Lovers in HellBreaking of one of the cardinal rules of blogging (thou shalt post on a topic in a timely manner), here I go with my opinion of last Saturday's Dominion Post Editorial.
This obsession that the secular world has with sin is a good sign of a not completely dormant conscience. So in a sense it is good that pronouncements from the Vatican on sin hit the secular radar. However, it would be prudent for those that write on such subjects to at least know a bit more about them and treat the subjects seriously, rather than as an object of derision and amusement.
Unfortunately, the Dominion Post does not treat anything concerning religion with respect. Case in point - last week it published an article on the Vatican's take on the differences in sinful inclination of women vs men. And then on Saturday, the editor follows up with an opinion.
Not a serious opinion, of course. A more tongue in cheek, not sure what the point is type of opinion. Maybe the whole point was to be funny, but then, being female, I wasn't sure what part was supposed to be humorous.
Maybe it was the conclusion, the last part on the lack of female sinfulness that inadvertently also gave away the sex of the writer. For after agreeing that men are more prone to the sins of lust and sloth, the editor then speaks on behalf of all male readers that "they" disagree that women are in any way sinful at all.
However, on behalf of its male readers, The Dominion Post would like to assure women that the men in its readership area completely dissociate themselves from the monsignor's comment.Now, of course I don't believe for a minute that the writer believes that all women are complete paragons of virtue, nor do I believe that the writer also believes that every man reading the Dominion Post thinks the same.
Never have they seen any evidence that women have ever sinned, erred or even momentarily let slip the extraordinarily high standards they maintain. They lead lives of blameless excellence, to which their partners can only aspire.
And, just as soon as they've digested their lunch and the cricket has finished showing on television, they'll get up off the couch, change the light bulbs, put out the rubbish and mow the lawns.
Then perhaps, having established the mood, their partners will take the hint, head upstairs, dim the freshly installed light bulb and give in once again to sin No1 on the male hit list.
This is where I'm left wondering what the point of the editorial was.
Was it, and I'm stretching ALOT with this one, that women are such mysteries to men, that no man could ever determine or feel qualified to determine (even such a man as a Priest who has heard thousands of confessions) whether or not a woman's actions may be sinful. So, whatever a woman does is ok by them.
Or is it that the writer is taking the piss out of women by trying to be funny. By pretending we are up on a pedestal that we don't deserve, he is mocking us. Oh, most likely not intentionally. He's probably trying really hard to mock the Vatican and the whole notion that anyone could be sinful, even though he agrees when it comes to men.
But on his attempt to mock the Vatican, he instead mocks the opposite sex and leaves this woman thinking that men who attempt humour need to do so with a clear head during the light of day rather than leaving it to after a Friday night's carousing as a quick knock-up job before the deadline.
If he wants to do that, he should take up blogging instead.
Related Link: Bless Them Father ~ Stuff, Dominion Post