I've Lost My Job

Over the last couple of weeks, fast approaching two months, my boss has been off work due to illness.  Nothing terminal, thankfully, but something which restricts his movements and ability to get into work.  During that time, myself and my colleagues have been carrying on, getting what needs to be done finished while waiting for his return.

Today, however, our Divisional Director said that as our boss has been off for some time and they had no clear idea of when he would return, we were to have a new boss, a woman who - for the sake of this post - I shall call Eve.

Now I've never met Eve, I know nothing about her or the work she has done in the organisation or elsewhere, but I flatly refused to work for her.  Point blank refused, said no thanks, I cannot work for, not only this one woman, but any woman.

My Divisional Director, of course, wasn't happy about this and asked why.  When I explained it was because of my religious principles and that my conscience would not let me accept the authority of a woman, my Director hit the roof.  I was marched up to the Personnel Department, the Union got involved but, I'm sorry to say, despite my insistence that this view was not sexist but based on religious instruction, I was sacked.

Thankfully, everything you've just read (with the exception of the first paragraph, sad to say) is complete bollocks.  I haven't been sacked, I thoroughly enjoy my job and have absolutely no problem working with anyone because of their gender.  I've been fortunate in my working life that pretty much every boss I've had, man or woman, has been spot on.

Seriously, though, how many people would expect to get away with flat out refusing to take orders from a woman based purely on her gender - not her competence at the job, not her intelligence, not taking into account how she has performed similar tasks in the past, but simply because she is actually a she?

How many?  At the moment, it's roughly 1,300 men.

1,300 priests are refusing to accept women ordained as Bishops in the Church of England and, according to the article linked above, "want the legal right to opt out of the supervision of a woman bishop, and into the care of a male alternative."  The legal right, mind you - they don't want to be prosecuted, and they're refusing to work under a female Bishop simply because the Bishop would be a woman.

Over the last few years there's been a lot of discussion about Islam and how some countries use the religion to subjugate and oppress women.  Women have to dress a certain way in those countries; they are only allowed outside the house with male relatives or their husband; their social standing is lessened.  Rightly so there has been condemnation of this from other countries, particularly in the Western world, yet here are 1,300 men telling their employer that they refuse to work under a woman . . . because she's a woman!

And their justification?  "Anglo-Catholic Anglicans argue that Jesus chose only men to be his immediate 12 apostles, the men who were given leadership of the early Church.  They point out that an unbroken chain of male bishops has led the Church since then."

It has always been so, thus it will always be so.

Ah, the forward thinking Church in action.  Jesus and those twelve apostles also walked around with next to no possessions and didn't worry too much about raising money for church roof appeals.  I don't see Bishops clamouring to get back to those sort of habits, though.

God forbid they argue about what two consenting adults of the same sex do in the privacy of their own home.

Oh, hang on . . .