Can a Patriarchy Practice Equality of the Sexes

[elguanteloko]

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.

Since "value" and "respect" are very subjective terms, saying they are not in contradiction with a social system called "patriarchy" is very vague. I, for example, do not consider a system where the man has authority to choose more than the woman as a system of "respect and equality of value" among the sexes. That does not mean we disagree on the core issue but I just mention that to show you that saying "value and respect" means nothing without context which you still need to clarify. Again, bro, we are talking about a two-person relationship here. Either one of the two has authority to impose his/her decisions on the other person or he/she does not. Patriarchy says the man has authority to impose on the female and for you to say these values and this system are in agreement then you need more than just stating it (something I see as impossible to satisfactorily justify but you can give it a try).

Jason, does a system where I can impose my decisions on the woman, an adult conscious and autonomous being, promote considering her having equal value and being deserving of the same respect as a man? If yes, then please explain. Notice this does NOT imply that I will impose my views on her (she may happen to agree with everything I say... something quite rare); this just describes the system.

[TAO]

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"?

I disagree. This is like saying 'serving others makes you weaker'. No, the ideal mairrage is where both people serve each other more than themselves to the extreme - and both give others opinions power over one's own. And I know many church marriages work this way.

You seem to think that marriage is either one way or the other; in an ideal marriage - both are willing to give up their points of view for the other. Thus they compromise with ease.

[TAO]

Again, bro, we are talking about a two-person relationship here.

The point of mairrage isn't for it to be two people, but one flesh, no?

Either one of the two has authority to impose his/her decisions on the other person or he/she does not.

I disagree. I'm sure you can ask many many husbands - for most of things, they let their wives have the final say. However, there are some important things which you would hope she would hear your opinion on. Marriage isn't a one-sided relationship as you are making it look.

Patriarchy says the man has authority to impose on the female and for you to say these values and this system are in agreement then you need more than just stating it (something I see as impossible to satisfactorily justify but you can give it a try).

On the contrary, patriarchy means that males are more responsible for being a good example for their children. It means more expectation, not authority. Why you must ask, is more expected? Because males typically have a difficult time acting as a good example - so the expectations are raised to show that the Lord is serious in part. There is also other reasons I am sure, that's just one I've noticed.

Jason, does a system where I can impose my decisions on the woman

Why are you imposing? Furthermore, why is your wife imposing on you? Shouldn't you two be making an agreement?

an adult conscious and autonomous being

The point of marriage is not to be autonomous. You give up that when you agree to get married. Both people give it up.

promote considering her having equal value and being deserving of the same respect as a man?

Sure patriarchy promotes it. Question, have you ever treated your wife with the formal 'oh thy beauty robs me of my voice' speech? Like an archaic knight? If so, I suggest you try it.

Kinda got off topic there, but essentially, one of the expectations of a male in a system of patriarchy is that you view women as higher than yourself.

If yes, then please explain. Notice this does NOT imply that I will impose my views on her (she may happen to agree with everything I say... something quite rare); this just describes the system.

Na, your describing some other system, not the church's form of patriarchy.

[elguanteloko]

I disagree. This is like saying 'serving others makes you weaker'. No, the ideal mairrage is where both people serve each other more than themselves to the extreme - and both give others opinions power over one's own. And I know many church marriages work this way.

You seem to think that marriage is either one way or the other; in an ideal marriage - both are willing to give up their points of view for the other. Thus they compromise with ease.

wait... I'm the one that wants equality of the sexes here. lol I'm the good guy.

I agree with you in that marriage should be as you described it but then the idea of the man having authority over the woman is obsolete (as I think it has to be). Saying the man should be the head of the family is indeed sexist and wrong; we agree here.

[LeSellers]

The point of mairrage isn't for it to be two people, but one flesh, no?

Yes, it does.

The question, however, remains, "What does 'become one flesh' actually mean?"

I think we could interpret it literally as "have children". That's what being married results in, two people creating, of their own two bodies, one new body.

I cannot see any way to interpret it differently.

On the other hand, when Christ was talking to His Father, He did not say anything about "one flesh", He said "they may become one, ... we are one". That's a very different proposition.

Marriage is both a physical and a spiritual entity. I suspect the issue here is far less physical than it is spiritual.

The answer to the question in the original message is "Yes, a patriarchy can practice equality of the sexes, but frequently does not."

Those who take the opposite position must mean "equality" as being "identical". But, as others have tried to point out, it is not reasonable to treat hearts and brains as if they were interchangeable.

Women, as a class, have different characteristics than those of men, as a class. While it is possible that a woman could do the (non-procreative) things a husband does, it is not reasonable to assume that she can do those and still do the things she would do as the wife/mother. There are the economic concepts of "opportunity cost" and "comparative advantage". They apply here.

Further, order and practice require that someone be the head. A family is, after all, a unity. It cannot have two mouths, nor two heads as seen from the outside world. One, either the husband or the wife, must be the mouth and the head.

In any partnership, either (or one) partner can legally contract with the world. Many partnerships fail because both (or all) partners act without co-ordinating with the others. Internal communication is critical. And, one partner, in successful partnerships, is designated the interface.

So it is in successful marriages.

Lehi

[TAO]

wait... I'm the one that wants equality of the sexes here. lol I'm the good guy.

Lol, yah, I know, my posting isn't persay one-sided.... I just try to point out things generally XD. Unless I have a really strong opinion.

In my eyes, it'll ultimately make your point stronger in the end when you talk about it with someone else - you won't have gaps since we discussed it here, if ya' know what I mean - it's a proof-check of sorts.

I agree with you in that marriage should be as you described it but then the idea of the man having authority over the woman is obsolete (as I think it has to be).

What I'm saying is that this isn't patriarchy as the church applies it.

Saying the man should be the head of the family is indeed sexist and wrong; we agree here.

Mmmm.... I'm not so much saying he shouldn't be the head of the family, moreso that because he is the head, he has a duty to listen to his wife as much as possible. And his children as well.

I view the 'head of the family' (as others might call it) as a position of service, not of authority, if ya' know what I mean. Kinda like how I view prophet as a position of service, not of authority so to say. It has authority, but the authority is used to serve others, thus it ceases to be what we could call 'objectionable authority', that is 'enslaving authority'. I guess one could still call it authority - but it is authority by service, not authority by command.

So essentially, in the way you are using 'head of the family', I agree with you, but I believe there is another form of 'head of the family' that the church emphasizes, therefore I can't really agree with you in terms of all uses of 'head of the family'. But hey, I don't really care about words too much - meanings are much more important =D. I just wanted to make sure you understood what I meant - I tend to have people misunderstand what I say alot, so I have to put these long winded explanations =P.

[elguanteloko]

The point of mairrage isn't for it to be two people, but one flesh, no?

???

I disagree. I'm sure you can ask many many husbands - for most of things, they let their wives have the final say. However, there are some important things which you would hope she would hear your opinion on. Marriage isn't a one-sided relationship as you are making it look.

Dude, it's to Jason who you should be telling this to. I'm on your side here (kind of).

On the contrary, patriarchy means that males are more responsible for being a good example for their children. It means more expectation, not authority. Why you must ask, is more expected? Because males typically have a difficult time acting as a good example - so the expectations are raised to show that the Lord is serious in part. There is also other reasons I am sure, that's just one I've noticed.

Have you checked on the what the word "Patriarchy" even means? Your use of the word is made up and has no resemblance to normal usage. Ever heard of Monarchy? Matriarchy? Oligarchy? Do you know what the "archy" part of the word stands for?

BTW, have you even read these verses? ---> Genesis 3:16 "To the woman he said,

[elguanteloko]

Lol, yah, I know, my posting isn't persay one-sided.... I just try to point out things generally XD. Unless I have a really strong opinion.

In my eyes, it'll ultimately make your point stronger in the end when you talk about it with someone else - you won't have gaps since we discussed it here, if ya' know what I mean - it's a proof-check of sorts.

What I'm saying is that this isn't patriarchy as the church applies it.

Mmmm.... I'm not so much saying he shouldn't be the head of the family, moreso that because he is the head, he has a duty to listen to his wife as much as possible. And his children as well.

I view the 'head of the family' (as others might call it) as a position of service, not of authority, if ya' know what I mean. Kinda like how I view prophet as a position of service, not of authority so to say. It has authority, but the authority is used to serve others, thus it ceases to be what we could call 'objectionable authority', that is 'enslaving authority'. I guess one could still call it authority - but it is authority by service, not authority by command.

So essentially, in the way you are using 'head of the family', I agree with you, but I believe there is another form of 'head of the family' that the church emphasizes, therefore I can't really agree with you in terms of all uses of 'head of the family'. But hey, I don't really care about words too much - meanings are much more important =D. I just wanted to make sure you understood what I meant - I tend to have people misunderstand what I say alot, so I have to put these long winded explanations =P.

Can a woman be in a position of "authority"? If not, why not? Can a woman be the "head" of the family? If not, why not?

Brother, with all due respect, your position (and that of the Church) is so obviously sexist I can't believe you don't see it. Notice I'm calling YOUR POSITION sexist and NOT YOU. You and the Church are denying women of certain positions of decision making because they are women! Oh, and "God said it" is not a valid justification here.

[Maidservant]

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.

Ha ha. . It is precisely because I agree with these statements of yours that I said 'let's assume they are all good'. No one should ever be doing something they know to be wrong simply because someone in a structural or psychological situation with the (possible) upper hand requests it. I said "let's assume they are all good" BECAUSE as soon as something is wrong or bad, then all bets are off.

Jason, does a system where I can impose my decisions on the woman, an adult conscious and autonomous being, promote considering her having equal value and being deserving of the same respect as a man?

I would breathe so much easier if I just knew all men realized this . . . instead of sifting through tons of gentlemen to find a gem who already does.

as seen from the outside world. One, either the husband or the wife, must be the mouth and the head.

In any partnership, either (or one) partner can legally contract with the world.

The way we have set up our society/world between public and private spheres (among other properties) is a construction/invention. It's a choice, and it's not the only choice, and in my opinion, it's a dysfunctional system; and we are gradually leaving it behind, thankfully. Thus, setting up a marital system to fit with a manmade invention of a form of society is ultimately a pretty big mistake in my opinion.

[elguanteloko]

I would breathe so much easier if I just knew all men realized this . . . instead of sifting through tons of gentlemen to find a gem who already does.

I'll take that as a nice complement.

ETA: Your comment reminded me of the of the most awful disappointment I suffered growing from a child to a teenager. When I was in primary I used to admire adults because I thought all the stupidities, vanities, selfishness, and faults my fellow children (and I) had were absent in grown-ups. After I started meeting more adults and becoming one of them, I realized some were as immature as children and worst; 'sexual' immaturity mostly in men has been the greatest of dissapointments I had towards humans... and I don't think I've recovered emotionally from the shock.

[TAO]

The question, however, remains, "What does 'become one flesh' actually mean?"

This is something I've thought about alot - I think it perhaps has multiple meanings.

I think we could interpret it literally as "have children". That's what being married results in, two people creating, of their own two bodies, one new body.

This is definitely one of the ways I see it.

Another way I see it is persay companionship - you are not supposed to leave your companions side for anything, you are supposed to summon to her calls, whatever the need may be. You are supposed to dedicate yourself completely to her - you are supposed to lose your life for her (just as you lose your life for Christ's sake)[note this is both literal and metaphorical], and as of such, you become one flesh, because you act as one, persay. You become a unit. We have times when our body parts misbehave, but ideally, our own body should act as one. This is similar with mairrage, you become a unit with one purpose and goal in mind, and your seperate bodies in a way, work symbiotically. Like Freddy Fungus and Alyssa Algae, who took a 'Lichen' to each other. Not only your minds become one, your actions become one - and I think actions relate to flesh.

There was a few other ways I saw in the past to relating to it... but can't think of them right now. Still, it's cool to talk about =D.

On the other hand, when Christ was talking to His Father, He did not say anything about "one flesh", He said "they may become one, ... we are one". That's a very different proposition.

Hehe, I think he hid a part of his higher law in his lower law... but yes, this is the higher law you talk of, and it is glorious, I support it completely.

Marriage is both a physical and a spiritual entity. I suspect the issue here is far less physical than it is spiritual.

Agreed... I was more referring to that second possible definition (although I could be wrong about it =P).

Further, order and practice require that someone be the head. A family is, after all, a unity. It cannot have two mouths, nor two heads as seen from the outside world. One, either the husband or the wife, must be the mouth and the head.

It reminds me of who is the head of the church. God. However, it refers to all three of 'em, although it could be said that it is espeically to Christ. I think the sort of unity represented by the Godhead is expected in exaltation between the husband and the wife (of course, it isn't for the same reason though).

In any partnership, either (or one) partner can legally contract with the world. Many partnerships fail because both (or all) partners act without co-ordinating with the others. Internal communication is critical. And, one partner, in successful partnerships, is designated the interface.

I disagree with the last part - I think that there is an interface, but their unity is the interface. Fathers are 'heads of the family' solely because they have a responsibility to serve as such.

[TAO]

???

Sorry, should have been more clear... I articulated it in my response to Lehi... but yah, sorry again XD.

Dude, it's to Jason who you should be telling this to. I'm on your side here (kind of).

Don't take my criticisms to seriously, don't worry, I know your on my side, but I just like discussing this sorta thing. It may seem like I'm nitpicking, but really, it's just so we can discuss it. The more we discuss it - the more we think about it. And the more we think about it, the more we realize. And the more we realize, the more brilliant it seems if ya know what I mean.

Have you checked on the what the word "Patriarchy" even means? Your use of the word is made up and has no resemblance to normal usage. Ever heard of Monarchy? Matriarchy? Oligarchy? Do you know what the "archy" part of the word stands for?

Yah, this is the same thing I had a friend say - I oftentimes do not use the words other people use in the same way. Has to do with my Autistic mind. The important thing is we both know what the other means. In my mind, patriarchy is what the church practices. What you refer to as patriarchy, I refer to as dictatorship XD. I understand this may be confusing, but for now, just worry about what I mean, not the words I use... most other people use the words differently than I do.

BTW, have you even read these verses? ---> Genesis 3:16 "To the woman he said,

[TAO]

I realized some were as immature as children and worst; 'sexual' immaturity mostly in men has been the greatest of dissapointments I had towards humans... and I don't think I've recovered emotionally from the shock.

Same here - I am disgusted by some of the things people do - and these people aren't kids... aren't even teens anymore...

[elguanteloko]

Yes, but I have also read these.

Talking about love is pretty much irrelevant here since even slave owners thought they truly loved and took care of their slaves. "Love" is very vague and I suggest we just don't use that term for now. Indeed many men and women don't see a patriarchal organization in church where women are excluded without good justification as bad and they do see it as consistent with their ideas of "love".

Apparently so, but ruling as in Christ views ruling, not in how the world views ruling, no? Think about how Chirst rules us... that is how he expects us to 'rule' over our wives... with such exceptional love, forgiveness, care, an ear for listening, dedication, sacrifice. No, Christ's use of 'ruling', I'm pretty sure most women would say it's more than fair.

Again, why say the man is the ruler in the first place? Can the woman be the ruler and if not, why not? Your view of THE STRUCTURE of marriage as the man being the ruler and the woman the ruled is despicable regardless of how lovely the man treats the ruled. Can the woman be the ruler? Why couldn't the man be the ruled and the woman the ruler with "love", etc? Because the structure of the system you are advocating is sexist in the first place. This applies to the organization of the "priesthood", too.

Patriarchy as the world uses it sucks, yes, it's also called dictatorship.

Patriarchy as Christ uses it doesn't though, sorry =P.

But what if the dictator rules with love and compassion and hears what his people have to say and takes care of them? You are advocating such system. I say no rulers, no ruled.

Patriarchy, although because of such, the man is held more responsible for his misdeeds.

This is just as unfair. Equal misdeeds should require equal accountability. Again, bro, you are not dealing with the structural problem of your marriage system.

Well, read this:

You are reading me from a dead book. I ask for reasons.

So though a ruler, a Christ-like ruler. And considering Christ suffered so that we didn't have to, I'd say that's a pretty good deal.

ONCE AGAIN: why should the woman be in an unequal position of accountability and decision making if she is just as capable? It does not matter how lovely the ruler is to the ruled, the structure of such system is equally unfair. This is the unfairness of the Priesthood order you sustain: women are left out, even when more capable than some men, just because of their gender.

[TAO]

Talking about love is pretty much irrelevant here since even slave owners thought they truly loved and took care of their slaves. "Love" is very vague and I suggest we just don't use that term for now. Indeed many men and women don't see a patriarchal organization in church where women are excluded without good justification as bad and they do see it as consistent with their ideas of "love".

Hmmm... how bout I use a better word... what about sacrifice? As in sacrificing everything for that person? For that is what Christ did for the Church, is that not what he expects us to do for our wives?

Again, why say the man is the ruler in the first place? Can the woman be the ruler and if not, why not? Your view of THE STRUCTURE of marriage as the man being the ruler and the woman the ruled is despicable regardless of how lovely the man treats the ruled. Can the woman be the ruler? Why couldn't the man be the ruled and the woman the ruler with "love", etc? Because the structure of the system you are advocating is sexist in the first place. This applies to the organization of the "priesthood", too.

Hehe, most recently, the Lord has been teaching me a lesson. It is best summed up by President Monson... it is... "when the Lord commands, and man obeys, that man will always be right". In other words, the Lord would like me to trust him right now. So my reason would be, because the Lord says so.

But besides that, one might speculate that the Lord perhaps put men in a certain position because of certain qualities, and women in another, because of other qualities - he simply put them where they fit best.

Hehe... sexist I don't care about so much... its' just a a label... what I care about more is justice. And I haven't seen a point in which I doubt the Lord's justice - he always seems to be just in the end once we can see everything. So I trust him.

Hmmm... I think this is approaching an edge where well... I guess I'll take it there. So, assuming there is a HM... you realize that men's ruling position is similar to how it is in heaven, a place of pure and perfect happiness. So I bet what you are wondering is why couldn't they be switched up there? You wonder why is God a man? I'll tell you about something I have begun to understand... it's speculation... but it's something. Essentially, what I have realized is that God has little control over our spiritual creation traits.

You know... when a man and woman give birth on Earth... they do not have control over what color of hair their children should have, or if they are tall or short, talkative or shy. I think, that perhaps, it is similar with God... he does not have control over whether they are male of female, whether they are naturally more humble or more prideful than others, where their 'flaws' are so to say. They are born with these 'flaws' naturally. However, we didn't have temptation up there... until Satan attempted to tempt the other souls. He attempted to control them through their flaws. Apparently - you can still sin despite perfect knowledge - but it results in being 100% accountable for your actions - thus the souls were cast out. Apparently, even Heavenly Father can be tempted (Do not tempt the Lord thy God), but because he came to another Earth, and was exalted, he is now unable to fall because he has been perfected. Here on earth, we were also given weakness (the ability to have a struggle versus temptation in your 'flaws'; up in heaven, there was no struggle, simply a choice) to allow for trials which would help us grow and fix our 'flaws', so we could become perfect like him.

So you ask, why does God have a patriarchal system... it's because 'men' are more suited for the position because of their natural tendencies. Whereas women, are better suited to be people of great support - which is just as important. Another important thing to point out is that since pride is bad - there really isn't any benefit to being a 'ruler' versus a 'supporter'. You aren't more famous. You aren't more needed. You are simply there, no more important than the supporter who props you up. Imagine a roof of a building with three columns, that can't be held when one gives out. The three collumns represent you, your wife, and the godhead. The roof of the building is your family. You and your wife are simple columns, slowly being carved into ornate columns, whereas the center column is beautiful beyond compare. You can guess which one that represents.

But what if the dictator rules with love and compassion and hears what his people have to say and takes care of them? You are advocating such system. I say no rulers, no ruled.

That really isn't a dictator then in my eyes. A dictator takes control of my life. If a dictator listens as you describe him, he is letting me have some control over my life. Like God does. So, not a dictator.

This is just as unfair. Equal misdeeds should require equal accountability. Again, bro, you are not dealing with the structural problem of your marriage system.

No it's not - remember how I said males and females have certain things they are naturally good at. This applies here. You are given duties based on your capability.

You are reading me from a dead book. I ask for reasons.

I hopefully explained that earlier... but again, I'm not 100% sure that's the way it is.

ONCE AGAIN: why should the woman be in an unequal position of accountability and decision making if she is just as capable? It does not matter how lovely the ruler is to the ruled, the structure of such system is equally unfair. This is the unfairness of the Priesthood order you sustain: women are left out, even when more capable than some men, just because of their gender.

That's the point I'm trying to make - they have different capabilities. God judges people individually, she isn't going to hold a man to what a woman is good at, nor a woman to what a man is good at.

Which is more unfair? Being judged all equally - despite different capabilities, or being judged differently, based on your capabilities.

[elguanteloko]

Hmmm... how bout I use a better word... what about sacrifice? As in sacrificing everything for that person? For that is what Christ did for the Church, is that not what he expects us to do for our wives?

All these is great, I'm on board! ...but this does not talk anything about the "ruler-ruled" thing.

Hehe, most recently, the Lord has been teaching me a lesson. It is best summed up by President Monson... it is... "when the Lord commands, and man obeys, that man will always be right". In other words, the Lord would like me to trust him right now. So my reason would be, because the Lord says so.

But besides that, one might speculate that the Lord perhaps put men in a certain position because of certain qualities, and women in another, because of other qualities - he simply put them where they fit best.

Hehe... sexist I don't care about so much... its' just a a label... what I care about more is justice. And I haven't seen a point in which I doubt the Lord's justice - he always seems to be just in the end once we can see everything. So I trust him.

Hmmm... I think this is approaching an edge where well... I guess I'll take it there. So, assuming there is a HM... you realize that men's ruling position is similar to how it is in heaven, a place of pure and perfect happiness. So I bet what you are wondering is why couldn't they be switched up there? You wonder why is God a man? I'll tell you about something I have begun to understand... it's speculation... but it's something. Essentially, what I have realized is that God has little control over our spiritual creation traits.

You know... when a man and woman give birth on Earth... they do not have control over what color of hair their children should have, or if they are tall or short, talkative or shy. I think, that perhaps, it is similar with God... he does not have control over whether they are male of female, whether they are naturally more humble or more prideful than others, where their 'flaws' are so to say. They are born with these 'flaws' naturally. However, we didn't have temptation up there... until Satan attempted to tempt the other souls. He attempted to control them through their flaws. Apparently - you can still sin despite perfect knowledge - but it results in being 100% accountable for your actions - thus the souls were cast out. Apparently, even Heavenly Father can be tempted (Do not tempt the Lord thy God), but because he came to another Earth, and was exalted, he is now unable to fall because he has been perfected. Here on earth, we were also given weakness (the ability to have a struggle versus temptation in your 'flaws'; up in heaven, there was no struggle, simply a choice) to allow for trials which would help us grow and fix our 'flaws', so we could become perfect like him.

Sorry, "God said it" is no reason at all. Even if he did you still need to justify why it is a fair system... you are not doing it.

So you ask, why does God have a patriarchal system... it's because 'men' are more suited for the position because of their natural tendencies.Whereas women, are better suited to be people of great support - which is just as important. Another important thing to point out is that since pride is bad - there really isn't any benefit to being a 'ruler' versus a 'supporter'. You aren't more famous. You aren't more needed. You are simply there, no more important than the supporter who props you up. Imagine a roof of a building with three columns, that can't be held when one gives out. The three collumns represent you, your wife, and the godhead. The roof of the building is your family. You and your wife are simple columns, slowly being carved into ornate columns, whereas the center column is beautiful beyond compare. You can guess which one that represents.

All it takes is one man to be less of a capable leader than one woman and your system is unfair. It is indeed unfair in practice and in principle.

That really isn't a dictator then in my eyes. A dictator takes control of my life. If a dictator listens as you describe him, he is letting me have some control over my life. Like God does. So, not a dictator.

Then you do not believe in man being a ruler. You statements are FULL of contradictions.

No it's not - remember how I said males and females have certain things they are naturally good at. This applies here. You are given duties based on your capability.

Again, this is factually wrong. Saying "man should be the ruler of the woman" is clearly different from saying "whoever is more capable should be the ruler", which is what you should advocate if you were to be consistent... but you aren't.

I hopefully explained that earlier... but again, I'm not 100% sure that's the way it is.

...

That's the point I'm trying to make - they have different capabilities. God judges people individually, she isn't going to hold a man to what a woman is good at, nor a woman to what a man is good at.

LOL Individually is "all men" and "all women"?

Which is more unfair? Being judged all equally - despite different capabilities, or being judged differently, based on your capabilities.

This has ZERO relevance to the issue and I'm terribly sorry you don't even see that.

Anyways, bro, I'm tired of you just don't getting the basic points. I just hope you will be more careful with your gross generalizations and inconsistencies. Have a good one!

[Nathair/|\]

???

Dude, it's to Jason who you should be telling this to. I'm on your side here (kind of).

Have you checked on the what the word "Patriarchy" even means? Your use of the word is made up and has no resemblance to normal usage. Ever heard of Monarchy? Matriarchy? Oligarchy? Do you know what the "archy" part of the word stands for?

BTW, have you even read these verses? ---> Genesis 3:16 "To the woman he said,

[elguanteloko]

In support of your position:

Thanks. That mormons have, by now, whitewashed a lot of what the terms actually mean is not surprising. However, the unequal and unjust system is still applied in principle and practice.

Until the religious stops thinking in terms of "ruler" and "ruled" will they begin the path of real equality, no just in marriage. First is the primitive stage of allowing only the men or only the women to be the one in authority over the other ones. Secondly, allowing the one that is most capabale to be the ruler, be it a woman or a man. Then, at last, throwing the ruler-ruled mentality and system in the trashcan.

[TAO]

All these is great, I'm on board! ...but this does not talk anything about the "ruler-ruled" thing.

Sure it does... from Mosiah 2:16-19. King Benjamin speaking.

16 Behold, I say unto you that because I said unto you that I had spent my days in your service, I do not desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God. UAdd a Note

17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn ^awisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the ^bservice of your ^cfellow beings ye are only in the service of your God. UAdd a Note

18 Behold, ye have called me your king; and if I, whom ye call your king, do labor to ^aserve you, then ought not ye to labor to serve one another? UAdd a Note

19 And behold also, if I, whom ye call your king, who has spent his days in your service, and yet has been in the service of God, do merit any thanks from you, O how you ought to ^athank your heavenly ^bKing!

Being a ruler - a king - is completely about service. In fact - the more you serve, the more glorious of a ruler you were.

Sorry, "God said it" is no reason at all. Even if he did you still need to justify why it is a fair system... you are not doing it.

I disagree - and if you look in the Bible, you'll see many instances where "God said it" IS a good enough reason.

Also, I did provide a justification. Oh wait... it looks like you responded to it in your next statement.

All it takes is one man to be less of a capable leader than one woman and your system is unfair. It is indeed unfair in practice and in principle.

Actually, I wouldn't be all too surprised for one woman to be a better leader than a man. I suspect God provides us traits for our specific situation. But this doesn't make it any less of a man's job and duty to be of service. Nor does it lessen the effect of God's command. Nor does it make it unfair, considering that 'ruling' is far different than you consider it.

Have you ever noticed that perhaps God wanted men to be in 'ruling' positions to make it so that they didn't back out of things... like taking care of their children for example. Honestly, you view 'ruling' as something harsh and controlling. Christ never meant it to be that way.

Then you do not believe in man being a ruler. You statements are FULL of contradictions.

Nope. My definition of ruler is different than yours. See the King Benjamin quote.

Again, this is factually wrong. Saying "man should be the ruler of the woman" is clearly different from saying "whoever is more capable should be the ruler", which is what you should advocate if you were to be consistent... but you aren't.

I'm not saying that "whoever is more capable should be ruler". I'm saying that in some situations, that is the reason. In others, it is a different reason. It isn't the same universal reason for everyone.

LOL Individually is "all men" and "all women"?

As I said, my statement is applicable to some situations, not all. For different people, there are different reasons. I think I gave another one earlier... but there are more too. And I still don't understand why "because God said it" doesn't make you understand... 'specially since God is perfectly just.

This has ZERO relevance to the issue and I'm terribly sorry you don't even see that.

No it doesn't. It's the same reason we are provided with different trials - to improve us all based on our own 'flaws'.

Anyways, bro, I'm tired of you just don't getting the basic points. I just hope you will be more careful with your gross generalizations and inconsistencies. Have a good one!

*shrugs* I just see differently than other people do. It can be both advantageous and disadvantageous at times. I don't really think I'm inconsistant though.

You too, have a good week.

[Calm]

If an individual retains the power to rescind any authority he or she grants to another (for example, even a president can be impeached), does inequality still kick in when authority is exercised?

[elguanteloko]

If an individual retains the power to rescind any authority he or she grants to another (for example, even a president can be impeached), does inequality still kick in when authority is exercised?

If you have the choice to not follow him/her then there's no authority to impose in the first place. You don't have the power to not obey a president (or the Gov. in general or your priesthood leaders) without the threat of, or actual, violence on what he chooses so that's not a good example.

[Jason]

Since "value" and "respect" are very subjective terms, saying they are not in contradiction with a social system called "patriarchy" is very vague.

The entire subject was a vague one from the beginning. Nevertheless it has been an interesting discussion.

I, for example, do not consider a system where the man has authority to choose more than the woman as a system of "respect and equality of value" among the sexes.

Choose more than the woman? Do you mean he makes the decisions more often or something else?

If it's just "he makes the decisions more often", how does that determine he is more respected and valued in the relationship?

What if at the same time he is making more decisions he is also paying her greater respect and making it clear that he values her than she is respecting and valuing him?

You seem to feel that respect and value must be linked to authority. Why must this be so?

Jason, does a system where I can impose my decisions on the woman, an adult conscious and autonomous being, promote considering her having equal value and being deserving of the same respect as a man? If yes, then please explain. Notice this does NOT imply that I will impose my views on her (she may happen to agree with everything I say... something quite rare); this just describes the system.

I do not have the ability to "impose" my decisions on my wife. I govern our family only with her consent.

Despite this our family is still accurately described as a patriarchy, for she has given this consent and I am the one who makes the actual decisions, with her support.

I respect my wife and consider her to be of equivelent or greater value to me, despite the patriarchal structure of our family. The system promotes this because it is a covenant (two-way) relationship. I am given authority but must responsibly use it or I can no longer claim it.

[elguanteloko]

The entire subject was a vague one from the beginning. Nevertheless it has been an interesting discussion.

Choose more than the woman?

I said "authority to choose".

Do you mean he makes the decisions more often or something else?

Not necessarily, but I'm talking about "the authority to choose".

If it's just "he makes the decisions more often", how does that determine he is more respected and valued in the relationship?

see above.

What if at the same time he is making more decisions he is also paying her greater respect and making it clear that he values her than she is respecting and valuing him?

...

You seem to feel that respect and value must be linked to authority. Why must this be so?

Do you know what 'authority' means? If a judge has authority to put me in jail, do you have authority to put me in jail, Jason? No. I would imagine that if it's said that the man has the authority to choose X, then the woman does not. If both have the same ability, then there is no such "authority" in relation to each other since both have to agree to it.

I do not have the ability to "impose" my decisions on my wife. I govern our family only with her consent.

see above. we need to focus our attention to "authority" and what it means. You can't possibly be trying to use words like "govern" in this context, Jason. What does you "governing" your wife even means?

Despite this our family is still accurately described as a patriarchy, for she has given this consent and I am the one who makes the actual decisions, with her support.

So, YOU take the decisions or both of you guys do it?

I respect my wife and consider her to be of equivelent or greater value to me, despite the patriarchal structure of our family. The system promotes this because it is a covenant (two-way) relationship. I am given authority but must responsibly use it or I can no longer claim it.

...

[TAO]

I said "authority to choose".

Not necessarily, but I'm talking about "the authority to choose".

see above.

One can have the authority to chose, but I think what you are talking about is freedom from consequence, not authority to choose.

For example, I can choose to study for a test or not. But I can't escape the consequence of passing or failing it. What are you referring to?

Do you know what 'authority' means? If a judge has authority to put me in jail, do you have authority to put me in jail, Jason? No. I would imagine that if it's said that the man has the authority to choose X, then the woman does not. If both have the same ability, then there is no such "authority" in relation to each other since both have to agree to it.

A man's authority over a woman is nothing. He can force her to do nothing. But in a family unit, he is more responsible for the success of the family. That is the sense of authority he has.

see above. we need to focus our attention to "authority" and what it means. You can't possibly be trying to use words like "govern" in this context, Jason. What does you "governing" your wife even means?

Authority is indirectly another word for responsibility. Governing over your wife merely means you have the responsibility to take care of her and care for her as God expects you to. Stewardship is another word for it. In fact, stewardship is the word the Lord likes to use.

So, YOU take the decisions or both of you guys do it?

No, they consult each other and then he performs the action. They choose together, he's the one that acts though, if I'm reading what he says right.

[Jason]

see above.

I do not see where you have attempted to answer my question. Why do you feel that respect and value must be linked to authority?

It may well be intrinsic to having authority that it must be linked with respect or it is meaningless, but to my mind it is not instrinsic to respect or value that they must be linked with authority. Am I wrong?

What does you "governing" your wife even means?

I said I govern our family, not my wife. It means that when we make decisions for our family my wife defers to me as the head of the family. If there is a disagreement (which is rare) in which choice is best for our family, my wife trusts me, she knows I have the priesthood keys for receiving guidance for our family, and she accepts my judgement over her own. In fact at times she has insisted that my choice is the correct one because of her understanding of how the family works.