Mormons being distracted by body/perfectionism issues?

[Nemesis]

 I've never thought some people could be so obtuse.  But this telling others what they really think and feel about things doesn't work here.  This better not become habitual.  

Nemesis 

ps a few people are out of the thread

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

And here we go again. And note the sexist language.  Many Stem challenges, BB is just belligerent.  

I can go on forever about gendered behavior. And I mean forever, sourced, referenced, the whole thing.  And I will be bookmarking this thread to add to it. It is that bad.

Let's consider a bit.  We can talk and not be quick to accuse, I hope. 

I had said, "I honestly don't think you really believe Johnnie said that."

Everything that Bluebell has said since the quote I was challenging (" You asserted that societal pressure by members within the church caused shame and influenced all decisions of the the members.") indicates she doesn't think Johnnie said that.  She hasn't tried to support that he said that.  She changed his comment about the Church to be societal pressure by members within the Church that cause the shame.  She is the one who said that the Church should influence all decisions by members.  he repeated it.  When I asked her to support her claim she gave me quotations that did not say what she said he said.  When I asked again, because none of the quotes said what she said, she did not give me anything.  That indicates she doesn't really think Johnnie said that.  I don't dare to ask her again, because she simply refuses to answer for her claims, as I see it. 

I said, "I honestly don't think you really think I, for instance, can't have a spiritual reason to be a member if I don't base all my decisions on the doctrines and teachings of the Church"

Yes, after I challenged this comment by her: "if the truth claims and doctrines don't influence all of our decisions in some way, there's no spiritual reason to be a member"

I told her I'm a member who finds spiritual reason to be a member, who also is not influenced in all of my decisions by the claims and doctrines of the Church.  You see if it her statement were true in all cases as she stated it, then she'd be doing that which she is complaining that Johnnie has done--spoken for me about my intentions and my spiritual reasons.  I don't think she intended to do that.  But she also said that not all her decisions are influenced by the Church either "I get influenced by things outside the Church all the time as well". 

So either she is trying to speak for me, and tell me my intentions can't possible be true, which would make her complaint that Johnnie did as much seem hollow, or she doesn't really think that.  I've asked, but I can't get an answer from her, so I have to assume in hopes to move on. 

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That was a whole lot of splainin.   I'm Not talking about any of that.  I just pointed out that bluebell mischaracterized what Johnnie said.  Her quotes from him don't say what she has claimed.  Clearly.  All of this that you are talking about has not been something I've commented on.  Take care ms dreams.

Nevermind. I feel Calm and Juliann covered things pretty dang well in the last page. Nothing to add to that. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 15, 2017 by BlueDreams

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He asked me if i took out my second set of earrings because I was worried about what other members would think.  I said no, that wasn't why.  Then he said-BB, It had everything to do with the societal pressure you would have faced had you failed to conform and "Follow the Prophet"  Yes I'm sure part of your motivation for removing your extra earrings was to follow the prophet but you also knew that you would pay a societal price for not following the prophet...you would have been subjected to silent public shaming and judgment from the Mormon undercurrent had you kept your original number of multiple earrings.  You did not make the decision to comply in a vacuum...you caved to societal pressure to conform.

He also said this, about me, to another poster-

"I believe that following the prophet was certainly the initial motivation....but had there NOT been societal pressure within the Mormon church to conform and had she actually had freedom of choice without this added pressure, I believe she would have continued to wear her multiple earrings as she desired...but it took the added societal consequences element to actually remove them and I'll add begrudgeningly...so YES I do not believe she is being honest with us nor herself....and while I don't expect her to admit it here on this board...this is what I believe to be true."  

Then he said-

"I stand by my statement and Bluebell KNOWS I'm speaking the truth ...while I don't expect her to admit it here."

I think the whole man vs woman thing also came from his post where he said "I'm tied of Pusey footing around on this board always having to self edit and use nuanced and diplomacy...I'm just going to tell it like I see it.  I'll probably be  banned but at this point I don't care...somebody has to stand up, be a man and tell it like it is. While it is my desire to remain a poster here on this board...because I do enjoy the exchange...I'm going to retain my self respect and throw caution to the wind...and If that happens to me for being honest and telling the truth...so be it."

I just wanted to add, in light of this response.  I dont' think it cool or appropriate that he suggested you weren't telling the truth about your intentions.  That kind of thing was, in fact, the reason why I challenged one of your statements--you spoke to intentions that hit close to home for me.  And the statement you made does not fit with me at all.  I do have spiritual reasons to be a member, even though you said, I shouldn't for not making all decisions based on the influence of the doctrines and truth claims of the Church. 

Thanks. 

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Let's consider a bit.  We can talk and not be quick to accuse, I hope. 

 

Just STOP. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I just find it ironic that it's ironic when another man shows up (or two now).  But, it was ok when JC was being ganged up on by 3 (or more) women.  (I'm saying that pretty much tongue in cheek actually, but that's probably how JC felt....and I did have a laugh over it).

Once again though, I really don't believe this should be a male vs. female discussion and it's too bad it has spiraled down into one as I do agree with points from both views expressed.

I don't think it is a man vs. woman thing, but close friends of Bluebell thinking telling her she doesn't know her own mind wasn't an appropriate thing to do.

I would be saying the same thing to anyone who did such a thing (and I report it when I see it done by anyone to anyone), though the "mansplaining" label would be absent for a woman.  That was brought in, imo, because JCake decided he had to announce he was a "feminist ally" which made it all the stranger he wasn't allowing a woman to think for herself.  The whole "be a man" bit didn't help either.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Calm

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think it is a man vs. woman thing, but close friends of Bluebell thinking telling her she doesn't know her own mind wasn't an appropriate thing to do.

I would be saying the same thing to anyone who did such a thing, though the "mansplaining" label would be absent for a woman.  That was brought in, imo, because JCake decided he had to announce he was a "feminist ally" which made it all the stranger he wasn't allowing a woman to think for herself.

I get it and I also understand coming into defend a close friend.  I really do think the mansplaining stuff could have been left out of it, and I was pretty much joking around with my comment about that vs. womansplaining.  I get the whole picture better now with what took place here.  Bottom line for me is that bluebell is very capable of expressing why she did something and I do not believe she should be doubted or questioned about it.  That goes for most other posters here as well.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

• And yet....a prophet does not care whether I clean off my counter or not...

So on the one hand the prophet is wrong because he mentions a little thing that could contribute to bigger things and on the other hand he is wrong because he doesn't mention a little thing that can lead to a bigger thing?

[Calm]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I get it and I also understand coming into defend a close friend.  I really do think the mansplaining stuff could have been left out of it, and I was pretty much joking around with my comment about that vs. womansplaining.  I get the whole picture better now with what took place here.  Bottom line for me is that bluebell is very capable of expressing why she did something and I do not believe she should be doubted or questioned about it.  That goes for most other posters here as well.

I am reading the thread backwards at times...I don't think I would have posted the above as it was better stated by multiple people already, but by the time I got back to delete it as "no need",  you had responded, lol.

I should be more systematic in my reading, use the multi quote function, etc. rather than just respond as soon as I read a post, but I am too lazy.

I find your response profoundly reasonable.

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

So on the one hand the prophet is wrong because he mentions a little thing that could contribute to bigger things and on the other hand he is wrong because he doesn't mention a little thing that can lead to a bigger thing?

What big thing could a earrings possibly lead to???

[BlueDreams]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I get it and I also understand coming into defend a close friend.  I really do think the mansplaining stuff could have been left out of it, and I was pretty much joking around with my comment about that vs. womansplaining.  I get the whole picture better now with what took place here.  Bottom line for me is that bluebell is very capable of expressing why she did something and I do not believe she should be doubted or questioned about it.  That goes for most other posters here as well.

I get that. I brought it up because it was the literal definition of what he was doing at the time while proclaiming being a feminist ally. (Which being an ally sounds a little weird to me considering being a feminist isn't a gendered thing in the first place...but that's an aside). See the explanation in Merriam-webster dictionary:

Quote

Mansplaining is, at its core, a very specific thing. It's what occurs when a man talks condescendingly to someone (especially a woman) about something he has incomplete knowledge of, with the mistaken assumption that he knows more about it than the person he's talking to does

If he hadn't mentioned feminism I wouldn't have pointed out what he was doing to BB goes directly against a feminist stance. 

Just wanted to explain that one on my end. 

 

With luv,

BD

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I get it and I also understand coming into defend a close friend.  I really do think the mansplaining stuff could have been left out of it, and I was pretty much joking around with my comment about that vs. womansplaining.  I get the whole picture better now with what took place here.  Bottom line for me is that bluebell is very capable of expressing why she did something and I do not believe she should be doubted or questioned about it.  That goes for most other posters here as well.

I don't think gendered communication should ever be left out. There is so much research on this now, good research. It is a huge problem for women but what happens when they try to "speak up" is that they are dogpiled.  It is a real, serious thing that I'd like to see more awareness of for our daughters. It is also a thing that once you see it you can't unsee it. This became gendered when someone who was engaging in typical male communication (that doesn't have to mean it is intentional) then proclaims himself a feminist ally. That was beyond condescending as well as an attempt to silence the woman he was dismissing. 

And yes, there are womensplainers, too. But they are not the norm by a long shot, and they are lacking the male privilege that makes mansplaining more effective. I am very grateful for a forum like this one where women can speak up. We are not just tolerated as the little women, we are supported. This is something that women in exmo forums are battling with as well.  My sister belongs to a reddit all women exmo group that wouldn't tolerate it anymore. 

http://time.com/3666135/sheryl-sandberg-talking-while-female-manterruptions/

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Nevermind. I feel Calm and Juliann covered things pretty dang well in the last page. Nothing to add to that. 

 

With luv,

BD

Don't want to play tag team?

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 even though you said, I shouldn't for not making all decisions based on the influence of the doctrines and truth claims of the Church. 

 

That isn't what she said, that is how you interpreted it.

[BlueDreams]

Just now, Calm said:

Don't want to play tag team?

Lol! I would have if you guys hadn't already said it so succinctly. Why pass the baton, when you've already won the race  

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

What big thing could a earrings possibly lead to???

• Can't get rid of the bullet for some reason.
• Please go back and read what I said before.  I don't see a reason at this moment to repeat what I said or say it a different way.

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

I don't think gendered communication should ever be left out. There is so much research on this now, good research. It is a huge problem for women but what happens when they try to "speak up" is that they are dogpiled.  It is a real, serious thing that I'd like to see more awareness of for our daughters. It is also a thing that once you see it you can't unsee it. This became gendered when someone who was engaging in typical male communication (that doesn't have to mean it is intentional) then proclaims himself a feminist ally. That was beyond condescending as well as an attempt to silence the woman he was dismissing. 

And yes, there are womensplainers, too. But they are not the norm by a long shot, and they are lacking the male privilege that makes mansplaining more effective. I am very grateful for a forum like this one where women can speak up. We are not just tolerated as the little women, we are supported. This is something that women in exmo forums are battling with as well.  My sister belongs to a reddit all women exmo group that wouldn't tolerate it anymore. 

http://time.com/3666135/sheryl-sandberg-talking-while-female-manterruptions/

I've been dogpiled on this board but not from the men. I've felt much more degraded by women than men.

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

• Can't get rid of the bullet for some reason.
• Please go back and read what I said before.  I don't see a reason at this moment to repeat what I said or say it a different way.

Okay.  But I would still like a direct answer to the question.  What do earrings have to do with anything...is it just obedience?  You stated that you don't like to wear earrings anymore...what if this was required?

Edited September 15, 2017 by Jeanne

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've been dogpiled on this board but not from the men. I've felt much more degraded by women than men.

That only works if you weren't on a Mormon board degrading the church and its members 24/7.

It also has nothing to do with male communication patterns.

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Okay.  But I would still like a direct answer to the question.  What do earrings have to do with anything...is it just obedience?

The original call to take out earrings was linked. Wouldn't that be the obvious place to find an answer....from the man who recommended it?

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

The original call to take out earrings was linked. Wouldn't that be the obvious place to find an answer....from the man who recommended it?

I will check it out.  Just been in and out all week.  Thank you Juliann...whatever would we do without you?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Okay.  But I would still like a direct answer to the question.  What do earrings have to do with anything...is it just obedience?  You stated that you don't like to wear earrings anymore...what if this was required?

What Juliann said.  

Do a search on "manly" in this topic, my first such post has both the quote and a link to Pres. Hinckley's talk.

I don't think I stated I don't like wearing earrings, just that I didn't.

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, Jeanne said:

What big thing could a earrings possibly lead to???

The smallness of the issue of earrings was actually one of the reasons that I chose to follow the counsel.  Earrings are about as small of an issue as you can get.  They are about as insignificant of an issue as you can get.  I just asked myself, "Are earrings a hill worth dying on?  Do I want earrings to be where I make a stand?  Are they worth that?  If I can't follow counsel about earrings--the simplest and easiest counsel to follow that I had ever been given--then how am I going to handle things that are actually hard and difficult to follow?"  

The whole thing made me think of these scriptures from the bible-

• He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
• His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

I understand if other people see it differently and choose to make different choices.  But this was part of my thought process and impacted why I did what I did.

Edited September 16, 2017 by bluebell