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

[silesian]

Prejudice and Contempt

1) Do you think the use of the term "benevolent sexism" to describe an act of sexism means that there is no contempt or prejudice expressed by that particular expression of sexism for either sex?

Thanks for clarifying.

Contempt for a gender would clearly disqualify the act from being categorized as "benevolent"

Prejudice is a bit trickier.

Let's say a mother asks her son to shovel the snow on the walk instead of doing the dishes because she feels that "boys generally have more fun outdoors" and "boys generlally like doing more phyiscal work." This shows prejudice, it is sexist, but it is not necessarily expressing misandry or misogyny. (benevolent)

Conversely, if she thinks it is "beneath" a man to do the dishes because men are fundamentally superior to women, she would misogynistic. (not benevolent)

So an expression of prejudice would not necessarily disqualify the act from being benevolent.

 

[Bronco70]

Your post on #348 translates to to me as reading, 'God wanted something for men to to that would being them closer, so God decided that a church hierarchy, otherwise unnecessary, was the best way to accomplish this'. Hence, my question on why the otherwise unnecessary callings were created at all, when surely there would have been better ways of accomplishing the same thing.

Yeah... this is you seeing what you want to see. I'm getting dizzy and want off this ride.

Of course, maybe you meant to say something like 'the church hierarchy is necessary, and only men can be in it because women get to be mommies'. If you can't see why that offers no good reason to separate out the Mormon church as less sexist than other churches, I'm not sure what else to say on that. It's pretty clearly an arbitrary restriction enforcing an unequal power structure over an issue that doesn't apply to, say, a childless woman of 50. Can childless women become bishops after menopause?

I see you've been talking to Straw Bronco70 again.

It's also possible you meant something else entirely, and you might even deign to tell me what that was.

I thought that's what I've been doing, but my answers have apparently been too simplistic or vague for your needs. I'm guessing you're looking for something specific, but I don't know what that is.

How 'bout we say this: By One Brow's definition, the LDS church is a misogynist organization.

That better?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I disagree. Slighting a person for what they believe is bad manners. Slighting a bad belief is acting with integrity toward the believer. It doesn't mean it should happen in every post or every topic, but it would be dishonest to hide it when it is appropriate.

So it's actually good of me to say the lack of belief in God is foolish and moronic. I would then be acting in integrity and not insulting you directly, but in a round about way. It's better to insult and belittle everything around the person and everything that makes that person who they are, but it's bad manners to actually insult that person directly.

The gospel according to One Brow. Very telling actually.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Yes, I accept that you believe in God.

This next one gets more in depth, and could take a while line by line, but here goes.

Here are two. If two are too much, we can cut back to one at a time.

God is my spiritual Father.
God has a body and is in the "form of a man"... more like man is in the form of the Father.

We good?

 

[PearlWatson]

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.

Equality is over-hyped with liberals. In striving for some types of equality you dismiss individuality/uniqueness/diversity/innate differences.

There is such a diversity in personality, circumstances, physical attributes, skills, talents, interests, motivations in the human population that you are missing the mark if you value equality in role/position/outcome above all else.

Equality ain't important if you have different roles and purposes to fill in life. The polarity of the genders is the reason having both a mom and a dad is so important.

As for the topic of marriage. I think people should be required to have pre-marital counseling before they are allowed to get married, so they can discuss all the important issues...finances, in-laws, children, division of labor, religion. All these things can be more difficult to sort out when you come from different cultural backgrounds.

 

[One Brow]

Thanks for clarifying.

Contempt for a gender would clearly disqualify the act from being categorized as "benevolent"

Prejudice is a bit trickier.

Let's say a mother asks her son to shovel the snow on the walk instead of doing the dishes because she feels that "boys generally have more fun outdoors" and "boys generlally like doing more phyiscal work." This shows prejudice, it is sexist, but it is not necessarily expressing misandry or misogyny. (benevolent)

Conversely, if she thinks it is "beneath" a man to do the dishes because men are fundamentally superior to women, she would misogynistic. (not benevolent)

So an expression of prejudice would not necessarily disqualify the act from being benevolent.

My understanding of the term "benevolent" is that if focuses on outcomes, not reasoning. So, laws that prevent women from entering combat roles, or household traditions that meant they never shoveled snow, would be classified as benevolent sexism, even they are based on a disdain for the possibility that a woman can adequately handle the work (aka contempt).

Generally, any time you separate one group based upon an assumption of natural preferences, inclinations, or abilities, you are expressing contempt for the other groups capabilities in that area. Segregation is inherently unequal.

 

[One Brow]

Yeah... this is you seeing what you want to see.

Of all the people in this conversation, I'm the one with the least at stake. The degree of misogyny in Mormonism has essentially zero impact on my life. If Mormonism were not misogynistic, that changes the number of non-misogynistic religions I know about from 1 to 2. That's all the change I experience. So, you can keep talking about what I want to see, but it will remain nothing more than a poor attempt to justify why you are not being convincing.

I see you've been talking to Straw Bronco70 again.

I assume this is more ribbing that real complaint.

I'm guessing you're looking for something specific, but I don't know what that is.

I don't know, either. It might or might not exist.

In any case, as I said earlier, I don't see the LDS as anymore misogynistic than most other religions primarily composed of conservatives. So, it's not like I'm saying this is a Mormon issue, specifically.

 

[One Brow]

So it's actually good of me to say the lack of belief in God is foolish and moronic. I would then be acting in integrity and not insulting you directly, but in a round about way.

Every human has beliefs, pratices, and habits that are foolish or moronic. I don't see why it's an insult to say I have a trait shared by every human.

It's better to insult and belittle everything around the person and everything that makes that person who they are, but it's bad manners to actually insult that person directly.

If you really believe that it's you're religion that is everything about you and makes you who you are, than you are insulting yourself far more than I would ever dream of doing. I think much more highly of you than that.

 

[One Brow]

This next one gets more in depth, and could take a while line by line, but here goes.

Here are two. If two are too much, we can cut back to one at a time.

God is my spiritual Father.
God has a body and is in the "form of a man"... more like man is in the form of the Father.

We good?

So, just to clarify: for you, God is specifically a male presence/being, as opposed to female or combining the traits you assign to both?

 

[Stoked]

So, just to clarify: for you, God is specifically a male presence/being, as opposed to female or combining the traits you assign to both?

Stop getting ahead of yourself. Trust me my friend. Those answers will be forth coming shortly if Spazz does this right.

 

[One Brow]

Equality is over-hyped with liberals. In striving for some types of equality you dismiss individuality/uniqueness/diversity/innate differences.

There is such a diversity in personality, circumstances, physical attributes, skills, talents, interests, motivations in the human population that you are missing the mark if you value equality in role/position/outcome above all else.

Reasoning such as yours was used to justify Jim Crow laws. So, while I'm sure you have the most genuine intent, I'm not impressed with your reasoning.

Equality ain't important if you have different roles and purposes to fill in life. The polarity of the genders is the reason having both a mom and a dad is so important.

There is no good evidence that gender plays a significant factor in parenting role, and your gender polarizations are mostly cultural artifacts, not innate characteristics.

As for the topic of marriage. I think people should be required to have pre-marital counseling before they are allowed to get married, so they can discuss all the important issues...finances, in-laws, children, division of labor, religion. All these things can be more difficult to sort out when you come from different cultural backgrounds.

While 'required" might be a little too far, such counseling is a very good idea.

 

[One Brow]

Stop getting ahead of yourself. Trust me my friend. Those answers will be forth coming shortly if Spazz does this right.

I have no problem with the answer 'I'll explain that later', if that is JazzSpazz's answer.

 

[Stoked]

I have no problem with the answer 'I'll explain that later', if that is JazzSpazz's answer.

Well if he is going where I think he is then that will be the answer.

 

[Bronco70]

...you can keep talking about what I want to see, but it will remain nothing more than a poor attempt to justify why you are not being convincing.

Unfortunately, it is a formidable task to convince someone of something when they have already made up their mind to the contrary. My skills are nowhere near refined enough to meet this challenge.

I assume this is more ribbing that real complaint.

Somewhat. You formulated a full rebuttal for an argument that I may or not make. But, admittedly, I wanted to be cheeky about it. Funny, right? C'mon... it was funny.

In any case, as I said earlier, I don't see the LDS as anymore misogynistic than most other religions primarily composed of conservatives. So, it's not like I'm saying this is a Mormon issue, specifically.

I get that. And like I said, I'm willing to accept your assertion that the LDS church is misogynistic, according to your own definition. I just don't accept your definition as the absolute universal standard.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

So, just to clarify: for you, God is specifically a male presence/being, as opposed to female or combining the traits you assign to both?

If you are talking physical traits, then yes, if I understand you correctly. God, as in our Father, is not a woman, and is not a mix of male and female.

1-God exists
2- God is my spiritual Father
3- God has a body of flesh and bone, and is male.

If you are still with me go to 4, if not we can clarify.

4- God loves me, and all of his children. (all people that have, or will live on the earth)

 

[One Brow]

C'mon... it was funny.

Absolutely. I aslo am grateful for your attempts to provide answers, even if it doesn't always show. Thanks.

 

[One Brow]

If you are talking physical traits, then yes, if I understand you correctly. God, as in our Father, is not a woman, and is not a mix of male and female.

1-God exists
2- God is my spiritual Father
3- God has a body of flesh and bone, and is male.

If you are still with me go to 4, if not we can clarify.

4- God loves me, and all of his children. (all people that have, or will live on the earth)

OK so far.

 

[babe]

Reasoning such as yours was used to justify Jim Crow laws. So, while I'm sure you have the most genuine intent, I'm not impressed with your reasoning.



There is no good evidence that gender plays a significant factor in parenting role, and your gender polarizations are mostly cultural artifacts, not innate characteristics.



While 'required" might be a little too far, such counseling is a very good idea.

fantasies of moral superiority are not uniquely possessed by conservatives.

 

[One Brow]

fantasies of moral superiority are not uniquely possessed by conservatives.

Agreed.

Were you referring to any specific fantasies by non-conservatives, or just weighing in for balance?

 

[babe]

Equality is over-hyped with liberals. In striving for some types of equality you dismiss individuality/uniqueness/diversity/innate differences.

There is such a diversity in personality, circumstances, physical attributes, skills, talents, interests, motivations in the human population that you are missing the mark if you value equality in role/position/outcome above all else.

Equality ain't important if you have different roles and purposes to fill in life. The polarity of the genders is the reason having both a mom and a dad is so important.

As for the topic of marriage. I think people should be required to have pre-marital counseling before they are allowed to get married, so they can discuss all the important issues...finances, in-laws, children, division of labor, religion. All these things can be more difficult to sort out when you come from different cultural backgrounds.

Some people actually place a positive value on being "different" somehow. Funny how a lot of progressives don't do that.

The idea of "counselling" being a requirement for marriage is actually a very "progressive" notion, too. Having Pearl bring that out as a final point in her post just shows how thoroughly we have all been indoctrinated by, and subjected to, the theories of statism, whether under the "progressive" or "conservative" flags.

Maybe a good idea? depends on what the point of the counselling is. If it's the state's objective to regulate and control "marriage", and the finances, children, work roles, and specific belief notions that are "allowable" or even to be encouraged, I think it's just more overlord management.