The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

Most of the time yes.  I often even pray about what I am writing when things get a little heated because if the others cant see that I care for them then it doesn't really matter if I am right.  (If only I had learned that 21 years ago when my oldest was a baby before I taught him by example that being right was more important. Now he feels that it is more important to be right than to ask Heavenly Father what He thinks best and I'm learning to love him as Elder Scott taught.)  

Okay.  I will give your remarks some thought.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Rain]

14 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

...I'm going to be on the Lord's side.

......

 

Because, to me it's a rather novel idea to suggest that online discussions are supposed to make people feel good about themselves. I've always been accustomed to thinking that they were about the arguments and ideas, their merits or lack thereof.

I, too, am on the Lord's side. It would be really nice if we could work together. I think we would be stronger  - sum of our parts and all. 

I said nothing about helping someone feel good being the purpose of discussions. The communication didn't work between us if that is all you got from what I said, though now that you mention it that is a very good reason for discussions. 

When I first started online discussions it was mostly fun. Most of the people I met were other students all over the world. To get to the message boards you had to type in long strings of letters and numbers. I kept them in my notebook because they were so long you would never remember them. We would joke with each other as we learned so much about the country and habits of the people we talked with.

Since then I have had rich experiences with the people, mostly women, who I have met online. Two were baptized. I went to the temple with one of them. I have mourned with people who have lost children and spouses and mourned when some of the people themselves passed away as well. I have cheered when people got jobs. I've cried when some got engaged or married.  I have had a number of them in my home and many more have I gone out to lunch with. 

Something I heard from John Lund that helped me and my husband to understand each other better. He studied communication and brain function etc. Simplified he said that men have a connection/road that leads from hemisphere of the brain to the other. Women have a multi lane highway. Neither is better and there are pros and cons about how the brain works in each.

The important thing is to understand the differences. While men may think that discussions are "arguments and ideas", women think discussions are arguments/ideas/how I fit within the discussion /how does my daughter fit?/what does this mean for the future?/does this person understand and or agree with me?(2 very different things)/how can I share this with others? etc.  For women a discussion is SO much more than an argument and idea. 

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by Rain

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Then don't use "good manners" which have nothing to do with engaging with someone's ideas but are simply generic external behaviours that have nothing to do with the individual as an individual as justification that one treats women (or anyone else) respectfully in one's dialoguing with others.

Well, this is interesting.  This sounds very much along the lines of what I have been saying: that token expressions of respect for women ("generic external behaviors") shouldn't/needn't be part of an adversarial rhetorical discussion ("engaging with someone's ideas"), as men and women in this context are on equal footing, so such expressions are unnecessary ("have nothing to do with engaging with someone's ideas") in a debate ("dialoguing with others").

Quote

No one is saying that I can see that bad ideas should be accepted as if they were good ones just because someone is a woman.  We are asking rather to be allowed to express our own internal responses as a reality fully and be given a chance to discuss our ideas and not to have them dismissed as irrelevant for whatever reason or altered so that they are no longer what our positions actually are.

I am really confused.  Who has proposed the idea that it is acceptable to "dismiss as irrelevant" a person's point of view (or, more particularly, a woman's point of view)?

And who is acting to prohibit the expression of ideas?  Who is not "allow[ing] [women] to express [their] own internal responses?"

Quote

It doesn't help in this discussion to be changing how we are stating things into a version that is obviously weak and demands to be dismissed ("nsisting that men treat flawed arguments, false claims or bad ideas coming from women with deference because the speakers are women").And "deference" is the wrong phrase.  

Deference: 1. respectful submission or yielding to the judgment, opinion, will, etc., of another. 2. respectful or courteous regard: in deference to his wishes.

My usage was more along the lines of #2.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Calm]

Quote

so such expressions are unnecessary

No, it was nothing like what you said.  I said don't use "good manners" as a justification, I didn't say don't use "good manners".

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

So smac97 wants to be understood. The sisters here want to be understood. We all want understanding.

Actually, what I really want is to not be falsely accused of sexism, particularly for doing things like - quelle horreur - publicly disagreeing with a woman, or using token expressions of deference and respect in social settings.

Quote

Perhaps by saying let the women speak they are expressing the idea that they don't yet feel understood and want a chance to express their views and be understood (without having to spend pages and pages of discussion on communication and gender).

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by smac97

[Rain]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That's nice.  Really, it is.  But many of us, both men and women, do come to message boards to debate.  Such debate can and should be governed by basic standards of decorum and civility.  Making false accusations of sexism, for example.  That's bad.  It poisons the well.

But debate is, or can be, a good and healthy thing.  Successful systems of government use it.  Courts of law use it.  Most fields of science use it.

That's a fine and dandy reason.  But it's not the only one.  

What?!  Seriously?  Men aren't allowed to express a point of view that diverges from a woman's?  Why not?  Who set this rule?  Who gets to enforce this rule?  Who says this rule is a good idea?

What am I reading here?

These are not mutually incompatible concepts.  Latter-day Saints can and should talk about things in their lives, and even disagree with each other.  Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things.  

What I find disturbing is the apparent suggestion that if men disagree with women, then men should shut up and exit the conversation ("there is really no reason for him to join in the conversation").  If a man said such a thing (that women who disagree with men should shut up, as they have "no reason ... to join the conversation"), he'd get raked across the coals.  And rightly so.

I think men and women can both provide meaningful contributions to discussions about difficult topics.  I am repulsed at the notion that men should remain silent if they have a different point of view and wish to share it.

Right.  And men . . . don't want this?  What are you saying here?

And what happens when women disagree with each other?  Are they obligated to refrain from expressing their point of view?

What do you do when you are discussing a difficult topic with a group of women and contradictory viewpoints are in play?  Doesn't this ever happen?

And when it happens, how do you further the discussion?  With a coin toss?  Or do you . . . possibly . . . have a . . . discussion?  A debate?

-Smac

Ok, trying what nofear said. 

It sounds to me like you thought I said if men don't agree with women then they should just shut up.

Not at all what I meant. All I meant was that, while to you this may only be a "debate", to women it is always more than debate and rarely about the "debate" at all. The conversation is at a dead end if the man thinks it is only the debate because the goals of both sides are not compatible.

And most of us don't care if you agree or not as long as you actually understand our point of view. 

Edited February 7, 2016 by Rain

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Rain said:

Ok, trying what nofear said. 

It sounds to me like you thought I said if men don't agree with women then they should just shut up.

Not at all what I meant. All I meant was that, while to you this may only be a "debate", to women it is always more than debate and rarely about the "debate" at all. The conversation is at a dead end if the man thinks it is only the debate because the goals of both sides are not compatible.

And most of us don't care if you agree or not as long as you actually understand our point of view. 

Okay.  For me, I resent being falsely accused of sexism simply because I have publicly disagreed with a woman.

Thanks,

-Smac

[VideoGameJunkie]

I think sexism is a huge problem throughout scriptures. Not enough good women were written about and I know there were many good women throughout the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price that could have been written about.

[smac97]

We're way far removed from the topic of this thread.  Some portion of that is my fault.  I will rectify that by withdrawing from the thread.

Peace!

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I think sexism is a huge problem throughout scriptures. Not enough good women were written about and I know there were many good women throughout the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price that could have been written about.

Yeahhh...it's crazy how God is sexist in his revelations. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yeahhh...it's crazy how God is sexist in his revelations. 

It's always been men who have written down what we have as scriptures.

[Mystery Meat]

I have observed this thread mostly from a far. Up until now it has been because I have been processing and formulating a thought or two. 

One thing I believe to be true is that Satan is invested deeply in convincing men that women cannot be understood and women that men cannot be understood. There is no questioning that there is a lot about the genders that separates us and makes us different. How we think, how we talk, how we interact. Another tool that I think Satan and society use is to try and get men to be like women and women to be like men (some of these preconceived differences are based in culture).

Please allow me to express a thought that might be helpful. I hear from the women on this board and the women in my life that there is a need to feel understood and validated. In order to feel this way, as I understand it, that requires listening in on the part of men (or other women). Where I see a disconnect, however, is that I believe men and women define listening differently by their very natures. If you want me to listen to you, and I mean really listen, please know that I will listen best and have a greater likelihood of reaching understanding if I am afforded the opportunity to be an active participant in the conversation. Some times that participation is going to be adverse in nature. It might even be firm and direct (hopefully never condescending). And if you want me to understand and listen then no topic can be off limits: women and the priesthood, birth control, abortion, women as stay at home moms, women as working moms, etc. In fact, I may even listen to your opinion on any of the above women's issues and disagree with it. Adamantly. That disagreement may even come in the form of disagreeing with the very line of thought you want validated. For example, try as a woman might to tell me she feels it is okay for her to get an abortion so that her career is uninterrupted, I cannot and will not ever be able to validate that. Because I would think such a woman is wrong. Period.

Smac has demonstrated this here. He has listened to the women of the board express their thoughts on how they want the men to listen and interact. In many ways, he has disagreed and does not feel like he can validate some of things that are being asked of him (at least that's how I interpret it). I think that is fair. And many of the women can't validate or understand Smac's perspective. That is also fair.

So if you want to be understood by me and most of the men I know (and I think most men in general) then you have to give us a place to engage in conversation, even if (perhaps especially if) we disagree with you and are ultimately unable to understand your point of view, why you feel the way you do or validate your feelings and/or conclusions. Without this, there is no real listening. I will just turn my brain off and do something more worthwhile, like think about football (FYI, I will not be watching the Super Bowl for the 29th straight year).

Edited February 7, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, this is just really dispiriting.  You've rigged the deck here.  If I as a man verbally treat a woman disrespectfully (call her names, insult her intelligence, tell her to shut up), then I am apparently being sexist.  But if I as a man treat treat a woman with respect and decorum, I might not actually mean it, and it doesn't cost me anything.  So I'm still being sexist.

I think part of our problem here is that you are assuming things that i haven't said. I haven't said or implied that you or anyone who treats women with deference in certain situations is sexist.  I've said that doing so doesn't automatically mean that a man respects women.  

As a society we have been conditioned to believe that such deference is a form of respect, but when we challenge that conditioning we realize that outward maneuvers and social convention don't necessarily mean as much as we've been taught.

Quote

Good manners "don't actually mean anything?"

Good manners definitely serve a purpose.  Proving that someone respects women, or making sure a woman feels respected, is not necessarily that purpose though.

Quote

Good manners have no value because "they don't really cost ... anything?"  (So much for "the best things in life are free.")

Good manners have value, but not necessarily the amount of value that you and others place on them in regards to showing respect to women.  

Quote

Using good manners to "outwardly show" respect does not "actually treat women with respect?"

Exactly.  Just like going to church doesn't mean someone loves God.  It can mean that, but it doesn't automatically mean that.  The outward manifestation of a feeling is not the same thing as the actual feeling.

Quote

Where in the world do such assumptions about men as a category come from?  Are women also subject to similarly hostile assumptions?

I haven't made any assumptions about men.  Your responding to your own assumptions here, and not what i've said. 

Quote

Perhaps you may some day be able to consider the possibility, and eventually perhaps even accept, that when a man says or does something that is intended to convey the idea that he respects women, he actually just might mean it.  That an outward expression of respect just might be a reflection of his inward respect for women.  And that common courtesy and respect are not a transaction, that no "cost" need be considered.  

I never said otherwise.  What i have said is that just because a man does something that society has deemed as respectful to women, doesn't mean he respects women.  Neither does it mean that a woman feels respected by such social conventions.

Quote

 

Sheesh.  What a depressing thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I'm sorry if women trying to express their thoughts and feelings is depressing to you Smac.  It's difficult to understand each other.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I disagree.  That makes no sense to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Back when society decided that in order to show respect to women we need to hold open doors and stand when they come and go, etc. it was also believed that men should show deference to women in communication as well.  A gentleman, for example, would never do anything to cause a woman embarrassment or to appear wrong in public.  They would always assume the fault in any disagreement.   This was just good manners.  Any man who did less was considered a boor.

When such social conventions were invented, men understood that if women needed to be treated differently than men in some situations, then they needed to be treated differently than a man would be treated in every situation.  It didn't matter if doing so made the man look bad, or if he had to swallow his pride, or whatever else the consequences might be.  

In short, a real gentleman would never treat a woman the same way he treated another man, regardless of the situation, because doing so wasn't good manners.

In our day, things have changed, but not in a way that makes much sense. 

Good manners as you have described them is that you don't treat women like a man in silly things like holding open their own door, (such wouldn't show them respect), but of course a man could never be expected to carry such ideology over into every part of their interaction with women because that's not fair to them.  The manners that cost men the least to observe have been preserved while those which would cost them the most have become "insidious" (to use Russell's term).

Acknowledging and challenging this flawed thinking isn't an attempt to say that good manners don't matter or aren't important.  It's challenging the idea that manners to prove respect to women don't make much sense.  

If women need to be treated differently than men to be respected, then the logical conclusion is that they must be treated differently than men regardless of the situation or respect isn't being shown them. Half deference and half no deference as a way to show respect to women isn't logical (just as our fore-bearers recognized).

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Where have I said that women should not be on "equal social footing" with men?

If you believe a man should open his own door, but a woman shouldn't, then you believe that men and women should not be treated equally in social settings where walking into doors is involved.

Quote

And what does "equal social footing" mean?

It means being treated the same in social or public settings.

Quote

Yes, based on environment.  I think it's a healthy thing to show deference and respect to women in social settings.  However, in an adversarial social context, I think we're all on equal footing.  I've said this several times.

Why is it 'healthy' to treat women with respect in social settings but unhealthy to show them respect in adversarial social context?  Or, to put it another way, if it's possible to show women respect when they are on equal footing with a man in adversarial social contexts, why can't a man show women respect by letting them open their own door?

Quote

And a "double standard" would entail some form of unfairness.  What sort of "unfairness" do you have in mind here?

Is it fair to expect women to feel respected when you show them deference in some situations but refuse to show them deference in others and still want them to feel respected?  

Have you ever considered the kind of weird signals that men send to women by the way they pick and choose which manners to keep, which ones they don't want to keep because they are unfair to men, and then get annoyed or confused when women don't respond to men the way they want them to respond?

If you don't like the term double-standard, that's fine.  How about contradictory and confusing standard of etiquette towards women that isn't logical and that women have no say in but are expected to react favorably towards regardless of how they really feel about it?

Quote

I propose that, in limited in contexts and in limited ways, women be afforded some token expressions of deference and respect.

Why?

Quote

In some other limited contexts (adversarial rhetorical situations, for example), I propose that such added measures of deference and respect be eliminated.

Why?  And why do men get to decide?

Quote

At no point have I ever suggested that women should be treated as "less than" men.

I sincerely believe you mean that.

Quote

 

But I said nothing of the sort.  I spoke about what I think ("So for me, I often demonstrate/express that attitude [of respect for women] by saying and doing things that convey it, particularly by using old-fashioned - and therefore easily recognized - expressions of respect and deference.").  I am the world's leading authority on my motives and reasoning.  

I never "explain[ed] to her that she is wrong."  Where are you getting this?  

-Smac

 

Fair enough.  Hopefully now that we've explained it you can understand why a woman might not feel respected regardless of your motives and reasoning.

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I have observed this thread mostly from a far. Up until now it has been because I have been processing and formulating a thought or two. 

One thing I believe to be true is that Satan is invested deeply in convincing men that women cannot be understood and women that men cannot be understood. There is no questioning that there is a lot about the genders that separates us and makes us different. How we think, how we talk, how we interact. Another tool that I think Satan and society use is to try and get men to be like women and women to be like men (some of these preconceived differences are based in culture).

Please allow me to express a thought that might be helpful. I hear from the women on this board and the women in my life that there is a need to feel understood and validated. In order to feel this way, as I understand it, that requires listening in on the part of men (or other women). Where I see a disconnect, however, is that I believe men and women define listening differently by their very natures. If you want me to listen to you, and I mean really listen, please know that I will listen best and have a greater likelihood of reaching understanding if I am afforded the opportunity to be an active participant in the conversation. Some times that participation is going to be adverse in nature. It might even be firm and direct (hopefully never condescending). And if you want me to understand and listen then no topic can be off limits: women and the priesthood, birth control, abortion, women as stay at home moms, women as working moms, etc. In fact, I may even listen to your opinion on any of the above women's issues and disagree with it. Adamantly. That disagreement may even come in the form of disagreeing with the very line of thought you want validated. For example, try as a woman might to tell me she feels it is okay for her to get an abortion so that her career is uninterrupted, I cannot and will not ever be able to validate that. Because I would think such a woman is wrong. Period.

Smac has demonstrated this here. He has listened to the women of the board express their thoughts on how they want the men to listen and interact. In many ways, he has disagreed and does not feel like he can validate some of things that are being asked of him (at least that's how I interpret it). I think that is fair. And many of the women can't validate or understand Smac's perspective. That is also fair.

So if you want to be understood by me and most of the men I know (and I think most men in general) then you have to give us a place to engage in conversation, even if (perhaps especially if) we disagree with you and are ultimately unable to understand your point of view, why you feel the way you do or validate your feelings and/or conclusions. Without this, there is no real listening. I will just turn my brain off and do something more worthwhile, like think about football (FYI, I will not be watching the Super Bowl for the 29th straight year).

I just scan read this thread again. It probably won't come to much of a surprise that I have a different picture. 

I initially didn't participate because there's a tendency in thread about OW or anything like unto it to follow a predictable script: write their motives for them (usually power hungry, attention seeking, prideful, etc), argue against said motives and give anecdotal evidence that their problems aren't real, and give very limited acknowledgment that there may be some legitimate grievances behind their actions. It's not all that productive. That and I only write in a few threads at a time...my quota was reached . In many ways several of the comments followed that Narrative pretty well.

I think Validation and understanding are barking up the wrong tree on this one. Not that either isn't important for people in general (male or female)....but that the point was even more  basic....that women simply be heard. From what I can see, the linchpin to the current communications discussion started around page 7 when Juliann pointed out that women in group dialogue are often crowded out, voice wise, by men. The method of group dialogue and socio-cultural dynamics can inadvertently favor male voices and thus perspectives....female dialogue was thus underutilized and brought up period because of this. Smac interpreted this as showing deference to women or giving women special treatment in group discourse in some way....which wasn't really even Juliann's point. Her point was that we're no where near equal in representative voice as women.

To me the problem in both this and some of the things you're mentioning is that it's coming from the assumption that male and female voices and perspectives are give equal time, value, and weight. They're currently not even given equal time, according to the research and stats that Juliann alluded to. And their perspectives are filtered through male assertions quite often of what's good or not. For example with your abortion example, it's not that you couldn't disagree. I would too (though probably less heatedly since my default just doesn't rund that way). The problem is that in society that's not what happens in these discourses. Male voices are often the deciding factors for predominately female concerns (example here).  It's also that at times, the reasons and concerns underlying decisions we disagree with are often underplayed, oversimplified, or misunderstood.  When this happens, there's also a tendency to create a negative dialogue about actions we disagree with. If there are few voices to counter and even fewer actually being heard beyond the stereotyped expectations, then it means one narrative is going to be privileged and heard more. This can also go into dialogue style, as Rain gave a great analogy to. On the micro-scale people can inadvertently dominate or hijack discourse by their assertions and how they present them.

 

I have to go, but those are a few of my thoughts before I run off to Church. happy No-Superbowl day to you! I will also not be watching...but that's because I don't do football much anyways :). 

 

With luv,

BD

[6EQUJ5]

I just want to say that I think Smac and Russell have shown incredible restraint and patience in exercising their priesthood discernment in this thread.  

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I just want to say that I think Smac and Russell have shown incredible restraint and patience in exercising their priesthood discernment in this thread.  

I didn't realize men had to use their priesthood to have a discussion with women. 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If you believe a man should open his own door, but a woman shouldn't, then you believe that men and women should not be treated equally in social settings where walking into doors is involved.

Bluebell, I am not sure if you are saying that men should not open doors for women here or what. I open always try to open the door for my wife, and other women. (I also will hold open the door for others, but my wife in particular, getting in and out of the car, etc.)

There is nothing wrong with a woman opening the door for her husband, or any other man if that is what they want to do. I am not going to get into the semantics of total equality or female/male differences.

If God ever decides to have women ordained to the priesthood, I will support that fully, but I will still open the door for my wife.

Glenn

[Calm]

Glenn, are you acting in these ways because you see yourself as respectful to others and desire to do these things because it is how you yourself express respect or because you want others to feel respected by you?

If the latter, it would be much better, imo, if you take the time to find out if the person wants you to do it first when you have the chance.  I realize that not all situations give you the time, but a simply gesture towards the door or other things with a "may I?" or even "should I" with a smile...something that shows you are focusing on them as individuals and not some generic group that you have written a standard for and so you react that way no matter what the individual wants or whether or not doing those things for her actually make her feel respected or something else.

Bottomline is "is it about me or about them?".

Edited February 7, 2016 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I just want to say that I think Smac and Russell have shown incredible restraint and patience in exercising their priesthood discernment in this thread.  

This sentence makes no sense?

Are you saying they restrained themselves from using the spirit of discernment bestowed by priesthood ordination?
Because #1 - not exercising the spirit of discernment is not a good thing and #2 - the spirit of discernment does not require priesthood.

Unless you mean they did show restraint and patience as a result of their priesthood discernment in which case I can't agree.

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Bluebell, I am not sure if you are saying that men should not open doors for women here or what. I open always try to open the door for my wife, and other women. (I also will hold open the door for others, but my wife in particular, getting in and out of the car, etc.)

There is nothing wrong with a woman opening the door for her husband, or any other man if that is what they want to do. I am not going to get into the semantics of total equality or female/male differences.

If God ever decides to have women ordained to the priesthood, I will support that fully, but I will still open the door for my wife.

Glenn

First, I really appreciate you asking me.

I mentioned it before but with all the different posts it was probably missed. 

I'm not addressing whether or not men should open doors for women. (My husband does for me too!) I'm just trying to get us to challenge our own thinking on why society treats women differently in different situations, and to challenge our own notions on how to show respect for women. 

So often we do things without examining why, or checking to see if they are effective in achieving our goal. 

[Russell C McGregor]

On 2/3/2016 at 7:00 PM, JAHS said:

Here's a clip of a film coming to a film festival near you. I guess they still haven't gotten the memo.

"Where We Stand is the latest film by the filmmaker Kristine Stolakis—it’s the story of a controversial group of Mormon feminists fighting for the ordination of women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In this short scene from the film, we meet Abby Hansen, a stay-at-home mom turned vocal advocate for Ordain Women. Stolakis wrote in an email: "The film is not just for Mormons. It is not just for feminists. It is for anyone who has questioned what it means to believe and to belong." Stolakis is currently running an Indiegogo to raise completion and distribution funds, and the full film will premiere in film festivals this winter."

The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood

Okay, to try to bring the thread back to the subject of the OP (in the light of the last few pages):

Since Kristine Stolakis is presumably a woman, no mere male should ever do anything as boorish as to disagree with her agenda.

Indeed, if any dirty male lout wants to discuss this matter at all, he should first allow all the women to have their say.

Because if he doesn't, then they'll feel intimidated, and all shrink like violets and sit as silent as wallflowers at a high school dance.

Now I suppose that if there are some faithful, conservative LDS women participating, said lout might be allowed to agree with those women; but that might become problematic, since it necessarily entails that he'll be disagreeing with the Mormon feminists.

(Or maybe that should be feminist Mormons, just to show what takes priority.)

So is it ever okay for a man to publicly disagree with a woman?

Or is that the one truly unforgivable sin?

 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Okay, to try to bring the thread back to the subject of the OP (in the light of the last few pages):

Since Kristine Stolakis is presumably a woman, no mere male should ever do anything as boorish as to disagree with her agenda.

Indeed, if any dirty male lout wants to discuss this matter at all, he should first allow all the women to have their say.

Because if he doesn't, then they'll feel intimidated, and all shrink like violets and sit as silent as wallflowers at a high school dance.

Now I suppose that if there are some faithful, conservative LDS women participating, said lout might be allowed to agree with those women; but that might become problematic, since it necessarily entails that he'll be disagreeing with the Mormon feminists.

(Or maybe that should be feminist Mormons, just to show what takes priority.)

So is it ever okay for a man to publicly disagree with a woman?

Or is that the one truly unforgivable sin?

 

Is reducing someone's argument or point down to its most absurd form a fallacy?

[6EQUJ5]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I didn't realize men had to use their priesthood to have a discussion with women. 

I said no such thing.  

Their interaction with both men and women has been exemplary.