The Loneliness of the Male Feminist.

By: JohnR - January 1, 2007

I am grateful to fmhLisa for the rare privilege of guest blogging here for a couple of weeks. I hope I can add a bit to the diversity of voices here on fMh, but mostly I (selfishly) think of this as a wonderful learning opportunity.

Introductions first: I’m the son of a blue-collar agnostic and a Japanese Buddhist. I’m a graduate student in religious studies and my DW Jana is working on her PhD in history. We have two children who keep me in line (”Dad, we shouldn’t buy Guitar Hero and the PlayStation 2″ and “Dad, would you please turn down that loud music!”). I’m an avid blogger and I admit that I have a problem. I’ve maintained my own blog, Mind on Fire, for over five years now, and contribute irregularly to the Sunstone blog. I’m a big fan of feminist Mormon housewives, the Exponent Blog and Zelophehad’s Daughters.

By way of full disclosure, I should let you all know that I’m a man. But I am also a committed feminist. As I write this, I’m sitting in a Border’s cafe wearing a t-shirt that says, “This is what a feminist looks like” (if you follow the link, scroll down to find the shirt. Mine’s blue.) It’s a Christmas present from my friend Caroline (one of the founders of the Exponent Blog), and it’s my first time wearing it. I feel like a missionary greenie all over again, name-tag on, a little nervous but eager to spread the good word.

I have a conversion story. I think that I’ve always had an inner feminist, but it wasn’t until I read Mary Pipher’s Reviving Ophelia (much of it in the wee hours of the morning, cradling my infant daughter) that I felt a burning in the bosom. My daughter would come of age in a world of rohypnol, Paris Hilton, anorexic supermodels and “I’m too pretty to do math” t-shirts. I find it ironic that the overprotective father in me led me into a movement that emphasizes equality and equity between the sexes. At the same time, injustice is injustice, and maybe my situation is like the busloads of white college kids who drove down South to take part in the Civil Rights Movement.

Only in my case, there aren’t busloads. I sit in gender studies classes, attend feminist panels, and go to the Vagina Monologues and wonder where the pro-feminist men are. And where are all of the Hugo Schwyzers in the greater blogosphere (not to mention the Bloggernaccle)? This frustrates me to no end, because I feel like if we’re going to eliminate the female-afflicting scourges of date-rape, domestic violence, eating disorders, sex trafficking, etc., etc., men need to become serious advocates for women’s rights. By the busload.

Do you have pro-feminist men in your lives? Do you (supportive) male readers out there consider yourselves to be feminists? What are the obstacles to male pro-feminism? What can we do to win more men to the feminist cause?

319 Comments »

  1. Great post, thank you.

    Sometimes my husband surprises me with his feminism. He told me one day that he was going to stop saying “going to work” and start saying “going to the office” because he didn’t want to imply to our boys that I didn’t work.

    Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 1, 2007 @ 10:28 pm

  2. My DH would probably never consider himself pro-feminist, but he sure acts like it….

    The best example of a pro-feminist male in my life is my father. He was the third of 4 boys, raised in a very traditional LDS home, and an avid Scouter. However, his parents taught him, by example, that women were just as wonderful (maybe more so?) as the men. He grew up, married my mother, who was raised by the same type of parents (with a very strong mother) and continued to be a silent example of pro-feminism.
    He was a rock of support to my working mother. Cleaned the house without being asked; cooked and baked (BEST pies in the world! Still are…); present for all children’s activities; never made decisions (big ones) without my mother; made sure his daughters knew they could anything his sons could, etc.

    I never knew my parents were pro-feminist until I reached college. I just assumed all good men were like that –showing their children that women were equal to men in all things. Not being afraid to do things that seemed to be “women’s work” (I hate that phrase). So, when I see other men, who were raised differently, not treating women in the same way, I’m horrified. I never knew differently.

    I’ve often wondered how it happened that both of my parents could come from families where women were so strong and men were supportive of that –and I’ve concluded that it must have been those awesome Pioneer women in Southern Alberta that had to survive all the tragedies that came their way on their own –or maybe I just come from a long line of pro-feminist men??

    (I actually spoke with my mom last week about “feminism” and interestingly enough, she said she hated the word “feminist” because of the bad connotation it had back in the 70’s. She still squirms, but agrees that she is one, though… :) ).

    P.S. The only obstacle to pro-feminism I can think of is that men aren’t women. Sounds completely against what feminism is, I know, but it’s the best I have right now….I’ll have to think about that some more…

    Comment by cheryl — January 1, 2007 @ 10:33 pm

  3. Welcome, John! I’ve been looking forward to your posts ever since Lisa told me she’d asked you to guest.

    You ask what might make men turn towards feminism. This statement depresses me a little, but I’m going to say it anyhow, since it’s been true in my life: Men often become feminists because a woman about whom they care has been seriously hurt by sexual or domestic violence. My husband wouldn’t have called himself a feminist when he met me, but within 3 weeks he was helping me assemble the Clothesline Exhibit at BYU and sporting a button on his backpack that said “Men against Violence against Women.”

    I had a non-LDS boyfriend at BYU who convinced me that men can be just as strong of feminists as women. In fact, he instilled me with more respect for myself than I’d had previously, and his belief in my worth still means the world to me. He didn’t flaunt the “f word” label, but he treated me–and the other women in his life–with a respect which for him was totally organic. Contrasting that with the self-conscious and over-the-top gestures towards respect (which, sadly, often lacked depth) offered by some (certainly not all) of the LDS guys I dated makes me wonder about the efficacy of our cultural rhetoric regarding respect for the feminine.

    Anyhow, I think putting a face to pain usually elicits a moral response from moral individuals. They may not totally understand the many facets of the movement, but they can love the faces within it. And that makes for change.

    Comment by Janet — January 1, 2007 @ 10:54 pm

  4. My fiance is pro-feminist. Although I wouldn’t have necessarily characterized him as such when we first started dating three years ago, he is now very much a feminist himself. He attends my women’s studies reading group, tells people off for making sexist jokes, plans for us to divide our responsibilities as equally during marriage (housework, money-making, childcare, etc.), and in many other ways is a visible feminist among our circle of friends. It is not a small part of the reason I am marrying him.

    Comment by Hannah G — January 1, 2007 @ 11:14 pm

  5. wow… what are the chances? (pretty high, I guess.) I stumbled upon your blog (mind on fire) a few months ago while looking for references to the Mother in Heaven. your blog is great- I have some qoutes from it in my journal.

    as for the pro-feminist male question… I dont know, it is a hard one for my husband, he is the type who avoids labels and making statements. I certainly consider him a feminist, the way in which he supports me in my career, and is super with sharing the load of housekeeping and child-care, and he is okay with me blatently calling myself a feminist… but he would never use the label for himself.
    (this is bad, he is sitting right next to me and I could ask his input on this… but he is totally engrossed in the Oklahoma vs Boise St football game and won’t be able to focus on anything else till it’s over. I’ll talk to him about it later)

    Comment by G — January 1, 2007 @ 11:36 pm

  6. G-
    LOL! We just watched Boise win… :)
    Way to go, Idaho!!!

    Comment by cheryl — January 1, 2007 @ 11:52 pm

  7. Cheryl,

    I’ve never been to Boise but that was an INCREDIBLE game….Just so my wife doesn’t sound like she’s speaking for me, I am perfectly willing to go on record as a “feminist”. I love my wife and support her in all of her aspirations. Of course she should have the same opportunities that I have. I simply see this as a natural part of any loving relationship. But at the same time, I don’t read feminist literature or follow feminist philosophy. I guess you could call me a closet male feminist…..

    G’s hubbie

    Comment by G — January 2, 2007 @ 12:27 am

  8. John,
    Glad you’re wearing the shirt! I think I’ll wear mine tomorrow :)

    I think my husband is pro-feminist, (Is there a difference between feminist and pro-feminist?) but he would never admit that he is. Because of the word. He has too many negative associations with it. For some reason, the word feminist connotes politicized radical man-haters to him. Despite the fact that he has known me for over 8 years and my primary self-identifying label is feminist.

    But even though he refuses to call himself feminist, I have never known a man more willing to do more than his share of “women’s work” or more willing to support the women in his life to achieve any goals they might set their sights on.

    While he is so supportive and wonderful to the women he knows personally, he is far less interested than I am in the work of liberal feminism - changing social policies to help progress women. I’m not sure why his feminism doesn’t extend beyond his personal interactions with women, but I’m hopeful that somehow, some day we’ll be voting similarly and writing letters to our leaders together.

    Comment by Caroline — January 2, 2007 @ 12:51 am

  9. #2 sounds a lot like how my parents were raised. both had moms who supported the families (very revolutionary, in that time!) and dads who were very hands-on about babies and housework and the likes. my dad’s mom only had sisters, he only had sisters, my mom’s mom only had sisters, SHE only had sisters, and i’m one of two girls and a mother of three girls. we’re just a girly family!

    i was never made aware of gender differences as a kid, as likely to bake a cake or sew an apron as i was to go hunting or put together an electronics kit. my husband was raised the same way, one of three boys with three sisters. his sisters were “tomboys” and the parents were as likely to make the boys wash dishes while the girls mowed the lawns as they were to do the opposite. both of our dads believed in raising strong and intelligent daughters who could do anything anyone else could, regardless of gender.

    i’ve never identified much with the feminist label and i’d definitely use that to describe my husband, though he just told me he wouldn’t wear your t-shirt, the jerk. he constantly surprises me on where he stands on certain issues, favoring a more “feminist side” than i’d expect. he’s very much into equality and the power of women, whether it’s in the home or outside of it. he has always worked in male-dominated professions (military and law enforcement) where the few female coworkerss have been strong women that we’ve both admired immensely. interestingly, in his office where men outnumber women probably 20 to one, the upper eschelons are almost exclusively female.

    Comment by just me — January 2, 2007 @ 12:55 am

  10. oh, and how exciting! you guys live just around the corner from us, john!

    Comment by just me — January 2, 2007 @ 1:03 am

  11. Thank you, G, Janet, and everyone, for the warm welcome! (just me: howdy,neighbor!) I find these comments heartening. It sounds like a lot of men espouse core feminist principles even if they aren’t big on the label. So the feminist values are there, even if the community and consciousness-raising aspects aren’t emphasized so much. It sounds like the feminism of many men is a personal thing, tied intimately to relationships with individual women (mine began that way and became more generalized). At any rate, reading your comments makes me feel like I could talk less and do so much more. Your husbands, fiancés and friends are great examples.

    Caroline, my understanding is that “pro-feminist” is used to describe feminism-friendly men by women who feel that feminism should primarily a woman’s movement. I tend to use the term as a synonym for “male feminist”, depending on the venue. In the current era of diverse feminisms, I don’t hear it used quite as often.

    Comment by JohnR — January 2, 2007 @ 9:35 am

  12. I hope you all know just how lucky you are to have pro-feminist husbands! I grew up with a very liberal pro-feminist dad and my mom was a principal and has her masters degree in education. (They are 70 this year.) It has been very difficult to live with a man whose views are quite different. Even though he has been forced to see the female side of things with 7 daughters and living with me for 23 years, he still just doesn’t get it. It still really hurts his feelings every time I inform him I am going somewhere instead of “asking his permission.”

    I think it’s so hard to overcome the teachings of your youth.

    Comment by Bored in Vernal — January 2, 2007 @ 9:41 am

  13. SEVEN daughters?! holy cow, biv, i’m putting you on my speed dial for the teen years!

    Comment by just me — January 2, 2007 @ 9:55 am

  14. My husband embraced the feminist label last year. I’m happy :)

    Comment by cchrissyy — January 2, 2007 @ 10:09 am

  15. John -

    What has been the reaction of female feminists to your male feminism?

    Not that this applies to you in the slightest and I’m going off my own experiences here, but most of the male “feminists” I’ve met turned out only to want to get into my pants. This, and for other reasons, make me a bit wary of male “feminists”.

    You, however, seem to be a wonderful husband and father, and I’m glad you are setting an example for others. I wonder, though, how women view your contribution to the feminist cause.

    Comment by Anna — January 2, 2007 @ 10:13 am

  16. Since the comments have exemplified the benefits of having a pro-feminist household, here’s another question: Do you raise your children to be pro-femenist or just very aware of euqal rights, or, not even aware of any kind of “movement”, but making equality a way of life? Personally, I’m for making equality a way of life. I worry that emphsizing feminism is just another way to say that one type of person is better than another. But then I’m the type of person who like to try to maintain neutral ground and respect many different points of view.

    I hope this isn’t a thread jack

    Comment by Nutty — January 2, 2007 @ 10:37 am

  17. Nutty-
    I know this question wasn’t meant for me, but I just wanted to add that I agree with you –and I’ll admit I like that my girls like to dress up and my boy likes to play with cars. But I tell my girls (and will my son) that they can be and do anything they want to (you want to build towers? Go right ahead)…Very similar to the way I was raised. No limits on their talents, ideas, etc. but not making one better than the other (gender).

    Comment by cheryl — January 2, 2007 @ 10:44 am

  18. John, et al:

    I’m not sure what standard needs to be met to be considered a male feminist, or pro-feminist. Is it being on the bus, attending feminist panels, or gender studies classes? I don’t consider myself a “feminist” in any active way, but certainly I am sympathetic to and supportive of feminism. For men like me, our biggest contributions come in subtle ways - encouraging and supporting the females in our lives, using our influence to root out employment practices that discriminate, insiting upon equal opportunities for our daughters, etc.

    I hear your frustration and understand. You are vocal and a strong public advocate. But there are many of us who, while we may not be marching, are certainly doing some small part to level the field. We are not blind to sexist practices and their effects, and in those areas where we have influence and opportunity to change things or educate people we do so. We may not have the t-shirt, but we do share the same goals and ideals. We’re behind you, brother. :)

    Comment by Rory — January 2, 2007 @ 10:46 am

  19. Nutty, you raise an important point, but I do want to avoid going down the “equality v. feminism” path for the sake of this post. It’s a necessary conversation, and I’m thinking of a way to make it the focus of one of my handful of posts (I want to freshen it up a bit, since it keeps popping up on fMh and in other venues), but I think it would detract from the main theme of this particular thread.

    Anna, I don’t have much experience with the male feminists you bring up (much of my interaction is on the web or in partnership with my wife), though I’ve heard the same from other women, esp. in academia.

    Since I enter feminist spaces with some trepidation (I am conscious that I represent Patriarchy to many feminists), I’m generally pleasantly surprised by the positive welcome I receive. Hugo Schwyzer has touched on this topic before–male feminists get a lot of validation, and we have to be careful of our motivations. Partly for this reason, I’m trying to shift more of the attention of my ‘feminist ministry’ towards men–creating spaces where men can discuss feminism and more nurturing forms of masculinity. It’s tough to find men who are interested, though.

    Comment by JohnR — January 2, 2007 @ 10:56 am

  20. Rory, we just cross-posted. Thanks for your support. *high five* :)

    I appreciate the quiet implementation of feminist values, but the almost total silence / absence of male advocates bothers me. I meet men who are passionate about peace, race, torture, gay rights, even animal rights, but very few who make women’s rights an active priority. I know that the outspoken ones won’t be in the majority, but couldn’t there be a few more? (Okay, I’m whining now) Feminist values are only a part of feminism–the consciousness-raising, political action, and creation of coalitions and community is a vital part of American and international feminism.

    Comment by JohnR — January 2, 2007 @ 11:04 am

  21. John - thanks for addressing my comment. I can imagine it’s difficult to be taken seriously as a male feminist - the women suspect you’re a shill for the Patriarchy (or just looking to ingratiate yourself to get into their pants), and the men suspect you’re a sissy/homosexual. That said, I think your approach is worthwhile, and I’ll send any interested men your way. How would a man find out more about male feminism? Is there a specific discussion of this and your experiences on your blog?

    Comment by Anna — January 2, 2007 @ 11:12 am

  22. John #20 - couldn’t mens’ interest in “human” rights be considered “feminist”? For example, my guess is that many men working to eradicate torture, etc. would also fight female genital mutilation, rape and other horrors that disproportionately affect women.

    Comment by Anna — January 2, 2007 @ 11:15 am

  23. John I’ve enjoyed your Mind on Fire posts the past few months, the whole transition you’ve spoken about is fascinating.

    I never knew my parents were pro-feminist until I reached college. I just assumed all good men were like that –showing their children that women were equal to men in all things. Not being afraid to do things that seemed to be “women’s work” (I hate that phrase). So, when I see other men, who were raised differently, not treating women in the same way, I’m horrified. I never knew differently.

    I realized I’d been raised by feminist parents when I went to my first Sunday dinner at the home of a girl I was dating. The mother and two daughters were rushing around the kitchen, setting the table, and emptying the dishwasher. The father and son were watching football.

    It shocked me, my dad was always in the kitchen with my mom, and he was usually the one doing the dishes after the meal. I understand the difference and now my home is the same way (though I refuse to vaccuum, and she refuses to do laundry).

    One of the earliest memories I have is setting the table and announcing to everyone that my dad got the biggest glass because he was a boy and my mom got the smaller one because she was a girl. My dad traded the two glasses, then went on to explain to me why he didn’t think that was right, and why he hoped I wouldn’t either.

    Now we try to treat our children the same way, correcting them when they insert those small biases.

    This is how I think men will turn into feminists, by having parents that teach them the correct way men and women should treat each other.

    Comment by jjohnsen — January 2, 2007 @ 11:44 am

  24. i think my DH is a closet feminist at times. raised in a very traditional home yet he has never stopped me doing what i want although i can’tt say he’s; ever really really encouraged me either!! ) perphaps i scare him too much!!) but he loves to cook is obseesesd if the house isn’t tidy enough is that being a feminist husband though???
    when he looked after our newborn as i had to work in the evenings and any other major child rearing stuff it was known by all!!!!

    Debra

    Comment by debra — January 2, 2007 @ 12:21 pm

  25. If by “feminist” we are focusing on one’s own attitudes and actions, then I am definitely a feminist, and I have no problem claiming that label, the baggage it carries in LDS culture notwithstanding.

    If by “feminist” we mean one who is actively engaged in political causes and rallies and marches and riding the bus and studying feminist philosophy and literature, then I guess I’m not a feminist, not for lack of sympathy but for just not being very political in general.

    Comment by Kevin Barney — January 2, 2007 @ 2:44 pm

  26. I don’t know if my dh would self identify as a pro-feminist or not. I think he would, but as with Kevin, it’s more that he is an apolitical person in general. (the position that so many of us political types hold, that all people should be involved in or at least intersted in politics I think would make an interesting conversation someday)

    I have to admit I would be thrilled if my dh would take up the feminist banner and go all Hugo or JohnR on me, I’d do little happy dances. I want him to wear that shirt (and he might, in the right venue, maybe) But while I think he would agree with you guys on most things, and it’s even not that he doesn’t care, it’s just that his mind and his interests lie so fundementally elsewhere, trying to get him to talk politics is very much a round hole / square peg problem.

    On the other hand, I’m certain that none of my brothers nor my father would self-identify as feminist, and rightfully so. Most of them very politically orientated and just what you’d expect of a conservative Mormon. However, I’m still of the opinion that they are some of the best men on the planet, in that frustrating benevolent patriarcle way of theirs. And how to reconcile their fundemental decency with what I feel are harmful gender attitudes is a whole nother can o’ worms.

    I don’t think I personally know any men who self-identify as feminist. Certainly not actively so, as you mentioned John. sad.

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 2, 2007 @ 4:08 pm

  27. Hmmm, I can’t stand labels. If I sat down and really, really thought about it I would consider myself a co-feminist. On my own I’m not actively pursuing feminist causes. I wouldn’t be caught dead at the v. monologues and I would never wear a t-shirt with a feminist label on it. However, I do know a few things about myself. My mother got her degree in biology at the University of Miami and was a researcher there before she made the decision to be a stay at home Mom. I was always terribly worried that she was unhappy with her choice to leave her chosen field to be my Mom. I would constantly check with her all through my childhood if she was disappointed or sad that she chose us instead of being a biologist. She would always smile warmly pull me up into her arms and whisper that she never once regretted her decision as she hugged the stuffing out of me. It still makes me misty-eyed to think of her saying that and her willingness to sacrifice so much for me and my siblings.

    What does this have to do with anything? I love, admire and respect people based on who they are, not on their gender or any other category of differences you might insert into that sentence. I made sure in life that I would have the ability to financially provide for my family in a way that would leave the choice wide open for my wife to decide what was best for her and would bring her the most happiness and fulfillment. I want my daughter to have any opportunity she might wish for herself and I would be forever UNhappy at anyone who would try to stand in her way (especially if it were me).

    Perhaps I don’t really know what an actual feminist is. I don’t think I qualify because I fiercely love and admire my Mom for choosing to be at home with us when were growing up and needed her the most. I tried really hard to buy gender nuetral toys for my son and daughter, but my daughter always gravitated to dolls and spends an inordinate amount of time ‘taking care of them’. So, I bought her a couple of new dolls at Christmas. She loves them and it warms my heart to see such a compassion in her at such a young age. I love my son as well, but he has a tendency to take the dolls and see how quickly he can endanger their life. Which secretly also amuses me. I’m sick that way. Don’t ask.

    I consider myself a co-feminist because I was deeply outraged to find out that my Mom was sexually harassed at her work (all the kids are grown and have kids of their own, so she went back to work a number of years ago). I couldn’t let go of how violated I felt over what happened to her. I know, I know why should I feel violated it didn’t happen to me? It was my Mom for goodness sake, so that’s how I feel and that’s that. I was allowed to see a spreadsheet at an old job I had worked at that showed years worked, accomplishments and salaries of all the employees. There were four seperate situations were women who had worked at the company longer and were more qualified were getting paid less than their male counterparts. I actually stormed into the all women HR department and asked the head of the dept. what in the freak that was all about. I nearly lost my job over it, but I had enough political pull to get away with it.

    So, I’m definitely not an actual feminist, but I would fight like heck to ensure that the women (of any age) in my life get equal treatment and are respected and get the same opportunites as everyone else. In reality though I feel the same way about all the men in my life. If anyone were to ever tell my son who, has mild autism, that he was not capable of something I would have the same reaction. So, I think that is more about my love for people than it is my feelings about gender. Well, I’m not even sure I have a point anymore. So, I’ll stop typing now.

    {sigh} Too many words and not really much said. I really need to get the hang of doing comments better.

    Comment by cew-smoke — January 2, 2007 @ 4:54 pm

  28. I actually have a teensy weensy little problem with men who call themselves feminist. I don’t want to be rude, but I wonder how much of a feminist a man can be, when he hasn’t experienced what it is to be a woman. (Likewise I have a teensy weensy little problem with the sex/gender debate: can a man/woman transexual ever really become a woman, when she hasn’t had the experience of growing up as a female in a male dominant culture.) I should insert here that I am very happy to be wrong in this matter.

    My father is pro-feminist, but only to an extent. For instance, he will say that women can and should do anything they want to do, but if it becomes personal - say, for instance, one of his daughters wanting to backpack on her own through the Arab world - he will back away and say that “the world” doesn’t allow women to do some things. (I went anyway.) My husband is pro-feminist, but less aggressive about it than I’d like. You know, I dream of the pro-feminist husband who actually jumps at the chance to do the ironing just to prove how advanced he is. I don’t think that’s ever going to happen. But my husband is very good with the housework and very supportive of me and, truth be told, he’s a better parent than I am, and he’s enough of a pro-feminist to let me take care of every other dead mice we find. (Here’s my basic hypocrisy coming out again - I’m all in favor of equal rights and equal responsibility so long as he still has to do the icky jobs.)

    Comment by Quimby — January 2, 2007 @ 5:01 pm

  29. Interesting thread. I’ve long admired Hugo Schwyzer’s eloquence and so now I’ll check out “Mind on Fire” as well. My husband is unabashedly pro-feminist and openly discusses and acts on womens rights issues in our local community, as well as at church. He got this way through his immigrant experience and through his youth as the child of a single mother. He’d never go so far as to say the church treats single mothers badly but he’s heard enough lessons on “the only good families are nuclear families” or seen the suspision by which his mom was treated. He felt there was always the idea that his mother was a bad woman who had sinned and that was why she had no husband. This taught him at an early age to critically evaluate the discourses behind attitudes and teachings and to stand for justice where it was needed.

    Comment by Bev — January 2, 2007 @ 5:23 pm

  30. John,

    Interesting to see you here. (Lisa, you should check out his blog to see what he thinks about this place. :) )

    I have followed your personal story somewhat, and was disappointed to see that in your effort for “full disclosure” here, you left out the part about the fact that you recently decided to leave the church. Don’t you think that is appropriate so people know where you are coming from without having to read through your blog? While you understandably don’t want to distance yourself from associations with members (online or in real life), since this is a blog where “faithful feminists” want to hang out (discuss feminism and keep their faith), as people seek your point of view, I think they should know where you stand relative to the church. And I hope you aren’t seeking ‘converts’ in that way. I sincerely hope your posts will keep your views about the church out of the picture completely.

    Comment by anonon — January 2, 2007 @ 5:34 pm

  31. Quimby

    Please don’t take this as an attack, it is most definitely not. However, I would disagree on the men not being able to truly be a feminist, because they do not know what it is like to be a woman. I do not need to fully understand something to feel strongly about it. I have never been a slave, but I certainly consider myself an abolitionist (as I’m sure we all do). I don’t need to understand what it is to be a slave to know that I abhor it in every sense and think that anyone who excercises unrighteous dominion is in a lot of trouble in the next life.

    I may not know what it is to ‘be’ a woman, but I have had hardships in my life. When I was a teenager in the great state of Alabama, I was attacked by a large group of Southern Baptists peers from my high school (in a shopping mall no less) and had a number of things I don’t care to talk about happen to me. And no, in answer to the possible question, nobody did anything to stop them or help me. So, I have maybe gone through something fairly awful that other people have not had to experience. So, perhaps in one small way I could very much understand what it is like to not be ‘equal’ in all things and in all times.

    My only point, and please know that I only say this with love, is that just because you are not a woman does not necessarily mean you could never be a true feminist. Sometimes, people misinterpret the comments I leave and I want to stress that I am not, not, not trying to de-value what you say. I’m just expressing some personal feelings on this issue. Also note as I said in my earlier comment, I am not saying I am a feminist. I’m just perhaps presenting a different perspective.

    Comment by cew-smoke — January 2, 2007 @ 5:43 pm

  32. cew-smoke - I don’t necessarily agree with Quimby that men can’t be “feminists”, but I can certainly see her point. It’s not that men don’t know what it’s like to be a woman that makes men categorically suspect as “feminists”, but that men are the reason why feminism is necessary in the first place. To some (probably radical) feminists, a male “feminist” would be akin to a slave owner supporting civil rights for blacks.

    Comment by Anna — January 2, 2007 @ 5:53 pm

  33. Anna,

    Oooh, excellent point. I would agree. Let’s take it a step further. Herein lies the ultimate irony. Life is full of deliciously horrific ironies isn’t it? Men are the reason why feminism has needed to come about. Yet, men are the bar by which feminism judges its condition. Men cause women to not be equal and by the same token men are the measurement that women use to determine if they are equal or not.

    I had a great conversation with an attractive young women many years ago (pre-marriage). She admitted she spent a lot of time and money on clothes, makeup, etc. to look pretty and desirable. However, she was adamant she did not do it for men. She did it for herself. I knew I had her philisophically trapped at that point. I then asked her, but who determined what the definition of desirable was? What bar did she use to measure her ideal of beauty. The ugly answer was of course ‘men’. So, no matter her argument, men ultimately led her to spending the time and money she did.

    It leads one to believe that the ultra-radical feminists might be right. To really solve the problem you have to take men out of the equation entirely. When they say it I think they might mean extermination, or at the least breeding us out of existance. Perhaps they are on to something though (not the extermination part, that just gives me the creeps). Perhaps the feminist movement should be less worried about being “equal” to men and come up with their own defined measuring stick to determine the success of women. Maybe, there is no easy way to do that. Maybe there is. Maybe, I’m just babbling. Or perhaps I’m really on to something here!

    .
    .
    .

    Nah, it’s just babbling. Philosophy is so messy sometimes.
    /shrug

    Comment by cew-smoke — January 2, 2007 @ 6:08 pm

  34. Anna

    Quick side point. I think we were both using a bit too much generalization. Not all white men were slave owners and that is why white men could be abolitionists without being hypocritical.

    Not all men are directly causing women to be unequal. Some are directly working to help equality. So, it would be reasonable to say that they could be feminists without sounding like a pro-civil rights slave-owner.

    Am I reaching too far on this point? Maybe a grain of truth to it? bah, I don’t know. I’m drunk on the devil’s drink –> ‘drive-by comment leaving’.

    Comment by cew-smoke — January 2, 2007 @ 6:18 pm

  35. You’ve all raised great points. There seems to be some confusion between “fairness” and “feminism.” While feminism incorporates fairness, it seeks specifically to correct an imbalance that puts women at the disadvantage. Anna (#22), I agree with you that the human rights agenda includes work that improves the world for women, but it’s sometimes necessary to highlight specific injustices. It’s why we had abolitionists and civil rights activists in spite of national rhetoric that favored equal rights for all ‘men.’ Even though I share cew-smoke’s (#27) aversion to labels, I believe they are still useful (if problematic). This site might be a different place if it were called “Egalitarian Mormon Housewives.”

    Anna (#21), the pro-feminist resources on Mind on Fire are pretty scarce right now–the topics are pretty eclectic. I recruited a feminist friend to group-blog with me, and am thinking of taking on a pro-feminist man as a third blogger. Otherwise I have web-schemes and academic papers a-brewing, but nothing concrete yet.

    Quimby (#28), you bring up one of the reasons why I’m sometimes cautious to call myself a feminist rather than a pro-feminist. I agree with you that I can’t share in the experience of a woman in the U.S. It’s for similar reasons that the womanist and mujerista movements began–African-American and latina feminists were tired of white middle-class women telling the world what a woman’s experience was when it didn’t seem to match their experiences. Whether or not I describe myself as a feminist or a pro-feminist, I usually find I have explain myself further.

    Anonon (#30), thank you for bringing up my family’s decision to step away from the LDS Church institution. I’m not hiding it (thus prominent links to both mine and Jana’s blogs), and am planning to talk more about it, but I will lean more heavily on feminist topics rather than Church ones (though I do plan to bring Mormonism in). I respect the (widely diverse) beliefs of fMh readers and will do my best to match the tone here at fMh. I can’t promise to be 100% non-controversial, however. Maybe 85%. :)

    Comment by JohnR — January 2, 2007 @ 6:20 pm

  36. Perhaps the feminist movement should be less worried about being “equal” to men and come up with their own defined measuring stick to determine the success of women.

    I think you’re definitely onto something with this statement, cew-smoke. The main problem, however, is that men prevent women from accessing power in society, so it is vital that women at least have equal access to the same financial, political, etc. power as men have had historically. That said, it’s equally vital that women don’t adhere to the same standards that men have used to judge the value of women - especially with respect to beauty and appearance.

    Comment by Anna — January 2, 2007 @ 6:35 pm

  37. cew-smoke, no offense taken. Look, to be brutally frank, I’m not really sure where I stand. At some visceral level I have this problem with men calling themselves “feminists” but then when I sit back and examine that statement objectively I think it’s just so darned narrow-minded of me!

    My feminism is of the rather radical strain - although I don’t want to breed men out of existence. Heck, without men, we’d have nobody to blame but ourselves!;-) But seriously, men are great. And so are women. We work best when we’re working together. To me, feminism is at least in part about getting rid of all the social/political/historical baggage so that we can do just that - work together more effectively. And there is definitely a role for men in that movement. But, I dunno . . . male feminist? Maybe I just need to get over it and focus on more important stuff.

    Comment by Quimby — January 2, 2007 @ 7:42 pm

  38. I wonder whether it is really in the interest of LDS feminist women to tell LDS men that, qua males, they simply cannot be feminists. I understand that men cannot know what it is like to be a woman, but is that really a sine qua non for being a feminist? It seems to me that feminism ought to be encouraged rather than discouraged, particulary within LDS religious culture, where feminist attitudes among men are perhaps rare enough to be at something of a premium. Are the women here seriously offended if I, a male, self-identify as a feminist? Do you seriously want me to cease self-identifying as a feminist? I honestly would like to know, as I would like to avoid putting my foot in my mouth in the future and claiming a label in a manner that others find inappropriate. I really do not want to offend.

    Comment by Kevin Barney — January 2, 2007 @ 7:50 pm

  39. Kevin - speaking personally, you won’t offend, and publically I will completely support and applaud you, because you’re right, we need more feminist/pro-feminist/pro-equality (call it what you will) men in the church - really, I shouldn’t have said anything. Just tell me to shut up!

    Comment by Quimby — January 2, 2007 @ 7:54 pm

  40. #30, that is a bit paranoid, don’t you think? We all are here at different levels of activity and thought processes regarding the Church. I’m forever impressed at our ability to STILL respect and share provacative topics…This is a great place whether you are coming or going.

    #35, I respect your honesty and the spirit in which you are taking your “guest post powers”! :-) P.S. I’m in Redondo.

    Comment by LAGirrrl — January 2, 2007 @ 8:26 pm

  41. Cew-smoke and Quimby, some of these comments remind me vividly of Susan Brownmiller’s arguments about men and feminism. She went so far as to argue that ALL men are, whether they intend or like it or not, are rapists because of the way patriarchy in sex has been ingrained in our culture. I still like Brownmiller, but i must say i think she went too far on that one!

    I think intent problemizes most civil rights issues a great deal (I mean, was a patronizing and kind slave holder who honestly thought his slaves would die if left to fend for themselves as evil as a Simon Legree? Glad I don’t have to judge that one!). Certainly I can’t believe a man who says he’s a feminist yet adheres actively to condescending aspects of patriarchy with the belief that they benefit women–but I CHOOSE to believe a man who says he’s a feminist if he works hard to treat women equitably even if residual bits of patronization remain.

    Why? Because I believe we ALL have some sexism and racism and classism embedded in our psyches; NONE of us can ever fully empathize with another person, even when our demographic profiles look the same. My experience with sexual violence, for instance, may look identical to some other feminists’ experiences on paper, but my individual wiring renders the experiences quite different. So I’d rather encourage those who show up to the party, even while gently pointing out that they cannot fully “get it”, perhaps (my African refugee friends have been quite nice about explaining this to me, without ever saying I can’t be an African refugee advocate).

    That men–even the feminist ones–benefit from the patriarchy in the world is inarguable. They will lose some things if society changes the way I’d like it to. (Of course, they’ll gain other things.) Similarly, no matter how much I embrace civil rights, I hold an advantage over a young black man standing in the same room as me in many, many ways. No matter what I intend or believe. I’d say a big portion of my claiming the label of civil rights advocate lies with recognizing my priviledge and working to end it. I’d say John–or any other feminist man–can do the same.

    Comment by Janet — January 2, 2007 @ 8:42 pm

  42. Here’s my basic hypocrisy coming out again - I’m all in favor of equal rights and equal responsibility so long as he still has to do the icky jobs.)

    Yep, Quimby–me too, LOL :). I won’t kill spiders but am desperately afraid of them, so DH gets to take them outside. And he empties the garbage. And he’s in charge of emptying the mouse traps because I will be all mushy-girly and cry because we are murderers.

    But hey, I clean the fridge even when the veggies have liquified. So I guess I get credit, too.

    Comment by Janet — January 2, 2007 @ 8:46 pm

  43. John, I didn’t know you and Jana had converted to the Society of Friends. They’re wonderful! I’m always so much happier when my friends who leave the LDS church leave for something else, rather than simply to sit around feeling betrayed and angry. Such feelings are better mediated in a supportive spiritual environment, I’d imagine, and the Quakers certainly offer that!

    Sometimes I joke that I’m a Mormon Quaker. Wouldn’t it be great if such a term didn’t merit the shocked assertions that the two religions are not compatible?

    Comment by Janet — January 2, 2007 @ 9:15 pm

  44. in reference to #30 (annon’s) concerns. So far the list of friends and family members I have recommended this website to includes my relief society president mother-in-law, my primary president mother, my less active sister, my excommunicated mission companion, my less active neighbor, my aunt who had her name withdrawn from the records of the church, and my (still single) relief society president mission companion.
    a little something here for everyone, and faith is found in the most unsual places.
    (sorry to threadjack)

    Comment by G — January 3, 2007 @ 12:55 am

  45. Janet (#41), that comment should be elevated to life as a full post! I see patriarchy as deeply embedded in social structures, and women are as capable of perpetuating it as men are at suffering under it. The same can be said for race and class and culture. That said, power and privilege is definitely skewed in favor of wealthy white male Protestants in our society.

    In response to #42, we haven’t converted officially yet (it’s a simple process, but there’s no pressure), but (in addition to the peace and simplicity testimonies) we were attracted to the radical egalitarianism between genders. All the same, we can’t seem to shake our Mormon connections, and I’m grateful for good LDS friends and venues such as this that welcome my poor contributions and permit at least a limited engagement with Mormonism. I may write a bit about it here if I can do so in a way that respects fMh’s mission to provide “a safe place to be feminist and faithful.”

    Kevin–I can relate to your concerns. At the same time, I count on I count on women like Quimby to keep us pro-feminist men honest. I think that men will always be guests in predominantly female feminist spaces (which is one reasons why I want to create some male feminist spaces).

    Thank you, Janet, G and LAGrrrl (another neighbor!) for the Friend-ly encouragement. Nervousness doesn’t show across the web so much, but it’s there! :)

    Comment by JohnR — January 3, 2007 @ 1:27 am

  46. I raised my concern because I think it’s helpful to know where someone is coming from regarding the church from the get-go in discussions like this. I’m not one who believes in running and hiding from people who choose to leave the church. But it’s good to know that they have so I can understand their thoughts, feelings and beliefs. But I think friendship and such are important regardless of faith.

    John’s a sensitive, deep-thinking guy and I’m sure has lots to say that will interest lots of people here. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with expressing a hope for respect for the whole “feminist and faithful” thing (and he just mentioned explicitly that he wants to respect that mission, which is great). But if raising such concerns is perceived as inappropriate, then apologies.

    Comment by anonon — January 3, 2007 @ 2:39 am

  47. Well, this conversation suffers from the usual problems of not defining what we are talking about when it comes to the f-word.

    I don’t think being for “equality of the sexes” is the same thing as feminism. Being of an age to be a very old-style feminist, to me feminism is about rejoicing in the unique aspects of womanhood and looking for a different way, not merely encouraging women to be like men.

    I dated a lot of men who were into “equality of the sexes” and they totally supported the idea of sharing equally in career and child-rearing, etc. Because they thought I was “too smart” to “waste my talents” as a mother at home. Which I do not consider feminist thinking, or at least thinking that I want in my home:)

    It shocks me how many so-called feminists are really merely adopting the male way of doing things (working fulltime, etc.) and devalues nurturing. I’d like to push for something better.

    We’ve taught all our children gender-neutral tasks; both boys and girls cooked, mowed lawns, etc. Both our older son and daughter served missions.

    At times during our marriage, my husband has NOT done his fair share of the housework, etc. Yet I see myself as very different from June Cleaver. My husband did not walk away from the house without doing dishes because he assumed that I, being female, would do them. Rather, he had counseled with me, explained about the church calling or career commitment and asked my help in covering for him.

    And he has totally covered for me at other times, even when I was doing mushy female stuff. It turned out that my parents were ailing and died during a season when I was not employed and some would say not contributing to the family finances (in fact, all our money is shared and I made a huge contribution through household management). But my husband was very willing to pay for air fares and arrange babysitting when I was gone.

    Comment by Naismith — January 3, 2007 @ 4:33 am

  48. Well said Naismith!

    Comment by Nisa — January 3, 2007 @ 8:51 am

  49. I self identify as pro-feminist. I would accept the feminist label, but I’m not quite sure I qualify. I’m not an activist, I see my primary responsibilities as being a husband, father, employee/provider, church member/worker, son/brother, and friend - pretty much in that order. I don’t have the energy nor inclination to be an activist.

    That said, I firmly believe in the value and potential of women. At this time I have three kids, all of them daughters. They are bright, energetic, wonderful people (they are young still, but I can see it - no biases at all). The idea that I am raising my daughters to be good wives and mothers for someone’s sons is appalling to me.

    I am raising my daughters to be good and kind people who share their talents in a meaningful way. If that is as a wife and mother that’s fine. If it is as an accomplished obstetrician (that’s my 6-yr old’s chosen career path) that’s fine. If it’s as a third grade teacher, fine. If it’s as a mid-level manager for a mid-level company, well I hope I’ll be fine with that, too.

    As such I support policies and attitudes that empower my daughters to make those things happen in their lives.

    I’ve noticed in my time reading FMH (coming up on 2-yrs now) that I don’t have the same visceral reaction to women’s issues as some of the women here. I don’t immediately see issues from a feminist perspective, I can usually see it and sympathize when someone brings it up (I’m thinking of the baseball as metaphor for sex discussion as an example). That is one of the things I enjoy about this site, it helps me see things from different perspectives.

    On a certain level I agree with Quimby, that it is difficult (impossible?) for a man to be a true feminist. I think it is similar from a racial stand point. I am certainly pro-equal rights, and can see certain racist attitudes and actions, but I don’t truly no what it is like to be a racial minority in America. On my mission, I lived in towns where I was just about the only white person, so I felt a little bit of what it was like to look different from anybody else. But I wasn’t looked down upon, disrespected, or maligned in any meaningful way like I know African-Americans still are at times today. So I don’t know what it is like to be a racial minority, nor will I have the same reactions to situations as an African-American.

    So on both the racial equality and feminist fronts I try to be sympathetic, do my part to promote a fair and equal atmosphere within my realm of influence, and stand against negative attitudes and situations when I see them.

    Sorry if that’s more than anyone wanted to read.

    Spencer

    Comment by Spencer — January 3, 2007 @ 1:06 pm

  50. FYI, John has written quite a bit about our leaving the church on his blog. I’m in the process of writing the story from my perspective, and you can find a few of the relevant posts here and here. (If you check out my links, though, keep in mind that I’m writing the story from the beginning to the end–meaning that I’m starting in the distant past and moving forward to where we are now.)

    Wow, JustMe (#10), and LAGirrl (#40), how cool is that that you live in SoCal! If you’re interested in getting together sometime, let’s do it. We’ve got some great Mormon Feminist friends here in OC that we gather with often. :)

    Anonon (#30), do I know you? It’s pretty odd to have folks in the cyberworld who ‘know us’ so well and we’re at the disadvantage for not knowing who they are.

    Comment by jana (aka pilgrimgirl or JohnR's spouse) — January 3, 2007 @ 3:27 pm

  51. Being of an age to be a very old-style feminist, to me feminism is about rejoicing in the unique aspects of womanhood and looking for a different way, not merely encouraging women to be like men.

    You’ll be happy to know, Naiah, that this take on the “f word” isn’t antiquated at all–in fact, a feminism which aims to render men and women identical in character rather than simply in juridical equity is far more antiquated. You should read some of the French feminists–it sounds like you’d enjoy them.

    I’ll admit that America has been a bit slow to catch onto the multiple feminisms, maybe because legal grounding constructs such a gigantic portion of our national identity. But if you want some “difference” feminists to read, let me know and I’ll pass along some recommendations. U.S. women have also embraced difference feminism, but not so much in the ways which garner limelight. My personal favorite example (not essentialist, but still difference-grounded) is the new way knitting is referred to as “stitch and bitch.” Domestic craft/art is now being constructed not only as especially female, but as savvy and additudinal. It cracks me up. Plus, I like yarn.

    Comment by Janet — January 3, 2007 @ 4:36 pm

  52. Janet,
    I borrowed JohnR’s copy of Stich N Bitch a couple of years ago. :)

    Reclaiming traditionally feminine arts and skills that have been devalued (by men and women) is one aspect of feminism that I like. Though I am more compelled by the work of liberal feminism (encouraging/advocating social and policy reform to advance the equality of women).

    Comment by Caroline — January 3, 2007 @ 6:23 pm

  53. Thanks for a great post and a great discussion thread. I’ve wondered about the link between “good man” and “feminist” before. I think some of the posts above emphasize how compassion and decency - putting a face to the suffering - create the bridge. Which is a relief. Because I find myself mysteriously uncomfortable with guys who too loudly proclaim their commitment to equal rights. Kind of a “methinks the lady doth protest too much” reaction. And this thread speaks rather directly to some of my fears of marriage. So thanks for your comments.

    Comment by Andrea — January 3, 2007 @ 7:27 pm

  54. Wow - that was scattered. Too many thoughts uncompleted. I meant that knowing that good men are really at most a step away from pro-feminism makes me fear less that marriage to one of these good men will lead to a stifling, imbalanced life. Sigh. And my mother wonders why I haven’t found someone ;)

    Comment by Andrea — January 3, 2007 @ 7:30 pm

  55. Caroline–you can see the same thing in 9th century America. All sorts of men and women dismissed domestic arts as signposts of oppression, and I suppose they were right. But that’s not all they were; they also opened up female communal space for resistance. I’d say Susan B. Anthony made her first speech at a quilt guild! :)

    I gave a quilting presentation at an international academic feminist conference several years ago, in my first year of my MA program. I launched into it afraid the radical feminists at the conference would laugh at me (it’s happened before; even though I’m very compelled by radical feminism the camp is rarely compelled by Mormon me. Flustered perhaps, but not compelled.). Instead all these older professors gathered around me in a big love-fest and starting talking about canning and quilting and recipe books and community gardens. Ah, good times.

    Comment by Janet — January 3, 2007 @ 10:04 pm

  56. I wonder whether it is really in the interest of LDS men to tell LDS women that, qua females, they simply cannot be priesthood holders…

    Not that I’m rabid about it, but Kevin’s comment was so easy to re-phrase…

    Comment by Space Chick — January 4, 2007 @ 2:37 pm

  57. I really like hearing feminism described as “rejoicing in the unique aspects of womanhood” (#51) and “Reclaiming traditionally feminine arts and skills that have been devalued” (#52). I’m happy that some forms of feminism embrace domestic arts. I suppose I’ve been taught (and bought into the idea of) the radical American defined feminism that implies women should be just like men. As one who likes being a woman and doesn’t want to be like a man, just wants to be respected and have the same rights as one, that radical form of feminism doesn’t settle well.

    John, I think it’s cool that as a male-feminist, you seem to feel free to participate in the “traditionally feminine arts and skills that have been devalued” that interest you - just like women can participate in traditionall masculine arts and skills that interest them.

    Comment by Elise — January 4, 2007 @ 4:12 pm

  58. Jana I would love to get to know you and John better–your posts have served me well the past few months as I’ve begun to hold my church membership up to the light.

    So to all of the single women here–where would you feel is the best place to meet the great and few male feminists out there? I’ve been wondering…hmmmmm

    Comment by LAGirrrl — January 4, 2007 @ 7:03 pm

  59. I guess I never realized it was a “feminist” thing to respect women, to allow them to make their own decisions, to help with the dishes, to help with the children, and encourage women to go to college and educate themselves. I just thought it was common decency.

    Then again, I am married to a woman who (on her own accord) doesn’t want the Priesthood, supported the Patriarchy by serving a mission, opted to change her name, and prefers working in the home while running her own business (from the home) instead of getting a “real” career, so I’m probably just an evil tyrant.

    Comment by queuno — January 6, 2007 @ 1:59 pm

  60. “The idea that I am raising my daughters to be good wives and mothers for someone’s sons is appalling to me.”
    You put that very well.

    Comment by cchrissyy — January 9, 2007 @ 12:04 am

  61. #59 Queno your tone seems to imply that you are defensive that people who are feminist would think you are an “evil tyrant” which, I think, highlights some of the concerns we women have with identifying ourselves by using the “f- word”… because of the negative connotations that come with it, or the assumptions of what we think about certain issues. I don’t think anyone on here would call you a tyrant :)

    Comment by sophia*rising — January 10, 2007 @ 11:29 am

  62. What are the obstacles to male pro-feminism?

    As a man, the obstacle is in the futility of the ultimate goal. I advocate respect for women, however, I don’t buy into the idea that women should hold equal status to men. I accept that women are capable of doing many things that men do, but I question the appropriateness of expecting it from them. I served for a time as a drill sergeant at Fort Jackson, SC and was responsible for overseeing the female soldiers (which numbered in the sixties). During the day, females would conduct training in integrated platoons, and in the evening I would ensure that the peace was kept in the large bay within which they were housed. Up to that point in my life, I had been very receptive to the idea of absolute equality of the sexes. I imagined opportunities for women to serve within combat arms, or even the Special Forces. However, I recognized traits exhibeted by these soldiers that caused me concern. They were simply unprepared for the realities of a combat environment, and either incapable or unwilling to develop themselves physically and emotionally into the type of troop that I would feel comfortable leading and depending on while on the battlefield. I don’t doubt that there are women that can fire a rifle, wrestle a man to submission, or sacrifice their lives in the defense of their country, and many have demonstrated this by their own actions; but while they may be able to do these things (and it is a testament to the beauty of their construct that they can), is it appropriate to expect it from them? I find it amusing that some women demand equality while there is peace and tranquility, but flee at the concept of being pressed into service to maintain that equality. I don’t believe that women were created to assume the leadership and defense of society, although they posses the capacity to fulfill these roles at times.

    Comment by Guest — January 14, 2007 @ 3:46 pm

  63. “They were simply unprepared for the realities of a combat environment, and either incapable or unwilling to develop themselves…. I don’t believe that women were created to assume the leadership and defense of society”

    And you attribute the unpreparedness to their creation, and not to the society in which they, and their mothers, were raised?

    Comment by cchrissyy — January 14, 2007 @ 4:56 pm

  64. I don’t attribute their unpreparedness to their creation. What I said was, once they recognized that they were not prepared, they either refused or were unable to develop themselves physically and emotionally into the same condition as their male peers.

    I believe that there are women that can do anything a man can do, if not better than he. It is conceivable that a society could be created in which women are expected and encouraged to occupy roles, habits, and attributes traditionally attributed to men. My assertion is that men and women were created to fulfill different roles in the family and throughout society. Simply because one has the capability, and even desire to do something, does not mean that it is appropriate for one to do that thing. In this way it is somewhat similar to the argument over homosexuality. It is a perversion of God’s intended design.

    Comment by Guest — January 15, 2007 @ 3:55 pm

  65. I advocate respect for women, however, I don’t buy into the idea that women should hold equal status to men

    Okay, Guest, I want an explanation. In what way shouldn’t I hold equal status to you? In what way am I inferior to you? How much power and intelligence does one teeny little appendage have, anyway?

    Comment by Quimby — January 15, 2007 @ 9:46 pm

  66. How much power and intelligence does one teeny little appendage have, anyway?

    Hmmm. I’ve heard it said that some men ‘think’ with it. Talk about undue influences; no wonder we get into so many wars . . .

    Comment by Not Ophelia — January 15, 2007 @ 9:54 pm

  67. So . . .Women shouldn’t lead . . .

    I could use John Stuart Mill’s argument from “The Subjection of Women”, when he argued that England had had many kings and very few queens, and that the few queens beat the pants off most of the kings. (That’s paraphrasing, by the way. I don’t think you’ll actually find the phrase “beat the pants off” in Mill’s work.) Mill argued that it was superstition alone which led us to believe that women and men had different natures, and that if he was wrong, and women actually did have a different nature to men, it’d only be proven after several centuries of social experiment in which women were given the same rights, opportunities, and responsibilities as men.

    But you know, you might think a man who lived in the mid-1800s is too forward-thinking and revolutionary.

    I could use cold hard fact: Women have ruled since 3000 BC. Women were Queens and Emperesses in some of the oldest and most revered cultures - you may have even heard of some of them, like Egypt and Mesopotamia.

    There are only two countries in the world that have never had a female leader or cabinet member. Perhaps you’d like to join them? They are Monaco and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps you should rule out Monaco since Princess Caroline actually weilds a fair amount of influence there, but you might feel right at home in Saudi Arabia.

    There are 192 member nations of the United Nations and 2 independent states outside of it. At this time, 18 of them have female leaders. I would suggest you avoid visiting Denmark, the Netherlands, and Great Britain, since all have Queens, and as you know oh-so-well, Queens only muck things up. You might also want to knock Chile, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Liberia, The Philippines and Switzerland off the list of places you want to visit, since they all have female presidents. And of course all of those countries are failing miserably! You’ll also want to steer clear of Germany, Jamaica, New Zealand, Mozambique, South Korea and The Netherlands Antilles. I’d suggest, too, that you keep away from France, since a woman (GASP!) is the front-runner to win the election there.

    Better not go to Canada or Saint Lucia - they have a female Governor-Generals. Oh, and I should warn you to really, really stay away from New Zealand. Until a couple of years ago, not only did they have a female Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition was also a female, and of course the head of state is a woman, too. Why, it’s only a matter of days before God knocks the entire country off the map!

    You know what surprises me about the above list? Pretty much all of those countries are doing very well. Certainly none are doing as well as, say, Iran or South Korea - both countries led by, what’s the opposite of women again? Oh yeah, men. But, you know, they’re hanging in there. Last I heard, none of them were actively seeking out wars like the United States - Oh, that’s right, there’s a man in charge there too. None of them were practising apartheid like Zimbabwe - Oh wait, another man. None of them were starving their people while they live in luxury like Egypt - Darn, another man!

    In fact, almost every time a female is elected leader, or becomes Queen, that country either remains steady or climbs on the UNDP HDR. That’s right - these countries don’t suddenly become big black holes where everything falls to pieces; they succeed and prosper and sometimes, make Really Big Strides. Of course, they generally make Really Big Strides in those minor fields like health care and education. I mean, when’s the last time anyone needed those? They fail when it comes to the Really Important Stuff, like stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and sending young people to their deaths to fight wars based on lies.

    I live in Australia, where our PM is definitely a doo-doo head. Given the choice, I’d much rather have the opposition in power, even if their second-in-command is a woman. I’m sure I’ll go to hell for that one, though, since we all know God obviously hates women getting uppity. Why, it’s almost as bad as when them thar black people get uppity! We all know it’s a bunch of hogwash that they should hold equal status to white people. And don’t even get me started on the Jews . . .

    Comment by Quimby — January 15, 2007 @ 10:10 pm

  68. Quimby, bless your sweet little ‘ol heart,
    You’ are so very uppity today, My lands, what’s gotten into that pretty little head of yours. You’ll never catch yourself a man with that kind of attitude.

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 15, 2007 @ 10:43 pm

  69. Alas, I’m doomed to live the life of a lesbian spinster, not unlike my husband’s great-aunt, who was the first governor of a prison here (another woman in a leadership position! heavens above!), and who was so well-respected by the inmates, they hand-crafted a beautiful coffee table with an ornate inlaid design for her. But then, they were girly-men. Robbers and murderers tend to be, you know.

    Comment by Quimby — January 15, 2007 @ 10:48 pm

  70. Quimby, you wouldn’t be a spinster if you were lesbian, because we’d all have crushes on you! And I’m straight! But you..are..very…funny!!!!!!

    Comment by Janet — January 15, 2007 @ 11:58 pm

  71. Guest–when you say you don’t think men and women should be “equal,” i assume you really mean you don’t think they should be the *same*. I still disagree with you regarding leadership, but it doesn’t sound like you really think women are inferior to men, right? Right? (Hopeful sounds here.)

    I wonder how the women in the Israeli army measure up to their male counterparts. Interesting question. Certainly I could see how cultural conditioning here in the states might render a woman less prepared for military life, but that’s not true everywhere.

    Comment by Janet — January 16, 2007 @ 12:01 am

  72. Quimby - I don’t think that appendages have anything to do with it. In fact I may be progressive in my opinion that I believe that a person should have the ability to choose what role they wish to play in society, whether male or female. I also didn’t say that women can’t perform in the same capacity as men. What I said was that I question it’s appropriateness. I’d be interested to see how many empires were expanded during the reign of women rulers? How many explorers were women? Why is it that God has principally worked through men to achieve His aims? Why was it Lehi and not his wife that received the vision to depart Jerusalem? Why was Nephi chosen by God and not one of his sisters? Why the brother of Jared and not the sister of Jared, or wife of Jared? Is God not capable of anointing a woman as prophet, priest, and queen? If he can, then why not an equal number of both men and women? Is he unable to make them powerful or influential enough to subdue the objections of others? Apparently, from what you’ve written, women are entirely capable of leading a nation, people, or congregation, then why hasn’t God done so?

    Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 12:21 am

  73. Janet - I definitely do not think that the roles of men and women are the same. I struggle with the word inferior though. It has such a negative conotation. Are the bishop’s counselors inferior? Are the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles inferior? Women are the most valuable asset a man could have. They should be cared for, listened to, respected, and honored. They may have an outlook or insight different from his own and should be counseled in every important decision he makes. However, the decision, course, direction to follow is ultimately his to make. That is his burden, just as producing offspring is hers. He is unable to achieve his greatest potential without a wife, just as she is unable to reach hers without a husband.

    Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 12:37 am

  74. Guest, of course your entitled to your opinion and you and your wife should do whatever works for you, but my goodneess–women are not assets. Shoes and savings bonds are assets. The only way I could stand to see that word used is if it’s reciprocal–men and women should be assets to each other. Hopefully that’s what you meant anyhow.

    And, poor fellow, you just shared the opinion that women’s burden/role in life is baby-making with a woman who cannot have children. I’m not offended, just wanted to point out that while any rman can make choices and call that his “role” not all women can have babies. So the parallel strikes me as quite faulty. What about all the singe or infertile women out there?

    What do you mean by the world “honor” in regards to “honoring women”–just curious. I think the phrase is so differently freighted by different demographic groups that it’s hard to know what someone means unless you ask them to spell it out. For instance, I believe in honoring priesthood holders and part of how I do that is by speaking the truth to them, even when the truth might be scary or unpleasant. My mother–and incredibly good woman–believes honoring the priesthood means shutting up and letting them merrily walk off a cliff if their liahonas aren’t working and hers is in good repair. So while we both use the same word, we sure don’t mean the same thing. So how would you advocate women be honored?

    Heaven-oh-my, I need to go to bed. Ambientyping, bad bad. Hope the question made sense.

    Comment by Janet — January 16, 2007 @ 1:40 am

  75. Janet - I think that women do make choices in their roles as mothers. I think that men are held responsible for the performance of their families. He bears the greater responsibility. While you may not physically be able to have your own children, adoption seems like it would be an option, and either way you can still provide support to your husband or to other service organizations. If a woman is incapable of caring for children in this life, than I feel it’s incumbent upon her to prepare herself for that eventuality. Honoring to me is recognizing their contribution and importance within the family and society.

    Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 2:06 am

  76. Guest, I am not an asset to any man. I am an individual in my own right, with my own goals and aspirations. I have a brain; I have a certain level of intelligence; I am not some accessory to hang on my husband’s arm.

    It interests me that you respond to my lengthy post on women and leadership with such a typically male response: “These women didn’t expand their empires!” As if that is the only thing of value - as if military prowess is the end-all and be-all of leadership. Military leadership has got us into a quagmire in Iraq; it has cost us over 3000 American lives and by some estimates up to 300,000 Iraqi lives. You can take your military prowess. It only takes lives. I prefer to live in a country that values the living of those lives.

    How many explorers were women? I have a great deal of admiration for Lewis and Clark. But do you suppose they could’ve done even 1/10th of what they did if it was not for Sacajewa? I can name you half a dozen failed Australian explorers - all men. If they had had a woman as capable as Sacajewa, I doubt their explorations would have failed.

    Why was it that Lamoni’s wife first recieved a testimony of Christ? Why was it that at every single stage of Christ’s ministry, women - not men - were first to testify? Why was it that Christ’s mother was the first person to know of his true identity as Son of God? Why was it that Christ’s first miracle was performed at a wedding - surely a social event that has more importance to women, especially in a society as sexist as ancient Israel? Why was it that Christ first chose to reveal his mission to a woman (the woman at the well)? Why was it that the Resurrected Christ first appeared to a woman? The disciples - his closest friends and confidantes - did not believe. But Mary knew. She saw. And you dare tell me that women are not as important as men?

    Sojourner Truth said it best: Christ was born because of Mary and God. Man had nothing to do with it.

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 4:10 am

  77. But I really should repent . . .

    You see, I got home, and my husband - who is of course head of our household, and so I bow down and honor his role - pointed out to me that I’m wrong. It was God’s given design that women should not lead. He even pointed out to me the lengthy passages in Revised Genesis (a little-known gnostic text found with the Dead Sea Scrolls) in which God laid out direction for earthly governments. I quote:

    “And on the eighth day, God saw the world, and that it was good. And God said unto Adam, You must now go and form a government. And Adam listened. And God said unto Adam, you are the man. You must be Prime Minister. And Adam obeyed. And God said unto Adam, you are the man. You must be President. And Adam obeyed. And God said unto Adam, you are the man. You must be treasurer. For behold, it is not needful that women know how to count. And Adam obeyed. And God said unto Adam, you are the man. YOu must be foreign minister. And Adam questioned, saying, Yea, but forewith must we have a foreign minister, if verily as ye sayeth we are the only nation on earth? And God answered and said unto him, Verily, I say unto you, the day will come when there will be many nations. And verily you must be foreign minister now, or perhaps a woman will want the job. And Adam saw that it was good. And God said unto Adam, Behold, you must be minister of the environment. And Adam questioned, saying, Yea, what is meet that I should do with the earth? And God said, Verily, there will be those who say you should conserve; but behold I say unto you, use it all. For there is no need to be careful with the resources I have given to you. And God said, You are the man. It is needful that you must also take responsibility for the portfolios of Health, Education, the Interior, the Military, and Arts. For behold, Eve is the woman, and it is needful only that she bares children. And Adam pondered, But how can this be, seeing as how we cannot have children. And God answered, Yea, it was for this purpose that she was created, that she could be a mother. And yea, if she fails in this task which I have set her, she is useless. And Adam agreed.

    And behold it came to pass that the days of Adam were taken up with meetings. Yea, in running a government, it was necessary that Adam meet many times with himself to discuss the various issues. And the days of Eve were empty, according to God’s great plan for him.

    But Eve grew weary. In her boredom, Eve met a new friend. And this friend was a snake and he slithered upon the ground. And he said unto her, Perhaps you have a brain too. And Eve said, Yes, I do. And he said unto her, Perhaps you are perfectly capable of helping Adam. And Eve said, Yea, it is so. For yesterday he decided as Prime Minister that he was doing an inadequate job as Minister of Education, and behold, he fireth himself from the position. And there is not another in all the land that can hold the position. But I believe I could do it. And the snake, that great deciever said, Yea, verily, I say unto you, God created you with a brain. He madeth you to think and act freely and indepentendly of man. And Eve said, Yea, it is so. And Eve said, Perhaps I will eat an apple.”

    So as you can so clearly see from this lost text - which my husband, who isn’t a member and isn’t a Christian, assures me is true; and as he is the head of the household I must believe him and obey him - the root of all evil in the world is this idea that women and men are equal, and that women are perfectly capable of making their own decisions and living their own lives.

    I am so grateful for my husband and for the guidance he gives me. If it wasn’t for him, I’m sure I’d still be caught in these uppity ideas that I should actually hold equal status with men!

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 4:23 am

  78. Quimby - I’m curious to know why you find it necessary to misrepresent my position. I didn’t say that women don’t have brains or intelligence, I didn’t even imply that they are somehow less intelligent then men. That a person is an asset in an organization to which they belong, doesn’t imply that they are of little worth, quite the contrary. It’s true that you wrote a lengthy post on women and leadership, but your point, as I understand it, was that women have successfully held positions of leadership throughout history, and societies have at times prospered under such direction. I never said that women were not capable administrators. The reason that I brought up the concepts of expansionism and exploration, is because I think that women (in general) tend to look primarily at how best to cultivate and develop a society (nurturing) while men primarily are focused on providing a forward direction to society (leading).

    You’ve brought up Iraq twice. I never mentioned it. If you would like to have a discussion about one particular incident in world history, that’s fine, but I don’t see how it has value to the current topic, as there are many male leaders who have chosen not to involve themselves in that conflict.

    You’re right, Sacajewa was an incredible asset to the Lewis and Clark expedition. She was knowledgeable, resourceful, and diplomatic. I’m sure that they consulted with her daily. Indeed, every explorer should have such a capable advisor.

    Interesting that Christ, being surrounded by so many talented, capable, devout, and righteous women would choose twelve men to be his apostles. Is it that he, the son of God, couldn’t overcome his own sexist prejudices? Think about it, if just one of twelve apostles had been a woman, what a profound and progressive statement that would have made to the world! He might also have been well advised to call an open and practicing homosexual too, that certaintly would have cleared up a lot of problems we face today. While presented a bit with tongue in cheek, the point of those statements is valid.

    Again (because you bring the issue up again in your second post), I never said that women weren’t intelligent or don’t have a brain, or that they have to worship their husbands. You’re welcome to make your own decisions and live your own life, to be free and independent of a man in your journey if that’s what you want. I think though, that to do so, would fall short of your potential and the full measure of your creation. What are your goals and aspirations?

    Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 8:26 am

  79. Okay, Guest, you said - and I quote - “I don’t buy into the idea that women should hold equal status to men.”

    If women and men don’t have equal status, clearly, one has an inferior status and one has a superior status. And from the tone of the rest of your message, clearly, you believe men have superior status and women have inferior status.

    So, why is that? If men and women are equal in intelligence and capability, then there is no reason why men and women shouldn’t have equal status. The only way you can justify women have lesser status is if they are not equal in intelligence and capability.

    You can’t argue that men and women can’t have equal status and then say that it’s because they have different roles, without arguing that one role is inferior to the other. And if you think that women should *primarily* be mothers, and women’s status is lesser than man’s status, then clearly, you see motherhood as inferior to “manhood”, whatever that may be.

    Either way it’s insulting. It’s insulting to those women (like me) who want to be valued for more than our uterus, and it’s insulting to those women who see motherhood as their highest calling.

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 3:50 pm

  80. Honoring to me is recognizing their contribution and importance within the family and society.

    So do you honor the contributions made by women you feel were acting inappropriately? Would a Golda Meier, for instance, receive honor? (I thought she was a good example for this discussion because in addition to leading and helping form a nation, she wore the pants in her family when she was married.)

    As for preparing to be a mother in the next life or via adoption? Well, I agree. I should prepare. Part of how I do that is by trying to positively contribute to society. Since I have some skills traditionally considered the province of men, I might offend people with your views as I develop those God-given skills and use them to make the world a finer place. I find that problematic. I’m a kick-butt cook and I make great wedding cakes, but I also did well leading an organization once upon a time, and I’m a good teacher (a position of leadership). I can’t imagine God wants me to stick with the pastries (though my mouth does).

    Comment by Janet — January 16, 2007 @ 4:05 pm

  81. BTW–I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, but your advice on the mothering issue sort of sounded like you were telling me to set myself on “simmer” for a while, postponing the measure of my creation. I think my creation in this life must have a point beyond looking forward to the next one (though I do). “Miss Maudie” in Harper Lee’s *To Kill a Mockingbird* says something along the lines of “some folks spend so much time worrying about the next life that they never learn to live in this one.” I don’t want to be one of those people. Thanks for addressing my questions to you–it’s appreciated.

    Quimby, your gnostic gospel made me snort cola out of my nose in a most unladylike fashion :).

    Comment by Janet — January 16, 2007 @ 4:09 pm

  82. just had to respond to a comment by our Guest (#78 ), who asked about Christ not calling any women to be his apostles… best selling novels aside there is a significant amount of scholarship surrounding the idea that Christ actually did have female disciples who taught, performed miracles, and were supposed to have leadership rolls in the church which he established. those things just weren’t taken very well by the rest of the men of the era (and succeeding generations who had control of recording, preserving, and translating The Word.)

    Comment by G — January 16, 2007 @ 4:21 pm

  83. You know, Guest, just about every single aspect of your post is so clearly written from a male American perspective, it’s a bit disturbing. Let’s break down one example shall we?

    The reason that I brought up the concepts of expansionism and exploration, is because I think that women (in general) tend to look primarily at how best to cultivate and develop a society (nurturing) while men primarily are focused on providing a forward direction to society (leading).

    So, let’s just take it at face value that women want to “cultivate and develop a society”. How is that not also “providing a forward direction to society”? You seem to be equating military might with “forward direction” and anything else with stagnation or decline. You seem to equate “leading” with military prowess and power. You know, you can conquer all the land in the world, but if you don’t “cultivate and develop” society by meeting the needs of your citizens, you’re not doing a very good job leading. Think of Sierra Leone or Angola - lots of war, no prosperity, definitely no “providing a forward direction to society”

    Lest you think I’m coming at this from the point of testerone deficiency, my husband and I discussed your notion that military strength equals leadership. My husband is clearly male, but not American. He didn’t quite grasp the concept either. He wanted me to ask you if you thought Reagan was a failed president, since the US didn’t expand under his presidency.

    On the other hand, I can name female leaders who acted to promote military dominance. Golda Meir is an obvious example; so is Margaret Thatcher. You might also consider Elizabeth I.

    You also state “That is his burden, just as producing offspring is hers.” If women exist merely to produce off-spring, why didn’t God create walking uteruses?

    No doubt you think I’m being unreasonable. (Another shortcoming of my gender, no doubt - after all it is all so clear to you!) But let’s play reverse psychology. Let’s say you are an intelligent, capable man. Let’s say you have deeply-held passions and dreams and goals for yourself. Let’s say you’ve worked and studied hard to achieve a certain level of success for yourself. Now let’s say some woman comes along and says, “You don’t deserve equal status. Your only role in life is to make babies.” In other words: You are nothing more than your sexual organs. Gee, wouldn’t you be flattered?

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 4:27 pm

  84. Quimby, I can’t think of any better way to put this:

    You rock!

    Every time I considered a response, I refreshed the browser and found that you had posted a well-argued and devastatingly witty parry for each of Guest’s thrusts. Bravo!

    Comment by JohnR — January 16, 2007 @ 4:51 pm

  85. guest,

    ” I’d be interested to see how many empires were expanded during the reign of women rulers? ”
    at the expense of how many lives and use of slavery?

    How many explorers were women?
    pre feminism. wouldn’t of been tolerated

    “Why is it that God has principally worked through men to achieve His aims? Why was it Lehi and not his wife that received the vision to depart Jerusalem? Why was Nephi chosen by God and not one of his sisters? Why the brother of Jared and not the sister of Jared, or wife of Jared?”
    because they held the priesthood. And in those time no man would tolerate a woman leading them, duh.

    “Is God not capable of anointing a woman as prophet, priest, and queen?”
    hmmm, there are some phrases in the temple that come to mind… but just for kicks, women can be a prophet (little p) we are priestess and queens, in our families, to our friends (and thats where it counts) if you look closely you will see.

    Comment by mfranti — January 16, 2007 @ 5:20 pm

  86. Deborah was a Prophetess, big P.

    I’ve always loved the Apocraphyl story of Judith and Helofernes. (I especially love the Artemesia Gentellischi paintings.) Judith was a mighty warrior who saved her people by killing Helofernes after seducing him. Damn, what’s not to love in that story? A woman using the only available means of power at that time to destroy her enemy. Fanbloodytastic.

    And of course there is the beautiful story of Esther - a Queen who saved her people. She could’ve kept quiet and let them die; she could’ve stuck to her “God-given” role of making babies; but instead she spoke out.

    Why aren’t there more stories about brave and forthright women int he Bible? This just a hunch, but it might have to do with the many millenia in which *men* decided what was suitable for the Bible. And, you know, I can’t shake this feeling that they may have been influenced more by their own political motivation and short-sighted view of the world than by God’s will. Well, aren’t we taught as much in church? How else to explain the missing doctrine and prophecies?

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 5:30 pm

  87. i could be way off on my last comments but geez, that pissed me off.

    and i don’t usually care too much when men make stupid comments about women not holding equal status. key word, stupid

    but when you bring God into it, then it becomes personal.

    See i think there is so much more to the lack of female presence in history than exists on the surface.

    and, fyi, the oldest know piece of art, is of a woman. apparently she was held in very high regard.

    Comment by mfranti — January 16, 2007 @ 5:35 pm

  88. quimby

    once again you are so right. i rattled that off so fast…

    Comment by mfranti — January 16, 2007 @ 5:36 pm

  89. quimby,

    “This just a hunch, but it might have to do with the many millenia in which *men* decided what was suitable for the Bible. And, you know, I can’t shake this feeling that they may have been influenced more by their own political motivation and short-sighted view of the world than by God’s will. Well, aren’t we taught as much in church? How else to explain the missing doctrine and prophecies?”

    that’s what i was thinking but didn’t want to expand. thank you, again.

    maybe you could just type for the both of us.

    Comment by mfranti — January 16, 2007 @ 5:39 pm

  90. love, love, LOVE… Deborah (Judges 4 for those who missed that sunday school lesson… oh wait, our ward didn’t cover that chapter at all, sorry)
    Prophetess and political leader during times of war, no less.

    Comment by G — January 16, 2007 @ 5:40 pm

  91. p.s. Quimby, you are writing a book, right? I mean, you better be cuz I am on the waiting list.

    Comment by G — January 16, 2007 @ 5:42 pm

  92. I went through some of Guest’s statements and swapped out ‘Asian’ for ‘woman’ and ‘White’ for ‘man’ and it’s amazing how racist they sound. This isn’t that outlandish–not long ago, many mainstream advocates of racism used the same logic. Why is it that more are not outraged by the sexism in Guest’s arguments?

    Comment by John Remy — January 16, 2007 @ 5:51 pm

  93. hey, so this means it’s ok for me to just be the mother of one?

    word on the street is i’m supposed to keep going. but i think that’s selfish.

    Comment by mfranti — January 16, 2007 @ 5:52 pm

  94. Quimby, if it wasn’t for your responses my head would have exploded by now! Mr. Guest, your sad outlook on my gender (sadly probably shared by far too many grey-haired priesthood holders) is exactly why this website exists.

    Comment by Veritas — January 16, 2007 @ 5:53 pm

  95. Hunter and Gatherer societies - which should more accurately be called Gatherer and Hunter societies - tend to be matriarchal, and not patriarchal. This is predominantly because women (not men) provide the bulk of the “wealth” of the society - in this case, food. Sociologists believe that “cavemen”, far from being the sort to drag women about by the hair, actually practised a fairly equitable society.

    Until the Victorian era, women were valued for their economic contribution to their household. Men and women both had to work. Although women have, throughout Western history, had fewer rights than men, it really wasn’t until the development of the private sphere/public sphere that this idea that women should devote themselves to motherhood came into being. It is a very modern idea. And even in the Victorian western world, it was not widely practiced - you had to have a certain income level to implement this idea that men and women have seperate spheres of influence.

    (The spheres are quite interesting in and of themselves. Some women used the private sphere idea to give them a moral authority in matters of public health and environment. Most of the leading founding exponents of public health and the environmental movement were women, and the idea that their sphere of influence was the home actually gave them the necessary power to step out and fight for things like clean drinking water and garbage pick-up programs. More examples of women using the harsh division of society to better themselves *and* the very society that would constrict them! See what incredible people we are? We can take the most hair-brained ideas of man and make them work for us.)

    If you look outside of the Western world, you will find numerous societies that are matriarchal. Several Native American cultures were matriarchal. Most Australian Indigenous cultures were (and are) matriarchal. The Philippines was matriarchal until the introduction of Catholicism. I believe many African cultures, too, practise(d) matriarchy.

    Because we live when and where we do, we tend to have a narrow view of things. Even if you look at the early history of the church, women’s rights were encouraged and celebrated. Polygamous wives had to work outside the home to support their families; there was none of this business that women should be mothers and only mothers. There were some very prominent suffragettes amongst the early members of the Saints. Their political activity was encouraged and fostered by the Brethren. I believe it was Joseph F Smith who said something along the lines of, he hoped every woman would fight for her rights and not resign to the shackles that had been placed on her by history.

    It really wasn’t until the ERA that the church embraced this idea that women should stay home and be mothers. Actually I think a lot of the weakness in the current church can be traced directly to this - the church became a conservative, male-centric force, which drove more conservative, male-centric people to it, which is why, today, Mormon culture is so damned screwed up and patriarchal.

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 5:54 pm

  96. #92. i was thinking about how upset i got over his statements but the reality is that people like him don’t/wont see it any differently.

    just like having an argument with a racist, or anti mormon. They don’t hear anything because they already know everything. they think they are here to teach us and enlighten us, not the other way around.

    and so, all that anger goes unheard. it’s unfortunate for him. BUT GREAT FOR THE REST OF US…

    Comment by mfranti — January 16, 2007 @ 5:56 pm

  97. Quimby (#95), just one example to back you up: I recently read a study that showed that Cherokee society was matrilineal and matrilocal (women’s families farmed and owned their land) and that Cherokee women therefore had considerable legal, economic and political power. When the Cherokee were forced by circumstance to adopt the English way of life, privilege centered on the male landholders and women lost much of their rights and power.

    Comment by JohnR — January 16, 2007 @ 6:06 pm

  98. Quimby, we are lining up and swooning over you today. Seriously.

    I ADORE the Artemesia rendition of Judith slaying Holofornes! (Although at the moment I can’t recall how to spell their names.) I wrote an entire graduate school 20 pager on it! Soooo much better than the period’s other versions of the same event. Just stay far, far away from the movie “Artemesia.” It has her falling in love with Tassi–’cuz you know we all fall in love with our rapists.

    BTW, did you know that just 3 years or so ago the formerly lost verdict of the Gentileschi/Tassi rape case was found? Amazingly, Tassi was convicted!!!! I did an actual dance in the library when I read it, and then drove my entire class nuts by making them look at transcripts of the rape trial and jubilantly announcing the verdict.

    Comment by Janet — January 16, 2007 @ 6:26 pm

  99. Sadly, as you are probably all-too-aware, the “punishment” for rape in some countries is still marrying your victim. When I was in Egypt a (Western) friend told me of a case where an Egyptian woman was raped in the back of the bus. After her rapist promised to marry her, the case was dismissed. They married - I can’t even imagine what it would have been like for her! - and then within minutes, he divorced her - which is no doubt a blessing, but of course any future chances for marriage were ruined for her, and in a society like Egypt, if you are an unmarried woman, it matters. Not only is it considered “odd” to be unmarried, but Egyptian women who are unmarried are almost universally poor and powerless. So, her life was (quite literally) ruined - and he was free to rape again.

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 6:44 pm

  100. Quimby - In a relationship between a mother and her child, when does she become the inferior of the two? She clearly holds a different status, and she is both more capable and intelligent (let’s set aside the ability of children to process information more quickly than adults). So I guess you would say she is superior to them, therefore you reason that her children are inferior. Yet, as she ages, and her children grow, when does she become inferior to her children? When they can beat her in a game of chess? Lift more weight? Type faster?

    If you interpret forward direction as looking towards the future, than you’re right, it does. I don’t think that people are inspired by ideas like freedom from illegal drugs, an end to illness, hunger, or poverty. I think that it’s because there is no end to these type of projects (not that they shouldn’t be engaged in), there will always be an addict, a sick person, a hungry person, or a poor person. However, when you put a man on the moon, there is nothing tomorrow that can take that victory away.

    I don’t think that I suggested that one ignore the importance of cultivating and developing a society. In response to your husband’s question, I think that Reagan succeeded in expanding liberal democracy, an American attribute, throughout the world. I didn’t say that women exist merely to produce offspring, I said that it was a burden they endure not shared by men.

    I’m bothered by the way you continue to attribute your self deprecating humor (at least I hope that it’s your attempt at humor and not actually your belief) to me. Many of the belittling things you say about women are not supported by what I’ve written. Your insistence on seeing women as nothing more than sexual organs is a vision of your own construct, not shared by me.

    With regard to your reverse psychology scenario, I believe part of the experience of this life is to learn to set aside some of the desires of our own, in order to comply with what God has prepared for us. How frustrating do you think it was for Lucifer, an extremely intelligent and capable spirit, to accept that he couldn’t be the Christ even though he felt that he was perfectly capable of performing the same task, if not better! (Don’t read too much into it. I’m not saying that you’re the Devil and I’m Jesus. I hope you see the point though.)

    As for the many plain and precious things taken from the Bible, you’re right, we have lost much. Too bad Joseph didn’t pick up any of those passages talking about female prophets, queens, and administrators in his translation of the Bible.

    Janet - I recognize the contribution and work of Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, and others, because they did good work. If you instructed a contractor to build you a home, and instead he builds you a beautiful seaworthy boat, would you not recognize his accomplishment? Perhaps, after praising him on the workmanship of the boat, you might ask why he didn’t build you a home, like you had asked him to do. To which he may respond, “Well, I was capable of building a boat, I really wanted to build a boat, and there are plenty of other contractors that can build a house.” All of that being said, the point is, right now, you wanted him to build you a home.

    I don’t know what type of organization you ran or what type of teacher you were. In fact, it really wouldn’t matter to me whether you were a chef or any other profession. The question is, did any of these activities make you a better mother or not. If any woman were to choose profession, education, travel, adventure, or any other activity over her role as a mother, I believe that she has erred. The same goes for men. If there is any activity that he would engage in that would detract from his role as a father, than he should forgo that activity.

    I don’t know why you insist that you can’t be a mother right now. Why wait for the next life?

    G - I’d be interested in these scholarly findings! I don’t doubt that there were female disciples who taught, performed miracles, and administered in the church… under the direction of men. How glorious it is to have had the Church restored in our own dispensation when the Lord could manifest His will through a living prophet! I’m sure that He would be able to communicate through His chosen leaders the role that women should play in the leadership of the Church. That is, unless Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet or the Church isn’t true…

    mfranti - Is it a lack of faith? “No man would tolerate a woman leading them.” (paraphrasing) So Nephi had it easy. This scenario couldn’t have happened: God instructs Lehi to send Hadassah, Nephi’s sister, back to Jerusalem with her brothers to get the plates. They offer Laban everything that they have for the plates, but he desires Hadassah to wife. She refuses. Enraged, Laban attempts to slay them all. They flee and hide in the cavaity of a rock. Laman and Lemuel smite them with a rod. An angel appears saying, “Why do ye smite your younger sister with a rod? Know ye not that the Lord hath chosen her to be a ruler over you, and this because of your iniquities? Behold ye shall go up to Jerusalem again, and the Lord will deliver Laban into your hands.” Hadassah goes into the city, while her brothers cower outside the walls. She slays Laban, retrieves the plates, and heads back home.

    You might be right though. Maybe there is a limit to God’s power. I’m sure that with the faith to move mountains, and shock people from her fingertips, and build boats to sail across the many waters, and with angels appearing all around, people just wouldn’t tolerate it. It’s very true that being a priestess and queen within your family is where it counts. What are your thoughts on the lack of female presence in history? Oh, and as for your self serving rant in #96, I happen to have learned a lot more about world and biblical history (I didn’t even know who Golda Meir was before this conversation) as a result of the discussion. Please keep your assumptions about what my beliefs are and how open I am to yourself, they’re quite inaccurate. It’s not as if you’ve been the exemplification of objectivity and consideration.

    Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 8:55 pm

  101. You know, Guest, you haven’t answered my fundamental question:

    In what way am I inferior to you?

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 9:17 pm

  102. The other women you address in your post are strong, intelligent, capable women, so I will simply address those parts of the post that are addressed to me:

    Quimby - In a relationship between a mother and her child, when does she become the inferior of the two? She clearly holds a different status, and she is both more capable and intelligent (let’s set aside the ability of children to process information more quickly than adults). So I guess you would say she is superior to them, therefore you reason that her children are inferior. Yet, as she ages, and her children grow, when does she become inferior to her children? When they can beat her in a game of chess? Lift more weight? Type faster?

    I really don’t see what this has to do with anything. I asked a rather simple and direct question: In what way are women inferior to men? And you rattle on about mothers being superior and then inferior to their children? Huh? But for the record, do fathers become inferior to their children, or is this a gendered thing too?

    If you interpret forward direction as looking towards the future, than you’re right, it does. I don’t think that people are inspired by ideas like freedom from illegal drugs, an end to illness, hunger, or poverty. I think that it’s because there is no end to these type of projects (not that they shouldn’t be engaged in), there will always be an addict, a sick person, a hungry person, or a poor person. However, when you put a man on the moon, there is nothing tomorrow that can take that victory away.

    Wow buddy. Your male-centricity is showing through again. Actually that’s nto fair to men. I know a lot of amazing men who care a helluva lot more about ending poverty than sending men to the moon. What good does it do to send a man to the moon? You’re saying we should do it just for the bragging rights? That’s a fairly expensive exercise in “pulling it out” don’t you think? There is a much greater victory to be had in ending poverty or addiction than in saying “mine’s bigger than yours” and sending someone to the moon.

    I don’t think that I suggested that one ignore the importance of cultivating and developing a society.

    Yeah, actually, you did. You said that’s “nurturing” not “leadership” and the value judgement in that is quite clear.

    In response to your husband’s question, I think that Reagan succeeded in expanding liberal democracy, an American attribute, throughout the world.

    Ah, spoken like a true American! Because of course “liberal democracy” is only an American attribute. Did you know that the founding fathers of “liberal democracy” were actually French and English? The concept actually existed long before Jefferson. Not to discount what Jefferson did because he’s one of my political heroes, but you can’t claim “liberal democracy” as an American attribute. Nor did Reagan do that great of a job of expanding it through the world. I’m sure you’re talking about the end of the Cold War, but most political science people I know (and I know a lot of them) give more credit to Gorbechev for ending the Cold War than to Reagan. After all he’s the one who finally decided to stop playing the “mine’s bigger than yours” game.

    I didn’t say that women exist merely to produce offspring, I said that it was a burden they endure not shared by men.

    You said that any activity a woman does that does not contribute to her being a mother is a waste of time - again equating me to nothing more than my uterus. Here’s news for you: I was a person before I had my baby and I am a person even now that I have my baby, and anything I do to make myself a better person - whether or not it helps my baby - is a perfectly good use of my time and energy. Why? because I’m more than a baby-making machine.

    I’m bothered by the way you continue to attribute your self deprecating humor (at least I hope that it’s your attempt at humor and not actually your belief) to me. Many of the belittling things you say about women are not supported by what I’ve written. Your insistence on seeing women as nothing more than sexual organs is a vision of your own construct, not shared by me.

    ‘

    I’m bothered that you actually think I am pulling these things out of my bum. Yep. I’m just reading my own prejudices into statements like, “Women shouldn’t have equal status to men.” Nothing offensive in that at all!

    With regard to your reverse psychology scenario, I believe part of the experience of this life is to learn to set aside some of the desires of our own, in order to comply with what God has prepared for us. How frustrating do you think it was for Lucifer, an extremely intelligent and capable spirit, to accept that he couldn’t be the Christ even though he felt that he was perfectly capable of performing the same task, if not better! (Don’t read too much into it. I’m not saying that you’re the Devil and I’m Jesus. I hope you see the point though.)

    Very bad example. Very flawed example. I really resent you would even use such an example, even with your little attempt at a disclaimer. There is nothing about your example that is not highly offensive. But you know, it’s been that way since the start of time - men calling women the devil and all. Just look at Lilith.

    As for the many plain and precious things taken from the Bible, you’re right, we have lost much. Too bad Joseph didn’t pick up any of those passages talking about female prophets, queens, and administrators in his translation of the Bible.

    Ah, sarcasm - the lowest form of wit!

    I must give credit where credit is due. Although there is nothing in your response to me that actually addresses any of the points I made, at least you didn’t come back with, “I feel sorry for your poor husband,” which is what I thought your next move would be.

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 9:31 pm

  103. Quimby - You, as an individual, are in no way deficient (as far as I’m aware). I do not consider you to be an inferior person. I respect your ideas and opinions. I believe that your role as a wife and mother is a supportive one. I believe that besides my relationship to my HF, my relationship to my wife is the most important and sustaining relationship that I can have on this earth.

    I’ve tried to gauge things from your perspective by asking how you view the relationship of a bishop to his counselors, a prophet to his quorum, or a mother to her children. I don’t think that any of these individuals would see themselves as superior to the others or that the others are inferior to them. However, the position that they hold, and the role that they play is one of support, counsel, and ultimately deference to that person designated to hold that office. It is my belief, that for whatever reason, God has ordained man to fulfill that role. If you see that as making you inferior, I don’t know how else to alleviate your concern.

    Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 9:33 pm

  104. Again, I quote you:

    I don’t buy into the idea that women should hold equal status to men.

    You can either admit you were wrong and that women should hold equal status to men.

    Or you can clarify your intent and say that you chose your words poorly and that women and men have different purposes that are equal in status.

    Or you can beat around the bush and say that it’s all in my head and that it’s all my own construct.

    What’ll it be?

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 9:37 pm

  105. “However, the position that [women] hold, and the role that they play is one of support, counsel, and ultimately deference to that person designated to hold that office. It is my belief, that for whatever reason, God has ordained man to fulfill that role.”

    What role, duty or responsibility do men have in which women play only a supportive role?

    Comment by Starfoxy — January 16, 2007 @ 9:48 pm

  106. I stand by my original statement. Think about it. Does the 1st counselor in a bishopric hold equal status as the bishop? When push comes to shove, and we may be talking about by miniscule amounts, the end decision goes to the male, and therefore creates some level of inequality. I’m not saying that such decisions do not carry consequences. What I am saying is that the responsibility, and thus the authority, to make those decisions, lies with him.

    Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 9:50 pm

  107. Guest… you just compared a woman to a man as a child is to a parent, a woman to a man as the devil is to Jesus (did you really think your disclaimer to not read too much into that would change the analogy?), and you alluded to the idea that a female in a leadership positions would build a boat when asked to build a house.
    But then you insist that you don’t see woman as inferior and are at a loss as to why we get that from your words.

    Comment by G — January 16, 2007 @ 9:51 pm

  108. Starfoxy - Any role, duty, or responsibility that he is called to.

    Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 9:53 pm

  109. Alright. So, you stand by the original.

    If women and men don’t have equal status, one has inferior status and one has superior status. There is simply no other alternative. It’s equality or superiority/inferiority.

    Now, unless you are saying that women are superior to men - and I don’t think there’s anything you can point to in any of your posts to back you up there - you are saying that women are inferior to men.

    And frankly, I resent that.

    And frankly, it is not in any way based on Gospel principles.

    And frankly, you are wrong.

    And frankly, you are playing straight into the hands of Lucifer when you argue that women are inferior to men.

    I really wish I had my copy of “Eve and the Choice Made in Eden.” There’s a beautiful passage in there about how Lucifer seeks to undermine our Heavenly Father by making men think they are superior to women - when in fact men and women are equal firsts in the Kingdom of God. I can’t find the exact quote I want but I found these other quotes on-line so I’ll use them:

    “[Eve] sees through Satan’s disquise of clever hypocrisy, identifies him, and exposes him for what he is…[ever since Satan has] had it in for women.”
    –Hugh Nibley

    “If I were Satan and I wanted to destroy a society, I think I would stage a full-blown blitz on women.”
    –Patricia Holland

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 9:56 pm

  110. G - Are you trying to misconstrue my words? Isn’t Lucifer’s pride and eventual fall a warning to us all? Isn’t the concept that regardless of our ability and desire, that we should be obedient to the commands of our HF, an analogy that all of us can take to heart? I also compared a woman to an Apostle and a bishop’s counselor, but I guess those didn’t offend you as much as you wanted to be.

    Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 10:01 pm

  111. Guest, you compared woman to the devil. End of discussion. Quite literally, it should be the end of discussion - I don’t know how I can continue to speak with someone who would compare me with the devil! That’s not misconstruing your words. That’s using your words. Your very own words. You compared me with the devil. How can you not see the offense in that?

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 10:03 pm

  112. That doesn’t answer my question at all. You specifically said that God has ordained man to fulfill a role in which women are strictly supportive- I’m asking what role that is.

    Comment by Starfoxy — January 16, 2007 @ 10:06 pm

  113. Quimby - Do you feel that you have equal status to Christ?

    Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 10:07 pm

  114. Hmmm . . . So are you comparing yourself to Christ again?

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 10:19 pm

  115. Quimby - The only way that I could have compared you to the Devil is if you identified with the description in the analogy. If that’s the case, perhaps you aught to reevaluate your motivations. The analogy refered to Lucifer (his condition before his fallen state), however without reigning his pride in, he would eventually become the Devil.

    Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 10:20 pm

  116. Quimby - I think I’ve been pretty fair about answering your questions. Would you mind answering mine?

    Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 10:21 pm

  117. And so of course I’m going to say no - and so of course you’re going to say it’s the same with men and women - and so of course you’re comparing yourself to Christ again. Niiiiiiice. Espeically in light of your little “disclaimer”.

    Comparing me to the devil or comparing me to the person who would eventually become the devil is pretty much the same thing. Either way, it’s offensive.

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 10:23 pm

  118. Guest- no, wasn’t trying to misconstrue you… it seemed fairly plain from that part of your #100 post that you felt that woman seeking equality with men was like Satan trying to take Christ’s role. Sorry if I misunderstood… that really seemed to be your analogy.
    Okay, finally you have said it (#105)! It may be by a miniscule amount but the male of the species is superior (“the end decision goes to the male, and therefore creates some level of inequality”). Whew, at least now it is out in the open. Now, you have couched those terms in regards to family/church leadership. So take that further. Do you also feel that men must be the leaders of businesses, countries, etc…? For that is where this form of logic has always taken patriarchal societies.

    Comment by G — January 16, 2007 @ 10:24 pm

  119. guest, the question isn’t if we are equal to Christ, it is if woman is equal to man.

    Comment by G — January 16, 2007 @ 10:24 pm

  120. I’ve been thinking about this discussion quite a bit (as is evident in the number of posts I’ve written – sorry Lisa for using all your bandwidth! I really owe you). I’ve had the following thought, which is far from revolutionary, but which I’m going to run with now:

    God created woman with the ultimate power – the power of creation. Sadly, this power was not given equally to all women. But it wasn’t given to men at all. Sure, they play a part; but their role is tiny, just a few cells. Women conceive. Women nurture that life. Women bring it to fruition. Women create whole new people, and that’s pretty awesome. Far from being a burden, it’s very cool: I get to make my own person, which is something no man will ever get to do.

    This power, this immense force of creation, scares men. After all, every man knows, in his core, that it is something that sets women apart, that makes them different, that makes them more powerful. There’s also the basic problem of paternity: No man can ever know, short of a DNA test, that he really is the father of a child. Women always know they’re the mother; but men can’t know they’re the father. And that scares men, too, because there is a basic biological urge (so we are told) to put our own genes out there.

    So, how do men react? By trying to control women. By denigrating female sexuality – calling us sluts and whores if we like sex; calling us prudes if we don’t. It’s that old Madonna/Whore complex – there is no balance, we’re all either one or the other. By trying to control female sexuality. By trying to control “the means of production” – rape (which is all about gaining power and dominion over women), fighting against birth control and abortion (which has less to do with saving a fetus and more to do with trying to control a woman’s body). By trying to pretend they’re superior in every way that matters. By insulting women merely because they are women. It’s the oldest trick in the book – you build yourself up by tearing someone else down.

    At issue isn’t whether or not a woman actually has the power and ability to conceive. At issue is the base fact that men don’t have that power and ability. And because we do, they resent the hell out of us.

    We scare them. Our uteruses scare them. I think this is why we have internal organs – we don’t need them on the outside. We don’t need to compare.

    This is why, throughout history, men have tried to assert power and dominance over women. This is why, throughout history – including this discussion – women have been compared to the devil. This is why, throughout history, women have had to fight for their rights. This is why men create such things as the spheres of influence – this idea that women are “naturally” more suited for the home.

    It’s all part and parcel of trying to control us.

    Because frankly, we scare them.

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 10:25 pm

  121. G I saw your post on a different thread…………would like to chat with you about your ppd
    hk

    Comment by hk — January 16, 2007 @ 10:32 pm

  122. ppd?

    Comment by G — January 16, 2007 @ 10:34 pm

  123. post partum depression

    Comment by hk — January 16, 2007 @ 10:38 pm

  124. I’m curious–how often does this happen on fMh? One guy comes in, touches briefly on the main thread, and then proceeds to dominate the conversation with his reactionary, anti-feminist rhetoric. I ask because I’ve seen this happen again and again and again on other feminist forums. Guest obviously isn’t here to listen. As a man, I feel some responsibility to truly act like a guest when in feminist spaces, I cringe when another guy barges in, dominating the discussion with his manly agenda. I wonder if they don’t confirm the fears of some feminists that welcoming men into such discussions will only result in their trying to take over and subvert the agenda for gender equity and destroy any safe space for more nuanced discussions between feminists.

    So, Guest, I feel like you’ve given me some insight into why there are so few male feminists.

    Comment by JohnR — January 16, 2007 @ 10:45 pm

  125. okay

    Comment by G — January 16, 2007 @ 10:45 pm

  126. I experienced the same things……………just thought it would be nice to chat with someone else who has gone through it…can I email you?

    Comment by hk — January 16, 2007 @ 10:52 pm

  127. what’s your e-address?

    Comment by G — January 16, 2007 @ 10:55 pm

  128. sent

    Comment by hk — January 16, 2007 @ 10:56 pm

  129. Quimby - I guess then that you must share none of the characteristics of the Devil (because that’s insulting) and by the same token, you must share none of the characteristics of Christ (because that’s like saying you’re a type of Christ, heresy!), so where does that leave you? How about allowing some measure of comparison where applicable. If it makes you feel better, you’re a child of God (just like Christ was!) and Lucifer was a man (oooh! I compared myself to the Devil. How insulting!). Is this the level of conversation you were looking for?

    G - I guess there was no misunderstanding. I do think that a woman coveting a man’s role within the family and Church is similar to Lucifer’s coveting of Christ’s role.

    As far as applying that patriarchal stereotype to the society at large, I’m not convinced. I think that women can be very effective administrators, and I’d even say that if society as a whole felt that it was best served and that it were appropriate for her to assume the Presidency, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

    Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 11:03 pm

  130. As far as applying that patriarchal stereotype to the society at large, I’m not convinced.

    This directly contradicts your first message, in which you spoke at length about how women aren’t cut out to be soldiers or leaders.

    If you’re going to be sexist and demeaning, at least be consistent. Or admit that you got it wrong in the first place.

    I get the feeling that you are holding so firm to this position merely from a position of pride.

    There is absolutely nothing in Church doctrine or in the Scriptures to back up your contentions that women are inferior to men, or that women are like Lucifer when they “covet man’s role within the family” (a contentious statement to begin with - the Prophet has consistently and continually said that “fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners” - emphasis mine - quote from The Family: A Proclamation”).

    If you would take this issue to our Heavenly Father in prayer, and if you would consult the writings of the Prophets and the Scriptures, you would see the error in what you are saying. It is pride and pride alone that keeps you from doing this.

    Increasingly, your statements to me are insulting, off-base, and bordering on nonsensical. Clearly you do not respect my ideas and opinions, as you claim to do in #103.

    I urge you as your sister in the Gospel to consider through fasting, prayer, and study, what you have said on this post. I believe that, if you are willing to do so, you will come to see:

    1. That men and women are equal firsts in the Kingdom of God
    2. That men and women are equal partners, in and out of the home,
    3. That it is the Devil’s design to elevate one (either one) above the other, and
    4. That women can and do make valuable contributions to their families, churches, societies, etc. - which not limited to their role as mothers.

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 11:15 pm

  131. Quimby - Did you want me to comment on #119, or were you just throwing that out there?

    JohnR - I entered by answering your question. I thought that was what you were wondering. Perhaps you meant it rhetorically. I didn’t dominate the conversation either, as I was responding to questions that had been asked of me. I think that I have listened, and often times agreed with the points that have been brought up by others on the post. Just because I don’t draw the same conclusions, doesn’t mean that I’ve been boorish. If you don’t want to know what my views are, don’t ask.

    Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 11:15 pm

  132. Guest- I think you may have missed my #111 so I’ll repeat it here:

    “That doesn’t answer my question at all. You specifically said that God has ordained man to fulfill a role in which women are strictly supportive- I’m asking what role that is.”

    I don’t want to intrude in the discussion but I really want to hear your answer to my question because I hear language like that all the time from various people and I want to understand where you are coming from.

    Comment by Starfoxy — January 16, 2007 @ 11:16 pm

  133. Quimby - So if a woman isn’t allowed to be a combat arms soldier, she shouldn’t be allowed to be an attorney or businesswoman either? Is it all or nothing? What I said earlier was:

    I believe that there are women that can do anything a man can do, if not better than he. It is conceivable that a society could be created in which women are expected and encouraged to occupy roles, habits, and attributes traditionally attributed to men. Simply because one has the capability, and even desire to do something, does not mean that it is appropriate for one to do that thing.

    I don’t see how that contradicts my statement that I don’t believe the patriarchal stereotype need be applied universally.

    Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 11:42 pm

  134. Starfoxy - Sorry, I didn’t mean to ignore the question, but my answer would be any position within the home and Church.

    Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 11:47 pm

  135. Okay, just to be clear. From your original post #62 (the start of this enlightening discussion) you said that you felt that while women could be just efficient as men as soldiers that it wasn’t appropriate and that women were not created to assume leadership (and defense) of society. In #128 you state that women can be efficient administrators, even eventually President… but the sum total of you words on the roll of men and woman indicates that in your view that would be inappropriate. The dominate roll of man in the home and church spills out to become the rolls in society at large. You mentioned earlier the analogy of the prophet to his apostles, or the bishop to his counselors… see the main problem with that analogy is that all of those rolls are exclusively MALE. Next year the counselor could be the bishop, the apostle becomes the head of the church… but that analogy cannot be applied to women as you are speaking of rolls in which they currently will never fill. Inherently you carry that concept in your thinking when you spoke of the impropriety of a woman in leadership positions in society at large.

    Comment by G — January 16, 2007 @ 11:48 pm

  136. I believe that there are women that can do anything a man can do, if not better than he.

    A standard patronising argument used by sexist men to “prove” they aren’t sexist - “But I said women could do it better!” Women aren’t asking for superiority; we’re asking for equality. I want the opportunity to prove I can do it as well as you can.

    It is conceivable that a society could be created in which women are expected and encouraged to occupy roles, habits, and attributes traditionally attributed to men.

    Put simply - but not this society. Some other, fictional, make-believe one.

    Simply because one has the capability, and even desire to do something, does not mean that it is appropriate for one to do that thing.

    In other words - women could be businessmen or soldiers or presidents, but it’s not appropriate for them to do it. Just because they can do it, doesn’t mean they should.

    How is any of that not applying the patriarchal stereotype universally? Is it because you said it’s “conceivable” such a society might possibly some day in some far away never-never-land exist?

    That society exists here and now. Open your eyes. It’s the world you’re living in, buddy.

    Comment by Quimby — January 16, 2007 @ 11:48 pm

  137. Don’t put me on a pedestal. I am not a statue. I am not an inanimate object. I am not something to be admired or revered.

    I am a person, with the same desire to be heard, with the same desire to follow my heard and my head, with the same desire to feel joy and, sometimes, sorrow.

    Recognise that. We are not so different, you and I. Just as you are more than your role in the family, I am more than mine.

    There’s a favorite Jewish folk song of mine which translates:

    Don’t walk in front of me,
    I may not follow.
    Don’t walk behind me,
    I may not lead.
    Just walk beside me
    And be my friend.
    Together we can follow the words of Ha Shem.

    I won’t follow you - and I am not asking you to follow me - but as we both progress along this earthly journey, please, respect my authority over my own being. Respect that I am my own person, quite seperate and distinct from my husband - who I love with all my heart - or my child - who I love with all my heart. Their choices are not mine to make. My choices are not theirs to make. And my choices certainly are not yours to make.

    I am your equal - not your subordinate, not your inferior. God created me as “a power or strength equal to” man - not as “an accessory” or “an advisor”.

    Please, I urge you to return to the scriptures - read again the story of Adam and Eve - read the precious words of the prophets. You are in error.

    Men and women are equal partners. When they work together as equal partners, great things happen. Walk beside me - be my friend - be my equal.

    Comment by Quimby — January 17, 2007 @ 12:00 am

  138. G - I’d like to explain further, but I’m hesitant to as a result of Quimby’s tendency to simply look for opportunities of conflict.

    It comes down to a question of whose authority a woman is working under. I think that once a calling is received, that authority should have the ability to appoint whomever he feels the most comfortable, to fulfill any positions that he’s responsible for. For example, if the President wants to appoint a woman as Secretary of State, I have no problem with that. She’s working under his authority.

    Comment by Guest — January 17, 2007 @ 12:12 am

  139. that is very generous of you. could you see Condi as President?

    Comment by G — January 17, 2007 @ 12:17 am

  140. Quimby - Honestly, that was touching.

    Comment by Guest — January 17, 2007 @ 12:18 am

  141. G - Well, given my environment here on this blog. I’m afraid I’ll get booted or something if I go any further.

    Can I picture Condi as President? Yes. I can also picture Sen. Clinton as President. If someone gets off a couple of good shots, I can see Nancy Pelosi as President. I simply question whether the trade off is in alignment with their role as mothers in Zion. I could say the same for men. Was our need for Pres. Clinton’s leadership such that he should have occupied so much time away from his young family?

    I think the same thing about GAs. Fortunately I have the faith to believe that God has given His approval to their sacrifice. What I then need to discover for myself is the answer to that question for anyone that is seeking elected office.

    Comment by Guest — January 17, 2007 @ 12:27 am

  142. Guest–I don’t insist that I have to wait for the next life to be a mom. I think I mentioned that we’re trying to adopt (and let’s not even talk about the endless hell of fertility treatments). But there are no guarantees–adoption is not as easy as people who haven’t applied seem to think. At least it hasn’t been in our experience.

    But here’s another bit of insight into infertile women’s heads and hearts, if you’re interested. We’re already OBSESSED with our desire to be mothers. We are often so obsessed that it is not healthy. Believe me, becoming entirely subsumed by my desire to be a mom actually kept me from being anything much at all for a while there. To focus only on that, well, it was killing me. I’m a gifted person in some areas–forgoing those gifts to hound my social worker full-time, or spending all day reading mothering books, or simply crying my eyes out that I’m not yet a mother–these are not things which would help me fill the measure of my creation. Because the measure of my creation isn’t limited solely to motherhood. I believe I’ll be a good Mama when that time finally rolls around. But that’s not ALL I will be. And I do not believe it is all God desires me to be, either. If it were, He’d have made me fertile and He probably wouldn’t have made me good at other stuff, either. This may blow your mind, but I’ve even been told in many blessings (you know, the kind administered by men) that God intends me to work outside the home. Guess God wants a boat :)

    Comment by Janet — January 17, 2007 @ 12:27 am

  143. Quimby, I know it has been frustrating for you, and you have done an admirable job in sorting out the arguments of Guest. Its seems as though however you have taken on a proselyting attitude to Guest, which may or may not be the most appropriate.

    The problem with this issue is that nothing is simply a two sided issue. Quimby, your post in 119 was sexist, pointing out that there is a substantial difference between men and women and attributing to all men an attitude and response. Was this inaccurate? Of all men, certainly. But it likely does apply to some. Does it apply to most?

    I support the right of women to be equal. I cannot support the right of women to be the same. A pound of feather and a pound of lead both should weigh the same on the scales of justice, but which one would I rather have for a pillow? (bad analogy, don’t take this one too far).

    Pesonally I have never like “ists” or supporters of divisions in our society. I think affirmative action was needed, just as a cast is needed to set a broken leg. And like a cast, must be removed when the job is done. I am greatful for the suffragettes, too forgetten in the cause of equality.

    The point is that terms are mixed. Equal does not allways mean equal. Equal mass does not mean equal dimensions. Equal worth does not mean directly transferrable. Men and women have divinely decreed roles. But I don’t think that the divine decree translates to complete career dictation. I don’t have a problem with Men having the Priesthood and women holding the keys to creation. As long as we are in a Partnership with the Lord, we will be saved together. I guess this is where it all comes down for me. any differences we have, whether gender, race, education, individual or otherwise, should be subsumed in the face of the Lord, his eternal plan and the power of Salvation.

    Comment by Ola Senor — January 17, 2007 @ 12:28 am

  144. Quimby–you really write beautifully. I’m moved by the post with the folk song.

    Comment by Janet — January 17, 2007 @ 12:32 am

  145. Janet - Go for it! We should all be actively engaged in worthwhile causes. My concern would be in a couple that unnecessarily delays the process you’re currently going through in order to achieve some temporal aim.

    Ola Senor - I appreciated your comments and obesrvations. I like the cast analogy. Is that original?

    Comment by Guest — January 17, 2007 @ 12:44 am

  146. Wow, I feel like we should all get those sashes like the suffragists used to wear and have Quimby lead us in a protest :) I’m afraid Mr. Guest didn’t know what he was walking into here….all I know, if I didn’t have some sort of interaction with other feminist mormon women I would have lost my mind and my faith long ago…

    Comment by Veritas — January 17, 2007 @ 12:52 am

  147. Guest, in saying that I have a “tendancy simply to look for opportunities of conflict”, you are taking the easy way out and blaming me for your own inability to explain adequately or accurately.

    I have extended a genuine and sincere branch of friendship and peace. This is your response. That speaks volumes of you.

    Ola Senor, my post in #119 is honestly the only way I can explain the historical realities of the oppression of women. If you have an alternative view I would love to hear it. I was speaking in historical generalities - generalities that are still, sadly, very much with us.

    Comment by Quimby — January 17, 2007 @ 3:07 am

  148. Maybe I should explain a bit more about post #119, since it seems to be a bit contraversial.

    First, I was mistaken in not pointing out that I am speaking of Western societies. As I stated before most gatherer-hunter and indigenous societies are matriarchal. I share the flaw common to us all, of looking at the world through the blinders of my own cultural background.

    Second, I was mistaken in not saying that I am speaking in generalities. Not all men are rapists; but those men who rape, do it to feel more powerful than women (or at least than the women they rape). Not all men are wife-beaters; but those men who beat their wives, do it to feel more powerful than women (or at least than the women they beat). Thankfully such men are in the minority - and so no man who is not a rapist or a wife-beater should feel attacked when I speak of rapists or wife-beaters. Likewise no man who does not believe that women are subordinate or inferior to men should feel attacked when I speak of men who believe that women are subordinate or inferior to men.

    In grasping with the problem of the historical reality of the subjection and oppression of women, I have asked myself: Why? Why is it that throughout Western society, women have been demeaned, belittled, and made to feel “less than”? I have rejected outright the idea that women are less than or inferior to men. Which means that this is a concept put on women. Who puts it on women? Certainly women can be their own worst enemies; but I don’t think it is in our best interest to say that we are inferior to men. Thus, the obvious answer to the question is: (Some) men have perpetrated the idea that women are inferior. It is in their best interest to do so.

    Now, the question becomes again: Why? What do men have to gain by believing women are inferior? (I should state that there is no benefit to this in the long-run of course - we cannot reach our full potential as human beings without gender equality - but there is a perceived benefit, and all men benefit from this perceived benefit, even if they do not perpetrate the myth themselves.)

    To answer this question, I looked at the obvious and extreme example of men in society today who seek to belittle and demean women - rapists and perpetrators of domestic violence. Rape and domestic violence are about nothing more than power. These men feel powerless; and so to counteract that, they find someone who they can make feel even more powerless than they feel. They kick cats, they beat women, they hurt children, because they see animals, women, and children as vulnerable. They take that vulnerability, and they use it to feel better about themselves.

    The benefit men gain in believing women are inferior or subordinate is power, or at least the feeling of power. That is the only benefit in it: Men become more powerful.

    (Now I remind you I am speaking in generalities, about those men who believe or want to believe women are inferior. If you don’t fit the bill, don’t get offended. You are obviously comfortable with yourself and with your place and power in the world. Real men don’t rape; real men don’t beat their wives; and real men don’t feel the need to belittle women.)

    And again the question is, Why? If (some) men want women to believe that they are inferior, that they are subordinate, that they were created “lesser than”, why? People belittle the very things that frighten them. It’s a way of creating bravado, a way of fooling yourself into believing you’re really not afraid of it. It’s like that old story that the most homophobic people are actually afraid of their own homosexuality. Thus,there must be some power or strength that women have that men are afraid of.

    The only differences between men and women are found in biology: Women can create life and birth children. Thus it makes sense that men are afraid of this incredible gift and power.

    Now, you may say that men and women have different roles - that God intends them to do different things - etc. But it is also very evident and obvious from the Scriptural record and from the teachings of the prophets that men and women are equal - women are not subordinate to men, women are not inferior to men. This idea that women are less than is a social construct. It is not given to us by God.

    Intrestingly enough, most societies that are matriarchal or matrilineal also practice goddess worship. It makes sense: Women have the power in those societies; and so of course God must be a woman. Ancient societies celebrated fertility - always portrayed as a goddess - and there is ample evidence that ancient societies were much more equitable than more modern societies.

    Obviously I am simplifying this considerably. I haven’t even touched on the role of Christianity in the oppression of women. (I would remind you that it is a perversion of Christ’s teachings to believe that women are inferior to men. There is nothing in His ministry to support such a stance. Even so, this perversion has been used widely throughout history - just look at colonialism and expansion and the way in which Christianity was used to enslave and undermine entire populations and do away with the matriarchy in entire societies.)

    So. That’s my theory on the reasons for the historical oppression of women. Like I said I’m open to alternative theories. This theory holds water with me because it makes sense (to me) and because I still see signs of it today. Rape is used as a war crime. Why? Because it intimidates women and uses their own sexuality and reproduction as weapons against them. A senator in the US want to make it illegal for women to have a miscarriage without reporting it. Why? Because it’s a way of controlling a woman’s reproduction. George W Bush withholds funding from any overseas aid agency that even discusses abortion. Why? Because it’s a way of controlling a woman’s reproduction.

    Comment by Quimby — January 17, 2007 @ 4:57 am

  149. I KNOW , I KNOW, totally inappropriate but i just got it in my head.

    johnR, you say your from OC? me too (not anymore but born, raised and schooled)

    i was thinking that you would totally appreciate a mood altering, spirit uplifting, ass shaking and life changing experience.

    Feb 21, 2007 Galaxy theater, Santa Ana

    shameless, i know. but hell, i am super duper bummed that we don’t get some of that winter loving in PC this year so if you and your lovely wife can make it and love it, i will be very pleased.

    Comment by mfranti — January 17, 2007 @ 11:03 am

  150. yikes, i forgot to say who it was.

    SPEARHEAD, FEB 21, Galaxy theater, Santa Ana, Ca

    Comment by mfranti — January 17, 2007 @ 11:06 am

  151. Quimby, which idiotic senator is that? I’m not even sure I want to know :(. Like women’s reproductive lives aren’t already complicated enough, grrrrrrrrrrrrr. We all really want to take our private tragedies and report them, too! Bleagh. Plus, I suspect that since the medical terminology conflates spontaneous abortions (miscarriage) and elective abortions, the senator might be looking to do some numbers fiddling. Imagine how evil we can make the Roe-advocating Left look if we can pretend triple the women elect to terminate pregnancies!

    There’s a great ani difranco song that talks about being able to create life and how if freaks men out–maybe “the boardroom”? I’m tired and can’t remember at the moment. My DH is a doctor, for heaven’s sake, and even he is a bit cowed by pregnancy! If I ever do get pregnant, it will be very fun to see how he reacts. I suspect he might try to do all the housework, cooking, earning of money, etc. Which would be evil of me to allow, but funny nontheless.

    Comment by Janet — January 17, 2007 @ 11:14 am

  152. I don’t know the specifics of what that senator wants, but I do know medical charts want to know all the miscarriages, because it has medical significance, even if it was your grandmother that had a miscarriage decades before you were born. It’s all about learning the genetic code. The more knowledge, the better.

    So possibly it’s a reason to help with the health of future generations instead of a reason to control women’s reproduction. Reporting miscarriages is not controlling, it’s reporting. If you were forcing miscarriages, or blaming women for miscarriages, or otherwise skewing the data for your own reasons, that would be controlling.

    Comment by anon — January 17, 2007 @ 11:53 am

  153. Feminism, at least in the 1970’s to 80’s when it got so much media hype, was about an assumption that men were carefully passing power from one man to the next, and at every level of society, in order to keep women from having power. They also had a world view that women were being disempowered or dominated when they were married.

    There was some significant truths to these views. Probably there still are, although great leveling has occured. My grandfather was a judge in the Superior Court of Chelan County, Washington. I’m proud of the fact that the original, landmark case regarding equal pay for equal work was heard in my grandfather’s court. He found that the US Constitution prohibits unequal pay for equal work, and ordered the employer to equalize pay, including back pay. The Supreme Court agreed.

    Equality in the workplace is pretty obvious as a goal, or a should be. Discrimination, now that courts uniformly rule against unfair discrimination, now comes from latent bias of individuals. Image means that if a hiring manager thinks of women in the workforce and he thinks of secretaries, and when he thinks for men, he thinks of professional staff, then he is less likely to hire or promote women in professional capacities. That image problem is what truly must change in order to have equality.

    There are difference that are quite real. I recall an owner of a very profitable dump truck hauling company in the 1980s who was asked why the majority of his drivers were women, when his competitors hired few female drivers. He said he had installed monitors on his trucks that recorded the speed, gear, and throttle on his drivers, to which he added fuel economy and frequency of repairs. He found that female drivers were more careful in their shifting, easier on the equipment, and produced better fuel economy with lower mainenance costs, without any loss of timely performance. So he switched to preferring female drivers and his profits increased. Whatever the reason for the difference in behavior, there was a difference and that owner used his discovery of it to his competitive advantage.

    There must be a continuing sense of discrimination or unfairness, because many of you dear sisters sound angry about it. I wonder where that anger comes from?

    Women who grew up in the feminist decades of the 1960’s to the 1980’s may have adopted the ideal that women ought to be able to have it all, education, professional career success, a loving husband, well behaved children, and satisfaction in their lives. Discovering that nobody can juggle all of that may be causing some sense of frustration. Men are less frustrated because the social norm is that they don’t get to have much time at home with their wives or children when they pursue careers.

    Would some of you sisters like to explain your anger to this otherwise clueless country bumpkin?

    Comment by Trueheart — January 17, 2007 @ 12:54 pm

  154. I’ll jump in and answer your question, Trueheart. It’s more than a sense of discrimination, it still happens.

    I was working at a large company in the Seattle area in 2000 when I found out I was pregnant. I got so ill that I had to adjust my hours. I was passed over for a promotion and when I asked my female boss why that happened she actually told me it was because she couldn’t have someone in that psotion be gone for maternity leave. I was shocked. I reported it to HR and she came back and said I misunderstood her. Long story short, I quit right after that. I still get angry about the whole thing. I hope this is an isolated incident but discrimination is still alive and well.

    Comment by blue gal — January 17, 2007 @ 2:29 pm

  155. Blue gal - Is your situation more disturbing than someone who gets ill for another reason?

    While I personally think that we should be more accommodating to flexible schedules in our society and not work so much (lets be like the germans and take 2 months off), that’s not the way it is. There are some jobs that require a full-time presence, and if you can’t meet that requirement for whatever reason, then you shouldn’t/won’t be placed in that position. Discrimination is not hiring someone because they MIGHT get pregnant, your situation (passing over for promotion because of absence), while frustrating is a rational response to the circumstances.

    Comment by Ola Senor — January 17, 2007 @ 3:04 pm

  156. I’d really like to see that issue (#154 blue gal and #155 Ola Senor) addressed in a nice posting all of it’s own, cuz I am still really trying to work out my own thoughts on that one. Anyone volunteer?

    Comment by G — January 17, 2007 @ 3:22 pm

  157. g. or anyone who cares.

    just in case you want to see what the college frat boys think of this discussion

    http://snarkernackle.blogspot.com/2007/01/quimbys-uterus-scares-me.html

    Comment by mfranti — January 17, 2007 @ 3:42 pm

  158. Mfranti, it really isn’t worth giving them the time of day. I’ve always identified with radical feminism, and there are many who aren’t comfortable with that. I am interested in answering the question, What is the basis for the historical oppression of women – and rather than debate that, they resort to calling me names and insulting my husband.

    Please don’t try to defend me to them or it will only make the situation worse. Let them think what they will.

    Janet, I got my facts wrong. It wasn’t a senator, it was a state delegate. John Cosgrove, Republican, Virginia, introduced HB 1677, which is summarised:

    Report of fetal death by mother; penalty. Provides that when a fetal death occurs without medical attendance, it shall be the woman’s responsibility to report the death to the proper law-enforcement agency within 12 hours of the delivery. Violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

    A Class 1 misdemeanor is punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a $2500 fine.

    The bill did not pass. But anon, the fact that he wanted women to report it to law enforcement – and not to their doctors, which most women would do anyway – is disturbing evidence that this isn’t about medical history. It’s almost like he wants to criminalise miscarriage.

    Comment by Quimby — January 17, 2007 @ 4:00 pm

  159. Truehart, I’m not angry. I’m frustrated that there are still so many men who hold so firmly to this belief that they are superior. I’m frustrated that there are still so many men who hold to this belief that women should want to see themselves as “less than” – a view you seem to hold when you suggest, on another post, that women should always keep their head lower than their partner’s. I’m frustrated that I am judged for my appearance; that, when I have a bad day, it’s blamed on my hormones; and that I live in a world where some men still think I am worthless unless I produce offspring.

    I save my anger for other things: the fact that 100 Iraqis die every day because of sectarian violence sparked by an unnecessary war; the fact that the deaths of 3000 Americans on 9/11 were politicised and used as an excuse to start an unnecessary war and spy on my fellow citizens; the fact that 15 to 20 million people in the developing world die every single year from causes that are completely preventable.

    Really, as a woman in the Western world, I’ve got it pretty good. I don’t have it as good as a white man in the Western world, but I’ve got it better than well over half of the world’s population.

    Poverty makes me mad. The fact that there is no living wage in the United States, which is the world’s richest country, makes me mad. The fact that more than 1 in 5 children live in poverty in the world’s richest country, makes me mad. The fact that we could eliminate world poverty but we choose not to, makes me mad.

    Comment by Quimby — January 17, 2007 @ 4:17 pm

  160. Quimby,

    My personal experience as a stepparent was that the harder I tried to make a difference in the lives of my stepchildren, the more I alienated them and my spouse. I slowly, almost entirely, accepted the fact that I am not accepted as the “parent,” and therefore neither as the “head of the family” by my stepchildren, and I never will be. I have to make a difference for them by and through my wife, their mother.

    That learning experience was humbling for me, especially because I was believing that I should fulfill the role of “head of the family” as taught by the church. Moreover, my wives have not, in my sense, been fair minded in negotiating points of differences. They dictate what they will have me, and the family, do, and expect me to “support” them. If I have the chutzpah to try to discuss my differing point of view, I’m abused in an emotional way to punish me for not meeting their expectations. So when I look out at the larger world, as you’ve done, and contemplate a personal role in making a difference, I’m not even to the point of taking it personally as you do.

    Last night I was up late fixing the brakes and changing oil on my wife’s oldest daughter’s car, that I gave her so she could attend college after we moved away for my current job. Not that she got passing grades the first term or stayed in school beyond that. This afternoon I’ve learned that she crashed at 70-mph on the freeway while returning home from her visit with us. She’s not hurt because the air bag deployed. Now she wants money we don’t have for towing expenses, etc. and she’ll be asking us for another car. That’s my level of frustration.

    Comment by Trueheart — January 17, 2007 @ 4:38 pm

  161. Trueheart, I certainly don’t envy your position as step-parent. Step-parents have a very tough job – it doesn’t matter if you’re the step-mother or the step-father, you will never have as much authority in the eyes of your stop-children as their biological parent, you will always to some extent be the “intruder” in their family. The step-parent relationship adds a whole new and complicated dimension to family life. I can certainly understand your frustration.

    I find the phrase “head of the household” troublesome, though not for the reasons you may suspect. It is troublesome because it is so vague. Naturally it will mean different things to different people. Have you stopped to ask your wife what role she wants you to play in the house, or are you just making assumptions? Quite possibly, she thinks she is letting you be “head of the household”. Quite possibly, she just has a different definition.

    You say your wife dictates what she would have you do. Do you mean around the house, in daily chores type thing? Let’s face it: We’re all lazy. None of us wants to cook dinner or mow the lawn or do the laundry. But these are jobs that have to be done, and there is no law saying that only women have to do it. So, if she’s saying, “Hey, Trueheart, can you do a load of laundry” – and you think that is contrary to your role as “head of the household” – well, I think I’d have to come down on her side on this one. I don’t know if that’s what you mean or not, and I could be way off base. She might be saying, for instance, “We need a new washing machine and this is the one we’re going to buy,” when you know perfectly well that the old washing machine still works, is still under warranty, you’re still making payments on it, and anyway what would she know about it since you’re the one doing the laundry. In which case I think I’d have to come down on your side.

    If we take Christ as our ultimate model: He led by serving. He washed his disciple’s feet. Now, I’m not saying you should wash your wife’s feet. I’m sure she wouldn’t say no to a foot rub every now and then, just like I’m sure you wouldn’t say no to it either. My point is: Christ didn’t approach leadership from a position of, “I’m in charge and this is what we’re going to do.” He approached it with humility and a sincere intent to serve.

    Again, I may be off-base. You might be the most giving, generous, serving guy in the world. I don’t know. I imagine you must be getting some joy from your marriage, otherwise why are you still married? But maybe this is something you should try to discuss with your wife – openly, honestly, leaving aside your pre-conceived notions of what it means to be “the head of the household” and asking her to do the same. Come up with a model that works for both of you. There are many different types of leadership, from dictatorship to co-ruling (think William and Mary). Find the one you are both comfortable with.

    Comment by Quimby — January 17, 2007 @ 5:06 pm

  162. 155- It’s hard to explain the entire situation (too long and boring a story) so I can see how from my post you would feel that way. HR sided with me and did training with the managers involved. Other women who became pregnant after I left were treated differently and were able to keep the job I was excluded from even thought they took maternity leave.

    I don’t see how being denied a promotion is different than not being hired because you may get pregnant. So it’s okay to hire women but then not promote them? I’m not trying to start an argument, this is a little off topic for this thread. Maybe another time…..

    Comment by blue gal — January 17, 2007 @ 5:42 pm

  163. Quimby - I don’t see how I’ve taken “the easy way out”, nor do I believe that I’ve been unable to explain myself adequately or accurately (unless that means agreeing with everything you say, in which case I can see how you would feel that it’s inadequate). What I meant to say is that you have made a point of making inaccurate and inflammatory statements about women and then attributing them to me. It gets tiring having to defend myself against presumptive and false accusations. I was hesitant to explain aspects of my position because I dreaded having you pick out a selection that you feel would generate the most animosity towards me and then attach other fiery inuendo as if it were my own. You should work for talk radio. Your “olive branch” consisted of me conceding my point and agreeing with you. That’s not really a compromise, is it? It was wonderfully written though, a point I make in #140. I’m sorry that because I don’t agree with you, and I recognize your acerbic debate style, you feel we can’t be friends. I suppose, as you say, that speaks volumes of you.

    Comment by Guest — January 17, 2007 @ 10:10 pm

  164. Guest, you didn’t concede on any of the points you made.

    Again, I urge you to humble yourself and take this issue in prayer to the Lord. You are in error.

    Comment by Quimby — January 17, 2007 @ 10:20 pm

  165. Quimby, while I side with you on your views, and I totally believe that God backs them up… the exhortation to just pray about it and be corrected by the Lord smacks of all the lame, condescending, and “easy” responses I have received from Male authorities whenever I have broached the subject with them. “Just pray about it, sister, and you will know that what I have said is right”. That has been the easy cop out of patriarchal power. Using the God Card. Is this just using the “enemy’s weapons against them” or is this an honest to goodness assurance of a response from God?

    Comment by G — January 17, 2007 @ 11:33 pm


  166. Comment by Anonymous — January 17, 2007 @ 11:47 pm

  167. I don’t mean to be disrespectful when I urge Guest to pray about his attitudes. I honestly, truly, fully believe them to be at odds with the Gospel, the Prophets, the Scriptures, and the teachings of Jesus Christ. I believe any study of the Gospel, the Prophets, the Scriptures, and the teachings of Jesus Christ would be adequate to show him - or any man who holds similar views - that such views cannot be supported or tolerated by any person who is actively seeking to become more Christ-like.

    I do not mean to condescend to him - I do not mean to give the “easy” answer - but clearly there is nothing that (wo)man can do to convince him of the error of his ways, and so I must turn it over to a higher power.

    Guest made a number of divisive and insulting comments, beginning with “I don’t buy into the idea that women should hold equal status to men,” and ending with a rather sarcastic, “I’m sorry . . . you feel we can’t be friends.” In between those posts, there is little he said that is uplifting or edifying to women. I gave him ample opportunity to backtrack, to say, “No, that’s not what I meant,” but at every opportunity, he attacked me (apparantly I have a “tendancy simply to look for conflict”) and then, when pushed, agreed that he had said exactly what I and other posters had said he’d said. Finally, when I extended my friendship to him, he did the blog equivalent of spitting in my face. And when I called him on that, he resorted to his old tricks of name-calling and playing the victim.

    To be honest, his behaviour reminds me rather strongly of Sheik al-Hilaly’s, who famously compared women to uncovered meat, then said he was the victim of an anti-Muslim plot, then repeated those allegations, then said he was the victim of an anti-Muslim plot . . .

    Clearly there is nothing more I can do. Clearly I should have recognised that earlier, but what can I say, I love a lost cause.

    Comment by Quimby — January 17, 2007 @ 11:49 pm

  168. Hmmm . . . I love a lost cause . . . I’ve been wanting to change my posting name for a while, maybe I’ll change it to Jude? (He being the patron saint of lost causes and all . . .)

    Comment by Quimby — January 17, 2007 @ 11:52 pm

  169. I agree with many/most of Quimby’s opinions on what respect for women should ideally entail, but I do think Guest’s discourse showed a lot more restraint and respect than that of some others who’ve shown up from time to time. I’m very glad of that (and heaven help me, I looked at the snarker site–at least Guest can have a conversation rather than just accuse you of being some sort of freak. Ring and Run, that’s their game.). Anyhow, I’ve found your discussion interesting; often people who disagree on this stuff won’t even talk to each other for two minutes, so it’s refreshing to see both or you hash out the debate. So thanks.

    And Quimby, I now have “Hey Jude” stuck in my head! Ack, Ack! Especially the “Jude, Jude, Jude!” screamy chorus! I shall go quiet it with a donut.

    Comment by Janet — January 18, 2007 @ 12:05 am

  170. Also, you just reminded me of why naming a kid “Jude” isn’t a good idea. Too bad, I really like the name.

    Comment by Janet — January 18, 2007 @ 12:07 am

  171. Quimby, I just sent you an email but don’t know if I signed my name (confusion, thy name is ambien). It’s about a book on infertility, and it should have been signed. Sorry about that.

    Comment by Janet — January 18, 2007 @ 2:03 am

  172. Quimby - After reading your comments, I was concerned and wanted to see how I could have come across as so aggressive and insulting, as compared to your self described even-handed and conciliatory approach; going so far as to “spit in your face” (or it’s blog equivalent), when I chose not to concede my point and agree with you.

    Upon review, these are the only comments I made that I thought might be divisive and insulting:

    I don’t buy into the idea that women should hold equal status to men.
    I don’t believe that women were created to assume the leadership and defense of society, although they posses the capacity to fulfill these roles at times.
    I question the appropriateness of expecting [traditional male roles] from [women].
    [For women to covet the roles of men] is a perversion of God’s intended design.
    …the decision, course, direction to follow is ultimately his to make.
    …she is unable to reach her [greatest potential] without a husband.
    How frustrating do you think it was for Lucifer, an extremely intelligent and capable spirit, to accept that he couldn’t be the Christ even though he felt that he was perfectly capable of performing the same task, if not better! {this apparently translates as calling a woman the Devil}
    If any woman were to choose profession, education, travel, adventure, or any other activity over her role as a mother, I believe that she has erred.
    It is my belief, that for whatever reason, God has ordained man to fulfill [the role of leader in the home and at Church].
    …the responsibility, and thus the authority, to make those decisions, lies with him.
    I do think that a woman coveting a man’s role within the family and Church is similar to Lucifer’s coveting of Christ’s role.
    Quimby [has a] tendency to simply look for opportunities of conflict.

    Here are the potentially divisive and insulting comments made by Quimby:

    How much power and intelligence does one teeny little appendage have, anyway? {assuming that my statement that men and women are not equal is derived from the fact that I have a penis, and therefore believe I have more power and intelligence}
    …a [wedding] has more importance to women.
    That’s a fairly expensive exercise in “pulling it out” don’t you think? {apparently the only reason for setting objectives not related to social services is to say “mine’s bigger than yours”}
    Ah, sarcasm - the lowest form of wit! {directed at me, though I think your second post in response to me (#67) gushed with it and one post (#77) consisted entirely of sarcasm}
    …you are playing straight into the hands of Lucifer. {this could be interepreted as being called an agent of Satan for proclaiming “the Devil’s design”}
    We scare them. Our uteruses scare them. I think this is why we have internal organs – we don’t need them on the outside. We don’t need to compare.
    It’s all part and parcel of [men] trying to control us.
    If you’re going to be sexist and demeaning, at least be consistent.
    If you would take this issue to our Heavenly Father in prayer, and if you would consult the writings of the Prophets and the Scriptures, you would see the error in what you are saying. It is pride and pride alone that keeps you from doing this.
    Increasingly, your statements to me are insulting, off-base, and bordering on nonsensical. Clearly you do not respect my ideas and opinions…
    Thus it makes sense that men are afraid of this incredible gift and power [to create life and birth children].
    I would remind you that it is a perversion of Christ’s teachings to believe that women are inferior to men.
    [Guest’s] old tricks of name-calling and playing the victim

    Here are the divisive and insulting comments I attributed to Quimby:

    [None found]

    Here are the divisive and insulting comments Quimby attributed to me:

    …you might think a man who lived in the mid-1800s is too forward-thinking and revolutionary.
    …you may have even heard of some of [the oldest and most revered cultures], like Egypt and Mesopotamia.
    …you might feel right at home in Saudi Arabia.
    …as you know oh-so-well, Queens only muck things up.
    I’m sure I’ll go to hell for that one, though, since we all know God obviously hates women getting uppity.
    …my husband - who is of course head of our household, and so I bow down and honor his role…
    Eve is the woman, and it is needful only that she bares children.
    Yea, it was for this purpose that she was created, that she could be a mother. And yea, if she fails in this task which I have set her, she is useless. And Adam agreed.
    …as he is the head of the household I must believe him and obey him.
    No doubt you think I’m being unreasonable. (Another shortcoming of my gender, no doubt - after all it is all so clear to you!)
    …she could’ve stuck to her “God-given” role of making babies.
    Don’t put me on a pedestal. I am not a statue. I am not an inanimate object.
    …you are taking the easy way out and blaming me for your own inability to explain adequately or accurately.

    Here are the supportive comments I made about women, and their relationship to men:

    I advocate respect for women.
    I accept that women are capable of doing many things that men do.
    I believe that a person should have the ability to choose what role they wish to play in society, whether male or female.
    Women are the most valuable asset a man could have. {some people viewed this statement as an insult}
    [Women] should be cared for, listened to, respected, and honored.
    [His wife] should be counseled in every important decision he makes.
    He is unable to achieve his greatest potential without a wife.
    I believe that besides my relationship to my HF, my relationship to my wife is the most important and sustaining relationship that I can have on this earth.
    You, as an individual, are in no way deficient (as far as I’m aware). I do not consider you to be an inferior person. I respect your ideas and opinions.
    I think that women can be very effective administrators.

    Here are the supportive comments Quimby made about men, and their relationship to women:

    [None found]

    Sorry, I just don’t see the villian that you’ve made me out to be Quimby, but that’s to be expected. Let me know what I missed. One thing I did notice as I reviewed the posts, was that you consistently equate motherhood to simply bearing children, or as you put it, being “a baby-making machine”. Is this what you see being a mother as?

    Comment by Guest — January 18, 2007 @ 3:50 am

  173. blue gal, You have my sympathy about the discrimination in promotion that you experienced. Personnally, I had a female boss at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico who took a dislike to me. The day came that I forgot to submit a thing for her review, thus violated a procedure, and she used it to get force me out of my job. Now I work in South Carolina.

    I don’t think it was discrimination, per se, against me. But she pressured two others, out of 10 professional men, into leaving in her first year as our supervisor. So they promoted her to the next level. I think her promotions were an example of reverse discrimination.

    No matter which way the saw is cutting, it hurts, big time.

    Comment by Trueheart — January 18, 2007 @ 7:15 am

  174. Quimby and Guest, wow.

    I agree with Janet. Guest has been surprisingly event-tempered about all of this. Although I disagree wiht the method of Quimby’s dialogue, I admire her tenacity.

    I’m sorry to say that (according to my knowledge of) the authority structure of the church (scriptures, GC talks, etc.), equality of men and women isn’t there. Consider Elder Oak’s much lauded talk about women and the priesthood (April 05?). Both hierarchy and patriarchy (edorsed explicity in Oak’s remarks) are alive and well in Mormonism, and it lies at the heart of what Guest has advocated again and again. Men are called to lead both the church and their families. Women are not, yet mysteriously they are called equals. And none of this has anything to do with Priesthood. Mormons consider a non-member, non-priesthood holding man the head of his home even if his wife is an endowed, practicing Mormon.

    I’m reminded of Orwell’s Animal Farm “all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

    Reading and praying can’t dismiss this.

    Comment by Mary Ann — January 18, 2007 @ 7:34 am

  175. Quimby,

    Actually, I do the laundry every Saturday morning. I don’t go into my stepdaughters’ rooms and pick up there things off their floors, so I don’t do all of it. My wife does sometimes wash a few loads of the girls’ clothes.

    I do as much of the dishes as she does, probably more. But she carrys the burden of grocery shopping and preparing dinner.

    I do more daily picking up than she does, but I leave it to her to “motivate” the stepdaughters to do their cleaning up chores on Saturday mornings. She usually tries to get them going, but all to often just lets it go. So they don’t self start because they never know if a particular Saturday will be a day off.

    Car and home repair she leaves entirely to me, and it is a never ending thing. I try to help with meals and shopping, but the burden rests on her, although I earn and give her the funds for the food and clothing, etc.

    A psych guy once suggested to me that I percieve my wife as to lax on discipline, and want to make up for her perceived deficiency. This rings true. But it doesn’t work for me to parent the stepdaughters. The great lesson that I’ve had to learn is to humbly accept that I cannot do anything parently beyond what I can do to support my wife in being the parent.

    A family faces many decisions. How to spend available money. Whether to permit a daughter to sleep over at a friend’s house. What to do about a daughter’s psych/emotional troubles. Spouses counsel together on these matters. The natural parent must lead or be given the deciding vote in making these decisions about stepchildren.

    My wife supports my leadership in presiding at family home evening meetings, but that is more ceremonial role than “head.”

    Yes, I have and do talk with my wife about how we govern the family. When it comes to the stepdaughters, she feels free to follow her own opinion when she disagrees with me. She recently did that when counseling with a daughter in trouble, although it is turning out as a result exactly as I predicted.

    There have been occasions when my wife has joined me in giving blessings. Another post here has caused me to think on it and I’ve concluded that I should ask my wife to join me a lot more often than we’ve done.

    So, thanks, Quimby, for you good thoughts. I know that many sisters can think my belief in the appropriatenes of gender roles makes them think I must be a male chauvinist pig or something, but I’m a lot more help around the house than any other man I’ve ever known. My first wife struggled with me because I wanted to change our babyies’ diapers as much as she did, at least while I was at home, and wanted to get up in the night to give the baby a bottle and rock him back to sleep at least some of the times, and she felt that I was trying to take her role from her. My current wife has complained that I just don’t wait long enough for her to get around to the laundry. If anything, I challenge my wives by being to helpful. Think on that one.

    Comment by Trueheart — January 18, 2007 @ 7:44 am

  176. Mary Ann,

    You’re right. The LDS beliefs include a patriachal Godhead, Heavenly family, and pattern. Some of us see that as very beneficial to women, and others see it as eternally limiting.

    I know many people who believe that each person should shop around for the set of beliefs that they like best and then they will be justified in their membership and support of that church. I totally disagree with that. I believe each person has a moral duty to seek truth and deal with it when they’ve found it.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints sure isn’t the church I would have designed or selected if I’d shopped for the one that would make me happiest. And I have real troubles living up to its precepts. It has truly helped me learn how weak and flawed I am. But I continue to be as active and faithful a member as I can be, for one simple reason. I know that it is true, and Christ stands litterally at the head of it. And I know that His love for me is overwhelming.

    Rather than bother yourself of judging the church, or redesigning it, why not concern yourself with finding out how a loving HF would intend that these church precepts/structures/beliefs would be the ones that HM would design to maximize your chances for joy and happiness, both on the earth and eternally? I’m confident that G*d’s plan of happiness is the best possible plan for his daughters and well as for his sons. We don’t like the opposition in all things part of the Gospel, but it is inseperable from the rest. There seems little doubt that when we understand fully, we will find some such principle that makes the patriarchal structure necessary and optimum. Maybe it’s to show men their weaknesses in that they can tend to abuse a little power when they can. But I know that our Savior loves you as much, or maybe a little more, than me. His plan for your happiness is not going to be one that leads to eternal unhappiness. Let’s keep trying to figure this out.

    Comment by Trueheart — January 18, 2007 @ 8:04 am

  177. I don’t buy into the idea that women should hold equal status to men.

    Guest, I appreciate very much that you haven’t stooped to calling us names and that you’re even willing to HAVE a conversation rather than adopting the position of those men who think women aren’t worthy of dialogue. But please understand that the first item on your list of “potentially offensive” statements is so hugely offensive to women that it’s difficult not to get upset. I’m not upset with you at all, but I am upset by your (and a zillion other people’s) conflation of equality and sameness, as well as the notion that even if God does desire women to be second fiddle in the family (I’m not sure that’s consistent with Church doctrine, though it’s certainly consistent with Church practice in many places) it necessarily means God intends women to be second class citizens in general. Such a belief makes you, by definition, a sexist. And sexism itself strikes most of us as really unbelievably hurtful for ALL men, women, and children.

    That said, you aknowledged your sexism right off the get-go (preferable to pretending otherwise and then trying to slip it in under the radar) and I respect your forthrightness and your general tone. But if Quimby is hoppin’ mad, that first statement would be sufficient. When we start talking about what God desires from us–inevitable on the ‘naccle–emotions tend to run high. I do what I truly believe is God’s will for me, as does Quimby; it just happens that we disagree on what that is. Ok, I’ll shut up now! Cheers.

    Comment by Janet — January 18, 2007 @ 11:20 am

  178. Trueheart,
    I had never considered that patriarchy might benefit women, and I’m interested in your ideas on that topic. I simply can’t imagine it without a greater description.

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the search for truth and the best way to approach the problems at stake in the foregoing posts. Of course there are lots of benefit-of-the-doubt reasons to accept the structure, and on the other hand commensurate reasons to reject it.

    Like you, I feel like I have felt the overwhelming love of God, and that is a powerful thing. Although I have felt that love I have not felt its endorsement of patriarchy. I simply don’t have a testimony of it.

    Comment by Mary Ann — January 18, 2007 @ 11:40 am

  179. I’m curious to hear thoughts on how patriarchy could benefit women as well. People called slavery “The Patriarchal Institution” and made the same contention, BTW. I suppose being a “kept woman” is easy so long as you continue being kept, but who wants to be infantalized like that? Are there other ways besides being spared work-place stress and economic concern that patriarchy could benefit women? (Not being facetious–I’m really curious to hear thoughts from a measured viewpoint.)

    To be very very clear, I am NOT saying that current church patriarchy or general social patriarchy (in the US anyhow) enslaves women. I don’t understand it and I don’t always like it, but it’s a far cry from slavery. I just wanted to make the point that when you’re entrenched in a particular historical moment a system can appear benevolent but then be seen, in later years, as horrendous.

    Comment by Janet — January 18, 2007 @ 11:49 am

  180. Quimby writes:
    “Why is it that throughout Western society, women have been demeaned, belittled, and made to feel “less than”?”

    Im sorry, but I have never seen more sexism than in Asia. Western society is bland compare to Japan, Korea and China. Having lived in Asia for years, I have a bit of experience. It is blatant in Japan, and is well hidden but even more powerful in Communist China.

    This entire thread has profoundly soured my experience on this blog. The animosity and insults handed out were not only unwarrented, but were for the most part put forth simply to be argumentative. In post 143, Ola Senor added some excellent explanations that for the most part were ignored in favor of more insults.

    Im sure I will be rideculed for saying this, but the sexism - yes sexism - and self proclaimed superiority of some of the posters here (as well as the support given to them by others) along with the constant man-bashing have caused me to change my feelings with regard to what ‘feminism’ really is and to how I may want to be associated with it.

    Best wishes to all of you. I will no longer read this blog or occasionally post here. I was on the verge of guiding my Daughters to this site, but now I am glad that I never did.

    Comment by David — January 18, 2007 @ 12:42 pm

  181. David (if you are still reading)… many have left the church for similar type experiences. It doesn’t have to be that way.

    Comment by G — January 18, 2007 @ 12:52 pm

  182. Reading through Guest’s take on how the debate went down, I was struck with a thought;
    it is a bit of a phenomena for an incredibly intelligent woman with enormous gift for humor and communication not to be ‘too nice’ to use all these gifts that God has given her to debate her points. Note, I did not say the phenomena of an incredibly intelligent (etc) woman, I said the phenomena of such a woman not being conditioned to withhold her talents in order to make the men around her feel more comfortable. I think it may be a bit shocking to those around her who are more conditioned to traditional norms.

    Comment by G — January 18, 2007 @ 1:01 pm

  183. Wait… let me make a revision to my previous post… honestly, if a man was intellectually dominating a woman there are a lot of people who would object. But if it was man to man, or woman to woman… it would seem, somehow, more ‘fair.’ Perhaps it is just a reflection of how we still view gender relations, interactions between the sexes.
    Okay… I really don’t have an answer. Sorry.

    Comment by G — January 18, 2007 @ 1:11 pm

  184. are you saying that if a woman expresses her opinion, to the discomfort of man, she is considered and irrational hormonal bitch?

    obviously, i don’t agree with that way of thinking, but i think most of us women have heard it before.

    Comment by mfranti — January 18, 2007 @ 1:51 pm

  185. …if a man was intellectually dominating a woman …

    I never knew insulting someone was being intellectually dominating.

    Comment by Anon — January 18, 2007 @ 1:52 pm

  186. OH look, David is righteous and we hurt his feelings. We just shattered his illusions about feminism. That is sooo sad.

    Quimby, you were never anything but smart, funny, and right. If anyone feels insulted on this thread it is only because they feel defensive, a stance usually taken by those who know they are wrong but too proud or scared or stubborn to admit it.

    Oh my, I’m such a blunt meanie. I’m just never going to find me a man strong enough to tame my vixen ways.

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 18, 2007 @ 4:04 pm

  187. Guest, I want you to know that I feel no animosity towards you. I strongly disagree with your opinions regarding gender inequality, but these are your issues to work through, and I wish you well on your journey. As you go through that journey I would ask you to remember that Eve was created as “a power or force equal to”, not subordinate to or inferior to; and that Christ, through His teaching and example, demonstrated that women are equal firsts in the Kingdom of God.

    Comment by Quimby — January 18, 2007 @ 4:16 pm

  188. Oh yeah, and I should also say that, like Janet, I too appreciate the general tone of civility that has been maintained on this thread. I’m a big fan of civility.

    But I also have to say that, Guest, you make me very sad. I think you are probably a very good man, but I also think you are a perfect example of the warped thinking that our system of LDS patriarchy (benevolent though it may be) produces. In fact I think you could be a poster boy for the reasons why our LDS rhetoric must undergo a profound change. That such a fundementally decent person such as yourself, feels it is necessary to assert a right to greater status than half of the human race by benefit of your sex, it’s a scary comment on our Mormon culture, at best.

    Transfer this sense of entitlement to a man only slightly less “respectful”, and what we get, and what we have, is a system of coruption and abuse of women. Both subtle, and profound.

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 18, 2007 @ 4:24 pm

  189. fMhLisa - *cough* Strawman *cough*

    Comment by Ola Senor — January 18, 2007 @ 4:50 pm

  190. Building upon that –
    Trueheart, I don’t know you, obviously, and I’m not sure a blog is an appropriate place to discuss your marriage. From these posts you seem like a decent man who wants to do the right thing by your wife and daughters. But I was disturbed by some of the things you wrote in another post – that women should keep their heads lower than their partner’s as a way of showing respect, that we should “sweet-talk” our husband to get our way, etc. Frankly, I think such an attitude would be disrespectful of my husband.

    My husband was the first man I dated who wouldn’t go out in the middle of a blizzard to get me a candy bar if I looked at him a certain way. Every other man I dated was putty in my hands if I sweet-talked him just right – pout my lips, bat my eyelids, look up at him from a downcast face. (And really, I’m not all that. I’m not a troll but I’m not a supermodel; I’m fairly average-looking.) The fact that my (now) husband wouldn’t, is a large part of the reason we’re together. When he told me no, when he told me I was perfectly capable of doing it myself, I saw it as an indication that he saw me as his equal – he saw that I was as able and capable as he was.

    In marriage, as in life, there’s always crap you have to wade through. Sometimes this crap hits one partner worse than the other. Then, it’s up to the other partner to suck it up and pull his/her partner through the worst of it. At times the load will be unequal; but that’s okay. But imagine if you had a partner who wasn’t capable of pulling you through. Do you think Heavenly Father really designed marriage so that the man would always have to bear the brunt of the load?

    I was created “as a power or strength equal to” my husband. The Proclamation on the Family says “fathers are to preside over their households.” I like that language a lot better than “head of the household.” I think of that a bit as the Bishop presiding over a ward. He doesn’t make the big decisions unilaterally. He and his counsellors discuss it, pray about it, and then act as a single body. At the same time, the Bishop recognises that his counsellors are perfectly able to act and make many decisions without him, and his counsellors recognise that the Bishop is also capable of making many decisions without their input. Our marriage is like that too – we work as a unified body on the big stuff and give each other autonomy on everything else.

    Of course it helps that we mostly agree on the big stuff – the English cricket team is woefully poor; Clint Eastwood is completely over-rated as a director; and nothing tastes quite as nice as a barbecued lamb chop.

    Comment by Quimby — January 18, 2007 @ 4:56 pm

  191. “OH look, David is righteous and we hurt his feelings. We just shattered his illusions about feminism. That is sooo sad.”

    “I’m a big fan of civility.”

    Yes, that first comment is very civil.

    My feelings were not hurt at all, and I do not consider myself to be righteous in any way. I was not offended at all by what the women here were saying. In fact, I tend to agree with them. I was offended at the insults being thrown around, and the gross generalizations being heaped upon women - and men - by both sides of what could have been an interesting disscussion.

    Your recent post has just confirmed my feelings. The fact that I am male means that my opinion has no value here - even though I share the opinion of the majority of women who regularly post here.

    Comment by David — January 18, 2007 @ 5:17 pm

  192. Ola Senior,
    I think maybe I’m not clever enough to understand your implication. I do know what a strawman is, but I’m at a loss to understand how you see that I”ve constructed one. Please enlighten me.

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 18, 2007 @ 5:22 pm

  193. David, in confining my question to Western society, it wasn’t because I’m blind to the sexism that exists in Asia, but because I don’t have enough knowledge about Asian cultures to comment on its causes.

    I challenge you to test your theory that your opinions are discounted because you are a man by adopting a woman’s name and posting your true opinions that way. Who knows – maybe your gender has nothing to do with it.

    Comment by Quimby — January 18, 2007 @ 5:23 pm

  194. David, I thought you were leaving . . .

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 18, 2007 @ 5:44 pm

  195. Quimby,

    An interesting challenge, that I’m sorry to say has already been done. When posting with a female name, I was welcomed and treated warmly as a mildly conservative feminist. Posting as myself was the final portion of my unfortunately unsuccessful experiment.

    Comment by David — January 18, 2007 @ 5:46 pm

  196. Okay, I’m a big crank today . . . I suppose I should rise above try to be civil darnit. (Isn’t Janet nice enough for all of us? )

    Okay . . . So here’s the thing David, I didn’t think that either side was particularly insulting to each other, I thought that on the whole people shared their honest opinions in a civil manner which isn’t always pleasant, it isn’t alway nice, but I do think it is necessary.

    On the other hand. You, David, swoooped in with a schtick that (through no fault of your own), I am heartily weary of. Namely, the accusation that we are all mean feminists, and while you were once sympathetic to our cause or our blog, you now have seen the light and will not grace us with your presence any longer. I’ve seen it a million times, and I’m tired.

    You’re welcome to return, but please, please read the link in my previous comment, take my advice to heart and refrain from the old refrain.

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 18, 2007 @ 5:51 pm

  197. David, I weary of you, go find a blog where you are happy. Please. Now.

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 18, 2007 @ 5:52 pm

  198. If that’ s the case, David, then why did you say:

    This entire thread has profoundly soured my experience on this blog. The animosity and insults handed out were not only unwarrented, but were for the most part put forth simply to be argumentative . . .

    Im sure I will be rideculed for saying this, but the sexism - yes sexism - and self proclaimed superiority of some of the posters here (as well as the support given to them by others) along with the constant man-bashing have caused me to change my feelings with regard to what ‘feminism’ really is and to how I may want to be associated with it . . .

    Best wishes to all of you. I will no longer read this blog or occasionally post here. I was on the verge of guiding my Daughters to this site, but now I am glad that I never did.

    I had thought, after reading that, that these were all new issues and new concerns that had come about solely because of this particular post. But from #195, it seems I am mistaken; your feelings about this blog have nothing to do with this particular post and everything to do with previous experience. (So isn’t #180 a bit dishonest, or at least misleading?) That being the case, I wonder if you were serious about sending your daughters to this site, as you say you had been on the verge of doing before? Surely if we are all as sexist as you say we are, you wouldn’t want to expose your daughters to it.

    Comment by Quimby — January 18, 2007 @ 5:55 pm

  199. fMhlisa - I must apologize that I was too quick on the post button and didn’t realize my whole comment had not gone in. Now that I come back to the post I read your comment in a whole new light.

    It will suffice to say that I disagree that Guest is the posterboy for LDS training, society and doctrine.

    Comment by Ola Senor — January 18, 2007 @ 6:01 pm

  200. I didn’t mean that he’s the poster boy “for LDS training society and doctrine”, in the sense that this is how we want LDS men to become, or even how they generally do become (I try to hope at least) but rather rather the poster boy for the ways that even a benvolent patriarchy can warp the beliefs of a fundementally decent person.

    I remember talking about that concept awhile ago, hum, I think this is the post.

    Basically, power is a seductive and corrupting influence, and patriarchy puts all power in the hands of half the population, thus setting up a system that is much more condusive to abuse and misinterpretation and perversion. Human nature being what it is, it seems to me that common sense demands that the best systems would reduce the temptation to submit to the kind of perversion of power that prompts decent men to insist that men hold greater status than women. Patriarchy being a natural and perhaps inevitable threshold to such perversion.

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 18, 2007 @ 6:51 pm

  201. fMhLisa - I couldn’t help but laugh when I saw you inadvertently (maybe it was a freudian slip) score a goal for the opposing team when you suggested in #183:

    If anyone feels insulted on this thread it is only because they feel defensive, a stance usually taken by those who know they are wrong but too proud or scared or stubborn to admit it.

    So, remind me, how many of you was it that found my statement that women shouldn’t hold equal status to men insulting? I guess I know now why you all got so incredibly defensive. ;)

    Comment by Guest — January 18, 2007 @ 7:06 pm

  202. Janet - On a more serious note, I wanted to mention that there are many things I have yet to discover about what God expects or anticipates for us. As I reviewed some of the practices of early Saints, it’s quite shocking. Below I’ve listed three of them that were promoted, if not simply sanctioned, by members of the Church in full standing; and openly engaged in during this most recent dispensation:

    Slavery
    Polyandry
    Racist Priesthood Restriction

    I believe that the Church is blessed with a Prophet, one that can communicate God’s will for us in our own day. As a result of his inspiration, these practices no longer exist within the Church. What’s more, to advocate the return to these methods is seen as heretical and immoral. What a 180!

    With that in mind, is it impossible to imagine a time when women will independently hold the Priesthood? When homosexuality is viewed as a natural state of man? I don’t discount the possibility entirely. One needs to approach such issues with faith and humility. I think we can all concede that God has a better perspective on the needs and progression of mankind than we do, and that He does not necessarily work according to our timetable. That being said, where do we concentrate our efforts?

    I’ve often thought about what I would do had I been a member during the period of the Priesthood Ban. Early on in my adult membership, I recognized it’s subjective and arbitrary application. By definition such a policy establishes that black men should not hold equal status to men of other ethnicity. Various reasons for this have been suggested, but the fact remains, if we accept that this is the Lord’s Church and that He had the power at any time to change such a policy through His prophet, then it was God’s will that it be (or be allowed to be) this way for a period of time. How would it have advanced my eternal progression if I had paraded about in protest at Church headquarters, or simply burned my temple recommend and left the Church? In hindsight these actions may appear inspired and progressive, but consider if we had been wrong? What if it were God’s design that black members never receive the priesthood in order to fulfill some objective we cannot see, nor perhaps could even comprehend. Would we have not been better off to operate within established guidelines to care for, listen, respect, and honor the contributions of black members of the Church?

    I cannot say that women hold equal status to men within the Church, because that conclusion is not supported by the facts. Ironically, Quimby makes this point for me by equating her marriage to a Bishopric in which her husband (as Bishop) and she (as his counselor) work as one to manage and address the happenings within their lives; but I ask you, if there were an issue that had to be resolved, and the Bishop took one position, and the counselor another, to whom would the final decision fall? Would the task remain undone until a concensus had been reached? I think we realize that the answer is no. If pressed for time, the wishes of the Bishop would be carried out, and the counselor would either humble himself and support that decision, or be removed.

    I do not profess to know what God has in store for us in the future, but I can testify to the situation as it now exists, and as a faithful and devout member of the Church, expect that situation to continue in it’s current state until such time as the Lord indicates otherwise; at which point my testimony will be key to my flexibility. There is no doubt in my mind that it was a trial for those black Saints submitting themselves to what appeared to be unsupported and un-Christ-like policies, only to have the situation reverse and now have the other members of the Church face the trial of their faith in accepting the authority and inspiration of the Prophet. Perhaps now is the time for women to submit in patience to the leadership and guidance of men. After which, during the millenium, women will assume a position of authority and every man will have to learn meekness in order for him to progress into the eternities.

    Whatever the plan, I have confidence that the Lord has only my best interest at heart. That He is preparing for my return, and any position within His kingdom would cause me such unbridled joy, I’d never notice that it is my eternal duty to clean the celestial latrine. What can I do now to secure my eternal salvation? Obey and serve. To paraphrase a popular hymn, I’ll go wherever you want me to go, dear Lord… I’ll be whatever you want me to be.

    Comment by Guest — January 18, 2007 @ 7:38 pm

  203. I cannot say that women hold equal status to men within the Church

    Guest, none of us are saying that women hold equal status to men within the Church. But you are saying that women and men don’t hold equal status, period. That’s much different. And I still hold - based on scriptural evidence - that the inequality between men and women in the church is the work of man, not the work of God.

    Please don’t misinterpret what I said about “presiding”, either. My father has been in many bishoprics. At times, there is conflict – the bishop has one view, his counsellors another. However – and this is key – the bishop has never unilaterally made the decision. Instead, he and his counsellors fast and pray about it until they reach a unanimous decision. That’s how my marriage works.

    Comment by Quimby — January 18, 2007 @ 7:44 pm

  204. Guest,
    You’re conflating disparate concepts again. I’m sensing this is a problem with you.

    One can be a perfectly civil racist. Or a nice nice nice sexist. You can maintain good manners (which I do appreciate in you) and still have insulting offensive and even evil ideas.

    I can recognize and appreciate your civility and still condemn your immorality. This is not a defensive stance, but rather a moral one.

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 18, 2007 @ 7:57 pm

  205. Perhaps now is the time for women to submit in patience to the leadership and guidance of men.

    Why? Because of some physiological difference? You have a Y, I have an X - why should your Y give you power over my X?

    You seem now to be talking about women in the gospel. Alright – as a woman in the gospel I have a very limited role. But I made the choice to be a member of this organisation; so I suck it up, and if I can’t suck it up, I leave.

    But it’s different in the rest of the world.

    Either God created man and woman as equal - which is what we’re told in Genesis – look up the root of eber kgnedo – or God created man as superior, or God created woman as superior. Now, we already know the answer – like I said, it’s in Genesis. But let’s pretend for the sake of argument that God created man to be superior, since that is what you seem to believe.

    Why? Why would God create man with such an inherent flaw that they can’t put up with women as their equals? I am sure I’m not explaining this very well, so I’ll use the example of Sheik al-Hilaly and try to bring it back around.

    Last year, Sheik al-Hilaly, Australia’s highest-ranking Muslim cleric, said that women were responsible for rape if they weren’t wearing the hijab. In other words – A man can’t control his sexual urge if he sees a woman’s hair. Well, I think we can all say that’s stupid. But if we take it to its natural conclusion, he’s either saying that women don’t have sexual urges (because men don’t have to cover up their heads to keep women from wanting to have sex with them), which is insulting to women; or he’s saying that women are superior to men, because we can control our sexual urges but men can’t, which is insulting to men.

    I see gender equality the same way. If God created woman lower than men because men couldn’t cope with having someone around who was his equal, well, what does that say about men? Are you really so weak and insecure in yourself that you can’t put up with a woman being your equal? Don’t you see how that’s insulting, not just to women, but to men as well?

    Comment by Quimby — January 18, 2007 @ 8:00 pm

  206. Quimby,
    Interestingly, while I agree that women (obviously) do not have equal status within the church, it is surprising how many orthodox types tried to argue the opposite in the post I linked to in 200 in an attempt to defend patriarchy.

    So is it more disturbing that they deny the obvious and disturbing reality in order maintain their illusions of equality, or that Guest is willing to acknowledge the obvious and use it to justify a doctrine of male eminece?

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 18, 2007 @ 8:09 pm

  207. Lisa, I think this may be another thing that goes back to my uterus.

    Guest says that women are inferior to men (#62), and that a woman’s role is to be a mother (#73). Hence, motherhood is inferior to anything a man can do.

    The traditional orthodoxy of the church is that motherhood is equal to the priesthood – but it’s something we only pay lip service to. And it’s also a bit wishy-washy, since any man can hold the priesthood but not any woman can be a mother.

    But if we actually celebrated fertility – if we actually recognised it for the glorious thing it is instead of calling it a ‘burden’ or a ‘punishment’ – and if we acknowledged that women play a dominant role in procreation - wouldn’t that go at least a little way towards really making women in the church equal to men?

    And if we women were able to reclaim a little bit of power and respect this way, isn’t it possible that might open the door for us to reclaim a little bit more power and respect in other ways?

    Comment by Quimby — January 18, 2007 @ 8:18 pm

  208. On a more serious note, I wanted to mention that there are many things I have yet to discover about what God expects or anticipates for us.

    Yep, that’s the real clincher about mortality, isn’t it? :). When we stop asking and think we’ve got it all figure out, trouble comes-a-knocking.

    IF God really does want women to patiently submit as a trial of their faith (not what I believe, but I’m willing to entertain the possibility that I’m wrong–though on this one, yeeeouch! I’d have a mental breakdown, I imagine) then I’d think men’s dominant position should present an equal challenge for their faith. I’d think good men would find the notion of their superiority disturbing and, if convinced it were God’s will, approach it with a ginormous amount of humility and possibly even a huge dose of sadness. I know guys like that and I like them (married one in fact–he likes the idea of me being a goddess beside him in the eternities) I think it’s kind of what you were relaying about. the challenge you’d have felt during the priesthood ban. Lots of people stuck it out despite HUGE struggles with the issue, and I think in the long run that’s a good thing. I wonder what I’d have done (probably had the aforementioned mental breakdown really). But it’s also good that they felt troubled by the situation at the time. The new book about David O. McKay has some great stuff on the subject–it’s a good read, generally.

    Oh–about slavery. Positions were mixed. One of the reasons the early saints annoyed the ticking out of the population of Missouri lay with the fact that many church members immigrated from Europe, held abolitionist feelings, and threatened to tip the political scales in a swing state. Missouri (my home for 8.5 years) seems doomed to swing state status, poor thing. I spend a lot of time hoping my ancestors filled out the abolitionist crowd, but who knows.

    Comment by Janet — January 18, 2007 @ 8:36 pm

  209. Interesting questions in #208, Quimby. Certainly an alarming number of folks in the church seem to think infertility reflects on the plausible unworthiness of the infertile woman, but it doesn’t seem like the fertile women or fertility itself receive much adulation. It’s just the “default” position. I wonder…… I do see emerging sensitivity on these issues (in that oh-so-careful publication, the Ensign, which has published more articles on infertility in the past 3 years than in the entire history of the publication). Hmm, hmmm, hmmm. Hmmm.

    Comment by Janet — January 18, 2007 @ 8:39 pm

  210. And of course, Janet, the problem is adulating fertility is that it runs the very real risk of making women who struggle with fertility feel less worthy or less equal - so how do you balance that out?

    Comment by Quimby — January 18, 2007 @ 8:44 pm

  211. Yeah–I was wondering the same thing, since the small amount of adulation the fertile receive already makes me feel like crap, and I’m rather hard to offend. Big emphatic sigh. I’m for celebrating the power men and women have in creating life TOGETHER, and nurturing it after creation, TOGETHER. You really have to combine the two or you wind up celebrating the fertile drug addict’s fecundity (a woman in my infertility support group dug up an actual medical study showing that crack could cause hyperovulation–you can imagine the jokes we all made about running out for a corner score).

    You know all the jokes about John getting his “man card” revoked? What those folks don’t realize is that there’s nothing sexier than a guy who is being cute with a baby. Nothing. (Or maybe I’m weird.)

    Comment by Janet — January 18, 2007 @ 8:54 pm

  212. Please stop.

    You know, I don’t really have time to read all the comments in this thread, so I don’t know whether apologies or retractions have been issued…

    But I felt that the military guest’s original post was rather polite and reasonable. Even if you don’t agree with it (I don’t), he wasn’t being extreme or hateful about it.

    But I felt that the immediate response he got was rude and obnoxious. I was dissappointed to see how quickly many of the regulars assumed calcified ideological combat stances and immediately rushed first to cariacature his remarks and then to throw around insults and contempt.

    I felt Quimby was unecessarily combative and let a spirit of anger dominate her response. I felt pained just reading many of her responses.

    Not Ophelia, in a charming display of manners, suggested the guy is thinking with his penis.

    Then the whole thing was endorsed by fMhLisa and then various additional commenters.

    Honestly, I couldn’t bring myself to read much past comment 100. It hurt to watch you all do this to yourselves.

    What is wrong with you people? I don’t care what you think of the guest’s opinions. I find them problematic myself. But I would have hoped for a little more mature response and an honest attempt to explain to the guest why his opinions where disagreed with, or what was upsetting about them. Instead I was treated to an angry, self-righteous shout-down by Quimby with several other regulars egging her on (which I consider just as bad). This is a shabby way to treat your commenters. It’s not like this was a case of someone trolling for a fight with rude and offensive language.

    At the very least, I would have hoped for one of the moderators to step in and tell everyone to chill out.

    I feel like this is an unfortunate display of playground bullying. Where groups of children who are friends with each other will band together to laugh at, shout down and belittle the outsider.

    I expected better of you. I feel awful about posting like this, but hasn’t this gone on long enough?

    Comment by Seth R. — January 18, 2007 @ 9:05 pm

  213. Not Ophelia, in a charming display of manners, suggested the guy is thinking with his penis.

    Nah. Reread it [#66]. It wasn’t aimed at guest, or any one in particular, it was just one of those too-tempting-to-resist retorts. I mean how can you ignore an opening like this: How much power and intelligence does one teeny little appendage have, anyway?

    Answer: A lot, so it seems.

    Comment by Not Ophelia — January 18, 2007 @ 9:28 pm

  214. I have a real problem with adulating fertility. Fertility is a biological factor, nothing to do with me. You might as well adulate me for respiration or having a heart that pumps blood.

    It seems . . . degrading almost. Maybe too harsh a word, but still. The priesthood at least operates on priciples of righteousness. There’s some thinking and choosing and active mindful decision making. Not just some biological fertile or not randomness.

    Comment by Not Ophelia — January 18, 2007 @ 9:39 pm

  215. Celebrate nurturing, then?

    Actually, I think we can and should celebrate respiration and such. That’s not necessarily the same thing as giving ourselves credit for it, mind you, but your point is well taken. But even the meaning of the word “fertility” can transcend mere biological function. That might just be the poet in me talking, however.

    Comment by Janet — January 18, 2007 @ 9:48 pm

  216. Seth,
    Honestly my gut reaction, which I’m trying to control is a sarcastic, “oh no, are the ladies behaving badly again”. Seriously, though, I find the burden of being expected to smile politely while being told of my inferior status entirely too many sexist expectations to fulfill at the moment. I’ll proudly wear the bitch hat for this one.

    Yes, we’ve egged each other on, because we’ve been trained since birth to not notice or politely simper away the slights. I don’t want quimby to think that when she is speaking the thoughts so many do not dare to speak that she is alone simply because she is brave.

    And honestly, I think we’ve been remarkable circumspect. Try going onto any other minority or oppressed group’s blog and informing them that they do not have equal status, I’d honestly be shocked if they we’re half as polite as we are being.

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 18, 2007 @ 10:00 pm

  217. I too have a problem with adulating fertility. I’ve been trying to parse out why as I’ve been getting the punks ready for bed, and I haven’t been able to nail it entirely. Part of it is the fact that it is just a bodily fuction as NO says. Selfish women make babies, evil women do, stupid women.

    And yet, it’s a reeeallllllly reeeallly cool bodily function. And nothing in my life has ever made me feel more powerful, more beautiful, more capable (which may have just been the hormones trying to trick me into forgetting how much it freakin’ hurt.)

    Plus, I really really don’t like the motherhood/priesthood quagmire. It feels to me like a tiny mishappen bandaid, people desperatly try to stretch over this gaping wound of inequality.

    I really do think motherhood/fatherhood is the correct comparison. Even though biology does give us the heavier physical burden, and perhaps a leg or two up initially in the nurturing department (perhaps), I think fatherhood can be just as valuable and precious and powerful as motherhood, the individuals involved rather than biology makes most of the difference.

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 18, 2007 @ 10:18 pm

  218. No Lisa,

    I honestly don’t care what gender is behaving badly. And you ought to know it. I will be very dissappointed in you if you try to start pigeonholing me into a convenient bumper sticker slogan. Commenters are real people. Not opportunities to score debate points.

    There’s little real “bravery” going on here. Just rudeness and unfocused anger and that is not something I can get behind.

    As for comparing yourself to other minority blogs… Who cares what their reaction would be? What sort of a moral compass is that?

    Comment by Seth R. — January 18, 2007 @ 10:19 pm

  219. Seth, do you really think I should just smile nicely and put up with it when people tell me I’m inferior? If I was a black person and you asked me to do that, it’d be called Uncle Tomming. But what, it’s appropriate, since we’re talking about genders and not race?

    Comment by Quimby — January 18, 2007 @ 10:23 pm

  220. NO – that’s a very fair and valid point. I’m not quite sure what I’m getting at here . . . It’s just, we say “motherhood is equal to the priesthood” and then we denigrate motherhood, call it a burden, call it punishment, etc. – and where’s the equality in that? I guess if we don’t want to adulate fertility – and I can see why you’re saying we shouldn’t – maybe we should just do away with the entire illusion of “motherhood is equal to the priesthood” and call a spade a spade and say, “Sorry, you’re a woman, and so you have a lower status in this church.” I don’t know – which is better?

    Comment by Quimby — January 18, 2007 @ 10:25 pm

  221. Seth,
    I think the real problem may be that you think that this is about debate points.

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 18, 2007 @ 10:32 pm

  222. No Quimby,

    But I do expect you to show a bit of common courtesy.

    To tell the truth, your comments are not much different from GeorgeD’s when he was trolling around here.

    Except that yours are longer.

    And better written. I will give you that.

    Comment by Seth R. — January 18, 2007 @ 10:58 pm

  223. Lisa, is that what it is?

    Comment by Seth R. — January 18, 2007 @ 10:59 pm

  224. The problem is, Seth, I’ve never learned how to be taken seriously as a woman and be polite.

    I’m not being sarcastic here. Every single time I’ve tried to politely rebuke sexism, it’s been seen as a tacit agreement with what is being said. It seems to me that if you are a woman and you are polite to people like that, they will use it as an excuse to tweak your nose and say, “Ah, she’s a feminist, isn’t that adorable!” And if you come at it with more force, they will call you names and tell you to behave. And I have never been able to find that middle ground, where I will be taken seriously for rebuking sexism without it seeming rude.

    Frankly, I’d rather be called names. At least if they’re calling me names, they aren’t ignoring me.

    Comment by Quimby — January 18, 2007 @ 11:04 pm

  225. Seth, this isn’t just some lame debate or arguing for the sake of arguing. If somebody came on here and started saying that ANYONE was inferior, I don’t care how polite they are being or how well formed some stupid argument is, they are so wrong and deserves to be told as much, in no uncertain terms. This isn’t debate club, its a feminist blog. I find it interesting that what I have found to be educational and inspiring (Quimby/Lisas et al posts) you have found to be mean-spirited.

    And I hate the whole ‘we are real people argument’, the dude posted as ‘guest’ for crying out loud. The great thing about the internet, and especially the mormon blogs, is the ability to speak my mind about these things in relative anonyminity. (I have no idea if I spelled that right). Reading this thread has given much such a huge uplift this week, you have no idea.

    Comment by Veritas — January 18, 2007 @ 11:54 pm

  226. Quimby, you have more choices than the ones you laid out in 219. You did make Guest’s statements more extreme. From my perspective, you were rude and confused the agument by taking his statements beyond what they were. You could have engaged in an equally powerful dialogue without it and you chose not to. That choice has reduced the quality of your presentation even if your underlying tenants hold.

    Comment by Mary Ann — January 19, 2007 @ 12:02 am

  227. And Lisa, #206

    The biggest problem with the patriarchy/hierarchy in the church is this: if women and men are equals before god and everything eles, then we can’t count on the church to help us live the truth about our gender.

    It seems to me that Guest has done nothing more than create a world view based on current doctrine. Sure, that’s a bad world view. But if the church doesn’t provide a useful world view, what use is it?

    I don’t agree with Guest, but I can’t act like he pulled these ideas out of the air.

    Comment by Mary Ann — January 19, 2007 @ 12:10 am

  228. Wow–that was exhausting. Anybody who makes it this far gets brownie points for tenacity, including me.

    While I will spare you all a point by point response to everything you’ve raised, I have a couple of thoughts:

    - RE, Guest’s definition of “forward” leadership = man on the moon, etc. vs. “nurturing” inappropriate pseudo-leadership–this reminds me of that line from Jurassic Park where whathisbucket scientist dude says, “you were so busy figuring out if you could do it [recreate living dinosaurs], you didn’t stop to consider whether you should.” (or something like that–any JP fans out there?). Anyway, while I’m all in favor of advancing our scientific knowledge of the physical universe, what if we had had leadership that had really lead and influenced society to be just as caught up in the race to end poverty, violence, and bigotry of every kind? What if we Americans had had leaders who could unite the country behind those sorts of goals and put the magnitude of resources into them as they did the space race? Just imagine if our society could be just as rapt at real progress towards peace and the elimination of violence and want as we were at man’s first steps on the moon. Call it nurturing. (It is.) But I call it REAL leadership. And neither nurturing nor “real forward leadership” are exclusive to either women or men.

    - RE, Qumiby vs. Guest. Quimby wins, hands down, both in tone and content. She had a better grasp on logic and doctrine. Though I agree with whoever it was that said the God card was overplayed. It came across as condescending and self-righteous. But the whole “it’s inappropriate for women to do what men do” card was way more condescending and self-righteous, carefully arranged in pretty sentiments and, I believe, a sincere attempt to understand and explain, though it was.

    I also agree that it’s hard for a woman and/or a feminist to find a middle ground wherein she may both rebuke sexism and be considered nice or “appropriately behaved.” Personally, I prefer Quimby’s approach of being willing to get in the ring instead of impotently objecting. I’m all for courtesy, but sometimes being “nice” can make the problem worse. Or, rather, it can sweep the problem under the rug, instead of helping resolve it.

    - I reject the motherhood/priesthood parallel. Faulty, flawed, and not of God (in my (not so?) humble opinion). No. Women do have a greater biological power/burden for creating life and men have a greater biological power/burden for brute strength. I might even say that we have the same biological strength, but women’s is directed toward bearing the children and men’s is directed toward fending off predators, ergo, women’s physical “weakness” is just a tradeoff for another kind of physical strength. (Men’s greater brute strength does have it’s cost in higher mortatily at every phase of existence, but I digress….) Anyway, once we dispatch the erroneous problem of women’s identity role being primarily biological/reproductive, we can also admit that in all other spheres women are equal to men. Yes, you may argue that women and men have different spiritual and intellectual roles, just as they have different biological roles (though I doubt we’ll get to a consensus about that), but you must at least admit they have equal capacities and equal STATUS, both before each other and before God.

    And, just a little something to think about, our intellectual and spiritual roles are immortal, while our biological roles are mortal. In our resurrected, perfect, biological, immortal state, perhaps the biological differences won’t be so noticeable. Likewise, while we may have restricted spiritual roles in this life (and, like Janet said, I’m not so sure that’s entirely God’s will–personally I think God lets us (even “us” as a church) stumble through mistakes & misconceptions so we can learn… and learn to think and challenge the status quo and make the world better etc. … ‘nother threadjack). Anyway, while we, for better or worse, have restricted, disparate spiritual roles in this life (intellectual differences I chalk up largely to social conditioning), I think it’s clear that our, er, resurrected spiritual roles will be entirely equal, free from the flaws and mistakes and prejudices of mortality.

    Still working that last one out.

    Comment by Artemis — January 19, 2007 @ 12:15 am

  229. And I agree with Mary Ann & Veritas (225, 227), substituting Mary Ann’s use of “current doctrine” with “current policy and understanding of doctrine”.

    Comment by Artemis — January 19, 2007 @ 12:21 am

  230. Artemis, I like the idea of your 228 last paragraph, but it requires substantial revision to the “gender is eternal” doctrine:

    “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

    and
    “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. ”

    It would hope the limitations placed on our gender are for this life only, but we have no proof of that. We can only speculate. Whose to say if eternal “equality” will be as unequal as it is in mortality?

    Comment by Mary Ann — January 19, 2007 @ 1:24 am

  231. I don’t want to come off as thinking that I have all the answers. I surely don’t . But I have given much thought over the many years of my life to these issues of why gender roles, and what led to the lower status in society of women. I offer here some thoughts, questions really, that may stimulate your further discussion.

    Women are built for nurturing, far more than men. From the equipment for nursing to wider, softer hips for carrying babies on, to the way their brains multi-prossess input, that helps them recognize a babies cry over many other load noises far better than men can; the fact is that women are adapted to the nurturing role in family life. What are men better adapted for then?

    Men had eyes farther back below larger forhead brows. This better protects their eyes in a fight. Men have far greater upper body strength, which is so helpful in fighting and/or hunting. Men are larger, with greater sudden burst strength, which is essential in fighting and defending. Men are adapted to be the protectors while women are best equiped for nurturing. And the differences are so delightful, and make interesting and pleasant.

    Men have been hurting during the last few decades as the economy has become a knowledge based one. Women’s disadvantages in physical strength has ceased to limit them in their abilities in the workplace/industry. So men have felt a loss of being needed as providers. City living, good police and handguns have taken away the family’s need for men to be the protectors to. So all of the things men are physically better at are not relevant or needed anymore.

    One consequence seems to be the shift in percentage of women living independent of men. Over half of women now live without a man in their home. For hetero guys, that’s tough news. We are needed anymore, at least not like grandfather was.

    All the things women are better adapted for are still relevant, both to men and to society. From romantic/sexual partner, to bearing babies, to nurturing, to the sweet mildness that comes so easily to women and makes life so much more pleasant in the home, women are still very needed and relevant.

    When a women desires a husband to love and be loved by, and babies come, she is less able to perform many kinds of workplace tasks while she bears the child. As a mom, she can nurse the baby (and should, I think) and since she’s recovering from birth, and up in the night to nurse, she naturally transitions into a baby nurturing role. I’ve always argued that men could do it, but it is so natural and easy for mom to do it. These and other natural abilities cause many couples to have the mom become the homemaker, and the dad to become the primary breadwinner. Thus the classic family pattern. it’s just a naturally flowing specialization of family tasks based on our inherent adaptations.

    More subtle but profound is the fact that men usually take the risks in life to keep the woman safe. John Grey tells of a time when his brother was cross country skiing with his brother’s fiancee. They came to a place that had a danger of snowslide, so his brother went alone down the trail to make sure it was safe for the fiancee, and was killed when the snowslide burried him. It was fine years before Mr. Grey thougth about why did it seem obvious that the man should take the risk to keep the women safe? It was on a level of instinct that the man should take the risk. Is the woman the weaker vessel, or the privileged vessel? Privileged to stay alive, because her beau took the risk.

    Women want to be allowed to have combat duties in the military, but women are privileged to not be subject to the draft and have to go and take the risks to keep their country safe, especially to keep the women of their country safe. Men do go, and they don’t have so much choice as women. Men take high risk jobs for more than women. Why? Because those jobs pay well.

    Why don’t women take the dangerous, less fun jobs for the money? Well, men are greatly advantaged in the dating pool if they have high paying jobs. They need income to deserve and to get loved by desireable women. Women are not disadvantaged in the dating pool becuase they have low income jobs. Once again, women are safer because they are women. At least they have the choice to take a low paying, but emotionally rewarding job, and not have to loose love because of it. That is a major reason why the traditionally low paying jobs are filled by women. Those are the safe and enjoyably nurturing jobs, people serving occupations. Nurse, teacher, waitress. Women don’t tend to prefer to marry men in those jobs, but men are not off-put by a woman who is. It is about finding love, and about the fact that men are expected to take the risks.

    There is a concept of a critical number. I think in the workplace that number is considered to be about 14%. When 14% of managers are women, then discrimination ends, because women are perceived as appropriate choices for management positions, and the image of such a position is no longer one of a man, necessarily. When so many women choose not to work as pipe fitters, plumbers, or electricians, then people tend to not imagine women in those jobs. When so many women choose to be nurses, or bank tellers, such that we seldom see anyone in that job who isn’t female, then we build a sterotype of that being a woman’s job. When it’s always easy to find enough waitresses, or bank tellers, we’ll see pay for those jobs be fairly low.

    Sure, none of that explains the patriarchal PH pattern in the church. Even the fact that a pregnant bishop, out for maternity leave, would be disruptive of the “house of order” for the ward, does not explain it. But they do explain why mideaval societies tended to view women as weaker, less productive in farming or fighting, and since power came with military leadership, men tended to have the power. Now that physical strength has nothing to do with it anymore, changes are taking place. But society is slow to change. Social norms continue.

    Personally, I thought it would be awfully nice to be a house husband. I thought about the advantages a lot. But I never found a woman who was interested in me that had any chance of earning enough to keep me in the style that I was capable of keeping her. It is very hard for a man, especially a mormon man, to find and court a women who wants a househusband for her spouse. Some men fall into that, but not many. None that I’ve known sought it and found it.

    So both my wives have been the housewife oriented type Mormon, and I’ve been the main breadwinner. I encouraged each wife to see if they couldn’t contribute financially once the kids were in school. The first wife didn’t do anything about earning until after she dumped me. But my current wife worked as a school secretary for a time and now is starting to have some success as a realtor. Job choices that allow her to be home when the kids need her there, but do make a financial contribution.

    Even if the sterotypes come from natural factors, or choices made by many individuals responding to natural, as well as cultrural factors, that doesn’t justify them, or make them right. It just helps explain how they came about. Like my inability to pursue being a house husband, women find that they face great challenges trying to become Army generals or Navy Admirals.

    Church policy now says I, and other males, are never to be in a classroom alone with children again. So when I substitute for my wife in her primary class, I have to find another guy to stay in the classroom with me. I presume the frustration I feel about that is different than the frustration women feel about not being able to visit with a sister to get their temple recommend, but maybe I can find some insight in it.

    Anyway, food for thought.

    Comment by Trueheart — January 19, 2007 @ 8:10 am

  232. Quimby, maybe politeness doesn’t get you the quick and dirty results you want. But it will strengthen your cause far more in the long run. Martin Luther King took this approach and his legacy will be remembered far longer than the vengeful and angry Malcom X (who I believe set the cause of civil rights back about 30 years). Until you are willing to put in the effort to be polite and taken seriously, you will always be more of a liability to your cause than an asset. Like it or not, you need to draw men to your cause. I don’t care if they’ve treated you like dirt until now or not. You still need them on-board if you are going to go anywhere with this.

    The phrase “well behaved women seldom make history” is no defense here. Because it ignores the fact that many of feminism’s most influential pioneers actually did a pretty good job of maintaining the moral high ground. In reality, they were polite and gracious. It was their political enemies who slapped the label of “misbehavior” on them. That’s a key difference that is being ignored here.

    I would hope this blog aspires to be more than a First-Wives-Club-esque excercise in bitterness and mutual you-go-girl backslapping.

    I think it is and will be. I imagine Veritatis is correct in pointing out that some very good posts have been written here by Quimby and others. I wouldn’t know. As I said, I stopped reading around comment 100. My objection was to the angry way Quimby came out swinging and uncharitably misconstruing the guest’s position in his first post to fit her own agenda (reading a few of the most recent posts, I don’t see that she has backed down from this position). Whatever hole the guest dug himself into later, the initial response to his first post was overwrought, and cynically opportunistic.

    And guest is exactly the kind of person you need to win over if you are serious about advancing the dialogue in our society.

    Comment by Seth R. — January 19, 2007 @ 9:02 am

  233. Seth, we may be reading different history books–Dr. King and the suffragists were completely in-your-face. They were non-violent, sure, but activism and civil disobedience are anything but ‘nice’ and ‘passive’ and ‘polite.’ Suffragists were confrontational in their lobbying and demonstrations and used language that highlighted their moral superiority. While you can still respect the human dignity of your opponents, the fact is that politeness is all about maintaining the status quo. Challenging cherished norms is never polite. Politeness has never changed the world. Jesus, for example, was not polite.

    That said, by the standards of feminist forums today, Quimby and fmhLisa were quite reserved. Try stepping into Pandagon or feministe or any of the other big feminist blogs and say “women should not hold equal status to men” and you will be eaten alive, my friend.

    Comment by JohnR — January 19, 2007 @ 9:53 am

  234. Mary Ann, I’m not so sure that it does. It says ‘gender is eternal’, not ‘our understanding or biological expressions of gender are eternal’. Not only that, but we believe in ‘eternal progression’ and development of the self. I believe our understanding of gender, even in the gospel context, is still very undeveloped and that we greatly over-emphasize the differences because of our mortal context, either for the biological imperatives (men are stronger (bigger) fighters in a physical contest, or because of mortal failings and prejudices (I want to make myself better/more respected/more powerful in society, so I will give my gender greater status, etc.).

    Gender may be eternal, but our understanding of its nature or expression needn’t be. Nor does that flout current understanding of doctrine.

    Comment by Artemis — January 19, 2007 @ 10:17 am

  235. Trueheart,
    I recognize in your most recent addition to the thread a great deal of personal working-through of things. Mine differs from yours, and in the same spirit of sharing that you began, I’d like to respond with my own way of making sense of it.

    Women are built to bear infants and keep them alive into early childhood. They do this far better than men. But this is not what I thing nurturing is. Women do not more easily endure months and months (even years) of thankless, exhausting, maddening work which (but for the few transcendent moments of baby’s firsts) sums it up nicely for me. By virtue of gender, a woman is no more able to love, teach, rear, discipline, encourage etc. She is no better at coping with agrivation. She is not more naturally patient. I don’t think women have any “inherent” advantage in nurturing. Patenting is a challenge to either gender and neither has a corner on its needed virtues.

    Men are not so much more strong than women that women could not do what they do. Contemporary men tend to engage in activities to deliberately increase their strength (which is I think an expression of vanity), and women don’t. But none of that has to do with natural ability.

    There is a historic trend of men being the defenders/soldiers/warriors, but I believe that is unrelated to strength or fighting ability. I think it has to do with expendability. Men are expendable, women aren’t. Theoretically, a nation could loose all but one man and not die out. The uneven task of reproducing makes this easy. But a society can’t loose all the women. Without our reproductive abilities a society dies out in one generation. Thus, for the sake of the future the wagons are circled around us while the boys go out to fight (and to die). And society moves forward without them.

    I think you are right that somewhere along the line, this got all twisted, and men (maybe women too?) started telling each other that a woman couldn’t fight even if she wanted to, that women are weak, that men are better. Lame thing to do, but it was obviously done.

    Generalities about marriage, money, etc. are tough, because we all know women whose husbands really rake in the dough, and it is easy to judge those situations and people. I married my husband when he still had three years to go on a BA, and within 3 months of the wedding it was clear to me that I had to be prepared to be the breadwinner. I’m not the only mormon woman who married too young to ensure my husband’s earning potential. Just anecdotally, out of my siblings and my husband’s (11 all together) all of the married women have supported their family either entirely or significantly.

    As for the church, you stated that social change is slow, and I doubt you mean to say that the church’s revelation is dictated by outside social change, but it did sound like that. Society constructs men and women very differently, a lot of men this, women that. But I don’t think our souls are much different. I would think that divine revelation is there precisely for those times when “all the world has gone astray”. I am bothered by the many times when I see the world reflected in our doctrine. We, men and women, have one eternal pattern to follow: God. How then, with one example for our mutual perfection, can we really be so different?

    Comment by Mary Ann — January 19, 2007 @ 10:22 am

  236. Seth,
    Seriously, I am a big fan of civility. I also believe that there is a difference between being nice and being civil. We were civil, we were honest, we were tough. I have no apologies. None. And please note that you just admited that you didn’t even read over half of this discussion, and then rebuked us for the tone of it? Please, I ask as politely as I can manage, never do that ever again.

    You didn’t even read it.

    What does that say about you? That you think I should be sweet to the person telling me of my inferior status, that you think you can berate me for a debate you haven’t even read, that you even consider that it is your place to do so, even if you had read it? I think it would be healthy for you to do some deep painful self-reflection and stop worrying about my behavior and worry about yours.

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 19, 2007 @ 10:28 am

  237. Artemis,
    I just saw your answer. I agree with you that very little of our social views of gender will follow us into immortality, but we are told that our bodies are in the image of God’s. I suppose you are suggesting that there’s room for variance there– that we are vaguely in the image of God? I can go with that. We know so little about eternity anyway.

    Which in itself is troubling to me. Whenever I express these concerns I am generally told to “trust God” and that if he says I’ll be happy then I surely will be. It is more than a little frustrating, becuase in a religion where you hear so often that “the gospel makes so much sense” these things really, really don’t.

    Comment by Mary Ann — January 19, 2007 @ 10:31 am

  238. “A strange strange litany of verses and reverses
    adlibs and rehearses
    clouds burst and words cursed
    an argument breaks out
    it’s one we’ve all heard before, it’s boring
    had us all snoring from the first line
    one after another chimed in perfect time
    tired rehashes of petty cashes and mismatches
    you shoulda coulda’s
    and “why didn’t ‘tcha dida’s”
    crippling snippets aimed at the heart
    to inflame and impart blame
    framed like Mumia
    verbal diarrhoea
    creating chasms between the souls of two
    or two billion
    nations torn apart
    station to station damnation
    with much deliberation and very little consideration
    to the return on the damage from the altercation
    collateral condemnation
    then denyin’ like colorization of an old black and white
    create a revision of the recent last night
    the fight that started with two words, “I’m right”

    taken from “Speaking in tongues”, Michael Franti

    Comment by alan — January 19, 2007 @ 10:33 am

  239. I don’t agree with Guest, but I can’t act like he pulled these ideas out of the air.

    Maryann,
    I agree with this. It was the point I must not have made very well in my comments about how our church culture and patriarchy can pervert the beliefs of even decent well-meaning men.

    And JohnR,
    You are absolutely correct. Non-violent and non-confrontational are not even remotely the same thing. Interestingly, JFK and other sympathetic white male elites were constantly begging King and SNCC and CORE to be more polite, less confrontational, to work with the “proper” system rather than getting in the faces of racist elite. “no no, don’t march there, that’ll just make the racists mad, and that won’t solve anything, no no, don’t sit on that bus that’s just bad manners, no no don’t say that, that’s rude and angry. Behave yourselves, be patient and polite.” They didn’t they weren’t, and yes, they made the racists angry, and upset the sympathatic elite in Washington, and scared the entire country, because change is scary.

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 19, 2007 @ 10:40 am

  240. alan, love it. I don’t think it really fits the context here, I’m savign a copy anyway. It realy is beautiful.

    Comment by Mary Ann — January 19, 2007 @ 10:42 am

  241. i think it fits the latter part of the “conversation” very well.

    i have tried to read this post but can only focus on the last few entries and it seems to me that both sides are trying really hard to prove “i’m rigtht”

    Comment by alan — January 19, 2007 @ 10:52 am

  242. fMhLisa - re #201 - I am sure it is a little late for the response but here goes. I understood what you meant about poster boy not being the ideal, but the current reality. I disagree with you still. While I agree that there is the potential for this to occur, I believe this is the exception, which should not define the rule. And “poster boy” implied to me the highest and best, defining example of.

    By your definition and argument, a patriarchy is no worse or better than a matriarchy would be because it “puts all power in the hands of half the population”. Now that we have gotten gender out of the way….

    My real disagreement is with your argument that the church “puts all power in the hands of half the population”. Perhaps an argument could be made for symbolic power, but I can’t see a realistic argument being made that women have no power in the church. Sure, there might be some women who feel like they have no power, but the same would go for men. The question is, to solve a problem of past domination, do we enact artificial structural changes, or promote education, tolerance and betterment of the individuals?

    Patriarchy, for better or worse, is the gospel plan for the church. Notice I say nothing about careers, work, or worldly tasks. We must all earn our bread by the sweat of our brow. But we see clear from the scriptures and the temple that the patriarchy will preside, but the priesthood must preside as christ would.

    Comment by Ola Senor — January 19, 2007 @ 11:08 am

  243. JohnR,

    I disagree.

    fMhLisa,

    I stand chastened. I will read the entire thread. I tried to limit myself to a single segment of the discussion but it seems I failed there.

    If I have anything productive to contribute to the substance of what is being discussed rather than the general tone, I will do so. But I think it’s time for me to stop arguing about the topic of incivility. I still think it occurred. But I can already see where I’m headed with this. As the argument progresses, I’m highly likely to become defensive and start taking positions more extreme than the ones I actually hold. I try to avoid this, but I know my tendencies and it seems likely here. I also believe I may have hastily taken Quimby’s tone and unfairly applied it to innocent bystanders (for instance, I read Lisa’s comments as an official endorsement when, in reality, I had little basis for that conclusion). For that I apologize.

    I’m not backing down however. I still think the initial response to guest’s comment was uncivil and unecessarily combative. I do not think this was a useful method of response and I think it does a disservice to the cause.

    But I’m leaving it at that.

    Comment by Seth R. — January 19, 2007 @ 11:10 am

  244. Mary Ann,

    no, I believe we are created (unvaguely) in the image of God (both Father & Mother). I think maybe I blurred the line of “gender” vs. “sex” by linking biology to social/intellectual/spiritual roles. So, as I’m using it in this thread, “sex” is constructed by biology and “gender” is constructed primarily by society. When I said that the biological differences between women and men might perhaps be “less noticeable” in the eternities, I meant that because our understanding of spiritual/social roles will likely have changed (becoming more complete, more perfect etc.), less subject to the social flaws of mortality, and because our bodies will be “perfect”, less subject to the biological flaws of mortality, our “gender” (roles and eternal nature) will be less affected by ou sex, therefore our differences in sex will be less noticable. Or rather, less noticed. If that mkes sense.

    Comment by Artemis — January 19, 2007 @ 11:47 am

  245. I’m not righteous, and you didn’t hurt my feelings. I doubt I will quit reading this blog. Heck, I may even continue to comment.

    I do think, however, that I wouldn’t want to run into any of you ladies in a dark alley. You fight dirty.

    I’m glad I don’t have a penis. Has no one else noticed the number of times “feminist” commenters here have responded to sexist remarks (objective or perceived) by verbally degrading the male offender (and sometimes men in general) with crude, sexualized insults? How would you like it if a man with an opposing view were to suggest that the collective lack of ladylike manners on display here was due to all your menstrual periods being synchronized?

    Apparently a uterus is a dangerous thing. Yikes.

    Comment by madhousewife — January 19, 2007 @ 1:08 pm

  246. We only fight dirty when someone else brings in the dirt. Otherwise, we just fight when we feel we need to stand up (and fight) for ourselves. Sadly, if we ever DO fight, even when perfectly justified, even if we keep the gloves on (and I believe in this thread we did), it’s almost always labeled as dirty. I suppose that’s because it’s “unfeminine”, “not nice” or “inappropriate” for women to fight at all.

    Comment by Artemis — January 19, 2007 @ 1:33 pm

  247. Men and women are equal partners. When they work together as equal partners, great things happen. Walk beside me - be my friend - be my equal.

    the passion and spirit with which quimby declared what felt like a testimony about the true equality of men and women seems to me something worth framing and repeating regularly around these parts. that comment (the one with the awesome poem or whatever that was and another one somewhere after that)seems to be the answer not only to a man who thinks he’s superior, but to women who think they are inferior. if we really really know that’s not true, isn’t that a huge deal? and it sounds like she really, really knows that is true. i would love to hear more of that in discussions +between women+ not just jumping on a comment from a man that feels degrading. i find in reading through some of the stuff here that women can be as degrading to themselves by forgetting what quimby so eloquently stated in that comment so long ago.

    and i just wanted to say that it doesnt seem fair to blame guest for his domination of the conversation, even if his comment was offensive. had there not been responses (understandable tho they were given the button he pushed) he would have likely not said much more. discussion is part of a blog but john should not have blamed the man for the ensuing interactions because they could only be interactions if someone was +responding+ to him.

    Comment by anonon — January 19, 2007 @ 1:34 pm

  248. madhousewife, my DH just mentioned yesterday that I’m pathologically nice and need to stop it before I get an ulcer. In fact, my niceness seems to be impairing my debate skills of late. So for the love of heaven, don’t imply I’m bitchy. Maybe I should be bitchier, actually.

    Your comment about belittling (heehee, fun wordplay) male genitalia interests me exactly because I’ve been noticing that my DH does this whereas I never do. He read the snarker comments about Quimby and dismissed them as a bunch of guys with small weenies. I wonder if the “feminist” practice of commenting on the male apparatus results from a subconscious adoption of a swaggerish male back-and-forth. Just a thought. I haven’t noticed this as being a pervasive practice with the other permabloggers (though N.O. was right that Quimby set her up for such a good zinger it was hard to avoid), but hey, it is a rhetorical commonplace when men get together (as is burping too much of the time, sigh).

    Of course, there’s also the real possibility that an easy cheap shot directed at male genitalia is rather hard to resist when a woman’s entire person is being relegated to second-class status as a result of her biology. Kind of like a kick to the balls in retaliation for a lifetime of exhausting domination.

    Don’t stop commenting. I really liked your comment on the pedophile thread yesterday.

    Comment by Janet — January 19, 2007 @ 1:43 pm

  249. Seth, you keep mentioning my tone. Remember that it is very difficult to truly gauge tone via the written word, especially on the internet, since it lends itself so naturally to casual conversation. Perhaps you are reading anger and aggression that simply isn’t there. In fact, I will tell you – about a quarter of my comments weren’t directed at Guest but at points raised by other posters; and over half of my comments to Guest were written to be humorous. See, I’m the sort of woman who makes jokes about the Holocaust, 9/11, you name it – there are no sacred cows around me – so yeah, I’m going to make jokes about sexism and someone disparaging me. I’m going to get mad about it, sure, but I’m also going to take the piss.

    And I’m not going to be polite. I’m not going to sit back and say, “Gee, you know, Guest, I don’t agree with you, but that’s okay, you can go ahead and think that way.” I, too, find it strange you’d bring up MLK Jr and say I should act as he acted – I’ve met many Americans of the Vietnam generation who think he was too confrontational and openly admit he scared them. It’s only through the prism of history that we see him as polite and full of decorum. Why should I be polite to someone who thinks I am inferior to him – especially when he can’t back up his argument with anything solid?

    Comment by Quimby — January 19, 2007 @ 4:27 pm

  250. Madhousewife – I mentioned the penis only because it is the primary physiological difference between a man and a woman, so if men are superior to women, it makes sense that the source of that superiority would reside in the penis.

    Trueheart – I agree with pretty much everything in Mary Ann’s response to you, so there’s no point adding to it. You really had me when you said it is so easy and natural for a woman to nurture a child. I have a small baby; most of my friends are in the same position; and none of us find it comes easily or naturally. It’s not like there’s some magical hormone that is released at birth that suddenly gives a woman the endless patience and self-sacrifice needed with babies. Nuh-huh. In fact, almost every single woman I know, says that her husband was much better with their babies than she was.

    Comment by Quimby — January 19, 2007 @ 4:44 pm

  251. I mentioned the penis only because it is the primary physiological difference between a man and a woman, so if men are superior to women, it makes sense that the source of that superiority would reside in the penis.

    I would think the difference might lie somewhere between X & Y.

    Comment by Ola Senor — January 19, 2007 @ 5:12 pm

  252. Physical size and strength are the primary physiological differences between a man and a woman.

    Cardiovascular strength and upper body strength are the current standards for measuring strength. A number of studies as to the differences in strength between males and females are consistent in denoting mean strength of a female is estimated to range somewhere between forty to seventy percent of a male, this is taking into account our lower body weight and muscle mass.
    The average male will be larger than the average female, so size and strength differentials exist immediately. The average male has more endurance, greater muscle and bone mass, so therefore can lift more, carry more, jump higher, and throw farther.

    Saying the penis is the primary difference isnt even a bad joke.

    I dont believe I am inferior to anyone - Man or Woman, but I do believe my DH is much stronger than I am phyiscally - and its not based in his penis

    Comment by Kaylynn — January 19, 2007 @ 5:34 pm

  253. Actually, women can lift more than men–if they carry it on their heads. It has to do with the pendulum effect of swinging your hips when you walk, inasmuch as you don’t really bear the full weight of an object if your center of gravity remains in motion (DH could explain the physics of it, but he’s taking a deserved nap). Since women carry their center of gravity lower than men do, they can execute the amazing hip-swaggering, head-carrying feat that knocks me out whenever I look at my National Geographics. In cultures where this is common, it’s interesting to note that women are constructed as inferior in part *because* they can lift more (some beat of burden thing, I suppose). Depressing, eh?

    Anyhow, “strength” is a relative thing. Men can generally bench press more than women and certainly my skinny husband can lift more drywall than chubby me–but apparently if we learned how to carry it on our noggins, I’d be more useful in the home renovation department.

    Comment by Janet — January 19, 2007 @ 6:32 pm

  254. Kaylynn,
    I think your points are really interesting and valid. Totally valid. There are any number of secondary sex attributes that physically differenciate men and women. And yet I don’t see how that negates the fact of Quimby’s “bad” joke.

    Humor is often only funny because it is uncomfortable. In fact many argue that is the entire purpose of humor.

    Much is being made of that joke. Yes it was flippant and dismissive. Perhaps it can even be argued that this joke was anti-man. (though I think that’s a stretch) It seems to be the consensus for some that this is the point at which Quimby crossed the line. She is a big meanie.

    So at worst, Quimby was flippant, angry, and mean.
    Meanwhile,
    At best, Guest asserts that women do not have equal status.

    And you’re upset about what now?

    And this is your priority because . . .

    Hum.

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 19, 2007 @ 6:34 pm

  255. Ola Senor–yep, unless you’re talking about men with XXX syndrome. I think the external genitalia are the determinants of sex in that case. Those genetic disorders really play with one’s theories of biological solidity and the differentiations between sex and gender.

    Comment by Janet — January 19, 2007 @ 6:36 pm

  256. You know Janet,
    I read something somewhere, was it in the bio of Sally Ride? About how shocked the scientists studying the first candidates for astronaut were by the ways in which women could physically out perform men. Can’t recall the details, but they were impressive and interesting, brute strength, no, but lots of other ways, like in stimulus depravation and whatnot. Anyway, they buried the results (they didn’t want female astronauts), I think they even made the results classified for a long time. Hum. I should find that again, I remember being very impressed with my female body at the time.

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 19, 2007 @ 6:42 pm

  257. Obviously gender, sex and identity can be complex topics, which is all the more reason not to reduce it to external genitalia.

    Comment by Ola Senor — January 19, 2007 @ 6:48 pm

  258. We only fight dirty when someone else brings in the dirt. Otherwise, we just fight when we feel we need to stand up (and fight) for ourselves.

    this sounds like elementary school mentality “but (s)he hit me first!” what happened to do unto others, love your enemies and all that good stuff? (of course that could apply to the other side too but i don’t justifying behavior based on what someone else did or didn’t do is just wrong.)

    Comment by anonon — January 19, 2007 @ 6:49 pm

  259. Ola Senor–I think we all agree on that, actually. The genitalia thing just concerned a couple of jokes not everyone took as flippant comments rather than summations of feminist thought. I’d assume men who comment on breasts also understand there’s more to a woman than her lovely curves.

    Gender, sex, and identity–such fun and complicated and amazingly interlockingly mind-boggling things. Yep. Good times! I do feel for the people for whom they get really screwy–like the (sexual) boys who are gendered and thus self-identify as girls until, suddenly around their 12th birthdays, male genitalia descends. Yeeeks, those poor kids must have identity crisis!

    Comment by Janet — January 19, 2007 @ 6:57 pm

  260. #251 and #252 But the word “penis” sure does get a lot of attention (as is so obvious from the response it got here).
    you can talk your x’s and y’s and muscle mass and zzzzzzz….
    but say ‘penis’ and everyone’s eye’s get wide, okay, awake again!

    what is really interesting is that so many have interpreted Qimby’s comment to have been referring to the size of a specific person’s penis… as opposed to referring to how little of the collective mass of the human (male) body is taken up by that particular organ.

    So if this thread gets to 300 is that a record?

    Comment by G — January 19, 2007 @ 7:01 pm

  261. I surely did not mean to imply that anyone was being “bitchy.” “Bitch” is such a loaded word. What I meant to imply was that you were being mean-spirited and undignified. (And by “you” I do not mean you personally, Janet, or any individual person personally, because I don’t remember who said what and I don’t care because I’m not keeping records.) Guest’s original statement–that he didn’t think women should be on equal status with men or something to that effect–may have been philosophically offensive, but the ensuing pile-on by other commenters was, in my opinion, overly personal and counter-productive–assuming, of course, that you want people with sexist opinions to take women seriously and not just cower before the Army of Harpies.

    I don’t have the stomach to go back and see for myself who “brought the dirt,” but just because somebody brings the dirt doesn’t mean the dirt has to be used. The “dirt” can just as easily be swept away with a cool, measured response that addresses the actual issues, without validating opinions you vehemently disagree with and without demeaning anyone’s reproductive equipment. It is also just as easy to say, “That statement is so nonsensical to me that I am incapable of rebutting it.” That is no more a cop-out than is bringing genitalia into the conversation.

    Actually, I just re-read Guest’s original post (#62). Did anyone, at any time address anything in his remarks other than that single independent clause that was subsequently taken out of context and beaten with a uppity-woman stick for the next 150 comments? Rational disagreement is so much more useful than hysterical disagreement. (Pun intended? Maybe.)

    As for the penis being the only meaningful difference between a woman and a man–well, let’s just say I’m incapable of rebutting it.

    Comment by madhousewife — January 19, 2007 @ 7:08 pm

  262. G # 260

    MUST…

    Comment by mfranti — January 19, 2007 @ 7:10 pm

  263. KEEP…

    Comment by mfranti — January 19, 2007 @ 7:11 pm

  264. GOING…

    Comment by mfranti — January 19, 2007 @ 7:12 pm

  265. Army of Harpies.

    madhousewife–I like you and always have appreciated having your perspective on this site, but girl, that’s probably the meanest-spirited thing anyone has said on this thread yet. Great phrase, I grant, but about as mean as it gets–and much worse than the term “bitch.”

    I’m not actually interested in the “who said what” debate either, despite what my responding to your posts twice seems to imply. But lumping everyone together seems quite odd to me, and not at all useful. Of course Guest would be outnumbered on a feminist site and thus “piled on”–that doesn’t mean the comments were mean-spirited just because they were numerically substantial.

    And actually, if you read the whole thread, you’d see that I even specifically asked Guest if he really meant women weren’t the “same” as men rather than not “equal” to them (I assume this is what you refer to as what we “took out of context”, and he responded. If you’re going to impugn the entire thread, read it first.

    Comment by Janet — January 19, 2007 @ 7:18 pm

  266. And I did not interpret Quimby’s comment as referring to the size of anyone’s penis. One remark about a penis is not enough to disturb me. It was the extremely defensive and sarcastic stance so many of you immediately took, and how easily you personalized the discussion and made it much uglier than it needed to be.

    IOW, I’m righteous and you hurt my feelings. :(

    Comment by madhousewife — January 19, 2007 @ 7:19 pm

  267. Ooops, sorry–I forgot to address your question. Yes, the rest of Guest’s comment was addressed and debated. If you read the thread, you’ll see that. He’s had some really interesting life experiences and while I don’t agree with his conclusions, the debate contained a hell of lot more than “I’m right/no you’re not” from either side. Guest addressed our questions and we addressed his.

    Comment by Janet — January 19, 2007 @ 7:20 pm

  268. with crude, sexualized insults?

    #266–Sorry, I thought the penis comments where what you alluded to with the above phrase. I apologize for misunderstanding you.

    Comment by Janet — January 19, 2007 @ 7:23 pm

  269. “I’d assume men who comment on breasts also understand there’s more to a woman than her lovely curves.”

    Where exactly did anyone comment about breasts? If you want men to stop stereotyping and demeaning women, why do you keep doing it to men?

    Comment by Kaylynn — January 19, 2007 @ 7:23 pm

  270. Kaylnn, no, no no. Reread the comment. First off, I’m not saying ALL men comment on my breasts (they aren’t that impressive, for starters). Nor did I ever say that breast insults were present in this thread. I said that the whole penis thing only happened in a few comments meant to be humorous and didn’t constitute the majority of the thread, nor did the penis constitute the majority of conversation regarding male/female issues (here or elsewhere). I honestly have no idea how you construct what i said to Ola Senor as offensive. He didn’t seem to. I said that when men DO comment on my anatomy I assume they aren’t really totalizing me with their comment, or at least they wouldn’t usually. It’s actually a kind “benefit of the doubt” thing I extended to men who do make such comments. Please practice your critical reading skills.

    And now, since I actually AM feeling and probably sounding bitchy, I’m departing. I apologize for offending you, though I still don’t know where in heaven’s name the offense came from.

    Comment by Janet — January 19, 2007 @ 7:35 pm

  271. Okay,
    here’s the point at which I say, my sandbox.

    This is my blog, my rules, and I can at any time and for any reason declare what is or is not appropriate. I am a benevolent tyrant but I have reached my limit.

    I think this conversation was appropriate. I think it was civil. I think it was fair and rational.

    All of you who have declared us hysterical, irrational, and indelicate have stated your opinions. I think you wrong. I think we were civil above and beyond.

    If this level of discourse disturbs and disappoints you, then you are welcome to go and create your own blog where sexist statements are met with whatever you consider to be a rational measured response. You have made your opinions known and are no longer welcome to critque our behavior in this matter. It’s become tiresome.

    Discussions about other matters still under discussion are welcome. But if you (once more) feel it is necessary to tell us to mind our lady-like manners, then stick it where the sun don’t shine.

    Are we clear?

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 19, 2007 @ 7:38 pm

  272. i was chatting with DH about this today. he said a couple of things after he laughed at me for participating on this blog (the name humors him, he’s not a member of the church so he thinks the two, fword and mword cant coexist.)

    he said that if anyone has power, it is women. it’s not our uterus, but what’s below it.

    now, i haven’t had time to really come to a conclusion yet, but i was wondering what you guys thought of that. keeping in mind that he beleives women are equal to men, but not the same.

    Comment by mfranti — January 19, 2007 @ 7:54 pm

  273. i changed my mind.

    strike that from the record.

    i can’t bear to open that can of worms.

    love you all. ;)

    Comment by mfranti — January 19, 2007 @ 7:57 pm

  274. the juxtaposition in that last statement was supposed to be flip

    in case you didn’t notice ;-)

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 19, 2007 @ 7:58 pm

  275. mfranti, you make me giggle. And I really, really, really needed a giggle (in case my last comment didn’t make that clear :)). Don’t you live in SLC? We simply must meet.

    Comment by Janet — January 19, 2007 @ 8:23 pm

  276. mfranti, what’s wrong with female toes?

    fMhLisa,

    Right. To be honest, I wish I’d sent an off-thread email instead. I usually think those through better anyway. And it would have been more… well… polite.

    The irony is not lost on me.

    Comment by Seth R. — January 19, 2007 @ 8:29 pm

  277. In an effort to stay totally gender neutral…

    fMhLisa.. you are a total asshole.

    Have a happy day :)

    Comment by Anon — January 19, 2007 @ 8:34 pm

  278. janet.

    sigh, giggle, relax. take a load off.

    yeah, i live in rose park. and i really needed a giggle too .

    i tried earlier, but no takers.

    Comment by mfranti — January 19, 2007 @ 8:35 pm

  279. in hockey we say…

    the gloves are off!

    “kick his ass, C-bass”

    Comment by mfranti — January 19, 2007 @ 8:38 pm

  280. Okay, one more thing about the whole penis comment – okay, two more things. First I am so glad at least one person got that my comment about the size wasn’t to denigrate any particular penis – like I’ve seen so many of them! – but rather to point out that it is a relatively small part of the body.

    Second, and in my opinion more important, is the place of culture in all of this. Look, I’m an American, but I’ve lived in Australia for over 10 years, and sometimes I forget that things that fly here, don’t fly there. Talking about penises is one of those things. In Australia, a typical rejoinder to a sexist comment is, “Get your hand off it.” In Australia, if two guys are trying to out-macho each other, a typical response is, “Why don’t you just take them out and put them on the table.” It’s not seen as sexist, demeaning, insulting, or anything else – it’s just something you say that most people accept as funny to diffuse a situation.

    What Seth reads as angry, really wasn’t written in anger. I think there are maybe 4 or 5 responses here that I wrote in anger. The rest of them, I was actually playing around with the implications of what Guest was saying more than anything. (Hence all these people who say I was taking him out of context – no, not really. I was just going to the furthest point in the argument to show how ridiculous it was.) I was having fun while at the same time keeping a hard line, because I’m not going to concede an inch to someone who thinks I’m inherently inferior to him. And I’m not going to apologise about that. If you were offended – well, maybe next time, if there are two ways to read something and one way offends you and the other makes you laugh (while also hopefully making you think), go with the one that makes you laugh. You’ll enjoy life a lot more that way. You’ll also enjoy me a lot more that way.

    Mfranti – I think I have the teeniest bit of a schoolgirl crush on your husband.

    Comment by Quimby — January 19, 2007 @ 8:46 pm

  281. quimy said…
    “if two guys are trying to out-macho each other, a typical response is, “Why don’t you just take them out and put them on the table.” It’s not seen as sexist, demeaning, insulting, or anything else – it’s just something you say that most people accept as funny to diffuse a situation.”

    that so funny, when i worked as a commodities broker the guys used to love to compare pay checks. no lie, it was like school boys comparing toys. anyhoo, i said to them the exact thing, “why don’t you just pull them out and put them on the table”

    they were insulted that a woman could/would say that.

    as my dh says, “shit only rolls down hill”

    Comment by mfranti — January 19, 2007 @ 9:01 pm

  282. Is it wrong that being called an asshole made me happy?

    Comment by fMhLisa — January 19, 2007 @ 9:43 pm

  283. i’m suprised that anon doesn’t have the “parts” to use a real name.

    Comment by mfranti — January 19, 2007 @ 10:03 pm

  284. If you were offended – well, maybe next time, if there are two ways to read something and one way offends you and the other makes you laugh (while also hopefully making you think), go with the one that makes you laugh. You’ll enjoy life a lot more that way. You’ll also enjoy me a lot more that way.

    That is very, very good advice.

    Comment by madhousewife — January 19, 2007 @ 10:41 pm

  285. Is it wrong that being called an asshole made me happy?

    I don’t know about anyone else, but it made me feel very hopeful about the level of discourse here. :)

    Comment by madhousewife — January 19, 2007 @ 10:46 pm

  286. I haven’t commented thus far on this thread but I had to pipe up to say thank you for a most enjoyable read!
    You ladies (especially those of you who were misbehavin’) were a pure joy to read.
    The conundrum of why a man would go to a board, that’s name already states it’s opinion on such a matter, to make a statement regarding the inequality of women.

    Comment by call me anonymous 2 — January 19, 2007 @ 11:21 pm

  287. 230 MaryAnne
    ” Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children” … It would hope the limitations placed on our gender are for this life only, but we have no proof of that. We can only speculate. Whose to say if eternal “equality” will be as unequal as it is in mortality?”

    MaryAnne, judging from how little nurturing contact I get from my heavenly Mother, I think the heavenly division of labor must be rather different from the earthly one.
    On earth, my dad was tasked with working for salary to provide for his family. In heaven, it seems Father is the primary parent!

    Comment by cchrissyy — January 19, 2007 @ 11:27 pm

  288. Is it wrong that being called an asshole made me happy?

    Nah - after all an asshole is just a means of dispensing with the crappy things in life throws, and this board does a great job of that!

    Comment by Quimby — January 20, 2007 @ 2:22 am

  289. D’oh. A pox on my slow connection - that was supposed to be the crappy things in life, I thought I’d deleted the “throws”.

    Comment by Quimby — January 20, 2007 @ 2:23 am

  290. Hey Cchrissyy, she hasn’t been on speaking terms with me either. Maybe we can call DSS on her.

    Comment by Mary Ann — January 20, 2007 @ 4:12 am

  291. Maybe in the next life women get to sit on the couch and watch football while men do all the housework?

    (Disclaimer: My husband’s great at sharing the housework. Still, given a choice, I’m sure he’d rather be watching football.)

    Comment by Quimby — January 20, 2007 @ 4:21 am

  292. call me anonymous 2 - Perhaps I can help answer your conundrum:

    The conundrum of why a man would go to a board, that’s name already states it’s opinion on such a matter, to make a statement regarding the inequality of women.

    I didn’t post to get the board’s opinion on my beliefs. The answer to that would be, as you imply, quite obvious. I posted in response to the author’s question, “What are the obstacles to male pro-feminism?”, and to provide the board an opportunity to discover the answers to the follow on, “What can we do to win more men to the feminist cause?” I think inherent in that task is the necessity to gain an understanding of where men stand in relationship to that outcome, and what obstacles present themselves to achieving your objective. I agree that my beliefs may be interpreted as insulting, but I don’t believe that I was hostile in my responses to anyone.

    What’s more, the author suggests you need me:

    I feel like if we’re going to eliminate the female-afflicting scourges of date-rape, domestic violence, eating disorders, sex trafficking, etc., etc., men need to become serious advocates for women’s rights.

    Do I need to be a feminist to lend support to your cause? I will tell you right now, that even with my retrogressive philosophy, as you might deem it, I would stand together with you in the elimination of such practices.

    It reminds me of some members of the LIbertarian Party in the United States, who even when provided with an opportunity to recruit from the majority of people dissatisfied with the current two-party system, drive away anyone who won’t buy into every aspect of their anarcho-capitalist idealology. They then sit around a booth at the local diner contemplating why they don’t have more people joining their political organization. Is it surprising that it may take time for a person to change their personal beliefs regarding the standing of women within society, when that very society promotes the status quo? How would you react if while trying to fellowship an investigator of the Church, they were to say, “I like the programs that the Church offers, but I don’t think Mormons are really Christians”?

    Perhaps you could reflect, in the midst of your self-congratulatory celebration, on what you’ve actually accomplished. I’m no closer to becoming a shirt wearing feminist, and you’ve come no closer to ahieving the support needed to accomplish your stated objectives (the former not being requisite to achieve the latter). I think this is what was at the heart of Seth R’s comment about approach. When looking to draw people towards change, perception has a lot to do with participation. I hope that our dialogue has been helpful, and that you’re able to achieve success in your endeavors, but whether you do or not isn’t really all that important. It’s apparently not my movement anyhow.

    Comment by Guest — January 20, 2007 @ 4:39 am

  293. I’m officially going to waffle. I’m done defending Guest.

    1. reflect . . . on what you’ve actually accomplished. . .
    I see a sea of women and a man or two who have refused to accept a demeaning rhetoric. So what if you didn’t ‘convert’ to feminism? I have been strengthened by the discourse. I have seen a lot of faulty logic exposed, combatted, defeated. I am a commebetter, more committed feminist because of the exchange on this site and because of this site in general.

    2. perception has a lot to do with participation . . .
    Yes it does, but the biggest fool is the one who looks first at the cover and then at the book, or who buys the packaging rather than the product. If you can’t see past it that might be your own problem.

    3. Is it surprising that it may take time for a person to change their personal beliefs . . . .
    Previously, you never gave any indication that women were on their way to equality with men. You stated your belief in our fundamental inequality. Is this your way of saying you are coming around? Does your investigator scenario mean that you will eventually recognize your error?

    4. whether you do or not isn’t really all that important . . .
    This is really the biggest insult of all. The struggle to right wrongs, lift oppression, protect those who have never been . . . and you say it isn’t important.

    Comment by Mary Ann — January 20, 2007 @ 5:48 am

  294. I would respond to Mary Ann’s comments, but this thread is just to long already.

    Comment by Trueheart — January 20, 2007 @ 7:30 am

  295. Oh, no! Guest would have stood together with all feminists everywhere to help eliminate female-afflicting scourges if it hadn’t been for Quimby’s comment about penises. But due to our unladylike responses, we have only confirmed his conviction that we are inferior to men. What a profound blow to the cause this is, sisters. Due to our ill-thought-out comments, Guest now believes that whether we succeed in our endeavors to eliminate date rape, domestic violence and other scourges isn’t really all that important. Whether he joins us in working to eliminate those scourges likewise is no prerequisite for success, so why should he bother? He was so ripe for conversion to the feminist cause, but we have lost him. If only we had repented ere Guest’s mind was made up that feminists have a perception problem.

    How much power does one teeny little penis comment have, anyway?

    Answer: A lot, so it seems.

    Comment by Beijing — January 20, 2007 @ 9:07 am

  296. Sorry Guest, I’m not interested in replying point by point. The previous replies to your posts have been far more patient, articulate, and informative than I could be.

    Comment by call me anonymous 2 — January 20, 2007 @ 9:17 am

  297. This has nothing to do with the overall thread, but is the most useful comment in it to me:

    I have a small baby; most of my friends are in the same position; and none of us find it comes easily or naturally.

    THANK YOU. I have a 6-month-old and wondered what was wrong with me. I think it seems to come “naturally” only because we work so hard on it. My husband is all too willing to let me (or someone else) deal with everything. With that said - I think I heard her wake up.

    Comment by SilverRain — January 20, 2007 @ 9:31 am

  298. guest (#292)- in what way is debate over a theological linguistic term that has no relevance to my personal relationship with Christ related to a debate over my ability as a female to participate in society (which has alot of relevance to what “society” thinks is appropriate for me to do)?

    Comment by G — January 20, 2007 @ 9:38 am

  299. actually…do I really want to start this discussion over again? no, not really.

    Comment by G — January 20, 2007 @ 9:40 am

  300. done!

    Comment by mfranti — January 20, 2007 @ 11:04 am

  301. Mary Ann - Yes. Perhaps you could have converted me over time. I’ve already expressed that I once was fully supportive of the feminist agenda of full equality. Both my mother and sister served honorably in the United States military and inspired me to do the same. I’ve made several comments in support of aspects of feminism. Instead of capitalizing on these areas of shared ground, you identified the one personal belief I held and attacked me for it. I’m not saying that you were unjustified in your response, from your perspective, but I question the sincerity of your effort. What is the point of this board? Do you actually want to organize and move forward the feminist cause, or is it just a big support group for those that feel victimized by the misogynistic masses? If the former, you’re not being as effective as you could be. I’m not an anomaly (except perhaps in my willingness to discuss these issues without degrading myself by posting such garbage as can be found in posts #300 and #301), you will encounter people in your effort who, like me, are sympathetic to some of your objectives, if not to your idealogy. What you do with that potential resource is up to you. It was my impression that JohnR was trying to find ways to cultivate those relationships in order to aid the movement. If I was mistaken, then I certainly apologize. Continue with your gripe session. (Hey, we made it to 300! ;) )

    Beijing - Your response is exactly what I’m talking about. I wasn’t influenced by Quimby’s penis comment, I thought it was irrelevant and said as much. Your actions do nothing to confirm my belief in female inequality, because my belief isn’t grounded in how women act. Yet instead of discovering the root of my belief system and making an effort to address those issues (if you even cared), you instead leap to your own assumptions of why I think the way I do and project them onto me. What I find most amusing is that with all the hubbub about male and female anatomy, I’ve never mentioned anything about it!

    Comment by Guest — January 20, 2007 @ 11:08 am

  302. As a note, apparently (and gratefully) the original posts #300 and #301 were deleted. Suffice it to say their content justified such action.

    Comment by Guest — January 20, 2007 @ 11:11 am

  303. Guest, you’re absolutely right that part of the motivation behind this post was to help bring more men into the feminist cause. I wouldn’t put the blame for any failure to convert you on the commenters here. You entered as a ‘Guest’ (am I the only one that finds this ironic?) into a conversation between feminists on a feminist forum and immediately declared (#62):

    As a man, the obstacle is in the futility of the ultimate goal. I advocate respect for women, however, I don’t buy into the idea that women should hold equal status to men.

    The rest of the conversation moved away from any discussion of men and feminism into a broader debate over the equality of men and women. I don’t mind that the subject changed, but I don’t think you understand the greater context. This happens all of the time on feminist boards. A nuanced conversation on feminism begins, and then someone (usually a man) steps in with concerns about feminism in general. The initial conversation halts and a new one begins, focused on resolving the concerns of the newcomer. But this person isn’t interested in learning more about feminism. Instead, they are there to point out problems inherent in feminism, and do so with the same tired arguments that feminists have heard again and again. You’ve been smarter and more polite than most, and that is appreciated.

    Imagine someone stepping into an NAACP meeting discussing the subtleties of racism in the U.S. and the first thing they say is: “As a white, I advocate respect for blacks, however I don’t buy into the idea that blacks should hold equal status with whites.” It would be a wonder if they didn’t get thrown out or immediately shouted down. It would be a miracle if the African Americans in the meeting endured the guest’s arguments and patiently explained why blacks were equal to whites despite obvious physical differences. But the patience would wear thin when it was obvious that the person wasn’t there to learn, but to elaborate his own racist doctrine.

    Comment by JohnR — January 20, 2007 @ 11:47 am

  304. thank you johnr for an excellent example.

    ps. did you get to read 149& 150?

    are we done now?

    Comment by mfranti — January 20, 2007 @ 11:54 am

  305. Guest, I want to go back and revise what I said in #298 about feminism being like the whole debate over if mormons are christians or not… some mormons really get worked up over the whole “christianity” thing, so I can see where you might see similarities. but here’s the thing- that has never really been an issue for me- someone else’s opinion on the matter doesn’t effect my relationship to Christ at all. But I see the debate over the equal/unequal status of men and woman as having a direct effect upon me (and women in general).
    you have a talent for analogies, but it is important to see the limitations (and problems!) with some of them.

    Comment by G — January 20, 2007 @ 12:00 pm

  306. mfranti, I did see it–I love the funk fusion in the samples! (from the main site) Are you related to Michael?

    (Thinking now how to juggle schedule to accommodate Spearhead) :)

    Comment by JohnR — January 20, 2007 @ 12:12 pm

  307. JohnR - I understand. I guess my problem was in not recognizing this as a “members only” meeting, but seeing it rather as a panel discussion on how to reach our mutual goals, despite our differences.

    Comment by Guest — January 20, 2007 @ 12:25 pm

  308. I have a humble suggestion (very humble, as I wore out my righteousness yesterday): Could we kill this thread and start a new one based on one of the several good points that were raised here but lost amid all the civility? ;)

    In his original post, JohnR said, “I feel like if we’re going to eliminate the female-afflicting scourges of date-rape, domestic violence, eating disorders, sex trafficking, etc., etc., men need to become serious advocates for women’s rights.” Then he asked what the obstacles to male feminism were. In other words, he tied the elimination of the above social evils to the universal acceptance of male-female equality.

    Guest (in his original comment) said (I’m paraphrasing, of course) that the obstacle to a large-scale male feminist movement was the fact that many people don’t accept the basic premise of feminism–at least not as it’s often interpreted, i.e. that there are no essential (non-anatomical) differences between men and women. Plenty of folks think that men, in general, are more suited for some roles and women, in general, more suited for others–but are still against rape. In other words, the way to get non-feminists on the women’s rights bandwagon is to recruit people to advocate specific pro-woman goals rather than try to convert people to “feminism”–a term I put in quotes because its definition is so problematic (as has been previously discussed elsewhere and sadly demonstrated on this thread).

    My question is this: Can we eliminate the “female-afflicting scourges” without necessarily persuading everyone to accept male-female “equality” (as it is so vaguely defined)? What does “equality” really mean? I guess that’s two questions–but related ones.

    The ground rules will be thus:

    1) Comments about sex organs are permitted, so long as they’re intended in jest and you don’t go overboard.
    2) Madhousewife will not use the word “harpy.” (A sacrifice I’m willing to make, though I’ve always liked “harpy”–it’s so, you know, classical. ;) Much better than, say, “gorgon.”)
    3) Everyone can passionately defend her position without threat of being labeled “unladylike.” *

    * But you can still call fMhLisa an asshole, since it makes her happy. :)

    Comment by madhousewife — January 20, 2007 @ 12:53 pm

  309. Guest, actually, you misinterpret my meaning. I wish you had highlighted these “mutual goals” when you entered the conversation, instead of launching in with a critique of feminist fundamentals. The entire tone of the conversation could’ve been transformed. Maybe it would have helped to have more sincere and searching questions, and fewer outright declarations, rational arguments, rhetorical attacks–these things set up the conversation for battle, not for mutual understanding.

    Comment by JohnR — January 20, 2007 @ 12:56 pm

  310. Oops, cross-posted with you, madhousewife. Great question, and way to bring the discussion back to some common ground.

    One of the reasons I find the feminist critique so compelling is that it argues that there are underlying, pervasive societal influences that lead to a situation where women suffer from the scourges described above. We tend to fight the symptoms rather than the disease (though we need to work on both). Feminist societal critiques work at ferreting out and drawing attention to the underlying diseases of sexually objectifying women, of thinking that women are weaker, of male needs to assert authority and dominance over women, that lead to the horrible symptoms of date-rape, domestic violence, etc.

    Comment by JohnR — January 20, 2007 @ 1:05 pm

  311. awh shucks madhousewife… I was hoping to go to 400!
    (JUST KIDDING!!!!)

    Comment by G — January 20, 2007 @ 3:46 pm

  312. Guest, you misread the tone of my post which was entirely facetious, not attempting to be an accurate transcription of the conversation. The point was that you are being manipulative when you say things like…

    “Perhaps you could reflect, in the midst of your self-congratulatory celebration, on what you’ve actually accomplished. I’m no closer to becoming a shirt wearing feminist…” and

    “Perhaps you could have converted me over time.”

    These statements blame us for your own unwillingness to change your opinion that women deserve lower status than men. I do not accept the guilt. Making sure Guest’s opinions are aligned with morality and truth is Guest’s responsibility, not mine or anyone else’s on this blog.

    Comment by Beijing — January 20, 2007 @ 3:58 pm

  313. johnR.

    yes. were related.

    “I love the funk fusion in the samples! (from the main site)”
    did you got the the website?

    Comment by mfranti — January 20, 2007 @ 9:37 pm

  314. ps.

    don’t tell anyone!

    Comment by mfranti — January 20, 2007 @ 9:38 pm

  315. chalk one up for another male mormon feminist… and not a closeted one either. though after reading through the comments, i was disappointed to not find more. i think feminism covers a broad spectrum of ideas (as i was just reading in another post on this site), and unfortunately many males (and females) tend to only associate feminism with some of the more fringe versions.

    or maybe it is just that men find feminism too… girly :)

    Comment by Rand — January 21, 2007 @ 4:50 am

  316. How interesting!

    I stumbled across this thread on Sunstoneblog and felt compelled to add my comments.

    I saw a comment from someone earlier alleging that women should not be considered the equal of men. I could not agree more. Women are far superior. I believe in reincarnation and aspire to return as a woman. Oh, yeh, they have their faults.
    But starting unjustified wars and deadly violence are not usually one of them.

    I am a male HP in the church and was a branch president many yr ago. That is what mainly activated my latent hunger for justice in the world, seeing the incredible chauvinism many Western LDS males inflicted on their wives and daughers. I had a bishop once who always assumed that the woman was wrong in all family disputes and that she should submit to the will of her husband, who was usually a total a–hole.

    I have been a rape crisis counselor and am now an activtivist for Planned Parenthood/ Pro-choice. I will be speaking at a town meeting next week for comprehensive sex education vs abstention ony views. I have been outspoken at church about being pro-gay marriage, with many repercussions. I am now about as liberal as you can get, thanks in part to my second
    wife, a liberal Kennedy Democrat from Boston– and her 3 daughters. I also have 2 sons, and I must say, boys are easier to raise then girls!I just happen to love women. All my best friends are women. My wife often says I think like a girl. I cannot think of a higher compliment. But I sure do act like a man where it counts, if YKWIM. I just don’t like men. Period.

    FYI, we are sort of “returning members”. See my story as “Jared” in the latest edition of Sunstone in the “Borderlanders” column.

    I seldom visit this site, as I am too busy as a HS teacher (snowed out today) but can be reached privately at danpascavage@aol.com I do not care who knows about this. I have been most public in my statements.

    Danny

    Comment by Danny — February 1, 2007 @ 1:55 pm

  317. John R:

    Give it a rest, get the sex-change operation already and join the Uterus Brigade under the command of General Quimby.

    Comment by Ty Cobb — January 15, 2008 @ 4:47 pm

  318. This is a great topic for discussion. But I think with male feminism can come with a patronizing attitude by SOME men (but not this author). The idea that men accepting women as equal (as if that is so difficult) is patronizing, and suggest that there is really nothing wrong with men who mistreat and take advantage of women, just their “views.” Instead of speaking of men viewing women as equals, we could point out that men need to act equally to women, that men need to be as kind as women, that men should learn more empathy, etc. We shouldn’t be asking if women are as “wonderful” as men, but are men as, or can men be, as wonderful as women, and not engage in taking advantage of others?

    Comment by Cara — October 7, 2009 @ 12:44 pm

  319. And yes, there should be no better compliment to a man than being told he “thinks like a girl!” If the whole world thought like a girl, we would all be in a better more peaceful place.

    Comment by Cara — October 7, 2009 @ 12:45 pm

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.