- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
18 Jul 10
Originally posted by vistesdI think that such an exclusion is pernicious discrimination (unjust, de facto unequal treatment). I also do not think that pernicious discrimination ought to be excused—or treated as somehow less pernicious—simply because it follows from cherished tradition (e.g., apostolic succession).
EDIT: complete re-write.
Understood (though I really hadn’t thought that through at the time of posting). I wanted to treat the broader issue of discriminatory exclusion of women from a forum that affects women’s life choices (not limited to the issue of ordination—e.g., birth control).
I think that such an exclusion is pernicious discrimination (unj ...[text shortened]... tute an argument as to why such discrimination is not pernicious or why it is not objectionable.
Well, I haven't been justifying any exclusion nor have I argued that it is justifiable on the grounds of cherished tradition. In this thread, I have been concerned with two points:
1. That sacerdotal ministry should be decoupled from the exercise of authority. Hence, laypeople should have a greater presence in Catholic universities as professors and deans, and in the Roman Curia, not just as advisors but as senior leaders. There is doctrinally no necessary reason to exclude women from the cardinalate.
I have been at pains to stress that the issue here is not one of gender discrimination but a much deeper structural problem of where power is located in the Church; it is a lay/clerical problem. Allowing women to be ordained would still mean that clerics retain this power and that others be excluded from the forum.
2. That discrimination in itself is not a sign of inequality. For this, I have been accused of justifying male chauvanism and of bigotry reminiscent of racial segregation. I don't think this is fair. The point is purely theoretical. I don't believe it is enough to show that one group is excluded. It may be that this same group is compensated by another entitlment or that what they are excluded from is actually bad. On this point, I do not believe I am being very radical. This is in fact a fairly conventional feminist critique.
Explaining the facts of the case, and how that particular form of discrimination came to be institutionally embedded, does not constitute an argument as to why such discrimination is not pernicious or why it is not objectionable.
That's quite true. I was not trying to justify discrimination by explaining its historical origins. I was replying to only a small comment of yours that the issue was not really about ordination at all. I dispute that only because of the way that authority is recognised, in Catholicism and in other churches claiming apostolic origin, ordination is the very centre of the issue.
I do not believe that ordaining women would solve the problem either. In the end, only a select group of women would be ordained, hardly representative of the spectrum of women in the Church. Probably these very women would not have children and so, as your argument goes, most women would still not be able to participate in the forum.
18 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KOkay. However, the intractability of the problem given the existing institutional matrix does not mean that the embedded discrimination isn’t pernicious. Further, although a discrimination may not be based on some notion of women’s inequality vis-à-vis the requirements of the “job”, or anything else, does not mean that excluding them from the forum that decides those things is not de facto unequal treatment.
[b]I think that such an exclusion is pernicious discrimination (unjust, de facto unequal treatment). I also do not think that pernicious discrimination ought to be excused—or treated as somehow less pernicious—simply because it follows from cherished tradition (e.g., apostolic succession).
Well, I haven't been justifying any exclusion nor have I arg d so, as your argument goes, most women would still not be able to participate in the forum.[/b]
But let me repeat my issue, even if it isn’t the one that you were specifically addressing:
When men exclude women from full and equal representation in any forum whose decisions affect their lives and life-choices as women—the women being thus disenfranchised with regard to such decisions—that is discriminatory, and perniciously so. Bluntly, it is a form of gender-based despotism.
—Note that I am specifying exactly from what women are being excluded: the affecting decision-making forum. So that I do not think that your point 2. applies if women are excluded from the forum that would decide such compensation/entitlement, or whether or not participation is viewed as a negative.*
The historical development and reasons for such discrimination do not change its nature—even if the men who are responsible for maintaining the discriminatory situation wish it were otherwise (reluctant despots), even if there are women who accept the reasons for such gender-based despotism, and so acquiesce. Further, no institution has some “special exemption” that renders pernicious discrimination/disenfranchisement somehow non-pernicious.
I am not a RCC basher, Conrau; we could just as well be talking about the Southern Baptist Convention, or the US before women won suffrage. The details and the rationales may differ, but the fact of prejudicial disenfranchisement does not.
I suspect that you agree with all of this. At least, I haven’t seen anything in your posts that indicate otherwise; I just saw you as explaining the facts of the case for the RCC, for the sake of clarity.
_______________________________________________________
* EDIT: Actually, if compensation or alternative entitlement were all that such women could decide, I would still view it as pernicious discrimination.
18 Jul 10
Hey Conrau—I just re-read your last post (and my response to it), after a night’s sleep. I think I see what you’re saying. Let me see if I can put it into my own words, to see if I get you correctly:
The pernicious gender discrimination and disenfranchisement of women is based on a more complex and extensive power-matrix (which is at the root of other inequities as well) such that addressing only the gender-dominance issue is not sufficient to dismantle the whole, interlocking complex.
(By that, I do not mean necessarily dismantling the institution itself, but the existent offending power-matrix. The institution may have meritorious functions that one would wish to preserve, but that one is not willing to preserve if they cannot be de-coupled from the problem—in such a case, a person of good conscience may try to effect the de-coupling if possible.)
18 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KFor this, I have been accused of justifying male chauvanism and of bigotry reminiscent of racial segregation. I don't think this is fair.
[b]I think that such an exclusion is pernicious discrimination (unjust, de facto unequal treatment). I also do not think that pernicious discrimination ought to be excused—or treated as somehow less pernicious—simply because it follows from cherished tradition (e.g., apostolic succession).
Well, I haven't been justifying any exclusion nor have I arg d so, as your argument goes, most women would still not be able to participate in the forum.[/b]
Once again, what I said was, "Your 'argument' has much in common with those who advocated 'separate but equal'". It is that YOUR ARGUMENTS have much in common. I don't know how to make this any clearer. Your continued attempts to depict it as something else is dishonest.
18 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KI would at least like you to explain why you thought I had a 'deeply prejudicial view of women'. I suspect you hastily read my post, inaccuarately thought I was arguing male paternalism, and made a flippant judgment. But, please, do at least try to justify yourself this time.
[b]Well, I've tried a number of ways to explain things to you to no avail. Evidently your prejudicial view toward women runs so deeply that you are unable to see things from anything other than that viewpoint. No sense in trying to have a rational discussion with a bigot.
You're right. I am having trouble understanding the thread of this discussion. , and made a flippant judgment. But, please, do at least try to justify yourself this time.[/b]
I've explained it a number of times and in a number of ways. It's dishonest for you to try to pretend at this point that I haven't. I'm not about to go to the effort of explaining it all again. However, I will reiterate one point: The fact that you see nothing wrong with women not having such a fundamental right such as being allowed to decide for themselves speaks volumes. Be it whether or not they want to be clerics, in the military, miners, etc.
18 Jul 10
Originally posted by vistesdAnd at the end of the day, no matter how much the "power-matrix" may be changed, if women are denied the right to choose to be clerics, it is still gender discrimination. Somehow CK can't seem to wrap his mind around this.
Hey Conrau—I just re-read your last post (and my response to it), after a night’s sleep. I think I see what you’re saying. Let me see if I can put it into my own words, to see if I get you correctly:
The pernicious gender discrimination and disenfranchisement of women is based on a more complex and extensive power-matrix (which is at the root of other ...[text shortened]... blem—in such a case, a person of good conscience may try to effect the de-coupling if possible.)
18 Jul 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneyou posted it as an alternative.
[b]equality doesn't mean we all get the same jobs and responsibilities.
Not sure why you think I'm making that argument. You have to read what you quoted in context of the entirety of my post as well as CK's post.[/b]
maybe you did to emphasize the necessity for the other option.
just wanted to make clear that it is not a viable alternative.
18 Jul 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziNot really.
you posted it as an alternative.
maybe you did to emphasize the necessity for the other option.
just wanted to make clear that it is not a viable alternative.
Here's what I wrote:
For true equality to exist the RCC would need to either allow women to be clerics or remove any and all distinctions between clerics and lay people like I said earlier. Anything short of this is just an attempt to whitewash. If clerics and lay people were ever truly equal, it would be absurd to keep the distinction. The distinction is kept precisely because they are not truly equal.
Maybe I could have phrased it better, but removing "any and all distinctions between clerics and lay people" does not necessarily "mean we all get the same jobs and responsibilities". I was speaking of "clerics" and "lay people" on the whole. So it is the removal of any and all distinctions between the two groups on the whole, not the individuals within the groups. I hope this better explains my intent.
18 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnecome now, surely you can see i took your removing "any and all distinctions between clerics and lay people" and applied it in general.
Not really.
Here's what I wrote:
[quote][b]For true equality to exist the RCC would need to either allow women to be clerics or remove any and all distinctions between clerics and lay people like I said earlier. Anything short of this is just an attempt to whitewash. If clerics and lay people were ever truly equal, it would be absurd to keep the d he whole, not the individuals within the groups. I hope this better explains my intent.[/b]
Maybe I could have phrased it better, but removing "any and all distinctions between clerics and lay people" does not necessarily "mean we all get the same jobs and responsibilities".
yes it does. it is the same as removing the distinctions between let's say kings and subjects.
some distinctions are necessary. that doesn't mean some people are discriminated yet. with emphasis on yet. priests have different responsibilities than the non-priests. but who gets to be a priest? is the most qualified person for the job always chosen? or is something not related to those responsibilities taken into account when choosing, like race, sex, or the color of one's hair?
removing any distinctions between certain groups is not a solution. and it would never last. if you put 100 people on a deserted island, sooner or later, some will be leaders, some will be fishers, some will be carpenters and so on.
So it is the removal of any and all distinctions between the two groups on the whole, not the individuals within the groups.
irrelevant. or maybe i don't understand what you are trying to say. what distinctions between these two groups as a whole stop women to be priests? what distinctions between these groups don't apply to individuals between groups? aren't you actually saying to remove distinctions between priests and non-priests, effectively disbanding the position? so if the position doesn't exist, a woman cannot complain that she is not chosen for said position?
20 Jul 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziNot sure, but I suspect that you may not understand my position, so I'll try to explain it. First of all, I think that the fact that women are not allowed to be clerics is gender discrimination. Period. Even if the RCC shifted many of the the roles, responsibilities, power, etc. of the clerical to the laity, women still cannot be on equal footing with men, since men are also a part of the laity, unless, of course, there is no value in being a cleric. So either women must be allowed to be clerics or any and all distinctions between the clerical and the laity must be removed.
come now, surely you can see i took your [b]removing "any and all distinctions between clerics and lay people" and applied it in general.
Maybe I could have phrased it better, but removing "any and all distinctions between clerics and lay people" does not necessarily "mean we all get the same jobs and responsibilities".
yes it does. it is th ...[text shortened]... on doesn't exist, a woman cannot complain that she is not chosen for said position?[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Jul 10
Originally posted by vistesdThe pernicious gender discrimination and disenfranchisement of women is based on a more complex and extensive power-matrix (which is at the root of other inequities as well) such that addressing only the gender-dominance issue is not sufficient to dismantle the whole, interlocking complex.
Hey Conrau—I just re-read your last post (and my response to it), after a night’s sleep. I think I see what you’re saying. Let me see if I can put it into my own words, to see if I get you correctly:
The pernicious gender discrimination and disenfranchisement of women is based on a more complex and extensive power-matrix (which is at the root of other ...[text shortened]... blem—in such a case, a person of good conscience may try to effect the de-coupling if possible.)
Yes, in fact, that seems to be your argument too. Unlike ThinkofOne, your concern is not immediately the exclusion of women from sacramental ministry; it is rather that they have no official voice in the dogmatic and moral deliberations of the Church on matters which intimately bear on them. You mention, for example, birth control although there are many other fertilities issues which concern women. It seems to me that your objection only stands if ordination (specifically, of the episcopal rank) is equated with teaching authority.
This is in fact one of the very interesting differences between Anglican and Catholic reformers. In the Anglican communion, the emphasis has been (and still is in some places) on elevating women to the episcopate. While this does occur in the Catholic Church, the more prevalent view is that lay people should have increased presence in the leadership of the Church -- so, in a sense, rather than ordain the laypeople, at least clericalise them.
In Australia, for example, there was controversy in the Anglican church when the diocese of Sydney proposed allowing laypeople to celebrate Eucharist. To Catholics, this seemed like a very liberal move because in their own ecclesial life, this is the position often taken by liberal Catholics. But in the Anglican communion, it was in fact a conservative move -- a symbol of old Anglican prejudice against tradition and a devaluing of women's ordinations in the diocese. And to many Catholics' bemusement, it was opposed by many outstanding liberal Anglicans.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Jul 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI've explained it a number of times and in a number of ways. It's dishonest for you to try to pretend at this point that I haven't.
[b]I would at least like you to explain why you thought I had a 'deeply prejudicial view of women'. I suspect you hastily read my post, inaccuarately thought I was arguing male paternalism, and made a flippant judgment. But, please, do at least try to justify yourself this time.
I've explained it a number of times and in a number of ways. It's dish ...[text shortened]... peaks volumes. Be it whether or not they want to be clerics, in the military, miners, etc.[/b]
No you haven't. This accusation that I have 'deeply prejudiced views of women' was in fact very recent. I made a comparison with exclusion from military service and it was quite clear you misinterpreted the point of this comparison, accusing me of arguing that women need men's protection. After I took issue with your misinterpretation, you did not retract nor subsequently justify this accusation of 'deeply prejudicial views of women'.
The fact that you see nothing wrong with women not having such a fundamental right such as being allowed to decide for themselves speaks volumes.
Actually, this is not an issue I have addressed at all. We have not argued in any way about the right of women to be 'allowed to decide for themselves'. In this discussion at least I have confined my remarks only to women's ordination. I have only argued that it is not strictly a sign of inequality to exclude them from ministry.
Again, I repeat, I am not arguing against women's ordination; I am not arguing against women having a voice (in fact, as I pointed out, I do believe that women should have a more prominent place in the Church, suggesting they even be cardinals.) I am not arguing for male paternalism in which men make decisions for women.
21 Jul 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnei agree with the first part. it is gender discrimination.
Not sure, but I suspect that you may not understand my position, so I'll try to explain it. First of all, I think that the fact that women are not allowed to be clerics is gender discrimination. Period. Even if the RCC shifted many of the the roles, responsibilities, power, etc. of the clerical to the laity, women still cannot be on equal footing with men ...[text shortened]... d to be clerics or any and all distinctions between the clerical and the laity must be removed.
i don't agree with the second part. you can't remove distinctions between certain groups. like you said, it would accomplish nothing. also those distinctions are there for a reason.
to remove gender discrimination and any kind of discrimination , the discriminated must be allowed the same opportunities (in this case job) as the privileged. removing the job from the latter cateogory won't accomplish anything and certainly won't makethe discriminated feel better.
there are numerous examples. the women demanded the right to vote, they didn't demanded either the right to vote or that men wouldn't be allowed to vote as well. neither did the blacks demand their separate bathrooms be equally shiny and clean as the white's or the whites bathrooms be equally flithy as theirs.
when it comes to discrimination, there is no "or". you allow the discriminated the same opportunities as the privileged not remove opportunities from the latter so they can all be equally miserable.
21 Jul 10
Originally posted by vistesdWomen are not just excluded from decision-making. It pains many women that they are excluded from administering various sacraments. For example, many women are excellent Spiritual Directors, but only men (priests) can administer the sacrament of reconciliation. Thus, if you believe in the whole system, you can pour out your heart and soul to your spiritual director but then have to go to a priest to receive the sacrament. There are many places in which only women are around to provide daily or weekly worship. However, they can't celebrate Mass. Thus, they have a "lite" liturgical service and hope that the roving priest (or the priest who won't get up in the morning) has consecrated enough hosts for the faithful.
Okay. However, the intractability of the problem given the existing institutional matrix does not mean that the embedded discrimination isn’t pernicious. Further, although a discrimination may not be based on some notion of women’s inequality vis-à-vis the requirements of the “job”, or anything else, does not mean that excluding them from the forum that de ...[text shortened]... ere all that such women could decide, I would still view it as pernicious discrimination.