It is currently Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:35 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 384 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 19  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:36 am 
Anti-Mormon

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:32 pm
Posts: 4975
Location: In the Politburo
Let me just stress again, Dan stood up before a paying crowd of Mormons at a FAIR conference and systematically misinformed them. They paid money to be edified by a scholar who is a brother in the faith, and Dan had so little regard for them that he didn’t even bother to do basic research into a book he quoted from heavily. He simply doesn’t care that he pretty much insulted the intelligence of every person in that room, he simply doesn’t give a damn about it.

FAIR hosted Dan, have his talk up on Youtube and host a transcript of the talk. I’m pretty sure they are aware of what I’ve written, but will probably not bother to get around to even putting an asterisk next to anything, much less issue a retraction, because they share Dan’s attitude.

They don’t care about things they should.

This reflects on their faith and their moral principles.

They. Don’t. Care.

If you don’t care either, nor your mythical friends you are using as a hook to troll people with, then you’ve lost any pretense of honesty.

_________________
"To be a reactionary is to understand that man is a problem without a human solution."
- Colacho in Escolios a un Texto Implícito, page 381
My Blog.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:55 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:26 pm
Posts: 3323
MrStakhanovite wrote:
They don’t care about things they should.

This reflects on their faith and their moral principles.

They. Don’t. Care.

If you don’t care either, nor your mythical friends you are using as a hook to troll people with, then you’ve lost any pretense of honesty.


You talk as if intellectual dishonesty and indifference to morality and truth are bad things.

_________________
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:08 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Posts: 3454
Location: Palatine, IL
Bob Loblaw wrote:
Is it possible that these guys don't recognize the misogyny because it is so ingrained in Mormon culture?

I don't think so. Yes, Mormon culture has issues with the way it treats the sexes, but not to the extent that the average Mormon would think nothing of William's behavior. That's why my thread was so devastating. Even die-hard defenders of patriarchy and opponents of feminism could see the problem with the way William was acting.

Bob Loblaw wrote:
Maybe it's just that they defend their own, no matter what.

This.

The only times I have ever seen Dan Peterson speak out against a fellow apologist or an apologist fanboy was: (1) To reprimand Bob Crockett for his own remarks on William Schryver, and (2) When Papa said some stuff about Islam that he didn't like.

_________________
My Blogs: ClobberBlog | Προστάτις | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:14 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:26 pm
Posts: 3323
MsJack wrote:
The only times I have ever seen Dan Peterson speak out against a fellow apologist or an apologist fanboy was: (1) To reprimand Bob Crockett for his own remarks on William Schryver, and (2) When Papa said some stuff about Islam that he didn't like.


As long as you're on the same team, anything goes.

_________________
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:19 am 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
RayAgostini wrote:
Darth J wrote:
The OP in this thread is one of the more pathetic of Simon Belmont's attempts at trolling.


Wishing it so, does not make it so, but that's the story of your whole life.


Says the person who thinks that space aliens are visiting the Earth and that the Book of Mormon was produced by automatic writing. You also have no idea what the story of my whole life is.

And if there is a double standard between Paul and Mopologists, it is one that the Mopologists have invited. Paul does not claim to be a chosen generation and a royal priesthood.

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:21 am 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
MrStakhanovite wrote:
Let me just stress again, Dan stood up before a paying crowd of Mormons at a FAIR conference and systematically misinformed them. They paid money to be edified by a scholar who is a brother in the faith, and Dan had so little regard for them that he didn’t even bother to do basic research into a book he quoted from heavily. He simply doesn’t care that he pretty much insulted the intelligence of every person in that room, he simply doesn’t give a damn about it.

FAIR hosted Dan, have his talk up on Youtube and host a transcript of the talk. I’m pretty sure they are aware of what I’ve written, but will probably not bother to get around to even putting an asterisk next to anything, much less issue a retraction, because they share Dan’s attitude.

They don’t care about things they should.

This reflects on their faith and their moral principles.

They. Don’t. Care.

If you don’t care either, nor your mythical friends you are using as a hook to troll people with, then you’ve lost any pretense of honesty.


This.

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:46 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 6675
There are two kinds of circumstances where I've seen DCP be openly critical of fellow Mormons. The first is when a Mormon is implicitly or explicitly critical of his apologetic circle. The second is when they make harsh, inapt criticisms of Islam or Muslims. That's it. Both of MsJack's examples qualify, but I've seen more than that. Otherwise, he obeys a strict rule of never calling out his fellow Mormons. This is especially hypocritical when you also realize that he's made a habit of praising his non-Mormon interlocutors for their intellectual honesty and courage when they vocally split with fellow critics.

That said, there is a difference between DCP's silence and his vocal defense. It's hard to know what he actually thinks when he's using silence to avoid criticism of members of his tribe. I'm 99% confident that Juliann's "postmodern" kick would've driven him up the wall privately, but he never spoke any meaningful criticism of it. It's Reagan's 11th commandment, only with Mormons. But when he openly defends something, then he probably is cool with it. I haven't known him to be disingenuous in that way. He might defend someone's character, but I think he keeps his opinions to himself if he actually disagrees.

I find this behavior appalling. Since I have a reputation for disagreeing with anyone if I think being reasonable is in the line, that probably is unsurprising. I've mentioned several times how Don Bradley's joy at being accepted by people like DCP as someone to be treated kindly as a friend creeps me out. That's because it suggests what matters to them is not truth or friendship based on personal character, but rather fellowship with the faith. That reads to me as vaguely cultish where loyalty rises above all. Doubtless those bonds will just as easily be severed should Don apostatize once more. What kind of friendliness is that? What kind of discourse can you have with that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:58 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 6675
MsJack wrote:
I don't think so. Yes, Mormon culture has issues with the way it treats the sexes, but not to the extent that the average Mormon would think nothing of William's behavior. That's why my thread was so devastating. Even die-hard defenders of patriarchy and opponents of feminism could see the problem with the way William was acting.


Yeah, Mormon culture has serious problems with gender, but it's more subtle than what Will was doing. That probably would read poorly to just about everyone, perhaps even especially to those who are sensitive to being (rightly) charged with more subtle forms of sexism. American society still has all sorts of problems with racism, but darn never everyone recognizes that derisively calling a black man "boy" is bad form. Will is closer to that. He projects the the sort of obvious sexism that those still in the clutches of more subtle forms use to tell themselves they aren't sexist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:18 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13411
One of the hard facts about human behavior is that we’re all hypocrites, to some degree or another. Some are undoubtedly better than others at monitoring this tendency, and some are in total denial in regards to possessing the tendency, but we all possess it to some degree. There are a couple of reasons why this is so. One is that we evolved as tribal animals, wired to condemn behaviors in outsiders that we overlook or outright condone in members of our own tribe. Humans would not have survived in the ancestral environment otherwise, because we needed the loyalty and altruism of our fellow tribe members to survive in a harsh world where food was scarce and predators large with sharp teeth. All we had was our brains and our ability to truly work together as a group. And when attacked by another tribe, ours wouldn’t survive if we didn’t favor our own above the outsiders.

Another reason is that our brains are wired with confirmation bias and motivated reasoning (ie, reasoning motivated to defend our positions, which are often arrived at outside of reason or logic). Our conscious reasoning evolved to be our lawyer or PR agent, arguing to defend our positions, rather than scientists searching for truth. So when people say things with which we agree, it’s more difficult to recognize the problems with their presentation or logic. So when Will defends eternal polygamy by referencing his status as an alpha male with the need to plow fertile fields, since I disagree with that position and find it obnoxious, it’s going to be much easier for me to recognize the problems with Will’s equally obnoxious presentation of his position. So when Paul uses vulgarity to rip into the LDS church for its destructive attitudes and behavior towards homosexuals, it’s harder for me to criticize his presentation because I agree with his basic position.

That doesn’t mean I approve of Paul’s vulgarity. It just means that there is less motivation for me to criticize him for it. (and criticizing him for it would get tiring and repetitive, and it doesn't work, either) Being hypocritical in this way is so universal, and requires so much effort to recognize and overcome, that pointing it out in others is not particularly compelling, although irresistible. It’s irresistible because we are as wired to sniff out and highlight hypocrisy in others as we are to be hypocrites ourselves, and blind to our own hypocrisy.

Recognizing my own hypocrisy, I will point out that the two circumstances are fundamentally different. While believers often protest the “double standard”, believers do claim to adhere to a certain standard of behavior that nonbelievers usually do not claim to the same extent. So if you proclaim yourself a follower of Christ and then go about making sexualized, vulgar insults to people, while criticizing the behavior of others, then you are, indeed, a hypocrite in a way that a nonbeliever who does the same thing is not, unless that nonbeliever has made a stance regarding his/her standard for behavior. And then, of course, lying about your behavior while making up a fantastical story about forgery is above and beyond that basic hypocrisy.

I concur with those who find the OP suspicious. It reminds me of an earlier similar thread, in which the poster was, IIRC, suspected of actually being a Will sock puppet. This poster also claimed to be sincerely seeking the truth of the matter, and read Jack's thread, and yet could not find evidence of Will’s bad behavior therein and asked for additional evidence. LOL. Seriously, lol. If anyone reads this thread and walks away unconvinced of Will’s bad behavior, they are just refusing to see what they obviously don’t want to see, and nothing can persuade them.

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:23 am 
Sunbeam
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:41 am
Posts: 73
EAllusion wrote:
Will didn't just use sexist epithets. That'd be easier to ignore. Will habitually insulted female posters by going after their sexual attractiveness to him. He continually engaged in hoary gender stereotyping and the language of sexism because he knew it would upset the female posters.

Take this thread I brought up as an example recently.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9756&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105

In it, Will is busy arguing that natural selection is a tautology, among other ignorant things about evolutionary theory. The Dude, JSM, and myself are mainly the people replying. Beastie chimes in some posts as well. How does Will respond to her?

Quote:
You’re in completely over your head here, baby. You don’t have a freaking clue what is even going on. You’re just here for what you believe is a circle-jerk pile on, with me as the target.

But if you’d like to attempt to disprove my assessment, feel free to restate, or even directly quote, those instances where anyone has demonstrated that "natural selection" (absent the influence of external forces, such as described above) amounts to anything more than "those who reproduce best are selected." I’m quite confident you cannot do it. The best you can hope for is to play cheerleader for someone else who might try. So grab your pompoms, beastlie baby, and cheer on your boys.

I am convinced that no single group of humans can be more wilfully blind and dogmatic than is the overwhelmingly majority of LDS apostates. Fortunately, catastrophic events, such as the one presumed to have deselected the dinosaurs, can forcibly bring reproduction to an end. That’s what will happen to apostates at the second coming. And, believe me, deselection will never have come more deserved.


That's sexist as all get out, and a dime a dozen post from his history. That's Will. It's not just him occasionally calling someone a b-word.

Daniel C. Peterson, for what it is worth, claimed this stuff isn't misogynist. Great representative for Mormonism, that chap.

OK, I'm bound to be attacked for this, but here goes:

I am a woman and I'm very offended by misogynist behavior when I see it. I think calling Schryver a misogynist for saying things like you quoted here does a disservice to condemning real misogynist behavior. I also thought a good portion of the quotes in the big Mormon Apologists and Misogyny thread did not rise to the level of misogyny either. I mean, I take my brothers as a good example. They are TBMs to the nth degree, but they're also joke-sters and make breast comments about women all the time. They all loved the Kate Upton "Cat Daddy" video that went viral a while ago. But they're not misogynists. They're just not. They're just typical "boys"----even though they're supposedly grown-up men in their 20's and 30's. Seriously people----there are so many authentic examples of misogyny that deserve our condemnation. I've seen lots of it on this board in the past couple years, and it's mostly coming from male ex-Mormon posters.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to excuse Will for things like calling Emma Smith a champion bitch and calling a couple women "bitchy". That is not becoming a good Mormon priesthood holder--I just don't consider most of his quotes in that big thread to be terribly misogynistic. And quite honestly, after reading everything that was said about the "c"-word incident, I just don't believe that Will really would have said something like that on a public message board. Sorry, but that's how I see it. In my opinion, it's better to save the label for clear-cut examples of real misogyny.

I am open to changing my opinion, but it would take some better examples than what I've seen so far. My objections to Schryver have much more to do with what I think are ridiculous apologetic arguments about missing scrolls than him making jokes about someone wearing a skimpy dress or having breast reduction surgery.

_________________
"You don't have to be married to have a good friend as your partner for life."
(Greta Garbo)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:30 am 
Sunbeam
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:41 am
Posts: 73
beastie wrote:
If anyone reads this thread and walks away unconvinced of Will’s bad behavior, they are just refusing to see what they obviously don’t want to see, and nothing can persuade them.

So you think that a man making jokes about breast reduction surgery is a good example of misogyny? Really?

I'm sorry, but we have much more insidious types of misogyny to deal with in this world. At least in my world. I think we need to avoid cheapening the term misogyny by applying it to things like men making breast jokes.

_________________
"You don't have to be married to have a good friend as your partner for life."
(Greta Garbo)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:35 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:26 pm
Posts: 3323
Garbo wrote:
So you think that a man making jokes about breast reduction surgery is a good example of misogyny? Really?

I'm sorry, but we have much more insidious types of misogyny to deal with in this world. At least in my world. I think we need to avoid cheapening the term misogyny by applying it to things like men making breast jokes.


When breast jokes are intended to demean women (and in this case a particular woman), they are misogynist.

_________________
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:40 am 
Garbo wrote:
OK, I'm bound to be attacked for this, but here goes:

I am a woman and I'm very offended by misogynist behavior when I see it. I think calling Schryver a misogynist for saying things like you quoted here does a disservice to condemning real misogynist behavior. I also thought a good portion of the quotes in the big Mormon Apologists and Misogyny thread did not rise to the level of misogyny either. I mean, I take my brothers as a good example. They are TBMs to the nth degree, but they're also joke-sters and make breast comments about women all the time. They all loved the Kate Upton "Cat Daddy" video that went viral a while ago. But they're not misogynists. They're just not. They're just typical "boys"----even though they're supposedly grown-up men in their 20's and 30's. Seriously people----there are so many authentic examples of misogyny that deserve our condemnation. I've seen lots of it on this board in the past couple years, and it's mostly coming from male ex-Mormon posters.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to excuse Will for things like calling Emma Smith a champion bitch and calling a couple women "bitchy". That is not becoming a good Mormon priesthood holder--I just don't consider most of his quotes in that big thread to be terribly misogynistic. And quite honestly, after reading everything that was said about the "c"-word incident, I just don't believe that Will really would have said something like that on a public message board. Sorry, but that's how I see it. In my opinion, it's better to save the label for clear-cut examples of real misogyny.

I am open to changing my opinion, but it would take some better examples than what I've seen so far. My objections to Schryver have much more to do with what I think are ridiculous apologetic arguments about missing scrolls than him making jokes about someone wearing a skimpy dress or having breast reduction surgery.


Post of the year. No, make that the decade!


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:41 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13411
Garbo wrote:
beastie wrote:
If anyone reads this thread and walks away unconvinced of Will’s bad behavior, they are just refusing to see what they obviously don’t want to see, and nothing can persuade them.


So you think that a man making jokes about breast reduction surgery is a good example of misogyny? Really?

I'm sorry, but we have much more insidious types of misogyny to deal with in this world. At least in my world. I think we need to avoid cheapening the term misogyny by applying it to things like men making breast jokes.


I didn't say misogyny. I said his bad behavior.

I actually agree that a distinction could be made between outright misogyny - ie, the hatred of women - and basic sexist behavior. Will, without a doubt, engaged in repeated, obnoxious, sexism. Does that mean he hates women and was engaging in misogyny? I'm not sure, to tell the truth. His posting behavior certainly diminishes women, and relegates them to sexual objects. Is that the same as hating women? The answer to that question may be above my pay grade.

BTW, joking about breast reduction was obnoxious, but hardly his worst behavior. EA gave better examples of his worst behavior, in which he dismissed the comments of female posters altogether and deliberately made sexist remarks while doing so to provoke anger, or in which he insulted women in a sexualized manner.

I'm really on the fence about his misogyny. I actually lived with a real misogynist, so I understand the reluctance to so label Will based simply on this evidence. He's a sexist pig who is a bad example for his religion, no doubt, and that's enough for me to point to his obvious bad behavior.

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:43 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 13411
Ludd wrote:
Fellow MDB'ers:

I do not want to reveal my IRL identity, for what I think should be obvious reasons, but there are people I know who I happened to tell that I participate on this board, and so I have had a "special request" made to me by someone who is doing an investigation of the online antics of Daniel Peterson, William Hamblin, and William Schryver, or anyone else associated with FARMS.

As most of you probably know, I have not been here long and I am not very familiar with what those three guys have done in that respect. About three weeks ago, I gave the person asking me for this stuff the link to the Schryver misogyny thread. He emailed me a little while ago saying that they:

Quote:
… can't use the "Emma Smith is a champion bitch" quote, or the one where he supposedly called a woman a "c***", or the quote from the poster named "WilliamSchryver" (no space between the names). Apparently Schryver has convinced people that those three are forgeries. So we need other things that demonstrate his offensive online behavior. I was told that the quotes contained at the links you sent were "not considered to be offensive enough." They need more and better examples.

They want anything said by Peterson or Hamblin or others associated with F.A.R.M.S. that is similar in nature, or where either of those two have expressed agreement with or support for offensive things Schryver or others have said online.

This is needed absolutely as soon as possible, if you can …


I've been told that this is intended for people "high up the ladder" (what exactly that means, I'm not sure) who are investigating the FARMS shake-up. It isn't clear if the "ladder" he mentioned is at BYU or in Salt Lake City.

It should go with out saying that I need URL's for all the examples you give me.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Ludd


I bumped this up so Garbo can see that the OP just called for examples of his "offensive online behavior", and not misogyny in particular. Again, if someone can read Jack's thread and walk away unconvinced that Will engaged in "offensive online behavior", then they just don't want to see it.

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:44 am 
Sunbeam
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:41 am
Posts: 73
Bob Loblaw wrote:
Garbo wrote:
So you think that a man making jokes about breast reduction surgery is a good example of misogyny? Really?

I'm sorry, but we have much more insidious types of misogyny to deal with in this world. At least in my world. I think we need to avoid cheapening the term misogyny by applying it to things like men making breast jokes.


When breast jokes are intended to demean women (and in this case a particular woman), they are misogynist.

That's just it. I read the breast jokes in that thread, but I didn't consider them "demeaning" in the way you seem to think they were. IIRC, Will was complimenting the woman on her breast reduction surgery. How is that "demeaning"?

Sure, you can say that "a good Mormon man would never talk to a woman about her breast reduction surgery". But why? Are we so uptight about talking about such things that we're now going to label them "misogynistic"? Really?

I'm sorry, but the kinds of misogyny I see in my world are much more subtle and insidious than someone saying: "Hey baby, looks like your breast reduction surgery went well."

_________________
"You don't have to be married to have a good friend as your partner for life."
(Greta Garbo)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:47 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 6675
Calling a women that you've repeatedly demeaned in a sexist way "baby" while telling her that she's in over her head, then telling her to instead grab her pom poms and cheer for her boys after insulting her looks is most certainly misogynist. Just because it's not a forced clitorectomy doesn't mean it isn't misogynist. It's a difference of degree. Just because slapping woman in the workplace on the ass isn't the same thing as demanding sex for a promotion doesn't mean both aren't sexual harassment. It's a disservice to women (and men) to ignore sexist behavior simply because one can always point to more serious examples. Hey guys, it's not like Will is a ringleader in the white slave trade! Yeah, I guess there's that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:48 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:10 pm
Posts: 1579
Location: Outside The Cult
beastie wrote:
One of the hard facts about human behavior is that we’re all hypocrites, to some degree or another. Some are undoubtedly better than others at monitoring this tendency, and some are in total denial in regards to possessing the tendency, but we all possess it to some degree. There are a couple of reasons why this is so. One is that we evolved as tribal animals, wired to condemn behaviors in outsiders that we overlook or outright condone in members of our own tribe. Humans would not have survived in the ancestral environment otherwise, because we needed the loyalty and altruism of our fellow tribe members to survive in a harsh world where food was scarce and predators large with sharp teeth. All we had was our brains and our ability to truly work together as a group. And when attacked by another tribe, ours wouldn’t survive if we didn’t favor our own above the outsiders.

Another reason is that our brains are wired with confirmation bias and motivated reasoning (ie, reasoning motivated to defend our positions, which are often arrived at outside of reason or logic). Our conscious reasoning evolved to be our lawyer or PR agent, arguing to defend our positions, rather than scientists searching for truth. So when people say things with which we agree, it’s more difficult to recognize the problems with their presentation or logic. So when Will defends eternal polygamy by referencing his status as an alpha male with the need to plow fertile fields, since I disagree with that position and find it obnoxious, it’s going to be much easier for me to recognize the problems with Will’s equally obnoxious presentation of his position. So when Paul uses vulgarity to rip into the LDS church for its destructive attitudes and behavior towards homosexuals, it’s harder for me to criticize his presentation because I agree with his basic position.

That doesn’t mean I approve of Paul’s vulgarity. It just means that there is less motivation for me to criticize him for it. (and criticizing him for it would get tiring and repetitive, and it doesn't work, either) Being hypocritical in this way is so universal, and requires so much effort to recognize and overcome, that pointing it out in others is not particularly compelling, although irresistible. It’s irresistible because we are as wired to sniff out and highlight hypocrisy in others as we are to be hypocrites ourselves, and blind to our own hypocrisy.

Recognizing my own hypocrisy, I will point out that the two circumstances are fundamentally different. While believers often protest the “double standard”, believers do claim to adhere to a certain standard of behavior that nonbelievers usually do not claim to the same extent. So if you proclaim yourself a follower of Christ and then go about making sexualized, vulgar insults to people, while criticizing the behavior of others, then you are, indeed, a hypocrite in a way that a nonbeliever who does the same thing is not, unless that nonbeliever has made a stance regarding his/her standard for behavior. And then, of course, lying about your behavior while making up a fantastical story about forgery is above and beyond that basic hypocrisy.


+1 Well said beastie.

_________________
Read: MormonCurtain. Resign: MormonResignation. Recover: ExMormonForums.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:50 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:46 pm
Posts: 6300
Location: The Orange House: The loft overlooking the garden
EAllusion wrote:
Calling a women that you've repeatedly demeaned in a sexist way "baby" while telling her that she's in over her head, then telling her to instead grab her pom poms and cheer for her boys after insulting her looks is most certainly misogynist. Just because it's not a forced clitorectomy doesn't mean it isn't misogynist. It's a difference of degree. Just because slapping woman in the workplace on the ass isn't the same thing as demanding sex for a promotion doesn't mean both aren't sexual harassment. It's a disservice to women (and men) to ignore sexist behavior simply because one can always point to more serious examples. Hey guys, it's not like Will is a ringleader in the white slave trade! Yeah, I guess there's that.


Took the words right outta my keyboard!

_________________
not all facts are even facts~ldsfaqs
And if pigs flew we wouldn't usually eat pork.~ldsfaqs


~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:55 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 6675
By the way, dismissing women as bitches for traits that get a pass in men is about as classic of an example of widespread, insidious misogyny as there is. It's especially insidious because it is one of those things that enjoys widespread buy-in from women too. It constrains gender roles lest you be a bitch.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for H
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:55 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:45 am
Posts: 7518
Location: somewhere else
just me wrote:
EAllusion wrote:
Calling a women that you've repeatedly demeaned in a sexist way "baby" while telling her that she's in over her head, then telling her to instead grab her pom poms and cheer for her boys after insulting her looks is most certainly misogynist. Just because it's not a forced clitorectomy doesn't mean it isn't misogynist. It's a difference of degree. Just because slapping woman in the workplace on the ass isn't the same thing as demanding sex for a promotion doesn't mean both aren't sexual harassment. It's a disservice to women (and men) to ignore sexist behavior simply because one can always point to more serious examples. Hey guys, it's not like Will is a ringleader in the white slave trade! Yeah, I guess there's that.


Took the words right outta my keyboard!


Exactly.

Also, sleazy "compliments" are not compliments. They are sleaze. They are leering, jeering, patronizing and objectifying.

_________________
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 384 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CameronMO, DarkHelmet, Fence Sitter, Google [Bot], Hasa Diga Eebowai, Jaybear, Yahoo [Bot] and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group