#56581 Divine purpose of women

[vorpal blade]

Thank you, Curious Physics Minor, for being the calm voice of reason.

[NerdGirl]

Yeah, I'll second that.

I don't mean to offend anyone, and I realize that there are certainly individuals in the church who are very sexist (and racist, homophobic, and whatever else). But God is not a sexist, and I feel like sometimes people just look for things to get offended by (I don't necessarily mean this specific question-asker). I didn't see the devotional in question, but from the description in the DU article, it sounds like the speaker's message was quite the opposite of women being inferior to men. Women and men are different. Women and men are equal. Women and men can't be exalted without each other. I thought it sounded like kind of neat talk, actually, since he talked about Heavenly Mother. If you think someone in the church is saying that women are inferior, then either they are wrong or you are misinterpreting them. The important thing is what God thinks, and we know what God thinks. I could list a bunch of scriptures about how God is no respecter of persons and men and women are alike to Him.

The reason this bugs me so much is that I have been accused way too many times of being anti-feminist because I don't spend my time ranting about how the church is keeping women down. Yeah, I'm 27, unmarried, and working on a phd in astrophysics - I've really sold out to the patriarchy! But the minute I tell some of these people that I truly want to be a wife and mother and that that's a very high priority in my life, they start accusing me of glorifying oppressive gender roles and all that. I care deeply about women's rights and human rights. I've been an active member of Amnesty International for about 15 years now. I just think there are hundreds of women's rights issues in the world that are infinitely more deserving of my attention than making sure that the general authorities never say anything that could be misinterpreted or hurt anyone's feelings. As an LDS woman, I do not feel that God or the church sees me as inferior in any way. The gospel gives me the opportunity to reach the highest potential I possibly can - and that highest potential is the same for men and women. We just have to reach it together.

[yellow m&m]

I actually was there for that devotional, and I can say that it was amazing. There was nothing sexist about it. If anything, it talked about how man is nothing without woman. I really don't know what I'm trying to say (this happens a lot and is why I don't comment more here) except I would reccomend reading the full text or listening to it when it's availiable. It was an amazing devotional.

[Marduk]

I was going to post this comment in the soapbox section, but as it is (somewhat) relevant here, I think I"ll mention it.

No, I don't think the comment was sexist. CPM did well to point out the same statement is true of men. I do think it is sexist that men aren't taught and encouraged more in our society to be good husbands and fathers, and that that is their primary role. That men are encouraged to pursue careers that excessively take them away from that role is an example of sexism in society.

[wired]

I will third the props to CPM.

To expand on NerdGirl's comments, I feel like there are people at BYU who want to interpret things in the worst possible light instead of the best possible light. For instance, a letter to the editor discussed how women should be offended by men opening the door for them because it is a sign of male dominance (my words, not her's; however, it conveys the message pretty accurately). Really? Yes, if you want, you could interpret it that way. However, much more likely is that a guy (like myself) is trying be kind and is opening the door for you because you are close behind me and it is a kind gesture.

I have disagreed with most of Queen Alice's assessment of the situation and her belief's of what "feminism" entails. The Church preaches equitable treatment of women, but it does NOT support feminism in the classic sense of feminism.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, you can see the patent difference between the Church's treatment of women and the feminist view.

he second wave (1960s-1980s) was concerned with gender inequality in laws and culture. It built on what had been achieved in the First Wave, and began adapting the ideas to America. Simone de Beauvoir is associated with this wave because of her idea of women as "the other". This idea was touched on in the writing of Woolf, and was adapted to apply not only to the gender roles of women in the household or at work, but also their sexuality. Beauvoir set the tone for later Feminist theory.[6]

The second wave of feminist activity began in the early 1960s and lasted through the late 1980s. What helped trigger this second wave was the book written by Betty Friedan. "The key event that marked the reemergence of this movement in the postwar era was the surprise popularity of Betty Friedan's 1963 book The Feminine Mystique. Writing as a housewife and mother (though she had had a long story of political activism, as well), Friedan described the problem with no name the dissatisfaction of educated, middle class wives and mothers like herself who, looking at their nice homes and families, wondered guiltily if that was all there was to life was not new; the vague sense of dissatifaction plaguing housewives was a staple topic for women's magazines in the 1950s. But Friedan, instead of blaming individual women for failing to adapt to women's proper role, blamed the role itself and the society that created it" (Norton, Mary Beth, A people A Nation pg 865. 2005 Houghton Mifflin Company New York.)

So while there are most definitely positive parts of the feminist movement (addressing inequality in laws and culture) it most definitely included dissatisfaction with the idea of women being house wives and sexuality.
[/quote]

[Imogen]

wired, i think you misunderstand MOST feminists dissatisfaction with being housewives. when betty friedan wrote the feminine mystique, a woman of a certain class could ONLY be a wife and mother. it was expected. women did not get educations to pursue careers, they got them to be good ornaments for their husbands at parties. THAT was what second wave feminism was dissatisfied with.

but second wave feminism was only the second wave. feminism is at a strange place right now. it's post third wave, but not really in a settled place. feminism is now trying to battle the idea that because some women are successful means that there is no sexism anymore. feminists are focused on sexual assault and having it prosecuted and REALLY fighting societal attitudes that prevent women from going farther. there is a lot of institutional sexism (and racism) that certain people won't be aware of because they don't experience it or it has been made so normalized for them. feminism is really about waking up to your prejudices and trying to fight them.

feminists get a bad rap, and that word is so loaded for some people, but i though queen alice's response was very thoughtful, and reflects many of my feelings as a feminist. i certainly want to be a wife and mother (i have serious baby fever. i can't wait to have kids), but i want to be MUCH MORE than that. i can understand how frustrating it would be to hear that being a wife and mother is woman's most important role. that may not be true for all women. it may be very important, but not MOST important.

[Damasta]

Since we're on this, I have a question for further discussion. (Hopefully it's still related enough to the post that I don't get in trouble for digression). Do you think feminists are justified in both wanting pay and benefits equal to that of men holding the same position and in getting gender-specific benefits such as maternity leave, on-site daycare, nursing breaks, or workload adjustments made for menstruation-related discomforts? In other words, should they be treated equitably in some instances and preferentially in others?

[Imogen]

Since we're on this, I have a question for further discussion. (Hopefully it's still related enough to the post that I don't get in trouble for digression). Do you think feminists are justified in both wanting pay and benefits equal to that of men holding the same position and in getting gender-specific benefits such as maternity leave, on-site daycare, nursing breaks, or workload adjustments made for menstruation-related discomforts? In other words, should they be treated equitably in some instances and preferentially in others?

a lot of those things you say are preferential can actually benefit men equally (daycare, paternity leave, even breaks to feed a young child in daycare at the office can all be given to men and women). the menstruation thing depends on the job. i teach, and can teach just fine with pms, i just have to be more aware of the fact that i'm more sensitive, and if i have cramps i need to sit instead of stand. no biggie. but my period has never been that bad. i've had friends who get such bad cramps they can't even MOVE. in EXTREME cases, they probably need concessions, but i would expect the same concessions to be made for a man with an extremely painful physical issue as well, like chronic back pain or weak knees. so, really, none of those you listed need be gender specific at all.

[cheesecake ice cream]

Race and sex matter. It may sound counterintuitive, but a color-blind society is racist, just as a sex-blind society is sexist (if you ignore the influence of class and beliefs about gender roles). Minorities don’t have lower achievement scores on standardized tests because they’re naturally inferior. If you believe that equal opportunity exists (I don’t, because I believe that the environment impacts your future), then that leaves choice or “minority culture” (which is still environmental, in a way). I don’t think people want to be poor.

Similarly, women don’t get paid 76 cents of every dollar that men make because they are less capable. If I remember correctly from my psychology of gender class, the disparity still holds when you control for career area. Women are paid less because they struggle with gender role conflict in the workplace, whereas they might have more equitable pay if attitudes about gender roles were different. I do think that maternal obligations cause part of the disparity, but only a small part of it.

The differences between men and women are usually overstated. Where biological differences do exist, socialization processes magnify them according to beliefs about gender roles. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy- if you believe that women are incapable of being educated (as we used to), then you won’t educate them because you will think it’s a waste of time.

[C is for]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm not as smart as other people because my goal in life is to stay at home, nurture my children, and cook dinner for my husband.

As far as the original topic goes, I really liked the quote and I don't even think it needs to be restated as "one of the roles" -- I think that's clear. It even makes me feel better about myself (oh, so OLD and so SINGLE, right?) that I can "complete"* men without needing to be married to them. I can elevate and bless my dad, my brother, my friends. I embrace that role.

I'm gonna have to read this talk.


*in quotes because obviously the only person I'll really complete and truly elevate/exalt is my husband. But helping those I know and love become who they can be is kind of like "completing" them.

[Imogen]

you're not less smart, C4. you're goals are just different than other peoples'. i think a lot of times people think if someone's goals are different than their own they must be stupid or a lost person in need of saving. there are feminists like that. it takes just as much energy and intelligence to raise children and take care of a household as it does a career. i know i could never stay home with my children (of course, i see children all day), and i also want the security that two incomes will bring. but i don't think someone is stupid for wanting that.

[Damasta]

a lot of those things you say are preferential can actually benefit men equally (daycare, paternity leave, even breaks to feed a young child in daycare at the office can all be given to men and women).

What is paternity leave?

[cheesecake ice cream]

I’m sorry if I went on a tangent. I personally thought it was relevant to everything. I didn’t mean it to be inflammatory either. I think it’s impossible to express those thoughts without appearing inflammatory.

I feel like what some may call divine attributes of women are sometimes just cultural artifacts that they’ve projected onto the religion, just like we used to project natural inferiority onto women.

[vorpal blade]

Damasta,

Some places, like your federal government, now give men the opportunity to use their sick leave for the care of members of their family who are ill. That might include staying home with a newborn baby. When a woman does that it is called maternity leave. I'm supposing paternity leave is the name given when men stay home for a newborn.

Cheesecake ice cream,

I gave you such a warm welcome last time, and then we didn't hear from you for a while. I thought perhaps your ice cream had melted. Uh, little joke.

Some of things I'm hearing sound like they could have come from a women's study class. I thought it was interesting to read what Dr. Laura said today (March 18, 2010) about such studies. http://www.drlaurablog.com/

Women’s Studies Advocates Are At It Again
March 18, 2010 on 12:00 am

Elizabeth Birmingham, an Assistant Professor of English at North Dakota State University teaches professional writing. These days, American college students need English professors, since most of them use their thumbs to communicate, and don’t know how to write complete sentences. Ms. Birmingham, however, also teaches women’s studies courses, and in a recent essay (where she reviews a few women’s studies books), she mentions me:

“Women’s studies programs are already acutely aware of the ways our courses regularly contain content demonized by right-wing politicians and are laughed at by the media. We study and discuss issues of reproductive rights, sexuality, critical race studies, critical media studies and gender construction, occasionally in the jargon-filled language of the academy. In her nationally syndicated radio program, Dr. Laura Schlessinger counsels parents not to let their children attend colleges with women’s studies programs.”

Damn straight - these courses provide nothing useful, in my opinion, to help young women perform happily in math, science, engineering, music, etc., nor do they contribute to a rejoicing in impending marriage and motherhood. They simply make women cynical and angry and vulgar. Many universities have actually added porn studies to the curriculum because they catch attention and make money - not goals normally attributed to halls of higher learning.

These types of studies are generally hostile to men and to opposing points of view. I’ve gotten enough letters from young women around the country taking these classes who report that all my positions are completely vilified, and I am generally personally defamed, and never once have I been asked to be a visiting lecturer. So much for enlightenment as a motivation for women’s studies programs.

In her essay, Ms. Birmingham quotes:

“From a feminist perspective, the project of masculinity studies can be quite suspect…although most feminists recognize that masculinity is not a natural or essential identity for men, but rather a social construction open to interrogation and change. Some feminists see gender/masculinity studies as a sort of hostile institutional takeover that effectively shifts critical attention away from the conditions of women and returns it to the ‘plight’ of men.”

Wow, wow and…wow. Feminists don’t see masculinity as a real entity - just that men are women with penises who are led astray by right-wing and religious cultural influences to behave in that “bad bad boy” way. Thus the rampant demasculinization of men since the 1960s, and the tendency - the blind tendency - of women to treat their husbands with disrespect and disregard as they are simply the constructs of the evil empire.

I wrote The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands for just these women, so they would wake up and see that their femininity is not a construct of an evil culture, but a blessing to be nurtured in the context of the polarity with masculinity - which, by the way is real and inherent in men, unless it is threatened out of them.

I stand by my position: if you have children ready to go off to an institution of higher learning, make sure it is such, and avoid all colleges with women’s studies programs. They will stunt the ability of your daughters and sons to enjoy their natural instincts and retard their abilities to be content in love relationships with each other in marriage.

I believe BYU allows you to minor in Women's studies.

[Damasta]

Damasta,

Some places, like your federal government, now give men the opportunity to use their sick leave for the care of members of their family who are ill. That might include staying home with a newborn baby. When a woman does that it is called maternity leave. I'm supposing paternity leave is the name given when men stay home for a newborn.

In most cases won't the mother-in-law get sick of them hanging around and chase them out of the house?

Wow, wow and…wow. Feminists don’t see masculinity as a real entity - just that men are women with penises who are led astray by right-wing and religious cultural influences to behave in that “bad bad boy” way. Thus the rampant demasculinization of men since the 1960s, and the tendency - the blind tendency - of women to treat their husbands with disrespect and disregard as they are simply the constructs of the evil empire.

Is that why so many sitcoms (e.g. Home Improvement, King of Queens, Everybody Loves Raymond, &c.) feature intelligent women who have to put up with their moron husbands and who never seem to be the source of conflict in their marriage?

[vorpal blade]

I think you are on to something, Damasta.

[cheesecake ice cream]

I’m sorry that I disappeared like that. Life got a little crazy, and I got depressed. I have a lot of thoughts written down about the other thread, so I promise that I’ll have a response up soon .

I majored in psychology, minored in philosophy, and took Intro to Social Work and the infamous Sociology 113 class. My worldview has been greatly affected by school, but I deny that I have been indoctrinated . I believed in environmentalism, feminism, gay rights, and civil liberties before I arrived at BYU, but psychology changed my beliefs about social welfare, especially for the mentally ill. I trust my thinking, but I’m also open to criticism. If it helps, my PC score is -2.0, -7.13.

I strongly dislike Dr. Laura. She is a woman who misunderstands the history of women. She believes that if there were mistakes in the past, it’s all better now, and that’s baloney. I believe that sex matters as long as traditional gender roles persist and women lack access to education and financial resources independent of men. The lack of financial power disenfranchises women. Usually husbands are nice, but sometimes they’re abusive, and the lack of financial resources makes it complicated and difficult for battered women to just leave. I see much latitude in what political beliefs are consistent with LDS doctrine too. The Proclamation says that the primary responsibility is the nurture of children, not the only responsibility. My uncle is a teacher, and my aunt is an accountant, and their kids are just fine. I also believe that I have an innate capacity to be just as nurturing and sensitive as a woman. If we have different capacities, it is mostly because men and women are socialized differently. I would prefer to see a little more overlap in family responsibilities too. Woman and men have some innate differences, but I think it’s greatly exaggerated. We look at the way things currently are, say that things are naturally that way, and forget the influence of environment. We tell kids to pick their friends carefully because their environment affects them, but for some reason, we don’t apply it to politics.

[Wisteria]

Companies in California are actually legally required to offer their employees paternity leave, which I think is great. Like Marduk says, it helps the father focus more on his primary role of being a husband and father. It's especially great in cases like my sister's, where her mother-in-law is on a mission and our mother is almost bedridden.

[Imogen]

paternity leave is also great for fathers who lose the mother for any number of reasons. we actually have a very high maternal mortality rate for a western nation.

also, vorpal, dr. laura is hardly someone i trust on women's issues. women's studies isn't about hating men. yes some people take it to that extreme, but people do that with all sorts of things (religion for example). women's studies is just that, the study of women and women's issues. you learn a lot about things that don't get talked about in general history. for example, the most interesting things i learned was that there was a woman in congress BEFORE women had the right to vote. and that the suffrage movement wanted to exclude black women so that they could get the right to vote. or that suffrage had moments of EXTREME violence against the women who were fighting for the vote. all stuff i never knew about until college. all stuff i learned in women's studies. it was also a safe place to discuss women's issues without being afraid of being ridiculed.

the thing is, you are of a privileged class. you are straight, white, and male which means sexism won't be as apparent to you because you probably haven't experienced sexism in the same way i have. same with racism. it's just a fact.

dr. laura thinks women should just shut up and take whatever we're given, which is funny because she has directly benefited from women like betty friedan and gloria steinam and all female activists who insisted that women were just as capable and intelligent as men and deserved entry to the same colleges and majors. studies have been done showing how sexism hurts girls. given a math test, girls scored equally with boys. but when the girls were led to believe the test was geared towards boys, they failed. that's a nation-wide problem. girls are led to believe certain things are "for boys" and choose not to pursue those interests. look at math and engineering departments across the country. telling a girl that those things are for boys when she's young will eventually guide her away from those majors when she's in college.

an anecdote as a final thought: i was volunteering at an event yesterday to raise awareness about drunk driving. we had little prizes to give the kids, and i let the kids pick. well one little boy just grabbed a pink pencil gripper and his mom FREAKED OUT. "NOT PINK!! GET A BLUE!!!" she was almost shouting. without fail, all the moms told their sons to get blue toys. anything pink was "bad." a lot of these kids were no more than 2 or 3. they didn't even know their colors. but they were being socialized about what is "for boys" and what is "for girls" at a young age, just like we all are.

[Damasta]

I believe that sex matters as long as traditional gender roles persist...

How do you determine what is an innate gender role and what is a learned gender role? It seems to me that both sides draw their line in the sand and then bicker over whose line is right. Even the so-called learned gender roles didn't arise in a vacuum. So why do they arise and why do they persist unless they are, to some degree, valid and useful? I'm not denying that they can't be taken to extremes, but given their existence and perdurance, eliminating them would be, by definition, an extreme.

studies have been done showing how sexism hurts girls. given a math test, girls scored equally with boys. but when the girls were led to believe the test was geared towards boys, they failed. that's a nation-wide problem.

Did they do the other test? Tell the boys that the test was geared towards girls? Or that the test was geared toward children in the next grade up? Because without proper control experiments like those, the results are meaningless and thus so are the interpretations. In other words, they may have simply shown that children are impressionable, but claimed that only female children are impressionable (which, ironically, would fly in the face of the concept of gender equality).

girls are led to believe certain things are "for boys" and choose not to pursue those interests. look at math and engineering departments across the country. telling a girl that those things are for boys when she's young will eventually guide her away from those majors when she's in college.

Again, this is claiming a hypothesis (i.e. "there are fewer women in hard-science careers because society discourages them") for fact. The alternative hypothesis (i.e. "there are fewer women in hard-science careers because they are naturally less interested in them"), is equally valid until a controlled experiment is performed which determine which hypothesis is valid. You can't just choose a hypothesis and tout it as fact just because you prefer it or it agrees better with your world-view; neither has been proven or disproven.

Let me throw this in. I have a friend who did an internship in Germany. Most of the graduate students were female. Most of the teachers were female. But all five of the directors were male. Was this because of sexism? Were the men muscling the women out of leadership positions? It sure looks like it! Turns out the answer was no. That particular institution went out of its way to recruit some of the female teachers to take leadership positions (all in the name of gender equality), but they all refused because it would take too much time away from their families! Now, that's not to say that that is the case for women everywhere. My point is that the appearance of sexism doesn't sexism make.