating, she was just badly groped.”  That is, I didn’t want to know — not then, not there.  I didn’t want the jubilation of that evening spoiled by such ugly reality.  I was in denial.

Yes, this was rape.  Multiple rape.  Rape aimed at pulling her apart, inside and out.  So first, take 13 minutes and watch this video of her account:

And if you still question the title of this post, consider these extracts from a New York Times story two days later on Iraqi victims of torture (by the Iraqi army, American forces, Saddam’s thugs, Al Qaeda in Iraq, and various militias):

He described… daily horrors like the suicide of a young prisoner who electrocuted himself with wires from a hot plate after being raped by soldiers.

An 11-year-old girl and her family revealed that she was raped by a group of men who then shaved her head and threw her on a trash heap.

A woman whose husband was an interpreter for the Americans had water and salt thrown on her and was then tied to electrified metal bars.  Then: “They raped her more than once in front of us,” R. said, looking down as he spoke. “She died two or three days later.  There were four guys who raped us….  I was destroyed.  It feels as if something is missing.  I don’t mingle at all with people.”

As Susan Brownmiller made crystal clear in Against Our Will (published in 1975 and, sadly, as essential reading today as it was then), rape has nothing to do with sexual attraction.  It’s brutalization:   the forced domination of another person through their genitalia, whether female or male, 5 years old or 90 years old, close relative or total stranger.  The means of this can be a hand or a penis, a gun or a knife or a broken bottle, a baton or a broomstick or a bathroom plunger (remember Abner Louima?).  Whatever the weapon, the aim is to violently, deliberately, and painfully invade and break another person’s physical and psychological autonomy, will, integrity, humanity.  That is:  torture.

Rape was recognized as a war crime in 1949 (the Fourth Geneva Conventions) and as a crime against humanity in 2001.  Amnesty International has consistently reported on rape as torture: “In every armed conflict investigated by Amnesty International… the torture of women was reported, most often in the form of sexual violence.”  But when rape happens in a dorm room or at a party — even one as large as Tahrir Square on February 11 — we seem less able to recognize it for what it is.  Which is why Amnesty International also reports that in peacetime Europe as elsewhere, victims of rape are consistently denied justice.

This is what we need to get straight in our minds, once and for all:

Whenever rape happens, wherever it happens, and whatever form it takes, it is a crime against humanity.

A crime, that is, against every one of us.

What does the right to dress slutty have to do with the right to wear hijab?

(No, this is not a trick question.)

Answer:  they’re two aspects of the same thing — women’s right to assert themselves in whatever manner they choose.  And that is a feminist issue.  A political issue, that is.

Because sluts and veils are about the same thing — choice.

That’s why I insist equally on a woman’s right to wear hijab and on her right to dress as sexily as she likes.  And it’s why I’ll be in downtown Seattle at noon on June 19 for SlutWalkSeattle.

The first SlutWalk was in Toronto last month after a police officer told a college safety forum (at a law school, no less) that women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.  No prize for guessing that he’d never heard of Susan Brownmiller’s classic analysis “Against Our Will,” which made it horribly clear that rape has nothing to do with sexual attraction and everything to do with power and aggression, whether the victim is five years old or ninety-five.

Thousands of women demonstrated in Toronto, and now there’s a whole wave of SlutWalks coming up, because as the Seattle site puts it:  “From an 11-year-old in Texas being blamed for being gang-raped to a teenager in Seattle not being able to file rape charges because witnesses portrayed the act as consensual,” that police officer’s line of thought pervades our culture.

That is, men commit crimes against women, and women are made to take the blame.

Does this never end?  It’s 2011 and women are still expected to modify their appearance, behavior, speech, even ideas in order to placate men?  It’s bad enough what this says about what men think of women.  But even worse is what it says about what men think about themselves.  Are they really so hopeless that a flash of bare female flesh can turn them into instant criminals?

Which is where the veil comes in.  Specifically, the hijab (which is actually a headscarf, not a veil, but reason prevails no more on nomenclature than it does on anything else to do with this issue).   Because the veil too is a matter of choice:  the woman’s choice, officer, not yours.

This isn’t about whether to cover up or to reveal.  It’s about every woman’s right to choose.  Whether you want to be slutty or modest, bare lots of flesh or none, that’s your decision, and nobody — not policemen, not clerics, not judges, not fundamentalists, not juries, not extremists, not husbands or boyfriends or fathers or brothers or sons — has the right to tell you otherwise.  Or to force you to do otherwise.

For me, this is a rock-bottom matter of principle, not practice.  Slutty was never my thing (except perhaps for a fancy-dress party), and the closest I’ve ever come to a hijab or full-face niqab was a keffiya wrapped around my head against a sandstorm in the northern Sinai.  But if someone wants to hide her beauty, that’s her right.  Just as if she wants to show it off, that’s also her right.

So you want to dress slutty on a Saturday night?  Go ahead.  You want to cover your head for prayer but not the rest of the time?  Go ahead.  How women dress can be a matter of political or cultural or religious identity or it can simply be playful fantasy;  it can be utterly serious or slyly subversive.  But because it’s still a question in the conventionally ‘male’ mind, it remains political — a fact well expressed in an excellent recent NPR report (“Lifting the Veil:  Muslim Women Explain Their Choice”) on the personal politics of when and where Muslim women choose to veil.

I know the chances are slim, but really, I’d love to see hijab-wearing Muslim women among the Seattle SlutWalk participants on June 19.  As the open invitation puts it,

People of all orientations, gender identities, races, ages, abilities, walks of life, and levels of sluttiness are invited to join us. All we ask is that you stand with us for what is right. We’re sick of being shamed for our sex choices and being told that survivors of sexual assault brought it on themselves. If you’re sick of it too, come walk with us!

I’ll be there of course, wearing my “Ride the SLUT’ tee-shirt (the SLUT in question being the one-and-a-half-mile-long boondoggle originally dubbed the South Lake Union Trolley until some official belatedly realized what the acronym was and ungraciously changed Trolley to Streetcar).  And I think I’ll wear the teeshirt with some kind of veil over my face.  Maybe an antique hat with a lacy scrim over the eyes, or a keffiyah, or a Halloween mask, or one of those costume-party eye masks with ostrich feathers.  Or maybe, even, a niqab…

This is from JR, the activist photographer and now film-maker, who has an amazing way of witnessing ugliness and transforming it.

Take a deep breath.  Then let it out:

For more on the project, click here.

Even as the Catholic Church shields and panders to child rapists masquerading as priests (I use the word “panders” advisedly, since so many of the children are altar boys),  it’s gone to battle against its own nuns.

The Apostolic Visitation currently in progress is not a new take on the Annunciation.   It’s an investigation of convents and women’s orders in the U.S. inspired by the well-founded suspicion that they’re not all Vatican-kosher.   Essentially, it’s a form of Inquisition.   And yet another sign of how firmly the Church has its finger on the self-destruct button.

Not so long ago, outrage was restricted to feminist Catholics like Mary Hunt, whose article here pulls no punches.   A brief extract:

God knows Catholicism has a gender problem. But the structures of power are so perverse as to be dangerous. More than mandatory celibacy, homosexuality, all-male priesthood, and other reasons floated to explain why so many priests abuse children and why so many bishops cover up for them, the monarchical model of power is, to my mind, the major reason why crimes went unchecked and criminals remained in ministry. In a monarchy, there are no checks and balances against power at the highest levels. There is no way to vote the bums out or force them with threats of removal to run institutions in a transparent, indeed legal, way.

Now the outrage is spreading within the Church itself.  Earlier this year, the bishop bums created a ton more of it by censuring the dozens of leaders of women’s Catholic orders (representing tens of thousands of nuns) who signed a letter to Congress supporting the health-care bill.   And then news broke of a critically ill pregnant mother of four told by her doctors in a Catholic hospital in Phoenix  that the only way to save her life was to terminate her 11-week pregnancy.   Sister Margaret McBride, the hospital administrator on duty, convened the Ethics Committee and with the patient’s agreement, approved the procedure.  By doing so, she ensured that the woman lived, that four children still had a mother, and that her Church dug itself still deeper into an apparently bottomless moral cesspool.

It excommunicated her.

So here are two faces of Catholicism:   on the left, the nun who faced what for her was an agonizing choice (reportedly a strong right-to-life advocate, she indeed opted, though not in any way she expected,  for life over death):

And on the right,  the bishop, Thomas Olmsted, who ordered both Sister McBride and her patient to be excommunicated, and threatened to remove recognition (and thus funding) of the hospital as a Catholic institution.

The excommunication seems to be up in the air since it was publicized, though Sister McBride has been “reassigned” within the hospital.   Maybe she’s swabbing floors as punishment.  But what’s needed, as Mary Hunt so cogently advocates, is far more than a clean-up of the Church by women, “as though, being women, they will flap their white veils and make all things new.”   What’s needed isn’t women as bishops, or even, as Maureen Dowd argued in the New York Times, a woman as Pope.  What’s needed is “a new model of church without a pope or anyone else on top…  A democratic, participatory, egalitarian church.”

The irony is that that’s exactly how the church began in the first and second centuries, before power, wealth, and hierarchy took over.   Before it incorporated.   That’s when the Jesus movement was still about liberation and social justice, Mary Magdalene was still the apostle to the apostles, and the least relevant thing about Jesus’ mother was whether she had an intact hymen.

(Postscript:  the day after I posted this, Nick Kristof wrote an op-ed in the NYT with a title I wish I’d thought of:  “Sister Margaret’s Choice.“)