The “shortage of Mormon men”

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by Serragon »

Sarah wrote: October 18th, 2017, 4:42 pm
Serragon wrote: October 18th, 2017, 3:35 pm
Sarah wrote: October 18th, 2017, 3:13 pm Why are water-downed lessons, and herd mentality "feminine." It's associating negative things with females.
This is a good example of why things get watered down. I say "herd" and you think I am associating negative things with females. Herd is neither positive or negative. And women in general are more herd-like than men. We end up denying truths about ourselves and our natures for fear of offending leading to watered down doctrine. This desire to not overtly offend is also a feminine trait. Men prefer direct confrontation. Women prefer a smile and a hug all while building a coalition against the person behind the scenes. Neither is good or bad, just different. And each has their place.
Sarah wrote: October 18th, 2017, 3:13 pm If there is one thing I've noticed about the Lord's plan and all his truths, it is that there is a balance to things and also opposites, which when you look at and define the contradictions, and then try to reconcile, the truth of how to live in manifested. So we can say that men in particular, and I would say women too, like challenges. We also like to feel independent to some degree. The Church has centralized a lot of these challenges and has made things easier for us at the local level. I think what this teaches us is that while we are commanded to be one, and work together, the further we are from sharing in the work load, the less motivated we are and the feeling of being one is ironically reduced. The Church is by no means in it's perfected and redeemed state, so someday when we live the United Order we'll see how all these weaknesses in the organization can be solved. In the mean-time, I think our leaders are doing the best they can and that the Lord is in charge. I know our Bishop's number one concern right now is that Home and Visiting Teaching is so poor. He sees that we have so many secure, talented, smart, gospel rooted men and women in our ward and why should it be so hard for them to do one simple thing. I'm sure that is how many of the brethren feel about the saints in general. Maybe it is the Lord who is testing us with this challenge of doing the simple things first rather than it being a problem with our Leaders not giving us enough meat or challenges.
I agree that the Lords plan involves balance and opposites. I believe we are way out of balance right now, and it is not beneficial for either the men or the women. The result for men is that they stop engaging. The result for women is that there is nothing there to check their pride. In the past, we have been out of balance in the opposite direction with similar results.

Your story of your Bishop is right in line with what I am addressing. You have a ward full of awesome people, yet no one does anything. I would suggest that the root of that problem lies in the subject I am addressing.
You're right that "herd" is not a positive or negative word, but the only time anyone uses the phrase "herd mentality" is with a negative connotation, meaning, that no one is thinking for themselves. So for me,this once again demonstrates why these complaints and concerns using words and phrases like these need to be really defined. Sure, use the word herd to describe female behavior, but what are the herd-like behaviors in the Church you don't like and what can we do to fix them? It sounds like you'd really like some more discussion of meaty topics. What is the "meat" you'd like to be discussing in the Church? Do you think having more meaty discussions would motivate people to do their home and visiting teaching?
I meant the term herd not in terms of group think but in social terms.

I understand that women also want challenges. I was suggesting that the types of challenges men want are not available to them very easily in the current structure, not that women don't also want challenges.

The key point is not the deeper doctrine, but the forum and structure to discuss that doctrine if it arises. If there is no place people feel comfortable discussing these things, they won't get discussed even though many people want to discuss them. Currently, if you find something exciting to you in your scripture study or temple attendance, there is no real place or time to talk about that with other priesthood holders. It certainly isn't at church, where anything slightly controversial or off topic makes certain people uncomfortable. That is a shame.

I do not desire to pit men vs women. We need each other to be one. Each of us have traits that are beneficial to the other. Each of us have traits that should be subdued. But my point remains that the current church appeals much more to the needs/wants/desires of women than it does to men. If calling this feminized offends some, so be it.

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by Serragon »

Sarah wrote: October 18th, 2017, 5:13 pm and now-a-day's their weaknesses have made it harder for women and children to be able to trust them.
and it is attitudes like these that have taught LDS men that the church is no place for them.

If you can't understand how this very statement typifies the entire discussion then there is not much more I can say.

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by Rensai »

Finrock wrote: October 18th, 2017, 4:37 pm I think the seemingly profuse praises give to women during talks by GAs is a result of the fact that only men hold the priesthood in the Church and ultimately it is men who have the final say in what happens in the Church. I think GAs feel that they need to go out of their way to make sure that women feel important, wanted, and needed in the Church. For men who can obtain the priesthood and by its virtue, they are important, wanted, and needed in the Church as a given. This what we are seeing in my view is a result of a patriarchal society/structure and making sure that in a society where men have the final say, women feel equal and satisfied.

-Finrock
I agree with that. Lack of priesthood and the people in charge at the top being all men, is definitely a sore spot for many women and no doubt is one reason as to why they pander to women so much to try and counter that perceived unfairness, but that doesn't address the growing problem with how men are treated; that simply explains part of their reasoning for doing so nor does it justify the way men vs women are treated. It simply shows that they are willing to pander to women in this way to try and ease their concerns without really addressing the problems.

Crackers
captain of 100
Posts: 584

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by Crackers »

Serragon wrote: October 18th, 2017, 5:01 pm
Crackers wrote: October 18th, 2017, 4:27 pm
Serragon wrote: October 18th, 2017, 3:35 pm
Sarah wrote: October 18th, 2017, 3:13 pm Why are water-downed lessons, and herd mentality "feminine." It's associating negative things with females.
This is a good example of why things get watered down. I say "herd" and you think I am associating negative things with females. Herd is neither positive or negative. And women in general are more herd-like than men. We end up denying truths about ourselves and our natures for fear of offending leading to watered down doctrine. This desire to not overtly offend is also a feminine trait. Men prefer direct confrontation. Women prefer a smile and a hug all while building a coalition against the person behind the scenes. Neither is good or bad, just different. And each has their place.

Ummm, I think it's funny that you listed what you view to be a bunch of negative "feminine" traits and then tell us not to be offended by it. Let's review some of the things you listed as associated with the feminine: Women want watered down, non offensive doctrine (vs standing for something); want watered-down lessons; have a herd mentality (Really?); don't want healthy debate of gospel ideas; don't want a challenge. Women prefer a smile and a hug all while building a coalition...behind the scenes. If you associate these things with the feminine, then you don't know any real women.

Sarah's response was spot on in showing that this is not feminine vs. masculine as much as general problems in the general population.

And maybe you could have found a better phrase than "herd mentality?" Do you seriously think that doesn't have a negative connotation?

By the way, although I am female (the feminine variety), I am not afraid of overtly offending you in this post. Does that rock your world?
You have not rocked my world. But your use of this phrase indicates an emotional response to my post, not a rational one.

Not sure that the two are mutually exclusive. Also not sure what was irrational about my response. But I know that sometimes people like to throw those phrases around....

I do associate these things with the feminine in general, and I do know real women. The two items are not mutually exclusive as you seem to believe. In fact, I know many women who hold the same views as I. Do they not know any real women either?

I am frankly shocked that you see no problem with these negative associations. I understand that there are inherent gender differences. I just don't believe that women's traits are all negative and men's all positive. Any trait can be positive or negative, depending on its application.

I could have found a different phrase, but if it has the same meaning what would be the point? This is a good example of needing something watered down so as to not be offended.

Your choice of words and your follow-up explanation show an utter lack of sensitivity, understanding and intellectual maturity. You choose harsh words and think that you shouldn't have to water it down for anyone. Why not chose more accurate words, like "women often think more in terms of what is best for the group/family," which is what I had originally thought was closer to what you actually meant (though now I don't know), and has a completely different meaning from "herd mentality." That is not watering it down; it is being more precise. It is also more respectful and accurate.

I appreciate that you are not trying to be overtly offensive. Neither am I.
I think you missed my meaning. But, no, I am not trying to be offensive. Lively discussion can be invigorating. ;)

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by Serragon »

Crackers wrote: October 18th, 2017, 5:42 pm That is not watering it down; it is being more precise. It is also more respectful and accurate. [/color]
You are correct. Please accept my apology.

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by Rensai »

Crackers wrote: October 18th, 2017, 4:34 pm Not conceding your point, but did you read my earlier post?:

"Is it just possible that the women need to hear one thing and the men need to hear another? Are we past the point that we acknowledge gender differences in sensitivities, outlook and communication?

Gender differences DO exist, and in general, if men hear that they are doing great, I suspect they would agree and never do anything more or look for improvement. But if women hear the same (they are doing remarkably well, their efforts are appreciated, they are loved), they feel inspired to do better. And the reverse would follow as well. If you tell a man that he is falling short, he can rally himself to act on that, but in general, the woman will feel beat up and defeated, and may not be able to muster the energy or desire to improve.

Obviously this is generally speaking, but when we hear speakers at General Conference and such, they are speaking to the general population."
Ok, first, thank you for considering my post and responding politely. I hope my post comes across the same even though I am at least partially in disagreement with you. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying because it seems you are partly saying the opposite of what you said before. Here you say there ARE differences in how they talk to men vs women about their sins and things. You attempt to explain that, though clearly there are many men, myself included, who do not feel this is a good way to treat men, but earlier you said:
Some posters are putting out the opinion that the church is overlooking women’s sins and compounding men’s. (Which is completely untrue. Even if you find examples of this is in individual areas and wards, it does not mean THE CHURCH is doing it or that it is pervasive.)
I read this quote at face value, which seems to be clearly stating that you do not believe the church overlooks Womens sins while harping on Mens. You say that it is untrue that they do that, but it most certainly is not, which I gave evidence for. Your attempt to then justify those differences in your latest response is kind of confusing. Do you at least see that women and men are treated very differently? We can discuss why that is or if they should be, but first I need to understand this clearly and make sure we both agree that there are big differences in how they are treated.

Second, I have to disagree with your generalization that all men need to hear criticism or they wouldn't work to improve themselves, while all women are just naturally amazing at this and just need constant reassurances. That is an attempt to justify the differences in how men and women are treated, but it does exactly what many of the men here are complaining about; Namely you're dismissing their feelings and concerns and ignoring the evidences that suggest many men feel the same as them. I think it would also be easy to show that many women have become very prideful, at least in part, due to this constant reassurance. So I do not think you can show that this glaring difference is justified or good, at least not in many cases. I also thing there are many strong women that would have no trouble hearing some criticism of women from the church leaders from time to time. They would simply think about whether it applies to them or not and move on with life.

I think you're still kind of missing the point. Its not that men can't take a little criticism here or there. Of course we can. But, It becomes a different story when it is constant negativity and an almost institutionalized feeling of second class status. That is not something anyone should have to put up with. Similarly, I don't think think its good for women to get nothing but praise. I have seen what that has done to many women and its not good. How do you think it makes me feel when my wife and I are called to teach primary and the bishop's counselor starts explaining that its ok if my wife teaches alone once in a while, but I cannot. I am not a pedophile, I have never been to prison or given the church or anyone else any reason to distrust me around children, yet I am automatically put in that position because I am a man. That is EXACTLY what second class status looks like. When he said that, I felt hurt and I came very close to turning the calling down. Over time, this stuff adds up. There are days where I feel like taking my boys and completely dropping the church before they get convinced to join the ranks of the "poodle husbands," as someone else called them, who accept their second class status and constantly defer to their wives in all things.

Now for what I do agree with. I certainly agree there are gender differences between men and women and that it is ok to address them differently at times. My main point here, is that it has gone way too far, its nearly always praises for women and negativity for men and I'm sure like me, you've probably heard people openly discussing in church how women are better than men at some point. Men are treated as second class to women. I've heard things to that effect enough times now I'd have a really hard time believing there are many wards where that isn't happening.

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by Rensai »

Sarah wrote: October 18th, 2017, 5:13 pm I really like that you give evidence to back up your complaint and give a practical solution as to how we can combat unequal treatment of men and women. We shouldn't all be laughing or agreeing when someone makes a disparaging remark about his or her spouse or the opposite sex. Personally, when I hear someone say his or her spouse is the better half, I think that that person probably sees and acknowledges his or her own weaknesses, and wants to acknowledge that. Lately in our new ward and in past wards, I hear a lot of women praising their husbands. So I don't think it's just men praising their wives.

As for men not being let alone with children, I know at least when working with the cub scouts, the rule is the same for men and women - you have to have two adults at all times. So I don't see why this couldn't be a policy change to make things equal, but you then put a huge burden on the Primary for filling callings. So I'm fine with this rule, even though it is unequal. I think if you expect the brethren to call out women and point out woman's differences and responsibilities, you have to be willing to accept that men are different, and now-a-day's their weaknesses have made it harder for women and children to be able to trust them.
Thanks Sarah, I agree with this mostly, but you say you are fine with the rules being unequal, I disagree with that. I think that is seen as clear evidence to many that men are second class to women and I do not agree with that at all. I do agree that men seem to be more inclined in general towards harming children, but I still don't think that justifies a double standard at church. Women can and do abuse children too. I actually think the rule of having 2 adults around children at all times is a good idea, I just think it should be in effect regardless of the persons gender and I think it should include things like bishops interviews too.

In a way, your perception that it is ok for a woman to be alone with the children but not a man shows exactly the kind of unfair treatment we're all complaining about. :) Lets use this example. You have the perception that women won't abuse children but men might so unequal treatment is justified. While there are more men that do that, it is certainly not uncommon for women. Here are a few stats I found in a quick google search.

http://www.femalesexoffenders.org/2010/ ... xoffenders
One in six adult men reported being sexually molested as children, and — in a surprise finding — nearly 40 percent of the perpetrators were female, a new study found. (Source Link)

In cases of daycare molestation, more than 60% of children who were molested, were molested by women. – (Source link)

Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female. (Bureau of Justice Report)

In a study of 17,337 survivors of childhood sexual abuse, 23% had a female-only perpetrator and 22% had both male and female perpetrators. ( Dube, Shanta R et al. “Long-Term Consequences of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Gender of Victim.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. (2005):28(5), p 430 – 438.

According to a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education – In studies that ask students about offenders, sex differences are less than in adult reports. The 2000 AAUW data indicate that 57.2 percent of all students report a male offender and 42.4 percent a female offender with the Cameron et al. study reporting nearly identical proportions as the 2000 AAUW data (57 percent male offenders vs. 43 percent female offenders).. (Source .PDF Download)
Stats like these would certainly seem to warrant some caution with women as well as men, yet our perceptions are so biased that many think unequal treatment is completely reasonable and women so rarely commit these crimes.

Another example of course is porn. We get lessons at least a couple times a year talking about the porn problem and I have never, not once, ever heard mention of the fact that it is quite high among women as well as men these days.

This study here, focused on Christians, so is probably a little closer to accurate for our church than the general population would be, says its about 64% of all men and 20% of all women. Certainly way more men, but more than enough women to warrant some involvement in the discussions I'd say.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/art ... -and-women

I don't want to derail the thread. I'm just trying to show that you do have biases against men (as shown by your double standard on primary classes), as do most people these days and it does have a big impact on the men and how they are treated in the church.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by Sarah »

I just think this conversation is very funny. Here we have men complaining about being treated unequally in the Church, all the while blaming it on feminism, which ironically has the goal of making things equal for women. The men are starting to sound like the feminists!

So it's okay for women to have bounds placed upon them to keep them from serving in Priesthood leadership, and keep them from serving in the temple if they have children. It's okay for women to have different rules for sealing ordinances. It's okay for a women to have an unequal footing in the home, having the duty to obey her husband. (And these are inequalities that I am personally okay with and appreciate and understand the purpose of.) But as Rensai observed in a post above, these are all "perceived" differences and inequalities (that obviously aren't real) so the brethren must "pander" to the women to help them feel better about all these perceived inequalities. Ha!

Now, men in the church can't even tolerate different messages for the women, or a extra bound placed upon men in Primary. It is so unfair and makes men feel like second class citizens. Wow! Why don't we just bar men from the Primary altogether and keep them in their place of providing and presiding. They're never are as prepared as the sisters anyway (I'm being sarcastic, but you get my point.) Why is it okay for women to have all these restrictions, and not one or two on men due to our natural differences and roles. You say that there is no good reason for the inequality in Primary, as if men and women should be generally trusted equally around children. When I was growing up, the general rule for children was if they were lost to seek out a woman with children - just basic common sense. But now men feel like second-class citizens if you suggest this. Now you understand how women felt when they couldn't vote, or work, or have a say in the house-hold. Many women have felt like second-class citizens, and the men blame it on women not appreciating their natural differences. Now when those natural differences are causing men to be treated differently, they cry foul.

The whole primary rule is no big deal to me. I think if we want to make the policy equal that is probably what is needed now that women are big perpetrators of sexual abuse too. My guess is that the Church had a handful of incidents with men and so put this policy in place (which I know is not enforced at the local level). My guess is that as soon as an incident happens with a woman they will have to make that policy too. It's really sad that we have so many incidents that we have to have the policy in the first place, but that is reality.
Last edited by Sarah on October 18th, 2017, 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Crackers
captain of 100
Posts: 584

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by Crackers »

Rensai,

I didn't want to paste the whole previous discussion, but this is to address (hopefully) some of your points. I made two posts back to back that were dealing with separate issues, though in the same thread. This may have caused some of the confusion. Sorry for that. But I can still see where you might see some discrepancies. I will try to clarify, though writing long posts pains me (which is probably what got me to this post in the first place). I acknowledge that there have been talks (we’ll just generalize that term to include other communications as appropriate) from the brethren that appear to support your concerns that there is a discrepancy in how the men and women of the church are treated and viewed. Between such examples as those you have listed, talks given in Priesthood sessions of GC on pornography that have been obviously directed to the men and not the women, and whatever else might be out there, I suspect this may be the case. Not in how they are actually treated and viewed, though, but in how the church communicates with each group.

Conceding that the discrepancy exists, at least to a small degree, is what led me to say that our gender differences are important to consider, and are likely the main reason for that discrepancy. Because in general, you will get an overall better outcome by knowing how to talk to your target audience. Were you ever faced with a difficult discussion/confrontation in which you had to plan your approach based on how the other party would receive it? This is the same concept. And yes, I can see how that approach may appear to be too generalized or appeasing to some. And I know this approach doesn’t work for every individual. You may be one of these individuals, which would explain why the approach is taking its toll on you. But like I said, they are talking to a wide audience.

No here’s the big HOWEVER: I suspect that any discrepancy is not nearly as large as some are indicating, at least on a church-wide basis. A few conference talks, or small sections of talks, does not make the case for the widespread belief that men are being beat up and women deified, or that men are doing worse than women. It also doesn’t mean that women are doing amazing and men are doing awful and can’t be motivated unless directly moved upon by outside influences. You have misinterpreted my comments in this regard. I think that both groups require improvement (possibly equally, but who really knows?), but the best way to motivate the women is different from the best way to motivate the men, in general. So they talk to each group differently. I suspect that is the difference, not any belief that women are actually doing better or that women’s sins should be ignored.

Now maybe the discrepancy is bigger than I can see. Maybe you are feeling beat up in your ward and stake meetings. The problem with that, however, is that unless it comes through GC, the Handbooks, lesson manuals, written communications, etc. (i.e., something we can reference and discuss more easily), then any other claims of unequal treatment become anecdotal, which is a lot of what we are dealing with here (this happened to me, this happened in my ward, women are all “told they are princesses”). My anecdotal experience has been equal treatment for the men and women in the church. Others have stated their experiences to be different. I take them at their word. My point is that just because it happens in your experience, doesn’t mean it happens everywhere, or all the time. I truly don’t believe there is pervasive deification of women or bashing of men in the church. I think there may be a limited amount of “pushing” the men and “pulling” the women, as discussed above, but only because the expected results of such warrants it.

Regarding your comments on the fact that men have to be viewed as potential threats to kids, I agree, that is distasteful and painful. Though in my ward, we have our women double-teamed as well, so they are viewed, at least in practice, as as much of a potential threat as the men. Maybe your ward doesn't have the numbers to do the same at this point. (?) I don’t know what other options the church has, though, as it has to protect itself legally and also in avoiding the appearance of misconduct. I suspect most people view the policy as protecting the church more than protecting the kids. If you take things like this to add to your pile of things that are beating you up, then I think you might be taking it too far. You shouldn’t take this personally, though I know that is easier to say than to do.

Your last comments, about men being second class compared to women, it just truly has not been my experience. Occasionally someone will make kind comments about their spouse, but it is the wife as often as the husband. I personally think my husband is the more Christlike of the two of us. And we would be good examples of my earlier point; he could use some direct correction at times, and I could use some gentle kindness; one of us being pushed and the other being pulled to the same end.

Crackers
captain of 100
Posts: 584

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by Crackers »

Serragon wrote: October 18th, 2017, 5:49 pm
Crackers wrote: October 18th, 2017, 5:42 pm That is not watering it down; it is being more precise. It is also more respectful and accurate. [/color]
You are correct. Please accept my apology.
Accepted. I just read some of your comments prior to this, directed to Sarah, I think, that I hadn't read prior to my last post. That makes me think we are closer to being on the same page on all of this.

Like you, I would love to see opportunities in the church for deeper discussion and more profitable learning, and I am often frustrated at what is available to me there (and we are told to not engage in study groups and all...). I can see why sticking more to the basics is encouraged, though. So if it helps you feel better about any of this, all of my boxes aren't getting checked off each week at church either (as a woman in the church).

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: The “shortage of Mormon m

Post by TrueIntent »

brianj wrote: October 15th, 2017, 3:17 pm
Fiannan wrote: October 14th, 2017, 10:06 pm
Can we even say the words, "head of the house" without some degree of Pavlovian societal cringe?
Wow, I would bet if you used those words in today's Sunday school class you will trigger more than a few women who will look at their poodle husbands and ask, "You don't agree with that, do you?"
I was once in a Sunday School class where a man said something about presiding in the home and his wife responded by arguing with him! The world has been moving toward the destruction of the family, with contempt for proper roles being a major factor. Many women in the church treat their husbands with contempt and refuse to show respect or even consider his counsel.

Sadly, women know how to lie and have become expert at doing so. They will play the role of the ideal Mormon wife during courtship and into the beginning of the marriage, but once they get settled they start showing that they have no intention of submitting to or respecting their husbands.

I've even seen it on this board. Paraphrasing a post in a previous thread: "Physical intimacy is a very special thing so, even though it may be the most important thing a woman can do to show love to her husband, he should be thankful to have her show love in the way she feels like showing love instead of the way he needs love expressed. And if he ever withholds love just because his wife is consistently withholding her love, then he's showing that his love is conditional."
Sounds like You have issues with women and untrighteous dominion. I don't believe god simply makes someone submit to their council because they are a man or based on gender. Women aren't supposed to submit to men...you misunderstand scripture and the temple ceremony if u believe that. Priesthood is a power that is accesed...you don't hold it or control it...you become worthy and RECEIVE it.

Eve was pulled from Adams side....she was his equal. Help meet NOT helper. Adam in Hebrew is different that adam the man as a race....there are two different translation...ADAM referring to the "original" has male and female distinction. The word adam referring to "man" as flesh is masculine.

I'm a woman...and I'm not lying to you. I'm assuming you've had issues with your own female companion lying to you and withholding sex which is why you assume women are like that (I'm not, but you must have experienced it if you believe it's true...otherwise why would you claim women are that way ). It's probably because that is easier for her to lie than what she would have to deal with if she told you the truth. She believes she will never measure up...and you treat her like she won't. just a psychological perspective.

Respect is not submission...that's control and untrighteous dominion. Respect is earned, and agency is freely exercised and given. She doesn't respect you because you haven't earned it. As Mary washed Christ's feet, and as He washed the disciples, YOU should wash hers....then you will earn her respect.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by TrueIntent »

JohnnyL wrote: October 16th, 2017, 6:51 am
Fiannan wrote: October 15th, 2017, 10:37 pm
All of this makes it difficult, if not impossible, to believe there are good women out there who want a man more than they want a provider of money.
Actually not all are. True, many Mormon women would never wear see-through blouses to the mall or a bikini at the beach but they are more immodest than a Hollywood starlet walking down the red carpet not daring to bend over as she would fall out of her dress. The scriptures talk of women wearing trinkets and costly apparel and that in the last days they will be consumed by diseases we won't translate the Hebrew to describe. This is what consumerism brings with it - spiritual decay and even physical death. Many materialistic members of the Church.

However, there are many women who do live up to the scriptural image of a wholesome woman and would make great wives. God created Eve as a companion and help-mate. In both the Old Testament and New we can find descriptions of a righteous woman. The horror stories many men have shared here on this forum and countless other sites on the net do not describe the ideal woman of God. And a man who is single or about to become single again needs to search such women out. And remember, they may be the ones who are outsiders, who may have two or three rings in each ear, or see their time in Relief Society the worse hour of the week. Look past images, use discernment and find someone who will work with you to create a fantastic God-fearing family. Let some other poor dude get the Disney princess or just let the DP spend the rest of her life with five cats and the illusion she will find Mr. Right in the next life.
I disagree. Someone who is not obeying the letter of the law, is not obeying the spirit of the law. Doesn't mean they don't have good, just a very good chance you won't be eternal.
Wrong.....those under the spirit are not under the law...quoted by the apostle Paul. Your supposed to drop the law and follow the spirit once you receive it ....see ENTIRE New Testament and third nephi where Christ tells them to drop the law of Moses. There are two laws......if you don't have his spirit...keep oebeying the letter until you receive it.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by TrueIntent »

Rensai wrote: October 18th, 2017, 6:37 pm
Sarah wrote: October 18th, 2017, 5:13 pm I really like that you give evidence to back up your complaint and give a practical solution as to how we can combat unequal treatment of men and women. We shouldn't all be laughing or agreeing when someone makes a disparaging remark about his or her spouse or the opposite sex. Personally, when I hear someone say his or her spouse is the better half, I think that that person probably sees and acknowledges his or her own weaknesses, and wants to acknowledge that. Lately in our new ward and in past wards, I hear a lot of women praising their husbands. So I don't think it's just men praising their wives.

As for men not being let alone with children, I know at least when working with the cub scouts, the rule is the same for men and women - you have to have two adults at all times. So I don't see why this couldn't be a policy change to make things equal, but you then put a huge burden on the Primary for filling callings. So I'm fine with this rule, even though it is unequal. I think if you expect the brethren to call out women and point out woman's differences and responsibilities, you have to be willing to accept that men are different, and now-a-day's their weaknesses have made it harder for women and children to be able to trust them.
Thanks Sarah, I agree with this mostly, but you say you are fine with the rules being unequal, I disagree with that. I think that is seen as clear evidence to many that men are second class to women and I do not agree with that at all. I do agree that men seem to be more inclined in general towards harming children, but I still don't think that justifies a double standard at church. Women can and do abuse children too. I actually think the rule of having 2 adults around children at all times is a good idea, I just think it should be in effect regardless of the persons gender and I think it should include things like bishops interviews too.

In a way, your perception that it is ok for a woman to be alone with the children but not a man shows exactly the kind of unfair treatment we're all complaining about. :) Lets use this example. You have the perception that women won't abuse children but men might so unequal treatment is justified. While there are more men that do that, it is certainly not uncommon for women. Here are a few stats I found in a quick google search.

http://www.femalesexoffenders.org/2010/ ... xoffenders
One in six adult men reported being sexually molested as children, and — in a surprise finding — nearly 40 percent of the perpetrators were female, a new study found. (Source Link)

In cases of daycare molestation, more than 60% of children who were molested, were molested by women. – (Source link)

Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female. (Bureau of Justice Report)

In a study of 17,337 survivors of childhood sexual abuse, 23% had a female-only perpetrator and 22% had both male and female perpetrators. ( Dube, Shanta R et al. “Long-Term Consequences of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Gender of Victim.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. (2005):28(5), p 430 – 438.

According to a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education – In studies that ask students about offenders, sex differences are less than in adult reports. The 2000 AAUW data indicate that 57.2 percent of all students report a male offender and 42.4 percent a female offender with the Cameron et al. study reporting nearly identical proportions as the 2000 AAUW data (57 percent male offenders vs. 43 percent female offenders).. (Source .PDF Download)
Stats like these would certainly seem to warrant some caution with women as well as men, yet our perceptions are so biased that many think unequal treatment is completely reasonable and women so rarely commit these crimes.

Another example of course is porn. We get lessons at least a couple times a year talking about the porn problem and I have never, not once, ever heard mention of the fact that it is quite high among women as well as men these days.

This study here, focused on Christians, so is probably a little closer to accurate for our church than the general population would be, says its about 64% of all men and 20% of all women. Certainly way more men, but more than enough women to warrant some involvement in the discussions I'd say.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/art ... -and-women

I don't want to derail the thread. I'm just trying to show that you do have biases against men (as shown by your double standard on primary classes), as do most people these days and it does have a big impact on the men and how they are treated in the church.
That's because statistically men are more likely to sexually abuse children, andare tremendously more likely to be involved in porn...especially in the church...I used to work in insurance for childcare businesses and men working there raised rates automatically. If you have ever been inrelief society you will find that women are guilted about being bad moms or not doing visiting teaching or serving enough ...not all the time....I'm just saying women are focusing on doing more and not doing enough.....but men...the porn thing is big right now because lots of men are involved with porn.

I'm telling you,..if we could fix marriages there would feel no desire for porn if we would release the women from the spiritual load they carry. when I let go of all the emotional guilt baggage, and worry I used to carry as a women...I spiritually changed...and sexually. an emotional sexual energy was released that made me equally and occasionally more sexually charged than my husband. Release the women

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by Sarah »

Rensai wrote: October 18th, 2017, 6:10 pm There are days where I feel like taking my boys and completely dropping the church before they get convinced to join the ranks of the "poodle husbands," as someone else called them, who accept their second class status and constantly defer to their wives in all things.
I sure hope you don't deny your sons the blessings of the gospel for fear of them submitting to a dominating wife, as if there were more of them in the church than without. The blessings of the gospel and working within the Church to bless the lives of others are priceless gifts you could never get elsewhere.

This is my observation, and it spans many generations of family members who supposedly were living in the good ol' days, members and non-members.
There are four kinds of marriages. There are ones where the wife is more dominant or head-strong than her husband, and he is more submissive, there is one that is the opposite of that, where the man if more dominant and the wife submissive. Then there is the marriage with two strong personalities that have a hard time getting along, or two submissive people who get along quite wonderfully. My parents had this kind - they were both submissive types, and had a great marriage. My grandparents, inlaws, other family, and my own marriage are all the other types. No matter what the traditional roles, and what is preached in Church, (and I believe in our Church the traditional roles are still preached) marriage really only works well when both are willing to be submissive. But depending on each individual's personality and how they were raised, and what examples they had at home, they will turn out one way or the other. I don't know that it is more natural for women to be submissive. My daughters are just as head-strong as my sons. But obviously women are commanded to be submissive to their husbands, but if she is obeying, this gives husbands more accountability for the relationship in how they are treating their wives.

If you have a domineering wife, you need to learn to stand up to her in a healthy loving way, and not be afraid set limits on your giving, and be willing to go without her love while you are standing up for yourself. If she sees that you are not desperate to please her to keep her happy, she should slowly learn that her demanding behavior will not get her what she wants.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: The “shortage of Mormon m

Post by Sarah »

TrueIntent wrote: October 18th, 2017, 10:44 pm
brianj wrote: October 15th, 2017, 3:17 pm
Fiannan wrote: October 14th, 2017, 10:06 pm
Can we even say the words, "head of the house" without some degree of Pavlovian societal cringe?
Wow, I would bet if you used those words in today's Sunday school class you will trigger more than a few women who will look at their poodle husbands and ask, "You don't agree with that, do you?"
I was once in a Sunday School class where a man said something about presiding in the home and his wife responded by arguing with him! The world has been moving toward the destruction of the family, with contempt for proper roles being a major factor. Many women in the church treat their husbands with contempt and refuse to show respect or even consider his counsel.

Sadly, women know how to lie and have become expert at doing so. They will play the role of the ideal Mormon wife during courtship and into the beginning of the marriage, but once they get settled they start showing that they have no intention of submitting to or respecting their husbands.

I've even seen it on this board. Paraphrasing a post in a previous thread: "Physical intimacy is a very special thing so, even though it may be the most important thing a woman can do to show love to her husband, he should be thankful to have her show love in the way she feels like showing love instead of the way he needs love expressed. And if he ever withholds love just because his wife is consistently withholding her love, then he's showing that his love is conditional."
Sounds like You have issues with women and untrighteous dominion. I don't believe god simply makes someone submit to their council because they are a man or based on gender. Women aren't supposed to submit to men...you misunderstand scripture and the temple ceremony if u believe that. Priesthood is a power that is accesed...you don't hold it or control it...you become worthy and RECEIVE it.

Eve was pulled from Adams side....she was his equal. Help meet NOT helper. Adam in Hebrew is different that adam the man as a race....there are two different translation...ADAM referring to the "original" has male and female distinction. The word adam referring to "man" as flesh is masculine.

I'm a woman...and I'm not lying to you. I'm assuming you've had issues with your own female companion lying to you and withholding sex which is why you assume women are like that (I'm not, but you must have experienced it if you believe it's true...otherwise why would you claim women are that way ). It's probably because that is easier for her to lie than what she would have to deal with if she told you the truth. She believes she will never measure up...and you treat her like she won't. just a psychological perspective.

Respect is not submission...that's control and untrighteous dominion. Respect is earned, and agency is freely exercised and given. She doesn't respect you because you haven't earned it. As Mary washed Christ's feet, and as He washed the disciples, YOU should wash hers....then you will earn her respect.
I'm pretty sure you have defined one of issues that is really at the heart of all this complaining about the Church and feminism. I think some of the men on this forum believe that if if the Church was better at scolding the women into submitting, respecting, or handing over sex, then that would solve their problems.

Yes, I agree that the women need to be freed from emotional baggage and guilt and fear and distrust and resentment if they are to freely give and receive sexually. For me I had my release, but it wasn't through energy healing like I assume you are referring to. It happened when I finally stood up for myself, and my husband received an answer from above to stop putting pressure on me to have sex. Then I had to come to realize that all that time that I thought I was the problem, it was really his problem of feeling entitled to sex at my expense, and making me feel guilty for not wanting or enjoying it. When I finally realized that he was being selfish, and that it was okay to not give him something that was meant to be equally enjoyed, that's when I could begin the healing process of forgiveness. It took some time and he often would fall back into his needy, self-centered focus, rather than focusing on giving sex to me, but we got there and now we have a great time together. But the secret for a husband to receive, is to totally focus on giving authentically without thinking about what he wants. When he focuses on giving to his wife, that is how he receives. He has to be willing to travel a very long road to earn back her trust.

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by Sirocco »

I don't know much about church dating or any of those dynamics since I was in my early 20s when I went the first time and didn't much try to date anyone back then, and since having done so, and it was as shallow as millennials have made it, a big part of me years for a more traditional life.
I see friends and people around me yammer about video games and all that and I honestly cannot see the appeal anymore. I'm just shy of 30 now, but marriage and church frighten me, as it is a thing I don't know vs the thing I do.
I know how women in the world are, but I am afraid I'd get sucked into a situation I felt was the ideal (it happened once) fall head over heals and get devastated, either before marriage or, worse obviously, during.

Not that I have much to offer monetary wise, I have a pretty cool apartment, though a lousy job and problems in the old noggin that don't exactly put me up high as a desirable companion. I ain't gonna ever have a career, and people do like money.

I'm a tad rough around the edges, I don't fit in, going back to church and making everything official and trying to date someone who agrees with my worldview is something I've wanted to do for sometime now, but I just don't think it would work out. Just another single man to leave.

Spaced_Out
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by Spaced_Out »

General authority present talks at conference based on feedback they get from stake presidents and seventy etc... as well as inspiration from God, according to what the members need to hear. In all the years that I have done reactivation, I have never come across a person who has gong less active or left the church based on a PH leader teaching the brethren to be more kind and stop looking at porn or that they perceive the sisters are getting preferential treatment.
Issues around how people can serve in Primary is according to the general handbook of instructions that have to be adhered to - and is according to legal requirements, getting triggered is just silly.

If you guys were living in the BoM time of Jacob you would also be triggered as he only chastised the men. Jesus Christ when he was on the earth - the first person He told that he was the Messiah was a woman and the first person who saw him after His resurrection was also a woman. He told the woman who was caught in the act of Adultery to go and sin no more and he did not condemn her, I suppose if you were alive then you would also have been triggered.
Jacob 2:35
35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

Spaced_Out
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by Spaced_Out »

No argument that more male YSA go less active and leave the church then female YSA. If you take it to the root cause people leave the church due to iniquity,they might have lots of excuses but it all boils down to sin and lack of repentance. So if YSA males are leaving the church they need to be singled out and called to repentance more often,and encouraged to keep the commandments.

I hear many talks on modesty for woman like how many ear rings and dress standards, no cosmetic surgery, very seldom if ever have I heard any thing said to YM - other than not to wear baggy pants. I have heard PH leaders tell the sisters to maintain a healthy weight (whihc is applicable to all genders) - I have never heard that said to the brethren. I think the sisters cop more abuse than the men in a male lead church. The feminist will fall over laughing if you told them the Mormon church was a feminist cantered organisation.

Gage
captain of 100
Posts: 702

Re: The “shortage of Mormon m

Post by Gage »

Yes, I agree that the women need to be freed from emotional baggage and guilt and fear and distrust and resentment if they are to freely give and receive sexually. For me I had my release, but it wasn't through energy healing like I assume you are referring to. It happened when I finally stood up for myself, and my husband received an answer from above to stop putting pressure on me to have sex. Then I had to come to realize that all that time that I thought I was the problem, it was really his problem of feeling entitled to sex at my expense, and making me feel guilty for not wanting or enjoying it. When I finally realized that he was being selfish, and that it was okay to not give him something that was meant to be equally enjoyed, that's when I could begin the healing process of forgiveness. It took some time and he often would fall back into his needy, self-centered focus, rather than focusing on giving sex to me, but we got there and now we have a great time together. But the secret for a husband to receive, is to totally focus on giving authentically without thinking about what he wants. When he focuses on giving to his wife, that is how he receives. He has to be willing to travel a very long road to earn back her trust.
[/quote]



What you are ultimately saying as many women do today is I dont want to be told when to have sex, and I want it to be my idea. If I waited on my wife to instigate sex we would have it once a year. Dont give me ultimatums, check lists, whatever before I can have sex. I will give you check lists before you get the credit card back.

djinwa
captain of 100
Posts: 809

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by djinwa »

Pres Monson: "The vast majority of requests for cancellations of sealings come from women who tried desperately to make a go of the marriage but who, in the final analysis, could not overcome the problems. "

As I've mentioned before, the divorces among my relatives have been women leaving their husbands because they wanted a more lavish lifestyle. They came from money, and couldn't handle the shame of less. Is that the "problem" they could not overcome?

I have asked several family members how, if that is the real reason for their filing for divorce, why there is not church discipline taken against them.

Fascinating that there is more shame and disciplinary action for a man looking at porn occasionally, than a woman blowing up a family due to lust for money.

How will the sons of such a divorce feel about getting married?

Gage
captain of 100
Posts: 702

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by Gage »

djinwa wrote: October 19th, 2017, 8:39 am Pres Monson: "The vast majority of requests for cancellations of sealings come from women who tried desperately to make a go of the marriage but who, in the final analysis, could not overcome the problems. "

As I've mentioned before, the divorces among my relatives have been women leaving their husbands because they wanted a more lavish lifestyle. They came from money, and couldn't handle the shame of less. Is that the "problem" they could not overcome?

I have asked several family members how, if that is the real reason for their filing for divorce, why there is not church discipline taken against them.

Fascinating that there is more shame and disciplinary action for a man looking at porn occasionally, than a woman blowing up a family due to lust for money.

How will the sons of such a divorce feel about getting married?

They all say pretty much the same thing, he was verbally abusive, physically abusive, watched porn, played too many video games, etc. And of course the entire ward believes every word she says. Obviously you are not going to hear a woman say her husband didnt make enough money so she left.

EdGoble
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1077

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by EdGoble »

Gage wrote: October 15th, 2017, 11:01 am It always amazes me that people today are amazed that the Church is "dwindling" in unbelief. What do the scripture say? I am not sold on this premise that "men are leaving and the sisters are "holding on" and remaining righteous to the end. I know plenty of Sisters who's husbands stay in bed on Sunday mornings but she and her kids are always there on Sunday mornings. Some of the Sisters do not believe half of what they read or are taught or what the Prophet says, (they just about all do not believe the church's stance on gays I can just about guarantee that) they just do not want to be shun outside of church, dont want their kids shun, they love the sense of community, they love their friends in the church so they continue to "show up". I just dont think all of this is as important to men, or shall I say some men, that leave the church.
There are quite a number of women in my area that are distraught over the gay thing that I have seen, but many continue to submit and believe in the rest of the gospel, even though that issue conflicts with their sensibilities. That isn't meant as a sexist statement, but it just so happens that men aren't usually so distraught over it, except when they sympathize with the feelings of their wives about it and get riled up over that, or when they have overly-liberal sensibilities. Otherwise the men just wouldn't care because gay stuff seems to be more disgusting to them for the most part. I think there is a reason that Hollywood mostly portrays lesbian kissing on TV, but not two homo guys kissing. It is because for some reason, men aren't so grossed out about two women kissing, but they are about two men.

For the women with these sensibilities, usually it isn't enough to make them leave the Church, even though we are in for a rough ride. You are right that some do not believe in the policy against gays. But you make it sound like they are just "showing up" because they don't want disruption in their life, as if the one issue makes them entirely not believe anymore. No. What is actually happening is that it has put a strain on their testimony, but they continue to submit and still believe anyway. They have sought out comfort and peace from the Holy Ghost, and many have received it. But it continues to be a challenge for their faith. And this is part of the sifting in our day, where some people are leaving over it, but not a majority.

It is amazing to me that just two decades ago, this would not have been an issue for very many people. It was understood that the gay thing was not acceptable, and it was an automatic repulsive thing. Suddenly, gay stuff is popular in society somehow (because of Hollywood probably), and people are disturbed by the Church remaining consistent. I don't get it, because I grew up in the 80's and gay stuff was disgusting, unacceptable behavior to my generation, and was common sense back then. I am not that old, but I can hardly believe the change in attitudes, and it is strange to me that women in my generation that would have been grossed out by it are overly sympathetic to its cause. I'm not saying that we should not have empathy for human suffering and so forth. But the options that the Church has put forward for gay people are no brainers. (1) We won't excommunicate you for gay identity or same sex attraction anymore. (2) We only ask that you live the law of chastity like anyone else, meaning if you have no attraction to the opposite sex, we ask that you be celibate or that you consider a mixed-orientation marriage even if it may not be where your attractions lie. (3) If you are bisexual, we ask that you live the commandments by only marrying someone of the opposite sex to you, even if you have feelings toward the same sex also. (4) The Church is now consistent toward children of gays that are married applying the same exact policy to that situation that they have for children of polygamous families. Like how polygamists are in a non-priesthood-keys-authorized marriage situation considered apostate, same sex marriage is also a non-priesthood-keys-authorized marriage situation, and is considered equally as apostate as a polygamous marriage or polygamous cohabitation. Not that polygamous marriages will necessarily forever be not authorized, depending on what becomes authorized in the future. But it is apostate because it is not authorized by keys and is contrary to the Lord's current commandments now in force. It is doubtful that same-sex marriage would ever be authorized since this policy action against it was said to be a revelation (which makes perfect sense to me).

While non-temple marriages are not by the priesthood in temples, they are still authorized in the sense that those that hold the priesthood keys at least recognize them as lawful not just according to the laws of the land, but also according to the laws of God, even if they are not an ideal as Temple marriages are. Same-sex marriage, while being lawful in the eyes of the state, are not recognized in the law of God.

Therefore, this all makes perfect logical sense to me. The Church's stance is perfectly logical. The problem is, people's emotions get in the way when their sensibilities are in favor of something that isn't logical.

HappyCamper8
captain of 50
Posts: 98

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by HappyCamper8 »

Crackers wrote: October 18th, 2017, 4:34 pm If you tell a man that he is falling short, he can rally himself to act on that, but in general, the woman will feel beat up and defeated, and may not be able to muster the energy or desire to improve.
Oh, wow. How offensive to women everywhere.

HappyCamper8
captain of 50
Posts: 98

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by HappyCamper8 »

Sarah wrote: October 18th, 2017, 9:57 pm So it's okay for women to have bounds placed upon them to keep them from serving in Priesthood leadership,...
Who are you blaming this on?

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The “shortage of Mormon men”

Post by Fiannan »

There are quite a number of women in my area that are distraught over the gay thing that I have seen, but many continue to submit and believe in the rest of the gospel, even though that issue conflicts with their sensibilities. That isn't meant as a sexist statement, but it just so happens that men aren't usually so distraught over it, except when they sympathize with the feelings of their wives about it and get riled up over that, or when they have overly-liberal sensibilities. Otherwise the men just wouldn't care because gay stuff seems to be more disgusting to them for the most part. I think there is a reason that Hollywood mostly portrays lesbian kissing on TV, but not two homo guys kissing. It is because for some reason, men aren't so grossed out about two women kissing, but they are about two men.
Distraught? That is because they are more influenced by the gospel of daytime TV talk shows than what the Church issues as reasoning for stances.

And I suppose the "yes dear" men might be influenced indirectly as well.

ALso, the reason they show more women being intimate on TV and in movies is because it is a turn-on for both men and women (that program recipe has been known for years) but only a small proportion of women and even smaller of men find seeing men intimate with each other as desirable.
... I can hardly believe the change in attitudes...
You think the social change agents in the government and media are through with this? You just wait what is coming next.
Last edited by Fiannan on October 19th, 2017, 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply