Adam is the Lord over the earth in the temple, is my husband my Lord on earth?

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the problem is that we have no way to interpret most scripture from a woman's point of view. 

I was reading the book of Ezra last week and one of the chapters was really frustrating.  In chapter 10, Ezra is lamenting that the Israelites had begun to take spouses from nonbelievers (basically pagans).  Both Israelite men and women were guilty of this offense (which they had specifically been told not to do previously).

Ezra's solution to this sin is to make all the men swear to abandon their non member wives (even if they have children by them).  As a woman, this is incredibly difficult to read on a few different levels.  

1)  I'm guessing that abandoned women, in the culture of the era, were pretty low on the totem pole.  No way to support themselves, no property, and disgraced.  2)  That these 'righteous' men could do this so easily implies that they saw their wives as little more than property.  3)  No Israelite women were asked to give up their non member husbands.  Apparently they don't actually matter to Ezra or to God.  

But all of this isn't that bad to acknowledge knowing that the bible is probably not the most trustworthy document when it comes to understanding God's dealings with His daughters.  However, none of the lesson manuals dealing with Ezra even attempt to talk about the situation.  It's a nonissue was far as the church correlation committee is concerned.  So i'm left with what is presented as an important event in the bible with no way to interpret it other than that God does not care about women (which i don't believe).

I don't blame the church and I don't blame men.  I think it's an example of where the gospel message, as it has been presented in the past, is falling short for women.  I don't believe that that is how God wants it.  There is so much more to understand, but putting our heads in the sand and pretending that there isn't doesn't help anything.

 

And a clap!  

[Bobbieaware]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And a clap!  

The first line of the post you quote here is utterly ridiculous. It seems the spirit of modern feminism that's creeped it's way into the thinking of some in the Church is as a corrupting poison that undermines the revealed word of God. What does a believing member, who's nonetheless been corrupted by feminist thinking, not understand about the following very well-known scriptural verse of promise from the Book of Mormon? Is not all of this nonsense that invalidates the solemn promises of God the very definition of sophistry?

 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

 5 AND BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY GHOST YE MAY KNOW THE TRUTH OF ALL THINGS. (Moroni 10)

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

The first line of the post you quote here is utterly ridiculous.

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't disagree with what you have said and I suspect we think similarly on most things.  

Though the issue about complaining about a picture of just men in a meeting or even one of just women does not indicate that something is wrong.  It does not reveal who is on their staff, from where they have received input and how things are moving forward.  

Some of the most stable civilizations in earths history were not ones where proportional representation was present.  Leaders and good ideas are what has always worked and those don't have a gender.  

A true home does not exist without a mother in it. I think the same could be said for a community.  Influences of both male and female should be involved.  

I'm glad we have space of agreement

Without knowing much about this picture or the article critiquing it, my guess is that it's not JUST about the picture but an endemic problem that's still here today. I remember seeing a similar picture of almost all (if not all men) on a sub-committee that was focused on some reproductive rights legislation. It was comically painful to see men discussing an issue to would mostly effect women. That picture, is unfortunately not a fluke of picking at random from a qualified representatives. And having supportive staff for input is not enough. The decision making will come down to the ones in charge and if women to not have a direct seat in this it means their opinions and perspectives will remain merely optional rather than essential.

As for stable societies....yes there have been those that didn't have proportional representation....ie. the vast majority of societies up into today and only recently have there been countries that have fairly equitable governing bodies. There have also been very stable societies with caste systems and built of a conquer and slavery structure. Their structure is generally not considered desirable today. To me that it is way oversimplified and not what I necessarily meant by stability/peace. I was meaning moreso a society I would desire to live in and that would be desirable and give the greatest allowance of people to reach their potential/capacities. As a woman, there are few to none that I would contemplate living in before this era. As a brown woman especially, I scratch my head when people dream for the 1950's or more "simpler" times and what have you. Minus problems with disease, women's place was largely less than desirable at just about every era in major civilizations. Where 50% of the population were vulnerable to subjugation, abuse, and entrapment....and often just weren't heard or seen, it isn't my personal ideal for a society. An ideal for me, should entail more proportional representation in decision making.

 

With luv,

BD

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

....... I was meaning moreso a society I would desire to live in and that would be desirable and give the greatest allowance of people to reach their potential/capacities. As a woman, there are few to none that I would contemplate living in before this era. As a brown woman especially, I scratch my head when people dream for the 1950's or more "simpler" times and what have you. Minus problems with disease, women's place was largely less than desirable at just about every era in major civilizations. Where 50% of the population were vulnerable to subjugation, abuse, and entrapment....and often just weren't heard or seen, it isn't my personal ideal for a society. An ideal for me, should entail more proportional representation in decision making.

 

With luv,

BD

Ah, now we come to the crux of the matter.  The dream of the society/structure/community is just that; a dream.  I think we all can think of a Utopian society that we think would be superior to our own.  Yet, I honestly suspect that the reality of those dreams are unrealistic, unworkable, and would not yield the results we desire.

Yeah, I don't buy that argument or projection that the entire 50% of the population were all abused, etc.  There is an old saying, "When momma ain't happy ain't nobody happy".  A man may be head of the house, but Mother always rules the home.  That is the way my family ran and I suspect it did for most of the people in my community.  There was always the token tip of the hat to Dad as being head of the house, but Dad did exactly what mother told him to do or his life would be hell until such time as he arrived at the same position as mom.  

It seems most of the time when I hear a feminist wax eloquent on her idea of an ideal society the first thing that is thrown out the door is the whole concept of motherhood and femininity.  I know some men that are enrolled into that dream society.  I just reject it as completely against almost everything that seems to have worked to make a civil society.  Further, I think it is at complete odds with the purpose of this life.  

Explain how a feminist operates where children are still raised by their parents in a healthy environment.  This is wear it falls down because that does not exist because the wife and mother is dedicated to self-actualization and the children are raised by daycare workers, who are more often than not uneducated women.  Where do those women obtain their self-actualization?  Why are they paid so cheaply?  There is a world of difference being raised by a paid employee and a mother.

Yes, abuse has happened and it will continue to happen.  It happens because we are human and people choose poorly at times - both male and female.  

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

 There is an old saying, "When momma ain't happy ain't nobody happy".  A man may be head of the house, but Mother always rules the home.  That is the way my family ran and I suspect it did for most of the people in my community.  There was always the token tip of the hat to Dad as being head of the house, but Dad did exactly what mother told him to do or his life would be hell until such time as he arrived at the same position as mom.  

 

I am not claiming that your father did things this way, but in my experience the vast majority of men who made this claim about their family's dynamic were just as good or better at imposing their own desires on how the family was run, many times just by arranging to be absent when their presence was necessary for a project of the mother's to be achieved or claiming that funds weren't available while the reverse happened for what they saw as important.

And an unhappy father will lead to a disruptive home environment as often as an unhappy mother, from what I've seen.  The big difference is that the father removes himself from the home so it is his absence that causes waves as opposed to mothers who didn't have that option and thus family had to deal with her unhappiness more often directly.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Calm

[saemo]

On 1/4/2016 at 4:28 PM, Calm said:

Studies consistently for decades have shown that men and women approach discussions, needs, etc. from a different point of view so your rejection, if I understand it correctly, isn't backed by science.

Biased.

Similar bias occurred in anthropology, where for decades it was taught at college level that women were gatherers, homemakers, caregivers, while the men were hunters and protectors. This was a bias of the majority male field, and has been shown to be exactly what it is. A bias.

ALL people approach discussions, needs, etc from a different POV, and there are now groupings of approaches that place both men and women in the same groups. These old stereotypes are out.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markmurphy/2015/08/06/which-of-these-4-communication-styles-are-you/

Edited January 7, 2016 by saemo

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Ah, now we come to the crux of the matter.  The dream of the society/structure/community is just that; a dream.  I think we all can think of a Utopian society that we think would be superior to our own.  Yet, I honestly suspect that the reality of those dreams are unrealistic, unworkable, and would not yield the results we desire.

I actually hesitated to write up a more specific "ideal" because I don't think one system of governance need be better or worse nor do I proclaim to have an exact answer of what it would look like. But it's in no way a pipe dream. There are already societies that have existed and exist today that I have greater gender parity. None of these are "perfect" per se, but plenty would be agreeable to me. There have also been anthropological studies/reports of "rapeless" cultures, where sexual abuse was large unheard of and  they as well had a system that would indicate a gender essentialism where what both men and women brought to the community was equally pragmatically valued in/for decisions in their community. So no it's not some dream of a utopian love-fest in my head. It is merely a hope and a desire that the world will be a slightly better place for both my daughters and my sons. And having greater representation of women in government among other goals for parity is not a pipe-dream but a growing realityin several nations.

Quote

Yeah, I don't buy that argument or projection that the entire 50% of the population were all abused, etc.  There is an old saying, "When momma ain't happy ain't nobody happy".  A man may be head of the house, but Mother always rules the home.  That is the way my family ran and I suspect it did for most of the people in my community.  There was always the token tip of the hat to Dad as being head of the house, but Dad did exactly what mother told him to do or his life would be hell until such time as he arrived at the same position as mom.  

I never said that all were abused but that the likelihood of abuse will increase where women's roles are limited and social attitudes have a permissive environment to abuse. I am glad tht your household sounds relatively caring. But for many that quote doesn't play out. Not even that it's false.....I just literally doesn't fit the experience. It's like saying milk is good for you and fortifies your bones to someone who's lactose intolerant or explaining colors to a blind person. I have seen several cases now of some form of abuse and seen some difficulties when reporting it. The u.s. is generally somewhere in the middle with gender issues. Not terrible, but certainly not a standard bearer. And UT, where  work, maintains cultural attitudes and social structures that make it difficult. It's not that abuse will never happen in more progressive or women-friendly societies. Just that it's less likely to happen and that when it does there are more resources to acknowledge and stop it.   I've seen that in my own family who are extremely conservative and grew up in a rural conservative area. MY grandma, despite being valedictorian in HS, dropped out of college when she married...because that was the ideal in her era. When her husband died

She quickly married again choosing a spouse that was also widowed in part because religious culture at the time wouldn’t want a new husband to be denied being sealed. When it came out that her husband was sexually abusing some of the children, she had been married for years with several young children. She had no work experience outside the home. Her extended family was strained as it was. She would be screwed and that’s without the social ramifications of divorcing in a time and culture where that was bad. So they kept it quiet. He went discreetly into the repentance process because at that era it wasn’t necessary to report sexual misconduct of minors to the police…the laws and programs of that era were also not likely to help in said case. So she swallowed her feelings and had several more children and maintained strict rules for her many many daughters to keep them safe from their father.

The decisions she made weren’t a fluke but a collaboration of social and structural norms that enabled abuse and maintained silence over it for decades. Luckily, in part because of feminists…or simply listening more to women, many of these circumstances have changed….but it’s certainly not entirely healed. In almost all the abusive relationships I’ve witnessed in therapy (or other’s therapy) have entailed cultural norms/beliefs around gender that enabled it….and not just for women (though it disproportionately affected women). Men also suffered from strict gender rules that often crippled their capacity to heal or live in healthy marriages/relationships. And it’s these things that are the backdrop for what I mentioned.  

 

Quote

 

It seems most of the time when I hear a feminist wax eloquent on her ia of an ideal society the first thing that is thrown out the door is the whole concept of motherhood and femininity.  I know some men that are enrolled into that dream society.  I just reject it as completely against almost everything that seems to have worked to make a civil society.  Further, I think it is at complete odds with the purpose of this life. 

Again, storm rider….you’re fighting windmills. As a feminist, lds, and a sex therapist I revel in my femininity. There is not one part of me that doesn’t value my female body and the gift of the perspective I’ve had in being woman. I desire to be a mother with all the fiber of my being. My feminist views have not cancelled my femininity….but may have slightly redefined it from some traditional perspectives. I am not demure…and thought I give it is with a careful knowledge of my limitations. Not one aspect entirely defines me, but all parts of my life I work to find balance to best express myself in the way that I see fit. That way is often different from many LDS women and certainly from non-LDS women, but it is made through a personal relationship with God.  

Quote

 

Explain how a feminist operates where children are still raised by their parents in a healthy environment.  This is wear it falls down because that does not exist because the wife and mother is dedicated to self-actualization and the children are raised by daycare workers, who are more often than not uneducated women.  Where do those women obtain their self-actualization?  Why are they paid so cheaply?  There is a world of difference being raised by a paid employee and a mother.

Yes, abuse has happened and it will continue to happen.  It happens because we are human and people choose poorly at times - both male and female.  

 

I  would use my Cousin for an example. She is intelligent and chose a husband who matched her well. They carefully decided when to start having children based by both prayer and their own discussions…her decision was truly their own. She’s raising her little child with the help/support of relatives and the coordination with her husband as she attends law school. She plans to work and have a fairly large family. And though she doesn’t have all the answers today, nor is everything perfect, the experience is one of thoughtful decisions and balancing her needs and desires with her husbands (as he mutually does as well) and what their son needs. Their household is happy, healthy and good. And she is definitely a feminist. It’s a myth that feminists, in the pursuit of “self-actualization” forgo their families, children, and/or relationships to do so.

 

It is also a myth that abuse is just about individual choices. I have never met an abusive family system in such an individualistic vacuum

 

With luv,

BD

 

[Tacenda]

Wow, no words!  You BD, and the other feminists on this board, rock!!

[Storm Rider]

 I don't know so much that we disagree, but that we are talking past each other.  I don't and never have condoned sexual abuse in any relationship.  A father/husband absenting himself is just as bad as a mother/wife using varied ways to make her husband's life a living hell.  When speaking of ideals the first thing that needs to be acknowledged is that both parties in a marriage are at fault for the shortcomings rather than that trite, overused accusation, it is the terrible, evil man.  I have met just as many evil women as I have evil men - no single gender is angelic by nature.

The story of your cousin sounds like the superwoman - not only is she going to excel in college, have a full-time professional career, but she is also going to be a mother of a large family.  Do you really think this is a model all women can follow and flourish within?  It sounds like a model for destruction of relationships because no single human is capable of making it work well.  Something has to give and it is most often the children and the spouse.  

In our home each of our children were encouraged and each understood very early that they would go to university and graduate.  Education was important to us.  It was a common topic in the home.  At one time we were strong supporters of public education, but when we observed a son being ignored by his teacher and punished for being a boy, we changed to another public school.  Eventually our children went to private school beginning in the seventh grade and we should have acted sooner.  We became advocates of private schools.  Each of our children graduated from college.

Just as important is that each of our children learned how to run a home.  They each learned how to cook, clean, and run a budget.  They are each excellent cooks and can cook as well or better than their spouses.  It will be interesting to see our daughter's choice when she has children.  I suspect she will, for at least the early years of childhood, stay home to raise the child, but it is choice she and her husband will have to made when the time comes.  

I find most of the girls to day cannot boil water much less actually cook a meal.  The art of running a home is fast becoming unknown to most youth.  All of the data I read is not about how girls have a problem with education; boys seem to have been gifted an educational system that fails them.  How times change, but when you focus almost exclusively on one gender for several decades in a row it is not surprising that ignored gender begins to exhibit problems.  Now the torturous choice, and I suspect fear from those who pushed this agenda, is that boys will somehow be aided, the focus will change, and the silly circle will continue.  For the life of me I cannot understand why both genders cannot be supported rather than aiding one at the expense of the other.

I remain a advocate that the family is the fundamental unit of a civil society - by family I mean a mother and father.  Yes, I support that a mother should be in the home, but that does not negate the need for higher education or for another career when the time comes.  I am not prepared to through the baby out with the bathwater or attempt to inspire men and women to become super people and make them think they can do everything without consequences for others and themselves.  

[Tacenda]

Very good points Storm...I guess it's hard for women to have both, like the men.  And it may be like the blacks, a lot of people think there's now racism against white people for the same reasons, the blacks having been abused and more concentration on fixing or making up for.  As you said with the situation with your son and his teacher's treatment because he's a boy, she was concentrating on the girls too much maybe. Maybe it will all even out eventually.  

And btw, I know of LDS men that push for their wives to get a job, and even put their children in day care.  Strange phenomenon, maybe the men don't want all the burden of providing financially.  It's a tough situation, I do know of girls that don't know how to cook or sew etc.  But maybe their strengths are elsewhere, does it always have to be domestic?  But I'm old enough, that I do see that the mother staying home with the children is a good thing.  And there's a lot of LDS women that make it work to where they are doing less the domestic and throwing  in other things they like too. Or I know young women and mothers that love the domestic and thrive on that too.   

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

 I don't know so much that we disagree, but that we are talking past each other.  I don't and never have condoned sexual abuse in any relationship.  A father/husband absenting himself is just as bad as a mother/wife using varied ways to make her husband's life a living hell.  When speaking of ideals the first thing that needs to be acknowledged is that both parties in a marriage are at fault for the shortcomings rather than that trite, overused accusation, it is the terrible, evil man.  I have met just as many evil women as I have evil men - no single gender is angelic by nature.  

Yes we are definitely talking past each other. In my last post I am specifically talking about contributing cultural and structural factors that permit sexual abuse. I know you're not a advocate for sexual abuse.....basically no one in the U.S. does (out loud). And yet it happens and it happens a lot. As a feminist, I see these cultural and often gendered expectations lead to rigid behaviors within families and individuals that can maintain abusive situations. That is my point.   

The underlined is an example of where I'm scratching my head because I have no idea how the points I made even relate to this. I never made an accusation about terrible, evil men. And this ideal, from a therapeutic stance, does not apply well to relationships where one partner was/is abusive in some way.

Quote

 

The story of your cousin sounds like the superwoman - not only is she going to excel in college, have a full-time professional career, but she is also going to be a mother of a large family.  Do you really think this is a model all women can follow and flourish within?  It sounds like a model for destruction of relationships because no single human is capable of making it work well.  Something has to give and it is most often the children and the spouse.  

 

It may also help, in understanding my points to not overgeneralize or see them so black and white. Because of it, the dialogue keeps shifting to points that I never came close to meaning. The example of my cousin wasn't there as a model for all mothers. It was in response to explaining how "a feminist operates where children are still raised by their parents in a healthy environment"...the assumption being that the family suffers because mom's a feminist. I gave you an example where this isn't the case. My only model is found in how she made her decisions not in her actual choices....she made these decisions jointly and in partnership with her spouse. She thought carefully about each step she's made finding a balance that was congruent with both who she is as a person, what her family needs, and jointly with her husband and who he is. She had the assertiveness and capacity to make flexible decisions and at times ones that may not be proscribed by cultural/social expectations or even some of her preconceived beliefs. And she did so while seeking and working with her higher power to guide and direct her as well. My personal feminist ideal isn't a picture of super mom, but a greater number of women who feel they have the capacity to make decisions, assert themselves in a healthy manner, and have relationships that have both health boundaries and flexibility in the system. I don't think any final decision as to how to run their family as a couple, who works and where/when, etc should be THE model for other families to follow.    

Quote

In our home each of our children were encouraged and each understood very early that they would go to university and graduate.  Education was important to us.  It was a common topic in the home.  At one time we were strong supporters of public education, but when we observed a son being ignored by his teacher and punished for being a boy, we changed to another public school.  Eventually our children went to private school beginning in the seventh grade and we should have acted sooner.  We became advocates of private schools.  Each of our children graduated from college.

I'm not exactly sure of the point with this one....I have 8 bros all together and they range drastically in their education as well as how they received it. 1 bro and 1 sis attend a private school and the sister is still doing slightly better than the brother. I don't know if any of them were ever punished for "being a boy" and the educational success had more to do with a range of social, individual, and familial factors that weren't really tied to the point you observed. .  

Quote

 

I find most of the girls to day cannot boil water much less actually cook a meal.  The art of running a home is fast becoming unknown to most youth.  All of the data I read is not about how girls have a problem with education; boys seem to have been gifted an educational system that fails them.  How times change, but when you focus almost exclusively on one gender for several decades in a row it is not surprising that ignored gender begins to exhibit problems.  Now the torturous choice, and I suspect fear from those who pushed this agenda, is that boys will somehow be aided, the focus will change, and the silly circle will continue.  For the life of me I cannot understand why both genders cannot be supported rather than aiding one at the expense of the other.

 

What majority of girls are you talking about that can't boil water? I haven't met her. To date I've known exactly one girl who I would say her cooking skills were marginal. And how do these points tie back to feminism?   Again I'm a feminist...and also a very good cook (not as much with baking and it's vegetarian cuisine....you know, got to maintain my feminist appearance ).

Quote

I remain a advocate that the family is the fundamental unit of a civil society - by family I mean a mother and father.  Yes, I support that a mother should be in the home, but that does not negate the need for higher education or for another career when the time comes.  I am not prepared to through the baby out with the bathwater or attempt to inspire men and women to become super people and make them think they can do everything without consequences for others and themselves.

I agree that the family is the fundamental unit of a civil society. My ideal is a wife and husband working together to make the best decisions for their family circumstances and individual needs/desires...these would be mutually balanced and weighed and then decided on as partners. I recognize and lived a different reality from this ideal and pragmatically I would rather families find good functioning and support when an ideal structure is unlikely or impossible. I have never advocated for super people. I'm an advocate for a supportive social structure that allows for more flexible decision-making for families and women in particular who can disproportionately feel the pressure to choose their family, husband, or children over themselves in a way that men don't feel pressured to. No one can do everything. 

 

With luv,

BD