The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

He may know more about what it means to be a faithful Church member than someone who jumped ship. Of any gender.

Like I said: this is a believers' discussion.

And if you only want to have a private conversation with him, there's always PM. A public forum is a public forum.

You took it upon yourself to rebuke him in public.

Okay..I am out..it is a believer's discussion.  And you sir, have rebuked me in public.  I may have jumped ship from the church..but I am on the boat with the women here I care about. If I were you..I would be ashamed.

[consiglieri]

9 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

And after the Church was organised, and the Priesthood offices were in place, Joseph and Oliver were baptized again.

 

They were baptized into the Church.  They were not baptized a second time for the remission of sins.

Besides, are you saying that their first baptism was rendered of no effect?

The fact ordinances have been performed in this dispensation without priesthood office effectively voids your argument that priesthood office is necessary to perform priesthood ordinances.

Wouldn't you say?  

Edited February 5, 2016 by consiglieri

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

And after the Church was organised, and the Priesthood offices were in place, Joseph and Oliver were baptized again.

 

So why did the practice of Rebaptism stop?
Like Mother's Blessings people were rebaptized often for the first hundred years of the Church.

Don't you ever get tired of arguing for the status quo without bothering to reason on it?
Do YOU know why Mother's Blessings were stopped?  Do YOU know why Rebaptism was banned?
Do you know the doctrinal principles that started these practices or the doctrinal principles that stopped them?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

They were baptized into the Church.  They were not baptized a second time for the remission of sins.

Besides, are you saying that their first baptism was rendered of no effect?

The fact ordinances have been performed in this dispensation without priesthood office effectively voids your argument that priesthood office is necessary to perform priesthood ordinances.

Wouldn't you say?

Looking at different ordinances is a fascinating practice.

Like Joseph Smith and the handkerchief healing through Wilford Woodruff.  Where is the priesthood ordinance principle there?

[juliann]

6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

If a woman has a gift for leadership she will lead naturally without any need for everyone else to put her in that position.  

 

I hope you aren't serious but I know you are. When leadership positions are already filled (the majority by males) exactly how is that going to happen? 

I have an article on women apologists in pre-publication status. I had to do research on women's status in general in order to make any meaningful points about women in the church. There has been a lot of progress but it is still a mess. For anyone who just can't wrap their minds around that, this is a must read: The Silent Sex. One of the authors is a BYU prof. Women have long been conditioned to step back...and it comes from society not just the church so it is overwhelmingly pervasive. The book provides data for why women are silent and a majority of men need to do some serious rethinking. Not only do women walk into a deliberative situation feeling less respected and lower status, they are punished if they try to ignore that. Statistics from all sources document that women are interrupted by men at high rates, they aren't given near the positive criticism men give one another and so on.  And guess what....it is the most educated women who shut up the quickest, probably because they pick up on the disrespect faster.  

The book covers real life interactions. I am very curious how men shut down women online. From what I am seeing it is done by misrepresenting what it said so that women have to repeat themselves indefinitely. That very effectively stalls dialogue. I also think that taking an entire post and responding sentence by sentence with little or no positive feedback is also an effective silencer. (For the most part, I have stopped reading posts that go on forever like this.) I think it is very evident online that some men come in expecting to be seen as credible even though they have a minimal grasp of "feminism" and they seem to have no awareness that background knowledge is required. (This is also a statistically supportable behavior characteristic..)   As the book describes, women do better in situations where they are the majority operating under majority rule.( If they are only equal in number, the men act up even more.) But they do very well in a minority if the deliberative body isn't majority rule, everyone is required to speak. And guess what ,that is a church council.

A good example of how this operates in Mormonism is Elder Ballard's joking aside to women to participate in councils but not to talk too much. This does not mean that such men are doing this intentionally. It is just the default normal. It does not mean some women don't engage in similar behaviors or can't be even more awful. So don't even go there.  This is about the data not the outliers. What it does mean is that this is statistically significant behavior that is well documented from multiple sources. Women have been and still are silenced and don't even realize it. Again, the default normal. Now that I am aware of this, I pay attention to interruptions and feedback. I have the most trouble in Gospel Doctrine with men who interrupt me mid sentence (yeah, I'm just as opinionated there.) Women don't do that to me (yes, I know there is that  woman on the other side of the stats who does...)

So talking about "feminism" requires some understanding of our culture and the status of women in it. Bringing up a few high profile women doesn't undo this. Mormonism, I think, has a chance of overcoming this cultural defect for the reasons that critics complain of. It is a closed society. It values top down "rules," it values women and despite excluding them from ultimate decision making, it does insist they participate and speak up and will defer to them. 

So what this really boils down to is the women need to be trained to recognize the systemic silencing, teach their daughters to be aware, and start teaching their boys and men to be aware so they will have more effective communication in a society that will become more inclusive of women. 

 

 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Okay..I am out..it is a believer's discussion.  And you sir, have rebuked me in public.  I may have jumped ship from the church..but I am on the boat with the women here I care about. If I were you..I would be ashamed.

Was Russell that guy who dressed like a woman to sneak into a lifeboat in The Titanic?

Or was he the leader of the band that kept playing as the ship went down?

Edited February 5, 2016 by consiglieri

[smac97]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I hope you aren't serious but I know you are. When leadership positions are already filled (the majority by males) exactly how is that going to happen? 

I have an article on women apologists in pre-publication status. I had to do research on women's status in general in order to make any meaningful points about women in the church. There has been a lot of progress but it is still a mess. For anyone who just can't wrap their minds around that, this is a must read: The Silent Sex. One of the authors is a BYU prof. Women have long been conditioned to step back...and it comes from society not just the church so it is overwhelmingly pervasive. The book provides data for why women are silent and a majority of men need to do some serious rethinking. Not only do women walk into a deliberative situation feeling less respected and lower status, they are punished if they try to ignore that. Statistics from all sources document that women are interrupted by men at high rates, they aren't given near the positive criticism men give one another and so on.  And guess what....it is the most educated women who shut up the quickest, probably because they pick up on the disrespect faster.  

The book covers real life interactions. I am very curious how men shut down women online. From what I am seeing it is done by misrepresenting what it said so that women have to repeat themselves indefinitely. That very effectively stalls dialogue. I also think that taking an entire post and responding sentence by sentence with little or no positive feedback is also an effective silencer. (For the most part, I have stopped reading posts that go on forever like this.) I think it is very evident online that some men come in expecting to be seen as credible even though they have a minimal grasp of "feminism" and they seem to have no awareness that background knowledge is required. (This is also a statistically supportable behavior characteristic..)   As the book describes, women do better in situations where they are the majority operating under majority rule.( If they are only equal in number, the men act up even more.) But they do very well in a minority if the deliberative body isn't majority rule, everyone is required to speak. And guess what ,that is a church council.

A good example of how this operates in Mormonism is Elder Ballard's joking aside to women to participate in councils but not to talk too much. This does not mean that such men are doing this intentionally. It is just the default normal. It does not mean some women don't engage in similar behaviors or can't be even more awful. So don't even go there.  This is about the data not the outliers. What it does mean is that this is statistically significant behavior that is well documented from multiple sources. Women have been and still are silenced and don't even realize it. Again, the default normal. Now that I am aware of this, I pay attention to interruptions and feedback. I have the most trouble in Gospel Doctrine with men who interrupt me mid sentence (yeah, I'm just as opinionated there.) Women don't do that to me (yes, I know there is that  woman on the other side of the stats who does...)

So talking about "feminism" requires some understanding of our culture and the status of women in it. Bringing up a few high profile women doesn't undo this. Mormonism, I think, has a chance of overcoming this cultural defect for the reasons that critics complain of. It is a closed society. It values top down "rules," it values women and despite excluding them from ultimate decision making, it does insist they participate and speak up and will defer to them. 

So what this really boils down to is the women need to be trained to recognize the systemic silencing, teach their daughters to be aware, and start teaching their boys and men to be aware so they will have more effective communication in a society that will become more inclusive of women. 

I think you raise some intriguing and interesting points.

One phenomenon I have observed is that some women appear to expect an inappropriate type of deference to their gender in some social interactions (obviously some men feel this way about themselves as well).  For example, I recently watched a YouTube video that was a compilation of women resorting to violence against men in social situations (at a party, on a subway, etc.).  These women are recorded shoving or striking or scratching or pulling hair.  None of this is particularly noteworthy, until the target of the violence responds in kind.  That is, a man who is being struck strikes back.  A man being shoved shoves back.  And the reaction from these women (remember, it's a compilation video) is . . . weird.  These women start yelling and expressing outrage that a man has struck them.  Most of them make immediately react with statements which presume that it is inappropriate for a man to hit a woman.  While I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly, I am staggered the the . . . irony of these situations.

I can't help but wonder if there is some semblance of this attitude that arises in online discussions.  Frankly, I have come across it a few times.  Instances where women have expressed displeasure that another person, a man, has disagreed with her, a woman.  In the instances I have in mind the displeasure appears to be unrelated to the substance of the disagreement, but instead focuses on the fact that a man has dared to publicly disagree with or criticize remarks made by a woman.  The sentiment appears to be something like "To criticize or disagree with my argument is to disrespect my status as a woman."

I am reminded of a time I criticized a blog post by Jana Reiss.  I did not make a single reference to her gender, nor did I question her character or integrity in any way.  I did, however, strongly disagree with her remarks, and explained in detail the reasoning for my disagreement.  There was an immediate torrent of blowback against my comments, many of which took exception to me, a man, disagreeing with Jana, a woman because I am a man and she is a woman.  In fact, even Jana herself chimed in and said: "One might wonder also how the reputation of the Church is negatively affected when a male member of that Church suggests to a female member that she has no right to express opinions in the public square, and would do better to keep them to herself." I responded as follows: "Oh brother. Don’t hide behind your gender. First, I have said nothing about your comments that pertain one whit to you being a woman. Second, I would have said the same things to a male church member posting remarks such as yours. Third, I have said nothing to the effect that you have 'no right to express opinions in the public square,' or that you should keep them to yourself."

I have great respect for women as a category.  For their intellect and wisdom.  For their immeasurable contributions to society.  I also have strong beliefs about chivalry.  I have taught my sons to never, under any circumstances, use physical force against a woman (except perhaps to restrain her, using the least force possible, to prevent her from harming someone else).  I have taught them that if they are ever struck by a girl to walk away.  I have also taught them the basic residual components of chivalry that still exist today (open doors for women and girls, stand when they enter/leave a room, etc.).  I know such token expressions of deference and respect are offensive to some women, but I think there are more who appreciate them.  I have specifically told my sons that such expressions are intended to be nonverbal expressions of respect and honor, that our society has had in the past some unfortunate notions about the relative values of men and women, and that such nonverbal expressions will hopefully be taken as they are intended.

But chivalry of this sort only goes so far.  In matters of rhetoric and debate, I generally dispense with conventions pertaining to gender-based deference and respect, and instead presume that participants to the discussion are all on equal footing, that each side's argument should be examined on its merits, and that the gender of the person presenting the argument is irrelevant.  As an attorney I have worked with dozens of women, and in my recollection none of them have appeared to expect me to modify my conduct as an attorney, my representation of my client's interests, in such a way as to show an opposing female attorney deference for her gender.  We are all on equal footing on paper and in the courtroom.  And although we are clearly all bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct and (in Utah) the Standards of Professionalism and Civility, we are none of us expected to alter arguments or constrain ourselves from zealously protecting our client's interest just because a person on the other side is a woman.

In my view, women can't have it both ways.  They cannot present their views in a public forum and expect that those views be put on equal footing with the views of men (a sentiment I wholeheartedly endorse), but then turn around and expect deferential and privileged treatment for their views simply because those views come from women.  If an idea has merit, then let it be demonstrated, not presumed because of the gender of the idea's presenter.  

I look forward to your research explaining and quantifying the purported "systemic silencing" of women.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 5, 2016 by smac97

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Okay..I am out..it is a believer's discussion.  And you sir, have rebuked me in public.  I may have jumped ship from the church..but I am on the boat with the women here I care about. If I were you..I would be ashamed.

Jeanne, don't you dare be silenced by men who tell you you have no influence or value in a discussion in which they have no specialized knowledge.

Quote

Because men have more authority than women do in society, they tend to use communication acts that symbolize high status, while women tend to employ those that mark low status. . . men tend to negatively interrupt more than women, especially in groups. Other studies confirm that men issue negative interruptions more often and positive interruptions less often that women, and talk longer. Moreover, because women lose influence when they act too assertively, and may intuit this fact, women may be more likely than men to interpret disagreements they receive as a negative signal of their authority. . . women are three times more likely than men to yield when negatively interrupted in a group discussion on a gender-neutral task. Gender differences of this kind are sharpest when the task involves a domain considered masculine. Politics is such a domain; women are viewed, and view themselves, as less confident and expert about politics, regardless of their actual level of expertise. Because women are more likely to enter a formal discussion of politics with a lower sense of authority, they may be more subject to and more affected by interruptions.   The Silent Sex.  p 203

You will notice how many men see a discussion of women as a male domain no different than any other topic. On the negative side, the Church does foster this to the point men write books telling women how to be women. 

[juliann]

Quote

  Especially badly off are women in the gender minority under majority rule. For these women, deliberation is a negative experience in which their speech is interrupted in a dismissive manner and their words rarely affirmed. Lone women, for example, issue a higher rate of positive interjections than any other gender subgroup but receive the least in return (in each case, relative to their speaking turns.) At 20% or 40% of the group, women are less than half as likely as men in their group to experience approval while speaking. p 231

A count is not required to see that this board is male dominated.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

Jeanne, don't you dare be silenced by men who tell you you have no influence or value in a discussion in which they have no specialized knowledge.

You will notice how many men see a discussion of women as a male domain no different than any other topic. On the negative side, the Church does foster this to the point men write books telling women how to be women. 

Did someone attempt to silence Jeanne because she's a woman?  I missed that.

-Smac

[juliann]

33 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Was xxxx that guy who dressed like a woman to sneak into a lifeboat in The Titanic?

 

OK, removing the personalization that is a really good metaphor....

[juliann]

This may be what is at stake. The more women are included, the more men have to change behavior. Allowing women higher status means men have to be nicer. There is a cost.  And note the response to those who refuse to take women's experience seriously by blaming them for their own predicament. When women use communication considered to be male, males change their behavior to get them back into position by making participation more difficult and less rewarding. We no longer get the pile-on here because some men have stepped up to tip the scales and support women's participation, which increases the power of numbers by proxy. Since boards tend towards majority rule, this is invaluable. 

 

Quote

When we alter the conditions of discussion, the ones to change their behavior are, mostly, men. Men become nicer to women as the conditions elevate women’s status. Some might say something like this: “well, why don’t women just talk more? It’s women’s responsibility to speak—no rule prevents them from doing so, and no one stands in their way.” Our reply is our finding that men change their behavior in such a way as to make women’s participation less rewarding and more difficult. The process is subtle and, by any formal measure, legitimate, but it ends up carrying particularly negative consequences for women.          p  233

Does anyone still wonder why there aren't more women here?

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, juliann said:

A count is not required to see that this board is male dominated.

And a count is not required to see that Pinterest is female dominated (if by "dominated" you mean "one gender numerically exceeds the other").  Is that a result of a coordinated and calculated campaign against men?  Or is it a reflection of generalized differences between men and women in terms of preferences and proclivities?

Thanks,

-Smac

[consiglieri]

On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 3:54 PM, Russell C McGregor said:

Thus, contrary to what has been asserted earlier, this is not a "woman's discussion." It's a believers' discussion.

When you say this is a believer's discussion, this is what I hear.

Your definition of a "believer" is one who defers to the Church leaders in everything they say and do.

All Church leaders are male and part of the established patriarchal hegemony of the LDS Church.

Hence, when you say the issue of the role of women in the LDS Church is a "believer's discussion," I hear you saying that only those who defer to the patriarchy have a valid voice.

Do you see why that might be problematic?

[consiglieri]

33 minutes ago, juliann said:

OK, removing the personalization that is a really good metaphor....

I try never to make things personal.

 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Jeanne, don't you dare be silenced by men who tell you you have no influence or value in a discussion in which they have no specialized knowledge.

You will notice how many men see a discussion of women as a male domain no different than any other topic. On the negative side, the Church does foster this to the point men write books telling women how to be women. 

Let's see.

Who was it who declared that a discussion about the Priesthood in the Church was a "woman's discussion?"

Are you now admitting what seemed pretty obvious from the beginning, that you were trying to silence men?

Thank you.

Jeanne is, of course, entitled to her opinions, on whatever subjects. But since the subject is the Priesthood and how it functions in the Church, those who've jumped ship clearly have neither part nor lot in this matter.

Sorry.

[Calm]

Quote

since the subject is the Priesthood and how it functions in the Church

That is the subject?  Seriously, I had no clue.

[webbles]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It boggles my mind that Mother's Anointing Blessings were done away with.

What could possibly have been so incorrect or wrong that they would be stopped by Church leaders?

When you say "Mother's Anointing Blessings" what are you talking about?  Is it the blessing that was given to expectant mothers or is this something else?

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Did someone attempt to silence Jeanne because she's a woman?  I missed that.

-Smac

I certainly didn't.

But the "I am woman" model of feminism means that if anyone dares to disagree with any woman for any reason, it's seen as an attack on that woman for no other reason that that she is a woman.

And therefore it's an attack on all women.

And therefore every woman is not only entitled! but actually obligated to take personal offence.

I predict that this is going to become increasingly prevalent in American politics in the next few months. Nobody will be allowed to vote against St.Hillary because they disagree with her platform or have misgivings about her character or her record; every criticism of her will be turned into an anti-woman thing.

(Please don't chase that comment into a derail of the thread. It's merely an illustration of what I'm talking about.)

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

When you say "Mother's Anointing Blessings" what are you talking about?  Is it the blessing that was given to expectant mothers or is this something else?

This was an anointing similar to initiatory work that women performed on expectant mothers prior to childbirth.

By Common Consent has a great article on it May 14, 2006.  (Can't link - board rules).

[Russell C McGregor]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

They were baptized into the Church.  They were not baptized a second time for the remission of sins.

Besides, are you saying that their first baptism was rendered of no effect?

The fact ordinances have been performed in this dispensation without priesthood office effectively voids your argument that priesthood office is necessary to perform priesthood ordinances.

Wouldn't you say?  

I would say (to refocus this strand of the thread) that Joseph and Oliver didn't baptize each other because they were somehow vaguely "participating" in a vague concept of "Priesthood" that was just vaguely "there." They baptized each other because they had had specific Priesthood authority conferred upon them, by the laying on of hands, by one who held the keys of that authority, and they were acting under his direction.

All of which was before the organisation of the Church, and the establishment of its Priesthood offices.

Since the Church has now been organised, and its Priesthood offices established, for an ordinance to be valid, it must be performed by one holding the necessary Priesthood office.

And, as a prerequisite to holding that office, having the Priesthood itself conferred upon them, by the laying on of hands, by one who holds that authority, under the direction of one who has the keys by which it may be administered.

So your argument remains moot.

 

[juliann]

Quote

 Our findings show that women talk less with men than they do with women. In other words, women in fact talk more than men do when they do not face the deleterious interactions of the typical mixed-gender group. By implication, the quiescence we have found among women is not what women do when free of constraints and it is not a desirable normative standard for women. p 308

Quote

 Women's distinctive ways of interacting--supporting one another with considerable positive feedback--come to the fore in these all-female groups. This dynamic takes the sting off negative interruptions, making women more resilient in the face of engaged opposition. To be sure, the average woman's experience is not qualitatively different in enclaves than in the best of the majority-female conditions; however, when we look at the group as a whole, all-female groups emerge as the most mutually supportive environments, and only there is women,s sense of efficacy in the group impervious to the effects of negative interjections. p 234

Watching the Mormon feminist sites having to deal with males is a stellar example of why women retreat to female enclaves. [This is not an endorsement, it is about the interactions.  I am sure this clarification will also be ignored by those who refuse to listen yet again, but there it is yet again.]  It eventually came to a head with the blog leaders telling the males to take a hike and setting up guidelines for male participation. It is also very apparent to anyone paying attention, that expelling aggressive males resulted in cohesion which made the women more influencial. As research also shows, women bring different dispositions and interests to the table. Allowing situations where they are silenced has a high cost to organizations. 

[juliann]

26 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I certainly didn't.

But the "I am woman" model of feminism means that if anyone dares to disagree with any woman for any reason, it's seen as an attack on that woman for no other reason that that she is a woman.

And therefore it's an attack on all women.

And therefore every woman is not only entitled! but actually obligated to take personal offence.

I predict that this is going to become increasingly prevalent in American politics in the next few months. Nobody will be allowed to vote against St.Hillary because they disagree with her platform or have misgivings about her character or her record; every criticism of her will be turned into an anti-woman thing.

(Please don't chase that comment into a derail of the thread. It's merely an illustration of what I'm talking about.)

How about giving up on the broad brush personal opinions and moving on to some documentation?   

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Eliza R. Snow managed just fine during her lifetime - http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Snow,_Eliza_R.

• Revered in her own time, she was honored during her many visits to the settlements of the Saints by feasts, celebrations of her birthday, odes in her praise, and invitations to address meetings of both men and women. Accounts of her healings, blessings, and prophesies are extant; her instructions to the women were accepted as binding. There was no intended exaggeration in the Kanab Relief Society's 1881 acknowledgment of her position as president "of all the feminine portion of the human race" and as "leading Priestess of this dispensation" (Woman's Exponent 9 [Apr. 1, 1881]:165), and Primary children two decades after her death in 1887 were encouraged in reverence for "the prophet, the priesthood, and Eliza R. Snow."

This is the direction we need to return to.  Not putting men and women in the same position.  Not giving women roles that belong to men.  But restoring to practice the roles and ritual roles that do exist for women within the restored gospel.

I have been thinking about this.  This seems to me to be the easiest and most logical route.  No new revelation would be needed for a substantial part of this.  IIRC, it was simply direction that women were to go to the Elders to have blessings given (from the prophet at the time) so a policy decision.

I think giving blessings is a wonderful opportunity for men and I think if women were to be brought into some aspects of it again, that emphasizing the opportunities of men to take advantage of father's blessings outside of healing blessings, especially at meaningful moments of children's lives, would be very important.

The treatment of the RS President to place her in such a visible and recognizable position would require, imo, changing it back to a more or less lifelong calling (it appears the habit of staying until death or near death stopped for the fifth president as she asked to be releaed for health reasons 2 years before she died, Sister Wells the previous president was released due to ill health and died three weeks later so it wasn't a big step) so that such connection can be established with her as an individual as well as the 'office holder'.  They could handle ill health as they do for the First Presidency, add more assistants as needed, or they could allow for emeritis status as they do the Seventies but not attach retiring to a specific age.  This again seems a policy change, but what a dramatic statement it would make imo.  It might be significant enough to our current culture that a revelation is needed, perhaps the same for having women take up healing and other blessings again.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Calm

[Russell C McGregor]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

How about giving up on the broad brush personal opinions and moving on to some documentation?   

Documentation?

Okay.

In this very thread, someone made the utterly astonishing claim that a discussion about the Priesthood and who should receive it is "a woman's discussion."

Despite knowing the power that someone wields (and the frequently arbitrary and often heavy hand with which they wield it) in this forum, I dared to suggest that it's actually a believer's discussion.

And I repeated that to a self-proclaimed apostate.

I was then -- rather irrationally, in my view -- accused of trying to "silence" said apostate just because she's not one of the "men who tell you you have no influence or value in a discussion in which they have no specialized knowledge."

Well, someone who has chosen to leave the Church really does not -- and should not -- have any influence in such matters. They gave up any right to have such influence when they left.

And I FLATLY DENY that it has anything AT ALL to do with Jeanne's gender.

In fact, I first made that assertion (that it's actually a believer's discussion)  to Consiglieri. Who, I rather firmly believe, is male.

Who leaped to Consig's defense?

Why is the very same argument such a clear example of Male Chauvinist Piggery when directed at a woman, but not when it's directed at a man?