Female Anglican deacon rejects ordination

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Sure it does. That's why the argument is that women, in general, are said to be better nurturers. Granted, there will be exceptions to this, but the general case remains true.

I am not sure if I understand what you mean - "nuturer" as in "educator"? If so, I disagree that women are generally better here. They may work more in jobs related to education, but I don't see this as proof that they are per se better there as men.

Okay, there's quite a few things that are bundled up here. First of all, is their a relationship to the social role, and the biological role?

There may be such relations, the question is if there should be, and if the following differences in social roles should be enforced.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


You've missed the point. The point is not could a woman be a bishop, the question is should a woman be a bishop. She tackles the argument that St. Paul's letter to Timothy ought to be rejected, since our culture is different from the culture then, but then she goes on to make her point that women and men do not fulfill the same role.

The part that I bolded, is where I think she makes the strongest argument. To say that equality in value requires one to be equal in function is a horrible kind of equality. It's like in Harrison Bergeron, where everyone needs to be brought down to the same level, so that everyone can be truly equal in function.

White slaveowners used to argue the same thing against abolitionists when arguing over the issue of slavery. Slaveowners would cry out that whites would have to be brought down to some imagined lower level with freed blacks!!

the horror

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The part that I bolded, is where I think she makes the strongest argument. To say that equality in value requires one to be equal in function is a horrible kind of equality.

You're completely off the track. Of course, there's no different value between a plantation labourer and a plantation owner. That's not the point here.
It may be that women have more sense for the group-integrative (nurturer?) aspects of social life - even biologically, if you wish - but why should society cement these tendencies? Not only is this a huge waste of potential, it's also stupid and contrary to individual freedom. If a person has a tendency towards certain attitudes, (s)he'll most likely chose an appropriate life-path anyway, if circumstances permit that...
The argument, "women are better nurturers, so they can't be bishops", is like saying "negroes are able to work harder on the fields, so that's where they belong". That's your strong argument.

[loinburger]

Women are supposed to produce eggs, and men are supposed to produce sperm. Any other talk of differing roles is bigoted crap.

[Wernazuma III]

Damn it, Mr. Fun. Just when I pull my negroes, I notice that you pulled your negroes more quickly.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Damn it, Mr. Fun. Just when I pull my negroes, I notice that you pulled your negroes more quickly.

That's because the negroes I own are faster than your negroes.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by loinburger
Women are supposed to produce eggs, and men are supposed to produce sperm. Any other talk of differing roles is bigoted crap.

[loinburger]

Mind you, I'm not saying that men and women are identical in every other aspect apart from genitalia. F'rinstance, some research indicates that men may have superior spatial reasoning abilities than women, and for all I know this may be the case. However, this doesn't mean that a woman should not have a "role" as, say, a cartographer -- it simply means that there are likely to be more male than female cartographers.

Maybe most men do have a predisposition to be "leaders" while most women do have a predisoposition to be "nurturers," using whatever definitions of "leader" and "nurturer". This doesn't mean that men have a pre-assigned role of "leader" while women have a pre-assigned god-given role of "nurturer" (again, using whatever definition of "leader" and "nurturer" that floats your boat), it just means that you're likely to find more men as leaders and more women as nurturers. ('Course, it's also possible that cultural biases have become so ingrained that a "predisposition" cannot be distinguished from a "conditioned response," but I'll assume for the sake of argument that there is some kind of predisposition at work here.)

[Kuciwalker]

This doesn't mean that men have a pre-assigned role of "leader" while women have a pre-assigned god-given role of "nurturer" (again, using whatever definition of "leader" and "nurturer" that floats your boat), it just means that you're likely to find more men as leaders and more women as nurturers.

A bad argument to use against religionists...

[loinburger]

I'm not aware of any arguments that work against dogmatists.

[Kuciwalker]

Touche.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by loinburger
Women are supposed to produce eggs, and men are supposed to produce sperm. Any other talk of differing roles is bigoted crap.

[mrmitchell]

Ben I have serious question! Are shemales authorized to be bishops!!!

[Kuciwalker]

Thinking about applying?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Many see my views as a promotion of inequality

They are.