Continued discussion about gender inequality in LDS church

[Moksha]

He is a master in eisegesis (as is Kerry Muhlestein) ...

What is the term for the process where you write yourself into the scriptures?

[I Have Questions]

He is a master in eisegesis (as is Kerry Muhlestein) ...

What is the term for the process where you write yourself into the scriptures?

Bednarism.

[MG 2.0]

And there we have it. Mormon Male thinking in all its glory.

Yes. And consider the sentence that followed that nonsense:

Both men and women have their place. Men can't have babies and develop the bond/connection that mothers have with their offspring.

Men can't develop a bond and connection with their offspring? That is a direct insult to every father here. Worse, it gives considerable insight into the gymnast's mindset.

The bond between a mother and her child is qualitatively different.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Yes. And consider the sentence that followed that nonsense:

Men can't develop a bond and connection with their offspring? That is a direct insult to every father here. Worse, it gives considerable insight into the gymnast's mindset.

The bond between a mother and her child is qualitatively different.

Regards,
MG

Said a man.

As per usual, your assertion is not based on facts.

From the marketplace to the workplace, it is mothers who are still perceived as having that “special bond” with their children. This is compounded by advertising and the widely held expectation that it will be mothers who take parental leave.

But in a rapidly changing society, is there really any reason to assume that mothers are any more suited to take care of their children than fathers? Some will argue that a superior “maternal instinct” is part of a woman’s biology. But do pregnancy, hormones or parenting experiences really create a stronger bond? Let’s take a look at the scientific evidence.

Some scholars argue that the relationship between parents and children can begin before birth. They claim that such “antenatal bonding” – feeling connected to the unborn baby – is an important predictor of the infant-mother relationship. However, the actual evidence linking feelings about the baby during pregnancy with postnatal behaviour is inconsistent, so it’s not clear how – or even if – such feelings influence later relationships.

But even if it is shown to be the case, another problem is that most of the research in this area has been conducted with mothers. We are now also starting to understand that fathers develop antenatal relationships too. It is also clear that not having the experience of pregnancy at all doesn’t mean that later relationships are compromised – as those who have adopted a child or started a family through surrogacy arrangements know.

This article reflects modern learning, not the male-world view that has dominated the past 75 years.

A huge problem when it comes to understanding the differences – and similarities – between fathers and mothers is that most research on bonding doesn’t directly compare the two. This is likely to be because mothers still stay home with the child more often than fathers, and researchers might have difficulties finding enough households where fathers are in the role of a primary caregiver. So we don’t really know whether fathers interacting with their babies differently to mothers is about their biological differences or about roles taken in relation to breadwinning and child rearing.

So your assertion is likely driven by your existing in a patriarchal societal bubble with “traditional” and old fashioned gender roles. Rather than it being an inescapable fact. In a society where fathers stayed at home and mothers went out to work, you’d see the qualitative difference in bonding in favour of fathers. It’s about quality time spent with your offspring, not a gender based differential.

[MG 2.0]

The bond between a mother and her child is qualitatively different.

Regards,
MG

Said a man.

As per usual, your assertion is not based on facts.

From the marketplace to the workplace, it is mothers who are still perceived as having that “special bond” with their children. This is compounded by advertising and the widely held expectation that it will be mothers who take parental leave.

But in a rapidly changing society, is there really any reason to assume that mothers are any more suited to take care of their children than fathers? Some will argue that a superior “maternal instinct” is part of a woman’s biology. But do pregnancy, hormones or parenting experiences really create a stronger bond? Let’s take a look at the scientific evidence.

Some scholars argue that the relationship between parents and children can begin before birth. They claim that such “antenatal bonding” – feeling connected to the unborn baby – is an important predictor of the infant-mother relationship. However, the actual evidence linking feelings about the baby during pregnancy with postnatal behaviour is inconsistent, so it’s not clear how – or even if – such feelings influence later relationships.

But even if it is shown to be the case, another problem is that most of the research in this area has been conducted with mothers. We are now also starting to understand that fathers develop antenatal relationships too. It is also clear that not having the experience of pregnancy at all doesn’t mean that later relationships are compromised – as those who have adopted a child or started a family through surrogacy arrangements know.

This article reflects modern learning, not the male-world view that has dominated the past 75 years.

A huge problem when it comes to understanding the differences – and similarities – between fathers and mothers is that most research on bonding doesn’t directly compare the two. This is likely to be because mothers still stay home with the child more often than fathers, and researchers might have difficulties finding enough households where fathers are in the role of a primary caregiver. So we don’t really know whether fathers interacting with their babies differently to mothers is about their biological differences or about roles taken in relation to breadwinning and child rearing.

So your assertion is likely driven by your existing in a patriarchal societal bubble with “traditional” and old fashioned gender roles. Rather than it being an inescapable fact. In a society where fathers stayed at home and mothers went out to work, you’d see the qualitative difference in bonding in favour of fathers. It’s about quality time spent with your offspring, not a gender based differential.

I'm not a patriarchal chauvinist by any means. Not even close. But not knowing each other, it's hard to connect with you on that point. You will have your views, even if they are skewed.

That's life on a message board.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

The bond between a mother and her child is qualitatively different.

Regards,
MG

Said a man.

As per usual, your assertion is not based on facts.

From the marketplace to the workplace, it is mothers who are still perceived as having that “special bond” with their children. This is compounded by advertising and the widely held expectation that it will be mothers who take parental leave.

But in a rapidly changing society, is there really any reason to assume that mothers are any more suited to take care of their children than fathers? Some will argue that a superior “maternal instinct” is part of a woman’s biology. But do pregnancy, hormones or parenting experiences really create a stronger bond? Let’s take a look at the scientific evidence.

Some scholars argue that the relationship between parents and children can begin before birth. They claim that such “antenatal bonding” – feeling connected to the unborn baby – is an important predictor of the infant-mother relationship. However, the actual evidence linking feelings about the baby during pregnancy with postnatal behaviour is inconsistent, so it’s not clear how – or even if – such feelings influence later relationships.

But even if it is shown to be the case, another problem is that most of the research in this area has been conducted with mothers. We are now also starting to understand that fathers develop antenatal relationships too. It is also clear that not having the experience of pregnancy at all doesn’t mean that later relationships are compromised – as those who have adopted a child or started a family through surrogacy arrangements know.

This article reflects modern learning, not the male-world view that has dominated the past 75 years.

A huge problem when it comes to understanding the differences – and similarities – between fathers and mothers is that most research on bonding doesn’t directly compare the two. This is likely to be because mothers still stay home with the child more often than fathers, and researchers might have difficulties finding enough households where fathers are in the role of a primary caregiver. So we don’t really know whether fathers interacting with their babies differently to mothers is about their biological differences or about roles taken in relation to breadwinning and child rearing.

So your assertion is likely driven by your existing in a patriarchal societal bubble with “traditional” and old fashioned gender roles. Rather than it being an inescapable fact. In a society where fathers stayed at home and mothers went out to work, you’d see the qualitative difference in bonding in favour of fathers. It’s about quality time spent with your offspring, not a gender based differential.

Thanks for the link, and for the background on how methodology can effect results. (and you didn't link-and-run!! Someone could learn from that. : D )

[I Have Questions]

I'm not a patriarchal chauvinist by any means. Not even close. But not knowing each other, it's hard to connect with you on that point. You will have your views, even if they are skewed.

That's life on a message board.

Regards,
MG

I’m basing my opinion of you on what you say on this board and how you say it. And your character on this board is that of a patriarchal misogynist. I don’t care how you are in real life, it’s irrelevant to discussions on the board. If you want me to think you’re not a patriarchal misogynist, then post in a way that doesn’t present you as that.

[I Have Questions]

Said a man.

As per usual, your assertion is not based on facts.
This article reflects modern learning, not the male-world view that has dominated the past 75 years.So your assertion is likely driven by your existing in a patriarchal societal bubble with “traditional” and old fashioned gender roles. Rather than it being an inescapable fact. In a society where fathers stayed at home and mothers went out to work, you’d see the qualitative difference in bonding in favour of fathers. It’s about quality time spent with your offspring, not a gender based differential.

Thanks for the link, and for the background on how methodology can effect results. (and you didn't link-and-run!! Someone could learn from that. : D )

I’m not holding my breath, but I am watching…

The research into parent/offspring bonding is very interesting. And it dispels the Mormon notion of specific and traditional gender roles.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I'm not a patriarchal chauvinist by any means. Not even close. But not knowing each other, it's hard to connect with you on that point. You will have your views, even if they are skewed.

That's life on a message board.

Regards,
MG

Calling someone's views "skewed" is some great missionary work, MG. I think you're about ready to finally obey the prophet and go on that senior mission. I always found a lot of success on my mission when I resorted to name calling, personal attacks and belittling others.

You should kill it on your mission. All you need to do is keep behaving and treating people in the most unchristian way possible and you should have much success.

[MG 2.0]

I'm not a patriarchal chauvinist by any means. Not even close. But not knowing each other, it's hard to connect with you on that point. You will have your views, even if they are skewed.

That's life on a message board.

Regards,
MG

I’m basing my opinion of you on what you say on this board and how you say it. And your character on this board is that of a patriarchal misogynist. I don’t care how you are in real life, it’s irrelevant to discussions on the board. If you want me to think you’re not a patriarchal misogynist, then post in a way that doesn’t present you as that.

There's the critic response, "If you want me to..."

How many times have I seen this response to one thing or another?

Prove it! Or I won't believe it. Yeah, right.

Regards,
MG