I don’t mean to argue either, and don’t take this the wrong way, but your comment just made me understand why the specific target audience of President Hinckley’s remarks are men and not women, and why this was said in Priesthood meeting specifically.

You stated:
“In fact, he began his address by lamenting that more women were earning undergraduate degrees than men, as if that were such a horrible thing”

If you read carefully and in context, you will read that his concern is that men are not getting an education. That is what the “horrible thing” is. That there are more and more men not caring about getting adequate education to face today’s challenges.

Your focus on “women this or women that” is so self centered and a typical mistake so many feminists make. As if everything was about them. Sorry if I sound a bit aggressive but this address is not about you; it is NOT about women. It is about MEN. It is directed to men. It is about men’s responsibilities and men’s achievements.

From his address I quote:
“Elder Rolfe Kerr, Commissioner of Church Education, advises me that in the United States nearly 73 percent of young women graduate from high school, compared to 65 percent of young men. Young men are more likely to drop out of school than young women.

Approximately 61 percent of young men enroll in college immediately following high school, compared to 72 percent for young women.”

When given statistics to measure the performance of men, it is just natural that the statistic has to be measured against a standard. There most natural standard in this case of course is women’s performance.

He continues to say:

“It is plainly evident from these statistics that young women are exceeding young men in pursuing educational programs. And so I say to you young men, rise up and discipline yourself to take advantage of educational opportunities. Do you wish to marry a girl whose education has been far superior to your own? We speak of being ‘equally yoked.’ That applies, I think, to the matter of education.”

In this context he is talking about men having a high school level and women having a university level. And not what you said: “I’m sorry, but a year or two of college and a diploma is arguably not a ‘far superior’ education.”

It is plain for me that he is saying we are being left behind! That we are not keeping up with our very responsibilities to provide for our women and children. The title of the address is “Rise Up, O Men of God.” He is saying we should rise up and become worthy of today’s generation of women.

It is a disgrace that a feminist wave has decided to pollute and adulterate the meaning of this special message, which was not even intended for them to begin with. It angers me and it saddens me when bitter people twists and vilifies a message to find fault where there is none.

With regards to your comment:
“If a potential mate cannot handle that his wife prefers the academic life, or makes more money, or wants to work while he stays at home with the kids, then that’s too bad!”

Clearly we have been taught the different roles of husbands and wives in marriage, and your reversal of roles is definitely not the norm in Church. It is not dismissed but it is definitely not considered the ideal. If this is a challenge for you, I am sorry. The stay at home dad and work force mom is not really intended to be except whenever it is absolutely necessary.

From the Proclamation I quote:
“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. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.” from The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

With regards to your comment:
“There simply isn’t enough choice in the Church, either. I often believed that I would rather date and marry an interesting, mature, kind and intelligent non-member than an RM who was always trying to one-up me and cited “intimidation” (intellectual or spiritual) for not wanting to date (me or anyone else).”

I believe this is true. I believe you women actually don’t have enough choice in the Church. And I also believe this is exactly the type of issue President Hinckley is concerned about and what he is trying to address. It isn’t about men adopting a new attitude of “oh well, I’ll let my wife be the educated one, who cares.” The solution to me would rather be an attitude that says “As the man of God that I am, and as the man of God my leaders want me to be; it is expedient that I raise up my standards and become educated; become the type of man that can respond to todays challenges and today’s better prepared women.”

I don’t mean to argue, but where are all these inordinately higher-educated women to whom President Hinckley was referring as he spoke to the men in his address? He obviously was speaking about women graduating from college AT ALL, not women getting multiple PhDs in astrophysics.

In fact, he began his address by lamenting that more women were earning undergraduate degrees than men, as if that were such a horrible thing. It was in this context that he asked whether men would want to marry a woman whose education was “far superior…”. I’m sorry, but a year or two of college and a diploma is arguably not a “far superior” education, and even if it were, so what? If a potential mate cannot handle that his wife prefers the academic life, or makes more money, or wants to work while he stays at home with the kids, then that’s too bad!

Many LDS men are already at a disantvantage when they go on missions and forfeit two years of dating life; losing social skills and valuable late-adolescent growing time. When they return, their (female) college freshmen compatriots have surpassed them academically and they have every reason to feel “intimidated” as they struggle to catch up.

It’s silly for either men or women to wage a power war when it comes to dating and marriage as a Mormon. If “obedient,” both men and women are at the awkward disadvantage of constantly battling sexual urges and dating an appropriate lengtht of time withougt becoming too familiar. There simply istn’t enough choice in the Church, either. I often believed that I would rather date and marry an interesting, mature, kind and intelligent non-member than an RM who was always trying to one-up me and cited “intimidation” (intellectual or spiritual) for not wanting to date (me or anyone else).

Far too many games…

Oh, and I did marry that wonderful, interesting non-member…at nearly 40… and I have never regretted it!

Then, again, I’m sure that wasn’t the only reason, since my sense of humor tends to be on the verge of inappropriateness for active Mormon galls, and I gave her a ride up to Big Bear Lake once and she got carsick from how fast I drove.

All of which illustrates the point of the post, which is that there is more than one reason that someone doesn’t date another person. So, smart single ladies, I love y’all, but there is more to you being single than just being smart!

But I do think there is the factor of being equally yoked to consider. If the two of you each feel you have things that are being contributed to the marriage, and there is no resentment being created, I suppose it will work fine, even if the couple is very different from each other in certain ways.

But a higher education simply is a huge difference. It might not be too bad if both have higher degrees and one simply has a PhD in addition to her masters. But for a guy who just feels REALLY lower than his wife in education… Yeah, that could definitely become a source of resentment in the marriage, on both sides.

Husband and wife don’t always need to be on the same page. But the more and more you are NOT on the same page in life, the harder and harder the relationship becomes.

When I first read this post, I didn’t think “successful and independent” translated to having “far superior” education.

I think the criticism against Hinckley’s rhetorical question is out of place. He is pointing out a hypothetical extreme to make his point across that it is important for men to get an education.

So, I am sorry ladies but I think the correct answer to his question is:

“No, that would not be ideal if my wife’s education was far superior than mine. If more and more women are getting educated, I should do my part and get educated too. Most likely, those women wouldn’t want to marry an uneducated man.”

We all have standards for dating when it comes to significant differences, that doesn’t necessarily mean we are scared or intimidated, that may mean we have common sense. For example, women most likely wouldn’t consider dating men that are “much older” or “much younger.” I know exceptions do exist, but let’s be realistic. Most people follow certain standards when it comes to great differences.

In circles of average people in average situations, most people are looking for companions that “ideally” have a common ground. It is no secret that the more differences between two individuals, the more difficult it will be for them to get along and reach a level of harmony.

A difference in education that can be labeled “far superior” is certainly not in accordance to a common background, and I have a feeling the average couple would struggle with such a difference. Not only the male side but the female side as well.

The honest answer is that the statement by President Hinckley was disturbing to me. I want to date that man that says “HELL, YEAH!!!”. That is my kind of man! I wasn’t fond of the statement then, and that hasn’t changed.

Obviously, he wanted men to feel that it was unacceptable to have less education than their intended wives. Otherwise, the appropriate response to his rhetorical question could/should easily be a resounding ”hell, yeah!” or at very least, ”What’s wrong with that? Why not?”

In my experience–having spent more than a dozen years in singles wards across the county, I can attest that this attitude is rampant. I even had a bishop who encouraged successful women to LIE about their training or occupations and tell the guys they were dating they were in the social sciences or arts instead of hard sciences so ”the guys wouldn’t feel intimidated.”

Some people just don’t understand set comparison and boolean logic.

An interested visitor-Most people I know took that as a statement for men to get their eductation, not for refraining from dating/marrying a girl smarter or more successful (or more educated). And if I remember it was phrased as a question, not counsel-not don’t be with a woman who is more educated than you, it was “do you want your wife to be more educated than you?”. I personally believed to be something to push men to get education.