Re: Women and the Universal House of Justice
Alexander Renwick (renwick@owlnet.rice.edu)
Fri, Feb 10 1995 14:00:38 GMT
In article <1995Feb4.041936.18776@cs.cornell.edu>, Charles Martin <martin3156@delphi.com> writes:
|> ...
|> In the future, the Universal House of Justice will be the supreme ruling body
|> of the entire planet. It is spelled out in the writings that after all other
|> remedies have been tried, war against an agressive nation may be necessary. The
|> Universal House of Justice will be the final arbiter of this justice. The key
|> word here is justice, and that justice is sometimes harsh, ugly and terrible.
|> To be frank, and with all due respect, women are the pinnacle of compassion, and
|> compassion is not justice.
Nor can justice rightly be divorced from compassion.
|> What woman would willingly send her own sons and
|> daughters to war. Since the writings are most emphatic about the equality of
|> men and women there can be no equivocation that there must be a reason behind
|> the barring of women from the Universal House of Justice.
|> I believe that the reason for this barring is an act of ultimate compassion for
|> women everywhere, it relieves them of a responsibility that is in direct
|> opposition to their innermost nature.
Ah, so this is an act of compassion. Is it just?
How can we claim there is equality here? What sort of equality is this
when we say that men are fit for any task a woman can do, and women are not
equal some tasks set aside for men? How can children grow up seeing only men
in the highest seats of power and still believe that women are just as
important?
And what is this business about "their innermost nature"? Who has
looked on the "innermost" part of "women everywhere", and spoken of what he
saw? While one's "nature" is entirely irrespective of (not immutable) biology,
a great deal of evidence shows that many of the differences between men and
women are constructed by particular (and changeable) culture. The claim that
women are "naturally" more compassionate than men rests on very shaky ground.
|> Please do not mistake this to be in any way condescending toward women. But I
|> do believe that men would not find harsh justice to be spiritually damaging
|> as it would to a woman.
|> Let me state again, that this is my PERSONAL opinion, I hope it might help
|> shed some light on your consternation.
|>
|> Chas. E. "Skip" Martin
|> Internet: 71230.3270@compuserve.com
|> Compuserve: 71230,3270
|> Delphi: Martin3156
Thank you, Skip, for sharing your views. I take strong exception to
them for two reasons. The first is that I see the assignment of an "innermost
nature" to any group as frighteningly oppressive. It forces a multitude of
individuals to fit a particular mold that in reality often matches only a few.
Such arguments also have been used to enforce subordinate positions of some
groups (e.g., blacks were "naturely suited" to be slaves and would perish of
left to themselves; women were not admitted to universities because resources
would be wasted on this "inferior" group.)
The second reason is that I see many people trying to rationalize this
troubling issue that strikes me as irreconcialable. I would much rather hear
people saying that this law is indeed strange but our nunderstanding is limited
and so we accept it on faith. I would rather that the Faith not be defended by
weak arguments when what matters is strong faith.
Warmest Regards,
Alex Renwick
renwick@owlnet.rice.edu