For what it's worth, I am now an official fan of Viviane and LisaRose.
I have always admired people who could think logically and critically without allowing personal bias to skew their conclusions. Viviane's initial post in this thread is probably the best explanation of what it means to think logically that I have ever come across. Not only that, she writes clearly and concisely, with good grammar and punctuation to boot! Now that's an educated person!
Now don't think that, just because the two I mention in this post are women, I think they're exceptional because they are women and yet have these amazing qualities. That's not correct. I think they're exceptional among humans in general, and just happen to be women. From just what I've seen lately, it seems they could reason and write circles around many so-called "learned men."
I happen to be commercial airline pilot. My company has many female pilots, and a good number of them are captains, some younger but far senior to me in tenure. I haven't flown with them all, but the vast majority of the ones I've had the pleasure of working with have shown their reasoning, judgment, and skill to be the match of any man's, including my own.
I think the Australian Royal Commission has brought up several good points that the Society ought to consider. One is that they should consider allowing women to be decision-makers in certain matters, and maybe even elders entrusted with teaching the congregation. The Society doesn't enforce certain aspects of Paul's misogynistic attitude, such as requiring a woman to "remain silent" in the congregation and "ask her husband" if she wants to learn anything. In that matter, they realize that society in general has progressed and so they allow women to comment at meetings and give demonstrations of preaching and teaching, if not directly teaching the congregation per se. But then they feel eternally bound by Paul's specifications that an elder must "be a husband of one wife" and "have his household in subjection," and his insistence that he does not allow a woman "to exercise authority over a man." The kindest thing you can say about this policy is that it's inconsistent. The teaching itself is arbitrary and totally baseless and inapplicable in modern society. We should have outgrown this aspect of early Christian mores just as we have that of slavery. It simply has no place in the 21st century.
Speaking of "subjection," the way the Society applies it in the family and congregation is patently outdated. It is true that in some situations, there must be a final authority. For example, even though I am a captain myself, sometimes I am assigned as a relief pilot on long flights. The captain assigned as pilot-in-command could easily, and actually has been on some of my flights, a female. That means that even though I am a captain myself, she is "directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of the aircraft." That applies even if she is junior to me on the seniority list, and even when she is on a break and I am actually occupying the captain's seat during my turn at the controls. That means that, by federal regulation, unless some emergency exists and she is not available, I must defer to her if there is a difference in preference or professional opinion over two acceptable courses of action. I am secure enough in my own knowledge, experience, and skill that this is no problem for me. I don't feel it threatens my "manhood" at all. Being "in subjection" to her during the flight allows for it to proceed in a safe and orderly manner. You might even say "decently and by arrangement."
It did not always go this smoothly when women first began appearing in airline cockpits. It used to be a very "macho" environment, pretty much an "old boys' club." But then crews began to get training on how to lead, and be led, in a cooperative environment where egos were to be put aside and decisions made based on what was best for the situation at hand, and not necessarily on who was the most senior or had the most testosterone.
The Society could learn from this. I think some women could make fine elders, just like some men do. Conversely, some women are just not suited to have great authority or make crucial decisions that affect others, just like some men are not. The standards for being appointed an elder, or anything else for that matter, should be the same. Either one meets the standards or one does not. Gender should not be a factor. It will take a sea change in the Society's attitude and much training for those used to the "old way" for this to ever work. But the airline industry is one example that shows it can work.
Please submit 2¢ for this valuable and insightful pontification.