Shutting Down BYU’s Women’s Research Institute
My name is Elisa. I am a senior at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, a famously conservative university owned and operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons. 98% of the student body subscribes to the LDS faith, but we are nevertheless an extremely diverse group of students, ideologically speaking. Of the approximate 30,000 students at BYU, 48% are female, and 2,691 students are enrolled in the Women’s Studies minor, almost 10 percent of the entire student population. At such a (let’s face it) conservative school, the fact that we even have a Women’s Studies minor is a pretty big deal, and the BYU Women’s Research Institute has contributed enormously to the university community since its founding in 1978. From 2006 to 2008 alone, the WRI funded 132 faculty research publications relating to women. Some of the brightest and most promising students at BYU are involved with this program.
However, on October 29th the BYU Administration issued a press release (that’s what it’s called, but in fact it’s nowhere to be found on the BYU website or in the school newspaper) saying that the WRI is being shut down come January 2010. The Administration claims that they are “streamlining and strengthening” the program but what they’re really doing is removing all funding WRI used to receive and consolidating it into one faculty research grant and a token amount of funding available for students. Most BYU students found out about this through blogs or other outside media sources rather than through the university itself, and to put it lightly, most of us are infuriated.
There’s a reason why this is being kept hush-hush. All major universities have a Women’s Studies Program, and shutting down ours is more than just a bad idea, it’s a disaster waiting to happen. Money is not the issue: BYU receives generous donations from LDS alumni even in this economy. Additionally, 52% of the WRI budget came from outside, non-BYU sources. This is, in short, another attempt by an overtly conservative administration to shut down any “feminist” activities— because a lack of education makes many people at this institution think feminism is a dirty word.
I believe in the importance of scholarly research devoted to women, and my friends and I are making as much of a fuss as we can. But this needs to get out. It’s an ESPECIALLY bad PR move for BYU, and by extension for the LDS Church, to shut down this program, and the more people know about this and express their disapproval, the better.
This is what I am telling those I write to who are not of our faith: Just because the choices LDS women make based on our faith are considered old-fashioned, doesn’t mean that we aren’t strong, intelligent women who believe in gender equality and everything else feminism stands for. I am proud to consider myself a feminist, and so do many other men and women at this university. We desperately want for this program to not go the way of several other important programs at this university (such as our International Development minor, another magnet for more liberal and therefore supposedly more dangerous students, which was eliminated recently), and it’s possible that if enough people outside of our community stand up for the WRI, maybe the higher-ups will change their minds.
One more thing: I may be a convert, a democrat, a feminist, and I may have a swearing problem that I still haven’t licked, but this is my church too. I’m not going anywhere, but it’s things like this that make it so hard to be a BYU student. This is not an issue of faith. Most of the students at BYU are faithful adherents to the LDS faith and are not being oppressed or silenced by the Church itself. Rather, it is the bureaucracy at the university level that is the source of the problem for myself and all other like-minded students here. I have found that my faith is one of the greatest sources of my personal empowerment as a women, and that my religious beliefs and my social beliefs complement rather than contradict each other. For BYU students, the solution is not to abandon our faith, rather to find ways to reconcile the beliefs of another generation to the ideals we uphold with as much fervor as we do our religion. Shutting down our Women’s Research Institute would be a step in the entirely wrong direction.
For more information, here is the official “press release”
http://news.byu.edu/archive09-Oct-womens.aspx
Most of us found out because of this article below, from an independent publication run by Mormons, which is unaffiliated with the Church or BYU officially:
http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleWRIFarewell.html
The Facebook group working to prevent this:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=17826594#/group.php?gid=169442383235&ref=ts
I’m not sure if the BYU student newspaper accepts letters from non-students, but here is a link to submit a letter to the editor:
http://universe.byu.edu/letters
More information about BYU in general:
http://yfacts.byu.edu/default.aspx
A couple of blog entries with some other students’ reactions:
http://sarathevranes.blogspot.com/2009/11/byu-is-out-to-get-me.html
I sincerely hope that BYU continues to support women’s studies and research.
Comment by Katie P. — November 4, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
I just sent in my Letter to the Editor!
Comment by Pinto — November 4, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
thanks for this elisa, your response is very well-written and persuasive. i’ll be posting a link to this on my fb page, as well as joining the group.
Comment by laurenlou — November 4, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
This is an extremely well-written post and I could not agree with you more.
Plus, you made me chuckle: “I may have a swearing problem that I still haven’t licked“. Didn’t hold J. Golden Kimball back…
Comment by Lawyer Lady — November 4, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
Some people in my stake have been pressuring my senior-in-high-school daughter to go to BYU (even going so far as to have an application sent to her). Even if she wanted to go, this news would make me seriously discourage her.
Comment by Idahospud — November 4, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
Talk about a self-fulfilling prophesy. . . you say that shutting down the Womens Research Institute will lead to bad press and then you do what you can to drum-up bad press.
Comment by Bemused — November 4, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
I never understood the point of “women’s studies.” Gender studies, sure, but courses and degrees designated solely for women? But, that’s just my opinion.
Comment by annaj — November 4, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
In reading the official press release, http://news.byu.edu/archive09-Oct-womens.aspx, it is not really clear to me that things will be LESS than they were in the programs. From a long-term perspective, I have come to realize that CHANGE is sometimes resisted, by those whom it will benefit, even when it is a GREAT one. I didn’t see that any programs, classes, professors, or degrees are disappearing. It may well be that MORE grant money will become available under a broader umbrella. It may be that the program as it was administered has lived out its most important usefulness as it stood, and that the new shift or streamlining possibly will make things easier to access and better understood. We are quick to think that changes like this are pointed in a certain direction. It may not be the case. I have jumped on enough bandwagons in my time to know what I am talking about. ( I was jumping on one today, spending several hours talking to my legislator’s office about a bill I helped come to life, and preparing to speak with the research analyst for the finance committee in our state, and to people on committees in both the house and senate.) Sometimes streamlining is just that.
Comment by anony R us — November 4, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
They got rid of my major (International Studies, Development emphasis) while I was still attending. They got rid of the Bachelors in Social Work in 2007. They just got rid of the International Development minor, and now this?! There is virtually nothing left at BYU that academically appeals to me. I am ashamed of all of these moves, particularly this last one. Shame on you, BYU.
Comment by Liz — November 4, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
anony- your link goes nowhere…
Comment by ..just call me cassandra — November 4, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
It looks like the link works if the comma at the end is removed:
http://news.byu.edu/archive09-Oct-womens.aspx
Comment by Ziff — November 4, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
And sometimes “streamlining” is another word for “eliminating”. Given BYU’s track record, not only will LESS grant money be available, but women’s studies will also be subsumed within the sociology department and eventually forgotten.
Comment by ECS — November 4, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
I see the press release noting a reorganization of the overhead structure of the program, but I don’t see anything about canceling the minor or discontinuing Women’s Studies. Am I missing a vital piece of information regarding course offerings at BYU?
Comment by Janell the Great — November 4, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
cassandra,
that’s because anony R us hyperlinked the comma, which makes it a bad link. Here is the link without the comma
http://news.byu.edu/archive09-Oct-womens.aspx
Comment by Dan — November 4, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
man i’m slow today. Ziff got there first. that’s what I get for reading the comments first.
Comment by Dan — November 4, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
#9, They also “got rid of” the Masters degree in history recently. Just FYI for your list.
Comment by Jared T. — November 4, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
I’m going to recycle a comment I made on Facebook about this: My thoughts on the BYU Women’s Studies Department closing are: (1) I’m not surprised, (2) I’m sorry they’re closing a helpful organization that benefits many people at BYU, but (3) I’m a little glad that the BYU administration’s true feelings about the value of women’s studies (and women!) is shining so clearly through the b.s. about men and women being equal partners with men presiding.
Comment by ECS — November 4, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
If my daughters decide to go to BYU, they can fund their own education, too. I’ll take their college funds and go on a great vacation with it.
Comment by Lulubelle — November 4, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
#17 ECS ~ I’m a little glad that the BYU administration’s true feelings about the value of women’s studies (and women!) is shining so clearly through the b.s. about men and women being equal partners with men presiding.
That was so well-said. I bow to you.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — November 4, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
#16 Jared T. ~ Really? That’s interesting. I applied to the MA in history program in 2005, but got rejected. I’d already been accepted to the more competitive program at the U though, so I didn’t feel too bad about it.
Then I dropped out of the U.
Now I’m at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where I was accepted to the History of Christianity in America program. They gave me notice earlier this year that they were getting rid of the program because no one had completed it in the 6 or 7 years since it’d been implemented, and they told me I’d be allowed to study all the same stuff under the Church History concentration.
Then they changed their minds and decided to keep the HCA program around just for lil’ ol’ me. I feel special.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — November 4, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
The press release says:
Granted, all I know about it is what I’ve read here, but from the press release, it sounds like
1. there will be more resources available for women’s studies (”significantly expanded resources”)
2. research won’t be limited to those faculty who were associated with the WRI - now “faculty across campus” can apply for grants to focus on women’s issues. I wonder how that will expand the scope of women’s studies - professors who previously didn’t take an interest in women’s studies might start to take an interest now.
My undergrad major was eliminated and my department was streamlined with another department as they phase it out. From what I understand, BYU is trying to streamline overall to get the most “bang for the buck”. Its primary purpose is as an undergrad university, and it is not as focused on research. One of its goals is also to prepare people to go out to be leaders. I think that results in more of a focus on business classes. Anyways, those are some of my thoughts as I read this. I don’t know that it’s necessarily a slight to feminism, although it’s probably a sign that feminism is not one of the primary goals of BYU (as the OP pointed out).
Comment by Stephanie — November 4, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
I meant to say that my department was combined with another department.
Comment by Stephanie — November 4, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
Anony r us, in the SquareTwo article Elisa linked to, it says that: “While the Women’s Studies Minor is to be housed in the Sociology Department (i.e., an interdisciplinary major housed in a disciplinary department), there will no longer be coordinated facilitation at BYU of research and scholarly dialogue concerning women, apart from one university-wide faculty research award and the transfer from the WRI of a small amount of research money for research on women to be given out by the university’s Office of Research and Creative Activities. Within the last twenty years of record-keeping, no other university in the country has eliminated its center of research concerning women.”
If that is true, than although no minors are being done away with, the research previously performed at the WRI will be seriously limited in scope to what it once was–so presumably no more things like the Mormon Women’s History Project, or the digital library of literary and scholarly works by women in the German language, or cataloging of the Women’s Manuscript Collection within the Harold B. Lee Library, or the WomanStats Database Project. And that is a shame.
Comment by de Pizan — November 4, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
It sounds to me like you are over reacting. Many universities streamline, yes, I said streamline, programs to increase funding. I know that BYU is not hurting for money in this economy, but that does not mean that they will not in the future. Putting smaller programs under a broader umbrella, does increase grant and funding possibilities.
On a personal note to Lulubelle…“If my daughters decide to go to BYU, they can fund their own education, too. I’ll take their college funds and go on a great vacation with it.”
It is extremely sad to me that you would deny your daughters a college education if they choose to go to BYU. Would you rather your daughters not go to college at all? It is a sad day to me when parents deny their children the ability to go to college for selfish reasons.
Comment by Kathy — November 4, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
The “higher-ups” and the “bureaucracy at the university level” that the original poster is railing against is the Quorum of the 12 apostles and the First Presidency of the church. As BYU is “The Lord’s University”, they are entitled to receive inspiration for BYU as well as for the Church. The inspiration they receive for BYU (including WRI) is every bit as inspired as the inspiration they receive for the church as a whole.
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 4, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
Does anybody have a link to information about the elimination of the International Development minor? When is that effective?
Comment by Liz — November 4, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
“Most of the students at BYU are faithful adherents to the LDS faith and are not being oppressed or silenced by the Church itself. Rather, it is the bureaucracy at the university level that is the source of the problem for myself and all other like-minded students here.”
This would be the University for which the Apostles constitute the board?
These things don’t happen in a vacuum. Someone high up is, at least, allowing this kind of attitude to continue.
Comment by Goldarn — November 4, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
Never mind, I’m an idiot. I just realized that it wasn’t shut down, but that it was almost shut down. Phew. Sorry to threadjack.
SAVE THE WRI!
Comment by Liz — November 4, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
#25 Former BYU Student ~ The inspiration they receive for BYU (including WRI) is every bit as inspired as the inspiration they receive for the church as a whole.
So in other words, when it comes to anything pertaining to women, it isn’t.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — November 4, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
BYU students….diverse???
Come on. You really need to get out more often.
Comment by Dawn — November 4, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
Just to be clear, I would say that the insipiration they receive in regard to women is also as inspired as everything else they recieve by inspiration for the church and BYU.
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 4, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
And I would say that conflating every decision that BYU makes as inspiration is totally uninspired. For one thing, the Board of Directors doesn’t make most of them. Furthermore, BYU is a school, it is not the church. BYU students and others, former or otherwise, would do well to note the distinction.
And further-furthermore, even if they did make this particular decision (or any other), apostles–while certainly inspired and some of God’s appointed teachers–are not infallible and can make mistakes (well-meaning, to be sure).
Comment by Artemis — November 4, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
#25)
If there is inspiration behind the decision then I look forward to seeing what will happen in the future. Until then the decision worries me. Also, many decisions at BYU are made without consulting the Board of Trustees (which is NOT composed of the entire Quorum of the Twelve and is an administrative body) - it’s a campus of over 25,000 students and to micro-manage that would be insane. There’s no reason to assume that this decision was or was not initiated by or explored fully by the Quorum of the 12 or the First Presidency. As such we should not be assuming that disagreement with this decision is disagreement with them. We can speculate on that, but we cannot assume it.
P.S. Also, isn’t every university the “Lord’s University” since the whole earth belongs to him? If not, at least BYU-Provo, BYU-Idaho, BYU-Hawaii, and all of the LDS Institutes of Religion worldwide should also qualify for that title, I’d argue. Nothing all that special about BYU-Provo.
Comment by NoCoolName_Tom — November 4, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
Sounds bad at first, but lots of questions. They are keeping the Women Studies minor. They only offered a minor before. Why does this convergence with the Social Science Department mean they won’t have a Women Studies Program?
Who gets to determine where the grant money goes? How does the previous funding get dispersed, or is it shut down? Hmmmm.
What do Bonnie Baliff-Spanvill (previous chair of WRI) and Prof. Renata Forste (new chair of the Women Studies minor) think of this change?
I want to get mad, but I wish I had a little more info. I don’t trust those old farts, a.k.a old conservative men.
Comment by Andrea — November 4, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
That postscript should be read with a smile, BTW; I’m not trying to be mean.
Comment by NoCoolName_Tom — November 4, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
There’s some naivete here about universities operate.
This would be the University for which the Apostles constitute the board?
But university boards rarely get involved in this kind of thing. University boards get involved in BIG-ticket issues. Show some evidence that the Q12 are in on this, please. In fact, the press release says, “Based upon recommendations by an interdisciplinary faculty committee, Brigham Young University has reorganized its programs in women’s studies.”
Ya wanna bitch about it, find the members on the interdisciplinary faculty committee.
And please, let’s separate BYU from the gospel, just like many of us who have to interface with the Church’s IT effort have learned to separate the gospel from the software.
BYU is not the gospel/the Church, and vice versa. Keep that in mind.
Comment by queuno — November 4, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Just to be clear, I would say that the insipiration they receive in regard to women is also as inspired as everything else they recieve by inspiration for the church and BYU.
I don’t doubt you would.
But if I want to hear a bunch of men wax on about how it’s a woman’s role to stay in the home, cook meals, change diapers and raise children while the men win the bread and run the religions, I don’t have to go to Mormonism to hear that. That’s what damn near every religion and culture has taught about women since the dawn of civilization.
That’s the further light and knowledge, the inspired counsel that God needs His chosen prophets to proclaim to the women of the world? Yeah right.
So if the elimination of the WRI is simply following in those footsteps, you’ll have to forgive me if I remain skeptical of any potential inspiration.
(And just in case anyone thinks I’m being extreme in my assessment of what the LDS church teaches about the role of women, I invite you to check out the 2003 Eternal Marriage Institute Student Manual. The section on women working outside the home is quite the gem.)
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — November 4, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
You know, we are in a recession–nearing on a depression. This decision could be based solely on economics. I notice that Florida Atlantic University, The University of Guelph (in Canada) and the National Unversity of Ireland, Galway (NUIG) have all curtailed or limited their women’s studies programs.
Of course, the fact that this program in particular, that studies a full half of humanity, is the one to feel the sharp blade of the axe first has its own problems.
Comment by djinn — November 4, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
@33 -
That is an interesting question regarding BYU-Idaho and BYU-Hawaii. Do they have a WRI equivalent? If they did, is it also being “streamlined/eliminated”?
Just my opinion, but I would think that something as important as eliminating the WRI, which no other University has eliminated a similar department in recent history and is a potentially explosive issue, would have to have been seriously considered by the apostles who are on the Board of Trustees (if not the whole Quorum)
@32 - I have to agree that not EVERY decision is inspired. They eliminated my major while I was away on my mission and I had to switch majors when I got back. Then, when I was about to graduate, the reintroduced my former major. What the . . .?!?! On the other hand, maybe it was inspiration. Maybe God really didn’t want me to take that major, so He made them eliminate it just during the time I would be at BYU so that I could take that major.
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 4, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
Bridgit - Sorry for the confusion. I realize my comments may have come across poorly. Are you familiar with New Order Mormons? Read my comments in that context to get my real meaning.
I am a feminist and fully support my wife (who has a PhD) and support all women in equal rights and treatment.
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 4, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
Bridgit - by the way, that link to ” women working outside the home” is quite a piece of work. My wife should deconstruct it on her blog (www.thirdwavemormon.blogspot.com).
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 4, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
#40 Former BYU Student ~ Forgive me. I hesitate to use the term “TBM” because of its negative connotations, but your comments sounded horribly TBM-ish.
I’m not totally sure if I understand how you intended them now, but if you’d like to try to explain I’m listening.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — November 4, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
And I agree, it’s quite the piece of work. I can understand comments like that being made in the 70s, but I’m just amazed that the church thought it was suitable for a 2003 instruction manual.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — November 4, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
I am not TBM, but I did clearly hide my comments behind TBM rhetoric.
Essentially, I believe your comment “So in other words, when it comes to anything pertaining to women, it isn’t.” applies equally well to all the “inspiration” received in guiding the Church.
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 4, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Ah, gotcha.
Sorry. Must be a slow(er) night for me.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — November 4, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
You might wanna add this to the post: You can provide feedback directly to President Samuelson here: http://unicomm.byu.edu/president/feedback.aspx
Comment by Steve M — November 4, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
Bridget Jack Meyers, you are my fMh crush. Good luck Elisa, I’m sending this to my friend @ BYU, and my other girlfriends in college.
Former BYU Student, the men leading the church are fallible and subject to their own bias and shortcomings. I know this is stereotyping but I’m willing to bet that old, conservative men who preach about women’s “traditional” roles in the home aren’t going to care about Women’s Studies and the like. I would guess even if this decision came to the Board of Trustees, they wouldn’t have thought much of it. The church hasn’t really shied away from explosive issues as of late.
Comment by Theolina — November 4, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
Essentially what this means is that the WRI will now be controlled by men. That an independent feminist department, run by women, will now be part of the sociology department, run by men.
Remember the Relief Society as an independent autonomous organization? With its own budget? Its own fundraising? Its own magazine? Subsumed under the priesthood, through correlation.
And thus goes the WRI….
Comment by Not Ophelia — November 4, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
Theolina,
Maybe those old, conservative men have taken their eyes off the ball lately, having been distracted by those other “explosive issues”. The church in general could sure use some real inspiration with regard to it’s women (Priesthood for the women, anyone?).
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 4, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
That is more true than many people realize or accept.
I’d really like to see some interviews with them. Anyone have a link?
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — November 4, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
Rebecca J’s post on BCC offers an interesting perspective.
Comment by Stephanie — November 4, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
I worked as a research assistant at the WRI for 2.5 years as an undergraduate, so this news makes me sad. It taught me a lot, and helped me develop the career path I’m now on. I will do some research via the links provided and determine where my feedback can make an impact.
Comment by Channing — November 4, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
I agree with Natalie’s post at BCC and Rebecca J’s comments, but you just can’t say with a straight face that BYU is committed to promoting research regarding women’s studies within other academic departments. Have you read BJM’s link in comment #37? BYU committed to maintaining or increasing the profile of this research to help women? N.F.W. (not directed at you specifically Stephanie - just sayin’)
Comment by ECS — November 4, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
“It’s my church too.”
Hmmm..
Where is the press release? You quoted from it but I don’t see a source for it. You sure do pack a lot of accusations and dire conclusions from this. Maybe you ought to ask the administration first hand about what is going on and voice your concerns to them.
Comment by trent — November 4, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
#47 Thanks, Theolina. I’ve had a crappy week. Nice to hear I’m still loved (in some quarters). It cheers me up a bit. ♥
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — November 4, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. This move is disappointing, but not surprising. As a feminist at BYU in the late ’90s, I was involved in so many fights with the administration, over things so basic as: placing visual representations of physical and sexual abuse victims (i.e., flags, artwork–nothing sexually graphic) on campus during an awareness week; improving on-campus daycare; improving maternity leave for female professors, etc. The fact that BYU is run by a general authority makes these fights even tougher. Universities are by their nature places where students learn to challenge authority, push back against assumptions, and express their opinions. But it’s really hard to stick it to the man when “the man” is a general authority. My frustrations with this ultimately led me to graduate as soon as was humanly possible, even though part of me would have loved to take advantage of my scholarship and stay for more classes on my scholarship from some of the amazing professors I had.
And Bridget Jack Meyers–I could not believe those materials were being used in 2003!!! Those statements are utterly offensive, the logic faulty, and the data (divorces being traced to mothers working, women working so they could have a new car instead of more children) highly suspect (and conveniently uncited).
It seems I am constantly bombarded by requests to donate to BYU. The few times when I have donated, I have requested that my money go towards the WRI. What will happen to my (admittedly meager) donations?
Comment by Sofia — November 4, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
Lulubelle, I think most of us should, in fact, let our kids fund their own educations, for the most part.
My kids saved their money all their lives for missions and college…they were and are very independent. They studied a lot harder in school when they knew it was their ticket to good scholarship ops. Working and going to school works too, once you have a good chunk saved to get you started.
Too many kids seem to have a sense of entitlement about their parents paying for their college, and lots of other things. It can be done, but some people don’t prepare, and then they just believe debt or parental funding is the way to go, and keep on enjoying their life style. Some parents are not willing for their kids to do without a few things.
My dad said the exact same thing to me as you would say to your daughter… “if you go to BYU , you are ON YOUR OWN. ” Of course, he wasn’t LDS. So I saved my $$$ and worked myself through BYU. I love my BYU experience. THE BEST! And I am pretty sure I benefited from him forcing me to be on my own nickel. I appreciated every class I paid for.
But there would most likely be wierd dynamics going on if you are LDS and feel that way about BYU, so you could pretty much sabatoge your daughter’s chances of enjoying it . Send her to the UofU. They have great women’s studies there! There are tons of options. BYU is not for everyone.
Along the way, most universities phase out programs, majors, and some graduates studies. A friend of mine was recently ready to go for graduate school ( not at BYU), when she got the call her area of study had been ELIMINATED. Streamlined and eliminated really are NOT the same thing, in most cases.
Trust me, there are alot of changes happening due to economics in every phase of life. Keep your eyes open. It isn’t over.
Comment by anony R us — November 4, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
Here’s some thoughts from a former teacher at the WRI.
http://weightermatters.blogspot.com/2009/11/death-of-byu-womens-research-institute.html
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 4, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
re: 21
I think this is a huge problem generally in higher education today. Because they are more marketable, business programs are getting a huge emphasis. Being a leader involves a lot more than a thorough grounding in conventional business theory and practice–in fact, I’d suggest being a leader often involves rejecting conventional business practice. But the various programs and departments which provide the breadth of understanding which assists us to be an effective citizens and leaders–programs like Women’s Studies–are being underfunded and axed all over the place, and our students and citizens are getting more and more tunnel vision as a result. Sad. I would expect more of an institution which prides itself on being “in the world, but not of it.” Then again, the football program already proves that maxim to be a lie.
Comment by Derek — November 4, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
This information is disappointing. Imagine what BYU is capable of, and now imagine what it actually accomplishes.
And in the thread of comments, surprisingly, many conflate the role of GA with the role of administrator, misunderstanding that the two are not identical. One might be inspired as a religious leader, but not necessarily inspired as an administrator in a secular capacity. This of course invites the comments whether an administrator at BYU is a secular role, which I submit it is.
BYU is now less friendly to women and moderately minded individuals, and the role of women-focused studies will disappear into the night. The behind the scenes politics might be fascinating, but like matters behind totalitarian type forms of administrations, we shall never know. Lest some orthodox be offended by the analogy, how could one compare BYU administration to a transparent organization? One cannot. Transparency will never rule the day there, only some days are worse than others. Let’s hope that this mistake will be realized and the WRI will be re-established in years to come.
Comment by Origen — November 4, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
What an eloquent post! I loved reading it and it has incited me to want to act in some way! As a feminist, moderate, LDS professor (and minor in women’s studies) of women’s studies, it bothers me that such a huge change has been made, effective in TWO MONTHS!~
It is the same way I feel about the equal rights amendment- which, by the way, never passed. There is no equal rights amendment in our country. How insane is that!?
I feel the same way about this program being “streamlined.”
Comment by Crystal — November 4, 2009 @ 10:36 pm
Origen -
There is some fascinating research on this topic by Michael Quinn (The Mormon Hierarchy - Volume 2) and Gregory Prince (David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism) where they have chapters that discuss administration at BYU. Both books are interesting reads about BYU and the anti-communism era, including student spy rings at BYU to rid the campus of liberals, feminists, and communists.
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 4, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
I’m not certain about the analogy between the WRI and the ERA, which had vastly different legal connotations, as opposed to an emphasis on women in academic education. No reason to conflate everything with a feminist influence into a binary analysis, IMHO. Things might be viewed under a granular approach.
Comment by Origen — November 4, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
D. Michael Quinn has conducted research for decades, and written numerous books. Currently, even though last I heard, he was mostly unemployed, he is perhaps the biggest force in researching Mormon historical issues, Armand Mauss and Jan Shipps notwithstanding their focuses.
The Prince book is a must read, so I agree. Fortunately, enough capable scholars find Mormon issues interesting enough, that we can view how things work administratively. Nonetheless, the veil of secrecy mostly remains.
The recent MMM book is a step in the right direction.
Comment by Origen — November 4, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
My sister went to BYU and minored in Women’s Studies. She also helped started VOICES. After seeing all the B.S. she went through, I decided there was no way I was going to BYU. Best decision I ever made. I wonder what BYU would do if they lost 10% of their student boy who dropped out in protest.
Comment by Risa — November 4, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
Dude, I need to edit..
That should say, “She also helped START”
and, “lost 10% of their study BODY”
Comment by Risa — November 4, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
Certainly any recent decisions are under a deep veil of secrecy. However, if the current decisions mirror the past at all, we can get a decent idea of how things might be developing under that veil of secrecy.
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 4, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
I doubt the male students would protest too much if 10% of the women dropped out (well, I guess if there were less eligible women to date . . . not that the feminists are generally considered eligible), I just remember letters to the editor of the Daily Universe when I was a BYU student proposing that women be banned from admission to BYU to open up the enrollment to more men who need the education to be “breadwinners”.
GRRRR. . . .
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 4, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
anony R us
I funded my own education, both my Bachelor’s and Master’s, and it was anything but easy. My parents could not afford to pay for college, so I had to find my own way. However, they would have paid if they could. My college education was important to them, and they felt bad that they could not even help a little bit.
I worked for scholarships, and when those were not enough I took out loans. It was (and is-I am still paying on my student loans) worth every penny. I worked hard in college, not because I was paying for it, but because I value education. My parents instilled that in me. They felt it was their responsibility to help provide for my education. I feel the same way towards my children.
Your generalization is bothersome. Just because parents have the ability and desire to pay for their children’s college education, does not mean the children will value it less. But to flat out deny college funding (or help in college funding) because of the choice of school, is just selfish.
Comment by Kathy — November 4, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
OOPS! Sorry Natalie B. I’m not sure why I credited Rebecca J as the author of your post. Please accept my apologies.
Comment by Stephanie — November 4, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
#68
Boy, am I glad that I went to a University where I was considered very eligible. Because all the men weren’t sexist a-holes who were afraid of women being smarter than them.
Comment by Risa — November 4, 2009 @ 11:27 pm
From the Salt Lake Tribune:
“The decision to restructure BYU women’s studies came after a year-long review by a five-member interdisciplinary faculty committee, David Magleby, dean of the College of Family, Home and Social Sciences, wrote in an e-mail to faculty last week.”
Of course the news comes from a man. I wonder how many women were on this five-member interdisciplinary faculty committee?
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_13713945
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 4, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
I hate BYU bashing. Need more info. before I can throw any stones.
Comment by Lupita — November 4, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
From the Deseret News:
“Faculty members were from the colleges of Sociology, Family, Home and Social Sciences, Education, Nursing and Life Sciences. The current director of the Women’s Research Institute, Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill, was not on the committee, Jenkins said”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705342250/BYU-cuts-Womens-Research-Institute.html?pg=1
Still no answers on how many women were on that committee . . .
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 4, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
From the Deseret News:
Political science professor and one of 83 Women’s Research Institute faculty affiliates, Valerie Hudson said she worries others may misinterpret the change.
“(The WRI) is a symbol that research on women is a priority to my university,” she said. “I can’t say that anymore.”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705342250/BYU-cuts-Womens-Research-Institute.html?pg=2
That is just sad.
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 4, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
RE: Eternal Marriage Student Manual: Mothers’ Employment Outside the Home
“Do not sacrifice your preparation for an eternally ordained mission for the temporary expediency of money-making skills which you may or may not use” –Ezra Taft Benson
Perhaps they are renigging on their encouragement to women to get an education?!?
I don’t like the closing of the WRI.
RE #48, isn’t Prof. Renata Forste (chair of the Sociology Dept) a woman?
Comment by ErinAnn — November 4, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
aaaaaaaaaand I meant “reneging”
Comment by ErinAnn — November 4, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
Kathy,
I have to disagree, if this were my daughter going to BYU, I am not going to fund some classes in the Family, Home, and Social Sciences. I will be sending her to get a degree, not her MRS. She wants a degree in Family Life, I will not pay for that. A BS in Family Life degree will not help her find gainful employment. Granted, there are some useful courses in that collage, but I think it would be unwise to fund that degree course.
Comment by StarieNite — November 4, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
I dislike BYU for MANY reasons and didn’t want to threadjack. It’s my money so if I want to spend it funding an education, I get a big say on where they are going. My dad told me the opposite when I got acceptance letters from BYU, UCLA, USC, and Georgetown. Go to any school but if you go to BYU I’ll pay; elsewhere and you pay. I went to BYU and felt like I was on Mars. I left and went to school elsewhere and it was a great decision. But when my dad gave me the offer of paying for school if I went to BYU, not once did I say, “What the hell, dad, you would deny me a fantastic education at UCLA? You are so selfish.” Nope, his money/his choice. The reasons I feel this way are really beside the point.
Comment by Lulubelle — November 4, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
Clarify: I meant to write “the reasons I feel this way about BYU are really beside the point.”
Comment by Lulubelle — November 4, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
Announcement: There will be a rally tomorrow night at BYU about the WRI.
From Exponent:
Attend “Save BYU’s Women’s Research Institute” and Parity’s rally on Thursday evening from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. in room 270 of the SWKT.
http://the-exponent.com/2009/11/05/save-the-womens-research-institute/
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 4, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
#78… seriously?
I went to a state school and got my undergrad in Human Development with an emphasis in family studies. I am so glad my parents choose to continue to pay for my education even if I was getting a “Mrs.” degree. I loved my undergrad classes and I’m so glad no one threatened me to discontinue them. My parents did counsel me that I should seriously consider getting a graduate degree., which is what I’m currently doing.
Comment by shannon j — November 5, 2009 @ 12:16 am
There seems to be a lot of outrage and anger at BYU here, and maybe it is warranted and maybe not. I’m not a graduate, and have only been on campus once.
I will point out again what has already been said among the comments. BYU is not the only university that is streamlining/eliminating women’s studies into sociology departments. In addition, other ______ studies get the same treatment, mostly due to the lack of funding available for these largely unprofitable areas of study. If you keep up with higher education politics, you’ll see this sort of thing happening in almost any department that isn’t profitable for a university, including most humanitites and social sciences. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad, I’m not really sure. I do know that just because things change does not necessarily mean it does not have the potential to bring improvement.
I do know that jumping to the easy assumptions — just more evidence of the backward patriarchal ways of the church — ignores the current state of the humanities in higher education in general.
Comment by Jana H — November 5, 2009 @ 12:26 am
I suppose I can understand there being some feeling that this is a symbolic slap in the face to women, but my experiences at BYU right now are quite different from the tone I am seeing on this thread.
I am currently involved in many different ways at BYU, with a particular focus on supporting women and addressing women’s issues. Even as a simple volunteer, I am being *heard* and in my involvement, I am seeing much and having many conversations that really challenge the accusation that the university doesn’t care about women. I had an idea, and shared it w/ a professor, and almost immediately, a dean set up a meeting to discuss it. I made a phone call to a professor in another college on campus to discuss the things we had talked about here on the fourth wave feminism thread, and just like that, more ideas were flowing. I had another meeting elsewhere, and poof! New things will be coming from that meeting.
I get frustrated when people see one thing and wild accusations about the general sentiment about women in the Church (and more specifically about BYU) start flying as though they are absolute truth. I understand that some of you struggle w/ feeling valued, etc. and, of course, any institution will have its foibles (and I have seen some of that at BYU, sure) but please, leave room for the fact that maybe some of what is going on is your perception, not a full and clear representation of reality.
To me, there is much more to caring about women than having a separate research institute, and I am seeing a lot of care and concern for the women at the school. I am hopeful that that will continue (and it will, if I have anything to say and do about it!)
One last thought — if I were an administrator, responses like some of those here would increase concerns about the way feminism can go to an extreme. This thread is frustrating to me as someone who has invested a lot for the sake of women, and I can only imagine how frustrating it might be to those who invest even more into doing their best to make sure that women’s needs are noticed and addressed.
I feel it makes everything harder (dialogue and any efforts toward change) when people go so quickly to demonizing the Church and, in this situation, the administration and/or people who have been involved in making decisions. I get tired of people assuming and asserting that Church leaders are the enemy, that they don’t care, that this institution is somehow not caring, that only a man could make such a decision, etc. etc. etc.
Another recent thread here wanted to claim that feminists are not men-haters, but really, folks, some of the comments here get pretty darn close to that kind of sentiment. The tone of many of the comments here, imo, make feminists look a bit irrational.
It’s also personally discouraging to be working my tail off in many ways to make sure women continue to be on the radar screen only to have people in one fell swoop just dismiss the whole institution and anyone associated with it as hopelessly sexist and uncaring. You dismiss women in that fell swoop, and a lot of men with whom I interact who care deeply about women and meeting their educational and life preparation needs.
I wish more people would be willing to step back from knee-jerk responses to decisions like this, give some benefit of the doubt, find out more information and consider other elements of the university’s efforts that may actually be positive, rather than taking one decision and assuming it reflects the worst that could be imagined.
Comment by m&m — November 5, 2009 @ 12:37 am
M&M said:
“please, leave room for the fact that maybe some of what is going on is your perception, not a full and clear representation of reality.”
This goes for both those at BYU and observing from a distance. One’s isolated experiences are very poor data to use for drawing general conclusions. You need to amass a large amount of data from multiple sources before you can make any firm conclusions.
Unfortunately, the decision to eliminate the WRI does not seem to be a step forward for women. Are there legitimate reasons to do that do not substantiate our worst fears? Absolutely! Does eliminating the WRI also seem to fit into a well established pattern of patriarchy and silencing women’s voices that has occurred in the church? Absolutely! Our, perhaps illogical, leap to the worst of conclusions comes from prior experience with the church and BYU and their decisions. Our perception of reality is absolutely colored by our prior experience. We would just prefer to overreact and be relieved when it isn’t a big deal, than underreact and have women further silenced.
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 5, 2009 @ 12:50 am
#43 I feel sick. My Husband and I just decided that When they say Necessity only should dictate a women working out of the home that Necessity could be my mental state of mind.hehehe What really irritates me is that no where do they tell men to pick up the slack at home. It doesn’t even occur to them. So sad
Comment by CZ — November 5, 2009 @ 1:00 am
CZ -
My wife and I thought the same thing about the wording of “necessity.” Then we decided that it was psychologically damaging to her to think that she is somehow “broken” or “less than ideal” because she prefers to work outside the home.
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 5, 2009 @ 1:06 am
@82
That was your parents prerogative. I wouldn’t prohibit her from attending BYU and would support her choice to pursue whatever degree path she wanted, but I would not financially support a decision that I disagreed with. I would look over the requirements for the degree she choose and tell her what courses I would be willing to pay for. I would still pay for her dorm and things related to that, but not the course work (same for my son). Sometimes being a big kid and going to college and deciding that you want to do what you want means that you have to make sacrifices. Like paying for it yourself.
My husbands did the same thing recently. They told him that they would pay for school if he entered a Pharmacy Tech program. He declined it wasn’t what he wanted, but they didn’t want to pay for what he wanted to do. It isn’t about being selfish, they felt that would be something that would give us a more comfortable and better life, and didn’t think what my husband wanted to do would be wise. They love him and support him, but won’t do so financially.
Comment by StarieNite — November 5, 2009 @ 1:14 am
Ideally, I would like to see women’s studies being such a large part of regular studies that doesn’t have to have its own category. Also, that people can’t get away with not studying women because studying women happens everywhere, not just in Women’s Studies.
Similar to women and medicine. The fact is that diseases sometimes present differently in women. We need women’s medicine so women’s medical care can improve. But does that mean that 90% of doctors start considering themselves doctors of the default “men.” That isn’t helpful. We need doctors to know how every disease affects BOTH men AND women.
I can’t tell if this move will be a good thing or bad thing for women. It sounds like a step back, but with some token statements that it is a positive change. I’m guessing only time will tell.
Perhaps there will be negatives, but perhaps there will be many positives from this change. I don’t completely understand how university stuff like this works. Keep us updated.
As for inspiration and the church, I believe God is a feminist. However, feminism is not his only agenda! His work and his glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
Comment by jks — November 5, 2009 @ 1:58 am
Hi. I wrote this.
Just to clarify, the WR Institute itself is being eliminated, not the Women’s Studies minor. That’s being moved to the Sociology department instead of being under the interdisciplinary umbrella of the WRI. Does that make sense?
See the Square Two link for more information about the WRI and more information about the research they do. Did?
#30 I was referring to the ideological diversity of BYU specifically. I have friends who are BYU students who espouse every political philosophy you can think of. If that weren’t so, I wouldn’t have written the post to begin with. Hell, I wouldn’t be reading this blog.
#38 The money argument is a possibility, but seeing as 52% of the WRI funding came from grants outside BYU, that doesn’t seem too likely. There are lots of other programs and such that could have been eliminated.
Also, I agree with what others have said that the SYMBOLIC importance of having a WRI at a university cannot be ignored. Like it or not, eliminating a program says something about how much the university community values whatever they’re eliminating. When they phased out the Soil Science major, that says BYU doesn’t care a whole lot about dirt, or that they feel the study of dirt could be better facilitated in other programs.
Which could say something about BYU and environmentalism, but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion, I think.
Comment by Elisa — November 5, 2009 @ 2:44 am
I thank heavens my parents let me make my own decissions about where I went to school and what I studdied. I attended BYU and was happy to graduate after 6 years of rehashing what my major would be. I went from Chemistry to Biochemestry to Biophysics to Biology then finally to English.
My parents supported me every step of the way even when they found out that I was going into an area of study that is not very profitable. I had an emphasis in Old English Literature. I was outraged when I found out that BYU no longer required English majors to take Shakespeare. But attending BYU taught me lots of things about BYU. Overall the expereince was great. Heck, if you only had the option of sending your child to the library for higher education then you’d be doing him a favor by sending him there. I wouldn’t refuse to be educated anywhere, no matter what the policies of the school were. Professors educate, not policies or bureaucracy. That is, of couse, behind yourself: your main educator.
BYU is a breading ground for oppertunities to buck authority. Only there you have a good portion of the student body to buck back in its defense. Anyone who can see things critically and has attended BYU will know that BYU contains a spectrum of views much wider than any other campus in America. Top feeders that think your sinning for walking on the grass to bottomfedders who remain in the church only so they can undermine any conservitive notion that rears its head. Up, down, left, right, gayrights, racism, people believing that God will one day let gays get married in the temple, women and men who want nothing more than to prove how tolerant they are by accepting any lifestyle. It is all there; Drugs, sex, violence, guilt, true happiness, morals. The truth is that we live in a fallen world and the only truth that is universal is the truth God can place inside you. This world offers no truth, only endless opinions that can never be proved thanks to the subjective nature of fallen language. Of course the critical thinker learns to think for himself. He disregards professors’ opinions that don’t make sense and learns to tip-toe his way through the fanaticals while presenting his opinion respectfully and professionally. He finds the kernels of wisdom in any professor’s class and disregards the husk. He learns to accept people but disagree respectfully. All of this is made more poignant at a campus with robot brained conservatives and mush brained liberals, neither one taught to ever have an original thought. Many parot what sounds good without ever looking at an issue from any other angle.
The two negative things that stuck with me the most since graduation have been that 1)BYU is run as a business, like most universities. 2) BYU professors hate each other.
1) Her article mention that the WRI has drawn some of the sharpest minds, i do not doubt this, but I question the returns from it–meaning, how much are these bright minds glorifying BYU, making it attractive for the other brightest minds in the nation, and how profitable is the WRI. Mariot Business has a reputation and get millions in donation from former students. BYU isn’t know for its Women’s studies and therefore can’t attract the kind of students and faculty to make it ivy league material in this respect. Lets face it, the BYU bureaucracy want a name for itself, and it wants funding. When women’s studies underperfroms it takes a hit. Thy don’t want to admit that they are greedy or vainglorious, so they studder when trying to defend their position to cut the institute.
2) There are some really bitter professors that manage the school to a degree far more intimate than the BoD. These are the deparment heads that do their best to push their own agendas. Anyone who has been to a University should recognize that acedemics, politics, and personal vendetta go ring-around-the-rosies. If a professor doesn’t care for what is being produced from an institute, then he has no reason to defend it. Many professors are looking out for number one, the more that falls around them, the more secure they feel in their bastions of personal ideology. Don’t get me wrong, there are so many amazing teachers at BYU, but it only takes one fox to empty the hen house. This has been pushed by an individual or individuals and in no way represents the Church’s views on women’s studies. It represents bureaucracy’s greed. (When is the last time you saw a beer comercial targeted at women, or a Target comercial brewed for a man’s tastes?)
Let’s be honest though. I studied Old English that has a two year rotation for class offerings. I found a way to wedge BYU’s absurd timeframe into working for me. Women’s studies will still be alive for anyone intersted enough to do what it takes to learn it, kind of like what it took for me to delve into the very foundations of English literature, which I found to be the richest vein of English. I still read Shakespeare on my own, though no one forces me to do it. Sometime I feel that the things I worked the hardest to learn were the most meaningful for me. Perhaps this is the Lord’s way of rewarding those that put effort into their education.
Women Play an important role in everyone’s life. My Mother taught me how to respect women and my two sisters showed me the amazing results a righteous woman can accomplish–they are the most talented, accomplished, and intelligent people I know(they write, act, bike, workout, landscape, teach, read, serve, work their jobs, love their husbands and raise their children to love each other and their fellowmen). The truth of the matter is that education on these issues, women’s studies that is, should start in the home. Let a school do what it wants, teach your sons that women are equals and have value beyond being a companion and a homemaker by showing them with your example. Uh-oh, I think i just fell into a Church ploy-pit, falling back to the role a woman should have in a family. I excuse myself though, because as I always say, I’m half woman( my mom was a woman). Plant in your children the seed that will make them sensitive to the plight of women throughout the world. Help them be interested in seeing every aspect an issue can have, and then let them make their own choices. The last thing I think women want is to become the bearer of oppressive ideology that teaches their sons that they have no worth because they are men and that men bring every social ill into the world.
Enough of my raving rantings
My apologies is you took the time to read it all.
Comment by KirkyTurkey — November 5, 2009 @ 2:44 am
Also, sorry about the misunderstanding re: the International Development minor. I had heard it was completely eliminated, apparently it only came close. See sarahthevranes’ blog entry for a little more information about that.
Comment by Elisa — November 5, 2009 @ 2:48 am
You need to amass a large amount of data from multiple sources before you can make any firm conclusions.
True, dat. But you have to then realize that a good majority of women are actually happy in the Church. The frustrated feminist claims that women are so oppressed and repressed and suppressed in the Church doesn’t reflect what I think most of us feel. Have we run into individuals who don’t get it? Sure. Are there things we don’t fully understand with how things are? Of course. But I think if we present or interpret the doctrine as somehow casting us aside, it’s a misrepresentation of truth.
I don’t ever want to be misunderstood as negating the reality that some women struggle. But then you have to acknowledge the reality that many women don’t. And that isn’t just from ignorance or ignoring the issues.
We would just prefer to overreact and be relieved when it isn’t a big deal, than underreact and have women further silenced.
But there is a case in point. That assumes that women are so silenced to begin with, which doesn’t reflect how many (I’d dare say most) women in the Church feel. As such, there is another ‘we’ that assumes good intent and purposes unless proven otherwise.
And I think too often there isn’t enough meeting in the middle of those ‘we’s. I know that things aren’t perfect, but things really aren’t as bad as some feminists make them sound.
Frankly, I can’t see how overreacting actually would *help* this particular situation. If anything, imo, if there are any stereotypes or concerns about feminism, as there may be w/ some people, I think that such overreaction would only feed and strengthen those concerns. For all that I want to defend feminism to some degree (because I don’t want extreme reactions to go either way and I don’t think all feminists should be dismissed as somehow a threat), threads like this feed my frustration with feminists and how sometimes things are handled and, imo, thrown out of proportion.
It seems to me that if you really care about this, you won’t go in with your guns drawn, assuming the worst in those whom you are trying to persuade to change their minds. That never works. We don’t have to be at war to talk about things that matter. And I don’t think you should assume those who made the decisions are at war, either.
Comment by m&m — November 5, 2009 @ 2:49 am
m&m — I really appreciated your use of white space, clear spellings and logical progression. Thank you.
Former BYU Student — thank you for the link to the essay.
http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/04/goodbye-womens-research-institute/#comment-164153 has another good comment on the program from someone in it. See also http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/04/goodbye-womens-research-institute/#comment-164159
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — November 5, 2009 @ 7:22 am
M&M #93 regarding your statement: “It seems to me that if you really care about this, you won’t go in with your guns drawn, assuming the worst in those whom you are trying to persuade to change their minds. ”
I respectfully disagree. Conflict and authentic open discussion about conflict, even when it is full of emotion, allows us to face our fears, clarify the facts, know the difference and swim through the muddy waters to surface in a place that can bring light and truth to a situation.
I walk into the most hostile meetings in our school district and facilitate this process. I have had papers thrown at me, watched people cry, been threatened with legal action, falsely accused and had people pound the table and scream in my face.
These were parents and educators facing very difficult situations and options regarding their children. Understand that people need to release their emotions, in order to be ready to transition to a more cooperative state.
It hurts to open one’s heart and talk about what matters. On should let the pain out and let it go, then one’s heart is ready to receive new information. In the words of Jesus Chirst.
Luke 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.”
Comment by Jo — November 5, 2009 @ 7:30 am
But you have to then realize that a good majority of women are actually happy in the Church. The frustrated feminist claims that women are so oppressed and repressed and suppressed in the Church doesn’t reflect what I think most of us feel.
I admit that I am biased, my wife has essentially left the church due to its stance on women. Of course, she now hangs out with other women who have left the church due to its stance on women, so I have a biased perspective that does not reflect the majority of active LDS women. Their position, is largely to reject as feminism.a position that has been forced on women by old, conservative men over the pulpit of the church with the threat that if they do not accept that view of women, their God is displeased with them and they are in danger of eternal damnation. The role of women as dictated by the Proclamation on the Family, is not feminism.
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 5, 2009 @ 8:02 am
m& m beautifully stated. Going in guns balzing is more likely to get people shot than get them thinking.
BYU is not the gospel, BYU is not the gospel, BYU is not the gospel…..
Comment by britt — November 5, 2009 @ 8:35 am
[…] one post in particular caught my attention: Elise at Feminist Mormon Housewives gave an impassioned plea to BYU to retain the […]
Pingback by BYU Eliminating its Women’s Research Institute | Main Street Plaza — November 5, 2009 @ 10:03 am
thank you 97
(Byu is not the gospel)x3
Comment by S — November 5, 2009 @ 10:48 am
So why are you willingly participating in and financially supporting such an obvious and overtly patriarchal educational facility?
Rhetorical question.
Comment by barmy stoat — November 5, 2009 @ 11:29 am
BYU is constantly making terrible, terrible decisions. I’m sorry they’re canceling your program. They decided to cut a class I have been waiting my entire law school career to take (only offered 2nd semester, 3rd year) because of the hiring freeze. So anyway, when BYU comes begging for donations post graduation, let them know where they stand.
Comment by Motion de Smiths — November 5, 2009 @ 11:45 am
Ohh! And also, I want to meet you. Come audit feminist legal theory next semester. Tu/W/Th at 10.
Comment by Motion de Smiths — November 5, 2009 @ 11:46 am
#91 said:
I disagree– BYU is run like the church. No one gets fired (unless you’re liberal).
Comment by Motion de Smiths — November 5, 2009 @ 11:50 am
The administrative solidarity, together, with the hegemony of Mormon authoritarianism render alternatives for the disenfranchised few opportunities. It is difficult to be a Mormon leader, as one cannot kick against the pricks, yet one may wish to be sympathetic to legitimate concerns.
The Mormon hegemony by its very nature oppresses diversity and common interests of educated, moderate women. It’s not necessarily by virtue of active intent but often a function of the nature of hegemony, and Mormon cultural and traditional respect for authority. And then, like Ernie Wilkerson, you have some who abuse their authority without repercussions leading to disillusionment. What options does a disappointed believer have? This news is disappointing and a sign the retrenchment against minority position. Please lest somebody esteem my words hurtful, consider this not by way of imprecation but by way earnest musing and concern.
Comment by Origen — November 5, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Very interesting post. I hope you are prepared for the consequences for challenging or (questioning) the decisions of the “Lord’s anointed” AKA those up at the top who made this decision for you and your program. BYU is run like a church, because it is the church. They make terrible decisions all the time, but you dare not oppose it too loudly or you might find yourself without a school and without a religion.
Comment by Chad — November 5, 2009 @ 11:57 am
BYU is owned and run by some Church officials in a quasi-secular, quasi-administrative, and quasi-official manner. It is this blending of roles which is confusing, and which officials such as Ernie Wiikerson (sp?) used to his advantage and to the disadvantage of the students.
For the most part, a large portion of the administrative decisions are mostly glossed over by the Board of Trustees; that is the corporate role of trustees, they nominate the head official to administer the school, read reports and make decisions on large expenditures. Nothing involved in those roles are inherently religious, but rather are in line with corporate America.
Comment by Origen — November 5, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
KirkyTurkey - your post made me laugh (with you, not at you). I generally agree with this statement:
I’d say that this is the second to the last thing women want. The last thing women want (if i may be so bold as to speak for any other woman but myself) is to suffer the brunt of an oppressive ideology that teaches them that they have no worth independent of, and relative to, men. And even though this may be the last thing that women want, it’s the first thing they get from the BYU administration’s decision to shutter its Women’s Studies Institute, which, I’d argue, is a direct consequence of oppressive ideology and doctrine about women’s “worth”.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Comment by ECS — November 5, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
#107, I clicked the link to your oppressive ideology and it talks about women being employed outside of the home. If it’s such a bad thing, why are so many women employed by the church? My Aunt worked full-time at the Church Office building for more than 20 years. Not to even mention all the women employed at LDS Family Services and in other welfare services. Again I ask, if employment outside the home is so bad, why is the church employing women?
Comment by Risa — November 5, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
#108 My MIL watched children for a lady that worked at the temple, in a salaried position when my husband was growing up.
Comment by anon — November 5, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
Risa - how many of those women have children? Non-school age children? How many have tried to get a full-time tenure track faculty position at BYU?
Comment by anon — November 5, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
# 110: Yes, but how many women with school-aged children get tenure-track jobs anywhere? This problem isn’t specific to BYU.
Comment by Natalie — November 5, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
m&m, I’m interested in hearing more about this.
Comment by Stephanie — November 5, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
Natalie - true, but other universities aren’t controlled by people who are taught that women shouldn’t work full time. The prophets consistently tell us that it’s impossible to work full time and tend to household responsibilities, so it’s a wonder why church organizations, like BYU hire women.
Comment by ECS — November 5, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
On this note, I actually sat in a room with former BYU president Merrill Bateman (a GA), where we had a discussion about improving maternity leave for professors. He said (honestly, not ironically), “What is our current policy? We don’t fire [pregnant professors], do we?” He honestly seemed incapable of fathoming mothers of young children being professors at BYU.
Comment by Sofia — November 5, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
#110, well I didn’t want to out myself as a church employee, but I would say that I have a family and I work for the church. I have 3 kids. Two are school aged and one was a toddler. Every woman that I work with has a family. Never once has my male boss told me I would much better serve the church by being a stay-at-home mother. Oh, and my Aunt was a mother as well. I can’t really speak to BYU because I try to avoid Provo as much as possible. It seems the further people are away from Provo, the more reasonable they become. Most of the female employees I know have families. I can only think of 2 women in the whole system that I know who don’t. My point was, if having employment outside of the home is such a travesty (either part-time work, full-time, etc.) why is the church hiring women for employment? It’s just something I’m contemplating. I know my Mom had a lot of guilt going back to work after Pres. Benson admonished all women to stay at home. She wasn’t even active at the time. The ironic thing is, she was working to send my sister to BYU.
Comment by Risa — November 5, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Funny, I don’t find it impossible. Probably because I have a husband who doesn’t think all “household responsibilities” fall on my shoulders. Instead of shaming women for having work, why don’t they shame husbands for not helping out more, or for considering “babysitting” when they’re just being a father.
Comment by Risa — November 5, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
I wonder what BYU would do if they lost 10% of their student boy who dropped out in protest.
They’d just admit those they rejected.
Comment by queuno — November 5, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
To Risa’s point, I interviewed recently (not within the last 12 months, though), with a woman at the Church who (a) had children and (b) would have been my boss. Just in case there’s a meme about the Church not hiring women…
Comment by queuno — November 5, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
Risa ~ I’m glad to hear that the church hires women with children to work full-time.
Still, I have never found a statement from a General Authority encouraging mothers who want to work outside the home. I don’t even recall hearing any anecdotes focused around mothers with careers—-unless the point of the anecdote is to show how working outside the home hurt the woman’s family life, as with the August 2009 Ensign article “Staying Home … Again.” (There could be some out there; I’m less certain of this area.)
I’ve heard GAs say that if the family needs the mother to work for financial reasons, that’s okay and she shouldn’t feel guilty. I’ve heard GAs say that women ought to get an education and train for a career just in case their family ever requires it.
But actually encouraging women who want to work outside the home (not women who need to)? Can’t think of a single quote.
You’re right that the fact that the church hires mothers to work is a strange discrepancy when compared to what it teaches. I’m not completely sure what to make of it. Perhaps it simply assumes that these are moms who need to work, not moms who want to and would do it anyways.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — November 5, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
I disagree– BYU is run like the church. No one gets fired (unless you’re liberal).
Boy, none of you have spent any time in the non-English humanities majors, have you? Or the engineering departments? In the mid-90s, the Spanish/Portuguese department was *very* liberal. Yet, they kept their temple recommends and faculty positions. Maybe they weren’t speaking in English (that probably had something to do with it).
Comment by queuno — November 5, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
BYU is run like a church, because it is the church.
Chad - I have multiple family members who work for BYU (at the moment, it’s four, but that number is always in flux — colleges of natural sciences, dducation, whatever the Kennedy Center became, and the Library). The worst-kept secret is that BYU is *not* run like the Church.
In fact, they are always insulating their testimonies with, “I work for BYU, but I still have a testimony of the gospel.”
Comment by queuno — November 5, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
I kind of like the fact BYU is becoming more unpopular. My daughter wants to keep it an option when she graduates, and this just ensures that there still may be a few more seats open.
Comment by queuno — November 5, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
One of the recent Marriot School alumni magazines had an article about a new professor who is a woman with young children. She teaches a class that has become very popular (I can’t remember what it is). The article talks about her career, classes and family - all in glowing terms. Besides wishing I could take her class, I admit I was horribly jealous. Here is a woman with a career she loves and is good at (and is a career I would love to have) and young children at home - all of which is showcased in the magazine that represents the school. And here I am at home with my many young children, having given up the career I loved because this is what I feel I am “supposed” to be doing based on everything I have heard from the church. Read the quotes in the link Jack provided. Why, on one hand, does the church tell us mothers to stay home and only work if we have to, and on the other hand, glowingly showcase women who are working at its university? It leaves me feeling confused. Why can she do that and I can’t? Do I have to do what I’ve been told my whole life? If I buck the system and go for my career, will I be held up as an example? Or will I be shunned?
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying BYU shouldn’t hire and showcase its professors who are mothers. I am just wondering, if it is okay for this mother, why does the church tell me it isn’t okay for me? It seems like a double standard or a disconnect.
Comment by Stephanie — November 5, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
re: 84
I can see what you mean. Do you also see how it can be frustrating for many of us that so many in the Church refuse to question anything about BYU, assume any administrative decisions are divinely inspired, or at the very least well-intentioned, and that there could be nothing wrong-headed about the institution? Do you see how this sort of attitude makes many of us feel it is difficult to have anny sort of meaningful dialogue, and how this makes it difficult for us to trust that alternative voices are heard or that positive change will happen–that the only way to do anything is with guns blazing?
Comment by Derek — November 5, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
m&m, I’m interested in hearing more about this.
Stephanie, do you want to email me? I’m at hotmail, username mulling_and_musing (underscores are part of it). I want to talk to you about your comment 123 as well.
an oppressive ideology that teaches them that they have no worth independent of, and relative to, men.
Wow, ECS. How do you really feel?
I’m sorry you feel this way, but in my view, you are just plain wrong. I’d be mad as anything if I felt the Church taught that, but I don’t. Hats off to you for sticking with it when you are so upset, but how I wish you could see that things are not the way you make them appear.
My friend who joined the church as an ardent feminist shares the aha she had when God validated all of her concerns and anger about how women deserve to be equal — but helped her see that what she thought was going on in the Church really wasn’t, and that we ARE equally important to Him. I wish I could package and share her answers. I’d give them out for Christmas presents or something.
Comment by m&m — November 5, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
#119 - Bridget, I TOTALLY agree with you. I also have seen those exact same things in church policy and they really bother me. My question is why is the church saying one thing (mothers should not work) and doing another (hiring a mother)? This is where the disconnect is happening for me. In my situation, I don’t “need” to work. My husband can support our family on his salary. I want to work. I love my job. I reap a great deal of satisfaction from my job. It’s imperative to my mental health that I work. I would do my job anywhere, not just with the church.
Comment by Risa — November 5, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
my encouragement and support goes out to all sudents attending. I didn’t go there but many of my family members have and if the church hopes that as parents we are encouraging our children to attend it’s school. it’s acts like this that make me pray my kids never decide to go there. Good luck
Comment by Joanna — November 5, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
Do you also see how it can be frustrating for many of us that so many in the Church refuse to question anything about BYU, assume any administrative decisions are divinely inspired, or at the very least well-intentioned, and that there could be nothing wrong-headed about the institution?
Yes, I can, which is why I said that I think sometimes there needs to be more meeting of the minds of the different ‘we’s.
I do see both sides of this discussion. The extremes either direction are not helpful, imo. BYU is not perfect, and anyone who thinks it is hasn’t worked closely within it. But BYU does have a mission, and anyone who thinks otherwise has not had the opportunity to see the Lord’s hand at work there.
Comment by m&m — November 5, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
Bridget, this quote is, imo, sometimes misused, but I think it illustrates the fact that the counsel regarding motherhood vs. education/career is not a strict either/or. This is what I was trying to get across in the other thread — there is a tension, and within that tension, there are many different scenarios that could end up being ‘right’ for different people. We have to stop insisting that the Church never gives any support at all to women having careers. But by the same token, I think it’s essential to not measure a woman’s worth in the Church doctrine by how many hours she can work outside the home, or to look for reasons to shy away from the eternal importance of our family roles.
. - Pres. Hinckley
Comment by m&m — November 5, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
BYU is run like a business, yes people get fired, yes there are imperfect decisions.
Of course the church hires women. It assumes the woman applying has decided to work and goes from there. On an individual basis the church chooses to trust the woman. There is no judging process to see why she’s working.
I have had young friends work for BYU-one with 4 young children-her dh was Bishop and she taught at the lawschool. I had a moment of doubt watching her flourish, prayed about my situation and happily stayed home.
Comment by britt — November 5, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
Swimming against the tide, not necessarily here but in Mormon culture, I would recommend, women obtain as much education as they desire, and choose to pursue a profession or vocation amenable to them. The notion of a SAHM is no longer functional in today’s society unless one wage earner is extremely well to do. We will be better served in our society if women compete with men for education and jobs. I remember seeing the ridiculous pamphlet BYU law school sends to women applicants to the law school which is hand colored basically. It told “Suzy” going through law school can get you a better husband, so you should attend law school at BYU to get a husband to take care of you. The days of a SAHM, were really only true for the fifties and sixties, perhaps the seventies. Prior to that, women and children were often forced to work. Agrarian societies saw the entire family work the farm. Encouraging somebody caring for children is worthwhile but discouraging working in the workplace is probably misguided in today’s economy.
Comment by Origen — November 5, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
BYU is run, not like a business as it doesn’t focus upon profit, but like many other charitable organization which seeks to extract as much from people for as little as possible. The economic or business based departments fare better because more cash flows to them, but the Church may succeed despite the organizational behavior, not because of it.
Comment by Origen — November 5, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Origen, My dh is a high school teacher and I stay at home. We find it completely functional.
Comment by britt — November 5, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
Teaching is an admirable profession. But we need capable intelligent Mormon women in the workplace. We really do.
Comment by Origen — November 5, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
It told “Suzy” going through law school can get you a better husband, so you should attend law school at BYU to get a husband to take care of you.
Lest anyone mistake this as the model being taught now, PLEASE reject this notion as being the Church’s current teachings. The prophets are very clear that a woman should not just plan on the fact that a man will come along and be able to take care of her.
Comment by m&m — November 5, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
#76, Yes, Dr. Renata Forste is a woman… and she is an awesome Sociology professor. I cannot speak highly enough of her and her family.
Renata was one of the professors who facilitated my London study abroad program a few years ago. I too would love to know her opinion of this change with the WRI and Women’s Studies minor.
Comment by kmh — November 5, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
If BYU or the church didn’t hire women, wouldn’t they be opening themselves up to sex discrimination lawsuits?
Stephanie: If you really want to work, then by all means work! I hope that you wouldn’t base a decision like that on whether or not someone would shun you at work.
Comment by Lulubelle — November 5, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
Gee Origen, you must trump God being so knowledgeable…thank you for approving my husbands profession, he’s been waiting for that.
Comment by britt — November 5, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
Not at all.
Even more interesting, if they changed their interpretation of doctrine and suddenly fired all of the female professors, they would win the suits.
Or at least an non-LDS university in the fifth circuit did.
Interesting thought though.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — November 5, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
Stephen M (Ethesis): Are you serious??? How could they do that? That’s not illegal– firing someone based on gender alone?
Comment by Lulubelle — November 5, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
Origen makes some great points, britt. I don’t see where he’s in any way denigrating your family or deserves a harsh comeback. He’s right that those of us who can afford to be stay-at-home parents (or who hold it together and make it work somehow) are the exception rather than the rule in today’s economy. I doubt that is intended as a judgment upon us so much as a statement of fact.
Origen, the law school pamphlet… oh my word.
Comment by Lorian — November 5, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
Churches can hire and fire based solely upon gender or other characteristics which would be protected from discrimination in secular businesses. I’m not sure that applies to church-sponsored universities, however.
It does apply to church-sponsored private schools which are supported solely by monies from a church and tuitions from those who have subscribed to their policies, as nearly as I know. Such schools can expel students for religious infractions and hire and fire employees based upon their adherence to the doctrines of the church in question.
If, however, the school takes any form of public funding, it must abide by federal and state employment rules and nondiscrimination legislation.
There was a famous case about Bob Jones University a few years back which could shed more light on the subject, but I’ll have to look it up.
Comment by Lorian — November 5, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
#123 - Stephanie, I feel the disconnect too. But then again I’ve always been a rebel who questions every rule.
Comment by Risa — November 5, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
Ah, yes, it had to do with Bob Jones University’s tax-exempt status. The government could not compel BJU (oh, that’s unfortunate — never noticed that before…) to adjust its admission standards to fit with federal nondiscrimination statutes (BJU refused to admit students who were interracially married). However, the SOCUSA decided that it was permissible to revoke BJU’s tax-exempt status because it refused to comply with such statutes.
The same would not hold true of a church. Churches can refuse to hire or admit whomever they please, but a University, while it may be a 501(c)3 organization, is not considered a church, even if it has religious affiliations, and therefore can have its tax-exempt status revoked for practicing discrimination in hiring or admissions.
Comment by Lorian — November 5, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
Lorian.. I felt 134 was questioning my family’s choice that was thoughtfully made-though tossing us a bone that he found teaching admirable. As if i’m against women working. I was responding to his assumptions in 131. SAHM is not a passe thing or only for the rich.. not remotely. It’s not just for a bygone era.
I’m not for going to law school to look for a spouse. I’m also completely against dismissing the power of motherhood. I’m a huge believer that more emphasis on parenting not working our of the home, will improve our society. I find his comments dismisive towards the role of motherhood and I won’t let it pass.
What did you find so meaningful in the post that you stood up for it?
Comment by britt — November 5, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
Britt, sorry that you’re a bit prickly. I only meant that any honorable vocation, occupation or job is important in our society. No affront was intended, as I hope you didn’t receive by way of imprecation.
Comment by Origen — November 5, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
What did I find meaningful about Origen’s post? I think his point is well-made that stay-at-home-parenting is not the long-established “traditional family structure” that many people believe. As he points out, women and even children have had to work in the family business or other industries throughout much of history, from farming and agriculture to industrial revolution jobs in mills and factories. Even in primitive hunter-gatherer societies women work gathering food, sometimes helping with hunting and a variety of other subsistance-based duties.
None of this invalidates SAH parenting, nor do I believe Origen meant for it to do so. But neither can SAH parenting be defended as being of more value than other sorts of family structures, certainly not based upon historical models. It’s a great thing, in my opinion, but not the only possibility or even necessary the best possibility for every family. And it IS a luxury for many families, often a luxury they cannot afford.
Comment by Lorian — November 5, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
re; 128
M&M, I’m not talking about extremes or fringes. The opinion I referred to (the opinion that the course BYU charts is inspired) is pretty common within the Church. Because it is “The Lord’s University,” many assume that the larger direction of BYU is unimpeachable and unquestionable.
I’m curious what you feel BYU’s mission is. I’m sure that the Lord’s hand is at work there; I’m just unconvinced that the Lord’s hand is at work there any more than at any other university, despite what so many adoring fans think.
I’m not as positive as others here that this recent decision is a heavy handed means by which to stamp out feminist thought at BYU and in Mormon academia. But given how often BYU’s decisions and policies are rather backwards, heavy handed, superficial, and hypocritical, I don’t rule it out either. I don’t believe the mission of BYU is always in harmony with the Gospel, and I’m convinced that the choices they make and the methods they use frequently are counterproductive, despite who may be on the board.
Comment by Derek — November 5, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
SAHM is a luxury most in our society no longer can afford. Be it by way of divorce, death, or economic reality, the realities of life will push SAHM to a bygone era or to the very wealthy. Would many love the luxury of staying home to rear the children? Yes. Can most afford it today? Probably not.
If I understand britt, your point of view, motherhood is more worthy than fatherhood, and you find you are more entitled to remain home than the father?
Comment by Origen — November 5, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
As Lorian observed, the historical reality is that SAH parenting is not historical, except for a very brief snapshot in time. Sometimes we hear from the pulpit as if staying at home parenting was the tradition from time immemorial. That perception is erroneous.
Many women also want and need the stimulation which work outside the home provides. And many successful children are reared in homes where the mother is not SAH.
Comment by Origen — November 5, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
Derek.
Generally I support BYU, but that doesn’t mean it has loads of areas to improve upon. Administration is one of them. It also doesn’t mean if I had close ties to Stanford, I wouldn’t have cause for concern.
Eliminating an Institute is a big deal. The administrative clout such an entity had in devoting to women studies and now is lost is highly symbolic as well as in effect. Now the interests of the supervising department will take precedence over a woman’s issue. From an organizational standpoint, it is a huge setback for women of the Church.
Comment by Origen — November 5, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
Origen why must you assume? I don’t think children having a primary care giver is a luxury. I think a child does best with the attention, support and closeness of a PCG. In the child bearing year that’s most likely (and most logically) momma-so in that sense I do think mom is the best choice in that year. After that I jsut want the child to have a lot of time with their PCG-that doesn’t mean work can’t be involved in that.
I’m not bringing history into it, or trying to defend all time…working out of the home is relatively new at all –I get that.
It’s not that I’m offended or all put out, I just find it silly to imply what’s best for society and not include the rising generation as a priority.
Comment by britt — November 5, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
Streamlining is one thing…but eliminating a institute is something else entirely. Granted perhaps BYU is concerned with finances, there are ways of streamlining without removing an entire department.(Please correct me if I am mis-stating)
It seems the students are really upset about this. I myself am disappointed…in a time when women are gaining more ground in education and other opportunities - to cut a department that helps facilitate the discoveries of it’s student body is shameful.
They are not giving their women or men wings they are shooting them down. Do they want us all to forget the women of the early church?
In order to understand where we are going we need to see where we have been. It seems that all of mormondome is content to wax poetry about us of the feminine persuasion but that’s it. I find it shameful that they romaticise us but treat us a others as prizes as pretty dolls on pedastals ..be real , be honest .. we won’t break..in fact we only can become stronger as a people.
Who would I call to express my sadness at this development? Or should I send a card?
Comment by Jillian — November 5, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
You can read some about the case at http://www.jewsonfirst.org/07b/klouda.html though that does not cover the Fort Worth Federal Court decision by Judge McBride or the appeal.
Bottom line was that a dean decided that the way he read the scriptures meant that women should not be teaching men or giving them grades, so that she needed to be let go.
I covered the case, among others, in a course on public law I taught this last year.
For more on the issue visit:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=dr.+sheri+klouda&aq=0m&aqi=g-m1&oq=Sheri+Klouda&fp=129dd626db73ba5b
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — November 5, 2009 @ 11:27 pm
britt, plenty of women rear children while working as well. For them, working is a necessity. And if economics don’t dictate a necessity, you may choose or not choose, but that is the luxury.
If you don’t understand that to be a luxury, I don’t know how else to define it for you.
Comment by Origen — November 6, 2009 @ 12:24 am
In the Daily Universe (http://universe.byu.edu/node/3806) and also multiple times last night at that meeting, we were told this isn’t about money.
BYU, if it’s not about money, then what is it about? You need to answer this otherwise I’ll draw my own conclusions and it starts with an s and ends with exism.
Comment by TopHat — November 6, 2009 @ 9:28 am
Yup, TopHat. I could believe money in this economy, but if not, then there is only one thing I can think of, and it has to do with women’s studies not being considered important to an administration which thinks women belong in the home and may get the wrong idea if you offer them things like “women’s studies.”
I suppose they could just change the focus of the women’s studies department by removing courses related to the history of feminism, and substitute courses in baking and sewing. :twitch:
Comment by Lorian — November 6, 2009 @ 10:55 am
Well–I have no sympathy for people with the attitude this woman expresses. She wants it both ways: she’s converted to one of the most rigid, dogmatic, miserably repressive religions on earth, and now she’s complaining about that dogmatic rigidity and repression! I disagree with her that leaving the church is not the answer–it is ABSOLUTELY the answer. The fewer members, the less money and power. This woman should be awarded a doctorate in Cognitive Dissonance. She’s made her bed; let her lie in it now.
Comment by Wes — November 6, 2009 @ 10:59 am
#147, Lorian, thank you for your comments. In defense of us working moms, since I became a mother 8+ years ago I’ve either worked or been a full-time student. And I’m a damn good mother. Sometimes it was an absolute economic necessity that I worked. Other times it was an absolute necessity for myself to finish my education (one that I received prompting to and the Lord provided a way for me to accomplish it). I’m sick of these mommy wars. If you want to be a stay-at-home parent and it works for you and your family….FANTASTIC. Congratulations to you. But why denigrate working mothers like they are not as good at being a mother because they work? Personally, I’m a better mother when I have a job. And luckily with my education I have a job I love where I can set my own hours, so I can be home when my children are home. And when I’m at work, they’re either at school or with their grandma, who loves them just as much as I do (and raised 9 children and kept her sanity, so a very good mother). The point is, don’t judge other families. I’m not judging yours. What works for you doesn’t work for everyone and you’re not a better mother than us because you don’t work outside the home.
Comment by Risa — November 6, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Risa, just to make sure I’m understanding, I’m guessing that your post is mostly directed primarily at britt’s comments, not mine, since I’ve been speaking in support of moms who work outside the home, even though I am, myself, a SAHM (who does some work for our family business from time-to-time — full disclosure).
Comment by Lorian — November 6, 2009 @ 11:08 am
I’m not against working moms. But I am against assuming SAHM is passe and only for the rich.
Comment by britt — November 6, 2009 @ 11:09 am
I just received this notice on Facebook:
i just found out that BYU public relations as well as Church Public relations are watching the commentary on the deseret news and salt lake tribune articles. today may be the last day they do so. so we need to TAKE OVER THESE COMMENT PAGES with insightful comments, explaining how this should not have happened. PLEASE COMMENT ON THESE TWO ARTICLES. PUBLIC RELATIONS FOR BYU AND THE LDS CHURCH ARE MONITORING THESE PAGES. (And it would not hurt to comment on the daily universe article as well as squaretwo.) OUR VOICES SHOULD DOMINATE THE DISCUSSION ON THESE PAGES- and remember, these pages will stay in world of cyberspace as permalinks for.. well, forever.
as of right now the comment page for the tribune is very anti lds and the comment page for the deseret news is anti wri. WE NEED TO TURN THIS AROUND AND PUBLISH OUR OWN INSIGHTFUL COMMENTS.
MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD. If the church PR sees that the closing of WRI is terrible PR move and sends a false message to the rest of the nation (and world) and how this could negatively impact the church- missionary work, overall image of the church/byu, etc) then get the word out there about it!!!!
tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_13713945
des news: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705342250/BYU-cuts-Womens-Research-Institute.html?pg=1
daily universe: http://universe.byu.edu/node/3806
squaretwo: http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleWRIFarewell.html
Comment by Former BYU Student — November 6, 2009 @ 11:15 am
Maybe not only for the rich (we’re not rich), but still, only for those who can afford it (we can barely afford it — maybe not for much longer). It most certainly is for the privileged, the lucky, for those who are not falling on hard times.
Comment by Lorian — November 6, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Sorry Lorian! I was thanking you for comments in post #147. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
My comments were directed to those who have said in other posts that stay-at-home mothers are better mothers than those who work outside the home either directly or inferred.
Comment by Risa — November 6, 2009 @ 11:22 am
I figured that was it, Risa. No worries!
Comment by Lorian — November 6, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
britt, where are the metrics that support SAHMs is better for society?
It may be a pleasant and comforting lifestyle, but let’s examine the assumption that it is a net positive to society at large. If it pleases you, and your family can afford it, great.
However, there are numerous working mothers whose children excel by all standards of life, and most of the data and studies available seem to show it’s irrelevant whether a mother stays at home or not in predicting the academic or life success of the children. So if it’s a push as to the children, then women working in the workplace, in art, in education, are a net plus for society, because we’re losing their contributions elsewhere when they stay at home.
This is simple analysis not judgment.
Comment by Origen — November 6, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Not relying upon two incomes is a privilege and there is a cost to it. I imagine the immigrant families, undocumented or otherwise, have absolutely no choice in the matter. Failing to admit it’s a privilege afforded to only the fortunate is ignoring reality.
Comment by Origen — November 6, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
#167 - So true, Origen. I was watching a story just recently about a young girl from an immigrant family who wants desperately to finish High School and go to college, but she’s had to miss a lot of school because she is expected to work in the family’s store when other family members are ill or otherwise unavailable, and must sometimes miss school to care for younger brothers or sisters, because the adults are out working their fingers to the bone just to make enough money to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.
Having a mom who could just stay home with the kids, and having the kids never have to work to contribute to the family’s survival resources would be such an incredible luxury to a family like this. It’s just not even in their wildest dreams.
Comment by Lorian — November 6, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
And Lorian is the rub.
When one argues that SAH parenting is for the rich, they think Rockefellers, or Trumps, not the world’s definition of wealthy. By third world standards, our middle class is wealthy.
What we middle class enjoy, if we turned back the clocks one hundred years, would be considered almost unimaginable.
So when a mother states, it’s not a luxury, she’s ignoring the realities of history and of world economics. If it is a luxury which your family can afford, I find no fault in it. But I prefer to challenge the assumptions by the ETB crowd.
Comment by Origen — November 6, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
This is too simplistic a view. Each family circumstance is different. Just because “data and studies available seem to show it’s irrelevant whether a mother stays at home or not” doesn’t mean it is irrelevant to my children. Whether I choose to stay at home or work is a big deal to my children and my family. If my family needs me, society can wait for my contribution. If another family decides that both parents working is better for them, great for them and society. Let’s quit trying to compare the two and igniting mommy wars. Nowhere in her comments did britt say that SAHMs are better for society.
As long as I am addressing you, I’ll address a few more of your comments:
The work that SAHPs do is important for our society, too.
This is BS. Quit making assumptions about what you think britt thinks and listen to what she is saying.
Quit patronizing britt. Some families who probably need two incomes go without a lot of the things they need to have one parent stay at home. Or they work odd jobs. Some families do sacrifice a lot for one parent to be the one caring for their children.
You don’t think those families living on one income get that?!?!? They know what they are giving up better than you do.
If we’re going to respect women and their individual choices, then let’s respect the choice to stay at home for those women who have it.
Comment by Stephanie — November 6, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
I can’t believe that I am going to argue this point, but Origen, you said:
It may be a pleasant and comforting lifestyle, but let’s examine the assumption that it is a net positive to society at large. If it pleases you, and your family can afford it, great.
I disagree that being a SAH parent is a “pleasant and comforting lifestyle”. Yes, I agree that maybe for some it is, but many women do it because they feel the “must,” for whatever reason that may be (religious reasons included), and many of those do not find it pleasant or enjoyable. Most of the Mormon moms in our ward are SAHMs, while their husbands are in school. They are living exclusively, 100%, on borrowed money. Clearly in this instance, it is severely economically disadvantageous for them to be at home. But, for whatever reason, they feel it is the right thing to do. Saying they do it because it is “pleasant and comforting” isn’t really the whole truth.
Now, please note that I am not a SAH parent - my child goes to day-care full-time. That was a decision we made because I found SAH parenting to be in no way “pleasant or enjoyable”. It was a downright hell, actually. But I think its unfair for those who choose to stay at home and be a full-time care provider for their children, to somehow indicate that it is a nicer job, less stressful, or more comforting than working outside the home.
And… I can’t believe I just argued that point.
Comment by Madam Curie — November 6, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Why? It’s a good point.
Comment by Stephanie — November 6, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
Stephanie - Just because I’m usually the one trying to argue that people should let women work outside the home
Comment by Madam Curie — November 6, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
And so is childcare - whether you are paying someone to do it or are doing it yourself. It is honorable.
Comment by Stephanie — November 6, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Madam Curie, it shows that you are open-minded.
Comment by Stephanie — November 6, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Well, at least we’re stimulating discussion, but that should be expected on this topic.
So Madam Curie, you’re suggesting SAHMs are doing it on the basis of social pressure from the religious culture. IOW, staying at home is being imposed upon them at a time when economically it shouldn’t be? Interesting argument, don’t you think.
It is agreed that some women psychologically find it necessary for their own mental health to work outside the home. Something ETB never recognized in his infamous BYU fireside devotional talk. This prevailing attitude seems to create cognitive dissonance, should one follow the hegemony created post 1950s, or should one go with the economic realities.
Yes I realize many balance what they “feel” is best for young children, and far be it from me the gadfly to actually know, but I wonder how much of the SAHM guilt is culturally imposed.
However, your analysis also ignores an obvious analytical point, what is good for society should not be a factor one dismisses easily. The fact that something has worked for centuries shouldn’t be dismissed without careful analysis. If after considering the obvious factors, one dismisses it, then that is a logical progression. In our culture, we seem to stumble blindly, relying upon culture to dictate what is wise, not empirical observation. It does nonetheless seem contradictory to a feminist credo to argue in favor of SAHMism.
Comment by Origen — November 6, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
and here is a lead balloon, consider arguendo, that accepting SAHM contradicts being a feminist.
Comment by Origen — November 6, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
Wow, Origen, you are a master twister. Madam Curie said:
and you turned it into
You happened to leave out the “whatever reasons” that don’t include religious. And then you turn it into this:
I don’t believe I ever heard her making that argument. It sounds like you are arguing against that argument that you created. Is that your intent here? Just make up whatever you want to denounce so you get the chance to denounce it?
And here I thought feminism was about trying to make sure that each woman has real choices about what she wants to do with her life - not forcing her into what you think is best for her and society.
Comment by Stephanie — November 6, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
And here I thought feminism was about trying to make sure that each woman has real choices about what she wants to do with her life - not forcing her into what you think is best for her and society.
Yes, thank you, Stephanie.
Comment by Madam Curie — November 6, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
Feminism is many things to many people, to some it’s an avenue to power through the political process, to others it’s a mode of artistic expression, and still to others it’s an amorphous ill-defined catch-all.
For me, it represents one tranche of power for politicos, plus a form of artistic and literary expression coupled with a desire for more power over one’s life. So it manifests itself in many avenues without one simplistic expression.
Your construct sounds more like a Derridian deconstructionist mode than anything else.
However, if you simply wish to view it as a form of empowerment in daily life, so be it. But it is fascinating to think one would find it feminist to subordinate oneself to the Mormon hegemony in order to be SAHM. Considering Mormon hegemony is governed exclusively by men, it is most ironic to argue feminism frees you to subjugate your will to the will of men voluntarily.
Comment by Origen — November 6, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
This is really quite funny, in a way, because I am one who does believe, at least in general terms, that SAH parenting IS good for children, and, in many cases, better for them than daycare (though this is not universal and there are certainly situations in which children are better off in daycare than with a truly bad parent). And yet I am arguing that SAH parenting is a luxury which many families cannot afford (and not because they are too selfish to pay the price, as some would suggest).
But I also recognize that there are many, many children who do exceptionally well in daycare. I spent my early years (ages 1-5) in a large “nursery school” run by my grandmother (probably 40-50 children and 5 or so teachers at any given time). I certainly don’t think it damaged me in any way, and may have been better than if my mother could have stayed at home with me. Of course, I was the owner’s granddaughter, but I don’t recall getting too much special treatment.
I don’t think it is a terrible thing for parents to recognize their economic or personal limitations and place their children in daycare, assuming the quality of the care is good and the quality of interactions at home is also good.
I feel very lucky to have been able to be a SAHM. It was something I always wanted to do. But I recognize that other people’s preference doesn’t run that way, and that there are also people who would very much like to do it, and simply cannot. I do not think it is something which anyone should be compelled to do (that turns out really badly, sometimes), nor is it something upon which the very fabric of society is dependent.
Comment by Lorian — November 6, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
Origen #177 -
ONLY if one accepts being a SAHM because it is being imposed by an outside source, rather than by one’s own preference or choice.
If one becomes a SAHM because a patriarchal authority convinces one that this is the best or only option for a woman, then, yes, I’d agree that is not consistent with the values of feminism.
If one becomes a SAHM because one desires it, or feels it is the most useful and beneficial choice one can make, then feminism should be the force which permits one to make that choice.
It’s a very, very fine line, considering that one’s views on the subject may well arise from patriarchal influence, though. And I’m guessing that is your point.
Comment by Lorian — November 6, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Let it be noted that Origen just declared I (and many others on here) cannot be a feminist (well, unless we want to merely define it as a simple form of empowerment in daily life, which is obviously a delusion).
Comment by Stephanie — November 6, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Origen, have you read this post? It’s time for a new wave.
Comment by Stephanie — November 6, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
Stephanie, I didn’t hear Origen say that SAHMs couldn’t be feminists (if that’s what you meant by your statement in #183). I’m a SAHM, and I don’t feel that Origen is disputing my identification as a feminist. Are you, Origen? Maybe I’m just missing it, but I don’t think so.
Comment by Lorian — November 6, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
182, spot on.
Stephanie, that is part of the debate, of course.
However, in transforming society, when social forces encounter economic forces, which forces usually win out?
How does one force society, as defined by that post, to compensate for something which doesn’t naturally fall into the financial transaction?
Comment by Origen — November 6, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
Lorian, of course he’s not talking about you. You’re not Mormon.
Origen, I didn’t agree with Lisa’s conclusion for the government to financially compensate SAHMs - more with her general ideas around motherhood and feminism.
Comment by Stephanie — November 6, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
Stephanie, my views on being a SAHM could just as easily have been brought about through patriarchal influence as yours. I grew up in a very patriarchal religion, and patriarchy still has an incredibly powerful influence on secular culture. In fact, if I’m honest, many of my views on SAH parenting come from years of listening to Dr. Laura on the radio (despite regularly having to shout at her inside my car because she can be so irritatingly smug and self-righteous). And her views are most definitely patriarchal.
But my views on SAH parenting which I acquired from her, and from my mother (a SAHM from about my 2nd grade year onward), are not the only reasons why I’m a SAHM. My major reasons are:
1. I find it fulfilling and rewarding.
2. I enjoy spending more time with my kids.
3. We’ve been able to afford it (though just barely).
4. I’m able to work from home off and on in our family business.
5. It gives me time for other things I find important, such as political work, and music as an avocation.
6. I tend to be a person who doesn’t “fit in” well in traditional employment environments (because of my own “autistic spectrum” issues, though I’m typically valued by a good management team. So typical workplaces are not the most “fun” or fulfilling places for me to spend my time. Because of that, I’m grateful that I can be a SAHM and do some work from home which is independent, uses my skills to best advantage, and doesn’t require too much in the way of awkward social interactions.
In short, I’ve got lots of reasons for being a SAHM, and many of them are about my own personal desires and fulfillment, and I’m really fortunate to have had the option.
Comment by Lorian — November 6, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
Sorry, Lorian, I wasn’t trying to exclude you. He/she was referring to the “Mormon hegemony”, but I can see why you identify with that.
Comment by Stephanie — November 6, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Thanks, Stephanie.
Comment by Lorian — November 6, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Stephanie, the confusing evolution of feminism makes one wonder from whence it came, and whereto it goes, if it is at all linear.
Be that as it may, one may not exclude patriarchal influences, and Lisa’s hypothesis that compensation will come for caregivers through economics, or forced government intervention seems impractical. Although in divorce proceedings value is attached to to caregiving.
Comment by Origen — November 6, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
I admit, I feel troubled about how one defines “feminism” within a Mormon framework. I read FMH trying to figure it all out, and there are so many people with so many ideas of what “feminism” is that I ultimately cannot tell.
I sense that it has something to do with children, given that one of the opening photos for the Mormon (Feminist!) Image was a woman in her last trimester of pregnancy.
I sense that it has something to do with working with the patriarchy, given the photo of the woman entering the temple, as as well as striving to work within the structure that I get from comments such as this thread.
For me, I couldn’t reconcile being a feminist with being Mormon, after 10 long years of trying. And ultimately, being feminist trumps being Mormon. Perhaps someone can help me, call it a final hurrah? How do you reconcile the Family Proclamation with being a feminist?
Comment by Madam Curie — November 6, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
#192 - Madam Curie
Does one reconcile it? Or does one simply decide to “live in the tension,” as Anglicans often describe the need to move forward while holding a broad range of differing beliefs and ideas?
Of course, Anglicanism is in general a much less dogmatic system than my understanding of Mormonism.
Comment by Lorian — November 6, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
There are many ways New Order Mormons live within a framework of the hegemony of a culture which disagrees with many of the experiences the New Orderites have cultivated.
The term Buffet Mormons has also been tossed around, as everybody picks and chooses, but some are more forthright about it.
The general culture can be quite useful in family life. If I were single without familial connections or something more on the periphery, then remaining as part of the culture might be impracticable. However, there remain much more good than not, so staying still retains its value. The political declarations from the centrum are easy to deflect as in reality they have no daily import unless I let them.
Comment by Origen — November 6, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Okay, just want to add that I do think that SAHM’s are valuable for the families that get to have them, but yes, it is a something available basically to the rich, and if you do not understand that, go to a third world country.
I understand that living on an income of a teacher may not feel rich, but guess what? My husband is a teacher, and in his country, he is now a millionaire, because he teaches here in America, and I also work in order to help support our family so he can support his. (Food, sending siblings and cousins to college in order to continue to end the damning cycle of poverty). You know what else? His sister is a domestic helper in Italy, and also makes the equivalent of very wealthy compared to his other sister who is a highly educated professional in their home land.
WE ARE RICH! Do you know what it is like to go without food for days, if not weeks? Literally no food? Nothing at all. Do you know what it is like to not sleep on a bed until you are 19, because your family could not afford a bed? Do you know what it is like to never leave your home until your twenties because your legs were crippled with polio and a wheelchair was out of the question?
Yes, there are many sacrifices to being a SAHP, and it may make a family struggle. But honestly, our struggles are nothing compared to some others face.
And that is where the difficulty lies. We are a worldwide church. My inlaws are members. But when they read “a woman’s place is in the home” they feel it is a joke of the wealthy white people in America. And they leave their homes every day in hopes that somehow by the end of the day they will have done something good enough to earn money to buy food.
So I work, because I have the luxury of being able to work to take care of my family, as well as many others that need it. That is my place, and God is proud of me. We all make our decisions. If you feel your place is a SAHM, that is wonderful and your children are blessed. My children are blessed from the charity they learn from me and my husband. All are good choices. But yes, we are very, very rich.
Comment by just me — November 6, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
#195 - Thank you, just me, for that perspective.
Comment by Risa — November 6, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
That is excellent. I wish our hegemonic authorities would consider these words when they spew the belief that time honored tradition mandates SAHMs.
Comment by Origen — November 6, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
Wow. My eyes went out of focus about halfway through the list of comments.
I know BYU’s arguments for cutting/streamlining the program.
I know the arguments from the other side about how this is actually destroying a valuable institute…. Read More
Unfortunately, when it comes to how this is going to look to the general public, it doesn’t actually matter which side is right. Many people, especially non-LDS and non-BYU grads, are going to look at this story and say, “yeah, they don’t give women the Priesthood either. And they don’t like homosexuals. What else should we expect?”
And they will remember. They might not remember the actual event, but the negative feelings will stick with them.
We need the WRI as a symbolic entity to show that we do care. No matter what the motivations really are, or what the academic results really will be, if the WRI goes, people will assume it’s because BYU (and by extension, the LDS church) thought it was out of line with LDS teachings. Is that the impression we want to give?
If budget is really a big deal, or if sincere consideration and research has truly found that the best way to further women’s studies at BYU is to dissolve the WRI as it currently exists, we need to have another organization in its place that serves the same symbolic purpose. Why couldn’t a similar organization run on volunteers and donations?
Comment by ifrit — November 6, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
What in the world does someone do with a womens studies minor???
Comment by Nat — November 6, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
I wish we could be a little more flexible with the terms SAHM and working mother…we all know every mom works. Is money the only difference. Most SAHMs have things which demand their attention. I homeschool-it’s almost like a part time job-bordering on fulltime. No I don’t get paid, but it takes my time and energy. Gardening, cooking, sewing, bottling,-there are a thousand other skills that could go here…these are all things that in the past would have been considered the “work”. They make a difference int he home economy, but aren’t paid. What about SAHMs who volunteer a huge portion of their time? Are they that different from a “working women” with an unpaid internship?
Some women craft and make money from it-are they working? How about all the pampered chef-you name it moms? At what point are you working and at what point are you not? Is it just about money? A day care in your home? What about working from home…is there a certain number of hours or dollars made before it becomes official?
What about parents with children with health issues-that is a part time-and in some cases a fulltime job-requiring special knowledge and skills. I call them mommy master’s degrees-and I know many women who have the knowledge to rival the experts because their child demanded someone know!
I’d rather we reserve the term mom for anyone who values her children…then drop the mommy war over SAHM v. WM. If we made it more flexible perhaps it’d be easier to drift between them instead of feeling stuck. Many women do stay at home in the early days of infancy, then work-why must they define themselves as other than as a women? We don’t make men change their definition of themselves nearly as much.
Thanks Lorian and stephanie. It is nice to feel understood.
Comment by britt — November 6, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
I do understand poor. Poor in my mind is a young girl crouching by a fireside and wrapped in a thin blanket. You can see their cardboard box like house in the back ground. Mom is stirring a huge pot-she’s doing the laundry and the girl’s only dress is in the pot. They are luck to live close to a river. That picture is etched in my mind form my mission.
I will say in third world countries they define work in a much more flexible manner-there isn’t a SAHM fixed concept like we try to make it…
Comment by britt — November 6, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
Observing poor is really not understanding them. The only way is being poor. I remember traveling with one mine, “see how lucky you are, and how much others struggle.” “Oh, that’s so sad, what’s for lunch?”
We are rich, all of us here.
Comment by Origen — November 6, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
True Origen, I was merely trying to illustrate my concept of poor. I understand that poor is not living on a teacher’s salary…that was my only point there.
Comment by britt — November 6, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
understood.
Comment by Origen — November 6, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
I have a women’s studies minor, and it helps me a lot as a counselor. How many people really use their minor?
Comment by just me — November 6, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
I could see the degree helping in research, teaching, sociology and psychology.
Comment by Origen — November 6, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
And philosophy, and religion, and medicine.
Comment by Lorian — November 6, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
and history and law and engineering and…
Comment by barmy stoat — November 6, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
I would think it would only effect things that involve women, pertain to women, have women who sell or buy their products or use their services…other than that it wouldn’t apply
Comment by britt — November 6, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
re: 170
I agree, and we certainly need to appreciate more the work which SAHPs contribute to society. Personally, I really appreciate you making a point of using the abbreviation SAHP, Stephanie, rather than assuming SAHM. Either parent staying home, and both parents putting in more time and effort with home, can be incredibly valuable for society.
Comment by Derek — November 6, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
My very good friend went to work part time as a seminary secretary at the local high school. (I live in Utah). She has to wear panty hose and a dress every single day to work. I told her I could never work for the church cause I would tell them where to put their pantyhose! I’m much too rebellious for that nonsense. That rule seemed very male chauvanistic to me.
Comment by Emmie — November 9, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Let me start by saying that I am an inactive Mormon, have been for 11 years and am happier than I ever was in the Mormon church.
My advice is to protest. Hold rallies and sit-in in front of the Administrator’s office. Have everyone you know in this program write letters of outrage and disgust at their decision. Make it abundantly clear how you feel. Woman’s Studies is a very important program and they are just making themselves look like a joke by removing it.
If all else fails, threaten to leave the school and then threaten to leave the church. They won’t let you leave the church, you might get a smack on the wrist. If it is really important to you, that smack on the wrist is worth it. Don’t take this change lightly or without making it a huge deal. If you do, then you are just falling into what they want. A more subservient woman in the LDS church.
Good Luck and FIGHT!!
Comment by Lisa P — November 9, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
I really think too much is being made of this. I think that women going to BYU should get a degree in something they can actually use to find gainfull employment. I wish they would get rid of all the useless degrees at BYU.
Comment by Nat — November 9, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
Nat–nearly every respected college in the US offers some kind of degree or concentration or minor in women’s studies or gender studies. It is an academic discipline, and it is necessary because so many disciplines traditionally do not give adequate attention to women. This is why you can take classes in literature by women authors, women’s history, women’s sociology, etc. Ideally these would be integrated into the regular curriculum, but they aren’t. And it has been acknowledged in most fields that women and men experience things differently, whether because of biology or because of societal influences. It is therefore valid and useful to study those differences in the hope of improving the experiences of all. Better understanding women’s contributions to history, literature, society, the economy, etc. can enhance many careers.
As someone who minored in women’s studies and went on to pursue a career in international development, I use what I learned in that minor every day. When I propose or review a development project, I analyze it and try to determine how it might affect both men and women, and whether there might be some unintended consequences. I think about how it will affect men and women generally and also at the household level. So in my personal experience, this was a very useful minor that helped refine my analytical skills and be more successful in my career.
Comment by Sofia — November 9, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
Nat, based upon your other comments on several threads this morning, I am not surprised that you do not see value in Women’s Studies. You might want to try a Women’s Studies course or two before you knock them. There are so many, many things to learn in this world.
Comment by Lorian — November 9, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
When I was in college there wasn’t a Women’s Studies minor (no, I did not go to BYU). I was a Social Work major and English minor. Let me tell you, in my minor classes, we went semesters and semesters before ever reading anything written by a woman. The one time I did, it was because I could choose whatever book I wanted from the Victorian Era and in protest I read something written by a woman. In protest of a professor who used to wax philosophic on how he wished we still lived in the time of the Old West where all men were cowboys and all women were prostitutes. You can imagine how I reacted to that. He also told me not to be a social worker because I would have a miserable, frustrating, lonely life. Gosh, I love proving him wrong. So you can see, all those who don’t think Women’s Studies is valuable, why it is. There’s a reason why they call it HIS-story.
Comment by Risa — November 9, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
Nat, I will agree with you that there may be some less than useful degrees at BYU. I won’t share my opinion on which those are, lest I offend anyone here. But I will also say that it bothers me when people argue that you should only study things that you will “use” in your daily life (i.e., business, engineering, law, medicine rather than the humanities, arts, or social sciences).
While most of us go to college in part because it will improve our economic future, the purpose of education is also to expand our minds, to help us think in new ways, to give us the experience of digging deep into some field and learning all we can about it. This makes us more interesting, intelligent, compassionate people, both in this life and–most Mormons would agree–in the next.
I was an English major in college. I do not now explicate poetry or write papers on deconstructionist interpretations of Joyce for a living. But I am a good writer and critical thinker, and I can churn out a well-organized, thoughtful proposal faster than most of my colleagues. I can lay out an argument for a presentation the same way I used to organize my term papers in college. And I still read all the time for personal enjoyment, and feel that I constantly learn to think in new ways about history, politics, art, and life in general as a result of that. Some people would argue that I majored in something useless. When I was in school they would ask, “So what are you going to DO with that?” But to me, studying humanities was an amazing experience, one that helped shape the way I think and look at the world, and one that makes me a better professional, a better mother, and a more thoughtful, tolerant member of society.
Comment by Sofia — November 9, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
*I wrote a couple of letters to Vice President Tanner on this one. I’ll go ahead and post them ’cause, heck, I think I make some good points. ; )
Dear Dr. Tanner,
I am writing in regards to the decision to eliminate the Women’s Research Institute. While I understand that budgetary concerns are paramount at the moment, I am concerned that this decision will certainly prove harmful to the reputation of Brigham Young University. The likelihood is that it will reflect poorly on the Church as a whole as well.
At the moment I am working with a friend who is looking for a new church and hoping she will make the decision to accept this one. In addition to the matter of gaining eternal life, our local ward lacks for leadership and we need someone like her desperately. Here’s the catch: yes, she strongly identifies herself as a feminist. No boots. No short hair or bra-burning or any of those outward expressions of anger with which those who have worked for better treatment of women have been painted—but without even knowing the scripture, Moses 1:39 burns in her heart. “This is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of woman.”
I told her that this feeling that she has can only increase the appeal that the gospel has for her. We are the only church that doesn’t spit on Eve. We are the only church that even dares think of a woman reigning in heaven as an equal God. And in spite of our knowledge, we carry much of the same cultural baggage of authoritarian treatment of women as the world around us. I have bent over backwards trying to explain to this honest searcher for the truth that like the damning actions of the Pharisees in New Testament times, these attitudes are cultural and in no way related to the official stances of the Church.
Thank you for making my job that much harder.
History has been exceedingly cruel to women. Now the world reacts to that history with anger and retaliation. We of the gospel know better and are obligated to witness our knowledge of a better way. By closing the Women’s Research Institute, the administration of Brigham Young University places that much more of the conversation into the hands of the angry and misinformed.
Sincerely,
Sarah Kendall Taber
Comment by mellifera — November 9, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
*Letter II.
Vice President John Tanner
Brigham Young University
A-387 ASB
Provo, UT, 84602
Dear Vice President Tanner,
I previously sent a letter regarding the closing of the Women’s Research Institute. Since then I’ve had an opportunity to become better acquainted with the circumstances of its closing, and have a few additional thoughts. I send them respectfully in the hopes that they may prove helpful.
My understanding is that this move is not intended to in any way retard research into women’s issues at BYU, but rather to make it more effective by channeling costs associated with running the Institute directly into funding research1. The reorganization currently underway seems to hang on the assumption that equal or greater funding dispersed among many departments is equivalent to similar funding directed through a central, interdisciplinary institution such as the Women’s Research Institute. The lessons learned through another interdisciplinary, problem-solving research initiative—state integrated pest management programs, in which I work– indicate that this assumption may prove disappointing when applied.
Integrated pest management, or IPM, is the use of good management, pesticides, and biological pest control for crops rather than reliance on pesticides alone. To solve the “singular problem” of pesticide overuse, researchers need to achieve alternative control for every pest and pathogens commonly affecting a given crop. IPM thus requires heavy investments in research coordinated across multiple disciplines to succeed: plant pathologists, entomologists, acarologists, toxicologists, statisticians, plant geneticists, soil scientists, nematologists, and a host of other “-ists.”
Similarly, BYU’s Women’s Research Institute is a problem-solving center2 for the many complex problems facing women, which unfortunately are still very much with us. Let’s take postpartum depression for an example: a problem the Church takes seriously enough to have been featured in its own Ensign article! PPD is a multifarious enemy. The clinical side is well-understood. What remains to be resolved is why so many women are not diagnosed, do not receive appropriate treatment, or have accompanying factors that cause additional and unnecessary postpartum stress, such as less-than-helpful husbands and other family members. The task of providing mothers, doctors, nurses, family counselors, social workers, and other professionals the knowledge to tackle postpartum depression will require the coordinated work of sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other researchers of personal and family dynamics.
How does this relate to the question of institutional structure? Why does it matter whether research is conducted under an umbrella institution or “out in the open”?
IPM programs across the country give a valuable case study to help answer this question. Each state runs an agency responsible for both conducting agricultural research and delivering the results to farmers for their use—including IPM. Because each state has its own research & extension program, these programs form a sort of natural experiment into the effects of different organizational arrangements.
There are two general models for state IPM programs; the first is a more centralized statewide institution with a full-time director charged with deciding which research missions to pursue and fund, coordinating researchers and/or encouraging them to focus on certain problems determined to be important in that state (similar to the current setup of the WRI as a research-coordinating office with stated emphases on understanding gender-related violence and effective ways to help women in developing countries reach their potential3). The second common approach is to simply tack “10% IPM research responsibilities” onto several dozen faculty who already have a narrow primary job description and little familiarity with the wider array of problems growers face, and leave them to their own devices for choosing appropriate research topics—a situation somewhat analogous to the announced restructuring of funding for women’s studies at BYU.
States whose IPM programs follow the second model are frequently unable to coordinate efforts to the point where they can provide alternatives for pesticide overuse. These states are easily two decades behind their neighbors who use the first model—at the cost of higher risk to consumers, elevated occupational hazards for farmers and agricultural workers, environmental damage, and financial loss reaching into the millions4 for industries that don’t have good alternatives to pesticides. These programs are both expensive and irrelevant. Paradoxically, these states continue operating rudderless and fruitless IPM programs because maintaining a coordinating office and director is seen as too costly.
BYU’s Women’s Research Institute is a problem-solving organization that must draw on the coordinated efforts of many fields. The emphasis on generating knowledge for the purpose of solving problems, rather than simply identifying problems and “raising awareness,” makes it absolutely one-of-a-kind among programs researching women’s challenges. These problems require that many scholars work together to fill the gaps in each others’ knowledge; it requires a gathering place and a commission to engage together. These problems cannot be solved piecemeal or as footnotes on a grander opus. I am concerned that a tarnished reputation for the University will not be the only unintended consequence of the WRI’s elimination; I worry that it may actually damage the progress of learning. Please reconsider the decision to close the Women’s Research Institute.
Foonotes
1. Carri Jenkins, BYU spokeswoman, cited in Israelsen-Hartley’s 4 Nov 2009 Deseret News article.
2. Women’s Research Institute Mission Statement. Available at http://wri.byu.edu/mission.php
3. Women’s Research Institute Programmatic Research. Available at http://wri.byu.edu/research_prog.php
4. Dr. Marjorie Hoy, IPM acarologist at University of Florida, personal communication.
Sincerely,
Sarah Kendall Taber
Brigham Young University alumna, Soil Science ‘05, Honors
Comment by mellifera — November 9, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
*I do apologize for the cheesy Mo-speak in the letters, I’m trying to avoid making people feel threatened here so one must make certain sacrifices. : )
Comment by mellifera — November 9, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
mellifera:
Very brave of you. Let me know if somebody from the Committee of Protecting the Saints comes knocking at your door.
Do you know what happens to a nail that sticks up?
In some collective cultures, it gets hammered down!
Comment by Origen — November 9, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
# 214 Thanks, that was very interesting. I could see now how it could be useful from a marketing standpoint also. I think that would help with advertising and creating products. I am more math and detail oriented so sometimes I don’t see the big picture.
Comment by Nat — November 9, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
My Letter - (hypothetical)
Hey John,
I’ve decided to go to a university that values women’s studies and I’m taking my tuition and other fees with me.
- barmy stoat
Comment by barmy stoat — November 9, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
Nat–Interestingly, in one of my women’s studies classes we analyzed various advertisements and their subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle objectification of women, in everything from the way women are dressed to the positions in which they are shown (often lying down). Understanding these tactics could help marketing directors to advertise in ways that both appeal to women and avoid exacerbating the problem of their objectification in our society. We also talked about how often medical studies are conducted using only men as subjects (yes, this still happens sometimes), and the impact this can have on female patients when they take medications that were not tested on women. There are lots of ways in which women’s studies can be applied to various disciplines.
Comment by Sofia — November 9, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
I’ve really enjoyed reading all these comments. Nice to know Mormon Feminism is still alive and well in the rising generation. Aunt Eliza Roxey Snow Smith Young would be proud! I was in the Women’s office as a student at BYU (Student Government) and chaired the BYU Women’s conference in 1978-1979 (ASBYU ran that for many years until the General Relief Society took it over.) Even back then, many years ago, when Ida Smith was at the helm, it was my impression the University was not very supportive of the Womens Research Institute. So, I’m not surprised it got cut. I’m a college professor now, and actually things are very very tough economically across the country in most universities. Even though BYU is funded mainly from tithing donations, I wouldn’t be surprised if most Deans and most Dept heads were forced to cut programs. It’s happening everywhere. I hope the letters and phone calls help save BYU WRI. It really provided us with great information and statistics when speaking about complex women’s issues. It provided a great service.
Comment by RoseQueen — November 9, 2009 @ 10:49 pm
What i can’t figure out is why anyone is surprised. It makes no sense to me for a religion which preaches a woman’s place is in the home bearing and caring for children to promote those very women to study feminism. Why not spare them the cognitive dissonance such study is bound to cause them!
In all honesty i think its a very humane move. Trying to fit the mormon patriarchy into feminist ideals or vice versa is an invitation for insanity and i would know.
i attempted suicide a week ago and almost robbed my four children of their mother. It was a wake up call to say the least but what drove me to it? i could not bear the thought that there are no consequences for the church’s treatment of women. i wanted there to be consequences, even if it meant my life.
How’s that for insanity? i hope to be coming from a much healthier place in the near future. Its interesting how you get so used to doing the mental gymnastics to fit your feminist and just plain common sense logic and ideals into the church’s theology for so long that even after you leave you cannot stop contorting.
i am so tired of standing on my head. Reading this post and the comments just makes me exhausted for everyone here continuing to try and make it all “fit.”
Comment by StepfordWife — November 10, 2009 @ 12:27 am
Perhaps the BYU only wants to teach subjects that lead to productive careers - you know, where there is a real return on investment in the time spent.
Choosing “Women’s Studies” doesn’t amount to a substantial educational/career advantage over any other useless liberal art choice like art history or African studies, so why not consolidate and get rid of some of the more frivolous choices, and devote the money instead to programs that generate a better return on the education dollar - like engineering or maths or science.
Women’s Studies is a slacker major for people who don’t like to do school work and have a subconcious desire to undermine their own ability to get a job after college so they have an excuse to move back in with their parents.
Comment by Syn — November 10, 2009 @ 1:29 am
StepfordWife, an insane response to an insane situation can be, imo, a sure sign of sanity. I hope that makes sense. In the meantime, here’s to that healthier place (clink).
Comment by barmy stoat — November 10, 2009 @ 1:42 am
Okay, I’m sorry but I just have to say something here. StepfordWife, I am truly sorry for the challenges you have experienced that have brought you to such a point in your life, and I sincerely pray that you can get help and heal - for both your sake and your children’s. But - to blame your suicide attempt on
Yes, I agree that is insanity, but I have a really hard time with barmy stoat’s response:
In other words, taking your own life is a reasonable response to the patriarchy?!?!?! The church’s treatment of women is so bad that it warrants suidice of mothers?!?! StepfordWife, please get help. Your children need you.
Comment by Stephanie — November 10, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Why would anyone assume there would be no consequences for the church? Does that have to mean now on earth in the way you’d like?
Please seek help immediately.
Comment by britt — November 10, 2009 @ 9:32 am
#226 StepfordWife ~ It isn’t the purpose of fMh to encourage people to leave the church. But if the way the LDS church treats women is making you so unhappy that you want to kill yourself, have you ever thought about looking elsewhere?
#227 Syn ~ Women’s Studies is a slacker major for people who don’t like to do school work and have a subconcious desire to undermine their own ability to get a job after college so they have an excuse to move back in with their parents.
Well then, it’s a good thing BYU doesn’t offer a Women’s Studies major and never has.
Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — November 10, 2009 @ 10:13 am
229 - Stephanie wrote,
No, that’s not what I meant.
What I meant is that StepfordWife realises that her response to an insane situation was just more insanity and that realisation is, imo, a reflection of the sanity that’s at her core.
Comment by barmy stoat — November 10, 2009 @ 10:57 am
I haven’t read ALL of these comments, but getting rid of a major because it doesn’t have “economic returns” or “real returns” is stupid. If you want to run a college like a business, then go to Steven’s Hennagar, but we also need people who are very good at thinking, who know the classics, who have studied art, music, history, math, science, etc. There needs to be places where academic enlightenment can happen. It isn’t all about the economy (MONEY IS NOT EVERYTHING) or what YOU define as “real returns”.
I’m a researcher in the sciences, and many many people think that what I do does not affect them. People call research dollars a waste of money. These are the same people that sit around on their computers all day, use electricity, play their x-boxes and wiis and drive cars. All things that they couldn’t do with out the people that spent years and years doing research and most of the time failing at what they were trying to do. They can thank Mr. Newton and Mr. Leibnitz for wasting their time inventing calculus. Because without it, many of the things that make our world function today would not exist. I would not be posting this comment.
You have no way to predict what a “real return” is. For me one thing that helped me to get out the cycle of abuse, was taking Family and Human Development classes in college. This is a huge thing for me and my family, something that really does make the world a better place.
I’m sure that I’m so upset that none of this is making sense. But my point is that I think it is so wrong to remove a major or minor or an institute just because there is not a “career path” or an “economic return” on it.
Comment by anon — November 10, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
StepfordWife #226 -
This is a very valid and excellent observation, IMO. Not that I’m advocating that feminists give up and leave the church, by any means. But observing that this kind of double-message is truly crazy-making is incredibly insightful.
It’s like any insane parent who drives his/her children crazy by telling them one day that they can grow up to be anything they want to be, then turns around and tells them the next day that they’ll never amount to anything and that their options are slim-to-none. Kids who grow up with parents like that tend to have a lot of emotional pain and hang-ups.
The church can function as a crazy-making parent, too.
Comment by Lorian — November 10, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
#221- ya know, I’m really not worried about it.
*Digression warning…! Summer of ‘08 I went on a school trip up to the Midwest, which was partially funded by Monsanto since they have a major interest in upcoming agriculture graduates. This meant we got/had to spend a full day at their facilities somewhere in Iowa, including a Q&A session with one of the company VPs. Mind, half this class was 20-year-olds majoring in organic agriculture, so you can imagine how that went. “How can you patent genes!? You’re the devil incorporated!” etc.
Now, my career plans are to run an organic farm, and I don’t think the USDA organic standards go far enough, so I definitely feel where these students were coming from. At the same time, seriously– there’s nothing you can yell at this guy that he hasn’t heard before. He’s not going to suddenly decide to change his life course after being called “Monsatan” for the 400th time just because it came out of my lips this time, you know? So I figured I’d just make the most of it and see if I could get a better sense about how the company works, since they seem to find themselves in the news so much.
One thing I’d been wondering about was a problem I’d heard a farm writer- Monsanto makes corn and soybeans that are Roundup-proof, so you can Roundup the bejeebers out of your field and it kills everything except your crop. The problem comes when you miss some of the crop during harvesting and the seeds come back next year as “volunteers.” But they’re Roundup-proof too! You can’t get rid of ‘em! There’s no end of poetic justice in this little paradox. But anyway, I asked him about it and how they were approaching a fix to this problem, since obviously the farmers having this problem were loyal customers. His response to that was actually surprisingly humble considering all the heckling the other students had been giving him. “That’s something we’ve had to learn some humility about, how biotechnology isn’t a magic bullet and you still have to really think things through.” I think he was really just relieved to have someone ask a meaningful thought-out question instead of calling him names. And the next time we all had our hands up to ask questions, guess who he wanted to hear from?
So call it naive, but I don’t see anything wrong at all with respectful “Have you considered X?”-type questions to church leaders. I hope if I’m ever called on to make big decisions, people give me the courtesy of offering a perspective I may not have had along with a hearty helping of the benefit of a doubt.
Comment by mellifera — November 10, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
One of the first things I had to realize when I came to BYU as a recent convert was that BYU is not the LDS church. And we can all thank heaven for that. My heart is hurt at the closing of the Women’s Research Institute. Also the Q12 have heavier matters than running BYU. There is a whole world of saints out there and the majority of them don’t go to BYU so former BYU student doesn’t understand that BYU is not an extension of the church though it is closely linked and heavily influenced by the church.
What bothers me the most is that the BYU community was not informed and with some 2,000 people or more in the Women’s Studies Minor it seems a bit sneaky and suspicious that no one really knew until after the fact and there was no room for discussion on the matter. I really am hurt by this because I really believe in BYU and its mission statement and without the things I learned here I would not have such an understanding of the gospel as it pertains to me and womanhood. While I don’t necessarily agree with BYU being “The Lord’s University” I do think He cares what happens there and I can’t help but think His heart is slightly hurt by the closing of BYU’s WRI.
Comment by hurt heart — November 10, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
i did leave and i am getting help. i won’t be repeating last week’s incident and my daughters will be spared the particular turmoil of feeling like they are not allowed to define their own best selves. i will celebrate whatever path they choose provided it is productive and does not cause harm to their fellow human beings.
Comment by StepfordWife — November 13, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Elisa,
I am sorry that you feel the way you do! I trust the leadership of the church and the President of BYU more than I do you. Feminism is a dirty word, its interesting how democrats will not change the party affiliation until they stabbed in the back by their own party. Democrats are only interested in their power over the people of this country. ACORN has been proven to be communist organization, because it condones prostitution. ACRON is Obama’s right arm. Democrats do not care about women’s rights, Bill Clinton showed what he and all democrats think of women. We are at war now because Bill was to busy with Monica to do anything about Bin Laden. Three different countries offered to hand Bin Laden over to the US, but Bill didn’t want to take him. The voters of New Jersey spoke out against Obama’s take over of this country and wanting to socialize everything not just healthcare.
There is a Prophecy by Joseph Smith that the “Constitution will hang as if by a thread”. Look it up its coming…..
Comment by Tim — November 15, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Tim, thank you for reminding us that the insanity comes from both sides of the political aisle.
Perhaps BYU should offer a set of courses that studies the writings non-suicidal women writers.
To lorian on #207, has anyone got the BYU womans studies minor and then gone on to medical school & to practice medicine?
Comment by pat the destroyer — November 15, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Pat, I think that you might be able to contact BYU and ask that question. They might have general data that you could look at. I think that Lorian was just suggesting majors that having a minor in Women Studies might be helpful for, so I guess that I don’t understand what your question is about.
Tim, really, condoning prostitution makes you communist? I’m afraid that I’m not following your argument. I thought being communist had to do with following the philosophies of Marx, I don’t recall prostitution being addressed in those philosophies, it has been a while though, perhaps you could enlighten me.
Comment by queenlucy — November 15, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
pat #239 -
I have no idea, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least. In any case, whether or not anyone has is irrelevant. Queenlucy is quite correct that I was suggesting majors in which a minor in Women’s Studies might very well be beneficial.
Comment by Lorian — November 15, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Pat, my wife got a woman’s studies minor and now she’s a housewife with three boys. You got a problem with that?
Comment by Christian — November 15, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
Pat, my sister got a women’s study minor from BYU and now she’s a judge.
Tim, if feminism is such a dirty word, why come on this blog? Keep drinking the kool aid my friend.
Comment by Risa — November 15, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
I work for BYU. If anyone is interested in more info about this decision, the top BYU official who made it just released these answers to questions he is frequently asked:
http://avp.byu.edu/academic-vice-president/wri-letter/
Comment by Michael — November 24, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Interesting article on the WRI
http://voler1.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/feminists-reposted/#comment-17
Comment by Taylor — December 6, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
[…] way? Why do so many people believe that feminism and the gospel cannot possibly co-exist? I wrote this little guy (which is quite similar to the letter I wrote to Amplify, with a Mormon twist) for a […]
Pingback by I’m not a feminist because I love animals, I’m a feminist because I hate plants. | Mormon Bloggers — December 12, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
If there was any hope of changing the decision of the BYU administration, Eliza’s angry response doomed it.
First off, to attack the BYU administration for thinking that feminism is a dirty word is to ignore what feminism stands for.
Let us see. The ERA, Sonia Johnson calling on people to not meet with the missionaries, people like Janice Allred teaching false notions about the Heavenly Mother, calls totally out of line with scripture for people to pray to the Heavenly Mother, accusing all males of being potential rapists, legalizing the murder of the unborn, Margaret Toscano calling excommunication a violent act, and many similar things.
Mormon women have to at least admit that most of the teachings of modern feminism are diametrically opposed to the teachings of the gospel. Even deeper, there is my one time stake president, the honorable Judge Griffith, statement that Satan seeks to divide men and women. We do not have a men’s research institute, a men’s studies minor or anything like that, why have seperate for women? Why not integrate the study of women and their issues and history into the whole curriculum.
On the issue of “all other major universities have this”, must we have a king like all other people? I would advise going and reading President Kimball’s talk where he used this phrase and changes from it. If the Women’s Research Institute does just what those institutions do at other places, than is it really fulfilling its mission to use gospel perspectives in its study?
Such unjustified attacks on BYU as being a bastion of “conservatism” and conservatism as being something we should avoid also are problematic. If conservatism is beliving that marriage should be the union of a man and a woman, than don’t we want to be know as the most conservative institute there is.
Beyound this, since BYU is preserving the Women Studies Minor, this almost seems like a desperate ploy by WRI people to preserve their jobs in which they perpetuate studies that focus only on women when they can not be justified in larger departments and only have a chance to succeed when ghetoized.
Comment by John Pack Lambert — December 16, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
One more thing, BYU is NOT, I repeat, NOT getting rid of women’s studies. They are moving women’s studies to be part of the Sociology department. At least to people like me and my mother, that seems to be a perfectly normal place to put women’s studies.
BYU will STILL, and I repead, STILL have a women’s studies minor. It was a minor before, it will STILL be a minor. That is not changing.
If BYU’s administration disiked feminism as much as Eliza claims, why would they keep the minor, keep funding for women’s related research projects and related things like that.
Next we will be told BYU got rid of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History because they dislike Mormons.
Comment by John Pack Lambert — December 16, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
John Pack Lambert
You wrote,”Next we will be told BYU got rid of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History because they dislike Mormons.”
Let’s see, hummm, what happened to scholars who didn’t falsify
Mormon history in order produce superficial faith -promoting propaganda?
Falsifying Mormon history works really well if you sell it to the church so they can lock it up and you don’t blow yourself up.
I think it’s history “they” don’t like.
(I wonder what would have happened if RSR, had been published twenty years ago?)
I would comment on your ludicrous notions of feminism, but as a boring legally married lesbian with two cats in the mortgaged yard, I fear you’d cite that as proof me as being a card carrying member of Satan’s army out to destroy all that is good and right with the world. So tell me, since you speak so eloquently, what does your dear mother think of that?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — December 16, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
[…] There are a few good posts on this issue like this one and this one. Below is an excerpt from Elisa’s passionate letter on FMH: […]
Pingback by BYU shuts down its Women’s Research Institute, Mormon feminist students respond — December 20, 2009 @ 2:34 am
I almost always read all the comments before I post, but I am only down to #25- #31 and I will not restrain myself. I am astonished by “Former BYU”’s statements. The most important thing I told my kids who went to BYU is not to lose their testimonies over the many times that the Lord’s appointed will not be in harmony with the Lord’s Annointed.
BYU is a bureaucracy.
It’s administration is largely delegated to bureaucrats. As with any bureaucracy, mistakes have been, are being, and will be made.
It is supremely important in parenting and in the Church that we teach that this is Heavenly Father’s Church, that Jesus is our Savior and that all men (and women) and human institutions are imperfect. Trusting the BYU bureaucracy is putting one’s trust in the arm of flesh.
Comment by Karen — February 9, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
The blurb in the BYU mag …says..
BYU has realigned its women’s studies programs and ,in the process, created a new $25,000 grant available annually to faculty and students researching women’s issues. The grand honors former RS general president Emmeline B. Wells. The reorganization will also enable BYU to offer 10-15 new grants per year of up to $5000 each for research pertaining to women. These new funds more than triple the amount of funding available across campus for research into women’s issues. Academic Vice President John S. Tanner says he “believes the arrangement will encourage more faculty members to produce high-quality women’s studies scholarship and will facilitate the discussion and visibility of this research”. Based upon the recommendation of the interdisciplinary advisory committee, the university also discontinued the Women’s Research Institute and moved the women’s studies minor to the College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences, where it is now overseen by Renata Tonks Forste, who is chair of the Sociology Dept. All Classes associated with the minor are continuing to be offered. In addition, an interdisciplinary faculty committee is being formed to REINVIGORATE THE MINOR. ( my caps)
I recently was called for donations and requested my monies go to Women’s Studies. He said…well…I see WRI on here.
( old paperwork no doubt, but I assume any moneys goes to the grants or the right place anyway. )
Comment by Melissa P. — April 3, 2010 @ 10:41 am