Gender Topics more Productive?

[Anonymous]

I agree with everything you said, Hawk, about how DJ’s comments generally would be perceived by people who are used to being dismissed completely when it comes to opinions about polygamy – but . . .

On Own Now send a PM to those of us he knows are admins, and he made an extremely good point (more than one). I am copying his message here, since this post is private, and his message was meant for all of the admins.

Before doing that, I want to agree with OON in one point, in paricular:

If there was dismissiveness in that thread, it was started by Dax – and we absolutely CANNOT condone and support something that is little more than a personal attack on one of our participants. Cutting through everything else, Dax was mad at DJ and used a new thread to focus explicitly on him – while claiming not to do so by not naming him. That is passive-aggressive, but it still is a direct, unsolicited, unfair attack, given DJ’s history, what he actually said, and what she said to him first.

Quote:

There’s a thread that should probably be moderated pretty heavily:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6908

It’s basically a formal complaint by Dax against Dark Jedi. I’m tying to keep my head below the bullets, but I don’t think this is appropriate on this site. I think her singling out DJ (though not by name, exactly) just seems so out of character for what we are all about.

She has valid concerns about his reaction, but I will point out that long before DJ did anything that could be viewed as remotely dismissive on the polygamy thread, Dax said directly to DJ: “You are coming from that view point from an absolute place of privilge and power as you are a man in the lds church.” amateurparent also said directly to DJ, as if he were responsible for this: “When you go to church, how often have you been berated or dissed or preached at that your profession is unacceptable? How often have you been told that it is inappropriate to make too much money. How often have you been told that you should only take employment that you can do part-time from home? How often do you find yourself playing down your profession so that you appear less professionally successful that what you are?” These comments were in response to DJ saying that he focuses on what he does believe and that he has never been asked if he believes in or supports polygamy.

IMO, this thread needs to be deleted (the one I linked). It’s counterproductive to say that we need a way to be able to talk about gender issues better, and then to draw division lines between the sexes, to say that men are dismissive, and then to boil it down to one individual who was frustrated by what she said.

I defer to your judgment, of course, but just wanted to alert you in case you haven’t seen the most recent posts on that thread.

Before we do anything with the thread, I would appreciate responses to OON’s message.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Dax was mad at DJ and used a new thread to focus explicitly on him – while claiming not to do so by not naming him.

I completely agree with that, and to be clear, that thread was childish and unwarranted. My objection was before that on the original thread. I feel we were quick to side with DJ who (IMO) was quick to take his ball and go home. That’s where I felt we got off track. Dax’s thread after that was petty.

[Anonymous]

Dax did respond to my PM which may be of interest to the group to hear her explanations and intentions:

Quote:

Heber13,

Thank you for the PM. I appreciate the explanation as to why you locked the thread.

I was trying and wanted to be very careful in how I worded the OP. I purposefully did not include anything specific but left it more as an open “this could be part of why gender topics get so heated” and “examples are not attacks on you personally” type of post.

I was asked by Ray directly if I had seen that dismissive attitude here at staylds. I assumed that since Ray was asking about staylds that he did not see instances of the dismissive attitude I was talking about and that he would have wanted specific examples. The thread with DJ was just the most recent and that’s why I used it. Staylds has gotten better over the years with this sort of thing happening much less often.

I do find it interesting though that DJ was literally saying that women had “vitriol and hate for him because he was male” and no one moderated him to calm down his tone or words or defended the women examples and comments as not personal attacks on DJ. Ray came to DJ defense basically implying that the women were picking on him. Then Ray went on to say that the women ” implied that men who that left the conversation were sexist etc. and was a slap in the face to DJ” (sorry paraphrasing) and that was not the intention at all but that we all needed to be careful on such emotional topics”. (sorry again paraphrasing) Again, DJ is defended and the women told to moderate their tone and comments.

Beyond that thread though is the greater issue of how and why threads like that turn out that way very often. Hence why the following OP on making gender topics more productive. It is not just here but many places.

Please understand that it takes a lot of courage for the average lds female to openly speak out let alone debate priesthood holding lds men. Lds women have been programmed/taught to always follow their priesthood leaders from their early youth. Unlike men who may one day become a “fill in the blank church leader” lds women and girls understand that they will always look toward men ie priesthood leaders for their spiritual direction. So to even get lds women to openly discuss and disagree with lds men even on a forum like this is a huge leap of faith for most of them.

So do what you have to with the thread but please understand that I was not trying to attack DJ. just demonstrate how lds men can unintentionally be dismissive of lds women gender experience when I answered Ray’s question.

Thanks again for the message. I do appreciate this site immensely.

Dax

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Quote:

Dax was mad at DJ and used a new thread to focus explicitly on him – while claiming not to do so by not naming him.

I completely agree with that, and to be clear, that thread was childish and unwarranted. My objection was before that on the original thread. I feel we were quick to side with DJ who (IMO) was quick to take his ball and go home. That’s where I felt we got off track. Dax’s thread after that was petty.

+1,000

Re. the new thread: I think it was Dax’s best attempt at being non-accusatory and constructive. I was trying to acknowledge that in how I answered. I think she came into it with more measured, tentative speech than usual. I think it’s unfortunate that she was presented with a direct question – about her perception of dismissiveness at this site – right on the heels of a thread in which we knew that she felt dismissed.

I wish we could have fanned the tiny flames of her more conciliatory tone.

I don’t know her at all and have no communication with her except for once a couple years ago when she messaged me.

I don’t think I’m getting the gist of moderating, so I’m good with being un-greened. I’m not being passive-aggressive. I really don’t think I’m getting it and I’m starting to feel conspicuous and uncomfortable.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate that input, Ann. I will try to explain why I am willing to discuss moderation in this case.

Here is my view which is essentially what On Own Now said, but in more words: 😳

As OON said, in the initial thread, Dax was dismissive right from the start. Before DJ said anything that could be construed reasonably as dismissive, Dax said things that were dismissive of men contributing to a disucssion of polygamy. She then said DJ basically had no right to express an opinion on the subject that didn’t agree completely with her, since he, by nature of being a man, was privileged and had no concern about what women thought about it.

DJ tried hard to be measured and civil in his responses, but Dax took his comment about him focusing on what he believes as dismissive. He was sharing his own coping mechanism, and, instead of giving that any credit whatsoever, Dax lashed out and said it was a terrible, sexist remark. Her comment to him was HARSH and clearly a personal attack. When he bowed out, he got criticized even more – and when I pointed out how unfair and harsh her characterization was, Dax got even more upset and felt like the men were ganging up on her and proving her point.

She then started a new thread to complain about how she had been treated, with no understanding of her own part in the previous thread – and immediately launched into a detailed, multi-quote re-attack on DJ when I asked about dismissiveness here.

The general issue of the new post is totally fine and appropriate here. This post, especially as an immediate follow-up of the last one, is not. There are multiple reasons for that.

We can’t have a thread where the only acceptable comments are ones that agree completely with the author of the post. We also can’t have a thread that charges participants with being dismissive while being totally dismissive of those participants. We can’t have posts that quote a participant extensively in an attacking manner – especially when the attack fails utterly to acknowledge the attacker’s part in the issue and the mischaracterizations that initiated the comments being quoted in isolation. We can’t go there. We aren’t a site with no moderation of any kind that allows participants to attack other participants at will and dismiss a large portion of our participants.

If someone as moderate and sympathetic to Dax’s view as On Own Now is so troubled that he suggests deleting a thread (which, for the record, I don’t know if he ever has done), there is an issue we need to discuss.

I feel for Dax – and for you, Ann – and for women, generally – and for many men – and for anyone having to consider moderation in this case – when it comes to this topic. However, I asked Dax my question for a simple reason:

If the answer is “yes”, there is nowhere to go here with the topic, since it would create either a battle ground (if everyone continued to comment) or an exclusive group who would be, in effect, banning everyone else from their conversation.

That isn’t us. It isn’t what we do.

[Anonymous]

I think the thread should be deleted.*

I do probably need to not be moderating. And it’s okay. I won’t disappear and I can still glean a lot and maybe give a little.

*probably not for the reasons others do, though. And I would not want to be represented as agreeing with them. But it’s causing problems.

** Thinking a little more about the question. I, for instance, would not have known exactly where it was coming from. If Ray’s question was yes/no, finger-in-the-wind to determine whether the conversation can continue, it would have been polite to indicate that. I think she assumed she was supposed to answer and explain her answer.

I’m NOT saying that Dax has excellent communication skills. I’m NOT saying she’s justified in what she’s done here, but I think we haven’t done a lot to elevate and move forward. We’ve kind of played into to each others’ weaknesses.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I do find it interesting though that DJ was literally saying that women had “vitriol and hate for him because he was male” and no one moderated him to calm down his tone or words or defended the women examples and comments as not personal attacks on DJ. Ray came to DJ defense basically implying that the women were picking on him. Then Ray went on to say that the women ” implied that men who that left the conversation were sexist etc. and was a slap in the face to DJ” (sorry paraphrasing) and that was not the intention at all but that we all needed to be careful on such emotional topics”. (sorry again paraphrasing) Again, DJ is defended and the women told to moderate their tone and comments.

I agree with Dax here.

Quote:

I do find it interesting though that DJ was literally saying that women had “vitriol and hate for him because he was male” and no one moderated him to calm down his tone or words or defended the women examples and comments as not personal attacks on DJ. Ray came to DJ defense basically implying that the women were picking on him. Then Ray went on to say that the women ” implied that men who that left the conversation were sexist etc. and was a slap in the face to DJ” (sorry paraphrasing) and that was not the intention at all but that we all needed to be careful on such emotional topics”. (sorry again paraphrasing) Again, DJ is defended and the women told to moderate their tone and comments.

So what? I believe this was too much interference on DJ’s behalf by Ray. That is my opinion. Dax and amateurparent are simply stating that men experience church differently. I think that’s a fair point, one the men need reminders of frequently.

Look, I think this is very problematic. Women who’ve been told that they are unfaithful if they don’t embrace eventual celestial polygamy are going to be coming from a wounded place, and the beneficiaries of our wounding are men. Talking about polygamy requires more than most women can bring to the table in terms of reasonableness.

Note that all the ones thinking DJ’s comments were fine are the men. Those who think Dax was attacking him and that it wasn’t warranted are the men. The women (unless I am misjudging) recognize that men & women in this discussion cannot be on equal footing. I grant you that DJ is not advocating polygamy, but several women said they have been told by teachers and others over them in the church that a belief in polygamy is required, and he still said that’s not the “fact.” I’m at a slightly better place than Dax is, but he had to see that she was close to the edge emotionally on this topic. Isn’t that a reasonable assumption for men in any conversation with women about polygamy?

[Anonymous]

I carefully considered whether I should comment on this thread at all since I am at the center of the controversy. I began a precisely worded response earlier but more recent posts have pretty much said what I would have said. Ray actually summed it up well, and there is indeed a huge irony in posting about being dismissive while automatically dismissing every male’s opinion because we come from a place of “power and privilege.” Frankly, I don’t get what was dismissive about the initial post at which Dax took offense – as has been said I was simply sharing my own coping mechanism. It does, in fact, work for me on polygamy and many other subjects (BoM, BoA, other JS stuff, temples, family history, etc., etc., etc.). That post was intended to deflect obsession with things we can’t change by demonstrating it is possible to cope with these issues if by no other means than making a choice not to obsess and focus on the Good News of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And I don’t see how Dax’s response to that and the new thread – on which I purposely never commented – cannot be considered personal attacks on me.

About the priesthood: First the caveat that I do not believe the priesthood is God’s power or authority. If it is anything at all it is a man-made authority to administer affairs of the church and I do think it unfair that only men can be ordained. That said, I am as powerless to change that as anyone else, male or female, priesthood or no priesthood. I serve on the high council under the “keys” (which I also don’t believe in) of the stake president – the same as every other individual holding a stake calling except the president himself. It is not that glamorous, it requires that I speak 6-7 times a year, that I travel to other units without my family at least monthly and often more, and that I occasionally conduct business on behalf of the stake president and at his direct request. However, he has no authority to change polygamy or decide what is and isn’t taught in lessons (unless it’s false doctrine which he has a duty to correct), or authorize gay marriage or anything else – just like you and me. The 15 men who hold that power (of which I will never be one, nor will I be a bishop or SP – I have baggage) are not the same as the rest of us – they hold positions of power and privilege. I have no more power than the Primary teacher or YWP. My calling is the robe and ring and shoes and fatted calf – all of which really belong to my brother and all of which I will eventually give up through no personal choice (when and under what circumstances will be decided for me and without my foreknowledge). While it might appear to women that the priesthood is something special, it is not – the only thing special about it is I can hold it and women can’t, but I didn’t choose it to be that way and can’t change it. Personal attacks on me or generalized attacks on all men can’t change it either.

Taking my ball and going home: It wasn’t my ball, I left it there, but I was done playing and went home. I had indeed said what I had to say and had (and have) nothing else to contribute to the conversation. I could have just left without saying anything but I strongly suspect I would have been criticized for doing that as well. There was no reason for me to stay and be baited into further useless discussion (not that the discussion of others wasn’t useful). I don’t get into pissing matches, both people end up looking stupid and smelling bad and I can obviously do that without any help.

My two cents: I think the gender thread ought to remain locked, perhaps even deleted (although I also see value in it being there). I think the subject can be civilly discussed without personal attacks and without dismissiveness. That thread was never intended to be any thing other than what it turned out to be.

Final thought: The ship is turning, even on the subject of polygamy. Everything the Q15 stops talking about loses traction. As our current younger generations – male and female – grow into leadership positions the view and teachings will change, just as they have about race and homosexuality and working mothers and caffeine. I see it in my own young adult children and their friends, I see it in my stake president, I see it in people like Pres. Uchtdorf. If Joseph Smith was right about all things being appendages to the testimony that Jesus Christ died and was buried and rose again, we have nothing to obsess about.

I’ve said too much.

[Anonymous]

Who is going to make the decision about the thread and communicate with Dax? Hawkgrrrl?

[Anonymous]

DJ – The frustration is that the Q15 probably hasn’t said a positive public word about polygamy since WWI, but a hundred years later polygamy as God’s will is still kicking in early morning seminary. Do they want what is happening? That’s what I want to know.

I’m not, not, not saying that to be confrontational or accusatory to you. I hope you know and believe that I had and have no anger towards you.

[Anonymous]

Wow – Late to the party sorry, my neighbors were having a garage sale. Honest.

I think the thread should remained locked but available for reading, if someone digs it up. I have been the outlier on topic, polygamy doesn’t bug me. If it gets reinstated – I am out, or at least not practicing.

I do worry about our conflict management though, stuff is going to get hotter. The ship really isn’t turning as fast as society and individuals hope for – people need places to sort out their stuff. Most of us can’t talk to a spouse, parent, religious leader or even a counselor, that makes forums and facebook the last hope.

Face book goes too fast and too hot. FacesEast is silent, NOM is a flame throwing opportunity, and blogs alone don’t give you talking time. That leaves us. I don’t have an answer, but maybe we need to learn to project someone else’s question back to them, not add in our opinion if the matter is intense, but let them have some venting time. We mods can vent up here or in PM’s with each other, but give them space.

I also suggested and still suggest when we as Mods get a topic that is personally tough for us, ping another mod to be the extra eyes and ears for the conversation.

Ann – you do a wonderful job moderating. This was a direct topic for you. If we had been discussing seer stones, I don’t think it would have been so close, but this is – and it should be. Don’t find fault with your part. If I had been moderating about the Essays or human marginalization, I would have been up in everyone’s grill.

DJ – No worries I picked up the balls and put them in the closet for another day.

[Anonymous]

After reading everyone’s comments, I probably was too direct in my questions to Dax – but I really do believe it would have spiraled into a really bad thread if we had let it go unquestioned.

I suggest Hawk or mom3 unlock it long enough to add a comment about the admins and moderators discussing it extensively in private, agreeing the topic is fine to discuss, and saying we simply can’t have discussions that make it impossible for a large portion of our participants to comment – or something somehow similar, whatever the wording might be.

Are either of you okay with that? If not, what would you suggest?

[Anonymous]

*****Sorry, gang – I wrote all this right after DJ’s last comment while the conversation carried on without me. Let me do this. Let’s leave the thread locked as is, but I can add a comment on it about better behaviors in future all around. I’ll PM Dax to summarize our discussion on the back list and why I think we can move ahead now.*****

That thread should never have been put up, IMO. It was petty and clumsy and passive-aggressive. My opinion would be to delete it. It’s just dumb. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The original issue to me still feels like it was a bit tone deaf toward the experience of women and then when Dax lost her cool (quick trigger finger probably), there was no tolerance for her wounded flailing, and instead we as mods seemed to be ganging up on her

DJ, here are the phrases you used that I think are inflammatory:

– your repeatedly referring to the female commenters in the discussion as “ladies” while disagreeing. That just sounds like you are telling the hens to quit their clucking. Calling women “ladies” collectively inherently sounds dismissive. Instead, address individuals by name.

–

Quote:

“I have to disagree. I don’t think we (as in the top leadership of the church or as a local ward/stake in my case) teach women or anyone else that they have to accept polygamy. Fact is, we don’t.”

So your experience which is elevated to “fact” is “trumping” the experience of all the women who’ve just stated that we in our lifetimes have been told otherwise. The essays – in 2015 – just reaffirmed the flaming sword justification and the notion that it was God’s will and we just don’t know why and also pointed to the reprehensible Law of Sarah doctrine. It’s true that the curriculum prohibits discussing polygamy, but all the examples we provided as women were of fellow ward members lasciviously sharing their desire for hot plural wives or seminary instructors stating that polygamy is a doctrine that must be accepted. And of course D&C 132 still tells every woman and girl in the church that her consent means nothing when it comes to polygamy. And several of the Q15 are current polygamists because they are sealed to more than one wife, but no living women are sealed to more than one husband. Polygamy continues to hide in plain sight.

–

Quote:

“We are allowed our agency in the matter and opposing polygamy – as a male or a female – in most of the church will have no affect on one’s standing in the church.”

I believe this is correct because no male leader is going to come after a woman over this for fear of how it looks.

–

Quote:

“I”m not saying I stand at the pulpit and preach against polygamy, but I am saying my leaders know my stance and there is not an overwhelming disagreement about it. It is likewise on several other subjects (gay marriage being one of them).”

And yet the fact that public disagreement is not the norm points to the fact that it’s not really allowed. What woman has the ability to go on record as you have as being opposed to it? We don’t have these types of relationships you describe. We are stuck in female and children auxiliaries. We aren’t in leadership meetings. We are barred from most leadership meetings. My stake went out of its way to be clear that women are not invited to the PH leadership session of stake conference.

–

Quote:

“And just because someone is standing at the pulpit or in front of the classroom doesn’t mean I have to listen to or agree with them. I understand not everyone is able to block stuff out, but it is something I have worked at and were I not able to do so I would not be a member now.”

I don’t see a problem with this statement or strategy. I guess just pointing to more common ground would be helpful such as: “You don’t have to accept what anyone else says on this matter, just your own conscience, and I’ll be standing there right next to you in solidarity.” That wording makes a friend, not an adversary.

DJ, you have plenty of cred with me and with all the mods, obviously. I even think you are an ally on this topic. The problem is that even the people who ran the underground railroad weren’t at risk of being slaves themselves. I know that due to intersectionality, racial minorities don’t like privileged white women to co-opt their experience for their own feminist purposes, but sometimes I think framing it that way can help men to see why women talking about polygamy need to be handled as the non-equals we are on that topic. We have a dog in the fight that no man has.

[Anonymous]

HG – I like what you said in the locked thread. I’m still inclined to delete because it was suggested.

Everyone – I’m going to take a break – maybe it’s a Sabbath – from moderating and I’ve asked Brian to change my status. I didn’t think I should do it completely without explanation. But I don’t really have one, either.

[Anonymous]

Great response Hawkgrrl.

I’ve learned a lot from this. Thanks for everyone’s effort and input.

Ann -please reconsider, I think you are being way too hard on yourself.

[Author]

Posts