Everyone has core wounds...even oppressors.  We must have compassion -- which doesn't mean we should go about enabling bad behaviour  (which is what, it sounds to me might be a side effect of internalized oppression.)
 
Why do women turn on women who speak up for women's ordination?   Maybe it is because there is a wound shared by  women and when someone shows that she is going to try break out of that wounded pattern, people get fearful that there is going to be some change. It is better to deal with a bad spot that one knows well than venture out to unknown terrain where who knows?  even if they promise that it is going to be better, maybe it is going to make things a whole lot worse.
 
I think that when women turn on each other we're coming out of our own woundedness and not our power. We need to get a lot more conscious about pulling together and dealing with our jealousies, anger and conflict head on, not behind each other's backs.  That's what creates real bonds between people - bonds that can change the world! change the Church! change whereever it is that we are.
 
Maybe that's part of the trouble.  Fear that I am going to have to change, be more responsible?

ORIGINAL: Guest

Dear Sophie

  The posts which mention      Barbara Colorosa's          Extraordinary Evil, A Brief History of Genocide:
A Short Walk from Contempt, to  Exclusion, Violence and Genocide. 
 
would it be possible to copy some of them to this thread    and also characteristics of the bully I think would be relevant.

Of concern here is to blame the oppressed for the oppression.  For example, women when they leave an abusive spouse or partner and go across the country to get away are sometimes pursued thousands of miles away from their former home and then  stalked , harassed and/or murdered.  The victim in no way invited or approved of the abuse and did all possible to avoid the abuser.  The abuser or oppressor must  be responsible for the aggression and abuse they inflict.  Blaming the abused is inappropriate.

I know of one case where the former  wife and children stayed in the former home as part of the settlement agreement legally processed. The ex- husband got construction machines and destroyed the upper part of the family home then a month later murdered the ex-wife and her body was found in the nearby park.  The  murdered ex-wife in no way was looking for this abuse or wanting this abuse   inflicted on her and her children. 

  Internalizing oppression theories that are used to blame the oppressed are a deceptive and cruel distortion of reality.  Do people really think  the oppressed seek poverty-being paid less or nothing for the work they do- (unpaid chores, housework , low pay )   or the oppressed seek violence, murder or exclusion and demeaning remarks and belittling attitudes?   This looks like a justification tactic that is meritless, just to justify continuation of abuse by the abuser.
Care has to be taken we do not come up with justification theories  that bolster cruelty and injustice.

Hello dear friend,

Thank you for raising these points.  Your suggestion about including some of Barbara Coloroso's information is a good one.  I will get to work on this!

Your point of caution about not crossing the line into the territory of blaming the oppressed for the oppression is insightful.  It is good that you have brought this issue into the spotlight.  I agree.   In discussing internalised oppression, we must be careful that we don't fall into a pattern of blaming the victim.   We must recognise the distinctions there are between internalised oppression and the concept of blaming the victim.

My understanding about internalised oppression is that it happens when the person who is being oppressed  opts into the system that creates/sustains the oppression and begins to defend it.  The person adopts belief in the system to the extent that defence of it is delivered with a sense of strong conviction that the system is just,  right, must be protected, and is just the way things should be.  Internalised oppression leads one to identify the person who tries to change things as 'the troublemaker' or 'the enemy.'

Police and the courts witness aspects of internalised oppression at work in many (not all) situations of domestic violence.  An example?  A woman beaten by her husband  lies to police/the court to defend her husband.  Fear plays a part in what starts to become distorted thinking.  She is oppressed by an internalised belief that a woman must stand by her man 'no matter what.'  Her husband may be oppressed by a societal norm that teaches boys from a young age not to cry or express feelings.  With no learned capacity to 'talk,' frustration bottles up and explodes in an incident of battering.  Who is to blame?  The pattern becomes cyclical.  The couple's children adopt their family way of life as 'normal' and the cycle continues.  Who is the oppressed? Who is the oppressor?  Is each member of the family a victim in some way?  No one is to blame but everyone must take responsibility so that things can change?

How do we resolve internalised oppression?  Parts of the solution include identification of it; having the courage the acknowledge truth; learning how to set boundaries and insist that they be honoured; making changes when things do not change. Discussion of internalised oppression and how it operates in each one of us and in our communities is not so much about blaming the victim as it understanding how we can step up to the plate to say 'stop. Things must change.' 

If we simply continue to do things just as they have always been done, then in some ways, even though we may be victims of the system,  we help perpetuate it when we do all of the things that are necessary to sustain it just as it is.

How does this rest with you? Does it make any sense?  It is important that we get at least some sense of what this this concept is about.  If it is a valid theory, then we can work on ways of identifying when it is happening and learn how to help combat it  in ourselves -- and in others, too.

Let me know what you think.  How does this settle with you?  Does anyone else have insights to share?  Does any of this resonate?  If so, what are the ways that we see it at work in our Church? What are the implications, if any, for women's ordination?

with love and blessings,
~Sophie~      

 







It crosses my mind as I continue to ponder:

Some 'fierce compassion' might be what we need to help challenge this picture.

Kay Lee Hagan, a feminist speaker and writer, speaks eloquently of the internalized oppression of women and the need to educate all women of this fact. She speaks of the patriarchal world, where men inherit privilege and power. She points out that men control the economy, politics, and own most of the property in the world. I realize this is true. She teaches that feminism does not advocate the domination of women over men, but seeks the equality of women and men. In order for equality to occur, women will need to understand that they had internalized their own oppression, unconsciously accepting and supporting it. She also states that men will have to be instrumental in bringing about this equality and that this revolution could not happen without their help. Men and women will both have to be educated and then form an alliance as co-educators of others concerning the rights of women.

As I think about this, I see my own oppression and how I had unthinkingly accepted it for much of my life.  When I started to learn about internalised oppression, I began to feel both angry and powerful; the anger was over the infringement of women's rights taking place every day. I began to understand how my family and the Catholic Church had unfailingly placed men in positions of power, while women were subjugated and placed in subservient positions. It remains true even after the women's movement that women are still paid significantly less than men for the same work. My husband and I had enacted the conditioning concerning men's and women's roles in our marriage. I had relinquished my power and freedom to that relationship without any realization of it. I understood for the first time why I became so unhappy in my marriage and why the relationships I had with my women friends had been my salvation. I had survived by receiving the strength of the women who had cared for and supported me. I also understood how the inequality had been damaging to men, who had been robbed of feeling their feelings, of expressing those feelings, and of the privilege of being vulnerable.

In terms of my Catholic faith, I love it.  My experience has been that I work not just on recovering from internalised oppression but also  on claiming and re-claiming  it as part of my spiritual experience and contribution to healing in the Church and world.
 
Christ thas the capacity to transform us and our community!  We become transformers with him.

Whenever oppression is going on, whenever abuse is going on, it is an act of choosing destructive power over life giving power to be either in the role of the dominator/abuser or to be in the role of the oppressed/abused.  That is the perverse nature of the temptation to abuse. You can choose destructive power in the active role or in the passive role. It is an act of complicity in a situation of abuse and oppression to participate in the abusive power by agreeing with it and complying with it and to internalize the abuse. Internalized oppression is just as real as external oppression and it takes place when you comply with abuse by being silent and by ceasing and desisting even for a season. Justice has no season; justice is for every season.
 
We shouldn't fast from justice. 

Relational, redemptive power rather than dominating power is the way of Jesus.    To let a dominating power dominate and not speak out against it is to be complicit. We become one with Christ in his vulnerable love that died upon the cross. We become one with Christ in the death defying, world transforming love of resurrection. 
 
May God set us free from whatever oppresses us so that we can establish justice in the earth for others, so that no one may dominate, no one may "Lord it over" another and all might live out what Irenaeus once said: "The glory of God is the human being fully alive.

  I think this "internalized oppression" theory is  still blaming the victim and  constructive  only when we analyze how to put an end to oppression.  Inequality and privilege and power makes victims of others. Jesus was not into oppression systems but into transforming them into a community of love and inclusion.  The RC church male only clergy is not of the way of Jesus.
 
    Jesus stopped the stoning death of the adultress and forgave her.  Yet our church tortured and murdered thousands of women and shuns remarried people, barring them from communion.  Very at odds with Jesus who respected the much married Samaritan woman, who taught her theology and  praised her for preaching to the Samaritan community.  Jesus gave her the living waters of faith and I am sure would have had her participate in his communal meals, his Eucharist.
 
    How then can the RC church justify excluding remarried people from communion?  It cannot. In the Bible Jesus tells to let "all come to God  and do not drive any one away."  The words of Jesus: include, welcome. 
 
     Buying into unjust systems that demean and exclude and bully someone: here women-----it    needs to be made clear that this is not only wrong but not of Jesus.
      The men only church hierarchy defends and perpetuates this wrong, and even defends and covers up and silences corrrection of its pedophilia scandal.  This victimization of vulnerable victims, children and women  will continue too in this unhealthy institution.
  People who are bystanders or enablers in abuse are just complicit in its continuation.  They have not internalized oppression, they have decided to allow it to continue due to apathy or lack of courage to enable change.
The Bully, the Bystander and the Bullied  is another book by Barbara Colorosa where she works at explaining these dynamics and solutions.  Demonizing the "Other" women in this case by developing a false to Jesus theology that demeans women as evil "fallen" creatures inferior to men and unworthy of life or positions of value or assigning them falsely to birthing machines and no other role is wrongly perpetuated by the church hierarchy.  This propaganda must no longer be tolerated and must be shown as false and destructive.
        It must be shown that Jesus did not propose any of this false women hating theology.
        Jesus taught women theology, yet women are still barred from seminary as priest vocation candidates.
        Jesus forgave the adultress and did not eject her from the community, ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, yet remarried are barred unjustly by RC church from communion-unlike Jesus did.
         Jesus commissioned Samaritan woman to preach, Jesus did not condemn or shun or demean her yet RC church shuns women as preachers-does not allow women to preach the mass homily.  Does not allow women to be priests.
          Bystander behaviour can be corrected and people can be educated and become agents of change.
          Witness how many have left the church and will not tolerate continued abuse of children and women.
           People of courage do make a difference.  Women are doctors now, not long ago they were barred from training to be one.  Women are not stoned to death now for adultary in U.S.A. but this still goes on in many other countries. Bad laws can suddenly be put in force and bad conditions can restart. Witness what is happening to women in some Middle Eastern countries where abuse of women through Sharia laws is reestablished.  The world can stand by not helping. 
          Abuse by oppressors is a constant concern in our world.  Awareness, education, courage and good will and integrity are needed to stop abuse.
 

ORIGINAL: Guest

[quote]ORIGINAL: Sophie

and one more post from our Administrator
who has a question
~s~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Below are five letters that have been put into our Guest Book. They represent the views of some women in the Church. 

"How do we talk to women who are hostile to the idea of women priests?" 

*   Women CANNOT be priests. They can become a nun, or a layperson, an altar server, an ASL assistant, a Catholic Women Legioness, etc. It's ridiculous that they could possibly even think of becoming priests. If they do this, they're making Catholicism a "copy" of Wicca/Paganism. Why do you think God designed Catholicism so differently? TO MAKE IT UNIQUE from all other churches and to help others realise it's the TRUTH. God's already spoken on the issue, as did the Pope John Paul II. There are no RIGHTS...only LAWS. There is much difference between them. Please submit to God and confess to your nearest priest. It's not worth condemning yourselves over. Would you rather worship God in absolute safety? Or do you prefer to worship in great risk and doubt? I will do WHATEVER I can for the Church, including being a slave for God and whoever's earthly authority He puts over me. But I will NEVER be a priest nor do I want to be one. I will pray for you all, even in Purgatory.

Miva in Canada

*    And what the heck is 'Catholic sense'? Where do you come up with this stuff? If Mary wished for women to be priests she has had many times to share that what with all of her apparitions, Lourdes, Fatima, Knock, Guadaloupe, but she has never said anything, Unless people don't people in the glaring evidence for those as there is for the glaring evidence against women priests. I present to you the following. Priesthood is partially based in tradition, true, and Jesus did choose all males as his disciples but that was not because of the times. He did not care at all about the social norms of his times. He talked to lepers, spoke out against men divorcing their wives, talked to the 'unclean' Samaritan woman. Why would he have cared about giving women the priesthood if he wanted to? When Judas rejected his priesthood, the disciples had to choose another to replace him, no females were considered, even though there were many loyal followers, among them the Blessed Mother, who was the sinless Mother of God. SHE was more qualified.
Marie

*     Women are not to be priests and to tell the Church that they are wrong is heretical and I agree that if you feel this way you should join a Protestant church, the wonderful thing about being catholic is that we know that Jesus left his church the CATHOLIC church to be guided by the holy spirit, he left certain rules to abide by and these rules are rules in heaven. It is so wonderful that we know the right way to live and to question core beliefs is wrong. Feminism really has no place in the Catholic Church. The church is not a democracy, which is another thing that is so great, we don't vote on what is moral and what is immoral there is nothing to vote on because only God says so. To question is to question the underlying beliefs and if you don't believe that the church is infallible and capable of making laws according to what GOD wants (not us remember it is not all about us) then there is not reason to believe in Catholicism at all!
Roxanne from USA

*      Someone please explain to me: Why would God call a woman to be a priest when the Church to whom He gave authority to "bind and loose" declares it impossible for a woman to be a priest? Typical Cafeteria Catholicism...the Church is right...unless you disagree with Her. You have "theologians" backing you up...bully for you...but the Church has some pretty good ones backing Her up, as well...say, The Church Fathers, for instance. I am woman, intelligent, and educated. I do not believe myself inferior to men. I am different from a man. As the Little Flower said, after a period of desiring to be a Priest, "Love gave me the key to my vocation. I understood that it was love alone that made the Church's members act. I have found my place in the Church. In the heart of my Church, my Mother, I shall be Love...and thus I shall be everything, and thus my dream will be realised." The great St. Francis of Assisi refused to be a priest because he felt himself unworthy. I see no such insight or humility here.

*       All of your arguments for women in the priesthood are based on half-truths and faulty theology. You obviously need to do more research to understand why you are horribly misguided in your assumptions. Believe me when I say that I am praying that God help you to see the truth of his will instead of the truth of you own will. Oh, and I have a question. If all the other Christian churches condone homosexual relationships, abortion, divorce, euthanasia, etc, etc, does that mean that they are obviously according to the will of Christ? Religion is not a majority rule, jumping on the misinformed bandwagon is the greatest flaw any individual (or group) can make.

Liz

Dear Sophie,

Do we know what percentage of women world wide support these views?

Also do we have a breakdown of demographics with respect to continents and educational level?

(e.g. No education, grade school only, High School, College degree, Post graduate degree)

 

Dear friend,

I had the opportunity to chat with Dr. Wijngaards earlier today about your inquiries.  The question of how women 'group up' in favour or against women priests is very difficult. We  do not have accurate figures for Asia, Africa and Latin America.  In an analysis of these countries, we would need to carefully distinguish between how many are educated and how many are not, and what percentage have access to up-to-date information on Catholic theological thinking.
 
In terms of  what we know about prevailing opinions on the continents of North America, Australia and Europe, Dr. Wijngaards informs me that three major studies have been done.  They each provide great detail.  The studies are:

1. W.V.D’Antonio, Laity, American and Catholic: Transforming the Church, Sheed and Ward, Kansas 1996; ‘The American Catholic Laity’, National Catholic Reporter, 29 October 1999.
   
2. D. McLaughlin, The beliefs, values and practices of Catholic student teachers, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane 1999; see also: Catholic School lay principals: Professional and pastoral issues, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane 1996.
   
3. A study done by Andrew Greeley and someone else (whose name escapes me just now!) on Europe provides statistics about eight countries in Western Europe.

We don't have the reports available on our website at the moment. I will see what I can do to find them from another source.  In the meantime, if anyone can help, that would be great! I'll come back with more about this.  For the time being, I wanted to let you know what I have learned so far.
 
Thank you very much for your questions.  They help broaden our understanding and awareness of the picture and the challenge the lies before us.
 
with love and blessings,
~Sophie~ 

Dear friends,
 
I have managed to track down a copy of the National Catholic Reporter article referred to above.  It follows here. I will make post subsequent to this one that includes the tables noted in the article.
 
And... I'll continue with the search for postable information from the others.
 
with love and blessings,
~Sophie~
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Trends in U.S. Roman Catholic attitudes, beliefs, behavior
By WILLIAM V. D’ANTONIO
National Catholic Reporter, October 29, 1999

Trends in Catholic attitudes show a gradual movement toward more personal responsibility and at the same time toward a desire for more lay participation in decision-making within the institutional church. The areas of personal responsibility seem focused primarily on matters of sexuality and marriage, while the laity’s desire for more active participation in decisions involving church life extend well beyond matters of sexuality and marriage.

The first major trends are found in the way Catholics as a whole have come to think about the locus of moral authority, and on democratic decision-making in the Catholic church. We then take a closer look at these trends when we control for frequency of Mass attendance, the strongest single predictor of acceptance of church teachings.

Table 3 compares the responses of Catholics across the three time periods to the question of where they think the locus of moral authority should rest. The trend is clearly toward declining support for church leaders (pope and bishops) as the locus of moral authority in helping people decide what is morally right or wrong on five issues dealing with marriage and sexuality. The outspokenness of church leaders on these issues during the past 12 years has not stopped the trend. Support for the institutional church’s position has declined even on abortion and on non-marital sex. Less than one in four Catholics thinks church leaders alone should have the final say in these matters.

The trend is increasingly toward seeing the individual as having the final say on these moral issues. On two of the issues (remarrying without an annulment and active homosexuality) there has been a significant movement toward the individual over 12 years. On the other issues, support remains steady at close to 50 percent. Overall, support for the individual as the locus of moral authority now ranges between 45 percent and 61 percent, which is more than double the support given to church leaders.

The third option given respondents on this question was that church leaders should work together with the laity to develop these moral teachings. It received more support from the laity than did church leaders alone on every one of the five items. Still, the trend toward personal autonomy (individuals deciding for themselves) and away from either “Church Leaders” or “Both” has grown on every one of the five items during these 12 years.

The trend is toward more democratic decision-making at all three levels of the church is clear. Not surprisingly, the strongest support for such participation is found at the parish level with two out of three Catholics favoring more democracy. It is at this level that numerous parishes have moved to implement the reforms of Vatican II that encourage such participation. NCR has featured some of these parishes over the course of the past several years.

Six out of 10 Catholics also favor more participation at the diocesan level, which reflects a growing pattern of diocesan participation. According to Murnion and DeLambo (New Parish Ministries, 1999), more than 30,000 laity now work in parish and diocesan offices at almost all administrative levels.

The Second Vatican Council promised much more collegiality at least between the pope and the bishops than has so far been realized. While little progress has been made in participatory decision-making at the level of the Vatican, a majority of American Catholics (55 percent) continue to favor such participation. The Papal Birth Control Commission, with its mix of laity, theologians, bishops, scientists and philosophers, provided the laity who remember the 1960s an example of a mechanism for participatory decision-making that could become a model for the church.

More recently, the 1980s saw the publication of two major documents sponsored by the U.S. bishops, the Peace Pastoral (1983) and the Pastoral on the Economy (1986). Both documents received extensive input from laity (right, center and left), and were well received by the broader public. In the 1990s, other documents on family life have also received varying degrees of input from lay groups and organizations. So precedents have been set, and there is sufficient evidence that the laity will respond if invited.

Table 4 shows the trend in support of more lay participation in church life primarily at the local level. There has been little movement in the numbers since 1987 regarding the laity’s right to participate in deciding on how parish income should be spent. But that is because there has been a broad consensus in support from the very first survey. It is hard to imagine the level of support moving above 82 percent. News stories tell us that more and more parishes do now include parish councils with significant input into parish finances.

More significant in Table 4 is the great increase in support of the laity’s right to participate in “Selecting priests for their parish,” and in “Deciding whether women should be ordained to the priesthood.” In both cases, the dramatic increases that were reported in 1993 were sustained in the 1999 survey. Again, these trends come at a time when church leaders continue to insist that such matters are either their own prerogative (selecting priests for parishes), or beyond their ability to discuss (the ordination of women). The desire for lay input is especially noteworthy given the statements from Rome declaring the matter closed.

Having observed the trends toward autonomy and democratic decision-making among the Catholic laity in general, we turn now to look at how level of commitment to the church, in this case Mass attendance, affects these attitudes. Since the level of Mass attendance was found to have little impact on the laity’s desire for more participation in church affairs, I confine my focus to the question on the locus of moral authority on the matters we examined in Table 3.

Table 5 gives the results. Catholics who attend Mass weekly or more are relatively more likely to support church leaders as the locus of moral authority. For example, regarding contraceptive birth control, support for church leaders increases from 12 percent, 14 percent and 11 percent (see Table 3) to 20 percent, 20 percent and 21 percent respectively. Surprisingly, however, support for church leaders on the question of abortion, which was 12 percent higher for weekly Mass attenders, still declined from 41 percent to 33 percent between 1987 and 1999. Overall, weekly Mass attenders were on the average 12 percentage points higher in their support of church leaders. The fact that their overall support for church leaders actually declined in these 12 years might be attributed in part to the 7 percent decline in weekly Mass attendance. In sum, while the church’s most committed Catholics are more supportive of church leaders than are Catholics as a whole, their support has fallen to under 40 percent on every one of these five items.

It could be said that Catholics are simply becoming more and more rebellious, deviant and sinful. It is more likely, however, that Catholics are simply being Catholic, that is, combining faith and reason to confront real life issues such as a divorce and remarriage in the family, and how to raise and love a certain number of children and so on. Michele Dillon in her new book Catholic Identity (1999) argues that the Catholic tradition throughout history has been a struggle between faith, reason and the claimed authority of the Vatican.

As Catholics become more educated, in public schools as well as in Catholic schools, they will continue to look to reason, science and faith to guide them in the development of their consciences. In the process of doing so, they may be expected to take the teachings of church leaders into account, but these teachings are not the only source of guidance for them. Clearly, some Catholics will continue to rely on their faith and in the teachings of the hierarchy, while others will rely on this mixture that has led to the ever-growing pluralism. Whether one sees this pluralism as a sign of a vibrant church or a church in disarray may depend on one’s view of church as either the people of God, or as the institutional church.

Here are links to the associated figures and tables re the article above. 

American Catholics Survey

 
Figure 01.jpg

 
Table 01.jpg


Table 02.jpg


Table 03.jpg


Table 04.jpg


Table 05.jpg

 
Table 06.jpg


Table 07.jpg


Table 08.jpg


Table 09.jpg


Table 10.jpg

 
Table 11.jpg 


Table 12.jpg


Table 13.jpg


Table 14.jpg

National Catholic Reporter, October 29, 1999

Dear friends,

A guest posted the following in our thread RE: Agents of change in the Church: worth the effort?  I copy the post here since I have a sense it might provide some food for thought in our discussion about theories of internalised oppression and its effects.  Here is the post:

From "A Time to Pay" by Kevin Taylor, The Pacific Northwest Inlander, 1-25-2007  "The magic number is $48 million- that's how much the diocese of Spokane needs to come up with to pay victims of sex abuse that took place; now the question is how parishioners will come up with their share....
.....One attorney who represents one of the smaller pools of claimants says, 'This has been troubling to deep believers, and the reasons are many fold.  One is the structure of the church is extremely controlling and dictatorial,' he says, 'The parishes are paying a lot of money to help the diocese get this behind them, but how are they reconciling paying all this money and what are they doing about change?' 
Brockett adds: 'Unless people in the parishes stop being enablers and demand a change in the hierarchal structure, it's never going to change.' ..."

How does the word 'enabler' strike you?  Is this a part of or something different from internalised oppression?  What do you think?  Is it appropriately applied to discussions about Church?

with love and blessings,
~Sophie~

is internalized oppression the same thing as enabling?

What is the nature of the oppression exactly? What makes it oppression as opposed to, say, just differentiated gender roles or a just — maybe God-ordained — subordination of women to men?  How do you know it's oppression when the women (not to mention the men!) don't seem to mind it, when they agree to it?
 
If it is oppression, why does it persist?  If the Church (and social for that matter) structure is oppressive, why don't' people seem more keen to change it?  What keeps the system rolling along from generation to generation?
 
If it is oppressive, why do many or most women feel it to be right?
 
I was reading about this and the author says:The concepts of "institutionalized oppression" and "internalized oppression" are useful in understanding the nature and persistence of oppression. Institutionalized oppression is oppression that results from institutions (i.e., other people) having control over you. The issue is not the control itself but rather that it results in things that are bad.
 
Internalized oppression is oppression that oppressed people themselves  "buy into".  They come to believe that the oppressions is the way things should be.  They endorse the system as the legitimate way that things should be.  For example: some women really do believe that women are inferior to (or at least deserve less than) men.  In this kind of situation, the central issue is not whether the men believe that women are inferior.  The main issue isn't whether women recognize that they are seen as inferior or recognize that they can't do anything about it.  What is the main issue? Do  women themselves see themselves as truly inferior?  In the oft-quoted words of Eleanor Roosevelt, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."  Women who defend the Church just as it is arent' even resisting the oppression.  They have bought right into the picture that says men are the chosen ones.  They don't resist and in fact become the staunchest defenders of the system.
 
Institutionalized and internalized oppression usually feed on each other. The institutional oppression produces oppressed people who see the oppression as a reality about themselves instead of the society.  Without consciously being aware of it, this internalized oppression justifies the existing social order as being "the natural, inevitable order of things" -- the way God ordained they should be -- instead of something humans make and therefore  can also unmake. 
 
Any attempt to change the system has to deal with both these oppressions at the same time. There has to be change -- conversion-- in both individuals and the structure together for things to really change.

Abuse by oppressors is a constant concern in our world. Awareness, education, courage and good will and integrity are needed to stop abuse.

I agree with you. Awareness, education, courage, good will and integrity are key.

I have been thinking about the words 'internalised oppression' from the point of view of how they come across to a listener. If someone were to tell me that I am a victim or that I suffer from internalised oppression, my instinctive response might be one of immediately disagreeing (How dare you say that about me? You don't even know me!) or feeling like I am being pushed up against a wall, or that I need to defend myself, or that there is something wrong with me.

This makes me think that it might be effective to consider if words like 'victim' or internalised oppression' are the best choices to use when we are trying to engage someone in conversation.

The phrase 'internalised oppression' itself speaks of power imbalance itself. First of all, it is pointing out that somehow I (person with i.o.) am the short end of the stick in the system and I don't even know it. The sedond power imbalance happens between me and the person who is diagnosing me wiht i.o. The person making the diagnosis comes across as an authority figure who knows better than me about the way things work and that they are here to help me see the light. Depending on how the discussion is carried through, I can see how it could come across as insulting, demeaning, belittling, and yes, blaming the victim.

But the more I think about i.o. the more I see that there might be a nugget of truth in the concept.

Lots of women buy into the system that says women should not preach, be celebrants at mass, hear confessions, etc just because that's the way it's always been done. They buy into limitations that are imposed on them and then they defend the limitations as being 'just' or as 'ordained by God.' And they go further: they defend the system and label people who try to change things as troublemakers.

My sense is there must be a better set of words to than 'internalised oppression.' There must be better language to use...something like 'liberating conscience' (although that would open up a whole other can of worms) or 'liberating giftedness' ...or 'rising to the highest potential that God invites us to be' ...or 'believe that God calls you'....

Something that invites/lifts people up into a way of thinking about possibilities -- instead of pinning them down with diagnoses that don't sound that nice.

with my eyes fixed on Christ and looking for more illumination on this,
Therese

ORIGINAL: Therese

Abuse by oppressors is a constant concern in our world. Awareness, education, courage and good will and integrity are needed to stop abuse.

I agree with you. Awareness, education, courage, good will and integrity are key.

I have been thinking about the words 'internalised oppression' from the point of view of how they come across to a listener. If someone were to tell me that I am a victim or that I suffer from internalised oppression, my instinctive response might be one of immediately disagreeing (How dare you say that about me? You don't even know me!) or feeling like I am being pushed up against a wall, or that I need to defend myself, or that there is something wrong with me.

One of the sure signs of denial is the anger and frustration it causes when the obvious (to others) is right before our eyes. Co-dependency forums deal with this anger and resentment. The problem is, we are not willing to admit to anything. The greatest sign is the immediate reaction of "how dare you say that".

This makes me think that it might be effective to consider if words like 'victim' or internalised oppression' are the best choices to use when we are trying to engage someone in conversation.

You seem to be looking for a sanitized label in order to deal with it only in a positive light. That in itself is not a healthy perspective.

The phrase 'internalised oppression' itself speaks of power imbalance itself. First of all, it is pointing out that somehow I (person with i.o.) am the short end of the stick in the system and I don't even know it. The sedond power imbalance happens between me and the person who is diagnosing me wiht i.o. The person making the diagnosis comes across as an authority figure who knows better than me about the way things work and that they are here to help me see the light. Depending on how the discussion is carried through, I can see how it could come across as insulting, demeaning, belittling, and yes, blaming the victim.

What you seem to be saying is that you want the terminology to whitewash the situation so that you continue to employ rose-colored lenses to the situation. The terminology is not meant to be demeaning; it is meant to face reality. That is the primary component of healing from any oppressive state. One has to face their part in it without sugar coating.

My sense is there must be a better set of words to than 'internalised oppression.' There must be better language to use...something like 'liberating conscience' (although that would open up a whole other can of worms) or 'liberating giftedness' ...or 'rising to the highest potential that God invites us to be' ...or 'believe that God calls you'....

How about "Recovering Catholic"? At least this says that there is hope for or change already in play. Coming up with a positive alternative simply feeds the denial of the matter.

Something that invites/lifts people up into a way of thinking about possibilities -- instead of pinning them down with diagnoses that don't sound that nice.

This is the dangerous territory of illusions.

ORIGINAL: Guest

ORIGINAL: Therese

Abuse by oppressors is a constant concern in our world. Awareness, education, courage and good will and integrity are needed to stop abuse.

I agree with you. Awareness, education, courage, good will and integrity are key.

I have been thinking about the words 'internalised oppression' from the point of view of how they come across to a listener. If someone were to tell me that I am a victim or that I suffer from internalised oppression, my instinctive response might be one of immediately disagreeing (How dare you say that about me? You don't even know me!) or feeling like I am being pushed up against a wall, or that I need to defend myself, or that there is something wrong with me.

One of the sure signs of denial is the anger and frustration it causes when the obvious (to others) is right before our eyes. Co-dependency forums deal with this anger and resentment. The problem is, we are not willing to admit to anything. The greatest sign is the immediate reaction of "how dare you say that".

This makes me think that it might be effective to consider if words like 'victim' or internalised oppression' are the best choices to use when we are trying to engage someone in conversation.

You seem to be looking for a sanitized label in order to deal with it only in a positive light. That in itself is not a healthy perspective.

The phrase 'internalised oppression' itself speaks of power imbalance itself. First of all, it is pointing out that somehow I (person with i.o.) am the short end of the stick in the system and I don't even know it. The sedond power imbalance happens between me and the person who is diagnosing me wiht i.o. The person making the diagnosis comes across as an authority figure who knows better than me about the way things work and that they are here to help me see the light. Depending on how the discussion is carried through, I can see how it could come across as insulting, demeaning, belittling, and yes, blaming the victim.

What you seem to be saying is that you want the terminology to whitewash the situation so that you continue to employ rose-colored lenses to the situation. The terminology is not meant to be demeaning; it is meant to face reality. That is the primary component of healing from any oppressive state. One has to face their part in it without sugar coating.

My sense is there must be a better set of words to than 'internalised oppression.' There must be better language to use...something like 'liberating conscience' (although that would open up a whole other can of worms) or 'liberating giftedness' ...or 'rising to the highest potential that God invites us to be' ...or 'believe that God calls you'....

How about "Recovering Catholic"? At least this says that there is hope for or change already in play. Coming up with a positive alternative simply feeds the denial of the matter.

Something that invites/lifts people up into a way of thinking about possibilities -- instead of pinning them down with diagnoses that don't sound that nice.

This is the dangerous territory of illusions.

I agree. As women, we've been making excuses and allowing untenable situations for thousands of years. It's time to stop looking to "nice talk" and go through a thorough examination of conscience on how we perpetuate or partially support a system that is working against our better interests. If we are strong enough to make change happen, we are strong enough to come to terms with where our illusions exist. If we don't use the right terms for this situation we will be talking gibberish.

ORIGINAL: Guest

I agree. As women, we've been making excuses and allowing untenable situations for thousands of years. It's time to stop looking to "nice talk" and go through a thorough examination of conscience on how we perpetuate or partially support a system that is working against our better interests. If we are strong enough to make change happen, we are strong enough to come to terms with where our illusions exist. If we don't use the right terms for this situation we will be talking gibberish.

Are protest leaders trained to deal with their own internal issues without the help of experts? How do they accomplish self-analysis? It seems that that would be working in a vacuum w/o feedback. How about getting some psychologists involved?

ORIGINAL: Guest

ORIGINAL: Therese

Abuse by oppressors is a constant concern in our world. Awareness, education, courage and good will and integrity are needed to stop abuse.

I agree with you. Awareness, education, courage, good will and integrity are key.

I have been thinking about the words 'internalised oppression' from the point of view of how they come across to a listener. If someone were to tell me that I am a victim or that I suffer from internalised oppression, my instinctive response might be one of immediately disagreeing (How dare you say that about me? You don't even know me!) or feeling like I am being pushed up against a wall, or that I need to defend myself, or that there is something wrong with me.

One of the sure signs of denial is the anger and frustration it causes when the obvious (to others) is right before our eyes. Co-dependency forums deal with this anger and resentment. The problem is, we are not willing to admit to anything. The greatest sign is the immediate reaction of "how dare you say that".

This makes me think that it might be effective to consider if words like 'victim' or internalised oppression' are the best choices to use when we are trying to engage someone in conversation.

You seem to be looking for a sanitized label in order to deal with it only in a positive light. That in itself is not a healthy perspective.

The phrase 'internalised oppression' itself speaks of power imbalance itself. First of all, it is pointing out that somehow I (person with i.o.) am the short end of the stick in the system and I don't even know it. The sedond power imbalance happens between me and the person who is diagnosing me wiht i.o. The person making the diagnosis comes across as an authority figure who knows better than me about the way things work and that they are here to help me see the light. Depending on how the discussion is carried through, I can see how it could come across as insulting, demeaning, belittling, and yes, blaming the victim.

What you seem to be saying is that you want the terminology to whitewash the situation so that you continue to employ rose-colored lenses to the situation. The terminology is not meant to be demeaning; it is meant to face reality. That is the primary component of healing from any oppressive state. One has to face their part in it without sugar coating.

My sense is there must be a better set of words to than 'internalised oppression.' There must be better language to use...something like 'liberating conscience' (although that would open up a whole other can of worms) or 'liberating giftedness' ...or 'rising to the highest potential that God invites us to be' ...or 'believe that God calls you'....

How about "Recovering Catholic"? At least this says that there is hope for or change already in play. Coming up with a positive alternative simply feeds the denial of the matter.

Something that invites/lifts people up into a way of thinking about possibilities -- instead of pinning them down with diagnoses that don't sound that nice.

This is the dangerous territory of illusions.

I agree that 'whitewashing' is a form of denial. But that is not what I am talking about. If we accept that things aren't right and that they need to change, I am asking the question as to how we can most effectively invite people into the conversation that helps raise awareness about what the problems are.

To use a more exxagerated description of how communication of a message can fail because of the methods used by the messenger consider this. Suppose the messenger is like a bull who charges into a china shop with a message. No matter how much truth there might be in the bull's message, the immediate response of most people is going to be to try to get out of the way for fear of injury. It is a normal human response that serves a healthy purpose: self protection.

If our message carries truth, then what I am talking about is how we deliver the message in a way that invites people to listen and consider. My experience in life is that people aren't as receptive to messengers who come across with a 'know it all' or an "I know better than you' style.' Nor do people warm well to someone who says 'I know what the problem with 'you' is. You've got internalised oppression.'

I am not talking whitewash. Actually quite the opposite. I asking: is it possible that these words 'internalised oppression' lead off on the wrong note. A downer. Is there a better more effective way to frame the conversation? What is the best way to invite people to engage in reflection about this.

We want to lead on an inspirational note. eg Martin Luther King: I have a complaint v I have a dream. Same general theme. Half a century later, people still remember "I have a dream.'

We know what our message is: there's a problem. I am asking the question: is framing the discussion in terms of 'you suffer from internalised oppression' the best way to get the message across?' I am suggesting: there might be a better way.

Psychologists, pr people, group facilitators, public speaking experts...all great resources in the process!

Therese

ORIGINAL: Therese
I agree that 'whitewashing' is a form of denial. But that is not what I am talking about. If we accept that things aren't right and that they need to change, I am asking the question as to how we can most effectively invite people into the conversation that helps raise awareness about what the problems are.

To use a more exxagerated description of how communication of a message can fail because of the methods used by the messenger consider this. Suppose the messenger is like a bull who charges into a china shop with a message. No matter how much truth there might be in the bull's message, the immediate response of most people is going to be to try to get out of the way for fear of injury. It is a normal human response that serves a healthy purpose: self protection.

If our message carries truth, then what I am talking about is how we deliver the message in a way that invites people to listen and consider. My experience in life is that people aren't as receptive to messengers who come across with a 'know it all' or an "I know better than you' style.' Nor do people warm well to someone who says 'I know what the problem with 'you' is. You've got internalised oppression.'

I am talking whitewash. I asking: is it possible that these words 'internalised oppression' lead off on the wrong note. A downer.

We want to lead on an inspirational note. eg Martin Luther King: I have a complaint v I have a dream. Same general theme. Half a century later, people still remember "I have a dream.'

Rhetoric does not need to be heavy handed. However, there is a difference between saying "I have a dream" and "I am dillusional".

The answer may be that we need to speak in terms of the church system engenders "internalized oppression" rather than saying that each individual exemplifies it. It seems that what you are looking for is a seminar on the power of positive thinking when what is needed is some concrete advise from psychological experts. Are we busy loking for a nice way to put it or are we dealing with the actual dysfuction that holds us back?

MLK made great speeches, but it seems to me that he was perfectly willing to call things as they were with the individuals involved. I don't think he was looking for a way to convolute the underlying facts when it came to how people were buying into the oppression. It was a process of healing that involved looking at how the victim agrees to be victimized.

The answer may be that we need to speak in terms of the church system engenders "internalized oppression" rather than saying that each individual exemplifies it. It seems that what you are looking for is a seminar on the power of positive thinking when what is needed is some concrete advise from psychological experts. Are we busy loking for a nice way to put it or are we dealing with the actual dysfuction that holds us back?

No. I am not talking power of positive thinking. This has to do with examining how effective we are in raising awareness. And also examining what changes are necessary to raise our effectiveness potentials so that more people start to think and change and help in creating the changes our Church needs.

We could probably learn alot from work that is already being done in other communities where oppression -- both external and internal -- are issues: racisim, poverty, sexual discrimination, gender discrim in other communiities...

Therese

ORIGINAL: Therese

The answer may be that we need to speak in terms of the church system engenders "internalized oppression" rather than saying that each individual exemplifies it. It seems that what you are looking for is a seminar on the power of positive thinking when what is needed is some concrete advise from psychological experts. Are we busy loking for a nice way to put it or are we dealing with the actual dysfuction that holds us back?

No. I am not talking power of positive thinking. This has to do with examining how effective we are in raising awareness. And also examining what changes are necessary to raise our effectiveness potentials so that more people start to think and change and help in creating the changes our Church needs.

We could probably learn alot from work that is already being done in other communities where oppression -- both external and internal -- are issues: racisim, poverty, sexual discrimination, gender discrim in other communiities...

Therese

OK, I think that the term is not "internalized oppression", but "identifying with the oppressor". It seems that that is what actually needs to be addressed. Perhaps this shifts the matter a bit off center from "internalized", that is, one's specific individual problem. By looking at hostage cases one can see how the hostage comes to be a party to the aggression as a survival mechanism. I think this is where the difficulty lies.

Still, many will balk at dismantling identification with the oppressor. There is no terminology that side steps this intrinsic component, as far as I can tell.