Originally posted by Regret
Discrimination is not a negative concept, differential treatment of others is the negative concept to which you are referring. Discrimination is a misnomer.
This is coming from the person who argued that there is no such thing as "nuetral" 🙄
Regret come on...you said before actions are only good or evil. If you remain loyal to your logic, then Discrimination can only be negative or positive, it cannot be "nuetral"...
Originally posted by Regret
No, it wasn't in reference to homosexuality at all. It was in reference to behavior. Girls and Boys should attempt to be attractive to the opposite sex, but maintain a modest behavior. This is in reference to girls that behave in such a manner that boys find them unattractive, and vice versa.
Personally I don't think a girl needs to conform to a preconceived, gender specific image to be a girl, but maybe that's just me.
So what would be a women roll in a Mormon household that adheres to the proclamation? Does she work outside the home?
And can girls be missionaries? I have never I seen a female Mormon missionary.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Personally I don't think a girl needs to conform to a preconceived, gender specific image to be a girl, but maybe that's just me.
I think the question is only applicable to each person individually. If a woman wants to follow a traditional role, she should be able to do so without being attacked for it. A woman should be able to work and follow the nontraditional role without being attacked for it. And the same with men. Men are the target of the same type of treatment as women. Men are typically viewed negatively if he does not work while his wife does. Women are typically viewed negatively if she wants to be a stay at home mom. Differential treatment comes from both sides, imo.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So what would be a women roll in a Mormon household that adheres to the proclamation? Does she work outside the home?
Women are encouraged to pursue an education, and pursue a marriage relationship, same as men. Women are encouraged to remain in the home once a child is born, but an education is encouraged if it does not interfere with child care. The hierarchy of men and women's responsibility is outlined somewhat as follows:
Family
Church Responsibilities
Education/Vocation
Women are encouraged to raise children while men are encouraged to maintain financial stability. Traditional roles are encouraged.
Within the family Husbands and Wives are equal in all aspects of responsibility.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And can girls be missionaries? I have never I seen a female Mormon missionary.
Women are encouraged to pursue their careers and marriage, and a mission is not supposed to be a priority for them, but they have the option. Female missionaries cannot request to become a missionary until 2-3 years later than male missionaries. I am unsure if there are any differences between their assignments and male missionary assignments, although I do believe that often they are positioned at visitor centers and such more frequently than male missionaries. But I do know that many female missionaries have the same type of schedules and perform the same as male missionaries.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
This is coming from the person who argued that there is no such thing as "nuetral" 🙄Regret come on...you said before actions are only good or evil. If you remain loyal to your logic, then Discrimination can only be negative or positive, it cannot be "nuetral"...
I do not believe discrimination to be an act, it is merely recognition of a distinction between two stimuli. Differential treatment is the action that occurs when one responds differently to one stimulus than he would to another. To treat a person in a negative manner differently than one would another is evil, if the negatively treated individual did not earn the treatment, particularly if such treatment is due to an uncontrollable aspect of the individual.
I did not say anything about neutrality here. Discrimination is a misnomer in that it uses a term that describes recognition of distinction to describe a negative action based on this recognition. Logically you could say someone discriminates based on discrimination.
Originally posted by Alliance
or are you just trying to avoid people tagging Mormonism's gender roles as blatant discrimination.
No, I do not believe it to be discrimination as many use the term. Women choose to follow these guidelines, discrimination would be the Church actively acting against women that do not or women being punished for not living these guidelines, such is not the case.
I do disagree with the use of the term, for the exact reason I describe.
Originally posted by Alliance
I don't buy that argument. If its in the documentation of the church, its discriminatory. It doesn't have to be active discrimination, it can be passive.Yeah its good that they are not prosecuted...but its still in your rules/reccomendations.
Perhaps, but that is inherent with any prescribed behaviors, those that don't comply will be actively or passively discriminated against.
Would you consider men discriminated against in these recommendations? I would have to say that they have to be if women are.
😆
Then, I believe that discrimination, of the sort we have been discussing, is an integral part of any organized structure within human society. Some form of acceptable discrimination may be the only truly common factor among human societal systems.
Currently those discriminations present in society appear benign despite the possible errors in the view. Which discriminations are profitable, and which are detrimental? I am unsure that such can be decided by those involved.
Re: If God does exist, then why is hiding from us?
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
We are His "so-called" children and He loves us right, but loving parents are always around their children spiritually and emotionally but most importantly,..visually.
We must believe. If you doubt him, then he won't come. Look at how Peter fell into the water when his faith wavered
Re: Re: If God does exist, then why is hiding from us?
Originally posted by Council#13
We must believe. If you doubt him, then he won't come. Look at how Peter fell into the water when his faith wavered
Originally posted by Regret
😆Then, I believe that discrimination, of the sort we have been discussing, is an integral part of any organized structure within human society. Some form of acceptable discrimination may be the only truly common factor among human societal systems.
Currently those discriminations present in society appear benign despite the possible errors in the view. Which discriminations are profitable, and which are detrimental? I am unsure that such can be decided by those involved.
Perhaps it is, but then again, its not indocrinated is it?
Originally posted by Alliance
Perhaps it is, but then again, its not indocrinated is it?
It is not? Have you never taken a course that dealt with American society in general? Any course dealing with women's issues, even briefly? Discrimination of some type is indoctrinated in every organized body of humans. We merely have an areligious indoctrination, not the lack of indoctrination. And such indoctrination is required of those that are educated in any level of American education. It is merely more covert than religious indoctrination. It is more subtle and the method is easier to dismiss, but it is indoctrination. If I were to post a thread in the GD forum addressing the subject, perhaps entitled "Housewife, is she suppressed?" I am positive that I would have a large portion of the responses saying that, yes she is. My wife would have issue with that, as she is not a housewife, but would like to be. It would have the same result as my thread in the philosophy forum, "Were women suppressed?", I do not believe the statements I make on that thread, but I was curious as to the response such a thread would engender. It produced a predictable response. Typically women were up in arms over the topic. Men would swing from one end to the other, although often they would acknowledge suppression. Similar would probably occur with my theoretical thread.
Originally posted by Regret
I do not believe discrimination to be an act, it is merely recognition of a distinction between two stimuli. Differential treatment is the action that occurs when one responds differently to one stimulus than he would to another. To treat a person in a negative manner differently than one would another is evil, if the negatively treated individual did not earn the treatment, particularly if such treatment is due to an uncontrollable aspect of the individual.
So you are essentially arguing that discrimination can occur in the mind, not necessarily in live action ? Yes or No ?
Originally posted by Regret
I did not say anything about neutrality here. Discrimination is a misnomer in that it uses a term that describes recognition of distinction to describe a negative action based on this recognition. Logically you could say someone discriminates based on discrimination.
This is where I beg to differ...
Discrimination, in my eyes, and in the eyes of many, is a lot more than just a "recognition" of different stimuli. It almost always involves favoritism of one side and/or dislike or disgust of another side.
To "recognize" one's differences is to observe or make an observation. To like or dislike someone or something based on these observations is to be BIAS...and to act upon that bias is to Discriminate 😉
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So you are essentially arguing that discrimination can occur in the mind, not necessarily in live action ? Yes or No ?
This is where I beg to differ...Discrimination, in my eyes, and in the eyes of many, is a lot more than just a "recognition" of different stimuli. It almost always involves favoritism of one side and/or dislike or disgust of another side.
To "recognize" one's differences is to observe or make an [b]observation
. To like or dislike someone or something based on these observations is to be BIAS...and to act upon that bias is to Discriminate 😉 [/B]
No, what I am saying is that the definition of discrimination that you are using has been applied to the word improperly. Perhaps I haven't been clear, I understand what you are referring to by the term "discrimination", but due to my training I do not agree with the use of the term as only referencing negative behavior. Discrimination for me is merely the ability to distinguish between stimuli. I know the definition, and you are referring to a portion of the definition that I disagree with. That portion of the term is relatively new and adds a negative connotation to the term. I disagree that all discrimination is negative.