What's new

Are you guys completely cool with your kids dating/marrying someone of a different race?

Personally, the color of somebody's skin doesn't matter to me. They still will be asked, "Son. Have you ever killed a man with your bare hands?"
 
My view is that you are both confusing and conflating sexism and misogyny and your insistence that misogyny can exist without hatred is contrary to the meaning of misogyny (in both common and academic usage).

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...different-race&p=516606&viewfull=1#post516606

In the fourth paragraph of that post, I described a number of conditions from various religions, which contribute to feminists labeling those religions as misogynistic even though not one of those religions expresses hatred.

Since you have knowledge of the "opinions of the vast majority of people who seriously study the issue," I am sure you are familiar with Princeton's Glick and Fisk and their work on ambivalent sexism and their expressed views that hostile sexism reflects misogyny and benevolent misogyny does not.

Earlier, I explicitly expressed to you that misogyny was a subset of sexism, which was focused on the behavior detrimental to women.

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php...different-race&p=515733&viewfull=1#post515733

Second, the usage I typically see generally means sexism can refer more generally to the harm done to men as well as women, where misogyny narrows that scope to just women (although sexism applies there as well).

So, do you feel that point is in conflict with your characterization of Glick and Fisk, or were you offering them as support for my view?
 
Your second example that refers to patriarchal religions was not a definition, it was an opinion of one person that was quoted. It could be you quoted there for all I care, it's an opinion, and in my opinion it is wrong.

If you had clicked on the offered link, you would have seen that the quotation was pulled directly from the dictionary definition. So, the dictionary was offering the quote to explain what it meant by it's definition; it was an example of the sort of hatred meant by that definition.

I in fact did not skip over those other words and in fact included prejudice specifically in my reply, but mistrust and contempt change nothing of what I said.

I apologize for saying you skipped "prejudice". That was wrong on my part.

As for my point of view, from here I see absolutely no hatred, mistrust, contempt, or prejudice (did I miss any?) towards women from me, from the LDS Church/religion/culture.

Of course you don't. You don't experience it, and are highly motivated to not see it.

You cannot or will not see things from another point of view.

The point of view where women are not allowed to be bishops because of respect and trust for women?

How about this... you post what you think my point of view is and why I don't see misogyny in religion or specifically the LDS Church, and I will post to the best of my point of view why you see it. Fair?

Very fair. I'll give it a try.

From what I can tell, you see men and women as having fundamentally different emotional natures; that is is the nature of males to not cry and the nature of females to cry; that males are constant and steady while females are more variable and flexible. You see this constancy as an important feature of leadership, so naturally the more constant partner needs to be in charge, whether the husband at home or the male bishop in the church.
 
Ill start... I'm One Brow

Because I feel that anything other than perfect equality between men and women is a downgrade to one or the other,

Correct up to here.

anything that men do that women do not do must be a slight to the women, and anything that women do that men do must also be a slight to the women. Because of this inequality there must be some form of contempt, hatred, mistrust, or prejudice in that culture against women, which is by my definition misogyny.

Is that good, or do I need to expound?

Thanks, One Brow for a day.

None of that part. In fact, the very notion of "...men do that women do not do..." is foreign to me, unless you mean things that men do and women are not allowed to do. Perhaps if you restated it in terms of cultural permissions and pressures, it might be closer.
 
In conclusion....

Earlier, I explicitly expressed to you that misogyny was a subset of sexism, which was focused on the behavior detrimental to women.
First, I am glad that you are saying that misogyny is a subset of sexism (although I could not find that explicitly expressed in the link you provided), which leaves room for the possibility that there could be other possible domains within sexism that are not necessarily misogynistic (which is consistent with all the literature I can find, as well as my personal experience). That has been my main point all along. Where you seemed to contradict this was when you said that "if you have sexism, misogyny will be present"
 
Very fair. I'll give it a try.

From what I can tell, you see men and women as having fundamentally different emotional natures; that is is the nature of males to not cry and the nature of females to cry; that males are constant and steady while females are more variable and flexible. You see this constancy as an important feature of leadership, so naturally the more constant partner needs to be in charge, whether the husband at home or the male bishop in the church.

Wow, that's very far off, as far as I can tell. Not to speak for JazzSpazz necessarily, but that's not at all his viewpoint.

Let me ask you this: under what circumstances would you see a patriarchal group (e.g. a males-only priesthood) as NOT being misogynistic? From what I've read of this thread, you seem to basically consider that a tautology. But maybe I'm missing something.
 
First, I am glad that you are saying that misogyny is a subset of sexism (although I could not find that explicitly expressed in the link you provided), which leaves room for the possibility that there could be other possible domains within sexism that are not necessarily misogynistic (which is consistent with all the literature I can find, as well as my personal experience). That has been my main point all along. Where you seemed to contradict this was when you said that "if you have sexism, misogyny will be present"

1) If you don't interpret a phrase like "narrows the scope" to indicate focusing on a subset, then what does that phrase mean to you?
2) Both are true, and what I have read reflects both. Not all sexism is misogyny, but where sexism exists, misogyny will also be present. They are not contradictory, nor even contrary.
 
Wow, that's very far off, as far as I can tell. Not to speak for JazzSpazz necessarily, but that's not at all his viewpoint.

Let me ask you this: under what circumstances would you see a patriarchal group (e.g. a males-only priesthood) as NOT being misogynistic? From what I've read of this thread, you seem to basically consider that a tautology. But maybe I'm missing something.

If, in a given society (I don't know of one where this applies), men were the despised, inferior, don't-be-like-them group, and the priesthood was restricted to males because it was too shameful a position for a woman to occupy, then such a set-up would be genuinely misandrist.

However, we don't live in that society. In another forum, I just saw a moderator repudiate a couple of poster by comparing them to high-school girls, because apparently it's not enough of an insult to say high-schoolers or high-school children.

However, I certainly don't want to be very far off from understanding your point of view. Would you say that about the first sentence? Do you see men and women as having fundamentally the same emotional nature? If not, where did it go wrong? What's your thoughts on why husbands need to lead a marriage and bishops need to be male?
 
If, in a given society (I don't know of one where this applies), men were the despised, inferior, don't-be-like-them group, and the priesthood was restricted to males because it was too shameful a position for a woman to occupy, then such a set-up would be genuinely misandrist.

However, we don't live in that society. In another forum, I just saw a moderator repudiate a couple of poster by comparing them to high-school girls, because apparently it's not enough of an insult to say high-schoolers or high-school children.

Nor is the Mormon culture one where women are despised, inferior, don't be like them group.

This reply goes to show that Spazz is right. You will see what you want to see. That is fine but do not attempt to pass it off as anything more than your opinion please.
 
Nor is the Mormon culture one where women are despised, inferior, don't be like them group.

Yet, insulting men by comparing them to women is so commonplace in this group, I could spend three hours a day just collecting examples.

This reply goes to show that Spazz is right. You will see what you want to see. That is fine but do not attempt to pass it off as anything more than your opinion please.

Again, what makes you think I want to see it this way?
 
Yet, insulting men by comparing them to women is so commonplace in this group, I could spend three hours a day just collecting examples.



Again, what makes you think I want to see it this way?

Your replies.
 
Yet, insulting men by comparing them to women is so commonplace in this group, I could spend three hours a day just collecting examples.



Again, what makes you think I want to see it this way?

In this group as in Jazz Fanz? If that is the group you are referring to than that is a very poor example to use when we are talking about the Mormon culture.

NAOS, PKM, GVC, One Brow, Revo, Vermin, Dutch, Stoked, UGLI, Nate505...are all non examples of the Mormon culture. Many of those names are not even Mormon.
 
Back
Top