oops Women

[Physics Guy]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

So, if i'm understanding you right, you believe that teaching women that there is nothing more important than to be a mother and raise children, that is keeping women from reaching their full potential.  

Yes, that's what I believe. I'm also emphasizing that reaching their full potential is not only a right which women should be allowed to enjoy, but a duty to all of humanity which women should be urged to fulfill.

13 hours ago, pogi said:

High income, prestige, and responsibility over large groups is more noble than raising and training your children at home?  It sounds like you are suggesting that if women do not put their egos before their kids, then they are shorting themselves.

No, I mean the opposite of indulging one's ego. I mean trying to do what's right even if it is unpleasant or if the chance of success is low. High income itself is not noble; you can get rich as a drug dealer. Fair markets for talent, however, do a pretty good job of rewarding value with income. If you're really applying your talents effectively, you should be making some money. If you're not, then there's something wrong, somewhere. It may well not be with you.

14 hours ago, Rain said:

MY talent is NOT going to waste.  I just am not paid for the use of my talent. I could be in the lab curing cancer, but am glad I am using my talents to help others in other ways. 

Ghetto industries with captive labor pools do not do a good job of rewarding value with income. If a talented woman pursues a volunteer career that really makes the world better, then she's doing her part. The society that exploits people like her by not paying them what their work is worth is being stupidly sexist. If the volunteering women who are doing something really valuable all went on strike, suddenly there'd be wages.

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I think you are ignoring the possibility that by staying home, a mother might not cure cancer herself, but make it possible through her nuturing of her children's talents for one of them to do so.

I picked "cure cancer" as an extreme example of non-homemaking contribution, to try to make a point. Even if we stick with curing cancer, though, in fact it's unlikely that cancer will be cured, or anything like cured, through the singlehanded effort of one genius. The researchers that make the decisive steps will doubtless owe a lot to their parents. Heck, there might end up being a lot of lives owed to the person who made that one funny cat YouTube video that made one exhausted researcher laugh, and then relax for an hour, and then have an insight.

A butterfly can change the weather. We can't predict where our choices will lead. It's not a fairy-tale world, though. Curing cancer is going to take a lot of lab work, and if human talent were wisely applied, half the researchers would be women. Research is unbelievably frustrating work even once it gets going, and getting into it has a decades-long runway. Nobody does that kind of thing without a sense of duty and calling. Women need to hear that call as loudly as men.

Quote

The way you wrote the above makes me feel like the woman now gets to be a slave to society's needs instead of the family in your ideal world.  And your next post implies that women just need to be programmed to want to work outside the home, individuality shouldn't come into it except perhaps in choosing what great calling (besides motherhood) one will undertake to benefit society.

When men are called to lead corporations, perform surgeries, plead lawsuits, compose operas—is that slavery? Developing and applying your talents, instead of burying them in some application that doesn't apply them, is neither slavery nor self-indulgence. It's doing the right thing with your life as an adult human being.

It's not really an important part of my point that callings have to be great. Even if we only cared about things that seem great, those things all depend on less visible things. So curing cancer is just an example. In fact only a tiny fraction of human beings should even be trying to do that—simply throwing more people at cancer won't help nearly enough, and we need tons of other things, too.

Making cat videos could be just as legitimate a calling, if you're not cut out for biochemistry and you're really good (really, really good) at filming funny cats. If you're really good at nurturing children, you could run a daycare, and give dozens of children the benefit of your talent—while perhaps enabling one of their parents to help to cure cancer. 

I believe that everyone should be programmed by their upbringing to want to work at something that applies their full talents. Artificially steering children towards any narrow set of fields is inefficient, because liking something and wanting to do it is part of what it means to have a talent for that thing. So everyone should choose what to do with their lives, but they should be choosing from the full range of possibilities without an arbitrary bias.

Narrowing all women's choices down to a list with full-time single-family homemaker at the top is absurd. There's no way that's the best use of the talents of half of humanity.

Edited August 26, 2017 by Physics Guy

[Avatar4321]

On 8/24/2017 at 10:44 AM, Physics Guy said:

The study measures disparity between men and women, not absolute levels. If things in West Virginia are much worse for women than in Utah, West Virginia can still have much less disparity, if things are more equally awful there for women and men. Utah could come dead last for disparity even if it were the best place on Earth for women—if it were heaven for men.

How can a man in a society of saintly women not be in heaven?

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Yes, that's what I believe. I'm also emphasizing that reaching their full potential is not only a right which women should be allowed to enjoy, but a duty to all of humanity which women should be urged to fulfill.

No, I mean the opposite of indulging one's ego. I mean trying to do what's right even if it is unpleasant or if the chance of success is low. High income itself is not noble; you can get rich as a drug dealer. Fair markets for talent, however, do a pretty good job of rewarding value with income. If you're really applying your talents effectively, you should be making some money. If you're not, then there's something wrong, somewhere. It may well not be with you.

Ghetto industries with captive labor pools do not do a good job of rewarding value with income. If a talented woman pursues a volunteer career that really makes the world better, then she's doing her part. The society that exploits people like her by not paying them what their work is worth is being stupidly sexist. If the volunteering women who are doing something really valuable all went on strike, suddenly there'd be wages.

I picked "cure cancer" as an extreme example of non-homemaking contribution, to try to make a point. Even if we stick with curing cancer, though, in fact it's unlikely that cancer will be cured, or anything like cured, through the singlehanded effort of one genius. The researchers that make the decisive steps will doubtless owe a lot to their parents. Heck, there might end up being a lot of lives owed to the person who made that one funny cat YouTube video that made one exhausted researcher laugh, and then relax for an hour, and then have an insight.

A butterfly can change the weather. We can't predict where our choices will lead. It's not a fairy-tale world, though. Curing cancer is going to take a lot of lab work, and if human talent were wisely applied, half the researchers would be women. Research is unbelievably frustrating work even once it gets going, and getting into it has a decades-long runway. Nobody does that kind of thing without a sense of duty and calling. Women need to hear that call as loudly as men.

When men are called to lead corporations, perform surgeries, plead lawsuits, compose operas—is that slavery? Developing and applying your talents, instead of burying them in some application that doesn't apply them, is neither slavery nor self-indulgence. It's doing the right thing with your life as an adult human being.

It's not really an important part of my point that callings have to be great. Even if we only cared about things that seem great, those things all depend on less visible things. So curing cancer is just an example. In fact only a tiny fraction of human beings should even be trying to do that—simply throwing more people at cancer won't help nearly enough, and we need tons of other things, too.

Making cat videos could be just as legitimate a calling, if you're not cut out for biochemistry and you're really good (really, really good) at filming funny cats. If you're really good at nurturing children, you could run a daycare, and give dozens of children the benefit of your talent—while perhaps enabling one of their parents to help to cure cancer. 

I believe that everyone should be programmed by their upbringing to want to work at something that applies their full talents. Artificially steering children towards any narrow set of fields is inefficient, because liking something and wanting to do it is part of what it means to have a talent for that thing. So everyone should choose what to do with their lives, but they should be choosing from the full range of possibilities without an arbitrary bias.

Narrowing all women's choices down to a list with full-time single-family homemaker at the top is absurd. There's no way that's the best use of the talents of half of humanity.

It sounds like you have solved all the problems except for one...you forgot about the children and their best interest.  You know, our future. 

Who will be raising our children when all the mothers go to work and all the day care workers start pursuing their real talents, dreams, and callings? I mean, how many people can truly say that being a day care worker at near minimum wage is their talent and life-calling?  I doubt that there are enough.  If all of society abandons our children to pursue their "calling", then their true calling will be neglected.  We are called to be mothers and fathers.  Our children need us more than society does.  Again, what this world needs is more exceptional mothers and fathers.  That would solve most of this worlds problems in my opinion.

My child needs his mother and his father most of all.  Think about the children.

 

[BlueDreams]

18 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I believe everyone should have that choice, but that the right choice is not to bury our talents.

And when we're talking about how children and adolescents are raised and inspired, I think we're also talking about who those children and adolescents become, and how their choices are shaped.

I imagine a child whose inborn talent would enable her to do something extraordinary, if she also worked very hard to develop and use her talent. Then I imagine what happens if her whole world growing up tells her not to do that. I imagine that her gifts, although great, do not happen to include the gift of defying the whole world around her. She grows up into a person who really doesn't want to develop or use her extraordinary talent, but desires instead to do something for which she is not especially suited.

Is that really her free choice? Perhaps it is. But if so, is she the person she should have been?

Late to the conversation...ironically because I was working . I love my job, it's no secret to anyone who knows me. When/if i'm blessed with a family I plan to still work. I resonate with the thought that I need it to stay sane and I already have a sense that I can't just at home. plus my work is super flexible and self-directed for the most part. I can do half of it at home and the other half I set my hours. Jobs and education can be a saving grace to women, and it can certainly be a means of fulfilling ones capacity. BUT having a career isn't necessary or sufficient in doing so. In some cases it can be a deterrent and does not represent an actual choice but a necessity.

the other reason I didn't like the stats is because it doesn't measure a woman's capacity of choice in decisions. Are there factors that bolster or limit the choice? If the women of UT felt fully enabled to work outside the home and were simply choosing not to as personal preference, that doesn't necessarily equal disparity. I don't think that's exactly the case of course. The structure of society in the US does a pretty crappy job of supporting working mothers. It creates an either or dichotomy that leaves women up a creek. women can feel forced to work earlier than they prefer with a child in certain areas in order to provide. That isn't an emblem of capacity but an obvious narrowing of choice. 

Lastly most jobs are not curing cancer. Most jobs aren't even my job. They're more grunt work. Part of the reason I chose my work is because of a mother-daughter work day. My mom works long hours doing menial desk work. She's the sort that does better when she's working, though she's loathe to admit it. But it's still long hours of desk work. She sat in this quiet unstimulating office filled with cubicles. It was mind numbing. At that point I decided I would never ever work in a cubicle. I never have. I don't see my mom's work as the bastion of empowerment. She's not going to make life altering discoveries in that cubicle. It was for money and possibly sanity. She sometimes felt a slave to her desk. That's changed a little and she now works more from home. But still. At the same time it could have been a saving grace for my grandmother who was trapped in a bad marriage for years because she lacked higher education and it was expected that she wouldn't work. 

Quote

Yes, that's what I believe. I'm also emphasizing that reaching their full potential is not only a right which women should be allowed to enjoy, but a duty to all of humanity which women should be urged to fulfill.

 

Oddly I do agree that an over emphasis on wife and mother can be a problem. I disagree that it's necessarily wrong, it's just not well balanced. It can internalize a message that you're doing something wrong, with or without society telling you. One of my close friends really struggled with her choice to delay children and then work as a mother. The pressure was largely internal. Careers and education for women can be treated as emergency preparedness kits as opposed to a means to forms of fulfillment in our culture. Messages about women's education when I was growing up were chalked up to "you need it because you never know what will happen to your husband." We can have an attitude around things working mothers will often need, like daycare. I just had a discussion with a woman about that who came down hard on the idea of working mothers...even though she was currently single and working on a masters in a STEM field. 

I recently met a younger woman who is slowly learning that she needs more goals in life than wife and mother. She had internalized this expectation because of family tradition, even though her mother didn't actively encourage it. She waylaid her goals to pursue it...until her marriage fell apart due to abuse. I was having a conversation about her PB, asking her how long it was and how much of it was on being a wife and mother. As I expected it was a paragraph in a fairly good sized PB. what surprised me was that though she knew that one paragraph practically by heart, she couldn't really remember the rest. 

But our culture isn't entirely sour and problematic. After all I got my education from BYU. No one tried to convince me out of it because I was a woman. Several encouraged me, including several instrumental older LDS men. I had several spiritual tools that bolstered my choice, including my PB which explicitly stated that my education would be part of mt divine purpose here and that I would excel in the career of my choosing. Just recently I had a blessing that reiterated the message that my career was important to God's work in helping people. In he same breath, I do believe my husband and my children we be even more important and fulfilling than my career (though God really had to convince me on that one). I do think family and relationships are generally more important. But how we teach this needs a little more balance. STILL teaching women that they will be failing their potential if they don't have a career and making all volunteer work paid is probably not that balance. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Calm]

"When men are called to lead corporations, perform surgeries, plead lawsuits, compose operas—is that slavery?"

Yes, if they are forced into it by someone else insisting they are obligated rather than desire it in their hearts.

(and I do mean forced, not just peer pressured which would not be slavery...I assume your desired reality does not actually include testing people and then assigning them jobs whether they want them or not and then punishing them if they don't perform as expected, but the way you wrote your post, it sounds like that is the only way to achieve your ideal).

Edited August 26, 2017 by Calm

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Yes, that's what I believe. I'm also emphasizing that reaching their full potential is not only a right which women should be allowed to enjoy, but a duty to all of humanity which women should be urged to fulfill.

Ok.  I disagree with you but thanks for explaining.  

[Nofear]

I anticipate both sides simply interpretting Pres. Young's comment to support their position.

"As I have often told my sisters in the Female Relief Societies, we have sisters here who, if they had the privilege of studying, would make just as good mathematicians or accountants as any man; and we think they ought to have the privilege to study these branches of knowledge that they may develop the powers with which they are endowed. We believe that women are useful not only to sweep houses, wash dishes, make beds, and raise babies, but that they should stand behind the counter, study law or physic [medicine], or become good book-keepers and be able to do the business in any counting house, and this to enlarge their sphere of usefulness for the benefit of society at large (DBY, 216–17)."

[Rain]

30 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I anticipate both sides simply interpretting Pres. Young's comment to support their position.

"As I have often told my sisters in the Female Relief Societies, we have sisters here who, if they had the privilege of studying, would make just as good mathematicians or accountants as any man; and we think they ought to have the privilege to study these branches of knowledge that they may develop the powers with which they are endowed. We believe that women are useful not only to sweep houses, wash dishes, make beds, and raise babies, but that they should stand behind the counter, study law or physic [medicine], or become good book-keepers and be able to do the business in any counting house, and this to enlarge their sphere of usefulness for the benefit of society at large (DBY, 216–17)."

Good quote. It seems foundational to both sides. 

[Calm]

"I believe that everyone should be programmed by their upbringing to want to work at something that applies their full talents. Artificially steering children towards any narrow set of fields is inefficient, because liking something and wanting to do it is part of what it means to have a talent for that thing. So everyone should choose what to do with their lives, but they should be choosing from the full range of possibilities without an arbitrary bias."

What about programming them by their upbringing to want to mate with someone who will maximize their genetic "talent" as well?

[Physics Guy]

On 8/26/2017 at 3:16 PM, pogi said:

Who will be raising our children when all the mothers go to work and all the day care workers start pursuing their real talents, dreams, and callings?  We are called to be mothers and fathers.  Our children need us more than society does.

If mothers stay home and focus on childcare, fathers work to earn money. Yet how many of those workaday fathers are cherished as profound influences on their children? I think, most. If a father can be an effective parent while pursuing a career, why can't a mother, too?

Quote

I mean, how many people can truly say that being a day care worker at near minimum wage is their talent and life-calling?

Day care workers should be earning more than minimum wage. Our children are our future.

On 8/26/2017 at 6:39 PM, Calm said:

"When men are called to lead corporations, perform surgeries, plead lawsuits, compose operas—is that slavery?"

Yes, if they are forced into it by someone else insisting they are obligated rather than desire it in their hearts.

(and I do mean forced, not just peer pressured which would not be slavery...I assume your desired reality does not actually include testing people and then assigning them jobs whether they want them or not and then punishing them if they don't perform as expected, but the way you wrote your post, it sounds like that is the only way to achieve your ideal).

No, I don't advocate a caste system with everyone slotted into jobs by decree. The goal is efficient use of talent, but free markets are more efficient than central planning. Perfect efficiency is an unrealistic goal in any case. Insisting that an extra X-chromosome suits one only for child care is just so horribly inefficient, it's a crime. Not having enough brain power working on hard problems has appallingly high human costs. Just think how many thousands more people would have died horribly if the discoveries of antibiotics or insulin, say, had been delayed by ten years. Just think how many lives would have been saved if medical discoveries had been made decades sooner.

12 hours ago, Calm said:

What about programming them by their upbringing to want to mate with someone who will maximize their genetic "talent" as well?

I'm not sure how to interpret this. Are you asking whether people should be encouraged to select mates whose genes will give their offspring the best genetic chances? If so, I think that natural human instincts are already pretty efficient at this. By the time we understand human genetics well enough to do any better, we'll probably be able to fix a lot of genetic problems instead of trying to avoid them by mate selection. So no, I don't see a big need to propagandize for eugenics.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Physics Guy

[juliann]

There is a lot of well meaning sexism, not to mention elitism, in this thread. That is obvious from the lack of acknowledgment that men should be held accountable for child and home care. The problems are much deeper than simply using your talents in the workforce. First there aren't enough elite jobs and second, if there were, it requires an underclass to do the jobs that women do now. In other words, it is great to be a CEO, but some other less advantaged woman will be doing the housework for low pay. Even feminism has had to begin to acknowledge this.

https://www.wired.com/story/why-men-dont-believe-the-data-on-gender-bias-in-science/  As to the problems being deeper than simply getting an education and a job, this article addresses why women don't get ahead and why so many refuse to attend to what holds them back.

Quote

 One early study evaluated postdoctoral fellowship applications in the biomedical sciences and found that the women had to be 2.5 times more productive than the men in order to be rated equally scientifically competent by the senior scientists evaluating their applications. The authors concluded, “Our study strongly suggests that peer reviewers cannot judge scientific merit independent of gender. The peer reviewers over-estimated male achievements and/or underestimated female performance.” The study finds that “gender discrimination of the magnitude we have observed… could entirely account for the lower success rate of female as compared with male researchers in attaining high academic rank.”

Well, that is pretty in your face plain. So it will get fixed...only....

Quote

Given the enormous amount of data to support these findings, and given the field in question, one might think male scientists would use these outcomes to create a more level playing field. But a recent paper showed that in fact, male STEM faculty assessed the quality of real research that demonstrated bias against women in STEM as being low; instead the male faculty favored fake research, designed for the purposes of the study in question, which purported to demonstrate that no such bias exists.

 This goes on in probably all male dominated situations. It doesn't matter how prepared a woman is or how she views her purpose if once she arrives, she is silenced or put in the back of the line. 

[juliann]

On 8/26/2017 at 1:29 AM, Physics Guy said:

 

Narrowing all women's choices down to a list with full-time single-family homemaker at the top is absurd. There's no way that's the best use of the talents of half of humanity.

But half of humanity isn't picking up the slack. What you are advocating is great in theory, as things stand, it is merely telling women they should do more.

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleMadsenGenderWageGap.html

Quote

On average, women worldwide spend between 3–6 hours per day on unpaid work, whereas men spend between 30 minutes to 2 hours per day. The gap between men’s and women’s hours spent on such work is lowest in North America and Europe and highest in the Middle East/North Africa and South Asia regions. In general, the amount of time women spend on unpaid care work varies from twice as much to ten times more than men, depending on region and other factors.[52] According to American Time Use Survey tables, U.S. women who participate in unpaid work average 4.92 hours per day vs. 3.79 hours per day for U.S. men. The gap in Utah is wider: Utah women spend 5.55 hours per day in unpaid work vs. 3.22 hours for Utah men.[53] Although this snapshot focuses primarily on unpaid care work (generally performed in the home), Utah women also spend significant time doing church and community volunteer work; see our previous snapshot, “Voting and Civic Engagement Among Utah Women”, for more information.

 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

But half of humanity isn't picking up the slack. What you are advocating is great in theory, as things stand, it is merely telling women they should do more.

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleMadsenGenderWageGap.html

 

I like to think I'm doing my part at least!

[Physics Guy]

9 hours ago, juliann said:

[M]en should be held accountable for child and home care.

I didn't say that because lots of other people say it already but that doesn't make it any less true. I feel that the two points—men need to work in the home and women need to work outside—are a stronger case in combination than separately. It's not just that it would be nicer for women if men changed some of the diapers. It's a pressing problem for the human race as a whole that women's talents are under-utilized. All of us together need to fix this.

Quote

First there aren't enough elite jobs and second, if there were, it requires an underclass to do the jobs that women do now. In other words, it is great to be a CEO, but some other less advantaged woman will be doing the housework for low pay.

Do you consider this an immediate problem, given things as they currently are, or an ultimate problem that is inherently unavoidable? If the latter, then I'm not convinced. First of all the issue—or my issue, anyway—isn't really elite jobs, but just jobs that best apply people's talents. Secondly the ultimate solution is that most of the housework gets done by professional cleaners who may make less money than CEOs, but who are doing all right. Or perhaps even by robots. I've done laundry with washtub and clothesline. Getting a hand-cranked wringer was a major step up. Housework is a lot easier now than it once was, and the trend may continue.

Quote

https://www.wired.com/story/why-men-dont-believe-the-data-on-gender-bias-in-science/  As to the problems being deeper than simply getting an education and a job, this article addresses why women don't get ahead and why so many refuse to attend to what holds them back. ...

This goes on in probably all male dominated situations. It doesn't matter how prepared a woman is or how she views her purpose if once she arrives, she is silenced or put in the back of the line. 

Absolutely true. But if we're taking academic science as an example profession, there's actually a lot of pressure on faculties to hire more women professors—and it's really hard to get female applicants. You can't hire a woman if no women even apply—and that happens a lot. The infamous problem is the "leaky pipeline": at every stage along the career path, far fewer qualified women than qualified men choose to attempt the next stage.

This is seriously not just an excuse. It's a major topic of study, with tons of hard data gathered for decades. There's a vicious circle. As long as there are hardly any female professors, women don't get the idea that academic science is something for them—and men don't get the idea that a research talk delivered in a higher-pitched voice is normal. As long as there are no women training right through to faculty level, there aren't enough female professors. We have to get to a critical mass and it seems to be hard. We need to apply every lever we can, and the one lever that I really haven't seen used is the one that seems to me to be strongest: the call of duty. Science needs women. We are delaying or even losing discoveries because the women aren't there.

Getting more women into science is to some degree like getting more women into the military. There's a lot of stupid behavior by the men who are there now, and that obviously needs to change. Being a soldier is never going to be a comfortable profession for anyone, though. The military won't have equality as long as men hear, "Your country needs you!" and women hear only, "You can do this, too, if you really want." I think science is like that as well—and so are a lot of careers that don't currently have many women.

9 hours ago, juliann said:

But half of humanity isn't picking up the slack. What you are advocating is great in theory, as things stand, it is merely telling women they should do more.

http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleMadsenGenderWageGap.html

Given how things stand now, I'd agree that telling women to do more isn't the first priority. There are other problems that are even more pressing. But on big problems like this, we can and must do more than one thing at once; long-term measures have to be maintained even while putting out fires. I got started on this by thinking about how girls are brought up. Long term, I think that humanity's need to harness female talent is the one big cold hard fact that ought to drive the whole feminist effort. It's the rock on which to stand.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Physics Guy

[Calm]

"Secondly the ultimate solution is that most of the housework gets done by professional cleaners who may make less money than CEOs,"

Because they are too untalented to contribute to anything more meaningful for society?

[pogi]

23 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Day care workers should be earning more than minimum wage. Our children are our future.

I know some mothers who work full time, and after paying for the costs of day care, they barely have anything to show for it.  I scratch my head thinking, "why?" Is it really worth it?  They come home from work exhausted, yet their children desperately need their attention.  But they still have to cook dinner, feed their kids (if they aren't old enough to feed themselves) clean up after, tidy up the home, change diapers, get them ready for bed, etc.  Day after day, after day.  The only time they have to give quality attention time to their children is on the weekends...after yard work, house chores, shopping, and other necessary errands.  This is the life they are working for?  Often with very little extra money to show for it...why?  By increasing the the pay of day care workers, and thus the cost of day care, you are only creating a greater incentive for some mothers to stay home, by the way.  It will become unaffordable for too many.      

11 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Housework is a lot easier now than it once was, and the trend may continue.

Everything comes at a cost.  In seeking more convenience, we become a slave to the machine.  That is the American lifestyle - to pay for all of the gidgets and gadgets that make our life simpler, we work more and more and more, feeling like we have no other option.  So, in an effort to make our life simpler, we spend all of our time at working - neglecting the things that really matter most to us - our families.  I was a hospice nurse and often comforted the dying as they express their life regrets.  I never once heard a patient express regret that they didn't work more!  Most of the regrets were expressed about family, where our deepest happiness lies. 

[Meerkat]

On 8/24/2017 at 8:25 AM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I wonder often, who makes these polls, and I guess it is due (in the yes of the poll makers to "women and the Priesthood", as the Church and State have been very forward thinking of our Sisters. If memory serves, the State of Utah was first to "give" or "grant" the right to vote. In addition within the Church they hold positions of great responsibility, on every level, and Priesthood power is given to some women who serve in the Temple. As more than one lesson points out that those who are married to Priesthood holders, share in those duties in the home. My Mother was not even a member, but she possessed great power due to her unwavering Faith, ambition is a dangerous and prideful thing in the Gospel. But, Oh that I were (had) the power of healing and comport that she possessed in her lifetime. I have told this story before, but while I was in the hospital in the ER, although out of it and unaware, Doctors were giving me meds to calm me and my heart, both of which I was unaware. The ER Doctors told my wife that they would thinking about putting me under to save me from a heart attack. As they were discussing their options, my Mother arrived, she gently put her hand on my forehead (as I am told) and my heart rate came down, and my body relaxed, in an instant. The Doctors (pausing because she was whispering, what she did, in her fashion, she replied, "just praying, and speaking peace unto his soul". Such was her power and her humidity, every child, and those who have or had such a Mother growing up, the simple touch and kiss from their Mother's growing up, could ease suffering and dispell fear, so effortless. 

Back in 1973 (amidst one of the worst ice storms we ever had, and with no power) I was out of school with many childhood illness that I had dodged until the age of 15, she sat up day and night, or slept on a lounge chair, but my bed, making my suffering bearable. On two different occasions that month, my Doctor was not sure I would make it, but never my Mother, she knew I would be alright. Anyway, methinks I write to much. 

Thank you Bill "Papa" Lee.  This brought a tear to the eye remembering my own angel Mother. Thank you.

[DJBrown]

On 8/25/2017 at 8:44 AM, Physics Guy said:

I do not doubt that sexism is responsible for much of the career disparity. Suppose for the sake of argument, at least, that some of the disparity represents the free choice of women to pursue callings that don't bring high income or prestige or responsibility for large groups of people. I'm still not happy about even this (hypothetically) voluntary part of the disparity.

To me feminism is the belief that women are just as inherently capable as men at all intellectual tasks. For me it then follows that equality means women stepping up and fully applying their half of the human talent pool, so that humanity does not go on facing a dangerous universe with one hand tied behind our back.

It's a big contribution to raise several children well and run a home for one family, but curing cancer would be a bigger contribution, and some woman out there might well cure cancer if she didn't spend her life tending to just her few relatives. If she'd rather be a homemaker with a part-time job in the mornings, tough luck for her. She needs to get in the lab and direct the big institute. Life isn't just about doing whatever we want.

So I'm disturbed by disparity even if it is voluntary. It means that talent is going to waste.

Are you familiar with the gender equality efforts in Sweden?  The great irony is that Sweden is probably the most progressive country in terms of gender equality- laws, policies, culture.  But the disparity in job choices is larger than most other countries.  Women choose 'caring' professions at a rate far greater than they do the STEM type careers.  The gap is much more significant than the US and other advanced nations.

The take home for many who have evaluated Sweden's society is that when external, societal barriers to gender equality are lowered as much as possible, the differences between the genders express themselves most dramatically.

Interesting.  But something that bothers many social justice types.

[Tacenda]

I know this is a topic about women in the work place or how women don't take enough stem classes.

But realized recently that in our church the women aren't really as equal, not that the leaders claim they're equal or exactly alike, but something that bothers me is that women can be treated like property and maybe this is stemming from polygamy.

Why is it that women have to get their ex-husband's permission to marry again in the temple to someone else, but the men don't have to get that same permission from their ex-wife to marry someone in the temple? 

[Calm]

It is the same for both these days, Tacenda.  The exwife and the exhusband need to inform their former spouses of their intent, thus the "temple clearance" requirement for men.

It  is not permission, but a chance for the former spouse to share any info they believe is appropriate that might render the individual unfit for a temple marriage, such as abuse, not paying child support, etc.  As long as a sincere effort to contact the spouse has been made, a marriage can proceed if the spouse chooses not to respond or is impossible to find.

You need to do research on things you are unhappy with to find out if they really exist.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Calm

[Okrahomer]

I have some "personal" experience with this--actually my brother's and my son's experiences.  In both cases, their former spouses were sent letters to which they were asked to respond.  In my brother's case, his former spouse responded negatively to a question about whether or not he should be allowed to be married in the Temple; so, at least for several months, she was able to prevent him from marrying in the Temple.  Happily, he was eventually able to address her concerns, and she finally gave her permission.

But here's the kicker:  she's never even been a member of the Church.  It seems pretty equal to me.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Okrahomer

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I know this is a topic about women in the work place or how women don't take enough stem classes.

But realized recently that in our church the women aren't really as equal, not that the leaders claim they're equal or exactly alike, but something that bothers me is that women can be treated like property and maybe this is stemming from polygamy.

 

Because we all know they never were treated as property before Mormonism....

Quote

Why is it that women have to get their ex-husband's permission to marry again in the temple to someone else, but the men don't have to get that same permission from their ex-wife to marry someone in the temple? 

I don't think I have seen anyone carry around as much false information than you, no matter how many times you are given evidence if not downright proof you are dead wrong.  Women are not treated the same as men in the temple. I don't like it. But using falsehoods to demonstrate that, despite repeated corrections, is extremely counterproductive. 

They do not ask for "permission." They ask for the ex-spouses feelings about it. And then they can ignore it if there aren't serious grounds for any objection, such as criminal activity or unpaid child support kind of stuff. My good friend delayed her ex's temple sealing for several years because of that. In my case, my ex objected to a cancellation. Nobody cared. I have relayed this information more than once on this board. It is local leadership making these decisions which means it might not be consistent but there is no policy than only women have to get permission.

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

Because we all know they never were treated as property before Mormonism....

I don't think I have seen anyone carry around as much false information than you, no matter how many times you are given evidence if not downright proof you are dead wrong.  Women are not treated the same as men in the temple. I don't like it. But using falsehoods to demonstrate that, despite repeated corrections, is extremely counterproductive. 

They do not ask for "permission." They ask for the ex-spouses feelings about it. And then they can ignore it if there aren't serious grounds for any objection, such as criminal activity or unpaid child support kind of stuff. My good friend delayed her ex's temple sealing for several years because of that. In my case, my ex objected to a cancellation. Nobody cared. I have relayed this information more than once on this board. It is local leadership making these decisions which means it might not be consistent but there is no policy than only women have to get permission.

 

29 minutes ago, juliann said:

Because we all know they never were treated as property before Mormonism....

I don't think I have seen anyone carry around as much false information than you, no matter how many times you are given evidence if not downright proof you are dead wrong.  Women are not treated the same as men in the temple. I don't like it. But using falsehoods to demonstrate that, despite repeated corrections, is extremely counterproductive. 

They do not ask for "permission." They ask for the ex-spouses feelings about it. And then they can ignore it if there aren't serious grounds for any objection, such as criminal activity or unpaid child support kind of stuff. My good friend delayed her ex's temple sealing for several years because of that. In my case, my ex objected to a cancellation. Nobody cared. I have relayed this information more than once on this board. It is local leadership making these decisions which means it might not be consistent but there is no policy than only women have to get permission.

I listened to an interview by a former LDS woman who went through this, maybe it's changed? Or she got it wrong. 

[DJBrown]

43 minutes ago, juliann said:

 Women are not treated the same as men in the temple. I don't like it.

I have communicated with many women who feel this way.  My own wife felt this way for many years.  

My wife and I have come to a completely different understanding of gender roles in the temple in the last 3-4 years.  A whole new world opened up to both of us.  And those former worries and concerns about gender differences in the temple are gone.  From our perspective now, there is perfect equity and fairness in the ordinances in the temple.  We just couldn't see it before.  

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

I have communicated with many women who feel this way.  My own wife felt this way for many years.  

My wife and I have come to a completely different understanding of gender roles in the temple in the last 3-4 years.  A whole new world opened up to both of us.  And those former worries and concerns about gender differences in the temple are gone.  From our perspective now, there is perfect equity and fairness in the ordinances in the temple.  We just couldn't see it before.  

I"m glad to hear that, DJ.