Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Concorde wrote:Also, as a sidenote, can anyone else not stand the women's general session? I try to listen but their lilting, sing-song voices drive me up a wall. I feel like I'm five and I just feel like it's so girlish and insincere. I am a terrible person.

I'm going to my first women's broadcast ever tonight. I've put it off precisely for the reasons you mentioned, plus I don't understand the purpose behind having the broadcast in the first place. Extra church? No thank you. But primary-aged girls were included this year, and I'm in primary, so I'm going out of a sense of duty/obligation. Bleargh.

Genuine Article wrote:

Concorde wrote:Also, as a sidenote, can anyone else not stand the women's general session? I try to listen but their lilting, sing-song voices drive me up a wall. I feel like I'm five and I just feel like it's so girlish and insincere. I am a terrible person.

I'm going to my first women's broadcast ever tonight. I've put it off precisely for the reasons you mentioned, plus I don't understand the purpose behind having the broadcast in the first place. Extra church? No thank you. But primary-aged girls were included this year, and I'm in primary, so I'm going out of a sense of duty/obligation. Bleargh.

Haha be strong!

I'm thinking I'm actually going to try to watch it tonight. I've been looking for some more direction in my life and I feel like I should get all the help I can. Also I have nothing else planned so I might as well watch something productive and just try to tune out the simpering?

Did anyone watch the meeting? I had a weirdly cliche but good date in the ol' Provo.

Concorde wrote:I am a surprisingly resilient person sometimes- I just don't see anything else that I can be anymore. But it comes at the cost of being sensitive and delicate. Mormon women always strike me as soft and feminine and gentle and delicate and spiritual and stuff like that, and I feel so coarse and blunt and straightforward next to them sometimes. And just very pragmatic. I think I throw BYU guys for a loop because I have a more masculine attitude for a Mormon woman. Also, as a sidenote, can anyone else not stand the women's general session? I try to listen but their lilting, sing-song voices drive me up a wall. I feel like I'm five and I just feel like it's so girlish and insincere. I am a terrible person.

In the past month or so, there have been no fewer than three references to a woman being "sweet." (One really creeped me out, because it was some 26-year-old obsessed with an 18-year-old or something. The other two times just seemed patronizing.) I can't imagine calling a man that without it being a backhanded compliment. I can think of a couple of gay guys I know who might qualify as sweet.

I'm quite feminine but I am far from "sweet." I feel like that's so obviously part and parcel of being subservient. I don't think it's any newsflash why many orthodox Mormon guys don't date ambitious women -- they don't want someone whose career is a priority. I got dumped like a hot potato by a guy who could not reconcile his own ambition (he's in a top 10 law program now), and thus, his attraction to intelligent women, and his desire for a hausfraulein. He married a girl who does nothing but raise their kid and make crafts. I still hate her and think she's kind of a harpy but on the other hand I think it's pretty unfair that she has had no chance to pursue her own academic or professional interests. (Obviously it's good we're not together for many reasons.)

Working is always presented as less than ideal, and education is often presented as some kind of Plan B.

Seems like a lot of the difficulty in dating within Mormonism, for those who don't fit stereotypical gender roles, like women who want to have a career, everything in a relationship has to be relearned. Gone is the assumption that a man will work and a woman will stay home and care for children. Moving outside of the religion can be moving outside of these strictures.

I think it is a bit of a misnomer though (and a result of ossified male gender roles) to couch monetary desires or career aspirations as "ambition." It seems a bit wanted to eat one's cake too to desire someone to have financial ambitions and want to make a lot of money, but not be at all bothered by a woman who does the same. After all, a lot of men who want to be financially successful simply do so because that is how they've been trained men should be.

And there's a lot of metrics of "ambition" that have nothing to do with career.

Marduk wrote:It seems a bit wanting to eat one's cake too to desire someone to have financial ambitions and want to make a lot of money, but not be at all bothered by a woman who does the same.

Can you clarify? Is this sentence addressed to men or women?

I think this quote is awesome and relevant:

Holbrook was trying to figure out whether there were some specific strategies that had allowed the black folks who stuck around in the field to thrive. These are questions that Tyson himself has asked. While he sat on a panel for an event a few years ago, a questioner asked if there might be some "genetic reason" why there were so few women in science. That prompted Tyson to wonder aloud while his field looked the way it does.

"I've never been female, but I've been black all my life and so let me perhaps offer some insight from that perspective. I got to see how the world around me reacted to my expressions of these ambitions. All I can say that is the fact that I wanted to be a scientist, an astrophysicist was, hands-down, the path of most resistance through the forces of society. ... Now here I am, I think, one of the most visible scientists in the land. And I look behind me and I say, 'Where are the others who might have been this?' And they're not there. And I wonder: Where is the blood on the tracks that I happened to survive that others did not simply because of the forces of society that prevent it at every turn?"

Those questions are proving to be as difficult to resolve as any in physics.

From an NPR article on Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Marduk wrote:Seems like a lot of the difficulty in dating within Mormonism, for those who don't fit stereotypical gender roles, like women who want to have a career, everything in a relationship has to be relearned. Gone is the assumption that a man will work and a woman will stay home and care for children. Moving outside of the religion can be moving outside of these strictures.

I think it is a bit of a misnomer though (and a result of ossified male gender roles) to couch monetary desires or career aspirations as "ambition." It seems a bit wanted to eat one's cake too to desire someone to have financial ambitions and want to make a lot of money, but not be at all bothered by a woman who does the same. After all, a lot of men who want to be financially successful simply do so because that is how they've been trained men should be.

And there's a lot of metrics of "ambition" that have nothing to do with career.

I can see why men would struggle with that, yes. And I feel poorly that they've been trained to think this way, just the same as many Mormon women have been trained to be little more than a pretty wife.

That being said, when I say I am ambitious, I mean beyond the scope of a career and money as well. The career I want doesn't pay a ridiculous amount of money. It pays an average blue-collar salary (assuming I had a family to support) at the get-go and a fairly decent salary at the top. When I say ambitious I mean the very definition: "an earnest desire for some type of achievement or distinction, as power, honor, fame, or wealth, and the willingness to strive for its attainment." Right now I'm channeling my ambition into potential distinction (and admittedly, power and fame). Thus, a career is the best way for me to attain that right now. If there were other ways that I felt I wanted to pursue my ambition I would be just as likely to go down those paths as well. It's just that I don't see solely being a stay-at-home mom as the best option for me to fulfill my ambitions.

So no, ambition is not limited to "monetary desires or career aspirations" and that's not inclusive of what I am trying to express.

I agree with Concorde. Writing is (as we all know) not remunerative and even if I get an MBA or master's in marketing I'd be much more interested in researching than just making money for its own sake. However I do want recognition for my work and to be a leader in my field.

Ambition makes me think of Tracy Flick from Election

Digit wrote:Ambition makes me think of Tracy Flick from Election :)

I kind of love that movie.

So how do you balance two equally ambitious partners who have to travel in very different directions (literally and figuratively) to further their ambitions?

Marduk wrote:So how do you balance two equally ambitious partners who have to travel in very different directions (literally and figuratively) to further their ambitions?

I'm imagining a House of Cards-esque relationship. But with less infidelity and murder.

Relevant thread is weird relevant. I will have to re-read from the other perspective, now.

So this could turn into a rant; fair warning.

I know the course of true love ne'er did run smooth, but does it have to be this rough?!

Six weeks ago guy A broke up with me. It hurt of course, probably worse because he said he still loved me (seriously, I don't need to know, that just encourages me). He never really articulated what it was that spelled the death knell, whether it was wanting different things long-term, or if I was too high-strung, or what. I don't hate him or anything, but it does sort of feel like a waste of emotional resources and that I was Shanghaied a bit with the dangling carrot of commitment.

I then had a crisis and as usual my crisis involved lots of men. Guy C decided to chase after me when I was on vacation just to pull away at the last minute. It was very confusing. For better or worse, he's one of my closest friends and confidants. But it always gets muddled up by physical attraction. Unlike A who is a nice inactive Mormon with a wholesome lifestyle, C ... isn't.

I documented a bit of my Tinder date with guy B (the psycho Mormon lawyer guy). That was just an emotional wringer and to answer the thread's titular question: yeah, no.

After B I had a romantic but futile rooftop kiss with guy D, who met a lot of my on-paper requirements but was just using me as part of his quarter-life crisis. He never did text back but I'd rather be flirted with with no follow-up than treated like property.

So I knew B and D were out of the picture, and was trying to navigate what a post-relationship friendship might look like with A. But I still was talking to C every single day. I've known him longer than any of these other guys ... two years to the day that we met cute, he flew out to see me in my musical, which was really, really meaningful to me. I was manically cleaning my apartment (my OCD side can be strong sometimes) and in my mind everything would be perfect, right? So I open the door and yeah, it was fantastic! For once he seemed happy to see me, I wasn't involved with anyone else, it had been a reasonable amount of time since I'd been single, so it felt like maybe this time would be different.

And it was, in a way ... for one thing, both of us are a bit crazy, let's be honest; but it seemed that we were both in an emotionally healthier place. You know, not binge drinking, or smoking (in his case), or impulsively quitting jobs after six months (we both are guilty of that!). He really went all out with our dates, and I hate, hate, hate feeling like I have to pretend with new dates, this constant relationship management and putting on a show, even though I'd consider myself a pretty good actress. It just sucks. So here's a guy who knows literally everything about me, the only one who has been part of my life since before my mother died ... I am pretty weird about emotions, but I thought, "maybe I do love him?" And not just in a shallow love-at-first-sight way ...

Well, he finally broached the topic of our "relationship." I think he thought he was being magnanimous by saying that he wasn't looking to settle down, and that I should "feel free to pursue other people." O_O I mean, he has never said he's in love with me, or wants to date me, even: I can't claim that he has lied, but damned if it isn't confusing. I don't want to date other people. And he freakin' sabotages it if I try! >.<

It just feels like the whole paradigm (find someone to settle down with, Portia!) is WRONG. I tried that, and I'm exactly where I started. I'm sure a lot of people, Mormon or otherwise, would think that I scatter both my physical and emotional affections too thinly, but I feel like that's a double standard and not really relevant to my belief system. (I'm really not promiscuous by contemporary non-religious standards for someone in her mid-twenties.)

And then I popped in this Etta James CD and this is the first song that played ...

if I can't have you...

I can't talk to nobody
unless I'm talking to you
I don't wanna hold nobody
unless i'm holding you

I can't be kissing nobody
unless I'm kissing you
I just don't
I just don't
I just don't want to be bothered with nobody
unless I'm bothered with you

Even though I live in this weird alternate reality where everyone is married or desperately trying to be, I'm just over it. It hurts too much ... and so I'm throwing my boundless energies into becoming the best writer I can be. It's the only thing that I've consistently felt for the past decade is something that I really excel at, love, and actually loves me back.

So, I'm new, and this thread is kind of deadish, but it's a topic close to my heart...

Would I date someone of another faith? That's exactly what I did. I don't recommend it.

My long explanation:

I dated quite a few non-member guys when I was starting my career after college. I didn't get my undergrad anywhere near Utah, so maybe that is why "graduating single" phased me very little. Anyways, the non member guys were very aware I was Mormon and knew I had certain standards that I kept. BUT anytime anything regarding the law of chastity came up it was this giant big fat deal that made me instantly untouchable or I became the weird sister/nun they needed to keep pure. Gross.

I did find one guy who was extremely catholic and even told me on our first date that he was "saving himself" which was kind of weird for a first date but I went with it because he looked like a movie star. Later in our relationship I found out he wasn't really as committed to "saving himself" as I was in to keeping the law of chastity. That was too complicated for me so we parted ways.

At this point, einstein's definition of insanity comes to mind...but I kept on trying.

Eventually, I came across a talk that changed my mind about how I was dating. I can't remember it exactly because I don't keep a journal (just one more thing I need to change). I came to the conclusion that what I really wanted, was just not going to happen with a non-member.

I knew I could have a satisfying and healthy relationship with a man not of my faith. I knew I could potentially raise beautiful and wonderful children with a non member man as well. And who knows, those pretend children could have turned out to be great hypothetical missionaries some day. The potential for greatness was not ever in question. But I didn't want that. I wanted the temple and the sealing covenants. I found comfort in them. Having experienced several close family member deaths, those sealing covenants have become something I cling to for comfort. I knew I needed that emotionally as well as spiritually.

Of course, there would always be the potential for my hypothetical non member spouse to join the church or to be sealed to me after we both passed. But that was not going to bring me comfort. It works for some and I do not doubt that. Not that my stamp of approval matters, but I actually believe some women/men are making the right choice when they marry non-members. Dating and marriage will always be a game where the decisions you make should be done with the help of personal revelation that is sought sincerely. Always.

Not related to the topic, but Portia, Katya, Concorde and anyone I missed...Dating is hard and I'm rooting for you!

NovemberEast wrote:I did find one guy who was extremely catholic and even told me on our first date that he was "saving himself" which was kind of weird for a first date but I went with it because he looked like a movie star. Later in our relationship I found out he wasn't really as committed to "saving himself" as I was in to keeping the law of chastity. That was too complicated for me so we parted ways.

Oh man, my first thought was, "can I get this dude's number?" Sexually conflicted men who look like movie stars is definitely a Thing for me.

NovemberEast wrote:Not related to the topic, but Portia, Katya, Concorde and anyone I missed...Dating is hard and I'm rooting for you!

Awwwwww, thanks. I'm grateful that I live in a city with more men than women, and where they seem to be more focused on the outdoors and creating meaningful connections than sizing up women as bags of meat. I'm currently reading a novel by Adelle Waldman, and while well-written, the douche factor of pretty much all the straight males of Brooklyn of this work sickens me. (Of course it's fiction; one of my good friends married a trust fund guy who is pretty much the Nicest Husband and they live in Park Slope, but it's the principle of giving women numerical "ratings." The extremely, ah, impersonal sex doesn't help my impression of wanting to live there either, but I am just the type of conventional bourgeois the characters despise.)

Welcome to the boardboard, NovemberEast. Nice post.

Portia wrote: Oh man, my first thought was, "can I get this dude's number?" Sexually conflicted men who look like movie stars is definitely a Thing for me.

I do take you seriously, Portia. Should I really?

Not related to the topic, but Portia, Katya, Concorde and anyone I missed...Dating is hard and I'm rooting for you!

Hah, thanks. Things have changed since I posted my impassioned rant in this thread. I've now been dating my boyfriend for about a month, and we'd been seeing each other non-exclusively for about four months previous to the exclusivity. And I actually really quite like him. He's a reallllly good guy and while I'm not rushing things in the slightest, I don't see any issues so far that would be dealbreakers for me. He's Mormon, which is really nice, considering that I'd been going on casual dates with non-members and realizing that I actually wanted to marry a Mormon guy more than I thought I had. He brought me a slice of pumpkin pie to campus today when I told him my day had started off rough.