Can a Patriarchy Practice Equality of the Sexes

[TAO]

But if the man is obeying God's laws, then his wife is bound by covenant to obey him, isn't she? So it is the husband's conduct (and therefore his choice) that determines what is done in a family.

Perhaps, but it is no excuse for him to mistreat her, as seen in certain D&C verses.

In other words, the leadership (if you have any) should be treated as a duty, not as a position.

You should be like the courteous knights in certain books, who are chivalrous around women of great and noble birth.

The women of noble birth happens to be your wife =).

God wants you to treat her with utter respect, humility, forgiveness, and above all, love.

In other words, you should be dedicated to serving your wife. Once you do that, then you have the capability to hold the leadership position. Because you won't abuse it. And she won't mind.

Really, when it comes down to it all, marriage is a relationship about service and sacrifice. You are sacrificing all other things you could be, for the sake of serving her and the Lord. That's what a true marriage is, and is what our Heavenly Father wants.

[Jason]

Which is the more appropriate response to indicate I completely agree, Tao - "Well, Duh!" or "Of Course."?

[CA Steve]

Jason,

Your OP question was "CAN a patriarchy practice equality of sexes?". From most of the responses it would appear we are talking about a patriarchy within a LDS household. Would your responses be different if the question was "Does a patriarchy practice equality of sexes?". And would your answers be different if the question were extended to other religions?

[Jason]

Jason,

Your OP question was "CAN a patriarchy practice equality of sexes?". From most of the responses it would appear we are talking about a patriarchy within a LDS household. Would your responses be different if the question was "Does a patriarchy practice equality of sexes?". And would your answers be different if the question were extended to other religions?

The answer to the question "do all patriarchies practice equality of the sexes?" is obviously no.

But my question was whether a group can be described as a patriarchy and still practice equality of the sexes. The answer given by this thread appears to be yes, with the obvious implication that the LDS Church is such a group.

[CA Steve]

The answer to the question "do all patriarchies practice equality of the sexes?" is obviously no.

But my question was whether a group can be described as a patriarchy and still practice equality of the sexes. The answer given by this thread appears to be yes, with the obvious implication that the LDS Church is such a group.

I think the answers in this thread answer what is supposed to happen in the Church, though I disagree with that answer. I don't want to rehash it, I don't think we are going to agree on whether different roles make up for authority one one side. I do not dispute those roles by the way, nor am I trying to change them. What does happen is a different question.

[Jason]

I think the answers in this thread answer what is supposed to happen in the Church, though I disagree with that answer. I don't want to rehash it, I don't think we are going to agree on whether different roles make up for authority one one side. I do not dispute those roles by the way, nor am I trying to change them. What does happen is a different question.

Why do you think that being treated with equal respect and as being of equal value must also include being given equal authority to govern?

What do you think "does happen" in the Church that does not reflect equality?

[katherine the great]

I think "Patriarchal order" is kind of a useless term in our society. Very few (western) modern women are going to give authority to an ineffectual or abusive man. A man who is a pushover is going to marry a woman who is going to wear the pants in the family. That doesn't make him a bad person. It just presents a situation where the stronger person makes most of the decisions. Men are not necessarily good leaders just by virtue of their "maleness." All LDS men should probably aspire to being Christlike and being the righteous "head" of the home, but there will always be men who just don't measure up, or women who are not supportive enough to let them. Maybe more emphasis should be placed on marrying an appropriate companion.

[Maidservant]

Hehe, welcome to the world, bruddah, we be da women's SLAVES!!!

Ha ha. Sweet. I was having a discussion with someone else upon a related topic to all of this, and he asked me to nail down my opinion (not Church doctrine obviously), and so I ended up with, "Yes, I actually do think a man ought to do the things his woman asks him to do."

And in practice I think this is exactly what happens. A good and loving man whose heart is turned toward his wife is naturally going to ask her, "What would you like me to do?" And then he would execute anything that dropped from her lips. This is the nature of that kind of love (and I am not discussing here the distinction between good and evil requests, lets assume they are all good).

What do you think? Do you think Heavenly Father asks his wife, "What would you like me to do?" (Now I actually do not see Heavenly Father's position in the Godhead as a function of his marriage, rather he is in a male council of three similar to the First Presidency, and as we know the Prophet's wife isn't involved in Church decision making of the Prophet. In this sense, whatever the function of Heavenly Father's marriage, it would be along another trajectory of organization which is not explained to us plainly at this time.)

In terms of priesthood authority of males, first of all I would remind that to preside is to be in a servant position a la Jesus washing the disciples feet. As well, the priesthood authority for males is the authorization to establish a family, and the authorization the have the kind of priesthood where a woman is authorized to belong to him. There is no authorization for a man to be making personal agency decisions for a woman (of course), but it is an authorization to establish the family order under the aegis of the Father, and for the decision-making council to be established, which involved both the husband and the wife. The husband does provide leadership of the kind of family he wants and of final decisions based on revelations from God, although this does not preclude revelations being directed at the wife as well. In fact, the counsel from his wife could be considered a form of revelation to him. The purpose of all this authorization and authority is not so much the daily management of family life, but rather for the transmission of ordinances, principles, godliness, and priesthood to the next generation. The father is authorized to be the authority to make these transmissions to his offspring, and thus the grand eternal purposes of eternity and family roll on.

[Jason]

I think "Patriarchal order" is kind of a useless term in our society. Very few (western) modern women are going to give authority to an ineffectual or abusive man.

What about giving authority to an effectual and loving man?

All LDS men should probably aspire to being Christlike and being the righteous "head" of the home, but there will always be men who just don't measure up, or women who are not supportive enough to let them. Maybe more emphasis should be placed on marrying an appropriate companion.

Why the quotes around "head"?

And I think the Church puts quite a bit of emphasis on marrying an appropriate companion.

[Jason]

Ha ha. Sweet. I was having a discussion with someone else upon a related topic to all of this, and he asked me to nail down my opinion (not Church doctrine obviously), and so I ended up with, "Yes, I actually do think a man ought to do the things his woman asks him to do."

And in practice I think this is exactly what happens. A good and loving man whose heart is turned toward his wife is naturally going to ask her, "What would you like me to do?" And then he would execute anything that dropped from her lips. This is the nature of that kind of love (and I am not discussing here the distinction between good and evil requests, lets assume they are all good).

Why should we assume that they are all good? Simply because they are coming from a woman?

I'm all for making my wife happy, but she can't always be right. Nor can I, of course.

[katherine the great]

What about giving authority to an effectual and loving man?

My husband would never think of making a major decision for the family without me and I would never think of doing so without him, so what does it really mean? The goal of marriage is to become "one flesh", not for one partner to have authority over the other. I think the concept is antiquated.

Other than marrying in the covenant, I don't recall a lot of emphasis being placed on finding a partner who's personality is well suited to our own. I'd love to read otherwise though if you have some quotes.

[Nathair/|\]

I woke up at two am this morning and wrote the following for a paper on the Tain Bo Cuailgne:

<a name="OLE_LINK2">Maedbh agusAlill

Maedbh agus Alill

In their presentation of the royal couple of Connacht, our authorsgive us (unwittingly or maliciously?) a caricature of one of the most importantand sacred aspects of Celtic religion.

To a pagan Celt, Maedbh represents the divine femininepersonification of the land itself. Everyone from the peasant farmer to the Ard R

[TruthSeeker24]

mmm, just some of my personal opinions here on the matter. I believe that if women were to all stay at home and raise the children while the men went out and worked, we would be a much better society and our children would be morally stronger. Women have an ability to nurture that men simply don't possess, and I think that in our day and age where women want to try and "be equal" with men, it is seriously damaging society as a whole. Granted, I do understand that the economy is pretty bad, and sometimes families simply need to choose the lesser of two wrongs and have both parents work simply to make ends meet...but I think thats the exception to the rule and should not be the norm. I believe men should work, and I believe in Patriarchal families very strongly. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I don't believe a man is worthy of his family and his wife if he isn't going to lead them. No, I do not believe in equality of the sexes to put it bluntly. I think God intended for men to lead their families, and no matter how I or anyone else may "feel" about it, or whether we want to feel offended by it because it doesn't fit in with our incredibly liberal society, it still doesn't change what God intended. Now, if we're talking about "treatment," then yes, both sexes would be equal I believe. Just because a man isi the head of the house doesn't mean that one sex should be treated more poorly. I would say that since men are supposed to lead, that men should make extra special care to make their wives feel cared for and loved. Basically, to put it bluntly, I think men are supposed to earn the money, teach the gospel, and lead the family; and women are supposed to nurture and raise the kids (excepting when the husband intervenes, since he's the head of the family), assist and counsel the husband, and take care of the home. I think the average family in society is pretty messed up, and I believe that that reason can be directly traced to the fact that society believes men and women are equal "in status." Maybe that's the best way to define what I'm trying to get at here.

I believe men and women are NOT equal in status; I believe men and women ARE equal in being loved by God and in their treatment from God and from each other.

Just a last point, though I do believe the man is the head and should make the final decisions...I think a man would be a fool to not listen to the counsel is wife gives him. I believe thats a major role of the wife. She should advise her husband, especially when it comes to things involving patience, tenderness and love...since women are much more prone to understand those types of sentiments.

Anyways, just my thoughts

[Jason]

My husband would never think of making a major decision for the family without me and I would never think of doing so without him, so what does it really mean? The goal of marriage is to become "one flesh", not for one partner to have authority over the other. I think the concept is antiquated.

Do you think the covenant entered into in the temple is also antiquated? If it really has no meaning, then why is it there?

Other than marrying in the covenant, I don't recall a lot of emphasis being placed on finding a partner who's personality is well suited to our own. I'd love to read otherwise though if you have some quotes.

There are many talks about choosing the right spouse - especially devotionals - that go beyond merely marrying in the covenant.

A search at lds.org on "choice of marriage partner" turned up quite a few when I tried it.

[elguanteloko]

From another thread:

By "equality" I mean something like "treating both sexes as being of equal value and with equal respect."

Well, can it?

(Oh, and "poser" means "a puzzling question". Not "someone pretending to belong to a social group they do not actually belong to")

No.

[Jason]

No.

Sorry, you're wrong. "Poser" does in fact mean "a puzzling question" in this context.

Or did you mean something else by "no"? Unfortunately it's such a brief post that there really is no telling what you think or why you think it. In other words, it was a total waste of your time to post it and mine to read it.

I suppose it does have the virtue that it didn't waste much of my time to read it.

[elguanteloko]

What about giving authority to an effectual and loving man?

As soon as that's done then there is no more equality of the sexes. If you willingly give your decision power to another person then they now have power to impose over you; thus, no equality. Two VERY important questions are, what would happen if both partners want to do opposing things: will one's decision override the other one's? What does one really mean when speaking of "equality of the sexes"?

[elguanteloko]

Sorry, you're wrong. "Poser" does in fact mean "a puzzling question" in this context.

Or did you mean something else by "no"? Unfortunately it's such a brief post that there really is no telling what you think or why you think it. In other words, it was a total waste of your time to post it and mine to read it.

I suppose it does have the virtue that it didn't waste much of my time to read it.

It was a response to the only thing that can formally have a response in the OP: the question "can it?"

[Jason]

What does one really mean when speaking of "equality of the sexes"?

The definition I put forward in the OP was "treating both sexes as being of equal value and with equal respect."

As I've said earlier in the thread, I don't see that "equal authority to govern" has to be included. Which is more equal, your heart or your brain? In fact you can't do without either, though your heart can't do everything your brain can.

[elguanteloko]

The definition I put forward in the OP was "treating both sexes as being of equal value and with equal respect."

what do you mean by "equal value"? This definition is so broad it's hard to work with it.

As I've said earlier in the thread, I don't see that "equal authority to govern" has to be included.

"Equal authority to govern" is an oxymoron when applied to two people. If both have equal authority then neither of them govern anything and if one 'governs' then there is no equal authority.

Which is more equal, your heart or your brain?

False analogy. The heart can't make conscious decisions. Compare one brain with another brain (two conscious, autonomous persons, that is)

In fact you can't do without either, though your heart can't do everything your brain can.

there's so many things wrong with this part that I prefer we just deal with everything else we have been dealing with for now.

[Jason]

what do you mean by "equal value"? This definition is so broad it's hard to work with it.

I mean that, when all is said and done, a person's gender will have no bearing on how much you value them and with what measure of respect you treat them.

[elguanteloko]

I mean that, when all is said and done, a person's gender will have no bearing on how much you value them and with what measure of respect you treat them.

Jason, I understand this definition in isolation... but I don't see how you tie that concept with "Patriarchy" which is what we were talking about in the first place.

The wiki definition of the term is: "Patriarchy is a social system in which the father or eldest male is head of the household, having authority over women and children. Patriarchy also refers to a system of government by males, and to the dominance of men in social or cultural systems."

How much I value others is very vague when talking about patriarchy since how you apply respect and value is what patriarchy points to (the 'social order) and NOT to the existence of such concepts.

[katherine the great]

Do you think the covenant entered into in the temple is also antiquated?

Yes. I think it is and I predict it will be changed as other changes have been made.

[Jason]

How much I value others is very vague when talking about patriarchy since how you apply respect and value is what patriarchy points to (the 'social order) and NOT to the existence of such concepts.

I disagree that "how you apply respect and value" is what patriatchy points to. Patriarchy is simply a description of who gets authority, not value and respect.

[Jason]

Yes. I think it is and I predict it will be changed as other changes have been made.

The day it is removed I may agree with you.