The Theology Of Patriarchy Cannot Be Changed.

[Ahab]

We are actually supposed to treat everyone like ladies and gentlemen even when they prove us wrong according to the Good Book.

Let me translate for you: He opened the door for what looked like a lady to him and he had been taught to hold the door open for a lady. But she said she didn't want his courtesy and proved she was not a lady, so he let go of the door, no longer holding it open, and because she didn't catch the door, it closed in her face.

And the moral of the story is: If a door is open and nobody is holding it open be careful lest it hit you in the face. Obviously it was one of what is called a self closing door.

[Calm]

I can't imagine any guy here who would actually allow a door to slam into someone's face just because s/he was rude to him.

So why is it funny to read about it happening?

[Calm]

Let me translate for you: He opened the door for what looked like a lady to him and he had been taught to hold the door open for a lady. But she said she didn't want his courtesy and proved she was not a lady, so he let go of the door, no longer holding it open, and because she didn't catch the door, it closed in her face.

And the moral of the story is: If a door is open and nobody is holding it open be careful lest it hit you in the face. Obviously it was one of what is called a self closing door.

And obviously if he was a true gentleman he would have been courteous enough to warn her so she could be prepared (as true gentlemen and women do to others when they see potential harm no matter how rude the other person is, a true gentleman and a true lady don't base their own good behaviour on what others do but hold themselves to a civil standard at all times, that is what demonstrates they are truly honourable and civilised). Edited June 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[ELF1024]

I can't imagine any guy here who would actually allow a door to slam into someone's face just because s/he was rude to him.

So why is it funny to read about it happening?

 

Having been rebuffed like that, I would have no problem honoring the young ladies wishes and letting go of the door... had it struck her... well, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

 

You want to be to be treated as an equal.. that's fine, I'll be happy to treat you like any man... but don't expect me to go out of my way to be kind to you as a woman, if you want to be treated as an equal.

 

Men are trained to give women special treatment, that above and beyond what we would give other men... if you want to be equal, that's a step down in status as far as I was raised.

Edited June 26, 2014 by ELF1024

[why me]

But you just said Europe was the most feminist place in the whole world. Oh, wait...women being equal means violence.  Which means if they continue to stay in their designated place it will be peaceful.  So every women in a shelter...or dead... is a feminist?  

No. I don't mean that. When one looks at europe, in those countries that seem  to have equality, we find deep social problems between the sexes. Why? Because whatever human made equality laws may have or entail, they don't work. It is not just men who become more violent but women too. Violence against men by women in the home is also on the rise. The nordic countries are the most feminist and yet the most violent in domestic abuse. Not to mention women alcoholism. Something is wrong between the sexes and much as to do with human made equality laws.

 

I believe that the problem has much to do with capitalism as an ideology and the pressure that this system is putting on the home because of workplace productivity and efficiency trends and less time at home. Not to mention the lack of job security and the fear of alienation from loss of job. I think that you need to investigate the situation more thorough in europe where feminism, without it being called feminism, has brought perceived equality between the sexes. But at a cost to domestic tranquility.

 

I would rather trust god and his perception of equality whatever that is to human made laws that seem to destroy families.

Edited June 26, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

There is a difference between being kind, treating someone as an equal and doing something or not doing it that causes harm to someone else.

If someone pushed past you rudely and said get out of my way, would you do nothing if you had stopped because you saw a car coming and just allow it to hit him?

Edited June 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

"The nordic countries are the most feminist and yet the most violent in domestic abuse. Not to mention women alcoholism"

How does this compare to their past relationships to other countries? If they have changed their overall standing, that may very well be very significant. If they haven't, if they have always been the highest in those areas, just the rates themselves being lower, there may be other factors more influential.

I believe Valerie Hudson promotes covenental marriage as the best remedy against domestic violence.

"Something is wrong between the sexes and much as to do with human made equality laws."

Or it may be a result of what the laws were trying to address but couldn't...attitude.

Edited June 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[ELF1024]

There is a difference between being kind, treating someone as an equal and doing something or not doing it that causes harm to someone else.

If someone pushed past you rudely and said get out of my way, would you do nothing if you had stopped because you saw a car coming and just allow it to hit him?

 

I suppose that would depend upon the level of violence being rendered in the push, the level or rudeness in the voice, and frankly, how my day had gone up to that point.

 

Give the wrong set of circumstances, I would not do a thing and allow you the consequences of your actions. However, most days I would more than likely attempt to stop you from your ill-considered date with destiny.

 

I would be more likely to stop the female from doing something stupid to that degree.

 

However on a bad enough day with enough rudeness and violence from you, I'd just step over your bleeding corpse and be on my way without so much as calling 9-11.

[Nofear]

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).

[Tacenda]

I find the poem offensive because it went straight to the woman being crash as well as violence. Most women who turn down opening doors do so as respectfully as the door being offered, generally saying "no thanks, I can manage that myself".

It makes it seem like "lady" equates to be demure" and one can either be that or a disgusting witch.

And the guy did let the door go without any concern of what was going to happen to it. Meaning he should only worry about harming someone else if they are grateful or respectful? What happened to treating our enemies as we treat our loved ones?

It did say assume she was a lady until proved wrong, not assume she wasn't…but then it allowed him to treat her as if she didn't exist.

She was wrong in the way she treated him, but then to treat her that way reduced him, it didn't prove anything about her.

Bravo to this!

[Calm]

I suppose that would depend upon the level of violence being rendered in the push, the level or rudeness in the voice, and frankly, how my day had gone up to that point.

 

Give the wrong set of circumstances, I would not do a thing and allow you the consequences of your actions. However, most days I would more than likely attempt to stop you from your ill-considered date with destiny.

 

I would be more likely to stop the female from doing something stupid to that degree.

 

However on a bad enough day with enough rudeness and violence from you, I'd just step over your bleeding corpse and be on my way without so much as calling 9-11.

Recognising one's own qualities and being honest about them is important so I applaud you for that.

I think you are wrong and hope you will change, but I also think you have a better chance at changing then someone who would do the same but pretend to himself he wouldn't because he was a "gentleman" or something.

[ELF1024]

Recognising one's own qualities and being honest about them is important so I applaud you for that.

I think you are wrong and hope you will change, but I also think you have a better chance at changing then someone who would do the same but pretend to himself he wouldn't because he was a "gentleman" or something.

 

Oh no, I never claimed to be a gentlemen. And I am more than likely far too hung up on justice, or just desserts to change. But I do appreciate your sentiment.

[Calm]

Oh no, I never claimed to be a gentlemen. And I am more than likely far too hung up on justice, or just desserts to change.

Nothing is impossible with God.

My grandmother was like that. She died very bitter and resentful. I hope you can keep yourself from that fate. Life isn't just and I don't see how those who demand it or even want it can ever have their desires satisfied so it seems to me it leaves changing what gives one satisfaction or being doomed to disappointment.

And thankfully neither will be the next life be just for us if God has his way. We will experience joy is through God's mercy and love, not his justice, IMO. We will know his mercy is pure because of his justice, but mercy and charity will be what brings us all together.

Edited June 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

No they aren't.  How many of us are right here supporting the church?  We truly seem to be invisible. That belief is what creates misogynistic "poems" such as the above, however.

 

Oh, they absolutely are.  Unless a man denies the right of presiding there are many who would label him a misogynist.

 

But I agree with you that that poem was tasteless - it reminds me of that Dixie Chicks song about Earl.

[jkwilliams]

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).

 

My parents taught me to be courteous and respectful to everyone, male or female. I've tried to live my life that way, so I don't understand the idea that you treat men with less respect than women.

[Stone holm]

Yes, that is just a disguised way of saying that anything bringing women's opportunities closer to men's is a special privilege rather than a matter of parity

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.

[Calm]

She was the one who brought it up. What did you think she was talking about?

No, actually he was when he saw her as "seductive".

[Ahab]

And obviously if he was a true gentleman he would have been courteous enough to warn her so she could be prepared (as true gentlemen and women do to others when they see potential harm no matter how rude the other person is, a true gentleman and a true lady don't base their own good behaviour on what others do but hold themselves to a civil standard at all times, that is what demonstrates they are truly honourable and civilised).

You don't seem to be allowing for the idea that she should have seen that door closing in front of her and that she should have reached out to hold it before it closed on her face. He wasn't holding it anymore because she made it clear that she didn't want that courtesy, so, duh, the door would start closing when he let go of it.

Are you even trying to visualize what happened?

He took his fingers off of the door. There is no justification for thinking he slammed the door on her. He just let go of it, and it closed.

And now you're acting like she couldn't have reached out in front of her to hold the door open.

[Calm]

I am saying a thoughtful person shouldn't assume and should look out to protect others from harm no matter if they deserve it or not. If he was halfway intelligent, the pull of the door would tell him it would close quickly. He ignored the consequences of his own behaviour.

I never sai he slammed the door. The comparison I made was not warning someone a car was coming when one is aware of it.

He made not have been aware it would slam into her face, but at the very least he felt justified that it happened, he was happy about it.

Continuingmy comparison would be not being aware of the car coming but on seeing the car hit the guy, being smugly satisfied about it.

Edited June 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[Nofear]

My parents taught me to be courteous and respectful to everyone, male or female. I've tried to live my life that way, so I don't understand the idea that you treat men with less respect than women.

 

Agreed. I think part of the reason the sexism comes about is because, in our fallen realm, it is pretty much true for every culture that the male gender has the predominant position of protecting the family/tribe/group. Our gender's physical advantage appropriately lends itself to that role. Yet, somehow society has let that role devolve into and/or continue as a sort condescension dressed up as gentlemanliness. Kindness for kindness sake = true gentmanliness. Kindness stemming from pointless acts of "protection" = demeaning sexism.

[Stone holm]

I am saying a thoughtful person shouldn't assume and should look out to protect others from harm no matter if they deserve it or not. If he was halfway intelligent, the pull of the door would tell him it would close quickly. He ignored the consequences of his own behaviour.

I never sai he slammed the door. The comparison I made was not warning someone a car was coming when one is aware of it.

He made not have been aware it would slam into her face, but he felt justified that it happened, he was happy about it.

Oh, well it basically was aimed at the chivalry.

[Calm]

Agreed. I think part of the reason the sexism comes about is because, in our fallen realm, it is pretty much true for every culture that the male gender has the predominant position of protecting the family/tribe/group. Our gender's physical advantage appropriately lends itself to that role. Yet, somehow society has let that role devolve into and/or continue as a sort condescension dressed up as gentlemanliness. Kindness for kindness sake = true gentmanliness. Kindness stemming from pointless acts of "protection" = demeaning sexism.

And at times justifying mistreatment of women....one could have a mistress and still be considered a model husband because one did all the right forms of politeness.

[Ahab]

No, actually he was when he saw her as "seductive".

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.

[Stone holm]

Agreed. I think part of the reason the sexism comes about is because, in our fallen realm, it is pretty much true for every culture that the male gender has the predominant position of protecting the family/tribe/group. Our gender's physical advantage appropriately lends itself to that role. Yet, somehow society has let that role devolve into and/or continue as a sort condescension dressed up as gentlemanliness. Kindness for kindness sake = true gentmanliness. Kindness stemming from pointless acts of "protection" = demeaning sexism.

Agreed, we have ritualized roles that we inherited from cavemen society. When men were protecting their tribe and harem.

[Ahab]

I am saying a thoughtful person shouldn't assume and should look out to protect others from harm no matter if they deserve it or not. If he was halfway intelligent, the pull of the door would tell him it would close quickly. He ignored the consequences of his own behaviour.

I never sai he slammed the door. The comparison I made was not warning someone a car was coming when one is aware of it.

He made not have been aware it would slam into her face, but at the very least he felt justified that it happened, he was happy about it.

Continuingmy comparison would be not being seated of the car coming but on seeing the car hit the guy, being smugly satisfied about it.

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.