Who is Wade Englund?

[_wenglund]

Hmmm....that's interesting because all 50+ year old, celibate, never-married Mormon men who troll gay forums that I have encountered are, inevitably closeted (and very frustrated) homosexual men who don't seem to have very good communication skills and blindly support anything/anyone that claims to be defending the LDS church regardless of how ridiculous it makes them look...

They also tend to embrace the worst aspects of Mormon belief: blind-faith, logically deficient, bigoted, judgmental, un-christlike, arrogant, ignorant.

Does anyone here believe Screech is bigotted for what s/he said above?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Hmmm....that's interesting because all 50+ year old, celibate, never-married Mormon men who troll gay forums that I have encountered are, inevitably closeted (and very frustrated) homosexual men who don't seem to have very good communication skills and blindly support anything/anyone that claims to be defending the LDS church regardless of how ridiculous it makes them look...

They also tend to embrace the worst aspects of Mormon belief: blind-faith, logically deficient, bigoted, judgmental, un-christlike, arrogant, ignorant.

Does anyone here believe Screech is bigotted for what s/he said above?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Um....he did what you just did. Are you bigoted?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Leave the intellectual posturing and obfuscatory credentialism E and adduce an argument that we can look at for its logical cogency, semantic implications, and conceptual strength

Just out of curiosity, does anyone on this thread know anyone who talks or writes like this outside of Droops here?

The serious problem one encounters here is that there is no way to demonstrate, as with so much of feminist theoretical critique, that the very psychological attributes in question that are assumed to be a function of social conditioning, are not in fact related to culture in a much more complex way, i.e., that intrinsic, underlying psychological differences inherent in female nature itself, are not primary in generating certain psychological features (a greater or more idiosyncratic concern with personal appearance) which are then absorbed by the culture and institutionalized in other cultural structures, such as media, art, literature, film, and advertising.

Did you intend to write a paragraph long sentence here? I don’t understand your desire to try and write as densely as you can about an idea that can be expressed without the 5 dollah words you’ve picked up.

PRO TIP: If you want to give an example, ditch the id est (i.e.) and go with exempli gratia (e.g.)

In any case, your counter example isn’t all that great. If it’s latent physiological features about females that influence culture, all that requires to rebuff that idea is to point to a simple ethnographic work or culture that does not display ‘catty vain wimminz’ e.g., the Wodaabe from Niger, where it’s men who wear makeup, outlandish plumage, and costumes to impress females, who get to choose their own mates based on their physical beauty alone.

And really, Blixa didn’t invoke any social critique against Wade, she just pointed out that trying to extrapolate a decent worldview requires more than armchair reflection about the women you’ve come to know. The word ’patriarchy’ wasn’t coined by feminists and is used widely, so don’t assume an ideology is being spoken of, if it’s not explicitly introduced.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

That's the trouble with Disfunctional and Delusional Sects; moonies, Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, and Mormonism. They see persecution where none exists.

[_MrStakhanovite]

That's the trouble with Disfunctional and Delusional Sects; moonies, Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, and Mormonism. They see persecution where none exists.

ain't that the truth.

[_sock puppet]

Hmmm....that's interesting because all 50+ year old, celibate, never-married Mormon men who troll gay forums that I have encountered are, inevitably closeted (and very frustrated) homosexual men who don't seem to have very good communication skills and blindly support anything/anyone that claims to be defending the LDS church regardless of how ridiculous it makes them look...

They also tend to embrace the worst aspects of Mormon belief: blind-faith, logically deficient, bigoted, judgmental, un-christlike, arrogant, ignorant.

Does anyone here believe Screech is bigotted for what s/he said above?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What Screech has done is what is called an object lesson.

[_beastie]

I would think it astonishing, were it not Beastie who, after years obsessing aobut the one-page web site that was active for three days and has been dormant for more than a decade and gone from the web for half that time, has yet to figure out that the site was about sexual ATTRACTION and not sexual BEHAVIOR, and this in spite of the fact that the name of the web page explicitly mentions ATTRACTION and didn't mention BEHAVIOR. In other words, her weeping and lamentations about "concentual/non-consentual" distinction, which relates to behavior, is entirely irrelevant to the subjectmatter of my one-page web site.

But, by golly, she isn't going to be denied her seemingly endless indignation no matter how impertinent. Once that sanctimonious juggernaut was misguidedly set in motion in the distant past, there is nothng stopping it--not facts, nor sensibility, nor ever her own personal embarrassment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Please clarify how this point negates the point I was making.

[_thews]

Hmmm....that's interesting because all 50+ year old, celibate, never-married Mormon men who troll gay forums that I have encountered are, inevitably closeted (and very frustrated) homosexual men who don't seem to have very good communication skills and blindly support anything/anyone that claims to be defending the LDS church regardless of how ridiculous it makes them look...

They also tend to embrace the worst aspects of Mormon belief: blind-faith, logically deficient, bigoted, judgmental, un-christlike, arrogant, ignorant.

Does anyone here believe Screech is bigotted for what s/he said above?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No... seems pretty obvious. If you're waiting for the right girl into your 50's, then you really aren't looking very hard are you? When every Mormon church is full of women who desperately want to get married as part of the culture (save the jabs... this is a true statement), if a heterosexual man wanted to find a wife, I'm sure he could. If he didn't want a wife, into his 50s, and remained celibate, he would logically either be asexual or homosexual. In your case Wade, consider the % of the population that is gay and the other % that is asexual. Now add into the mix your website seeking out gay men to talk to. This isn't "bigoted" and Mormon apologists use that card so often it's nothing more than a plea for sympathy.

I'm curious Wade, if you were gay, what would you do? I'm not saying that you are, but if you were, how would you handle it? I'll answer the question first: If I were gay, I'd just be gay and live my life as a gay man. What would you do hypothetically?

[_schreech]

On the other hand, there is much about women that I find attractive (some very much so) to me as a man, though there are some things about women, like certain personality quirks, that I find repelling. To make matters worse, the gay men I am familiar with tend to embrace rather than eshew the things about women that I find repelling. So, not only are gay men sexually un-intersting or repelling to me, some of their personality and character traits are also repelling to me.

On the other hand, there is much about 50+ year old, celibate, never-married Mormon men who troll gay forums(50yocnmmwtgfs) that I find entertaining (some very much so) to me as a rational human being, though there are some things about 50yocnmmwtgfss, like certain personality quirks, that I find repelling. To make matter worse, the 50yocnmmwtgfs I am familiar with tend to embrace rather than eshew [sic] the things about 50yocnmmwtgf's that I find repelling. So, not only are 50yocnmmwtgfs intellectually/sexually un-intersting [sic] or repelling to me, some of their personality and character traits are also repelling to me.

[_EAllusion]

If you'll go back and read the post again, you'll see that I didn't "flip" logically anywhere. I said that there is no way do demonstrate the claimed causal connection between social conditioning mediated by "the patriarchy" and female psychological attributes regarding self image, and that the connection is likely more complex and symbiotic than the feminist ideological template assumes and argues, with both intrinsic psychological features and culture conditioning and reflecting each other.

My psych adviser promised that she would automatically give a failing grade to any paper that had as its conclusion that some psychological trait was a byproduct of the interaction between nature and nurture. That's not because it isn't true, but that this is so trivially true that no one disputes it. So you either are doing that here, and misunderstanding what a great deal of feminists think, or you are implying without asserting that traits like concern with physical appearance - which has drastically changed over the past few decades - have their variance explained in terms of sexual dimorphism driving cultural influence. The former is trite, the latter is almost certainly incorrect. And that's giving Wade a lot of credit, as the antiquated stereotypes he brought up aren't even obviously common among women as opposed to men.