The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood

[Rain]

My husband is 6'5" and has broad shoulders. He is a big softy most of the time, but people who don't know him don't realize that. At times I will see a smaller person, especially women, shrink back when talking to him. I'll put my arm around his waist and kind of move him backwards a little. Amazing what that does to the person talking to him and how much better conversation goes. He appreciates when I do this because he doesn't want to be intimidating. Funny, because he hasn't lost any ground in the conversation. He gains it because the person listens to him better than they would while feeling intimidated even while he did nothing to intimidate.

The way you come across often Smac is like a 6'5" man. Often I agree with your points, but I sometimes feel beaten by them. I get why Jana felt like she did while agreeing with nearly everything you said. You came into her "house" in a way that she felt atacked. So what that it is public. What did you want to accompish? That she was missing something in the meetings and help her and others understand? Or to make her feel intimidated by your 6'5" tall, wide shouldered body? 

Julian is just telling some men to back up buddy. We want to converse with you about something close to our heart. If you step back and listen we can get somewhere.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Rain

[BlueDreams]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm still not seeing the irony.  It is grossly hypocritical (that's the better word, really) for a woman to strike a man and feel justified in doing so because she is less capable of inflicting serious injury.  If, as a general rule, it is morally wrong for Person A to physically assault Person B, then that rule ought not be modified with "unless, of course, Person A is a woman and Person B is a man, then it's not quite as bad, since women generally aren't as 'dangerous' in their physical assaults as men."I know you don't insert that caveat, and I appreciate that.  But some do, hence the hypocrisy.

I'm about to go on my weekly hike, so I'll keep this relatively short (of course each time I say that I quite often fail).  

The irony for me is in the assumption that physical abuse is on the same playing field. It's just not. It's not just more dangerous the reasons behind physical abuse from men v. women can differ greatly. And since I don't put that caveat in there, I won't address that other point. No one here is stating that so it vaguely feels like building a strawman (looking out my window, it's probably closer to a snowman today).   

Quote

 

I think you are only illustrating my point.  I said nothing that had anything to do with Jana's gender.  Not.  One.  Word.  I have had hundreds of strongly-worded discussions with men online about my faith, but I have never once been accused of misandry.  I am, or can be, very blunt in my online comments.  Sometimes I struggle with that, sometimes I feel more at ease with it.  Overall I should probably be a bit lighter in tone, but if so that would apply to all my communications.  Regardless of the gender of the person reading them.  But your comments above seem to demonstrate the very expectation of deference I spoke of earlier.....

Jana resorted to accusing me of sexism without cause.  She did so, I think, because she wanted to short circuit discussion.  Or perhaps she lacked a substantive response to my comments.  Or because she was offended that I, a man, chose not to treat her remarks with sufficient deference and respect which should arise from those remarks having been written by a woman.  

 

 

 

 

I cannot think of a better response than what Rain said. That's exactly what it looked like from what I saw. If anyone else is interested here is the link: http://janariess.religionnews.com/2013/03/08/mormonism-and-the-boring-sacrament-meeting-revisited/

And this strongly worded discussion set up a false dichotomy...one where Jana's comments were attacking the church or trying to tear it down and you were at the defense of said church. It also smoothed over any complaints or problem or sense that sacrament is boring at times as an individual default/problem. 

Quote

 

When I am making written or oral arguments in court as an attorney, I do not alter my arguments or pull my rhetorical punches when opposing counsel is a woman.  I hold her to the same standard as I hold men.  That's not a flaw.  I do not err by not matching her "tone" or because my remarks are "patronizing" or because I use "value laden words."  Here's the thing: I also sometimes don't match the "tone" of remarks made by men, either.  But that doesn't make me guilty of misandry, does it?  So it is when and if I fail to comport with the "tone" of something written by a woman.  My remarks may be characterized as being "patronizing" (honestly, I can see this) or as using "value laden words" (no idea what this means).  But none of this has anything to do with gender.  

 

This isn't a court...and there are definitely concerns in law when it comes to treatment of women in trials that are well known problems (think rape cases)....there's also problems with law practices being women/family friendly that are also well known. 

As it is, i'm not a lawyer, I'm a therapist and changing tone/collaborative therapy is an absolute must. If I want people to come to a better understanding of themselves and to move forward in better health it means meeting them at their level and working with them as partners. When I don't, therapy often is less effective and I can lose the client....or worse they'll passively agree with me and i'll have problems with "resistance" to change in therapy. Along with that we are taught to acknowledge cultural/gender blindspots. I see them all the time in therapy and because of my sense of anomaly and minority in a White, LDS context....often these areas would come up more so because I indicated openness to truly hear them.

 The point is, without meaning to, your approach at times can shut down dialogue and leave people in the defensive. Jana  is a little much at times, for my cup of herbal tea....but her audience is probably on the more liberal end of things who are just fine with acknowledging there's problems in our religious structures or there may be better ways of doing things. You went into her house and went about accusing her of being full of it, her relatively innocuous suggestion was somehow attacking the church, and maintained a very rigid and analytical style that generally dismissed the concerns. The people she's talking to are often ones who already have struggles/pain from a system that could be polarizing, dismissive, and abrasive to even the hint of change and is male dominated. You're literally embodying that as you pick apart her suggestion as not only wrong, naiive/misinformed, and maligning the church....And you're a man. I'm not saying that the analysis by Jana was spot on, but i also don't think it is as out of the blue as you may feel it was. 

Quote

 

I do not offer "token expressions of deference and respect" to women in social settings as a band-aid.  But even if I were to do so, how is that a bad thing?  Couldn't the offering of such tokens be construed as a sort of extrapolated utilization of the "Broken Windows Theory"?  Here's a summary of that theory:

Similarly, what if we were to come up with a "Modern Chivalry Theory," where a norm-setting and signaling effect is established by encouraging men and boys to reinvigorate and adopt a few old-fashioned traditions, such as referring to women and girls as "Ma'am" or "Miss" ("Good morning, ma'am, how are you?"), standing when they enter or leave a room (in formal settings), and opening doors for them and letting them enter first (most settings)?  Might such token expressions of deference help create an atmosphere of decorum where women feel valued and respected?  Might these expressions also help reduce/prevent more serious expressions of gender-based misconduct?

 

It didn't work well in the 1800's when women were more overtly/systemically 2nd class citizens....so i'm going to say no.  

Quote

I don't understand this.  "Respect" is not a tangible thing.  It is an attitude which must be demonstrated.  So for me, I often demonstrate/express that attitude by saying and doing things that convey it, particularly by using old-fashioned - and therefore easily recognized - expressions of respect and deference.

 

Respect is tangible though it may not be one specific act. But let me explain an experience that I flash back to when this comes up. I remember being in YW's and from time to time a man (bishop or counselor) would come in to talk to us, about us. He would overflow with praise for how amazing and pure and good us YW were. Often there may be a short glib comment about us being better than the young men in some way (always a different spirit in the room/at camp/wherever, compared to our male counterpart). They would talk about how important we were to God and what not. I cannot count how many talks, sermons, and lessons I've heard that have something of this line....and yet as a YW especially, my service in the church was limited. I had one calling in the YW's and two talks given and beyond that there wasn't much I was called to do in the ward. Boys were constantly doing things. Our purpose was later, wrapped up in imagining weddings and engagements and babies. Education was discussed as needed because you never know what may happen to our husbands. As an adult, all of my choices were questioned at least once because I was a woman. Master's degree may get in the way dating and ergo marriage. Missions weren't necessary for women, maybe you should think twice/thrice about it (my own uncertatinty at first was enabled by my bishop). Etc. Just this winter I went home and heard from my 14 and 16 year old brother about a helping hands project to clean up some tornado debri. I went because I wanted to serve. My mother questioned if I should since it was a "priesthood" thing. When I got there most of the workers were young men/boys and their Young Men's leaders because they hadn't thought to ask the YW. Minus me, there were sister missionaries, someone's wife, and their daughter. The only woman there for church duty was a photographer. 

With or without meaning to the message church culture can promotes that's been stated in one way or another is that women are amazing and best utilized as supporting their men and assistant/indirect roles. 

I have been on dates with several men. Some were more chivalrous than others. The ones excessively so were usually embarrassing to me. The one I end up with the most opens no doors for me. But he has been supportive and respected each choice that I've made, however gender non-conforming it is.

I don't care about how many doors you or any man opens to me. I care more that you're not in my way when I choose doors women often don't go through.  

Quote

 

Again, I don't get this.  Verbal abuse is

a very bad thing.  A viable antidote can be found in both abstaining from abusive language and replacing it with respectful language.  But you seem to dismiss this latter part as "a glorified band-aid."

I appreciate and agree with your sentiments, though I'm not sure what you mean by "specific issues that disproportionately affect" women, such that women should be given "more deference" about them.  I don't necessarily dispute that such issues exist, or that deference about them should be afforded.  I just don't know specifically what you have in mind.

 

Out of time, so quickly: Emotional abuse is more insidious than abusive language. It can include things like gaslighting, which may include little to no derogatory language. Respectful language doesn't fix this.

 And for specific issues that disproportionately effect women off the top of my head (LDS or not): Education, access to decision making positions, abuse (all forms), rape, gender discrimination/difficulties in the office, sexual voice/concerns, victim blaming etc. And before you say that men have issues with these, know that I agree....but stats indicate women are disproportionately affected by all of these.

 

Time to find a mountain to climb!

With luv,

BD

Edited February 7, 2016 by BlueDreams

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Again, women can't have it both ways.  They cannot present their views in a public forum and expect that those views be put on equal footing with the views of men (a sentiment I wholeheartedly endorse), but then turn around and expect deferential and privileged treatment for their views simply because those views come from women.  If an idea has merit, then let it be demonstrated, not presumed because of the gender of the idea's presenter.

 

Exactly.  And as i questioned Smac earlier, I don't think men can have it both ways either.

If women some how deserve deference in some situations merely because of their gender, then they deserve deference in every situation (because they are female in every situation).  If women don't warrant deference in communication, then they probably don't warrant having men stand up when they enter a room either. 

 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Exactly.  And as i questioned Smac earlier, I don't think men can have it both ways either.

If women some how deserve deference in some situations merely because of their gender, then they deserve deference in every situation (because they are female in every situation).  If women don't warrant deference in communication, then they probably don't warrant having men stand up when they enter a room either. 

But that's just old-fashioned good manners.

Insisting that men treat flawed arguments, false claims or bad ideas coming from women with deference because the speakers are women, when they would presumably be free to challenge those very same flawed arguments, false claims or bad ideas if they came from men, is something rather insidious.

[why me]

I think that it would be interesting to see just how a woman bishop would handle sexual sins and the confessions from men. And how lds men would feel confessing such sins to a woman. I am sure that there may be a problem with this. I was talking about it with a couple of lds men and they were not too sure about it. They both saw a problem with it. I would think that it would take some getting use to.

But then again, it must not be easy for a woman either to confess such sins to a man.

Edited February 6, 2016 by why me

[Zakuska]

Intresting.

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

But that's just old-fashioned good manners.

Insisting that men treat flawed arguments, false claims or bad ideas coming from women with deference because the speakers are women, when they would presumably be free to challenge those very same flawed arguments, false claims or bad ideas if they came from men, is something rather insidious.

Why is it good manners to give deference to women under some circumstances, but insidious to do so in other circumstances?  And maybe more importantly, who get's to decide where the line is?  

My issue with where you and Smac and a lot of really great guys put that line is that those kinds of good manners (holding doors, etc.) don't actually mean anything (i've seen a man hold open a door for a woman, and then treat her like absolute crap when talking to her later) and they don't really cost those who follow them anything, so they present an opportunity to outwardly show that women deserve respect from men without having to actually treat women with respect.  

I will know much more whether or not a man respects women by listening to how he speaks to women and how he speaks about women, than i will ever know from watching whether he holds doors or calls them ma'am.

[juliann]

Rain, that is a beautiful metaphor, I will be using that. And this says it all, BD "I don't care about how many doors you or any man opens to me. I care more that you're not in my way when I choose doors women often don't go through. "  And BB "I will know much more whether or not a man respects women by listening to how he speaks to women and how he speaks about women, than i will ever know from watching whether he holds doors or calls them ma'am."

It always amazes me when faithful women are treated like anti-Mormons because there is a growing awareness of how communication styles hold them back. Typical of the old style apologetics, some will make the women offenders for a word, talk to them rudely, overwhelm them with pages of objections based on nothing but their personal preferences. And again, this supports the research on how men dominate in deliberative groups, giving each other twice as much positive feedback, and only seeing ideas as credible if they are picked up by another man after being expressed by a woman. Yes, evidence based. Some women also become excised when their evidence based behavior attributed to their gender is brought up. Many don't like the church emphasis on women's "natures". The problem is, however, that these natures are actually supported by secular research. But because these kinds of discussions are assigned to "women's issues" they don't break out into the "real" dialogue that is rarely about women.

It makes me wonder what is at stake for men who fight the research (and I'm only using one book!). Why in the world would a rational person consider it a personal loss if half of the population is elevated to their status, a status they have not personally earned, BTW. And I am talking about the baggage that people carry (or don't) before deliberation even begins. Women, statistically, enter the conversation with low status and less confidence which creates less influence. The more they react to being interrupted, given much more negative feedback than men get, and all of the other cultural characteristics that are now being examined, the less influence they do have. It is a downward cycle. And we see here that when women do start taking on what are considered male characteristics (which all leadership qualities are) the negative feedback will increase. We do have an advantage online because the only way to "interrupt" is to painfully and wordily dissect a post line by line which we often see. But that carries a risk of TL;DR.

All of the research points to women's unique input improving male dominated domains. Even the Church is slowly recognizing that. I'm not sure what to say to men who object or obstruct....or consider giving women the same seat at the same table to be "deference." Wow.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm confused by some things Smac and maybe you can clarify.

You spoke in a previous post about how you like to show (and have even taught your sons to show) deference to women in certain physical situations (such as opening doors, standing when they leave or enter a room, etc.).  You said that you believe that treating women with that deference is a good thing, an important way to interact with them to show them respect and to encourage respect for women in others.

In everyday social environments, yes.

Quote

But in this section above you talk about how women do not deserve any deference when it comes to actually communicating with them.  

Not quite.  In an adversarial rhetorical discussion, I don't think gender should be part of the equation.  Men and women can be, and therefore should be, on equal rhetorical footing.  This is different from, say, a physical altercation, in which men as a category have more upper body strength, more height and weight, and so on.

Think about other adversarial contexts.  We differentiate the sexes in sporting contests, right?  That's because in most types of sport, men have more strength, speed, endurance, and so on.  This is simple biological fact.  So we segregate.  Male boxers do not typically compete with female boxers.  There aren't any female players in the NBA or the NFL.

But what about other adversarial contexts?  Do women receive any deference in, say, the courtroom as an attorney?  High school or college debate teams?  Political debates?  Nope.  Why?  Well, I think it's because in matters of rhetorical discussion, men and women can be, and therefore should be, on equal footing.  No gender-based deference is necessary.  There's a reason why some of my favorite authors are women.  And that reason is not that I said to myself "A woman has written a book.  I will therefore read the book and persuade myself to like it.  And I will do this because the author is a woman, and I am obligated to give extra measures of likingness to female authors."  That's happened in my life exactly . . . never.  Rather, I enjoy reading the works of Austen, the Brontës, Gaskell, ****inson, Alcott, L'Engle, Ingalls-Wilder, Rowling and so on because . . . I enjoy reading them.  Surely their status as women informs their writing.  And surely my enjoyment of their writing stems in part from their differing perspectives.  But that's an organic and natural outgrowth from picking up a book and reading it.  I don't think I have ever read a book and come away liking or disliking it because the author was a woman (or a man).  As I said before: If an idea has merit, then let it be demonstrated, not presumed because of the gender of the idea's presenter.

A while back I was accused of sexism for criticizing Kate Kelly.  At the time I noted that nobody had ever accused me of sexism when I criticized Denver Snuffer a few months earlier, on largely similar grounds.  In neither instance did I make any critical argument that was based on gender.  That is, I did not fault Kate Kelly's actions because she is a woman, nor did I fault Denver Snuffer for his actions because he is a man.  So why is it that criticizing Denver Snuffer is A-OK, but criticizing Kate Kelly elicited unwarranted accusations of sexism?

Quote

You've gone out of your way to illustrate just how wrong it is for women to expect you to show them any deference and how you would find it hypocritical to show them any.

How do you support that double standard?  Why do women deserve deference in some situations but not in others?

Three words: Adversarial rhetorical context.  In this context I do not think gender-based deference is appropriate.  As I said previously: "I will proceed to treat women as equals with men when having online discussions.  That may mean that I might be blunt, because to abstain from bluntness would be to treat women differently and with a gender-based deference.  But to do so would, in my mind, be based on the false notion that women are too dainty to be treated the same way as men are.  I do not accept that."

I don't see this as a "double standard" (defined as "a rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups").  If you can explain how "treat[ing] women as equals with men when having online discussions" is unfair, I'm all ears.

Quote

I would especially like to understand this given that the things you do support showing deference to women for (while chivalrous) don't actually make women's lives much better or easier

First, I addressed this in my previous post (the part about the "Broken Windows Theory").  Did you read that part?  If not, please do so, as I think it answers your question.  If not, I will attempt to explain myself further at that point.  

Second, what is this stuff about "mak[ing] women's lives much better or easier?"  Since when is that the objective of adversarial online discussions about Mormonism?  Am I under some obligation to view arguments through this lens?  If so, why?  And what about men?  Do you have a corollary concern about whether online discussions make their lives "much better or easier?"  If not, why not?

Third, I think you are incorrect in saying that men adopting clear expressions of deference and respect for women would not make women's lives better.  Cumulatively, over time, large numbers of men and boys making recognizable efforts to express deference and respect to women would, I think, be beneficial.

Quote

but that the things that you don't support showing deference to women for have the ability to make a HUGE impact for good on a woman's emotional and mental well-being?

Well, to be honest, in an online adversarial rhetorical context, I'm not really sure a participant is supposed to have his/her opponent's "emotional and mental well-being" as a prime consideration when formulating arguments.  As the old saying goes, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Note that I say this across the board.  Men who condition their "emotional and mental well-being" on how they are treated in adversarial rhetorical arguments should likewise probably refrain from participating in adversarial rhetorical arguments.

To the extent I am "blunt" in online discussions, the near universal context of such bluntness involves A) an attack or criticism or unfair characterization of my faith, B) my stepping forward and resorting to rhetorical argument to counter or otherwise defend my faith from said attack/criticism/characterization, and C) my disregard for the critic's race, religion, gender, or place of origin when formulating my argument.  These things are, in my mind, immaterial to the issue at hand (that is, the attack on my faith).  I generally have no way of knowing about the critic's "emotional and mental well-being."  And more to the point, I don't really care about such things.  If a person exhibits sufficient mental competence and acuity so as to formulate an attack on my faith, I am going to assume that this person is ready to receive a rebuttal.  If they aren't in such a mental state, if they are emotionally fragile or whatever, then they should say so.  Or better yet, they should not attack others, since it's unreasonable for such a person to throw a hissy fit about hurt feelings when that person is the aggressor.  There's an old French saying that goes something like this: "This dog is bad - when you attack it it defends itself."  Food for thought, eh?

Quote

Lastly, does it give you pause at all that when BlueDreams explained why it doesn't necessarily make her feel more respected when a man holds a door open for her, that your first reaction was to explain to her why her feelings were wrong?

I did no such thing.  CFR where I "explain[ed] to her why her feelings were wrong."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 7, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

My husband is 6'5" and has broad shoulders. He is a big softy most of the time, but people who don't know him don't realize that. At times I will see a smaller person, especially women, shrink back when talking to him. I'll put my arm around his waist and kind of move him backwards a little. Amazing what that does to the person talking to him and how much better conversation goes. He appreciates when I do this because he doesn't want to be intimidating. Funny, because he hasn't lost any ground in the conversation. He gains it because the person listens to him better than they would while feeling intimidated even while he did nothing to intimidate.The way you come across often Smac is like a 6'5" man. Often I agree with your points, but I sometimes feel beaten by them.

I think there are some material differences here.  You are not describing an adversarial context.  If you and your husband were walking through a park and were approached by some thug yelling insults at you, and even making moves suggesting an intent to do physical harm, wouldn't it be a reasonable and appropriate thing for your husband to use his 6'5" height, his broad shoulders, and his love for you to defend you from the thug?  Or would you fault your husband for responding to such aggressive behavior?

You may have a point about tenor and tone.  Then again, maybe not.  Bullies are cowards at heart.  I have a hard time with online bullies publicly misrepresenting and demeaning and defaming my Church, its doctrines, its leaders and its members.  I will defend such things when they are attacked.

Quote

I get why Jana felt like she did while agreeing with nearly everything you said. You came into her "house" in a way that she felt atacked.

I really don't get this.  Jana put her thoughts into the public sphere (not her "house").  She leaves her comments section open.  Are people who disagree with her not allowed to say so?  Are her opinions sacrosanct, must all men everywhere refrain from disagreeing with her because she's a woman?

I of course understand that it is human nature for her to think she is right in her opinions.  I have no qualms with reasoned disagreement over such things.  But the part to which I did take exception was her falsely accusing me of sexism.  I don't think that's right.  My criticisms had absolutely nothing to do with her gender.

Quote

So what that it is public. What did you want to accompish? That she was missing something in the meetings and help her and others understand? Or to make her feel intimidated by your 6'5" tall, wide shouldered body? 

Julian is just telling some men to back up buddy. We want to converse with you about something close to our heart. If you step back and listen we can get somewhere.

Huh?  What does "back up buddy" mean in an online discussion?  It sounds suspiciously like "Shut up and don't contradict me because you are a man and I am a woman."

I want to converse as well.  I joined this board in 2004 and have more than 2,700 posts on it.  And I want to listen, too.  What I will not do, however, is be silenced because of my gender.  In an online adversarial rhetorical context, I generally dispense with conventions pertaining to gender-based deference and respect, and instead presume that participants to the discussion are all on equal footing, that each side's argument should be examined on its merits, and that the gender of the person presenting the argument is irrelevant. 

If you are suggesting that I should "back up" in terms of tone and content in response to everybody, regardless of gender, I will certainly take that into account.  Are you?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In everyday social environments, yes.

Not quite.  In an adversarial rhetorical discussion, I don't think gender should be part of the equation.  Men and women can be, and therefore should be, on equal rhetorical footing.  This is different from, say, a physical altercation, in which men as a category have more upper body strength, more height and weight, and so on.

Think about other adversarial contexts.  We differentiate the sexes in sporting contests, right?  That's because in most types of sport, men have more strength, speed, endurance, and so on.  This is simple biological fact.  So we segregate.  Male boxers do not typically compete with female boxers.  There aren't any female players in the NBA or the NFL.

But what about other adversarial contexts?  Do women receive any deference in, say, the courtroom as an attorney?  High school or college debate teams?  Political debates?  Nope.  Why?  Well, I think it's because in matters of rhetorical discussion, men and women can be, and therefore should be, on equal footing.  No gender-based deference is necessary.  There's a reason why some of my favorite authors are women.  And that reason is not that I said to myself "A woman has written a book.  I will therefore read the book and persuade myself to like it.  And I will do this because the author is a woman, and I am obligated to give extra measures of likingness to female authors."  That's happened in my life exactly . . . never.  Rather, I enjoy reading the works of Austen, the Brontës, Gaskell, ****inson, Alcott, L'Engle, Ingalls-Wilder, Rowling and so on because . . . I enjoy reading them.  Surely their status as women inform their writing.  And surely my enjoyment of their writing stems in part from their differing perspectives.  But that's an organic and natural outgrowth from picking up a book and reading it.  I don't think I have ever read a book and come away liking or disliking it because the author was a woman (or a man).  As I said before: If an idea has merit, then let it be demonstrated, not presumed because of the gender of the idea's presenter.

A while back I was accused of sexism for criticizing Kate Kelly.  At the time I noted that nobody had ever accused my of sexism when I criticized Denver Snuffer a few months earlier, on largely similar grounds.  In neither instance did I make any critical argument that was based on gender.  That is, I did not fault Kate Kelly's actions because she is a woman, nor did I fault Denver Snuffer for his actions because he is a man.  So why is it that criticizing Denver Snuffer is A-OK, but criticizing Kate Kelly elicits unwarranted accusations of sexism?

Three words: Adversarial rhetorical context.  In this context I do not think gender-based deference is appropriate.  As I said previously: "I will proceed (as, I believe, I generally do) to treat women as equals with men when having online discussions.  That may mean that I might be blunt, because to abstain from bluntness would be to treat women differently and with a gender-based deference.  But to do so would, in my mind, be based on the false notion that women are too dainty to be treated the same way as men are.  I do not accept that."

I don't see this as a "double standard" (defined as "a rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups").  If you can explain how "treat[ing] women as equals with men when having online discussions" is unfair, I'm all ears.

First, I addressed this in my previous post (the part about the "Broken Windows Theory").  Did you read that part?  If not, please do so, as I think it answers your question.  If not, I will attempt to explain myself further at that point.  

Second, what is this stuff about "mak[ing] women's lives much better or easier?"  Since when is that the objective of adversarial online discussions about Mormonism?  Am I under some obligation to view arguments through this lens?  If so, why?  And what about men?  Do you have a corollary concern about whether online discussions make their lives "much better or easier?"  If not, why not?

Third, I think you are incorrect in saying that men adopting clear expressions of deference and respect for women would make women's lives better.  Cumulatively, over time, large numbers of men and boys making recognizable efforts to express deference and respect to women would, I think, be beneficial.

Well, to be honest, in an online adversarial rhetorical context, I'm not really sure a participant is supposed to have his/her opponent's "emotional and mental well-being" as a prime consideration when formulating arguments.  As the old saying goes, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Note that I say this across the board.  Men who condition their "emotional and mental well-being" on how they are treated in adversarial rhetorical arguments should likewise probably refrain from participating in adversarial rhetorical arguments.

To the extent I am "blunt" in online discussions, the near universal context of such bluntness involves A) an attack or criticism or unfair characterization of my faith, B) my stepping forward and resorting to rhetorical argument to counter or otherwise defend my faith from said attack/criticism/characterization, and C) my disregard for the critic's race, religion, gender, or place of origin when formulating my argument.  These things are, in my mind, immaterial to the issue at hand (that is, the attack on my faith).  I generally have no way of knowing about the critic's "emotional and mental well-being."  And more to the point, I don't really care about such things.  If a person exhibits sufficient mental competence and acuity so as to formulate an attack on my faith, I am going to assume that this person is ready to receive a rebuttal.  If they aren't in such a mental state, if they are emotionally fragile or whatever, then they should say so.  Or better yet, they should not attack others, since it's unreasonable for such a person to throw a hissy fit about hurt feelings when that person is the aggressor.  There's an old French saying that goes something like this: "This dog is bad - when you attack it it defends itself."  Food for thought, eh?

If men and women should be on equal rhetorical footing, then why don't you believe they should be on equal social footing?  This is the double standard that i'm referring to-that you have different standards for how women should be treated based on the environment.  I'm not saying that either of your standards are right or wrong, but only addressing that they are different and contradictory.

I'm guessing you don't stand up when a man enters the room, for example, or teach your son that he needs to.  I'm guessing that you don't teach your daughters to stand when a man enters the room.  For some reason, you have decided that in these situations, men and women should not be treated equally, while in other areas of your life you have decided that they should be treated equally.  This is what i'm questioning.

Quote

 

I did no such thing.  CFR where I "explain[ed] to her why her feelings were wrong."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

BlueDream said-"

Quote

Hearing respect and symbolic gestures doesn't give me the actual respect and deference that I actual need.

To which you responded-

Quote

"I don't understand this.  "Respect" is not a tangible thing.  It is an attitude which must be demonstrated.  So for me, I often demonstrate/express that attitude by saying and doing things that convey it, particularly by using old-fashioned - and therefore easily recognized - expressions of respect and deference."

So BD said-I don't feel those gestures are respectful to me as a woman. You respond by saying-I don't understand why you don't feel respect because those gestures are respectful. 

From my perspective that was you explaining to her that she is wrong not to feel respected by the gestures you were speaking of.

[Rain]

"adversarial rhetorical discussions"

Maybe that's the whole problem. Never once has that been my intention in my 30 years of online message boards. For me it was a way to make friends, get to know others and other cultures and try to become more unified. 

If that's the whole reason a man wants to be in on a discussion with women about women in the church then there is really no reason for him to join in the conversation. This is our lives we are talking about, not a debate. We don't want to be adversaries. We dont want to win the argument. We want to create understanding for each other, help each other progress and be one in Christ

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

"adversarial rhetorical discussions"

Maybe that's the whole problem. Never once has that been my intention in my 30 years of online message boards. For me it was a way to make friends, get to know others and other cultures and try to become more unified. 

If that's the whole reason a man wants to be in on a discussion with women about women in the church then there is really no reason for him to join in the conversation. This is our lives we are talking about, not a debate. We don't want to be adversaries. We dont want to win the argument. We want to create understanding for each other, help each other progress and be one in Christ

It's so awesome that you brought that up Rain because that was my thinking as well.  This is not a debate about ideology, these are our actual experiences and how they impact our real lives.  

Excellently put!

Edited February 6, 2016 by bluebell

[juliann]

49 minutes ago, Rain said:

"adversarial rhetorical discussions"

Maybe that's the whole problem. Never once has that been my intention in my 30 years of online message boards. For me it was a way to make friends, get to know others and other cultures and try to become more unified. 

If that's the whole reason a man wants to be in on a discussion with women about women in the church then there is really no reason for him to join in the conversation. This is our lives we are talking about, not a debate. We don't want to be adversaries. We dont want to win the argument. We want to create understanding for each other, help each other progress and be one in Christ

It is hard not to notice the vocabulary switches going on. Giving women parity in deliberative bodies is termed as "deference," i.e., submission or yielding to the will of another.  It may feel that way to those who have to give up appropriated space to others but no one is asking for anyone to submit to them only to include them by allowing equal numbers, talking time, and equivalent positive feedback for females as males.  I'm not even sure how this got turned into "adversarial rhetorical discussions" other than zero documentation has been provided by those who react to women achieving parity in decision making groups as a personal loss. Perhaps most interesting is how the term "respect" is changed when speaking to women. It becomes chivalrous gestures rather than a universal need to be treated with dignity. I'm trying to imagine opening a door used to convince men that they are respected...

This is a fun but informative read. Notice again that data based male/female cultural behaviors do not hold up men as instigators. It is just how we are are socialized.  http://omnifeed.com/article/www.dailydot.com/opinion/all-female-ghostbusters-backlash-male-tears/ 
 

Quote

 

In a 2013 interview with NPR, Geena Davis discussed how the under-representation of women both onscreen and off leads men to have a skewed sense of what gender parity looks like.

Davis cited a recent study that examined the ratio of men and women in groups, explaining that researchers “found that if there's 17 percent women, the men in the group think it's 50-50. And if there's 33 percent women, the men perceive that as there being more women in the room than men.”

 

 

Quote

There are other studies that reveal similar findings. One of them, which looked at gender parity in the workforce, showed that men “consistently perceive more gender parity” in workplaces than their female colleagues do. Another study showed that men are so used to dominating the discourse in a mixed-gender setting that a group needs to be 60 to 80 percent women before women start occupying just as much time in the conversation as men. In spite of all this, men continue to perceive that women take up more space in group discussions.

 

Edited February 6, 2016 by juliann

[Rain]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

If you are suggesting that I should "back up" in terms of tone and content in response to everybody, regardless of gender, I will certainly take that into account.  Are you?

 

Most of the time yes.  I often even pray about what I am writing when things get a little heated because if the others can't see that I care for them then it doesn't really matter if I am right.  (If only I had learned that 21 years ago when my oldest was a baby before I taught him by example that being right was more important. Now he feels that it is more important to be right than to ask Heavenly Father what He thinks best and I'm learning to love him as Elder Scott taught.)  

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by Rain

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

But that's just old-fashioned good manners.

Insisting that men treat flawed arguments, false claims or bad ideas coming from women with deference because the speakers are women, when they would presumably be free to challenge those very same flawed arguments, false claims or bad ideas if they came from men, is something rather insidious.

Then don't use "good manners" which have nothing to do with engaging with someone's ideas but are simply generic external behaviours that have nothing to do with the individual as an individual as justification that one treats women (or anyone else) respectfully in one's dialoguing with others.

No one is saying that I can see that bad ideas should be accepted as if they were good ones just because someone is a woman.  We are asking rather to be allowed to express our own internal responses as a reality fully and be given a chance to discuss our ideas and not to have them dismissed as irrelevant for whatever reason or altered so that they are no longer what our positions actually are.

It doesn't help in this discussion to be changing how we are stating things into a version that is obviously weak and demands to be dismissed ("nsisting that men treat flawed arguments, false claims or bad ideas coming from women with deference because the speakers are women").

And "deference" is the wrong phrase.  Listening and responding with appropriate attention to what someone is saying as well as the context that one says it without making assumptions that one's own preferences are the best approach is imo what is being asked for.  And this is the best approach for any conversation one engages in with anyone imo. Recognition that women dialogue differently than men and being willing to take that into account is not "deference" but intelligent and civil discourse just as being willing to either use Russian oneself or have a translator in a room full of Russians is a more intelligent and civil approach than insisting everyone use English because one is most comfortable speaking English and one knows that English is commonly taught to Russians without discussing with the Russians whether or not they feel fluent enough in the language to be comfortable themselves.  And when women step into a conversation with men about masculine issues, if they want intelligent, thoughtful discussion they need to pay attention to cues to pick up the correct social context just as is expected in the reverse situation.

 It is common sense imo.  Tailor one's style to the context of the interaction, don't assume that the interaction and those involved should tailor themselves to one's preferred approach.  We see the difference on the board a lot when we have a certain subset of EVs come in and preach what is wrong with our faith, refuse to allow us to define what our faith means to us, and then refuse to adapt when reponses change to confrontational because they believe they have a right and a mission and it is for our own good for them to preach hellfire and damnation to us.  We see the difference on the CARM board where when they discuss Mormon issues they dominate the conversation by, again, refusing to allow LDS to define their own terms and instead talk about Mormons without being willing to engage with what Mormonism is on its own terms and to its own people, even to the point of excluding LDS from the conversation.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

"adversarial rhetorical discussions"

Maybe that's the whole problem. Never once has that been my intention in my 30 years of online message boards. For me it was a way to make friends, get to know others and other cultures and try to become more unified. 

If that's the whole reason a man wants to be in on a discussion with women about women in the church then there is really no reason for him to join in the conversation. This is our lives we are talking about, not a debate. We don't want to be adversaries. We dont want to win the argument. We want to create understanding for each other, help each other progress and be one in Christ

I am going there too.  Why in the world would I consider that the discussions I am having online with those I would expect to see sitting next to me in a chapel "adversarial"?  If I want to understand and be understood, it seems like one of the least effective ways to go about doing that, even if my intent is for my disagreement to be understood or to understand others' disagreement.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

Can't edit my posts...

If someone wants to prove me wrong, if they are the least bit interested in me believing them or even paying attention, they need to demostrate they understand my position first before I will accept they have a right to challenge it.  Starting off with the challenge with no significant attempt made first to ensure they comprehend my position on the issue, including the context for it, is not an encouraging sign that this discussion is going to be either interesting or useful.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Calm

[Russell C McGregor]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

"adversarial rhetorical discussions"

Maybe that's the whole problem. Never once has that been my intention in my 30 years of online message boards. For me it was a way to make friends, get to know others and other cultures and try to become more unified. 

If that's the whole reason a man wants to be in on a discussion with women about women in the church then there is really no reason for him to join in the conversation. This is our lives we are talking about, not a debate. We don't want to be adversaries. We dont want to win the argument. We want to create understanding for each other, help each other progress and be one in Christ

Well Rain, here's the thing: if, in the context of "a discussion with women about women in the church" one participant who self-identifies as female chooses to advance views or make arguments that undermine the truth claims of the Church or the teaching authority of the Lord's anointed servants, inasmuch as I am participating in that discussion, I'm going to be on the Lord's side.

In fact, I'm going to do the same even if that participant self-identifies as male.

(It happened here earlier, when I told an unbelieving female participant exactly the same thing I told an unbelieving male participant -- and immediately was greeted by an eruption of rage that I was trying to "silence" one and only one of them. Guess which one?)

And if that person (and let's face it, unless I've met them IRL, I'm likely to be agnostic about their gender anyway) chooses to take refuge in their "experience as a woman" or their "feelings" which they demand be "validated" in some way, I'm not going to fall for the shell game. I'm going to focus on the ideas and arguments at hand.

Because, to me it's a rather novel idea to suggest that online discussions are supposed to make people feel good about themselves. I've always been accustomed to thinking that they were about the arguments and ideas, their merits or lack thereof.

And if that is the case, then the gender of the participants is entirely irrelevant.

Any discussion about the Priesthood, the Church, and women's roles in those connections is obviously important to LDS women. But to the extent that such a discussion might actually lead to anything, then it's inevitably going to have an impact on the men. As such, it is relevant to LDS men as well. So if anyone is so one-eyed as to claim that it is "a woman's discussion," or else insist that the only way it can be "safe" for women to participate is if the only males involved are of the obedient, submissive lap-dog variety (which are clearly the only kind some feminists can abide) then I'm afraid the view of the excluded men will be: You ladies enjoy your milk-and-cookies discussion. Let us know how it goes. Just don't expect us to take your conclusions seriously.

Rather like minorities who get preferential admission to educational institutions, only to find that their qualifications are greeted with skepticism when they try to enter the workplace -- a kind of delayed racism that is actually exacerbated by well-meaning efforts to improve their lot -- so deliberations among women that are protected from contrary views in order to spare their precious feelings are never going to be taken seriously by anyone else.

Only when the arguments have survived challenge and scrutiny can anyone expect them to be accepted outside the nodding circle.

 

 

[smac97]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Why is it good manners to give deference to women under some circumstances, but insidious to do so in other circumstances?  And maybe more importantly, who get's to decide where the line is?  

My issue with where you and Smac and a lot of really great guys put that line is that those kinds of good manners (holding doors, etc.) don't actually mean anything (i've seen a man hold open a door for a woman, and then treat her like absolute crap when talking to her later) and they don't really cost those who follow them anything, so they present an opportunity to outwardly show that women deserve respect from men without having to actually treat women with respect.  

I will know much more whether or not a man respects women by listening to how he speaks to women and how he speaks about women, than i will ever know from watching whether he holds doors or calls them ma'am.

Well, this is just really dispiriting.  You've rigged the deck here.  If I as a man verbally treat a woman disrespectfully (call her names, insult her intelligence, tell her to shut up), then I am apparently being sexist.  But if I as a man treat treat a woman with respect and decorum, I might not actually mean it, and it doesn't cost me anything.  So I'm still being sexist.

Good manners "don't actually mean anything?"

Good manners have no value because "they don't really cost ... anything?"  (So much for "the best things in life are free.")

Using good manners to "outwardly show" respect does not "actually treat women with respect?"  

Where in the world do such assumptions about men as a category come from?  Are women also subject to similarly hostile assumptions?  

Perhaps you may some day be able to consider the possibility, and eventually perhaps even accept, that when a man says or does something that is intended to convey the idea that he respects women, he actually just might mean it.  That an outward expression of respect just might be a reflection of his inward respect for women.  And that common courtesy and respect are not a transaction, that no "cost" need be considered.  

Just a thought.

Sheesh.  What a depressing thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 7, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Exactly.  And as i questioned Smac earlier, I don't think men can have it both ways either.

If women some how deserve deference in some situations merely because of their gender, then they deserve deference in every situation (because they are female in every situation).

I disagree.  That makes no sense to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

If men and women should be on equal rhetorical footing, then why don't you believe they should be on equal social footing?  

Where have I said that women should not be on "equal social footing" with men?

And what does "equal social footing" mean?

Quote

This is the double standard that i'm referring to-that you have different standards for how women should be treated based on the environment.  I'm not saying that either of your standards are right or wrong, but only addressing that they are different and contradictory.

Yes, based on environment.  I think it's a healthy thing to show deference and respect to women in social settings.  However, in an adversarial social context, I think we're all on equal footing.  I've said this several times.

And a "double standard" would entail some form of unfairness.  What sort of "unfairness" do you have in mind here?

Quote

I'm guessing you don't stand up when a man enters the room, for example, or teach your son that he needs to.  

In some contexts, I do.  But not all.  And not in all the same ways.

Quote

I'm guessing that you don't teach your daughters to stand when a man enters the room.  For some reason, you have decided that in these situations, men and women should not be treated equally, while in other areas of your life you have decided that they should be treated equally.  This is what i'm questioning.

I propose that, in limited in contexts and in limited ways, women be afforded some token expressions of deference and respect.

In some other limited contexts (adversarial rhetorical situations, for example), I propose that such added measures of deference and respect be eliminated.

At no point have I ever suggested that women should be treated as "less than" men.

Quote

BlueDream said-"

To which you responded-

So BD said-I don't feel those gestures are respectful to me as a woman. You respond by saying-I don't understand why you don't feel respect because those gestures are respectful. 

From my perspective that was you explaining to her that she is wrong not to feel respected by the gestures you were speaking of.

But I said nothing of the sort.  I spoke about what I think ("So for me, I often demonstrate/express that attitude [of respect for women] by saying and doing things that convey it, particularly by using old-fashioned - and therefore easily recognized - expressions of respect and deference.").  I am the world's leading authority on my motives and reasoning.  

I never "explain[ed] to her that she is wrong."  Where are you getting this?  

-Smac

[Nofear]

So smac97 wants to be understood. The sisters here want to be understood. We all want understanding.

Perhaps by saying let the women speak they are expressing the idea that they don't yet feel understood and want a chance to express their views and be understood (without having to spend pages and pages of discussion on communication and gender).

Then if we understand their views and in some small manner demonstrate that understanding then maybe they might be open to discussing merits of said (understood) opinions. All too often I see dialog which really is just talking past eachother and not to eachother. But maybe some aren't interested in discussing the merits but just expressing views to be understood (but not necessarily agreed with). I know I do that frequently with science topics; though I usually don't care if I'm understood (an apathy born of arrogance and not empathy).

Anyway, if one tires of repeating oneself, maybe it is time to repeat the other party in the discussion. Not so that one can then express disagreement but so they know you know what they are saying. And then some may be interested in discussing merits, but maybe not too.

This is true, of course, of both genders but thresholds/trends occur at stastically significant levels.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

"adversarial rhetorical discussions"Maybe that's the whole problem. Never once has that been my intention in my 30 years of online message boards.

That's nice.  Really, it is.  But many of us, both men and women, do come to message boards to debate.  Such debate can and should be governed by basic standards of decorum and civility.  Making false accusations of sexism, for example.  That's bad.  It poisons the well.

But debate is, or can be, a good and healthy thing.  Successful systems of government use it.  Courts of law use it.  Most fields of science use it.

Quote

For me it was a way to make friends, get to know others and other cultures and try to become more unified. 

That's a fine and dandy reason.  But it's not the only one.  

Quote

If that's the whole reason a man wants to be in on a discussion with women about women in the church then there is really no reason for him to join in the conversation.

What?!  Seriously?  Men aren't allowed to express a point of view that diverges from a woman's?  Why not?  Who set this rule?  Who gets to enforce this rule?  Who says this rule is a good idea?

What am I reading here?

Quote

This is our lives we are talking about, not a debate.

These are not mutually incompatible concepts.  Latter-day Saints can and should talk about things in their lives, and even disagree with each other.  Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things.  

What I find disturbing is the apparent suggestion that if men disagree with women, then men should shut up and exit the conversation ("there is really no reason for him to join in the conversation").  If a man said such a thing (that women who disagree with men should shut up, as they have "no reason ... to join the conversation"), he'd get raked across the coals.  And rightly so.

I think men and women can both provide meaningful contributions to discussions about difficult topics.  I am repulsed at the notion that men should remain silent if they have a different point of view and wish to share it.

Quote

We don't want to be adversaries. We dont want to win the argument. We want to create understanding for each other, help each other progress and be one in Christ

Right.  And men . . . don't want this?  What are you saying here?

And what happens when women disagree with each other?  Are they obligated to refrain from expressing their point of view?

What do you do when you are discussing a difficult topic with a group of women and contradictory viewpoints are in play?  Doesn't this ever happen?

And when it happens, how do you further the discussion?  With a coin toss?  Or do you . . . possibly . . . have a . . . discussion?  A debate?

-Smac

[smac97]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

It is hard not to notice the vocabulary switches going on. Giving women parity in deliberative bodies is termed as "deference," i.e., submission or yielding to the will of another.  It may feel that way to those who have to give up appropriated space to others but no one is asking for anyone to submit to them only to include them by allowing equal numbers, talking time, and equivalent positive feedback for females as males.  I'm not even sure how this got turned into "adversarial rhetorical discussions" other than zero documentation has been provided by those who react to women achieving parity in decision making groups as a personal loss. Perhaps most interesting is how the term "respect" is changed when speaking to women. It becomes chivalrous gestures rather than a universal need to be treated with dignity. I'm trying to imagine opening a door used to convince men that they are respected...

Try imagining a person holding the door open for an older gentleman.  As a token of respect and deference for one's elders.

Imagine standing up for a judge when he enters the courtroom and takes the bench.  I've seen this hundreds and hundreds of times.  It's an expression of respect and deference to the court and to the judicial system.  And it doesn't matter what the gender of the judge is.

Imagine a young man speaking to an older man and responding to basic questions with "Yes, sir" or "No, sir."  

I could go on, but I'm not sure there's a point.

I had a roommate in the Army from Georgia.  Through his example I learned some things about "Southern Manners."  He had ways of demonstrating respect for women, for his elders, and so on.  And for the last 25 years I have emulated some of these manners.

And today I learn that speaking to women with respect is, somehow, incompatible with treating women with dignity.  It's either/or.  A man who treats a woman with respect is either "using a chivalrous gesture" (which is apparently incompatible with showing respect) or satisfying a "universal need to be treated with dignity" (which again, is somehow incompatible with being treated with token expressions of respect).

What a weird, weird world.

-Smac

Edited February 7, 2016 by smac97