Feminist Inroads Into Mormonism

[Loran Blood]

Great point. Cobalt's definition of patriarchy seems more like a reaction to unrighteous dominion. But Christ's entire construct of the Gospel is patriarchal. Does Christ demean women, or make them second class in his plan?

I think what needs to be kept in mind here as well is that while first wave feminism was a social and cultural movement having broad support and balanced, reasoned aims and goals, second and third wave feminism is an ideolgy, and an ideology in the modern sense, and hence in direct competition with the gospel for intellectual/psychological alligience.

It, like other 20th century ideologies, takes few, if any prisoners.

[why me]

I think what needs to be kept in mind here as well is that while first wave feminism was a social and cultural movement having broad support and balanced, reasoned aims and goals, second and third wave feminism is an ideolgy, and an ideology in the modern sense, and hence in direct competition with the gospel for intellectual/psychological alligience.

It, like other 20th century ideologies, takes few, if any prisoners.

I think that we can put on the shelf the notion of a first wave and second wave. With advent of postmodernity feminism broke into many subgroups. It is not a unified movement at all. In fact, it is very fragmented as people began to search out their own groupings. For example, radical and socialist feminists don't agree on major points.

We just can not put all feminists in one bag.

[Acris Venator]

I think what needs to be kept in mind here as well is that while first wave feminism was a social and cultural movement having broad support and balanced, reasoned aims and goals, second and third wave feminism is an ideolgy, and an ideology in the modern sense, and hence in direct competition with the gospel for intellectual/psychological alligience.

While I agree with you in principle, the second wave also includes such notions as identifying & eradicating the objectification of women in its ideology. I would consider that notion Christ-like.

The second wave's propensity to identify language and processes that demean women & relegate them to second class status is also antithetical to your point, as the Lord's ordinances endow both sexes with sovereignty and power... the desire for equality is a righteous desire that the Lord addresses directly. So there is some overlap between modern feminism and the Gospel, & the competition is not so direct. Hence my question.

The reason why the second wave is an inadequate lens for understanding the Gospel is because it goes to war with Patriarchy as a standard operating procedure. If the war aspect (along with the sexual revolt element) is extracted, then the best aspects of feminism work just fine with the Gospel, and are actually informative regarding our history and culture.

The fact of the matter is that individual women have been demeaned in our culture. Unrighteous dominion has occurred in some marriages. Rape, beatings, coercion, and all manner of abuses have transpired and continue to be perpetrated by the ignorant among us. Is the entire Church suspect? Not necessarily. But those seeds have been sewn by some throughout LDS history, and the fruits are now coming to bear in the form of a fierce war regarding gender politics.

God doesn't start wars. But he does allow them, and in his economy they are often a means to allow the wicked to punish the wicked. The BOM identifies this phenomena as a "scourge". I think the second and third waves are best understood & approached in such terms.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Acris Venator

[Jeff K.]

I think what needs to be kept in mind here as well is that while first wave feminism was a social and cultural movement having broad support and balanced, reasoned aims and goals, second and third wave feminism is an ideolgy, and an ideology in the modern sense, and hence in direct competition with the gospel for intellectual/psychological alligience.

It, like other 20th century ideologies, takes few, if any prisoners.

The first wave? The Senaca Falls Convention of 1848?

[why me]

Okay, let me try this again. There is no point in discussing first wave or second wave feminism when it comes to feminism today. Second wave feminism more or less ended with the early nineties with the advent of postmodern discourse. Now we have a fragmented feminism as I listed on this thread as feminist identity groups are drawn into their own specific groupings. Feminism is not a monolithic group and should not be discussed as such.

[Pahoran]

"I just don't see women as being devalued in society"

How is getting paid less not an example of being less valued by society?

The theory that people (women, that is) should be paid for doing economically non-productive work just to "validate" them and show that they are "valued by society" is nonsense. Ultimately working people get paid because their work contributes in some way to the employer's income stream. The work we do at home doesn't generate an income stream, so there isn't any money with which to compensate us for it.

And just so you know: men don't work for money to feel "valued by society." We work for money so that we can pay the bills.

Last week I replaced a window in our bathroom. It took me the better part of a day. I didn't get paid for it. (Actually it didn't occur to me that I should get paid for it, and it still doesn't occur to me.) Now in the spirit of the video linked in the OP, since I'm male, I should just suck it up and not complain about it; so I won't. And in any case, since no more money came into our home as a result of my doing that job, there is no source of funds to pay me therefor.

And, sadly, the same is true of the work my wife does in the home.

That doesn't mean it's not important or valuable. But it doesn't produce money, so it can't logically be compensated in money. Payment and value are distant relatives at best.

Also as far as who fares better in a divorce....that would depend on what is being measured:

"Ultimately, the overall economic quality of a man's life, based on earnings and amount spent on living expenses, increases after his divorce. He continues to earn more but bears fewer family expenses. The overall economic quality of a woman's life, post-divorce, decreases."

http://www.legalzoom...-women-who-does

That's an interesting article by a female author, agitating as it does for women to be "compensated" for their own choices, and (by implication, since there's only one other person to take more away from) for men to be punished by having heavier burdens laid upon them. May I point out that it is usually the wife who chooses to leave the marriage, and that she doesn't usually choose to leave until she's got a soft landing. Furthermore, the (usually abandoned) husband may have fewer family expenses after the divorce, but he also has a whole lot less family time. He is usually the one required to leave the family home. His "amount spent on living expenses" therefore includes the cost of setting up a new and inferior establishment, and his splendid "quality of life" involves living alone. And while both parties are legally free to remarry, the divorced husband carries the financial burden of continuing to support his frequently-alienated children and sometimes his ex-wife as well, which means that he has considerably less to offer going into a new marriage, while the divorced wife brings a guaranteed income -- for at least as long as her children are minors -- into her new relationship.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LeSellers]

The theory that people (women, that is) should be paid for doing economically non-productive work just to "validate" them and show that they are "valued by society" is nonsense. Ultimately working people get paid because their work contributes in some way to the employer's income stream. The work we do at home doesn't generate an income stream, so there isn't any money with which to compensate us for it.

Economics 601. Undergrad classes don't usually get around to explaining this kind of thing. And very few people ever learn this basic fact:

No one will hire you if you don't earn more for him than you cost him. (And we ought not forget the taxes, benefits, training, "maintenance", and office costs in this calculation.) Even if it's a break even, and it rarely is, why should he go to the bother of hiring you, with all the trouble that creates for him, unless you are a "profit center"?

And just so you know: men don't work for money to feel "valued by society." We work for money so that we can pay the bills.

Hear! Hear!

Last week I replaced a window in our bathroom. It took me the better part of a day. I didn't get paid for it. (Actually it didn't occur to me that I should get paid for it, and it still doesn't occur to me.) ...

And, sadly, the same is true of the work my wife does in the home.

I once did a calculation (using my first computer, back in 1978 or so) of how much my Jacquie contributed to our household economy. She gardened, ground flour, did laundry, baked bread, and all the other "womanly" things I'd come to know and love (and, just as frequently, taken for granted). Then I added the costs we would have incurred had she decided to "work": higher taxes, a second car, more clothing, more meals eaten out (because she would not have the time to cook anything nutritious) and on and on. In the end, I determined that she would need a $10,000/yr job before she'd bring $1 through the front door. (Keep in mind, a gallon of gas in 1978 was $125, so make that $30,000). At the time, she didn't have a college degree, so her finding a $10,000 job was unlikely, especially in a military town.

Now, what would I get for that $1? A tired, cranky wife 50 weeks a year, hamburgers and french fries from the local Burger King three nights a week, cold cereal for breakfast, more house work for me to do 'cause she's tired, too, more auto maintenance, and a myriad of other "benefits".

I showed her what I'd done, and she, wisely, pointed out that I had forgotten a little thing: we had four children who couldn't watch themselves. So, instead of $10,000/$30,000, she'd need a $$15,000/$50,000 job and still would only bring home $1 in new money.

I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, my Jacquie is worth far moreto me than $1 year. I cannot afford to send her to work.

Lehi

Edited January 9, 2012 by LeSellers

[bluebell]

The theory that people (women, that is) should be paid for doing economically non-productive work just to "validate" them and show that they are "valued by society" is nonsense.

Cal was talking about when women and men do the exact same job but women get paid less. She wasn't talking about paying women to be stay at home moms.

[Pahoran]

Cal was talking about when women and men do the exact same job but women get paid less. She wasn't talking about paying women to be stay at home moms.

I seem to have missed that. As the discussion progressed, it seemed that in order to view women as being paid less, she had to take into account women involved in lower-paid/unpaid work.

In my experience, when women do "the exact same job" as men, they are paid the same.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I seem to have missed that. As the discussion progressed, it seemed that in order to view women as being paid less, she had to take into account women involved in lower-paid/unpaid work.

In my experience, when women do "the exact same job" as men, they are paid the same.

Regards,

Pahoran

I see that too. I think though the biggest factor that I have seen in studies is that often times the men have worked more hours, and thus get paid more because they have more experiance, then women who generally have taken time off because of kids. In all of the jobs that I have worked were women worked as much as men the pay was the same. I simply don't believe that the old "women get paid less" mantra is valid anymore. I just don't see any evidence of it, all other things being equal.

Inf fact if you look at my office, on average, women get paid more then then men. There are also more women working in my office than men. The biggest factor, though, is experiance. And the owner of the company is a woman.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Calm]

Cal was talking about when women and men do the exact same job but women get paid less. She wasn't talking about paying women to be stay at home moms.

I did actually mean that and took it off of statistics I have seen in the past.

I have heard various analyses of these types of stats, some that do state that if one removes the differences caused by women being in the job market for a shorter length of time due to maternity leave, etc. that men and women do get paid the same. I have also read stats that point out that women choose to go for lower paying jobs due to their flexibility for maternity leave, etc. And various other stats that claim that women choose lower paying jobs but that those jobs are historically lower paying due to the fact that they are predominantly filled by women and are thus less valued, not because less training or experience is required, etc.

I have a couple of comments but don't really want to get into a battle of stats today, just not in the mood like I was previously, sorry Pahoran, you are just too late, this is so last year......

My observations:

Both men and women benefit from having children...should not a man value being a father just as much as a woman values being a mother, however women bear the brunt of the cost of having children in the sense of what it implies for their career. Women do make the choice of having children and staying home, but men benefit from this choice. I am not saying that this means women should be compensated in their careers if they take time out to have children. I am merely suggesting it is not so simple as women making the choice of having children....a nonincome producing activity perhaps....and they should therefore be the only ones who have to deal with the consequences of their choice, including lower pay and fewer job opportunities when they go back into the job force or choose to work in more family friendly environments.

When a man can find another man or woman for that matter to come into his home and clean his house and take care of his children and do it just for the satisfaction of a job well done, then I think the claim that such work is inherently nonincome producing and economically nonproductive has merit in demonstrating that women shouldn't consider their work in the home of monetary value. However, as long as it would cost to replace the work a woman does in the home I think there can be an argument made for there being a reason why she should receive some sort of compensation for it, what that compensation should be I am not specifying, but think it should likely be worked out between couples, especially if the husband encourages the wife to stay at home full time and not develop skills or take opportunities that would lead to her greater financial independence.

PS: as far as women being the ones who most often move for divorce, IIRC the cause is often due to the man's infidelity. It would be interesting to have stats on whether or not women choose to leave marriages more than men if infidelity is not involved.

Edited January 9, 2012 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

May I point out that it is usually the wife who chooses to leave the marriage, and that she doesn't usually choose to leave until she's got a soft landing.

Could you point out some references for this point?

[Calm]

I believe the stats back up the women initiate divorce more than men, but the "soft landing" seems unlikely due to the percentage of divorced women who end up with a much lower quality of living, declaring bankruptcy or even at a poverty level.

Of the divorced women I know....and unfortunately that is not a small number including several in my family, the "soft landing" involved moving back in with Mom and Dad. None of them were happy about it. OTOH the husbands in general were living with other women (or men) before the divorce was finalized.

Edited January 9, 2012 by calmoriah

[Pahoran]

I did actually mean that and took it off of statistics I have seen in the past.

I have heard various analyses of these types of stats, some that do state that if one removes the differences caused by women being in the job market for a shorter length of time due to maternity leave, etc. that men and women do get paid the same. I have also read stats that point out that women choose to go for lower paying jobs due to their flexibility for maternity leave, etc. And various other stats that claim that women choose lower paying jobs but that those jobs are historically lower paying due to the fact that they are predominantly filled by women and are thus less valued, not because less training or experience is required, etc.

Yes, I've heard that claim too. AFAICT, it's an ideologically driven position that has no evidence to support it. The level of pay a job attracts has nothing to do with the gender of the participants, but is driven by supply and demand. Nurses continue to be paid less than doctors, even while the numbers of female doctors and male nurses increase, because there is less training involved in becoming a nurse, hence it's easier to get into, hence there's a larger supply of bodies to fill the job vacancies.

I have a couple of comments but don't really want to get into a battle of stats today, just not in the mood like I was previously, sorry Pahoran, you are just too late, this is so last year......

My observations:

Both men and women benefit from having children...should not a man value being a father just as much as a woman values being a mother, however women bear the brunt of the cost of having children in the sense of what it implies for their career. Women do make the choice of having children and staying home, but men benefit from this choice.

And women benefit from this choice as well; men, OTOH, don't usually have such a choice open to them.

I am not saying that this means women should be compensated in their careers if they take time out to have children. I am merely suggesting it is not so simple as women making the choice of having children....a nonincome producing activity perhaps....and they should therefore be the only ones who have to deal with the consequences of their choice, including lower pay and fewer job opportunities when they go back into the job force or choose to work in more family friendly environments.

But what's the solution? Should employers pretend that they are have more experience than they do? Or should womens' wages be subsidised by, say, tax-sourced government funds, just because they're women, and therefore worth it?

When a man can find another man or woman for that matter to come into his home and clean his house and take care of his children and do it just for the satisfaction of a job well done, then I think the claim that such work is inherently nonincome producing and economically nonproductive has merit in demonstrating that women shouldn't consider their work in the home of monetary value.

And in the same way, since it would have cost us several hundred dollars to hire someone to fix our bathroom window, my work at home had "monetary value." But it is patently ridiculous for me to expect to be "compensated" for fixing my own home! because (a) I live there, and thus enjoy the benefits of the improvement, and (b) (and this is the point you seem to be missing) where on earth is the money supposed to come from?

As you've uniwittingly demonstrated, the ideology of envy relies upon a number of important slipshod assumptions. It isn't just "his home;" it's hers, too. Of course a stranger isn't going to clean their home/cook their food/watch their children without payment, because said stranger does not enjoy the benefits that flow therefrom; but both of the spouses do.

And I humbly suggest that if they enjoy those benefits unequally, then the person who spends more time at home may be the one who benefits the most.

However, as long as it would cost to replace the work a woman does in the home I think there can be an argument made for there being a reason why she should receive some sort of compensation for it, what that compensation should be I am not specifying, but think it should likely be worked out between couples, especially if the husband encourages the wife to stay at home full time and not develop skills or take opportunities that would lead to her greater financial independence.

This is an old, old argument. But your position is fundamentally unworkable.

A husband works most of his adult life out of his home for money, only a small portion of which, in most cases, he can really call his own. His wife has -- quite legitimately -- an ongoing claim upon the fruits of his labour for her support. But you seem to be proposing that, after paying the mortgage, the utility bills, the insurance, the groceries, fuel and maintenance for both cars and putting money away for the childrens' education and their retirement, he should pay her for the work she does in her own home?

From what?

The lady in the video linked to in the OP would argue that your position looks like yet another manifestation of the "disposable male" syndrome. After all, men are naturally expected to be last out of the burning building and last into the lifeboat, so why not last to have any say about how they money they earn is spent?

As a woman, naturally you have no problem with that.

PS: as far as women being the ones who most often move for divorce, IIRC the cause is often due to the man's infidelity.

When divorces were rare, infidelity was the primary cause. Now they are common, and the causes are legion.

But with whom do you imagine all those cheating husbands are being unfaithful? Human populations being what they are, chances are the number of unfaithful wives is similar to the number of unfaithful husbands. I recently heard of a study that claims that something like 30% of fathers are raising (and paying for) children who are not theirs -- and they don't know it.

Actually this is starting to remind me of a discussion I once had with Katherine the Great, who argued that women only ever do wrong if men drive them to it.

It would be interesting to have stats on whether or not women choose to leave marriages more than men if infidelity is not involved.

Since the advent of "no fault divorce," such stats are hard to come by.

Regards,

Pahoran

[katherine the great]

When a man can find another man or woman for that matter to come into his home and clean his house and take care of his children and do it just for the satisfaction of a job well done, then I think the claim that such work is inherently nonincome producing and economically nonproductive has merit in demonstrating that women shouldn't consider their work in the home of monetary value.

During my full time stay at home mom years, my husband maintained a $250,000.00 life insurance policy on me--not because I brought in that much income (au contraire!), but because it would cost him a veritable fortune to hire help to do everything that I did and care for five children.

Edited January 9, 2012 by katherine the great

[Pahoran]

Could you point out some references for this point?

Here's a quick reference:

http://news.theage.c...80829-45n0.html

As for the "soft landing," that came from an article I read some years ago, which claimed (with approval, IIRC) that a woman intending on divorce will usually not leave (or throw out) her disposable male, or even let him know what she intends to do, until she's got all her financial ducks in a row. The exception to this is where there is actual (and not merely claimed) domestic violence.

Regards,

Pahoran

[bluebell]

Here's a quick reference:

http://news.theage.c...80829-45n0.html

As for the "soft landing," that came from an article I read some years ago, which claimed (with approval, IIRC) that a woman intending on divorce will usually not leave (or throw out) her disposable male, or even let him know what she intends to do, until she's got all her financial ducks in a row. The exception to this is where there is actual (and not merely claimed) domestic violence.

Regards,

Pahoran

Any stats for the U.S.?

The soft landing thing makes sense, even if there aren't any stats. I would assume that any men who were financially dependant upon their wives would behave the same way with their disposable females, limited though the number of such men would be.

[Calm]

Yes, I've heard that claim too. AFAICT, it's an ideologically driven position that has no evidence to support it.

I am not sure how one could statistically determine this as even if one matched the level of training and experience required due to how to measure society's influence on the perception of how much a job should be valued which affects the supply and demand of it.

But what's the solution? Should employers pretend that they are have more experience than they do? Or should womens' wages be subsidised by, say, tax-sourced government funds, just because they're women, and therefore worth it?

I have never suggested that the government or employers should compensate financially women who sacrifice for being in the home.

And I humbly suggest that if they enjoy those benefits unequally, then the person who spends more time at home may be the one who benefits the most.

Perhaps, but that would depend on the marriage. Being in the home may or may not be beneficial. It would seem with LDS women having higher rates of satisfaction and happiness in their lives than the general population of women, that they have with their husbands in their marriages have worked out what the appropriate compensation should be for them.

But you seem to be proposing that, after paying the mortgage, the utility bills, the insurance, the groceries, fuel and maintenance for both cars and putting money away for the childrens' education and their retirement, he should pay her for the work she does in her own home?

I am not.

As a woman, naturally you have no problem with that.

Seriously?

If this is your response...that as a woman I must think about an issue a specific way, there is no reason to discuss this with you. OTOH, perhaps you should reconsider that you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions about what I think and believe and want for myself and other women.

But with whom do you imagine all those cheating husbands are being unfaithful? Human populations being what they are, chances are the number of unfaithful wives is similar to the number of unfaithful husbands.

Since it is not a one to one correspondence, every man does not have to be unfaithful with a unique to him woman, the number of unfaithful wives could be much, much lower than unfaithful husbands especially if such unfaithfulness involved prostitutes.

Actually this is starting to remind me of a discussion I once had with Katherine the Great, who argued that women only ever do wrong if men drive them to it.

If only that were so (and I think it likely you misunderstood KtG). Unfortunately, while in the past cultural pressure may have caused adultery by women to be much less, women are catching up to men in the infidelity arena. And they are certainly as prone to other causes of divorce such as overspending leading to financial stress, verbal abuse, though not physical (and that may not be a matter of choice but of fear of retaliation).

The whole reason this conversation of mine began, IIRC, was due to a man complaining about the unfairness of life for him as a white male. Pointing out that economically speaking he was still as a class ahead of women as a class is not either suggesting that men are disposable in any way or that women should be financially compensated for imbalances due to the consequences of motherhood. It is not a competition of who is most victimized by our society---men or women---in my opinion and a man turning it into one does not make men look better.

Edited January 9, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Any stats for the U.S.?

The soft landing thing makes sense, even if there aren't any stats. I would assume that any men who were financially dependant upon their wives would behave the same way with their disposable females, limited though the number of such men would be.

It would be the intelligent thing to do and the motherly thing to do if children were involved so they wouldn't endure unnecessary hardship, but I've known plenty of women who didn't have the common sense to wait but made assumptions that the divorce settlement would take care of them or who were so angry about being betrayed, they didn't care and just wanted him out of their lives no matter what the cost was. I hope it is the case in general if not in specifics. Edited January 9, 2012 by calmoriah

[Pahoran]

Any stats for the U.S.?

I'm sure they're around if you know where to look. I pointed to the Aussie ones because I was familiar with them.

The soft landing thing makes sense, even if there aren't any stats. I would assume that any men who were financially dependant upon their wives would behave the same way with their disposable females, limited though the number of such men would be.

If I was intended to leave (or throw out) my wife, I'd consider myself in honour bound to be honest with her about my intentions. Of course, that might work against my own cold-blooded self-interest, but then, as the OP argues, men are expected to put themselves dead last -- and women are not.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

A husband works most of his adult life out of his home for money, only a small portion of which, in most cases, he can really call his own.

And why should he be able to call any portion of the money "really his own" if the marriage is a partnership where the wife works in the home to provide the quality of life appropriate for him, her and their children and he works in order to provide the financial income that allows her to provide that quality of life. Is the leftover after all the bills and essentials are paid off and money set aside for savings, etc. solely his because the work paid for was directly his work and not her 'indirect' work even though at least part of her work was providing the environment that allowed him to go to work and get paid? Or do you see her as deserving a percentage of the remainder, perhaps even equal to his if the leftover money is viewed by you as belonging to to the individual and not the partnership?

[Pahoran]

I am not sure how one could statistically determine this as even if one matched the level of training and experience required due to how to measure society's influence on the perception of how much a job should be valued which affects the supply and demand of it.

What does that mean, exactly? If there are more job vacancies than applicants, the price will go up; if more applicants than vacancies, it will go down. All that stuff about "society's influence on the perception of how much a job should be valued" looks like mere froth, to me. Indeed, if "society's influence on the perception of how much a job should be valued" causes more people to want it, without actually causing more such vacancies, the monetary reward for that job will go down. I've seen it happen in the IT industry.

I have never suggested that the government or employers should compensate financially women who sacrifice for being in the home.

I'm glad to hear it. I just want to know where you are coming from.

Perhaps, but that would depend on the marriage. Being in the home may or may not be beneficial. It would seem with LDS women having higher rates of satisfaction and happiness in their lives than the general population of women, that they have with their husbands in their marriages have worked out what the appropriate compensation should be for them.

Eh? You think LDS women are happier in general because their husbands hand over a larger proportion of their wages?

Yes, that must be it.

I am not.

Then I'm confused. If the putative monetary reward for working in the home is not supposed to come from government, and it's not supposed to come from the working spouse, where is it supposed to come from?

Seriously?

If this is your response...that as a woman I must think about an issue a specific way, there is no reason to discuss this with you. OTOH, perhaps you should reconsider that you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions about what I think and believe and want for myself and other women.

That seems ironic, in view of:

Certainly from the point of view of men.

So you, as a woman, are allowed to ascribe a single "point of view" to men, but if any man has the temerity to return the favour, you huff and puff in high dudgeon.

I see.

Since it is not a one to one correspondence, every man does not have to be unfaithful with a unique to him woman, the number of unfaithful wives could be much, much lower than unfaithful husbands especially if such unfaithfulness involved prostitutes.

I'm sure that could be a factor; but "much, much lower?" The sex industry where you live must be thriving!

If only that were so (and I think it likely you misunderstood KtG). Unfortunately, while in the past cultural pressure may have caused adultery by women to be much less, women are catching up to men in the infidelity arena. And they are certainly as prone to other causes of divorce such as overspending leading to financial stress, verbal abuse, though not physical (and that may not be a matter of choice but of fear of retaliation).

As I said: in the era of so-called "no fault divorce," it's all guesswork anyway.

But there are women who are physically abusive. Naturally, in the spirit of the OP, their victims are expected to simply "suck it up."

The whole reason this conversation of mine began, IIRC, was due to a man complaining about the unfairness of life for him as a white male. Pointing out that economically speaking he was still as a class ahead of women as a class is not either suggesting that men are disposable in any way or that women should be financially compensated for imbalances due to the consequences of motherhood. It is not a competition of who is most victimized by our society---men or women---in my opinion and a man turning it into one does not make men look better.

Exactly. Women are allowed -- nay, encouraged -- to complain about the unfairness of life; but if a man does so, he makes himself look bad.

Men, you see, are supposed to "suck it up" and "put themselves dead last."

But I'm still not sure why, when hard times hit and white men are the first to be laid off by every employer in sight, they should feel comforted to know that other white men are still being paid more than women who've worked fewer hours over fewer years. That won't help the unemployed ones pay their bills.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

And why should he be able to call any portion of the money "really his own" if the marriage is a partnership where the wife works in the home to provide the quality of life appropriate for him, her and their children and he works in order to provide the financial income that allows her to provide that quality of life.

Well, you seemed to be in favour of the wife being able to call some portion of the money "really her own." Although I am no longer sure of what, if anything, you were arguing regarding "compensation" for what might arguably be seen as the luxury to having undiluted control over her own home and family environment, without constant demands coming from outside of the home.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Women are allowed -- nay, encouraged -- to complain about the unfairness of life; but if a man does so, he makes himself look bad.

And if you have ever seen me complaining about how hard women have it you might have a point. Responding to a man's complaint by demonstrating statistical differences that bring his complaining about his position into question does not automatically entail complaining myself.

And I have rarely heard at Church....which is what started this post....in any official capacity any support for women complaining about men and how life is unfair. I have heard women who complain about men, but they are women who complain about everything including other women. Instead at church I hear lessons on how to be supportive to your husband, create a refuge and a temple in the home for your husband and children to come home to, lessons on how to be financially responsible so as not to not create unnecessary stress for the family and the relationship between husband and wife, etc.

I don't know what is being said about men in Priesthood meetings, but in Relief Society in my experience complaining about men is not an approved topic. Nor are they treated as children or anything but equal partners.

And I think this is one reason why LDS women tend to be happier and feel greater satisfaction in their lives than nonLDS women.

Edited January 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[Deborah]

PS: as far as women being the ones who most often move for divorce, IIRC the cause is often due to the man's infidelity. It would be interesting to have stats on whether or not women choose to leave marriages more than men if infidelity is not involved.

In my case my husband just got up one morning packed his stuff and left the state after sitting the kids on the couch and telling them he was leaving because "he wasn't loved enough." Of course he left out the part about his never having a kind word to say. Being left in limbo and not knowing if we'd ever see him again I filed for divorce. so I agree if the woman is filing for divorce she probably has good reason. Had it not been for that I would have stuck it out even though I was totally miserable.