Saturday, September 5, 2015

Loonpond readers discover Claire Smith and her Sydney Anglican Complementarian views on feminism

 And will Sydney Anglican Complementarian men write to Dorothy and demand an apology?

Dorothy quotes Claire Smith at the Loonpond...If, however, you mean, ‘Is it sexist in that women are inferior to men?’ then it’s not sexist. This is not a statement about worth. It’s a statement about our participation in the congregation and in one limited aspect of what happens in our congregation involving teaching and authority. In fact, not even all teaching, but a particular sort of teaching: the ongoing, authoritative, formal instruction of the congregation. So, it’s saying, ‘Women are to be submissive in that they are not to have a formal teaching role with respect to men in the congregation.’ They are not to engage in that sort of teaching.

...and the readers' responses


  1. Fucking patriachs - all of the one God religions are anti-women. It was when they wrote Lilith - hunter gatherer woman - out of history and replaced her with the gormless Eve - agricultural woman - that the 'original sin' was perpetrated on both men and women.

    From wiki:

    "The idea in the text that Adam had a wife prior to Eve may have developed from an interpretation of the Book of Genesis and its dual creation accounts; while Genesis 2:22 describes God's creation of Eve from Adam's rib, an earlier passage, 1:27, already indicates that a woman had been made: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

    "The Alphabet text places Lilith's creation after God's words in Genesis 2:18 that "it is not good for man to be alone"; in this text God forms Lilith out of the clay from which he made Adam but she and Adam bicker. Lilith claims that since she and Adam were created in the same way they were equal and she refuses to submit to him:[57]

    "The background and purpose of The Alphabet of Ben-Sira is unclear. It is a collection of stories about heroes of the Bible and Talmud, it may have been a collection of folk-tales, a refutation of Christian, Karaite, or other separatist movements; its content seems so offensive to contemporary Jews that it was even suggested that it could be an anti-Jewish satire,[58] although, in any case, the text was accepted by the Jewish mystics of medieval Germany."


    1. Lilith was most probably a Lesbian, Anon. Explains it all.
    2. Crap anon, Lilith would have eaten the snake, made sauce from the apple and given Adam a good time and then she could be a lezzie in her spare time if she felt like it. Only the power of property relations explains the conservative women like Eve who survive the patriarchy by sucking up the blame for everything the alpha Adam man chooses to do, like eating the apple she offered him. What a little boy, dog ate my homework type excuse for making the wrong choice? My mother would have said "and if Adam jumped off the cliff would you follow?".

      But here you go; a real life running dog collaborator Eve on RN this morning - of course on the Tom Switzer program - a dinosaur woman who must be Miranda Divines' heroine and source of her wisdom.

      Christina Hoff Sommers says, "But some commentators warn that today’s modern feminism is a corruption of what feminism should be; that feminism is no longer about freedom, it’s just a lobby group for pet grievances. That it's not so much about emancipation; it’s now reactionary."

      But she is in favour of lezzies, listen and weep.

  2. Hi Dorothy,

    It would appear that nowadays the Liberals have two Saviours in their pantheon, God and Coal.

    The question however is how do the creationists among them explain the formation of coal. Thanks to the intertubes we can wonder no longer;

    A delightful piece of tosh evidently written by a real geologist.



    1. A classic DW, and the pond is eternally grateful, at least until the twelfth of never, for the link.

  3. Thanks Claire Smith. Now I know why Xians don't support SSM: they can't tell who the submissive partner is. And now I know why that is so critical to their whole existence.
    Maybe if we offered to wear labels that would resolve the issue? A dress? HIgh heels? I'd do almost anything to marry my partner of 20 years; I'd even be prepared to identify as the submissive one - at least in public.


    1. I think a Venn diagram might help sort out some of those tricky areas of responsibility between man and woman in Smith's argument.



      David Ould is in a flap again...over the comments of yet another Anglican from Victoria.

      David Ould is in a flap!  God forbid...the bishop of Wangaratta (not Sydney!!!)... Bishop John Parkes...  a former barrister... has told the Chronicle that he believes the country has “grown up” and that the federal government will be bound within a relatively short time to change the Marriage Act to enable people of the same gender to marry.

      David Ould being a true religious fundamentalist...  believes that no one is allowed to have an opinion or speak publicly,  especially if the views expressed,  differ to his views.

      It seems that David is the only Anglican who has the right to publish articles, write blogs, make radio and TV appearances, and endorse these with the acknowledgement of his status as a Sydney Anglican minister.

      Of course...the endorsement of Sydney Anglicanism immediately reminds  the listener, viewer and reader that homophobic and misogynist comments will follow.

      However Bishop John Parks is not a Sydney Anglican so why does David Ould expect Bishop Parks to be stupid and bigoted in his comments?

      Now David ...hard line fundamentalists don't like double standards you know...I'm not sure that the Bishop of Wangaratta was doing anything other than showing some common sense and respect. Just like know when you were on TV ...and Living with the Enemy ... you know ...when you walked in the Mardi Gras show mutual respect for those two gay men ...who you took to your church ...and got them to sit through your sermon ...about the evils of homosexuality.

      You know ...I'm an Anglican who lives in Sydney...and I get  traumatised  when I see David Ould  representing the face of Sydney Anglicanism. .. Muriel Potrter is right when she is quoted in the Wangaratta Chronical as saying... I hope that many more bishops speak out as Bishop Parkes has done because I know that there are a number of bishops and leading clergy in this country who wish to see faithful, loving, monogamous same-sex relationships honoured with marriage,” Dr Porter said yesterday. “If they keep silent nothing will happen.“Silence will just allow hard-line fundamentalists  to dominate the debate.“But if our leading clergy speak up like this, as Bishop Parkes has done, then I would see the church coming in a much more friendly way – and more quickly – to a resolution on this question.”