Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm curious.  Are you finding my remarks out-of-turn / problematic / offensive?  If so, I'd like to understand that more.

Thanks,

-Smac

You asked BB, but since her Wow was on my behalf….

You aren’t insisting I said something I didn’t, so while I am not agreeing with everything you have said, you aren’t offending me.  And it is more frustration and annoyance at having to repeat myself, etc, then being offended.
 

But to be open, it also looked like you and Pogi were working on clarifying what you two were talking about, what limits you would put on your observations and I was skimming until I saw a consensus on where you were starting from as it seemed like not worth the investment if you both were still correcting miscommunications. I may have therefore missed the more substantive conversation I was hoping would come, so I don’t really have a judgement about what you said. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I’ll throw in my anecdote. As background, my wife and I grew up in the church, met at byu, got married after I served a mission and before she could, and have five active children - some at home, one at byu, one on a mission. Both our extended families are large (5-7 siblings) and everyone is active and married in the temple save one sibling. None of us feels particularly noteworthy but we’re the ones people in the ward would think “are fully on the covenant path”. 

Working outside the home is one of the best things my wife has chosen. Initially we handicapped her - I rushed getting to law school and we agreed she’d graduate with a marriage/family degree rather than what she really was interested in because that was all she could squeeze. As such, while at home with five young ones she was also getting teaching certificates and a masters degree online. It was rough at times. But so worth it.

She’s an educator who works outside. I’m an attorney blessed to work at home. While no situation is perfect, ours is as good as we could design in the current world. I absolutely love being home when the kids arrive from school. I get time with them, which I rarely have in the church since I’ve always been given administrative callings that take me away. She was with them full time while they were young and still manages to get to all sports, band, etc activities. If she were at home now she’s be completely bored,  not to mention frustrated with my being here. 🙂

Over the years we’ve heard a few typical criticisms - “doesn’t your husband earn a good salary”, “I’m surprised your wife trusts you to grocery shop”, etc. Mostly I believe these come from people wrestling with their own circumstances and choices. 

I’m very confident our children are blessed from us both working outside the home. To put things in a gospel perspective, they have two strong witnesses of the joy that comes through fulfilling a parent’s responsibility to provide, protect, preside, and most importantly nurture. 

I think this is wonderful.  Thank you for sharing.

Like you, I grew up in a large LDS family, served a mission, met my wife at BYU, married her before she could serve a mission.  We were on track to graduate at the same time, but she became pregnant with our first child.  After she was born she did not want to leave him to finish her last year of school.  We ultimately decided she should finish, so we made arrangements for that year with neighbors and family and me to look after our little guy while she finished her degree.  Once she finished, I resumed my training and career in earnest, including going back to school for a law degree. 

We ended up with six kids, with my wife being a stay-at-homer.  In our circumstance, we have seen the importance - even necessity - of her being at home due to various mental and emotional health issues with some of our kids.  She has had no regrets about this, but now that the health issues have largely resolved and our kids are getting older (our youngest is in junior high), she has spent the last few years writing and getting training to do voice work.  She is looking to start a business, which I fully support.

For me, the issue has never been about finding fault regarding the decisions people make relative to their kids.  Whether to work or stay at home is a pretty big, and very personal decision.  There is no particular "right" way to approach this matter, and instead there are a variety of workable solutions.

I am very grateful to my wife for her sacrifice and her efforts.  She has put a lot of time and effort into "being there" for the kids when they get home from school, from work, from activities, during days off from school, etc.  Those hours and interactions have been precious, and the cumulative effect has been immense.

The sociological data I have read shows some real risks for kids left in "latchkey" circumstances.  These can be ameliorated, but not everyone has the means to mitigate the risks attendant in leaving children without parental supervision/oversight for hours at a time on a regular basis.  I am concerned that my observations on this issue are being construed in a negative light, as if I am disparaging particular cohorts of parents.  Your comments has helped me better understand this apparent reaction.  Thanks for that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

These can be ameliorated, but not everyone has the means to mitigate the risks attendant in leaving children without parental supervision/oversight for hours at a time on a regular basis. 

This would be one of the ways I see society being able to diminish a possible negative effect of working mothers (and fathers for that matter) and that is to value their roles of mother as well as their role as employee enough to work in better flexibility without penalizing them for that advantage. Maybe parents just need to work shorter hours for a few years…don’t switch them to part time and cut their benefits, many will have to choose leaving their kids on their own so they can keep benefits. If companies saw themselves as part of the community and therefore it was their responsibility to help create a better future, shareholders and/or owners…whoever gets the profits, providing child care support through accommodations of parents could be viewed as a wise investment in the long term health of their company. 
 

And for singles or childless couples who don’t want to pay for schools, etc …they need to realize children will grow up into the work force of their retirement years. They want a better quality community, a safer and more stable environment, they need to invest in the kids as well even if only sacrificing some profit/income. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm curious.  Are you finding my remarks out-of-turn / problematic / offensive?  If so, I'd like to understand that more.

Thanks,

-Smac

I haven’t read any of your posts so I can’t really judge them.

Are they in agreement with Grug’s posts on the topic?

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The sociological data I have read shows some real risks for kids left in "latchkey" circumstances.  These can be ameliorated, but not everyone has the means to mitigate the risks attendant in leaving children without parental supervision/oversight for hours at a time on a regular basis.  I am concerned that my observations on this issue are being construed in a negative light, as if I am disparaging particular cohorts of parents.  Your comments has helped me better understand this apparent reaction.  Thanks for that.

For what it's worth, I don't see this as disparaging. To me it's just a potential risk when both parents work, particularly in high demand and inflexible jobs. Particularly in our country that tends to have an excessive work culture (working long hours ID-ing with what you do to earn first). Thankfully I think the pandemic and recent events are starting to break down this over focus of work as a virtue at the very least, but I think we could definitely have policies and means to support families, particularly young families and families where there's need for parent(s) to work longer hours than what would be ideal. And to reduce how many fit that category. 

When my husband and I married we were in agreement that what was most important to us was having space and time for our family...that we wouldn't work or strive for money...moreso a lifestyle that was conducive to a good home life and the things we loved most. And that's what we've done. It'll probably switch up a little once I have our twins and we'll probably need more outside help than we did before to make it all work. But we will. 

I think when it crosses the line is to assume that neglected latchkey kids and overworked parents are more the norm than the exception to what it looks like to have 2 working parents. It's just a potential risk that needs to be understood. Just as there are potential pitfalls to diadic roles with a SAHM mom and at work dad. We can all find space to live principles that put family first in our own circumstances. That's a principle we incorporate in, not a built in feature of a specific family role structure IMHO. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

This--"Calm, I get that you would very much like to take some these words back or qualify them-was such an unreasonable thing to say, that it was kind of shocking.  You've made a lot of irrational arguments but that was just jerky.  

I don’t think I was being a jerk in saying this. Perhaps I could have said it better, but I no offense was intended. All I meant was that she probably regrets saying what she said the way that she did and would probably take it back or rephrase it if she had known what turn the discussion would take.

But speaking of being jerky, what’s up with this comment?

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

You picked your screen name well.

This is a pretty snarky comment. 

Here’s a hypothetical situation. What if someone accused you of being soft and not being able to handle the heat and then said that you picked your screen name bluebell well? I doubt that would go over well. 
 

To be clear, I’m not saying that about you, but hopefully you get my point. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Calm said:

The benefits that come from women’s education way outweigh any costs

I respect your opinion. And again, I’m in favor of women becoming educated. However, you did point out to specific costs, which I believe are a serious problem. And it’s not because women are educated, it’s because of educated women leaving the home when they are still needed and a higher divorce rate, which again are costs or damaging things that you first pointed out. 
 

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I respect your opinion. And again, I’m in favor of women becoming educated. However, you did point out to specific costs, which I believe are a serious problem. And it’s not because women are educated, it’s because of educated women leaving the home when they are still needed and a higher divorce rate, which again are costs or damaging things that you first pointed out. 
 

You keep claiming that was the cost I was talking about. It wasn’t. 
 

If that is what you want to talk about, go ahead, but quit pretending that is what I was saying and you were just agreeing with me  because it wasn’t.  Stand on your own two feet and quit trying to pass the buck. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Calm said:

You keep claiming that was the cost I was talking about. It wasn’t. 
 

If that is what you want to talk about, go ahead, but quit pretending that is what I was saying and you were just agreeing with me  because it wasn’t.  Stand on your own two feet and quit trying to pass the buck. 

I'm not pretending that's what you were saying. I literally quoted your words. You referred to the higher divorce rate and women working outside the home when they are still needed as costs of women's education. You believed that the benefits far outweigh these costs, but you clearly stated that these were costs (negative or damaging things) that have come as a result of women's education.

And I'm not passing the buck or refusing to stand on my own two feet. I'm perfectly capable of defending my position and have done so with logic and evidence.

I brought your statement up, because people were calling me crazy for saying that that there was a correlation between mothers leaving the home to work and the increased divorce rate. They were also calling me crazy for saying that mothers leaving the home to work when they still have young kids has negative consequences. I reminded them that you made the same observation first in the hopes that they would be more reasonable. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t feel bad about phrasing it as I did even if some might need me to clarify it.

Then I guess I misunderstood what you meant when you said "I worded it poorly not to be explicit about the positives that came along with any costs and my point was we could remove even those costs if we really cared about keeping mothers in the home with young children."

That sounded to me like you regretted how you had phrased things. 

7 hours ago, Calm said:

 I also don’t regret what I posted because I am not the one misusing what I wrote.

I don't think I've misused your post at all. I have made every effort to accurately represent what you said. I know that I have a different take on the situation than you do and have been very clear about that. But there are areas in which are views overlap, and that is that there are negative consequences associated with women leaving the home to work, namely a higher divorce rate and mother leaving the home when they still have young children. I fully acknowledge that we are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the severity of the impact that these two negative consequences have on society. You consider these two negatives consequences to be minor costs that are worth it for sake of progress, while I consider them to be serious issues that I don't think are worth it for the sake of progress. 

7 hours ago, Calm said:

That is someone else who apparently thinks he needs my post to validate/strengthen his position or something rather than just going solo. 

I'm fine going solo. In fact I went solo for a long time. 

I brought your comments up when I felt that people were becoming unreasonable, in the hopes that this would help them see that reasonable people can disagree and that it's okay to have differing opinions, without accusing people of shaming women or being misogynists for holding a more traditional view on gender and family roles and expressing concerns over impact of mothers leaving the home to work when it isn't absolutely necessary has had on society. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, bluebell said:

You've espoused some misogynistic views

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. 

Link to comment
1 hour 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. 

😂🤦‍♀️

Link to comment
3 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. 

DIG UP!

Link to comment
On 1/31/2023 at 9:24 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Then I guess I misunderstood what you meant

You have misunderstood me from the beginning to the end, but somehow you think you know better than me what my intent was, what I meant and what I said even though the only way you are capable of arriving at your conclusions is to ignore at least half of what I said and to attach your own meanings to what you are paying attention to. 

It is reasonable to me when people misinterpret my comments and that includes even after I have offered clarification but they still can’t see how I am connecting the dots. That is okay by me as long as they are honest about their error.  What’s leaves me bewildered and annoyed is when they continue to ignore my own statement again and again that they are wrong and instead in essence insist they know better than me what I meant by my comments as if they think they have s right to dictate my intent. And your persistence in doing so is why it appears to me you are trying to hide behind my skirts. 
 

It is not the least respectful to tell me I am wrong about my own comments and your interpretation takes priority. 

Quote

 

I'm fine going solo. In fact I went solo for a long time. 

Great, then stop acting like we ever agreed on something or said similar things since I have stated you are wrong.  And for someone willing to go solo, I don’t understand why you have to again slip in the claim I made the same observation after I have corrected you multiple times?  Why not just admit you don’t understand what I meant and drop it instead of continuing to appeal to this alleged support by me of your position?
 

Quote

 

Ireminded them that you made the same observation first in the hopes that they would be more reasonable. 

And how many times do I have to say that was not the observation I made before you stop claiming I am backing you up so they would be more reasonable?  It is your own interpretation you went with for some reason, not my actual observation.
 

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 Grug was right all along!

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

You have misunderstood me from the beginning to the end, but somehow you think you know better than me what my intent was, what I meant and what I said even though the only way you are capable of arriving at your conclusions is to ignore at least half of what I said and to attach your own meanings to what you are paying attention to. 

It is reasonable to me when people misinterpret my comments and that includes even after I have offered clarification but they still can’t see how I am connecting the dots. That is okay by me as long as they are honest about their error.  What’s leaves me bewildered and annoyed is when they continue to ignore my own statement again and again that they are wrong and instead in essence insist they know better than me what I meant by my comments as if they think they have s right to dictate my intent. And your persistence in doing so is why it appears to me you are trying to hide behind my skirts. 
 

It is not the least respectful to tell me I am wrong about my own comments and your interpretation takes priority. 

Great, then stop acting like we ever agreed on something or said similar things since I have stated you are wrong.  And for someone willing to go solo, I don’t understand why you have to again slip in the claim I made the same observation after I have corrected you multiple times?  Why not just admit you don’t understand what I meant and drop it instead of continuing to appeal to this alleged support by me of your position?
 

And how many times do I have to say that was not the observation I made before you stop claiming I am backing you up so they would be more reasonable?  It is the interpretation you went with for some reason. 
 

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 don’t expect you to say that I was right all along, nor have I ever said that you were backing me up, but I do think that you are changing your story and not being reasonable.

I quoted your words directly. I didn’t twist them. You clearly stated that a "cost” of "women’s education" was the impact that it had on the "divorce rate" and that a second "cost" that was "damaging" was that women were leaving the home to work when they were still needed there, which you later clarified to mean when they still have "young children." 

Now you’re suddenly claiming, after pages of posts, that you never meant that either of these things were actually "costs" or negatives, even though in your subsequent clarification you didn’t say this and instead said that you worded it poorly by not being clear about how much you believe that the benefits out way these costs.

And then when I concluded that you wished you had worded your initial post differently, you rejected this, too. 

This doesn’t add up in my book. My observation is that you are changing your story and now just want me to be wrong about everything because you're irritated with me and think that if you acknowledge that I’m right about a single thing (even that you wish you had worded your first post differently) then some how that gives strength to my position or is a sign of weakness on your part. 

Edited by Grug the Neanderthal
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I do think that you are changing your story and not being reasonable.

Yes, because it makes so much more sense I would lie about my position than you misunderstand me. 

Link to comment

I didn’t say you are lying, I said that my observation is that you are changing your story. Not the same thing.

In your initial clarifications of what you originally said, you weren’t claiming what you are now claiming. There has been a gradual progression from what you first claimed to what you are now claiming. 

Edited by Grug the Neanderthal
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I didn’t say you are lying, I said that my observation is that you are changing your story. Not the same thing.

In your initial clarifications of what you originally said, you weren’t claiming what you are now claiming. There has been a gradual progression from what you first claimed to what you are now claiming. 

Calm is claiming that she hasn’t changed her story and you are claiming that she has but won’t admit it.

That’s accusing her of lying about not changing her story, right?

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Calm is claiming that she hasn’t changed her story and you are claiming that she has but won’t admit it.

That’s accusing her of lying about not changing her story. 

No this is not what’s going on at all. I’m not accusing her of lying, and I can definitely show that her story has changed (aka her claim has evolved as the conversation has gone on.) A fact which she has not denied by the way. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No this is not what’s going on at all. I’m not accusing her of lying, and I can definitely show that her story has changed (aka her claim has evolved as the conversation has gone on.) A fact which she has not denied by the way. 

If she has not denied that claim then why does she think you are accusing her of lying though?

As you know Calm isn’t one to be unreasonable or irrational.  She’s a favorite poster on here for members, non members, and ex member because of it.

Link to comment
11 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. 

I get it, that you prefer women to be at home if they have children, just as we were told in the 80's in the church. But not all women can do this. I was able to either from conditioning or ? I know I fell into a depression once I quit work and don't know how good of mother I was. I think I was more of a serious mom that had to make sure the house was spotless, the clothes washed and ironed and not the kind of mom that I wish I was now. Could it be that males like their wives to stay at home, take care of the kids and the husband as well? They can come home and have dinner ready, and a clean home, kids all taken care of and they've been out in the world with their careers and all is right with the world? If their wives work outside of the home then they might have to give up a few things time wise and pitch in and do equal cleaning, cooking, and taking care of the kids? Not saying this is you. But not all women want this for themselves and do have certain aspirations outside of the home too. Saw this meme and words from a woman, and this may or may not reflect most women! Just the few that may have had their spouse not be honest before marrying about their expectations of what a wife should be. 

SOPHIA TRAPPED
I am beautiful.
I am free.
I am wise.
I am Sophia.
How did I get here?
How did I come to this?
Why am I in these chains?
Why am I locked in a dark cellar surrounded
by things that degrade and dehumanize me?
Especially words. Words that are meant to shame, subdue and enslave me.
And they do
because I let them.
Confession: I entered into this relationship because I wanted to. I was not forced. It was my choice. I was free.
Although I couldn’t have known at the time, I was also free to submit myself to a cruel master hiding in wait behind beautiful promises.
I signed up for this. But I had no idea what “this” was.
It was a craftily laid trap!
But my wisdom was young. Like a child’s. My trust was naive. Like a child’s.
For a long time I believed that things weren’t really that bad.
Then when I realized they were, I hoped that I could, with endless effort, change them.
Finally, I had to admit: I was trapped.
Yes, I walked into it. No, I did not mean to be caged.
My exterior life was poor.
However, my inner life was rich.
And somehow I knew, I just knew,
that one day this would release me, liberate me, and save me.
Indeed, I would save myself!
 
 
 

May be an illustration of brick wall

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...