Mormon Feminism. What Is It All About?

[Tacenda]

I see where WhyMe is coming from. It would help establish both sides. The woman that feels the need to wear pants for warmth or choice and the woman who is wearing the pants to make a statement. They both might want it out there. I feel for the women who normally wear pants that might feel the need to now say they aren't on the bandwagon for the Priesthood or more women's rights or more authority, etc. Sometimes our church might seem legalistic when speaking about clothing this way too. It might either be a lose, lose or win, win, down the road we might see.

[juliann]

And why would asking them a question in the foyer disrupt church? We need to remember that these women are not strangers. They are ward members. I would think that they would enjoy a conversation about their protest. I see no disruption only dialogue and the sharing of knowledge. The foyer is full of people having conversations about job, kids, leisure, mundane things etc. It would be just one of many conversations taking place in the foyer. Also, a conversation is not disruptive and if they were wearing pants on that sunday of the protest I would think that the women would enjoy an opportunity to talk about it.

To put it bluntly, ew, ew, ew. Throughout history, some men have liked to tell women what they would "enjoy". It is always the man who would get the enjoyment, however. If you had any interest in "these women" you would simply go read what they said about the experience. Do you corner men who aren't wearing white shirts in the lobby? And what about those guys in casual sweaters?! Lurk in the lobby and give them some enjoyment. Let us know how enjoyable it was.

[why me]

The question still remains: what is mormon feminism? Since 1976 I have been a socialist feminist. When my students ask me: why me are you a feminist. I say yes and I then describe the type of feminist I am. I tell them that I am a socialist feminist and I lay out a theoretical framework for this type of feminism and how it differs from liberal feminism and radical feminism.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/feminism/a/socialist-feminism.htm

The phrase "socialist feminism" was increasingly used during the 1970s to describe a mixed theoretical and practical approach to achieving women's equality. Socialist feminist theory analyzed the connection between the oppression of women and other oppression in society, such as racism and economic injustice.

Socialists had fought for decades to create a more equal society that did not exploit the poor and powerless in the ways capitalism did. Like Marxism, socialist feminism recognized the oppressive structure of capitalist society. Like radical feminism, socialist feminism recognized the fundamental oppression of women in patriarchal society. However, socialist feminists did not recognize gender and only gender as the exclusive basis of all oppression.

Socialist feminists wanted to integrate the recognition of sex discrimination with their work to achieve justice and equality for women, working classes, the poor and all humanity.

Socialist feminism has given me a theory and a practice to strive for in daily life when I see oppression, not just women's oppression but daily oppressions that may go unrecognized in every day life within a capitalist system. But I also agree with someone I have been familiar with for a very long time when she wrote in 1976: "The trouble with taking a new label of any kind is that it creates an instant aura of sectarianism". http://monthlyreview.org/2005/07/01/what-is-socialist-feminism

And this was my point with the label Mormon feminist. Does such a label cause more sectarianism within the feminist movement? Is it really necessary to describe oneself as a mormon feminist and if so, can it be defined so as to be taken seriously by other feminists? And what is it?

And if I stood up in front of my students and described myself not as a socialist feminist but as a mormon feminist what would I say to my students in terms of a theoretical background to this feminism? My socialist feminism is clearly defined and respected in the academic community of feminists.

[Tacenda]

To put it bluntly, ew, ew, ew. Throughout history, some men have liked to tell women what they would "enjoy". It is always the man who would get the enjoyment, however. If you had any interest in "these women" you would simply go read what they said about the experience. Do you corner men who aren't wearing white shirts in the lobby? And what about those guys in casual sweaters?! Lurk in the lobby and give them some enjoyment. Let us know how enjoyable it was.

Juliann, I'm totally butting in here. I don't think WhyMe is saying to approach women like that. Why am I seeing this differently. Because I'm totally getting your side too. Tacky tacky of anyone to approach that way. It's all in how it's done I guess. Maybe the women wearing pants for women's rights needs someone to ask politely so they can explain! I'm still thinking this is what WhyMe is saying, if wrong, a big apology Juliann.

[why me]

To put it bluntly, ew, ew, ew. Throughout history, some men have liked to tell women what they would "enjoy". It is always the man who would get the enjoyment, however. If you had any interest in "these women" you would simply go read what they said about the experience. Do you corner men who aren't wearing white shirts in the lobby? And what about those guys in casual sweaters?! Lurk in the lobby and give them some enjoyment. Let us know how enjoyable it was.

But should feminism be a man vs. woman fight? My socialist feminism says no. The fight is somewhere else: within the foundation of the system. If I were an exmormon, i could make a claim that mormonism is not just oppressive to women but also to men. And as such, the foundation needs to change to be all inclusive and not exclusive in relation to gender. (But I am not an exmormon) And in answer to your question if i saw a male member wear a beige shirt when such a protest was called for, I would ask him about it, not to condemn but to have a learning dialogue with him.

[why me]

Juliann, I'm totally butting in here. I don't think WhyMe is saying to approach women like that. Why am I seeing this differently. Because I'm totally getting your side too. Tacky tacky of anyone to approach that way. It's all in how it's done I guess. Maybe the women wearing pants for women's rights needs someone to ask politely so they can explain! I'm still thinking this is what WhyMe is saying, if wrong, a big apology Juliann.

You are right. That was my point. I try to conduct my classes in a deliberative style where knowledge is deliberated about, so that (we or my students) can learn from each other and respect difference and see also our common ground.

[juliann]

Juliann, I'm totally butting in here. I don't think WhyMe is saying to approach women like that. Why am I seeing this differently. Because I'm totally getting your side too. Tacky tacky of anyone to approach that way. It's all in how it's done I guess. Maybe the women wearing pants for women's rights needs someone to ask politely so they can explain! I'm still thinking this is what WhyMe is saying, if wrong, a big apology Juliann.

They have explained all over the internet, Tacenda. They have explained in the news articles. In fact, had it not been...few would even know about it. There has probably been a book's worth of discussion bled out over it. Why anyone would need to disrupt church to ask what they already know is what you should be asking. (The dumb act doesn't work when a certain someone is well known to hang out on the Board That Can't be Named where anything goes). Nor does the pretense that discussing pants at church was part of the protest.

And the other thing we learned is that there are women already wearing pants that had nothing to do with this because, as we now know, it is not prohibited. So why in the world would you encourage anyone to ask a woman such an embarrassing and impertinent question...in the most public area of church where others are sure to hear. Do you really want to promote publicly cornering a woman to ask untoward questions as you talk about your own struggles with hurtful customs?

[changed]

someone on fb just posted this:

http://www.potw.org/...ive/potw96.html

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

The Female of the Species

WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,

He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.

But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.

For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,

He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.

But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.

For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,

They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.

'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.

For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,

For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away;

But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale—

The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—

Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.

Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact

To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,

To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.

Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex

Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame

Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;

And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,

The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast

May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.

These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—

She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great

As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.

And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim

Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;

Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—

He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,

Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,

Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,

Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw

And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer

With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her

Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands

To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him

Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.

And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,

That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

an interesting poem, I wonder how many here agree with it? Our bishop gave an interesting talk once, where he speculated that women are natural leaders - Eve led in Eden, she was the first to eat the fruit, women seem to be better at organizing things, when you call home, it seems to be mom that you talk to rather than dad etc. etc. so why would someone with obvious leadership abilities not be give the role of a leader? he thought perhaps it was so we could better understand one another - that if the natural leader was given the role of follower, and follower was given the role of leader, after that educational journey, we would all be more united with one another, more appreciative of one another....

There's a story I tell my young daughters... (I've posted it before, but in case you have not read it)

Once upon a time, a princess was born to a loving king and queen. Unfortunately, an argument during her baby shower led to this princess being taken away from the home of her birth, and raised by 3 fairy godmothers (you know this part of the story - sleeping beauty).... anyways, this girl grows up not knowing who she really is - she thinks she is a commoner, and she tries to make the best of things as a commoner - she learns to enjoy work, she feels the burden of taxes, she finds the honor in what is common, she finds the dignity and joy that comes from living a humble life - a life with people, rather than in front of them - and after she learns all of this, she meets her prince, is carried off to the palace, and finds out who she really is... so this little princess, raised as a peasant, once again turned princess becomes queen - and here's the thing - she becomes the best queen there ever was, because she intimately knew who she ruled over. ... of coarse, she would not have gained that understanding if she had known who she really was growing up...

anyways, the greatest among you shall be your servant, the last will be first, and all that jazz... I think there is a reason for everything, and so I'm content to be patient, and learn the lessons for where-ever I am called to serve.

Edited January 23, 2013 by changed

[Calm]

Kipling came from a very sexist environment and I've not read anything that leads me to believe he was ahead of his time there though I've only read his stories and no statements about his politics. His poem reads more like justification than explanation to me. One has to just look at the laws of his country and the rights or lack of them to demonstrate who was the real power in the home whatever excuses were made.

There is no compliment here, but insult: "Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,

Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,

Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw"...."unprovoked"?...."poisons"? Not anything admirable there.

http://www.kipling.org.uk/rg_female1.htm

As to leadership, I think there is too much variation among women and men to make a lump judgment like that.

As far as looking to Mom in the home, in most homes Mom is home most and the one who does the stuff for kids like drs. appts. and such, even if she is working outside of the home just like Dad so it is hardly surprising when kids go to Mom first to find out stuff and keep that habit as they grow older.

Women also tend to be more comfortable with language skills so not surprising again if Dad hands the phone off to Mom: http://www.examiner.com/article/sex-linked-women-s-language-skills-vs-men-s

Edited January 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[changed]

Kipling came from a very sexist environment ...

and yet, he still saw women as being very strong and fierce as it were.

too much variation among women and men to make a lump judgment like that. ...Women also tend to be more comfortable with...

I know I know, it's not good to make lump conclusions, but as you yourself are willing to admit that "women tend to be..." one thing or another... I hope this is not offensive, but if you were God, and you had the decision of what types of bodies - bodies that tend to be stronger, or weaker - to put various spirits in, what type of body would you choose for the more fierce spirits? I think I would try to curtail them a bit... in any event, this is what it is - result of the fall? that is where the decree was originally made, was to Eve after the fall - and perhaps when the curse is removed, many things will be different, but for now, we live under the Adamic curse, and I don't know if any part of that curse will be lifted by God before we have passed through the veil to another existence... jmo.

[Calm]

and yet, he still saw women as being very strong and fierce as it were.

Not in a good way, at least not in a general sense though he had respect for women he was close to apparently.

And there is a difference in irrational strength that sees everything as a threat (which is how Kipling is describing women) and the kind of strength that allows others to share one's space in the world and even shield and protect the stranger. Men are allowed to have doubt and pity towards others, be willing to negotiate and compromise in Kipling's world, not women.

as you yourself are willing to admit that "women tend to be..." one thing or another...

I draw my conclusions in this area based on statistical research. If you can show me some research that demonstrates women tend to be better leaders generally (I haven't seen it in my personal observations), I would consider it a possibility.

I am sorry but I don't buy that eons of domination by males of women occurred even though women had the more fierce spirits. Mankind itself is an example of a weaker species being successful over fiercer, stronger species because they used their minds and spirits and persisted in the fight. If men were all that weaker in 'heart' than women in general, as Kipling claimed there would have been ways to actually manipulate men into being at least equals, if not making men the more oppressed of the species as Kipling is claiming occurred. Guns and other weapons tend to make put the weak on the same level as the strong.

Edited January 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[BlueDreams]

an interesting poem, I wonder how many here agree with it?

First thought that came to mind was that it reminded me of the time mormons say women are more spiritual for this or that silly reason. It's not really accurate, but a poor excuse for a band-aid to problems within the community. Women didn't have much voice, rights, or power within most of the dominant societies for that time. So instead of addressing the actual problem, Kipling glorifies the status quo by saying, no no, women really are powerful and strong already. So strong that she need not worry herself with the silly things men do (you know, like government, treaties, colonialism, trade, politics, etc)....she's above that. She's got her kids and she's the fiercest of them all when she's watching or protecting them. It's a colonialist female pedestal that he's putting women on. Plumping up and feathering and glorying women in a time where women were closer to the servants of men, trapped under the voices and decisions of others in deciding her security, lifestyle, and happiness.

So basically I disagree with the poem and like it just about as much as I like his other poem, White Man's Burden. It's a feel-good poem, exoticizing the role and nature of women to some mystical powerful creatures who'll claw your eyes out for looking sideways at her babies. Personally I do not want to become some mystical creature.

Why Me,

I'm not going to lie, I'm a little confused and am not following you on a lot of things (I feel like I've missed a step in your logic somewhere and I'm not sure where exactly). But on one point about the term used for brand of feminism. What if you feel pretty comfortable being described as a mormon feminist? I honestly don't feel like it's all that inaccurate a term, at least for myself. I don't necessarily subscribe to any secular branch of feminism beyond the generic defining, establishing, and defending equal rights/oppurtunities/what-ever-else for women. I likewise seek a lot of my perspective on how/what that would mean on my LDS faith...as well as try to understand what that would look like in a mormon context as well.

With luv,

BD

Edited January 24, 2013 by BlueDreams

[why me]

. What if you feel pretty comfortable being described as a mormon feminist? I honestly don't feel like it's all that inaccurate a term, at least for myself. I don't necessarily subscribe to any secular branch of feminism beyond the generic defining, establishing, and defending equal rights/oppurtunities/what-ever-else for women. I likewise seek a lot of my perspective on how/what that would mean on my LDS faith...as well as try to understand what that would look like in a mormon context as well.

With luv,

BD

Is Mormon Feminism rather sectarian in that it only concerns itself with Mormon women? Can I also describe myself to my students as a Socialist Mormon Feminist? For me feminism is all inclusive., It is about women and men. In a capitalist society, women and men are exploited and this exploitation takes place at work and in the home and in daily actions. It is embedded in the system. I can say that the capitalist system uses gender to divide the working people since it is the system that creates wage differences and defines the roles of gender. Are not men also exploited in American society? Socialist feminism would say yes.

Are not priesthood holding men also exploited in the lds church? A case could be made. The amount of meetings and work lds men must do without pay could be classified as exploitation. So, if I were an exmormon addressing exploitative practices in the lds church, I could justly claim that both men and women are exploited and lay out my case and be a big hit on exmormon boards.

For mormon feminism to be inclusively about women overlooking the men, would create a polarization of gender in the lds church and put one against the other. I am speaking as a male socialist feminist who has been involved in the movement since 1976.

Edited January 24, 2013 by why me

[why me]

They have explained all over the internet, Tacenda. They have explained in the news articles. In fact, had it not been...few would even know about it. There has probably been a book's worth of discussion bled out over it. Why anyone would need to disrupt church to ask what they already know is what you should be asking.

I suppose that I don't see it disrupting the foyer conversation at all. I have often spoken politics with members in the foyer as we wait for the next lesson. I see nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, the last time I was there, I discussed poverty with someone as well as marginalization. All in the foyer. What conversations should members have in the foyer? And why would I overlook the possibility to discuss such an interesting topic with women involved in the protest? Of course I could meet her or them for hot chocolate later in the week but a casual question would not be out of place with some I know.

Edited January 24, 2013 by why me

[changed]

... I am sorry but I don't buy that eons of domination by males of women occurred even though women had the more fierce spirits. ...

let me redefine "fierce" for you then... according to how the world judges things, then no, it seems that women are not more fierce.... but if you judge someone's strength as the Lord judges, He seems to think the greatest among us are our servants, so if you try to categorize who is stronger according to the Lord's definition of what makes someone strong... then who are really the stronger ones?

(Old Testament | Isaiah 55: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

the Lord's ways really are opposite of how the rest of the world works... I think there are some deep lessons to be learned by trying to see things from that different perspective - that blessings come through humility/repentance/faith/hope - which is not how the world works for sure... the world rewards pride/lies/skepticism/fear mongering - that's what you use to get results in the world.... but to gain blessings from God, it's an entirely different game, with entirely different rewards.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My definition of a Mormon feminist - women who seek after the right things, but only know how to use worldly methodologies to get those things, so I don't have much hope that they will be able to get what they want.

Edited January 24, 2013 by changed

[Calm]

let me redefine "fierce" for you then... according to how the world judges things, then no, it seems that women are not more fierce.... but if you judge someone's strength as the Lord judges, He seems to think the greatest among us are our servants, so if you try to categorize who is stronger according to the Lord's definition of what makes someone strong... then who are really the stronger ones?

not all examples of servants in the OT are good ones.

Are you suggesting that the Lord meant women to be servants or just using a weaker class example?

The problem I see with your logic is that it is circular...God chose men as the weaker leaders, how do we know they are weaker, because God chose them and God chooses the strong to serve the weak.....sometimes (the steward who hid the money was not promted over the stronger stewards). Certainly that might be the reason, but we have seen the harm in tha past with speculations to explain inequalities for blacks and the priesthood and I see that as a cautionary tale to avoid speculation in this case, especially since as you pointed out God's reasons are not ours.

[Calm]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My definition of a Mormon feminist - women who seek after the right things, but only know how to use worldly methodologies to get those things, so I don't have much hope that they will be able to get what they want.

How do you know a feminist is not reading, pondering, praying, going to the temple and serving others in her efforts to seek after righteousness just as we are instructed? Edited January 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[why me]

How do you know a feminist is not reading, pondering, praying, going to the temple and serving others in her efforts to seek after righteousness just as we are instructed?

This is a good point. But when I read about the women and the priesthood ideas from them, they seemed to have omitted prayer and were more intent on human made change.

[Calm]

And why would they share their personal prayer experiences with total strangers on the Internet, including those they know who are looking for ways to attack them.

[changed]

How do you know a feminist is not reading, pondering, praying, going to the temple and serving others in her efforts to seek after righteousness just as we are instructed?

If someone is following the Lord's councils in every detail of their life, then I would call them a saint, not a feminist.

A rose by any other name... and yet the name of this church was chosen rather carefully... it wasn't the church of "Bob", or the church of the laying on of hands or something - it was the church of Jesus Christ... I think those who truly do follow the Lord's councils seek to be called Christians above any other name, and seek to associate themselves with the church above any other group of people.... I don't think they would define themselves under any other title than that.

Edited January 24, 2013 by changed

[why me]

And why would they share their personal prayer experiences with total strangers on the Internet, including those they know who are looking for ways to attack them.

I was referring to their public statements. I saw no call for prayer in their desire to have women hold the priesthood. I just saw pressure.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/54704413-80/church-equality-female-general.html.csp

Edited January 24, 2013 by why me

[BlueDreams]

Is Mormon Feminism rather sectarian in that it only concerns itself with Mormon women? Can I also describe myself to my students as a Socialist Mormon Feminist? For me feminism is all inclusive., It is about women and men. In a capitalist society, women and men are exploited and this exploitation takes place at work and in the home and in daily actions. It is embedded in the system. I can say that the capitalist system uses gender to divide the working people since it is the system that creates wage differences and defines the roles of gender. Are not men also exploited in American society? Socialist feminism would say yes.

You can describe yourself however you please. Whatever you feel is an accurate description of your own ideals is fine with me.

Are not priesthood holding men also exploited in the lds church?

Yep, missing a step again. Just as a note, I wouldn't have a problem stating that just as there is problems in both how men are women are seen. It would be an exaggeration in my mind, to describe either as exploited in the LDS church. But then again, I'm not even sure where this thought came from in the first point. Again, I'm not following your line of thought at all.

With luv,

BD

[changed]

Example of someone wanting the right things (the Holy Ghost), but trying to obtain it through the wrong channels:

(New Testament | Acts 8:18 - 21)

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 9:41)

there is none other way save it be by the gate...

one of Satan's most often used lies is the lie that heavenly blessings can be obtained through some other road than repentance/humility/submission/faith/patience etc. etc. - that you can obtain lasting happiness without work, or that you could obtain love without sacrifice, or spiritual authority through "changeable suits of apparel", or Nicene type conventions/petitions/and voting parties...

Quite frankly, I think those who use these guerrilla warfare type tactics to demand their perceived entitlements from those who are legitimately called to serve do a great disservice to the more humble and deserving sisters... perhaps some humble sister would have been asked to do something like say a prayer at GC, but I don't see that happening for a long time now, because there are some who think there is "some other way" to enter into the gate.

[changed]

I was referring to their public statements. I saw no call for prayer in their desire to have women hold the priesthood. I just saw pressure.

http://www.sltrib.co...eneral.html.csp

careful, you'll give them ideas... before you know it they will be calling for prayers and fasting to obtain their goals, but of coarse it takes much more than just going through the show of the actions.

[Tacenda]

http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/episode-30-critiques-of-mormon-feminism/

Cal, BD and WhyMe here is a podcast that might put it all in perspective! There is a gentlemen on here that says he is a feminist, would that be similar to a male social feminist WhyMe?