The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood

[Russell C McGregor]

32 minutes ago, juliann said:

Watching the Mormon feminist sites having to deal with males is a stellar example of why women retreat to female enclaves. [This is not an endorsement, it is about the interactions.  I am sure this clarification will also be ignored by those who refuse to listen yet again, but there it is yet again.]  It eventually came to a head with the blog leaders telling the males to take a hike and setting up guidelines for male participation. It is also very apparent to anyone paying attention, that expelling aggressive males resulted in cohesion which made the women more influencial. As research also shows, women bring different dispositions and interests to the table. Allowing situations where they are silenced has a high cost to organizations. 

So the Matriarchy silence (or muzzle) the men -- and then insist that it's the men's fault.

Got it.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

When you say this is a believer's discussion, this is what I hear.

Your definition of a "believer" is one who defers to the Church leaders in everything they say and do.

All Church leaders are male and part of the established patriarchal hegemony of the LDS Church.

Hence, when you say the issue of the role of women in the LDS Church is a "believer's discussion," I hear you saying that only those who defer to the patriarchy have a valid voice.

Do you see why that might be problematic?

A believer is someone who (inter alia) firmly disagrees with that apostate manifesto you wrote in another thread.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Okay..I am out..it is a believer's discussion.  And you sir, have rebuked me in public.  I may have jumped ship from the church..but I am on the boat with the women here I care about. If I were you..I would be ashamed.

Tell McGregor to take a hike.  He is a bully and does not own the board nor this thread.   

 

[Russell C McGregor]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Tell McGregor to take a hike.  He is a bully and does not own the board nor this thread.   

 

Why need she fear any "bully" when she's got big, brave (and anonymous) Teancum standing up for her?

 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

a discussion about the Priesthood and who should receive it

I find this an extreme simplification about what was actually being discussed.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

So the Matriarchy silence (or muzzle) the men -- and then insist that it's the men's fault.

If imposing limits within which they are allowed to speak on men equates to silencing them, then the Church is silencing women.

I don't buy into that premise (I see it as appropriate for various forums to establish rules that encourage discussion around the topics they desire and remove those who interfere with the flow, intentionally divert it, etc, while allowing others who follow the rules and thus contribute to the conversations to speak as much as they want), so I don't see the Church doing that.  

Edited February 6, 2016 by Calm

[Russell C McGregor]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

If imposing limits within which they are allowed to speak on men equates to silencing them, then the Church is silencing women.

I don't buy into that premise, so I don't see the Church doing that.

The point is that Juliann was pointing to this example -- feminist bloggers making rules that only apply to men -- and trying to argue from that, that men are trying to "silence" women.

An astonishing argument, to say the least.

[Calm]

Quote

The point is that Juliann was pointing to this example -- feminist bloggers making rules that only apply to men -- and trying to argue from that, that men are trying to "silence" women.

If the men were trying to shout down women, whether or not they were successful at it is irrelevant.  

Quote

Why is the very same argument such a clear example of Male Chauvinist Piggery when directed at a woman, but not when it's directed at a man?

I would suggest that it is actually an example for both cases myself as it is more about an attitude of privilege at times than who it is directed at.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Calm

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

So the Matriarchy silence (or muzzle) the men -- and then insist that it's the men's fault.

Got it.

 

Sometimes men need to be silenced (and sometimes women need to be silenced).  If people start to bully people along gender lines, then the gender doing the bullying should expect to suffer some consequences.  It's not difficult to understand that the consequences they suffer will be their own fault.

Both sexes can and do bully along gender lines, however, historically, more often it is men bullying women.  It's not because they band together and consciously think they are better than women.  It's just that the group that feels the most powerful often bullies the group that feels the least powerful when they start to disagree with each other (we all know that quote from JS about power corrupting).  Men are generally taught to feel more powerful than women from childhood so that's why they are (generally) the bullies if it comes to that.

It sucks, and i know it's not fun for any man to hear it (it's not fun for any woman to experience it), but it's a demonstrated and established fact so there's no reason to hash it out every time the subject comes up.  Men who don't do that don't need to take it personally.  Women are well aware that not all men (or even most men) behave that way often or ever.

It can be helpful, for those men who care, to understand the baggage that they carry into discussions with women, often not of their own doing.  It's not unusual for people to have a 'once bitten, twice shy' reaction to situations they've experienced before.  Because so many women have been bullied by a man in an intellectual discussion, it can be helpful, for those men who care, to tread lightly until some trust is established.  

Maybe it's not fair to expect men to want to do that, but it doesn't seem like that much to ask, all things considered.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why wife often reminds me I need to talk less and listen more. I doubt I'm the only one.

[Guest]

I think that if we can, or if God allows us as a Church to extend the Priesthood to women. Those who will recieve it will be those who have keep faith with Learders and the Church. Those who openly rebell will find them selves either facing Church Disapline, or will have gone to Churches that allow it, putting themselves at the back of the line. Then if there in any movement here within the Church, they will once again at the back of the line, while those who were faithful and "...waited on the Lord", will be the first to reap that blessing. 

[Teancum]

54 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Why need she fear any "bully" when she's got big, brave (and anonymous) Teancum standing up for her?

 

you are a bully.  And most your posting style is typically despicable and short on substance.

and who said anything  about fear.   I didn't see where she was afraid of you.   More likely just tired of your asinine behavior and antics.

and if you think taunting me as being anonymous bothers me, well guess what?   It doesn't.   You aren't brave for posting under your real name.   You are foolish.

Just so you know.

 

Edited February 6, 2016 by Teancum

[Calm]

Think I am getting too off topic, so deleting...pardon the weird formatting

 

Edited February 6, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

Why wife often reminds me I need to talk less and listen more. I doubt I'm the only one.

It is important to actually listen and not just keep quiet (I am not implying here that Avatar is not listening to his wife, just taking the conversation a step further).  Allowing others to talk but then not engaging them more than in superficial terms is very discouraging to those attempting to be heard and those that get treated this way may feel as silenced as those who get shouted down.

For example, a simple agreement may seem to fill the need to the one doing it, but unless one gives the reasons why one is agreeing, it generally will feel like an empty gesture; the other doesn't care enough about one to think about what one is saying.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Calm

[Russell C McGregor]

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

you are a bully.  And most your posting style is typically despicable and short on substance.

and who said anything  about fear.   I didn't see where she was afraid of you.   More likely just tired of your asinine behavior and antics.

and if you think taunting me as being anonymous bothers me, well guess what?   It doesn't.   You aren't brave for posting under your real name.   You are foolish.

Just so you know.

 

And the above post has about as much substance as anything I've ever seen from you.

So, since you are the one who started the name-calling, I'm afraid you are a textbook case of pots and kettles.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

And here are the rules that FMH have that are directed specifically at men, don't really see much silencing potential there towards men for being men:

Quote

If you are uncomfortable with feminism being female focused, this is the wrong space for you. Having daughters or sisters or a wife or mother is not enough ground to give you the same skin in this game that women have. We notice and appreciate and benefit greatly from associating with male allies (here’s a handy link to help you think about how you’re doing as an ally to marginalized groups). If you care about justice, we welcome you with open arms.

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/commenting-policy/

So they welcome male comments, but only from men who'll toe the line and agree with them.

It's impossible to disagree with their ideology unless you don't "care about justice."

Censorship. It is what it is.

 

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

And the above post has about as much substance as anything I've ever seen from you.

So, since you are the one who started the name-calling, I'm afraid you are a textbook case of pots and kettles.

 

Deleted.

 

it is not worth it and is such a waste of time

Edited February 6, 2016 by Teancum

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

So they....

 

This is getting into crossposting blogs that the mods have been unhappy about in the past plus it seems very off topic to me nor do I feel the need to defend FMH, so I deleted my post and don't intend to carry on the conversation in that direction.  My apologies for wasting your time.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Calm

[Russell C McGregor]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Deleted.

 

it is not worth it and is such a waste of time

Hey, Teancum?

Plonk!

[Russell C McGregor]

 

Hi Calm,

You're right. This isn't very productive, and it's getting heated, too. I apologise for my part in it.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Why wife often reminds me I need to talk less and listen more. I doubt I'm the only one.

Just came across a reminder of this talk:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/what-are-you-thinking?lang=eng

Quote

 

There exists today a great need for men and women to cultivate respect for each other across wide distances of belief and behavior and across deep canyons of conflicting agendas. It is impossible to know all that informs our minds and hearts or even to fully understand the context for the trials and choices we each face.

Nevertheless, what would happen to the “corrupt communication” Paul spoke about if our own position included empathy for another’s experience first? Fully owning the limits of my own imperfections and rough edges, I plead with you to practice asking this question, with tender regard for another’s experience: “What are you thinking?”...

The willingness to see through each other’s eyes will transform “corrupt communication” into “minister[ing] grace.” The Apostle Paul understood this, and on some level each of us can experience it too. It may not change or solve the problem, but the more important possibility may be whether ministering grace could change us.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2016 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think you raise some intriguing and interesting points.

One phenomenon I have observed is that some women appear to expect an inappropriate type of deference to their gender in some social interactions (obviously some men feel this way about themselves as well).  For example, I recently watched a YouTube video that was a compilation of women resorting to violence against men in social situations (at a party, on a subway, etc.).  These women are recorded shoving or striking or scratching or pulling hair.  None of this is particularly noteworthy, until the target of the violence responds in kind.  That is, a man who is being struck strikes back.  A man being shoved shoves back.  And the reaction from these women (remember, it's a compilation video) is . . . weird.  These women start yelling and expressing outrage that a man has struck them.  Most of them make immediately react with statements which presume that it is inappropriate for a man to hit a woman.  While I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly, I am staggered the the . . . irony of these situations.

There's not as much irony as you may thing. It's in the stats. What you're witnessing is basic IPV's....in basic amount of violence, men and women are fairly equal. What drastically changes is the likelihood of injury (men, largely seriously injure women in domestic violence cases), and the sense of fear that comes with the violence (Men are less likely to report a sense of fear from their partner's violence). They're also far more likely to batter their wives. So in essence, though both are bad and no way ok, one is most definitely more dangerous.  

Quote

 

I can't help but wonder if there is some semblance of this attitude that arises in online discussions.  Frankly, I have come across it a few times.  Instances where women have expressed displeasure that another person, a man, has disagreed with her, a woman.  In the instances I have in mind the displeasure appears to be unrelated to the substance of the disagreement, but instead focuses on the fact that a man has dared to publicly disagree with or criticize remarks made by a woman.  The sentiment appears to be something like "To criticize or disagree with my argument is to disrespect my status as a woman."

I am reminded of a time I criticized a blog post by Jana Reiss.  I did not make a single reference to her gender, nor did I question her character or integrity in any way.  I did, however, strongly disagree with her remarks, and explained in detail the reasoning for my disagreement.  There was an immediate torrent of blowback against my comments, many of which took exception to me, a man, disagreeing with Jana, a woman because I am a man and she is a woman.  In fact, even Jana herself chimed in and said: "One might wonder also how the reputation of the Church is negatively affected when a male member of that Church suggests to a female member that she has no right to express opinions in the public square, and would do better to keep them to herself." I responded as follows: "Oh brother. Don’t hide behind your gender. First, I have said nothing about your comments that pertain one whit to you being a woman. Second, I would have said the same things to a male church member posting remarks such as yours. Third, I have said nothing to the effect that you have 'no right to express opinions in the public square,' or that you should keep them to yourself."

 

There probably is....I have a hard time remembering an instance that i've seen like this on online discussions except when men were overstepping in female spheres (for example, telling women how they should or shouldn't feel about a more female-effected issue). Also, i got curious and looked up the discussion you mentioned. I personally think it's not as cut and dry as you've mentioned. Yes, both of these things were stated, word-for-word. But from an outsider, I can see why you initially got problematic responses in the first place. It didn't fit the more light tone of both the blog post and the usual commentators' style. It was also a little patronizing (not that you intentionally meant to be....i saw it as more of a blindspot) with several value laden words (such as malign and fairly quick dismissal of her feelings). When those same flaws happen here in new poster styles, the results can be far more fiery than what I saw there. 

Quote

 

I have great respect for women as a category.  For their intellect and wisdom.  For their immeasurable contributions to society.  I also have strong beliefs about chivalry.  I have taught my sons to never, under any circumstances, use physical force against a woman (except perhaps to restrain her, using the least force possible, to prevent her from harming someone else).  I have taught them that if they are ever struck by a girl to walk away.  I have also taught them the basic residual components of chivalry that still exist today (open doors for women and girls, stand when they enter/leave a room, etc.).  I know such token expressions of deference and respect are offensive to some women, but I think there are more who appreciate them.  I have specifically told my sons that such expressions are intended to be nonverbal expressions of respect and honor, that our society has had in the past some unfortunate notions about the relative values of men and women, and that such nonverbal expressions will hopefully be taken as they are intended.

But chivalry of this sort only goes so far.  In matters of rhetoric and debate, I generally dispense with conventions pertaining to gender-based deference and respect, and instead presume that participants to the discussion are all on equal footing, that each side's argument should be examined on its merits, and that the gender of the person presenting the argument is irrelevant.  As an attorney I have worked with dozens of women, and in my recollection none of them have appeared to expect me to modify my conduct as an attorney, my representation of my client's interests, in such a way as to show an opposing female attorney deference for her gender.  We are all on equal footing on paper and in the courtroom.  And although we are clearly all bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct and (in Utah) the Standards of Professionalism and Civility, we are none of us expected to alter arguments or constrain ourselves from zealously protecting our client's interest just because a person on the other side is a woman.

In my view, women can't have it both ways.  They cannot present their views in a public forum and expect that those views be put on equal footing with the views of men (a sentiment I wholeheartedly endorse), but then turn around and expect deferential and privileged treatment for their views simply because those views come from women.  If an idea has merit, then let it be demonstrated, not presumed because of the gender of the idea's presenter.  

 

I'm not going to lie, i'm one who gets a little squeamish by it. Not because I'm offended but because it often feels like a glorified bandaid to the problem. Hearing respect and symbolic gestures doesn't give me the actual respect and deference that I actual need. It's interesting to read parts of a discussion about silence, violence, and so forth....particularly since I spent over 3 hours today talking to women who have some form of abuse happen to them recently. The juxtaposition is my own sense of irony, as I see several of the cultural factors (and several having LDS ties) maintain silence, violence, coercion, and a sense of serving others that often removed their own voices from their marriages and their capacity to choose what they need in their lives. Yes, abuse happens to men too and I've had them in my office....I just get a lot more women. For what it's worth, I don't want equal (ie. sameness) footing with men as for women....I want equitable footing. And equitable means that women have more deference for specific issues that disproportionately effect them...and that those issues actually be addressed. Having men speak for them simply doesn't work as effectively....and often means that women's issues get back seats in change and social decisions.

 

With luv,

BD

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I certainly didn't.

But the "I am woman" model of feminism means that if anyone dares to disagree with any woman for any reason, it's seen as an attack on that woman for no other reason that that she is a woman.

And therefore it's an attack on all women.

And therefore every woman is not only entitled! but actually obligated to take personal offence.

I predict that this is going to become increasingly prevalent in American politics in the next few months. Nobody will be allowed to vote against St.Hillary because they disagree with her platform or have misgivings about her character or her record; every criticism of her will be turned into an anti-woman thing.

(Please don't chase that comment into a derail of the thread. It's merely an illustration of what I'm talking about.)

No one is being silenced or bullied. The Church continues as always, if you want to be a member in good standing or a member at all, then there are rules and bylaws. Just as with every other Church, and when those laws have been violated, discipline follows, but it is then that all the print of criticism begins while trying to attack member to "any" cause. Then comes the meetings and the talking points and contacting the media or anyone who'll listen. Soon after this comes the shouting down of leader in meeting, robbing all in attendance of the Spirit. This formular fits any topic or institution. The templet never changes 

[smac97]

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

There's not as much irony as you may thing. It's in the stats. What you're witnessing is basic IPV's....in basic amount of violence, men and women are fairly equal. What drastically changes is the likelihood of injury (men, largely seriously injure women in domestic violence cases), and the sense of fear that comes with the violence (Men are less likely to report a sense of fear from their partner's violence). They're also far more likely to batter their wives. So in essence, though both are bad and no way ok, one is most definitely more dangerous.  

 

I'm still not seeing the irony.  It is grossly hypocritical (that's the better word, really) for a woman to strike a man and feel justified in doing so because she is less capable of inflicting serious injury.  If, as a general rule, it is morally wrong for Person A to physically assault Person B, then that rule ought not be modified with "unless, of course, Person A is a woman and Person B is a man, then it's not quite as bad, since women generally aren't as 'dangerous' in their physical assaults as men."

I know you don't insert that caveat, and I appreciate that.  But some do, hence the hypocrisy.

Quote

There probably is....I have a hard time remembering an instance that i've seen like this on online discussions except when men were overstepping in female spheres (for example, telling women how they should or shouldn't feel about a more female-effected issue). Also, i got curious and looked up the discussion you mentioned. I personally think it's not as cut and dry as you've mentioned. Yes, both of these things were stated, word-for-word. But from an outsider, I can see why you initially got problematic responses in the first place. It didn't fit the more light tone of both the blog post and the usual commentators' style. It was also a little patronizing (not that you intentionally meant to be....i saw it as more of a blindspot) with several value laden words (such as malign and fairly quick dismissal of her feelings). When those same flaws happen here in new poster styles, the results can be far more fiery than what I saw there. 

I think you are only illustrating my point.  I said nothing that had anything to do with Jana's gender.  Not.  One.  Word.  I have had hundreds of strongly-worded discussions with men online about my faith, but I have never once been accused of misandry.  I am, or can be, very blunt in my online comments.  Sometimes I struggle with that, sometimes I feel more at ease with it.  Overall I should probably be a bit lighter in tone, but if so that would apply to all my communications.  Regardless of the gender of the person reading them.  But your comments above seem to demonstrate the very expectation of deference I spoke of earlier.

I have no qualms with making remarks that don't "fit the more light tone" of the the other person with whom I am conversing.  So what?  What does that have to do with gender?  How is differentiating "tone" a sexist thing?  To be entirely frank, it sounds like you're saying what I should have done is been more deferential.  I should have followed Jana's lead and let her "tone" dictate mine.  And not because there is any rhyme or reason for such a thing, except that she is a woman and I am a man, so I should have treated her with rhetorical kid gloves.  That I should treat her differently because of her gender.

Reasonable minds can disagree about characterizations like "patronizing".  Frankly, I find Jana's overall writing style to be quite patronizing (or is it "matronizing" in this context?).  Her blog is essentially one big gripefest.  She faults the Church, its doctrines, its policies, its members and its leaders, with some few token and begrudged acknowledgments that Latter-day Saints occasionally pass her muster.  And she does so publicly.  All the time.  But since she's given her blog a self-deprecating title ("Flunking Sainthood"), that apparently makes all of this okay.

But hey, can I even say such things about her?  I mean, she is a woman, after all.  And I have criticized her.  Even though my criticisms have absolutely nothing to do with her gender, some readers will now think that I am some sort of sexist jerk.  Because I, a man, said something critical of another person, a woman.  Does this state of affairs ipso facto give rise to a presumption of misogyny?  Because I am blunt about my assessment of Jana's blog, and because Jana is a woman, I can now be accused of sexism, even though I neither said nor implied anything having to do with her gender (or mine)?  Put another way, what I should have done is altered my assessment of her blog to treat it with more deference and respect, solely because its author is a woman?

Jana resorted to accusing me of sexism without cause.  She did so, I think, because she wanted to short circuit discussion.  Or perhaps she lacked a substantive response to my comments.  Or because she was offended that I, a man, chose not to treat her remarks with sufficient deference and respect which should arise from those remarks having been written by a woman.  

If I present a critical argument in response to something written by a woman, and if that argument is disparaging to the author because she is a woman, or that her argument is to be discounted because she is a woman (such as saying something along the lines of "Shut your piehole.  This is a man's discussion"), then I would hope to be called on it.  That is simply an innately defective, meritless argument.

However, this means that I will proceed (as, I believe, I generally do) to treat women as equals with men when having online discussions.  That may mean that I might be blunt, because to abstain from bluntness would be to treat women differently and with a gender-based deference.  But to do so would, in my mind, be based on the false notion that women are too dainty to be treated the same way as men are.  I do not accept that.  

When I am making written or oral arguments in court as an attorney, I do not alter my arguments or pull my rhetorical punches when opposing counsel is a woman.  I hold her to the same standard as I hold men.  That's not a flaw.  I do not err by not matching her "tone" or because my remarks are "patronizing" or because I use "value laden words."  Here's the thing: I also sometimes don't match the "tone" of remarks made by men, either.  But that doesn't make me guilty of misandry, does it?  So it is when and if I fail to comport with the "tone" of something written by a woman.  My remarks may be characterized as being "patronizing" (honestly, I can see this) or as using "value laden words" (no idea what this means).  But none of this has anything to do with gender.  

Again, women can't have it both ways.  They cannot present their views in a public forum and expect that those views be put on equal footing with the views of men (a sentiment I wholeheartedly endorse), but then turn around and expect deferential and privileged treatment for their views simply because those views come from women.  If an idea has merit, then let it be demonstrated, not presumed because of the gender of the idea's presenter.

Quote

I'm not going to lie, i'm one who gets a little squeamish by it. Not because I'm offended but because it often feels like a glorified bandaid to the problem.

I do not offer "token expressions of deference and respect" to women in social settings as a band-aid.  But even if I were to do so, how is that a bad thing?  Couldn't the offering of such tokens be construed as a sort of extrapolated utilization of the "Broken Windows Theory"?  Here's a summary of that theory:

Quote

The broken windows theory is a criminological theory of the norm-setting and signaling effect of urban disorder and vandalism on additional crime and anti-social behavior. The theory states that maintaining and monitoring urban environments to prevent small crimes such as vandalism, public drinking, and toll-jumping helps to create an atmosphere of order and lawfulness, thereby preventing more serious crimes from happening.

Similarly, what if we were to come up with a "Modern Chivalry Theory," where a norm-setting and signaling effect is established by encouraging men and boys to reinvigorate and adopt a few old-fashioned traditions, such as referring to women and girls as "Ma'am" or "Miss" ("Good morning, ma'am, how are you?"), standing when they enter or leave a room (in formal settings), and opening doors for them and letting them enter first (most settings)?  Might such token expressions of deference help create an atmosphere of decorum where women feel valued and respected?  Might these expressions also help reduce/prevent more serious expressions of gender-based misconduct?

Quote

Hearing respect and symbolic gestures doesn't give me the actual respect and deference that I actual need.

I don't understand this.  "Respect" is not a tangible thing.  It is an attitude which must be demonstrated.  So for me, I often demonstrate/express that attitude by saying and doing things that convey it, particularly by using old-fashioned - and therefore easily recognized - expressions of respect and deference.

Quote

It's interesting to read parts of a discussion about silence, violence, and so forth....particularly since I spent over 3 hours today talking to women who have some form of abuse happen to them recently.

Again, I don't get this.  Verbal abuse is a very bad thing.  A viable antidote can be found in both abstaining from abusive language and replacing it with respectful language.  But you seem to dismiss this latter part as "a glorified band-aid."

Quote

The juxtaposition is my own sense of irony, as I see several of the cultural factors (and several having LDS ties) maintain silence, violence, coercion, and a sense of serving others that often removed their own voices from their marriages and their capacity to choose what they need in their lives. Yes, abuse happens to men too and I've had them in my office....I just get a lot more women. For what it's worth, I don't want equal (ie. sameness) footing with men as for women....I want equitable footing. And equitable means that women have more deference for specific issues that disproportionately effect them...and that those issues actually be addressed. Having men speak for them simply doesn't work as effectively....and often means that women's issues get back seats in change and social decisions.

I appreciate and agree with your sentiments, though I'm not sure what you mean by "specific issues that disproportionately affect" women, such that women should be given "more deference" about them.  I don't necessarily dispute that such issues exist, or that deference about them should be afforded.  I just don't know specifically what you have in mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 6, 2016 by smac97

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think you are only illustrating my point.  I said nothing that had anything to do with Jana's gender.  Not.  One.  Word.  I have had hundreds of strongly-worded discussions with men online about my faith, but I have never once been accused of misandry.  I am, or can be, very blunt in my online comments.  Sometimes I struggle with that, sometimes I feel more at ease with it.  Overall I should probably be a bit lighter in tone, but if so that would apply to all my communications.  Regardless of the gender of the person reading them.  But your comments above seem to demonstrate the very expectation of deference I spoke of earlier.

I have no qualms with making remarks that don't "fit the more light tone" of the the other person with whom I am conversing.  So what?  What does that have to do with gender?  How is differentiating "tone" a sexist thing?  To be entirely frank, it sounds like you're saying what I should have done is been more deferential.  I should have followed Jana's lead and let her "tone" dictate mine.  And not because there is any rhyme or reason for such a thing, except that she is a woman and I am a man, so I should have treated her with rhetorical kid gloves.  That I should treat her differently because of her gender.

-Smac

I'm confused by some things Smac and maybe you can clarify.

You spoke in a previous post about how you like to show (and have even taught your sons to show) deference to women in certain physical situations (such as opening doors, standing when they leave or enter a room, etc.).  You said that you believe that treating women with that deference is a good thing, an important way to interact with them to show them respect and to encourage respect for women in others.

But in this section above you talk about how women do not deserve any deference when it comes to actually communicating with them.  You've gone out of your way to illustrate just how wrong it is for women to expect you to show them any deference and how you would find it hypocritical to show them any.

How do you support that double standard?  Why do women deserve deference in some situations but not in others?

I would especially like to understand this given that the things you do support showing deference to women for (while chivalrous) don't actually make women's lives much better or easier but that the things that you don't support showing deference to women for have the ability to make a HUGE impact for good on a woman's emotional and mental well-being?

Lastly, does it give you pause at all that when BlueDreams explained why it doesn't necessarily make her feel more respected when a man holds a door open for her, that your first reaction was to explain to her why her feelings were wrong?