Love child of the 60's, Misogyny child of the 50's?

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Love child of the 60's, Misogyny child of the 50's?

Post by _harmony »

Simon Belmont wrote:
harmony wrote:"power" is the priesthood.


It is one type, yes.


One type?

Power to make all the decisions.

Power to control the money.

Power to control information.

The only power women have in the church is when men don't want it.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Love child of the 60's, Misogyny child of the 50's?

Post by _RockSlider »

I was reading some interesting things about correlation the other day. Of course one of its purposes was to consolidate leadership positions. I did not realize that pre 1980ish correlation that the Relief Society president reported to a stake level Relief Society position (female) that then reported to a GA level position (woman). Thus the "power" of/for their own organization was in the hands of the "cough-weaker-cough sex" from the bottom to the top!

You've come a long way baby! Oh wait, that's backwards, you've lost ground … oh well never mind.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Love child of the 60's, Misogyny child of the 50's?

Post by _harmony »

Just so ya know: it's entirely possible for a dad/ex-husband to ordain a son without telling the mom it's happening, but it's not possible for mom to arrange for grandpa to name and bless a baby unless the ex-husband/dad says it's okay.

yeah, that's fair.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Simon Belmont

Re: Love child of the 60's, Misogyny child of the 50's?

Post by _Simon Belmont »

harmony wrote:Just so ya know: it's entirely possible for a dad/ex-husband to ordain a son without telling the mom it's happening, but it's not possible for mom to arrange for grandpa to name and bless a baby unless the ex-husband/dad says it's okay.

yeah, that's fair.



There are lots of ecclesiastical traditions involved here that go back hundreds of years. Is it fair? No. Will change happen over night? No. Is it gradually happening? I believe so.
_Simon Belmont

Re: Love child of the 60's, Misogyny child of the 50's?

Post by _Simon Belmont »

I was informed my opinion was offensive, so I am changing it.

Women are not different from men, aside from anatomy. They are not baby factories. They are not nursemaids for child-rearing. They hold no special place in the minds and hearts of anyone, anywhere. They are on the same level as men, always have been, always will be.

Thank you.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Love child of the 60's, Misogyny child of the 50's?

Post by _harmony »

Simon Belmont wrote:
harmony wrote:Just so ya know: it's entirely possible for a dad/ex-husband to ordain a son without telling the mom it's happening, but it's not possible for mom to arrange for grandpa to name and bless a baby unless the ex-husband/dad says it's okay.

yeah, that's fair.



There are lots of ecclesiastical traditions involved here that go back hundreds of years. Is it fair? No. Will change happen over night? No. Is it gradually happening? I believe so.


There is no place for "tradition" in a church that claims ongoing revelation.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Re: Love child of the 60's, Misogyny child of the 50's?

Post by _asbestosman »

Simon Belmont wrote:They hold no special place in the minds and hearts of anyone, anywhere.

With that in mind, Happy Mother's Day!


Why the need to be so extreme? The problem isn't the existence of differences, but rather culturally-invented differences which lead to artificial barriers to career, empowerment, and overall opportunity. It hurts both sides. I very much resent that mothers almost always get physical custody of children plus child support. If women were equal to men, then maybe men would be as likely to get custody and child support. Too bad for us, the world doesn't work that way. Oh, and if you're a man accused of abusing a woman or child, it's harder to defend yourself. Either one of these unequal issues should be incentive enough for any man with a brain to fight for true equality, but any man with a heart would fight for it because it's the right thing to do--removing nonsensical barriers to opportunity.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Love child of the 60's, Misogyny child of the 50's?

Post by _RockSlider »

asbestosman wrote:Why the need to be so extreme? The problem isn't the existence of differences, but rather culturally-invented differences which lead to artificial barriers to career, empowerment, and overall opportunity. It hurts both sides. I very much resent that mothers almost always get physical custody of children plus child support. If women were equal to men, then maybe men would be as likely to get custody and child support. Too bad for us, the world doesn't work that way. Oh, and if you're a man accused of abusing a woman or child, it's harder to defend yourself. Either one of these unequal issues should be incentive enough for any man with a brain to fight for true equality, but any man with a heart would fight for it because it's the right thing to do--removing nonsensical barriers to opportunity.


some very good points there asbestosman
_Simon Belmont

Re: Love child of the 60's, Misogyny child of the 50's?

Post by _Simon Belmont »

You know what?

I cannot go around walking on eggshells with the overly sensitive on this thread. I cannot please everyone, but at least I can be true to myself:

I do believe that womenhood is special. It is almost as if, during the creation process when God created Adam, he thought to himself "hmmm, pretty good, but I can do better" and then created eve. My mother is one of the most amazing women I have ever known. My wife and daughters are equally amazing -- they are certainly better than me, and they are special.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Love child of the 60's, Misogyny child of the 50's?

Post by _harmony »

asbestosman wrote:
Simon Belmont wrote:They hold no special place in the minds and hearts of anyone, anywhere.

With that in mind, Happy Mother's Day!


Why the need to be so extreme? The problem isn't the existence of differences, but rather culturally-invented differences which lead to artificial barriers to career, empowerment, and overall opportunity. It hurts both sides. I very much resent that mothers almost always get physical custody of children plus child support. If women were equal to men, then maybe men would be as likely to get custody and child support. Too bad for us, the world doesn't work that way. Oh, and if you're a man accused of abusing a woman or child, it's harder to defend yourself. Either one of these unequal issues should be incentive enough for any man with a brain to fight for true equality, but any man with a heart would fight for it because it's the right thing to do--removing nonsensical barriers to opportunity.


If women were equal to men, men wouldn't be more likely to get upper management jobs above equally qualified women. We'd have a woman president. We'd have women who played baseball. We'd have professional motherhood without the stigma of AFDC. We'd have male hotel maids.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Post Reply