Today’s guest post by Mary Ann is pragmatic advice for those seeking more gender equality in the church.Have you ever tried to mediate a tense reconciliation between two opposing factions, only to hear one of those parties say something that makes you just want to scream, “Dear God, why, why, WHY would she say that?” That’s often how I feel when I watch a liberal progressive member attempt to talk to a conservative mainstream member about gender equality. For some reason, both parties tend to have an uncanny ability to sabotage the conversation without even recognizing it.
Since I have a vested interest in trying to keep conversations about Mormon gender equality going, I decided to share my observations on how progressive liberal Mormons tend to make these conversations jump straight to the “irreconcilable differences” bin.[1]
1. Reference a polarizing figure.
Just for fun, go up to a Vietnam War veteran and say the words “Jane Fonda.” Chances are good you’ll get an emotional response, possibly including a few colorful expletives. There are certain public figures that are extremely polarizing (George W. Bush, Che Guevara, Bruce R. McConkie, etc.). Most people will be fairly passionate about classifying them heroes or villains. Please understand, your Mormon feminist foremothers are not heroes to many people in the church. Unless you know your companion is a fellow feminist, be extremely cautious about bringing up names like Sonia Johnson or Kate Kelly. If they’ve been excommunicated, consider them polarizing.[2]
2. Use words in strange ways.“Agitate” has two common uses in our daily life.
–“I am agitated because my child keeps smearing poop all over the wall.”
–“The dumb agitator keeps putting holes in my clothes. Apparently I’m overloading the washing machine.”
Please be aware that if you play a word association game, “annoy” or “irritated” will likely be the first things to come to mind when you say “agitate.” Unless you want to label yourself an “annoyer” or “someone who really wants to irritate people,” then you are likely sending the wrong message (if “activist” is what you mean, just say it). I don’t care that you are justifying an entire operation on President Hinckley using that word, he was a saavy press guy from a previous era. Using words in technically accurate yet strange ways was permissible for him, not you.[3]
3. Disparage sacred cows.
If you make a comment that is not consistent with the Primary songs “Follow the Prophet” or “I Love to See the Temple,” your conservative conversation partner will hit DEFCON 5. Think carefully how you would feel if someone truly believed President Uchtdorf was a polygamist child molester like Warren Jeffs.[4] Feel that gut emotional response? That immediate urge to defend someone you absolutely adore? Understand that to most members, the temple and those who they consider prophets, seers, and revelators (FP and Q12) are all sacred cows. Do NOT go there.
4. Claim to represent all Mormon women.
Mormon women have widely different experiences in this church. Do not assume that because you’ve been in some really awful situations that every woman has experienced the same. Seriously, there are Mormon women who have never felt the church has mistreated them. To dismiss those women as deluded or close-minded will not get you anywhere. Everyone, and I do mean *everyone* (myself included) has some sort of selective vision. Open up your vision to understand WHY someone legitimately does not see inequality in the church. If you are able to display an *accurate* and sincere understanding of the opponent’s position, you will earn respect.
5. Make someone feel unsafe.Most people understand this pretty much shuts down any conversation. Understand that aggressive tactics (physical confrontation, yelling, marching en masse, etc.) can make people feel unsafe, even if there’s no ill intent. One person’s testimony that they felt physically unsafe in the presence of a Mormon feminist “agitator” will go a long way towards discrediting the entire movement. [5]
6. Dismiss recent advances as “not enough.”
Look at what’s happened in just the past few years:
–Women saying prayers in General Conference.
–A General Women’s Session being approved by the Brethren at the request of the female auxiliary presidencies. That General Women’s Session being classified as an official session of General Conference. The General Women’s Session now getting first billing on the webpage where all members access talks from the most recent general conference.[6]
–Female auxiliary leaders becoming permanent members of the highest priesthood executive councils.
Seriously, LOOK! Considering what we are dealing with, these are huge. I get that there’s stuff to nitpick on all of them, but THEY HAPPENED. To suggest that we are not making improvements is just wrong. We are. We may be moving slower than a lot of people would like, but we are making progress. Recognize those improvements. Don’t dismiss them as surface gestures. A word often used to describe Ordain Women by people I knew? “Greedy.” If you have to fake it, fine, but display some sort of gratitude for the advances that have been made if you are going to insist on more.
Please, please help keep these gender conversations going. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot.
Discuss.
__________________________________________
[1] Yes, I’m targeting Mormon Feminists. One, conservative members aren’t likely reading this blog. Two, the onus is always on the party attempting to change the status quo.
[2] That goes for movements/statements associated with those figures: ERA, Ordain Women, etc. (Cough, #equalityisnotafeeling, cough, cough)
[3] While you’re at it, put orthodox, heterodox, orthoprax, and heteroprax in the same category. It took awhile for me to figure out what people on the bloggernacle meant using these terms. Unless you’re talking to someone who can speak liberal progressive Mormon, just don’t.
[4] Something like this may or may not have happened, and I may or may not have flown off the handle.
[5] Yes, those testimonies exist. Congratulations.
Wheat & Tares 
Mary Ann,
Thanks for this list. I have definitely been a perpetrator of numbers 3, 4, and 6 (although not to the extent of footnote 4, I believe I know what incidence you’re talking about and it was disarming for me as a progressive feminist member.) I am going to start watching these pitfalls when talking with my more conservative family members. Maybe they will be more open to understanding where I’m coming from.
Please, the word agitate was introduced to the discussion by President Hinckley.
Gender Equality- is an oxymoron. Men and women differ in important ways, it just isn’t possible to have ultimate gender equality in society or the church.
Certainly, there needs to be equality in many areas. Society has made many notable advancements, and more need to be made.
Church members who get caught up in the paradox of gender equality have and even more challenging dilemma, the word of God doesn’t sanction gender equality. So now we have a schism eroding the faith of many.
Forgotten in all of this is that there is gender equality in the most important aspects of Mormon theology:faith,saving ordinances, prayer, gifts of the Spirit, remission of sins, gift of the Holy Ghost, and so on.
Galatians 3: 28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Jared, everything you said is what southerners said to justify slavery. These justifications are simply wrong. Women are just as capable of leading. Men are just as capable of nurturing. We have different plumbing–so what? We are all individuals, all capable of a wide variety of things. We all have brains, wishes, hopes, dreams, responsibilities. When you classify an entire group of people as different from you, it always results in inferior treatment (that you either think they want or that they deserve). Separate is never equal.
As to all the saving ordinances you list, if salvation and eternal reward for women is different than it is for men, then no, it’s not equal.
How about another one, “you’re a man, you just don’t understand”.
Back to the OP, a few thoughts on each point:
2 – Howard is right about who used that word first. But I would say “activist” and “activism” are also dirty words for conservatives.
5 – Unfortunately, “unsafe” is a card people play too often. Anytime you say anything that makes them uncomfortable some people will cry “unsafe.” We want a gospel of milk and crackers with everyone in agreement. Anyone saying anything provocative (which means something we don’t already agree with) can be said to create an “unsafe” environment. It’s overused.
I think #6 was the real issue with the PH session movement. If the movement had declared a victory when PH session was broadcast over TV for the first time in response, well, that would have been great. Claiming victory and moving on to the next thing would have been the better strategy IMO. Plus if equality means I get to go to 2 more hours of church, why would I want to be equal?
Yes, I’ve tried to mediate. 🙂
Really well said.
Right up there with “never get involved in a land war in Asia” is “if you HG disagrees with you, you should reconsider”.
Mary Ann, thanks for a thoughtful list. I could well learn from it.
I would ask that Mormon feminists not assume that feminists are progressives/liberals/democrats/leftists. I’m very conservative with libertarian leanings and I’ve been discussing LDS feminists issues since 1968—when I was four. (True story.) I also read W&T regularly. What I think of as “core feminism” fits very well with conservative principles. Please don’t make conservatives the “them” in your discussions.
Thanks for the comments. Yes, President Hinckley used the word “agitation” in the 1997 ABC interview. He also admitted in that interview that a minority of Mormon women were vocally unhappy with the women’s ordination issue. The situation has not changed.
My point is that it is an uncommon use of the word. President Hinckley’s statement is not easily recognizable to a conservative mainstream member, which is why it’ll just sound off and create problems in a gender equality argument. Tying your entire justification to a television interview is also questionable at best.
Hawkgrrrl is also correct that “activism” is a bad word, but that is what is meant when the word “agitate” is used in a Mormon gender equality context. If a conservative member recognizes the word, it’ll likely be in a negative way. If a conservative member does not recognize the word, you run the annoyance/irritant risk, or an assumption that you’re trying to use big words because you think they’re stupid. Regardless, “agitate” is just bad news when you’re speaking to a conservative.
GBSmith – “You’re a man, you just don’t understand” is also a good conversation ender. It is absent in a conversation with another woman, and it is those conversations I am most concerned about. Open communication between Mormon women is my goal. A majority of Mormon women saying they are content with the status quo convinces people that nothing is wrong. When you have enough women privately admitting their frustrations with the status quo, you start having more leaders seeing that something really is wrong. And that is what church leaders need, to see that a majority of women they personally interact with are uncomfortable.
One of the reasons that I bring up these conversation stoppers is that they can immediately label someone as treasonous. I use such a strong word because it’s appropriate. Many Mormon women saw these protestors as out and out traitors. Seeing a small group claiming to represent your view showing public opposition to church leaders galvanizes members into a fighting stance. Communication cannot take place at that point.
The unsafe thing – a tabernacle usher relating the fear he felt with protestors pushing and shoving to access doors. That’s a tale that is potent. Any type of aggression is going to stop communication. I understand people are angry, but the anger will almost always be interpreted in a very bad way. It is so incredibly important to remain calm in order to retain trust. Unfortunately, most types of liberal protest tactics demand a certain level of angst, and that’s why they don’t tend to go over too well with mainstream members.
Alison, I apologize for any slight. I know strong women who would definitely be considered Mormon feminists in the way they champion for a greater voice for women in the church. They would also not fall under a liberal/progressive label. I don’t see them typically making these mistakes in conversations, though. Again, my goal is to get people who frequently misunderstand each other to better communicate.
Alison makes a very valid point, one I have sometimes been frustrated with. There are too many divisions among feminists, and there are plenty of us who are not voting democrat. I certainly wouldn’t call myself conservative, but nor am I liberal. There’s plenty of common ground, though, unless we are trying to pick fights, and I think that’s a valid point. I do get tired of the arguments that this or that person is not “feminist enough” because they disagree on some hobby horse or other.
She that is not against us is for us. And she that IS against us probably just doesn’t know that we are really more on the same side than not.
“She that is not against us is for us. And she that IS against us probably just doesn’t know that we are really more on the same side than not.” Amen.
The problem is that Mormon women can turn on each other easily. It is very easy to slip up and fail to remember that our similarities are much greater than our differences. Those differences then become barriers.
Thanks for this entire post, Mary Ann. I appreciate it.
“‘You’re a man, you just don’t understand’ is also a good conversation ender. It is absent in a conversation with another woman…”
I’ve had “You just don’t understand,” so you have no right to discuss it, and similar shut-downs said to me multiple times by people who have no idea what my troubled history within the Church has been. The assumption that disagreement is the same as lack of understanding leaves no ground for discussion. I don’t speak up on most blogs any more for this reason. It has actually solidified my opinions, rather than changing them.
I tried to explain once how those who feel they are the only ones brave enough to try to make changes in the Church are actually the ones who are slowing down and nearly stopping the changes. The “advances” you describe in the OP are made in spite of—not because of—those who “agitate” for change. Decades of quiet, persistent effort have made those changes, just like nearly ANY change in the Church.
But there’s no point in anyone who doesn’t subscribe exactly to the groupthink (however backed by personal experience and tragedy,) speaking up. I don’t participate in most “conservative” discussions for the exact reason I don’t participate in most “liberal” ones. They are both so convinced of their personal right-ness, they are incapable of listening and of patience. They want justification, not discussion. So I leave them to their justification.
The Lord wants both the right and the left. Ideologies are far less important than character.
I guess the definition for conservative/mainstream Mormons I’m attempting to use is “those members who are content with the status quo.” It is very easy to equate that with political conservativism, since I tend to see more political conservatives satisfied with the status quo than not. That’s probably where using the term orthodox might be clearer to people here. I just dislike the term because I don’t feel it accurately reflects the range of practices and beliefs among the main group of “active” Mormons.
Many Mormon women saw these protestors as out and out traitors.
Is this a legitimate and honorable perspective? One that deserves respect? The original posting point no. 4 may speak to this, but I’m not sure it is a universal feeling among those who want change.
No, it’s not a legitimate perspective. It’s an emotional reaction. And the reason why it happens is because we have some serious different ways of thinking and communicating. It’s like in #1, where some people are considered heroes to one group, and the same individuals are considered villains to another. You aren’t reacting to the argument, you’re reacting to the way they’ve presented the argument.
Ever since the 1800s, taking a disagreement with church leaders to outside media will blacklist you to many members.
hawkgrrrl, et al,
I was anticipating the argument about slavery would be trotted out. For those interested, I think 1 Nephi 17:23-43 is one place to start among many to shed light on slavery and related issues (also 1 Nephi 19:13-17).
The central issue for Mormon women (and men) who are entangled in the complexities of the gender equality debate is will they take their stand.
Mormons have modern prophets and revelation. We have a choice to make, are we going to follow the revealed word of God or not? Are we going to be in the world, but not of it, or our we going to try to do both, a choice that creates an impossible dilemma (3 Nephi 13:24).
Here is a question to ponder. Does God have rights? For example, does God have the right to judge us and after the resurrection provide a kingdom of glory for His sons and daughters?
If we believe He does then we have the incredible opportunity, the privilege of inheriting all that He has. That, in part, is why we chose to come to a fallen world and experience in a greater way the paradoxes of the war in heaven that continues here.
Each day we make choices that reveal weather we are valiant in the testimony of Christ, or are honorable men and women of the world, blinded by the craftiness of men.
I hope that each church member will look at the issues of our day and use the revelations to decide where they are going to take their stand.
This life is designed to be very difficult, filled with opposition, paradoxes, and temptations of every kind.
Please use the scriptures, our iron rod, to navigate the complexes of this brief but important existence, and be assured that our Father in Heaven will fulfill all His promises.
Mary Ann,
Surely, saying that the bonest feelings of the women you described are illegitimate and dishonorable is surely a way to shut down communication? I think the perspective of those women is legitimate and honorable. As much as you want them to respect your perspective, and in light of the original posting, perhaps you might consider respecting their perspective?
I try to understand those who differ with me, but when they think me to be benighted in my opinion, and want me to be silent while they talk until they win, well, that’s not effective communication. Well, that tactic is sometimes effective if the goal is winning — but if the goal is communication and understanding, it isn’t effective. The women whose perspective is different from yours are not benighted — their perspective is sincere. Along with your, I hope their voices are heard, too. After all, the putative goal is effective communication.
Jared, church leaders in recent years have been very clear about declaring husbands and wives equal partners in marriage. Scriptures and church leaders declare God’s doctrine that men and women are of equal value before Him. Equality belongs in the discussion.
The confusing aspect is that we also have quotes and teachings that teach men are superior in certain ways to women. We also have quotes and teachings that women are superior in certain ways to women. It can get incredibly confusing when you are trying to nail down your place in this church as a woman.
Much of the gender equality debate has to do with the priesthood division based on gender lines. Fortunately, church leaders have declared recently that they do not have a good explanation for why that division exists. They say they are simply acting on what they believe God has instructed them. Believe it or not, this is progress.
Just as the race issue was justified by speculation in the past, the reasons for gender divisions have also been subject to speculation. Many past statements suggest that the divisions exist *because* of stereotypical differences between the universal gifts bestowed to men versus the gifts universally bestowed to men.
The problem is that many men and women are born with gifts and talents that have been traditionally assigned to the opposite gender stereotype. What do you do when you feel the role you’ve been asked to play in the kingdom feels mismatched to the gifts and talents God gave you? One of many arguments poised by those in favor of women’s ordination used that to justify their position. The thinking goes, “If I carry innate talents that have been traditionally identified with opposite gender, then I should be able to serve in the kingdom in the positions natural to that talent. Even though I am female, I possess the natural gift that prophets have used to assign priesthood offices to men.”
This is why it was so important for church leaders to admit that they did not have a good reason for the priesthood gender division. The claim that it was based on stereotypes just doesn’t hold up when gender stereotypes fail.
“Please use the scriptures, our iron rod, to navigate the complexes of this brief but important existence”
Jared, that’s exactly what Hawk did. Are you blind? Let’s pull out Nephi’s own words and see if they have more impact on you.
2 Nephi 26:33
It’s funny that “bond and free” is immediately before “male and female” for both Paul and Nephi. As the scripture says, “none of these iniquities come of the Lord”. Just as slavery is iniquity that doesn’t come from the Lord, so is sexism. It’s plain as day in your favorite piece of scripture. Yet you wrest scriptures to justify that women aren’t equal, despite the fact that Nephi and Paul says so. Why are you ignoring these scriptures?
When we have 109 male leaders, and 9 female leaders in this church (as mentioned on the previous post) it’s hard to call this equal. This unequal treatment, as it says in 2 Nephi–“none of these iniquities come of the Lord,” it comes from man and his prejudices. For you to blame this on God is taking God’s name in vain and is completely offensive to me and to God. Follow the Book of Mormon that you pretend to honor and quit wresting the scriptures to support sexism as supposedly God ordained. I urge you to repent Jared, repent of this awful state of your wickedness.
Is that enough scriptures for you or do you want more?
Are Women guilty of the Curse of Eve and are punished for Eve’s transgression? We all know that Men are punished for Adam’s transgression, but women are continually subjugated to Eve’s curse of gender. This sort of logic is not godly at all.
I’m sorry Mary Ann, I know this is exactly the sort of answer you don’t want on this post, but Jared just seems clueless here. He doesn’t mind calling others to repent, and dismissing scriptures as he calls for more scriptures, so I just want to give him a taste of his own medicine. Scriptures are often used by Jared as a blunt instrument, so it’s nice to use the blunt instrument on his own head for a change. Perhaps he can see the bluntness when the scriptures are bludgeoned upon his own head. He keeps telling us that scriptures are absent from the bloggernacle, when clearly that isn’t the case. He somehow can’t see the beam in his own eye when scriptures are cited by others.
This is an important discussion. I’ve always proudly called myself a feminist although I don’t affiliate with the Democratic party (or the Republican party for that matter!) or more recently, Ordain Women. It has just been in the last several years that I discovered the feminist is a dirty word to most conservative Mormons. My definition of feminism is believing that women and men are equal. Women should be afforded all privileges and opportunities that men are. I feel that aligns perfectly with the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that most of the church members agree with that in their own way. Some think that means women should hold the priesthood. Some think that means women giving birth is the same as men holding the priesthood and there are many, many others at different points along a large spectrum of possibilities. We are all on the same team!
This is why it is so important to learn how to listen to and talk with each other. Maybe God’s answer is that women should receive the priesthood. If the prophet revealed that as God’s will, I think most of the church members would embrace it. Maybe God’s answer is more along the lines of women hold the priestesshood and here are the ways they can use that power to serve Christ. I think most church members would embrace that coming from the prophet. Maybe women don’t need the priesthood at all; the church just needs to continue to progress in the direction it appears to headed by listening to and more fully including women in directing the affairs of the church. All of these to me are feminism. We are all on the same team!
7. Have a male enter the discussion.
Kidding, but some truth to it. I sometimes wish to enter the discussion but feel woefully inadequate. I was sitting there listening to Elder Nelson’s talk with my wife and daughter. Something felt off about the talk, but I couldn’t exactly pinpoint what. They both felt the talk was patronizing to women. I asked why, and their answers made sense immediately but not what I first assumed.
JI, the “traitor” designation is pretty extreme, and based on emotion, not reason. Most members I know firmly believe that people have a right to disagree with church leaders. The problem is taking concerns public, especially to outside media. This is rooted in our cultural persecution complex. It was critical that the church provide a unified front when government agents were persecuting them, and allegiance to church leaders became paramount. Betrayal led to imprisonment, and justified increased pressure by government and other forces.
The claims of betrayal in recent equality skirmishes were not proportionate to the severity of the crime. Feelings of anger and betrayal are justified, but declaring fellow churchmembers of record enemies to the church is not. Bad press can bring some difficulties, but the safety of church members was not in jeopardy. When Sister Oscarson pleaded for love among those sisters who may have been injured in the skirmishes, the love was rare to manifest. If your feeling of anger or betrayal has led you to justify lack of compassion to your fellow sisters in Zion, you have gone too far. And once you have declared someone a traitor or an enemy, the chance for compassion and eventual reconciliation drops.
I had a similar discussion with my parents this weekend during conference, as we discussed the new apostles and other things. My father said, “am I hearing murmuring?” Up to that point we had been discussing various things, but put that way, I said, “if you are going to call a discussion murmuring, then yes”. As we talked it over the weekend, his point once we boiled it down was effectively this “it is what it is, you can’t change it, so just go with it and don’t complain.”
My point to him was, while we may not understand why they do things the way they do at the top, there is no problem discussing it because God speaks through others. You may have the perspective that I don’t have to that will give me insight to “deal with it.”
That being said, Jared, your response reminds me of a bishops council to overcome my addiction issue by going home, praying about, and read more scriptures. While that may with for some, that did not and has not worked for mr, just made feel like I was doing something wrong.
It is a perspective issue. I have no doubt that the leaders are inspired and trying to do what they think is right. I do also believe that in small ways they are making changes and quite possibly get stuck in the “it’s always been this way” mentality that is human nature. They are not inhuman and are subject to normal biases and judgement issues like the rest of us.
The church is a big boat that does not turn on a dime but will make course adjustments with meaningful and rational dialogue. In recovery it is progressive victory over an addiction that indicates progress not perfection. I can only worry about one day at a time, and take whatever progress I can get.
My experience and interpretation regarding the dissatisfaction of “gender equality” in the church, is that neither side gets what the other side means, and both sides feel like it is a give and take with a clear winner or loser.
Maybe the problem is similar to the premise of the 5 love languages. The talks on how great mothers and women are comes across as an affirmation when some of the women don’t speak that language. Their language is quality time or gifts. But until the leaders understand that, they will always give the same message bc they don’t understand why it is isn’t working.
Anyway, just my $.02. Please forgive any errors or typos or the stream of conscience nature of my response as I am writing this on the bus on my phone.
Great post Mary Ann
#20 Mary Ann
I agree with everything you said in #20. Their is no disagreement.
“JI, the “traitor” designation is pretty extreme, and based on emotion, not reason. Most members I know firmly believe that people have a right to disagree with church leaders. The problem is taking concerns public, especially to outside media. This is rooted in our cultural persecution complex. It was critical that the church provide a unified front when government agents were persecuting them, and allegiance to church leaders became paramount. Betrayal led to imprisonment, and justified increased pressure by government and other forces.”
Mary Ann – this is a huge problem and not just in gender-equality discussions. While generally agreeing with what you have wrote above, I have a few concerns with your statement: first, most often if you discuss your concerns with a priesthood leader, you will generally be quoted the handbook – which already cuts off communication. Have you ever been quoted the fine print in your credit card contract? Same deal. Either that, or you will be labeled as someone not on “the path.” So where else is a person to go when nobody appears to be listening or wants to listen? Do you have a suggestion?
Second, your dichotomy of emotion vs. reason is a problem for me – and I’m a male! It is as if you are saying that reason is more important than emotion. This is a standard meme of our prevailing culture and it is incorrect IMO. The fact is both are important to our makeup and both are important in a discussion. I’ve had conversations with church members and leaders that act as if they are computers. That’s a conversation-killer if there ever was one. Some of us (many of us) would like to be understood and reason doesn’t always convey that. Sometimes, people need to hear things that may be unpleasant to them from the emotional side. It can’t be sugar and spice all the time.
Finally – and this is sensitive – you make an automatic assumption that the church was being persecuted by government agents. Perhaps there is truth in this. But there’s also another side: how much of this was brought upon them by their own practices and reactions? After all, polygamy has just been severely downplayed in a recent gospel topics essay at LDS.org.
There are always two sides to every question or controversy; and the side that has the majority view is the one that needs to listen the most. Without that, you have just what you have now in the church – very little diversity of thought. But again, this is just my opinion.
I appreciate your article.
#23 Churchistrue, your experience illustrates why male church leaders can sometimes miss the mark on allaying women’s concerns in the church. It’s not that they don’t want to help, they just sometimes have a hard time getting a handle on the problem. (An example: if I’m noticing a discrepancy between teaching that women are spiritually superior with having male prophets, then a bishop continually declaring how awesome women are isn’t going to be as comforting as he probably thinks. If he keeps laying it on, then I could even begin to get a little suspicious. It feels off.)
Honestly, it can be difficult for a Mormon woman to put into words exactly why something felt a little off. That’s why keeping discussions going are important. They encourage you to figure out how to effectively communicate your perspective.
#21 MH It looks like you are in attack mode.
I’m very pleased to see what church leaders are doing to open up counsels and giving more opportunity for women to have a voice. I thought Elder Nelson’s recent conference talk was outstanding.
I think 2 Nephi 26:33 is a fine addition to this post and comments. Way to go MH.
Understand my point, please. I want to see women fulfill the measure of their creation, just as I do for men.
The scripture are clear, men preside in church leadership. There appears to be no possibility based on what has been revealed that a women will ever hold the priesthood as men do. There will never be a woman apostle or prophet that leads the church.
Now, if something completely unforeseen should occur and the Lord changes things, and declares that the priesthood will be made available to women, than I’m all for it.
I am standing with church leaders, the united voice of the apostles and prophets, what they say is the mind and will of Heavenly Father.
I accept them, as fallible, but inspired men who are prophets and apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ.
My voice in the bloggernacle will always be united with them.
I just reread #29. I want to make sure that no one assumes I am following the brethren blindly, out of pure loyalty. That is not the case. I sustain them because of the workings of the Spirit. My experiences with things of the Spirit are the foundation of my testimony.
If anyone here wonders what I am talking about. Please click my name and go to my website and read: My Experience with the Savior.
Jared: “The scriptures are clear, men preside in church leadership.” There are both a female deacon (Phebe) and female apostle (Junia) in the New Testament. The church may be “clear” on it, but scriptures are decidedly unclear.
“There appears to be no possibility based on what has been revealed that a women will ever hold the priesthood as men do.” You have to discount the temple endowment to believe this.
I’m not pushing for female ordination, nor does the OP, so I’m not sure why that’s the litmus test for progress that you are arguing against. I’m just pointing out that your statements are not objectively accurate even if they are the church’s stance.
Also, #26, Mary Ann you can go home now. A man has agreed with you, so your work here is validated.
Brother of Bared, really good points.
The first problem you brought up is huge. And I don’t have a good answer. The only men I’ve known who seem to have a good handle on the problem do so because of the women in their lives. The FP and Q12 are clearly taking the female auxiliary leaders seriously, because they trust them. You trust those you know. Many of the points I listed in the OP will jeopardize a position of trust.
What do you do when people don’t listen? I have no idea, and yes it is frustrating. My purpose is to help people keep lines of communication open. That necessitates people who have a desire to understand another point of view.
Emotions are not superior to reason, but emotions can get in the way of communication when they are overwhelming. The key is to figure out what is triggering that emotion, and is the emotional reaction proportional to that trigger? Emotions are based on many factors: current situation, biology, past experiences, etc. This whole gender equality issue is extremely sensitive to a lot of us Mormon women because we often have a lifetime of very personal experiences driving our points of view. A severe emotional reaction can derail a conversation quickly, and this is an issue where emotions run high. It is important for people to see how strongly we feel, but in the process we need to be able to clearly communicate *why* we are feeling that way. That’s where keeping things calm is necessary.
With the persecution complex thing, historical facts are not going to take away the gut reaction by many people who grew up with a mantra of allegiance to church leaders above all else. All cultures have stories passed down meant to reinforce cultural expectations – taboos and appropriate behavior. I and many others grew up with stories of pioneers protecting leaders at great cost, expressions of pride in those children who lied to mobs to protect lives of leaders. This is our spiritual heritage. Presenting stories of ancestors who defied church leadership at great cost, even if true, does not go over well (lots of personal experience on this one as a family history researcher) – it triggers that gut defensive reaction. It will be a long time before many of the historical facts you mention become as deeply embedded in our cultural memory.
hawkgrrrl-
Did you think that I wasn’t aware that women temple workers exercised priesthood?
The priesthood authority we follow is found by living breathing apostles and prophets of our day.
I’m sure you know that Junia could be a man’s name. Search google for more info on the subject. Also, check out the A of F #8.
Anyhow, I’m getting ready to go to a movie with my lovely wife. I wish everyone a wonderful weekend.
Jared, about 4 years ago I discussed Junia. (It was a scripture post, so I’m sure you missed it while you were complaining about lack of scriptures in the bloggernacle.) See http://www.wheatandtares.org/2311/women-with-priesthood-in-ancient-christianity/
The post specifically states that biblical translators changed Junia’s name to Junius (a man’s name) because of fear of writing about a female apostle. It is another example of the bible being translated incorrectly (and in this case a deliberate removal of plain and precious parts.)
This is helpful in what ways NOT to talk about general equality, but I am trying to think about how I DO I talk about it?
A Happy Hubby: “This is helpful in what ways NOT to talk about general equality, but I am trying to think about how I DO I talk about it?”
Indeed – about this or any other controversial topic in the church – like church history. I have no definitive answers except regulating behavior.
How can each of Mary Ann’s ideas be turned into a positive statement of what to do? Can they be?
Happy Hubby and Brother of Bared – it’ll take someone much smarter than me to answer those questions. I’m just pointing out ways that I’ve seen conversations derailed. Recent events have brought gender equality onto the radar of most members. With each advance that’s occurred, especially when it’s announced via official church channels, it helps keep conversations going. It makes people turn and say, “Huh, I guess the Brethren think this is okay.” It leads to the idea that maybe, just maybe, there are things to be improved upon.
President Nelson’s talk may have rubbed some people the wrong way, but it also implicitly gave permission for many women to be more confident in voicing opinions. They weren’t hearing Ballard’s message of “don’t talk too much,” or “don’t assume roles that aren’t yours.” They were receiving the orthodox version of empowerment.
They heard about a woman receiving inspiration for a stake council (hopefully they missed that the stake president had to coax the opinion out of her, and that the idea of a woman giving a useful opinion apparently was surprising). They heard about the importance of keeping covenants and personal conversion – an emphasis on their individual non-gender-specific responsibilities as disciples of Christ. They were encouraged to be influential in church and communities in addition to their roles in families (that the three specific righteous female examples were all chosen for their roles as wives supporting husbands can muddle this message a bit, I admit).
Are there things to nitpick? Well, yeah. But are there things to be optimistic about? Definitely.
Brother of Bared: I think the easiest solution to a “what to do list” is to do a couple of things:
1- Seek first to understand, then to be understood
2- Emphasize common ground
Q
Feminism does not speak for men hence the word FEMINISM.
Agitate is a dirty word for conservatives? So what???
We’re supposed to protect their ignorance and and nivate by only working within their delicte bubbles? In a rare move occasioned by questions coming from outside the the church President Hinckley stepped out of the TBM bubble to answer and in doing so acknowledged a role of activism within the church! I say use the word agitate in a way that opens the willfully blind eyes of the ostriches. So what if it shuts down the current discussion as awareness awakens it will spread.
The 13th article of faith …If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. is used to silence many people and many discussions by ignoring that it is the last line in an article of faith then begins with: “We believe in being honest, true…” How can you be honest and true to yourself and others with your mind in a protective bubble of Pollyanna denial?
Wake ’em up!
naiveté
#25 tnerd
I read you comment. Thanks for your thoughts.
Howard, I often hear people say “It’s their fault they got offended, I was only being honest.” In my experience, that attitude is frustratingly unproductive. Yet, it does seem to be a very common attitude for people on both sides of the gender equality debate. You’re in good company.
Mary Ann,
Confining the discussion to polite areas of the TBM bubble will not move the Overton window, it may result in a polite discussion perhaps even some seed planting but the most you can hope for in the long run is minor placation.
Pollyanna denial as delightful as people may find it is still denial and denial avoids truth. We must break through the denial in order to cause change. Remaining in the the delusional bubble with the TBM just perpetuates the delusion.
Winifred I am unsure what you are trying to say to me.
Seed planting is fine. Long-term change typically requires small steps, line upon line, precept on precept. Radical change brings instability, with a high risk of a Thermidorean Reaction.
Breaking through “denial” requires education, and education requires communication. Church leadership is TBM. People do not listen to those who suggest they are close-minded, delusional or in denial. You will not change any minds if you continue with that tactic.
I strongly disagree with #48 I am not advocating radical change (such as risking a coup d’ etat) the LDS feminist movement has already been far more aggressive than this post advocates without any apparent “high risk of Thermidorean Reaction” and breaking through denial requires far more intervention than education because people are generally led more by their emotions than their logic but I will leave you to your post.
I’m torn. Maybe it doesn’t matter what word is used – activist or agitater – or maybe choosing a good word is important. I prefer advocate. Or, since we all speak only for ourselves, self-advocate. (Or is there a word for that I’m forgetting?) I like the word because its root is the first step in all of this – speaking up, vocalizing.
As noted earlier, slapping labels around is not helpful. TBM is certainly one of those labels. It is often used in a disparaging way, so hard to tell what it really means.
Words like conservative and naive and denial are also rather loaded and unhelpful.
The assumption seems to be that people who don’t join MoFeminists are not really listening or don’t have their eyes opened. This may or may not be true. A lot of those who argue passionately for aspects of the status quo (Valerie Hudson comes to mind) are actually well versed in feminist theory and yet find value in male priesthood.
I am not sure it is always “progress” to have women taking over roles that have been done by men. Other churches struggle with the “disappearing male” problem. Posting a bunch of links will land me in moderation but the award-winning sermon on that topic by unitarian minister Kathleen Rolenz is an eye opener. And there have been books written on the subject, and groups like Promise Keepers organized as a way to involve men. When I was in graduate school, I had a classmate who was a Baptist minister who was fascinated by the notion of a dad baptizing his own kids, doing home teaching, etc.
So there is some value in the present system of providing our men with a unique way to serve, that encourages them to step up and use their priesthood to bless the lives of those around them.
Especially since our LDS model of priesthood leadership is “servant leadership” in which men can never righteously use priesthood for their own benefit but only to serve others.
So who is really in denial, those who recognize that value or those who insist that other ways are better?
Also, I have had some horrible experiences working under the leadership of women in the workplace and community groups–I do not imagine that my life would be better if women were in charge of everything at church as well.
TBM is very useful shorthand, while it may not discribe anyone specifically it is a quick and economic way to make a general reference without having to write a paragraph like this to describe it.
Howard,
It is a shorthand label usually used disparingly. If the goal is effective communication, use of the term should be avoided for the reasons in the original posting. Surely when you use the term, you are not implying unkind thoughts, rather than using it as a neutral descriptor?
I suppose global aspects make communication harder still. Agitate would be perfectly acceptable a word to use in Britain I think. And the nuances of the word here are somewhat different to irritate, and I wouldn’t under normal circumstances associate the word with laundry. Activist is different. An activist has connotations of being on the outside looking in, whilst agitation can occur from within I think. That’s how I see it anyway.
Mostly I tend to feel there has been lots of pleasant talking going on for years and years and years and years…
Ok ji, please suggest a better shorthand term then.
Btw, ji don’t be so PC sensitive, I strongly doubt the BoM musical would have been a hit if there wasn’t some truth truth to the TBM label!
So what exactly does TBM mean? Or is this just one more way to point out how ignorant that people like me are, if we don’t already know?
And why do we need shorthand? It is accurate to lump people in these categories? Or can we please accept the uniqueness and individual spiritual journey of each member of the church?
TBM stands for true believing mormon. Some people think it is a slur for sheep, but i like it when people refer to me as tbm. I dont think i am a typical TBM.
Generally, those who use the term TBM intend for it this be applied disparagingly. That’s unkind. I like Naismith’s no. 57. The question is whether or not one wants real, meaningful, and effective communication.
Q
Didn’t you say that feminism is about equality for both men and women? All I’m saying is that feminism is by about and for women and does not speak for men.
Well lacking a PC substitute for the TBM label I will continue to use it because it saves time over describing the altered state of consciousness it implies. I the shoe fits…if it doesn’t, no need to be offended if you’re not an ostrich.
Thank-you for the continued comments.
TBM is offensive to some. I came in pretty late to the bloggernacle, so I don’t find it offensive. I consider it a shorthand for mainstream Mormon, but I understand it has a bad connotation I so try to use other terms. I apologize for the confusion in the political vs. religious conservativism, and political vs. religious progressivism. It really is confusing.
Howard, you are advocating for strong medicine to wake people up so that radical change can take place. My point is that radical change is not always wise. If it takes place too quickly, before a society is ready for it, there are negative consequences.
The point of all this to facilitate communication, to point out traps that switch a conversation from productive to unproductive very quickly. At this point, I’m targeting tendencies that I see on one side of the spectrum. I am similarly unhappy with many of the common traps I see on the other side of the spectrum.
We have a lot of confusion about gender roles in this church. I don’t want girls to go through what I went through. In order for that to happen, we need to change *something*, and that will only happen if we get groups with different experiences talking to each other. People on both sides of the spectrum need to start understanding that the different personal experiences they have in the church is a major part of why people end up *feeling* equal or unequal. Our church teaches that men and women are equal, that men are superior, and that women are superior. What you see as the dominant teaching depends in large part on what environment you grew up and the interactions you have had with other members of the church. You will not get anywhere with doctrinal arguments, because we can argue any position doctrinally. Women who *feel* equal need to understand why other women *feel* unequal. And vice versa. Sheer numbers is not going to convince anyone. Definitions of what a “patriarchal order” technically means will not convince anyone. The only way to help someone understand how it is possible to *feel* unequal in the church is to relate personal experiences, to tell them what you have seen, to put them in your shoes. That requires trust and communication.
The most frustrating aspect of the gender debates in the past couple years has been encountering men AND women who honestly do not understand how any woman could feel unequal in the church. If they didn’t understand that, then there was no way they could understand why someone would have the desperation to publicly advocate, to do something so inappropriate from Mormon cultural standards, because they just needed someone, anyone, to hear them. The only way I could get anywhere was to relate personal experiences, personal observations on an intellectual level combined with personal observations on a personal level. They needed to understand how I got the inequality message, and the various ways that the messages did, or realistically could have, impact my testimony and trust in the church and it’s leaders.
I don’t feel that women’s ordination is the immediate answer, but I also am not ruling it out as an eventuality. I honestly do not know the next steps I would request, but I know we are making progress.
Sorry, the second one should have been “personal observations on an emotional level.”
Mary Ann radical change cannot take place in the LDS church without the consent of it’s governing body the brethern of Q15 and since they claim they are directed by God radical change cannot take place without God directing in. So where is this great risk in waking people up?
I’ll tell you were it is, they will emerge from their TBM trance begin to think for themselves! OMG!!! Now I can imagine that would make life a lot more difficult for the brethern but are you really arguing that God wants them to go through life in a trance? If so why bother coming to earth at all?
The only way to wake someone up to a new way of thinking is to speak in a language they understand. Attempting to communicate using tactics that are inherently distasteful to a community, without them ever understanding WHY you would take such steps because they do NOT understand your language, only labels you as an outsider and an enemy.
Mary Ann,
There are many, many ways to wake people up, I frequently wake a lot of people up by using a varity psychological techniques designed to penetrate their psychological defenses. This is the key, restructuring their defenses, not having a polite conversation. Pollyanna denial IS denial, denial IS a psychological defense against seeing the truth. Politely talking someone out of their defense is a very long term effort but hey can be brought out of it very quickly by addressing the defenses directly.
Shock tactics in a gerontocracy. Oi. I guess if you keep giving them heart attacks it’ll make change happen sooner.
You use your shock tactics. Gives me a conversation starter to explain to people why someone would do that.
Calling the use of TBM disparaging in an attempt to attach PC shame to it’s use is also a defense! It’s an attempt to deny the phenomenon of Mormons typically believing what nonMormons generally find to be clearly unbelievable! This phenomenon occurs in varying degrees of consciousness but many are quite asleep. Those who aren’t often use themselves as an example of aware critical thinkers implying that Mormons really aren’t asleep at all but that is a defense that denies the truth that many truly are fast asleep from an awareness point of view and do not want to be awakened, until of course they are.
Now if you happen to be an awakened critical thinker who chooses to be a faithful Mormon, I’m fine with that and from prior conversations I suspect many here are including Naismith but let’s put a stop to denying that ostrich Mormons exist in large numbers and let’s put a stop to using PC methods to attaching high overhead to our conversations to avoid having this discussion.
#50 Anon – I think advocate is a very appropriate word. The meaning is very clear to most members (most are familiar with the concept because of the scriptures), but it doesn’t have the negative connotation that activist has to those that are politically conservative.
If you phrase it as an advocate on behalf of those women who have experienced inequality in the church, then you’re not claiming to represent TBM women who feel equal. It takes away one element that made TBM women angry – people claimed to be speaking on behalf of all Mormon women, but were making statements contrary to the experiences and beliefs of many TBM women.
Mary Ann – Like I said, maybe the terms don’t matter, but I think the first step is giving voice, because it can’t be argued with. Here’s what so-and-so said about her life as a polygamous wife, here’s what I say about my experience in the temple, here’s what my daughter says about seminary class today. If that wasn’t your experience, you should also speak up. But everyone counts.
I don’t use “agitate” or “advocate” with anyone I disagree with on any subject because it generally puts people on alert and then they start thinking about their own position instead of listening to mine. I call such words in a conversation “flashpoint words”. Everyone has words that, for them, when they hear them, they move to defensive mode. Flashpoint words make people stop listening. If you think about it, you can indentify the words that are flashpoint for you. If I sense a specific word is a flashpoint word for someone, I don’t use it with them.
I am totally in favor of using benign words. Benign words make it easier for people to hear my ideas and not get distracted by flashpoints.
So I say “talk about”. My goal isn’t to relay the strength of my emotion or passion. My goal is not to prove to people that they are wrong-headed, even if I think perhaps they are. My goal is to share insights and promote two-way communication that leads, eventually, as trust builds, to improvement. And flashpoint words hamper that.
And yes, amen, Hawkgrrl.
1- Seek first to understand, then to be understood
2- Emphasize common ground
I get much, much farther and much better results when I do those.
“TBM is offensive to some. I came in pretty late to the bloggernacle, so I don’t find it offensive.”
So you are blaming those who take offense? I think a more accurate way to put it as that you have perhaps not wandered into the DAMU and other spots where it is used in such a clearly disparaging way.
But the point is, if you want to have an open dialogue and multiple people have told you that it is offensive, why do you insist on using it over and over and over again? Whose playbook is that out of?
And you may not be intentionally using it an offensive way, but “TBM trance”…?
Damn straight, that is offensive. I am not a mindless sheep nor are most of the church leaders I know.
Sometimes terms have baggage and the wise person will recognize and avoid that. Last year I had the privilege of meeting Stephanie Koonz, who has done brilliant work on the study of family and marriage and USAmerican society. If anyone has the right to use the “feminist” label, it is her. But she explained she does not use that term anymore because of the baggage. She just deals with the issues. Whereas the response by others is to insist that people really don’t understand what feminism is….
So this is a tactic of shoving everyone who disagrees with you into a “TBM” pile so you can write them off and show how very much more enlightened that you are.
I agree with Anon that everyone has a story. And I will listen to anyone who has a story to tell.
But I have no interest in discussing with people who don’t care what I think, so you have pretty much shut this conversation down. Have fun in your echo chamber.
There is no TBM trance? No TBM ostrich? TBMs are all aware critical thinkers?
Rather than TBM you can use the labels active or faithful.
There are enough attacks on the Church that just one more will only cause you to fade into the noise.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermidorian_Reaction And Mormon Women Stand send a message.
I’m still thinking of how I would launch an outside facilitation initiative but blending into background noise is not a tactic I’d advise.
A real problem is that as part of the “do not inhale” training that new GAs get is to ignore praise and criticism but instead listen to the Spirit.
That makes some approaches just fade into the background of just one more attack.
Sometimes from complete ignorance.
Eg the attempt to attend the priesthood session.
The Church has to maintain a bright line about temple square et al not being a public space where protesters are entitled to be. From the one side, trying to attend in person doesn’t look like a protest but from a legal standard it counts. Hurt feelings all around.
One thing about celebrating improvement is that you can use that to educate people that
* improvement has occurred and leaders are leading
* normalize improvement and the direction you want
* educate people in the context of what is being done.
Ok,
There is no faithful trance? No faithful ostrich? Faithful members are all aware critical thinkers?
There is no active trance? No active ostrich? Active members are all aware critical thinkers?
Better?
LISTENING is an art that is both simple but not easy. It requires submergence of self and putting oneself in the other one’s place. When a communication breakdown occurs, it’s typically because one but often both parties are using their words to fight rather than to fairly exchange views.
To a typical active LDS, the concept of ongoing revelation with its top-down dissemination tends to trump most so-called ‘feminist’ positions (which tend to have as many variations as there are self-described feminists). So, is that a legitimate excuse to shut down a bona fide discussion? I say it’s the opposite. A teaching opportunity may exist, but at times there is legitimate frustration. Employing what I term a ‘Covey-ism’, seek first to understand and then you’ll be understood.
#73 Naismith – I meant I have never felt disparaged by seeing it. Howard has a low opinion of mainstream Mormons. I’ve clearly gotten that message. But just because someone says I’m in a trance, brainwashed, whatever, this topic is TOO important for me to just walk away from the conversation.
TBM is not a flashpoint word for me. A lot of people here said it wasn’t a flashpoint word for them, so I started using it in place of mainstream Mormon. Apparently I still succeeded in offending people – which was, ironically, the reason I avoided it in the first place. I am TBM. I am proud to be a TBM. Therefore, I have no theoretical problem with applying the term to me and those who I feel are also mainstream Mormon, but apparently a lot of people have had some VERY bad experiences with it. I have not, so I am not quite in tune with the offense it causes. I am truly sorry.
Ugh! Conservative, liberal, progressive, TBM, orthodox, heterodox – apparently nothing is safe. No wonder people keep talking past each other! Okay, active and faithful. Got it.
I think a lot of us are pretty good at catering our messages to our audiences. I’ve read Neylan’s Women at Church, own several copies, and lend them out regularly; including to my priesthood leaders whom I have met with several times.
I usually don’t cite leading feminists or say “equality is not a feeling.” I used a graphic in the last post bc it was created by someone else and illustrated the irony of the situation.
I hope most mofems I know are doing the same thing; maybe they are – maybe they aren’t.
Also advocating for my position does not mean I believe everyone should agree w me Naismith. I def thing The Spirit guides udon our individual journeys and God brings some people to him via orthodoxy and some people to him other ways; andALL of us being different are the body of Christ and we are all needed to do our different parts to create Zion
#75 Stephen, from a very narrow perspective trying to attend the session didn’t look or feel like a protest. From a legal perspective and in the eyes of *many* active and faithful members, it was a protest. And a protest (evoking the counterculture movement to people who were politically conservative adults in the 1960s and 1970s) will invalidate your message. Amassing a group to put pressure on church leaders at general conference, a time when the attachment of members to their beloved church leaders is at a semi-annual high, only makes active and faithful members turn into mama bears. “Don’t you dare mess with my family!” Message invalidated. Projecting disunity to the outside world, a major Mormon cultural taboo, invalidates the message. Making missionary work more difficult due to your actions reported by the media? Message invalidated. Claiming to speak on behalf of all Mormon women invalidated the message. And evoking the spirit of an earlier time, when others staged protests at general conference, when they claimed to speak for all Mormon women, when they brought bad press to the church invalidated the message. Many of our current apostles were already apostles and high-ranking church leaders in the 1970s. This was not the first time they’d felt they’d gone through this.
You might as well have set off fireworks in front of a veteran suffering from PTSD. Yes, it gets attention. No, it will not set the stage for a friendly and rational discussion.
I fully agree that we should celebrate and encourage improvements.
Mary Ann,
You have no idea how I feel about main stream Mormons, that comment was out of line!
Howard, don’t think of it as being out of line, think of it as one of a “varity psychological techniques designed to penetrate [your] psychological defenses”
LOL, that was awesome Howard.
Naismith – respecting that a term is offensive to someone and therefore trying to avoid using it, even if it is not offensive to you, is not a declaration of superiority (maybe it is sometimes, but it wasn’t in this case).
An example: the peace symbol. To me, it’s an art design or pendant belonging on a costume of a bygone era. To my mom? Satanic. Now my mom is smart. My mom is strong. She is well-educated. She faced ridicule in California for having kids because she was polluting the earth. She faced ridicule in Utah for working full-time as a mom. And I even discovered a couple months ago that she still has a reputation for being a little more outspoken than what is appropriate for a Mormon woman. I respect my mom.
So what’s the deal? She grew up in the 1950s and 1960s in Berkeley, California. For her, the peace symbol isn’t a symbol of peace and liberation. It’s a symbol of anarchy, of drugs, of selfishness, of a desecration of what is holy. I had no clue she felt this way until I doodled a peace symbol in sacrament meeting and she had a visceral reaction. She made me promise to never draw it again. So… I learned to pay attention. I didn’t purchase jewelry or clothing that had peace symbols. Again, I didn’t have strong feelings either way, but I knew she did. And I’ve had to pay attention to not have my daughters wear their shirts where that is part of the design when we visit her. It’s not because I think I’m superior, it’s an attempt to pay respect to her personal experiences.
Winifred I agree with you. I guess I didn’t express myself very well. 🙂 I’m a better speaker than writer. I said “My definition of feminism is believing that women and men are equal. Women should be afforded all privileges and opportunities that men are.”
#72 MB – “So I say “talk about”. My goal isn’t to relay the strength of my emotion or passion. My goal is not to prove to people that they are wrong-headed, even if I think perhaps they are. My goal is to share insights and promote two-way communication that leads, eventually, as trust builds, to improvement. And flashpoint words hamper that.”
I think you’re right that “talk about” works perfectly well, too. And I agree that the point isn’t to pound the other person into conversational submission. But these issues go to the very heart womanhood, church, and God – must the way we talk about them mask or mute strong emotions?
Actually, Mary Ann spoke to this upthread, so sorry I repeated….
“This whole gender equality issue is extremely sensitive to a lot of us Mormon women because we often have a lifetime of very personal experiences driving our points of view. A severe emotional reaction can derail a conversation quickly, and this is an issue where emotions run high. It is important for people to see how strongly we feel, but in the process we need to be able to clearly communicate *why* we are feeling that way. That’s where keeping things calm is necessary.”
Well said Mary Ann. I’m