What Is It About White Men?

[BlueDreams]

(Keep reading slowly)  Do you now see why that is NOT demeaning to women?  What is demeaning is your presumption that the minority of women who do want the priesthood are "pawns of the proletariat" struggle, "useful idiots" who don't know that their agitation for the priesthood is actually a plot by liberal men to further oppress them.  (Resume reading at normal speed)

I'm not a big fan of Wade's comments (considering I usually fall on the liberal end of things...well moderately liberal), but the initial comments about the statistics is invalidating to the majority of women who agree with the idea that women aren't to be ordained and is patronizing to say the least. It's just fine to come to the defense of a minority view as a legitimate desire. It's another to do so by insisting that the majority of women don't really believe what they say they do. And even worse to infer they're psychologically repressed.

 

And doing this:

The vast majority of women who don't want it, should be free to continue serving in the Church in their current capacities.  However, with regard those you might regard as "useful idiots," their opinions matter to us and we believe that this Church could only be improved by adding their service in the priesthood to our own.

 

 Isn't really a viable option. Whatever decision is made will need to be a unifying one. This would lead to greater division as women who don't are viewed as lesser than for not wanting something that previous to this hypothetical change is considered necessary for exaltation, a means for expanding our knowledge of God, and pertinent for the growth of the church. This may seem exaggerative, but you can already see this in the change in missionary demographics....something that isn't exactly pertinent for our saving ordinances. So this wouldn't actually expand women's position if priesthood simply became "optional" for women to join in on. If it did stay that a minority of women received the priesthood, then only a minority of women would probably be represented in hierarchical calls and the actual leadership positions for women would become less impacting than it would have become. It would take years for female presence to be impactful and their position would be defined heavily by male terms and settings. That's not real expansion of female power/presence. In short the message to this would be: to have a solid voice/influence, you'll need to follow the male course.  There's a similar problem with a more universal ordination call: few women leader with a structure that would take years for a significant proportion of women moving into various leadership roles and the current general/stake leadership positions being further marginalized as less significant.   

 

I'm not saying that there could/would be benefits. But I am saying that priesthood ordination is not the magic bullet to women's empowerment church-wide equality.

 

With luv,

BD

[Hamilton Porter]

Wade is from the Jim Crow era.

 

And out of the thread you go.

[USU78]

Wade is from the Jim Crow era.

a grossly offensive sentence.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wade is from the Jim Crow era.

And that has what to do with anything Wade has said? It should be noted that Liberals, ie, democrats, are the whole reason you had Jim Crow laws.  So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[thesometimesaint]

a grossly offensive sentence.

 

If you were born before 1968 you're from the Jim Crow era.

 

And that has what to do with anything Wade has said? It should be noted that Liberals, ie, democrats, are the whole reason you had Jim Crow laws.  So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

The Dixiecrats were anything but liberal.

SEE Southern Strategy http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy

[Gray]

And that has what to do with anything Wade has said? It should be noted that Liberals, ie, democrats, are the whole reason you had Jim Crow laws.  So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

A misrepresentation. 

Edited April 1, 2014 by Gray

[Hamilton Porter]

And that has what to do with anything Wade has said? It should be noted that Liberals, ie, democrats, are the whole reason you had Jim Crow laws.  So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

That was pre-Southern strategy, before Reagan started redneck-baiting the Southern vote with memes like "welfare queen" without saying anything overtly racist.

[thesometimesaint]

That was pre-Southern strategy, before Reagan started redneck-baiting the Southern vote with memes like "welfare queen" without saying anything overtly racist.

 

Actually it wasn't developed by Reagan (Though he certainly used it to great effect in Philadelphia... Philadelphia; Mississippi. Not far from where 3 civil rights workers were murdered by the KKK).  It was developed by Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater to win in 1964 in Southern elections and 1968 for Nixon to win the Presidency.

[Hamilton Porter]

Actually it wasn't developed by Reagan (Though he certainly used it to great effect in Philadelphia... Philadelphia; Mississippi. Not far from where 3 civil rights workers were murdered by the KKK).  It was developed by Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater to win in 1964 in Southern elections and 1968 for Nixon to win the Presidency.

 

Yes, I'm aware it predated Reagan. Reagan was the master. Giving a speech on states rights in that county on the anniversary of the murder.

 

Hillary would even try to do this too, whenever she campaigned in states with lots of poor whites.I

 

I hope this thread gets shut down because it's too political.

[wenglund]

Oh, Wade.  Really?  I am going to type this really slowly so that you will understand the situation.

 

We liberals don't have such a low opinion of women that we want to foist the priesthood upon them "for their own good."  We are simply advocating for the women who DO want the priesthood.  The vast majority of women who don't want it, should be free to continue serving in the Church in their current capacities.  However, with regard those you might regard as "useful idiots," their opinions matter to us and we believe that this Church could only be improved by adding their service in the priesthood to our own.

 

(Keep reading slowly)  Do you now see why that is NOT demeaning to women?  What is demeaning is your presumption that the minority of women who do want the priesthood are "pawns of the proletariat" struggle, "useful idiots" who don't know that their agitation for the priesthood is actually a plot by liberal men to further oppress them.  (Resume reading at normal speed)

 

Let me return the favor by speaking equally slowly for your benefit, though you will have to budge your stiff neck in my right direction to hear correctly.

 

You may believe that catering to the misguided male-envy expressed by certain women doesn't portend a low opinion of women in general, but this is because you fail to see through your liberal blinders that your belief presupposes that women are so low as to have just cause for male-envy, and are somehow sorely lacking because they don't have all of what men have, and that they ought to have it all in order to rise to the level of men, and that they aren't doing enough as it is for the Church. In short, you and other liberals literally view women as second-class citizens (their liberal words, not mine, just as with the "useful idiot" moniker) in the Church for not having all that men have.

 

Even more to the point, you think so low of women as to assume they need your male advocacy in order to achieve their misguided objective.

 

I, on the other hand, view women as good or better than men for all of what women already have and what they offer in and of themselves irrespective of what they have that I and other males don't or vice versa.

 

In other words, unlike you, I don't encourage the demeaning practice of gender envy, but I believe in mutual respect in our divine differences.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 1, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Wade is from the Jim Crow era.

 

Hamilton is engaging in fallacious and dismissive guilt by association--which appears to be the best he has to offer.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Hamilton Porter]

Can we close this political thread already?

 

Let me just end with an example of Hillary's redneck-baiting Southern Strategy (which, ironically, she used in Pennsylvania):

 

“found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A misrepresentation. 

Nah what I did was not include republicans who are liberal or known as RINO's. What I said was factual that the dems did indeed enact the Jim Crow laws.

 

On a different note:

You ever see that Woodrow Wilson movie glorifying the KKK?

Edited April 1, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[wenglund]

Can we close this political thread already?

 

Let me just end with an example of Hillary's redneck-baiting Southern Strategy (which, ironically, she used in Pennsylvania):

 

You don't need to be purposefully offensive if you don't wish to be party to the thread continuing on. You can tacitly accomplish the same objective by leaving the thread alone. Everyone will be the better for it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

And that has what to do with anything Wade has said? It should be noted that Liberals, ie, democrats, are the whole reason you had Jim Crow laws.  So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Calling 19th Century Democrats liberals is grossly ignorant. They were conservative, very conservative. So conservative they were willing to leave the nation over being unwilling to change.

[thesometimesaint]

Nah what I did was not include republicans who are liberal or known as RINO's. What I said was factual that the dems did indeed enact the Jim Crow laws.

 

On a different note:

You ever see that Woodrow Wilson movie glorifying the KKK?

 

Guilt by association. Was Abraham Lincoln a RINO? How about "Teddy" Roosevelt, or even that notorious RINO Dwight Eisenhower?

 

Woodrow Wilson played no part in the production of Birth of a Nation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation

 

Thomas Dixon, Jr., author of the source play The Clansman, was a former classmate of Woodrow Wilson at Johns Hopkins University. Dixon arranged a screening at the White House, for then-President Wilson, members of his cabinet, and their families. Wilson was reported to have said about the film, "It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true". In Wilson: The New Freedom, the historian Arthur Link quotes Wilson's aide, Joseph Tumulty, who denied Wilson said this and also claims that "the President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it."^[26] Historians believe the quote attributed to Wilson originated with Dixon, who was relentless in publicizing the film. It has been repeated so often in print that it has taken on a life of its own. Dixon went so far as to promote the film as "Federally endorsed". After controversy over the film had grown, Wilson wrote that he disapproved of the "unfortunate production."^[27]

[The Nehor]

One of the cool things about the Klan's fall from grace is that possibly the biggest blow to their mystique and fear came at the hands of Superman.

http://www.amazon.com/Superman-versus-Klux-Klan-Superhero/dp/1426309155

[Hamilton Porter]

You don't need to be purposefully offensive if you don't wish to be party to the thread continuing on. You can tacitly accomplish the same objective by leaving the thread alone. Everyone will be the better for it.

 

Thanks, -Englund-

I'm not the one being offensive when you're the one making statements on race.

[mormonnewb]

Let me return the favor by speaking equally slowly for your benefit, though you will have to budge your stiff neck in my right direction to hear correctly.

 

You may believe that catering to the misguided male-envy expressed by certain women doesn't portend a low opinion of women in general, but this is because you fail to see through your liberal blinders that your belief presupposes that women are so low as to have just cause for male-envy, and are somehow sorely lacking because they don't have all of what men have, and that they ought to have it all in order to rise to the level of men, and that they aren't doing enough as it is for the Church. In short, you and other liberals literally view women as second-class citizens (their liberal words, not mine, just as with the "useful idiot" moniker) in the Church for not having all that men have.

 

Even more to the point, you think so low of women as to assume they need your male advocacy in order to achieve their misguided objective.

 

I, on the other hand, view women as good or better than men for all of what women already have and what they offer in and of themselves irrespective of what they have that I and other males don't or vice versa.

 

In other words, unlike you, I don't encourage the demeaning practice of gender envy, but I believe in mutual respect in our divine differences.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Are you calling me "stiff necked"?  If so, touche!  You are almost always wrong, BUT you are delightsomely so.

 

However, just to be clear, my neck is so stiff because it has been wrenched trying to follow your most circular argument, which amounts to accusing me of having a low opinion of women because I object to the status they've been assigned by the Church.  If I had a higher opinion of women and their divine roles (as defined by MEN), I would realize that they have it better than we menfolk.  It is simply my disdain for women (and the self-loathing of the "useful idiots" in OW) that prevents me from seeing it.  Perhaps, the most telling sign of my misogyny is that I think women NEED me to advocate on their behalf.

 

I am very grateful that the Church never attempted this line of argument when it kept the priesthood from blacks because I would not have been as quick to let bygones by bygones (and as you know, I haven't been that "quick" about it).  I shudder to think someone once said to a white brother, "Don't you understand that advocating of priesthood for blacks is demeaning to them?  You are catering to white-envy.  Why do you view blacks as second-class citizens who don't have all that whites have?  I view blacks as good or better than whites, but believe in our divine differences."

 

I KNOW that you wouldn't agree to such a sentiment with regard to racial differences, so why do you support it with regards to gender?  Separate but equal is never equal, and to even attempt to argue that women are equal to men in this organization defies all logic and common sense.  Some women may FEEL that they are equal in this church, but it doesn't make it any more true than if I FEEL that I am handsome.  As a great Mormon feminist recently explained, "Equality is not a feeling!"

 

One could argue that God likes it that way, but doesn't this argument ever get old for some of you?

[Stone holm]

Guilt by association. Was Abraham Lincoln a RINO? How about "Teddy" Roosevelt, or even that notorious RINO Dwight Eisenhower?

 

Woodrow Wilson played no part in the production of Birth of a Nation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation

 

Thomas Dixon, Jr., author of the source play The Clansman, was a former classmate of Woodrow Wilson at Johns Hopkins University. Dixon arranged a screening at the White House, for then-President Wilson, members of his cabinet, and their families. Wilson was reported to have said about the film, "It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true". In Wilson: The New Freedom, the historian Arthur Link quotes Wilson's aide, Joseph Tumulty, who denied Wilson said this and also claims that "the President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it."^[26] Historians believe the quote attributed to Wilson originated with Dixon, who was relentless in publicizing the film. It has been repeated so often in print that it has taken on a life of its own. Dixon went so far as to promote the film as "Federally endorsed". After controversy over the film had grown, Wilson wrote that he disapproved of the "unfortunate production."^[27]

 

Yeah, but Wilson is generally considered a Southern racist.  One has to remember that we are talking prior to the Reagan era when the Solid South meant the Solid Democratic South before the South migrated to the other party.

[Stone holm]

Are you calling me "stiff necked"?  If so, touche!  You are almost always wrong, BUT you are delightsomely so.

 

However, just to be clear, my neck is so stiff because it has been wrenched trying to follow your most circular argument, which amounts to accusing me of having a low opinion of women because I object to the status they've been assigned by the Church.  If I had a higher opinion of women and their divine roles (as defined by MEN), I would realize that they have it better than we menfolk.  It is simply my disdain for women (and the self-loathing of the "useful idiots" in OW) that prevents me from seeing it.  Perhaps, the most telling sign of my misogyny is that I think women NEED me to advocate on their behalf.

 

I am very grateful that the Church never attempted this line of argument when it kept the priesthood from blacks because I would not have been as quick to let bygones by bygones (and as you know, I haven't been that "quick" about it).  I shudder to think someone once said to a white brother, "Don't you understand that advocating of priesthood for blacks is demeaning to them?  You are catering to white-envy.  Why do you view blacks as second-class citizens who don't have all that whites have?  I view blacks as good or better than whites, but believe in our divine differences."

 

I KNOW that you wouldn't agree to such a sentiment with regard to racial differences, so why do you support it with regards to gender?  Separate but equal is never equal, and to even attempt to argue that women are equal to men in this organization defies all logic and common sense.  Some women may FEEL that they are equal in this church, but it doesn't make it any more true than if I FEEL that I am handsome.  As a great Mormon feminist recently explained, "Equality is not a feeling!"

 

One could argue that God likes it that way, but doesn't this argument ever get old for some of you?

 

Its best to just ignore Wade, he likes to trot out the "liberals are demeaning minorities" argument every so often, when he can't think of a more creative way to fire out an insult.

[mormonnewb]

I'm not a big fan of Wade's comments (considering I usually fall on the liberal end of things...well moderately liberal), but the initial comments about the statistics is invalidating to the majority of women who agree with the idea that women aren't to be ordained and is patronizing to say the least. It's just fine to come to the defense of a minority view as a legitimate desire. It's another to do so by insisting that the majority of women don't really believe what they say they do. And even worse to infer they're psychologically repressed.

 

And doing this:

 Isn't really a viable option. Whatever decision is made will need to be a unifying one. This would lead to greater division as women who don't are viewed as lesser than for not wanting something that previous to this hypothetical change is considered necessary for exaltation, a means for expanding our knowledge of God, and pertinent for the growth of the church. This may seem exaggerative, but you can already see this in the change in missionary demographics....something that isn't exactly pertinent for our saving ordinances. So this wouldn't actually expand women's position if priesthood simply became "optional" for women to join in on. If it did stay that a minority of women received the priesthood, then only a minority of women would probably be represented in hierarchical calls and the actual leadership positions for women would become less impacting than it would have become. It would take years for female presence to be impactful and their position would be defined heavily by male terms and settings. That's not real expansion of female power/presence. In short the message to this would be: to have a solid voice/influence, you'll need to follow the male course.  There's a similar problem with a more universal ordination call: few women leader with a structure that would take years for a significant proportion of women moving into various leadership roles and the current general/stake leadership positions being further marginalized as less significant.   

 

I'm not saying that there could/would be benefits. But I am saying that priesthood ordination is not the magic bullet to women's empowerment church-wide equality.

 

With luv,

BD

 

In my chest-thumping, insult-trading battle with Wade, I admit that I MIGHT have been less thoughtful and tactful than I should have been, so please forgive my insinuation that the women in opposition to OW have come to such a conclusion mindlessly.  That is certainly not the case for at least 10% of you.  YES, I'M BEING SILLY.   Obviously, you (and a great many other sisters) have put much more thought into the issue than I ever will, so I was wrong to paint with such a large brush.

 

As for your conclusion that ordination isn't a magic bullet to gender equality in the Church.  Amen and amen!  However, I think it's a necessary pre-requisite.  To have an entire class of people who are shut out of leadership positions assures that the perpetuation of gender equality.  To me, it would be like opposing suffrage for blacks on the grounds that it won't solve racial problems.  It hasn't.  But I find it hard to believe that we would have made this much progress, if blacks were not allowed to vote or assume public office.

 

Of course, my analogy does break down to the extent that one believes that there is a rightful distinction between gender roles in the Church.  And while I wouldn't entertain such a notion from the likes of Wade , I know that you are thoughtful and obviously much more vested in the situation than I am, so, in your view, in what way should men and women have different roles in the Church?   And if OW isn't the way to close the gap in those few areas of unwarranted gender equality, what would be a better way?

[mormonnewb]

Its best to just ignore Wade, he likes to trot out the "liberals are demeaning minorities" argument every so often, when he can't think of a more creative way to fire out an insult.

 

Seriously, I'm really becoming quite fond of Wade.  He's just as brash, insensitive and sarcastic as I am; just not nearly as handsome (and almost always wrong).  But as the old saying goes, "God must really like wrong people because He made so many of them."  On second thought, I might have that saying a little off.  I must be quoting it from one of Wade's prior posts. (Rim-shot)

[Stone holm]

In my chest-thumping, insult-trading battle with Wade, I admit that I MIGHT have been less thoughtful and tactful than I should have been, so please forgive my insinuation that the women in opposition to OW have come to such a conclusion mindlessly.  That is certainly not the case for at least 10% of you.  YES, I'M BEING SILLY.   Obviously, you (and a great many other sisters) have put much more thought into the issue than I ever will, so I was wrong to paint with such a large brush.

 

As for your conclusion that ordination isn't a magic bullet to gender equality in the Church.  Amen and amen!  However, I think it's a necessary pre-requisite.  To have an entire class of people who are shut out of leadership positions assures that the perpetuation of gender equality.  To me, it would be like opposing suffrage for blacks on the grounds that it won't solve racial problems.  It hasn't.  But I find it hard to believe that we would have made this much progress, if blacks were not allowed to vote or assume public office.

 

Of course, my analogy does break down to the extent that one believes that there is a rightful distinction between gender roles in the Church.  And while I wouldn't entertain such a notion from the likes of Wade , I know that you are thoughtful and obviously much more vested in the situation than I am, so, in your view, in what way should men and women have different roles in the Church?   And if OW isn't the way to close the gap in those few areas of unwarranted gender equality, what would be a better way?

 

Viva la difference...and all that, the question is over access to the decision-making process and whether the process has a limited band width...or whether that is just some inherited function from the hunter gatherer days.

[The Nehor]

Its best to just ignore Wade, he likes to trot out the "liberals are demeaning minorities" argument every so often, when he can't think of a more creative way to fire out an insult.

I find people like him optimistic but naive. He seems convinced we live in a beautiful post-racial society where the problem has been solved except for a few malcontents stirring up trouble by trying to keep it in public view.

He is wrong but there is something charming in his faith that humanity has moved past the problem.