 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:37
|
|
quote:
That hardly seems disparaging of homemakers. The NOW charter also clearly advocates that it's about women having choices, not them being forced to work. Advocating full choices for women includes the choice to be a homemaker. It would be nonsensical to believe otherwise.
|
It's not nonsensical, particularly if you believe that woman are being oppressed when they are homemakers, even if they choose to do so, that they have not had the option of anything else.
quote:
No. Do you have any offical quotes from mainstream feminist orgs stating this? I've no doubt some radicals have stated it, but it's by no means the majority sentiment, and is in flat contradiction to the stated purposes of such organizations.
|
Ah, thank you. That's what I was looking for. Why are the folks you label 'mainstream' and 'radical' to be treated differently from each other? Why are the folks you consider 'mainstream' more correct than the 'radical' folks? The other question, which I think pertains even more to the argument is what status do groups have that accept the equality in value of women, but reject that women ought to perform the same functions in the church as men? Even if they disagree with other feminists, that is not, in itself, enought to decry them as opposed to feminism.
quote:
I could care less about what a church does, honestly, but you broadened the scope beyond simple church dogma to society at large on page 1. That's wherein my critique lies.
|
Nope, I haven't gone beyond the church at all in this thread, since that point is not being contested either by me, or the lady who wrote the original article. I was waiting for someone to go this route, so that I could ask the question, as to why would she make the distinction she does between society in general, and roles within the church?
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 16-07-2005 at 23:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:37
|
|
quote:
There is monastaries that perform the same role, but if there wasn't, then yes, it'd be unequal treatment.
|
Are, imran, but my point is that even given the freedom to select similar missions, we see differences in the roles between the monasteries and the nunneries. Certainly there are similarities, but the fact that there are differences, seems to me evidence that given freedom, men and women will choose to do different things.
quote:
If they don't even have the oppertunity to be ordained, then NO, they can't have equal position in the Church. The author is wrong, there IS a glass ceiling. It was born out of a time where the religion was strongly mysogynistic (one of Joan of Arc's "crimes" was that she dressed like a man and did things that men were supposed to do).
|
Actually, that's a prohibition, regulating the dress of men also. I'm sure they would have treated the men who dressed like women in the same way.
Secondly, regarding the charge of misogyny of the church, was it the Catholic church who burned their St. Joan, or the English soldiers? The blame for her death cannot be laid at the foot of the Catholic church.
Third, about the glass ceiling, that again, presumes that the heirarchy of the church works in the same way as a business. I say there are fundamental differences between the two, and this disagreement comes out in your further comments.
quote:
And since you are a Catholic now, you should stop spouting Protestant dogma . Everybody isn't equal in the position they hold in the Church. This isn't Calvinism. The Priest, the Bishop, the Pope are far more important in the corporal body of the Church than the lay person... even after Vatican II.
|
Okay, two statements here. People may not have equal positions in the church, the same is true for 'calvinists' as it is for Catholics. Calvinists have elders and deacons, the only difference between them and the Catholic church is in their model of the church, not in having a heirarchy. In fact, I could nitpick, and say that my position has been more of a Arminian than Calvinist, but that is neither here nor there. 
Secondly, you are assuming that because they have different roles, that they are not considered equally important in the body of christ. Once again, you are assuming that for people to be equal in value, they must be equal in function, which is diametrically opposed to what the church teaches. In fact, the Catholic church, even given their heirarchy, cannot ignore what Christ says, that the greatest among you must be servant to all, and that even Christ did not come to lord it over others, but as a meek and humble servant. That is to be the model of leadership in the church, which is profoundly different from how the world sees leadership.
This is the primary reason why there is no glass ceiling, for there can be great authority and responsibility even for those who never stand up on top of a pulpit.
quote:
And this 'each is equal regardless to their position' is nonsense. It's the same justification for the Hindu caste system. Oh, each person is equal in the eyes of Vishnu, but they have their own position that they must stay in and their position is dicatated by the Gods and the karma you have undertaken.
|
Ah, where are the Christian untouchables then? Why then are the priests anointed based on their own decision and vows, and not upon the status of their birth? There are no brahmins in Christianity, nor are there untouchables.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Why can't a bishop be nurturing? Most of the bishops I've known have been gentle men. OK granted I've never known any bishops closely.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's not nonsensical, particularly if you believe that woman are being oppressed when they are homemakers, even if they choose to do so, that they have not had the option of anything else.
|
If the stated objective of feminist organizations is that women should have whatever options they want, deriding the option of homemaker is indeed nonsensical. The thrust of feminism isn't that women shouldn't be homemakers, it's that women should be free to choose whatever path they desire. If they were to object to the path of homemaker, it would be antithetical to their aims.
quote:
Ah, thank you. That's what I was looking for. Why are the folks you label 'mainstream' and 'radical' to be treated differently from each other? |
Hmmm, I don't know...why is Eric Rudolph treated differently than Ralph Reed?
quote:
Why are the folks you consider 'mainstream' more correct than the 'radical' folks? |
Uh, because I happen to agree with their opinion? Because their opinion reflects more on the majority of people's views?
Now, on the other hand, your bullshit assetions about feminist groups have been blown out of the water. I'm inclined to think you're even being less than honest about what the feminists on your campus thought about homemakers. Care to provide any evidence, other than your "word," as to this?
quote:
The other question, which I think pertains even more to the argument is what status do groups have that accept the equality in value of women, but reject that women ought to perform the same functions in the church as men? Even if they disagree with other feminists, that is not, in itself, enought to decry them as opposed to feminism. |
If a religious group wants to relegate women to a subordinate role, that's up to them, but don't expect people to think it's anything other than sexist, no matter what Biblical trappings you put around it.
The role of a preacher, as far as I can tell, is to give spiritual guidance to others. I see no reason to see why women can't do this just as well as men. I've yet to see you give an explanation as to what it is about the role of the priesthood that would make women less suited for it than men.
What is it about the role of a priest that makes only men suitable for it? And I don't want circular arguments saying that Paul said it should be so. I want real reasons as to what the difference is between men and women when it comes to the spiritual realm.
quote:
Nope, I haven't gone beyond the church at all in this thread, |
Oh please.
The post I responded to on page 3 was all about society, not the church. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered to respond to it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Are, imran, but my point is that even given the freedom to select similar missions, we see differences in the roles between the monasteries and the nunneries. Certainly there are similarities, but the fact that there are differences, seems to me evidence that given freedom, men and women will choose to do different things. |
How is this proof of any such thing? True 'freedom' would be allow women to join either a nunnery or monestary. And the relative missions of the nunneries and monestaries are more dictated by tradition than by any freedom these orders have to do whatever they desire.
We can see the error in your words by looking in the secular world where women are given FAR more freedom and they choose mostly to do similar things that men do.
quote:
Actually, that's a prohibition, regulating the dress of men also. I'm sure they would have treated the men who dressed like women in the same way. |
Any proof of that? Furthermore, the bigger crime was doing things that men were supposed to do (being a solider).
quote:
Secondly, regarding the charge of misogyny of the church, was it the Catholic church who burned their St. Joan, or the English soldiers? The blame for her death cannot be laid at the foot of the Catholic church. |
I'm quite sure Peter Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, was a Catholic Bishop. Though to deny the mysogyny of the Church is so surreal as to be ridiculous.
quote:
you are assuming that because they have different roles, that they are not considered equally important in the body of christ |
Ben, you are a CATHOLIC now! The Pope is far more important than any lay person, even in the body of Christ. On the Day of Judgement, your Pope was supposed to be up there as your lawyer when Christ judged. He was given a priviledged position. It is why for generations before Vatican II, the priests were required to preach in Latin, even though a vast majority of the people listening had no idea what was being said. The priests would face away from the laity. The priest was considered more important, spiritually as well as heirarchically.
You know that kind of was one of the reasons for the Reformation. Luther didn't like the fact that priests were seen as more important to Christ and believed everyone was equal in front of God.
The fact that a woman cannot become a priest indicates that she cannot be in the privileged position. The Pope, for instance is the Vicar of Christ. He has a direct pipeline, so to speak, and by denying women the chance to occupy the role, the assertion is that they cannot have the pipeline.
Such utter and blatent mysogyny, no wonder the Catholic Church is losing followers in the West.
quote:
Once again, you are assuming that for people to be equal in value, they must be equal in function, which is diametrically opposed to what the church teaches. |
Bullshit. You can't be equal in value unless you have a chance to be equal in function. Some people may go around saying everyone is all equal, but the reality is that women are not. Because they cannot be equal in function.
If everyone is equal in value and you are saying that women gravitate to the functions they are in then WHY NOT allow them to choose the functions men have? If you are right, they'll choose not to take those functions.
quote:
Ah, where are the Christian untouchables then? Why then are the priests anointed based on their own decision and vows, and not upon the status of their birth? There are no brahmins in Christianity, nor are there untouchables. |
Yes there are. You'll find the 'untouchables' to be women. They should know their role and they equal in that subserviance.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-07-2005 04:50
Our friends at the catholic Church may have been conned by the perfidious Albion into endorsing it at the time, but they were manipulated victims, and since then have more than made up for it, as they sanctified our national hero 
|