A Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Attracts Attention and a Following, Someone Characterizes the Church’s Response as “Let’s ‘Take Care Of’ This ‘Toots’” [His Words], I Call Him Out for Sexism, and He is Completely Mystified (Because Of Course, The Church’s Response Would Be Completely Different if Sister Rowe Were a Man—NOT!)
By Ken K. Gourdin
Despite the fact that she is neither a prophet, nor a seer, nor a revelator in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor does she hold any position in the Church’s general leadership, Julie Rowe attracted a following in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for her “end times” predictions (my phrase).
Responding to reports that a senior leader in the Church of Jesus Christ was dispatched to speak with Sister Rowe, another poster at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion wrote, “I could see that [i.e., could see why the Church of Jesus Christ might be concerned about someone like Sister Rowe attracting inordinate attention, attracting a following, and potentially leading people away from the Church]. “I’ll go take care of this toots right now.” (Did you catch that? That’s him putting blatantly sexist words into the mouths of Church leaders—which, of course, is completely okay because everyone already knows that the Church and its leaders are sexist anyway, right?)
And I responded, “But the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is sexist/misogynistic/pick-your-pejorative, not you, right? If a man were doing the same things Julie Rowe has done, the response of the Church of Jesus Christ would be .… [Zzzzzzz], right?”
He, of course, was mystified—as pots who call kettles black often are when the double-standard is pointed out to them. Addressing me by part of my screen name, he responded, “Huh? What are you talking about now, Kenngo?” (Apparently, the “now” is supposed to indicate that not only does he not understand what I’m talking about on this occasion, in fact, he seldom (if ever) understands what I’m talking about. Perhaps his frequent befuddlement is attributable to frequent instances in which he engages in pot-meet-kettle-ism and is completely oblivious that he’s the pot?)
Never mind. My bad. Since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders are, ipso facto and res ipsa loquitur, sexist and misogynistic, they’re wont to say such things as, “Let’s go take care of this toots,” and no one should/would bat an eyelash. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming. ([Referring to a previous thread on which the uber illuminati and uber-PC were mystified at complaints by The Great, Benighted, Unwashed, Clueless members of the Church of Jesus Christ would complain about the [alleged!] unwieldiness of the LGBTQIA-et-cetera-ad-infinitum-ad-nauseam initialism: What letters is it supposed to include, again? Perhaps we should cover all of our bases by writing LGBTQIABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ?] Weren’t you a member of the PC Brigade who was complaining about those who were bemoaning the unwieldiness of the L***********************… [initialism]? So, on the one hand, it’s horribly un-PC to complain about that, but on the other, no one should bat an eyelash that you put sexist language in the mouths of the Brethren????)
[COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH] DOUBLE-STANDARD [COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH] HUGE-BLIND-SPOT [COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH] MOTES-AND-BEAMS [COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH-COUGH]…
Can’t imagine where that frog that suddenly jumped into my throat came from.
Our dialogue continued, with him responding, “I don’t care if you bat eyelashes,” to which I replied, “Of course you don’t.” He wrote, “I find your questions so loaded ...” (ellipses mine), and I responded, “Of course you do.” He wrote, “I don’t even know what you want from me,” and I responded, “Of course you don’t.” He wrote, “I can’t answer [your questions] because they are so far afield,” and I responded, “Of course you can’t.” He wrote, “If the joke hurt your feelings, just say so.”
And I responded:
Awwww … does [screen name redacted] fink he hut my widdo feewings? That’s precious! “Come on, Ken! It was just a joke! ‘Lighten up, Francis!’ I have my Uber-Illuminati card which allows me to look down my nose at you for your light-hearted banter regarding the L******** initialism, on the one hand, while putting blatantly sexist language in the mouth of one of the Brethren, on the other hand.” (This, when the fact that Julie Rowe is a “toots” (your word) has precisely nothing to do with how anyone in leadership would respond to her end-times hyperventillating which has drawn her such a following: They would respond exactly the same way if “Brother James Rowe” were doing the same thing!!!)