[Wife makes more money than husband]

Read my post again, I never said extreme feminism helps marriages, I said that feminism, NOT EXTREME feminism, can help in marriages. When we look at the role that the church says a Mother should have we find this:

"I continue to emphasize the importance of mothers staying home to nurture, care for, and train their children in the principles of righteousness."

It does go on to say that women should stay home with the children and preferably not work unless it is absolutely nessisary. And that I agree with. I think there are things that happen when a mother is away from the house that would not happen if she was there. However if a mother does have to go out into the work force for whatever reason and she happens to make more money than her husband I don't think it should be a big deal.

I do agree with you that a man who worked a piddly job with no pay just because he knew his wife would take care of him is diminished in my opinion. A man who sits on his butt and sends his wife out to work while he plays with toys is not much of a man.

What I am saying though is that it never says anywhere in what the prophets have advised us that women need to be the primary cleaners of the home. It never says that they have to fit exactly into the 1960s idea of the perfect little housewife. It says that women are to nurture, care for and train their children in the principles of righteousness. Nothing there about housework. As far as I see it if the husband is willing to help with the housework then great! Each family is different, every family dynamic is different. But what is see is that a fear of feminism tends to breed co-dependance in our church. As a person who grew up in a co-dependant family I will say that it makes the woman into a lesser being. It turns the co-dependant person (usually the mother) into a servant for the entire family. And that is a sad thing to see, and it often leads to negelect of other things.

When I say feminism I am speaking of strong women, women who are willing to stand up and say, "This is who I am, deal with it." Women who because of the way they view themselves get equal respect. Equality in my mind really comes down to respect. If I am making myself into a lesser being by my actions in my home then I am doing myself no favors what so ever.

Respect has nothing to do with whether we work inside or outside of the home, it has nothing to do with whether or not we raise our children as we should, it has everything to do with how we see ourselves and the self esteem we have for ourselves. It has taken me a long time to build my self esteem up to where it is now, I was all set to create the same type of co-dependant household that I grew up in, and it was my husband who changed it all for me. His respect for me as a woman was what helped me to become as strong as I am today. If only every man was like that.

Tarnished, you are right that nowhere in the scriptures does it state that women should do all the housework or be disrespected in any way. I think that throughout history, since women were moms and men were off hunting or farming or doing physically demanding work, and the women were nursing or taking care of kids, and naturally were in the home, doing housework. So it was not mean for men to have the women home with the babies, doing housework, it was just natural. I do the housework because I am home all day with the kids, and my husband is off working or going to school or doing military stuff, so why wouldn't I do the majority of it? It seems natural to me.

I am not clear on your co-dependence comments. How does fear of feminism make women codependent? A woman with no self esteem and no self respect, sure, she can be codependent. Do you mean, with your definition of feminism, fear of being an equal or of being respected? I am really not seeing that I disagree with you in any way.

[Where do you draw the line?]

its not a grey zone it has never been a gray zone, I have never ever cheated on my husband even before we met, there is nothing I have done with any man before we were married that I couldn't get away with now I am married.., Given as my inclination is bisexual I could just as easy have an affair with a woman, so would me hanging out with women friends also be a grey zone? And yes my moral fiber on adultery is that awesome, its plain not an option to go beyond a hug or a kiss on the cheek with any other person.

What about Jesus with Mary and Martha?

Elgama,

Never did I say or mean to imply that you have low moral fiber, or that anyone here has low moral fiber. I believe CLOSE friendships are a gray zone. Never did I mean to call you a sinner or a bad person.

[Where do you draw the line?]

Thank you for providing a reference. My aim was to get crazypotato to back up her claims with something more than personal anecdotes. Scriptures and Conference talks would be appropriate sources. As ubiquitous as it may be, The Miracle of Forgiveness is not an official Church publication and should not be relied on for doctrine or teachings to the Church as a whole.

Ahhh. . .The Bible was one of my backups, and "The Miracle of Forgiveness" was another. I really don't think your aim was to get me to backup my words, but to label me as extreme and judgmental, since you keep calling me extreme.

So is there a truce now or still another round?:)

[Where do you draw the line?]

If you want to count Stake Presidents that are not yours, my stake pres and my brother in Tennessee's stake pres have both given talks in Stake Conference advising against using Facebook. First of all, it can be a large waste of time, and 2nd, it has caused marital problems and divorces in many couples in both stakes.

[Where do you draw the line?]

Thank you Bl8tant and BenRaines.

You are stating what I am trying to say. President Hinckley is a prophet of God and when he gives us counsel, he is not trying to be mean. He is trying to help us.

My story about President Kimball giving the woman the ride in the rain is a true story. I thought it was a great example of "extremism" I agree so apparently me, Pres. Hinckley, and Pres Kimball are extremists.

[Wife makes more money than husband]

And that is completely right. I misjudged your posts and for that I apologize. I was misreading it as something where you expected your husband to be in a $100, 000/year job, with a house and two cars.

You're right: Men should provide for the family unless circumstances make this impossible.

However: This shouldn't mean that a woman should feel compelled not to work, or to find work that earns less than the husband. If a woman chooses to work and has something that allows more money to be earned than the husband, then this should be fine for both. It's simply a reality - Nothing more nor less.

Funkytown, thank you for your apology. Contrary to what some of you may believe, I really am not a doormat or a jerk. If a woman chooses to work, I would hope that it is not when she has to put her kids in daycare or with a sitter. My husband would be very upset with me, and rightfully so, if I chose to work, though he is already providing, and put my kids with a sitter. I just don't think that is fair to kids. They survive, but why not give them the ideal, best situation, and work when my kids have graduated from high school? Or work part time while they are in school if you can juggle it.

The church leaders have told us that women should stay at home with their kids and live frugally and tightly if necessary. They are not trying to oppress women when they say that. They are trying to help families to be stronger. I enjoyed my career before kids, and sometimes I miss it. It is a big sacrifice to be a SAHM. I do have to put aside a lot of my own desires and I have to sacrifice a lot. That is a good thing. I don't have a job, I don't have lots of time for hobbies. The challenge is to make it work. I get me-time away from the kids. My husband watches them so that I can go do stuff.

My mom worked for a large amount of my childhood. When I came home from school all through middle school and high school, she was not home for about 3 hours. During that time, I was not doing good stuff. Then when she came home, she was really, really, really tired. Some women have more energy than others, but it is still hard. A lot of our family type activities ended when she went back to work, and she could have stayed home. Money was tight but we had enough before she went to work. She liked her career and she did well with it. She didn't have time for me, though.

[Authority of LDS Women]

Why on earth should it? What Gospel principle says we can't call boorish behavior for what it is?

Then I would suggest you be very careful about attacking those women who do stand up for themselves, or hinting that men who support them are in apostasy (or, as you so delicately put it, "bash[ing] church leaders").

That's funny, I thought I was standing up for myself. That's funny, I don't remember using the word 'APOSTACY". Can you quote me on that? That's funny, but in my perspective, criticizing a church leader, even if he is just a peon church leader like a home teacher, is bashing, because he is not here to defend himself. And women who stand up for themselves is a very subjective term. In your opinion, maybe they are standing up for themselves. In mine, maybe they have got a little bee in their bonnet.

Your hostile tone is unnecessary.

[Where do you draw the line?]

We disagree with each other's interpretation of the scripture and the word "cleave."

I also disagree with close friendships of the opposite sex. I never said that everyone who does this is commiting adultery or breaking any kind of commandment, but I think it is a gray area because yes, I think that you can be friends with the opposite sex, but that close friendships are inappropriate.

I agree that my viewpoint is more extreme than yours. Nobody is immune to adultery. It could happen to anyone in the right circumstances.

We know from the scriptures that Jesus loved Mary and Martha and Lazarus. We also know that he loved his church and God the most, not Mary and Martha.

Let's not argue about his anymore. It feels to me more like an argument than a discussion.

[Authority of LDS Women]

If it goes without saying, then why did you feel compelled to say it?

Of course, I agree that women should be able to do more than just be a housewife. Then again, the term "feminist" has changed a lot over the years. The Gloria Steinem form that basically hated all men is being replaced by Sarah Palin's concept of women being able to be feminine but also forge a place in the world for themselves.

Rameumptom, I think you are pointing out something important here, and that is the CHANGING definition of feminism. So when I say I am anti-feminism, and then I clearly describe the type of anti-feminism I am against, people are being offended because their definition of feminism is different than mine. The definition of feminism has changed over time. In general, I am going with a more extreme definition. I believe in equal rights and the right to choose, but I also am looking at how 60s and 70s type of feminism (bra-burning, women declaring no need for me, the term male chauvinist pig being used constantly, etc) and how it has affected the current generation.

This is apparently a button-pushing topic where if I disagree with the majority, I am somehow supposed to be jumped all over. I am actually not surprised, but a bit disappointed.

[Authority of LDS Women]

Okay, okay, time out. Take a deep breath, everyone.

Crazypotato, nobody is accusing or judging anybody. This is what happened - go read back to the posts to verify:

* Somebody made an anecdotal story about a Welfare Meeting in their ward where a Ward Mission Leader needed somebody to clean a single guy's kitchen. The "knee-jerk reaction" of the WML was to assign the job to RS. RSP reminded him that she doesn't have stewardship over the home because there is no woman in the house. So the next "knee-jerk reaction" of the WML was to assign the job to Young Women. The HPGL assured everyone that this guy has active home teachers. So, the storyteller made the suggestion to ask the home teachers to clean the kitchen (which is what should have been done in the first place). The bishop agreed and the matter was settled.

JAG congratulated the RSP for standing up to the big boys to point out whose stewardship this job is.

There is no judgement beyond the "moral of the story". You know, just like when your mother told you about the Hare and the Tortoise to get you to understand a life lesson. We're not saying the Hare is a stupid moron. We're just saying, that in THIS STORY, the moral is that the Hare lacked wisdom. That's not a judgement on the Hare beyond the moral. Otherwise, if you consider that inappropriate judgement, then there is no way we can use any story to point out the error of our ways.

Are we all cool now?

Anatess, I completely see what you are saying. However, look at all the posts directed towards me from people that disagree with me, that are not only disagreeing but using a disrespectful tone. For example, why does it matter that I grew up in Utah?

[Authority of LDS Women]

Funny, I would say it's just the opposite. In the early days of feminism, the trend was the bash men and ensure equal job opportunities, pay, etc. for women. Early feminists didn't care who they trod down on their quest for equality. Modern feminists see that early feminism was actually one of the worst things that ever happened to femininity. (Abrasive attitudes like yours don't help either.) Modern feminists understand that it is their right to choose what they wish to do in life, just as it is a man's right. Many choose to stay home with children. Many choose to enter the workforce and climb corporate ladders.

It's also worth noting that men-bashing is not feminism, it is misandry.

Wingnut, do you enjoy being contrary to me? Lots of feminists are men-bashers.

Really, this is just laughable. Did you grow up in Utah, or did you grow up in the real world, where you might actually experience "women all over the church"?

Wingnut, I grew up in Utah and have lived in the South and in the Northwest as an adult. Are my opinions not valid unless I have lived where you think I should have lived?

No one said he was either a chauvinist or a pig. It was point out that he was stereotypical in assuming that it should be a woman who mopped the widower's floor, despite there being no woman in the home already. It was pointed out that he should have thought things through a little better first.

You know, for being such an anti-feminist, you've referred to men as "crappy" at least twice in the last two pages. Would you like to be the pot today, or the kettle?

You seem to enjoy twisting my words. I am not really clear on why you have some much hostility towards me, other than I disagree with you and don't view the world the same as you. I have no hostility towards anyone that thinks that I am wrong, but it would be nice if you all would disagree in a respectful manner. It is not politically correct to say that a woman should stay home with her children. But it is my view. I can generalize about my views and it seems that people take them as personal attacks.

[Authority of LDS Women]

Well... you did. Apparently you have already forgotten. Specifically you said:

"Feminists today are more than about equal pay and equal rights. I am in a small group of people that understands who modern day feminists are. Modern day feminists push for women to have careers and leave their kids at day care. They push for self-fulfillment first before "slaving" for your family. Modern day feminists men bash. Modern day feminists think that women are smarter and better than men at running things."

I am a feminist today. According to you I, being a feminist, bash men. President Bush, being a feminst, according to you, bashes men. If you believe that women should have equal rights with men, you are a feminist and you, according to you, bash men.

It is you who is y wrong. It is not a matter of experience. It is a simple math issue. You defined the set of feminists as possessing a bunch of traits you made up to justify your dislike for feminism - which promotes equal rights. As a factual matter, you are mistaken. A thoughtful or correct opinion would hold that some portion of the feminist set are known by you to have such and such traits.

Snow, you are arguing with me over a definition of feminism. We probably agree more than disagree. The definition I am using is apparently unacceptable and wrong for you. You are taking my definition as a personal attack against you. That was unintended. There is more than one definition of feminism. Again, I never attacked you, and you are jumping all over me.

[Where do you draw the line?]

Obviously you're taking this statement as a very black and white one. Since you seem to enjoy (on this thread and others) being so extreme, then to be fair you should interpret this verse to mean that we shouldn't have ANY friends other than our spouses.

And I know 400 who are on Facebook and haven't left their husbands. I even know men who haven't left their wives because of Facebook -- GASP!

I think the point of "already in trouble" is that they probably didn't love their spouses anymore, but didn't know how to address the issues, so they sabotaged the marriage instead.

Please show me where in the scriptures or in teachings from modern General Authorities where we are specifically commanded (or even counseled) not to have friends of the opposite sex.

I already said the scriptures say to cleave to your spouse and none else. I already gave the example of President Kimball. I never said that everyone is going to run off and commit adultery if they have friends of the opposite sex. You are making me sound way more extreme than I am. Your little "GASP" is frankly rude. Please disagree with me without being sarcastic, insulting, and calling me extreme.

[Wife makes more money than husband]

What you are trying to say is that by pushing men into more effeminate roles the women are in effect emasculating their men. Then the women wonder why the men are so effeminate and wish for a more masculine man.

I personally have to disagree with this. Money does not make the man. Yes it does cause women to feel more secure in a relationship, but it does not make the man more masculine.

I heard a long time ago about a study done on what women and men find attractive in the opposite gender. For men the curvy look on a woman is often very attractive, good birthing hips and such. Something about how human males look at women cause them to subconsciously be attracted to women who look like they would be a good (to be blunt) breeder.

Conversely women were attracted to men who dressed nicely, seemed to have money and seemed as if they could provide well for the woman. Subconsciously they were attracted to men who would be good providers for themselves and any babies that came along. It is all down to survival instincts.

That said, a man who makes more than another man is not suddenly more masculine, money does not add extra testosterone to a man's system. It just makes him look like a better provider.

Personally I would have no problem if I made more than my husband, I would not think less of him either. I have a degree, he does not, we work the same level of job at the same company but I get paid less than he does. That I see as more of an issue than how much we both bring home.

When it comes down to it feminisim does not ruin marriages, people do. Feminism (and I am not talking extreme bra burning feminisim) can actually help marriages. Fear of feminisim often causes women to end up in a relationship where they are unhappy and they live that way for years because they thing that is how they "should" be. It is a bunch of hogwash, a couple in a marriage should find ways to make each other happy, and if that means that the woman has a job (because for whatever reason it makes her happy) then so be it. If the marriage is happier and healthier because of it then I see no harm in a woman making more than her husband.

Tarnished, extreme feminism does hurt marriages. And I see a trickle of ideas in your post that I disagree with. I am not basing my opinion on how things "should" be. That implies that I have no life experience in this or that I am blindly following a mentality that feminism is bad. I am basing my opinion on my life experience as well as a book called "Fascinating Womanhood", on Dr. Laura's theories about marriage, and on this article that I sent. I used to vehemently disagree with Dr Laura and with the book Fascinating Womanhood. But over the years and with life experience, watching my own marriage, my sisters and brothers, my parents, my coworkers, my friends, I strongly believe in their theories now. I am not 100% on board with Dr Laura, but in general, yes.

And the philosophy of trying to make each other happy is exactly what I believe in, too. I used to try and change my husband into my ideal of us being completely equal and the same. But happiness in marriage is best found if we follow Jesus Christ. And the Lord wants us to love and accept each other, and do our primary roles. If we look at the proclamation on the family, it is very traditional and sexist in some people's view. But it is still true. It doesn't say, women should provide for the family if that makes them feel happier and more liberated. It says men should provide for the family unless circumstances make this impossible.

[Wife makes more money than husband]

That's... Wow. That's incredible.

So if you were a medical doctor, you wouldn't date a truck driver or a mechanic?

This attitude confuses me to no end. Don't get me wrong - If you don't respect someone, you shouldn't date them, but I think maybe you should consider that you're being very silly in this regard and, depending on what you how much you make, preventing some very fulfilling relationships.

On the other hand, if you earn basement dollars, then it's understandable. You want someone with a desire to do something, but to condemn a man because that desire is not 'High profile stockbroker' seems to me to miss the point of relationships.

FunkyTown, I am already married. My husband is not rich, but he provides so that I don't have to work. If he were a truck driver or a mechanic, that would be awesome. As long as he made enough for us to pay for our needs, that would be great. I would lose respect for him if he were counting on me to work full time or even part time for our entire marriage, so that he could have more toys or didn't have to have it all on his shoulders. Sure I would work temporarily if needed, or permanently if it was for a good reason, but in general, no. I respect men that have the desire to provide for their family. It has nothing to do with how much or little education they have or how much money they make. If they live in a trailer park and the husband is providing, I have respect for him. If the husband is home on disability legitimately and the wife is providing, then I still respect the man.

Funkytown, I understand that I confuse you and also I seem to be irritating a lot of people here. My intention is not to judge anyone else's marriages or relationships here. My intention is to give my opinion that has actually changed over the years. I am 37 years old and when I started out as single, I was only marrying someone based on how we got along with each other, not anything with money. Then I married my husband, and we were dirt poor, like a lot of newlyweds, because my husband was still in school and we were living on our two part time jobs. I expected him to have a lot of feminine traits. It was what I wanted and thought men should be like. I wanted him to cook and clean, and I wanted all of our money decisions and decisions in general to be joint decisions. Now this is all great in theory, but it didn't work.

I strongly believe, strongly strongly strongly, that women give mixed messages to men.

We want them to be equal partners in the household chores, the finances, the jobs, but then on the other hand, we want them to be protectors, providers, and be very masculine. My husband happens to have a very masculine personality. I used to think he was a huge jerk. After I embraced his masclinity and stopped trying too get him to be a woman (i.e. have long talks with me, do all these household chores, agree with me on everything), we have had a great marriage. Now I know plenty of people that are not like me, but I still strongly believe that feminism harms marriages. It makes people extemely defensive, it seems, to say that, but I still believe it. I could elaborate more if you like, but I get the feeling that everyone here thinks that I am an extremist.

[Feel like giving up]

I just think that since you are feeling the Spirit really strong at church, that the Lord is trying to tell you that he loves you for you to keep going, even if you are still smoking and all the other stuff, keep going. The stronger your Spirit gets, the easier it will be to overcome the physical stuff.

I wish you the best and I know that God loves you!

[Feel like giving up]

Everyone sucks and no one can overcome their natural man without the Lord.

Have you read, "He Did Deliver Me From Bondage" by Colleen Harrison. It is more than just a book but an LDS 12 step recovery program and it includes written assignments at the end of each chapter for you to do on your own or with a church 12 step group. It sounds like you have the desire to change, but not the personal strength, family strength, or resources to do it.

I highly recommend this book to everyone - not just addicts. It really helps you learn how to use the Atonement of Christ in your life. I think if you are young, you should start going to Institute classes and activities to give you some scripture study time and social time with young members that you could form friendships with. That would help you to have some support and not try and face your problems all alone. You are probably using pot and smoking and sleeping with your boyfriend to cope with pain rather than turning to the Lord and giving Him your burdens. Lots of members don't even know how to do that. It is not easy. But things will get easier if you just start with that book that I told you about, and start small.

[Authority of LDS Women]

a) It wasn't her house.

b) I am, to be blunt, not prepared to extend the same "church leader" deference I give to apostles and bishops, to ward mission leaders who are trying to get out of work.

c) This particular WML was in the house--fifteen minutes and a mop, and the job'd have been done. Instead, the WML chose to hoof it back home, (presumably) wait a couple of days, then go to Ward Council and try to get a woman to do it (presumably, another day or two after the assignment had been made).

I'm not a feminazi; I just have a problem with people "being charitable" with other people's time and resources. Especially when they try to pass off their own laziness as "the proper order of things" or "the divinely-designated spheres of responsibility".

I don't see that Saguaro said anything about how the WML responded to the suggestion.

I made no generalities beyond those implicit in this particular anecdote--that a man tried to stick a woman with an unpleasant task that was not her responsibility and that he himself was unwilling to do, simply because she was a woman.

I don't recall labeling you as a feminazi. I also was not there in your ward and neither is this guy here to defend himself. Maybe it doesn't matter because no one knows who he is. The tone of your response doesn't sound exactly neutral or nonjudgmental towards this man. That's your deal. Do you think that I want women to be stuck with crappy jobs or something, and that I am a Stepford wife or something?

[Authority of LDS Women]

I don't think anyone said that anyone was being mean by pointing anything out. I think what was being pointed out was the stewardship of this gentleman was the Priesthood as there were no females in the home. Whether it be getting the swamp cooler ready for winter, changing a tire or mopping a floor, it was the men that had that responsibility not the RS President.

My only problem with the story given, is that who of us know any of these people, so why jump on the bandwagon of what a chauvinist pig the man was, when we don't have his side of the story? I forget who wrote the story, he knows more about it than I do, but why are other people on here jumping in and saying how awesome the RS pres is and how crappy the loser guy was when he is not here to defend himself? It doesn't seem fair.

[Authority of LDS Women]

It goes without saying - that is factually untrue.

All the women in my life/family - mom, daughters, sisters and wife are feminists and not a one of them think and do any of the things you accuse them of.

That's great for you and your family. Somehow, I don't remember accusing you or anyone you know of the things I was saying about feminists. So I really don't understand how you can make a blanket dismissal of everything that I have said, when I am using my experience and you are using yours. Then who is right, you, or me? How about you are right about your family and friends, and I am right about the people in my life. And by the way, I do not live in a cave.:)

[Wife makes more money than husband]

Okay. I feel like there are a lot of people here with their dictionaries and reference tools waiting to correct each other. If you want me to use the terms more clearly, then fine. Women try to emasculate men. Men are effeminate. But I wasn't trying to say that men are effeminate. I was trying to say that women push their female gender roles onto men and then wonder why men aren't more masculine.

[Authority of LDS Women]

"That RS President sounds awesome!!!

And the fact that an RS President can (politely) tell a male Church leader to go pound sand when he tries to pull something like that, itself says a little something about gender/power dynamics in the church. "

Please be careful to not bash male leaders of the church for suggesting women clean a floor in a house. See how when a man was suggested to do the job, the leader was okay with it. It almost seems, I could be wrong, that you are jumping to the old conclusion that men are so mean to women and good for her for standing up for herself. I don't see that anything mean was done here.

[Authority of LDS Women]

"Um, I'm a man and I do all those things (except the flowers) so does that make me a woman? Am I acting like woman when I clean the bathroom? Am I acting like a woman when I bathe and dress my children? (we're past diapers thankfully, but I changed my fair share). My wife would strongly disagree, she thinks very highly of me when I help around the house. You didn't mention laundry, I do most of the laundry in my house, does that make me a woman too?"

You are doing traditionally women's roles. I am sure your wife appreciates you. I never said you were a woman. Those are feminine, nurturing roles. It is just a fact. It is very kind of you to help around the house. Why do you feel like I am attacking you?

"The proclamation to the family defines divine rolls for men and women, but it also says they are "equal partners", it doesn't say a man can't be nurturing or a woman can't make a buck or two. It amazes me how many women (and men of course) in the LDS church try their hardest to keep sexism alive."

Yes, the proclamation clearly states the primary roles of each gender. Men are primarily to provide and protect. Women are primarily to nurture children. Primarily does not mean exclusively. The proclamation is sexist. It defines genders as different and with different roles. Because men and women may help each other with their roles, that is fine, but equality doesn't mean both of you get a job, both of you clean the house, and both of you do everything. Feminists think that either person could do either or both job. The proclamation specifically states where most of your focus should go to - your role.

[Authority of LDS Women]

Just read this. It is what I am trying to say.

Have you turned your man into a hermaphrodite? - Telegraph

I don't care what feminists on a website say. Do you seriously think that they are going to say, "Hey! Let's men-bash! We are a bunch of men-haters! The misconceptions that you quote there are words, not actions. I am talking about how feminist our society has become, including Utah.

I grew up a Mormon in Utah. I grew up hearing women all over the church claiming they wore the pants in their home. I see women all the time put their husbands down and then say it is not men bashing, just venting. I have heard professional counselors label men as emotionally abusive and women as victims ad nauseum. I have seen several counselors ruin people's marriages and lives by completely taking the woman's side and labeling men as abusive for simply thinking differently and being masculine.

It is pervasive in our society to believe that women are strong and capable and men are marginalized. Mainly this happens in the media, in TV commercials and TV shows. For example, "The Simpsons" and shows of that type seem funny and harmless, but the message is that men are stupid and babyish, and women are capable. Please, do not tell me that all shows don't say this same message. I know that. A huge amount of them do. My friends and female associates and pretty much most of the women in the world that I know think that male and female roles need to be blurred, that men need to do housework, cooking, and cleaning, and if they don't, they are jerks. Women think that equality in the home means that they can power struggle with their husband and ultimately, if they are not happy, then their husband must be the problem. Women wear more masculine clothes in general than they used to. In college, at BYU, I frequently felt fearful of being labeled as someone who was looking for a husband so that I could stay home and pop out babies all day. That was highly frowned on. I was told that if I was 21 and didn't go on a mission, I wasn't a good Mormon. I have had LDS women far and wide tell me that once I am a stay at home mom, I will go crazy because i won't be using my brain and to try and get a part time job so that I don't go crazy. These same women wonder why their husbands aren't more ambitious about making more money or getting a better job. Women whine all the time about their husbands not helping with housechores, even if they are SAHMs. I hear all the time, "I would never let my husband. . ." or passing remarks about their husbands having to ask their permission to buy something. This is all normal, but very feminist.

Think about what I am saying. I am not attacking any individuals on this board, so why are you all jumping on me? Because you disagree and are going with how society is now doesn't make you correct. The small group of women that I refer to is not an actual group, but a small portion of women in society, LDS, or not, that believe that our society is too feminist and that men are emasculated frequently, and we believe that men are the leaders in the home. For example, women who agree with Dr Laura, or women who agree with "Fascinating Womanhood." Just mention Dr. Laura or Fascinating Womanhood in general society and I frequently am attacked verbally for being a doormat or hear people bash Dr Laura for being a jerk.

[Authority of LDS Women]

No. Feminists from the olden days wanted equal rights. Feminists today are different. Your Collins dictionary definition is the old definition.

Feminists today are more than about equal pay and equal rights. I am in a small group of people that understands who modern day feminists are. Modern day feminists push for women to have careers and leave their kids at day care. They push for self-fulfillment first before "slaving" for your family. Modern day feminists men bash. Modern day feminists think that women are smarter and better than men at running things.