- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
Prepare to throw fruit, but the thought continually occurs to me that the reason women are staying in more than men is that hardly anything is required of women, yet women are “entitled” to be cared for by a man who has to be worthy of her despite the fact that the only thing the woman is required to do is just show up and have a uterus.
I actually see this happening HG, but as it progresses it pans out differently; after the kids come along, amen to the marriage–everything is ALWAYS secondary to the children. And, with regards to the the career, schooling, and everything else in a woman’s life including the marriage?…like I said, everything is ALWAYS secondary to the children.
I never wanted to be married to someone’s mother. I wanted to have a wife, but I learned later that this is not LDS enough….
And,…I prepare myself to be pelted by thrown fruit as well…..
hawkgrrrl wrote:Prepare to throw fruit, but the thought continually occurs to me that the reason women are staying in more than men is that hardly anything is required of women, yet women are “entitled” to be cared for by a man who has to be worthy of her despite the fact that the only thing the woman is required to do is just show up and have a uterus.
I thought a brain rather than a Uterus was required, but the former required more use and was employed far more frequently than the latter. How often are women really using their Uterus compared to their brains?
No fruit being thrown from here. I agree – most “fully engaged” men I know have some level of burnout. Burnout certainly played a part in my own decision to stop attending. hawkgrrrl wrote:Prepare to throw fruit, but the thought continually occurs to me that
the reason women are staying in more than men is that hardly anything is required of women, yet women are “entitled” to be cared for by a man who has to be worthy of her despite the fact that the only thing the woman is required to do is just show up and have a uterus.I don’t doubt that there is still a blatant form of sexism going on in the Church geared around 1950s style gender roles where the general idea is that it’s supposedly men’s responsibility to take care of women (financially), do the most challenging callings (bishop, stake president, etc.), “preside” in the home, etc. and women’s main expected responsibility is simply to raise children and be homemakers. However, I think there is more to it than that because like the article suggests it looks like men are also more likely to leave organized religion or be atheists (67% of atheists were men in the recent Pew Survey) than women in general in the US at least for whatever reasons in a way that isn’t necessarily unique to Mormonism.
Another specific factor mentioned in the article was the expectation of missionary service for men basically being a major weeding out point. For example, one Sociology professor cited in the article theorized that the real reason for changing the mission age limits from 19 to 18 was to try to reduce the significant dropout rate of young men at this point in their lives. Maybe these mission age limit changes and more women serving missions now will equalize things to some extent but personally I see this as a band-aid solution that is unlikely to overcome some of these trends such as a significant disparity in the ratio of faithful LDS women to men and people waiting longer to get married than in the past on average. If it wasn’t for the Church’s insistence on 1. strict obedience to the Law of Chastity for single adults and 2. the idea that Church members should only marry other “worthy” Church members in the temple then there wouldn’t be any dating crisis to speak of to begin with.
SilentDawning wrote:Interesting — the spokesperson for Ordain Women in the article was Hannah Wheelwright and not Kate Kelly — did Kate step down as president of Ordain Women?
Yes, she did step down, I think around the end of June or beginning of July.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865631943/Kate-Kelly-steps-down-from-Ordain-Women-leadership-board.html?pg=all ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865631943/Kate-Kelly-steps-down-from-Ordain-Women-leadership-board.html?pg=all Ann wrote:That was a depressing read. It reminded me about a comment Claudia Bushman made towards the end of her recent fMh Year of Polygamy interview with Lindsay Park. They were talking about options women had back then, what the future might hold, etc., and Sis. Bushman (I love how she just throws things out to see what sticks) said she wants to see self-sufficient “female colonies” – nunneries.
:wtf:
I love Sister Bushman. It is kind of like when Barbara Bush was 1st lady and a reporter commented on how uncontroversial she was. She said something to the affect of, “I am just an old grandma.”Sister Bushman said something I heard in a podcast recently that I had to laugh and say, “You go girl!” She said her husband said he couldn’t promise he would NEVER marry another woman and become a polygamist. He didn’t WANT to, but felt if God told him to he would. Her reply was, well OK. I CAN promise you that if you do that I will do everything I can to make your life and your new wife’s life a living hell.
I never thought of it as Hawgrrl did, but I see the truth in it. Perhaps I’ve never even allowed myself to think that way, so it seems downright uncomfortable to think that way. I would also be terribly scared of being so dependent on one person if that person died, leaving me with a herd of children to look after — like the Bishop’s wife whose Bishop was shot by someone at the chapel. I sure hope the church stepped up to support her in some way (insurance payments, living allowance) given the eggs she’d placed in that righteous, one-husband, likely no career basket!!!
If the Church did step up, I surely believe they would have sworn her to secrecy, just as they do mission presidents and others who get living allowances from the church.
Quote:the expectation of missionary service for men basically being a major weeding out point
This is a big issue. If a man doesn’t go at age 19 (now 18), everyone assumes he is not worthy or not a believer or whatever. It forces them out. If this had been the case for me at 19, I would never have stuck with the church. I had more breathing room as a woman. But that is probably also changing for women with the lowered age (which I am in favor of lowering for the women). Basically, it shouldn’t be 100% mandatory for either sex. The pressure is too great.
hawkgrrrl wrote:The pressure is too great.
When I went on my mission, though not said quite as overtly as this, the message was: “If you don’t go on a mission, you will go to hell.”
Fear is a horrible motivator, and I feel like it has changed since my experience; however, there is still pressure, and part of that pressure is fear of damnation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.