|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The trouble with girls
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm not aware of any similarly gender-related medical procedures/ meds that are up to the employer to decide whether or not to cover, leaving the employee's personal life and future very much dependent upon the whims/ personal beliefs of their employer.
Yes the same legal rights can have different impacts for different groups of people. There are no examples of men having legal rights not possessed by women in the west.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
There's a lot more to how women or minority groups are treated in a society than legal rights. This is reductionistic in the extreme.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There's a lot more to how women or minority groups are treated in a society than legal rights. This is reductionistic in the extreme.
Of course there is, I never said otherwise. A question was asked about legal rights and I answered it.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There's a lot more to how women or minority groups are treated in a society than legal rights. This is reductionistic in the extreme.
Of course there is, I never said otherwise. A question was asked about legal rights and I answered it.
Well, since the US Declaration of Independence contained the line "all men are created equal", we can all applaud the long and happy history of racial harmony in the USA.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
I notice that nobody is addressing my point about the backlash over the failure of the Church of England to agree women bishops in the famous 2012 vote.
The overwhelming majority view in politics in mainstream media and in popular culture was that the failure of the vote was wrong because it perpetuated sex discrimination against women and that such sex discrimination was immoral. That was and is the culturally dominant view in the UK. What is that if not feminism?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm not aware of any similarly gender-related medical procedures/ meds that are up to the employer to decide whether or not to cover, leaving the employee's personal life and future very much dependent upon the whims/ personal beliefs of their employer.
Yes the same legal rights can have different impacts for different groups of people. There are no examples of men having legal rights not possessed by women in the west.
I think we have just demonstrated that women do not have equal access to health care in the US. That's not different impact of the same legal rights-- men do not have the same employer-filtered limits that women have.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There's a lot more to how women or minority groups are treated in a society than legal rights. This is reductionistic in the extreme.
Of course there is, I never said otherwise. A question was asked about legal rights and I answered it.
Well, since the US Declaration of Independence contained the line "all men are created equal", we can all applaud the long and happy history of racial harmony in the USA.
Well no but since the hypocritical nonsense that is the US Declaration of Independence didn't actually given anyone any legal rights not relevant.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm not aware of any similarly gender-related medical procedures/ meds that are up to the employer to decide whether or not to cover, leaving the employee's personal life and future very much dependent upon the whims/ personal beliefs of their employer.
Yes the same legal rights can have different impacts for different groups of people. There are no examples of men having legal rights not possessed by women in the west.
I think we have just demonstrated that women do not have equal access to health care in the US. That's not different impact of the same legal rights-- men do not have the same employer-filtered limits that women have.
Yes they do. Men do not have the right to have contraception covered by their employer's health insurance any more than women do. The fact that this legal limitation has a greater impact on women than on men does not mean that the legal rights themselves are not the same for men and women.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I notice that nobody is addressing my point about the backlash over the failure of the Church of England to agree women bishops in the famous 2012 vote.
The overwhelming majority view in politics in mainstream media and in popular culture was that the failure of the vote was wrong because it perpetuated sex discrimination against women and that such sex discrimination was immoral. That was and is the culturally dominant view in the UK. What is that if not feminism?
OK, here's a point whose author admits it's a minority view.
But if we follow your logic, then you are also claiming that the Church of England is likewise a minority or subdominant or whatever-term-you-choose institution, as it has espoused a view counter to the "culturally dominant" one.
Here's what is escaping me: if feminism is so culturally dominant, how is it that this "culture" so consistently follows customs and mores, adheres to beliefs, votes for politicians & policies, and supports commercial practices, which are so out-of-step with feminist principles?
Is the 2012 bishops' vote rejecting women bishops not part of any culture?
--------------------
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
|
|
Mili
Shipmate
# 3254
|
Posted
This conversation just seems to be going round and round in circles.
I'm interested to know what your views on gender roles are, Bibliophile. Do you think we have reached equality and feminists should shut up and be happy with the way things are for women and men now? Or is there a need to continue to work towards are more equal society, despite your opinion that feminism is now dominant? Or do you think things have gone too far in the feminist direction and we should return to how things used to be or push for more power for the patriarchy?
Perhaps you have a different view altogether from those above.
Posts: 1015 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, since the US Declaration of Independence contained the line "all men are created equal", we can all applaud the long and happy history of racial harmony in the USA.
Well no but since the hypocritical nonsense that is the US Declaration of Independence didn't actually given anyone any legal rights not relevant.
As inconvenient to your argument this data point is, it still shows the wider truth. You can pass any law, state any declaration, or whatever, but if the will to enforce them remains weak, they remain nothing but fine-sounding words.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
This conversation just seems to be going round and round in circles.
I'm interested to know what your views on gender roles are, Bibliophile. Do you think we have reached equality and feminists should shut up and be happy with the way things are for women and men now? Or is there a need to continue to work towards are more equal society, despite your opinion that feminism is now dominant? Or do you think things have gone too far in the feminist direction and we should return to how things used to be or push for more power for the patriarchy?
Perhaps you have a different view altogether from those above.
I just can't see how feminism is compatible with scripture but there's no point in trying to 'push society' in the other direction. Society is moving in an unbiblical direction but that's to be expected in our fallen world.
You've listed three different points of view
1. Feminism has gone too far and society should move in the opposite direction.
2. Feminism has gone far enough and we have reached equality
3. Feminism has not gone far enough and we need to work towards a more equal society
I think that part of the problem with this thread is that there is different understandings of what constitutes 'feminism'. Most people on this thread seem to think that only 3. is feminism whilst 1. and 2. are anti-feminist. The point I've been trying to make is that both 2. and 3. are feminist points of view and only 1. is anti-feminist.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I just can't see how feminism is compatible with scripture but there's no point in trying to 'push society' in the other direction. Society is moving in an unbiblical direction but that's to be expected in our fallen world.
You've listed three different points of view
1. Feminism has gone too far and society should move in the opposite direction.
2. Feminism has gone far enough and we have reached equality
3. Feminism has not gone far enough and we need to work towards a more equal society
I think that part of the problem with this thread is that there is different understandings of what constitutes 'feminism'. Most people on this thread seem to think that only 3. is feminism whilst 1. and 2. are anti-feminist. The point I've been trying to make is that both 2. and 3. are feminist points of view and only 1. is anti-feminist.
Actually, none of the 3 above is feminism at all. They are positions taken about feminism.
"Feminism" is the idea that women and men, while different in some respects, are social, legal, political, cultural, intellectual, artistic, economic, and spiritual equals who should occupy equivalent positions in all those realms of human society. Some needs and concerns are specific to women; these should be addressed as fully and frequently as needs specific to men are. Feminine authority should be given respect equivalent to masculine authority.
You've been provided, on this thread, with numerous instances of situations where women are routinely and consistently treated less well than men, which runs counter to the core principle -- equality of the sexes -- of feminism, yet keep insisting that feminism is culturally dominant. How a culture which routinely abuses women and ignores both their rights and needs can be dominated by feminism you have yet to explain adequately. Is lip-service to an ideal equivalent, in your view, to actual, real-life practice?
As to feminism, how is it unbiblical? Did Jesus not include women in his circle? Did he not dine with women – a practice frowned upon in his society? Did he not allow the woman at the well to change his mind about whether his message was for Jews only, or for a wider audience? "Even the dogs under the table . . . "
To whom did Jesus first reveal his resurrected person? Hint: it wasn’t one of his male disciples. Given that Christ could presumably have arranged this encounter in whatever way he wished, isn’t this fact suggestive – especially alongside the fact that the men she communicated her experience to dismissed her news out-of-hand?
Did Paul, Christ’s post-resurrection disciple, not inform us that “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus?” Does that not suggest equality, and the erasure of false, empty, divinely-unjustifiable distinctions between / among human beings?
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Yes they do. Men do not have the right to have contraception covered by their employer's health insurance any more than women do. The fact that this legal limitation has a greater impact on women than on men does not mean that the legal rights themselves are not the same for men and women.
Total crap. You're saying that in any place where women have special needs, it's no reflection on the equality of the sexes if they're not met because men don't have those special needs (which they don't have, hee hee hee) met either. Fucking nonsense.
[ 24. June 2015, 03:19: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I just can't see how feminism is compatible with scripture
To paraphrase a famous commentary on the opening chapters of Genesis, Eve was created from the side of Adam - not from his feet to be ruled over, or from his head to rule over, but from his side to be his equal. Right from the very beginning ... the current social inequalities between men and women are a result of the Fall.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It is entirely possible, is it not, that societies pass equality legislation because they are against feminism, not for it. If those in power want to shut up those calling for a broad change, a good way to do it is to pass some legislation and then counter protests by pointing to it.
Let me give an example: the Indian government passed a law about manual scavenging in 1993. That is the practice of having low caste Dalits to clean latrines - it is essentially enslavement, extremely poorly paid and causing extreme social division.
In 2014 the law was significantly strengthened and the Indian Supreme Court upheld a case, indicating that the law should be enforced.
This is in a background of official condemnations of untouchability going back at least to the 1940s.
Even despite all this, there are still 1.2 million people working as manual scavengers, with the Indian Railways being the main problem. Human Rights Watch say the local government and politicians actively encourage the practice whilst at the same time supposedly working to outlaw it.
There are many examples of things that are socially acceptable to be said in public being the opposite of practice. This is not evidence of the dominance of any idea. Obviously.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Slavery is scriptural.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I notice that nobody is addressing my point about the backlash over the failure of the Church of England to agree women bishops in the famous 2012 vote.
The overwhelming majority view in politics in mainstream media and in popular culture was that the failure of the vote was wrong because it perpetuated sex discrimination against women and that such sex discrimination was immoral. That was and is the culturally dominant view in the UK. What is that if not feminism?
Nobody has bothered to respond because it is an utterly ridiculous position.
If the "dominant" majority view in politics was that politicians had the right to tell religious bodies in general how to behave, wouldn't we see comments about every religious body? When was the last time you heard a politician talk about gender practices in Islam or Judaism or Conservative Evangelical churches..? Answer: never.
With regard to the Anglican church, there are a complex bunch of additional pressures in play whereby politicans think they can somehow influence the way it is run because it is the "state church". That the PM thought he could pontificate, speaking on behalf of the country, shows more about him than about the country.
Anyone taking a moment to actually consider the religious make-up of the country would realise that a very significant minority (possibly even a majority) of believers of all kinds belong to religious groups with some kind of specified gender roles. Of the rest, the majority probably don't give a monkeys.
Hence your point is utter nonsense.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I notice that nobody is addressing my point about the backlash over the failure of the Church of England to agree women bishops in the famous 2012 vote.
The overwhelming majority view in politics in mainstream media and in popular culture was that the failure of the vote was wrong because it perpetuated sex discrimination against women and that such sex discrimination was immoral. That was and is the culturally dominant view in the UK. What is that if not feminism?
Nobody has bothered to respond because it is an utterly ridiculous position.
If the "dominant" majority view in politics was that politicians had the right to tell religious bodies in general how to behave, wouldn't we see comments about every religious body? When was the last time you heard a politician talk about gender practices in Islam or Judaism or Conservative Evangelical churches..? Answer: never.
With regard to the Anglican church, there are a complex bunch of additional pressures in play whereby politicans think they can somehow influence the way it is run because it is the "state church". That the PM thought he could pontificate, speaking on behalf of the country, shows more about him than about the country.
Anyone taking a moment to actually consider the religious make-up of the country would realise that a very significant minority (possibly even a majority) of believers of all kinds belong to religious groups with some kind of specified gender roles. Of the rest, the majority probably don't give a monkeys.
Hence your point is utter nonsense.
You've really missed my point. My point was not about why politicians and media felt more able, in the case of the Church of England, to intervene in an internal church argument. I fully get why a state church will be more commented on than other churches.
More point was not about why Cameron and others felt able to intervene in this argument. My point was about which side of the argument he chose to pontificate on. He and many other politicians all spoke out on the feminist side of the argument.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
More point was not about why Cameron and others felt able to intervene in this argument. My point was about which side of the argument he chose to pontificate on. He and many other politicians all spoke out on the feminist side of the argument.
But he did so in contrast to the argument of the established Church-- another dominant voice in the broader culture. So at best that tells us that the cultural position is mixed-- perhaps even approaching the midpoint on that "arc of history" that MLK alludes to. But certainly no where near the endpoint-- or there would have been no need for them to speak out.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Yes they do. Men do not have the right to have contraception covered by their employer's health insurance any more than women do. The fact that this legal limitation has a greater impact on women than on men does not mean that the legal rights themselves are not the same for men and women.
Total crap. You're saying that in any place where women have special needs, it's no reflection on the equality of the sexes if they're not met because men don't have those special needs (which they don't have, hee hee hee) met either. Fucking nonsense.
Its no reflection on legal equality no. That's not the same thing as economic equality but I was asked a question about legal equality and I answered it.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
More point was not about why Cameron and others felt able to intervene in this argument. My point was about which side of the argument he chose to pontificate on. He and many other politicians all spoke out on the feminist side of the argument.
OK, so he wants to look like he is supporting women priests. That doesn't make him a feminist for reasons already explained ad nauseum.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
" Men do not have the right to have access to sanitary products any more than women do. The fact that this legal limitation has a greater impact on women than on men does not mean that the legal rights themselves are not the same for men and women."
Fixed that quote for you, Bibliophile - now do you realise how ridiculous it sounds?
--------------------
"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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But he did so in contrast to the argument of the established Church-- another dominant voice in the broader culture. So at best that tells us that the cultural position is mixed-- perhaps even approaching the midpoint on that "arc of history" that MLK alludes to. But certainly no where near the endpoint-- or there would have been no need for them to speak out.
Right, and this is even to assume that all feminists/women believe that women-becoming-bishops is a desirable outcome of history.
I am sure many do, but then I would think it entirely possible for someone to be a feminist and believe that there are gender roles in religion.
Also, as I indicated above, clearly David Cameron - and the country in general - cares little about women's equality in senior religious roles, or he'd be constantly talking about all religions which have gender roles.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Cameron may support equality for women, but the political system is still heavily male. I think about 30% of MPs are women, and about 30% of the cabinet, including one senior minister, Theresa May (Home Secretary).
Also, about half the cabinet went to public schools, and about half to Oxbridge.
Well, if this is the dominance of feminism, I'd hate to see its failure.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I just can't see how feminism is compatible with scripture but there's no point in trying to 'push society' in the other direction. Society is moving in an unbiblical direction but that's to be expected in our fallen world.
You've listed three different points of view
1. Feminism has gone too far and society should move in the opposite direction.
2. Feminism has gone far enough and we have reached equality
3. Feminism has not gone far enough and we need to work towards a more equal society
I think that part of the problem with this thread is that there is different understandings of what constitutes 'feminism'. Most people on this thread seem to think that only 3. is feminism whilst 1. and 2. are anti-feminist. The point I've been trying to make is that both 2. and 3. are feminist points of view and only 1. is anti-feminist.
Actually, none of the 3 above is feminism at all. They are positions taken about feminism.
"Feminism" is the idea that women and men, while different in some respects, are social, legal, political, cultural, intellectual, artistic, economic, and spiritual equals who should occupy equivalent positions in all those realms of human society. Some needs and concerns are specific to women; these should be addressed as fully and frequently as needs specific to men are. Feminine authority should be given respect equivalent to masculine authority.
You've been provided, on this thread, with numerous instances of situations where women are routinely and consistently treated less well than men, which runs counter to the core principle -- equality of the sexes -- of feminism, yet keep insisting that feminism is culturally dominant. How a culture which routinely abuses women and ignores both their rights and needs can be dominated by feminism you have yet to explain adequately. Is lip-service to an ideal equivalent, in your view, to actual, real-life practice?
Well that's quite an extensive definition of feminism. Legal equality is the easy bit to achieve. Cultural, intellectual, economic etc equality are far more difficult to achieve between groups that are different and tend to make different choices. Those different choices by themselves when combined with legal equality will result in economic inequality.
The biggest 'example' of sexism that has been presented in this thread is the 'wage gap' between men and women however its already been established that most of this 'gap' is produced by different choices made by men and women not by sexism. I have to ask do you see every 'pay gap' between different social groups in society being the result of discrimination?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Cameron may support equality for women, but the political system is still heavily male. I think about 30% of MPs are women, and about 30% of the cabinet, including one senior minister, Theresa May (Home Secretary).
Also, about half the cabinet went to public schools, and about half to Oxbridge.
Well, if this is the dominance of feminism, I'd hate to see its failure.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
As I keep saying over and over again feminist dominance is not the same thing as female dominance. There may only be one senior minister who is a woman but every senior minister is a feminist. I give the example once again of the 2012 House of Bishops, a body that was entirely male and a body where the huge majority of members were feminists.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The biggest 'example' of sexism that has been presented in this thread is the 'wage gap' between men and women however its already been established that most of this 'gap' is produced by different choices made by men and women not by sexism.
This has been asserted by you, not established.
quote:
As I keep saying over and over again feminist dominance is not the same thing as female dominance. There may only be one senior minister who is a woman but every senior minister is a feminist. I give the example once again of the 2012 House of Bishops, a body that was entirely male and a body where the huge majority of members were feminists.
And as almost everyone else says, we don't accept your definition of feminism.
Or dominance. Or even "established".
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I get it now, the feminists just happen to prefer to have men in commanding roles. Makes sense!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
" Men do not have the right to have access to sanitary products any more than women do. The fact that this legal limitation has a greater impact on women than on men does not mean that the legal rights themselves are not the same for men and women."
Fixed that quote for you, Bibliophile - now do you realise how ridiculous it sounds?
How ridiculous you think it sounds doesn't alter its truth value. Legal equality is not the same thing as economic etc. equality. I was answering a question about legal equality.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
More point was not about why Cameron and others felt able to intervene in this argument. My point was about which side of the argument he chose to pontificate on. He and many other politicians all spoke out on the feminist side of the argument.
But he did so in contrast to the argument of the established Church-- another dominant voice in the broader culture. So at best that tells us that the cultural position is mixed-- perhaps even approaching the midpoint on that "arc of history" that MLK alludes to. But certainly no where near the endpoint-- or there would have been no need for them to speak out.
Except that the majority of the church, including almost the entire House of Bishops were in favour of the reform. The likes of the Church Society and Reform may have succeeded in blocking one vote but the idea that they represent the predominant strain of UK culture is absurd.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Except that the majority of the church, including almost the entire House of Bishops were in favour of the reform. The likes of the Church Society and Reform may have succeeded in blocking one vote but the idea that they represent the predominant strain of UK culture is absurd.
The idea that something happening in the Anglican House of Bishops represents the predominent view of society is madness. What evidence do you have for that?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Here is a definition of feminism
quote:
The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
Tell me how that is not compatible with scripture.
Personally, I'm more inclined to use words like equitable, fair, just. Scripture teaches that human beings, male and female, are made in the image of God, and so have identity of worth. Scripture teaches that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, so we are identical in our fallenness. Scripture teaches that in Christ there are no distinctions of ethnicity, social status, gender, all are one in Christ Jesus.
The arguments about identity of worth do not of course imply identity of role, but the NT in particular teaches that gifts and talents are God-given. There is much in scripture about the relationship between the growth of Christ-character and trustworthiness.
Of course scripture contains references to traditional gender-based roles. But a perfectly decent argument can and has been made that the wider principles which scripture spells out in relationship to worth and character outbalance the more traditional pictures of roles based on gender, or ethnicity, or economic status, or race. These are the arguments which have won the day over issues such as racial discrimination, slavery, gender equality. My favourite quote from Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" is this one.
quote:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
You can replace "colour of skin" by "gender" or "ethnicity", or "nationality" and the statement continues to make sense as an exhortation to accord equal value, equal worth. That concept is certainly wide enough to embrace feminist advocacy as being profoundly "on the side of the angels".
Now you can argue that these arguments are not conclusive, or you are not convinced by them, and that is your right. But I have a high view of the authority and inspiration of scripture, and do not see the compatibility problems you see, for the reasons I've just given.
It may be that your view of scripture is a relatively conservative form of inerrancy, in which case we might decamp to Dead Horses to discuss that issue separately. But the traditional exegeses are not conclusive, when one considers the wider issues of equity and worth. At least you ought to be able to see that they are debatable, not resolved in favour of the anti-feminist viewpoint you seem to be advocating.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I get it now, the feminists just happen to prefer to have men in commanding roles. Makes sense!
Do you think every major 'pay gap' in society is the result of discrimination?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Legal equality is not the same thing as economic etc. equality. I was answering a question about legal equality.
Having laws writ to espouse equality without then completely enforce them is not legal equality.
quote:
I wouldn't say there's anything original but making statements anti-feminist statements is certainly counter cultural. That doesn't necessarily make such statements good or bad but given that our culture is overwhelmingly feminist it would make them counter cultural.
You began thus, and have largely remained so.
And the best argument you can manage is "The law says I can't beat you, so those bruises must be imaginary".
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I get it now, the feminists just happen to prefer to have men in commanding roles. Makes sense!
Do you think every major 'pay gap' in society is the result of discrimination?
It's quite a clever technique, to answer everything with a question; however, it doesn't really facilitate discussion. What do you think?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Legal equality is not the same thing as economic etc. equality. I was answering a question about legal equality.
Having laws writ to espouse equality without then completely enforce them is not legal equality.
quote:
I wouldn't say there's anything original but making statements anti-feminist statements is certainly counter cultural. That doesn't necessarily make such statements good or bad but given that our culture is overwhelmingly feminist it would make them counter cultural.
You began thus, and have largely remained so.
And the best argument you can manage is "The law says I can't beat you, so those bruises must be imaginary".
Well, I keep thinking of all the 19th century legislation, which removed the legal non-existence of married women in the law of coverture. I guess this was the triumph of feminism, oh no sorry, feminism isn't about women at all. When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I get it now, the feminists just happen to prefer to have men in commanding roles. Makes sense!
Do you think every major 'pay gap' in society is the result of discrimination?
It's quite a clever technique, to answer everything with a question; however, it doesn't really facilitate discussion. What do you think?
Alright then I'll answer the question with an example. Here is a graphic of distribution of income by faith in the United States
http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1002/almighty-dollar/flat.html
As you can see from the graphic the best paid faiths, by far, are Hindu Americans and Jewish Americans. The 'pay gap' between the followers of these religions and the followers of every major part of Christianity in America is huge, certainly much larger than the pay gap between men and women. Now why is it. Is it because society is discriminating in favour of Jewish and Hindu citizens and against Christians and others? Or could it in fact be the case that a large 'pay gap' can exist without being the product of legal inequality or discrimination?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Legal equality is not the same thing as economic etc. equality. I was answering a question about legal equality.
Having laws writ to espouse equality without then completely enforce them is not legal equality.
quote:
I wouldn't say there's anything original but making statements anti-feminist statements is certainly counter cultural. That doesn't necessarily make such statements good or bad but given that our culture is overwhelmingly feminist it would make them counter cultural.
You began thus, and have largely remained so.
And the best argument you can manage is "The law says I can't beat you, so those bruises must be imaginary".
Legal equality will not produce economic equality by itself however well it is enforced, see my example above.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Legal equality is not the same thing as economic etc. equality. I was answering a question about legal equality.
I'm glad you noticed that legal equality is not the same as economic etc. equality. That seems to be something people have been trying to tell you for ages, there are different levels to the issue.
Yes, under law men and women have now gained equality (in the UK at least). In the high-sounding principles the majority expound, men and women have equality. In practice within society, there is not only an ongoing inequality, but the practice of those making those fine speeches about equality rarely matches their words. Whether we have achieved equality, even whether we have achieved the point where the vast majority in word and deed seek equality, is certainly something that looks a lot less like a dominent position than the statute books and political speeches.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here is a definition of feminism
quote:
The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
Tell me how that is not compatible with scripture.
Personally, I'm more inclined to use words like equitable, fair, just. Scripture teaches that human beings, male and female, are made in the image of God, and so have identity of worth. Scripture teaches that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, so we are identical in our fallenness. Scripture teaches that in Christ there are no distinctions of ethnicity, social status, gender, all are one in Christ Jesus
Te reason I don't see feminism as compatible with Scripture is he number of passages that command Christians to practice sexual inequality Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5 22-24, 1 Timothy 2 11-15 etc.
Now even if you argue that what is being instructed is simply something that is permitted rather than something commanded for all Christians forever then that is still problematic for feminism. Feminism takes the view that such inequality is immoral in itself. If so then scripture is shown instructing Christians to do something that feminism calls immoral.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
About Galations 3:28 what that says is that social inequality does not result in spiritual inequality. It is not a call for social egalitarianism.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Slavery is scriptural.
Scriture neither commands nor forbids Christains from owning slaves. In societies where slave holding is against the law Christians should follow the law.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Or could it in fact be the case that a large 'pay gap' can exist without being the product of legal inequality or discrimination?
As they say down in Texas,* statistics without context is a multi-worded synonym for bullshit.
*Actually have no idea what they say in Texas. But I've no proof they do not say this.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
As you can see from the graphic the best paid faiths, by far, are Hindu Americans and Jewish Americans. The 'pay gap' between the followers of these religions and the followers of every major part of Christianity in America is huge, certainly much larger than the pay gap between men and women. Now why is it. Is it because society is discriminating in favour of Jewish and Hindu citizens and against Christians and others? Or could it in fact be the case that a large 'pay gap' can exist without being the product of legal inequality or discrimination?
Correlation does not equal causation. Pay gaps between genders can be for different reasons than differences between religions. Obviously.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Bibliophile:
As you can see from the graphic the best paid faiths, by far, are Hindu Americans and Jewish Americans. The 'pay gap' between the followers of these religions and the followers of every major part of Christianity in America is huge, certainly much larger than the pay gap between men and women. Now why is it.
Do they get paid differently for the same jobs?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Correlation does not equal causation.
Except when it's the correlation between being female and low pay, of course...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
1. Check out Jewish Americans. I suspect that they have a higher median wage than Christian Americans.
2. Correlation does not equal causation but can blunt the ability to attribute. There is a high correlation with being recent immigrant and non-white with also being non-Christian.
3. The most intriguing group to look at would be Buddhists. There are immigrant communities but there is also a substantial number of long established white converts. My guess is that there would be a substantial pay gap between these different groups of Buddhists.
Now if you are making the case that women are worse paid because all nuns are women and they do not earn any income then you may have a point. However, it would take substantially more nuns to make a real difference on the median income of women (50% of women would need to be nuns).
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Bibliophile:
As you can see from the graphic the best paid faiths, by far, are Hindu Americans and Jewish Americans. The 'pay gap' between the followers of these religions and the followers of every major part of Christianity in America is huge, certainly much larger than the pay gap between men and women. Now why is it.
Do they get paid differently for the same jobs?
It sounds like a subset of a skewed stat we get re immigration. Asian Americans are shown to make more than whites, African Americans, or Hispanics-- often used to demonstrate there is no such thing as racial discrimination.
But the stats are skewed by the wonky US immigration laws, the way nat'l quotas work, and particularly the shift in the 80s to allow "job creators" (i.e. wealthy immigrants) to jump the line. Couple that with the rush of immigration from Hong Kong leading up to 1999 and you have a large # of wealthy Asian immigrants. Which is often used to cover up the fact that there are other Asian immigrants coming for different reasons in different ways who are struggling.
I suspect something similar is happening here.
Causes are complex. Most situations have multiple factors, multiple causation. So the fact that you have multiple factors at play, interacting in different ways, does not invalidate the role that any one factor is playing.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The 'pay gap' between the followers of these religions and the followers of every major part of Christianity in America is huge, certainly much larger than the pay gap between men and women. Now why is it. Is it because society is discriminating in favour of Jewish and Hindu citizens and against Christians and others? Or could it in fact be the case that a large 'pay gap' can exist without being the product of legal inequality or discrimination?
The only way this could possibly be relevant is that you are using it to say, "since this inequality is not the result of discrimination, then this other one might not be either." But there is evidence that it is. So your point here is irrelevant.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
