Women's suffrage and Mormonism

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

see the ramifications of your view. To equate an understanding of natural differences (strengths and weaknesses) between men and women as sexist, myopic and ignorant means your ears and eyes are shut.

I heard the same crap being spewed by A Swedish coalition of feminists during the debates on whether Sweden was to join the EU or not. They had traveled down to Greece, Spain and Italy and their rhetoric was filled with the same finger pointing as yours. Oh how these Mediterranean women were oppressed having to stay home and take care of the children, having no college education, no careers, no opportunities to grow, blah blah blah.

The irony is that two major news agencies in Germany and Sweden actually spent some time interviewing women from the above mentioned countries and they were shocked that many of these Spanish, Italian and Greek women would actually point the finger back at the Swedes and claim that the Swedish women were the ones truly oppressed since they had to fill the roles of nurturer and breadwinner. They felt that the pressure these women put on themselves to replace roles that men had filled for so long only served to make them even more unhappy than they already were. These Mediterranean women were clear on how they valued themselves, and how important their role in the lives of their family and society were. The Coalitions work was actually hurt by this exposure, and they quickly disappeared from the media as their arguments didn't hold water. Imagine that. In socialist Sweden where Daddies can get time off of work to be Mr. Mom, and the state funded day care system has all but replaced the nurturing care of parents.

Sometimes when something has been working for thousands of years, trying to change it due to an overinflated ego of self importance and skewed perspectives on the worth of souls (money, prominence, worldly recognition), you have to ask yourself who the backward, myopic, and ignorant people are.

Blah blah blah. Don't come here citing hearsay studies without citation to support your crack-pot, fringe sexist theories. Ignoramus, you're in the stone age. More than half the population of elite colleges and graduate and professional schools are women. Women are holding their own numrerically and intellectually in the board rooms, faculties, OR's, law firms and labs of the most elite institutions in the West. Their kids have been growing up and attending places like Stanford now for 2-3 generations. Odds are our next president will be a woman.

I'd like to see if your hero Romney would spout this blather. He wouldn't because half the directors of corporations he's formed are women, and he'd be done as a candidate in one second if he did.

I have as little repsect for sexism as I do racism. I know hundreds of women who are great mothers and would disembowel you professionally in the blink of an eye.

[woot]

From an anthropological perspective, the evidence does indeed suggest that men were the ones doing the vast majority of the hunting in hunter/gatherer societies. However, the evidence also suggests that the women were providing close to, and in some cases more than, 50% of the support. The women provided the stable, day-to-day food for the children, while the men were adventuring around and providing unpredictable bursts of healthy nutrition. From this perspective, the women were at least as important in providing for young as were men.

Also, it seems that men participating in the rearing of children would have become important fairly early in the evolution of Homo sapiens, and is likely the reason why our culture emphasizes marriage and monogamy so much.

To get to the point, recognizing differences between men and women is one thing; pigeonholing the sexes into roles based on one's short-sighted interpretation of these differences is another. There is no reason to believe that women should not participate in working for the material support of children, just as there is no reason to believe that men can not rear children as effectively as women. These concepts have been perpetuated by religion in spite of the best evidence.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by woot

From an anthropological perspective, the evidence does indeed suggest that men were the ones doing the vast majority of the hunting in hunter/gatherer societies. However, the evidence also suggests that the women were providing close to, and in some cases more than, 50% of the support. The women provided the stable, day-to-day food for the children, while the men were adventuring around and providing unpredictable bursts of healthy nutrition. From this perspective, the women were at least as important in providing for young as were men.

Also, it seems that men participating in the rearing of children would have become important fairly early in the evolution of Homo sapiens, and is likely the reason why our culture emphasizes marriage and monogamy so much.

To get to the point, recognizing differences between men and women is one thing; pigeonholing the sexes into roles based on one's short-sighted interpretation of these differences is another. There is no reason to believe that women should not participate in working for the material support of children, just as there is no reason to believe that men can not rear children as effectively as women. These concepts have been perpetuated by religion in spite of the best evidence.

It's been a long time since hunting and gathering was an imporatant means to sustenance for humans. In agrarian societies, and if people want to go back in history for precedent that's where most humans have lived in recorded history, women were at least as important as men for putting bread on the table, more so if the men thought their role was to be out hunting and making war all the time. Tacitus' The Germania or Tolstoy's The Cossacks provide good descriptions of this reality.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

See, my point exactly. This is what mainstream Mormons believe. They're sexist, myopic, and ignorant when it comes to women.

Ah bull crap. I am not a mainstream mormon as you would define them and I believe there are huge differences between men and women. I don't care how chubby you get and how you try to fix your man boobs, you will never look like my girlfriends.

There are always exceptions to the general rule, but in general to say women do things better than men and men do things better than women is not sexist. It is facing facts and as long as you are comfortable and allow for the exceptions, that position is not sexist, myopic or ignorant.

What is sexist is to give opportunities where none is deserved. How about Title IX or X. The one that says have the activitiy that provides all the revenue pay for the ones that don't.

I can't wait for the day when I take my sons to a ball game and some government agency insists I take my daughters to a ballet of equal value.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Ah bull crap. I am not a mainstream mormon as you would define them and I believe there are huge differences between men and women.

What's the point here? I've been saying in this thread mainstream Mormons are sexist. All you self-proclaimed mainstream Mormons are just proving sexism is a defining characteristic of Mormon culture. Sooner's original post raised that isse.

I've not said there aren't differences between men and women. Actually, what I believe is that some of those differences may make women better suited than men to the elite white collar careers.

[woot]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It's been a long time since hunting and gathering was an imporatant means to sustenance for humans. In agrarian societies, and if people want to go back in history for precedent that's where most humans have lived in recorded history, women were at least as important as men for putting bread on the table, more so if the men thought their role was to be out hunting and making war all the time. Tacitus' The Germania or Tolstoy's The Cossacks provide good descriptions of this reality.

That's true as well, but the issue at hand was sex differences, and the vast majority of human evolution has taken place in foraging/H&G societies, not agrarian ones. Either way, the point is the same. To try to support the church's position by pointing out sex differences (As DJRoss did) is silly according to the known behavior of humans of any period of time.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What's the point here? I've been saying in this thread mainstream Mormons are sexist. All you self-proclaimed mainstream Mormons are just proving sexism is a defining characteristic of Mormon culture. Sooner's original post raised that isse.

I've not said there aren't differences between men and women. Actually, what I believe is that some of those differences may make women better suited than men to the elite white collar careers.

That might be a debate worth having. Tell me what you consider to be sexist. I am interested to know if I fit in your definition.

For instance I think Title 1X or X is stupid. If everything is to be so dang equal, why do we have womens and mens sports. Just have one college football, basketball, golf, etc. team. Why do we have to have one for each.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BYU71

That might be a debate worth having. Tell me what you consider to be sexist. I am interested to know if I fit in your definition.

For instance I think Title 1X or X is stupid. If everything is to be so dang equal, why do we have womens and mens sports. Just have one college football, basketball, golf, etc. team. Why do we have to have one for each.

I think it's sexist to say women are better suited to be full time mothers, and that is their place, which is what two posters have said here. Such statements are not only sexist but openly disproven in every corner and at every level of our country's and Europe's commercial environment. Women today excel at every level, perform toe to toe with men, and there is no evidence (other than anecdotal) that children of working women are worse off. There's more reliable evidence that the average two hours a day small children spend in front of the TV is damaging to them. I know plenty of full-time working moms with great kids. Some have to work, in fact.

It all depends on the whole circumstances. What I oppose here is generalizations. I am not saying what women shoud do, contrary to Norcalcat or DJ Ross.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think it's sexist to say women are better suited to be full time mothers, and that is their place, which is what two posters have said here. Such statements are not only sexist but openly disproven in every corner and at every level of our country's and Europe's commercial environment. Women today excel at every level, perform toe to toe with men, and there is no evidence (other than anecdotal) that children of working women are worse off. There's more reliable evidence that the average two hours a day small children spend in front of the TV is damaging to them. I know plenty of full-time working moms with great kids. Some have to work, in fact.

It all depends on the whole circumstances. What I oppose here is generalizations. I am not saying what women shoud do, contrary to Norcalcat or DJ Ross.

To say a womens place is in the home is sexist, I will agree. To say women in general are better suited to be full time parents as opposed to men, I just don't see how one could argue that. We probably wouldn't have to even argue it if full time Mom's were given the accolades they deserve.

If this weren't the case, I would argue that more kids, primarily minorities, wouldn't be on TV thanking their moms and grandmoms.

There is no reason to think that a woman entering medical school and a male entering medical school that the male will end up the better Dr.

ON the other hand, I think there is ample evidence that you could make a guess in general which gender would make the better stay at home parent and which gender would do better at sitting at a bar getting drunk.

[woot]

Originally Posted by BYU71

To say a womens place is in the home is sexist, I will agree. To say women in general are better suited to be full time parents as opposed to men, I just don't see how one could argue that. We probably wouldn't have to even argue it if full time Mom's were given the accolades they deserve.

If this weren't the case, I would argue that more kids, primarily minorities, wouldn't be on TV thanking their moms and grandmoms.

There is no reason to think that a woman entering medical school and a male entering medical school that the male will end up the better Dr.

ON the other hand, I think there is ample evidence that you could make a guess in general which gender would make the better stay at home parent and which gender would do better at sitting at a bar getting drunk.

Do you hate yourself? I can't imagine the motivation behind characterizing one's sex so poorly. I've known women who could drink me under the table, and I've known women that are way better with kids than me (Almost all of them in this case, as kids aren't really my thing). These sorts of generalizations are sexist and not supported by the facts.

You don't think there could possibly be any other reason why people say "Hi Mom" on TV?