New Message Board, Mormon Women Connect

[Calm]

What surprised me is the chit chat is a lot less than I expected it would be, even with posters that are unknown to each other. I guess it helps that many of us known each other already, but I think it points to a real desire for serious discussions about serious topics.

[awyatt]

Just don't go to the new message board thinking that they want to have any real dialog *between* men and women. They don't. If a man even asks a question of clarification relative to statements made, he is judged to be violating the sanctity of the "safe place" they imagine they are creating.

 

I tried twice posting what I thought were helpful, supportive observations on the board. One time I posted something about a personal experience that had worked in my ward, something meant to be supportive of women. I spent the next two posts trying to clarify my statements because they were misjudged. The worst was "read into" my comments, rather than them being met with a bit of charity.

 

The second posting was to ask a question of another participant about evidence they had presented about non-equality in the Church. The evidence didn't "ring true" for me, and I explicitly asked for the female perspective on the matter, while also explaining my perspective. I was met with chiding by a mod that I had violated one board rule (which I disagree I had done) and was close to violating another. To cap it off, I was lectured by another board participant who was ironically male.

 

[side note: Board rule #1 says "Please do not attempt to instruct us or lecture women." The bar for being found in violation of that rule is very low. So low, in fact, that it is impossible to not violate it when others read you negatively out of the gate, lacking a desire for understanding others. Unless, of course, you are a man, and then you can be instructed or lectured by anyone else on the board, including other men. Very capricious. Very interesting.]

 

I posted a grand total of six times on the board. Two-thirds of those posts were trying to clarify the other one-third. I've never, once, had that negative of an experience at other sites claiming to be pro-LDS. Not once.

 

Sorry, Julie, but the judgmental attitude with which I was met there does not sit well with me. Women rightfully resist having their ideas dismissed solely because they are women, but that is exactly the attitude promulgated by the participants (as they currently are) at the new board—only this time it is men who are dismissed out of hand.

 

I am not a "bad" person. I am not unloving, uncaring, violent, or dismissive. But to be treated as if I am simply because of my gender is telling. It is hard to take claims of charity, love, and healing seriously when sexism is ironically applied in the name of building an imagined safe place.

 

I wish the board well, but the current participants have a long way to go in applying the virtues to others they long to be applied to them.

 

-Allen

[watermelongirl]

Just don't go to the new message board thinking that they want to have any real dialog *between* men and women. They don't. If a man even asks a question of clarification relative to statements made, he is judged to be violating the sanctity of the "safe place" they imagine they are creating.

I tried twice posting what I thought were helpful, supportive observations on the board. One time I posted something about a personal experience that had worked in my ward, something meant to be supportive of women. I spent the next two posts trying to clarify my statements because they were misjudged. The worst was "read into" my comments, rather than them being met with a bit of charity.

The second posting was to ask a question of another participant about evidence they had presented about non-equality in the Church. The evidence didn't "ring true" for me, and I explicitly asked for the female perspective on the matter, while also explaining my perspective. I was met with chiding by a mod that I had violated one board rule (which I disagree I had done) and was close to violating another. To cap it off, I was lectured by another board participant who was ironically male.

[side note: Board rule #1 says "Please do not attempt to instruct us or lecture women." The bar for being found in violation of that rule is very low. So low, in fact, that it is impossible to not violate it when others read you negatively out of the gate, lacking a desire for understanding others. Unless, of course, you are a man, and then you can be instructed or lectured by anyone else on the board, including other men. Very capricious. Very interesting.]

I posted a grand total of six times on the board. Two-thirds of those posts were trying to clarify the other one-third. I've never, once, had that negative of an experience at other sites claiming to be pro-LDS. Not once.

Sorry, Julie, but the judgmental attitude with which I was met there does not sit well with me. Women rightfully resist having their ideas dismissed solely because they are women, but that is exactly the attitude promulgated by the participants (as they currently are) at the new board—only this time it is men who are dismissed out of hand.

I am not a "bad" person. I am not unloving, uncaring, violent, or dismissive. But to be treated as if I am simply because of my gender is telling. It is hard to take claims of charity, love, and healing seriously when sexism is ironically applied in the name of building an imagined safe place.

I wish the board well, but the current participants have a long way to go in applying the virtues to others they long to be applied to them.

-Allen

I find it quite ironic that you've come here to lambast me since you're not allowed to do it at MWC. And people marvel at why we need a safe space! You're being rather defensive and uncharitable toward our efforts, if I may point it out.

I know it can be hard to understand why your ideas weren't well accepted. The appropriate thing to do at this point is to try to understand instead of trying to undermine the pains that we're going through in order to create that safe space for women. I encourage you to revisit the why of it all so that you may show empathy for the women who take on the hard questions. It is much less about debate than safety, healing, and understanding.

To make it easy on everyone, I've explained again here and the board policies are here. It's not a place for men to debate with women. It's a place of support and dialogue amongst women. There are plenty of other places that can meet the debate need.

Edited August 7, 2014 by watermelongirl

[The Nehor]

Just don't go to the new message board thinking that they want to have any real dialog *between* men and women. They don't. If a man even asks a question of clarification relative to statements made, he is judged to be violating the sanctity of the "safe place" they imagine they are creating.

 

I tried twice posting what I thought were helpful, supportive observations on the board. One time I posted something about a personal experience that had worked in my ward, something meant to be supportive of women. I spent the next two posts trying to clarify my statements because they were misjudged. The worst was "read into" my comments, rather than them being met with a bit of charity.

 

The second posting was to ask a question of another participant about evidence they had presented about non-equality in the Church. The evidence didn't "ring true" for me, and I explicitly asked for the female perspective on the matter, while also explaining my perspective. I was met with chiding by a mod that I had violated one board rule (which I disagree I had done) and was close to violating another. To cap it off, I was lectured by another board participant who was ironically male.

 

[side note: Board rule #1 says "Please do not attempt to instruct us or lecture women." The bar for being found in violation of that rule is very low. So low, in fact, that it is impossible to not violate it when others read you negatively out of the gate, lacking a desire for understanding others. Unless, of course, you are a man, and then you can be instructed or lectured by anyone else on the board, including other men. Very capricious. Very interesting.]

 

I posted a grand total of six times on the board. Two-thirds of those posts were trying to clarify the other one-third. I've never, once, had that negative of an experience at other sites claiming to be pro-LDS. Not once.

 

Sorry, Julie, but the judgmental attitude with which I was met there does not sit well with me. Women rightfully resist having their ideas dismissed solely because they are women, but that is exactly the attitude promulgated by the participants (as they currently are) at the new board—only this time it is men who are dismissed out of hand.

 

I am not a "bad" person. I am not unloving, uncaring, violent, or dismissive. But to be treated as if I am simply because of my gender is telling. It is hard to take claims of charity, love, and healing seriously when sexism is ironically applied in the name of building an imagined safe place.

 

I wish the board well, but the current participants have a long way to go in applying the virtues to others they long to be applied to them.

 

-Allen

 

Whether by nature or by socialization women tend to defer to men. When they do not women are seen as "shrill" or "harpyish". I do this myself and it is not fair. When a man challenges me I fight. When a woman challenges me I tend to (even if only mentally on a subconscious level) demean. I am getting better at it....mostly by viewing men as equally "shrill" but at least I am moving closer to equality.

 

When I was in college I (with permission) would record the interactions of me and my friends of both genders in casual friendly settings and the women would generally defer though men would defer to women they respected and/or were attracted to. There was no conscious attempt by the men to dominate or to compete with each other but when you examined the interruptions and course of the conversations it became obvious what the reality was. I have no idea if this is nature or nurture but it is reality. On a side note I never told my friends what I found out. I discovered two secret crushes and found out that men and my friend were both vying to control the conversation on a very subtle level. People are fascinating, scary, and exciting.

 

When women want a safe space they mean it. They don't want your "well-intentioned" help. I have seen many female centered internet message boards both inside and outside the LDS faith and your experience is common. The women usually do not exclude men overtly so clueless guys wander in (often, but not always, to show how openminded and supportive they are) and start acting normally and the purpose of the board is diminished and the guy is kicked out. He whines about persecution and throws a hissy fit until he is ejected. I experienced this once as the hissy fitter. In any other board it would have been a normal interaction but I was trespassing

 

This is one reason I have only browsed on that board so far. I had many ideas, helpful criticisms, and counsel that I thought fit but I bit my tongue because I do not want to nor should I dominate discussion there or try to take the lead and point out male issues and my natural inclination would be to be my usual irreverent self and I would almost certainly offend many other participants. Maybe some day I will have something I feel it is vital to share but I will be much more modest and humble when sharing it then my usual self.

 

Preemptive Retaliation: I am not saying women are delicate flowers who need protection from men or cannot function in a social setting with men. They they chastised you is proof they can take care of themselves when they need to. I just know I (usually) hate chastising others and do not want to put that burden on someone else.

[Calm]

Mormon Women Connect is an experiment whose intent is to create an environment where women can discuss issues important to themselves with each other in a faithful and positive and explorative way. Relief Society only goes so far...you can't have an ongoing conversation on a topic week after week until you've gotten the last bit of juice out of it for one thing. We have looked at other venues and have been dissatisfied for one reason or another with what they've produced and havent found anything close to what we are lokking for so we decided to create something new.

And we are being cautious because it is easier to lighten up than it is to tighten up if it looks like it is not working as well as we hope for our purpose. Allen, that you experience your writing in a different way than someone else shouldn't be any more surprising than someone not wanting to order the same thing for dinner as you do. It doesn't mean we are biased against you, it just means we are more comfortable with a different approach for what we are doing on the board. Think of it like interior decorating, just because some people are more relaxed in a traditional setting doesn't mean that others are wrong because they prefer a more modern style...but no one should be surprised if the traditionalist isn't all that happy to see a gift of a modern piece of furniture and doesn't feel obligated to attempt to make it somehow fit into the room or to just pretend it fits because that is the polite thing to do. And someone might enjoy both styles, maybe prefers a modern approach for a study but likes the traditionalist for a bedroom. Refusing the offer of an avant garde bedside table doesn't mean they wouldn't love it as a side table for a chair in the office...but again, insisting that it be placed in the bedroom because that is where the giver wants it to go...well, guests don't usually get to design the homes they are visiting.

We recognize our style won't work for everyone, not even many women...probably most women imo though we might wish it otherwise That is okay, this is very much a niche website. A lot of it will be focused on just figuring out what needs to be said and how we can say it, creating a new language in essence that speaks to women. Sometimes men can help, other times they won't be able to because it will be something we need to do for ourselves so that it really connects deeply with us.

And btw, a woman won't get a free pass to say anything she wants on the board. Women who approach dialogue as a chance to debate or lecture will get urged to change their approach as well and if they don't adapt will get banned.

Lectures result in lectures, a debate will get a debate in return. We want to avoid these types of cycles, even if others see them as useful or we do in other venues. They have not produce the result we are looking for through the board in the past so why would they do so in the future?

If there are men out there that see a similar need for men or for both genders, I think it would be great for them to set up their own board. I think watching how the different styles develop, seeing where they share and where they differ would be very informing.

[awyatt]

I find it quite ironic that you've come here to lambast me since you're not allowed to do it at MWC. And people marvel at why we need a safe space! You're being rather defensive and uncharitable toward our efforts, if I may point it out.

I wasn't lambasting you. I didn't mention you once. (Honestly, I don't have a clue as to who you even are.) That you feel I was lambasting you seems to evidence that there is plenty of "defensiveness" to go around.

 

When they do not [defer to men] women are seen as "shrill" or "harpyish". I do this myself and it is not fair.

I agree; it isn't fair. I don't expect deferential treatment, and I hope you weren't asserting that I see women that way. I wasn't. I don't. I do, however, see these particular women (the ones with whom I communicated at the new board), based solely on the limited conversations we had, as unwelcoming and uncaring. In a word, uncharitable in their communications with others. (More on that in a moment.)

 

When women want a safe space they mean it. They don't want your "well-intentioned" help. I have seen many female centered internet message boards both inside and outside the LDS faith and your experience is common. The women usually do not exclude men overtly so clueless guys wander in (often, but not always, to show how openminded and supportive they are) and start acting normally and the purpose of the board is diminished and the guy is kicked out. He whines about persecution and throws a hissy fit until he is ejected. I experienced this once as the hissy fitter. In any other board it would have been a normal interaction but I was trespassing.

Understood, but I "wandered in" solely and singularly because Julie (one of the board founders) personally asked me to come over and specifically said that I was being asked because I "have given nonjudgmental and empathetic responses that are a good example of what we need" (her words, not mine). So I went over. I looked around. I read threads. I liked, for the most part, what I saw. I even saw the board policy that "men can add to the discussion by relating any creative problem solving by Ward or Stake leadership that provides more support or involvement of girls and women."

So, I tried to do that, thinking that board members really meant what they said and that—at least according to Julie—I really would be welcome. On what I thought was an appropriate thread, I related a personal story about what I thought was a creative approach that had worked in my ward. I related something about my ward, my family, my "tribe" that I had done, as a leader, with love and compassion. I was trying to share something very close to me; very personal. That, apparently, was a mistake on my part.

I wasn't looking for "atta boys," but I was expecting civility and for empathy and support to be returned in kind. It was not.

 

Allen, that you experience your writing in a different way than someone else shouldn't be any more surprising than someone not wanting to order the same thing for dinner as you do. It doesn't mean we are biased against you, it just means we are more comfortable with a different approach for what we are doing on the board.

 

Understood. Perhaps I can convey my thoughts through a personal story related to me by a member of the Seventy.

A young man who had been absent from Church for eight or nine years had some things happen in his life that caused him to wander into a meetinghouse, seeking the influence of the Spirit he had last felt as a teen. His hair was long and unwashed; his clothes anything but "Sunday best." He just happened, on walking into the building, to meet the bishop as he came out of his office door. The bishop looked up, saw and recognized the young man, and said "Well, it's about time you came to Church. Now we'll have to work on how you look." The young man obviously didn't feel the Spirit he was seeking. He left with a vow never to come again. An opportunity was squandered because the visitor wasn't met with love, compassion, and empathy.

Now, contrast this with a personal story that happened in my ward, while I was bishop.

A young man who had been absent from Church for at least a decade moved into the ward and wandered into the foyer. He had long hair, scruffy clothes, and carried a chip on his shoulder. I invited him into my office to welcome him to the ward and find out a bit about him. He point-blank told me he had tried "religion," and didn't want anything to do with it. I told him I understood, but that he was welcome at Church anyway. I wanted him there; the Lord wanted him there. I put my arm around him and invited him to come worship with us. I told him that everyone in the ward had problems, and that we were just trying to work them out together. He continued to come to Church, although he would sit on the back row, away from others. I made it a point to go out of my way to shake his hand and see how he was doing. One Sunday, after about eight months, he showed up at Church with his hair cut and wearing a new suit. When I shook his hand and asked him what was going on, he said "well, I figure it was about time that my outside reflected how I was feeling inside."

To apply these stories to Mormon Women Connect, I was the "young man" wandering into the building. I was doing what I thought Julie had asked me to do. The young men may not have fit right in (because of their long hair and choice of clothes), just like I may not have "fit right in" at MWC. I wasn't met with a welcoming feel; the love, compassion, and empathy I expected for everyone, regardless of gender, was missing. Instead, I was judged and dismissed. I was, effectively, told to "go somewhere else; you aren't welcome here."

I'm willing to chalk it all up to a misunderstanding, but the take-away here is that MWC squandered an opportunity; they lost a potential ally. If anyone cares, they may want to rethink how they approach visitors who come in, whether by invitation (as I came in) or not.

-Allen

Edited August 7, 2014 by awyatt

[rodheadlee]

I know one thing, if people don't want me to be there I certainly don't want to be there. I run when women say they need a safe place, safe from what?

[watermelongirl]

I wasn't lambasting you. I didn't mention you once. (Honestly, I don't have a clue as to who you even are.) That you feel I was lambasting you seems to evidence that there is plenty of "defensiveness" to go around.

 

I agree; it isn't fair. I don't expect deferential treatment, and I hope you weren't asserting that I see women that way. I wasn't. I don't. I do, however, see these particular women (the ones with whom I communicated at the new board).

You don't know who I am, and yet you're here calling me (and perhaps two other people) "shrill" or "harpyish." Please take a step back and recognize that you were given one warning by a moderator and you were disagreed with in a civil way. Here on Mormon Dialogue, would you say those were grounds for throwing up your hands and publicly disavowing the whole endeavor?

 

A young man who had been absent from Church for at least a decade moved into the ward and wandered into the foyer. He had long hair, scruffy clothes, and carried a chip on his shoulder. I invited him into my office to welcome him to the ward and find out a bit about him. He point-blank told me he had tried "religion," and didn't want anything to do with it. I told him I understood, but that he was welcome at Church anyway. I wanted him there; the Lord wanted him there...

 

You felt marginalized on our board. I can understand that feeling because that's how I feel often in my ward, most Sundays of late. If we're really comparing MWC to an LDS congregation, here's another thought along the same lines. Our goal is to create a safe "ward" where women who feel marginalized by bishops, policies, priesthood holders, husbands, or the church in general can come and have their voices heard and their feelings of pain assuaged so that they may continue the course of faithful service. It is not meant to be a safe space for the man who proclaims himself a former bishop and then becomes easily offended when his ideas and method of communication aren't well received. We would like your participation, but when given correction on how to engage, we would ask for introspection. The moderators stand by their warning to you, small though it was.

 

I'm willing to chalk it all up to a misunderstanding, but the take-away here is that MWC squandered an opportunity; they lost a potential ally. If anyone cares, they may want to rethink how they approach visitors who come in, whether by invitation (as I came in) or not.

 

I would simply ask you here to consider if there are women that can be helped by your participation in the board on our terms.  The end goal is to support women who might be dealing with or have in the past dealt with serious faith crises. Try to have a little trust in us. We're working hard to follow the Spirit, and our policies about male engagement were written by Juliann and we support them and enforce them as part of a larger vision. We may not perfect, and as Cal said, this is an experiment. Our efforts do not deserve your condemnation.

 

Edited August 7, 2014 by watermelongirl

[watermelongirl]

I know one thing, if people don't want me to be there I certainly don't want to be there. I run when women say they need a safe place, safe from what?

 

What we mean by "safe space."

[awyatt]

You don't know who I am, and yet you're here calling me (and perhaps two other people) "shrill" or "harpyish."

I called you neither; I don't use words like that. If you will look at the comment thread, you'll see that those words were introduced by someone called "The Nehor." I don't think he was putting words in my mouth, but if he was trying to do so, he did it without warrant or cause.

If you were mistaken about what was actually said and who said it, perhaps you could take that as evidence that it was possible that you misjudged my interaction with you, as well.

We may not perfect, and as Cal said, this is an experiment. Our efforts do not deserve your condemnation.

The point is that my efforts don't deserve your condemnation, either. If you want others to cut you some slack, then you need to cut them slack.

-Allen

[watermelongirl]

I called you neither; I don't use words like that. If you will look at the comment thread, you'll see that those words were introduced by someone called "The Nehor." I don't think he was putting words in my mouth, but if he was trying to do so, he did it without warrant or cause.

If you were mistaken about what was actually said and who said it, perhaps you could take that as evidence that it was possible that you misjudged my interaction with you, as well.

The point is that my efforts don't deserve your condemnation, either. If you want others to cut you some slack, then you need to cut them slack.

-Allen

 

You're right, the words you used were unwelcoming and uncaring. My bad.

 

I didn't condemn your efforts. In fact I've asked you twice to come back and try again.

Edited August 7, 2014 by watermelongirl

[Nofear]

I tried twice posting what I thought were helpful, supportive observations on the board. One time I posted something about a personal experience that had worked in my ward, something meant to be supportive of women. I spent the next two posts trying to clarify my statements because they were misjudged. The worst was "read into" my comments, rather than them being met with a bit of charity.

Brief caricature of the first encounter:

1) awyatt: When I was bishop, we held this fireside of modesty. Describes. It was AWESOME!

2) A few sisters: um, actually that is an example of some of the things we are uncomfortable with.

3) awyatt: No, no... that's not it at all. Girls. Boxes of cereal. AWESOME!

 

The second posting was to ask a question of another participant about evidence they had presented about non-equality in the Church. The evidence didn't "ring true" for me, and I explicitly asked for the female perspective on the matter, while also explaining my perspective. I was met with chiding by a mod that I had violated one board rule (which I disagree I had done) and was close to violating another. To cap it off, I was lectured by another board participant who was ironically male.

Brief caricature of the second encounter:

1) awyatt: Jesus. Male. Q.E.D.

2) Nofear: I think you missed the point. Not what they were looking for.

3) awyatt: Too bad. I'm outta here then.

 

I posted a grand total of six times on the board. Two-thirds of those posts were trying to clarify the other one-third. I've never, once, had that negative of an experience at other sites claiming to be pro-LDS. Not once.

 

Another data point suggesting the necessity of a site like Mormon Women Connect.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Nofear

[Calm]

Allen, I don't know at this point whether you want this type of input, but it seems appropriate your talk about being misunderstood.

This below is your statement I had the most problem with:

"So, I guess, my question is why Latter-day Saints, who are supposed to have an eternal view and often say that the Church is the earthly manifestation of God's kingdom, believe that the only way to exemplify equality within that earthly manifestation is to ensure that a woman never reports to a man when such an ideal is impossible unless one removes the Lord, Himself, from the "reporting" hierarchy?"

Here, you are challenging a position none of the women involved took. The extreme nature of it, the "ensur[ing] that a woman never reports to a man" makes it appear to me as a caricature and a very uncharitable reading of concerns of women who are not looking to be totally independent from men, but quite the opposite, more deeply involved and more meaningfully interacting.

It was very off putting to see this especially when coupled with removing the Lord from reporting comment as if even in implication we would considered this, the Lord being in a different category having experienced all things men and women have gone through unlike any other mortal man and thus coupled with his ability to be one with others is capable of understanding and speaking for women as much as he can for men, not only as groups, but as individuals. No mortal, man or woman is capable of that and it should be an assumed position unless someone states otherwise because it is a core teaching of the Atonement.

[awyatt]

Actually, Cal, that is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for. (Thank you.) I doubt, however, that anyone is interested in further discussion on this particular point—as evidenced by Watermelongirl's continued misjudging and Nofear's snarky caricature—so I will bow out of doing so.

I hereby accept all responsibility for my inability to communicate effectively and leave it to someone more capable than I to reasonably express my points.

As I have said several times already, my best wishes go out to those involved in Mormon Women Connect.

-Allen

[watermelongirl]

As I have said several times already, my best wishes go out to those involved in Mormon Women Connect.

 

You have a very funny way of showing us that you wish us the best. Coming here and publicly decrying our efforts is not an appropriate way to respond when you feel you've been wronged.

 

Whether you think I've misjudged you or not, I still welcome you to come back and show your love and support for the women of the church that need a place like MWC.

 

PS. I take no responsibility for Nofear's caricature and it would not be welcome on MWC.

[awyatt]

You have a very funny way of showing us that you wish us the best. Coming here and publicly decrying our efforts is not an appropriate way to respond when you feel you've been wronged.

You misunderstand me yet again. I do not decry your efforts or the efforts of any other person involved with MWC. I decry the treatment I received at MWC. Those are two very different things.

Whether you think I've misjudged you or not, I still welcome you to come back and show your love and support for the women of the church that need a place like MWC.

 

PS. I take no responsibility for Nofear's caricature and it would not be welcome on MWC.

Thank you.

-Allen

[watermelongirl]

You misunderstand me yet again. I do not decry your efforts or the efforts of any other person involved with MWC. I decry the treatment I received at MWC. Those are two very different things.

 

The public decrying part is the troublesome bit. I don't believe I've misunderstood your intent in bringing it here. You could have come to us or Juliann about any previous misunderstanding or hurt feelings in a less public way.

Edited August 7, 2014 by watermelongirl

[juliann]

 

I am not a "bad" person. I am not unloving, uncaring, violent, or dismissive. But to be treated as if I am simply because of my gender is telling. It is hard to take claims of charity, love, and healing seriously when sexism is ironically applied in the name of building an imagined safe place.

 

I wish the board well, but the current participants have a long way to go in applying the virtues to others they long to be applied to them.

 

-Allen

You are a wonderful person! I'm sorry you had a bad experience. Part of what we want to do is establish a more productive way of talking to and about women.  It is, of course, a board for women and we do have to defer to that.

 

The board wouldn't exist without Watermelongirl.  I can't thank her enough.  We are all new at this but it really is wonderful to have a female space.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I want awyatt and watermelongirl to hug and find peace. No need for any fighting. You are both children of the Lord.

[watermelongirl]

I am really hoping that some of you will pop over to MWC and check out some of our latest threads. We've got some great discussions going on:

 

The Divine Feminine In Ancient Israel: The Lady In The Temple  (Please join us for this one, it's a topic that can benefit all!)

Eve And Her Daughters

Modesty For Everyone

Breast Feeding In Public

Women, Virginity, And Sexuality Edited August 8, 2014 by watermelongirl

[Senator]

 

I am really hoping that some of you will pop over to MWC and check out some of our latest threads. We've got some great discussions going on:

 

(Please join us for this one, it's a topic that can benefit all!)

 

 

Heh, I don't think even Grasshopper could tread light enough for the eggshells there.

 

No, thanks.

 

(Maybe that should be Nofear's new nickname, "Grasshopper")

[watermelongirl]

Perhaps "eggshells" might be warranted in the breastfeeding thread , but for

The Divine Feminine In Ancient Israel: The Lady In The Temple , it's meant to be a scholarly discussion. Please consider joining.

[Nofear]

Heh, I don't think even Grasshopper could tread light enough for the eggshells there.

(Maybe that should be Nofear's new nickname, "Grasshopper")

Hah. Grasshopper I am not. Feminist I am not. Years of experience here has taught me that if my goal is to persuade others to my thinking, no matter how well reasoned, I will be perpetually and deeply disappointed. Since persuasion is not a goal of that board my apathy lends itself well.

It is actually quite refreshing and interesting to see the more feminine perspective of things. So far the board, to me, is a great initial success. Still it doesn't and doesn't want to replace MDD. And if I have the itch to grouch there is usually some anti-science yahooriness here to scratch at.

[Calm]

Heh, I don't think even Grasshopper could tread light enough for the eggshells there.

 

No, thanks.

 

(Maybe that should be Nofear's new nickname, "Grasshopper")

Well, if you enjoy (generic you, not thinking of anyone specifically) one liners, persuasion, and pontificating....all enjoyable in certain times and places and especially identifying who is right and who is wrong and these are habits you don't or can't lay aside, the experience will likely be eggshell related. But if you just enjoy the exchange of ideas minus the above, exploring rather than dissecting so to speak, you might enjoy it.

[Senator]

Well, if you enjoy (generic you, not thinking of anyone specifically) one liners, persuasion, and pontificating....all enjoyable in certain times and places and especially identifying who is right and who is wrong and these are habits you don't or can't lay aside, the experience will likely be eggshell related. But if you just enjoy the exchange of ideas minus the above, exploring rather than dissecting so to speak, you might enjoy it.

 

Well, it sounds delightful in theory, but after witnessing awyatt's treatment, it's going to need some practice.

 

But the forum is young. Things always need time.