Authority of LDS Women

[crazypotato]

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.

[crazypotato]

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.

[crazypotato]

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?

[crazypotato]

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.

[Just_A_Guy]

The tone of your response doesn't sound exactly neutral or nonjudgmental towards this man. That's your deal.

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

Do you think that I want women to be stuck with crappy jobs or something, and that I am a Stepford wife or something?

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").

[crazypotato]

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.

[MarginOfError]

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.

:lol:

[Just_A_Guy]

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?

I don't remember saying you used the word "apostasy"; I remember accusing you of "hinting" as much. As you yourself admit (see below), you accused me of bashing Church leaders. That's a loaded term in our culture, as you must know. You can make semantical arguments all you want. We know what you meant.

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.

I refuse to give the entire male membership of the Church the kind of immunity you demand for them.

By your standard, I can't even discuss Mark Hoffman's bombings or Isaac Haight's plotting of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. After all, they were home teachers at one point (Haight was a stake president, for heaven's sake), and they certainly aren't here to defend their activities now.

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.

My labeling an WML's behavior as boorish is judgmental and constitutes "bashing church leaders", but your dismissal of an absent Relief Society President as having a "bee in [her] bonnet" doesn't?

It sounds like you're saying that we can talk bad about Mormon women all we want--but that we have no prerogative to speak ill of a Mormon male, regardless of his actions.

Your hostile tone is unnecessary.

Your (entirely justifiable, IMHO) contempt for radical feminism is blinding you to honest-to-gosh sexism. Even worse, it has led you to make apologies for those who sustain it while attacking those who oppose it. That merits a direct rebuttal; I'm sorry you interpret it as hostility.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Vanhin]

This is starting to get out of hand... Please tone down the personal attacks. That means everyone.

Vanhin

[pam]

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.

Who called him a chauvinist pig? No one is jumping on any bandwagon. As Saguaro mentioned he was at that meeting. It was nothing more than a learning experience that the men can handle those that are within their stewardship. Nothing more. The comment about the RS President being able to say something was also nothing more than a learning experience that the RS is not always responsible for cleaning projects. If there had been a sister in the house, I'm sure the RS president would have offered help. The whole idea was that there was no jurisdiction for the RS.

Edited June 30, 2010 by pam

[crazypotato]

Um,

Can we stop the attacks on crazypotato? Where have I attacked any of you other than asking you to stop your hostile tones? Where is my hostile tone? Do you view me as hostile because I don't see eye to eye with you?

[Snow]

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.

For reasons I do not understand you equate disagreement of opinions as personal attacks. You think, incorrectly, that I view your opinions as a personal attack on me and choose to interpret my disagreement with your opinion as a personal attack on you.

I am not attacking you personally. I have no idea if you are funny looking, unhygienic, malodorous, amoral, or Canadian. I oppose your opinions because they are:

1. Factually untrue.

2. Uninformed.

3. Offensive.

It is not a matter of definition, a point you will shortly demonstrate by being unable to post any credible published definition that feminism = man bashing, promotion of self over family, pushing for women to put children in day care, promotes women as having superior intelligence over men. That's not a definition, that merely uniformed bigotry.

If anyone hurled analogous pejoratives at Mormons or Hispanics, or veterans, or Mia Maids, those opinions would be condemned and yours should be also.

Were it not for a long history of feminism, women would not be able to vote, own property, get equal educations, holds same jobs with same pay as men, serve their country in politics. Fortunately for each one of us, male and female feminist have enriched all of mankind with their tireless efforts.

I fear that percentage of feminists in the Church does not equal or surpass the percentage of feminists in the general population. I hope I am wrong.

Feminism = a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women.

[crazypotato]

http://www.feministagenda.org.au/IFS%20Papers/Nonie2.pdf

This paper is from a 2007 Feminst conference. Here is a quote if you are not going to read it:

Radical feminists linked women’s oppression to their child caring responsibilities and,

also, to the ideology of motherhood that defined and contained mothering in the

interests of men.

Feminists argued, “Only if the pattern of child care is completely changed can the

mass of women be free” (Curthoys, 1976, p. 3).

The outcome of this radical feminist vision was support for “… a strong child care

movement, as a subsidiary or offshoot of the women’s movement, with revolutionary

aims, devoted to the breakdown of existing work patterns and the establishment of

communal child care” (Curthoys, 1976, p. 5)

So in the 1960s and 1970s community centred child care was one of the fundamentals

of the feminist revolution.

But where are we now?

So is it too late? I argue not!

Child care is not simply a liberal feminist issue that helps women balance work and

family! Child care is still fundamental to the liberation of women and radical

feminists need to reclaim child care before “all the men in power put their spin on it”!

If we do not reclaim child care, a child care movement with revolutionary aims, it will

remain in the hands of men whose sole goal is not the liberation of women or quality

care for our children but the unfettered pursuit of escalating profit at the expense of

women."

[crazypotato]

Here's an article from the same International Conference on feminism. It is titled: "Male Domination’s Double Act: how warrior training in domestic terrorism reinforces female oppression

57…..Radical Feminism foretells ourselves as ‘endangered

species’,58connects man-made ‘witchunting’59 extermination and today’s Phallic

Fundamentalism.60..…..One scribe views ’the terrorist as the logical product of a

people who have beeen crushed, dispossessed, tortured and killed in terrible

numbers’.61 Ordinary Family females have logical reason to retaliate,to kill neonatal

males,castrate rapists, as sex-slaves maim their owners.In truthtelling, this

’evil-female-enemy’ serves as camouflage for ruling class dependency

masqueraded as superiority.Radical Feminism sabotages manhood mythomania.

Lyn Ariel. Sydney ‘07

[crazypotato]

FEMINISM:

A SPENT FORCE OR STILL A FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH?

Betty McLellan

"We wanted to transform the world, to make it a fairer place for women, and what we see is that the world has been transformed all right but, under George W. Bush, John Howard and their ilk,

transformed in an extremely negative and destructive way - certainly not in a way that will bring justice for women and other minorities. The transformation is one which, more than ever before, privileges the already privileged. Economic rationalism, the formation and dominance of global trade

and financial institutions has meant increased hardship. . ."

She adds:

an Ethic of Absolutism is an ethic of obedience to the law - any

law, a law which is held up as containing guiding principles for life. You see,

there’s no need to reflect if you’re a conservative, no need to try to understand

what’s going on in the world, to understand, for example, why women are still

treated so badly. Because some higher authority has said that this is how it

should be, and that’s enough. The Bible, the Koran, a political leader, religious

leader, tribal leader, Indigenous customary law, Sharia law - some higher

authority.

The thing is that an Ethic of Absolutism or an Ethic of Fundamentalism never

works for women. In fact, women are targetted by fundamentalists who

unashamedly proclaim that if women are included in the category “human” at all,

it is only as second-class citizens. It’s all about men - and why? Because God

ordained that it should be so!

What’s happening for women? Well, first of all there’s the

curse of fundamentalism. Women are diminished and silenced by religious,

political and market fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism denying personal

and social freedoms to women; political fundamentalism deliberately excluding

women and silencing all dissenting voices; and market fundamentalism putting

enormous stress on women as they struggle with poverty or, in wealthier

countries, as they struggle to keep up with the demands of consumerism.

Fundamentalism.

How is it possible to stand against the oppression of women without alienating men when it’s almost always men and male institutions who do the oppressing?

[crazypotato]

Another item on the agenda:

"Sappho's Rights" Basically, fighting for lesbian rights.

Another one:Hard Core Activism fights Soft Core Tokenism

Judy Rose & Pym Schaare

The ethic of male as provider and masculine identity defined by status at work

reinforces the privileging of the male in the workplace. On the flip side, women’s

issues are silenced and minimalised as pressure is applied for her to acquiesce or face

the chop. Through the threat of losing their job, being demoted or made redundant

workers are forced to comply with the new workplace laws. Isolation, rejection, being

alienated with bullying tactics also works to keep the patriarchal workplace ethic in

order.

[Snow]

http://www.feministagenda.org.au/IFS%20Papers/Nonie2.pdf

This paper is from a 2007 Feminst conference. Here is a quote if you are not going to read it:

Radical feminists linked women’s oppression to their child caring responsibilities and,

also, to the ideology of motherhood that defined and contained mothering in the

interests of men.

Feminists argued, “Only if the pattern of child care is completely changed can the

mass of women be free” (Curthoys, 1976, p. 3).

The outcome of this radical feminist vision was support for “… a strong child care

movement, as a subsidiary or offshoot of the women’s movement, with revolutionary

aims, devoted to the breakdown of existing work patterns and the establishment of

communal child care” (Curthoys, 1976, p. 5)

So in the 1960s and 1970s community centred child care was one of the fundamentals

of the feminist revolution.

But where are we now?

So is it too late? I argue not!

Child care is not simply a liberal feminist issue that helps women balance work and

family! Child care is still fundamental to the liberation of women and radical

feminists need to reclaim child care before “all the men in power put their spin on it”!

If we do not reclaim child care, a child care movement with revolutionary aims, it will

remain in the hands of men whose sole goal is not the liberation of women or quality

care for our children but the unfettered pursuit of escalating profit at the expense of

women."

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

You apparently are not even reading your own posts. Look at the title of the paper.

[crazypotato]

The is NOWs agenda, from their own website.

Before Obama even took office, NOW released its Feminist Action Agenda for 2009 and Beyond to illuminate specific pathways to achieve women's equality. NOW's action agenda covers nine issue areas: economic justice; reproductive rights and sexual health; equal rights and ending sex discrimination; healthcare for all; stopping violence against women; lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights; educational equity; promoting diversity and ending racism; and media fairness and accessibility. The agenda details NOW's specific policy goals for each category.

Intern

The Promise Keepers, a right-wing fundamentalist men's group known for holding men-only rallies in football stadiums, continues its surreptitious campaign for male supremacy with a new nationwide tour.

"Don't be fooled by the media coverage of the group's religious faith," said NOW Action Vice President Olga Vives, who spoke at a rally outside the Promise Keepers' first tour event in Albany, N.Y. on June 5.

"This organization breeds bigots. Underneath the façade of Christian religion are the workings of the radical religious right, mobilizing men against the rights of women, lesbians, and gays. Let's remember they blame women's equality for society's ills."

No, I do not identify myself as a modern day femiinist and I don't stand by their agenda. I am not uniformed and wrong. Can you really be LDS and affiliate with NOW? NOW is the modern feminist movement. They are for gay marriage, abortion, anti-right-wing, etc.

Including:

•Constitutional protections alone cannot ensure accessible and affordable reproductive health services for all women. In a political environment hostile to reproductive rights, a number of women—especially young women, women of color, poor women, immigrant women and women with disabilities—are unable to access abortion, birth control, pre-natal care, maternity leave, child care and other crucial health and family services

•NOW believes that our schools should provide only the most up-to-date, medically-accurate and comprehensive sex education to their students. Abstinence-only education, a favorite of the right-wing, leaves young women and men uninformed and unprepared to safeguard their own health and well-being.

Throughout the next three decades, NOW's work on lesbian rights remained strong and decisive, covering such issues as discrimination in the military, anti-sodomy laws, electing lesbian and gay candidates to political office, hate crimes legislation, and expanding same-sex partners' rights. In 1995, NOW made official its support for same-sex marriage, stating that the choice of marriage is a fundamental constitutional right, protected under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and should not be denied because of a person's sexual orientation

NOW and Fighting the Right Wing Example of how they are fighting the right wing.

Intern

The Promise Keepers, a right-wing fundamentalist men's group known for holding men-only rallies in football stadiums, continues its surreptitious campaign for male supremacy with a new nationwide tour.

"Don't be fooled by the media coverage of the group's religious faith," said NOW Action Vice President Olga Vives, who spoke at a rally outside the Promise Keepers' first tour event in Albany, N.Y. on June 5.

"This organization breeds bigots. Underneath the façade of Christian religion are the workings of the radical religious right, mobilizing men against the rights of women, lesbians, and gays. Let's remember they blame women's equality for society's ills."

[crazypotato]

For reasons I do not understand you equate disagreement of opinions as personal attacks. You think, incorrectly, that I view your opinions as a personal attack on me and choose to interpret my disagreement with your opinion as a personal attack on you.

I am not attacking you personally. I have no idea if you are funny looking, unhygienic, malodorous, amoral, or Canadian. I oppose your opinions because they are:

1. Factually untrue.

2. Uninformed.

3. Offensive.

It is not a matter of definition, a point you will shortly demonstrate by being unable to post any credible published definition that feminism = man bashing, promotion of self over family, pushing for women to put children in day care, promotes women as having superior intelligence over men. That's not a definition, that merely uniformed bigotry.

If anyone hurled analogous pejoratives at Mormons or Hispanics, or veterans, or Mia Maids, those opinions would be condemned and yours should be also.

Were it not for a long history of feminism, women would not be able to vote, own property, get equal educations, holds same jobs with same pay as men, serve their country in politics. Fortunately for each one of us, male and female feminist have enriched all of mankind with their tireless efforts.

I fear that percentage of feminists in the Church does not equal or surpass the percentage of feminists in the general population. I hope I am wrong.

Feminism = a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women.

Actually, I find your reply very offensive. you are not disagreeing with me, you are calling me a bigot. Excuse me, but moderator, isn't this not very KOSHER? To call me a bigot?

[Hemidakota]

CP...it is not worth it. Best thing to do is step back from the computer and take a break.

[Dravin]

If you have an issue with a post please report it ( icon in the upper right corner of post). It causes the post to be reported in the moderator forum complete with your comments so the moderator staff can discuss it. This has a couple advantages, it leaves a nice record of things and helps avoid arguments in the thread amongst members if something is a violation or not but more important it brings it up to all the Mods instead of just the ones who wander into the thread.

[Hemidakota]

It is better to take this to Heather on how to moderate appropriately.

[Snow]

Jesus, like enlightened men and women of our time, was a feminist.

JESUS WAS A FEMINIST

Definition of Terms: By Jesus is meant the historical person who lived in Palestine two thousand years ago, whom Christians traditionally acknowledge as Lord and Savior, and whom they should "imitate" as much as possible. By a feminist is meant a person who is in favor of, and who promotes, the equality of women with men, a person who advocates and practices treating women primarily as human persons (as men are so treated) and willingly contravenes social customs in so acting.

Jesus Was A Feminist, by Leonard Swidler

[john doe]

Why don't we all just take chill pills while I close this? Let's all please try to learn how to play nice.