Women teaching patriarchy to women.

[Babs]

Does recognizing there are differences between the sexes make one sexist?

We're not talking about the identification of intrinsic differences. We're talking about differential treatment. Or the others are. Me, I'm sounding the death knell. (Ask not for whom the bell tolls.)

[Tex]

The terms "misogyny" and "sexism" are two terms (among others) too easily tossed around in this discussion. Misogyny is hatred of women. Sexism is the idea that one gender is inherently superior to the other. Neither of these is necessarily inherent to a male-only priesthood.

There is nothing in LDS doctrine on the priesthood to suggest a hatred of women, and very little to suggest inherent inferiority (we can argue about the meaning of Eve's choice in Eden).

It's more appropriate to say that male-only priesthood can lead to misogynistic or sexist behavior in men, which is true. And when it does, those men are wrong and should be rebuked. But to say the very existence of a male-only priesthood is misogynistic is wrong, and greatly waters down those terms.

[ERCougar]

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.

That's a good point. It's a tough line to draw. As Babs points out, I think we are shifting as a culture. I have to admit that I don't open my wife's car door anymore (I'm also not the most romantic of husbands, either...), I'm no more likely to stand when a man enters the room than when a woman does, and I'll open a door for a man just as quickly as a woman (unless it makes me look gay or something). Women still do get special treatment--it's much more frowned-upon to hit a woman, even a stronger woman, than a man, for instance--but I'm sure standards are different now than they were 20, or even 10 years ago.

But that's outside the Church. Inside, we do all this putting-on-a-pedestal stuff in the name of honoring women, when in reality, I believe it has a lot more to do with sexism. I think that's definitely confusing to young people growing up.

[byu71]

The terms "misogyny" and "sexism" are two terms (among others) too easily tossed around in this discussion. Misogyny is hatred of women. Sexism is the idea that one gender is inherently superior to the other. Neither of these is necessarily inherent to a male-only priesthood.

There is nothing in LDS doctrine on the priesthood to suggest a hatred of women, and very little to suggest inherent inferiority (we can argue about the meaning of Eve's choice in Eden).

It's more appropriate to say that male-only priesthood can lead to misogynistic or sexist behavior in men, which is true. And when it does, those men are wrong and should be rebuked. But to say the very existence of a male-only priesthood is misogynistic is wrong, and greatly waters down those terms.

It happens so rarely, that I just want to mark this occasion where I agree with Tex.

[JohnnyLingo]

We're not talking about the identification of intrinsic differences. We're talking about differential treatment. Or the others are. Me, I'm sounding the death knell. (Ask not for whom the bell tolls.)

So if I fart around male friends but hold them in around female friends, it's wrong and I'm being sexist.

[TripletDaddy]

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.

Yes, but this isn't the point.

The convention is that women receive special treatment when it comes to social graces. Keep in mind, I am not opposed to them, just pointing out that they exist.

Put another way.....what if we were to teach that women and men can simply open their own doors? This still allows for equality, but doesn't seem to pass the social graces sniff test because we are taking away a privilege that women have enjoyed for decades, if not centuries.

[TripletDaddy]

That's a good point. It's a tough line to draw. As Babs points out, I think we are shifting as a culture. I have to admit that I don't open my wife's car door anymore (I'm also not the most romantic of husbands, either...), I'm no more likely to stand when a man enters the room than when a woman does, and I'll open a door for a man just as quickly as a woman (unless it makes me look gay or something). Women still do get special treatment--it's much more frowned-upon to hit a woman, even a stronger woman, than a man, for instance--but I'm sure standards are different now than they were 20, or even 10 years ago.

But that's outside the Church. Inside, we do all this putting-on-a-pedestal stuff in the name of honoring women, when in reality, I believe it has a lot more to do with sexism. I think that's definitely confusing to young people growing up.

I am not disagreeing, but do you mind sharing a few examples within the Church where we do this? I know we do not speak much about Heavenly Mother, and the reason that is usually given is that we refrain out of respect. I have never really understood this as I don't know why it would be disrespectful to learn about your Mother but be encouraged to learn as much about your Father as possible.

I am trying to think of examples of the every-day rank and file "putting women on a pedestal" as sexism.

[Solon]

There is nothing in LDS doctrine on the priesthood to suggest a hatred of women, and very little to suggest inherent inferiority (we can argue about the meaning of Eve's choice in Eden).

"Misogyny" can also mean just prejudice against women: it doesn't have to be as strong as "hate" for the word to apply.

While the written and spoken word might often suggest a more egalitarian bent, I think there is a good deal in the LDS church's practice and organization, as well as LDS culture to suggest inherent inferiority of females.

This is a complex issue, and I think any discussion should be nuanced, thoughtful, and respectful. So, I offer only my opinions here.

[beelzebabette]

Crap. I agree with Tex.

[Tex]

Yes, but this isn't the point.

The convention is that women receive special treatment when it comes to social graces. Keep in mind, I am not opposed to them, just pointing out that they exist.

Put another way.....what if we were to teach that women and men can simply open their own doors? This still allows for equality, but doesn't seem to pass the social graces sniff test because we are taking away a privilege that women have enjoyed for decades, if not centuries.

I think the masculinization of women is one of several negative byproducts of the feminist movement.

I know we do not speak much about Heavenly Mother, and the reason that is usually given is that we refrain out of respect.

I think that reason is a bad one. We do not speak of Heavenly Mother much because there is almost no revealed doctrine on her. The most oft-cited reference to her is in a hymn where even her very existence is merely "reasoned."

[JohnnyLingo]

Crap. I agree with Tex.

Good call adding "crap" to your post... you don't want your good name sullied by publicly admitting you agree with Tex on anything. Same goes to byu71... nice save.

Honestly, the tendency more than a few people on the board have to act this way is childish. If someone makes a good post, I have no problem stating my agreement with it without holding my nose, even if I've had my issues with the poster in the past. Is it so hard?

[ERCougar]

I am not disagreeing, but do you mind sharing a few examples within the Church where we do this? I know we do not speak much about Heavenly Mother, and the reason that is usually given is that we refrain out of respect. I have never really understood this as I don't know why it would be disrespectful to learn about your Mother but be encouraged to learn as much about your Father as possible.

I am trying to think of examples of the every-day rank and file "putting women on a pedestal" as sexism.

I'm thinking of the Heavenly Mother example too, although I think it happens in subtler ways all the time. Women don't have the Priesthood because they don't need it to be spiritually-minded. Wuap just mentioned that it was the running joke that the RS gets things done much more efficiently than the men. Flip those two around and see how they sound. Sexist, right? I'd argue that putting them this way with a knowing wink and a chuckle is not much better, and in the same spirit as the Victorian social graces you mentioned earlier.

[Pheidippides]

I am not disagreeing, but do you mind sharing a few examples within the Church where we do this? I know we do not speak much about Heavenly Mother, and the reason that is usually given is that we refrain out of respect. I have never really understood this as I don't know why it would be disrespectful to learn about your Mother but be encouraged to learn as much about your Father as possible.

I am trying to think of examples of the every-day rank and file "putting women on a pedestal" as sexism.

Sexism or no, if I hear one more guy say in church that his wife is so much better than him, I'm going to blow a gasket. I'm better than my wife in some ways, she than me in others, but we generally don't care - and, more to the point, I'm pretty damn sure that most of the men that I've heard say that don't believe it in the slightest.

[JohnnyLingo]

- and, more to the point, I'm pretty damn sure that most of the men that I've heard say that don't believe it in the slightest.

Based on what, exactly? The fact that they bother you?

[Tex]

I'm thinking of the Heavenly Mother example too, although I think it happens in subtler ways all the time. Women don't have the Priesthood because they don't need it to be spiritually-minded. Wuap just mentioned that it was the running joke that the RS gets things done much more efficiently than the men. Flip those two around and see how they sound. Sexist, right? I'd argue that putting them this way with a knowing wink and a chuckle is not much better, and in the same spirit as the Victorian social graces you mentioned earlier.

I'll go on record as saying I don't like this reason at all. I don't think it's doctrinal.

I know it gets cited frequently, even by GAs, but it strikes me as patronizing even if the sentiment behind it is genuine.