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)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
