The war on women which supposedly doesn’t exist is still alive and well. Katie Kelly was excommunicated. The proceedings took place here in Northern Virginia last Monday, even though Ms. Kelly has moved to Utah earlier in the spring. An all male council determined her fate.
Gender equality shouldn’t even be an issue in 2014. However, to many people in many walks of life, it is alive and not only well, it is kicking. Churches can establish their own rules. However, with that right should come the knowledge that the public will sit back and stand in judgement. How far will the long arm of the church go? Will it extend to those members who hold elected office? The issue isn’t about ordination. The issue is really about free speech and independent thinking. That is what the church is attempting to control.
According to the Huffington Post:
Jan Shipps, a retired religion professor from Indiana who is a non-Mormon expert on the church, said church leaders are practicing “boundary maintenance,” using Kelly and Dehlin as examples to show people how far they can go in questioning church practices.
Kelly said before the decision that she will always be Mormon.
“I don’t feel like Mormonism is something that washes off,” she said. “That identity is not something that they can take from me.”
She was shocked to find out earlier this month from her bishop that she is facing excommunication from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which she is a lifelong member. The leader of Ordain Women is accused of apostasy, defined as repeated and public advocacy of positions that oppose church teachings.
Similar vigils were held in 17 countries, according to Ordain Women.
“I’m overwhelmed by the positive support, and I think it really demonstrates that this isn’t just happening to one person,” Kelly said before the vigil started. “This isn’t just happening to me, but it feels like the entire Mormon feminist community is being put on trial.”
Katie is correct. All of us who believe in gender equality should be supporting her.
A human rights attorney who founded a group advocating for the ordination of women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was excommunicated Monday by an all-male panel in Northern Virginia.
The penalty, which followed a disciplinary hearing Sunday evening in Oakton, said Kate Kelly’s membership may be up for reconsideration in the future if she proves she has ceased “actions that undermine the Church.”
Experts on Mormon history say Kelly, 33, who was convicted on the charge of apostasy for her public organizing with Ordain Women, is part of a wave of some of the highest-profile excommunications in decades. The church is trying to maintain some control over its theological and social boundaries as Mormonism has become more mainstream and open to the larger culture.
“The difficulty, Sister Kelly, is not that you say you have questions or even that you believe that women should receive the priesthood. The problem is that you have persisted in an aggressive effort to persuade other Church members to your point of view and that your course of action has threatened to erode the faith of others,” read the June 23 letter to Kelly from Mark Harrison, her bishop in Oakton until she moved this month to Utah.
Among other things, Kelly was told not to “wear temple garments or contribute tithes and offerings . . . take the sacrament, hold a Church calling, give a talk in Church, offer a public prayer on behalf of the class or congregation in a Church meeting, or vote in the sustaining of Church officers.”
Ordinarily, what churches do is their business. However, when a visible case like this one hits the news, we should all take notice. It appears to be a SDASTFU statement at its worst. Shut up. Don’t think. Don’t tell others your ideas. Is that what this woman is being told to do in 2014?
Churches can set their own rules. I have no problem with that. We have the right to attend or not attend a church. However, if a church can extend this much influence over its parishioners/members, how much control would it have over parishioners in public office? When it comes to women’s issues, what should we expect from our leaders within the Mormon faith in public roles? The Catholic Church doesn’t ordain women either. Many churches don’t. However, they don’t excommunicate those who do call for reform, at least not to my knowledge.
The Mormon Church has put itself in a very bad light by excommunicating Katie Kelly, Will its members ignore the boundary warning and continue to do to suit themselves? It’s really too soon to tell. A warning shot has been fired across the bow. Ordination of women and advocacy for gays are definitely forbidden topics if one wants to stay good graces with the church leadership.
As the Catholic Church continues to become more open under the leadership of Pope Francis, it appears that other churches are running in the opposite direction.
These are tough times to be a woman with a brain in churches with an all male heirarchy.
IMHO, the only folks whose opinions on this matter, are the men and women who are members of LDS. A church is a private organization, and is free to self-govern, as long as there is no violations of criminal statute, and this is clearly no violation of a criminal statute. Whether or not I agree with the concept of female ordination is irrelevant, as I am not a member of a faith that prohibits ordination of women.
Catholics don’t ordain women. Muslims don’t have female Imams either. Both faiths practice their own forms of excommunication for apostasy. Why should the decision of the LDS church garner outrage from Non-LDS people, and how is this part of a canard referred to as a “war on women”?
No one is saying that there has been criminal activity. Churches can do what they want. However, when churches do something this public and this discriminatory, hopefully they will realize that the world will be watching them and have something to say about it.
Yes, the woman in Sudan who was threatened with death because she would not renounce her Christianity was also accused of apostasy. I don’t know about you, Steve, but I was pretty pissed off that anyone would be threatened like that to give up Christianity. I see no reason why I can’t be pissed off on behalf of Katie Kelly.
BTW, I am not even suggesting that the LDS church should ordain women. That’s up to them and their fellowship. However, pitching someone out on their ear by a tribunal of old men? Yea, I have something to say about it. It’s hardly a warm fuzzy towards women, that’s for damn sure.
You don’t think that there is a war on women? Maybe you aren’t looking at it through my lenses over as long of a period of time.
I find it absurd that we are even having this discussion in 2014, for instance.
I find it absurd that the LDS church doesn’t really believe in free speech.
Steve, I really have to revisit the War on Women which you claim is a canard. I think you need to look at it from the point of gender equality/inequality.
If you view the situation through my lenses, yes, we have come a long way (baby!) but there is also a gap that certainly feels like blowback at best, metaphorical war at worst. The fact that any church would keep women out of any part of the hierarchy is simply an example. Many still do. Some of the laws still being enacted today point to subtle gender inequality. Corporate America also practices gender inquality, even though it might have 50 rules on the book about hiring women. Check their board of directors and company officers.
It’s subtle but its there. It is a war because women are fighting back. Its our fight and we’ll call it a war if we want. Didn’t Miley Cyrus sing a song about that….? 🙄
Women should start their own churches, invent their own phony myths. I’m sure that if they put a little elbow grease in they can quickly come up with something less laughable than Mormonism.
Might I suggest that some woman claims that God told her women are entitled to multiple husbands, who are to be submissive to female needs, and that her church can dispense magic tampons.
OMG ! Another example of the war on women – this one found by a 33 year old international human rights attorney arguing that social rights and equality of opportunity in the Church must trump Church doctrine. Obama needs to issue an Executive Order !
Blue, no offense but I just wouldn’t chose you as a person I expected to acknowledge that there is a war on women. Do you believe that in the United States there is gender inequality?
I believe the LDS church has a right, like any other church, to make its own rules. However, I have a right to cry foul when I hear about some of those rules if the rules start violating ideals and principles that most Americans hold dear.
blue I hadn’t thought of it from that angle, but seriously I think there’s validity to the idea that the Church is engaged in workplace discrimination.
@Rick Bentley
Yep – there you go. The Government needs to stop this sort of thing. Who is to say that a woman cannot or should not perform a given ritual or practice.
The government has nothing to do with it. Why would you think that?
What ritual or practice do you want Katie Kelly to perform? Go ahead, you can tell us, blue.
or that a man should be able to wed pre-teens, or that people can drink cyanide laced koolade, or any of the other things that God commands people to do …
No one is saying the LDS Church cannot do those things. They just have to expect criticism for doing so.
Let’s take a more serious tone. Do you think excommunicating a woman for voicing her opinion will be a selling point for new recruits?
Do you think that silencing people in this manner exemplifies American ideals and principles?
Does this behavior make you more or less inclined to vote for a member of this church for any office?
Do you remember all the hoopla over the fact that Kennedy was a Catholic? (didn’t think so) The fear among some Americans was that he would be making decisions affecting the country based on what the Pope wanted rather than what the American people wanted.
@Rick Bentley
Yes, another good point Rick. Pre-teens ??? And again, the Goverrnment needs to step in here – not just against these cults that wage a war on women, but other or any mainstream churches that deny women their rights, their gay rights, free food, free birth control. Religion, as somebody said, is the opiate of the people and the Government must protect them from it. Who else can you trust. Equality of outcome is what I say, here on earth as it is in heaven.
Your tone and content is offensive actually. Of course, you intend it to be.
You obviously have no idea what it is to be subjected to gender inequality.
On this blog I expect you to at least be respectful. If you can’t, don’t come here.@blue
Lifetime TV – the man haters channels according to my husband – is showing a movie about Warren Jeffs on Saturday night.
Does Mr. Lyssa really call it that? LOL
Warren Jeffs not only abused women, he also abused little boys and girls. Equal opportunity abuser.
I feel compelled to mention that Jeffs is NOT LDS. I also feel compelled to mention I have good friends who are members of the LDS church. I call out any church that I feel is doing the wrong thing. No exceptions. That would include my own.
Speaking of which, Those that left during the great schism had to give up their property rights. They took a stand and that’s part of the consequence.
I have a few ideas… None of them very holy…
@Moon-howler
What? Since when are you offended by an acknowledgement of the religous war on women, from opposition to abortion to holding the priesthood, gay rights, welfare vs charity, or access to free birth control. As a progressive democrat you should be, by definition, pro government and regulation of our social network — making it illegal to just be an asshole. I thought you supported equality of outcome or are you a republican in support of the equity of opportunity. Did not mean to affend and am shocked that I did. I was trying to agree with you. Are you not offended by the Team name Redskins and don’t you want the government to interject itself into that legal, private conceern too.
@blue
No, Redskins doesn’t offend me. I actually think that what Indians ought to be worried about is the 70% plus unemployment rate on reservations, the extreme amount of alcoholism amongst tribal members and the number of kids growing up in dysfunctional homes because of poverty, disease, drug use and alcoholism. Additionally, many Indian women are victims of abuse.
The above are issues that affect the daily lives of many Native Americans. Whether there is a football team named the Redskins has little to do with much of anything. In fact, one of the most popular names for teams/mascots in tribal schools …you guessed it…the Redskins.
Aren’t you totally sorry you asked me about the Redskins? Those senators ought to be working on legislation that improves the above conditions listed rather than sticking their nose in private enterprise. Hell no, I am not a Republican. Independent here. My politics are all over the board. I am also not a progressive democrat.
The hole is getting deeper children-maybe you should put the shovels down. Moon, of course you’re entitled to rant-it’s your blog. But I seriously doubt that it will amount to anything in the eyes of the Mormon Church. BTW Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Does anyone think that affected his electability or was he just a rich doofus?
While I don’t accept anything about the Mormon Church, I will give them great credit for living by their tenets. Second on that list would be Jehovah’s Witnesses. God bless those who knock on doors for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
@Steve Thomas, Rick Bentley and Blue whatever-I think you have your collective heads on some dark, foul place on this issue and the War on Women? Is it hard to breath in there?
@George S. Harris
I do support Katie Kelly and wish her well. If someone threw me out of a church, I could shrug it off. However, unless I am way off the mark, it is devastating to someone Mormon, especially with their beliefs about family and the hereafter.
I am sure what I think won’t matter two figs but if enough of us stan up for her, it might make a tiny dent.
There are many things I respect about Mormons. I can also disagree with the Church and its dogma without undoing the respect I have for Mormons. People change much faster than institutions, especially religious institutions. If the Institution doesn’t change, people will leave. Catholics in the 60s with birth control and divorce might be a good example.
Well, I think (read: know for a fact) that certain evangelical segments would never vote for a Mormon. I grew up in bumf*ck South Carolina in the heart of the Bible Belt, and heard about how Mormons were a religious cult, worshipped a false God, etc. etc. about every other week.
I doubt things have changed much.
They probably haven’t changed at all.
I have to admit I disagree with George about blessing those who bang on doors. I don’t want anyone trying to sell me religion at the door.
“However, if a church can extend this much influence over its parishioners/members, how much control would it have over parishioners in public office? When it comes to women’s issues, what should we expect from our leaders within the Mormon faith in public roles?”
How about Muslim leaders in public roles? Do you have any concern when it comes to women’s issues with them? We have had a spat of honor killings in the Muslim community, they just don’t excommunicate women who ‘act up’. They kill them. Not trying to rock the boat, just curious…
I know you have covered these honor killings in the past but I’ve never seen you connect it to elected officials, their religion and ask what influence it may have on their policy decisions. This was just a bit odd to me.
I think the difference today is that politicians are less hesitant about trying to insert their particular brand of religion into public policy. In the good old days to which some conservatives yearn to return, a politician knew that he not only represented his fellow Baptists but also the Methodists, Episcopalians, Jews, and Catholics in his town. They were his fellow golfers, business people, teachers, etc. He had to live with them. If he didn’t dance but went to church three times a week, he considered that a personal position between himself and his god. Then along came the Moral Majority and suddenly it was okay to be strident busybodies who tried to inject their views into public policy. It’s only gotten worse. And yet at the same time Americans are fleeing from established religion with the exception of fundamentalism.
@Jackson Bills
Do we have any Muslims running for office in this area? Yes, I think it would be a fair question to ask, don’t you, if that Muslim were a member of a strict sect with heavy reliance on Sharia law. That falls in with the what ifs. Let’s talk about things that are real please.
I don’t think that the Mormons are planning on any honor killings for people who don’t fall in line. It isn’t illegal to excommunicate someone. It is illegal to kill.
You have used up your allotment for the day, btw.
@Moon-howler
Something is very wrong here, Moon, we agree on two things. My sense is that the Mormon Church is strong enough and confident enough in its history and theology to withstand a member’s effort to seek the priesthood without excommunication. Yes, there are some fundemental Doctrines – Doctrines shared by other Christian denominations – in debate here, but was that action required to preserve the Church. Something went very wrong here and my guess is that she was not willing to be counseled on the doctrine and the source of that doctrine due to her professional background.
We also agree on the Redskins to include all the related issues you noted. At a minimum, I think they should remove the word “Washington” from the name, especially as the politicians get involved – and move the team to Richmond to be the Richmond Rednecks – which must be enough to satifactorilly offend somebody somewhere.
Should we be expecting the earth to rotate backwards on its axis? It might.
The Richmond Rednecks ought to offend a whole bunch of people downstate. I say go for it.
I think the Indians who are the movers and shakers in the nix the Redskins name should put their money into something that really will do some good like those things we both agree on. This isn’t someone living in a teepee leading this charge.
I try to visit a reservation any time I am in the west. I also try to support Indian crafts. I give to a school for Indian children who come from broken homes. There are several common denominators on reservations. Poverty, drugs, and booze. The poverty I have seen rivals none other that I have seen in this country.
/Users/sailorguy/Pictures/iPhoto Library/Masters/2014/06/25/20140625-105634/congress-1.png
Religious makeup of the 113th Congress.
I guess take it down Moon. It’s not showing up correctly.
Anyway–there are 33 Jews, 15 Mormons, 2 Muslims, 3 Buddhists and 1 Hindu in the 113th Congress.
What are the rest of them?
Cato, dollars to donuts those evangelicals voted Romney in 2012. Because they’re at heart reflexive buffoons incapable of independent thought.
(Anyone who is a religious fundamentalist is clearly someone who craves direction from authority figures, and is not prone to independent thought).
That’s a pretty sweeping statement.
@Rick Bentley
Aside from a few fundamentalists that we know who gravitated there from AA or NA – again from programs that are somewhat regimented – many others are fearful of change and need a simpler solution to a modern society’s complexities. A person can avoid contemporary science, critical thinking, and independent thought. Families are more simply defined, issues are black and white, and those who stray are heathens. One guy we knew didn’t mind having my husband cut and haul wood with him but didn’t want Mr. Censored (the atheist) in his house – couldn’t pass the threshold. I wonder if this guy’s god will allow him to pass the threshold of his heaven.
I am smiling. Did he wear garlic around Mr. Censored?
Actually it makes sense. I don’t agree with him, of course, but it makes sense to keep undesirables away from your family.
I could have told him Mr. Censored is pretty harmless.
“Its our fight and we’ll call it a war if we want.”
I call it a canard because that is what it is. The “war on women”? It’s a trite political sound-bite phrase used to bash a political party, not some ubiquitous term to describe every single real or perceived injustice experienced primarily by women. So if it’s your fight, who are you at war with? Since it’s a “war on women”, then you must be warring against “men”. Is the war against ALL women, or just a subset of women? What is the root cause of the war? Do the men know they are in a war? What constitutes these “acts of war”? Pay inequality? Abortion restrictions? Pornography laws? Maternity-leave policies? Dress codes?
The term “war on women” creates division, and panders for votes. Let me ask you this question? Do you thing the LDS Church would hesitate to excommunicate a man for advocating for female ordination? I’ve asked several, and their answer is “Yes, apostasy is a gender neutral misconduct.” So, if the punishment for apostasy is not reserved solely for woman, and a man doing the same thing would suffer the same punishment, then your premise fails.
Oh, it is a trite political sound bite. I use it mainly for its annoyance factor. Its no more trite or obnoxious than many of the sound bites used by the NRA or Right to Life for that matter.
The war on women isn’t aimed at a party necessarily but at individuals and institutions that enact policy or legislate laws that deprive women of full gender equality.
Churches are famous for it and the LDS church is certainly not the only institutionalized architect of the proverbial glass ceiling. (That expression is political and trite also.) They can and do declare men apostates. In fact, someone was drummed out the same day as Kelly for supporting gay Mormons. I don’t think he himself was gay.
Perhaps you could help me think of another phrase to describe a general attempt by groups or individuals to keep a boot on the throat of American women so they don’t achieve gender equality.
Finally, until its been done to you, you don’t really understand how it feels to be treated like a second class citizen.
“I wonder if this guy’s god will allow him to pass the threshold of his heaven.”
Well that’s the comedy of it all. I think each individual among the 6 billion or however many people are on this Earth has his or her own God, with their own idiosynchratic set of values and priorities.
The reason that I don’t think “war on women” is a good term to use is because women globally are oppressed in such real ways that aren’t relevant to US citizens. It trivializes real, large-scale issues.
I can only worry about American women. Conditions are so horrific around the world for women I can’t even think about it because there is nothing I can do. American women, I can pitch in.
That is not to say I don’t care…I just am powerless. Its really a very savage world out there.
“War on women” is one of those minefields which men had best leave untrod. In a similar manner in which African Americans can use the N-word, women can use the B-word, and white males can use neither, no man can relegate the “war on women” to a “trite political sound-bite phrase” unless he’s totally clueless about the past and present history of this country. It isn’t his to define. Other countries may treat their female citizens in horrific ways, but that doesn’t negate the lack of representation of females in the US at varying levels of government or big business or the lack of adequate affordable childcare accommodations for families – despite the fact that more females graduate from college than do males.
Censored, I actually like your answer better than mine. The condition exists regardless of what phrase we chose to describe or define it.
You know, I think I would rather be a second class citizen than to be patronized. There is a subtle difference.
Think about what was and wasn’t open to us when we graduated from college. Hell, we couldn’t even work at the ABC store. I also couldn’t go to the college of my choice in the field of my choice. One reason and one reason only. Gender.
I could write a book.
@Moon-howler
Most women our age could write a book. Unfortunately, women are still under-represented in many fields. I doubt that much serious recruitment of candidates for office exists for women. There’s a pathetic dearth of female and minority candidates locally.
I attended a middle school graduation recently where most of the honor recipients were young girls. I hope they continue to excel. If they don’t, the reasons for their failures need to be explored. Why do so many of them give up? You can’t deny the impact that all male figureheads of their churches have. It tells them early on that theirs is not ever going to be a leading role regardless of their achievements.
Pretty damned dumb statement.
I’ll take that bet. There are a significant number of fundamentalist Christians whom believe that Mormons are idolaters, and would never cast a vote for one of them.
There are people, mainly fundamentalists, who don’t think Mormons are Christians because they, (Mormons) don’t believe in the Trinity. They believe, as was explained to me by my Mormon friends, that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost certainly exist but they are not an “all in 1” entity.
Actually, to me, the Mormon version makes a whole lot more sense than the “Trinity” version.
The stupidity of it all is explaining how a religious organization named The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints isn’t Christian.
Of course, I had someone who shall go unnamed write to me and demand to know by whose authority I called myself a Christian. I resisted the urge to write back and name my parents as the offenders. I just ignored the bigot.
Actually, another beef is the whole Joseph Smith thing. False prophet and all that.
“Finally, until its been done to you, you don’t really understand how it feels to be treated like a second class citizen.”
Huh? I am a Caucasian college-educated hetero-sexual, gun-owning, practicing Christian, conservative republican, American-born male…. We get blamed for everything, and credit for nothing, and we are not permitted by new-social law to claim victimhood for anything, even when the injustice is substantiated.
Steve, I am most of the things you claim except not a conservative Republican male. I am not a church-goer but I don’t think that makes me a non-practicing Christian. I don’t feel beleaguered because of any of those things. All my “beleagureds” in my life have all dealt with my gender, my specific occupation or my age.
Did your gender keep you out of the school of your choice or the occupation of your choice? Have you ever had a male doctor talk down to you specifically because you were a woman? Some of the war on women stuff is very subtle.
Watch Man Men. It enrages me so much I had to stop watching it. I also have to confess. I know I came of age on the cusp of whatever era live in now. I have to admit getting really pissed inside at some of my friends when they make self deprecating remarks or act like 50’s women. I have to walk away.
Example, when one of them says “Bill won’t let me…..” Pow! Boom! Knock out punch. Bill isn’t her father.
” no man can relegate the “war on women” to a “trite political sound-bite phrase” unless he’s totally clueless about the past and present history of this country. ”
EGO sum. EGO operor. EGO teneo.
I AM calling it a ““trite political sound-bite phrase”, and I well know the history of this country. As a matter of fact, I have a degree in history. But you missed one other descriptor I applied to the “war on women”: it is a canard. It is a means to create a strawman, and pander to a demographic.
“I doubt that much serious recruitment of candidates for office exists for women. There’s a pathetic dearth of female and minority candidates locally.
Barbara Comstock. Sheryl Bass. Maureen Caddigan. Jeaneen Lawson, Gwen Wilson, Kristin Forrestor Helen Reynolds… all female elected officials or candidates for elected office. All local.
More women are running for office. Are they winning? I can recall when a woman ran against Corey Stewart back in 2007. I seem to recall all sorts of fun being made of her appearance at every opportunity, especially by a local blogger. I can remember a woman who was running for 1st congressional district being slut-shamed for being at a party with her husband. Fortunately she handled it well and now is making 6 figures. I doubt that the bloggers who tried to humiliate her is doing that well.
I can remember another woman running for local election who was continually treated like a bimbo and then when that wasn’t good enough, the locals went after her campaign manager.
I don’t recall that happening to any of the male candidates.
Yea, there’s a war on women. You may deny its existence. That doesn’t make it not so.
I haven’t been imagining it my entire life.
What part is untrue? There’s an effort underway to limit women’s access to legal abortion and to close clinics that provide services for women. Without the right to control one’s reproduction, one’s economic future, educational opportunities, mental health, etc. are or could be limited. But you already know this. It isn’t a problem you’ll ever have to personally grapple with – though your wife might.
Where are the women on Manassas City Council? Sheryl Bass is only one person – who didn’t get the party’s support to run last time. Where are the rest? Maureen Caddigan is the lone woman on the BOCS. It is the Republican Party which has finally seen that demographics don’t look promising if it continues to diss women. A token woman or African American won’t win you elections if your policies hurt those groups.
Why don’t you list all the male (white) candidates occupying or running for the same offices as the women you mentioned?
Just because you have a degree in history doesn’t make you an expert on what women have experienced in the past any more than my having one of my majors in fine arts makes me Cindy Sherman.
@Moon-howler
“I haven’t been imagining it my entire life.”
I will agree that women’s roles in western society have undergone significant change, and the drive for equality under the law, equality of opportunity has not come without significant effort. History supports this. American History supports this. But calling it a “War on Women” turns this into a joke. “War” suggests that this is an organized, systematic effort to defeat women, and it is being done with malice. I could just as easily point to the last 50 years and claim that things like Title 10, Affirmative Action, the “mother’s right to choose, Father’s custody laws, Alimony laws, gender quotas, etc. etc. are a “War Against Men”, and if I REALLY wanted to pander to a micro-demographic, I could claim these represent a “War Against Caucasian Males”. Then I could turn around and dismiss any arguments against this by saying, “unless you are a white male, you don’t know anything. I haven’t been imagining it my entire life”.
And it would be just as much a canard as the “War on Women”.
Feel free to offer up another phrase to use. If I like it, I’ll adopt it.
Actually I would say that there are people, most of them men, who very much want to keep women subjugated and in their place. Their reasons differ. World side, why do you think the Taliban wants to keep women buried under the Burqua? How about politically and in the work place? Lots of men want to keep women just a little bit less than men? How about the Mormon and Catholic hierarchy, just to name a few churches. Why aren'[t women ordained? Why do some want the women never to be able to enter the priesthood?
Any time one group has full rights, they cut into someone else’s turf. Basically, its all about power.
How many women went to your alma mater? Probably about the same as the number of men who attended my alma mater.
How about that canard about the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? Do you have the same disdain for that trite expression?
btw, thanks for acknowledging “the struggle.”
I once asked my grandmother why she wasn’t a suffragist. (1890-1996) She worked with the league of women voters and all sorts of things like that as an older woman. She told me that it would have looked bad on my grandfather who was a civil engineer. He might have worked for the City of Charlottesville at that time. I never understood that. I guess it was bad to have an upstart wife. Of course, there is a lot out of that generation and my mothers that I will simply never understand. Guess I had to be there.
“Just because you have a degree in history doesn’t make you an expert on what women have experienced in the past any more than my having one of my majors in fine arts makes me Cindy Sherman.”
No. It doesn’t make me an expert in “women’s experience”. It makes me an expert in history. I will also recognize that your degrees in fine arts makes you an expert in Drama and High Theater…as is evident by your dramatic responses to challenge, and the high theatrics you will resort to, when confronted by logic.
I have a degree in psychology. It makes me really an expert in nothing as is evidenced by my penchant for running a blog.
I do think that understanding what women censored and my age feel about gender equality and inequality has to be experienced. You just can’t read about it. I think perhaps she and I are even more sensitive to it because we were on the cusp. Our roles were not as clearly defined as even women 5 years older than us. They certainly weren’t as clearly defined as those 5 years younger than censored. (I am a little bit her senior)
It really is one of those “you had to be there” moments. Let’s face it. There are still lots of women out there who still take a back seat to everything that is male–even women lots younger than I am.
There are lots and lots of women out there who say they will never go to a female doctor or have a female minister. There are a bunch who want their accountants to be male, their vets to be male, etc.
I will never understand what its like to be black, for example. I will never understand what its like to be in battle, regardless of how many books I read or movies I see.
Gee, I took a Contemporary Drama class – offered in the English Department – but have never had a theater class. Our drama class consisted of reading, not acting. And I never imagined that my double major made me an expert on anything.
I’m having a chuckle over the smear about “logic”. If you’re familiar with Myers-Briggs, you might be surprised to learn that I’m practically off-the-charts on the NT part.
@Moon-howler
” I can remember a woman who was running for 1st congressional district being slut-shamed for being at a party with her husband. Fortunately she handled it well and now is making 6 figures. I doubt that the bloggers who tried to humiliate her is doing that well. ”
And I can remember a very accomplished woman who was running for the Vice Presidency, who was excoriated by both men and women of the opposing party. I can remember her being excoriated here, on this blog, by both men and women. She was subjected to gender-based attacks by Bill Maher, late-night Comedy show hosts, Rachell Maddow, etc. etc. Fortunately, she handled it well, didn’t play the victim (as did the person you cited did), claim this was a “War on Women”, and she’s doing quite well, making 7 figures, books, tv shows, speaking tours….
Ah, a Sarah Palin apologist. The problem is, most of us didn’t attack her because she was female any more than I attacked Rick Perry because he was a male. She was unqualified, in my opinion. I make no apology for anything I said about Sarah Palin. I believe she did play the victim, every time she opened her mouth. I am not under obligation to support or vote for any woman who runs for office. Sarah Palin was her own worst enemy and far from being what I consider very accomplished. I also jumped all over Letterman on this blog for trying to slut-shame the daughter. I can think someone is an idiot and still defend them if I feel they are being mistreated.
I also remember when Geraldine Ferraro ran. Let’s see, that campaign was known as Fritz and Tits. Yuck yuck yuck.
One more thing, I sure hope you aren’t saying Krystal Ball played the victim. I beg to differ if that is the case. I believe Letterman and Maher were the ones who were extreme on Palin. I don’t think Maddow criticized her in a sexist way. That would be very un-maddowish. Joe Scarborough was brutal and now he is singing another tune. That’s big mouth Joe for you though.
I can’t help what other people do on TV any more than you can help what someone like Rep Issa does.
“It really is one of those “you had to be there” moments. Let’s face it. There are still lots of women out there who still take a back seat to everything that is male–even women lots younger than I am.”
Moon, remember I am the son of woman divorced in 1969, provided no support from her ex-husband, who without a college education had to earn enough to take care of herself, and her two kids. I watched her struggle and do the best she could at the book-keeping jobs she held. She was educated by a system that offered 3 HS career tracks for girls: Secretarial/Book Keeping, Home Economics, and pre-nursing. None of her 5 sisters went to college, although her mother had a degree (her dad did not). they all married and raised families.
Now there are women astronauts, fighter-pilots, CEO’s of companies, elected officials. Name one occupational field or industry that is closed to women? Women are having children sans marriage, and even sans sexual partner. Arranged marriages are a thing of the past. “traditional gender roles” are almost unrecognizable today.
Yet there is still a glass ceiling in most companies.
You are not a total stranger to the strife women have endured. Your mom probably had lots closed off to her than probably you are even aware of.
What about the girls in that high school who were headed to college? Also what about the teachers and librarians?
I can’t think of any careers that are closed officially to women. Operative word is officially. You might be able to do it on paper but can you really get in the club?
Has RTJ opened up their smoking room to women? Can women even join on their own now? That’s pretty subtle.