TBC

I don't know why so many women support institutions which subjugate them, such as religion or the ultra-right wing of politics (Sarah Palin, Maggie Thatcher) or other odious practices such as FGM.

And I am a woman. As well, I don't know why more men don't complain about their bullying brethren more either.

Humans are weird.

Which is no answer, because I don't think there is an answer. Except to consider the better educated both women and men are the more capable they are of critical thought and independent expression. There is a very good reason that many religions limit women's education - can't have them getting ideas above their station can we? They are too "precious" to be independent.

However that does not explain the Thatchers - intelligent, well educated and did nothing whatsoever for equity between the sexes.

May as well ask "how long is a piece of string?"

R0bert said "Whilst it's glaringly obvious from outside just how much christian's pick and choose which bit's of the bible they take literally it's not so obvious from inside. ... For many to knowingly give ground on issues like this seems to be a literal rejection of the teachings of their god".

Between that and Otonoko's observations I believe, from an outsiders view AGIR, that we have something of an answer.

I think Squeers comments that have upset 'we are unique', are to a great extent borne out by her response, the usual martyrdom that Squeers raised in the first place. I'm just waiting to read about the toilet seat to confirm it all.

I have to look at this from a non-church viewpoint.

Since I tend to believe women are fine to be undertaking the full gamut of work available, paid and unpaid along with men, I am really concerned that our community gives such leeway to churches who feed off our community, through tax privileges and power so freely granted to them, yet seek to undermine the progress of secular society all the time.

I read those articles R0bert suggested, and there it all was, the information AGIR asks me to seek out.

It's another 'burkah' story, frankly. Where women 'freely' love to wear that terrible potato sack garb to prevent men from going wild with desire... the 'hanging meat' line, remember that Godly soul?

Thanks, but no thanks.

Suzeonline, I think it is only the Vatican, from the Christian side, that regards child abuse as being as sinful and on a par with female ordination, and I do not believe that the story is a beat up, as AGIR seems to think it is.

It fits the material about where women fit in the Christian church very well.

As far as the Salvo's go... I am not going to tell nairbe he is wrong, that was clearly his experience and cannot be denied by the rest of us, whatever else others have to say about their experiences with them.

I am, as you know, something of a conoisseur of the contradictions that abound in your posts, Boaz. Please keep them coming.

This one is a gem.

>>...within the early Church there WERE female leaders, though not of the 'Bishop' kind. They were deaconesses.. servants<<

The beauty, of course, is that you are fully aware that this is a contradiction, and feel obliged to insert the - somewhat frail - disclaimer...

>>.. servants (in the sense all Christians should be so)<<

C'mon. Were they leaders? Or were they servants?

If they were only servants in "the sense all Christians should be", why were they not allowed to be leaders "of the 'Bishop' kind"?

The problem with your religion is that it it totally expedient - full of inconsistent, make-it-up as-you-go instructions.

I'm sure you will come up with quotes that balance these, for example:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14: 34-35.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2: 11-12.

It's a pity, though, that you fail to approach other scriptures in the same even-handed manner, is it not?

Runner... good to see you back. Of course, if you are not a Catholic it would be hard to present their case, fair enough.

But I did laugh at this line of yours, "Biblical Christianity and Catholicism are miles apart although there are some Catholics that follow Christ."

It tells a tale in itself, and not a very nice one at that. Very much another 'potato sack' approach to life hidden within your global perspective I suspect.

Presumably you would not regard either Cardinal Pell or the Pope as being 'followers of Christ', and maybe you are correct there. I am not so sure myself on that one.

And this line Runner, "If we as a country a so dumb to vote for a person who is godless and living in sin we deserve what we get"... so, I take it you will not be casting a vote for the sinful Abbott either? Since he lived in sin, had sex before marriage and then had the cheek to talk about virginity as being 'the biggest gift' to give a man... could he be a hypocrite on top of his other sins Runner?

Indeed Severin, how long is that string? But that is part of the thrill of these threads isn't it? To try to get a closer picture of how others view the same issues as oneself? Which in turn helps to explain how horribly difficult it is to achieve anything approaching consensus on anything at all.

That in turn has to have an impact on how politicians behave, and helps to explain their lack of imagination, never straying too far from the straight and (very) narrow.

"I don't know why more men don't complain about their bullying brethren more either"... ditto here.

It's one of life's mysteries as to why decent people allow themselves to be rail-roaded into poor situations, all the time being led by their nose-rings but with their permission too.

Belly would be dealing with that on a daily basis, as a union organiser, I am sure.

TBC

Speaking as an "aggressive, feminist" (not my description) I do know it is very easy to be suspended on this forum as well.

I suspect that conservative people (male and female) like to be in control. Women who kowtow to male dominated sectors get to control other women (and influence males).

"Uppity" women like yours truly tend to attract the ire of the conservatives. Considering how this is still very much the status quo, and I DO understand your reservations about Julia Gillard, isn't it amazing that a childless, defacto living woman could be the next (elected) PM?

Overall, even though it seems we take two steps back for every step forward, we ARE making progress as a species (in spite of the Boaz's and Runner's and freakin' women like Ursula Stephens who would control women's choices including fertility).

And, yes, threads like this in an essentially conservative forum. Much irony.

Severin... yes, I am concerned about Gillard's 'true nature', but yes again, it is amazing that she could be about to step into the Lodge given her 'shameful' status.

Imagine how 'terrible' it would be if she were also black as well!

No wonder the Republicans hate O'Bama so much.

My latest 'prayer note' has just come through from Catch The Fire. Poor Danny is working himself into a lather, perhaps like Runner is too, over Julia's childless, marriageless, Emily's List lifestyle.

(Funny how everyone so happily overlooks Julie Bishop's very similar lifestyle, apart from Emily's List of course).

And that pleases me no end, and makes me want to see her firmly plonked into the PMs house, no matter what my reservations with the ALP are.

I think it's also good that Tim is not a solicitor, accountant or merchant banker. There is something very 'homey' about the PM living with a hairdresser, even though he seems to have given that away these days.

In fact, we should start a movement to have Tim elevated to GG status, when the other one has finished up.

It would be good to have a 'Stefan' in the top job.

I must say, I do not regard your posts as the least bit aggressive, and am shocked to think you might have been suspended from here.

Surely not?