Citing a Feminist Mormon Housewives conversation, Mohohawaii recently wrote about how LDS women are made responsible for LDS mens sexuality. The Mormon woman is expected not to inflame male passions by underdressing or being overly flirtatious. Female modesty he writes, affirms the existence of male sexuality only. He quotes a Mormon women who felt guilty for simply wanting an orgasm during a faithful marriage of 20 years.
At the end of Mohohawaiis post, he notes that this is one of the ways that patriarchal nature of LDS culture oppresses women and gay people. That is, it takes their sexuality away from them. It doesnt allow a gay person to be a gay person (insofar as sexuality is a determinant of a gay person) or a woman to be a woman (insofar as her sexuality is determinant of her).
However, I would argue that it is not patriarchy, per se, that does this at least, the gay part. The ancient Greeks were a very patriarchal culture, and yet they were quite gay. Mens sexuality in ancient Greece was supreme, but womens sexuality was still rather oppressed. So, I would say that the problem in the Church is actually one of heteropatriarchy, and not just patriarchy alone.
The logic of male passions in the Church actually does carry over into queer sexuality for men. Whenever Church leaders talk about same-gender attraction, they always talk about men, boys, males. Its the consideration of a son who should keep his “passions” in check (his “natural man”); occasionally, but not often, also a father or husband: whether we’re talking about pornography or adultery. There is some consideration of the mans wife: the mixed-orientation marriage, but only as she relates to the man.
For instance, in a 2006 interview, Dallin Oaks noted that Hinckleys statement in the late 1980s that marriage should not be thought about as a cure for same-gender attraction was for the purposes of not putting at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Part of this, I would assume, had to do with Carol Lynn Pearsons 1986 book Goodbye I Love You which made clear that HIV could get into LDS marriages as a result of selfish male passions (I say “selfish” here, because that’s how it ultimately got interpreted by church leaders). I would hope that the other part had to do with Church leaders acknowledging that a heterosexual LDS woman ought to enter a marriage with a knowledge that her husband will want to have sex with her not just to reproduce, but to have passionate, orgasm-inducing heterosexual sex (for both partners). The 1990s did, if we remember, see an addition to the Handbook of Instructions that sex includes the purposes of “strengthening the bond of marriage.” But clearly, there’s still a long way to go in terms of freeing women’s passions.
Obviously in this discourse, the Mormon lesbian is absent. The Mormon lesbian (or lesbianism…however you want to think about it) continues to be subjugated under the auspices of “female modesty.” Whereas the same-sex attracted male is expected to keep his “passions” in check, the lesbian is written out of existence. Insofar as she does exist, she is made invisible, more than her heterosexual sisters. Thus I think a Mormon lesbian theology is important to unravel the problems going on here.
Let’s consider Boyd Packers idea in the 1970s that homosexuality is caused by a subtle form of selfishness. This notion might seem obsolete, but actually many, many Mormons would still argue that acting on ones attractions outside of marriage is, in fact, selfish (regardless of one’s sexuality). Packers logic thrives.
In the 1990s, however, the public began to see lesbian mothers. Lesbians as mothers who are not selfish. (I think some 35% of lesbian couples are raising kids.)
Church leaders don’t know how to talk about lesbianism, because they don’t know how to talk about female sexuality. But to simply recognize the lesbian household as a family worthy of church membership would automatically open the door to reconsiderations of the following:
(1) the relationship of an LDS woman’s sexuality to that of an LDS man’s (ie., female modesty vs. male passions),
(2) the homosex as selfish thing, and
(3) female ordination.
Or I guess the Church can continue to be heteropatriarchal — but eventually this will lead to an implosion is my guess.
Extra notes:
– This “female modesty” vs “male passions” thing gets used to explain promiscuity in gay men. In one of Dean Byrd’s books, he argues that gay men are promiscuous because there are no women present to tame them. He leaves out the fact that a lot of men (gay or otherwise) are monogamously-minded and that a lot of women (gay or otherwise) are promiscuous.
– A Mormon lesbian on YouTube notes that the nature of lesbianism is pretty simple to understand. During her mission she found herself at a lesbian household. On their wall, was this picture. She thought: “Oh, I’m a lesbian.” And that was that. =D
Thank you. Too often we are invisible.
Wow.
I think the fact that the sole and solitary direct reference to a statement about female sexuality by a woman occurs in a note at the end of your post says all it needs to about the difference between “patriarchy” and “heteropatriarchy.”
Meaning, there isn’t much, at least not in your work. In your post, the statements about women and their sexuality that needed to be quoted and discussed are made by men. You still make men the authority on women’s sexuality, except for one brief mention so inconsequential to your main argument you tack it on as an afterthought.
Seriously: you couldn’t even follow Mohohawaii’s lead and link directly to fMh?
Holly — first off, Mohohawaii’s link is actually a broken one; otherwise I would have linked it. On the fMh website, I wasn’t able to locate the conversation. (Update: Here’s the fMh convo).
Second, in terms of your critique of me centering men in the post, yes, and I’ll explain why. There is a dearth of Mormon lesbian voices out there, and here I’m using that absence as an analytical space in hopes to affect everyone, not just Mormon lesbians or Mormon women generally. I would hope that the ultimate goal is not to tell Mormon lesbians (and women generally) to “RUN, RUN, RUN!” from the Church (unless they would like to run), but to also affect men. Thus, I am working with absence (not presence) for a reason. In order to talk about that absence, I talk about what discourses lead to it, which, in the Church, are men’s discourses.
Church leaders’ voices are a big part of Mormonism; unfortunately, they are “degendered” as prophets. Do I continue to give them gendered authority by putting them in the center of my post about “Mormon lesbianism”? Yes. But I would also hope that I am deconstructing them enough to work against that authority. It’s not like it’s just going to go away on its own.
I have sought to center women’s voices about their sexuality before, such as in this other post when I invited someone to MSP. I don’t see how I am not also doing that here.
If I said that the ultimate goal is female ordination, so that women’s voices could become paramount in the Church, would that put into a different perspective this post for you? Or do you feel this post works against that goal?
Mormon lesbians are indeed all but invisible–unless you go looking for them. You could have googled “Mormon lesbian”–you actually get quite a few hits.
And Mormon women in general certainly aren’t invisible. Some of them talk about female sexuality in general, including desire for other women.
What you provide is a guy using male speech and thought to “use women’s absence to create an analytical space”–instead of a guy pointing out where women have already called attention to that absence. THAT might have been useful.
You do understand how asking women to weigh in on m/m sexuality is not the same as creating a space where they can easily discuss f/f sexuality or f/m sexuality, right?
I wouldn’t believe you if you claimed that was your goal, since you don’t even bother to make women’s voices significant–much less paramount–in your own damn post. That is why I feel your post works against that goal.
If you want women’s voices to be paramount, make them paramount–not merely but especially in your own work. Don’t create excuses for excluding and silencing women–especially when women’s lives and sexuality is the topic. The fact that you as a man somehow think that women’s silence and exclusion is therapeutic or beneficial doesn’t make it feel any better for ones being silenced and excluded.
Is that hard to understand?
A man can write an M/M novel that has no female voices. But yet the book can be enjoyed and intended for a female audience.
Many lesbians also like and produce M/M romance, which tells me that the divider you’ve created between (M/M) and (F/F & F/M) is false.
The divider being “the presence of a woman’s voice.”
There’s a whole history to the development of M/M romance as a genre, and the short of it is that all of our sexualities/voices are connected.
I don’t consider women who write same-sex romance to necessarily have to tread lightly when it comes to actual gay men’s experiences, because I recognize that there is difference between an embodied person and those who are fictional or symbolized.
Here the “Mormon lesbian” is also not embodied. She is symbolized for reasons I’ve already explained. As I’ve explained elsewhere, sometimes unembodied politics is healthier and safer and more effective than embodied politics.
I feel that you are not letting there be multiple ways to get at this heteropatriarchal beast and are insisting upon only one method, one in which men are silent and women speak. But I actually think that this method in many ways perpetuates a kind of “males on the one hand” “females on the other” type of thinking that has pros, but also cons.
It’s so true; Lesbian women, in Mormonism, are essentially nonexistent. In fact, most Christian groups have the same problem, for the same reason. They don’t understand (they in fact deny and suppress any knowledge of) female sexuality.
If it’s false, why did you use it yourself? Why label your book as m/m instead of eschewing labels entirely?
If it’s false, we do we need a “lesbian” theology? Why doesn’t the existing theology work just fine for lesbians?
Well, you’re wrong. I didn’t and don’t object to your writing a post on the topic of lesbian theology; I objected to the fact that you didn’t see fit to quote any female voices in a topic about women’s sexuality and spirituality.
I feel that you are trying to weasel out of your own patriarchal attitudes, and excuse a bad decision.
I feel that Mohohawaii is a great advocate for women, and I’m always interested to read what he has to say on the topic of women and feminism. But then, he does things like quote women up front and link to women’s blogs and read fMh.
Quoting voices is not the only way to bring voices into a piece of writing. The voices I did quote were church leaders’ voices that were deconstructed.
Oh, well, then it’s OK. ‘Cause god knows, what we really need in order to have a viable lesbian theology is for a bunch of guys to pay very close attention to what other guys say.
I like the word queer, but when theory is attached I get a stupor of thought.
I keep running into lesbians from a Mormon background. Maybe they left while the men were busy talking to themselves, so they could go about living their lives.
they sound like pretty smart women, since men on all sides of the conversation mirror each other: they all claim to value women and have their best interest at heart; they all think they’re uniquely entitled to speak to and for women; and they all have all sorts of excuses for why it’s OK not to include any real women in discussions of women’s lives, sexuality and spirituality, including their invocation of some idealized or “symbolized” (to use Alan’s word) woman they’ve created to set the example the rest of us little ladies need to follow if everything is going to be all right.
Holly, I liked your Sunstone article that you posted on the other thread. I appreciated learning more about your experiences.
But I was wondering about the title “Straight Women, Gay Men, and Mormonism.” Does the category “gay men” only apply to the specific gay men you talk about in your article, or is it a symbol that also includes gay men you’ve never met or read about? If the latter, then I think you should cease and desist with your suggestions about what “gay men” should do. =p
Have you checked out my Dialogue article, or do you worry its “patriarchy” might cause you to gag with disgust? (Edit: IOW, nothing I say ever seems to appease you or have a positive value to you. Or at least, you never say so.)
btw, deconstructing does not just mean “paying close attention to.”
it also includes the question: “why is this person talking and being listened to in the first place?”
Given that those are not the only two options for how the term “gay men” can be deployed, I don’t feel obligated to take your advice.
I am, however, consistently impressed at how when it comes right down to it and when you are left to your own devices, you rely on simple binaries, and expect everyone else to do so as well.
I admit that I have not yet read your Dialogue essay (haven’t read anything in the latest issue, actually, because I’ve been busy, on top of which I didn’t even notice your name in the table of contents), though perhaps I’ll try to get to it before too much longer.
(Note: again with the simple binary, like the only two options are choosing to read it right away or choosing not to read it because “its ‘patriarchy’ might cause me to gag with disgust.” You could also have simply asked if I’d seen it, and not tried to predict my response. That’s one thing that drives me nuts: you seem to think you can figure out what I’m thinking and what motivates my responses, and the inferences you offer are pretty much NEVER right.)
I admit that I have not been as impressed with your work as you are, and am sometimes baffled by your apparent expectation that I should be.
Yes. And I am asking the question, “Why are men talking to and listening to each other on the topic of women’s sexuality and spirituality, instead of talking to and listening to women?”
Seems like an important question to me.
My comments @12 were an attempt at humor. I painted a binary for you because that’s what I feel you’ve given me this entire thread. Either (A) I needed to have quoted women’s voices in the post, or (B) The post is part of a nasty patriarchal “man mirror.” You don’t seem to allow for a third or fourth or fifth option in which
– a quotation of women’s voices is not entirely instrumental to anti-patriarchal work,
– where not quoting them could be outside the bounds of a “man mirror,” or
– where “lesbianism” can be used as an analytic (i.e, unembodied female same-sex desire) without the actual presence of gay women.
To expand on the lattermost point, what happens in the Church is that because discussions of homosexuality are usually about men, Mormon men and women assume that Mormon same-sex attracted women are doing a better job at keeping their “passions” in check. This just reinstates the male passions / female modesty binary. If, under these circumstances, you bring forward a lesbian-identified woman in the Church, or women attracted to other women — if you “quote” them, their voices will be dismissed by the overarching rubric. The presence of women for sake of the presence of women has no political value here, because women themselves are also judging other women. But if focus on the rubric itself, by focusing on the value of lesbian desire on its own, then you might get somewhere.
This might seem counterproductive, because without the “voices,” one is re-engaging in patriarchy. But not necessarily so. An example might be that instead of writing a memoir (where “real” people are quoted), you might write a novel or offer theoretical propositions (which I do here). You might take a look at my Sunstone presentation about my novel versus Jonathan Langford’s in which I talk about the conflicting ways in which nonfiction gets read versus fiction, how both engage in different facets of necessary political work.
Alan — It’s not about quoting “voices” to back up your points, it’s about being interested in taking actual women’s perspectives into account when discussing female sexuality.
I really, really don’t want to look like as a “gang up on Alan” person, but do yourself a favor: in hole, stop digging.
Just acknowledge that Holly has a valid point, try to make an effort to take women’s perspectives into account when forming your ideas about feminist issues in the future, and move on, so we can talk about the actual issues and points you’ve brought up in your post.
Because only men’s perspectives informed the writing of this post? C’mon…are you serious?
bullshit.
But if it makes you feel better about excluding women, keep telling yourself that.
I might do that…. or I might just tell you that as part of getting a PhD in nonfiction, I explored the way it gets read quite thoroughly. I have every confidence I understand the topic better than you do.
Alan — I’m just saying it looks like you’ve written a whole post “towards a lesbian theology” without caring what lesbians might have already written on the subject. And when it’s pointed out to you, instead of taking that point into consideration, you argue that that’s OK because maybe you were talking about unembodied female same-sex desire, thereby rendering actual lesbians irrelevant [as the men are busy hammering out a lesbian theology amongst themselves]. I’m willing to believe I’ve misunderstood this discussion, though, because I’m just trying not to injure myself from all the head-desking…
Darn, this whole conversation confused me.
So it’s about disemboweled or unembodied fictional lesbians, something like that.
That makes sense since we all know that real Mormon lesbians don’t exist.(not that it matters)
What’s next, a discussion on Martian Mormon converts? I don’t know if they’re unembodied, but since I saw “Ghosts of Mars”, I inclined to agree..
But the one thing we can safely say is that they are male.
Don’t know if they are straight, but since they’re from Mars, they’re definitely queer.
Given the infinite possibilities that exist in the world, I suppose these third and fourth and fifth options are indeed possible, and might actually be useful, if done by someone adequately sophisticated. That doesn’t change the fact that your post failed in several crucial ways. And until you have the maturity and wisdom and insight to handle a more challenging rhetorical task such as creating a lesbian theology without reference to actual women, you might make your life easier and your work more successful by doing simple things such as considering what actual lesbians have to say on the topic of lesbian theology.
From your original post:
What you have proven, over and over and over, Alan, is that YOU don’t know how to talk about female sexuality, and that you don’t know how to listen about female sexuality, either–unless female sexuality provides readers for your novel about gay men. Only men’s perspectives informed the writing of your post, and you actively reject any suggestion that you should take women’s perspectives seriously.
Seriously, Alan: you’ve done your best to “make women’s voices paramount” and “create a lesbian theology” and you’ve modeled for the big boys with the offices on South Temple how to talk about female sexuality (which is the model they already use, relying on an analytic concept of unembodied female desire instead of considering what women who have been working on the topic for a good long time have to say about it) and that takes care of your little obligatory attempt to show that you sorta care about the woman thing. You’ve done your duty, and now you can stop. In fact, PLEASE stop, and go do something else. Because what you’re doing now isn’t helping.
Okay, for a moment, can you suspend this notion that I don’t care or have not read what lesbians have written on the subject of queer theology, or have not read what queer females have written on female same-sex desire, or further that I have not read what females have written on the ways in which female same-sex desire gets rearticulated back into hetero white men’s formulations of the world.
I remember getting quite annoyed at both of you in an earlier thread where you insisted and insisted upon queer politics keeping identitarianism central. I don’t want to rehash that discussion here.
The reason I bring it up, though, is because the exact same thing is happening.
I’m going to quote a passage from Gayatri Gopinath’s Impossible Desires. She is a South Asian queer scholar who centralizes queer diasporic femaleness in her work:
In my post, my point is not to make the “Mormon lesbian” visible. It’s not even about making women visible. It’s not about visibility at all and it’s not about any particular subject at all. It’s about getting at structures that position everyone in certain ways, visible/invisible.
This might be a different way of doing feminist politics than you’re used to, and you might hate it. But it was born from the clash of second-wave feminisms that focused on “visibility and empowerment” with third-wave, third-world feminisms that often focus more on humility (and I’m thinking here particularly of Asian Buddhist feminists).
In terms of what Holly says @21, of course I’m willing to admit that I’m not the most sophisticated person at employing the methodology as noted above. But just because I’m not employing female sexuality the way you are used to seeing it employed doesn’t give you a right to say that I’ve proven “I don’t know how to listen…unless female sexuality provides readers for your novel about gay men.” What the f*** does my novel have to do with anything? The only thing that’s been proven, so far as I can see, is your quickness to psychoanalyze, mock and pigeonhole people in awful ways — to shut them down as if you have a monopoly on feminist methodologies and formulations.
You’ve twisted “unembodied” in this discussion into something I haven’t.
Suzanne @ 20
The Church makes it difficult to identify as lesbian. This we know. But to insist and talk about women in the Church who are primarily attracted to other women as necessarily being “lesbian” who need “visibility” is just as troubling. This is why it is important to privilege queer female desire as a concept for political work, the value and existence of the desire over the subject (and there are cases in which the opposite should be what happens). But like I explain @22 and other comments, visibility in and of itself is not everything it’s cracked up to be. Visibility often amounts to that which is placed upon you no matter how much you write and write and talk and scream about your own subjectivity. This has always been the problem of identity/visibility politics.
Holly, there’s more I want to say to you. =p This whole time you’ve basically been saying that I’m engaging in a male tendency to theorize what is already practiced. But in making this claim, you are inadvertently re-affirming the binary that men theorize and that women practice — limiting the ways in which women who have and are theorizing have influenced my practice (and theorizing). And it seems to be that the rubric you use to make a judgment about how to gender a man’s practice of theorizing about women is whether he quotes women…in what? Every post? Or that I meet some Holly-inspired, or Holly-plus-X-number-of-other-people standard of how to talk about things? Maybe you should look through my posts again to see how most of what I say comes from women theorists who have influenced me. Perhaps theorists you don’t like and disagree with who are poststructuralists, but that doesn’t mean they and I particulate in uber-patriarchy.
My “little obligatory attempt to show that [I] sorta care about the woman thing” is not just some expectation that feminism bow to the whims of any minority who picks it up, such as myself as a gay male. Gayatri Spivak hated the fact that young college students who picked up her phrase “strategic essentialism” used it to start over on any topic because of some notion that everyone is “special.” Well, everyone is special but of course there is also the matter of respecting that which came before you. Here I’m talking about work done by women on female sexuality, lesbian theology, etc, that must be respected. But I must insist that you went into this post from the get-go with a lot of assumptions about the way the topic has to be approached, the ways in which I was and/or am somehow not respecting work already done, assumptions about what I have and have not read, and so on. When I try to share things with you (such as my Sunstone presentation), you seem to take it as me comparing myself to you or trying to show off, but really what I’m trying to do is reach some understanding, to give more information, so that you stop degrading me.
I just assume that people think “queer” means “LGBT,” so I used “lesbian,” but I realize now that I can’t work with that assumption because “lesbian” is not what I was aiming for in the post… I’m saying “queer female desire.”
What!? Oh my goddess! You mean there are things one does and does not have the right to say?
If I had said, “Just because you’re trying to, uh, ’employ’ female sexuality to accomplish your own agenda doesn’t mean you have the right to say ‘The presence of women for sake of the presence of women has no political value here’ to the very people you’re excluding,” would it have been something you could understand?
That is an excellent question, Alan, one I had myself. So let me ask: why did YOU bring your novel up three times–in comments #3, #5 and #15?
That’s pretty much my point. Your post entitled “Toward a Mormon Lesbian Theology,” nothing that “the Mormon lesbian is absent,” is not really about making “the Mormon Lesbian” or even women visible. You use a particular title and claim a certain topic, but it’s obvious that you’re not really interested in Mormon lesbians–or women. Your interest is something else. And you fail to do either what the title implies, or what you say, in the sentence I just quote, you really wanted to do.
And maybe you’re just not doing a very effective job at it.
Mother of pearl. You’re too consistently earnest for me to imagine that you’re not serious here. But it’s just so damn ridiculous. Dude: FYI. I read theory. I write it. I publish it.
I’ve made very few assumptions about what you have and have not read. I’ve only used your posts as evidence of what you think it’s important to include in your discussions of ideas about women (which, you have acknowledged, are not really about women–not that we had any doubt about that). Nor have I given you advice about what you should or might read, like I’m your teacher and can give you assignments and you have nothing better to do than run out and read the texts I mention. You’re the one who keeps making assumptions about what others have and have not read, and what they should read.
Sorry you’ve got these uppity women who are just too contrary to appreciate all the really, uh, great work you’re doing for us here, but if you keep writing this sort of stuff here, you can most likely expect A) that most women will stop reading anything you write that touches even tangentially on women (which is something several have told me they’ve already done) or B) pushback.
Halle-j-lulah! You finally admit to doing one thing wrong! Maybe there’s a tiny smidgen of hope.
(p.s. You did know from the get-go, right, that “queer,” a large term often used to discuss any sexuality outside of heterosexuality and sometimes used to discuss any sexuality outside of heteronormativity, has a far less specific meaning than “lesbian”? And that if you thought that “queer” might not work for your purposes because “people would think it means ‘LGBT,'” a superior option is not to get more specific and go with only oneof the letters from that list of four, thus limiting further rather than expanding at all what people might reasonably think you were trying to get at?)
And what exactly is this something else, Holly? To get people to read my novel? That would be laughable if it weren’t so hurtful. The only reason I bring up my novel when I bring it up in whatever context I bring it up is because it is something that I’ve done and I like to keep its memory alive.
I don’t mind pushback. What I mind is you constantly dumping red paint over my head and saying I don’t have any idea what I’m talking about when I know you know at this point that I do.
And so this justifies all of your rudeness and disparaging comments? I think not. So whereas I might have offered you some hope, you still have offered me none whatsoever. Meaning, I find it nearly impossible to talk to you.
The problem was never that I “exclude women.” I don’t think it’s unreasonable for someone to think I was talking about queer female desire rather than lesbian subjectivity. FYI, “queer” isn’t exactly a term that is used often in Mormon circles, so there’s a question of audience here. But since for 20+ comments I’ve had to constantly defend myself from your attacks, it’s unfortunate it took this long to get to the difference and the reasons why romancing the “lesbian Mormon” can actually be detrimental rather than something one “does not have the right to say” upfront. Next time you might step back for a moment and see if there is a disagreement on terminology rather than chastise someone as using “male language” and then keep saying that over and over, getting meaner and nastier. If people have stopped reading what I say, I have no doubts that you’re much of the reason for that.
I could swear that you’ve discussed the nuances of gay vs. queer here at MSP before. Are you just assuming that people here don’t read your posts and comments?
See, that’s just the thing. You didn’t have to defend your omission of lesbians for 20+ comments. You could have said, “Hmm, you’re right. I didn’t cite any lesbians. I’ll think about that.” And it would have been over and done with 20+ comments ago.
You tell me, Alan. The fact that I could tell you weren’t really interested in Mormon lesbians or women doesn’t mean it was at all clear what you really were interested in.
I’ve done lots of work in lots of areas that I’m proud of, Alan. Many of us have. It doesn’t mean you take any opportunity to remind people of that work.
How on earth would you know that?
I have indeed noticed that you resist any suggestion from any woman for how you might communicate more effectively with the women here.
Yes, it was.
for 20+ comments I and others have tried to make you see that there are many problems with the way you’re framing this issue in this venue.
You claim to be all sensitive to audience–“FYI, ‘queer’ isnt exactly a term that is used often in Mormon circles”–but that sensitivity doesn’t extend to reframing your statements about women in response to explicit feedback you’re getting here from women? You don’t want to use “queer” because it isn’t “often used in Mormon circles,” but your particular way of employing gender theory, feminism and lesbian desire is something we’re all supposed to accept immediately–just ’cause you say so?
And, fyi: instead of defending yourself for 20+ comments, you had another option: You could have said, “Yeah, that’s a choice I made deliberately/without even thinking [I have a feeling it was the latter, but if you insist it was the former, I guess I’ll accept it]; next time I might make a different choice.”
and next time you might step back for a moment and see if there is a disagreement in terminology rather than insist that anyone who doesn’t approve of your use of it just doesn’t have the right political agenda or hasn’t read enough theory, instead of getting more and more obstinate, condescending and arrogant.
If you’re not willing to reconsider how you talk to and about women here, I guess I’ll have take any credit you’re willing to give me for getting people to ignore it.
Alan,
My mostly uneducated point of view is that no matter who theorises or practices, no man (queer or otherwise) will ever fully understand what it is like to be born female into a . For instance, I thought Sean Penn was fabulous in ‘Milk’, but he’ll never really know what it’s like to occupy the shoes of a gay man no matter how many gay pride marches he attended to research his role. I doubt that Sean would disagree with my statement. Personally, I would have liked to have seen Gus Van Sant cast a queer man as the lead in that film, but that wouldn’t have made any money at the box office.
I think that your piece on Mormon queer women might have had more punch if you had mentioned someone like Sonia Johnson in it. She’s not a pretty baby dyke sitting on a bed, softly bearing her queer testimony – not that there’s anything wrong with that. Sonia Johnson stood up in the General Conference and yelled and wasn’t very pretty or quiet about her politics. There is still a need to let people know what Sonia Johnson did and does and believes.
Also, (on another topic) I would suggest that lesbian interest in gay male ‘romance’ has political motivation AND I will be completely happy to have Sean Penn play any number of gay/queer roles the day that there is true equality for LBGTQ people.
– I hate it when I forget to finish a sentence!
That first one should read: “no man (queer or otherwise) will ever fully understand what it is like to be born female into a male-dominated world”.
Alan
I’m a working class dyke and the only reason I graduated from high school is they gave me a diploma. I don’t do theory. Never had much relevance to my life.
Even though I’m not yellow, I’m a bit jaundiced. I think the sex wars did a number on my liver.
Had all these writings from circular ivory towers, but actual desire and real sex seemed to be invisible. I think it might of been helpful to maybe talk to someone who had experienced the desire.
But I did like “Boots of leather, Slippers of Gold”. I’m inclined to think that some lesbians, dykes, queers, whoever become visible to , um, others because they’re living their lives their way and they would be living that way even if some overlord wasn’t around to place it on them.
And if I ever got all academic and into queer theory, I write a paper. Maybe it would be–Transformative Queer: How Mormonism informs Patrick Califia.
I don’t know much about queer theory or Patrick Califia, so I can’t say whether the paper would be long or way short. But hopefully I got the Mormonism down.
chanson @26:
I assume new people come to MSP everyday and don’t necessarily go back and read everything a person has written.
Even @24 and 25, Holly is still saying things like that I’ve “acknowledged that [my ideas] about women are not really about women” and “I could tell you werent really interested in Mormon lesbians or women…” Apparently talking about queer femaleness isn’t “really” about women, and apparently Holly just “knew” after reading the post what my interests are. Well, she’s dead wrong. I don’t consider addressing her here worth my time any more.
The notion that I’m not reconsidering and reframing due to “explicit feedback from women” makes no sense 30 comments into a conversation. If what Holly is alluding to is stubbornness against her rudeness and assumptions about the way things must be talked about, then that’s something else. She has expected me to address her concerns through her rudeness, and to be honest, her rudeness speaks to me louder than her concerns. That’s what happens when you don’t meet people halfway in a conversation and constantly barrage them with incendiary remarks.
leftofcentre @ 28
True. But it is also the case that gay male and lesbian interests sometimes overlap more than lesbian and hetero female interests. And in sharing interests and community spaces, there can often be more understanding between queer men and women, than between just women. I’m not claiming anything here about my own understanding; I’m just pointing out that the male/female divide is not always the most pertinent divide by which to judge differing experiences. Often, sexual, racial, cultural, socioeconomic, ability, age, etc, are more pertinent. Part of the problem of second-wave feminists has been then their insistence on “freeing” all women from a “man’s world” (when some other difference might be more important).
Oh, and trust me, lesbian interest in male same-sex romance is not just political. =D I know a lot of lesbians who watch gay male porn for erotic purposes.
Apparently. Imagine my surprise in learning this from you–that talking about queer femaleness doesn’t really require attention to real queer females, because queer females are just “symbolized” and “an analytic concept.”
In all of this, Alan, I’ve only been following your lead.
Admittedly, it’s been tough, since you obviously don’t really know where you’re going–you just know that wherever you started from, it had to be OK.
Indeed, Alan, we have all learned so much from you about what it looks like when someone doesn’t meet others halfway in a conversation.
The fact that there are now FOUR women trying to get you to see the problems in your approach and that you still bend as little as possible speaks far louder than your theory.
A little tip here handed out to freshmen in beginning comp classes: you can use less familiar terms, including “queer,” provided you define them first.
Suzanne @ 30
I agree that a lot gets lost when desire gets turned to theory. I’m pretty sure that when desire first gets theorized, it’s by those who experience it or whose lives are influenced by it. But everyone’s desires are connected, and the social justice element of theorizing desire is by talking about how certain desires are made invisible, we can begin to see the ways in which overarching discourses structure our lives.
Alan,
I would never consider porn to be romance. It’s my belief that the act of sex is political. I am bisexual in my preferences but lesbian by choice. I choose to have sex with women as a political act. I watch gay male porn to see men in non-traditional roles of power – that is erotic to me, not romantic. I am sexually attracted to effeminate males – again, non-traditional sex and gender roles. It’s political.
Leftofcentre,
Cool. I guess I was thinking of the “M/M romance” genre, which tends to be both romantic and erotic, and is enjoyed primarily by straight and lesbian women. That’s why I conflated the romantic and erotic in that comment.
I’m prone to being attracted to both masculine and effeminate males (and in between and trans), although I continue to come to terms with my own assumptions about how sex acts themselves get gendered. For example, when an effeminate male tops a masculine male, is the one still “effeminate” and the other “masculine” in that moment, or afterwards, and from whose perspective? I totally agree that sex is political.
Alan,
I have no ideas about how male sex roles affect other males. I’ll never know what it means to a male to view this, to be this, to want this and, so, I’ll have to let you speak as an expert on this. I can only speak from a female perspective and what watching any porn means to me, politically.
As regards to the overlap of gay male and lesbian interest, I have to argue that up until the early 1990s and the involvement of queer women in the AIDS crisis, there was very little involvement by gay men in women’s issues and, especially, lesbian issues. Without wanting to generalise too much, I think it is safe to say that the politics of the L and G camps were quite divided and gay men probably enjoyed enough patriarchal privilege to fall on the line of men who upheld oppression of women. There are exceptions, I know, but the entire system was built to keep women in a certain place and it would be very difficult for a man to emancipate a woman in the way and manner in which she needs and wants to be emancipated. Only women know how to do this and only women know how to speak to this. Your interest in women’s emancipation is laudable, but Holly and chanson know the very reasons WHY this ‘particular’ piece you wrote has flaws. I can get the essence of it – however, my lack of formal education sometimes holds me back.
The very day that women and lesbians are fully equal – in law, in men’s private beliefs about women, in women’s ideas about themselves – then it will be okay for you to publicly speculate about what comprises lesbian voices. Until then, a critical piece should rely upon the body of work that women have created. That’s why I suggested that you look at Sonia Johnson as an example of female/lesbian voice that the church tried to suppress.
I think that Holly’s only critique of your piece, initially, was that there were no other lesbian Mormon voices in your piece save the video blog at the very end. Perhaps the way she wrote it to you was not how you believed that someone should offer constructive criticism. She lost you with one word, probably, the word ‘Wow.’ May I suggest that if a man called ‘Harry’ gave you the same critique you might view it differently?
See, it’s not about shutting men up from commenting about women’s affairs, but about getting men to actually include women’s voices in the first place. The reason I mentioned sex as a political act before, was that while I don’t know of a lot of people who actually have made a political choice to identify as a lesbian, to me it is the ultimate ‘fuck you’ to the men in suits who deny me a voice, deny me priesthood, deny me the authority to lead them. That may sound grandiose to you, but I would suggest that it falls in the same line of reasoning as men who do drag. The ability to put on oneself the armour of the very thing that scares the power is liberating.
leftofcentre:
you’re absolutely right that I could and probably should have approached my critique of Alan’s piece differently.
The problem is that chanson, Alan and I have been involved in conversations before, and Alan has made it pretty clear that he has no interest in what women have to say, no curiosity about their lives and experience. He got all over me for the way I discussed feminism here because my statements would upset his mommy if she ever read them–I am not kidding–even though his mom doesn’t read Main Street Plaza. He doesn’t respect what women have to say, he considers himself a greater authority on feminism and gender than any woman here, and he values the reading of theory over experience–no doubt in part because, as his writing makes clear, he has so little experience. But what’s most shocking is that he doesn’t seem at all interested in acquiring more.
So, yeah. I could have started off with something other than the “Wow.” But I don’t think any beginning at all would have worked with Alan. Who knows if he’ll respond to you, but if he does, I’ll be absolutely shocked if he agrees at all with your assertion that “The very day that women and lesbians are fully equal in law, in mens private beliefs about women, in womens ideas about themselves then it will be okay for you to publicly speculate about what comprises lesbian voices. Until then, a critical piece should rely upon the body of work that women have created.” I would bet every Q-Tip I’ve ever owned that he’ll have reasons why you’re absolutely wrong, why he doesn’t need to take that comment seriously.
And, since I somehow missed it in all the other craziness he produced, can I just call attention to this sentence from comment #3:
That has got to be one of the stupidest things anyone has ever said about the leaders of the Mormon church.
No church leader, from Joseph Smith to Monson, has been “degendered” by his role as prophet–or apostle, or member of the Quorum of the 70, etc. By the time they turn 80, perhaps, they’re somewhat less masculine through age. But up until then, they are hyper-masculinized by their power and position, in just the same why that men with political power are hyper-masculinized by it. Power, after all, is the ultimate aphrodisiac, as that well-known sex symbol Henry Kissinger once remarked, and that is one reason for all the LDS women with crushes on Dieter Uchtdorf, even though the guy is 70 years old.
If you think any church leader is degendered by HIS role as a church leader, you’ve never been a 14-year-old girl shut up alone in a room during a bishop’s interview, or a 20-something missionary shut up alone in a room during an interview with a mission president, or a woman of any age shut up in a room during an interview with a member of the quorum of the 70.
And yes, Alan, that’s an appeal to experience, which is rooted in subjectivity.
Experience is part of what makes up a writer’s ethos, to put it in the terms of classical rhetoric.
Your writing fails to begin with because your ethos as a writer lacks credibility.
Your logic is also seriously flawed. As I just said, you’re dead wrong on the point of church leaders being degendered. You’re also not very good at logic. It is simply not true that “to simply recognize the lesbian household as a family worthy of church membership would automatically open the door to reconsiderations of… female ordination.” There are already families headed by women–divorced families, the families of widows–and lesbian families would be grouped with those. There would be no reconsideration of female ordination simply because families are headed by two women instead of one.
And the fact that you are so busy throwing out this flawed logic on topics you haven’t thought through and without paying attention to people who live with these ideas more deeply than you are able, either intellectually or imaginatively, is yet one more reason your writerly ethos on said topics is next to nil.
p.s. Alan couldn’t make the connection between lesbian families and the families of divorced or widowed women because divorced or widowed women “don’t occupy an interesting theoretical space”–or, in other words, are invisible–to him. He doesn’t yet have the capacity to see women unless they written about in particular ways. The simple fact of their existence doesn’t do the trick.
I know from where Alan cometh. I get a bit tetschy over critique. I ignored an entire module’s worth of feedback from one of my teachers because his very first message on my very first paper was, “I’m sure you are expecting a much better mark than what I’ve given you.” After that, I tuned right the hell out. Probably to my detriment…he was a smart guy but I was just too pissed off to re-engage with him. I didn’t get a very good overall mark in that module. Quelle surprise!
However, to me this conversation is interesting enough to continue with or without Alan. Holly, I get what you mean about the widowed and divorced women occupying a lesser space in LDS culture. An Aaronic priesthood holder (12 year-old boy) is called to have authority over the women who are raising him – with pre-adolescent power like that, who needs to be a macho prophet? Nevermind that men in the church say otherwise, it’s what is not said that is also important – I do agree with Alan on that. I don’t agree with Alan’s position that the lack of lesbian voice can be fitted under the church’s category of female modesty. I honestly think it might have more to do with the LACK of lesbians who attend church, full stop. Gay men have a reason to want to go back, but what’s in it for women?
Also, lack of acknowledgement on the part of the GAs might have something to do with the feminist position that Mormonism (and most religions entrenched in sexist practice) often show itself as the great and terrible Oz when engaging with women’s ideas of themselves.
My question for any practicing lesbian Mormons is why would lesbian parents want to send their children to a church where the boys get named priests and the girls are named insect houses (Beehives), a Mia Maid and a Laurel (wreath, tree, shrub…take your pick)? How limiting. How utterly dreadful, in my opinion.
BTW, what might a Mormon Lesbian theology entail?
I don’t know much about theology, but this (online) book about the homosexuality in Mormon history contains some interesting lesbian examples from early church history. It may be relevant.
This post and the threads that followed turned out to be a “hot” one. I am not very well versed in the theories mentioned above but I do get the gist of the concepts that are being talked about.
First off, I think that Alan’s initial intention is valid. There are a lot of ways in tackling a problem. One of them is being able to talk about those “different ways.” In reading Alan’s main post, I did get what he was trying to do. He wasn’t excluding Mormon women by not quoting them. He’s going about it a different way. He did explained why he’s using this approach and it made sense to me.
From what I can tell by Holly’s and Alan’s posts, they are both extremely intellectual. I think that all in all, this thread is a good read for everyone. With that said, I also think that being mean to someone is not considered “constructive criticism.”
So, I am going to follow suit and give out my not-so-constructive criticism. You are all warned beforehand so if you don’t want to read what I have to say, you can ignore it.
@Alan: I think for a guy (a gay guy for that matter), to talk about “lesbianism” can be very insulting to some women or lesbians. Not because what you have to say is insulting or doesn’t hold ground or doesn’t make sense. It’s because people (intellectuals, generally) tend to view this kind of space (referring to a gay guy talking about lesbianism) as a challenge to those who actually “wear the shoes.” And for not quoting a lesbian woman/en in your main post is adding salt to injury. I know you’ve explained your purpose of why you did that, but a person’s ego is hard to please…just sayin’. Like I said earlier, I get where you are coming from.
@Holly: Your first response, I felt, was very demeaning. Right off the bat, “Wow” gives off the impression that you know what you are talking about, more than the other person, which in this case is Alan. I get that you want lesbians to be quoted because essentially, this post is about Mormon lesbians. But, no matter how Alan explained his point of view, I felt like you have already shut it down because he’s not a lesbian. I know you’re smart and that you’ve written and published your works and studies, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no room for another space in your methods. Throughout the thread, you just got meaner and meaner. I particularly hate the post where you mentioned Alan’s mom. That’s taking it way too far…seriously. It’s not constructive and it makes you look insensitive (but then again, most intellectuals can be or are insensitive). Still, that was uncalled for. I think it’s safe to say that you don’t know Alan personally and therefore, don’t know his mom or his relationship with his mom. I don’t recall Alan taking a shot at you and making fun of you, personally. I think that’s when this thread stopped being constructive. When you took it personally.
From what I have gathered from reading the posts here, is that all is Alan doing is creating a different space to talk about Mormon lesbians. His way is different but I still find it valid and can be effective in some areas. But its effectiveness is lost here since there are too many women who viewed his way as a challenge to their own existence. I mean, as a Mormon lesbian myself, I could have viewed Alan’s point as a backward approach that perpetuates the suppression of Mormon lesbians. A backward approach can sometimes unravel the very foundations that some of try to protect and fight for. However, a backward approach, also has the power to unravel issues the size of a behemoth and sometimes, the only way to tackle a complicated issue is to unravel it so that you can look at it piece by piece.
Excuse me but Alan did not “create” this platform or community. He is an invited contributor whom I personally invited. And a whole lot of women helped build this community, and they have as much right to critique his post as he has to justify his original decisions ad infinitum.
You’re excused because I didn’t say he created this platform. I was referring solely to his post.
Well, it makes sense now. Really does. Since Alan is “invited” and that you “personally invited” him, he’s only allowed to post ideas that meets your personal taste.
It’s great that there are a lot of contributions from women to this platform and they do have a right to critique a post AND, like you say, one also does have a right to justify their post. But what happens when one’s idea/s are doesn’t fit your mold? Criticizing and critiquing are different things.
There seems to be a lot of assumptions coming from the the women here.
Actually, this whole post is a tribute to the fact that exactly the opposite is true. My number #1 goal for MSP has always been to include a variety of viewpoints, including ones I personally disagree with.
Pinay@44
I’ve never said otherwise.
Hate it all you want. I’ll consider apologizing for it if Alan will apologize for A) the initial comment where he invoked his mother and B) the post and comments here.
leftofcentre@42:
no kidding. And so often, because men won’t let go of basic patriarchal structures and approaches,it’s very hard for women to participate in LDS offshoots, like MSP (as this thread so thoroughly demonstrates) or Affirmation, the organization for LGBT LDS (what a load of initials!). One of my friends told me she quit Affirmation after a good friend of ours called her up and said, “Sister Smith, we’ve decided to give you calling in Affirmation.” He was completely unable to understand why she was insulted and annoyed by that. It was joke, he kept saying! But not a funny one, she replied, since it still involved him exercising power and using the discourse of male ecclesiastical power.
Darn good question….
I know it would have nothing to do with Heavenly Mother. I personally find her worse than useless. It makes me crazy that although talking often of Heavenly Father and seeking to know him as thoroughly as possible denotes love and respect, it is remaining silent and incurious about Heavenly Mother that denotes love and respect for her, and that feminists think it’s somehow empowering to pray to this giant blank space that is essentially Mrs. God. I don’t think she can be rehabilitated; I think we have to replace her.
I would start with this completely great painting called “Self-Portrait as God” by Cynthia Mailman. You can see a teeny tiny reproduction of it here. The original is 9 feet tall. I like how challenging and powerful it is, though some critics dismiss it as too patriarchal in its pose and its relationship to the viewer. Maybe… I’m not sure it’s where I’d like to end up in lesbian theology, but I do think it would be a good place to start.
Once we have an idea of a god as a woman, not just a goddess, not just the female counterpart to some male god (which is what a goddess always is, I think), then we can move on to something more carefully articulated.
For a minute there I was actually worried that I will get banned from here because of my response.
So, chanson, why even mentioned that you personally invited Alan?
I was telling my partner about this thread and she is baffled as to why it got to the point where someone has to bring someone’s mom. I don’t see how that’s related to the issues that were brought up in the original post.
I agree with all of you that lesbians, in the Church, are largely ignored. I went through all of that. Still does. I can talk about my struggles and my friends’ struggles, our fight for recognition, our contributions to the community (and by community I mean Mormon lesbians in my area) and all of that good stuff. Alan could have quoted me and my friends if he knew us personally. I don’t doubt that Alan has some lesbians friends, if not a lot. So he could’ve have quoted them too. But that’s not really what the point was. Why is that Americans are so fixated on filling the void with noise? As if to get your point across, you have to carry an extra large megaphone to be “heard.” Yes, there are a lot of Mormon lesbians out there that have done the work and deeds. Yes, there are publications about their work and deeds. Yes, there are ways that you can find resources to get to their work and their deeds. But this have been done before–telling people about our struggle and the silencing of our voices. People know about that. My brother actually read the original post too and you know what he said after reading the post by Alan? “Male prominence still pervades the Church, even in areas where females is the issue.” He’s not naive to the point that he doesn’t think females have done their lot. But the Alan’s post did affect him to the point where he is questioning those males who have done their studies in lesbianism and the Church. Point is, Alan’s point got across…to someone other than me. Other than a lesbian but to a straight male.
I think we all fall prey to filling space with a presence to say that that presence DOES exist. It works most of the time, but not always. There’s an old saying in the Philippines that I would like to share: “Ti to nga mannarta, awn ti ania nga magapunanna.” It basically means that a person who talks too much accomplishes little. That proverb isn’t always true, but sometimes there are instances when it does hold meaning and truth.
To go back to the point, I think that you don’t always have to quote Mormon lesbians to talk about Mormon lesbians. I quote my councilor sometimes (he’s a not-so-traditional councilor in Mormon standards) when I am talking about works done by Mormons within the lesbian community. He’s done a lot for our community (Mormon lesbians) but I have no problem in quoting him to give out the opposite effect. I am not by any way idolizing him. My point of quoting him is a reminder that the heterosexual males of our Church still covers more ground when they are talking about the issues like lesbian Mormons than us lesbians. We do have our voice. I can quote other prominent lesbians in the Church or in my community, but that’s already known. Those lesbians are already there. They are in my circle. They are in all of my conversations. They are the essence of why I am having the conversation in the first place. It just doesn’t make sense to always tell them about their own work. They know what their contributions are. But if you talk about those “big guys up there” who talk about OUR work, it has a different affect and it does work.
Duh. That’s obvious. People talk about Mormon lesbians without quoting them all the time.
To quote the Ministry song currently playing on my itunes: So what?
The fact that it’s possible is absolutely beside the point. The point is that if someone is claiming, as Alan does @3, that he wants to make women’s voices paramount, he ought to walk his own walk, and not focus primarily on what men say, particularly on a topic like female sexuality.
Interesting question from someone who has produced, in a very short time, quite a few rambling paragraphs some of which she acknowledges others would do just as well to ignore.
@Holly: I don’t recall Alan mentioning his mother? And why would he apologize if he did “invoke” his mother? Still, even if he did mention his mother, it doesn’t mean you should make fun of it. That seems like something a bitter person will do.
Also, you are right when you said that you never claimed that you don’t have room for a different way of going about things in your methods. You just gave the impression that you don’t…with dizzyingly condescending remarks.
I’m sure you don’t. Doesn’t change the fact that he did, in the comments to another thread.
because saying, as he did, “If my mom were here, she wouldn’t like what you’re saying, so you better not say it any more” is not cool.
Talk about not allowing for alternate approaches…. I’ve encountered plenty of ways in which people say, “I want the discourse to go like this,” but I’ll admit, Alan’s mommy-thing was quite a doozy and really something new.
There seems to be a cult of niceness that pervades Mormonism. If you’re a Mormon women and want to speak with success, then learn Reliefsocietese.
I don’t get rebuking someone because they didn’t show proper respect and reverence to authority in general, and more specifically, male authority.
Personally, as long as it’s not directed at me, I find Holly’s tone refreshing.
Pinay,
It’s quite interesting that if you agree with the word, ‘wow’ as expressing a demeaning position, you’ll want to go back to August of 2010 when Alan started one of his comments with the exact same word after a woman called Leah expressed her point of view that the opposite of love was not hate, but indifference. It rolls both ways, methinks. Aside from that, I wouldn’t mind people reacting to my writing in that way; it’s better than being ignored! Holly accepted that perhaps her initial post set Alan off and made him deaf to her ‘real’ critique of his writing/logic. I saw his point, too, but his logic is flawed and he only redefined his terms AFTER he was called to the carpet over the difference between lesbian/queer female voice. The only reason I mention this is that Alan’s initial defense was to try and shout louder about what he had read and how Holly might be stuck in the second wave of feminism, whereas he was thinking of it from a third-wave of more humble feminists from Asia – god, I’ve definitely been accused of not being humble enough! But, we’re not in Asia and I doubt that the women in Asia would want me to try and speak about their experience and struggle and not use any academic work that they had written in my defense of their position. I will say that I am not privy to any theological or spiritual base that originated in Asia – at least not any that I would probably recognise, but I do remember Mormonism. I know it as an American-created phenomenon and I believe that Mormonism’s lack of lesbian voices has to do with Mormonism’s ardent rejection of anything feminist, namely its active pursuit to kill the Equal Rights Amendment, back in the 1970s. It was the Prop 8 of its day.
Alongside that, there was the desire to suppress equality of blacks by denying black men the priesthood. It wasn’t that there was a lack of voices, it was that there was an active suppression of voice and power as a way of differentiating itself from Protestant churches who were beginning to accept women as clergy. The second wave of feminism is responsible for the third wave of feminism in the same way that my reality as a lesbian was influenced (directly or indirectly) by the Stonewall riots, Harvey Milk and Mary Daly. Some queers may not want to think they owe a bunch of drag queens, effeminate and mouthy gay politician and a cranky (trust me, I met her once) butch feminist lesbian their third wave politics, but they do. They do, otherwise they all fall over the abyss of irrelevance, just like the racist, sexist, misogynistic meatheads whose ideas they were trying to overturn.
Holly, I think you’re right that Mormon Lesbian Theology should not really use Heavenly Mother as a role model – she never speaks, her presence is token and invisible; it’s always the male god who does the talking to the prophets. At least in Catholicism, the cult of Mary allows for people to pray to her to intercede on their behalf. As far as I could ever imagine, Heavenly Mother was busy washing dishes or watching Oprah up in the celestial mansion when I got down on my knees to pray.
I was interested that the women founders (Felt and May) of the Primary programme were together and that one of the women encouraged her husband to marry plurally so that she could hook up with the women she fancied. By now, they should both be in some position to be deified, so maybe practicing lesbian Mormons can use the lives of Srs. Felt and May to justify their own practice in the church.
Do lesbian Mormons get disfellowshipped/ex’d for having a stable relationship and trying to maintain activity in the church?
@Holly: Well, it’s good to know that when I try to explain to you a different point of view that you just see that as “ramblings.” I think you’ve already established your power here by your inability to see “the other side” of the argument. Can I ask a personal question? You don’t have to answer it. Are you a Mormon Lesbian?
It does rolls both ways. But then again, I am just a sensitive person =P
I think that goes for women all over the world and not just in Asia. I still think that that was not what transpired here. Yes, Alan did only quote men in his post. But, yes, he did explain why. I honestly do understand that that’s a tricky line to walk on, but it doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to walk that line with grace and success.
Oh, and one more thing that bothered me with this sentence: So what happens for an Asian woman like me, who lives here here in America, and “thinks like an Asian feminist?” This sounds like I have to adapt to the “American” feminist ideas to be able to be considered a feminist here in America. If y’all think that it’s hard to be a lesbian AND a Mormon, try being a woman of color, a lesbian AND a Mormon. Everyday, I deal with women like Holly. I try to tell them an idea or a concept that is different from what is considered “norm” and they just think that I am rambling. I am more than willing to say that I, sometimes, deliberately neglect to pay tribute to the great women who have paved the way, but that doesn’t mean that I am unaware of them. My way or Alan’s way, might not work for some, but it doesn’t mean it deserves to be shut down and viewed as irrelevant.
So, someone please clarify as to why Alan’s suggestion on how to dissect the issue of the suppression of lesbians in the Church not possible? From what I understand, it’s because he didn’t quote any lesbians who have done their research and studies in the area? And even after the explanation as to why this was so, why is his explanation and my contribution to his idea, not valid? Even after telling my story, as proof–that sometimes, it is easier to work with the absence of a presence, than to discombobulate a message by filling the presence with more presence–my personal experience is still apparently not considered valid because it doesn’t fit the mold that some people have in here.
I am going to assume that if I have posted the same post, since I am Asian, and thinks like an Asian feminist, then my way could not possibly translate to the “American” way.
@Pinay
there is a “side” in an argument, and then there is the way it is expressed. However much I do or don’t agree with your position, I certainly notice certain, uh, elements of your prose style.
interesting as well, Pinay, that you respond to someone pointing out that you’re guilty of an offense you accuse others of by saying, “Oh, you just don’t see my point of view.”
Because it is not useful or helpful to point out that lesbians are invisible and women’s voices excluded from the church, and then exclude women’s voices from a discussion of female sexuality. It reinforces the idea that women cannot talk directly about their sexuality but must let men do it for them, men being better able to articulate, control and regulate female sexuality in the first place.
I’ve explained why i don’t find Alan’s explanation convincing. I don’t find yours convincing either. But you don’t find my explanations above convincing. Are you telling me that I MUST accept your opinion as valid instead of my own? If so, why? If not, how not? Are you letting me know that you see no valid way of approaching things but your own? If so, why? If not, how not?
I love this paragraph, leftofcentre, from @54:
And this:
I’ve been reading Mary Daly lately. Sometimes hard to take, but always thought-provoking. And yes, we all owe her a lot.
@53
I’ll try to keep it that way, Suzanne. 🙂
I readily admit I’m more willing to take a certain tone with men, especially Mormon men, than I am with women.
I didn’t know we are basing the validity of things on someone’s “prose style.” I admit, Holly, that I am not as smart as you, not accomplished as you and (thank Heavens) not as condescending as you. I would rather have a conversation with someone with a “prose style” than someone who thinks that they are above me in all areas. I get your point of view, Holly. I am, after all, a lesbian who is still clinging to the good side of the Church, but also struggles to get my voice heard amidst the juggernauts. I would tell you stories about my own experiences and my lesbian friends but I will not bore you with our “common” stories because you’ll just think that I am not quoting someone in the higher echelon (perhaps, like yourself). There are times when quoting someone who does walk the walk to solidify your point and ultimately get some kind of validation for it. However, there are other times too, when you don’t have to. I think we both agree that quoting someone all the time is redundant. With that said, I will leave it to the “intellectuals,” such as yourself, to talk about this issue as a commoner like me can’t possibly comprehend the different “sides” being thrown around here unless I totally agree with your point of view.
I don’t really understand this entire discussion either. I just wanted to clarify that we aren’t getting into identity politics here. Is that what we’re discussing?
I think strict identity politics can be very limiting. By that I mean, suggesting that someone who is “mormon” is the only person who can discuss mormonism (whatever being “mormon” means). Or, only a woman can discuss issues impacting women, etc. From my limited understanding of the comments, no one is suggesting this. There is a suggestion that multiple viewpoints and perspectives should be included.
With that said, I’ve had many discussions with former mormon men over the years. One of the thing that I have found is that many mormon men realize how bad things are/were for women, but there is a portion that is not able to be understood or communicated easily. Women also don’t understand everything about what being male and mormon means either. Many men are attempting that communication.
I’ve said it before, people don’t think twice about the fact that men and adults stay in the chapel the entire typical Sunday meeting, while women and everyone else is dismissed to side rooms. Just as a simple example. Why do the women have to leave? The chapel is the most central, spiritual, important part of the building (presumably).
There are a host of other examples, just like this, throughout the typical mormon experience. Women are constantly marginalized. And if the gender of the General Authorities doesn’t matter (the GAs are de-gendered) – why not have a female general authority? Like the Community of Christ does?
Pinay @61
True. Though it’s obvious you’re doing as well as your abilities will allow with the condescension, and that when asked to defend your position in any detail, you’re unable to do so.
Aerin @62
I’m not advocating a strict identity politics. I think people can and should discuss other subject positions than their own. I am, however, pointing out that Alan replicate in his post the same erasure of women and lesbians, the same failure to see them with complexity and fullness, the same inability to talk successfully about female sexuality, that he decries.
Exactly. Try to imagine one of them in a dress and you’ll realize how ludicrous is the claim that they’re degendered.
it’s age, not their position as leaders, that mitigates their masculinity, if mitigation happens. And that’s a very different proposition.
Pinay, thank you so much for your comments here. I hope there are more to come. You are loved. And no, Holly, you don’t see her side, but I have every confidence that she sees yours.
Holly, this whole thread, what you have labeled as my “sexism” and “patriarchy” is just a different feminism than you’re used to, and Pinay’s comments should have made this perfectly clear by now. But I can see they haven’t.
Let’s go back to the invocation of my mother. When I invoked her, it was because I basically was asking you, “What do you hope to accomplish from disrespect?” In that case, disrespect of Mormon women who are happy with the lot Mormon patriarchy gives them.
Your interpretation seemed to be “Oh, silly boy. You’re being sexist because you’re limiting the way feminism might be expressed, my feminism to be specific, and in doing so, you’re creating a kind of comfortableness for a status quo for all women, which perpetuates sexism. Moreover, you’re using your own poor mother to frame the discussion in such a masculinist way. Tsk.”
And my response to you is: “What do you hope to accomplish from disrespect?”
There is a Vietnamese Buddhist nun named Chn Khng who was asked in the late 90s why she continues to observe male-created precepts when she can see the way they are used to subjugate her. Her answer was: “I can accept them just to give joy to the monks who practice in the traditional way. If I can give them joy, I will have a chance to share my insights about women with them, and then they will be unblocked in their understanding.
There are many, many women who approach feminist interventions this way, including a lot of Mormon women. In Western-American feminism (which is what your preference is, Holly, very obviously), the response to female egolessness or invisibility as caused by patriarchy is a resounding: “Women need more ego! So when I talk about invisibility as possibly as good space, or as Pinay so eloquently put it “to work with the absence of a presence,” you’re like, “Omigod. No.”
But a Buddhist feminist response is that codependence (on the man) and self-aggrandizement (of the woman) are equal in bringing upon suffering. One does not need to first build up ego to reach egolessness. Now, of course male chauvinistic Buddhists can still simply ignore Buddhist feminism and women’s worlds, but in reality Buddhist patriarchy itself is eventually inadmissible on the very terms of the faith. And there is evidence of extremely important movement on this front, but I won’t get into that here.
The question is, does Mormonism work the same way? Does the faith have a built-in respect for women that must ultimately come to pass? I don’t know the answer to that question. I would agree that “Heavenly Mother” as She is currently imagined doesn’t help that much. But I doubt we can even begin to talk about Her here, because you, Holly, are not particularly open to feminisms other than your own. You squoosh possible growing flowers as if they were weeds. And when I try to move your foot, you stomp on my hand. Again I ask, what do you hope to accomplish from disrespect?
Oh, and on the “degendered” thing… think about the title of, say, this made-up essay: “Degendering the Problem, Gendering the Blame: LDS Discourses on Women’s Sexuality.” Degendered and hypermasculinity mean the same thing here, but since you aren’t comfortable with the absence of a presence, you might never have recognized this unless I told you.
You chose to ignore my position, Holly. This is from you:
So, me trying to further explain myself is moot. You’ve already made up your mind that a simpleton lesbian woman of color like myself doesn’t fit your spectrum. And for you to claim…
…is just plain ignorant on your part. Ignorant because you simply ignore the fact that I did conceded by saying that I agree with you that you have to be able to quote people of their work, specially when the issue that you are talking about is about them. You also ignored why I think the other point of view has its space in this discussion. But like what you said, you don’t find my explanation convincing. So, again, I am going to concede on your tunnel way of thinking just to please you.
Oh, and by the way, when you said:
that really explains a lot, so thanks for the clarification. You can sleep tonight knowing that you are one of the oppressors of lesbian women in the Church.
Hey Aerin,
I think you’re right that non-Mormons can speak about Mormon issues, but if you want to write a piece about the Mormon experience I think you do have to interview Mormons, at some stage and quote them in your writing.
I think it’s fantastic that ex-Mo men realise the problems with sexist practices and dogma within the church. Sexism affects them, directly and indirectly, too.
Pinay,
As for my suggestion that Asian Mormon women cannot speak about an American religion, that’s less the case than American Mormon women not being able to speak about Asian experiences – for one, there has not been a non-Western proselytising culture in recent times. That may not always be the case, but you said, yourself, that it was really difficult being an Asian Mormon Lesbian in America, and the place you are told to occupy in the Western hierarchy of things is probably to blame for most of that. Mormonism and its male-centred voice is a huge proponent of maintaining that Western hierarchy, under the guise that eternal families and god-families are male/female partnerships where the male is king and the female is silent and invisible. To do that in real politics they support anti-queer, anti-equality measures that serve to keep people down and delay social justice for everyone.
Seems to me that’s still a reason to fight for a voice. I don’t think it’s time to sit down at the table and make nice-nice, yet.
a lack of respect for ideas that don’t deserve it.
Think Stonewall Riot. Disrespect can get a lot of good done.
You are right about one thing: when YOU talk about the invisibility of WOMEN as a good space, I am like, “Omigod. No.”
You want to prove that invisibility is so great, then go be invisible yourself.
I’m willing to have a discussion about absence as a presence. Just wrote an essay on it, in fact.
No, they don’t. Not in their roots, not in their usages.
If that’s true, why are you still doing it?
The fact that I don’t find your argument convincing doesn’t mean I have ignored it.
@leftofcentre: I was a Mormon well before I came here. Mormonism is not a new idea in the Philippines. In fact, in recent years, it has gained a lot of grounds in the Philippines. It’s true, that there aren’t a lot of non-Western proselytising culture in recent times but it’s not unheard of. One of the problem is that when a non-Western idea is being introduced or brought up in conversations like we are having here, it’s easy for that non-Western idea to flourish because it doesn’t even get to see the light of day (for reasons that can be observed by some comments here). When a non-white Mormon who is trying to bring up an idea into a conversation in a space like this is a dangerous act, just think of the repercussions this would have when it happens in an actual public space. It’s hard to enough to get my voice across the field of white men in the Church but to get the same kind of push from the women in the church, is debilitating and discouraging. This is even more true here in America. I remember in the Philippines, that it was easier for a woman to be recognized in their own church. For lesbian women–while they might not be as lucky as the heterosexual women–it was still a lot easier for “us” to be heard. The way that we did our “church politics” in the Philippines is that lesbians who are in the Church, stayed in the background most of the time. We worked within our boundaries, quietly but effectively. While this might seem like a “cowardly” thing to do, it worked in our advantage. We know who the “strong” lesbians are in our community and we acknowledge them rightfully and yes, we DO know the men in our community whom we can rely on to speak for us to the higher-ups and we acknowledge those men more than rightfully. This doesn’t mean, however, that we lesbian women are timid and perpetuating the male domination/female oppression dynamic in the Church, we just recognize that the boundaries that were predetermined for us by “the guys above” can be easily used to work in our favor. We used the shadows in our advantage…we grew in size and eventually the shadow can no longer be called a shadow for it started to overcome the person casting it. Our influence grew. Silently but methodologically and overwhelmingly.
Here in America it is harder to do that because there are a lot of lesbian women or women in general who are feminists and in the Church who cannot see “our” way as even an option. It is, as Alan say, always “MORE EGO.” There are advantages in doing it that way, but if people can’t adapt and adopt to other people’s way (specifically Asian Feminist Women) then we ended up being oppressed all over again…by women who claim to be feminists themselves.
I meant to say “it’s not easy”
Pinay,
Maybe the reasons you find it so difficult to be recognized, here, are the same reasons why white lesbian voices also find it difficult to be recognized. It’s not all about women who fill the void with ego and shout the loudest, but that is a common argument that white male voices raise when they come across a woman (any woman, of any culture or ethnicity) who: a) may have a strong opinion that is different from theirs, and b) dares to challenge patriarchal position and privilege.
The shadow of nothing that becomes so large as to become a legitimate presence has its place – Alan’s point of view about how lesbian theology might look will have its place. However, to deny any other lesbian or feminist Mormon writers/artists/academics/poets/musicians who have actually paid a great price by standing up to Mormon patriarchy a teeny, tiny mention in hopes that the presence of male voices will accentuate the shadow/absence of the female queer voice and desire is, in my opinion, just folly. Third wave feminism dictates that Alan might have to concede a point because we all DO come from very different places. The lack of inclusion of historical context and historical voices – the feminists who fought for women’s right to vote, the feminists who fought for equal pay and funding for women, the feminists who fought for contraception rights and the rights for women not to be raped by their husbands – means that it felt that Alan skirted around all the women who, in America, have been banging their heads against a brick wall cos the shadow of egolessness doesn’t knock American shit down.
Alan
So if workers show proper deference to management, they will get big raises and good benefits?
When I look at the Big Strike and Bloody Thursday, I’m impressed with the willingness of the west coast labor movement to show disrespect to authority.
It is my opinion that if respect is required, then it isn’t deserved.
If the peasant has to abase herself and grovel, what she really thinks is invisible and unexpressed will end with her. Maybe she’s suppose to be grateful for the privilege of prostrating herself.
Personally, I think the peasants should unionize and grab their pitchforks
It was the crushed insurrections and suppressed rebellions that kept alive the idea of freedom.
I’ll take the Rosa Parks model of refusing to sit in the back of the bus, then respectfully sitting there hoping that one day my deference will impress those in authority and they’ll let me move up a couple rows (and then I’ll call it a big accomplishment.)
And I’ll take that Drag Queen at Compton’s who threw the cup of coffee in a police officials face. It changed San Fransisco for the better.
Alan:
Someone who wishes to address a group as an outsider must show great tact and sensitivity, and must earn the trust of the insiders, in order to speak effectively.
You are an outsider when it comes to the topic of female sexuality, and you lack tact and sensitivity, and you refuse to engage in behaviors that would earn you trust.
You do not have the trust of the majority of the women in this conversation. You demand our respect, but refuse to show respect in many ways. This is of particular concern since YOU started the conversation about female sexuality.
Your insistence that what you are doing is just fine and we should be OK with it because other are OK with it when we are telling you we aren’t is analogous to someone saying,”Hey, what you’re doing to me HURTS and violates a bunch of my boundaries” and getting the reply, “No, what I’m doing to you feels good and it doesn’t violate your boundaries and I know that because it doesn’t violate the boundaries of these other people I do it to, who like it a lot.”
Maybe you have done things to earn their trust, so that your status as outsider doesn’t matter so much to them. But it matters to us. You have not earned the right to speak to us as you do as on the topic of female sexuality, and it is WE and not YOU who determines that.
You need to stop. You must stop. If you ever had any credibility or authority on this topic with this audience, you have lost it now. And continuing to insist that you SHOULD have credibility and authority won’t get it for you. The only way to get it is to acknowledge and respect our statements about why you have failed.
Because you have failed.
Attribute that failure in your own mind to any flaw in us you want. But stop trying to convince us that you have not failed, and that we’re just too whatever to realize that what you are doing actually feels good instead of hurting.
Pinay
this is a disingenuous statement, since your first comment here was comprised mainly of your “not-so-constructive criticism” which you suggested we not read, and your second comment was a snarky insult to the blog founder. You did what you could to make sure that the environment was dangerous before offering your idea, so it’s no surprise that things turned out just as you arranged them.
If you can’t handle the danger, don’t create it. That’s just a passive-aggressive way of having “MORE EGO,” not less.
I only speak for me and other lesbians in my community when I say that white lesbians are, more often than not, the reason why non-white lesbian Mormons are feeling ostracized from the Church even more. If it is hard for us non-white lesbians to be heard among the white Mormon male leaders, it is even a harder battle with the white lesbians who claim to be feminists. There’s obviously a cultural wall the divides us here.
It is a bit folly to not mention those great lesbians and feminists who have their share to the betterment of women across the board. I realize that. I do, realize too that the essence of Alan’s point remains misunderstood. A great example is the thread that his post created. Lesbians of all walks are voicing out. Alan’s way did affect readers here both women and men (well, maybe just one man so far…my brother). I think that as a member of a community it is in everyone’s best interest if you know that members of your community as a whole. It is our duty to know those people who have helped with the feminist movement and with the LGBT movement. It is our duty to know our history and the people of our past who created a better future for us. With that said, is it possible for us to have a discussion that moves the foundation upward and not downward without having to cite and pay tribute to all of those great women and men? If people readily shut down an idea because that person has a different way of starting the conversation then we’ll only create a straight line that doesn’t adapt to the diversity of our community.
And Egofulness might knock “American shit down” but is sure does knock actual people down.
@Suzanne Neilsen: Don’t we all require respect? So does that mean that we don’t deserve the respect if we require it? That’s kind of like saying to a poor man that since they require food and shelter, that they don’t deserve it. I am really confused by this statement. Maybe I am misinterpreting it. Perhaps it’s the language barrier at fault here.
I am going to apply this statement to the point I am trying to make. So if I don’t shout and yell and riot and throw things at my Bishop to get my voice heard, then it is my fault that voice is not heard? Again, there are different ways of tackling an issue. Your way works for you, okay. But it doesn’t mean that it works for everyone. I do admit that sometimes women have to do just that to get their point across, but let us not chastise women who have a different way of getting their voice out there. Their way shouldn’t be tagged as demeaning and degrading. To also say that it is a privilege to be prostrated just because they are quite and humble is hurtful.
Very true. And if you think of it, it is the lack of the mention of prominent lesbians, feminists and both that kept this thread going. We do know that there are women out there who want their voices heard. So, really, Alan’s lack of quotes is doing what he intended for it to do…which is to have a different affect to women and men alike and have a different way to discuss the issues he brought up. But, since the lot of you still insists that we need to quote, quote, quote to pay respect to those who have done their work, for a discussion to be valid, then this forum is not a place for a more radical thinking…or at least a non-Western way of thinking.
@Alan: I appreciate your contributions to this platform, specially this one. I do come here and read the posts once in a while. I don’t usually actually post or comment but I still appreciate all comments and ideas. If we can keep talking about the issues that are important to us, then there’s a way for those issues surface and become a national discussion. I had to comment on your post because it spoke to me of the issues I have with the women in my Church. Particularly white women and more specifically white feminist women.
I can agree to disagree with a certain someone on here and I will just leave it at that. I would rather actually take this conversation outside of this forum and bring it up to the attention of my community. I think I would have better luck with getting this conversation going forward rather than a power-trip struggle on here. Perhaps that certain someone can come visit our community and see how this “other” side of the argument is just as valid as her side. Don’t get me wrong, “Certain Someone,” we have tried the aggressive way and you are right, it does work. But you are also wrong to claim that it works all the time, for all types of people.
Pinay:
If YOU can keep talking about issues that are important to you, then YOU are neither voiceless nor invisible nor an absence in presence in the way you or Alan suggest is a good space.
Assuming you are referring to me, I must ask: Where do I claim that? Where, in this forum, or anywhere else for that matter, do I claim that?
Because your comment seemed to imply that I was somehow preventing Alan from expressing himself. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. I actually read Alan’s novel and spent a good deal of my time analyzing Alan’s novel and discussing and promoting is. Which is why I don’t appreciate the vaguely accusing tone.
Pinay, you’ve picked a very unfortunate thread as your introduction to the Main Street Plaza community. I would really appreciate it if you’re read our welcome page (and perhaps peruse some of our other discussions) to get a feel for this place before.
And to everybody:
Good morning from Switzerland! I went to bed last night absolutely dreading what I’d find on this thread in the morning, and I see that my dread was not entirely misplaced (but fortunately it was at least partly misplaced).
Folks, I try to make an effort to remain neutral and encourage everyone to keep their comments calm and constructive. I did a poor job of that yesterday, and hence exacerbated the drama. For this I would like to apologize to the whole community. I hope that people come here to MSP for rational, reasonable discussion. From earlier discussion, I understand that most people here don’t want the attraction to be drama. All efforts to keep this discussion civil are heartily appreciated.
Oh, and this:
This is very true, but it doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. Frankly it’s analogous to the fact that it was the continued exclusion of black people from certain places that kept the civil rights movement going. I am sure that future exclusions of lesbians, women and feminists will likewise contribute to the need to point out why such exclusion should end.
Once such obvious exclusion does end, the conversation can of course move on to something else.
pinay
I’m white woman who claims to be a feminist. I’m also a white lesbian, so I guess that makes me someone who is oppressing you. I wasn’t aware I was chastising you. From my perspective, it seems chastising to is a gift you have. So I think I’ll emulate you.
What is hurtful is requiring people to prostrate themselves. Good way to keep them quiet and humble and grateful they have a foot on their back. Obeisance is not respect.
I think groveling is degrading. If you want to grovel to your superiors, you don’t need my permission.
I think the word respect doesn’t have much meaning. The imperial wizard demands respect, but his very actions determine that he doesn’t deserve it. I’ve seen violent young punks saying –you dissing me. So I say–you’re not worth dissing.
So eff respect.
I’m not saying you have to throw things at your bishop, throw up on him, or throw him out the window. But this Mormon lesbian and white feminist(that’s me) doesn’t do supplication. We are all children of God and I don’t need a intercessor. That’s my theology.
I speak only for myself.
took all night to think about things.
Here’s what’s going on.
Alan is showing up and writing long, loud, arrogant, condescending posts, advocating humility, invisibility, absence, silence.
Hmm.
Pinay is shwoing up and writing long, loud, snotty posts, advocating silence, absence, deference.
Hmm.
Hard to see how their actions reflect what their advocating.
But wait!
Alan is a MAN who shows up and writes long, loud, condescending, arrogant posts, advocating humility, invisibility, absence, silence as good for WOMEN.
OK. Makes more sense.
Alan, what you call another form of feminism is just patriarchy, at least in your hands.
Pinay is a LESBIAN OF COLOR who show up and writes long, loud, snotty posts, advocating silence, absence, deference by OTHER WOMEN for MEN.
OK. Makes more sense.
Pinay, I have no difficulty understanding why the big boys like you just fine, and why you are in conflict with other lesbians.
Suzanne and I advocate disrespect for bullshit. We produce plenty of that.
Suzanne, leftofcentre, chanson and I advocate more women’s voices on topics like women’s sexuality. We’re doing our best on that front here.
Our walk matches our talk.
Pinay’s and Alan’s doesn’t.
They go on and on about absence and silence and egolessness, but all you see is their huge egos as they show up and lecture others.
Piny and Alan, you are both obviously very young, very naive, very inexperienced. I have some curiosity to see how your ideas will change over a couple of decades. As someone who was once but is no longer 27, as someone who has lived in Asia and studied Buddhism, I know that many of one’s ideas about what the world is like will change dramatically by the time one is 47.
Until then, could you please model what you advocate? Could you please model absence, silence, invisibility, humility, egolessness?
If you can’t, I’ll know that you don’t really believe any of what you’re saying, that you don’t think the methods you’re talking about are important or successful or viable, and that you are actually more interested in your own egos than in any sort of feminism.
OK, again I apologize for setting the wrong tone near the beginning of this discussion, so perhaps I don’t have a leg to stand on to make this request. But @80 is a little too close to name calling on a thread that already has a lot of drama that it would be nice to stop feeding. Instead, let’s try to go back to the strategy of keeping the criticism civil.
OK. I apologize.
Pinay said @ I only speak for me and other lesbians in my community when I say that white lesbians are, more often than not, the reason why non-white lesbian Mormons are feeling ostracized from the Church even more. If it is hard for us non-white lesbians to be heard among the white Mormon male leaders, it is even a harder battle with the white lesbians who claim to be feminists.
Yep, you really can only speak for yourself, Pinay. I doubt that you are the spokesperson for the entire non-white Mormon lesbian community, though. Your assumption is that I am white. You do not know my entire history or background and you do not speak for me. You CAN add to the Lesbian Mormon Theological voice, if that is how you identify. I cannot add to the Gay Male Mormon Theological voice, no matter how much gay male porn/romance I watch. I can speculate on that voice all I want to but at the end of the day that is all it is: speculation.
Alan wanted to be taken seriously as a feminist thinker – IF he had put a disclaimer at the beginning of his piece acknowledging his writing ‘hook’ and the noticeable lack of female/feminist perspective it might have been acceptable and we might have left it alone. As it was, it fell short and he was called on it. Nothing more. I had no axe to grind – I don’t know Alan, but I hate a position being misrepresented, especially under the title, ‘Toward a Mormon Lesbian Theology’. His approach just didn’t work, it’s nothing personal against him, or at least it certainly didn’t start out that way. Unfortunately, I think some of the things you wrote in your initial posts took it into the personal realm.
The more I think about this the more I am convinced that Alan’s lack of humility and ego in all things, including his manner with you, was nothing more than psychological sabotage. It feels like Alan set you up and maybe fed you some words. The unfortunate thing is that you probably won’t comment much more, Pinay, and if you are who you say you are, you probably have a valuable voice to add to this dialogue – I’d listen to what you had to say about the way you gained acceptance in your church in the Philippines. I would believe that you had a way of doing it that worked for you, in that context and in that country. I will not be told by anyone that silence is the best approach when it comes to men in authority, especially from a man I do not know. I do not know many white Mormon lesbians who still attend church, Pinay. I’m sorry you feel that feminist thinkers are your oppressors – it would be quite unlikely in most circumstances, though not impossible. I am sure that all you would have to do, in any situation, is to say that you felt they were a bit out of line for suggesting that they might not know you or your situation and I am sure that all of them would (at least) seriously consider your point of view…draw your own conclusions about Alan. Good night.
You and Holly are sooooooo intent on maintaining a male/female divide that excludes me from having any validity that you will tell a woman of color that she doesn’t know how to read a white man’s words? Or, in Holly’s case, that a woman of color is “obviously very young naive and inexperienced?” You’ve got to be kidding me.
Just so you both know, that’s called racism.
Leftofcentre@54:
A queer female immigrant owes the Stonewall activists nothing. She can come to pay homage to them, but that is her choice.
Even a white gay American male such as myself doesn’t necessarily owe the Stonewall activists anything, as it really depends on one’s family and the communities one is part of as to what and who is considered important or influential.
Have assumptions been made about my home and family life? About the communities I am part of? You are right when you say you do not know me.
People came here with a sense of ownership over the topic. That’s the problem. And that’s what people can’t get past.
What I, and later Pinay, have been saying about “silence” has been grotesquely twisted. Untwisting it is more than I have energy for anymore.
I’m pretty much disinclined to dedicate any more of my energies here. Too much disrespect being shoveled in every direction. Taking an extended break from MSP now.
Alan said: You and Holly are sooooooo intent on maintaining a male/female divide that excludes me from having any validity that you will tell a woman of color that she doesnt know how to read a white mans words?
That’s not what I meant, at all. Alan, you have misinterpreted every comment made, except for those that echo your position.
Please, let me reiterate: There will be a male/female divide until laws are changed and intrinsic value of women as people, workers and citizens, is equal to a man’s, until that time you cannot academically speak for the position of Mormon lesbian theology without including some Mormon lesbians in your writing. You didn’t fail to include three separate female sources, plus a reference to your mother, in your piece about Racialized Domestic Servitude and the Perfect Mormon Housewife.
The Mormon church believes itself to be responsible for the teaching of people in how to be people, workers and citizens and, so, it is responsible for some of the oppression of women and especially the lesbian – who is a woman and in a non-procreative relationship, to boot. The oppression came through trying to silence them by opposing the ERA, and convincing the women of the church to jump on board with their own oppression. That’s where some of the people who commented on your piece took offence with your position, and quite possibly Pinay’s too.
It is certainly commendable that you feel strongly about feminist issues, but I think that you are mistaking the universal truth of what all women want/need with some feminist work that has touched your life and spoken to you. It may have wider applications, but that’s for women to decide for themselves. Maybe you hoped that the poetry of working with the presence of absence or vice versa would woo people, but it just feels like the same old message to a few of us: “Sit down and be quiet,” especially when it comes from a man, gay or otherwise. When we tried to express to you how we felt, your response could have been very different. You might have tried to see our different points of view (though there were some common themes running through them), but you just closed your ears, insisting that this third wave of feminism was where you were coming from and, hey, it was time to get on board with that. If you had not tried to argue the toss with Holly you might have had us interested, but Holly’s one very valid point (in her first comment) was lost on you, as were her subsequent attempts for you to see the point she was making in the first place.
It’s a shame that you are going, healthy debate is a good thing and it wasn’t about ownership of a topic. I certainly still have a lot to learn and I was GENUINELY interested in what a Mormon Lesbian Theology might look like. Seriously, I wanted to have that conversation.
Right, those final two posts of mine were the two that I missed out on for having been out of town.
As for the charge of being racist, well…I’ll take that on, Alan, if you agree that you’re a bit sexist.
Leftofcentre, I appreciate you working with me here.
There is no such thing, and the sooner you recognize this, the sooner the conversation can move forward.
Please reread Pinay @ 56 for more information as to why this is, and why your concerns, although valid, do not hold universal weight for all women.
Pin the tail on the reactionary: the fun that never ends, even when you wish it would.
Alan:
Right. Because people of color are invariably born old, wise and experienced.
I didn’t presume to lecture her on race or how she should feel about it, which would be analogous to what you’ve done. But as leftofcentre says, as for the charge of being racist, wellIll take that on, Alan, if you agree that you’re an inveterate mansplainer.
‘Cause a 20-something guy with a few semesters’ worth of grad school under his belt lecturing women with far more education, age and experience about how they should think about female sexuality is a mansplainer, which is one of the ways patriarchy reproduces and maintains itself.
But here’s the thing: it’s not just patriarchy; it’s misogyny.
It’s like you absolutely can’t stop mansplaining. I’ve never seen another man who seems to feel such a profound sense of ownership over the topic of feminism. You simply cannot stop telling women that when it comes to feminism, unless they do it like you, they’re doing it wrong. You claim to advocate humility, but your arrogance knows no bounds. You talk about respect, but you refuse to show it. You’d rather mansplain.
Emancipation would be nice, Alan. It looks different to everyone but it’s essential to everyone. And I know, I know what postmodernism says to universal truths, thanks for that.
Pinay is your personal friend and, as such, I’m not going to rely on her position to defend yours any longer. Her comments towards Holly went into the personal and you fed Pinay words, though whether you were standing over her shoulder while she was typing them is debateable. There is a definite change in the way she writes from comment to comment and sometimes it’s only slightly altered from how you write. You’ve been rumbled mate and it affects the integrity of everything you say.
Personally, I don’t know Holly. I don’t know Suzanne. I am happy to defend their ideas because their arguments with your writing (not you, personally) have merit and substance.
Holly, if you’re still reading this thread, I could really use the Q-tips, cos this is ridiculous.
BTW, thanks Chino.
hey loc, my comment wasn’t directed at anyone in particular, just noting the topic may have changed but the tone in comments is dj vu all over again.
I’ll see what I can do, leftofcentre. 🙂
OK, so I see the two sides of this debate have gotten in their closing statements summing up their arguments. The positions are quite clear now, and probably don’t require any further clarification. Thanks in advance.
I am a Latter-day Saint and female. I have same-gender attraction. However, I am also attracted to men. My concern is that our leaders seem to brush lesbianism and female sexuality under the rug. Are they too accustomed to not talk about it? Would my bishop think I am a pervert because I am sexually attracted to women? Would he find me a pervert because I am a sensual and erotic woman? I am scared to bring up the topic. I do feel that most of our discussions in the church are geared toward men “overcoming sexual issues” than women. I really see it as a compliment toward women in the church. They think we’re too good to have such thoughts, but also it is a disenchantment with female sexuality. Is it so far fetched that a woman can have an orgasm and that God created us for sexual pleasure with our spouses?
Hi, Ofinsik. When my mother brought up to her bishop the fact that she is highly sexed, he responded that her husband is “lucky” (rather than making her feel bad about being “overly” sensual). What this says to me is that (a) not all men in the Church like their women “modest,” and (b) Mormon men are liable to relate a woman’s sexuality to that of another man’s, in which a woman’s pleasure is thought about in the context of a man’s pleasure. If my mother were to say, “Dear bishop, I like to masturbate everyday, because I’m a sensual woman,” I doubt the bishop would say, “You’re a lucky woman to be so in touch with your sensuality.” So, in a lot of ways, I think even LDS men who are okay with sensual women have expectations in terms of the outlets for this sensuality. Certainly the sensuality is “not allowed” to be directed toward another woman.
The problem, as I see it, is when a heterosexual man is in charge (particularly one who thinks sexuality is geared for marriage more than individual pleasure), this very much limits the kinds of conversations and viewpoints that will follow. He might call upon someone else to help “deal with” a given issue if he’s not versed enough, but this doesn’t really point to humility in the man, or a community-at-work, so much as it points to a broken organizational structure. A woman has to feel out whether she is comfortable to speak about her sexuality before a potentially ignorant man, as opposed to already being comfortable to speak.
Now, people don’t necessarily want to be lined up with someone of their own gender when it comes to talking about sexuality. I think this is a very important point that is often neglected. But the point is, there really should be more than just one kind of person behind the desk, and in the Church this just isn’t so.