Mormon Apologetics & Misogyny: The Case of William Schryver

[_wenglund]

What did it have to do with this board?

MsJack specifically metioned this board in the comments I qouted. The threads that raised her concern were all on this board. This thread, where she is expressing her concerns, is on this board. My response to her concerns is on this board. Are you starting to see a pattern, or do I need to connect the dots for you?

Maybe you should stick with the pseudo babble.

Maybe you should take some reading comprehension courses.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_RockSlider]

Maybe you should take some reading comprehension courses.

When William publishes in the Journal of Restoration Scripture or Journal of Mormon History, are women supposed to feel comfortable addressing his arguments given how he treats them? And what kind of scholarly examination will his ideas get if women don't feel like they can participate in the conversation?
That is the point of this thread. That was the question that I asked in my OP.

Gee Wade, would you like me to walk through this with you?

[_wenglund]

Someone is treating Will as badly as he treats numerous women here?

At the risk of insulting people's intelligence by pointing out the obvious to you, please take some time to count up the disparaging comments Will is documented as making about women here, and then count up all the disparaging comments made here about Will, and see if they come within a country mile in comparison. Please.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Gee Wade, would you like me to walk through this with you?

If that is what it takes to help bring you finally to cognition, I am happy to oblige.

We can start first by having you answer my question about the "pattern."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_RockSlider]

Gee Wade, would you like me to walk through this with you?

If that is what it takes to help bring you finally to cognition, I am happy to oblige.

We can start first by having you answer my question about the "pattern."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ah much better, back to the comfortable pseudo babble territory! Best to stick with it.

[_Silver Hammer]

Somehow I managed to wade through all of MsJack’s allegations of “misogyny” that started this discussion. I even clicked on many of the links and read parts of the discussions where the quotes originated.

My conclusion? The charge of misogyny is a gross exaggeration with no basis in the actual evidence. Yes, there was some occasional sexual innuendo associated with Will’s banter with the women in question. But all in all it struck me as relatively mild fare in comparison to the extremely coarse and vulgar material that I often saw surrounding Schryver’s comments.

I also discovered that the women involved were frequently engaged in very provocative and offensive rhetoric themselves. It seems to me they were more than willing to offend in their own way, and now want to make themselves appear to be innocent victims. The context of the comments does not support such a conclusion.

Don’t misunderstand, I don’t “approve” of everything Will has said and done. I think some of it was ill-advised and demonstrated poor judgment. Seeing as how all the quotes I saw seemed to date to two or three years ago, I think it likely that he has learned from his mistakes.

At any rate, I saw nothing to persuade me that Will Schryver has misogynist tendencies. He does have an acerbic and sometimes cutting tongue, that much is certain. But that is not a sin in my judgment. Although not always angelic in his expressions, in my opinion he has been falsely accused.

In fact, the conclusion I will take away from my brief experience here is that the common thread running through everything I read is a high degree of anti-Mormon hostility that frequently manifests itself through intentional misrepresentation.

[_wenglund]

Ah much better, back to the comfortable pseudo babble territory! Best to stick with it.

I am sure that was your best try in answering my question.

But, go ahead and try again. This time, focus on each word.

Let's start with the word "do." This word should clue you in to the fact that I am asking a question.

Now, let's look at the word "you". This should clue you in to the fact that I am addressing the question to YOU.

Then, let's consider the word "see." This should suggest to you that the question to you is about whether your eyes and mind can descern what it is that I am asking about.

The word, "a", as you may know, is used to denote a single something..

Finally, the word "pattern" is key word in the sentence. It is the thing that the question to you is about--specifically, whether you see the pattern or not.

Now, if you don't know what the word "pattern" means, then feel free to look it up in the dictionary before making your second attempt to answer my simple question.

Either that, or have one of your grandchildren explain the question to you--preferrably one that can read at least at a third-grade level.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_RockSlider]

...

Of course the brutal personal attacks are always a good backup as well.

[_MsJack]

Some questions for Silver Hammer about his analysis.

Observe the following quote, which was included in the very first set of quotes in my OP:

(Kimberly does remain somewhat famous [among a small circle of otherwise respected academics] on account of my descriptions of her having once squeezed her then more voluptuous spirit tabernacle into a slinky black three-sizes-too-small dress at the 2006 Exmormon Foundation conference in Salt Lake City, which I attended. One wouldn't have believed it possible to carry melons in a pair of thimbles suspended from a thread, but miracles happen almost every day in this jaded world of cynical disbelievers.)

viewtopic.php?p=369575#p369575

1. Can you point me to the coarse and vulgar material that surrounded this comment so as to render it "relatively mild" by comparison?
2. What provocative rhetoric did KimberlyAnn engage in which led to, justified, or in any way encouraged this comment?
3. Please note the time stamp on this quote---October 13, 2010. Please also note that William did not post at Mormon Discussions between October 25, 2010 and February 19, 2011. This being the case, how is it that "all" of the quotes you saw came from 2 or 3 years ago, leading you to the conclusion that William has learned his lesson and ceased engaging in his offending behavior?

Thanks in advance.

[_MrStakhanovite]

In fact, the conclusion I will take away from my brief experience here is that the common thread running through everything I read is a high degree of anti-Mormon hostility that frequently manifests itself through intentional misrepresentation.

Now who didn't see that one coming?