Amen, Sherri Dew!

[Storm Rider]

Not that I am arguing that this in any justifies OW's agenda, but one could point to the fact that Sheri is one of the limited group of LDS women that have risen to influence above stake level....a much smaller group than the also limited....just not so limited....group of LDS men who have risen to influence.

 

So one could say the difference is that Sheri Dew is speaking from the point of having gotten what KK might desire, while Kate Kelly sees herself as never having the same chance.

 

I think that is a valid point, but that point could be made for all of society.  The discussion of the glass ceiling is still made.  However, what I see is two accomplished women that have diametrically opposite viewpoints on the Church.  Sister Dew does not have the priesthood and yet feels wholly empowered and Sister Kate does not feel empowered and sees her only avenue to obtain power is through being ordained to the priesthood. 

 

One of the things that was a constant topic of conversation with our children is that we create our own hell.  If we look at our lives when things went wrong, every situation, the only common denominator is our own selves. It is our choices that lead to happiness or pain.  In addition, we choose our own perspective; we find the beauty in life or we seek after the ugly.  We find what we are looking for.

 

I remember a story that Ronald Reagan used to tell quite often:

 

There are twin boys of five or six. Worried that the boys had developed extreme personalities — one was a total pessimist, the other a total optimist — their parents took them to a psychiatrist.  First the psychiatrist treated the pessimist.  Trying to brighten his outlook, the psychiatrist took him to a room piled to the ceiling with brand-new toys.  But instead of yelping with delight, the little boy burst into tears.  ”What’s the matter?” the psychiatrist asked, baffled. “Don’t you want to play with any of the toys?”  “Yes,” the little boy bawled, “but if I did I’d only break them.” 

 

Next the psychiatrist treated the optimist.  Trying to dampen his out look, the psychiatrist took him to a room piled to the ceiling with horse manure.  But instead of wrinkling his nose in disgust, the optimist emitted just the yelp of delight the psychiatrist had been hoping to hear from his brother, the pessimist.  Then he clambered to the top of the pile, dropped to his knees, and began gleefully digging out scoop after scoop with his bare hands.  ”What do you think you’re doing?” the psychiatrist asked, just as baffled by the optimist as he had been by the pessimist. “With all this manure,” the little boy replied, beaming, “there must be a pony in here somewhere!”    

 

Happiness is really a choice of perspective rather than what really is happening to us. 

Edited October 9, 2013 by Storm Rider

[Calm]

 

Happiness is really a choice of perspective rather than what really is happening to us. 

Totally agree (except in those cases where depression is caused by a biological problem rather than personal choices).

 

I am thinking of phrasing it as "those who have happiness have it because they chose to have it".

Edited October 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

Sheri Dew's experiences with the church are not exactly those of the ordinary LDS woman.  

 

That's a good point and not one that I had thought of before you brought it up.

 

Sheri Dew has never been married and has no children, while the majority of women in the church--a church which teaches that it is better to be married and have children, and which focuses most of its resources and teachings on marriage and children--are/do. 

 

I have heard many single childless women in the church lament that their status actually makes it harder to be happy in the church, to feel like they have any influence, and to feel like they matter to the leadership.  It's interesting that sis. Dew has such a positive outlook on what she has been able to do as a Mormon woman, and where her value lies, despite dealing with a 'handicap' which makes her experiences not at all like--and in many opinions 'less than'--those of the ordinary LDS woman.

 

I have heard the church accused of only valuing women for their potential as wives and mothers (and this accusation has been used as proof of how little the church really thinks of women).  Sis. Dew's experience seems to counteract that.

[Tacenda]

A. The name is Dew, as in, "The morning dew descends upon the grass."

B. Strong as she is, there is only one of her; the singular is woman, not women.

Just sayin'!

Exactly............emphasis on "there is only one of her".....lol, that works for the church. ETA: How many CEO's are women, that work for the church? Edited October 9, 2013 by Tacenda

[Storm Rider]

Totally agree (except in those cases where depression is caused by a biological problem rather than personal choices).

 

I am thinking of phrasing it as "those who have happiness have it because they chose to have it".

Agreed, I also believe that actual depression occurs out of our control, but we are completely in control for our choices that might lead to this very real, very unfortunate condition.  It is our responsibility to eat right, exercise sufficiently, and sleep properly; if the condition still exists it is our choice to seek after additional medical assistance.  For those of us who suffer from depression we are responsible and we have learned by sad experience that we need to pay particular attention to our bodies and treat them with more care than the average bear. 

[Calm]

 if the condition still exists it is our choice to seek after additional medical assistance. 

Granted, while recognizing there are many for whom the drugs do not work (me for one....but then my depression was a side effect of sleep deprivation that was caused by a disorder that was actually made worse by the anti-depressants that were given to me over the years....which is probably why I am being so nitpicky about this...when I said "totally agree" I meant it even if I feel driven to point out the exceptions).

[MorningStar]

I think that is a valid point, but that point could be made for all of society.  The discussion of the glass ceiling is still made.  However, what I see is two accomplished women that have diametrically opposite viewpoints on the Church.  Sister Dew does not have the priesthood and yet feels wholly empowered and Sister Kate does not feel empowered and sees her only avenue to obtain power is through being ordained to the priesthood. 

 

One of the things that was a constant topic of conversation with our children is that we create our own hell.  If we look at our lives when things went wrong, every situation, the only common denominator is our own selves. It is our choices that lead to happiness or pain.  In addition, we choose our own perspective; we find the beauty in life or we seek after the ugly.  We find what we are looking for.

 

I remember a story that Ronald Reagan used to tell quite often:

 

There are twin boys of five or six. Worried that the boys had developed extreme personalities — one was a total pessimist, the other a total optimist — their parents took them to a psychiatrist.  First the psychiatrist treated the pessimist.  Trying to brighten his outlook, the psychiatrist took him to a room piled to the ceiling with brand-new toys.  But instead of yelping with delight, the little boy burst into tears.  ”What’s the matter?” the psychiatrist asked, baffled. “Don’t you want to play with any of the toys?”  “Yes,” the little boy bawled, “but if I did I’d only break them.” 

 

Next the psychiatrist treated the optimist.  Trying to dampen his out look, the psychiatrist took him to a room piled to the ceiling with horse manure.  But instead of wrinkling his nose in disgust, the optimist emitted just the yelp of delight the psychiatrist had been hoping to hear from his brother, the pessimist.  Then he clambered to the top of the pile, dropped to his knees, and began gleefully digging out scoop after scoop with his bare hands.  ”What do you think you’re doing?” the psychiatrist asked, just as baffled by the optimist as he had been by the pessimist. “With all this manure,” the little boy replied, beaming, “there must be a pony in here somewhere!”    

 

Happiness is really a choice of perspective rather than what really is happening to us. 

And the pessimist would have cried, "Oh no!  The pony is dead!"

[Kenngo1969]

Exactly............emphasis on "there is only one of her".....lol, that works for the church. ETA: How many CEO's are women, that work for the church?

Ma'am, with all due respect, while the question of whether women are adequately represented in the upper echelons of Church-owned and Church-operated businesses certainly is a debate worth having, a number of months ago, you excoriated me for wanting to take a snippet from something you previously posted to use in my signature line.  I will concede for the sake of discussion that your excoriation of me on that occasion was warranted from your point of view.  I now ask that you return the favor and not divorce my words from the original context in which they were used.

 

Thank you.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Exactly............emphasis on "there is only one of her".....lol, that works for the church. ETA: How many CEO's are women, that work for the church?

In answer to your question (but please see my previously-posted, huge caveat) I don't know how many women CEO's head up Church-owned, Church-operated businesses.  Do you know how many would want to?  The problem with Affirmative Action is that it assumes that a proportion of a subset of the population which is equal to that subset's representation in the whole population desires that representation, e.g., "Fifty percent of the membership of the LDS Church is composed of women, therefore, 50 percent of the Church's CEOs should (must) be women."  Do you know how many women vie for such positions?  Do you know what kind of consideration the women who do vie for those positions receive?  It would be awfully hard to give women 50% representation in anything unless close to 50% of the candidates who apply for any given position are women.  I doubt that's the case.  We can argue why it's not the case (for example, I could argue that it's because, by and large, women in the Church are content doing something else, while you might argue that it's simply because the men in the Church want to keep "their" women "barefoot and pregnant"), but until the candidate pool for any given position is composed of close to 50% suitable women, the debate over why they don't rise to such positions (as well as speculation as to why that is, e.g., attributing it to oppression) is pointless.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[cursor]

More like an agenda I think.

 

Agenda? What might be yours? Hopefully we all have agendas in this life. If not, then one is lost.

Edited October 9, 2013 by cursor

[Tacenda]

Ma'am, with all due respect, while the question of whether women are adequately represented in the upper echelons of Church-owned and Church-operated businesses certainly is a debate worth having, a number of months ago, you excoriated me for wanting to take a snippet from something you previously posted to use in my signature line. I will concede for the sake of discussion that your excoriation of me on that occasion was warranted from your point of view. I now ask that you return the favor and not divorce my words from the original context in which they were used.

Thank you.

Refresh my memory please Kenngo, I do have issues with remembering things. PM so we don't derail, if you care to. And I apologise for snipping out part of your quote to make my comment more interesting.

I do know of some interpersonal things that happen involving church employment, since my daughter currently works there and my sister use to. And it deals with maternity leave.

[mtomm]

This essay by Mrs. Samrah Sher says the same thing about Muslim women:

 

http://nicheoftruth.org/pages/oppressed.asp

 

It all must be a matter of your own perspective.  

[ERayR]

This essay by Mrs. Samrah Sher says the same thing about Muslim women:

 

http://nicheoftruth.org/pages/oppressed.asp

 

It all must be a matter of your own perspective.  

 

What isn't?

[toon]

And the pessimist would have cried, "Oh no!  The pony is dead!"

 

What about the realist, who would have realized that ponies covered in manure aren't really that fun to play with (and probably aren't in a playing mood)?

[ERayR]

What about the realist, who would have realized that ponies covered in manure aren't really that fun to play with (and probably aren't in a playing mood)?

 

Or the realist who understands that once he has found the pony there is still a lot of work to get the pony in shape to enjoy but thinks its worth it.

[mtomm]

What isn't?

 

Not much.  But apparently some people's perspectives need to be called out, criticized and corrected even to the point of posting videos about how they should view their life as a Mormon woman.   (Hey, how did you like that alliteration?  I should write conference talks.)

 

(I'm not saying Morning Star was doing the three C's but I've seen it posted around the net in other places to do just that.)

Edited October 10, 2013 by mtomm

[ERayR]

Not much.  But apparently some people's perspectives need to be called out, criticized and corrected even to the point of posting videos about how they should view their life as a Mormon woman.   (Hey, how did you like that alliteration?  I should write conference talks.)

 

(I'm not saying Morning Star was doing the three C's but I've seen it posted around the net in other places to do just that.)

 

Let me get this straight are you advocating censorship of some one?

[mtomm]

No, I'm saying that Sheri Dew's video is used to call out women who have a different perspective and say "see, Mormon women have it great!  Why are you complaining?"  This video is posted on FB and women with differing feelings are tagged in the post.  It's used for shaming.  I'm not particularly impressed with those types of tactics.  

[MorningStar]

Not much.  But apparently some people's perspectives need to be called out, criticized and corrected even to the point of posting videos about how they should view their life as a Mormon woman.   (Hey, how did you like that alliteration?  I should write conference talks.)

 

(I'm not saying Morning Star was doing the three C's but I've seen it posted around the net in other places to do just that.)

I love the video because it doesn't just say, "I don't feel oppressed" but explains well why we love being Mormon women. 

[thesometimesaint]

[Storm Rider]

No, I'm saying that Sheri Dew's video is used to call out women who have a different perspective and say "see, Mormon women have it great!  Why are you complaining?"  This video is posted on FB and women with differing feelings are tagged in the post.  It's used for shaming.  I'm not particularly impressed with those types of tactics.  

 

I think I can understand how some may use Sister Dew in this way, but I completely disagree that Sister Dew's purpose for the talk was anything to uplift and inspire others. 

 

As far as correcting others; if the shoe fits then wear it. I am a little confused with some of your comments. It is as if the purpose is not to learn, but to treat all ideas as equal.  I don't think all ideas or thoughts are equal. I believe that some are much better than others. If we are students of truth then let each of run to be corrected and to learn all truth. If my thoughts run contrary to our Father's will, then may I cast off the chains of pride that bind me and submit to his will and guidance. 

 

I don't think it is healthy consider each person's ideas or thoughts as "right".  We each have the right to our own opinion, but as disciples of Christ, we should be prepared to submit to truth, to recognize truth, and to search after all truth. 

[wenglund]

No, I'm saying that Sheri Dew's video is used to call out women who have a different perspective and say "see, Mormon women have it great!  Why are you complaining?"  This video is posted on FB and women with differing feelings are tagged in the post.  It's used for shaming.  I'm not particularly impressed with those types of tactics.  

 

Seems to me that you are doing a bit of shaming of your own. Motes and beams.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jazzdreamer]

http://youngmormonfeminists.org/2013/10/11/a-response-to-sheri-dews-what-do-lds-women-get/

[Bernard Gui]

Not that I am arguing that this in any justifies OW's agenda, but one could point to the fact that Sheri is one of the limited group of LDS women that have risen to influence above stake level....a much smaller group than the also limited....just not so limited....group of LDS men who have risen to influence.

 

So one could say the difference is that Sheri Dew is speaking from the point of having gotten what KK might desire, while Kate Kelly sees herself as never having the same chance.

General auxiliary women presidencies, IMO, exert more influence on the Church than area authorities or seventy who preside over specific regions.

[Bernard Gui]

Perhaps things have changed, but for me growing up and sometime afterwards it was always taught that education was for the purpose of teaching one's children better and for a backup if one's husband couldn't provide necessities or one never got married.  When I was in school there wasn't much talk even of going back to work after one's children were grown as far as I recall.  I believe that attitude at least has changed, though I couldn't point to any particular talk off the top of my head.

 

PS:  I don't think it is a bad thing that there wasn't a huge amount of encouragement to go back to school after kids are grown.  If a woman has reached that many years and experience in life and still feels she needs permission from someone else to go to college....maybe college isn't the best environment for her.

Back in those days (I was there), that would have been the attitude of most Americans. None of the mothers of my LDS or non-LDS high school buddies worked outside the home, but my mom did.