Mormon feminists...

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

Archaea, I wasn't talking about Hillary Clinton, although that's an example, I suppose. I admit to being hypersensitive on this subject, but the misogyny is much more pervasive than that here. I've been quite surprised by it, actually.

You need to cite examples then.

If I heard women say bad things about Adolph Hitler, am I then to conclude they are misandrgynists?

Hillary Clinton is a very bad person, whose personal behavior and politics are despicable, but that doesn't mean I don't adore Candelezza Rice or the Iron Maiden of Great Britain. Can you see the distinction?

Other than typical male joking about women, and in female circles the opposite is true, what evidence of misogyny do you have?

I submit women are much more misandrynistic than men are misogynistic. Why else would "you go girl" be so prevalent, yet very few men yell, "you go guy"?

A polished, dynamic, sexy, athletic woman is fantastic company and somebody to be admired and cherished. That should be the LDS ideal, but we're still stuck in the Ozzie and Harriett era for a few more years. As for leadership opportunities, I wish they existed because as far as I'm concerned, they're not all that they're cracked up to be.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

I think the main reason feminism is antithetical to church culture--and some doctrine--is that the heart of feminism (definitions of it aside) is choice. That women can choose their own paths, their own goals, their own views on how to frame those goals. In many ways, the path for LDS women has already been set. Women who know follow this path as far as possible. Yes, we understand when that's not possible for the outliers, but we expect a certain course nevertheless. An ideal. A concept that women ought to marry, have babies, and rear them as their role. Feminists in general think this is a fine path, but the problem is when there's only one "best." See, no choice?

Archaea, I wasn't talking about Hillary Clinton, although that's an example, I suppose. I admit to being hypersensitive on this subject, but the misogyny is much more pervasive than that here. I've been quite surprised by it, actually.

Mudphud. I don't know anything about this diaper-centric Mormon feminist group you are talking about, but I don't know why you would suppose that translates to all Mormon "feminists." Is it just because of their title?

Based on your conclusion, you would have to conclude that "maleism" is antithetical to the church. Men are not allowed a freedom of choice any more than women are. I as a male am not given the option to be a stay at home mom, I need to be the provider. I am not given the option to commit adultery. I am not given the option to hang out at pool halls while my wife tends to household chores.

Women do have a choice. I know many women in the church who work. I haven't seen any of them excommunicated because of it.

As far as Hillary Clinton goes, I don't like the person or most of all her policies. It has nothing to do with her being a woman. I would vote for her in a heartbeat over Barak Obama.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BYU71

As far as Hillary Clinton goes, I don't like the person or most of all her policies. It has nothing to do with her being a woman. I would vote for her in a heartbeat over Barak Obama.

Thank goodness we don't have to make that choice. As I would have a heart attack being forced to do that. Afterwards I would return home to shower and get clean. Perhaps asking for rebaptism might do it.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You need to cite examples then.

If I heard women say bad things about Adolph Hitler, am I then to conclude they are misandrgynists?

Hillary Clinton is a very bad person, whose personal behavior and politics are despicable, but that doesn't mean I don't adore Candelezza Rice or the Iron Maiden of Great Britain. Can you see the distinction?

Other than typical male joking about women, and in female circles the opposite is true, what evidence of misogyny do you have?

I submit women are much more misandrynistic than men are misogynistic. Why else would "you go girl" be so prevalent, yet very few men yell, "you go guy"?

yes, but I don't have to cite examples for it to be true. And if I did cite examples, would it convince you? No? Shocking!

You mentioned this idea about misandry before, but I fail to see how--even if true--that's relevant to the premise here. "You go girl!" Seriously? "Men" as a group have not been oppressed, which is why they don't have the same sense of cultural identity that oppressed groups traditionally have. I'm not a sociologist, but that's Soc 101.

I'm not trying to get into it here with you. I'm just giving my perspective. Apparently as resident board feminist. It's a viewpoint that has been underrepresented here.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

yes, but I don't have to cite examples for it to be true. And if I did cite examples, would it convince you? No? Shocking!

You mentioned this idea about misandry before, but I fail to see how--even if true--that's relevant to the premise here. "You go girl!" Seriously? "Men" as a group have not been oppressed, which is why they don't have the same sense of cultural identity that oppressed groups traditionally have. I'm not a sociologist, but that's Soc 101.

I'm not trying to get into it here with you. I'm just giving my perspective. Apparently as resident board feminist. It's a viewpoint that has been underrepresented here.

As the board feminist, help me to understand what it is you want. As far as the church goes, would you want the Priesthood? Do you want your posts to get the same treatment that posts by men on this board get? I don't think I am a mysogynist (sp), but perhaps I can be accurately accused of not understanding what it is the feminist would like.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

yes, but I don't have to cite examples for it to be true. And if I did cite examples, would it convince you? No? Shocking!

You mentioned this idea about misandry before, but I fail to see how--even if true--that's relevant to the premise here. "You go girl!" Seriously? "Men" as a group have not been oppressed, which is why they don't have the same sense of cultural identity that oppressed groups traditionally have. I'm not a sociologist, but that's Soc 101.

I'm not trying to get into it here with you. I'm just giving my perspective. Apparently as resident board feminist. It's a viewpoint that has been underrepresented here.

That's for certain, and probably not familiar with many of the basic tenets thereof. And if you wish to engage, that's fine, no reason to be timid.

Misandry is relevant because I submit charges of misogyny are not true in most instances, but really attempts at gaining political advantage. And unlike all other oppressed groups, women have had an advantage over any other group, namely sex and the withholding thereof. So although there are places, and times, when women have experienced disadvantages, they've also had advantages, and they have the advantage of their sex. So it's not all pity party for them.

Politically, women can 'bond" by "you go girl", while a man would be viewed as a cretin for such behavior, a woman can deride men to her heart's content, a woman can withhold sex for an eternity and be considered a saint. In the eyes of women, except yielding to men, a woman can do no wrong, yet we guys will deride an Obama or a McCain mercelessly.

Righting legal disparities once had validity, it doesn't in the 21st century, but feminists are riding the same horses, not for the sake of justice, but to gain unfair advantages until somebody calls them on the disparity.

And it probably results from a complex fabric of sociological factors. Some of it is tied to the latent and patent misandry which most women, especially feminists seem to coddle and cherish. The independence factors in feminism are good, the strengthening factors are good, the misandrygnistic ones are harmful to our social fabric.