The Theology Of Patriarchy Cannot Be Changed.

[juliann]

Interesting that you cut off the rest of the quote, so what is this parity concept. I see that at least one other poster headed in the same direction that chivalry was a disguised form of sexism.

I almost always "cut off the rest of the quote," SH.  I consider it a courtesy to only clog up the thread with what I am actually responding to.  It is not an attempt to be tricky.

 

As for those who think this poem portrays a chivalrous man, I'll give it one more try.  But the real point here is how many are so unwilling to view things from another perspective when told something is offensive. This was OW's downfall, BTW.  When someone says this is hurtful and it continues, this is not what the gospel teaches us to do. And this is at the core of the problem in the church with women and why it will only get worse. It is not the church, it is the people in the church who are hurting with words but proudly remain unteachable.

 

The poem begins with what is expected of the woman because "She was tall and seductive, limber and lean.  Right off she caught his eye."  She is not a human being, she is a hot body from the get go.  He does not casually open the door.  He doffs his hat as he is "standin' there" waiting for her....obviously long enough to notice she is hot as she "marches" up to the door.  And she rejects him.  

 

So to buy into this repulsive poem, you must accept that only seeing women as seductive, limber, and lean is the mark of a gentleman.  And that waiting by a door   looking her over as she walks is "chivalrous." I doubt any man here would appreciate his daughter being leered at by a man at a door while being expected to accept it as chivalry. So I'm really surprised to see any defense of this from Mormon men.

[ELF1024]

I almost always "cut off the rest of the quote," SH.  I consider it a courtesy to only clog up the thread with what I am actually responding to.  It is not an attempt to be tricky.

 

As for those who think this poem portrays a chivalrous man, I'll give it one more try.  But the real point here is how many are so unwilling to view things from another perspective when told something is offensive. This was OW's downfall, BTW.  When someone says this is hurtful and it continues, this is not what the gospel teaches us to do. And this is at the core of the problem in the church with women and why it will only get worse. It is not the church, it is the people in the church who are hurting with words but proudly remain unteachable.

 

The poem begins with what is expected of the woman because "She was tall and seductive, limber and lean.  Right off she caught his eye."  She is not a human being, she is a hot body from the get go.  He does not casually open the door.  He doffs his hat as he is "standin' there" waiting for her....obviously long enough to notice she is hot as she "marches" up to the door.  And she rejects him.  

 

So to buy into this repulsive poem, you must accept that only seeing women as seductive, limber, and lean is the mark of a gentleman.  And that waiting by a door   looking her over as she walks is "chivalrous." I doubt any man here would appreciate his daughter being leered at by a man at a door while being expected to accept it as chivalry. So I'm really surprised to see any defense of this from Mormon men.

 

I don't have any daughters, and yes I do thank God for that everyday.

 

However, you do seem to have a knack for eviscerating the joy from a joke. 

[USU78]

I open doors.

 

I ignore nasty comments when I can from the uebersensitive/ueberproud.  Happily, I don't encounter such ill-mannered persons much anymore.

 

I honor those for whom I open doors or offer my chair or allow to go first.  I do it because I choose to communicate that I value them.

 

I don't pick and choose who I do this things for based upon "hotness." 

 

I ain't about to stop.

[CA Steve]

I see women who look seductive fairly often, with the "haughty" look as I call it, and while I'm usually nice to them I'm not thinking about sleeping with them, and I would not even if they tried to seduce me. The haughty look actually has the opposite effect on me, as a matter of fact. But I can still see that they look seductive, which means they are intentionally trying to seduce those who look at them whether or not they have any real intentions to sleep with someone.

I am not even sure what to say to this kind of remark.. Lets hope you also have the ability to understand the look that women will give you when you say something like this in their presence.

 

"If looks could kill"

[Wants2know]

Is it church doctrine that Heavenly Mother has no priesthood authority or office?

That's a great question!  I can't remember where I read it, but I remember Gordon B. Hinckley stating that there most definitely is a heavenly mother, but that praying to her is "inappropriate".  I immediately thought of the aspect of Mary in Catholicism.  Don't Catholics pray to her? Rightly or wrongly....?  

[Calm]

I see women who look seductive fairly often, with the "haughty" look as I call it, and while I'm usually nice to them I'm not thinking about sleeping with them, and I would not even if they tried to seduce me. The haughty look actually has the opposite effect on me, as a matter of fact. But I can still see that they look seductive, which means they are intentionally trying to seduce those who look at them whether or not they have any real intentions to sleep with someone.

In other words, you are thinking of sex in context with them even if you aren't thinking of doing it yourself.

[ELF1024]

That's a great question!  I can't remember where I read it, but I remember Gordon B. Hinckley stating that there most definitely is a heavenly mother, but that praying to her is "inappropriate".  I immediately thought of the aspect of Mary in Catholicism.  Don't Catholics pray to her? Rightly or wrongly....?  

 

As I understand it..... Catholics would argue that they don't pray to the Virgin Mother. They are using her as an intercessory, asking Mary to act on their behalf in going to God for help.

 

However, I could be wrong...

[Calm]

There is no justifcation for thinking he was glad the door closed on her face. He may have even been ahead of her while holding the door open and when she refused his courtesy he may have just kept going where he was going without looking back.

Well if he wasn't smug about it, the author was.

[ELF1024]

Well if he wasn't smug about it, the author was.

 

Well it made my wife laugh... however she is married to me, so there is no accounting for taste 

 

BTW: My wife actually knows the author of the poem, as he used to come into the western store (here in town) that she worked at.

Edited June 27, 2014 by ELF1024

[Calm]

As I understand it..... Catholics would argue that they don't pray to the Virgin Mother. They are using her as an intercessory, asking Mary to act on their behalf in going to God for help.

 

However, I could be wrong...

Correct.

[Bart Burk]

As I understand it..... Catholics would argue that they don't pray to the Virgin Mother. They are using her as an intercessory, asking Mary to act on their behalf in going to God for help.

However, I could be wrong...

We Catholics pray to her asking that she pray for us. It is proper English to do this as in "We pray thee Queen Elizabeth that thou wouldst hear our petition." Catholics do not worship Mary. I cannot imagine it would be wrong to ask a Heavenly Mother to intercede for us with Heavenly Father. I wouldn't suggest that a Latter-day Saint should advocate it -- keep it to yourself. And I am quite sure that in Legrand Richard's book "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder" he hinted that Mary was a wife of Heavenly Father. Someone told him he could not accept God having a wife and Richards responded, "He had a Son didn't He? You can go from there, but if I were still LDS it would be easy for me to find a private theology that held Mary was Heavenly Mother. But I would not teach that.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Bart Burk

[teddyaware]

I hold the door for people all the time -- male or female. That is appropriate. Deference to a female for the simple fact that she is female is pretty symptomatic of benevelent sexism* and is a cultural remnant that, no matter how much it pervades society, including the Brethren historically, is one that I believe has zero place in celestial society. That is not to say there aren't different roles emphasized/delegated there -- but those come out of mutual respect and cooperation, being of one heart and one mind; and not out of a sense of generous dispensation by one gender.

 

 

* And for the record, I strongly disagree with mfkbukowski that benevolent sexism = patriarchy = divine order of things. I think the lessons/classes/orientations we'll have post-mortality to help us acclimate will be a real shocker to him (and several other interlocutors in this thread).

1) The fact that in all ages the human race has been commanded to worship God the Eternal Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, as the supreme Godhead casts substantial doubt on any supposition that divine patriarchy will not continue to exist and continue to function throughout eternity as the visible governing power of the kingdom of God.

2) The patriarchal rulership of God the Father, and His Only Begotten Son, cannot in wisdom or logic be construed to be a sort of "benevolent sexism" (as if the eternally perfect members of the Godhead could in any way harbor even slightly chauvinistic and misogynistic attitudes and tendencies). If the manifestation of heavenly rulership is patriarchal in nature, there must be eternally good, just and wise reasons for things to be that way. If divine patriarchal rulership is the way things are done in eternity, because God is perfect in every way the reasons for divine patriarchal rulership must be perfectly just, wise and proper, and must of necessity have absolutely nothing at all to do with denigrating exalted women or unjustly compelling women to be in subjugation to exalted men as so-called "second class citizens."

Edited June 27, 2014 by teddyaware

[BlueDreams]

I see women who look seductive fairly often, with the "haughty" look as I call it, and while I'm usually nice to them I'm not thinking about sleeping with them, and I would not even if they tried to seduce me. The haughty look actually has the opposite effect on me, as a matter of fact. But I can still see that they look seductive, which means they are intentionally trying to seduce those who look at them whether or not they have any real intentions to sleep with someone.

 

.....Or we just like to look good. Believe it or not it doesn't have much to do with any man. Most women do not dress thinking "geeze, how will I seduce a man today...I just wish I could get to bed with some random dude I note oggling me on the street." It could have nothing to do with us just enjoying this or that outfit and looking good for ourselves. It's really just about our intentions of needing a guy to see us. Because it's not like we'd ever worry about sexual harassment or uncomfortably long looks while we run to go dancing, exercising, grocery shopping, or to work. No we want that sort of attention. 

 

 - end east coast sarcasm -

 

Seriously? This thread has had a number of statements that I've felt uncomfortable with. But this one definitely takes the cake.

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

What!? You don't like random guys whistling at you and honking their horns as you walk down the street? I am shocked. Every time it happened to me I tell you I went right home and wrote in my diary how disappointing it was that they didn't stop and pick me up for a random make out bash behind the local library (maybe, it was because the police station was across the street...but I would have gone for the local high school bleachers for old time sakes.).

[rodheadlee]

BD, sometimes our actions have unintended consequences. You didn't dress to seduce but never the less you did.

[Calm]

No, seduction is an intentional behaviour. You cant seduce someone you dont want to seduce, it contradicts the definition.

If some looks on a woman and sees them as seductive and yet there is no intent to seduce, what is going on is lust and that has no connection to her behaviour unless there is actual intent on her part. for some men a woman could be dressed in a cardboard box and he would still think she was being seductive if he thought she was doing it for him. Think stalker and how wearing a certain colour shirt orpiling your mail a certian way is apparently seductive for that twisted individual.

Edited June 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

In other words, you are thinking of sex in context with them even if you aren't thinking of doing it yourself.

Surely you've seen women who have given a seductive look in a haughty I'm trying to look sexy kind of way. The kind of look the girls on the Victoria's Secret commercials have when they're posing in their underwear, when they're intentionally trying to look "sexy".

The woman in the poem was said to be looking seductive, and that kind of look is not natural. And I was saying that kind of look has the opposite effect on me when a woman looks that way. It's a look that is meant to turn a man on but instead it turns me off, or actually what I should say is that it disgusts me, instantly.

I would still open a door for a woman who looked that way, though. And if she told me she didn't want me to hold it, I would just let the door go and walk away, when it would then be up to her to not let door hit her as I went on my way.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Ahab

[Calm]

There are women in burkas that men describe as seductive, women beaten and bleeding and tortured is considered seduction by some men, a pregnant woman giving birth is consider seduction.

The only thing that is truly seduction is when the woman describesit as seduction or makes it clear in her movements that is what she means...given her extreme negativereaction, to the hint of him being attracted to her how can you claim she intended to seduce him and he just didn't assume that because he liked what he was looking at and that would give him the right to move in on her.

Edited June 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

I think those idiotic seductive looks are mainly in ads selling swimsuits. Real life? Notta.

Btw, I feel stupid for making my in-law males out to be so bad. It's probably all in my head. It's my insecurity.

[stemelbow]

No, seduction is an intentional behaviour. You cant seduce someone you dont want to seduce, it contradicts the definition.

If some looks on a woman and sees them as seductive and yet there is no intent to seduce, what is going on is lust and that has no connection to her behaviour unless there is actual intent on her part. for some men a woman could be dressed in a cardboard box and he would still think she was being seductive if he thought she was doing it for him. Think stalker and how wearing a certain colour shirt orpiling your mail a certian way is apparently seductive for that twisted individual.

To be fair, just as there are some men who will look upon a woman dressed in a cardboard box and think she was being seductive, there are some women who no matter occasion and perhaps even dress have a similar desire as these "some men". We're all in this together, and it seems silly to put so much blame on men, sometimes, just as it seems silly to put so much blame on women as some are prone to do.

When we start to try and paint the picture that women are to blame for their dress or seductive looks, or paint the picture that men are the ones who will see anything as seductive we're at a terrible impasse. Its all divisive and not accepting we're all in this together.

[sethpayne]

What!? You don't like random guys whistling at you and honking their horns as you walk down the street? I am shocked. Every time it happened to me I tell you I went right home and wrote in my diary how disappointing it was that they didn't stop and pick me up for a random make out bash behind the local library (maybe, it was because the police station was across the street...but I would have gone for the local high school bleachers for old time sakes.).

 

Happens to me all the time.  I know I'm just asking for it so I can't really blame these men for acting the way they do.  It's all about how I dress and has nothing to do with men showing a mere oz of decency and respect.  They just can't help themselves.  It is, strangely, the one area where free agency and free will simply don't exist.

Edited June 27, 2014 by sethpayne

[CV75]

I think that regardless of conscious intent, once someone has been correctly taught, disregarding the principles of modesty in dress and disregarding the principles of virtue in thought are on a par spiritually-speaking.

 

The way this plays out on the theology of patriarchy is that everyone practices what they have been taught and help each other out.

[Zakuska]

I almost always "cut off the rest of the quote," SH. I consider it a courtesy to only clog up the thread with what I am actually responding to. It is not an attempt to be tricky.

As for those who think this poem portrays a chivalrous man, I'll give it one more try. But the real point here is how many are so unwilling to view things from another perspective when told something is offensive. This was OW's downfall, BTW. When someone says this is hurtful and it continues, this is not what the gospel teaches us to do. And this is at the core of the problem in the church with women and why it will only get worse. It is not the church, it is the people in the church who are hurting with words but proudly remain unteachable.

The poem begins with what is expected of the woman because "She was tall and seductive, limber and lean. Right off she caught his eye." She is not a human being, she is a hot body from the get go. He does not casually open the door. He doffs his hat as he is "standin' there" waiting for her....obviously long enough to notice she is hot as she "marches" up to the door. And she rejects him.

So to buy into this repulsive poem, you must accept that only seeing women as seductive, limber, and lean is the mark of a gentleman. And that waiting by a door looking her over as she walks is "chivalrous." I doubt any man here would appreciate his daughter being leered at by a man at a door while being expected to accept it as chivalry. So I'm really surprised to see any defense of this from Mormon men.

So now a man seeing a woman as attractive and trying his best to be noticed by her and win her favor with an act of respect is an unforgivable sin?

 

I saw no wedding rings on their fingers, as if that would make any difference on being curtious to others. Dipping his hat "evening ma'm" was a sign of respect commanded by her regal hip swinging cat walk and him trying to be noticed by her as she obviously was trying to be noticed by others by her attire, High heels and all. I have two hot daughters and I wouldn't expect anything less from young men showing respect for them in this way while trying to be noticed. Now had the cowboy whistled, or said "let me get that for you hot cheeks" I think you might have a point. I also think you are blowing things way out of proportion with this man dipping his hat for a pretty woman trying His best to be noticed by her and possibly creating an in maybe even a future date.

 

She obviously was either a Uber-feminist, or he had a wart on his nose and she stepped back in fear.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Zakuska

[Ahab]

I think those idiotic seductive looks are mainly in ads selling swimsuits. Real life? Notta.

Try being an attractive man sometime and you'll probably see more women look at you that way. As I said, I see it fairly often.

Btw, I feel stupid for making my in-law males out to be so bad. It's probably all in my head. It's my insecurity.

I thought that's what you meant. People who are very TBM, as you say, don't intend to make anyone feel bad about themselves, and if they are as TBM as you say they'd try to build you up and want to do what they could to help you be happy.

[mfbukowski]

Isn't that the point though, that men and women do this for each other and it just isn't men sitting around "making mama happy".

 

My mom used to say "your father comes first, because where would we be if something happened to him?" (not just because he was provider).  She regrets it now because Dad never developed the habit of accommodating to others and now he isn't quite so sharp, his self preservation instincts aren't working to protect him from his selfcenterness anymore.

 

A good portion of RS activities and just women getting together is spent in talking about how to help husband be happy and describing the lack of fun when he isn't.

 

In our family, when my husband is upset, the gloom in the house is palatable and everyone else is struggling to come up with ways to pull him out of his funk.  When my daughter has anxiety attacks, we all scramble to look for ways to distract her and help her relax, when depressed things to cheer her up.  When my son expresses frustration in business dealings, we are all there telling him the guy is a jerk and offering to take him to movies and stuff to get his mind off of it.

 

In any relationship, it is wise and kind and respectful to want to help the other be happy.  It is not wise and kind and respectful to simply give in to avoid conflict or because it is easier and nicer for us to have others around us happy so it doesn't bring us down.

 

Knowing you and conversations in the past, I suspect that is how it works out in your family and life, others who love you want you to be happy and when it doesn't bother them, they go along without protest.  I would assume that if something is important to you, say like you disagreed with your wife about something with the kids' choices, you would let her know your reservations and the two of you would discuss it.  Why would a woman marry someone who spent so much time thinking about thinking and other things and not actually talk to you about what you thought was important and take that into account.  It boggles my mind and so I think it highly unlikely and instead you have a mutual appreciation pact and she does things just so when it matters to you just as you do things just so when it matters to her and the other isn't invested.

 

I assume this is what I will read as I go further along.

 

The problem with just stating "if mama is happy, everyone is happy" and talking about men giving in to women and not mentioning the other reciprocal responses occurring at the same time is because there are too many out there who present the one sided approach as the reality and use that to promote disrespect (whether of women or men or both).  So I would suggest that in the future you include that women in essence say the same things about men and it is just part of the normal give and take in a relationship rather than leaving off half of the equation…which always leads to imbalance.  

 

If you are going to say it eventually, you might as well say it first and avoid all the confusion.

Bless you bless you as always- thanks for your insight and saying this.

 

This is exactly what I meant when I said that about "mama", and it mirrors totally your statement

 

A good portion of RS activities and just women getting together is spent in talking about how to help husband be happy and describing the lack of fun when he isn't.

You see, by definition, I cannot be around women talking about men when there are no men around, but I am around men talking about women when no women are around all the time.

 

So it seems that the conversations run parallel to each other- "If (the opposite sex spouse) ain't happy, ain't nobody happy"- to put it in my stupid colloquial way.

 

But thank you for saying this the way I should have said it.  Yes it is exactly right that we just need to care for each other, and I never meant it any other way. and was surprised by the firestorm it generated.