Jump to content

The First Political Order and the Priesthood-FairMormon presentation by Valerie Hudson.


Recommended Posts

As always this was a great presentation by Dr Hudson.  She articulates so many issues about women so well.  I have two daughters raised in the Church.  The oldest just came out as lesbian and married another woman after divorcing her husband.  The other one goes to BYU and returned from a mission earlier this year.  I would love to share the talk with my younger daughter.  Even though I purchased the conference, I don't know how I share it with her.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

.....................  Even though I purchased the conference, I don't know how I share it with her.  

Fairmormon usually has both videos and transcripts up pretty quickly.  Meantime, an excerpt from her (and her colleagues') book of the same title is available online at https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-first-political-order/9780231194662

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

As always this was a great presentation by Dr Hudson.  She articulates so many issues about women so well. ................................

I watched her presentation live, and even had a question which was put to her, but she didn't understand what I had asked, so missed the point.

Gloria Steinem summed up what Hudson's book meant for her:

Quote

The First Political Order offers the strongest possible proof that male control of reproduction—and the violence necessary to control women’s bodies—is the first step in normalizing violence and hierarchy in every society. From now on, there will be no more separating questions of politics and peace from the treatment of the females.”  https://www.cupblog.org/2020/03/13/book-excerpt-the-first-political-order-by-valerie-m-hudson-donna-lee-bowen-and-perpetua-lynne-nielsen-introduction/

The problem with that summation is that it isn't true.  According to anthropologists, human success has always depended heavily upon love and cooperation among all parties to a small clan of early humans -- perhaps living in a cave in early paleolithic times.  As biologist E. O. Wilson (Harvard) has frequently pointed out, altruism has always been the secret to the survival of many species, from insects to humans.  I can still recall the vivid description of the political life of those first humans in caves given by Prof Stewart Grow in BYU Political Science 101 class back in 1963.  These views on the dominance of altruism have been backed up by clinical psychologist and Professor Jordan Peterson (Harvard, and Univ of Toronto).  That is also the message I got from long ago reading Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex.  I was deeply touched by her comments on the love between a man and a woman, no doubt reflecting her own lifelong romance with her man, Jean-Paul Sartre.

Gloria Steinem's very different POV may stem from her brief experience as a Playboy Bunny and her life as a journalist among the privileged elite class in America -- which does in no way reflect normal, everyday life in America.

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Gloria Steinem's very different POV may stem from her brief experience as a Playboy Bunny and her life as a journalist among the privileged elite class in America -- which does in no way reflect normal, everyday life in America.

Or maybe not...

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/sexual-violence/index.html

1 in 3 women experiences sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes. 
 

Also...

Quote

Women

Nearly 1 in 5 women have experienced completed or attempted rape during her lifetime.

1 in 3 female rape victims experienced it for the first time between 11-17 years old.

1 in 8 female rape victims reported that it occurred before age 10.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
54 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or maybe not...

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/sexual-violence/index.html

1 in 3 women experiences sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes. ................

The statistics are always impressive, but one dimensional.  For example, even if they are accurate, one has to ask about serial rapists and serial molesters.  Like serial burglars, many burglaries do not make everyone a burglar.  Making every man and boy a potential rapist or molester may not be wise.  We are now part of a world in which even First Graders are arrested for kissing.  A teacher innocently hugging a student in distress may result in firing or prosecution.

Also, in England not long ago, a cabinet member (the Defence Minister) had to resign because it was revealed that he had placed his hand on a female reporter's knee 17 years ago.  Is this part of the "sexual violence involving physical contact" you are speaking of?  How are we defining our terms?  Did Senator Al Franken really need to resign from the Senate for some comedic hijinx (without touching) he had done many years before he became a Senator?  Are we losing all sense of proportion and propriety and classing virtually everything as unacceptable, including past events which were actually quite minor?

I can recall that, back in the 1950s, as a Boy Scout, we had a Halloween party with adults present.  It was not an LDS function, and we had a Girl Scout troop present at the party.  Somehow the adults got the boys and girls passing apples to each other under our chins.  I had never been that close to a girl, and I was embarrassed.  Was that "sexual violence involving physical contact," and was I a victim or a perpetrator?  Does the CDC ever make a classification mistake, and do Valerie Hudson and Gloria Steinem ever consider the real world?

Moreover, these features of a society change over time.  Anxiety levels have been rapidly increasing in recent decades, with youth being so fragile that nearly anything can be a micro-aggression and with everyone needing safe-spaces.  Suicides have also been increasing, particularly among women, and they are not small increases.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Making every man and boy a potential rapist or molester may not be wise.

Strawman

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
5 hours ago, Calm said:

Strawman

I wish it were.  Unfortunately, that is the sort of crazy talk we constantly hear nowadays from some quarters.  Metoo does not require evidence or calm analysis of claims.  Due process means nothing.  Guilty until proven innocent.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I wish it were.  Unfortunately, that is the sort of crazy talk we constantly hear nowadays from some quarters.  Metoo does not require evidence or calm analysis of claims.  Due process means nothing.  Guilty until proven innocent.

It however is not applicable to my point, the point of Hudson, and the quote of GS as far as presented here. But this is Social, so the discussion should be given its own thread if you feel the need. Life just got crowded again for me, so I don’t know if I will be in the mood to engage in something I need to pull up quotes and studies for, just to warn you it may not be worth your effort even if you do start a General Doscussions thread in this.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I watched her presentation live, and even had a question which was put to her, but she didn't understand what I had asked, so missed the point.

Gloria Steinem summed up what Hudson's book meant for her:

The problem with that summation is that it isn't true.  According to anthropologists, human success has always depended heavily upon love and cooperation among all parties to a small clan of early humans -- perhaps living in a cave in early paleolithic times.  As biologist E. O. Wilson (Harvard) has frequently pointed out, altruism has always been the secret to the survival of many species, from insects to humans.  I can still recall the vivid description of the political life of those first humans in caves given by Prof Stewart Grow in BYU Political Science 101 class back in 1963.  These views on the dominance of altruism have been backed up by clinical psychologist and Professor Jordan Peterson (Harvard, and Univ of Toronto).  That is also the message I got from long ago reading Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex.  I was deeply touched by her comments on the love between a man and a woman, no doubt reflecting her own lifelong romance with her man, Jean-Paul Sartre.

Gloria Steinem's very different POV may stem from her brief experience as a Playboy Bunny and her life as a journalist among the privileged elite class in America -- which does in no way reflect normal, everyday life in America.

You claim it isn't true and then counter it with evidence that it is true? Huh.....

Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:
5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I wish it were.  Unfortunately, that is the sort of crazy talk we constantly hear nowadays from some quarters.  Metoo does not require evidence or calm analysis of claims.  Due process means nothing.  Guilty until proven innocent.

It however is not applicable to my point, the point of Hudson, and the quote of GS as far as presented here. But this is Social, so the discussion should be given its own thread if you feel the need. Life just got crowded again for me, so I don’t know if I will be in the mood to engage in something I need to pull up quotes and studies for, just to warn you it may not be worth your effort even if you do start a General Discussions thread in this.

To say nothing of Tara Reade.   :(

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I wish it were.  Unfortunately, that is the sort of crazy talk we constantly hear nowadays from some quarters.  Metoo does not require evidence or calm analysis of claims.  Due process means nothing.  Guilty until proven innocent.

Nope. The movement is that we take allegations seriously. There are a relative few that have jumped to "every claim of assault must be true" but you want to make the whole movement about the fringe cases you are probably exposed to in the stories you read.

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The statistics are always impressive, but one dimensional.  For example, even if they are accurate, one has to ask about serial rapists and serial molesters.  Like serial burglars, many burglaries do not make everyone a burglar.  Making every man and boy a potential rapist or molester may not be wise.  We are now part of a world in which even First Graders are arrested for kissing.  A teacher innocently hugging a student in distress may result in firing or prosecution.

Also, in England not long ago, a cabinet member (the Defence Minister) had to resign because it was revealed that he had placed his hand on a female reporter's knee 17 years ago.  Is this part of the "sexual violence involving physical contact" you are speaking of?  How are we defining our terms?  Did Senator Al Franken really need to resign from the Senate for some comedic hijinx (without touching) he had done many years before he became a Senator?  Are we losing all sense of proportion and propriety and classing virtually everything as unacceptable, including past events which were actually quite minor?

I can recall that, back in the 1950s, as a Boy Scout, we had a Halloween party with adults present.  It was not an LDS function, and we had a Girl Scout troop present at the party.  Somehow the adults got the boys and girls passing apples to each other under our chins.  I had never been that close to a girl, and I was embarrassed.  Was that "sexual violence involving physical contact," and was I a victim or a perpetrator?  Does the CDC ever make a classification mistake, and do Valerie Hudson and Gloria Steinem ever consider the real world?

Moreover, these features of a society change over time.  Anxiety levels have been rapidly increasing in recent decades, with youth being so fragile that nearly anything can be a micro-aggression and with everyone needing safe-spaces.  Suicides have also been increasing, particularly among women, and they are not small increases.

Again, your assumption is that somehow the movement is about making all men molesters. That is not the problem. Most are not. However far too many brush off the accusations against the real molesters. The more pressing question is: WHY DO THESE SERIAL ABUSERS KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT? Most are not reported because most women know what will most likely happen if they are. It is a cultural problem and the metoo movement is designed to make it okay to step forward if you are abused or assaulted without immediately being labeled, have rampant speculation about why you stepped forward, stereotyped, told you were asking for it, have violent threats directed at you, etc. The movement has largely failed, at least so far.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Fairmormon usually has both videos and transcripts up pretty quickly.  Meantime, an excerpt from her (and her colleagues') book of the same title is available online at https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-first-political-order/9780231194662

I have not read this book, but their premise, fundamentally, is based on everyone being consumers. What happens to children in their paradigm of social equality or is the family unit and children, in particular, just burdens to be cast off as road blocks to feminist liberation from the evil, violent males that have squandered the female resource so abundantly surrounding them throughout history?   

Link to post
48 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I have not read this book, but their premise, fundamentally, is based on everyone being consumers. What happens to children in their paradigm of social equality or is the family unit and children, in particular, just burdens to be cast off as road blocks to feminist liberation from the evil, violent males that have squandered the female resource so abundantly surrounding them throughout history?   

If you haven’t read the book, how are you so certain this is there premise and they don’t address children?

The blurb:

Quote

Global history records an astonishing variety of forms of social organization. Yet almost universally, males subordinate females. How does the relationship between men and women shape the wider political order? The First Political Order is a groundbreaking demonstration that the persistent and systematic subordination of women underlies all other institutions, with wide-ranging implications for global security and development.

Incorporating research findings spanning a variety of social science disciplines and comprehensive empirical data detailing the status of women around the globe, the book shows that female subordination functions almost as a curse upon nations. A society’s choice to subjugate women has significant negative consequences: worse governance, worse conflict, worse stability, worse economic performance, worse food security, worse health, worse demographic problems, worse environmental protection, and worse social progress. Yet despite the pervasive power of social and political structures that subordinate women, history—and the data—reveal possibilities for progress. The First Political Order shows that when steps are taken to reduce the hold of inequitable laws, customs, and practices, outcomes for all improve. It offers a new paradigm for understanding insecurity, instability, autocracy, and violence, explaining what the international community can do now to promote more equitable relations between men and women and, thereby, security and peace. With comprehensive empirical evidence of the wide-ranging harm of subjugating women, it is an important book for security scholars, social scientists, policy makers, historians, and advocates for women worldwide.

 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
22 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

As always this was a great presentation by Dr Hudson.  She articulates so many issues about women so well.  I have two daughters raised in the Church.  The oldest just came out as lesbian and married another woman after divorcing her husband.  The other one goes to BYU and returned from a mission earlier this year.  I would love to share the talk with my younger daughter.  Even though I purchased the conference, I don't know how I share it with her.  

I am seeing if we have a timeline for this transcript. I haven’t been paying attention or volunteering to help with FM much this year due to family stuff.

Edited by Calm
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I have not read this book, but their premise, fundamentally, is based on everyone being consumers. What happens to children in their paradigm of social equality or is the family unit and children, in particular, just burdens to be cast off as road blocks to feminist liberation from the evil, violent males that have squandered the female resource so abundantly surrounding them throughout history?   

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If you haven’t read the book, how are you so certain this is there premise and they don’t address children?

The blurb:

Quote

........almost universally, males subordinate females......The First Political Order is a groundbreaking demonstration that the persistent and systematic subordination of women underlies all other institutions.............

 

The premise is clear, and it is false.  This same sort of all-encompassing claim is likewise made for "systemic racism," which is itself a racist position:  The 1619 Project being but one outrageous example -- the primary intent of the Founding Fathers of the USA supposedly being to protect slavery, not to produce an inspired Constitution which contained the seeds of the death of both slavery and gender inequality, among other problems.  The call to perfection is a classic fallacy.  Humans have never been capable of perfection, and most of them are quite satisfied with the common effort to just cooperate and get along.  A little sincerity goes a long way.  And maybe a little forgiveness:

 

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...