Mormon Feminist Disarray

[Calm]

. In other words, get her out of the home.

I think of it more as bringing the home out to the world.

If she sees as the ideal men who are church leaders who have spent their children's youth participating in the home, then of course the mothers need to be there as well. She is not suggesting (and I don't think you were, but just in case anyone else assumes you and thus she means this) that women leave their families behind to go out into the world to create a greater family in their communities and eventually the world. If both parents do their part in supporting the family which includes each other, then it should be possible for a woman to go out and be a worldshaper as well as a mother as much as it is possible for a man to go out and be a worldshaper as well as a father.

add-on: As I expected, your comment has been misread as removing Mom from the home.

Edited April 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[juliann]

Not quite the message of the First Presidency and the Twelve.

You've been missing quite a few messages if you think the church is telling women to do nothing but be housewives.

[And thanks for the clarification, Cal. ]

Edited April 25, 2013 by juliann

[CASteinman]

You've been missing quite a few messages if you think the church is telling women to do nothing but be housewives.

Yes, I would have missed quite a few messages if I thought that. But I did not think that.

[CV75]

How is this different than anything we are taught every Sunday?

I don't know, but hopefully I'm progressing from Sunday to Sunday to gain more insight into what I hear from others who are also progressing from Sunday to Sunday. The idea being to get to (ask, seek, knock) and not sell, impose or coerce the truth of the matter. I think this is one form of the method described a couple of times in this thread for arriving at the truth together (keep talking and serving together, with a right spirit).

[alter idem]

Sure, I didn't read them. The whole basis of my post was just based on what they said. Somehow I knew what she said without reading a thing.

Are you serious?

[Stone holm]

Are you serious?

When I hear something new about the calling of women I will probably keel over, but there have been a few mini steps of late, I think that is about all they can expect until my generation dies off.

[Jude2]

I could be wrong, but there seems to me to be at least two divergent types of feminism. One type looks to women and womanhood to find the bountiful richness therein, and the other type looks comparatively to men to see what the women may lack. The one is born of humble and meek and godly self-awareness, and the other seem driven by prideful envy, I see Hudson as emblematic of the former, and her critics as tending towards the latter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

ooooo Amen!

[Jude2]

Feminist are wrapped up in the social justice progressive movement, above all it is their true religion. What these Mormon Feminist can’t seem to do is separate their worldly politics from the gospel. They see the church simply as another power structure and are community organizing to try and change it. They treat the Church like it’s a club instead of God’s Kingdom on Earth.

I believe one can be working for women’s rights in the world but separate that from the Gospel. Cassler has been able to do this by coming to a greater and more spiritual understanding of womanhood.

[why me]

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

You seem to be unaware of the quasi-feminist label. There are many feminisms. The problem with mormon feminism is that it is ill defined. What is a mormon feminist? I have had this discussion many times on this board. Is a mormon feminist limited to mormonism?

[Calm]

Feminist are wrapped up in the social justice progressive movement, above all it is their true religion. What these Mormon Feminist can’t seem to do is separate their worldly politics from the gospel. They see the church simply as another power structure and are community organizing to try and change it. They treat the Church like it’s a club instead of God’s Kingdom on Earth.

I believe one can be working for women’s rights in the world but separate that from the Gospel. Cassler has been able to do this by coming to a greater and more spiritual understanding of womanhood.

And yet Cassler would see herself as a Mormon Feminist no doubt.

[rameumptom]

You dont have a concern about private interpretations as opposed to the interpretations given by the Holy Spirit?

And how do we know that she is giving a private interpretation vs one from the Spirit? How do we know you are interpreting the scripture via the Spirit?

Didn't Nephi tell us to "liken unto ourselves" the scriptures? That given, perhaps there are many viable and Holy Spirit-inspired methods to understanding scripture. After all, isn't that what personal revelation is all about? What good is it to read and re-read scripture, if it doesn't teach us something new?

So, when Juliann says "ummm" I agree with her. Your statement assumes that a woman (or this specific woman) cannot have an interpretation of scripture that is different than yours, and still be inspired of the Lord. Guess what? I agree with her reading of the Fall, and I've been studying this for decades, and (hopefully) with the Spirit.

[CASteinman]

I agree with her reading of the Fall, and I've been studying this for decades, and (hopefully) with the Spirit.

This got my interest. What is this reading? Where can I 'read" it?

[Stone holm]

And yet Cassler would see herself as a Mormon Feminist no doubt.

Where does one find Cassler's article?

[juliann]

I'm resurrecting this because now Margaret Young, Neylan McBaine, Maxine Hanks and Fiona Givens are being disrespected.

 

We have, of course, had Ordain Women asking to get into Priesthood session since the last post.  We also had Margaret Young writing a beautiful explanation of why she could no longer participate on the Feminist Mormon Housewife FB page because of the relentless negativity towards things and people she valued.   There seemed to be attempts at reconciliation.  Kate Kelly was given a forum on McBaine's Mormon Woman Project.  http://www.mormonwomen.com/2013/09/12/the-house-she-lives-in/.   However, she used it to slam other feminists, probably unintentionally labeling all those who disagree with her as "so-called Feminists".

I think the hardest responses for me have been from so-called Mormon feminists who strongly disagree with ordination or are upset with what we’re doing. I didn’t expect pushback from a population that already publicly called themselves feminists.

 

Again, I saw some attempts at reconciliation.  Thus, my disappointment and shock to see nothing but ad hominem from Kelly directed specifically at three women, who she vilifies as having sold their souls... without addressing anything they said.   The article she links to adds narcissist to the insults.

 

I highly recommend this podcast, BTW.

http://mormonstories.org/alternative-feminist-approaches-to-ordain-women/

 

 

Kate Kelly

October 17, 2013 at 8:10 am

After listening to this podcast, I found a link to this recent study that was published in the scientific journal Social Psychological and Personality Science. The research found that a high sense of entitlement disposes women to internalize patriarchal beliefs. http://www.psypost.org/2013/10/self-entitled-women-are-more-likely-to-endorse-benevolent-sexism-study-finds-20644

To me that research seems relevant to the views of the women in this podcast, so it was a timely email.

I’m looking really forward to a conversation with both points of view equally represented and I think that will move the dialogue forward in a really productive way.

Thanks John!

 

Kate Kelly

October 17, 2013 at 12:29 pm

nc47 I think it is always wrong to refer to the arguments of women as “catty” both because that words is rarely (if ever) used to delegitimize the arguments of men AND because it makes a direct comparison of women to animals (cats in this case), which is highly problematic, for obvious reasons.

The position of “entitlement” to which I refer is that Fiona, Margaret, and Neylan all have a stake in not being overly critical of the church or the patriarchal structure because they directly benefit from it, financially and in other ways.

Deseret Book (owned by the Church) sells Fiona’s books. Margaret’s paycheck comes from BYU (Church-owned university). and Neylan is a Brand Strategist at Bonneville Communications (media and broadcasting company, wholly owned by the Church).

This came to mind because as a lawyer, it is my ethical obligation to check conflicts of interest so that no attorney involved in any legal proceeding directly benefits from the outcome of a case so that those involved can proceed in an ethical and impartial way.

These are all capable and amazing women, but it makes sense to analyze in this context what might influence the perspectives of those on this podcast.

 

 

I've lost all confidence in OW.      She has also effectively dismissed herself from any standing in the dialogue if only those who have no personal involvement can come to the table.  With her criteria, only non-Mormon men are qualified to speak.    I find all of this inexplicable as well as troubling for the future of Mormon feminism.  I want to hear from all sides.

Edited October 31, 2013 by juliann