Women Bishops!

I'm not sure what the definition of a feminist is (and perhaps this belongs on another thread) but I strongly believe that most men and most women have different approaches to organising, problem solving, interpersonal relationships etc. Each contributes something and we complement eachother.
We're of equal value , but in different ways.
So our differences mean that some jobs are more suitable for women and some for men.
Female priests - definitely. Female bishops - probably ok. There are female rabbis, what about female imams?

There are definitely female rabbis - Julia Neuburger for one - but I don't think I have ever heard of a female imam. Somehow I don't think there are any.

I think the bottom line is that SOME men are suited to work that is traditionally considered female and SOME women suited to work traditionally thought male. When there are laws and rigid procedures that prevent them doing those jobs, they are not "able to do or be whatever they want to do or be"

I quoted a definition of feminism esrlier, but will repeat it here:-

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."

After reading some of the replies to other threads,it seems I am in the company of mainly radical feminist,with obvious one track minds,unable to grasp the concept of total equality.
As I am only very fair minded,I won't be able to add any opinion that won't be shouted down.So I will sign off.Thank you ladies.

Sorry you feel you have no alternative but to go, Marmark1 but that is your decision.

Radical feminists we are not, just normal women who feel that legal and bureaucratic barriers such as the one that kept women from being bishops have no place in our society, and the barriers placed on women's ability to "be or do what they want" in some other societies are unacceptable. You say that there are no barriers to what you can do. You are very lucky.

Don't see myself as a radical anything! Certainly haven't a one track mind! Don't see many of you are radical either.
What a very strange opinion!

Has Marmark1 posted on any other subjects, to check just how one-track our minds are, or just on this one (and if not, then whose mind has only one track?)

I see that Marmark1 was posting on the AIBU site "My daughter-in-law and son" and said "This is a good sight.Nice to hear from people similar to me"

I've been called a lot of things in my life but never a radical feminist. I'm not sure I would describe myself as a feminist but then I'm not sure what a feminist really is.

I believe:
(1)that all should have equal opportunities regardless of gender, sexual orientation, religion, lack of religion, race, height, weight, eye colour, hair colour or anything else that makes them different to someone else

(2)that men in general are better suited to some occupations and women in general are better suited to others...not a hard and fast rule...nothing overrules (1)

(3)there is nothing wrong with being a full time mum/dad/housewife/househusband if that suits the person and/or their family circumstances

(4)that no means no and a woman never asks to be raped

(5)that predatory sexual behaviour and bullying by either gender is wrong but that now some women are crying harassment for something as simple as a complimentary wolf whistle.

I'd say that you were a feminist, vampirequeen, but not a radical one. To join that club you would need to be FAR more aggressive about it.

Like Julie Birchill, for instance.
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100198116/here-is-julie-burchills-censored-observer-article/

OMG does she write like that all the time. What a horrible way to talk about people.

Here is the Wikipedia entry on her.
If you can match that, you can claim to be a "militant feminist" (well, a militant something) If not, you are just a common-or-garden ordinary woman who lives in relative obscurity but thinks women could still use a bit more common-or-garden-feminism.

That's not from the bible as agreed by the Council of Nicene, is it Hollydaze? Not that we should be defined by that but I hadn't come across it before.

I didn't think Julie's article was radical feminist. Just angry with a certain small group of people. She is just a forthright journalist.
Surely radical feminism would look something like: "All men are bastards and the world would be a better place if the whole bloody lot were sent to Antarctica with only summer wardrobe. Hopefully to freeze their balls off. And other bits as well. In the meantime I am going to do my best to live a life in which I don't have to talk to any!" Hardly the usual GN style
Maybe this thread can now fade back into the peaceful corner of cyberspace where it was sitting quietly, contemplating a few passing electrons, before somebody stirred it back into life.

Ooh! JessM you have a nice line in cursed. Who's upset you today?

My daughter is a self confessed chav. She certainly doesn't need protecting by this woman who needs to sort out her own life before she attempts to sort out other peoples.