“Add Teresa of Avila and Stir”—Why Adding Women Does Not End Exclusion Mechanisms in (Theological) Science

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An ambitious article that situates the ongoing challenges for women in the academy. The manuscript situates the argument and analysis in mostly Catholic theology and is especially effective in showing the ongoing legacy of gender essentialism. In my view, the focus on the Catholic anti-modern developments regarding Mariology is most effective for interrogating current realities regarding women’s exclusion and marginalization within academia and theology. While the example of essentialism in the Calendar of Saints is effective in showing the Church's male gaze, it did not bring the argument full circle - an actual conclusion would be helpful the post-colonial analysis offered a helpful heuristic.

It was not clear from the abstract that the manuscript would be a premodern/Reformation Era historical investigation. 

Abstract shifts between present and past verb usage.

On p. 4, 1st full paragraph the sentence about bias is consulted and difficult to decipher. The last paragraph begins with an incomplete sentence transition.

Middle of page 6 - "Mangion shows at 22" a footnote reference is given - not actual clear idea. This section needs clarity and context for the reader - are you talking only about Protestant women after the Reformation changed cloistered life. The Beguines would offer a compelling example of how this dynamic played out in the Catholic Church.

On page 7 feminine and connection are misspelled.

On page 9 the date of 1954 is given for the Marian dogma - this should be 1854 so looks like a typo?

On page 10 Utah is missing an h.

On page 12, 3rd sentence convoluted - unclear what "would theologizing" intends.

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some proofreading needed - have noted most obvious issues.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your thoroughly reading and your fruitful suggestions. The entire text will be proof-read for another time by my colleague who is American and Theologian. You can be by the track changes how much work had been put in revising the article and smoothening the language. 

I have taken your suggestions listed below and changed the wordings of my text. You will find my changing clearly marked. I also tried to clarify why I ended with the saints. I am convinced that this example illustrates the more complex arguments I brought beforehand. We just had a dissertation accepted in Bochum dealing with the questions how to understand saints today and it was made quite obvious how 'gender blind' the calendar is.

I also tried to make clear, that I am talking about the time after Trent and especially of the 19. century and added this into the abstract and also clearfied it in my text.

 

I do hope that I was able to catch all of your highly valuable feedback. 

 

Yours

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, I like what you're trying to do in the article, but it feels a little unwieldy. While you do delineate what you intend to do in each section, I wish each section felt more to the point. It would help if you simplified the structure by breaking up some of your long paragraphs. Make each paragraph about one clear topic, and then be sure each section's paragraphs flow smoothly and logically from one topic to the next. Right now, it feels like you have so much to say (and about which you are excited), that you sort of just keep talking about whatever next comes to mind. You also reference your "presentation" in the introduction, so it makes me wonder if this is all based on lectures you've given. That's fine, but the paper itself needs to feel tighter.

I had some confusion in part 2 about the various eras and churches you discuss. What are the Reformation churches you discuss? Are these Protestant or post-Council of Trent Catholic? Can you be more careful in part 2 about how you have organized it so that the logical order is apparent? I know you have sub-sections, and those are helpful, but I don't always follow how each point is feeding your main point. Again, breaking up the longer paragraphs will help. 

Otherwise, your content is very smart and shows a great depth of research and understanding. In fact, the number of references is way more than I'd expect for an article this size. Perhaps you're trying to throw in too many details? This might help you streamline the article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Mostly good, but sometimes awkward. You often start sentences with "For..." and you don't need to. Just start with the next word.

I don't have line numbers in my copy, so I'll have to reference paragraphs for some specifics:

Page 2: first paragraph: should be "I argue..." not argued. Next paragraph, "certain conditions for teaching theology..." Next paragraph: "that such an essay does not function in the clear sequence of topics and contents..." I don't know what this means nor what essay, topics, and contents you are referring to. Next paragraph: women scholars "occur" is awkward. Maybe "emerge"?

Page 3: fifth line, are you referring to Catholic theology outside of Germany? Same paragraph: I don't know what Mittelbau is. Last paragraph: The sentence starting with "An essential source of knowledge....." is problematic. Not sure what it means. And why can something no longer be ignored? In the last line on that page: scientists repeatedly criticize or reinforce the idea?

Page 4: first paragraph: "this bias is rejected in an attitude of rejection..." ??? Same paragraph: 'glass ceilings' should have single quotation marks. Next paragraph, "has top statements" is awkward. (maybe "egregious examples"?) Last paragraph: You don't need the first sentence "But before that...."

Page 5: middle paragraph: "Therefore, I postulate..." I like your postulate, but it's a run-on sentence. Next paragraph: women's movements, not THE women's movements....by "narrowing the well-known finding" ????

Page 6: In the middle, where you have endnote 22, "shows at that these..." reads oddly. 

Page 7: feminine is misspelled.

Page 8: 3rd paragraph: "this tension would become...." Then three lines later, not good to say "one can agree..." Then four lines later, "it would then be reflected..." Then in the last sentence, "In any case, the Catholic Church never gets rid of...."

Page 9: in the middle, Catholic women "continued to be attractive..." Are you sure that's what you want to say?

Page 10: in the middle, I think "octroying" should be "outcrying." Last sentence (quotation) on the page is not a sentence.

Page 11: second paragraph, "A dogma..." should not be a new sentence.

Page 12: 5th line, the sentence starting with "Thus, the respective theologizing..." doesn't make sense. 9th line: and "could be understood as..." rathe than "and understands..."14th line: "a development that can read..." doesn't sound right. Two more lines down: greatnesses?

Page 13: 4th line, What is above average? the number of female saints deleted? The average of what?

I don't know what GW refers to when you write it throughout.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your thoroughly reading and your fruitful suggestions. The entire text will be proof-read for another time by my colleague who is American and Theologian. You can be by the track changes how much work had been put in revising the article and smoothening the language. 

I have taken your suggestions listed below and changed the wordings of my text.  But you will find my changing clearly marked. I also thank you for your idea to substructure the quite long chapters which should make my argument more fluently and clear. It also helped me to clarify my argument. I also tried to clarify why I ended with the saints. I am convinced that this example illustrates the more complex arguments I brought beforehand. We had just recently a PhD thesis turned in which is examining saints and their valuable contribution to ethics and everyday christian live. However, it was again obvious that the calendar is highly 'gender blind' which convinced me to keep the example included. 

Usually there is the feedback that the paper does not have enough literature. It is the first time that I received a different feedback. However, I decided to stick with the literature for it shows hopefully quite balanced that the question in stake is a question regarding theology as part of the academic world as such beyond the differences which are structured by specific educational systems (and their history).

In German speaking theological discourse we talk about the age of confessionalization and not longer about contra-reformation or similar wordings. This was one example for many why I think it is very valuable to introduce German research to English audience (and vice versa). I also tried to make it much clearer, that I am talking about the time after Trent and especially of the 19. century. 

I do hope that I was able to catch all of your highly valuable feedback. 

Yours