|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I'm a feminazi. And so's my wife.
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
If a male priesthood is a genuine part of the order of creation, sexism has got nothing to do with it.
Yep. And if blacks really are inferior to whites, then racism has got nothing to do with it.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Turning God into the great Sexist in the Sky and choosing to believe that, doesn`t absolve all the little sexists. There are few attempts to treat some human beings as being more equal than others which haven`t been baptised at some point. Projecting the sexism onto the deity and then pretending your hands are tied and you no longer have to consider the justice or injustice of what you do is a cop-out, and the same one that the Pharisees took. "Don't bother me with all that shit about justice and treating others the same as myself, I've read the law, if God wanted those people treated decently he wouldn't have ordained them to be poor or Samaritan or whatever, they`d be nice middle class Jewish blokes like us who uphold tradition and then we could treat them nicely like ourselves!`
God must surely stand convicted on that one because if he had wanted total equality one assumes he would not have created two sexes in the first place and then left one lot stuck with doing all the childbirth and the queue for the ladies' loo.
[ 03. January 2013, 09:16: Message edited by: aumbry ]
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
A while ago, a man of my acquaintance was describing a woman who was running for Speaker of the House I'm now serving in. He said she was "pushy" and "schoolmarmish" and I should vote for the guy running against her. I didn't realize until days later that I had automatically translated his comments into "She's assertive and knows what she's talking about."
I'm gonna go for glass-half- full and love this story. Good subconcious recovery ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Turning God into the great Sexist in the Sky and choosing to believe that, doesn`t absolve all the little sexists. There are few attempts to treat some human beings as being more equal than others which haven`t been baptised at some point. Projecting the sexism onto the deity and then pretending your hands are tied and you no longer have to consider the justice or injustice of what you do is a cop-out, and the same one that the Pharisees took. "Don't bother me with all that shit about justice and treating others the same as myself, I've read the law, if God wanted those people treated decently he wouldn't have ordained them to be poor or Samaritan or whatever, they`d be nice middle class Jewish blokes like us who uphold tradition and then we could treat them nicely like ourselves!`
God must surely stand convicted on that one because if he had wanted total equality one assumes he would not have created two sexes in the first place and then left one lot stuck with doing all the childbirth and the queue for the ladies' loo.
Yeah He should have made us all the same. Duh.
We are always going to find ways to hate and fear women, black, gay, fat, ginger, Anglo Catholic, whatever. It is not about how different He made us but our wilful ability to not heed the Word made flesh.
Shame on your poor ill thought out theology.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Oh so great, now you're turning on your own side.
What? Bloody hell, DS. Sides?
Are you genuinely expecting me to agree to your clearly deeply ingrained sexism, simply and solely on the basis that we're both men?
Fuck. Off.
I have two children. One is a boy. One is a girl. Basic human decency insists that I want the very best for both of them, that as an adult and a parent I encourage them both to fulfil their very different potentials, and that I work towards a society that will enable them to do exactly that and not have artificial barriers of class, race, sex, or wealth placed in front of them.
You, on the other hand, appear to be suggesting that I should be content with a situation where the opportunities for my daughter are restricted, where they are unrestricted for my son. I am most certainly not content with that.
The good news is is that it's not too late to join me. The bad news is that until you do, you are part of the problem.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
If a male priesthood is a genuine part of the order of creation, sexism has got nothing to do with it.
Yep. And if blacks really are inferior to whites, then racism has got nothing to do with it.
It's a good thing he didn't, isn't it!
... and if you meet someone who believes otherwise, show them why they're wrong, don't just chant 'racist' at them.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
God must surely stand convicted on that one because if he had wanted total equality one assumes he would not have created two sexes in the first place and then left one lot stuck with doing all the childbirth and the queue for the ladies' loo.
Asexual reproduction does not lend itself to adaptability should the environment change. The need for sexual reproduction (and thus sexes) does not in itself mean either sex is superior or inferior to the other.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Oh so great, now you're turning on your own side.
What? Bloody hell, DS. Sides?
Are you genuinely expecting me to agree to your clearly deeply ingrained sexism, simply and solely on the basis that we're both men?
Fuck. Off.
I have two children. One is a boy. One is a girl. Basic human decency insists that I want the very best for both of them, that as an adult and a parent I encourage them both to fulfil their very different potentials, and that I work towards a society that will enable them to do exactly that and not have artificial barriers of class, race, sex, or wealth placed in front of them.
You, on the other hand, appear to be suggesting that I should be content with a situation where the opportunities for my daughter are restricted, where they are unrestricted for my son. I am most certainly not content with that.
The good news is is that it's not too late to join me. The bad news is that until you do, you are part of the problem.
Jesus, that's beautiful.
And I am so on board with the "fuck sides" brigade.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Oh so great, now you're turning on your own side.
What? Bloody hell, DS. Sides?
Are you genuinely expecting me to agree to your clearly deeply ingrained sexism, simply and solely on the basis that we're both men?
Doc, you missed my first post. Here it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
... and I'm pro CoW.
Much as it must be comforting for you to use these supposed 'sexists' as an group you can hate, I'd appreciate it if in future you take the trouble to read what I've written.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
... and if you meet someone who believes otherwise, show them why they're wrong, don't just chant 'racist' at them.
You know, sometimes you just want to be able to get through life without all this bullshit, and without having an obligation to educate the bigots you come across. I want people to treat me as an equal to men, and if they don't want to do that, I want them to fuck off. I do not want to have to put in the effort of sitting them down and giving them a presentation on the flaws in their thinking - a presentation which will probably only result in abuse and condescension from them. Not being a racist sexist homophobic fuckwad is not some kind of elite educational achievement - it's a minimum standard for decent human being. The information on why they're wrong is out there for them to find. I'm not going to hold their grimy hands through it.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
God must surely stand convicted on that one because if he had wanted total equality one assumes he would not have created two sexes in the first place and then left one lot stuck with doing all the childbirth and the queue for the ladies' loo.
Very anthropocentric of you. I have two responses. The first is seahorses. The second is spiders.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
God must surely stand convicted on that one because if he had wanted total equality one assumes he would not have created two sexes in the first place and then left one lot stuck with doing all the childbirth and the queue for the ladies' loo.
Asexual reproduction does not lend itself to adaptability should the environment change. The need for sexual reproduction (and thus sexes) does not in itself mean either sex is superior or inferior to the other.
Obviously when your brain evolved it omitted the part that senses the "tongue in cheek" !
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Or maybe it wasn't all that funny.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Ach, it's an old game. Say something silly, someone responds, respond with "ha ha you're so stupid you didn't spot I was joking" as if not being fucking psychic is some kind of character flaw..
Been there.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ach, it's an old game. Say something silly, someone responds, respond with "ha ha you're so stupid you didn't spot I was joking" as if not being fucking psychic is some kind of character flaw..
Been there.
I would have thought the point about the queue for the ladies' loo would have flagged that this was not serious but clearly this was far too subtle.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ach, it's an old game. Say something silly, someone responds, respond with "ha ha you're so stupid you didn't spot I was joking" as if not being fucking psychic is some kind of character flaw..
Been there.
I would have thought the point about the queue for the ladies' loo would have flagged that this was not serious but clearly this was far too subtle.
^^^^ aaaaaaaaaand by means of illustration...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It was with a hearty "fuck off" and showing them they were completely and utterly wrong.
We've done all the Bible bits a gazillion times. They are unconvinceable. Fine. Get out of the fucking way, misogynist shits and their enablers.
Which would be where ES's use of the word comes in...
Those against The CoW are not just people with some entrenched social prejudice, if it were I would be calling foul, they are people who in all good conscience cannot marry up their religious beliefs with the CoW... this is not some secular argument (something which has annoyed me completely about both the CoW and gays in the Church - arguments in the for camp have mainly revolved around secular points rather than theological)...
To blithely label them mysoginists and tell them to 'fuck off' is the very negativity that the pro-CoW side should be avoiding as it does little to win over those you just write off, nor dies it do anything for those of us who fully support CoW but want to see theological based provision made... it just makes you seem like unloving tyrants...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
That. Exactly that.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... this is not some secular argument (something which has annoyed me completely about both the CoW and gays in the Church - arguments in the for camp have mainly revolved around secular points rather than theological)...
That depends on your theology. If your theology is sola scriptura (or close to that) then you will be in one camp, but if it is not, then your interpretation of scripture will be different. It won't be secular (unless you want to use secular as a pejorative), but the outcome of your doctrine will be derived from a different theology and give different results.
Doh!
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
That depends on your theology. If your theology is sola scriptura (or close to that) then you will be in one camp, but if it is not, then your interpretation of scripture will be different. It won't be secular (unless you want to use secular as a pejorative), but the outcome of your doctrine will be derived from a different theology and give different results.
Doh!
If there was only such the clear dividing line you imagine.
to give one example (which I have heard out of the mouths of 'babes' so to say) runs along the lines of women can be doctors, judges, Prime Mininster's etc. etc. in society they must be allowed to be Bishops in the Church as the equivelant position, it is not grounded in a theological pov whatever foundational sources, they are purely secular arguments that seek to use non-Christian-theological (for want of a better word 'secular') philosophy to justify a position which really requires serious and sound theological argument.
I do come to have different theological opinions to my sola scriptura friends, beacuse I use other factors in my theological reasoning, but that doesn't mean that all pov around a theological issue have theological arguments behind them.
Doh!
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
to give one example (which I have heard out of the mouths of 'babes' so to say) runs along the lines of women can be doctors, judges, Prime Mininster's etc. etc. in society they must be allowed to be Bishops in the Church as the equivelant position
Is that actually the argument, though? One would think that such an argument runs more like this:
Men get ordained for priesthood and women do too. Out of the ranks of this priesthood, some qualified individuals are raised to the position of bishops; therefore, an important qualification for becoming a bishop is first having been a priest. Why would an insititution which recognizes the gifts and callings of two sexes automatically exclude one set of these from the bishopric (is that the term?) Gifts remain gifts. Callings remain callings. Are these so plentiful that God's people (forgive me, but *cough*) can afford to toss roughly half of these overboard?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Those against The CoW are not just people with some entrenched social prejudice, if it were I would be calling foul, they are people who in all good conscience cannot marry up their religious beliefs with the CoW... this is not some secular argument (something which has annoyed me completely about both the CoW and gays in the Church - arguments in the for camp have mainly revolved around secular points rather than theological)...
Being a sincere misogynist who truly believes women are the inferiors of men does not make you not a misogynist. "Bull" Connor sincerely believed in white supremacy "in good conscience", but that doesn't make him a less hateful person.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Is that actually the argument, though? One would think that such an argument runs more like this:
Men get ordained for priesthood and women do too. Out of the ranks of this priesthood, some qualified individuals are raised to the position of bishops; therefore, an important qualification for becoming a bishop is first having been a priest. Why would an insititution which recognizes the gifts and callings of two sexes automatically exclude one set of these from the bishopric (is that the term?) Gifts remain gifts. Callings remain callings. Are these so plentiful that God's people (forgive me, but *cough*) can afford to toss roughly half of these overboard?
It is not the sole argument, but one that is likely to come out of people's mouths either first of all or eventually somewhere in the argument amongst others, everyone will have a different argument that they have heard, I was just pointing to one that I have heard time and time again.
As I make perfectly clear I am in favour of the OoW and the CoW (in reality to me the former means the arguments against the latter are redundant but that is not the reasons I have) but since many who are opposed to the CoW are still oppposed to the OoW your question is a little redundant as they do not recognise women Ordained to the Priesthood let alone Consecrated to the Episcopate.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
It is misogyny because it is taking a secondary and at best unclear issue and placing above the primary and clear tenets of our faith. It is a immature argument that wants everything to be about this issue. Its immaturity and single mindedness speak of a fear that has its roots in the same place that all bigotries do. A place that we as Christians are called to disavow. We are called to “side” with the little, the lost, the last and the least. Not to carry on the tradition of heaping improbable shit on them.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Being a sincere misogynist who truly believes women are the inferiors of men does not make you not a misogynist.
And pray, show me where I have ever said such?
All I am pointing out, and evidently it is a point ill-grasped in your tyranny of equality, is that those who cannot in all good faith and conscience accept the O/CoW and marry it to their theological beliefs do so from some theological point of view rather than some misogyny, or there are an awful lot of women out there who are mysogynistic/sexists who truly believe they are inferier to men and do not have careers but stay at home making house and keeping the kids (not a situation I recognise the women opposed to the O/CoW fit into in, nor probably does it fit into anyones experience).
Just try and imagine a situation where you could not in all good conscience accept something that was being done for equality (I don't know, dogs should be Consecrated because the majority of the Church has come to the revelation that human and non-human animals are equally created and have the God given calling to the Episcopate) your opposition on theological grounds is not based in some broad bias against animals, and your opposition does not make you a dominianist nor an animal-abuser, you just happen to ahve a theological objection, would you not want some sort of safeguard for your theological integrity?
Get some empathy and try to understand the other side instead of blanket-labeling them misogynists and effectively saying they are using some smoke-screen theology for their institutional and social misogyny...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
We are called to “side” with the little, the lost, the last and the least. Not to carry on the tradition of heaping improbable shit on them.
How the lives of women are seriously disadvantaged by their lack of Consecration I am not entirely sure, it's not as if those in the against camp are arguing that women be stoned and faced by a fine if they dare open their mouths and mention anything on the topic.
People who hold beliefs with deep integrity and faith deserve the right to have their beliefs safeguarded, they are not holding some view that has been heretical for 2,000 years, and the safeguards were assured to them by the powers that be...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
What about the many Christians who in good conscience believed that slavery was not only right, but God-ordained? They weren't told "we respect your beliefs and will introduce alternative oversight so you can go on believing that slavery is perfectly right and proper", they were told "your beliefs are wrong". And rightly so.
Just as the racism of the past had to be fought head on back then, so the misogyny of the past needs to be fought head on now. The fact that the misogynists have had over two thousand years to come up with reasonably theological-sounding rationales for their beliefs doesn't change anything, and neither does the fact that some modern people actually believe those rationales without subscribing to the underlying misogyny that first created them.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
... and if you meet someone who believes otherwise, show them why they're wrong, don't just chant 'racist' at them.
So what's the politically correct term for racist? "Racist" used to be a perfectly nice word, like faggot or pickaninny or feminazi, but now the uppity racists get all offended and hysterical when they are called racists. They would prefer to be called ... what would racists prefer to be called? Equality challenged? Empathically disordered? Can-dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it-ists? Privileged whiners?
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
All I am pointing out, and evidently it is a point ill-grasped in your tyranny of equality, is that those who cannot in all good faith and conscience accept the O/CoW and marry it to their theological beliefs do so from some theological point of view rather than some misogyny ...
I'm simply pointing out that it's not an either/or situation, it's very often a both/and. Just because someone sincerely believes that God made women inferior to men doesn't make that opinion not sexist. "It's my religion" is not a blanket argument that automagically dispels any bigotry. The administrators at Bob Jones University deeply and sincerely believed that God had commanded them to keep the races segregated. The fact that this was a deeply and sincerely held theological belief doesn't somehow make that position non-racist, though.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
How the lives of women are seriously disadvantaged by their lack of Consecration I am not entirely sure, it's not as if those in the against camp are arguing that women be stoned and faced by a fine if they dare open their mouths and mention anything on the topic.
How the lives of women are seriously disadvantaged by not being allowed into universities, become a doctor, lawyer, MP, sit in the House of Lords, own property, choose who they marry, vote, complain about marital rape, get paid the same as men for the same job, I am not entirely sure, it's not as if those in the against camp are arguing that women be stoned and faced by a fine if they dare open their mouths and mention anything on the topic.
Your prejudices are showing. You might want to cover up.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
... and if you meet someone who believes otherwise, show them why they're wrong, don't just chant 'racist' at them.
So what's the politically correct term for racist? "Racist" used to be a perfectly nice word, like faggot or pickaninny or feminazi, but now the uppity racists get all offended and hysterical when they are called racists. They would prefer to be called ... what would racists prefer to be called? Equality challenged? Empathically disordered? Can-dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it-ists? Privileged whiners?
I believe the term currently in fashion with the white supremacist set is "racial realist". It sort of parallels the argument here about how those working from an assumption of female inferiority aren't really sexists because God really did create women as lesser beings than men. (Or maybe it's not from Creation but rather the Fall. I can never keep these superstition straight.) At any rate, the "racial realist" argues that he (or she) isn't a racist because he (or she) doesn't hate other races, he (or she) just has a "realistic" view of the inherent and obvious inferiority of all races when compared with his (or her) own.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... Get some empathy and try to understand the other side instead of blanket-labeling them misogynists and effectively saying they are using some smoke-screen theology for their institutional and social misogyny...
Oh, fuck, and now the misogynists are also offended and hysterical because they've been called misogynists. What would they prefer to be called? MCPs? Dinosaurs? Dickheads? The-altar-is-a-no-girls-allowed-treehouse priesthood? Poor babies. They don't like being called misogynists.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just to remember:
- Actual Nazis: Engaged in a twelve year reign of terror, murdered their political opponents, waged wars of aggression, and brought the processes of industrialization to human extermination.
- Feminazis: Want women to be regarded as fully human and equal members of society.
What he said.
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
...something which has annoyed me completely about both the CoW and gays in the Church - arguments in the for camp have mainly revolved around secular points rather than theological...
From where I'm standing our theological points have been ignored by the anti-women campaigners who continually bleat that we are driven by nothing by some current secular fashion. But that horse is dead.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
It is misogyny because it is taking a secondary and at best unclear issue and placing above the primary and clear tenets of our faith. It is a immature argument that wants everything to be about this issue. Its immaturity and single mindedness speak of a fear that has its roots in the same place that all bigotries do. A place that we as Christians are called to disavow. We are called to “side” with the little, the lost, the last and the least. Not to carry on the tradition of heaping improbable shit on them.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
This.
If one is going to claim to follow a path, one should read the guidebook entire.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
]How the lives of women are seriously disadvantaged by not being allowed into universities, become a doctor, lawyer, MP, sit in the House of Lords, own property, choose who they marry, vote, complain about marital rape, get paid the same as men for the same job, I am not entirely sure, it's not as if those in the against camp are arguing that women be stoned and faced by a fine if they dare open their mouths and mention anything on the topic.
Your prejudices are showing. You might want to cover up.
Gosh, aren't you clever! Let me shake in my boots at the your over whelming intellectual ability to continue to miss the point and to continue to advance a secular argument...
If Doctors and MPs had an Ordained mininstry in the church then I could see the point of you changing a few words and quoting them back at me, but then hey ho it's easier to try and score easy points than actually think.
And as for my prejudices, how many times does a person have to say a point and act accordingly to that point in the real world before someone might well realise that they are trying to ascribe a pov to someone on whom it does not fit... my only interest in this argument is protecting those who have a theologically grounded belief that women cannot and should not be ordained or consecrated from the tyranny of the likes of you.
Your amazing ability to negatively link the ideas of the inferiority of women to those who cannot theologically accept that God has said it is ok for women to be Ordained and Consecrated is negative campaigining at it's finest, and I salute you for it... Do you work in politics?
As for slavery, that was as much a humanist as a religious matter and not concerned with the governance of the Church so I don't see how it is entirely relevant, somewhat akin to women getting the vote in GE's I think...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... my only interest in this argument is protecting those who have a theologically grounded belief that women cannot and should not be ordained or consecrated from the tyranny of the likes of you.
Your amazing ability to negatively link the ideas of the inferiority of women to those who cannot theologically accept that God has said it is ok for women to be Ordained and Consecrated is negative campaigining at it's finest, and I salute you for it... Do you work in politics?
Still waiting for an explanation about how a theological position that women are inferior is all that different than holding that position for any other reason.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Gosh, aren't you clever! Let me shake in my boots at the your over whelming intellectual ability to continue to miss the point and to continue to advance a secular argument...
Yes. I am clever. Clever enough not to have a completely tin ear when it comes to history.
Firstly, your argument as to why women cannot be bishops is exactly the same as to why women couldn't be doctors, MPs, go to university, own property etc etc - they were theologically incapable of handling the responsibility and had to be, at all times, subordinate to men. You see, back in the past, the sacred had a great deal more influence over the secular, and informed both law and practice. Sorry if you didn't realise, but I think you actually did, and you chose to be an arse about it instead.
Secondly, you see no reason why a woman would be disadvantaged in not becoming a bishop, and then compare it against being stoned? That there is exactly the reason why women are disadvantaged. "Didn't get the job? Don't worry, love, at least you're not being buried up to your neck and then battered by lumps of rock until you die."
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... my only interest in this argument is protecting those who have a theologically grounded belief that women cannot and should not be ordained or consecrated from the tyranny of the likes of you.
Your amazing ability to negatively link the ideas of the inferiority of women to those who cannot theologically accept that God has said it is ok for women to be Ordained and Consecrated is negative campaigining at it's finest, and I salute you for it... Do you work in politics?
Still waiting for an explanation about how a theological position that women are inferior is all that different than holding that position for any other reason.
The theological argumkent is not that they are inferior but that God has set a structure for Church governance and spiritual oversight in place...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
We are called to “side” with the little, the lost, the last and the least. Not to carry on the tradition of heaping improbable shit on them.
How the lives of women are seriously disadvantaged by their lack of Consecration I am not entirely sure, it's not as if those in the against camp are arguing that women be stoned and faced by a fine if they dare open their mouths and mention anything on the topic.
People who hold beliefs with deep integrity and faith deserve the right to have their beliefs safeguarded, they are not holding some view that has been heretical for 2,000 years, and the safeguards were assured to them by the powers that be...
I am tempted to retort that if you cannot see then I can not explain. But (one more time) I will try to explain something to someone who does not want it explained to them. Two points:
Firstly it is inherently unfair to have the leadership of the church all male and have it make decisions on the future direction of mission, deployment of stipendiary clergy and preferment without a female perspective. In the best of cases it will lead to blind spots and in the worst the old boys network will just keep those “poor little women” in their proper place.
Secondly one cannot be a little a little bit or even mostly committed to this justice issue. It is either right or wrong. You can either have women and men equal in all areas and opportunities or not. Your attempt to question what damage not consecrating women to the episcopacy is only valid if you are either a women or committed to their consecration. You are neither, therefore your argument is little more than another paper tiger designed to delay and discredit. Another stumbling block on already too rocky road. Another shameful, fear driven distraction in a line of delays and distractions that crosses too easily into violence and leads all the way directly back to stoning.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... my only interest in this argument is protecting those who have a theologically grounded belief that women cannot and should not be ordained or consecrated from the tyranny of the likes of you.
I'm not actually a member of the church/denomination in which this, erm, struggle is taking place. Could you perhaps provide an outsider with a couple of concrete instances or examples of how this tyranny gets expressed in real-world terms, and of the sufferings it has caused these poor, oppressed individuals?
Should we be lumping these downtrodden folk with Pyx_e's "little and least" people?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The theological argumkent is not that they are inferior but that God has set a structure for Church governance and spiritual oversight in place...
Po-ta-to, po-tah-to.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So what's the politically correct term for racist? "Racist" used to be a perfectly nice word, like faggot or pickaninny or feminazi, but now the uppity racists get all offended and hysterical when they are called racists. They would prefer to be called ... what would racists prefer to be called? Equality challenged? Empathically disordered? Can-dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it-ists? Privileged whiners?
Quotes file.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Still waiting for an explanation about how a theological position that women are inferior is all that different than holding that position for any other reason.
The theological argumkent is not that they are inferior but that God has set a structure for Church governance and spiritual oversight in place...
Right. Not "inferior", just unfit to serve God or exercise power in the Church. Remind me again how that's not inferior?
It sounds kind of like the Mormon ban on black priesthood prior to 1978. Not really racist, because God!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Firstly it is inherently unfair to have the leadership of the church all male and have it make decisions on the future direction of mission, deployment of stipendiary clergy and preferment without a female perspective. In the best of cases it will lead to blind spots and in the worst the old boys network will just keep those “poor little women” in their proper place.
Not to give aid and comfort to the enemy or anything, but who said life was fair?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Not to give aid and comfort to the enemy or anything, but who said life was fair?
You are right, no one. Just call me a romantic fool for wishing it so.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Should we be lumping these downtrodden folk with Pyx_e's "little and least" people?
Yeah, poor little ones being thrown out, not allowed to worship how they like, having their orders withdrawn, being FORCED to get on with mission, prayer and worship and not waste endless hours on a done deal .......... opps sorry.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
All I am pointing out, and evidently it is a point ill-grasped in your tyranny of equality,
Missed this earlier.
Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s "Harrison Bergeron" notwithstanding, I'm curious how you see this "tyranny of equality" playing out in the church. How precisely does including people with vaginas and breasts in church governance hamper and disadvantage the performance of those with testicles and penises?
After all, the "tyranny" you're referring to is apparently, in your view, human-imposed rather than God-imposed, and is a Very Bad Thing. Tyranny is well-known to produce assorted evils. Can you name a few evils we can hang this one for?
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Just try and imagine a situation where you could not in all good conscience accept something that was being done for equality (I don't know, dogs should be Consecrated because the majority of the Church has come to the revelation that human and non-human animals are equally created and have the God given calling to the Episcopate)
your opposition on theological grounds is not based in some broad bias against animals, and your opposition does not make you a dominianist nor an animal-abuser, you just happen to ahve a theological objection, would you not want some sort of safeguard for your theological integrity?
Get some empathy and try to understand the other side instead of blanket-labeling them misogynists and effectively saying they are using some smoke-screen theology for their institutional and social misogyny...
*Takes a deep breath"
If we weren't already in Hell, I'd call you there on the basis of this.
Are you seriously trying to claim that people willing to compare women hoping to participate in church governance with ambitious dogs should not be labeled "misogynist" because of the sincerity with which they make the comparison?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... my only interest in this argument is protecting those who have a theologically grounded belief that women cannot and should not be ordained or consecrated from the tyranny of the likes of you.
Your amazing ability to negatively link the ideas of the inferiority of women to those who cannot theologically accept that God has said it is ok for women to be Ordained and Consecrated is negative campaigining at it's finest, and I salute you for it... Do you work in politics?
Still waiting for an explanation about how a theological position that women are inferior is all that different than holding that position for any other reason.
The theological argumkent is not that they are inferior but that God has set a structure for Church governance and spiritual oversight in place...
In other words, "Separate but different".
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starbug
Shipmate
# 15917
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
You know, sometimes you just want to be able to get through life without all this bullshit, and without having an obligation to educate the bigots you come across. I want people to treat me as an equal to men, and if they don't want to do that, I want them to fuck off. I do not want to have to put in the effort of sitting them down and giving them a presentation on the flaws in their thinking - a presentation which will probably only result in abuse and condescension from them. Not being a racist sexist homophobic fuckwad is not some kind of elite educational achievement - it's a minimum standard for decent human being. The information on why they're wrong is out there for them to find. I'm not going to hold their grimy hands through it. ]
Oh, and Sergius-Melli, comparing women to dogs? Seriously, you really want to do this? Fucking hell.
--------------------
“Oh the pointing again. They're screwdrivers! What are you going to do? Assemble a cabinet at them?” ― The Day of the Doctor
Posts: 1189 | From: West of the New Forest | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not to give aid and comfort to the enemy or anything, but who said life was fair?
You're right. Life is not fair.
It's "life," not assholes, who abandon the women they impregnate.
It’s “life,” not assholes, who harass female employees and then fire them for being so attractive.
And it’s “life,” not assholes, who rule from the bench that this is perfectly okay.
It’s “life,” not assholes, who rape, beat, and murder a female bus passenger because they feel like it, figure they can get away with it, and what the hell, it's just another woman, so who cares?
It’s “life,” not assholes, who turn in the current wife for a newer model because the original “let herself go.”
It’s “life,” not assholes, who give jobs to less-qualified men because “women just get married or pregnant and leave.”
It’s “life,” not assholes, who hassle women on the street because “They’re asking for it” – even though said women are just trying to get from subway/bus stop to their jobs.
It’s “life,” not assholes, who label single-dad households as “needing support,” but single-mom households as “broken homes.”
It’s “life,” not assholes, who pay female breadwinners less than men because “men have to support families.”
It’s “life,” not assholes, who “protect” strong, sturdy, willing women from “heavy” (i.e. higher-paying) work, because they might hurt their widdoo selves (and they’re obviously too dumb to figure this out on their own).
And on and on.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
