Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Response to Marilyn

Alright, it is 11:21 and I feel like I've been hit by a tidal wave of exhaustion, so I will not comment extensively.  I read both articles you posted plus several of the links and I have a LOT to say.  I will post more about that later.

One thing I would like to touch on: I linked to the review of Sister Dew's book, and I have been feeling exactly like the reviewer.  WHY did Sister Dew feel the need to say she "isn't a feminist"?  Why, why, why???  Especially after she spent pages talking about "how far women have come" and the opportunities women have now that they didn't use to have.  It was such a slap in the face and felt so ungrateful. Yep, we're glad that so much progress has been made but we won't acknowledge the incredible women who fought for it.  I was truly disappointed and wish she hadn't brought it up if she isn't comfortable with the term.

Also, I too have been totally bugged by the complete lack of references to Heavenly Mother.  Since our Heavenly Mother is our MOTHER, first of all, and the embodiment of who we might become, second of all, you would think she'd be worthy of an honorable mention in the book.  How hard is it to include Her in statements like, "Heavenly Father created his daughters and loves them."  (I made up that sentence, but there were lots of pages about that topic.)  If you aren't going to say Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother then at least say God, which is understood to be both Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.  I have been totally bugged by this so far in my reading.

Not that I haven't enjoyed the book so far.  Sister Dew has some awesome stuff to say, but she said at the beginning that she'll be criticized (sorry, Sister Dew!) by some for not going far enough (me) and criticized by others for going too far.  She's probably right.  :)

What always strikes me in these discussions about women's spiritual power and role is that I've never felt marginalized, even though I think about these issues a lot.  I've been angry about a lot of things, but not marginalized.  I've always had a profound respect for motherhood and womanhood (probably why I've studied these things) and it still surprises me when I find out how many women don't feel equal to a priesthood-holding man.  Mind-boggling.  The only thing I'll touch on here about the article, Marilyn, is that none of it sounded foreign or far-fetched or like she was clutching at straws.  I just wish I could preach it.

Also, I was really bugged at first when Elder Oaks referred to the Relief Society as an "appendage" as I thought it was rather patronizing, but after much pondering I came to the conclusion that since Relief Society isn't our primary responsibility in the world, that Elder Oaks was correct and not patronizing.  This article further clarifies that for me.

Good night.

PS  If this baby is a boy I really want to name him Badger Marion.  Timothy is not on board and I haven't told the name to many people because I haven't wanted to hear about it.  But of three people I've told, two have LOVED it.  Sincerely.  So, now I feel better.  Timothy calls him Baby Aardvark, which makes me laugh.  We're not fighting about names this time.  I told him what I was naming the baby if it is a girl (Flannery Mildred) and what I was naming the baby if it is a boy (Badger Marion), and I wasn't looking for any other options.  If he wants a different name, he has to come up with it and convince me to like it.  I should have done that with all the kids.  We've had some hilarious baby-naming discussions (T-Rex, anyone?), but I haven't gotten irritated because the ball is in his court.  If only I'd done that with Emeline, I might have gotten Clementine.  Oh well, that is the only baby name fight I've lost and Emeline is a gorgeous name.

No comments: