Troubling Allegations Against Former Sheriff in Pinal County, AZ (Church mbr)

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, thank you for making my point.  Men’s biology makes them more dangerous to women in general. I appreciate you summing it up so clearly.

i’m unsure what to do about your point of what if we lived in a fantasy world where none of this was true in the opposite was real.   

Do you agree with this part of my comments?

Quote

I think the healthier mindset is: Be situationally aware, not categorically distrustful.
...
The healthier approach is to judge individuals by their character and behavior, while still acknowledging real patterns and taking reasonable precautions and mitigation efforts (e.g., don’t be alone in vulnerable situations with anyone you don’t know well, pass and vigorously enforce laws, etc.). Blanket suspicion of an entire sex is not wisdom.  It is generalized prejudice.  And I think it is beneath Latter-day Saints to participate in it.

Perhaps we agree more than we disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

LISTEN TO THEM. Stop trying to explain everything away or make it about you. It is an uncomfortable topic but you have to sit in this discomfort for a while if you actually want to fix it.

I think this sums up the discussion well.  It is an uncomfortable topic, both for men and for women.  Women are forced to sit in the discomfort because there is no way to escape it but for men it's a choice.  Some men are willing and some men aren't, probably for a few different reasons.  I personally struggle most with the men who refuse to sit in the discomfort because they believe it is unfair to men to be asked to do so.

 

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you agree with this part of my comments?

Perhaps we agree more than we disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

I do agree with your comment about being situationally aware and not categorically distrustful.  I know that I've said that context matters more than once in this thread and I've not been the only women poster to do so.  It's just that the application of your comment looks different for women than how you want it (or demand, if we aren't racist apostate Christians) to look.   

Webbles explained the disconnect that you seem to be having perfectly when he said:

"From what I've read from the other women, they seem to agree with [being situationally aware and not categorically distrustful].  The difference is that they see every situation as something they have to be aware.  There is rarely a safe situation.  Standing in line in a convenience store in the middle of the day seems like a safe place, yet it wasn't.  So women are being situationally aware, it is just that most situations require distrust."

The only thing that made that situation at the convenience store dangerous to me was that there was a man in close proximity to me.  So, reason and experience (not prejudice) say that any time there is a man in close proximity to me, I need to behave as if he is a potential threat until I know that he's not.

Edited Friday at 03:27 PM by bluebell

[Senator]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

   

  Perhaps it is an unhealthy state of affairs to have advocacy of such ugly sentiments being publicly pronounced and endorsed by Latter-day Saint women in 2026.

 

Why did you inject their religious classification into the discussion.  It is neither relevant nor appropriate.  It is as if in order to discredit their argument, you needed to discredit them personally by showing their betrayal to the good name of "Latter-day Saint women in 2026"?  Really?

[Senator]

I'm writing this post outside of the forum just in case the bot check wants to check me and blow my post away.

 

This discussion has been extremely instructional to me. I thank the several articulate female voices here that have demonstrated to me what they are trying to say when such phrases as "all men are potential rapists" are used.  You have flipped a switch, as it were, in my thinking.  Like Smac, I too, retracted into a defensive position. “That's a provocative, unfair and prejudicial statement!”   Yes, it is!  That’s the point! I think it is meant, among other things, to get our attention.  It got Smac’s attention.  It got my attention.

The thought came to my mind that a woman’s collective default mentality to exercise caution towards all men stems from the trauma of generations of abuse and harm suffered at the hands of men.  It’s a function of an evolutional necessity for survival. It’s written into their DNA! And so, I feel absolutely no want nor justification to push back against it. In fact, it’s just the opposite. I have had an overwhelming sense of collective guilt, if you will, for the suffering that my gender has inflicted on women through out the ages. Scars that are so deep that only the actions of infinite loving God can heal and rectify.

[Danzo]

I'm not going to resolve anything of course, but I'll share a few stories.

There was a man in one of the branches that I was serving in and he started making the girls uncomfortable by touching them, starring at them and getting into their personal space.  Eventually we unofficially excommunicated him, we told him to never come to the church again and if we saw him in church again, we would call the police or we might even exercise the "laying on of hands". he was a creep.  But it took us a little while to realize this, we probably could have acted sooner. Its was difficult to see him crossing the line until  it too obvious.

There was a brother that ended up moving into our ward with his family.  He had been convicted of sexual child abuse and served prison time for it.  The bishop and ward counsel eventually decided to assign him a "baby sitter" that would stick with him whenever he was in the church and not sitting with his family. He was told he wasn't allowed in the church building without his wife or "baby sitter" with him.   The adult members of the ward were explained this in a meeting after church. The fact that he was still allowed in the church made some members upset.   Also, the whole process of finding out who he was, what he did and deciding what to do, took a couple of weeks, which made a lot of members upset that the bishop didn't act sooner.   I personally think the bishop acted fairly quickly, but obviously they could have acted quicker. The problem is that these people don't wear sign around their neck so there always is going to be some delay.

 

When I was a missionary, I remember being in a car with two sister missionaries, My companion was in the front seat (driver wasn't a missionary) and I was in the back seat with the two sisters.  Without thinking I reached to get the seat belt buckle that the sister was sitting on.  I was accused of grabbing the sisters butt, (which was true, but not my intention) I apologized about 5 times and nothing was said afterwards. That experience has been burned into my memory with enough force, that to this day i always ask the person next to me to move if I need a seat belt buckle.

 

 

 

[bsjkki]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I understand the impulse behind “Not all men, but enough men” — male-perpetrated sexual violence is a serious problem and the numbers are higher overall. But we have to be consistent.

We now have a documented list of over 300 female teachers (mostly in the U.S.) who have been accused or convicted of sexually abusing minor students. That’s just one narrow category (female educators) over a relatively short time period. There are many more cases outside of schools. Female-perpetrated sexual abuse is real, especially against boys and male teens.

So if we apply the same logic:

“Not all women, but enough women do it… therefore women should treat all men as potential threats” — Why wouldn’t the same standard mean men should treat all women as potential sexual predators?

That logic falls apart quickly. We don’t say:

• “Not all Black men, but enough…” → therefore treat all Black men as potential criminals.
• “Not all Muslims, but enough…” → therefore treat all Muslims as potential terrorists.

We rightly reject those as unfair stereotypes, even when troubling statistics exist within those groups. The same principle should apply to sex. Painting half the human population with the brush of “potential predator” based on the worst actors is prejudicial and corrosive to human relationships.

The healthier approach is to judge individuals by their character and behavior, while still acknowledging real patterns and taking reasonable precautions and mitigation efforts (e.g., don’t be alone in vulnerable situations with anyone you don’t know well, pass and vigorously enforce laws, etc.). Blanket suspicion of an entire sex is not wisdom.  It is generalized prejudice.  And I think it is beneath Latter-day Saints to participate in it.

The “enough men do it” framing is often used to justify fear and lowered standards of evidence toward men as a class. If we flipped the genders, most people would immediately recognize it as unfair. That double standard is worth examining.

Men have higher overall rates of violent victimization (except for sexual assault).  Men commit the overwhelming majority of violent crimes (typically 80–90% for serious violence).

Per this study (kind of old, in 2000) (see also here, here, here) :

• Women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression against their heterosexual partner (effect size d = -0.05, meaning a small female advantage in any aggression).
• Women also used such acts more frequently in some measures.
• However, men were significantly more likely to inflict injuries (d = +0.15). Overall, 62% of those injured by a partner were women.

In short:

• When measuring any physical aggression (pushing, slapping, throwing objects, etc.), women perpetrate at rates equal to or slightly higher than men in intimate relationships.
• When measuring severe outcomes (injuries requiring medical attention), men are clearly more violent.

The persistent large gap in serious violent offending (homicide, aggravated assault, robbery) is best explained by a combination of:

• Physical capacity (strength, size, testosterone-driven aggression) — men are far more capable of successfully committing physically dominant violence.
• Behavioral tendencies rooted in biology (greater male variability in aggression, evolutionary pressures around status and competition).

When physical differences are reduced (e.g., domestic settings, weapons, or non-physical coercion), female perpetration rates rise substantially. This supports the idea that ability/capacity is a major factor.

Thus, many women engage in violence. But men’s greater physical capacity and aggression-related biology make them disproportionately responsible for the most damaging and lethal forms of violence. This explains, I think, why overall violent crime statistics show men as ~85%+ of serious violent offenders, even while female perpetration is far from negligible in certain contexts.

This article also merits some attention: The 1 % of the population accountable for 63 % of all violent crime convictions

And this one: The Case for Incarceration

Some excerpts:

To sum up:

When physical differences are reduced — such as in domestic settings, through the use of weapons, or via non-physical coercion — female perpetration of violence does rise substantially. Studies like Archer’s 2000 meta-analysis show that in intimate relationships, women perpetrate physical aggression at rates equal to or slightly higher than men for minor-to-moderate acts (slapping, pushing, throwing objects). CDC data on “made to penetrate” similarly shows women committing the large majority of those incidents against male victims.

However, this does not mean women would commit serious violence at rates comparable to men if they had equal physical capacity. Even in contexts where strength gaps are narrowed, men still cause the overwhelming majority of serious injuries and homicides. Men’s greater average upper-body strength (roughly 50-60% more), higher testosterone levels, and greater variability in aggression-related traits give them a significant biological "advantage" in inflicting severe harm.  Men go to war, enter the police force, fight fires, participate in violent sports, etc. more that women do because they are, broadly, better at such things than women.  This is neither praise nor condemnation.  It's just a statement of reality.

The Cicero Institute’s analysis reinforces a related point: crime is highly concentrated among a small group of high-rate offenders. While women do commit violence (especially in intimate or low-physical-demand contexts), they represent a much smaller share of chronic, high-volume, serious violent offenders — the group responsible for the bulk of societal harm. This pattern holds across decades of data and is not easily explained away by socialization alone.

In short: Plenty of women resort to violence, particularly when physical barriers are lower. But men’s biology makes them far more effective at causing serious injury and death. This explains why men account for roughly 85%+ of serious violent offenders in official statistics, while female perpetration becomes more visible in settings where raw strength matters less.

This reality supports treating individuals based on behavior rather than blanket generalizations about either sex.

Thanks,

-Smac

You are missing the point. You are not listening. 

[Rain]

7 hours ago, Senator said:

I'm writing this post outside of the forum just in case the bot check wants to check me and blow my post away.

 

This discussion has been extremely instructional to me. I thank the several articulate female voices here that have demonstrated to me what they are trying to say when such phrases as "all men are potential rapists" are used.  You have flipped a switch, as it were, in my thinking.  Like Smac, I too, retracted into a defensive position. “That's a provocative, unfair and prejudicial statement!”   Yes, it is!  That’s the point! I think it is meant, among other things, to get our attention.  It got Smac’s attention.  It got my attention.

The thought came to my mind that a woman’s collective default mentality to exercise caution towards all men stems from the trauma of generations of abuse and harm suffered at the hands of men.  It’s a function of an evolutional necessity for survival. It’s written into their DNA! And so, I feel absolutely no want nor justification to push back against it. In fact, it’s just the opposite. I have had an overwhelming sense of collective guilt, if you will, for the suffering that my gender has inflicted on women through out the ages. Scars that are so deep that only the actions of infinite loving God can heal and rectify.

I appreciate this.

One of my favorite quotes has always been President Kimball's "God does hear our prayers, but it is usually through another that he meets are needs." You are right that only God can heal somethings, but I think as men start both listening and hearing they will be in a better place to know how they can start being an other who He uses to help meet the needs. The fact that you listened and heard goes so much farther than you know. 

As a side note there is a buddist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, who writes about the connections between us and our ancestors and all others. It was interesting to read with my church background and see the connections.  In it he talks about how our suffering is our ancestor's and their suffering is ours which kind of goes with your DNA idea.  I wouldn't go so far as a collective guilt, but I do think our choices affect the suffering of far more people than we realize.  

 

Edited Saturday at 12:53 AM by Rain

[blackstrap]

4 hours ago, Danzo said:

The problem is that these people don't wear sign around their neck

Perhaps the RS ladies could knit some reddish letters for just that occasion . ( ducks for cover !)

[webbles]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Since the discussion on how women should prepare themselves to be around men went not too far, how about we change the discussion to focus on men’s POV.

Men here….what do you think you can do personally to help women feel safer so that ideas like “every man is a potential rapist” become ancient history and how would you change the general conversation among men in our cultures to create an overall safer environment?

Iow, what do men believe men can and should do about violence, including sexual violence in our cultures?

I've been thinking about this and I really don't know how to answer it.  When my sons reached puberty, their rough housing changed and I had to talk to them about how they can easily hurt their younger brothers now.  A 10 year old rough housing with an 8 year old is a lot different from a 14 year old rough housing with a 12 year old.  Same age difference but one is now 6 inches taller and 10s of pounds heavier with more muscle mass.  Not their fault, but they now had to be aware of what they could do to their younger brother and had to limit themselves.  I think a similar type of teaching needs to be given in regards to women.  They will just be naturally stronger and so any interaction they have with a woman has that subtext in it.

[The Nehor]

On 5/29/2026 at 6:07 PM, blackstrap said:

Perhaps the RS ladies could knit some reddish letters for just that occasion . ( ducks for cover !)

Using “The Scarlet Letter” here which is a story that has a lot to say about misogyny in punishment is kind of ironic. In that story the evil adulteress is publicly shamed while the sinful man she was with is still seen as a pillar of the community. This is still a problem where the guy often gets away with it with minimal punishment if any at all while the woman is left with the scars and public disdain. Even when the guy is a predator and the woman is the victim.

[smac97]

On 5/29/2026 at 10:53 AM, Senator said:

This discussion has been extremely instructional to me.

And to me as well.

On 5/29/2026 at 10:53 AM, Senator said:

I thank the several articulate female voices here that have demonstrated to me what they are trying to say when such phrases as "all men are potential rapists" are used. 

I appreciate the diplomacy here.  I have been working on framing issues better.  In Habits of a Peacemaker: 10 Habits to Change Our Potentially Toxic Conversations into Healthy Dialogues by Steven T. Collis (2024), "Habit One" is:

Quote

Habit One:
Intellectual Humility and Reframing

Core Idea: Most of us know far less than we think we do (Dunning-Kruger effect). Recognizing our ignorance is the foundation of peacemaking. We must reframe conversations from “winning” to “solving a shared problem.”

And Habit Two:

Quote

Habit Two:
Seek Real Learning

Core Idea: We generate knowledge collectively through dialogue, evidence, criticism, and revision—not in isolation or echo chambers. Peacemakers actively seek accurate information and resist manipulation by dopamine-driven platforms, foreign actors, and heuristics.

Main Points:

• Knowledge creation is a social process (Newton standing on giants; Newton/Hooke correspondence).

• Modern barriers: dopamine addiction to phones/social media, outrage-based algorithms, foreign disinformation, catchphrases/heuristics.

• “Illusory truth” effect: repetition makes falsehoods feel true.

• Solution: deliberate real learning—long-form reading, primary sources, critical thinking, inoculation against manipulation.

And Habit Three:

Quote

Habit Three:
Assume the Best About People

Core Idea: Default to assuming good faith and moral luck in others’ lives. This reduces defensiveness and opens the door to understanding rather than condemnation.

Main Points:

• Moral luck: circumstances of birth, genetics, environment heavily influence behavior.

• Judging others with almost zero information is common but destructive.

• Example: the restaurant child spinning in circles—many possible unseen factors (executive-function issues, family stress, etc.).

• Practical technique: ask questions about someone’s background/experiences before judging.

Bluebell has reframed the disputed point from "all men are potential rapists" to "women have to treat all men as a potential threat until they know better."  She also analogizes "all men," or the "potential" risks from all men, to a water-borne parasite:

Quote

I live in the mountain west and in my area between 17% and 45% of mountain streams contain giardia.  It's a nasty parasite that will make you very very sick pretty fast.  Do you know what percentage of streams experts suggest people drink out of without purifying first?  0%.  They teach us to treat all streams as a potential threat, because you can't tell the difference between a clean water source and an infected water source just by looking at it.  They teach us this because the potential for harm isn't worth taking the risk, and this is when the chances of not getting it are in our favor.  

The same thing applies for women in vulnerable situations with a man. The potential for harm is so great that the risk is not worth it.  Especially since the chances are not in our favor.

I have, in response, framed the disputed point this way:

Quote

I get where you're coming from with the stream analogy — it's a smart survival rule in the backcountry. Giardia is nasty, you can't see it, and the cost of filtering water is low. Better safe than sorry.

But I think the analogy breaks down when applied to men as a whole. I think the risk levels are very different:

• With streams in your area, 17–45% are contaminated — that's an extremely high base rate.
• The lifetime risk that a random man will sexually assault a woman is much lower. While the statistics on violence against women are serious (and we should take them seriously), the vast majority of men are not rapists or abusers. Best research puts male rape perpetration somewhere in the 5–10% range lifetime, with a smaller group of repeat offenders responsible for most incidents.

Treating every single stream as potentially contaminated makes sense because the hit rate is high. Treating every man as a "potential rapist" until proven otherwise is different — it's assuming a much higher risk from every individual than the data supports.

Further, I think you can assess men better than streams.  Unlike water, you can (and should) evaluate people based on:

• Their behavior and demeanor
• Context and setting
• Reputation and how others speak about them
• Whether they respect boundaries

Most women already do this instinctively. Blanket "all men are threats" thinking removes that nuance and replaces it with categorical suspicion. That’s a heavy psychological load to carry.

The categorical suspicion comes with some real costs.  Treating all men as potential threats might feel protective, but it also:

• Risks creating chronic anxiety and hypervigilance;
• Makes it harder to build healthy relationships with good men; and
• Can lead to unfair prejudice (the same logic would be called sexist or bigoted if applied to other groups).

I completely agree women should be smart and cautious "in vulnerable situations."  Situational awareness is wise. But moving from “be careful” to “treat all men as potential rapists” feels like it goes too far and does real damage — both to women and to men who have never harmed anyone.

I’m not saying women should be naive. I’m saying the “treat every man as a threat” approach might be overcorrecting in a way that’s not actually making women safer or happier.

Please note the overlap:

Bluebell: "The same thing applies for women in vulnerable situations with a man."

Me: "I completely agree women should be smart and cautious 'in vulnerable situations.'  Situational awareness is wise. But moving from 'be careful' to 'treat all men as potential rapists' feels like it goes too far and does real damage — both to women and to men who have never harmed anyone."

To me, that women should "treat all {men when in vulnerable circumstances} as a potential threat" makes all sorts of sense.

I think that's a pretty good place to end up.

On 5/29/2026 at 10:53 AM, Senator said:

You have flipped a switch, as it were, in my thinking.  Like Smac, I too, retracted into a defensive position. “That's a provocative, unfair and prejudicial statement!”   Yes, it is!  That’s the point! I think it is meant, among other things, to get our attention.  It got Smac’s attention.  It got my attention.

I'm not quire sure I follow your point.  Are you saying the statement was intended as hyperbole?  Something not to be taken literally, but to be taken as an effort to provoke and garner attention?

On 5/29/2026 at 10:53 AM, Senator said:

The thought came to my mind that a woman’s collective default mentality to exercise caution towards all men stems from the trauma of generations of abuse and harm suffered at the hands of men.  It’s a function of an evolutional necessity for survival. It’s written into their DNA! And so, I feel absolutely no want nor justification to push back against it. In fact, it’s just the opposite. I have had an overwhelming sense of collective guilt, if you will, for the suffering that my gender has inflicted on women through out the ages. Scars that are so deep that only the actions of infinite loving God can heal and rectify.

I appreciate you sharing your sentiment.  I can't get on board with the "collective guilt" thing.  "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."  (AoF 1:2.)  I cannot inculpate all Muslims for the actions of those who commit terrorist act.  I cannot inculpate all Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus.  I cannot inculpate all Japanese for the Rape of Nanking, nor all Germans for the Holocaust, nor all white people for antebellum slavery.  I also do not feel any guilt for these terrible things to the extent they were committed by males.

If "all men are potential rapists" is intended as mere rhetorical hyperbole, intended to garner attention rather than be construed literally, and if "treat all {men when in vulnerable circumstances} as a potential threat" is a more apt construction of the intended (and apparently agreed-upon) sentiment, then I think we agree far more than we disagree. 

I continue to have concern about the hyperbole having the unintended effect of demoralizing and alienating young men.  I also continue to have concern about the hyperbole unintentionally creating an unhealthy environment for women.  

Nevertheless, the comments here have been instructive.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

I continue to have concern about the hyperbole having the unintended effect of demoralizing and alienating young men.    

 

I'm more concerned with the women and the generational harm borne at the hands of men. As one being among that category, I mourn that.

Edited 6 hours ago by Senator

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

She also analogizes "all men," or the "potential" risks from all men, to a water-borne parasite:

She analogizes the response to the unknown risk of getting a parasite to the response to the unknown risk of men until one knows them better, imo; not men to the parasite.  

Quote

 

I live in the mountain west and in my area between 17% and 45% of mountain streams contain giardia.  It's a nasty parasite that will make you very very sick pretty fast.  Do you know what percentage of streams experts suggest people drink out of without purifying first?  0%.  They teach us to treat all streams as a potential threat, because you can't tell the difference between a clean water source and an infected water source just by looking at it.  They teach us this because the potential for harm isn't worth taking the risk, and this is when the chances of not getting it are in our favor.  

The same thing applies for women in vulnerable situations with a man. The potential for harm is so great that the risk is not worth it.  Especially since the chances are not in our favor.

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

can't get on board with the "collective guilt" thing. 

How about collective responsibility?  As in all men should proactively and seriously consider what they can do to change our culture to one that is safer for women and children…and men as well and not just dump it on the women as the ones most affected (as too often happens in response to raised threats).

Edited 41 minutes ago by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

can't get on board with the "collective guilt" thing. 

How about collective responsibility?  

Could you clarify what you mean here?

By way of example, let's look at the devastating statistics pertaining to the Rape of Nanking:

Quote

Deaths: 100,000–200,000 civilians and POWs (newer estimates);[2][3] more according to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East;[4] other estimates range from 40,000 to over 340,000, depending on scope, timescale and geography

Victims: 20,000–80,000 women and children raped, 30,000+ POWs illegally executed, 20,000 falsely accused male civilians executed as soldiers, 12,000 to 60,000 civilians murdered inside the city walls, 30,000 civilians murdered in the surrounding countryside

What sort of "responsibility" do you feel I, a man living in 2026 (born long after the above atrocity), should carry for this?

Also, are men as a category "collectively responsible" for  9/11 since all of the hijackers were male?

Adults commit all sorts of wrongs against children.  Are you and I, being in the category of "adults," "collectively responsible" for these wrongs?

Also, I previously provide a list of several hundred women who have engaged in sexual misconduct, overwhelmingly against males.  Do you, belonging as you to do the "women" category, have some sort of "collective responsibility" for the actions of these women?

I really would like to understand these concepts of imputing "collective" guilt and/or responsibility onto an entire category based on nothing more than shared biological sex.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

As all men should proactively and seriously consider what they can do to change our culture to one that is safer for women and children…

I think men can do the following:

1. Abstain from engaging in misconduct toward women and children.

2. Support the passage and enforcement of laws against mistreatment of women and children.

3. Condemn any ideology or rhetoric that justifies or excuses mistreatment of women and children.

4. Act to report - or, where possible, stop - known instances of mistreatment of women and children and protect them from harm .

5. Encourage others to not only abstain from mistreating women and children, but to affirmatively treat them with kindness and respect.

6. Subscribe to schools of thought and moral frameworks which facilitate the foregoing measures.

7. Encourage "situational awareness."

8. Model good behavior (i.e., I seek to treat my wife with kindness and respect, and abstain from any mistreatment or demeaning conduct, and hope that my daughters view that as the healthy and appropriate way for men to treat women).

These are the measures that immediately come to mind.  However, none of these are predicated on me being male (except, I suppose, for the last one).  Women can also do these things.

By "collective responsibility" you seem to be referencing some sort of prospective and proactive effort to mitigate misconduct toward women and children in the future.  Alternatively, Senator's reference to "collective guilt" seems to refer to some sort of reactive inculpation for past harms.  Do you see any material difference between those two?

I am in my 50s now.  I have a wife and adult daughters.  I have my mother, mother-in-law, sisters, sisters-in-law and nieces.  I know many women, young women and girls in my ward and neighborhood.  I care about all of these folks particularly, and about women and girls generally.

One of the primary, and perhaps the primary, reason I generally dislike rap music is because of how frequently it glorifies things I find morally repellant, particularly descriptions of treatment of and violence against women.

As a Latter-day Saint, the counsel of the Brethren regarding the treatment of women and children is clear and unequivocal (see, e.g., here, here and here).

1 hour ago, Calm said:

and men as well and not just dump it on the women as the ones most affected (as too often happens in response to raised threats).

This is helpful to me.  What is it that you think men can do that women cannot do in this regard?

What sort of "dump it on the women"-style of behaviors are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 3 hours ago by smac97

[Senator]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 Alternatively, Senator's reference to "collective guilt" seems to refer to some sort of reactive inculpation for past harms. 

I am not suggesting that all men should be held responsible for the actions of some men.  However because of the actions of some(many) men,  all men may inherit a collective consequence of such actions, which comes in the form of default suspicion, caution, distrust, by women.  

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you clarify what you mean here?

I already did. It’s the sentence that follows. 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What is it that you think men can do that women cannot do in this regard?

Think up ideas that will persuade or teach men not to think of women in terms of property or domination, not to think that violence and abuse is acceptable as well as that figure out how to self police. 
 

Women are unlikely to be able to change the minds and hearts of men who devalue and dismiss them already, but maybe other men can find a way to communicate that those who will tend to be violent may listen to if they still respect other men in some fashion.  It will no doubt require thought and effort.  

Edited 3 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

I am not suggesting that all men should be held responsible for the actions of some men. 

Thank you for your response.

You said this: "I have had an overwhelming sense of collective guilt, if you will, for the suffering that my gender has inflicted on women through out the ages."  Could you help me reconcile your "overwhelming sense of collective guilt ... for the suffering that {your} gender has inflicted on women" with your statement here that you are "not suggesting that all men should be held responsible for the actions of some men"?  I would like to better understand your perspective.

And this: "I'm more concerned with the women and the generational harm borne at the hands of men. As one being among that category, I mourn that."  You designate yourself as being in the "category" which has done "generational harm" to women, and that category is "men."  Could you help me understand how that is not a reference to "collective guilt"?

1 hour ago, Senator said:

However because of the actions of some(many) men, all men may inherit a collective consequence of such actions, which comes in the form of default suspicion, caution, distrust, by women.  

Could you explain the difference between "collective consequence" and "collective guilt" for the "actions of some {} men"?

Does this apply to other categories? 

Do all women "inherit a collective consequence" of those women within that category who are sexual predators?

Do all Muslims "inherit a collective consequence ... default suspicion, caution, distrust" because of the actions of 19 Muslims on 9/11?

Do all Japanese "inherit a collective consequence" for the Rape of Nanking?

Do all Americans "inherit a collective consequence" for the My Lai Massacre?

Which categories "inherit a collective consequence," which do not, and how do we differentiate between them?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited 2 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I already did. It’s the sentence that follows. 

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

What is it that you think men can do that women cannot do in this regard?

Think up ideas that will persuade or teach men not to think of women in terms of property or domination, not to think that violence and abuse is acceptable as well as that figure out how to self police.  Women are unlikely to be able to change the minds and hearts of men who devalue and dismiss them already, but maybe other men can find a way to communicate that those who will tend to be violent may listen to if they still respect other men in some fashion.  

What ideas do you have in mind here that we already do not have?

And why is it that men can do this, but women cannot?

Also, what does "self-police" mean in this context?

I'm trying to conceptualize how this would play out in the real world.  

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

It will no doubt require thought and effort.  

I agree.

I have some limited influence.  On my sons, certainly.  And perhaps a lesser influence on other males of my acquaintance.  There's this stuff:

• 1. Abstain from engaging in misconduct toward women and children.
• 2. Support the passage and enforcement of laws against mistreatment of women and children.
• 3. Condemn any ideology or rhetoric that justifies or excuses mistreatment of women and children.
• 4. Act to report - or, where possible, stop - known instances of mistreatment of women and children and protect them from harm .
• 5. Encourage others to not only abstain from mistreating women and children, but to affirmatively treat them with kindness and respect.
• 6. Subscribe to schools of thought and moral frameworks which facilitate the foregoing measures.
• 7. Encourage "situational awareness."
• 8. Model good behavior (i.e., I seek to treat my wife with kindness and respect, and abstain from any mistreatment or demeaning conduct, and hope that my daughters view that as the healthy and appropriate way for men to treat women).

Do you have other ideas?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Could you explain the difference between "collective consequence" and "collective guilt" for the "actions of some {} men"?

Does this apply to other categories?

 

I’m not senator but it seems like Adam and Eve and the Fall is a good example of the difference between collective guilt and collective consequences. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Could you explain the difference between "collective consequence" and "collective guilt" for the "actions of some {} men"?

Does this apply to other categories? 

Do all women "inherit a collective consequence" of those women within that category who are sexual predators?

Do all Muslims "inherit a collective consequence ... default suspicion, caution, distrust" because of the actions of 19 Muslims on 9/11?

Do all Japanese "inherit a collective consequence" for the Rape of Nanking?

Do all Americans "inherit a collective consequence" for the My Lai Massacre?

Which categories "inherit a collective consequence," which do not, and how do we differentiate between them?

I’m not senator but it seems like Adam and Eve and the Fall is a good example of the difference between collective guilt and collective consequences. 

Okay.  Dot this difference apply to other categories?  Women?  Muslims?  Japanese?  Americans?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Dot this difference apply to other categories?  Women?  Muslims?  Japanese?  Americans?

Thanks,

-Smac

Women bear the consequences of Eve’s fall.