Comments on: Men at Work https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/ Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues. Tue, 01 May 2007 02:45:42 +0000 hourly 1 By: ltbugaf https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/comment-page-1/#comment-28084 Tue, 01 May 2007 02:45:42 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/#comment-28084 …Of course, you’re still going to raise my hackles very high if you call anybody a “Molly Mormon.”

]]>
By: ltbugaf https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/comment-page-1/#comment-28083 Tue, 01 May 2007 02:29:50 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/#comment-28083 Sure, you can take it as an apology. Mostly a mild self-rebuke, but apology is in there somewhere, too, I think. ;)

]]>
By: Kim Siever https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/comment-page-1/#comment-28081 Tue, 01 May 2007 02:21:30 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/#comment-28081 I accept what I perceive as an apology.

]]>
By: ltbugaf https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/comment-page-1/#comment-28077 Tue, 01 May 2007 02:08:17 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/#comment-28077 After further reflection, I do think I was unfair. You may not be using the term “Molly Mormon” to mean what I take it to mean, and I shouldn’t focus unduly on your use of one or two words without considering the context of your other beliefs and comments about women of all kinds. As you can tell, I get pretty ruffled about the things that are often said about women who devote themselves to that kind of service. Too often they are portrayed as anachronistic, oppressed, and so forth.

]]>
By: ltbugaf https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/comment-page-1/#comment-28070 Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:40:25 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/#comment-28070 Then I think it would be better for you not to refer to such practices and such women as “Molly Mormon,” which lampoons them in a most undignified way.

]]>
By: Kim Siever https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/comment-page-1/#comment-28069 Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:32:25 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/#comment-28069 It’s too bad then that you consider me to having a low opinion of women and that my post was both deriding and ridiculing women who bake cookies for their husband to take to work. All of which are untrue.

]]>
By: ltbugaf https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/comment-page-1/#comment-28068 Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:28:19 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/#comment-28068 No, I didn’t miss the point. I just chose to comment on a subsidiary topic, which was your choice of pejorative language to describe women who—like my wife—bake things for their husbands to share at work.

]]>
By: Kim Siever https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/comment-page-1/#comment-28067 Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:21:36 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/#comment-28067 You completely missed the point of the post, ltbugaf.

]]>
By: ltbugaf https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/comment-page-1/#comment-28064 Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:40:39 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2004/04/26/men-at-work/#comment-28064 I think it’s interesting that a woman who makes cookies at home and sends them to work with her husband must be derided and ridiculed as a “Molly Mormon.” I’m sorry you seem to have such a low opinion of the women who do this.

]]>