15 Replies to “Episode 3: A Spoonful of Sugar….”

  1. Listened to it this morning! What a great group of panelists! The term “chicken patriarchy” has always bothered me for some reason. I’m still processing why that is. I think it’s because I know so many good leaders that would never abuse their power.

  2. And you wonder why feminism has a bad name. Sorry ladies for trying to have class and open your door for you. I guess you want to live in a world where men are jerks!!!

  3. All these men who defend chivalry so vociferously are really just misogynists in politeness’ clothing.

    Yes, that includes you, Parsons_p. Why do you hate women so much?

  4. No, we want to live in a world where people are equal to be classy and respectful to each other and it have it be one-sided. Open your mind to change and try to understand before getting offended and threatened by our desire to progress, not regression dangerous misogyny.

  5. Parsons_p, if you would deign to actually listen to the podcast, we spend quite a bit of time addressing your exact stance. Pretty much the whole podcast speaks to it, if not addresses it directly.

    Feminism has a “bad name” because of knee-jerk reactions to it, and people who are afraid of it jumping to conclusions and demonizing it without actually listening to what the main body of the movement is actually saying, and people with that attitude picking out the few bad apples or extremists they can find in order to paint everyone who dares utter the “f” word as being bad or extreme.

    So, yes, hold my door for me when it is polite and helpful to do so. I’ll do the same for you. Just don’t get in my way or slow me down by insisting that you -must- do it for me because I can’t or shouldn’t do it for myself no matter what the situation actually is. Don’t make me wait on you, don’t make me depend on you, and be sensible about when it’s a service and when it’s a nuisance. If you’re not sure, then ask, and listen.

    Insisting that the choice is between chivalry and men being jerks is a false dichotomy, and it’s a threat. It’s saying to women, “If you don’t like what -I- want to give you, then I’m going to hurt you instead, or at the very least let other people hurt you, and you’ll deserve it because you’re ungrateful.” Like I said in the podcast, a woman needs to be able to say, “Thank you, but I actually need -this- instead,” without men getting offended or getting in a huff about it. Especially if the man’s desire really is to be kind and considerate of woman, and not just to make himself feel good about how benevolent and chivalrous he is.

  6. Can anyone post the links to the two talks that were mentioned? Cooks and another one.

    I especially liked : natural differences should not require so much reinforcement. The argument that gender differences (if we base our roles on these differences) would actually prove how needed women are in leadership. Exploring the real meaning of equal and comparing women with (valued and loved) children. So much more to list but I’m out of time.

    Very insightful.

  7. Good day I am so thrilled I found this podcast I really found you by mistake, while I was researching on Google for something else, Regardless I am here now and would just like to say thanks a lot for a incredible production and a all round exciting blog (I also love the theme/design), Please do keep up the awesome work.

  8. I think you guys are doing a kick-ass job. Every episode has been interesting and engaging.

    But, I do have a gripe. I really chaff at the claim that women who don’t agree with these feminist ideals are either scared or comfortable (in their gilded cage). I think that’s a condescending attitude given that those were the only two options proffered. Sure, it’s probable that those are two options for some of the women. But it’s also equally as likely that women just don’t agree with you. The women who are OK with the structure of the church are just as capable of thinking for themselves and seeking spiritual confirmations for themselves. To dismiss those women is, in my opinion, insulting.

  9. I finally got some time to listen to this and very much enjoyed it. I am intrigued by the postulation that patriarchy began when man found a link to a male requirement in procreation and thus began controlling females and acess to them. I’d never considered that in the equation but it makes sense.
    Also, patriarchy is alive and well as demonstrated the other day at Home Depot. I have been building a deck – well, buying supplies and tearing out the old deck. The other day at HD I was loading a few long pieces of redwood in the back of my truck when a man offered his help. I thanked him and declined as I was happy doing it myself. He asked me if I was sure and started walking toward me, practically insisting I let him do it. I had to decline his help three times, the last time not so gently, before he left me to my work. I’m not small nor weak and could perfectly do the job myself, as I wished. I’ve always felt it impolite to force your help on someone else, regardless of gender.

  10. Thank you so much for this podcast. I found it very interesting and it helped me to articulate a lot of things I have been thinking. I am wondering if there is a glitch or if it is my computer but the podcast cuts off at about 43 min right in the middle of a discussion. I would love to hear the rest. Please let me know.

    Also, I liked the description of gender essentialism. I have always found it hard that the proclamation says that gender is important but I am never allowed to explore that train of thought more. It’s like they say it is important but male leaders can meet all female needs at the same time. Doesn’t make sense to me. It seems like a church that is gender essential would see that if men and women are inherently different, then male leaders wouldn’t, by definition, be able to meet the needs of female members making it necessary to have equal female leaders. It just doesn’t add up the way the church is structured now. I also think that the argument is very strong that we should not be gender essentials in the church. If Christ atoned for all our sins, male and female, then men and women have to be more the same than different. Christ cannot be a gender essentialist if he is able feel the pain and have complete empathy for both men and women. Otherwise, we would need a female version of Christ. I have pondered this a lot wondering why Christ was male but hearing you talk about gender essentialism really helped me to see that that line of thinking is wrong and Christ was able to atone for all people because God is not a gender essentialist. I still haven’t worked out everything in my mind. I know we aren’t exactly the same either but thinking of things this way really helps me. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *