Feminists sometimes get a bum rap at church. Is it deserved or is it based on misunderstanding?
[poll id=”175″]
How much of a feminist are you?
[poll id=”276″]
Discuss.
Apostate Feminists (Weekend Poll)
Feminists sometimes get a bum rap at church. Is it deserved or is it based on misunderstanding?
[poll id=”175″]
How much of a feminist are you?
[poll id=”276″]
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Having spent about 20 years of my career writing surveys with attitude questions, I know how hard it is to capture the range of issues regarding, especially, emotionally-laden issues. But, you should have had a more clear choice regarding abortion, such as: “The fetus has a right to life, but some circumstances outweigh those rights, such as the mental or physical health of the mother. In such cases courts should rely on a small committee of scientific (NOT religious) experts that have met with the mother to advise their decision.”
Which is not to say that there aren’t several other good issues besides “reproductive rights” in your survey.
fbisti, Are you trying to assume that the questionnaire is intended to make inquiries in a spirit of intellectual honesty?
Very interesting. But I would have felt more comfortable answering if it was simply “what causes” that I believed in. I get tired of seeing the feminist label slapped on things when it may or may not apply. A lot of people support some of those things without being feminist, and since there is no Articles of Faith for feminism, some feminists may not agree with all of those.
Since it seems that there’s almost as many types of feminism as there are feminists, it’d be hard to determine whether ‘feminism’ is compatible with the Gospel or not. Certainly much of the radical stuff coming out of “New Yawk” isn’t in harmony with the Gospel, but I haven’t read any self-proclaimed feminists blogging here as being in lockstep with those FemiNazis. It’s not my place to judge their respective fitness as a member of the Church; that remains for their local leaders should the need arise.
I have a real problem coflating “reproductive freedom” with one’s position on women’s issues, save one holds the notion that the unchallenged right to murder one’s unborn helpless child in the womb is essential to being a ‘Feminist’. That, according to Rush Limbaugh (hardly the same class of conservative commentator as, say, George Will, but he does hold his own) is the “high sacrament” of the most radical of feminists. According to him, what defines a “Feminazi” is the notion that as many elective abortions as possible must occur.
As for other things (Yes, I could see where it might be appropriate to have a woman speak in PH meeting at Gen Conference, do we just hang a great big “No Gurls alloud” sign (“S” written backwards) on the doors of the Conference Center?), we could always do better to ensure that the feelings and concerns of our sisters are at least adequately addressed. Sometimes just being LISTENED to works wonders.
“flaunt the Proclamation on the Family.” I think you mean flout. But hey, common mistake.
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/flout-versus-flaunt
And some of your options are pretty skewed in choice of terminology, or suffer from lack of definitions. I opted not to answer any.
Ben – noted and corrected.
FamProc-flouting feminists frustrate faithful!
Douglas, murder is a legal concept, and does not exist outside that context. As a matter of fact, abortion in the united states is not murder.
Br jones, legs are torn off and heads are severed so killing is taking place no matter what you call it.
I wanted to check that I agreed with:
Women should be able to be ordained and use priesthood power to bless others, perform ordinances, and represent God.
But I’m not committed to the idea that ordination is necessary to bless others, perform ordinances, or represent God. All of those things have been done by mormon women in the recent past. Insisting that they are contingent on ordination is self defeating on the part of those who support women’s participation and dissembling on the part of those who would exclude women.
I made a nifty hat out of my copy of the FamProc. So I do indeed flaunt it.
Full reproductive freedom and choice is exercised when choosing to have sex. You can’t lose a bet and demand your money back.
#`3 – For men, ithat’s EXACTLY what reproductive “freedom” means. Once you unzip your trousers, you are NOT free from the consequences eminating thereof (literally). Like the fictional Sgt. Joe Friday reciting to a halpess detainee, you do indeed have “rights”…
1) You have the right to pay copious portions of your income for maintenance of a children born of a woman either your wife or said that you have consorted with, even if DNA or other testings later proves that said child(ren) aren’t biologically yours. If paternity was established as a result of fraud on the part of the mother, you are none the less liable if you are deemed the father.
2) If the mother desires to terminate the pregnancy (tatamount to murder if done merely for convienence, but I’m quite aware that even when it was a crime it was never treated by the law as such), you have the right to have the life of your offspring wiped out against your wishes and suffer the emotional consequences thereof.
3) If the mother desires to give birth, you have the right to see her designate someone else as the father. Or, even under circumstances where paternity isn’t questioned, you have the “right” to see your child(ren) taken into another man’s home and have that man called “Daddy”.
4) You have the right to be accused, arrested, tried, convicted, and incarcerated for rape and/or sexual battery merely on the basis that sexual intercourse took place, notwithstanding any issues of consent, without corroboration of witness or further evidence of assult (e.g, bruises, lacerations, or related injuries). Nor will the court consider any derogatory information about the complaintant…if she’s slept around with half the county, or she has a documented history of lying to the police, or is an utter psychotic, it will avail your case not a whit. Her testimony is considered sufficent on its own and is given judicial notice.
Now, I’m not suggesting that any of the aforemention “men’s rights” be done away with. Typically there’s a reason, often darned good ones. It seems that “reproductive freedom” is a euphenism for feminists who want to have it both ways…all the abilities to enjoy sex under whatever circumstances they deem fit (of itself I’ve no issue with that), but the ability to avoid altogether the natural and logical consequences of said behavior and/or transpose them entirely upon their (male) partner: that of dealing with an unplanned pregnancy and having to interact fairly and justly with one’s sexual partner. Typically liberal politics: the ‘aggrieved’ group gets to play, someone else (typically the demonized white males) get to pay.
Feminists don’t want equality they want supremacy
Been a feminist all my life and never wanted supremacy. Back to the survey.
Seems to me there’s a neat and nifty way out of this mess-how about treating women’s conference as a group of adults and priesthood leadership therefore not attending or indeed presiding? Then the accusation of unrighteous dominion or domination just melts away.Sometimes I just shake my head and wonder about these guys. I think it will probably take another generation to get a corrected attitude towards women, so I’m not holding my breath, but neither do I want either my husband or my son feeling like dinosaurs for attending priesthood session without their women folk. They are good men who treat everyone with respect and would not think for one moment of doing otherwise. That’s why I married my husband, and why his highly gifted girlfriend loves my son.