Xavier

The Glory of Men is the Woman

Recommended Posts

I am wondering how much of this ideology is still accepted by today's society?

Is the "Me Too" movement causing many people to determine that men are no longer needed by women?

How is 1 Corintians 11 still relevant in today's society and/or church culture without being looked like a misogynist?

My understanding is this:

  • Man's head (authority come from) is Christ
  • Woman is Man's glory
  • Woman's glory is her hair

How is this ideology going to bring people to the truth when it causes many woman to be cautious of men due to the current universal feeling of womanhood and it's rise in "equality"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Moonbeast32 said:

...what?

What @Xavier seems to be suggesting is that Paul said that a woman's glory is the hair of her own head, while a man's glory is not his head (Jesus Christ), but woman. It's an interesting interpretation, worth thinking about, whether or not you decide there's anything to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Xavier said:

I am wondering how much of this ideology is still accepted by today's society?

It depends on whose society you are referring to.  During biblical times, it was their culture than women had to have their heads covered, by hair and/or by cloth.     Orthedox Jews still do this.  It is considered immodest to do otherwise.

Western society doesn't do this, including members of our Church so the culture has changed.

In our Church though, men our still considered to be the head of household, so that part remains in our church.  Women and men are supposed to be equal though.

Cultures do change in our Chuch as well, especially with grooming.  For example, women missionaries can now wear pants, beards or no beards are both considered acceptable, and long hair seems to be OK accetable for men (or at least I haven't heard differently in recent years).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Xavier said:

I am wondering how much of this ideology is still accepted by today's society?

Is the "Me Too" movement causing many people to determine that men are no longer needed by women?

How is 1 Corintians 11 still relevant in today's society and/or church culture without being looked like a misogynist?

My understanding is this:

  • Man's head (authority come from) is Christ
  • Woman is Man's glory
  • Woman's glory is her hair

How is this ideology going to bring people to the truth when it causes many woman to be cautious of men due to the current universal feeling of womanhood and it's rise in "equality"?

A proper man of God isn't an misogynist.  A proper man of God respect and loves woman, and treats her has his equal help-mate.  The #MeToo movement supports this Christ-like behavior in encouraging people (of both genders) who've been hurt to speak up, and encouraging people (of both genders) to treat each other with respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

A proper man of God isn't an misogynist.  A proper man of God respect and loves woman, and treats her has his equal help-mate.  The #MeToo movement supports this Christ-like behavior in encouraging people (of both genders) who've been hurt to speak up, and encouraging people (of both genders) to treat each other with respect.

Really?  That’s what the movement is doing?  Could’ve fooled me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Moonbeast32 said:

...what?

I've heard it many years ago and stuck in my head. I am studying now the concept and see a close relation to that. Can't seem to find any talks elated to this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
1 hour ago, Xavier said:

Can't seem to find any talks elated to this topic.

You probably won't because it has a deeper meaning that has nothing to do with fashion or cultural norms.  Paul simply used cultural norms of the day to make the point.  If you remove the cultural norms from the speech, the ultimate principles are still true.  And they still apply today.

To truly understand it the cultural norms were merely an analogy.  Try to figure out the actual principles he was talking about.  What I suggest may seem contradictory.  And at one level it is.  But at another level it makes all the sense in the world.

No, I'm not going into the deeper meaning.  Some here will understand why.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2020 at 12:40 PM, Xavier said:

I am wondering how much of this ideology is still accepted by today's society?

Is the "Me Too" movement causing many people to determine that men are no longer needed by women?

How is 1 Corintians 11 still relevant in today's society and/or church culture without being looked like a misogynist?

My understanding is this:

  • Man's head (authority come from) is Christ
  • Woman is Man's glory
  • Woman's glory is her hair

How is this ideology going to bring people to the truth when it causes many woman to be cautious of men due to the current universal feeling of womanhood and it's rise in "equality"?

I understand that Paul was using the customs of the day as a metaphor to make a spiritual point. Metaphorically, this chapter is about the relationship of the Church and members (the woman), and the husband (Christ). It also provides a pattern for practical religious observance according to the customs of the people of the day, and so it has a literal parallel to an extent, but I think that was his secondary aim.

Our modern prophets give us counsel about the marriage covenant and family relationships, and continue to emphasize the relationship between the Church, her members, and Christ.

The light shineth in darkness. A woman's negative attitude toward men, Christ, the Church, etc. can be overcome with good examples from male and female members of the Church, and cultivating the light of Christ within herself. The Lord is constantly reaching out to her, so hopefully she will be enticed to truth more than to error.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

A proper man of God isn't an misogynist.  A proper man of God respect and loves woman, and treats her has his equal help-mate.  The #MeToo movement supports this Christ-like behavior in encouraging people (of both genders) who've been hurt to speak up, and encouraging people (of both genders) to treat each other with respect.

I agree! Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I agree! Well said.

This man agrees too. 

The good news is that society, and yes, the church, is changing. If you are a misogynist or hardcore patriarchal, you better keep that behavior to yourself. Society is getting less and less tolerant of boorish behavior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If you are a misogynist or hardcore patriarchal, you better keep that behavior to yourself.

I am as hardcore a patriarch as there is. Well, that's not true: God is way more of a patriarch than I'll ever be, at least in this reality. But in any case, I have no intention of "keeping it to myself". Any decent man (or woman) glories in patriarchy. The converse is very probably also true.

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Society is getting less and less tolerant of boorish behavior.

There is nothing boorish about patriarchy. That is just another feminist redefinition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Vort said:

I am as hardcore a patriarch as there is.

That's surprising, I always assumed you were a leader in the radical feminist movement. Robin Morgan and.... @Vort

And you are, of course, free to spread your ideology and tell the world. Just know that the world doesn't have to listen to you anymore than you have to listen to the world. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

And you are, of course, free to spread your ideology and tell the world. Just know that the world doesn't have to listen to you anymore than you have to listen to the world. 

You sure? I thought that baptizing tens of thousands on my mission meant they did have to listen to and believe me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vort said:

I am as hardcore a patriarch as there is. Well, that's not true: God is way more of a patriarch than I'll ever be, at least in this reality. But in any case, I have no intention of "keeping it to myself". Any decent man (or woman) glories in patriarchy. The converse is very probably also true.

There is nothing boorish about patriarchy. That is just another feminist redefinition.

Because God's patriarchy.. aka the true definition of patriarchy is constrained by the limits given in D&C 121 about unrighteous dominion.  Done correctly it blesses everyone and is the way God does things.  It however is really hard to do correctly... making most who claim to be following patriarchy incorrect and imposters to the name and title.  Such imposters need to be corrected/shutdown. Sadly most of the world only really knows of the imposters 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vort said:

meant they did have to listen to and believe me.

More and more LDS women are working outside the home and having fewer babies. So they aren't listening to you. 

Clearly, I know there are different kinds of people who consider themselves "patriarchal". There are those who think it's okay to slap a woman on the bum, make comments about her body, those kind. I can not in my wildest dreams imagine you as one of them. They are boorish, rude, and society is telling them that their behavior is unacceptable. So they better learn quick.

The other kind are those who think that women shouldn't be educated, shouldn't work outside the home, should just pop out babies. Society isn't telling those kind of men to change-it's too late. Society already has changed, leaving them behind. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Clearly, I know there are different kinds of people who consider themselves "patriarchal". There are those who think it's okay to slap a woman on the bum, make comments about her body, those kind. I can not in my wildest dreams imagine you as one of them. They are boorish, rude, and society is telling them that their behavior is unacceptable. So they better learn quick.

The other kind are those who think that women shouldn't be educated, shouldn't work outside the home, should just pop out babies. Society isn't telling those kind of men to change-it's too late. Society already has changed, leaving them behind. 

All of which are better examples of unrighteous domination then they are of patriachal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores

Since this is turning into a thread about patriarchy and feminism, I'd like to ask a question about that.

Are women happier now than they were in the 50s?  I'm not sure they are.

Were there women who were unhappy in the 50s?  Of course there were.  There were restrictions on what they could really do as far as career and control over their own lives.  No question there were bad things back then.  But what is the cost of changing that system to what we have today?

What is happening to women today?

  • Many would rather sleep around and jump from boyfriend to boyfriend rather than get married.
  • Even if some marry, many are abandoning the mantle of motherhood.
  • Women are confused about what their role in society even means.
  • Peer pressure now exists that pushes women into careers they don't want.
  • Abortion is the new norm. -- Just heard in the news that a boyfriend killed his girlfriend for taking too long to get an abortion.
  • Society in general values sex more than relationships.

Elder Holland said in a conference talk on mothers:

Quote

There is no more sacred word in all of secular or holy writ than that of mother.

Now we live in a world where being a mother is somehow "giving in" to the patriarchy rather than embracing a Divinely appointed role.

Was it worth it?

I would ask that the answers be based on something rather unexpected.  Gospel Principles.

If we believe that gospel principles are the key to happiness, we have to believe that adherence to the principles is a better gage of real happiness than simply asking people's personal estimation on happiness.  Is this illogical?  Maybe.  But it is faith based.  It is based on the idea that Eternal happiness is more important than momentary temporal happiness.

So, the answer to "are women happier" or "are WE happier" would need to be measured by righteousness rather than any earthly measure.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mores said:

No question there were bad things back then.

Of course there existed bad things. That's unavoidable. It's also not a very enlightening statement, similar to observing that grass in the postwar 1950s tended to be green. But I suspect that the decade before my birth was the societal high-water mark of the United States of America, a state of living that in many ways we envy and want to get back to, even as we mock the parents and grandparents who built that society.

For some reason, this is an unpopular view today. As our media overlords have decreed, we are to consider the 1950s a benighted time of ignorance and racism, the ultimate boogieman. But consider:

The nation was prosperous, enjoying an unmatched economic boom. After a vast, crippling economic depression that had wrought worldwide havoc only two decades earlier, the strong influence of organized crime and the resulting corruption of police and political forces throughout the nation, an environmental crisis (the so-called Dust Bowl) that left Americans literally starving to death, and a devastating world war of destruction unequaled in modern memory—which, ironically, were actually better years in the US in many ways than the decade that preceded them—peace and relative security reigned. Race relations in the US were probably better than at any point in US history, and were trending upward. Those whom we today call "African American" were entering society, and even being welcomed, in ways that would not have been believed or even imagined by those just a generation earlier. The US was the world's true superpower, and seemed to be using its unparalleled worldwide reach and influence to try to establish liberty around the world. We can look back today and criticize short-sighted policies and narrow-minded views that caused difficult misunderstandings, but I defy you to find throughout history an empire of such power that accomplished so much good, not just economically and technologically but in serving the cause of freedom.

Did women in the 1950s feel tied by the mores of the time? Some did, certainly. Some always will. One way society progresses is that people chafe against perceived injustices. Again, that's unavoidable and, on the whole, good. But I see no reason to think that the vast majority of American women saw society as hostile to them or infringing on their freedoms. Society exists in large part to secure the well-being of women, and the US in the 1950s was securing their well-being on a scale never before witnessed.

Women had their place in society, just as men did. Women understood that place, and most of them gloried in it. A typical middle-class American woman of the 1950s sought to become a wife and mother, to build a family, to keep an orderly and loving household, just as her husband sought to provide economic means and comfort for that household and widen the circle of his family's well-being. Amazingly, many today, even on this very site, see this as deplorable or at least laughable instead of noble or enviable. Yet what have we replaced it with? Something better? Ha ha ha.

From all I can see, the women of the 1950s enjoyed unmatched comfort and privilege. If they did not have complete economic equality in the workplace with men, most of them didn't really care about that, seeing that as something outside their own area of concern. Our modern world is infested by the idea that how we think of things today, right now, defines justice and rightness and goodness throughout all time. Surely at least the participants on this forum can see the absurdity of such a belief.

We would do well to lessen our criticism of the backward ignorance of the American society of the 1950s and increase our efforts to understand what they were doing that made their society such a roaring success, a veritable heaven on earth.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
15 minutes ago, Vort said:

Of course there existed bad things. That's unavoidable. It's also not a very enlightening statement...

It was an attempt to pre-empt all the complaints about the imperfections of "pre-feminist" times.  Now I'll get a comment or two about how there were feminists prior to 1950.  I guess one can never say it just right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
18 minutes ago, Vort said:

For some reason, this is an unpopular view today. As our media overlords have decreed, we are to consider the 1950s a benighted time of ignorance and racism, the ultimate boogieman.

One reason I stopped watching a certain time travelling show.  But the show wasn't all that good to begin with.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mores said:

It was an attempt to pre-empt all the complaints about the imperfections of "pre-feminist" times.  Now I'll get a comment or two about how there were feminists prior to 1950.  I guess one can never say it just right.

Consider my use of your statement not as a criticism but as a jumping-off point for discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mores said:

One reason I stopped watching a certain time travelling show.  But the show wasn't all that good to begin with.

If you're talking about the Scott Bakula show, I agree. An intruiging premise, but the execution never lived up to the promise. In the end, it was just more Hollywood propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Vort said:

We would do well to lessen our criticism of the backward ignorance of the American society of the 1950s and increase our efforts to understand what they were doing that made their society such a roaring success, a veritable heaven on earth.

I remember this time - I could say so many things but here are some thoughts.  Unless it was a serious injury - the doctor came to you home - you did not go to the doctor - and no one has health insurance.  As a side note - the total cost of my first born was $250 that included a 3 day hospital stay - my first semester of college was $150.  I do not remember our doors being locked except when we were gone for multiple days on vacation.  I do not remember the church ever being locked.  I do not remember any dead blot locks anywhere.  I often rode a bicycle to school - which had a large covered space with a bike rack - I do not remember any bikes locked and I do not remember stolen bikes as a problem.  Children walked, sometimes as much as a mile to school and no one thought it was child abuse???  I would also point out that high school girls would walk home from school alone and in the winter in Utah it was after dark.  Kids as young as 8 years old would sell "spudnuts" (a type of donut unique to Utah) without supervision - door to door.

Some things have improved - but in general I do not believe for a minute that anybody is really that much better off today.  Listen to the music and watch the movies and TV programs of that era and see for yourself the concerns of that time.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now