I didn't want to hijack the other thread but I thought his feelings were quite shocking. According to him, men are not financially supporting their families, and failing to lead. I guess that there are a lot of TBM women who have been disappointed and let down by their husbands. Maybe after being told their entire lives that their value was as a wife and mother they find it difficult to turn a 180 and provide the money their family needs to survive. As well as continuing to do all the cooking, cleaning and child raising. Let alone being pregnant. Why are these men being so worthless? Haven't they been raised to take that role? Sad. Just sad.

This speaks volumes of why girls should be raised to be more independent and given more opportunities to learn finances and focus more on their own careers. They would be in better shape to pick up the slack as these men are obviously too incompetent to hold up their end in a family. It's too bad that Bishops are not given any training to be of any substantive help to these women. But then again, who is to say that they are not one of the losers too? But that is what women are told over and over. Go to your Bishop. If your husband lets you down, that is who you turn to.

He sure does make a strong case for all of us to make sure that our girls are getting the right kind of education and support so they are not stuck with one of these losers. That they can provide, in all ways, for themselves and their kids. Lessons in taxes, how credit cards really work, building and maintaining a good credit rating instead of home making and child care. Instead of making cookies for those boys that are just going to turn out to be losers and let them down.

Thank you macaRomney for reminding us to provide our girls with the skills they will need so the next generation does not end up dependent on these losers. Quite nice of you :)


"Perhaps it's the optimist in me, but I do think that churches want their constituents to develop personal moral autonomy. I hear of my relatives who are bishops who don't like having to sit and listen to Sister So'n'so whine about what to do, always needing financial help (and moral too). Most of these women aren't looking to their husbands for direction. There is an epidemic of needy sisters in every ward, every welfare office, and every therapist operation, but there is an answer to societies ills.

I suppose it boils down to the Bible adage that men are the head of women, the Lord of Women, as Paul described. If women look to men for direction in moral questions half the battle is won. They'd have less questions and more answers."

Re: LDS sexual impropriety, externalization of the locus of moral control macaRomney
Date: October 18, 2020 08:58PM

I see my reply to macaRomney in the other thread was deleted.

I'm not sure that's fair. What he throws around in that post is extraordinarily misogynistic, which is ostensibly against the rules. Sometimes we are told that this is an opportunity for the bigots to learn some common sense, but whom are we kidding? What evidence is there that our troglodytes learn anything?

Anyway, I agree with you. macaRomney thinks women should submit to men. Can you imagine that? Subjugating a human being to someone who thinks the quadratic equation is useless and that education should promulgate Manifest Destiny, American Exceptionalism, and the superiority of men over women. What's left of the US would collapse under the weight of his amplified ignorance.

Just a guess but name calling (asshole) is against the rules.

I'm sure that's right, Susan. And I know you aren't the enforcer anymore.

I do wish, however, that the admins would recognize that calling women the things macaRomney does, or minorities the things some others do, are every bit as offensive as cursing; in fact, more so. I also wonder why the prohibitions on misogyny and racism are not enforced.

Again, I don't expect a reply from you. I'm just using your post as an opportunity to raise the question.

there are 63 who earn an associates degree
there are 74 men who graduate college
there are 79 men in the top 10% of their high school class.
there are 180 men who abuse drugs, 200 men who abuse alcohol.
there are 1,000 in adult correctional systems, 1,333 in Federal prison.

Here's the table. Read it and weep. Or gloat. Or whatever.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-for-every-100-girls-women/

I'm trying to understand your point.

macaRomney thinks women are inferior to men and should learn to obey men. The data you provide indicates that women are not inferior to men. Is that what you want us to infer?

These are the data points which dispute the women's victimization argument. With so many educational, occupational, and sociological advances, how is it they are "oppressed?" The chart doesn't argue that women are superior, just that as men (and masculinity) have been denigrated and often discriminated against, women have (on a broad scale) surpassed them (us) in many vital categories.

So quit yer bitchin! (/s)

His point, I think, can be found beneath the table:

"boys and men are faring much worse than girls and women. And yet despite the fact that boys and men are at so much greater risk than girls and women on so many different measures, those significant gender disparities that disproportionately and adversely affect men get almost no attention. In fact, it’s girls and women who get a disproportionate amount of attention, resources, and financial support"

…and it continues on.

Something, IOW, that Free Man might post to show that women have it so much better than men, and that men are terribly neglected.

I know. I was trying to smoke caffiend out.

I frankly think there are elements of the educational system that disadvantage boys. At the risk of oversimplification, school is taught by women for women. So there is nuance here.

But another way to look at that table is that girls are more diligent students than boys, which I think is generally true through high school; and that all that diagnosing done in school for boys implies, by dint of the ADA, that the schools must provide assistance to them. Thus the diagnoses represent not discrimination against males but rather the degree to which society and schools are financially and otherwise assisting them. In other words, the boys are getting more resources.

The data isn't perfect in that regard, but it surely does not present the uniform picture of male disadvantage that either the author or caffiend claim.

Just that there's been a paradigm shift. Explain it however you want, females are not the disadvantaged demographic anymore. It used to be that girls surpassed boys in standardized tests up through middle school, at which point boys caught up, and then they sorted them out generally (girls excelling in verbal, boys generally in STEM), and individually.

What's happened in the last few decades is that the educational establishment has been reoriented to propel females to move into various STEM categories. Any opposition to this agenda has been fiercely opposed, as Larry Summers learned to his regret. But there hasn't been a corresponding effort to support male achievement, because they had all the advantages, right? Hence, they have fallen behind, even as our overall educational standards have seriously deteriorated, relative to other 1st world nations.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2020 02:59AM by caffiend.

You mischaracterize Summers' mistake. He did not challenge efforts to support women; what he did was say that researchers should spend more effort finding out why women are worse at STEM than men.

It was an honest mistake, simply a crass political misstatement of the sort that a man of his stature should have known not to make, and I thought the reaction was excessively harsh. But it is important to note that he implied that women were genetically inferior to men with regard to science and technology.

THAT was his error, not questioning whether society should be offering extra help to anyone.

> Just that there's been a paradigm shift. Explain
> it however you want, females are not the
> disadvantaged demographic anymore.

There are a lot of assumptions in that passage. What we know is that women are doing better than men on several dimensions. Does that mean that women are no longer "the" disadvantaged group, with "the" implying that men now are? Or is it that neither group is now disadvantaged and the results are now merit-based? My point is that you seem to be arguing that society should engineer an equal outcome for the genders, which is not generally how you treat these matters.


----------------
> It used to be
> that girls surpassed boys in standardized tests up
> through middle school, at which point boys caught
> up, and then they sorted them out generally (girls
> excelling in verbal, boys generally in STEM), and
> individually.

Yes. And there is little evidence to suggest that was the appropriate outcome given the relative genetic endowments.


-------------------
> What's happened in the last few decades is that
> the educational establishment has been reoriented
> to propel females to move into various STEM
> categories... But there hasn't been a corresponding
> effort to support male achievement, because they
> had all the advantages, right?

But the table to which you linked indicated a whole range of supports that are available to boys--learning disorder support, etc--that were not available 30 years ago. So what is the net outcome for the distribution of resources using reliable data? I haven't seen it, nor have you produced it, so it is surely premature to pronounce a judgment.


------------------------
> Hence, they have
> fallen behind, even as our overall educational
> standards have seriously deteriorated, relative to
> other 1st world nations.

This reads like a claim that women's improved performances have driven overall standards down. Is that really what you want to say? Because to some of us the better argument for falling educational standards is the dramatic curtailment in public spending on education that has occurred since the GOP shifted from the promotion of educational investment to an inordinate fondness for unfunded tax cuts.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> There are a lot of assumptions in that passage.

No, there's a lot of painful data in the chart. Just that.

My point is that you
> seem to be arguing that society should engineer an
> equal outcome for the genders, which is not
> generally how you treat these matters.

You know me better than that. Advancing female participation has become a sacred, unassailable cause. Nobody said "we've achieved parity!" so the female advantage was allowed to grow unimpeded to the point of overcompensation. The principle is equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
>
> But the table to which you linked indicated a
> whole range of supports that are available to
> boys--learning disorder support, etc--that were
> not available 30 years ago.

The table pointed out disparities, not remedies. My understanding is that boys are more likely to be medicated and pacified, rather than molding and channeling their youthful energies in dynamic, creative ways.
> ------------------------

>
> This reads like a claim that women's improved
> performances have driven overall standards down.
> Is that really what you want to say?

Partially. Resources and attention have been lavished on female programs to male disadvantage. That is one of many factors. You should know, LW, I usually avoid single-factor explanations for complex problems.


Because to
> some of us the better argument for falling
> educational standards is the dramatic curtailment
> in public spending on education that has occurred
> since the GOP shifted from the promotion of
> educational investment to an inordinate fondness
> for unfunded tax cuts.

Ah, typical of liberalism, it comes down to not enough money. When a program is failing, it's always insufficient funding. Whether it be municipal spending or education budging, you typically find that conservative jurisdictions get more bang for fewer bucks: New Hampshire vs. Massachusetts serve as an excellent demonstration of better performance with fewer taxpayer dollars.

Now, It's late, and I have to prepare for my interview tomorrow. I'm applying for the position of Associate Deputy 2nd Assistant Under Secretary of Educational Transitional Intersectionalty and Inclusion, a nice job that pays $187,000 a year. Wish me luck!

:-)

This is not germane to the discussion. This is gen pop not women who are whining to bishops/mormon.

OK. We're losers.
Now what.

Now that that is established, I think you and I need to play more high-stakes poker.

Not without my Ninja Foodi.

Yes, yes. You can wager that too if you wish.

My mom and dad had that kind of marriage. It was very common among the WWII generation. My mom stayed home as a traditional SAHM. My dad earned the living, paid the bills, managed the investments, handled repairs, etc.

When my dad died, my mom was in her 40s. And bless her, but she had no idea how to be fully functioning as an adult. She was in no way trained to earn a good wage. She had no idea how to handle finances, and her lack of knowledge about investments hurt her badly in the following years. She was so stunned by the loss of her husband, upon whom she fully depended, that she descended into a depression that lasted for many, many years.

I think even my dad realized toward the end of his life that this model turned out to be a failure. It does no one any good for the wife to be weak and dependent. Both my mom and dad had insisted that I go to college to gain a skill so that if I ever needed to support myself or my family, I could. My parents realized that women need options.

College also taught me to think for myself. Working at responsible jobs taught me to be self-sufficient. I own my own home, have my own (very good) credit, and have planned what should be a secure retirement. Sure, I ask my older brother for advice or help sometimes, but I also ask my sister-in-law for advice or help, as family members do.

In my experience, strong, intelligent, capable men like strong, intelligent, capable women.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2020 07:02PM by summer.

When I moved to the northern Great Plains, I was still TBM, and decided to sell the small amount of stored wheat that I had. I mean taking wheat to the Great Plains just seemed silly.

A married woman, fortyish, in the ward agreed to purchase it. She came over with a checkbook, and I had to show her how to write a check. She had never written one. She was afraid she would go to jail if she did it wrong. That is not hyperbole. She was semi-terrified.

I would consider a person like that to be so culturally hobbled, that it constituted a disability.

This was the late 1970s.

I was talking recently with a young woman, 23, who is a few credits short of her MS in pharmacology. I was mentioning how I have to get my tax prepayments sent off soon. Since she didn't follow, I explained that since none of my income comes from a paycheck, with tax deductions, I have to prepay quarterly.

To get to the point, she didn't realize that most of her paycheck deductions are the government taking her taxes out.

Worse: I asked her whose money was it when she filed and got her tax refund. She did not realize that was HER money, what she was forced to overpay to the IRS. She thought it was something the government gave her.

In another thread, LW asserts that the dumbing down of American education is because of insufficient government funding. I learned the basic practice of maintaining a checking account and how interest works (and costs) in junior high! (Early 60s.) My anecdote isn't meant to prove, but to illustrate how systemic this is.

Needless to say, this being Massachusetts and all, she expects to vote for the candidate(s) she "feels" will better provide for her.

caffiend, that's the conservative wishful thinking that has caused so much trouble.

Conservatives used to think balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility were key. Then came the Laffer Curve, the notion that too high a tax rate reduces tax revenues. It was obviously correct. If you tax an activity at 100%, the volume of that activity drops to zero and you get no taxes. Obviously the government makes more money if the tax rate is cut to 60% or 40% or even 20%. But if you cut the rate to zero, you earn no revenues, so the Laffer insight is only valid within a certain range.

The problem is that the Curve gave conservatives an excuse to cut rates far too low to maximize government revenues. It became a religion, a moral justification for ignoring budgetary consequences altogether. As a result, the budget deficit exploded in the 1980s and subsequently and we now have a massive national debt.

You are doing the same thing now, in reverse, with regard to education. Waste, waste, you lament in an effort to justify cutting education spending. The upshot in places like California is that per-capita spending on public education fell from the top several in the US to about the bottom 12 or 13. The conservative mantra tells us that that should not harm the quality of education but of course it did. Massively.

The same is true nationally. If American spending is below the average of the best other countries and American standards are likewise below the average, it becomes hard to deny a correlation. It becomes even more difficult to argue that further cuts will make Sally, Dick and Jane better at algebra.

That's the problem with these religious principles: God give me lower taxes, I pray, and stop wasting money on those lazy children. That faith ends in national disaster: a country awash in debt with rising generations who can't compete internationally. The odds that the US is spending too much on education are, I believe, vanishingly small.

>>In another thread, LW asserts that the dumbing down of American education is because of insufficient government funding. I learned the basic practice of maintaining a checking account and how interest works (and costs) in junior high! (Early 60s.) My anecdote isn't meant to prove, but to illustrate how systemic this is.

What school systems choose to teach or not teach can often go in or out of fashion. I have always advocated for consumer education and consumer economics. If you feel strongly about it as well, attend a local school board meeting and speak to the board about it. Post your opinion on community online sites that cover education issues to rally community support. Write letters to the editor of your local newspaper. I think that almost all teachers would support your efforts.

Good grief. She is only 23. I was just learning all about investments, taxes and business when I was 23. I had to teach myself because it wasn't part of what I was studying. Give her some time. I'll bet she knows more about pharmacology than you do.

Recovering From Macaromney

You're kidding, right? If sexism and patriarchy aren't related to Mormonism and RFM, I don't know what is.

I am now thinking I would have made a sexy patriarch!

Or a pretty much sexy anything, if I may be permitted to make a personal comment.

Far be it for me to attempt to stifle meaningful dialogue!

LOL

Get a room, you two. Please get a room.

Uh, saucie...

Gladys knew that, the Mynx!

More of a vixen, I'd think.

Personal attacks aren't allowed. We are asked to send a report to Admin if we see one. Of course, "attack" is sometimes subject to interpretation. People see things differently. But hopefully we try hard to be at least civil to each other.

Hi Susan, I guess your easily offended, that was like a 4 line post I wrote a few days ago that wasn't anything significant. I'm surprised the other posters on the board are interested in this, So I'll respond (not very excitedly). Since you didn't state what post it was I assume it's this link? If not then clarify.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2340332,2340408#msg-2340408

I don't think men are losers, that's an interesting conclusion to come to? I wasn't especially stating my own beliefs but what I've heard around from people I know in Utah who are actually apart of Mormonism, the leadership that actually have these conversations, it's what they are talking about if your not aware of that? Maybe you should get out and actually talk to some people who think differently than you do, and see what their perspectives actually are. Even mormons (gasp!).

What people believe isn't really important it's what they do. So why do you care about what I think, it doesn't affect you or anyone at all. Anyway, have a nice day.

I think her point was that when men are weak and incapable of interacting with women on an equal basis, they often appeal to outside authority to compel an outcome they can't achieve on their own. It's pathetic but it's common.

Your key passage was

"I suppose it boils down to the Bible adage that men are the head of women, the Lord of Women, as Paul described. If women look to men for direction in moral questions half the battle is won. They'd have less questions and more answers."

You claim now that "I wasn't especially stating my own beliefs," but there was no such equivocation in your original post. Susan read you correctly.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What people believe isn't really important it's
> what they do. So why do you care about what I
> think, it doesn't affect you or anyone at all.
> Anyway, have a nice day.

As a Mormon I believed one thing and did another as a way to cope. It is the Packer's "Fake it (testimony) until you make it" argument.

I hope your ego got all the good feels in getting people to care what you think. There is a reason for getting people to respond to your words and then asking them why they care. It says all it needs to in why you care.

I hope you have a nice day. Anonymity veils a lot of information useful in determining whether responding to you or not would make me feel good to. One thing I know is I'm having a good day and I wish that other do as well. It is another day living without believing one thing and doing another.

EB: "It is another day living without believing one thing and doing another."

Profound, Mr. Berry Sir.

Hope you're having a good one.

macaRomney said:

"Maybe you should get out and actually talk to some people who think differently than you do, and see what their perspectives actually are. Even mormons (gasp!)."

There is a fairly small chance, I'd guess, of BICs who are now ex-LDS, having much desire to talk to Mormons. I think they know all they need to know about the Mormon Church which is a clue about why they are ex-members.

We all have the right (at least in our respective countries so far) to speak our minds, especially concerning our own experiences, thoughts, conclusions and opinions.

Our experiences shape our decisions, actions and beliefs. If Mormon leaders cared about their members, and even those who have left the fold, they would ask and listen and perhaps adapt to realities. But not too many of us are holding our breath on that one.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2020 05:32PM by Nightingale.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Susan, I guess your easily offended, that was
> like a 4 line post I wrote a few days ago that
> wasn't anything significant. I'm surprised the
> other posters on the board are interested in this,
> So I'll respond (not very excitedly). Since you
> didn't state what post it was I assume it's this
> link? If not then clarify.

1. "Your" indicates that the person you're addressing is possessive of something (example: "macaRomney, your grammar and spelling is worse than mine was in the fifth grade."). "You're" is a shortening of "you are" (example: "macaRomeny, you're constantly posting racist and sexist comments and we're getting sick of it.").

2. Seriously, you post crap putting women down and try to say Susan is the one in the wrong?

3. We all know which thread you posted that on.

> https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2340332
> ,2340408#msg-2340408
>
> I don't think men are losers, that's an
> interesting conclusion to come to? I wasn't
> especially stating my own beliefs but what I've
> heard around from people I know in Utah who are
> actually apart of Mormonism, the leadership that
> actually have these conversations, it's what they
> are talking about if your not aware of that?

We've heard from Utards spouting that crap before. The fact that you parrot it says something about you.

If that's not your stance on women, what is? (And why do I feel like I'm going to regret asking that?)

>Maybe you should get out and actually talk to some
> people who think differently than you do, and see
> what their perspectives actually are. Even mormons
> (gasp!).

Again, we've heard the kind of crap you've posted from "he-man-woman-hater" degenerates before. And why is it our responsibility to listen to those degens when they won't afford us the same courtesy? Maybe you, macaRomeny, should try listening to people different that you. You can start by talking to people with high school diplomas.

> What people believe isn't really important it's
> what they do. So why do you care about what I
> think, it doesn't affect you or anyone at all.
> Anyway, have a nice day.

What people think is the basis of what they do. Your posting of crap putting down anyone who isn't a white, conservative male is based on your thoughts and causes problems for anyone who has to put up with you.

May you one day become aware of how much of a fool you've acted like, macaRomeny.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2020 09:11PM by ookami.

Now you are in for it. Someone will appear under a new fake name and start criticizing you from the shadows.

Inevitably, the mystery poster will also question you're politics and tell you to read Thomas Sowell.

Should I inform said troll he needs new material? His act is getting stale and repetitive.

Your the sort of person who always thinks things through before deciding on you're strategy, so I'd say you should go with you're gut on that.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so I'd
> say you should go with you're gut on that.

Watch it, I have a BA in English and I'm not afraid to use it!

What? Your saying that I git something wrong?

Okay, now you're just mocking me.

Maybe just a little.

;-)

Yeah. I was getting worried there. Whew.

I'm not polling you're leg, thow, Flo.