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

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Thank you. 

I'm not at all surprised that you find the evidence wanting. As a self proclaimed feminist who works outside the home, you are ideologically opposed to the conclusions reached. This makes your analysis highly biased. I would suspect that if I provided 20 or more studies that support my claim, you would still have the same attitude towards each one, looking for any way possible to dismiss the findings. 

In any event, I find the justifications you provided for dismissing the evidence I shared extremely wanting. I will address a couple of them.

The first problem with the claim that the research I cited is too old, is that I wasn't referring exclusively to recent trends. I was actually referring primarily to what caused the spike in divorces in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. My conclusion is that married women joining the workforce was a major contributing factor in causes the huge spike in the divorce rate and I can point to a lot more studies than the handful listed on this one website to support my view. 

See for example: 

"Numerous studies find that marital transitions are influenced by women's "economic independence" (e.g., Honig 1974; Sawhill et al., 1975; Wolf 1977; Hannan, et al. 1977, 1978; Ross and Sawhill, 1975; Cherlin 1979; D'Amico 1983; Booth et al. 1984; Hoffman et al. 1991)." https://cde.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/839/2019/02/cde-working-paper-1992-28.pdf

"Women’s labor force participation has been increasing across all industrialized economies for at least half a century. Over the same period, rates of marital dissolution have also risen. In response to these trends, social observers have become increasingly interested in the effects of women’s social and economic independence on divorce. A first line of research, based upon the dominant male breadwinner/female career economic model of the family, has hypothesized that women’s employment represents a potent force that is driving divorce rates up (see Hobson 1990; Kalmijn and Poortman 2006; Ruggles 1997; Schoen et al. 2002)." https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol38/37/38-37.pdf

So even if we were to say that the older research can't be used to explain current trends, it most certainly can be used to explain former trends. And I believe that the increased divorce rate and other breakdowns in the family in the 60, 70s, 80s, and 90s had a major impact on shaping the world today. The current generation is seeing the negative effects of divorce and other breakdowns in the family from the previous generation. I believe (and can produce research to support this) that the high rate of divorces during the previous generation has led to the high rate of cohabitation today. This makes the fact that statistically the divorce rate has dropped some in recent years very misleading. And studies show that families with cohabiting parents are generally far less stable than those with married parents. 

Not sure what point you are trying to make here. Of course for married couples who report being happy, the results will show that the "women working had no effect on the marriage." How about we ask the married couples who aren't happy or got divorced about what impact the wife working had on the marriage? 

This is a far too simplistic conclusion. To use your words, there's definitely much more nuance here. I'm sure that there's truth to this, but to what degree women working leads to an increase in the divorce rate because they were already unhappy or dissatisfied in their marriages compared to what degree women working causes or increases the unhappiness and dissatisfaction in marriage is probably impossible to say. To say that women are more likely to leave marriages solely because their "marriages were already unhappy or dissatisfying ones" would not be accurate. 

And even if we were to conclude that this the main reason (which I dispute), it's really irrelevant to my point, which is that wives working significantly contributes to the higher divorce rate. Even if it's only because wives working "gave [them] greater abilty to vacate." Married women having greater ability to vacate because they are working, means that they are less likely to try to stay and work things out in their marriages, causing an increase in the divorce rate and the breakdown of the family. Which is 100% in line with what I claimed about women working being a major cause of the divorce rate spiking. 

She’s certainly not more biased than you are though, right?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

20 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

How passive-aggressive can you get? 

No more passive aggressive than BD and several other people have been to me. I've actually been far more civil and polite than the other side has been to me.

22 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

You want BD to analyze your evidence, she reluctantly does so (taking up her valuable time, I might add), then you tear down her conclusions. 

I never asked her to analyze my evidence. She did that all on her own. And she only did it because I pointed out that no one had even discussed the evidence bluebell claimed had been proven invalid. And that the closest anyone had come to even discussing it was BD dismissing it out of hand. Her goal was to tear down my conclusion and discredit the evidence. So I don't think it's unreasonable for me to make a counter-argument and defend my position by pointing out what I believe are serious holes in her argument. 

23 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

You have no leg to stand on.

I disagree. The facts are on my side. Even BD (inadvertently I'm assuming) conceded that women working outside the home is a cause of the higher divorce if for no other reason than their "marriages were already unhappy or dissatisfying ones and it gave greater abilty to vacate."

28 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Give it up for God’s sake so we can all go on with our lives. 

Nobody is forcing you to read this discussion. If you would like to get on with your life, you are free to do so. 

[MustardSeed]

I’m not a feminist FWIW.  I’m very middle of the road politically and I raised my kids at home for 12 years.  I’m an active recommend holder (how progressive can one be?) and if I’m taken aback by all of this I’m sure you’d be eaten alive by actual progressives.   
 

Here’s where we align.  We both care about families and their well being.  In fact I’ve dedicated my life to it by investing in my own family AND creating a career out of saving families. Im glad we see eye to eye on the worth of successful happy families where everyone’s needs are addressed and cared about. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

She’s certainly not more biased than you are though, right?

I think that she has shown that she is more biased than I am. I haven't dismissed any evidence out of hand or falsely accused anyone of making sexist and misogynistic statements. 

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No more passive aggressive than BD and several other people have been to me. I've actually been far more civil and polite than the other side has been to me.

Nope.

41 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I never asked her to analyze my evidence. She did that all on her own. And she only did it because I pointed out that no one had even discussed the evidence bluebell claimed had been proven invalid. And that the closest anyone had come to even discussing it was BD dismissing it out of hand. Her goal was to tear down my conclusion and discredit the evidence. So I don't think it's unreasonable for me to make a counter-argument and defend my position by pointing out what I believe are serious holes in her argument. 

You were whining about how no one looked at your “evidence” and then when someone does you insist that you never wanted anyone to look at it? 

42 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I disagree. The facts are on my side. Even BD (inadvertently I'm assuming) conceded that women working outside the home is a cause of the higher divorce if for no other reason than their "marriages were already unhappy or dissatisfying ones and it gave greater abilty to vacate."

*narrator* The facts were, in fact, not on his side.

43 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Nobody is forcing you to read this discussion. If you would like to get on with your life, you are free to do so. 

But then you will keep being wrong!

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No more passive aggressive than BD and several other people have been to me. I've actually been far more civil and polite than the other side has been to me.

I never asked her to analyze my evidence. She did that all on her own. And she only did it because I pointed out that no one had even discussed the evidence bluebell claimed had been proven invalid. And that the closest anyone had come to even discussing it was BD dismissing it out of hand. Her goal was to tear down my conclusion and discredit the evidence. So I don't think it's unreasonable for me to make a counter-argument and defend my position by pointing out what I believe are serious holes in her argument. 

I disagree. The facts are on my side. Even BD (inadvertently I'm assuming) conceded that women working outside the home is a cause of the higher divorce if for no other reason than their "marriages were already unhappy or dissatisfying ones and it gave greater abilty to vacate."

Nobody is forcing you to read this discussion. If you would like to get on with your life, you are free to do so. 

I’m invested in this discussion because of the way you are treating my sisters on the board. Don’t even get me started on the way you’ve been gaslighting Calm and patronizing Bluebell. Now you are telling me to just go away. I’m not sure how you high-jacked this thread and made all about your misogynistic agenda but I think it’s time to get back on track or shut it down. 

[The Nehor]

It is amazing how the men who decry feminism and female empowerment as dangerous so often turn out themselves to be object lessons on why feminism needs to be a thing in the first place.

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I think that she has shown that she is more biased than I am. I haven't dismissed any evidence out of hand or falsely accused anyone of making sexist and misogynistic statements. 

You've accused her and others of plenty on here.  

Beyond that, she didn't dismiss it out of hand.  She explained her reasoning and when through it all (which is the opposite of dismissing something out of hand). 

Plus, you've dismissed data and references that I and others have posted and provided links to.

So the evidence shows that you've done the same things that you are accusing her of, even though some of the things that you've accused her of (dismissing your evidence out of hand) is demonstrably false. 

So no, she hasn't shown that she's more biased than you.  You just don't like her conclusions and believing that she's biased and dismissing evidence is the only way that you have to deal with them. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Beyond that, she didn't dismiss it out of hand. 

The first time she did, before later going back through it looking for every possible excuse to write it off. 

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Plus, you've dismissed data and references that I and others have posted and provided links to.

Such as?

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You've accused her and others of plenty on here. 

Please give me one example of where I have accused anyone here of anything other than being biased and prejudiced towards men who hold more traditional views AFTER they repeatedly falsely accused me of being a misogynist?

Edited to add one more statement of yours. You said: "You just don't like her conclusions and believing that she's biased and dismissing evidence is the only way that you have to deal with them."

This isn't true. I addressed several of her justifications for dismissing my evidence using facts and reason. The ball is now in her court to give a counter-argument if she can.

 

Edited February 3 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

I’m invested in this discussion because of the way you are treating my sisters on the board.

If you're truly concerned with how people in this discussion are being treated, may I suggest looking at the very mean spirited things your sisters on the board have said to and about me right from the on set. I have been very civil in how I have responded to this. 

But I don't hold any malice towards them for how they have treated me. I understand that they feel threatened by my viewpoint and are just being defensive. 

Edited February 3 by Grug the Neanderthal

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

If you're truly concerned with how people in this discussion are being treated, may I suggest looking at the very mean spirited things your sisters on the board have said to and about me right from the on set. I have been very civil in how I have responded to this. 

But I don't hold any malice towards them for how they have treated me. I understand that they feel threatened by my viewpoint and are just being defensive. 

Wow…..that is very very big of you to forgive them for all the persecution you have endured due to the fragile egos of these sweet little ladies that can’t handle the virtuous truthbombs you are dropping and get defensive due to their fragile mental and emotional constitutions.

Very charitable of you indeed.

Edited February 3 by The Nehor

[MiserereNobis]

I'm not going to get into the discussion topic because I feel like it's pointless to interact with Grug. I'm sure he'll have some retort to that, but whatever. He can't see it, doesn't want to see it, or sees it but enjoys it (I'm heavily leaning towards the later).

I do want to say though that Blue Dreams has been here a very very long time and I have always valued her presence and contributions. She brings a wonderful point-of-view, especially to discussions of relationships, marriage, sexuality, race, and on and on. She has both personal and professional experience. Her posts are well thought out and reasoned. I appreciate the time that she takes to write them. Anyone who goes after her the way Grug has is going to frustrate all of us who have been reading her posts all these years.

I can say the same things about the other women on this thread who have responded to Grug, too: Raingirl, bluebell, Calm, Mustardseed, Peacefully, and others (sorry if I've missed your name!). It's frustrating to see a relatively new poster cruise in and act the way he is towards these sisters. There are ways to share the ideas he has without alienating the people he's supposedly trying to persuade. This has been pointed out to him but he hasn't changed. That's why I think he sees/knows what he is doing but enjoys it.

Thank you, ladies, for what you bring to this board. But more importantly, thank you for sharing your experiences as women and searching for and hopefully finding your authentic selves in a male dominated world. Both of our religions are patriarchal, but both of our religions also value the divine feminine (Heavenly Mother and the Blessed Virgin Mary come to mind). The traditional culture of our religions can often twist this around in unhealthy ways, but culture is not truth. Christ valued and loved women in ways that can be harder for us men to understand, fogged up as our eyes often are with privilege and cultural baggage.

Edited February 3 by MiserereNobis

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not going to get into the discussion topic because I feel like it's pointless to interact with Grug. I'm sure he'll have some retort to that, but whatever. He can't see it, doesn't want to see it, or sees it but enjoys it (I'm heavily leaning towards the later).

I do want to say though that Blue Dreams has been here a very very long time and I have always valued her presence and contributions. She brings a wonderful point-of-view, especially to discussions of relationships, marriage, sexuality, race, and on and on. She has both personal and professional experience. Her posts are well thought out and reasoned. I appreciate the time that she takes to write them. Anyone who goes after her the way Grug has is going to frustrate all of us who have been reading her posts all these years.

I can say the same things about the other women on this thread who have responded to Grug, too: Raingirl, bluebell, Calm, Mustardseed, Peacefully, and others. It's frustrating to see a relatively new poster cruise in and act the way he is towards these sisters. There are ways to share the ideas he has without alienating the people he's supposedly trying to persuade. This has been pointed out to him but he hasn't changed. That's why I think he sees/knows what he is doing but enjoys it.

Thank you, ladies, for what you bring to this board. But more importantly, thank you for sharing your experiences as women and searching for and hopefully finding your authentic selves in a male dominated world. Both of our religions are patriarchal, but both of our religions also value the divine feminine (Heavenly Mother and the Blessed Virgin Mary come to mind). The traditional culture of our religions can often twist this around in unhealthy ways, but culture is not truth. Christ valued and loved women in ways that can be harder for us men to understand, fogged up as our eyes often are with privilege and cultural baggage.

Thank you so much.

This kind of support means more than you could know. Because of the way that men who have similar perspectives to Grug and Buckwheat view women, the only voices that even have a chance of being heard by them are those of other men.

I so appreciate those men who are willing to be vocal.

(that goes for you too Nehor). 

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thank you so much.

This kind of support means more than you could know. Because of the way that men who have similar perspectives to Grug and Buckwheat view women, the only voices that even have a chance of being heard by them are those of other men.

I so appreciate those men who are willing to be vocal.

(that goes for you too Nehor). 

Ditto, big time 

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is amazing how the men who decry feminism and female empowerment as dangerous so often turn out themselves to be object lessons on why feminism needs to be a thing in the first place.

You are so right, but I think it is falling on deaf ears. Thank you for being one of the men on here who hears what we are saying and isn’t threatened by it. 

[Peacefully]

18 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not going to get into the discussion topic because I feel like it's pointless to interact with Grug. I'm sure he'll have some retort to that, but whatever. He can't see it, doesn't want to see it, or sees it but enjoys it (I'm heavily leaning towards the later).

I do want to say though that Blue Dreams has been here a very very long time and I have always valued her presence and contributions. She brings a wonderful point-of-view, especially to discussions of relationships, marriage, sexuality, race, and on and on. She has both personal and professional experience. Her posts are well thought out and reasoned. I appreciate the time that she takes to write them. Anyone who goes after her the way Grug has is going to frustrate all of us who have been reading her posts all these years.

I can say the same things about the other women on this thread who have responded to Grug, too: Raingirl, bluebell, Calm, Mustardseed, Peacefully, and others (sorry if I've missed your name!). It's frustrating to see a relatively new poster cruise in and act the way he is towards these sisters. There are ways to share the ideas he has without alienating the people he's supposedly trying to persuade. This has been pointed out to him but he hasn't changed. That's why I think he sees/knows what he is doing but enjoys it.

Thank you, ladies, for what you bring to this board. But more importantly, thank you for sharing your experiences as women and searching for and hopefully finding your authentic selves in a male dominated world. Both of our religions are patriarchal, but both of our religions also value the divine feminine (Heavenly Mother and the Blessed Virgin Mary come to mind). The traditional culture of our religions can often twist this around in unhealthy ways, but culture is not truth. Christ valued and loved women in ways that can be harder for us men to understand, fogged up as our eyes often are with privilege and cultural baggage.

Thank you. This means a lot and you understand how to make people feel heard and seen. 

[Calm]

Just now, Peacefully said:

you understand how to make people feel heard and seen. 

So true and so appreciated. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

There has clearly been a breakdown in communication in this discussion. And contrary to what has been suggested, I don’t enjoy how the discussion has gone and the bad feelings that certain individuals clearly have towards me because of the breakdown in discussion that has occurred. It was definitely not my intent to rile any one up. 

For my part, I regret that I was unable to communicate my viewpoint, which I believe is not at all prejudiced towards women, in a way that didn’t come off that way to several other people here. I believe that people misunderstood what I was saying and what my intentions were in sharing my viewpoint. I believe that this misunderstanding caused them to read things into my words that were not intended, which intern caused them to lash out at me. While I have tried very hard to be civil, I have been a little short with some of you who I felt were falsely accusing me, ganging up on me, and twisting my words. And for that I apologize. 

 

 

Edited February 4 by Grug the Neanderthal

[bluebell]

Deleted because Grug has offered an olive branch and that's good enough for me.

Edited February 4 by bluebell

[MustardSeed]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Deleted because Grug has offered an olive branch and that's good enough for me.

Amen

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Deleted because Grug has offered an olive branch and that's good enough for m

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

There has clearly been a breakdown in communication in this discussion. And contrary to what has been suggested, I don’t enjoy how the discussion has gone and the bad feelings that certain individuals clearly have towards me because of the breakdown in discussion that has occurred. It was definitely not my intent to rile any one up. 

For my part, I apologize that I was unable to communicate my viewpoint, which I believe is not at all prejudiced towards women, in a way that didn’t come off that way to several other people here. I believe that people misunderstood what I was saying and what my intentions where in sharing my viewpoint, and that this caused them to read things into my words that were not intended, which caused them to lash out at me. While I have tried very hard to be civil, I have been a little short with someone of you who I felt were falsely accusing me, ganging up on me, and twisting my words. And for that I apologize. 

 

 

‘I apologize that everyone else misunderstood me completely.’

Even the one part where you expressed an actual apology you very carefully made it clear that it was everyone else’s fault by minimizing your offense as “a little short” while giving a litany of how persecuted you where in much less minimized language. Then a final grand apology for doing a tiny little no-no due to the jackals hounding you beyond what any reasonable person could endure.

You may want to look up what a genuine apology does and does not include. This is an argument for innocence disguised as an apology. Just don’t apologize instead. It would be classier.

[manol]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

There has clearly been a breakdown in communication in this discussion. And contrary to what has been suggested, I don’t enjoy how the discussion has gone and the bad feelings that certain individuals clearly have towards me because of the breakdown in discussion that has occurred. It was definitely not my intent to rile any one up. 

For my part, I apologize that I was unable to communicate my viewpoint, which I believe is not at all prejudiced towards women, in a way that didn’t come off that way to several other people here. I believe that people misunderstood what I was saying and what my intentions were in sharing my viewpoint. I believe that this misunderstanding caused them to read things into my words that were not intended, which intern caused them to lash out at me. While I have tried very hard to be civil, I have been a little short with some of you who I felt were falsely accusing me, ganging up on me, and twisting my words. And for that I apologize.

@The Nehor is right.  That falls short of a real apology, but at least you are apparently trying.

Perhaps "how to make a genuine apology" isn't in your skill set.  My limited social skills were mostly acquired the hard way, and that includes "how to make a genuine apology." 

And in my all-too-extensive experience, making a genuine apology is well worth the effort because it helps BOTH parties.  That's why we do it. 

Google "how to make a genuine apology", or just click on this link:

https://thinkkindness.org/all-things-kindness/5-steps-sincere-apology/

Edited February 4 by manol

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

There has clearly been a breakdown in communication in this discussion. And contrary to what has been suggested, I don’t enjoy how the discussion has gone and the bad feelings that certain individuals clearly have towards me because of the breakdown in discussion that has occurred. It was definitely not my intent to rile any one up. 

For my part, I apologize that I was unable to communicate my viewpoint, which I believe is not at all prejudiced towards women, in a way that didn’t come off that way to several other people here. I believe that people misunderstood what I was saying and what my intentions were in sharing my viewpoint. I believe that this misunderstanding caused them to read things into my words that were not intended, which intern caused them to lash out at me. While I have tried very hard to be civil, I have been a little short with some of you who I felt were falsely accusing me, ganging up on me, and twisting my words. And for that I apologize. 

I want to choose my words carefully, as I don't want you to think I'm attacking you. I'm not. The wind was coming out of my sail around my last post and it dropped entirely around MiserereNobis' post. It's not my nature to stay irritated for very long, particularly at strangers. 

Overall, I will accept your apology and let this go as it's not worth continuing as it is. 

What I'm concerned about is that you're stating that you can't fully see why people are riled up and what you were doing that escalated the problem. You haven't been here for very long, so you likely don't know our general styles very well. But most the ones that were actively pushing back, are also ones that are not known for getting easily irritated. They tend to discuss without much escalation. If you don't understand, it may be good to go back and look at the last few pages and see what your part may have been in this. This deterioration didn't happen in a vacuum or without reason and there's quite a broad range of people with broad views and experience that began pushing back at you hard. The insight can hopefully help you express your views in a way that can help people understand them, even if they adamantly disagree. At the very least, you may be able to better understand why they're describing them in ways you wouldn't. Plus it'll likely give you less of an agitated experience. It may also be helpful to picture what you were saying from the other's perspective or experience. 

I'm not telling you this to be patronizing or passive aggressive. As I mentioned, it's not my general style or nature. I'm saying this because it usually helps me personally get my message across. Plenty will and often do disagree with me on this board and sometimes strongly so, but most of my engagements still end in general respect and understanding. I personally know exactly my part in this exchange, at what point your posts began to irritate me (it wasn't actually a post you directed to me, but to others I found disrespectful to those I consider friends), and the exact moment I decided to stop playing more judiciously and why. I also can tell you why I started to lose steam on that irritation and why. Knowing what I'm doing, correcting how I'm coming across, and working to make my experiences or thoughts clearly understandable is what I strive to do on this board and it makes my experiences (even in very opposing conversations) generally enjoyable. So I'm stating this as general advice that may help you better understand why even your apology/olive branch is still receiving some push back.         

On my part, I apologize for not being my usual self. It's not who I prefer to be and I know I allowed my irritation lead at least a couple of my posts directly and one more indirectly. If you want to understand why or what caused that, you're more than welcome to ask. I will tell you honestly, though I would prefer if you not dismiss them immediately but really try to picture what I'm seeing. If you don't or can't, I'll just let it sit and walk away. I'd prefer to stay myself this time. 

 

@MiserereNobisthank you for your kind words and defense. It reminded me strongly of who I would prefer to be. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 4 by BlueDreams

[Grug the Neanderthal]

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

What I'm concerned about is that you're stating that you can't fully see why people are riled up and what you were doing that escalated the problem. You haven't been here for very long, so you likely don't know our general styles very well. But most the ones that were actively pushing back, are also ones that are not known for getting easily irritated. They tend to discuss without much escalation. If you don't understand, it may be good to go back and look at the last few pages and see what your part may have been in this. This deterioration didn't happen in a vacuum or without reason and there's quite a broad range of people with broad views and experience that began pushing back at you hard. The insight can hopefully help you express your views in a way that can help people understand them, even if they adamantly disagree. At the very least, you may be able to better understand why they're describing them in ways you wouldn't. Plus it'll likely give you less of an agitated experience. It may also be helpful to picture what you were saying from the other's perspective or experience.

I took your advice and read back through the exchanges to see where the breakdown in the conversation happened and what my part was in causing or escalating this breakdown. 

Here is what I observed about what led to the breakdown in communication and my role in it:

When I said that I was "absolutely certain" that the decay of the family was "absolutely catastrophic" to the lives of many teens I have worked with and that it was my opinion that women working outside of the home was a "major" contributing factor to this, I chose my words poorly. At least two posters jumped to conclusions about what I was saying and read things into my words that weren't there. My words were then mischaracterized and attacked with straw-man arguments by one poster. While I did my best to be civil in my response, I was regrettably a little bit short with him. Another poster then jumped in from left field and accused me of being sexist and making baseless claims. And couple other posters agreed with her and I came under fire from several directions. 

I then made the poor decision to point back to Calm's initial words in the discussion, in an attempt to try and get people to be more reasonable with me. In pointing back to Calm's words, I expressed an understanding of her words that she disagreed with. Calm responded and tried to set the record straight. In my response to her, I made a fatal error. Instead of accepting her explanation, I gave her some push back because I thought she was doing damage control and trying to distance herself from what she had originally said. This was wrong. In looking back over her words, I now realize that I didn't listen carefully enough to what she was saying. I had no right to make the assumption that she was trying to do damage control and should have accepted her explanation and let it go. It was wrong for me to challenge her explanation the way I did.

Things snowballed from there when another poster came to Calm's defense and accused me of making misogynistic statements. While I again tried to be respectful, I was a little short in my response. Several posters jumped into the fray and also accused me of misogyny. I responded defending myself against this charge, which I consider to be false and offensive. The rest is history. 

@Calm please accept my sincere apology for how I treated you. What I did was wrong. I wish I could take what I did back. I take full responsibility for how I treated you. I'm truly sorry for any hurt my words and actions caused you.

I would also like to apologize to the other sisters in this discussion for being short with you and not doing a better job of seeing things from your perspective. 

Edited February 4 by Grug the Neanderthal

[MustardSeed]

I appreciate this - thank you