Skip to content

The Gender Card

July 25, 2009

I’m one of those people that doesn’t look for gender issues but rises to the occasion when gender is used unjustly.  Easygoing — until I’m not.

I knew something was up when I learned the perp was living with the provincial.  I had a hard time believing that would happen if the abuser abused males.  But I did not call Tim McMahon a sexist pig.  I told him I have a question I want to ask him.

And then I got McMahon’s July 17 letter, with the gender card right there.

I am closer to calling him sexist, but it would be better instead to ask the network of abuse victims of Missouri Jesuits if their settlement agreement restrictions look anything like the restrictions in my agreement.  I want to see if “relationships with men” replaced “relationships with women” or if there were no restrictions with any type of phrase like that.

So far, with settlement agreements involving the prolific abusive Jesuit Jack Campbell, it’s not there.

I want to point out that it caught my eye this time because it was part of McMahon’s lying — an unjust situation.  The agreement says no teaching.  McMahon tried to say teaching is not allowed only if the perp might meet women there.

I caught him red handed.

I know there has to be a better way to say it, but I don’t feel like being vulgar right now.

And this topic is better for dialoguing, not this Saturday morning monologue.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: