Latest Development: No Media Allowed On Temple Square

[Bikeemikey]

She is not presuming to speak for only "someone," or even a few "someones." She is declaring that LDS women "already feel so marginalized and excluded." Apart from being extremely presumptuous, it is also factually incorrect for many (most?) LDS women, and also a calumny against the Church in which she claims membership.

I don't support her insofar as I find her tactics reprehensible and unseemly for a Latter-day Saint.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I am not aware that she ever quantified the number of LDS women who feel the way she described. Using the plural, as she did, it would appear that only two need to feel that way for her statement to be factually accurate.

 

I know many women who feel that way.

 

The OW movement has never claimed that it is representative of all women in the church... it is possible to be willing to represent all LDS women while at the same time not be representative of all LDS women. Had she claimed her group was representative of all LDS women I would agree with you. As she has not your criticism is simply off target.

 

Your support of her tactics, as always, is a manner of personal opinion. While I don't fully support the tactics I feel the need for the conversation warrants the action being taken (in its present form).

[smac97]

I am not aware that she ever quantified the number of LDS women who feel the way she described.

You are correct. She spoke of "LDS women" generally, without qualification or limitation.

Using the plural, as she did, it would appear that only two need to feel that way for her statement to be factually accurate.

"Factually accurate" and yet still highly misleading. If I said "LDS women are sexually abused by their husbands," and then pointed to "only two" LDS women who have, in fact, been sexually abused, then my statement would - by your reckoning - be "factually accurate." Yeah, it technically would. But it would still be substantially inaccurate, and highly offensive to decent LDS husbands.

I know many women who feel that way.

Kate Kelly didn't speak of "many" LDS women.

Your support of her tactics, as always, is a manner of personal opinion. While I don't fully support the tactics I feel the need for the conversation warrants the action being taken (in its present form).

So the ends justify the means.

That doesn't cut it for me. The ends of an effort can be noble, but the means can be offensive and wrong. Feminists who have in mind the "ends" of furthering the interests of women, but who use improper "means" cannot justify the wrongness of the latter by pointing to the propriety of the former. Take, for example, these quotes:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." -- Andrea Dworkin

By your reasoning, all of these generalized statements are, as you put it, "warranted" because some women, somewhere, have been oppressed by men. But I disagree. I find these slanders to be offensive and hurtful, and I cannot condemn "men" as a category for the actions of a few.

Now add to these the slanders of Kate Kelly that LDS women are "feel so marginalized and excluded." Such calumnies are contemptible and false. They are not "warranted."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bikeemikey]

If everything we say can be labeled a mischaracterization unless there is universal agreement on it, then every single thing any of us have said on this board (or pretty much in life in general) is also a mischaracterization.

Is that really what you want to suggest?

Not sure I ever used the word mischaracterization, I simply used the word characterization.

[Bikeemikey]

You are correct. She spoke of "LDS women" generally, without qualification or limitation.

"Factually accurate" and yet still highly misleading. If I said "LDS women are sexually abused by their husbands," and then pointed to "only two" LDS women who have, in fact, been sexually abused, then my statement would - by your reckoning - be "factually accurate." Yeah, it technically would. But it would still be substantially inaccurate, and highly offensive to decent LDS husbands.

Kate Kelly didn't speak of "many" LDS women.

So the ends justify the means.

That doesn't cut it for me. The ends of an effort can be noble, but the means can be offensive and wrong. Feminists who have in mind the "ends" of furthering the interests of women, but who use improper "means" cannot justify the wrongness of the latter by pointing to the propriety of the former. Take, for example, these quotes:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." -- Andrea Dworkin

By your reasoning, all of these generalized statements are, as you put it, "warranted" because some women, somewhere, have been oppressed by men. But I disagree. I find these slanders to be offensive and hurtful, and I cannot condemn "men" as a category for the actions of a few.

Now add to these the slanders of Kate Kelly that LDS women are "feel so marginalized and excluded." Such calumnies are contemptible and false. They are not "warranted."

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok sure ... I'm fine with you seeing it that way. OW never made the claim about all LDS women... I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill but I'm fine with you doing that.

As for those examples you gave... Apart from the fact that many of them were actually direct ends not means, I'm not sure what your getting at... Are you using them to show extremists are nutters?

There are clear examples of ends justifying the means - moral action is context dependent - just ask nephi why he killed Laban.

[bluebell]

Not sure I ever used the word mischaracterization, I simply used the word characterization.

 

You said that my post was an inaccurate characterization.  That is the definition of mischaracterization.

 

1. The act of characterizing something in an inaccurate or misleading way

You then went on to say that it was an inaccurate (or mis)characterization because not everyone would agree with me.  

[urroner]

 

You said that my post was an inaccurate characterization.  That is the definition of mischaracterization.

 

1. The act of characterizing something in an inaccurate or misleading way

You then went on to say that it was an inaccurate (or mis)characterization because not everyone would agree with me.  

 

It all depends upon what the definition of "is" is.

[Bikeemikey]

It all depends upon what the definition of "is" is.

 

[Calm]

It all depends upon what the definition of "is" is.

Everything depends on that...

[Bikeemikey]

bluebell, on 05 Apr 2014 - 1:52 PM, said:

She makes women sound like children.

"Either let us have our way or we will believe you don't love us."

 

Above is what you said...

 

I do not believe your line in quotation marks is actually a quote from OW. It is your characterization of what they are saying.

 

If I am wrong I rescind my entire statement on the issue and will willingly concede such a statement makes them sound childish. (CFR if your quote is actually legit)

 

Assuming you quote is simply a characterization of what you are hearing them say I called you out on it.

 

That may be what you are hearing... but it is not what they are saying. I doubt you will not find a quote that matches the one you made up, not unless you are already reading it (characterizing it) in a certain way.

 

I stated that you inaccurately characterized the OW movements statements, not because you would not be able to find a consensus, that would be totally unworkable as you point out, but because you did not actually use a real quote to support your position, you made one up that was your interpretation of their remarks.

 

As I said, CFR me if im wrong and ill send a big apology.

[bluebell]

bluebell, on 05 Apr 2014 - 1:52 PM, said:

Above is what you said...

I do not believe your line in quotation marks is actually a quote from OW. It is your characterization of what they are saying.

If I am wrong I rescind my entire statement on the issue and will willingly concede such a statement makes them sound childish. (CFR if your quote is actually legit)

Assuming you quote is simply a characterization of what you are hearing them say I called you out on it.

That may be what you are hearing... but it is not what they are saying. I doubt you will not find a quote that matches the one you made up, not unless you are already reading it (characterizing it) in a certain way.

I stated that you inaccurately characterized the OW movements statements, not because you would not be able to find a consensus, that would be totally unworkable as you point out, but because you did not actually use a real quote to support your position, you made one up that was your interpretation of their remarks.

As I said, CFR me if im wrong and ill send a big apology.

I thought it was clear that it *was* a characterization of their remarks. I was stating my opinion on how Kelly was making women *sound*I was not retyping what she had actually said. I'm sorry if I confused you.

So call me out on it to your hearts content as it was never something I was trying to hide.

Edited April 6, 2014 by bluebell

[Bikeemikey]

I thought it was clear that it was a characterization of their remarks. I was stating my opinion on how Kelly was making women sound. Call me out on it to your hearts content as it was never something I was trying to hide.

My issue was your claim that the characterization was inaccurate. Whether or not everyone else would agree with my opinion has no bearing on the accuracy of my opinion.

But given that it is a characterization it is subject to judgement and comparison of other people's different opinions. Perhaps rather than inaccurate I should have simply stated I disagree with that characterization.

I have often thought that an accurate opinion is a bit of an oxymoron.

[bluebell]

But given that it is a characterization it is subject to judgement and comparison of other people's different opinions. Perhaps rather than inaccurate I should have simply stated I disagree with that characterization.

I have often thought that an accurate opinion is a bit of an oxymoron.

Exactly.

You can disagree with my opinion, but you can't just declare it to be inaccurate because you disagree with it.

[Bikeemikey]

Exactly.

You can disagree with my opinion, but you can't just declare it to be inaccurate because you disagree with it.

Point to bluebell!