This American Life

[BlueDreams]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But feminists would not like that comment.  Who needs men to fight battles for them?  Sounds quite "Patriarchal" to me.  Consistency is important. I was just commenting on what MY personal reaction would be- not that that was the only possible reaction- in fact my reaction was probably not the "best" in a gospel sense anyway

As a feminist, I find it weird how much you've seem to place all feminists into one formula of  belief and outlook on the situation. There's several ways that this could be looked at that doesn't entail your interpretation from a feminist perspective. For example one could point out that the first initial stance that male relatives would never stand for these in some form of protective postering is a form of patriarchy in itself as is using this sense of protective duty against wrong-doing as a means to unilaterally dismiss women's concerns and perspectives of an issue. One could also point that ignoring the male hierarchical system (both in design and cultural precedence) in the church means that women will especially need male allies in order to have their views hold traction in certain circumstances. Especially with people who are more likely to practice such forms of unrighteous dominion. Where there is likely misconduct in positions of power, it can be difficult to make headway as a female in male-dominated circles. 

I'm not necessarily promoting one explanation over another. But I find the posturing around feminism in odd broad strokes logically sloppy at best and a little irritating as a feminist myself. It reads ast building some odd strawman in a discussion that isn't specifically addressing feminist perspectives of an issue in the first place.

 

With luv,

BD 

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

As a feminist, I find it weird how much you've seem to place all feminists into one formula of  belief and outlook on the situation. There's several ways that this could be looked at that doesn't entail your interpretation from a feminist perspective. For example one could point out that the first initial stance that male relatives would never stand for these in some form of protective postering is a form of patriarchy in itself as is using this sense of protective duty against wrong-doing as a means to unilaterally dismiss women's concerns and perspectives of an issue. One could also point that ignoring the male hierarchical system (both in design and cultural precedence) in the church means that women will especially need male allies in order to have their views hold traction in certain circumstances. Especially with people who are more likely to practice such forms of unrighteous dominion. Where there is likely misconduct in positions of power, it can be difficult to make headway as a female in male-dominated circles. 

I'm not necessarily promoting one explanation over another. But I find the posturing around feminism in odd broad strokes logically sloppy at best and a little irritating as a feminist myself. It reads ast building some odd strawman in a discussion that isn't specifically addressing feminist perspectives of an issue in the first place.

 

With luv,

BD 

Emphasis added--

And why is that bolded part true?   When I was a good Marxist I learned that oppressed classes need to rise up on their own and fight their own battles without returning to their oppressors for help.

Weird?

Guilty as charged and proud of it!

Patriarchal?

Guilty as charged and proud of it! 

Sticks and stones will break my bones...  

But tell me this, doc, how do I break my addiction to participating in these threads about women?    

 

Edited November 14, 2018 by mfbukowski

[juliann]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

But feminists would not like that comment.  Who needs men to fight battles for them?  Sounds quite "Patriarchal" to me.  Consistency is important. I was just commenting on what MY personal reaction would be- not that that was the only possible reaction- in fact my reaction was probably not the "best" in a gospel sense anyway

What does feminism have to do with you proclaiming that your being a tough guy would solve a female relative’s problem? That is what calm was responding to, your comment. You are trying to change the topic you began by insulting some vague notion of feminism. 

[juliann]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The right thing to say is "Get out of my face and I am going to the police, it's none of your business"?

Why don't they do that?

Who could be so passive in a case like that.  I find it literally unbelievable, meaning I don't believe the accounts.  How could there be so many with absolutely no common sense and in one area?

Who would even WANT a recommend from someone like that who has no authority by their conduct alone?  

 

It isn’t like you haven’t been a part of countless threads where this has all been carefully explained to you. The question should be, why do you not only refuse to even try to see this from the POV of those who have experienced what you can only pontificate about, but you insist on going to attack mode to derail?

Mustardseed, don’t let the few here who will not concede to hear out women who experience this stuff discourage you in any way. 

[juliann]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Emphasis added--

And why is that bolded part true?   When I was a good Marxist I learned that oppressed classes need to rise up on their own and fight their own battles without returning to their oppressors for help.

Weird?

Guilty as charged and proud of it!

Patriarchal?

Guilty as charged and proud of it! 

Sticks and stones will break my bones...  

But tell me this, doc, how do I break my addiction to participating in these threads about women?    

 

Wow. When attacks don’t shut down uppity women, try demeaning them with derisive titles. As usual, you have successfully made yet another thread all about you. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

As a feminist, I find it weird how much you've seem to place all feminists into one formula of  belief and outlook on the situation. There's several ways that this could be looked at that doesn't entail your interpretation from a feminist perspective. For example one could point out that the first initial stance that male relatives would never stand for these in some form of protective postering is a form of patriarchy in itself as is using this sense of protective duty against wrong-doing as a means to unilaterally dismiss women's concerns and perspectives of an issue. One could also point that ignoring the male hierarchical system (both in design and cultural precedence) in the church means that women will especially need male allies in order to have their views hold traction in certain circumstances. Especially with people who are more likely to practice such forms of unrighteous dominion. Where there is likely misconduct in positions of power, it can be difficult to make headway as a female in male-dominated circles. 

I'm not necessarily promoting one explanation over another. But I find the posturing around feminism in odd broad strokes logically sloppy at best and a little irritating as a feminist myself. It reads ast building some odd strawman in a discussion that isn't specifically addressing feminist perspectives of an issue in the first place.

 

With luv,

BD 

Thank you, Juliann.  Like I said in a previous post, I thought Mustardseed's post was like a breath of fresh air.  Uncondescening, open and pure thoughts of questioning and concern. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But feminists would not like that comment.  Who needs men to fight battles for them?  

I am a feminist.  I like my comment.  But I think you have misunderstood what I am saying.  It is not about having men to fight the battles, but having supportive friends and loved ones to provide insight and comfort and love and willingness to fight battles with them, not for them.

It is intelligent and proactive to make use of all resources available to one, including people no matter what gender.  Going to friends and relatives who are willing to offer support, not rescue, is pragmatic.  I don't think Marx would have a problem with that, but if he did he was an idiot.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

30 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you, Juliann.  Like I said in a previous post, I thought Mustardseed's post was like a breath of fresh air.  Uncondescening, open and pure thoughts of questioning and concern. 

Just so you know, you quoted me...Bluedreams ...I don't know if you meant to quote Juliann instead. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

Bluedreams and others, hopefully MustardSeed did not leave too soon.

[cinepro]

On the subject of apologies and what good it would do, I'm reminded of a recent study.

We're all familiar with the fact that doctors sometimes make mistakes, and they have malpractice insurance to cover when they get sued for making mistakes.  It also isn't a surprise that the perception is that if doctors apologize to the patient for making a mistake, the assumption is that having them admit the mistake opens them up to greater liability, and perhaps a greater judgement or settlement against them.

But studies into that subject don't follow that expectation.  For example:

Apologies and Medical Error

Quote

Apologies—statements that acknowledge an error and its consequences, take responsibility, and communicate regret for having caused harm—can decrease blame, decrease anger, increase trust, and improve relationships. Importantly, apologies also have the potential to decrease the risk of a medical malpractice lawsuit and can help settle claims by patients.

While Bishops interviews are obviously a different field of interaction, I wonder if there isn't something the Church could learn from that conclusion...?

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Emphasis added--

And why is that bolded part true?  

The bolded part is true because for centuries men were taught that they were superior to and smarter than women.  Breaking through and changing that kind of historical and cultural weight takes a lot of time and effort (on everyone's part, not just women).  This trailer for a new movie coming up showcases just how few years it's been since women were openly and legally discriminated against.  It also shows that discrimination against women doesn't just hurt women, it hurts men too.

 

Edited November 14, 2018 by bluebell

[juliann]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The bolded part is true because for centuries men were taught that they were superior to and smarter than women.  Breaking through and changing that kind of historical and cultural weight takes a lot of time and effort (on everyone's part, not just women).  This trailer for a new movie coming up showcases just how few years it's been since women were opening and legally discriminated against.  It also shows that discrimination against women doesn't just hurt women, it hurts men too.

 

The truly sad thing is that the very men who demean women who will not accept this anymore are the men who were never told their career options were secretary, nurse or teacher. Yet they feel entitled to correct us. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am a feminist.  I like my comment.  But I think you have misunderstood what I am saying.  It is not about having men to fight the battles, but having supportive friends and loved ones to provide insight and comfort and love and willingness to fight battles with them, not for them.

It is intelligent and proactive to make use of all resources available to one, including people no matter what gender.  Going to friends and relatives who are willing to offer support, not rescue, is pragmatic.  I don't think Marx would have a problem with that, but if he did he was an idiot.

Another note...

Realistically women have to involve men to have other men removed from their calling in the Church since it is men who approve of and set people apart and release them.  Suggesting that if women are oppressed in the Church, to truly throw off that oppression they must do it on their own without the involvement of men is ignoring the fundamental structure of the Church or possibly suggesting the only way to remove oppression is to leave or destroy the Church as it is now.  Marx may think that a good solution, I do not.

Very few women in my experience who have been in these situations have any desire to do that and would see it as counterproductive to their goals in life, including most feminists I know in the Church...though there are a few who end up there such as Kate Kelly.  These are the exceptions though.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

For example one could point out that the first initial stance that male relatives would never stand for these in some form of protective postering is a form of patriarchy in itself as is using this sense of protective duty against wrong-doing as a means to unilaterally dismiss women's concerns and perspectives of an issue.

Would you agree that this kind of protective reaction is built into males through biology?  I've had some interesting conversations with my infantry vet son over the seemingly innate problems of putting women with men in front-line battle situations.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

The truly sad thing is that the very men who demean women who will not accept this anymore are the men who were never told their career options were secretary, nurse or teacher. Yet they feel entitled to correct us. 

Like the concept of white or middle class privilege, I think it's really hard to see the impact of discrimination when you aren't actually looking for it and have never personally experienced it. Plus, no one wants to believe that they achieved all they have in life because of an unfair or unearned advantage.   The natural response is to push back against that.  It's a defense mechanism.    

[BlueDreams]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you agree that this kind of protective reaction is built into males through biology? 

No...at least not as a distinctive trait tied by gender. I'm also protective of my husband, unborn fetus, my bros, close friends, etc. Being protective is more a trait of being close to someone and protecting our social groups. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The bolded part is true because for centuries men were taught that they were superior to and smarter than women.  Breaking through and changing that kind of historical and cultural weight takes a lot of time and effort (on everyone's part, not just women).  This trailer for a new movie coming up showcases just how few years it's been since women were openly and legally discriminated against.  It also shows that discrimination against women doesn't just hurt women, it hurts men too.

 

I can't wait!

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you agree that this kind of protective reaction is built into males through biology? 

That's an interesting question that I've never thought about before.  

I've seen wives protect their husbands before, and put themselves between their husbands and harm, so I don't know that the evidence supports it's built into men's biology more than it is in women's (if it's built in at all).  Women will do some pretty amazing things to protect their children as well, for example.

What could be a part of our biology is the instinct to protect what we perceive to be weaker than us, maybe?  I don't know.  I'm also not sure how we could separate a biological impulse to protect from a learned and culturally expected impulse to protect.  

Plus, we know that women suffer abuse at the hands of males at an alarming rate.  That alone would seem to preclude the idea that male biology causes men to protect women.  In America, an average of 3 women are murdered every day by a current or former male romantic partner.  That doesn't speak well for the idea that males are biologically programed to protect females.

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Bluedreams and others, hopefully MustardSeed did not leave too soon.

I’m here, thanks. I no longer found the direction of the thread helpful so stepped away last night .  Yesterday I was on a school bus for 6 hours, had the time to invest.  I hope to never again have enough time in my hands that I would find a need to try to convince anyone that my experiences or point of view 1. Are true or 2. Are valid.  Or for that matter, convince anyone of anything.  I prefer to live and let live, for the most part. ❤️

Edited November 14, 2018 by MustardSeed

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

  That doesn't speak well for the idea that males are biologically programed to protect females.

The biological hardwiring could be about territory/property if there is any actual hardwiring (I don't think it is protection of weaker given the existence of bullying, war for domination, etc).  This would explain why some men will protect those they see as 'their' women from other men while beating on the women themselves.  This would seem to be consistent with the rest of the animal kingdom that is closest in biology to humanity.

I am not suggesting that men who are protective are always about guarding their property.  I think being protective is most often just the human response for those they love or respect.  That may be biological in part, protecting others who contribute to your wellbeing/perpetuation of DNA.  Or it may be social/cultural.  Impossible as you say to really untangle the two.  Certainly the whole man coming to the rescue of women has been a constant theme in media ever since plays and stories/novels became a thing (all those maidens being rescued by knights or Andromeda being rescued by Perseus for example).  Only very recently has women rescuing men from physical danger been portrayed as natural in some books and shows, a great many still show awkwardness or a sense of out of balance with the natural order of things, a struggle by the man to accept the relationship and still feel an equal where women were pretty much always portrayed as swooning into the arms of their rescuer.  Women have traditionally been often shown 'rescuing' the wounded hero by hiding or caring for him, but ultimately the man is still the one who rights the wrong.  That is a huge cultural influence on our 'programming'.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

The biological hardwiring could be about territory/property if there is any actual hardwiring (I don't think it is protection of weaker given the existence of bullying, war for domination, etc).  This would explain why some men will protect those they see as 'their' women from other men while beating on the women themselves.  This would seem to be consistent with the rest of the animal kingdom that is closest in biology to humanity.

I am not suggesting that men who are protective are always about guarding their property.  I think being protective is most often just the human response for those they love or respect.  That may be biological in part, protecting others who contribute to your wellbeing/perpetuation of DNA.  Or it may be social/cultural.  Impossible as you say to really untangle the two.  Certainly the whole man coming to the rescue of women has been a constant theme in media ever since novels became a thing (all those maidens being rescued by knights or Andromeda being rescued by Perseus for example).  Only very recently has women rescuing men by physical danger been portrayed as natural in some books and shows, a great many still show awkwardness or a sense of out of balance with the natural order of things, a struggle by the man to accept the relationship and still feel an equal where women were pretty much always portrayed as swooning into the arms of their rescuer.  Women have traditionally been often shown 'rescuing' the wounded hero by hiding or caring for him, but ultimately the man is still the one who rights the wrong.  That is a huge cultural influence on our 'programming'.

I was thinking the bolded part as well.  

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m here, thanks. I no longer found the direction of the thread helpful so stepped away last night .  Yesterday I was on a school bus for 6 hours, had the time to invest.  I hope to never again have enough time in my hands that I would find a need to try to convince anyone that my experiences or point of view 1. Are true or 2. Are valid.  Or for that matter, convince anyone of anything.  I prefer to live and let live, for the most part. ❤️

I post here not to convince, but to share ideas.  I want to understand others and learn how best to communicate to be understood.  I think it helps not to approach discussion here as persuasion, but instead sharing information that other posters/readers can choose to accept or not.  Of course, when I point out where I see interpretation of comments or behaviour is incorrect, it probably comes across much the same as arguing to convince.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

 

I am ok with convincers, once I understand the agenda.  It takes a while to understand individuals in a group and what they are here to do.  Once I a clear on that, I know when and with whom to engage on each topic. 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Just so you know, you quoted me...Bluedreams ...I don't know if you meant to quote Juliann instead. 

 

With luv,

BD

i could have...my apoligies if I have mistaken...having a hard time with my eyes lately..new glasses and all that...plus I am in and out too quickly.  But I agree!!

[let’s roll]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

On the subject of apologies and what good it would do, I'm reminded of a recent study.

We're all familiar with the fact that doctors sometimes make mistakes, and they have malpractice insurance to cover when they get sued for making mistakes.  It also isn't a surprise that the perception is that if doctors apologize to the patient for making a mistake, the assumption is that having them admit the mistake opens them up to greater liability, and perhaps a greater judgement or settlement against them.

But studies into that subject don't follow that expectation.  For example:

Apologies and Medical Error

While Bishops interviews are obviously a different field of interaction, I wonder if there isn't something the Church could learn from that conclusion...?

My expectation is that your lawyer would explain it to you this way.  And the study you cite supports this explanation.

An apology “may” result in fewer lawsuits being filed and has the “potential” of reducing anger and blame, but unless there’s a statute that prevents an apology from being admitted into evidence you will lose 100% of the cases where you apologized.  The only issue in the case will be the amount of damages. (This fact is mentioned in the study).

By contrast, only 27% of medical malpractice cases end up with a judgment for the plaintiff.  100% v. 27%.  You decide.