Woman Loses Temple Recommend for Talking About Her Divorce

[provoman]

On 2/16/2018 at 8:46 AM, bluebell said:

Like i said, if church leaders are interpreting this to mean that members can't disagree with their counsel, then the church is in more trouble than any of us realize.

One has to wonder if you have an interest in the facts - as with your question you clearly DENY facts that are presented. Additionally, The last ten minutes of the second recording will address this unfounded concern of yours. If I recall correctly the SP said something like "sweet mercy, yes you can disagree"  or something to that affect. Unless you are willing to base YOUR arguments on having listened to the records, then at best you question from willful ignorance at worst you are being a troll.

On 2/16/2018 at 8:47 AM, bluebell said:

Seriously.  You don't hold a disciplinary council for the husband who had an emotional affair but you threaten to hold one for a hurt wife who won't stay silent about it??   That is so messed up.

Oh boy, here we go again, placing ourselves as a Judge in Israel.  Unless you are willing to base your arguments on having listened to the recording, then at best you pour gasoline from willful ignorance for no purpose than to fan flames, at worst you are being a troll.

 

Does it concern you at all, that she was accused of making FALSE STATEMENTS about the SP, her Bishop and the reason that her recommend was revoked?

Does it concern you at all, that her behavior was making a "mess" in the ward?

Poster removed: insults

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

man + (ex)plaining = mansplaining isn't the definition of mansplaining though.  The term is used to describe a very specific type of explanation given by men to women-one that is condescending and patronizing.  These are actual examples of 'mansplaining'

"at the racetrack—where I've worked for 14 years—men regularly try to explain to me how gambling works as I take their bets."
"men regularly try to explain that there weren't women writing in the Middle Ages (I have a PhD in medieval women's writing)."
"A man tried to explain to me how to correctly insert a tampon. no, this person was not a doctor."
"Menstruation. (Didn't believe I had my period because "it's not the 28th.")"
"How to ride a bike. While I'm on my bike. By a guy sitting in the SUV driving next to me."
"He explained the Welsh national anthem and the Welsh language (I am Welsh and speak it fluently, this guy was English)."
"Writing on evolution & gender for my masters in bioanthro at Cambridge; a man incorrectly explained natural selection to me, cited wikipedia."

Hopefully those few examples will help you understand the specific complaint being made when someone uses that word.

But anyone regardless of gender can have a condescending tone. 

There is a male poster on this board who has been condescending to me and others pretty much from the time he appeared here. (In fact, I was thread-banned not too long ago for pointing that out.) But I don’t attribute it to his maleness. 

Likewise, I have been treated condescendingly by more than one female poster. But I don’t view that as a function of gender either. 

Edited February 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Quote

"Feminist dudgeon" (which was initially misconstrued as "feminist dungeon") is an "insult when applied to a class of people?"

How about "mansplaining?"  

Just trying to figure out the rules here.  They are confusing, to say the least.

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you asking if pointing out that a poster is being condescending and patronizing by explaining something to a woman that she actually knows more about is against the rules?

No.  I am trying to figure out how a reference to "feminist dudgeon" is demeaning to women as a category, but "mansplaining" is not demeaning to men as a category.

I am also trying to figure out how "feminist dudgeon" is pejorative in any way similar to "feminist dungeon."  I'm not sure what the latter even means, yet it was construed as an insult.  In contrast, I readily understand "feminist dudgeon," but I don't see how it is pejorative, nor was it "applied to a class of people."

Kiwi is being scolded by a mod who materially misread his post.  Then, when the mod's error is noted, the mod simply declares (rather incomprehensibly, I think) that his actual comment is also insulting, and that it is insulting to women categorically.  Since when are all women "feminists?"  According to this poll, "only 15 percent of survey respondents said that they 'definitely would' label themselves {as 'feminist'}," as compared to 38% who "said they did not consider themselves to be feminist."  A bit more (emphases added):

Quote

Of those who said they did not identify as feminist, 45 percent said it was because the movement is “too extreme,” while 38 percent said it’s because feminism supports “many causes,” including reproductive freedom and pro-LGBT rights, which they do not agree with “for personal or religious reasons.”

More than half of the non-feminist women — 55 percent — said that “the stereotypical view of feminists” as “loud, aggressive, complaining, etc.” was not something they wished to be associated with. And 21 percent of this group agreed that while they did, in fact, believe in many of the goals and views of feminism, they found the movement’s methods to be “ineffective or counterproductive.”

...

The women in Yahoo’s survey are certainly not alone when it comes to feeling a disconnect between equality for women and “feminism.” Kellyanne Conway said in February, “It’s difficult for me to call myself a feminist in a classic sense, because it seems to be very anti-male, and it certainly is very pro-abortion, and I’m neither anti-male or pro-abortion. So, there’s an individual feminism, if you will, that you make your own choices. … I look at myself as a product of my choices, not a victim of my circumstances.”

Even former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor told the New York Times, years ago, that she did not call herself a feminist. “I never did,” she stated, in response to a question about whether it’s a label she used for herself. “I care very much about women and their progress. I didn’t go march in the streets…”

Celebrities who have said, at one time or another over the years, that they were not feminists — despite favoring equality for men and women — include Katy Perry, Susan Sarandon, Taylor Swift, Geri Halliwell, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Kelly Clarkson, and, in 2014, Shailene Woodley.

When Woodley was asked by Time magazine, “Do you consider yourself a feminist?” she responded, “No because I love men, and I think the idea of ‘raise women to power, take the men away from the power’ is never going to work out because you need balance. … My biggest thing is really sisterhood more than feminism.”

Hmm.  Sounds like quite a few women have a perception of "feminists" as “loud, aggressive, complaining, etc.”   In other words, as demonstrating "a feeling of offense or deep resentment" (that's the definition for "dudgeon").

Meanwhile, the repeated use of the obviously insulting and gender-specific term "mansplaining" is . . . totally fine? 

And it's also totally fine for Latter-day Saints to use this to smear a stake president because he is not on this board?

So it's okay for Mormons to publicly demean and insult priesthood leaders, as long as they do it behind the priesthood leader's back?

Again, what are the rules? 

Quote

Speaking only for myself, i think that sometimes it can be insulting and other times it's highlighting insulting behavior that the poster doesn't realize (usually do to the cultural conditioning) is insulting.

I can appreciate that.  So when "mansplaining" is repeatedly noted as being insulting, and yet the person using it persists in using it . . . is that okay?

Quote

I don't know that i've ever seen 'mansplaining' used to describe all men on this board though.  

And I don't know that I saw Kiwi use "feminist dudgeon" to describe all women on this board.  

Quote

Can you provide an example of someone using that word to apply to an entire class of people? 

Well, on this thread "mansplaining" was first presented in this thread in a pejorative critique of a stake president.  Provoman then objected to "mansplaining" as "a pejorative used against males; in this case a pejorative {a poster} used against a Stake President."  The poster then doubledowned on using this gender-specific putdown.  

Kiwi then explained that his perception of the use of "mansplaining" is "what happens whenever a man has the temerity to disagree with a woman, about any topic, at any time, ever."  Sunstoned then stated that Kiwi's comment "comes across a very condescending" (but "mansplaining" is not "condescending"?).

Then Provoman again states that "'mansplaing' pejorative was first used in condescending, derogatory, gender-phobic manner towards a Stake President," and also states that the terms "secondary use ... appears to be to shame and silence anyone on the thread who did not offer 110% support the woman who made the secret recording of an otherwise confidential meeting," and also suggests that the use of the term "was meant to assisnate the character of a Stake President."

The poster who then brought "mansplaining" into this thread then defends her use of it by noting, correctly, that it is a "word in the Oxford Dictionary."  Well, yes.  But "feminist" and "dudgeon" are also "word{s} in the Oxford Dictionary."  And yet the former term is privileged and fine, whereas the latter is not.  Why?

The poster then gives some examples of "mansplaining."  Well, whoop-de-doo.  Kiwi or Provoman or I could give examples of "feminist dudgeon."

Provoman then responds with: "None of that changes the pejorative use or the derogatory intent of its use. If you get to turn the world upside down and make 'gossip' a pejorative, then certainly 'mansplain' is a pejorative."

Kiwi then added: "'Mansplaining' is a way of saying 'Sit down and shut up when a woman is talking!'  Such as - just for example - when a man has the temerity to weigh in on a discussion of Priesthood ordination in this forum."

JHLPROF also added: "In my opinion its {mansplaining's} usage in a discussion or debate is nothing but a variation on Godwin's law and only serves to discredit the often valid points being made by its user."

I will note here that I have previously objected to use of the term "mansplain" (by the same poster who injected it into this thread, no less).  It started here.  I then responded:

Quote

BTW, usage of such a derogatory and inherently sexist term - derogatory against men and to our faces -  comes across as something along the lines of "Shut up.  You are a man, and therefore are not allowed to have a voice in this discussion.  Contributions to this topic only have value if they come from women."  Ironic, no?

Here are a few thoughts and observations on the term:

Use of the term “Mansplaining” is pejorative, and you should be ashamed for using it 

Quote

The term “mansplaining” is however, pejorative; an expression designed to cast aspersion on one group of people based solely on an inborn inherited trait.  The term “mansplaining” should never be used unless one wishes to belittle and denigrate all men.  

Clearly, a term that insult all the members of one gender has no part in a struggle for gender equality.  

...

{A}nyone who believes that “mansplaining” accurately reflects some truism about how the different sexes behave is only perpetuating a stereotyped misunderstanding of the sexes.  Such beliefs and views undermine the idea of a baseline equality of all people, regardless of gender.

The term “mansplai{ni}ng” carries a nice combination of mocking scorn, disgust, and shame, and seems perfectly suited for taunting political attacks.  It is also insulting to half the human population.  It is a good way to let your readers know your low opinion of conservative gender politics, and also reveals your low opinion of men in general. 

Allow me to explain why we don't need words like 'mansplain'

Quote

{B}ad behaviour is not exclusive to the male half of the species. I’m guilty of using at least a few of these terms. I’ve had the odd fracas with tortoise-paced members of the public during a frenzied morning commute. Not because of their gender, but because in the awful time-sparse world of a city dweller they were – and I’m not proud of this – collateral damage. On the tube, I find it comfortable to sit with one leg crossed over the other, despite the fact that it sometimes means accidentally kicking standing passengers. I have patronisingly explained the obvious to intelligent people on more occasions than I care to recount and, sometimes, on intercity trains, I leave my coat on the seat next to me so people think I have a friend in the toilet.

Entitlement is still a problem. However, before we go smooshing any more man-words together, it might be worth remembering that a prat is a prat, whatever their gender.

Why You’ll Never Hear Me Use the Term “Mansplain” (some language):

Quote

I hate the word “mansplain.” I’ve never liked it; I didn’t like it even when it was gaily burning through feminist conversations like a cleansing fire lighting up all the annoying crap guys say and do when they feel threatened by feminism, or by feminists. A guy has injected himself into your conversation to tell you why you’re all being unreasonable? MANSPLAINER! It was funny, and empowering, a self-aware scarlet M applied to anyone who failed to choose his words with care.

...

The anger that spawned the word is legitimate. I'm angry too. I get it. But I’ve never used it -- I am pretty sure this post is the first time I’ve ever done so -- because humor aside, I have a bunch of problems with it.

For one, it’s mad essentialist, and by this I mean it assumes a certain universal set of truths shared by all men. Men mansplain, because they are men, and this is an attribute of a masculine gender. Except there are lots of men who don’t mansplain, and who would rightly be a little irritated by the assumption that something in their chromosomes or genitalia or gender identity somehow operates to make them all susceptible to a particular shared behavior.

...

More than that, "mansplaining" is kind of lazy and dismissive. Folks, there are few things as deeply satisfying as deconstructing a dude’s ****** argument point by point. Even if you do happen to be married to him. Throwing down the mansplaination gauntlet to end a pointless fight may well turn the tables on a rude jerk’s efforts to dismiss your points, and it may even offer gratification (and certainly self-protection) of a sort. But it also impresses upon that dude that he has no business in discussing or stopping sexism. Which is not a great outcome.

...

Finally, it assumes that men are bad. Like, inherently bad. While I’ll cop to the notion that many aspects of masculine gender socialization utterly suck, I try really hard not to survey all the men in my life with wariness and suspicion.

...

More than that, whenever we call a dude a mansplainer, we're knee-jerkily assuming that he is unable to understand anything we're talking about. Which is both a depressing and terribly hopeless way of seeing things. Men are entirely capable of getting sexism and recognizing these issues, but the constant use of mansplaining makes it sound like they're not. It sends expectations through the floor, when really we ought to be expecting guys to step up in these conversations, and learn something.

Arguments should not be silenced because of their author’s race or sex 

Quote

Joshua, a black law graduate interested in anti-discrimination, also had his opinion challenged based on his identity. In a Facebook discussion about the definition of “racism,” he was accused of “mansplaining” – even though the issue centred on race, not gender – and of displaying “white privilege” – by a commenter unaware that Joshua is not white. In so doing, Joshua’s opponents emphasized his identity (both real and perceived), rather than his arguments, in the debate that followed.

...

The use of terms such as “mansplaining” (and its racial counterpart, “whitesplaining”) can cause disengagement. These labels are sometimes used to dismiss arguments when men and white people simply disagree. But if a man or white person makes a poor argument, why not just refute it? Without such engagement, these terms become unconstructive ad hominem attacks that sidestep meaningful debate when an opponent conveniently possesses privilege.

Terms like “mansplaining” and “whitesplaining” provide easily-digestible labels for complex ideas, which can then be used to point out subject positions and inform discussion. However, silencing someone solely because of their privilege stifles dialogue and stereotypes them – an ironic consequence for social-justice movements that are committed to opposing the stereotypes that continue to plague marginalized communities.

I wish we could jettison the Gender Wars from the Restored Gospel, or at least the tactics and rhetoric of those wars, which have aptly been described as "{having} almost single-handedly destroyed the relationship between the sexes."  It's just not a good fit.  We are supposed to be seeking unity.  "I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine."  On this board we are trying to discuss and sort out complex and challenging issues facing the Saints.  I think we all have voices that can and should be expressed without being slurred because a voice happens to be male (or female, for that matter).

So for all you women who read my remarks and evaluate them on their merits rather than on my gender, I really appreciate that.  I try hard to do the same.

In other words, the poster's use in this thread of a patently offensive, gender-specific insult is not a new thing.  So far I, Kiwi, Provoman, Scott, and JLHPROF (all of whom I understand to be male) have all objected to the use of the gender-specific insult "mansplaining."

And the generalized - and hugely ironic - response has been . . . women explaining to men what "mansplaining" means and why its use is justified (it's in the dictionary, you rubes!).  So are we men now being "womansplained?"

In any event, the stake president who was maligned for "mansplaining" is obviously is not here to defend himself.  And even if he were here, he would not be able to defend himself because of his obligations to maintain confidences.  And even if he could defend himself, other posters could still insult him by accusing him of "mansplaining" because . . . "mansplaining" is in the dictionary?  Huh?  Well, "dudgeon" is in the dictionary, too.  So where does that leave us?

I really don't understand the rules here.

I'm not sure there are rules here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 19, 2018 by smac97

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But anyone regardless of gender can have a condescending tone. 

There is a male poster on this board who has been condescending to me and others pretty much from the time he appeared here. (In fact, I was thread-banned not too long ago for pointing that out.) But I don’t attribute it to his maleness. 

Likewise, I have been treated condescendingly by a female poster. But I don’t view that as a function of gender either. 

It’s not just being condescending though, it’s when men believe, based on nothing else than their gender, that they know more about a subject than a woman does.

 

[USU78]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Exactly.  An emotional affair is just as much infidelity to a spouse as a physical affair is.  In many ways, an emotional affair is more devastating than a physical affair because it's not just lust, it's love.

Agree that nonphysical yet emotionally charged "friendship/affair" is grossly disloyal. Whether it rises to point where Church disciplinary council should be convened is quite another matter.

Quaere [since there's so much speculation going on]: should a disciplinary council never be convened when another kind of disloyal behavior occurs? Why not? What criteria should be employed to determine when such is appropriate?

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  I am trying to figure out how a reference to "feminist dudgeon" is demeaning to women as a category, but "mansplaining" is not.

I am also trying to figure out how "feminist dudgeon" is pejorative in any way similar to "feminist dungeon."  I'm not sure what the latter even means, yet it was construed as an insult.  In contrast, I readily understand "feminist dudgeon," but I don't see how it is pejorative, nor was it "applied to a class of people."

Kiwi is being scolded by a mod who materially misread his post.  Then, when the mod's error is noted, the mod simply declares his actual comment is also insulting, and that it is insulting to women categorically.

Meanwhile, the repeated use of the obviously insulting and gender-specific term "mansplaining" is . . . totally fine? 

And it's also totally fine for Latter-day Saints to use this to smear a stake president because he is not on this board?

So it's okay for Mormons to publicly demean and insult priesthood leaders, as long as they do it behind the priesthood leader's back?

Again, what are the rules? 

I can appreciate that.  So when "mansplaining" is repeatedly noted as being insulting, and yet the person using it persists in using it . . . is that okay?

And I don't know that I saw Kiwi use "feminist dudgeon" to describe all women on this board.  

Well, on this thread "mansplaining" was first presented in this thread in a pejorative critique of a stake president.  Provoman then objected to "mansplaining" as "a pejorative used against males; in this case a pejorative {a poster} used against a Stake President."  The poster then doubledowned on using this gender-specific putdown.  

Kiwi then explained that his perception of the use of "mansplaining" is "what happens whenever a man has the temerity to disagree with a woman, about any topic, at any time, ever."  Sunstoned then stated that Kiwi's comment "comes across a very condescending" (but "mansplaining" is not "condescending"?).

Then Provoman again states that "'mansplaing' pejorative was first used in condescending, derogatory, gender-phobic manner towards a Stake President," and also states that the terms "secondary use ... appears to be to shame and silence anyone on the thread who did not offer 110% support the woman who made the secret recording of an otherwise confidential meeting," and also suggests that the use of the term "was meant to assisnate the character of a Stake President."

The poster who then brought "mansplaining" into this thread then defends her use of it by noting, correctly, that it is a "word in the Oxford Dictionary."  Well, yes.  But "feminist" and "dudgeon" are also "word{s} in the Oxford Dictionary."  And yet the former term is privileged and fine, whereas the latter is not.  Why?

The poster then gives some examples of "mansplaining."  Well, whoop-de-doo.  Kiwi or Provoman or I could give examples of "feminist dudgeon."

Provoman then responds with: "None of that changes the pejorative use or the derogatory intent of its use. If you get to turn the world upside down and make 'gossip' a pejorative, then certainly 'mansplain' is a pejorative."

Kiwi then added: "'Mansplaining' is a way of saying 'Sit down and shut up when a woman is talking!'  Such as - just for example - when a man has the temerity to weigh in on a discussion of Priesthood ordination in this forum."

JHLPROF also added: "In my opinion its {mansplaining's} usage in a discussion or debate is nothing but a variation on Godwin's law and only serves to discredit the often valid points being made by its user."

I will note here that I have previously objected to use of the term "manplain" (by the same poster who injected it into this thread, no less).  It started here.  I then responded:

In other words, the poster's use in this thread of a patently offensive, gender-specific insult is not a new thing.  

In any event, the stake president who was maligned for "mansplaining" is obviously is not here to defend himself.  And even if he were here, he would not be able to defend himself because of his obligations to maintain confidences.  And even if he could defend himself, other posters could still insult him by accusing him of "mansplaining" because . . . "mansplaining" is in the dictionary?  Huh?  Well, "dudgeon" is in the dictionary, too.  So where does that leave us?

I really don't understand the rules here.

I'm not sure there are rules here.

Thanks,

-Smac

I honestly don’t have the time or interest to engage this entire post. 

It seems that the mod felt that kiwi was insulting all feminists and likewise does not consider the use of the term mansplaining to be an attempt to insult all of any specific group of people. 

Beyond that, there is no way to figure out exactly what the Mod meant. Any conclusions will just be guessing. 

Some male posters seem to be constantly struggling with this issue on here and others don’t have problem with such accusations. Maybe those male posters who have never run afoul of the mods on this topic can help enlighten those who have on what they do to stay off their radar. 

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Neither do I, and I kind of think that intent matters in situations like these.

Most of us have made mistakes and caused others harm without intent. Does lack of intent mean that we don't have to apologize, make changes, or acknowledge the pain of the victim?

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I really don't understand the rules here.

I'm not sure there are rules here.

You're not alone...

[phaedrus ut]

Can you imagine how much different this meeting could have been if she was meeting with a woman with of age and experience in the church? 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It’s not just being condescending though, it’s when men believe, based on nothing else than their gender, that they know more about a subject than a woman does.

 

Women can do that sort of thing as well. Why turn it into a battle-of-the-sexes thing? 

[Metis_LDS]

Beware of the never ending thread it will sap your resolve and drag you under!

[CA Steve]

Kinda sucks when the powers that be tell you to shut up even when you think you are right, doesn't it?

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I honestly don’t have the time or interest to engage this entire post. 

I understand.

Quote

It seems that the mod felt that kiwi was insulting all feminists and likewise does not consider the use of the term mansplaining to be an attempt to insult all of any specific group of people. 

Yes, it sure seems that way, doesn't it?  Despite the objections of numerous men to the use of the term.  So their voices . . . don't matter?

Quote

Beyond that, there is no way to figure out exactly what the Mod meant. Any conclusions will just be guessing. 

So we should refrain from judgment because we lack context and information.  Is that your point?

If so, I can agree with that.  I just wish it could have been applied to the stake president whose character and reputation has been slandered quite a bit in this thread.  After all, "there is no way to figure out exactly what the {stake president} meant," such that "{a}ny conclusions {about the stake president's conduct} will just be guessing."

Again, what are the rules?  The mod gets the benefit of the doubt, but the stake president (who is not even on this board) does not?  Mormons are at liberty to slander the character and reputation of a stake president even though "there is no way to figure out exactly what the {stake president} meant?"  Is that how things are working on this board?

What are the rules?  Are there any?  You lack the time or interest to address these concerns, despite the fact that numerous posters have expressed them.  I get it.  So be it.  Perhaps someone else will hear my voice and care enough to respond.

Quote

Some male posters seem to be constantly struggling with this issue on here and others don’t have problem with such accusations.

"This issue" being . . . what?

Quote

Maybe those male posters who have never run afoul of the mods on this topic can help enlighten those who have on what they do to stay off their radar. 

"This topic" being . . . what?

-Smac

Edited February 19, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I honestly don’t have the time or interest to engage this entire post. 

It seems that the mod felt that kiwi was insulting all feminists and likewise does not consider the use of the term mansplaining to be an attempt to insult all of any specific group of people. 

Beyond that, there is no way to figure out exactly what the Mod meant. Any conclusions will just be guessing. 

Some male posters seem to be constantly struggling with this issue on here and others don’t have problem with such accusations. Maybe those male posters who have never run afoul of the mods on this topic can help enlighten those who have on what they do to stay off their radar. 

Again, why is it insulting to observe that a “class of people” — any class of people — gets indignant or resentful over one thing or another? Doesn’t that sometimes happen to feminists?

And apparently that wasn’t even the problem initially, as the phrase was misperceived — by the moderator, the one reporting the post, or both — as “feminist dungeon,” whatever that was supposed to mean. 

[ALarson]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I really don't understand the rules here.

I'm not sure there are rules here.

I find the rules here to be easy to follow and fair (and pretty straight forward).  Of course, discussions can get heated and I've apologized at times for not being as civil as I should have been.

But mainly, it's just important to treat others as you'd like to be treated.  Disagreements are fine, but just stay civil and don't get into personal attacks.  Some here rarely seem to post without some amount of snarkiness or insulting language involved in their responses.  I think that's most likely what gets them reprimanded or thread banned, etc..

Edited February 19, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Women can do that sort of thing as well. Why turn it into a battle-of-the-sexes thing? 

They can, they just don’t do it to the same extent.  Society and our culture has not trained women to believe they are more capable than men so we don’t have to fight against that conditioning as much. 

And like I said earlier, if someone is being condescending to another because they have been conditioned by society to believe (usually subconsciously) that they are more capable than that gender, pointing it out so they can re-evaluate their behavior is doing them a favor. 

Its silly to pretend that centuries of patriarchy in our society has not impacted each gender negatively.  Being an ostrich with its head in the sand helps no one. 

[provoman]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It’s not just being condescending though, it’s when men believe, based on nothing else than their gender, that they know more about a subject than a woman does.

 

Ok so we expand the gender-phobic pejorative to include what you have just presented.

Your addition makes it all the more gender-phobic pejorative ment to silence. Your addition also requires   assumptions that are gender-biased within themselves. Your addition requires - without proof that a male who dared speak did simply because the audience was female. The term is a pejorative and it is ment as an insult.

So how about we stop using pejoratives and het back to topic?

 

Does it matter to you that someone outright to refused to cease conduct that was damaging a ward?

Men are the only ones using it now from what I can see. If the complaining continues it will be a thread ban. 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Women can do that sort of thing as well. Why turn it into a battle-of-the-sexes thing? 

With respect, Scott, this thread turned into a "battle-of-the-sexes thing" some time ago.

"Mansplaining," despite being insulting and offensive to numerous male posters, is fine and dandy.

Further, members of the Church publicly slandering a stake president despite A) lacking information and context, B) lacking stewardship, C) violating clear counsel from general authorities (see, e.g., this excellent 1987 Ensign article by Elder Oaks) is likewise fine and dandy because . . . the dictionary.  Or something.  

However, a reference to "feminist dudgeon" will be first materially mis-read as "feminist dungeon" (what does that even mean?), which in turn will be declared to be a categorical slur against all women everywhere (um, what?).  And then when the error is caught, "feminist dudgeon" will also be declared to be a categorical slur against all women everywhere (again, what?). 

These are the . . . rules?

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes these are the rules.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

Your addition requires - without proof that a male who dared speak did simply because the audience was female.

Are you even reading what bluebell is posting?  This is not even close to what she is expressing.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, why is it insulting to observe that a “class of people” — any class of people — gets indignant or resentful over one thing or another? Doesn’t that sometimes happen to feminists?

And apparently that wasn’t even the problem initially, as the phrase was misperceived — by the moderator, the one reporting the post, or both — as “feminist dungeon,” whatever that was supposed to mean. 

I didn't even know it was me that was called a "feminist dungeon" or other, before today, haha! So I know I didn't report it. In all the years I've been a member of this board I've never reported a soul.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I find the rules here to be easy to follow and fair (and pretty straight forward).  Of course, discussions can get heated and I've apologized at times for not being as civil as I should have been.

But mainly, it's just important to treat others as you'd like to be treated. 

Sounds good.  I resent the repeated use of gender-specific putdowns by Juliann and others on this board.  Use of this putdown ("mansplaining") appears to get a free pass because it is being used by women to demean men.  I also object to gender-specific putdowns when they are applied to women.  Such things are classically and inherently sexist (as in "devaluation based on a person's sex or gender").

I am reminded of the time I criticized Jana Reiss on her blog for her comments about a particular topic.  I did not make a single reference to her gender, nor did I question her character or integrity.  I just strongly disagreed with her remarks and explained in detail the basis for my disagreement.  There was an immediate torrent of blowback of my comments, many of which took exception to me, a man, disagreeing with Jana, a woman, solely 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."

Women can't have it both ways.  They cannot present their views 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 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.

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Disagreements are fine, but just stay civil and don't get into personal attacks. 

This thread has been an extended exercise in "personal attacks" against a stake president.  Many (most?) of these attacks have been by members of the Church, who are ostensibly not supposed to do such things.

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Some here rarely seem to post without some amount of snarkiness or insulting language involved in their responses.  I think that's most likely what gets them reprimanded or thread banned, etc..

I wish we could jettison the Gender Wars from the Restored Gospel, or at least the tactics and rhetoric of those wars, which have aptly been described as "{having} almost single-handedly destroyed the relationship between the sexes."  It's just not a good fit.  We are supposed to be seeking unity.  "I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine."  On this board we are trying to discuss and sort out complex and challenging issues facing the Saints.  I think we all have voices that can and should be expressed without being slurred because a voice happens to be male (or female, for that matter).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Metis_LDS]

How does one Report a thread out of control!

[ALarson]

Just now, Metis_LDS said:

How does one Report a thread out of control!

Maybe just stay off of this thread?  I've done that in the past and it works for me.  Not all threads are of interest to everyone here.

 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They can, they just don’t do it to the same extent.  Society and our culture has not trained women to believe they are more capable than men so we don’t have to fight against that conditioning as much. 

And like I said earlier, if someone is being condescending to another because they have been conditioned by society to believe (usually subconsciously) that they are more capable than that gender, pointing it out so they can re-evaluate their behavior is doing them a favor. 

Its silly to pretend that centuries of patriarchy in our society has not impacted each gender negatively.  Being an ostrich with its head in the sand helps no one. 

That ostrich metaphor is an interesting one:

Quote

MYTH: Ostriches bury their heads in the sand when they're scared or threatened.

HOW IT STARTED: It's an optical illusion! Ostriches are the largest living birds, but their heads are pretty small. "If you see them picking at the ground from a distance, it may look like their heads are buried in the ground," says Glinda Cunningham of the American Ostrich Association.

WHY IT'S NOT TRUE: Ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand—they wouldn't be able to breathe! But they do dig holes in the dirt to use as nests for their eggs. Several times a day, a bird puts her head in the hole and turns the eggs. So it really does look like the birds are burying their heads in the sand!

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Are you even reading what bluebell is posting?  This is not even close to what she is expressing.

Are your reading what she wrote, and what she wrote is what I quoted and clearly responded to?