Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for Help

[_Madison54]

For the record, I think anyone who would use the perjoratives that Will has has applied to Emma Smith (whichever one he used) is a vile person (and yes, I would include Brigham Young).

And don't worry at all about critiquing my posts. I argue all day for a living (I'm a member of that certain profession that Shakespear wanted to exterminate).

Cicero,
I definitely agree with your 1st paragraph above (and smiled when I read the 2nd one). Like I already stated, the thread on Schryver was my first exposure to this forum. I had no idea who Will Schryver was until I read through the entire thread and was completely disgusted and repulsed by his words and behavior towards women.

I do a lot more reading on here than posting, but I do love to see new faces on here.....so please stick around as I've enjoyed reading what you've written.

[_Darth J]

Back to Morley's comment on the OP:

Ludd. You don't know why the unknown person is asking for this or why they don't look for it themselves or really who the subjects are or what issues are involved but you need the information ASAP and it needs to meet these parameters. Is that a good summary?

But this person does know enough to have determined that the c##t thing isn't true, the "champion bitch" thing is a forgery by the moderators, and there are precisely three examples of Schryver's being misogynist, none of which count.

[_Bob Loblaw]

This is why I am a big fan of the Mormon lay. It is important that two people know that they are somewhat compatible in bed. After a couple of Mormon lays, one can know a lot about the other person's sexuality. How could you not know about your future husband's sexuality?

Please take your creepy crap and go away.

[_RayAgostini]

I'm sure you weren't implying, Ray, that it has something to do with this board accepting "apostate" or "anti-mormon" viewpoints, since the people taking the beatings in these examples were critical of the LDS Church too. A similar thing happens on MDDB sometimes. I think you just have to cross the dominant personalities at the right moment, and the gloves can come right off.

Not at all. I believe beastie summed up some of the main problems and challenges in her post that I linked earlier, and she's an exmo.

Here's her other thread, which I think is relevant to the debates of late:

(some!!!!) Mormon & exmormon men and the internet.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I hope I haven't been or involved in a gang attack. I objected to the statement that breast jokes aren't misogynist because I know there is a lot more to that story. The recipient of those remarks told me that, after seeing her at an exmormon conference, Mr. Schryver made frequent and inappropriate comments about her breasts, her clothing, and his fantasizing about her for many months. It was only after those repeated, creepy, nudging and winking comments that he made the jokes about her breast reduction surgery (she was having back trouble). A single breast joke is sexist and stupid, but months of suggestive comments are, if not misogynist, bordering on harassment and stalking.

I can't speak to the man's character in person, but he's behaved like a pig on the message boards. He knows this, which is why he has lied about it.

[_Yoda]

I hope I haven't been or involved in a gang attack. I objected to the statement that breast jokes aren't misogynist because I know there is a lot more to that story. The recipient of those remarks told me that, after seeing her at an exmormon conference, Mr. Schryver made frequent and inappropriate comments about her breasts, her clothing, and his fantasizing about her for many months. It was only after those repeated, creepy, nudging and winking comments that he made the jokes about her breast reduction surgery (she was having back trouble). A single breast joke is sexist and stupid, but months of suggestive comments are, if not misogynist, bordering on harassment and stalking.

I can't speak to the man's character in person, but he's behaved like a pig on the message boards. He knows this, which is why he has lied about it.

+100000000

[_beastie]

That was probably not a good choice of words on my part. It's not so much a "beating" as it is a kind of "group-enforced orthodoxy".

I think that certainly occurs on this board and other boards. Probably all message boards. But I don't see that happening to you, now. I see people questioning you about your statements. I don't see harassment or dog-piling, which I think would be a prerequisite for asserting that the group is trying to enforce their orthodoxy.

What behavior?

You see, that's the real question here. From what I can tell, it's the question implicit in the OP, too. The most offensive things Will is accused of saying are the things he has denied having said. Is he lying about those things? He very well could be. I don't know for sure. But even if he is, we're talking about three things he said in .......... how many years?

You know, I think we will have to agree to disagree. The behavior I'm referring to was clearly outlined in Jack's post. You don't think the behavior was offensive, but certainly you know to what behavior I refer. And it's more than three things.

No, I don't think making fairly innocuous jokes about breast reduction surgery and cleavage are all that offensive. Should I? Well, according to the consensus of opinion here, I guess I should. And by God, if I don't then I will be subjected to a kind of subtle "group punishment" (as Carton termed it here) until I "get my mind right" (I love Cool Hand Luke. Paul Newman was such a gorgeous hunk of man!).

I'm not saying you "should" think or do anything. And I don't see you being subjected to a group punishment at all. I see you being questioned. Your responses to us were at least as assertive as ours have been to you. The only difference is in numbers. I do understand that taking the minority position can feel overwhelming. However, being in the minority does not automatically mean you're being punished in some way. It means you're outnumbered.

Let me emphasize my main point again: I have serious objections to Will and his apologetics, but I think it is a big mistake by not keeping the discussion focused on his arguments instead of his allegedly being a misogynist, a "sexist pig", etc.

I admit I'm probably a little biased in the sense that, unlike most or all of the people here, I have known him in real life. I don't agree with his views on Mormonism, but I also don't believe he is a misogynist or a sexist pig. His daughter that I got to know when I was a YW leader in the ward was one of the most impressive young women I have come across. She would stand up, in class, against any YW leaders who would say things about how the girls' highest aspiration should be to have ten kids and keep the house clean and have dinner waiting on the table for when their husbands returned home from work, etc. That takes guts.

Will also was the one who introduced me to the writing of Camille Paglia, and now I'm a very devoted fan of hers. (Will actually quoted her in Gospel Doctrine class one day, but didn't tell anyone that he was citing a liberal lesbian feminist! )

Anyway, in many ways, he can be an arrogant, too-much-self-assured asshole. And I think he is bat-shit crazy when it comes to most of his religious beliefs. But I don't think he's a misogynistic, sexist pig. And I don't agree that the "evidence" that MsJack assembled in her misogyny thread demonstrates otherwise.

OK, now I really will say no more on this topic. I think I'm going to take a break from this place for a week or two. I have loved participating here and I have lots of respect for a good many of you. I think this is the most intellectually stimulating Mormon-related message board on the internet. I don't think there is any doubt that the level of education, advanced degrees, etc., is higher on this board than any of the others I have seen. However, I also think that this place can sometimes tend to enforce their own brand of political correctness and God help the person who violates the PC-code that has been established here!

I understand more now. I didn't realize you know Will personally and have affection and admiration for members of his family. That explains a lot.

We will have to agree to disagree in regards to the quality and nature of his comments towards female posters on this board. I'm assuming that's ok with you, and you don't expect that I "should" agree with you, either, right?

Hope to see you back.

[_beastie]

What would have been an acceptable response to her?

I'll get back to you later with a more thorough reply (got things to do this morning). I occasionally save links to posts on this board that I like, and I've saved a few of yours (including the ones where you were verbally savaged on MAD, and where you voiced concerns about Mormon and ex-Mormon male behaviour towards females here).

So for what it's worth, I know we've all left this board more times than we can count (a hint to Garbo), but maybe there will be some answers (or not) in This post you did which may indicate some additional feelings and thoughts that were gathering in Garbo's mind. I don't think she's threatening to leave "just because" of the exchanges on this thread. Something has been building up for a while, and I think there's more to it than just the spat on this thread.

There is no doubt that this board can be tiring for several reasons, which I've talked about in the past. That's why, and I don't mean to insinuate anyone should leave, but rather am just stating a fact, participating on a board like this is not for everyone. In fact, I sometimes wonder if there's something a bit off in those of us who continue to do so (not just this board, but any internet board that entails debate or disagreement).

My point of disagreement with you and Garbo is that I really don't see those old problems being played out on this thread towards Garbo. It almost feels like she was anticipating being dog-piled and attacked, and perceived it as such even though it didn't really happen, in my opinion. She was outnumbered, and that is difficult, but she wasn't attacked - at least no more than she attacked us. (using attack loosely, I didn't feel attacked by her, but her comments to me were as pointed as mine were to her)

[_RayAgostini]

My point of disagreement with you and Garbo is that I really don't see those old problems being played out on this thread towards Garbo.

That wasn't the full purpose of posting the link, but to the OP as well and "online antics":

which I think is relevant to the debates of late.

which have continued in this thread, and which brought Garbo's response. I just went through the whole thread again (your old one), and I think it brings a better overall perspective to discussions about misogyny and sexism here. To those who haven't gone through it, I think it's worth taking the time.

[_Kevin Graham]

I don't care what anyone says, Will's behavior online has been by turns grandiose, bizarre, narcissistic, and sexist. Anyone who knows a different guy in real life is welcome to that different experience of him. I speak to the issue of his behavior online, and I see absolutely no reason to modify my judgment of it. May he prosper in any case.

Precisely. Why on earth would someone be coming here to change our minds about someone as irrelevant as William Schryver? The guy is a proven liar and an asshole. What reputation therein is worth trying to save?

I can't imagine why anyone would care, about what some offended people felt about him, especially when it is conceded that William is "crazy crazy."

In fact, this is so bizarre that I'm inclined to view this "crazy crazy" remark as a means to cloak Garbo's true identity.

Nice to have you back Will.