BYU - Call to Arms

[askandanswer]

19 hours ago, mikbone said:

 

Men are Dogs.

 

If you a want a friend, get a dog

Edited August 27, 2021 by askandanswer

[mikbone]

I was just researching the response to Elder Holland’s talk.  

Wow! It hit a chord.

I know Elder Holland is a great man.  The love and balance he employed in the speech was extraordinary.

I am frankly amazed at the hate speech and exaggerated misrepresentation that the opposition have accused of him.  The hate goes on and on for pages.

Edited August 27, 2021 by mikbone

[mikbone]

Just to be clear.  I am not recommending physical force.

I hope all the best for the LGBTQ+ community and the apostates.

Just do your thing elsewhere.

There are many Universities that would accept your children with open arms.

There is a video hitting the web of a BYU student cleaning gay art off the school property and saying something stupid. - I don’t condone this activity either.  

But we shouldn’t have to be exposed to gay art and rainbow flags all over BYU either.

 

[Vort]

20 hours ago, mikbone said:

Men are Dogs.

That explains this restroom sign I saw yesterday. Hawaiian for Italians, I guess.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

18 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I am frankly amazed at the hate speech and exaggerated misrepresentation that the opposition have accused of him.  The hate goes on and on for pages.

The great and spacious building on full display.

[Vort]

BYU was still on his list until the Seminary teacher shared the talk with the kids yesterday. You can say the musket backfired...

Backfired? On the contrary, having such a young man forego BYU is successfully placing a musket ball right between the eyes. Would that all such young men (and women) would take BYU off their lists and go to a "real university" instead.

[Grunt]

30 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I was just researching the response to Elder Holland’s talk.  

Wow! It hit a chord.

I know Elder Holland is a great man.  The love and balance he employed in the speech was extraordinary.

I am frankly amazed at the hate speech and exaggerated misrepresentation that the opposition have accused of him.  The hate goes on and on for pages.

Those called by God have historically caught hate when God's will doesn't match the will of the worldly.   In my short time with the Church, I have sane various Apostles catch shade and/or love, depending on what they say.   

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

BYU was still on his list until the Seminary teacher shared the talk with the kids yesterday. You can say the musket backfired...

Backfired? On the contrary, having such a young man forego BYU is successfully placing a musket ball right between the eyes. Would that all such young men (and women) would take BYU off their lists and go to a "real university" instead.

I was going too phrase the same point thusly: Looks like President Holland's "evil" plan is working. 😈

[Just_A_Guy]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

BYU was still on his list until the Seminary teacher shared the talk with the kids yesterday. You can say the musket backfired...

Backfired? On the contrary, having such a young man forego BYU is successfully placing a musket ball right between the eyes. Would that all such young men (and women) would take BYU off their lists and go to a "real university" instead.

He’ll be back when he sees the tuition rates of those “real universities”  . . .

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

He’ll be back when he sees the tuition rates of those “real universities”  . . .

I sincerely hope not.

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t know that Mikbone has said we shouldn’t be givin’ the wimmin’ none o’ that thar fancy book larnin’.   I read him as suggesting that a) women in the gospel have the privilege of not being expected to work outside the home unless they want to, b) women in the gospel have a right to a husband who will make that happen for them, and c) seen through the lens of the Gospel, a woman’s experience at BYU is worthwhile if it makes her a better mother and wife in the new and everlasting covenant marriage, whether or not she actually gets her academic degree.

Having the option to stay home is very different than the default assumption being that a working woman is working because she didn't have the option and has a lesser quality husband.

Also, there are legitimate reasons a man could not work / unable to make enough to solo provide.  A medical disability being an obvious example.  

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

IThe book title page that Mikbone offered, seems to provide a useful bullet list of what his view of healthy masculinity entails.  I’d recommend taking another look at it, if you are truly perplexed as to what kind of vision he’s putting forward here.  I don’t know that I agree with (or perhaps, fully understand) his vision in its entirety; but I think I understand the gist of it and I don’t think it’s fair to characterize it as either inherently harmful, spiritually stunting, or restrictive of agency.  

I went, created, and account, downloaded the book, and read through the first 30 pages and it's ... very chauvinistic... I'll go for a very simple quote to illustrate my feelings here:

"Lack of chivalry is apparent on every hand.  Women, of necessity, must take care of themselves.  They must change their own tires, wash the automobiles, mow the lawn, repair the furnace, paint the house, and life heavy objects.  Where are the men waiting to offer masculine assistance to the gentler sex?" --pg 12

The assumption here is that a woman doing any of these things is because of a man's failings.  That's not honoring her choice whether or not to do them, a couple's right to divide work as equal partners, or her need to learn these skills as a agent in her own right.  It's not empowering to women.  OR to men as the tone is very negative rather than encouraging men to develop themselves and their individual talents.  

Going for a simple example: a lady is driving on the super busy highway on the way to a Relief Society activity.  She gets a flat and has to make an emergency pull off to the shoulder.  She knows how to change the tire, and quickly does so, thus getting safely off the busy highway shoulder asap.  This is a GOOD thing.  Her having this skill to quickly enable her to get to safety it's a failure on anyone's part (hers or any man's).  

Likewise it's ok if as a couple they decide that the wife's going to spend the afternoon working on the car while the husband is taking care of another thing.  That's ok: they both have options and made a joint decision to do things.   That's working as help-mates, as God intended.  

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Having the option to stay home is very different than the default assumption being that a working woman is working because she didn't have the option and has a lesser quality husband.

Also, there are legitimate reasons a man could not work / unable to make enough to solo provide.  A medical disability being an obvious example.  

Agree.  My daughter that just got married and is finishing her senior year at BYU is working by taking phone orders for a bakery chain.  

They can use the money. He is working as a medical interpreter.  They both tolerate their jobs.  They are trying to put away money for the future, for his grad school and their eventual family.  She plans to stay home with the children and home school.  

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Lack of chivalry is apparent on every hand.  Women, of necessity, must take care of themselves.  They must change their own tires, wash the automobiles, mow the lawn, repair the furnace, paint the house, and life heavy objects.  Where are the men waiting to offer masculine assistance to the gentler sex?

If a man were to get off a bus seat and stand to allow a woman to take the seat is he a chauvinist? 

I mow the lawn and take care of maintenance on the house.  My wife doesn’t feel offended.  I take the car into the garage to be fixed though.

I wouldn’t want my wife to use the chainsaw…

And we have a AAA membership just in case the car tire goes flat on her watch.  She would prefer not to change a flat tire on the highway.

She cooks way better than I do.  I'd rather she take care of my needs while I take care of hers.  

 

If you prefer doing the gardening, then good for you.  I love a good garden.

 

Thanks for reading the book.

Edited August 28, 2021 by mikbone

[Just_A_Guy]

39 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

[1]Having the option to stay home is very different than the default assumption being that a working woman is working because she didn't have the option and has a lesser quality husband.

[2]Also, there are legitimate reasons a man could not work / unable to make enough to solo provide.  A medical disability being an obvious example.  

[3]I went, created, and account, downloaded the book, and read through the first 30 pages and it's ... very chauvinistic... I'll go for a very simple quote to illustrate my feelings here:

"Lack of chivalry is apparent on every hand.  Women, of necessity, must take care of themselves.  They must change their own tires, wash the automobiles, mow the lawn, repair the furnace, paint the house, and life heavy objects.  Where are the men waiting to offer masculine assistance to the gentler sex?" --pg 12

The assumption here is that a woman doing any of these things is because of a man's failings.  That's not honoring her choice whether or not to do them, a couple's right to divide work as equal partners, or her need to learn these skills as a agent in her own right.  It's not empowering to women.  OR to men as the tone is very negative rather than encouraging men to develop themselves and their individual talents.  

Going for a simple example: a lady is driving on the super busy highway on the way to a Relief Society activity.  She gets a flat and has to make an emergency pull off to the shoulder.  She knows how to change the tire, and quickly does so, thus getting safely off the busy highway shoulder asap.  This is a GOOD thing.  Her having this skill to quickly enable her to get to safety it's a failure on anyone's part (hers or any man's).  

Likewise it's ok if as a couple they decide that the wife's going to spend the afternoon working on the car while the husband is taking care of another thing.  That's ok: they both have options and made a joint decision to do things.   That's working as help-mates, as God intended.  

1.  Sure.  And maybe @mikbone’s experience is driven by the fact that it’s human nature for us to complain about wherever we are.  When we’re at work, we complain about work.  When we’re home with the kids, we complain about being home with the kids.  But Mikbone was also, in context of this thread, talking about specific boys who were such louts that for any woman unfortunate to marry them (ie, potentially, his daughter), her working would have been a necessity rather than a choice.

2.  Indeed.  And it’s one thing to marry someone, find out post hoc that they have some kind of chronic illness or disability, and shoulder a disproportionate share of the marital responsibility thereafter out of a sense of love and commitment.  I have some personal experience with that.  

But it’s another thing to see a potential mate and commit to them, knowing from the get-go that marriage is probably going to be harder than it would need to be given a different choice of mate.  Again—props to the people who are willing to make and keep those commitments; but I will maintain to my dying day that a person doesn’t have a moral obligation to do that.  I think Franklin’s old adage about keeping one’s eyes wide open before marriage and half-shut afterwards has bearing here. There’s a bizarre subculture in the Church that leans on single women to “don’t be too picky”, and tells them they should go ahead and accept the advances of whatever doofus happens to be the first one to court them.  LDS women are often shamed for “discriminating” against men who lack the virtues/qualities that have defined “good husbands” in pretty much every culture in global history except our own.  I see @mikbone as having empowered his daughters to push back against that culture, and I admire him for it, and I hang around this thread in the hope that he will teach me his ways.

3.  Does the book say that women shouldn’t even have that kind of knowledge?  Or just that men should offer to step up and do the work when they are actually there and the work needs doing?

And, what talents does the book say men shouldn’t develop?

Here’s an alternate assumption set for the passage you cite:  a) work sucks, b) the kinds of work the author cited are particularly sucky kinds of work, and c) when you love someone, you try to do the suckiest work so that they don’t have to do it.   

I don’t see that paradigm as altering agency.  To the contrary, I see the biggest threat to agency as being stuck with a partner who habitually shunts the dirtiest, most unpleasant work onto someone else (especially: me).

Edited August 27, 2021 by Just_A_Guy

[mikbone]

I had an Uncle that lost a good paying job as a shoe salesman for Johnston and Murphy.

He looked for work half heartedly for a few months and then honed his golfing skills for the next 3 decades while his wife supported the family with a government job.

They had a single son whom they doted on his whole life.  He has a degree in the humanities and cant find work.  He has disowned his family and cant wait till they die so he can possess their home.  

Edited August 27, 2021 by mikbone

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

To the contrary, I see the biggest threat to agency as being stuck with a partner who habitually shunts the dirtiest, most unpleasant work onto someone else (especially: me).

I was going to comment on this before with something you said, but refrained, but now you've said it again so....it's not my fault!

How is this sort of thing a threat to agency, exactly?

If my wife doesn't do the dishes then I have to? No choice in the matter? No third option? Or fourth? Or tenth?

That's not even going into the reality that you can't actually take away agency. I mean I suppose you technically could if you took away ALL choice...but taking away once choice doesn't mean agency, as a whole, is threatened.

But even putting that aside, there's almost always a choice. Even when your husband (or wife) is a pig. (I mean there's always murder on the table, right?)

Edited August 27, 2021 by The Folk Prophet

[mikbone]

As an orthopedic surgeon I deal with people trying to work the system all the time.

And I always ask people what they do for a living.  The number of people who state that they are disabled is amazing.  When they tell me that they are disabled, I always ask why they are disabled because it is rarely obvious.  Some of the answers are ridiculous.

Many of the patients ask me if I will fill out their disability papers.  I always let them know that I am a fix you get you back to work kind of a doctor.

Male to Female ratio of the slackers.  9:1

Edited August 28, 2021 by mikbone

[Just_A_Guy]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I was going to comment on this before with something you said, but refrained, but now you've said it again so....it's not my fault!

How is this sort of thing a threat to agency, exactly?

If my wife doesn't do the dishes then I have to? No choice in the matter? No third option? Or fourth? Or tenth?

That's not even going into the reality that you can't actually take away agency. I mean I suppose you technically could if you took away ALL choice...but taking away once choice doesn't mean agency, as a whole, is threatened.

But even putting that aside, there's almost always a choice. Even when your husband (or wife) is a pig. (I mean there's always murder on the table, right?)

True; I was using a broad definition of agency in the same vein as (I thought) @Jane_Doe was.  One could certainly quibble as to whether “agency” was the right word for either of us to do.  

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

 

There is a video hitting the web of a BYU student cleaning gay art off the school property and saying something stupid. - I don’t condone this activity either.  

 

If that kid goes viral, his life is over. Using slurs like he did is not only very hurtful and insulting, it’s a really, really stupid thing to do in 2021. Little brat deserves to be expelled for this one. This is, quite literally, how to ruin your life in 30 seconds. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/video-shows-man-defacing-messages-of-support-for-lgbtq-students-at-byu%3f_amp=true

Enjoy your fifteen minutes kid. 

Edited August 28, 2021 by LDSGator

[laronius]

It's easy to see how the world can get things so wrong when even with the gospel it can be tough to sort things out. One of the tricky parts of life is that though God has given us a general outline of the roles of men and women we still have to account for the scale of traditionally feminine and masculine qualities along which we each fall at different points. A woman can lean toward the more masculine side of things and not possess as much of a mothering instinct as most women and men likewise can lean more feminine and be less inclined to be the protector and breadwinner. How much of this is nurture verses nature is debatable but at the end of the day physically there is no escaping the fact that only women can have babies and to that extent there is no escaping the intended roles God has defined for us. But that doesn't mean everyone will derive the same satisfaction from them. This can cause problems to arise because people often put their own wants, though often labeled "needs," ahead of God's plan for them. What we label as self-fulfillment is often just the ennobling of selfishness. That's not to say there isn't a time and place to pursue the development of our unique personalities and interests but it must not be done at the cost of our eternal roles as sons and daughters of Heavenly Parents.

[The Folk Prophet]

17 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

If that kid goes viral, his life is over. Using slurs like he did is horrific. Little brat deserves to be expelled for that.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/video-shows-man-defacing-messages-of-support-for-lgbtq-students-at-byu%3f_amp=true

Enjoy your fifteen minutes kid. 

I can't understand this sort of activist mentality on either side of the issue. Though it's usually more the people who stand outside Conference and scream terrible things at the people going. Why do they think that's a good idea or useful in any regard? And why did this kid think this was a good idea or useful in any regard? I mean even if you take away the slur word, why did he think this was a good idea? It's baffling.

I don't like the idea of what the chalk messages were either -- particularly at BYU. But since when do two wrongs make a right?

I agree that he deserves to be expelled.

I also think BYU should have a strong policy against any sort of messaging related to pretty much any subject. The campus should not be a public forum for supporting gays, or for condemning them. It should not be a public forum for politics or causes of any sort. It should be neutral on almost all things in the public arena, and strongly pro gospel and pro education in the classroom setting. And by public I mean rallies, marches, protest, etc. That sort of thing should just be shut down entirely there. Draw a message in chalk? Expelled. Put up posters? Expelled? Hold a midnight vigil. Expelled. Chant or sing? Expelled.

BYU is a mess.

Edited August 28, 2021 by The Folk Prophet

[LDSGator]

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

don't like the idea of what the chalk messages were either -- particularly at BYU. But since when do two wrongs make a right?

Oh, agree, the chalk stuff IS inappropriate at BYU. It’s probably a form of vandalism. And agree, two wrongs don’t make a right. 
 

But, this kid is a special kind of idiot. If I was a BYU grad, I’d be furious because it paints us like this. Heck, as an LDS I’m insulted by his actions. 

Edited August 28, 2021 by LDSGator

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

"Lack of chivalry is apparent on every hand.  Women, of necessity, must take care of themselves.  They must change their own tires, wash the automobiles, mow the lawn, repair the furnace, paint the house, and life heavy objects.  Where are the men waiting to offer masculine assistance to the gentler sex?" --pg 12

Unforgivable. Unspeakable.  Utterly appalling. I fully understand your outrage. How DARE he call women "the gentler sex"?! Those are FIGHTING WORDS!!!

Your response is completely, 100% rational. Girl power!

[Just_A_Guy]

28 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Oh, agree, the chalk stuff IS inappropriate at BYU. It’s probably a form of vandalism. And agree, two wrongs don’t make a right. 
 

FWIW, I think 800 North (where this occurred) is well south of BYU campus.  And I don’t think chalk art on common areas really counts as “vandalism” (I say this as a former BYU grounds crew worker who cleaned up more than his share of chalk, including the “permanent” kind that doesn’t just rinse off). [EDIT:  Having checked Google Earth, it appears to be part of the “old campus” near the old academy building and and right in front of the old Amanda Knight Hall, which the university recently sold to a private developer.  So, no, not part of the modern BYU campus.]

This kid is a schlub.  I do wonder if expulsion (as opposed to suspension and/or sensitivity training) might be excessive; but I suppose BYU has a reputation to protect and there’s bound to be collateral damage.  🙄

Edited August 28, 2021 by Just_A_Guy

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

FWIW, I think 800 North (where this occurred) is well south of BYU campu

Oh okay. Thanks. 
 

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

I do wonder if expulsion (as opposed to suspension and/or sensitivity training) might be excessive; but I suppose BYU has a reputation to protect and there’s bound to be collateral damage.  🙄

If he just gets expelled, then he should consider himself incredibly lucky. 

[The Folk Prophet]

33 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

But, this kid is a special kind of idiot. If I was a BYU grad, I’d be furious because it paints us like this. Heck, as an LDS I’m insulted by his actions. 

Yeah, I totally agree with that.