A "Female Problem"?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

ajax18 wrote:
But I do not think God will love them less or even prohibit them from being with him because of it.


Jason in looking at this principle generally as far as keeping any commandment (and since I've already asserted what upsets me about women), it's something I really don't agree with in some people's interpretation of Mormonism. The seminary manual said, "What can you do to make God love you more? What can you make him do to love you less?" I wrote out my response of all the things I could do. Then turned over and looked at the Home study answer. It said, "Nothing," God will always love you the same no matter what. This makes no sense to me. I still don't understand what they mean by "love."

To me their must be a benefit to keeping a commandment, otherwise the one who gave the commandment did not make it with the best interest of the governed in mind. And to me it only makes sense if God loves Jesus more than Satan and every one of us proportionally to where we fall in between on that continuum. Otherwise what is love? Does God still love Satan. Does He still love me as an inactive as much as when I ruined my health in his service. I don't think He should. It wouldn't be fair to the man I once was.

I know devout Mormons who have confided in me that they don't share the view of the seminary manual either. I respected it that they would at least make a stand one way or the other on it. Most Mormons I would talk with would avoid the dilemma with a bunch of double talk designed to protect the Church rather than resolve the paradox.


Ajax, do you have children?

As a parent, I will tell you that there is NOTHING, I mean NOTHING one of my children could do that would either have me love them more or less. NOTHING.

I do not know how a God could possibly not have unconditional love.. anything less is less than Godly.

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

ajax18 wrote:
I do not know of any feminist who thinks there is some need or reason for restitution or retaliation because of the treatment of women over the past five thousand years.


Affirmative action seems to me to try to compensate for past racial and gender inequalities. I mentioned the divorce law I read as a law student. It left even the most liberal men in the class just shaking their heads as they read the cases and the precedents that were set.


Goodness, but your youth is showing. If you'd lived through the 50's and the 60's, you'd know exactly what AA was designed to address. It's certainly not a perfect system, and it wasn't perfect when it started out, but it's a whole lot better than the legalized discrimination that took place prior to its inception. All it did was level the economic playing field, by giving an incentive to hire or rent to minorities. It didn't preclude hiring or renting to a white male, it just made it so that wasn't the automatic assumption. Of course some white males see that as infringing on their power. Oh well. Put the shoe on the other foot... you don't like it when you get stuck in family court. You get pissed off and frustrated. Well, now you know what it feels like to be a woman, or black, or brown, or red.

And like I said in repsonse to the original post. I don't think it's fair that Mormon culture girls go out to college and it's a big party or adventure, while the men know it comes down to them to ultimately go to work.


Like young men in Mormon culture don't party? That is so bogus, it defies comment.

It seems to me that the women I've talked to think they should have the choice (and complete autonomy in the decision) to go to work or stay with their children whenever they want.


You don't know much about LDS women's lives, do you? Women don't have any choices; being a mom is what we do, or else we face overt and covert criticism every day of our lives. At least men can choose what they do when they go to work, they can be engineers, or welders, or teachers, or whatever. LDS women can choose to be mothers, period. Any other choice is unacceptable. The only unacceptable choice for LDS men is to not work at all (which is an unacceptable choice within the larger society too).

Yet the man must go to work and if he doesn't make enough money, the judge may tell him to get a better job. Yes it happened. My best friend is an illegitimate child with no parental help. He graduated college in chemistry, but there aren't many jobs around undergrad chemists. Times were not good. So we worked at WalMart together in the Vision center, me for the experience, him because that was the best he could get. We earned roughly $1200 a month. He may have been earning as much as $1400 a month since he had been there a while.

His wife went to court and had his child support raised from $200 a month to $800 a month. Now he can't even pay his rent, let alone buy food. Her new man makes up to $30/hr., but welders don't always have steady work, and sometimes he's learned that it pays not to go. Of course she won't even consider working even though her twin daughters are now in 2nd grade. Why would she? Minimum wage jobs suck. But somebody's got to do it. Could my friend have won custody of the children? Absolutely not, the judge would not even consider it. Is that fair?


Anecdotal, and worth every penny... to someone who cares. We've all go stories like that, on both sides of the coin. My sis was divorced and her ex-husband never paid her a dime for their 2 kids. He quit his job and would move, rather than pay child support. Judges do the best they can; they aren't perfect and they certainly don't have God-like discernment.

Title IX. Another case of current inequality as a means of redressing past inequality. Now they want to take our sports away. Not all girls are interested in sports, but most boys are. Perhaps we should say equal money should be spent on boys and girls activities, but to say that equal money should be spent on boys and girls sports is simply unfair.


This is horse pucky. You might want to do some research before you spout off. I grew up prior to Title IX; there were no girls sports at all. ALL the money was spent on boys, and the girls had GAA, if we were lucky (Girls Athletic Asso), where we could have play days on a few Saturdays a year. Whoopdedo. There were no professional women's sports back then. Now, thanks to Title IX, girls have an equal shot at playing sports. You remember the Nike ad of several years ago? "If you let me play sports, I'll be less likely to drop out of school. If you let me play sports, I'll be less likely to get breast cancer. If you let me play sports, .... etc.) That's backed by solid research. My daughter is a coach for a girl's softball team in the spring. Her team is made up entirely of Latino and African American girls who would never get to play without Title IX. During the summer, she coaches in a rec league. She pays the fee, because her girls come from very disadvantaged homes. Without Title IX, they wouldn't know how to play. She's so proud because 5 of her girls got to play on the high school JV team this year. A first from her middle school. Do you have any idea how important it is to those girls that Title IX exists???

Good grief, man. Pull your head out of your butt!
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

I do not know how a God could possibly not have unconditional love.. anything less is less than Godly.


Does God love Hitler?

Parents do possess unconditional love for their children. I taught in a high school once. I know parents (who are otherwise rational and upright people) defend their kids and try to shift the blame anywhere else even when their kids are clearly in the wrong. Sometimes I wonder if that's not just a part of human frailty and the selfish gene hypothesis. Is nepotism a good thing? Maybe it's socially acceptable for some, but it certainly wouldn't be if someone like me were to practice it, would it? It seems similar to racism to me, just in a little more narrow scope.

I'm just saying that if God treats sinners and saints equally, that it's not right. He may give all the same oppurtunity, but He does not allow everyone into His presence. Some will obtain more of His presence than others. I believe in the inequality of man affirmed in the Book of Mormon. The cause of that inequality is the morality and the law lived by each individual person. Either it's a commandment from God or it's not.

Like I said before. Whether a professional sport exists or does not, should be dictated by the market and those who care to watch it, not some bureaucret headed for 2099.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

Again, I'm the exact opposite. If I absolutely must be probed "back there," it damn well better be by a woman.


Ok, I'll have to give you an A+ for laughter. Yes Shades, we're nothing alike except that we were both once active Mormons. But I think you're all right, and I love your site.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

left his wife and four children (all under the age of ten), remarried, got re-baptized one year later, had seven more children in the next ten years and does not pay child support, or support his first four children in any way.


That is interesting. I remembered one of the temple recommend interview questions asking whether I had any children I was liable for. I don't think those were the exact words but you get the idea. Secondly every man I've met who doesn't pay child support goes to jail, which some elect to do as in the case of my friend at WalMart since his living situation was already so bad.

We know that after a divorce, typically a man's living standards go up while a woman's goes way down.


Often times that is why a woman chooses to marry a man in the first place. Often times he turns out to be a jerk and is not worth putting up with no matter how much money he gives her. She should have a right to leave, but she shouldn't have a right to take more money out of the marriage than she came into it with. Currently the case law seems to me to have set a precedent that she does. I think this is very wrong! And yes I've seen many cases where women leave not because the man treated her poorly, but because she has no motivation to stay if she can kick him out and still take his money.

I maintain that the current case law for divorce and family court is unfair to men and I also maintain that most men get the short end of the stick in divorce. Here is a great link from wikipedia that illustrates an example of this systematic and pervasive unfairness upheld by law in paternity fraud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud

So, while there are exceptions, it is not like women are somehow living like queens while a man is on welfare.


There may be the difference in how we're judging this. I'm saying that a person should not take from a marriage more than he came in with. You seem to be saying that both people should walk away from the marriage living equally well.

While, yeah most stay at home moms get primary custody, couples who both work often share custody. I don't know why this is a bad thing.


It's a bad thing because the man is not involved in the choice. The woman can choose to take custody or demand that the man take care of the child. The man has no say in the matter. This is not equal power by any means. Nor does he have any control over what money is spent on the children or if it is even spent on the children at all. He just has to write her a check. This is not equal power nor is it shared decision making.

The problem is Ajax, you seem to have this anger toward women and see everything as a fight; women against men. It is not like this for most of us. Why do you feel this way?


I feel this way amongst feminists who seek more power still. I feel like they already have more power. When I see them stepping over the line that I see as fair and just, I'm going fight them with all I have. Actually it's not that way in personal life anymore since thakfully I'm no longer dating, but I was lucky enough to find a fair minded woman and we are comfortable with our roles. Not all men are this lucky, and the current legal state tramples mens' rights and needs to be changed.

Wanting equality is not about fighting men, it is about moving toward a more enlightened and harmonious society where women and men can live their lives in the best way they can with equal opportunities, rights, and privileges.


It shouldn't be about fighting each other. We do need societal norms that demand an equitable dealings between men and women in personal as well as professional lives. Right now we don't have that. It also does no good to throw in the face of white male school boys what their ancestors did to another. And while I appreciate you admitting that this does not mean that nobody alive today owes another for what happened in lives of other people who lived before, many people draw this conclusion as a result of the way we teach history.

I've had it thrown in my face all my life. They shouldn't be that surprised when I fight back.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

Oh here's another good link. TD as far as I can see I don't have any problem with your push for women's rights. Tell me this. Do you also support men's rights as outlined in this link? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Secondly every man I've met who doesn't pay child support goes to jail, which some elect to do as in the case of my friend at WalMart since his living situation was already so bad.


How many men have you met that don't pay child support? Do any of them live in a different state than the state in which they owe support? I'm curious about this, because my sister's exhusband rarely paid child support, but since he lived in a different state, there was nothing she could do about it. The law didn't bother him at all, much less put him in jail.



And yes I've seen many cases where women leave not because the man treated her poorly, but because she has no motivation to stay if she can kick him out and still take his money.


Just exactly what number constitutes "many"? And how do you know such personal, reliable information about the situation?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

ajax18 wrote:
left his wife and four children (all under the age of ten), remarried, got re-baptized one year later, had seven more children in the next ten years and does not pay child support, or support his first four children in any way.


That is interesting. I remembered one of the temple recommend interview questions asking whether I had any children I was liable for. I don't think those were the exact words but you get the idea. Secondly every man I've met who doesn't pay child support goes to jail, which some elect to do as in the case of my friend at WalMart since his living situation was already so bad.

Yes, there is a question in the TRI. So, the guy lies. Plain and simple. He is not the first man to lie to get in the temple. Seriously Ajax you know this. My sister's X lives in a different state... I'm not sure of all the legal ramifications but I do know she does not want him in jail with seven other little children to feed.

We know that after a divorce, typically a man's living standards go up while a woman's goes way down.


Often times that is why a woman chooses to marry a man in the first place. Often times he turns out to be a jerk and is not worth putting up with no matter how much money he gives her. She should have a right to leave, but she shouldn't have a right to take more money out of the marriage than she came into it with. Currently the case law seems to me to have set a precedent that she does. I think this is very wrong! And yes I've seen many cases where women leave not because the man treated her poorly, but because she has no motivation to stay if she can kick him out and still take his money.

If a young couple gets married and both have virtually nothing, she works to put him through med school, she stays home and takes care of their six children. He has an affair with his nurse then wants a divorce do you think the wife is entitled to anything?

See, most folks think that if a woman is staying at home to raise children, she is a valuable participant in the family. The income from the husband is shared because the wife is contributing, hence the money is "family money", split in the case of divorce.

Why you think otherwise is really odd in my opinion. You seem to think the women is more like a kept woman or something.


I maintain that the current case law for divorce and family court is unfair to men and I also maintain that most men get the short end of the stick in divorce. Here is a great link from wikipedia that illustrates an example of this systematic and pervasive unfairness upheld by law in paternity fraud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud

I totally disagree. While yes there are mistakes made and the system is not perfect, I think law makers are doing their best to make life fair particularly for children.

So, while there are exceptions, it is not like women are somehow living like queens while a man is on welfare.


There may be the difference in how we're judging this. I'm saying that a person should not take from a marriage more than he came in with. You seem to be saying that both people should walk away from the marriage living equally well.

See my comment above.

While, yeah most stay at home moms get primary custody, couples who both work often share custody. I don't know why this is a bad thing.


It's a bad thing because the man is not involved in the choice. The woman can choose to take custody or demand that the man take care of the child. The man has no say in the matter. This is not equal power by any means. Nor does he have any control over what money is spent on the children or if it is even spent on the children at all. He just has to write her a check. This is not equal power nor is it shared decision making.

This is total nonsense. Ridiculous. A woman doesn't demand anything to the court. While it is true that the parent who is paying child support (both men and women) do not have control over how the money is spent, can you come up with a better system? Are their abuses on both sides, yes. Does it mean the laws are unfair? No.

The problem is Ajax, you seem to have this anger toward women and see everything as a fight; women against men. It is not like this for most of us. Why do you feel this way?


I feel this way amongst feminists who seek more power still. I feel like they already have more power. When I see them stepping over the line that I see as fair and just, I'm going fight them with all I have. Actually it's not that way in personal life anymore since thakfully I'm no longer dating, but I was lucky enough to find a fair minded woman and we are comfortable with our roles. Not all men are this lucky, and the current legal state tramples mens' rights and needs to be changed.

Yeah, this is obvious. You think women have this enormous power and want more. I'm trying to figure out what happened to you that you have this impression, or hold this world view. You get so angry when women "step over the line" whatever this means... do you have an example? But you seem to have zero understanding that women are still not even close to having the power and privilege as men. It is not even close Ajax.

Wanting equality is not about fighting men, it is about moving toward a more enlightened and harmonious society where women and men can live their lives in the best way they can with equal opportunities, rights, and privileges.


It shouldn't be about fighting each other. We do need societal norms that demand an equitable dealings between men and women in personal as well as professional lives. Right now we don't have that.

What do you mean?

It also does no good to throw in the face of white male school boys what their ancestors did to another. And while I appreciate you admitting that this does not mean that nobody alive today owes another for what happened in lives of other people who lived before, many people draw this conclusion as a result of the way we teach history.

I've had it thrown in my face all my life. They shouldn't be that surprised when I fight back.


So, now we get to the bottom of it all. :-) What has been thrown in your face? Maybe you don't want to share but it seems like something in your life created the anger and rage toward women.

Whatever it is, I'm sorry it happened to you.


~dancer~

Ohhh and yes I am a VERY strong masculinist (my made up word). I think men have gotten the short end of the stick in other ways. I am all about equality and respecting human beings. :-)
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

ajax18 wrote:Ok, I'll have to give you an A+ for laughter.


Thanks! Although I can't hold a candle to Cinepro, I suppose I have my moments.

Yes Shades, we're nothing alike except that we were both once active Mormons. But I think you're all right, and I love your site.


Thanks again on both counts! It's good to have a satisfied customer.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

Just exactly what number constitutes "many"? And how do you know such personal, reliable information about the situation?


See the links that I listed to Wikipedia on paternity fraud and mens rights activism. Those more clearly outline my beef with the law.

Perhaps this is what you were talking about when you said working togehter,

Likewise, gender egalitarians call for both masculists and feminists who are truly interested in equality to unite under one banner of gender egalitarianism. This philosophy is sympathetic to legitimate grievances of both males and females.


Honestly I think that men and women are so different that gender roles is a better system, but if feminism is here to stay, the least we can do is move towards gender egalitarianism so that that grievances of both genders are remedied. Just one banner of maculinism or feminism seems incomplete.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Post Reply