Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
It is kind of amazing all the wiggling and hoop jumping you will go through to avoid giving even the slightest form of condemnation of a policy that restricts women from positions of leadership.
I wouldn't condemn an organization that restricted its leadership to just women, so why would I condemn one that restricts its leadership to just men? I mostly find such policies to be organizationally defined.
Quote:
Interesting that you would choose a system that is (much closer to, at least) a meritocracy as your counterexample. In academia, there is zero explicit restriction based on gender, race, and so forth to climb the ranks. It is meritocratic.
Pretending like academia really is a meritocracy ignores some of the obvious realities that point to the fact that it's structurally an unjust system (unjust relative to what a truly meritocratic system is).
But more importantly, you just completely missed the point. The point had to do with organizational tension, not ascension.
Quote:
But the solution to such omnipresent tension undertaken by academia - a meritocracy - is vastly superior to the fiat restriction of women from positions of authority. Especially considering how the academic tension is based on an entirely legitimate basic conflict (most people, such as those disadvantaged ones, lack the skills to be successful in academia) while their is no legitimatize to the basic conflict that women are in some way worse or less able to be ordained.
I disagree that all structures are best expressed as a meritocracy. Even with my egalitarian perspective, I reject merit as being the fundamental metric of personhood and spiritual leadership.
Quote:
So I presume that is a "no, I can't list a single example of my alleged many, many examples"? But sure, as I said, if you want me to make explicit the "in the west" qualifier then go ahead. The policy is anachronistic in the west. Nit.
Again, if you want to view the world in a Western-centric way and judge global organizations from that perspective, be my guest. But I will criticize your perspective as being narrow and limited.
Quote:
The problem here is that when I directly asked you your opinion on this policy of the catholic church you tried to evade it by saying " These are organizational decisions that are left to individual organizations to determine". But the exact same retort can be said to just about any organization decision (such as canada's decisions about its immigration policies) to similarly get you out of answering any question about any policy any organization has. It is just a completely empty retort.
I don't really have much of an opinion on it, much like I don't really have much of an opinion about Canadian politics. I can say that I don't have a problem with it, and that's true. And I can also say that I don't endorse it, and that's also true. The problem is more structural, in that you want me to take a side on a wedge issue, and the truth is that I don't really care much beyond the belief that organizations should be free to establish their own parameters. If they want to be that way, that's fine with me. If they want to be different than that, that's fine, too. (You're a political guy - I know you understand what you're doing here.)
Quote:
But you are debating this topic. So it seems you do care.
No, I was originally criticizing what I thought was an unfair linkage being a statement of compassion and misogyny. I don't think the original comparison was fair or appropriate. And that is precisely what I was criticizing. So insofar as that aspect is concerned, I care about an accurate portrayal of what was said, and I care about the ability of organizations to define their own structures.
Quote:
So what is preventing you from stating your view on the policy of restricting women from positions of authority in the catholic church? You have already told us you don't agree with every policy of theirs, well is this one such policy? If you want to say you are too ignorant or don't care enough to comment, then fine, I suppose. But don't just say "its an organization they can make decisions". That is the biggest nonanswer ever.
You can call it a nonanswer if you want. Male papacy is not something that's a policy I disagree with. It's not something I support. I think it's something that's neither here nor there. I can know quite a bit about it without having an opinion. That's not a matter of ignorance, but more of a matter of not really caring that much.