If women thought and acted like men, would men like it and respect women?
If women thought and acted like men, would men like it and respect women?
Try to imagine the thoughts going through this woman’s mind, which to me is a good representation of what men are thinking as they go through their normal day to day interactions with women.
I could not find any clips of women speaking as these men do, but if you can imagine a woman saying the same type of things about men, what would you think of those women?
Imagine if the following were women speaking of men instead of men speaking of women.
The second century St. Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman."
The Church father Tertullian explained why women deserve their status as despised and inferior human beings:
"And do you not know that you are an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert that is, death even the Son of God had to die."
The sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius, wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy, "Woman is a temple built upon a sewer."
In the tenth century Odo of Cluny declared, "To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure..."
St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that God had made a mistake in creating woman: "nothing [deficient] or defective should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so woman ought not to have been produced then."
And my favorite.
“If a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing - she is there to do it.”
- Martin Luther
My fellow men.
What would you tell any woman who talked and acted the way the men shown above talked and acted?
If you would not respect such women, what makes you think that men deserve women’s respect for the way we think?
Well, this isn't technically a religious thing, but I appreciate how you tried to relate it.
There's literally too much to say here to have a good discussion, if we take it as a whole. Maybe I'll find a niche area of this that I want to delve into. Until then, to the TED talk...not that one in particular, necessarily, but TED in general. A slight at picking the low hanging fruit to debate against, but I at least see the point you're making.
Re: If women thought and acted like men, would men like it and respect women?
Mormons believe the opposite. We think men are so naturally unrighteous that they require another set of rules that they have to follow because they are too immature to choose the right path completely and wholly on their own. The priesthood, in Mormonism, is a burden and it condemns us if we are unrighteous or misuse our privileges as priesthood holders.
"The Priesthood", as it is called, is the holy authority to act it God's name. It is the literal power of God.
Women do not need this responsibility in this life because there were generally much more righteous in the Preexistence (we have existed, always). Beyond that, the doctrine becomes fuzzy. Some think we chose our gender before birth. Some think God assigned our gender. I would like to think it was both of those.
Anyway, recently, our church had a backlash against the sexism towards women. A lot of men were saying that the women should be subservient to the men and they should obey their husbands. These complaints made it to the top (the structure and decrees work similar to the Papal decrees when these things come up). Not only were the men told they were wrong, they were admonished for their unrighteousness. They used the idea of a "help-meet" which is an equal, not a lesser. They were then told (to paraphrase), "you men were too unrighteous to be called to live this life as women, in the preexistence. You have the priesthood and the priesthood rules to guide your more unrighteous spirits to be on a higher path."
That can also be considered sexist against the males but it is part of our belief system.
So, yeah, not all Christians belief in the idea that women are lesser. We actually think the opposite.
This is also why our women generally do not hold The Priesthood while on the earth: they have no need for those rules and responsibilities.
But I've had to disassociate what you say Mormonism is with what I see elsewhere. Not that any one account is the best or correct one, but yours is hardly the only I see.
It's a personal story, but there's some cogent points made in it, and it seems to paint the opposite picture of what you're saying, including quotes from several influential Mormon leaders.
The linked essay is by "Mr. Deity," a popular skeptic thinker who runs an ongoing show via his website and youtube channel. He's also very publicly against Mormonism, having come from a Mormon background. This is hardly his only attack on it, but touches on this subject better than most.
You do have to disassociate yourself from what I say regarding Mormonism. Christianity teaches, above all, services to others and unfailing love. That doesn't stop them from hating on gays, does it?
I have a saying about Mormons: you can be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but that does not mean you are actually a saint.
The average Mormon is 50% active at church, judgmental, occasionally pays tithing, occasionally does charity work, puts on a pretty face for their peers, and is self-righteous.
That's not the type of Mormon that would actually listen to a message regarding a sexist trend: they'll continue doing what they want to do despite what the official beliefs are.
That's how it is in most religions.
I teach the official beliefs and doctrines of my church and I used to be a Sunday School teacher. You won't see me filling members' heads with folk-beliefs and pop-Mormon positions.
Not only is that a sick and twisted interpretation of what that meant (that a person should lose their life before their virtue), this person is just not right. They are...off? Something is broken in their head.
Those quotes clearly refer to standing up for righteousness even if it meant the loss of your life. It has nothing to do with suicide after you've broken the law of chastity. That's just his sick way of making himself feel better about not wanting to be a Mormon.
Also, his quote about the "brother" (that's what we call each other at church: brother and sister) saying he would not think his wife lost any virtue if she were raped but his wife would think so, is pretty normal. Have you known a woman that has been raped? I have. They feel awful, dirty, disgusting, etc. Depression is common and if they do not get proper support and help, a survivor of a bad rape can turn to suicide as a solution. But that author twisted that man's words into something to fit his agenda.
I'm all for healthy criticism of my beliefs. But not what he's doing. I'll be the first to state problems with Mormonism in an "outside of church" setting. But I'll also be the first to call bullsh*t, bullsh*t.
For me, calling out Mormons for being self-righteous and gay-bashers is an accurate statement. Saying that they generally believe a person should commit suicide if they break the law of chastity is a very inaccurate statement; I don't really think anyone believes that that is an active Mormon. No Mormon believes a woman loses virtue for being raped. That's a niche Muslim thing. If we truly believed that, then why do we think it is okay to get an abortion for rape?
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Aug 26th, 2013 at 07:55 PM
Interesting rebuttal; thanks. I won't defend Mr. Deity necessarily, it's his interpretation and experience, not mine, but that was one among many things he's had to say about Mormonism, so it's not only that.
I understand that deviant interpretations aren't original or official doctrine, and that an abhorrent minority shouldn't damn an entire belief system, but ambiguity and interpretation is part of the problem with any scripture, no?
It's also hard to extricate "here's how it is" from "here's how I wish it was" or "here's how I personally see it." So it isn't that I don't trust you. I do. But we both know there's always another side to any argument, and the collective stink that occasionally surfaces around Mormonism means that it's not always an isolated thing.
And of course, we both understand that I disagree with the crux of any of this - that an institution or man-made doctrine has any truth concerning the divine and its supposed attributes or laws - but we're of course presuming that much for the sake of a more relevant discussion.
I try my very best to stick to the canonized doctrine and defer to official statements and decrees from the leadership (made in official capacities, not off-the-hand cuff statements that some anti-Mormons like to take out of context). My goal is to stop the B.S. folk beliefs from continually perpatuating themselves in our belief structure.
Let me give you an example that will make you cringe:
One of our Priesthood instructors started going off on a tangent about why bad things happen. He started to inject a pseudo-Baptist belief that bad things happen to people because they have done something wrong and we just don't know about it. No where is that in Mormon Doctrine or beliefs. It is, however, one of the folk beliefs in some of the baptist circles and is certainly still hanging around Mormon folk beliefs (I blame the converts bringing their own sh*tty ideas into our church ).
I directed him to the New Testament scripture that states it rains on both the just and unjust. It's like a D&D game: it's just a good or a bad dice roll we are given and is part of life. We cannot automatically assume that events that are clearly out of our hands (bad weather, earthquakes, etc) are always the fault of the victims. In fact, we should never assume that because that's passing a judgment...which is a sin and unrighteous. AHA!
Part of religion is the idea that scripture is interpretative. The great thing about Mormonism is we believe everything has mistakes or is imperfect (because it came from God through man...man being imperfect by design).
Well, "B.S. folk beliefs" is a broad term. Technically, EVERY belief is a BS folk belief to someone. But I see what you're saying.
Gonna tangent here because I think we're done with the original points we were discussing. But I actually laughed at this response. Not because of any of the points you made, but because of how reasonable it all is. Rains on the just and unjust...ok, sure, you're pointing to Scripture. But what you're really doing is saying that universal laws don't adhere to some human understanding of karmic retribution. It's common sense, but wrapped in the garb of religiosity.
I've long said that the only parts of religion I can agree with are the ones that don't actually need religion. Jesus was the Son of God? Callin' shenanigans. Love one another? Yeah, ok, that one's fine. Rains on the just and the unjust? Duh, it's an impartial causal universe. Joey Smith was gifted some sacred tablets by God? Lulz. But in both of those examples, one requires faith/religion/supernatural/etc. and the other is just decent life advice or practical observation.
Even the stuff about the fallibility of Man. It's a nice caveat, and a nice way to account for the human error that we know exists in nearly everything; but it makes the "BS parts" (according to me) of the whole thing easier to swallow.
What I'm saying is, you're the most acceptable type of devout believer imo. You're also among the most dangerous, viewed from another perspective, because you have the intellectual gift that has allowed scholars to dress the ridiculous in the reasonable for centuries. It's the rational nuance that will always escape the JIA's of the world. I was good at this too, once upon a time, until I realized that I was finding justifications that fit my beliefs, instead of A. working backward to let the logic dictate beliefs, not vice versa; and B. seeking out logic that went against what I thought to have a true comparison.
So...you're welcome? I dunno, hopefully that was more complimentary than insulting. Your post set off some nostalgia signals in me, from back when I was a Catholic apologist. It's the sort of thing I've said before in my life, and I got a chuckle out of it.
+1 for the D&D reference though. I just found 1-sided dice on a website the other day...I got more excited than I should have.
No, it's all good. I picture you as a potential outcome of my "existential journey". I took the same journey as you did but fell on the other side of the agnostic coin. You're best described as an agnostic atheist (lol..I know.."don't start that again") and I an agnostic theist. But I'm closer to the agnostic center than the theistic pole. I just happened to fall a bit closer than you, to the theistic side when all things were said and done.
I think most people who are not close-minded go through the same journey we have. They then decide how they want to go through life after they've reached the end of that self-discovery journey.
Also, it helps if you know that I am very deistic in my belief in the nature of God. God hardly does anything in this universe. Then my positions about the "just and unjust" thing makes more sense because that extends into many of my beliefs.
Edit - Oh yeah, the D&D thing I find is quite perfect. Except the die of life is a trillion sided die and God gets the benefit of affecting any dice role but rarely does.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Aug 27th, 2013 at 02:20 PM
If women thought and acted like men, would men like it and respect women?
When I used to take the train to work, if there was a seat next to a man, more often than not, the man would hunker down, as if trying to root himself into his spot. If there was a seat next to a woman, she would shuffle over a bit to make more room.
Women aren't just the best thing since sliced bread; if it weren't for women, there'd be no sliced bread.
I like and respect women just the way they are...in most aspects. The only thing that drives me nuts about them (in a bad way) is when they're upset over a problem. Men want and seek solutions right away. To me, that seems the logical, most practical path.
Women: "Acknowledge my feelings first, that I'm upset, then help me fix the problem." (And of course, they don't actually say this: men are "supposed" to intuit it...just like another woman).
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
It's about 10x easier to remain agnostic or deistic. It's affectively just living a secular life anyway, and doesn't come with many of the drawbacks of atheism. I feel like that's why a lot of people end up settling in that area when they leave religion. I do honestly feel like the end result of intense scrutiny and education on most religious topics eventually leads to at least a soft form of atheism. But most stop short because once you reach a point where you don't feel like it's an active thing in your life, why bother to keep going, especially when the societal benefits of remaining vaguely theistic are well-documented.
That one of the reasons I decided to stick with practicing a religion was due to the research that showed it was beneificial (health and and psychology stuff)?
Also, I'm hungry. I am going to go eat and thank the Lord for the food that I paid for with the money I earned from my job.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 26th, 2013 02:01 PM
to the TED talk...not that one in particular, necessarily, but TED in general. A slight 
at picking the low hanging fruit to debate against, but I at least see the point you're making.
).
I dunno, hopefully that was more complimentary than insulting. Your post set off some nostalgia signals in me, from back when I was a Catholic apologist. It's the sort of thing I've said before in my life, and I got a chuckle out of it.
