Do the wimmen folk need pertekshun?

[flotsam]

I had an interesting conversation with a TBM friend today. His name is Scott. And he's one of my favorite all time people. He laughs at my jokes. Especially when they are in bad taste.

Anyway, my car recently died, and Scott was nice enough to take me out to find a new car (I'm thinking about an Altima). And while we were on our way home, we started on a conversation about how time consuming the bishop calling is. Which led me (ill-advisedly) to ramble for a moment about my idea that the bishop calling could be a dual calling. You know, the husband and wife could do it together. Maybe even the whole family.

The idea being that if the husband and wife worked together, first, they'd get to spend a lot more time together than current bishop families do, and second, the female half could probably deal with some of the ward's issues in a better way than her husband. They could have more couple counseling with other couples and families. It would turn into a more dynamic process, rather than the sort of monodial process we have now where the poor bishop gets hit on all sides and has to keep his ecclesiastical confidentiality etc.

I think it is a good idea. And have decided that I would find a way to implement it (on the sly) should I ever get called as a bishop (waiting patiently for laughter to stop). And of course, since God knows what I think and since there's no way in the hallowed halls of the Church Office Building that he would let such unorthodox ideas into his alabaster church, and the Church dudes are all inspired of God, I would never get called. Easy.

Anyway. I was telling Scott about this, and predictably, he knew it wouldn't work. His reasons why were provocative.

Well, the first one wasn't. Essentially, when the bishop acts as a bishop he's God's representative and will just what God would do in the situation. It was interesting to sit and listen to Scott telling me, "I've been in bishoprics for most of my married life and have seen inspiration time and again."

I didn't think this was an argument against my idea. I mean, God can inspire a man, OK. Can't he also inspire a woman?

It turns out that another of Scott's concerns is that exposing women to the things bishop type guys have to deal with just ain't kosher.

"The few cases I've had to hear about I would never tell my wife," he said. "Not just because of confidentiality, but because it would seriously upset her. Women aren't built for that kind of thing. They need to remain pure."

That's not exactly what he said, but it catches his drift. Essentially, he feels that women would just get too messed up by dealing with the weird things people in the ward do, and would be harmed in some irreparable way should they be exposed to them.

I told my wife about this idea, and she begged to differ.

It’s always interesting talking to Scott. He reminds me of my dad in a lot of ways. The way he’s always quite certain about things and has an answer for everything. Also the way he really cares about people in his own endearing patriarchal way. He makes me remember the messily good things about TBMness. His kind of certainty can really make for an excellent launching pad. And certainty is one thing I seem to have misplaced.

I’m interested, is there much certainty out there in Post Moland? And if there is, does it differ much from the way TBMs are certain? Or is it the same thing?

[why me]

I had an interesting conversation with a TBM friend today. His name is Scott. And he's one of my favorite all time people. He laughs at my jokes. Especially when they are in bad taste.

Anyway, my car recently died, and Scott was nice enough to take me out to find a new car (I'm thinking about an Altima). And while we were on our way home, we started on a conversation about how time consuming the bishop calling is. Which led me (ill-advisedly) to ramble for a moment about my idea that the bishop calling could be a dual calling. You know, the husband and wife could do it together. Maybe even the whole family.

The idea being that if the husband and wife worked together, first, they'd get to spend a lot more time together than current bishop families do, and second, the female half could probably deal with some of the ward's issues in a better way than her husband. They could have more couple counseling with other couples and families. It would turn into a more dynamic process, rather than the sort of monodial process we have now where the poor bishop gets hit on all sides and has to keep his ecclesiastical confidentiality etc.

I think it is a good idea. And have decided that I would find a way to implement it (on the sly) should I ever get called as a bishop (waiting patiently for laughter to stop). And of course, since God knows what I think and since there's no way in the hallowed halls of the Church Office Building that he would let such unorthodox ideas into his alabaster church, and the Church dudes are all inspired of God, I would never get called. Easy.

Anyway. I was telling Scott about this, and predictably, he knew it wouldn't work. His reasons why were provocative.

Well, the first one wasn't. Essentially, when the bishop acts as a bishop he's God's representative and will just what God would do in the situation. It was interesting to sit and listen to Scott telling me, "I've been in bishoprics for most of my married life and have seen inspiration time and again."

I didn't think this was an argument against my idea. I mean, God can inspire a man, OK. Can't he also inspire a woman?

It turns out that another of Scott's concerns is that exposing women to the things bishop type guys have to deal with just ain't kosher.

"The few cases I've had to hear about I would never tell my wife," he said. "Not just because of confidentiality, but because it would seriously upset her. Women aren't built for that kind of thing. They need to remain pure."

That's not exactly what he said, but it catches his drift. Essentially, he feels that women would just get too messed up by dealing with the weird things people in the ward do, and would be harmed in some irreparable way should they be exposed to them.

I told my wife about this idea, and she begged to differ.

It’s always interesting talking to Scott. He reminds me of my dad in a lot of ways. The way he’s always quite certain about things and has an answer for everything. Also the way he really cares about people in his own endearing patriarchal way. He makes me remember the messily good things about TBMness. His kind of certainty can really make for an excellent launching pad. And certainty is one thing I seem to have misplaced.

I’m interested, is there much certainty out there in Post Moland? And if there is, does it differ much from the way TBMs are certain? Or is it the same thing?

I think that if you have read my posts you will see that I am very uncertain. I can't speak for anyone on this forum but it does seem to me that most of us are uncertain about certain things that have to do with life and belief. I know what you mean about Scott. I have also thought about the niceities of certainty and security. It is probably a good thing to have such certainty as your TBM friend and it must be very healthy for him mentally. And you are lucky to have him as a friend who accepts you as you.
But when a person is questioning such certainty it is good to come here and be with the people in this forum. I think that post-mo's are products of a postmodern age. But I am sure that out there in postmoland people are certain about certain aspects of life. It would be great to get their take on it... :)

[Born Free]

Flotsam,

I see some interesting threads in your question and your story about your friend.

Masculinity is seen as tough, certain, constant, resolute!

Femininity is seen as in need of protection, vulnerable, easy to mess up, variable & uncertain?

Now, it may be my head after years of gender work, and just coming home after facilitating a men's group tonight, but I perceive a bucket load of gender stereotyping in your story by your friend.

Just check out which gender does better and which worse after a relationship breakdown. In my experience, that is just the sort of drivel that makes men more prone to suicide after relationship separation. They masquarade behind this mask of toughness, when many are in fact quite weak, and made weaker by the very act of pretending to be impenetrable.

This male = strong, female = weak stuff is so simplistic, so out of touch with the real world. There are weak men and tough women out there, but more importantly how about we provide room for us all to be more human, to experience a fuller range of experience, men to be more empathic & passive, women to be more sexual & assertive, etc..

I remember years ago having my university student daughter assist me in getting some questions for a questionairre for sexual offenders typed up in my computer on some work I was doing. A Mo psychologist friend was surprised I would expose my daughter to such material (mentioned things like bestiality, necrophelia and the like). I could not believe his thinking. My wife and I did not raise fragile, molly-coddled children. We talk on virtually any subject , and then some.

Where is it with this fragile females s#it?

As for Post-Mos, my take is that we are more real, which means being less certain where it is not justified, and more real in other areas, where blanket denial is unhelpful. So, no simple answer from my perspective.

Daryl

[peter_mary]

I’m interested, is there much certainty out there in Post Moland? And if there is, does it differ much from the way TBMs are certain? Or is it the same thing?

I always love your stories, Flotsam...

For me, and I do mean ME, certainty frightens me in the big-picture, though I prefer it in the minutia. What I mean by that is, I like to have things like my vacation planned out, I like to know for sure my kid is going to graduate (this is especially relevant in my life at the moment...), I like to know I have a secure job, that sort of thing. But I DON'T like certainty when it comes to the unfolding of the universe. I relish the idea that all of us, each moment, are having some miniscule influence on the next moment, and that the sum of all those choices and actions in this moment is the ONLY thing that is determining what happens in the next moment, with no certainty at all.

I don't like the idea that there is one right way to muddle through a dilemma. I don't like the idea that the suffering of some is inevitable, while the prosperity of others is also inevitable. I don't like the idea of the straight and narrow path, the iron rod. I like my universe to be dynamic, interesting and evolutionary.

Does the fact that I "like it that way" make it true? Nah, but I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

I assume, however, that this is a personality trait of mine. I relish ambiguity in the big picture...others can't stand it. I think that's why religion really beckons to some, and repels others...it's probably directly correlated to the degree to which people are comfortable or uncomfortable with ambiguity.

I tend (again) to be rather Zen-like in this regard. I have a plan for the near-term, I like to know which way to point my bow and trim my sails, but if something changes and the destination no longer makes sense, then I try not to cling to the old destination, and begin making way for the new. I have a direction, but I'm always looking for that opportunity to make that hard left turn that takes my life in a wholly unplanned direction. Does that make sense? I'm busy in the moment going in the direction I think I'm going, but am open to the idea of going in a different direction at any time. Live in the moment, but don't cling to it...I think that's what I'm saying...

Truth be told, this is why I could join the Church and really "be" a Mormon for 15 years, and why I could just as easily leave it when my learning took a hard left turn.

So I'm pretty certain I prefer not to be certain... :p

Peter_Mary

[dogzilla]

<snip>
Where is it with this fragile females s#it?
<snip>
Daryl

Amen. Could you pass the potatoes, please?

As a never-married woman in my mid-30's (slam in the middle, my friends), guys like flotsam's friend above make me sick. It should be no wonder to any of you why I'm single if fools like that populate my dating pool. I consider that a tainted dating pool. I could never possibly hope to find a mate that's a true partner in life if all men think like that. (And thank all the gods that they don't!) How could you establish mutual trust, communication and respect with your partner if you believe there are certain things that only half the partnership can handle? Subservience is not a healthy thing to have in a relationship.

I've lived alone for roughly 12 years. In that time, I've learned to: make my own minor home repairs, deal with losing loved ones, move large, heavy objects, kill bugs and spiders, and handle any manner of crisis by myself. I also managed a team of 10 people with a budget of 2 million with exactly zero corporate experience in my family to draw from in terms of support or advice. ALL of my family members are no closer than 1200 miles away. If I can't solve it with a phone call to dad (mom is useless), I'm on my own.

As I get older, and my confidence in my independence increases, I have a more difficult time even seeing a need for a partner at all. So far, nothing majorly earthshattering has come up that made me throw my hands up in frustration and say, "Alas! If only a man were here to deal with this." Usually, the opposite is true: I'm generally quite relieved that the situation isn't complicated by a) some boyfriend getting in my way or b) a messy relationship to consider, thus complicating the problem.


Flotsam, please send the following to your friend, from me: :slap: :slap: :slap:

[aether]

Amen. Could you pass the potatoes, please?

As a never-married woman in my mid-30's (slam in the middle, my friends), guys like flotsam's friend above make me sick. It should be no wonder to any of you why I'm single if fools like that populate my dating pool. I consider that a tainted dating pool. I could never possibly hope to find a mate that's a true partner in life if all men think like that. (And thank all the gods that they don't!) How could you establish mutual trust, communication and respect with your partner if you believe there are certain things that only half the partnership can handle? Subservience is not a healthy thing to have in a relationship.

I've lived alone for roughly 12 years. In that time, I've learned to: make my own minor home repairs, deal with losing loved ones, move large, heavy objects, kill bugs and spiders, and handle any manner of crisis by myself. I also managed a team of 10 people with a budget of 2 million with exactly zero corporate experience in my family to draw from in terms of support or advice. ALL of my family members are no closer than 1200 miles away. If I can't solve it with a phone call to dad (mom is useless), I'm on my own.

As I get older, and my confidence in my independence increases, I have a more difficult time even seeing a need for a partner at all. So far, nothing majorly earthshattering has come up that made me throw my hands up in frustration and say, "Alas! If only a man were here to deal with this." Usually, the opposite is true: I'm generally quite relieved that the situation isn't complicated by a) some boyfriend getting in my way or b) a messy relationship to consider, thus complicating the problem.


Dogzilla, I love you. The more I read from you the more I see you fitting the model of my idea of a perfect independent and intelligent woman.

Flotsam, I agree with Dogzilla in that the kind of people like your friend make me sick. That sort of idea of the perfect woman as pure and fragile and clean and joyful is fine for romance movies and fantasies, but then people take it into the real world and it gets destructive. And there are a lot of guys who think like this.

I was reading some random guy's blog once and he was describing his tastes in women. One of the things on his list was "Can't have had sex with more than two men ever. Those types of girls make me sick, they should be raped." That statement right there freaked me out and caused me to send him a long nasty email asking why female sexuality frightened him so badly and telling him what a disgusting excuse for a human being he was. (He emailed back calling me a lot of derogatory female terms, but no reason for his fear. He probably doesn't know himself.) Why is it that girls are expected to be so pure, so innocent? And then if guys have sex with five girls one night after the other they are "pimp"? I can't see the reasoning behind that sort of idea.

Oh and I have another story on the subject. I was listening to the radio last week and the DJs were telling a story about a Catholic school in some other state. A girl in the school had gotten pregnant, and so the administration wasn't letting her graduate. Being cool, she attended the graduation anyway, walked across the stage, etc. But the really horrendous part about it was that beforehand, they had let the father of the baby graduate with no problem. ARGH. :slap: :slap: :slap: :slap:

[dogzilla]

Nothing should give any of us more pause than this right here:


The more I read from you the more I see you fitting the model of my idea of a perfect independent and intelligent woman.

Good grief. I'm somebody's role model! How in the hell did that happen? (Let's get the word "perfect" out of that statement and I'll be slightly more comfortable with it.) Just do as I say, Misha, not as I do! ;) (And if you can't be good... be careful!) Seriously, I'm just a punk(ette) with trust issues.

I saw that story about the pregnant Catholic girl. Props to her! I was so proud of her for getting up there, calling her own name -- she did this after the graduation was over because the school authorities wouldn't even call her name or acknowledge that she was there -- and snatching her diploma. Grrrrrl Power! Whoo-hoo!

That story reminded me of a similar situation when I was in high school. The secretary of the National Honor Society got herself (tongue-in-cheek) knocked up at homecoming. This raised two issues: Should she be allowed to stand up at the honor society ceremony to assist the other officers in inducting new members? And, should she be allowed to march at graduation? I was on the senior class committee (Hell, I was on ALL the stupid committees, let's face it.) and remember being asked my opinion by the teachers who were in a quandry about how to handle it. I very clearly -- and this was in my TBM days -- stated that I couldn't see how her moral choices had anything whatsoever to do with her academic ones. This girl had shown up for the tough classes, done the work, and made the grades. Why shouldn't she be allowed to participate in all the ceremonial crap if she wants to? What on earth does it have to do with her sex life or her future family?

Reader's Digest condensed version: Jane gave a speech inducting the new NHS members (to a standing ovation by her peers for her strength and courage of conviction), but did not show up for graduation because she was in labor or giving birth or something. :p

[peter_mary]

Nothing should give any of us more pause than this right here:



Good grief. I'm somebody's role model! How in the hell did that happen? (

:: pulls self up off floor::

Wow...a sure indication of the last days, that's for sure. Where have we gone wrong?

::wails::

Misha, come back from the dark side!

::gnashes teeth::

Sigh...I suppose it was inevitable that a strong, intelligent woman was going to wreak havoc sooner or later. I guess now we're going to have to block dogzilla from the forum, lest she influence other young, impressionable young women who would be better served at Relief Society...

:D

Peter_Mary

:: passes out on the floor::

p.s. if you want to have smilie fun, try the following and then "preview" to see what happens...I almost submitted this, but fortunately caught it before I did. Or unfortunately, depending on your mood this morning.

hit the colon key twice, and then type "passes" without a space between the colon and the word. It's amusing...

[elder_nomo]

pertekshun of them wimmen folk - reminds me of another thread where we discussed "mother in heaven" and how she needs to be "protected" (in spite of being a "full partner" with her spouse, God) :Crazy:

the question of certainty reminds me of a couple of my favorite quotes from Bertrand Russell.....

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

.....

"Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false."

[aether]

Good grief. I'm somebody's role model! How in the hell did that happen? (Let's get the word "perfect" out of that statement and I'll be slightly more comfortable with it.)

Hey now Dogzilla, don't get me wrong. I know you're probably not perfect by LDS standards, and I know no one is without flaws. But that doesn't mean you can't be perfect in my eyes. :)

This girl had shown up for the tough classes, done the work, and made the grades. Why shouldn't she be allowed to participate in all the ceremonial crap if she wants to? What on earth does it have to do with her sex life or her future family?

I completely agree, and I would have agreed in my TBM days too. This poor girl has the mindset that one "mistake" makes her unworthy for everything else in her life. Kind of a smaller version of the Mormon church's ideas that a few mild screw-ups as ignorant human beings on Earth are going to prevent progression throughout eternity. *grumblegrumble*

[free thinker]

Thanks Flotsam for this interesting thread.

I was thinking recently that you add an important ingredient to this site. A person who continues to attend the church, and yet allows himself the freedom to meander into the intellectual uncertainties. We really need this on this site to balance out some like me, who have completely left the fold, and embrace some bitterness and regret. Thanks for being here!! You make it a better place!!

To the women folk.

You guys are great!! I find you so refreshing. So out of the common mormon woman mold ,that after many years, I just found so one dimensional. What is that old saying? A WOMAN NEEDS A MAN LIKE A FISH NEEDS A BYCICLE!! I always liked that.

I just have a feeling that needing someone, rather than wanting someone , will ultimately constrict the relationship. I am no mental health professional though. Just a head strong, wise guy.


Now, as far as certainty, I can only say this. Everything for me now is up for debate.

So here is to uncertainty! I now follow the advice of Deepak Chopra who encourages us to " embrace uncertainty"

Free Thinker

[dogzilla]

Hey now Dogzilla, don't get me wrong. I know you're probably not perfect by LDS standards, and I know no one is without flaws. But that doesn't mean you can't be perfect in my eyes. :)

Egad. First my grampa, now this. You are completely shattering my self image. Now, stop that! :Puking



Last year, on my birthday, I was talking to my Grampa, who is something like 86 or 87. Old enough for me to have lost count. I was all bummed out about turning 35, since the words "old maid" keep cropping up in conversations within my general proximity. He said to me, "Don't worry, you'll always be young and beautiful."

And I thought, well, yeah, to you. You'll croak soon, so you'll never see me old and fat and gray and wrinkly and haggard like an old crone. Of course, in my grampa's eyes, I'll always be young and beautiful. And then I thought, you know what? Young and beautiful is a state of mind. Maybe in my eyes I can always be young and beautiful too. All I have to do is believe it, and it'll be real to me.

So from now on, nobody is allowed to wish me a happy birthday. It feels so good to be reminded about inner beauty that I'd much rather hear, "Don't worry, you'll always be young and beautiful!" instead. You should try it.

So there.

[silverfox]

"The few cases I've had to hear about I would never tell my wife," he said. "Not just because of confidentiality, but because it would seriously upset her. Women aren't built for that kind of thing. They need to remain pure."

That's not exactly what he said, but it catches his drift. Essentially, he feels that women would just get too messed up by dealing with the weird things people in the ward do, and would be harmed in some irreparable way should they be exposed to them.

I told my wife about this idea, and she begged to differ.

It’s always interesting talking to Scott. He reminds me of my dad in a lot of ways. The way he’s always quite certain about things and has an answer for everything. Also the way he really cares about people in his own endearing patriarchal way. He makes me remember the messily good things about TBMness. His kind of certainty can really make for an excellent launching pad. And certainty is one thing I seem to have misplaced.

I’m interested, is there much certainty out there in Post Moland? And if there is, does it differ much from the way TBMs are certain? Or is it the same thing?

Scott must have grown up a very sheltered person. Just think of all those women who have grown up in the midst of war, conflict, poverty, abuse, death or murder of a child, etc, etc, etc and have come out STRONG with wonderful survival skills and the ability to turn it all into positive. It happens every single day in every single corner of the world including good ol' sheltered Utard. Many of our members on this board are a product of some of these "things" that Scott probably feels women should be protected against. How ironic.

IMO, sometimes a person underestimates the inner strength one can possess. It has nothing to do with gender. I know of some pretty wussy a$$ed men who can't handle chit. I know of some very strong women who have survived things that Scott may have never heard of or can even imagine. Wonderful wonderful bright happy beautiful women.

[formermormon]

I'll even take it a step further. Doesn't it seem like in some ways, women would be BETTER equipped to deal with all the freaky stuff in the ward? I mean, if we're going to traffic in stereotypes, aren't women the concerned, caring, emotionally in touch, nurturing ones? Wouldn't that be awfully helpful when there were say, sexual abuse issues or domestic disputes, or suicide attempts, or whatever the hell it is that women need protectin' from? I mean, who is really more resilient emotionally? Please.

That kills me. What women DO need protection from is condescension and disrespect. (I'm looking at you, Scott-the-TBM!)

[outsideriq]

I had an interesting conversation with a TBM friend today. His name is Scott. And he's one of my favorite all time people. He laughs at my jokes. Especially when they are in bad taste.

Anyway, my car recently died, and Scott was nice enough to take me out to find a new car (I'm thinking about an Altima). And while we were on our way home, we started on a conversation about how time consuming the bishop calling is. Which led me (ill-advisedly) to ramble for a moment about my idea that the bishop calling could be a dual calling. You know, the husband and wife could do it together. Maybe even the whole family.

The idea being that if the husband and wife worked together, first, they'd get to spend a lot more time together than current bishop families do, and second, the female half could probably deal with some of the ward's issues in a better way than her husband. They could have more couple counseling with other couples and families. It would turn into a more dynamic process, rather than the sort of monodial process we have now where the poor bishop gets hit on all sides and has to keep his ecclesiastical confidentiality etc.

I think it is a good idea. And have decided that I would find a way to implement it (on the sly) should I ever get called as a bishop (waiting patiently for laughter to stop). And of course, since God knows what I think and since there's no way in the hallowed halls of the Church Office Building that he would let such unorthodox ideas into his alabaster church, and the Church dudes are all inspired of God, I would never get called. Easy.

Anyway. I was telling Scott about this, and predictably, he knew it wouldn't work. His reasons why were provocative.

Well, the first one wasn't. Essentially, when the bishop acts as a bishop he's God's representative and will just what God would do in the situation. It was interesting to sit and listen to Scott telling me, "I've been in bishoprics for most of my married life and have seen inspiration time and again."

I didn't think this was an argument against my idea. I mean, God can inspire a man, OK. Can't he also inspire a woman?

It turns out that another of Scott's concerns is that exposing women to the things bishop type guys have to deal with just ain't kosher.

"The few cases I've had to hear about I would never tell my wife," he said. "Not just because of confidentiality, but because it would seriously upset her. Women aren't built for that kind of thing. They need to remain pure."

That's not exactly what he said, but it catches his drift. Essentially, he feels that women would just get too messed up by dealing with the weird things people in the ward do, and would be harmed in some irreparable way should they be exposed to them.

I told my wife about this idea, and she begged to differ.

It’s always interesting talking to Scott. He reminds me of my dad in a lot of ways. The way he’s always quite certain about things and has an answer for everything. Also the way he really cares about people in his own endearing patriarchal way. He makes me remember the messily good things about TBMness. His kind of certainty can really make for an excellent launching pad. And certainty is one thing I seem to have misplaced.

I’m interested, is there much certainty out there in Post Moland? And if there is, does it differ much from the way TBMs are certain? Or is it the same thing?


I know that if this wimman folk needs pertektion, she's callin' on Helemon!

[flotsam]

Thanks Flotsam for this interesting thread.

I was thinking recently that you add an important ingredient to this site. A person who continues to attend the church, and yet allows himself the freedom to meander into the intellectual uncertainties. We really need this on this site to balance out some like me, who have completely left the fold, and embrace some bitterness and regret. Thanks for being here!! You make it a better place!!

My pleasure. I'm glad I can be of some use somewhere. I'm certain not much good at church. Far too surly. :slap:


What is that old saying? A WOMAN NEEDS A MAN LIKE A FISH NEEDS A BYCICLE!! I always liked that. I just have a feeling that needing someone, rather than wanting someone , will ultimately constrict the relationship. I am no mental health professinal though. Just a head strong, wise guy, cowboy.


I wonder about that...

I'm aware that in many ways monogamy is quite a recent social experiment. It's flaws are many, and unfortunately invisible to those who have fallen for its fairy tale without anything else to compare it to. And I personally have never experienced anything but monogamy.

But, personally, I've gotten a lot out of my marriage. And, as far as she's told me, my wife has gotten a lot out of it too. It's very intersting to realize, from just a sentence, or a phrase, or a look, that the person I've been living and procreating with can be a fascinating stranger. It's like being married to all kinds of different people, while only being married to one.

Me, for example. I have changed A LOT since we were first married. She's done the same. And I must say, the chemistries between us have been nothing short of intruiging, as long as I"m willing to step out of my roles and actually interact with my wife as a person (something I wish I had the skill to do more often).

I think there's a lot to be said for having a partner through much of life. Someone who has a different point of view - especially if that someone is a person you really care about. It's like living at the intersection of two completely different worlds.

So perhaps the old saying is right. Perhaps at the intersection of some worlds, fish and bicycles have something to offer each other. :confused:

[flotsam]

Flotsam, please send the following to your friend, from me: :slap: :slap: :slap:

This is interesting. I didn't try to set Scott up for a vigorous slappin'. I certainly understand that his inability to think outside his box is glaringly obvious from our point of view. But the reason I wrote the post in the first place was to try throwing into relief the strange intersection he inhabits between patriarchal blindness and what I think is a real compassion.

One of the ladies in the ward has recently finished getting a divorce from her husband because he is going to jail for molesting his sister in law (her sister), and his unwillingness to be reflective about his interest in pornography (not that his wife would have given him much room on that issue).

When she first found out about her husband's capers she ran to her hometeacher: Scott. I was her hometeacher too. But she didn't need a wishy washy semi-academic, she wanted a man who looked manly to her: full of priesthood, full of authority, full of certainty. And Scott is all that.

He took right over for her. He was essentially her surrogate husband in all ways but the conjugal. He helped her do everything from getting up the courage to kick her husband out, to getting counseling, to getting a job - and on and on. And the whole time he was giving her his sought-after blessings. (He's really good at giving these sincere, heartwarming blessings.) He was exactly what she needed.

This took up all kinds of his time. And I think this lady's life is better because of it. Scott's just like that. He was busy yesterday evening, but he still took me out car shopping because my vehicle was on the lam (ended up getting a Mazda Protege).

I'm just fascinated by that juxtaposition. Compassion and chauvanism. It throws my world all out of whack.

[miss taken]

He sounds very endearing! I wanted to post that earlier. My TBM friend is also going through a really hard time at the moment, and the church is a great support system for her, and I have told her so. Her bishop is a really good guy, very supportive. She needs that right now.

I LOVE your idea about the team thing Flotsam. That would be incredibly productive.

I suppose the church would argue, that the wife is fulfilling her role with her home life and with her children.

Motherhood afterall is her most important calling. Actually, this may not be politically correct and you can all have a bash at me if you like. But I love motherhood, now I am one, and to me it is the most important 'calling' that I have. So maybe in a few ways I would be a good mormon!! (ha ha) I don't think I would support my hubbie being off all the time on callings though. I know many LDS marriages that have gone into severe difficulties on that one.

No easy answers really. The C of E is becoming more emancipated right now which is a great thing.

To answer the question on your title Flotsam, I do believe that women are indeed as capable as men in dealing with thorny issues.

I had a couple of occassions to call the Samaritans in my teenage years, and another women, very kind and almost a life saver, was on the other end to offer the voice of reason, which she did with great skill.

On another occassion I had to be interviewed by the police after being assaulted by a sexual deviant in the street. The woman police officers were fantastic and were able to help me to relax so I could explain what the guy had done and so forth.

There is no question in my mind that just as the withholding of priesthood to people of negro descent was a cultural doctrine that the withholding of priesthood from women is one also.

Culture. Now aren't I just the apostate for saying that!!
But it is what I really feel.

Mind you, I dont know if men are as good at bitchiness and gossip as women, but if some of the women I knew in the church became bishops I would NEVER tell them ANYTHING.

Maybe women would have a bigger problem with this than men!!! (there's a thought).

Apparantly it is like that in the workplace, female bosses can be much more manipulative, bossy, bitchy, etc than men...

Any thoughts???

Mary

[dogzilla]

I'm reacting to Scott's sweeping generalization that the wimminfolk need perteckshun. It's offensive (especially to those of us with the confidence of knowing we could kick Scott's ass if necessary ;)). If he had said, "some women" or "a few" or acknowledged in any way that we aren't all weak, feeble and helpless, I wouldn't have offered him a virtual b***h slap. It's the comment that "women need to remain pure" that really chapped my ass. Did he define "pure"?

And this right here:
He took right over for her. He was essentially her surrogate husband in all ways but the conjugal. He helped her do everything from getting up the courage to kick her husband out, to getting counseling, to getting a job - and on and on. And the whole time he was giving her his sought-after blessings. (He's really good at giving these sincere, heartwarming blessings.) He was exactly what she needed.

Just feeds into Scott's mindset. Here's one woman, who sounds to me incredibly weak and helpless (seriously, she couldn't get a job by herself?) although probably not of her own making.* Had someone not swooped in to be Superman and save the damsel in distress, this woman might have surprised herself at how she'd have been forced to pull herself up by her own bootstraps and find some inner strength in there somewhere to take care of business the way she needed to. Instead, she didn't get a chance. So unlike Miss Taken, I don't think he sounds endearing at all. He sounds co-dependent to me.

* She probably had a lifetime of training and indoctrination that made her automatically turn to a strong, in-charge kind of person. She may even know women like this who could have helped her in much the same way, but has been programmed to have thoughts like that not even occur to her. Her gut instinct was to look to men for help. I do not fault nor blame her for this. She's probably known nothing different.

That said, I think tag-team bishops is a great idea. But it's clear why it'll never happen. Most women do not recognize their own capabilities most of the time.

And to clarify Miss Taken's sentence: I think you need to add one word to this.
Apparantly it is like that in the workplace, female bosses can be much more manipulative, bossy, bitchy, etc than men...

Insert "insecure" before "female". Because when men are insecure, they use many of the same passive-aggressive tactics and it's no different. I have a female boss right now (several, actually) who is not remotely insecure and I do not have to deal with the catty, manipulative thing. I've also worked for a completely incompetent man who pulled that sneaky, underhanded, manipulative crap all the time. I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just saying insecurity has a lot more to do with that management style than gender.

[miss taken]

I'm reacting to Scott's sweeping generalization that the wimminfolk need perteckshun. It's offensive (especially to those of us with the confidence of knowing we could kick Scott's ass if necessary ;)). If he had said, "some women" or "a few" or acknowledged in any way that we aren't all weak, feeble and helpless, I wouldn't have offered him a virtual b***h slap. It's the comment that "women need to remain pure" that really chapped my ass. Did he define "pure"?

And this right here:


Just feeds into Scott's mindset. Here's one woman, who sounds to me incredibly weak and helpless (seriously, she couldn't get a job by herself?) although probably not of her own making.* Had someone not swooped in to be Superman and save the damsel in distress, this woman might have surprised herself at how she'd have been forced to pull herself up by her own bootstraps and find some inner strength in there somewhere to take care of business the way she needed to. Instead, she didn't get a chance. So unlike Miss Taken, I don't think he sounds endearing at all. He sounds co-dependent to me.

* She probably had a lifetime of training and indoctrination that made her automatically turn to a strong, in-charge kind of person. She may even know women like this who could have helped her in much the same way, but has been programmed to have thoughts like that not even occur to her. Her gut instinct was to look to men for help. I do not fault nor blame her for this. She's probably known nothing different.

That said, I think tag-team bishops is a great idea. But it's clear why it'll never happen. Most women do not recognize their own capabilities most of the time.

And to clarify Miss Taken's sentence: I think you need to add one word to this.


Insert "insecure" before "female". Because when men are insecure, they use many of the same passive-aggressive tactics and it's no different. I have a female boss right now (several, actually) who is not remotely insecure and I do not have to deal with the catty, manipulative thing. I've also worked for a completely incompetent man who pulled that sneaky, underhanded, manipulative crap all the time. I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just saying insecurity has a lot more to do with that management style than gender.

Thanks for clarifying that for me Dogzilla, I think you are absolutely right. It is all about insecurity when it comes to leadership, and what makes for a good or bad leader whether it be male or female.

I was quoting from quite a prominent female journalist over here who was having a 'go' about female bosses. Amanda Plattel, she used to be an advisor for one of the Tory Party Leaders William Hague, but she is now mainstream media.

Most of my bosses have been female.. (head mistresses) and thinking about it, the most capable ones were the ones who were secure in their abilities.

Mary

[dogzilla]

Lest people misunderstand my point of view.

Motherhood afterall is her most important calling. Actually, this may not be politically correct and you can all have a bash at me if you like. But I love motherhood, now I am one, and to me it is the most important 'calling' that I have. So maybe in a few ways I would be a good mormon!! (ha ha)

I would not have a bash at you at all for this. (I love the way British people phrase things.) My reasoning is thus: you don't believe it's the one and only thing you or any other woman can do. You are generally well aware that, while motherhood might be the most important thing for you, right now at this particular time in your life, it will probably not be your only accomplishment.

With my strongwilled independence and uber feminism and all that crap, I do not want anyone to think that I believe motherhood is demeaning or a negative thing in any way. It is an extremely important and highly underappreciated job. Not all women are cut out to be good mothers. Right there is where I depart from the PCthink that anyone with ovaries should desire to be a mom and automatically will be a good one upon giving birth. For you, or this woman flotsam is talking about, motherhood may very well be the most important calling. And you should both strive to be the best mommies you can be. I just think we shouldn't vilify women who do not feel that strongly and believe that they have other important missions to complete in life.

[elder_nomo]

I'm reacting to Scott's sweeping generalization that the wimminfolk need perteckshun. It's offensive (especially to those of us with the confidence of knowing we could kick Scott's ass if necessary ;)). If he had said, "some women" or "a few" or acknowledged in any way that we aren't all weak, feeble and helpless, I wouldn't have offered him a virtual b***h slap. It's the comment that "women need to remain pure" that really chapped my ass. Did he define "pure"?

And this right here:


Just feeds into Scott's mindset. Here's one woman, who sounds to me incredibly weak and helpless (seriously, she couldn't get a job by herself?) although probably not of her own making.* Had someone not swooped in to be Superman and save the damsel in distress, this woman might have surprised herself at how she'd have been forced to pull herself up by her own bootstraps and find some inner strength in there somewhere to take care of business the way she needed to. Instead, she didn't get a chance. So unlike Miss Taken, I don't think he sounds endearing at all. He sounds co-dependent to me.

* She probably had a lifetime of training and indoctrination that made her automatically turn to a strong, in-charge kind of person. She may even know women like this who could have helped her in much the same way, but has been programmed to have thoughts like that not even occur to her. Her gut instinct was to look to men for help. I do not fault nor blame her for this. She's probably known nothing different.

That said, I think tag-team bishops is a great idea. But it's clear why it'll never happen. Most women do not recognize their own capabilities most of the time.

And to clarify Miss Taken's sentence: I think you need to add one word to this.


Insert "insecure" before "female". Because when men are insecure, they use many of the same passive-aggressive tactics and it's no different. I have a female boss right now (several, actually) who is not remotely insecure and I do not have to deal with the catty, manipulative thing. I've also worked for a completely incompetent man who pulled that sneaky, underhanded, manipulative crap all the time. I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just saying insecurity has a lot more to do with that management style than gender.

I have to agree with Dogzilla pretty much down the line on this one (and I'm not just saying that to avoid being turned into a newt) :eek:

The woman who was helped by Scott was very likely conditioned to need a "big strong man" to meet her needs. Not only did this incident "feed into Scott's mindset", it also reinforced to the woman herself the idea that she is weak and helpless without a man.

Yes, team bishops is a great idea!, but of course it will never fly. The men would be petrified that women might make better bishops.

I've had male and female bosses (about 50-50), and have not seen any differences that I could attribute to gender. Except this one... When I had a strong female boss, she was referred to as "bitchy" and "aggressive". When I had a male boss with similar characteristics he was called "strong" and "assertive".

[miss taken]

Lest people misunderstand my point of view.



I would not have a bash at you at all for this. (I love the way British people phrase things.) My reasoning is thus: you don't believe it's the one and only thing you or any other woman can do. You are generally well aware that, while motherhood might be the most important thing for you, right now at this particular time in your life, it will probably not be your only accomplishment.

With my strongwilled independence and uber feminism and all that crap, I do not want anyone to think that I believe motherhood is demeaning or a negative thing in any way. It is an extremely important and highly underappreciated job. Not all women are cut out to be good mothers. Right there is where I depart from the PCthink that anyone with ovaries should desire to be a mom and automatically will be a good one upon giving birth. For you, or this woman flotsam is talking about, motherhood may very well be the most important calling. And you should both strive to be the best mommies you can be. I just think we shouldn't vilify women who do not feel that strongly and believe that they have other important missions to complete in life.

I agree with you there Dogzilla. My Uncle never wanted to marry or have kids, he felt he would be a bad father, and didn't want the responsibility. Good for him. He's a fantastic photographer, a brilliant uncle, and a great companion to his long term girlfriend, who felt the same way as him. They were made for each other.

I think a lot of women of my mums age, (nothing to do with the church here) were taught that post war, their most important job was in the home, and that is where they should stay. I think my mum feels that she lost out somehow, and now that all the kids have flown (well just two of us) she feels that she should have developed her own career a bit more. She's a frustrated soul in many ways.

( Right I have to go I have a 6 year old child sticking a Tom and Jerry Gameboy Adventure in front of my eyes.... literally!!)

Mary