Sunday in Outer Blogness: Gender Equality Edition!

Sex and Gender Sunday in Outer Blogness

When LDS spokesman Michael Otterson decided to describe what Mormon equality looks like, which led to a fair amount of commentary. (On a related[?] note, there was some new interest in the question of why people don’t like Mormons and problems with LDS PR stragegy.) The General Conference commentary isn’t quite done, especially with regards to singles, marriage, family, and gender roles, but perhaps a better showcase for LDS women can be found at Sunstone.

Seems that things still aren’t equal for diverse women in Utah (or elsewhere) — though sometimes the women come out ahead. To learn more about women, you don’t have to go to the coochie museum — you can get some perspective from women’s personal/political history. And — speaking of gender and sexhand-in-hand with women‘s issues, don’t forget gay issues and supporters. Race and nationality also have an interesting history in Mormon doctrine and practice.

There weren’t as many tales of dealing with Mormon family (and finding new happiness) this past week. It seems like people were more interested in talking about politics, money, and especially economics. The CoJCoL-dS is preaching Socialism (though perhaps not practicing it). Despite borrowing mind-boggling sums for wars, the US government can’t seem to change. Will the Republicans get their act together?

Sorry this one is a little late — with a sunny Spring Break like this one, it’s hard to stay on schedule. But there was a lot of fun stuff this past week, so I wish you happy reading! 😀

15 thoughts on “Sunday in Outer Blogness: Gender Equality Edition!

  1. lol, and there I was going “Wow, I thought I had caught all of the commentary about that talk…”

    But seriously, whenever people find additional related posts, feel free to add them in the comments!

  2. p.s. I can’t get over this comment from the post you just linked:

    In sacrament meeting a few years ago the High Council speaker mentioned adults, women, and children. Only a couple of us in the congregation noticed, from what I could see. After the meeting I asked several people what they thought of the phrase, and everyone had to think for a minute before they figured out there was a problem.

    lol, just when you start thinking that President Paternoster is too over-the-top to be realistic…

  3. If you liked that comment, you’ll probably get a chuckle out of this one as well:

    I found Ottersons article to be excellent, and I agree with him completely.

    This entire website disappoints me. Maybe you should change the title so that those of us who want to read good stuff about the Church wont be confused…

    I dont feel like most of the people in this discussion are truly living the gospel. Just an observation.

    Take that, ‘naclers.

  4. Kristine’s comment @ 37 spoke to me:

    I generally think Otterson is very good, especially given the constraints he works under. In this case, I think he happened to merely reproduce our cultural pathologies around gender, and its particularly disappointing since he so often rises above our other cultural tics.

    I have to admit that I’m still riled about that other thread the other day. Part of me wants to blame Mormon “cultural pathologies about gender,” and the other part of me wants to follow the Spinoza/Kobayashi Maru logic that it’s all just a test of character.

  5. Part of me wants to blame Mormon cultural pathologies about gender, and the other part of me wants to follow the Spinoza/Kobayashi Maru logic that its all just a test of character.

    lol, it’s probably both.

    Regarding Spinoza — are you talking about that quote I linked to above? (“I strive not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, nor to hate them, but to understand them.”) Along those lines, check out this article that Kuri linked to about the emotional component of reasoning. Fascinating stuff, and (confirmation bias warning) it kind of correlates with some stuff I’ve learned from my years on the Internet.

    Ah, the Internet and its human participants! Always presenting new puzzles. 🙂

  6. Well, how about we get riled about the latest David Brooks column?

    I suspect our “loopy but ultimately admirable” (as Brooks describes them) Mo friends are gonna think it’s the bee’s knees, and I’m kinda waiting for one of them to post something about it so we can talk about “rigorous theology” vs. “rigorous codes of conduct” and the neat trick Brooks plays.

    Also, as it turns out, David, Mormons do believe people are gods, which is why they rejected “the accumulated wisdom of thousands of co-believers who through the centuries have faced similar journeys and trials” and decided to follow a special individual who claimed to have the ability to understand the world on his own.

  7. its particularly disappointing since he so often rises above our other cultural tics.

    Tangent, but I don’t recall having seen Otterson “rising above cultural tics.” But I’ll admit I haven’t followed his work closely.

  8. Re: David Brooks @10:

    Vague, uplifting, nondoctrinal religiosity doesnt actually last. The religions that grow, succor and motivate people to perform heroic acts of service are usually theologically rigorous, arduous in practice and definite in their convictions about what is True and False.

    Well, I’ll agree that it appears to have been demonstrated that “theologically rigorous, arduous in practice” faiths tend to “motivate people to perform heroic acts” — moreso than I’m-OK-you’re-OK-faiths do. Whether they motivate “heroic acts of service” or amazing acts of intolerance and violence (or both!) is a bit of an open question.

  9. Dammit, Sully’s already delivered the smackdown:

    My difference with David, I think, is that I still believe; and I refuse to believe in something that has been disproven, however socially useful or salutary or admirable its social or personal effects may be. Fundamentalism, in this sense, is not a rigorous theology. It is rigid resistance to a rigorous theology. It’s a form of denial and despair. It is rigorous only within a theological structure that does not account for the growth and expansion of human knowledge. It is therefore, to my mind, an expression of a lack of faith rather than an excess of it. And the use of fundamentalism by those who do not even believe in it – for whatever purposes, good, bad or indifferent – is the real blasphemy.

    Yup.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *