Amen, Sherri Dew!

[Tacenda]

1. No it doesn't. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/divorce_rates_90_95_99-11.pdf

2. Utah is not a synonym for Mormon.

Well, it said on my local news, it was. I'll link to it when I'm not on my mobile.

 

ETA: http://www.4utah.com/story/can-this-marriage-be-saved-a-look-behind-utahs-divorce-rate/d/story/KvDrr-3W9kyAALePA_67QQ

Edited November 17, 2013 by Tacenda

[juliann]

Well, it said on my local news, it was. I'll link to it when I'm not on my mobile.

One more time, extract the Mormons.       

 

Here are more gov. stats on Utah that reflect trends that will impact all women.  This is why we can no longer afford to not have women educated and prepared for careers so that they can have a Sheri Dew single life if they can't marry.  I think if the church would go whole hog on the reality of Option 2, they would be seen as protecting women instead of denying them.  Further, they would be placing strong LDS in influencial positions around the world.

 

http://jobs.utah.gov/wi/pubs/womencareers/factsheet.html

 

• Most women who work are married.
• A higher percentage of Utah women work outside the home than the national average.
• Utah has a higher divorce rate than the national average.
• A young woman today can expect to spend more than 30 years in the labor force.
• Most women at one time or another will need to support themselves and/or their families.
• The majority of mothers of preschool children in Utah work outside the home.
• Choosing a career with a high wage will make it easier to combine home and family.
• Almost one-third of female-headed households are in poverty.

[Garden Girl]

Based only on quotes I have seen...I haven't seen anything much different than the standard look at what women can do [but don't look at what they can't do!] approach which I find highly disingenuous.  It is better to just begin with the obvious, women do not have the opportunities for leadership that men and boys do in the church.  Then one can make a case for why that doesn't matter.   This was almost good:

 

Good point about the not having priesthood in your home (and this thankfully contradicts the lucky but lacking mother who gets a 12 yr. old to have priesthood in her home that comes up every conference).  But to paint being unmarried...which is a growing percentage... as daily sadness and loneliness.  Good grief.  What a way to encourage women to accept any marriage at all to keep that divorce rate climbing.  On that basis alone, I would not want young women reading this.

 

Juliann...

So you are mocking another woman's feelings and view just because it does not agree with yours?  How do you know the depth of feeling Sis Dew has about being unmarried... the quotation appreared to be her personal feelings that she expressed in her book... (and from the talks I've heard her give I believe she does feel a sadness and lonliness when she is always alone when attending Church and the temple, and just her daily life of never having had children, etc.  I can most certainly relate to that, and I'm sure untold numbers of other sisters can also, and that is why she struck such a chord with so many).  I would never dismiss her view, or any other sisters' similar view... with a "Good grief." 

I see nothing in her talks, and probably not in her book, that even slightly approaches encouraging "women to accept any marriage at all"... so that she is placed in a possible position of becoming divorced...  Rather, I see a woman who in spite of any feelings of lonliness or sadness has accomplished more on her own than the majority of us can even think of... she's highly educated, traveled the world, held numerous callings in the Church, and who has excelled in her professional career... all on her own... a great example to single women of what one can accomplish...  But who am I or anyone else to judge her and belittle her expression of a desire to be married.  Who am I or anyone else to judge what all of these wonderful accomplishments she has experienced mean to her when she considers them in comparison to having a home and family of her own... children... husband... 

I would think that young women could learn quite a bit from reading her book... certainly what one can do with one's life in spite of not being married, and certainly that not having a man in one's life should any way hinder her or what she can accomplish.  And that a single woman can be a faithful, strong Latter Day Saint woman...

 

GG

[AndyDnom]

Amen to her priesthood?

[juliann]

Juliann...

So you are mocking another woman's feelings and view just because it does not agree with yours?  How do you know the depth of feeling Sis Dew has about being unmarried... the quotation appreared to be her personal feelings that she expressed in her book... (and from the talks I've heard her give I believe she does feel a sadness and lonliness when she is always alone when attending Church and the temple, and just her daily life of never having had children, etc.  I can most certainly relate to that, and I'm sure untold numbers of other sisters can also, and that is why she struck such a chord with so many).  I would never dismiss her view, or any other sisters' similar view... with a "Good grief." 

I see nothing in her talks, and probably not in her book, that even slightly approaches encouraging "women to accept any marriage at all"... so that she is placed in a possible position of becoming divorced...  Rather, I see a woman who in spite of any feelings of lonliness or sadness has accomplished more on her own than the majority of us can even think of... she's highly educated, traveled the world, held numerous callings in the Church, and who has excelled in her professional career... all on her own... a great example to single women of what one can accomplish...  But who am I or anyone else to judge her and belittle her expression of a desire to be married.  Who am I or anyone else to judge what all of these wonderful accomplishments she has experienced mean to her when she considers them in comparison to having a home and family of her own... children... husband... 

I would think that young women could learn quite a bit from reading her book... certainly what one can do with one's life in spite of not being married, and certainly that not having a man in one's life should any way hinder her or what she can accomplish.  And that a single woman can be a faithful, strong Latter Day Saint woman...

 

GG

I think we are talking past one another, GG.  This is probably a agree to disagree thing.  Of course she is not openly advocating that is the way everyone should feel.  But if she doesn't think that she has something to say that is meaningful to others she wouldn't be writing a book.  She is an example.  What she does, thinks, or feels is part of that.   Like it or not, she is sending a message to readers that what she feels is normal and expected if you are single.  In any other situation (not involving horrific tragedy) that someone was "sad" and "lonely" every day of their privileged 1st world lives we would be encouraging her to get therapy.  As for mocking her feelings,  not sure where that comes from.  But I am saying she should stop telling women that no matter how successful their lives are, they are doomed to sadness and loneliness every day of their lives if they can't bag a man...in other words, if she talks about that it should be in the context that it is not healthy.... or anything the church supports.   And she should be writing books about how to overcome such persistent and debilitating negative thoughts through the atonement.  Or something. 

[Erin15]

I realized it's not my place to tell them.

 

I think SOME women in the OW are going about it the wrong way, but it's not my place to tell someone how to feminize so I leave it be.

 

So, when you come across something that you dislike in the church, your response is to join a political activism group to champion change, but when you see something within the political activism group that you dislike, your response is to pateintly submit?

 

You've got it completely backwards.

 

Your political affiliations derserve your loud objections, and your church deserves your patience and understanding.

[Garden Girl]

I think we are talking past one another, GG.  This is probably a agree to disagree thing.  Of course she is not openly advocating that is the way everyone should feel.  But if she doesn't think that she has something to say that is meaningful to others she wouldn't be writing a book.  She is an example.  What she does, thinks, or feels is part of that.   Like it or not, she is sending a message to readers that what she feels is normal and expected if you are single.  In any other situation (not involving horrific tragedy) that someone was "sad" and "lonely" every day of their privileged 1st world lives we would be encouraging her to get therapy.  As for mocking her feelings,  not sure where that comes from.  But I am saying she should stop telling women that no matter how successful their lives are, they are doomed to sadness and loneliness every day of their lives if they can't bag a man...in other words, if she talks about that it should be in the context that it is not healthy.... or anything the church supports.   And she should be writing books about how to overcome such persistent and debilitating negative thoughts through the atonement.  Or something. 

 

I think we are too, Juliann, talking past each other as you know the respect I hold for you... we approach from different perspectives I think, based on our own life experiences.  For instance, I don't think she is saying anything remotely akin to women... that no matter how successful in their lives... are doomed... doomed!... to sadness and lonliness every day of their lives if they "can't bag a man." 

Do you think I don't have a level of sadness every day of my life because I don't have children?  Particularly as my life is coming to its closing years... Particularly when I belong to a faith that holds the family and children as "God's unit" and motherhood as a divine blessing... Do you know how alone a woman can feel when everyone around her is talking about children and grandchildren... when practically every message/talk/article extolls the family and children?  Now that's something that affects me greatly.  But like Sis Dew, I don't dwell on that nor sit around feeling sorry for myself. 

Millions of infertile women know exactly what I'm talking about... and this extends to those women, like Sis Dew, who want to be married but for whatever reason find they are not... and see the years ticking by...  I view her message now and in the past that such feelings as hers can be overcome by the atonement and her life is an example... and, I'm glad that in recent years emphasis has been by our leaders that if a woman lives the gospel fully, including her temple covenants, no blessings will be withheld from her... And I liked the previous quote that you pointed out where she indicated that she took exception to the notion that just because she isn't married she can't have the priesthood in her home.  Every month my faithful home teachers are there to visit me, and if I ever need a blessing or help...

My home has been blessed and dedicated by a brother holding the priesthood... and I view it as my holy place to stand...

 

So Juliann, I understand your view... please understand mine as I agree we do disagree in some of this...

 

GG

[juliann]

So, when you come across something that you dislike in the church, your response is to join a political activism group to champion change, but when you see something within the political activism group that you dislike, your response is to pateintly submit?

 

You've got it completely backwards.

 

Your political affiliations derserve your loud objections, and your church deserves your patience and understanding.

You have it backwards if you think board nannying advances a discussion.

[Erin15]

You have it backwards if you think board nannying advances a discussion.

I am pointing out inconsistencies in policy and priority.  If you disagree, please state so and give your reasons.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Erin15

[rongo]

You have it backwards if you think board nannying advances a discussion.

I think Erin made an excellent point. She pointed out the disconnect between opposing "patiently submitting" when it has to do with male hierarchy in the Church, but encouraging "patiently submitting" when it comes to the hierarchy in OW (when disagreeing with tactics, direction, etc.).

[juliann]

I am pointing out inconsistencies in policy and priority.  If you disagree, please state so and give your reasons.

The best reason is Board Guidelines/behavior that won't be tolerated:  Telling others how to behave. Anything you find objectionable should be reported using the button located in each post.

 

Who or what any poster "submits" to is not your concern and your instructions regarding the right religious priorities for other people are not only inappropriate they violate board rules.  If you find JD's priorities objectionable then report it instead of nannying instructing her as to how to modify her personal "policy and priority" to align with your own. 

 

Edited November 17, 2013 by juliann

[Calm]

So, when you come across something that you dislike in the church, your response is to join a political activism group to champion change, but when you see something within the political activism group that you dislike, your response is to pateintly submit?

 

You've got it completely backwards.

 

Your political affiliations derserve your loud objections, and your church deserves your patience and understanding.

I suspect that Jazz doesn't see OW as a political group, but as a religious one along the lines of the Relief Society...created to give comfort and relief to those who are in need. You may disagree with how they are going about identifying and attempting to address that need and you may want to express how you would do it differently...best done in my observation when one is an example of the behaviour rather than simply assuming the role of teacher, but lecturing total strangers on how to behave and what values to have when you have only superficial knowledge of motivations and behaviour rarely works...again an observation based on experience. A lecture is only of value when it is relevant in the context it is presented.

[Erin15]

The best reason is Board Guidelines/behavior that won't be tolerated:  Telling others how to behave. Anything you find objectionable should be reported using the button located in each post.

 

Who or what any poster "submits" to is not your concern and your instructions regarding the right religious priorities for other people are not only inappropriate they violate board rules.  If you find JD's priorities objectionable then report it instead of nannying instructing her as to how to modify her personal "policy and priority" to align with your own. 

 

Juliann, you are not a moderator, so stop acting like one.

 

If you want to actually discuss the substance of the subject, I am all for it.  But I am not interested in you trying to shame to silence instead of engaging in a real discussion.  It is a waste of my time.

 

I'll give you another chance.  The substance is this:  Is it inconsistent to advocate patient submission of one hierarchy (OW leadership) while opposing patient submission with regards to another hiearchy (church leadership) ?

 

What say you?

 

I suspect that Jazz doesn't see OW as a political group, but as a religious one along the lines of the Relief Society...created to give comfort and relief to those who are in need.

Let me ask you this, then:

 

Is not the church hierarchy deserving of at least the same level of patience and submission one is willing to give to the OW hierarchy?

 

Is not the hierarchy of the OW deserving of at least the same level of scrutiniy and open criticism one is willing to give to the church hierarchy?

[Calm]

You can do what you want for yourself. But telling Jazz how she should behave in a group you do not belong to is the same as a nonmormon making the rules about how LDS should behave in their community. It is not a behaviour that impresses me.

[Erin15]

You can do what you want for yourself. But telling Jazz how she should behave in a group you do not belong to is the same as a nonmormon making the rules about how LDS should behave in their community. It is not a behaviour that impresses me.

Wait, so the OW movement claim to represent me, and fight for my interests, but I have no right to criticize or comment on them?  On what planet does that make sense?

 

Four points I'd like to make here:

 

1) You are "othering," a practice long and rightly bemoaned by people who are intellectually honest.  The reality is that a good point is a good point regardless of where it originates, and you know it.  The whole basis for debate is to examine the ideas, positions and points on their own merits, or is this not the place for that?

 

2) You are contradicting yourself.  If the OW movement is a religious movement as you indicated, then it is an LDS religious movement and as an LDS women I am part of the group and may comment on it.  The only way your logic makes sense is if you claim that the members of the OW movement are no longer LDS, and therefore not part of my group.  Is that what you are claiming?

 

3) Impressing you is irrelivant to the discussion, and you know it.  It is just more blame and shame instead of real discussion, or is that not your goal?

 

4) You failed to answer my questions so I will ask them again:

 

Is not the church hierarchy deserving of at least the same level of patience and submission one is willing to give to the OW hierarchy?

 

Is not the hierarchy of the OW deserving of at least the same level of scrutiniy and open criticism one is willing to give to the church hierarchy?

Edited November 17, 2013 by Erin15

[rongo]

The best reason is Board Guidelines/behavior that won't be tolerated:  Telling others how to behave. Anything you find objectionable should be reported using the button located in each post.

 

 

Pointing out inconsistency is not “telling others how to behave.” If it were, then every discussion here would be full of mutual “board nannying,” because it implies that one should not be inconsistent.

 

I mean, my goodness, juliann. You, of all people, constantly “tell others how to behave” in your discussions involving Mormon feminism (both Mormon feminists themselves and men in the Church who “don’t get it”). That’s “board nannying” at least as much as you are accusing Erin of doing.

 

Am I “board nannying” by pointing this out, and by pointing out that I agree with Erin? By implication, I am implying that I believe that you should do or not do certain things, too (that’s what making an argument in a discussion is all about).

 

 

 

Who or what any poster "submits" to is not your concern and your instructions regarding the right religious priorities for other people are not only inappropriate they violate board rules.  If you find JD's priorities objectionable then report it instead of nannying instructing her as to how to modify her personal "policy and priority" to align with your own. 

This sounds absurd, juliann, especially in practice. If people really pushed “report” on posts that they felt nannied  instructed people “as to how to modify their personal “policy and priority” to align with their own,” in practice, they would be reporting almost every post on this board.

 

And, I think that Erin's very good question remains unanswered in this smokescreen of "board nannying."

Edited November 17, 2013 by rongo

[rongo]

It occurs to me that I could claim "board nannying" about any possible response to my post that disagrees with it, under the application described above.

 

See how ridiculous that is?

[bluebell]

Wait, so the OW movement claim to represent me, and fight for my interests, but I have no right to criticize or comment on them?  On what planet does that make sense?

 

 

 

You have misunderstood Cal (and Juliann as well).

 

She is not talking about OW.  She is talking about Jazzdreamer.  You told Jazzdreamer how she should behave (you told her that she should give patience to the church and be proactive for change in the OW, and told her she was 'wrong' for not behaving in the way that you believe she should behave).  Cal simply pointed out that doing that doesn't help anyone-it's certainly not going to convince Jazz to do things your way or to change her priorities.

 

That's all Cal and Juliann were saying.  I'm not sure how you got the idea that Cal was saying you weren't allowed to criticize OW. 

[Calm]

Wait, so the OW movement claim to represent me, and fight for my interests, but I have no right to criticize or comment on them? On what planet does that make sense?

?

Changing the argument...

Are you part of the group? Do you actually accept any claim they might make to speak for you? If you are, I will expect to see your profile on their site and you championing the giving of the Priesthood to women. The idea that just because one shares some qualities with a group makes one a member even if one does not have and indeed categorically rejects the defining quality of that group is a rather interesting way of giving oneself permission to criticise ingroup behaviour. I can see antis adapting that, claiming that as mormons (since after all mormons are human and they are human as well) they have a right to criticise how tithing is spent, the temple rituals, etc. Brilliant!

It is a simple concept. Communities establish their own ingroup rules that as long as they are not legally determined to be harmful are allowed to stand. Do you tolerate a total stranger telling you how to raise your kids?

I never said you had no right to criticise the OW group. I do it all the time. I am saying you have no right as a nonmember of the OW community to set a standard for ingroup behaviour. Criticise how they treat outsiders, how they treat each other is up to them.

Rongo, it is only inconsistent if she views the individuals in comparable ways. I vary my treatment of my family, ward members and other groups dependent on the needs and strengths of each group.

Edited November 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

 

Your political affiliations derserve your loud objections, and your church deserves your patience and understanding.

Is it inconsistent to advocate patient submission of one hierarchy (OW leadership) while opposing patient submission with regards to another hiearchy (church leadership) ?

Is it inconsistent to advocate for "loud objections" for one hierarchy (OW) while promoting "patience and understanding" for another (Church)?

[Erin15]

it's certainly not going to convince Jazz to do things your way or to change her priorities.

 

Everyone here knows that being open to other points of view is a personal choice irrespectinve of the evidence and arguments being used.  Even the most presuasive and evidenciary arguments will bouce off a person who chooses to cover their ears and close their heart and mind.  We all know this.  So, bringing up how likely my post was to change Jazzdreamer's mind is irrelivant in the extreme, because that has everything to do with her personal choices and nothing to do with me.

I am saying you have no right as a nonmember of the OW community to set a standard for ingroup behaviour. Criticise how they treat outsiders, how they treat each other is up to them.

I strongly disagree.  If a group lobbies on my behalf, claims to represent me, and their actions affect my group directly, I believe I have every right to hold them to a standard of rational behavior and ettiquite, even amongst themselves.  That is true of all ambassadors and representatives.  Even representatives of small companies are held that way, so I don't understand why these pundits are suddenly immune from it in your mind.

Now, whether or not the OW people do so is their choice and their choice alone, but I have every right to insist that those who claim to speak for me behave in a way I find rational and civil.

 

By your logic a gun-owner who is not a member of the NRA has no right to criticize the NRA or the way NRA members behave and interact with other NRA members.  That is patently absurd.  When their behavior reflects upon me, I absolutely have a say in it, and, as others have pointed out, this is nothing more than a smokescreen.

 

Rather than discuss the real suject, all you seem willing to do is address this non-issue.

 

 

Twice now you have ignored my questions.  I ask them of you a third time.

 

Is not the church hierarchy deserving of at least the same level of patience and submission one is willing to give to the OW hierarchy?

 

Is not the hierarchy of the OW deserving of at least the same level of scrutiniy and open criticism one is willing to give to the church hierarchy?

Edited November 17, 2013 by Erin15

[Calm]

I feel no need to defend an argument that I am not making. I might if you get it right.

[Erin15]

I feel no need to defend an argument that I am not making. I might if you get it right.

You are deflecting again.  I am not asking you to defend her argument, I am asking your opinion.  What is your response to the following two questions: 

 

Is not the church hierarchy deserving of at least the same level of patience and submission one is willing to give to the OW hierarchy?

Is not the hierarchy of the OW deserving of at least the same level of scrutiniy and open criticism one is willing to give to the church hierarchy?

Edited November 17, 2013 by Erin15

[Calm]

Deflecting is better then misrepresenting, don't you know.

PS...perhaps you have noticed but I am not in OW and as such feel and fill no need to take on the role of busybody, master of morality and reason and Molly Manners for them, even if I know a few including my daughter by another mother. That is a job for those who have put their blood sweat and tears into their vision. Heaven help the crusade that leaves it to the outsider to determine what kind of people they should be.

Edited November 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

Everyone here knows that being open to other points of view is a personal choice irrespectinve of the evidence and arguments being used.  Even the most presuasive and evidenciary arguments will bouce off a person who chooses to cover their ears and close their heart and mind.  We all know this.  So, bringing up how likely my post was to change Jazzdreamer's mind is irrelivant in the extreme, because that has everything to do with her personal choices and nothing to do with me.

 

 

Choosing to comment on that one sentence in my post, while ignoring the actual point of the post (which is that you misunderstood Cal), is a perfect example of a reply that is irrelevant in the extreme.

 

And of course we have ownership in what we say to other people and the consequences of our words.