Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Whether the female sex is an impediment to receiving Orders? Thomism
Message-ID: <Dec.19.04.22.01.1990.27885@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 90 09:22:03 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Lines: 68
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

In article <Dec.16.22.30.28.1990.23966@athos.rutgers.edu> David.Anderson@cs.cmu.edu writes:

>It never ceases to amaze me to read male discourse on "the nature of
>women/femininity." 

Bravo!


>So much of our (humankind's) worldview is based on a
>view which promulgates masculinity as "normative," the true measure of
>what it is to be fully human and adult. 

...at least in most "advanced" cultures.  It would appear that the shift from
a more-egalitarian, or possibly outright matriarchal, society to a patriarchy
tended to accompany a certain "upward" development in technology, in most parts
of the world.  (Quotation marks are not intended 100% ironically -- I frankly 
*like* technology, or at least its fruits of safe food, quick transportation, 
cheap books, indoor plumbing, antibiotics, etc. -- and at the same time want to 
make it clear that I regard all these things bought at a cost, and especially a
cost to women, much of which should not have been necessary.)


>Our (English) language is
>permeated with terms and grammatical structures which only serve to
>reinforce this idea (on conscious and unconscious levels).

Much of that is an overlay, though, put upon the language in the last few
centuries by patriarchalists who wanted to force English to conform to a 
Classical model of grammar.  Before then, it was perfectly acceptable to use
"they" to refer to a single person of undetermined identity or sex, as it is
becoming again except with grammatical-patriarchal curmudgeons.


>Someday, I hope, women will be viewed as fully adult in their own right,
>and as "theologically human" as men are--as fully participating in what
>it is to be Christian as men are capable of being. 

There _are_ many Christian denominations where women are accepted as ministers,
bishops, whatever the local version is called.  If this is important to you, you
should look around and see which ones of these fit your personal understanding 
of Christ most closely.


>Until Christ's
>redemption covers Eve's curse as well as Adam's transgressions in the
>minds of the (generally male) ecclesiastical power-brokers, our weary
>little world will continue to be a haven for sexism, stereotypes, and
>gender-based discrimination of all kinds (promoting continued suffering
>among non-stereotypical men and women alike). Satan is doubtless
>enjoying his continued success in this area.

But it does!  Christ is clearly depicted as forgiving women's sins as well as 
men's -- Mary Magdalene, the woman caught in adultery, etc.  He is also shown as
letting women (Mary Virgin and Mary Magdalene) minister to him -- in specific 
terms, admittedly, but the connection is _far_ less tenuous than some of the 
arguments patriarchalists use to "prove" that women can't be ministers/whatever!

Remember -- even the early Catholic church had deaconesses!


			Welcome to 1984!  Are you ready for the Third World War?
			You too will meet the Secret Police -- We'll draft you 
			and jail your niece, so come quietly too Boot Camp.  
			We'll shoot you dead, make you a man, but don't worry,
			it's for a _cause_...
				--Dead Kennedys "We've Got A Bigger Problem Now"

The Roach