post to previous message--please, ladies--do you have an answer?

[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]

Thread split!

Same reply below is in the other thread as well.

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

[why me]

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.

I cannot say that women are treated as substandard in the church. But there are clear lines of demarcation between the men and the women in study classes and roles. But in general I still say that it is a matter of choice. I know many women who are working and also many who are stay at home moms. Usually it is a choice.

In terms of your question have you ever thought of asking it over at fairlds? You could get some interesting reponses from members and non-members. Give it a try...I would be interested in reading the fair responses.

[peter_mary]

...but I can.

I cannot say that women are treated as substandard in the church.
The man is the head of the family, like Christ is the head of the Church.

The Priesthood is the power to act on behalf of God.

Women can only hold leadership positions over non-priesthood holders, namely other women and children.

Even a 12-year old boy can not be in an organization with a woman leader, because he holds the Priesthood, and his mother doesn't.

"Mothers come home! Come home from the factories, come home from the cafes..." Ezra Taft Benson, 13th President of the Church.

"We love our women..." Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th President of the Church.

Shall I go on, or is it clear that despite what Mormons may SAY, the reality is that women hold a subordinate place in the Kingdom of Heaven according to their doctrine, their practice, and the teachings of their prophets.

[lunaverse]

I know many women who are working and also many who are stay at home moms. Usually it is a choice.

I'm leary of that phrase, "It's a choice"... if the consequences of choosing "poorly" are so harsh as to make that decision extremely negative... how much of a choice is it really?

It would be like saying, Why_Me, you can choose to have freedom of religion, join whatever church you like, but if it's not the Church of England, then you will be burned at the stake...

Or to take an example out of Mormon scripture (paraphrasing because I don't want to look it up right now): Whereby men are free to choose, to choose liberty and eternal life, or to choose capitivity and death.

i.e. if you choose the Church, you're free. If you choose anything else, you're bound and dead. Not really a choice.

It's important to note that these consequences are not "natural", i.e. they can be prevented by the powers that be.. whereas the consequences of jumping off a bridge are natural... you will hit the water and die and no one can prevent this consequence.

So in this case, sure, women in the Church can get jobs... but in many wards and stakes of the world, those women will suffer for it -- they will be not socially acceptible, they will be defying the Prophet (which labels them as "bad"), other people will give them scornful looks (not all but enough), unmarried women loose opportunities for eligable men, and they will suffer guilt every time an RS teacher talks about the role of women as dedicated mothers and every time a child looks them in the eye.

Sure, it's a choice, but one with a lot of artificial negative consequences...

Luna

[peter_mary]

...an old elementary school song?

I'm leary of that phrase, "It's a choice"... if the consequences of choosing "poorly" are so harsh as to make that decision extremely negative... how much of a choice is it really?

Luna

Here goes: "B-I-N-G-O, B-I-N-G-O, B-I-N-G-O, and Bingo was her name!"

Pardon my tone deafness, but that's what leapt to my mind when I read the above...BINGO!

[Fredl]

Look, folks, I don't want to be needlessly argumentative (Oh, all right, you all probably know me well enough by now to know what a laugh THAT statement is!), but is the problem that church doctrine in this area is wrong, or just not suited to everybody?

From what I've seen, my wife and many other women are quite comfortable with the church defined "woman's roll" and find it reassuring to have the church confirm their course in life. Now, I rather think that my wife might, in fact, probably would feel more comfortable with other, more assertive roles if she had been born here and attended a US university. She disagrees dramatically with Mormon theology but feels very comfortable with the role of women in the church and devotes major time and effort to her church callings.

For me, I make no judgement in this area. I expect adults to act like adults and assume they are. If a woman feels comfortable with the role assigned to her by the church, I assume she has good reason for her choice. And, at least for me the church's masquerade as representing God's only true church on Earth at this time is so obviously transparent that it's really hard for me to imagine that any responsible adult with a desire to know the truth can't do so.

Fred

[dogzilla]

I see a "woman's roll" as a chocolate croissant, or perhaps a guava/cream cheese pastelito. (That's a Cuban pastry for all you gringoes out there.)

I don't think this is a gray area, as if maybe this doctrine just doesn't fit all. I think the doctrine is straight up wrong to simply subjugate half the species for no discernable reason other than to control it. Maybe a lot of TBM women are happy... but think of it this way. Pretend this is 1830. Women don't have the vote and slavery is legal. I took the liberty of replacing "women" with "slaves" in your post. Think about how your words might apply to another group. You could play this same game with other words, I'm afraid...

From what I've seen, my slave and many other negroes are quite comfortable with the church defined "slave's roll" and find it reassuring to have the church confirm their course in life. Now, I rather think that my slave might, in fact, probably would feel more comfortable with other, more assertive roles if she had been born here and attended a US university. She disagrees dramatically with Mormon theology but feels very comfortable with the role of slaves in the church and devotes major time and effort to her duties.

For me, I make no judgement in this area. I expect adults to act like adults and assume they are. If a slave feels comfortable with the role assigned to her by her master, I assume she has good reason for her choice. ....

Do you really believe that it's okay to give one segment of the population lesser rights and responsibilities than another segment just because some people like it that way? Don't you think your comments are just a tad condescending? Why shouldn't we slaves, er, I mean, we women be able to discern for ourselves what our roles will be, even if that choice is to allow the church to proscribe the role? In my experience, women are scorned and a lot worse for attempting to make that choice for themselves.

[peter_mary]

Look, folks, I don't want to be needlessly argumentative (Oh, all right, you all probably know me well enough by now to know what a laugh THAT statement is!), but is the problem that church doctrine in this area is wrong, or just not suited to everybody?

From what I've seen, my wife and many other women are quite comfortable with the church defined "woman's roll" and find it reassuring to have the church confirm their course in life. Now, I rather think that my wife might, in fact, probably would feel more comfortable with other, more assertive roles if she had been born here and attended a US university. She disagrees dramatically with Mormon theology but feels very comfortable with the role of women in the church and devotes major time and effort to her church callings.

For me, I make no judgement in this area. I expect adults to act like adults and assume they are. If a woman feels comfortable with the role assigned to her by the church, I assume she has good reason for her choice. And, at least for me the church's masquerade as representing God's only true church on Earth at this time is so obviously transparent that it's really hard for me to imagine that any responsible adult with a desire to know the truth can't do so.

Fred

...but I am also aware that women are among the most ardent supporters of women wearing veils in the middle-east, too. Women are among the most ardent supports of the ban on women driving in Saudi Arabia. Women are among the most ardent supporters of Sharia Law that allows for the stoning of a woman caught in adultery by a single witness, while the man must be witnessed by three or four first-hand accounts before he is similarly stoned.

My point is, just because people are often quick to argue in favor of their dysfunction doesn't make it less dysfunctional. It may only mean that they have never been exposed to other possibilities, or that they have been so enculterated (read: brainwashed) that they can't see what is right before them.

Now...there's a difference between a woman who absolutely chooses of her own volition to stay at home and raise the kids and take care of the home front while her husband is out making a living, and does so because it is genuinely her life's calling to do so--and a woman who is TOLD it's her life's calling, and she's obligated to make it so.

In my mind, that's like telling me that God has appointed me to be an accountant, and whether I like it or not, that's my divinely appointed role. Now, there's nothing wrong with accountants per se, (insert accountant joke here), but it's not for me. Well, the subordinate roll just isn't "it" for many women in the Church, but unlike me, who got to choose my vocation, they either don't get the choice, or as Luna pointed out, get to feel guilty if they make a contrary choice.

That's oppression in my book, whether many women decide they are okay with it or not! Many oppressed people defend their oppressor...

And now that I have done a great job of stealing this thread away from Candy15's intended respondents (the women-folk), I'll sit down and shut up and listen to what any of them might have to say on the matter...

[Fredl]

...but

And now that I have done a great job of stealing this thread away from Candy15's intended respondents (the women-folk), I'll sit down and shut up and listen to what any of them might have to say on the matter...

Woops! You just said a mouthful with that last comment!

As for D's comment, I'd be in total agreement with you if we were living in a Mormon theocracy. We're not. Anybody who wants to step out of tscc is perfectly able to do so, male, female, whatever. I'm not aware of that privilege having been extended to slaves in the Old South. There the oppression was real and enforced by whip and gun. To equate it with "church oppression" of women is to trivialize slavery and demean those who lived under it.

Fred

[david]

I'd be in total agreement with you if we were living in a Mormon theocracy. We're not. Anybody who wants to step out of tscc is perfectly able to do so, male, female, whatever.Fred
Don't believe it. Leaving the church is usually extremely traumatic, and for many, nigh impossible, given the intertwining of family, business, and social ties with the church. The church isn't a theocracy? You haven't convinced me.

To equate it with "church oppression" of women is to trivialize slavery and demean those who lived under it. Fred
Dogzilla was simply using an analogy. The oppression that women experience in the church may be more subtle than physical slavery, but it is indeed totalitarian and therefore evil. That some might chose to submit to it voluntarily and even find happiness in it changes nothing. There were slaves that didn't welcome the emancipation proclamation either.

[Jeff_Ricks]

Anybody who wants to step out of tscc is perfectly able to do so, male, female, whatever. I'm not aware of that privilege having been extended to slaves in the Old South.
Why does a woman who lives in an abusive marriage stay in the marriage? Why doesn't she just choose to leave? Because she can't, and she can't because her ability to choose has been compromised. In my opinion, whether a person is held in an abusive situation by whip, gun or manipulation of their mind the end result is the same. And because the end result is the same the comparison to slavery is in my opinion a valid comparison.

Jeff

[flotsam]

My point is, just because people are often quick to argue in favor of their dysfunction doesn't make it less dysfunctional. It may only mean that they have never been exposed to other possibilities, or that they have been so enculterated (read: brainwashed) that they can't see what is right before them.
.

I saw The Last Temptation of Christ a few weeks ago. The scene with Pilate really impressed me (and David Bowie, who played Pilate, wasn't even wearing packet-revealing tights!).

His little talk with Jesus ends thusly, "Why can't you see? We don't want things changed. Take a look at Golgotha sometime, will you? Count the skulls. Maybe you'll learn something."

[why me]

...but I can.


The man is the head of the family, like Christ is the head of the Church.

The Priesthood is the power to act on behalf of God.

Women can only hold leadership positions over non-priesthood holders, namely other women and children.

Even a 12-year old boy can not be in an organization with a woman leader, because he holds the Priesthood, and his mother doesn't.

"Mothers come home! Come home from the factories, come home from the cafes..." Ezra Taft Benson, 13th President of the Church.

"We love our women..." Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th President of the Church.

Shall I go on, or is it clear that despite what Mormons may SAY, the reality is that women hold a subordinate place in the Kingdom of Heaven according to their doctrine, their practice, and the teachings of their prophets.

So what? Such is life. What to do?

I see nothing wrong with defined roles in an age where roles should not be defined. Haven't you thought that we humans need some structure in our lives? Do you assume that we humans are best served with undefined individualized roles? People need structure and I suppose that most would perform rather well within a well defined structured role.

There is a reason why conservative chruches are on the rise and I am almost sure that it has to do with structure and defined roles between men and women.

I have this opinion that people are now tired of intellectual anarchy as defined in 'hidden' postmodern culture...a culture that rejects life definitions.

[why me]

Why does a woman who lives in an abusive marriage stay in the marriage? Why doesn't she just choose to leave? Because she can't, and she can't because her ability to choose has been compromised. In my opinion, whether a person is held in an abusive situation by whip, gun or manipulation of their mind the end result is the same. And because the end result is the same the comparison to slavery is in my opinion a valid comparison.

Jeff
You made a great unlogical leap here jeff. What was your point? That women suffer abuse in the church based on their defined role? A women who is abused stays with the abuse because she has become psychology dependent on that abuse and fails to see an alternative. It is a big leap to equate slavery and abuse with the church...I think.

Many women have left the church because they don't believe in their defined role in the church and that is their right to do so...where is the slave master?

But I can understand your perspective and your wish to believe it to be true....

[why me]

Look, folks, I don't want to be needlessly argumentative (Oh, all right, you all probably know me well enough by now to know what a laugh THAT statement is!), but is the problem that church doctrine in this area is wrong, or just not suited to everybody?

From what I've seen, my wife and many other women are quite comfortable with the church defined "woman's roll" and find it reassuring to have the church confirm their course in life. Now, I rather think that my wife might, in fact, probably would feel more comfortable with other, more assertive roles if she had been born here and attended a US university. She disagrees dramatically with Mormon theology but feels very comfortable with the role of women in the church and devotes major time and effort to her church callings.

For me, I make no judgement in this area. I expect adults to act like adults and assume they are. If a woman feels comfortable with the role assigned to her by the church, I assume she has good reason for her choice. And, at least for me the church's masquerade as representing God's only true church on Earth at this time is so obviously transparent that it's really hard for me to imagine that any responsible adult with a desire to know the truth can't do so.

Fred
Yea...comrade Fred! Keep posting fred...it is good to have someone with whom I can agree with on this forum! :)

[Jeff_Ricks]

You made a great unlogical leap here jeff. What was your point? That women suffer abuse in the church based on their defined role? A women who is abused stays with the abuse because she has become psychology dependent on that abuse and fails to see an alternative. It is a big leap to equate slavery and abuse with the church...I think.

Many women have left the church because they don't believe in their defined role in the church and that is their right to do so...where is the slave master?

But I can understand your perspective and your wish to believe it to be true....
Why me,

You said, "A women who is abused stays with the abuse because she has become psychology dependent on that abuse and fails to see an alternative." That is exactly why most people stay in the church. They are psychologically dependent on it. They are afraid to give it up just like a heroin addict is afraid to give up his addiction.

I have to say why me that you seem to fall into the category of those who are psychologically dependent on the Church. Who am I to judge, but from what I’ve read of your posts it seems that you don't fully believe in the Church but you still choose to stay. From where I sit you appear for all the world to be psychologically dependent on Church. But whether you are or not, that doesn’t change the fact that most Mormons are. I was for 36 years. Half my siblings are. My father was. Most of my extended family is. Most of the ward members I came to know as I was growing up were/are. Yep, you seem to have hit the nail on the head but don’t realize it. Mormonism continues to exist because of the psychological dependency it creates in its members. Breaking that dependency is for some no less difficult than a drug addict giving up a drug.

Jeff

Edit: Also keep in mind that a person who is psychologically dependent on something hasn't a clue that they are dependent until they break that dependency, because the dependency is inhibiting their ability to think objectively. This is exactly what happens to a woman who stays in an abusive marriage. In almost every case she needs someone to intervene for her because she is not able think objectively about her situation. I’m sure glad my brother intervened for me and helped me think more objectively about Mormonism. Hopefully we can do that for others here in our community.

[Fredl]

Jeff, I continue to marvel at how you and so many others are so confident that you know what's best for everybody and your "psychological profile" of church members explains away the obvious happiness that many church members feel in their participation in it.

In many ways, I perceive exMormons to think just like Mormons, except that the objects of their hostility have changed.

Let me tell you that I personally, see little evidence that the world would be a better place without tscc. Those who bemoan it would be whining about something else if the church didn't exist because they have the sort of Institutionally based form of co-dependent personality that seeks out some form of institution like the church (or big government) to be psychologically dependent on. They are people with a real problem accepting and acting on their own liberty within this free society we are blessed with.

I know lots of people in tscc who I regard as models of wisdom and maturity. To perceive them as somehow mind-controlled by some mysterious entity known as "The Church" is to, imho, totally misunderstand the nature of the problem of leaving it. The issue is not what's wrong with the church but what can I change about myself to create a life I enjoy?

To make an analogy with alcohol, millions of people can drink with no ill affects. Some people can't. To draw the conclusion that alcohol is therefor evil doesn't strike me as reasonable. To draw the conclusion that some people need to avoid it is, to me, reasonable. To avoid it if you simply don't like it (my case) is reasonable.

So, with the church. I simply don't like it. That doesn't make it evil.

Fred

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff, I continue to marvel at how you and so many others are so confident that you know what's best for everybody and your "psychological profile" of church members explains away the obvious happiness that many church members feel in their participation in it.
I admit that I'm no expert in psychology Fred, but I was one of those happy clueless Mormons for most of my life. Went on a mission, was married in the temple, read "the scriptures" went to the temple regularly. No that doesn't make me an expert either but it does make me at least experienced in that side of the equation. It's not like I haven't been there Fred.

Jeff

[Fredl]

I admit that I'm no expert in psychology Fred, but I was one of those happy clueless Mormons for most of my life. Went on a mission, was married in the temple, read "the scriptures" went to the temple regularly. No that doesn't make me an expert either but it does make me at least experienced in that side of the equation. It's not like I haven't been there Fred.

Jeff

Jeff, all I can say is that I sure wish I knew more about what actually happened to you in the church. I respect your right to privacy and any reluctance to explain where you're really coming from, but I don't expect to ever really understand you based on the generalizations we've been exchanging up to this point. Fred

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff, all I can say is that I sure wish I knew more about what actually happened to you in the church. I respect your right to privacy and any reluctance to explain where you're really coming from, but I don't expect to ever really understand you based on the generalizations we've been exchanging up to this point. Fred
There's really not much to tell. I reached a point in my life when it became more important to me to know the truth than it was to believe that Mormonism is true. I think that's basiclly the story behind virtually every TBM who leaves the church. The differences are what happened to bring them to that point. For me it was the tithing promise. I owned a business in Idaho Falls -- a startup business. During the months that I was bringing that business online I was paying about 15% tithing whereas all my life I paid a 10% tithe (this percentage of course ignores all the other donations the church expects from its members). The business was built around a device I had patented for vending machines. I sold licences for the device to two vending machine manufacturers, one in Idaho and one in Salt Lake City, and to Speed Queen, the appliance manufacturer everyone has heard of. They were using the device in commercial laundry machines they manufactured. Then I decided to do more than just sell licences. I wanted to manufacture the device too and formed a joint venture with a vending machine manufacturer in SLC. They were going to use our device ("our," meaning I took in a business partner) in all of the vending machines they manufactured.

We reached the point were we shipping them product and suddenly they went belly up. They were way over extended and we had no way of knowing that. Because we had put all our eggs in their basket while we were getting things off the ground it took us under as well. I ended up losing my business, my home, and pretty much everything I had. At 34 years old I had to start over as if I was 21, fresh out of school. So due to no fault of my own my business went belly up. From my perspective, the outcome of my venture was in "The Lord's" (echo echo echo) hands and the Lord (echo echo echo) didn't come through on his promise. It seems pretty silly to me now that I ever thought that I was buying blessings, :duh but that's exactly what the church teaches.

Even though I lost everything I had I don't regret what happened because it brought me to the point of thinking, "Hmmmm, this tithing promise is pretty much bogus! I wonder what else about the Church is bogus? I better find out because I don't want this sort of thing to happen to me again!" In short, it brought me to the point of needing to know the truth more than needing to believe in Mormonism. And the rest is history. In another thread you (Fred) said, "There is SO MUCH information available to anybody that wants to make use of it." My experience brought me to the point of WANTING to. I think that most people who stay in the church never reach that point.

That's my exit story in a nutshell. :)

Jeff

[Fredl]

Jeff, thank you so much for your story.

I didn't get to my point of breaking away over tything, tho it did play a role. For me, it just seemed to be that I was carrying a bigger and bigger load of "willingly suspending disbelief" in more and more things (like the BoM) and finding myself developing a sort of craving for intellectual honesty. As this happened, I started sliding in my tything and, at a point that I simply did not want to continue to pretending to any belief at all in the BoM, went to my wife and told her that I'd be happy to donate 10% of our income to her relatives in the Philippines but was not willing to give it to the church, which I didn't think needed it. We never have resolved this issue, but I am not tything anymore, either.

Well, whatever our differences, we do seem to be fellow travelers on the road of life that leads away from the church and I wish you well.

Fred

[peter_mary]

So what? Such is life. What to do?

I see nothing wrong with defined roles in an age where roles should not be defined. Haven't you thought that we humans need some structure in our lives? Do you assume that we humans are best served with undefined individualized roles? People need structure and I suppose that most would perform rather well within a well defined structured role.

There is a reason why conservative chruches are on the rise and I am almost sure that it has to do with structure and defined roles between men and women.

I have this opinion that people are now tired of intellectual anarchy as defined in 'hidden' postmodern culture...a culture that rejects life definitions.
Why_me...shame on you for brushing aside a discussion with "well, that's life!" In my world, that's a cop-out!

I have to take issue with your assertion that the world is a better place with well-defined roles for everyone on two fronts. First, if you are Mormon or a defender of all things Mormon, let's talk about free-agency. That doctrine claims that we are agents free to choose for ourselves. Therefore, defining for someone the manner in which their life must be structured is counter to one of the most core doctrines of the church. Free agents do not act like automatons, blindly and obediently doing as they are told...they are allowed the freedom to make those decisions for themselves based on their own understanding of their uniqueness and circumstances, and willingly accepting the consequences of those choices. You would apparently deny them that privilege.

Second, who is the "authority" that is to dictate those roles? The Church? Well, not if you aren't Mormon. God? Well, not if you don't believe in God. The State? Hell no...not in this country. So who? You? God :rolleyes: forbid...

So who is to define those roles? Help me out here, because I'm completely and entirely unimpressed at this point.

[silverfox]

Here is my two cents worth:

tscc uses GOD to persuade you to do what they want you to do.

God wants you to have children to build up Zion.
God wants you in the home.

God this God that

And if you don't do what God says you are not being obedient

Remember we are to follow the prophet no ands, ifs or buts. Read the 14 Fundamentals of Following a Prophet.

It is not acceptable to be disobedient. It is not acceptable to question.

It was shoved down my throat time and time again by bishops, stake presidents and other leaders that my role was to have children and build up Zion.

Period.

If one has a true "testimony" of the church they do everything they can do be obedient even when they disagree or not comfortable with some of the doctrine and commandments.

It's not as simple as just ignoring what you don't like.

[free thinker]

This is where why-me bugs out. A little too hot in the kitchen I think.

ft

[lunaverse]

I see nothing wrong with defined roles in an age where roles should not be defined. Haven't you thought that we humans need some structure in our lives? Do you assume that we humans are best served with undefined individualized roles? People need structure and I suppose that most would perform rather well within a well defined structured role.


I should have said this earlier, but I couldn't put my finger on it till now...

WhyMe, since we're discussing the Mormon role of women in this thread, and since that role is that women are better fit as mothers, in the home, and that women should submit to the authority of men... Isn't this statement a bit sexist?

You seem to be saying that oppressive roles towards women are justified by a need for structure, and that women shouldn't try to redefine or break out of these roles... that Mormon women should keep their silence and live out their lives the way they were "intended", so they can "perform rather well"...

???

If that's not what you meant by this paragraph, then please explain!

Luna

[silverfox]

I should have said this earlier, but I couldn't put my finger on it till now...

WhyMe, since we're discussing the Mormon role of women in this thread, and since that role is that women are better fit as mothers, in the home, and that women should submit to the authority of men... Isn't this statement a bit sexist?

You seem to be saying that oppressive roles towards women are justified by a need for structure, and that women shouldn't try to redefine or break out of these roles... that Mormon women should keep their silence and live out their lives the way they were "intended", so they can "perform rather well"...

???

If that's not what you meant by this paragraph, then please explain!

Luna

I must have missed this post earlier. Good points, luna. It would be interesting to see a response.

[left_of_hive]

Isn't it fascinating to find that men can live with "different roles" (or according to some posts here "rolls") that just happen to give them more power? Guys - would you honestly feel that same way if the church taught that since men aren't as naturally spiritual, they should only have authority over other men and boys; and women, the more attuned, are the only ones with access to God directly? In addition, men should devote their lives to their families and any who chose to work outside the home were doing something shameful. Seriously, I can guarantee that you would find that to be problematic.

Well, it would be problematic if you were still the people you are today - people who have grown up with a sense of ownership of their own lives. Women in the church (or as so many have already pointed out - other oppressed people) aren't making a true "choice" even when they say they have no problem. They are so immersed in the culture that they cannot be said to make a true choice.

Plus, if women are so very free to choose whatever, but just happen to choose to be subservient homemakers, why aren't all choices open to them? Shouldn't some women have the option of choosing church leadership roles? It's not freedom of choice if a whole category of choices are closed to you!

I honestly can barely believe that we are even seriously having this debate in this day and age - how can anyone argue with a straight face that a woman's role in the church is chosen and no problem Seriously?? Come on!!!

[free thinker]

Welcome to post-mo. I like the name. Care to explain it?



I honestly can barely believe that we are even seriously having this debate in this day and age - how can anyone argue with a straight face that a woman's role in the church is chosen and no problem Seriously?? Come on!!!


Total agreement here. It really is silly when you think about it. It is like discussing whether or not eating real butter can exascerbate a high colesteral condition. We know the answers already.

ft

[lunaverse]

I honestly can barely believe that we are even seriously having this debate in this day and age - how can anyone argue with a straight face that a woman's role in the church is chosen and no problem Seriously?? Come on!!!

LoH, you're awesome. :)

Luna

[left_of_hive]

Thanks, folks.

Left of hive= I was always to the left of the beehive folk while in Utah, and now I live "left" of the beehive state on a map, and well, I "left the hive".

I would also like to submit to you that not only are women treated poorly in the church, but the earth may be more of a sphere than a tablet shape, puppies are cute, and slavery is bad. Take that, Fredl and Why Me!

[flotsam]

Isn't it fascinating to find that men can live with "different roles" (or according to some posts here "rolls") that just happen to give them more power? Guys - would you honestly feel that same way if the church taught that since men aren't as naturally spiritual, they should only have authority over other men and boys; and women, the more attuned, are the only ones with access to God directly? In addition, men should devote their lives to their families and any who chose to work outside the home were doing something shameful. Seriously, I can guarantee that you would find that to be problematic.

There's a really great little story by Eloise Bell which is basically the announcements at a sacrament meeting where all the gender roles are reversed. It's hilarious and insightful. You can find it in Bell's book, "Only When I Laugh," published by Signature Books.

Well, it would be problematic if you were still the people you are today - people who have grown up with a sense of ownership of their own lives. Women in the church (or as so many have already pointed out - other oppressed people) aren't making a true "choice" even when they say they have no problem. They are so immersed in the culture that they cannot be said to make a true choice.

I"m saying this so why_me doesn't have to.

Folks, do you think you're making a true capitalism choice? I mean your are so immersed in the capitalistic culture that you cannot be said to make a true choice.

;)

[lunaverse]

Folks, do you think you're making a true capitalism choice? I mean your are so immersed in the capitalistic culture that you cannot be said to make a true choice.

;)

I can answer that, for myself at least.

Just before leaving Mormonism, I began to examine my political beliefs. I had learned that I couldn't just believe these facts and stories I'd heard out of hand, that there were myths and I needed to research. And I'd learned about logical fallacies. Many of my political ideas were based on fallacies and false information. After reviewing these facts in many areas, I decided to become libertarian. Libertarianism is sort of a merge between the left-wing and the right. "Liberal" in some areas, like pro-choice, get the government out of the bedroom, anti-censorship, etc. "Conservative" in others, such as low taxes, anti-regulation, etc.

Upon discovering I had been wrong about a great many things, I began re-evaluation all my political beliefs. Some took time to re-evaluate (the abortion issue, my stance on war, etc), while others I managed to research right away.

There are still some areas I have not researched, where I may take a stance ignorantly. But I try to keep myself open to new information that may warrant another change of mind. And if I haven't researched an issue, I try to refrain from comment on it.

I did research capitalism, pro- and con- arguments, facts, effects, etc. I came out of that battle still pro-capitalism, but NOT pro-corporation (and not anti-corporation either!) Some corporations go corrupt, and some are of a great benefit to everyone. And some are neutral. I do not blindly defend ALL corporations as being saintly, nor do I condem them all as is popular thinking among liberals. I'm also prone to point out that capialism and corporationism are not necessarily bonded together. You can indeed have one without the other.

So as for me, I can safely say I have thought this through and researched it carefully. I am not blindly following capitalism. Unless the forces of capitalism have completely controlled all sources of information I have access to, which is doubtful in this country.

And that is the distinction.

Luna

[free thinker]

I did research capitalism, pro- and con- arguments, facts, effects, etc. I came out of that battle still pro-capitalism, but NOT pro-corporation (and not anti-corporation either!) Some corporations go corrupt, and some are of a great benefit to everyone. And some are neutral. I do not blindly defend ALL corporations as being saintly, nor do I condem them all as is popular thinking among liberals. I'm also prone to point out that capialism and corporationism are not necessarily bonded together. You can indeed have one without the other.


Most people in America are employed by firms with six or fewer employees. This is a fact.

The corporations control large swaths of some sectors but most do not work for Fortune 500 companies. It is a misperception.

ft

[Fredl]

Thanks, folks.

I would also like to submit to you that not only are women treated poorly in the church, but the earth may be more of a sphere than a tablet shape, puppies are cute, and slavery is bad. Take that, Fredl and Why Me!

Huh? Is there some meaning hidden here? If so, it has escaped me.

Fred

[why me]

There's a really great little story by Eloise Bell which is basically the announcements at a sacrament meeting where all the gender roles are reversed. It's hilarious and insightful. You can find it in Bell's book, "Only When I Laugh," published by Signature Books.



I"m saying this so why_me doesn't have to.

Folks, do you think you're making a true capitalism choice? I mean your are so immersed in the capitalistic culture that you cannot be said to make a true choice.

;)
Actually flotsom, I think that most americans haven't got a clue that they do capitalism each day of their lives. Capitalism is pretty much a hidden ideology and yet it is all encompassing in our lifeworlds. After all there are no portraits of Adam Smith in our school or on our bill boards and the 'C' word is very rarely used to describe our economic system but I have heard Larry Kudlow use the *C*apitalist word often. More likely, you will hear the words: 'free' market, 'free' enterprise, open market, and 'free' trade or laissez-faire (let do) to describe capitalism. It is amazing just how free and capitalism are used interchangably in the words above.

The ideology is also hidden within our school curriculums. Students learn capitalism without it being identified as such. Capitalism is learned through the values that are fostered in the public and private schools, mainly situated around the self. Self-interest, self-reliance, self-improvement, self-confidence, self-employment, self-motivated...all become a part of the value structure.

Altruism is not encouraged in general except to help those who couldn't survive the sytem itself. But selfless behavior is the standard rule of behavior in capitalist society. In this case, quite often the schools can preach a hidden social Darwinist ideology as we all come from 'monkeys' as stated in evolution.

After all, after any revolution one of the first things to change is the school curriculum (look at what happened in the former soviet union). Or in cuba after the cuban revolution.

Do I think that people make clear conscious choices? In general I don't. People are very much beholding to the economic structure which breeds them--myself included.

[why me]

Thanks, folks.

Left of hive= I was always to the left of the beehive folk while in Utah, and now I live "left" of the beehive state on a map, and well, I "left the hive".

I would also like to submit to you that not only are women treated poorly in the church, but the earth may be more of a sphere than a tablet shape, puppies are cute, and slavery is bad. Take that, Fredl and Why Me!
Umm...what is your definition of left? I remember reading some political posts at the feminist mormon housewives website and they all said that left was being a supporter of the democratic party. And so are you a howard dean democrat? Now if you were a member of the socialist party or the Democratic Socialists of America...I might consider you to be on the right track in describing yourself to be left but of course being left of the beehive might be right of new york and new jersey. ;)

[why me]

I would also like to submit to you that not only are women treated poorly in the church, but the earth may be more of a sphere than a tablet shape, puppies are cute, and slavery is bad. Take that, Fredl and Why Me!
Yep, she is definitely a 'stand by your man' Hillary democrat. :rolleyes: But don't worry...I will help you to become a good 'left' Marxist socialist-feminist. :D

Here is your first missionary uh...I mean revolutionary discussion: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0705ehrenreich.htm

I look forward to more of your posts...we need some lefties around here. :)

[why me]

Unless the forces of capitalism have completely controlled all sources of information I have access to, which is doubtful in this country. And that is the distinction.
Luna[/QUOTE]

America scored rather low in press freedom the other day. I don't remember the organization that determined the standing of countries in respect to press freedom but I believe it had to do with some world-body journalist organization. But if I remember correctly america was 44th or so. But I cannot be sure.

The forces of capitalism control quite much of the information in america...there is not much room for actual freedom on the airwaves but there is room for formal freedom as defined by the corporate powers that control the information.

I just found the website: http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554

[silverfox]

I should have said this earlier, but I couldn't put my finger on it till now...

WhyMe, since we're discussing the Mormon role of women in this thread, and since that role is that women are better fit as mothers, in the home, and that women should submit to the authority of men... Isn't this statement a bit sexist?

You seem to be saying that oppressive roles towards women are justified by a need for structure, and that women shouldn't try to redefine or break out of these roles... that Mormon women should keep their silence and live out their lives the way they were "intended", so they can "perform rather well"...

???

If that's not what you meant by this paragraph, then please explain!

Luna

Well, why_me? No response?

[dogzilla]

Huh? Is there some meaning hidden here? If so, it has escaped me.

Fred


LOL

Yeah.

That whooshing sound you hear is Left of Hive's point flying right over and past your head.

Welcome LOH: Glad to have you!

[why me]

Well, why_me? No response?
I truly forgot about this thread. Sometimes I think that my mind is going soft in many ways. I have a lot on my plate at the moment and I just completely forgot that I was on this thread before. I will try to answer your questions.

I have started a new course two weeks ago at a different university. Preparing for this course has caused great mental stress and I tended to forget things rather easily.

When I responded to left of hive I really did forget my other posts. I am not bull craping around here...I truly forgot them. All this has me a little worried...but I also think that it has to do with my life and mind at the moment. Sorry folks!!!!!

[why me]

I'm leary of that phrase, "It's a choice"... if the consequences of choosing "poorly" are so harsh as to make that decision extremely negative... how much of a choice is it really?

It would be like saying, Why_Me, you can choose to have freedom of religion, join whatever church you like, but if it's not the Church of England, then you will be burned at the stake...

Or to take an example out of Mormon scripture (paraphrasing because I don't want to look it up right now): Whereby men are free to choose, to choose liberty and eternal life, or to choose capitivity and death.

i.e. if you choose the Church, you're free. If you choose anything else, you're bound and dead. Not really a choice.

It's important to note that these consequences are not "natural", i.e. they can be prevented by the powers that be.. whereas the consequences of jumping off a bridge are natural... you will hit the water and die and no one can prevent this consequence.

So in this case, sure, women in the Church can get jobs... but in many wards and stakes of the world, those women will suffer for it -- they will be not socially acceptible, they will be defying the Prophet (which labels them as "bad"), other people will give them scornful looks (not all but enough), unmarried women loose opportunities for eligable men, and they will suffer guilt every time an RS teacher talks about the role of women as dedicated mothers and every time a child looks them in the eye.

Sure, it's a choice, but one with a lot of artificial negative consequences...

Luna
I cannot say that this is true in all cases but it can be true in some cases. And I think that it is unfortunate. Being a man, i cannot personally relate to women experiences in the church but I can express my observations. As someone at fair stated recently his ward at berkely, CA can be considered liberal to other church wards. I forget just how he phrased it but it did make sense to me since I have seen and been in liberal minded wards.

I have known many lds women who have worked and suffered no prejudice from the 'women should not work stalwarts of the ward. People in general are allowed free choice in this regrard. Will there be judgements? Yes I think so. But it is those who judge who make the mistake and not the women who chooses to work. I think luna your comments were too extreme in this regard and of course perhaps even some lds women would find them condensending. Each man and woman can make their own choices if they have the strength and courage to do so, even in the church.

At my priesthood meeting it was widely discussed that members should say no to callings if these calling interfere with family. I think that that was quite liberal. And I don't think that women who work are looked down upon.

[why me]

Why me,

You said, "A women who is abused stays with the abuse because she has become psychology dependent on that abuse and fails to see an alternative." That is exactly why most people stay in the church. They are psychologically dependent on it. They are afraid to give it up just like a heroin addict is afraid to give up his addiction.

I have to say why me that you seem to fall into the category of those who are psychologically dependent on the Church. Who am I to judge, but from what I’ve read of your posts it seems that you don't fully believe in the Church but you still choose to stay. From where I sit you appear for all the world to be psychologically dependent on Church. But whether you are or not, that doesn’t change the fact that most Mormons are. I was for 36 years. Half my siblings are. My father was. Most of my extended family is. Most of the ward members I came to know as I was growing up were/are. Yep, you seem to have hit the nail on the head but don’t realize it. Mormonism continues to exist because of the psychological dependency it creates in its members. Breaking that dependency is for some no less difficult than a drug addict giving up a drug.

Jeff

Edit: Also keep in mind that a person who is psychologically dependent on something hasn't a clue that they are dependent until they break that dependency, because the dependency is inhibiting their ability to think objectively. This is exactly what happens to a woman who stays in an abusive marriage. In almost every case she needs someone to intervene for her because she is not able think objectively about her situation. I’m sure glad my brother intervened for me and helped me think more objectively about Mormonism. Hopefully we can do that for others here in our community.
I don't know if I agree with this idea jeff. It sounds again condensending to those that are in it. People are in it because many truly believe in it. I don't think that they consider themselves to be psychologically dependent on it. A testimony is a testimony and as long as someone has a testimony---they will believe whether in activity or inactivity.

I think that the problem comes when someone begins to doubt or question their testimony. I have this feeling that when someone no longer believes in the church's truthfulness, the separation process is easy for the simple reason that that person no longer believes. But yes there is anger and disappointment because of the sense of betrayal.

What is objective thinking? I think that it is quite difficult to say that an active member is not objective. Likewise it is difficult to say that a postmo is objective. Objectivity is a process of keeping an open mind as to knowledge but it does not mean that one can not be a mormon if one is objective. Objectivity is a matter of choice and consideration for other viewpoints.

I have read the exchange between you and wes on another thread---where is the objective thinking on that thread? Both are locked into a certain viewpoint when in reality---both you and wes can learn from the other if the defensive shields are let down and dialogue can take place.

[why me]

This is where why-me bugs out. A little too hot in the kitchen I think.

ft
Nope...I just forgot. I think that this is my problem. I forget just where I have been on the forum. Please PM me if this happens again. My mind is f--cked up with my own life issues and thoughts. Jeff might say that I am making excuses but really I am having problems these days...

Now I understand whay you meant jeff...but I just forgot about these posts.

[lunaverse]

America scored rather low in press freedom the other day. I don't remember the organization that determined the standing of countries in respect to press freedom but I believe it had to do with some world-body journalist organization. But if I remember correctly america was 44th or so. But I cannot be sure.


My sources generally are not mainstream media, at least not when I am relying on solid, detailed information. I begin with the assumption that all sources are biased.

When I investigate a certain issue, I go pretty deep. I do web searches, read multiple ethical stances, try to read from foriegn sources if possible (and relevant), try alternate news sources, read what certain foundations and organizations are publishing, and grab a few books if I really want to go deep.

Luna

[flotsam]

I should have said this earlier, but I couldn't put my finger on it till now...

WhyMe, since we're discussing the Mormon role of women in this thread, and since that role is that women are better fit as mothers, in the home, and that women should submit to the authority of men... Isn't this statement a bit sexist?

You seem to be saying that oppressive roles towards women are justified by a need for structure, and that women shouldn't try to redefine or break out of these roles... that Mormon women should keep their silence and live out their lives the way they were "intended", so they can "perform rather well"...

???

If that's not what you meant by this paragraph, then please explain!

Luna

Let me give you my take.

People operate out of habit most of their lives. I sleep in the same bed, eat the same set of foods, go to the same school, talk to the same people, wear the same kinds of clothing. I don't try to fly a plane. I don't apply to physicist's jobs. I keep my books in usual places.

When my wife goes on her little cleaning sprees (which I appreciate on many levels) I always lose something. Because everything gets moved around and I don't know where they are anymore. So I have to spend a lot of energy finding those things.

It seems to me that established roles are helpful insofar as they increase your ability to do other things that are more important to you. I think that is why societies like early-Utah Mormons, the Soviets, and ultra-orthodox Jews rely so heavily on an unquestioned role structure. They have more "important" things to do than worry about who should habitually do what. So the work gets divided up, and statuses assigned to the work, and they get on with life.

Our particular social and economic environment doesn't need such structured roles anymore. We have enough money and time that we can start experimenting with roles. That's what my wife and I have tried to do. We're constantly looking for ways for us both to shoulder parts of roles that are traditionally assigned to the other gender. So I'm usually in charge of the dishes, and my wife has made a lot more money than I have from time to time, though she was also a housewife for a year or so. But i was a househusband for a year as well, and may be in the future.

We spend enough time trying to figure this stuff out that we probably haven't gotten as much done as we could have. If we had just gone with the status quo, it's possible that I could have worked like crazy and gone to some high-falutin' school, rather that the second-tier (but still great) school we're going to now, and completed all kinds of studies and be well on my way to an elite academic job.

As it is, I don't think we've done too badly at all. In fact, I'm glad we chose the paths we have. We both have our master's, and are working on our doctorates. If all goes well, and we hope it does, we'll be Dr.'s Flotsam in a year or so.

I really like that sense of doing things together. Of figuring out what is important to each of us and finding a way to fulfill those hopes as far as possible.

But like I said, we've spent a lot of time on things that most people just do automatically.

So when one's life is just survival, or sacrificing for a larger cause, I think roles tend to get rigid. But in easier times roles get more fluid.

[lunaverse]

Let me give you my take.

So when one's life is just survival, or sacrificing for a larger cause, I think roles tend to get rigid. But in easier times roles get more fluid.

I will agree that economic prosperity makes role-flexibility more possible. It's one reason I'm a free-market capitalist, because I believe it contributes to this prosperity and labor-saving inventions that allows us to do things like, say, free the slaves and let women into the workplace.

But I would also say it's easy to accept your role in life if you're on the top or in the middle. If you're one of the subjugated, by all means, I hope they buck the system! I wouldn't advise that someone with a crappy role be happy with it and sacrifice "for the good of the community" or for the good of those on top! I would not say that they should be happy with their role because those at the top are happy with theirs.

Those at the bottom have no reason to be happy with their roles, so whatever the wealth of the times, they should do whatever is in their power to make their own lives better...

Luna

[peter_mary]

I will agree that economic prosperity makes role-flexibility more possible. It's one reason I'm a free-market capitalist, because I believe it contributes to this prosperity and labor-saving inventions that allows us to do things like, say, free the slaves and let women into the workplace.

But I would also say it's easy to accept your role in life if you're on the top or in the middle. If you're one of the subjugated, by all means, I hope they buck the system! I wouldn't advise that someone with a crappy role be happy with it and sacrifice "for the good of the community" or for the good of those on top! I would not say that they should be happy with their role because those at the top are happy with theirs.

Those at the bottom have no reason to be happy with their roles, so whatever the wealth of the times, they should do whatever is in their power to make their own lives better...

Luna
By now you are probably realizing that my wife's life is much more interesting than my own...

Anyway, she writes a periodic column in our local newspaper, sharing the space with three other mental health professionals. Last week, the editor of that section called a lunch meeting to brainstorm ideas and make some assignments. My wife suggested that she'd love to write an article on male privilege. The two men at the table just guffawed, and proclaimed that there "is no such thing." End of discussion, next topic.

The only other woman at the table knew exactly what she meant...and the three men had no idea the manner in which they had just reinforced that which they denied to even exist in the first place.

[flotsam]

Those at the bottom have no reason to be happy with their roles, so whatever the wealth of the times, they should do whatever is in their power to make their own lives better...

Luna

I hope you saw that I wasn't taking an ethical stance on this matter. I was just describing what I've seen.

[lunaverse]

I hope you saw that I wasn't taking an ethical stance on this matter. I was just describing what I've seen.

Granted!

Luna