Feminist Inroads Into Mormonism

[blooit]

Blue Dreams - some good points. Maybe what we are both getting at is that men and women actually are different, and should be treated differently. Marketplace pay is an issue, no doubt, but there has to be more to it than that - and you spelled some of that out.

From a male standpoint - I would argue that as a male:

I will lose any custody battle for my own children, almost regardless of my competence as a father.

I can be denied a job based solely on my color and gender.

I will serve a much more serious sentence if convicted of the same sex crime as a female.

I will have almost no support network if I am the victim of abuse. (Given, most of the time this will be emotional abuse for men.)

And I would argue, men are just as or more likely to suffer from depression, but are expected to tough it out.

Is it OK that I am discriminated against in these ways even though I myself have not mistreated women as past generations have (I pray )?

I just don't see women as being devalued in society, other than by those who claim to be lauding them. The feminist movement, for the most part, has mocked and belittled womanhood more than any other group in my opinion. On the other hand, I am very sheltered and have lived in the intermountain west for much of my life. I'm sure things are different elsewhere.

Overall, I guess I am just tired of seeing us try to lift one group by tearing down another. It doesn't work, and only builds up further resentment. To stop discrimination, STOP discrimination. Otherwise it's like a referee who tries to balance bad play calls, and the bad officiating never stops.

[Calm]

"I just don't see women as being devalued in society"

How is getting paid less not an example of being less valued by society?

-------

Also as far as who fares better in a divorce....that would depend on what is being measured:

"Ultimately, the overall economic quality of a man's life, based on earnings and amount spent on living expenses, increases after his divorce. He continues to earn more but bears fewer family expenses. The overall economic quality of a woman's life, post-divorce, decreases."

http://www.legalzoom.com/marriage-divorce-family-law/divorce/men-v-women-who-does

Edited January 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[Maidservant]

Let me start off by saying that I have never had the luxury of working together with a man in marriage, parenting or family--during the marriage I did have, nor for these many single years I am living. Thus, I have just had to do. And I don't check whether I am a woman or a man beforehand before I do, I just do. My experience and first-hand observation is what it is. Neither do I spend any spiritual or mental energy thinking to myself: "Gee, I am stepping outside my eternal female role by trying to figure out this plumbing problem, but don't worry, the Church leadership has promised me that in the future eternities, if I remain faithful to my covenants, all the plumbing problems will eventually be cared for by my husband." (I am being a little facetious here, for a point.) Okay, I used to think like that, but I laid that down, and stopped worrying about whose role I was playing, if I was in my own, or (abnormally) stepping into my ghost husband's and thereby playing dice with my covenants.

I'm just me. And me has six human beings (my children) to guide through mortality and into the eternities, and I have no partner in this work (other than my Father in heaven, of course, the partner we all have with all things).

So shall I think of myself as an aberration? Half of a doctrinal set? Something broken and not working right?

I am not. I am doing what I was created to do, which is to give life to these six individuals (who are God's children before they are mine).

Others will have to answer as to their own belief, experience and observation . . . but this is mine.

Thank you for clarifying. Let me qualify this by saying that I have eight children, including four young ones. Believe me, I have traded places and respect how much work a mother does. I wash dishes, change(d) diapers, and am fully involved in my kids' lives. However, I am saying that as a general rule, I see most marriages that place an undue burden on the father by asking him to work full time, or in many cases two full time jobs, and then return home to hear how they are not doing enough at home.. . . . . I must provide for and protect me family. If I shift that burden to anyone else, I am "denying the faith." Only extenuating circumstances can justify anything else. So what duties are solely a wife's duties, and her shifting them to someone else would be neglecting her duties? I guess that is my question. (I think )

The trouble is . . . as a woman . . . I ask myself . . . what is it I am supposed to do at home? Does it make me feminine to sweep?

We hire plumbers if men don't have particular talents for such things. We hire car mechanics if men don't have particular talents for such things. But it still does not occur to us to hire maids when women don't have talents for such things.

The thing is that we have absorbed wholesale the economic system, the system of public-private separation, the system of state . . . and the gender requirements of these (man-made, devil-made?) systems . . . and trying to find the best way to navigate these abominations while still creating an eternal family and home.

What I am supposed to do at home is raise my children. What my husband/the father is supposed to do at home is also to raise the children. There are no other acceptable eternal roles for men or women.

There will be no employment in heaven.

So what men are asked to do here is temporary and, yes, it is or can be a service to women, to free them from having to fight that battle in a fallen world. (But even that is only one way to look at it.) Honestly, I'm in awe of men and what they have to go through in general in life. Would never want to trade. (Love being a woman!)

I should be home . . . ok, but what is my home? Is my home the four walls of a ranch-style bungalow, plus the yard? Who said that? Did God say that? Or is that deeply embedded culture?

I will tell you that my home (Maidservant) is the world. My kitchen is China, my living room is Argentina, etc. My house is not my home. The world is my home. And I am raising my children in my home. If I have an economic challenge I must solve, I do it and my children are a part of that in some way. If I have a spiritual challenge I must solve, I do it and my children participate also. If there is fun to be had, we have fun together. I expect that if there were or had been a man or husband that was allotted to me in this life, that we would just be partners, period, in all these things as well, roles be hanged.

Giving birth to billions of spirit children.

For the record, for myself, it could never be heaven for me if there came a time when I gave birth for the last time. What utter sadness. Physical birth first and then the rest of the spiritual, myriad journey of RAISING a human being. WOW!

[BlueDreams]

Is it OK that I am discriminated against in these ways even though I myself have not mistreated women as past generations have (I pray )?

The answer is obviously no. But the main problem that I still see is propensity. Do these problems exist? of course. But the problems faced by minorities and females are still far more expansive and common place. Even the problems you mentioned are somewhat iffy in my mind. Women and minorities will also face job discrimination. Men may technically receive harsher punishment, but they most often get off scott free or with a slap on the wrist. And many victims of abuse, be they children, men, or women, will face limited support or understanding.

I just don't see women as being devalued in society, other than by those who claim to be lauding them. The feminist movement, for the most part, has mocked and belittled womanhood more than any other group in my opinion. On the other hand, I am very sheltered and have lived in the intermountain west for much of my life. I'm sure things are different elsewhere.

I do...plenty. In or outside the intermountain west. It's in the questioning of a major that entails lots of schooling or doesn't seem to directly apply to mommying a brood of children. It's in not fully hearing opinions from women. It's in ridiculous stereotyping of men and women's roles, sexuality, capabilities, etc. It's in the over-emphasis on women's looks and body in connection to her worth. It's in the fact that 1 in 3 or 4 women will be abused at some point in her life in the u.s. It's in the stigma of both the working and stay-at-home mom. It's in the ridiculous "compliments" I've received over the while by men who infer that there's few pretty and smart females or funny women or ones that they can talk like a guy to. No one needs to travel far to find the belittling attitudes toward women. They're there, I assure you. And the attitude of "reverencing" womanhood in most cultures (including our own) often only goes skin deep. They reverence those that fit into a stereotype or that are iconic and support causes and ideals that mainstream culture supports. What is defined as womanly is severely limited and marginalized. Being the pennacle of all things that make a "good woman" often leads to a voice that's unheard within society.

And I don't think the feminist movement has mocked/belittled womanhood more than any other group. IMO the cultures we've lived in were doing it fine and dandy themselves. Many of the poor ideas that sprouted from feminist thoughts were reactionary. They were wrong but no less wrong than the culture they were countering and usually far less expansive in influence.

Overall, I guess I am just tired of seeing us try to lift one group by tearing down another. It doesn't work, and only builds up further resentment. To stop discrimination, STOP discrimination. Otherwise it's like a referee who tries to balance bad play calls, and the bad officiating never stops.

The question then is how. It's new ground and no one's got the formula down pat. That's the problem....it's new territory and people error. It's a learning process and we're getting there.

With luv,

BD

[why me]

The "forms" are nice philosophical academic labels but have little to do with what is going on inside Mormonism.

I can't say that I agree with this. What's going on in mormonism is basically a change in the social structure that is happening in the USA. First, we need to realize that the lds church is a worldwide church and as such, it is influenced by many local cultures. Thus, in the nordic countries, mormon women have been working outside the home for years now and they receive a contributory benefit from the state for having children and working and also for staying at home. And until the children are in their late teens the families receive a monetary benefit from the state to help with the finances. Certainly these women have been influenced by a social democratic form of goverance. Something that can not be said of american women. And this certainly has influenced mormon culture in those societies. A certain form of feminism has influenced this form of goverance. Now what we see in europe is a retreat from social democratic theory by the economic and political elite and redirection toward the market. As such single parents usually with the woman as parent are experiencing more poverty and trouble making ends meet. Also, there is a class of working poor usually women dominated fields struggling also. Thus, feminism has been in retreat in europe as it has been in other parts of the world. This has to affect mormon familes in the church and outside the church since more pressure is brought to bear on the family who is struggling.

What happens outside the church ecomonically affects the mormon families life quality and marriage. I don't think that it is a question of feminist influence inside the church as it is market influence inside the church as people experience a more lean and mean market that they have to adjust to. And many may not survive the adjustment.

Edited January 1, 2012 by why me

[why me]

At that point I start to wonder if they are really going for change or just criticism. One of the most discouraging things I have seen is a full out attack on Valerie Hudson's credentials as a feminist on one of the Bloggernacle blogs. It was appalling. They didn't like her innovative theology and were attacking her under the guise of it not being supportable or done well enough. Yet I have rarely seen them attack male leaders for their theories or how they came to them. What they really didn't like is that Valerie's theories didn't go after the patriarchal church structure, she worked within it to create new places for women. Yet I am fairly certain Valerie wouldn't disagree with a lot of their points about the problems in a male dominated church.

These so called feminists who attacked valerie seem to be influenced by radical feminism which centers itself on patriarchy and male domination. And this is what I was talking about with the types of feminism there are.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/feminism/g/radicalfeminism.htm

Quite often the women advocating it don't realize that they are embracing radical feminism at all. They just see men as the enemy and as the oppressor. And it is a useful tool for women who are critical of the lds church in general.

[Loran Blood]

How is getting paid less not an example of being less valued by society?

This myth has been debunked for quite a while now, and one can still hold to it only so long as empirical evidence is not consulted. Once that is done, it can be clearly seen that woman have long since reached parity with men (and outdo them, in many cases) as to receiving the same pay for the same work. The claim that woman do not is based on looking at woman as a group and and men as a group and extrapolating from statistical averages. Woman, as a group, tend to gravitate to different forms of work, to work less or varied hours, and for different spaces of time then men throughout their working lives. Maternity and its attendant responsibilities is a central factor. It is the way most woman work, at what jobs they tend to work, and in many cases its intermittent nature, that drags the average wage or salary down in relation to most men and from which radical feminists are able to cling to the myth of unequal pay.

There are a number of factors that drive average compensation for woman down relative to men, including that men tend to take more stressful or riskier jobs, work longer hours during a given week and more weeks during the year, are not as concerned with job flexibility, time off for family, and even more salient, are nine times less likely to quite work for family reasons, a core one being having and raising children.

Feminism has done a magisterial job in atrophying or destroying these natural maternal desires in many boomer and post-boomer women (as it has in decoupling sex from the future and from childbirth, child rearing, and the transcending of the free, radically autonomous self by settled commitments of family and posterity. So to by decoupling woman from men as anything but sexual and emotional "partners" who's meaning and purpose looms no larger than a wide smorgasbord of "lifestyle options" and "self-fulfillment" for each but with the possibility always open of altering one modular relationship for another when the relationship ceases to "fulfill" one or the other, as the case may be ) replacing the "bondage" of the roles of homemaker, wife, and mother with shallow, trendy materialism and the "excitement" of climbing the corporate ladder (which many men, by the time second wave feminism took off, were calling "the rate race")

The sociocultural war feminism launched against men and boys in the seventies, however, and which has metastasized in every decades since that time (especially in the academy), has done at least equal harm to men, but in along somewhat different trajectories.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Calm]

.

Woman, as a group, tend to gravitate to different forms of work, to work less or varied hours, and for different spaces of time then men throughout their working lives. Maternity and its attendant responsibilities is a central factor.

It is not just about equal pay for equal work in the same job, it is about having the same level of opportunities yielding the same quality of life as men do so that allowing women the option of motherhood does not penalize them in the long run in terms of job choice, etc. And that involves as much as what happens outside the workplace as it does at the workplace.

Women do tend to gravitate to different jobs...mainly from what I've seen to meet the demands of motherhood and wifehood.....jobs that generally are paid less than men type of jobs. Fatherhood does not place the same demands on a man, either biologically or culturally; they can afford the more stressful and riskier jobs in the workplace because they have the support of a wife, who multitasks and tends to take care of the little details of life. They can take on the jobs that require less interruption because in general society isn't as likely to expect them to interrupt their work as it is does a woman for others' needs.

A woman working full time in the home does not get paid in any equivalent sense to someone working outside the home, thus making them fully dependent on the husband's choice and commitment to his job for support. Years of work experience as a mother does not add value to one's resume. Women who work at home are not likely to get loans based solely on their own credit potential.

Society does not view motherhood as a job even when as much effort and skill is put into it and even when the product is as important as almost anything produced by the 'workplace'. This is devaluing what women do, whether they do it full time or in addition to work that is seen as "real work" worth paying for.

Society is still demanding more of women at home than men even when both work:

http://healthland.ti...d-like-it-less/

Offer and colleagues looked at data collected from 368 U.S. mothers and 241 fathers in dual-earner, middle- to upper-middle-class families in 1999 and 2000. The parents held professional jobs and managerial positions, representing a segment that’s under considerable time pressures.

The working moms indicated that they engage in multitasking 48.3 hours each week, compared with fathers’ 38.9 hours. For moms, that means they’re focusing on more than one thing a head-spinning 43% of their waking hours. In terms of housework, moms reported that housework accounts for 53% of their multitasking at home, compared with 42% for dads; child care was the focus of at-home multitasking 36% of the time for moms and 28% for dads......

Not only do fathers multitask less often at home, but when they do, they have a completely different experience. Why? Because they are less likely to engage in housework drudgery. They may do two things at once, but it’s more apt to be less labor-intensive tasks such as talking on the phone while getting dressed.

Offer figures that the findings have everything to do with social expectations. While today’s generation of fathers is expected to be involved in housework and child care, women often still play a primary role. “We expect mothers to be good workers who are highly committed to their work, but they are also the ones held accountable for how their children do and how their households are run,” says Offer. “So they have to multitask. There’s no other way to do it.”.....

http://healthland.ti...n-working-dads/

As children grew, night wakings became less common. But in working couples with a child under the age of 1, about 32% of women reported they got up to tend to the baby while just 11% of men said they roused themselves from slumber. Among working couples with children between the ages of 1 and 2, about 10% of women awoke compared to 2% of men. By the time the kids ranged between the ages of 3 and 5, some 3% of moms got up compared to 1% of dads.

While the study was unable to control for breast-feeding — which is a mom’s job, unless that mom pumps and hands off bottle-feeding duties to Dad — Burgard did control for employment status, income and education levels. In any case, the typical U.S. baby is weaned by 6 months, so breast-feeding alone can’t be blamed for the discrepancies. (More on Time.com: Breast-Feeding Moms Get As Much Sleep As Formula-Feeders)

The results didn’t change, even when zeroing in on the parent who brings home the bacon. In those cases, 28% of women who are the sole breadwinner said they awake at night to take care of their children, compared to 4% of men who support their families.

More demands are being placed on men than have been placed in the past, but the level of demands on men for caregiving is still less than on women even when both are working outside the home. When judging hardship/demands, one should not be comparing the levels of past to present for an individual or group, but comparing the level of current demands on all involved.

Edited January 2, 2012 by calmoriah

[Loran Blood]

Hi Loran,

Could you for the sake of an ignoramus like myself point out what sort of damage has been done?

Its far too massive (in conjunction with a number of other similar movements that arose out of the cultural revolution that occurred during the late sixties/early seventies period) to cover with any degree of brevity, but for just a little flavor of what I'm talking about, I'll quote something from an excellent book on the problems and tensions of "social science" with contemporary civilization called Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self Worship, by Paul Vitz. In the course of an extended discussion about the severe distortions and corruptions of healthy interrelationships between men and woman across sexual and psychological dimensions (in the pursuit, originally, of the abandonment of some other unhealthy attitudes and social norms) he provides a short and brilliant summation using the old story of the princess and the frog.

In the traditional story, when the princess, at the end of the tale, kisses the frog, the frog becomes a prince. Under the long influence of radical feminism, it is many times the case that now when the princess kisses the frog, the princess becomes a frog too. There' s a lot to say and a great deal of argument and reflection behind that, but suffice it to say, feminism (radical) has been among all the forms of Cultural Marxism and "critical" theory to emerge since the sixties, probably the most effective in the long project of disintegrating the family and replacing those principles of the gospel relative to sexual morality and the purpose of mortality with the the cult of the self.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

.

It is not just about equal pay for equal work in the same job, it is about having the same level of opportunities yielding the same quality of life as men do so that allowing women the option of motherhood does not penalize them in the long run in terms of job choice, etc. Women do tend to gravitate to different jobs...mainly from what I've seen to meet the demands of motherhood.....jobs that generally are paid less than men type of jobs.

Exactly.

Fatherhood does not place the same demands on a man, either biologically or culturally. A woman working full time in the home does not get paid in any equivalent sense to someone working outside the home, thus making them fully dependent on the husband's choice and commitment to his job for support. Years of work experience as a mother does not add value to one's resume. Women who work at home are not likely to get loans based solely on their own credit potential.

But here's the catch to all of this, Cal: without the tremendous unraveling of the family over the last forty years, including the war on men, boys, and fatherhood (paralleling the project of delegitimizing motherhood as sociocultural category), this would, for the most part, be of very little significance. Children are also dependent (and far more so) than a non-working housewife, but dependence in and of itself in this context is of little relevance in a culture that values motherhood, fatherhood, and intact families as of central importance to a viable civilization. Feminism has been just as important in the creation of men who devalue and dismiss the role of father and provider as it has in the creation of woman who have no need of either. The ideological symbiosis of woman who do not need men and men who, not being needed, flee the role of husband and father (and sexual fidelity) is the crux of the problem feminism (and its close relation, the sexual revolution) have played over the last third of the 20th century (and to the present).

Society does not view motherhood as a job even when as much effort and skill is put into it and even when the product is as important as almost anything produced by the 'workplace'. This is devaluing what women do, whether they do it full time or in addition to work that is seen as "real work" worth paying for.

I think perhaps that private housewives and mothers are not "paid" (and who on earth would do the paying and for what?) is very close to why, in the church, ministers of the gospel are not to be paid.

Both the roles of mother and father are work, but they are not "jobs" in any normative sense, nor can they be. They are core responsibilities of a people who want to maintain a viable social order. They are not jobs, but duties.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Calm]

this would, for the most part, be of very little significance

Certainly from the point of view of men.

[Xioneye]

I don't believe for a minute that women are more spiritual than men. We are just spiritual in a different "Boy Scout" sort of way. Once men believe that women are more spiritual, that becomes an excuse not to lead (as is the doctrine) or do the right thing.

Beece, is there no help for the widow's son? NL

[katherine the great]

Exactly.

But here's the catch to all of this, Cal: without the tremendous unraveling of the family over the last forty years, including the war on men, boys, and fatherhood (paralleling the project of delegitimizing motherhood as sociocultural category), this would, for the most part, be of very little significance. Children are also dependent (and far more so) than a non-working housewife, but dependence in and of itself in this context is of little relevance in a culture that values motherhood, fatherhood, and intact families as of central importance to a viable civilization. Feminism has been just as important in the creation of men who devalue and dismiss the role of father and provider as it has in the creation of woman who have no need of either. The ideological symbiosis of woman who do not need men and men who, not being needed, flee the role of husband and father (and sexual fidelity) is the crux of the problem feminism (and its close relation, the sexual revolution) have played over the last third of the 20th century (and to the present).

I agree with most of this. However, while you say that Feminism has done irreparable damage to our society, you are not acknowledging that Feminism grew out of a society that devalued and mistreated women. Men misused their power therefore women rebelled (and some women took the rebellion way too far). That is all in the past and leaves the important question: Now, what positive steps can we take towards a remedy?

[Cobalt-70]

Mmm... I don't know about you guys... but I don't see much of a male or female dominated society in the church. Really... they both have their own different roles. Men hold the priesthood positions, and are the role model, yes, but women tend to have their man wrapped around her finger. Luckily, neither really seems to be a huge issue. If anything, I notice more cooperation than dominance by either side.

I agree that in the LDS Church, both men and women have power. But there is a difference in the quality and character of this power. Males are given masculine power, which is both public and private, whereas females are given feminine power, which is solely private, except in the few circumstances where women are given supervised leadership roles in the church, for example, as Relief Society presidencies. So it is more correct to say that the the church is male-dominated in the public sphere, while female power is largely confined to the home. Even in the home, however, male power theoretically rules supreme in theory (at least according to the Proclamation on the Family).

Edited January 3, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[blooit]

I agree with most of this. However, while you say that Feminism has done irreparable damage to our society, you are not acknowledging that Feminism grew out of a society that devalued and mistreated women. Men misused their power therefore women rebelled (and some women took the rebellion way too far). That is all in the past and leaves the important question: Now, what positive steps can we take towards a remedy?

Well, Katherine, I agree with much of what you say. However, you acknowledge that society devalued and mistreated women (as a society-wide problem) but only acknowledge that some women have taken feminism too far. What I am arguing is that the pendulum has swung to the point where men are devalued (and traditional women) today just as "society-wide" as women were in the past. I can provide examples, but it would probably be little more than whining. I really think the dismissal and devaluation of true manhood (and traditional womanhood) is a cultural norm - society wide - if that makes sense. That doesn't mean universal, just widespread.

Just my humble opinion

[Tarski]

I do not have a doctorate in anthropology, but I have a BA and MA in anthro. I work in education now and am working on my doctorate in education. I haven't completed an anthro study in 6 years, so that may lessen my credibility

A few questions:

Are you acquainted with any female career PhD anthropologists with a fulltime presence in the academic workplace?

Are they valuable as such? Is it honorable?

Have you told them that they should be at home?

What might you tell your daughter should she inform you that she really really wishes to be a fulltime anthropologist?

[katherine the great]

A few questions:

Are you acquainted with any female career PhD anthropologists with a fulltime presence in the academic workplace?

Are they valuable as such? Is it honorable?

Have you told them that they should be at home?

What might you tell your daughter should she inform you that she really really wishes to be a fulltime anthropologist?

Ooooo! Can I answer this? There is a PhD female anthropologist (physical anthropologist) at the University where I am studying. She is respected, although not particularly liked (and I don't think she cares.) If my daughter informed me that she wishes to be a full time anthropologist, I would tell her that, unless she has another source of income she should run away. I would tell my son that as well. It is a hard field to make a living in. The only reason I am pursuing it is that I don't need another source of income and I'm endlessly fascinated by it.

[katherine the great]

Well, Katherine, I agree with much of what you say. However, you acknowledge that society devalued and mistreated women (as a society-wide problem) but only acknowledge that some women have taken feminism too far. What I am arguing is that the pendulum has swung to the point where men are devalued (and traditional women) today just as "society-wide" as women were in the past. I can provide examples, but it would probably be little more than whining. I really think the dismissal and devaluation of true manhood (and traditional womanhood) is a cultural norm - society wide - if that makes sense. That doesn't mean universal, just widespread.

Just my humble opinion

Just out of curiosity, do you live in Utah? I just don't see much of that in Boise, although I am in a very exceptional ward. Men and women get along pretty well in my neck of the woods. We still need our men, and I don't hear much criticism beyond the good natured bantering that goes on between the sexes (and has gone on for as long as I can remember.) I only see it on tv.

[Jeff K.]

Feminism is an umbrella term. Some of it has been a great help. For instance, feminism helped the rest of the US catch up with Utah and Wyoming in giving women the right to vote. Feminism was also at the forefront in the fight against slavery.

Some feminists also believe that the family should be done away with since it only enhances the male dominated or patriarchial society. Other feminists believe men are superfluous and therefore they need not be married to raise children.

Let us say that we embrace those aspects of feminism that place men and women in their correct sphere, as help mates. That feminism done rightly makes families stronger and women and men of equal respect (not the same). That feminism done rightly will reflect upon the differences between men and women (acknowledging one group may do some things better than the other) and as such, it does not become a question of inferiority so much as talents in different directions. I would remind people of that wonderful Vonnegut short story "Harrison Bergeron" where "equality was forced upon all just to make sure everyone was equal....

"Equal men are not free"

"Free men are not equal"

"Equal people are not free"

"Free people are not equal"

[why me]

Let us say that we embrace those aspects of feminism that place men and women in their correct sphere, as help mates. That feminism done rightly makes families stronger and women and men of equal respect (not the same). That feminism done rightly will reflect upon the differences between men and women (acknowledging one group may do some things better than the other) and as such, it does not become a question of inferiority so much as talents in different directions. I would remind people of that wonderful Vonnegut short story "Harrison Bergeron" where "equality was forced upon all just to make sure everyone was equal....

"Equal men are not free"

"Free men are not equal"

"Equal people are not free"

"Free people are not equal"

As I have been trying to explain to the posters on this thread, feminism is a broad term. It must be narrowed down. I gave several types of feminism that one can adhere to on this thread. So, it is not a question of doing feminism correctly as it is in choosing what category of feminism to push forward.

[why me]

Well, Katherine, I agree with much of what you say. However, you acknowledge that society devalued and mistreated women (as a society-wide problem) but only acknowledge that some women have taken feminism too far.

I would say that radical feminists have taken feminism too far. And radical feminism is a term for feminists who believe in a certain type of feminism. But some other categories for feminism tend to look at gender studies in general and not women studies in particular.

[Cobalt-70]

Let us say that we embrace those aspects of feminism that place men and women in their correct sphere, as help mates. That feminism done rightly makes families stronger and women and men of equal respect (not the same). That feminism done rightly will reflect upon the differences between men and women (acknowledging one group may do some things better than the other) and as such, it does not become a question of inferiority so much as talents in different directions. I would remind people of that wonderful Vonnegut short story "Harrison Bergeron" where "equality was forced upon all just to make sure everyone was equal....

I don't think that any form of feminism that confines women (or men) to a "sphere" is actually feminism. That is, in fact, the definition of patriarchy.

I do get your point, however, that feminism is not necessarily tied to liberalism. Liberal feminism posits that the cause of subjugation of women is the invention of a public/private dichotomy, where men may avoid constraints on public subjugation of women, to still subjugate women through his exercise of private power, which is engineered to provide him with a legal safe haven. Thus, the solution would be to expand the horizon of public power.

A non-liberal model of feminism, on the other hand, might posit that the chains of male subjugation over women may best be overcome through arming women with private power to overthrow the dominance of men in the private sphere.

Neither of these models is really pertinent to the current LDS Church, however, where men are the supreme authority in both the public and private spheres of LDS religion.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Loran Blood]

I agree with most of this. However, while you say that Feminism has done irreparable damage to our society, you are not acknowledging that Feminism grew out of a society that devalued and mistreated women. Men misused their power therefore women rebelled (and some women took the rebellion way too far). That is all in the past and leaves the important question: Now, what positive steps can we take towards a remedy?

I think that the asserted mistreatment and "devaluation" of woman, while in some senses has merit, came, after the late sixties, to be far too colored and distorted by ideology to be very useful in discussing the values/deficits of feminism down to the present time. One has to also, I think, differentiate clearly between first wave feminism, which was the initial, rational, and measured response to patterns of male behavior and attitudes that had distorted and unnecessarily restricted woman's role as partners in the project of civilization, and second and third wave feminism (which is the only form which most people mean when they say "feminism" and the forms which came to displace and dominate the original form), which has been uniformly destructive.

It should also be said that forms of "first wave" and radical feminism preexisted the last third of the 20th century, and were differentiated across similar lines. Modern "moderate" feminism, to the degree it still exists, descends from people like Susan B. Anthony and like-minded reformers. Modern political and academic feminism's intellectual forebears are found in the likes of Margaret Sanger and Simone de Beauvoir, all of a decidedly different frame of mind.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Jeff K.]

I don't think that any form of feminism that confines women (or men) to a "sphere" is actually feminism. That is, in fact, the definition of patriarchy.

I do get your point, however, that feminism is not necessarily tied to liberalism. Liberal feminism posits that the cause of subjugation of women is the invention of a public/private dichotomy, where men may avoid constraints on public subjugation of women, to still subjugate women through his exercise of private power, which is engineered to provide him with a legal safe haven. Thus, the solution would be to expand the horizon of public power.

A non-liberal model of feminism, on the other hand, might posit that the chains of male subjugation over women may best be overcome through arming women with private power to overthrow the dominance of men in the private sphere.

Neither of these models is really pertinent to the current LDS Church, however, where men are the supreme authority in both the public and private spheres of LDS religion.

It isn't patriarchy, which apparently to some must be a dirty word, even though we look to Heavenly Father as the patriarch. Perhaps society chooses words to mean what they want them to mean? Feminism can indeed confine women. I have seen how women who chose to raise their children at home were considered "less" than those working. Is that partriarchy? Or is it feminism? It is an aspect of feminism that is wrong and bad for all concerned.

As to men being the supreme authority, I would state that righteous men do not use their position in such a way.

Section 121 speaks to this

We have learned by sad experience that it is the ^anature‍ and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little ^bauthority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise ^cunrighteous‍ dominion.

few‍ are chosen.

No power‍ or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the ^bpriesthood, only by ^cpersuasion, by ^dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

By kindness, and pure ^bknowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the ^csoul‍ without ^dhypocrisy, and without ^eguile—

Reproving‍ betimes with ^bsharpness, when ^cmoved‍ upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of ^dlove‍ toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

Let thy bowels‍ also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let ^bvirtue‍ garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy ^cconfidence‍ wax strong in the ^dpresence‍ of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the ^edews‍ from heaven.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Acris Venator]

It isn't patriarchy, which apparently to some must be a dirty word, even though we look to Heavenly Father as the patriarch. Perhaps society chooses words to mean what they want them to mean? Feminism can indeed confine women. I have seen how women who chose to raise their children at home were considered "less" than those working. Is that partriarchy? Or is it feminism? It is an aspect of feminism that is wrong and bad for all concerned.

Great point. Cobalt's definition of patriarchy seems more like a reaction to unrighteous dominion. But Christ's entire construct of the Gospel is patriarchal. Does Christ demean women, or make them second class in his plan?