The Theology Of Patriarchy Cannot Be Changed.

[ELF1024]

I agree with JLH, I tend to go with the notion that it takes Exalted Beings to create Spirit Children and that it is done in the good old fashioned way, in other words Celestial sex.  As to whether we all had the same Heavenly Mother or whether there are several, have never encountered any Mormon teaching on the subject.  I remember, however, a Bishop getting very upset with me for teaching that Mary was married to Heavenly Father -- for the life of me, to this day I don't see how he possibly could have gotten around that reasoning given otherwise it would have been either adultery or fornication.

 

Umm.. Artifical Insemination? I kinda figure that if the Lord wants an egg to suddenly be fertilized and grow a human body, that the Lord can "snap his fingers" and make it happen. I don't think that uh... that either adultery or fornication or even physical contact of any kind is even required.

 

If you can make a Universe, I figure you can do that kinda thing without assuming the form of a swan, a shower of gold, or anything else out of a Greek/Roman myth.

Edited June 27, 2014 by ELF1024

[Calm]

THIS is the crux of the issue and it relates directly to "keeping mama happy".  I am finding it so VERY difficult to understand why this elevating of women constitutes a "brick wall".  It is totally incomprehensible to me.  It has been said it is "patronizing".   Why is that wall so invisible to me, and others like me?

Elevation is a problem for several different reasons. A woman may be reacting negatively to one or more at a time.

First, I would say a woman may prefer the image of walking hand and hand, side by side with her man. When he talks about how much better she is than him (because this is what usually how it is done), she feels instead of closeness,,instead of feeling as one, her man sees them as separate and distinct, elevation feels to her a distancing in the relationship, whether it is by pushing her up and away (you are just too good for me) or by dropping himself down and away (I will never be good enough for you).

Second, why would a woman think she would want to be in a relationship where she is so much better than her husband. It may make her feel he wants more of a mother, a caregiver telling him what to do and not to do or tolerating his childishness and cleaning up after him than a wife, a companion to interact with as an equal.

Huge problem is when the elevation is verbal alone and doesn't match the actual behaviour. He talks about how wonderful she is but then puts no time into the relationship to demonstrate that he actually cares. Great example is someone who gushes over his wife as a wonderful mother and perfect companion on Mother's Day, but then never says another thing the rest of the year. Or another who says all this stuff to other people about his wife but doesn't listen to her ideas, give her time to do her own thing, but just expects her to be in the shadows not disturbing him while he does what he is interested and then pop into existence as soon as he needs her help even if it is to help find something trivial he just put down....of course his constant interruption of her life is not seen as a sign of disrespect because if she didn't really want to do it for him she could say no or she would not respond. When stuff like this happens, this mismatch between what is said and what happens, a woman will eventually come to see elevation as an excuse to justify bad behaviour (I value you so highly because you are such a good person who accepts me like I am so I don't have to change....so I won't).

Another version that a woman sees as an excuse for justifying bad behaviour is he elevation that calls the wife such a fine mother, homemaker,etc and then uses that as an excuse to not do anything himself.

The elevation that comes out as "I just do what she says" too often is accompanied by not listening to the important stuff, the husband acts to make the wife happy on a superficial level so that he can ignore her on a deeper one (I don't understand, I did all the things you wanted done today so why can't I just sit and watch TV without you interrupting to tell me about stuff I'm not interested in kind of stuff)

Elevation that doesn't take into account the effort she puts into something diminishes that effort...'you are so naturally good, I knew you would be a perfect mother and you are isn't' comforting when she feels inside she just worked her rear off and is barely holding it together from spanking the kids all around and sending them off to bed. Even "I don't know how you do it" can be hurtful because she wants you to take the time and effort to recognise what time and effort she put in to it all, though exaggeration of effort fails as well because it won't be seen as a sincere effort to understand but putting the least effort into the relationship for the maximum benefit.

Most women want a realistic appreciation of themselves and their efforts because that means their husband, friend, employer, fellow church member understands who they are that much better and being understood is highly valued by women (I assume by men want to be understood as well as part of their sense of being valued, though I don't know what they read as 'understanding' as much as what women do.)

I am sure there are other variations I've missed but I just woke up and my brain isn't in gear yet.

Elevation works best when it is seen as a recognition of her quality PLUS hard work coupled by a desire and belief that one is a suitable companion for each other, iow both must be elevated in order for most women to be comfortable with such compliments and it needs to be more emphasised in behaviour...quality, aware behaviour that puts not only time but effort into interacting with her as a friend and colleague and not just superficial response to the first thing she says so one can ignore the rest.

[Tacenda]

Stemelbow, 

 

I'm aware that people can get the wrong impression. But think of it this way. Lets say each day someone leave a nicely wrapped blue package at your door as a gift. Sounds nice right? Often these gifts just have small things like cakes or chocolate of a gift certificate to the movies. It would seem pretty silly to throw away these gifts, right? Now what if you were told that every time you received a blue package that there was a high chance you'd find poison ivy in it or one of those gag buzzers...annoying but nothing more. Let's say every once and a while, behind the package you'd find some inert gift like a chocolate. And in a few of these gifts there was a small bomb that could horribly maim you and some of those gifts that even looked innate, were filled with laxatives or minor poisons that could make you sick. In one or two of the hundred+ gifts that come daily to your house, there would be something that could kill you. Would you hesitate in opening them? Would you question and beware of certain gifts if they were a little to big or packaged a little differently or just seemed a little off? That's what it's like when you're watching someone eye you a little too long before opening a door for you as a woman...it's not a complement, it's a concern.  

 

And if you think this is hyperbolic it's really really not. We live in a place where rape culture is rampant and where many still ask or assume a woman wasn't being careful enough when she "opened the wrong gift" by dressing wrong or taking a jog alone or walking to her car at night. Where 1 in 5 or 6 women will have experienced rape or attempted rape by most stats. Rape...not just sexual assault....not sexual harassment or intimidation. And not other forms of very damaging physical/emotional abuse. And certainly not simply excessive, unwanted attention.

 

Your statement assumes a level of equity in circumstance between the two. It's not. There is a fundamental difference in experience for men and women in most societies (and definitely the U.S.) that have to do with a level of empowerment and capacity. If it were equal and all men everywhere were just giving a quick appreciative glance or being kind in opening a door then fine I'll give you that. I still let men open doors for me when I'm walking into a store and I do the same. But it's not just that.

 

And this poem is definitely not leaning toward it when the first thing the man describes isn't how much of a lady she is, but how much of a seductive piece of meat she is while walking toward him.

 

Also, this is the problem of the term and use of patriarchy. In most uses, it's a means that men hold leadership, governing power, and overall decision making. So women are, by default, less powerful than men and dependent on male decisions. Can there be healthy form of patriarchy? I don't know, to be honest. I think the way it is mean in the church is solely that of spiritual order, where men are called to perform certain ordinances. If it were just that, I think I'd be ok with it. But it usually isn't. So patriarchy may be fundamental, but in its current form and heavy intermingling with common societal ideals about gender, we've got a problem with it's implications and practice that does leave women unequal in voice and capacity.

 

With luv,

BD

Great post...I posted this article in the "Unordain Men" topic....I think it pertinent to your post!  I c/p the outstanding paragraphs, one mentions patriarchy.. 

 

http://www.hillaryhunt.com/blog/from-one-who-left

 

"This church is not ruled by men. It is ruled by God. The order of the church is God's will."

When the Mormon church was founded, women could not vote. They could not own property if they were married. The idea was that men were responsible for women, and voted on their behalf. Women were like children, dependents to their husband. A man could be held responsible if his wife did something illegal because he was considered her legal guardian. It was called feme covert. It was a commonly accepted idea that women were the weaker sex, in not just body, but also mind. Do you really think that mind-set didn't influence the men (and women) who formed the early church? That all the previous history of sexism in Christianity, and in the Bible, did not affect their view of women? You're sure your prophets are totally above the cultural prejudices of their times, is that it? Unless your prophets are infallible, it is possible that they may not always be the perfect middle man between you and the divine. I agree with Rock Waterman, a blogger who is also facing excommunication, when he says, "Male only priesthood is not a doctrine. It is a tradition."

"But Mormon men are so super nice and respectful to women. They dote on us, they cherish us."

Saying that a lot of Mormon men dote on and cherish women isn't enough, true as it may be. You can dote on a child, you can cherish a pet. Treating someone as autonomous, capable, and equal to you requires more than just making sure women have padded chairs and a flower on Mother's day. Making an effort to ask for their input in your predominantly male meetings, where men hold all the administrative power, is not good enough.

"If you don't like it, leave."

In my case, done and done. Unfortunately for some women it is not that simple. They sincerely believe in the gospel even if they feel the organization is imperfectly run. They may have other reasons for staying. Maybe their marriage depends on it, or their kids have to attend because a spouse demands it. Maybe they feel like Mormonism is their tribe, their family, and as imperfect as it may be, you don't abandon family. But keep on telling them to leave, they probably will eventually, and you'll have succeeded in weeding out the undesirables. Congrats! But forgive me if I'm not buying it when you say how inclusive and diverse the church is.

"If you don't believe, then why don't you leave it alone."

Because I care. Because it matters. Because it impacted my life. Because this is a woman's issue, and that interests me. Because I live in a predominantly LDS state, and that dramatically affects my state's politics. Because I am sickened at how quick people are to dismiss a woman who dares to say a contradictory thing against patriarchy. Because carrying patriarchy on into the future is a lost opportunity on the part of the church to challenge deeply embedded sexism across the world.

When you tell me how great you've got it as a woman in the church, chances are good you live in a first world country where the advances of women's rights have benefited you. Chances are good that you've never experienced spiritual or religious abuse at the hands of an all male leadership, felt the powerlessness of that situation. And if you have heard of such a thing happening, you've already dismissed it as an isolated case. And all I'm saying is that it is not an isolated case, it is a symptom of a power imbalance that will continually disenfranchise women and privilege men. Women will continually chafe against it. Women, like me, will continue to leave. This will not go away, every generation of girls born into the church will come up against it. I hope you'll do better for them than the church did for Ordain Women.

[BlueDreams]

"If I'm hiking in a tank and shorts, I'll be looked at."

BlueDreams, you don't consider that immodest? For the Strength of Youth says to avoid short shorts and clothing that does not cover the shoulders. Do you disagree with that?

 

Nope, I don't find it immodest. 1.) I'm exercising 2.) I'm trying to gradually tan/burn the pale parts of my legs/arms judiciously so that when I go swimming at the lake, I don't end up in as much hives from my sun allergy. 3.) the tanks and shorts are very utilitarian, they're no less modest than most runner's outfits or other wear that are considered ok for athletic activities. 4.) it's called context and nuance/spirit of the law.

 

And yes, sometimes I've disagreed with the Strength of Youth. That part is definitely one of them. Where women are given strict dictations about what is or isn't modest and men are tacked on like an afterthought and given the lee way to decide what's modest. So yeah. Disagree. It's not scripture and I'm not about to treat it as such. 

 

 With luv,

BD

[Bart Burk]

Umm.. Artifical Insemination? I kinda figure that if the Lord wants an egg to suddenly be fertilized and grow a human body, that the Lord can "snap his fingers" and make it happen. I don't think that uh... that either adultery or fornication or even physical contact of any kind is even required.

 

If you can make a Universe, I figure you can do that kinda thing without assuming the form of a swan, a shower of gold, or anything else out of a Greek/Roman myth.

That is the same reasoning that makes me believe that God is able to create His own body without a Father.  Back to the discussion, if God is a male, and he used his Priesthood to create the universe through Jesus Christ, I would say that is good enough reason to believe that Heavenly Mother is always obedient to Her husband if she exists.  I saw the original copy of Eliza R. Snow's "My Father in Heaven" in the Times and Seasons last night.  In the original she capitalized Father, but not mother.  Maybe there was a reason.

 

http://thesongoftherighteous.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/o-my-father.pdf

 

Or father and mother in Eliza's poem at the time she wrote it may have only referred to her own father and mother.  My understanding is that her mother had just died before she wrote this poem.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Bart Burk

[mfbukowski]

Bishop,

 

Joseph Smith's knowledge of the nature of God was not complete until the Nauvoo period.

 

Mormonism did just fine until more was revealed.  So I'm not sure we can consider this a "founding concept" given that the concept did not exist until Joseph revealed it 10 years AFTER the founding of the Church.

 

Seth

Well that is a point, certainly.

 

If we want to take that course, we can go back to the view of the BOM on the Godhead, but then we are essentially protestants, with hints of something else.

 

Honest Seth, I am exploring here.

 

I personally love the KFD and all that late Nauvoo stuff.  God as a paradigm for mankind, and as I said earlier, the ideas of "Brigham Jung" with God becoming the Archetype for humanity.  Brilliant stuff.  It is theistic humanism with humanity raised to Godhood.

 

So for me, how do we make that Patriarchal archetype work in the world of OW?  Does it go by the wayside?  Then we are Episcopalians.

 

That's all I am saying. 

 

Please stop calling me bishop.  Everyone around here is a former bishop- probably 5 or 6 that I know of.

[Bart Burk]

Well that is a point, certainly.

 

If we want to take that course, we can go back to the view of the BOM on the Godhead, but then we are essentially protestants, with hints of something else.

 

Honest Seth, I am exploring here.

 

I personally love the KFD and all that late Nauvoo stuff.  God as a paradigm for mankind, and as I said earlier, the ideas of "Brigham Jung" with God becoming the Archetype for humanity.  Brilliant stuff.  It is theistic humanism with humanity raised to Godhood.

 

So for me, how do we make that Patriarchal archetype work in the world of OW?  Does it go by the wayside?  Then we are Episcopalians.

 

That's all I am saying. 

 

Please stop calling me bishop.  Everyone around here is a former bishop- probably 5 or 6 that I know of.

Have you read Blake Ostler's take on the Godhead?  I agree with you on the patriarchal nature of Mormonism and see it as being true to the faith.  There is nothing wrong with it.  Humanity can be raised to Godhood while still accepting explicitly what the Book of Mormon says about God without the Temple Grove sermon's take on it.  Stay with King Follett, and I think you are able to square that with the explicit teaching of the Book of Mormon on the Godhead.  It only makes sense that any Heavenly Mother figure would ultimately have to obey the God of the Universe.

[ELF1024]

it is a symptom of a power imbalance that will continually disenfranchise women and privilege men. Women will continually chafe against it. Women, like me, will continue to leave. This will not go away, every generation of girls born into the church will come up against it.

 

Well first off I reject your premise that the issue is with the Patriachy, the Doctrine, or the Policies of the church. I reject because I can quote Conference Talks, the D&C, and whatever other sources I can find on Google to disprove it. D&C 121, which I have referenced several times, comes to mind.

 

I believe you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You had a bad experience with a man, or men in the church. (so have I) Now you seem to believe that all men are bad. I think that is totally unfair, and just as demeaning to men in general as those bad actors were to you.

 

Yes, there are bad actors in the Church (both men and women). Yes, there are bad actors in society (both men and women). However, the need to educate, discipline, correct those bad actors doesn't mean we throw out the whole thing.

 

D&C 121 talks about how when you attempt to rule over someone by virtue of the Priesthood, your authority becomes null and void. I don't know how better to put it. That Priesthood simply does not function the way you seem to think it does. That is not of the Church, that is not of the Doctrine, that is not of God.

 

That is the fault of both men and women in the Church. Your issue, simply put is not with the Church. It's not with the Doctrine, and it's not with the policy. Your issue is with the bad apples within the organization.

 

The Church is not a party for the perfected, it's a hospital for us sinners.

Edited June 27, 2014 by ELF1024

[mfbukowski]

How come women read romance novels with Fabio on the cover, who comes and sweeps them off their feet, and carries them away to the Princess Castle if women don't like that?
 
Why are women attracted to money and power if you don't want a rich, powerful husband?  Or is that all just a lie, and women really don't like that.
 
Romance novels are a male plot to oppress women?  Then why do so many read them?  http://www.rwa.org/p/cm/ld/fid=582
 
Seriously.

• Women make up 91 percent of romance book buyers, and men make up 9 percent.
• The U.S. romance book buyer is most likely to be aged between 30 and 54 years.
• Romance book buyers are highly represented in the South.
• The greatest percentage of romance book buyers (39 percent) have an income between $50,000 and $99,900.
• According to RWA's 2011 Romance Book Consumer survey, slightly more than half of survey respondents live with a spouse or significant other.
• Forty-four percent of romance book buyers consider themselves "frequent readers" (read quite a few romances); 31 percent are "avid readers" (almost always reading a romance novel); and 25 percent are "occasional readers" (on and off, like when on vacation).
• Readers have been reading romance for a long time: 41 percent of romance book buyers have been reading romance for 20 years or more.

(source: Business of Consumer Book Publishing 2013)

Romance fiction generated $1.438 billion in sales in 2012.
Romance was the top-performing category on the best-seller lists in 2012 (across the NYT, USA Today, and PW best-seller lists).
Romance fiction sales are estimated at $1.350 billion for 2013.
74.8 million people read at least one romance novel in 2008. (source: RWA Reader Survey)

 

Edited June 27, 2014 by mfbukowski

[ELF1024]

How come women read romance novels with Fabio on the cover, who comes and sweeps them off their feet, and carries them away to the Princess Castle if women don't like that?

 

Why are women attracted to money and power if you don't want a rich, powerful husband?  Or is that all just a lie, and women really don't like that.

 

Romance novels are a male plot to oppress women?  Then why do so many read them?  

 

Seriously.

 

A Man does What a Man Believes in... sames goes for women...

 

What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

 

 

Please stop calling me bishop.  Everyone around here is a former bishop- probably 5 or 6 that I know of.

 

Please no, I never have any desire to be a Bishop and it would seriously shatter my faith if anyone was foolish enough to ever call me as one.

Edited June 27, 2014 by ELF1024

[Bart Burk]

Well first off I reject your premise that the issue is with the Patriachy, the Doctrine, or the Policies of the church. I reject because I can quote Conference Talks, the D&C, and whatever other sources I can find on Google to disprove it. D&C 121, which I have referenced several times, comes to mind.

 

I believe you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You had a bad experience with a man, or men in the church. Now you seem to believe that all men are bad. I think that is totally unfair, and just as demeaning to men in general as those bad actors were to you.

 

Yes, there are bad actors in the Church (both men and women). Yes, there are bad actors in society (both men and women). However, the need to educate, discipline, correct those bad actors doesn't mean we throw out the whole thing.

 

D&C 121 talks about how when you attempt to rule over someone by virtue of the Priesthood, your authority becomes null and void. I don't know how better to put it. That Priesthood simply does not function the way you seem to think it does. That is not of the Church, that is not of the Doctrine, that is not of God.

 

That is the fault of both men and women in the Church. Your issue, simply put is not with the Church. It's not with the Doctrine, and it's not with the policy. Your issue is with the bad apples within the organization.

 

The Church is not a party for the perfected, it's a hospital for us sinners.

In fact we can always expect that we poor men are going to make mistakes at times.  I sometimes heard people say, "If the Church weren't true the missionaries would have destroyed it a long time ago." In the Catholic church we substitute "priests" for "missionaries."  As one who admires what the LDS Church does for its people, I think generally the leadership of those less than perfect men has been pretty good especially since David O. McKay.  And that is not meant to denigrate anyone who came before.  That's just all I have personal experience with.

[sethpayne]

Well that is a point, certainly.

 

If we want to take that course, we can go back to the view of the BOM on the Godhead, but then we are essentially protestants, with hints of something else.

 

Honest Seth, I am exploring here.

 

I personally love the KFD and all that late Nauvoo stuff.  God as a paradigm for mankind, and as I said earlier, the ideas of "Brigham Jung" with God becoming the Archetype for humanity.  Brilliant stuff.  It is theistic humanism with humanity raised to Godhood.

 

So for me, how do we make that Patriarchal archetype work in the world of OW?  Does it go by the wayside?  Then we are Episcopalians.

 

That's all I am saying. 

 

Please stop calling me bishop.  Everyone around here is a former bishop- probably 5 or 6 that I know of.

 

Well, I will respect your wishes but to me, you are my MDDB Bishop forever and always.  

 

Oh... and I love "Brigham Jung" ... very clever.

[sethpayne]

Well that is a point, certainly.

 

If we want to take that course, we can go back to the view of the BOM on the Godhead, but then we are essentially protestants, with hints of something else.

 

Honest Seth, I am exploring here.

 

 

I love exploring these ideas.  Published a paper with the Journal of Catholic Legal Studies last year with some of my own thoughts/speculations.

 

I do think the BoM makes us distinctly different from traditional Protestantism.  Dan Vogel makes an interesting case for Modalism in the BoM -- relying heavily on Abinidi in Mosiah, IIRC.  And, I've always been struck by the appearance of the Holy Ghost -- in human form (but not embodied) -- to Nephi.  I believe it is the only scripture -- in all of Christian canon -- where the Holy Ghost appears to anyone.

[mfbukowski]

Have you read Blake Ostler's take on the Godhead?  I agree with you on the patriarchal nature of Mormonism and see it as being true to the faith.  There is nothing wrong with it.  Humanity can be raised to Godhood while still accepting explicitly what the Book of Mormon says about God without the Temple Grove sermon's take on it.  Stay with King Follett, and I think you are able to square that with the explicit teaching of the Book of Mormon on the Godhead.  It only makes sense that any Heavenly Mother figure would ultimately have to obey the God of the Universe.

I like Ostler.  I think he is a very good popularizer of real theology and he has a definite gift for taking the ideas of others and writing them in a way that is compatible with LDS theology.

 

Long story short, is we agree on this.  I think it is worthless to quibble to worry about what might be "right" in the realm of mysteries.

[mfbukowski]

I love exploring these ideas.  Published a paper with the Journal of Catholic Legal Studies last year with some of my own thoughts/speculations.

 

I do think the BoM makes us distinctly different from traditional Protestantism.  Dan Vogel makes an interesting case for Modalism in the BoM -- relying heavily on Abinidi in Mosiah, IIRC.  And, I've always been struck by the appearance of the Holy Ghost -- in human form (but not embodied) -- to Nephi.  I believe it is the only scripture -- in all of Christian canon -- where the Holy Ghost appears to anyone.

What no link?? 

 

Yeah but the key is that God is a glorified man.  That is not in the BOM.  That of course is based on accounts of the First Vision and we don't have to get into that.  But what does that mean in a world where men do not "preside"- whatever that means?

 

Everyone is tip toeing around that issue, so it is up to pariah bukowski to take on the 800 pound gorilla.

 

How do we make it compatible?  I am not seeing it.

 

I think that is why so many sisters do not support OW, but all the arguments are always veiled and no one wants to say anything.  Not me.  I blunder on where wise men fear to tread 

 

To change that you have to deconstruct the old testament, the new testament, and all the standard works, the temple, and still call yourself "Mormon" miraculously at the end of all that.

 

I for one don't see that happening.

Edited June 27, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Good grief. Men and women both can be attractive to each other but being attractive isn't the same thing as being seductive. A seductive look is not a natural look, and it doesn't happen by accident. And a smile doesn't equate to being seductive, either, so any person whether male or female can be both attractive and smiling without giving a seductive look. And a person can also be kind and polite and attractive and smiling without being seductive, too.

Now does everybody understand what I mean?

Some people are so stuck up about the way they look when they see themselves as being attractive that when anyone else also sees them as an attractive person and smiles at them and is nice to them that they take a flying leap to an assumption that the other person wants to have sex with them and then they bite their head off because of their own assumption when in reality the other person was just noticing them and being nice to them without thinking that way.

It is possible to see others as attractive without any such thought, but then again there are people who are trying to seduce a person when they are attracted to them and they will give a seductive look. Just don't go jumping to any assumptions.

I'm an attractive man, myself, at least to many people both women and men, and if I acted as rude as that woman (notice I'm not saying lady) was to that man I would expect him, or her, to not hold the door for me anymore too, letting go of it and with it then swinging toward me as it closed. So not only was she rude but she apparently didn't undetstand that self-closing doors close when nobody is holding them open and she would have then needed to catch it before it hit her in her face.

Not quite as good as many dumb blonde jokes I've heard but it is still kinda funny if you're able to see the humor.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Ahab

[jkwilliams]

Elevation works best when it is seen as a recognition of her quality PLUS hard work coupled by a desire and belief that one is a suitable companion for each other, iow both must be elevated in order for most women to be comfortable with such compliments and it needs to be more emphasised in behaviour...quality, aware behaviour that puts not only time but effort into interacting with her as a friend and colleague and not just superficial response to the first thing she says so one can ignore the rest.

 

I think you're really on a roll. Thank you for this post.

 

My wife and I make a great team because our strengths complement each other's. She is great at recognizing others' needs and helping to attend to them in ways I am not. I honor her for that, and I have learned to be more observant of others' needs over 27 years of marriage. I think I elevate her every day in recognizing her strengths, encouraging her in everything she does, and respecting that she doesn't see life exactly the way I do. As I said earlier, I think marriage would be quite dull indeed if we agreed on every detail of our lives.

 

I don't elevate her specifically because of her gender, though I definitely elevate her for having been a stay-at-home mom who cared for 6 children full-time. She is a wonderful, nurturing mother, and together we have raised 6 wonderful kids, 5 of whom are now adults. As my mother once put it to me, she measures success with her children by whether they are good, decent people she would like even if they weren't her kids (I'm glad my mom likes me). I like my kids, and much of who they are is a product of a loving, dedicated mother who is much better at parenting than I have ever been.

 

My wife elevates me every day in encouraging me, praising me for good things I do, and helping me be a better husband and father. It's a two-way street, and as you say, empty praise and hollow elevation would be pretty transparent. She knows me, and I know her, and we love and respect each other as individuals and as partners.

 

This thread has been jarring to me because I don't see current forms of patriarchy as eternal and immutable. To steal from mfb, it may be who WE are (culturally speaking), but it doesn't have to be us. We can change and are changing, IMO for the better. It's about treating each other as equals with respect, regardless of cultural norms that may conspire against such treatment.

[Senator]

I'm an attractive man, myself

 

You sure like to say that.

[Calm]

Women may (or may not as it is hard to measure how many false positives one gets without being a mind reader) be oversensitive to visual and verbal cues, but it is a survival skill based on the basic biological fact that men are physically stronger (in the sense of being able to force themselves upon another or to physically harm). And enough women have had personal experience so that biological/cultural bred awareness goes into overtime. (1out of 5 women have been attacked/abused/raped...and even if you think that number is high, let us drop it significantly to one in 20...how many women have you met in your lifetime so far...if only 5% instead of 20% have been abused, that easily puts it in tens of thousands of women you have looked at as youve walked by who have been put by the actions of a man into a life where they ask themselves when they see a man "is he going to try hurt me too?" and that is if you don't move around a lot and see a lot of repeats.

Unless you are physically weak and got beat up or were in some sort of physical altercation or conflict where you werent able to respond in an equivalent way to the attack, I don't see how a man can begin to understand how that changes one's perception. I've never been actually hurt, but a guy did physically restrain me to force me to talk to him. I had gone out on two dates with him (nothing major in cost) and being clueless and knowing he knew I was LDS and what that meant, I thought he understood that I approached him as a good friend who I had fun with, but then he put his arms completely around me in an empty office (he had taken me to his lab..lit was very cool) with almost all the lifhts out. My discomfort level shot way off and i awkwardly laughed, tried to relax and casually asked him about how something worked or whatever. I declined further dates. I have never ever even considered dressing immodestly or even attractively...I dressed somewhat nicely to be polite...because that would draw attention to me and I was extremely shy in those days. I had been so happy there was someone who just enjoyed talking to me about interesting things (we met in science classes, he was brilliant, worked at a research lab, knew things about Physics I wanted to learn) that I was willing to push my discomfort level to go out with him. After I turned down any more dates, he showed up where I worked. I was the last one to leave in the evening and it was dark and the large parking lot had a few other cars but no other people. He met me by the door after i locked it behind me (no key so no retreat though it didn't occur to me then I needed one)and I told him as he walked me that while I had really enjoyed his company, that I saw him as a friend and didn't feel it was right to date him where he is paying for stuff and I am not. He starts trying to persuade me otherwise, but eventually I say I'm sorry and get in the car. Insert the key, turn the ignition and nothing happens. I am freaking about a busted car and how ticked off Dad will be to have to pay for a tow truck, he wants us to always ride our bikes but Mom says not when we come home in the dark. I try to pump the gas nothing happens...I turn to my friend to appeal and he just keeps insisting on talking about why we should be going out till he figures out I can't even pay attention. Then he pulls out a handfull of wires and sheepishly says I really needed to talk to you. I am shocked. I emphasize this is not the way to make me more comfortable around him. He keeps pushing for me to give him another chance, eventually I say I will think about it and after about 20 minutes or so, he fixes my car and I go home. And my parents inform me I will never, ever allow myself to be alone with him and I start shaking.

And this guy was always the perfect gentleman.

I have heard similar stories from other women where the guy feels he has the right to tell us we have to talk, be or have sex with him based solely on the reason he wants it. It is not something I have ever heard a guy describe the same way...a woman may stalk him, looking for chances to talk, but I've never heard a guy describe feeling like he was ever forced to talk out of fear. Yeah, a girl could have done the same thing to a car and likely has, but a girl couldn't suddenly decide she had enough with talk, cover the man's mouth and force him into the back seat and rape him...at least not without planning ahead and bringing a gun or knife and that would make her bad, not just a poor guy who got carried away in the heat of the moment and did something he regretted as soon as he stopped...not that such would make a difference to the girl he just raped, it isn't something you can take back.

When I came to BYU we had lectures about never being alone with a guy we didn't know in the library or walking home alone, especially south of the campus because there was a rapist hiding in the bushes and attacking women and the cops hadn't caught him yet. The men organised an escort service for after dark in my branch and two would show up to walk us home at a certain time in front of the library. Didn't stop the rapes. Can't remember if they caught him or he just disappeared. Another showed up the next year or so.

So if women read in a poem about a guy staring at a woman because he thinks she is seductive, we might have good reason to think he just isn't thinking about what kind of flowers she might like or if she is a good cook or likes to watch football. And while we are well aware that not all men are thinking "I am going to have that woman no matter what", we are generally also very, very aware there are enough men out there that are that our mothers, our sisters and friends have been attacked at least one out of twenty and more likely closer to one in ten or five.

Edited June 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[ELF1024]

This thread has been jarring to me because I don't see current forms of patriarchy as eternal and immutable. To steal from mfb, it may be who WE are (culturally speaking), but it doesn't have to be us. We can change and are changing, IMO for the better. It's about treating each other as equals with respect, regardless of cultural norms that may conspire against such treatment.

 

Do you view these as mutually exclusive? If so, Why?

 

I don't see any conflict between the two. But then I see the Patriarchy as a point of order, and not authority. My wife and I make our decisions jointly, equally.

 

Frankly, I have no interest in a completely submissive, obediant, boring wife... like Melanie from Gone with the Wind. I purposefully married my wife because she was intelligent, willing to challenge me on things, willing to stand her ground, but at the same time, willing to listen to logic and reason... and willing to find common ground (as in we both move to the center, not as in I get my way) when needed. We've been told many times that we make a good team. I believe we are stronger together than we were apart, and that the sum of the whole is greater than the parts.

 

I wouldn't have it any other way.

Edited June 27, 2014 by ELF1024

[jkwilliams]

Do you view these as mutually exclusive? If so, Why?

Current (American for me) cultural patriarchy most definitely does not treat men and women as equals. If it did, we would not be having this discussion.

 

I don't see any conflict between the two. But then I see the Patriarchy as a point of order, and not authority. My wife and I make our decisions jointly, equally.

Calmoriah has explained much more eloquently than I could that we're not just talking about decision-making in a marriage but broader ways in which we treat women and men differently such that women and men approach interaction with others in very different ways.

 

Frankly, if I have no interest in a completely submissive, obediant, boring wife... like Melanie from Gone with the Wind. I purposefully married my wife because she was intelligent, willing to challenge me on things, willing to stand her ground, but at the same time, willing to listen to logic and reason... and willing to find common ground (as in we both move to the center, not as in I get my way) when needed. We've been told many times that we make a good team. I believe we are stronger together than we were apart, and that the sum of the whole is greater than the parts.

 

I wouldn't have it any other way.

I have no idea why you think I would disagree with this statement.

[sethpayne]

What no link?? 

 

Yeah but the key is that God is a glorified man.  That is not in the BOM.  That of course is based on accounts of the First Vision and we don't have to get into that.  But what does that mean in a world where men do not "preside"- whatever that means?

 

Everyone is tip toeing around that issue, so it is up to pariah bukowski to take on the 800 pound gorilla.

 

How do we make it compatible?  I am not seeing it.

 

I think that is why so many sisters do not support OW, but all the arguments are always veiled and no one wants to say anything.  Not me.  I blunder on where wise men fear to tread 

 

To change that you have to deconstruct the old testament, the new testament, and all the standard works, the temple, and still call yourself "Mormon" miraculously at the end of all that.

 

I for one don't see that happening.

 

I'll shoot your a PM with into on where to find the paper.

 

You make some interesting points but I think the strongest case OW can make is one from LDS Church history where Joseph spoke of the RS as if it were a priesthood organization.  Also, the common practice of women performing ordinances etc....

 

So in that sense, I'm not sure we have to deconstruct Mormonism to find a place for female priesthood, and perhaps even ordination.  I think a sensible case can be made without the need to throw out or minimize some of the teachings you mention.  

[Ahab]

You sure like to say that.

Yeah, I know. I like to share all the truth I know about everything, especially about everything that is both true and good.

[CV75]

You make some interesting points but I think the strongest case OW can make is one from LDS Church history where Joseph spoke of the RS as if it were a priesthood organization.  Also, the common practice of women performing ordinances etc....

Joseph Smith spoke of the RS as if it were a priesthood organization without actually ordaining women, and the common practice of women performing ordinances is likewise done without ordaining women. Marriage, the family and the patriarchal order are also priesthood organizations without ordaining every member. So if qualifying as belonging to a priesthood organization or performing ordinances as delegated are considered a strong case for ordaining women, I think the supporters of such need to go back to the drawing board.

[ELF1024]

Women may (or may not as it is hard to measure how many false positives one gets without being a mind reader) be oversensitive to visual and verbal cues, but it is a survival skill based on the basic biological fact that men are physically stronger (in the sense of being able to force themselves upon another or to physically harm). And enough women have had personal experience so that biological/cultural bred awareness goes into overtime. (1out of 5 women have been attacked/abused/raped...and even if you think that number is high, let us drop it significantly to one in 20...how many women have you met in your lifetime so far...if only 5% instead of 20% have been abused, that easily puts it in tens of thousands of women you have looked at as youve walked by who have been put by the actions of a man into a life where they ask themselves when they see a man "is he going to try hurt me too?" and that is if you don't move around a lot and see a lot of repeats.

Unless you are physically weak and got beat up or were in some sort of physical altercation or conflict where you werent able to respond in an equivalent way to the attack, I don't see how a man can begin to understand how that changes one's perception. I've never been actually hurt, but a guy did physically restrain me to force me to talk to him. I had gone out on two dates with him (nothing major in cost) and being clueless and knowing he knew I was LDS and what that meant, I thought he understood that I approached him as a good friend who I had fun with, but then he put his arms completely around me in an empty office (he had taken me to his lab..lit was very cool) with almost all the lifhts out. My discomfort level shot way off and i awkwardly laughed, tried to relax and casually asked him about how something worked or whatever. I declined further dates. I have never ever even considered dressing immodestly or even attractively...I dressed somewhat nicely to be polite...because that would draw attention to me and I was extremely shy in those days. I had been so happy there was someone who just enjoyed talking to me about interesting things (we met in science classes, he was brilliant, worked at a research lab, knew things about Physics I wanted to learn) that I was willing to push my discomfort level to go out with him. After I turned down any more dates, he showed up where I worked. I was the last one to leave in the evening and it was dark and the large parking lot had a few other cars but no other people. He met me by the door after i locked it behind me (no key so no retreat though it didn't occur to me then I needed one)and I told him as he walked me that while I had really enjoyed his company, that I saw him as a friend and didn't feel it was right to date him where he is paying for stuff and I am not. He starts trying to persuade me otherwise, but eventually I say I'm sorry and get in the car. Insert the key, turn the ignition and nothing happens. I am freaking about a busted car and how ticked off Dad will be to have to pay for a tow truck, he wants us to always ride our bikes but Mom says not when we come home in the dark. I try to pump the gas nothing happens...I turn to my friend to appeal and he just keeps insisting on talking about why we should be going out till he figures out I can't even pay attention. Then he pulls out a handfull of wires and sheepishly says I really needed to talk to you. I am shocked. I emphasize this is not the way to make me more comfortable around him. He keeps pushing for me to give him another chance, eventually I say I will think about it and after about 20 minutes or so, he fixes my car and I go home. And my parents inform me I will never, ever allow myself to be alone with him and I start shaking.

And this guy was always the perfect gentleman.

I have heard similar stories from other women where the guy feels he has the right to tell us we have to talk, be or have sex with him based solely on the reason he wants it. It is not something I have ever heard a guy describe the same way...a woman may stalk him, looking for chances to talk, but I've never heard a guy describe feeling like he was ever forced to talk out of fear. Yeah, a girl could have done the same thing to a car and likely has, but a girl couldn't suddenly decide she had enough with talk, cover the man's mouth and force him into the back seat and rape him...at least not without planning ahead and bringing a gun or knife and that would make her bad, not just a poor guy who got carried away in the heat of the moment and did something he regretted as soon as he stopped...not that such would make a difference to the girl he just raped, it isn't something you can take back.

When I came to BYU we had lectures about never being alone with a guy we didn't know in the library or walking home alone, especially south of the campus because there was a rapist hiding in the bushes and attacking women and the cops hadn't caught him yet. The men organised an escort service for after dark in my branch and two would show up to walk us home at a certain time in front of the library. Didn't stop the rapes. Can't remember if they caught him or he just disappeared. Another showed up the next year or so.

So if women read in a poem about a guy staring at a woman because he thinks she is seductive, we might have good reason to think he just isn't thinking about what kind of flowers she might like or if she is a good cook or likes to watch football. And while we are well aware that not all men are thinking "I am going to have that woman no matter what", we are generally also very, very aware there are enough men out there that are that our mothers, our sisters and friends have been attacked at least one out of twenty and more likely closer to one in ten or five.

 

 

 

Addition: Oh and I think you're defintion of "Perfect Gentleman" and mine, differ by light years, but I may have missed the sarcasm.

Edited June 27, 2014 by ELF1024