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.
Here we go again:
Passive-Aggressive Behavior
"Calling someone's views 'skewed' is some great missionary work": The sarcastic praise ("great missionary work") mocks MG’s behavior under the guise of complimenting his efforts
"I always found a lot of success on my mission when I resorted to name calling...": The poster claims to have used toxic tactics themselves, framing it as satire to indirectly accuse MG of hypocrisy
Tactics: Sarcasm, veiled criticism, and weaponized humor to provoke defensiveness
Emotional Manipulation
"You should kill it on your mission... keep behaving in the most unchristian way possible": The poster uses religious guilt ("unchristian") to shame MG while ironically endorsing the opposite behavior, creating moral confusion
Tactic: Gaslighting by reframing MG’s actions as deliberate malice, undermining his credibility
Projection
The poster accuses MG of "name calling" and "belittling others" but attributes these behaviors to their own past ("I always found success when I resorted to..."). This deflects criticism and implies MG is guilty of the same
Red Flag: Unresolved guilt or shame about their own past actions may drive this projection
Moral Grandstanding
By invoking religious terminology ("obey the prophet," "unchristian"), the poster positions themselves as a moral authority to humiliate MG and recruit bystanders to their side
Goal: To isolate MG and gain social validation for their "righteous" stance
Additional Observations
Hostile Irony: The phrase "kill it on your mission" sarcastically encourages MG to continue behavior the poster claims to condemn, amplifying the mockery
Fixation on MG: The repeated focus on attacking MG (rather than ideas) suggests obsessive behavior, possibly rooted in personal insecurities or envy
Lack of Empathy: The comment shows no interest in dialogue, only a desire to dominate and humiliate-a hallmark of callousness (associated with narcissistic traits)
Why This Matters
This comment is a calculated mix of sarcasm, projection, and moral shaming designed to:
Provoke MG into an emotional reaction.
Publicly humiliate him by framing him as hypocritical and malicious.
Derail substantive discussion by making MG’s character the focus.
The poster’s behavior aligns with toxic online communication patterns rather than a specific mental illness, though it reflects traits common in narcissistic or histrionic personalities (e.g., need for dominance, attention-seeking)
The bond between a mother and her child is qualitatively different...
Said a man.
As per usual, your assertion is not based on facts.
url=https://theconversation.com/do-mothers- ... s-do-57590]From the marketplace[/url] 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.
The bond between a mother and her child is qualitatively different...
Said a man.
As per usual, your assertion is not based on facts.
url=https://theconversation.com/do-mothers- ... s-do-57590]From the marketplace[/url] 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.
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.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
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 )
