"Are you on your period or something?" and other sexist remarks

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

"Are you on your period or something?" and other sexist remarks

Post by Lem »

In a recent post, I pointed out some sexist language. After posting, I became ambivalent, thinking I should tone down my accusation, so that I didn't create any bad feelings, or offend the person posting in what I considered to be a sexist manner.

Then, the poster responded to me with this
Analytics wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:35 pm

Your thinking is cloudy today. Are you on your period or something?
So I decided to post this instead:
By Victoria Bissell Brown
(retired from the faculty of Grinnell College, where she taught United States history.)

I yelled at my husband last night. Not pick-up-your-socks yell. Not how-could-you-ignore-that-red-light yell.

This was real yelling. This was 30 minutes of from-the-gut yelling. Triggered by a small, thoughtless, dismissive, annoyed, patronizing comment. Really small. A micro-wave that triggered a hurricane. I blew. Hard and fast. And it terrified me. I’m still terrified by what I felt and what I said. I am almost 70 years old. I am a grandmother. Yet in that roiling moment, screaming at my husband as if he represented every clueless male on the planet (and I every angry woman of 2018), I announced that I hate all men and wish all men were dead. If one of my grandchildren yelled something that ridiculous, I’d have to stifle a laugh.

My husband of 50 years did not have to stifle a laugh. He took it dead seriously. He did not defend his remark, he did not defend men. He sat, hunched and hurt, and he listened.

For a moment, it occurred to me to be grateful that I’m married to a man who will listen to a woman. The winds calmed ever so slightly in that moment. And then the storm surge welled up in me as I realized the pathetic impotence of nice men’s plan to rebuild the wreckage by listening to women. As my rage rushed through the streets of my mind, toppling every memory of every good thing my husband has ever done (and there are scores of memories), I said the meanest thing I’ve ever said to him: Don’t you dare sit there and sympathetically promise to change. Don’t say you will stop yourself before you blurt out some impatient, annoyed, controlling remark. No, I said, you can’t change. You are unable to change. You don’t have the skills and you won’t do it. You, I said, are one of the good men. You respect women, you believe in women, you like women, you don’t hit women or rape women or in any way abuse women. You have applauded and funded feminism for a half-century. You are one of the good men. And you cannot change. You can listen all you want, but that will not create one iota of change....

In the centuries of feminist movements that have washed up and away, good men have not once organized their own mass movement to change themselves and their sons or to attack the mean-spirited, teasing, punching thing that passes for male culture. Not once. Bastards. Don’t listen to me. Listen to each other. Talk to each other. Earn your power for once.

The gender war that has broken out in this country is flooding all our houses. It’s rising on the torrent of memories that every woman has. Those memories have come loose from the attic and the basement where we’ve stashed them. They are floating all around us and there is no place left to store them out of sight. Not just memories of sexual abuse.

Memories of being dismissed, disdained, distrusted. Memories of having to endure put-downs at the office, catcalls in the parking lot, barked orders at a dinner party. And, for some reason, the most chilling memory of all, the one Christine Blasey Ford called up and that we all recognized: the laughter.

The laughter of men who are bonding with each other by mocking us. When Ford testified under oath that the laughter is the sharpest memory of her high school assault, every woman within the sound of her voice could hear that laughter, had heard that laughter, somewhere, somehow.

No man right now understands the flood that is rushing through women’s brains, and only women in the deepest denial have evacuated their minds before the flood could reach them.

When good men like Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) give heartfelt, sincere speeches about how we must listen to women, I don’t know whether to coo or laugh or cry or yell. Think about “listen to women” as a program for change. It says to women: You will continue to suffer these abuses, men will continue to do disgusting things to you, the storms will keep coming, the tide will continue to rise, but now, we will listen and help you rebuild.

Pay attention people: If we do not raise boys to walk humbly and care deeply, if we do not demand that men do more than just listen, we will all drown in the flood. And there is no patriarchal Noah to save us.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... Old Testament-enough/
Last edited by Lem on Sat Sep 18, 2021 8:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 6828
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: "Are you on your period or something?" and other sexist remarks

Post by Jersey Girl »

Analytics what the actual “F” is wrong with you, man? What on earth possessed you to make that remark?
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: "Are you on your period or something?" and other sexist remarks

Post by Lem »

Analytics wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:35 pm

Your thinking is cloudy today. Are you on your period or something?
Jersey Girl wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:48 pm
Analytics what the actual “F” is wrong with you, man? What on earth possessed you to make that remark?
Who knows. No explanation has been given.
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 6828
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: "Are you on your period or something?" and other sexist remarks

Post by Jersey Girl »

Lem wrote:
Sat Apr 17, 2021 1:12 am
Analytics wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:35 pm

Your thinking is cloudy today. Are you on your period or something?
Jersey Girl wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:48 pm
Analytics what the actual “F” is wrong with you, man? What on earth possessed you to make that remark?
Who knows. No explanation has been given.
I'd like an explanation for how he thinks that remark makes any sense to a sane person. Because it doesn't. I located the thread of origin and offered him a tutorial to the female menstrual cycle. It's the very least I could do. I am, after all, an educator by nature.
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
Analytics
Elder
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:11 pm

Re: "Are you on your period or something?" a sexist remark made HERE.

Post by Analytics »

Jersey Girl,

According to the Church’s reports, in 1989, there were 39,739 “full-time missionaries.” In 2019, there were 67,021 “full-time missionaries,” an increase of 19% per decade. Is this an indication that the overall strength of the Church grew by 19% per decade over that time period? Not necessarily, because the age/sex distribution of the missionary force changed over that time period.

I tried to make this point, and Lem insisted that when I refer to "full-time missionaries" I'm not talking about the number in the statistical report labled "full-time missionaries." Rather, I mean male missionaries only and am thus using sexist language.

Shen then went on a rampage and said:
If you mean male, then SAY male, for “F”'s sake. "full-time missionaries" does NOT mean male to readers here. Only to the sexist ones.

(I'm sure you can sense that I am irritated by your assumption that "full-time missionary" automatically means male. You really should know better. It's offensive and irritating to continue to read sh't like this on our board.)
Now, it is possible that Lem simply misunderstood my point, but I think what I said was clear enough. When toon correctly explained my point, Lem insisted:
No, you didn't get my point. In fact, you have just exacerbated it. You are arguing that "the number of full time missionaries" measures growth and membership but only if "the number of full time missionaries" means MALE missionaries.
No, the number of full-time missionaries (referring to the Church's definition of "full-time missionaries", as used in the Church's statistical report) only measures the strength of the church in a non-clouded way if the age/sex distribution of missionaries doesn’t change over time.

There is nothing the least-bit sexist about referring to what the Church calls "full-time missionaries" by the word "full-time missionary." Nothing. Nor is it sexist to note that the age/sex distribution of the Church's missionary force has changed. That's all I did, but Lem insists it is sexist language and went on a tirade about it.

Lem definitely has a chip on her shoulder, and it’s frustrating that in response to me creating a thread with fresh content that a statistics professor might be able to comment on intelligently, I instead get this baseless derail, that for good measure includes the word sh!t and an f-bomb.

I could have given Lem a patronizing lecture about reading comprehension and treating others with respect. I could have said “you should know better.” But I know she wants to be treated like one of the guys. She hit me so I hit her back. I said what I said for one purpose: to jerk her chain because she deserved to have her chain jerked. She wanted to be pissed at me for being a sexist, so I gave her the ammo she wanted.

If you are going to do the time, you might as well commit the crime.
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 6828
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: "Are you on your period or something?" a sexist remark made HERE.

Post by Jersey Girl »

Analytics wrote:
Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:14 am
Jersey Girl,

According to the Church’s reports, in 1989, there were 39,739 “full-time missionaries.” In 2019, there were 67,021 “full-time missionaries,” an increase of 19% per decade. Is this an indication that the overall strength of the Church grew by 19% per decade over that time period? Not necessarily, because the age/sex distribution of the missionary force changed over that time period.

I tried to make this point, and Lem insisted that when I refer to "full-time missionaries" I'm not talking about the number in the statistical report labled "full-time missionaries." Rather, I mean male missionaries only and am thus using sexist language.

Shen then went on a rampage and said:
If you mean male, then SAY male, for “F”'s sake. "full-time missionaries" does NOT mean male to readers here. Only to the sexist ones.

(I'm sure you can sense that I am irritated by your assumption that "full-time missionary" automatically means male. You really should know better. It's offensive and irritating to continue to read sh't like this on our board.)
Now, it is possible that Lem simply misunderstood my point, but I think what I said was clear enough. When toon correctly explained my point, Lem insisted:
No, you didn't get my point. In fact, you have just exacerbated it. You are arguing that "the number of full time missionaries" measures growth and membership but only if "the number of full time missionaries" means MALE missionaries.
No, the number of full-time missionaries (referring to the Church's definition of "full-time missionaries", as used in the Church's statistical report) only measures the strength of the church in a non-clouded way if the age/sex distribution of missionaries doesn’t change over time.

There is nothing the least-bit sexist about referring to what the Church calls "full-time missionaries" by the word "full-time missionary." Nothing. Nor is it sexist to note that the age/sex distribution of the Church's missionary force has changed. That's all I did, but Lem insists it is sexist language and went on a tirade about it.

Lem definitely has a chip on her shoulder, and it’s frustrating that in response to me creating a thread with fresh content that a statistics professor might be able to comment on intelligently, I instead get this baseless derail, that for good measure includes the word sh!t and an f-bomb.

I could have given Lem a patronizing lecture about reading comprehension and treating others with respect. I could have said “you should know better.” But I know she wants to be treated like one of the guys. She hit me so I hit her back. I said what I said for one purpose: to jerk her chain because she deserved to have her chain jerked. She wanted to be pissed at me for being a sexist, so I gave her the ammo she wanted.

If you are going to do the time, you might as well commit the crime.

Oh okay. So what you're saying is that you consider your retort to be a form of responding in kind?
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: "Are you on your period or something?" a sexist remark made HERE.

Post by Lem »

Analytics wrote:
Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:14 am
Lem definitely has a chip on her shoulder, and it’s frustrating that in response to me creating a thread with fresh content that a statistics professor might be able to comment on intelligently, I instead get this baseless derail, that for good measure includes the word sh!t and an f-bomb.

I could have given Lem a patronizing lecture about reading comprehension and treating others with respect. I could have said “you should know better.” But I know she wants to be treated like one of the guys. She hit me so I hit her back. I said what I said for one purpose: to jerk her chain because she deserved to have her chain jerked. She wanted to be pissed at me for being a sexist, so I gave her the ammo she wanted.

If you are going to do the time, you might as well commit the crime.
THAT'S your excuse for THIS?????
Analytics wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:35 pm

Your thinking is cloudy today. Are you on your period or something?
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: "Are you on your period or something?" a sexist remark made HERE.

Post by Lem »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:29 am


Oh okay. So what you're saying is that you consider your retort to be a form of responding in kind?
I don't get that either. I disagreed with the opinion he was expressing, so he says "She hit me so I hit her back."

The only problem with that is that I expressed an opinion about his post, so he thought it was appropriate to respond by making a nasty sexist remark about my body, based on the physical differences between men and women. Not only that, he defined it as "... she deserved to have her chain jerked."

I deserved to have an ugly sexist remark made about my body, because I disagreed with his words? Right, that's what women "deserve."
User avatar
Everybody Wang Chung
God
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:52 am

Re: "Are you on your period or something?" a sexist remark made HERE.

Post by Everybody Wang Chung »

Professor Lem,

I’m sure I speak for many here when I say this is not discussmormonism.com’s finest hour.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 6828
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: "Are you on your period or something?" a sexist remark made HERE.

Post by Jersey Girl »

Someone damned save me from this crap.
Analytics wrote:
Sat Apr 17, 2021 2:14 am
Jersey Girl,

According to the Church’s reports, in 1989, there were 39,739 “full-time missionaries.” In 2019, there were 67,021 “full-time missionaries,” an increase of 19% per decade. Is this an indication that the overall strength of the Church grew by 19% per decade over that time period? Not necessarily, because the age/sex distribution of the missionary force changed over that time period.

I tried to make this point, and Lem insisted that when I refer to "full-time missionaries" I'm not talking about the number in the statistical report labled "full-time missionaries." Rather, I mean male missionaries only and am thus using sexist language.
That sounds like it makes sense however, that's not what you stated.


Here's what you stated and what she responded to:
It seems the real point of these reports is to measure how strong the Church really is, and to see what the trends are in that strength. The real strength of the Church is things like tithing revenue, count of temple recommends issued each year, and income from its businesses and assets. Those specific things aren't listed in the report. The number of full-time missionaries is interesting, but that gets clouded over time with more sisters and couples going on missions.


You call that a rampage. I call that a call for accuracy. If you didn't mean that full time missionary meant males, then why note that the stat gets "clouded over time with more sisters and couples going on missions." Does the church present a breakdown of male, female, and couples? If not, then why mention it? Do you see how your own remarks cloud your assessment? Do you see how your own remarks cloud your assessment to the reader?
Now, it is possible that Lem simply misunderstood my point, but I think what I said was clear enough. When toon correctly explained my point, Lem insisted:
“F” this crap. What you said obviously wasn't clear enough.
No, the number of full-time missionaries (referring to the Church's definition of "full-time missionaries", as used in the Church's statistical report) only measures the strength of the church in a non-clouded way if the age/sex distribution of missionaries doesn’t change over time.

There is nothing the least-bit sexist about referring to what the Church calls "full-time missionaries" by the word "full-time missionary." Nothing. Nor is it sexist to note that the age/sex distribution of the Church's missionary force has changed. That's all I did, but Lem insists it is sexist language and went on a tirade about it.
Once again, does the church present a breakdown of male, female, and couples entering the mission field over time and if so, where is it? If not, why are you throwing sisters and couples on the pile?
Lem definitely has a chip on her shoulder, and it’s frustrating that in response to me creating a thread with fresh content that a statistics professor might be able to comment on intelligently, I instead get this baseless derail, that for good measure includes the word sh!t and an f-bomb.
I see. So the words crap and “F”, indicate a rampage and a chip on one's shoulder. Do you think the words crap and “F” could indicate I dunno...frustration when someone is clouding the data in the statistical report by throwing additional factors and assumptions on the pile that (to my knowledge) appear nowhere in the statistical report?
I could have given Lem a patronizing lecture about reading comprehension and treating others with respect.
Or you could have sought to further clarify your previous statement.
I could have said “you should know better.”
Or you could have sought to further clarify your previous statement.
But I know she wants to be treated like one of the guys. She hit me so I hit her back. I said what I said for one purpose: to jerk her chain because she deserved to have her chain jerked. She wanted to be pissed at me for being a sexist, so I gave her the ammo she wanted.
I see. You think Lem wants to "be treated like one of the guys". Oh yes, that's a goal for all female posters. No doubt about it. We don't want to be treated as co- equal partners to engagement, we want to be treated like we are one of "the guys" because by God that's the true measure of...something. It couldn't be that she was frustrated by your throwing additional factors and assumptions on the pile that appear nowhere in the statistical report.

Nope. She wanted to be pissed at you for being sexist. Analytics is your little dick syndrome clouding your judgement?
If you are going to do the time, you might as well commit the crime.
How about you seek to clarify your previous statement which was convoluted by your own additional remarks when needed instead of getting overly emotional about it and leave the ovaries off the table?
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
Post Reply