Hancock blames Feminism for Fifty Shades of Grey

[Guest]

Fifty Shades of Dark. And One Shade of Feminism.

Spoilers: Hancock, Givens, and Peterson believe that because feminists have watered down traditional gender roles Fifty Shades of Grey is a form of blowback.

Don't worry, Hancock drags LDS feminists into it.

[Guest]

What constitutes a traditional gender role?

In some cultures it was the female of the species that ruled.
Bees have Queens, not Kings.
In other cultures its traditional for females to be given in marriage against their own personal wishes.
How far back in history are we allowed to go to determine a traditional gender role?
Should Mormon women give up work and concentrate on housewifery to conform to traditional gender role stereotypes?

But the biggest question, how do they know what's in the film?

This is why the Church isn't attracting new members or retaining existing ones. If the Church had excommunicated people subscribing to the views of those three muppets and embraced Dehlns questions Wards would be busier places.

I recommend to those who honor womanhood that we make a fresh start, drawing upon the rich resources of the restored gospel, and that we abandon the language of feminism, which I maintain is indeed infected by the prideful and envious sameness of the world.

Holy crap.

[_just me]

That was super annoying.

[_Symmachus]

I recommend to those who honor womanhood that we make a fresh start, drawing upon the rich resources of the restored gospel, and that we abandon the language of feminism, which I maintain is indeed infected by the prideful and envious sameness of the world.

I offer here to my co-debauchees some of the richest resources of the Restored Gospel for you to draw upon in order to make a fresh start in honoring womanhood:

D&C 132: 61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

Note the objectifying grammar in "that that," a phrase constructed of neuter relative pronouns, rather than the more subjective "those whom" which one would have expected to be used in reference to human beings rather than human things (also known as "women"). We must abandon the language of feminism, as Elder von Hancock admonishes, but let us be thankful that the Lord has given us through the beauty of His restored Gospel an ensample of his restored Gender language.

D&C 132: 62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

Thank you, Elder von Hancock, for reminding us that it only in the Restored Gospel where we can learn the true pattern of the Lord's gender language.

And as you can see for yourselves, there are no shades to this language, even if, admittedly, it does seem to encode a master-slave discourse which many of the BDSM enthusiasts who populate Mormon Dialogue and Discussion might read with a curiously erotic recognition.

[_Kishkumen]

So, consul, are you saying that, according to von Hancock's viewpoint, women are property?

[_EAllusion]

Wow. That's Poe range.

[_Gadianton]

Can someone explain to me what "50 shades of grey" is and what the argument is here? I looked it up and it's a movie or something but why this movie and not a thousand other movies and what's the message here?

[_just me]

Can someone explain to me what "50 shades of grey" is and what the argument is here? I looked it up and it's a movie or something but why this movie and not a thousand other movies and what's the message here?

It's a movie based on a book by the same name which is a bad Twilight BDSM fan fiction. They just changed the character names before publishing it.

The argument *seems* to be that women want abusive men because feminism.

[_Sammy Jankins]

Can someone explain to me what "50 shades of grey" is and what the argument is here? I looked it up and it's a movie or something but why this movie and not a thousand other movies and what's the message here?

Fifty Shades of Grey is a book and now a movie that portrays a sexual relationship where the man dominates the woman in the bedroom by binding her during sex and whipping her, etc, etc.
Hancock more or less is arguing that because feminism has watered down the traditional masculine male that women longing for a dominant male like Fifty Shades of Grey.

I thought the argument was comical. I hope that brief explanation helps.

[_Sammy Jankins]

Can someone explain to me what "50 shades of grey" is and what the argument is here? I looked it up and it's a movie or something but why this movie and not a thousand other movies and what's the message here?

It's a movie based on a book by the same name which is a bad Twilight BDSM fan fiction. They just changed the character names before publishing it.

The argument *seems* to be that women want abusive men because feminism.

I agree. I just can't wrap my head around what he and Givens were thinking. Other than just grasping at straws by associating something they don't like with something else they don't like.