Third Hour

Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

And those can be just as dangerous as external thoughts, because they could influence your external actions. 

Don't get me wrong, I agree 100% that there is a huge difference between thinking that you want to kill me and actually killing me, but you do need to control your thoughts because they eventually can change your behavior. 

Awwww man.....puts away rusty and dull butter knfe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mores said:

Sunday,

I think you're missing Vort's observation that you're making a contradiction.

1) It's their job to stir up controversy.
2) Vort reacted to the controversy as if it were, you know, controversial.
3) Your reaction is to say:

  • They did their job by writing a controversial article.
  • It isn't really controversial, so why do we care?

Do you see your contradiction?

I am advocating empathy which I think will help put the situation in perspective.

Volunteer writer needs some experience and needs to put something on their cv. Writes article about women wearing pants at church. Yes the article needs to stir up controversy but...

1) Writing such an article is a ploy. Newspaper headlines often pose a question to which the answer is generally ‘No’. Eg should you always allow your relatives to stay at your home? The answer is ‘No’. The purpose is to: raise eyebrows, get you thinking, have you explore the possibility of an unusual situation. Eg Grandma is a pyromaniac. Don’t let her stay! These ploys are not intended to be taken entirely seriously. The silliest instance that I have encountered recently was an article that asked if you should break up with your significant other if they are rude to their electronic personal assistant eg Alexa. No one would actually believe that anyone would actually break up with someone for this reason. The article seeks to entertain by being a bit silly. In the article it discusses the importance of habitual politeness so that we don’t become accustomed to rudeness. This last is a good point immersed in a solution of silliness.

2) The writer is a volunteer, an amateur. She is learning. Of course the article is a bit amateurish. This is job experience and she is desperately trying to meet a deadline while commuting, going to school, working a number of jobs. Have some compassion

3) It is unlikely that she feels any opinion expressed as strongly as is being interpreted. She is ondeadline and is doing the best that she can.

4) Pitting one group against another is a cheap ploy like using baby pictures or kittens in ads. Don’t allow yourself to be manipulated. Let it go. These types of articles are a bit tongue in check like Phone ads that ask ‘When was the last time you phoned Mom?’ or Hallmark card commercials that tug at the heart strings. They are exaggerated views of reality. It is expected that you are in on the joke. You are not meant to take the controversy entirely seriously. 

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

...The silliest instance that I have encountered recently was an article that asked if you should break up with your significant other if they are rude to their electronic personal assistant eg Alexa.... 

That's hilarious. My daughter has an "Alexa" and when I'm at her place babysitting my granddaughter I can ask it (her?) to turn on certain lights or play certain music. And when I do I always say please and thank you. It's weird in a way but it's just habit too. 😊

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Maureen said:

That's hilarious. My daughter has an "Alexa" and when I'm at her place babysitting my granddaughter I can ask it (her?) to turn on certain lights or play certain music. And when I do I always say please and thank you. It's weird in a way but it's just habit too. 😊

M.

We have them and I do the same thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, estradling75 said:

That is the irony I was pointing out.  "Oh no the bishop is oppressing me by asking a question because I wore pants.. So I need to support or otherwise join a rebellion who very existence is the reason the bishop asked his question in the first place."

Hmm... that is actually a reverse of the point I was making.  Do you believe that is what the author was saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

1) Writing such an article is a ploy. ...

Yeah.  got it.

Quote

2) The writer is a volunteer, an amateur. She is learning. Of course the article is a bit amateurish. This is job experience and she is desperately trying to meet a deadline while commuting, going to school, working a number of jobs. Have some compassion

Yes.  Agreed.

Quote

3) It is unlikely that she feels any opinion expressed as strongly as is being interpreted. She is ondeadline and is doing the best that she can.

Wrong.  Because she is young, she no doubt feels very strongly about everything she writes.  Most people that age have only one level of emotion: Strong.  And it is pretty evident that she believes what she wrote.

Quote

4) Pitting one group against another is a cheap ploy like using baby pictures or kittens in ads. Don’t allow yourself to be manipulated. Let it go.

Now, this is where you're changing your tune.  It is one thing to say 

1. It's just a ploy.
2. Don't let it bother you.

Yes, I could buy that and go along with it.

It is another to say

1. They did their job to stir controversy.
2. They didn't really write anything controversial.  (I believe your words were: "It's no big deal" or something similar)  I don't have time right now for checking the exact wording.  Gotta go.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Mores said:

Hmm... that is actually a reverse of the point I was making.  Do you believe that is what the author was saying?

Maybe I was not clear... The most likely reason the bishop asked her about her pants being a sign of rebellion is because of the "Wear Pants to Church" movement founded by apostates... (Which is a perfectly valid reason in my mind).  Thus the movement becomes directly responsible for the behavior it claims it is trying to change.  The author of the article instead of critically thinking about "why " the bishop asked the question.  Instead she jumps to her own conclusion.

So the irony is the movement causing the behavior they are say they are against.  And the irony of some one demanding people not to make assumptions of her behavior and actions while clearly making her own assumptions about the actions and behavior of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now