posted
I'm speaking of the trait that we talk about when we argue on why Mr. Squicky, Tom, and Dagonee (as well as OSC) sometimes hurt people's feelings without realizing it.
Exhibit B is the fact that I remembered that conversation and am bringing it up now.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is any stretch of the imagination to say that many or most gender stereotypes are as much a result of the self-perpetuation nature of the stereotypes as any basis in genetics.
Even if we assume that there are some underlying intellectual, emotional, psychological and spiritual differences, does every leader have to be the best of all possible leaders? Certainly there are some exceptional women who would serve better than the worst of the men currently filling the role.
Are the women so absolutely lacking in spiritual leadership that even the worst of all men is more suited than the best of all women? I find that hard to swallow.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I believe that it is possible for men and women to tend to group at certain parts of a spectrum on certain characteristics, I take issue with the idea that all women or all men fall into those categories. Or that they should.
Most men are taller than most women, but there are women who are taller than some men.
With non-physical charachteristics particularly, it is also important to note that some of these groupings are imposed by society and may not be natural inclinations.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What are those inherent spiritual differences?
Kate, assuming that was directed at me, read the last sentence of my post again.
quote:I'm speaking of the trait that we talk about when we argue on why Mr. Squicky, Tom, and Dagonee (as well as OSC) sometimes hurt people's feelings without realizing it.
Who is this "we" and when and where, exactly, has such an argument occurred?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm speaking of the trait that we talk about when we argue on why Mr. Squicky, Tom, and Dagonee (as well as OSC) sometimes hurt people's feelings without realizing it.
Yes*, you are doing it in such a way to assign it to all men and to say that no women have it. Which, to me, is both incredibly sexist and patently absurd.
---
* I'm granting the rather bizarre premise here in order to focus on what I think is more important, not because I think it is accurate.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When OSC was posting for a bit here, and then stopped, and we discussed how he ran roughshod over people, and it came up that several posters (all men, as it happened) do the same thing.
Of course, I'm quite vulnerable to being proved wrong by someone throwing a fit at what I'm saying and quitting Hatrack for a good 6 months.
posted
Dag, it wasn't directed at you. I was just using your clarity to restate the question I asked Rakeesh earlier. Pooka, I think, has made an effort to answer it. Not really to my satisfaction, though.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem I have with the "God says so" argument is that it means that God created a seemingly arbitrary distinction that makes him look sexist, but he doesn't seem to care that it looks that way, he just expects us to believe that he isn't. Or it means God really is sexist, in which case women are just out of luck. Additionally, how does one know that God's will is being discerned correctly? The role of women has changed much throughout the Bible, how do we know this isn't due to misinterpretation on our part?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I have many answers to the question, but I don't really share them with skeptics. It would be like trying to debate whether I really love my children.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When OSC was posting for a bit here, and then stopped, and we discussed how he ran roughshod over people, and it came up that several posters (all men, as it happened) do the same thing.
Can you link this discussion, please?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is it not oppressive to discriminate against someone based on gender(basically what I was asking)?
I think it can be discrimination (in the traditional sense that to "discriminate" means to "choose between things") without being oppression. As a member of the religions you're talking about, a person would have to feel oppressed to agree that it was oppressive. There are women who feel that way. I don't know any personally.
quote: Regardless of the reasons WHY, if a woman feels called to the priesthood, or bishophood, in her heart, she is stopped from fulfilling that call because she is a woman.
For some religions it may work that way ... in mine (LDS), you serve where you are asked to serve. Men as well as women. A man can't feel in his heart like he should be a bishop and then go be a bishop; he can't serve that way unless he's asked to. Likewise for women. It's true that as a woman there are some callings I know I won't be asked to do, and likewise for men. But it's not a matter of being kept from the calling I feel like God is calling me to.
Anytime I feel in my heart that I need to serve, I can serve. I just can't take upon myself a position that I have not been called to do by a person with authority to make that call. Nor can a man. I'm aware that's different from most religions and may be hard to see from that viewpoint.
I feel men and women are equally of worth to God and to the world and to the Church; they are equally loved and equally respected, and can be equally used as His tools in His work. And FWIW, I don't believe men are necessarily better leaders than women or inherently better qualified for any reasons specific to being a man. I don't think there's any ability they have by virtue of being a man that fits them for the priesthood, that a woman could not also have. The ONLY reason, IMO, for women not holding the priesthood is because at this time God chooses not to extend the priesthood to them. So trying to take God out of the equation is taking out the ENTIRE argument.
And here's where the breakdown comes ... before you can in any way understand this thinking, you have to have faith in God and faith that He leads the church, not the men who are in those positions. They follow His lead. I don't know why He has chosen to give the priesthood to only the worthy men and not the women ... but I have faith that that is His decision and not theirs. So if there is discrimination it's God discriminating ... although as I don't feel oppressed, I don't agree that discrimination equals oppression. And if you are looking at it from the outside without any faith that God is in fact the leader of the church, then it will always look like the discrimination of men, and open for argument.
Of course "God says so" is the trump argument, because you can't tell God he ought to change things. But if that's what people really believe is the SOLE reason for the policy, then there's no point in arguing it with those people.
(You might argue "But HOW could you believe in a God that would do that?" ... but then we'd be getting kind of close to breaking the charter....)
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The ONLY reason, IMO, for women not holding the priesthood is because at this time God chooses not to extend the priesthood to them.
If you're speaking of priesthood in the Mormon church, I don't think this is right. But then, it's not like any man holds the priesthood in and of himself anyway, both in the spiritual sense and in the practical sense. A man cannot decide that from now on he will bless and administer the sacrament in his own house, for instance.
I'm still reading around, Dagonee. I'm getting the creeping, shameful suspicion that the conversation may not have occured on this board.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem I have with the "God says so" argument is that it means that God created a seemingly arbitrary distinction that makes him look sexist, but he doesn't seem to care that it looks that way, he just expects us to believe that he isn't. Or it means God really is sexist, in which case women are just out of luck.
Mormonism gets around the argument by stating that gender is eternal. Spirits were not necessarily made male or female by God.
We've come back around to the beginning of this argument-- people who are critics of the system insisting that the system is discriminatory, and people within the system claiming it is not.
When women get the priesthood, there will be much rejoicing. Because having the priesthood means, ladies, that YOU get to move the heavy stuff, and *I* get to make fruity centerpieces for the potluck afterwards.
quote:Because having the priesthood means, ladies, that YOU get to move the heavy stuff, and *I* get to make fruity centerpieces for the potluck afterwards.
Wow. Now that's some hardcore sexism.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm a man, which means I'm burdened with things like deciding what to do and going to work and the like. They shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about that nasty old hard work and instead make me dinner, all the while greatful that I'm doing the tough stuff.
edit: I get that you were joking Scott. That almost makes it worse.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: You have to have the priesthood to move the heavy stuff?
Oh, man, I've been using it unauthorized for years....
I must have a pretty weak grasp of the priesthood then, it has not augmented my ability to lift anything to any significant degree, however perhaps THAT is why my ability to cook has been stiffled so much.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I get that you were joking Scott. That almost makes it worse.
Yes....
No.
Seriously. I don't understand how joking "makes it worse." What's "it?" And how is "it" made worse by my being lighthearted?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The content of the joke wasn't the sexist part. It was the framework and underlying assumptions.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, you're making the mistake with Scott that I made with BlackBlade - that on some level, he's not joking. I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can I just point out that there are explanations to only men having the priesthood that do not assume one sex is more endowed with leadership attributes. I have no idea if any of them are right, I honestly do not understand why God calls only men to leadership positions.
For example what if it is true that generally speaking men work better with other men when it comes to the leadership process then they do with women, and vice versa? What if by mixing the sexes intimately in the decision making process the potential for contention and iniquity is increased? Say we have a female bishop and one male counselor and one female counselor. I can already see MANY different ways that conflict could ensue. You could have the male feel like the two females are ganging up on him for being a man, you could have sexual tension develop between the male counselor and either the bishop or other counselor. You could have both female bishop and counselor jockying for the man's attention. The problem could only be exacerbated by the weekly often almost daily meetings that bishoprics frequently have late into the night. The female bishop's husband might feel uncomfortable that his wife spends so much time privately with another man. In terms of gross cost its simply easier to keep leadership responsibility which also has the potential to cause the most harm as risk free as reasonably possible without causing undue adversity to either sexes. Being in a leadership position to me is not required for ones happiness.
If God decides one day to switch it up or mix it up I will support the decision.
I do not know at ALL if what I suggested is actually true or if its even a good enough reason, but I have a few reasons I play around that could explain the unisexual nature of the priesthood without saying women are less apt as leaders then men.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to answer for MrSquicky, but for me "it" is the idea that all women should be making the spiritual equivalent of fruity centerpieces and that men should be doing the heavy lifting. "It" is made worse when people don't take seriously how unfair and even cruel this is to women who aren't so good at making centerpieces but would be great at lifting heavy stuff - if they were allowed. It is also pretty hurtful to men who have a flair for the centerpieces but who can't lift stuff. Taking lightly the hurt this causes people trying to fit a certain expectation does make things worse.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When OSC was posting for a bit here, and then stopped, and we discussed how he ran roughshod over people, and it came up that several posters (all men, as it happened) do the same thing.
I disagree that there are no female posters here who "run roughshod" over people. I think the men are generally chivalrous enough to not point it out.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gee ... being from the same background as Scott, I figured he meant ... moving people's furniture. And setting up tables. Which frequently, instead of the "men" being asked to come set up tables, they ask "the priesthood".
Didn't get anything spiritual about it at all....
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, that interpretation only works if you consider moving furniture to be a burden but consider making the blasted centerpieces not one.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When OSC was posting for a bit here, and then stopped, and we discussed how he ran roughshod over people, and it came up that several posters (all men, as it happened) do the same thing.
I disagree that there are no female posters here who "run roughshod" over people.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For example what if it is true that generally speaking men work better with other men when it comes to the leadership process then they do with women, and vice versa? What if by mixing the sexes intimately in the decision making process the potential for contention and iniquity is increased? Say we have a female bishop and one male counselor and one female counselor. I can already see MANY different ways that conflict could ensue. You could have the male feel like the two females are ganging up on him for being a man, you could have sexual tension develop between the male counselor and either the bishop or other counselor. You could have both female bishop and counselor jockying for the man's attention.
If any of those are the reason, the solution is for the people involved to grow up and get over it. Just like they do in the secular world.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed, Dana. That explanation assumes quite juvenile behavior on the part of alleged adults involved.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Women do actually help move things, though, right? I mean, they aren't prohibited from doing so (by custom at least)?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They help. Occasionally they are chastised by the overdeveloped sense of "chivalry" on the part of some man who says, "You don't have to do that! Let me get that for you." But no, they're not prohibited.
And because I always underestimate the misconceptions about Mormonism out there: In case there was misunderstanding, when I said "the priesthood" is assigned to move things, it is not really a Priesthood assignment, it's just shorthand for "the men". Because, you know, men lift things. If a woman came to help she would not be turned away and if a man who didn't hold the priesthood came to help he wouldn't be turned away either. And if a priesthood holder physically couldn't help he wouldn't be condemned.
Likewise if some priesthood holder really wanted to decorate the tables for dinner he wouldn't be prohibited ... except perhaps by the smirking from other men.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For example what if it is true that generally speaking men work better with other men when it comes to the leadership process then they do with women, and vice versa? What if by mixing the sexes intimately in the decision making process the potential for contention and iniquity is increased? Say we have a female bishop and one male counselor and one female counselor. I can already see MANY different ways that conflict could ensue. You could have the male feel like the two females are ganging up on him for being a man, you could have sexual tension develop between the male counselor and either the bishop or other counselor. You could have both female bishop and counselor jockying for the man's attention.
If any of those are the reason, the solution is for the people involved to grow up and get over it. Just like they do in the secular world.
Are you kidding me? Ok obviously you are not but where in the secular world do you see men and women work together in perfect harmony with a 1:1 ratio in leadership positioning?
The church does not get to operate at the same standards that say a bank run on. If the president of a bank has an affair with a secretary its shrugged off and its business as usual. In a church if the bishop runs off with the head of the women's relief society, families are shattered, testimonies are shaken, hearts are broken. Many people ask, "If God knows everything why would he have called such people to be leaders in the church?" Opinions harden regarding the truthfulness of the work.
Human beings attempting to emulate the organization that God has is a VERY risky thing. I agree we should all just grow up and become like Jesus, unfortunately for most people including myself this takes ALOT of time.
You can't blame God for giving us the lesser milk before the meat. Who knows, the time for meat may be nigh, and tomorrow Mormons will have female clergy. But God giving us lesser rules that prepare us for the greater ones is not without precident in the scriptures.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Calling the men "the Priesthood" is another cultural thing. I've heard it spoken out against from the pulpit - it is conflating the power of God with those who hold it.
I have to admit, I hate it. I think it cheapens the priesthood a little. I always have this mental image of the tables and chairs being levitated across the room a la Bedknobs and Broomsticks.
---
Black Blade, she's serious and so am I. By that logic, the EQ president should never talk to the RS president. Women are not capable of controlling themselves in the same room as men. Seriously - I think it's quite degrading to both sexes to suggest that the reason women are kept out of leadership positions is because they can't control themselves from fighting over the men and the men can't control themselves around women. I'm a little appalled you're suggesting it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
edit: too many posts since, and not funny anyway
Also, my search for the "roughshod" conversation only yielded a post in which Dagonee was mistaken for a girl again. So for the time being I'll retract that.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, there aren't always 1:1 correspondence, but there is no assumption that it couldn't be either. Further, very rarely does a boss sleep with a secretary and it gets shrugged off at a secular place of work. There's a good chance they both get fired.
quote:By that logic, the EQ president should never talk to the RS president. Women are not capable of controlling themselves in the same room as men.
I don't agree that that's necessarily "the reason". But it is true that there are Church-wide rules that RS president and Bishop should not ride together to Stake meetings ... that Bishop should not interview women alone in the building ... that Primary team-teachers have to be two men or two women or a husband and wife, etc.
There's obviously a valid reason for those concerns. I'm not saying that's why women don't have the priesthood; I have my own opinions; but it's not an invalid point.
BTW I totally agree with you about hating asking "the priesthood" the move furniture.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it's more like women not being in combat. I mean, how do we feel about that? I tend to assume that as long as our fighting force isn't asking for women in the trenches, we shouldn't force them to go, either forcing the women to go or the men to accomodate them. What about an all woman platoon?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can't blame God for giving us the lesser milk before the meat.
You know, I've never quite understood this particular argument. Of course you can blame God for this.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Oh, heavens, no. We might break a nail. And what if we strain a uterus?
*wipes tear*
That was beautiful!
***
I agree with TomD on the roughshod thing. I think (especially in an online context devoid of non-verbal cues) men and women both do this. I know I've been guilty of it, mostly due to not knowing other people's frame of mind at the time of posting. I have, when attempting to be light-hearted, quite accidentally wounded people.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't we have mixed sports teams, while we're at it? Aren't there any female basketball players who are better than some professional male basketball players? Why was it okay for Hermione to sock Malfoy? Why was Fleur DelaCoeur such a miserable failure throughout the tri-wizard tournament? I know it's fiction, but it sold reasonably well.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Black Blade, she's serious and so am I. By that logic, the EQ president should never talk to the RS president. Women are not capable of controlling themselves in the same room as men. Seriously - I think it's quite degrading to suggest that the reason women are kept out of leadership positions is because they can't control themselves from fighting over the men. I'm a little appalled you're suggesting it.
For goodness sakes, please try and consider that I was suggesting that men are as likely to do the same thing. If my example had been a male bishop with one male and one female counselor the EXACT same problems could occur, it wouldn't be the WOMAN'S fault, it would be the fault of all involved.
I am merely stating it as a POSSIBILITY that when it comes to working as a leadership unit simply avoiding all the issues that come up between the sexes may be preferable. You might completely dismantle the arguement, I have no emotional attachment to it, I'm simply trying to posit reasons that are not the typical, "Men = leaders women = followers." You are welcome to join me in the effort.
As for your logic of the EQ Pres being unable to speak to the RS Pres thatss an extreme unwarranted extension of what I was saying. Would the EQ president be OK if he frequently met with the RS president behind closed doors to "Correlate and discuss joint priesthood and relief society functions?" Perhaps, some people would have NO problem with it, but not everybody. That's why there are many rules about how a male administrator can properly meet with a female in private.
Missionaries have FAR more strict rules about such conduct because they are indeed younger and less mature. But its not as if people suddenly stop being human in their 20's and 30's, the rules slacken as a result but don't disappear.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the RS president meets with the EQ president. I'm not sure how it's done other places. I meet with the BP once a month, and I'm pretty sure that's in the ALTM. (I'm having a bit of fun with the ethnocentric acronyms there).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
katharina!
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
