homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women] (Page 39)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  ...  51  52  53 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Horsham, maybe? I don't think there's an Area Bishop system as such in Chichester any more, is there? Perhaps London could create a little suffragan Bishopric of Oak Hill, all of their very own.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A question here for all those Church of England people who are outraged at the exclusion of women from being bishops on the grounds that such an exclusion is anti-egalitarian. Isn't the very idea of episcopacy anti-egalitarian? Furthermore why is there no outrage from the same people about the Church's support of the monarchy, which is just about the most anti-egalitarian institution there is?
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Horsham, maybe? I don't think there's an Area Bishop system as such in Chichester any more, is there? Perhaps London could create a little suffragan Bishopric of Oak Hill, all of their very own.

Oak Hill must ordain women though, presumably? Why any woman would study for ordination there I have no idea, but there must be some.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
A question here for all those Church of England people who are outraged at the exclusion of women from being bishops on the grounds that such an exclusion is anti-egalitarian. Isn't the very idea of episcopacy anti-egalitarian? Furthermore why is there no outrage from the same people about the Church's support of the monarchy, which is just about the most anti-egalitarian institution there is?

But bishops are totally equal in status to priests and deacons. It's like saying there's no point in getting rid of gender discrimination in the workplace because managers and supervisors exist.

Also plenty of denominations have both gender equality and the episcopate - TEC, ELCA, United Methodists in the US and Africa.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Also plenty of Anglicans are opposed to Establishment, myself included, but disestablishment is rather more difficult than accepting women to the episcopate, and involves the government and the Queen in a way neither of those parties would probably agree to.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But bishops are totally equal in status to priests and deacons.

In what sense? Bishops, priests and deacons are quite clearly arranged in a hierarchy and beyond that the very title of Bishop gives a status that simply calling someone a manager wouldn't.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
A question here for all those Church of England people who are outraged at the exclusion of women from being bishops on the grounds that such an exclusion is anti-egalitarian. Isn't the very idea of episcopacy anti-egalitarian? Furthermore why is there no outrage from the same people about the Church's support of the monarchy, which is just about the most anti-egalitarian institution there is?

Straw man (i). I for one do not base my support for OoW to all three Orders on egalitarianism, although I would consider myself to be an egalitarian of a kind.
Straw man (ii). Egalitarianism doesn't necessarily mean the version of egalitarianism which you are setting up to knock down. I am an egalitarian who is a believer in both episcopacy and constitutional monarchy- just like, say, CR Attlee. Other egalitarians- say Ken Leech or our very own Pete173, or going the other way conceivably some Scots Presbyterians- believe in one but not the other. Others will believe in neither.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
A question here for all those Church of England people who are outraged at the exclusion of women from being bishops on the grounds that such an exclusion is anti-egalitarian. Isn't the very idea of episcopacy anti-egalitarian? Furthermore why is there no outrage from the same people about the Church's support of the monarchy, which is just about the most anti-egalitarian institution there is?

Straw man (i). I for one do not base my support for OoW to all three Orders on egalitarianism
Well then the question wasn't directed to yourself. It was directed at those who think that a male only priesthood is an outrage because it represents inequality when such people are often quite happy with other forms of inequality

quote:
Straw man (ii). Egalitarianism doesn't necessarily mean the version of egalitarianism which you are setting up to knock down. I am an egalitarian who is a believer in both episcopacy and constitutional monarchy- just like, say, CR Attlee. Other egalitarians- say Ken Leech or our very own Pete173, or going the other way conceivably some Scots Presbyterians- believe in one but not the other. Others will believe in neither.
Exactly. Most people agree with some forms of inequality but not others, which is why the hysterical outrage at the synod vote last year was so absurd.

[ 17. December 2013, 19:17: Message edited by: Tommy1 ]

Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152

 - Posted      Profile for Garasu   Email Garasu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But bishops are totally equal in status to priests and deacons.

Which planet do you live on?

Maybe they should be, if the three orders were actually understood as three different functions; but no way in the existing Anglican system are they really equal!

(Nor could one truly regard managers in current workplaces as merely a different functionary from the rest!)

--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.

Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Exactly. Most people agree with some forms of inequality but not others, which is why the hysterical outrage at the synod vote last year was so absurd.

No it wasn't (and it wasn't hysterical, or most ot it wasn't). If it was outrage by people who were outraged on that particular issue, there's nothing absurd in that.
Jeez. I spend my days dealing with smart-alec first year undergrads who think they have knock-down arguments and can't see how flimsy they are. Then I come home and have conversations like this on the Ship. What the hell do I think I'm doing to myself?

[ 17. December 2013, 19:27: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But bishops are totally equal in status to priests and deacons.

Which planet do you live on?

Maybe they should be, if the three orders were actually understood as three different functions; but no way in the existing Anglican system are they really equal!

(Nor could one truly regard managers in current workplaces as merely a different functionary from the rest!)

But they are equal in value. It's not like priests are considered more disposable or anything.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Exactly. Most people agree with some forms of inequality but not others, which is why the hysterical outrage at the synod vote last year was so absurd.

No it wasn't (and it wasn't hysterical, or most ot it wasn't).
A great deal of the reaction was hysterical, not all of it but much of it.

quote:
If it was outrage by people who were outraged on that particular issue, there's nothing absurd in that.
It depends on the context and reasons for their outrage. When you have many people whipping themselves up into a frenzy of spluttering outrage at this decision whilst showing utter indifference to other forms of inequality that is absurd.
quote:
Jeez. I spend my days dealing with smart-alec first year undergrads who think they have knock-down arguments and can't see how flimsy they are. Then I come home and have conversations like this on the Ship. What the hell do I think I'm doing to myself?
If my argument is flimsy I'd be quite happy for people to point out why.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But bishops are totally equal in status to priests and deacons.

In what sense? Bishops, priests and deacons are quite clearly arranged in a hierarchy and beyond that the very title of Bishop gives a status that simply calling someone a manager wouldn't.
Bishop is a job title, it's not like someone having a knighthood.

And sure bishops, priests and deacons are in a hierarchy, but it's not like bishops are considered 'better' or 'more important' than priests. They are overseers.

Bishops having more social cachet than calling someone a manager is because being a bishop is rather more unusual!

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, it's not an argument, is it? You don't engage with what other people are saying. You set up a stream of non-sequiturs and then whenever one is knocked down you set up another one. You don't show any signs of having made the slightest attempt to understand the positions with which you disagree. In fact I've thought about calling you to Hell for trolling, which is what your behaviour verges on, but that's not my style. [x-posted with Jade Constable]

[ 17. December 2013, 20:45: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But bishops are totally equal in status to priests and deacons.

Which planet do you live on?

Maybe they should be, if the three orders were actually understood as three different functions; but no way in the existing Anglican system are they really equal!

(Nor could one truly regard managers in current workplaces as merely a different functionary from the rest!)

But they are equal in value. It's not like priests are considered more disposable or anything.
Do you think opponents of women's ordination think women are of lesser value or think that women are more disposable? If being a priest of bishop is equal in value to be a deacon or layperson then saying that someone should not be given a position that is equal in value to the position they already have is not denying them any 'value'.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
You don't show any signs of having made the slightest attempt to understand the positions with which you disagree.

Well I'm sorry if I've given that impression, that is certainly not my intention, perhaps you can give me an example of what you mean.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But bishops are totally equal in status to priests and deacons.

Which planet do you live on?

Maybe they should be, if the three orders were actually understood as three different functions; but no way in the existing Anglican system are they really equal!

(Nor could one truly regard managers in current workplaces as merely a different functionary from the rest!)

But they are equal in value. It's not like priests are considered more disposable or anything.
Do you think opponents of women's ordination think women are of lesser value or think that women are more disposable? If being a priest of bishop is equal in value to be a deacon or layperson then saying that someone should not be given a position that is equal in value to the position they already have is not denying them any 'value'.
I do think that a lot of opponents of OoW are sexist and regard women as lesser than men in some way.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Exactly. Most people agree with some forms of inequality but not others, which is why the hysterical outrage at the synod vote last year was so absurd.

No it wasn't (and it wasn't hysterical, or most ot it wasn't).
A great deal of the reaction was hysterical, not all of it but much of it.
You might want to avoid the word hysterical in discussions about gender equality because it has a lot of history as a word used to control women when they start questioning why they aren't allowed to do stuff. Despite the gains women have made over the last century, society is still patriarchal. To me, that is something I believe the gospel should challenge, but as when power is challenged it doesn't give way easily.

Carys

[Edited to finish thought after hit the post button by accident]

[ 17. December 2013, 22:32: Message edited by: Carys ]

--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise

Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]It's like saying there's no point in getting rid of gender discrimination in the workplace because managers and supervisors exist.

Going back to this point this raises the important point of what is the point of getting rid of sex discrimination in the workplace.

The main purposes are twofold. firstly it encourages many women to enter and to ramain in the workplace, and this is good for employers. Secondly it acts as a massive distraction for much of the left. By getting them to focus on issues of identity politics it takes their attention away from issues of social inequality in general.

Now I don't wish to give the impression that I'm not understanding the other point of view. I sure that you are perfectly sincere in your commitment to 'gender equality' and that you don't feel it distracts you from other social issues. I'm sure many other people posting here feel the same way. Its quite natural for people to feel outraged at things they feel are unjust. What I'm taking about is the reasons why people are encouraged to see certain forms of inequality as unjust whilst not paying to much attention to other forms.

Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Exactly. Most people agree with some forms of inequality but not others, which is why the hysterical outrage at the synod vote last year was so absurd.

No it wasn't (and it wasn't hysterical, or most ot it wasn't).
A great deal of the reaction was hysterical, not all of it but much of it.
You might want to avoid the word hysterical
I see your point. I don't wish to give the impression that I was specifically referring to the reaction amongst women. Much of the over the top (is that a suitable substitute?) reaction, in the Church, in politics and in the media came from men.

quote:
Despite the gains women have made over the last century, society is still patriarchal.
The term 'patriarchal' suggests that power in society is controlled by men in general. I don't think this is so rather power in society is controlled by the upper classes in particular.

quote:
To me, that is something I believe the gospel should challenge, but as when power is challenged it doesn't give way easily.
I appreciate that you think that this issue is one of challenging power but I don't think it is for the reasons I mentioned.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think the aristocracy has a massive amount of power in the UK anymore.

However, the patriarchy is not so much about individual men controlling things (although by and large it is men in power), but a system that oppresses women. It is in turn part of the kyriarchy, interlocking oppressive systems - and classism is also part of that. So both classism and the patriarchy are existing at the same time, along with racism, homophobia etc.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]It's like saying there's no point in getting rid of gender discrimination in the workplace because managers and supervisors exist.

Going back to this point this raises the important point of what is the point of getting rid of sex discrimination in the workplace.

The main purposes are twofold. firstly it encourages many women to enter and to ramain in the workplace, and this is good for employers. Secondly it acts as a massive distraction for much of the left. By getting them to focus on issues of identity politics it takes their attention away from issues of social inequality in general.

Now I don't wish to give the impression that I'm not understanding the other point of view. I sure that you are perfectly sincere in your commitment to 'gender equality' and that you don't feel it distracts you from other social issues. I'm sure many other people posting here feel the same way. Its quite natural for people to feel outraged at things they feel are unjust. What I'm taking about is the reasons why people are encouraged to see certain forms of inequality as unjust whilst not paying to much attention to other forms.

Identity politics are part of tackling social inequality. Unless of course you don't think discrimination against women IS a part of social inequality? [Confused] Marxist-feminism exists for a reason you know. Equality for women is absolutely part of the class struggle.

Plenty of people pay attention to all forms of inequality and to suggest otherwise is just not true, and it is disingenuous to suggest that supporters of OoW only want equality for women and don't care about any other group. I believe in equality between genders (more than two FYI) because I believe that is what God wants. I also believe that a hierarchical church government structure is perfectly in keeping with both the New Testament church and Tradition, and want to keep it. Many organisations have a hierarchy and work best in that structure. That does not mean that people who support those organisations are also in favour of socio-economic inequality in society in general.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Horsham, maybe? I don't think there's an Area Bishop system as such in Chichester any more, is there? Perhaps London could create a little suffragan Bishopric of Oak Hill, all of their very own.

Oak Hill must ordain women though, presumably? Why any woman would study for ordination there I have no idea, but there must be some.
Theological colleges do not ordain women...or men. Bishops do.

THeological colleges train people who hope to be ordained. The colleges cannot guarantee ordination to the hopeful, or deny it to those of the hopeful they believe unworthy to be ordained.

Oak Hill evidently doesn't approved of OoW from what I've read on this thread. But if it accepts a female for studies and she graduates (or even if she doesn't) it's up to a bishop to ordain her, or not. Just as it is for a man.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Horsham, maybe? I don't think there's an Area Bishop system as such in Chichester any more, is there? Perhaps London could create a little suffragan Bishopric of Oak Hill, all of their very own.

Oak Hill must ordain women though, presumably? Why any woman would study for ordination there I have no idea, but there must be some.
Theological colleges do not ordain women...or men. Bishops do.

THeological colleges train people who hope to be ordained. The colleges cannot guarantee ordination to the hopeful, or deny it to those of the hopeful they believe unworthy to be ordained.

Oak Hill evidently doesn't approved of OoW from what I've read on this thread. But if it accepts a female for studies and she graduates (or even if she doesn't) it's up to a bishop to ordain her, or not. Just as it is for a man.

John

Well, the point I was making still stands - why do women training for ordination go to Oak Hill? Or Staggers for that matter, although personally I find Oak Hill harder to understand.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Identity politics are part of tackling social inequality. Unless of course you don't think discrimination against women IS a part of social inequality? [Confused] Marxist-feminism exists for a reason you know. Equality for women is absolutely part of the class struggle.


Well, yes, it can be. But it can also be part of a neo-liberal project which wants to remove all impediments to the efficient use of resources- in this case, 'human resources' (how I hate that term)- in the market economy. And I think that a lot of liberals have been distracted by the gender/ race/ disability / whatever equality agenda- valuable in itself- without seeing where it might be going. You have to look- as you do, Jade- at the big picture too. So I do find myself in qualifued agreement with Tommy on this one, tangent though it is.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Identity politics are part of tackling social inequality. Unless of course you don't think discrimination against women IS a part of social inequality? [Confused] Marxist-feminism exists for a reason you know. Equality for women is absolutely part of the class struggle.


Well, yes, it can be. But it can also be part of a neo-liberal project which wants to remove all impediments to the efficient use of resources- in this case, 'human resources' (how I hate that term)- in the market economy. And I think that a lot of liberals have been distracted by the gender/ race/ disability / whatever equality agenda- valuable in itself- without seeing where it might be going. You have to look- as you do, Jade- at the big picture too. So I do find myself in qualifued agreement with Tommy on this one, tangent though it is.
Exactly the point I was making.

I also have to agree with you that my tone so far on this forum hasn't been quite right. I have been rather too blunt in expressing myself and will endevour to watch that in future

Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
At the risk of sounding patronising- which I don't mean to be- you're newish, you're finding the style of the place, I think people understand this and cut you some slack for it. Lord knows, I disagree with most of what you've said so far, but you have every right to say it.

[ 18. December 2013, 14:27: Message edited by: Albertus ]

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I don't think the aristocracy has a massive amount of power in the UK anymore.

Perhaps I should have expressed myself better. I know people often use the term 'upper class' to just refer to the traditional landed class but I'm using the term to refer to the rich more generally, old money and new.

quote:
However, the patriarchy is not so much about individual men controlling things (although by and large it is men in power), but a system that oppresses women. It is in turn part of the kyriarchy, interlocking oppressive systems - and classism is also part of that. So both classism and the patriarchy are existing at the same time, along with racism, homophobia etc.
But as Albertus points out opposing sex discrimination actually fits in quite well with neo-liberal economics. What that means is that by applying various carrots (e.g. cultural promotion of opposition to sex discrimination in the media and politics) and sticks (e.g. heavy restrictions on industrial action and harsh penalties for those who disobey these rules) the left's actions can be pushed in a particular direction. Those who might then be called soft left then internalise this so that not just their actions but their thinking conforms with liberalism.

[ 18. December 2013, 14:37: Message edited by: Tommy1 ]

Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
At the risk of sounding patronising- which I don't mean to be- you're newish, you're finding the style of the place, I think people understand this and cut you some slack for it. Lord knows, I disagree with most of what you've said so far, but you have every right to say it.

Thanks
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd agree with your last posting, too, Tommy. Today we've seen the appointment of the first woman head of Lloyds, which is seen by some as a great leap forward. So: women can do neo-liberal capitalism too. Whoop-ti-do. As Jeremy Hardy says, the only women I want to see on the floor of the Stock Exchange would be dancing round their handbags there to celebrate the fall of capitalism.
Actually, there's an argument that you sometimes do better to address general inequality and injustice before dealing with specifics like gender inequality. This, according to Roy Hattersley's book on the Edwardians, is why a lot of Labour men opposed womens suffrage a century ago, when about 40% of men didn't have a vote: to have enfranchised women on the same basis of men, at that time, would have reinforced class inequality. Similarly, it's been suggested that in the 1970s the Labour government would have done better to prioritise a minimum wage over equal pay: that would have tended to increase overall social equality and benefit low-paid workers, who were then as now predominantly women.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just because gender equality benefits neo-liberalism doesn't mean it doesn't also benefit Marxism. Actually speaking as a feminist, women's liberation is my aim, and equality is a side-effect rather than the aim.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530

 - Posted      Profile for stonespring     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This has gone a little off the topic of women's ordination - but is anyone familiar with Judith Butler? (I was assigned The Sexual Contract in college but didn't read it [Frown] . I remember the lectures in class though.)

Her ideas may be different now but our professor (a man) said that she argued in that book that you can't overturn patriarchy/liberate women by giving women equal rights/equal pay/equal opportunities, etc., under the law in a liberal free-market economy. Rather, you need to abolish the capitalist system that is at the core of the patriarchy.

Someone can probably express her ideas better than me - someone who has actually read her. I don't think she is an orthodox Marxist, if even a Marxist.

What exactly is women's liberation if not equality under the law and equality of opportunity? That's an interesting question.

Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
This has gone a little off the topic of women's ordination - but is anyone familiar with Judith Butler? (I was assigned The Sexual Contract in college but didn't read it [Frown] . I remember the lectures in class though.)

Her ideas may be different now but our professor (a man) said that she argued in that book that you can't overturn patriarchy/liberate women by giving women equal rights/equal pay/equal opportunities, etc., under the law in a liberal free-market economy. Rather, you need to abolish the capitalist system that is at the core of the patriarchy.

Someone can probably express her ideas better than me - someone who has actually read her. I don't think she is an orthodox Marxist, if even a Marxist.

What exactly is women's liberation if not equality under the law and equality of opportunity? That's an interesting question.

Excuse, plis.

I am not an economist, but as I understand "capitalism", it's a relatively new arrival on the world scene - 3-4 centuries, perhaps 5. Patriarchy is far older.

If you want to posit a relationship, it's not that capitalism begets patriarchy, but that patirarchy begets...capitalism? No, that can't be right either.

In fact, I suggest, the two are not causally related at all. Which is not to say that they aren't related at all in the present.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Exactly. Most people agree with some forms of inequality but not others, which is why the hysterical outrage at the synod vote last year was so absurd.

No it wasn't (and it wasn't hysterical, or most ot it wasn't).
A great deal of the reaction was hysterical, not all of it but much of it.
Most of the reaction was contemptuous. To the point that David Cameron was able to claim the moral high ground in dealing with the Church of England and Justin Webley had to find Wonga.com for something that the Church of England, with its institutional racism and sexism, could claim the moral high ground against.

Given that the vote threw away what little scraps of moral authority the CofE had left - and threw it away thanks to obvious slate packing of the House of the Laity - the response to such an internally offensive act of institutional self harm was incredibly restrained. Indeed I would go so far as to say that given what a travesty of a vote it was, the very restraint of the reaction to continued injustice further contributed to degrading and dragging through the mud the already shattered remnants of the Church of England.

And don't use the word 'hysterical' about feminist issues.

quote:
]It depends on the context and reasons for their outrage. When you have many people whipping themselves up into a frenzy of spluttering outrage at this decision whilst showing utter indifference to other forms of inequality that is absurd.
Ah yes. Standard derailing tactics. "There are worse things out there, so why are you getting upset that life isn't fair?" Guess what? The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. If you don't start somewhere you won't do anything at all. And fixing your own house is often a good place to start.

Guess what? Fixing things begins at home.

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Do you think opponents of women's ordination think women are of lesser value or think that women are more disposable? If being a priest of bishop is equal in value to be a deacon or layperson then saying that someone should not be given a position that is equal in value to the position they already have is not denying them any 'value'.

Yes. Yes I do think that opponents of the ordination of women think that women are of lesser value than men. And if being a priest or bishop is equal in value to being a deacon or layperson then we should immediately sell all the rectories and parsonages, abolish all stipendiary priests, pull the bishops out of the House of Lords, and abolish the House of the Bishops and the House of the Clergy at the General Synod.

If on the other hand the positions are manifestly different in value with respect to the Church of England (as I have shown they are) then that women can only fill some of them (and not due to physical inability) demonstrates that women are seen as inferior by opponents of the ordination of women.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
A question here for all those Church of England people who are outraged at the exclusion of women from being bishops on the grounds that such an exclusion is anti-egalitarian. Isn't the very idea of episcopacy anti-egalitarian?

Fundamentally, the reason for ordaining women is that God is calling those women to be priests.

Still, let's look at the egalitarian argument. The obvious response is that we're looking at egalitarianism of opportunity, not egalitarianism of outcome. That is, we're signalling that there's no limit on women merely because they're women. As far as possible, there should be no difference between women and men in the potential they could achieve with prayer, hard work, pastoral skills, and care for other people.
(I haven't seen any theological justification for only ordaining men that doesn't presuppose that women are in some sense further from God than men or inferior.)
As it happens, I am a republican; I'd like to see the monarchy abolished. But there are so very few members of the royal family compared to non-members that the difference doesn't create any significant difference in esteem. Even when there's a big royal wedding or a baby is born, it's hardly different in the effect it has on my life from any celebrity event.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
A question here for all those Church of England people who are outraged at the exclusion of women from being bishops on the grounds that such an exclusion is anti-egalitarian. Isn't the very idea of episcopacy anti-egalitarian?

Fundamentally, the reason for ordaining women is that God is calling those women to be priests.

Still, let's look at the egalitarian argument. The obvious response is that we're looking at egalitarianism of opportunity, not egalitarianism of outcome. That is, we're signalling that there's no limit on women merely because they're women. As far as possible, there should be no difference between women and men in the potential they could achieve with prayer, hard work, pastoral skills, and care for other people.

Isn't the very idea of equality of opportunity problematic? A person's advancement in life can depend in great part not only on 'prayer, hard work, pastoral skills, and care for other people' but also a couple of other things, firstly natural talents, some people are simply naturally smarter etc than others and this is no more a matter of choice than being born male or female. Secondly on personal ambition which is, of course, a sin and not a sign of good character.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530

 - Posted      Profile for stonespring     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
This has gone a little off the topic of women's ordination - but is anyone familiar with Judith Butler? (I was assigned The Sexual Contract in college but didn't read it [Frown] . I remember the lectures in class though.)

Her ideas may be different now but our professor (a man) said that she argued in that book that you can't overturn patriarchy/liberate women by giving women equal rights/equal pay/equal opportunities, etc., under the law in a liberal free-market economy. Rather, you need to abolish the capitalist system that is at the core of the patriarchy.

Someone can probably express her ideas better than me - someone who has actually read her. I don't think she is an orthodox Marxist, if even a Marxist.

What exactly is women's liberation if not equality under the law and equality of opportunity? That's an interesting question.

Excuse, plis.

I am not an economist, but as I understand "capitalism", it's a relatively new arrival on the world scene - 3-4 centuries, perhaps 5. Patriarchy is far older.

If you want to posit a relationship, it's not that capitalism begets patriarchy, but that patirarchy begets...capitalism? No, that can't be right either.

In fact, I suggest, the two are not causally related at all. Which is not to say that they aren't related at all in the present.

John

I'm not saying I agree with Judith Butler or even that I understand what her ideas are. I am asking if anyone has a better understanding to her writing as it relates to defining women's liberation. That was because in this thread, women's liberation, employment and economic equality for women, economic and social equality in for everyone, and the abolishment of capitalism have all been mentioned. You are right to assert that they are all different things. However, some people seem to argue that you can't have one without the other, or that by prioritizing one thing you wind up achieving the others.

Jade Constable also said that what she supports is women's liberation over the others. I was wondering how Jade would define women's liberation - whether it was merely equality of employment, education, and income opportunities, or whether it implied something more radical, and if so, what that was.

Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Most of the reaction was contemptuous. To the point that David Cameron was able to claim the moral high ground in dealing with the Church of England

David Cameron can claim what he likes, doesn't mean he has it

quote:
with its institutional racism
Where's that from?
quote:
And don't use the word 'hysterical' about feminist issues.
Alright then, over the top.

quote:
Ah yes. Standard derailing tactics. "There are worse things out there, so why are you getting upset that life isn't fair?" Guess what? The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
That depends on whether people show any interest on going on that journey.

quote:
[ Yes I do think that opponents of the ordination of women think that women are of lesser value than men. And if being a priest or bishop is equal in value to being a deacon or layperson then we should immediately sell all the rectories and parsonages, abolish all stipendiary priests, pull the bishops out of the House of Lords, and abolish the House of the Bishops and the House of the Clergy at the General Synod.

If on the other hand the positions are manifestly different in value with respect to the Church of England (as I have shown they are) then that women can only fill some of them (and not due to physical inability) demonstrates that women are seen as inferior by opponents of the ordination of women.

I don't think its good at all to say laypersons are of lesser value than bishops.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530

 - Posted      Profile for stonespring     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
A question here for all those Church of England people who are outraged at the exclusion of women from being bishops on the grounds that such an exclusion is anti-egalitarian. Isn't the very idea of episcopacy anti-egalitarian?

Fundamentally, the reason for ordaining women is that God is calling those women to be priests.

Still, let's look at the egalitarian argument. The obvious response is that we're looking at egalitarianism of opportunity, not egalitarianism of outcome. That is, we're signalling that there's no limit on women merely because they're women. As far as possible, there should be no difference between women and men in the potential they could achieve with prayer, hard work, pastoral skills, and care for other people.

Isn't the very idea of equality of opportunity problematic? A person's advancement in life can depend in great part not only on 'prayer, hard work, pastoral skills, and care for other people' but also a couple of other things, firstly natural talents, some people are simply naturally smarter etc than others and this is no more a matter of choice than being born male or female. Secondly on personal ambition which is, of course, a sin and not a sign of good character.
Equality of opportunity means that your advancement in life depends on your character and talent and not on the socioeconomic circumstances of your birth and upbringing or other things like gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. To get even close to equality of opportunity, you need to give everyone access to high-quality education, good healthcare, a clean and healthy environment, safe neighborhoods, family life free from abuse and hunger, and networking opportunities with the people and institutions of power (the latter is the most difficult, if not impossible, to create access to). You also need to make sure that people are not taught by their society/peers/schools that they are not cut out to the station in life enjoyed by those with more money and power, and if children's own families teach them this, you need to put things in place to counteract that self-defeating ethos. Very difficult, but worth trying - as long as you don't become a nanny state.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530

 - Posted      Profile for stonespring     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Very difficult, but worth trying - as long as you don't become a nanny state.

Wow - thinking about the sexist overtones about using the work "hysterical" in this thread, I realized that maybe "nanny state" has sexist overtones. The phrase "welfare queens" certainly has sexist (and in the US, racist) overtones, so perhaps "nanny state" does as well. It is possible, though, for a government to intrude too far into personal autonomy, and although some government regulation of the economy helps improve equality of opportunity, there is a cost to all such regulation (and inevitable government waste), and there are diminishing marginal returns (in terms of equality of opportunity) to increasing the level of regulation. At least this leftist thinks so.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Equality of opportunity means that your advancement in life depends on your character

The trouble is that all too often this is true

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Mark 10:25

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime." - Honore de Balzac

It think that its important to remember the drawbacks of the idea of meritocracy

Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would add that whilst I understand the attraction of the idea of equality of opportunity I'm afraid all too often the idea is used as a way for blaming the less fortunate for their situation 'well you could have been rich to, obviously you just weren't good enough'. I don't think that in life there is ever true equality of opportunity.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Most of the reaction was contemptuous. To the point that David Cameron was able to claim the moral high ground in dealing with the Church of England

David Cameron can claim what he likes, doesn't mean he has it
In this case he does. Which is a demonstration of just how low the CofE has sunk.

quote:
[quote] [QUOTE] with its institutional racism
Where's that from?
quote:

Mea culpa. I meant institutional homophobia. I was thinking of Justin Webley's speech to the Evangelical Alliance in which he pointed out “We have to face the fact that the vast majority of people under 35 not only think that what we’re saying is incomprehensible but also think that we’re plain wrong and wicked and equate it to racism and other forms of gross injustice. We have to be real about that.”

He was, of course absolutely right (other than that the age barrier is closer to 40 than 35). The Church of England's homophobic position is plain wrong and equivalent to racism. And he himself, despite realising this voted to perpetuate the injustice.

Right now for most under 35s, most of the Churches are clearly and demonstrably the bad guys and for very good reason. Which is a pity as thanks to the Churches being the passionate defenders of the old and unjust order that is rapidly fading there is currently no large scale organisation with moral authority and a decent soapbox to speak from. The Churches abdicated their position decades ago.

quote:
That depends on whether people show any interest on going on that journey.=
In the journey in question? 42 out of 44 Synods were enthusiastic to go on that journey. It was only due to the slate-packing tactics that the journey was temporarily derailed and the Church of England needs to spend yet more time feuding to overturn an obvious injustice within itself that will inevitably be overturned.

quote:
I don't think its good at all to say laypersons are of lesser value than bishops.
Then what are they? Separate but equal? They demonstrably have less power, authority, and respect within the Church of England - any attempt to claim they are genuinely equal rather than that such an equality is an ideal to which you should aspire simply contradicts the reality on the ground. And not saying it won't make it not true.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Amos

Shipmate
# 44

 - Posted      Profile for Amos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I would add that whilst I understand the attraction of the idea of equality of opportunity I'm afraid all too often the idea is used as a way for blaming the less fortunate for their situation 'well you could have been rich to, obviously you just weren't good enough'. I don't think that in life there is ever true equality of opportunity.

Ah yes, 'For ye have the women always with you, but me ye have not always.' Lesser known words of Our Lord.

--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken

Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I would add that whilst I understand the attraction of the idea of equality of opportunity I'm afraid all too often the idea is used as a way for blaming the less fortunate for their situation 'well you could have been rich to, obviously you just weren't good enough'. I don't think that in life there is ever true equality of opportunity.

So the answer is what? To give up trying because it's a lost cause? Or to keep trying and pushing forward, trying to make sure this doesn't happen.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Isn't the very idea of equality of opportunity problematic? A person's advancement in life can depend in great part not only on 'prayer, hard work, pastoral skills, and care for other people' but also a couple of other things, firstly natural talents, some people are simply naturally smarter etc than others and this is no more a matter of choice than being born male or female. Secondly on personal ambition which is, of course, a sin and not a sign of good character.

quote:
I would add that whilst I understand the attraction of the idea of equality of opportunity I'm afraid all too often the idea is used as a way for blaming the less fortunate for their situation 'well you could have been rich to, obviously you just weren't good enough'. I don't think that in life there is ever true equality of opportunity.
I am not entirely sure that the positions in these two posts are quite compatible. Is it an attractive idea, or is it sinful ambition?

Firstly, natural talents. People who see natural talents as more important than hard work don't do as well as people who see hard work as of more value than natural talent. Hard work makes up for lack of natural talent better than natural talent makes up for lack of hard work.
In addition, natural talent comes in degrees. It's not the case that you either have it or you don't. Unlike, say, being a man or a woman, where very few people are intermediate.

Secondly, ambition. I'm not sure ambition is as such a sin. It depends on why you're ambitious. Wanting to do a job that you would be good at in order to make a difference in the world isn't sinful. Telling other people to be content with their station in life is also arguably sinful. The only way it could be always sinful to want a particular job is if the job were sinful in itself.

Thirdly, equality of opportunity can be as a stick to beat the poor. This is indeed the case while there ought to be equality of opportunity and there isn't. But saying that there is not now equality of opportunity is not at all the same as saying that we oughtn't to try to bring about more equality of opportunity than there in fact is.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I am not entirely sure that the positions in these two posts are quite compatible. Is it an attractive idea, or is it sinful ambition?

Understanding the attraction of an idea is not the same thing as agreeing with it

quote:
Firstly, natural talents. People who see natural talents as more important than hard work don't do as well as people who see hard work as of more value than natural talent. Hard work makes up for lack of natural talent better than natural talent makes up for lack of hard work.
In addition, natural talent comes in degrees. It's not the case that you either have it or you don't. Unlike, say, being a man or a woman, where very few people are intermediate.

I wouldn't really argue with this. Hard work is almost always very important for advancement and can do an enormous amount to make up relative shortfalls in natural talent.

quote:
Secondly, ambition. I'm not sure ambition is as such a sin. It depends on why you're ambitious. Wanting to do a job that you would be good at in order to make a difference in the world isn't sinful.
I wouldn't say that was quite the same thing as ambition. Someone can want a job in order to make a difference in the world and be content with that being quite humble. When someone has a desire for a position that commands higher authority and respect that is ambition and it is driven by ego.

quote:
Thirdly, equality of opportunity can be as a stick to beat the poor. This is indeed the case while there ought to be equality of opportunity and there isn't. But saying that there is not now equality of opportunity is not at all the same as saying that we oughtn't to try to bring about more equality of opportunity than there in fact is.
But the difficulty is that if if one could envisage real equality of opportunity, and I think this will always be a myth, it would still be a stick be beat the poor. There will always be a great many people who, for want a better term, just aren't very smart. Crucially also holding up equality of opportunity as an ideal helps to glorify ambition, which I think is wrong for the reasons I gave.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
the vast majority of people

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. Matthew 7:13-14

quote:
quote:
That depends on whether people show any interest on going on that journey.=
In the journey in question?
What was referring to here is people who react with fury to what they see are one form of unjust inequality but who often seem to see other forms of inequality as quite unproblematic. I understand that this difference is justified by ideas of meritocracy but I have given reasons in my last reply as to why I disagree with this as an ideal.
quote:
quote:
I don't think its good at all to say laypersons are of lesser value than bishops.
Then what are they? Separate but equal? They demonstrably have less power, authority, and respect within the Church of England
Less power and authority certainly. Less respect often (although frankly not always as you just demonstrated with your remark about Welby). But to say that that equates to less value as human beings is, I think, to take a pretty elevated view of social hierarchy.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
... There will always be a great many people who, for want a better term, just aren't very smart. ...

So? So fucking what? Why does it necessarily follow that it is acceptable -- nay, apparently even desirable for some -- for the not-very-smart to have a poorer quality of life than the think-they're-so-fucking-smart people? Who decided that if you're "less smart" you should have less, period?
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
QUOTE]
quote:
That depends on whether people show any interest on going on that journey.=
In the journey in question?
What was referring to here is people who react with fury to what they see are one form of unjust inequality but who often seem to see other forms of inequality as quite unproblematic.[/quote]

Which is far better than people sitting on their thumbs and telling others to not get angry because life isn't fair. At least they are trying to change things for the better.

quote:
I understand that this difference is justified by ideas of meritocracy but I have given reasons in my last reply as to why I disagree with this as an ideal.
That response isn't even coherent. It bases itself on the idea that you can have a significant gap between rich and poor and equality of opportunity at the same time. This is, of course, impossible. Kids who are worried about filling their bellies or shelter do not have equality of opportunity with those who can focus on other things. Kids who can't trust authority (the main predictor of failing the marshmallow test - which is itself a huge predictor) don't have equality of opportunity with those who can trust the authorities around them.

Your entire objection is, therefore, utterly meaningless. While some are in poverty and others gorge there can be no equality of opportunity.

quote:
quote:
quote:
I don't think its good at all to say laypersons are of lesser value than bishops.
Then what are they? Separate but equal? They demonstrably have less power, authority, and respect within the Church of England
Less power and authority certainly. Less respect often (although frankly not always as you just demonstrated with your remark about Welby). But to say that that equates to less value as human beings is, I think, to take a pretty elevated view of social hierarchy.
In short in some arbtrary and abstract way you claim to value them just as much. On the other side you won't allow them respect, influence, or power. You just claim the value is the same despite it not matching the real world treatment. I reiterate my claim that you see women as "separate but equal".

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  ...  51  52  53 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools