I confess that I haven’t noticed any supposed “epidemic” of “slut-shaming” in Mormonism. However, I pay little or no attention to the Oscars, the Grammys, the Emmys, People Magazine, the National Enquirer, and the Kardashians, and I don’t read blogs that focus on them. So maybe I’ve missed it.
That, though, isn’t my major complaint here:
I think some of what Jana Riess says in this piece is profoundly — profoundly — unfair.
Elder Callister was absolutely not saying that women are completely responsible for the thoughts, behavior, and virtue of men.
He was, I think, simply recognizing the indisputable fact that men can be, and often are, affected by what women wear. (If that’s not true, it’s difficult to see a lot of sense in many “men’s magazines,” in much female fashion, in a great deal of advertising, and so forth. “Sex sells,” goes the familiar adage. But what women wear makes no difference? Seriously? What on earth is Cosmopolitan about, in that case?)
He reminds me of my dad a bit. And as with my father, I've often wondered whether he might be suffering from early-onset dementia, or if it's just really advanced trolling that is a product of boredom. It seems like he's unable to engage with or respond to material without missing the point in some very obvious way.
I agree with the idea that he may be missing the point, although his "early onset" seems to have begun with the birth of the internet!
However, based on what I read from DCP, especially since he was relegated to Outer Blogness by the Maxwell Institute, I think it is more likely that his ravenous need for attention causes him to write (or imply, as Symmachas pointed out so eloquently*), things that he thinks are just titillatingly controversial enough to generate comments, but not so blatant that he can't deny it later.
However, his character belies him, and he just throws up trash and insulting nonsense. In his mind, he is erudite and sophisticated, to the rest of the world he's a trainwreck we can't help rubbernecking.
I have a question wrote:http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2015/09/the-mormon-modesty-wars-no-more-slut-shaming-please.html
I confess that I haven’t noticed any supposed “epidemic” of “slut-shaming” in Mormonism. However, I pay little or no attention to the Oscars, the Grammys, the Emmys, People Magazine, the National Enquirer, and the Kardashians, and I don’t read blogs that focus on them. So maybe I’ve missed it.
That, though, isn’t my major complaint here:
I think some of what Jana Riess says in this piece is profoundly — profoundly — unfair.
Elder Callister was absolutely not saying that women are completely responsible for the thoughts, behavior, and virtue of men.
He was, I think, simply recognizing the indisputable fact that men can be, and often are, affected by what women wear. (If that’s not true, it’s difficult to see a lot of sense in many “men’s magazines,” in much female fashion, in a great deal of advertising, and so forth. “Sex sells,” goes the familiar adage. But what women wear makes no difference? Seriously? What on earth is Cosmopolitan about, in that case?)
Okay, maybe I missed something, but why is DCP looking in 'the Oscars, the Grammys, the Emmys, People Magazine, the National Enquirer, and the Kardashians,' for incidents of Mormon slut-shaming? Is there a Mormon thing going on with the Kardashians?
Our dress affects not only our thoughts and actions but also the thoughts and actions of others. Accordingly, Paul the Apostle counseled “women [to] adorn themselves in modest apparel” (1 Timothy 2:9).
The dress of a woman has a powerful impact upon the minds and passions of men. If it is too low or too high or too tight, it may prompt improper thoughts, even in the mind of a young man who is striving to be pure.
Men and women can look sharp and be fashionable, yet they can also be modest. Women particularly can dress modestly and in the process contribute to their own self-respect and to the moral purity of men. In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for.
Aoife wrote:He reminds me of my dad a bit. And as with my father, I've often wondered whether he might be suffering from early-onset dementia, or if it's just really advanced trolling that is a product of boredom. It seems like he's unable to engage with or respond to material without missing the point in some very obvious way.
Speaking as a privileged white male who has been accused of mansplaining on more than one occasion, allow me to mansplain. LOL.
My guess is that we grumpy old white guys use these things not as opportunities for conversations so much as platforms to mansplain. If the grumpy white guy gets the point and engages it, he can no longer lecture you.
[/mansplain]
Haha. I think you could be on to something.
The thing that I still don't get is that every time he seems to willfully miss the point in order to have something to say, and then says it, he looks like a kook to anyone who has experience with critical thinking. He sacrifices the appearance of a disciplined, informed mind, and looks rather foolish. Is the impulse to mansplain and lecture so powerful, and the fruits of its execution so rewarding, that sacrificing the appearance of intellectual dignity and integrity publicly on the Internet seems a worthy trade-off?
That's really hard for me to wrap my mind around. Surely I haven't overestimated his critical thinking abilities? He's a published professor at a good university. He has to know he's habitually doing this-- right? Maybe I've presumed an unreasonable level of self-awareness? I find it baffling.
a.k.a. Pokatatorjoined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015