Amen, Sherri Dew!

[juliann]

So not every aspect of being a women is desirable?  Do you think that everything associated with the priesthood is desirable? I mean really being a bishop would suck. Would it be a great experiance? Yup. Is there a lot of crap that comes with it? Yup. I just look to my mission. Was it great. Yeah it was I would not ever trade that experiance. Was there a lot of crap that came with it. Yeah. So next.

Not sure where that came from or what it has to do with the topic at hand....      

 

But we can all agree there is a lot of crap!   

[juliann]

And I would add if they feel they need to have the Priesthood to feel of worthy. However, I still believe this is caused more by family dynamics than church dynamics. I know too many women, including single women, who don't have this less than worthy attitude so it can't be all due to the church.

 

 

No, but our church teachings should be healing that wound regardless of its origin, and if there are church goers who have these feelings, we are failing them.   It would be somewhat like us pounding non-temple goers until they felt like failures even though they will all eventually have the opportunity.  We need to be lifting people from the position they are at rather than making sure they are always aware of what they lack.  There are so many uplifting things that can be said rather than expressing sorrow over someone's current condition.  Sherri Dew should always be used as an example of what a woman can accomplish rather than how an unmarried woman can compensate.

[ERayR]

This isn't even close to a comparison and is part of the patronization that is offensive.   Is there any reason you didn't add menstruation?  That is part of it, you know.   When you can line up even five guys who want these things (or have  formed groups to discuss how not being able to menstruate every month results in inequitable treatment from the church),  get back to us. 

 

I don't know why you have a chip on your shoulder.  It was not meant to be patronizing or offensive.  It was meant to illustrate that whether you are male or female there is some very great experiences for either one that the other doesn't get to experience.  Perhaps you need to dash some cold water on your face and have another try at it. 

[bluebell]

I just saw another "we are so courageous" blog.  There is always an element of courage involved in speaking against something that is accepted.  But it becomes very out of place when the person is bestowing courage on themselves...somewhat in the same vein as announcing they are beautiful.  Some things are just better left to others to label.  I also wonder if the word courage is diminished when it is applied to a situation where the brave person is not facing universal disapproval but is, in fact, being applauded by a much, much larger group than the one they are speaking against.  In effect, given the relatively small numbers of Mormons, it seems more courageous to speak out for current policy than against it.  Those who do are not the ones receiving glowing, congratulatory news articles accompanied by massive numbers of approving comments. 

 

Anyway, as I thought about those who I think have displayed unbelievable courage...usually putting their lives at risk where OW members are not even putting their membership at risk...it occurs to me that is why the emergence of the violent/evil rhetoric is coming from.  There needs to be a dangerous situation to make an appeal to courage convincing.  I also notice in the report of the conference that there was reference to the risk of excommunication...which anybody can see isn't happening anymore. 

 

What I am wondering is if there is a need to manufacture a sinister opponent that just doesn't exist to make themselves relevant.   I can't think of anyway in which the march (notice they had to change that confrontive word to walk) to the priesthood mtg was effective beyond the flash of news coverage.  I haven't heard any of the "masses" outside of the internet even mention it.  At best, it was just seen as rude to crash a male event....at worst, the mean thing again.  So I think we will, unfortunately, see more inflammatory rhetoric to fill in the gaps. 

 

I hadn't thought of that before, but it really makes sense as to why they would suddenly be more willing to label things as violent or evil that do not at all fit the definition of those words.

[juliann]

I don't know why you have a chip on your shoulder.  It was not meant to be patronizing or offensive.  It was meant to illustrate that whether you are male or female there is some very great experiences for either one that the other doesn't get to experience.  Perhaps you need to dash some cold water on your face and have another try at it. 

But it IS patronizing and offensive.  Part of the problem is that we need to change the way we talk about and to women (and it isn't just the men who need to change).   It doesn't cost anyone the priesthood or anything else to stop using comparisons that are just plain worn out and ineffective.  Motherhood is comparable to fatherhood.  Pretending that men have a deep yearning to menstruate and feel they are hampered without it just doesn't even make sense.

[ERayR]

But it IS patronizing and offensive.  Part of the problem is that we need to change the way we talk about and to women (and it isn't just the men who need to change).   It doesn't cost anyone the priesthood or anything else to stop using comparisons that are just plain worn out and ineffective.  Motherhood is comparable to fatherhood.  Pretending that men have a deep yearning to menstruate and feel they are hampered without it just doesn't even make sense.

 

Whether you believe in evolution or God's creation there are differences in the sexes.  If that offends you then you are in trouble. 

[bluebell]

But it IS patronizing and offensive.  Part of the problem is that we need to change the way we talk about and to women (and it isn't just the men who need to change).   It doesn't cost anyone the priesthood or anything else to stop using comparisons that are just plain worn out and ineffective.  Motherhood is comparable to fatherhood.  Pretending that men have a deep yearning to menstruate and feel they are hampered without it just doesn't even make sense.

 

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I have to say that motherhood maybe comparable to fatherhood, but only if pregnancy and giving birth are left out of the equation (which i'm fine with, because I know some wonderful mothers who never bore a child, and that doesn't make them any less of a mother).

 

If pregnancy and giving birth are being talked about though, there really isn't a comparable event or experience for a man, father or not. 

[Jazzdreamer]

Jazzdreamer, the first I saw from Kelly was her referring to those feminists who didn't 100% back her as "so-called feminists". This was in an article on Neylan McBaine's Mormon Woman Project where Neylan had graciously given her a forum....where she promptly insulted her host. I don't have that link readily available.

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

Here, she begins the comment section following a podcast with Fiona Givens, Neylan McBaine, Maxine Hanks, and Margaret Young. She called them narcissists in her first comment which was edited (the unedited comment was posted later in the comments).

She defends herself from the (I think) appropriate label of "catty" with one of the most breath taking ad hom attacks I have ever seen. In the following comments, she never backs down and engages with those participants who tried to talk to her. Most disappointing is her same condescending/patronizing/snarky tone that we so often get from men.

Following this, there is the recent conference [edited to add direct link]. http://66.147.244.239/~girlsgo6/mormonwomensforum/?page_id=5with a summary on FMH http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2013/11/counterpoint-conference-2013/ which discloses comments which are implied attacks like these:

It may be unfair to judge the conference from a second hand report but this back-handed slap verbiage is borne out elsewhere. In continuing with the insults to the mainstream members, they seem to be retreating into an echo chamber where they are no longer even trying to appeal to the average LDS woman, who like it or not, they will need before seeing any change move up the ranks. That is especially apparent when their first conference is done with those who are not LDS. I find their activism confusing and disjointed. The cleverness and appeal of All Enlisted has been replaced with meanness towards those who merely disagree with some of what they are espousing.

I agree with much, I mean, I believe in the whole being nice thing but Kate Kelly I believe is doing a wonderful job! She is actually a wonderful woman and quite pleasant to interact with as well as being quite witty!

The thing is, she has been knocked down so many times from being nice that yea she is tough now! I think it's awesome! We need a good mixture of people!

As far as her being the spokesperson-we actually have seven spokespeople all wonderful strong brilliant women!

I asked the board about the conference you referenced as well and this was the response-

"Yeah, that's not Ordain Women's conference. Counterpoint is organized by a separate group called the Mormon Women's Forum, which has been around for years. That group independently decided that women's ordination would be a theme of its latest conference and invited several Ordain Women spokespeople and supporters to address that theme. I'm not aware that any of those speakers aren't LDS (except for Margaret Toscano, who was excommunicated in 2000, I believe, for her feminist writings)."

[Tacenda]

A Mormon Women's Forum too?! Agitating anyone?

[Jazzdreamer]

A Mormon Women's Forum too?! Agitating anyone?

I'd love one!

[juliann]

I agree with much, I mean, I believe in the whole being nice thing but Kate Kelly I believe is doing a wonderful job! She is actually a wonderful woman and quite pleasant to interact with as well as being quite witty!

The thing is, she has been knocked down so many times from being nice that yea she is tough now! I think it's awesome! We need a good mixture of people!

As far as her being the spokesperson-we actually have seven spokespeople all wonderful strong brilliant women!

I asked the board about the conference you referenced as well and this was the response-

"Yeah, that's not Ordain Women's conference. Counterpoint is organized by a separate group called the Mormon Women's Forum, which has been around for years. That group independently decided that women's ordination would be a theme of its latest conference and invited several Ordain Women spokespeople and supporters to address that theme. I'm not aware that any of those speakers aren't LDS (except for Margaret Toscano, who was excommunicated in 2000, I believe, for her feminist writings)."

Thanks for the info, JD.  I wish them well but I am very disappointed with this reaction to the fundamental necessity of being "nice".   The meanness will come back to bite them in the tush.  I know how it feels to be unfairly attacked...that is why FAIR got started.  But lunging back at the attackers only hurt us in the end.   OW is on shaky ground with church members to begin with and that means a higher standard of behavior, like it or not.  So I do see this digging in approach as unfortunate in the extreme. 

 

As for the conference, who hosted it is a distinction without a lot of meaning when there was such high participation.  And I have noticed a persistent refusal to admit how many non-LDS are involved with the group. Anybody with any background at all would immediately identify Janice Allred as another exed participant...and that does not even take into account those who are not practicing members.  I have been on at least three sites now where that direct question has been asked and skirted.  The last I saw was particularly ridiculous as the [non]response was the participants were all interested in Mormonism or something to that effect.  So it is obvious they are well aware of the danger in admitting this.  They need to come clean rather than creating the image of dishonesty when they are already considered suspect by most Mormons. 

 

I am highly supportive of the need for improving the church's policies regarding women.  My favorite Claudia Bushman quote from a FAIR conference was something to the effect of "The church has never had to do much for women.  So they don't."   I have been pulled toward one feminist position or another...I remain open to female ordination...but I have been stymied by the lack of language to even put the needs of women into a coherent narrative.   In other words, we don't talk about it because we can't...there is such a paucity of data and information about women in the church that we stick to the male narratives.   I can't put it into words describes the dilemma perfectly.  But Kelly's "so-called" feminists are offering the words while OW seems to have fallen back on insults. That may satisfy my frustration with the current situation but it does not satisfy my need to be able to frame the current situation in words that will inspire those who need to add to their ability to speak to and about women in the church.

 

So I am finding myself drawn to the moderates...those Kelly calls "entitled narcissists".   What is particularly compelling is the language calling women to step up on their own and stop begging.  That liberates my soul.  Demeaning and insulting church leaders and members does not.  What I find the most compelling, however, is the current scholarship that is restoring woman to the temple and scripture through digging out "Wisdom and other references to the lost Lady.   I was, again, pretty stunned when I saw no mention whatsoever from OW of the recent Lady in the Temple conference that will give us the foundation we need. 

 

So, in short, I see one group with lots of good ideas and intentions turning to negativity and mean spirited rhetoric and one group starting to put together a comprehensive and grounded narrative that can operate within current Mormon culture while bringing along cultures that only respond to a patriarchal system for now. Yeah, those other less advantaged Mormons matter as much as the 1st World cultures.  Yet I only hear those moderate "entitled narcissists" speaking for them. Doesn't seem like much of a choice as to where to turn.

Edited November 13, 2013 by juliann

[rongo]

Tactically speaking, where does OW go from here? Kate Kelly promised "more direct action" in future GC sessions, but I wonder what the next move will be (especially given OW's penchant for increasingly and progressively "gutsy" moves ---- e.g., the parallel, concurrent meeting/press conference with priesthood session, last month's attempt to get into priesthood session, etc.)

 

Did October represent "swinging for the fences," and missing? I honestly don't think they're going to try to get into the overflow line and get in, again. So, what's the next "direct action?" Especially given the new 8-98 year-old semi-annual women's meeting, which seems to me designed the give Ruth Todd something tangible to say to Kate Kelly in line next time (this time around, she told them that the women's meeting was last week, and this meeting was for men and boys only).

 

I think that the women may have been quietly let into priesthood session, if they hadn't emphasized in the weeks going in to it that getting in would constitute the Church recognizing them as prospective elders, because prospective elders may attend priesthood session. I think OW forced the Church's hand, and I for one was surprised that the women were turned away. I thought that there were no good PR options for the Church (turn women away and face meanness attacks, let them in and face declarations of victory, etc.). I wonder if OW didn't shoot themselves in the foot in October.

[Jazzdreamer]

Tactically speaking, where does OW go from here? Kate Kelly promised "more direct action" in future GC sessions, but I wonder what the next move will be (especially given OW's penchant for increasingly and progressively "gutsy" moves ---- e.g., the parallel, concurrent meeting/press conference with priesthood session, last month's attempt to get into priesthood session, etc.)

Did October represent "swinging for the fences," and missing? I honestly don't think they're going to try to get into the overflow line and get in, again. So, what's the next "direct action?" Especially given the new 8-98 year-old semi-annual women's meeting, which seems to me designed the give Ruth Todd something tangible to say to Kate Kelly in line next time (this time around, she told them that the women's meeting was last week, and this meeting was for men and boys only).

I think that the women may have been quietly let into priesthood session, if they hadn't emphasized in the weeks going in to it that getting in would constitute the Church recognizing them as prospective elders, because prospective elders may attend priesthood session. I think OW forced the Church's hand, and I for one was surprised that the women were turned away. I thought that there were no good PR options for the Church (turn women away and face meanness attacks, let them in and face declarations of victory, etc.). I wonder if OW didn't shoot themselves in the foot in October.

Let's just say that one slap on the wrist won't stop us from repeating the same action.

[bluebell]

Let's just say that one slap on the wrist won't stop us from repeating the same action.

 

What's next on the agenda?  Where is OW going from here?

[Deborah]

One thing they plan to do is the same demonstration at Priesthood meeting in April. Apparently they think if they get enough press they'll get the revelation they want.

[Tacenda]

And I thought another "Wear Pants to Church" has been scheduled, thinking it was in December.

[bluebell]

One thing they plan to do is the same demonstration at Priesthood meeting in April. Apparently they think if they get enough press they'll get the revelation they want.

 

Interesting. 

[bluebell]

And I thought another "Wear Pants to Church" has been scheduled, thinking it was in December.

 

Perhaps, but I can't imagine that that would garner the level of attention they want.  It's already fairly well known that women are allowed to wear pants to church, and no one really pays much attention anymore.  When I was RS president, my secretary wore them to church about once a month or more and she was an active temple recommend holding member.  No one cared.

[juliann]

One thing they plan to do is the same demonstration at Priesthood meeting in April. Apparently they think if they get enough press they'll get the revelation they want.

If they can continue to bring in more and more women each time, they could overwhelm the grounds which would create a different dynamic.  But it seems that would have to rely on women traveling, which is expensive and time consuming, and I can't see them doing it twice a year.  The problem they may end up with is the one they won't talk about....the number of non-LDS that they are going to need to keep the numbers up.  There is probably no bigger turn off for mainstream Mormons (or probably any group) than having "outsiders" telling them what they should be doing by "creating a scene".  Even if the outsiders are correct, it creates backlash.  Also, there is a cost analysis that needs to be done on what creating more awareness of this event will create on both sides.  It is a win as to media pressure.  But it is a definite lose as to member awareness.  The event itself, which the majority of members will see as an attack on them as much as the church, will become OW for all practical purposes, effectively erasing the principles behind the event in the minds of those who will be needed for change to occur.  To put it bluntly, this idea that public humiliation will create the desire for the Brethren to seek revelation when the body of the church doesn't really care is nuts.  There is nothing even close to the desire of just about all members to ordain blacks although that is always used as analogous is other ways.  

 

I think the church has dug in its heels on letting them in the meeting. (This battle of wills just screams for Game Theory analysis.)   I think another hurdle to OW is that the Catholic church withholds priesthood from women so it isn't like discriminating against women is a Mormon thing, given the numbers it is probably a majority thing (as in there just isn't the pre-1987 angst from just about all members).    The biggest problem of the church is that they do not give women a truly equal experience by making their meeting part of General Conference, and worse, if what I hear is correct they do not prevent men from attending the women's meeting.  I am encouraged by the changing rhetoric I see in conference talks but it is in transition and also, in my opinion, a little muddled now that I have a hard copy to examine.  Elder Ballard's "moral authority" is a nice change from the tired nurturing stuff, but it is so nonspecific to be almost meaningless.  Particularly when he ends his talk exhorting men that they also have it.  Sister Stephens (I loved her talk when I heard it...probably because she wasn't just speaking to the women and children) also goes back to the lucky women who have 12 yr old priesthood holders in the home as if a child has something essential that a mother lacks.  When they have to then add that those who don't have a kid to keep God in the home don't really lack anything, it again leaves me wondering why it matters to begin with.  There is a danger coming from both sides that if priesthood rhetoric is watered down it will become not that big of deal so why want it. 

 

So I do have to admit that this is probably a really good time for OW to strike, so to speak, although I think the costs may ultimately be too high.  I assume they will change it up enough to keep it relevant.

[MorningStar]

I got a little catalog from Deseret Book and saw Sheri Dew has a new book called "Women and the Priesthood: What One Mormon Woman Believes".  Anyone read it yet? 

[Garden Girl]

I got a little catalog from Deseret Book and saw Sheri Dew has a new book called "Women and the Priesthood: What One Mormon Woman Believes".  Anyone read it yet? 

 

No, but I will be interested in her view...

 

GG

[juliann]

This article does a good job of explaining why the " poor thing" type comments to unmarried women aren't helpful or even realistic.  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865590641/11-things-you-should-know-about-the-the-older-Mormon-YSA-crowd.html?pg=all
 

 

1. We do not all have dark holes of emptiness and misery in our souls because we are not married.

 

We learn that we can be happy by ourselves. We begin to understand how fulfilling life can be when we work, serve and play. We develop our talents in ways that can benefit others. And we are happy. Despite popular belief, we are not sitting on the couch woefully awaiting the day when that special person will just magically appear and grant us the happiness we never knew.

Will marriage add to our happiness? I sure hope so!

Will it create it? Nope.

 

9: We'd rather be happily single than miserably married.

 

This may sound really selfish, and I will be the first to admit that being single has its perks. We can have 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep almost every single night. Nobody depends on us and we can do whatever we want, whenever we want. We can have alone time ... every day. When the time comes for me to have my own family, I'll miss that. A lot.

But that's not what this is about. We have seen so many miserable marriages. Infidelity, pornography, selfishness, abuse, manipulation and controlling spouses ... these are no longer things we just hear about, they are things that happen to our brothers and sisters, our parents, our very close friends ... AND for many of us in our dating relationships. Yes, we know any good marriage takes a lot of hard work, communication and compromise. No, we are not waiting for the "perfect" marriage. It's just that we would much rather wait for an opportunity for a good marriage, instead of settling for one with major problems.

 

[juliann]

I got a little catalog from Deseret Book and saw Sheri Dew has a new book called "Women and the Priesthood: What One Mormon Woman Believes".  Anyone read it yet? 1

Based only on quotes I have seen...I haven't seen anything much different than the standard look at what women can do [but don't look at what they can't do!] approach which I find highly disingenuous.  It is better to just begin with the obvious, women do not have the opportunities for leadership that men and boys do in the church.  Then one can make a case for why that doesn't matter.   This was almost good:

 

"Because of what I have learned, I wince when I hear a priesthood leader say, usually in a Relief Society meeting or a woman's conference of some kind, "I want to leave a blessing with each of you, particularly for those who don't have the priesthood in their home." As an unmarried but endowed woman, I do not have a priesthood bearer living in my home, but I do have access to priesthood power in my home. While being unmarried is a source of personal sadness and loneliness with which I grapple daily, it does not leave me (or any other endowed woman who lives alone but who understands what she has been endowed with) as defenseless and powerless as some apparently believe."

 

Good point about the not having priesthood in your home (and this thankfully contradicts the lucky but lacking mother who gets a 12 yr. old to have priesthood in her home that comes up every conference).  But to paint being unmarried...which is a growing percentage... as daily sadness and loneliness.  Good grief.  What a way to encourage women to accept any marriage at all to keep that divorce rate climbing.  On that basis alone, I would not want young women reading this.

[Tacenda]

Based only on quotes I have seen...I haven't seen anything much different than the standard look at what women can do [but don't look at what they can't do!] approach which I find highly disingenuous. It is better to just begin with the obvious, women do not have the opportunities for leadership that men and boys do in the church. Then one can make a case for why that doesn't matter. This was almost good:

Good point about the not having priesthood in your home (and this thankfully contradicts the lucky but lacking mother who gets a 12 yr. old to have priesthood in her home that comes up every conference). But to paint being unmarried...which is a growing percentage... as daily sadness and loneliness. Good grief. What a way to encourage women to accept any marriage at all to keep that divorce rate climbing. On that basis alone, I would not want young women reading this.

Relating to the last paragraph, Utah has the 4th highest divorce rate in the nation.

[juliann]

Relating to the last paragraph, Utah has the 4th highest divorce rate in the nation.

1. No it doesn't.   http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/divorce_rates_90_95_99-11.pdf

2. Utah is not a synonym for Mormon.