I fail to see why the existence of stupid rules in organisations one isn't even a member of is so important. I will never understand this.
If you don't like the religion join another. If women within the religion are asking for support join them.
The wealth of large religious organisations is measured in billions of dollars (or equivalent), if not trillions - the Catholic Church is one of the world's largest landowners.
A central aim of many religious organisations, especially Christian organisations, is to transform the lives of people both inside and outside the organisation.
The idea that religious beliefs only affect the people who believe them seems pretty naive.
Explain some more about how Orthodox practices of ordination directly affect you.
Can I care only about things that directly impact me? Wouldn't that get me off caring about earthquakes, famines, plagues, wars and purges as long as they happen far enough away not to affect me? Or indeed by that measure why would I care if Restore got in here and started mass deportations?
No that's true but again there are many things to worry about and it is a strange focus to put onto an issue that very much affects a small minority of people.
There are many things that are not fair. It is not fair that Ivy League and Oxbridge graduates get all the jobs. That doesn't then mean that a random Oxbridge graduate is themselves responsible for the institution.
That's one thing.
Another thing that is often lost in these types of debate is that ultra-privileged women want people with considerably less privilege to campaign (and/or get angry) about the thing they care about and then are conspicuously absent if/when things change in their favour.
For example I know academic conferences where privileged women campaigned for years to get positions of power in those organisations. Eventually things changed and the spectacle of men only panels ('manels') became less frequent and sources of shame and calling out. But when black people, people from SE Asia or Africa or the Caribbean argued that there were structural barriers to their inclusion, those who had been vocal about women were suddenly silent.
Because when they said 'women' what they really meant was white privileged women like them, or preferably just them.
I know people say that nothing happened until they started breaking shop windows, but as I understand it, nothing happened after they started breaking shop windows either? The heyday of the WSPU was before the First World War, and women's suffrage wasn't achieved until after the war.
I may be remembering wrongly, but I believe the British suffragettes voluntarily suspended their campaign "for the duration" and took up the cause again after the war. It wasn't that they kept fighting and didn't achieve anything. Somebody correct me if you remember better.
Where there may be difficulties with some writings, that has to be wrestled with, but yes, absolutely, the wisdom of the early Church, of the Creeds, of Scripture, and of God Made Flesh Himself, mattering more than the life experiences of those few (of whatever gender) who happen to be currently living on Earth, within generally a hundred-year period at any moment? Definitely.
Your stool is pretty wobbly with only two legs. I would suggest adding a third one.
But seriously the above quote is maybe a half-step from idolatry, at best. It's making Tradition into a kind of Moloch. The countless thousands of women, children, and LGBTQ+ people who have been traumatized, injured or killed by patriarchy over the centuries don't matter. Throw their bodies into the flames. Tradition must be served.
No that's true but again there are many things to worry about and it is a strange focus to put onto an issue that very much affects a small minority of people.
There are many things that are not fair. It is not fair that Ivy League and Oxbridge graduates get all the jobs. That doesn't then mean that a random Oxbridge graduate is themselves responsible for the institution.
That's one thing.
Another thing that is often lost in these types of debate is that ultra-privileged women want people with considerably less privilege to campaign (and/or get angry) about the thing they care about and then are conspicuously absent if/when things change in their favour.
For example I know academic conferences where privileged women campaigned for years to get positions of power in those organisations. Eventually things changed and the spectacle of men only panels ('manels') became less frequent and sources of shame and calling out. But when black people, people from SE Asia or Africa or the Caribbean argued that there were structural barriers to their inclusion, those who had been vocal about women were suddenly silent.
Because when they said 'women' what they really meant was white privileged women like them, or preferably just them.
"Never mind sexism, what about privilege, what about racism?"
You really couldn't make your whataboutist line of specious argument any clearer.
I think the view would be @Basketactortale that the very fact that the Orthodox don't ordain women legitimises sexism and misogyny on a societal level and that affects us all and clearly women in particular.
On @ChastMastr's recent posts, I think it is fair to remind everyone once again that he does support women's ordination and if I understand him correctly, has done so for some considerable time.
Whether that gets lost in the cross-fire about inclusive or exclusive language in traditional hymns I don't know but it appears it may have done.
Supporting women's ordination in theory while not supporting women's rights in general (as demonstrated on this thread) means it's not particularly relevant so long as he still bends over backwards to endorse misogyny. Certainly things he has posted here are many times more misogynistic than anything you have posted ever, despite his church ordaining women and yours not. I refer back to my previous comment of this being akin to a "dry drunk" - his behaviour/language is still misogynistic even if he accepts women's ordination. Whereas I don't think you have ever come across as remotely misogynistic.
I do think that this is a relevant point - I've known plenty of awful abusive men who hide behind claims of feminism and supporting women. Plenty of men in progressive denominations think that this absolves them of sexism. It doesn't - in a patriarchal society, everyone has to unlearn misogyny, including women unlearning internalised misogyny. It takes effort and a sincere desire to do better.
Thanks @Pomona but I wouldn't pretend that I'm squeaky clean by any manner of means. I wince at some things I've said and done and no doubt will have cause to do so in future too.
I certainly agree that I am not an underprivileged male. That's very evident.
From 'own voice' testimony here and on the companion Ecclesiantics thread some posters have certainly had more than their fair share of heavy shit.
As I have followed this thread over the last week or so, I was put in mind of difficult conversations I used to have with pacifist friends.
They were very clear that war and the industry of war was a moral evil that could not be defended in any circumstances.
It is not easy to refute that.
They would suggest to me that I should not vote labour, as labour was in favour of nuclear weapons and, Iraq. They would suggest to me that the CoE was just as bad as it has military chaplains, and does stuff on 11/11.
I was seen as fatally compromised as I ‘held my nose and voted labour’ and as I worshipped in a CoE church.
No that's true but again there are many things to worry about and it is a strange focus to put onto an issue that very much affects a small minority of people.
There are many things that are not fair. It is not fair that Ivy League and Oxbridge graduates get all the jobs. That doesn't then mean that a random Oxbridge graduate is themselves responsible for the institution.
That's one thing.
Another thing that is often lost in these types of debate is that ultra-privileged women want people with considerably less privilege to campaign (and/or get angry) about the thing they care about and then are conspicuously absent if/when things change in their favour.
For example I know academic conferences where privileged women campaigned for years to get positions of power in those organisations. Eventually things changed and the spectacle of men only panels ('manels') became less frequent and sources of shame and calling out. But when black people, people from SE Asia or Africa or the Caribbean argued that there were structural barriers to their inclusion, those who had been vocal about women were suddenly silent.
Because when they said 'women' what they really meant was white privileged women like them, or preferably just them.
Indeed, there are many things to worry about. It's a shame the world hasn't simply agreed to make you the arbiter of what should be worried about based on how many people you believe are negatively affected. We could be downplaying so many things. Pity.
Ivy League and Oxbridge graduates do not "get all the jobs." Crikey, the hyperbole. No, the random grad is not individually responsible for the entire institution. The random grad is a cog in the wheel, however. And like so many other systems, if the benefits of belonging are big enough, the liabilities can be ignored or rationalized, or as you've shown, ridiculed.
I'm not going to bother with your whole 'academic conference' story. As I've learned, It's just "one thing."
As I have followed this thread over the last week or so, I was put in mind of difficult conversations I used to have with pacifist friends.
They were very clear that war and the industry of war was a moral evil that could not be defended in any circumstances.
It is not easy to refute that.
They would suggest to me that I should not vote labour, as labour was in favour of nuclear weapons and, Iraq. They would suggest to me that the CoE was just as bad as it has military chaplains, and does stuff on 11/11.
I was seen as fatally compromised as I ‘held my nose and voted labour’ and as I worshipped in a CoE church.
@Heron I agree with you on this. First of all, there are too many causes in the world to support all of them. There is neither room in anyone's heart nor life to do so. Second, nobody else, however august, has the right to tell you which causes you should support, or what priority you give to which cause or that just because they feel really strongly about their favourite causes, that you are also obliged too. All three of those decisions were theirs to decide for themselves according to their passions and priorities and yours to decide according to yours. Your friends are not entitled to pre-empt you on these or any others.
Likewise, though, neither you nor I are entitled to demand that they commit themselves to our favourite causes, however self-evident it may appear to you or me that they are right.
I suspect there will be shipmates, including some who post on this thread, who will disagree with me on this, but I stand by what I have said, and do not propose to change my mind irrespectively of what any of them might say or however forcibly they express themselves.
No one's asking you to go out and be a raging feminist, @Enoch. My point from the beginning of this thread is that support for organizations that don't treat women the same as men is support for sexism, and I decided to make that point, and make it loudly, because someone who joined a sexist organization was shocked at the notion that someone would want to take away women's voting rights.
I think it was @chrisstiles who observed upthread that ideas aren’t bounded.
Just as with racism, sexism should have no safe enclave to protect it from scrutiny and censure. The cat is out of the bag. Sexism is morally indefensible and very harmful in practice.
There is such a thing as the emancipation of ideas.
Thing is, @Ruth, it's as if you are expecting me to support some kind of restriction on women's voting rights. As if that's the only view that would be consistent with joining the Orthodox Church from a different Christian affiliation.
There's some own voice contributions in Epiphanies now.
Those are probably far more appropriate responses than anything I can say here.
The realistic position here is that yes some denominations can be charged with sexism for not ordaining women. That said why should the church be forced into a position by the world? The world is perhaps even worse. The church in the west is making changes. It takes time.
There are women who are as adamant that women should not be priests, as Ruth is ok her position. You see them on discussion programs. They don’t see it as sexism and in the none church areas of their lives are pro women’s right and pro women in leadership. Is their position less valid?
Nobody is saying that ideas are bounded, at least as far as I can see. Which probably isn't very far according to some Shipmates.
Ruth sees an inconsistency in my joining a 'sexist organisation' and expressing shock and disapproval that certain US fundamentalists would seek to withdraw the voting franchise from women.
I can understand why she sees that as an inconsistent position. If I accept a male-only priesthood then to be consistent I shouldn't be shocked if someone tries to restrict women's voting rights.
I don't see it as clear cut as that and hence the Hell Call.
Consistent from their perspective, inconsistent from mine. Ideas aren’t bounded. Or at least I’ve never seen a good argument that they should be.
I understand what you are saying but cannot match that to some posts on this thread. I have given several different positions over the course of this thread but some just seem to want to have their position be the only true one. Some posts have bound up ideas.
Thing is, @Ruth, it's as if you are expecting me to support some kind of restriction on women's voting rights.
I think @Ruth has been clear that’s not what she’s been saying. What she’s been saying is that when belongs to a group that in one sphere of life (here, religion) treats women as unequal to men, one shouldn’t be surprised when women’s equality is under attack in another sphere of life (here, politics and civic life).
Thing is, @Ruth, it's as if you are expecting me to support some kind of restriction on women's voting rights.
I think @Ruth has been clear that’s not what she’s been saying. What she’s been saying is that when belongs to a group that in one sphere of life (here, religion) treats women as unequal to men, one shouldn’t be surprised when women’s equality is under attack in another sphere of life (here, politics and civic life).
I don’t think Gamma is surprised and has said so. What Ruth said is that that if he goes to a church that doesn’t allow women priests then he is contributing to sexism as a whole. Gamma and several others have said it is not that black and white. Ruth and some others disagree with that. Several people have come up with examples where the OP doesn’t really fit. That has not changed much to do with the OP.
Thing is, @Ruth, it's as if you are expecting me to support some kind of restriction on women's voting rights.
I think @Ruth has been clear that’s not what she’s been saying. What she’s been saying is that when belongs to a group that in one sphere of life (here, religion) treats women as unequal to men, one shouldn’t be surprised when women’s equality is under attack in another sphere of life (here, politics and civic life).
I don’t think Gamma is surprised and has said so. What Ruth said is that that if he goes to a church that doesn’t allow women priests then he is contributing to sexism as a whole. Gamma and several others have said it is not that black and white. Ruth and some others disagree with that. Several people have come up with examples where the OP doesn’t really fit. That has not changed much to do with the OP.
I can see how Gamma is drawn to the Orthodox Tradition because of its ancient rites and sense of depth plus its strong adherence to some of the original doctrines of the Church. But, as I said earlier, women's ordination is not tied to the ancient doctrines. It is a practice that can and should be changed. I have encouraged Gamma to look for ways to take a step in that direction, but he has backed off.
Seems like is caught in a trap of his own making, and can't get out or at least does not want to get out.
Thing is, @Ruth, it's as if you are expecting me to support some kind of restriction on women's voting rights.
I think @Ruth has been clear that’s not what she’s been saying. What she’s been saying is that when belongs to a group that in one sphere of life (here, religion) treats women as unequal to men, one shouldn’t be surprised when women’s equality is under attack in another sphere of life (here, politics and civic life).
I don’t think Gamma is surprised and has said so.
His clearly-stated expression of surprise* that there is a movement in the US to take away the right of women to vote, posted in another thread and linked to in the OP, is what prompted this thread.
Ruth’s point is not that GG is himself actively supporting denying women the right to vote or other rights, but rather that joining and supporting a group that doesn’t treat women equally, even if that has nothing to do with reasons for joining or supporting, without doing what one can to oppose that unequal treatment, amounts to complicity in systemic sexism and means that one shouldn’t be surprised at the various ways that systemic sexism shows itself.
* “Is Pastor Doug serious?
Would these people really repeal women’s right to vote?
Don't answer that question. I think I need to go and lie down ...”
I think you are reading too much into what I wrote, @Gramps49.
I indicated a willingness to read the books you very helpfully recommended. I did not 'back off' from the possibility or desirability of discussions on the subject at parish or any other level. I did indicate however that someone you assumed might be open to the possibility of women's ordination to the priesthood might not be so - although I'm sure they may very well be in favour of the restoration of the order of deaconess. I'm happy to have those discussions and will do so.
@Hugal and @Nick Tamen, yes, I confess that I was 'surprised' to some extent by the proximity of Protestant fundamentalists who may seek to curb women's electoral rights to key figures in the Trump administration. That may well indicate naivety on my part. I wasn't surprised to hear that there are voices within US Christian fundamentalism that would call for such a thing. I wasn't aware that Hegseth's pastor was one of them.
That doesn't mean I don't think there are Ortho-Crazies close to the ear of Putin just as their Greek equivalents were close to the ear of the Greek Colonels back in the day - nor that some senior Romanian clergy would readily have the ear of unsavoury politicians in that country.
Like King Achish of Gath, I'm inclined to say, 'Haven't we got enough crazies of our own without inviting others along? - or words to that effect.
Thing is, @Ruth, it's as if you are expecting me to support some kind of restriction on women's voting rights.
I think @Ruth has been clear that’s not what she’s been saying. What she’s been saying is that when belongs to a group that in one sphere of life (here, religion) treats women as unequal to men, one shouldn’t be surprised when women’s equality is under attack in another sphere of life (here, politics and civic life).
I don’t think Gamma is surprised and has said so. What Ruth said is that that if he goes to a church that doesn’t allow women priests then he is contributing to sexism as a whole. Gamma and several others have said it is not that black and white. Ruth and some others disagree with that. Several people have come up with examples where the OP doesn’t really fit. That has not changed much to do with the OP.
I can see how Gamma is drawn to the Orthodox Tradition because of its ancient rites and sense of depth plus its strong adherence to some of the original doctrines of the Church. But, as I said earlier, women's ordination is not tied to the ancient doctrines. It is a practice that can and should be changed. I have encouraged Gamma to look for ways to take a step in that direction, but he has backed off.
Seems like is caught in a trap of his own making, and can't get out or at least does not want to get out.
Maybe by asking Gamma to look for ways to take a step in the direction you are are asking to either leave the Orthodox church or to do the impossible and get it to change it's belief. Which one is it? And do you think that is a reasonable "ask" or even one that you have been given the right to ask?
I think it's a fair question although it does beg so many others.
If the RCC or the Orthodox were ever to merge with the Lutherans then which side would 'give ground'?
And what about those Lutheran Synods which don't ordain women?
Would it be reasonable for an RC or Orthodox Christian to expect @Gramps49 to adjust the praxis within his own church to bring it in line with theirs?
Is it reasonable for him to expect the opposite to happen?
Should the RCs and Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) disband and become Protestant. If so, what flavour? Lutheran? Reformed? Anglican?
Should the Protestants disband and become RC or Orthodox?
There are a whole load of questions and assumptions on either side.
I've said I'm more than happy to discuss the role of women in the Orthodox Church at parish or other levels but somehow that's not good enough for Gramps49 unless I'm nailing 95 theses about it to the door of the Phanar and pestering Patriarch Bartholomew to convene an ecumenical council about it at the earliest opportunity.
Thing is, @Ruth, it's as if you are expecting me to support some kind of restriction on women's voting rights. As if that's the only view that would be consistent with joining the Orthodox Church from a different Christian affiliation.
I'd say so if I thought that - c'mon! I'm not exactly shy here.
I confess that I was 'surprised' to some extent by the proximity of Protestant fundamentalists who may seek to curb women's electoral rights to key figures in the Trump administration. That may well indicate naivety on my part.
Well, you don't live here, you're not swimming in the soup of American fundamentalism, and you don't have to deal with its effects. I gotta say, when things I don't expect happen in the UK, I just wait to see if someone British says they think it's weird or surprising or unexpected.
The realistic position here is that yes some denominations can be charged with sexism for not ordaining women. That said why should the church be forced into a position by the world? The world is perhaps even worse. The church in the west is making changes. It takes time.
Meanwhile women's lives, health and civil rights are sacrificed daily. No big deal.
There are women who are as adamant that women should not be priests, as Ruth is ok her position. You see them on discussion programs. They don’t see it as sexism and in the none church areas of their lives are pro women’s right and pro women in leadership. Is their position less valid?
Yes, it is. They are wrong. It's sexism. There have always been women who are complicit in sexism, in their own oppression. It's why consciousness raising was important for 60s-70s feminism.
I frequently see people on the left who can't understand why so many white women in the US voted for Trump. They voted white instead of voting woman out of perceived self-interest because the advantages of being white are very clear and immediate, while being a woman is frequently a disadvantage. It can be hard to get people to take a longer view, which makes it all the more problematic that people like you accept a very slow pace for the movement toward full equality for women.
One thing both Gamma here and Josphine on the other thread have mentioned is the increased number of young men who are attracted to their brand of Christianity.
This raises some concerns on my part:
Are they being attracted to Orthodoxy because of its stance on the role of women in the faith?nt
Are they using Orthodoxy as a reactionary identity
Are they seeking a rigid or authoritarian interpretation?
To the last point, from my own connection with Orthodox priest I have found they are quite comfortable with the greyness of spiritual matters--that things are not totally black and white.
To Gamma's question about how will there be reproachment between Orthodoxy and my particular brand of Lutheranism. I am not as involved in it as I have been these days, but I can say in our upcoming hymnal we will drop the filioque clause (the Orthodox were right all the time), but when it comes to women's ordination, I think it will come to whether each side can agree the Gospel is being preached and the Sacraments are being properly administered. Women's ordination is seen as a practice, not a doctrine. Some may argue if a woman priest administers the sacrament, it is not proper. My brand of Lutherans would reply as long as the Word is being applied to the sacrament even the devil could do it--not exactly since we know the devil could not say the proper words--just an hyperbole.
@Ruth on my jumping in to comment on something Stateside without waiting for a US poster to do so first. Fair call. I will try to do better next time.
@Gramps49 - it's name-dropping time ... this is an issue I've discussed with Dr Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury. Not in an official capacity of course.
It's also something that's even begun to exercise Orthodox bishops. I think I've referred uphread (or elsewhere) to a statement from a Bishop of a rather conservative Orthodox jurisdiction condemning toxic masculinity and the idea that Orthodoxy is there to buttress that in some way.
There are different facets to this. Most of the young men who are checking us out have generally encountered Orthodoxy - or sometimes quasi-Orthodoxy online. For some time now certain online 'influencers', some of them not even Christian, have suggested that young men investigate more traditional forms of Christianity as some kind of antidote to 'woke' influences or because they think it promotes a more positive view of masculinity.
There are also lots of popular (and populist) Orthodox and RC apologists operating online. Some have reasonable credentials. Others less so. Some no credentials whatsoever.
In the States we've seen the rise of the 'Orthobro' subculture, something I've found most of the young men we're getting very dismissive of. That said, they generally, but not universally, tend to be more politically and socially conservative than I am now or was at their age.
That's not confined to churchy circles. A young woman in the cast of the play I'm currently in told me only this evening how many young guys in the online gaming circles she moves in have very disturbing avatars, 'pen-names' and views.
I know plenty of people my age who have sons who have reacted against their liberalism in one way or another.
Young people are exposed to some pretty shitty stuff online. I sense a lot of them are confused and looking for answers. Both Dr Williams and myself were agreed that it's good that some are exploring faith and spirituality but somehow we have to steer that interest in a positive direction.
I know converts who have very quickly moved on from the gung-ho 'masculinity' attitudes that they sought within Orthodoxy and have adopted a more balanced take on things. I know others who've moved on because they thought we were too liberal. I also know a young family who came into Orthodoxy from a background in online agitation about 'fathers' rights' and other 'masculine' causes but who now agitate online against all that.
Dr Williams suggested that the reason some of these young men were attracted to Orthodoxy was because it's robust, active and offers a challenge. There's a degree of asceticism involved for instance.
I know the 'Quiet Revival' thing has been debunked and over-egged but my observations are that the RCs, Orthodox and Pentecostals are receiving a fair number of enquirers and new converts in a way that is less apparent in what we might think of as more liberal theological settings.
.
That may change over time. Some of those I've met are so fundamentalist that they'll either crash and burn entirely or else become more 'liberal' or moderate over time.
It'll be interesting to see how many of them are around in 10 years time.
Short answer. Yes, it is a cause for concern but no, it's not just young men and no they aren't all goose-stepping into the building.
I have to say the deacon's wife and her husband I mentioned earlier are very good at trying to steer some of our very earnest new converts away from harmful material and influences.
For instance, a 19 year old catechumen says he wants to adopt the name 'Nicholas' when he's chrismated (Orthodox equivalent of confirmation) after Tsar Nicholas II.
Our deacon's wife is tactfully trying to steer him away from that ...
As an aside, I roll my eyes when converts with perfectly good first names or biblical names adopt exotic Saints' names when they are received into Orthodoxy.
It's their decision of course but if you are called Ruth, Deborah, Matthew, Joseph or similar, why change your name to Kyrill or Anastasia or...
@Gramps49 I posted a question to @josephine about the impact/influence of young male converts within Orthodox parishes over in the companion thread to this one in Epiphanies.
She has given a very clear and characteristically insightful response I think, from an 'own voice' perspective and from several decades of involvement with the Orthodox Church.
It won't satisfy those who accuse us of denying women's full humanity of course, but it does provide a perspective that I am unable to bring as a male convert.
Thing is, @Ruth, it's as if you are expecting me to support some kind of restriction on women's voting rights. As if that's the only view that would be consistent with joining the Orthodox Church from a different Christian affiliation.
I'd say so if I thought that - c'mon! I'm not exactly shy here.
I confess that I was 'surprised' to some extent by the proximity of Protestant fundamentalists who may seek to curb women's electoral rights to key figures in the Trump administration. That may well indicate naivety on my part.
Well, you don't live here, you're not swimming in the soup of American fundamentalism, and you don't have to deal with its effects. I gotta say, when things I don't expect happen in the UK, I just wait to see if someone British says they think it's weird or surprising or unexpected.
The realistic position here is that yes some denominations can be charged with sexism for not ordaining women. That said why should the church be forced into a position by the world? The world is perhaps even worse. The church in the west is making changes. It takes time.
Meanwhile women's lives, health and civil rights are sacrificed daily. No big deal.
There are women who are as adamant that women should not be priests, as Ruth is ok her position. You see them on discussion programs. They don’t see it as sexism and in the none church areas of their lives are pro women’s right and pro women in leadership. Is their position less valid?
Yes, it is. They are wrong. It's sexism. There have always been women who are complicit in sexism, in their own oppression. It's why consciousness raising was important for 60s-70s feminism.
I frequently see people on the left who can't understand why so many white women in the US voted for Trump. They voted white instead of voting woman out of perceived self-interest because the advantages of being white are very clear and immediate, while being a woman is frequently a disadvantage. It can be hard to get people to take a longer view, which makes it all the more problematic that people like you accept a very slow pace for the movement toward full equality for women.
I don’t accept it. I wish the church would move quicker on many things, it doesn’t. There have been great strides in many areas, but the church doesn’t move fast. It has many competing voices in it.
She has given a very clear and characteristically insightful response I think, from an 'own voice' perspective and from several decades of involvement with the Orthodox Church.
It won't satisfy those who accuse us of denying women's full humanity of course, but it does provide a perspective that I am unable to bring as a male convert.
She used a metaphor about different kinds of food to imply that the Orthodox view of men and women is that they're so different from each other that they might as well be different species. And only the male species gets to do the most respected, important things. I don't think that's as good an argument for the Orthodox opinion of women as you seem to think it is.
Nor do I think she used the analogy to imply that men and women are different species.
If the Orthodox opinion of women was that they aren't fit, capable or worthy of doing the most respected and important things then I'd agree with you but that's not what she said.
I'm not saying I'm squeaky clean by any means, but FWIW I was once in a hardware store where a female builder embarrassed a male shop assistant by clearly knowing a lot more about a particular device than he did.
He flustered and blustered until she told him that he clearly knew very little about the product and she would go elsewhere in the hope of finding someone who might advise her on her potential purchase more effectively.
As soon as she left the store the lad and his colleagues began to scoff and mock.
'Call that a woman?'
'I bet she's a lesbian ...'
And so on.
I happened to be there as a 'mystery shopper', not an experience I'd like to repeat. You can imagine how scathing my report was in that instance together with a request that the sales staff be admonished and also trained not to mock customers with sexist or homophobic remarks as well as being offered proper technical advice on the products they were selling.
Now, I know I'm not being accused of personal sexism but supporting it institutionally which is a different matter.
My views aren't necessarily identical to those Josephine has articulated on the Epiphanies thread either. I may be more open to the idea of women being ordained to the priesthood than she is. Or vice-versa. I don't know. I can ask her.
What I can say is that I agree with her on the diaconate issue and that whilst any analogy we use is going to be flawed I didn't read her response in Ecclesiantics as implying that men and women are a different species.
Perhaps that's something to raise with her on the Epiphanies thread?
I have responded in Epiphanies a couple of times. I'm now responding to your post and asking if you'll expand on what you find "clear and insightful" about describing men and women as two completely different species of fruit or grain. Not even two varietals of the same fruit - different species.
Not to mention what it implies about our trans/nb friends, to say that being born with or without a penis is the most defining factor about what a person is permitted to do in church.
Not to mention what it implies about our trans/nb friends, to say that being born with or without a penis is the most defining factor about what a person is permitted to do in church.
Doesn't it back up the idea that gender is about a lot more than genitals?
@Gramps49 I posted a question to @josephine about the impact/influence of young male converts within Orthodox parishes over in the companion thread to this one in Epiphanies.
She has given a very clear and characteristically insightful response I think, from an 'own voice' perspective and from several decades of involvement with the Orthodox Church.
It won't satisfy those who accuse us of denying women's full humanity of course, but it does provide a perspective that I am unable to bring as a male convert.
Yes, I did see her response, but chose to let it stand without comment, since the Epiphanies hosts have asked that the thread be centered in the female voice.
I may follow up with her in the Purgatory thread at a later date on another issue, though.
Not to mention what it implies about our trans/nb friends, to say that being born with or without a penis is the most defining factor about what a person is permitted to do in church.
Doesn't it back up the idea that gender is about a lot more than genitals?
Not when the church in question doesn't recognise that. A trans man would not be permitted to become an Orthodox priest because the church hierarchy would not consider him to be a man.
Not to mention what it implies about our trans/nb friends, to say that being born with or without a penis is the most defining factor about what a person is permitted to do in church.
Doesn't it back up the idea that gender is about a lot more than genitals?
My understanding of the position of both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches is that gender is about genitals. They wouldn't ordain a trans man to the priesthood because they don't think a trans man counts as a man.
It is ridiculous, it is not as if the priest is required to balance the chalice on his cock. Nor in either the RCs or amongst the Orthodoxen is he required to father children. If anything the male priesthood of the ancient churches is the enactment of a third gender.
It is ridiculous, it is not as if the priest is required to balance the chalice on his cock. Nor in either the RCs or amongst the Orthodoxen is he required to father children. If anything the male priesthood of the ancient churches is the enactment of a third gender.
Not all Orthodox (nor, strictly speaking, all RC) priests are celibate.
@Antisocial Alto - there were other things in josephine's posts such as her response to my question about the current influx of young male converts into Orthodoxy which I found insightful and helpful.
I also observed that analogies can be flawed. I didn't understand her analogies to mean that men and women are a different species because that's not what I think she intended by them any more than anyone, whether Orthodox, RC, Protestant or atheist believes that men and women are a separate species.
Are you seriously suggesting that josephine doesn't believe that women are human beings?
The analogies she used are hers, not mine. You can ask her to expand on them or explain them in Epiphanies if you wish.
I may not know Josephine as much as some others, but I'm willing to wager she didn't say men are grapes and women are raspberries. I'd say that's a twisting of what she said. But I'll go over to the other thread and see what I think.
Comments
No that's true but again there are many things to worry about and it is a strange focus to put onto an issue that very much affects a small minority of people.
There are many things that are not fair. It is not fair that Ivy League and Oxbridge graduates get all the jobs. That doesn't then mean that a random Oxbridge graduate is themselves responsible for the institution.
That's one thing.
Another thing that is often lost in these types of debate is that ultra-privileged women want people with considerably less privilege to campaign (and/or get angry) about the thing they care about and then are conspicuously absent if/when things change in their favour.
For example I know academic conferences where privileged women campaigned for years to get positions of power in those organisations. Eventually things changed and the spectacle of men only panels ('manels') became less frequent and sources of shame and calling out. But when black people, people from SE Asia or Africa or the Caribbean argued that there were structural barriers to their inclusion, those who had been vocal about women were suddenly silent.
Because when they said 'women' what they really meant was white privileged women like them, or preferably just them.
Unless CM is secretly female I'm not sure what you're getting at - his sexuality is not relevant to the discussion.
I may be remembering wrongly, but I believe the British suffragettes voluntarily suspended their campaign "for the duration" and took up the cause again after the war. It wasn't that they kept fighting and didn't achieve anything. Somebody correct me if you remember better.
Your stool is pretty wobbly with only two legs. I would suggest adding a third one.
But seriously the above quote is maybe a half-step from idolatry, at best. It's making Tradition into a kind of Moloch. The countless thousands of women, children, and LGBTQ+ people who have been traumatized, injured or killed by patriarchy over the centuries don't matter. Throw their bodies into the flames. Tradition must be served.
If anything that makes it worse. People threw bricks for his rights, too. I'm grateful for those people, and for the suffragettes.
You really couldn't make your whataboutist line of specious argument any clearer.
White cis gay men are perfectly capable of discriminating against and oppressing others.
Supporting women's ordination in theory while not supporting women's rights in general (as demonstrated on this thread) means it's not particularly relevant so long as he still bends over backwards to endorse misogyny. Certainly things he has posted here are many times more misogynistic than anything you have posted ever, despite his church ordaining women and yours not. I refer back to my previous comment of this being akin to a "dry drunk" - his behaviour/language is still misogynistic even if he accepts women's ordination. Whereas I don't think you have ever come across as remotely misogynistic.
I do think that this is a relevant point - I've known plenty of awful abusive men who hide behind claims of feminism and supporting women. Plenty of men in progressive denominations think that this absolves them of sexism. It doesn't - in a patriarchal society, everyone has to unlearn misogyny, including women unlearning internalised misogyny. It takes effort and a sincere desire to do better.
Everyone is. Capable, that is. No characteristics prevent a potential to abuse.
I certainly agree that I am not an underprivileged male. That's very evident.
From 'own voice' testimony here and on the companion Ecclesiantics thread some posters have certainly had more than their fair share of heavy shit.
Not that my saying that is any consolation.
They were very clear that war and the industry of war was a moral evil that could not be defended in any circumstances.
It is not easy to refute that.
They would suggest to me that I should not vote labour, as labour was in favour of nuclear weapons and, Iraq. They would suggest to me that the CoE was just as bad as it has military chaplains, and does stuff on 11/11.
I was seen as fatally compromised as I ‘held my nose and voted labour’ and as I worshipped in a CoE church.
Indeed, there are many things to worry about. It's a shame the world hasn't simply agreed to make you the arbiter of what should be worried about based on how many people you believe are negatively affected. We could be downplaying so many things. Pity.
Ivy League and Oxbridge graduates do not "get all the jobs." Crikey, the hyperbole. No, the random grad is not individually responsible for the entire institution. The random grad is a cog in the wheel, however. And like so many other systems, if the benefits of belonging are big enough, the liabilities can be ignored or rationalized, or as you've shown, ridiculed.
I'm not going to bother with your whole 'academic conference' story. As I've learned, It's just "one thing."
Likewise, though, neither you nor I are entitled to demand that they commit themselves to our favourite causes, however self-evident it may appear to you or me that they are right.
I suspect there will be shipmates, including some who post on this thread, who will disagree with me on this, but I stand by what I have said, and do not propose to change my mind irrespectively of what any of them might say or however forcibly they express themselves.
I think it was @chrisstiles who observed upthread that ideas aren’t bounded.
Just as with racism, sexism should have no safe enclave to protect it from scrutiny and censure. The cat is out of the bag. Sexism is morally indefensible and very harmful in practice.
There is such a thing as the emancipation of ideas.
There's some own voice contributions in Epiphanies now.
Those are probably far more appropriate responses than anything I can say here.
There are women who are as adamant that women should not be priests, as Ruth is ok her position. You see them on discussion programs. They don’t see it as sexism and in the none church areas of their lives are pro women’s right and pro women in leadership. Is their position less valid?
I don't see anyone arguing otherwise.
Consistent from their perspective, inconsistent from mine. Ideas aren’t bounded. Or at least I’ve never seen a good argument that they should be.
Ruth sees an inconsistency in my joining a 'sexist organisation' and expressing shock and disapproval that certain US fundamentalists would seek to withdraw the voting franchise from women.
I can understand why she sees that as an inconsistent position. If I accept a male-only priesthood then to be consistent I shouldn't be shocked if someone tries to restrict women's voting rights.
I don't see it as clear cut as that and hence the Hell Call.
I understand what you are saying but cannot match that to some posts on this thread. I have given several different positions over the course of this thread but some just seem to want to have their position be the only true one. Some posts have bound up ideas.
I don’t think Gamma is surprised and has said so. What Ruth said is that that if he goes to a church that doesn’t allow women priests then he is contributing to sexism as a whole. Gamma and several others have said it is not that black and white. Ruth and some others disagree with that. Several people have come up with examples where the OP doesn’t really fit. That has not changed much to do with the OP.
I can see how Gamma is drawn to the Orthodox Tradition because of its ancient rites and sense of depth plus its strong adherence to some of the original doctrines of the Church. But, as I said earlier, women's ordination is not tied to the ancient doctrines. It is a practice that can and should be changed. I have encouraged Gamma to look for ways to take a step in that direction, but he has backed off.
Seems like is caught in a trap of his own making, and can't get out or at least does not want to get out.
Ruth’s point is not that GG is himself actively supporting denying women the right to vote or other rights, but rather that joining and supporting a group that doesn’t treat women equally, even if that has nothing to do with reasons for joining or supporting, without doing what one can to oppose that unequal treatment, amounts to complicity in systemic sexism and means that one shouldn’t be surprised at the various ways that systemic sexism shows itself.
* “Is Pastor Doug serious?
Would these people really repeal women’s right to vote?
Don't answer that question. I think I need to go and lie down ...”
I indicated a willingness to read the books you very helpfully recommended. I did not 'back off' from the possibility or desirability of discussions on the subject at parish or any other level. I did indicate however that someone you assumed might be open to the possibility of women's ordination to the priesthood might not be so - although I'm sure they may very well be in favour of the restoration of the order of deaconess. I'm happy to have those discussions and will do so.
@Hugal and @Nick Tamen, yes, I confess that I was 'surprised' to some extent by the proximity of Protestant fundamentalists who may seek to curb women's electoral rights to key figures in the Trump administration. That may well indicate naivety on my part. I wasn't surprised to hear that there are voices within US Christian fundamentalism that would call for such a thing. I wasn't aware that Hegseth's pastor was one of them.
That doesn't mean I don't think there are Ortho-Crazies close to the ear of Putin just as their Greek equivalents were close to the ear of the Greek Colonels back in the day - nor that some senior Romanian clergy would readily have the ear of unsavoury politicians in that country.
Like King Achish of Gath, I'm inclined to say, 'Haven't we got enough crazies of our own without inviting others along? - or words to that effect.
See: Bible Gateway: 1 Samuel 21:15
Maybe by asking Gamma to look for ways to take a step in the direction you are are asking to either leave the Orthodox church or to do the impossible and get it to change it's belief. Which one is it? And do you think that is a reasonable "ask" or even one that you have been given the right to ask?
If the RCC or the Orthodox were ever to merge with the Lutherans then which side would 'give ground'?
And what about those Lutheran Synods which don't ordain women?
Would it be reasonable for an RC or Orthodox Christian to expect @Gramps49 to adjust the praxis within his own church to bring it in line with theirs?
Is it reasonable for him to expect the opposite to happen?
Should the RCs and Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) disband and become Protestant. If so, what flavour? Lutheran? Reformed? Anglican?
Should the Protestants disband and become RC or Orthodox?
There are a whole load of questions and assumptions on either side.
I've said I'm more than happy to discuss the role of women in the Orthodox Church at parish or other levels but somehow that's not good enough for Gramps49 unless I'm nailing 95 theses about it to the door of the Phanar and pestering Patriarch Bartholomew to convene an ecumenical council about it at the earliest opportunity.
I'd say so if I thought that - c'mon! I'm not exactly shy here.
Well, you don't live here, you're not swimming in the soup of American fundamentalism, and you don't have to deal with its effects. I gotta say, when things I don't expect happen in the UK, I just wait to see if someone British says they think it's weird or surprising or unexpected.
Meanwhile women's lives, health and civil rights are sacrificed daily. No big deal.
Yes, it is. They are wrong. It's sexism. There have always been women who are complicit in sexism, in their own oppression. It's why consciousness raising was important for 60s-70s feminism.
I frequently see people on the left who can't understand why so many white women in the US voted for Trump. They voted white instead of voting woman out of perceived self-interest because the advantages of being white are very clear and immediate, while being a woman is frequently a disadvantage. It can be hard to get people to take a longer view, which makes it all the more problematic that people like you accept a very slow pace for the movement toward full equality for women.
This raises some concerns on my part:
Are they being attracted to Orthodoxy because of its stance on the role of women in the faith?nt
Are they using Orthodoxy as a reactionary identity
Are they seeking a rigid or authoritarian interpretation?
To the last point, from my own connection with Orthodox priest I have found they are quite comfortable with the greyness of spiritual matters--that things are not totally black and white.
To Gamma's question about how will there be reproachment between Orthodoxy and my particular brand of Lutheranism. I am not as involved in it as I have been these days, but I can say in our upcoming hymnal we will drop the filioque clause (the Orthodox were right all the time), but when it comes to women's ordination, I think it will come to whether each side can agree the Gospel is being preached and the Sacraments are being properly administered. Women's ordination is seen as a practice, not a doctrine. Some may argue if a woman priest administers the sacrament, it is not proper. My brand of Lutherans would reply as long as the Word is being applied to the sacrament even the devil could do it--not exactly since we know the devil could not say the proper words--just an hyperbole.
@Gramps49 - it's name-dropping time ... this is an issue I've discussed with Dr Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury. Not in an official capacity of course.
It's also something that's even begun to exercise Orthodox bishops. I think I've referred uphread (or elsewhere) to a statement from a Bishop of a rather conservative Orthodox jurisdiction condemning toxic masculinity and the idea that Orthodoxy is there to buttress that in some way.
There are different facets to this. Most of the young men who are checking us out have generally encountered Orthodoxy - or sometimes quasi-Orthodoxy online. For some time now certain online 'influencers', some of them not even Christian, have suggested that young men investigate more traditional forms of Christianity as some kind of antidote to 'woke' influences or because they think it promotes a more positive view of masculinity.
There are also lots of popular (and populist) Orthodox and RC apologists operating online. Some have reasonable credentials. Others less so. Some no credentials whatsoever.
In the States we've seen the rise of the 'Orthobro' subculture, something I've found most of the young men we're getting very dismissive of. That said, they generally, but not universally, tend to be more politically and socially conservative than I am now or was at their age.
That's not confined to churchy circles. A young woman in the cast of the play I'm currently in told me only this evening how many young guys in the online gaming circles she moves in have very disturbing avatars, 'pen-names' and views.
I know plenty of people my age who have sons who have reacted against their liberalism in one way or another.
Young people are exposed to some pretty shitty stuff online. I sense a lot of them are confused and looking for answers. Both Dr Williams and myself were agreed that it's good that some are exploring faith and spirituality but somehow we have to steer that interest in a positive direction.
I know converts who have very quickly moved on from the gung-ho 'masculinity' attitudes that they sought within Orthodoxy and have adopted a more balanced take on things. I know others who've moved on because they thought we were too liberal. I also know a young family who came into Orthodoxy from a background in online agitation about 'fathers' rights' and other 'masculine' causes but who now agitate online against all that.
Dr Williams suggested that the reason some of these young men were attracted to Orthodoxy was because it's robust, active and offers a challenge. There's a degree of asceticism involved for instance.
I know the 'Quiet Revival' thing has been debunked and over-egged but my observations are that the RCs, Orthodox and Pentecostals are receiving a fair number of enquirers and new converts in a way that is less apparent in what we might think of as more liberal theological settings.
.
That may change over time. Some of those I've met are so fundamentalist that they'll either crash and burn entirely or else become more 'liberal' or moderate over time.
It'll be interesting to see how many of them are around in 10 years time.
Short answer. Yes, it is a cause for concern but no, it's not just young men and no they aren't all goose-stepping into the building.
I have to say the deacon's wife and her husband I mentioned earlier are very good at trying to steer some of our very earnest new converts away from harmful material and influences.
Our deacon's wife is tactfully trying to steer him away from that ...
As an aside, I roll my eyes when converts with perfectly good first names or biblical names adopt exotic Saints' names when they are received into Orthodoxy.
It's their decision of course but if you are called Ruth, Deborah, Matthew, Joseph or similar, why change your name to Kyrill or Anastasia or...
She has given a very clear and characteristically insightful response I think, from an 'own voice' perspective and from several decades of involvement with the Orthodox Church.
It won't satisfy those who accuse us of denying women's full humanity of course, but it does provide a perspective that I am unable to bring as a male convert.
I don’t accept it. I wish the church would move quicker on many things, it doesn’t. There have been great strides in many areas, but the church doesn’t move fast. It has many competing voices in it.
She used a metaphor about different kinds of food to imply that the Orthodox view of men and women is that they're so different from each other that they might as well be different species. And only the male species gets to do the most respected, important things. I don't think that's as good an argument for the Orthodox opinion of women as you seem to think it is.
If the Orthodox opinion of women was that they aren't fit, capable or worthy of doing the most respected and important things then I'd agree with you but that's not what she said.
He flustered and blustered until she told him that he clearly knew very little about the product and she would go elsewhere in the hope of finding someone who might advise her on her potential purchase more effectively.
As soon as she left the store the lad and his colleagues began to scoff and mock.
'Call that a woman?'
'I bet she's a lesbian ...'
And so on.
I happened to be there as a 'mystery shopper', not an experience I'd like to repeat. You can imagine how scathing my report was in that instance together with a request that the sales staff be admonished and also trained not to mock customers with sexist or homophobic remarks as well as being offered proper technical advice on the products they were selling.
Now, I know I'm not being accused of personal sexism but supporting it institutionally which is a different matter.
My views aren't necessarily identical to those Josephine has articulated on the Epiphanies thread either. I may be more open to the idea of women being ordained to the priesthood than she is. Or vice-versa. I don't know. I can ask her.
What I can say is that I agree with her on the diaconate issue and that whilst any analogy we use is going to be flawed I didn't read her response in Ecclesiantics as implying that men and women are a different species.
Perhaps that's something to raise with her on the Epiphanies thread?
Doesn't it back up the idea that gender is about a lot more than genitals?
Yes, I did see her response, but chose to let it stand without comment, since the Epiphanies hosts have asked that the thread be centered in the female voice.
I may follow up with her in the Purgatory thread at a later date on another issue, though.
Not when the church in question doesn't recognise that. A trans man would not be permitted to become an Orthodox priest because the church hierarchy would not consider him to be a man.
My understanding of the position of both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches is that gender is about genitals. They wouldn't ordain a trans man to the priesthood because they don't think a trans man counts as a man.
Not all Orthodox (nor, strictly speaking, all RC) priests are celibate.
I also observed that analogies can be flawed. I didn't understand her analogies to mean that men and women are a different species because that's not what I think she intended by them any more than anyone, whether Orthodox, RC, Protestant or atheist believes that men and women are a separate species.
Are you seriously suggesting that josephine doesn't believe that women are human beings?
The analogies she used are hers, not mine. You can ask her to expand on them or explain them in Epiphanies if you wish.