This American Life

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So let’s see, you come in this thread, mock the OP’s friends for not telling the world, then call the OP a liar, then complain about how poorly you’re being treated by the women in this thread. Do I have that about right?  You are indeed a defender of women. 

OOO good one!  

Seriously.

I apologize sincerely and will leave the thread and will try to keep my promise to never again comment on this subject.

So hit me up and remind me if I do.  I really am not an ogre and my wife and daughters (3 adults) love me dearly but think I am a bit old fashioned.   I should be.   I am old enough to qualify.  So please forgive the ravings of an old man who cannot possibly comprehend the direction some women in the church are taking.  

I certainly did not want to offend anyone- if anything - I do have a tendency to let my opinions be told quite vociferously and openly.  I am not used to shutting up in the face of what I think is wrong, but I will try.

I am here to "defend the faith" and I do get a little too involved in expressing my opinions.

I really should be posting elsewhere as well, considering this tendency, or restrict myself to philosophical issues instead of moral ones if I am on this board.

Sorry folks if I offended you.

[MustardSeed]

Someone mentioned they could see where this thread was headed a few pages back and I see that in effect it headed precicely where they led it.  Slow. Clap. 

For what it’s worth, I adore men.  I’m simply thrilled to be a woman, and I like my doors opened for me.  I also won’t be treated poorly, thank you very much. 

I think the internet is a convenient place for people to go and kick the dog.  I just assume if folks are driving around in traffic being mean and aggressive, they probably have issues I can’t see.  I slow way down so they can’t hit me. 

Back in the day, when I was young and feisty, I used to chase them down and call police and shake my fist. Turns out, it only put me in danger and stole my peace. 

As I age I find that I actually have the power and skills in life to quiet the conflict. I’m too tired for much else. 

Ive drawn my own conclusions about individuals here, as you have me.  That image is constantly changing, with an open heart. 

May you all have a peaceful day. 

[MustardSeed]

You accused me publically of being a purposeless liar, without carefully reading my posts which would have helped. 

That didn’t feel so great.  If keeping your thoughts to yourself and blaming age is what’s being offered, I’ll take what I get and remember we don’t really know each other.  Not yet, anyway. I’m sure there is history here that I got caught in the crosshairs in. Be well. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by MustardSeed

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

She's not trying to win.  This isn't a competition between men and women, and no one has to lose in order for someone else to win.  We aren't adversaries. 

She's trying to have a discussion and she's explaining why she disagrees with some of your conclusions.  Replying 'you win' rather than honestly engaging her points makes it seem like you have no use for the perspective of women and would rather not have discussions with them at all unless they agree with you.

 

You couldn’t be more mistaken.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

You couldn’t be more mistaken.

What did you mean to imply then by refusing to engage a woman's perspective on men abusing or protecting women throughout history and instead replying 'you win'?   There have been other threads where women have disagreed with you when discussing gender topics and you've behaved in a similar fashion.

I'm not sure how else to interpret your typical response to women when discussing gender topics (your habit of disengaging while implying that you are being treated unfairly at the same time).  How would you want us to interpret it?

 

 

[Tacenda]

This was a good all around listen. http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/who-worthy-mormon-youth-interviews-sex-and-shame One thing that stuck out to me is the evolving recommendations in interviews. In the 70's I believe, they mention that these indepth interviews were for the older ages, I think they said 17 or 18. But then as the years went on, I believe starting in the 90's these indepth interviews started bi-annually with youth as young as 12. Also, the word "masturbation" was excluded in talks, think Packer's little factory talk. And excluded in pamplets, but then added later on and allowed to be asked of the youth as young as 12. Thought this very interesting. I think the church has become very obsessed with the youth staying completely free of porn, masturbation and keeping their chastity far more than they ever have. I understand that sentiment. But believe it can backfire in so many ways as well. 

"Wednesday, we’re talking about Mormon worthiness interviews. These conversations with lay-clergy determine if Mormons can enter the Temple, go on a mission, or attend Church-run universities. And even for pre-teen members the questions can be sexually explicit and sometimes traumatizing. This weekend, writer Elna Baker explored her own experience for the public radio program This American Life. She’ll join us to tell her story and the stories of other women who have gone through this experience.

Guests:

• Elna Baker and Miki Meeks, producers of The Old Man on My Shoulder for This American Life. [Check out our 2012 conversation with Baker.]
• Taylor Petrey, Associate Professor of Religion and Chair of the Religion Department at Kalamazoo College.
• Lee Hale, KUER Religion Reporter. Why Do Mormon Bishops Talk To Youth About Sex?; Excommunication Still Stands For Sam Young, Mormon Church Says"

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

OOO good one!  

Seriously.

I apologize sincerely and will leave the thread and will try to keep my promise to never again comment on this subject.

So hit me up and remind me if I do.  I really am not an ogre and my wife and daughters (3 adults) love me dearly but think I am a bit old fashioned.   I should be.   I am old enough to qualify.  So please forgive the ravings of an old man who cannot possibly comprehend the direction some women in the church are taking.  

I certainly did not want to offend anyone- if anything - I do have a tendency to let my opinions be told quite vociferously and openly.  I am not used to shutting up in the face of what I think is wrong, but I will try.

I am here to "defend the faith" and I do get a little too involved in expressing my opinions.

I really should be posting elsewhere as well, considering this tendency, or restrict myself to philosophical issues instead of moral ones if I am on this board.

Sorry folks if I offended you.

How about apologising about accusing Mustardseed of lying? I feel like that's the only thing you need to apologise for, IMO. The other stuff is just your opinion, and we all have those.

[rockpond]

I finally listened to the This American Life podcast last night.  It was really well done, which I assume is the norm for this program/podcast.  I've subscribed so I can try out some other episodes.

The stories shared members and former members are very concerning. I really do wish the Brethren would give more specific guidance on questions/topics that should be off limits.  I've now heard quite a few stories of church youth who were prompted to search out and/or experiment with things that they didn't think about before... because they were asked about them in a bishop's interview.

Of course, more guidance won't fix all of the problems.

The answers Eric Hawkins gave didn't really help the church, IMO.   It would be nice if someday the church could model repentance as an institution.  I guess legally they feel like they just can't admit to ever having done anything wrong.

[MustardSeed]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I've subscribed so I can try out some other episodes.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I do!  TAL has been my travel companion for several years.  I find it extremely entertaining, moving and informative.  I was surprised when my religion became the topic, and because I trust the integrity of the program, I listened with an open mind and heart.  I learned a lot. 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Sorry folks if I offended you.

I'm sure you meant to say "sorry that I was offensive. "

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

What did you mean to imply then by refusing to engage a woman's perspective on men abusing or protecting women throughout history and instead replying 'you win'?   There have been other threads where women have disagreed with you when discussing gender topics and you've behaved in a similar fashion.

I'm not sure how else to interpret your typical response to women when discussing gender topics (your habit of disengaging while implying that you are being treated unfairly at the same time).  How would you want us to interpret it?

However you want. 

Perhaps I was sitting at the computer wondering if doing Google search duels is really the best use of my time, especially when my beloved Italian fiddle and French bow are just 10 feet away and I hear some Bach and Prokofiev calling my name. Or something else. We'll never know, will we.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

However you want. 

Perhaps I was sitting at the computer wondering if doing Google search duels is really the best use of my time, especially when my beloved Italian fiddle and French bow are just 10 feet away and I hear some Bach and Prokofiev calling my name. Or something else. We'll never know, will we.

When I ask a sincere question on how to understand communication better and the person replies with 'however you want' the only way I know how to interpret that is petulance.  However, if you really believe all that is happening here is 'google search duels' then it makes sense why you wouldn't take it seriously.

For my part and the part of the other women who are trying to have a sincere and productive discussion about these important and interesting issues that affect us every day, we do take it seriously, and while you don't want to have any part in it (which is fine), we hope that other men out there are willing to engage so that we can learn how to understand each other better.  

We don't need 'you win' and 'however you want.'   Like you said, that is not the best use of anyone's time. 

[Calm]

 

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This was a good all around listen. http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/who-worthy-mormon-youth-interviews-sex-and-shame One thing that stuck out to me is the evolving recommendations in interviews. In the 70's I believe, they mention that these indepth interviews were for the older ages, I think they said 17 or 18. But then as the years went on, I believe starting in the 90's these indepth interviews started bi-annually with youth as young as 12. Also, the word "masturbation" was excluded in talks, think Packer's little factory talk. And excluded in pamplets, but then added later on and allowed to be asked of the youth as young as 12. Thought this very interesting. I think the church has become very obsessed with the youth staying completely free of porn, masturbation and keeping their chastity far more than they ever have. I understand that sentiment. But believe it can backfire in so many ways as well.

Interviews are not something I have tracked, I was out of the program in 76 and my daughter never went through them as she had extreme anxiety and the bishop was understanding and asked, but never pushed (was very willing to meet her in our home with us present) and my son never talked about interviews at church or school or many other things he was doing, but talked about his ideas and what he wanted out of life and never complained about doing things with the family, so I gave him space and didn't pry....so all to say I have no idea if this is accurate, but if it is, it seems to parallel the development of more strict modesty guidelines for girls.

It makes more sense that modesty changes were part of a more global approach to youth rather than a stand alone occurrence.

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I finally listened to the This American Life podcast last night.  It was really well done, which I assume is the norm for this program/podcast.  I've subscribed so I can try out some other episodes.

The stories shared members and former members are very concerning. I really do wish the Brethren would give more specific guidance on questions/topics that should be off limits.  I've now heard quite a few stories of church youth who were prompted to search out and/or experiment with things that they didn't think about before... because they were asked about them in a bishop's interview.

What were the ages that shared stories?  I am wondering if this is a more limited time period than I formerly imagined if it didn't get started till mid70s and perhaps with the public attention appearing first on the Internet many, many years ago and that growing over the years, if this is something already diminishing and will likely die out sooner or later.

Not to say it shouldn't be actively engaged as the Church has done in the past as those who experienced it are now in callings themselves and thus it could be perpetuated longer without proactive measures taken by the Church to ensure it does not (think women still not being allowed to give closing/opening prayers in Sacrament Meeting due to an old guideline that was discontinued long ago, but still often embedded in the unwritten order of things such that even when it is known not to be a rule, some just ask that way automatically).

 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

When I ask a sincere question on how to understand communication better and the person replies with 'however you want' the only way I know how to interpret that is petulance.  However, if you really believe all that is happening here is 'google search duels' then it makes sense why you wouldn't take it seriously.

For my part and the part of the other women who are trying to have a sincere and productive discussion about these important and interesting issues that affect us every day, we do take it seriously, and while you don't want to have any part in it (which is fine), we hope that other men out there are willing to engage so that we can learn how to understand each other better.  

We don't need 'you win' and 'however you want.'   Like you said, that is not the best use of anyone's time. 

I don't see any benefit in denigrating one another's perceived on-line personality. Or engaging in Google search duels. You asked how I wanted you to interpret what I say. I can't tell you what to think.

I explained it several times. It's really quite simple. I expressed my opinion that male cruelty towards women is a learned behavior. I don't think men naturally would do that. Being cruel to anyone is a learned behavior, IMO. My opinion. This came about from a conversation with my combat veteran son (infantryman who kicked down doors in Khandahar and got blown up three times doing it) over a book review about a bizarre story of a male and female soldier who got married in Afghanistan and had children in combat. I asked him if that were even legal and what effect it had on unit cohesion. His response was that the men in his unit might do things that could be detrimental to their safety if they had husbands and wives, boyfriends or girlfriends, serving side by side, that that would be insane, that fraternization was forbidden for that reason, and that he he would not want to be put in that situation. He acknowledged that men in his unit, and I suppose in general, would be more protective to women comrades and reticent to kill women or children on the other side, although some had to do it in Iraq and that wreaked havoc on them later. They were instructed to respect the culture of the country in which they were stationed, even if things in that culture were reprehensible to them, for example the abuse of young boys in the Afghan soldier camps and the production of marijuana and poppies by local cartels. I cited an article that echoed what I said. I said nothing about executions of women in the US. My opinion, that's all. If you don't agree, fine.

The rest is something you have blown up out of your projections. I am not interested in wasting time doing Google searches for articles that refute  someone's articles that refute someone else's articles that refute my articles. I have better things to do. 

Speaking of petulance,  you are certainly entitled to your opinion about me, but you don't have the right to tell me to shut up. I have the right to my opinion about you, but I would never tell you to shut up.

 

You get the last word.

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

However you want. 

Perhaps I was sitting at the computer wondering if doing Google search duels is really the best use of my time, especially when my beloved Italian fiddle and French bow are just 10 feet away and I hear some Bach and Prokofiev calling my name. Or something else. We'll never know, will we.

You were the one who apparently was interested in whether or not protectiveness was a biological trait.  You brought up the subject and you asked it as a question.  I assumed at first you wanted to explore it as a possibility, not defend it as your position.  And .I treated it as a serious subject worthy to be explored.

That is why I posted the references that imo gave evidence that it was unlikely to be a gendered trait by itself because of the inconsistency of men's behaviour towards women.  For every positive example, there are examples of men harming women...in fact, men are probably quite often physically protecting women from other men as the feelings showed that started this whole thing....a man verbally assaulted a woman and other men expressed a desire to defend them.  Another example was of a woman being tortured and executed....by other men.  Why would the first aggressive behavious not be as biological as the second protective behaviours?

I don't think it speaks less of men to say they are not biologically wired to protect women.  I think it says something wonderful that the vast majority of men choose to be protective of women, children, their friends.  It is their humanity that leads them to sacrifice, not their animal nature.  It means we can teach men and women to make better choices, to cause less pain if we can move our cultures over the world to being more respectful.

I think it is noble for soldiers, law enforcement, and others to go out and risk their lives to protect others and I get the emotional appeal of focusing on women and children, especially when one is typically fighting against other men, but I think the nobler, more charitable, more humanizing approach is to think of it as protecting their brothers as well as theirs sisters, we are all children of God, there is no greater value or need for one gender to be loved and honoured and protected than the other.

I think our society will run into significant problems if they treat men's lives as expendable, but women's as treasured; man's suffering as something that can be safely ignored while a woman must be protected at all cost.  A man being tortured and executed is not something we should find the least bit acceptable because we are relieved it is not a woman.  Both are a great human tragedy and both deserve our full on engagement.  And if something is important enough for a man to die for, than it is important enough for a woman to die for and she should be respected enough to be given that chance if she chooses it.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

I said nothing about executions.

Your quote made executions of women front and center of their argument.  I assumed that you did so because that was part of your evidence...that society found execution of women so repugnant was evidence that men were biologically protective of women.  The quote went so far as to state civilization as we know it would cease if we got to the point where we ignored ("averted our eyes") from an execution of women.

I was responding to that with my own evidence that our society was already at the point we were comfortable with women's executions by posting the death penalty cases.

[Calm]

19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

"For now, as America is focused on the Islamic State and the presidential election, women in combat will just happen one day sometime in the not-distant future. Eventually, we’ll avert our eyes from footage of a young woman’s tortured body — someone’s wife, mother, daughter, sister or lover — as she is crucified, burned or beheaded in the name of God knows what.

That will be a day no civilized nation should have invited upon itself."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/women-in-combat-put-men-at-risk/2015/12/11/f0e00768-a04b-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html?utm_term=.4789ef5a3865

This is your quote that led to me responding to executions as demonstrations of how men are not hardwired to protect women in general.    Given the quotes is five lines long and 3 and a half are about execution, can you see why I interpreted it as you using responses to execution as part of your evidence?

[Calm]

Quote

. I expressed my opinion that male cruelty towards women is a learnedbehavior. I don't think men naturally would do that. Being cruel to anyone is a learned behavior, I

If you are interested in continuing to discuss this, I am wondering why you think there is a fundamental difference between cruelty and protectiveness.  Why aren't both learned behaviours in your view?

[rockpond]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

What were the ages that shared stories?  I am wondering if this is a more limited time period than I formerly imagined if it didn't get started till mid70s and perhaps with the public attention appearing first on the Internet many, many years ago and that growing over the years, if this is something already diminishing and will likely die out sooner or later.

Not to say it shouldn't be actively engaged as the Church has done in the past as those who experienced it are now in callings themselves and thus it could be perpetuated longer without proactive measures taken by the Church to ensure it does not (think women still not being allowed to give closing/opening prayers in Sacrament Meeting due to an old guideline that was discontinued long ago, but still often embedded in the unwritten order of things such that even when it is known not to be a rule, some just ask that way automatically).

 

I don’t think all of them gave their ages.  I think some of them were young adults but I am honestly not sure (and it’s audio only). 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

I'm sure you meant to say "sorry that I was offensive. "

Nope. 

Offense is in the eye of the beholder.

In the real world don't know anyone who would find my comments offensive.

I would not have made them if I did.

Then that statement would be correct.

I have no control over others subjective reactions.

Edited November 15, 2018 by mfbukowski

[MustardSeed]

.....and hurt makes way for clarity.  

Lets see this previous post as info about Mf and move on from here. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by MustardSeed

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

You were the one who apparently was interested in whether or not protectiveness was a biological trait.  You brought up the subject and you asked it as a question.  I assumed at first you wanted to explore it as a possibility, not defend it as your position.  And .I treated it as a serious subject worthy to be explored.

That is why I posted the references that imo gave evidence that it was unlikely to be a gendered trait by itself because of the inconsistency of men's behaviour towards women.  For every positive example, there are examples of men harming women...in fact, men are probably quite often physically protecting women from other men as the feelings showed that started this whole thing....a man verbally assaulted a woman and other men expressed a desire to defend them.  Another example was of a woman being tortured and executed....by other men.  Why would the first aggressive behavious not be as biological as the second protective behaviours?

I don't think it speaks less of men to say they are not biologically wired to protect women.  I think it says something wonderful that the vast majority of men choose to be protective of women, children, their friends.  It is their humanity that leads them to sacrifice, not their animal nature.  It means we can teach men and women to make better choices, to cause less pain if we can move our cultures over the world to being more respectful.

I think it is noble for soldiers, law enforcement, and others to go out and risk their lives to protect others and I get the emotional appeal of focusing on women and children, especially when one is typically fighting against other men, but I think the nobler, more charitable, more humanizing approach is to think of it as protecting their brothers as well as theirs sisters, we are all children of God, there is no greater value or need for one gender to be loved and honoured and protected than the other.

I think our society will run into significant problems if they treat men's lives as expendable, but women's as treasured; man's suffering as something that can be safely ignored while a woman must be protected at all cost.  A man being tortured and executed is not something we should find the least bit acceptable because we are relieved it is not a woman.  Both are a great human tragedy and both deserve our full on engagement.  And if something is important enough for a man to die for, than it is important enough for a woman to die for and she should be respected enough to be given that chance if she chooses it.

You read far more into a simple comment than I ever could, but that is your prerogative. I have experience with a lot of male friends, 6 of my own boys and hundreds of other people's children and it's just been my observation that the kids that are cruel learned that from someone. I thought my conversation with my son Belicossissimo was insightful and moving from a warrior's point of view, not something to be debated and debunked, but apparently just to me. Extrapolating from that that I consider men's lives expendable or we should rejoice in men being tortured or executed, well, that's an unwarranted leap. I just finished Mormon's description of the depravities committed against women and children in the final wars. That has touched my sensitivities in this area, too.

 I'm not interested in Google duels. If you don't agree, that's fine with me. Thanks for your opinions and your comments.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don't see any benefit in denigrating one another's perceived on-line personality.

I don't either.  I also don't think that anyone's online personality has been degraded.  

Quote

Or engaging in Google search duels.

You asked a question, and people responded by providing references in support of their thoughts and ideas.  I don't understand calling that 'google search duels.'  Was the question rhetorical and we just misunderstood that?  I'm sincerely asking.

Quote

You asked how I wanted you to interpret what I say. I can't tell you what to think.

No, but you can tell me how best to interpret your words.  If i've misunderstood someone, asking them to tell me what they meant seems like a very normal and reasonable thing to do.

Quote

I explained it several times. It's really quite simple. I expressed my opinion that male cruelty towards women is a learned behavior. I don't think men naturally would do that. Being cruel to anyone is a learned behavior, IMO. My opinion. This came about from a conversation with my combat veteran son (infantryman who kicked down doors in Khandahar and got blown up three times doing it) over a book review about a bizarre story of a male and female soldier who got married in Afghanistan and had children in combat. I asked him if that were even legal and what effect it had on unit cohesion. His response was that the men in his unit might do things that could be detrimental to their safety if they had husbands and wives, boyfriends or girlfriends, serving side by side, that that would be insane, that fraternization was forbidden for that reason, and that he he would not want to be put in that situation. He acknowledged that men in his unit, and I suppose in general, would be more protective to women comrades and reticent to kill women or children on the other side, although some had to do it in Iraq and that wreaked havoc on them later. They were instructed to respect the culture of the country in which they were stationed, even if things in that culture were reprehensible to them, for example the abuse of young boys in the Afghan soldier camps and the production of marijuana and poppies by local cartels. I cited an article that echoed what I said. I said nothing about executions of women in the US. My opinion, that's all. If you don't agree, fine.

Ok.  I think the article you linked to talked about the execution of women in America, which is how the subject came up.

Quote

The rest is something you have blown up out of your projections.

The 'rest' was based your response of 'you win' and 'however you want'.  

For example, when you said I was mistaken in my understanding of you, I asked for clarification and help in understanding you better.  Your response was that I should read you "however I want".  I don't know how to interpret that response in a way that projects something positive.

Quote

I am not interested in wasting time doing Google searches for articles that refute  someone's articles that refute someone else's articles that refute my articles. I have better things to do. 

I love it when people can support their opinions with references and research.  That's how I gain more knowledge and understanding.  Opinions are great but I don't find unsupported ones that useful.  I want a reason to accept someone else's opinion as valid.  But if you find no value in that and just want to deal with opinions then I can sincerely see why you view links as a waste of time.  

Hopefully you can see why others find them valuable and not as 'google search duels.'

Quote

Speaking of petulance,  you are certainly entitled to your opinion about me, but you don't have the right to tell me to shut up. I have the right to my opinion about you, but I would never tell you to shut up.

Who has told you to shut up??  I did say that your 'however you want' reply sounded sulky (that's what I meant by petulance) but I never told you to shut up.  Not even close.  In fact, I've asked you question after question after question and I sincerely wanted you to answer them.  

You were the one who said the discussion wasn't worth your time.

Quote

You get the last word.

I hope I don't. I hope you respond to some of my questions so I can better understand what you are trying to say.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have no control over others subjective reactions.

Isn’t all communication an attempt to manipulate someone else’s subjective experience?