DiscussMormonism.com

EAllusion wrote:For the length of discussion on it, I found one glaring omission. When motherhood is brought up as the female compliment to the priesthood, that is demeaning to women, sure. Men can be parents too. The list of things fathers cannot do that mothers can is extremely short and related to simple bodily functions rather than things that matter. It's easy to see why this demeans women. But, the thing is, it also demeans men. It implies there is something superior or reserved in what women can do as parents that men cannot that really matters. Knowing the sexist ideas this comes from, in the mind of the user it probably means a emotionally closer, more nurturing, more influential relationship with children. Today, we intuitively know this to be false, so our gaze turns on what this says about women. But what it wants to say is that men are second-class parents. And that is a spot of high sexism directed squarely at men. Both genders lose with that ill-thought cliché.

I agree with this, EAllusion, and I've made this point in other exchanges elsewhere in the Bloggernacle. I just didn't bring it up at T&S on that thread because I felt that the thread was busy enough as it was.

I had mentioned the drama to Stak in chat not long after it erupted, hence his comment in the thread.

Dr. Shades wrote:Wow, that Ardis Parshall is really unhinged, isn't she?

Her knowledge of Mormon history is enormous, she's a gifted writer and a diligent researcher, she's very witty and intelligent, and she has a great capacity for keen observations on controversial issues that really cut through the bullcrap and say what needs to be said.

But she does have some diva-like tendencies (recall the ordeal with the table and the FAIR Conference from a few years back) and a penchant for being rude to people without provocation, and it's resulted in a lot of people in the online community who don't like her. She also pretty much sucks at understanding and engaging Mormon feminism, and I could say the same for quite a few Mormon bloggers who are otherwise pretty good critical thinkers.

Dr. Shades wrote:So, "reasonably accurate" = "accurate?"

In that context, yes. Clearly.

MsJack wrote:Her knowledge of Mormon history is enormous, she's a gifted writer and a diligent researcher, she's very witty and intelligent, and she has a great capacity for keen observations on controversial issues that really cut through the bullcrap and say what needs to be said.

Which is why she also has loyal friends.

Geez, Shades, tact much?

You really can not negotiate social conventions can you?

Blixa wrote:

MsJack wrote:Her knowledge of Mormon history is enormous, she's a gifted writer and a diligent researcher, she's very witty and intelligent, and she has a great capacity for keen observations on controversial issues that really cut through the bullcrap and say what needs to be said.

Which is why she also has loyal friends.

Geez, Shades, tact much?

I don't know the woman other than what I saw in that post--and also what I read about her Diva incident at the FAIR conference. So that's all I have to go on.

I'm not plugged into some sort of "hive mind" wherein I know a person's entire life story after just seeing his or her name.

You really can not negotiate social conventions can you?

I can negotiate them quite easily, thank you very much. (What "social convention" was involved in that angry post of Adis's?)

Well, if I were Ms. Jack I would've almost certainly been comparing the contributors there to female anti-suffragettes. They actually tried to break out the argument that if a group of women supports some limiting gender role, then it would be wrong to question them by questioning that role. Of course, we can point to many historical and current examples of women endorsing systems that horribly mistreat them. Do you think there are no women in Saudi Arabia who would not defend Saudi Arabia's policies towards women? It's sexist to suggest women can't have sexist ideas about the role of women.

Of course, if I did that I would've just inflamed them worse.

Dr. Shades wrote:

You really can not negotiate social conventions can you?

I can negotiate them quite easily, thank you very much. (What "social convention" was involved in that angry post of Adis's?)

If you could negotiate social conventions and communication cues, you would've known that I was referring to much more than just that in my response. Asking what "social convention" was invoked in Ardis's post is akin to your post in Zeez's thread on translating the Phaistos Disc, where you ask everyone to be sure to include "cues" in their posts so you can interpret them. You continually concentrate on small details abstracted from their larger context. It is in the larger context that things like social cues, conventions and assumptions reside; they are not statements directly made in a text but everything that enables one to make sense of a text.

Blixa wrote:If you could negotiate social conventions and communication cues, you would've known that I was referring to much more than just that in my response.

Yes, I'm fully aware that you were referring to "much more than just that in [your] response" when your response consisted of, "Which is why she also has loyal friends." Clearly you were referencing MsJack's post and pointing out that she (Ardis) has loyal friends.

That much is obvious. Why wouldn't she have loyal friends? Heck, I'm sure even William Schryver has loyal friends. I just didn't think it was necessary to point out extraneous details.

But all that doesn't negate the fact that Ardis came across as unhinged.

Asking what "social convention" was invoked in Ardis's post is akin to your post in Zeez's thread on translating the Phaistos Disc, where you ask everyone to be sure to include "cues" in their posts so you can interpret them.

I didn't "ask everyone to be sure to include 'cues' in their posts so I can interpret them." I specifically asked Zeezrom--and no one else--to include a note--not some nebulous "cue"--the next time he continued with a certain theme begun earlier, not within every post. In other words, only when he started a new thread when he should've continued within an already-extant thread.

That said, did Ardis, or didn't she, come across as unhinged, regardless of social convention?

You continually concentrate on small details abstracted from their larger context.

When you interacted with stemelbow, didn't you "concentrat[e] on small details abstracted from their larger context" when passing judgment about his communication skills?

It is in the larger context that things like social cues, conventions and assumptions reside; they are not statements directly made in a text but everything that enables one to make sense of a text.

What "larger context" was contained in Ardis's post that made her not come across as unhinged? I'm not being snarky here; I'm genuinely curious about this.

Shades I'm sorry. I'm not going to have this conversation here.

You're not being snarky? "Heck, I'm sure even William Schryver has loyal friends." Get a clue.

The "much more" that I was referencing was all of our past discussions on social cues, not the specific details of this thread. We've been over this before, but I don't think I can explain to you what you are missing.

Blixa wrote:Shades I'm sorry. I'm not going to have this conversation here.

Where would you prefer to have it?

You're not being snarky? "Heck, I'm sure even William Schryver has loyal friends." Get a clue.

"Get a clue" indeed! That comment was 100% relevant. Let's take a closer look: We know that William Schryver loves his wife and really, really loves his daughter. By your logic, when MsJack concluded that Mr. Schryver is a misogynist, you should've castigated her for "ignoring the broader context" with equal vehemence to the way you castigated me for "ignoring the broader context" when I concluded that Ms. Parshall is unhinged. (In other words, if Ardis having many loyal friends means that she can't possibly be unhinged, then by your logic, William loving some women means that he can't possibly be a misogynist.)

The "much more" that I was referencing was all of our past discussions on social cues, not the specific details of this thread.

Then why didn't you say so? The comment "You really can not negotiate social conventions can you," when it follows the comment "which is why she also has loyal friends," is a social cue that you're talking about the incident at hand.

If I'm missing social cues, are you sure it's not because you're failing to adequately communicate them?

We've been over this before, but I don't think I can explain to you what you are missing.

Well, I won't know what I'm missing unless you can point out the specific thing. I'm beginning to wonder if "you're missing social cues" is nothing more than code-language for "I disagree with you."

So, with all of our past discussions in mind, let me break down my thought process within this thread so you can more easily tell me precisely what I missed, if anything:

Starting from the beginning, I don't know Ardis Parshall from Adam. I only know one thing about her: That she attended the FAIR conference a few years back and pulled a table away from its designated spot, without permission, in order to rest her laptop computer on it. When someone in charge of the proceedings politely requested that she surrender it back because it was needed for the next session in order for an overhead projector to be placed upon it, she bristled with indignation, stormed off in a huff, and never came back. Then she got on some blog and breathed fire about how the FAIR organizers are a bunch of rude, inconsiderate Fascists who care nothing about their attendees who pay good money.

So, when I encountered her comment to MsJack in the comments section to which she (MsJack) linked, her toddler tantrum at the FAIR conference was the only "broader context" of which I was aware. Sure, I was aware of other broader context items--like the fact that she had a mother and a father, the fact that she breathes oxygen, and the fact that she'd most likely get sick if someone with Tuberculosis coughed in her face--but I didn't think those were relevant to the incident at hand. Or at least, I figured they had about the same relevance as her particular friend tally and/or her proficiency with the written word.

Her response to MsJack's eminently reasonable comment was, "Ms. Jack, you don’t know what the #%$@ you’re talking about." So, put yourself in my shoes: If the only thing you knew about her was her infantile hissy fit in front of God only knows how many people, and then you came across that comment, would you or would you not be justified in asking, "Wow, that Ardis Parshall is really unhinged, isn't she?" What social cue, exactly, did I "miss" in either the tantrum or the comment that ameliorates that conclusion?

But in FAIRness, you did ask, "You really can not negotiate social conventions can you?" Well, I suppose it's against social convention to ask about another person being unhinged, but rest assured I would've never done that to her face--I can most definitely negotiate that social convention, obviously. But this being A) a message board, and B) the Terrestrial Forum, I sort of figured that that sort of thing is allowed.

But by all means, if I missed a social cue or failed to negotiate some social convention, then please inform me what it is so I don't make the same mistake in the future.

Shades, one love one's wife and daughter and still be a misogynist. Those aren't mutually exclusive conditions.