- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
An extremely well-written feminist primer for Mormons by a BYU-I prof, natch. I particularly like that her students can clearly identify that the church exercises benevolent patriarchy. The problem I have with that is that I don’t need or want male protection, and so when I am told that it’s part of my divine nature to want and need it, I just figure I’m not the target audience. I don’t really get the allure. I do see that many women benefit from that and become dependent on that, but I would rather poke my own eyes out. So there’s that.
That explains your blindness! 
:silent: 
I’ve heard the idea that we should be cautious about negativity towards benevolent patriarchy because it’s sort of a bridge into cultures and countries with oppressive patriarchy. (I have a vague memory of a Fiona Givens interview about how the gospel could/will take hold in Muslim countries.) I’m curious to know what people here think. That’s something I would probably have agreed with back when I was accepting of everything I was taught. Now I lean more towards a rising tide lifting all boats. I’m not sure. But I’m quite sure I don’t belief in Patriarchy. Speaking as a man and husband, I have no interest in it. Ann: I actually really like the idea of benevolent patriarchy being a bridge to cultures that are based on oppressive patriarchy. It certainly makes sense. What I don’t like, though, is that the church is solidifying their tie to benevolent patriarchy in ways that will be nearly impossible to progress from: the proclamation on the family, gender essentialism (and making it eternal), male-only priesthood being divine and immovable, and even polygamy itself was designed to be benevolent rather than oppressive patriarchy. IOW, we’re not bridging. We’re building a house on that bridge and warning people that both shores are dangerous.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.