Getting Into A Frenzy About A Slather Of Lipstick

[Tacenda]

Sorry to cause a stir, thanks for the wonderful complements...

Back on topic, Elder Ballard was totally within his personality style. Now I ask you, can you see Elder Uchtdorf or Elder Eyring saying the same thing? I totally forgive Elder Ballard, I just think we need to think a little differently now. Don't go see The Intern though it's a totally feminist movie, loved it though. But might shed some light.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Tacenda

[sethpayne]

Sorry to cause a stir, thanks for the wonderful complements...

Back on topic, Elder Ballard was totally within his personality style. Now I ask you, can you see Elder Uchdorf or Elder Eyring saying the same thing? I totally forgive Elder Ballard, I just think we need to think a little differently now. Don't go see The Intern though it's a totally feminist movie, loved it though. But might shed some light.

 

No.  Particularly not Pres. Uchtdorf.  And I would attribute that to both his age and his natural PR skills.  

[jkwilliams]

I wasn't offended and I'm his target audience. It's a bit of a head scratch-er for a few who may take it a little too seriously because it's so old school and women around these parts usually do spend some time looking nice. But I don't mind. 

 

For the record, sometimes I wear makeup. Sometimes I don't. I can't remember the last time I wore lipstick.

That's pretty much how I saw it. From the discussion here, it seems as if finding a dumb joke inappropriate is the equivalent of evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

[Buckeye]

 

I understand that. The issue for me (and apparently I'm not alone) is that the counsel to attract the opposite sex is always aimed at women, not men. In this case, the men are just supposed to "wake up" and seek a wife, but the women are told to make themselves attractive. Last I checked, women don't tend to marry people they don't find attractive, but no one is telling men to make themselves more attractive.

I wasn't particularly offended by his remarks. Like I said, I figured it was just an old man saying something that would have worked maybe 50 years ago. I could definitely see my 80-year-old father saying something like that. That said, I understand why some people found it offensive.

 

Right. There definitely still exists in the church the notion that men are "thing to act" and women are "things to be acted upon." Thankfully, that notion is dying.

[bluebell]

I understand that. The issue for me (and apparently I'm not alone) is that the counsel to attract the opposite sex is always aimed at women, not men. In this case, the men are just supposed to "wake up" and seek a wife, but the women are told to make themselves attractive. Last I checked, women don't tend to marry people they don't find attractive, but no one is telling men to make themselves more attractive.

 

 

I agree with that.  Men need to be attractive to women as well.

[jkwilliams]

I agree with that.  Men need to be attractive to women as well.

I tell that to my boys all the time. Of course, the son who has always been the most conscious of style is the one who is married.

[jkwilliams]

No.  Particularly not Pres. Uchtdorf.  And I would attribute that to both his age and his natural PR skills.

People tend to lose their self-censoring filters somewhat as they age. My dad is 80, and sometimes he will say whatever comes into his head without thinking first. It can sometimes be embarrassing, and a few times he's said genuinely hurtful things to family members. He doesn't mean any harm, and I don't think Elder Ballard did, either.

[Storm Rider]

Yeah, this is political correctness gone way over the bend.  The reality is that some people can be offended at anything without any regard to what it is.  If they want to take offense they are off to the races with their derriere up on the shoulders and a good head of steam on a self-crusade in search of making sure that others know they are offended and that everyone else should be just as offended.

 

I only wish that some leaders would spend more time teaching good standards of anything; pick a topic.  Some people lack any sense of good taste.  An example, I have no problems with a woman having two ear piercings even though many years ago I thought it went a little overboard when a leader felt a only one piercing was appropriate.  I appreciated the effort because women were going over the mountain with piercings all around the ears.  No one does that for good looks!?!  

 

Teach people correct principles and then allow them the space to govern themselves.  

 

Some people, regardless of gender, could not dress well to save their lives.  If they are not taught correct principles how are they to learn?  How many times have you seen a young person with hair hanging down in their eyes?  Of course it looks stupid and they need to know it looks stupid - PARENTS need to help their kids learn when they are teachable what looks stupid.  Then if the child wants to look stupid, consciously chooses to look stupid, then go for it.  Knock yourself out.

 

It is nice to see non-conformers that know they are choosing differently.  This is something different.  It is the ones who don't know they don't know what looks good and what looks bad that is the issue.

 

Some people don't have to do anything to look great or at least good enough to attract someone and engage them in a meaningful relationship that can grow into a committed marriage relationship.  The rest of us have to learn proper grooming, social skills, conversation skills, etc. etc. etc.  

 

It never hurts to have our feet buried in the good earth and not let our thoughts take us to never-never land where nice moments become distorted and exaggerated to the point of meaninglessness.  

[HappyJackWagon]

I've seen this video on a few facebook groups and forums. I think there's something of an over-reaction in many discussions with people being outraged. Elder Ballard is clearly making a joke.

It's not that funny of a joke and seems a little bit in the realm of the "Trump gaffs" that Buzzfeed and Huffington post are delighting in mocking, but hopefully no believing LDS will think for a minute that he was speaking as anything other than a "man" rather than a "prophet."

I suppose for some people, sexist humour is always offensive. The fact that I pause to even question whether it really is offensive might simply be because I have a slightly different chromosomal configuration to 50% of the world's population. Perhaps it's easy to be less offended than I ought to be.

Is this just the old fashioned views of his generation that we can generously forgive and chuckle at? Is his fellow GA's comment a couple of years back that "women get the kind of men they dress for" (Elder Callister) more of the same? Is it time that Mormon male leaders stopped thinking they should have an opinion on how the entirety of female Mormons should dress themselves (whether speaking opinion or claimed revelation)? Or is this exactly the kind of messages that LDS leaders should spend their time communicating either in seriousness or in jest?

It's a bit of a sexist joke. It was the kind of thing that was probably pretty funny 50 years ago. My father does the same thing. He tells sexist jokes because he doesn't recognize the environment has changed. They don't mean harm but they aren't very aware of the modern enviornment. Elder Ballard has said similar things in the past but doesn't seem to have learned from the mistake. This kind of humor just doesn't fly any more.

 

Some of the people who are so upset consider this type of joke to be an insight into the person telling it. I think they have a point. If someone still thinks a mildly sexist joke is funny and appropriate, how likely is that person to respectfully consider current womens issues of the day?

Edited October 28, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[canard78]

People will always find a reason to be offended if they want. Meanwhile the good counsel is ignored.

What good council is there in telling women to wear more lipstick? Or were you referring to other parts of the talk? Or other talks?

[KevinG]

I can't wait until the culture of offensisensitivity finally permeates the church culture, and we can all take offense at anything said any time for any reason at all.

 

After all who needs Polygamy or Brigham Young's opinions on race to drive them from the church when micro-aggression will do?

 

Since I'm a guy I can take offense at Elder Nelson saying we need to wake up.  The implication being that obviously men are lazy and sleepwalking through life, and the problem with finding a great wife is that we don't put any effort into it.

 

The next time someone mentions good grooming to boys I will call them out for their gender bias and insensitivity to males.

 

See how easy that game is to play!

[Avatar4321]

What good council is there in telling women to wear more lipstick? Or were you referring to other parts of the talk? Or other talks?

Was referring to the talk in general.

But if lip stick makes you more attractive, what is wrong with it if it helps you obtain an eternal goal such as marriage? Shouldn't we want to be as attractive as we can be for our significant other?

Edited October 28, 2015 by Avatar4321

[Calm]

I am not offended though I wish he hadn't used lipstick or said "it isn't that hard" or referred to women looking like men at the same time making that connection that makeup makes one more feminine.

I think if something like that had been said (as it was by local leaders at least) a few decades earlier when notwearing makeup was much less common in our culture, it would have been more hurtful because there are a number of women who shouldn't or can't wear makeup. They didn't have widely available or cheap makeup for those who had to avoid chemicals. Then there are those who have movement disorders or other reasons they lack the ability to put makeup on themselves and it becomes one more thing they are dependent on asking others to do for them. The "it isn't that hard" emphasizes what makes us (I can't wear lipstick at all and limited to ocassionally some other forms ) different when we already feel different, it is too hard for many women and given many in this situation are told in numerous ways that if we would just push ourselves a little or put up with a little discomfort we could accomplish what comes easy to most others when that isn't the truth and isn't even healthy for us to do it in the first place...well, if I had heard it in my younger days most of the time I would have just sighed and said to myself 'what else is new', but if it had been a bad day it would have hurt...but my differences weren't that big of deal back then and I didn't have many bad days. I got to wonder what the young lady who was blind or the other who was confined to a wheelchair that I saw on campus from time to time might have felt.. Perhaps they had thicker skins because of so many more 'opportunities' to feel different than someone like me.

I am very grateful there is much more variety in appearance in our culture, both the Church and general, nowadays so I think it lessens the impact because not wearing makeup doesn't make one much different these days, but I would still never dismiss the possibility that there is a young woman who felt his words as a burden (or a young man) and as a society we need to be aware of and take care ourselves to speak carefully and gently educate others to do so as well.

PS: again I am not offended by the talk (somewhat frustrated yes and my gut reaction taking me back wasn't pleasant either). There is a difference between being offended and being aware of unintended consequences and wanting to avoid them. We should be careful not to assume they are the same.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Calm

[Tacenda]

I am not offended though I wish he hadn't used lipstick or said "it isn't that hard" or referred to women looking like men at the same time making that connection that makeup makes one more feminine.

I think if something like that had been said (as it was by local leaders at least) a few decades earlier when notwearing makeup was much less common in our culture, it would have been more hurtful because there are a number of women who shouldn't or can't wear makeup. They didn't have widely available or cheap makeup for those who had to avoid chemicals. Then there are those who have movement disorders or other reasons they lack the ability to put makeup on themselves and it becomes one more thing they are dependent on asking others to do for them. The "it isn't that hard" emphasizes what makes us (I can't wear lipstick at all and limited other forms) different when we already feel different, it is too hard for many women and given many in this situation are told in numerous ways that if we would just push ourselves a little or put up with a little discomfort we could accomplish what comes easy to most others when that isn't the truth and isn't even healthy for us to do it in the first place...well, if I had heard it in my younger days most of the time I would have just sighed and said to myself 'what else is new', but if it had been a bad day it would have hurt...but my differences weren't that big of deal back then and I didn't have many bad days. I got to wonder what the young lady who was blind or the other who was confined to a wheelchair that I saw on campus from time to time might have felt.. Perhaps they had thicker skins because of so many more 'opportunities' to feel different than someone like me.

I am very grateful there is much more variety in appearance in our culture, both the Church and general, nowadays so I think it lessens the impact because not wearing makeup doesn't make one much different these days, but I would still never dismiss the possibility that there is a young woman who felt his words as a burden (or a young man) and as a society we need to be aware of and take care ourselves to speak carefully and gently educate others to do so as well.

PS: again I am not offended by the talk (somewhat frustrated yes and my gut reaction taking me back wasn't pleasant either). There is a difference between being offended and being aware of unintended consequences and wanting to avoid them. We should be careful not to assume they are the same.

This in a nutshell. 

[Zakuska]

Well.... you can put more lipstick on a pig but that still won't make it fly. 

 

<kicks hornets nest and runs>

Edited October 28, 2015 by Zakuska

[Scott Lloyd]

Do we really expect people to date or marry someone they aren't attracted too though?  Elder Ballard is perpetuating a biological fact-your ability to marry someone is determined by your attractiveness to them.   

 

Do all men find lipstick attractive?  No of course not.  But I don't think any of us believe that Elder Ballard was being literal when he said that getting married was as simple as 'putting on lipstick'.  The theory behind the joke is sound-you've got to attract the opposite sex if you want to get married.   Put some effort into it.

 

It's cruel in some ways (biology typically is), but we can't wish it away just because it makes us uncomfortable.  

Does anyone seriously question the wisdom of making oneself as presentable as possible so as to optimize the pool from which one eventually selects a mate? The principle goes for men as well as for women. What is ridiculous is the furor over Elder Ballard's grandfatherly advice made to a friendly audience whom he loves and who love him and are not apt to make him an offender for a word as some obviously are in the social and mass media. I say, let them rage. He was not talking to them.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

I am not offended though I wish he hadn't used lipstick or said "it isn't that hard" or referred to women looking like men at the same time making that connection that makeup makes one more feminine.

I think if something like that had been said (as it was by local leaders at least) a few decades earlier when notwearing makeup was much less common in our culture, it would have been more hurtful because there are a number of women who shouldn't or can't wear makeup. They didn't have widely available or cheap makeup for those who had to avoid chemicals. Then there are those who have movement disorders or other reasons they lack the ability to put makeup on themselves and it becomes one more thing they are dependent on asking others to do for them. The "it isn't that hard" emphasizes what makes us (I can't wear lipstick at all and limited to ocassionally some other forms ) different when we already feel different, it is too hard for many women and given many in this situation are told in numerous ways that if we would just push ourselves a little or put up with a little discomfort we could accomplish what comes easy to most others when that isn't the truth and isn't even healthy for us to do it in the first place...well, if I had heard it in my younger days most of the time I would have just sighed and said to myself 'what else is new', but if it had been a bad day it would have hurt...but my differences weren't that big of deal back then and I didn't have many bad days. I got to wonder what the young lady who was blind or the other who was confined to a wheelchair that I saw on campus from time to time might have felt.. Perhaps they had thicker skins because of so many more 'opportunities' to feel different than someone like me.

I am very grateful there is much more variety in appearance in our culture, both the Church and general, nowadays so I think it lessens the impact because not wearing makeup doesn't make one much different these days, but I would still never dismiss the possibility that there is a young woman who felt his words as a burden (or a young man) and as a society we need to be aware of and take care ourselves to speak carefully and gently educate others to do so as well.

PS: again I am not offended by the talk (somewhat frustrated yes and my gut reaction taking me back wasn't pleasant either). There is a difference between being offended and being aware of unintended consequences and wanting to avoid them. We should be careful not to assume they are the same.

As ever, you have a wonderful grace in your ability to consume and respond to a wide variety of situations and themes.

[cinepro]

I thought he was just trying to clumsily channel a witty and forthright predecessor in Church leadership:

 

This city (Brigham City) looks like hell. You need to clean things up, mow the grass, paint your houses and barns. And you sisters, you could stand a little paint yourselves.

 

- J. Golden Kimball

[Jeanne]

One has to feel good about themselves to be of the best benefit to others...if a little lipstick helps..so be it.  Like a beard..goatee..or something for men it is an expression of themselves right?  This is silly..our insides are what matters.  I put lipstick on and it doesn't matter because it is off in an hour.  That being said, it make me feel complete before I walk out the door..

[Zakuska]

I thought he was just trying to clumsily channel a witty and forthright predecessor in Church leadership:

 

I wonder why the women don't get up in arms over Isaiah mocking their appearance.

 

16 The LORD said: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks, glancing wantonly with their eyes, mincing along as they go, tinkling with their feet,

17 therefore the Lord will strike with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will lay bare their secret parts. [ie Lady Parts]

18 In that day the Lord will take away the finery of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents;

19 the pendants, the bracelets, and the scarves;

20 the headdresses, the armlets, the sashes, the perfume boxes, and the amulets;

21 the signet rings and nose rings;

22 the festal robes, the mantles, the cloaks, and the handbags;

23 the mirrors, the linen garments, the turbans, and the veils.

24 Instead of perfume there will be rottenness; and instead of a belt, a rope; and instead of well-set hair, baldness; and instead of a rich robe, a skirt of sackcloth; and branding instead of beauty. (Isaiah 3:16-24 ESV)

Edited October 28, 2015 by Zakuska

[VideoGameJunkie]

Women nowadays wear lip gloss not lipstick. Get with the times.

[Buckeye]

To be fair, at least one Old Testament prophet reacted with extreme indignation when the local kids pointed out a deficiency in his appearance:

 

 

23 And he went up from thence unto Beth-el: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

 

 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

 

Man, Elisha sure had thin skin. Too bad his culture was so PC. Kids couldn't say anything those days without offending the old farts. Hopefully, today, Elder Oaks would react better if someone asked him "what's up baldo?" 

[Buckeye]

And since we're all cool with judging women's appearance now, it's worth pointing out that Sister Ballard appears to be compliant with her husband's directive. 

 

I still think she could do a little better job sprucing herself up, though. I mean, c'mon. Would it be so hard to dye your hair once in awhile? Men don't expect their wives to be attractive only on their wedding day.

 

 

 

 

[stemelbow]

Does anyone seriously question the wisdom of making oneself as presentable as possible so as to optimize the pool from which one eventually selects a mate? The principle goes for men as well as for women.

What is presenting oneself as presentable as possible? Why not get boob jobs because to some that might be considered making one as presentable as possible? The other side of it is, of course, women are very presentable without lipstick. At least as I see it. I didn't ask my wife out because she was wearing lipstick. Not even sure any men notices that, to be honest.

What is ridiculous is the furor over Elder Ballard's grandfatherly advice made to a friendly audience whom he loves and who love him and are not apt to make him an offender for a word as some obviously are in the social and mass media. I say, let them rage. He was not talking to them.

Well no one can deny that many single women of the Church have felt left out and disrespected. It's hard to love everyone and there are always exceptions, I guess.

With that said, I will clarify I don't hold it against him too much. I think it a little classless, but how is he supposed to know that?

[bluebell]

And since we're all cool with judging women's appearance now, it's worth pointing out that Sister Ballard appears to be compliant with her husband's directive.

I still think she could do a little better job sprucing herself up, though. I mean, c'mon. Would it be so hard to dye your hair once in awhile? Men don't expect their wives to be attractive only on their wedding day.

I'm guessing it is dyed, since its blonde and not grey.

But if elder Ballard had public denigrated a specific woman's appearance, your comparison might have been valid.