The Glory of Men is the Woman


Xavier
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

But this is taking her comment out of context. She said women who can't work should be able to work outside the home.  Then Anatess said women in the 50s helped other women raise their children. And lilscorpue said she doesn't want to do that. Not everyone is cut out to take care of other people's children full-time.  There's nothing wrong with that. That is my point.

No it isn't.  She confirmed that later.  I'm not sure why you're chasing this strawman for her.  She isn't chasing it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
Just now, Grunt said:

No it isn't.  She confirmed that later.  I'm not sure why you're chasing this strawman for her.  She isn't chasing it.  

I thought the strawman was yours. 

Honestly, I joined this discussion because lilscorpie is new here....and what a first day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I was only referring to lilscorpie and what she had said about her own situation.  

Yes.  And she never said her disability prevents her from caring for children.  I understood her statement to mean her disability prevents her from having her own children.  2 totally different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Honestly, I joined this discussion because lilscorpie is new here....and what a first day. 

 

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

Well, she picked a great thread to jump into.  😁

 

The thread is fine.  It's her "It's not my kid" comment that put her feet to the fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Vort clearly there is some misunderstanding, because I saw Grunts comment, which you seem to agree with as the strawman. 

This is not a mere matter of opinion. This is a matter of record. Read the thread. lilscorpie literally wrote, "...it is not my responsibility to help other people in my family raise their kids. I did not have them."

You can't change that reality, @LiterateParakeet, and it would be shameful for you to ignore it. What she wrote above is what Grunt responded to by writing, "You don't feel we have a responsibility to assist our brothers and sisters?" Which is exactly what her point seemed to be.

At this moment, you chimed in with, "I don't think that's what she meant at all." Yet that appears to be exactly what she wrote: "It is not my responsibility to help other people in my family raise their kids." Those are her exact words. Maybe your ESP skills vastly exceed my own, but barring that, I don't see how you managed to figure out that she didn't mean what she wrote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
36 minutes ago, Vort said:

At this moment, you chimed in with, "I don't think that's what she meant at all." Yet that appears to be exactly what she wrote: "It is not my responsibility to help other people in my family raise their kids." Those are her exact words. Maybe your ESP skills vastly exceed my own, but barring that, I don't see how you managed to figure out that she didn't mean what she wrote.

When I said "I don't think that's what she meant at all."  It's because I thought Grunt possibly using a strawman, but wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.  And I already explained a couple times up thread where I thought the miscommunication occured.  No ESP skills needed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

 

The thread is fine.  It's her "It's not my kid" comment that put her feet to the fire.

What I intended to say was that, just because a woman is infertile and cannot bear children does not mean that she should be required to sit at home all day and expected to help care for other peoples children. Being infertile does not give anyone else the right to demand that the woman stay home all day and care for other peoples children. It does not mean that she does not care for her brothers and sisters in the church. It just means that she shouldnt be constantly reminded of that which she cannot ever have. 

IF she wants to care for other peoples children, that is fine. BUT it should not automatically be expected of her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, lilscorpie said:

What I intended to say was that, just because a woman is infertile and cannot bear children does not mean that she should be required to sit at home all day and expected to help care for other peoples children. Being infertile does not give anyone else the right to demand that the woman stay home all day and care for other peoples children. It does not mean that she does not care for her brothers and sisters in the church. It just means that she shouldnt be constantly reminded of that which she cannot ever have. 

IF she wants to care for other peoples children, that is fine. BUT it should not automatically be expected of her. 

Okay, we're talking about Today times in the First World, right?  Then, of course, she's not expected to "stay home all day and care for other people's children".  It's not even expected of Mothers with their own children.  Women - even those in Church - have jobs and interests outside of the home if it is what their families need or what she needs.  Even the Proclamation of the Family encourage women to seek an education for her edification and not just to be ready to pick up the mantle of breadwinning if it becomes necessary.

BUT that said... Gospel Principles do expect women to answer to the call of Motherhood in the same manner that Men are expected to answer to the call of the Priesthood (Fatherhood is Priesthood).  Motherhood is not just for women who bear children.  It is for ALL women.  The Primary Presidency will always be Women in the same manner that the Bishopric will always be Men.

 

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, lilscorpie said:

What I intended to say was that, just because a woman is infertile and cannot bear children does not mean that she should be required to sit at home all day and expected to help care for other peoples children. Being infertile does not give anyone else the right to demand that the woman stay home all day and care for other peoples children. It does not mean that she does not care for her brothers and sisters in the church. It just means that she shouldnt be constantly reminded of that which she cannot ever have.

lilscorpie, this is fine, but what prompted you to say it? Did someone on this thread or forum say something to indicate that he or she thought that unmarried, childless women are morally obligated to help take care of other people's children? Because I don't remember anything of the sort. You just sort of dropped this in out of a clear blue sky.

And what you said in the comment under discussion is not this. Rather, you said that you have no responsibility to help out your brothers and sisters with their child-rearing, because they got themselves into that situation and it's not your job to help them out. Despite LiterateParakeet's studious ignoring of that proclamation, that is what raised questions in Grunt's and my (and doubtless other people's) minds.

Saying (1) "Unmarried childless women should not be automatically expected to devote themselves to rearing other peoples' children" or (2) "I'm too old and/or handicapped and/or busy to be at someone else's beck and call regarding problems with their children" are both far different from what you actually said. This is what prompted the recent conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

lilscorpie, this is fine, but what prompted you to say it? Did someone on this thread or forum say something to indicate that he or she thought that unmarried, childless women are morally obligated to help take care of other people's children? Because I don't remember anything of the sort. You just sort of dropped this in out of a clear blue sky.

And what you said in the comment under discussion is not this. Rather, you said that you have no responsibility to help out your brothers and sisters with their child-rearing, because they got themselves into that situation and it's not your job to help them out. Despite LiterateParakeet's studious ignoring of that proclamation, that is what raised questions in Grunt's and my (and doubtless other people's) minds.

Saying (1) "Unmarried childless women should not be automatically expected to devote themselves to rearing other peoples' children" or (2) "I'm too old and/or handicapped and/or busy to be at someone else's beck and call regarding problems with their children" are both far different from what you actually said. This is what prompted the recent conversation.

"

  6 hours ago, Grunt said:

Looks like my interpretation of her comment was spot on.

I'm confused then. How much time do you spend watching other people's children?  If you don't does that mean you don't care about our brothers and sisters?  

 

 

This ^^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, lilscorpie said:

"

  6 hours ago, Grunt said:

Looks like my interpretation of her comment was spot on.

I'm confused then. How much time do you spend watching other people's children?  If you don't does that mean you don't care about our brothers and sisters?  

 

 

This ^^^

What does that have to do with anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I'm confused then. How much time do you spend watching other people's children?  If you don't does that mean you don't care about our brothers and sisters?  

Okay...here's a joke...well...half way of a joke as it's feels somewhat true sometimes...

Answer:

Every time I teach a class at the university.  I think that is hours and hours upon days and days upon weeks and weeks...etc...etc...etc.

Or maybe...it's them watching me...every eye...every head turned my way...except for those that are sleeping, or doing something on their phones, or playing a game on their tablet or behind their laptop that they think I can't see or am unable to guess...etc...etc...etc.

:D

More seriously though...

And that's with the university kids...we give teachers that actually teach classes to little kids too little credit on how much time they also probably spend babysitting rather than teaching!

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, lilscorpie said:

"

  6 hours ago, Grunt said:

Looks like my interpretation of her comment was spot on.

I'm confused then. How much time do you spend watching other people's children?  If you don't does that mean you don't care about our brothers and sisters?  

 

 

This ^^^

As I responded before, every time I'm asked unless it harms my own family.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

And that's with the university kids...we give teachers that actually teach classes to little kids too little credit on how much time they also probably spend babysitting rather than teaching!

Babysitting and Teaching are both activities under the umbrella of Raising Kids.

People seem to think Childcare is just changing diapers and preventing kids from getting hit by trucks... The Singing Time teacher in Sunday School is Raising Kids in the 30 minutes a week that she spent teaching those children about God's Kingdom - and she probably did more raising that day than doped-up mothers do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2020 at 12:15 AM, Rimon said:

men and women are equal.  Same? Absolutely not.

Thank you. My point is made.

 

On 2/6/2020 at 12:15 AM, Rimon said:

I have seen this equality debate elsewhere and those who say we are not equal really just seem to be fighting the narrative that we are all the same and there are no differences.  Truth is, we have to be equal.  If anyone is superior, it’s women because they create life.  We’re different, but equal.

Thank you for your opinion, but that is not my argument. Mine is, in the face of inequality (the obvious inequality) how can we be equal? A prime example is the inequality between God the Father and his Son. (Two men who could be physically and mentally equal.) They were NOT equal in the beginning. Could God the Father die? No. Could he die for our sins? No. The equality between them was to work together for a common goal. They strived together for the same purpose. The end result was that they became equal in all things... but only if they both have a wife. A woman and a man complete each other but they will never be equal physiologically. However, I believe they can be equal in all other things. My idea of equality or inequality has never been about who is more superior than the other. It has only been that they are different from each other. We can argue until the cows come home and that will never change... in all the eternities, it will never change nor has it ever changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

My idea of equality or inequality has never been about who is more superior than the other. It has only been that they are different from each other. 

I think that is the key point that bears repeating.  Not being equal doesn't not mean that one is superior.  It just means that they are different.  

My wrench and my screwdriver are unequal.  I need both to rebuild the engine on my lawnmower.  The screwdriver is superior to the wrench at manipulating screws.  The wrench is superior to the screwdriver at manipulating nuts. They are both required to complete the task, and they are both equal in importance.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share