Relief Society President, as autonomous leader

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Did you interview your female friends at BYU yet?

I contacted one who was a science major. She said yes, she did receive discouragement.

Shocking.

As a matter of fact, yes. I'm waiting on some responses from some others, as well. I WILL report on this, don't you worry.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

btw, AA, when you lose an argument in a court of law, are you going to accuse the other side of trolling? Will that work for ya?

One friendly word of advice for you while you are at NYU--never open your mouth about your opinions on gender roles with anyone whom you work with or might work with or who might know someone you might work with.

I'll bet you miss not having SU around as much, don't you?

Argument ain't over yet, kid. Patience.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

btw, AA, when you lose an argument in a court of law, are you going to accuse the other side of trolling? Will that work for ya?

One friendly word of advice for you while you are at NYU--never open your mouth about your opinions on gender roles with anyone whom you work with or might work with or who might know someone you might work with.

And by the way, what opinion on gender role ought I to keep hidden? The one where the question of who does what when it comes to raising children and winning bread ought to be handled by the parents on an case-by-case basis? Or the one where it is not always possible or desirable for the mother to stay at home? Should I make sure nobody knows that I believe that actively discouraging a woman from pursuing her goals, whatever they may be, is reprehensible and ought to be condemned?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by All-American

And by the way, what opinion on gender role ought I to keep hidden? The one where the question of who does what when it comes to raising children and winning bread ought to be handled by the parents on an case-by-case basis? Or the one where it is not always possible or desirable for the mother to stay at home? Should I make sure nobody knows that I believe that actively discouraging a woman from pursuing her goals, whatever they may be, is reprehensible and ought to be condemned?

the one where you think it is appropriate for BYU faculty to discourage female students from certain careers.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by All-American

I'll bet you miss not having SU around as much, don't you?

Argument ain't over yet, kid. Patience.

SU is a dipshit. I miss him like I miss stepping in dog poo.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

the one where you think it is appropriate for BYU faculty to discourage female students from certain careers.

Do you think it is appropriate for BYU faculty to discourage MALE students from certain careers?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by All-American

Do you think it is appropriate for BYU faculty to discourage MALE students from certain careers?

Do I have to explain this again, what sexism means?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Do I have to explain this again, what sexism means?

I remember your definition: when the advice women receive is not the same as the advice men receive, it is equal to sexism.

I just find it curious as you have applied it here, because depending on how you apply it, it puts you in a number of odd positions. If it is wrong to discourage women from certain careers, and it is wrong to give women different advice than men, it must also be wrong to discourage men from certain careers. Curiously, however, you have tried to discourage me from going into law, even though it is wrong to discourage a woman or a man from certain careers. Then you compounded your error by failing to offer the same discouragement to a woman considering the same career path, thereby offering a man different advice than a woman. If the sentiments you have expressed are true, your interaction with us have been both inappropriate and sexist.

Now, I don't consider it sexist that the advice you've given to me is different from the advice that you've given to an individual of the other gender, nor do I believe that you have wronged me by trying to discourage me from pursuing law. In both cases, you considered the individual, you considered the field, and you levied advice that was tailored to either of us and the circumstances in which we are. That you have done so was fitting and appropriate. Yet if it was fitting and appropriate for you, who has never seen me, spoken with me, or interacted with me in any way whatsoever except on internet sports boards, to advise me against a career path based on what you know about me, how much more appropriate would it be for a university professor, who has worked with me extensively in the subject matter directly pertaining to the field which I am considering, to consider my situation and advise me accordingly? And if that professor is willing to render such advise to me, a man, should he not be both willing and able to offer similar advise to a woman?

The arguments that you have put forward are inherently self-contradictory, and at least one of three notions you have espoused must be incorrect. Either your definition of sexism is flawed, your advice against choosing a certain career path was inappropriate, or it is not necessarily unacceptable for a professor to discourage a student from entering a field which he or she believes will not be to the full benefit of the student.

So which of your three statements do you wish to retract?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by All-American

I remember your definition: when the advice women receive is not the same as the advice men receive, it is equal to sexism.

I just find it curious as you have applied it here, because depending on how you apply it, it puts you in a number of odd positions. If it is wrong to discourage women from certain careers, and it is wrong to give women different advice than men, it must also be wrong to discourage men from certain careers. Curiously, however, you have tried to discourage me from going into law, even though it is wrong to discourage a woman or a man from certain careers. Then you compounded your error by failing to offer the same discouragement to a woman considering the same career path, thereby offering a man different advice than a woman. If the sentiments you have expressed are true, your interaction with us have been both inappropriate and sexist.

Now, I don't consider it sexist that the advice you've given to me is different from the advice that you've given to an individual of the other gender, nor do I believe that you have wronged me by trying to discourage me from pursuing law. In both cases, you considered the individual, you considered the field, and you levied advice that was tailored to either of us and the circumstances in which we are. That you have done so was fitting and appropriate. Yet if it was fitting and appropriate for you, who has never seen me, spoken with me, or interacted with me in any way whatsoever except on internet sports boards, to advise me against a career path based on what you know about me, how much more appropriate would it be for a university professor, who has worked with me extensively in the subject matter directly pertaining to the field which I am considering, to consider my situation and advise me accordingly? And if that professor is willing to render such advise to me, a man, should he not be both willing and able to offer similar advise to a woman?

The arguments that you have put forward are inherently self-contradictory, and at least one of three notions you have espoused must be incorrect. Either your definition of sexism is flawed, your advice against choosing a certain career path was inappropriate, or it is not necessarily unacceptable for a professor to discourage a student from entering a field which he or she believes will not be to the full benefit of the student.

So which of your three statements do you wish to retract?

actually, AA, I think you are either 1) trolling, or 2) stupid.

The only contradiction is in yourself, who can't recognize your sexism. Or even wrap your brain around what sexism is.

More and more I'm beginning to think law is the right thing for you. Not that logic seems to be a strength.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

actually, AA, I think you are either 1) trolling, or 2) stupid.

The only contradiction is in yourself, who can't recognize your sexism. Or even wrap your brain around what sexism is.

More and more I'm beginning to think law is the right thing for you. Not that logic seems to be a strength.

You are withdrawing your definition of sexism, then. Very well.

You are welcome, of course, to actually refute my logic instead of resorting to namecalling. Or is it that when you lose an argument, you just accuse the other side of trolling?