Female Anglican deacon rejects ordination

[MrFun]

from the first linked article:

"A 100 percent heterosexual population might well have gone extinct."

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by MrFun


It just doesn't make sense to me because I know a lot of gay men who are more masculine than they are feminine.

Unless you've preformed trepanation on them, this would not seem to be pertinent to questions of brain anatomy.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Unless you've preformed trepanation on them, this would not seem to be pertinent to questions of brain anatomy.

So masculinity and feminity have no correlation with any part of the human brain?

[Ramo]

Sexist, sure, but sexist against her own gender? That doesn't make much sense at all.

Why not? Plenty of them exist.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sexist, sure, but sexist against her own gender? That doesn't make much sense at all.

There are homophobic gays, there are blacks who hate being identified as black, and so on.

So women who are anti-feminist are certainly there.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
It just doesn't make sense to me because I know a lot of gay men who are more masculine than they are feminine.

"Masculinity" and "femininity" as stereotyped in popular culture (esp. gay culture) has little to do with brain structure. They are, by and large, acquired mannerisms based on societal norms. So it's not the same as what the article is saying.

The articles aren't saying gay men act effeminately, only that their brain structure has been shown to have more in common with females than males in many cases.

I have to click on those links that you provided yet sometime, but there was a time when people did "studies" to "prove" that "scientific" racism was a valid assertion.

Not the same thing, since neither article is promoting bigotry against gays. Quite the contrary--their conclusions are supporting the idea that sexuality is largely based on biological factors, and is ergo not "chosen."

And the first article is not very scientific--mostly speculation. But he raises some interesting points, if he does engage in very questionable hyperbole.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are always some women who are anti-feminists and oppose greater equality for women.

She rejects the argument that women need these things to be more equal. Rather she is arguing that if women need to be equal in function, then that's hardly any meaningful 'equality.'

I have heard plenty of feminists who have argued the same thing, that the true goal of feminism, is not to become like men, but to remain women, equal in value, but differing in function. This is why I don't see how her position is either sexist or anti-feminist, since she supports the assertion that women are to be equal in value to men.

Let me put this another way. If the only way for women to be equal to men, is to work in the workforce and not have kids, then what have they acheived? A more substantive equality understands that men and women are different, and that they are going to look for different things out of life. Equality ought to accomodate these differences, rather than squashing them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If the only way for women to be equal to men, is to work in the workforce and not have kids, then what have they acheived?

If this weren't such a ludicrous strawman, you might have a point.

Equality for women makes no such demands. What it does want is for women to have the opportunity to follow that path, should they want. And should they want to stay home and make babies, that's fine, too. Men can choose to do what they like, and nobody is going to look down upon a man for choosing his career over making a family, or vice-versa. The same should be true for women.

[Ramo]

Let me put this another way. If the only way for women to be equal to men, is to work in the workforce and not have kids, then what have they acheived? A more substantive equality understands that men and women are different, and that they are going to look for different things out of life. Equality ought to accomodate these differences, rather than squashing them.

But Bonsor isn't merely saying that she doesn't want to be a priestess or bishop, but that women shouldn't have these leadership positions. She doesn't want women to have this freedom. So even if a woman wants something else in life besides the roles you prescribe for her, she shouldn't. That's sexism. That's wrong.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Let me put this another way. If the only way for women to be equal to men, is to work in the workforce and not have kids, then what have they acheived? A more substantive equality understands that men and women are different, and that they are going to look for different things out of life. Equality ought to accomodate these differences, rather than squashing them.

And what have they achieved if they are not those who decide what they want "to look out for" (and I mean on an individual basis, so don't come again telling that you just quoted a woman...). I've heard muslim apologists explaining the position of women in many islamic societies exactly the same way. Equality ought to give all people the same choices, no one forces a woman to aim for a "leadership"-role if she doesn't want to take that path. Stop selling sexist prejudices as establishing equality, you really don't know when you lost an argument.

[Ben Kenobi]

And I really get tired of people saying that I've lost an argument. It gets old fast.

Boris first.

Equality for women makes no such demands. What it does want is for women to have the opportunity to follow that path, should they want. And should they want to stay home and make babies, that's fine, too. Men can choose to do what they like, and nobody is going to look down upon a man for choosing his career over making a family, or vice-versa. The same should be true for women.

Is that really true? Isn't a woman who prefers to stay at home with her kids considered a sell-out? I've heard that many times from feminists at the university that the career ought to come first, and this is why many feminists have rejected that point of view. Women who choose to stay at home and make babies are not encouraged by feminists to make this choice, they are not extolled as model feminists. Rather, we see the ones who choose their career first, or those who manage to juggle both together. Never have I see them laud a woman who chooses to get married and make babies.

Now, the woman here is making a distinction between the workforce, and between the church. The question we should be asking here is why. I think the key is in the statements about there being a 'glass ceiling' in the church. How is a church different from a business? Is the sole model of leadership in the church found in the pulpit?

[Ben Kenobi]

She doesn't want women to have this freedom. So even if a woman wants something else in life besides the roles you prescribe for her, she shouldn't.

Whoa, slow down. The 'roles that I prescribe for her?' And what might those roles be here? You've made an unnecessary jump.

My question goes back to why she believes women shouldn't have this freedom. From her argument, she believes that women lose more by having this freedom, than they ever would gain from having the freedom. She questions the motivations behind those looking for leadership positions in the church, since she believes that they are saying that the only form of true equality comes from equality in function and not in value.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And I really get tired of people saying that I've lost an argument. It gets old fast.

Perhaps you should stop trying to make them. You seem to be running at about a 95%+ failure rate.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've heard muslim apologists explaining the position of women in many islamic societies exactly the same way.

Yet we aren't arguing for the position of women in society, we are making a distinction between society as a whole, and the church, and that is a very important part of her argument. That's why plenty of these arguments of sexism don't fly since she starts off by saying that she supports women in whatever choice they choose to do in society.

[Ben Kenobi]

Perhaps you should stop trying to make them. You seem to be running at about a 95%+ failure rate.

I think the point you should be asking yourself, is what are my purposes here in the thread? I'll give you a hint. I'm not here to vanquish my erstwhile enemies once and for all.