- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
nibbler wrote:
I do want to point out one thing. The focus has been on an 11 and a half minute portion of a much longer meeting.
Noted. And I appreciate you pointing it out. Sometimes, when I want to dissect an idea to figure out what its workings are, I can make a bigger deal of the details than the big picture.
nibbler wrote:Elder Bednar does dominate the proceedings but he is the one presiding over the meeting and for better or for worse, the reason people’s butts are in the seats.
Also a good point. But also just to instigate (and like you said) that doesn’t mean that that’s the way things have to continue to be.
Roy, I understand where you are coming from, and agree with you on most points. Learning your partner’s preferred ways of receiving love (and giving love) are essential to knowing and accepting your partner. And it needs to go both ways. I’m definitely with you on that one.
One thing I’m still not sold on, and this is coming from my experience which includes no current long term romantic relationship so take it FWIW, is that women are supposed to be the cheerleaders. Perhaps it’s because I don’t think that I fit the stereotypical mold of a cheerleader/nurturer/warm-fuzzy-feeling initiator, and that chaffs at me when I’m told I need to be. I come at it from the lens of how would it be if we allowed men and boys the space to become more emotionally intelligent for themselves, and also allowed women to be initiators and practical providers. Without shaming either group. Or maybe we just let people fall on the spectrum where they may?? Like I said, this probably comes a lot from my experience as a woman who doesn’t conform to societal norms for her gender.
Quote:Dancing Carrot wrote:
One thing I’m still not sold on, and this is coming from my experience which includes no current long term romantic relationship so take it FWIW, is that women are supposed to be the cheerleaders. Perhaps it’s because I don’t think that I fit the stereotypical mold of a cheerleader/nurturer/warm-fuzzy-feeling initiator, and that chaffs at me when I’m told I need to be. I come at it from the lens of how would it be if we allowed men and boys the space to become more emotionally intelligent for themselves, and also allowed women to be initiators and practical providers. Without shaming either group. Or maybe we just let people fall on the spectrum where they may?? Like I said, this probably comes a lot from my experience as a woman who doesn’t conform to societal norms for her gender.
In relationships, people find that balance that works for them. There is a lot more non-conformity out there than you would think. In the US, last statistic I read had 29% of women out-earning their husbands. I was talking to a surgeon colleague and he was talking about trying to get laundry done before going to work. He wife travels constantly so he handles all the household and childcare stuff.
Sunday comes along, husband puts on a white shirt and tie, wife wears a skirt or dress and everyone assumes they are a stereotypical LDS couple. The assumptions are the issue.
DancingCarrot wrote:Also a good point. But also just to instigate (and like you said) that doesn’t mean that that’s the way things have to continue to be.
For sure. As I watched the video I couldn’t help but wonder how big of an event it would be if a member of the relief society general presidency, primary general presidency, or young women general presidency showed up. Granted an apostle is a bigger celebrity than a member of the 6th quorum of the seventy but I do wonder how big of a celebrity we make out of women leaders.
Would a meeting that featured a member of one of the women presidencies play out out the same way, where she would take the reigns and her husband would occasionally be called on to offer their point of view? Would a meeting that included a member of one of the women presidencies always have some other accompanying general authority so you wouldn’t run into a scenario where a local leader like a stake president presided over a general authority? If that is the case would the accompanying general authority then become the feature speaker?
Just another random tangent that went through my mind.
Elder Holland presided at a meeting for all Young Single Adults and fielded the same basic question. While I believe there absolutely is an intimacy double standard in the Church, his response was MUCH better than Elder Bednar’s – and that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.
It also doesn’t surprise me that Elder Bednar’s response blew up the Mormon blogging world, while Elder Holland’s did not. That also is instructive.
Quote:Would a meeting that featured a member of one of the women presidencies play out out the same way, where she would take the reigns and her husband would occasionally be called on to offer their point of view? Would a meeting that included a member of one of the women presidencies always have some other accompanying general authority so you wouldn’t run into a scenario where a local leader like a stake president presided over a general authority? If that is the case would the accompanying general authority then become the feature speaker?
NIbbler – I attended the exact type of meeting you are talking about. It was nearly 30 years ago – It was a Regional Seminar and General RS Pres. Barbara B. Smith was the keynote. It was a husband and wife all day event. Big wigs from here and there were brought in. A dinner was served then Sister Smith and Spouse spoke. She was articulate, skilled, funny, self-depracating, etc. He was in all honesty a little man next to her. When it was his turn to speak he tried to make jokes, but nothing worked. He had very little advice to give. He just sort of became the door mouse.
I have never forgotten that evening. What ever his field was he may have been fantastic, but a public leader, not happening. In a weird way it was a very empowering evening – but not the one most people expected.
amateurparent wrote:In relationships, people find that balance that works for them. There is a lot more non-conformity out there than you would think. In the US, last statistic I read had 29% of women out-earning their husbands.
I agree. When people get married they find a balance that might be unique for them but works. Ray says that when he is called to a calling they get him and not some cookie cutter body to fill an organizational hole. Dancing Carrot, the person that marries you will love you for you and not just as a cookie cutter body to play a wifely role. My own spouse is not a great cheerleader. We, as a couple, function best when we recognize and play to each other’s strengths. (as well as some healthy discussion on how to address weaknesses that might pose problems)
amateurparent wrote:Sunday comes along, husband puts on a white shirt and tie, wife wears a skirt or dress and everyone assumes they are a stereotypical LDS couple. The assumptions are the issue.
There will always be assumptions about the “appropriate” or ideal way to live within the group. There will always be some degree of tension between living in a way that works for you and conforming to cultural norms. For some people it is easier to have a thick skin and not worry about being different. For others it is fairly traumatic to be judged by the group.
Being different in a group that values conformity can be quite a challenge.
Old-Timer wrote:Elder Holland presided at a meeting for all Young Single Adults and fielded the same basic question. While I believe there absolutely is an intimacy double standard in the Church, his response was MUCH better than Elder Bednar’s – and that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.
Can you provide a transcript of Elder Holland’s answer or a link to his answer? I am interested in seeing what sort of spectrum of perspectives there might be within the brethren.
Along with Roy, I would like to see how Elder Holland responded as well. Roy wrote:amateurparent wrote:In relationships, people find that balance that works for them. There is a lot more non-conformity out there than you would think. In the US, last statistic I read had 29% of women out-earning their husbands.
I agree. When people get married they find a balance that might be unique for them but works. Ray says that when he is called to a calling they get him and not some cookie cutter body to fill an organizational hole. Dancing Carrot, the person that marries you will love you for you and not just as a cookie cutter body to play a wifely role. My own spouse is not a great cheerleader. We, as a couple, function best when we recognize and play to each other’s strengths. (as well as some healthy discussion on how to address weaknesses that might pose problems)
amateurparent wrote:Sunday comes along, husband puts on a white shirt and tie, wife wears a skirt or dress and everyone assumes they are a stereotypical LDS couple. The assumptions are the issue.
There will always be assumptions about the “appropriate” or ideal way to live within the group. There will always be some degree of tension between living in a way that works for you and conforming to cultural norms. For some people it is easier to have a thick skin and not worry about being different. For others it is fairly traumatic to be judged by the group.
Being different in a group that values conformity can be quite a challenge.
I agree with the above. And can obviously speak to feeling the tension you speak of
😆 I think I am navigating how the road of being judged and having a thick skin coincide. Or how to find another road!!nibbler, the same tangent runs through my mind: I know that what’s been doesn’t always need to continue, but if something else is going to come along, what might it look like, what might have to be left behind, and are any of us really ready to tackle that challenge?
mom3, that meeting sounds like it was a great experience for you. Thanks for sharing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.