The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Yes, I believe they were investigated.  IIRC the man was kicked out out of BYU (he was a student).

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:r4E9x54sf_cJ:https://www.facebook.com/WearPantsToChurchDay/posts/444695815585004+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

apparently the full posting on the Student Review facebook page:

 

Okay.  I'll take this as prima facie evidence.  The BYU student was clearly wrong to do what he did.  Unequivocally.  Without question or reservation.  He later retracted his threat (which, technically, was kinda indirect ("every single person who is a minority activist, should be shot.. in the face… point blank… GET OVER YOURSELVES”) but still undeniably wrong and stupid).  But his threat and the threat of (apparently) one other person (who PMd the event organizer, as described in the above article), while meeting the technical definition of "death threats" (there were two, after all), they are not representative of the Latter-day Saints.  If active, observant Latter-day Saints were polled on the question of "Would you (A) support, (B) be indifferent to, or (C) condemn a death threat from one member of the LDS Church to another regarding the clothes she chooses to wear to?", the most common answer would would be "C".  In extremely high numbers.  There would be no question.

But the trailer does not give that impression.  Rather the opposite, I think.  "When you realize that just organizing a group of women to wear pants to church on Sunday got death threats, you kinda realize how big a deal it is for women to be asking for the priesthood."  That sounds so . . . commonplace.  As if Mormons threatening to kill Mormons is an everyday kind of thing.  As if Mormons threatening to murder other Mormons is . . . condoned or tolerated or acceptable somehow.  As if such things are to be expected.

-Smac

Edited February 4, 2016 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think the only message I pick up from our ward members is, 'Hey, I wanted to be with you at church today, and you probably don't want to see me without clothes, so...'

Seriously, we have women in skirts and men in skirts, women in pants and men in pants, boys in long pants, boys in short pants, boys in skirts, girls in skirts and girls in pants. We have men in thongs and boys in boots, and we sometimes have barefoot children. Our most recent convert wore something resembling pink pyjamas to his confirmation because that's formal wear where he comes from. Everyone thought it was beautiful.

When the 'Nephites' in North America finally stop trying to rip the Church apart from the inside, just let us know. We're ready to go here.

When you say you have "men in thongs," I presume you mean they are wearing what today are often called "flip-flops" or thong sandals.

The word thong as it pertains to apparel has taken on quite a different meaning than when I was a boy.

[Thinking]

Once again we have a thread devoted to a topic that most posters here think deserves no devotion at all. Yet, so many can't leave it alone.

[Hamba Tuhan]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The word thong as it pertains to apparel has taken on quite a different meaning than when I was a boy.

Not where I live, though a few of our American missionaries have occasionally made the same point.

[Mars]

i'm with juliann on this.

culturally, we make it a big deal when a young man is ordained.  our entire history of leadership has a sense of celebrity status, leading Elder Faust to tell a newly called Elder Uchtdorf to "[not] ever inhale it." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/pride-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

having the priesthood, or a position of authority in the church is absolutely a Big Deal.  in the here and now, women are not involved.  i'm not ok with ordain women or kate kelly's tactics, but i am definitely ok listening to what sincere women who are sincere latter-day saints have to say about it.  i'm not interested in changing their mind.  i'm interested in listening.

listening, with a sincere desire to understand, is the first step for us men.  we've been in the collective position of speaking since the church began.  i don't think men should sit down and shut up forever.  but they do need to listen.  and accept that sometimes, they're just not a woman.  and that it takes a woman to understand a woman.  that's why we believe in the primacy of hetero parentage, right?  that we need the mix of both mom and dad to reach the child?

Edited February 4, 2016 by Mars

[why me]

17 hours ago, juliann said:

. And it really isn't very convincing to have men who have all of the benefits (which most certainly includes status and feeling good about themselves!) telling everybody else why they should be the only ones to have those things. Male privilege and entitlement doesn't even begin to cover this. That said, it is most certainly the will of God. But maybe God the Mother needs them to have it. Mormon men too often think that they can not only speak for God but for women. This is a woman's discussion

 

I think that you have a skrewed picture of the priesthood. I don't see that many benefits to having the priesthood and with it status. Most men are doing grunt work with their priesthood. Very few have status per se. And why would having the priesthood cause men to feel good about themselves? Those with undercalling such as elders quorum president, sunday school president etc require a lot of grunt work which can cause men to feel less than joy. And what male privilege? If I were to speak with a cross section of mormon men, I would think that the great majority would feel being a man has less privilege in the scheme of things. Which can be a reason why men die younger than women. Not so priviledged when it comes to mortality.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Mars said:

i'm with juliann on this.

culturally, we make it a big deal when a young man is ordained.  our entire history of leadership has a sense of celebrity status, leading Elder Faust to tell a newly called Elder Uchtdorf to "[not] ever inhale it." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/pride-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

having the priesthood, or a position of authority in the church is absolutely a Big Deal.  in the here and now, women are not involved.  i'm not ok with ordain women or kate kelly's tactics, but i am definitely ok listening to what sincere women who are sincere latter-day saints have to say about it.  i'm not interested in changing their mind.  i'm interested in listening.

listening, with a sincere desire to understand, is the first step for us men.  we've been in the collective position of speaking since the church began.  i don't think men should sit down and shut up forever.  but they do need to listen.  and accept that sometimes, they're just not a woman.  and that it takes a woman to understand a woman.  that's why we believe in the primacy of hetero parentage, right?  that we need the mix of both mom and dad to reach the child?

When I think of the Savior I think of, "Come unto me" - not, listen God, you need to get me and then and only then will we be able to talk.  There is this perception that men are not human or, maybe it is women that are not human - regardless of which is human or not it is that there is no possibility of a woman understanding a man or a man understanding a woman - that they are completely foreign to each other.  It makes me question, who would want the two genders to see each other as foreign?  Who benefits from such a philosophy?

You think having the priesthood makes a man feel better about themselves?  Hmm, if that is so you are talking about a very small subset of the male population.  I am not the priesthood and never have been.  I hold the priesthood in order to serve and everything I have done with the priesthood was in the service of others.  

I find the concept of shut-up and listen - say nothing, ever, just listen so that the other is understood.  Understood of what?  I might want to be the most intelligent fellow in the universe and I can go out under the stars and rail at the heavens to be that person, but that will not make me that person.  "It", whatever it is, will not make me happy and it never will.  If I am going to be happy I am going to find happiness in myself.  There is nothing any mortal person can do for me that will bring me peace or happiness.  

If individuals want to worship the earth mother, or heavenly mother, or a golden calf then knock yourselves out.  Ordain yourselves whatever you want to be if you think it will make you happy.  This is such a tiresome topic.  It is just so incredibly infantile and yet it never stops.  There will always be those that whine about what they do not have thinking that if they could just get "it" they would be satisfied.  They will never be satisfied - ever.  They completely have missed the boat.  

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

When I think of the Savior I think of, "Come unto me" - not, listen God, you need to get me and then and only then will we be able to talk.  There is this perception that men are not human or, maybe it is women that are not human - regardless of which is human or not it is that there is no possibility of a woman understanding a man or a man understanding a woman - that they are completely foreign to each other.  It makes me question, who would want the two genders to see each other as foreign?  Who benefits from such a philosophy?

You think having the priesthood makes a man feel better about themselves?  Hmm, if that is so you are talking about a very small subset of the male population.  I am not the priesthood and never have been.  I hold the priesthood in order to serve and everything I have done with the priesthood was in the service of others.  

I find the concept of shut-up and listen - say nothing, ever, just listen so that the other is understood.  Understood of what?  I might want to be the most intelligent fellow in the universe and I can go out under the stars and rail at the heavens to be that person, but that will not make me that person.  "It", whatever it is, will not make me happy and it never will.  If I am going to be happy I am going to find happiness in myself.  There is nothing any mortal person can do for me that will bring me peace or happiness.  

If individuals want to worship the earth mother, or heavenly mother, or a golden calf then knock yourselves out.  Ordain yourselves whatever you want to be if you think it will make you happy.  This is such a tiresome topic.  It is just so incredibly infantile and yet it never stops.  There will always be those that whine about what they do not have thinking that if they could just get "it" they would be satisfied.  They will never be satisfied - ever.  They completely have missed the boat.  

The problem with privilege of course is that those who have it don't often recognize it for what it is. It's easier to see from the outside. 

[Mars]

14 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

When I think of the Savior I think of, "Come unto me" - not, listen God, you need to get me and then and only then will we be able to talk.  There is this perception that men are not human or, maybe it is women that are not human - regardless of which is human or not it is that there is no possibility of a woman understanding a man or a man understanding a woman - that they are completely foreign to each other.  It makes me question, who would want the two genders to see each other as foreign?  Who benefits from such a philosophy?

 I don't think that's what they're saying.  A perception that men or women are not human?  I'm not getting that.  Men and women are both intimate and foreign.  Complementary.  I think it's supposed to be that way.

Quote

You think having the priesthood makes a man feel better about themselves?  Hmm, if that is so you are talking about a very small subset of the male population.  I am not the priesthood and never have been.  I hold the priesthood in order to serve and everything I have done with the priesthood was in the service of others.

No, I don't think men in the Church generally walk around and slap themselves on the back and say "Good thing we got it, right?"

I think there are milestones and accomplishments and notoriety that are affixed to positions and offices.  It's unintentional.  But I can see how young men at age 12 are told that they are embarking on something super important - holding God's power and authority.  Young women are told no such thing.  I can see why those who feel left out feel that way.

Quote

I find the concept of shut-up and listen - say nothing, ever, just listen so that the other is understood.  Understood of what?  I might want to be the most intelligent fellow in the universe and I can go out under the stars and rail at the heavens to be that person, but that will not make me that person.  "It", whatever it is, will not make me happy and it never will.  If I am going to be happy I am going to find happiness in myself.  There is nothing any mortal person can do for me that will bring me peace or happiness.  

I find the concept of shut up and listen to be a very useful thing to do.  That's what being persuasive through longsuffering is, imo.  I'm not clear on what you mean on the rest of this paragraph, though.

Quote

If individuals want to worship the earth mother, or heavenly mother, or a golden calf then knock yourselves out.  Ordain yourselves whatever you want to be if you think it will make you happy.  This is such a tiresome topic.  It is just so incredibly infantile and yet it never stops.  There will always be those that whine about what they do not have thinking that if they could just get "it" they would be satisfied.  They will never be satisfied - ever.  They completely have missed the boat.  

I'm not clear on this paragraph, either.  As in, I'm not sure where you're coming from or what background/context you have.  From the women I've spoken to directly - not women whose blogs I've read or FB posts I've skimmed - I haven't gotten the sense that these women who feel left out and want space to be understood and given equal status of importance have a desire to worship other deities, or are infantile.  They aren't just whining.  Passing off their concerns as infantile whining and that they'll never 'get it' - Characterizing them that way is exactly what they mean when they say men want to speak for them.  It means you don't understand them.  They say "hey this sucks" and you say "you're whiny and infantile and you just don't get it" - that's precisely part of the problem.

Wanting to understand your place because it appears to be unequal to you is not infantile.  Wanting to understand more about a concept such as Heavenly Mother (critics who scream that we're henotheistic pagan nutjobs be damned) which is a concept Mormons should accept as a very real possibility in our theology, is not infantile.

Tactics that OW and kate kelly have undertaken to get our attention?  Sure, I can see how that has rubbed a lot of folks the wrong way.  but characterizing the entirety of women who feel like the status quo leaves them on the side as whiny and selfish and just not getting it is way off, imo.  if i've misunderstood your position, please correct me - and i mean that sincerely.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Mars

[Zakuska]

The church seems to be speaking out of both sides of its mouth again. 

Gal 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

If we are all equal in Christ. Then why we continue with a class system that sets up one side of the equasion as super special and the other as subordinate chattel is beyond me. Male and female are either fully equal in the eyes of the Lord or they are not.   It's high time Eves curse for eating the fruit first be removed. It's time we put our money where our key board is and quit with the lip service that women are equal in the church and actuallc treat them as such.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Zakuska

[oremites]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

The problem with privilege of course is that those who have it don't often recognize it for what it is. It's easier to see from the outside. 

If we're going to play that game, then, if you're on the outside, you don't really know what it's like on the inside.  Is it really privilege?  Or is it a case of the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence?

[Gray]

1 minute ago, oremites said:

If we're going to play that game, then, if you're on the outside, you don't really know what it's like on the inside.  Is it really privilege?  Or is it a case of the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence?

I think it can work both ways. We can be unaware of our own privilege. But maybe you also have to be in that position of privilege to see some of the downsides to it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

Once again we have a thread devoted to a topic that most posters here think deserves no devotion at all. Yet, so many can't leave it alone.

Whether a thing deserves credence is a matter separate and apart from whether it warrants attention . Some things cry out to be debunked. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Mars said:

i'm with juliann on this.

I'm not.  As much as I respect her as a person, as an intellect, and as a fellow Latter-day Saint, publicly telling a category of Latter-day Saints (men) that they are not entitled to a voice in a public discussion about their faith is wrong.  I'm fine with asking men to listen.  But telling them they have no voice in the matter, that "[t]his is a woman's discussion," is wrong.

Publicly accusing men as a category of being too arrogant to listen ("until males are humble enough to pay attention...") is wrong.

Quote

culturally, we make it a big deal when a young man is ordained.  our entire history of leadership has a sense of celebrity status, leading Elder Faust to tell a newly called Elder Uchtdorf to "[not] ever inhale it." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/pride-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

And this "celebrity status" is, we are told by the Brethren, a bad thing and to be avoided.  The article you link to makes that point rather clearly:

• Pride is a switch that turns off priesthood power.
• Every mortal has at least a casual if not intimate relationship with the sin of pride.
• Pride is sinful, as President Benson so memorably taught, because it breeds hatred or hostility and places us in opposition to God and our fellowmen.
• At its core, pride is a sin of comparison, for though it usually begins with “Look how wonderful I am and what great things I have done,” it always seems to end with “Therefore, I am better than you.”
• When our hearts are filled with pride, we commit a grave sin, for we violate the two great commandments.
• Pride is the great sin of self-elevation.  It is for so many a personal Rameumptom, a holy stand that justifies envy, greed, and vanity.
• This sin has many faces. It leads some to revel in their own perceived self-worth, accomplishments, talents, wealth, or position. They count these blessings as evidence of being “chosen,” “superior,” or “more righteous” than others. This is the sin of “Thank God I am more special than you.” At its core is the desire to be admired or envied. It is the sin of self-glorification.
• For others, pride turns to envy: they look bitterly at those who have better positions, more talents, or greater possessions than they do. They seek to hurt, diminish, and tear down others in a misguided and unworthy attempt at self-elevation.
• [President Faust] explained also how gracious the members of the Church are, especially to General Authorities. He said, “They will treat you very kindly. They will say nice things about you.” He laughed a little and then said, “Dieter, be thankful for this. But don’t you ever inhale it.”
• We can be grateful for our health, wealth, possessions, or positions, but when we begin to inhale it—when we become obsessed with our status; when we focus on our own importance, power, or reputation; when we dwell upon our public image and believe our own press clippings—that’s when the trouble begins; that’s when pride begins to corrupt.
• We are servants of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We are not given the priesthood so that we can take our bows and bask in praise. We are here to roll up our sleeves and go to work.
• We seek not our own honor but give praise and glory to God. We know that the contribution we can make by ourselves is small; nevertheless, as we exercise the power of the priesthood in righteousness, God can cause a great and marvelous work to come forth through our efforts.

This is all sound counsel.  So whence all this navel-gazing?

Quote

having the priesthood, or a position of authority in the church is absolutely a Big Deal. 

But not in any way that is supposed to foment pride.  Elder Uchtdorf's counsel is spot-on.

Quote

in the here and now, women are not involved. 

Juliann says otherwise ("Men are already losing some of that status just by no longer being referred to as 'the priesthood.' Women are being acknowledged as operating within that same priesthood. Males may be the only ones ordained to offices of priesthood at present but for anyone putting together the statements being made by Oaks and others, priesthood is not 'male.'").  While she unfortunately took this as an opportunity to disparage men as a category, the underlying point is valid: "priesthood is not 'male,'" and women "[are] operating within that same priesthood."

Quote

i'm not ok with ordain women or kate kelly's tactics, but i am definitely ok listening to what sincere women who are sincere latter-day saints have to say about it.  i'm not interested in changing their mind.  i'm interested in listening.

I am interested in listening, too.  What I am not interested in is being told I have no voice in the discussion because of my gender.

Quote

listening, with a sincere desire to understand, is the first step for us men.  we've been in the collective position of speaking since the church began.  i don't think men should sit down and shut up forever.  but they do need to listen.  and accept that sometimes, they're just not a woman.  and that it takes a woman to understand a woman.  that's why we believe in the primacy of hetero parentage, right?  that we need the mix of both mom and dad to reach the child?

You're preaching to the choir, dude.  Again, I'm fine with asking men to listen.  But telling "men" that they have no voice in a discussion about their faith, that "[t]his is a woman's discussion," is wrong.  Publicly accusing men as a category of being too arrogant to listen ("until males are humble enough to pay attention...") is wrong.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mars]

i don't really agree with the sentiment that i can never talk about it.  but if my opinion as a man isn't wanted or asked for, i'll shut up.

also, nothing in juliann's posting history, habits, or character has given me to believe she thinks all men are categorically too arrogant to listen.  i think you may have misread her.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Mars said:

i don't really agree with the sentiment that i can never talk about it.  but if my opinion as a man isn't wanted or asked for, i'll shut up.

also, nothing in juliann's posting history, habits, or character has given me to believe she thinks all men are categorically too arrogant to listen.  i think you may have misread her.

Yes, well.  I have a posting history, too.  And character and habits.  And yet in this thread she made allusions to "some" LDS men "demonizing women."  She said that "until males are humble enough to pay attention to the women who are doing most of the scholarship on this..."  She said that "[t]his discussion [about the Priesthood] is a woman's discussion."

These were directed at the male Latter-day Saints participating in this thread. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[consiglieri]

I think Juliann has a point.  I do not think she was saying that men don't get to talk about the subject at all, or can't ask questions and voice their opinions.

I think what Juliann was saying is that men, because they are men, are unable to view the matter from a woman's point of view.

And that is certainly true.

For instance, even though white people could sympathize with the plight of blacks discriminated against in the South during the 1950's, whites simply could not understand what it was like to be black under those circumstances the same way blacks could understand.  For the simple reason that it was the blacks who were on the short end of the discrimination stick and the whites were not.

Similarly, women are on the short end of the discrimination stick in the LDS Church.  Now, one can debate endlessly about whether this is the way God wants it to be, or whether it is an uninspired leadership clinging desperately to the status quo, but the fact remains that women are discriminated against in the LDS Church because of their gender.

Women cannot hold priesthood offices in the LDS Church.  Why not?  Because they are women.  It is as simple as that, and no amount of gainsaying or argument changes that fact.  This is discrimination.  And it is on the basis of gender. 

Because women are discriminated against on the basis of gender, and I am not a woman, though I can sympathize with their plight, I cannot truly understand how women experience this discrimination because I am a man.

This is why I am anxious to hear from women such as Juliann how they do experience this, and by listening, I find I can learn a great deal.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

 

[Mystery Meat]

19 hours ago, juliann said:

There is not one mention in that video of a demand or fight. Most of these women are asking for parity and pushing through the limitations of arbitrary gender roles. If those who want the priesthood should be the last to get it, then men shouldn't have it. And it really isn't very convincing to have men who have all of the benefits (which most certainly includes status and feeling good about themselves!) telling everybody else why they should be the only ones to have those things. Male privilege and entitlement doesn't even begin to cover this. That said, it is most certainly the will of God. But maybe God the Mother needs them to have it. Mormon men too often think that they can not only speak for God but for women. This is a woman's discussion

The video reminds me of the biggest problem I have with the current feminist scrip....the "sobbing." I read blogs of women "sobbing" through sacrament meetings or the temple endowment. In fact most mofem blogs seem wet with tears nowadays . Trouble is, sobbing is noisy. I'm still trying to imagine a woman shaking with loud sobs in the temple and getting no reaction. I'm sure it is hyperbole but it is time to stop crying. It has lost any its effectiveness due to overuse.

juliann, I hold you in high esteem. You may not recall, but when I first started participating on this board there was a discussion about polyandry and polygamy, in which you called me out in such a way that I ultimately agreed with you, admitted I could be wrong, and apologized. Notwithstanding, it is very offensive when you try and tell me I can't participate in the discussion because of my gender. It reminds me of my experience in law school when female classmates would literally tell me to shutup about abortion rights because my opinion was valueless as a man. It hurts. I don't pretend to speak for any woman, just myself. But I won't be excluded from our conversation that effects all of us.

[juliann]

Obviously I should have used a qualifier  rather than saying only "men." Men's input is critical. Mars gave the more appropriate response. It is about listening. That is what I don't see near enough. Please don't make this thread a battle over a misused word 

[Mystery Meat]

Just now, juliann said:

Obviously I should have used a qualifier  rather than saying only "men." Men's input is critical. Mars gave the more appropriate response. It is about listening. That is what I don't see near enough. Please don't make this thread a battle over a misused word 

Fair enough (and apology accepted ).

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Fair enough (and apology accepted ).

Ditto.

[juliann]

For those that don't know my history, I am agnostic when it comes to the ordination of women. I think women need to find their own place under the priesthood. Like Valerie Hudson, I don't think asking men for stuff  is real feminism .  On the spectrum of Mormon feminism, I am a moderate. I'm not in love with the term feminist and I don't find it a helpful label. But we are stuck with it.   

I see several problems that pop up every time this topic comes up. First is the unwillingness to use common language. Do we discriminate? Are women unequal? Yes! Until we are willing to admit what is so dang obvious to everybody else we won't ever be able to give an explanation. The reason a film like this will speak to outsiders is because they are using the standard meaning of words while we are mired in "no we don't!" while the conversation goes on without us. Mormonism is a lived experience. But if we are going to spend every last word on "no we don't! instead of well, yes we do but why has the church thrived anyway we look like the thinking has been done types.

Second, claiming the priesthood isn't seen as the culmination of manhood is strange when we have two priesthood conference sessions a year extolling that very thing. The only reason I can think of in denying something soooooo in our face is to make it something less desirable. To women. Is excluding women so important that the the priesthood needs to be made less desirable? 

So here is a call for quotes.  I'll start.

http://www.lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-a/history-and-organization-of-the-priesthood/lesson-1-the-priesthood

Quote

 

Desire It

We must first have a desire to develop power in the priesthood. The scriptures teach that men receive from the Lord according to their desires (see Alma 29:4; D&C 4:3; 6:8; 7:1–3).

 

 

Quote

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-13-the-priesthood.p1?lang=eng

President David O. McKay promised every man who uses the priesthood in righteousness that he “will find his life sweetened, his discernment sharpened to decide quickly between right and wrong, his feelings tender and compassionate, yet his spirit strong and valiant in defense of right; he will find the priesthood a never failing source of happiness—a well of living water springing up unto eternal life.”

 

 

Edited February 4, 2016 by juliann

[Jeanne]

I don't really have any stakes in this debate..but I stand for women who want and desire something that is of said value and equality of any religious group and in any aspect of her life that is important to her.  For all the degrees my sister-in-laws have..they are stagnant..and have reaped nothing of their rewards.  I have great desire to see the priesthood go to women in the LDS world because when my husband died..everyone decided that my son..a Teacher in the ward was the head of my family...!  I had to explain to him that we, his sister and I were responsible for ourselves..and that we were to take care of our family together. Can you imagine the weight that lifted from his shoulders??

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When you say you have "men in thongs," I presume you mean they are wearing what today are often called "flip-flops" or thong sandals.

The word thong as it pertains to apparel has taken on quite a different meaning than when I was a boy.

 

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Not where I live, though a few of our American missionaries have occasionally made the same point.

My brother, who taught band in middle school for many years, has a funny story about this.

One day, the principal got on the intercom and was going off on how students should not be wearing "thongs" to school, how they are not proper apparel and how they can be dangerous.

Unbeknownst to the principal, kids in classrooms throughout the building, used to the vocabulary of a younger generation, were expiring with laughter.

 

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

For those that don't know my history, I am agnostic when it comes to the ordination of women. I think women need to find their own place under the priesthood. Like Valerie Hudson, I don't think asking men for stuff  is real feminism .  On the spectrum of Mormon feminism, I am a moderate. I'm not in love with the term feminist and I don't find it a helpful label. But we are stuck with it.   

This is how i feel.  I hate how every example of feminism is about making women more like men and never about women being recognized as equal to men without being the same as men.  Women's lib was about women being able to talk like men, dress like men, have sex like men, work like men, have male names (I'm getting really tired of everyone naming their little girls Maxwell, and James now), etc.  It's the same with women's ordination-the goal is to have the priesthood like men.

We'll know that society is finally recognizing the worth of women when 'like men' drops away from the equation.  When doing something like a girl or like a woman is no longer seen as inferior or used as a way to insult someone else.  When men seek to do things 'like women' sometimes because how they inherently do something might be the better way.  Then, we'll be on our way to men and women being equal.  

Right now all we have being shoved down our throats is how superior anything male is and therefore, women must seek to do it or have it like men do in order to catch up to where men currently are. When people no longer assume that men are already superior, then women won't have to spend so much time trying to catch up to them.  We can find better ways of recognizing and implementing our equal worth to men.