#61430- Singleton responses

[Marduk]

The only one that has any validity is the first, and that's simply a matter of misspeaking. Instead of "I think it is ridiculous to suggest that a woman's choice of employment in any way jeopardizes or changes her ability to comply with the Lord's plan for families." I should've said "I think it is ridiculous to suggest that a woman's choice to be employed in any way jeopardizes or changes her ability to comply with the Lord's plan for families." But the overall point remains the same with either phrasing, and that is that no categorical imperative is given by The Proclamation.

Other than that, it is simply me pulling Vorpal's "I have vastly more experience than you and can see and understand things better because I'm old and wise" before he could. And of course, as I expected, he'd simply say the same thing back to me.

[Craig Jessop]

Other than that, it is simply me pulling Vorpal's "I have vastly more experience than you and can see and understand things better because I'm old and wise" before he could. And of course, as I expected, he'd simply say the same thing back to me.

After all, you are far more experienced and have seen more of life than Vorpal has. Which, of course, means nothing because years of experience and observing human behavior counts for nothing.

[Marduk]

Ever heard the phrase "practice makes perfect?" My old coach hated that phrase. The point he made, and it is a good one, is that practicing something wrong, repeatedly, actually does more harm than good. The phrase he replaced it with, which makes much more sense, is "practice makes permanent." When we do the same behavior over and over again, that method, right or wrong, becomes inculcated into our minds and we will have a tough time changing it.

Why do I bring this up? Because, years of experience and observing human behavior only counts if we can do so without bias and a pre-formed opinion. If we go through life and our observations expecting a specific set of results, we will see these reinforced despite what the data actually supports. Hence, years and years of observing the same behavior, interpreting it the same way, enforces the same idea, whether it be right or wrong.

So experience counts for plenty, and in many things, Vorpal has more than I do. But that experience is a double-edged sword when it comes to trying to understand human behavior and interpret normative actions.

[Unit of Energy]

The problem with human experience is that no one can be un-biased. Marduk is biased, Vorpal is biased, I'm biased. It's impossible not to be. People of our generation look at the fifities with disdain for their outdated ideas, but who is to say that our ideas won't be outdated in fifty years?

[Craig Jessop]

Ever heard the phrase "practice makes perfect?" My old coach hated that phrase. The point he made, and it is a good one, is that practicing something wrong, repeatedly, actually does more harm than good. The phrase he replaced it with, which makes much more sense, is "practice makes permanent." When we do the same behavior over and over again, that method, right or wrong, becomes inculcated into our minds and we will have a tough time changing it.

Why do I bring this up? Because, years of experience and observing human behavior only counts if we can do so without bias and a pre-formed opinion. If we go through life and our observations expecting a specific set of results, we will see these reinforced despite what the data actually supports. Hence, years and years of observing the same behavior, interpreting it the same way, enforces the same idea, whether it be right or wrong.

So experience counts for plenty, and in many things, Vorpal has more than I do. But that experience is a double-edged sword when it comes to trying to understand human behavior and interpret normative actions.

You know, Marduk, you could be wrong. Of course you don't believe it, but there's just the SLIGHTEST chance that you could be wrong. Call me crazy.

[Marduk]

Is that statement you quoted wrong? No, I don't really think so. Am I equally susceptible to bias and pre-formed opinions? Absolutely. Which is why I'm always the first to second-guess myself. It's annoying, really.

[Craig Jessop]

Oh my gosh, you're a post-modernist!

Wait... me too.

[Marduk]

Yeah, except I totally hate that Banksy dude.

[Hypatia]

Everyone I know believes that women are just as deserving as men to have the jobs and careers of their choice. As far as I can see this is a non issue. I think even Doyle Hobbs, a character created to put forth the view that a woman's place is in the home, would agree. I think the issue here is whether in the divine design are fathers to preside over their families in love and righteousness and be responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families, while mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children?

I was talking about this exact point with a very intelligent woman today. She confirmed something that I have believed for years: the only difference between men and women is that women can physically bear children. I strongly feel that all other traits are the result of nurture and personal wiring. Perhaps on a bell curve, more women fall into the "nurture" category but I certainly don't. Does that mean I'm defective? Do I have a man's mind in a woman's body? No. There is no gender to love, nurture, intelligence, or willingness to provide. These are all qualities that an individual chooses to adapt based on nurture and personal preference.

Also, does anyone else feel sorry for dudes who spend all their time at work rather than with their families because they feel it's their manly duty? I know a few men in the LDS church who have been shunned for being stay-at-home dads even though that was what their choice.

I dare anyone to bring up that study where children were raised in gender neutral environments and the girls all chose to play with dolls while the boys all played with trucks. Ready, GO!

[Tao]

She confirmed something that I have believed for years: the only difference between men and women is that women can physically bear children.

While I don't have much of an opinion on the majority of what has been said here recently, I think I have to disagree with this claim. Gross anatomy is replete with gender differences. From bone structure to the circulatory system, from musculature to the immune system, gender differentiation crops up again and again. An in-depth study of each system can easily instill a wonder if there are any major systems that are indistinguishable between genders, the brain not excluded. With such a level of physical sexual dimorphism, can we honestly believe that reproduction is the only significant difference between men and women?

[melbabi]

Wow. This seems to have gotten quite heated! The only thing I've got to add is a quote we used in one of my classes this week.

"Did you ever notice how difficult it is to argue with someone who is not obsessed with being right?" -Dr. Wayne Dyer

[Hypatia]

While I don't have much of an opinion on the majority of what has been said here recently, I think I have to disagree with this claim. Gross anatomy is replete with gender differences.

I stand by my claim that the only substancial difference between men and women is the physical ability to bear children. Nearly every physical difference between the male and female form can be attributed to evolutionary choices based on protecting the mother's ability to perpetuate the species. Take bone structure, for example: women's hips are much different from men's as they must be wide enough for a child to pass through.

While I don't think your argument that brains must also be different is far fetched, it is unsubstantiated. From purely anecdotal evidence, I can attest that I see very little between a man's brain and a woman's brain other than what culture has influenced. Since I split my time between being in a purely male environment (at work) and being in a purely female environment (almost everywhere else) I feel I have a unique view into gender differences. I will agree with anyone who says a majority of women act a certain way and a majority of men act differently; however, if we were to map these differences on two bell curves (men being in one and women being in another) we would see the peaks fall so closely together that almost all men lie within a single standard deviation of women and thus calling a career-oriented woman an "outlier" would be a statistical fallacy.

Damn, if I cared about this forum enough, I would probably make some diagrams to help better explain this idea.

One final food-for-thought thought: a study was conducted to determine whether or not homosexuals were "born that way" or if they chose their lifestyle. (I'll warn you right off the bat that the science conducted in this study is more despicable than Mythbusters methods but they did discover something interesting.) Scans of taxi driver's brains were performed and it was found that the motor-skills and concentration parts of their brains (parts necessary for driving) were much larger than in the average brain yet not a single one of them ever felt called to the duty of taxi driver. The conclusion made was that the brain will develop based on use - similar to a muscle. If a woman is told constantly (coughreliefsocietycough) that she was designed to be more compassionate and caring, and she buys into this idea, she will naturally develop the parts of her brain which control emotion.

If I were to take the other side of this argument, I could rip the above statements apart by saying there is no way to conclusively decide which traits were developed by nurture and environment and which are inherently gender specific, and I would be entirely right. However, after years and years of trying to find what makes me a woman, I've come up with little evidence to support the opposite side: that women are designed to be nurturers.

Anyway, them's my thoughts. Feel free to rip them apart!

[UnluckyStuntman]

Yeah, except I totally hate that Banksy dude.

don't say that in front of Bad Astronaut.

[Marduk]

Hypatia, no one has said or takes the position that "a career-oriented woman (is) an 'outlier'" here. It is also a rather strong position to suggest that every anatomical difference between genders can be explained by childbirth. I also think it is funny that you call it the "mother's ability to perpetuate the species" because, last time I checked, creating life takes two people.

Lastly, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that although I believe brain structure can change depending on use, to say that it will also change based on suggestion of future use is a leap I'm not willing to make just yet. So, a mother's brain structure may develop to increase her compassion as she is pregnant, and then after birth as the child is fed, clothed, and nurtured by her, but that doesn't mean the structure will change because she is told this will happen. (Of course, there's a number of other things that WILL happen when we are told things repeatedly; self-fulfilling prophecy anyone?)

[Hypatia]

Marduk, I used women as the example but one can see similar evolutionary choices in men. Since pregnancy slows a woman and makes her unable to defend herself from, I don't know, sabre tooth tigers, men were constantly chosen to be larger and more muscular. Evolution! It's pretty rad!

Also, maybe I've totally missed the point of this argument....Is Vorpal Blade honestly spending so much time arguing about a fictional character? I just assumed that this character was brought up as a front to argue personal opinions but...hey...if those dudes want to spend time arguing that they have the same opinion...far be it from me to stop them!

[vorpal blade]

Bah. I would really like to watch the episode in question, but netflix canada does not have it.

That's too bad. I've enjoyed studying the episode, and I think you would enjoy it as well. I'd like you to form your own opinion about it.

Apparently, though, your opinion after viewing it made be greatly influenced by what you bring to the viewing. If you are like me, having lived through the fifties, and are familiar with the thoughts, customs, patterns, ideas, prejudices of the time, you are apt to have a different opinion than if you "have been steeped in the 'hate anything traditional' politics of the American higher education system," as Paul Mavis said.

[Hypatia]

NerdGirl,

Are you Canadian?? I'm going to be Canadian!!! Can we talk about Canada together please?!

[vorpal blade]

Other than that, it is simply me pulling Vorpal's "I have vastly more experience than you and can see and understand things better because I'm old and wise" before he could. And of course, as I expected, he'd simply say the same thing back to me.

My apologies, I seemed to have given the wrong impression. My point was not that I am older and wiser, nor did I understand you to say the same. My point was that we are discussing how people felt in the 1950s. What were the attitudes toward gender differences? And, in particular, what did Doyle Hobbs mean by his speech to Jim?

I feel that I am better qualified to address this issue because I lived through that period of time. If by some chance I have been blinded by the prejudices or trapped in the worldview of the period in which I grew up, this makes me more qualified, not less qualified to interpret what a character intended to say in a 1950s television series. My “bias” would be the same “bias” exhibited in the production of Father Knows Best. What I've seen in this forum is some wild speculation that Doyle thought women were inferior, or their only purpose was to serve men, or "Because he is a male, he feels he is entitled to a job in a field of his choice. He feels he ought to be allowed to make his own choices about his career and future, but he doesn’t feel that women deserve the same privilege. Instead, a woman should be content with being a pretty little wife to her husband. It’s her job to be there when he gets home merely because, as a male, he deserves her....a woman should not seek employment because she might be taking some guy’s job.... males are entitled to nice, pretty wives simply because they work hard all day....he makes women out to be nice, pretty little things to be had by men. He claims the only reason why a woman exists is to give a man reason to work, to come home to a ‘pretty wife.’"

So, I'm here to tell you that you have been misinformed about the 1950s, and I feel qualified to tell you that because I know what I was taught and what I was exposed to and what others were saying at the time. The kinds of attitudes you ascribe to Doyle, and by implication to the 1950s, were foreign to that time. In later years, in order to justify their agenda and create a false sense of need for it, people have taken to demonize the attitudes of the 1950s, and apparently they have been quite successful at it. Insomuch that the youth today often don't realize that they have been indoctrinated. It is a shame to see someone self-identify with Feminism because they have been presented with lies about an earlier period of time.

[NerdGirl]

NerdGirl,

Are you Canadian?? I'm going to be Canadian!!! Can we talk about Canada together please?!

Yes I am and yes we can!!!

[vorpal blade]

I think it is ridiculous to suggest that a woman's choice to be employed in any way jeopardizes or changes her ability to comply with the Lord's plan for families. In the same way, it is equally harmful for a father to choose to work outside the home for 60+ hours per week if there is an alternative that will allow him to remain at home. These are individual decisions left to individual families for a reason, and that is because there is no one-size-fits-all employment structure that every family can follow.

My apologies again for not making myself clear. I was in a bit of a hurry.

In my mind the underlying principles here are given by "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." To again quote a sentence from it

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

The proclamation says that there are different roles for men and women, and that is by divine design (and, I will add, not simply by evolution). The male has the responsibility to provide the necessities of life for his family, which means to me that by divine design the male should be the one with a career, the one who is out working to support the family. It does not say that this is the role of the mother. For some reason God has established this difference between the sexes, and the wise person will try to conform his life to the will of God.

Now, any reasonable person recognizes that there will be exceptions. I advise my daughters to get as good an education as they can so that they are prepared to support themselves, or their husbands if necessity should arise, or after marriage if the marriage should end by death or some other reason. Let them pick whatever career they choose, be it engineer, scientist, doctor, lawyer, auto mechanic, or whatever. I'm sure whatever skills they learn can be useful later in life, if not in the work place then at home. As you point out, these are individual decisions which a person should prayerful make.

The problem with talking about exceptions so much is that everyone who decides to go against the counsel of the Lord seems to find a way to think that he or she is the exception. There should be few exceptions. And to my mind a woman’s choice to be employed may in fact jeopardize or change her ability to comply with the Lord's plan for families. It is an important family decision because it may jeopardize the family. It is very likely that she will not be as able to nurture her children as well as she could and should if she chooses to be employed. And, of course, the type of employment will make a difference, as well, but it may be that no employment for the mother is the Lord's answer for that family. The wise person will not wait for the “categorical imperative,” but will see the Proclamation for what it is, a revelation on the proper role of men and women. To go against the counsel requires a personal revelation that your case is an exception, or else you will suffer the consequences of not having raised your family the way the Lord wanted you to raise it.