I was just taken aback at your comments about how those programs, which have research to prove they are helpful, are "
just misogynistic programs." Clearly, the programs aren't. The problem has nothing to do with misogyny and only to do with misandry: the problem is with males, who are proven to need help instead of shunning, not getting the same social acceptance with those programs. It has nothing to do with how weak women are. On the contrary: the women "have" those programs because feminism has done its job. The reality is, both genders have those programs but the males get a nice social stigma for being soon-to-be-single-fathers.
I also reject your line of reasoning, above, as back-peddly mending. Your original line of reasoning was misandrous. This is your way of covering your misandrous tracks but, ended up in a misogynous hole. Sometimes, the best course of action is not to continue claiming something is bad for males or bad for females it comes to gender equality. Sometimes, it is best to say, "Hey, this shit should go for both, not one or the other."
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
You quote "just misogynistic programs.", I cannot find where I allegedly said that, can you please give a link. Otherwise I would prefer you not to put words into my mouth.
Programs like that are not misogynist themselves, like you said they often come from good places of early feminist efforts to bring equality to women, sadly they often do not get extended to everyone in need of help due to the misogynist views that society and communities hold. It has nothing to do with any sort of misandry.
Additionally it's not even true about single fathers, single fathers are much better regarded in society than single mothers, people view them as going above and beyond for their kids, while care taking is required of women.
I believe you often do not take a holistic view on issues and thereby miss vital parts of actual context, hence why you think this has anything to do with misandry, when it does not.
I'm looking through my post and I don't see anywhere where I said you said it, directly. If you can find it, could you give a link? Otherwise, I would prefer you not put words into my mouth.
(please log in to view the image)
Fixed your post, for you.
lol, I literally contradicted you with how soon-to-be-expecting-fathers are treated in this particular topic which is Mormonism: they are not better off. If you want to talk about something other than an LDS male's experience, start a thread!
..
It is much worse that you think. Much worse. I take the holistic views, stick to the topic at hand, and consider this topics objectively (relative to you approach). From my perspective, you're the one stuck in "everything is misogynistic! I can't see anything any other way! I can't, brah!" <---By the way, in case you waste your time, don't look for a quote where you stated that. I have a grammar lesson for you: not everything in quotes is a literal quote.
And yet, here I am, having to give you history lessons because I supposedly don't look at the "whole picture."
"It must be hard looking down on the plebs from on top of that really tall horse. Someone should tell you that you're not riding a glamorous and grobdingnagian steed; you're playing in the sand with your eyes closed."
-NOSTID
You couldn't be wronger.
What's the situation?
Men are shunned and looked down upon for getting a girl pregnant when they are not married, inside the LDS faith. They (local church leadership) are, despite the fact that their own manuals (instructions on how to handle these situations) tell them to, encouraging those young men to participate in welfare programs, mental health programs, and church services.
This contrasts with the fact that women are. And, no, the women are not called weak and it is not even implied. They are taught that they are strong, capable, intelligent, spiritual, blessed, etc.
Edit - I think Bardock42 swung too far to the left and now he's dancing in Ironic Feminism territory.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
You used quotation marks and said it was my comment, that's really dishonest.
At any rate, we apparently won't agree on this issue, so I'll just restate one more time that the attitude that some people have that men are to blame for getting a "poor girl" pregnant comes from a misogynist place.
No, that's not what happened. But, remember, you're the one who takes holistic views. It was boiling down your point into a paraphrase that I put into quotes to distance myself from it. That's it.
Had I intended to make a literal quote, I would have quoted you: that's my MO.
Ahhh, now you're moving the goalposts. Now it is no longer about men being shunned and not treated equally, huh? It's about "poor girls", huh?
Since you literally agreed that those programs are good, then the only thing that needs to happen is the men brought up to the level of women. That's it. The women should be treated the same, oh yes. No doubt about that. I don't want the message and attitude lost that young women who are pregnant are still capable, intelligent, and worth a lot in the eyes of God.
But the men should get the same encouragement and treatment. This is a feminist issue, by the way. You have you head so far up your idealistic feminist ass that you don't realize you're being anti-feministic.
The real issue, here, and the thing you are completely missing (because you're thinking "holistically", lol) is that men are incapable of taking care of children, properly, when they make babies outside of marriage. You could spin that into a misogynistic perspective but it is really just a shitty perspective against both genders that happens to target men. It is a misandrist view that can be helped with feminism.
Here's a hint:
When you see or encounter an idea that can be boiled down to: "Men are incapable of A", that's misandrist. It can also being indirectly misogynistic.*
When you see or encounter an idea that can be boiled down to: "Women are incapable of B", that's misogynistic. It can also be indirectly misogynistic.*
The good news is, both of those issues can be addressed with feminism. Or, rather, egalitarianism (and not the bent view you have of feminism).
*Because you love word games (because, hey, actually arguing the points would make you have to admit a failure), don't worry about thinking of exceptions to prove you missed my point. Leave the exceptions up for extremely specific philosophical words games that someone else wants to play. You know, modus ponens, modus tollens, double negatives, and so forth.
I think what the real issue is is that he wants very hard to be a feminist (good intentions), but lacks a holistic understanding of feminism, so he ends up being indirectly anti-feministic on some issues.*
Just to give context, here's Bardock42 admitting I was right and is just playing word games/bored/trolling:
And here you are describing society viewing men as incapable but weirdly twist it into society thinking that women are incapable when, the whole time, we aren't talking about society but specifically the LDS Church views men as less-capable:
I agree. If I ever get into a position of authority, again, (I just don't want to spend that much time outside of work, which is where I am now), I'll be sure and put a stop misandrist views that view men as less capable. I'll bring the men up to the level of women. But doing this, I'll directly fight misandry and indirectly fight misogyny.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
I'm excited about the next planned parenthood video, the last two were interesting to watch, but a let down, I kinda doubt they have any actual evidence, it feels like they would have led with it, and the next videos will just be weaker and weaker as well as more edited, but maybe I'm wrong.
Whoa there dadude- Bardock is right, you said he said something and used quote marks in your example. If you don't want it to look like direct quotation, don't use quote marks. That's a legitimate grievance from Bardock.
Also it is bad form to edit post quotes.
Try and cut out that sort of behaviour.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
I used proper brackets in the quote to indicate the "author" modified the original text just like you would academically. I'm not new to primary source quotation and quote modification. But, you were very nice considering my snarky attitude with Bardock42 so I apologize.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 27th, 2015 05:57 PM
