Gender Topics more Productive?

Thanks for those good thoughts. I agree with you. When I talk to my daughters, I try to always tell them they should be vocal about stuff that they feel, because it is real…whether the guys they are hanging out with or talking to or the classes they are in agree with them or not…these gender issues are real and they shouldn’t feel they need to stuff their feelings deep deep down or they are less faithful.

I also have them read a lot of Hawkgrrrl’s posts. They need examples to follow.

Also…polygamy will always be an inflammatory topic.

One other thing, since you mentioned garments. I think those discussions about garments here at StayLDS – amongst ourselves – have been extremely productive and respectful. I don’t see anything like them going on “out there,” though. Maybe they’re happening in places I don’t know or don’t go.

Here, I don’t see men saying, “Like it or lump it.”

Roy that is much better said than I did. Thank you. Since yours is so good I will delete mine.

Hello All, I apologize for posting and then disappearing. I had a family situation come up yesterday.

Heber 13, your daughters are very very fortunate to have a father such as yourself. It is wonderful that they can be honest about their feelings and concerns with the church and that you support and encourage them to not stifle their questions. If more men of the church were able to acknowledge and try to understand the pain in their daughters/wives experiences in the church, things could change for the better.

Ann, very good thoughts about how men also feel “supervised” in the church. Ill discuss that further with Rays question. As far as the garment discussions, you are correct, this site has been a great place to discuss the challenges. On other fairly progressive sites I have seen the men literally say garments don’t bother the me/men so the women are just exaggerating their discomfort and issues. When presented with yeast infections and nursing issues, the men would simply say that the “women should have more faith in their challenges and needed to follow their priesthood leaders”. So back to MEN telling women to stop complaining and follow other MEN’S (priesthood leaders) directions.

Roy, great bubble analogy. Unfortunately I have heard your wifes thoughts on poygmay expressed numerous times and settings in the church.

Mom3, I’m sure what you posted was very good as well!

Ray Ill answer your questions in just a moment.

Ray,

To answer your question if I see that dismissive attitude here I have to say that it has gotten a lot better over the years. However on the last polygamy thread it was very, very present. I’m not sure how to show examples without it seeming rude so I will just quote without the name attached I guess would be the correct way to demonstrate what I’m talking about? I do think it is important that I can show how in this situation the dismissive attitude played out.

The thread started out with Ann discussing her daughter’s heart ache over how polygamy was being presented in her institute class.

Eventually it was suggested by a guy that does not believe or want polygamy that,

I deal with the issue the same way I deal with all the other issues I have – I focus on what I do believe.

Not dismissive at all by itself. However when I and other women pointed out that it was much easier as a guy to not believe in polygamy thanks to how it is taught in today’s church, it turned into very dismissive statements.

Ann wrote:

Dax wrote:

So sad that to this day we still teach our daughters to accept polygamy in order to be lds.

Yup.

That’s why I posted. It’s my breaking point and I can’t sit by while it happens.

I’m sorry ladies, I have to disagree. I don’t think we (as in the top leadership of the church or as a local ward/stake in my case) teach women or anyone else that they have to accept polygamy. Fact is, we don’t

Then some of the women of the forum presented examples of it still being taught, still causing pain. Those examples illicit ed these responses from the same individual,

I’m sorry that that is taught there. It is not taught in that way here. I’m sorry this offends you. I also think you you have a belief about the average male in the church that does not stand up – we have no more power than the average woman.

The above is on the edge of the dismissive line of “well I haven’t seen it, and I’m sorry that bothers you since it doesn’t bother me”.

When he was again presented with examples of polygamy being taught and the pain it causes it became full on dismissive.

[quoteAnn wrote:

Of course, no one has to do anything. But we teach that God commanded it and we haven’t taken it off the table. It’s a wretched thing to do to our girls.

Members who publicly call the divinity of Section 132 into question are given “attention” from leaders.

Do we teach that God commanded it? When was the last time a Q15 said that? It’s in the essays – OK. How many members have read those essays? It’s frequently mentioned here that when people ask in their wards almost no one has and most aren’t even aware they exist.

I’ve only been back from a long hiatus for about a year and a half – but I have yet to hear a lesson or a talk about polygamy, and the few I have heard about eternal marriage or families (I can only remember 2) have made no mention of polygamy. I have also yet to hear Section 132 discussed or referenced and I have been in on no discussions where someone is given attention because they oppose Section 132. Fact is almost everything I hear on the subject is right here and on other boards.

He has been presented with numerous example at this point of polygamy being taught and how it effects teenage girls/women of the church. He is completely dismissing the examples given and goes back to how he hasn’t seen what the women are telling him they have experienced. The above statements completely invalidates the women’s pain and experiences.

From there he negates the women further with,

I was born a heterosexual male and I can’t change that, and neither does your vitriol. I can’t change that you were born female. And I can’t change your mind and I have no desire to. I can’t change what people in your ward teach or what is taught in any class anywhere – I have no more input than any other rank and file member and being male does not change that. I can’t control your anger at me just because I was born male or hold the priesthood or because I am the prodigal son returned. But I can control me, and while I will show forth as much Christlike love as I can muster at any given time to anyone, I don’t have to listen to hate because of who I am.

I am done with this conversation ladies, to me this thread no longer exists. I have said my piece and my point of view is clearly quite different from yours. I have nothing else to say.

He basically tells the women that because they are disagreeing with him by giving examples that they are attacking him.

He goes on to describe the women’s comments as “vitriol and that the women felt hatred toward him because he was born male,” the women’s posts said nothing against him personally they were about the church were not filled with hate. They simply showed examples to the contrary to his “I haven’t seen that” statements.

I found it interesting that as the women were giving examples, myself included, that we tried numerous times to let the guy know that we were talking about the church in general BEFORE he got upset and left the conversation.

The kicker and most dismissive comment though was when he went on to say ” I am done with this conversation ladies, to me this thread no longer exists.”

It is the epitome of dismissive! He is refusing to listen or even acknowledge that this issues exist any longer because he doesn’t like how the examples were presented. He completely invalidates the examples and experiences of the women by saying the thread “literally no longer exists”.

The issue wasn’t whether he wanted or agreed with polygamy itself which he himself said he doesn’t want. The conflict arose when the women countered with examples his view that polygamy is not still being taught in a way that hurts girls/women and that they should just choose to ignore it like he does. I have no doubt that the individual above is a good person and does not like polygamy and I am sorry that he felt personally attacked. However women need to be able to express and show examples of the pain polygamy without men tacking it as a personal attack.

Ray the conversation above is an example that highlights exactly what I have seen play out numerous times when it comes to issues with gender aspects in the church. Less often at this site vs others.

If the male is very TBM the woman is usually admonished to have more faith,repent and follow her priesthood leaders.

That is the part lds men and many women do not understand, the spiritual and authoritative power imbalance in the church. Have you ever been told as a male or seen another lds man of the church be admonished to repent and follow the authority of a lds woman? No, never, it can not happen as only men have the authority to run the church. I have been told myself or seen other women told more times than I can count to have more faith and follow my priesthood leaders. So when lds men tell lds women to ignore a gender issue in the church they are saying that while being a member of the priesthood club that women are not a part of and therefore have no authority.

As far as polygamy. Yes I would like PARTS of DC 132 removed the whole utter destruction of Emma/women if they do not practice polygamy part. It truly brings into question for both lds men and women if lds women have the innate right to sexual autonomy. The church could simply say that JS misunderstood the sealing aspects of the temple and the church self corrected over time and those that wish to be married to more than one spouse both male and female God will work out in the next life. That’s it simple, just like the priesthood ban. If the church can admit to a mistake with the ban why can it not admit a mistake with polygamy? Unless something along those lines occur there really is not way to teach polygamy without it on a subconscious level teaching the members of the church both male and female that girls/women are not as valued as the men in the eyes of the Lord.

[Moderator Note: This thread is become too attacking instead of openly discussing opinions and respecting others, and not reflective of our mission. As usual, we don’t want to silence people who have emotional responses, but online posts can be searched by many people and things look out of context and reflect what we are trying to accomplish…and so we try to moderate not to silence people…but to keep our site in line with mission objectives.

In our other threads, please keep to your opinions and topics, but don’t attack other posters or their opinions and topics.]

It felt to me like DJ’s comments were dismissive (it’s a classic one, arguing against a woman’s lived experience by stating that he hasn’t experienced it, so it’s a “fact” that it’s not true that it happens). Then as soon as she became incensed at being dismissed, he took his ball and went home. Jeff Spector (over at W&T) often throws out his canard about not having any more institutional authority than any woman in the church, and this is exactly where DJ went to show that “Hey, I don’t have any privilege.”

And yet, polygamy is inherently an unequal formula: one man = two or more women. Women who are dealing with the concept of polygamy have to deal with the fact that they are only a partial person in value, that they don’t get a vote, and that if they don’t consent, their husband can proceed without their consent and they will be destroyed! Mercifully, BY was free to grant divorce, although that was cold comfort when a woman often had no means to support herself financially (something he also endeavored to remediate).

I’m not thrilled with the exchange, but it seems to me that neither party was in more need of protection than the other. They both became dismissive of each other. Neither one was really aloof enough to behave like the responsible adult perhaps. I feel as though we sided with DJ (who is a long-standing site participant) against Dax (who is also a long-standing site participant, not quite as long). I don’t like that we took sides, and it seems like the side we took is that if a man throws a fit, then we care more than if a woman throws a fit.