quote:I think the definitions of both "preside" and "equal" are massaged as necessary to eliminate any potential contradiction.
I'd be curious to see the resulting definitions. The two definitions seem to be inherently contradictory to me.
Well, for one thing "equal" can be seen as a bottom-line "net" measurement - "I get to be in charge while you have the gift of producing life."
This is sentiment that you hear with some frequency - that the priesthood of the men is balanced by the woman's gifts in producing and nurturing children.
It's not doctrine, but it's an example of how one can create a local definition of a word that may vary from popular conceptions of it without being completely foreign in concept. A quarter is equal to seven pennies - if you are comparing the cost of producing the currency rather than the face value.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
scifibum: but if feminism is at odds with any gender roles than by definition masculinity ought also to be at odds with them. It's only when we assume that not all roles are bad, that we can be selective about which are and are not.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im tempted to make an account on that site, just to ask the woman that wrote that if there is such a thing as a fair and equal man. Or if the mind control of our evil penises of death is too strong and we all secretly hate women and thier impossibly Godlike ability to make life.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is sentiment that you hear with some frequency - that the priesthood of the men is balanced by the woman's gifts in producing and nurturing children.
I doubt you agreed with that sentiment, but let me just say it drives me nuts when it's used.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Im tempted to make an account on that site, just to ask the woman that wrote that if there is such a thing as a fair and equal man. ...
quote:*I’ve finally finished the damn thing. I won’t be allowing comments from anyone who is not a radical feminist (or pro-radical feminist) or a lesbian feminist/separatist. Yes, I am pro-censorship. Boohoo.*
quote:I doubt you agreed with that sentiment, but let me just say it drives me nuts when it's used.
Given my belief about the existence of the power of the priesthood, that would be a correct assessment. Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This woman is like fodder in the argument against radical feminism, I just found one post where she calls Wash a rapist and an abuser. Directly citing her own volatile and oppressive family history, this begins to write her story and explain why she is a radical feminist and is unwilling to consider a man as a man, and not as a gender responsible for her childhood.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.
I am wondering if it can be explained how this is not contradictory?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I consider myself a feminist, and I think she (the subject of the OP) is crazy. The whole point of Feminism and Women's Lib is giving women a choice, and according to her, there is only one option women should pursue. Which is empowering to women exactly how?? Lame.
I was browsing that last link, and read this, as well as her response.
I can't help thinking she's being a bit harsh, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
Posts: 101 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I can't remember what thread it was, but I and quite a few other LDS members discussed the nuances of "presiding" while still remaining equal partners. Certain posters indicated that to preside is in essence running the ceremonies, such as asking somebody to offer a prayer, or reading the scriptures to everyone, whereas at least initially I argued that it may include acting as a sort of tie breaker.
What reason would you have for thinking that "preside" doesn't mean what the ordinary, English definition of it means?
Definition: To hold a lead position and authority to direct an organization and its members.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it has been pointed out to him that this would, in fact, be rather unfair; he does not believe in an unfair god; consequently the plain English interpretation cannot be the right one. Which is sensible logic if you start with the axiom of a Christian god, which is why that axiom, if left to operate unchecked on moderately intelligent people, tends to lead to minds whose wiring diagrams look a bit like an Escher drawing. With that said, one can say, for example, "The high priest presided over the ceremony" without necessarily implying any actual decisions being made by him.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: With that said, one can say, for example, "The high priest presided over the ceremony" without necessarily implying any actual decisions being made by him.
We may not be deciding much, but he is directing. I heard once about a Catholic priest who wouldn't tolerate sung music during the presentation of the gifts; because once he was ready to start the mass portion, he would start, even if the choir was in the middle of a verse. And if the priest decides that he's going to end his sermon with a song, and he won't go onto the next part of the service until he gets enough response from the pews...then the people in the pews have to go along.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is a really terrible argument. I say "X without Y is possible", and you give some examples of X with Y and apparently think you have refuted the possibility! Use the try again, Luke.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
swbarnes2: ... I'm guessing you're not a fan of the Father, the Son, and the Holy d'Artagnan being "one" god either ...
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm surprised she managed to write so many long posts about work that she hated so much. She must have had to will herself to do it for the greater good.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That is a really terrible argument. I say "X without Y is possible", and you give some examples of X with Y and apparently think you have refuted the possibility! Use the try again, Luke.
The definition of "preside" means to control or direct. Priests direct worship services. They control what happens when. They want a vigrous audience response before moving on, they stop until they get it. They want a long pause after some prayer, they get it. They want to move on while the chorus is still being sung, that happens too. If the priest accidently skips a part and doesn't notice it, it gets skipped. All of that stuff is dependant on when the priest decides he wants things to happen. That's why the word "preside" is used. It's not an exceptional use at all.
Yes, it's possible to have a religious free-for-all with absolutely no direction at all, but no one would say that the guy in the shiniest robe "presides" over that.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may want to have another look at your dictionary; what you have quoted is not the only definition, although it is the most commonly used one. It is quite possible to say that the guy with the shiniest robe, who is only there for show, presides; this is not to say that nobody is making the decisions, just that it's not the one formally presiding over the, um, proceedings. For example, if the Pope attends a Mass as an honoured guest, he may be said to preside over them, but it is not likely he is making the administrative decisions on what hymns to sing. Similarly for a constitutional monarch attending a meeting of 'his' parliament.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: link snip
I was browsing that last link, and read this, as well as her response.
I can't help thinking she's being a bit harsh, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
I didn't have a lot of context until I read through the Con Anti-Harrassment Project and about the problems women face regularly at cons. In that context, a public badge campaign of "groping is awesome, we should open it up to all!" seems insensitive at best, and completely open to abuse at worst. I thought Laura Mellin's article on the subject was pretty even-minded, trying to explain just why the guy was getting the backlash he was getting.
quote:In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.
I am wondering if it can be explained how this is not contradictory?
Clearly they mean separate but equal. As long as the mother never drinks out of the Fathers Only fountain, she's an equal partner.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by imogen: One of the most valuable courses I did in my degree was a Feminist Jurisprudence course. And I think it's important to say that feminist studies are something that can be undertaken by both sexes (and not even at very liberal universities ). For the record, it was about half-half male-female enrollment, and there was equal participation.
I have no problem with Women's Studies or Feminist Studies or Gender Studies programs. I was thinking of/talking about a very specific kind of teacher of a very specific kind of course at a very specific kind of university when I poked fun in my previous post. Just FTR. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clearly they mean separate but equal. As long as the mother never drinks out of the Fathers Only fountain, she's an equal partner.
I couldn't disagree more. I as thinking about this quite a bit at work. Wondering if it was possible for a husband to preside and still be equal partners with his wife. I think I've figured out the meaning behind that statement. I think it applies to children in the home. I've known families (and seen the results in the homes) where the husband thinks of himself as the breadwinner, and when he comes home from work it's essentially time off for him to nap, play games, fish, whatever it may be. It is the responsibility of both parents as equal partners to preside over their children and home. I'd say that the document takes that for a given, the way it prescribes women as they primary caregivers, but I don't think that the children are leashed to the mother and the mother is leashed to the Father.
A Father is expected to provide a loving example and be a leader to his children and to preside over his home. Just as a mother is to be a loving example and leader to her children.
So no, MC, I don't think that your interpretation is correct at all. Rather just the opposite, it's an extra reminder to the men to follow through on their responsibilities, not an affirmation of superiority.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the mother is only a leader to minors, and the father is the leader of everybody, I don't see how that can possibly be an equal partnership.
Bottom line, the mother doesn't get to preside over the father, ever.
I understand why people support it, and it may be a preferable situation for some people, but I don't think there's any way that it's equal.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by imogen: One of the most valuable courses I did in my degree was a Feminist Jurisprudence course. And I think it's important to say that feminist studies are something that can be undertaken by both sexes (and not even at very liberal universities ). For the record, it was about half-half male-female enrollment, and there was equal participation.
I have no problem with Women's Studies or Feminist Studies or Gender Studies programs. I was thinking of/talking about a very specific kind of teacher of a very specific kind of course at a very specific kind of university when I poked fun in my previous post. Just FTR.
I actually figured as much, KQ. And I have come across such people (and they irritate the living daylights out of me - and I call myself a feminist! How dare I!).
I just wanted to stress the point that, radical crazies aside, feminism is well worth studying/learning about.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: Is the warning from your first link a joke?
I don't know what this was referring to.
I got a malware warning (from AVG, I think) when I visited that link. I assume Philosofickle (man, that's a long name. Can I call you Phil or something?) got something similar.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know which link we're talking about. I don't think I got a malware warning from any of it.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Dumps the grapes out of a wooden bowl and chomps on the bowl. "Call me Phil."
I'm not saying that the father always presides over the wife, but that they are equal partners in every respect. And that it is the father's duty as well as the mother's to preside over the children.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.
Father's "preside over the family". Mothers are "primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." Mothers are clearly one step lower on the heirarchy here, being members of the family, which fathers preside over, but not explicitly said to preside over anything higher on that hierarchy than the children.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding of the point of view is more that the equality is one of dignity and value rather than role-interchangeability. An apple and an orange are equally fruit, but don't function in the same way and aren't interchangable. I'm not saying I buy into the point of view (or that I don't, really), but that's my understanding of it.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Papa Moose: My understanding of the point of view is more that the equality is one of dignity and value rather than role-interchangeability. An apple and an orange are equally fruit, but don't function in the same way and aren't interchangable. I'm not saying I buy into the point of view (or that I don't, really), but that's my understanding of it.
This makes far more sense to me than trying to pretend that power distribution is actually equal.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:My understanding of the point of view is more that the equality is one of dignity and value rather than role-interchangeability.
Sure. And the "I preside, you have babies" idea is just one of many formulation that satisfies this concept of equality, assuming you see equal dignity/value/etc. on both sides of that equation.
But that's not what Philosofickle seemed to be suggesting.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Papa Moose: My understanding of the point of view is more that the equality is one of dignity and value rather than role-interchangeability. An apple and an orange are equally fruit, but don't function in the same way and aren't interchangable. I'm not saying I buy into the point of view (or that I don't, really), but that's my understanding of it.
This makes far more sense to me than trying to pretend that power distribution is actually equal.
It is rather unconvincing to me, because it does take two people to have a child. The pregnancy and giving birth look to me like rather a lot of work, and arguments for the superior spirituality of them look a bit suspect to me. It smacks of the nobility-of-labour theories put forth by aristocrats who didn't, themselves, have to work in the factories 14 hours a day, but needed some reason why other people should. In any case, dignity is, as a general rule, not enforceable without power; which is why we tend to care more about power relationships than equal dignities. To take a rather more extreme examples, suppose the Congress of 1950 had agreed to insert an additional clause into the Constitution specifying that blacks had equal dignity to everyone else, and were worth just as much; and then everything else continued as it was doing. Would this be a victory worth speaking of for the Civil Rights movement?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I agree, my point was that that if there was a genuine intent to achieve some kind of equality in the document's wording, "equality of value" makes more sense to look for than "equality of power." (The argument was directed towards those already starting with the document's validity as an axiom)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be clear -- I'm not Phil, and may not be coming from the same place. Were you (MattP) talking to just me, I'd point out that I didn't say that the roles themselves are of equal dignity/value -- just the persons fulfilling those roles. But that's also why I wouldn't be balancing an equation the way you believe Phil is doing (I think).
To Raymond, yes I think it does, but I'm also of the opinion that something far more foundational is awry if "power distribution" is a concern.
(Edit -- started writing before KoM's post.)
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the Victorian era, it was possible for a man to marry a rich heiress, gain control of her fortune, and, on the word of two doctors, have her locked in an asylum for the rest of her life, while he spent her money. This sort of thing happened for two reasons: First, some men were (and are) evil; second, all men had (and now do not have) such power over their wives. Which of these two causes do you think is easier to fix? When people worry about an imbalance of power between the sexes, it's not because of some sort of idealistic devotion to radical PC equality. It's because we ran the experiment of inequality, and by golly, it turned out bad!
[ July 17, 2009, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure who's directing their arguments toward who. I already agree with everything King of Men is (and others appear to be) saying. And I think that Phil largely does too. The point of disagreement is whether or not the document in question was written with the intent to agree as well.
Phil: I think history has generally shown that regardless of whether a fair God exists, the people who claim to speak for that God are fallible individuals who are prone to seeing things through the lenses of the time. I'm not sure what the history of the document in question (who wrote it, when, and whether they were supposed to be divinely inspired). But I think it's reasonable to consider that even if the document itself was divinely inspired, those who translated God's vision into the English language did not do so perfectly. I think it's a more reasonable approach than assuming that language that pretty explicitly gives more power to men than women somehow does not.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, I have lightning fast reflexes that allow me to eat any marshmellows that might get shot at me?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: I'm surprised she managed to write so many long posts about work that she hated so much. She must have had to will herself to do it for the greater good.
Wonder how many will have to rent the DVDs in order to watch what she's criticizing?
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the language of the Proclamation is meant to be inclusive. People who feel strongly that there should be absolute equality between husbands and wives can read it and be happy about the equality clause. People who think men need some sort of sop so they don't feel superfluous can read it and be happy about the word preside. To me, it's clearly a transitional document.
The great thing about LDS doctrine is that it changes over time. The way it happens, though, is usually not by outright refutation of a previous doctrine, though that has been known to occur. Usually, though, it happens by having some doctrines stressed and others gradually dropped over a period of time. I believe that whatever the next clarifying revelation is about the roles of men and women in families, whenever it may come, will strengthen the equality idea and weaken the part about presiding. We're getting there, brothers and sisters. It's just happening as a process rather than a sudden stroke. The genius of our religion is in its ability to change.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have the Shield of Cocoa. Shoot your marshmallows into my steaming shield of rich dark chocolate flavor, and I shall absorb them, first into my shield, then into my tummy. Yummy.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really wish God would get around to revealing a lot more stuff about equality, he's really dragging his feet on this, and it's sub-par work. Consider this a verbal warning, God. I don't want to have to write you up.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
With reference to the original post, I thought it was worth going through her arguments on a point for point basis, and found these links which have already done it.
The one thing that comes to my mind in allecto's rant is the irony that comes from not recognizing that Whedon created the Inara character specifically to explore the myth of prostitutes who believe they are in control of their environment. Another example of this exploration is the Jane Fonda movie "Klute." Arguably her greatest role.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). For the record, it was about half-half male-female enrollment, and there was equal participation. ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
