what women know
I commented before about the 1950's-era talk given in LDS general conference recently, and how people criticizing it got a slap on the wrist, as it were, in subsequent church meetings. The church can believe and teach what it wants, but in teaching the kinds of things about women (and men) that the church is teaching, they are ignoring what women (and men) really are. And therefore hurting them, even the very people who want to be Mormon.
Well, people are stepping up and have written a response. It's beautiful and powerful, and it shows that a lot of Mormon women--faithful, liberal, and ex--are thinking, and not just obeying blindly. It takes guts for faithful Mormon women and men to sign their names, at the risk of church discipline, and I applaud them. They are seeking signatures from people who can show their support in that manner (I know there are many reasons to be anonymous on the web, both the 'nacle and the DAMU).
I added my name. Check it out.
5 comments:
This is a great thing. I added.
This is what I wrote on another site, regarding Beck's "talk":
Julie Beck would be right at home in the 1960s, which for many Mormons is the current day-and-age mindset.
To the rest of the regular world - she's irrelevant. Like spam. The kind you don't even glance at while passing down the aisle in the grocery store.
I should have written 50's, but hey, it's been a day of typos.
I especially loved this: "The choice to have children does not rule out other avenues of influence and power. "
I remember an argument between me and my bff and our BYU religion teacher. My non-believing best friend and I always took our religion classes together - the ONLY way we could get through them was solidarity.
The teacher was giving us the whole "women belong at home with the family" spiel, and I raised my hand and said something along the lines of, "That cuts women off from having any influence on the world around them except indirectly through their male children. That can't be good for me as a woman or society." My bff joined in, but he told us that he was sorry, but that's the way it's supposed to be. Ugh the arrogance!
He did apologize half heartedly (in private, I might add, not in front of the class) in the case that we were offended. Of course, by that point I was wondering why I had thought saying anything would make the least bit of difference.
I look back and wonder how I ever managed to make it to graduation with my mental health and faith in the human race intact.
Wow, the list of names is growing!! Do you think this could herald some small change? If it did, would you go back?
Sid- yes, she's irrelevant. A tiny speck on the screen.
rolypoly- how did you ever survive BYU. How did you ever survive people like me?!?
hm-uk- I doubt this will affect change at the church level, but it has made a lot of people think, so on the individual level that is good. If it did, would I go back? Hell no. This is just one of many, many issues.
Yeah, when Sonia Johnson stood up in General Conference and shouted out against the patriarchy, all it did was make people think that she was one crazy woman who was completely out of step with the church. I'm not sure what the approach could/should be, but I think that enlisting men who acknowledge the oppression of women within religious organizations, is a start.
BTW, I wouldn't go back either. I like my life too much.
Post a Comment