Unintended Consequences Of Gender Bias In The Lds Church

[Bond...James Bond]

This is an urban legend. Never happened. At least not ever recorded.

Or if it did it was anecdotal and not widespread (similar to the spitting on returning veterans anecdote.)

Edited May 4, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[Stargazer]

The LDS wore off

:rofl:

[BlueDreams]

Although, I agree with you that moderation is desirable, most of the time, it really isn't possible, when you're dealing with extreme social issues like segregation and other human rights. Extreme circumstances often require extreme counter measures...otherwise, the status quo prevails. Usually, after the change has been accepted, people go back to more moderate or even conservative views. Many (or even most) of the baby boomer generation are pretty conservative, at this point. They have become the defenders of the status quo, while the younger generation are making further inroads into social change (like the gay rights issue). It is the younger generation who mostly support the more liberal views. That has always been the case. They bring the changes and then become the defenders of those changes, as they get older.

I'm aware of BBoomers being more conservative. That's what I meant by reactionary. It was in reaction to another extreme by swinging to the other end. I'm also aware that the younger generation generally has more liberal views.

As for extreme cases = extreme counter measures....I'm not convinced that that is necessarily so for most cases. Often doing so only superficially changes things. The change, in other words, is fragile. Lets take the example of slavery in the U.S. (As a historical example). The means for eradication were definitely in the extreme category. And though it did free the slaves, much of the actual social change was on paper only. Any immediate progress was lost in a short period of time, placed in virtual slavery through things like Jim Crow and the segregation. Often for extreme cases extreme measures overall fail. If change is to actually to last it usually must occur from the inside out (civil rights movement) and is more gradual (how long did it take for the civil rights movement to become largely expected). Moderation isn't simply desirable, it's often necessary. (This doesn't mean removing strong change....just that the means to it be less extreme, IMO).

As and aside, I'm not in total agreement with every social change that's promoted by my gen.

With luv,

BD

[Stargazer]

Two sides of same coin.

Ridiculous assertion.

[Bond...James Bond]

I'm aware of BBoomers being more conservative. That's what I meant by reactionary. It was in reaction to another extreme by swinging to the other end. I'm also aware that the younger generation generally has more liberal views.

Many boomers have an ideology that is out of date. Many of them are still fighting the Cold War (like Droopy/Coggins/Loran Blood) twenty years after the Soviet Union collapsed. Mitt Romney had a similar statement where he claimed Russia were are biggest adversary (before he flip flopped and recanted as per usual). They're not only reactionary but more dangerously are out of touch with the real situation.

As for extreme cases = extreme counter measures....I'm not convinced that that is necessarily so for most cases. Often doing so only superficially changes things. The change, in other words, is fragile. Lets take the example of slavery in the U.S. (As a historical example). The means for eradication were definitely in the extreme category. And though it did free the slaves, much of the actual social change was on paper only. Any immediate progress was lost in a short period of time, placed in virtual slavery through things like Jim Crow and the segregation.

The social change wasn't sustained because the South behaved as if they never rejoined the Union during Reconstruction (1865-1877). The only started to play nice when the Federal government decided to pull troops out of the south and let sell rule return. At that point the racist social structure returned to power and stayed there for 100+ years (and basically still remains :/ ).

Often for extreme cases extreme measures overall fail. If change is to actually to last it usually must occur from the inside out (civil rights movement) and is more gradual (how long did it take for the civil rights movement to become largely expected). Moderation isn't simply desirable, it's often necessary. (This doesn't mean removing strong change....just that the means to it be less extreme, IMO).

There was a lot of discontent by African-Americans during WWII when black soldiers were going to Europe to fight for freedom while still subjugated at home, so you could argue the Civil Rights movement reignited twenty years before the Civil Rights Act (although it went dormant from time to time). Not to say there was never not a Civil Rights movement.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[selek1]

Many boomers have an ideology that is out of date. Many of them are still fighting the Cold War twenty years after the Soviet Union collapsed. They're not only reactionary but more dangerously are out of touch with the real situation.

Russia’s top military officer warned Thursday that Moscow would strike NATO missile-defense sites in Eastern Europe before they are ready for action, if the U.S. pushes ahead with deployment.

“A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens,” Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov said at an international missile-defense conference in Moscow attended by senior U.S. and NATO officials.

http://www.washingto...-defense-sites/

Yep.

Those ugly Americans sure are dangerous and reactionary.

Edited May 4, 2012 by selek1

[BlueDreams]

Many boomers have an ideology that is out of date. Many of them are still fighting the Cold War (like Droopy/Coggins/Loran Blood) twenty years after the Soviet Union collapsed. Mitt Romney had a similar statement where he claimed Russia were are biggest adversary (before he flip flopped and recanted as per usual). They're not only reactionary but more dangerously are out of touch with the real situation.

I remember that statement and having a puzzled "really?? When did that happen?" thought pass my mind. The idea of the past coloring our view of the present is weird to me. When the wall came down I was a year old. Russia's just another nation with some major problems for me.

Thesocial change wasn't sustained because the South behaved as if they never rejoined the Union during Reconstruction (1865-1877). The only started to play nice when the Federal government decided to pull troops out of the south and let sell rule return. At that point the racist social structure returned to power and stayed there for 100+ years (and basically still remains :/ ).

Aware of that. I decided to keep it short or I would have mentioned that as well. I was more interested in the overall patter, which was unsustainable change from extreme actions. Though I disagree about the racist social structure basically still remaining. Ive lived the majority of my life in either Virginia (albeit northern...they're not known for their southern pride) or Texas. Though there are places that I'd definitely never live in because cultural boundaries surrounding race (racial construct is too black or white for someone who is adamantly black and white and neither....get's on your nerves after a while) it's a bit of a pull to states it's basically the same.

There was a lot of discontent by African-Americans during WWII when black soldiers were going to Europe to fight for freedom while still subjugated at home, so you could argue the Civil Rights movement reignited twenty years before the Civil Rights Act (although it went dormant from time to time).

Yep...in a sense. My major point was that the second time around it was a movement that was largely from the inside out.

With luv,

BD

Edited May 4, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Bond...James Bond]

I figured you had further knowledge and were being brief but responded for others. Cheers.

Edit: When I meant the racist social order I guess I meant the same white order that was overtly racist up through the 1960s. Modern southern power is still white but the racism has lessened quite a bit (although I'm sure it's still active in backrooms).

Edited May 4, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[Stargazer]

Many boomers have an ideology that is out of date. Many of them are still fighting the Cold War (like Droopy/Coggins/Loran Blood) twenty years after the Soviet Union collapsed. Mitt Romney had a similar statement where he claimed Russia were are biggest adversary (before he flip flopped and recanted as per usual). They're not only reactionary but more dangerously are out of touch with the real situation.

Of course their recent threat to initiate a first nuclear strike if their demands weren't met has nothing to do with any danger from the Russians. They're just our good buddies.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2018128223_apeurussiamissiledefense.html

And don't tell me we need to just "understand" their concerns. They control a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons. They are clearly ready to use them to achieve their political goals. They are dangerous. I'd say it is YOU who is dangerously out of touch with the real situation.

Just because the Cold War is over, theoretically, does not mean that the Russians are now a bunch of teddy bears. It's not now time to sing "Kumbayah" around the campfire with them. This may come after many years pass, but in the meantime we dare not drop our guard with them.

[wenglund]

How on earth does a pantie raid contribute to the feminist movement? Or getting your photo taken, for that matter? H.

Can someone please buy this man a sense of humor?

Do I really need to explain that it wasn't men, but women who were being liberated...from their panties. Thus, the clear link to womens liberation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bond...James Bond]

Of course their recent threat to initiate a first nuclear strike if their demands weren't met has nothing to do with any danger from the Russians. They're just our good buddies.

http://seattletimes....iledefense.html

And don't tell me we need to just "understand" their concerns. They control a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons. They are clearly ready to use them to achieve their political goals. They are dangerous. I'd say it is YOU who is dangerously out of touch with the real situation.

What would America say if they were faced by an entire coalition building a missile shield to nullify our missiles? Russia has been pretty touchy since those World War thingies about attack from the West. Losing tens of millions of citizens will make you like that. Not to mention the Cold War where America did its best to keep Russia and all its citizens (merchants especially!) within Russian borders.

Besides jingoistic crap is spouted by American politicians and generals all the time. Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran anyone! It's just political posturing. America is the only country to use nuclear weapons against anyone, but I guess it's okay since we're God's one chosen country amirite?

Just because the Cold War is over, theoretically, does not mean that the Russians are now a bunch of teddy bears. It's not now time to sing "Kumbayah" around the campfire with them. This may come after many years pass, but in the meantime we dare not drop our guard with them.

I never said that Russia was going to be our campfire buddy. But I think we have bigger concerns at home that trump keeping the Russians pinned into Russia in a containment policy with updated weaponry.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[Stargazer]

I remember that statement and having a puzzled "really?? When did that happen?" thought pass my mind. The idea of the past coloring our view of the present is weird to me. When the wall came down I was a year old. Russia's just another nation with some major problems for me.

You're right, they do have major problems. They've had major problems for centuries. This is a country whose leaders were willing and able to indiscriminantly murder its own people for the sake of achieving some kind of socialist paradise.

Read about the Ukrainian Hunger Famine.

If you don't think the past means anything with respect to the present, perhaps you are purer than other humans (and you do seem to be a very nice person). But there are people in this world who bring up offenses committed centuries ago against their distant ancestors, and use those offenses to not only "color" their opinions now, but seek redress for those offenses -- against people who have never harmed them personally.

[wenglund]

Speaking as a younger person, I simply find the ideology of the boomer babies perplexing as a whole. If anything, extreme ideology in any direction isn't preferred. Though my friends and I have varying philosophical points of view most of them agree that polarization is ridiculous. From what I get of the hippy/reactionary movement is more to that: It's either this or that. And those who don't agree have something wrong with them (suckers to the Man, heartless, not truly converted to (conservative) Christ, young and naiive, old stuck-in-the-muds, etc). Personally I know of people who think women not holding the priesthood is a man-made construct and are very much believers. (myself not included, BTW). One of my best friends who loves the Gospel and the Church has just recently come to that conclusion in fact.

It's an important question to ask. Why are things the way they are? Is this God or us? What needs change and what doesn't? Gospel is a gospel of change....not just of the individual but the entire society. Can't change anything if we never wonder what needs to be fixed and how. To me there is plenty within our community, especially in aspects of gender, that needs to change. And the answer isn't in reasserting traditional gender lines/roles.

With luv, BD

I think you have way over analyzed the 70's. For the most part, we were just rebels looking for a cause, any cause--kids who thought they had it all figured out, but didn't have a clue. Like today, we were looking for change, but failed to consider or plan sufficiently for whether it was change for the better or for the worst, and subsequently found things often changing for the worst.

However, as previously mentioned, it seems that to some extent each successive generation need to learn things for themselves. I consider it a rite of passage, and I bid the current generation, and those to follow, all the best form one who can well relate.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bond...James Bond]

Wade did you mean "Students For a Democratic Society"? You said "Students for a More Democratic Society" earlier. Was that a different group?

Edited May 4, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[Stargazer]

What would America say if they were faced by an entire coalition building a missile shield to nullify our missiles?

Besides jingoistic crap is spouted by American politicians and generals all the time. Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran anyone! It's just political posturing. America is the only country to use nuclear weapons against anyone, but I guess it's okay since we're God's one chosen country amirite?

I never said that Russia was going to be our campfire buddy. But I think we have bigger concerns at home that trump keeping the Russians pinned into Russia in a containment policy with updated weaponry.

The then-Soviets, primarily Russians, held sway over half of Europe from the end of WW2 until their final economic collapse around 1990, and during that time they oppressed the people in every one of the countries of the Iron Curtain. Any time any of those people rose up in rebellion they crushed them without mercy. They guarded their frontiers not so much against invasion as against their own people fleeing their tyranny. A man I met on my mission in Germany was a former East German border guard sniper who killed an East Berliner for the crime of attempting to flee to the West when his conscience got the better of him and he fled himself).

There were a hundred divisions of infantry and armor lined up along a thousand-mile front, "defending" against a notional invasion by forces one-quarter their number. All under the command of Russian generals and the leadership of Russia.

And now those same Russians complain about us putting in defensive weapons to help prevent them from re-capturing their old possessions? Oh, please. I love the Russians. I just don't trust them as long as their re-elect old Commie leaders to head their nation. There are reasons why their old Warsaw Pact "allies" all want to belong to NATO. Long association with the Russians have taught them who their enemy truly is.

As to the use of nuclear weapons in wartime, guilty as charged. It would have better you think to invade Japan? The losses from that on the Japanese side alone would have far exceeded the losses that were suffered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, US strategic bombing to that point had causes losses far in excess of H & N. Go ahead, complain we used nukes to end WW2.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Stargazer

[Carborendum]

No, cue Helen Reddy

I think if you're trying to show a woman expressing her strength without being manly/hermaphrodite, there would probably be a better example than Helen Reddy.

Just sayin'.

[Bond...James Bond]

The then-Soviets, primarily Russians, held sway over half of Europe from the end of WW2 until their final economic collapse around 1990, and during that time they oppressed the people in every one of the countries of the Iron Curtain. Any time any of those people rose up in rebellion they crushed them without mercy. They guarded their frontiers not so much against invasion as against their own people fleeing their tyranny.

America, through its military supported proxies, held an iron grip on the economies of most South American countries so that we could eat cheap bananas and could exploit their natural resources. Just about a wash I guess.

There were a hundred divisions of infantry and armor lined up along a thousand-mile front, "defending" against a notional invasion by forces one-quarter their number. All under the command of Russian generals and the leadership of Russia.

Much like America's NATO alliance (not to mention our alliances in the Pacific)?

As to the use of nuclear weapons in wartime, guilty as charged. It would have better you think to invade Japan? The losses from that on the Japanese side alone would have far exceeded the losses that were suffered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, US strategic bombing to that point had causes losses far in excess of H & N. Go ahead, complain we used nukes to end WW2.

My point was America did what it thought was in its own best interest. Why would any other country not do the same if they felt seriously threatened? Edited May 4, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[The Nehor]

Ridiculous assertion.

Not an assertion. A conclusion. It offends both sides when I share it which leads me to believe I'm on to something. Everyone seems much more forgiving of extremists if they are 'our extremists'.

[selek1]

The then-Soviets, primarily Russians, held sway over half of Europe from the end of WW2 until their final economic collapse around 1990, and during that time they oppressed the people in every one of the countries of the Iron Curtain. Any time any of those people rose up in rebellion they crushed them without mercy. They guarded their frontiers not so much against invasion as against their own people fleeing their tyranny. A man I met on my mission in Germany was a former East German border guard sniper who killed an East Berliner for the crime of attempting to flee to the West when his conscience got the better of him and he fled himself).

There were a hundred divisions of infantry and armor lined up along a thousand-mile front, "defending" against a notional invasion by forces one-quarter their number. All under the command of Russian generals and the leadership of Russia.

As to the use of nuclear weapons in wartime, guilty as charged. It would have better you think to invade Japan? The losses from that on the Japanese side alone would have far exceeded the losses that were suffered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, US strategic bombing to that point had causes losses far in excess of H & N. Go ahead, complain we used nukes to end WW2.

Gazer you're wasting your breath.

Bond has already made it amply clear that he sees no moral distinction between force used to liberate millions and force used to oppress millions, and no moral distinction between peaceful protests and violent mobocracy.

He made an absurd and untenable statement (primarily as an act of well poisoning).

When confronted with facts that contradicted his claims, his only response was an empty, "Yabut the Americans are worse.."

He's engaging in the very sort of vapid jingoism he pretends to decry.

Whatever the situation, America- and those "out-of-touch jingoists" who support her- are the problem.

He will not allow his fixation to be swayed by anything so pedestrian as facts- it is, therefore, beyond useless to play his game.

Not an assertion. A conclusion.

A conclusion based on the extraordinarily dubious premise that the sides are morally equivalent in either actions or desired outcomes.

Based on actions and tactics alone, that is not the case.

One side engages in violent protest, destruction of both public and private property, the other does not.

One side advocates for peacful change within the confines of the law. The other calls for the overthrow of the government by any means necessary- including violence.

One side advocates for a plebiscite of the people to determine the fate of our nation.

The other advocates for robbing, silencing, disenfranchising, exiling or imprisoning populations they find "undesirable".

More to specifics, your claim about what the "Tea Party wants" is a media-crafted chimera that in no way reflects the actual goals and aims of the movement as a whole.

It offends both sides when I share it which leads me to believe I'm on to something. Everyone seems much more forgiving of extremists if they are 'our extremists'.

That may be a valid point.

But to pretend that the soliders fighting for Haitian independence were morally equivalent to the French forces intent on maintaining colonial rule is both offensive and historically inaccurate.

To pretend that OWS and the Tea Partiers are equivalent in methods, intentions, or practice is to live in willful denial of the facts.

Edited May 4, 2012 by selek1

[ObedientSometimes]

Fascinating. Coming from a Southern Baptist upbringing I was taught that women were specifically put beneath men because we lack spiritual discernment and our lack thereof was what led to the Fall - that we willingly listened to the serpent and then purposely beguiled Adam to sin with us. Because of this we were permanently placed beneath men and also cursed to want to be them (our desire for our husband was meant as to be like our husband, not wanting him in any kind of physical or emotional way). This was why "women's liberation" was so terribly sinful. Further we were taught that the teachings in Ephesians 5 correctly modeled the needs of male and female: that men needed respect and obedience of their wives to feel secure in their position and women needed love and protection from their husbands to be willing to be obedient and respectful. We were taught that women were only competent and/or allowed to teach under the authority and supervision of men and then only to teach other women and children. We were never to question male authority or scholarship/teaching.

[ObedientSometimes]

And that is what I get for not reading all 14 pages - this went crazy off topic.

[Bond...James Bond]

Gazer you're wasting your breath.

Bond has already made it amply clear that he sees no moral distinction between force used to liberate millions and force used to oppress millions, and no moral distinction between peaceful protests and violent mobocracy.

He made an absurd and untenable statement (primarily as an act of well poisoning).

When confronted with facts that contradicted his claims, his only response was an empty, "Yabut the Americans are worse.."

He's engaging in the very sort of vapid jingoism he pretends to decry.

Whatever the situation, America- and those "out-of-touch jingoists" who support her- are the problem.

He will not allow his fixation to be swayed by anything so pedestrian as facts- it is, therefore, beyond useless to play his game.

I'm waiting on photos of Occupiers handing out Hitler's book. CFR X 2

Edited May 4, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[Calm]

Very interesting. Is this still common teaching among Southern Baptists?

[Calm]

And that is what I get for not reading all 14 pages - this went crazy off topic.

Try to ignore it. Chances are the mods will shut it down as political anyway.

Edited May 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bond...James Bond]

Try to ignore it. Chances are the mods will shut it down as political anyway.

Let's hope so. Arguing Cold War history is much less fun than arguing with Droopy about Vietnam for dozens of posts.