Churches that don't allow women to be leaders.

[bananacat]

The problem here is that certain posters are sexist, but they think some amount of sexism is good. But in our society, sexism is generally considered bad, so they can't just admit that they're sexist and happy about it (they probably don't even admit this to themselves). That makes it harder to have any kind of honest conversation. If they would just say "Yeah, it's sexist but I agree with it anyway" then we could just agree to disagree and let them go on their merry way. But instead they have to insist that they're not sexist by some amazing mental gymnastics.

I know they're just itching to say "Men and women are just plain different. They just are. Men can't be good at women's roles and women can't be good at men's roles and there's all there is too it. Those roles are both good, but just plain different." And then maybe we could actually get somewhere. But until they admit that they favor discrimination, we can't get anywhere.

Think about it this way. What if I said that women are good at being rocket scientists and men are good at being brain surgeons? They're just innately wired that way, whether through nature, God, or whatever. Men could be rocket scientists, but they just wouldn't be as good at it as women. Women could try to be brain surgeons, but they would all be dissatisfied with that lifestyle and would ultimately drop out. It's better if we just keep them separate. It's better to only allow them into certain roles. Would that be sexism or not? Yes, of course it would be. I don't agree that men and women are just so innately different that they have to be forbidden from certain roles. It doesn't matter how important those roles are because there's more variety among the sexes than between them. Excluding an entire group from a role is discrimination, full stop.

[fluttershies]

I grew up in the episcopal church, where women have been in leadership for ages. It was a total non-issue, even where i grew up in the deep south. It did take them anglicans awhile to get with women and gays as bishops, but in most other leadership positions, it's been common for most of my life.

ETA: as a result, i have zero frame of reference for any reason why any church would not allow women in leadership. i mean, i hear what they're SAYING, but it does not compute in my brain. my brain just rejects it as absurd and sexist.

Sadly us Anglicans in the UK still don't have female or gay bishops :( But we're fighting for them!

[fluttershies]

The problem here is that certain posters are sexist, but they think some amount of sexism is good. But in our society, sexism is generally considered bad, so they can't just admit that they're sexist and happy about it (they probably don't even admit this to themselves). That makes it harder to have any kind of honest conversation. If they would just say "Yeah, it's sexist but I agree with it anyway" then we could just agree to disagree and let them go on their merry way. But instead they have to insist that they're not sexist by some amazing mental gymnastics.

I know they're just itching to say "Men and women are just plain different. They just are. Men can't be good at women's roles and women can't be good at men's roles and there's all there is too it. Those roles are both good, but just plain different." And then maybe we could actually get somewhere. But until they admit that they favor discrimination, we can't get anywhere.

Think about it this way. What if I said that women are good at being rocket scientists and men are good at being brain surgeons? They're just innately wired that way, whether through nature, God, or whatever. Men could be rocket scientists, but they just wouldn't be as good at it as women. Women could try to be brain surgeons, but they would all be dissatisfied with that lifestyle and would ultimately drop out. It's better if we just keep them separate. It's better to only allow them into certain roles. Would that be sexism or not? Yes, of course it would be. I don't agree that men and women are just so innately different that they have to be forbidden from certain roles. It doesn't matter how important those roles are because there's more variety among the sexes than between them. Excluding an entire group from a role is discrimination, full stop.

The kicker for me is that none of them seem to argue against men doing 'female' jobs eg nursing, childcare etc. THAT is what really convinces me that it's sexism.

[tabbytiger]

The evangelical church I belonged to as a teenager/young adult did not allow women in positions of leadership and for a long while we were not even allowed to suggest hymns in the 'open' part of the meeting. It was very damaging to grow up there and I wish I had left much sooner.

Was this by any chance a Plymouth brethren "bible chapel"? That one did a number on me... and I don't often encounter others who have left that particular group.

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

She's 12 years old. Most 12 year olds will still say what their parents want them to say. It's not fair for her parents to ask her if she thinks her parents are wrong.

At that age I would have said the same thing, but really I was very hurt by the sexist religious doctrine I was exposed to.

I was just curious what she'd say. She is actively encouraged to ask questions and give opinions. If you knew her, you'd know she'd have no problem answering that question truthfully, lol.

[Jessica]

Right......

[ShesCrafty]

The problem here is that certain posters are sexist, but they think some amount of sexism is good. But in our society, sexism is generally considered bad, so they can't just admit that they're sexist and happy about it (they probably don't even admit this to themselves). That makes it harder to have any kind of honest conversation. If they would just say "Yeah, it's sexist but I agree with it anyway" then we could just agree to disagree and let them go on their merry way. But instead they have to insist that they're not sexist by some amazing mental gymnastics.

I know they're just itching to say "Men and women are just plain different. They just are. Men can't be good at women's roles and women can't be good at men's roles and there's all there is too it. Those roles are both good, but just plain different." And then maybe we could actually get somewhere. But until they admit that they favor discrimination, we can't get anywhere.

Think about it this way. What if I said that women are good at being rocket scientists and men are good at being brain surgeons? They're just innately wired that way, whether through nature, God, or whatever. Men could be rocket scientists, but they just wouldn't be as good at it as women. Women could try to be brain surgeons, but they would all be dissatisfied with that lifestyle and would ultimately drop out. It's better if we just keep them separate. It's better to only allow them into certain roles. Would that be sexism or not? Yes, of course it would be. I don't agree that men and women are just so innately different that they have to be forbidden from certain roles. It doesn't matter how important those roles are because there's more variety among the sexes than between them. Excluding an entire group from a role is discrimination, full stop.

So true. People tend to see themselves in a certain way and anything that goes against that is rationalized or ignored. AreteJo and babycakes clearly don't SEE themselves as sexist, therefore any beliefs they hold cannot BE sexist.

[formergothardite]

Yes, the insisting that this is actually treating mena and women equally is what is driving me nuts. If they would just own up to this is sexist this whole conversation would be easier.

[bananacat]

The kicker for me is that none of them seem to argue against men doing 'female' jobs eg nursing, childcare etc. THAT is what really convinces me that it's sexism.

I suspect that they would "let" men do these things, but they wouldn't expect them to be very good at it. They seem like the type who think it's babysitting when men care for their own kids. They'd probably look sideways at a stay-at-home dad, and would question the sexuality of a man who became a nurse. It's just really hard for some people to believe that men can actually be good at these things. Even though feminists are called man-haters, it's really anti-feminists who hate men more. If you think men just can't be good at raising children, then you don't call someone else a man-hater. That one drives me nuts.

[ShesCrafty]

I guess it's like an addiction, getting them to admit there's a problem is the first step. Until then, I feel like this :angry-banghead:

[ShesCrafty]

Don't even get me started on people who say men are "babysitting" their own chidren :evil:

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

This is a common way of trying to disparage women who want equality. It's ignoring the problem by saying that women who want to see women in leadership are just power-hungry, often accompanied by "Leadership is a burden to men, so why do you want it?" or "I'm so humble that I would never want to be a pastor". I really hate this tactic. I have absolutely no desire for power, but I still think it's wrong that women can't be in leadership positions in churches. And it's not like women who do want to be pastors are just seeking power; all I've known of just feel called to that ministry.

I used the word power because formergothardite described it as the men not wanting us to have power. I don't want power and I don't think anyone should and I don't think not allowing women pastors is a power trip thing, that's all I meant. I didn't use the other "tactics" you described. My beliefs are biblically based, and they are MY beliefs. I'm not asking you to agree with me.

[formergothardite]

Would you accept that as an answer from someone who was using the Bible to support slavery?

[fluttershies]

I suspect that they would "let" men do these things, but they wouldn't expect them to be very good at it. They seem like the type who think it's babysitting when men care for their own kids. They'd probably look sideways at a stay-at-home dad, and would question the sexuality of a man who became a nurse. It's just really hard for some people to believe that men can actually be good at these things. Even though feminists are called man-haters, it's really anti-feminists who hate men more. If you think men just can't be good at raising children, then you don't call someone else a man-hater. That one drives me nuts.

The weird thing is that in a former church of mine, a man was in charge of children's work, yet this was a church opposed to female clergy, and they would definitely not object to male nurses etc. Just really strange.

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

So if some African Americans decide that Jim Crow laws don't make them lesser, then that is okay? I just want to clarify the truth being quoted.

I think comparing Jim Crow laws to women not being allowed to be pastors is a stretch. I'm QFTing the idea that feminism is supposed to be all about choice, but only if it's the "right" one. And choosing to agree with a church that denies women church leadership roles is the wrong choice.

FWIW that's my first time using QFT and it wasn't the best fit here I can see now

[fluttershies]

Would you accept that as an answer from someone who was using the Bible to support slavery?

My thoughts exactly. I believe in allowing female clergy/bishops and I believe my viewpoint to be Biblically-based, as I believe the passages in 1 Corinthians to be about one particular (unnamed) woman who was causing trouble as there were female deacons in the New Testament church, and that's a hard job to do without any kind of authority and especially if you can't even speak up.

[formergothardite]

I really would like to know what you would have told your daughter if she had said that it did make her feel less then man and wanted to know why she can't be treated equally to men? Would you admit that it is indeed not treating them equally, but in your opinion it is okay to not treat men and women equally or do you have some other explanation.

And feminism is all about choice, your church does not believe in giving women this choice.

[fluttershies]

I really would like to know what you would have told your daughter if she had said that it did make her feel less then man and wanted to know why she can't be treated equally to men? Would you admit that it is indeed not treating them equally, but in your opinion it is okay to not treat men and women equally or do you have some other explanation.

And feminism is all about choice, your church does not believe in giving women this choice.

Feminism is also about opposing sexism. Not letting women into leadership roles because of their gender is sexist. You might agree with the sexism in question, but it's still sexism.

[valsa]

I'm QFTing the idea that feminism is supposed to be all about choice, but only if it's the "right" one. And choosing to agree with a church that denies women church leadership roles is the wrong choice.

You're right- choosing to support policies and institutions that strip women of choices is not feminism.

[ShesCrafty]

I think comparing Jim Crow laws to women not being allowed to be pastors is a stretch. I'm QFTing the idea that feminism is supposed to be all about choice, but only if it's the "right" one. And choosing to agree with a church that denies women church leadership roles is the wrong choice.

FWIW that's my first time using QFT and it wasn't the best fit here I can see now

FFS! Feminism is about choice and your church is denying women that choice. Do you see how this is discrimination?

[formergothardite]

Girls in your church are raised to believe that they can't make the choice to be a pastor.

[Boltingmadonna]

I grew up Catholic, and for a long time I just didn't consciously see how badly I was disrespected as a woman. It's kind of like being a horse with blinders on. The horse isn't blind; he just can't see certain things because his rider has decided it would only cause trouble. I knew that recognizing what I really knew--that women were treated as less--would only cause me a lot of trouble, so I chose not to see it until I was ready to. Yes, that was a choice that I made, but I don't think it was a particularly good one.

I can imagine, in theory, a church where men get to be the priests and worship leaders, but other than that, women are treated as perfectly equal. I can imagine it--but I've NEVER seen it work out that way in practice. If women are not involved in leadership, our voices are not heard. There is no way for us to get our wrongs redressed, and no way for us to affect policy. To want some degree of control over our own lives is hardly power-hungry. If you think it's wrong for women to exercise leadership and to help set policy, then I guess you would want women to quit voting? Perhaps you think the American revolution was wrong because John Adams et al were just power-hungry! Why couldn't they keep quiet and accept that rulership was for the aristocrats and not for the likes of them? After all, common people aren't really considered lower than kings and nobles--they just have their own little sphere to work in. True, that sphere involves being subject to unjust laws and taxation without representation, but hey, God wants it that way! Know your place, ladies! FFS, how can you not see that as condescending?

[fluttershies]

I grew up Catholic, and for a long time I just didn't consciously see how badly I was disrespected as a woman. It's kind of like being a horse with blinders on. The horse isn't blind; he just can't see certain things because his rider has decided it would only cause trouble. I knew that recognizing what I really knew--that women were treated as less--would only cause me a lot of trouble, so I chose not to see it until I was ready to. Yes, that was a choice that I made, but I don't think it was a particularly good one.

I can imagine, in theory, a church where men get to be the priests and worship leaders, but other than that, women are treated as perfectly equal. I can imagine it--but I've NEVER seen it work out that way in practice. If women are not involved in leadership, our voices are not heard. There is no way for us to get our wrongs redressed, and no way for us to affect policy. To want some degree of control over our own lives is hardly power-hungry. If you think it's wrong for women to exercise leadership and to help set policy, then I guess you would want women to quit voting? Perhaps you think the American revolution was wrong because John Adams et al were just power-hungry! Why couldn't they keep quiet and accept that rulership was for the aristocrats and not for the likes of them? After all, common people aren't really considered lower than kings and nobles--they just have their own little sphere to work in. True, that sphere involves being subject to unjust laws and taxation without representation, but hey, God wants it that way! Know your place, ladies! FFS, how can you not see that as condescending?

The complementarians I know all only believe in different-but-equal in marriage and church leadership. The only fundies I know of who don't let women vote are anabaptists and none of them vote anyway.

[kpmom]

The problem here is that certain posters are sexist, but they think some amount of sexism is good. But in our society, sexism is generally considered bad, so they can't just admit that they're sexist and happy about it (they probably don't even admit this to themselves). That makes it harder to have any kind of honest conversation.

I was just thinking the same thing. I recall when Knight in Shining Armour tried to explain why patriarchy doesn't put men in a position of power over women, and several of his sycophants came by to say the same thing. And now this current group trying to explain why not allowing women in leadership positions (and no, leading Sunday School is not leadership) is not sexist.

I would have a little more respect for them if they'd just admit they don't want women anywhere near leadership roles and they like it that way.

[Arete]

Shit lost an entire reply.

First off, whoa, where do you get the impression I don't think men would be good taking care of kids or nursing? I was raised by I man who had only daughters and had to raise us as a single parent. Thanks I've seen men cook for bake sales, wear aprons, clean up sick kids and do their level best to teach us the intricacies of walking in high heels. Part of the job to him, nothing to see there in his mind.

Yes, feminism is about choice, and that means that not all of us find the same things important or sexist (and I'm using your working definition of sexist, something that is evil and put in place to belittle a woman). Rest assured EOs have more than there share of educated women in the world, so if a time comes where male priests are revisited, we don't need women outside the church to explain equality to us, or that Jesus had female disciples, or that there is no Jew or Gentile, Man or Woman in the eyes of God. We understand all that right now, and yet female priests are not a priority on the fix it list, which like any man made institution's fix it list, always has to be worked on and things get bumped up or down depending on what the church as a whole sees as its most pressing priorities. You can ask any EO, and you will see I'm not lying, the subject of women priests is not on the radar. It hasn't been discussed and hushed up, it is not tearing apart parishes (though God knows plenty of other stuff does), it just is not an issue right now.

Edit to add: As for the American Revolution and voting, men and women who belong to EO churches vote both in church and in government, so it appears we can handle voting with male priests.