What's new

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

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.

Thanks for the reply. Are you talking about American culture here? If so, in your discussions about LDS, are you just saying that the LDS church is as misogynistic as American culture in general? Or are you saying that, due to having e.g. an all-male priesthood, the LDS church is even more misogynistic than the surrounding culture? I had thought you were saying the latter, but perhaps you are just saying the former.
 
question

1) Do you think the term "benevolent sexism" means that there is no contempt or prejudice expressed by it for either sex?

Confused by your question. What does the "it" to which you refer that is expressing contempt or prejudice? Thanks for clarifying.
 
I absolutely have to disagree here. He can give an opinion about anything he wants about you or your thoughts, intentions, actions, opinions.... Just as you can him. Or you and I on one another.

Generally, "can" refers to an ability. Probably, you meant a right of some sort, that we couldn't/shouldn't pass a law on the subject. In that case, duh.

Try again. Think about what the phrase "proper subjects" meant, and why I made the specific effort to distinguish opinions as not proper versus speculations as potentially proper.
 
Generally, "can" refers to an ability. Probably, you meant a right of some sort, that we couldn't/shouldn't pass a law on the subject. In that case, duh.

Try again. Think about what the phrase "proper subjects" meant, and why I made the specific effort to distinguish opinions as not proper versus speculations as potentially proper.

"proper subjects" is your opinion of what is proper, nothing more. I disagree as that is my opinion. Again with your foolish word games.
 
And why in your flawed world of understanding words would your intentions not be proper subjects for my opinions? I say what I say, and it is my opinion that you are the way you are. My opinion is mine and can be about anything I want it to be about and on any subject I want it to be on.

Because in my flawed world of understanding, you are as interested in having a constructive dialogue as you claim, and I am not taking on the opinion that you are being deceitful or deliberately subversive of that effort. Since I'm not a telepath, when someone tells me their motivation, I take them at their even, even if I note their actions seem to be undermining their stated intent. I don't think so highly of myself that I can read others like open books. How about you?

Your statement is based an faulty assumptions and do not represent the meaning of what I said to you. Lets just assume you are a mortal person for a second here, and you are standing still and facing north. You can have multiple people close to you. You can have a person directly behind you that is equally close to you as a person standing to your right, and a person to your left, and a person in front of you. They are all equally close to you, and yet have a unique perspective of what you look like. Similar to this it is possible for multiple people to be close to God, and yet in different ways.

So, combining this with your earlier statement about women have a special connection to God, are you saying that men have a different special connection that women do not possess? Because otherwise, why isn't it that women, via their special connection, actually stand a little closer in your metaphor?

Let me spell it out for you, but I highly doubt you would be willing to go the distance with me to understand the why.
I think a male-only priesthood is enlightened, and in perfect order not only with what God wants for us, but what is for the best good of all people of the earth.
Do you really want the why? It will be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but we will first have to track the rainbow from the beginning all the way to the other end to find the pot.

If you don't mind, I would like to travel that distance, a few sentences at time. That would allow me to focus on what the basis behind the argument is. I don't expect that at the end of the journey I'll see the pot as filled with gold, though, and I don't want you to undertake this thinking that's a likely possibility. It would be unfair to you.

faulty assumption on the further from God part....

Please go on. I'm listening.

And why would you not view "Woman up!" to be just as offensive as "Man up"? Doesn't sound like progress or any sort of accomplishment to me.
Sounds like just changing direction on the same bad road.

You are right that, in a sexism-free world, I would prefer a much more neutral "Grow up" or "Be a person". However, "Woman up!" at least states that it's just as good to be a fully realized woman as it is to be a fully realized man, and has the additional benefit of pushing against cultural inertia, so it's not an objectionable choice to me in our world.

Your wording is yet again giving slights and digs to religious activity basically calling it all foolish. I wonder why I'm not feeling the sincerity from you.

As I stated above, I'm not an acolyte or potential convert. My current position is that Mormonism is steeped in the same misogyny that infects almost every other religion (Wicca seems to be an exception), and for that matter, is being actively fought in atheist organizations. My understanding of this conversation is that people have been trying to convince me this is not true. I think Wicca is just as foolish and any other religion, but I am convinced it's not misogynistic, so the I don't see the two as connected. I'm open to Mormonism being not misogynistic (or perhaps misogynistic to a lesser degree) than other religions (despite whom they elect to the legislatures in Utah), and that would improve my opinion of the culture around it, but it's likely to have no impact at all on how believable I find its claims. Again, I don't want you to be deceived on that score. If that makes the conversation not worth having to you, I'd rather be honest about it and miss the conversation as opposed to the other option.

Nothing wrong with challenging ideas as long as it is part of the flow and the cycle of learning. To just sit and challenge without the other steps is just fruitless and a complete waste of time.

Fair enough.
 
Perhaps the "Priesthood" and these "leadership" positions are that compensation. Maybe that's why he chooses men to serve this way - to bring them closer.

That's a little like posting up your point guards to compensate for their lack of height and forcing centers to dribble the ball across the court, isn't it? 'You're better at us than this, so you can't do it'? Again, why not allow both?
 
Thanks for the reply. Are you talking about American culture here? If so, in your discussions about LDS, are you just saying that the LDS church is as misogynistic as American culture in general? Or are you saying that, due to having e.g. an all-male priesthood, the LDS church is even more misogynistic than the surrounding culture? I had thought you were saying the latter, but perhaps you are just saying the former.

The American culture is misogynistic generally, I see no evidence that the LDS are more so than any other relatively conservative religion (or for that matter, non-religious conservatives and moderates, in many cases).
 
Confused by your question. What does the "it" to which you refer that is expressing contempt or prejudice? Thanks for clarifying.

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?
 
Back
Top