Feminist Inroads Into Mormonism

[selek1]

If you call efforts to reduce the subjugation of women an ideology, then maybe so.

This is a strawman fallacy, at best.

No one on this board- Mormon or otherwise- has a problem with legitimate efforts to "reduce the subjugation of women".

The problem with "modern" feminism is two-fold: first is its resemblance to "take no prisoners" militant black liberation theology.

In both cases- anyone who lacks the correct physical characteristics (whether skin color or genitalia) is automagically the enemy. Even those who agree with the overall agenda are (at best) fellow travellers or useful idiots.

The ideology promotes tribalism and division within society rather than unity and cooperation.

The second problem is that modern feminism is no more interested in legitimizing a woman's choices than were the most die-hard of the "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" misogynists- they simply advocate a different set of choices.

Instead of legitimizing, expanding, and celebrating the spectrum of choices women can and do make for themselves, post-modern feminism (on the whole) seeks to limit women to specific (ideologically "pure") choices.

The post-modern feminists have their own definition of a woman's "proper role"- and they are more than happy to demonize and destroy any woman who wanders off their plantation.

Is there an actual, definable, quantifiable moral difference between an old-school misogynist saying "No woman should ever work outside the home" and the feminist who says, "No woman should ever work inside the home"?

Quite frankly, I can't see one.

Moreover, the post-modern feminist movement has actually had a negative effect on women, relentlessly spreading both a take-no-prisoners ideology in which men are the enemy and a lowest-common-denominator social construct that teached that the only way for a woman to be equal to a man is to live down to his worst excesses.

The "hook-up" culture on modern college campuses, the glamourizing of the Jersey Shore/Bratz/Lindsey Lohan lifestyle, and the concerted demagogic campaign to delegitimize stay-at-home moms are all artifacts of "post-modern" feminism- and all have had a demonstrable negative effect on the women who subscribe to them and upon society as a whole.

Edited January 10, 2012 by selek1

[Jeff K.]

According to feminism, that the patriarchy is nice doesn't make it less of a patriarchy, just as a nice dictator doesn't convert the political structure to a democracy. Indeed, focus on the Heavenly Father, with neglect of the Heavenly Mother (because she is subordinate, subservient, too fragile, too much on a "pedestal," or whatever other Mormon rationales exist out there in the wild) is a theological patriarchy. The Bible and the Book of Mormon are soundly patriarchal, and hardly ever mention the unique concerns or perspectives of women. Is that an undesired result? Your answer to that question depends on whether or not you are theological feminist.

If what you quoted was "according to feminism" then I would say feminism is both wrong and undermining of the relationship all people have with God. Perhaps that is your interpretation of feminism. But to be more specific.....

with neglect of the Heavenly Mother (because she is subordinate, subservient, too fragile, too much on a "pedestal," or whatever other Mormon rationales exist out there in the wild) is a theological patriarchy

This reflects an untirely incorrect view of "patriarchial" and warps the definition. It appears to more of an attempt to project what one may choose to see among Latter-Day Saints than what is truly there. Consider that we have no full understanding of what the relationship between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother is, beyond the fact it is "patriarchial" a definition which is can be interpreted as evil by those who wish to make it sound evil. I also have difficulty believing Heavenly mother is subordinate, anymore than I can believe my own helpmate, my wife is subordinate. I view Heavenly Father's relationship, in a sense the same way I view the relationship I have with my wife. We have different jobs and talents, and our family would be significantly less of a family, if a family at all without her. I do put my wife on a pedestal, I do not see her as a shrinking violet, I know most priesthood holders don't see their wives in that light either.

Again I point to the Doctrine and Covenants 121

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

The standard by which we as Latter-Day Saints are told to live.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Jeff K.

[Jeff K.]

The Bible and the Book of Mormon are soundly patriarchal, and hardly ever mention the unique concerns or perspectives of women. Is that an undesired result? Your answer to that question depends on whether or not you are theological feminist.

Desired result by whom? Me? Heavenly Father? Spirit of Revelation? To desire a result is to be part of the outcome. I have no relevant influence on the outcome. I see this merely as a projection, once again. After all, I don't see the unique needs of children mentioned much at all. Do we claim then that reverse "ageism" is taking place in the Bible? Nor are we confronted with the "unique" needs of many subgroups. Is this reason to cry alarm? How long and how detailed does the Bible and Book of Mormon have to be?

I apologize for Heavenly Father if your particular group in your particular sets of time periods aren't sufficiently mentioned to the satisfaction of your particular sensibilities. But those testimonies aren't there to testify to the "particular" needs of the subgroup you have chosent to champion. They testify of Christ, that is the key to their existence. We can always wish we had more information, and we can always wish we understood more. But a lack of understanding does not automatically reflect a lack of acts that you might consider supportive to the faction you believe to be of such importance.

[Senator]

If what you quoted was "according to feminism" then I would say feminism is both wrong and undermining of the relationship all people have with God. Perhaps that is your interpretation of feminism. But to be more specific.....

Consider that we have no full understanding of what the relationship between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother is, beyond the fact it is "patriarchial" a definition which is can be interpreted as evil by those who wish to make it sound evil.

I'm not quite sure it is a fact.

I also have difficulty believing Heavenly mother is subordinate, anymore than I can believe my own helpmate, my wife is subordinate.

Same here.

Yet we are taught in the temple and even placed under covenant to abide a hierarchical subordination, with the wife giving subordination to the husband as he does as much to the the Lord.

Is this a relic of fallen man, that will someday be "atoned" for, and abolished?

Edited January 10, 2012 by Senator

[Jeff K.]

I'm not quite sure it is a fact.

The word patriarch is indeed established as a fact. The interpretation of that word is open to opinion.

Same here.

Yet we are taught in the temple and even placed under covenant to abide a hierarchical subordination, with the wife giving subordination to the husband as he does as much to the the Lord.

Is this a relic of fallen man, that will someday be "atoned" for, and abolished?

As a temple worker (to establish bonafides) I believe your information is awkwardly narrow. If you pay attention to the entire process in the Temple from step one to the end, you would understand that men, if anything are at a disadvantage from the outset. The caveat as to how men should act for their wives to agree with them is instilled throughout the ceremony. Also from earlier cermonies we know that women have the advantage. In essence, an understanding of the temple and its ceremonies reflect that women are in fact the gatekeepers or watchers if you will. If I might, I would suggest reviewing the process through a wife's eyes in terms of their temple activities, and doing so within the temple so that you may speak freely to each other.

[Senator]

The word patriarch is indeed established as a fact.

Could you demonstrate this (in the context of the relationship between Heavenly Father and Mother)?

As a temple worker (to establish bonafides) I believe your information is awkwardly narrow. If you pay attention to the entire process in the Temple from step one to the end, you would understand that men, if anything are at a disadvantage from the outset. The caveat as to how men should act for their wives to agree with them is instilled throughout the ceremony. Also from earlier cermonies we know that women have the advantage. In essence, an understanding of the temple and its ceremonies reflect that women are in fact the gatekeepers or watchers if you will.

I'm interested in your ideas. However I would need you to demonstrate these points in order for me to grasp where you're coming from. I also understand the difficulty in doing that in this venue.

I'll have to pay closer attention next time to see if I can (or not) identify what you say.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Senator

[Jeff K.]

Could you demonstrate this (in the context of the relationship between Heavenly Father and Mother)?

You cannot separate a patriarch from children and mother. A patriarch is a patriarch both to the children and to the mother.

I'm interested in your ideas. However I would need you to demonstrate these points in order for me to grasp where you're coming from. I also understand the difficulty in doing that in this venue.

I'll have to pay closer attention next time to see if I can (or not) identify what you say.

I appreciate your understanding regarding the delicacy of the matter. Suffice to say women have a different experience if you pay attention.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Jeff K.

[CV75]

men, if anything are at a disadvantage from the outset.

I find this is interesting. Adam was alone in the garden, experiencing paradise until he had a mate, and had to learn to live as a couple. It seems that Eve never experienced living there alone, and instinctively accepted the married state from the moment she entered the garden.

Perhaps in Adam’s initial orientation toward being a lone man, and Eve’s in being a unified pair, he left her alone long enough for the devil to tempt them separately, and the devil succeeded with the one who was less experienced with being alone (Eve). Also, partaking of the forbidden fruit may have seemed to be a reasonable way for Eve to show Adam how to think in terms of being a couple. It seems that being alone was unthinkable to Eve, and Adam, finally coming to the same conclusion, partook also.

[CV75]

P.S. It also made me think about the garden as Adam’s “mother and father” ("mother earth" so to speak), and he had to leave it through the fall to cleave to his wife (Genesis 2:24).

[Cobalt-70]

This is a strawman fallacy, at best.

No one on this board- Mormon or otherwise- has a problem with legitimate efforts to "reduce the subjugation of women".

"Subjugation" is perhaps too strong a word. Feminism deals not with just subjugation, but also with subordination. Most Mormons are fine with limiting Mormon priesthood power to men, thus subordinating the power of women, both in the church and in the home, to men. I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing, just that it's a thing. As a result, the church structure is a patriarchy and is not feminist.

Instead of legitimizing, expanding, and celebrating the spectrum of choices women can and do make for themselves, post-modern feminism (on the whole) seeks to limit women to specific (ideologically "pure") choices.

The post-modern feminists have their own definition of a woman's "proper role"- and they are more than happy to demonize and destroy any woman who wanders off their plantation.

Is there an actual, definable, quantifiable moral difference between an old-school misogynist saying "No woman should ever work outside the home" and the feminist who says, "No woman should ever work inside the home"?

Quite frankly, I can't see one.

Moreover, the post-modern feminist movement has actually had a negative effect on women, relentlessly spreading both a take-no-prisoners ideology in which men are the enemy and a lowest-common-denominator social construct that teached that the only way for a woman to be equal to a man is to live down to his worst excesses.

I don't think you are well versed on postmodern feminism, or feminism in general. I don't know of any feminists who argue that "no woman should ever work inside the home." There are many kinds of feminists: most liberal feminists would disagree with this, because they are all about liberating women from all confinement, not just confining her to a different, opposite role. A properly liberated woman, in their view, will be praised for working either in the home our outside the home, so long as nobody is telling her (and she is not telling other women) that she must be in the home because that is her "role."

Postmodern feminism is nothing like you describe. It is actually a break from liberal feminism, going so far as to question its foundations, as well as the foundations of liberalism in general. Not to say that postmodern feminist writers are either patriarchalists or conservatives, though that would not be impossible.

[bluebell]

I just want to say that I was wrong in my earlier accusation against Pahoran concerning our discussion about 'the construct'.

Pahoran, i don't know if you can read this thread anymore but here you go: You're right. I was wrong. It was a construct that someone else made up, not you. I apologize for not being more careful in my reading comprehension so that my accusations were more accurate.

Public accusations deserve public apologies.

[Cobalt-70]

If what you quoted was "according to feminism" then I would say feminism is both wrong and undermining of the relationship all people have with God. Perhaps that is your interpretation of feminism. But to be more specific.....

I'm not saying that there are no feminists who, though feminist in political or domestic matters, abandon their feminism when it is applied to theological matters. I suppose that many Mormons who call themselves feminists want to liberate mortal women, but are content to keep the Heavenly Mother in her "place," or imagine that the Heavenly Father keeps her so confined.

This reflects an untirely incorrect view of "patriarchial" and warps the definition. It appears to more of an attempt to project what one may choose to see among Latter-Day Saints than what is truly there. Consider that we have no full understanding of what the relationship between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother is, beyond the fact it is "patriarchial" a definition which is can be interpreted as evil by those who wish to make it sound evil. I also have difficulty believing Heavenly mother is subordinate, anymore than I can believe my own helpmate, my wife is subordinate. I view Heavenly Father's relationship, in a sense the same way I view the relationship I have with my wife. We have different jobs and talents, and our family would be significantly less of a family, if a family at all without her. I do put my wife on a pedestal, I do not see her as a shrinking violet, I know most priesthood holders don't see their wives in that light either.

Again I point to the Doctrine and Covenants 121

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

The standard by which we as Latter-Day Saints are told to live.

First of all, there is no necessary reason, other than historical tradition and the opinions of certain prominent Mormons, why you should assume that this passage applies only to men. Women who are endowed also have the priesthood. The problem is that they are not, except in rare circumstances, ordained to a role of leadership. If they were, they would be under just much obligation to lead by persuasion, long-suffering, etc. The problem is not the quality of the subordination of women to men, but the fact that women are always subordinated to men in matters of priesthood.

If you believe that it is the man's role to lead, and the woman's role to nurture, then you are a patriarchalist, even if you say that these roles are "separate, but equal." That's how you define patriarchy. That's exactly why Victorian women were not given the right to vote, though they were praised above men for their virtues. It is not that they were deemed inferior, just that they were expected to be confined to a "place" which excluded them from certain sources of power expressed by men. Whether that power was exercised by a man's "long-suffering" toward his wife is beside the point.

[Cobalt-70]

Desired result by whom? Me? Heavenly Father? Spirit of Revelation? To desire a result is to be part of the outcome. I have no relevant influence on the outcome. I see this merely as a projection, once again. After all, I don't see the unique needs of children mentioned much at all. Do we claim then that reverse "ageism" is taking place in the Bible? Nor are we confronted with the "unique" needs of many subgroups. Is this reason to cry alarm? How long and how detailed does the Bible and Book of Mormon have to be?

I apologize for Heavenly Father if your particular group in your particular sets of time periods aren't sufficiently mentioned to the satisfaction of your particular sensibilities. But those testimonies aren't there to testify to the "particular" needs of the subgroup you have chosent to champion. They testify of Christ, that is the key to their existence. We can always wish we had more information, and we can always wish we understood more. But a lack of understanding does not automatically reflect a lack of acts that you might consider supportive to the faction you believe to be of such importance.

I'm not bashing the scriptures, at all. I'm just saying that perhaps if they were written in our time, they would have included more women's stories and perspectives, and not have been so patriarchal. You can't blame the prophets for ignoring women's voices and perspectives, when it probably wouldn't have occurred to them to include women. Moreover, women were often illiterate, and if a women did write one of the books of the Bible, and that fact was known, it seems unrealistic to think that the ancient Jews or the Catholic church would have included a true female voice in the canon. Other than Esther and Ruth, the best we have are explorations of the feminine as applied to men, like how Job and Jesus were submissive and willing to "take it" during their sufferings, and how Sampson's power derived from his hair.

[Cobalt-70]

Yet we are taught in the temple and even placed under covenant to abide a hierarchical subordination, with the wife giving subordination to the husband as he does as much to the the Lord.

This subordinate relationship has changed over the years. Anyone who went to the temple prior to 1990 knows that it was a much more patriarchal arrangement. I can easily see this changing again, so that both men and women agree to obey the commandments of God, thus making both men and women equally feminine.

[Jeff K.]

I don't know of any feminists who argue that "no woman should ever work inside the home."

I do, there are more than a few who consider working in the home as being the inferior chioice. I have heard the insinuation that women who care for their families are denying society the fruits of their talents. Then again I have also heard the otherside which insists that women who work neglect their families. Sometimes you just can't win.

[Jeff K.]

I'm not saying that there are no feminists who, though feminist in political or domestic matters, abandon their feminism when it is applied to theological matters. I suppose that many Mormons who call themselves feminists want to liberate mortal women, but are content to keep the Heavenly Mother in her "place," or imagine that the Heavenly Father keeps her so confined.

There you go projecting again. One is almost convinced you have the omniscient knowledge necessary to know what the relationship between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother is. I would not presume something so obviously in error.

First of all, there is no necessary reason, other than historical tradition and the opinions of certain prominent Mormons, why you should assume that this passage applies only to men. Women who are endowed also have the priesthood. The problem is that they are not, except in rare circumstances, ordained to a role of leadership. If they were, they would be under just much obligation to lead by persuasion, long-suffering, etc. The problem is not the quality of the subordination of women to men, but the fact that women are always subordinated to men in matters of priesthood.

.

While you may or may not read the scriptures in depth I would suggest that the passage was for those who hold the priesthood. The implication made by you was that the priesthood is what defines authority when the passage obviously negates such a view. Your worldview seems to be limited to on in which conflict must exist when in fact it is a false construct to believe so, either within the partriarchial religion which we follow or from what we know of the Lord's organization. There is no conflict beyond your construct of conflict.

if you believe that it is the man's role to lead, and the woman's role to nurture, then you are a patriarchalist, even if you say that these roles are "separate, but equal." That's how you define patriarchy. That's exactly why Victorian women were not given the right to vote, though they were praised above men for their virtues. It is not that they were deemed inferior, just that they were expected to be confined to a "place" which excluded them from certain sources of power expressed by men. Whether that power was exercised by a man's "long-suffering" toward his wife is beside the point

Your presumption is very limited and demeaning to both men and women. Both men and women nurture and both men and women lead. Again, you seem stuck on that artificial construct even when I have pointed out to you one of the most obvious scriptures which deny the assertion you imply. And yet, God himself who is the patriarch also rejects your position. It leave you with little to argue about I know, but I am sure you will endeavor to make some sort of oats out of the hay you have.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 10 January 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

Desired result by whom? Me? Heavenly Father? Spirit of Revelation? To desire a result is to be part of the outcome. I have no relevant influence on the outcome. I see this merely as a projection, once again. After all, I don't see the unique needs of children mentioned much at all. Do we claim then that reverse "ageism" is taking place in the Bible? Nor are we confronted with the "unique" needs of many subgroups. Is this reason to cry alarm? How long and how detailed does the Bible and Book of Mormon have to be?

I apologize for Heavenly Father if your particular group in your particular sets of time periods aren't sufficiently mentioned to the satisfaction of your particular sensibilities. But those testimonies aren't there to testify to the "particular" needs of the subgroup you have chosent to champion. They testify of Christ, that is the key to their existence. We can always wish we had more information, and we can always wish we understood more. But a lack of understanding does not automatically reflect a lack of acts that you might consider supportive to the faction you believe to be of such importance.

I'm not bashing the scriptures, at all. I'm just saying that perhaps if they were written in our time, they would have included more women's stories and perspectives, and not have been so patriarchal. You can't blame the prophets for ignoring women's voices and perspectives, when it probably wouldn't have occurred to them to include women. Moreover, women were often illiterate, and if a women did write one of the books of the Bible, and that fact was known, it seems unrealistic to think that the ancient Jews or the Catholic church would have included a true female voice in the canon. Other than Esther and Ruth, the best we have are explorations of the feminine as applied to men, like how Job and Jesus were submissive and willing to "take it" during their sufferings, and how Sampson's power derived from his hair.

You are not bashing scriptures, you just believe they weren't written for our time. Sounds like you are bashing scriptures to me. You certain make them less than what they are. Prophets also are not perfect, but they exist to help us apply both revelation and scriptures for our time. But then we know more than one prophetess existed and there might be books written on the subject that we are simply not made privy to. Perhaps women are not ready for the information yet, perhaps men aren't. Regardless of who is or is not ready, no conflict need exist in our partriarchy since the existence of the priesthood has nothing to do with leadership, at least according to Heavenly Father in the 121st section.

[Loran Blood]

While I agree with you in principle, the second wave also includes such notions as identifying & eradicating the objectification of women in its ideology. I would consider that notion Christ-like.

Again, these are modern ideological notions that would demand a substantial quantity of definition and fleshing out before I would be comfortable describing them as ""Christ-like." I've noticed, in recent years, a great deal of this going on among some LDS who wish to domesticate particular philosophies such that they can be grafted onto the tame olive tree.

The Second Wave's propensity to identify language and processes that demean women & relegate them to second class status is also antithetical to your point, as the Lord's ordinances endow both sexes with sovereignty and power... the desire for equality is a righteous desire that the Lord addresses directly. So there is some overlap between modern feminism and the Gospel, & the competition is not so direct. Hence my question.

If I may, the " propensity to identify language and processes that demean women & relegate them to second class status" is part of the ideology of "radical" feminism that involves, as you have set it out here, at least two aspects, the first being the political/social seizing and control of language (which has come, over the last 25 or so years, to be known as a core aspect of "political correctness) and the claim that woman are actually relegated to "second class" status in the modern western social setting. This last claim has problems, not in that woman, in different senses, have not been, at times and in serious ways, seen as inferior to men, at least by some quantity of the overall male population, but in the ideologial definition of just what "second class" status means. Second Wave feminism's disturbing trend here has always been to define "oppression," "subjection," and "demean" to be anything having to do with traditional gender roles having nothing in particular to do with "oppression," "subjection," or being demeaned in any normative sense. The problem is the moving of the semantic goal posts into the ideology until the meaning of language, and hence, the meaning of concepts, changes. The fanatic hostility of Second (known at the time as the "woman's liberation movement") and post-Second Wave feminism to normative (and gospel) gender roles, traditional marriage, family, child rearing, and Judeo-Christian sexual ethics (and convienence abortion) is instructive here.

The reason why the second wave is an inadequate lens for understanding the Gospel is because it goes to war with Patriarchy as a standard operating procedure.

Again, "The Patriarchy" is a feminist ideological construct that came to prominance in the early seventies, not a known sociological or cultural phenomenon. It functions, within radical feminism, much as "the ruling class," the "white middle class male," or "oppressor" functions in other closely allied ideologies.

If the war aspect (along with the sexual revolt element) is extracted, then the best aspects of feminism work just fine with the Gospel, and are actually informative regarding our history and culture.

I'll be pleased to take a look at any arguments you may have.

The fact of the matter is that individual women have been demeaned in our culture.

How? In what context?

Unrighteous dominion has occurred in some marriages.

No one could possibly argue this.

Rape, beatings, coercion, and all manner of abuses have transpired and continue to be perpetrated by the ignorant among us.

No argument here. The problem is whether feminism as really correctly identified the problem or is, as I think it is, yet another late 20th century ideologial solution looking for problems from which to "liberate" its acolytes.

Is the entire Church suspect? Not necessarily. But those seeds have been sewn by some throughout LDS history, and the fruits are now coming to bear in the form of a fierce war regarding gender politics.

Given the clear teachings of the Church on the meaning and purpose of gender and its proportioned mortal role, I'm not sure I undrestand what your talking about here. However, to the extent there is now a "gender war" under way, it is a salient feature of a much wider "culture war" of which feminism is one front, and closely allied with, other philosophies deriving from the same orginary sources and perspectives.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Okay, let me try this again. There is no point in discussing first wave or second wave feminism when it comes to feminism today. Second wave feminism more or less ended with the early nineties with the advent of postmodern discourse. Now we have a fragmented feminism as I listed on this thread as feminist identity groups are drawn into their own specific groupings. Feminism is not a monolithic group and should not be discussed as such.

I'd have to respectfully disagree here. Second Wave Feminism evolved into Third Wave gender feminism and still retains much of its orginal philosophical imperatives, save for its blending with postmodernism (and nothing already corrupt cannot yet be further corrupted by contact with this intellectual movement) and its mentality of gender separatism, which was not endemic in the Second Wave.

[Loran Blood]

If you call efforts to reduce the subjugation of women an ideology, then maybe so.

No, I'm calling Second Wave and Third Wave Feminism ideologies. I'm also not aware that woman are "subjugated" in Western societies, including the United States.

But patriarchy, the effort to keep women within their "proper role," is an ideology as well.

"The Patriarchy" is, within the idiology of feminism, the ideological foil to its own beliefs, just as, within Marxism, there appears a oppositional ideology known as "Capitalism." Within Afrocentrism, there is a nemises known as the "white ovresociety," and within multiculturalism and much of academic Critical Theory there is the conept of "Eurocentrism." In the environmental movement there is "specism." There is, within this general ideological orbit, also "phallocentrism," "heterosexism," "classism," and other "isms" which it is not necessary to mention.

This is all of a piece, Cobalt.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

That's an interesting article by a female author, agitating as it does for women to be "compensated" for their own choices...

Being compensated for, or because of, our own choices, seems to be a preeminant feature of the present age, as is the desire of many to implicate other people in their own lifestyle choices through the force of law.

[Loran Blood]

however women bear the brunt of the cost of having children in the sense of what it implies for their career

This seems to imply that most woman want or desire a career outside the home and that the role wife and mother are, by definition, less valuable to society than playing the role of Murphy Brown. Many do (since the late sixties). Many, as well, do not.

[Calm]

This seems to imply that most woman want or desire a career outside the home and that the role wife and mother are, by definition, less valuable to society than playing the role of Murphy Brown. Many do (since the late sixties). Many, as well, do not.

It was not meant to imply anything about want or desire, simply an observation that costs of that choice being primarily borne by women. Any such interpretation of motive, etc. would be reading into the comment what it does not say or mean to imply.

[Loran Blood]

It was not meant to imply anything about want or desire, simply an observation that costs of that choice being primarily borne by women. Any such interpretation of motive, etc. would be reading into the comment what it does not say or mean to imply.

Not at all. lt only means that to woman who percieve no economic or personal "cost" to the civilizational task of motherhood in the sense of some lost career opportunity, no such cost exists.

[Calm]

lt only means that to woman who percieve no economic or personal "cost" to the civilizational task of motherhood in the sense of some lost career opportunity, no such cost exists.

I highly doubt that any semiaware and educated woman perceives no cost even if they don't anticipate ever going back to work. They would have to be totally unaware of the economic implications for one thing and in denial about the possibility that someday they might have to work no matter what their personal desires might be (for example, if their husband dies). Now they may hold the costs to be totally overwhelmed and even trivialized by the benefits of staying home, but that is a different thing.

Edited January 11, 2012 by calmoriah