I recently finished reading Andrea Dworkin’s 1983 feminist tome, Right Wing Women. Although I was raised by one, I have struggled most of my life to understand why women would accept the crumbs offered by patriarchy, and this book was an eye-opening critique of the failed promises and devil’s bargain that women are forced into by both the right and the left. While some elements of the book feel a little dated now (e.g. marital rape and domestic violence are no longer the norm they once were), it is still useful as a time capsule to explain where we were and how we got where we are. Women’s equality is one of those trains that never seems to make it to the station.
Given that the church is mostly conservative and certainly patriarchal, it’s not a surprise that the majority of women at church align with the right wing women described in Dworkin’s book. What I found useful was that she doesn’t vilify these women. She clearly shows that, while they’ve made a devil’s bargain, they aren’t wrong about their assessment of the bleak alternatives. They don’t fall for what the left is offering them either. In the famous words of SNL alum Danitra Vance (RIP):
“Call me a whore. Call me a slut. Call me a wife. Sluts do it for money. Wives do it for refrigerators.”
Dworkin says more or less the same thing, but not quite so pithily:
“Right-wing women are correct when they say that they are worth more in the home than outside it. In the home their value is recognized and in the workplace it is not. In marriage, sex labor is rewarded: the woman is generally “given” more than she herself could earn at a job. In the marketplace, women are exploited as cheap labor. The argument that work outside the home makes women sexually and economically independent of men is simply untrue. Women are paid too little. And right-wing women know it . . .
Devaluation of women’s labor outside the home pushes women back into the home and encourages women to support a system in which, as she sees it, he is paid for both of them—her share of his wage being more than she could earn herself.”
She points out that right wing women lean into the devil’s bargain of marriage. Rather than be subject to the sexual violence and exploitation of all men, they choose one man who can exploit them within marriage, whom they can “manage” one on one, who (according to the rules of patriarchy) will be obligated to protect them from the other men.
“Right-wing women see that within the system in which they live they cannot make their bodies their own, but they can agree to privatized male ownership: keep it one-on-one, as it were. They know that they are valued for their sex—their sex organs and their reproductive capacity—and so they try to up their value: through cooperation, manipulation, conformity; through displays of affection or attempts at friendship; through submission and obedience; and especially through the use of euphemism—”femininity,” “total woman,” “good,” “maternal instinct,” “motherly love.” Their desperation is quiet; they hide their bruises of body and heart; they dress carefully and have good manners; they suffer, they love God, they follow the rules.”
By contrast, the empty promises of choice, sexual freedom, and equal opportunity on the left are revealed by Dworkin to be a mask for the real desires of male allies: more sexual access to more women. If women can have abortions, nothing will hold them back from promiscuous sexual encounters, or so the thinking went. In reality, when this did not materialize, and women still didn’t want to have sex with everyone all the time, many left-leaning male allies lost interest in fighting for women’s equality. Additionally, allowing women more access to the workplace, a traditionally male space, didn’t come with equal pay, protections if they chose to have children, and certainly didn’t come with freedom from sexual harassment. The supposed equal access to employment still doesn’t provide those things to American women in 2025.
“On the Left, women will have abortion on male terms, as part of sexual liberation, or women will not have abortion except at risk of death . . . [Right wing women] are not dazzled by the promise of abortion as choice, as sexual self-determination, as woman’s control of her own body, because they know that the promise is crap: as long as men have power over women, men will not allow abortion or anything else on those terms.”
So I asked ChatGPT to evaluate the relevance of Dworkin’s arguments to the issues women face today, 42 years later.
DWORKIN ON THE RIGHT: Still Resonant?
| Original Argument | Still Relevant Today? | Contemporary Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Promise of protection through submission | ✅ Yes | Many conservative women (e.g., in evangelical or traditionalist Catholic circles) still express that male leadership provides “security.” Online influencers like “TradWives” promote these roles. |
| Appeal of moral clarity and structure | ✅ Strongly | Right-wing women often cite moral clarity, religious faith, and fixed gender roles as reasons they feel grounded—particularly as progressive spaces grow more complex. |
| Valuing women in domestic roles | ✅ Still present | Policies like anti-abortion laws and resistance to paid leave reinforce women’s roles as mothers and caretakers. This message resonates with many working-class and religious women. |
| Redemptive meaning in suffering | ⚠️ Nuanced | Some Christian movements still frame motherhood, obedience, and hardship as spiritual sacrifices. But this language is less dominant among younger conservatives. |
| Right sees women as weaker, but necessary to control male lust | ✅ Still widespread | Purity culture, modesty doctrines, and right-wing sexual politics (e.g., transphobia, anti-feminism) still cast women as morally responsible for male behavior. |
DWORKIN ON THE LEFT: Still Accurate?
| Original Argument | Still Relevant Today? | Contemporary Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Sexual liberation still benefits men more than women | ✅ Yes | Many feminists still critique hookup culture and liberal sexual norms as catering to male desire more than female agency. Movements like “feminist celibacy” are emerging. |
| Leftist men still exploit women while claiming to be allies | ✅ Sadly yes | Prominent #MeToo cases (e.g., Louis C.K., progressive media figures) reveal that left-leaning spaces haven’t been immune to misogyny or abuse. |
| Liberation without protection = abandonment | ✅ Strong point | Women leaving traditional roles (especially poor or racialized women) still often lack housing, healthcare, or security—highlighting systemic gaps in progressive policy. |
| Progressive spaces ignore sexual trauma | ⚠️ Mixed | Awareness has increased (e.g., Title IX, campus activism), but some feminist activists argue that certain leftist circles still downplay trauma in favor of “sex positivity.” |
| Equality at work doesn’t mean real power | ✅ Still true | Despite decades of gains, women—especially women of color—are underrepresented in leadership and still do more unpaid labor at home. “Leaning in” often benefits elite women only. |
ChatGPT then added some really interesting current examples of these arguments that really bring it home:
Modern Real-World Examples
| Topic | Right-Wing Women’s Appeal | Dworkin’s Left Critique in Action |
|---|---|---|
| Anti-abortion activism | Offers moral purpose, community, and a role as “protectors of life” | Left frames abortion as empowerment, but lacks support systems like universal childcare or paid leave for women who do have children |
| Tradwife influencers | Romanticize submission and homemaking as safe havens from modern chaos | Liberal sex culture often fails to address trauma, coercion, and emotional neglect |
| Female support for Trump | Some women see him as a defender against threats (immigrants, crime, liberal elites) | Progressive men’s feminism often ends at rhetoric—real power-sharing is rare |
| Online misogyny & porn culture | Right frames itself as a resistance to objectification | Liberal spaces often ignore how exploitative or violent sexual “freedom” can be for women |
To some extent, this is because of one of the splits in feminism, sex-positive feminism and sex-negative (or radical) feminism. Sex-positive feminists seem to be ascendant on the left, and proliferate in media. These are the feminists who claim the right to sex when and how they want it, but who also mainstream things that some women find harmful (e.g. “light choking” becoming a norm, destigmatizing all sexual acts, provided “consent” is obtained). Sex-negative feminists are more wary of sex, considering it deeply shaped by a power imbalance that favors men and often masks exploitation. Obtaining consent can still involve manipulation and coercion where a power imbalance exists. Additionally, reproduction is always linked to male pleasure, often at the expense of female pleasure.
Which brings us to the bear that many women chose over meeting a strange man in the woods. This was a TikTok trend last year in which women answered the question “Would you rather be stuck in the woods with a random man or a bear?” A lot of women answered:
Bears will kill you for food, but a random man might torture, rape and kill you for pleasure. It’s a dark joke that expresses the fear many women have of the unpredictability of male violence. It’s why all women know to hold their car keys as a concealed weapon when walking alone at night to our cars, why women going on a date always tell a friend where they will be and many women share their locations with friends, and why women are keenly aware of the exits when they meet someone for the first time. It’s why men say the thing they are most afraid of when dating a new person is being laughed at while women say being murdered is their biggest fear. Choosing the bear is a woman’s way of saying “I’d rather deal with nature than gamble on a man I don’t know. At least nature behaves in mostly predictable ways.”[1]
In essence, the man or bear argument shows that neither the right nor the left have effectively addressed the omnipresent fear of men that is in women’s lives. Both ideologies have, above all, protected the rights and privileges of men, including sexual and reproductive supremacy, rather than creating equality for women. Without safety, equality is not truly possible.
The LDS church is slightly more sex positive than its conservative counterparts or at least it usually has been. It doesn’t laud marital rape as a man’s right (at least not currently–leaders from many decades ago said a lot of things that don’t hold up), it does lip service to a form of equality in marriage (with the man somehow “presiding” but not actually telling women to submit and obey their husbands). According to Dworkin, here’s the marriage bargain being sold by the right:
- Shelter. Women without husbands are essentially “homeless,” waiting for their marriage to actually have a place of refuge. They are at the mercy of strange men and need male protection.
- Safety. The world is a dangerous place for women. One wrong move, even an unintentional smile at the wrong man, can lead to assault, shame, disgrace. If a woman is obedient to the rules, harm will not befall her.
- Rules. Both men and women are subject in this world that was created by men for men. If she learns the rules and follows them, she is more likely to survive. The Right, unlike the Left, gives women a very clear rulebook to follow and also promises that men, despite their absolute sovereignty, will follow the specified rules for their gender.
- Love. Women’s obedience is reframed as love. They show their love by obeying, maintaining order and stability, being accountable for female functions: domesticity, childbearing and child rearing. A man’s love is expressed through material support and physical protection, not necessarily emotional or domestic support which are optional extras.
Women who don’t accept what the Right is offering are on their own.
- Do you see Dworkin’s ideas as relevant today? In what ways? Which ideas are outdated?
- Do you hear these “right wing” narratives at Church?
- Do you agree with these points?
- Where did you fall in the man vs. bear debate?
Discuss.
[1] Although Cocaine Bear was pretty terrifying.
Wheat & Tares 
Don’t get me started on who can and should be in charge of birth control. Ejaculate Responsibly by Gabrialle Blair so clearly put into words thoughts in the back of my mind for years. I am 82 and I am still angry that if I didn’t want any more children, the problem was mine alone, and I was married to a kind man.
The pill created the sexual revolution and child-free sex for women, but if you now read about the swinging 60’s it has been revealed that, again, most of the male ‘support’ was simply for on demand sex from the women in those groups. The women were there to provide the same services that wives do…sex, food, convenience.
I truly thought that by now, with so many women working outside the home, there would be quality affordable childcare. I thought my daughters would not have the same childcare issues that I had. If anything, it seems to be worse. Daycare, if one can find it, is so expensive, that it probably would be cheaper for one parent to stay home with children. The problem with that however, is that it is difficult to pick up a career after being out of the field for 5-10 years, and it is usually the women who stays home.
Patriarchy. My friend Gina calls it the sacred penis. No matter how benevolent, patriarchy is still unjust, and in so many instances it is not benevolent. It is still a man’s world until pay is equivalent, women’s healthcare decisions are not controlled by men, and until women are in positions where decisions are made.
I remember listening to https://radiolab.org/podcast/no-part-3 where one of the people being interviewed was a self declared fourth wave feminist. In my hearing of what she said, she had looped so far deep into feminism that she ended up arguing for arranged marriages. She didn’t consciously state that, but that’s effectively what she did. She argued that due to generational trauma, a woman should be able to declare any sex that she engaged in as rape after the fact. She put forth reasons for her arguments, but if I were to believe her I would believe that women can’t be trusted with picking their own partners, and most of the time when they say yes to sex, they don’t really mean it. Hence the arranged marriage conclusion.
“In the No” was a great series. I miss RadioLab.
Last year, me (a dude) and my sis had the bear vs. man conversation. Without hesitation, she chose the bear. When I asked her why she would choose a wild animal (who could rip you apart) over a random dude (who could potentially be harmless), she responded, “At least if I got attacked by a bear, people would believe me.”
That comment has stuck with me since then.
In essence, the man or bear argument shows that neither the right nor the left have effectively addressed the omnipresent fear of men that is in women’s lives. Both ideologies have, above all, protected the rights and privileges of men, including sexual and reproductive supremacy, rather than creating equality for women. Without safety, equality is not truly possible.
It’s not just ideologies that protect the rights and privileges of men–it’s our physical size and strength. We cannot “fix” that with an ideology. We can only try to channel it into productive enterprises. But that is not enough, because women will always know that we could turn it against them if we chose to. So women have the choice of literally preparing themselves for armed conflict or making a deal that maximizes men’s incentive to behave. Fortunately, women have overwhelmingly chosen the latter approach and now the debate is over which deal is least bad. Nobody has proposed a deal that achieves true equality and frankly, I don’t see how such a deal would be possible.
There is, however, an approach that I am very much opposed to, but that could work over the course of many generations. That is for women to refuse to have sex with any man bigger than themselves. If all women did that, men’s physical threat would eventually be bred out of the population.
I’m going to add that to my reading list.. some of the frameworks Dworkin provided line up accurately, if they are viewed differently from how I interpret them.
Every time this comes up, my hope ends up being the same – we need better ways to make marriage and childbearing as demanding socially and economically for men as it is for women.
– Divorced fathers and husbands should have mandatory child-support and alimony, even if the marriage ended poorly from the wife’s choices.
– A pregnancy, even an unwanted one, should be as much of a burden upon the father as it is the mother
I don’t want to lower the potential consequences for women for their actions, I want to raise them for men, for their *same actions*. I’ve read several books on feminism from the 3rd wave, the MO always ended up being along the lines of, “we’re second class citizens, we want the same freedoms men enjoy” which is a noble cause, but for a healthy society, I feel the wrong one. A better purpose would be (as I mansplain this) “we want men to be as accountable for their choices as we are, economically, politically, and especially in matters of sex and parenthood”.
However, we can’t control or compel others choices, so in the view of only being able to control the choices that a woman makes, so many of the feminist victories make sense. But it feels Pyrrhic for society as a whole.
lastlemming
Oh yes, brings to mind evolution and sexual selection.
When it comes to sexual diamorphism, I’ve always got a kick out of the behavior of some spiders. Yum, yum.
But hey, we’re mammals. My understanding is that for the most part, monogamous mammals are the same size and and the more polygamous the species is the greater the body size,. The size difference in humans is roughly 15%, make of that what you will.
Now a human egg is 20x the size of a human sperm, What this means I don’t know.
Now when it comes to a bear v human male. I want to know what species of bear, and is it hungry. I’ve followed a few bears in the forest. Inevitably they turn their head and stare at me and I quit following. In the woods, I have never followed a human male.
Thomas, my more than passing experience with family courts is that men typically ARE required to pay child support (though enforcement is another matter entirely – the state being able to deny a hunting or fishing license when back child support is owed is a shockingly effective way to get men to pay BTW).
As for alimony, why should a man be required to support a woman with whom he has no other ongoing legal relationship if that woman is entirely capable of supporting herself (or in some cases is earning significantly more than her ex-husband)? I certainly wouldn’t sign up for a woman having to support her ex-husband if he has the means to support himself.
This is why so many states have gone away from life-long alimony and toward temporary transitional support except in situations where the alimony-receiving spouse is incapable of supporting him or herself (an example being a divorce that occurs late in life with one spouse having stayed home for the entirety of the marriage and now is too elderly to be readily employable).
One big problem is the right’s argument of “protection” is that it does not really protect women from other men, unless they stay locked up under male guard, or cannot go out in public without the protection of their husband or father. Well, some Muslim countries are doing that and the women do not see it as protection as much as they see it as control. Any woman, married or single are in danger when home alone, or out alone in public. Marriage just gives a woman a man she is not supposed to say no to, and although domestic violence and marital rape are illegal, they are still just as common. And women are harmed by trying to press charges against their husbands. If they fail to get a conviction they just make him mad and are more likely to be victimized again. And if the succeed and he goes to prison, they lose the family income. So, it is a little better than 50 years ago, but the problem is still far from solved. Marriage just makes it harder for the woman to escape the abuse or marital rape. I used to work in a battered women’s shelter, so I saw first hand that the battered women who were married to that abuser had a much harder time escaping than women who were just cohabiting or dating. And sure, the left has not solved the problem, but at least it has made attempts.
I think the idea of women refusing to have sex with any man who is bigger than them will not work. It is a funny idea, but not gonna work. Men evolved to be bigger because of inter tribal war. You know, back when men went to war and women were captured as wives. But along with that, women evolved to like bigger men, so they were less likely to be captured by the enemy tribe and forced into an unwanted sexual relationship. So, you might as well tell peahens to avoid peacocks with pretty tails. Not gonna work. Personally I like my men 6’ to 6’3” and I an 5’5”.
So, maybe we up the consequences to men for rape and domestic violence by first changing masculine culture to shame violence against those smaller or weaker. We are only half way to shaming men for picking on those who are weaker, because men are not ashamed of picking on or bullying women. Rape and domestic violence are used as tools to control. Rape isn’t about sex as much as it is about men not getting what they want. When a man feels powerless or not in control, they are taught by rape culture to “prove their manhood” by violently taking what they want. Rapist are the most respected men in prison. But the line is drawn at attacking children because child molesters are the least respected. Like I said, we are only part way to shaming men for picking on those who are weaker. So, teach men that raping or beating up a woman makes them the world’s biggest wimp. Let’s start slut shaming men as much as women, say by turning purity culture against any man who has sex outside of marriage or with more than one woman. And up the punishment and especially the conviction rates. Conviction rates for rape are 1 out of 100 or so because women are shamed so much for being victimized that a women’s smartest choice is to hide that she was raped. Like someone said above, if I am attacked by a bear at least people will believe me. And may I add, not think she deserved to be attacked. So,rape victims need to be believed, and not blamed and cops and prosecutors need to take it as seriously as other assault. Start by actually processing rape kits.
I would love to have a conversation with the person(s) giving thumbs down to this post.
Linda P Furness and Hawkgrrl:
I loved the article and Linda’s response. There is so much there to think about. As a man and father of four daughters, I have thought about this a lot. Bottom line, women in the USA and most of the rest of the world don’t get a fair shake. You’re right, it’s basically the same here from men on both the left and right. I think, though, there is hope in some part of the world, like Scandinavia. Their government structure and rights are more truly based on the individual and a man and his possessions, which can include his family. For instance, look at healthcare and housing. In the USA, while it’s not limited to men, most of the time, these things are tied to a man and his job. In Scandinavia, it’s a basic right, so healthcare comes from the government and there are supports for housing. So if a woman in Scandinavia is not working and in a marriage that is not going well, she doesn’t have to stay in the marriage for free of losing healthcare or housing. Women in the US are in a much more vulnerable spot if they are not in the workforce and are a stay-at-home wife. Another example is child care or paternity leave. In the US, there might be 12 weeks with FMLA, but many times it’s without pay. Women may take it, but men rarely do. In Scandinavia, it’s a year for both mother and father that can be done together or can be split, with the first year being the mother and the second year being the father, and many fathers participate in this. They have their job when they get back, and they aren’t looked down upon by their employer. I don’t know for sure, but it seems that with more respect from society/government, women have more respect from men. I’m sure there are still problems between men and women, but women have a bit more freedom, and men need to be a bit more respectful if they want to be in a relationship.
I’m not sure I want to bang my head against the wall and have the conversation with people who seem to always vote thumbs down. It seems that in every comment, there are always a few, and I wonder what they don’t like. I figure they already know what’s right, have a testimony, and don’t want to think about anything in a different light.
Re the thumbs down people, sometimes I get why, and sometimes I don’t, but I figure they are getting something out of their system in a very non-confrontational way that doesn’t really have any lasting harm, so go for it. You do you, buddy.
Instereo: great points all around with some of the things that Dworkin wouldn’t have even dreamed might happen, and yet as you say they are mostly useless solutions that simply don’t get the equality train to the station. I remember when FMLA came out under Bill Clinton that it was nice that women wouldn’t be fired, but also how are they supposed to live on $0 during a twelve week period? I also felt for the employers who had to hold the job vacant for the caregiver to return. It’s not real support. It’s a partial solution. A small business with few employees would have a really hard time managing with an open position for 3 months, and it’s not even close to what people in other countries get, often with full pay. When I was at Amex, our Australia office had an employee who had been on maternity leave for 10 years (full pay for 2 years per child, and the job must be held open). That’s also kind of extreme on the opposite end of the spectrum, at least from the company’s perspective.
Likewise with the arguments regarding sex. We can either be sex positive, but then all kinds of abusive and coercive behaviors can sneak in the back door (literally and figuratively?), or we can be sex negative and try to control and limit all sex and eliminate pornography and punish non-monogamous sexual activity because men are not trustworthy partners. It’s quite a balance to try to get right.
If I can protect you, I can control you. Whether or not you want me to.
“In essence, the man or bear argument shows that neither the right nor the left have effectively addressed the omnipresent fear of men that is in women’s lives.”
I have a wife and two adult daughters and they have NEVER expressed having this fear. They have opined that some men are creepy or weird. They have never said they have fear of men.
May I point out that when it comes to threats of safety, men are only slightly better off than women. A man who encounters bad actors on the street is not in a much better spot than a woman. If the bad actors have knives or guns or fists, most men are going to end up injured or dead. In my nearby city of Baltimore, the vast majority of assaults and murders involve men. Crimes against law-abiding citizens are evenly distributed. In recent years a female business owner was raped murdered. Yet in the same time period a male restaurant manager was murdered on the street in cold blood and several other male citizens lost their lives to attackers.
I find it disturbing that the idea exists in Feminism that men are dangerous. True, there are violent men. But the vast majority of men are harmless and many are instinctively protective of others. It seems to me that instead of castigating the male species, women should be celebrating the male characteristic of being a protector. And yet Feminism rejects that idea as sustaining the “male hierarchy”.
So one wonders, what do Feminists want? They hate men yet this makes them lonely – men obviously don’t care to socialize with people who hate them. So these women get angry and blame “society”. This negativity makes them miserable and creates a doom loop of ever greater enmity against normal socialization.
And to top it off, Feminists vote against their own self-interest. The greatest equalizer of self-defense is the gun. Yet women disproportionately favor restrictions on gun ownership. A police presence and enforcing the law against miscreants is also desirable. Yet women disproportionately favor policies that impair law enforcement and put violent criminals on the street. I beg Feminists to explain this dissonance. Do they want safe streets? Or do they want to be victims?
I bet your wife and daughters all know how to carry their keys like a weapon and do so when they are walking alone at night.
Disciple, you have fallen for right wing propaganda. #1 spastically, a woman carrying a gun is more likely to have it used against her than to successfully pull the trigger on an assailant. Women hesitate to pull the trigger for various reasons, if they can even dig the gun out of their purse in time. #2 Women with gun in the house are much more likely to be murdered by their husband than be able to protect themselves and if they do use the gun to kill a battering husband they get 20 years of prison. “Self defense” doesn’t work because she should have left him not killed him. Juries do convict women of murder for killing in self defense and men who beat their wives to death get an average shorter prison time than the woman who kills in self defense. Our society just has no sympathy for battered women. Us feminists DO try to change that, but you guys don’t believe us.
Wanting the same privileges as men is not hating them you idiot. Guys like you are what makes women like me come closest to hating men.
Your wife and daughter don’t tell you how afraid they are because it is only talked about among women. Men get mad when we try to tell them that we really are nervous/afraid of that guy we called a creep. When we say a guy is a creep, 90% of the time we mean we feel like he is a sexual predator, but it is a feeling, not proof, so we don’t say more because we get criticized by men and accused of hating all men if we say more. Men stick together in rape culture and defend other men from accusations of being a “creep”. Men are shocked and angered by the fact that women feel safer with a hungry bear than they do a strange man. They claim their wife and daughters are never afraid.
So, this will get down votes from most of the men. Good. They need to hear the truth that women DO NOT KNOW who is a creep, but harmless, and who is a creep that may get violent. You claim to be one of the good guys, but how do we know? Violent creeps do not wear a sign around their necks saying, “violent creep”. So we have to be careful of ALL men. Even you. (“You” not being aimed at Disciple, whose only sin is being a gun nut and I would guess really is one of the bewildered good guys who honestly doesn’t understand why feminists are angry. But “you”being men in general who think they are good guys and don’t understand why women cross the street when they see them coming, or don’t get on the elevator with them. We would also rather be in an elevator with a bear than with a strange man.)
There was a survey by a women’s magazine years ago, about 1980 that asked men who were college students if they had ever done certain sexual behaviors. Things like going ahead with see if the girl said no, like having sex with a girl who was drunk, like just forcing a girl who was pushing away, or asleep. 17% answered yes to at least one question. Every one of the situations met the legal definition of rape, but the word was not used, just a behavior. 17% of men admitted to having committed rape, and these were college students, not street gangs. So, out in the world 17% of men are rapists, which is about right considering that 25% of women have been raped.
But most rapes are still not reported because women are not believed. And women know they won’t be believed. They know the police don’t care. They know prosecutors don’t want to try a rape case unless the victim is dead. They know juries are more worried about what conviction will do to the rapist than they are about what rape does to a woman.
Proof read idiot. That first sentence, the word is statistically not spatiscally
Disciple: Men and women might have similar statistical numbers when it comes to being victims of violent crimes, but I would be willing to bet that those who commit the violent crimes are more likely to be men. And likely by a significant amount.
As for what feminists want, I can’t speak for women, but this feminist would like for rapists to be prosecuted and punished in a consistent manner and for the victims to be believed. And for the victims to not be blamed for the crimes committed against them.
That would be a good start.
Disciple,
Feminism is simply the radical notion that women are people. We do not hate men. We are realistic about what men can do to us. The men who think we hate them are the very ones we need to fear because they know and care nothing about understanding our issues. If we don’t want sex with a lummox then we automatically ‘hate men.’
Your ‘not all men’ statement is valid, but our problem is that we must fear all men because it is often too late once we have distinguished which are the bad ones. Until the good men educate and weed out the bad ones women must fear you all.
And just how do you think a woman can protect herself with a gun while she is being attacked? He is bigger and stronger and will take it away from her and probably shoot her with it. If she shoots him while he is defenseless (asleep) she is charged with murder.
My husband of over 50 years was surprised when he overheard my daughters and me talking about always having to look over our shoulders for danger when out alone. It is something most men simply don’t have to think about. We need to do much better at educating the good men in our lives so that they realize the problem and so that they will call out men who think and joke about taking what they want.
This is a problem that men are going to have to solve. Until then women are going to have to continue to rail against and protect themselves from dangerous male behavior, which is not the same thing as hating men.
I don’t tell my husband that I am afraid of men, but…
When we bought our first mini van, I said I didn’t like it because I couldn’t easily check the back seat to be sure no one was hiding there. He was amazed, as it had never occurred to him to check. But every woman my age was raised knowing that you never get in a car without looking in the back seat.
I never sit in the window seat on planes or trains. Never again will some man be between me and escape. (Bitter experience on a train in Utah. I should have yelled, “Get away from me, you pervert!” But I didn’t tell anyone, either then or for decades later.)
I try to never go alone to the church at night to practice the organ. Too many men have keys, and the noise of the organ means I can’t hear someone walk in.
I never look at men when I walk past them. Just looking is too often taken as an invitation.
Do I live my life in fear? No.
Do I tell people that I’m afraid of men? No.
Do I think all or even most men are dangerous? No.
Will I cross the street to avoid walking past a man or a group of men? Absolutely.
Would I trust you or even give you the benefit of the doubt if I saw you? No.
Disciple: It’s almost like you didn’t read the OP, but as Anna points out, perhaps you are just so far down the right wing propaganda narrative that you are deliberately obtuse. Here are a few responses to your claims:
“the vast majority of men are harmless and many are instinctively protective of others” Until they see the woman as not deserving of their protection or threatening their supremacy in some way. It’s always on the man’s terms.
“It seems to me that instead of castigating the male species” Holding men equally accountable to women is not “castigating the male species.” Also, men and women are in fact both part of the exact same species. The problems come in when physical differences render one gender subject to restrictions that the other gender can blissfully ignore. The mommy track in careers is a real threat to women’s earning potential, for example. After a child is born, fathers on average increase in pay and promotions; women’s career futures plummet. How is that fair? You might say, well the father of the baby will protect her. OK, but he will only do it on his own terms, not on hers. He might be a wonderful stand up guy, or he might be a monster or a narcissistic man baby. He might be an abusive alcoholic. They all look the same to most 23 year old women in love, especially if they are trying to get away from an abusive father/brother/uncle or a life of poverty.
“women should be celebrating the male characteristic of being a protector. And yet Feminism rejects that idea as sustaining the “male hierarchy”. Celebrating being treated like a child and controlled by one’s father, brother, husband? No thanks. Appreciating the physical protection anyone more powerful gives to one who is less powerful? Sure. As others have pointed out, male “protection” comes with a lot of strings attached. Thanks but no thanks.
“They hate men yet this makes them lonely – men obviously don’t care to socialize with people who hate them.” This is projection at its finest. The real crisis right now is the male loneliness epidemic, not women. Women who don’t want to partner up, particularly not with these “red flag” men, are a real trend, and men are the ones who are turning to online incel communities that hate women. I sure do think that this is a serious problem to address, but we don’t fix it by continuing to gaslight women into accepting the crumbs offered by “protectors.” Also, your assertion that men don’t care to socialize with people who hate them is hilarious because, on the whole, MEN DON’T CARE TO SOCIALIZE–at all! They don’t have the same social networks of support that women do. That’s why they are so much more vulnerable from these trends than women are.
“So these women get angry and blame “society”. This negativity makes them miserable and creates a doom loop of ever greater enmity against normal socialization.” Your characterization of “angry feminists” sounds really dated, like 1970s dated. Boomer women who were feminists mostly did eventually decide that being harassed and sexually mauled in the workplace for peanuts was less good a deal than being similarly treated by ONE husband in their home, but women of later generations are saying that’s not good enough for us. Being a feminist IS mainstream now, for men and women, because as pointed out above, it means that women and men are both equal as people, that systems support both. Society has a bad track record of supporting women equally. Anger is just an emotion. Policies that truly create more equal support would be great. So long as men have a blind spot for women’s issues (or as Dworkin sees it, want something in return for their support), that’s just not happening.
“And to top it off, Feminists vote against their own self-interest.” This is where you are deliberately being obtuse. The entire article, and Dworkin’s book, is about how there are no alternatives for women that are in our self-interest. What exactly are women supposed to vote for? That’s the entire point.
When it comes to guns and gender, it’s almost a given that @A Disciple will troll the thread with comments that never vary and never respond profitably to cricitism. General problems with the church? They’re on board. Those two things . . . right wing prop, here we come!
Hawkgrrrl,
Here is a sentence from your opening paragraph that colors everything that follows:
“I have struggled most of my life to understand why women would accept the crumbs offered by patriarchy, and this book was an eye-opening critique of the failed promises and devil’s bargain that women are forced into by both the right and the left. ”
What are the “crumbs offered by patriarch?”
What is this “devil’s bargain?”
In the current moment women dominate public education. Women have long been the majority of college students and now they are nearing 60% of college educated. And still we have the complaint that the “patriarchy is stifling women.” This is a bewildering complaint and it begs this question I invite you and others on this forum to address: What will it take for women to stop blaming the “patriarchy” for their unhappiness?
What I see in the modern western world is that women have every option handed to them.
(1) Women can choose to education and careers – I have a good friend who has 3 daughters. Each daughter has a successful career and the youngest is working on a PhD at Yale in Quantum computing. By the way, this friend is more “right wing” than me. He and his family completely shatter your idea of conservatives and women.
(2) Women fully control the reproductive process. First there is the pill. Then if a women is pregnant and does not want to carry the child to birth, abortion is widely available in the USA. Maybe not in one’s community or state, but the option is readily accessible somewhere in the continental USA. And men have no say in a women’s choice to abort. But men are financially responsible of the women chooses to have the child.
(3) Of course many women want to have children, or at least 1 child. And yes, raising a child is demanding and requires sacrifice. And yes, more often than not the burden of raising a child falls on the mother. But not always. I know two families in my neighborhood who have stay home dads and the mom works a corporate job.
(4) Thing is many women want to be moms to their children. I never forget a conversation I had with my company HR director back in 1999 when I reported having a new child in my family. The HR director, a woman, asked me about the care situation (back then we could have such conversations). I explained my wife stayed home with the kids and the HR director, a women, expressed envy saying she wished she had that option. Could have knocked me over with a feather as my TV was telling me that women didn’t want to be stuck at home with the kids.
So where does it go wrong for women? The same place where it goes wrong for men: Failed marriages. Divorce makes both parties poorer, and it makes children poorer. The cost and consequence of divorce makes both men and women afraid to marry and especially afraid to add the commitment of children. And yet women want children and this, I believe, is one reason for their bitterness. Women want a thing and they are frustrated they cannot rely on men to provide that thing in a risk free environment.
But look at the situation from the man’s perspective. Men also want children. Men especially want a partner who will give them companionship and add meaning to their lives. Yet men see a legal system that puts their finances at great risk if their wife decides to leave – and the wife can leave for whatever reason.
And so we are in a bad spot in western culture. Game theory says that men and women will both see the high cost of failed marriage and act on that outcome by not marrying. This leaves both men and women frustrated. Yet how is this the fault of “patriarchy?” How are men any more to blame than women for this situation?
Thank you, Hawkgrrrl, for revisiting this topic. As an aging boomer, it has always been a part of my life, yet mostly trying to keep it stuffed in a closet. Three salient points I have to add to this conversation.
1) With a vanishingly small margin of error, 100% of men will always be stronger than a woman, regardless of their comparative size. This doesn’t mean that I approach all encounters with fear or loathing, but that I must be cautious not to anger any “him” or anything close to it. Men, it’s the attitude that you would have walking alone and unarmed in the bear’s woods.
2) The MeToo movement was one of the most monumental events in my lifetime. It was the only time that the topic was even approached without the assumption that if something had happened, then there must have been something the female did to cause it. It broke my son’s heart when he asked if it had happened to me, even though I only confessed the least harmful of several assaults (date rape/non-consensual sex).
3) Equality is probably not possible in this world but every step forward has helped (though all of those steps are currently being mowed like tanks through a kindergarten class). E.g. employment unions-I was able to be paid and protected regardless of gender; education and experience-I was able to be hired, although for many years my resume listed my initials, not my first name, and this did not ensure equal pay in the private sector; because I was employable, I at least had a chance for a reasonable life when my marriage ended; birth control options make it a bit more equitable for a woman to choose her sexual partner; being informed, fairly well-spoken, and old enough to be willing to speak out occasionally, I can be honest, open, and forthright in public meetings/spaces (no one should be guaranteed that their speech is the only one that matters).
My recommended solution: EVERY educational environment, EVERY year of life should include consistent lessons on RESPECT! Every person, living being, and environment with whom we share this planet and universe is worthy of being understood and cared for to the best of our ability.
@A Disciple
Short answer, men make the rules.
RE point #2, yes, there is the rare anecdote when a woman entraps a man into getting her pregnant. However, both people need to recognize and take responsibility that they each contribute to reproduction. It takes 2, and they are both responsible (except in the case of rape!)
A Disciple:
“What are the “crumbs offered by patriarchy?” Already answered in the OP. Per Dworkin, to right-wing women (e.g. tradwives) the crumbs are the portion of the man’s salary he allots to her like a child receives an allowance. To working women, the crumbs are the lower-paying, lower-status jobs available to them and the indignities they are treated with in the workplace (Dworkin published in 1983, and if you don’t recognize these issues in 2025, I’m sure you would agree that her assessment of wide-spread sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace was accurate in 1983.
“What is this “devil’s bargain?” For right-wing women who choose to avoid the workplace, the devil’s bargain is choosing one man as a protector against the potential violence of the rest, realizing that he may also be violent toward her. He can rape her with impunity (marital rape laws across all 50 states only happened ten years after she published), beat her without consequences (40% of law enforcement personnel have been accused of domestic violence), and control her reproductive choices. In exchange, she is required to submit to him as an authority over her, to keep his house, to provide sex on demand, and to bear and raise his children. Again, you are asking questions already answered.
“In the current moment women dominate public education. Women have long been the majority of college students and now they are nearing 60% of college educated.” And yet this doesn’t translate into actual financial security. When women enter a specific workforce (e.g. teaching and nursing), the pay and prestige for those jobs drop. Right wing women have historically seen college education as a method to obtain a higher-earning husband, not to directly access high paying jobs. Such women may in fact have been right that the portion of money he gives her is bigger than what she could have earned independently, even with a degree, given the penalties women undergo for participation in the public sphere, especially when reproductive choices are out of their hands (and unlike other countries, there is no social support for young families).
cd: I believe the correct statistic is that 90-95% of men are stronger than 95% of women in terms of: upper body strength (50-60% more muscle mass), lower body strength (30-40% more leg strength), grip strength (95% of men have stronger grip strength than women), speed and endurance (due to testosterone, oxygenation, and muscle mass). Of course there are women who are athletes and can outperform the majority of men, but these are the trends. A WNBA star can kick the trash of just about any man she meets. Additionally, there is no reason to believe men are more intelligent than women or have better leadership skills, although humans are biased toward height and maleness when selecting leaders. One of the most predictive traits for CEOs is being over 6′ tall. In the US, 15% of men are this tall, and only 1% of women are.
“It takes two and they are both responsible.” It’s already been referenced above but the essay by Gabrielle Blair is so excellent on this point. As she points out, men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancy. Currently, all the focus is on restricting women’s choices, but men (due to how human reproduction actually works) are far more to blame for any unwanted pregnancies for many reasons. A few for starters:
– Men are fertile (unless they are sterile) every day of the year until they die, although they may have sperm decline as they age. Women’s fertility is much more limited and unpredictable. One ejaculation contains ~250 million sperm and can remain active in a woman for up to 5 days. Women cannot impregnate men or themselves. Only sperm can impregnate (literally meaning breach the walls of) the egg. The egg is just sitting there, minding its own business.
– Men are responsible for the majority of irresponsible ejaculations. They lie about vasectomies, don’t withdraw, refuse to use condoms, and pressure women into unprotected sex (and they are more capable of overpowering their partner physically). The reverse of these scenarios is less likely to occur, although as you point out, a woman can trick a man into impregnating her; however, that’s not an unwanted pregnancy if so. Yes, he may not want it, but he doesn’t endure the pregnancy, just the child support (if he’s unlucky). It definitely isn’t a foregone conclusion that she will get what she wants (financial security? a healthy relationship? a life partner?) from tricking him in this way. Men, even those who rape their wives, are much more likely to get what they want from a wife who has limited ability to support herself without his protection. Removing these inequalities is the point of feminism.
– Male partners often expect women to bear the cost, side effects, and management of contraception because women are the ones who are most impacted by its failure; in male contraception studies (the male pill), men did not like the side effects that women have all agreed to endure. That’s because men don’t bear the consequences of pregnancy as an alternative.
– Women’s pleasure is not linked to reproductive sex. In fact, only 16% of women are physically capable of orgasm from vaginal penetration, and only 30% are capable of it during vaginal penetration. Most women experience sexual pleasure from non-penetrative sex. This isn’t where the party is for the majority of women, but it is the thing that potentially ruins their lives and livelihood.
I’m going to avoid Disciple’s male fragility subtopic and go back to the original post, which is very good.
As I read this, I smugly thought that I won feminism! I have a higher earning power than my ex-husband. I am financially independent. My marriage lasted about five years and I’m the one who chose to end it. I work in a majority-male profession and I say what I want to say and have the respect of the men I work with. I wanted to be a mom, and that worked out fine. I’ve got kids. Their dad checked out emotionally and we never fight. In fact, we rarely interact anymore. Ideal situation. I’m old enough now that I don’t get ANY sexual attention from men anymore; people don’t even offer to set me up on dates. That’s glorious. I’m a person, not a sex object.
When the bear/man discussion got popular, I heard the women choosing ‘bear’ and I had a different answer. I would choose the man. But then I had to admit that I had an asterisk on my choice. I would choose the man*. (*but you have to guarantee that I’m not related to the man.)
Yeah, trauma-scarring or whatever. I trust men as long as I’m not related to them. Men in my profession, men in the grocery store, men who ride the bus or train with me, men walking behind me after dark. I trust all those men. I don’t trust the men I’m related to. Any of them – father, brothers, ex-husband, sons. Intellectually, I know that’s foolish, but as a gut response, I give men the benefit of the doubt as long as we’re not related.
After thinking it through, I added one more category to the asterisk. *as long as it isn’t a man who voted for Trump. I see a MAGA hat or any other visible indicator that he’s a political conservative and yes, I will cross the street rather than cross paths.
Welp, A Disciple’s anecdotes settle it. Women are fully equal to men. Feminists are nothing but oversensitive exaggeraters.
Never mind that women are 35 percent more likely than men to live in poverty in the US. Never mind that the US on women’s rights ranks 43rd (I thought the US was number 1 in everything. Huh.) Never mind that only 10 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are women. Never mind that we’ve never had a female president and the two times we had a contest with a female candidate, Americans chose a racist, sexist bigot who was found civilly liable of sexual abuse.
On women in the church, right-wing beliefs as described I hear ad nauseum. But alas, when in the church and used to the norm, it is hard to see the bias and massive disadvantage of women, not to mention how much women are talked down to. It takes leaving the church to realize just how misogynistic church culture really is. For heaven’s sake, Oaks once called women walking porn.
Brad D: For heaven’s sake, Oaks made a punchline out of women expressing fears over eternal polygamy.
Hawkgrrrl,
What personal accountability do women have? What I perceive in the Feminist agenda is a deflection of responsibility such that unwanted outcomes are always the fault of someone else.
This is the antithesis of empowerment!
Empowerment is to teach people that they are able to make choices. And on this American society is extremely empowering. My friends daughters are respectively a doctor, a software programmer and a PhD candidate at Yale. And this from a family where the kids attended public schools and had no special advantage other than loving parents and the self-discipline to make good choices.
My own daughters chose to marry and begin families. Each has succeeded in that and is greatly blessed.
Good and bad falls on everyone. Women no more have bad breaks than men – actually men have far more bad outcomes than women. If women are so much more disadvantaged than men, than why is it that men experience so much more hardship than women?
Google AI freely provides the following declarations comparing bad outcomes of men and women:
“Men are more likely to experience violent crime than women.”
“Men are significantly more likely to die on the job than women.”
“Men are more likely to be fired / laid off from a job.”
“Men are more likely to die by suicide than women.”
“Men are more likely to experience homelessless than women.”
“Men are arrested at significantly higher rates than women.”
“Men are significantly more likely than women to be incarcerated.”
“Males are more likely to drop out of high school than females.”
And of course, women are more likely to be college educated and women live longer than men.
So while it is unfortunate women are more like to live in poverty, men are more likely to die, be fired from work, go to jail, commit suicide, drop out of school, be victims of violence, and be homeless. And women live longer and are more likely to go to college and earn a college degree.
So if the world is so awful for women, how much more awful is it for men? And given this inequality of bad outcomes I have listed for men, do you actually want equality between men and women? I don’t think so. I hope women do not become equal to men in all the ways men fail. We should hope men and women could better avoid the pitfalls of life all while recognizing life is challenging for both men and women.
Wow. Here’s an idea @ A disciple: go Google AI ‘male priveldge’ and then return and report. Dillusion and male fragility to the highest degree written all over everything you write. Yes men are hurting. But not more than women. The answer IS feminism, not more patriarchy. Holy moly.
To put it more clearly, because what seems so obvious to feminists and not to you, @ A Disciple, just the patriarchy also hurts both men and women doesn’t make it okay. That’s your justification for keeping it? That it hurts both parties?
Men are hurting because the patriarchal system demands they constantly prove how successful they are: financially, socially, emotionally, physically. The pressure is enormous. It tells them they have the right and control others, which ruins relationships; it tells them they have to always be right; that everything should cater to them. When they can’t do those things, they fall apart, just like other people. But women still have it far, far worse than men. Another way to see it is that, as if the case with contemporary victim-claiming by conservative men, when these male victims of partriachal oppression (which is all men) are told they shouldn’t act that way, men who stil believe in the partiarchy or who benefit from it the most fall apart.
And women still have it far worse than men, take all those destructive idealolgies toward men and magnify them exponentially.
Feminism says those things are destructive to both men and women and seeks to stop it.
OK then, destroy the “patriarchy” and replace, but with what? What is the system of government? How are laws made and enforced? What is the economic system and how is it enforced? Are there any model, “non-patriarchal”, systems in the world (modern or ancient) we can reference? I’m am genuinely curious to learn what this better social system is and how it might be implemented.
Gotta love A Disciple’s twisted logic. When it comes to feminism, how dare we say that women are victims of anything. If women have anything to complain about, well just tell them about individual choice. But when is comes to men, oh my goodness they are so victimized by this woke boogeyman system. All of a sudden it goes to systems thinking. To the extent that men have it worse than women and “experience more hardship” than them. To that I say, have ya heard about this individual choice philosophy? Stop being such a victim. Men still control almost all of the business and political worlds if that makes you feel any better.
Dude, you can’t imagine a government that isn’t connected to patriarchy? For real? How about a democratic- representative government for starters. What is even happening? These comments are so revealing. You’ve got it bad. Never pegged you for such a misogynist. But there it is.
@ A Disciple: So, you’re basically saying, “Tell me how we could possibly operate without men controlling women; without them being subordinate to men.” Yikes.
Brian,
Please do tell how exactly are “men controlling women”? In your opinion, what would change to eliminate this control? How would the law and society change so men would no longer control women? What would we see different?
It’s almost like you haven’t read a damn thing on this tooic. Read this post. Look into what patriarchy means and how it hurts both men and women. Then realize we could still operate without it. And better. I don’t have time to spoon feed you, brother. Sad to see you believe patriarchy has to be a thing in order dor anything to function. Sad and scary as all hell.
Brian,
I keep reading the OP to see if I am missing something. For what I read is the most depressing view of female existence. Per Dworkin women either place themselves under the control of an evil husband or place themselves under the control of the uncaring Capitalistic system. Either way women are just used, chewed up and discarded.
Well guess what. Dworkin is wrong! Dworkin’s view is junk and only serves to promote women as being victims and as being dependent on others – like Dworkin – to comfort them. The great irony is “men’s rights advocates” are spinning the same junk today. They tell men that the system is against them and that women cannot be trusted and that they need “advocates” to comfort them.
So today we have both men and women being fed lies on how they are victims of society. These groups are being told by “advocates” that society is offering them a devil’s bargain and no good option exists for them. As I say, the same idiocy that Dworkin was preaching in the 1980s to women is being preached today to both women and men. It is all lies told by exploitive people who want to make others miserable like themselves – see 2 Nephi 2:27. Best to run away from such people and their junk philosophies.
A Disciple,
Rather than rebuilding all of society, let’s just start with the Church.
1. Return to the 19th century practice of permitting women to give healing blessings.
2. Allow the RS Presidency to handle women’s TR interviews.
3. Make the RS a truly independent organization, with both funding and leadership.
4. Allow women to serve in every calling not requiring priesthood ordination (clerks, SS presidency, etc.)
5. Stop using the word “preside” when speaking about husbands. (I gave it up years ago. Life is better.)
Got it. You understand all of the relevant history, sociology, economics, politics, psychology, biology, criminology, theology, philosophy, ethics, (and I’m sure more fields of study) that examine (and found) the dangers of patriarchy on women (and men!) better than experts in these fields. They are just wrong! And you know some women. Thank you for that!
*The Patriarchs: The Origins of Inequality* by Angela Saini might help illuminate understandings somewhat. I suggest reading it.
Old Man,
I agree with your recommendations. My wife believes that her great grandmother was once Sunday School president – I believe it was Sunday School Superintendent at the time. My only reservation with leadership making these changes is it will act as if the past 120 years never happened. Oh how revealing it would be for a high church leader to admit to the membership that 99% of decisions and policies made by the church are by whim and leadership bias and tradition and what seemed logical at the time, and not because God commanded it.
I’ll just point out that modern society has mostly rejected patriarchal thinking. Yes, gender norms persist and they will persist for reasons that have existed for thousands of years. But people reject the thinking that leadership is a man’s job. My kids 4H had a woman leader – fantastic lady – and 4H presidents were both boys and girls. The LDS church is way, way behind the social times.
That said, the LDS church seems to have addressed the social norm conflict by stripping ward leadership of any real responsibility. For example, I don’t see any difference in the responsibilities of the EQ president and the RS president. Both are expected to serve their group and any and all ecclesiastical decisions are delegated to higher authority. Even the Bishop has pretty much paint by number guidelines. In the modern LDS church all authority resides with the Stake President and higher ups and in my stake the SP is demonstrative on demonstrating equality for men and women, to the point that the most visible leaders in the stake – the ones doing things – are women.
I’m not saying the “old boys club” doesn’t exist in the church but the “old boys club” is getting old in the tooth.
Stripping the lower social levels of authority IS patriarchy. Those minions (women and non-elite men) can’t be trusted. An egalitarian society is the opposite of patriarchy. You know, when individuals decide what’s best for them, exercise agency, don’t have to be commanded in all things, etc. Patriarchy is about control, correlation, no diverse opinions, etc.
A Disciple
Focus in a bit on these women who you say are the only leaders doing anything in your stake. So, do these women you are thinking of conduct worthiness interviews and include or exclude members from attending the temple? Do these women sit in membership councils and judge if members should be excommunicated or not? Do these women call other members to serve in the stake, or are they only allowed to offer recommendations?
Behind each of these visible women you will find a benevolent patriarchal leader who allowed them to exercise their leadership visibly as you recount. Next week that benevolent man may be released. In his place may be called a man who means well but micromanages and doesn’t listen to female leaders. Each of the visible women leaders you are aware of may be told they cannot move forward with what they are currently doing. They may be released, or the new Bishop or SP may start dictating to them every move they allowed to make. Visually in your stake, it may appear no different, but the female leaders will find themselves demoralized and disinterested in being his puppet. Every tiny decision they make can be reversed by their patriarchal leader.
He is allowed to micromanage in his calling just as he is allowed to be benevolent and let leaders beneath him manage everything their own way. This is his call to make not theirs. And may I add that although male leaders under the hierarchy suffer this as well as female leaders, none of the male leaders find themselves released or their decisions reversed by a woman (unless the Bishop benevolently allows the Primary President to lead a male primary teacher in this way).
I agreed with your worldview myself at one time. All my leaders had been benevolent. And then I experienced leadership working with a bishop who micromanaged every decision in the ward, right down to how his female leaders managed their children during sacrament meeting. Talk to the SP all you want. He is a former bishop called to support your bishop.
This experience opened my eyes. Just because you haven’t experienced it and can’t see it doesn’t mean leadership is egalitarian in our church. It isn’t. It’s patriarchal, exactly as is stated in the temple.
(I wrote this comment mostly on the day after this posted, and today, I whimsically decided to finish it and share it. I also have now read through all the comments, so many sound, reasonable responses that received my thumbs up. But I’m not going to respond directly to Bro-disciple. That’s futile. Plus he’s had his soapbox enough already.)
I do sooo love that the first sentence of the first comment here references Gabrielle Blair’s book Ejaculate Responsibly. I won’t get into its specifics because the book does that with such clear brevity, but in terms of men’s improvement in relationships with women, that’s as good a place to begin as any. (Also, see Hawk’s rundown in her later comment)
And as a society, we are woefully mired still in stubborn inequality, in which obviously needed change is stonewalled, gaslit, nitpicked, and bullied into oblivion. Anything that can maintain the status quo of men receiving services from women, for which they don’t have to reciprocate, is published in the effort to maintain undeserved privilege, especially for others to spread about like this is a parlor game of telephone. (Looking at you, NPR and you, New York Times.) To cite a recent example, the concept of DEI, which is a good policy for both women and men BECAUSE IT WORKS, is now widely thought of as something so bad that just mentioning it can carry the weight of the argument, in place of logical reasoning.
I recently returned from New York where I witnessed the Democratic mayoral primary. The night before I read an essay by writer Rebecca Solnit, who has long experienced this struggle, and written about said struggle so lucidly, so persuasively, and yet so effing many are not persuaded. Her evidence of just how badly not persuaded is the viable candidacy of Mario Cuomo in that election, in June 2025, despite his sordid record of sexual assault and harassment. I won’t present her lucid points here, just go read it. (I’ll link it from her website, the most reliable platform, in a separate comment.)
I think I owe it to the group and Hawk to re-read the original post, because I don’t remember all of it, except that it was so superb that my aging, neurodivergent brain lit up, and I started replying before reading all the comments.
So here it goes, into the ether.
Here ya go, as promised.
https://www.meditationsinanemergency.com/on-feminism-creeps-and-new-york-citys-election-tomorrow/