I'll incorporate "woman up" into my vocabulary.
This is what you tell your wife when you ask her to make you a sandwich and she whines about it, right?
I'll incorporate "woman up" into my vocabulary.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
faulty assumption on the further from God part....
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.
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.
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.
If they did, it would suck. <-------not fact, just opinion. Some people may even call it speculation, who knows.
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.
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.
Confused by your question. What does the "it" to which you refer that is expressing contempt or prejudice? Thanks for clarifying.
Again with your foolish word games.