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

[One Brow]

I'm bored with your defamation already. It has come down to exclusivity of position based on meaningful differences and practical role differentiation.

The differences are more mythical than meaningful, and the role differentiation is programmed, not innate.

It is just a matter of fact that women have babies and breasts to feed them, nesting hormones, and multitasking brains, which suits them for fulfilling the role of raising the children.

Only 2 out of 4. There is no hormone in women not present in men, nor vice-versa. There is no particular advantage to multi-tasking in parenting, and the varience in multi-tasking ability outstrips the mean difference anyhow, to the mean difference is irrelevant.

I guess we could pretend men take on the provider role as a matter of default,

Those so programmed by culture, sure.

I don't know the answer to "Why is needed to exclude women from the bishopric or men from the relief society?" Maybe men have exclusivity in priesthood/and position of Bishop because women have exclusivity in having babies. It could be considered a matter of practicality since babies are a lot of work.

That doesn't explain why single, infertile, or menopausal women are also denied the position.

Maybe it has to do with the same reason men and women have different restroom facilities,

That's because men are culturally considered vicious predators that woman have to be protected from.

or why the Utah Jazz doesn't have women on their team.

Certainly, when you look for the top 0.00001% of the most athletic people in the world, very few women will be on that list.

Isn't it telling that the exclusivity goes both ways?

Did you know the Jazz once drafted a woman player? If there was a woman who could play on this level, shewould b in the NBA.

Why is it needed for women to be bishops and men to be relief society leaders just for the sake of some worthless need for a sense of universal fairness or equality?

It isn't necessary, obviously, sice it doesn't happen today. The question would be why you want to keep otherwise capable people out of the position based solely on gender, absent necessity.

Role differentiation, for innate or practical reasons doesn't mean inequality when they both are valued, needed, and get one to the same outcome.

Except here the innate reasons and pratical reasons are mythical, not actual.

 

[PearlWatson]

That doesn't explain why single, infertile, or menopausal women are also denied the position.

I was suggesting that the separation of powers were to the entire gender. Since it was impossible to make exceptions for the men (power to bare children), then it would be only fair that there weren't exceptions for the women.

Depends on whether the masculinity of the Godhead is part of the idealness of his nature, or a not-particularly-relevant feature, and whether this has impacts later on for the ways that women and men relate to this Godhead. You can be male without being oppressive.

If you can come to this conclusion than I don't see why you couldn't accept that mirrored/symbolic hierarchy in a church wasn't hateful/distrustful of women either.

 

[Scat]

There is no hormone in women not present in men, nor vice-versa.

While this may be technically true, there are varying levels of these hormones between women and men. Quantity makes a HUGE difference. Testosterone is a good example.

 

[moevillini]

Sexism will either be misogynistic or misandristic, simply because if there is no inferiority, there is no need to segregate.

can't there be reasons to segregate that do not imply any sort of superiority or inferiority? Like, for instance, I am glad they segregate public and provide urinals for men and regular toilets for women.

Maybe for equality they should just have toilets along the wall with no stalls to separate them and provide privacy? Or maybe the European style urinal for both men and women.

 

[Stoked]

can't there be reasons to segregate that do not imply any sort of superiority or inferiority? Like, for instance, I am glad they segregate public and provide urinals for men and regular toilets for women.

Maybe for equality they should just have toilets along the wall with no stalls to separate them and provide privacy? Or maybe the European style urinal for both men and women.

Men have urinals on the walls. Discrimination.

 

[silesian]

oh well....

Sexism will either be misogynistic or misandristic, simply because if there is no inferiority, there is no need to segregate.

Why do you see "different" as "inferior"?


If I separate tall people from short people it must be because I hate short people, even if it because it is not safe for a small person to ride a rollercoaster.

And if I separate old people from young people by giving a senior discount, it must be because I hate young people.

And if I separate rich people from poor people to make them pay more taxes, it must be because I hate rich people.

And if I separate fat people from thin people in different clothing stores, I must hate thin people.

And if I separate women from men in separate bathrooms, I must hate men (or women).

Maybe you are seeing hatred in places it does not exist?

 

[One Brow]

I was suggesting that the separation of powers were to the entire gender. Since it was impossible to make exceptions for the men (power to bare children), then it would be only fair that there weren't exceptions for the women.

Men can also be single, infertile, or too old to have children. Further, this does not explain why the separation is needed in the first place.

If you can come to this conclusion than I don't see why you couldn't accept that mirrored/symbolic hierarchy in a church wasn't hateful/distrustful of women either.

If the hierarchy were mirrored, that would mean Relief Society Presidents had authority over a congregation in the manner that bishops do, the same responsibilities, etc. There would be the equivalent of women prophets and women in similar positions to other high-level offices. To my understanding, this is not true. Thus, your claim of "mirrored" is flatly false.

 

[One Brow]

While this may be technically true, there are varying levels of these hormones between women and men. Quantity makes a HUGE difference. Testosterone is a good example.

Hormone levels also vary widely by person within a sex. Do you measure a man's testosterone level before allowing him to be a bishop? Any notion that hormone levels matter seems to be just another rationalization, if you don't actually care enough about hormone levels to measure them.

 

[One Brow]

can't there be reasons to segregate that do not imply any sort of superiority or inferiority? Like, for instance, I am glad they segregate public and provide urinals for men and regular toilets for women.

Separate restrooms, culturally, are for the protection of women. To see this, you only need compare the out roar accompaning the notion that transsexual woman would be using women's restroom, to the complete lack of concern about transsexual men using men's restrooms.

Maybe for equality they should just have toilets along the wall with no stalls to separate them and provide privacy? Or maybe the European style urinal for both men and women.

I'm not sure what stalls/no stalls have to do with this. AFAIK, both sexes have rest rooms with stalls.

 

[One Brow]

Sexism will either be misogynistic or misandristic, simply because if there is no inferiority, there is no need to segregate.

Why do you see "different" as "inferior"?

Why do you equate "different" with "segregate"? Everyone is different from the person next to them. That doesn't mean they should be segregated.

If I separate tall people from short people it must be because I hate short people, even if it because it is not safe for a small person to ride a rollercoaster.

I'm not familiar with the social justice aspects of height discrimination, and the engineering difficulties that might be presented in making roller coasters more height-friendly. Do you have any actual knowledge in this area, or ar you just throwing up a smoke-screen?

And if I separate old people from young people by giving a senior discount, it must be because I hate young people.

Once again, we have the bringing in of individual hate; ignoring of how notions like culture, prejudice, or contempt apply. There can be any number of thoughts behind offering a senior discount, from "after contributing to society for so long, they have earned it" to "senior citizen make better customers". So, what's the justification you offer that does not express some sort of prejudice or contempt?

And if I separate rich people from poor people to make them pay more taxes, it must be because I hate rich people.

Rich people get much more benefit from a functioning society, and pay paccordingly.

And if I separate fat people from thin people in different clothing stores, I must hate thin people.

The reason they have clothing stores for fat people is because fat people are treated with contempt by the other stores. Who wants to be treated with disapproving glares by sales people when it turns out they don't have your size?

And if I separate women from men in separate bathrooms, I must hate men (or women).

Culturally, men can't be trusted in the same restroom with women. How is that not contempt?

Maybe you are seeing hatred in places it does not exist?

Maybe you should open your eyes a little more? Are you short? Old? Rich? Fat? Female? What makes you think you understand their experiences?

 

[Stoked]

Why do you equate "different" with "segregate"? Everyone is different from the person next to them. That doesn't mean they should be segregated.



I'm not familiar with the social justice aspects of height discrimination, and the engineering difficulties that might be presented in making roller coasters more height-friendly. Do you have any actual knowledge in this area, or ar you just throwing up a smoke-screen?



Once again, we have the bringing in of individual hate; ignoring of how notions like culture, prejudice, or contempt apply. There can be any number of thoughts behind offering a senior discount, from "after contributing to society for so long, they have earned it" to "senior citizen make better customers". So, what's the justification you offer that does not express some sort of prejudice or contempt?



Rich people get much more benefit from a functioning society, and pay paccordingly.



The reason they have clothing stores for fat people is because fat people are treated with contempt by the other stores. Who wants to be treated with disapproving glares by sales people when it turns out they don't have your size?



Culturally, men can't be trusted in the same restroom with women. How is that not contempt?



Maybe you should open your eyes a little more? Are you short? Old? Rich? Fat? Female? What makes you think you understand their experiences?

This made me smile.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

1-God exists
2- God is my spiritual Father
3- God has a body of flesh and bone, and is male.
4- God loves me, and all of his children. (all people that have, or will live on the earth)
5- God while the ultimate authority, works with others to get things done. We'll call it the Godhead, which is made up of 3 distinct personages that work together, yet all is done in the name of the Father. Jesus Christ is one, who now has a body of flesh and bone as well, and someone we call The Holy Ghost, or the Holy Spirit who does not have a body of flesh and bone yet, but is a personage of spirit still.

6- God has a plan for us, his spirit children.
7- This plan has need of an "earth" for us as part of this plan.

The next bit will be a detour into the plan, because without an understanding of the plan the other pieces will not be whole.

8- This plan provides a way for all of God's children to become like he is if we so choose, and with some help because we can't do so alone. ( inherit all our Father has if we keep his conditions)
9- 2 main points of becoming like him include our spirits gaining a physical body, and becoming like him in character.
a. Body is easy, we get one when born.
b. Character is harder and has more to do with what we have when here, and this part is huge in that most of the Gospel of Jesus Christ revolves around this part.

If you are still with me here with no issues we are probably going to have to dig into the 9b part in more detail and it will be its own section.

I stopped here, because there is quite a bit to the next part, and frankly I'm not sure you really understand where I'm coming from for a few reasons. What I have listed so far is barely a skeleton, and is missing much of the flesh of my belief. Also you tend to pick at things and have very different definitions of words from me, and yet you have asked no questions about what I have posted really. This makes me wonder if you really get where I'm coming from because in my mind someone that is so far from me as to what we believe would probably have clarifying questions to this point about a few things to make sure we are on the same page. Not pointing out where I am or may be wrong, but questions with the intent to understand one's stance.

I'm not sure I want to invest as much time and effort in this if it will be as one sided as I believe it will be, and I know it will be very difficult to get the meaning across I would want to through this medium.

I have not decided yet if I will continue, but am leaning toward letting it go.
This is not my first rodeo.
I've seen this movie before.

 

[Bronco70]

Maybe you should open your eyes a little more?

Reported for racism. I'm not comfortable with you treating our asian brothers and sisters this way, Brow.

 

[nightmare3983]

Reported for racism. I'm not comfortable with you treating our asian brothers and sisters this way, Brow.

Think about Luck Kevin Yang/Yong!

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Maybe you should open your eyes a little more? Are you short? Old? Rich? Fat? Female? What makes you think you understand their experiences?

This was the part that made me laugh. Some dude talking at length about how women are treated with contempt, hatred, etc.... and then saying this.
Seems pretty hypocritical to say this when you are doing just that.

 

[Stoked]

This was the part that made me laugh. Some dude talking at length about how women are treated with contempt, hatred, etc.... and then saying this.
Seems pretty hypocritical to say this when you are doing just that.

That is what made me smile.

 

[Scat]

Hormone levels also vary widely by person within a sex. Do you measure a man's testosterone level before allowing him to be a bishop? Any notion that hormone levels matter seems to be just another rationalization, if you don't actually care enough about hormone levels to measure them.

WTF? I was simply pointing out that while your statement that both sexes possess the same hormones was technically correct, it didn't take into account the varying levels found in women vs. men.

Why do you make things so damn difficult?

 

[Stoked]

WTF? I was simply pointing out that while your statement that both sexes possess the same hormones was technically correct, it didn't take into account the varying levels found in women vs. men.

Why do you make things so damn difficult?

It's called trolling.

 

[larryselbows]

 

[One Brow]

This is not my first rodeo.
I've seen this movie before.

It's not my first rodeo, either. Basically, outside of point 3 (and similar claims in the rest of your points), this is very similar to what you see in many other religions. I've been a Catholic and strongly considered being a JW. An actual physical body for God isn't that much of an add-on, and I don't have any real questions about it.

Again, from my position, this was an attempt by you to convince me that exclusions of women from positions of leadership is somehow not mysogynistic. I don't see how asking detailed, probing questions on the physical body of God (or on any number of other things you say) is relevant to that, and believe it or not, I'm trying to avoid derailing this tangent into other areas. Did I miss something?