On Gender Roles, The Proclamation, and USA Today

[Darren10]

19 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

The NR article is correct to praise these good men. The article errs in speculating that unnamed people or media will criticize the press coverage for not depicting equal numbers of women rescuers. There's simply no evidence of that. And the burden is on NR (and you) to show an example. 

I have no problem if your dad was a better father than your mother and vice versa. Only you can speak to that. But when you generalize about all men and women your conclusions become unsound.

As for the scriptures, there are many teaching the principle that both genders are of equal value (e.g., Gen 1:27; 2 Ne. 26:33). There are some specific verses in the N.T. that define roles such as 1 Timothy 2:12 ("I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.") or Colossians 3:18 ("Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.") but the LDS church does not apply those teachings today; most members view them as Paul's cultural view rather than a commandment from God. 

If you really want to fruitfully discuss differences between the genders, you're going to have to make the first move and be specific as to what the differences are.

"The article errs in speculating that unnamed people in the media will criticize the press coverage for not depicting equal numbers of women rescuers."

I actually agree yet look at California Boy and ALarson's posts. Even Blue Dreams seemed to have felt obligated to insert "this is a little too pro masculine, not emphasizing the value of women" article. The media is not far behind. I don't think I can tell you why exactly but many seem to follow this same pattern. I'm confident to say that I think NR's claim will soon be validated.

EDITED TO AD: "But when you generalize about all men and women your conclusions become unsound" - *In general*, sir, *in general*. Not at all absolute.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  I honestly don't care about that and it was not mentioned in my original post (who it was that posted the pictures, only that I was touched by them).

You know what, Darren?  You're really making no sense now.  

I absolutely did not criticize the pictures in the OP, nor did I criticize the news outlet for not publishing pictures of women performing rescues.  I stated that these pictures could have been of women and that women could have done the things shown in the pictures.  I would have been just as touched either way.  I stated that the emotions that one feels to help and protect are human.  This not a male/female issue and it's divisive to continue trying to do that. Others have now posted pictures of women involved in the rescue proving the exact point I was making.

 

 

Original post: " It's not a male/female thing, IMO, but these are human emotions and desires to help, protect and rescue someone in trouble."

In other words, "where's the women rescuers? Why are they not honored [equally]?"

Am I wrong?

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"The article errs in speculating that unnamed people in the media will criticize the press coverage for not depicting equal numbers of women rescuers."

I actually agree yet look at California Boy and ALarson's posts. Even Blue Dreams seemed to have felt obligated to insert "this is a little too pro masculine, not emphasizing the value of women" article. 

You're wrong. No one here has critiqued the article for not depicting "equal" numbers of women rescuers.  You continue to attempt to say this, but you are misrepresenting those you've named above.  If you want an honest discussion here, you need to be honest about what others have posted.

[BlueDreams]

11 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Sorry the young women were not invited. That could have been done better.

"I am not saying that the efforts weren't male dominated. They were."

Thank you! Now, that's a social good, is it not? In and of itself. Not automatically trying to equate it with women or feeling obliged to jump in and say, "hey, women are important too!", nobody is saying they are not. But, in and of itself, when men get together and act like men and go out in the mist of danger and use their physical strength to rescue people, that is good. These are men being men and that the result is good.

Yes, you're right it could have been. But it's also something that happens very commonly. That was not the first, nor the last time I had to interject myself into what was considered a male interest. Or been questioned whether I was fit to "handle it." This wasn't a one time thing. 

It's a social good that men helped, yes. It's not one that women are often discouraged in various forms from doing the same thing. And what is meant by "act like men?" By the example I gave with helping hands I wanted to "act like men" and pick up debris. I would have (if I owned a boat or canoe) wouldn't have hesitated to swim out and look for those in need of rescue. I hate sitting around watching others do it all. The result is good. These men are wonderful heros. As were the women who did the same.   
 

 

Quote

 

I think that that is all the article is saying with the intent to refute the constant barrage of pain and suffering caused by men dominating society.

NOTE: Of course there has been suffering due to male dominance but the social message today, from many sources, is that masculinity, males dominating, is the bane of great suffering and that masculinity, male dominance, is naturally bad.

"This is from the same outlet that denies an existence of rape culture while I and people like me have to work to heal those suffering from its destructive effects." - Bless you for your efforts. If you want to touch on this, we can but that'll derail the topic at hand. That is that when men are men society does well.

 

What do you mean by male dominance? I admit I do not like the phrase. It exudes power differentials. But if it's more like male heavy areas of activity, I don't really care either way. It's no biggie if men prefer owning fishing boats over women. 

And I think the caricature of feminist critique about male dominance and masculinity or gender roles on this thread is close to looking like a straw man. I'm very much a feminist and doesn't accurately represent most feminist messages that I've ever heard. Particularly if they happen to be longer than a blog post.  I give rape culture as an example as to what feminists are deeply concerned and critiquing that can be seen as fighting or demonizing men. We do not have to talk about it in this thread, but it is why I find the male victimhood and professed demonization so irritating. It would be nice to have actual specifics to these deep attacks of all things manly that is supposedly happening. Because from where I sit, I don't really see it. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

17 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"The article errs in speculating that unnamed people in the media will criticize the press coverage for not depicting equal numbers of women rescuers."

I actually agree yet look at California Boy and ALarson's posts. Even Blue Dreams seemed to have felt obligated to insert "this is a little too pro masculine, not emphasizing the value of women" article. The media is not far behind. I don't think I can tell you why exactly but many seem to follow this same pattern. I'm confident to say that I think NR's claim will soon be validated.

EDITED TO AD: "But when you generalize about all men and women your conclusions become unsound" - *In general*, sir, *in general*. Not at all absolute.

I never said anything like that. You're missing the point.

With luv,

BD 

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Original post: " It's not a male/female thing, IMO, but these are human emotions and desires to help, protect and rescue someone in trouble."

In other words, "where's the women rescuers? Why are they not honored [equally]?"

Am I wrong?

Yes.  Please stop trying to put meaning to my words that were not there or ever expressed.  I never stated that there should have been an "equal" number of pictures portraying women rescuers.

Please drop this and move on.

[Darren10]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes.  Please stop trying to put meaning to my words that were not there or ever expressed.  I never stated that there should have been an "equal" number of pictures portraying women rescuers.

Please drop this and move on.

Original post: "but I do think that women could have been pictured doing the same things as these men were doing (especially trained firefighters or police who are women, women who are military/ex-military and many others).  Women also have "protective instincts" and I'd imagine that there were women involved in rescues as well as these men."

(Bold mine)

Well, sounds to me like you desire more pictures of women as they too were involved in the rescue. 

[Darren10]

23 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Yes, you're right it could have been. But it's also something that happens very commonly. That was not the first, nor the last time I had to interject myself into what was considered a male interest. Or been questioned whether I was fit to "handle it." This wasn't a one time thing. 

It's a social good that men helped, yes. It's not one that women are often discouraged in various forms from doing the same thing. And what is meant by "act like men?" By the example I gave with helping hands I wanted to "act like men" and pick up debris. I would have (if I owned a boat or canoe) wouldn't have hesitated to swim out and look for those in need of rescue. I hate sitting around watching others do it all. The result is good. These men are wonderful heros. As were the women who did the same.   
 

 

What do you mean by male dominance? I admit I do not like the phrase. It exudes power differentials. But if it's more like male heavy areas of activity, I don't really care either way. It's no biggie if men prefer owning fishing boats over women. 

And I think the caricature of feminist critique about male dominance and masculinity or gender roles on this thread is close to looking like a straw man. I'm very much a feminist and doesn't accurately represent most feminist messages that I've ever heard. Particularly if they happen to be longer than a blog post.  I give rape culture as an example as to what feminists are deeply concerned and critiquing that can be seen as fighting or demonizing men. We do not have to talk about it in this thread, but it is why I find the male victimhood and professed demonization so irritating. It would be nice to have actual specifics to these deep attacks of all things manly that is supposedly happening. Because from where I sit, I don't really see it. 

 

With luv,

BD

"The result is good. These men are wonderful heros. As were the women who did the same."

Yet, *this type* of rescuing was done overwhelmingly by men. Is that wrong? So, why do you seem to feel onlbigated to insert 'as were the women'? No one is denying nor diminishing that. This article simply honors men for being men. 

[california boy]

40 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"The article errs in speculating that unnamed people in the media will criticize the press coverage for not depicting equal numbers of women rescuers."

I actually agree yet look at California Boy and ALarson's posts. Even Blue Dreams seemed to have felt obligated to insert "this is a little too pro masculine, not emphasizing the value of women" article. The media is not far behind. I don't think I can tell you why exactly but many seem to follow this same pattern. I'm confident to say that I think NR's claim will soon be validated.

EDITED TO AD: "But when you generalize about all men and women your conclusions become unsound" - *In general*, sir, *in general*. Not at all absolute.

i also never said anything like that.  My objection is the very concept behind this thread.  I don't think that rescuing people from natural disasters and in time of need is gender defined.  And I find it insulting for someone to suggest that it is gender defined.  It is human defined, not male defined or female defined.  There is NO gender definition going on here.  The premise of this thread is insulting frankly to both genders.   Now I have said the same thing three times in three different ways.  Don't misconstrue what my point is.  Because I don't think I could be more clear what I am strongly objecting to.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Women in general cannot do the same things as men. Not even close. Likewise, in general, men cannot do things women can do, not by a long shot. 

Right, men can't have periods or grow babies in their bellies.  They can have breasts, even big ones, but not milk producing though that won't stop them from feeding babies since bottles are always available (and they can even use expressed breast milk if they choose).  Men tend to sink faster than women do.

Women may not be able to lift as heavy things as men in general, but they can lift heavy things.  They may not be able to run as fast as men in general, but they can run.  They can't pee safely fully standing up, but squatting works.  Women are often pictured carrying kids around, including more than one.

Besides babybuilding, not seeing this huge difference in significant capability.

Doesnt mean I am against some division of labour, just let's not exaggerate inabilities.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"In all the news about Harvey, I have seen zero articles decrying men who are helping. " - It's not about critiquing males helping out during Harvey. It's about pointing out the social benefits of men being men during a crisis.

Depends what "men being men" means.

"Men" is not equivalent to "heroic" in my view.  The male looters were men as much as the male first responders.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Calm

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Original post: "but I do think that women could have been pictured doing the same things as these men were doing (especially trained firefighters or police who are women, women who are military/ex-military and many others).  Women also have "protective instincts" and I'd imagine that there were women involved in rescues as well as these men."

(Bold mine)

Well, sounds to me like you desire more pictures of women as they too were involved in the rescue. 

Really?

You forgot to quote the rest of my statement:

Quote

 I am touched by the pictures above and would be just as touched if it were women carrying children on their hips or helping just as these men were doing.  It's not a male/female thing, IMO, but these are human emotions and desires to help, protect and rescue someone in trouble.

Nowhere in there did I state that there should be more pictures of female rescuers or that there should have been an "equal" number of pictures of women.  I stated just the opposite and that this was not a "male/female" thing.

Once again, move on.  No one has stated what you are accusing them of posting here.  

Edited September 2, 2017 by ALarson

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

False. If you make a Venn diagram of all "things" men and women can do, the overlap is much much much greater than the non-overlap. The value of "men being men" is no greater than "women being men" or "men being women." To whit, my father is one of the best mothers I've ever met. Truly a compassionate and nurturing man. I aspire to be just as good a mother as he is. That's not to downplay how great a mother my mom is. She's just as good; and also just as good a father as is my dad. 

In the gospel sense of what really matters - i.e., taking on us the 'image of Christ' - there is no difference. The image of Christ is the same for all men and women. That's why there is no need for a female savior. Christ's gender is as unimportant to his 'image' as is his skin color, height, spoken language, hair style, blood type or any other physical characteristic. What matters are the characteristics spelled out in the beatitudes, D/C 121, and many other places in the scriptures. Those characteristics are equally available to all. 

Now this is the attitude I would hope most members of the church would have concerning genders.  Very well put.  I guess I have a dislike for putting genders into little boxes because life is not really like that at all.  Nor should it be.  We all have limitations. But they are individual limitations and not gender limitations.  

If i can not lift as much weight as a body builder, does that make me less of a man?  If I can not be as nurturing as some woman, does that make me more of a man?

Edited September 2, 2017 by california boy

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Original post: " It's not a male/female thing, IMO, but these are human emotions and desires to help, protect and rescue someone in trouble."

In other words, "where's the women rescuers? Why are they not honored [equally]?"

Am I wrong?

Yes.

The criticism was about the attack on feminism.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Original post: "but I do think that women could have been pictured doing the same things as these men were doing (especially trained firefighters or police who are women, women who are military/ex-military and many others).  Women also have "protective instincts" and I'd imagine that there were women involved in rescues as well as these men."

(Bold mine)

Well, sounds to me like you desire more pictures of women as they too were involved in the rescue. 

He was just saying it would have been possible to put women up there as there are plenty of pictures of women rescuers out there, not that they should have.  Thus the argument that the pictures prove something fundamentally different about men is invalid.

I could also say they could have pictures of tons of fire ants piggybacking on each other just like humans were piggybacking, doesn't mean I think such pictures are needed.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

 

32 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Original post: "but I do think that women could have been pictured doing the same things as these men were doing (especially trained firefighters or police who are women, women who are military/ex-military and many others).  Women also have "protective instincts" and I'd imagine that there were women involved in rescues as well as these men."

(Bold mine)

Well, sounds to me like you desire more pictures of women as they too were involved in the rescue. 

It would be really nice if you would allow people to say what they actually desire instead of insisting they meant something else just because you read it a certain way.  Perhaps after five or so times of correction, you might consider you are inferring something not there in their words and thus misunderstanding rather than they are lying about their actual desires.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Calm

[Darren10]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Right, men can't have periods or grow babies in their bellies.  They can have breasts, even big ones, but not milk producing though that won't stop them from feeding babies since bottles are always available (and they can even use expressed breast milk if they choose).  Men tend to sink faster than women do.

Women may not be able to lift as heavy things as men in general, but they can lift heavy things.  They may not be able to run as fast as men in general, but they can run.  They can't pee safely fully standing up, but squatting works.  

Besides babybuilding, not seeing this huge difference in significant capability.

Doesnt mean I am against some division of labour, just let's not exaggerate inabilities.

"Right, men can't have periods or grow babies in their bellies.  They can have breasts, even big ones, but not milk producing though that won't stop them from feeding babies since bottles are always available (and they can even use expressed breast milk if they choose).  Men tend to sink faster than women do."

Correct. Plus women can pull their body up better than men and stand on their toes better than men.

"just let's not exaggerate inabilities"

Such as...

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

He was just saying it would have been possible to put women up there as there are plenty of pictures of women rescuers out there, not that they should have.  Thus the argument that the pictures prove something fundamentally different about men is invalid.

I could also say they could have pictures of tons of fire ants piggybacking on each other just like humans were piggybacking, doesn't mean I think such pictures are needed.

But didn't he suggest they should be needed?

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

It would be really nice if you would allow people to say what they actually desire instead of insisting they meant something else just because you read it a certain way.  Perhaps after five or so times of correction, you might consider you are inferring something not there in their words and thus misunderstanding rather than they are lying about their actual desires.

I often say that I did not express myself correctly. What I'm reading  is ALarson saying he did not say that women *should* be included, nor that he was being critical. So, unless he doesn't think they should be posted in a post honoring men, then I am wrong. Also, the only point of criticism I see in my assertion that he was being "critical" is that his analysis wasn't "severe' as the term "critical" is associated with. But he did evaluate and make a judgement which is a "critique', which is being "critical", even limitedly.

[Darren10]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes.

The criticism was about the attack on feminism.

Larson's criticism or the National Review's article?

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

"The article errs in speculating that unnamed people in the media will criticize the press coverage for not depicting equal numbers of women rescuers."

I actually agree yet look at California Boy and ALarson's posts. Even Blue Dreams seemed to have felt obligated to insert "this is a little too pro masculine, not emphasizing the value of women" article. The media is not far behind. I don't think I can tell you why exactly but many seem to follow this same pattern. I'm confident to say that I think NR's claim will soon be validated.

EDITED TO AD: "But when you generalize about all men and women your conclusions become unsound" - *In general*, sir, *in general*. Not at all absolute.

 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

i also never said anything like that.  My objection is the very concept behind this thread.  I don't think that rescuing people from natural disasters and in time of need is gender defined.  And I find it insulting for someone to suggest that it is gender defined.  It is human defined, not male defined or female defined.  There is NO gender definition going on here.  The premise of this thread is insulting frankly to both genders.   Now I have said the same thing three times in three different ways.  Don't misconstrue what my point is.  Because I don't think I could be more clear what I am strongly objecting to.

Sorry, the portion of my post which said, "seemed to have felt obligated to insert "this is a little too pro masculine, not emphasizing the value of women" article", was specific to Blue Dreams, not you or ALarson though the way I typed that out it most definitely did apply to you and him.

Your point is that Smac's post insults women and men and that gender categorization is harmful. Is that accurate?

Also, to respond again to your earlier statement of, "Who in their right mind believes this?  But making women out to be helpless saps is every bit as ignorant,' Smac's 9th (I think) link in his original post titled "toxic masculinity" is a must look at and goes to the heart of NR's criticism of anti-male rhetoric.

https://twitter.com/AmandaPresto/status/902006123418537984

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by Darren10

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

 

Sorry, the portion of my post which said, "seemed to have felt obligated to insert "this is a little too pro masculine, not emphasizing the value of women" article", was specific to Blue Dreams, not you or ALarson though the way I typed that out it most definitely did apply to you and him.

Your point is that Smac's post insults women and men and that gender categorization is harmful. Is that accurate?

Also, to respond again to your earlier statement of, "Who in their right mind believes this?  But making women out to be helpless saps is every bit as ignorant,' Smac's 9th (I think) link in his original post titled "toxic masculinity" is a must look at and goes to the heart of NR's criticism of anti-male rhetoric.

https://twitter.com/AmandaPresto/status/902006123418537984

 

Darren, this is my point.

 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

My objection is the very concept behind this thread. 

 Helping people in times of disaster is human defined, not male defined or female defined.

Quote

 

Now this is the attitude I would hope most members of the church would have concerning genders.  Very well put.  I guess I have a dislike for putting genders into little boxes because life is not really like that at all.  Nor should it be.  We all have limitations. But they are individual limitations and not gender limitations.  

If i can not lift as much weight as a body builder, does that make me less of a man?  If I can not be as nurturing as some woman, does that make me more of a man?

 

See the part in bold?

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by california boy

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Larson's criticism or the National Review's article?

The criticism in this thread about the article.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

"But didn't he suggest they should be needed?"

That is not how I read him, he can correct me if I am wrong.  "Could" is not "should", he used "could" while you are insisting he means "should".

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Even Blue Dreams seemed to have felt obligated to insert "this is a little too pro masculine, not emphasizing the value of women" article. 

cfr that Blue Dreams actually said what is in the quotes.  If she didn't, that is misrepresenting her because you said it, not her and such games with quotes are against board rules from how .I have seen mods respond to similar misrepresentations.

[Bernard Gui]

How wide the divide. 

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How wide the divide. 

I don't think it's that wide actually.  Most here agree that both men and women were heroic and wanted to help and serve. And, it continues with both male and female volunteers desiring to offer their services.

It's not a competition and it's not a male vs. female issue for most on this thread from what I've seen.