quote:Originally posted by dkw: mph, ElJay was responding to BB's statement: "My belief that men and women have problems when they work together to me is not just an idea, its a fact of life as demonstrated by our high divorce rates, instances of domestic violence, rape, and Oprah."
She was asking exactly what you did, "what possible connection you could [BlackBlade] be drawing between men and women working together and domestic violence"?
dkw is completely correct in her interpretation of my post, and BlackBlade I would still appreciate an answer.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still go out to lunch with my friend who is a guy. He's like my brother. I've taken some flak online from other Mormons because of this-- but never from anyone in my ward, or my husband, or anyone else.
My mom had totally fraternal friendships with men when I was growing up, and I think that model did me good. I think it is ridiculous that I am judged for being friends with a man and spending time alone with him once in a while (when he is in town, which is rarely.) And I don't agree that there is any doctrinal basis for saying that I shouldn't do that, and I'm not going to ruin my friendship over it.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I honestly don't think the average person does do this. More likely they try to just keep it boxed in, or else look to other means to fulfill those fantasies. It usually results in crisis management rather then prevention.
Black Blade, seriously, adults do exactly what dana described. Learning to, you know, control yourself is part of being a grown up. It is most certainly, certainly not the case that "most" or even a large porportion of situations where adult men and women are in the same room result in mass adultery. I am seriously floored that you think that is what happens in most cases. I'm surprised at you that you think it's likely.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe that grown ups are actually grown up. In fact, I see drug use, infidelity, broken marriages, increased crime (in and out of business situtations), lying, violence, proliferation of pornography, etc. as an indication that humans are actually "devolving" morally.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I honestly don't think the average person does do this. More likely they try to just keep it boxed in, or else look to other means to fulfill those fantasies. It usually results in crisis management rather then prevention.
Black Blade, seriously, adults do exactly what dana described. Learning to, you know, control yourself is part of being a grown up. It is most certainly, certainly not the case that "most" or even a large porportion of situations where adult men and women are in the same room result in mass adultery. I am seriously floored that you think that is what happens in most cases. I'm surprised at you that you think it's likely.
ELJay: Was your question, "How does domestic violence indicate a problem when men and women work together?"
KQ: I totally agree the problem is with the church members. In 11th grade all my friends drank as a form of recreation. I was the designated driver every time. My parents had no trouble believing I was not drinking, I am positive many Mormons would not have seen things that way. In 12th grade almost ALL my friends were girls and I spent ALOT of time alone with them in unsupervised circumstances. It would never have occured to me to try anything sexual with them at all. As an adult now you could stick me in a room with the most attractive and beautiful girl that you could conjure up for me and I would sooner drop dead then cheat on my wife.
Heck maybe I am wrong and only 10% of adults would have the problems I have described. I think the percentage is way higher, but if 10% of all close encounters end in at best just thoughts and at worst actual attempts at intimacy that by itself is enough to me to setup SOME guidelines.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occ: So at what time and in what place (given wildly divergent attitudes towards the 5+ issues you listed in different places in the world at any one specific given time in human history) were humans most "evolved" morally?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't that why organizations have rules against "fraternizing" with co-workers, and there are laws against sexual harassment?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: but if 10% of all close encounters end in at best just thoughts and at worst actual attempts at intimacy that by itself is enough to me to setup SOME guidelines.
Again, I agree. And the guidlines should be: 1) Don't hit on your co-workers (paid or volunteer). 2) Don't cheat on your spouse.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: but if 10% of all close encounters end in at best just thoughts and at worst actual attempts at intimacy that by itself is enough to me to setup SOME guidelines.
Again, I agree. And the guidlines should be: 1) Don't hit on your co-workers (paid or volunteer). 2) Don't cheat on your spouse.
So true.
If an individual person has a problem with those guidelines, then that person should set his or her own guidelines about limiting contact. But that doesn't mean everyone else should have to follow them.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Again I am not saying people WILL succumbto lust or even WILL be tempted. But I'd rather be inconvenienced ALOT then to slip up even once.
What kat and dkw have said. Also, you are really underestimating the level of discrimination when you refer to it as being "inconvenienced." I don't think that priesthood, at least in Catholicism, should be taken that lightly.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
And this is in an age where certain crimes are much more likely to be reported than in years past (I'm particularly thinking about rape) which would apply a pressure to keep the rate higher.
posted
Bok: I'd rather you not lump what I am saying with Occasional. No offense to Occasional, I don't think we are making the same argument.
Also violent crime and property crime have little to do with what specifically I am talking about in regards to behaviors between the sexes.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, I would say most of the Western world before WWI, and perhaps the rest of the Western world after WWII. Not saying there wasn't sin and evil, but the social acceptance for such was much less and therefore the prevailance less. I am afraid that many places in the Middle East are more morally advanced than Western society.
Bok, I am talking about morality over historical time and not over a few decades. Besides, crime is only One indicator among others I have listed.
posted
You might want to clarify that, Occasional. Otherwise people might be inclined to think that you consider things like "honor killings" and the extreme subjugation of women to be more morally correct than consensual sex.
If that isn't what you mean, explaining further would clear that up.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No need to clarify. I know what I mean even if others think it means the worst aspects of Near East society. If anything it shows a kind of bigotry against Muslims and Arabs.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a comment made in a thread about Mormons treating women like the Taliban treats women.
But if you're okay with the confusion (if there is confusion), so be it. I would think that havihng other people know what you mean would be a good thing. You don't have to post to know what you think.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets put it this way, I don't agree with the extremes they go to. However, I do agree with some of the religious reasoning for what leads them to those extremes. That would include a love of God, rejection of sexual provocation in dress and behavior, laying down the law, respect for the traditonal roles of men and women (more or less traditional families), and etc.
I have always had a respect for Muslim's sense of religion and morality, even if strongy disagree with the more violent factions. It saddens me that for the most part Islam has been "taken over" by a cruel bloodthirsty element. They have so much going for them that Western society has snubbed and thrown away.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a case could be made that the very insistence on traditional gender roles, the idea that women's dress can provoke sexual immorality, and the willingness to "lay down the law" are directly responsible for creating an environment that fosters violence and extremism.
The more freedoms a society enjoys, the less able extreme factions are to violently impose their morality on others.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
MC, that might be. However, I think I share their morality more than I do yours or the current Western sense of same. Besides, you would have to actually make the case.
Edit: Thinks of Turkey and Israel (seperately). I believe in freedom, but I also believe freedom can destroy its own worth.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Mucus, I would say most of the Western world before WWI, and perhaps the rest of the Western world after WWII.
Please elaborate further. That is still a pretty large range (and set of countries). Perhaps I can make it easier.
1) What would you consider to be (or have been) the most morally evolved society (defined as a specific country at a specific time)?
2) Give an example of a Western country that reached its peak morally before WWI (and at what time) and an example of a Western country that reached its peak after WWII.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one of the advantages to having female clergy is that it permits one-on-one pastoral counseling for women who are uncomfortable with being alone with a member of the opposite sex. Additionally, my experience with female pastors is that they aren't noticeably different in preaching style or how they interact with their congregation.
Disclaimer: the following is from a Protestant Christian view, so it may not apply to your church, particularly those who derive their beliefs about gender roles from tradition, LDS scripture, etc.
Much of the prohibition on women clergy is found in the epistles. In particular, one of Paul's letters says that women should be silent in church and should not teach (I forget whether they can't teach at all or can't teach men). At any rate, those letters were written for a different culture, a different place, and a different time. I think that we should consider that not all of these statements were meant to apply literally and forever. What if these statements were concessions to the weaknesses of the cultures that existed then? I'll admit a bias against statements that people can't do a certain job solely because of their gender.* In addition, the evidence seems to be that women both feel a calling to ministry and are capable of performing all the duties related to ministry. Perhaps there is something mystical that we aren't aware of, but my inclination is to think that we misinterpreted rather than that there is something we can't detect that is the basis for the commandment. Therefore, I tend to interpret the statements about women's roles in the church as specific to that situation, not universal.
I am less concerned with the way that other churches view the roles of women, within reason (abuse, for example, is not "within reason."). If you choose to belong to a culture that has stricter gender roles, and you're satisfied that it is God's will and the right thing for you, that's all right. However, I am most definitely not okay with any attempts to impose those gender roles on outsiders. If you feel it's necessary to avoid associating with a member of the opposite sex who is not your spouse, that's all right. I might think it's a bad idea, but I'm not going to try to stop you, and I won't condemn you for it. However, please keep in mind that plenty of people manage to have close relationships without having sex enter the picture. You might think it's a bad idea, but please don't condemn me for it, either.
*Gender alone shouldn't be the basis for deciding whether a person qualifies for a job, though I'm sure if I thought long and hard enough, I could think of exceptions. At any rate, Pooka asked about people's opinions on women in combat. I say that if a woman can meet all the physical requirements, she should be permitted in combat. I do not think that the bar should be lowered to avoid "discriminating" against women, even if that means that only a tiny fraction of women who want to be in combat are permitted to do so.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I was Elder's Quorum president. There was never a time where fulfilling my calling required me to spend lots of one-on-one time with the Relief Society president. There was never even a hint of that need.
It wasn't an inconvenience; it wasn't necessary at all. Anything that both the EQ and the RS had to be involved in had the involvement of the entire Ward Council (that's the male and female leaders of the church).
Part of this is due to the separation of the men and women's organization; defined responsibilities make meetings LESS necessary. The transparent nature of the Ward Council (we know what each other organization is doing, and what they are responsible for) also assists in keeping one-on-one meetings non-existent.
Also...there's this thing called the telephone. And e-mail.
____________________
My wife is in a book club in our ward, but they kind of stick to the Deseret Special of the Month. She has a great dislike for Mormon-centric literature; I can understand why. Most Mormon-centric writers are not very good.
I think most of the ladies go for the friendshipping, not the literature.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think one of the advantages to having female clergy is that it permits one-on-one pastoral counseling for women who are uncomfortable with being alone with a member of the opposite sex.
I don't disagree. In Mormonism, the Relief Society president and Visiting Teachers takes on much of the responsibility for pastoral counseling. (Visiting Teachers are called to visit each female member of the ward and to generally be their friend, help them spiritually, etc. Just about every adult female in the ward is a Visiting Teacher, and they have three or four sisters whom they visit)
The Bishop is available to confess to and to set the churchy machinery running if necessary. (For example, if there is spousal abuse, the Bishop can find aid, obtain marriage counselors, etc) If there are material needs, the Bishop has access to the Bishop's storehouse (a warehouse with lots of food and emergency equipment) and can respond quickly.
It's been my experience that if it's not a problem of sin, that Mormon women are more prone to rely on their friends for spiritual advice than on the counsel of ecclesiastical leaders.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought I was done with this thread, but it came back to me this morning that a lot of the people who are horrified at the suggestion that adults might be tempted to adultery haven't been through the 7 year itch. I got it a 4 years, but, still... I didn't do anything, and I know I'm morally suspect anyway. Isn't OSC always saying there's nothing virtuous about not sinning if you're never tempted?
At any rate, the policies regarding separation of sex are policies. The division of responsibilities by sex is doctrinal. The adult behavior thing is apart from the doctrine.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea that you can prevent co-workers from having an affair by not letting them have meetings together seems similar to how you can prevent underage drinking by having special stores that only sell alcohol.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I think that "evolution" and "progress" are both very poor analogies for comparing morailty.
Indeed, which is why I also quoted it (evolved) the first time I asked for clarification. However, I was (and still am) more interested in the thought process behind the idea, so I figured, why quibble about terminology.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, the analogy is simple as I have said before. It isn't really about "interactions between the sexes" and more about making rules at all. MC is essentially asking why have rules if they are going to be broken anyway? Although adults use it, the argument is mostly a teenage one.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional: Not quite, but you're starting to think, and I like that sort of behavior
I'm trying to make the point that to me, preventing men and women from working together based on the idea that working together will make them more likely to commit adultery is just plain silly.
People who aren't going to have an affair can manage to keep their pants on, even when working in the same office as someone they're attracted to. If, on the other hand, they want to sleep together, having them work in different buildings isn't going to stop them any more than having liquor stores keeps teenagers from drinking alcohol.
If someone wants to do something against the rules, putting something slightly out of reach isn't going to stop them.
Besides, if you're establishing someone as your moral and spiritual compass, do you really want it to be someone with such a propensity to sin that they can only manage to avoid it by refusing to associate with the opposite sex?
If a person is unable to control their base urges, when that sort of behavior is explicitly considered a sin in their belief system, shouldn't they spend some time on the beam in their own eye, before tending to their congregation's motes?
I suppose it's just a mystery to me, why anyone would consider it so difficult to work with people of the opposite sex. I've done it all my life, and never slept with any of them. Most of the people I know work with opposite sex co-workers every day. I just don't get where the idea is coming from.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's more about making draconian rules that still don't have the preventative impact that you're looking for.
It's more along the lines of me making the rule that I never get in a car or go near a roadway so that I don't have to worry about being in an automobile accident. Yeah, it might work, but it monumentally inconveniences me and there are much simpler ways to prevent car accidents. Like being a responsible driver.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we are running into, as I have said, two different beliefs about human nature. There are those who trust that humanity has a sense of moral responsibility (as a whole). They will argue that the best thing to do is trust rather than hinder. Then there are those, like myself, who from my experiences and what I have seen from people have NO trust in the moral abilities of even adults. They will argue that it isn't about taking away all chances of sin, but minimizing them when possible. Of course people who are determined will find a way to sin. So what? We are all sinners and have weaknesses of the flesh no matter how "responsible" we might think we are. Usually it is when we think we are oh so mature that the fall becomes the most likely and the hardest. I have seen it happen many times. The best thing to do is, within reason (and obviously that is arguable what that means), try to maximize the protection against doing things that shouldn't be done. That is as much in personal life as in social situations.
Mind, I agree with pooka about the main discussion, "the [LDS] policies regarding separation of sex are policies. The division of responsibilities by sex is doctrinal. The adult behavior thing is apart from the doctrine." That should be repeated more than once. After all, what started this was a theological conjecture and in no way represents a solid belief (unless that has since changed) or article of faith.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that there are two groups of thought here, but they are not divided along the Mormon/Non-Mormon lines.
I would argue that locking people up with created walls to prevent them from having the opportunity to choose the right is distinctly un-Mormon. If that were better, then why would the Lord even bother sending us to this world?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I think we are running into, as I have said, two different beliefs about human nature. There are those who trust that humanity has a sense of moral responsibility (as a whole). They will argue that the best thing to do is trust rather than hinder. Then there are those, like myself, who from my experiences and what I have seen from people have NO trust in the moral abilities of even adults. They will argue that it isn't about taking away all chances of sin, but minimizing them when possible. Of course people who are determined will find a way to sin. So what? We are all sinners and have weaknesses of the flesh no matter how "responsible" we might think we are. Usually it is when we think we are oh so mature that the fall becomes the most likely and the hardest. I have seen it happen many times. The best thing to do is, within reason (and obviously that is arguable what that means), try to maximize the protection against doing things that shouldn't be done. That is as much in personal life as in social situations.
I disagree completely. I think that by protecting people from acting immorally you make it a bigger deal when people do so.
People as a whole are trustworthy, moral and generally good.
And, while I don't want to turn this into a rant against religion, I think we perceive people as sinners because we take things that are morally neutral (ex: 2 adults consensually agreeing to an intimate relationship) and we pass judgement on them as bad/evil/immoral.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't the whole point of sin the opportunity to reject it, and in doing so become a better person? I'm not suggesting handing a drug addict a pile of heroine and asking him to be strong, but it's silly to live your life locked in a room so you'll never have the opportunity to do something wrong.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Isn't the whole point of sin the opportunity to reject it, and in doing so become a better person? I'm not suggesting handing a drug addict a pile of heroine and asking him to be strong, but it's silly to live your life locked in a room so you'll never have the opportunity to do something wrong.
OK well obviously then we are all arguing on what that middle ground is.
People usually don't get into a situation with the intent of having an affair. The opportunity begins to present itself and they do not guard against it while its easy and wait until its an incredible test of will power to resist.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black Blade, maybe the point is that guarding against sin doesn't require a physical wall and ghettoization of the self.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The opportunity begins to present itself and they do not guard against it while its easy and wait until its an incredible test of will power to resist.
It should probably be repeated...it seems the practical solution would be to educate people as to the different situations and how best to guard against them, as opposed to creating rules that prohibit things that are not actually wrong or bad.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Black Blade, maybe the point is that guarding against sin doesn't require a physical wall and ghettoization of the self.
Could you clarify what you mean by ghettoization? Also does your car have a governor on it? Are there speed limits on the roads? I don't see how making guidelines such as, "If two people of the opposite sex are meeting in a room keep the door open," is anything remotely like a wall that is oppressive and keeps us from showing how mature we all are.
edit: I'm no longer talking about the carnal sensual nature of human beings as justification for keeping the sexes from both acting in intimate leadership roles. This is in regards to rules that set guidelines on male female interaction in general.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think "keep the door open" is a fine rule. Or if the subject being discussed is confidential, a small window in the door so that the people can be seen but not heard would also work.
That's very different, in my mind, than saying that men and women shouldn't work closely together or in positions where they would be required to meet with each other.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
One of the many things I love about America is that, for the most part, we don't get to "lay down the law" about about the sexual morality of consenting adults.
And on the religious aspect: where does loving God indicate judging the sexual morals of anybody else? I would think that is rather specifically discouraged in the gospels.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
