Is Feminism of God?

The topic of “why are we always so behind the times on important issues instead of leading” is an area I struggle with and I have had some of the same thoughts as you. Given the rise of snufferism, we are not alone. What gets me even more is that so many revel with pride in that it is us against the word, not realizing to me it looks like we are some of the last to hold on to errant “traditions of our fathers”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When you ask is it “of God” I think you need to define what “of God” means. For me, it means “is it consistent with basic principles of human relationships”.

My answer is that the idea of treated others with equality, with kindness, with respect, and giving equal opportunity is a good thing. It is part of being fair, even-handed, moderate, temperate etcetera — all the virtues you read about in the scriptures.

I will say this — I was raised in a socialist country, and the way feminism was implemented by many people, male and female, was NOT of God, in my view. Although I personally agree with the premises of feminism, I found people would openly ridicule you in front of others if you slipped up in your language — such as using a male pronoun in a sentence referring to a gender-neutral situation. I once referred to a position on a board that I held as Chairman of the such and such committee. A woman corrected me saying ‘ChairPERSON”. I replied, no “ChairMAN”, because I am a male and I held that position. There is nothing wrong with what I said. She didn’t like it, but this kind of societal discipline that has you on edge where you can’t even refer to your own gender in a sentence was annoying to me. This would happen ALL THE TIME. Then I came to America and was asked how I wanted to be introduced at a business meeting. I mentioned “Chairperson of the Business Development Committee”. The person doing the introducing said “would you mind if I called you the Chairman?”. To him the distinction was not relevent, apparently, since I am a man and the same level of social engineering has not apparently hit my state yet..

Once I used the phrase “Madam” in an elevator and a woman in the elevator, which was crowded with managers, a few of my students, and others I didn’t know — the woman chewed me out about it. Telling me the term was used to describe a woman who runs a brothel. In front of everyone. It was uncomfortable and aggressive to be dressed down that way in front of so many people. And I didn’t agree with it. A better approach would have been to pull me aside and kindly educate me about the meaning of the term as she saw it. I would have appreciated it as I am naturally curious about the perspectives of other people…In all the literature I had ever read, I understood it to be a term that showed respect. Perhaps it didn’t mean that, and I was wrong (I have never used the term again), but the way the person chewed me out in front of all those people did not engender support for her particular cause on my behalf.

I also object to people labeling differences of opinion as phobias — a form of mental disorder. The term “homophobic” is rampant in my home country, when people disagree with homosexuality on religious grounds. I am not unfriendly to people who are attracted to members of the same sex, and posting here as augmented my empathy and support significantly to the point I see it as a natural disposition and not a disorder, but a biological state, that I accept in others. But I still object to labeling people who have a difference of opinion as possessing a phobia — just as I object to labeling people who are gay as having a disorder.

These things happened 30 years ago but I remember how these people made me feel at the time in front of other people. Dressed down, and walking away wondering how they would expect me to be a proactive advocate from their cause when they felt they had to alienate me in front of others when I slipped up in my language. And I had many other experiences like these, even though in my heart, I am supportive of women. Many others. The repetition got me.

I really need to hear the discussion on this one because my husband and I had a long talk on a car ride and I came away with this: All these things you’re upset about, even some of the ones I can agree with you on? They don’t matter as much as keeping men active in the church. Even the change we could both agree should happen can’t happen at the expense of losing men. And that the essence of conservatism is dealing with things as they really are, not as we wish they were. If men don’t have the purpose and position that comes with priesthood in the LDS church, they just won’t be there. And, he said, if you think I’m wrong, just look at the rest of Christendom.

This is an interesting question, though. Why are men so much more important to retain than women? It’s because of the assumption that an active father will mean an active family, but an active mother just means one person. I don’t think that’s necessarily even true, but it’s certainly what the church thinks. I can’t help but suspect that it’s economically motivated by idea that men are the tithing payers, that men tell their wives what to do (e.g. whether the wives are “allowed” to go to church as in sexist cultures), and that men are potential leaders while women drain resources and are an expense, particularly if they and the children attend but the father doesn’t go and doesn’t pay tithing. The other issue with these assumptions is that “things as they really are” is male privileged and “as we wish they were” is treating women and minorities like they matter at all. The problem with this thinking is that the church isn’t actually dealing with “things as they really are.” Women are earning money. Single people and gay people and people of color do need salvation also. The worth of souls is great, but apparently the worth of white dudes is priceless.

tl;dr: I don’t know if feminism is of God, but I know for damn sure that sexism is not.

I’ve wished that he could see the church through my eyes, that he could be a woman for awhile. Then I thought about his sisters, the closest approximations of my husband as a woman that I’m going to get. And they’ve left the church.

Boom.

When it comes time to promote a branch to a ward or create new wards/stakes one of the stats they look at is the number of MP holders. For better or for worse growth is measured in part by the number of men. It’s an extension to the problem where men are the only gender that can staff most of the callings that are “required” to run a ward.

Edit: I just peeked at the handbook and the bar is set lower than I expected. In the US the expectation is one active MP holder that is a full tithe payer per 20 members. Wards have a threshold of 300 members, so at least 15 MP holders.

Yes, it is – and, no, it isn’t.

As with many, if not most, things, it depends entirely on how the term is defined.

There is a long way to go, imo, in the LDS Church, but it a lot to ask of leaders who were raising kids during the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s – which was the height of social conservatism in the Church.

Also, just to say it:

The quickly moving, changing, evolving days ot the Church were its most volatile, with the most drastic persecution, schisms and near destruction. Change at the ideal pace is an incredibly tricky thing – and, depending on the issue, moving more slowly than the ideal can be better than moving too quickly. Moving more quickly can be better, as well, but, as a general rule, organizational change leans toward caution – unless a crisis is perceived and quickness is required to avoid becoming obsolete.

The LDS Church still is one of the most stable denominations in the world, so there is little incentive to make drastic changes in an accelerated manner. I actually have been surprised at how much has changed in the last couple of decades – even, again, as I would love to see much more change at a faster pace.

Sorry. I was trying to make a joke on the imbalance of men to women ratios in general in YSA wards. Bad attempt at a joke and probably something I should not joke about. It is a serious issue that I feel very bad about. I have VERY close relatives that are affected by this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tl;dr: I don’t know if feminism is of God, but I know for damn sure that sexism is not.

As a church we’ve finally gotten to the point of saying the words, “The priesthood ban was racist.” But we can’t seem to get a discussion about sexism going.

It was heartening to hear my husband say that he would be happy with the decanonization of Section 132.