Hello everybody

[Ben Kenobi]

It's your interpretation (and others that have everything to gain through that interpretation).

Interesting. So if I asked Stephen Hawking about a "Brief History of Time", you would find his interpretation to be incisive?

you didn't answer that

You didn't answer my question first. I'm not answering you second. Hey, you started the trend of not answering, so I'm happy to not answer just as long as you.

[Jon Miller]

Smaller than the biological differences between men and women that I discounted? Fundamentally a person is not defined by their biology.

I follow Aristotle more than Plato.

I don't think that a person exists independent of their biology, and I don't think that a person is only their biology.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

This is my real objection to BK. The caveman views I can work with. The passive-aggressiveness is obnoxious, but it could be worse. But his persistent bad faith--the way he doesn't even seem to care about truth or falsehood, just "conducive to supporting my beliefs" and "conducive to rejecting my beliefs"--makes it pointless to argue with him. We all do it to a very small extent, but he goes whole hog.

Well, I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion. Sorry to hear that you aren't. You've had some good commentary and I appreciate it you being here.

[Elok]

It does because the way you make societal change is to acknowledge that there's a problem. And considering the huge change in societal role of women in the last century as their equality has been acknowledged I don't think you can make the case that society isn't going to change significantly.

? I wasn't referring to anything related to gender roles. I was thinking more of things like the way women tend to discuss many subjects shallowly in rapid succession, while men often prefer to handle a few subjects in depth when they talk (or so I've read--admittedly, I only read pop-science rubbish, not peer-reviewed journal articles). If that's socially ingrained, how exactly do we go about changing it? And why should we bother?

[Lorizael]

There are obvious differences between men and women, whether they are genetic, environmental, societal, etc. And it's interesting to study those differences, their origins, and what they mean about the human condition. Regardless, those differences, whether minor or major, shouldn't matter. All humans should be allowed to be whoever they want to be, without concern for whatever a particular type of human, may, on average, be "better" at.

[MikeH]

So if I were to cite a source that showed that black students do not do as well as white students that would make me racist?

If your conclusion was "they don't do as well as white students because they are fundamentally different." then yes, of course.

What if I also cited a source showing that women are less likely to work full time after they had children, that would make me sexist?

Again, it depends what your conclusion is. Men are also less likely to work full time after they have children, but the difference is smaller because societally women take on board the majority of the childcare. If you ignore that for your own ends then yes. As we change our maternity/paternity laws here to make them more equal so men have the same rights as women we're seeing that slowly start to even out.

There are fundamental differences between men and women, that have drastic effects on how they choose to live their lives. Ignoring them doesn't help anyone at all.

What are they?

That's the problem. You're going along saying that everyone should ignore the elephant in the room, and calling anyone who questions your presuppositions as 'racist', 'sexist', 'homophobic'.

These aren't my presuppositions they are the definitions of the terms.

[rah]

It's useless to argue with people with scriptures. They're often obscure and subject to different interpretations.
So I'll stop.

I'll just leave it that to not allow a women to be a priest just because she is a women is sexist by definition.
At this point I'll even concede that Ben can interpret scripture to allow him to say that it's GOD will. And to him it's a matter of faith.
So the final conclusion is that not only Ben is a sexist, but God is too.

[Jon Miller]

Racism is not the recognition of differences between people with varying genetics, rather it is prejudice based on this.

Sexism is not the recognition of differences between people with varying sex, rather it is prejudice based on this.

Homophobic is a bit different than the above, but it is not about recognizing or perceiving differences but about prejudice.

You can recognize difference, that is not 'ism'. It is when you have prejudice against another for that difference that you go the 'ism' route.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Observations of fact do not make you racist or sexist. However the conclusions you draw from certain facts may be sexist or racist.

And if someone were to say that he believed that people could have very different abilities, and still be considered to be equal, would that be considered a sexist or racist opinion?

I'm not saying that women can't do something, I'm just saying that women, as a whole, choose to do things differently. That's not to say that some women are not very different from other women, and same with the men. But I am saying that we can make valid empirical observations on the aggregate and draw from them conclusions.

We've been hearing for 50 years that these differences are entirely societal, and that if you change society that you'll change men and women. And yet, men do things one way, and women prefer to do things another way. Women, when they are employed, overwhelmingly prefer less risky occupations, prefer jobs that keep them closer to their families, prefer work with less travel then men.

My contention is even if we changed everything around, we'd still see these differences persist. 92 percent of workplace fatalities are men. Why is this? I don't see how you can even look at a statistic like that and say that men and women are the same. We're not talking 50 percent, or 60/40, but 50 years after the 'woman's liberation movement', that number hasn't budged an inch? Why? Because men overwhelmingly choose occupations with greater amounts of risk.

[Elok]

There are obvious differences between men and women, whether they are genetic, environmental, societal, etc. And it's interesting to study those differences, their origins, and what they mean about the human condition. Regardless, those differences, whether minor or major, shouldn't matter. All humans should be allowed to be whoever they want to be, without concern for whatever a particular type of human, may, on average, be "better" at.

Provided they're competent at the job, of course. Now, with that said, my church doesn't allow female priests either--but I've never heard of even the beginning of a discussion to change that. If anyone did bring it up, I imagine the reaction would be prolonged head-scratching, followed by a dismissive shrug. The closest we've come is a suggestion that we revive the practice of deaconesses, which may very well happen shortly before I die of old age. Not out of strong opposition (though there may be some), just because we change VERY slowly. If at all. And any change has to be justified by exhaustive reference to patristics.

[rah]

Yes Ben, what are the differences that disqualify women from being priests? (without using scriptures please)

[Ben Kenobi]

It's useless to argue with people with scriptures. They're often obscure and subject to different interpretations.

Well, I beg to differ on that, I think we can obtain reliable knowledge through scripture, and I think that in discussing why the Church teaches what it does, requires discussion of scripture. Arguing that because there are differences that reliable information cannot be obtained is a terrible argument. Disagreement is how one obtains reliable information if you work with a dialectic. So it's not even vaguely a Christian argument.

I'll just leave it that to not allow a women to be a priest just because she is a women is sexist by definition.

Only if one believes that the contributions of the laity are less, by definition than the clergy. You are asserting here that the best, and only way to adequately serve God is to be a priest. Personally, I find that an amusing presupposition.

but God is too.

"he made them male and female". If we were meant to be the same, why were we made different?

[Lorizael]

Provided they're competent at the job, of course.

People should be allowed to do whatever they want to do. Whether they get paid to do it or are allowed to do it to other people is a whole different story.

[rah]

Only if one believes that the contributions of the laity are less, by definition than the clergy. You are asserting here that the best, and only way to adequately serve God is to be a priest. Personally, I find that an amusing presupposition.

I don't give a crap about who contributes what.

sex·ism   [sek-siz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2.
discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.


Women can not be priests because they are women. By definition, that is sexism.

[Jon Miller]

http://seekingliberty.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/racism-vs-prejudice-there-is-a-difference/

Here is some discussion of the difference between racism and prejudice.

There are a lot of things which can be related, and when we see something wrong due to them we like to (and need to) judge without full understanding (this is why prejudice is natural). But it is good to sometimes step back, and think, and recognize differences and acquire greater understanding.

JM