The reason I'm sympathetic to feminism is shitty treatment. Shitty treatment motivates the bulk of my dissent in all things, and women have been on the receiving end of it from the very beginning.

The following verse is from the first story of the first people in our religious culture. Genesis 3:12

"And the man said, the woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."

[...Adam is] certainly a Mormon. I can see now why they think he's white. He turns in his girlfriend to save his own ass. I saw a guy do that on "Cops" one time. He let his girlfriend take the possession charges for narcotics. The cop was as disgusted as I was. That's Adam, ratted out on his old lady. Mormons revere him as a role model. Brigham Young said Adam was God in the flesh.

I was raised in a Mormon patriarchy that gave no notice of the plight of constantly pregnant women and their huge broods. It was shitty treatment, which brings me back to the start. Women deserve to dream and achieve and lead. Those who disagree with me are doo doo heads.

[Moderator Note: I removed a slight political reference. It doesn't change the sense of the sentences].



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2019 10:09PM by maude.

Speaking of Adam, what’s the Adam - God doctrine? I think it might be old doctrine though, like the black skin curse. I forgot all about it; for some reason after reading your post, it came back to me.

Joseph Smith once said that Adam was a god. Brigham Young and some others heard that, and Brigham started teaching that Adam was not just a god but God. Orson Hyde and one or two others contradicted that when everyone was in Utah, but what is an Orson when you have a Brigham?

The Adam-God doctrine was, at Brigham's behest, written into the St. George temple ceremony. People, including McConkie, have subsequently tried to deny it, but the records of the Q15 discussions (reproduced in,for example, The Mysteries of Godliness by Buerger) and the transcript of the temple ceremony are still available.

I'm not sure that Mormons teach that; I'm not sure that they emphasize it. But it was doctrine.

(But what do I know--I'm a Baptist!)

Forgive me if I'm being too literal here, but . . .

I'm using the same terminology that Gordon Hinckley used when denying the "man-god" doctrine on Larry King. It's my way of indicating that the present denials of the Adam-God theory are completely disingenuous.

Nah, we are both paraphrasing his sentiments.

What he said was "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."

Hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha

doo doo heads... Gee Don, where have I seen this before?

Seriously though, I appreciate your words and I'm glad I

know you.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t


Poo Poo, doo doo. we don't need to split hairs , right?

I once had to subdue and cuff an "EDP" ("Emotionally Disturbed Person," i.e. whackjob) in a cell. He was having a very happy time painting the cell walls with his poo, and was determined to complete his messterpiece. Not THAT was a doo-doo fight.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I once had to subdue and cuff an "EDP"
> ("Emotionally Disturbed Person," i.e. whackjob) in
> a cell. He was having a very happy time painting
> the cell walls with his poo, and was determined to
> complete his messterpiece. Not THAT was a doo-doo
> fight.


OMG !!!!!!! you earn every penny you get in your job. Thank you.

I figure that event was 20 years ago. On reconsideration, I should have just let him be, and maintenance could steam clean the cell in the morning. I was young and brash. I couldn't possibly have pulled that off today, and I'd have the better sense to to try it.

And for Caffiend: I have a niece who works in the UK as a mental health nurse who talks about her patients "being creative with poo"... It makes me glad I'm not a mental health nurse.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2019 08:16AM by Soft Machine.

Who could of thought that religion could be so confusing and complicated?

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Women deserve
> to dream and achieve and lead. Those who disagree
> with me are doo doo heads.

As the parent of three beautiful female humans I heartily agree.

The funny thing about gender is how it enslaves and not frees the human mind.

If a person choses to receive joy in the gender they identify with I see it as about as great a thing as their identity with a religion.

Hopefully humans can be less trapped in their reproductivity in their expressions of personality and beauty of being. Reproduction is important for our continuity but does not require genders - just caring people caring about future generations not gender identifications.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2019 11:50AM by Elder Berry.

Sorry, we posted at the same time and I missed this comment in regards to my comment of no one commenting on the subject of female subjugation.

Thank you!

Lori C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you!

You are welcome. I'm eating lunch and I see this slide show. I'm going through it and hit this.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/21-women-who-shattered-barriers-and-paved-the-way-for-future-generations/ss-BBROAiI?ocid=spartandhp#image=13

Image 13. What a disappointment.

None of these comments refers to the comments regarding the horrid treatment of women in the church. The constant pregnancies and unpaid domestic labor for life. Why is it so hard to talk about this? Could it be there are those who benefit from this status quo? Could it be that women heavy laden with procreation are not going to call upon. Family funds to further her desires in life therefore not challenging the fragile egos of the men? I think so.

A pregnant woman with small children is not a threat to male dominance in this culture. She has diapers to change.

I think there is still much work to be done.

Thank you Don.

Lori C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> None of these comments refers to the comments
> regarding the horrid treatment of women in the
> church. The constant pregnancies and unpaid
> domestic labor for life. Why is it so hard to talk
> about this? Could it be there are those who
> benefit from this status quo? Could it be that
> women heavy laden with procreation are not going
> to call upon. Family funds to further her desires
> in life therefore not challenging the fragile egos
> of the men? I think so.
>
> A pregnant woman with small children is not a
> threat to male dominance in this culture. She has
> diapers to change.
>
> I think there is still much work to be done.
>
> Thank you Don.

So true Lori C.

You are very welcome. I have witnessed this over and over in the X wanna community that men really have to do a lot of personal work to get to the point that they view women as equals, meaning that women can choose not to have children at all. Furthermore women can choose not to marry men and not to become a domestic slave. I think a lot of men don’t like that because they think that they are entitled to a woman from the time they’re very small boys. And expecting a “woman“ in their adult life means free domestic service, cooking cleaning serving, sex, childbirth, childcare, and complete 100% support in whatever marvelous career he chooses. Meaning where ever he goes to work she will follow, whatever calling he takes in the church, she will follow, and she will be happy about it, and not make any waves, and not expect anything in return.

This mindset is all too prevalent and I know there are many men who have already started to do their work on rewiring their brains to see women as equals and I commend them, however there is much more work to be done.

Lori C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This mindset is all too prevalent and I know there
> are many men who have already started to do their
> work on rewiring their brains to see women as
> equals and I commend them, however there is much
> more work to be done.

It is extremely difficult to do especially given my childhood reinforcement of patriarchy.

On the positive note from my rearing, I had a visceral reaction to the "Mormons are the best people" argument so I mentally was more aligned with a "them" empathy than the "us" one.

But I am far from finished working. I will probably go to my grave with sexism in me.

Thank you for speaking your truth today. It was refreshing. It is hard as hell to hear, but still truth. Boys are taught they are entitled to girls and girls lives and bodies to serve and better your life.

Sigh. Sometimes it is painful to be a woman and be awake to all of this.

Thanks.

Last night I attended a class which was entirely female, apart from me. They spent most of their time complaining about how evil men were. I kept quiet while all this was going on, more or less and then I told them I had no desire to come back. Some of them seemed surprised by me saying this. However, they effectively acted as if I wasn't there.

I will be taking my money elsewhere. That kind of situation has nothing ro offer me.

It is interesting to contemplate how this situation would have worked out if the roles were reversed - all men and one woman, with all the men complaining about women.

I suppose church leadership is mostly like the latter aince women are excluded from most leadership positions.

We do not have an "equal society" in the west. In some situations, men are clearly dominant over women, but in others, women are clearly dominant over men. I find it very rare that one comes across somewhere where the two are treated equally (although some of worst offenders on both sides pretend that they do.)

OK, Jordan, in a thread several weeks I commented on referring to an adult woman as a girl in a subject line: "At 23 years old, wouldn't "missing SLC woman..." be both more accurate and appropriate?". That was the entirety of my comment. Nothing else was stated or implied.

Your reply (one of ten, you really went OCD about it) was: "We're told that calling a young woman a "girl" is evil, and apparently more important than the fact she is missing and possibly dead."


It appears you like to throw around the word "evil". I would take your claims of evil speaking of the Lard's Anointed Gender with a large grain of salt. You have a tendency to exaggerate.

Not equivalent at all. I have been through this elsewhere - the use of girl, and yes, boy too, for adults is not necessarily offensive if it is not used in a contemptuous manner. If someone calls me a boy (with friendly intent), it doesn't bother me. When ir comes down to it, terms such as man and woman can likewise be terms of abuse. Depends on context. I spent much of my early twenties being referred to as a boy or young man etc - nothing wrong with that.

It might surprise you, but I largely kept my mouth shut during all of this anti-male ranting. It wasn't directed at particular males but was very generalized, and boiled down to one of them having had a bad break up some time ago. I did make one weak remark about troubles in marriage not being a one way street, but I waited until the end to say I wouldn't be coming back. I also pointed out if the gender roles were reversed, it would not be acceptable.

It seems patently clear that there is little equality in society. In areas where men are not dominant, women usually end up becoming dominant, instead of a level playing field between the two.

BoJ is correct.

You have used all sorts of deprecating words for women on this board, like your various permutations of my name, calling women "girls," calling me "Mauvereen," etc. Now, after having acknowledged that "Mauvereen" is used as an insult, you turn around and say those words are neutral.

You can't have it both ways.

Why on earth he would post to this thread is beyond me.

It seems strangely defensive, doesn't it?

As if saying women deserve human rights is somehow an insult to him.

I wonder what breed of human women are? ;)

I think that would be a "sub-breed."

It's pretty simple. To share that story. He think it makes him look good to have sat quietly in a group of women, holding his tongue while they vent about their experiences with men, and chastising them at the end for their egregious, unequal behavior. It's a standard, "look at me" story.

You now because women in today's world have nothing to complain about and aren't allowed to complain should they want equality, they are supposed to forget all of history in the name of equality.

I especially like his last line. What does it even mean? "In areas where men are not dominant, women usually end up becoming dominant, instead of a level playing field between the two." Does that mean that in groups or organizations, if a man isn't the leader a woman can't be out of respect for equality? It seems to be a blatant statement that if a man isn't "dominant" then it's a bad thing if a woman is.

BTW, I have in fact been in situations where the group was overwhelmingly male and they were complaining about uppity women. One notable case was a small software company I worked for in the 1990s. It had 35 software engineers, all white Mormon males. A large subgroup of them were complaining at lunch one day about some equal pay initiative or something like that that had been in the news, and they were incensed at how women were being unfairly promoted.

This from a group where zero percent of the tech staff were women. There were two women doing art for the CD sleeve, 2 women formed the HR department and an executive assistant (yes, two women filling 3 jobs). There were 5 male executives, and that was the entire company.

Yeah, the men had it hard. The level of hostility seemed ridiculously over the top.

I'll save other stories for another day.

"Last night I attended a class which was entirely female, apart from me. They spent most of their time complaining about how evil men were. I kept quiet while all this was going on, more or less and then I told them I had no desire to come back. Some of them seemed surprised by me saying this. However, they effectively acted as if I wasn't there."

Oh, so you attended this class. I was interested too!

https://www.tolerance.org/classroom-resources/tolerance-lessons/sexism-from-identification-to-activism

Sorry about that political reference, maude. I posted this to facebook, and about an hour or two later, I was reported for hate speech. Not for this post, but one where I made fun of the fraudulent preacher, Jim Bakker. I do wonder if this post was the trigger. Hard to believe Bakker fans were following a satire thread. Life is amusing.

I agree. The one thing I think though is that mormonism is an equal opportunity abuser for men and women. Just depends on who you are, what type of personality you have. I'd hate to be a man in mormonism. I wanted to be a mother and wife. Then I found out I didn't like it.

The way they abused me was to make it my job to save a man and it is still my job to save him. I failed. Not him.

But I've seen it happen to men, too. Not exactly what I've been through, but what Don has been through, what his brother has been through.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2019 03:50PM by cl2.

Historical note: the 19th Amendment (Women's Suffrage) was never endorsed by either major political party. The only endorsement it ever got was from the Progressive "Bull Moose" Party when former Republican Theodore Roosevelt ran in 1912. He was close friends with Jane Addams, who convinced him it was the right thing to do.

Women's suffrage was staunchly opposed by the liquor industry, because they were afraid it would lead to the passage of Prohibition. When the Prohibition amendment passed anyway, they dropped their opposition to women getting the vote, and the 19th Amendment passed within the year, as I recall. Ironically, it was strongly opposed by southern Democrats, who repeatedly defeated passage in the Senate by narrow margins. It was voted on 5 times in 1919.

Finally, it passed on June 4, 1919
Democrats in favor: 19 of 53
Republicans in favor: 37 of 42
(there were 96 senators, one was independent. I don't know how the independent voted, but my point is that it passed only because of overwhelming Republican support. Interesting)

It was ratified by 22 states within the remaining 6 months of 1919, and the remaining 14 states needed for full ratification by August 1920, in time for the 1920 election that November. Utah ratified the amendment in September, 1919, three months after the US Senate passed it and sent it to the states.

On s personal note, my grandmother was a married mother of 4 before she could legally vote in this, the land of the free and home of the brave. And it took 72 years to convince male legislators that allowing women to vote was an acceptable thing to do. It was often a pitched battle during those 72 years.