The Theology Of Patriarchy Cannot Be Changed.

[mfbukowski]

The premise of your OP is that our human understanding of who God is and how He/They operate is a patriarchal theology that cannot be changed. I'm unconvinced that this has anything to do with truth but rather reflects our human tendency to limit God based on our limited understanding. Regardless of the existence of "truth," however you define it, our understanding can and will change, and it seems odd to insist that it can't, as you have here.

It cannot change and remain the same.  It's a simple point John

 

If it changes it won't be Mormonism.  It seems the KK crowd want to take patriarchy out of Mormonism and keep Mormonism supposedly- to be members of the Mormon church while taking away patriarchy.

 

Doesnt work

[jkwilliams]

The truth is not out there John. it is what WE create.

 

And WE will always be WE.  That is the point.

 

We can pretend to change gender roles all we want, but we are talking about millions of years of evolution being overthrown by someones politics.

 

It aint gonna happen

 

Are you suggesting that current Western attitudes toward women are the result of millions of evolution and are so entrenched that they can't change?

 

I do not believe that gender roles are eternal, let alone so hard-wired into our brains that they can't change for the better. Women have long held leadership positions in many cultures around the world, and even the most patriarchal systems are changing. Heck, even Rwanda has adapted to changing realities, and women control most government and economic functions. If they can do that, why can't Mormons adapt to a more equitable treatment of women?

[Senator]

Uh not in my book.  He invented it, and will use it to make us into what we can become, using religious parlance.

 

Yes, he invented a fallen, temporal world.  However, it is inferior and ultimately incapable of producing celetial beings on its own.

[mfbukowski]

No, we would be Mormons who ordain women. Episcopalians are their own thing.

 

I'm not talking about changing the archetype of the sacred union of male and female, but there are ways of rendering that archetype that don't involve patriarchy, and we know next to nothing about Heavenly Mother. For all we know, She could be the one who "presides" over Heavenly Father. We literally know next to nothing.

Well sorry to reduce it to this, but we all know the saying "If Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy".

 

The reality is that in 80% of those secret meetings known as "High Priest's Group" that is what is talked about- keeping Mama happy, so we can be happy.  THAT is the reality of all this "sexism".  Every time a young elder gets married, everyone jokes that he is about to learn the secret of a happy marriage and that phrase IS the secret of a happy marriage.  THIS is the reality of human relations as I personally know it- I have never in my life seen women abused or held back or anything but encouraged to be all they can and want to be, and that is all I have seen in church as well.

 

You could be right.  If you want an archetype in my experience THAT is it- If mama aint happy aint nobody happy.

 

As I see it true patriarchy makes mama happy and I am highly in favor of that.  THAT is my personal experience, anything else is second hand.

 

Men don't care where the towels go, but women want them in this drawer arranged this way.  OK fine. Keep mama happy.

 

THAT is family life as I know it.  Those are gender roles as I know them, and that is not going away.  Mama will still have more shoes than me and definitely more makeup.

 

They will still not advertise makeup on the Superbowl and the women's department will still be twice as large and the men's.

 

THAT is the reality

[mfbukowski]

Yes, he invented a fallen, temporal world.  However, it is inferior and ultimately incapable of producing celetial beings on its own.

I don't know what that means.  He gave us the means we needed to become like Him.  I don't want to go around in circles with you- I do not understand what you are saying

[mfbukowski]

Are you suggesting that current Western attitudes toward women are the result of millions of evolution and are so entrenched that they can't change?

 

I do not believe that gender roles are eternal, let alone so hard-wired into our brains that they can't change for the better. Women have long held leadership positions in many cultures around the world, and even the most patriarchal systems are changing. Heck, even Rwanda has adapted to changing realities, and women control most government and economic functions. If they can do that, why can't Mormons adapt to a more equitable treatment of women?

When did I say I was against that.  Reading comprehension again John.  You are stuck in your own slogans as usual

[jkwilliams]

When did I say I was against that.  Reading comprehension again John.  You are stuck in your own slogans as usual

 

You just said that gender roles aren't going to change and are a result of millions of years of evolution. And now you're saying you didn't actually say that.

[watermelongirl]

Well sorry to reduce it to this, but we all know the saying "If Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy".

 

The reality is that in 80% of those secret meetings known as "High Priest's Group" that is what is talked about- keeping Mama happy, so we can be happy.  THAT is the reality of all this "sexism".  Every time a young elder gets married, everyone jokes that he is about to learn the secret of a happy marriage and that phrase IS the secret of a happy marriage.  THIS is the reality of human relations as I personally know it- I have never in my life seen women abused or held back or anything but encouraged to be all they can and want to be, and that is all I have seen in church as well.

 

You could be right.  If you want an archetype in my experience THAT is it- If mama aint happy aint nobody happy.

 

As I see it true patriarchy makes mama happy and I am highly in favor of that.  THAT is my personal experience, anything else is second hand.

 

Men don't care where the towels go, but women want them in this drawer arranged this way.  OK fine. Keep mama happy.

 

THAT is family life as I know it.  Those are gender roles as I know them, and that is not going away.  Mama will still have more shoes than me and definitely more makeup.

 

They will still not advertise makeup on the Superbowl and the women's department will still be twice as large and the men's.

 

THAT is the reality

Just when I thought we would get along.

[mfbukowski]

If they can do that, why can't Mormons adapt to a more equitable treatment of women?

 

When did I say I was against that.  Reading comprehension again John.  You are stuck in your own slogans as usual

[mfbukowski]

Just when I thought we would get along.

OK splain it to me.

[jkwilliams]

 

If they can do that, why can't Mormons adapt to a more equitable treatment of women?

 

When did I say I was against that.  Reading comprehension again John.  You are stuck in your own slogans as usual

 

 

You said in the OP that the "theology of patriarchy cannot be changed." You seemed to be insisting that it is both natural and divinely appointed for women to occupy a subordinate position to the authority of men. If that's not what you're saying, then please clarify.

[jkwilliams]

Just when I thought we would get along.

 

I threw up a little when I read that post about keeping mama happy. Let's just say that Brother Bukowski's thoughts would not be well received by my wife and daughters.

[mfbukowski]

You said in the OP that the "theology of patriarchy cannot be changed." You seemed to be insisting that it is both natural and divinely appointed for women to occupy a subordinate position to the authority of men. If that's not what you're saying, then please clarify.

I have already defined patriarch as I see it.

 

It has nothing to do with subordination of anyone.  It has to do with consensus.  I am not going to keep repeating myself to you John- you and I have a long history and I have refused to bicker with you in the past and will continue to refuse to do so.  You set up strawmen to prop up slogans you can throw out as one liners.  In short, discussions with you are a waste of time,

[mfbukowski]

I threw up a little when I read that post about keeping mama happy. Let's just say that Brother Bukowski's thoughts would not be well received by my wife and daughters.

So you don't help them be happy?  So sad.

 

That is not your concern?

Edited June 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[watermelongirl]

OK splain it to me.

If you think the towels should be arranged a different way, make a logical argument to back up your position and decide on the course that feels right to both of you. Don't just do it because that's what she wants. It's patronizing.

[mfbukowski]

If you think the towels should be arranged a different way, make a logical argument to back up your position and decide on the course that feels right to both of you. Don't just do it because that's what she wants. It's patronizing.

So if your husband wants something a certain way, if you do it for him, that is "patronizing"???

 

Why?

[watermelongirl]

So if your husband wants something a certain way, if you do it for him, that is "patronizing"???

 

Why?

I like to think that there may be times when things are more important to one or the other spouse and we can defer to the other based on greater passion and investment in the outcome. The way you describe your "Keep Mama happy all the time" policy is ridiculously patronizing:

pa·tron·ize[pey-truh-nahyz, pa‐] Show IPA

verb (used with object), pa·tron·ized, pa·tron·iz·ing.

1. to give (a store, restaurant, hotel, etc.) one's regular patronage; trade with.

2. to behave in an offensively condescending manner toward: a professor who patronizes his students.

 

 

See #2. It's like patting him/her on the head and saying "okay, dear, whatever you say dear."

[mfbukowski]

If you think the towels should be arranged a different way, make a logical argument to back up your position and decide on the course that feels right to both of you. Don't just do it because that's what she wants. It's patronizing.

My point is that I don't care if the towels are on the floor or in the laundry basket.  I have no opinion logical or otherwise- I don't care.  She cares about every detail.  So she always gets her way.  And getting your way is "patronizing"? 

 

And John doesnt want his daughters and wife happy.

 

I don't think I like this at all

[mfbukowski]

I like to think that there may be times when things are more important to one or the other spouse and we can defer to the other based on greater passion and investment in the outcome. The way you describe your "Keep Mama happy all the time" policy is ridiculously patronizing:

pa·tron·ize [pey-truh-nahyz, pa‐] Show IPA

verb (used with object), pa·tron·ized, pa·tron·iz·ing.

1. to give (a store, restaurant, hotel, etc.) one's regular patronage; trade with.

2. to behave in an offensively condescending manner toward: a professor who patronizes his students.

 

 

See #2. It's like patting him/her on the head and saying "okay, dear, whatever you say dear."

That's your projection and prejudice, and not the way it is at all.  I am a slob and I try to keep her happy.  That is not patronizing at all.  I need to learn to measure up to her standards.  She is teaching me how to be more godlike.

 

Man this is a messed up world.

[Nofear]

Benevolent sexism and kindness are sometimes hard to distinguish. Unfortunately, I have seen the former too many times, including in the church. Watermelongirl's differentiation is apt.
 
FYI: in case unclear about benevolent sexism

[thesometimesaint]

Does anyone here really dispute that our Mother-in Heaven isn't equal in power and authority to her husband? 

[mfbukowski]

Benevolent sexism and kindness are sometimes hard to distinguish. Unfortunately, I have seen the former too many times, including in the church. Watermelongirl's differentiation is apt.

 

FYI: in case unclear about benevolent sexism

I really appreciate you posting this.

It makes it clear to me.

 

 

This kind of sexism is "ambiguous," Swim said, and "people don't know if they're kidding, so we discount them one after another."

"If you document it and are confronted by a group of instances of sexism, then people start to see the unseen," she added.

The prevalence of sexism -- benevolent or hostile -- was not the study's primary focus, nor its major reveal. The more significant finding had to do with how men and women's beliefs about sexism changed after they became aware of its prevalence. In addition to asking participants to record instances of sexism, researchers also evaluated the degree to which subjects tolerated sexist behavior.

Researchers found that after recording the sexist incidents they observed, women were more likely to deem the behavior less acceptable. Men, on the other hand, continued to endorse sexist behavior even after becoming more conscious of it.

If there is such a thing as "benevolent sexism", it's not going anywhere.

 

It is a sex DIFFERENCE like having an Adam's apple.

 

Think about that term "Adam's Apple".   It is what we are biologically.  It can be benevolent or not, but it is what it is.

 

I will continue wanting to make the women in my family happy if others like it or not.  Their projections are not my problem.

 

Men will continue to "have sexist thoughts about women", as derided in the article, if that is how you define sexism.

 

The pornography market is not going away, but that is not patriarchy.  If it is called "benevolent sexism" to be patriarchal, then I am all for it.

Edited June 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[CA Steve]

The thing I value most in my relationship with my wife, isn't her ability "to keep me happy", it is her ability to meet me on her own terms, to challenge me to rethink what I believe, to offer a contrasting opinions and to bring something different than what I bring to our relationship.

 

I can't think of a quicker way to divorce, in my case, than to start kowtowing to everything my wife wants. Our relationship works because we have differences AND we have figured out how to meet each other HALFWAY.

 

Some of the descriptions here remind me of that horrible book by Helen Andelin written in the 1960 called Fascinating Womanhood.

 

Here's a quote

 

 

Self-Dignity: Essential to happiness in marriage is self-dignity. Does your husband ever speak to you harshly, criticize you unduly, treat you unfairly, neglect you, impose on you, or in any way mistreat you? The important thing is not what he does but how you react. Do you shrink back as if struck by a lash? Do you go into your shell? Do you pay him back with a cutting remark? Or, do you fly off the handle with an ugly temper? If you react in any of these ways you will cause yourself unnecessary grief and lessen your husband's love for you.

 

Seriously disgusting stuff.

 

This isn't a relationship on equal footing, neither is one where the husband is "trying to make the wife happy".

One sided efforts or efforts that focus on only one person are not the hallmark of a balanced relationship.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

Does anyone here really dispute that our Mother-in Heaven isn't equal in power and authority to her husband? 

I certainly don't dispute it for an instant

[mfbukowski]

The thing I value most in my relationship with my wife, isn't her ability "to keep me happy", it is her ability to meet me on her own terms, to challenge me to rethink what I believe, to offer a contrasting opinions and to bring something different than what I bring to our relationship.

 

I can't think of a quicker way to divorce, in my case, than to start kowtowing to everything my wife wants. Our relationship works because we have differences AND we have figured out how to meet each other HALFWAY.

 

Some of the descriptions here remind me of that horrible book by Helen Andelin written in the 1960 called Fascinating Womanhood.

 

Here's a quote

 

 

Seriously disgusting stuff.

 

This isn't a relationship on equal footing, neither is one where the husband is "trying to make the wife happy".

One sided efforts or efforts that focus on only one person are not the hallmark of a balanced relationship.

Agreed.  I don't kowtow to anyone either as shown here.  I give her what she wants and she gives me what I want.

Edited June 26, 2014 by mfbukowski