Women teaching patriarchy to women.

[Babs]

I don't feel like my religion should be called sexist, homophobic or whatever because of the beliefs. Go ahead and tell people to leave the church or not join because we are archaic in our beliefs if one wants, but name calling for me kills the argument someone may be putting forth.

I'm going to imagine that this is directed toward me. I have not called the church anything that its own members have not. My feelings toward the church in general, and its adherents, are a matter of record. But like many women, both in and outside the church, I disagree with the church's continued treatment of women as second-class citizens.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Nonsense. A poster can't see his repeated sniper posts for what they are, but I can. The pattern is unmistakable.

There's nothing more to say on the matter, and I won't refer to it again.

I am confused. What part of my post was nonsense?

[byu71]

I'm going to imagine that this is directed toward me. I have not called the church anything that its own members have not. My feelings toward the church in general, and its adherents, are a matter of record. But like many women, both in and outside the church, I disagree with the church's continued treatment of women as second-class citizens.

Your post got me thinking, but I wasn't referring to you alone because I know others have said the same thing, so why single you out. Thus I did not quote your post or refer to you.

It works both ways. I have never been big on calling people who criticize the church or it's beliefs "bigots".

As to second class citizens, isn't that in the eye of the beholder. There are probably plenty of women who don't consider their treatment as second class. I don't think the issue is black and white.

The nice thing about a religious group and their beliefs are that if you don't agree with them, you can tell them to get screwed and not join or leave. You can also complain. Personally I think using some terms though go over the top when questionning someone's religious belief.

Yes, I do think religious belief is different than just a regular belief.

[marsupial]

I'm going to imagine that this is directed toward me. I have not called the church anything that its own members have not. My feelings toward the church in general, and its adherents, are a matter of record. But like many women, both in and outside the church, I disagree with the church's continued treatment of women as second-class citizens.

Christianity, in general, is pretty patriarchal and misogynistic. You don't need to be a member of our church to comment in this thread. Your experience, when it comes to a woman's role in the church, is likely not that different from all of ours.

[Babs]

As to second class citizens, isn't that in the eye of the beholder. There are probably plenty of women who don't consider their treatment as second class.

If I wanted to continue this fun little foray into trolling, I would point out that there are also plenty of abused women who don't consider their treatment as abusive. However, I'd better desist before I tarnish BG's reputation any further.

Still, the fact that women don't consider their treatment second-class has no bearing on whether the treatment is in reality of that nature. I could insist that the sky is green but that does not make it so.

Personally I think using some terms though go over the top when questionning someone's religious belief.

obviously.

[Babs]

Christianity, in general, is pretty patriarchal and misogynistic. You don't need to be a member of our church to comment in this thread. Your experience, when it comes to a woman's role in the church, is likely not that different from all of ours.

This post is both true and false, but that is a genuine discussion perhaps best left for another day.

The doctrine of my church, technically, is that there is no jew or gentile, male or female. In practice, of course, we know that there's a de facto differential treatment, with the woman subordinate. The LDS church, doctrinally, still insists on a de jure differentiation between men and women, with women unable to hold the priesthood, restricted to one sealing, etc. But in practice the woman's role is not as subordinate as the doctrines might suggest.

[ERCougar]

This post is both true and false, but that is a genuine discussion perhaps best left for another day.

The doctrine of my church, technically, is that there is no jew or gentile, male or female. In practice, of course, we know that there's a de facto differential treatment, with the woman subordinate. The LDS church, doctrinally, still insists on a de jure differentiation between men and women, with women unable to hold the priesthood, restricted to one sealing, etc. But in practice the woman's role is not as subordinate as the doctrines might suggest.

Now wait a second...we're FAR from alone in this. Once in a while, I'll turn on the local Christian radio station and I can't tell you how many times the "Wives, submit to your husbands" counsel is pounded. And pounded. And with a straight face.

We at least have the sense not to push that one. At least, not out in the open (although, I have to say as a side note, I am often really surprised at some of the stuff that happens in some of my seemingly intelligent and enlightened friends' households...)

EDIT: Case in point about friend's households...my son came in the other day after dinner and said, "Dad, why are you doing the dishes? Mom should be doing that." I asked why and he replied, "Because she's the woman." Where has he heard this? From his friends AND their moms. Yes, it's 2009. That was disturbing, not so much from his standpoint, as we hopefully can fix that, but from my daughter's standpoint. I'm wondering what kind of messages she's going to pick up about what her acceptable place and duties are.

[ERCougar]

If I wanted to continue this fun little foray into trolling, I would point out that there are also plenty of abused women who don't consider their treatment as abusive. However, I'd better desist before I tarnish BG's reputation any further.

Still, the fact that women don't consider their treatment second-class has no bearing on whether the treatment is in reality of that nature. I could insist that the sky is green but that does not make it so.

Yeah, way to desist.

In all seriousness, this is a very good example and a source of plenty of frustration in the ER. I think many would be very surprised at what some women will accept as normal behavior from their spouses.

[Babs]

Now wait a second...we're FAR from alone in this. Once in a while, I'll turn on the local Christian radio station and I can't tell you how many times the "Wives, submit to your husbands" counsel is pounded. And pounded. And with a straight face.

that's my point.

[byu71]

Still, the fact that women don't consider their treatment second-class has no bearing on whether the treatment is in reality of that nature. I could insist that the sky is green but that does not make it so.



I disagree. Who gets to decide whether what one person thinks is the standard. Green is green. Second class citizenship isn't a fact, it is a belief.

Sure, we could pretty much agree a woman that gets the crap kicked out of her daily by her husband is being abused, even if she doesn't think so.

However, there is a big difference between getting the Priesthood and getting the crap kicked out of you. Woman are encouraged to stay at home. Heck, Dr Laura suggests that. Woman in our church even get to talk in church and now even in conference.

In my youth I took it for granted women in the church were second class or subservient to men. I am pretty sure a lot of men who are "fundamentalists" down deep believe it. However, I have seen plenty of women in the church that actually run the family and are in charge, for me to think that the membership adheres to any second class status.

I think more than sexist and other things the "church" is called, it is the same thing as with the honor code at BYU. In reality many of these things are done to keep order and discipline. It isn't about thinking of anyone as a lesser person.

[TripletDaddy]

Now wait a second...we're FAR from alone in this. Once in a while, I'll turn on the local Christian radio station and I can't tell you how many times the "Wives, submit to your husbands" counsel is pounded. And pounded. And with a straight face.

We at least have the sense not to push that one. At least, not out in the open (although, I have to say as a side note, I am often really surprised at some of the stuff that happens in some of my seemingly intelligent and enlightened friends' households...)

EDIT: Case in point about friend's households...my son came in the other day after dinner and said, "Dad, why are you doing the dishes? Mom should be doing that." I asked why and he replied, "Because she's the woman." Where has he heard this? From his friends AND their moms. Yes, it's 2009. That was disturbing, not so much from his standpoint, as we hopefully can fix that, but from my daughter's standpoint. I'm wondering what kind of messages she's going to pick up about what her acceptable place and duties are.

How much of this is a natural byproduct of our adherence to principles of Victorian-era notions of femininity? While we don't throw our coat over the puddle as the woman walks by, we still generally defer to women over traditional (yet often unnecessary) issues.

A few examples: we open doors, we stand up when women walk into the room, we give a woman our seat on the bus or train. (yes, i know that not everyone does this). A woman can open her own door. She can stand for a few blocks just like anyone else. But we still do it because it is socially polite.

If we adhere to certain myths about womanhood (women should not have to open their own door), is it any wonder that we continue to adhere to others (women wash dishes and clean the house)?

Isn't it a mixed message to send to a child to say that both genders are equal, but mommy can't open her own door and that a man should open it for her? Esp if such lessons are taught before a child is old enough to grasp the "social graces" aspect of some of the things we do for the ladies.

[byu71]

Yeah, way to desist.

In all seriousness, this is a very good example and a source of plenty of frustration in the ER. I think many would be very surprised at what some women will accept as normal behavior from their spouses.

You don't think folks would be surprised at what men might accept as behavior from their wives.

[JohnnyLingo]

30 Rock tackled gender equality a bit last night.

End result, the men no longer hold in farts when Liz is in the room, they punch her arm, she has to change the water jug things, she ends up going to a strip club for Lutz's fake bachelor party, etc.

It's an interesting question. Do we really want equality? Does recognizing there are differences between the sexes make one sexist?

[Babs]

Isn't it a mixed message to send to a child to say that both genders are equal, but mommy can't open her own door and that a man should open it for her? Esp if such lessons are taught before a child is old enough to grasp the "social graces" aspect of some of the things we do for the ladies.

orrrrrrrrrrr,

you could teach your son to hold the door open for anyone, to offer his seat to anyone, to stand to greet anyone, etc.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Two of my favorite posters fighting. This is painful to watch. I hope you patch it up quickly.

My thoughts exactly.