For Coggins Concerning the Role of Women: Probably Off Topic

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Yes, because being a misogynist isn't bad enough, is it?

You and your so-called church use the wombs of women to spawn more of your robots so in turn the vicious brainwashing cycle can continue. The stranglehold around the neck of the women in the church makes them powerful defenders of a system that excludes their own voice. This makes me sick, treating women as voiceless reproduction devices.

How dare you in one breath state that racism is deplorable and the next spew hate and venom regarding those who do not facilitate the churchs death grip on the voice of women? Bishops control the young women, embedding fear and false expectations, convincing rape victims that they alone are reponsible for their violation and instilling the belief that being suzy homemaker is the pinnacle of goals. You make me sick.

You give no voice to women in your church, as they are relegated to ancillary roles as mothers and sexual gratification meat dolls, to be tossed around and told to submit and make babies.
Indeed, you are the epitome of hate and biogotry towards Fifty percent of the human race. How the hell do you justify mormonisms patent misogynistic behavior



Just to let you know, that part about the "sexual gratification meat dolls" is great. Something you'd see advertised at an all night dawn 'till dusk porn marathon at a drive-in in the early seventies. Great grindhouse stuff (didn't those guys open for the Barenaked Ladies last year in at the Seattle Kingdome?).

Now, pull the needle out of your arm Vegas, stop staring at that old Kurt Cobain poster and get some help.



THEY CAME FROM THE Mormon WOMB!

They came from beyond fear; from beyond terror!
Mysongistic Robots, born in the tortured thobbing wombs of Mormon girls!
Sexual meat dolls, prey for the insatiable lusts of Mormon manhood!

SEE: Rape victims submit to an infernal maeltrom of degradaton

SEE: Nubile baby making machines forced to grovel before male Priesthood power

SEE: A shocking orgy of diapers, dirty laundry, and baking cookies

SEE:

THEY CAME FROM THE Mormon WOMB

Coming soon!
_Mercury
_Emeritus
Posts: 5545
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:14 pm

Post by _Mercury »

Coggins7 wrote:
Yes, because being a misogynist isn't bad enough, is it?

You and your so-called church use the wombs of women to spawn more of your robots so in turn the vicious brainwashing cycle can continue. The stranglehold around the neck of the women in the church makes them powerful defenders of a system that excludes their own voice. This makes me sick, treating women as voiceless reproduction devices.

How dare you in one breath state that racism is deplorable and the next spew hate and venom regarding those who do not facilitate the churchs death grip on the voice of women? Bishops control the young women, embedding fear and false expectations, convincing rape victims that they alone are reponsible for their violation and instilling the belief that being suzy homemaker is the pinnacle of goals. You make me sick.

You give no voice to women in your church, as they are relegated to ancillary roles as mothers and sexual gratification meat dolls, to be tossed around and told to submit and make babies.
Indeed, you are the epitome of hate and biogotry towards Fifty percent of the human race. How the hell do you justify mormonisms patent misogynistic behavior


So n ow your claiming im an IV drug user. Cute.
Just to let you know, that part about the "sexual gratification meat dolls" is great. Something you'd see advertised at an all night dawn 'till dusk porn marathon at a drive-in in the early seventies. Great grindhouse stuff (didn't those guys open for the Barenaked Ladies last year in at the Seattle Kingdome?).

Now, pull the needle out of your arm Vegas, stop staring at that old Kurt Cobain poster and get some help.



THEY CAME FROM THE Mormon WOMB!

They came from beyond fear; from beyond terror!
Mysongistic Robots, born in the tortured thobbing wombs of Mormon girls!
Sexual meat dolls, prey for the insatiable lusts of Mormon manhood!

SEE: Rape victims submit to an infernal maeltrom of degradaton

SEE: Nubile baby making machines forced to grovel before male Priesthood power

SEE: A shocking orgy of diapers, dirty laundry, and baking cookies

SEE:

THEY CAME FROM THE Mormon WOMB

Coming soon!


You demand serious discussion yet you bring nothing to the table.
Last edited by FAST Enterprise [Crawler] on Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Loran,

A small bone to pick with you. I've noticed that you regularly call for serious discussion on this board. On this thread you seem to be focusing mainly on "slam for slam" type posts. You had a serious reply here. It was from me.

Jersey Girl
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Jersey Girl wrote:Loran,

A small bone to pick with you. I've noticed that you regularly call for serious discussion on this board. On this thread you seem to be focusing mainly on "slam for slam" type posts. You had a serious reply here. It was from me.

Jersey Girl


And, frankly, it was a very well-thought out response. I agree with her position, and would also like to hear your responses to some of her questions.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Liz and Jeresey, I've been to busy writng lyrics and gloating over the gold records here on my wall to get back to you. Now, seriously, I only respond to those whome I think are worthy of such, and Vegas isn't.

He amuses me.

To see what my response are like to those who, at least as far as I can tell, are serious about having a discussion or having a questiaon answered, please look at my response to Roger Morrison in the Neurology of Belief thread. That's what happens when I am treated respectfully and with the benefit of the doubt that I am not a subhuman creature unworthy of simple mature discourse.

If not, well then, we'll just let off a littel steam and laugh at the whole situtation.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

klj
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »



a. The roles of woman, following gospel teachings, combined with some of my own philosophical observations (following George Gilder, to some extent), are:

1. As an indispensible earthly and eternal companion in life, love, child rearing, spritual, psychological, and emotional maturity, and in the bringing to pass of the immortality and eternal life of man, that is, men and woman are inextricably linked to each other in the process of exaltation.

Jersey Girl: With the exception of the concept of exaltation (which I do not subscribe to) I agree with the above comments. I see the descriptions (various life circumstances not withstanding) as the "ideal" relationship between male and female.

2. Woman have the primary, but not sole reposnibility for the raising and nurturing of children. This is an emphasis, not a dichotomy between men and woman.

Jersey Girl: I agree with this to the extent that so long as it is accepted as generalizing with regards to certain traits that are inherently "female", children benefit most from the ongoing guidance and nurturing of their mother.

3. Woman exert an inherant civilizing role on men, both because of their inherant feminine nature and qualities but because of the direct causal link between sexuality and childbirth (and therefore family and posterity). Woman exert a natural domesticating and civilizing effect on men such that many of the inherant male tendencies that would otherwise run amok and turn to social pathology are controlled, channeled, refined, and matured within the context of a role as provider, protector, teacher, and leader of a family.

Jersey Girl: Again, so long as the above is considered within the framework of generalizing regarding female/male traits, I agree. I would like to see this drawn out into specifics, Loran. What specific male/female attributes are you thinking of?

That being said, woman are here to kick our ass and keep us in line.


Jersey Girl: I find myself in complete and utter agreement. ;-)


b. I do see a difference, and that is in the first instance, faithful LDS woman share with faithful men a knowledge and committment to the gospel and its teachings that makes them, overall, that is, on average, better people, morally, ethically, and in the sense of mature adult attitudes and characteristics, then those who don't'. In other words, they are good Christian people, and moreover, they share with LDS men the same vision of the purpose of life and other things larger and greater then themselves within their own particular cultural or generational bubble. The main thing, however, would be the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which gives them a spiritual insight those not having it lack. This is indispensible and without doubt, pivitol.

Jersey Girl: Gonna throw a wrench in here now. In context of LDS belief in practice, I would agree with the above. I also think that mainstream Christian women who are able to conduct themselves in submission to their husbands, are able to create the same type of relationship.


Its not submission in the sense that word is normall used. Men submit to woman on many occasions as well. In the real world, the realtionship, if it is healty, is mutual and equal. The man does have a spiritual leadership role relative to his wife (and children, obviously), but this is a leadership by example type of role, not a dominance/submission role. That's not what the church teaches. The man gives direction and focus to the home, but it isn't as if this is never overruled by a wife or as if bad ideas a husband has cannot or should not be put aside. This happens all the time.


c. men are not superior to woman. They are different. Men have certain inherant capcities that, on average, are more pronounced in them than in woman and woman have similar capcities and characteristics less prunounced in men. Men and woman compliment each other in a dynamic and developmental way such that both are necessary to the other to achieve their full potential as human beings and children of God.

Jersey Girl: I agree with your saying that "they are different". Once more, I'd like to see you name specific attributes/capacities.


I perceive men and woman to have a very symbiotic, hightly interpenetrating complimentary relationship that, at its best, polishes, matures, and disciplines, the natural attrubutes of the other. Some of the natural, inherant tendencies of men and woman, if not in consistant contact with mediating attributes, can become exaggerated (such as the modern cult of contact sports in this culture, which is a natural outgrowth of mens's innate competitiveness and greater tendency toward aggression (which is partly bioglocial, of course) run amok). A woman's tendency toward cooperation and finer, more refined sensibilities (which are innate to men as well) are a check and mediating influence (ideally), on the male tendency to low impluse control and a consistant desire for aggressive or violent sensory stimulation, either personally or vicariously.

On average, woman are more verbal than men, and although, of course, just as intelligent as men across a broad specturm of abilities, most woman, again as an average and not with reference to any specific woman, do not do as well in purely analytical areas such as logic, rigorous analytical thought, mathematics etc., as men. Men, on the other hand, although by no means uniform in such areas, tend towared these and this can cause the atrophy of other cognitive attributes, such as creative imagination, musical intelligence, or sensitivity to more subtle emotions. This again, is where woman and men become both a catalyst to the attributes in which the other is less sensitive or developed, as well as a check and control on the overuse or overreliance on either emotion or rationality in the solving of problems and negotiating of life tasks.

The reason the Lord has structured things as he has is precisely because of the dynamic interplay of these different characteristics between men and woman. These differenes are not opposites and there is no sense in which men and woman either do or do not have them. It is a matter of emaphasis and deemphasis. Femininity and Masculinity are, at their best, unique wholes each containing parts of the other in different quantities and degrees of refinement. Woman and men help each other to draw out those aspects of the other that are pehaps weaker or less developed (and better understood by the other in an inherant and therefore natural and unselfconscious way) and nurture those characteristics. In other words, in a gospel context (as well as a general human one, all other things being equal) woman help men become better men and vice versa.
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

These are Coggin's comments from the Plutarch thread. I'm copy/pasting them to this thread because they tend to fall more on the topic of discussion here, and I would like to comment on some of this:

Coggins7 wrote:
a. The roles of woman, following gospel teachings, combined with some of my own philosophical observations (following George Gilder, to some extent), are:

1. As an indispensible earthly and eternal companion in life, love, child rearing, spritual, psychological, and emotional maturity, and in the bringing to pass of the immortality and eternal life of man, that is, men and woman are inextricably linked to each other in the process of exaltation.

2. Woman have the primary, but not sole reposnibility for the raising and nurturing of children. This is an emphasis, not a dichotomy between men and woman.

3. Woman exert an inherant civilizing role on men, both because of their inherant feminine nature and qualities but because of the direct causal link between sexuality and childbirth (and therefore family and posterity). Woman exert a natural domesticating and civilizing effect on men such that many of the inherant male tendencies that would otherwise run amok and turn to social pathology are controlled, channeled, refined, and matured within the context of a role as provider, protector, teacher, and leader of a family.



I used to have an old paparback book called The True Believer. On the front cocer was a guy holding a flag carrying the flag through a breach that had been made in a wall, obviously the wall of a foriification of some kind. The man was blindfolded.

How much more appropriate could this symbolism be?

Hers's what I wrote:

As an indispensible earthly and eternal companion in life, love, child rearing, spritual, psychological, and emotional maturity, and in the bringing to pass of the immortality and eternal life of man, that is, men and woman are inextricably linked to each other in the process of exaltation.



Harmony interprets the meaning of this entire paragraph in the following manner:

Wife


I will leave for minds that must be far vaster and more potent than mine to make heads or tails of this. Or, we could just turn this around and go the other way. We could first state "wife" and then proceed to define "wife" as:

...an indispensible earthly and eternal companion in life, love, child rearing, spritual, psychological, and emotional maturity, and in the bringing to pass of the immortality and eternal life of man, that is, men and woman are inextricably linked to each other in the process of exaltation.

Which now forces one to take issue, not with the undefined term "wife", but with the detailed definition I provided (which is, of course, my own).

The other thing would be to ask Harmony just where her animus agianst being a wife and mother comes from, because, you see, that is the crux of the matter.

I'll reiterrate something I've said repeatedly in this forum and in others about this subject: Men's and woman's primary roles, according to the gospel, are centered in the home. The woman's role is centered in home, children, and her husband. The man's role is centered in the home, children, and his wife. That's what the gosepl teaches. Everything else, such as the much more rigid dichotomy between the home and work, pursured by many men and encouraged by late 20th century western culture, is outside the gospel framework and an accretion that has no legitmate church or gospel sanction.

Men and woman, in modern times, have very much (thanks to feminism) the same temptations and challenges. They now must both face the pull of a shallow, materialistic, hedonistic culture that persues self fulfillment and ego gratification at all costs, including the cost of relagating those selfless, long time window aspects of life, such as long term marriage, and the raising, nurturing, teaching, leading, and disciplining of children, to tertiary status.

Harmony is an almost pure example of an ideologue; an otherwise fine mind corrupted by a deadly combination of deep animosity and a simple, manichean, pseudo-intellectual grand ideological framework that explains everything in neat, simple, black and white terms. Like the Marxist economic and social theory before it, Feminism divides the world up into two lumpen masses: men and woman. Men get to wear the black hats, and woman the white, just as the capitalist "exploiters" and the Proletiariat did in aother sphere.

The ideologue is not a philosopher. He is not necessarily an expert on anything. The ideologue is a single minded fanatic preoccupied with a single or a few issues which have swallowed up his or her entire life and for which he has found a system of belief that supports his biases and predjudices and legitimates his passions.

This is a tragedy when it happens to any of us.


Coggins, first of all, I love this:

We could first state "wife" and then proceed to define "wife" as:

...an indispensible earthly and eternal companion in life, love, child rearing, spritual, psychological, and emotional maturity, and in the bringing to pass of the immortality and eternal life of man, that is, men and woman are inextricably linked to each other in the process of exaltation.


I think that this could serve as an appropriate definition for both wives and husbands.

I think, however, that you may be doing what Harmony is doing in reverse. You are lumping all feminist women into one very radical category.

I consider myself a feminist....not a radical, bra-burning, radical 60's feminist, but a feminist in the more "normal" sense. I believe in equal pay for equal work. I think that jobs involving intellect such as doctors, lawyers, professors, therapists, etc. can be done equally well by both men and women, provided they receive the proper education. I believe that it is just as important for a woman to complete her college education as it is for a man to complete his. I teach in the State College system, and love my job, but honestly love being a Mom more. My girls are teen-agers, so, until recently, working outside the home was not that big of a deal. I was usually home from work about the same time they were. However, we recently had a "suprise" baby boy. :) He is a welcome addition to the family, but he has drastically changed my priorities. As much as I enjoy my job, it kills me to have to take him to daycare every day. I'm in the process of getting a home business...a music studio...off the ground so that I can stay home with him, and still have a solid income. This isn't some scheme my husband hatched to "bring me home". This was my idea...my concept.

I agree with you that men and women are equal but different. We do have inherent strengths and weaknesses which balance each other out, and compliment each other. Women tend to be more effective communicators because we are more in tune with being able to read body language, facial expressions, etc. Men tend to be stronger physically, and have an inherent need and talent to protect, while women tend to have an inherent need to nurture.

Notice I listed these as tendancies. People are individuals, and there are always exceptions to the rule. However, in general terms, this is how I see things.

I think that men who use the priesthood for good can be strong, positive role models, and great husbands. If the priesthood is abused by a sense of wielding power over the wife, then the relationship is bound for disaster. There should be no condescention...no superiority complex. Husband and wife should be partners.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Never mind, you beat me to it.
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Coggins7 wrote:Never mind, you beat me to it.


LOL! Great minds think alike? ;)
Post Reply