On Licked Cupcakes *PG-13

[Gadianton]

Has it occurred to you that KA's perception might be more accurate than yours? Might it behoove you to reconsider your perceptions? I'm willing to reconsider mine.

And what of Beastie's? Why is hers inferior?

Uh, Mak, that was my point. Wade seemed to be suggesting that KA's "negative" perception was inferior and required an attitude adjustment. I would argue that KA's perception is no more or less valid than Wade's or beastie's, and it is better to try and understand why we see things differently than it is to judge that someone is "uncharitable" or negative for simply perceiving things differently.

You read both way too much into what I said and way too little--quite a feat I must say. I said nothing about "negative" or "inferior" or "attitude adjustment", nor did I intended to (the thoughts didn't cross my mind). And, in this instance I judged no one as "uncharitable". Furthermore, I did included myself in my GENERIC comments, and simply made the rather benign and useful point that we should be looking at personal perceptions rather than the Church in this instance. Your post merely reinforces my earlier point about perceptions--given the radically different way in which you interpreted what I said from the way I actually said it and meant it. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

My experience in the Church as a male, has given me a diametrically opposite view of women in relation to men than the OP. Rather than viewing women as inferior, I grew up putting them on a pedestal. To me, they seemed near angelic even as humans, and something that was to be treasured and held in respectful awe. In my mind their beauty and grace warmed and brightened whatever rooms ni which they were present, and the tenderness of their hearts dried many a tear and was like a comforting blanket wrapped around those in need. I envied their seemingly innate aptitude for spirituality and faith, and their admirable work ethic, which made them natural leaders without need of calling or priesthood powers.

What made things difficult for me, though, after leaving home and going out into the world, so to speak, was in learning that not all women lived up to the ideal I had been raised with in the Church, and some even fell well short of those expectations. It then became a matter of me adjusting down my perception of women to a more reasonable and less lofty level. In other words, I started to see women as not unlike me and other men in terms of human weaknesses and frailties.

Anyway, I find it fascinating that two people can be raised in the same Church, yet derive entirely opposing's perceptions of woman and men. To me, this suggests less about what the Church has presented, and more about how we each diversely interpret (or misinterpret) what the Church has presented.

So, rather than making a general call to abandon the Church, I think it may be more apt to advise reconsideration of certain personal perceptions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Isn't that kind of the point? Whether we dehumanize someone in a positive or negative way, it still serves to make the point that they are different from us. I've heard the explanation that this is why we don't discuss our Mother in Heaven, that she is too sacred to talk about. The result is still the same.

It's also interesting that either way you choose to describe what you were taught in the church, the reality was different, you admit that the teachings gave you false expectations of women that didn't mesh with reality. I think that is kind of the point of the OP. Thanks for your addition.

Your perception of the OP is quite different from mine. I didn't see it as a general commentary on false or unrealistic perceptions of women, but rather commentary on a specific false percpetion and unrealistic expectation--one that was diametric opposite from the false perception/expetations I had. And, I saw the OP as blaming the Church for her false/unrealistice perceptions, whereas I wasn't looking to blame anyone, but thought it wise to look to the opposing perceivers to better understand the false and unrealistic perceptions. So, how it is that you believe I was kind of making the point of the OP, is puzzling--though I think your opposing perception to mine of the OP does bear out my point earlier point. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

I should clarify my comments.

As a believer, I did not believe "the church" was sexist, in terms of the actual "true" gospel and God's view of humanity. I did definitely believe there were a lot of sexists in the LDS church, even as a member. I was never completely swayed by the argument against the ERA, for example, and abstained from the church organized opposition to it in my home state (one of the swing states). I believed that the human beings in the church had misinterpreted what the division of roles in the LDS church actually signified. Of course, this perception was a result of my own bias, since I was raised in an environment that generally rejected sexism and racism. (nonLDS, mainstream protestant with an educated, intelligent mother and a father who respected her for her intelligence)

As a nonbeliever I agree with the comments made by, If I recall correctly, Trinity, who pointed out that the sexism in the LDS church surpasses the sexism of patriarchy in general because it insists this gender division persists throughout eternity.

However, I still do not believe that the argument that a woman needs a man to get into the CK is a particularly good one, because the man needs a woman as well. Nor do I believe, from what male lifers have told me, that the burden of chastity was entirely on the girls (more-so than it was in society as a whole). The permanent gender division of roles is a much better argument, in my opinion, in regards to the priesthood and whether or not "heavenly mothers" participate fully in dealing with their "children" on various planets. The idea that HF wants to "protect" HM and this is why LDS are not to pray to her is an example of the patronizing pedestal prison, as is the idea that women have to be "protected" by the demands of the priesthood in this life due to their important roles as mothers. This justification is bunk, because LDS women already do as much work, or more, in the church as men do, and are only being "protected" from participating in significant sacred ordinances. In addition, the role of father is just as important, and men should be "protected" from having to sacrifice that role for the church, as well. (ps, I believe a paid ministry is a good thing in churches)

As to whether or not Muslim cultures put their women on pedestals or demonize them, I can't make an informed comment on that. In Judeo-Christian cultures, it does appear the pedestal is linked to sexism and is, in fact, the justification for the sexism, which "protects" the idealized, dehumanized female.

[_KimberlyAnn]

My experience in the Church as a male, has given me a diametrically opposite view of women in relation to men than the OP. Rather than viewing women as inferior, I grew up putting them on a pedestal. To me, they seemed near angelic even as humans, and something that was to be treasured and held in respectful awe. In my mind their beauty and grace warmed and brightened whatever rooms ni which they were present, and the tenderness of their hearts dried many a tear and was like a comforting blanket wrapped around those in need. I envied their seemingly innate aptitude for spirituality and faith, and their admirable work ethic, which made them natural leaders without need of calling or priesthood powers.

What made things difficult for me, though, after leaving home and going out into the world, so to speak, was in learning that not all women lived up to the ideal I had been raised with in the Church, and some even fell well short of those expectations. It then became a matter of me adjusting down my perception of women to a more reasonable and less lofty level. In other words, I started to see women as not unlike me and other men in terms of human weaknesses and frailties.

Anyway, I find it fascinating that two people can be raised in the same Church, yet derive entirely opposing's perceptions of woman and men. To me, this suggests less about what the Church has presented, and more about how we each diversely interpret (or misinterpret) what the Church has presented.

So, rather than making a general call to abandon the Church, I think it may be more apt to advise reconsideration of certain personal perceptions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Isn't that kind of the point? Whether we dehumanize someone in a positive or negative way, it still serves to make the point that they are different from us. I've heard the explanation that this is why we don't discuss our Mother in Heaven, that she is too sacred to talk about. The result is still the same.

It's also interesting that either way you choose to describe what you were taught in the church, the reality was different, you admit that the teachings gave you false expectations of women that didn't mesh with reality. I think that is kind of the point of the OP. Thanks for your addition.

Your perception of the OP is quite different from mine. I didn't see it as a general commentary on false or unrealistic perceptions of women, but rather commentary on a specific false percpetion and unrealistic expectation--one that was diametric opposite from the false perception/expetations I had. And, I saw the OP as blaming the Church for her false/unrealistice perceptions, whereas I wasn't looking to blame anyone, but thought it wise to look to the opposing perceivers to better understand the false and unrealistic perceptions. So, how it is that you believe I was kind of making the point of the OP, is puzzling--though I think your opposing perception to mine of the OP does bear out my point earlier point. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Excuse me? My perception most certainly is not false. My perception is spot on correct about your false Mormon church and how it treats women. What the hell was the cupcake lesson supposed to teach me, Wade? The message was loud and clear. Used girls are useless. The boys got the point, too - they shouldn't want a disgusting used woman.

Never was a twinkie licked in Young Women's and passed around as an example of an unchaste boy whom we shouldn't want. Never. The girls were taught they would be unwanted by anyone if they weren't virgins. The boys were taught that a girl who made a mistake and wasn't pristine was disgusting. A cupcake licked by someone else. Gross. The cupcake lesson taught them not to lick cupcakes because it ruins the cupcakes for other boys, not because licking would ruin the young man himself! A total and complete double standard.

I believed what I was taught, Wade. What the leaders in the Mormon church taught me. I believed the doctrine. The Mormon church is to blame for my perceptions, Wade, whether you believe them to be false or not. I think if you believe my perceptions to be false, then you believe the teachings of the church to be false. My perceptions are an accurate reflection of those teachings.

[_beastie]

I do agree with Kimberly Ann, actually. Although I believe both boys and girls were made to feel responsible for keeping chaste, and boys were just as messed up by the constant "no masturbation" chatter, I do think it is likely true that the church culture made young women feel more permanently "damaged" by sexual sin than it made young men feel.

[_moksha]

Does anyone hold that the licked cupcake way of thinking was basically unrealistic and neurosis provoking, whether it was presented equally to both sexes or not?

[_KimberlyAnn]

I should clarify my comments.

As a believer, I did not believe "the church" was sexist, in terms of the actual "true" gospel and God's view of humanity. I did definitely believe there were a lot of sexists in the LDS church, even as a member. I was never completely swayed by the argument against the ERA, for example, and abstained from the church organized opposition to it in my home state (one of the swing states). I believed that the human beings in the church had misinterpreted what the division of roles in the LDS church actually signified. Of course, this perception was a result of my own bias, since I was raised in an environment that generally rejected sexism and racism. (nonLDS, mainstream protestant with an educated, intelligent mother and a father who respected her for her intelligence)

As a nonbeliever I agree with the comments made by, If I recall correctly, Trinity, who pointed out that the sexism in the LDS church surpasses the sexism of patriarchy in general because it insists this gender division persists throughout eternity.

However, I still do not believe that the argument that a woman needs a man to get into the CK is a particularly good one, because the man needs a woman as well. Nor do I believe, from what male lifers have told me, that the burden of chastity was entirely on the girls (more-so than it was in society as a whole). The permanent gender division of roles is a much better argument, in my opinion, in regards to the priesthood and whether or not "heavenly mothers" participate fully in dealing with their "children" on various planets. The idea that HF wants to "protect" HM and this is why LDS are not to pray to her is an example of the patronizing pedestal prison, as is the idea that women have to be "protected" by the demands of the priesthood in this life due to their important roles as mothers. This justification is bunk, because LDS women already do as much work, or more, in the church as men do, and are only being "protected" from participating in significant sacred ordinances. In addition, the role of father is just as important, and men should be "protected" from having to sacrifice that role for the church, as well. (ps, I believe a paid ministry is a good thing in churches)

As to whether or not Muslim cultures put their women on pedestals or demonize them, I can't make an informed comment on that. In Judeo-Christian cultures, it does appear the pedestal is linked to sexism and is, in fact, the justification for the sexism, which "protects" the idealized, dehumanized female.

I do perceive the doctrine to be inherently sexist. I was told explicitly that the burden was on girls to remain chaste and to keep boys chaste for their missions. I was taught that in lessons, and told that in an interview with my Bishop. In fact, the Bishop felt so sure I was the responsible party for the French kissing I confessed, that he wasn't upset in the least that I wouldn't reveal my partner in crime (the Stake President's son). He said I bore the burden of chastity because I was a pretty girl and boys didn't have much self-control. God gave them urges that were difficult to suppress. Because the crime of French kissing happened on the way to a church dance, the Bishop asked me if I was wearing a slip under my skirt, as if that made any difference. I reported that I wasn't because I was wearing a jean skirt, and so he instructed me to always wear a slip and in fact, later instituted a rule that all young women must wear slips under all their dresses and skirts. The Young Women's leader actually checked to make sure we had one, and if we didn't, she kept spares in the closet. I kid you not.

Yes, men need to be married to inherit the highest tier of the celestial kingdom. But the women to whom I was referring in my original post on RfM were married women. Women who's husbands were unbelieving. These women did everything they were supposed to do, but would still end up in some dude's celestial harem in the CK. A man who's wife doesn't believe will still be made a God and assigned a harem of his own. I wonder how many Mormon men would like to be one of dozens of men married to their wives in the hereafter? I'm sure most of them would be disgusted at the thought of their wife having sex with numerous men for eternity while they babysat all the little spirit kids she produced. The entire Mormon concept of eternal families is sexest to the core, in my opinion.

You also must understand that my original post wasn't intended to be the best argument, necessarily. It was simply a post made in reply to a man on RfM that took me only as long to create as it took to type it - probably less than five minutes. It's my own gut reaction to the sexism in Mormonism and my experience with the lesson of the licked cupcake.

KA

[_harmony]

I guess I was a bad mom. My ward didn't use the licked cupcake/squished, bitten, stomped on twinkie analogy but a couple of times, and it didn't work because my girls ate the cupcake. (How to sink a poor lesson without even trying). We used the tiger. Don't pet the tiger, the girls were told. The tiger was the boys. I took exception to this on both ends, and my bishop and I got into a shouting match at Mutual one night (one of those lame Evening in White things for girls), because I objected to my boys being portrayed as being so lacking in self control that they were unable to control their natural sexual urges and I objected to my girls being held responsible for someone else's chastity. Let's just say... after that, there were several lessons to everyone (adults included) about several diffferent things (personal responsibility, respecting one's bishop, acceptable methods of teaching chastity).

Dang, didn't you guys have anyone to stick up for you, when you were teenagers?

[_Sethbag]

KA, you must excuse me for being pretty ignorant about women's clothing, but what would a slip have helped? I don't get it.

[_harmony]

KA, you must excuse me for being pretty ignorant about women's clothing, but what would a slip have helped? I don't get it.

One more barrier to remind the youth of what they were doing? Made of the same fabric as garments?