What Women Know....

[MysticSang'ha]

Most intent wasn't debate, MH is the one who came up with 'more anti-Beck crap', not me. I would prefer it to be a LDS Only debate if it is moved. I'd rather it stay here though.

Then it can be left here.

FYI, because this thread is located in DIR, it should be dictated that only discussion be allowed with the OP. Please do not debate. If one should feel inclined to debate, you are free to open a new thread in the debate forums. The DIR forums are more strictly moderated for this purpose.

However, since Becky has made it clear that she prefers the thread to remain here for the opportunity to discuss the topic, then please respect her intentions as well as the DIR forums.

Carry on, please. Thank you for your cooperation.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[ladybug83]

Fathers as well as mothers, men as well as women, are called to nurture. Nurturing is not confined to mothering or housekeeping, but is a universal attribute that communicates patience, peacefulness, and care.

I'm slightly confused about the above comment. The quote doesn't compare nurturing to housekeeping and even mentions "Fathers as well as mothers," not just mothers. Nonetheless, I think nurturing and housekeeping are somewhat related. Simply put, you can't nurture a child by letting him/her live in an unclean environment without food, clothes, the basic necessities aside from patience, peacefulness and care.

Individuals and relationships flourish when we are able to share not only our strengths but also our mutual imperfections and needs. It is difficult to be compassionate with ourselves and others when we internalize injunctions to perform (e.g., “the highest-performing sister missionary,” “the best homemaker in the world,” “the most patient and loving mother&#8221. Motherhood and sisterhood cannot be reduced to the performance of narrowly-prescribed tasks, but emerge from who we know ourselves to be.

I think the quote focuses on both people involved in a relationship rather than a single person who internalizes "injuctions to perform." The quote seems to be promoting the way individual differences and imperfections can be understood and accepted by the two people in a relationship, and can therefore create a strong union.

Effective parenting is a learned behavior, and, as parents, we learn and grow with each child. Children come with their own gifts, challenges, and freedom of choice. We reject teachings that encourage women to shoulder ultimate responsibility for every aspect of child-rearing and family life, and to take on shame and guilt when things do not go according to plan.

I'm not sure how the response relates to the quote... Of course parents grow with their children because everyone has to bend and be flexible towards others, but what does that have anything to do with "shouldering ultimate responsibility" or taking on "shame and guilt..."?

Men are our fathers, sons, brothers, partners, lovers, and friends. Many of them also struggle within a system that equates leadership with hierarchy and domination. We distrust separate-but-equal rhetoric; anyone who is regularly reminded that she is “equally important” is probably not. Partnership is illusory without equal decision-making power.

How do men as "fathers, sons, brothers, partners, lovers and friends" make our partnership with them unequal?

 

[Pardus]

Avoid posting such contentious issues when you are not looking for a debate.

I would be ripping into both becky and madhatter if this wasn't in said forum.

 

[Bishka]

Avoid posting such contentious issues when you are not looking for a debate.

So I have to pander to the minority? :sarcastic

The whole controversy stemmed mainly from Madhatter's reaction. He knew it was in the LDS DIR section, he did not have to reply to it, but he chose to. How is this my fault?

 

[Pardus]

Generally Feminism is based on the concept that 51% can be discriminated against without their consent, the only publicly accepted discrimination by the minority.

In other words a total farce. A political farce.

Political, hence likely to get feathers ruffled, heat, kitchen.

 

[Bishka]

Generally Feminism is based on the concept that 51% can be discriminated against without their consent, the only publicly accepted discrimination by the minority.

In other words a total farce. A political farce.

Political, hence likely to get feathers ruffled, heat, kitchen.

So you only believe in that type of feminism?

There is more then just that out there.

My type of feminism is something like this quote,

"I thought feminism meant I had the choice to be barefoot and pregnant."

 

[madhatter85]

You always have a choice Becky, but is your choice in line with the commandments of the Lord? or do you want to be selfish your whole life?

April 2005 Ensign -

“The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” 1

Children Are Becoming Less Valued


President James E. Faust, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, addressed a “shift in attitude about the purpose of marriage. More and more young people view marriage ‘as a couples relationship, designed to fulfill the emotional needs of adults, rather than an institution for bringing up children.’ …

“Another disturbing challenge to the family,” observed President Faust, “is that children are becoming less valued. In many parts of the world, people are having fewer children. Abortion is probably the clearest sign that couples do not want children. An estimated one-quarter of all pregnancies worldwide end by induced abortion.” 2


After the Lord commanded Adam and Eve to “be fruitful, and multiply,” He commanded them to “replenish the earth, and subdue it” (Gen. 1:28). The Hebrew word translated as replenish means “to fill.” For many years we have heard warnings about overpopulation and the devastating effects it can cause. While some areas of the world are experiencing a negative impact from extreme population density, the world as a whole is actually moving in the opposite direction. Indeed, research indicates that by the year 2040 world population will peak and begin to decline. 5

Probably a more relevant issue than population density is how we use the resources God has given us to support the population now and in the future. “For the earth is full,” He said, “and there is enough and to spare. … If any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment” (D&C 104:17–18). “The enemy of human happiness as well as the cause of poverty and starvation is not the birth of children,” said Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “It is the failure of people to do with the earth what God could teach them to do if only they would ask and then obey.” 6

 

[Bishka]

You always have a choice Becky, but is your choice in line with the commandments of the Lord? or do you want to be selfish your whole life?

:areyoucra

Have you listened to anything I've written? I want to have children, that is my most deepest desire in life. Did I say I wanted to prolong children? No. Did I say I supported the women who did prolong children? Yes.

Now where is the problem?

Using canonical sources, doctrinally spell it out to me.

It's a surprise that anybody can stand that way that you believe, you don't even bother to remember what people have told you.

 

[Bishka]

Posted today on Feminist Mormon Housewives:

In this post, I’d like to ask the question of how do we “call out loud and clear” using the example of the response to President Beck’s speech. First I’d like to make it clear that I’m not speaking for anyone else in the group who drafted the response. However, many of the people who signed would share at least some of these feelings. (And, I’d like to mention here that our group never considered it to be a “rebuttal.” That’s a term that’s been attached to it by bloggers and the Salt Lake Tribune. It’s intended to be a response only, not an attack, rebuttal, manifesto, or proclamation.)

One criticism of What Women Know is that it was a public response to President Beck’s talk. But her talk was a public speech– why not a public response? Several people suggested that we should have written private letters– well, how do you know that we haven’t? For me, it just seemed time, after many years of being too afraid to speak out, to actually say what I thought, in public, to let people know where I stood. Just having a voice was one goal for me. And the slim chance that some positive change might come as a result of speaking out was another motivation.

Let’s consider some other options for responding to the talk that have been suggested to us:
1. Discuss it privately with friends. That might make us feel better but probably won’t do much to change anything, unless we happen to be well-connected in the church. Only talking to our friends is an approach that keeps us from having a true voice. And if we’re discussing things that make us unhappy– then we’re accused of murmuring.

2.Write personal letters to Julie Beck. If we write quiet letters to Salt Lake City, nobody else knows we’re suggesting there’s a problem. This leaves most everyone else in isolation, including ourselves. One great thing about the emails we’ve received has been the response from many women–and men–saying that they’re glad that someone spoke out and that they’re not alone. One sad response from someone who has left the church said, “Where were you women when I was considering leaving the church?”

3. Talk about it in Relief Society. Hmm, are we serious, here? I suppose that in some wards there might be some honest discussion of how this talk made many women feel. But my guess is that in most wards, even mildly critical discussion would be stomped down quickly. And would any of that conversation be passed along higher up?

4. Talk to our local leaders. Not a bad idea, and it might possibly work to bring about change on a local level, for a time, but realistically we still might be accused of murmuring, and our local leaders are not likely to have a lot of power to pass on our opinions to those in higher positions.

So we made this choice, as phrased by a member of our group, “We’re talking out loud. Not murmuring. Not expecting anything to change. Just asserting our right to be grownups, to talk out loud”.

So, any experiences with riding on the herd and calling out loud and clear? And if so, how’d it go? What approach did you take?

 

[madhatter85]

Posted today on Feminist Mormon Housewives:

In this post, I’d like to ask the question of how do we “call out loud and clear” using the example of the response to President Beck’s speech. First I’d like to make it clear that I’m not speaking for anyone else in the group who drafted the response. However, many of the people who signed would share at least some of these feelings. (And, I’d like to mention here that our group never considered it to be a “rebuttal.” That’s a term that’s been attached to it by bloggers and the Salt Lake Tribune. It’s intended to be a response only, not an attack, rebuttal, manifesto, or proclamation.)

So, this is just one sad lonely woman's opinion, okay i get it.

One criticism of What Women Know is that it was a public response to President Beck’s talk. But her talk was a public speech– why not a public response? Several people suggested that we should have written private letters– well, how do you know that we haven’t? For me, it just seemed time, after many years of being too afraid to speak out, to actually say what I thought, in public, to let people know where I stood. Just having a voice was one goal for me. And the slim chance that some positive change might come as a result of speaking out was another motivation.

Why are you afread to "speak out" who are you "speakign out" against? why does this womean see fit to try to tear down a beautiful speech that is completely in line with LDS church doctrine? if she doesn't like it, why is she a member?

Let’s consider some other options for responding to the talk that have been suggested to us:

Not like she's going to actually take any advice...

1. Discuss it privately with friends. That might make us feel better but probably won’t do much to change anything, unless we happen to be well-connected in the church. Only talking to our friends is an approach that keeps us from having a true voice. And if we’re discussing things that make us unhappy– then we’re accused of murmuring.

no, you wonlt change anything except your own happiness, stressing over a talk is stupid. Even if you were "Well Connected" in the church, you would never change doctrine, the only person that can change the church is Jesus Christ. other than that, it stays the same. there are no politics in the church, and if people try to play political games, once exposed, are surely to be removed from thier position. this is not a Democrataic Church.

2.Write personal letters to Julie Beck. If we write quiet letters to Salt Lake City, nobody else knows we’re suggesting there’s a problem. This leaves most everyone else in isolation, including ourselves. One great thing about the emails we’ve received has been the response from many women–and men–saying that they’re glad that someone spoke out and that they’re not alone. One sad response from someone who has left the church said, “Where were you women when I was considering leaving the church?”

It's a sad thing that you cannot comprehend the beauty of having children and rasing them the way the Lord sees fit to have them raised in righteousness. It's also sad when you talk about leaving the church because you had a tissy fit over somethign someone said. for example, people threw a fit over "The Golden Compass" they talk about it in Priesthood and Relief Society urging us not to go see it because of the books. did i get upset just because i didn't agree with them? no... you know why? because it doesn't matter.

3. Talk about it in Relief Society. Hmm, are we serious, here? I suppose that in some wards there might be some honest discussion of how this talk made many women feel. But my guess is that in most wards, even mildly critical discussion would be stomped down quickly. And would any of that conversation be passed along higher up?

If you brought it up in relief society, of course you would be shot down in a heartbeat because you would see how wrong you are. There was a discussion in relief society not too long ago about her talk and every woman loved her talk, all of the women in my ward and other LDS women i know of, love being mothers and grandmothers and loved her talk because it is how things "Should be"

4. Talk to our local leaders. Not a bad idea, and it might possibly work to bring about change on a local level, for a time, but realistically we still might be accused of murmuring, and our local leaders are not likely to have a lot of power to pass on our opinions to those in higher positions.

Your opinion will never change anything because the gospel is not a democracy.

So we made this choice, as phrased by a member of our group, “We’re talking out loud. Not murmuring. Not expecting anything to change. Just asserting our right to be grownups, to talk out loud”.
So, any experiences with riding on the herd and calling out loud and clear? And if so, how’d it go? What approach did you take?

I don't know, I have never been butthurt over something a general authority has ever said in conference.

 

[Bishka]

This is not a debate thread.

Are you willing to (on another thread) discuss/debate this (What Women Know) using doctrinal/canonical sources instead of your own opinion? If not, refrain from debating in the DIR section. Thank you.

 

[Bishka]

See One-on-One Debate for a response

"What Women Know"

 

[Fluffy]

*** MOD POST ***

This is a DIR forum and so no debating is allowed. If you wish to debate any issues raised then please open up a new thread.

*** MOD POST ***
​

 

[Bishka]

What Women Know : A Male Response

I signed the document “What Women Know” because I believe in the value of each and every one of our Father’s children. And I believe that, to the extent that the Church nourishes and helps to grow joyful, productive men and women, it is an effective structure for those who live by its tenets. But I also believe that when we see things within that structure that inhibit our growth we have a duty to point out those flaws and work for change.

I also believe that the principal purpose of marriage is to nourish and help the marriage partners to grow and find joy in life. Marriage, at its best, is the most synergistic of relationships, allowing two people to aspire and grow far beyond what either could accomplish alone. Each partner promotes the other, and each succeeds in the other’s successes and fails in the other’s failures. My wife is a better mother when she inspires me to be a better father. And I am a better Priesthood leader when I inspire in her the realization of her own talents and dreams – even in the secular realm. But a marriage that is defined by gender roles and the division of responsibility is a proscribed union that divides opportunities and the experiences, and in the end limits both partners. A marriage that does not offer freedom for both members to maximize their joy cannot provide for either to be their highest self.

And, unfortunately, what I heard in Sister Beck’s conference talk “Mothers Who Know” was the description of gender roles that both defined and limited the responsibility of women and, by extension, men. My failure as a father or successes as a Priesthood leader reflect as much on my wife’s contribution as it does on my own. We are two people who are one – in nurturing our family, in providing for their and our own needs, and in facing whatever life presents to either one of us – we are one. And as we are each free to find our best selves within that relationship, we are creating two people who are far greater than we could ever be by each working to fulfill our individual roles.

 

[madhatter85]

*sigh* just more examples of people not sustaining and supporting thier church leaders as Servants of the Lord.

 

[Bishka]

*sigh* just more examples of people not sustaining and supporting thier church leaders as Servants of the Lord.

If you are not going to contribute to this thread, don't post. This is a thread about the "What Women Know" website and only that. Not a debate. :no:

 

[madhatter85]

If you are not going to contribute to this thread, don't post. This is a thread about the "What Women Know" website and only that. Not a debate. :no:

the name of the talk is name "What Mothers Know" i don't knwo why they would try to extend her talk to talk about all women.....

 

[Bishka]

the name of the talk is name "What Mothers Know" i don't knwo why they would try to extend her talk to talk about all women.....

This thread is referring to "What Women Know," a website created in response to the talk. If you don't get why they would want to extend to all women, I don't expect you to understand at all. Please, unless you have anything to actually contribute to this thread, do not post. Like I've said before, I'd be willing to go over the website (which I have) and discuss it and Sister Beck's talk. This thread is not the place to do it.

 

[madhatter85]

This thread is referring to "What Women Know," a website created in response to the talk. If you don't get why they would want to extend to all women, I don't expect you to understand at all. Please, unless you have anything to actually contribute to this thread, do not post. Like I've said before, I'd be willing to go over the website (which I have) and discuss it and Sister Beck's talk. This thread is not the place to do it.

But the talk was directed at Mothers, meaning they already have children. how is it fair to put words in her mouth that aren't there?

 

[Bishka]

But the talk was directed at Mothers, meaning they already have children. how is it fair to put words in her mouth that aren't there?

Would you like a debate or no? Like I said in the past, I'd be more then willing on another thread.

Again, this is not a debate. It is about the reaction to her talk entitled "What Women Know." Any questions?