1. How did I make this assumption? It's a fact that women arent allowed to be Rabbis in Orthodox Judiasm, yet. I didnt imply that being a Rabbi was the be all end all. I know that being a Rabbi doesnt have to involve being in a position of authority or power. But it is a role that officially acknowledges intellectual and spiritual accomplishments. It's a postion to be respected. Which women are not allowed to achieve. While we're at it, what is the "ultimate" role doctrinally? Other than God. And are women allowed to fulfill it?
2. I dont consider this to be an incorrect assumption in any way, shape, or form. I very passionately believe that men and women ARE equal, which means that one is not above or below the other.
3. "Not equal" does mean "oppressed". I dont feel oppressed because I dont have a penis and cant lift as much weight as my boyfriend, so I'm not using "equal" in that sense. However, being told that I cant teach in front of a congregation because that isn't Gods role for women... yeah. I find that oppressive.
I'm not addressing Judaism directly, I'm addressing the tendancy of most religions to put the female in a role below that of the man. Would you maybe like to address that point?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by foundling: Incorrect assumptions in YOUR opinion.
Obviously. This needed to be stated? I'm not the one attacking other people's beliefs.
quote:1. How did I make this assumption? It's a fact that women arent allowed to be Rabbis in Orthodox Judiasm, yet.
"Yet"?
quote:I didnt imply that being a Rabbi was the be all end all.
If you say so.
quote:But it is a role that officially acknowledges intellectual and spiritual accomplishments. It's a postion to be respected.
So is "Torah teacher," and there are quite a few women who are that. (One of the most famous of the previous generation was a woman -- Nechama Leibowitz. The founder of the Bais Yaakov school system (pretty much every Orthodox girls' school follows this model) was Sarah Schneirer. I could go on, but I don't see the point.)
quote:While we're at it, what is the "ultimate" role doctrinally?
There isn't one. Judaism believes that every person has their own unique task, and there is not a single goal -- except the goal of coming close to God by loving and serving him.
quote:Other than God.
Wrong religion.
quote:I very passionately believe that men and women ARE equal, which means that one is not above or below the other.
Oh, good. In that case, we agree.
quote:However, being told that I cant teach in front of a congregation because that isn't Gods role for women... yeah. I find that oppressive.
Ah. So this is your personal issue? That explains quite a bit.
quote: I'm addressing the tendancy of most religions to put the female in a role below that of the man. Would you maybe like to address that point?
In general? Nope. Judaism does not do that.
And it doesn't seem you read Kressel's essay.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other than God. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong religion.
And you also made me snort my ice cream. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. Thanks for replying in such a sweetly respectful manner. I appreciate it. It's so hard to have an actual conversation with someone who, instead of choosing to address your actual points, gives instead "witty" one liners that SO obviously make their point that obviously the discussion is closed. Thanks for not going down that route.
"I'm not the one attacking other people's beliefs." I believe, very strongly, that the additude displayed towards women by many religions today is harmful. I'm going to do my best to change that additude. Talking about it to people who believe different from me is one way of honing what I really believe and making it easier to express myself without hurting others. You can choose to believe that I'm attacking you personally, or you can look at what I'm actually saying and try to refute it based on what you believe in.
I read the essay before I responded. I thought it started out with a wrong premise(my poor misguided friend wants to be like a man just because she can!) and it kept on from there. It assumes that a womans place is in the home, and that she should be content with the role given to her by god and man. I dont believe that. That kind of stops things in their tracks right there. Just because I can understand an idea or additude doesnt mean that I have to think it's right.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe, very strongly, that the additude displayed towards women by many religions today is harmful.
If you refuse to believe members of said religions when they tell you that the attitude you dislike is NOT actually the attitude toward women in their religions, and you have not been a member of those religions to experience differently yourself, I am curious about how you are going to actually address said religions accurately and fairly.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, how is basing my opinion on what is neccessarily a small minority(namely those I've talked to about it) of personal opinion LESS biased than basing my opinion on actual doctrine? Which I dont have to be a member of said religion to study?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Statements which come across as "I know your situation better than you do, and you're mistaken about it" are rarely received well.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by foundling: See, how is basing my opinion on what is neccessarily a small minority(namely those I've talked to about it) of personal opinion LESS biased than basing my opinion on actual doctrine? Which I dont have to be a member of said religion to study?
Where are you getting said doctrine? Because there are at least as many sources that teach otherwise in both religions currently under discussion. If you choose to disregard what is actually taught in favor of believing a few doctrinal sources that are considered not actual doctrine or that are not interpreted literally, etc., etc., of course you're only going to come up with stuff that supports your point of view, but you're not going to get an accurate picture of actual doctrine. And if you don't let people who are LIVING in these religions point you to sources that explain their ACTUAL experience with the doctrine of said religions in daily life, you're not going to get an accurate picture of what is actually taught/understood/believed.
quote:Wow. Thanks for replying in such a sweetly respectful manner. I appreciate it. It's so hard to have an actual conversation with someone who, instead of choosing to address your actual points, gives instead "witty" one liners that SO obviously make their point that obviously the discussion is closed. Thanks for not going down that route.
You've been going down that route since you started this little threadlet.
I don't see where you've given any analysis deeper than one-liners. You've essentially asserted, repeatedly, that 1) the reservation of certain roles for men within a religion is not equal and that 2) such unequal treatment is oppression.
Please don't pretend that you've given "points" that support these conclusions. You've simply restated them. Further, you've ignored rivka's substantive answers to your questions, including examples of roles that "officially acknowledges intellectual and spiritual accomplishments" and are respected.
quote:You can choose to believe that I'm attacking you personally, or you can look at what I'm actually saying and try to refute it based on what you believe in.
Refute what? You've given no reason as to why different roles equals oppression other than they aren't equal. You've stated your assertion that rivka's religion treats men and women unequally but haven't bothered to give a definition of inequality. You've alluded that denying some roles to one or the other creates inequality, but haven't explained why.
In other words, you've given a starting premise that you KNOW isn't shared by others and refused to address that premise at all.
What's the point of conversing with someone like that who has admitted she basically wants to use us as a practice dummy: "I'm going to do my best to change that additude. Talking about it to people who believe different from me is one way of honing what I really believe and making it easier to express myself without hurting others."
No indication that you care to actually exchange ideas.
If you want to change that attitude, you need to realize that your rather definitions of equality and oppression are not shared by those you wish to change. Therefore, simply repeating those definitions and refusing to engage on them is not going to serve your purpose.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by foundling: Wow. Thanks for replying in such a sweetly respectful manner. I appreciate it. It's so hard to have an actual conversation with someone who, instead of choosing to address your actual points, gives instead "witty" one liners that SO obviously make their point that obviously the discussion is closed. Thanks for not going down that route.
I'm assuming you're talking about me? Your original post (whether it was intended that way or not) was snotty and insulting, with no real substance to it other than "Your religion oppresses women." How do you expect people to respond to that?
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In an organization where men are the only ones allowed to be in positions of sanctioned authority, women are NOT equal.
What do you mean by "sanctioned authority?"
I've had Gospel Doctrine instructors who were women. In Mormonism, the Gospel Doctrine teacher is responsible for teaching a mixed class of adults and leading discussion on gospel topics, on a weekly basis.
Additionally, I (a male, FYI) served UNDER a Primary President, who was female, and not my wife. She received revelation for her calling, and how to best organize the Primary (the children's ministry), and gave me instructions, which I was accountable for following.
quote:But a religion that teaches that women are not "worthy" or sanctioned by God to be in a position of authority over men is a religion that oppresses women.
Women are not seen as unworthy of holding certain offices within Mormonism. So that statement doesn't apply to us.
I've pointed out a particular specific instance (which is, in my experience, not unique) where a woman was in a position of authority over a man; also, I've expressed the fact that women can receive direct sanction to teach doctrine to adult believers of both genders.
I don't think Mormonism is unique to Christianity in this case.
quote:So, yeah, pretty much all of Islam and Christianity encourages oppression of women. Pointing out the egrarious nature of some Muslims abuse of that policy seems a little hypocritical when combined with a complete denial of ones own religious policies along those lines.
I don't think you actually understand the religious policies you're condemning.
It's true-- within Mormonism, women cannot hold the priesthood. It's also true that Mormon doctrine delineates women's responsibilities and men's responsibilities. The delineation, however, is meant to guide the general tendencies of the sexes along the best general path to the most general happiness for the general membership.
It has nothing to do with a specific gender's "worthiness." Not in Mormonism, at any rate.
Mormon scriptures include a severe admonition from the Lord in regards to the use of the priesthood-- indeed, it's a grevious sin for a man to say, "I hold the priesthood, I am God's annointed, therefore, you MUST listen to me." The latter half of Doctrine and Covenants Section 131 is devoted to instructing men on the proper use of priesthood authority.
quote: 39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
posted
I should mention that there are some roles in Mormonism that men are never allowed to hold. So it seems to me they're both "oppressed".
I read something interesting the other day talking about "chosen people" - as in, when the Israelites say they are God's chosen people.
quote: Some people are uncomfortable talking about the idea of a "chosen people." They think it sounds self-congratulatory and elitist.... Being "chosen" doesn't mean we're chosen to sit on thrones and be admired. It's more like being chosen to mow the lawn (or more appropriately, to bring in the harvest).
This seemed to fit in this discussion, because neither men nor women in the Church choose their own jobs - we're not supposed to aspire to any particular job, or seek after any particular position. It's not about seeking power or glory. It's about working. We serve where we're asked. Men don't decide to become a bishop - they serve where they're asked, the same as women. So if not being allowed to choose whatever position you want to serve in is oppression, we're all "oppressed".
It is true that at this time a woman will not be asked to be a bishop, and a man will not be asked to be a Primary president. But it's not really about the freedom to choose your calling. For both genders it's about accepting the call you're given and working your best at it.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every time people have different roles, one group is oppressed? I'm currently collaborating with some chemists on a research project. They aren't allowed anywhere near my code and I'm not allowed anywhere near their pipettes. Which one of us is oppressed? Or perhaps we are oppressing each other?
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's the idea that one's suitability for a given (presumably) non-gendered role can be determined by gender that's the problem, Chanie.
If you weren't allowed near their pipettes because you're a girl, would that change your feeling about it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QB] While it is true that women are not ordained to lead the church proper, they still head auxilery organizations. Not only that they exert plenty of influence over their husbands and other men in the church.
How does the first sentence not equate to inequality? In an organization where men are the only ones allowed to be in positions of sanctioned authority, women are NOT equal. As such, they are oppressed. The oppression doesnt necessarily have to be overt or egregious, such as the practice of FGM. But a religion that teaches that women are not "worthy" or sanctioned by God to be in a position of authority over men is a religion that oppresses women. So, yeah, pretty much all of Islam and Christianity encourages oppression of women. Pointing out the egrarious nature of some Muslims abuse of that policy seems a little hypocritical when combined with a complete denial of ones own religious policies along those lines.
I'm sorry I did not respond to this post Foundling. I swear I typed up a thoughtful post that addressed your point yesterday, but upon looking this morning it just was not there. But then I noticed Rivka caught the ball and ran with it so thirded on Rivka and the rocking bit.
You mentioned specifically that being unable to stand in front of a congregation and teach is oppressive. At least within Mormonism (and Scott already pointed this out) women are called to preach sermons and teach courses at least as often as the men. I have been to meetings where 3 speakers were women and one was a man. At our general conference of the church women are permitted to speak as well as men. The same spirit that bids one to give heed to the words of our prophet is the same one that admonishes obedience when a woman speaks the words of God.
You mentioned that being unable to lift as much as your boyfriend does not bother you. Well for whatever reason God has decided not to ordain women to those particular leadership positions. I could guess several reasons why but I have little confidence that any of them are correct. But one thing that is certainly hammered home in Mormonism is that leadership does not equal superior positioning in God's eyes. I can't remember who said it but he said in effect, "When I am brought before Christ to be judged I don't think he will ask me, "What positions in the church did you have? Or how much money did you make and were you promoted in your job? What car did you drive? I think he will asks questions like, were you a good father? Were you a good husband to your wife? How much time did you spend tending to the needs of others?"
I guess the disconnect is that I see leadership positions in much the same way that women have babies and men can lift more. Its not a blight on women that they are not asked to lead in precisely the same manner as men are in the Mormon church. I just got off the phone with my mother and believe me she has never ceased to try to be involved quite intimately in my decision making.
edited because Porter is big smelly jerk and the most socially irresponsible person I know.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Why did you call MPH smelly?
Um... why aren't you calling him smelly?
It was the most childish and non applicable insult I could think of within 3 seconds. At work I try to be a bit more silly on the forums in order to stave off insanity.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[narrator whisper] Here we see in action the maturity and caring that make men such excellent leaders. [/narrator whisper]
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You silly girls, you can't crack our special MAN leadership code!
edit: a dollar for anyone who can come up with a clever acronym that would describe such a code with the word MAN.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, I suggest not mixing the fake-macho strutting with church leadership. It belies everything said above about leaders being servants, and that kind of sexism is really not okay. Don't do it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: BlackBlade, I suggest not mixing the fake-macho strutting with church leadership. It belies everything said above about leaders being servants, and that kind of sexism is really not okay. Don't do it.
I believe the comments made in jest not only being made in seperate posts from my genuine comments as well as no quotational (yes I made the word up) connection to the posts demonstrates that I am not, "mixing" the two things.
I have trouble seeing how you can snicker at Rivka's comment, (which I too found funny) and then say my comments are sexist.
But in all honesty if I am missing something, please point it out to me. Right now I feel the way you are judging my comments is a bit unfair.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
:rambling tangent about men and their relationships in the Mormon church:
I had a dream the other night that my bishop and our young men's president (who is a good friend) came over to the house, and asked if I would be willing to start a pre-school business.
"Because you're so good with children," they said.
For some reason, I was enormously offended. I'd been expecting to be asked to be nursery leader again, and this! This was beyond the pale!
Then the bishop asked if I thought I was going to die soon. My immediate thought was, "Yes. I am. But I can't tell my family that..."
posted
BlackBlade, I think...I think that I think it's much too likely that an awful lot of men believe your light-hearted statement literally for it to be funny.
I apologize for taking your joking, completely kidding statement literally.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: BlackBlade, I think...I think that I think it's much too likely that an awful lot of men believe your light-hearted statement literally for it to be funny.
I apologize for taking your joking, completely kidding statement literally.
Well if that is indeed the case then I can see how my comments might add to a problem to the point that the humor is not worth invoking. I'm sorry my jesting rubbed you the wrong way.
Thanks for being honest, I'll seriously consider your comments in the future.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have made the mistake before of dropping into a discussion with questions that are perceived to be antogonistic or provocative. Please understand that I ask the following questions out of a genuine desire to learn the truth about claims I have heard made about the Mormon religion.
(And if these questions have been answered or discussed before, I apologize - and feel free to ignore this post.)
Is it true that LDS doctrine holds that unmarried women cannot go to heaven? If so, does the same apply to unmarried men?
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it true that LDS doctrine holds that unmarried women cannot go to heaven? If so, does the same apply to unmarried men?
edit: Sorry my comment is a bit confusing. Simply put, marriage has nothing to do with going to heaven, it has only to do with obtaining fully the happiness God enjoys. Mormons believe in a sort of tiered afterlife. Heaven itself has gradations, just to clarify.
It applies to both sexes. But it's not as simple as it seems. It is more that a person who is interested in being like God will take the step of marriage WHEN it presents itself at the appropriate time.
So if I was honestly trying to prepare myself for marriage and just never meet the right person, or even if one day I keel over having never had the chance to marry you are not barred from entry into heaven. Apparently some allowances are made for people to marry in the next life.
But for those who simply decide marriage is not for them, they can go to heaven, but they cannot enjoy the fullness of happiness that comes from being just like God.
posted
Well, I'm not sure whether I agree with foundling or would prefer to point out that there are doubtless women lived under the Taliban who felt those practices honored their womanhood. That was my point.
I'd venture to say the step from mainline Christianity (defined here as denominations which allow the ordination of women) to Mormon is probably similar in magnitude as the step from Mormon to Taliban.
Of course, I could quite Mormonism any time I wanted and seek ordination any time I want. The problem is I have a testimony that the Mormon Church is God's true and living church.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it true that LDS doctrine holds that unmarried women cannot go to heaven? If so, does the same apply to unmarried men?
It IS true that the greatest blessings in Heaven can only be enjoyed by those who are married.
Those who don't have the opportunity to marry a worthy spouse in this life will get the chance to do so in the next.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've actually heard prophets specify that unmarried women will have a chance to marry in the afterlife and then pointedly not say the same about men, and instead mention that men need to do all they can to get married in this life. It's not an outright statement that men won't have the opportunity. I think men with mental disorders that are repaired by the resurrection would hopefully get another chance.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, I've always taken that as "men usually have more opportunities to get married in this life, and will be judged differently", not "men won't get a chance later" (say, if they ask 50 women they love to marry them and are turned down every time, etc.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: we're not supposed to aspire to any particular job, or seek after any particular position. It's not about seeking power or glory. It's about working. We serve where we're asked. Men don't decide to become a bishop - they serve where they're asked, the same as women. So if not being allowed to choose whatever position you want to serve in is oppression, we're all "oppressed".
We protestant types don't choose whatever position we want to serve in either. Those who are set apart for particular ordained or commissioned ministry are called by God to those roles. The problem before various denominations made the administrative changes necessary to ordain women was that women who were called to be clergy were not allowed to serve in that calling. The change was made in order to not allow human prejudices to interfere with God's calling.
The process of candidacy for ordination (in the UMC, for purposes of example) involves the candidate describing (verbally and in writing) her or his call, people at all levels of the church who know or have examined the candidate testifying that they also believe she or he is called, and finally the entire body of the clergy in the Conference where the person is to be ordained affirming that we believe each person to be ordained is called by God to the ministry to which they will be ordained.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a Catholic, I find our position on the ordination of women to be, if not oppressive, at least embarrassing and something that we need to change in order to be the church we should be. Most Catholics that I know share this opinion.
The Catholic Church, though, is large and old and thus change comes slowly. Very slowly. We also are a global church. Most Catholics are in developing areas of the world. Often those areas are considerably less forward-thinking when it comes to the role of women in society, much less the church. If it were just the American Catholic Church, I think it very possible that we would have made this change already.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
