"Gender Equality" in the Church - Slides Leaked

[Calm]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is it possible that at least some who have spoken this way in the past have seen themselves as addressing mainly the children in the congregation?

Or they may be trying to include the children.

[why me]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=45541600&nid=148

New study ranks Utah worst state in nation for women’s equality. I wonder if there is a correlation to the church? Not saying there is. 

Much depends on who conducted the study and what exactly they consider to be women's equality. If a woman stays home to watch over the kids and decides not to work, does that affect her equality? Or if a woman wishes to be a housewife, does that influence a woman's equality? Much depends on who controls the research project.

Edited September 25, 2017 by why me

[juliann]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think it's petty but you're welcome to that belief. You rip people apart when they make statements like that. But not Scott. That's fine but the next time you lay into someone for an ineloquent or borderline-sexist comment we'll remember that you're only offended if the improper statement is made by someone other than your buddies.

How difficult is it to understand that the people who come in to mock, degrade, and belittle Mormon belief just miiiiggghhht be seen as the aggressors. You are right, I stand with those who want to have reasonable discussions but I'm super offended when somebody comes through with a verbal machete. You were offensive when you were telling women what they thought. You got called on it. Deal with it. (I know a mea culpa would never be forthcoming.)

This only brings up the problems the progressive women's groups have with progressive men who haven't gotten the memo that women aren't going to stand for it anymore and just being not Mormon anymore isn't going to get you past it.

I love Scott! Didya notice I disagreed with him on polyandry but neither of us verbally assaulted Mormonism? Or each other? 

[Bobbieaware]

19 minutes ago, why me said:

Much depends on who conducted the study and what exactly they consider to be women's equality. If a stays home to watch over the kids and decides not to work, does that affect her equality? Or is a woman wishes to be a housewife, does that influence a woman's equality? Much depends on who controls the research project.

I'm also wondering if one of the contributory factors that would cause Utah to get a low women's equality rating would be that the state has one of the lowest abortion rates in the nation. After all, feminism views unlimited abortion rights as an essential "freedom" that empowers women to be on a more equal footing with men.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

How difficult is it to understand that the people who come in to mock, degrade, and belittle Mormon belief just miiiiggghhht be seen as the aggressors. You are right, I stand with those who want to have reasonable discussions but I'm super offended when somebody comes through with a verbal machete. You were offensive when you were telling women what they thought. You got called on it. Deal with it. (I know a mea culpa would never be forthcoming.)

This only brings up the problems the progressive women's groups have with progressive men who haven't gotten the memo that women aren't going to stand for it anymore and just being not Mormon anymore isn't going to get you past it.

I love Scott! Didya notice I disagreed with him on polyandry but neither of us verbally assaulted Mormonism? Or each other? 

Um...no. You've confused me with someone else. I was not offensive. I did not get called on it so there is no need for me to deal with it. I'm responding to your acrid responses to others in many past discussions. You have consistently gone after people who have said sexist things and I often agree with you, though not your angry tone. I'm simply noting your double standard but it sounds like you are well aware of the double standard and are ok with that.

FYI- if for some crazy reason you are unwilling to acknowledge a simple mistake in your accusation of me, I would ask for a CFR where I was "offensive in telling women what they thought" and got "called on it". You've never scolded me for that. Just many, many others...except Scott  

[why me]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

I'm also wondering if one of the contributory factors that would cause Utah to get a low women's equality rating would be that the state has one of the lowest abortion rates in the nation. After all, feminism views unlimited abortion rights as an essential "freedom" that empowers women to be on a more equal footing with men.

True. I think that this research might be skewed with an agenda.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Hmmm. Uncharacteristically you take no issue with Scott's "catty" comment? Interesting

 

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think it's petty but you're welcome to that belief. You rip people apart when they make statements like that. But not Scott. That's fine but the next time you lay into someone for an ineloquent or borderline-sexist comment we'll remember that you're only offended if the improper statement is made by someone other than your buddies.

Incidentally, the Urban Dictionary says that cattiness can be exhibited by males as well as females (as you, yourself, demonstrate with the above remark).

So whatever you might think of my "catty" comment, it is not sexist.

Yowl! Hiss!

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Or they may be trying to include the children.

Very possibly.

 

[juliann]

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Um...no. You've confused me with someone else. I was not offensive. I did not get called on it so there is no need for me to deal with it. I'm responding to your acrid responses to others in many past discussions. You have consistently gone after people who have said sexist things and I often agree with you, though not your angry tone. I'm simply noting your double standard but it sounds like you are well aware of the double standard and are ok with that.

FYI- if for some crazy reason you are unwilling to acknowledge a simple mistake in your accusation of me, I would ask for a CFR where I was "offensive in telling women what they thought" and got "called on it". You've never scolded me for that. Just many, many others...except Scott  

My bad. I confuse you with Cake for some reason.  I'm just wondering how many times it has to be said that this is a M O R M O N board. Of course there is a double standard!  What on earth makes you think there is, or should be,  a single standard for defenders and attackers? There are enough respectful non-LDS posters here that if you are getting flack, you might want to learn from them. 

As for my not being on top of every sexist post, pay me if you want me to do something different. 

 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, why me said:

Much depends on who conducted the study and what exactly they consider to be women's equality. If a woman stays home to watch over the kids and decides not to work, does that affect her equality? Or if a woman wishes to be a housewife, does that influence a woman's equality? Much depends on who controls the research project.

No it doesn't.  Equality can be measured and has been. That a woman "chooses" to be a housewife doesn't change the fact that women's occupations tend to be lower paying and less valued. That some still won't believe the data is why they write articles like this one  https://www.wired.com/story/why-men-dont-believe-the-data-on-gender-bias-in-science/

Quote

A vast literature of sociology research shows time after time, women in science are deemed to be inferior to men and are evaluated as less capable when performing similar or even identical work. This systemic devaluation of women results in an array of real consequences: shorter, less praise-worthy letters of recommendation; fewer research grants, awards, and invitations to speak at conferences; and lower citation rates for their research. Such wide-ranging devaluation of women's work makes it harder for them to progress in the field.

 

[why me]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

No it doesn't.  Equality can be measured and has been. That a woman "chooses" to be a housewife doesn't change the fact that women's occupations tend to be lower paying and less valued. That some still won't believe the data is why they write articles like this one  https://www.wired.com/story/why-men-dont-believe-the-data-on-gender-bias-in-science/

 

My point was on who conducted the research and for what purpose. And what was the criteria. However, to address your statement. Inside the USA people live in a particular form of capitalism, a system that one can claim that women are more exploited than men. However, both genders are exploited by a system that is made for profit. To address the situation, one must put the word 'social' at the center and put the word 'capital' outside the center of of our lives. Instead of people attacking the male, they should instead attack the system that creates the disparity. In other words, get at the root of the problem. All across europe the public sector is less valued than the private sector by various governments because the public sector has become too expensive for countries who wish to ptivatize public services. And woman face the brunt of it.

Edited September 26, 2017 by why me

[Calm]

1 hour ago, why me said:

. All across europe the public sector is less valued than the private sector by various governments because the public sector has become too expensive for countries who wish to ptivatize public services. And woman face the brunt of it.

This is too vague an argument to understand.  Some specifics might help.

[why me]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is too vague an argument to understand.  Some specifics might help.

The EU states are under pressure by the EU to cut public sector finances and so, public sector jobs can be eliminated. Or there has been salary freezes. In one EU country, public sector vacation pay has been cut by 30 percent. This has affected many women and their salaries. The public sector is now undervalued inside the EU. More stress on privatization.

https://www.etui.org/Publications2/Working-Papers/The-public-private-sector-pay-debate-in-Europe

Just one example.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, juliann said:

My bad. I confuse you with Cake for some reason.  I'm just wondering how many times it has to be said that this is a M O R M O N board. Of course there is a double standard!  What on earth makes you think there is, or should be,  a single standard for defenders and attackers? There are enough respectful non-LDS posters here that if you are getting flack, you might want to learn from them. 

As for my not being on top of every sexist post, pay me if you want me to do something different. 

 

 Thanks for at least admitting the mistake although I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by reminding everyone that this is a MORMON board. Are you implying that I'm not Mormon? Or not Mormon enough for you?

Your point seems to be that if someone is a faithful Mormon in your eyes then you are willing to set your feminism aside and not call them on it. So MORMONs can be sexist on a MORMON board but others cannot be and you will call them on it. Thanks for being honest about the blatant double standard.

I don't expect you to be on top of every sexist comment but you were interacting directly with Scott when he made his comment. You were noticeably silent. But don't worry. Scott claims that "catty" is a perfectly acceptable phrase, and since he is presumably MORMON enough for you, I suspect you will accept his "catty" comments  

 

[FearlessFixxer]

On 9/24/2017 at 9:54 AM, JulieM said:

We don't know that they were "illegally" obtained.  I think the owner of that site posts here now sometimes so maybe he can comment.

But quotes from copyrighted books and material are regularly posted here and links to websites containing copyrighted material are posted often here too for discussion.  So I think this is at least a topic and views we can discuss. I don't know the laws on that, but if we can't, then should we be discussing people's blog posts, views or links?  How about quotes from books that are copyrighted?  We shouldn't discuss the author's writings and views if they are copyrighted?

I don't know how the slides were obtained and I don't know anything about the source's identity.  If anything was obtained illegally (and I am not saying it was or it wasn't), that would be on the hands of the source.  We at MormonLeaks obtained it legally (hence why we have not been arrested or successfully sued yet).

Edited September 26, 2017 by FearlessFixxer

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I don't know how the slides were obtained and I don't know anything about the source's identity.  If anything was obtained illegal (and I am not saying it was or it wasn't), that would be on the hands of the source.  We at MormonLeaks obtained it legally (hence why we have not been arrested or successfully sued yet).

Hey Fearless, I have a question regarding the statement that these slides were used in a presentation that was given to the Quorum of the Seventy.  Is that what was just reported to you (possibly by your source) or do you know these were used in a presentation from other information?

Edited September 26, 2017 by ALarson

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I don't know how the slides were obtained and I don't know anything about the source's identity.  If anything was obtained illegal (and I am not saying it was or it wasn't), that would be on the hands of the source.  We at MormonLeaks obtained it legally (hence why we have not been arrested or successfully sued yet).

I've always wondered, how does that work with this kind of 'property'?  I know if someone, like a pawn shop, receives stolen goods, the pawn shop isn't in trouble itself, but they don't get to keep the good either.    Gaining the goods legally doesn't matter.  They have a duty to give them back to the rightful owner.

How does it work with stolen intellectual property?  Even if you've (general 'you') obtained it legally, what happens if it actually was stolen?

[FearlessFixxer]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Hey Fearless, I have a question regarding the statement that this presentation was given to the Quorum of the Seventy.  Is that what was just reported to you (possibly by your source) or do you know these were used in a presentation from other information?

Reported by the source.

[ALarson]

Just now, FearlessFixxer said:

Reported by the source.

Thanks!

[FearlessFixxer]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've always wondered, how does that work with this kind of 'property'?  I know if someone, like a pawn shop, receives stolen goods, the pawn shop isn't in trouble itself, but they don't get to keep the good either.    Gaining the goods legally doesn't matter.  They have a duty to give them back to the rightful owner.

How does it work with stolen intellectual property?  Even if you've (general 'you') obtained it legally, what happens if it actually was stolen?

The way our lawyer has explained it to us is that copyrighted material can be published without consent in certain situations.  I don't proclaim  to know all of the situations, but for us, we are a non-profit media company that publishes items deemed to be newsworthy.  That is what opens the door.  Now, there could be some argument on what is newsworthy because that is subjective, but I comfortable saying that all of our content is newsworthy on some level.  

What it boils down to is that, from a legal standpoint there is no difference between what we do and what the NYT or Fox News or any other media outlets does when they receive leaked documents that serve some level of public interest.

I hope that answers your question.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I don't know how the slides were obtained and I don't know anything about the source's identity.  If anything was obtained illegally (and I am not saying it was or it wasn't), that would be on the hands of the source.  We at MormonLeaks obtained it legally (hence why we have not been arrested or successfully sued yet). [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

Hmmm.   So all formerly-pending litigation has been settled in Mormonleaks' favor?  Hmmm.  If so, while I certainly don't have evidence for this assertion, I would have to think that such settlements would be among the fastest ever reached in the history of U.S. jurisprudence.  Color me unconvinced.    Since you like posting documents, perhaps you could post any settlement agreements you have reached with parties to formerly-pending litigation, and/or any Courts' dismissal orders?  (Consider this a formal Call For References, by the way, to which Board rules say you must respond either by posting evidence for your claim or by retracting it. )  Thanks in advance.  

[FearlessFixxer]

23 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hmmm.   So all formerly-pending litigation has been settled in Mormonleaks' favor?  Hmmm.  If so, while I certainly don't have evidence for this assertion, I would have to think that such settlements would be among the fastest ever reached in the history of U.S. jurisprudence.  Color me unconvinced.    Since you like posting documents, perhaps you could post any settlement agreements you have reached with parties to formerly-pending litigation, and/or any Courts' dismissal orders?  (Consider this a formal Call For References, by the way, to which Board rules say you must respond either by posting evidence for your claim or by retracting it. )  Thanks in advance.  

There is no pending litigation and there have been no lawsuits.  Up until now we have been threatened twice with a lawsuits but the parties have not taken the next step.

[Kenngo1969]

9 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

There is no pending litigation and there have been no lawsuits.  Up until now we have been threatened twice with a lawsuits but the parties have not taken the next step.

OK.  Thanks for the clarification.  (By the way, the reason I asked is because there is more than one way to read your, "We have not been successfully sued yet" comment.  Just sayin'!)

Edited September 26, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[FearlessFixxer]

4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

OK.  Thanks for the clarification.  (By the way, the reason I asked is because there is more than one way to read your, "We have not been successfully sued yet" comment.  Just sayin'!)

no worries.  I agree that i could have worded it better

[Kenngo1969]

Mister "Fixer":

What does the disclosure of these slides have to do with what is supposed to be, according to others who have attempted to enlighten me regarding your purported mission,  Mormonleaks' raison d'etre of spurring increased financial disclosure by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  It seems to me that more than a few leaks have been only tangentially related (if they've been related at all) to Church of Jesus Christ finances.  And don't you run the risk of being seen as the equivalent of "the boy who cried 'Wolf!'" if you "over-promise and under-deliver" (my phrase) with respect to promised financial leaks, or of straying from your purported intended mission if too many of the leaks are not financial in nature?

Thanks in advance.

-Ken

Edited September 26, 2017 by Kenngo1969
Coding Edit