Men and Women

I feel nothing but confusion coming from the discussion about "gay marriage" and California's latest voter initiative. Apparently other people have similar misgivings. I have read much discussion about it, pro and con, on the internet and in the bloggernacle lately.

I think, if we could but return to conditions closer to subsistence living, men and women would discover together fairly quickly that traditional roles work more effectively than any implementation of idealogical "egalitarian" relationship. That understanding should form the basis for any further development or refinement of civil law.

Of course, civil law should be based in the values and ethics of the culture under the laws. The scriptures read:

Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. (Mosiah 29:26)

I am not certain, but I think the people of California voiced their opinion, were overruled by judges who interpret the law according to a different voice. Let us hope that ultimately the voice of those who would choose the right will prevail, in California and elsewhere. In the mean time, confusion reigns.

I, for one, do not find any need to answer all the confusing questions, just to satisfy my curiosity, or for any other reason. Though it is interesting to discuss, Church leaders have already counselled us to affirm that the marriage covenant is reserved for relationships between a man and woman. That is good enough for me. I may not understand all the implications, but I long ago committed to follow the counsel of the brethren, to the best of my ability. So there is no doubt in my mind about that, at least.

SLC Liberals

Here's a fine representation of foaming-at-the-mouth liberalism, alive and well in Salt Lake City. The argument is ostensibly over "domestic partners", though it ultimately reads "gay rights campaign". It runs downhill from the start.

Inevitable references to Hitler and charges of totalitarianism against Church members and everything related to Utah government.

Leading the charge, another typically scintillating commentary from columnist Rebecca Walsh...

Rebecca Walsh: Anti-gay patriarchy takes SLC to woodshed

The Eaglets were getting restless. While the matrons of the Eagle Forum looked on, state senators debated the doomsday consequences of Salt Lake City's domestic partnership registry - the stuff of conservative creed and eternal salvation, no less.

But these two fledglings seemed to miss the outraged breathlessness of Monday's debate; they were bored. So while practicing sign language flashcards, they pretended to pick their noses.

And on the Trib's comment blog, some choice words from the elite cadre of SLTrib readers, who claim to deplore Utah Senator Chris Buttars because of his "hateful" demeanor:

These folks aren't like parents; they are like Nazis, who also persecuted gay people.

And Mormons wonder why us liberals remain silent when Mitt Romney runs into a buzzsaw of evangelical Jesus Freak bigotry?

Oh, the irony, the irony!

I suspect that "Mormons" seldom wonder why liberals remain silent in any circumstances -- since there is no evidence that they ever do.

Inevitable reference to Nazis -- one of the standard themes of liberals characterizing those who don't share their bias.

A certain local organization headquartered at 50 E. N. Temple presumes to direct every little detail of its members' lives, down to choice of beverages and underwear. Its silence on this hatemongering by some of its members is deafening. Apparently its leaders, both the recently-departed and the living, have abdicated their role as prophet, seer and revelator to certain reactionary elements within their society.

That group should be called The Church of Chris Buttars and Gayle Ruzicka, at least until those two individuals are hauled before a bishop's court for mean-spiritedness and making the church look silly!

This comment starts off with the standard complaint that Church leaders dictate everything to members. But then rolls into a contradictory assertion that leaders have now "abdicated".

Most ironic in all such spiteful and antagonistic tirades are charges of "hatemongering". You can always invalidate logical argument by calling it "hate speech" or something equally ambiguous.

And then there's the perfect illustration of why we avoid using terms like "compassion", which are an exclusive liberal trademark. Another editorial gem in today's SLTrib, from Rebecca Walsh, liberal warrior for gay rights and whatever else violates the laws of reason and legality. In her lexicon, liberals have shifted toward the middle to become "moderates", while everyone who has read the Bible becomes a right-wing fascist.

Ten years ago, LDS General Authority Marlin Jensen gave Mormon faithful permission to be Democrats.

We all know how well that went.

Now, Jensen has been dispatched to speak for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' First Presidency on immigration.

"I believe a more thoughtful and factual, not to mention humane, approach is warranted and urge those responsible for enactment of Utah's immigration policy to measure twice before they cut," he said last week.

In house editorials, the church-owned Deseret Morning News has called on lawmakers to pause in their rush to demonize and purge Utah's undocumented immigrants. LDS Apostle Elder Russell M. Ballard signed an Alliance for Unity statement against a bill that would repeal in-state tuition for undocumented students. And Jensen, the urbane and moderate face of the church, called out legislators in direct and pointed language, saying immigration is a moral and ethical
issue - code for legislative intervention from South Temple.

Walsh now has me convinced that Elder Jensen is an ally in her pro-lesbian camp, and Elder Ballard has joined the Gay Alliance to ensure that Church members get their measure of compassion. Remember, the term "compassion" equates to a morality that withholds judgement of sin and evil, and lovingly embraces whatever "alternative lifestyle" form of depravity happens to be in vogue. And "moderate" means anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton.

I'm trying to understand why the SLTrib would mount a smear campaign like this.

They're the ones who are always harping on "the great divide" -- the gulf that separates Church members from "normal" Utahns.

This has all the looks of a nuclear bomb set between us. I'm thinking of burning down the SLTrib editorial offices myself.

Reason and accountability

This is a better theme for serious "Father's Day" discussion than the perpetual silliness that goes on here, for example. So many participants in the "Bloggernacle" just seem to love to muse and moon over meaningless questions.

I've wondered for a long time how men could surrender themselves to the bland impotence that so characterizes such discussions, amongst the obsessively politically correct, and elsewhere. To me, it seems to represent a concerted effort to betray most of the meaningful things that distinguish us as men.

We can focus in on the one of the particular points of doctrine that so offends, especially at this weekend event that at least theoretically used to be about celebrating "fatherhood", but is now more commonly used as an opportunity to denigrate.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World proclaims, among others:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.

The Proclamation is dynamic and bold -- and that offends quite a few people. Though it is not politically correct, it should go without saying that men have a unique role that differentiates them from women. This axiomatic premise parallels Melvin Udall's stereotyped thinking, in the film "As Good as it Gets".

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

There are fundamental differences between men and women, males and females. Some institutional implementations are founded upon those ideas, and they function successfully to the degree that those sex differences are recognized and properly accommodated. While Udall's encapsulation may not perfectly characterize the kernel of the fundamental difference, he does far better than most, in this age of unreasoning antipathy toward the male of the species.

Check some earlier comments that relate to this issue, in fascinating and intriguing ways.

(Interspersing some replies from that other blog discussion...)

Melvin Udall was held up in the film as a generally reprehensible (and somewhat insane) human being — that was the point.

Yes, I think I understand why you felt we were intended to regard the character of Udall as “reprehensible” and insane. But in fact, his most offensive trait in the film seemed to be a rather painful and brutal degree of honesty.

How does honesty become anti-social and pathological?

(Other blog reply...)

Jim, let me ask you a yes or no question: do you believe that in order to describe women, you “think of a man… and take away reason and accountability”?

I could discuss this question at some length, but first, you must answer a yes or no question: Do you believe in the “divine design” reflected in the Proclamation?

Your antipathy for this line of thinking makes me uncomfortable to pursue it further. Sorry for disturbing the peace. Please feel free to ignore my comments, if it will make you feel happier.

(Other blog reply...)

Cobabe, don’t confuse antipathy for you with antipathy for the Proclamation. Consider yourself persona non grata until you answer my question, you coward.

And to show you that I’m not a coward, I’ll answer your question, you loathsome wuss: Yes, I believe the “divine design” part. Now what?

(Further quote from "As Good as it Gets"...)

Carol Connelly: Do you have any control over how creepy you allow yourself to get?
Melvin Udall: Yes I do, as a matter of fact. And to prove it, I have not gotten personal, and you have.

Yes, I obviously thought I saw something instructive in Udall’s unusually hyperbolic thinking. Of course it is not correct to so simply characterize differences between men and women — doesn’t do it justice at all. That would be an interesting and complex subject in itself.

Then too, I see this with the understanding that Udall is a fictional character, a sort of composite caricature of someone manifesting psychiatric dysfunction. Udall is not a real person, neither is the thinking reflected in his fictional character an accurate portrayal of o-c disorder. His character is as exaggerated as his statement about how he writes women.

The sad fact is that Udall is able, in his twisted sense, to readily identify an important truth that our politically correct society cannot countenance. Udall is honest about his perceptions. Many of the rest of us have to pretend to deny what is fundamentally true. Those laboring under this bizarre obsession/compulsion are perhaps more seriously mentally afflicted than Udall himself.

Perhaps, when we look at the Family Proclamation, the reductionist approach is somewhat problematic. The initial selection of one phrase in isolation from the rest of the Proclamation may detract from the obviously holistic intent of that instrument. As I read it, the Proclamation intends to advocate for a particular balance. All members of a family are included and to be considered as a unit, notwithstanding the different contributions each member brings to the group. Regarding the individual pieces, particularly from a defensive or antagonistic perspective, probably distracts us enough from the original intent that the real message of the Proclamation is compromised.

Men and women do not exist independent of each other. Rather, their different roles complement each other to create a relationship that works to satisfy the specific and individual needs of all its members.

"Unrighteous dominion" is almost an automatic reaction for many liberal-minded LDS Church members in this context. One of the considerations that generally seems to be neglected when we invoke “unrighteous dominion” is that it would seem to imply that “righteous dominion” is also a possibility.

In fact, I would suggest that “righteous dominion” predominates in almost all cases, and “unrighteous dominion” is, for practical purposes, a temporary and transitory state. I suspect most of us wander into that territory from time to time. Thank God we have the opportunity to repent and correct our mistakes.

One more thought — unrighteous dominion. It is not just a man’s territory. Anyone can tread there.

In the church there is a peculiar tendency to become blind to this, perhaps because the scriptures make such a dramatic point in condemning the problem as manifested in the ranks of priesthood. For priesthood-holding men, unrighteous dominion has certain unpleasant implications that do not affect non-priesthood-holders. But abuse of authority is an egregious sin, in any case — whether the offender be a man or a woman.

I further extend my previous comments about “dominion” in general. Under the guiding principles of the gospel, it is our prerogative to have dominion over our individual stewardships. This applies to men and women, fathers and mothers — and children, in a more limited sense. One of the challenges of mortality is to learn to administer our dominion according to righteous principles.

Each of us has a unique assignment that constitutes our stewardship. This principle is taught in the parable of the talents. Dominion over our own stewardship is righteousness inasmuch as it is guided by gospel principles. It is a reflection of the eternal stewardship we look forward to, modelled after Heavenly Father’s eternal kingdoms.

I think it is instructive to compare phrases like

…reinforcing the norm of gender-disparate economic power

against

Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If I were to make it the subject of intensive study, which one of the philosophical approaches these statements epitomize would seem likely to yield the most productive result — e.g. happiness, fairness, prosperity.

I don’t share any grave concerns about catering to the lunatic fringe on either side of the “iron rod”.

Innovative contemporary sociological theories modelling marriage relationships are all just nicey-nice. Gay and lesbian stuff is, well, enticing, I suppose, for a select minority. But the majority — more than 95% of us, I would guess — will be best served by striving for obedience to the correct principles outlined in the Proclamation. Notwithstanding the popular clamor for "diversity", there is no reason for most of us to experiment with any of these distasteful distractions or perversions from the “divine design”.

And, I presume for those who, like me, occasionally come to themselves, and find themselves straying outside of the ideal — if you’re like a happy pig, pleased to be wallowing in mire, well and good for you.

But if you're unhappy, and cannot understand why, perhaps you would be interested to see my further elaboration on this idea. If and when you come to realize how you have been mislead and cheated, and can see how far off the path you have strayed, please make an effort to repent and seek forgiveness, and set your steps to return to the true church.

Prodigal sons, as ever, will be welcomed back to the fold.

Irreconcilable Differences: on Domestic Violence

Consider a feature series on Domestic Violence in the Deseret News...

The several stories aim to report on different aspects of this problem.

Family war zones: Research shows increasing physical and psychological impacts on kids
Silent victims: Kids who witness abuse face psychological woes
The abusers — They usually find blame hard to accept
Gaps in system put families in jeopardy
Domestic violence: Facts and resources

What kind of images characterize this concern about domestic violence?

The Deseret News articles provide a perfect icon.



Lots of other gratuitous hints let us know that domestic violence is always something done by men, husbands, fathers, boyfriends. Always "perpetrated" against females, wifes, girlfriends, women. And of course, children. "Compassion" and protective actions in behalf of children can justify almost anything.

• According to 2005 data, 5,891 Utahns made their way to local domestic violence shelters that year — 3,173 were children, 2,686 were women and 32 were men. There was no room for thousands of others who were turned away.

From another point of view, we find information of a different sort...

A quote from "The Politics of Family Destruction,"Stephen Baskerville, November 4 , 2002.

Domestic violence has now been federalized in a legislative agenda whose conscious aim is to promote easy divorce. Donna Laframboise of Canada’s National Post wrote that federally funded battered women’s shelters in the United States and Canada constituted "one-stop divorce shops" whose purpose was not to shelter women but to secure custody for divorcing mothers. The Violence Against Women Act, renewed by Congress in 2000, "offers abundant rewards" for making false accusations, writes Professor Susan Sarnoff of Ohio State University, "including the ‘rights’ to refuse custody and even visitation to accused fathers, with virtually no requirements of proof." The law’s definition of domestic violence is so broad that "it does not even require that the violence be physical."

Child Custody Statistics

"Ninety percent of divorced fathers have less than full custody of their children." Jonathan M. Honeycutt, Ph.D.(c), M.P.A., M.A., I.P.C. Director of Research, Clinical & Consulting Psychotherapist, National Institute for Divorce Research, Panama City, Florida.

37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)

"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)

"Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their fathers, after divorce." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.)

In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept. 1992

Domestic violence: Not Always One Sided, Harvard Medical School

Mention of domestic violence immediately brings to mind an intimidating male batterer. But a 2007 article shows that the problem — also called intimate partner violence — is often more complicated and may involve both women and men as perpetrators.

Men and women...

Let me enthrall you with a few trivial incosequential but true factoids about men and women...

Women's hearts beat faster than men's.

Proportional to their weight, men are stronger than horses.

Men get hiccups more often than women.

Men can read smaller print than women; women can hear better.

What to think about women?

Two current news articles together form an interesting backdrop for questions of the day.

Why are women outperforming men on campus?

Are they? Some authorities think so.

"Yes, there are a lot of guys doing well, even exceptionally well, in college. But the trend is otherwise. Women now make up 58 percent of those in our colleges and universities; in some places, their ratio is 2 to 1. They are a majority in graduate schools. And they win most of the places on honors lists. (Yes, men are more likely to graduate from college than they were two decades ago, but socially speaking that's not the achievement it was two decades ago.)"

The editorial confuses quantity with quality, which has been a misdirected focus of the liberal-minded affirmative action crowd for most of my life. It was thought that numbers equated with representation, therefore if there were fewer women in college, they were poorly represented. Of course we understood that the reason was patriarchal discrimination.

If that was true then, what is the cause of the current female overpopulation in colleges today? It seems that the promotion of women's causes has nothing to do with it. The editors opine that men are absent from college today because they're lazy and play too many video games.

That answers it for me.

Another fascinating editorial offering from the Wall Street Journal.

If you're married to clergy do you have to host church teas?

While this discussion extrapolates only loosely to mormon culture, it opens some fascinating questions for me. Some of the ideas I have been dwelling on for decades.

Second-wave feminism was, for clerical wives, a double-edged sword: No longer were women accorded honor and respect simply because they were married to a minister. And some clergy wives, reading "The Feminine Mystique" along with everyone else, began to rethink all those hours they had devoted to polishing the church silver. A role that had once seemed noble began to seem, well, exploitative...

...The problem with a facile feminist critique of the role of clergy wife is that it misses the real beauty of the collaboration sometimes found in clerical marriages. There is something wonderfully seamless about their lives--their work and their marriage is all of a piece. Husband and wife are profoundly knitted together, and their shared calling offers something of a rebuke to the hyper-individualism that characterizes so many American marriages. Indeed, they may set a nice example for the flock.

"The Bishop's Wife" makes an interesting parallel, doesn't it? Actually, the entire final paragraph tips up a red flag with regard to all contemporary marriages. There used to be beauty in collaboration. The clergy wife did not require separate recognition to lend a sense of self-worth. She and her spouse were literally "as one". Traditional marriage used to be based in similar axioms. This is truly an indication of what value has been sacrificed in the name of equalizing the competitive plane for women.

I've been following another parallel thought in a blog discussion about hyphenated-names for women. When I see these, to my irreverent and bigoted eyes, they always end up mapping into something suggestive of lesbians.