"Mothers Who Know": the Modern Offense Translation

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

That's what I did, and that's what I will counsel my sons to do also. I never understood the desire to get married while still in school, let alone having kids also. I guess I am in good company if this Apostle is telling his son the same thing. I wish this same message would be conveyed to the Church as a whole, instead of a select few, like this Apostle's son.

It's all about sex. The first gal to come along the Lord doesn't say no about, marry at your earliest opportunity and get it on.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Ok...let me suggest one set of "disenfranchised" people that Sister Beck's talk did help.

My wife had a bachelor's degree and a job when we met. We got married, had a surprise child early on and she decided to quit her job and be a mother full-time. Wasn't the original plan, but that's how it worked out.

We now have three kids and are fortunate enough to survive on my income. I now find myself defending her decision to my colleagues (male and female) who often automatically assume that since my wife is at home, she's a "gold-digger" with no talents of her own, or that I'm a sexist who likes his woman barefoot and pregnant. Why should I have to defend her commitment to a pursuit that we both believe is the highest either one of us could participate in?

Maybe that's why I'm not offended at Sister Beck's talk. I took it as a reaffirmation that raising children is the highest calling either I or my wife can have. How we do it is up to us.

I will argue strenuously against those who put down those who make a good faith decision to be a full time Mom. If Sister Becks talk had been about the assault on moms and how they are as important as those ladies who choose to go onto college and a career, I would have been behind her assertion 100%.

I know lots and lots of awesome women who are full time moms. I don't see it as an either or.

Awesome women who send thier kids to church in white shirts and a missionary haircut. Awesome moms who send their kids in a blue shirt with hair hanging on the collar. I think when you stereotype any group, you are looking to be proven wrong.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Mrs. Funk

Well, sure. And perhaps all of those other topics combined affect 50% of the church. But at a basal level, 50% of the church is effectively in an identity crisis over their basic roles as women in the church. I don't know that other issues affect the church so broadly at the end of the day.

FWIW, my wife isn't in an identity crisis. She knows who she is, and I support her in everything she wants.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Spaz

It's all about sex. The first gal to come along the Lord doesn't say no about, marry at your earliest opportunity and get it on.

Cue transition to discussion on masturbation.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

NO, my whole point is that it is easy to see why someone would have an issue with certain parts of her talk, based strictly upon what she SAID.

Which is bunk. I'm not going to repeat myself. The issues you're claiming she said simply WEREN'T said.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I'm not sure how many times I'll have to say this, but:

No one controls meaning.

A speaker, such as Sister Beck, can provide a "preferred encoding," but any number of decodings (reasoned interpretations) are not only possible (including those that scholars call "negotiated" and "oppositional,"), but are inevitable and even desirable.

The search for authorial intention as some kind of definitive pronouncement as to what a particular artifact--like a speech--means has been debunked for decades. Don't believe me? Research the intentional approach to meaning.

The search for meaning in objects themselves has been debunked for even longer.

Meaning is constructed much like human beings are. It takes something from authors and something from receivers, but is ultimately its own creature. Meaning is zygotic.

Trying to discover, let alone capture and articulate, what Sister Beck "means" or "intends" is impossible, for you, me, and Sister Beck herself. Do people understand their own intentions? I assert that in many instances the answer to that is "no."

Still, a competent speaker tries to anticipate the range of plausible interpretations. Certainly Sister Beck should have done this, and it's quite possible that she did.

The "shot birds flutter" business is ridiculous, except that it introduces the disturbing idea of Church leaders as hunters, Church members as dehumanized prey, and the process of speaking at conference as "shooting at people."

Even a comparison such as "Lost sheep bleet" would be better, although it presumes that the speaker is correct (or not "lost") and that those who disagree are wrong, which, as I've implied above, does not speak to the "meaning" of something such as a speech.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Spaz

It's all about sex. The first gal to come along the Lord doesn't say no about, marry at your earliest opportunity and get it on.

They pushed that in the 60's and early 70's from the pulpit. Get married as soon as possible and start poppin kids as soon as possible.

Birth control was evil.

There is good reason to do this. I will bet the activity rate is directly related to how soon you get married and how fast you have kids. Especially amongst LDS men. Also, one can not deny it is easier to stay chaste the earlier you get married.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Let me help you here. Did you miss this the first time?

SoCal says: "After months of discussions, I've come to the conclusion that if you can't see the potential misinterpretation of Sister Beck's talk, you're either stupid or hopelessly self-centered.

I think the message that I believe was intended is well-meaning and appropriate. I think the delivery was unfortunate."

Nope. You're still talking about something that doesn't exist as if it does. YOU'RE the one missing it the first (and second, and third...) time.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm not sure how many times I'll have to say this, but:

No one controls meaning.

A speaker, such as Sister Beck, can provide a "preferred encoding," but any number of decodings (reasoned interpretations) are not only possible (including those that scholars call "negotiated" and "oppositional,"), but are inevitable and even desirable.

The search for authorial intention as some kind of definitive pronouncement as to what a particular artifact--like a speech--means has been debunked for decades. Don't believe me? Research the intentional approach to meaning.

Meaning is constructed much like human beings are. It takes something from authors and something from receivers, but is ultimately its own creature. Meaning is zygotic.

Trying to discover, let alone capture and articulate, what Sister Beck "means" or "intends" is impossible, for you, me, and Sister Beck herself. Do people understand their own intentions? I assert that in many instances the answer to that is "no."

Still, a competent speaker tries to anticipate the range of plausible interpretations. Certainly Sister Beck should have done this, and it's quite possible that she did.

The "shot birds flutter" business is ridiculous, except that it introduces the disturbing idea of Church leaders as hunters, Church members as dehumanized prey, and the process of speaking at conference as "shooting at people."

Even a comparison such as "Lost sheep bleet" would be better, although it presumes that the speaker is correct (or not "lost") and that those who disagree are wrong, which, as I've implied above, does not speak to the "meaning" of something such as a speech.

I think Sister Beck wrote this in one sitting and felt it was from God. She obviously had no reason to "anticiapte the range of plausible interpretations".

If I felt I was speaking Gods words, I doubt I would worry about interpretations either. Hey, you don't like what I said, take it up with the almighty, they are his words.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by BYU71

They pushed that in the 60's and early 70's from the pulpit. Get married as soon as possible and start poppin kids as soon as possible.

Birth control was evil.

There is good reason to do this. I will bet the activity rate is directly related to how soon you get married and how fast you have kids. Especially amongst LDS men. Also, one can not deny it is easier to stay chaste the earlier you get married.

Sounds good to me. I'm under no illusions as to the likelihood of most LDS 20-somethings staying chaste the longer they're unmarried.

Good thing birth control is no longer evil