Should anyone care about historical hate speech by senior Church leadership?

[MrShorty]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But not all women want this for themselves and do have certain aspirations outside of the home too.

Speaking for myself, I wonder if we could say something similar about men. How many LDS men get "trapped" in a career they don't like because the career they wanted wouldn't pay enough for them to be primary breadwinner. Or even how many LDS men might have liked trying their hand at being a stay at home dad while mom worked, but never tried because the standard narrative was, "dad will be the primary breadwinner and mom will be the primary caregiver -- except in extreme cases of disability or disease." Again, speaking just for myself and my family, I don't know if we would have done anything different, but I sometimes regret that I did not feel like I had a different choice other than, "get a good paying career so your wife can stay home."

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Speaking for myself, I wonder if we could say something similar about men. How many LDS men get "trapped" in a career they don't like because the career they wanted wouldn't pay enough for them to be primary breadwinner. Or even how many LDS men might have liked trying their hand at being a stay at home dad while mom worked, but never tried because the standard narrative was, "dad will be the primary breadwinner and mom will be the primary caregiver -- except in extreme cases of disability or disease." Again, speaking just for myself and my family, I don't know if we would have done anything different, but I sometimes regret that I did not feel like I had a different choice other than, "get a good paying career so your wife can stay home."

I thought of that, and should have included it. So I do get it, there is great order in it if it's expected I guess. And maybe all sides once they have children need to consider the other partner and come to a happy medium. I know my post was very extreme, or the meme. You make a great point! Thanks!

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Speaking for myself, I wonder if we could say something similar about men. How many LDS men get "trapped" in a career they don't like because the career they wanted wouldn't pay enough for them to be primary breadwinner. Or even how many LDS men might have liked trying their hand at being a stay at home dad while mom worked, but never tried because the standard narrative was, "dad will be the primary breadwinner and mom will be the primary caregiver -- except in extreme cases of disability or disease." Again, speaking just for myself and my family, I don't know if we would have done anything different, but I sometimes regret that I did not feel like I had a different choice other than, "get a good paying career so your wife can stay home."

One reason a family should make choices that work best for their family. This is completely in harmony with the proclamation of the family. I also don’t think the situation stays the same but changes over time depending on personal circumstances. I personally know many families where the dad is more ‘nurturing’ and the wife makes more money. As long as the needs of the children are met and not neglected, families can make wise and prudent choices for the mental and physical health of every member of the family.

Edited February 1, 2023 by bsjkki

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

One reason a family should make choices that work best for their family. This is completely in harmony with the proclamation in the family.

I would agree with you, but I'm not convinced the church as a whole (or the authors of the Proclamation) would agree. I recall a blog post a few years ago at BCC where the blogger, in response to a talk in a training meeting by his stake president, asked the stake president if he thought the text of the Proclamation allowed for a stay at home dad breadwinner mom scenario. Reportedly, the Stake President's response included, "he admitted that, on his reading of the Proclamation, he thinks families where the mother is the primary or sole breadwinner and the father the primary or sole caregiver–even if equally decided upon by the couple–are also in violation of what the document calls for." Again, I agree with you that the Proclamation allows for egalatarian type choices in this regard, but I'm not convinced everyone agrees.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/07/28/a-quick-query-about-the-proclamation-on-the-family/

Edited February 1, 2023 by MrShorty

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

I would agree with you, but I'm not convinced the church as a whole (or the authors of the Proclamation) would agree. I recall a blog post a few years ago at BCC where the blogger, in response to a talk in a training meeting by his stake president, asked the stake president if he thought the text of the Proclamation allowed for a stay at home dad breadwinner mom scenario. Reportedly, the Stake President's response included, "he admitted that, on his reading of the Proclamation, he thinks families where the mother is the primary or sole breadwinner and the father the primary or sole caregiver–even if equally decided upon by the couple–are also in violation of what the document calls for." Again, I agree with you that the Proclamation allows for egalatarian type choices in this regard, but I'm not convinced everyone agrees.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/07/28/a-quick-query-about-the-proclamation-on-the-family/

True, nobody does agree on everything. This would be a situation where the spirit trumps following the advice of a Stake President who has a narrow viewpoint. Someone should not have to 'harm' their family by abiding by his interpretation. Especially after prayerful consideration and spirit confirmed decisions. A man choosing to stay home and care for his children because his wife's earning potential provides for the family more effectively by allowing one main breadwinner should be considered a win. Like I said, I know many families in which the dad actually has greater nurturing instincts than the wife. A wife recognizing that is not a bad thing. Playing on the individual strengths of a husband and wife should be viewed positively. *see Pogi's thread on this topic.

 

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Which of the views I've espoused are highly prejudiced towards women? I can't think of a single prejudiced thing I have said towards women. 

I think you've got a bit of a blind spot when it comes to your views towards women so I don't think me doing this is going to serve much of a purpose, but as an example, on Sunday in a post you said "I don't think that the cost of broken marriages and families has been worth it for the sake of equality."

Your unwillingness to consider literally anything else as a major contributing factor in the decay of society other than women working, and your preference for supporting inequality as the answer rather than turning towards educated knowledge on the subject, leads to assertions that hurt women. 

That is misogyny. 

To make any room for inequality--especially when it's done in the name of fixing a problem that you can't even prove women in the workforce caused or is a significant contributor to, and which others have provided data to the contrary--is hateful toward the oppressed party.  

Plus, it could be described as incredibly obtuse to essentially tell women that the world would be better if they had only accepted that inequality in the first place. 

Your posts are an attempt to lay the main decay of society at the feet of women.

Edited February 1, 2023 by bluebell

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

fact which she has not denied by the way. 

I cannot understand how you are getting this from my comments, How can you say I have not denied when I have said over and over you are wrong?

You are pulling words and phrases out of context and ignoring the rest and pretending it doesn’t exist.  Just let it go, say you are wrong and misunderstood me and drop the damn thing.  You have wasted every one’s time demanding to be right about something you have no right to dictate, my intent and the meaning I attached to my comments.

[bsjkki]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I cannot understand how you are getting this from my comments, How can you say I have not denied when I have said over and over you are wrong?

You are pulling words and phrases out of context and ignoring the rest and pretending it doesn’t exist.  Just let it go, say you are wrong and misunderstood me and drop the damn thing.  You have wasted every one’s time demanding to be right about something you have no right to dictate, my intent and the meaning I attached to my comments.

An excellent example of his misogyny. 😂 Maybe some people struggle with listening and respecting women's voices. His whole point seems to be 'if only you women stayed home, things would be better?' He puts no responsibility on men or society. The truth is, statistics show, women have always worked. Equality has provided women education and higher wage opportunities. That is a good thing. The fact he is blinded to the harsh reality women faced in the past is another form of misogyny. He places the burden on women, never the man.  

 

[BlueDreams]

12 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Which of the views I've espoused are highly prejudiced towards women? I can't think of a single prejudiced thing I have said towards women. 

I'm all for women becoming educated. I fully acknowledge that women are more than capable to be professionals and have careers and I believe that they should be allowed to work if they choose and be treated equally in the workplace. I also acknowledge that many women are able to juggle taking care of the children and working outside the home, which is not an easy task.

But I also recognize that there are great benefits to society, particularly for children, when women stay home and devote the majority of their energy and efforts on nurturing their children. I believe that the traditional nuclear family model is better for society and that the departure from this model has had serious negative consequences for society and been a major contributing factor in the breakdown of the family. And I don't think that any of this is misogynistic. 

The prejudice shows up in this conversation between the gap of your 2nd and 3rd paragraph.  

When a woman, like myself, chooses to maintain a career alongside raising kids these two paragraphs come into conflict for you. You responded to my account with unnecessary skepticism that I could maintain a healthy family life even though there are no indications of problems reported by me (far from it). Besides that being patronizing, your only reason to bring up doubt is because I work...and me working apparently places my family's happiness at risk. You give Pogi the same dismissive skepticism and completely ignore Buckeye's lived experience. I assume it's easier to be skeptical of mine and dismissive of Pogi's since mine is a young family and Pogi's situation is still hypothetical. So Buckeye's must be a rare "exception." This strongly indicates a prejudice that working moms are largely antithetical to healthy families.

You've dropped more than hints that you assume materialistic motivations for mothers wanting or choosing to work. You've also set up the wording so that women are EITHER nurturing their children at home a ton OR choosing to work. What nudges this to being sexist, is that this same standard is not applied to men. You praise your father for working long hours and likely having far less time to be with his family in person. You do no associate men like him as putting their family's happiness and security at risk. Far from it, they're praise worthy. 

If a woman does what your father did, they're damaging their families. If a woman works even a little outside the home, it's putting her children and marriage at risk. And when a woman chooses this, she's assumed to be selfish, materialistic, going against prophets (and presumably god), and/or worldly. Most sympathetically she's at least a victim of modern culture pressuring her to work. So either a victim or spiritually circumspect for doing something a man can not only do, but be praised for.  Her ability to work is like my ability to get drunk. Technically a choice I can make and am capable of, but one that is morally and physically unsound. 

 

So yeah, that sounds like an ingrained prejudice against women who do not fit your ideals.  And that's a definition of misogyny 

 

With luv,

BD

 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think you've got a bit of a blind spot when it comes to your views towards women so I don't think me doing this is going to serve much of a purpose, but as an example, on Sunday in a post you said "I don't think that the cost of broken marriages and families has been worth it for the sake of equality."

Your unwillingness to consider literally anything else as a major contributing factor in the decay of society other than women working, and your preference for supporting inequality as the answer rather than turning towards educated knowledge on the subject, leads to assertions that hurt women. 

That is misogyny. 

To make any room for inequality--especially when it's done in the name of fixing a problem that you can't even prove women in the workforce caused or is a significant contributor to, and which others have provided data to the contrary--is hateful toward the oppressed party.  

Plus, it could be described as incredibly obtuse to essentially tell women that the world would be better if they had only accepted that inequality in the first place. 

Your posts are an attempt to lay the main decay of society at the feet of women.

Wow. (And not in a good way). 

Literally EVERY single thing you said here is flat out false. There’s not one shred of truth to any of it. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Wow. (And not in a good way). 

Literally EVERY single thing you said here is flat out false. There’s not one shred of truth to any of it. 

It’s how you are coming across on this thread, so if it’s all completely false, you need to rethink the way that you are communicating.

Because I am not the only one who appears to be misunderstanding you. Neither are all of the misunderstandings coming from female posters, apparently.

when you have this many people getting the same message from you—if it’s the wrong message—then that is a good sign that you are not communicating what you mean well.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

So yeah, that sounds like an ingrained prejudice against women who do not fit your ideals.  And that's a definition of misogyny 

I get that my views "sound like" misogyny to you and others here who are biased and prejudiced against men who hold less progressive and more traditional views than you do. But that's not what I asked for. I asked for someone to show a single thing I said that was clearly and unequivocally highly prejudiced towards women. I honestly don't think anyone can do that, because I don't think I ever said anything like this. 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It’s how you are coming across on this thread

That's just it though. It's not about how I come across to people who are biased and prejudiced towards men who hold and express more conservative and less progressive views than they espouse. It's what I actually said. And I haven't said a single highly prejudiced thing about women. And your false accusation of misogyny on my part, and the subsequently completely false accusations you made about me in order to try and justify your false charge of misogyny, is really disrespectful and distasteful.

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

when you have this many people getting the same message from you—if it’s the wrong message—then that is a good sign that you are not communicating what you mean well.

Or it's a sign that the people who feel like I sound like a misogynist, even though I haven't actually said a single misogynistic thing, are biased and prejudiced towards men who express more conservative and less progress views than they espouse. Which is what I am left to conclude is going on here. 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

You are pulling words and phrases out of context and ignoring the rest and pretending it doesn’t exist.  

This couldn’t be farther from the truth. I provided the full context for your words multiple times. And commented on it several times, too. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

He puts no responsibility on men or society.

Not true. I repeatedly stated that women leaving the home to work unnecessarily was only one of the factors that has led to the decay of the family. I never said that it was the primary factor. In fact I said that it's hard to say to what degree women leaving the home to work unnecessarily has had on the decay of the family compared to other factors. And even for this factor, I put the blame on husbands, wives, and mostly on society as a whole. I also agreed with bluebell who said that social media was another factor. And to top it all off, I specifically brought up the issue of pornography consumption as a major factor, which is a much bigger issue for men. 

[The Nehor]

42 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I get that my views "sound like" misogyny to you and others here who are biased and prejudiced against men who hold less progressive and more traditional views than you do. But that's not what I asked for. I asked for someone to show a single thing I said that was clearly and unequivocally highly prejudiced towards women. I honestly don't think anyone can do that, because I don't think I ever said anything like this. 

Your words don’t “sound like” misogyny. That is just people being nice. It is misogyny.

It would be pointless to show you the misogyny in your posts. You can’t see it or choose not to see it or whatever. You just want someone to give you some quotes to fruitlessly argue about because you find that fun, probably more fun than being told you are saying misogynist things.

See the “clearly and unequivocally”. That is weasel wording. Your argument is that if you say something misogynist if you can equivocate about it at all it can’t be misogyny. That is not how anything works. No one has to ‘prove’ to you that you are saying misogynist things for it to count.

[rongo]

On 1/30/2023 at 6:03 PM, bluebell said:

Rongo, I know that this is something that you feel very strongly about--you've spoken of it many times in the past--but women working outside of the home is not the cause of society's high divorce rate.  As Mustard Seed said, the divorce rate has been going down for decades.

Here's one study that shows that it peaked in 1979 and has been going down since.  Also, the state with the lowest divorce rate is New Hampshire and the highest is Alabama.  I would be greatly surprised if Alabama had more married working mothers than New Hampshire (to explain why it was so high and NH was so low.) 

 

14 hours ago, Calm said:

This is surreal you are still trying to claim we agreed this long after I stated we didn’t.  Do you think I am going to suddenly change my mind and say Rongo was right all along!

I was alerted that I've been referenced here. I haven't posted here since I left in July and said I wasn't going to post here any more, and I have never made a sock puppet. This isn't me, and I'm not sure why both of you think (or want to think) that it is. Stylistically, syntactically, and strategically, I don't think there is any similarity. 

Just for the record. Back to retirement!  

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

That's just it though. It's not about how I come across to people who are biased and prejudiced towards men who hold and express more conservative and less progressive views than they espouse. It's what I actually said. And I haven't said a single highly prejudiced thing about women. And your false accusation of misogyny on my part, and the subsequently completely false accusations you made about me in order to try and justify your false charge of misogyny, is really disrespectful and distasteful.

Or it's a sign that the people who feel like I sound like a misogynist, even though I haven't actually said a single misogynistic thing, are biased and prejudiced towards men who express more conservative and less progress views than they espouse. Which is what I am left to conclude is going on here. 

Like I said before, I think this might be a blind spot for you. I also noted that I didn’t have much hope that providing you with an example would go over well.

But as far as your statement that I’m prejudice against “more conservative and less progressive” views, I definitely am when I feel that they harmful to women.

[JAHS]

On 1/23/2023 at 6:28 AM, The Great Pretender said:

During the Saturday Morning Session of General Conference on October 1, 2022, President Nelson said, “Any kind of abuse ... is an abomination to the Lord.”

That's a heartwarming soundbite, but what if some statements of prophets, seers, and revelators of yesteryear now qualify as abuse and/or hate speech according to dictionary definitions in 2023? Should it no longer matter because we've moved on?

Can this quote from President Hinckley apply to what church leaders of the past may have said or done that seem wrong today?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But as far as your statement that I’m prejudice against “more conservative and less progressive” views, I definitely am when I feel that they harmful to women.

There you go. I think you just figured out why my views sound misogynistic to you, even though I didn’t say anything prejudiced towards women. 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

I was alerted that I've been referenced here. I haven't posted here since I left in July and said I wasn't going to post here any more, and I have never made a sock puppet. This isn't me, and I'm not sure why both of you think (or want to think) that it is. Stylistically, syntactically, and strategically, I don't think there is any similarity. 

Just for the record. Back to retirement!  

Good to know. I was actually feeling less and less like it was you as the conversation continued. 

It is interesting though the things you guys have in common:

Mission in Germany

Spends the day working with kids

Feels very strongly about women not working outside of the home and believes that when they choose to it’s usually because the family doesn’t want to make financial sacrifices so she can stay home.

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

There you go. I think you just figured out why my views sound misogynistic to you, even though I didn’t say anything prejudiced towards women. 

Yes, it was a mystery why hurtful statements towards women would be construed as misogynistic.  Good job figuring that one out.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

There you go. I think you just figured out why my views sound misogynistic to you, even though I didn’t say anything prejudiced towards women. 

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I get that my views "sound like" misogyny to you and others here who are biased and prejudiced against men who hold less progressive and more traditional views than you do. But that's not what I asked for. I asked for someone to show a single thing I said that was clearly and unequivocally highly prejudiced towards women. I honestly don't think anyone can do that, because I don't think I ever said anything like this. 

As nehor mentioned, I'm being kind.

So let me take off my gentle gloves, yank out my east coaster, and be clear and unequivocal. If you generally agree with my summary of what I've seen on this thread that is sexist. You are saying women can't do the same things as men without it causing social and familial harm. Any woman or family that conflicts with this view is at best circumspect because of said prejudice. That's misogynistic. You don't have to call a woman a b****, sl*t, witch, or other sexist slurs in order to have beliefs that are misogynistic. This form of benevolent sexism, where the women who match your ideals are extolled and the women who dare to live otherwise likely hold questionable morals or are harming their families is a clear parallel to just about every misogynistic culture's problem: a good woman is a woman who gets in line with what others expect from her. Where their voice in the public square is reduced because a good woman's place is rarely outside the home. 

Gentrifying the words, giving cheap platitudes to "choice" and that women are also capable of a career or education or what have you does not make this underlying message better. It makes it patronizing and demeaning. It comes off like: of course you can be a doctor! Now get back in the kitchen to finish nurturing the kids... you're so cute. Shifting blame for basically everyone getting the same message from you is childish. Proclaiming victimhood for being the poor conservative man in the room is pathetic and weak. Taking no accountability for how you present and your biews' intellectual flaws/holes while insisting nothing could be wrong with what you're saying is asinine. 

 

So don't blame me because your views "sound" misogynistic. I have plenty of civil comfortable conversations with people more conservative than me all the time on this board...ironically several of them are ones you've assumed are "progressive." No, Blame the misogyny in your damn words. 

 

With east coast oldest sister of a heck of a lot of bros grit,

BD 

 

 

 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Yes, it was a mystery why hurtful statements towards women would be construed as misogynistic.  Good job figuring that one out.

I didn’t make a single hurtful statement towards women. You’re just letting your own prejudice and bias towards men with more traditional views get the better of you. There’s a reason why you had to make up a bunch of completely false things about me in order to try and justify your false charge of misogyny.