Women and men

Elder Oaks made an offhand observation in General Conference that I disagree with. Now, this doesn't mean that I'm questioning the veracity of prophets, seers and revelators, merely that I think an offhand political reference he made was mistaken. There's an old joke, which is funny because it's true; Catholics believe by doctrine that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, although none of them really believe that. Latter-day Saints believe that the prophets are just men, subject to frailties and error, except when under the explicit direction of the Spirit (and even have the example of the 116 pages right there in first few sections of the Doctrine & Covenants to prove it), but none of them really believe that either. 

Elder Oaks believes, as have many other prophets before him, for that matter, that the Constitution was a divinely orchestrated document, set up among righteous men by divine intervention, who had had scores, if not hundreds, of generations of preparation to be exactly the kind of people who would establish such an order, specifically so that the Gospel could be reestablished in America just a few years later. I believe this too. Elder Oaks also believes that some of the later amendments, like the expansion of the voting franchise to women and Fake Americans was inspired. I absolutely do not. I think the original Constitutional premise of only allowing franchisement to those who had skin in the game, i.e, property-owning male citizens, was an inspired situation, and feminism all the way back to the women's suffrage movement, was Satan playing on the envy and covetousness of the descendants of Eve to demand what had been given to Adam; dominion over the Earth. Righteous dominion, to be sure. We've been carefully warned of unrighteous dominion, and it's easy to translate dominion into unrighteous dominion if you're not very careful, very thoughtful, and very caring of the women and children under your care. But the caution against unrighteous dominion is in no way meant to be a call to abdicate our righteous dominion; in fact, such should be seen as a cowardly and unworthy act for any man, especially one who holds the Priesthood of God.

Before I begin, a taste of the data. I personally am prone to dialectical arguments, although I know that most people are incapable of being convinced by dialectic. As Aristotle himself observed thousands of years ago, there are those who are incapable of recieving instruction, refering to people who only understand rhetoric, or emotional dialogue, rather than dialectic, or factual dialogue. So, I present to you this small sampling of the data. Not as a comprehensive thing, but as a place to start.

https://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2020/06/fall-of-empire-thy-name-is-woman_30.html 

Women's role is both of supreme importance and a source of satisfaction for most women. Ever since women have coveted and started encroaching on the role of men, not only has society had a rapid decline in every measurable aspect, but we've seen especially the rise of anxiety, depression, and other mental/emotional maladies, especially among women. Especially among big-city, career-driven women who have rejected the role of women and tried to embrace the role of men. To quote Madeleine Dahlgren, an anti-suffragette and a woman of keen insight and wise counsel, "The advocates of female suffrage claim that if women had the right to vote they would purify legislation of many abuses. But, on the other hand, we hold that the new status will prove to be the worst kind of communism. … The mothers, sisters, and daughters of our glorious past will exist no more and the female gender will vanish into the epicene. Involved in one common ruin from our present proud preeminence, we shall become a laughing-stock and a by-word to the nations of the world. The special advantage as a safe advisor to man that woman holds at present arises entirely from the neutral ground she occupies in the political world. … The fact is, women reason less and feel more deeply than men. … Take woman out of her proper sphere, and in place of man's precious and true guide and best coadjutor she becomes his worst antagonist and enemy."

For those of you limited to rhetorical speech, who find that emotionally triggering, all I can say is read the article. It's long, but worth it. And even if you don't, ask yourself if her prediction hasn't completely come true. Yes, it completely has.

Anyway, here's a bit of rhetorical stuff, cribbed from a comments of an article posted by Vox Day. The author is a woman, and she gets it just like Madeleine Dahlgren did. Women and men are simply different in many respects, and because of that difference, expecting them to slide into and out of each other's preferred roles and to do so successfully is complete rubbish. It's disrespectful not just to men to suggest that women can replace them, but also to women, who are indirectly told that being a woman isn't good enough; they need to be Fake Men to be fulfilled, etc. Read the following and think about how that has impacted our society. How has it impacted our freedom? Our social and political and legal landscape?

Women are naturally prey animals; they naturally, usually unconsciously, look for protection. The chatting, the 'being social' with a man from whom they are TAKING something (his time and effort, his protection, the possibility of him being hurt letting HER escape) is part payment for his 'offer' to her.

How do women deal with fear? NETWORKING! By looking to those around them for support and help and 'a group.' Being alone, being shunned or cast out of the tribe MEANS death. It's why women are so easily swayed by their milieu (and thus the destruction of our nation)!

So, by chattering with her protector-escort, she is ensuring his attention on protecting her, else he might wander off and leave her unprotected. And, 'charming' is how women work to get their way' again: consciously or not.

And yes, women are ALWAYS scared. Ask your peers: does a man EVER EVER think to himself, before going down the drive to his mailbox, if he is safe to do so? Even in many dangerous areas; it NEVER crosses him mind. NO woman ever thinks about going down the drive to the mailbox after dark without thinking, however fleetingly, of her safety. Even IF she lives in a safe-ish White area! Men NEVER get this about women's minds!

Alison Armstrong, a good educator, talks about one of her co-ed seminars, where she asked the men to hold up their hands if they have felt physically threatened in the past year. Some hands go up, but few. Okay, if you men have felt a physical threat in the past month, leave your hands up. Fewer hands still up. How 'bout this past week. No hands.

Okay, women: hands up if you have felt physically threatened in the past year. Nearly all hands go up. Past month? Only a few go down. Past week, still only a few go down.

Alison then tells the men: LOOK at how many hands are still up, for having felt physically threatened in the past week. This is not something wrong or strange about women. This is how woman are BUILT to feel. You men generally have no conception of being afraid pretty much most of the time. Nearly all women do!

Think that's stupid; start asking women around you. See if they'll just head out of the house for the mailbox at night. See if they leave a store, at night, at dusk, more and more during the day, withOUT checking their surroundings. Do NOT assume women feel the way you do. Prey vs. predator.

I hope by pointing it out everywhere I can that a least SOME men and women will begin to realize that women really and truly ARE fundamentally different from men.

Alison Armstrong also teaches, 'modern' women have been taught to view men as 'large hairy women who misbehave.' This was eye-opening for me. Men will do or say something that no woman EVER would do except to a hated enemy, for reasons that entirely make sense to MEN.... and women have been brainwashed to attribute that to men being bad, not to them being MEN! (i.e., the hoax of toxic masculinity.)

I used to ruefully say to my husband... 'I do NOT understand how you could POSSIBLY see this-or-whatever that way. I accept and acknowledge that this is how you, and most men see it ... but it baffles me completely.' I also differentiate carefully between MEN and males... But, when a woman re-orders her perception of 'how men are' -- then his actions or words, seen through the MEN-FILTER, usually makes total sense.

A little bit personally, my wife will readily admit that she is an exceptionally emotional person, even for a woman, and that she feels very deeply certain things. I greatly value her counsel on a great many things, many of them beyond the scope of the home and family; just two days ago, for instance, I sought her counsel on a ministering issue that I had and if she thought my proposed response was appropriate or not. I value what she does well, and I recognize it, and I think that it is worth preserving, appreciating, etc. But there are other things where her advice is going to be bad. She does feel a lot of irrational fear (and even she admits that it is irrational—but it is real fear nonetheless) that will often, without my help, lead her to making bad decisions based on that fear and trying to alleviate it.

Men and women are supposed to be partners and compliments to each other. Women should not covet or envy the "glory" of masculinity and attempt to usurp it, and men should not covet or envy the "protected" status of women and stand aside and shirk their responsibilities as men. Men and women should work together, bringing to bear their own respective strengths, and respecting the strengths of the other. Women coveting the vote was an early example, and a dam-breaking moment in fact of the later flood of such actions, of doing the exact opposite of that.