DiscussMormonism.com

Whyme, is it time to consider your purpose for participating on this Board and your views on women? The last juliann quote below was clearly directed at you.

why me wrote:But who is who since they all use the same description? But the vocal crowd, the group that make the news perhaps can be called Radical Mormon Feminists. Within feminism there are many disciplines. Maybe the same can be true for Mormon feminism. But really, I see no point in a Mormon feminism at all. I just see a point in using the names that are out there already within the feminist movement.

If you continue to demean women you will be removed from the thread.

why me on 23 January 2013 10:03 AM said wrote:And why would asking them a question in the foyer disrupt church? We need to remember that these women are not strangers. They are ward members. I would think that they would enjoy a conversation about their protest. I see no disruption only dialogue and the sharing of knowledge. The foyer is full of people having conversations about job, kids, leisure, mundane things etc. It would be just one of many conversations taking place in the foyer. Also, a conversation is not disruptive and if they were wearing pants on that sunday of the protest I would think that the women would enjoy an opportunity to talk about it.

juliann wrote:To put it bluntly, ew, ew, ew. Throughout history, some men have liked to tell women what they would "enjoy". It is always the man who would get the enjoyment, however. If you had any interest in "these women" you would simply go read what they said about the experience. Do you corner men who aren't wearing white shirts in the lobby? And what about those guys in casual sweaters?! Lurk in the lobby and give them some enjoyment. Let us know how enjoyable it was.

juliann in response to a poster apologizing for whymen wrote:Why anyone would need to disrupt church to ask what they already know is what you should be asking. (The dumb act doesn't work when a certain someone is well known to hang out on the Board That Can't be Named where anything goes). Nor does the pretense that discussing pants at church was part of the protest.

emphasis added.

Bump for why me.

Will you please supply a link to this discussion? I'd like to read it from the beginning.

There is nothing in that quote that demeans women.

Dr. Shades wrote:Will you please supply a link to this discussion? I'd like to read it from the beginning.

Whyme's input on Mormon Femenism....

3sheets2thewind wrote:Whyme?

Does Whyme rhyme with thyme?

bcspace wrote:There is nothing in that quote that demeans women.

The MDDB mods obviously disagree.

why me wrote:But who is who since they all use the same description? But the vocal crowd, the group that make the news perhaps can be called Radical Mormon Feminists. Within feminism there are many disciplines. Maybe the same can be true for Mormon feminism. But really, I see no point in a Mormon feminism at all. I just see a point in using the names that are out there already within the feminist movement.

If you continue to demean women you will be removed from the thread.

Wow, that sure is a radical shift. "Feminism" used to be the big bad specter to our Mormon friends, and now any general criticism of it is equated with demeaning women? I'm glad to see that they've done a 180 regarding feminism, but I wonder if they'd judge Boyd K. Packer with the same vitriol that they've judged why me.

juliann wrote:

why me on 23 January 2013 10:03 AM said wrote:And why would asking them a question in the foyer disrupt church? [snip!]

To put it bluntly, ew, ew, ew. [snip!]

That seems like an extreme overreaction to simply being asked a question.

bcuzbcuz wrote:
Does Whyme rhyme with thyme?

No, but its electromagnetic properties when rubbed against light cotton causes it to stand erect.

Wow, that sure is a radical shift. "Feminism" used to be the big bad specter to our Mormon friends, and now any general criticism of it is equated with demeaning women? I'm glad to see that they've done a 180 regarding feminism, but I wonder if they'd judge Boyd K. Packer with the same vitriol that they've judged why me.

I remember Mopologetic history differently. The core group of women at MDD who exited ZLMB I think have been consistently "feminist". Remember, their apologetics is literally super glued to academic liberalism, the very kind BCSpace and Droopy regard as Satanism. If some fashionable liberal professor at Yale writes a book on religion, then this is what the Church had always taught, and those of us who found these positions unrecognizable in a Mormon context were lone turnips that had bounced off the truck of true-believing commoners.

It's the core MI group that tends to pronouncedly right wing, and now that the've "spun off" on their own, there is no liberal influence at all to keep them in check as there had been with the rise of Mormon Studies. Lou might be the odd duck here, but I'm not going to attempt to pscyhoanalyze him. At MDD, interestingly enough, a conservative influence has found its way in as apparently, liberalism itself is useless without the technology to deliver the message. Mormon IT geeks tend to be shallow conservatives, and so there's this other element there. It's probably more of a tolerated situation rather than one of differing perspectives informing each other as I never see any interaction between the two forces and explains some schizo moderation. Of course, I probably spend about 10 minutes a month on that board now, so I could be wrong, but I still think I'm right.