The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood

[Mars]

I'm a dude. 35, married 13 years, 3 boys and a girl, MSEE from Utah State, barely right of center as far as US politics go, served a mission, live in the Washington DC area. That should be enough to out me for anyone willing to do the legwork.

Indulge me - still not following. Seems like the "it's a women's topic" means that men need to sometimes take a back seat.  Fair enough. I mean, it kinda bugs me to think that the way I talk or express myself would be taken as damaging or disrespectful in some way, but ok. You're in charge of saying how I come across to you. (you anyone you, not you you)

But what is the topic? How women are treated, whether or not the Priesthood is only for men means it's an artifact of discrimination in the Church, or something else altogether? 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

29 minutes ago, Mars said:

 

Indulge me - still not following. Seems like the "it's a women's topic" means that men need to sometimes take a back seat.  Fair enough. I mean, it kinda bugs me to think that the way I talk or express myself would be taken as damaging or disrespectful in some way, but ok. You're in charge of saying how I come across to you. (you anyone you, not you you)

But what is the topic? How women are treated, whether or not the Priesthood is only for men means it's an artifact of discrimination in the Church, or something else altogether? 

 I don't know how Raingirl got in my post.

Nice to know more about you! I would consider you part of the team.  You are respectful and calm and want to understand instead of lecture. It really is critical that men pave a path when women are being shouted down. Men are often more likely to listen to men.

Women being given access to decision making bodies is part of the priesthood debate. It just never gets down to the foundational problem. This thread originated with a video that was being thrashed because it had feminists in it. Assumptions by some were being made based on that label (and because Kate Kelly was involved which is enough to make even me stay away, unfortunately.) The newspaper article with an inflammatory title was confused for the video itself. So trying to get that straightened out with an appeal that the actual content of the video be discussed...which was fairly tame for Kate Kelly stuff....rather than presumptions kicked off the debate.

We can do the thinking has been done approach and verbally stone women who want the priesthood or we can seek to understand why that has become a solution for them. It is obvious that those who become the most belligerent know the least about Mofems which frankly, should be a red flag. Many are still in the "women want to be men" stage and other absurd strawmen.

So this really is all on the same thing. How can the Church be more inclusive to women?  I feel strongly if we improve the male/female communication it would go a long way in solving a lot of complaints. This is a societal reality so embedded in our culture that few have even thought about it. It is not an indictment of anyone. And as we can see, only those who can approach it with this understanding (instead of taking it as a personal insult) are able to discuss it. There are an awful lot of strawmen all over the landscape....

 

Edited February 8, 2016 by juliann

[Mars]

What would be the difference between chiming in as a man to foster discussion - even voicing disagreement - and shutting down discussion? 

What would be a good sign you went from participating in to killing discussion? 

[Mars]

Also - I missed it. What was the topic? The one you referred to when you said it was a woman's discussion?

Not a gotcha or riposte waiting in the wings. I just am trying to make sure I got it. 

[rodheadlee]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

I didn't realize men had to use their priesthood to have a discussion with women. 

Men should use their priesthood 24/7 in everything they do.

[Russell C McGregor]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

I don't know how Raingirl got in my post.

There seems to be something odd with the board software. I had something happen yesterday where I was trying to quote somebody, and all it did was offer me a window to edit one of my own posts.

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

Nice to know more about you! I would consider you part of the team.  You are respectful and calm and want to understand instead of lecture. It really is critical that men pave a path when women are being shouted down. Men are often more likely to listen to men.

So, in your view, "women are being shouted down?"

Really?

Where? By whom?

Would you care to produce examples of said shouting down?

Does it not occur to you that telling men they have to "step back" or "take a back seat" is a (possibly passive-aggressive) way to "shout them down?"

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

Women being given access to decision making bodies is part of the priesthood debate. It just never gets down to the foundational problem. This thread originated with a video that was being thrashed because it had feminists in it.

Well that's news to me.

 

Very carefully watching my wording to avoid any feminist tripwires: I saw the criticism of the video. I didn't see anyone making a to-do about it having feminists in it. Rather it was about what the movie seemed to be trying to achieve.

Someone did mention a particular person by name. Smac97 was bemused by the fact that the movie started off by featuring an excommunicated apostate. Maybe he was "secretly" more concerned about the fact that the person in question is also a "feminist," but that wasn't what he said.

Was there someone else?

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

Assumptions by some were being made based on that label (and because Kate Kelly was involved which is enough to make even me stay away, unfortunately.) The newspaper article with an inflammatory title was confused for the video itself. So trying to get that straightened out with an appeal that the actual content of the video be discussed...which was fairly tame for Kate Kelly stuff....rather than presumptions kicked off the debate.

But the video wasn't before us; the "inflammatory" article, plus the trailer, were. That was what we had to discuss. Should we not have discussed them until we saw the video?

If we allow for the possibility that there will be others who will see the article + trailer and not watch the whole video, should we still keep silent about the messages they are sending?

If someone sees a video and, relying upon what they have learned from the video, proceeds to write an inflammatory article, could that possibly be useful information about the video itself?

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

We can do the thinking has been done approach and verbally stone women who want the priesthood

Good thing nobody did that, then.

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

or we can seek to understand why that has become a solution for them.

So this is a binary solution set, is it? These are the only options before us?

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

It is obvious that those who become the most belligerent know the least about Mofems which frankly, should be a red flag. Many are still in the "women want to be men" stage and other absurd strawmen.

Oh, who said that?

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

So this really is all on the same thing. How can the Church be more inclusive to women?  I feel strongly if we improve the male/female communication it would go a long way in solving a lot of complaints. This is a societal reality so embedded in our culture that few have even thought about it. It is not an indictment of anyone.

And so the way to improve male/female communication is to do -- what, exactly?

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

And as we can see, only those who can approach it with this understanding (instead of taking it as a personal insult) are able to discuss it. There are an awful lot of strawmen all over the landscape....

Are there?

How many are of your own manufacture?

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Men should use their priesthood 24/7 in everything they do.

How so?

[Mars]

russell c mcgregor:

potentially oversharing, but hopefully this will help: i have had a serious case of depression.  you don't have to pity me or treat me with kid gloves for it.  you can go on ignoring or engaging me as you like.  but - if you are interested in cultivating a real relationship with me then there will be certain rules.  you have to go easy on me with criticism.  it's a mess in my head.  in my worst moments i feel like dirt nonstop and i can't control it.  it makes it so that if someone else wants to criticize me on a subject i'm liable to tie my sense of self worth to, their criticism is taken harshly and improperly.  if fear and self loathing listened to reason i wouldn't be in this mess and anyone from anywhere could say anything to me and it wouldn't matter.  unfortunately, that's not the case.  

as i say, if you (anyone you, not YOU you) want to get somewhere with me - get me to see your point - you have to tread carefully.  it's a reality.  i'm not happy with it, but i'm managing as best i can and hopefully one day i'll find my zen and this won't be a problem.  but today isn't that day.

once i have confidence you care and understand, i can take a lot of criticism.  it's the price that has to be paid if you want me to listen.  

permit me to read minds here: i am seeing a parallel here with women here on this thread, at least the ones who have echoed juliann's statements.  if they are confident that you care and understand, you will get a lot more mileage.

until then, i don't think you'll get anywhere.  and from what i can tell, thus far, you haven't gotten anywhere.

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, Mars said:

What would be the difference between chiming in as a man to foster discussion - even voicing disagreement - and shutting down discussion? 

What would be a good sign you went from participating in to killing discussion? 

Like I said, what you are doing now makes you part of the discussion (from my perspective.) We do have a gap between research done on deliberating groups and message board deliberation (I think political groups are about as close to apologetics as you can get.) We all probably know dialogue killers in general...I'd say the most effective element is mockery coupled with red herrings and strawmen to derail. That is just my opinion. The research was done on face to face groups. It is statistical. This is not true of some. Just the majority.  I can only extrapolate in our situation. None of it makes any sense without an understanding that women have been conditioned, especially in the church, to see men as more knowledgeable. We come into situations believing they have less knowledge, less competence, and less influence. This is reinforced. Men interrupt women far, far more often than other men. They give negative feedback and withhold positive feedback in very high rates compared to how they interact with other men. Women's ideas are often ignored until a man picks it up and uses it as his. (That is so endemic it is joked about.) Now if this is all happening in one group it doesn't take much imagination to see how anyone would react under these conditions. It just happens that it is directed towards women.I don't think so many would be making an issue of this if it were directed at minority men, for instance. That would be seen as a real problem.  Educated and women in higher socioeconomic groups go silent the quickest. That seems counter intuitive but the authors attribute it to educated and upwardly mobile people picking up on the disrespect faster.

Now how does that work on a message board? That would be a very interesting study.  Perhaps the belittling is escalated to make up for the inability to interrupt. Other women's opinions would be helpful. What do you think? From what you have seen here, what shuts down discussion (for me that means people leaving and derailments meant to keep posters repeatedly explaining the meaning of words and such while continuing to ignore the explanations.)

The topic should be the OP. I've explained how I have expanded that topic. But this thread has veered into a lot of what I think are irrelevant sideshows about manners and such.  I can only tell you what my topic is.  You may have been writing your post when mine posted.

 

 

[Mars]

that clarifies things, thanks.

i was just trying to contextualize your "this is a women's discussion" (or words to that effect if it's not a direct quote) line.  i was trying to figure out what "this" was a reference to.  thanks.

[juliann]

40 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Men should use their priesthood 24/7 in everything they do.

So should women.

 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Mars said:

 I mean, it kinda bugs me to think that the way I talk or express myself would be taken as damaging or disrespectful in some way, but ok. 

I can see why it might bug you and others, but be assured you dont fit in that situation. 

Remember when I told about my husband taking a step back. You are a classic case of that. You are speaking from a place of respect, giving respect and asking questions not only about the topic, but how we see ourselves with the topic. Like with my husband it helps us open up to you and explain just what we mean.

It makes sense at that point to form an opinion because you will understand what we really are saying. I feel we are getting somewhere because of it. I hope you feel that as well and if you are not please let us know because if we don't understand you too then we are not seeing the whole picture either.

By the way, we are aggies as well and DH has a BSEE. Unfortuantely, he is now working on his MSEE from ASU at age 46 because with the last job loss we felt pretty sure he may not get another job without his MS. That and he has always wanted it, but the time was never right. 

Edited February 8, 2016 by Rain

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Wow.  That's a heck of a spin. 

Who knew the words 'charming' and 'scolding' were "gendered"?  I am wondering where the rule/law is written that those words can are only used to describe females.  Because I didn't get that memo and I've used those words any number times in reference to males. Females, too.   I daresay the sentence quoted above is an example of scolding. Shame on me for using verboten language.  And, of course, for having the opinion that a women can be scolding in her choice of words.  I am sure I will be scolded for that, too.  Whoops!  There I go, using banned words again!

And I also didn't get the memo that the use of those words is "framed in anger" and that I am only using them to "exert social control".  I guess there's a super-secret handbook I am not privy to.

Thanks for making it crystal clear that not only are men forbidden from certain topics and conversations, but so are women who don't see things in exactly the same light.

It's not the words themselves but the context in which they're used. And considering he finished it with "only a woman could pull that off," the sentence is most certainly gendered. Gendered and meant to be at the very least belittling or dismissive....if not combative and demeaning....and definitely a way to shut down dialogue of any sort (it's goading). If you (or I or anyone) finished a sentence with "only a man could pull that off" it would make whatever one of us said immediately gendered. We've literally labeled it into gender terms/characteristics. 

 

The rest of this is arguing with strawmen. There's no secret handbook, the only book quoted extensively here can be bought on amazon, and there's no banned words....ok actually there probably is because they're overtly derogatory/shaming by themselves. Charming and scolding aren't there though. You can ask the other women who've stated things, but that's most certainly not what I've ever meant and I would wager no one here has actually stated such. It's a mischaracterization of what has been talked about here. See the discussion between Mars and Juliann for a number of clarifications to your last point.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 8, 2016 by BlueDreams

[smac97]

Well, my comments and my name keep coming up, it seems.  So I guess I'll weigh in again.

I criticized the movie trailer in the OP for its content.  That it is populated with so-called "feminists" was not part of that concern, so the suggestion that I criticized it "because it had feminists in it" is a load of crapola.  I am the world's leading authority of what I do and why I do it.  I have been critical of Kate Kelly on this board.  Everyone knows this.  That doesn't make me a sexist.  I have also been critical of Denver Snuffer, and yet nobody has suggested that this means I am a misandrist.  (As an aside, I note with interest that the online dictionary for this board does not recognize the word "misandrist" ("a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against men") but it does recognize "misogynist" ("a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women").  I also note with interest that Google returns only 250,000 hits for "misandrist," but more than three million for "misogynist."  It's almost like our society isn't paying much attention to the former problem, certainly not anywhere near as compared to the latter.)

I also reject the notion that I was hung up on the "label" of the movie rather than the content.  Here's my original post on the first page of this thread.  You will note it is long and detailed as to content and utterly silent as to "feminists."  The suggestion that I "thrashed" the trailer "because it had feminists in it" is simply a falsehood.  The only time I mentioned "feminism" is when I said: "The movie's title is 'The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood.'  Against whom is she 'fighting?'  Well, the organization that A) has members threatening to murder her, B) that has victimized her and her children, and C) is apparently supposed to capitulate to pressure tactics like this."  Note here that I did not take issue with the word "feminist," but with the word "fighting."

I also reject the what-I-thought-had-been-retracted-but-apparently-not suggestion that men have no voice in discussions about this trailer (and/or the topics/themes touched on within it), solely because they are men.  The precise wording was "This is a woman's discussion."  I thought this statement had been retracted, but as this thread goes on it appears to be getting firmly entrenched.

I also reject efforts by other people to tell me what is "respectful" and what isn't.  I'm a reasonably intelligent person.  I am rather capable of discerning such basic concepts as civility, decorum, respect, and so on.  So I reject the notion that I am so blinkered by "social conditioning" that I need total strangers who have never met me in real life to explain to me whether my conduct is "respectful."

I also reject declarations that men exhibiting good manners toward women "don't actually mean anything," because they might be presented on false pretenses, that they only "outwardly show" respect but do not "actually treat women with respect."  My mind still trying to wrap itself around the arrogance and presumption that surrounds these statements.  Again, I am the world's leading authority of what I do and why I do it.  So when I say that I respect women and that I use good manners to express that respect, that is my bailiwick to establish, and mine alone.  And when I am thereafter informed that "just because a man does something that society has deemed as respectful to women, doesn't mean he respects women," I find that offensive and absurd.  Not only is it categorically false when applied to me (because I respect women, I don't just fake it as per the suggestion here), it is also quite uncharitable and unfair when applied to men categorically.  Imagine if a man acknowledged that many women and kind and loving, but then discounted that by saying "just because a woman does something that society has deemed as kind and loving, doesn't mean she is kind and loving."  That would be an appalling thing to say.  Uncharitable.  Presumptuous.  Cynical.  Yuck.

I also reject the suggestion that I have a problem with "women trying to express their thoughts and feelings."  I don't.  I really, really don't.  I listen to women and what they have to say all the time.  At work, at church, at home . . . everywhere.  All.  The.  Time.  The sin I committed in this thread was not failing to listen to women, but failing to agree.  Oh, the humanity!

I started my participation in this thread with a broad and deep respect for women.  I still have that broad and deep respect for the category.  I have a wonderful wife.  I have two beautiful and intelligent and spiritual daughters.  I have a wonderful mother and also a mother-in-law.  I also have four sisters and six sisters-in-law.  I also have a few dozen nieces of various ages.  I also have several female co-workers.  And a ward and neighborhood full of women of varying ages and circumstances.  I love all of these people (and not because I have been socially conditioned to fake it).  I treat them with kindness and respect.  I am overwhelmingly treated with kindness and respect in return.  I frequently solicit input and advice from women about things going on in my life.  I appreciate the insights and wisdom so often found in the responses to such inquiries.  I am grateful to God that He created women.  I can't imagine life without them (literally or figuratively).  

But if this thread has kindled anything, it is dislike and rejection of the repellent strands of "feminism" that yield results like those itemized above.  I'll be honest: when it comes to actually interacting with "feminism," I'm pretty much a babe in the woods.  For example, a while back I came across this article and struggled to understand the social phenomena behind it:

Quote

Poll: Few Identify As Feminists, But Most Believe In Equality Of Sexes
 04/16/2013 05:53 pm ET | Updated Apr 16, 2013
Emily Swanson

Only one-fifth of Americans identify as feminists, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. But the vast majority fit the basic definition of the word.

According to the survey, just 20 percent of Americans -- including 23 percent of women and 16 percent of men -- consider themselves feminists. Another 8 percent consider themselves anti-feminists, while 63 percent said they are neither.

Broken down by party, 32 percent of Democrats, 19 percent of independents and only 5 percent of Republicans said they are feminists.

But asked if they believe that "men and women should be social, political, and economic equals," 82 percent of the survey respondents said they did, and just 9 percent said they did not. Equal percentages of men and women said they agreed with that statement, along with 87 percent of Democrats, 81 percent of independents and 76 percent of Republicans.

...

The gulf between the percentage of people who identify as feminists and the percentage who believe in the equality of the sexes may be partly due to a branding problem for the word "feminism." Thirty-seven percent said they consider "feminist" to be a negative term, compared to only 26 percent who consider it a positive term. Twenty-nine percent said it's a neutral term.

I have struggled to understand why "feminism" purports to define a belief that the vast majority of us hold (that "men and women should be social, political, and economic equals"), and yet seems to elicit such strong negative reactions from people who hold that belief.  But now, having been told to shut up and not participate in "a woman's discussion," having been advised, in roundabout terms, that to publicly disagree with a woman is to be sexist, having been lectured to by strangers about my own motives for expressing respect toward women - and having been advised that my motives are probably dishonest and are only the results of social conditioning and that when I show respect toward women I'm not actually showing respect toward women . . . well, I'm starting to get the picture.

Although I've never been polled about it, this thread has persuaded me to view self-declared "feminism" with some healthy doses of skepticism.  Large doses.  Heaping spoonfuls.  My journey toward being alienated from 21st Century Feminism is now well under way!  So count me as not one of the "just 20 percent of Americans -- including 23 percent of women and 16 percent of men -- [who] consider themselves feminists," but please do count me as one of the 82 percent who believe that "men and women should be social, political, and economic equals."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 8, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Men should use their priesthood 24/7 in everything they do.

Although I appreciate the sentiment (and the apparent spirit and good grace in which it is intended), I'm not sure this is entirely correct.  Joseph Smith said that "a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such."  While I think we should honor and live worthily to hold the priesthood 24/7, I'm less sure that we "use" it 24/7.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rodheadlee]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

How so?

It's a good question. I am only an Aaronic Priesthood holder in the office of priest. I try to remember 24/7 that I am a representative of Jesus Christ in everything I say or do and that I am to serve others as Christ would. I'm off to work so I don't have time to dissect my office right now but it will be a good exercise.

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

It's a good question. I am only an Aaronic Priesthood holder in the office of priest. I try to remember 24/7 that I am a representative of Jesus Christ in everything I say or do and that I am to serve others as Christ would. I'm off to work so I don't have time to dissect my office right now but it will be a good exercise.

Those are certainly good things (and things i try to remember as well), but they aren't limited to the priesthood.  Women should do the same, right?

[Glenn101]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

Glenn, are you acting in these ways because you see yourself as respectful to others and desire to do these things because it is how you yourself express respect or because you want others to feel respected by you?

If the latter, it would be much better, imo, if you take the time to find out if the person wants you to do it first when you have the chance.  I realize that not all situations give you the time, but a simply gesture towards the door or other things with a "may I?" or even "should I" with a smile...something that shows you are focusing on them as individuals and not some generic group that you have written a standard for and so you react that way no matter what the individual wants or whether or not doing those things for her actually make her feel respected or something else.

Bottomline is "is it about me or about them?".

Calm, I do those things because I want to. I don't stop to analyse myself as to whether I am doing it "for me" of "for them". I just do it. I was taught by my parents to be polite and respectful to my elders and to people in general. I have never had anyone grumble or even frown because I opened or held a door for them. In fact, I do not ever remember anyone not saying thank you.

But, don't you think that this is being over analysed here? This is what I see about some of the feminists, that they want to look at everything through a critical feminist viewpoint, injecting gender equality into just about everything. Even opening doors.

Glenn

[Mars]

i don't think anyone said that gender inequality is present in the mere showing of respect by opening doors.

just that "don't open doors for me to say you respect me when i want to be shown respect in x, y, and z ways."  the recipient gets to define how respect is shown.

[BlueDreams]

25 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Calm, I do those things because I want to. I don't stop to analyse myself as to whether I am doing it "for me" of "for them". I just do it. I was taught by my parents to be polite and respectful to my elders and to people in general. I have never had anyone grumble or even frown because I opened or held a door for them. In fact, I do not ever remember anyone not saying thank you.

But, don't you think that this is being over analysed here? This is what I see about some of the feminists, that they want to look at everything through a critical feminist viewpoint, injecting gender equality into just about everything. Even opening doors.

Glenn

 

Since I'm the one who first brought up the fact that I'm squeamish about door opening, I'll say for myself ....yes it has most definitely been overanalyzed. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I stop every dude who does it or grimace as I walk by. I usually say thanks and keep moving. Sometimes I open the next door for him (when it's a double door entrance sort of thing). I open doors for older people and people who have stuff in their hands, etc. 

The only point I was making is that I don't care about that gesture of respect and it doesn't actually make me feel some deep sense of respect. Respect for me is written in actions that actually have an effect in my life....do you really listen to me, do you question my decisions because there may be better pursuits for a good mormon girl, do you expect or aggrandize specific behaviors as womanly and come off skeptical about others, do you treat my able-bodied self as somehow weak/feeble/needing your protection, etc? As it is, I haven't seen a correlate between door opening and that in my life. That was literally my only point. It's great that other men (and women) find it a emblem of deep respect. To me it's inert and when done too much a little embarrassing. Affirmations about 1 male's respect shown in gesture as equivalent to other forms of respect they give to the ladies of their lives is not enough to alter my life experience with a wide range of males and subsequent door openers.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 8, 2016 by BlueDreams

[bluebell]

I don't see any reason to dissect your entire post point by point (it won't help anything and will just cause more back-and-forth disagreement that most are not interested in) so instead i'll choose a few points to comment on.

Quote

(As an aside, I note with interest that the online dictionary for this board does not recognize the word "misandrist" ("a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against men") but it does recognize "misogynist" ("a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women").  I also note with interest that Google returns only 250,000 hits for "misandrist," but more than three million for "misogynist."  It's almost like our society isn't paying much attention to the former problem, certainly not anywhere near as compared to the latter.)

I'm guessing there are more google returns for racism against blacks than racism against whites as well, even though both kinds of racism obviously exist and both kinds are wrong.  It's just that historically, one has been a much bigger problem than the other.  

I haven't done any research, but i wouldn't be surprised if the skewed numbers for misogyny vs. misandry is for a similar reason.  Regardless, this isn't the topic of the thread.  If someone feels the the church is not being fair to men, then that would be a great thread to start and an interesting discussion to have.  

Quote

I also reject efforts by other people to tell me what is "respectful" and what isn't.  I'm a reasonably intelligent person.  I am rather capable of discerning such basic concepts as civility, decorum, respect, and so on.  So I reject the notion that I am so blinkered by "social conditioning" that I need total strangers who have never met me in real life to explain to me whether my conduct is "respectful."

I also reject declarations that men exhibiting good manners toward women "don't actually mean anything," because they might be presented on false pretenses, that they only "outwardly show" respect but do not "actually treat women with respect."  My mind still trying to wrap itself around the arrogance and presumption that surrounds these statements.  Again, I am the world's leading authority of what I do and why I do it.  So when I say that I respect women and that I use good manners to express that respect, that is my bailiwick to establish, and mine alone.

First, I think you might better understand what is being said if you weren't so determined to make it all about you.  Also, taking things less personally will probably help lessen your habit of assigning negative motivations to those who post things you don't agree with (for example, refer to your often use of terms like "arrogance" "presumption" "uncharitable" "cynical", etc. in this and previous posts.) 

Second, I'm not aware of anyone saying these things about you personally (but i could have missed something, it's a long thread).  For my part, I'm sorry if i gave you that impression.  I know that i've discussed with you the generalities of how men often treated women in contradictory ways in different situations while wanting women to feel respected under both circumstances and how that can sometimes be problematic.  

I've also spoken about how, regardless of a man's motivation (to be clear, not you personally), a woman (who is also the world's leading authority on how she feels and why) does not always feel respected by social conventions directed at her solely because of her gender.   This is important to understand, which is why i've spent so much time trying to explain it clearly.

If a man's motivation for doing certain things is to first help women feel respected, then he would want to know if his actions were creating the desired result.  If they were less effective, he should be interested in learning how to proceed in more effective ways.

If a man's motivation for doing certain things it to first help himself feel respectful towards women, then how a woman responds to his actions doesn't matter and the things that have been shared are irrelevant.  

I'm coming from the perspective that the men in this thread are a part of the first group.  Any man who is instead a part of the second can ignore me.

Quote

I also reject the suggestion that I have a problem with "women trying to express their thoughts and feelings."  I don't.  I really, really don't.  I listen to women and what they have to say all the time.  At work, at church, at home . . . everywhere.  All.  The.  Time.  The sin I committed in this thread was not failing to listen to women, but failing to agree.  Oh, the humanity!

I did not say that you had a problem with women trying to express their thoughts.  I said that i was sorry that women trying to express their thoughts was depressing to you.  

Quote

I started my participation in this thread with a broad and deep respect for women.  I still have that broad and deep respect for the category.  I have a wonderful wife.  I have two beautiful and intelligent and spiritual daughters.  I have a wonderful mother and also a mother-in-law.  I also have four sisters and six sisters-in-law.  I also have a few dozen nieces of various ages.  I also have several female co-workers.  And a ward and neighborhood full of women of varying ages and circumstances.  I love all of these people (and not because I have been socially conditioned to fake it).  I treat them with kindness and respect.  I am overwhelmingly treated with kindness and respect in return.  I frequently solicit input and advice from women about things going on in my life.  I appreciate the insights and wisdom so often found in the responses to such inquiries.  I am grateful to God that He created women.  I can't imagine life without them (literally or figuratively).  

Great.  I have never thought otherwise.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Mars said:

Also - I missed it. What was the topic? The one you referred to when you said it was a woman's discussion?

Not a gotcha or riposte waiting in the wings. I just am trying to make sure I got it. 

I just want to thank you for taking the time to try to really understand what a lot of the women in the thread are trying to say, even if you don't agree with it.

[BlueDreams]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, my comments and my name keep coming up, it seems.  So I guess I'll weigh in again.

I criticized the movie trailer in the OP for its content.  That it is populated with so-called "feminists" was not part of that concern, so the suggestion that I criticized it "because it had feminists in it" is a load of crapola.  I am the world's leading authority of what I do and why I do it.  I have been critical of Kate Kelly on this board.  Everyone knows this.  That doesn't make me a sexist.  I have also been critical of Denver Snuffer, and yet nobody has suggested that this means I am a misandrist.  (As an aside, I note with interest that the online dictionary for this board does not recognize the word "misandrist" ("a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against men") but it does recognize "misogynist" ("a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women").  I also note with interest that Google returns only 250,000 hits for "misandrist," but more than three million for "misogynist."  It's almost like our society isn't paying much attention to the former problem, certainly not anywhere near as compared to the latter.)

I really will keep this short this time. 

.....This is all over the place and jumping to a ton of conclusions that I don't think anyone here would have actually stated. For example I don't think anyone here has actually accused you of sexism. In fact, I did a word search on the last 8 pages of discussion here. You are the only one that brought up the word sexism at all. The only other person to mention the word was BB and she did so to state she wasn't accusing you of sexism. 

On your aside about misandry. It could simply be that there is more impact, weight, and concerns about misogyny over misandry. Polygyny is also not recognized in the board though polyandry and polygamy are. And when you do a search of polyandry would get 400K hits where polygamy is around 6 mil. Mischaracterization is also not recognized in the board as a word....it's not all that deep.

 

Quote

I also reject the what-I-thought-had-been-retracted-but-apparently-not suggestion that men have no voice in discussions about this trailer (and/or the topics/themes touched on within it), solely because they are men.  The precise wording was "This is a woman's discussion."  I thought this statement had been retracted, but as this thread goes on it appears to be getting firmly entrenched.

Again, this seems to me a mischaracterization of what is actually being said. 

 

Quote

I also reject declarations that men exhibiting good manners toward women "don't actually mean anything," because they might be presented on false pretenses, that they only "outwardly show" respect but do not "actually treat women with respect."  My mind still trying to wrap itself around the arrogance and presumption that surrounds these statements.  Again, I am the world's leading authority of what I do and why I do it.  So when I say that I respect women and that I use good manners to express that respect, that is my bailiwick to establish, and mine alone.  And when I am thereafter informed that "just because a man does something that society has deemed as respectful to women, doesn't mean he respects women," I find that offensive and absurd.  Not only is it categorically false when applied to me (because I respect women, I don't just fake it as per the suggestion here), it is also quite uncharitable and unfair when applied to men categorically.  Imagine if a man acknowledged that many women and kind and loving, but then discounted that by saying "just because a woman does something that society has deemed as kind and loving, doesn't mean she is kind and loving."  That would be an appalling thing to say.  Uncharitable.  Presumptuous.  Cynical.  Yuck.

You are only you, Smac. This reminds me of a number of incidents surrounding things on race...I'll share one. I remember I said a comment about my experience with white people in a largely white group of people and that was found immediately as offensive. Several peoples responses were I don't do that or mean that and you're ignoring my efforts and being uncharitable about this. I wasn't, they were learning and trying to understand minority perspectives and because of this I opened up prematurely about my minority experience with white people in general terms. They, individually, were generally not like that...and without meaning to they rejected my experience and nullified it as offensive and "presumptuous." But one room full of white people with growing self awareness didn't change a lifetime of experiences with far more people than in one room. I am usually very charitable and a dyed in the wool optimist. I give people the benefit of the doubt. But just because you do something for a specific reason, does not mean my experience is ergo nullified and assuaged. 

Quote

I also reject the suggestion that I have a problem with "women trying to express their thoughts and feelings."  I don't.  I really, really don't.  I listen to women and what they have to say all the time.  At work, at church, at home . . . everywhere.  All.  The.  Time.  The sin I committed in this thread was not failing to listen to women, but failing to agree.  Oh, the humanity!

....except apparently the women here, who haven't said a number of things you've assumed they have. Including myself.

Quote

 

But if this thread has kindled anything, it is dislike and rejection of the repellent strands of "feminism" that yield results like those itemized above.  I'll be honest: when it comes to actually interacting with "feminism," I'm pretty much a babe in the woods.  For example, a while back I came across this article and struggled to understand the social phenomena behind it:

I have struggled to understand why "feminism" purports to define a belief that the vast majority of us hold (that "men and women should be social, political, and economic equals"), and yet seems to elicit such strong negative reactions from people who hold that belief.  But now, having been told to shut up and not participate in "a woman's discussion," having been advised, in roundabout terms, that to publicly disagree with a woman is to be sexist, having been lectured to by strangers about my own motives for expressing respect toward women - and having been advised that my motives are probably dishonest and are only the results of social conditioning and that when I show respect toward women I'm not actually showing respect toward women . . . well, I'm starting to get the picture.

Although I've never been polled about it, this thread has persuaded me to view self-declared "feminism" with some healthy doses of skepticism.  Large doses.  Heaping spoonfuls.  My journey toward being alienated from 21st Century Feminism is now well under way!  So count me as not one of the "just 20 percent of Americans -- including 23 percent of women and 16 percent of men -- [who] consider themselves feminists," but please do count me as one of the 82 percent who believe that "men and women should be social, political, and economic equals."

 

I'm not exactly sure how this thread did so for you. Out of all the women who have responded to you, I'm pretty sure i'm the only one who openly self-describes as a feminist. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 8, 2016 by BlueDreams
Formatting and grammar

[Nofear]

17 hours ago, juliann said:

The church is beginning to see that women are needed in decision making bodies, thus they are starting to include them. My experience in ward councils had been very positive. The church is way ahead on this and has actually created an ideal configuration for optimal female involvement. (Which doesn't require equal numbers only that every member has to participate.) The more women are included, priesthood ordination will perhaps not need to be the battleground.

The Quorum of the Twelve are pretty advanced in years and grew up in when social norms where much more gendered. I find it interesting how we get the instructions to do better when in some cases that may well go against their own personal upbringing. Sometimes we see some of the old norms slip in here or there but the overall message is, as you note, pretty consistent and positive. I like what you say about how if we do a better job at creating more inclusive and equitable interactions then for many the "debate" about priesthood ordination would not be the battleground it is now.

 

Do you have a brief summary of ideas you think would help realize the more Zion-like (one heart, one mind) society -- those taught by the Brethren and General Officers and your own or other borrowed ideas? Same question opened broadly to others.

 

35 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Since I'm the one who first brought up the fact that I'm squeamish about door opening, I'll say for myself ....yes it has most definitely been overanalyzed. Just because I don't like it doesn't mean I stop every dude who does it or grimace as I walk by. I usually say thanks and keep moving. Sometimes I open the next door for him (when it's a double door entrance sort of thing). I open doors for older people and people who have stuff in their hands, etc.

Just making the comment that I kind of appreciate the culture that seems prevalent where I live. It is not uncommon at all for the first person, male of female, to a door to open it for others if they are close behind irrespective of gender of the followers. Not perfectly uniform, and perhaps more common for men than women to do it, but the door opening thing 'round my parts seems to be much less gendered in motivation.

[consiglieri]

15 hours ago, Mars said:

russell, it's great watching you in action when you do this against our critics.

but when it's against other members, it sucks.

Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik.