Women Bishops!

Wearing the fancy outfit and mitre and carrying the crook could be fairly hard work! (Sorry to be frivolous. I'll get my coat)

Ahem.. to combine to two strands of the thread ..... bishops do not need physical strength to carry out their responsibilities so nothing to stop women being bishops unless women cannot be as spiritual / religious /political as men.

Oh lor' not the sort of thing you expect to be taken literally - except by the literal-minded.

You did ask 'need I go on?', Soutra...

Did you watch the Forsyte Saga, Nonu ?

In one episode, a mother is walking with her child in daylight, and the child sees the moon in the sky. "Look, Mummy there is the moon!" "Don't be silly, darling, the moon comes out at night, and the sun by day. Everyone knows that" and she did not even look up to see what the child saw, the moon shining in the sky at the same time as the sun, because its orbit took it into a place where it could be seen before dark.

Some of the best vicars I have ever known were women and I am sure they would have made excellent bishops. Good luck to them!

Some women do not have the physical strength for manual work. Some women do.

When we lived next door to a farm, the wife there (aged over 70 and an artist by training and profession, who farmed part-time) would gaily toss around whole bales of hay that DH could barely lift - and she was not unfeminine. Perhaps none of the women you know have the strength, nonu but many do, and if they want and are able to do manual work, who is to stop them? Husbands who don't want them to be stronger than as strong as them?

Some men do not have the strength either. Adolescent males begin to put on muscle as a result of their male hormones, while adolescent girls do not, but if they use their muscles, girls can be as strong as boys.

I have made ONE so**ing comment on this thread so WTF do you mean I can " go on as much as I jolly well like"? And adding does not make your comment any less personally insulting. Some women are considerably stronger than some men . End of. (But I thought this thread was about bishops not navvies - although women worked as navvies in WW I too)

You can go on as long as you jolly well like Soutra.Don"t think anyone will stop you.

My point Soutra , is that women do not have the same strength as men,
for manual work .
End of !!

<Le Sigh>

Whatever anyone says I think some women can develop the same physical strength as men. Some men are naturally physically weak compared to some women.

E.G. Some women do and some men don't meet the fire fighter requirements.

And your point nonu is?
They used to say women couldn't be surgeons as they weren't strong enough, similarly soldiers pilots jockeys sailors bus drivers - need I go on?

Women don"t have the same physical strength, whatever anyone says !

As a feminist it is also possible to agree that women can (thankfully) be different to men but equal in value TriciaF!

Jobs/roles/skills are able to be done equally well by men or women, just not all men or all women!

There are 1000s of women who excel at roles that are 'traditionally' thought to be men's work and vice versa. It is about skill, ability and aptitude and each of us has potential. Some women would make appalling nurses but great brickies etc etc.

I find the thought that there are still gender specific jobs anachronistic.

Thank you Galen

I was brought up C of E, and because there were almost all females in the congregation, and males up near the altar, I thought it looked as if the females were worshiping the males!
Always had doubts and converted to another religion later.
But before that I had a very dear room-mate at University who later became one of the first female priests. I was a witness at her adult baptism.
Lost touch sadly, but I'm sure she made a wonderful priest. I'm not sure if she would have been such a good bishop.
From the feminist point of view, I'm not a real feminist, I think our differences mean that our strong points lead us to excel in different roles.

Holly it was Peter and James, Paul/Saul didn't come onto the scene til later.

Sorry to have gone off topic but in response to the OP, - long overdue.

Yes, I am hearing you Marm but like many, I realised in the 60's my voice alone wouldn't change anything.

It surprises me that you haven't worked this one out yet.

Can't think why you feel I need a tissue. Possibly tears of laughter.

Marmark Are you really saying that if women were all like you there would be equality?

The fact is that women were barred from holding high office and you most certainly could not have previously "done whatever you wanted" if what you wanted was to be a vicar. However strong, determined and able a woman might be counts for nothing if an organisation has the right to exclude her from holding certain positions.

at least some of what the Bible records about him, I feel Jesus was a compassionate and inspirational person whose ideas were light years ahead. I see him as a radical who challenged established ideas and hierarchies. Yet is seems that, despite several notable exceptions, historically the church has been very much part of the establishment and has been responsible for maintaining hierarchies rather than challenging them.

From what I have read, Jesus' closest confidante was Mary Magdalene - which brought about a fair bit of resentment from Paul (or it might have been Peter, I can't remember which). I put most of the blame squarely on religion for the way women ended up being treated.

There is a fascinating series of interviews on DVD, with theologians, historians and various priests, called 'Banned From the Bible' and it helps to explain the many anomalies in the Bible (e.g. that Eve was not Adam's first wife (ergo - she can not be the first woman) but his third - the first wife isn't given a name in any of the texts but the second wife was Lilith - and how often is she mentioned other than as an undesirable demonic woman! Now I wonder why that came about ...).

They said the same about women doctors and lawyers, and as for members of parliament! Shock horror!!!!

Suffragettes and pioneer medical and legal students gained a toehold in their professions for women, and government is now open to women, but there are by no means totally equal attitudes to women, and in some countries and under some regimes they are discriminated against and even killed for wanting the minimum opportunity - education to start to prepare themselves for a career. No chance to do what you want or be what you want without education.

The church will evolve to accept women bishops and even - who knows - a woman pope? That would be interesting.

Marmark whatever you call yourself, you are indeed a feminist.

I'm not religious but if we can rely on at least some of what the Bible records about him, I feel Jesus was a compassionate and inspirational person whose ideas were light years ahead. I see him as a radical who challenged established ideas and hierarchies. Yet is seems that, despite several notable exceptions, historically the church has been very much part of the establishment and has been responsible for maintaining hierarchies rather than challenging them.

Although the C of E has finally changed its stance regarding the role of women in the church, it's certainly dragged its feet on the matter. And the Catholic church is even further behind.

It's interesting that some women also feel uncomfortable with the idea of women preachers. I think it's because something which is unfamiliar takes a while to get used to. They used to say the same thing about women newsreaders - that their voices weren't suitable and that the public would never accept them. I'm not sure anyone feels like that now - do they?

Your hearing it.Do you need a tissue?