When Women (don't) Speak

[Traveler]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

And this is why socialism often falls apart.  Sure it would be better if we all chipped in and everyone worked as hard as they could to build up the whole society.  But if only one person doesn't decides to go a different way, then it messes it up for everyone.  And the natural tendency is for not just one, but many to go a different way.

Not sure why Socialism gets all the irony it does - the L-rd tells us that all the "institutions" of man will eventually fail and are not sustainable.  This would include capitalism.  I kind of like a statement from Winston Churchill when he said that democracy was the worse for of government ever devised by mankind - that is excepting all the others.  I see this applies to capitalism and free markets - that such is the worst  economic system ever devised by mankind - excepting all the others.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

31 minutes ago, Traveler said:

This would include capitalism.

Yes, capitalism will fail. When it morphs into socialism. If left alone, capitalism would provide us with unimaginable blessings. One needs to look no further than Hong Kong before the Chinese took over. The British drank tea, enforced the rule of law, and did nothing else. And Hong Kong became a world power.  

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Not sure why Socialism gets all the irony it does - the L-rd tells us that all the "institutions" of man will eventually fail and are not sustainable.  This would include capitalism.  I kind of like a statement from Winston Churchill when he said that democracy was the worse for of government ever devised by mankind - that is excepting all the others.  I see this applies to capitalism and free markets - that such is the worst  economic system ever devised by mankind - excepting all the others.

 

The Traveler

Thank you.  This really hits at the heart of why socialists are more blind than capitalists.

• A capitalist sees the flaws in capitalism.  But they see the benefits outweighing the weaknesses.  (i.e. we know it's not perfect.  But it's better than anything else we've got).
• A socialist sees no weaknesses in socialism.  
• The irony more complete picture:
  • Capitalism uses man's tendency toward self-interest and creates a structure that will use that momentum to be encourage fair and virtuous behavior.
  • Socialism sees the greed of man as the product of capitalism and somehow hopes that all that will magically disappear if socialism is instituted, which is a system that encourages selfish behavior.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Carborendum

[Guest MormonGator]

36 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Thank you.  This really hits at the heart of why socialists are more blind than capitalists.

• A capitalist sees the flaws in capitalism.  But they see the benefits outweighing the weaknesses.  (i.e. we know it's not perfect.  But it's better than anything else we've got).
• A socialist sees no weaknesses in socialism.  
• The irony more complete picture:
  • Capitalism uses man's tendency toward self-interest and creates a structure that will use that momentum to be encourage fair and virtuous behavior.
  • Socialism sees the greed of man as the product of capitalism and somehow hopes that all that will magically disappear if socialism is instituted, which is a system that encourages selfish behavior.

Odd you feel that way, given that you and @Vort are the most left leaning ones here. 

[JohnsonJones]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I had seen this the other day.  But I hadn't connected it to this at the time.  Thanks.

And this is why socialism often falls apart.  Sure it would be better if we all chipped in and everyone worked as hard as they could to build up the whole society.  But if only one person doesn't decides to go a different way, then it messes it up for everyone.  And the natural tendency is for not just one, but many to go a different way.

For pure socialism, unfortunately, this tends to be true.  In order for any sort of socialism (including Religious socialism/communism, which some take affront to the term, even though it is a DIFFERENT thing than Marxism or other forms of socialistic ideas) it requires everyone to be virtuous and hardworking because they are that way.

Marxism just expects that to be the natural state (but, as the examples of the USSR and China can show, this is not true).  As man is not naturally gravitated to work hard when there is nothing to gain for that individual (greed), they tend not to work all that hard and the society is poorer and can even fall apart.

On the otherhand, when implemented in the way of the Lord the reason is because of our love for the Lord and our love of our fellowmen.  As the examples show in Joseph Smith's time as well as even in Peter's time to a degree...this does not actually work all the time either.  People are selfish and they want what they feel is theirs.  All sorts of problems arise and the society falls apart.

As we also saw with Peter along with Brigham Young the ONLY way to keep it going (and one could say this with the other forms of socialism or communism to a degree) is by pure force and power.  The Fear of death, the fear of starvation, and other motivators are all ways to try to enforce it, but in some of these cases one would have to ask whether one is truly a willing citizen in that, or simply doing it out of fear of the consequences. 

Only in a society where people truly love each other and the Lord and are willing to work because of that will it probably be able to run longer than any other form of government. 

We DO see socialism able to work in a more limited capacity today.  When it is restricted in group size and supported by a larger group connected, but funding the socialism, OR, when you have only a small portion of society as being socialistic but supported by the greater funds of the rest of society, we see it can at least persevered in government and at times be supported.

Examples of this today would be, first, in the US.  We see education as a socialistic good that people generally support.  We also see some public ideas such as Libraries and fire departments that serve all the society they are encased in.  We also see it in public works such as roads for transportation and other such items. 

In the Church many of the General Authorities could be considered living a form of Religious Socialism (or some would say Religious Communism, but I think it bears more closely to Religious Socialism on reflection today..though my opinion can be swayed).  This is ONLY possible due to the large endowments in the church as well as the membership supporting the Lord's laws.  Even then, it is relegated to a very small group of General Authorities as well as Missionaries (who are all already contributing to the general welfare of the money to pay for it, but only receive what they need or their necessities out of it).

So, limited Socialism seems to work on a small scale, but due to the greed and selfishness of people, it can be hard to work a completely socialistic society today.  The Adversaries imitations (Marxism, Stalinistic policies, etc) don't appear to be that successful, and even the Lord's implementation in our day has had it's setback due to the sinful natures of men at times...though in some ways having been a tad more successful overall (personal opinion).

On the otherhand, we see that limited socialism seems to work in many places today.

[Carborendum]

17 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Odd you feel that way, given that you and @Vort are the most left leaning ones here. 

I agree. Truly ironic, isn't it?

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Examples of this today would be, first, in the US.  We see education as a socialistic good that people generally support.  We also see some public ideas such as Libraries and fire departments that serve all the society they are encased in.  We also see it in public works such as roads for transportation and other such items. 

It always boggles my mind when people in capitalist USA think Public Schools, Libraries, Fire Departments, Roads and Bridges, etc. etc. are Socialist.  Especially when Bernie Sanders - who KNOWS EXACTLY what Socialism is, says it on a campaign trail for his Socialist utopian vision.  

So yeah, expert historian JohnsonJones.... you should know better than to sell that bull hokey.

[anatess2]

Where are the Feminists?  Here's an example of a woman who was not allowed to speak.  She just gets arrested, no questions... no modern-feminists in sight.  No trending hashtags, no protest marches, no BYU articles.

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by anatess2

[Vort]

That's different. She was brandishing firearms.

[anatess2]

22 minutes ago, Vort said:

That's different. She was brandishing firearms.

Duuuude... Laser blasters don't fire projectiles... so, they're technically not firearms.

[Carborendum]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Duuuude... Laser blasters don't fire projectiles... so, they're technically not firearms.

Babe!!!  (I don't know what the current equivalent of DUDE!! is) You could be her lawyer.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Babe!!!  (I don't know what the current equivalent of DUDE!! is) You could be her lawyer.

LOL, Carb, I think "Girl!"  would be best.   

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Babe!!!  (I don't know what the current equivalent of DUDE!! is) You could be her lawyer.

 

13 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

LOL, Carb, I think "Girl!"  would be best.   

Duuuudette...

[Carborendum]

17 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

LOL, Carb, I think "Girl!"  would be best.   

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Duuuudette...

I'm not really seeing an equivalent.

If I just say the "Dude, "  (note the comma) then I think either of those would work.

If i say "DUDE!!!" (note the capitals and exclamations) I don't see the same tone being used with "GIRL!!!" or "DUUDETTE!!!"  Is that something you hear?  The volume, the emphasis of the word, the level of inerjection?  I've never heard it.  And I'm running through it in my head and I'm just not hearing it.

"BABE!!!" isn't quite there either.  But it's close.

Oh, wait.  What about "Hey, Woman!!!"  I've heard that before and it approaches the volume, interjection, and salutation requirements.  It's close.  But somehow I think a woman would like being called "Babe" more than "Woman" as a term of address (send person).  Obviously, the converse would be true if speaking of them in the third person.

"Yeah, I was just speaking with those babes..." sounds pretty sexist -- or at least pretty diminutive.

"Yeah, I was just speaking with those women..." pretty straight forward.

 

[anatess2]

42 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not really seeing an equivalent.

If I just say the "Dude, "  (note the comma) then I think either of those would work.

If i say "DUDE!!!" (note the capitals and exclamations) I don't see the same tone being used with "GIRL!!!" or "DUUDETTE!!!"  Is that something you hear?  The volume, the emphasis of the word, the level of inerjection?  I've never heard it.  And I'm running through it in my head and I'm just not hearing it.

"BABE!!!" isn't quite there either.  But it's close.

Oh, wait.  What about "Hey, Woman!!!"  I've heard that before and it approaches the volume, interjection, and salutation requirements.  It's close.  But somehow I think a woman would like being called "Babe" more than "Woman" as a term of address (send person).  Obviously, the converse would be true if speaking of them in the third person.

"Yeah, I was just speaking with those babes..." sounds pretty sexist -- or at least pretty diminutive.

"Yeah, I was just speaking with those women..." pretty straight forward.

 

I write Duuuude... same way the sea turtle says it on Finding Nemo...

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not really seeing an equivalent.

If I just say the "Dude, "  (note the comma) then I think either of those would work.

If i say "DUDE!!!" (note the capitals and exclamations) I don't see the same tone being used with "GIRL!!!" or "DUUDETTE!!!"  Is that something you hear?  The volume, the emphasis of the word, the level of inerjection?  I've never heard it.  And I'm running through it in my head and I'm just not hearing it.

"BABE!!!" isn't quite there either.  But it's close.

Oh, wait.  What about "Hey, Woman!!!"  I've heard that before and it approaches the volume, interjection, and salutation requirements.  It's close.  But somehow I think a woman would like being called "Babe" more than "Woman" as a term of address (send person).  Obviously, the converse would be true if speaking of them in the third person.

"Yeah, I was just speaking with those babes..." sounds pretty sexist -- or at least pretty diminutive.

"Yeah, I was just speaking with those women..." pretty straight forward.

 

Here's how I look at it, if i'm talking to a friend  I might use one of these terms to get their attention, but not as a regular part of conversation.  I might use, "dude", and talking to a male friend and with a girl I would probably use "girl." or "woman".   Examples, 

Dude, I hate to tell you this but that hat has got to go! 
Girl!  You are not going to believe what happened to me.
Hey Woman, slow down, let me finish..

I would only use Babe when talking to my hubby, and he is the only one I would want to hear it from.  

Edited May 13, 2020 by LiterateParakeet

[mordorbund]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If i say "DUDE!!!" (note the capitals and exclamations) I don't see the same tone being used with "GIRL!!!" or "DUUDETTE!!!"  Is that something you hear?  The volume, the emphasis of the word, the level of inerjection?  I've never heard it.  And I'm running through it in my head and I'm just not hearing it.

"BABE!!!" isn't quite there either.  But it's close.

 

[Carborendum]

12 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Here's how I look at it, if i'm talking to a friend  I might use one of these terms to get their attention, but not as a regular part of conversation.  I might use, "dude", and talking to a male friend and with a girl I would probably use "girl." or "woman".   Examples, 

Dude, I hate to tell you this but that hat has got to go! 
Girl!  You are not going to believe what happened to me.
Hey Woman, slow down, let me finish..

I would only use Babe when talking to my hubby, and he is the only one I would want to hear it from.  

I believe I just got womansplained.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Carborendum

[Guest MormonGator]

13 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Here's how I look at it, if i'm talking to a friend  I might use one of these terms to get their attention, but not as a regular part of conversation.  I might use, "dude", and talking to a male friend and with a girl I would probably use "girl." or "woman".   Examples, 

Dude, I hate to tell you this but that hat has got to go! 
Girl!  You are not going to believe what happened to me.
Hey Woman, slow down, let me finish..

I would only use Babe when talking to my hubby, and he is the only one I would want to hear it from.  

You raise an interesting point, @LiterateParakeet. 

I use "Bro" all the time when talking to my guy friends, and if I'm really comfortable with them, I'll tease them with, um, other names. I expect it right back, it's just a personality thing when talking with guys. Most of my guy friends engage in some kind of fraternity boy razzing. 

But when talking to my female friends I use their name or a nickname. One of my dearest friends I call "Lady Macbeth" because she played Lady Macbeth in college (I was Macbeth). So, there are exceptions. 

I think calling a woman "Babe" or "Honey" is a terrible idea. You'll anger her, her significant other, and probably your significant other! 

In fairness,  I do call my niece "Sweetie". When she was about 14 I asked her if I could still call her that and she said she liked it, so that's an exception. 

Edited May 14, 2020 by MormonGator

[dprh]

21 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I write Duuuude... same way the sea turtle says it on Finding Nemo...

 

https://www.northstargames.com/products/dude

Anyone ever play this game?  My kids love it.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, dprh said:

https://www.northstargames.com/products/dude

Anyone ever play this game?  My kids love it.

WHOA, duuuude!

[Carborendum]

22 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I write Duuuude... same way the sea turtle says it on Finding Nemo...

OK.  So I read it wrong from your post.  I don't know if you'd ever say a feminine version of that like the sea turtle.  But I think, "babe..." would be the closest.

And if anyone thinks that's sexist or derogatory, I've heard many women refer to other women as "babe".  I've also heard many men refer to their female counterparts as "babe" and they don't seem to mind.  In fact, my wife also refers to me as "babe." quite often.  I never even gave it a second thought.  So, maybe this is gender neutral like "hey, guys!  Howya doin'?" (said to a mixed group).

FTR, I was thinking of "DUDE!!!" like when they were yelling at each other the tattoos on "Dude where's my car?"  I don't think any feminine word would be subject to the same "who's on first" treatment.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Carborendum

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

And if anyone thinks that's sexist or derogatory, I've heard many women refer to other women as "babe".  I've also heard many men refer to their female counterparts as "babe" and they don't seem to mind.  In fact, my wife also refers to me as "babe." quite often.  I never even gave it a second thought. 

Can I call your wife "Babe"?

 

[Carborendum]

I have just gotten out of a meeting which provided a wonderful explanation of what I have been trying to get across about aggression being good.

I've been hired to supplement their engineering team (that's usually the case).  But whenever I start with a new client, I have to sit back for a bit to get the lay of the land.  This is polite behavior and also wise behavior.  After all these guys know their company policies and procedures.  They know their end users and what the history and purpose of the projects better than I do.  It makes sense for me to shut up and learn from them until I learn the ropes.

This was a scheduling meeting.  At the beginning of each major project the heads of all the departments get together to go over the schedule and make sure that the dates are reasonable and that they make sense.

I immediately saw several things that were labeled incorrectly.  I also saw some things that were legally out of order.  Yes, there are some laws saying we cannot do B before A.  Nevertheless, I kept my mouth shut because I figured someone else would see these things before I did.

Only one person saw the legal issue that I did.  But he was having trouble articulating it.  He tried several times to explain his position, and all the others simply said that they didn't understand.  Now, what I did was what feminists would call "mansplaining" if this other engineer had been a woman.  But regardless of the gender, he wasn't communicating the issue that was clear to both him and me.  So, I interjected and explained his point a little more clearly.  They all understood and they began to discuss the work around for that.

The next issue was that the labels were all wrong.  And part of the confusion everyone had over the schedule was that the labels didn't accurately describe what was expected on the schedule.  Again, it seemed that everyone was talking over each others' heads.  Not interrupting, but it was like they spoke different languages.

So, again, I stepped in and literally had to tell the scheduler,"He's saying to move line 48 to the same start date a line 93."  A unified "Oh!  Yeah!..." came from several parties.

I also suggested several changes to the labels and they all agreed.

Now, notice that this all happened with a bunch of men.  This was not sexist.  It is just that I'm an alpha male.  And most of the men there were not.  But just because I'm an alpha, doesn't mean I was being rude.  It doesn't mean I wasn't listening.  It doesn't mean I had to belittle anyone.  I did have to interrupt a few times because they were just talking in circles for so long I couldn't take it anymore.  And each time I interrupted and clarified what we were really dealing with and what the basis of disagreement or confusion was, they all understood.

I could have very easily decided,"Oh I guess I don't really care what this is labeled or if we're following the right sequence or not.  They'll figure it out."  If I had, we would have been there another hour.  Literally, at the end the scheduler said that he was surprised that we got out of there in an hour.  I was wondering why it took an hour to figure it all out.  I figure about 10 min to look it over.  10 min to state the problems and 5 minutes to fix them.  All the rest was talking in circles because no one wanted to be aggressive enough to simply get things done.

Once I laid it all out clearly and firmly, they all agreed.  And we moved forward.

This can happen with men or women.  But it requires that someone have clarity to see to the heart of the matter, have the communication skills to clearly state it, and the aggressive nature to put that idea forth in a bold manner.  Then a decision is made quickly, and we move on.

The passive nature of,"well, I don't know, so I'll let someone else handle it." simply doesn't get things done.  And there is no reason that "aggression" and "ambition" cannot be applied in a virtuous, righteous, and well-mannered way.

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Can I call your wife "Babe"?

Only if you were as friendly with her as you are with me.    

I kinda felt that with the years together on this board, I was able to refer to @anatess2 as "BABE!!!" and not get thrown under the bus or accused of something sexual.