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

[One Brow]

Not really... you argued points with no understanding intended.

I took your thoughts, and tried to see where they went logically. You could have clarified them, instead you whined, apparently surprised that I didn't treat them them as complete on their own, with no further implications. That's fine, you don't owe me anything. If you feel the need to justify your shutting down the conversation based on what you assume my motivations are, I certainly can't prevent that. However, I see no need to let your falsehoods go unchallenged. I was trying to understand your points ande expand them. Apparently, you just don't like where they lead.

Now that you have passed on that opportunity I will just view your words as intentional lies. Ignorance is no excuse to say untrue things, especially intentional ignorance.

The irony boggles the mind.

 

[One Brow]

C'mon Brow... you know I'm just ****ing with you, right?

I think you're more than bight enough that you could be messing with me and still be expressing a legitimate concern, so I wanted to cover the bases. I really don't know if there is a difference between a conference talk and something you hear in church in terms of authority.

But the answer to your question is, neither. I have never been taught specifically that men are not head of the household. Likewise, I have never been taught specifically that women are not head of the household. I think that distinction exists in most people's minds because of an ingrained need to organize. Like I said, I am a practicing mormon, and my wife and I run the joint 50/50. I have been taught that I am responsible for my family, not because I am the only one who can be, but because I need to have that responsibility to learn and grow. My wife is taught the same way.

Thank you for clarifying that. I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.

You haven't answered my question of what you mean when you say "the man is in charge". Does this mean all final decisions rest with him? Or that all activity must be cleared through him? Or that he directs the minutia of the household? You need to expand a little bit so I know what you're trying to trap me with.

The usual construct seems to boil down to husbands don't need to make every decision, but do decide which decisions their wives make, and will overrule them when appropriate; wives do not get the same opportunities. Not that this always happens in practice, but that's usually the thrust of the doctrine. You seem to be saying Mormons teach it should be otherwise. I think that would be a good thing, particularly if the other Mormons in hear your rejection of that construct.

The problem is, you have an almost comically broad definition of misogyny (and racism, and sexism, etc., etc., etc.)

I would say that the definitions that rely on applying terms to individuals lead to mindsets where we think of "monsters", the unusual people who are racist, misogynistic, etc. However, the reality is humans are in large part products of the culture they are raised in, our culture acts to reinforce these practices, and if we don't fix the culture the problems won't go away. Looking at the recent case in Steubenville, it's not that there were two "bad kids", there was an entire party that watched and encouraged what happened. There were kids asking for photos of the event afterwards. Every time some asks "why was she drinking" or something similar, that amounts to blaming a victim. No amount of drinking justifies what happened to her, so that she was drinking isn't relevant. More generally, we need to look at the messages we teach every day.

 

[One Brow]

I've always taught them that if you think things are going south, hit hard and ask questions later. That's exactly what she did.

The guy that got his *** kicked wanted to press charges. Fortunately a security camera caught the entire incidence as well as several witnesses that watched it go down.

Kudos to your daughter. She should never have been put in that position, and it sounds like she did well.

What about the daughters who are born with more timid personalities? Why did all those witnesses think it was OK for the guy to pressure her in the first place? Why wasn't the guy taught beforehand that's it's wrong to pressure girls? What if the next guy is the type that can shrug off that assault?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I took your thoughts, and tried to see where they went logically. You could have clarified them, instead you whined, apparently surprised that I didn't treat them them as complete on their own, with no further implications. That's fine, you don't owe me anything. If you feel the need to justify your shutting down the conversation based on what you assume my motivations are, I certainly can't prevent that. However, I see no need to let your falsehoods go unchallenged. I was trying to understand your points ande expand them. Apparently, you just don't like where they lead.



The irony boggles the mind.

Nice try. There wasn't much conversation going on, I don't take challenging every statement as conversation, I take that as someone with an agenda and contradiction. I was going to say argument, but I learned from Monty Python that contradiction is not an argument.

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. 'tisn't just contradiction.

I only paid for the 5 minute argument, not the full half hour, so my time is up. Good Day. If you want to continue to argue you will have to pay.

How's this for irony, I think it fits our conversation.

See, I don't just expect women to do the irony.

 

[One Brow]

Congrats. You linked to something where I am bolding a part of your reply that deals with Mormons and addressing that portion of it. Never got into Catholics or JWs.

Because Catholics and JWs don't make up part of the general culture around them?

However, reading it this morning, you were responding to a point I made about people on this message board, and not the general populace, so I did over-generalize your response in that way. My fault on that score.

Would I tell a son to "woman up"? No, of course not. But I do not tell my daughters to "man up".

Do you tell your daughters to "woman up"? Would you tell your son to "man up"? Do Mormons refrain from using the second phrase on boys? If so, then ignore the next paragraph.

If not, think about the message being given. When you tell your son to "man up", you putting forth the notion of manhood as a worthy goal, By contrast, in not saying "woman up", you don't set the same sort of notion for your daughters. One anyone given day, it's not a big deal, but over time, all of your kids, nephews, etc. hear this difference, and not just from you, but from almost every other adult they know. You think the message doesn't get through? Try this: say "woman up" to your daughters (at the appropriate time, of course) in front of other people, see how they react.

 

[One Brow]

Oh my this thread grew really fast. Also it always baffles me that atheists argue about the supposed lack of morality in religions when in their worldview there is no such basis of objective morality so it is a self defeating argument.

Nice troll. Really. I'm completely hooked by this tired cliche.

 

[Hartsock]

Because Catholics and JWs don't make up part of the general culture around them?

However, reading it this morning, you were responding to a point I made about people on this message board, and not the general populace, so I did over-generalize your response in that way. My fault on that score.



Do you tell your daughters to "woman up"? Would you tell your son to "man up"? Do Mormons refrain from using the second phrase on boys? If so, then ignore the next paragraph.

If not, think about the message being given. When you tell your son to "man up", you putting forth the notion of manhood as a worthy goal, By contrast, in not saying "woman up", you don't set the same sort of notion for your daughters. One anyone given day, it's not a big deal, but over time, all of your kids, nephews, etc. hear this difference, and not just from you, but from almost every other adult they know. You think the message doesn't get through? Try this: say "woman up" to your daughters (at the appropriate time, of course) in front of other people, see how they react.

I cant tell if you are trolling or not? You know those shows where its a fake documentary and one guy is just making fun of everyone but they dont know it? I feel like thats whats happening.

 

[One Brow]

There are subsets are hostile sexism (misogyny/ misandry) and benevolent sexism (my example of “boys don’t do dishes”). This is both the case in common usage and in academic research, and yes, if you believe that sexism always involves hatred, I think this is inconsistent with both.

Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

1) Do you think the term "benevolent sexism" means that there is no contempt or prejudice expressed by it for either sex?
2) There is a difference between being a fertile soil for hatred and actively involving hatred at every step. I have tried to be clear that I have meant the former.

 

[One Brow]

Sorry, I don't really understand your answer. You seem to be saying that the only situations where a patriarchal group would not be misogynistic are ones that would be misandristic. But I don't think that's quite what you meant.

Separate but equal is a myth, a convenient lie we allow ourselves to believe. Segregation is always based on the notion that one side is less trusted than the other.

Let me repeat--are there any circumstances (in our current society, not in a hypothetical one) in which a church that has a male only priesthood would NOT be considered misogynistic by you? If so, what are they? I'm not trying to bait you or anything, I'm just interested in your opinion. From your posts in the thread, I think your view is "there are no such circumstances", but I might be wrong.

1) We live in a misogynistic culture; I would find it difficult to believe that such an organization could so completely separate itself from the culture. However, "any circumstances" is very broad, and my imagination is not so great that I can claim to have thought of all possible circumstances. So, under the rubric "anything is possible", it's possible.
2) As I said above, separate but equal is a myth in any culture.

 

[One Brow]

Nice try. There wasn't much conversation going on, I don't take challenging every statement as conversation, I take that as someone with an agenda and contradiction.

I asked you if your position expanded in some very specific ways, that seemed at odds with other policies, without saying you were wrong. You could have pointed out other reasons for those policies (I even suggested one in a later post). Your reaction was to claim I contradicted you. I was raised to expect every idea of mine to be challenged, sifted, and refined. Perhaps you're not comfortable with that approach, and took it as hostility.

Again, you don't owe me anything. However, when you make false statements about my motivations and intents, I'm not going to let them stand unchallenged.

 

[One Brow]

I cant tell if you are trolling or not? You know those shows where its a fake documentary and one guy is just making fun of everyone but they dont know it? I feel like thats whats happening.

I'm quite serious. Did you have any response beside incredulity?

 

[Hartsock]

I'm quite serious. Did you have any response beside incredulity?

I guess not. I'll incorporate "woman up" into my vocabulary. Hopefully it will lead to women getting the priesthood.

 

[One Brow]

I guess not. I'll incorporate "woman up" into my vocabulary. Hopefully it will lead to women getting the priesthood.

Baby steps.

 

[babe]

I asked you if your position expanded in some very specific ways, that seemed at odds with other policies, without saying you were wrong. You could have pointed out other reasons for those policies (I even suggested one in a later post). Your reaction was to claim I contradicted you. I was raised to expect every idea of mine to be challenged, sifted, and refined. Perhaps you're not comfortable with that approach, and took it as hostility.

Again, you don't owe me anything. However, when you make false statements about my motivations and intents, I'm not going to let them stand unchallenged.

whether the statements are true or false doesn't seem to make any difference sometimes. what would look good on your record is sometimes seeing the point someone else is making.

 

[babe]

Back to the OP.

Every marriage/every dating situation is going to be some kind of nightmare because no two people are ever going to be alike in every insignificant way,or in any significant way. Some geneticists explain the benefits of hybridization on the F1 generation, but most parents are just looking for transmitting their values and whatever else is their idea of "themselves" on to the next few generations.

yah, there will always be hate. In our generation it is for some a hatred of hatred, but calling people "racist" or going to any effort to incite the government, or the culture, to dictate personal morals through legislation like the pretended Equal Rights legislation is an extreme and intolerant hatred itself. Some people seem to be unable to bear letting anyone do anything they think is "wrong" somehow. Hence, the net effect of the Civil Rights legislation has been the creation of a newly defined caste system where some humans are not considered worthy of polite society, and are even thrown in jail and subjected to unequal treatment under the law because of their perceive inferiority.

not that I particularly like any kind of ignorance or intolerance. . . . I just realize it is inherent in human nature and cannot be corrected by force or indoctrination.

I married inter-racially, and I just think it's not so good. Why not let folks marry in a way that preserves the racial differences in the world if they want, or even if they think it's good for any reason, and just leave them the hell alone.

 

[One Brow]

whether the statements are true or false doesn't seem to make any difference sometimes. what would look good on your record is sometimes seeing the point someone else is making.

I've already said, in several different posts in this thread, variations of "that's a good thing" or "I didn't realize that". However, if there is some specific point you think I did not understand, I will take another look at it. Bear in mind, it's possible that I did understand the point, and still disagreed for various reasons, but did not make that clear. However, I do sometimes look at things too quickly, and I try to recognize that about myself.

 

[One Brow]

In our generation it is for some a hatred of hatred, but calling people "racist" or going to any effort to incite the government, or the culture,

I agree that attacking people is not getting to the root of the problem.

Hence, the net effect of the Civil Rights legislation has been the creation of a newly defined caste system where some humans are not considered worthy of polite society, and are even thrown in jail and subjected to unequal treatment under the law because of their perceive inferiority.

Did you have some specific examples of this in mind? I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Bronco70]

The usual construct seems to boil down to husbands don't need to make every decision, but do decide which decisions their wives make, and will overrule them when appropriate; wives do not get the same opportunities. Not that this always happens in practice, but that's usually the thrust of the doctrine. You seem to be saying Mormons teach it should be otherwise. I think that would be a good thing, particularly if the other Mormons in hear your rejection of that construct.

One of the problems I've seen is, no matter how clear someone else is about something, someone else will find room for their own interpretation. This is actually one of the things that, as an active mormon, bothers me about many mormons. But I can only speak to what I have seen or heard, and I have been taught, specifically, that I do not have dominion over my wife and, further more, I am not absolutely necessary for her to obtain her final reward. However, our partnership is beneficial to both of us equally in this regard.

Another problem that arises is that much of the recorded doctrine comes from a time when, on a national (world?) level, men and women weren't socially equal. Things have changed, and policy has too, but it's easy to just go back to something written in the 19th century and say, "Well, there you have it. Mormons hate women." I'm not implying in any way that you are doing this, OB, it's just something that I felt was relevant to the convo.

More generally, we need to look at the messages we teach every day.

This is well stated, and I agree completely. On the other side of the fence, I believe it's important to try to understand other's intentions, and maybe cut each other a little slack here and there. People are going to do and say things that are insensitive. Sometimes those people are just ********, but frequently they don't intend any harm, they just don't understand the gravity of their actions in the eyes of other people.

 

[Scat]

Kudos to your daughter. She should never have been put in that position, and it sounds like she did well.

What about the daughters who are born with more timid personalities? Why did all those witnesses think it was OK for the guy to pressure her in the first place? Why wasn't the guy taught beforehand that's it's wrong to pressure girls? What if the next guy is the type that can shrug off that assault?

I don't know many guys that could shrug off that attack LOL If he came at her again, she carries a taser in her purse.

Apparently there were several other people that also told the guy to back off so the process wasn't being ignored. As to your last question, some people are just ******** and have ******** for parents. Either his daddy is like him or his daddy took no part in teaching his son how to treat women. I'm guessing he's not the type that would have opened the door for my daughter. There's a reason I look for these things.

 

[babe]

I agree that attacking people is not getting to the root of the problem.



Did you have some specific examples of this in mind? I'm not sure what you mean.

well, I was being extremely "general", and on purpose. For example, I generally dislike the anti-Mormon hype centering on Mormon doctrines like black priesthood denial because whatever it meant individually among Mormons was never successfully enforced doctrinally by the LDS church, clear back to Joseph Smith, and whatever the hell it was doctrinally was never uniformly understood or believed individually. The net effect of the campaign to force the LDS church to conform to the twentieth century ideals was and will continue to be a net loss in the freedom column for all human beings who believe anything that either is wrong in fact, or even right in fact, when some majority of a culture or nation or the world deems it unacceptable for any reason.

The biblical designation of males descendants of Levi only being allowed to be priests, and having the right to live off tithes and offerings never drew any fire in the war on Mormons. Christianity's mainstream eased away from being a racially-based group like the Jews were, with the claim that baptism was equivalent to being adopted by Jesus and Abraham, and there was no racial distinction left in the leadership or priesthood concepts, but the Old testament precedent was never outed as wrong in any way. It was merely claimed that with Jesus there was a new order of things, so ordered by God. . . . I don't care if a religion or church decides only unicorns can be the congregations' queen bee, but if anyone wanted to leave a religion I'd want to make sure he/she could leave . Here in Utah, I support some organizations that try to help kids abandoned by, or trapped in any way within, some of the extreme authoritarian cult organizations.

I like the fundamental idea of all humans having as much liberty as possible, and more, but I would come down on the side of protecting people from abuse including verbal abuse "generally". Then I would begin to backpedal on protecting the State from critical comments by ordinary citizens, for example. But when it comes right down to it, calling a government official a totalitarian bootlicking stooge for the elites is just about as hateful as any racial slur. The devil is always in the details. . . . and people need to be free to hate as much as to love, whether it's the devil, a cartel, god, or people who are just different. . . . that they hate/love. Anyone denying that freedom to anyone just doesn't really accept humans as well as I'd like to see. and yah, I have some love and hate issues with every human organization including governments. . . . and probably every human as well. . . .

I just think that's the way we are, and always will be.