My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

This is real patriarchal conditioning in action

36 replies

grimbletart · 20/05/2012 11:21

if you want to see real patriarchal conditioning never mind worrying about your underwear, look at this....

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18135098

OP posts:
Report
Empusa · 20/05/2012 15:37

DH just commented, "do you reckon they'll petition to remove the women's vote next?"

It's absolutely nuts.

Report
crazycanuck · 20/05/2012 16:28

I saw that this morning and was/am gobsmacked. Did someone at CERN open up a wormhole to the 17th century and pull these women back through it?

Report
Bunbaker · 20/05/2012 16:39

My MIL (83) doesn't approve of women vicars. She thinks it is "wrong". I tell that we will have to agree to disagree (after I have told her that thinking that women vicars are "wrong" is wrong Smile)

Report
ProcrastinateWildly · 20/05/2012 16:43

A woman I work with thinks the same Sad

Report
kim147 · 20/05/2012 16:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Bunbaker · 20/05/2012 16:46

One of the nicest vicars I know is a woman. She was our curate until she got promoted to vicar at another church. She had a big leaving party and we were all sad to see her go.

Report
thechairmanmeow · 20/05/2012 16:48

my attitude to this is the same as for female boxers, i have nothing but contempt for all organised religeon and the same for anyone who gets thier kicks from watching two people knock fuck out of each other in a ring.

but if it's not going away it might as well be made fair and open to both sexes.

the women who sighned that petition are probobly so indoctrainated and 'fear thee' so much that they cannot make a resonable judgement either way so they are reduced to consulting a 3000 year old documant for their guidence on such matters.

Report
molschambers · 20/05/2012 16:48

Oh apparently it's not a womans place to lead worship cos it says so in the Bible. I could ask MIL to elaborate but it fucks me off so much that I'd rather not....

Report
tribpot · 20/05/2012 16:51

I love the idea that these women bishops should have a male counterpart bishop for anyone who doesn't like the fact they are female. Perhaps the black bishops should have a white Extra Bishop as well for racists?

Report
Mrskbpw · 20/05/2012 16:53

I don't understand how the church is allowed to discriminate like this. Imagine it in any other profession - women allowed to be teachers but never head; women allowed to be doctors, but never consultants, or MPs but never PM. is the church outside the law? Can't a woman who wants to be a bishop (or a gay man who wants to be whatever) just take them to court?

Report
IAmSherlocked · 20/05/2012 17:04

What tribpot says.

Report
IAmBooybilee · 20/05/2012 17:10

agree with tribpot and mrskbpw

Report
IAmSherlocked · 20/05/2012 17:10

What no-one has ever satisfactorily explained to me is why only some things in the in the bible apply to us now in the twenty-first century. Who gets to choose? Confused

Report
DontmindifIdo · 20/05/2012 17:18

well, in 1 Corinthians ch 14 v33-34 it says "As in all the churches of God's people, the woman should keep quite in the meetings. They are not allowed to speak; as the Jewish Law says, they must not be in charge."

1 Corinthians is a hard book for a lot of modern Christians, it's got a few points that are hard to square with standard society views now, however, in our church (with a vicar and majority of congregation who are pro-female Bishops), it's been discussed as being more advice from Paul to the church in Corinth and the advice while right for the situation those early Christians found themselves in, it doesn't follow that Paul would give the same advice to the Church now.

Report
thechairmanmeow · 20/05/2012 18:22

to take the bible, in this case the new testement, would be applying a 2000 year old document to 2012, of course there will be problems. but if we took the bible on a fundemental level, we would be burning animals on the church alter, executing homosexuals and there would be no law against slavery.

my examples are old testement, but you get the idea.

if your a christian, interpreting the bible for the modern world we live in isnt an option, it's compulsory. unless your in northen nigeria.

sharia law is ment to evolve, it isnt a form of law without provision for change, however, it;s the fundemental application dateing from 670ish AD thats the problem.

anyway, i dont think corinthians should be such a hard book, unless you want to take it word for word applying anceint wisdoms to today.

Report
tribpot · 20/05/2012 19:19

The Bethany Hughes series recently was very interesting on the subject of women in the early years of both Christianity and Islam, where it seemed they were allowed to play a greater part than in later years. However, I'm not sure it really requires a historical precedent; women couldn't be queens in their own right (mostly) until recently, or go to university or indeed vote. I guess all belief systems (not just religious ones) go through evolutions - the Founding Fathers of the US believed passionately in democracy and equality. Er, for white men. And preferably not Catholics. Etc. Etc.

People objected when the Mass was held in the local language, not Latin, as well - or when people could read the Bible for the first time instead of have it interpreted for them by their priests.

One of my favourite quotes is from The West Wing (of course):

ABBEY [The First Lady]: It was a perfectly lovely homily on Ephesians 5:21. "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."

BARTLET [The President]: Yeah. She's skipping over the part that says, "Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord, for a husband is the head of a wife as Christ is the head of the church."

ABBEY: I do skip over that part.

BARTLET: Why?

ABBEY: Because it's stupid!

Report
alexpolismum · 21/05/2012 14:31

I thought the point about the Epistles, both Corinthians and Ephesians, was that they are letters to groups of early Christians, containing Paul's advice and opinions. Paul is not considered to be a prophet and it's only what he thinks, it doesn't have the same weight as the gospels.

Disclaimer: I am actually an atheist, but this is my understanding of it.

Report
Bonsoir · 21/05/2012 14:33

The whole religious thing is a lot of illogical nonsense anyway. It's not worth analysing!

Report
Jux · 21/05/2012 14:51

I think all the male bishes should have a female counterpart for people who don't like male bishes.

Report
tribpot · 21/05/2012 15:12

Jux, I think bishops should travel in packs of no less than five, in the hopes that one of them will be non-offensive. What if you don't like tall people or blondes? It must all be catered for.

Report
HeathRobinson · 21/05/2012 15:40

Five? Five? It should be six I tell you, for those who don't like odd numbers. Wink

Report
msrisotto · 21/05/2012 17:04

Religion is appalling crap sometimes I have to say. How is it ok for debates like that linked above to be going on? It's appalling? I'm aghast and don't see how anyone can defend it.

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

Jux · 21/05/2012 17:12

Trib and Heath, what about those wo can only count in prime numbers? They too need salvation. And people who can only converse with ants.

Report
BigFatHeffalump · 21/05/2012 17:12

Is it just me who doesn't see what the issue is here. The church isn't pro woman (unless you're a virgin mother of Christ). To me it's like being shocked if Nick Griffin started a petition to say he would prefer it if Asian and black people stayed out of BNP meetings.

Report
Empusa · 21/05/2012 17:16

BigFat The point of this thread is more like black people petitioning to keep black people out of certain jobs. It's bizarre.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.