- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Admin Note: The conversation has moved away from the primary focus on what it is like to be a woman in a man’s church. Since all of the commenters except the author are men, that is not surprising. However, we ought to try to return to the central point of the original post and honor more fully the author’s attempt to convey what it is like to be a woman in the LDS Church rather than argue about a term that makes men uncomfortable and to which men tend to react negatively. I will be leaving StayLDS. This thread has been a major factor, but it’s not the only one. In a few days, I’ll write a final post that I’ve been thinking about, summarizing what I have learned in my path, including through the tremendous help of people here at StayLDS. But the dialog here has moved to a place that no longer suits me. At this site, I learned to be at peace with myself and at peace with the people of the Church. These no longer seem even to be general themes here.
OON I feel that, while there is some sadness when friends outgrow our connection to them, it is sadness tinged with hope and joy. I have joy that you seem to have accomplished what you came here to do. I have hope that life after StayLDS is better for all of us participants than it was before we came here. Happy trails, friend I will be sad to see you go, friend. You have been an invaluable voice here over the years, and I appreciate you and your contributions more than I can express. God bless you in all you do.
I have been following this conversation thread with interest. I feel that male/female views of, well anything, wind up looking a lot like an Esher painting – both sides are seeing the same lines and colors, but the translation is entirely different.
I think that in the last 40 years, we have started to admit as a people that the same painting has different nuances and different perspectives – and allowing it to influence our perception and depth of the painting.
It is very easy to stick with only what you see, what jumps out at you. I know what it is like to be a female, and have my words weighted and dismissed accordingly. I have an idea of what is culturally expected of me as a woman and mother at church (usually what I manage not to do, or do poorly – though sometimes it works out). I think that our church culture is shifting away from hollow one-size-fits-all perfection into in-depth, individualized different representations of perfection (Yay!).
It bothers me that our sisters in church leadership are given 5 year unpaid tenures instead of full-time positions the way the other general authorities are treated. However, I understand that the church leadership purposely selects females that don’t need the income, so the money can be spent elsewhere. It’s a case of thrift vs the message that “your work is not worth being paid for”.
It bothers me that our sisters do not have female advocates in male church discipline councils. I don’t know that we would set up the system to have an extra male in the room if a man was testifying in front of an all-female board. While I think that the emotional needs of our sisters would benefit from having another female in the room, I can almost see how it wouldn’t necessarily be a first thought thing.
It bothers me when the brethren make comments about the sisters “automatically doing [whatever it is] better” because “that’s how they are”. It bothers me because it segregates our efforts into “us” vs “them”.
I don’t know why things are the way they are. I can make some educated and semi-educated theories and statements (which may be absolute truth, relative truth, perceptive truth, or just my best shot in the dark).
Organizationally, I can connect the historical dots to see mostly how we got here – and how we are progressing in talking to each other as men and women.
Personally, I think that it is important to listen to each other to see from another’s point of view.
Quote:“The single most powerful statement to come out of brain research in the last twenty-five years is this:
We are as different from one another on the inside of our heads as we appear to be different from one another on the outside of our heads.
Look around and see the infinite variety of human heads—skin, hair, age, ethnic characteristics, size, color, and shape. And know that on the inside such differences are even greater—what we know, how we learn, how we process information, what we remember and forget, our strategies for functioning and coping.
Add to that the understanding that the “world” out “there” is as much a projection from inside our heads as it is a perception, and pretty soon you are up against the realization that it is a miracle that we are communicating at all. It is almost unbelievable that we are dealing with the same reality. We operate on a kind of loose consensus about existence at best.From a practical point of view, day by day, this kind of information makes me a little more patient with the people I live with. I am less inclined to
protest, “Why don’t you see it the way I do?” and more inclined to say, “You see it that way? Holy cow! How amazing!””
– Robert Fulghum
It was on Fire When I Lay Down on it
http://roykealing.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/4/1/13418884/the_brain.pdf ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://roykealing.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/4/1/13418884/the_brain.pdf dande48 wrote:
I was referring to the modern wave of feminism. It has, in my experience, extensively belittled men, by using terms such as “toxic masculinity” in order to further their cause. I think it’s counterproductive. By using terms, like “toxic masculinity” (among others) we are doing exactly what the book discusses. It is assigning the trait “toxic” (comprimising a variety of traits, all bad) primarily to the male gender. It makes men feel ashamed for being men.What we really want, is to do without toxic behavior in all its forms, wherever it comes from. Calling a male “effeminate” for tearing up with emotion is counterproductive. You can be 100% a man, and still show emotion. You can be 100% a woman, and still be aggressive. If both men and women can posess a trait, and should feel comfortable in posessing a trait, why apply those traits primarily to a single gender? Assigning a label to a trait which conflicts with the trait-barer’s identity, will not make them more self-accepting. Which is what we all really want, isn’t it?
The point of the term “toxic masculinity” is not to belittle men, but to point out how patriarchy harms both genders by belittling men who don’t fit whatever society deems “appropriate” male behavior (and crying doesn’t make that list). Women didn’t invent this societal trend or the gender role assumptions behind it. Feminists are just pointing out that it is harmful (“toxic”) to men to tell them that they are not manly if they express feelings. That’s why it’s called “toxic masculinity.” There is no claim that “masculinity is toxic,” which is how you seem to be taking it. I think this is a case when you are literally saying the same thing feminists are saying, but you are mad when feminists are saying it because you have made a wrong assumption about a term they are using. We are all on the same side here.
I recently watched “On the Basis of Sex” the biopic of RBG. It is surprising to me that 50 years ago the US government did not see anything wrong with sex based discrimination. Because there are legitimate differences between the genders both physically and historically – all laws that discriminated on the basis of sex were seen as A) common sense, 
protecting society, and C) defending the family. Just 50 YEARS AGO.It is fascinating to me to see some of the similarities in the arguments and assumptions that these 1970’s government and business men had about gender roles and some of the same sorts of arguments and assumptions that are expressed by the church today. We LDS tend to dress up our gender roles with more of an explicit religious component. Gender is eternal. Divine role of the female is primarily to nurture in the home. Emphasis on motherhood for female identity.
It is apparent to me that much of western society has had white male perspective and privilege baked in.
Roy wrote:
I recently watched “On the Basis of Sex” the biopic of RBG. It is surprising to me that 50 years ago the US government did not see anything wrong with sex based discrimination. Because there are legitimate differences between the genders both physically and historically – all laws that discriminated on the basis of sex were seen as A) common sense, protecting society, and C) defending the family. Just 50 YEARS AGO.
What RBG did that was so clever is that she selected for her first case one in which discrimination was hurting a man (BTW, that case is exactly what is meant by toxic masculinity, but taken to its logical legal conclusion–nobody had even considered in creating that law that a single man might be a caregiver to an aging parent which is why his benefits were denied). When she demonstrated that it was common sense and that it was hurting men, not just women, and hurting a family (he couldn’t afford to care for his aging mother without the benefits he was owed), then everyone said, “Oh yes, this is obvious.”
Quote:
Toxic masculinity is a real thing. If we look at the Sermon on the Mount, and especially the Beatitudes, it is overwhelmingly a Sermon about the need to be more stereotypically female to a society that was organized upon and valued a stereotypically male organization and approach.
Quote:
Again, my primary example of this is the Beatitudes… Jesus didn’t say, “Men, quit being so much like stereotypical men. That is toxic. Start incorporating stereotypically female characteristics,” but what he taught in that passage fits what I just wrote.
Just to go on record for future readers of this thread…
My own opinion is that there is no difference between people, when it comes to our relationship, closeness, relevance or access to the divine based on traits associated with gender, race, nationality, education, or sexual orientation.
I agree 100% with your last comment, OON. We are in total agreement about that. My primary point is that there are cultural stereotypes imposed historically on some people and not on others in many societies that cause unique toxicity in relationships, esp cially as it impacts access to and use of power. If the stereotypes historically had been imposed differently, the discussion about this post would be framed and discussed differently.
Without that distinction, as your comment is worded, there is no disagreement between us.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.