Jump to content

Post Mormon reaction to child abusers from their own community


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I have no doubt Anne is great at what she does.  But I can't help how messy her responses are.  She put her foot in her mouth about a dozen times (Ok an exaggeration, but when you see it once it feels like twice and if you see it again it feels like a half dozen times) with her attempts to define a true advocate, it seems to me.  And really, these two pieces are the only things I know her by.  

I think Smac raises interesting points in his response. And I won't comment about whether he always defends a man.  

I agree it is disjointed and hard to follow. But as far as Dehlin, everything I've seen on him (and there have been some big blowouts over the years) doesn't come from her. My discomfort with Park comes from her early Year of Polygamy podcasts which weren't footnoted and used unsubstantiated accounts, one of which was contradicted by the very scholar she was using for other things,  to make the situations look as bad as possible. (Again, my reaction as someone who will not defend historical polygamy.) It has kept me somewhat suspect since. I think she is between a rock and a hard place with Kimball, but I do admit to some surprise to see such an extended all about me published reaction. I'm going to chalk it up to the shock of it all and a too rapid response to it. She did much the same thing as she befriended criminal polygamists and then defended herself  and I also found that odd. So I think McMullin's point about credentials considering the breadth of Park's endeavors is valid. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
34 minutes ago, juliann said:

You couldn't be bothered to look before launching your attack?

Anne also holds a master’s in clinical psychology from Harvard University and a bachelor’s in human development and family studies from the University of Utah.

Are academic credentials equivalent to "qualifications or understanding necessary to handle {such things} effectively?"  It seems not, since she is not handling such things effectively. 

  • She's using loaded terminology ("predator masking") and emotionalisms ("There is a new power in publicly exposing abusers") all over the place.  
  • She's purveying gossip all over the place.  
  • She's apparently declaring that she can competently differentiate "between true victim advocates and imposters."  Not sure how academic credentials qualify her to do that.  
  • She says nothing about mandatory reporting laws.  
  • She says nothing about the presumption of innocence.  
  • She makes a passing reference to "best due process," whatever that means.  She apparently has no legal or law enforcement training to speak of, does she?  So how is she qualified to speak intelligently and authoritatively on when "due process" has been observed and when it has not?  
  • She declares that a real "victim advocate" such as herself can be "loyal to the best interests of both victims and the accused."  Um, what?  How do her academic credentials qualify her to do that?

She's not acting in her capacity as a psychologist.  She's acting in a private capacity, advertising her podcast.  I don't think her academic credentials count for much.

Quote

Smac, your legal expertise and knowledge is exemplary, you have provided the most comprehensive analysis of legal issues in the exmo lawsuits that exist.

Well, thanks.  And that commentary and analysis has had nothing to do with gender, so I'm not sure why you are publicly accusing me of "always, always defend{ing} the man."  Feel free to point out where I have defended Mr. Bishop in the Denson matter.

Quote

I'm betting this is the only forum that almost immediately identified the problems with the McKenna nonsense and I sent dissenters here to understand it.  But you regularly are taken to the woodshed over your treatment of women here by active Mormon women.

I treat women here the same as I treat men.  I don't take sides based on gender.

And my "treatment of women" that receives the woodshed treament (from you, mostly) usually consists of me not agreeing with your treatment of men.  Ironic, eh?

Quote

You do take sides on gender you are just blind to it. 

I do not. 

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
48 minutes ago, juliann said:

I agree it is disjointed and hard to follow. But as far as Dehlin, everything I've seen on him (and there have been some big blowouts over the years) doesn't come from her. My discomfort with Park comes from her early Year of Polygamy podcasts which weren't footnoted and used unsubstantiated accounts, one of which was contradicted by the very scholar she was using for other things,  to make the situations look as bad as possible. (Again, my reaction as someone who will not defend historical polygamy.) It has kept me somewhat suspect since. I think she is between a rock and a hard place with Kimball, but I do admit to some surprise to see such an extended all about me published reaction. I'm going to chalk it up to the shock of it all and a too rapid response to it. She did much the same thing as she befriended criminal polygamists and then defended herself  and I also found that odd. So I think McMullin's point about credentials considering the breadth of Park's endeavors is valid. 

Yes, and I listened to the associated podcast today, and found myself frustrated. They had four speakers, one from Sunstone, and opened up the topic by mentioning LHP. Then they went through the list of ten things, taking turns to elaborate on different points with reasons and some examples. They do not dissect the reactions of LHP, nor do they lay out her specific objections. But, being aware of Anne's statements the last few days, I get the distinct impression that they are talking about LHP at different points without actually spelling it out. It sounds like it is possible that Park may have had the express permission to speak about the victims in her recent public statements, certainly the permission of at least some. It is unclear. And so I worry that McMullin's work might be diminished by the vague complaints about Park. It might be that she cannot get more specific due to the nature of of the situation being wrapped up in victims' stories, which she is trying to respect.

That said, I would re-word what SMAC said about Anne playing with fire. Both Anne McMullin and Lindsay Hansen Park are handling fire, fire that it seems like most people and most levels of society have great difficulty handling. My sense is that Park has done true advocate work for women in polygamous sects, and that her friendship with the groups themselves have facilitated that advocacy. It seems to me that Anne McMullin is painstakingly trying to call out problematic issues with Park without betraying abuse victims, and she is also calling out John Dehlin.

So I am inclined to try to support both Park and McMullin and their strengths, hoping that the support can help them be better at what they say they're trying to do. 

Edited by Meadowchik
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
44 minutes ago, juliann said:
Quote

I have no doubt Anne is great at what she does.  But I can't help how messy her responses are.  She put her foot in her mouth about a dozen times (Ok an exaggeration, but when you see it once it feels like twice and if you see it again it feels like a half dozen times) with her attempts to define a true advocate, it seems to me.  And really, these two pieces are the only things I know her by.  

I think Smac raises interesting points in his response. And I won't comment about whether he always defends a man.  

I agree it is disjointed and hard to follow.

Weird how Stem can critique McMullin without being publicly accused of sexism.  And you can too.

Quote

My discomfort with Park comes from her early Year of Polygamy podcasts which weren't footnoted and used unsubstantiated accounts, one of which was contradicted by the very scholar she was using for other things,  to make the situations look as bad as possible.

Again, weird.  You critique Park's writings, and that's okay.  I critique McMullin, and I'm publicly accused of "always, always defend{ing} the man" and "{mis}treatment of women."

Quote

I think she is between a rock and a hard place with Kimball, but I do admit to some surprise to see such an extended all about me published reaction. I'm going to chalk it up to the shock of it all and a too rapid response to it. She did much the same thing as she befriended criminal polygamists and then defended herself  and I also found that odd. So I think McMullin's point about credentials considering the breadth of Park's endeavors is valid. 

So do I.  Yet when I questioned her qualifications/credentials (relevant to what she is saying and doing), you publicly accuse me of sexism.

I reject the notion that women are so privileged as to be immune from scrutiny and critique.  And I dislike it when women use their gender to hide from such scrutiny (or to privilege other women from such).

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

To my bold, it's usually those that are first out and in the anger phase, not all though. The anger worsens. But the posts I've read on various threads tell me that many ex-LDS are just as angry at Tom as the active LDS posters. Which was a relief after reading your opening post. Glad we can all agree that he did horrific things flat out. No if's, and's, or but's.

Now OTOH, should we condemn someone in a high leadership position that holds a lot of trust? As some of these ex-LDS posters have done that see someone in the news, for instance child porn/abuse while in their leadership position? We all know a couple or more. People are going to trust those in a leadership position of any faith or maybe more in the LDS faith, dunno. Just as Meadowchic has posted about. Or a community that is really close and trusting of each other.   

On another note, when I've gone to Sunstone Symposiums, twice now, I feel like it's a huge clique. And never felt a part of it. And thought JD was like their God or something. Same with Lindsay. But since I don't know them personally, maybe I should keep my big mouth shut. 

It might be that they are just not on as many peoples' radar, but like you, I do see quite a bit of progressive Mormons and ex-Mormons calling out perceived offenders among them. There is a lot going on here, and the worst thing that can happen in my opinion is that everyone who is LDS and Mormon-adjacent are complacent or have less incentive to improve because of flaws they see in the other. I would like to see the church get so good at being a safe place to be and a good place to learn about safety that people never leave because they feel unsafe at church, that that's never the reason for leaving. I'd much rather people stay in the church because it is safe for them than leave because it is not. And I would like to see Mormon-adjacent communities be likewise so supportive of women and children that their religious affiliation is only about where they seek God, and not about being the only places they can find of safe harbor. 

I try to avoid false equivalencies, though. The single most powerful entity and influence here in these relationships is the LDS Church. 

 

Edited by Meadowchik
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
57 minutes ago, juliann said:

Stem, you have been very fair and even handed with this. But look at how you are discounting the women. This is exactly why the predators roam so freely. I believe the women, especially when there is more than one. Even Kate Kelly had an unpleasant exit. That is when the iffy stuff should stop. There is no defending Dehlin when it comes to not paying women, all salaries are public record. I don't know anyone who has burned as many bridges as Dehlin but I think he is so valuable to the exmo community because he is probably best positioned to do damage to the church that they throw the women under the bus. There is open disdain for him by more than one exmo/prog group. Yet not one of these groups has made an effort to bring him to account for his misogyny. 

I forgot more about the Dehlin episode then I remember.  I have no doubt.  I'm going completely on my memory of my old impressions, rather than the stories themselves.  I don't remember Kate Kelly had complaints about Dehlin.  And it may be true I'm thinking there was less credibility than was actual.  I haven't thought much of Dehlin since, either.  I recall an anonymous lady accusing him of something akin to assault but then she backed away as I asked her, suggesting it was just some misunderstanding.  She followed up noting, as I recall, her biggest gripe about him was he used his influence to force her from the Mormonstories community, or something. 

With that said I don't mean to suggest the women who felt he had cheated them were to not be taken seriously.  As I recall this "he didn't pay women contributors" came from someone not involved and confirmed by one other woman, and then possibly another.  Then a couple other women disagreed and showed their support for Dehlin in the argument.  It may be I have it wrong and for that I apologize.  But even still my only point would be he wouldn't be the type of predator that Tom was found out to be.  My point was not to say women weren't mistreated by him, only that he is not the type or degree of predator Tom was, even granting all accusations against him.  He being mentioned in this whole affair doesn't seem to fit with the crimes we're talking about.  

Link to post
4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Its scary that nearly all, some 98 plus percent, of these attackers are male.  And dreadfully awful that a higher percent, it seems, of these victims are female or other non-male. 

To be fair to all victims, I don’t think that is close to accurate.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Agreed.  My mistake.  I thought I had heard 88 percent and mistyped that.  But it looks like I was wrong on that anyway.  Thanks.  

If you are talking about rape, you are undercounting,

Link to post

I do find it interesting that in Mormon spaces, rather than blaming other groups for worse behavior, it inevitably turns into a defense of men.  On this forum, at least, there is an almost primal reaction to the idea that females are victimized by males at much greater rates. It's so so weird. I could post that women make up over 70% of the victims of domestic murder and men would jump in to insist that a small percentage of women have killed men partners. Nor do they account for the self defense factor, which is real, in female domestic violence. Hopefully, this is specific to this forum.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
9 minutes ago, juliann said:

 

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

If you are talking about rape, you are undercounting,

These are both very old - 1998 and early 2000’s.  One has a very narrow lens focusing only on intimate partners.  

From my 2016 peer reviewed article:

“In incidents of sexual violence reported to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 38 percent of victims were men––a figure much higher than in prior surveys. Intrigued, she began to investigate: Was sexual violence against men more common than previously thought?“

“...We therefore believe that this article provides more definitive estimates about the prevalence of female sexual perpetration than has been provided in the literature to date. Taken as a whole, the reports we examine document surprisingly significant prevalence of female-perpetrated sexual victimization, mostly against men and occasionally against women.”

“Those conclusions are grounded in striking numbers.“

The article properly notes:

“This awareness-raising need not come at the expense of women victimized by sexual violence, Stemple emphasized to Rosin, because “compassion is not a finite resource.” “

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 minutes ago, juliann said:

I do find it interesting that in Mormon spaces, rather than blaming other groups for worse behavior, it inevitably turns into a defense of men. 

If you are referring to my post, that is a mischaracterization. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
14 hours ago, Calm said:

A “personal grudge“ (or we could call it a logical response to having be damaged by Park, just as likely with the info given and her clear writing leans me that way) that is apparently relevant to what is going on.***. 
 

What did she say that was wrong in her assessment?

Or is this a version of dismissing what a woman says because she is seen as “emotional”?  How Victorian if so.

Whatever got you there, are you okay with dismissing any accusations coming from someone who has personal issues with what they are criticizing because that removes a ton of former critical members of the Church because that appears to be what you are doing.

***https://medium.com/what-we-know/tom-kimball-lindsay-hansen-park-predator-masking-and-an-alleged-threatened-murder-suicide-e205bfe612cd

 

Yes, Lindsay pointed out that Anne McMullin has a grudge against her. I am not making the claim. Lindsay is. Nothing Victorian in me believing her.

Link to post
9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I forgot more about the Dehlin episode then I remember.  I have no doubt.  I'm going completely on my memory of my old impressions, rather than the stories themselves.  I don't remember Kate Kelly had complaints about Dehlin.  And it may be true I'm thinking there was less credibility than was actual.  I haven't thought much of Dehlin since, either.  I recall an anonymous lady accusing him of something akin to assault but then she backed away as I asked her, suggesting it was just some misunderstanding.  She followed up noting, as I recall, her biggest gripe about him was he used his influence to force her from the Mormonstories community, or something. 

With that said I don't mean to suggest the women who felt he had cheated them were to not be taken seriously.  As I recall this "he didn't pay women contributors" came from someone not involved and confirmed by one other woman, and then possibly another.  Then a couple other women disagreed and showed their support for Dehlin in the argument.  It may be I have it wrong and for that I apologize.  But even still my only point would be he wouldn't be the type of predator that Tom was found out to be.  My point was not to say women weren't mistreated by him, only that he is not the type or degree of predator Tom was, even granting all accusations against him.  He being mentioned in this whole affair doesn't seem to fit with the crimes we're talking about.  

I believe you're right. IMO, Dehlin got a big head over the adulation he received earlier in the Mormon Stories conferences he would hold. I attended one of them. I've heard of his liaison with a woman, was more emotional than physical. And Dehlin admits his marriage having had issues. And them getting the counseling they needed and they are as strong as ever now. Here is a website that has this about it. And much more about JD being not as nice a guy as some think. Or maybe I'm sharing gossip, if so my bad. Let everyone decided what they may. My spidey sense has me feeling unsure about the guy. 

https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/john-dehlin-and-the-women-problem/

c/p'd below:

ifth Columnist wrote:
Hey Rosebud, rumor has it that JD had an affair with you and that the reason JD met with his SP for so long was to repent of it. Any truth to that?
 
 
Good thing I checked back. No more questions after this, please. It’s not that I don’t want to answer, it’s that I do want to remove drama from my life because I have other things to focus on right now. My objective is to protect future victims and fight silence of women in the exMo community. This stuff is rampant. JD’s involvement in it is the OSF board’s problem, now. Not mine.
 
Answer:
 
Yes and no.
 
Legally speaking, we did not have an affair because, legally, an affair must include sexual intercourse. We were not as chaste as 13-yos at their first junior high school dance.
 
We did have what I would call an “emotional affair” that I now understand was very predatory. At the time I did not yet comprehend the ways JD was manipulating me or intentionally using my vulnerabilities against me. At the time I knew I was in danger because of his temper, public position and the many public lies he told, but I did not have a full comprehension of the level of revenge, irrationality and anger to which he could rise. (You can find a small taste of it archived on this board in the thread in which he calls me “histrionic.”)
 
At the time, I believed many of the lies he told me because, at least to some extent, I still believed in parts of public presentation he all puts forward for you. I did not believe as many of his lies as those who weren’t listening to his strategizing behind the curtain, but I still hadn’t completely cottoned on. His manipulations are both sophisticated and obvious. Once you see them, they’re hard to un-see, but before one is aware of them, one wants to believe in him. He has an air or charisma that offers hope of something better and he intentionally uses that to his benefit in order to gain followers.
 
At the time I was not safe because I understood, to some extent (although not a full extent), what kind of person JD is and was, and what he might do to me because of his guilt. This lack of safety influenced some of my decisions — especially at times he was treating me the most poorly. It affected my ability to escape the situation. In the end, there was no safe escape for me or for the people who had trusted JD to represent their needs to the church. He saved his own neck no matter how many other people he hurt. I honestly think he would have preferred me dead. This is not an exaggeration. I do not now, looking back, believe I had full power to consent to all that occurred. I was in great danger. That does not also mean that he is as guilty as he could be. Consent is not always a black and white thing.
 
I felt a lot of guilt at the time. I believed it was a terrible affair. I was wrong, both legally and in my perception of what happened. I no longer feel guilty or believe bad things about myself or what occurred between us. I now have compassion for the vulnerable me who was greatly taken advantage of. More than anything, getting away from my ex-husband and experiencing real sex for the first time helped. That happened when I was 40 and definitely changed my perspective on what had occurred between JD and myself.
 
JD has his own sexual problems that are not my business to discuss here. Now that I understand sex and relationships I am more aware of JD’s problems than I was before.
 
Legally speaking, there was a major power difference between myself and JD: media access, followers, money, influence, passwords, board access, “public figure” status, etc.
 
Legally speaking, I lost my job. JD didn’t. There are lots of ways people might try to parse that, but I’ll let it go for now. I put up a fight for the OSF and CTW and managed to save a few things before I exited.
 
Legally speaking, small businesses can get away with a lot because the government protects them. They get away with more in Utah than New Hampshire. Have an attorney sort it out for you, but it is directly related to Money’s concerns about number of employees and how much they get paid. Fewer and more poorly paid employees = more legal leverage for JD… and he uses/used it. I’m leaving the docs where they are because what is important to me is not drama, but protecting other women in crisis who come to the OSF with good intentions. I’m concerned about other vulnerable women who step into the transitioning Mormon communities hoping to “help” people. That was me when JD started this. He was the instigator. Repetitively. It was not me.
 
_______
 
As for the SP, the answer is no. JD was talking to his SP on a weekly basis for a long time before any of the “drama,” as I would put it, began. JD did so because the SP asked him to because of JD’s influence over the MS communities and because JD wanted to catch the SP on the record saying things that would incriminate the church. It was part of his plan all along. Keep in mind, too, that JD is a wishy washy guy: in one place one day and another the next. It’s not helpful to confuse wishy-washy with well-meaning and innocent.
 
Does he have some moments that are more positive than others? Definitely. Do those more positive moments erase the reality of his strategic maneuvering? Definitely not.
 
JD is dishonest about details in the “faith reconstruction” podcast because he was creating a narrative to promote his false repentance (should he be called to the carpet by myself or someone in my family in the future) and to help prepare him for his honorable excommunication, finally achieved two years later.
 
_______
 
all right. Not my drama anymore please.
 
 
 
——————————————-RB6——————————————–

I have decided to say one more thing and then will do my best to exit this drama and not read responses here. I do ask that if JD or the OSF responds with its “statement” that someone let me know. I may be ignoring only because I’m trying to shut this out of my life.

(And if anyone on the OSF board reads this, please consider Money’s number and payment of employees issue and how that increased JD’s power over me dramatically.)

This is hard to write, but it needs to be said. Like a lot of women, I have been violently raped more than one time. What JD did to me with his emotional manipulations, and, well, I’m not going to get into everything he did or the whole drama he’s created of his life that I unfortunately am now part of, was far worse than the rapes.

I know there will be those who will argue and defend, say that I am wrong to have experienced my life the way I have, that my response to JD is hardly JD’s “fault,” or whatnot, but if I could have exchanged this experience for a few more violent rapes, I would gladly have done so. There is great harm in emotional, sexual and power manipulation coupled with Internet intimidation, public exposure, and the power games he’s playing with the church.

He is a very dangerous man.

Link to post
4 minutes ago, juliann said:

I do find it interesting that in Mormon spaces, rather than blaming other groups for worse behavior, it inevitably turns into a defense of men.  On this forum, at least, there is an almost primal reaction to the idea that females are victimized by males at much greater rates. It's so so weird. I could post that women make up over 70% of the victims of domestic murder and men would jump in to insist that a small percentage of women have killed men partners. Nor do they account for the self defense factor, which is real, in female domestic violence. Hopefully, this is specific to this forum.

I think men just want to see the blame spread around to all who are at fault and for what.  Sure, more men abuse women than women abuse men, but let's not hide the fact that women abuse men, even if not as many.

Link to post

Another interesting note from the article;

“The authors completed their research and writeup long before multiple sexual assault allegations roiled the 2016 presidential race. Even so, they were sensitive to the possibility that “a focus on female perpetration might be skeptically viewed as an attempt to upend a women’s rights agenda focused on male-perpetrated sexual victimization.” As they see it, “attention to female perpetration is consistent with feminist approaches that take into account power relations, intersectional analyses, and the imperative to question gender-based stereotypes.”

“Stereotypes about women “include the notion that women are nurturing, submissive helpmates to men,” they write. “The idea that women can be sexually manipulative, dominant, and even violent runs counter to these stereotypes. Yet studies have documented female-perpetrated acts that span a wide spectrum of sexual abuse.”

“They argue that female perpetration is downplayed among professionals in mental health, social work, public health, and law, with harmful results for male and female victims, in part due to these “stereotypical understandings of women as sexually harmless,” even as ongoing “heterosexism can render lesbian and bisexual victims of female-perpetrated sexual victimization invisible to professionals.”

Link to post
6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think men just want to see the blame spread around to all who are at fault and for what.  Sure, more men abuse women than women abuse men, but let's not hide the fact that women abuse men, even if not as many.

2014-04-10-pltm196.jpg?w=800&quality=85

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, juliann said:

I do find it interesting that in Mormon spaces, rather than blaming other groups for worse behavior, it inevitably turns into a defense of men. 

Baloney.  I defend men as a category because some folks on this board vilify men as a category. 

Collective guilt isn't legitimate.

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

On this forum, at least, there is an almost primal reaction to the idea that females are victimized by males at much greater rates.

Which is not an indictment of all men, though some seem to want to treat is as such.

I reject the notion of collective guilt.  

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

It's so so weird.

That's what I think of people who excoriate men as a category of beings solely because others of their gender have done something wrong.  That is weird and wrong to me.

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

I could post that women make up over 70% of the victims of domestic murder and men would jump in to insist that a small percentage of women have killed men partners. Nor do they account for the self defense factor, which is real, in female domestic violence. Hopefully, this is specific to this forum.

Misandry has a pretty healthy presence in this forum.  

-Smac

Link to post
13 minutes ago, juliann said:

2014-04-10-pltm196.jpg?w=800&quality=85

Yeah I know.  Women just need to vent their thoughts and feelings without any man stepping in to try to fix things or point out that we all have problems.

My bad.  I probably just should have remained silent unless I just wanted to talk about the problems that women want to talk about.

I'll be quiet now though.  You are always free to vent and share whatever you want to talk about.

Link to post
1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Yeah I know.  Women just need to vent their thoughts and feelings without any man stepping in to try to fix things or point out that we all have problems.

If the situation was reversed, if men publicly resort to collective guilt and caricatures and slanders about how "all women" do bad things, would it be okay for a woman to intervene to object to such an unfair generalization of their gender?

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

My bad.  I probably just should have remained silent unless I just wanted to talk about the problems that women want to talk about.

I'll be quiet now though.  You are always free to vent and share whatever you want to talk about.

I encourage you to not let bullies browbeat you into silence.  Particularly when the browbeating is based on your gender.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If the situation was reversed, if men publicly resort to collective guilt and caricatures and slanders about how "all women" do bad things, would it be okay for a woman to intervene to object to such an unfair generalization of their gender?

I have a wife and I have learned by experience that it is sometimes best to just listen and let her vent to share her thoughts and feelings than to say anything in response about the other side of the equation.

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I encourage you to not let bullies browbeat you into silence.  Particularly when the browbeating is based on your gender.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think juliann is being a bully in this instance.  I could be wrong about that but I don't think she is.  I think she just needs to vent to help get her frustrations out in the open.  I think she just needs to be heard.

Without a man or anyone else stepping in to try to fix what they see as her problem.

Link to post

I've reported the male tears. Go pass out hankies in your own threads. This is mine. 

Seriously guys, get a grip. This is why women have to resort to women only folders so they can discuss things that pertain to women.  

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...