If you don't fix me a sandwich, you'll never see even the dark side of heaven. I'll deny your undeniable baptism, I will, and see if I won't.
Now, go on. There are plenty of tomatoes in the fridge. I like them sliced thick, please, and only one leaf of lettuce. And don't be stingy with the ham. And I like wheat bread, lightly toasted.
Well? Go, go go. I'm hungry!
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, patriarchy is never better than the possible equality offered by other parts of worldly views. This is because patriarchy will continue to bolster things, which even though you might claim should be unrelated, will be by their defenders: lower wages for women, more abuse for women, etc. One can try to mitigate these away and argue alternative causalities, but the fact is that many of these problems would not be present if theology didn't attempt to theologically-rationalize chauvenism(patriarchy).
And for those who continue to repeat that "it's just the way it is because doctrine says thus," that doesn't really work in the modern world. The metaphysical has always somewhat been a marketplace, and even though you may be able to secure a group's involvement in a religion through coercion or conversion of their families/male counterparts, that focus group will over time seek to know what they are being offered and question its worth.
A few things:
1. So do you claim that it's utterly impossible for the Mormon version of patriarchy to have at least some positive differences from the 'traditional western partriarchy'? Do you see how the conflation of Mormonism with other patriarchies is just as problematic as Mormons stereotyping all feminists as radical ones instead of realizing that there are feminisms?
2. I don't quite buy the whole "the fact is" argument. Or rather, I should say that I don't think theology is solely at fault for the abuses that have been perpetuated in the name of patriarchy [and again I don't deny the problems -- only the idea that there's only one solution for everyone]. It seems to me that a more fundamental problem is the devilish idea of trying to exercise power over another, of destroying free agency through fear, violence, and deprivation of the basic means of living. This is a trend, a meme, that Mormonism is trying to stand against -- although we may not always do so in the same way that others think it should be done. In fact, my major problem with modern LDS culture is that it should be a little more anti-consumerist and corporate abuse and greed than it is [although not anti-free market, rule of law, and property rights].
3. The bottom line for me is this: since we already live in a world where men have been dominant and have controlled many aspects of women's lives [and again -- this isn't quite as clearcut as *some* feminists make it out to be -- the more we learn of women's history, the more it becomes apparent that women found ways to disrupt or circumvent abuse and the power structures -- which is not to say that that's good -- obviously they shouldn't have had to engage in such tactics], what is the best way to go about changing social structures? Militiant feminism didn't really work. The whole trying to make men more sensitive movement had some success among the middle class, but also wasn't without it's own problems. The more I see the Mormon experiment in operation, the more I think that it does have the capacity to change the hearts of men so that they treat women better. I'm not saying that I can then say that this should be a universal -- I find some aspects to whole promisekeepers movement troubling, for instance [that hypocrisy coming into play again], although I think as a movement it has slowed down quite a bit.
4. I may be wrong, but aren't the denominations who have been the most progressive in ordaining women also the movements who are experiencing diminishing memberships? Now, when it comes right down to it, this troubles me, because I think I'd rather have more liberal Lutherans and Methodists and Unitarians around me than Evangelical Christians [which reflects my own biases -- and ones that I don't think most Mormons share], but my point is that the more secular, feminist, liberal theology of the U.S. and Western Europe doesn't have a whole lot of traction at the moment.
5. In regards to coercion and the marketplace, or whatever, just like many other religious denominations, Mormonism's problem, actually is that more women convert [or stay in the faith if they were born into it] than men. In almost all cases that I know of where both the husband and the wife convert -- they either do it together as a couple, or the wife is converted first and her husband joins later. I'm not sure exactly what your trying to portray here, but again, trying to lay your model of thinking onto Mormonism maybe doesn't lead to all the analogues that you think it does. [Which is again, not to say that there aren't problems with the Mormon model at times and that I don't wish that we as a community could progress farther faster in this area.]
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
This I had a problem with. That statement is true, but you also have to consider where the word "woman" came from. Well, it was originally two words: "womb man". Now say that five times fast. You were saying woman on the last one weren't you?
Getting to the point....
If in fact women are womb men, then aren't they also by nature sinful? Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope dkw is doing ok. I'm sure the holidays are busy for her since she has to supervise two separate congregations. I would be very interested to here her comments on the "declining membership" but though.
For all you LDSers out there. While I may not agree, you are being quite coherent and I suspect Brian M has just been predestinated to not understand what you are saying.
quote:They believe that it is OK that they do not wield the ultimate worldly power
And what is the ultimate worldly power? Wouldn't the ultimate worldly power be to create life?
I think the main problem here is one of perspective. Brian can't concieve of a view other than a worldly view of power and so can't understand why we believe as we do, other than to say we are brainwashed. Most LDS members strive to be less like the world, not more like it. Power is not something to be sought after and wielded over another in our religion. I'm sure there are times that the Prophet and Apostles weary of the burden they have. It is a burden to lead and lead righteously.
No where in our religion does it say that the man has the ultimate authority over the woman. In fact we are taught that the husband and wife are equal in a marriage, that they should work together and that decisions should be arrived at jointly.
Anyway, this discussion seems to have morphed into an argument that can never be settled.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe this issue is one of perspective since the males within the mormon church obviously acknowledge the positions they hold exclusively have the worth they do. You can say I'm twisting words, you can say I am using the wrong mindset, but those objections are tautological to prove your points. You say that power is the wrong way to think about it, but then you go on about the ability to give life as being the ultimate power. I can refute that argument completely by simply pointing out that you are dependant upon men to give life and much as they are on you.
So, even though you argue giving birth is unique to women and is equal to or better than men's power, in reality you are co-dependant for that upon male genetic contribution. So lets look to things that are exclusive and related to power. You say we shouldn't look to power. Why not? The church does all the time with telling wives to yeild to their husbands in matters of authority. So since the church decided to enter that arena its fair game. After all governance of man is the most important aspect of this world to non-believers, and still very important to believers also.
There can be no significant objection or dissent to your views if "the proper mindset," as you call it, would be used. I find that logically deplorable. I guess that's a whole other argument: that faith should not be evalauted by those terms anyway. I guess its all a matter of who gets to you first as a child, rationalists or theists. Because it seems one closes the door to the other. Some of you accuse feminists of being close minded but in reality they are opening their minds to avenues that have been traditionally denied to women. Instead there are attempts to comfort and curtail women from exploring their potential by assigning them great worth to traditional roles they are progressively seeking to escape.
quote:Some of you accuse feminists of being close minded but in reality they are opening their minds to avenues that have been traditionally denied to women.
Yes, they are. Some of them are also closing avenues. And, again, you speak of "in reality' as if there was one reality. My beef is not with the feminist project [although there are, of course, some platforms pieces that I don't agree with], but rather with those feminists who engage in false dichotomies, and who deny the experiences and desires of religious women.
quote:The church does all the time with telling wives to yeild to their husbands in matters of authority.
Which church are we talking about here? [See Wendybird's post above].
You make a good point partially here:
quote: Instead there are attempts to comfort and curtail women from exploring their potential by assigning them great worth to traditional roles they are progressively seeking to escape.
First, I think many Mormon women would say that they are choosing to embrace the roles -- that they seen what has happened to a generation of women who have embraced the workforce and nontraditional lifestyles, and while they want to be educated and to find value outside the home, they also want to be in the home, and they are frustrated that our current economic climate forces both men and women to drive themselves into the ground trying to provide for a family -- even when the family is willing to make sacrifices of material comforts.
However, I would agree that sometimes Mormon men place too much empahsis on roles. That's something I've talked with my priesthood class about -- about not defining our spouses by what they do, their daily tasks. Just as it isn't good for us to define ourselves and our values by what we do [work, school, etc.]. I do think that Mormons could do better at valuing motherhood while at the same time realizing that involvement in education, the community, politics, service, and, yes, even the workplace is valuable and doesn't necessarily detract from being a mother.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to mention this first off. I mean no offense to anyone. If offence is taken, let me assure you now that I am truly sorry.
BrianM. From your posts, I can't believe you've had any serious experience with the mormon religion. From what I've experienced, I'd have to say that the mormon 'Power Structure' is more a stabilizing structure to insure doctrines are all taught the same everywhere. The mormon 'power structure' is specifically designed to keep any one person or group of people from wielding unrightious dominion branching off into apostasy.
Your argument about woman and man's co-dependancy to bring children into this world is also unfounded. Am I not right in saying that according to the mormon religion, heaven is reached only by married couples? That makes entrance into the next life dependant on both the man and the woman. Every effort I know of that the mormon church puts forth is a cooperative effort equally shared between men and women.
I could say more, but I'll just say this: You are certainly free to have your own opinions, but it is only reasonable to have informed opinions. At least consider that some of these people know what they're talking about when they tell you about their own religion.
Once again, there was no offense intended in anything I have just written. I only wish to encourage you to not try to pass opinion off as fact.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again, your tidbits on what you think my experience is means nothing since that is something this board avoids: lording unprovable authority over others. If people on this thread keep taking pot-shots and what they think my experience is or is not then I will have to assume it's because they can't competantly answer the brightline issue.
My point about the co-dependancy of child birth was a response to someone claiming having children was something exclusive to women, empowering them. I know that if a woman tried to make her child birthing experience exclusive by being a single parent within the church it would be frowned upon, not upheld as something empowering her.
Telling someone to embrace a traditional role that obviously benefits the established male gender without showing a clear brightline on why women shouldn't choose other life-paths besides sheer "that's the way god says it is" is pretty unfounded. Men are given much more leeway in their own lives.
quote: Telling someone to embrace a traditional role that obviously benefits the established male gender without showing a clear brightline on why women shouldn't choose other life-paths besides sheer "that's the way god says it is" is pretty unfounded. Men are given much more leeway in their own lives.
Which ignores that Scott already said:
quote: First, I think many Mormon women would say that they are choosing to embrace the roles -- that they seen what has happened to a generation of women who have embraced the workforce and nontraditional lifestyles, and while they want to be educated and to find value outside the home, they also want to be in the home, and they are frustrated that our current economic climate forces both men and women to drive themselves into the ground trying to provide for a family -- even when the family is willing to make sacrifices of material comforts.
posted
I don't see how it ignores that at all. You see, merely finding reasons to rationalize a current, suggested choice does not make up for the under-evalutations of alternatives. Merely getting a college education and a few other things do not count if one is really trying hard to to evaluate other paths. I am not saying they should be forced to, I am saying they shouldn't be discouraged from it.
posted
As far as I can tell, Brian, the only thing that would convince you that women in so-called "patriarchal" religions are not oppressed is for the religions to change.
The fact is, in most cases, the women are fully aware of the non-traditional alternatives. They have chosen to integrate them, or not, based on an educated appraisal.
Your continued insistence upon seeing such women as "brainwashed" (or under-educated) is, quite frankly, very insulting.
posted
Rivka, what is insulting is your taking my words out of context and the use of those degrading eye-rolling smileys. I said that women are only "brainwashed" when they think it is a good thing that men decide what is ultimately good and right for them. Take that as you may, but please, stop with the ad-hominem.
posted
BrianM. It doesn’t matter who or where you are, if you want people to take you seriously, you must establish some credibility. I’m not talking about a university degree or things of that nature, but believability.
You can’t tell the mormons on this board that because the men of their faith hold the priesthood and not the women, mormon women are somehow oppressed. That is an inference based on patterns in human history. In this case, it simply isn’t true.
It is true that this board avoids ‘lording unprovable authority over others,’ but I can’t accept an opinion that is not backed up by facts (a virtue this board does approve of).
Edited to add:
Since I have nothing to add to this thread besides what I've already done in my posts above, I am exiting this conversation. I will be willing to answer any objections to what I have said, but in a different place. I sincerely apologise if any opinions I have stated have caused you anger, but I don't take back any of the facts relevant to the topic at hand.
[ November 30, 2003, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Law Maker ]
Posts: 46 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you expect me to gain credibility by accepting the differing opinions of others as facts with which to discuss things based upon, then that is a ridiculous expectation
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you expect me to gain credibility by accepting the differing opinions of others as facts with which to discuss things based upon, then that is a ridiculous expectation
No, what we expect is that you respect that we believe these things not because we are brainwashed or that we are being dominated by our men, but because we have studied things out and have come to these conclusions on our own based on our own intelligence and free agency. You just can't seem to accept the fact that we think for ourselves and still desire to follow these beliefs. We are trying to tell you how this issue is really looked at within our culture. These are the "facts" of our culture.
Anyway, thats enough from me. Hobbes-- your original post was a beautiful explanation and I really enjoyed reading it and pondering on it. Thank you for taking the time.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
First, congratulations Hobbes! When did it happen?
I'd love to post a long post here, but I'm at work and need to, uh, be working. I'll just stick in my two cents.
1. Bless you, Emily Milner. I love what she said - primarily, the more I learn about the doctrine that the Lord has set up, the better I feel I about everything. Any... injustices and crappiness I experience is shown more and more, the more I learn about the gospel, to NOT be sanctioned by the Lord. The Lord has set up the perfect system, and it is implemented imperfectly. That's where the crappiness and unrighteous dominion comes in - but that is NOT the fault of the Lord or of the gospel. Also, the more a man honors his priesthood and takes it seriously, with all the attendant requirements, the better he is. It's fair. I have no problem with the way the Lord has set up the system.
However...
2. I have a huge problem with the way it is often implemented. I don't know if my experience has been unique, but I've had some truly awful experiences with arrogant, sexist, uncaring men who used the priesthood as a weapon, including my older brother and a boyfriend who informed me, when I DIDN'T get a "good idea" answer to the prayer of if we should get married, that I simply wasn't spiritual enough to get the right answer and I should listen to him and do it anyway, because he was the one with the priesthood. He then went on to mention that if I DIDN'T marry him, I would prove myself to be filled with moral failings and moreover, since I was already 22, he was my last chance.
He was full of crap.
I'm pretty sure there's a special place in hell for guys like that.
The worst part is that he really did try to be good. I mean, that's one of the main things that I liked about him - how important the gospel was to him. I have a lot more experience now, so I know just how unrighteous what he was saying was, but at the time I was struggling between what I thought was what my church was saying, and what I simply knew had to be true. I mean, I hardly have a such a poor opinion of the Lord that he would actually support what this guy said.
-------------
I also agree with Zal - if it weren't for spiritual experiences I have had, the Book of Mormon and other scriptures, and the occasional arms-of-comfort-wrapped-around-me prayers, I'd probably fall into the gently-agnostic crowd at Hatrack.
-------------
I wouldn't say that the issue doesn't bother many LDS women. I have talked to MANY that had questions and concerns - more when I was younger. It usually isn't talked about in public meetings because it isn't appropriate - it'd be like having a "So the pope - fraud or not?" speech for the sermon in a Catholic church. The conversations do happen, though, and like any aspect of doctrine or faith, there are lots of questions that may or may not be answered when it's convenient for the questioner.
When I was younger, I saw the authority aspect of the priesthood much more often that the service aspect. I've gained enough experience now to witness the service aspect, and to appreciate the hand of the Lord in such service. I've seen average men turned into great ones because of their humility and their willingness to go and do whatever the Lord required.
Speculation: I think for a long time, this was a serious enough issue for me that it kept me from even wanting to get married.
Look at it this way: The priesthood worked when used as the Lord commanded, but seemed to break down everyone when used by mere mortals - especially young ones. On the other hand, marrying a non-member was not an option. *sigh* So, great, all a guy has to do is measure up to the Lord. Yeah, that's not hard.
It's not the same now. I'm older, and I feel a great deal more confident and a great deal less ... vulnerable. Also, I've had my questions answered. If you want to know how, I'll happily e-mail you.
------
What was the point of this? Oh yeah - is it an issue in the church? Well, yes sometimes, but not in the way the world sees it. The occasional abuses and misuses of the priesthood would not be fixed by giving it to everyone, but instead by the men living up to the spirit and requirements of it. If you read the Priesthood sessions of General Conference, and if you read what the general authorities write, the exhortations are truly to that end.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The worst part is that he really did try to be good.
I'm sorry you had the experiences you did, kat. Sadly, I don't think that they are uncommon.
What angers me about such attitudes [esp. the whole "I know better because I'm more in tune" routine] is that we seem to have too many men who willfully ignore what's being preached and instead are stuck in some idealized 50s view of how gender relations work [it's, I think, a problem that a large portion of current Mormon culture has -- this 50s thing]. I think the good thing that feminism has wrought is that most of the Mormon young women I know won't stand for that crap.
Also:
quote:I wouldn't say that the issue doesn't bother many LDS women. I have talked to MANY that had questions and concerns - more when I was younger.
I minimized this point more than I should have in my previous posts. This is true to my experience as well. What's amazing to me is that I know so many intelligent, strong women who have made the same journey kat has.
And more Mormon men should be bothered by this issue and have these questions and concerns. I don't think that you can truly understand the priesthood without taking some questioning as to why the seeming disparity and what that *truly* means for how we should approach gender relations in this mortal life.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zal, I'd go out on a limb and say that "stuck in the 50s" thing is symptomatic of the larger population. It's a baby-boomer thing.
As for memberships, there HAS been a general decline in the mainstream-to-liberal Christian denominations.
Howeve, there are many criticisms of some of the more evangelical denominations and their counting of church members (here in the US anyway). Many churches will not remove a member who has moved away, even if they have joined a church in the same denomination... Often they will be counted twice. I read this in some article online, but I can't seem to find it now.
This isn't the case at every evangelical church, of course.
posted
One thing about the orderliness of LDS is that each person only has one set of records. That way if polygamists want to meld into our midst they do at least have to commit deliberate fraud to do it.
Edit: another fact about lds is our divorce rate is same as surrounding culture. While there is social pressure against it, there is also low tolerance of abusiveness, and support for the needy. Also, I think people's expectations can be too high sometimes in (American) LDS culture. Which goes along with the 50's thing.
posted
One of the things I find interesting about the membership loss in what used to be called “mainline Protestantism” is that in the last few years membership is down nationwide, but church attendance is up. This suggests a couple of possibilities. One is that people who are active and attend regularly aren’t formally joining. I’ve seen some of this in the congregations I serve. Another possibility is that the membership loss is among people who weren’t particularly active/regular attenders. There is, it seems to me, less of a societal expectation of church membership than there used to be, so indifferent Christians / agnostics who in former years would have been church members no longer are.
As far as whether membership loss/growth can be correlated to whether or not the denomination ordains women, I’ve never seen any studies. Most of what I’ve seen traces “mainline” denominations vs. evangelical and non-denominational churches, and subsets of both of those groups don’t and do ordain women.
In the end though, it really doesn’t matter. I’m a United Methodist pastor because I was called to it by God. (Dragged into it kicking and screaming might be more accurate.) Churches make their policy decisions based on their understanding of God’s will, not based on whether it will increase or decrease their popularity.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't sweat it, guys. I know from experience that there are worse ways for a church to be stuck in the '50s.
As for record-keeping boondoggles, someday I'll have to tell you the story of how record corrections turned into a loss of half a million members and a churchwide panic. Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka> Like having an atmosphere reminiscent of the McCarthy trials.
Katharina> Er. Sorry. I didn't mean it that way. And yes, I'm a guy.
I was referring mostly to Zal's contention that "being stuck in the fifties" was a problem with a large (unspecified) part of Mormon culture. As for a 50's attitude toward gender roles, that's serious, a problem for us as well, and I have no idea what can be done about it.
A few years back, btw, I wrote a paper suggesting that most or all of the passages used to keep women out of leadership positions were being misinterpreted. The professor pointed out that I had relied too heavily on a "scholar" of questionable value; more to the point, almost the entire female population of my honors class opined that they couldn't see why a woman would want to preach or be an elder or deacon. I was floored.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm not surprised the women said that. You learn very quickly what are understandable audiences and what aren't. I know that for some guys, anything other than the "oh, I'd never want any of that nasty responsibility" stance - even if it is just wondering how/why it works that way - is suspect.
Not that they didn't mean what they said - I just mean even if they had thought differently, I doubt they'd say anything.
posted
There was one girl who did agree with the stance in my paper--ironically, I think she was the one from eastern Kentucky.
You have to understand, Harding was about the most "liberal" church environment I had ever been in at the time. I vastly overestimated what I could get away with saying, especially in my honors classes, which nearly always included evangelicals and others outside our church, and were centers of freewheeling discussion on many philosophical topics. (I had loads of fun...wish I could find so many people like that together again.)
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do have y'all, Zalmoxis. It's not real-time or face to face, though.
Also, I keep tripping myself up. Where I come from, it's normal to enter a discussion with things like "the Scripture plainly teaches" or "God's Word says" followed by some doctrinal bone of contention. At Harding, I learned some less controversial ways, only to have them shot down by Lissande the moment I used them here. I still don't know how to safely talk about common beliefs in a church without a formal doctrinal statement without sounding like I think I'm an authority or sounding like a troll.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This I had a problem with. That statement is true, but you also have to consider where the word "woman" came from. Well, it was originally two words: "womb man".
I thought I'd already corrected you of this cute little folk etymology, Nick. "Woman" comes from "wifeman." If you want a further explanation, I'll be glad to provide it. But it is not from "wombman."
[ December 01, 2003, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott, is it not the case that the Prophet -- and the Apostles -- are generally individuals who are very active in church leadership before they are called? People who have, in fact, climbed a certain Amway stepladder? I'm unaware of any anointed Prophets who were, two years or so prior, Catholic hot dog vendors in Queens. (Of course, I'm no expert in LDS history; there might well be such a case.)
I've skimmed a lot of this thread, so I don't know if there was a good answer for this, but I'll provide my own opinion anyway. Yes, God could call anybody worthy to be the prophet. But I think that He puts people in smaller leadership rolls beforehand so that they'll be properly prepared to be prophet (say that five times fast). Maybe Gordon B. Hinckley wouldn't have been ready to lead the Church if he hadn't had all those other leadership positions beforehand. It's sort of like being the president of the U.S., actually. We could elect any qualifying citizen to be president, but we end up electing people who have risen through the political ranks until they're a governor or senator or congressman. By then, they've (hopefully) proven that they could be a good leader.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glad to be of service. A former actor is my boss in temporal things, so I figure it's only a matter of time before the same is true of the spiritual part of my life.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great post Hobbes, but I would like to add something, from the perspective of someone who recently taught an LDS Gospel Doctrine lesson on ordinances.
Although the ceremony associated with the ordinance of baptism is symbolic, Baptism is not a symbol (at least not from the LDS perspective). Baptism is a priesthood ordinance. It is embued with the power of God. When undertaken it faith, it has real power to change us. When you are baptised, a miracle has been worked on you. You are literally a newly born person. You may not see the full effects of the miracle instantly, but the miracle is real. The symbols involved in baptism, and all the other priesthood ordinances, are there to help us understand the miracle and to build our faith so that we may receive the fullness of the miracle. The miracle is worked through the God's power, through the priesthood and through faith. Those are not symbols -- they are real.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I thought I'd already corrected you of this cute little folk etymology, Nick. "Woman" comes from "wifeman." If you want a further explanation, I'll be glad to provide it. But it is not from "wombman."
Maybe it's just me, but wombman sounds like some new superhero.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
"s degrading. I will remove them. They were meant to be an expression of my frustration, not an insult.![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
