Signs of Hope: Movement for the Equality of Women

“...more American women are living without a husband than with one for the first time ever. ”

The most significant movement in my life time is, I believe, the movement for the equality of women with men in our society. This movement seeks to replace many of the patriarchal customs and priorities of our society with an entirely new set of customs and priorities. The movement is a fact; it is irresistible; and, its consequences are unknowable at this time.

It involves a redirection of a society that is, at least, 5000 years old. It deeply affects men and women, the two basic units of our society, at the most elemental levels. It, further, affects the children of our society in the most fundamental of ways.

A recent article in the New York Times claims that more American women are living without a husband than with one for the first time ever. That is, 51 percent of women say they are living without a spouse, and that is up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

Dr. William Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, says “For better or worse, women are less dependent on men or the institution of marriage. . . . Younger women understand this better, and are preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone or with nonmarried partners.”

David Brooks, the well-known columnist at the New York Times, foresees several social consequences of this fact, and some are very disturbing. For example, he sees the present, growing division of our society into more well-off members and less well-off members reflected in this development. The better off members of our society have lowering divorce rates and are preparing their children for the society better than ever. Meanwhile, the less well-off members are constantly falling farther behind and their children are less well-able to cope in our society than ever.

David Brooks observations are ominous, indeed. This development not only has enormous consequences for the present adult members of our society, it also has major consequences for the children of today who will be the adults of tomorrow. At the present moment, America’s largest single social problem stems from the absence of supervision of youngsters. Our huge crime and addiction problems stem from this absence. That most women, including those who parent children, will remain unmarried in the immediate future has large and adverse social implications, and this is but one of the consequences of this development.

Where is the hope to be found in this situation?

It is, we believe, a mixed blessing, as are so many others. On the one hand, the movement for the equality of women is not only irresistible; it is a good thing and long overdue. We believe that, most firmly.

At the same time, it is a movement that has enormous social consequences. The basic relationships between men and women in marriage were hammered out over a long period of time and with enormous difficulties. Moreover, they have been in place for so long a period of time as to be most difficult to alter or change. And, they have profound affects not only upon the two adults involved, but also upon their children, and the whole of society. Alterations or changes in this relationship requires social transformations of the most critical sort.

There is no turning back. The past is the past and it is dead. The past had many blessings but it also had more than a fair share of curses. Among the curses was the social treatment of women. That treatment was not entirely bad, but it was most inadequate. We should be pleased to leave that behind.

The Church is among the more important of our social institutions. It has the dual role of conserving and innovating. During different historical periods it has favored one role over the other. We are now in the midst of a period of innovation after a long, long period of conservation. The habits associated with conservation are still firmly stuck in many church people’s thinking and behavior, and in the institution, generally. Those with a strong historical sense find this amusing. The Church claims as its founder and principal inspiration one of the truly outstanding innovator’s of all history, Jesus of Nazareth.

The behavior of the Church during our lengthy patriarchal period has not been entirely bad as far as its treatment of women goes. By today’s standards it is most inadequate, to put it kindly. But, the past is not fairly judged by today’s standards. And, by yesterday’s patriarchal standards the behavior of the Church towards women was, in some instances, enlightened. For example, the Church afforded rare, and sometimes the only possibilities, for human fulfillment for women who entered its full-time service. And, it insisted that women be well treated in family life. All one has to do is compare the treatment of women in the Western World, which was largely influenced by the Church, with the treatment of women in other parts of the world. That record is not perfect, but it is also not half- bad.

In our own time, the Church is changing, radically if almost imperceptibly. There is every reason to hope that these changes will one day embrace its view of and treatment of women. Actually, to deny this possibility is to deny the realities of the Church’s role in society.

Look at that has been happening in recent years.

The reforms initiated by Vatican Council II are working remarkably well. In this time, the Church has defined itself and understands itself to be the “people of God,” with the resulting new understanding of the place of the lay person in the community and the place of its clergy. While this has been happening women have assumed an ever larger role in the institution. It can be asserted, fairly, that the Church in the United States is not being feminized – it has already been feminized. Women are not only filling the majority of service positions with the community they are also making steady inroads into the positions of authority within the Church. The fact that top churchmen are denying this fact, only points to its reality. These same churchmen will soon be denying the fact that they ever opposed this movement, but that, on the other hand, they will insist they were among its most outspoken advocates. Such shortness of memory and insistence on the untenable is not restricted to church men exclusively -- it is simply part of the human comedy.

To detect signs of hope with the Church’s treatment of women today is not unreasonable. It is a matter of hope, however, and not of easily established fact. But, then that is what religion is principally about, Signs of Hope.