I exclude you out of respect...

[_Jersey Girl]

Ms Jack

So, do you know lots of Mormons who have openly "bitched" to their leaders' faces when something was truly bothering them?

Because I don't. The church discourages its members from criticizing "the Lord's anointed," even when the criticism is true. My LDS friends would never speak up against a local leader, let alone a General Authority. Let alone while a ceremony was underway.

If the church discourages it's members from criticizing prominent leaders and if female members accept this as a condition of the religious/cultural tradition they are members of....

then what's the gripe?

Oaks is functioning as a product of his religious/cultural/generational traditions and so are the women.

And?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Gal dangit, no girl from jersey has ever worked in the dirt. Your Dad was a banker and you party in the hamptons Jersey Girl.

[_Jersey Girl]

Gal dangit, no girl from jersey has ever worked in the dirt. Your Dad was a banker and you party in the hamptons Jersey Girl.

lol

How I wish!

:-)

[_moksha]

Women are certainly uptight these days. And this is the reason why I never hold the door open for any lady who is of the younger generation. But they can certainly open the door for me.

Don't sweat it Why Me. Just be courteous as your mother taught you. Almost all young women beyond teenage years will respond with the words thank you.

[_Chap]

Ms Jack

So, do you know lots of Mormons who have openly "bitched" to their leaders' faces when something was truly bothering them?

Because I don't. The church discourages its members from criticizing "the Lord's anointed," even when the criticism is true. My LDS friends would never speak up against a local leader, let alone a General Authority. Let alone while a ceremony was underway.

If the church discourages it's members from criticizing prominent leaders and if female members accept this as a condition of the religious/cultural tradition they are members of....

then what's the gripe?

Oaks is functioning as a product of his religious/cultural/generational traditions and so are the women.

And?

Oh, no-one would object if the women in question were recruited by an advertizing campaign with full disclosure in which prospects who previously knew nothing about Mormonism had a complete deal laid out to them, along the lines of "This is what you will get by joining, and this is what we will demand of you."

The problem here is that we are talking about a system that begins by carefully shaping the expectations of little girls in primary, and then continues through the Young Women's program, as well as by a myriad of open and implicit social pressures to form them into adult women who consider certain behaviors as normal that are anomalous in the context of a democratic and open society. They then go on to help shape their daughters in turn.

The 'gripe' (a loaded term, that) is that this is not free acceptance by aware and independent adults, but careful social conditioning to produce submissive and uncritical females who may not even realize that they have a choice to act otherwise.

I am not criticizing the women here - who can blame them? - but the system that put them in that position.

[_JAK]

Yeah, I feel like his sexist excuse actually just highlighted it.

I suppose that your husbad should stop opening the door for you, if he is doing it. It can be looked upon as sexist. Or if there is only one umbrella and it is rather a small one at that, maybe he should use it himself and allow you to get wet since it was his umbrella. Why should he offer it to you?

The things men do for women out of politeness is now thought of to be sexist.

why me,

This is a situational issue, and situations are different. A husband opening the door for his wife is not, in itself, “sexist.” It depends largely upon the situation and approach to “the door.” If she is really far ahead of him, she may open the door. It was not “sexist.” If he is there first by a second and opens the door for her, it is not “sexist.” If she is disabled and in a wheelchair, and her husband opens the door, it is not “sexist.”

If it’s a first date and the guy wants to be kind or differential to his first date, opening the door is not “sexist.”

Situation – situation - situation

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK

why me,

This is a situational issue, and situations are different. A husband opening the door for his wife is not, in itself, “sexist.” It depends largely upon the situation and approach to “the door.” If she is really far ahead of him, she may open the door. It was not “sexist.” If he is there first by a second and opens the door for her, it is not “sexist.” If she is disabled and in a wheelchair, and her husband opens the door, it is not “sexist.”

If it’s a first date and the guy wants to be kind or differential to his first date, opening the door is not “sexist.”

Situation – situation - situation

Yeah and if some guy wants to change the belts on the belt sander to assist his wife who is breaking her ass sanding a deck, that's not sexist either.

:-D

[_JAK]

JAK

why me,

This is a situational issue, and situations are different. A husband opening the door for his wife is not, in itself, “sexist.” It depends largely upon the situation and approach to “the door.” If she is really far ahead of him, she may open the door. It was not “sexist.” If he is there first by a second and opens the door for her, it is not “sexist.” If she is disabled and in a wheelchair, and her husband opens the door, it is not “sexist.”

If it’s a first date and the guy wants to be kind or differential to his first date, opening the door is not “sexist.”

Situation – situation - situation

Yeah and if some guy wants to change the belts on the belt sander to assist his wife who is breaking her ass sanding a deck, that's not sexist either.

:-D

That sounds reasonable to me. I’d do it.

JAK

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Is there something offensive about women of this current generation attempting to enlighten themselves also? How many bitch posts are on this board about husbands? They don't help do housework, they don't pay us enough attention...

so, an elderly gentlemen does something nice for the women present at a ceremony and we're going to bitch about that too?

When do the men get appreciation around here?

Is this because Elder Oaks is an LDS mucky muck? Why ding him because he is acting like an older LDS mucky muck?

I mean seriously, I don't blame men for being frustrated with women sometimes.

What if Oaks had said, "You know what ladies? It's windy and rainy today. I don't want to get MY shoes wet so tell you what, all the sisters can come forward and do the digging while all of us men sit on our patriarchal asses and watch."

Then, folks here would be bitching because he made women do the dirty work.

How is this guy supposed to win here??????????

Of course, he might have acknowledged the weather conditions and opened an invitation to ALL. But he didn't and so what? I am more than certain that he opens the door for his wife and extends courtesy to her on a daily basis.

It is what men of his generation and particularly, the LDS culture DO.

He is living his freaking religion and what, we're all shocked at that?

Well, I'm not.[/quote]

I sure hope you feel better soon, Jersey Girl.

I stand by the comment I made earlier, that he shouldn't have called attention to women and their shoes in the first place. If he'd just called men up there to do the shoveling, nobody would have expected anything different. That's how he would have won in the situation. He stuck his own designer shoes in his mouth.

I haven't really noticed much bitching about husbands around here, to tell the truth.

[_MsJack]

Hi Jersey Girl,

If the church discourages it's members from criticizing prominent leaders and if female members accept this as a condition of the religious/cultural tradition they are members of....

then what's the gripe?

If an organization teaches its members to not speak out even when they dislike a given situation, then a lack of speaking out makes for poor evidence that the members have no issues with said situation.

Oaks is functioning as a product of his religious/cultural/generational traditions and so are the women.

And?

That sounds like a good reason to show some sympathy for Oaks' misstep. It doesn't sound like a good reason to refrain from criticism altogether.