Women Bishops!

And let me add,you couldn't climb any higher.

Love her or loathe her,Margret Thatcher was most positively a very strong women.And guess what,she wasn't a feminist.

Trisha, you are wrong. A bishop's role is pastoral. The admin is mostly done by the Dean.

As for women being successful in politics, it has nothing to do with shouting down men. It's about being true to one's principles and being brave. And being good at networking and understanding systems. That goes for men as well a women.

And success in politics for women seems to be associated with a strident ability to shout down the men

That seem to be what men do from what I've seen and I cannot begin to explain the level of disappointment I would feel if women copied that childish behaviour. Women are much better communicators than men and always have been blog.readytomanage.com/are-women-better-communicators-than-men/

'... despite the fact that an average male brain is around 10 percent larger than the female brain, the size of the brain is unrelated to either a person’s intelligence or skill in communicating (both talking and listening). The determining factor is connections and in this regard the female brain has more “connections” between the brain’s two hemispheres. Females also have more than 10 percent more brain cells than males in the area of the brain called the planum temporale, which has to do with perceiving and processing language.'

'[women] have around 10 percent more neurons in the area of the brain devoted to emotions and memory. Because they have more “mirror neurons” they are also better at observing emotions in others. Females in studies have regularly been shown to excel at sensing what people are feeling well ahead of being discernible via the senses while males, on average, have difficulty spotting an emotion unless it can be seen or heard.'

So when it comes to interacting with anyone, in order to get information/instruction across, I think women are more suited to the job.

Trishia - funny how women are described as strident isn't it but never men? And in terms of management and politics, why do you say men are better? In my long life I've clearly forgotten all the wonderful male managers I've experienced and am full of admiration for all the male politicians that have made this world such a wonderful place ( see Rotherham thread)

I think of a bishop's job as being more management and politics, than pastoral. Could be wrong.
And success in politics for women seems to be associated with a strident ability to shout down the men.
So I think a woman would excel in pastoral work and men at bishop's work.

There are always those who are more determined and can jump more hurdles faster and with more endurance than the rest.

But there should not be MORE and HIGHER hurdles for some to jump than others, just because some have two X chromosomes and some have one X and one Y. The decision not to bar women from being bishops has removed an insurmountable hurdle across one path.

Well yes Galen some women have always succeeded but there have been, and still are, many who don't simply because of our failure to fully address gender inequality .What a waste of talent there has been and still is - and worse than that, what a loss of the perspectives that women can bring to various debates. When carrying out my various roles, there are definitely occasions when my views and experiences as a women have made a significant contribution to the debate and the ultimate decision. Not all issues of course require that sort of input but a good number.

If you had wanted to enter the priesthood and eventually be a bishop, you would have been disappointed until this recent change, Galen

I wanted to be a man when I realised how much easier men had it in my youth.
It was easier for them to get into medical school and get promoted in the civil service. However I still succeeded.

And looking at the Rotherham case, there is much food for thought about patriarchy and sexism and its impact on young girls and they are perceived and treated.

Returning to Iam64's post (no-one has yet said that the average woman has physical strength equal to the average man, so I am not following you up that cul-de-sac, Mark1, though I can see you would like to debate a point not yet made)

- you say
"Every person in the world is equal.Every person in the world is different.Nobody male or female is more equal than the next.Richer, cleverer, stronger, none of that makes them more equal."

- dictionary.reference.com/ says
"feminist -

adjective, Sometimes, feministic
1. advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.

noun
2. an advocate of such rights."

so what is it about being a feminist that you deny so vigorously?

If someone could prove beyond doubt that men were physically stronger than women, what on earth difference would that make to the serious issues of feminism, gender equality and whether there should be women bishops?

8.28, your post , MARK I agree.

Iam64 I would guess that Mark1 sees feminists as women in boiler suits with brutal haircuts who would castrate all men. That is the male view of them, and perhaps as she is lucky enough to live in a country and a culture where she is on equal terms with men she shares their outlook.

But you would agree that if even one in ten is strong enough to do it, they should be nothing to stop them being manual labourers if that is what they want to do?

That is also what some are forced to do to survive - women have been land girls, doing everything that farm workers would have done before they were called up for war.

Laundry workers used to scrub, lift and wring heavy sheets full of water. They were known for their muscular arms and strong hands - you didn't argue with a washerwoman.

Before the invention of the pram one of the tasks of a nursemaid was to carry the baby around everywhere, that must have got pretty tiring.

They have done other heavy work - carrying baskets of smashed stone for building dams, carrying water home daily on their heads for miles. They still do in some places.

Thank heaven for machines and technology - but those help men as well as women. We don't have to use muscle-power these days, but if we had to we could do it.

Genuine question here Markark1 - why isn't it possible for you to be a feminist if you believe in equality?

Noun..
If (generally) men and women were of equal strength,you would see them in sport on the same side,and competing against each other.Even in the services,the training is adapted for women.
Ok! Women's Army,fire away,tin hats on.

Well, reading some of your posts above, I'd hate to interact with you when you are intending to offend then. . Just that you seem to have resurrected this post in order to announce that you are not a feminist and to do so repeatedly. The Mark1 doth protest rather a lot. Anyway do carry on, free speech and all that.

I still contend that 9 times out of 10 , men are physically stronger than women.

Banging on about it Jessm?
As a equal member of this group,I am merely adding my contribution in a adult debate.It is not my intention to offend.

If you're so happy with your lot Mark1 why are you bashing on about it?

Apart from any of that.Why on earth do some women want to be like men?
Truly genuine question.I don't get it,never have.
As I'v said before,nobody male or female would rule me,but I have never had the slightest desire to be like a man.just don't get it.

Every person in the world is equal.Every person in the world is different.Nobody male or female is more equal than the next.Richer, cleverer, stronger, none of that makes them more equal.This I truly believe,so I cannot be a feminist.What was accepted as the norm years ago,isn't accepted now,and vice versa.(evolution again) all this would have come about without the feminist movement.
As I'v already said,if you look in your history books,there has always been women in male roles.

Frivolous is better than snippy, Elegran!