Another question to the men...

[lunaverse]

Being raised in the Church comes with very limited gender roles for both men and women. Much has been written about how the female role affects women. But not as much about men, perhaps because it was slightly less limited.

The man's role was defined as Father, Bread-winner, Priesthood holder, and leader. (What am I forgetting?)

How do you feel your proscribed role as a Man in the Church affected you? Please include limitations, things you would have liked to have done but didn't, psychological impact, and how it shaped you (good or bad).

Thanks! :)

Luna

[runfromsafety]

How do you feel your proscribed role as a Man in the Church affected you? Please include limitations, things you would have liked to have done but didn't, psychological impact, and how it shaped you (good or bad).

Thanks! :)

Luna Really good question! I could write pages on this, but I'll chime in with just one to start with.

One of the hardest parts came when I first had doubts about the church. Because of the "head of the home, pristhood holder, lead in righteousness" stuff I felt incredibly trapped by this role, and far less able to truly express how I felt, because I saw it as not living up to one of the things that we had spent decades defining as our central role in the home. By merely expressing doubts or concerns I was not "leading in righteousness"... my family would see themselves (and perhaps I did too) as them being stuck with a less than adequate priesthood holder. Could I still give blessings and administrations? Would they have any faith in them if I did? Who would show the spiritual leadership (or at least what they perceived as spiritual leadership) to the family?

I was worried that if I said anything there would be a role reversal in our home, with my wife taking on those roles, and as a result I would lose the respect of her, and equally (or more to me) importantly my children.

So the effect of this is that I felt trapped and far less able perhaps than a woman to say how I felt, get support from my family or break from the mould even a little bit.... very unhealthy. This issue greatly prolonged my exit.

[helemon]

I was worried that if I said anything there would be a role reversal in our home, with my wife taking on those roles, and as a result I would lose the respect of her, and equally (or more to me) importantly my children.


I think this is a very valid concern and it has been described several times on the recovery boards. It is sad how the church teaches women to only value their husbands so long as they have a strong testimony of the church.

[helemon]

How do you feel your proscribed role as a Man in the Church affected you?

I think that the strict behavior rules may have caused me to be extra cautious about how I approach life. I didn't feel free to explore alternate ways of looking at the world. But in Utah kids don't have much exposure to other viewpoints.

I think the churches emphasis on getting married early and starting a family did impact my life by making me think about settling down earlier than I might have had I been raised in another faith or without a faith.

I also felt weird when it came time for some of my kids to be blessed. I felt like it was something I couldn't perform because I didn't believe it but it was something that was expected to be done.

[Born Free]

One of the regrets I have about the interface of PostMo is that over time we tend to rehash territory. I see several aspects of that:


Oldies here feel less likely to engage on the new version of a topic previously canvassed.
The experience and wisdom of previous regulars gets lost.
That narrows the discourse.
This is most likely to happen with the most pressing issues, because they are the ones that keep re-presenting.


So acknowledging all the above, when new people arrive, they can also bring great new insights and experience. So I get really frustrated to observe this disparate activity, where really useful 'stuff' gets missed, and all the parts never come together in one place. It is one of the things I have tried to achieve in the Stages threads: to have years of people's experiences around a particular phase or aspect of leaving all available for newbies to draw up. It also broadens the sense of our 'community' including those who were active here historically. Ed Gardiner, for instance, made a contribution that I personally valued very highly, and all the signs are that he will return when other priorities recede.

So in that light, here is a thread where this community previously visited this issue.

http://www.postmormon.org/forum_vb/showthread.php?t=617

One thing I find of particular interest, is how frequently sexuality arises as an area of pain and distress.

I thought Colin's comment re being the 'leader' is as issue. Cults actively use/abuse that sense of commitment to keep people in harness and the particular downside of being 'in a position of power and leadership' which you discuss, carries a downside that you have articulated very well, that is so easily invisible to outsiders to that 'power'.

Daryl

[runfromsafety]

One of the regrets I have about the interface of PostMo is that over time we tend to rehash territory.
Good point Daryl... I am pretty new here and there have been several times I have held back from saying something because I assumed it would be old ground for most. That is one of the main reasons I am posting replies to things others raise, but have only initiated one new thread (which I felt fairly safe would be something new).

The general search facility is there, but it would be great if there was a good topic index which was visible on the site (which someone would have to maintain), perhaps that would be a start, but it is not the whole answer. If all the past wisdom can be indexed in such a way that it is a true resource to members, old and new, that would be magic. Worth exploring ideas!

[helemon]

The general search facility is there, but it would be great if there was a good topic index which was visible on the site (which someone would have to maintain), perhaps that would be a start, but it is not the whole answer. If all the past wisdom can be indexed in such a way that it is a true resource to members, old and new, that would be magic. Worth exploring ideas!

I think these are great suggestions. This issue is a personal interest of mine as an interface and interaction person. I hope at some point in the near future I can do more exploration into how to facilitate the type of awareness you are talking about and how to make the territory that has been covered more visible. I think there might need to be something like and executive summary of the topic that reviews the primary ideas and conclusions that have been arrived at so far and where there is still some areas left open to exploration.

[peter_mary]

One of the regrets I have about the interface of PostMo is that over time we tend to rehash territory. I see several aspects of that:

Daryl
On the one hand, I am very sympathetic to this...it's probably why I personally was less inclined to jump on this thread (although I'm perfectly willing).

On the flip side, though, when I keep in mind the notion of the "Roadside Inn on the road away from Mormonism", I value the notion of ongoing conversation with an ever evolving and changing set of conversants. Just as families often rehash old stories when they get together, so too will this community rehash old issues when they come up from new people who just stumbled into the Inn.

See, I don't look at PostMo as a growing library of information...I view it as an ongoing conversation. Because SO many people who are leaving the Church are going to have the same questions, the same issues, the same worries as we all did, those who find this place when they do need to feel welcome to throw their questions or comments out there without worrying that it's rehashing old territory. In part, because some OTHER new voice in the community might really want to talk about it, too! If I've already chimed in elsewhere, and don't feel like talking about it again, I can sit quietly by on the sidelines and see how others discuss it. And if I'm patient enough (like Daryl) to go and actually find a link to a thread where it has been talked about, I might chime in with a "hey, you might find this discussion helpful."

Anyhoo...lots of ways to view this community, eh?

[lunaverse]

On the flip side, though, when I keep in mind the notion of the "Roadside Inn on the road away from Mormonism", I value the notion of ongoing conversation with an ever evolving and changing set of conversants. Just as families often rehash old stories when they get together, so too will this community rehash old issues when they come up from new people who just stumbled into the Inn.


Didn't you already say that, like 3 months ago?

;)

Luna

[Born Free]

On the one hand, I am very sympathetic to this...it's probably why I personally was less inclined to jump on this thread (although I'm perfectly willing).

On the flip side, though, when I keep in mind the notion of the "Roadside Inn on the road away from Mormonism", I value the notion of ongoing conversation with an ever evolving and changing set of conversants. Just as families often rehash old stories when they get together, so too will this community rehash old issues when they come up from new people who just stumbled into the Inn.

See, I don't look at PostMo as a growing library of information...I view it as an ongoing conversation. Because SO many people who are leaving the Church are going to have the same questions, the same issues, the same worries as we all did, those who find this place when they do need to feel welcome to throw their questions or comments out there without worrying that it's rehashing old territory. In part, because some OTHER new voice in the community might really want to talk about it, too! If I've already chimed in elsewhere, and don't feel like talking about it again, I can sit quietly by on the sidelines and see how others discuss it. And if I'm patient enough (like Daryl) to go and actually find a link to a thread where it has been talked about, I might chime in with a "hey, you might find this discussion helpful."

Anyhoo...lots of ways to view this community, eh?

P_M,

I acknowledge your point, AND am stating a preference that when we do the rehash, we do it at a table like the old inns frequented by students at a local University I recall visiting in Germany, that has 400 years of student scribblings on the tables and roof beams.

I would like todays rehash to as much as possible have access to all previous rehashes of the same or similar material. That way, people can see that those who have struggled with the same issues are numerous and varied in age, education, and gender.

I don't think this has to be an either/or.

Daryl

[helemon]

P_M,

I don't think this has to be an either/or.

Daryl

I agree. I think there is value to having an easily accessible summary of past conceptual travels as well as the ability to shout out to the community to answer a question or have their experience validated.

[peter_mary]

Didn't you already say that, like 3 months ago?

;)

Luna
Wait...that was sarcastic, wasn't it? :duh

I'm slow on the uptake...

[peter_mary]

P_M,

I acknowledge your point, AND am stating a preference that when we do the rehash, we do it at a table like the old inns frequented by students at a local University I recall visiting in Germany, that has 400 years of student scribblings on the tables and roof beams.

I would like todays rehash to as much as possible have access to all previous rehashes of the same or similar material. That way, people can see that those who have struggled with the same issues are numerous and varied in age, education, and gender.

I don't think this has to be an either/or.

Daryl
I'm on board with you, mate. Really I was probably responding more to Colin's admission that he is reluctant at times to bring up things if he is afraid it may have been talked about before. But you're right...it's not an either/or situation, and when I went back and re-read your post, you weren't really saying "you people go back and read what's already been said," you were saying, "I am frustrated by this..." And I agree...that is one of the inherent frustrations with online communities such as this.

:)

[dogzilla]

Wait...that was sarcastic, wasn't it? :duh

I'm slow on the uptake...

You'd think the Peep Stone Editor would be a little quicker to pick up on sarcasm.

:slap:


Now, THAT was sarcasm.
:D

[helemon]

Being raised in the Church comes with very limited gender roles for both men and women. Much has been written about how the female role affects women. But not as much about men, perhaps because it was slightly less limited.

The man's role was defined as Father, Bread-winner, Priesthood holder, and leader. (What am I forgetting?)

How do you feel your proscribed role as a Man in the Church affected you? Please include limitations, things you would have liked to have done but didn't, psychological impact, and how it shaped you (good or bad).

Thanks! :)

Luna

Ok, here's another thought. We are taught that to obtain the CK we must be married and that we are to follow Christ's example in our lives and that his life mirrors what God the Father would do. Yet no where in scripture do we see Christ or God dealing with their spouse. How did Christ/God resolve arguements over money? How did Christ/God keep the spark alive in their marriage? How did Christ/God figure out who they should marry? How did Christ/God balance work and family life? How did Christ/God behave when dating? How did Christ/God deal with his in-laws? How did Christ/God split up care for the kids and cleaning the house? And many more. There is nothing in the scriptures that gives any indication of how God's marriage(s) are working and so it is difficult to pattern ones life after them. There are only allegorical tales of Israel being God's bride or the Church being God's bride. So does this mean we should be polyamorus? ;) The scriptures also tell us that the church is the body of Christ. So now we are to understand that Christ is married to himself? How is that supposed to enlighten how I deal with my spouse?

I think many people in the church struggle in their marriage relationships because they are taught to be Christ like and that a Christ like attitude will overcome all marital discord but Christ never really patterened any marriage behaviors.

Kids are also raised associating sex and sexual thoughts with sin and this then carries over into marriage where people can continue to believe that sex is dirty and sinful. We never learn about Christ/Gods sex life even though this is what separates them from the other eternal beings of lower kingdoms. I am sure Daryl will have something to say on that. :D

[Born Free]

<snip>

I think many people in the church struggle in their marriage relationships because they are taught to be Christ like and that a Christ like attitude will overcome all marital discord but Christ never really patterened any marriage behaviors.

Kids are also raised associating sex and sexual thoughts with sin and this then carries over into marriage where people can continue to believe that sex is dirty and sinful. We never learn about Christ/Gods sex life even though this is what separates them from the other eternal beings of lower kingdoms. I am sure Daryl will have something to say on that. :D

We give sexuality a pretty fair grilling here, but I think you raise an interesting point about realistic models that are problematic in most marriages, but I suspect worse in active religious families/relationships.

The BIG myth is that good marriages never have conflict and difference.

That is garbage. The difference between good and poor relationships, with respect to conflict, is that the former have developed the skills to navigate, communicate and negotiate difference. They deal with it assertively, rather than aggressively, passively or passive-aggressively.

I suspect that fundies are more likely to 'turn the other cheek; and use 'patience and forbearance'. In reality, that usually means become passive-aggressive, sit on it and bottle it up, let it leak out in toxic under-the-table behaviours, and/or until you blow your stack (the Devil made me do it), and act out.

I suspect all the mindset surrounding the Priesthood and gender roles might also exasperate things. Research has shown that when given a stressful stimulant, men get physically aroused (stressfully) faster and remain aroused longer than do women. Traditional gender roles (males as hunter/protector and females in breastfeeding) are believed to have produced that gender variance.

Yet, all the mindset around the priesthood, on top of broader sociological forces, would encourage men to believe that they are the cool and rational ones. I believe that the gap between their dominate paradigm and what is going on in their bodies (which they are largely disconnected from) is also a contributor to the problem.

I think this is a clear example of how the "gospel' damages men, over and above the background societal gender issues. The is nothing quite like believing 'God' has appointed you head of the house, to add fuel to the fire, when a man feels he is not coping in interpersonal disagreement in a marriage. Of course most men will use that as a trump card when feeling cornered.

Daryl