Gender difference in paths beyond Mormonism?

[Born Free]

Helemon pm'd me recently raising the possibility of difference in post-Mo paths by gender. As he had been the one who raised the possibility, I encouraged him to start a thread, but as he has not to date, I will throw it into the ring, given I think the possibility is too valuable to risk losing.

When Helemon broached the idea, I did say that I had noticed in my own female post-Mo circle that several friends had not chosen to insist on their membership being terminated for concern about distressing aged mothers and in some cases fathers.

That raised the possibility that there may be a trend for the genders to act along gender-priority lines: females to be shaped by relationships and for men to be more cognitive/theological in their decision-making.

So consider this ball thrown into the ring to see if it resonates with others.

Daryl

PS: When Aaron and I caught up earlier this week, he made the suggestion that there may be two variables that impact upon paths through the process: gender and convert/BiC. I thought that an excellent observation, but have had limited time to kick the idea around to date.

[lunaverse]

There is definitely a difference.

I'm going to take this in a different direction. I think intelligent women have a higher dissatisfaction with the Church than intelligent men. Our opportunities to grow in the Church are much more severely hampered.

I dated this TBM guy for a while when I was still in, and he's still TBM. He told me once he was attracted to smart women, something I'd found very rare in Mormon men -- most just felt intimidated, and since I didn't feel much like pretending to be an idiot, I didn't date much. (It didn't help that I was a divorced single mother.)

After I'd left, he complained to me that this girl he was dating was not entirely on the straight and narrow. He complained that in fact, all the women he'd dated had either left the Church or were still in but had a lot of contradictory ideas.

I reminded him what he'd said about being attracted to smart women. Then I pointed out that our experience in the Church was rather miserable -- we simply had no desire to make quilts, teach primary, and share recipes. We wanted to study science and have jobs. There wasn't really much of a place for us among the R.S. Sisters. There was no way we could fit the mold the Church wanted us to, and still be noticibly smart women.

He agreed with my logic, but he still didn't understand how different the Church experience is for women. Over the years I've tried to explain it many ways, but I still don't think he groks.

Unfortunately for him, he is still unmarried. I feel sorry for him. I think there's a slim chance he might leave the Church once he's safely graduated from BYU Hawaii. (This may be the only reason he still talks to me. hehe)

The conclusion is that the women are generally dumbed down, and men like it this way. Those that don't (on both sides) have difficulty fitting in.

I also conclude that the Church is more likely to be a self-esteem lifter for men, and a supressor for women. Though there are notable exceptions on both sides. And maybe self-esteem is the wrong word? Perhaps "power" would be better, or couching it in terms of dominance and submission. Sometimes these things have nothing to do with healthy self-esteem.

There is sexism the other way, too, for instance the idea that men cannot control their sexual drives. Because of this, I think a lot of men get let off easy for sexual sin, while women are often blamed for the man's sin. (So maybe it's not reverse sexism after all?) Women often also get blamed for bad marriages, and in domestic abuse situations.

A lot of the issues I'm dealing with now involve my ability to stand up for myself. Had I been born a man in the same Church, I don't think that would be a problem.

Luna

[helemon]

I pointed out that our experience in the Church was rather miserable -- we simply had no desire to make quilts, teach primary, and share recipes. We wanted to study science and have jobs. There wasn't really much of a place for us among the R.S. Sisters. There was no way we could fit the mold the Church wanted us to, and still be noticibly smart women.

What? As an intelligent Mormon woman, how could you not be thrilled with faith promoting books like:
"If Life Were Easy, It Wouldn't Be Hard: And Other Reassuring Truths" -Sheri Dew

The conclusion is that the women are generally dumbed down, and men like it this way. Those that don't (on both sides) have difficulty fitting in.

I disagree. Men are dumbed down as well. Just because they are encouraged to seek careers while the women stay at home doesn't mean the church wants them exploring ideas that would harm their faith or make them question the bretherns interpretation of history.

I also conclude that the Church is more likely to be a self-esteem lifter for men, and a supressor for women. Though there are notable exceptions on both sides. And maybe self-esteem is the wrong word? Perhaps "power" would be better, or couching it in terms of dominance and submission. Sometimes these things have nothing to do with healthy self-esteem.

You obviously haven't read Daryl's post about the enormous damage to a mans self esteem that can be caused by a mission? Also because the church puts such a premium on personal worthniness it is easy for a priesthood holder to blame themselves when something goes wrong such as a blessing is not fullfilled or someone is not healed. The desire to maintain the appearance of perfection can take its toll on men who are placed in high profile leadership positions. After all Joseph never sinned, right? ;)

There is sexism the other way, too, for instance the idea that men cannot control their sexual drives. Because of this, I think a lot of men get let off easy for sexual sin, while women are often blamed for the man's sin. (So maybe it's not reverse sexism after all?) Women often also get blamed for bad marriages, and in domestic abuse situations.

I never got the message that men cannot control their sex drive. But I have heard stories of women who tried to leave abusive relationships being blamed for the behavior of their husbands. I am not sure if this is caused by teachings of the church or just the GOB mentality that it fosters.

A lot of the issues I'm dealing with now involve my ability to stand up for myself. Had I been born a man in the same Church, I don't think that would be a problem.

Luna
I think this is something that both men and women leaving the church have to deal with. Especially if they live in Utah where the majority of the people around them continue to believe in the church. This puts increased pressure on the person leaving the church and increases the potential for their career and social life being negatively impacted by their desire to stand up for what they believe in.

[Fredl]

I'm on the way out the door, so maybe more later. However, let me say that I'd like to see something done on how leaving Mormonism compares with leaving OTHER forms of tribalism.

Fred

[lunaverse]

I disagree. Men are dumbed down as well. Just because they are encouraged to seek careers while the women stay at home doesn't mean the church wants them exploring ideas that would harm their faith or make them question the bretherns interpretation of history.

Yes, but they are free to explore the academic world, so long as it does not conflict with faith. Men are perfectly allowed to become engineers, scientists, mathmaticians, and politicians. Last time I was at BYU (10 years ago) there were TWO women students in the physics department. TWO.

They're dumbed down when it comes to thinking outside the box, or believing contradictory philosophies and sciences. But not in any other department.

Starting in High School at Church dances... on through single adults. I'd be dancing with a cute guy, and he'd eventually ask, "What are you going to major in?" or "What do you do for a living?" When I answered "Physics" or "I'm a computer tech", suddenly the conversation would stop, and he couldn't get away fast enough. Same thing with girls, I'd be chatting with a group of girls, and they'd proudly announce their career paths in family science, teaching, nursing, and sometimes journalism. When they got around to me, suddenly the group would disperse. Had I been a man? NO problem!

You obviously haven't read Daryl's post about the enormous damage to a mans self esteem that can be caused by a mission? Also because the church puts such a premium on personal worthniness it is easy for a priesthood holder to blame themselves when something goes wrong such as a blessing is not fullfilled or someone is not healed. The desire to maintain the appearance of perfection can take its toll on men who are placed in high profile leadership positions. After all Joseph never sinned, right? ;)

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that men are completely unaffected by the Church. It's more like a heirarchy. Sure, men are subjigated to higher Church leaders, to God, the works. Their self esteems are supressed, they're made to feel shameful, guilty, as well.

However, when they come home at night, they know there is someone beneath them. There's the woman at home, whom they expect to have dinner ready and a clean house and the faces of the children scrubbed. That women is at the very bottom of the pecking order. Even her male children are allowed to order her about in some cases.

This isn't true in every case -- some women are headstrong and have their man in a hog-tie. And some men are indeed very loving and consider their wives as an "equal" (sort of). But over all, this is the pattern. Man over women. Even if there's someone over the man, the woman is on the bottom rung every time. We had to get permission from our husbands and fathers just to accept callings!

I never got the message that men cannot control their sex drive.

Maybe this is one of those things they tell one gender but not the other. In our chastity lessons, the stereotype was very strong -- it is very difficult for men to control their sexuality, so it's up to us to keep them in control. I've heard this from other sources as well, including a Sunstone Symposium audio I was just listening to. (2002, SLC, on women and sexuality)

I hope you understand that my rants about the position of women in the Church are NOT meant to minimize the negative experiences of the men.

Luna

[why me]

It would be interesting if some active tbm women would post for this thread. I would love to know what they think about it all.

I have met many women in the church and most of the women I have met have careers and are out there working. Others, however, have chosen to have a family and are busy raising their children.

I see it as a life choice. I cannot say that all LDS women follow a single pattern. But yes, women are encourged to stay home and raise their children but inside the church there are many intelligent women who are in their professions and doing well.

I wonder if the situation is different for lds women who live in other parts of the world ie, Europe. But I do think that LDS Utah women and those in the mormon beltway are a breed to themselves. But I do hate to generalize the whole thing.

During my YA time in new york city I did not meet a dumbed down lds woman. All were bright and all were studying. But yes, the utah YA's were a little different when they came to the big apple to live or study.

This is not to say luna that you don't have a point because I think you do especially when it comes to intelligent women.

But to generalize could be 'insulting' to the lds women who do have heads and who have managed to keep their brains locked inside their heads and also their faith in the lds church.

I don't want to think what would happen to me if I approached some lds women and said: Do you know sister that your church has dumbed you down and made you as a women a non-entity. But Who knows maybe there would be agreement but I think also I would get one of these from some ladies: :slap:

[sakerra]

I see it as a life choice. I cannot say that all LDS women follow a single pattern. But yes, women are encourged to stay home and raise their children but inside the church there are many intelligent women who are in their professions and doing well.

Encouraged? Only encouraged? I take it you've never sat through a YW dating/marriage/chastity lesson. I sat through one earlier today and there was nothing "encouraging" about it. The teacher didn't flat out say stay at home or you will be damned, but she came very close. It was made pretty clear that we could work to support ourselves while single, or while we had no kids, but once that first baby was home, our place is with that child. Maybe that's only in Utah though.

As for men not being able to control their sexual drives, I can't tell you how many times I have heard that. We must dress modestly or the guys won't be able to control themselves. We must be in charge and not let the guys ruin it for us. We must keep our standards because the young men won't. By the end of some lessons I have to wonder if the Young Men can control anything without help from someone.

Okay, shutting up now. It's just as a YW in the church hearing people say that none of that is taught really bothers me because it is brought up in almost every lesson with out fail.

[free thinker]

Okay, shutting up now. It's just as a YW in the church hearing people say that none of that is taught really bothers me because it is brought up in almost every lesson with out fail.


No need to shut up. That's what this site is for. Rock on and let us know how you feel.


My experience dating smart LDS women was usually that as we got close there was an understanding that she would leave her career if we married etc.

Now that I date non-mo women I find it very refreshing when they demonstrably mention how much a part of their life work is.

These are accomplished professionals. Because I like women like this, I would never want them to leave their carreers. It is who they are. It is what attracts me partly.

I absolutely love dating these women. They are so bright and interesting. Many are a melange of savvy and sweetness . A combination that turns me on like nothing else.

I am so glad women can do what they want. Be what they want. I truly feel for some mormon women who will never get to realize , if they choose, how gratifying it is to reach pinnacles in the professional world.

free thinker

[lunaverse]

I don't want to think what would happen to me if I approached some lds women and said: Do you know sister that your church has dumbed you down and made you as a women a non-entity. But Who knows maybe there would be agreement but I think also I would get one of these from some ladies: :slap:

Since there don't seem to be any TBM women around here, I can tell you what I thought as a TBM woman. A never-mo friend of mine way back then (we're still great friends -- she's my roommate) accused the Church of being sexist. I immediately jumped in to defend the Church, saying it wasn't like that at all, that men respected the women in the Church. I was responding to that vieled flattery I mentioned above... men telling us we were so special, but then putting us in positions of non-leadership. I didn't see that as a problem, because I wasn't the type of person that wanted to preside over a Church meeting anyway.

I know what it feels like to be blind to my own subjugation, and also what it feels like to live in a world without it.

I can't express the feeling I had at our local Unitarian church when I first saw a woman conduct the meeting and give an official sermon. For the first time I had a REAL spiritual role model, a woman in a real, recognized leadership role, an equal to the male minister who shares in responsibility over the church.

It may be difficult for a man to grasp this, and even for a TBM woman. I grew up being led by men, everywhere. Women are only allowed to lead women and children. Men rule over the women who lead women. One or two women speaking at General Conference. It's hard to explain what effect this has, never having good, visable gender models in positions of REAL leadership. We weren't even allowed to acknowledge our Mother in Heaven, and all scriptural and godly role models were... men.

Keep in mind that some women wrote papers about this, and about the history of the Church and how the RS was once run by women independent of the male leadership of the Church. Many of these women writers were EXCOMMUNICATED as recently as a few years ago.

I've found it very thereputic to read their writings in Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism. Women once held the priesthood, and were allowed to bless the sick, give Mother's Blessings, and even prophesy. Yet as a TBM Mormon, I never knew this. Given the excommunications of the women who wrote about it, I think this lack of knowledge was intentional supression.

Luna

Edit: P.S. I was not raised in Utah, but Eastern Washington (only 10% Mormon), so these are cultural norms outside the Corridor.

[lunaverse]

I am so glad women can do what they want. Be what they want. I truly feel for some mormon women who will never get to realize , if they choose, how gratifying it is to reach pinnacles in the professional world.

Thanks FT, you rock. :)

Luna

[why me]

Encouraged? Only encouraged? I take it you've never sat through a YW dating/marriage/chastity lesson. I sat through one earlier today and there was nothing "encouraging" about it. The teacher didn't flat out say stay at home or you will be damned, but she came very close. It was made pretty clear that we could work to support ourselves while single, or while we had no kids, but once that first baby was home, our place is with that child. Maybe that's only in Utah though.

As for men not being able to control their sexual drives, I can't tell you how many times I have heard that. We must dress modestly or the guys won't be able to control themselves. We must be in charge and not let the guys ruin it for us. We must keep our standards because the young men won't. By the end of some lessons I have to wonder if the Young Men can control anything without help from someone.

Okay, shutting up now. It's just as a YW in the church hearing people say that none of that is taught really bothers me because it is brought up in almost every lesson with out fail.

Well...let me see here...what can I say about this.

Young men cannot control their sex urges...just ask free thinker! He will tell you what it is like to be a young and horny guy! :D

Any young guy worth his salt usually has his tongue out looking at the young women. I remember way back when during those moments when I was young and hornier than a bedbug not being able to 'control' myself because young ladies looked so good in revealing clothes. It is part of the male psyche....looking at young women on the beach or watching them walk down the street in sexy clothes which reveals shape and skin. Isn't this the reason why sun glasses were invented? :p

Heck...this is one of the only pleasures there are in being a young man or a man in general...looking at young women. :D

But that being said...wear what you want. What is the difference? Just wear the clothes that you feel comfortable in.

But I do tend to like the modest look...it leaves more to the imagination.

As far as YW class...why did you sit there like a bump on a log?...you can open your mouth and make some comments...stand up for YW in your class and say to the teacher: 'There is more to life than changing diapers..there is more to life than being at my future husband's beck and call'. It all starts with a simple conversation...in class and in the corridors. No one really has to be quite as a mouse.

[lunaverse]

As far as YW class...why did you sit there like a bump on a log?...you can open your mouth and make some comments...stand up for YW in your class and say to the teacher: 'There is more to life than changing diapers..there is more to life than being at my future husband's beck and call'. It all starts with a simple conversation...in class and in the corridors. No one really has to be quite as a mouse.

For an awkward teenager, this will not go over well. I got teased and ostracized enough as it was. No one "has" to be a mouse, but when you're scared shitless that people are going to call you names again (and the teacher will not stop them), you may as well be tied to the wall with chains.

Whyme, in all kindness and in the tone of wanting to help you understand why people get so annoyed with you here, your delivery has a lot to be desired. There is an assumption on your part that things like this are easy, so when you act so nonchalant, people get emotional.

The assumption here is that young teenage girls are ferocious and fiesty and able to think clearly and are socially talented. When I was 2 and 3 and 4 and 5, a weak, helpless child, I was taught to continue being weak and helpless. How could I have done anything other than be scared out of my mind? I already didn't fit in, I'd already been teased TO TEARS in Seminary and Sunday School for making far more innocent comments.

I was trying to do the "right" thing, be a "good" person, and in my culture, changing diapers was the "right" thing, and "good" people didn't complain.

That's why it's a cult, Whyme, that's why they call it mind control, thought reform, whatever you will. It makes people act certain ways. Now that I'm older and wiser, I act differently. Then, I was not as old as you, as male as you, or as wise as you. Please don't tell me what I "should" have done. The Church told me I SHOULD change diapers, and I believed them. I'm through with believing in shoulds.

Luna

[lunaverse]

As far as YW class...why did you sit there like a bump on a log?...you can open your mouth and make some comments...stand up for YW in your class and say to the teacher: 'There is more to life than changing diapers..there is more to life than being at my future husband's beck and call'. It all starts with a simple conversation...in class and in the corridors. No one really has to be quite as a mouse.

Here's some examples of how you could have said roughly the same thing, without being insulting. Hopefully you can see the differences in these approaches.

First, eliminate the phrase "bump on a log". It's name-calling in disguise, which under other circumstances might have been funny banter, but not here, not around such sensitive topics.

Next, you can say, "It's too bad that you didn't feel like you could stand up for Young Women..." or "Was it difficult for you to say something?" or "I would felt I could say something, etc... why was it different for you?", etc. This is more open, more curious, more in the frame of discussion rather than accusasion... less judgemental.

Luna

[helemon]

As far as YW class...why did you sit there like a bump on a log?...you can open your mouth and make some comments...stand up for YW in your class and say to the teacher: 'There is more to life than changing diapers..there is more to life than being at my future husband's beck and call'. It all starts with a simple conversation...in class and in the corridors. No one really has to be quite as a mouse.

Why me, did you spout your socialist beliefs when you attended church? Are there no thoughts or ideas that you would be uncomfortable sharing at church? How then can you expect Luna to have rocked the boat when she was in YWs?

[why me]

Why me, did you spout your socialist beliefs when you attended church? Are there no thoughts or ideas that you would be uncomfortable sharing at church? How then can you expect Luna to have rocked the boat when she was in YWs?
I always shared my beliefs in meetings from the age of 18. I never used the word socialist but my comments focused on socialist-humanism. And people knew that I was a socialist. Even the patriach wanted me to have a debate with a more conservative member of the EQ when I was a young adult.

No one seemed to mind and the conversations were lively. I think that it all depends on how the person brings in the comments for dicussion. I was never one to keep my mouth shut but my comments were never confrontational. And even now, I do the same in SS or Priesthood. There is no problem.

My goal has always been to make the gospel more soicial in context--social justice and social equality and yes throughout my comments there is an undercurrent of being critical about a society which stresses class differences and not commonality as stated in the new testament and in the book of mormon.

Not long ago there was a discussion about gambling in preisthood and what it is and why it should be avoided. Suddenly, someone mentioned that the stock market was not gambling and I disagreed. And here my socialism came in to the picture. The conservative members disagreed with me but the conversation was lively and not argumentative.

What I advised the young women to do was to say what was on her mind. She didn't seem to be a shy person since she wrote a good comeback to me.

I do not know her situation but if members judge her as luna says they will then my advice to her would be to believe in herself and her ideas. And she is already doing this because she is here on this forum.

helemon, it wasn't luna that I was responding to but to sakerra.

[why me]

For an awkward teenager, this will not go over well. I got teased and ostracized enough as it was. No one "has" to be a mouse, but when you're scared shitless that people are going to call you names again (and the teacher will not stop them), you may as well be tied to the wall with chains.

Whyme, in all kindness and in the tone of wanting to help you understand why people get so annoyed with you here, your delivery has a lot to be desired. There is an assumption on your part that things like this are easy, so when you act so nonchalant, people get emotional.

The assumption here is that young teenage girls are ferocious and fiesty and able to think clearly and are socially talented. When I was 2 and 3 and 4 and 5, a weak, helpless child, I was taught to continue being weak and helpless. How could I have done anything other than be scared out of my mind? I already didn't fit in, I'd already been teased TO TEARS in Seminary and Sunday School for making far more innocent comments.

I was trying to do the "right" thing, be a "good" person, and in my culture, changing diapers was the "right" thing, and "good" people didn't complain.

That's why it's a cult, Whyme, that's why they call it mind control, thought reform, whatever you will. It makes people act certain ways. Now that I'm older and wiser, I act differently. Then, I was not as old as you, as male as you, or as wise as you. Please don't tell me what I "should" have done. The Church told me I SHOULD change diapers, and I believed them. I'm through with believing in shoulds.

Luna
I didn't get the feeling that sakerra is an awkward teenager. She wrote a very positive and challenging post to me about male sexuality and how she felt in her YW class. I didn't see her as a victim but rather as young woman who is thinking for herself. And that is a great thing.

But maybe sakerra can elaborate on herself in this regard. But I was impressed on how she reponded to my post...full of conviction, I think. But if I offended her...then I would have to apologize to her.

[lunaverse]

I didn't get the feeling that sakerra is an awkward teenager. She wrote a very positive and challenging post to me about male sexuality and how she felt in her YW class. I didn't see her as a victim but rather as young woman who is thinking for herself. And that is a great thing.


I'm sorry, it seemed as if you were replying to me. (Hence me making references to how I was as a teen.)

Do you have response to my reply to your first post in this thread?

Luna

[why me]

There is definitely a difference.

I'm going to take this in a different direction. I think intelligent women have a higher dissatisfaction with the Church than intelligent men. Our opportunities to grow in the Church are much more severely hampered.

I dated this TBM guy for a while when I was still in, and he's still TBM. He told me once he was attracted to smart women, something I'd found very rare in Mormon men -- most just felt intimidated, and since I didn't feel much like pretending to be an idiot, I didn't date much. (It didn't help that I was a divorced single mother.)

After I'd left, he complained to me that this girl he was dating was not entirely on the straight and narrow. He complained that in fact, all the women he'd dated had either left the Church or were still in but had a lot of contradictory ideas.

I reminded him what he'd said about being attracted to smart women. Then I pointed out that our experience in the Church was rather miserable -- we simply had no desire to make quilts, teach primary, and share recipes. We wanted to study science and have jobs. There wasn't really much of a place for us among the R.S. Sisters. There was no way we could fit the mold the Church wanted us to, and still be noticibly smart women.

He agreed with my logic, but he still didn't understand how different the Church experience is for women. Over the years I've tried to explain it many ways, but I still don't think he groks.

Unfortunately for him, he is still unmarried. I feel sorry for him. I think there's a slim chance he might leave the Church once he's safely graduated from BYU Hawaii. (This may be the only reason he still talks to me. hehe)

The conclusion is that the women are generally dumbed down, and men like it this way. Those that don't (on both sides) have difficulty fitting in.

I also conclude that the Church is more likely to be a self-esteem lifter for men, and a supressor for women. Though there are notable exceptions on both sides. And maybe self-esteem is the wrong word? Perhaps "power" would be better, or couching it in terms of dominance and submission. Sometimes these things have nothing to do with healthy self-esteem.

There is sexism the other way, too, for instance the idea that men cannot control their sexual drives. Because of this, I think a lot of men get let off easy for sexual sin, while women are often blamed for the man's sin. (So maybe it's not reverse sexism after all?) Women often also get blamed for bad marriages, and in domestic abuse situations.

A lot of the issues I'm dealing with now involve my ability to stand up for myself. Had I been born a man in the same Church, I don't think that would be a problem.

Luna
You gave some interesting opinions based in your own experiences and interpretations.

I used to be a regular reader of the mormon feminist blog site and they deal with some of your issues.

There site address is: www.feministmormonhousewives.org This is not an 'anti' church site and so it is biased toward the church.

This group can be rather tbm in outlook but they also have women who have left the church posting.

Reading that blog I can understand your feelings. I also can be in agreement with you. But unfortunately, the church does have this priesthood thing to consider and this is a fact of mormon life.

In my opinion women need to find their voices in the church. And I think that this is possible with the right education in the home and in the school. The women on the feminist site are finding their voice and sharing it and that is important.

Finding voice doesn't necessarily mean being hostile toward the church in church mettings however.

This will not be tolerated and it shouldn' t be tolerated because the whole purpose of having a dialogue in Relief Society would be defeated but finding voice can be directed at finding a dialogue with other women church members. And it can be just having a good sound question and conversation about life and a women's role in the church.

Andre Lorde an african-american feminist asked a question to a panel of 'lesbian and literature' academics in 1977. She asked: "What are the tyrannies you swallow day by day and attempt to make your own, until you will sicken and die of them, still in silence?" I think that this is a good question.

Andre Lorde was not referring to church women but to women in general, espeically to lesbians. She wanted women to find their voice. For lorde the question could be answered when women transform "silence into language and action". I agree with this but not only for women but for the human race (all inclusive). And yes, fears need to be overcome.

I have done many 'battles' on the streets of new york because I attempted to share my socialisms with ordinary new yorkers. And I am still having my voice heard not to have an argument but to have a discussion where I am now living.

Everyone should stand up for themselves both men and women.

Luna, you have found your voice and you are using your voice and I have found my voice and I am using my voice. Many do not like my voice because it speaks for socialism. And many will not like your voice.

But at least we are taking sides and this is what is important. People need to take sides and debate the issues and speak from the heart.

This is why I suggested to sakerra to speak up and find her voice but again not in a hostile fashion but in a constructive dialogue and if she can't do so..continue to read and to think and someday that voice will be heard.

I don't think that men get off easy because of their sex drives. I have always thought that it was the other way around. I remember that a friend told me a story about his wife before they were married. She went into the bishop and confessed her sex sins. Nothing happened. The bishop said: you are a beautiful women and it is understandable. I think that the bishop's reponse implied that because she was attractive men would be hitting on her and tempting her and so it is understandable if she succumbed to having sex.

My ex-wife also confessed her sex sins before she married me and nothing happened to her.

I think that each case is so individualized that I cannot figure how a decision is reached.

Okay not the best reply from the bishop but men can be treated more harshly I think because of the priesthood they carry.

I hope that I have responded to your post. If not let me know.

I am a rather shy guy around women. I feel awkward in such situations where I have to communicate for a possible relationship. I am trying to work on it but it is not easy even at my current age.

[why me]

Here is an interesting webpage where you will find an interestiing article about socialist feminism. I think that you might find it interesting: http://www.monthlyreview.org/july2005.htm

The article is by Barbara Ehrenriech. I think that perhaps it will be interesting to you, especially the lead in to the article.

[lunaverse]

Reading that blog I can understand your feelings. I also can be in agreement with you. But unfortunately, the church does have this priesthood thing to consider and this is a fact of mormon life.

But that's just it -- in the early Church, women did have the priesthood. They had the authority and keys to run the RS, and they ALSO had the power to bless the sick (with anointing of oil and laying on of hands) and even give prophesies.

This is not common knowledge. I didn't learn it till just this summer. The arguement isn't whether or not women should have the priesthood but whether it should be restored to them.

In my opinion women need to find their voices in the church. And I think that this is possible with the right education in the home and in the school. The women on the feminist site are finding their voice and sharing it and that is important.

I agree, but many of those who have have been excommunicated. For doing what? For organizing mormon feminist meetings. For attending those meetings. For writing papers on Mormon feminism, female priesthood, and on Heavenly Mother. For organizing and protesting in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment.

These actions were not hostile to the Church. Many of these women wept at the very thought of losing their membership. But their integrity was more important, and they held their ground, and lost a place in their Church community.

As you can see, their fears are not ungrounded.

Everyone should stand up for themselves both men and women.

Agreed.

Luna, you have found your voice and you are using your voice and I have found my voice and I am using my voice.

I have found my voice in many areas, but in others I'm still afraid to speak up. That's how deeply the programming runs. I'm aware I need to stand up for myself, but I don't, like an invisible hand is holding me back.

I remember that a friend told me a story about his wife before they were married. She went into the bishop and confessed her sex sins. Nothing happened. The bishop said: you are a beautiful women and it is understandable. I think that the bishop's reponse implied that because she was attractive men would be hitting on her and tempting her and so it is understandable if she succumbed to having sex.

I think because the Church uses a lay clergy, there will be a wide variance in experiences. It sickens me, though, when little girls and young women are blamed for being raped, molested, and beaten. One of the reasons given is that men can't control their urges, and the women encouraged it by dressing immodestly or flirting. Those victims who have been blamed are far worse off than those men who were disfellowshipped for a time while their wives just had to talk to the Bishop a few times. In the latter, there is some personal embarassment and guilt. In the former, there are lasting psychological scars that will take years of therapy to cure -- scars made much much worse by the reinforced spiritual abuse from Church authorities.

Luna

[why me]

But that's just it -- in the early Church, women did have the priesthood. They had the authority and keys to run the RS, and they ALSO had the power to bless the sick (with anointing of oil and laying on of hands) and even give prophesies.

This is not common knowledge. I didn't learn it till just this summer. The arguement isn't whether or not women should have the priesthood but whether it should be restored to them.



I agree, but many of those who have have been excommunicated. For doing what? For organizing mormon feminist meetings. For attending those meetings. For writing papers on Mormon feminism, female priesthood, and on Heavenly Mother. For organizing and protesting in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment.

These actions were not hostile to the Church. Many of these women wept at the very thought of losing their membership. But their integrity was more important, and they held their ground, and lost a place in their Church community.

As you can see, their fears are not ungrounded.



Agreed.



I have found my voice in many areas, but in others I'm still afraid to speak up. That's how deeply the programming runs. I'm aware I need to stand up for myself, but I don't, like an invisible hand is holding me back.



I think because the Church uses a lay clergy, there will be a wide variance in experiences. It sickens me, though, when little girls and young women are blamed for being raped, molested, and beaten. One of the reasons given is that men can't control their urges, and the women encouraged it by dressing immodestly or flirting. Those victims who have been blamed are far worse off than those men who were disfellowshipped for a time while their wives just had to talk to the Bishop a few times. In the latter, there is some personal embarassment and guilt. In the former, there are lasting psychological scars that will take years of therapy to cure -- scars made much much worse by the reinforced spiritual abuse from Church authorities.

Luna
I cannot find disagreement with anything you wrote. I would need to have more information about the feminist meeting etc.

There is no question of the pain that has been experienced by some members who have been excommunicated.

In the catholic faith one could have been excommunicated for divorce. I know of some people who still feel that pain about the catholic faith.

There is no easy answers or solutions to the problem. But it does help to speak out and hopefully this will change the situation. I suppose that I have been rather lucky.No one has called me in to have a talk with me for my own views. Maybe my own views are not considered hostile. I don't know.

I think that we are all living our own biography and hopefully this biography will have happy stories and experiences also.

To have a lay clergy is not so easy...men make serious mistakes in having their authority and they should be held accountable for serious mistakes in advising and in condemning innocent people.

But then again professional clergy are perhaps no better if we consider the catholic experience.

[lunaverse]

The article is by Barbara Ehrenriech. I think that perhaps it will be interesting to you, especially the lead in to the article.

I have read a little of it, and I will read more later when I have time.

I should first warn you of my ethical stance. I have thought as long and hard about my politics as I have about my spirituality. I am a Neo-Objectivist (I wrote the Wikipedia article on the topic), a follower of Ayn Rand, a fierce individualist. Socialism is as much an antithema to me as dogmatic religion.

I will try to keep my remarks on politics to a minimum, mainly to give you an idea of where I'm coming from, and to talk about political philosophies in terms of feminism, since that's vaguely on topic. Other than that, we shouldn't go too far down this path, because this board seeks to be as apolitical as possible.

One of my role models is Wendy McElroy, http://www.ifeminists.com She came from an abused childhood and marriage, and now she is a scholar, writer and public speaker.

The basis of her arguments is that the best way to give women the greatest freedom and rights, one must give everyone the greatest level of freedom and rights, equally. Her conclusions, using this principle, take her to libertarianism. Which was how I discovered her, in my own studies in libertarianism.

Ehrenriech mentions the physical inequality between men and women, allowing men to use force to maintain power. Capitalism, with all its flaws, has equalized the playing field by creating a large number of white collar jobs, by creating technologies which make physical force less important than social skill and brain power. We can now argue and think our way to power rather than fight with sword and fist.

Socialism did not create that technology, capitalism did. Without capitalism, I'd be at home now, feeding a baby or spinning thread, as I would be physically unable to compete in the job market (jobs now done mostly by machine), and physcially unable to resist those in power who think I should be at home.

With that said, if we get any more off topic than this, we'll have to move it to PM. :)

Luna

[Born Free]

Can I ask if anyone is interested to go back to the thread theme?

I am quite happy to run with the idea that one's post-Mo experience might be an extension of/response to the heavily gendered Mo-experience, but can I request more engagement on the question I asked?

Do you observe that the opposite gender seemes to process their Mo experience differently to you?
If so, in what way?
Are the triggers different?
Is one gender more prone to anger than the other?
Is one gender more likely to get stuck than the other?

Daryl

[helemon]

Can I ask if anyone is interested to go back to the thread theme?

I am quite happy to run with the idea that one's post-Mo experience might be an extension of/response to the heavily gendered Mo-experience, but can I request more engagement on the question I asked?

Do you observe that the opposite gender seemes to process their Mo experience differently to you?
If so, in what way?
Are the triggers different?
Is one gender more prone to anger than the other?
Is one gender more likely to get stuck than the other?

Daryl
WARNING GROSS GENERALIZATIONS AHEAD!!

In some ways the discussion that Luna took us on may be very closely tied to the gender difference that seem to manifest in how people move out of Mormonism. However, I think that some of what Luna ascribes to Mormonism is not so much a religious thing but tied into the very conservative culture of most Mormons.

So, I think what we are seeing is that Mormons foster the preservation of the more traditional role for women. This encourages them to focus their attention more on emotional bonds and family relationships. Although, I do think most women have an innate tendency toward these areas.

I believe there is research that shows that womens tendency toward more developed language skills was in response to the greater need of women to work together in the village to prepare food, make clothes, create various utensils, and in cooperative child rearing. I think this may have had an influence on womens more communal response to Mormonism and their greater tendency to put family relationships and tradition above disputes over historical events.

Mens roles through antiquity have favored more isolated, analytical thought processes in order to patiently track and hunt game animals. Men I think look at the world as more black and white. You are my friend or you are my enemy. The church is true or its false. There is only one reality.

Men I think are in general more rule oriented, while women are more relationship oriented. Men see the discrepancies in the historical record and feel that they have been lied to. Women see the discrepancies in the historical record and view it as just a difference of opinion or a different viewpoint.

Men want to kill their problems, women want to discuss their problems. This tendency may lead the men to move through the process more quickly when they realize that the church has not been straight with them. They want to have their name removed. They want to cut all ties. Women on the other hand may be more likely to discuss their concerns with friends but if the friends have a different opinion they may be loathe to risk the relationship over a personal doubt or question, telling themselves that they will figure it all out some day.

The fact that polygamy appears to be the number one issue that troubles women, points again to the power of relationships in womens lives. They are willing to dismiss many problems that men get hung up on like the DNA issue, evolution, steel in the BoM, etc. But when they think about those poor lonely women trying to raise their children all alone while their husbands were off busy with church duties or spending time with their other families it really hits home. They understand the pain such a relationship would cause. Some may have a sense of it already if they are married to a busy professional who also has a high level church calling.

Mormonisms promise of the eternal family also plays into womens innate desire for a committed partner and why they may feel that when their husband abandons the church he is also rejecting the idea of being married to her for eternity. It may also be one reason why they are willing to dismiss so many things in order to preserve their hope of an eternal family and why they are willing to divorce their non-believing husband in order to regain that promise from a worthy priesthood holder.

Women seem to get offended by the church and its leadership, mistreating members, while men seem to get offended by leader putting unrealistic expectations on them, passing the blame, or not being straight with them. This I think again speaks to mens focus on fairness and equity while women focus more on how behaviors impacts an individual emotionally and spiritually.

Again, these are gross generalizations. I do not think these apply to all women. I think many of these generalizations could be culturally based rather than biological. If you disagree with my generalizations, that's great! I am just tossing out ideas. However, I do think studies have shown that in general women and mens brains do think differently.

Here is an interesting link about that matter:
http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=00062B7A-C60A-135D-860A83414B7F0000
To capture the activity, Protopopescu examined 12 healthy women between the ages of 22 and 35 while they read a series of negative, neutral and positive words meant to illicit emotional responses. The women were tested before and after their periods and were specifically selected as females who reported having no premenstrual mood symptoms--characterized as irritability, tension, depression, loss of control, sleep-disturbance, fatigue, food cravings, physical symptoms and social withdrawal--in order to provide Protopopescu with a foundation for future studies of women with symptoms.

The scientists found that during the one to five days before menses, the subjects showed greater activity in the middle front part of the brain region and less activity on the sides. After menses, more activity occurred on the sides with less activity showing up in the middle front area. The women reported feeling no mood changes throughout the month, so the researchers offer another explanation for the shift in activity. "Because of what's known about these regions, we speculate that the increase in activity is in some way modulatory," says team member David Silbersweig, vice chairman for research in Cornell's Department of Psychiatry.

Also
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/add_user.shtml

[helemon]

Do you observe that the opposite gender seemes to process their Mo experience differently to you?

In reading posts on this site and RfM there does seem to be a gender bias in how people deal with the historical and doctrinal problems that can lead a person out of the church.


If so, in what way?
Are the triggers different?


Yes, I think so. Men seem to be triggered by logical issues such as DNA, and archeology. Women seem to be triggered by relationship issues such as polygamy.


Is one gender more prone to anger than the other?


Not sure. I think men may have a greater tendency to focus their anger on the church as an institution while women may have a tendency to focus their anger on an individual. In the instances where the husband falls into apostacy, the man is angry at the church for lying to him, and his TBM wife then becomes angry at him for loosing his faith. The husband feels betrayed by his church but still wants to preserve his family, while the wife feels betrayed by her husband and tries to cling to the church. This was the case with me.


Is one gender more likely to get stuck than the other?


That is a tough one. I think women seem to have a greater capacity for tolerating the discrepancies that seem to bother men. However, if there is an event that causes them to loose faith in the leadership of the church I think women can leave faster than men. The problems come when a person emotionally, socially and culturally invested in the religion. I think a man can be stuck for a long time over fears of offending parents, siblings, spouses, business partners. But in general I think men tend to be more able to make a break from it than women. Again this is just a personal observation not an iron clad rule.

[candy15]

Wow, I can't believe all I have read on this one topic. Well, actually there were several, but . . .

I'm not mormon, but I've always felt that women were regarded in a substandard respect in the church from the very instance I investigated it. I've heard all the arguments against what I've just said. I've heard it all--women have a "special role", etc. and I cannot for a minute believe that so many women buy this.

Can any woman please tell me, please, why they feel for one minute that it's right that our special role, according to the church, includes not being able to marry more than once in the temple? Men can have more than one wife in the "eternity", and women apparently cannot. Please give me a big, fat break.

[lunaverse]

Can any woman please tell me, please, why they feel for one minute that it's right that our special role, according to the church, includes not being able to marry more than once in the temple? Men can have more than one wife in the "eternity", and women apparently cannot. Please give me a big, fat break.

For the same reason American POWs returned from Chinese camps defending communism, claiming their treatment had been better than average, confessing to be spies, and saying they deserved their capitivity and punishment for the crimes they commited (which they actually had not).

For the same reason an abused wife will defend her husband to the death.

For the same reason hundreds of parents fed cyanide to their crying children in Jonestown.

For the same reason 14 year old boys strap bombs to their chests and board busses.

For the same reason African-Americans put up with their subjugation in a country that legally, constitutionally, guaranteed their rights to be equal with everyone else's.

Call it manipulation, call it coercive persusion, call it thought reform, call it brainwashing. People can be made to believe things that are not true so that they can be exploited.

I was one of those women. I defended our Church, saying we were more liberal towards women than most other religions.

My reasons were (with subtexts to note reality):

1) The Church encouraged women to go to college (--but only to get an Mrs. degree)

2) The Church allowed women to give talks (--but did not allow them to lead meetings where men were involved, did not allow them to control their own auxillaries, did not give them decision-making roles of any real import)

3) The Church revered women as more spiritually sensitive than men (--which was using flattery to keep us from complaining about not having the Priesthood)

Orwell called this "double-think". Holding opposing ideas in your head at the same time, without any aparent discomfort.

Beyond these "postives", there were far more actions and teachings that flat out suppressed women, but I believed I was free. That's the trick... if you believe you are free, then they can get away with any level of control.

I'm sorry you can't believe that we bought this -- please do not shame us in this. I was born in the Church -- I knew nothing better. And every time I stood up for myself as a woman, every weak little protest I made, I was shamed for it.

I instead choose to be amazed that I managed to escape -- If this little thing, or that little thing hadn't happened when it did, I would still be there.

Luna

[candy15]

Parents feeding their kids cyanide? You're using that as a comparison?

I do sympathize with you for your history as a past Mo. But please don't use examples such as you have. Really.

[candy15]

And P.S. I could NOT have been made to believe any of those things.

[lunaverse]

I do sympathize with you for your history as a past Mo. But please don't use examples such as you have. Really.

So you ask why Mormon women defend the Church that subjugates them, and you get snarky when I answer? hrmph.

Candy, I have listened to the Jonestown death tape. Jim Jones sounded eerily like our General Authorities.

While Mormons are not *currently* at the point where they would kill themselves and their children (and their doctrine counters it), at one point they *did* kill 120 men, women and children who were passing through southern Utah. They did kill many who tried to leave the Utah Church. They did castrate young men for wanting to marry the same young girl that the town Bishop wanted to marry. They did travel across the plains with insuficient supplies and equipment and many died while still more suffered unspeakably.

The early church was no different from Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, the Moonies, Scientoligists, and the Branch Davidians.

The current church is not at the point of People's Temple (Jonestown). But the techniques are exactly the same, and the people still make unreasonable sacrifices -- just not to the point of killing and dying.

A good Mormon will spend 22 hours a week or more involved in Church activities and following the commandments.

Theirs sons will sacrifice two years of their lives, sometimes leaving behind fiances (who dump them) and missed/postponed schooling opportunities. They pay for this mission themselves.

Every member in good standing pays 10% of their income to the Church.

People make decisions such as what part of the country they live in, what line of work to go into, who they should marry, and how many kids to have based on the Church and its teachings.

Serious trauma, such as sexual abuse, is often completely ignored by Church officials. The victim is often blamed and told to keep quiet, excerbating the victim's pain.

Members expect the end of the world any year now, and if the Prophet were tomorrow say, "This is it, the world is ending next week. Leave all your possessions behind and move to MO," or almost any other command related to this expected event, a vast majority of active members would follow. I know I sure would have. Proof of this is that members already make sacrifices to store 1-2 years of food for just this eventuality.

Luna