Theres actually an article circling the web that a woman wrote about this same thing. She went further than OP, but pretty much used Mormon teachings to portray God as a woman. I think its pure gold. As well as OPs post too.
[deleted] · 73 points · Posted at 21:29:48 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
When I read this to my husband I was crying the entire time- and I don’t cry. To watch my husband, who understand me in all ways, look at me with a completely blank stare while I read this was one of the most heartbreaking moments of my life. The indoctrination and brainwashing is very real when my normal empathetic husband is unable to feel for me because he believes in the church so much.
[deleted] · 22 points · Posted at 23:54:09 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
LDS raises up prideful, idiotic, coward, unequipped, weak, liars,men! I keep hearing the stories of LDS men involved in child rape who claim to be so wonderful because there whole family is LDS. Whole thing is a scam! Actually this guy was a returned missionary dating a 15 year old! He still slept at night knowing he did nothing wrong! These people are dangerous demons. He had no intention of making this girl his wife nor his girlfriend
I feel your pain. I’m in the same situation with my TBM husband. Over the years, I was told that I poisoned our children, horrible mother, I tricked him into this marriage... etc we are at a point where we kind of accept each other’s believes but if I make any negative comment about church... he will blow up immediately.
I live in east coast. I SO wish there is a group of exmo women who I can talk to.
[deleted] · 4 points · Posted at 01:16:34 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
My oldest is 18 and he is out. He knew the church was fake since he was 14. He is smart, caring and gentle boy. My younger two both hate church and church activities. I’m a good mother who gave my kids choice not to believe. I’m very proud of it!
Good luck to you too! I do love my husband despite all... but I also fantasize myself marrying someone else who would accept me who I am.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 18:31:37 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
I am so so sorry to hear this. All we can hope is that someday our husbands will see that we are not wrong. The church is wrong, and we are victims
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 18:30:32 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
Then the men would have to veil their faces as we approached God the Mother in the true order of prayer. "All the men will please veil their faces, lest you offend the omnipotent one with your hideousness." I think that's how it goes IIRC.
Hey, my chromosomes came together in such away in such a way to make me a male. I’m not sure I deserved the promotion but it’s the easiest promotion I ever got.
Growing up I was always told how fortunate I was to be born Mormon. But of all my inherent traits, Mormon has turned out to provide the least advantage. Instead straight, white, male, and upper middle class have all proven to be far more valuable. Fortunately Mormon was also the easiest trait to shed.
[deleted] · 4 points · Posted at 18:24:24 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
It’s likely the second easiest though. And at times I’ve come close to losing it. In the end a good education and a good network have kept me afloat (so far), even when things like medical expense have threatened to swamp me. With societal changes, it’s likely simultaneously the most valuable and the most vulnerable of my listed “privileges.” I’ve lived a largely fortunate life. But Fortuna is a capricious goddess. So who knows what the future holds.
Hahaha xD
i like OPs comment. Theres actually an article circling the web that someone wrote about if God was a woman using Mormon teachings to show how stupid and sexist and unfair this is. And yes, it was written by a woman.
Wow you got that right if God was a woman I could have been the general president of the Fraternal Order of Service Projects ( male Relief Society) for the whole church and a twelve year girl would have more authority than I would have.
Not to mention that if God was a woman as a man you would have likely been taught that you are spiritual property to be auctioned off to the most worthy woman. A lot of your personal identity would be lost to knowing that your sole purpose in like is to get her pregnant, but never really leave the house.
Don’t forget Mormon Woman God will make sure to send lots of revelations that say amen are good for one thing- the thing their penises do. Oh sure men are really smart and God loves them. But they should still stay at home and just do what their bodies are designed to do.
The Earth Goddess is one of the most important in most pantheons. She represents hearth, home, fertility, growth, progress, and survival. Protestantism, Islam, and Mormonism are among the few religions not to worship the female deity. Catholics and Orthodox worship Mary, the Mother of God.
Mormons talk about a Heavenly Mother, but she's a shadow figure rarely mentioned, who exists only to make Heavenly Father a complete male.
A little girl sitting in front of me was looking at the Children’s Friend magazine. On the page she was looking at there was picture of a boy who was wearing a diving mask and holding a ball in one hand . He had camping gear I think he had swimming flippers and all kinds of fun stuff . He was ready for an epic adventure. When the little girl sitting in front of me turned the page there was a picture of two little girls sitting at a table discussing a bottle of fruit and on the opposite page there was a picture of some little girls sitting around a quilt that they were sewing. I think the caption read Junior Relief Society . I didn’t like the message that those pictures were sending to little girls. What if the shoe was on the other foot. How would us men feel?
Gotcha. I really appreciate posts like yours because they help me have some understanding of sexism in tscc and society that I'd otherwise be blind to.
Actually Shawn McCranney on YT had a video on a guy who claimed to know God's name and it was a women! He was LDS and had revelations lol from Vernal I think.
It would suck if you're a dude. Then you'd have to fight to even have a voice, or feel that you matter at all.
[deleted] · -19 points · Posted at 18:08:21 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)*
The rationale is a little off. God doesn't exist and we don't pattern our lives after him. God is a reflection of us. Our social structures and organizations came into existence naturally, and then we used God as a justification for those who asked why. Not the other way around.
Men are in charge because women have weak arms, pure and simple. And there are men with lots of wives because biologically men can impregnate hundreds of women in a short period of time and because throughout time women would prefer to share a great man than to live alone with a loser.
We just worked this shit into our religions so we could explain it to children.
That explanation is not accurate. There are many reasons/explanations for the creation of the patriarchy. However, none of that was the OPs purpose. The whole exercise was to try to get the TBM friend to understand how marginalized women must feel in the TSCC.
[deleted] · -37 points · Posted at 19:10:23 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
The whole exercise was to try to get the TBM friend to understand how marginalized women must feel in the TSCC.
No shit, Sherlock.
As for the "the patriarchy" (commence atomic eye roll) which one are you even referring to? And yes, please pretty please tell me about the time in human history where women had as much power as men despite the fact that men were always able to kill them at any time due to the size and strength discrepancy.
Pray tell what they taught you in your gender studies courses about those evil brilliant and conniving white men (commence second atomic eye roll).
A tip: if you start out a little less aggressive, you might get better responses to your post. Remember, there are (usually) human beings on the other side of the comments, even if they have a different understanding of things than you.
I don't see how the argument that "men were always able to kill them" is showing that patriarchy doesn't exist, nor that the status quo should be maintained. Can you expand on that?
[deleted] · -19 points · Posted at 20:14:12 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Haha I will write how I write. I get the responses I want and deserve, but thank you for the tip.
As for your question, whether the patriarchy exists or not is irrelevant to me. Women enjoy what they enjoy in society at the behest of men they have managed to please or guilt. Because at the core of reality, at the core of society, of human interaction, is the simple question: when it came right down to it, who would win in a fight?
That question is on everyone's mind at all times whether we want to admit it to ourselves or not. For women it's a little worse, actually. They walk around looking out for rapists and murderers. They see every man as a potential threat to their existence. Men rather, see other men as a potential threat to their resources. A few of us are filled with the type of dread that women experience regularly, but only a few.
A man's fear of women stems from the threat of sexual rejection. A woman's fear of man stem's from the threat of actual death.
I realize it's morose, but it's true.
As for the status quo being maintained or not, of course it shouldn't be. But let's not pretend to not know the true nature of it.
Women may convince men to put aside their animal natures and to think rationally about who might be the best man or woman for any particular job, but this is still very much the jungle. And you have it backwards if you believe the religions of this jungle created the jungle and not the other way around.
I'll disagree with your idea that women only have a quality of life because men deign to give it to them. You can use the same argument to say that you and I only exist because we guilted rich people into giving us food. It may be a battle to seek equality, but it's not just about guilting, pleasure or shaming. Don't get me wrong, sometimes it is. In the long-run, it's about changing minds though.
I do see that your average woman walks around with a good degree more feer than your average man. A large part of that is because society has been more accepting of rape/sexual assault/violence against women than is morally acceptable. That is changing, though and with it, the thought process of potential rapists/assaulters will change as well. If the potential cost is too high, they will act differently.
Also, I never said that religion created the jungle. I said it perpetuates the jungle because it benefits from it.
[deleted] · -5 points · Posted at 20:47:09 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)*
I'll disagree with your idea that women only have a quality of life because men deign to give it to them.
I invite you to prove that.
You can use the same argument to say that you and I only exist because we guilted rich people into giving us food.
Yes, you could say that. But I would probably stand a better chance of forcing a rich person to give me food than you would. But I bet, if you have a tight little ass, that you'd be better at convincing them to than I would.
it's about changing minds though.
Ok so outside of guilt and pleasure (i.e. woman's version of pain and sexual pleasure or the hope of sexual pleasure) what else is there? When you say changing minds, what do you mean? A man knows already it is in his best interest to treat women with respect, if not for the knowledge that she will marshal other male forces against her if he fails to, he also has probably great benefit from doing so (except for poor weak schmucks like Aziz Anzari who dared believe for a moment that girl wanted him for something other than his fame and fortune).
I do see that your average woman walks around with a good degree more feer than your average man.
But you know what's funny? That's both a rational and irrational fear. Rational because they know men are stronger. But irrational because they SHOULD know that 2 men are stronger than one and that one little scream will send much more than 2 men running to her rescue.
A large part of that is because society has been more accepting of rape/sexual assault/violence against women than is morally acceptable.
Wholeheartedly disagree. Total horseshit comment. And you were doing so well too :)
If the potential cost is too high, they will act differently.
The cost of real rape has been high for quite some time. Unfortunately we are starting to broaden the definition past the point of recognition in some cases and men are getting confused about when and how they need to step up and defend their women. Ideas about consent have drastically changed as of late and thrown the whole system completely out of wack, in my opinion, just to justify the existence of certain movements who outlived their usefulness decades ago (feminism and marxism/identity politics). Men used to string rapists up by the neck, but with an ever expanding definition of rape, they're starting to wonder if their normal sexual encounters qualify and they're becoming more and more skeptical of rape claims every day, which frankly, is fair.
Also, I never said that religion created the jungle. I said it perpetuates the jungle because it benefits from it.
Well you'd still be wrong. The jungle is the living thing here. Religion isn't a living thing. It's the stories we tell about the jungle to help us understand how it works. "Religion" doesn't benefit from "perpetuating the jungle" anymore than Santa Clause benefits from "perpetuating" Christmas. It's nonsensical.
While there are lots of things to respond to here, I will not. After looking at your comment history, I see your a troll looking for some kind of rise out of belittling and attacking others. Enjoy.
[deleted] · -1 points · Posted at 22:14:43 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)*
Oh. Well that's too bad. I thought you were doing great.
Well, I had fun while it lasted.
*edit - I will say though, this is becoming a favorite tactic of mine from people who are losing a debate on reddit. Ahem. "I have read your comment history and determined you to be a troll. Therefore I shall declare victory in this interaction and walk away having my dignity in tact. According to me."
Actually, declaring victory and walking away is a GREAT tactic. In the Greek treatise, The Art of Controversy, it goes into some pretty good detail on this one. I assure you, when I've had my ass handed to me the way you and your little friends have today, I have made use of it as well. So I do not blame you. Take your leave :)
What is your thought process behind belittling and insulting those who try to engage you in conversation, r/mythoughtsprocess? I can't see it being a rational choice because it results in both the person you're responding to and observers of the conversation being even less likely to be persuaded by you. So is it an emotional response? You get so uncomfortable and angry with people challenging your worldview that you can't help but lash out? Or are you socially stunted and incapable of courtesy? Are you so arrogant in your opinions that you see every conversation as solely an opportunity to score imaginary debate points that only you care about (or even agree with)? Do you still find value in "trolling for lolz" or trying to provoke others just so you can say "you mad, bro?" even though most adults pity and disregard you for it?
You said above that you don't feel the need to change how you speak but for your own sake I hope you can someday grow out of this "edgy" phase and learn to interact with others sincerely and kindly. I'm sure you will respond to this comment with vitriol if you bother to respond at all, but I hope you can take this comment in the spirit in which it was given. If the downvotes weren't enough of an indication of just how clearly you are failing to accomplish anything of value, maybe this comment will inform you of the thought process of everyone else reading this thread.
[deleted] · -1 points · Posted at 22:11:14 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
What is your thought process behind belittling and insulting those who try to engage you in conversation, r/mythoughtsprocess?
Aw. You wrote that joke just for me :)
I can't see it being a rational choice because it results in both the person you're responding to and observers of the conversation being even less likely to be persuaded by you?
Well it's not always about persuasion. Sometimes it's about venting. Sometimes it's about giving others who already agree with me a voice. Some words that match the thoughts/feelings they've had on a topic but were unable to articulate. We talk and debate for many different reasons than just persuasion. You should know that. Otherwise why would you have started out your reply to me with your own insult?
So is it an emotional response?
Is what an emotional response? My replies? It seems you're the one having an emotional response here, no?
You get so uncomfortable and angry with people challenging your worldview that you can't help but lash out?
You mean "someone disagrees with me and doesn't seem to have a good reason for that disagreement so I let them know?" Is this your tactic then? You deflect from the conversation at hand and attack he tone? You're the tone police?
Or are you socially stunted and incapable of courtesy?
It's probably that :)
Are you so arrogant in your opinions that you see every conversation as solely an opportunity to score imaginary debate points that only you care about (or even agree with)?
You have a lot of questions, don't ya? :)
You said above that you don't feel the need to change how you speak but for your own sake I hope you can someday grow out of this "edgy" phase and learn to interact with others sincerely and kindly.
Sincerity. Yeah that's what I detect from you. Genuine concern for me. You're not a hypocrite at all. This whole post was super uplifting, respectful, and helpful, and definitely not from a place of good old fashioned butt-hurt.
I'm sure you will respond to this comment with vitriol if you bother to respond at all,
Oh God, I love that tactic. Dare them to respond. That way, whether they do or they don't, they feel like somehow you made them do it. Oh I like that one.
but I hope you can take this comment in the spirit in which it was given.
Oh...friend. I think I do. I really think I do. I appreciate you coming down from that perch to correct me. You don't know what it means to me.
If the downvotes weren't enough of an indication of just how clearly you are failing to accomplish anything of value, maybe this comment will inform you of the thought process of everyone else reading this thread.
If people are capable of forming an argument, and of elucidating what exactly it is about one of my posts that they dislike (other than tone of course), then by all means they may speak up. If you go about your life forming your opinions based on their popularity, literally manifested in VOTES on reddit, then I pity you.
Your post is simply a personal attack because you know you'll get your ass handed to you on the subject matter at hand. You may go back to the hole in that tree you came down from now. Come back when you have an actual topic to discuss (other than me and my tone, of course).
My comment wasn't a personal attack but I can see why you would feel that way. I'm sorry you don't believe my sincerity because I was trying to help you. Contrary to your assumption, I'm actually not emotionally invested in this debate as a third party observer. None of your arguments have offended me. How could they? They rely on such a bleak and tired philosophy of life as to become a parody of themselves.
To clarify the purpose of my comment as it appears it was not clear to you: I'm not tone policing, I'm critiquing your rhetoric. As you fail to provide any evidence for your claims, all you have is rhetoric. My comment was an explanation of why your rhetoric fails. I was challenging you to explicate your reasons for using such an inferior rhetorical tactic. As predicted, in your response you fell back on the exact tactics I critiqued; however, your point about there being other reasons for debate besides persuasion is well-taken. If your only aim in this thread was to vent your frustration, then the rhetorical devices of petty insults and condescension are more understandable if still small-minded. Also, I apologize my joke about your username was insulting. It was not intended as such.
Others in this thread have made counterpoints to your claims and I will leave that to them as I don't think another voice in the melee of "nuh uh" and "yes huh" would do much good. If you perceive that as cowering before the prospect of your promised "ass-handing" then you're welcome to. My ego isn't wrapped up in your perception of me or my intentions.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 23:09:34 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
This reads more like an atomic fedora tip than an atomic eyeroll.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 22:21:27 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
LOL
[deleted] · 4 points · Posted at 20:07:44 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. Still exists, BTW.
[deleted] · -6 points · Posted at 20:18:04 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
That organization just furthers my point. Take me to them and let us set up a contest. Let us see who among them is the strongest--the greatest warrior. Let's set up a tournament and see who wins.
Or do the women vastly outnumber the men somehow?
Unless their women are giants and their men scrawny and weak, or unless they kill ten boys for every one they let live, then that society has a matriarchal order because they taught boys it should be so.
If those boys/men every got another idea in their heads, that matriarchal order would end overnight.
The fact that women have so effectively convinced the men to let them be in charge in that society doesn't disprove my claim at all. In fact, it bolsters it. It shows wherein women's true power lies.
Well sort of, yeah. Apparently all human society is based on size and strength discrepancy and the ability of larger people to kill smaller people . But wherever you go there is always some guy bigger and stronger than you so I'm not real sure how this society works. Are men exempt from the size and strength rule? Do you just wrestle for status ? What about old guys, that used to be big and strong but now they aren't, I guess a younger guy just takes his stuff now? Really, most young women could probably take his stuff too so I guess the elderly are in trouble. What about guns? I mean it doesn't really matter how big you are if someone shoots you so that's a bit of an equalizer, you don't need man hands to shoot a gun. Like where is this imaginary natural order world any way?
[deleted] · 0 points · Posted at 15:03:19 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)*
Like where is this imaginary natural order world any way?
It's everywhere all the time in everything. Here's a great video/study by National Geographic that illustrates it. Enjoy.
Because even the most cursory look around shows that physical size and strength does not equate very often to power in human society nor in animal ones.
[deleted] · 7 points · Posted at 19:53:07 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
I guess we're going to have to invent new religions now that women can and do use weapons and women can and do control their own sexuality and reproduction as well as have access to wealth production. I don't quibble with your description of the past, sarcastic as it sounds and not 100% on the mark. But a new world is coming, my friend. It's a world where women have real power. Let's hope we wield it with more wisdom than have the men. The patriarchy party is coming to an end.
[deleted] · -3 points · Posted at 19:59:53 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)*
I hate to break it to you, my friend, but female power has never been real. A woman's power is found in her ability to get men to take pity upon her. All power that women yield today is lent them by generous men who know they could otherwise squash them like bugs if they really wanted to. It's why women are still treated like children in the sexual marketplace. The right to vote: granted by well-meaning men. The right to work: the same. That shiny promotion you got? Sure, you deserved it. You proved your merit and some man said "she could make life easier for me" and put you "in charge." Or said to himself "maybe if I give her X, she'll let me fuck her."
This is not a new day. Sure technology and weaponry may become more accessible to women, but women aren't suddenly going to flood the world's militaries or get crazy jacked up on steroids. They aren't all suddenly going to like going through basic training (something they decry as sexist anyway).
No, a woman's social and economic power is found in her ability to guilt men into giving her a turn or into seducing them into doing so. It has always been the case and always will be.
If tomorrow the men of the world became unconvinced of woman's equal place in it, they could enslave all of them in seconds, beat them into submission, rape them if they so chose, and women would submit within the hour, or die.
Why doesn't that happen though? Because men love women. They always have and they always will. And they will always be subject to the guilt and to the mercy and to kindness that women inspire in them.
[deleted] · 6 points · Posted at 20:33:21 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
A woman's power is not real as long as the majority of men choose not to recognize their personhood or as long as they cannot protect their own bodies. I think we'll win on both accounts. So I guess it all hangs on whether you think men are rational or irrational. Some are, some aren't. But I think the time when women can protect the boundaries of their own bodies will be the end of total male dominance and a more equitable society for the reasons you state---many men can't do without the female sex. I think women will never go back. It's personal integrity or die. I could be wrong. And I trust that there are more men who are human than there are men who are just animals. You say men love women. Do they love women, or their bodies? That's two separate things. So women have two advantages here. First, they will own their bodies (and you debate that, I see) and second, many men are rational and see women as humans. So we may win over the irrational with our bodies, and we may at least gain equal footing with the rational men, which is all we want, I'm guessing. So we'll see how this all plays out.
[deleted] · -1 points · Posted at 20:38:30 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
A woman's power is not real as long as the majority of men choose not to recognize their personhood or as long as they cannot protect their own bodies
Correct.
I think we'll win on both accounts.
Be my guest. I think you already win on one account. I hope someday something will make it so that women can also protect themselves autonomously without needing to marshal the forces of men.
You say men love women. Do they love women, or their bodies? That's two separate things.
Prove it.
First, they will own their bodies (and you debate that, I see)
I don't debate that. I question it. But I too hope for it.
second, many men are rational and see women as humans.
It's debatable whether seeing women as humans is "rational" or not. It doesn't really seem like the right word in this context but ok. But I like the rest of what you're saying.
I do hope women can come to defend themselves against the undesirables someday :) And I don't believe women will ever become undesirable to men. Technology and the future will deal with these issues in unforeseen and multifarious ways, I'm sure. I'm looking forward to seeing how it goes.
[deleted] · 2 points · Posted at 20:57:46 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
I guess we'll see how things go as time passes.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 20:58:54 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
While some of your premises are true, I think you're off in your analysis. Also, all answers are in reference to western/European-based culture. other cultures don't have such an emphasis on the patriarchy. For example, in Navajo culture ownership belonged to the women, who could "divorce" (using our term) by just putting the man's belongings on the front step. Matriarchal societies do/did exist, although they are/were the minority.
First, yes we do pattern our religion after our society, but it's a very slow process. Religion still has a huge role to play in modern society, even though the theology is based on society many years ago (hundreds or thousands) and seeks to perpetuate those societal norms.
Second, in western culture, men took charge because (on average) they were physically stronger than women. That has no bearing today, where placement in society is more based on brains/education than brawn (at least the parts not based on pure luck). Again, religion/patriarchy is pushing to maintain something that is antiquated.
Third, yes, men can impregnate lots of women, while each child is a long-term commitment for a woman. The second half doesn't hold, though. Some women have chosen to share a man, rather than be alone, much because of the importance placed on penishood in society. Were so much not dependent on whether you are male or not, women would not have made the same choice.
I agree on the last part, and I think it's worse than that. We have it in religion so we don't have to justify to children and they will accept it without question. I mean, "God said so".
[deleted] · 0 points · Posted at 20:05:30 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
You both have over simplified the concept of patriarchal societies, which are not always born from brute force. Cultural norms have an enormous impact on behavior. Very little force has been applied to a good number of us when we were all TBM's. The indoctrination and cover up of truth kept us in the church for the years we were in the church, not physical force. The same applies to patriarchal societies. I find your comments about women using guilt/seduction to get what they want from men not supported by science but by stereotypical thinking. I am sure you can find examples of this being done but to apply this to ALL of women and the basis in which patriarchal societies are made? Nonsense. I find that perhaps you both need to study up on patriarchal/ matriarchal societies more before you make these kind of justifications for the status quo. It appears you have internalized the justifications for a patriarchal society instead of using what research findings have actually found on the numerous types of societies which have existed, patriarchy being one of them. For example there are numerous books written and studies done that address the rise of patriarchal societies with the rise of capitalism and capitalism 's need to work under patriarchy in order to sustain itself.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 21:19:11 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
You both have over simplified the concept of patriarchal societies, which are not always born from brute force.
Strawman. Not my claim. My claim is that whether a society is patriarchal or matriarchal is irrelevant. Whether brute force is utilized for passed on, also irrelevant. The reality is that the threat of that brute force is always in play within any society created by the human animal. Whether men are convinced to lay violence aside or not, violence is always a consideration, both biologically, and societally. As I said, were men to suddenly desire it (and they would not, because they love women) they could enslave them instantly and strip of them of all their power and authority within society. Instantly. This is not debatable. This is self evident. There isn't much more to discuss. But I know you'll try. So here we go.
Cultural norms have an enormous impact on behavior.
No shit.
Very little force has been applied to a good number of us when we were all TBM's. The indoctrination and cover up of truth kept us in the church for the years we were in the church, not physical force.
Again, no shit. You're arguing with yourself here.
The same applies to patriarchal societies.
Yeah. See this is what happens when someone comes in with their own idea of what's going on, forms their own premise, and then skips on down the road arguing with themselves. Nobody is disagreeing with anything you just said. Nobody.
I find your comments about women using guilt/seduction to get what they want from men not supported by science but by stereotypical thinking.
Neat.
I am sure you can find examples of this being done
Then what are you arguing about?
but to apply this to ALL of women and the basis in which patriarchal societies are made?
Can you reread that sentence to yourself and ask yourself if it makes sense? Because I don't know what the fuck you just tried to say. Again I'm not making an argument about how patriarchal societies form. I'm drawing attention to the biological reality that is always present regardless of the type of society that springs up around it.
I could continue to go through your post but I think at this point it's obvious that you just need to accept a new premise, and THEN if you have something you think you want to argue, come back with THAT, and we can argue. But right now, as I've said already, you're not arguing against any point that I have made so this seems pointless.
As a previous comment stated...you seem really angry when someone disagrees with your comments. You make all kinds of assumptions about men and women that are not backed by research. So men are bigger and stronger than women on average so that is the basis for all your ideas on patriarchy? Sorry, your claims are over simplified and not supported by the majority of research published on the matter. All your responses to my first comment are just your opinions! Don't make them more than that because they aren't factually sound. Sorry bro, don't agree with most of your comments and I'm gonna leave it at that.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 22:20:45 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
As a previous comment stated...you seem really angry when someone disagrees with your comments.
You know, I like this debate tactic too. George W. Bush used it while debating Gore and it worked brilliantly. Whatever Gore said, no matter good his point, Bushy would come back with "My opponent is just so negative. He just sees the world with a glass half empty view." Worked like a charm. Good on you for trying it.
You make all kinds of assumptions about men and women that are not backed by research
Really? Tell you what. Go watch the Olympics in a few days, and let me know how in how many sports they have men competing against women. That SHOULD provide you with some pretty decent data. Maybe.
So men are bigger and stronger than women on average so that is the basis for all your ideas on patriarchy?
Um. No. Not even close. Did you just get here?
Sorry, your claims are over simplified and not supported by the majority of research published on the matter
Yeah. Which ones?
All your responses to my first comment are just your opinions!
Really? Which ones? Which can't be verified by anyone with one working set of eyes?
Don't make them more than that because they aren't factually sound. Sorry bro, don't agree with most of your comments and I'm gonna leave it at that.
Yeah, you would leave it at that. Come back to me with that research that negates the claims you think I'm making whenever you have a minute, k?
[deleted] · 0 points · Posted at 21:07:46 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
My favorite kind of post. The "I'm not actually going to say anything--I'm just going to imply I have some greater knowledge on the subject and invite you to seek the greater light and knowledge I clearly possess without actually going into it. I have other tasks to attend to now. Good day!"
Yes, my favorite kind of post indeed. A fairy god mother post. Thank you for stopping by! Thank you for just gracing us with a moment of your presence! I will always remember you!
I am not doing the research for you. Great reply....deflect...deflect...deflect when someone tells you to back up your claims with research not stereotypes.
[deleted] · 0 points · Posted at 21:20:45 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
You may see my other reply to your outrageous and unfounded strawman comment that is so far in left field you shouldn't have even bothered showing up to play.
"Deflect, deflect, deflect." Indeed.
Come back and argue with ME, not with the strawman you pieced together from fragments of this conversation, and I'll gladly keep talking with you.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 05:47:53 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
I like the challenge of thought. I agree that nature has put man above woman due to physical superiority. Religion has been used to tell that story and also to control it.
Humans have been able to move past the amygdala into the prefrontal cortex resulting in a diminished influence of physical superiority.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 15:14:35 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
Really what has happened in society is we've just shifted the focus of physical superiority from the individual to the group. When push comes to shove in our society we call the cops. The cops are a bunch of big guys with guns that have society's permission to force any individual or group of individuals to physically submit.
Since women have as much access to cops as men do they can feel a lot safer moving about through society than they could otherwise. But as many of them will attest, with their cries of "rape culture" and complaints of cat calling, we still have some more to go before they feel completely at ease in their surroundings. They detect what I'm referring to instinctively. They sense that natural order and they know it's a threat. But, they can scream, they have cell phones so they can call cops, they can marshal the forces of men to their aid much quicker and easier than they could pre-civilization and pre-technology, and if they're smart, they'll also carry some form of self-protection like a gun, pepper spray, mace, or a rape whistle.
The jungle doesn't go away because it gets smarter.
That doesn't sound that bad; no responsibility, no obligation. Sure I can't be prophet but who wants that aggravation? Would sound even less bad if that's how you'd always been taught when growing up as a kid.
I like to think about hypotheticals like, "What if people made kids the same way wasps do?" Like a pregnant lady had to go out and hunt down a moose and implant an egg in it, that sort of thing. Right now that seems so alien and bizarre, but I bet you if that's just how humans had always been it wound seem totally reasonable and carrying a baby in a placenta in your tummy would seem bizarre and alien.
So I can't really look at this reversed situation through my eyes with any authenticity, because I'm looking at it through my 'Male God' eyes and will naturally find it unsettling and odd without having access to genuine 'Woman God' eyes to see it through.
A few rhetorical questions: Have you ever felt or been entirely redundant? Was your future planned for you? Were you able to choose your current role in life?
By default, LDS women are not given the opportunity to make these decisions of their own free will. It isn't "nice" to not have responsibility.
That's like saying it is "nice" to be a slave because they don't have to worry about food or housing. Arranged marriages are "nice" because you don't have to deal with the pressure of finding a compatible partner. It's "nice" to be a woman because you don't have to deal with the obligations of being the man of the house.
[deleted] · -8 points · Posted at 21:33:01 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Ask Emma how she felt about it. Women are human beings first and foremost. If my wife showed up with an eighteen year old stud muffin that she was going to marry and have sex with it would hurt because I am human .
Racism, misogyny, prejudice cause pain because we are human. We have are an evolving species , physically and socially. Racism causes pain to others , misogyny causes pain to others, any group that makes another group subservient because of their gender or race causes pain because we are human.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 02:27:17 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
aLittleQueer · 198 points · Posted at 16:06:52 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Goddam that's savage. I suspect you blew his mind :)
tayvette1997 · 101 points · Posted at 17:47:33 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Theres actually an article circling the web that a woman wrote about this same thing. She went further than OP, but pretty much used Mormon teachings to portray God as a woman. I think its pure gold. As well as OPs post too.
[deleted] · 73 points · Posted at 21:29:48 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
When I read this to my husband I was crying the entire time- and I don’t cry. To watch my husband, who understand me in all ways, look at me with a completely blank stare while I read this was one of the most heartbreaking moments of my life. The indoctrination and brainwashing is very real when my normal empathetic husband is unable to feel for me because he believes in the church so much.
[deleted] · 22 points · Posted at 23:54:09 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
[deleted]
emmastoneinahat · 17 points · Posted at 00:16:35 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
Um. That's... not okay.
Mormonpie · 5 points · Posted at 07:43:41 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
LDS raises up prideful, idiotic, coward, unequipped, weak, liars,men! I keep hearing the stories of LDS men involved in child rape who claim to be so wonderful because there whole family is LDS. Whole thing is a scam! Actually this guy was a returned missionary dating a 15 year old! He still slept at night knowing he did nothing wrong! These people are dangerous demons. He had no intention of making this girl his wife nor his girlfriend
classof1995gogirl · 8 points · Posted at 00:54:14 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
I feel your pain. I’m in the same situation with my TBM husband. Over the years, I was told that I poisoned our children, horrible mother, I tricked him into this marriage... etc we are at a point where we kind of accept each other’s believes but if I make any negative comment about church... he will blow up immediately. I live in east coast. I SO wish there is a group of exmo women who I can talk to.
[deleted] · 4 points · Posted at 01:16:34 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
[deleted]
classof1995gogirl · 13 points · Posted at 01:28:34 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
My oldest is 18 and he is out. He knew the church was fake since he was 14. He is smart, caring and gentle boy. My younger two both hate church and church activities. I’m a good mother who gave my kids choice not to believe. I’m very proud of it! Good luck to you too! I do love my husband despite all... but I also fantasize myself marrying someone else who would accept me who I am.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 18:31:37 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
I am so so sorry to hear this. All we can hope is that someday our husbands will see that we are not wrong. The church is wrong, and we are victims
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 18:30:32 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
I’m so so sorry
Mandiferous · 1 points · Posted at 20:02:07 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
I'm not married or have kids, but I'm an exmo woman on the east coast too!
mmandajade · 1 points · Posted at 01:22:59 on January 27, 2018 · (Permalink)
Woo EastCoastExMos! We should have a club or something
tayvette1997 · 7 points · Posted at 21:52:35 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
I am so sorry about that. The nice thing about this is subreddit is everyone is supportive.
echofar · 4 points · Posted at 18:44:23 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Do you know where it is or the author's name?
tayvette1997 · 5 points · Posted at 18:45:30 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
No, someone else posted it on this subreddit like 2 weeks ago and i just followed their link. Ill try and look for it real quick. Hang on.
echofar · 45 points · Posted at 19:03:28 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
I found it! https://mormondom.com/letter-to-a-mormon-man-8d251aa1f062
Thank you for mentioning it! It is a great read. Can't wait to share with my wife.
tayvette1997 · 5 points · Posted at 19:09:28 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Yes!!! I couldnt find it no matter what i put in. But i also found several other books and articles that people wrote about if god was a woman lol.
backtrackerr · 2 points · Posted at 23:32:14 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
I loved this article. Thank you!
PrincessApprentice · 2 points · Posted at 19:05:15 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
It was on medium... But that's all I can remember
aPinkFloyd · 8 points · Posted at 16:56:31 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
+1
excellently said!
FloppyPancakesDude · 104 points · Posted at 16:15:47 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
10/10 would lose my faith again
120kthrownaway · 35 points · Posted at 18:28:37 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
But....but....god can't be a woman. A man told me so.
maulaboutthat · 16 points · Posted at 22:29:05 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Then the men would have to veil their faces as we approached God the Mother in the true order of prayer. "All the men will please veil their faces, lest you offend the omnipotent one with your hideousness." I think that's how it goes IIRC.
SaveVenezuela · 3 points · Posted at 00:09:26 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
Fair is fair.
[deleted] · 52 points · Posted at 16:19:13 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
You're just a bitter feminist. /s
SaveVenezuela · 42 points · Posted at 17:20:02 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Hey, my chromosomes came together in such away in such a way to make me a male. I’m not sure I deserved the promotion but it’s the easiest promotion I ever got.
QuickSpore · 21 points · Posted at 17:50:25 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Growing up I was always told how fortunate I was to be born Mormon. But of all my inherent traits, Mormon has turned out to provide the least advantage. Instead straight, white, male, and upper middle class have all proven to be far more valuable. Fortunately Mormon was also the easiest trait to shed.
[deleted] · 4 points · Posted at 18:24:24 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Good thing upper middle class wasn't easy to shed
QuickSpore · 11 points · Posted at 18:32:26 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Amen to that.
It’s likely the second easiest though. And at times I’ve come close to losing it. In the end a good education and a good network have kept me afloat (so far), even when things like medical expense have threatened to swamp me. With societal changes, it’s likely simultaneously the most valuable and the most vulnerable of my listed “privileges.” I’ve lived a largely fortunate life. But Fortuna is a capricious goddess. So who knows what the future holds.
tayvette1997 · 8 points · Posted at 17:46:12 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Hahaha xD i like OPs comment. Theres actually an article circling the web that someone wrote about if God was a woman using Mormon teachings to show how stupid and sexist and unfair this is. And yes, it was written by a woman.
Trueawakening · 3 points · Posted at 19:17:11 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Wow! God could be teaching us in ways we don’t understand! All I do know is that God is love and peace and harmony.
Celloer · 2 points · Posted at 19:05:02 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
We’d better home he’s not an Intellectual Homosexual. Or worse, a Homosexual Intellectual!
REACT_and_REDACT · 14 points · Posted at 23:24:34 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
"Whew! Glad God's not a woman!" - Men who love Patriarchy
SaveVenezuela · 13 points · Posted at 00:01:38 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
Wow you got that right if God was a woman I could have been the general president of the Fraternal Order of Service Projects ( male Relief Society) for the whole church and a twelve year girl would have more authority than I would have.
breathethegreen · 3 points · Posted at 01:00:22 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
Or have zero empathy and compassion.
ragin2cajun · 11 points · Posted at 21:17:51 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Not to mention that if God was a woman as a man you would have likely been taught that you are spiritual property to be auctioned off to the most worthy woman. A lot of your personal identity would be lost to knowing that your sole purpose in like is to get her pregnant, but never really leave the house.
Bowyourheadandsayno · 10 points · Posted at 21:20:34 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Don’t forget Mormon Woman God will make sure to send lots of revelations that say amen are good for one thing- the thing their penises do. Oh sure men are really smart and God loves them. But they should still stay at home and just do what their bodies are designed to do.
heavenly_mom · 19 points · Posted at 16:32:10 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
So if there is a god who is a woman, you'd better keep her quiet, and discourage talking about her.
Of course, that could eventually make her rebellious and vindictive...and she watches you sleep every night.
ExploringOut · 6 points · Posted at 17:48:24 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Ooh. That brings to mind Fruma Sarah from Fiddler on the Roof.
mirbell · 17 points · Posted at 18:26:21 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
That was an excellent exercise in empathy!
[deleted] · 6 points · Posted at 21:54:16 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
In a perfect Universe God would be some kind of fungus. After a rainy night God would sprout little toadstools all over the place.
However, the Universe is far from perfect. And according to the church God looks like an old white guy. Coincidence?
Jotebe · 4 points · Posted at 07:50:47 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
"If triangles had a god, they would give him three sides."
-Charles de Montesquieu
LeoMarius · 5 points · Posted at 03:29:58 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
The Earth Goddess is one of the most important in most pantheons. She represents hearth, home, fertility, growth, progress, and survival. Protestantism, Islam, and Mormonism are among the few religions not to worship the female deity. Catholics and Orthodox worship Mary, the Mother of God.
Mormons talk about a Heavenly Mother, but she's a shadow figure rarely mentioned, who exists only to make Heavenly Father a complete male.
thisismyannoyedface · 9 points · Posted at 17:42:28 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Then you'd get a glimpse at what it's like to be a woman in the church and not matter.
MyShelfBroke · 11 points · Posted at 19:56:03 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
LOL
ExiestSexmo · 8 points · Posted at 18:11:04 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
I don't know if it's what you're going for, but you reminded me of this article.
SaveVenezuela · 23 points · Posted at 19:37:02 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
A little girl sitting in front of me was looking at the Children’s Friend magazine. On the page she was looking at there was picture of a boy who was wearing a diving mask and holding a ball in one hand . He had camping gear I think he had swimming flippers and all kinds of fun stuff . He was ready for an epic adventure. When the little girl sitting in front of me turned the page there was a picture of two little girls sitting at a table discussing a bottle of fruit and on the opposite page there was a picture of some little girls sitting around a quilt that they were sewing. I think the caption read Junior Relief Society . I didn’t like the message that those pictures were sending to little girls. What if the shoe was on the other foot. How would us men feel?
ExiestSexmo · 9 points · Posted at 20:20:13 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Gotcha. I really appreciate posts like yours because they help me have some understanding of sexism in tscc and society that I'd otherwise be blind to.
true_owl · 3 points · Posted at 01:32:51 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
I'm sharing this with my parents and several siblings. Not sure exactly how or if they'll react.
Verumestamendacium · 2 points · Posted at 02:06:58 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
Hail to Ashteroth!
Mmaymay2324 · 2 points · Posted at 02:14:51 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
That is the best thing I ever read
SaltLickCity · 2 points · Posted at 16:13:34 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Boner killer.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 06:44:02 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
brother husbands.......hahaha.
Mormonpie · 1 points · Posted at 07:40:43 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
Actually Shawn McCranney on YT had a video on a guy who claimed to know God's name and it was a women! He was LDS and had revelations lol from Vernal I think.
quantumpresbyterian · 1 points · Posted at 16:41:38 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
It would suck if you're a dude. Then you'd have to fight to even have a voice, or feel that you matter at all.
[deleted] · -19 points · Posted at 18:08:21 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)*
The rationale is a little off. God doesn't exist and we don't pattern our lives after him. God is a reflection of us. Our social structures and organizations came into existence naturally, and then we used God as a justification for those who asked why. Not the other way around.
Men are in charge because women have weak arms, pure and simple. And there are men with lots of wives because biologically men can impregnate hundreds of women in a short period of time and because throughout time women would prefer to share a great man than to live alone with a loser.
We just worked this shit into our religions so we could explain it to children.
Lilyofspades · 24 points · Posted at 19:04:59 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
That explanation is not accurate. There are many reasons/explanations for the creation of the patriarchy. However, none of that was the OPs purpose. The whole exercise was to try to get the TBM friend to understand how marginalized women must feel in the TSCC.
[deleted] · -37 points · Posted at 19:10:23 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
No shit, Sherlock.
As for the "the patriarchy" (commence atomic eye roll) which one are you even referring to? And yes, please pretty please tell me about the time in human history where women had as much power as men despite the fact that men were always able to kill them at any time due to the size and strength discrepancy.
Pray tell what they taught you in your gender studies courses about those evil brilliant and conniving white men (commence second atomic eye roll).
ExApologist · 21 points · Posted at 20:06:41 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
A tip: if you start out a little less aggressive, you might get better responses to your post. Remember, there are (usually) human beings on the other side of the comments, even if they have a different understanding of things than you.
I don't see how the argument that "men were always able to kill them" is showing that patriarchy doesn't exist, nor that the status quo should be maintained. Can you expand on that?
[deleted] · -19 points · Posted at 20:14:12 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Haha I will write how I write. I get the responses I want and deserve, but thank you for the tip.
As for your question, whether the patriarchy exists or not is irrelevant to me. Women enjoy what they enjoy in society at the behest of men they have managed to please or guilt. Because at the core of reality, at the core of society, of human interaction, is the simple question: when it came right down to it, who would win in a fight?
That question is on everyone's mind at all times whether we want to admit it to ourselves or not. For women it's a little worse, actually. They walk around looking out for rapists and murderers. They see every man as a potential threat to their existence. Men rather, see other men as a potential threat to their resources. A few of us are filled with the type of dread that women experience regularly, but only a few.
A man's fear of women stems from the threat of sexual rejection. A woman's fear of man stem's from the threat of actual death.
I realize it's morose, but it's true.
As for the status quo being maintained or not, of course it shouldn't be. But let's not pretend to not know the true nature of it.
Women may convince men to put aside their animal natures and to think rationally about who might be the best man or woman for any particular job, but this is still very much the jungle. And you have it backwards if you believe the religions of this jungle created the jungle and not the other way around.
ExApologist · 12 points · Posted at 20:33:01 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
I'll disagree with your idea that women only have a quality of life because men deign to give it to them. You can use the same argument to say that you and I only exist because we guilted rich people into giving us food. It may be a battle to seek equality, but it's not just about guilting, pleasure or shaming. Don't get me wrong, sometimes it is. In the long-run, it's about changing minds though.
I do see that your average woman walks around with a good degree more feer than your average man. A large part of that is because society has been more accepting of rape/sexual assault/violence against women than is morally acceptable. That is changing, though and with it, the thought process of potential rapists/assaulters will change as well. If the potential cost is too high, they will act differently.
Also, I never said that religion created the jungle. I said it perpetuates the jungle because it benefits from it.
[deleted] · -5 points · Posted at 20:47:09 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)*
I invite you to prove that.
Yes, you could say that. But I would probably stand a better chance of forcing a rich person to give me food than you would. But I bet, if you have a tight little ass, that you'd be better at convincing them to than I would.
Ok so outside of guilt and pleasure (i.e. woman's version of pain and sexual pleasure or the hope of sexual pleasure) what else is there? When you say changing minds, what do you mean? A man knows already it is in his best interest to treat women with respect, if not for the knowledge that she will marshal other male forces against her if he fails to, he also has probably great benefit from doing so (except for poor weak schmucks like Aziz Anzari who dared believe for a moment that girl wanted him for something other than his fame and fortune).
But you know what's funny? That's both a rational and irrational fear. Rational because they know men are stronger. But irrational because they SHOULD know that 2 men are stronger than one and that one little scream will send much more than 2 men running to her rescue.
Wholeheartedly disagree. Total horseshit comment. And you were doing so well too :)
The cost of real rape has been high for quite some time. Unfortunately we are starting to broaden the definition past the point of recognition in some cases and men are getting confused about when and how they need to step up and defend their women. Ideas about consent have drastically changed as of late and thrown the whole system completely out of wack, in my opinion, just to justify the existence of certain movements who outlived their usefulness decades ago (feminism and marxism/identity politics). Men used to string rapists up by the neck, but with an ever expanding definition of rape, they're starting to wonder if their normal sexual encounters qualify and they're becoming more and more skeptical of rape claims every day, which frankly, is fair.
Well you'd still be wrong. The jungle is the living thing here. Religion isn't a living thing. It's the stories we tell about the jungle to help us understand how it works. "Religion" doesn't benefit from "perpetuating the jungle" anymore than Santa Clause benefits from "perpetuating" Christmas. It's nonsensical.
ExApologist · 8 points · Posted at 22:12:24 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
While there are lots of things to respond to here, I will not. After looking at your comment history, I see your a troll looking for some kind of rise out of belittling and attacking others. Enjoy.
[deleted] · -1 points · Posted at 22:14:43 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)*
Oh. Well that's too bad. I thought you were doing great.
Well, I had fun while it lasted.
*edit - I will say though, this is becoming a favorite tactic of mine from people who are losing a debate on reddit. Ahem. "I have read your comment history and determined you to be a troll. Therefore I shall declare victory in this interaction and walk away having my dignity in tact. According to me."
Actually, declaring victory and walking away is a GREAT tactic. In the Greek treatise, The Art of Controversy, it goes into some pretty good detail on this one. I assure you, when I've had my ass handed to me the way you and your little friends have today, I have made use of it as well. So I do not blame you. Take your leave :)
yeahletstrythisagain · 7 points · Posted at 21:47:21 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
What is your thought process behind belittling and insulting those who try to engage you in conversation, r/mythoughtsprocess? I can't see it being a rational choice because it results in both the person you're responding to and observers of the conversation being even less likely to be persuaded by you. So is it an emotional response? You get so uncomfortable and angry with people challenging your worldview that you can't help but lash out? Or are you socially stunted and incapable of courtesy? Are you so arrogant in your opinions that you see every conversation as solely an opportunity to score imaginary debate points that only you care about (or even agree with)? Do you still find value in "trolling for lolz" or trying to provoke others just so you can say "you mad, bro?" even though most adults pity and disregard you for it?
You said above that you don't feel the need to change how you speak but for your own sake I hope you can someday grow out of this "edgy" phase and learn to interact with others sincerely and kindly. I'm sure you will respond to this comment with vitriol if you bother to respond at all, but I hope you can take this comment in the spirit in which it was given. If the downvotes weren't enough of an indication of just how clearly you are failing to accomplish anything of value, maybe this comment will inform you of the thought process of everyone else reading this thread.
[deleted] · -1 points · Posted at 22:11:14 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Aw. You wrote that joke just for me :)
Well it's not always about persuasion. Sometimes it's about venting. Sometimes it's about giving others who already agree with me a voice. Some words that match the thoughts/feelings they've had on a topic but were unable to articulate. We talk and debate for many different reasons than just persuasion. You should know that. Otherwise why would you have started out your reply to me with your own insult?
Is what an emotional response? My replies? It seems you're the one having an emotional response here, no?
You mean "someone disagrees with me and doesn't seem to have a good reason for that disagreement so I let them know?" Is this your tactic then? You deflect from the conversation at hand and attack he tone? You're the tone police?
It's probably that :)
You have a lot of questions, don't ya? :)
Sincerity. Yeah that's what I detect from you. Genuine concern for me. You're not a hypocrite at all. This whole post was super uplifting, respectful, and helpful, and definitely not from a place of good old fashioned butt-hurt.
Oh God, I love that tactic. Dare them to respond. That way, whether they do or they don't, they feel like somehow you made them do it. Oh I like that one.
Oh...friend. I think I do. I really think I do. I appreciate you coming down from that perch to correct me. You don't know what it means to me.
If people are capable of forming an argument, and of elucidating what exactly it is about one of my posts that they dislike (other than tone of course), then by all means they may speak up. If you go about your life forming your opinions based on their popularity, literally manifested in VOTES on reddit, then I pity you.
Your post is simply a personal attack because you know you'll get your ass handed to you on the subject matter at hand. You may go back to the hole in that tree you came down from now. Come back when you have an actual topic to discuss (other than me and my tone, of course).
yeahletstrythisagain · 6 points · Posted at 22:56:25 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
My comment wasn't a personal attack but I can see why you would feel that way. I'm sorry you don't believe my sincerity because I was trying to help you. Contrary to your assumption, I'm actually not emotionally invested in this debate as a third party observer. None of your arguments have offended me. How could they? They rely on such a bleak and tired philosophy of life as to become a parody of themselves.
To clarify the purpose of my comment as it appears it was not clear to you: I'm not tone policing, I'm critiquing your rhetoric. As you fail to provide any evidence for your claims, all you have is rhetoric. My comment was an explanation of why your rhetoric fails. I was challenging you to explicate your reasons for using such an inferior rhetorical tactic. As predicted, in your response you fell back on the exact tactics I critiqued; however, your point about there being other reasons for debate besides persuasion is well-taken. If your only aim in this thread was to vent your frustration, then the rhetorical devices of petty insults and condescension are more understandable if still small-minded. Also, I apologize my joke about your username was insulting. It was not intended as such.
Others in this thread have made counterpoints to your claims and I will leave that to them as I don't think another voice in the melee of "nuh uh" and "yes huh" would do much good. If you perceive that as cowering before the prospect of your promised "ass-handing" then you're welcome to. My ego isn't wrapped up in your perception of me or my intentions.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 23:09:34 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Did you just fart?
yeahletstrythisagain · 1 points · Posted at 23:15:01 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Actually made me chuckle a little. Good talk, buddy. Good talk.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 23:15:17 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
;)
Lilyofspades · 8 points · Posted at 20:01:51 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Oh relax. You are spending too much time on the internet.
[deleted] · -1 points · Posted at 20:03:40 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
lol you're right :)
berry-bostwick · 6 points · Posted at 22:21:00 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
This reads more like an atomic fedora tip than an atomic eyeroll.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 22:21:27 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
LOL
[deleted] · 4 points · Posted at 20:07:44 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. Still exists, BTW.
[deleted] · -6 points · Posted at 20:18:04 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
That organization just furthers my point. Take me to them and let us set up a contest. Let us see who among them is the strongest--the greatest warrior. Let's set up a tournament and see who wins.
Or do the women vastly outnumber the men somehow?
Unless their women are giants and their men scrawny and weak, or unless they kill ten boys for every one they let live, then that society has a matriarchal order because they taught boys it should be so.
If those boys/men every got another idea in their heads, that matriarchal order would end overnight.
The fact that women have so effectively convinced the men to let them be in charge in that society doesn't disprove my claim at all. In fact, it bolsters it. It shows wherein women's true power lies.
olivethedoge · 4 points · Posted at 00:28:50 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
Explain to me please then why you are still alive and some larger man has not killed you yet? Since that is the natural order.
[deleted] · -1 points · Posted at 01:12:03 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
God tell me you're joking.
olivethedoge · 4 points · Posted at 11:58:22 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
Well sort of, yeah. Apparently all human society is based on size and strength discrepancy and the ability of larger people to kill smaller people . But wherever you go there is always some guy bigger and stronger than you so I'm not real sure how this society works. Are men exempt from the size and strength rule? Do you just wrestle for status ? What about old guys, that used to be big and strong but now they aren't, I guess a younger guy just takes his stuff now? Really, most young women could probably take his stuff too so I guess the elderly are in trouble. What about guns? I mean it doesn't really matter how big you are if someone shoots you so that's a bit of an equalizer, you don't need man hands to shoot a gun. Like where is this imaginary natural order world any way?
[deleted] · 0 points · Posted at 15:03:19 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)*
It's everywhere all the time in everything. Here's a great video/study by National Geographic that illustrates it. Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF0UC7VTx1A
olivethedoge · 1 points · Posted at 00:46:11 on January 26, 2018 · (Permalink)
Does this address my concern for the safety of smaller men?
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 01:24:51 on January 26, 2018 · (Permalink)
You're cute.
olivethedoge · 2 points · Posted at 14:18:35 on January 26, 2018 · (Permalink)
Oh never mind I see this is just some red piller nonsense.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 15:10:18 on January 26, 2018 · (Permalink)
Probably
olivethedoge · 1 points · Posted at 14:17:48 on January 26, 2018 · (Permalink)
Because even the most cursory look around shows that physical size and strength does not equate very often to power in human society nor in animal ones.
[deleted] · 7 points · Posted at 19:53:07 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
I guess we're going to have to invent new religions now that women can and do use weapons and women can and do control their own sexuality and reproduction as well as have access to wealth production. I don't quibble with your description of the past, sarcastic as it sounds and not 100% on the mark. But a new world is coming, my friend. It's a world where women have real power. Let's hope we wield it with more wisdom than have the men. The patriarchy party is coming to an end.
[deleted] · -3 points · Posted at 19:59:53 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)*
I hate to break it to you, my friend, but female power has never been real. A woman's power is found in her ability to get men to take pity upon her. All power that women yield today is lent them by generous men who know they could otherwise squash them like bugs if they really wanted to. It's why women are still treated like children in the sexual marketplace. The right to vote: granted by well-meaning men. The right to work: the same. That shiny promotion you got? Sure, you deserved it. You proved your merit and some man said "she could make life easier for me" and put you "in charge." Or said to himself "maybe if I give her X, she'll let me fuck her."
This is not a new day. Sure technology and weaponry may become more accessible to women, but women aren't suddenly going to flood the world's militaries or get crazy jacked up on steroids. They aren't all suddenly going to like going through basic training (something they decry as sexist anyway).
No, a woman's social and economic power is found in her ability to guilt men into giving her a turn or into seducing them into doing so. It has always been the case and always will be.
If tomorrow the men of the world became unconvinced of woman's equal place in it, they could enslave all of them in seconds, beat them into submission, rape them if they so chose, and women would submit within the hour, or die.
Why doesn't that happen though? Because men love women. They always have and they always will. And they will always be subject to the guilt and to the mercy and to kindness that women inspire in them.
[deleted] · 6 points · Posted at 20:33:21 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
A woman's power is not real as long as the majority of men choose not to recognize their personhood or as long as they cannot protect their own bodies. I think we'll win on both accounts. So I guess it all hangs on whether you think men are rational or irrational. Some are, some aren't. But I think the time when women can protect the boundaries of their own bodies will be the end of total male dominance and a more equitable society for the reasons you state---many men can't do without the female sex. I think women will never go back. It's personal integrity or die. I could be wrong. And I trust that there are more men who are human than there are men who are just animals. You say men love women. Do they love women, or their bodies? That's two separate things. So women have two advantages here. First, they will own their bodies (and you debate that, I see) and second, many men are rational and see women as humans. So we may win over the irrational with our bodies, and we may at least gain equal footing with the rational men, which is all we want, I'm guessing. So we'll see how this all plays out.
[deleted] · -1 points · Posted at 20:38:30 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Correct.
Be my guest. I think you already win on one account. I hope someday something will make it so that women can also protect themselves autonomously without needing to marshal the forces of men.
Prove it.
I don't debate that. I question it. But I too hope for it.
It's debatable whether seeing women as humans is "rational" or not. It doesn't really seem like the right word in this context but ok. But I like the rest of what you're saying.
I do hope women can come to defend themselves against the undesirables someday :) And I don't believe women will ever become undesirable to men. Technology and the future will deal with these issues in unforeseen and multifarious ways, I'm sure. I'm looking forward to seeing how it goes.
[deleted] · 2 points · Posted at 20:57:46 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
I guess we'll see how things go as time passes.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 20:58:54 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Fingers crossed that it goes well for everyone.
ExApologist · 3 points · Posted at 20:03:45 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
While some of your premises are true, I think you're off in your analysis. Also, all answers are in reference to western/European-based culture. other cultures don't have such an emphasis on the patriarchy. For example, in Navajo culture ownership belonged to the women, who could "divorce" (using our term) by just putting the man's belongings on the front step. Matriarchal societies do/did exist, although they are/were the minority.
First, yes we do pattern our religion after our society, but it's a very slow process. Religion still has a huge role to play in modern society, even though the theology is based on society many years ago (hundreds or thousands) and seeks to perpetuate those societal norms.
Second, in western culture, men took charge because (on average) they were physically stronger than women. That has no bearing today, where placement in society is more based on brains/education than brawn (at least the parts not based on pure luck). Again, religion/patriarchy is pushing to maintain something that is antiquated.
Third, yes, men can impregnate lots of women, while each child is a long-term commitment for a woman. The second half doesn't hold, though. Some women have chosen to share a man, rather than be alone, much because of the importance placed on penishood in society. Were so much not dependent on whether you are male or not, women would not have made the same choice.
I agree on the last part, and I think it's worse than that. We have it in religion so we don't have to justify to children and they will accept it without question. I mean, "God said so".
[deleted] · 0 points · Posted at 20:05:30 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Good talk :)
Shaktiser · 4 points · Posted at 21:02:41 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
You both have over simplified the concept of patriarchal societies, which are not always born from brute force. Cultural norms have an enormous impact on behavior. Very little force has been applied to a good number of us when we were all TBM's. The indoctrination and cover up of truth kept us in the church for the years we were in the church, not physical force. The same applies to patriarchal societies. I find your comments about women using guilt/seduction to get what they want from men not supported by science but by stereotypical thinking. I am sure you can find examples of this being done but to apply this to ALL of women and the basis in which patriarchal societies are made? Nonsense. I find that perhaps you both need to study up on patriarchal/ matriarchal societies more before you make these kind of justifications for the status quo. It appears you have internalized the justifications for a patriarchal society instead of using what research findings have actually found on the numerous types of societies which have existed, patriarchy being one of them. For example there are numerous books written and studies done that address the rise of patriarchal societies with the rise of capitalism and capitalism 's need to work under patriarchy in order to sustain itself.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 21:19:11 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
Strawman. Not my claim. My claim is that whether a society is patriarchal or matriarchal is irrelevant. Whether brute force is utilized for passed on, also irrelevant. The reality is that the threat of that brute force is always in play within any society created by the human animal. Whether men are convinced to lay violence aside or not, violence is always a consideration, both biologically, and societally. As I said, were men to suddenly desire it (and they would not, because they love women) they could enslave them instantly and strip of them of all their power and authority within society. Instantly. This is not debatable. This is self evident. There isn't much more to discuss. But I know you'll try. So here we go.
No shit.
Again, no shit. You're arguing with yourself here.
Yeah. See this is what happens when someone comes in with their own idea of what's going on, forms their own premise, and then skips on down the road arguing with themselves. Nobody is disagreeing with anything you just said. Nobody.
Neat.
Then what are you arguing about?
Can you reread that sentence to yourself and ask yourself if it makes sense? Because I don't know what the fuck you just tried to say. Again I'm not making an argument about how patriarchal societies form. I'm drawing attention to the biological reality that is always present regardless of the type of society that springs up around it.
I could continue to go through your post but I think at this point it's obvious that you just need to accept a new premise, and THEN if you have something you think you want to argue, come back with THAT, and we can argue. But right now, as I've said already, you're not arguing against any point that I have made so this seems pointless.
Shaktiser · 5 points · Posted at 22:03:31 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
As a previous comment stated...you seem really angry when someone disagrees with your comments. You make all kinds of assumptions about men and women that are not backed by research. So men are bigger and stronger than women on average so that is the basis for all your ideas on patriarchy? Sorry, your claims are over simplified and not supported by the majority of research published on the matter. All your responses to my first comment are just your opinions! Don't make them more than that because they aren't factually sound. Sorry bro, don't agree with most of your comments and I'm gonna leave it at that.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 22:20:45 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
You know, I like this debate tactic too. George W. Bush used it while debating Gore and it worked brilliantly. Whatever Gore said, no matter good his point, Bushy would come back with "My opponent is just so negative. He just sees the world with a glass half empty view." Worked like a charm. Good on you for trying it.
Really? Tell you what. Go watch the Olympics in a few days, and let me know how in how many sports they have men competing against women. That SHOULD provide you with some pretty decent data. Maybe.
Um. No. Not even close. Did you just get here?
Yeah. Which ones?
Really? Which ones? Which can't be verified by anyone with one working set of eyes?
Yeah, you would leave it at that. Come back to me with that research that negates the claims you think I'm making whenever you have a minute, k?
[deleted] · 0 points · Posted at 21:07:46 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
My favorite kind of post. The "I'm not actually going to say anything--I'm just going to imply I have some greater knowledge on the subject and invite you to seek the greater light and knowledge I clearly possess without actually going into it. I have other tasks to attend to now. Good day!"
Yes, my favorite kind of post indeed. A fairy god mother post. Thank you for stopping by! Thank you for just gracing us with a moment of your presence! I will always remember you!
LOL
Shaktiser · 5 points · Posted at 21:10:48 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
I am not doing the research for you. Great reply....deflect...deflect...deflect when someone tells you to back up your claims with research not stereotypes.
[deleted] · 0 points · Posted at 21:20:45 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
You may see my other reply to your outrageous and unfounded strawman comment that is so far in left field you shouldn't have even bothered showing up to play.
"Deflect, deflect, deflect." Indeed.
Come back and argue with ME, not with the strawman you pieced together from fragments of this conversation, and I'll gladly keep talking with you.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 05:47:53 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
I like the challenge of thought. I agree that nature has put man above woman due to physical superiority. Religion has been used to tell that story and also to control it.
Humans have been able to move past the amygdala into the prefrontal cortex resulting in a diminished influence of physical superiority.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 15:14:35 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
Really what has happened in society is we've just shifted the focus of physical superiority from the individual to the group. When push comes to shove in our society we call the cops. The cops are a bunch of big guys with guns that have society's permission to force any individual or group of individuals to physically submit.
Since women have as much access to cops as men do they can feel a lot safer moving about through society than they could otherwise. But as many of them will attest, with their cries of "rape culture" and complaints of cat calling, we still have some more to go before they feel completely at ease in their surroundings. They detect what I'm referring to instinctively. They sense that natural order and they know it's a threat. But, they can scream, they have cell phones so they can call cops, they can marshal the forces of men to their aid much quicker and easier than they could pre-civilization and pre-technology, and if they're smart, they'll also carry some form of self-protection like a gun, pepper spray, mace, or a rape whistle.
The jungle doesn't go away because it gets smarter.
w-t-fluff · -4 points · Posted at 20:54:44 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
You should probably clarify if MORmON God was a woman.
I'm sure humans have invented other gods that aren't quite as big of a prick as MORmON god is, with the polygamy and all at least.
w-t-fluff · 1 points · Posted at 16:10:37 on January 26, 2018 · (Permalink)
Downvoted for pointing out that "mormon god" is a prick.
That's quite interesting on this sub...
JosefTheFritzl · -2 points · Posted at 23:32:35 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
That doesn't sound that bad; no responsibility, no obligation. Sure I can't be prophet but who wants that aggravation? Would sound even less bad if that's how you'd always been taught when growing up as a kid.
I like to think about hypotheticals like, "What if people made kids the same way wasps do?" Like a pregnant lady had to go out and hunt down a moose and implant an egg in it, that sort of thing. Right now that seems so alien and bizarre, but I bet you if that's just how humans had always been it wound seem totally reasonable and carrying a baby in a placenta in your tummy would seem bizarre and alien.
So I can't really look at this reversed situation through my eyes with any authenticity, because I'm looking at it through my 'Male God' eyes and will naturally find it unsettling and odd without having access to genuine 'Woman God' eyes to see it through.
thatmarlergirl · 3 points · Posted at 05:26:41 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
A few rhetorical questions: Have you ever felt or been entirely redundant? Was your future planned for you? Were you able to choose your current role in life?
By default, LDS women are not given the opportunity to make these decisions of their own free will. It isn't "nice" to not have responsibility.
That's like saying it is "nice" to be a slave because they don't have to worry about food or housing. Arranged marriages are "nice" because you don't have to deal with the pressure of finding a compatible partner. It's "nice" to be a woman because you don't have to deal with the obligations of being the man of the house.
[deleted] · -8 points · Posted at 21:33:01 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
[deleted]
dwindlers · 4 points · Posted at 00:45:25 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
Care to elaborate on your stereotypes?
[deleted] · 0 points · Posted at 23:06:20 on January 24, 2018 · (Permalink)
[deleted]
SaveVenezuela · 3 points · Posted at 02:02:05 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
Ask Emma how she felt about it. Women are human beings first and foremost. If my wife showed up with an eighteen year old stud muffin that she was going to marry and have sex with it would hurt because I am human . Racism, misogyny, prejudice cause pain because we are human. We have are an evolving species , physically and socially. Racism causes pain to others , misogyny causes pain to others, any group that makes another group subservient because of their gender or race causes pain because we are human.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 02:27:17 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
[deleted]
SaveVenezuela · 1 points · Posted at 02:40:02 on January 25, 2018 · (Permalink)
Whoops my bad, Good post , now I understand.