I listened to the Beck talk again
 

and there was nothing there that hasn't been said 100 times. She just said it in more direct ways. I.e. you need to be a good homemaker. Getting an education doesn't mean much, if you are not a good homemaker. Being a good homemaker includes cleaning, cooking, washing.

I think this talk was vetted. It says nothing different than we have been told before.

Was Beck's aggression subconscious or conscious? I'm not sure, because I'm not sure how smart she is.

Was this the post you made for Cougarboard, only to discover that Jefe has blocked you?

No. Farrah and I watched the talk again. I think it was more offensive to her than me. I told Farrah, "what guy doesn't want his wife to cook better?" She did not take kindly to my endorsement of her talk.

But seriously, she was not going out on a limb. Do you disagree? I think these hard-core homemaker types have a place in the church (clearly they have the central place). I just worry that others will feel excluded and unwanted and unappreciated. I have a daughter, and I will fight hard against this element in the Mormon culture, that subliminally tells her "no, you can't do this".

I slept through the talk, which is why I haven't argued specifics yet. My wife thought it was a good talk and one in particular that the many new members in our branch needed to hear so they understand the importance the church places on the home, the family and the role of motherhood.

No talk is designed for everyone.

She didn't say you need to be a "good" homemaker. She said you need to be the world's best homemaker. And you need to have children who grow up to be bishops and stake presidents.

Was I listening to a different talk than anyone else? I got absolutely no response to this post on CB about the specifics of what I heard her say:
http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=3074057

I truly think the way she made her points was disturbing - unintentional, but disturbing.

I suppose there might be little harm in it, but it seems odd for our international women's organization to have a President who seems so ordinary. Why we don't have a woman physician who is on top of her game, or a woman author leading the group is beyond me. Here we have a non-working mother of three with nothing extraordinary to her name. And then she gives such a lame talk.

I believe that talk proves the speakers write their own talks.

Socal, why do you think it was unintentional?

I put you in the subconscious camp. But when you think about it, to say it was subconscious is to insult her a bit. That she is not very self-aware.

What was Elaine Jack's background? It's interesting that it was her presidency that seems to be the only time women leaders in the church captured the Mormon public's imagination.

She seems oblivious, and not very articulate. We have so many gifted women in our midst, why are some of the leaders of our women's organizations so ordinary?

We should have some of best and brightest, most educated women being the leaders, not just the average run of the mill types there.

You are seriously a piece of work.

We cherish you Indy, we really do.

Beck is an idiot. I'll bet she has never stepped 15 feet beyond the Murray city limits except to spout her idealistic nonsense from the Conference Center pulpit. How do such uninformed, unimpressive people get to be at the head of this church? "Weak things of the earth," my butt.

I'm tired of these pompous, condescending men and women telling us what to do. Who do they think they are, God's mouthpieces?

But that would require a change in thinking and a variance from the norm. Mormons don't like change - unless of course it is forced by the socio-political climate of the day.

Change is very, very slow in our society. We are afraid of change, and we are afraid to do things the way others do. Sometimes this helps but often how others do things, especially if our way isn't working as well as one might hope, it wouldn't hurt to follow the lead of others.

We have some bright women, why not use them, especially the single sisters who aren't married and having children as they should. ;)

A couple of thoughts:

1. Change, purely for the sake of change, is folly.

2. Accepting the proposed change(s) requires being able to project whether or not the new way constitutes an demonstrable improvement over the status quo, rather than the mere exchange of one set of deficiencies for another.

Does Sherri Dew qualify?

Worms? Check.

Can? Check.

Can opener? Check.

This implies that you don't get what Beck is preaching. It's impossible for you to believe that the best and the brightest and extraordinary would be at home raising kids.

Heh. He opened the door. I just happened to walk through it. :)

Amen Brother. I too listened again to Sister Beck's talk last night. As a single woman, she came across as condescending and demeaning. As she so blithely stated "we need to make our homes like mini-MTC's...", I could not help but think she is very isolated and parochial and no doubt a product of that environment.

Tex and Indy: before you commence your personal attacks, remember that, like you, I am a product of my upbringing. I still have two younger siblings at home being raised by a widowed mother who (insert gasp) works outside the home as a college professor. Typical of wards in Sandy, UT, my mother is outside the mainstream because she is single and works. Her last home teaching visit was in 2004 and this is not because she is not receptive. The list goes on and on but you can bet her quiet faith is exercised every day in her service, temple attendance, activity and devotion to her family and church. Where in Sister Beck's talk was there any attempt to reach out to her? Sorry not to follow your "the Church is always right" party line, but God gave me a brain.

There are some very bright women, who stay home, ignore their education and perform beyond admirably. I do not doubt it.

And there are women who in such circumstances find ways to sharpen their intellects without formal education, I do not doubt it.

However, if I were a woman, I'm not bright enough that my intellect would be adequately sharpened without formal education and without the stresses of the workplace. Whether I'm a better or worse person because of it, who knows. But my skills are sharpened through the choices I've made.

Many of our women have less sharp skills because of the choices they've made. I don't accept Beck's premise that the best place for all women is in the home. Some may find it the best place if circumstances permit, but many may not. Perhaps all need some of the rigors afforded them by academia and by the workplace. If all women ran businesses and understood marketplace economics, would they be better at managing home finances?

Because I believe I understand the point of her talk, and it wasn't to heap guilt on women who are trying their best but don't believe they measure up to the super-moms they may believe exist.

I don't think it's an unreasonable criticism. I see a lot of attorneys, who have a post-graduate degree (i.e., lots of education and training) who are not particularly self-aware, and make unintentionally poor arguments.

I guess the bottom line is that I really hope she wasn't trying to make that point, so I give her the benefit of the doubt and assume it's unintentional.

That's just it, Requiem. This is the thing you are not comprehending. Beck's talk WASN'T addressed to her, for crying out loud. Your mother is perfectly fine to listen to the talk, take away from it what she can, and to the rest say, "for me that's not possible."

Tell me, have you ever heard a talk from a general authority or officer addressed to women in your mother's situation? If you haven't, then like Mike Waters, you haven't been listening. It is not Sister Beck's responsibility to add a little asterisk to every talk she gives saying, "If this doesn't apply to you, please ignore."

What about the hundreds of worthy young men who are incapable of serving a mission because of physical or mental disabilities? Should THEY walk around each General Conference with a chip on their shoulder, getting offended everytime someone urges all worthy young men to serve?

And please stop with the "woe is me, I have a brain" stuff.

Personal attacks? In the past with you, I've tried asking legitimate questions only to get huffy responses from you which eventually devolve into you attacking me.

President Hinckley has led the way, IMO, in recognizing the hard realities of the working mother. He and many others have given very good talks on the subject. Just because Sister Beck's talk in your view didn't amount to some sort of collective global feminine affirmation doesn't mean that the church isn't reaching out to your mother and many others. Can it improve in this regard? Undoubtedly.

I could relate to you the reaction of my wife's friends (most of whom work, a couple which are single) to the talk, but you'd probably just reply with telling me to wear a dress for 3 months.

1. When I rewatched the talk last night I specifically looked for whether or not she addressed non-mothers. She did. She made a point to talk about how all women should honor the role of a mother and the concept of nurturting whether they are mothers or not, and in the hereafter they will all have the same blessings. Maybe it didn't appease you, but she did address single women.

2. It sounds like your mother was a great example of Beck's talk, providing nurturing and a safe home environment for her kids.

3. I think you might have a misunderstanding on your family's home teaching record. Widowed sisters especially with kids in the home are the #1 priority for any bishop to make sure they are home taught and other needs looked after. There must be more to the story or some kind of miscommunication if she hasn't been taught.

4. I'm not a single female, so I can't judge you for how you took Beck's talk. I agree if a large number of single females were offended, then she probably could have delivered it better.

The MTC statement by her is not surprising given that was her life has been. She is the daughter of a mission president. She grew up in part internationally as a result. She and her husband have worked in the MTC. So for her, it is a literal statement. Not a theoretical one.

I am not going to be as harsh on the lady as Arch is. In mormondom she is quite an accomplished lady. There is nothing wrong in my mind with being accomplished in mormondom either.

Her perspective on things is quite narrow. It will be interesting to see if as she grows in the position and as she meets other sisters in the church, she maintains a hard line or her perspective on things change.

I asked my brother what his wife thought of the talk. He said first she didn't hear it. Then he said, oh yea she did. She was in the Primary leadership in Alpine and ruffled some feathers and so my SIL really didn't pay attention to what she said.

I should say this. I dont' think it is all that unusual for a leader to ruffle the feathers of someone.

I am not giving her talk a real good grade, but as far as the woman goes I have no reason to think she isn't a first rate person.

Also, I don't think this statement is all that outrageous. Is it really so unthinkable to counsel parents to teach their children the doctrine, such that when they enter the MTC, it is, as she said, review and not "revelation"?

It's not like they're teaching Adam-God and Blood Atonement in there ... it's the very basics of the gospel. Why is that such unreasonable counsel?

This is a great point. How can we as married men tell women how they should emotionally react to anything. Emotions frequently arise out preconditions which are peculiar to the individual. For us to predict or to dictate which emotive response somebody not of our gender to have, means we should be acquainted with all circumstances leading up to the reaction. It seems very pedantic for men to say, "you single sisters shouldn't get upset with Sister Beck." Perhaps just a little understanding as you have exhibited. And I know my level of understanding women is at the low end of the gene pool, so I can take lessons from everybody in this regard.

Of course your wifes friends loved the talk. She couldn't tell you otherwise. We don't have to live with you and can even ignore you. Your wife must be a saint.

Yeah, you've obviously met my wife.

What you don't understand, my dear little Tex, is that Beck had a unique platform to address all the women in her stewardship. Rather than being inclusive, she focused solely on the stay at home mothers with the clear implication they are God's elect. She wasted a perfect opportunity to reach out to all women.

You and I will never agree on this topic because you are incapable of seeing issues from a woman's point of view. By the way, thanks for the comparison with Mike Waters. I take that as a compliment to free thinkers everywhere.

Ummm... the comparison to Mike Waters was in the context of being unable to listen. I find it odd you liked that comparison.

Of course that huge check he brings home doesn't hurt much. You and I could live off of one tenth of what Indy makes. I don't doubt that she is a saintly woman, but I'm certain the elegance and abundance in which they live doesn't hurt.

Obviously you haven't seen my paycheck.

So what this boils down to is, there was nothing really wrong with what she said. She just didn't address it to the audience YOU think she should have.

Next time the prophet in priesthood session says, "I'm going to talk to the bishops tonight," I'll be sure to get hot and bothered because I'm not one.

Ah, the old "you aren't a woman, so you can't understand" line. Unfortunately for you, not every single childless woman reacted so negatively. Maybe they don't understand either.

As for Mike Waters, he whined about fathers not being told to spend time with their families, about 27 seconds before Elder Oaks did just that. I suggest you don't take pride in not paying attention.

Your statement:

Rather than being inclusive, she focused solely on the stay at home mothers with the clear implication they are God's elect. She wasted a perfect opportunity to reach out to all women.

..............



This is why I think there will be some clarification made at a later date. It may formal or very informal like an article in the Ensign about working moms and how valuable they are or the single gals in the church and their great contributions.

Don't ever look for anything positive though coming about single males in the church. They have been singled out as road kill and no one gets upset about it.

These are tired old bull crap comebacks Tex. Get a new schtick. Try to answer questions without rephrasing what someone says to suit your comeback.

Single males need to reach out to others.