No you are!
So there’s this one debate, you may be familiar with it . . .
One side of this debate says stuff like:
Feminists hate men.
Feminists attack men.
Feminists want to weaken men.
And I hear many of these same people saying:
Men only think (or care) about one thing.
Men don’t have a strong moral compass and need women to (gently) guide them to do the right thing.
A man’s pride controls him, so don’t bruise it by being bossy. It’s okay to get your way, just so long as he thinks it’s his idea and feels strong and manly about it.
Men are visual, they can’t help it, so cover up because he can’t control himself.
Men are simple creatures who need food, sex, sports, money, and fast cars. Don’t expect him to have (or express!) a complicated inner life with emotions and crap.
Men are naturally less righteous than women, so they need this here God-powered crutch gift to raise them up (nearly) to our level.
Men have to think they’re in charge, or they quit trying. So we’ll just tell’em they preside (even if we really are equal partners), and let’em assign someone to say the prayer.
You also gotta let men have all the leadership positions, cause otherwise they’ll stay home and watch football.
If we don’t let men have the priesthood (and make the money, and protect us from spiders ‘n rapists), then women wouldn’t really need men. (Since other than that all they’re good for is sperm donors?)
So wait . . .
Who is it that attacks, weakens, and hates men?
Excellent question, Lisa! I’ve wondered about that, too. Those who accuse feminists of being man-haters so often seem to express a rather low opinion of men’s abilities. And the (mistaken) accusation that feminists just want to be like men is often followed by something along the lines of, “why would we want to stoop to that level?” What is it with the male-bashing among the critics of feminism?
I’m particularly intrigued by the common sentiment that women “let” men be the authorities. For example, the saying that the man is the head, but the woman is the neck who directs him. Or women discussing ways to get their husband to preside. That approach seems as subversive of patriarchal authority as anything that feminists are proposing.
Comment by Lynnette — March 8, 2010 @ 4:04 am
As a man I have always been annoyed by the “men are naturally less righteous than woman” idea.
You make some great points here.
Comment by cyclingred — March 8, 2010 @ 6:32 am
Those aren’t two sides of the debate. That’s the same side.
The same people who tell women to stop hating men and put on an apron, are the same people who tell guys to man up and enjoy their football and porn. They tell women to stop whining, because they already have power- the power to manipulate men! They excuse men’s weaknesses as an evolutionary inevitability, and hold women to a higher standard of virtue.
Comment by jane — March 8, 2010 @ 7:28 am
I don’t know. I’m smelling a little bit of straw going on here. I’ve said a few things that sound a little like some of those things, and then caught Hell as if I’d said things that sound worse than the way they’re stated here. How about this for something I could work with:
1 Some feminists seem to hate men, and want to weaken men. (This does not seem to be a requirement for entry into the Feminists Club, although it is for the She-womyn Man-haters Club).
2. Men, like women, are fallible beings, with weaknesses and foibles. Speaking authoritatively only for myself, I’d prefer that you not dress in a fashion that shows me parts of your body covered by a skimpy bathing suit, or that leads me to think that I might. I don’t demand you do so, but I ask you to do so as a favor. If you don’t, I’ll try to avert my gaze, but I’m likely to be distracted by this, and the physiological response to this (which I seriously can’t totally control) may reduce my desire to not stare. And this can make my day more difficult on a day when I’m already having challenges in not objectifying your body. Since I’ve asked for this as a personal favor, I’m certainly willing to consider a reciprocal request of personal favor for those granting my request.
I think those saying the first category of things you listed are being overly general in a way that adds clutter to an emotional topic and just helps widen the divide between those who consider themselves feminist and themselves. But I also see the way you’ve framed these statements to be doing much the same thing. There likely are some individuals who would say many or most of these things, but there are also likely some feminists who really do hate men and want to weaken them. So what? Do you want to make clever points about their hypocrisy, so you can feel secure in your superiority and rightness, or do you want to help narrow the divide and build more understanding and harmony? I prefer the latter.
Comment by Blain — March 8, 2010 @ 7:59 am
Brilliant point, brilliantly made, Lisa.
Comment by barmy stoat — March 8, 2010 @ 8:28 am
Alright, I can’t help but ask…
Blain, what’s an appropriate return favor for my years of modesty?(please account for hot summers in CA without sleeveless shirts)
Comment by LDesque — March 8, 2010 @ 8:57 am
Blain in 3 wrote:
I can’t think of a single feminist who hates men. However, most feminists that I know hate patriarchy. If you don’t understand the significance of that difference, you don’t understand feminism.
Comment by barmy stoat — March 8, 2010 @ 9:07 am
Love it.
I read through every. single. one. of the comments on CJane’s blog, some were thoughtful, some were petty, and some were just… shocking. And sad. And totally ignorant. One woman actually said that “everyone has always had choices, even if it’s the choice between life and death” and that even “minorities/women/oppressed people” have choice, even if they might not like the consequences of those choices….and of course she’s a young, white, married to a future Dr. American lady. Yeah, her choices are the same as the choices a woman in Darfur has : /
What. The. Hell.
Comment by Sophia — March 8, 2010 @ 9:07 am
I think that that we continually reinforce these ideas, and society and the LDS church help us out. Once you build up a story, it’s really hard to peel away the layers.
Since both men and women buy into the stories, we both do it. We continually do it, and it’s going to take massive efforts to undo it.
Stopping to think “Is that really true?” seems to help. So asking myself “Why do I make more money than her?”,”Are women really more nurturing, or has my growth in that area been stunted by years of conditioning?”,”What would the world be like if we (both men and women) tapped into that nurturing quality?”.
For us, it’s been hard to break old patterns, but it’s worth the effort.
Comment by Greg — March 8, 2010 @ 9:14 am
I think everybody needs to be wary of making judgments just on what they hear and repeating things rote without thinking about them, instead of trying to gather information ourselves and see what we think. “People I trust say that feminists hate men, so obviously they do, even if I’ve never met a self-defined feminist who did.” Most people who say these things know few feminists and tend to think of them as some far-away other they can blame society’s problems on, like Muslims and “the media”. It’s easier to push blame on the Other than take it yourself and really examine your own beliefs and priorities and viewpoints. Which is why I think it’s so important that us self-defined feminists DO examine ourselves and make sure we’re not being hypocritical, perhaps more so than pointing out the hypocrisy of others. Mote/beam, etc.
Comment by Christian — March 8, 2010 @ 9:24 am
Re #7:
I’m glad I’m not the only one who read a lot of those comments. It was shocking indeed and a very upsetting but interesting sample of what people think about feminism. I tend to spend my time on more feminist-friendly blogs, so that was really a change of pace to see that much opposition. . . to thinking women should have the same rights as men ( ? ? ? ) what the hell indeed.
Re #8:
We definitely do hear reinforcement for these ideas all the time. I’ve heard them so much I have caught myself accidentally using them when trying to figure out why something is the way it is, why someone’s acting the way he/she is, etc. and I have to stop and say “wait, no. That’s bologna.”
Still working on breaking the habits brought on by repetition of these ideas with faith that it’s worth the effort.
Comment by LDesque — March 8, 2010 @ 9:26 am
My dad makes sexist jokes and last Christmas, I was venting to my husband about a particular one. I asked my DH, “What does that say about women?” And then followed it up, “What does that say about men?” It was like a lightbulb went off in his head: he realized that putting down women often puts down men backhandedly.
Oh and by the way- Happy International Women’s Day!
Comment by TopHat — March 8, 2010 @ 9:40 am
Love it, Lisa!
Comment by Leah — March 8, 2010 @ 9:41 am
Funnily, in retrospect, I realize that my last comment is a little oversimplifying of the traditional conservative mindset, a little case in point on the mote/beam idea. We all believe contradictory things, and it takes quite a bit of work to ferret them out from within ourselves. I completely agree with #8 and #10 on that account.
Comment by Christian — March 8, 2010 @ 10:03 am
Feminists are concerned with equality. If you call yourself a feminist and then claim that men, minorities, political parties, whatever, are inferior to you, you are a fundamentally unsound. To say nothing of ridiculous. Wanting to uplift women doesn not equate to wanting to put down men (that’s a paranoid viewpoint if ever I’ve heard one). Emphasizing women’s rights, choices, etc. is just a concentrated take on the long steady trudge towards equal rights for all Men (capital M).
Comment by C. — March 8, 2010 @ 10:15 am
Intriguing question, Lisa. One interesting thing I found in FW (yes, I am going to be quoting it for a year now because I feel it is a pretty good summary of the culture we are evolving from) is that it infantilizes men just as much as women. It’s a co-dependent relationship - you each keep yourselves helpless so that you need the other person. (However, I think it’s even more dangerous because one person has the power and control)
Good marriages are mutually beneficial, and we do need each other. But, we don’t need to reduce ourselves or diminish our own capabilties or responsibilities to create that need.
Comment by Stephanie — March 8, 2010 @ 10:21 am
Great points! You have hit right on the nail the phenomenon that occurs when a given personality type tries to cope with gender inequailty and it hits to a tone of Aesop’s sour grapes.
Women have historically been left out on opportunities by men. And thus, there has to be a balancing rationalization that “that’s the way it’s supposed to be because…”
I see this in the media all the time. Men are portrayed as stupid, completely lacking of coherent judgment and self control, and prone to indulge in whatever they please. The Homer Simpson syndrome.
Women on the other hand are portrayed as the ones having common sense, coherence, and better decision making skills. And all this supposedly “balances” the fact that they have to put up with blatant inequality.
Comment by Manuel — March 8, 2010 @ 10:22 am
@ blaine:
Ummm. No. Why in all that I hold holy should I run around in a sack because you haven’t learned to control your thoughts and bodily responses? Personally, I find stinky people far more distracting than naked ones….do I get to go around asking people to bathe? Or fat people to wear baggy clothes and stay home so I don’t see it? Nope.
Despite you asking as a “favor” your favor a: impinges upon my life. I like tank tops and sun on my skin, and prefer not to be overheated. And b: Places the responsibility for your “impure” thoughts and reactions upon me, rather than upon you. Nope. Not buying it. Not even a little bit……
Comment by fuzzy — March 8, 2010 @ 10:34 am
Amen
Comment by April — March 8, 2010 @ 10:42 am
That schizophrenic conception of masculinity in much of traditional patriarchy–the hero and the dolt–is certainly a large part of why I’m a feminist. Few people, in my experience, believe consciously and uniformly hold the second set of beliefs. But aspects of those beliefs are extremely pervasive in our society. I think that if we set aside our notions of gender characteristics, we have the opportunity to both embrace greater variety of traits among either/both sexes, and we are able to set a higher standard of emotional maturity for both sexes by eliminating the rationalizations which are part of those pigeonholes.
re: 4
Can you share some examples of feminists who hate and want to weaken men? I don’t know of a single one. I know of plenty feminists who want a level playing field, which many men, who are comfortable with their elevated power and status in patriarchy, feel is a “weakening” of men–but those men are wrong. And I know many feminists who hate traditional paradigms of masculinity, and are frustrated when men blatantly abuse that paradigm, but that’s a far cry from hating men.
And might I ask, what in the world does this thread have to do with skimpy bathing suits?
Comment by Derek — March 8, 2010 @ 10:44 am
And this is why strict and silly gender roles (and bad rationalizations) are bad for everybody.
Comment by Genavee — March 8, 2010 @ 10:45 am
For these reasons, I have always thought that feminism was beneficial to both sexes. If it really were about men vs. women and that one must win and one must lose, both of us lose because we are admitting that we are weak and insecure enough to feel the need to rule the other.
In learning to respect human dignity–in both directions–both sexes become stronger because we feel less of a philosophical divide. We want women and men to really, truly be partners in every sense of the word.
I, for one, am not into strict division of labor. I feel that both men and women should learn how to be self-sufficient so that, when entering a partnership, both can help each other with everything. If both people are making decisions together, caring for children, minding the finances, and keeping the household in order, both partners then have sympathy for one another and are more willing to empathize.
I also don’t buy the idea that women are more righteous than men. I don’t know how many church leaders have said that to me, but I just don’t buy it. I’m here on Earth to learn and grow as well. I’m not just here to be sweet and helpful to help my husband to grow.
Comment by AllieKay — March 8, 2010 @ 10:51 am
can somebody PLEASE direct me to those man hating feminists that were so widely cited in the cjane post?
I am conducting research and I’m having trouble finding study subjects.
Comment by mfranti — March 8, 2010 @ 10:54 am
My sister’s sealer told a sexist joke in the sealing room which everyone thought was so funny that the branch president, during his toast, repeated it at the reception. It went something like this.
“Anna, reach out your hand, and Pete, place your hand on top of hers. Now, Pete, I want you to cherish this moment, because this is the last time you will ever have the upper hand!”
Everyone erupted with laughter. My husband and I gagged.
I fell like this perceived notion that one party has to be in power over the other is teh root of a lot of problems in our society. If we really are partners, nobody has the upper hand and both sexes win.
Comment by AllieKay — March 8, 2010 @ 10:57 am
Excellent post. But I felt compelled to head over to the c-jane post to see what the fuss was about and now my brain is bleeding. Thanks, I guess.
Comment by Chandelle — March 8, 2010 @ 11:05 am
“Men are naturally less righteous than women, so they need this here God-powered crutch gift to raise them up (nearly) to our level.
Men have to think they’re in charge, or they quit trying. So we’ll just tell’em they preside (even if we really are equal partners), and let’em assign someone to say the prayer.
You also gotta let men have all the leadership positions, cause otherwise they’ll stay home and watch football.”
I assume your comments here Lisa are about the idea of the priesthood being somehow compensatory. I honestly don’t know what I think about that idea. I certainly do NOT believe that men are inherently less righteous than women.
BUT our culture defines “masculine” in a pretty negative way. My 13 year old son is trying to figure out how to be a “good boy” as defined at church and not a wimp as defined by a middle school culture that values trash talking, objectifying women, and physical dominance. Watching him, I would say that the priesthood helps him partly reconcile that–sort of the knight’s code of chivalry. I’m not sure how comfortable I am with that–chivalry is pretty problematic–but I do see it.
I would also say that the inner city culture I grew up in also has some pretty horrible gender roles and definitions of masculinity. I just looked up the stats, and we are now at 72 percent of black babies born out of wedlock. While I personally think changing drug laws is important too, that is just plain a HUGE number.
I think the church is trying to find a way to say that fathers matter, and it is easier to explain why if you can say that fathers are different somehow, that they have something special to offer. Can they say this in a way that does not demean either men or women?
To me there is a big difference between saying that men are less spiritual than women and saying that our culture reinforces spirituality/playing nice in women and not in men, and that our religion needs to find a way to deal with that.
But to be clear–I do not know that we have the right way to deal with it. I am just saying that the problem is not an easy one to dismiss with a wave of the hand.
Comment by cms — March 8, 2010 @ 11:08 am
OMG WHY?! WHY did I go there? Now I can’t escape and it just keeps getting WORSE!
Comment by Chandelle — March 8, 2010 @ 11:09 am
Just to see I googled man hating feminists…I came upon the wikipedia (obviously a completely accurate source
) article… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry … it does quote some extremist feminists who do say crazy things.
I think there are extreme feminists that hate men…some feminists hate specific men with good reason and have expanded that a little, or their rational response towards a specific few has been misinterpreted as a general feeling..
I think the problem is the more conservative “men need the priesthood” ” i married above me” “men are like puppies” junk is more pervasive and accepted. It is so accepted it isn’t seen for what it is-limiting men into very small roles, creating unequal relationships and insulting both parties-the male is too stupid to change and the woman is stupid enough to choose someone stupid.
Comment by britt — March 8, 2010 @ 11:12 am
that’s it? a few books and articles?
hmmm…i wonder what a search for ‘christian extremist’ would generate?
Comment by mfranti — March 8, 2010 @ 11:15 am
re: 26
Yes, the LDS concept of priesthood more or less provides a better model of masculinity than “the world” does. But even better yet would be to abandon gender concepts such as masculity, and promote models of humanity, without arbitrarily trying to create distinctions of gender (femininity and masculinity).
Comment by Derek — March 8, 2010 @ 11:20 am
Nice job, Lisa! What fascinating and true observations.
Comment by motion de smiths — March 8, 2010 @ 11:32 am
I think that is it mel a very few extremists
Comment by britt — March 8, 2010 @ 11:36 am
I knew this would be a good place to find people to bang my head against a wall with over Cjane’s post! Reading some of those responses were disturbing. If those women feel that “feminism” is such a bad thing, I’d like to ask them to give up their right to vote, right to own property, credit cards in their names, and any personal bank accounts that they may have.
And you make an excellent point, Lisa. I’ve never understood how treating my husband with kid gloves, or like a six year old really helps either of us. It’s ridiculous.
Comment by Dancer 007 — March 8, 2010 @ 11:38 am
re 30: Derek, I agree with you in principle. But adolescents are not just trying to figure out how to be a good person–they are trying to figure out what it means to be a man and a woman–what it means to have an adult body and new awareness of their sexuality and how others respond to their sexuality and how to be an adult about it all. That is an important psychological task.
What he is up against is that being a man means kicking ass on Halo, playing sports well, having girls think you are hot, and having better insults than the next guy.
And you are saying to offer in response “don’t worry about what it means to be a man. It doesn’t really mean anything.” And the church’s response is “being a man means being worthy to hold this power.”
At the end of these day, I think the latter is more compelling to many people, especially young men and men who are not fully comfortable with their masculinity. I absolutely agree with you that this approach is problematic–I am not disagreeing with that. But watching my son gives me new insight into this and I am just saying that the church’s approach is an easier way to counter the “world.”
Comment by cms — March 8, 2010 @ 11:38 am
Interesting post. I think a lot of the problem stems from a too-superficial understanding of what feminist women have actually said over the years.
That was written (as many of you will doubtless already know) by Emmeline B. Wells many decades ago — in response to a male-dominated culture that in some ways no longer exists; yet there’s still a good deal of truth there (and no little humor!).
The problem, as I see it, is that muddling women’s cries for equal treatment with a so-called ‘hatred’ of men has been an easy and convenient way to dismiss the issue as having no merit. It’s a trap that many well-meaning men (and too many well-meaning women) have allowed themselves to be caught in.
Thanks for the post!
Comment by SLK in SF — March 8, 2010 @ 11:45 am
cms- i do think it is important to identify what makes a good man and what makes a good woman. I think we have to expand our concept of motherhood and fatherhood . I think in the church expanding what priesthood means and what relief society means can really offer great roles for a man or a woman. Both roles focus on service
Comment by britt — March 8, 2010 @ 11:46 am
I should probably add that Sister Wells would very likely have rolled her eyes and laughed out loud at many of our current notions regarding ‘feminism’ — yet I think that she would also have found much to approve of as well.
Comment by SLK in SF — March 8, 2010 @ 11:48 am
I like this post. This is a nice post- it highlights a lot of the arguments (stereotypes/accusations/attitudes) I have seen getting kicked around in these discussion.
SLK in SF - #35 (to your last paragraph especially) AMEN!!!!!
Brit #36- Agreed.
Comment by zaissa — March 8, 2010 @ 12:03 pm
Thanks a lot, chandelle, for making me feel compelled to read all those comments (okay, not all, I stopped at 200). I am actually glad I did. I have been feeling torn lately and a little scared. My testimony is rock solid, but I have been concerned over adopting the “feminist” label. Before I read those comments, I said a little prayer to Heavenly Father to PLEASE help me identify truth.
I was delighted by how many people came in to refute the OP. I found the OP to be shallow and ignorant. (This is the first time I’ve ever seen the blog, so my opinion is just on the post itself - not cjane). I LOVED all the things that people were saying about what feminism means. Why don’t they come over here and join our conversations? And I was also delighted by this link to a BYU paper: Feminism in the Light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is now on my to-read list. Oh, here is the abstract.
I think that for me, personally, I embrace feminism because this is how I always thought it was. I always thought that men and women were equal. I thought that the few sexist jerks I encountered were the exception, not the rule. BUT, I also have recently realized how privileged my life has been, and I believe that colored me to make the same assumption cjane makes: I don’t need feminism because noone is standing in my way. I now realize it is naive.
That said, I feel that I face a few challenges. I don’t want to be critical of my leaders. I believe the prophet is God’s mouthpiece. The challenge is in separating out God’s will from man’s will, and we hash that out repeatedly. But, when it comes down to it, I believe the gospel is true. I was so heartened to read comments by so many other women (outside FMH) who also self-identify as feminists. We really aren’t that alone! In fact, it seemed to me that a lot more comments were against the OP than for it. That made me happy.
Bring on the motherhood feminism. Let’s convert cjane and the rest!
Comment by Stephanie — March 8, 2010 @ 12:15 pm
oh, and great points, cms. I feel the same way about raising my sons.
Comment by Stephanie — March 8, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
Yes men and women are not the same, but they have more similarities than differences. Everyone has a need to rationalize their situation and outlook. So they define their own terms. Then they feel better about where they are.
Isn’t nice that we all understand that difference doest mean inferior and that equal doesn’t mean the exactly the same.
I think the statements about the priesthood being the consolation prize is condescending and that it belittles men as well as women. I also believe that some people say it because it makes them feel better about themselves. It makes them feel humble and fair.
Comment by Claudia — March 8, 2010 @ 12:26 pm
Just yesterday as I watched my Husband make dinner, I told him my feeling of a conversation that I had at church two weeks ago,
“It’s strange, when I tell people you were the one to make the meal that was brought to them, they act so shocked! The smile on the Husbands face dwindles and he acts uncomfortable in the knowledge that he ate something you made. But are you not suppose to be the head of the home, the strong one, the one with the priesthood and yet it’s as though people think you are too dumb to make a meal? I just think it’s odd.” My Husband just laughed he too has experienced it when other men have told him what a great cook his wife it and them proudly announces it was him. If we can’t be the priesthood, breadwinner, and head then there must be a good reason right? I think that’s were all of the, well men need this or that ect.They are less spiritual ect.
Comment by CZ — March 8, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
re: 34
I think we should treat sexuality distinctly and separately from what it is to be an adult. I think using sexuality as a justification for broad-based concepts of gender gives sexuality far too much power in our lives. It may be a very important component of our identity, but it is only a component, and not the whole.
I can speak as one with experience being one of those young men not fully comfortable with their masculinity. I can remember the pain when traditional LDS models of masculinity, which don’t differ a lot from the “worldly” models, didn’t make room for my own personal characteristics and qualities. I can say without qualification that not being pressured to conform to a specific stereotype of masculinity would have been much more comforting and enabling.
If that is the response of the church, doesn’t that imply that being a woman means not being worthy of that power? Is that the message we want?
The reality is that being “a man” doesn’t mean much of anything. What matters is being a good person, isn’t it?
Comment by Derek — March 8, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
This post made me think about a few things.
#1- You can’t really be a proper, equality loving feminist if…(OK I know we find it irritating when people think they can define who can and can’t be a feminist, but I will try not to be too exclusive here) …if you don’t give men some credit too. I mean I think the core idea of feminism is that there may be biological differences, but mind and soul wise we are equal with the same capacity for morality, goodness, badness, reason, and choice making. Men are not slaves to their socially assumed biological “urges” any more than women should be slaves to their socially assumed physical limitations.
#2- I have heard the accusation during some of these discussions that women use some sort of “sexual power” over men when they dress in a revealing manner and that they have some sort of responsibility to dress or behaving more chastely so that men are not provoked visually or otherwise to behave immorally or to have sexual thoughts they don’t want to have (but will accidentally if they see something they don’t mean to see— because they are just wired that way.) And I have heard that by NOT being “considerate” to men and hiding her body a woman is wielding power over the man and that feminism really means: “women can do whatever they want.” And “women don’t have to take responsibility.” (Both of those are quotes from comments I have read by people who define feminism in those terms.) But it seems to me that to say those things imply that the second set of arguments Stephanie listed are all true and valid. And if you buy that second list, it seems to me that those arguments excuse men from taking the responsibility for their thoughts and actions (boys will be boys) and puts a share of men’s actions/thoughts/reactions squarely on the shoulders of the women folk. And aside from their mothers, I don’t think women should have to take the responsibility for our own actions plus a little for the actions of men.
#3- Why is there not a movement of men who are pissed off about the second set or stereotypes about men? Sure they excuse some bad behaviors but…they are really VERY insulting and demeaning to the gender. I know there are some men who will protest those ideas, but why aren’t they on the news repeatedly trying to put those ideas down? Maybe if the ideas kept men from getting employment, or being promoted, or were used as justification for men to be physically violated and have the perps get away with it, or maybe if the ideas led to laws that governed a man’s personal sexual and reproductive choices, then maybe they would fight those stereo types a little harder?
Comment by zaissa — March 8, 2010 @ 12:47 pm
CZ- I get that a lot too. My husband and I both cook, clean, and work. The only reason I happen to cook more is because DH nearly always has more homework than I do (this semester, anyway). I notice that women don’t usually act shocked that my husband cooks, but the men do. Like it’s wierd that a man cooks, especially for other men (i.e. we’ll offer a snack to the home teachers, like pumpkin bread).
Comment by AllieKay — March 8, 2010 @ 12:54 pm
zaissa-
Now that I read you comment, I think I can see why women should have any sort of responsibility to dress modestly. IF dressing immodestly is exercising sexual power over a man (notice I said IF, because I’m not 100% convinced one way or the other), is it much different than a man exercising sexual power over a woman, invading her sexuality so it is no longer in her control? And wouldn’t we agree that that’s wrong?
Of course there is a difference since when a man rapes a woman, it is an ACTIVE violation, but it’s similar in theory.
Comment by AllieKay — March 8, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
perhaps this is unrelated, but judge for yourselves…
My friend has foster-adopted four children who are part black part their mom can’t remember. My friend lived in Utah and one day one of the children said “When will I be white?” After some questioning it appeared they assumed they would turn lighter as they got older because all of the adults they interacted with were lighter than them. (To be fair that ward had almost every south american country represented in it, but for whatever reason the skin color was still considerably lighter than her very black children).
She and her husband prayed and looked very hard and found a job in a state with a much different population density. They sought out role models for their children making sure to
include variety in color of skin. They previously had friends with a variety of cultures-but that was not what her young children needed.
She and her husband could have spent a good deal of time talking to her children about how it didn’t matter and how what matters is how the person behaves, not what color they are…but their children needed something.
if we’re going to argue that it’s just about being a good person then should we spend so much time noticing what gender our leaders are? Should we worry so much about what gender has the priesthood? Are we supposed to tell little girls it doesn’t matter if the prophet is a man or a woman-just notice that he’s a good person?
You can’t have it both ways. Children and grown ups notice these things..I don’t know that we can change that they notice them, but we can change what it MEANS to them when they notice them.
Comment by britt — March 8, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
AllieKay, no, I don’t accept that it is remotely similar when a man cannot control his lust when he sees a woman he considers “scantily dressed” (which 100 years ago might have meant seeing her bare ankle or foot, or in Japan, the nape of her neck — whereas in Africa, the standards are completely different), vs. when a man invades a woman’s body by force.
A woman who dresses in a manner the man finds “immodest” is NOT forcing the man to look at her. Unless she physically grabs him by the neck and forces his face into her cleavage, or wraps her bare leg around his waist, or otherwise physically assaults him, there is absolutely no comparison.
Men are socialized to find various parts of a woman’s body a sexual “turn-on.” This is plainly evidenced by the fact that men living in close proximity to women in tribal cultures where women and men both wear only loincloths or similar clothing which leaves the upper torso completely naked, are perfectly able to get through the day and concentrate on matters such as obtaining food, caring for children, maintaining living quarters, etc., without obsessing about the women’s naked breasts. And yet, if LDS women show up a church in pants, or in a blouse which reveals an inch too much upper arm or chest, LDS men apparently become completely unable to function, let alone pay attention to the church proceedings.
Men need to get over it and take responsibility for maintaining custody of their own senses, and stop blaming women because they don’t wear nylons and that glimpes of a naked calf or, God forbid, knee “compels” the man to sit there and entertain lustful thoughts rather than focusing his attention on what he OUGHT to be doing.
Men are not babies. They are supposed to be grownups. And grownups who indulge in lustful thoughts need to take responsibility for those thoughts and either quell them, or admit that they are indulging in them because they LIKE to do so and CHOOSE to do so.
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
britt #47 - You are negating your own point. Your friends sought out role models for their dark-skinned children with whom those children could (at least in their opinion) more readily identify. And yet, you would deny such role models to little girls who look to their church leadership and find people like themselves completely excluded from that leadership. That tells little girls that the church is run by men, for men, and that women are merely there to be ornamental and prepare the church suppers and nurse the babies.
That’s not a message I’d want my little girls picking up.
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
I liked having the traditional roles where the man was the boss of the house. But that was because after a full day of being an attorney, I used up all of my decision making. I will have to admit if his decisions were completely out of line, I would pull him aside and review the logic.
Comment by StillConfused — March 8, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
StillConfused (#50), it sounds to me as though you like having a home where authority was shared and each of you can cover when the other is too tired or otherwise involved. If you like being able to review his decisions and correct his logic when you feel he’s in error, then this does not sound to me like a home where the man is the “boss of the house.” I don’t get the impression that women in “traditional role households” have the option to review and correct their husbands’ decisions. They are generally fortunate if he asks for their opinion before he makes the decision, I think.
(But maybe your post was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, and I’m reading too much into it — if so, please pardon.)
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 1:36 pm
allie Kay you said the word rape…there will be no rational thought related to a very interesting point.
Lorian, please. No one is arguing that a man is not responsible for what to do with his thoughts, but it is ridiculous to argue that a woman isn’t responsible for putting the image she portrays out there.
go to africa and see how the bare breasted women are treated and then come back and tell me men aren’t ever turned on by it. do you know the rape statistics in Africa? You may very well argue that it is not due to their lack of clothing, but you may not argue the average bare breasted african woman is safer from the average male walking around… http://crs.org/democratic-republic-of-congo/rape-counseling/
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_5525.html
A man doesn’t ask to have some visual images places in his mind caused by his shocking audacity to open his eyes. He does have complete responsibility for what he does from that moment on-no one is arguing differently.
Comment by britt — March 8, 2010 @ 1:36 pm
do you realize the tradition in some South African tribes is to make sure a woman can get pregnant before marrying her (of course it would never be the man’s fault)…if she can’t she is unsellable in the lobolla system… it’s practically liberating isn’t it?
Comment by britt — March 8, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
I agree with you there. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression–like you and Lisa, I do not think men and women have some different essential nature that has to do with pink or cooking or being more charitable or more sexual or anything else. But I do think the cultural pressure to be “masculine” is less in line with Christlike living than the way our culture pressures girls to be “feminine” and I am unresolved about whether giving the priesthood to men is helpful or not in that regard.
Here’s another way to put it. In one of my endless “being the head is meaningless” debates with my dad, he said that he thought being the priesthood holder meant he needed apologize first in an argument. For my parents, that was a good compensatory move–my dad is very confident and always thinks he’s right. That rule helped him both “feel like a man” and be a better partner.
That rule would be ridiculous in my own marriage. I think it is stupid in principle. Is a better rule “if you are in the wrong, you should apologize”? OF COURSE. But–I also honestly think that a more generic rule would have been less effective with my dad than a priesthood based rule because of his cultural conditioning. And I just am not sure what to think about that.
Comment by cms — March 8, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
but britt—-in each culture “indecent” has a different definition. I am not spared the view of things I consider indecent—women berating their children in public, teenagers nearly giving each other tonsillectomies, men in speedos (though I’m not quite sure that is sexy)…400 lb people in Walmart in spandex….
In no single one of these cases would I be able to excuse thoughts of murder, mayhem, or simple disgust based upon that sight. So why, exactly, do I have to cover up to make the men happy? I am not responsible for them. Period.
And the entire sub-saharan culture is built upon female subjugation, where the men believe that they have dominion and power over women. Might just be why the church resonates so well there…….hmmm…..
Comment by fuzzy — March 8, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
AllieKay #46 –
Umn, I can’t hear your tone, so I don’t know if you are saying that tongue – in- cheek or not. From your other comments, it doesn’t seem your style, so if you are messing with me, sorry for being so naïve and gullible.
But if I did actually say anything that shaped your thinking to believe that women do need to dress to not invade men’s mental and visual sexual space then…I cannot tell you how sorry I am for that!
No, a woman’s dress is not the equivalent to violating a man.
Touching a man, raping him, speaking constantly and deliberately to him in sexually explicit ways, demeaning ways, etc. in the workplace is the equivalent.
Conversely, a man showing up to work in tight or revealing clothing is the equivalent of a woman dressing immodestly at work.
And I do occasionally see men do this. I don’t feel violated OR distracted.
Now I am not promoting either gender running around nude or in bikinis in the office or anything.
Comment by zaissa — March 8, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
This kind of idea keeps coming up. It makes me wonder if the church is “behind the times” in some regards so that the gospel won’t be outright rejected in other parts of the world. So that it can start to work and soften hearts before changes come.
Comment by Stephanie — March 8, 2010 @ 1:52 pm
fuzzy,we are all responsible for what we wear and how we behave in public. we are…that’s basic humanity to consider others when we are in public.
If someone chooses not to be responsible for what they wear and instead dress provocatively they are effectively handing everyone a mental image of their body-it’s similar to a prank call-you didn’t ask for it but it can be disturbing. What you do AFTER you are handed that image is completely up to you. You are responsible for that completely. You are not justified in fantasizing about it or acting out on that fantasy in any way. BUT the person is still responsible for handing you that image.
Comment by britt — March 8, 2010 @ 2:01 pm
Here’s the thing:
I have heard so many different versions of “provocative” that I disagree. For example, the long-running debate on modesty and pants in the church….In some instances, those pants are described as provocative or immodest—because, of course, they emphasize the fact that women have legs. In another case, a larger-busted woman is described as provocative in the same level of “snuggery” that a smaller-busted woman would not be. A large woman in a shorter skirt is indecent, a curvy, fit woman in a short skirt is “sexy.”
We each choose what we think of the image presented. An Amish family might well find our clothing indecent, even the spiffy stuff worn to church. Me, I missed the body-modesty train and am quite happy nude….it is a matter of choice.
Since I am not willing to dress in a burka, thus satisfying the lowest common denominator, and i strongly suspect you aren’t either, then I will just have to leave it as it stands….my dress isn’t anyone else’s problem.
Comment by fuzzy — March 8, 2010 @ 2:15 pm
I still think I can be a feminist and think:
1. Men and women are somewhat different (doesn’t mean one is better than the other).
2. Men are more visually sexually stimulated than women (doesn’t make rape ok).
3. There might be a reason why God thinks a male only priesthood is the best way to fulfill his current work on earth even though we can only speculate about his reasons.
4. On average, women tend to be more religious and some of that may be innate.
I’ve been feeling kicked out of the club of feminism lately. Maybe it is time I quit identifying with feminism and think of feminists as man-haters and woman-haters.
I think being a SAHM shouldn’t mean that you have less worth in society or less power in a relationship. That men shouldn’t be the sole provider just because they think women’s work is beneath them. Mostly I’ve always thought I was a feminist because I didn’t think Thanksgiving should include women cooking all day long and men watching football and never getting up from the couch. And I didn’t like that vibe I get when a man discounted my opinion and I could tell it was because I was a woman.
I’ve always been grateful for the history of feminism. That we can vote. That woman have the right to be as educated as men.
I just know that I was reading about the definition of feminism on CJane, and it was also discussed on another blog. Does feminism really want to be so exclusive and only include the complete extremists? That you can’t believe in any kind of gender difference and be a feminist?
Comment by jks — March 8, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
britt, I never said that African women don’t face rape or discrimination. But such is not due to tribal dress. it’s due mainly to politcal conquest issues and cultural devaluation of women (which, again, is unrelated to whether or not their breasts are covered, except in areas where Western culture has been overlayed onto indigenous culture and Western religious beliefs about the covering of women have been imposed).
But as to women in small tribal groups wearing traditional clothing (or lack thereof), they are not subjected to more rapes simply because the men of the tribe can see their breasts.
If you look to isolated native tribal groups in South America where women also tend to dress similarly (bare-breasted), again you will note that they are not subjected to more rapes because of their exposed breasts, which are seen as the mammary organs that they ARE, and are used for feeding children, not for “titillating” the menfolk by covering them and playing peek-a-boo, as we do in Western culture.
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 2:19 pm
I have another thought related to the OP. A lot of these things might be characteristics of the natural man. But, should these characteristics be overcome or pandered to?
jks, your comment reminds me of a post I was thinking of writing. “What I am not”: all the reasons I am a feminist because of things I don’t believe.
Comment by Stephanie — March 8, 2010 @ 2:22 pm
zaissa # 56 -
This.
Tom Clancy used to have a photo of himself which he used for the back covers of his novels. He was standing in profile, wearing some kind of military coverall uniform, and he had a HUGE bulge (probably stuffed with gym socks, I imagine) in the front of his pants. It was really obvious.
Now, as a lesbian, I’m not likely to spend much time (ANY time) fantasizing about a man’s genitalia. And while I consider that picture an invasion of my right-to-know, and it makes me feel like washing my eyeballs with bleach, I do not by any means question his right to dress as he pleases (and make an arse out of himself) in public.
Nor do I, by the way, spend a great deal of time fantasizing about the women’s bodies I see around me. If a woman wears a low-cut top, it’s her own business. I don’t blame her for “making” me picture what’s underneath. How I choose to dwell or not dwell on the sight (or imagining) is completely my own responsibility.
The world is FULL of distractions. We choose to either allow or deny those distractions to obsess our minds.
I had a voice teacher who used to wear tops cut down to *there*, and always with a large, glittery necklace or pendant dangling into her cleavage. She was a very…er…buxom woman, and I had to stand facing her for an hour every week taking my voice lesson.
Did I like seeing her dress that way? No. Did it distract me? Sometimes — mostly because I felt the need to look anywhere but at her so as not to have her think I was staring at her breasts. Was I attracted to her? Not even remotely, but that doesn’t mean that the visual image was not distracting or disturbing at some level.
Was any of that her responsibility? No. Only mine. If she feels comfortable in those clothes, it is no more my business than if she wants to teach voice lessons naked. It was up to me to decide whether or not I’m comfortable taking the lessons regardless of how she dressed or didn’t dress, and, if I chose to be there, to behave only in a manner consistent with my own beliefs about moral or righteous behavior — NOT to attempt to control her or in any way modify her standards of dress or presentation.
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
Brit #52 and #53
Woah! I think your arguments here are off-base for what Lorian was getting at. I don’t think Lorian was implying that tribal African women enjoy a safer more gender neutral life style. I think she was just trying to point out that when it comes to dressing so as not to place sexually charged images into the mind of a man, we have to consider that in some cultures the image of a woman is sexually charged if she has hair showing out of her burka in one culture, and in another, an almost naked woman is nothing to blink twice at.
When a man takes in the image of a woman, how much he sexualizes that image has much much less to do with what she is wearing and more to do with the meaning—in his mind—of what she is wearing.
A good deal of this has to do with the culture he is raised in, and what it teaches him about female roles and body parts of course, but he certainly has a choice and can learn to control what thoughts and reactions he has to the women around him no matter how they dress. He can decide whether or not to focus on the parts of her body he personally finds sexually arousing.
The spectrum if decency in our culture in the US is kind of wide. What is “cute” to some girls is immodest to others and those lines change decade to decade and so on.
And yes, to your main point, sometimes women will “give” him images “he doesn’t want.” In other words he may see more breast or leg or whatever he considers too sexy for him to remain pure than he intends to.
A couple questions for you, to explore this a little further:
1. If he does see more than he wants, what does this do to him? How does it harm him as a person? (I know why constantly seeking after pornography etc. is harmful to a person’s ability to relate to others, but an “image” of a co-worker in a mini-skirt—what’s this do to him?)
2. If a man from a country where woman are asked to wear veils at all times to prevent men from being distracted by their faces were coming to visit your home, and he was a very moral and good man, who avoided thinking sexually of women as much as possible, but he found the female face too provocative to keep his mind off of kissing them, would you cover your face and the faces of your daughters during his visit out of courtesy to him?
Comment by zaissa — March 8, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
Lorian-
Where do you live? I think we should do lunch.
Yes there are for sure people of both genders who show me more sometimes that I would like to see and I want to gouge my eyes out. But I don’t feel entitled to demand every one dress and walk around dressed in a way to make me comfy.
Sure we will all get an image (a mental snap shot of something we see) but what our mind does, all the meanings it attaches to the image, how significant we make the image, that is what matters.
Comment by zaissa — March 8, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
Ok off topic question. I may get laughed at here a little but…
What does “DH” stand for? For the longest time I thought it was the initials of one person’s specific husband that she referred to a lot. Then I noticed several women here are married to someone named DH.
Who is this guy???
(It’s what everyone calls the husband, right??? Am I catching on?)
(Don’t laugh at me, I got SAHM within the first week.)
Comment by zaissa — March 8, 2010 @ 3:01 pm
Lorian I just have a REALLY hard time looking to Africa as an example of how to regard women-with or without war. South Africa is not at war and they have the highest rape statistics in the civilized world.
I’m sure African women would happily trade thier great “freedom” in dress for protective clothing-even one set-protective of the elements, not men. It is not out of some great feminist stand they don’t wear tops. It is not because of the great enlightenment of their men. You can surely say a great part of the rape problem in a majority of africa is the general political unrest, but to say Africans no longer see breasts as sexual is guessing at best…It implies there are statistics where there clearly are not. Let’s assume they do see breasts diffrerently…could it be because they are starving? is it a part of our first world that we have time to view clothing and non clothing as more than simply practical protection…the best you can do?
Fuzzy! I would love for women to set a standard of modesty ourselves.
Comment by britt--the brat — March 8, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
cms,
I do see where you are coming from, that sometimes rules that are perhaps not entirely sound on their own, can “work” within some relationships or with certain personalities/needs. But I think more relevant to my OP point is that regardless of how much “being a man means being worthy of the priesthood” might be helpful to some boys looking for a “healthier masculinity” I can’t imagine that any of those young men are well served by being told that they need the priesthood because they are inherently less righteous or less noble or less disciplined than women.
Comment by fMhLisa — March 8, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
zaissa, Dear Husband. It took me a while to get it, too. I had to ask.
Comment by Stephanie — March 8, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
I gotta say, after spending too much time over the weekend reading cjane’s comments, I am now ready to fully embrace my feminism. It’s good to be back over here!
Comment by Cindy — March 8, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
I’m thinking of writing cjane a sincere thank you for tipping so many lovely women toward feminism through the sheer force of extreme cluelessness.
Comment by fMhLisa — March 8, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
I’d like to apologize to everyone for being so ambiguous.
To clarify, no, I don’t believe men are sexual drones who cannot control themselves, nor do I think that it is a woman’s duty to dress for the comfort and convenience of men. I also DO NOT think that rape is the same thing as dressing immodestly. (BTW, I wholeheartedly apologize for being so inflammatory. I had to get to class quickly and I didn’t have time to think of a better way to say what I wanted to say.)
That said, I do feel somewhat violated when I accidentally click a link and get an image of a guy’s erect penis. I feel violated because someone is trying to take the reins of my sexuality. Someone is trying to make me feel sexual when I don’t want to. I don’t like it, and I hold that person responsible for that.
Dressing modestly is a sticky issue because it varies so much from culture to culture and probably doesn’t have any grounds in absolutes. But regardless of where our societal conventions came from, I don’t want to ever risk being like the guy who posts the picture of his junk on the internet. I want to have the same decency toward others as I’d hope they’d have toward me.
Now, exposing a bit of cleavage is not the same thing, but the point remains that there is power in our bodies and it extends beyond just forcing ourselves on other people.
PS. Bare shoulders and other things that the church deems “immodest” should not be problematic for men in our society or in the Church. (Don’t these guys watch television? Do ladies in tank tops on TV make them go nuts?) At that point, I feel like the ones who make the rules are overstepping their bounds.
Comment by AllieKay — March 8, 2010 @ 4:11 pm
By that same token though, If I were to be setting my own standard for female modesty, in no way would I allow men to consider my breasts provocative. I would love to have my modesty and my breasts be unassociated things. I am finally getting the hang of breastfeeding my 6 week old daughter. To me, right now, my breasts have absolutely no relation to sex. Unfortunately they have gotten all huge and I need to bare them at all hours to feed my (currently incredibly demanding) child.
Claiming our ankles as our own, to bare or not to bare, sounds pretty possible. In our current patriarchal western culture we aren’t able to claim our breasts as our own because of the prevailing myth that men can’t control their penises.
I think If women were to define modesty for themselves and men were to define their own modesty, and if we were to let each other’s definitions stand, we’d all be wearing a lot less.
Oh and Lorian, I love your posts but now I am having a really hard time trying not to google that Tom Clancy pic so I can giggle at it. Thanks a bunch
Comment by Emma — March 8, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
zaissa, I’m in Southern California — Inland Empire. Whereabouts are you?
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
Lorian-
Utah, but my heart is still home in California.
Stephanie-
thanks! I was so confused!!!
Comment by zaissa — March 8, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
Emma, I just googled to see if I could hook you up with a link, but unfortunately (or fortunately, as the case may be…) I can’t locate the photo on google images. It’s a pretty old one, so maybe it never made it online. Lucky you. You get to save the bleach today.
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 4:20 pm
Re: comment 66
DH is the most amazign and wonderful being you will come across…
OK, threadjack, sorry.
Comment by Manuel — March 8, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
OK, now I have read cjane’s post. Hex context of equality is a real challenge to how I understand it, so, “bless her heart.”
Comment by Manuel — March 8, 2010 @ 4:27 pm
britt #65, 67, 68 (I’m seeing in triplicate!)
You seem to be ignoring the fact that I also pointed up isolated rainforest tribes in South America where the women do not wear anything more than the men do (and which are, to my understanding, extremely peaceful cultures with very low crime, probably partly because villages are made up of mostly extended family groups).
No, I do NOT believe that these women do not wear tops because they are poor and cannot afford clothing. They dress as they do because it has, for millenia, been the most practical manner of dress in the geographic regions in which these cultures arose and continue to exist. There is no more reason for the women to wear tops than the men. They never have. They cover the parts they deem most sexual/private (genitalia and eliminatory orifices), but see no reason to cover breasts, since they are most useful if they are easily accessed for feeding infants and children.
It is only when Western culture comes and teaches these women that their breasts are shameful and must be covered that they begin wearing dresses and tops.
As to whether there are studies showing that rape is more or less likely to occur in indigenous cultures in which women do not cover their breasts in public (absent war and other outside influences) I don’t know. I sincerely doubt, however, that cultures where women do not cover their breasts are likely to have higher rates of rape related to that particular fact. As to South Africa’s rape problem, you can likely blame much of that on the horrendous history of European domination there, and the devaluation/degradation this caused upon ALL African societal beliefs and cultural structures. It is incredibly difficult for a culture to remain intact and healthy when the entire people are held in essential slavery for decades, and when families are ripped apart for years at a time so that fathers can move across the country to find work.
What I DO know is that in European countries where public nudity is common and wear women routinely swim and sunbathe topless, rape statistics are no worse than they are here, and in some cases, I believe, better.
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 4:36 pm
Manuel — Exactly so! “Bless her heart…”
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 4:37 pm
69 fMhLisa–I agree with you on that one. No one should be told they are categorically less righteous/disciplined etc. And I do agree that there are people out there that say such things–and so I thought your OP was spot on.
I guess I am just trying to sort out this whole priesthood thing. I know the many negatives of excluding women from it. I can see the stupid explanations people give that at best don’t fit (priesthood = motherhood, etc.) and at worst are damaging to both men and women–like the ones you listed.
So I am trying to figure out if there are ANY benefits of the priesthood exclusion/”men are head of the house” language. I don’t think there are any benefits for ME–but are there benefits for other families?
Are those statements perverse corruptions of something that might be worth thinking about–something related to culture and not essential nature? I don’t know.
Comment by cms — March 8, 2010 @ 4:38 pm
The people who say women are “better” meaning that we are more good and righteous are full of crap. That stuff is used to explain why we can’t have leadership positions or equal access to church hierarchy roles.
Comment by Moonbeam — March 8, 2010 @ 4:39 pm
Also, I left a few comments on CJane’s post under a different name. I tried to play nice until a woman that is frankly not very smart said that she didn’t want to be a feminist because she liked “looking cute” and getting her hair done. I think if I wasn’t at work, I would have said many nastier things to that one.
Comment by Moonbeam — March 8, 2010 @ 4:50 pm
As painful as it was to read, I found the comments on Cjane’s post an amazing sample of opinions regarding feminism, and here’s an [oversimplified, not-at-all-scientific] overview, if my memory serves.
It seemed that a good amount of the commenters who saw feminism as the pursuit of equal rights for women were pretty comfortable calling themselves feminists. Many people regarded themselves as feminists not because they were actively jumping on the cause but in appreciation for the work that feminists have done to gain the rights women have today. Also, many seemed to acknowledge that there’s still much to be desired for women’s rights, citing equal pay for equal work in the U.S. and many of the inequalities women suffer abroad.
On the other side, many of the comments reflected those points presented in the OP, that feminists are man-haters, non-feminist-haters, man-weakeners, and that the desires/arguments of feminists are somehow out of line. Lots jumped on the cjane train and denounced feminism because of inherent differences in the genders, completely disregarding how little that has to do with whether or not women deserve equal rights. Many said something along the lines of, “I’m not a feminist and I would never want to be one”.
I can’t help but shake the sense that all those negative views of feminism stem from those perpetuating the stereotypes specifically to discredit feminists so that people will not take the things they say seriously. Clearly, if you make feminists sound like a bunch of man-hating belligerent fools, nobody will take them seriously, and you no longer have to worry about them threatening the precious patriarchy at work. Cjane’s commenters made it clear that many women in these cushy, privileged situations really love the status quo and really don’t want anything to do with anyone that might want to incite change. I just find it disturbing and absolutely sad that these perpetuated stereotypes have worked so well to keep many from listening to the (what seems to me an absolutely obvious) point: that regardless of sex or gender, people deserve truly equal rights.
Comment by LDesque — March 8, 2010 @ 4:53 pm
RE:8. Holy crap! I’m amazed you read all 500+ comments. I happened to read the same one you commented on about “always having a choice.” Glad to know I’m not the only one whose jaw dropped in disgust over that one.
I’m so depressed at all the non-feminists over there. Has feminism done such a good job of improving women’s lives that so many of our sisters can take their lives for granted now?
Comment by Emily U — March 8, 2010 @ 5:15 pm
85. Yes!
*****
Did anyone link to fMh in that post? I’m sure there’s lots of women who’d like to come over to not for profit pink pages.
Comment by mfranti — March 8, 2010 @ 5:54 pm
mfranti, there were about four links to fMh that I saw. One person came over here, returned and scoffed at the title of the post on pants at church.
Comment by Cindy — March 8, 2010 @ 5:59 pm
hehehehe….
well, it’s true,we’re not about blowing sunshine up anyone’s skirt… er, pants.
Comment by mfranti — March 8, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
The Cjane post and comments were mind blowing. I know things are better for women, and I’m glad of that, but it blows me away that people can be so blind to the very real and very present reasons why feminism is still necessary. I ended up writing a post on my own blog about why we still need feminism rather than getting caught up in all the comments.
Comment by Genavee — March 8, 2010 @ 6:15 pm
not that i had time to waste this afternoon, but i did see that at about comment 517 or something cjane did weigh in. after that, i haven’t read. and several people did link to fmh. some of the comments were pretty entertaining. but her post did make me think.
and i am a feminist gosh darn it.
Comment by terina — March 8, 2010 @ 6:16 pm
i saw where she weighed in but she didn’t really address the comments.
i think it’s cowardly to not address your audience (believe me, it’s a lot easier to not defend yourself). and i would have told her so if i thought she was listening. (it’s up for 550 comments now)
Comment by mfranti — March 8, 2010 @ 6:40 pm
Moonbeam #83 -
Yep. We feminist-types shore are goll-durned ugly, ain’t we?
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 6:57 pm
Thank you for this counter to the cjane madness. I have been reading cjane for a long time and generally find her writing fun and off beat and entertaining but that post just made me sad. And kind of angry. But mostly really disappointed in my own culture.
When I was following the discussion it was still under 100 comments and I just couldn’t get my head in a space that would allow a brief and respectful comment. But the one thing that has stuck with me is this: I am a 34-year old single woman. I do not have children. I would like to get married and have children but realistically, that may never happen. I have a thriving career so in the LDS culture I am sure I am often viewed as one of those “career driven feminists” (supposedly a bad thing?) who eschews marriage and family in favor of worldly pursuits. But maybe some of us career driven feminists are just making good use of our time and energy rather than waiting to be rescued. Oh, and maybe we are using our god given talents too.
In cjane’s non-feminist or anti-feminist world where does that leave single women? Unfulfilled? Only half of a whole? The church teaches us that we cannot be complete or “fulfill the measure of our creation” on our own and that is why so many young (and older) women in the church feel like complete failures when they are 25, 30, 35, 50, etc. single and childless. I battle that demon and it isn’t pretty.
But personally, I think I can only truly be an equal partner (sure, the man will have different parts and different talents and different abilities and different thinking but that doesn’t mean we can’t be equal partners) once I am 100% comfortable with who I am and with my ability to stand on my own two feet as an independent, free thinking woman and offer my best self. And as an independent, free thinking woman I expect equal opportunities, equal pay, equal respect and I don’t have to hate men or give up cute hair and heels to get there.
Ugh, my thoughts are still rambling in multiple directions but hopefully you get my point - which is basically, where does this non-feminist view of the world leave single women?
Comment by soulfusion — March 8, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
Soulfusion - hug to you.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — March 8, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
LDesque #84 -
Bingo. You nailed it.
Calling them lesbians helps, too. Of course, that’s the point of the whole “man-haters” comment, which is an attempt to shame women into not declaring themselves feminists.
The funny part is, it’s an incredibly ridiculous accusation, because people seem to forget that we lesbians have fathers and grandfathers and brothers and uncles and sons, just like the rest of the world. The fact that we love a woman as our primary attachment does not by any means indicate that we hate men, any more than the fact that straight women fall in love with men means that they hate women (including their daughters, mothers, sisters, aunts and grandmothers).
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 7:16 pm
thanks Lawyer Lady - I’m a lawyer lady too
and p.s. I’m not at all depressed or conflicted or whatever about my single status. I just often wonder if I had been born 20, 30 or 100 years earlier what would I be doing as an unmarried 34-year old? Especially in light of this quote from an 1873 Supreme Court case denying a woman admission to the bar that hangs in my office:
“The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.”
That is one of the many reasons I call myself a feminist.
Comment by soulfusion — March 8, 2010 @ 7:19 pm
Good one, soulfusion. Quotes like that make my head swim.
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
Soulfusion #96 - what a quote! I think I skipped the timid and delicate lines when traits were being handed out.
Comment by Lawyer Lady — March 8, 2010 @ 7:26 pm
I stumbled across the quote in law school and then my sister memorialized it while she was in art school in a print of an apple . . . love the symbolism of the two together and I promise no one has ever called me timid or delicate. Not ever.
Comment by soulfusion — March 8, 2010 @ 7:34 pm
soulfusion, I want that print.
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 8, 2010 @ 7:38 pm
Reese - I’ll ask her if there is a way to replicate it but it was made over 10 years ago so I may only be able to snap a photo or scan it. I’ll see what I can do and get back to you.
Comment by soulfusion — March 8, 2010 @ 7:39 pm
See, when I read this kind of thing, it makes me bang my head and wonder just who is being “ignorant.”
In any introductory women’s studies class, one of the classic books assigned is Robin Morgan’s SISTERHOOD IS POWERFUL, which includes the classic SCUM MANIFESTO, as well as other anti-male viewpoints. I had to read it twice for different courses.
I am not saying that all feminists hate men, by any stretch of the imagination. But to deny that sentiment exists within feminism is to whitewash and distort the reality.
Morgan is unquestionably a feminist, her anthology is considered representative second-wave, and yet she included examples of that mindset as representative of a plank of the movement.
Comment by Naismith — March 8, 2010 @ 8:45 pm
Feminists hate men.
Well, not ALL feminists hate men.
A few feminists hate men.
And they don’t hate ALL men.
Just some men.
So a few feminists hate a few men.
But then now we aren’t talking about “feminists” and “men” anymore, are we?
A few people hate a few other people.
OK. We can live with that.
What is the point again?
Do you hate me because I am a man? Do you hate me because I am a feminist? Have you ever met me? Do you know how my eyes twinkle when I am being coy and playful? Have you ever tasted my homemade dutch apple pie fresh from the oven with a scoop of vanilla bean ice cream? Did you look into my eyes and hold my hand to give me strength when I was told my daughter was dead?
But you are willing to hate me because you can conveniently place a label on me? Does that feel good to you?
There are no “men” and there are no “feminists”. There is the real, breathing, hoping, striving, beautiful human being in front of you. Only if you strip away the labels from your eyes will you see them.
Comment by franco — March 8, 2010 @ 9:14 pm
Naismith, I’m not sure anyone is denying the manifestos and writings that came out of the rap groups and encounter sessions of the 60’s and 70’s, but that was a whole different world entirely. Women were just beginning to win a measure of freedom from 50’s-era housewife expectations, dress codes at work and school, and so forth. They were struggling against an incredibly oppressive establishment. There were only a handful of women in congress,..
You know what? Here. The National Organization for Women said it better in their 1966 Statement of Purpose. I’ll quote some, but there’s more at the link I’ll give below:
http://www.now.org/history/purpos66.html
No wonder there were manifestos. And men were fighting hard against the “Women’s Liberation Movement.” If you weren’t there and didn’t experience it, I wouldn’t expect it to be any more comprehensible to young women today than the stories of the Suffragists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries are readily comprehensible to me.
But the average feminist, the average “Women’s Libber,” as we called them back then, didn’t hate men any more than we feminists do today. They were just sick and tired of getting dumped on everywhere they turned. They loved their brothers, husbands and sons every bit as much as any woman on this board. They were just tired of the B.S. that kept them in inferior roles.
What’s sad, though, is that so many of the same struggles feminists were fighting back then are still part of the day-to-day existence of women in patriarchal religious cultures.
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 9:21 pm
Dare I say that c jane’s opinion on feminism is retro. It goes with her retro decor and dress. I have followed her blog for a long time and I was baffled that a woman that has benefitted so much from feminism could embrace such a position.
This was baffling also. She stated, “But most of the time I think I am more. And I think most women are too, but that is a post for another day.”
Can’t wait for that. In my world God view genders equally, but in a patriarchal society life doesn’t alway play out that way. I have heard from the pulpit attempts to place women on a pedestal. To me it feels patronizing and condescending and I don’t like it.
I consider myself a feminist and to me it really is all about equality and equity. I can’t believe that those who don’t think we need feminism can’t look across two thirds of this earth and see for most woman equality, choices, privilege still don’t exist.
Comment by Julie — March 8, 2010 @ 9:24 pm
Some religions, such as Quakerism and Unitarianism, have a strong and longstanding committment to gender equality, and do not embrace the “myth of male weakness” as discussed in the original post: that men are incapable of behaving appropriately unless manipulated and bribed with special privileges and power, made to feel important and given special opportunities for spiritual growth on the basis of gender. Yet, I notice, these religions have lots of male participants, and the men involved generally behave in a constructive manner, despite not having these very special and important roles and responsibilities that LDS men are granted. I would love it if one of the folks who’s always pushing the “men need special treatment” theory could explain why that is. Are LDS men in some identifiable way different from Quaker or Unitarian men?
Comment by z — March 8, 2010 @ 9:26 pm
franco, I certainly don’t hate you for being a man OR a feminist. And I love your post, above. I’m so sorry about your daughter, and I’d love to sit with you and try your apple pie. Anyone who makes pie is righteous in my book.
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 9:28 pm
z #106 - Great post.
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 9:30 pm
Thanks, Lorian! I’m not holding my breath on getting any answers, but maybe Naismith will oblige.
Comment by z — March 8, 2010 @ 9:34 pm
Naismith - While I’m no fan of Valerie Solanas, she has long claimed that the SCUM manifesto was written as a literary device.
Similar to how A Modest Proposal does not actually intend to encourage the cannibalizing of small children, she does not actually intend to wipe men from the earth.
Besides, even if it was taken on face value, it hardly represents a wing of the movement. It may have been a significant text simply due to it’s shock factor, but Solanas does not have modern disciples. Her view point can hardly be claimed to be representative of anything other than her own feelings - fictional or not.
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 8, 2010 @ 9:38 pm
The fact that you have to go back to 1968 for an example says it all.
Comment by z — March 8, 2010 @ 9:43 pm
Stephanie 57:
I have to disagree with you on this one, though I can understand your thinking. For one thing, while being apparently sexist (or at least embracing traditional gender roles) might help the church be accepted in traditionally sexist cultures, it is not helping the church in developed countries. The other day, I gave the example of Glenn Beck as actually typical of the kind of person I imagine would be attracted, on the surface, to the LDS church. He’s someone who clearly feels emotional and nostalgic about the way things used to be in America, and that probably includes traditional gender roles from the ’50s. So if he’s the kind of person the church wants to convert (and maybe he is), then fine. But there are many, many really good, sincere people who wouldn’t even think about coming to a church meeting or talking to the missionaries, in large part because they see it as very backward in terms of gender and race. (Note: I have not conducted a scientific survey, but this has been my observation living in a large, East Coast city for many years).
I also have to say, it’s very unfortunate if people who live in developing countries, or in cultures where women are oppressed, then use church doctrine/policy/culture to defend these sexist traditions. I have seen this happen in a few different places, including within my husband’s South American family. I mean, they live in a country where women have a lot of opportunities in the business and political world, where women have good education, access to contraception, etc., and where gender norms are changing. But they hold onto their traditional machismo, justifying it with statements from church leaders.
Comment by Sofia — March 8, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
This is a good point, Sofia.
Comment by Stephanie — March 8, 2010 @ 10:19 pm
Naismith, I minored in Women’s Studies and took several gender courses in grad school (within the last 10 years, so fairly recently). While we did read some of the texts you refer to, and you can definitely find extreme viewpoints in feminist literature, I don’t think those are the norm anymore. The field seems to be moving a lot further towards including men in the change process. Examples include getting men involved in preventing gender-based violence; working with men and adolescent boys on developing a healthier gender ideal for themselves that doesn’t include denigrating women; and encouraging couples to make family planning decisions together. These are some of the programs I’ve personally been involved in, and they seem to be on the rise. You’re right that there is extreme stuff out there, but I think it represents a time when feminists were experimenting with the field, trying to get attention, perhaps reacting violently to the backward steps that seemed to be taken between the first and second waves of feminism.
It’s possible that some in the church who oppose feminism are remembering some of the extreme versions of it that sprung up in the ’60s and ’70s. But pretty much all feminists I know today are all about men and women working together to achieve changes that benefit everyone. And about half the self-proclaimed feminists I know are men.
Comment by Sofia — March 8, 2010 @ 10:20 pm
Considering Solanas served time for deadly assault against two men, I’m not sure how far I trust her assertations that her writngs are “just literary devices” especially since, as far as I can tell, she only said this *after* serving time.
Comment by Paul — March 8, 2010 @ 10:26 pm
And no legitimate social movement has EVER had a few extremist voices before, has it, Paul? Was black civil rights less valid because of the existence of the Black Panthers, for instance? Was the Antiwar Movement during Vietnam less legitimate because of the existence of SDS and the Weather Underground?
Sure, the extremists sometimes detract from the message (although sometimes, they bring necessary attention TO the real message, as well). But the existence of extremists does not invalidate the entire movement.
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 10:40 pm
Sorry, Lorian, I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean to indict the entirety of the movement via Solanas. (although rereading my post I completely see how you read that) Only Solanas herself.
Comment by Paul — March 8, 2010 @ 10:42 pm
Not to mention the fact that Valerie Solanas was just a tad bit loony…
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 10:44 pm
Paul #117 - Ah… Gotcha. Okay, I’ll go along with you on that one. She was what I’d kindly term an escapee from the cookie factory, rushing off to crazy town.
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 10:45 pm
well, that’s proof that ALL feminists hate men.
one bad apple and all that…
Comment by mfranti — March 8, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
I am not sure they were the “norm,” ever. But they certainly did exist, so thanks for substantiating that reality.
Which makes me, what, an alien from another planet? That is exactly the world that I grew up in. I graduated from high school in 1973. I saw and lived it. And it’s not like everyone from back then is dead.
I was at a professional conference not too long ago when a lesbian woman about my same age made fun of me and bragged about how she lives so much better than I do, a truly liberated woman (her partner is at home with their child). I was really pretty hurt, because I have known her for years, met her partner and child, asked about how they were doing and never said a word of judgement about their lifestyle. But she felt perfectly okay judging me. And I’m not saying she is typical of all lesbians of that generation, but they certainly do still exist.
No, z, I am not going to let you have fun with me. If past interactions predict the future, whatever I say, you will come up with some logical argument as to why what I said is soooooo stoooopid. Fact is, my feelings on this were shaped by a sweet experience at the temple, and I don’t cast pearls before swine. You seem very happy with your life and choices, and I wish you well.
Comment by Naismith — March 8, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
How did it get from “not a single feminist” to “all feminists”?
Comment by Naismith — March 8, 2010 @ 10:50 pm
I wish you well too, Naismith, and I certainly wouldn’t call you a swine. I’m sure you have a brilliant theory for why LDS men need special treatment and men in other religions don’t, but I guess we’ll just have to wait for someone else to explain it.
Comment by z — March 8, 2010 @ 10:51 pm
Nai, I’m poking fun at those that say feminists are [insert negative stereotype here]
Comment by mfranti — March 8, 2010 @ 10:52 pm
And it’s awfully funny how people can believe that instances of unrighteous dominion or inappropriate exploitation of women are isolated events due to human fallibility, not part of a larger pattern and certainly, certainly do not raise the slightest concern about gendered ideological or theological theories. Yet a few decades-old remarks from feminist activists conclusively demonstrate that feminists in the present hate men.
Comment by z — March 8, 2010 @ 10:56 pm
Naismith #121
In case you missed it, I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s, too.
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 10:58 pm
And yes, it was a whole different world, particularly from a feminist perspective.
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 10:58 pm
Maybe I’ll just dig up some GA’s statements on gender from the late 60s and attribute them to the current institution…
Comment by z — March 8, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
Naismith #121 -
I’m sorry your friend hurt your feelings. But, #1, I don’t see the relevance to the current topic (what, just because she was a lesbian, or because she was a feminist, her insensitive treatment of you means… what? Something about all other lesbians or all other feminists? Or both?). And, #2, when you claim that you “never said a word of judgment about her ‘lifestyle,’” I have to wonder. The very fact that you USE the word “lifestyle,” as a replacement for “sexual orientation” indicates that you might not be quite as successful as you believe you are at hiding your prejudices. I’m betting your friend is well aware of them.
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 11:02 pm
Naismith #122 -
I’m not sure that anyone has said that “not a single feminist” hates men. I believe that what I’ve read (please link me up with a post number, if I’ve missed something) is people saying that “not a single feminist I know” hates men. That would indicate to me that they are referring to the feminists in their wide circles of personal friends and acquaintances, not making quantitative statements about “all feminists who have ever existed on the face of planet Earth.”
Comment by Lorian — March 8, 2010 @ 11:05 pm
6 — I don’t know. Perhaps not dismissing everything you get upset about as relating to “that time of the month” for three decades will do?
7 — I think you don’t understand what my point was. It wasn’t that feminism is about hating men or hating patriarchy or anything like that. It was about the frame of the question Lisa was asking being an example of the the phenomenon she was criticizing, just in a different brand of that phenomenon.
18 — Please note that I didn’t say any of the things you said I said. There is quite a difference between “please don’t flash me” and “you must wear a sack because you’re responsible for my challenges.” I asked a favor, and, in the favor, accepted that you’re free to do it or not. You won’t. Fine. Have a nice day.
I have asked this favor a scant handful of times, always in a place where the question was being discussed, and never applying any pressure about why you should do it. I’m describing some of my own challenges, which I do own, and giving people who don’t seem to have those challenges insights into how their choices impact me in ways they might not otherwise know. It’s not dissimilar to asking someone not to smoke around me if I had asthma. I’m not making anybody responsible for anything other than their choices, and I’m not even talking about that in the request.
But this is beside all beside my point. My point is not that any or all feminists hate men, or that women should dress modestly or not. My point was about how Lisa’s question was framed. I am more interested in finding ways to make connections with people who think they disagree with feminism (or liberalism, or conservatism, or Mormonism, or Catholicism, or atheism, or whatever) so we can find places where we have common ground, and then explore our ideas and views with respect and courage so that we all can learn and grow better understandings than we already have.
Characterizing those Lisa was speaking of through the selected “quotes” given was an example of the same oversimplification those quotes showed, and only the group identities of the individuals being criticized in them has been changed. My two responses added back the nuance and qualification that *I* would mean if I were saying any of those “quoted” things as an example of what someone saying them might be trying to say with those words. Disagreeing with someone on the other side isn’t particularly interesting or novel. Considering their point of view for where they are right and where you can agree, sadly, is.
20 — Given the size of the people who call themselves feminist, the law of averages would seem to indicate that at least a few would hate men. Some would also likely hate brussels sprouts. It’s not key to my point. I’ve tried to expound it better in this comment above than I did before — I was tired and in a hurry when I wrote my original comment.
130 — That particular subthread started under the “I don’t know of any feminists who hate men. Can you name some” that started around #7 or #8 in response to my example #1 in comment #4. The answer to that would be, as I said, there are some feminists who hate men. That doesn’t mean that all feminists hate men, or that feminism is about hating men, but my statement was true.
Yay me.
I think the evolution of that subthread points to another interesting phenomenon in how these discussions go, and it does refer back to the way the original question from Lisa was framed. People seem to respond to the examples used for their content and potential truth value, rather than seeing them as examples illustrating a larger point. This is what happened to me. Then we take the responses that are based in that content and truth value and bicker about that, rather than thinking about the actual point being made. So, having made several shots at how the question was framed, let me respond to Lisa’s actual point:
Lisa — I think there is an ironic and even hypocritical aspect to the things you’re talking about here, and what you’re seeing is definitely there. Anti-feminism isn’t particularly about what feminism is about or feminists in general believe or do. Much of it is about pushing back against something poorly understood that feels uncomfortable for whatever reason. The same is true about anti-patriarchy and patriarchy, and most every other anti-thing and the thing. But I’m wondering, once we accept that, where we go? Any ideas?
Comment by Blain — March 9, 2010 @ 12:49 am
Have you noticed that the more relaxed our society becomes in norms of behavior the more restrictive the standards of dress, etc. become. It might be the same thing going on in this debate.
A survey of the way women were depicted in movies in the 1940s and 1950s would reveal how differently they women depicted today. There were more strong independent women in those films and fewer women were seen as victims. I am thinking of two examples maybe three All About Eve,
, and one the with Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn about two married lawyers who are on opposing sides in the trial of a woman who has shot her sexist husband. I can’t remember the name of it. It is very funny and it is presenting these same issues. Things might not have been as bad in the 1950s as you have been led to believe.
I don’t like the suggestion that LDS men are automatically sexist and that this is the only religion that takes such a dim view of women. Go to a Christian bookstore sometime and browse through the books about marriage and male female relationships you find there. Then come back and assert that LDS men are unique. LDS men are unique only in as much as every worthy male can receive the priesthood. Every other church has only a select few who have completed divinity school and have a diploma who can be called priests. (This is what makes them more eequal because it assumes everyone has the same opportunity. So its equality of opportunity that matters.) In every other way the LDS population of men is representative of the general population.
The name me one woman who hates men argument is not a very good one, because feminist or not there are women who hate men. I can name one for sure, how about Carolyn Wuornos the only female serial killer on record to date.
The louder each side screams the worse the atmosphere gets and the greater the divide between the two camps grows. Our country should prosecute those practices such as honor killings, etc. that take place within our borders. We should do what good we can where we can, stop calling each other names and listening to talk radio. Then the poison atmosphere might go away and make it possible to have a civil discussion that could actually bring about positive change.
Comment by Claudia — March 9, 2010 @ 9:31 am
yikes…can’t keep up.
some thoughts that are important to me….as a general standard of modesty i wouldn’t automatically adopt the LDS standard. For me basic modest is three main things…I don’t want to see your underwear, I don’t want to see a lot of cleavage(I call it intentional cleavage-the difference between a large chested woman wearing normal clothes and having cleavage and an any sized chested women wearing deep V cuts and the like), If it’s tight enough to see your underwear-refer to rule number one…
that’s it. I dont’ think that’s crazy modest. I get that there would be questions about the cleavage issue-and really I see this as a basic day time standard. It wouldn’t include shoulders covered and shorts to your knees. or sacks. I’m not enforcing it, I’m just tossing it out there.
There were many “show me one” I’ve never met one” man hating feminist. Which is a silly thing to say. One might as well say show me one mormon who believes “X” and however ridiculous “X” is, I bet you can find ONE mormon who believes it. Yes there are a few feminists who hate men.
I see the 60’s feminist as very reactionary. In some cases it wasn’t intelligent and thought out-it was an emotional response. Some women reacted by hating men…just like some people who leave the church react by hating the church-a few people stay there forever and just spend their lives hating…in a way i think it’s a sort of mourning…mourning that a way of life we’ve always known doesn’t work. A normal part of mourning is anger. It is also normal to move on after a time. Sometimes when we first hear of a new situation in which people are being oppressed we feel anger all over again-we may even generalize that anger to ALL Muslims or ALL somebodies… Some new feminists may still respond with anger but they are MUCH less likely to stay there because there is a much clearer vision and things have been accomplished. They have some place to move towards-a cause to work for.
Comment by britt — March 9, 2010 @ 10:23 am
A point of correction: Aileen Wournos is hardly the first female serial killer on record; that was the way she was talked about in the media, and certainly how the film about her was marketed. She was rare in her *method* of serial killing, in that in looked much more like the classic male-dominated method (or profile) than the methods used by women (e.g. so-called angels of mercy) — the definition of serial killer is somewhat variable, in that some experts use a gendered approach to defining the killing patterns (e.g. women tend to kill in relation to material gain, and this is often used a way to define them separately from men who kill serially).
Comment by SarahNicole — March 9, 2010 @ 10:29 am
I think the expression of anger was a very important component of early feminism. After all, in programmed behave-like-a-lady, anger was a very ungenteel thing for a woman to express. It was the sole province of men. In any revolution, years of frustration builds to anger, which may fuel the courage to finally act. There’s nothing to wonder at in a victim converting to anger or hatred of her oppressor to regain some of her own power. I also think it’s very important to acknowledge that just because women were passionate about their cause, it certainly didn’t mean it wasn’t well thought out. There were and are some highly intelligent women involved in feminism and their passion doesn’t negate their intellect. Besides, name a cause that is completely devoid of emotion…and I’ll call it something not worth fighting for.
One of the first stereotypes it was important for women to bust was that of imposed silence and meek acceptance of our lot- finding our voice, our outside voice. Anger does have its place in the overthrowing of oppression. Anger can be a righteous thing- i.e. Christ’s temper tantrum at the temple…it can be an attention grabber, especially if it’s coming from a formerly acquiescent population. Hello! We’re here, we have our own opinions about our own lives and we’re sick and tired of someone else deciding everything for us, thank-you-very-much…
Feminists do not have the corner on hating men- although I’m absolutely certain that those who have generalized that opinion probably have a very sad history at the hands of those they now despise.
It’s not about finding the man-haters to justify ending the entire movement. It’s more about not allowing them to become the representative voice- which is difficult, because those seeking to undermine women’s rights are going to quote the most outrageous people to prove their point (and yes, they can be found, every cause has its extremists!).
Comment by Kimberly — March 9, 2010 @ 10:51 am
That’s an interesting point, Kimberly.
Comment by Stephanie — March 9, 2010 @ 10:52 am
I have to share something here; it’s weighing heavily on my mind.
We sustained a new bishop. In so doing, the Stake President opened the topic thusly:
Har, har, hardy har har. I’m sure that announcement would have been considered charming on CJane’s blog. Sadly, our new bishop’s about to be a single mother for 5-7 years wife was beaming but I almost blew my breakfast. Really, is that one comment supposed to make a woman feel good…and wasn’t her husband just roundly insulted?
Comment by Kimberly — March 9, 2010 @ 10:59 am
sorry- our new bishop’s wife is about to be a single mother for 5-7 years. Not the bishop, LOL. I really have a hair across my butt about this.
Comment by Kimberly — March 9, 2010 @ 11:03 am
Kimberly, my DH is a counselor in our branch presidency. We are a branch because only about 50 people come on any given Sunday, but we have around 500 people in our records. My point is I have a busy husband. He does the tithing, goes for boy scouts (it’s not branch-run), home teaches about weekly, is in charge of YW, and is one of the resident carpoolers (for 50 ppl we might have 6 cars in the parking lot). This is just a beginning of the list. This means he is gone about every other day, usually for at least 3 hours. Sundays is at least 5 hours. He teaches every couple weeks. We have no nursery (our kids are 1 1/2 and 2 1/2). He is also on call at his hospital every 4 weeks, which means he works 2-3 hours sat and sun. Do I have any idea how hard it is to be a single mother?
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by pdig — March 9, 2010 @ 11:29 am
maybe she was beaming because she didn’t want to become the second feminist serial killer…
Actually that’s a compliment to her husband he tricked some good woman to marry him. I wish they’d just be honest and say we know this is a sacrifice for the whole family and much of that falls on the mother. We appretiate her willingness to serve (I was asked when my husband was asked to be in the bishopric if I would be willing to serve…).
Comment by britt — March 9, 2010 @ 11:37 am
So, pdig, would you feel so much better if it had been said publically that your dh received his calling because you were so worthy? How condescending is that? I’ve been steamed for weeks, and wondering if I’m just overreacting. If it had been my dh called under those circumstances, I absolutely think I would have purposefully raised my arm in objection to his being sustained, and when asked, I would have told my SP everything unworthy about myself (all the most shocking examples I could find) and then tell him he’d have to look for some other worthy female’s husband. Just to prove a point…that it was a very stupid and condescending thing to say and not the least bit funny.
Comment by Kimberly — March 9, 2010 @ 11:40 am
Its just my personal pet peeve when people compare anything other than being a single parent to it.
I wasn’t asked to ’serve’, but I was asked if I would be willing to ’support him in his calling’. We were in the SPs office together so I heard all he did as far as duties, and they asked both of us with equal seriousness if we were willing to take it on (I didn’t at all feel that part was condescending I mean).
I get what you mean about the suggestion that it only matters who the wife is and not the actual person getting called being condescending ( and stupid), but in a branch like ours, a wife knows she is up for a lot of talks, teaching, and often multiple callings. Now, if they said ‘a woman who was as worthy’ or something more along those lines, would you have has issue?
Comment by pdig — March 9, 2010 @ 11:57 am
And Britt, I was just asking my husband why guys think it is SO FUNNY to say that ‘he got the better end of the deal’. On some levels some guys are still the same little brats on the playground. That doesn’t seem sexist to me though, just picking on the husband. Am I looking at it backwards or something
Comment by pdig — March 9, 2010 @ 12:03 pm
They should be commended for serving as a couple- because it is both of them serving. While I’m sure plenty of people could say, “Oh Kimberly, lighten up,it’s just a joke!”. Well, her life will not be a joke the next 5-7 years…they have 4 young children. She is a lovely woman, no doubt about that- smart, kind and loving. It’s more about the more pervasive attitude of complimenting the women into being oxen, without any of the decision making power. If at any point she needs him and his responsibilities are taking him away from home way too much, she’s not supporting him. Of course everyone knew that he was chosen to be the bishop on his own merit (although, I’m sure the disposition of the wife is certainly taken into account).
But no one would say that in the ordinary way of things- like, “In the process of choosing our managers, we find the most competent secretary and then promote her boss”. That’s what it sounded like to me.
Comment by Kimberly — March 9, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
pdig, I think it’s because they aren’t thinking before they speak and they don’t understand how to give compliments anyways. Perhaps they are like my son (now 6) who says things like “Mom this kitchen is as clean as a dog’s paw!” regularly.
Comment by britt — March 9, 2010 @ 12:21 pm
Yikes yikes yikes. Secretary/ boss?!
Britt, that is how I have felt about it, I was just wondering if I was not ‘offended enough’ lol! I’m so terrible. I like the whole ‘don’t take offense if none was intended’ school of thought, because I feel like people are more receptive to guidance when you keep your cool about things. I tend to choose what’s most effective for me and stick w it until it loses effectiveness, like many ppl
Comment by pdig — March 9, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
blain #131 -
Granted, but, again, I point out that the people who were saying they didn’t know any man-hating feminists were, I believe, referring to people of their own acquaintance, or perhaps, to feminists of the current era.
The only examples people were able to offer to the contrary are a few notorious extremists. Not one person has been able to say, “Well, my mother/sister/friend/aunt/cousin is a feminist and she speaks regularly of her hatred towards men,” or “I’ve known at least a dozen feminists who all said they hated men and would kill ‘em dead if they got the chance.”
The reason why no one has come up with such a statement is that, by-and-large, most posters here are honest people, and the fact is that very few feminists actually hate men. Therefore, none of us has come up with a concrete example of an average woman of our acquaintance who both claims to be a feminist and who claims to hate men. Not saying someone couldn’t come here and make such a claim, but the fact that most of us cannot tends to indicated that “man-hating feminists” are by FAR the exception, rather than the rule, as they are painted to be by conservatives and anti-feminists.
Comment by Lorian — March 9, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
Let’s see. There’s Valerie Solanas and Aileen Wournos. How could we get to around 150 comments and no one has mentioned Sonia Johnson?
Ladies, Let that be a warning to you. Give any sort of thought to feminism and then what the heck, you’re out of the Church and living in the desert on some commune.
Oh, and you’ll become a lesbian.(not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it will put a real damper on your husband calling you forth from the grave.)
So, keep safe — stick to the standard works and cookbooks.(not the vegan ones.)
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — March 9, 2010 @ 1:08 pm
Just to be clear-I only brought up the extremists in the first place because they do exist but to be clear that they are It-that’s all there is. It’s not some pervasive, general platform point. Its a screamy sideshow way overthere kind of thing.
I dont think it helps to say that never happened, no feminists are ever like that…rather say-sure there are a few extremists but that’s not what feminism is about.
Comment by britt--the brat — March 9, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
147 — Yeah, okay. But that’s taking the question out of the context it was brought here in. it’s a valid point, but ends up in the land of “so what,” which, ironically, was where I kinda had in mind with my example answer #1 way up in comment #4. Some feminists may hate men, but so what? That doesn’t invalidate feminism or any given feminist. I find that more useful than the “I don’t know any feminists that hate men,” stated to imply that they are just mythical beings made up by ignorant anti-feminists. Which was rather how I saw it being handled when it was stated. I find it more useful to accept true statements and put them into a real context than to get defensive about a shot at the time and refute every point.
So, am I to take it that nobody at all wants to address my actual points that my examples were illustrating? I really tried to be as clear as I could, and it would be nice if there was some sign that somebody somewhere at least read it.
Comment by Blain — March 9, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
okay computer people what is up with my computer burps? I’m double posting way too much lately…
Comment by britt--the brat — March 9, 2010 @ 1:38 pm
Hey are plain Britt and Britt the brat both you? Just checking lol
Comment by pdig — March 9, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
Really?
I am seriously concerned for any woman who lives in an environment that supports any of the statements made to commence this discussion. If you are in a situation where you feel that your man hates feminists or you have to behave in a way that supports the other italicized statements, you should leave your marriage or family as soon as possible. I think we all know that most people don’t change much, and certainly not bigoted ones.
In my family, my grandmother attended university in the 1940’s. My other grandmother ran a farm whilst her brothers were sent to the front. My little sister is a successful lawyer. The discussion of feminism didn’t need to be raised growing up because our family values equal opportunity for men and women (but the whole priesthood thing is not something the women are particularly happy about). Oh yeah, and if any man in my family even tried to use the excuses listed in the commencement post, it would be bad for them.
If you find yourself in a family situation where there are actually people who believe these ludicrous statements-leave. Even if it means divorce. You owe it to the future generations of women in your line to give them an environment where they can fully express their talents and abilities. If you aren’t married yet, don’t marry a bigoted moron, even if it means being single forever.
Yours truly,
A bewildered man
Comment by Really? — March 9, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
Kimberly, I can appreciate what you are saying about the Bishop’s wife. I don’t really remember being asked if I would support DH in his calling as Counselor. I suppose I was. Then I cried all weekend. I certainly didn’t get anything nice like “We appreciate your willingness to support him” (which I was expecting). I got, “Don’t be mad when he comes home late. The last thing he needs after being gone all evening serving others is to come home to a wife who’s mad at him” (counsel I have been terrible at following)
Comment by Stephanie — March 9, 2010 @ 2:01 pm
My point was that the “lesbians are the only true feminists” rhetoric is alive and well, even today. She was definitely that brand of feminist. I don’t think it can be dismissed as a relic of the 1960s. I’m not claiming all feminists are, but they definitely exist.
And what prejudices would that be? Why/how jump to the conclusion that I am prejudiced?
I am using the word “lifestyle” because the decision to raise children with a female partner goes far beyond sexual orientation.
I’ve been friends with two lesbian-raising-children couples. If they felt I was so prejudiced against them, why did they invite me to parties, etc?
Comment by Naismith — March 9, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
I am not sure that your observations are typical of all such congregations. My local Quaker meeting is run by women, and they are resigned to doing the bulk of the work because the men are so busy with their careers, etc.
And certainly other religious traditions have concerns about the disengagement of men. Here are some thoughts from the unitarian and United Methodist traditions, as well as an academic article that raises questions.
I wouldn’t say that LDS men are “incapable of behaving appropriately unless manipulated and bribed.” I do think that giving them priesthood responsibilities helps keep them involved.
And if one wants to make the argument that LDS women are so disrespected and powerless, why is it that nobody has batted an eye at the notion that a mission president’s wife, not he, received revelation about the earthquake in Chile? I mean, why would he listen to a mere woman?
Comment by Naismith — March 9, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
154- Stephanie, I’m sorry. That’s awful. It sounds like they were just dismissing any concerns or problems you might have had. Almost a “don’t complain, just do what you’re told”.
Comment by AllieKay — March 9, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
Naismith
Lifestyle is loaded word,fraught with peril. Evil lesbian wraiths appear to those who utter it unwisely and drag them speedily down to their womyn only parties.
Do you also tell certain women that they have a such a sweet spirit?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — March 9, 2010 @ 2:47 pm
pdig…I changed to britt the brat over a weekend when I was really snarky and there was another britt who shoes up here every once in a blue moon…apparently it is still on my husband’s laptop, which I don’t always use.
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 9, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
“lifestyle”—hmmm, if I loved someone, and we lived as a committed couple, whyinhell wouldn’t we have and raise kids? Two women, two men, one of each—or for that matter, any number of assorted and committed adults? What exactly is a multigenerational household other than this? Though I have to admit, turkey basters/willing partners are easier to find than surrogate moms, both are possible.
Lifestyle, my blue foot. That is the most condescending term I’ve heard recently, and that is going some. I think it beats “sweet spirit,” as said to me by members of Relief society swooping in for hugs—which i ducked.
Comment by fuzzy — March 9, 2010 @ 3:11 pm
fuzzy, I consider having 9 children a lifestyle choice. or having a big family…
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 9, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
Naismith, I have an interesting story about that. The first time I heard that story was over the pulpit this past Sunday during testimony meeting. A man who was visiting the ward told it like this: “The mission president in Chile had a dream . . . ” I thought it was a cool story. Then I was in the hall (on my way to SS - never made it) when someone told me it was actually the MP’s wife who had the dream. I asked, “Then why did he say it was the MP?”. She said, “I don’t know. Meridian magazine reported it as the wife”.
I was so disappointed that the story evolved at some point into it being the MP. I don’t know if it was the man who told the story over the pulpit to left the wife out or whoever told it to him. But, it made me profoundly sad.
Comment by Stephanie — March 9, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
Aside from the obvious (and probably unfair) answer–that everyone assumes that anything worthwhile must have been done by a man–it may just have been that, because the MP’s wife has no title of her own, it may have been misheard OR she’s just sort of seen as an extension of the MP. i.e. If she did it, it might as well have been him because he’s the one that matters.
In any case, it’s sad.
Comment by AllieKay — March 9, 2010 @ 3:47 pm
stephanie, In an incomplete email to the mothers of chile missionaries, one missionary said his mission president gave him a water bottle and filter in preparation for a possible earthquake…that one little sentence snipet was all I heard about it. it didn’t talk about the revelation or who it came to. It is possible other peole heard just that snippet. It’s also quite possible the MP’s wife didn’t go around with a badge on that said “I HAD THAT REVELATION!” or that the MP said his wife had the dream, but frankly some people don’t remember everything they are told, especially in the kind of drastic situation.
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 9, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
Good point, britt, but it still makes me sad. The MP and his wife serve together - they are one unit. But, when it comes down to it, it’s always the MP. The wife is the hidden accessory.
Comment by Stephanie — March 9, 2010 @ 4:02 pm
I get that…it happens with temple presidents too..their wives become the matrons and it’s a major role, but the “name” calling is the president. Atleast matron is a calling with actual duties. MP’s wife is kinda a calling with very vague general nothing duties-someone PLEASE correct me if I’m wrong.
My MP and wife were interesting. She spoke better English than he did (it was an english speaking mission. They adopted two boys while on their mission…my MP also caught some rare strange disease -he was one of 4 people in the world at the time who had that disease.
ramble, ramble, ramble, ramble. all my older children left to the library…can you tell?
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 9, 2010 @ 4:35 pm
re: 47
Yes, we should, because the fact that our leaders are uniformly men suggests certain roles for men which have historically proven to cause problems (ie, that men should be leaders). Minorities, who sincerely want to achieve a day in which society is colorblind, are right to pay attention to the racial composition of those in power in society as a gauge on our progress toward that goal. It is the same with sex.
re: 54
I agree, in the short term, this solution sort of compromise solution is probably more helpful for people like your father. However, when those sorts of workarounds for sexism and misogyny are institutionalized, they ultimately reinforce the systems which provide opportunities for abuse. Consider chivalry: to overgeneralize, the chivalric code was an attempt by medieval society to redirect (then) culturally accepted masculine characteristics and patriarchal authority into ways which would provide some protection for women. And while it probably succeeded to some degree in that goal, it reinforced the status quo and contributed to the power gap between men and women. The long-term solution to the situation is to challenge gender roles and characteristics, so that men will no longer have any social justification for arrogating authority or privilege.
re: 62
Yes! Exactly right! All too often, the gender “differences” are simply rationalizations for behavior which at least skirts sin (”men are more aggressive,” “tussling and fighting is just the way men socialize,” “men naturally want to take control,” “men are naturally more sexual/visual” etc). Even if we were to assume that those statements are correct (of which I’m dubious), then by generating different gender expectations based on those supposed natural procivities, all we do is rationalize the natural man.
re: 112
A great example of what I was talking about regarding chivalry.
re: 156
Or one could ask what that experience says about the reality of the priesthood and its nature. After all, we are taught that a primary purpose of the priesthood is to grant its bearer the keys to revelation regarding their stewardship, and that their authority is based on that right to revelation. If someone without those keys and authority can receive the crucial revelation, what might that mean for our understanding of the priesthood? Do we make more out of the priesthood and it’s role in “presiding” than it really is?
Comment by Derek — March 9, 2010 @ 4:58 pm
Naismith #155 -
Really. Fascinating. I must say, though (at the risk of having someone trot out a manifesto of a lesbian in 1972 who hated women and said that straight women couldn’t be feminists — and I’m sure there are a few of those manifestos to be found), that none of the lesbians of my acquaintance believe that straight women are not feminists or that one must be a lesbian to be a “true” feminist.
In fact, I have to ask… did your friend actually say to you that “lesbians are the only true feminists”? I have a hard time believing it. If so, she was ignorant, but I really, really wonder if she said any such thing. From your earlier quote, it sounded more to me as though your friend was (perhaps jokingly) gloating over the fact that she shared the privilege that mostly only straight men experience, of having a SAHM at home taking care of the kids, leaving her relatively more free to do things like attending conferences, going on business trips, etc.
That hardly equates to “lesbians are the only true feminists,” so far as I can see.
Because the use of the term “lifestyle” in lieu of “sexual orientation” generally indicates either that one is unaware of the implication involved that sexual orientation is a “choice,” or that one is deliberately using the word “lifestyle” to make the point that one DOES believe that sexual orientation is a choice.
The former can be overlooked as a well-intentioned error. The latter is a deliberate insult to gay people.
The fact that I’ve engaged you in several conversations about gay marriage, and that you admit to having lesbian friends IRL, indicates to me that you are probably already aware of the insulting implications of the word, and use it deliberately. This supposition on my part is also borne out by your continued explanation in the following paragraph:
…which does nothing to ameliorate your insulting usage of the word “lifestyle,” but in fact takes it a step further by implying that lesbians should not have the same options as other people to bear/adopt and raise children.
While the argument could be made that having kids is ALWAYS a “lifestyle choice,” no matter who is doing it, the fact remains that when straight couples have a child or two, it is almost never described as a “lifestyle choice,” but rather, is accepted as a matter of course, as simply part of the whole “getting married and raising a family” scenario which is pretty much an expected part of being straight (even though not all straight people do so).
Because you are fortunate to have such understanding and open-hearted friends, who are willing to overlook the fact that you consider their love for one another and their children a “lifestyle choice”?
Comment by Lorian — March 9, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
My first paragraph above should read “…hated straight women…” Sorry for the typos.
Comment by Lorian — March 9, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
re 167 Sorry for the back and forth–I hardly ever comment, but read avidly and this is the thing I am trying to work out right now.
Let me see if I can summarize our positions.
There are many people with horrible views (Set A) on gender –see Lisa’s list or Stefanie’s FW or my view of middle school norms. People who hold these views–as well evidenced by Lisa’s OP–are very threatened by feminism.
The church prescribed gender roles (Set B)/Derek’s code of chivalry promote better male behavior than Set A–priesthood is related to service/fathers should be involved in families/ unrighteous dominion is a violation of priesthood authority.
Then there are egalitarian views (Set C) that Derek/ I /other feminists have–we reject gendered roles/prescribed behaviors either nasty (A) or less nasty but still restrictive (B).
I have two questions about the priesthood restriction to men. First, is the church’s worldview more effective than feminism at moving people away from the worst abuses? Is the church better at shifting people away from view A?
I (tentatively) think yes–the backlash to feminism is real. I’ve seen people like Stefanie move from B views to Cish views, but I ain’t seen a troll (view A) really move because of what they hear here. I do think the church has been more effective with my dad/son than I have been. On the other hand, Derek, I believe you are saying church/chivalry codes may work in the short run but not in the long run. I am curious to hear what others think.
And then my second question. If you accept (which you might not) that the church is better at preventing the worst abuses, is that worth it, given that fewer members will adopt egalitarian perspectives? That’s where I am unresolved.
My econ analogy–I see the male restriction of the priesthood as having big costs–obvious to most of us on this site. I think (you may disagree) that there are also some benefits. My second question is whether the costs outweigh the benefits.
Comment by cms — March 9, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
cms, it’s my belief that the church’s “chivalry” approach, to borrow Derek’s analogy, is actual detrimental to the cause of women. It is often more acceptable to people to practice discrimination if they can do so under the guise of “chivalrous” behavior, which is supposed to be kind and noble. It allows people to rationalize their discriminatory treatment of women as being “for their own good.” It is, if anything, MORE insidious than those who are just outright hateful and hostile towards equality for women. And, while it may do some measure of good by somewhat mitigating the out-and-out bad behavior of open misogyny, it really does NOTHING towards bringing true equality to women.
Comment by Lorian — March 9, 2010 @ 7:16 pm
I know it wasn’t intentional, so I don’t want this to sound like demonizing her…but a shorter version of cjane’s post is:
“I’ve got everything I want, so screw all those who still need more work from feminism to enable their dreams (or basic survival)!”
There were some great, sensitive but firm responses in the comments, I hope this can be a good learning experience for many.
Comment by sister blah 2 — March 9, 2010 @ 7:16 pm
In south africa among a group of Indians (the kind from india) not a single one was temple worthy because you can’t go to the temple if you beat your wife…sticky isn’t it. One of the families somehow made the change-he stopped beating her made a few other minor changes and after a time was worthy to go to the temple. Finally the little branch had a local leader (you can’t be branch president if you don’t beat your wife either). All of the male members rushed right in to talk with him and get him to convince the stake president to understand their culture and let them go to the temple. He resisted firmly.
I’m telling this because I think the chivalrous step is a HUGE one for some people and some backgrounds. I think it is a step forward to consider the needs of the other person. I don’t think you can always jump to equal when the place you are coming from considers the person a piece of property with whom you can do with whatever you please. The church stance has you consider their feelings, what would Jesus do and take steps in that direction.
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 9, 2010 @ 7:36 pm
britt, as I said in my comment # 171, above:
Comment by Lorian — March 9, 2010 @ 7:38 pm
The problem with chivalry is that, once the men stop beating their wives, they can then pat themselves on the back for being good Christians, get their temple recommends, and go on treating their women as chattel property in every way except the administration of physical beatings, and feel very good about the whole thing.
Comment by Lorian — March 9, 2010 @ 7:40 pm
Lorian, in my opinion considering the needs of others is first in the step of considering their needs and opinions equal to your own. What you described in 175 is not what I have seen first hand.
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 9, 2010 @ 7:55 pm
171. I agree that the church’s position prevents more moderate couples from adopting more egalitarian roles and that it does not prevent discrimination. I do not dispute that at all.
175. The question for me Lorian, is whether a feminist message would have been effective at getting those men to stop beating their wives at all. That for me is the hard question that I do not know the answer to. Take the contrast between Mormons and Unitarian gender roles as I understand them. Would those men have ever joined the Unitarians? I don’t think so.
[Although–eek- I am also somewhat suspicious of these stories–how do we know about all of this private behavior]
I guess another way to ask this is to ask whether people have to go through a chivalrous phase to reach egalitarian views. Are societies that had a chivalrous phase more or less feminist today? You and Derek are saying no–chivalry prolongs the inequality because it allows the inequality to be more insidious. I am wondering what the evidence is for that. Is there is any opposing evidence that chivalry is an intermediate phase along the transition to real equality?
And I am genuinely asking that. I genuinely do not have a well formed opinion. but I don’t think the question can just be dismissed because it is kind of uncomfortable for a feminist to ask it.
Comment by cms — March 9, 2010 @ 7:56 pm
CMS..in the Indian culture (that I know of) there isn’t much private behavior just fyi. If you really want to know if you are fat, have zits, have too many freckles, what thier husband ate last night, how many tijes they have sex in a week, when their daughter started her period (huge community party for that one)…. just walk in the door. It’s a bit of a culture shock, along with the eating of sheeps brains and eyeballs. I frequently wondered why they thought telling me about their marital problems would help-I had never been married. We have even been invited over DURING spats to sort them out…thank you no.
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 9, 2010 @ 8:08 pm
Aaaack! Refraining from beating your wife is not chivalrous, britt…it’s just damned decency. Chivalry is more along the lines of good manners- like giving your wife the umbrella when it’s raining or coming to her defense when she is maligned. (But I sincerely hope most women would want to reciprocate in being caring of their husbands too.) Most of the time, the church’s form of cultural chivalry involves treating the women like delicate china dolls- partially so that they’ll act that way. It feeds itself in a circular fashion. Sure, beating your wife isn’t treating your wife like a china doll- true, but I just think chivalry is too light a term for such a serious lapse in basic respectful behavior towards another human being.
Comment by Kimberly — March 9, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
Cms- That depends on the power of that message, my dear. For instance, if while he was beating her she was saying, “honey, don’t hit me, the feminists say it’s wrong”…well, no. In the case of misogynist practices, usually, some sort of unpleasant pressure or consequence has to be introduced to help the man reconsider his behavior. Otherwise, why should he?
If the church is applying cultural pressure on the men (not such a bad thing in the case of battery), then the man didn’t stop beating his wife because he found it to be intrinsically wrong, but because he would not attain the cultural support of other men in his religion of choice…not sure that’s the most spiritual motivation, but heck, I’m sure the wife is still relieved.
Comment by Kimberly — March 9, 2010 @ 8:36 pm
You raise some really good questions, cms. The thing is, the church asks people to make tremendous life changes when they get baptized. They have to sacrifice a lot of time. They suddenly start handing over 10% of their paycheck in an envelope to some neighbor guy (the bishop) every week. They have to give up cigarettes, alcohol, tea, and coffee. They have to stop having sex unless they’re married. Those are huge sacrifices for a lot of people. And yet, some are arguing here that feminism–defined by viewing and behaving as if both sexes are equally important, valued, competent, intelligent, etc.–is too big a leap for certain people/cultures. Sorry, but it’s hard to see how the life changes one makes when joining the church are not bigger than the life change of treating women with respect and decency.
Comment by Sofia — March 9, 2010 @ 9:08 pm
There is an entire body of literature on the subject. One can take graduate courses in it. It’s a non-trivial part of the body of work of second-wave feminism.
She started by saying that “straight people are so stupid.” She also said that needing a man (for sex) makes one a second-class citizen. And some other demeaning comments about heterosexual women, as well as men.
Our conversation was not about feminism per se. But the observations she did make were entirely consistent with the literature I had studied. So yes, you are correct, she did not say “lesbians are the only true feminists,” only that “straight people are so stupid.” (That’s a more reasonable thing for her to say?)
Or it could be that they use the term in ways that are more neutral than that. In my workplace, we use the term all the time to describe the tradeoffs that people make when considering whether to enroll in medical school or dental school, and which specialty to select. “Lifestyle choice” is why it is harder to get in to dental school than medical school (no need for grueling residency, fewer hours per week, no schlepping over to a hospital to check on patients…)
Indeed, if you go to PubMed and search for “lifestyle choice” and physician OR dentist, you’ll get zillions of studies discussing that issue, using the term in that way.
Yeah, whatever. I genuinely wasn’t aware of this new brand of political correctness.
No, no clue.
I consider it a “lifestyle choice” when ANYONE decides to have children and how to care for them. It has NOTHING to do with their sexual orientation. My next-door neighbor chose to adopt a child from China as a single mom, and thus sexuality did not even come in to play in her lifestyle choice. She chose to become a mom, and we supported her with meals, babysitting, etc.
That phrase was in the thick of conversations between my partner and myself as we were considering each of our pregnancies and workplace/church commitments at each stage of our life. Which had nothing to do with our sexuality but was all about choice, balance, and how we wanted to spend our time and talents.
Was my husband insulting me each time he used that phrase?
Yeah, thanks, that’s how I see it. It’s a great phrase that packs a lot into two words.
So what alternative are straight folks “allowed” to use to describe those choices, which won’t be offensive to you?
A fact? Since when does your experience become a “fact”?
A growing number of heterosexual couples are choosing not to have children.
Or they wanted the soup I brought when they were sick?
Comment by Naismith — March 9, 2010 @ 9:11 pm
re: 170
Sounds about right. Or that they do some minor amelioration, but don’t really get at the root of the problem.
Too be honest, I do suspect that the “chivalry”/Set B is an inevitable stage in the process. I don’t think it would be possible to move society from Set A troglodysm to Set C egalitarianism without some intervening stages. Some form of Set B is necessary to set the stage for the acceptance of Set C. My concern is that too often people will become complacent with Set B, seeing it as the end goal, insisting that these codified and supposedly ennobled gender roles and characteristics are the ideal, and ignoring the fact that the gender roles continue to perpetuate various restrictions and abuses. If we want to see further progress, we must push the complacent along past Set B to Set C, rejecting the notion that Set B is the ideal.
Comment by Derek — March 9, 2010 @ 9:53 pm
Much of which I’m familiar with first hand from coming out during the 70’s and 80’s. Doesn’t mean it’s relevant to the average feminist, lesbian, or lesbian feminist today. We’ve already established that feminism, like every civil rights movement, has had its share of extremists, and certainly some of them have been lesbians.
The 70’s were a liberating era for gays and lesbians as we began to emerge from our closets and find a measure of safety in public association. Lesbians were evaluating whether or not the old hetersexual models of relationship were even valid for us, and “Womyn-only Space” and “Rap Groups” and Lesbian Communes were the order of the day.
You’d be hard pressed today to find many lesbian communes, and about the only “Womyn-only Space” left is the annual Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival.
So, if that’s true (and she wasn’t joking), what it sounds like to me is that she’s a jerk, and I’d have to wonder why you’d even WANT to be friends with someone like that.
“Straight people are stupid” sounds more like an adolescent’s comment than a grown woman’s. It’s certainly not something that any of my gay friends would say.
So, what’s the take-away from this story about your (very rude) friend? That all gay people think straight peopel are stupid? That lesbians are the only true feminists? That all lesbians THINK they are the only “true” feminists? That feminists hate men? That lesbian feminists hate straight women?
(Hint: None of the above. The take-away, IMO, is that you apparently have a rude friend).
Naismith, I never said that there was NO legitimate purpose for the term “lifestyle choice.” “Lifestyle choices” include things like living in a Manhattan apartment; buying a house in the burbs with two cars and a dog; moving to a dude ranch in Wyoming and riding horses all day; joining the Peace Corp; or even deciding between having both spouses work outside the home or having one stay at home with the kids.
The gender of the person you love, and the fact that you live your life with them and have a family together is not a “lifestyle choice” for gay people any more than it is for straight people.
Fair enough. I’ll let it pass. I hope you’ll make note of it though, for future reference, since you have many gay friends.
Again, I never said there aren’t legitimate applications for the words “lifestyle choice” — only that it is NOT appropriate to call the person someone loves a “lifestyle choice,” particularly when that terminology is used to imply that sexual orientation is a choice.
There is no phrase involving the word “choice” which can be appropriately used to describe sexual orienation. Sexual orientation is not a choice.
How about just sticking with “sexual orientation” and “family” and “parents with kids.” Those phrases work quite nicely.
Absolutely. I still suggest that you may wish to avoid the word “choice” in the future when you refer to gay people and sexual orienation and gay-parented families. Feel free to use “lifestyle choice” to describe things like whether we both work, or have a SAHP, whether we live in the city or in the burbs, whether we live on a dude ranch or join the Peace Corp, though. Those are all very legitimate usages of the term “lifestyle choice.”
Comment by Lorian — March 9, 2010 @ 10:37 pm
Derek #183 - Exactly. IMO, using the “B” set (”chivalry”) is regressive in most developed Western nations. It might possibly be helpful in reducing violence against women in the type “A” societies, but it’s doing nothing for the cause of women in countries which have already reached “C” level.
Comment by Lorian — March 9, 2010 @ 10:41 pm
I think putting the blame on this notion of “chivalry” is a bit off. Perhaps the real problem is that there are a lot of women who don’t want a gender-egalitarian state. (like the not a feminist lady from Provo)
Comment by SUNNofaB.C.Rich — March 9, 2010 @ 10:57 pm
I don’t claim to understand why some women are content with being held less intelligent, capable and deserving than men. It’s sad that they have apparently bought into those negative views of what it means to be a woman. But that’s not a good reason for denying equality to those women who want it. It is our birthright as human beings.
Comment by Lorian — March 9, 2010 @ 11:03 pm
While I am among those who don’t believe people choose their sexual orientation, I had no idea the term “lifestyle choice” could be a pejorative term — I always thought it referred to the decision to live openly. Maybe it’s because I know so many people still in the closet over here in Japan (sigh)….
Comment by L. — March 10, 2010 @ 2:09 am
[…] this leads me back to Mid-Eastern purdah. How do they get the men to go along with it? Mernissi’s father and uncle support a huge extended family. Besides their own wives and […]
Pingback by Purdah–A Good Fit for Mormons? « Course Correction — March 10, 2010 @ 2:12 am
One last contribution on this subject. This is an interesting study on the subject of at hand.
http://psych.umb.edu/faculty/kogan/files/Anderson%202009_Are%20Feminists%20Man%20Haters.pdf
Comment by Claudia — March 10, 2010 @ 9:17 am
cms, interesting thoughts. You should comment more often. I like your A, B, C explanation, and I appreciate that you put me at C-ish. I feel strongly that the Proc divisions of labor are important for a specific situation (mother is pregnant or nursing or otherwised involved in actual nurturing that only she can do or that both want her to do, and father is responsible to provide for and protect her and children). But, that doesn’t negate equality or egalitarianism. In fact, once we achieve egalitarianism and equality, then it is a real, potential choice - not just something we are shoved into. (That’s how I feel about my experience. I was able to make the choice because I had other alternatives.) Also, like others have mentioned above, what about women who are single or who don’t have children? I think it is fair to say that one of our purposes as humanity is to multiply and replenish the earth, therefore one of our purposes as women is to be mothers. But, for each individual woman, motherhood may not be their purpose. So, I love that feminism has recognized that and given women the opportunity to discover their purpose and go for it. Yes, I think it has gone too far sometimes. (I am thinking of the daughter of the famous feminist who wrote a book about how she wasn’t her mom’s priority and stopped contact with her mother after choosing to be a daughter herself) But, that’s also why I agree with Lisa that the time is ripe for a motherhood feminism. Let’s give women the opportunity to really embrace motherhood full-time by not punishing them in the workplace or financially. Yes, I know it is much easier said and done. And I don’t necessarily agree with Lisa on her proposals for how to accomplish that. But, I do think that feminism and motherhood are compatible.
I suspect (by reading cjane’s post and the comments) that a lot of LDS women don’t embrace feminism because they see the extremists and assume that it is incompatible with motherhood. That’s why I was so reluctant for so long. I didn’t want to do anything to hurt my children and family. It wasn’t until I realized that I can be strong in the gospel, strong in my family, AND support other women in their choices that I could feel comfortable calling myself a feminist. (Speaking of that - I don’t know that all women are comfortable allowing other women their choices. I have one woman at church who seems hell-bent in getting me to homeschool because she said that when she prayed about it, that’s what the Lord told her to do. I told her that when I prayed about it, I got the answer that I can raise my children in the world and not of the world. So, she keeps trying to convince me to see the error of my ways and how I am following the world. Ug).
I have to say, too, that the course of this conversation has kind of convinced me more of the church’s B status. If most of the world is C, and you can’t just go from A to C instantly, but need a B transition, then it makes sense that the church would currently need to be at a B until more of the world is ready for C. So, if we support the gospel and want it to spread, what do we do? For me, embracing the gospel, sharing it, and looking forward to C works for me.
Comment by Stephanie — March 10, 2010 @ 9:33 am
That’s not to say that I am “happy” with the status quo. Just that I do believe Christ is at the helm of this church, and I don’t want to rail on my church leaders. And, I feel comfortable working within my sphere of influence toward C without attacking the church or its leaders for being at B.
Comment by Stephanie — March 10, 2010 @ 9:37 am
I also wanted to say that I was impressed with the way so many women on the cjane thread refuted the OP. They didn’t attack cjane and rail on her for not being feminist. They simply explained what feminism is and showed how she actually is a feminist. I think that is the way to win more converts.
Comment by Stephanie — March 10, 2010 @ 10:01 am
cms, “otherwised involved in actual nurturing that only she can do” Like what? You mentioned being pregnant and breastfeeding.Even when I did nurse my Husband got up in the middle of the night. So I am wondering what those are. Personally I think that line of thinking limits men.
Comment by CZ — March 10, 2010 @ 10:39 am
SORRY CMS I mean stephanie.
Comment by CZ — March 10, 2010 @ 10:40 am
Okay, CZ, you’re right. There isn’t other nurturing that is exclusive to women. When I wrote that, I was thinking, “pregnancy, breastfeeding, and then recovery while nurturing”. It takes a lot out of your body to do that (particularly when you do it over and over again). I think that for me, personally, I’m going to need a few years to recover before I am totally back to me and ready to get back to things with a vengeance.
But, I agree. That line of thinking does limit men - and women. What I really want is for men to consider the needs of their wives - that they might need more time to be cared for and protected once they wean the baby (and again, not all women do, but I feel that if women are going to put their bodies on the line to bring kids into the world, they are entitled to support -financial, physical, otherwise - from their husbands). I really wonder if that is a lot of the thinking behind the Proc - to acknowledge and respect the work a woman’s body goes through to nurture, and to support her in that.
And I agree that if I take the emphasis off those needs and say “things that only she can do”, it is actually more damaging. Thank you for the correction.
Comment by Stephanie — March 10, 2010 @ 11:07 am
181
Actually, I do think church norms promote treating women with respect and decency. Obviously church norms do not promote feminism (duh). I think it’s an open question whether extending the priesthood to women/promoting egalitarian roles would be more threatening to people than paying tithing–isn’t that what the whole cjane post is about at some level? (haven’t read it to be fair)
But I do think the church’s norms go far beyond just not beating your wife–I’ve seen many converts make big changes in their family life. And I think the priesthood plays a role in how the church advocates for those changes. That’s why I gave the examples (far above–26 and 54) about my dad saying holding the priesthood means he should apologize first or my son feeling like he shouldn’t treat girls the way most of his cohort does because he is a priesthood holder. I think those views are pretty representative of many Mormon men who are trying to figure out how to be more Christlike but still hold a patriarchical world view.
Now–I would rather my father/son/other Mormon men behaved that way because that’s what being a nice person means and not because they are priesthood holders. (and to be fair, my son is 13 and I think he’ll get there in the end).
But when I read Lisa’s post with this:
At one level, I agree–I do not believe men are less righteous, etc. But I do think they face different cultural conditioning. So is it conceivable that the priesthood plays a role in moving men to treat women better and more involved in family life?
That’s pretty close to how I feel too. I suppose I am trying to come up with a way of understanding this other than saying church leaders are all sexist. Maybe the negative messages from not giving women the priesthood are worse than the positives, but I’d like to think they see some positives that are not unreasonable.
Comment by cms — March 10, 2010 @ 11:43 am
Stephanie #191 - Okay, but I have to say that I think that the way we have set up the A, B, C example seems to be falsely implying a necessary progression. It is now being assumed that in order for a culture to progress from barbaric treatment of women (”A”) to an egalitarian society (”C”) it is necessary for them to progress through an era of “chivalry” (”B”). It is also being assumed that the “B” position necessarily constitutes a step towards the “C” position, and that a society which moves from “A” to “B” will eventually move to “C.”
I would suggest that our lettering system has injected a false linearization which does not necessarily exist. It also suggests that the “chivalrous” approach is not as sexist as the “barbarous” approach. While the chivalrous approach is clearly a less violent position, and therefore physically advantageous for women, I do not believe that it is necessarily any less of a “chauvinistic” position. Chauvinism is a strong belief in the inherent superiority of one group over another (whether racial, national, gender, or other distinctive category (”stars on thars…”)).
It is difficult to progress from a position of chauvinism, whether violent or non-violent, to a position of egalitarianism. Teaching people that it is acceptable and even Godly to practice chauvinism (which I would propose is the net result and natural outgrowth of denying women equal access to leadership positions) is not “progress towards egalitarianism.” It is simply re-entrenchment of existing chauvinistic attitudes couched in a more palatable and socially-acceptable model of non-violent chauvinism.
Comment by Lorian — March 10, 2010 @ 12:15 pm
Lorian, Since I started the ABC shorthand, I apologize if it overreaches. I was trying to make comparisons quickly–if you have a substitute, feel free to change this up.
That is my question, not an assertion. I think you are asserting the opposite. I don’t necessarily disagree–I am trying to think it through. But I think your position is still an assertion.
The chivalry example is probably not a great one though. I agree there and I’m sorry that got mixed in here as an analogy. I am NOT trying to argue chivalry is not sexist or even less sexist.
I AM trying to think about whether the priesthood restriction can be interpreted in ways that are not purely sexist, though I think there is an element of that as well. I do recognize though that as a non-Mormon that attempt is going to be less compelling to you than to me
I have seen examples where that “progression” worked. I have not seen any men I can think of change from a highly sexist attitude to being feminists without something “in between” so to speak. But maybe others have, and if so, I would like to hear about it and understand what conditions make that work. How do you “convert” men so to speak who find feminism highly threatening? And is there a place for something else if you can’t move them that far?
Sorry Lorian, I am trying to to write this in a linear way, but apparently I am failing.
Comment by cms — March 10, 2010 @ 12:52 pm
Supposed to be “I was trying to write this in a NON-linear way”
Comment by cms — March 10, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
I’m not sure that there IS any one single kind of middle step between barbaric treatment of women and egalitarian society. Rather, there are probably a variety of alternatives. While I agree that it’s not likely a society would move from a caveman approach towards women directly to an egalitarian utopia, I’m also not copacetic with the idea of there being only one route which they can follow. And I’m particularly leery of designating a cultural approach which glorifies inequality as being God-ordained, as a universal transition (not that I think this is your intent).
From what I see of Mormon Church history, denying the priesthood to women has not served as a progression from barbaric treatment of women to an egalitarian society. Rather, it has been a means of keeping women relatively static in their progression, and at times has even been regressive (and is clearly regressive as compared with the culture at large, at least insofar as “regressive” refers to egalitarian treatment of women).
Comment by Lorian — March 10, 2010 @ 1:04 pm
Of course there is a middle step: the Revolution!
Comment by TopHat — March 10, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
Stephanie, I see your point. I am definitely not one of those women who have easy pregnancies. I think the provide financially is important at that point, yes you are correct. BUT too often Men take the back seat and have their Mom do all the “helping” after a baby is born. And meals from the church are great when in real need. But I hated it when people acted like my Husband wasn’t capable of cooking,cleaning or helping his wife. As though he didn’t already do those things. And all too often women think I am overextending my Husband, as though preside is only when speaking of money and priesthood blessings.
Comment by CZ — March 10, 2010 @ 2:41 pm
I don’t see it in a negative light that women don’t hold the preistshood. I don’t see it as racist for only the sons of aaron to hold the priesthood. Blacks not holding the priesthood I see as racist-I mena I guess I can kinda understand it a little while slavery was still legal in America, but that’s as far as I “get” it. …sigh
I understand why women would want representation in leadership. I see this as God’s church and He is leading;I recognize that still puts men generally being the voice. We can always pray to know if what the man says really came from God, or if parts of it did or whatever. We don’t have to take a calling without prayer.
I don’t see the church’s general teachings as nearly as problematic. I do understand though that that is because of two things-I fit the mold-I have a large family and am therefore pregnant and nursing a lot-it works best for us to have my husband provide. I recognize many people don’t fit the mold and I’m very grateful that our RS presidency has been filled with some variety-strong powerful single sisters. I also am very vocal and work to get my needs met or understood-working within the system.
I also take it for granted that when someone says over the pulpit (or in an interview) something sexist that it isn’t gospel it’s idiocy.
I was surprised after the ABC thing that there was an immediate assumption that the church was B. I don’t think it is. I understand that some people are so B whatever gospel thing they say they can make sound B. But then, as we’ve discovered some wacko feminist can be C.
God does limit the amount of truth He gives people depending on their faithfulness and ability to receive it. moses and the children of israel or a good example of this. It doesn’t mean God is any less true or his gospel is any less.
just some thoughts
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 10, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
britt, what is “wacko” about being a feminist in believing in an egalitarian society?
Comment by Lorian — March 10, 2010 @ 3:10 pm
“…being a feminist AND believing in…” Sorry for the typo.
Comment by Lorian — March 10, 2010 @ 3:11 pm
britt #204
Can you expand on what you are talking about, here? I mean I understand the surface meaning of the words, but what point are you trying to make?
Comment by Lorian — March 10, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
That’s a great point and a real drawback to my lame ABC
Comment by cms — March 10, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
CZ #203 - I totally agree. Your comment reminded me of this article from the August 2009 Ensign. It is about managing postpartum depression, and it specifically talks about how the husband needs to help out.
• Taking over household tasks and the care of other children.
• Limiting the number of visitors to foster a peaceful environment. (For some women, however, having visitors may help alleviate symptoms of depression.)
• Helping the mother get enough rest, appropriate nutrition, and exercise.
• Assisting with infant care.
• Becoming educated about postpartum depression.
• Giving priesthood blessings as appropriate.
• Offering the gift of presence—listening, caring, and just being with her. Accompanied by a hug, a healing conversation may be just one sentence long: “This must be very hard for you.”
• Encouraging the new mother to get professional assistance as appropriate.
That’s some good stuff. I really like that the article emphasized that it is the husband who should be there taking care of his wife.
A couple of other thoughts I had related to this discussion: To extend what I said about how I think the husband should be responsible for the wife during pregnancy, breastfeeding, and recovery, what about after that? Take britt or myself who have spent over a decade out of the workforce while constantly nurturing children. Should our husbands then compensate us for our loss of “value” in the workplace over those years? If, after my youngest starts kindergarten and I’ve spent 15 years out of the workforce, and he now makes a lot more than I could, should I have claim on my husband for support? Should he be required to provide for me after all that investment I’ve put into our family?
Yes! We all agree he should. That’s why we get so riled up when a man leaves his wife after all those years and she’s thrust into poverty. It’s not right.
We’ve talked about things like paying a stipend to young mothers like they do in Australia or paid maternity leave or adjusting social security to reflect the work that SAHMs do instead of just leaving women in the dust. We’ve talked about how having children is the #1 indicator of poverty. To me, all of this says that a woman needs help and support to have a baby and raise that baby. Either the father of the baby or the government need to provide that support. It seems to me that it is better to have the father provide the support than the government.
So, in reading that part of the proc,
and leaving out historical context (like FW), I just don’t find it to be that offensive to women. I don’t think that it contradicts equality or egalitarianism.
If I assume that a man and a woman both get their education and are equally able to provide for themselves, and then they decide to have a family, and the woman has the baby (is “primarily responsible for the nurture”) because biologically she has to be, then it makes sense that the father should be responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for her and that baby. She’s making herself vulnerable and risking her life and health - he ought to say, “I am here to take care of you”. I think the next line is not appreciated enough:
To me, that says, “Okay, now that we’ve established that women and children have claim on their husbands for support, work out how you want to do it”.
My overall point of that is that I don’t think the Proc itself is against equality. Taken in the context of history and the culture we are evolving from, I think it can be used to support sexism. And that is problematic. However, going forward toward “C”, I think we could achieve C with the Proc, and it would better protect women and children than society’s status quo, IMO.
Comment by Stephanie — March 10, 2010 @ 3:49 pm
cms #208 -
:no-no: Not lame. Every theoretical model requires tweaking.
Comment by Lorian — March 10, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
Stephanie - PPD sucks rotten eggs. BTDT. And if the Proclamation on the Family was intended only to address post-partum issues and difficulties women face, I’d be its biggest supporter. :nod: (But that’s a HUGE “if”.)
Comment by Lorian — March 10, 2010 @ 3:59 pm
It sounds like that article was meant to be an example of the practical application of the proc. Maybe they’ll do more along those lines. Maybe you should write one steph.
Comment by pdig — March 10, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
Stephanie “If I assume that a man and a woman both get their education and are equally able to provide for themselves, and then they decide to have a family, and the woman has the baby (is “primarily responsible for the nurture”) because biologically she has to be, then it makes sense that the father should be responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for her and that baby”. ???? What about women whom have easy pregnancies or adopt, or have a surrogate? I see how you are optimistic in your viewpoint and I don’t say this to be mean or anything. But perhaps your optimistic viewpoint on the “now work it out as you wish” idea is that you are not a Mother who is trying to stay in the workforce continuously for equal pay as other men who take time off for vacation don’t suffer a pay cut. Or in church get a calling to the nursery because you are a working Mother and they think you need more time with your child. True story! BUT I think you do have a interesting point even though I think at this point it’s a bit optimistic, But then again women have not progressed in the world by being pessimistic so perhaps I should take a lesson from you.
Comment by CZ — March 10, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
Oh and thanks for the link. I already read it, but I do think it’s great. Mostly because we told having children is our purpose and then it confusing to Husbands and wives who has longed for a child and then are not happy. I think it is difficult to understand unless you have gone through it.
Comment by CZ — March 10, 2010 @ 4:47 pm
re: 191
But in the US, for example, we are much more ready for C, and the insistence that B is the ultimate righteous solution is holding our society back here. We are largely ready to move beyond girls being pink and soft and boys being tough and exclusively breadwinners, but the insistence within the Church that the traditional roles and characteristics are divinely ordained is holding us back.
re: 201
I would agree there could probably be other transitions. But this one–the “Chivalric” one, which I realized doesn’t completely accurately capture the mindset we’re talking about, but seems as handy as an approximation as I could think of–seems to be the most widespread one, and the one with which we must grapple for that reason.
re: 204
A community/organization which insists that members should uphold certain gender-specific roles and characteristics based on their sex, and that creates a hierarchy in which one’s place in that hierarchy is based on one’s sex is most certainly in Set B. No, our Church is not the most rigid or militant community about those roles and characteristics. But given that alternative arrangements are seen as deviations from the norm or ideal which must be tolerated rather than perfectly legitimate variations which should be accepted as normative, and given that they very strongly emphasize those traditional stereotypes and roles as the standards to which we should all strive if we are righteous, the Church still qualifies as Set B.
Comment by Derek — March 10, 2010 @ 8:08 pm
Chiming in late for this discussion, but I’m just getting to this post. I did read the CJane post and commented twice in there. I also read the comments up to about 500, though now I’m going to have to go back and read the remaining 100 that have been commented on.
I do want to say that that post was terrifyingly eye-opening that there are women that poo-poo feminism because they like being women and for their men to be men. I must be terribly naive to have thought that in this day and age that a women would be superficial enough to shun the feminist moniker simply because of those those extremists that are associated with it as well.
The point I made in one of my comments over there was we still call ourselves LDS even though there are extremists that don’t subscribe to our ideology in the same light that mainstream LDS members do, yet they embrace it proudly and easily shutdown the extremists.
Anyway, I just had to vent that out here. I’m glad I wasn’t the only one that read through all the comments with my mouth hanging open in shock!
Comment by Jessalee — March 12, 2010 @ 6:19 pm
I am reposting this from my post at cjane: Of all the words to define feminism, I hardly think that “equality” is a very useful one at all. Trying to argue whether equality is possible is just a waste of time. Equality as a subject for debate is not reconcilable. EVER. And debating it in the context of gender is not only a waste of time, but it’s creating unnecessary conflict. I think women who talk about equality between men and women should be ashamed of their selves. Do these women sit around talking about whether or not there is equality between them and their female friends? Why are such comparisons even tolerated? EVER. I’m still waiting for a better informed argument against feminism.
Comment by elizabeth — March 14, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
chooses to delete ranting raging response to above comment (217) and just chalk it up to troll like behavior and try to ignore it.
Comment by April — March 14, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
re 217-equal access for my DH to spend time with our darling children rather than see his life disappear in a fug of work for the next 25 years.That’s one of the equalities he and I have been working on,both personally and politically for the past decades.What’s not to like?
Also,my women friends and I discuss equality with and for each other,most of the time,in one form or another.But maybe that’s just us.
Comment by wayfarer — March 14, 2010 @ 5:48 pm
Just thought you’d like to know that CJane has posted indicating she is going to respond to comments raised by her “I’m not” post. I’m curiously waiting…
Comment by Chibbylick — March 25, 2010 @ 4:03 am