The Glory of Men is the Woman

[Guest Mores]

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

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.

Nope.  Another.  I actually appreciated what Quantum Leap said about it.

Quote

I once asked my mother what she thought of the feminist movement.  She said,"I think it's a fine thing... for OTHER women."

It admitted that people like Sam's mother were perfectly happy and even to be revered for raising a son like Dr. Beckett.  But there were other women who were not happy with their lot in life.  And they should be able to pursue it.

I too believe people should have the freedom to pursue their own idea of happiness.   The downside is that to obtain their alternatives, they had to destroy the good that already existed.  To obtain their concept of freedom for a few, it sentenced a majority to captivity and death.

There's good and bad all around.  But my primary question remains:  Based on gospel principles, was it worth it?  And like you, I think 'twas not so.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Mores

[Guest MormonGator]

25 minutes ago, Traveler said:

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

This shows a fundamental problem with certain types of conservatism. 1-the good old days weren't good. We gloss over and ignore the reasons why they were miserable while creating in our mind reasons why they were great. 2-old people in the 50's complained about how bad things were in the 50's because of new technology and how good life was back in the 20's, 10's, last century, etc. 3-You can't go back in time. So you better adapt instead of complaining. 4-Life actually wasn't better. We had social problems, economic problems, infidelity in marriages, etc. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by MormonGator

[Traveler]

8 minutes ago, Mores said:

I too believe people should have the freedom to pursue their own idea of happiness.   

As a youth I intended to launch a rocket into space.  One effort resulted in a crater in a intersection near my home - 6 feet across and 3 feet deep.  I got to meet a couple of guys from the FBI for that.  As it turned out - I was somewhat encouraged but it was made clear that I should take my experiments out into the desert.  In high school I decided to refinish the stock, blue the barrel and re-boor the barrel of my father's hunting rifle in shop class for his birthday and Christmas.  When I took the rifle to school it did not fit in my locker - so I took it with me to my first 3 classes and put the rifle on the floor next to my desk.  No one was concerned????

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

This shows a fundamental problem with certain types of conservatism. 1-the good old days weren't good. We gloss over and ignore the reasons why they were miserable while creating in our mind reasons why they were great. 2-old people in the 50's complained about how bad things were in the 50's because of new technology and how good life was back in the 20's, 10's, last century, etc. 3-You can't go back in time. So you better adapt instead of complaining. 4-Life actually wasn't better. We had social problems, economic problems, infidelity in marriages, etc. 

I am not sure - look at the news paper articles.  Here is an idea - look at the 1960 census - especially the dynamics of poverty.  Also crime - especially drug related crimes and remember this was the free love LSD generation.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

I am not sure - look at the news paper articles.  Here is an idea - look at the 1960 census - especially the dynamics of poverty.  Also crime - especially drug related crimes and remember this was the free love LSD generation.

 

The Traveler

Okay. So...crime didn't exist in the 1950's? Drugs didn't either? 

Nostalgia is a funny thing. It warps the mind and makes one ungrateful for all the blessings they have living in the present. 

[Guest MormonGator]

I think it's more a personality thing. I'm 100% confident that if we could transport people back to whatever time they were praising, they'd find something  else to complain about. If we could transport you back to the 1950's, you'd complain about your child dying of polio. And Playboy magazine being founded. And the birth control pill. Because yeah, those things took place in the 1950s. 

If you were transported back to the 1920's, you'd complain about how rich people were and those crazy young people dancing the Charleston.

If we could transport you back to the 1890's, you'd complain about....something. 

There's also the inherent flaw of complaining about the past on the internet. Which didn't exist in the past. So...

generic usage of the word "you". 

Edited January 9, 2020 by MormonGator

[MarginOfError]

Quote

woman is the glory of man. (1 Cor. 11:7)

 

Quote

The glory of God is intelligence. (D&C 93:36)

 

Seems like man got the sweeter deal

All woman got was a lousy rib.

[mordorbund]

 

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I am not sure - look at the news paper articles.  Here is an idea - look at the 1960 census - especially the dynamics of poverty.  Also crime - especially drug related crimes and remember this was the free love LSD generation.

 

The Traveler

Okay. So...crime didn't exist in the 1950's? Drugs didn't either? 
 

 

 

Try again MG. Your question in no way restates what Traveler is suggesting.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

34 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Try again MG. Your question in no way restates what Traveler is suggesting.

Was using sarcasm to make a bigger point. This isn't against @Traveler. Who I like. It's not against every single conservative out there either, to be clear. 

And I "tried" when I explained it further in other posts. Frankly I think I hit the nail on the head. Conservatives talk about how wonderful the 50's were while ignoring that the birth control pill was invented. So was Playboy magazine. There were other social ills that we selectively ignore as well because we like certain aspects of the decade. 

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by MormonGator

[mordorbund]

39 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Was using sarcasm to make a bigger point. This isn't against @Traveler. Who I like. It's not against every single conservative out there either, to be clear. 

And I "tried" when I explained it further in other posts. Frankly I think I hit the nail on the head. Conservatives talk about how wonderful the 50's were while ignoring that the birth control pill was invented. So was Playboy magazine. There were other social ills that we selectively ignore as well because we like certain aspects of the decade. 

 

 

So I guess Traveler should have included the disclaimer: 

4 hours ago, Mores said:

No question there were bad things back then.  But what is the cost of changing that system to what we have today?

in an attempt to pre-empt all the complaints about the imperfections of "pre-feminist" times. 

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by mordorbund

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, mordorbund said:

 

So I guess Traveler should have included the disclaimer: 

in an attempt to pre-empt all the complaints about the imperfections of "pre-feminist" times. 

 

Now you are getting it. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

52 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And I "tried" when I explained it further in other posts. Frankly I think I hit the nail on the head. Conservatives talk about how wonderful the 50's were while ignoring that the birth control pill was invented. So was Playboy magazine. There were other social ills that we selectively ignore as well because we like certain aspects of the decade. 

I agree and don't forget the "wink and a nod" to domestic violence. 

[mordorbund]

17 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I agree and don't forget the "wink and a nod" to domestic violence. 

Sure, but what's the better solution? Should the patriarchy be dismantled so the abuses don't happen within that structure? Or should we have doubled down on the patriarchal system and had other men remind the abuser (that our strength protects others) while punishing the abuser?

Edited January 9, 2020 by mordorbund

[Guest Mores]

33 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I agree and don't forget the "wink and a nod" to domestic violence. 

Yes, and in place of it we have a wink and a nod to domestic violence against men that never gets reported.

If you think the reported statistics on this matter are accurate (i.e. that men are the vast majority of the perpetrators) you'd be wrong.  Men are almost equally victims of domestic abuse as women.  But it just doesn't get reported due to increased social stigma.

We have men forced to pay child support for children who are not their biological children.  We have men falsely accused of rape about as often as correctly accused of rape.

I'm not asking anyone to make a decision on which is better.  Neither is better.  No one wants any of these things.  But one cannot deny that to gain any purported benefits of "societal progress" that there have been some stiff penalties that we've had to pay that were not warranted. 

Yes, some are better off.  But overall, from a gospel standpoint, I just don't see it.  Gospel principles would tell men of the patriarchy that they should not be exercising unrighteous dominion.  Today, we have the idea that decent men are supposed to leave women alone to fend for themselves.  I don't see how that is a better scenario.

And

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/disturbing-data-shows-how-often-domestic-violence-turns-deadly

Has it gotten better?

Edited January 9, 2020 by Mores

[mordorbund]

My observation is that those cultures and societies that have a strong patriarchy are accompanied by a well-organized matriarchy. That matriarchy provides a framework where little girls learn what it means to be a woman; where young mothers learn how to rear their little children; where women support each other to "get things done"; where middle-aged (or senior depending how young people die) women receive support transitioning past child-bearing years; where seasoned and experienced women pass on their skills and knowledge. Additionally, my observation is that when people try to dismantle the patriarchy what they really end up doing is dismantling the matriarchy, and place the displaced women in the patriarchy. The patriarchy is still there - it hasn't been dismantled at all! And while some women are quite comfortable in this structure, many find it* difficult to navigate 1) because the framework was optimized over millennia for men, and 2) their support structure has been dismantled. In addition, many men are displaced in the process. 

 

As long as I'm here, I'll add that Toy Story 4 can be viewed from this perspective (of placing women in the patriarchy and displacing men) not just as a story but also as a project. In the story, Woody doesn't have a purpose anymore and has to find one. He never really does so his character doesn't really arc (except to find out he's not needed any more - perhaps Million Dollar Babying him was too dark for Pixar?). In the project, Bo Peep and her girls resolve most of the conflict, so Woody doesn't really have a role in this film either. He doesn't serve to inspire others. And even in his babysitting duties is easily forgotten. 

 

*This is the "trying to have it all" trope from so many forms of media.

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Okay. So...crime didn't exist in the 1950's? Drugs didn't either? 

Nostalgia is a funny thing. It warps the mind and makes one ungrateful for all the blessings they have living in the present. 

Crime did exist but not in the same way as it does now.  For example, the % of those convicted for crimes were not involved with drugs.  Organized crime was mostly involved in gambling (book making), sex trafficking (prostitution) and racketeering.   The introduction of drugs into crime syndication significantly changed the crime landscape.  This is not without historical precedence - I have referenced the 100 years of shame and the opiate wars in China.  I reference this because in 100 years drugs destroyed China both as a super power and nation.  Following the fall of the Quin dynasty; a form of Communism filled the vacuum.  I have talked to many Chinese that believe the brutality of communism was necessary to free China from drug addiction.

There is prophetic reference that in the last days that wars will be pored out on all nations and that brother will rise up against brother and father against sons.  This is just me thinking but if I were to bet on the cause of such a thing - I would bet on drug addiction.  If we follow the China historic example (which we have not varied from yet) we have about 50 years left as a country.  Would you count that as one or two more generations?

 

The Traveler

[Xavier]

On 1/8/2020 at 7:34 AM, 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, and wholeheartedly would conclude it as such. My main idea is that in today's environment of rising women's rights and/or equality movements, it seems as though, the traditional view of patriarchy is seem more like a misogynistic and chauvinistic traditions rather than an Celestial order previously approved by Our Father in Heaven.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Xavier said:

I agree, and wholeheartedly would conclude it as such. My main idea is that in today's environment of rising women's rights and/or equality movements, it seems as though, the traditional view of patriarchy is seem more like a misogynistic and chauvinistic traditions rather than an Celestial order previously approved by Our Father in Heaven.

If you're actually loving ladies as Christ instructs a man to, then you're not being chauvinist.  The converse it true too: being a chauvinist isn't loving a person the way Christ instructs you to.

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, Xavier said:

On 1/8/2020 at 6:34 AM, Jane_Doe said:

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, and wholeheartedly would conclude it as such

In contrast, I could not disagree more. The so-called #MeToo movement is a lie, an attempt to use actual violence and evils done to women as a ram to effect political gain by making women (specifically feminists) literally unaccountable for any accusation they care to make.

[Jane_Doe]

Just now, Vort said:

In contrast, I could not disagree more. The so-called #MeToo movement is a lie, an attempt to use actual violence and evils done to women as a ram to effect political gain by making women (specifically feminists) literally unaccountable for any accusation they care to make.

On this we'll just have to disagree, as we do on many points

[Vort]

Just now, Jane_Doe said:

On this we'll just have to disagree, as we do on many points

I never have understood the reason to point out the fact of disagreement. I mean, if you want to discuss a point, then it makes sense. But such discussion presuppposes (1) a willingness to lay one's biases aside for the purpose of discourse, and (2) a willingness to concede a point when you are shown to be in probable error. Just saying, "Look! We disagree!" seems pointless.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Sure, but what's the better solution? Should the patriarchy be dismantled so the abuses don't happen within that structure? Or should we have doubled down on the patriarchal system and had other men remind the abuser (that our strength protects others) while punishing the abuser?

The better solution is the Lord's way where the husband and wife are equals.  That was not the case in the 1950's.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, Mores said:

I'm not asking anyone to make a decision on which is better.  Neither is better.  No one wants any of these things.  But one cannot deny that to gain any purported benefits of "societal progress" that there have been some stiff penalties that we've had to pay that were not warranted. 

We live in a fallen world.  The lifestyle of the 1950s was not the Lord's way.  What is happening today is not the Lord's way.  Somethings have gotten worse, other things have gotten better. As a woman though, I am so grateful I live now and not the 1950s.  Going back to the 1950s lifestyle is not the solution to our present issues.  
 

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

The better solution is the Lord's way where the husband and wife are equals.  That was not the case in the 1950's.  

It's getting there. Just looking at my friends who are married/in relationships all of them are equal partners. Neither one is the "boss". 

[Guest MormonGator]

3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

other men remind the abuser (that our strength protects others) while punishing the abuser?

That still happens. Ironically it happened recently and made the news today. 

https://www.wesh.com/article/downtown-bartender-jumps-over-bar-detains-attempted-rape-suspect/30461645?fbclid=IwAR0_arCL16gka2Ad00no1_o7azkOdCyFsH_z6dwZMt7tQhVL32fKlHIjaTk

in fact, it often happens where other men step in and stop abuse from happening and/or hold the abuser until the police arrive. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by MormonGator