A Woman in a Man's Church

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
User avatar
hawkgrrrl
Site Admin
Posts: 3500
Joined: 22 Oct 2008, 16:27

Re: A Woman in a Man's Church

Post by hawkgrrrl » 20 May 2019, 12:45

dande48 wrote:
17 May 2019, 22:39
I was referring to the modern wave of feminism. It has, in my experience, extensively belittled men, by using terms such as "toxic masculinity" in order to further their cause. I think it's counterproductive. By using terms, like "toxic masculinity" (among others) we are doing exactly what the book discusses. It is assigning the trait "toxic" (comprimising a variety of traits, all bad) primarily to the male gender. It makes men feel ashamed for being men.

What we really want, is to do without toxic behavior in all its forms, wherever it comes from. Calling a male "effeminate" for tearing up with emotion is counterproductive. You can be 100% a man, and still show emotion. You can be 100% a woman, and still be aggressive. If both men and women can posess a trait, and should feel comfortable in posessing a trait, why apply those traits primarily to a single gender? Assigning a label to a trait which conflicts with the trait-barer's identity, will not make them more self-accepting. Which is what we all really want, isn't it?
The point of the term "toxic masculinity" is not to belittle men, but to point out how patriarchy harms both genders by belittling men who don't fit whatever society deems "appropriate" male behavior (and crying doesn't make that list). Women didn't invent this societal trend or the gender role assumptions behind it. Feminists are just pointing out that it is harmful ("toxic") to men to tell them that they are not manly if they express feelings. That's why it's called "toxic masculinity." There is no claim that "masculinity is toxic," which is how you seem to be taking it. I think this is a case when you are literally saying the same thing feminists are saying, but you are mad when feminists are saying it because you have made a wrong assumption about a term they are using. We are all on the same side here.

Roy
Posts: 5606
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: A Woman in a Man's Church

Post by Roy » 20 May 2019, 15:01

I recently watched "On the Basis of Sex" the biopic of RBG. It is surprising to me that 50 years ago the US government did not see anything wrong with sex based discrimination. Because there are legitimate differences between the genders both physically and historically - all laws that discriminated on the basis of sex were seen as A) common sense, B) protecting society, and C) defending the family. Just 50 YEARS AGO.

It is fascinating to me to see some of the similarities in the arguments and assumptions that these 1970's government and business men had about gender roles and some of the same sorts of arguments and assumptions that are expressed by the church today. We LDS tend to dress up our gender roles with more of an explicit religious component. Gender is eternal. Divine role of the female is primarily to nurture in the home. Emphasis on motherhood for female identity.

It is apparent to me that much of western society has had white male perspective and privilege baked in.
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13

User avatar
hawkgrrrl
Site Admin
Posts: 3500
Joined: 22 Oct 2008, 16:27

Re: A Woman in a Man's Church

Post by hawkgrrrl » 21 May 2019, 14:21

Roy wrote:
20 May 2019, 15:01
I recently watched "On the Basis of Sex" the biopic of RBG. It is surprising to me that 50 years ago the US government did not see anything wrong with sex based discrimination. Because there are legitimate differences between the genders both physically and historically - all laws that discriminated on the basis of sex were seen as A) common sense, B) protecting society, and C) defending the family. Just 50 YEARS AGO.
What RBG did that was so clever is that she selected for her first case one in which discrimination was hurting a man (BTW, that case is exactly what is meant by toxic masculinity, but taken to its logical legal conclusion--nobody had even considered in creating that law that a single man might be a caregiver to an aging parent which is why his benefits were denied). When she demonstrated that it was common sense and that it was hurting men, not just women, and hurting a family (he couldn't afford to care for his aging mother without the benefits he was owed), then everyone said, "Oh yes, this is obvious."

User avatar
On Own Now
Posts: 1736
Joined: 18 Jan 2012, 12:45

Re: A Woman in a Man's Church

Post by On Own Now » 23 May 2019, 12:01

Toxic masculinity is a real thing. If we look at the Sermon on the Mount, and especially the Beatitudes, it is overwhelmingly a Sermon about the need to be more stereotypically female to a society that was organized upon and valued a stereotypically male organization and approach.
Again, my primary example of this is the Beatitudes... Jesus didn't say, "Men, quit being so much like stereotypical men. That is toxic. Start incorporating stereotypically female characteristics," but what he taught in that passage fits what I just wrote.
Just to go on record for future readers of this thread...

My own opinion is that there is no difference between people, when it comes to our relationship, closeness, relevance or access to the divine based on traits associated with gender, race, nationality, education, or sexual orientation.
"Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another." --Romans 14:13

Curt Sunshine
Site Admin
Posts: 16516
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: A Woman in a Man's Church

Post by Curt Sunshine » 23 May 2019, 18:54

I agree 100% with your last comment, OON. We are in total agreement about that.

My primary point is that there are cultural stereotypes imposed historically on some people and not on others in many societies that cause unique toxicity in relationships, esp cially as it impacts access to and use of power. If the stereotypes historically had been imposed differently, the discussion about this post would be framed and discussed differently.

Without that distinction, as your comment is worded, there is no disagreement between us.
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

Post Reply