Has there ever been a time other than now that women had rights

[foreverafter]

As to whether motherhood is the highest of all callings????

A prophet of God has said that "Motherhood" is the highest & holiest calling & service to be assumed by mankind & that it places her who honors that high calling on the level of Angels.

Of course many women are not righteous & do not honor their high calling & thus they can lose their effectiveness & seriously hurt their children & they will lose their power of procreation in the next life, just as men who aren't righteous & don't honor women & their priesthood will also lose their power in the next life.

[foreverafter]

It is my strongly-felt opinion that the onset of women's rights is the return to the natural order of things, as they were prior to the fall.

I so agree. Also, as one wise seasoned man in the Church said "This is the day of women. The daughters of Zion are rising to the fulness of their eternal natures."

[Faded]

No one said that women weren't important. You, however claimed that they had the same blessings and rights... which is obviously untrue.

As to whether motherhood is the highest of all callings???? Anyone (fertile female) can be a mother - good or bad, smart or dumb, honest or a criminal, gay or straight. One is not "called' to be a mother. One chooses to be a mother. There is a coke-head in my neighborhood that is a mother.

On the other hand, among the worlds billions of inhabitants, only one is called as the Prophet and President. It is ludicrous to speak of motherhood as a higher calling. Many aren't called at all - they just sleep around.

Don't get me wrong. I didn't say motherhood is not important or essential or that it can't be noble and inspiring but hyperbole and wishful thinking doesn't change reality.

So what you are saying is that it is important to put women in their place, tell them they're destined to never ever be as important as men?? Has the time come to drive them all back to where they belong -- pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen?

I think that's arrogant bigoted nonsense. And if a prophet of God has said that motherhood is the highest of all callings and this upsets you, I suppose you should write to Salt Lake and set them all straight.

There are a TON of men in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who need to pull their heads out of their backsides when it comes to their attitudes towards women. A truly sad statistic is this. A study was done among several religious groups to determine which had the highest incidence of spousal abuse occurring at some point in a marriage (in other words, who beats their wives and who doesn't.) The results:

Catholics: 16%

Mormons: 15%

Protestants: 14%

Jews: 6%

I'd call the results of that study an embarrassment. Granted, no faith is perfect, but still ... what are we doing wrong and what are Jews doing right? More importantly, if we are not better than all other religions in this matter, then it means there's a problem with the men of the LDS faith. It means that a serious attitude adjustment is in order. I've known of a lot of men in the LDS Church who get the ridiculous notion in their tiny brains that the Priesthood makes them hot stuff and that women are destined to serve and obey them for all eternity. The trouble with that is that they're dead wrong. Ultimately, all 4 of the faiths above SHOULD BE 0%. Since they are not 0%, we should be asking ourselves why. I think we know why. Men just need to change their attitudes BIG TIME.

[Tarnished]

Have I ever told anyone here that I have a truly wonderful husband? *gives Faded a snuggly hug*

The longer I am in the church I find that some of the most spiritual men in the church have exceptionally tender feelings toward their wives. They hold women in the highest regard. Considering that Heavenly Father respects Heavenly Mother so much so that he will not reveal her name tells me something. Look at what the world has done in and with his name and the name of his son. Through out my life I have found that those men who really hold women in high regard are truly exceptional men. If only there were more of those exceptional men in this world.

[foreverafter]

Faded,

Thank you so much for that post. I can tell that you are a man women can trust, assuming you are a man =).

Other statistics show that 30% of women, even lds, are abused by their husbands. Unofficial rates of spouse abuse are believed to be as high as 50% or more when you consider all forms of abuse, & that's in Utah. It is unfortunately rampant. And of course, women also can be & are becoming more & more abusive also to their husbands.

[Faded]

Faded,

Thank you so much for that post. I can tell that you are a man women can trust, assuming you are a man =).

Maybe we can have my wife verify that I'm a man.

[Tarnished]

Faded,

Thank you so much for that post. I can tell that you are a man women can trust, assuming you are a man =).

I can definitely verify that Faded is a man. I am married to him. However, he has tried since our marriage to talk me into believing that he is a woman, I still hold to my claim that I have too much evidence against him for his claim to hold true.

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

Reading through this topic has been rather enlightening and saddening.

[solomon-helaman]

Reading through this topic has been rather enlightening and saddening.

There have been great comments on this topic. I am greatful for the insight. There have also been some comments on here that show that there are even members of the church who don't give the respect to women that they deserve. I was offended earlier when someone made the comment that my wife is an idiot for asking me this question. She is Chinese and comes from a long history of women not having any rights. As she studies the history of our great country she has seen some brave women brake the chains that have bound women from getting the respect they deserve. Please do not make hurtful comments on this forum. It is not becoming of a child of God.

[Snow]

So what you are saying is that it is important to put women in their place, tell them they're destined to never ever be as important as men?? Has the time come to drive them all back to where they belong -- pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen?

I think that's arrogant bigoted nonsense.

Honesty please.

You made all that up. It is not honest. I said none of those things. I didn't say or imply women should be put in their place or they should not be as important as men. It is, however, a historical fact that men have generally been the important inventors leaders, warriors, artists, authors, religious figures, etc. I personally don't think that is good or the way I would like it to be, but me wanting something doesn't change reality

Please don't fabricate things about me and then whine about it.

Edited March 21, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

There have been great comments on this topic. I am greatful for the insight. There have also been some comments on here that show that there are even members of the church who don't give the respect to women that they deserve. I was offended earlier when someone made the comment that my wife is an idiot for asking me this question. She is Chinese and comes from a long history of women not having any rights. As she studies the history of our great country she has seen some brave women brake the chains that have bound women from getting the respect they deserve. Please do not make hurtful comments on this forum. It is not becoming of a child of God.

You know that is not true. Dishonesty is so untoward. I just read this entire thread and no one called your wife an idiot. I said that it is hard to believe that anyone could be asking the question in any seriousness. You are the one that asked the question so let me ask you... do you believe that historically women, here or anywhere, did not have the right to not be murdered? How about your wife? Do you want us to believe that she is under the impression that women here or anywhere never had the historical right to be not murdered? Perhaps women are not as educated in parts of China but... seriously?

Edited March 21, 2009 by Snow

[Dravin]

It doesn't seem that men will ever have the right & blessing of bearing children that women have received.

So men and women don't have access to every single blessing that the other does. Just as I'll never have the blessings of Motherhood, you'll never have the blessings of Fatherhood. Doesn't make either one of us better, but it does mean in details, if not in significance men and women aren't interchangeable in the which blessings department. You get the blue car I get the green one both of them get us to the Celestial Kingdom. *shrug*

[Moksha]

Since the women's lib movement divorce and broken homes have only skyrocketed. Thank you, Gloria Steinam and NOW.

Hey, I have noticed an even stronger correlation: Capitalism. Since the rise of the merchant class and the advent of industrial capitalism, divorces have been on a steady climb.

[GingerGolden]

Someone, ummm... was that you Darvin, mentioned defining rights.

I defined mine and added so on...

I'm not going to argue my rights, I know what price were paid for my rights, I learned them while living with them...

My right of being happy is the same as the pursuit of it as well as all my other listed rights, they are being pursued.

I suppose, right now, as I really don't feel well anyway is too, just sit here and look pretty.

I'll catch up later...

Oh, you can drive your car, I'll have to wait for some kind soul to help me out with his mechanical skills to do so though...

...and so on...

Edited March 22, 2009 by GingerGolden

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

Here is a excellent sermon by Mark Driscoll on this subject...

Mars Hill Church | Trial | Marriage and Women

[Dravin]

I defined mine and added so on...

I'm not going to argue my rights, I know what price were paid for my rights, I learned them while living with them...

My right of being happy is the same as the pursuit of it as well as all my other listed rights, they are being pursued.

Thing is just calling something a right doesn't make it so, of course the converse is true, saying something isn't a right doesn't make it not so. You don't want a discussion along the lines of what exactly a right is and what ones we are entitled to, that fine, nothing wrong with that. Heavens knows I don't feel like discussing every point some random person on the internet brings up. :)

Hey, I have noticed an even stronger correlation: Capitalism. Since the rise of the merchant class and the advent of industrial capitalism, divorces have been on a steady climb.

Oh! Oh! :)

I found an even stronger one than that: In countries where divorce is legal there are a lot more divorces then in countries where it isn't!

Edited March 22, 2009 by Dravin
Additional material so as I'm not posting back to back.

[WANDERER]

You know the taking away of women's rights by making it some type of bad thing to have children and be homemakers is something of a confusion...a perception that it is a bad thing affects both men and women...the bearing of children and the caring and sharing of children is joint responsibility...let's not assign it only to motherhood. Fathers are equally homemakers and also a part of the creative act. Should I think less of men because they don't have a womb any more than men should think less of a woman because they don't have the same biological gear? Not to say that the nine month role of pregnancy isn't a huge one...but the partnership role in supporting women through pregnancy should not be lessened....lessening the role of men in parenthood in any way has huge implications. The role of mothers in parenthood has been historically lessened in the same way....where they have the children but have no influence or lesser influence over what happens to them after birth...and how has this influenced attitudes towards conception ...? Motherhood is not just about conception..some motherhood contributions are venerated above others: homemaking skills over moral and career influences...what is with that?

I guess it would also be useful to examine the rights that women have in today's society. Women's rights have arisen in the last few centuries through the pursuit of male rights: racial, slavery/social stratification, homosexuality,education, war/freedom, religion, economic...all men are equal concept.

Via that, women have gained 'a better standard of life' through their brothers, husbands and male members of family. This is still true in many ways.

Women have the right to vote...but not equal representation. The right to vote for male candidates ..who may have a greater sucess at achieving goals within male power structures and higher heirarchy...is somewhat of an issue...so is tokenism...female representation that does not reflect true partnership.

Women have the right to work...but not equal wages.

Women have the right to education...but not equal career paths.

Women have the rights to a humane standard of life poverty/abuse/exploitation...but it is disproportionate.

Women have the freedom to participate in society...but some are still locked away...and certainly we know that participation is not quite all that it should be. It is perceived as more dangerous and unsafe for women to do certain things e.g. driving along a highway alone at night and having your car break down/she was asking for trouble type perceptions abound.

In short women's rights are hinged on the least equal treatment that is possible to the male gender and the most favourable possibilities for privaleged women are dependent on the grace of the other gender (it is likely that paid maternity leave for women will need a good deal of male votes to go into law). This pendulum swings throughout history. Certainly powerful and enabled women throughout history were dependant on male authorisation of that power. We still have much of that in our social structure today. Women are granted concessions...rights involve a greater level of self-determination and more active ability to participate and have involvement in determining those rights. Not more rights...more concessions. When peace, social stability and prosperity decline concessions often become unstable. The 'rights' that are going to disappear first...before we decline to not having a vote, slavery, lack of religious freedom, war are often gender based. Violence and abuses of women are symptomatic. When freedom within religious groups the religious freedom of women will often decline foremost..aka the historical witchunts that preceded the inquisition and followed the lessening of practices of the inquisition.

Its not really a gender issue of men vs womens rights...its more of an issue how to value personal rights over genderisation. The idea that this will de-feminise or de-masculinise often comes up. Neither dress nor voting has achieved that...obvious biological differences do not become less obvious. Fears of population stagnation and hybridised gender and the disolution of humanity...er...do you really think a female president or equal wages are going to anihlate the world as we know it and why hasn't a skewing towards male power already achieved that if we believe that a female president will? Why is the fate of humanity inextricably tied to the successful segregation and confinement of homemaker and breadwinner or gender based roles?

[GingerGolden]

It's ok, I simply offered my definition.

*smiles*

[Tarnished]

You know that is not true. Dishonesty is so untoward. I just read this entire thread and no one called your wife an idiot. I said that it is hard to believe that anyone could be asking the question in any seriousness. You are the one that asked the question so let me ask you... do you believe that historically women, here or anywhere, did not have the right to not be murdered? How about your wife? Do you want us to believe that she is under the impression that women here or anywhere never had the historical right to be not murdered? Perhaps women are not as educated in parts of China but... seriously?

Qualifying rights down to the right not to be murdered is asinine, however if you want to get technical the Mormon women during the extermination order had that right taken away. True that all Momons at that time had the right taken away. When the law of the land says that a certain type person can be shot on sight I would call that a removal of the right not to be murdered.

The OP was posting on women's rights and the historical nature of women's rights. Dismissing the discussion and using the terms that you chose to dismiss their question as foolish and naive, was not a very polite way of going about the discussion. Even in this follow up post you are insinuating that the OP's wife is uneducated. It is disrespectful.

As far as the topic goes I find it to be a relevant question. Women have had a varying degree of rights throughout history and those of us who find history intriguing often find a study of these rights interesting. It is also interesting to see how rights have changed over the years and what caused them. I am hoping that the topic might follow this line of discussion, as I would find it interesting to follow and participate in.

[Snow]

Qualifying rights down to the right not to be murdered is asinine.../QUOTE]

Missed the point entirely.

The question was prior to today, did women have rights. The right to life is a right. With no specific education whatsoever, one instantly knows that women have enjoyed at least some rights; for example, the most basic of all rights - the right to life. Moreover, even a tiny bit of education or even common sense would tell you that women have, historically, in various times and places enjoyed all sorts of rights such as the right to assembly and the right to property.

[Snow]

Qualifying rights down to the right not to be murdered is asinine...

Missed the point entirely.

The question was prior to today, did women have rights. The right to life is a right. With no specific education whatsoever, one instantly knows that women have enjoyed at least some rights; for example, the most basic of all rights - the right to life. Moreover, even a tiny bit of education or even common sense would tell you that women have, historically, in various times and places enjoyed all sorts of rights such as the right to assembly and the right to property.

But in your opinion - such as it is - considering the right to life to actually be a right is... what did you call it... asinine.

[Tarnished]

Missed the point entirely.

The question was prior to today, did women have rights. The right to life is a right. With no specific education whatsoever, one instantly knows that women have enjoyed at least some rights; for example, the most basic of all rights - the right to life. Moreover, even a tiny bit of education or even common sense would tell you that women have, historically, in various times and places enjoyed all sorts of rights such as the right to assembly and the right to property.

But in your opinion - such as it is - considering the right to life to actually be a right is... what did you call it... asinine.

No, I am not considering the right to life asinine, but rather your disqualification of the entire question asinine. You are claiming that the point of asking the question to be moot because of course women have always had some sort of rights throughout history, even if it be the simple right to life. Thus you are questioning the point of the OP's post and at the same time degrading the his and his wife's intelligence.

It is obvious that what the OP was getting at with his question was request for a discussion of women's rights throughout history.

[Faded]

You made all that up. It is not honest. I said none of those things. I didn't say or imply women should be put in their place or they should not be as important as men.

True, you did not say those things. But you seem like quite the proponent of celebrating your sense of gender-superiority. It would be wrong to say or imply that men are more important than women. It would be equally wrong to say or imply that women are more important than men. Obvious that you want to make it abundantly clear that men are much, much more important than women. So I draw that train of thought to it's logical conclusion (putting women back in their place) and you called me a liar for it.

You seem to be on a crusade, but I'm at a loss as to what the Crusade is for. Consider this gem of confusing nonsense:

Missed the point entirely.

The question was prior to today, did women have rights. The right to life is a right. With no specific education whatsoever, one instantly knows that women have enjoyed at least some rights; for example, the most basic of all rights - the right to life. Moreover, even a tiny bit of education or even common sense would tell you that women have, historically, in various times and places enjoyed all sorts of rights such as the right to assembly and the right to property.

But in your opinion - such as it is - considering the right to life to actually be a right is... what did you call it... asinine.

So ... exactly what are you driving at? Women had rights because they were allowed to live? And this ties into the topic how? Granted, women having the right to live is important, but I would say it's much to get all excited about. A man kept prisoner inside a latreen has a right to live, but I think we can all agree that his life sucks. I'm confused as to where you're going with your points. That women have enough rights and shouldn't be given more? That men are a lot better than women, so women don't deserve any special consideration? I truly don't know where you're going with all this.

Women have spend the entirety of human history with significantly fewer rights than men, yet there has not been a good reason for this. Mostly excuses, enforced by the fact that men were stronger, so women couldn't make much fuss over being made less than equal. This is obviously true. My contention is that this is, was, and will always be wrong. Unrighteous dominion. Far too often, men taking control where they had no business controlling. Is your contention that I'm wrong to believe this? Or is there some other point you're trying to make here that I'm just not following?

[Dravin]

True, you did not say those things. But you seem like quite the proponent of celebrating your sense of gender-superiority. It would be wrong to say or imply that men are more important than women. It would be equally wrong to say or imply that women are more important than men. Obvious that you want to make it abundantly clear that men are much, much more important than women. So I draw that train of thought to it's logical conclusion (putting women back in their place) and you called me a liar for it.

To be fair I don't think that's what he's doing, he's just a nitpicker. Women can't do all the things men can, and men can't do all the things women can, doesn't make one sex superior to the other. He just has an abrasive manner which can be hard to see through.

[Snow]

No, I am not considering the right to life asinine, but rather your disqualification of the entire question asinine. You are claiming that the point of asking the question to be moot because of course women have always had some sort of rights throughout history, even if it be the simple right to life. Thus you are questioning the point of the OP's post and at the same time degrading the his and his wife's intelligence.

I think you mean "denigrating." I don't have the ability degrade someone's intelligence.

It is obvious that what the OP was getting at with his question was request for a discussion of women's rights throughout history.

Perhaps - but if that was the case I think that the OP would have asked that instead of what he actually did ask: "Had Has there ever been a time other than now that women had rights?"