Is being a "Mormon" as a Man (and Married LDS), Better in the Midst of Wokeism & Secular Culture?

[Free Ranger]

Res Ipsa, thanks for being cordial while disagreeing with me. I don't know why other people can't be more civil.

I totally agree with what you said about the Viking bit. I actually had my DNA done and I'm actually around 50% Swedish with some Iceland and thus Viking; but I don't act like a medieval Viking, trust me. I wouldn't even know how to be a berserker without laughing at myself. I am tall and blue eyed and pale skin and fairly strong winning weightlifting competitions in my youth (thanks to my ancestors) but I'm actually like I said high on empathy.

The point I was making in my initial post is that the TV show Euphoria in general presents a Leftist ideology yet in that one episode the screenwriters couldn't help themselves in pointing out the silliness of Wokeism and it's contradiction between the socially constructed ideal and the actual biology of the woman. If you read Nancy Friday's book on women's fantasies you will see that most women are not really attracted to the men of the Woke ideology that says how men should be and act.

Don't worry about other people. They are who they are.

I'm wondering if you are reading too much into Euphoria. Self contradiction is a theme in lots of TV shows. Sometimes its there for humor. Sometimes for pathos. Sometimes to show hypocrisy. Sometimes to show how complicated both life and people are. Im not sure it holds up in terms of the broad conclusions you are drawing.

As to Nancy Friday, aren't those books about 50 years old now? Yes, they were revolutionary in their day because they brought to light that women also had sexual fantasies. But they weren't random samples. And they're outdated. I don't think one can just assume that the fantasies she wrote about in her book are representative of women's fantasies today.

But when you use the phrase "not really attracted to men of the Woke ideology," it sounds to me as if you are extrapolating from fantasies about sex to what someone is attracted to in terms of a life partner. And those are two different things. Confusing fantasies with reality is almost always a mistake.

To be clear, I agree with you that every woman is different and they want different things romantically. As I said, I am high in empathy (and intuitiveness), and I've never had any complaints from women and no that is not me bragging on my physicality in the bedroom, it is me referring to my thoughtful, sentimental and poetic side.

So the biology bit of it I am pointing out is that women are biologically attracted to certain masculine traits. This is not my opinion, this is what all the science shows. If you want I will go into more detail of all that I have learned on the subject. This does not mean that women want a total jerk, it just means that they want certain masculine traits that are biologically embedded in them from millions of years of evolution. The same is true of me as a man, there are certain feminine traits that I am biologically designed to find attractive. This is really not in dispute objectively according to science.

So the reason I brought up the TV show is because the TV show itself was pointing out this contradiction between what this character Kat actually biologically wants as revealed in her sex fantasy (which I admit is probably clearly meant as a hyperbolic scenario yet true on a deeper level), in contrast to the "nice guy" her boyfriend is, which bores the crap out of her.

You're probably right that I currently watch too much TV. We all have our vices. I'm undergoing recuperation from a shoulder injury so I can't go to the gym currently and thus have more time on my hands.

I'm not convinced that "women" are biologically attracted to "certain masculine traits" in a way that matters in terms of how a male person should conduct himself. It makes sense that "attraction" would involve both processes we are aware of and some that run under the hood. Who knows how that all nets out. But empirically, it appears that women are attracted to men who exhibit an extremely wide variety of behaviors. I say empirically, because one only has to look at the wide variety of men involved in pairings with women.

The good boy/bad boy dichotomy has become a trope in entertainment. Again, I don't think there is a basis that allows to extrapolate anything from that to actual women and what any woman "wants."

Regarding me being "for patriarchy," my view is actually a little more nuanced. Like I said, one my favorite movie is Aliens with a strong female lead. I am not intimidated by strong women. I just don't like the Woke cult doing what it is doing. I also would have no problem with Mormon women getting the priesthood but to be honest I'm not bothered by women not having the priesthood either. I haven't thought the issue all the way through but it seems to me like a kind of trade-off which I can explore if you want. The main reason I'm not bothered by issues like that, is that I really started questioning my Liberal positions I had in the 1990s and early 2000s. It was actually Nietzsche, who is heralded by the Liberal professors, that actually made me more Conservative and more respectful of male hierarchy which we see in all the ape species and we are apes. I began to realize reading Nietzsche that when you take a cold hard realistic look at reality, Life itself is hierarchical and mostly patriarchal with a few matriarchal exceptions like the bonobos. I also began to realize that during my exMormon atheist phase which eventually, through my reductionism, led me into nihilism, I realized that the progressivism I was imbibing was doing nothing for me as a masculine male. It just led me into a bland passivity and existential depression in many ways. So I got to thank Nietzsche in many ways for kind of giving me a spark in my ass in a way, it's hard to explain and put into words as a man to explain it but he really did effectively call me out of pessimistic nihilism and unmotivating progressivism and into a more optimistic nihilism with more masculine vitality and then this led me toward seeing the artistic value and vitality of religious humanism, specifically Christian humanism which then led to me thinking of reassessing Mormonism.

"Woke cult," in my opinion, has become one of those trash can terms that people throw a whole bunch of stuff into simply because they don't like it. It seems to be the amped up version of "politically correct," which I generally have equated with something like "basic civility." in my opinion, it's a term that allows critics of certain things to avoid talking about specific behaviors and why they are irritated by them.

So, I like your reference to bonobos. Our closest relatives in the animal kingdom include chimps and bonobos -- two species with almost diametrically opposed social behaviors. Yet, when we talk about "natural behavior," we focus on the chimps. Why not the bonobos? Why is one more "natural" than the others. But beyond that, what you are describing reminds me of the naturalistic fallacy. Why should we be looking biological and sociological history and accepting that as how things should be. Evolution doesn't happen in real time, and there is no way that it can keep up with the ever increasing rates of change we find ourselves in. And, given modern medicine, it's questionable whether any selection pressure is occurring today in terms of male and female behavior, meaning it's going to wander all over the map. Indeed, male and female behavior is very likely as much a social construct as it is biology.

Individual stories are just that. I don't think I ever set out to become a "masculine male" as a project. I was too busy just trying to figure out how to be a decent person after my entire framework of thinking collapsed. When you use terms like "masculine vitality" I literally don't know what you mean. To me, vitality isn't a gendered thing. Most things aren't.

I grappled with postmodernism, and came out an optimistic and motivated progressive. It's never occurred to me to view that through gendered lenses. I know men and women with similar views, and it's never seemed to me to think about gender differences in context of those views. I'm a unique person. So are the others. Why spend time trying to classify how they think about the same general ideas into categories that seem artificial in that context.

I find value in all kinds of things -- even things I don't associate or affiliate with. I don't correlate artistic vitality with any category of people other than those who demonstrate artistic vitality. I don't associate Mormonism today with either category. I think correlation is the opposite of vitality. And I don't see Mormonism as an artistic force. It may have been more of both in the past, but I don't see it today. Still, if being a religious humanist or a Christian humanist or a Mormon humanist or a Mormon helps you thrive -- helps you live the kind of life you want to live, then I think you should be any or all of those. And if they don't work out, try something else.

Hi Res Ipsa,

Interesting comments.

Regarding your comments on my opinion of the TV show Euphoria, I still stand by my analysis.

If you are aware of a better book on women's fantasies. Let me know, I'm always open to book recommendations.

Regarding what I have shared about what women are attracted to I am simply summarizing a number of books by scientists, if I'm communicating what I've read ineffectively, fine; but I don't think you're really disagreeing with me but with the majority of biological sciences on the subject. For example, I suggest you check out the scientific work of Helen Fisher.

I think reality itself and observations of human interactions all around the world supports what I have said even if I might have communicated it ineffectively.

Regarding my use of the word cult to refer to wokeism. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck; it's probably a duck. If it looks like a cult and acts like a cult, it's a cult. I'm willing to say that Mormonism has cultish tendencies and behaviors too, but not nearly as bad as Wokeism.

Keep in mind as well that college fraternities, the military, and many sports fans also have cultish tendencies. If you study our ancestors back to Egypt, you'll see all kinds of cultish tendencies. It might just be part of our evolved tribal nature. See my previous post in this thread where I give a list of books written by atheistic scientists pointing out that we are religious by Nature.

Please tell me where this article linked below is incorrect in pointing out the cult behavior of wokeism: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/cult- ... -wokeness/

The exmormon Jonathan Streeter over at "thoughts on things and stuff," on his YouTube channel has realized that Mormonism is not nearly as problematic as wokeism nowadays, and has devoted his analytical powers to pointing out its problems. As a fellow ex-Mormon have you been open-minded and listened to any of his recent videos? See his channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UCVTCFh3uDMH0GZlwl1JOoHQ

Have you taken the time to listen to or read an African American intellectual's perspective? For example see: Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America by John McWhorter

As a fellow ex-Mormon you of course were open-minded enough to study the critics of Mormonism; are you willing to study the critics of wokeism, especially those who are fellow ex-Mormons?

I think that we do indeed have inherited traits from both bonobos and chimps, but to deny that we have a lot of chimp tendencies is to simply look at the history of humanity with a blindfold on. Do you enjoy watching the UFC like I do? Do you think that we could ever come to a point where we repress all of that chimp-like energy?

But if you are arguing for just a total ongoing orgy of sex and women offering themselves freely sexually like female bonobos do, then hey, whatever works for you. But isn't that kind of like what Joseph Smith was trying to do to a certain degree? That is to move the Latter-day Saints beyond augustinian puritanism? After all, he allowed women to have more than one husband in some cases. So wasn't he just bringing out his inner bonobo? (Just joking, partially).

Your mentioning the naturalistic fallacy does not mean anything to me if you are an atheist who does not believe in a soul or objective Right and Wrong but is still asserting an "Ought from an Is" (see Hume). You also have to contend with Nietzsche's philosophy and argumentation which I mentioned in this thread.

You said, "male and female behavior is very likely as much a social construct as it is biology." I disagree; at least I disagree with what I think you are saying. Leaving Mormonism required relying on science and the science is clear. If you're going to apply science in rejecting Mormonism, then in all due respect, if you are going to be consistent you would accept the real sciences on this topic. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "... as much a social construct as it is biology," which is possible (that I'm misunderstanding you).

I agree with the last thing you said, i.e., we should all do whatever floats our boat.

[Kishkumen]

I don’t see the point of defending or attacking wokeism. Yeah, it’s a thing, but it is much more of a thing for those who are against a certain bundle of positions. To a certain degree it is a straw man. Not entirely, but the hysteria it evokes in its opponents on the right is pretty far out of proportion to the supposed threat.

At the same time, I think there is a lot of pressure to remake aspects of how we conceive of our culture to make a small percentage of the country happier. I was fairly struck by a discussion about Judge Jackson, the entirely worthy and qualified nominee for the Supreme Court. Some talking head on a cable news network was gushing about how important it was to have people like Judge Jackson see themselves in Judge Jackson.

And I thought to myself, yeah, that is pretty cool, but that only goes so far. First, it is important that she is qualified to do the job. I have no doubt that she is, and I am excited to see her join the other Justices and make up for the deficiencies in competence that are found in the entirely mediocre Justice Kavanaugh. What I am not keen on is this idea that seeing ourselves in our leaders is of such paramount importance. Honestly, that strikes me as being a pretty short-sighted way of looking at things.

We begin with the assumption that every white person on the bench was there because they were white. Then we say that it is important to have people who are not white on the bench, so that everyone in our country can see people like themselves up there. The end result is fine. Put qualified people of any color, creed, or gender on the bench. It is the flawed reasoning of identification that I find wanting. Yes, it’s true that being white was essentially an unstated requirement to be on the bench in the past. And that was bad. Continuing on the basis of identity is not necessarily a winning formula for deciding serious issues.

And this is what I don’t like about identity politics, no matter who is engaging in them. I think of all of this as a temporary necessity until there is enough diversity so that people no longer engage in the solipsistic substitute for reasoning in which one seeks to feel personally represented in any power structure by seeing one’s mirror image in the halls of power.

I am also struck by the idea that anyone who sees themselves in any of these people, of any color or gender, is either delightfully naïve or downright delusional. We can understand and warm our hearts with the idea that little girls will look at the bench and say to themselves that they might be Justice Jackson one day. And maybe one out of 400 million of them will be, and that is nice. But I don’t see myself in any of these people, not in the whitest white man of roughly my age. I see sharks in the shark tank, for the most part. Increasingly, I see people who were cultivated and hand selected by powerful interests to pursue certain ends.

Back when reincarnation was a huge fad, practically everyone who was into that thought that in a past life they were some historically important person. It’s hilariously narcissistic and very revealing. Similarly, never make the mistake that anyone in the halls of power is there to represent you. They are there for the rich and powerful—the people who hand selected them—to remake the world in their image. At one time people might have hoped that a judge would be wise. Now they prioritize having them reflect a certain identity.

These are the shallow and narcissistic priorities of a shallow and narcissistic culture. Though the outcome of diversity is important, the thought process habitually indulged in along the way is concerning. Wasn’t it the kind of thought process that made Trump attractive to many Americans?

[canpakes]

I will conclude by saying I have gone through a radical shift in thinking. I was an atheistc "agnostic mystic" for years and was very content with that but deep down, I personally (not speaking for you), always felt something missing on an existential level. As the atheist for religion, Bruce Sheiman once said, to paraphrase, "Carl Sagan might feel spiritually uplifted saying he's made of dead stars, but it does nothing for me."

FR,

Using your terminology above, I’d probably drop the ‘atheistic’ part of the label, and characterize myself more simply as ‘agnostic mystic’. I haven’t truly attempted to pin down my approach into any particular camp or as adhering strictly to any label, though.

Sherman’s opinion is fine, but I’d assume that there’s more context to his statement (if you have a reference for the source, that’d be great). He may not be ‘uplifted’, but neither might Sagan be, so much as observant and impressed with the process. I’m not sure that uplifted belongs in this any more so than saying one was uplifted in seeing a redwood grow from simple water and chemicals. The overall process is impressive, though, be it one absent a god, or if it was the result of a planned process by a designer/god. Uplifting might speak more to intent after-the-fact from what results of the process, and more related to what the individual can be capable of and choose to do, versus what more traditional religions have planned for the individual.

One nice aspect about agnostic mysticism would seem that it excludes no possibilities, whereas the LDS (or any other) narrative imposes much stricter rules, controls, conditions and outcomes … so it’s hard for me to see (mathematically or otherwise) that it would be more stifling - or less fulfilling - than the LDS alternative.

Anyhow, nice reading list. Thanks!

[canpakes]

Again, I don't think there is a basis that allows to extrapolate anything from that to actual women and what any woman "wants.".

So you say.

[Res Ipsa]

Again, I don't think there is a basis that allows to extrapolate anything from that to actual women and what any woman "wants.".

So you say.

I should have explicitly recognized the cake exception...

[Free Ranger]

I will conclude by saying I have gone through a radical shift in thinking. I was an atheistc "agnostic mystic" for years and was very content with that but deep down, I personally (not speaking for you), always felt something missing on an existential level. As the atheist for religion, Bruce Sheiman once said, to paraphrase, "Carl Sagan might feel spiritually uplifted saying he's made of dead stars, but it does nothing for me."

FR,

Using your terminology above, I’d probably drop the ‘atheistic’ part of the label, and characterize myself more simply as ‘agnostic mystic’. I haven’t truly attempted to pin down my approach into any particular camp or as adhering strictly to any label, though.

Sherman’s opinion is fine, but I’d assume that there’s more context to his statement (if you have a reference for the source, that’d be great). He may not be ‘uplifted’, but neither might Sagan be, so much as observant and impressed with the process. I’m not sure that uplifted belongs in this any more so than saying one was uplifted in seeing a redwood grow from simple water and chemicals. The overall process is impressive, though, be it one absent a god, or if it was the result of a planned process by a designer/god. Uplifting might speak more to intent after-the-fact from what results of the process, and more related to what the individual can be capable of and choose to do, versus what more traditional religions have planned for the individual.

One nice aspect about agnostic mysticism would seem that it excludes no possibilities, whereas the LDS (or any other) narrative imposes much stricter rules, controls, conditions and outcomes … so it’s hard for me to see (mathematically or otherwise) that it would be more stifling - or less fulfilling - than the LDS alternative.

Anyhow, nice reading list. Thanks!

canpakes,

You said Sherman but I think you meant Sheiman. Regarding the context, I tried to find it actually and searched all through the e-book on my Kindle and it did not come up. It occurred to me that he probably said it in an interview. As for the context, I would simply recommend his book An Atheist Defends Religion.

Since I'm not the kind of person to rain on anyone's parade if it's working for them, here are some videos that I've liked that supports agnostic mysticism, I thought you might enjoy:

https://youtu.be/VVfykwiYE3s

https://youtu.be/XGK84Poeynk

https://youtu.be/YMMl2Asx4pg

https://youtu.be/5Vekj2i7I6c

https://youtu.be/2Mi_cTSiL5Y

Re-watching that last video above actually gave me a tinge of shivers up my spine and goosebumps. So trust me, I get it. I commend it, recommend it. It is certainly a reasonable spiritual alternative to what is currently working for me.

Peace

[Free Ranger]

I don’t see the point of defending or attacking wokeism. Yeah, it’s a thing, but it is much more of a thing for those who are against a certain bundle of positions. To a certain degree it is a straw man. Not entirely, but the hysteria it evokes in its opponents on the right is pretty far out of proportion to the supposed threat.

At the same time, I think there is a lot of pressure to remake aspects of how we conceive of our culture to make a small percentage of the country happier. I was fairly struck by a discussion about Judge Jackson, the entirely worthy and qualified nominee for the Supreme Court. Some talking head on a cable news network was gushing about how important it was to have people like Judge Jackson see themselves in Judge Jackson.

And I thought to myself, yeah, that is pretty cool, but that only goes so far. First, it is important that she is qualified to do the job. I have no doubt that she is, and I am excited to see her join the other Justices and make up for the deficiencies in competence that are found in the entirely mediocre Justice Kavanaugh. What I am not keen on is this idea that seeing ourselves in our leaders is of such paramount importance. Honestly, that strikes me as being a pretty short-sighted way of looking at things.

We begin with the assumption that every white person on the bench was there because they were white. Then we say that it is important to have people who are not white on the bench, so that everyone in our country can see people like themselves up there. The end result is fine. Put qualified people of any color, creed, or gender on the bench. It is the flawed reasoning of identification that I find wanting. Yes, it’s true that being white was essentially an unstated requirement to be on the bench in the past. And that was bad. Continuing on the basis of identity is not necessarily a winning formula for deciding serious issues.

And this is what I don’t like about identity politics, no matter who is engaging in them. I think of all of this as a temporary necessity until there is enough diversity so that people no longer engage in the solipsistic substitute for reasoning in which one seeks to feel personally represented in any power structure by seeing one’s mirror image in the halls of power.

I am also struck by the idea that anyone who sees themselves in any of these people, of any color or gender, is either delightfully naïve or downright delusional. We can understand and warm our hearts with the idea that little girls will look at the bench and say to themselves that they might be Justice Jackson one day. And maybe one out of 400 million of them will be, and that is nice. But I don’t see myself in any of these people, not in the whitest white man of roughly my age. I see sharks in the shark tank, for the most part. Increasingly, I see people who were cultivated and hand selected by powerful interests to pursue certain ends.

Back when reincarnation was a huge fad, practically everyone who was into that thought that in a past life they were some historically important person. It’s hilariously narcissistic and very revealing. Similarly, never make the mistake that anyone in the halls of power is there to represent you. They are there for the rich and powerful—the people who hand selected them—to remake the world in their image. At one time people might have hoped that a judge would be wise. Now they prioritize having them reflect a certain identity.

These are the shallow and narcissistic priorities of a shallow and narcissistic culture. Though the outcome of diversity is important, the thought process habitually indulged in along the way is concerning. Wasn’t it the kind of thought process that made Trump attractive to many Americans?

I agree with what you wrote.

But I do think that it's important to point out the excesses of Wokeism where it causes harm.

Like pointing out the cult behavior of wokeism: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/cult- ...

Or joining exmormon Jonathan Streeter over at "thoughts on things and stuff," on his YouTube channel as he realized that Mormonism is not nearly as problematic as wokeism nowadays, and has devoted his analytical powers to pointing out its problems. See his channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UCVTCFh3uDMH0GZlwl1JOoHQ

Or the arguments in the book: Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America by John McWhorter

[Kishkumen]

I agree with what you wrote.

But I do think that it's important to point out the excesses of Wokeism where it causes harm.

Like pointing out the cult behavior of wokeism: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/cult- ...

Or joining exmormon Jonathan Streeter over at "thoughts on things and stuff," on his YouTube channel as he realized that Mormonism is not nearly as problematic as wokeism nowadays, and has devoted his analytical powers to pointing out its problems. See his channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UCVTCFh3uDMH0GZlwl1JOoHQ

Or the arguments in the book: Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America by John McWhorter

I read the one about cult behavior in wokeism, and I really liked it. That said, I belong to the cult of academia. It is a hugely abusive, high-demand cult that tolerates a narrow range of opinion. I am thinking that there is a proliferation of "cults" that are hardly ever recognized as such.

I had some experiences that dampened my initial enthusiasm for today's progressives. The first was when I foolishly thought I could go to a Mormon feminist venue and share my honest opinion as a guy. I was then lectured about my "mansplaining" (evidently this is a man sharing his frank opinion) and told I needed to learn how to be a good "ally." That was a huge red flag to me. That was when I started to suspect that we were not just talking about promoting the rights of women in Mormonism but about quite something else, and that I really just needed to sit on the sidelines and not take part in the discussion until I learned the lingo and the right views.

That's when I checked out and decided that I could support Mormon feminism without joining a new cult.

The second was when a leading young scholar in my academic discipline decided that the discipline had to be utterly dismantled unless it learned quickly how to be anti-racist. What that meant was realizing a very tall, even utopian goal that I doubt any community of human beings could ever achieve. Nevertheless, we were being told that this must take place right away with a metaphorical gun held to our professional heads.

Although I could see the point of what was being discussed--and I actually do believe in the concept of systemic racism--I also knew that racism was a pretty late construct that could not have been a problem for my area of study when it was invented in the 4th century BC. I believed that what was once not racist could once again not be racist, and that we should not leave it to utopian idealists to decide when we were sufficiently reformed before we once again turned our attention to the main business of our area of study.

Finally, the self-appointed gender police decided that BYU was not a safe place for a conference in my field. They circulated a petition advocating a boycott of the conference scheduled to be held at BYU because BYU is "not safe" (which is noticeably different from "dangerous," which must be too transparently ridiculous to risk claiming) for non-cis-hetero people. Thinking for myself, which is always a bad idea, I decided that it might be more beneficial to have openly gay people on campus, especially for closeted gay people on campus, than it would do any good to deny everyone their presence to score political points.

That is not what the powers that be decided was more important. And by powers that be, I mean the people who gather together to write righteous petitions without any kind of community deliberation in order to force their wills on the whole.

This is when I started to question whether I was really a good progressive, after all.

[Gadianton]

I watched the entire first and second season but in your mind my opinion was not formed by that experience.

Then you could have reminded me to go back and read your review about that series as it (apparently) answers my question. I will go back and read your review today. Instead, you specifically answered me by complaining about Batman, and pointing out that it ripped off unwoke Seven, which has nothing to do with your crusade against woke feminism.

[Kishkumen]

Oh, and how could I forget our dealings with Rosebud, KK, and jp? Being told many times that I am an awful person for criticizing them in their righteous crusade to stop John Dehlin was probably the final nail in the coffin.