On Gender Roles, The Proclamation, and USA Today

[Darren10]

When Jesus said:

Quote

21 Pray in your families unto the Father, always in my name, that your wives and your children may be blessed.

3 Nephi 18

Whom was he talking to? Would not that be men? Are not men to do things which bless their wives and their children? Is not what this thread about? How men went out and blessed their wives and their children?

And here are some things that come to my mind when it comes to "gender roles" from Mormon scripture:

Quote

4 And I did cause that the men should till the ground, and raise all manner of grain and all manner of fruit of every kind.

5 And I did cause that the women should spin, and toil, and work, and work all manner of fine linen, yea, and cloth of every kind, that we might clothe our nakedness; and thus we did prosper in the land—thus we did have continual peace in the land for the space of twenty and two years.

Quote

8 And it came to pass that they came up upon the north of the land of Shilom, with their numerous hosts, men armed with bows, and with arrows, and with swords, and with cimeters, and with stones, and with slings; and they had their heads shaved that they were naked; and they were girded with a leathern girdle about their loins.

9 And it came to pass that I caused that the women and children of my people should be hid in the wilderness; and I also caused that all my old men that could bear arms, and also all my young men that were able to bear arms, should gather themselves together to go to battle against the Lamanites; and I did place them in their ranks, every man according to his age.

Mosiah 10

Quote

12 They did raise grain in abundance, both in the north and in the south; and they did flourish exceedingly, both in the north and in the south. And they did multiply and wax exceedingly strong in the land. And they did raise many flocks and herds, yea, many fatlings.

13 Behold their women did toil and spin, and did make all manner of cloth, of fine-twined linen and cloth of every kind, to clothe their nakedness. And thus the sixty and fourth year did pass away in peace.

Helaman 6

It is amazing to me that a thread dedicated to the goodness of men, goodness of men by being men cannot stand alone. That there are those who seem compelled to also include heroic women in their posts. Read the passages above. Could it not be possible that women fought as well? Of course. Could of it been possible that men made clothes to cover women's "nakedness'? Of course. Could it be possible that women prayed daily, believing in Christ, and that blessed their husbands and their children? ABSOLUTELY!!! Ladies and gentlemen, gender roles are not gender predestinations. No male *has* to do any specific thing in order to "be a man". no female *has* to do certain things "to be a woman" but the lose of gender roles is very dangerous to society. Men in so many ways have become useless in society. Gender roles is seen as evil. In much of society today from my perception, the only time a man is "a man" is when he impregnates a female. In many cases I've seen first hand, he is not even expected to be that child's father. We've gravely lost our perception of gender roles being divine. As smac correctly stated, as, "being cast as the devil's work". Either that or "being a man" has become so trivialized and even perverted that we cannot think of what "being a man" looks like? Really? Even with this thread being placed right in front of you?

Does not this thread follow along the very same lines as the Book of Mormon? That men went out "to battle", if you will, to bless their wives and children? does that in any way mean that women have not done the same? Not a chance. Does that mean that women did not nor would not do the same as these men? No way. But men must be honored as guardians, protectors, and providers. we must do so without feeling compelled at all to quickly interject the valor of women.

I leave this post with the following:

Quote

15 And it came to pass that when they were all gathered together, every one to the army which he would, with their wives and their children—both men, women and children being armed with weapons of war, having shields, and breastplates, and head-plates, and being clothed after the manner of war—they did march forth one against another to battle; and they fought all that day, and conquered not.

Ether 5

That was when the Jaredites were on their way to utter self destruction.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Darren10

[Calm]

I am not the one who wrote the natural man is an enemy to God.  I am not the one who is trying to redefine the definition of "men" to be limited to "only when males are doing good things".  I find it just as confusing and blind to write "women being women" articles and leave out a huge dimension of women's behaviour.

If we want to learn to understand men as they really are, as whole, complex, intelligent creatures, then we need to not only pay attention and celebrate them when they are doing things that benefit societies or are what we (whatever group or individual isdiscussing them) want them to do.

If you want to discuss male roles in society in helpful ways, you need to focus on the whole characteristics of mankind...you do wrong by focusing on the negative and thereby creating a picture of men as beasts, you do wrong to focus only on the good and thus creating pictures of men as purely heroes.  The latter may make everyone feel better, but unless it changes behaviour so that more men choose heroism over being a thug or deadbeat or self centered, it does more harm than good by setting up false expectations.

Why couldn't the article be written about how wonderful when men cared enough about others to think about what was needed and then got out there and did it?  It is hardly laudable if it is just man's programming to save people, it is wonderful when a conscious choice is made to help.

"That sewage image of what "being a man" is is plaguing all our society."  

Do you deny that there are a significant amount of men who do this?  Is it any less "men being men" if there are significant men doing the above?

The sewage version of "men being men" has just as much informational value though as "being a man" is being a hero theme when all that either is doing is selecting which men's behaviors they are choosing to focus on.

Being accurate in describing men...condemning men's behaviour when selfish and destructive and applauding it when unselfish, when courageous and helpful and caring, and treating men as heros because they were heros and not because they were men...that is going improve men's behaviour and others' behaviour towards them.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

"is amazing to me that a thread dedicated to the goodness of men"

It didn't appear dedicated to the goodness of men given the phrase used over and over was "men being men", iirc.

If it was phrased 'men being good men', an accurate description of what occurred, I am all for celebrating that.  I doubt I would have spoken up at all save to applaud the heroes,which there were many, many men.  I am very grateful to them and the many men that will come later.

Unfortunately goodness does not exist alone in a human heart or human group, men, women, children, mixed.  It is therefore inappropriate to celebrate men as some sort of inherent hero or good guy when so many are not.  It diminishes the real heroism of those who go out and do the hard stuff.  It is not what every man would do if only they had the chance,

One ends up needing to Include every last demonstrated associated with men behaviour if making it about "men being men".  And unfortunately there are too many allegedly manly behaviours I find destructive and demeaning of themselves and others.  Why would I want to do anything that promoted that?

I would respond the same way to any article of 'women being women' that was only opened to part of women's behaviour.  There are tons of women's general behaviour (many shared with men) that get left out so often in these types of articles.  Those types of articles are more likely to add to confusion, false expectations rather than be helpful.  

Other articles showing the same pictures without the ideological baggage were quite uplifting imo.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Calm

[Nofear]

Deleted

 

Edited September 3, 2017 by Nofear

[california boy]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are apparently unaware that women were at one time not allowed to vote in this country.  In fact Mormons were the very first to allow  women to vote.  Maybe  words like "suffrage" and "suffragettes" are unfamiliar to your, or that Mormon women were among the strongest suffragettes in America, with the full approval of the Brethren.  Anyhow, long about 1919, the 19th Amendment was enacted giving the right to vote to women.  The right wing staunchly opposed it, regarding women as inherently unequal to men.

Yes, the 14th Amendment was pushed by the Republican Party, the anti-slavery party which had made war on the Rebel South.  White Southern racists continued in what became the Democratic Party, pushing all possible forms of segregation, Jim Crow, and lynch law.  In the course of time these two parties switched policies, the Southern racists first becoming what were known as "Dixiecrats" and finally switching over to the now conservative Republican Party -- where they are today.  The conservatives always opposed equal rights for women and Blacks, and the heirs to that policy are the editors at NR and many others.

Yes.

When you say that the Mormons were the very first to allow women to vote, do you mean the Mormons in Wyoming?  

 

Quote

 

Wyoming

 

The years 2009 and 2010 mark the 140th anniversary of woman suffrage in the United States. Wyoming passed the first woman suffrage law on December 10, 1869, and women voted for the first time in 1870. The word suffrage comes from the Latin word suffragium, meaning the right to vote.

 

 

[thesometimesaint]

Women in the Utah Territory were given suffrage the next year in 1870. It was interesting in how the Deseret was divided up to limit the rights of Mormons.

[Physics Guy]

The thread title refers to gender roles and the Proclamation on the Family. I didn't know the Proclamation, so I googled it.

Quote

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

Rejecting those gender roles does not mean failing to appreciate men. I admire and appreciate a lot of people, and many of the qualities that I appreciate in them are qualities that I'll never have. Sometimes I need help from those people, and when they provide it, I'm grateful. 

I don't think it's divine design for those people to preside over me, however, or for them to provide for me and protect me while I nurture their children. I appreciate them as friends, not as masters.

So, sure, men can be great. I don't see how that supports the Proclamation on the Family.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

When you say that the Mormons were the very first to allow women to vote, do you mean the Mormons in Wyoming?  

 

 

Or New Jersey? Though to be fair that right was taken away for a long time.  

I actually have heard that after the vote was denied to all women (there were other states that allowed it early on besides New Jersey) that Wyoming was the first to allow women to vote and Utah was the first to vote - because the election was before the Wyoming one was.  I have been looking and found that Wyoming's first election was in September, but have found nothing on the date for Utah's election in 1870 to see if that is true or not. Giving up on that now as I have other things I would rather do at the moment.

I've found the whole time line not near as simple as I thought it would be especially when you find possible reasons why women were given the vote when they were and not earlier or later.  

[california boy]

31 minutes ago, Rain said:

Or New Jersey? Though to be fair that right was taken away for a long time.  

I actually have heard that after the vote was denied to all women (there were other states that allowed it early on besides New Jersey) that Wyoming was the first to allow women to vote and Utah was the first to vote - because the election was before the Wyoming one was.  I have been looking and found that Wyoming's first election was in September, but have found nothing on the date for Utah's election in 1870 to see if that is true or not. Giving up on that now as I have other things I would rather do at the moment.

I've found the whole time line not near as simple as I thought it would be especially when you find possible reasons why women were given the vote when they were and not earlier or later.  

HBO did a really great documentary on the Woman's Suffrage movement.  It is called "Iron Jawed Angles".  I had no idea that it took so long for women to actually get the vote.  They pushed for it for 100 years.  Talk about patience.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

When you say that the Mormons were the very first to allow women to vote, do you mean the Mormons in Wyoming?  

Yes, but women voted in 1870 in both Utah and Wyoming..  Wyoming gave them suffrage in 1869, while Utah did so in 1870.  We should be proud of that.

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but women voted in 1870 in both Utah and Wyoming..  Wyoming gave them suffrage in 1869, while Utah did so in 1870.  We should be proud of that.

You're right: it was a foolish quibble

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Darren10 said:

.................................................

And it's my understandin that Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act under great pressure from the Republican majority of the Senate. In support of this understanding (bold mine):

Luv ya' bro. I'll await your reply. 

In brief, Darren, you been lied to and hornswoggled.  LBJ of Texas supported racist policies early on in his career, but was later the strongest supporter of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.  The Dixiecrat conversion to the Republican Party took place in my lifetime.  I was at the Republican National Convention in 1964 in which the racist majority of that Party shouted down Gov George Romney who tried to get the Convention to accept a civil rights plank (he failed).   Goldwater was not a racist, but his supporters were, and he fully understood that.  I recall standing outside the barricades separating the crowd from the NAACP/SCLC demonstrators singing their civil rights songs, when a couple of very attractive young ladies from Texas came up to the barricades dressed in cowgirl outfits.  One of them said very loudly, "Why don't they send them back to Russia?"  I replied:  "Isn't that where y'all come from?"  They went back to the Convention in a huff.

[CV75]

18 hours ago, Maidservant said:

I was on the floor laughing like a loud horse for five minutes!  My kids were wondering what was going on, ha ha ha ha ha.  I can't believe it was you who posted this CV75!  Bullseye.

Men are incredible.

My husband never squashed bugs, pumped gas, balanced a checkbook, or lifted and packed suitcases into the car.  Those were my jobs.

But he did get the kindergartners fed lunch, dressed, and on the bus.  When I said I wanted to be a rockstar, without hesitation he said, "I'll be the roadie and carry the amps."  He never thought my (dumb) ideas were dumb.

He could break a horse, round up cattle, fix a combine, build fence.   But, then, so do all his sisters.

He loved baseball.  But when I decided that for a family project we would be doing choreography to a Shakira song (that happened), he never hesitated.  (Of course, he provided the biceps for the dance tricks, ha ha.)

If manhood is being like our Heavenly Father . . . He takes care of his kids 24/7.  That's the model for men.

I have two sons who love sports and are constantly watching or playing.  I have two sons who would rather have their nose hairs pulled one by one than play a sport.  One of those sons graduated culinary arts, which he said he knew he wanted to do from the time he was three years old and saw toast being made.  (For the record, my hubby made awesome brownies, choc chip cookies, pancakes, and fry bread.  He also did most of the dishes that ever got done.  I did every thing else houseworkwise.  I have rounded up cattle too.  Okay, one time, ha ha.)

As far as defending and protecting, my older daughter got on the phone and schooled someone that was making life difficult for me because of a misunderstanding.  Her faculties were completely aroused by her sense that I was being hurt.

My oldest son (one of the sports lovers), has recently had his dream come true of being a daddy.  I remember when he was 18 years old, he told me that he could hardly wait until he could have a baby, and sometimes he might let his wife hold it, ha ha ha.  (I have two sons, the oldest--sporty, the youngest--nonsporty--who make a beeline to any baby they see in a room.)  This same son (oldest) when he was about 13 said, "When I grow up, we are going to decorate for Christmas right on December 1!"  I kind of paused and looked at him, and then he took a breath and rephrased, "When I grow up, I'm going to ask my wife if we can decorate for Christmas on December 1!"  We both laughed.  Anyway, when his son was born a few weeks ago, he held him and looked at me and said, "I don't have to give this one back."

Both men and women are warriors . . . they guard each other . . . brothers and sisters . . . THAT'S how it works.  (Movie recommendation: Dragons Fire and Ice).

Thank you Maidservant, I was going for something that would cover everyone, as I can appreciate all the perspectives on this issue. There is value I think in finding a Zionesque balance between them. Your family sounds wonderful.

[Darren10]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not the one who wrote the natural man is an enemy to God.  I am not the one who is trying to redefine the definition of "men" to be limited to "only when males are doing good things".  I find it just as confusing and blind to write "women being women" articles and leave out a huge dimension of women's behaviour.

If we want to learn to understand men as they really are, as whole, complex, intelligent creatures, then we need to not only pay attention and celebrate them when they are doing things that benefit societies or are what we (whatever group or individual isdiscussing them) want them to do.

If you want to discuss male roles in society in helpful ways, you need to focus on the whole characteristics of mankind...you do wrong by focusing on the negative and thereby creating a picture of men as beasts, you do wrong to focus only on the good and thus creating pictures of men as purely heroes.  The latter may make everyone feel better, but unless it changes behaviour so that more men choose heroism over being a thug or deadbeat or self centered, it does more harm than good by setting up false expectations.

Why couldn't the article be written about how wonderful when men cared enough about others to think about what was needed and then got out there and did it?  It is hardly laudable if it is just man's programming to save people, it is wonderful when a conscious choice is made to help.

"That sewage image of what "being a man" is is plaguing all our society."  

Do you deny that there are a significant amount of men who do this?  Is it any less "men being men" if there are significant men doing the above?

The sewage version of "men being men" has just as much informational value though as "being a man" is being a hero theme when all that either is doing is selecting which men's behaviors they are choosing to focus on.

Being accurate in describing men...condemning men's behaviour when selfish and destructive and applauding it when unselfish, when courageous and helpful and caring, and treating men as heros because they were heros and not because they were men...that is going improve men's behaviour and others' behaviour towards them.

 

13 hours ago, Calm said:

"is amazing to me that a thread dedicated to the goodness of men"

It didn't appear dedicated to the goodness of men given the phrase used over and over was "men being men", iirc.

If it was phrased 'men being good men', an accurate description of what occurred, I am all for celebrating that.  I doubt I would have spoken up at all save to applaud the heroes,which there were many, many men.  I am very grateful to them and the many men that will come later.

Unfortunately goodness does not exist alone in a human heart or human group, men, women, children, mixed.  It is therefore inappropriate to celebrate men as some sort of inherent hero or good guy when so many are not.  It diminishes the real heroism of those who go out and do the hard stuff.  It is not what every man would do if only they had the chance,

One ends up needing to Include every last demonstrated associated with men behaviour if making it about "men being men".  And unfortunately there are too many allegedly manly behaviours I find destructive and demeaning of themselves and others.  Why would I want to do anything that promoted that?

I would respond the same way to any article of 'women being women' that was only opened to part of women's behaviour.  There are tons of women's general behaviour (many shared with men) that get left out so often in these types of articles.  Those types of articles are more likely to add to confusion, false expectations rather than be helpful.  

Other articles showing the same pictures without the ideological baggage were quite uplifting imo.

No denial men do bad things. I just find it appaulling when the prevelant portayal of men are they being sex pervets and sexual aggressors. This thread is not to describe all of humanity just that men do good when they go out and protect and provide ehich is what they are doing in the theme of this thread. I've no problem addressing bad issues of society but when one thread is dedicated to the good men do somehow we have to inlcude the deeply troubling things hey do as well? To me it's like saying, "Happy birthday sweetie. We love you! But, you know, I also cannot stand you at times. You've lied ot me, talked back to me, violated my trust, and it'll take a long time for me to build up that trust again. I just want ot balance out this birthday celebration for you.". Or, how about, "hey, excellent job. Your oassion paid off. Remember all the tines you have totally failed? Remember how there's no way you could have eve this success without previously leaching off of my like a virus? I just need ot balance out what it means to congradulate your success." 

What's wrong with a thread in showing men being men in a good fashion? Elder D. Christofferson titled his speech I linked "Let Us Be Men". He did not qualify that. He simply showed how men can be good men by person experience in insights. Is this thread not that very thing? That men stood up and were men? Just this one thread to celebrate men being men and showing how much good that did in Houston and in other places and yet we have ot explore the dark side of men as well. Thay kinda ruins the special ocassion and it definitely eskews the idea that men are doing good all around flood ravaged areas just by being men. 

I am going to repost Daryl Hubeck carrying Catherine Pham and her baby:

I do so because in it you witness two biblical things. One part of a flood of "biblical proportions". The second is because Daryl and Catherine are both fulfilling their divine roles:

Quote

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Without quibbling in anything specific about either of Daryl or Catherine's lives, I find in this photo Daryl fulfilling his divine role by sweating from his brow and Catherine fulfilling her divine role of brining forth human life. They are both doing their divine part in life. Daryl is doing so by being a man and Catherine is doing so be being a woman. Of course these roles can switch though I do not think I've seen any pictures of a woman cradle carrying a full grown ,an in her arms while he holds secure of a newborn baby. Just an example of the uniqueness of man and woman which together bring forth divine beauty. 

Now, the moment would be a bit spoiled by posting a statement of, "well, if Daryl is 'being a man' there's a risk of him becoming sexually aggressive with women, so, be careful. Just detailing all of the significance of 'being a man." I say just celebrate Daryl's manness in the good he did by being a man. At least for this thead.

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In brief, Darren, you been lied to and hornswoggled.  LBJ of Texas supported racist policies early on in his career, but was later the strongest supporter of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.  The Dixiecrat conversion to the Republican Party took place in my lifetime.  I was at the Republican National Convention in 1964 in which the racist majority of that Party shouted down Gov George Romney who tried to get the Convention to accept a civil rights plank (he failed).   Goldwater was not a racist, but his supporters were, and he fully understood that.  I recall standing outside the barricades separating the crowd from the NAACP/SCLC demonstrators singing their civil rights songs, when a couple of very attractive young ladies from Texas came up to the barricades dressed in cowgirl outfits.  One of them said very loudly, "Why don't they send them back to Russia?"  I replied:  "Isn't that where y'all come from?"  They went back to the Convention in a huff.

'Isn't that where y'all are from come from', now that's funny!

Now, do much for cfr's sacredness here. But here who were the racists who shouted down Romeny in 1964? Shouting down a candidate at a convention is perfectly normal. Indeed there was racism in the Republican Party and I've no doubt that played a oart in opposing Romney, a civil rights activist. But "racist majority". Do you have any basis of that? You previously said that the racists are today in the Republican Party. I've blogged with Conservatives for years posting and rwsding tens of thousands of posts on politics and these people by and large, almost all the tine, vote Republican (a small few don't vote at all). I truly do not know a single racist among them. Nor do I know any in person and that's quite many. 

 

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but women voted in 1870 in both Utah and Wyoming..  Wyoming gave them suffrage in 1869, while Utah did so in 1870.  We should be proud of that.

 

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

You're right: it was a foolish quibble

Robert;

This is an area I truly do not know much about. Did Mormons push through women's sufferage in Wyoming? I only kniw if the national movement making it way there and weren't there very few Mormons living there at the time? How exactly were the Mormons the first group to allow women to vote? 

USU;

Out of curiosity, what quibbling? Over who got it done first? 

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

HBO did a really great documentary on the Woman's Suffrage movement.  It is called "Iron Jawed Angles".  I had no idea that it took so long for women to actually get the vote.  They pushed for it for 100 years.  Talk about patience.

That's my understanding as well. There was rampant opposition to it from everywhere. It finally took hold in society after anti-slavery and abolotionist groups endorsed their cause. 

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

Or New Jersey? Though to be fair that right was taken away for a long time.  

I actually have heard that after the vote was denied to all women (there were other states that allowed it early on besides New Jersey) that Wyoming was the first to allow women to vote and Utah was the first to vote - because the election was before the Wyoming one was.  I have been looking and found that Wyoming's first election was in September, but have found nothing on the date for Utah's election in 1870 to see if that is true or not. Giving up on that now as I have other things I would rather do at the moment.

I've found the whole time line not near as simple as I thought it would be especially when you find possible reasons why women were given the vote when they were and not earlier or later.  

Fascinating. 

Are you saying that while Wyoming granted women sufferage before Utah. It is possible that Utah already had voting which included women? That's the kind of pinoint details I'd love to learn about. 

Edited September 4, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Here's a man being a man. He's even representing two groups made up exclusively if men and being men by sending him. CAREFUL, they might be dangerous!  

Quote

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, second counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, made an unexpected visit to their storm-weary neighborhood. He was wearing a yellow Mormon Helping Hands T-shirt over his white dress shirt to blend in with volunteers and cleanup crews.

The church leader didn't call for a meeting or ask people to organize around him in orderly rows. He simply chatted with anyone who stepped forward to say hello. He shared handshakes, gave a few hugs and offered plenty of encouraging words.

President Uchtdorf said he traveled to Houston on Sunday to represent the church's First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostle, who are concerned for any and all hit hard by Harvey.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865688070/President-Uchtdorf-visits-ground-zero-of-Tropical-Storm-Harvey.html

Edited September 4, 2017 by Darren10

[Calm]

What you are ignoring, Darren, is the opening post was not dedicated to the goodness that men do, but was opened as a challenging to how society portrays men (gender roles specifically) and if it was justified to do so.  Itshould hardly be shocking when people responded to that.

"We are living in strange times.  Times when gender roles are not merely being questioned, they are being cast as the devil's work.  In the LDS context, we are excoriated for having the nerve to maintain and advance the notion of complementary gender roles in The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

Edited September 4, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

A "man" is not a behaviour, a human being lying in a vegetative state is as much as a man as the heros being portrayed.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

..............................................

This is an area I truly do not know much about. Did Mormons push through women's sufferage in Wyoming? I only kniw if the national movement making it way there and weren't there very few Mormons living there at the time? How exactly were the Mormons the first group to allow women to vote? 

.........................................

Out of curiosity, what quibbling? Over who got it done first? 

"As Laramie was the first town in Wyoming to hold a municipal election, on September 6, 1870, a Laramie resident was the first woman in the United States to cast a legal vote in a general election."

The population of Wyoming  in 1870 was about 9,000, many of them Mormon, but it was the non-Mormon governor who gave women the right to vote there in 1869.  However, Utah women were still the first to vote in a national election.  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700008024/Utah-women-voted-earlier-than-most-in-US.html .  That's what the quibble was about.  Even today, the LDS Church is the largest denomination in Wyoming.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Michael Sudworth]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

A "man" is not a behaviour, a human being lying in a vegetative state is as much as a man as the heros being portrayed.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.  Can you clarify?

Only a fool would suggest that being "a man" is some conference of authority of virtue.  But it is equally foolish to ignore the plain facts.  What I'll call "physical heroes" are generally -- but certainly not always -- men.  Men -- on average -- are stronger than women. 

To point out all of these exceptions is only to prove the rule.

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

What you are ignoring, Darren, is the opening post was not dedicated to the goodness that men do, but was opened as a challenging to how society portrays men (gender roles specifically) and if it was justified to do so.  Itshould hardly be shocking when people responded to that.

"We are living in strange times.  Times when gender roles are not merely being questioned, they are being cast as the devil's work.  In the LDS context, we are excoriated for having the nerve to maintain and advance the notion of complementary gender roles in The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

Yes. It was open to counter a long-standing portrayal that men are sex aggressors, sex predators, and overall domineering. Truth is that they are far kinder and are ready on at a whim to encounter danger to protect others. That they will do so using their naturally given uniqueness which women, in general, would find difficult, if not impossible to do.

This thread shows men being men and doing so precisely as God instructed them to do and to be.

'they are being cast as the devil's work'

Exactly. Gender roles was actively declared bad by several who either posted that directly or agreed with the posters who did so.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"As Laramie was the first town in Wyoming to hold a municipal election, on September 6, 1870, a Laramie resident was the first woman in the United States to cast a legal vote in a general election."

The population of Wyoming  in 1870 was about 9,000, many of them Mormon, but it was the non-Mormon governor there who gave women the right to vote there in 1869.  However, Utah women were still the first to vote in a national election.  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700008024/Utah-women-voted-earlier-than-most-in-US.html .  That's what the quibble was about.  Even today, the LDS Church is the largest denomination in Wyoming.

Ah, that makes sense!!!