Mormon Feminist Disarray

[juliann]

I'm interested in perspectives and opinions on conversations resulting from Valerie Hudson Cassler's latest article which includes a critique of Ordainwomen. I along with others consider her to be Mormonism's foremost...if not only....female theologian. http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerRubySlippers.html

It should be noted that Cassler has an article in the April Ensign which gives her access (and some authority) to the rank and file Mormons that other feminists will never have.

It has been sport for what I will call the elite bloggers to bash her relentlessly and personally, prior to the latest round, a shockingly out of place personal attack occurred in the Worlds Without End blog, which bills itself as a meeting of scholars. This is because Cassler supports a vision of equality through the LDS celestial vision of marriage which is considered hopelessly patriarchal. That is a debatable position obviously. Beyond that, she supports some radical change in improving women's access to the church as is laid out in the above article. That is not so debatable if one claims to be a feminist.

Cassler's (Hudson) http://en.wikipedia....lerie_M._Hudson has been given occasional approval within the blogging community because her article on polygamy being an Abrahamic sacrifice rather than the Lord's preferred lifestyle has had great influence on many women.

As everyone here probably knows, I do not allow criticism of Mormon feminists whether I agree with all of their positions or not. So I have been stunned and disillusioned to see the attack mentality arise again in all of its ugliness in response to Cassler's latest article....one which I think will resonate with the rank and file where the feminists do not. That may be the root of the problem for them, actually. There is so much anger that some have denied most women don't want the priesthood which I find mind boggling to the point that I'm not sure delusional is not a good description.

Joanna Brooks gave a much more tempered and respectful response in her 4/22 blog http://askmormongirl.com/ . However, in 4/15 blog below that she had highlighted a quote that is not essentially different from Cassler's appeal to women to discover their divine power.

So I find this confusing as well as disillusioning. A woman's rights proponent should be embracing most of what Cassler says, up to the no priesthood part if that is one of their conditions. In fact, most of Cassler's appeals for change are exactly the same as those proposed by other feminists for some time. But instead, I see them almost devouring their previous statements merely to "get" Cassler.

I'd appreciate some feedback. This is really bothering me. (I responded as jnr at MFH until slave plantations were used to defend attacking Cassler). So I am coming here hoping for more rational discussion. Do NOT use this as an excuse to attack feminism itself!

1. I am asking for a respectful discussion of what this disarray may signify within the Mormon feminist community if they cannot come together around ideas instead of personalities/organizations.

2. How might this disunity impact progress?

Edited April 23, 2013 by juliann

[BCSpace]

I do not allow criticism of Mormon feminists whether I agree with all of their positions or not. So I have been stunned and disillusioned to see the attack mentality arise again in all of its ugliness in response to Cassler's latest article.

Why would that be surprising? While this is a just one of many boards, suppression of criticism obstructs what is and is not the truth, or right or wrong, etc. How can we really know if something is part of an "attack mentality" or "ugly" without critical examination? You might take an obvious example and then equate other examples to it and by not allowing criticism, you set yourself up as THE one and only expert on the subject and ONLY your opinion is right. Doesn't that qualify more as propaganda than actual discussion......? Doesn't that actually invite the attack mentality and personal attacks?

Edited April 23, 2013 by BCSpace

[USU78]

I have found that, all too often, there is an inverse relationship between compassion for others and charity towards their views . . . and passionate dedication to a cause.

[CASteinman]

Just a few thoughts..

1. Valerie Hudsen Cassler (I thought it was just Hudson?) writes things in a way that I really like. Regardless of the content, I like the manner and way that she says things.

2. I tend not to read a great many academic blogs, books, writings, sources that relate to social matters. They aren't all this way but a great many appear to me to be opinions dressed up in scholastic finery. A sort of gilded lily. On top of that, feminism overall is also just not interesting to me. So, I probably miss out on a lot of things. This article, for example, was sent to me by someone else. I got through about halfway before I said, "I like how she says this but its not really that interesting to me" and I stopped reading.

3. Feminism may have a problem. I would not know this for sure because I don't really pay enough attention, but based on some women I have known (one in particular) there are women who are extremely sensitive to being treated equally but who are also politically and socially conservative. At the same time, "feminism" seems to me to have a lot of more socially progresive qualities associated with it -- that more conservative people cannot really identify with. I think that this ideological divide -- what I would call a "cluster" of liberal attributes -- becomes a shibboleth for proof of "true feminism". Anyone who does not hold to this cluster, is not "true to the faith". And here (I believe) it becomes slightly worse: social progressives, despite propaganda, are not actually very tolerant. They do not really want accept the idea of a world that includes people who disagree with them and they are even more intolerant of those who they fear might co-opt a more "liberal" agenda. I don't think you are seeing her being attacked for her feminist views, but for not being a "True Feminist". She has pronounced the word without the "SH" and they know she cannot be one of them.

So there is something of a divide in Feminism: Progressives vs Conservatives. Fortunately for the Progressives, Conservatives are well under-represented in the activist community. But then, those few who are, stand out and become tall poppies -- needing a good whacking. That will make a nice consistent homogenous front.

Edited April 23, 2013 by CASteinman

[tyler90az]

There i some good stuff in her article. I would recommend to anybody even if you do not care much about the issue.

[juliann]

So there is something of a divide in Feminism: Progressives vs Conservatives. Fortunately for the Progressives, Conservatives are well under-represented in the activist community. But then, those few who are, stand out and become tall poppies -- needing a good whacking. That will make a nice consistent homogenous front.

I'm wondering if the liberal/conservative labels are useful because feminism itself is liberal. I think it is bringing in religion that creates a conservative element because religion must then be defended to some extent. That creates a bit of incoherence even with what you refer to as "progressive feminists" because this is ultimately about religion even for them. This was really made clear in a blog where one of the most ardent (not Mormon) attackers of Hudson concluded saying the Bible ( OT) wasn't really all that bad to women. http://www.withoutend.org/oops/

But there are places where I just don’t think the passages are as damaging to women as they’ve traditionally been made out to be.

She backed herself into a corner flailing Hudson for reinterpreting/changing scripture, which Mormonism allows, when her religion does not. So ultimately, she had to come up with an incoherent position that defended her religion. That is not liberal. So that need to move from liberal to conservative may also create disarray. Perhaps it becomes more a matter of how many and which conservative elements are being defended.

Edited to correct spelling of Hudson (I can't seem to stop using Hudsen!)

Edited April 23, 2013 by juliann

[alter idem]

Mormon feminism, if rooted in Modern secular feminism will always be at loggerheads with the gospel. As I see it; No woman can serve two masters.... They eventually have to make a choice.

And I agree with CAsteinman--The feminist movement is completely emeshed with liberal progressivism, which promotes too many positions and standards which are at odds with the LDS church and its doctrines.

[juliann]

Why would that be surprising? While this is a just one of many boards, suppression of criticism obstructs what is and is not the truth, or right or wrong, etc. How can we really know if something is part of an "attack mentality" or "ugly" without critical examination? You might take an obvious example and then equate other examples to it and by not allowing criticism, you set yourself up as THE one and only expert on the subject and ONLY your opinion is right. Doesn't that qualify more as propaganda than actual discussion......? Doesn't that actually invite the attack mentality and personal attacks?

You will need to read the articles to make any sense of this whatsoever. They are short. I do not "allow" criticism means I object to it, it is pointlessly argumentative to paint that as meaning I have supernatural power to go on every blog and prevent all criticism. Please do not derail this thread with red herring nitpicking.

[alter idem]

From her article:

Please do not misunderstand. I am not opposing the ordination of women to divine power. Not at all—I am suggesting they already possess divine power and authority, and not by the hand of men and not by the “permission” of men. Dorothy already has those ruby slippers on; she just hasn’t realized it yet. And it is plain no man can tell her this truth; she has to learn it for herself. When she does learn, she will then seek to fully hold her birthright, and no longer mistakenly plead for a man to bequeath it to her. As women more fully wield their birthright of divine power, our community will finally be able to approach Zion. All heaven waits for the rising of the daughters of Zion, for the last shall be first and the first last in the fullness of time.

I'm liking her already! See, this is what I value. I see in this woman someone who UNDERSTANDS. She is divinely inspired, while the 'ordain women' group clearly lack inspiration and to me, seem driven by worldly concerns and worldly grasping at the trappings or the outward appearance of power.

I'm going to read the rest. Thanks Julliann for posting this. I'm shocked to admit, I don't believe I've read any of her writings.

[CASteinman]

I'm wondering if the liberal/conservative labels are useful because feminism itself is liberal.

I didn't really use the term "liberal" except in quotes. I used the term "social progressives". Which to me is different. I consider "Conservatism" to actually be "Liberal". But it is not Progressivism.

Whatever the label might be, I sort of think that is the kind of divide that is there. However, it gets labeled the issue remains: She is not one of "them" and they don't like her for it. You have said the divide is on the matter of religion. Maybe so. You probably have better insights than I do as this is not an area of strong interest for me. But....

she had to come up with an incoherent position that defended her religion. That is not liberal.

If by "Liberal" you mean "Progressive" -- then yeah, I think that sort of think incoherence fits! Ok.. my bad.

PS: Could you link to the lady who was critical about her use of scriptures? I'd like to read the inconsistency.

Edited April 23, 2013 by CASteinman

[juliann]

Alter, Hudsen is using scripture in ways I haven't seen....through a woman's eyes. She is providing a framework to get us out of the male dominated culture she speaks of and sets up the last will be the first as applying to women. But she is doing it in a manner that will be acceptable to the rank and file. You must read her take on monogamy not polygamy being the true form of marriage.

Her Two Trees (which I am also seeing mentions of on a regular basis) echoes Elder Packer's parable of the two keys to the treasure box https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/for-time-and-all-eternity?lang=eng. ( Most of the talk is vintage 1993 style which even he has backed away from.) I don't know if this had anything to do with her parable, but it certainly gives some basis for it.

One of the most bewildering criticisms, even from Brooks, is that Hudsen has no doctrinal basis. Well, if that is a requirement all feminists need to pack their backs and go home. None that I have seen, by the way, have accurately described her position which distorts their criticism before they begin. However, I think it more likely that she is so successfully "reinterpreting" that the male centric interpretations the critics are now demanding adherence to obscure that basis.

[USU78]

Alter, Hudsen is using scripture in ways I haven't seen....through a woman's eyes. She is providing a framework to get us out of the male dominated culture she speaks of and sets up the last will be the first as applying to women. But she is doing it in a manner that will be acceptable to the rank and file. You must read her take on monogamy not polygamy being the true form of marriage.

Her Two Trees (which I am also seeing mentions of on a regular basis) echoes Elder Packer's parable of the two keys to the treasure box https://www.lds.org/...ty?lang=eng.��( Most of the talk is vintage 1993 style which even he has backed away from.) I don't know if this had anything to do with her parable, but it certainly gives some basis for it.

One of the most bewildering criticisms, even from Brooks, is that Hudsen has no doctrinal basis. Well, if that is a requirement all feminists need to pack their backs and go home. None that I have seen, by the way, have accurately described her position which distorts their criticism before they begin. However, I think it more likely that she is so successfully "reinterpreting" that the male centric interpretations the critics are now demanding adherence to obscure that basis.

Count me among the Hudsen fans. Her FAIR paper on polygyny was breathtaking.

[alter idem]

Alter, Hudsen is using scripture in ways I haven't seen....through a woman's eyes. She is providing a framework to get us out of the male dominated culture she speaks of and sets up the last will be the first as applying to women. But she is doing it in a manner that will be acceptable to the rank and file. You must read her take on monogamy not polygamy being the true form of marriage.

Her Two Trees (which I am also seeing mentions of on a regular basis) echoes Elder Packer's parable of the two keys to the treasure box https://www.lds.org/...ty?lang=eng.��( Most of the talk is vintage 1993 style which even he has backed away from.) I don't know if this had anything to do with her parable, but it certainly gives some basis for it.

One of the most bewildering criticisms, even from Brooks, is that Hudsen has no doctrinal basis. Well, if that is a requirement all feminists need to pack their backs and go home. None that I have seen, by the way, have accurately described her position which distorts their criticism before they begin. However, I think it more likely that she is so successfully "reinterpreting" that the male centric interpretations the critics are now demanding adherence to obscure that basis.

Julliann...Wow!!! Thank you, thank you for introducing me to this woman. I read her article and it confirmed so many things I believe and feel myself, and she taught me some things I hadn't thought of. I've passed on her article to a couple of people and I'll be reading her other ones.

I think it more likely that she is so successfully "reinterpreting" that the male centric interpretations the critics are now demanding adherence to obscure that basis.

I completely agree.

Usu78, you can count me one of her fans as well.

[juliann]

If by "Liberal" you mean "Progressive" -- then yeah, I think that sort of think incoherence fits! Ok.. my bad.

PS: Could you link to the lady who was critical about her use of scriptures? I'd like to read the inconsistency.

Yes, we seem to have a terminology mix up. The "Hudson is a faux feminist" blog is here http://www.withoutend.org/oops/ (Notice it starts with an animation of the F explicative to set the stage.) I think we already had a discussion on it and don't want to get too much going in this thread. See comment #8 from "erin", a BYU Hebrew instructor who adds the nuance. Again, in order to dismiss Hudson Cassler, one element of her body of work is nitpicked with surgical precision to the exclusion of all else. And no one disputes that Hafen made a translation error and that Hudson is wrong in quoting him....so that is just endless preaching to the choir. What the detractors don't want to get to is that LDS no longer use "rule over" anyway. Kevin Barney also tries to gently make that point to no avail.

[Deborah]

I really loved Hudson's Two Trees presentation. It gave such a profound and godlike interpretation to the Garden.

It seems to me that most feminists such as the ordainwomen, aren't after equality so much as power. They feel powerless and so think if they can have what the men have they will then have power. I think Hudson clearly understands what true power women have.

[juliann]

I completely agree.

Usu78, you can count me one of her fans as well.

And this is the point and why I see the backbiting to be damaging beyond repair if it doesn't stop. When they start going after women who are in a better position to make change than they are, they have lost me. I'm after the change not who gets to wear the feminist crown.

Does anyone need polling to know that Mormons are going to listen to Hudson? If the changes she is advocating can be added to the pants and prayer, does that not benefit all? Does it matter who is advocating them or if they ultimately want ordination? At what point do we wonder if these feminists really want to improve women's visibility in the church if they go after other women who can reach the women they cannot?

[Calm]

From her article:

I'm liking her already! See, this is what I value. I see in this woman someone who UNDERSTANDS. She is divinely inspired, while the 'ordain women' group clearly lack inspiration and to me, seem driven by worldly concerns and worldly grasping at the trappings or the outward appearance of power.

I'm going to read the rest. Thanks Julliann for posting this. I'm shocked to admit, I don't believe I've read any of her writings.

There are a couple of things that she has said over the time that I've been aware of her that were like turning a key in a door that opened up a whole new understanding and perception of something that had been nagging at the back of my brain for awhile. Edited April 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[juliann]

I really loved Hudson's Two Trees presentation. It gave such a profound and godlike interpretation to the Garden.

It seems to me that most feminists such as the ordainwomen, aren't after equality so much as power. They feel powerless and so think if they can have what the men have they will then have power. I think Hudson clearly understands what true power women have.

I have always taken them at their word (sure, there will always be outliers who use it as a cover to hurt the church). I think they have done something necessary. But it was done, as it must be, a small step at a time with quirky enough things to get media attention. Huge success. I'm so excited and hopeful. Then all the sudden they go from zero to sixty and say no one can belong to their feminist club if they don't line up. There has to be a continent to travel before reaching ordination!

Edited April 23, 2013 by juliann

[CASteinman]

There is nothing special about women that precludes them from having the priesthood. But it seems its not the program for them to be ordained to offices in the priesthood.

[Calm]

I really loved Hudson's Two Trees presentation. It gave such a profound and godlike interpretation to the Garden.

It seems to me that most feminists such as the ordainwomen, aren't after equality so much as power. They feel powerless and so think if they can have what the men have they will then have power. I think Hudson clearly understands what true power women have.

I think it is also easier to replicate another's role than reimagine one's own.

[jwhitlock]

1. I am asking for a respectful discussion of what this disarray may signify within the Mormon feminist community if they cannot come together around ideas instead of personalities/organizations.

2. How might this disunity impact progress?

Hudson's great. Enjoy reading her perspectives as she puts things together on a level that most people don't think about.

In respect to the questions, I'm a bit confused. Non-LDS feminists are very fractured and non-unified because of differing opinions as to feminist agendas (at least from what I read). Given that the opinions and attitudes of members of the church often mirror those of the community they live in or the societal groups they identify with, why would we expect to find unity among LDS feminists, many of whom identify with differing factions of non-LDS feminism?

[CASteinman]

why would we expect to find unity among LDS feminists, many of whom identify with differing factions of non-LDS feminism?

Prolly gonna get slapped for this but ... also, when they disagree with her, they have not walked a mile in her shoes. Maybe they didn't like the color.

[tyler90az]

--I anticipate we will see over time that men are only considered for high positions in the Church if they have not lived their lives in such a way that they have, in a de facto sense, abandoned their wives and children while they pursued success in their careers.

Silly to assume that.

--I anticipate that there will come a time when the Elder’s Quorum and the High Priests Group will begin to share in the large responsibility for caring labor that currently rests at the feet of the Relief Society alone.

Already do as far as I can see. I need some examples.

[Calm]

Prolly gonna get slapped for this but ... also, when they disagree with her, they have not walked a mile in her shoes. Maybe they didn't like the color.

Ruby slippers...probably as difficult to wear as Cinderella's glass ones...

They were silver shoes in the books, btw, but they changed them to ruby to show up better on the screen.

Edited April 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

I think... unless someone can show me where I have gone wrong -- I think this criticism of Valerie M. Hudson is a bit silly and getting all bent up over -- really nothing.

She is not a Hebrew Scholar. Neither is Hafen. And they are writing in the Ensign for a Church audience. She is "preaching" "doctrine" not engaging in a scholarly assessment of Hebrew Translations.

To get upset about this is really picking at nits. Ankle biting. And that is if they Hafen was wrong about the translation.

I am not convinced that he necessarily was. Maybe so. Likely so. But not necessarily so.