Did you really expect it to stay on the original point?
Are you guys completely cool with your kids dating/marrying someone of a different race?
- Thread starter Sandy Braille
- Start date
Did you really expect it to stay on the original point?
TheStormofWar
Well-Known Member
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?"
QuinSnydersHair
Well-Known Member
What do you think Junior? You think these hands – they’ve been soaking in Ivory Liquid?
Zulu
Well-Known Member
Yet you'll still loose 5-3!!
I was hoping for an actual reason, as opposed to merely a possible one.
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.
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
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?
See, lines like this are what make me sure you can't articulate my views.
I also find that line of thinking to be crap. Straw One Brow says a lot of crap.
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 apologize for saying you skipped "prejudice". That was wrong on my part.
Of course you don't. You don't experience it, and are highly motivated to not see it.
The point of view where women are not allowed to be bishops because of respect and trust for women?
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.
Correct up to here.
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.
Almost as much as One Brow.
In conclusion....
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"
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
My replies certainly describe how I do see it. What makes you think they are not coming from a place of sadness?
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.
By your inability to reflect that sadness in your posts.