Chaos

I know this is supposed to be a feminist blog, buuuuuut... it's my blog so I can't do whatever I want. This week, I was thinking a lot about Jackson Pollock. I know I'm weird, but thinking about art is my favorite distraction. More specifically, I was contemplating the question that has carried on through out my college years and now beyond; what makes Pollock's work so beautiful. He has always been one of my favorites but I am well aware of the many people who just don't understand/ like his work. And I don't blame them! It looks like a mess any one of my nieces or nephews has made in the last week. But the one consistent claim in favor of his work is that it is balanced. My art history teacher once challenged our class to try and make a "Jackson Pollock" of our own. It was a great experiment, and each student came back with a downcast face giving away its unexpected difficulty. Balance is Pollock's leg up on my nieces and nephews. But really, balance isn't a good enough answer to why his work is so touching.

As I was thinking about this piece, Autumn Rhythm I finally realized, its unexplainable beauty is what makes it so important. It is a part of abstract expressionism which came out of the 50's- after the country had experienced 2 World Wars and a Great Depression. People didn't know how to recover from their devastation, so they used art to express something that words could not- the human experience. There is a sense of spirituality about it for me. It dawned on me while I was working- filing away- that my life is a lot like this piece. Many look at it and see only a mess, there seems to be no order and nothing special about it- but that's what makes it so beautiful. There IS an order to it, an order that only some can see. Out of all of the chaos, God is creating a masterpiece of order. Only He can do that. So bring on the black lines of disappointment and difficulty, it just makes the white lines of happiness and joy that much more noticeable.

"The errand of Angels is given to WOMEN" (As Sisters in Zion)

This post has been very difficult to put together. Not because this is a difficult issue for me to discuss (as anyone who has talked to me in the last few days can attest) but because I have so much to say on the subject, it has been hard to condense and prioritize. A lot has already been said about the Mormon Feminist group "All Enlisted". Many are supportive (more than I would hope), many are speaking out against it, and still others are confused about the facts of the "protest". Some believe this organized "wear pants to church" day really is about women's Sunday attire. However, this is not the case as plainly made clear by its organizers.

KUTV reported that Stephanie Laurtizen, the leader of the new feminist group said "the event has little to do with pants. The pants are a symbol for the views of feminist Mormons who struggle with gender inequalities in the church and want their voices to be heard. "I feel like my opportunities in the church are limited because of my gender," she said pointing to the fact that she would like to serve on a greater level like men do, but can't because she is a woman. Given the opportunity of greater spiritual service, Stephanie imagines the first thing she would do: “I would bless my child and I would use it to bless other people in my life so I wouldn't have to call a stranger in the middle of the night to say 'my husband is sick, come give him a blessing.' I could do that and make my family better," she said."

So, lets recap. As a Latter-Day Saint, we believe that when we come to church on Sunday, we come in our best attire, clean both physically and spiritually. This is to show that we come prepared to worship and to learn. The For The Strength of Youth book states, "Your behavior and dress on the Sabbath should show respect for the Lord and His holy day." In my opinion, it is disrespectful to use an outward symbol of our respect for the Lord as a way to oppose certain things about His church. These women are unfortunately using the Lord's holy day, and our personal opportunity to worship and commune with Him for their own distracting protest. Sacrament meeting is for repenting of sins and feeling forgiveness through the Holy Ghost, not a fashion show and not a venue for a protest.

Not only is the event disappointing in its basic expression, but its whole purpose is completely opposite of the beautiful teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Lets first talk about policy versus doctrine. In the Church, there are things that we hold true as eternal, and divine doctrines. For example, the doctrine of baptism- that is something that will never change. Christ was baptized even though perfect, as a sign of its necessity. Baptism by immersion has always been the way into the Kingdom of God and always will be. Somethings in the Church are policies. These sometimes change depending on need and circumstances. For example, there used to be one teacher per primary class. Now, that policy has changed and each primary class must have two teachers. Let us be very clear, the priesthood and its responsibilities is doctrine. Men have always been responsible for the very heavy responsibilities of the priesthood. "We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church namely apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and so forth." (6th Article of Faith) Meaning, Christ Himself established the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. The organization is the same. Let there be no mistake, wearing pants to church cannot and will not change an eternal doctrine. Our doctrine states, "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners". (The Proclamation to the Family) These women have not used doctrine to support their claims but I am... what does that say about their demands? I think I'll stick to the Lord's side, because don't forget, challenging doctrine isn't challenging the bishop or even the Prophet, it is challenging the Lord.

EQUALITY IS NOT SAMENESS.

When I was a kid, my mom used to make chore charts. We each had different responsibilities in keeping the house clean. It took each of us, doing our jobs, to keep our house in order. If, however, my sister would have decided to take over my dusting, either 1) the dusting would get done twice and her job would go undone, or 2) I would have just stopped dusting. Let's be honest, I would have stopped dusting and let her do it. If we all try and take the same responsibilities not only will we exhaust ourselves and shirk in other responsibilities, but we would lose our need for one another and our motivation to fulfill those responsibilities. (should I say responsibilities a few more times?)

I don't know who these women are friends with but I have been privileged to have some amazing holders of the priesthood in my life. My father always taught us that women are to be respected and appreciated; that our role in this life is sacred and just as important as the man's role. I have had male friends who have respected my strengths and have allowed me to appreciate theirs.There is not a doubt in my mind that I feel the most satisfaction in my role through the gospel of Jesus Christ. So on Sunday, I will wear my nicest dress and I will shower and fix my hair and I will prepare to worship the Lord. And I will look at the men who have kept themselves worthy of the priesthood with respect and appreciation. I will think for a moment about how much their worthiness has blessed my life and how they still contribute to my experience here on earth instead of being totally useless. Then lastly, I will go to Relief Society and appreciate all the women around me and their service and their testimonies and be soooo grateful that we don't have to do everything all the time and be exactly like men, let's just be women.

Lets Talk About Women and Politicians, Shall We?

I think that a good way to tell a man's character is how he treats his wife. You can learn a lot about a man by looking at his wife and family. My dad has been married to my mom for 32 years, during which they had three girls. My parents always taught us girls how a man should treat us, but their example was a bigger teacher. They have stood by each other through trials they never could have foreseen, even imagined. The support they offer one another and respect they have has been an incredible example to many. That is the way I grew up judging a man's character, by his actions. I have been surprised and disappointed to read the scathing criticism of Mitt Romney's quote in the third presidential debate as he answered the question about equality for women. As one commentator wrote, "binders full of women" was the "tip of the Romney anti-women iceberg" (CBS opinion, by Bill Buck). I have reflected on this quote wondering my feelings as a feminist. Then I questioned, how can you really know if a politician believes in women's rights? Then I realized, its the same thing I do constantly, I just look at how he treats his wife. So here's a little information for you: Mitt and Ann Romney have been married for 43 years. In that time, Mitt has been a faithful husband and a support for Ann during difficult trials. She was diagnosed in 1998 with Multiple Sclerosis. Mitt described it as the worst day of his life, the day he watched the love of his life fail many neurological tests. He later said, "I couldn't operate without Ann. We're a [wait for it......] PARTNERSHIP. We've always been a partnership so her being healthy and our being able to be together is essential." She later had a scare with breast cancer as well but the cancer was removed and she has had no other trouble. Throughout these difficult times, Mitt has remained faithful and supportive. I would say, his actions speak louder than his words. Seeing what we can behind closed doors in the Romney house, he seems to recognize his wife's importance and they truly show America what it is to work together and find great joy in one another's strengths. 
As a counter example, I believe we can look to Bill Clinton, one of the most beloved presidents to this day. Clinton has been long revered as the women's rights president and so forth. I'm a little more skeptical though. Lets take a look at his personal life to see how he really feels. We all know about the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But its not even just the affair that bothers me. Don't get me wrong, an affair is enough, but no, there's more. First he lied to Hillary about it all, convincing her that it was a concocted story from the right-wingers trying to smear his name. I can't think of anything more demeaning than a lying cheater. But really though, he may have allowed Hillary to pursue the professional goals she desired but as far as respecting her as a person or working with his wife in a partnership- that just wasn't happening. He treated her like a distant co-worker, without so much as giving her the decency of being honest. Now moving on to Monica. Lewinsky has since been left to her own devices, a hated woman by America because we still haven't cleared the stigma that its always the woman's fault, always (yes, my favorite topic)- the femme fatale. America goes on loving Clinton, embracing him with a little pat on the wrist for being a boy *playful eye roll*.-boys will be boys ya know. I'm kind of excited for Lewinsky's upcoming tell-all. I think she should speak out about how Clinton , how shall I say... hit it and quit it. He is the one who should have been held responsible by society. He is the one who should have been shunned publicly, because he was her superior! Obviously he doesn't exactly see women as equal people who deserve respect and fair treatment. In our brief glimpse of the Clintons behind the scenes, it is apparent that he doesn't strive for "equal partnership" and an honest relationship. So before we get all upset and start analyzing small phrases said in front of rolling cameras, hot lights, millions of people who either love you or hate you, being grilled by the President of the United States, lets take a step back and analyze the person.

Review of "Why Women Still Can't Have It All"

Anne-Marie Slaughter is a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University, and served as the director of policy planning at the State Department from 2009 to 2011. She wrote this article, "Why Women Still Can't Have It All" as a mother and a woman dedicated to her career. Here's a recap...

Slaughter says that since the beginnings of feminism, women have been told that they can have it all. Yet, in an honest discussion of a woman's opportunities and responsibilities, that is not true, nor is it helpful to women who are already expected to have and do it all. Slaughter wrote, "economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson have shown that women are less happy today than their predecessors were in 1972, both in absolute terms and relative to men..." Later she states, "What’s more, among those who have made it to the top, a balanced life still is more elusive for women than it is for men. A simple measure is how many women in top positions have children compared with their male colleagues. Every male Supreme Court justice has a family. Two of the three female justices are single with no children. And the third, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, began her career as a judge only when her younger child was almost grown. The pattern is the same at the National Security Council: Condoleezza Rice, the first and only woman national-security adviser, is also the only national-security adviser since the 1950s not to have a family." Thus her point has been proven, women can't have families and compete for top positions in the working world. Slaughter claims that teaching women they can have it all does a great injustice; if she can't do all that she's told she can, a woman will take it as a personal flaw, thinking- I could have had it all and done it all, but I failed- when really, its just not true. 

Slaughter continues, "In Midlife Crisis at 30, Mary Matalin recalls her days working as President Bush’s assistant and Vice President Cheney’s counselor: Even when the stress was overwhelming—those days when I’d cry in the car on the way to work, asking myself “Why am I doing this??”—I always knew the answer to that question: I believe in this president. But Matalin goes on to describe her choice to leave in words that are again uncannily similar to the explanation I have given so many people since leaving the State Department: I finally asked myself, “Who needs me more?” And that’s when I realized, it’s somebody else’s turn to do this job. I’m indispensable to my kids, but I’m not close to indispensable to the White House." 

My thoughts:

• Slaughter barely acknowledged the effects on children in families where both parents are seeking career ambitions. That is one factor in the "having it all" equation that cannot be left out. She seems to see it from the Mother's perspective only; ie. the mother having a difficult time leaving her kids, or her yearnings to be home with her children. I think understanding the effects of the children would influence the conclusions a great deal, while Slaughter seems to see women and their sacrifices as somewhat isolated.
• She is speaking to an audience of career women who have the opportunity to have received law degrees, medical degrees or PhDs, women who's husbands are supportive of their seeking for a career as well as women who have an energy level I've never seen. This article is almost irrelevant to the average working woman. Most of those women have been required to work because our society has come to rely on double income families. Most of them don't have the privilege to seek out fulfilling careers of their choice. 
• That being said, Slaughter recognizes that women in higher jobs, such as herself, would have to be the ones making changes for all women. She is, herself, an example of a career woman not ashamed of the importance of her family. As a dean, she continued to make her family a priority by being home for family dinner every night. And instead of hiding that fact, she was open and honest about her desires to be available for her family. I love that she used her authority to show that caring about your family doesn't make you weak. 
• One question Slaughter asked was, why are men revered for sacrifice of family in the name of public service, the inverse being seen as almost immoral (it kind of reminds me of ancient Rome), while women are not even appreciated for sacrifice of public service in the name of family obligations. She feels that honoring the responsibility of a mother and appreciating it would in turn lead society to a more understanding, sympathetic approach to working mothers. Slaughter wants to see employers help women lead balanced lives.
• Slaughter's example to leave the State Department is a great example of sacrifices career women need to be ready to make. She encourages women to be ready to turn down some promotions and be sensitive to your domestic responsibilities (though I think she would die before using the words "domestic responsibilities")

But if an honest discussion of women's progress in the working world is what Slaughter is looking for, what about the domestic responsibilities? No one wants to talk about it these days but those responsibilities are real. Why can't society honor a woman who stays at home in the name of family duties over career aspirations? I am guilty myself of looking at career women and thinking, wow, they were so ambitious and driven. But really, seeing my sisters take care of their children day after day, sacrificing personal goals and ambitions to raise their children to be good citizens and successful human beings, has made me understand a true hero. Are these women not driven? I think "drive" to do something selfless is a drive stronger than any other kind. So, no. Women can't have it all. And yes. It depresses me, as a feminist who wants it all, to say that. But instead of us pushing society to expect more from women, and to pretend everyone should be happy leaving their children in daycare and working a 9-5 job everyday, lets just celebrate what women accomplish everyday, doing whatever they do, and all the sacrifices they make!

To read Slaughter's whole article, here is the link. I highly recommend it. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/6/

Freedom = Control

Freedom means (by google's definition, with which I agree) "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint". Freedom is obviously the thing for which we seek as women. I would change, however, that we seek the opportunity to be heard rather than to speak. However, changing laws and imposing women's liberation throughout the working world hasn't exactly helped male/female relationships to be equal. So the question is, how can we as women promote equality in our relationships? A recent study done at Princeton has proven that women who are immodestly dressed lose the control they have in a male/female relationship. CNN reported, "In the men who scored highest on hostile sexism [in this study], the part of the brain associated with analyzing another person's thoughts, feelings and intentions was inactive while viewing scantily clad women." The article continued to state, 

"A supplementary study on both male and female undergraduates found that men tend to associate bikini-clad women with first-person action verbs such as I "push," "handle" and "grab" instead of the third-person forms such as she "pushes," "handles" and "grabs." They associated fully clothed women, on the other hand, with the third-person forms, indicating these women were perceived as in control of their own actions."

This study scientifically shows that "scantily clad" women give up their control, due to the perception of the men around them. As the first quote shows, these women forfeit the opportunity to be understood. Interesting, isn't it? I personally choose to be heard. I choose to have my opinions taken seriously and to be treated as an equal human, in control of my own actions. If that means rockin my one piece on the beach instead of a bikini, so be it. 


In addition, I have had the opportunity to work with victims of sexual assault recently. They are strong women, and men, who are overcoming horrible obstacles in their lives because of the terrible actions of others. These victims never invited the behavior on themselves. I agree that being a "scantily clad" woman does NOT give others the right to assault these women. With that said, a therapist I work with once explained to me a study she was a part of. Several sexual assault perpetrators were taken to a mall and individually escorted into an open, busy area of the mall to pick who they would attack, given the chance. Every perpetrator individually picked the same woman. In discussion after the study, the perpetrators admitted they could not remember her face. She appeared vulnerable, which was their reason for picking her. As I said, no victim is ever to be blamed for the sad actions of a disturbed perpetrator, yet it is important to consider, what vibe am I sending to those around me? How am I being perceived? Am I perceived as confident in myself and my personality, am I in control of my own actions? or, am I vulnerable, placing the emphasis of myself on my body instead of my character? 

Fifty Shades of Grey

This weekend, I heard of a situation that is common in the world; a boy playing too rough. As the motto goes, boys will be boys, yet I wonder, why do we accept men at their basest selves? Why do we allow the media to perpetuate stereotypes that men are dominating and women are submissive and subject to men? The situation was that a grown woman was hanging out with some friends when one of the men began to wrestle her. He hurt her, maybe unintentionally the first time, but instead of backing off, continued to rough house her as she told him to stop, that he was hurting her. The night concluded with him tying her hands up and holding her to the floor. Her wrists were bloody, to the point that she was embarrassed to go to work. The man continues to claim he did nothing wrong. This situation isn't new, nor is it uncommon. Sadly, it is understandable behavior due to the popular acceptance of "erotic fiction" as we find in the widely acclaimed and New York Times hit, Fifty Shades of Grey. Fifty Shades of Grey's disturbing themes are a threat to gender equality and all of the wonderful advances society could be making in marriages and families. Feminism was at its beginnings, a push for women to be accepted as intellectual beings, creative persons who could contribute to society in many ways. But what has the result been? A higher level of pornography, demeaning books, movies that show women to be merely dangerous and manipulative, using their feminine wiles to bring down a powerful man; the femme fatale.  I lived for a year and a half in a country where women are still suppressed in every way. It is a male dominated society in which women are expected to submit to their husbands without question. This country fears feminism and rejects its positive advancements because they have watched what our beautiful country has become. The domestic violence rate in that country is 60-80%, yet there are virtually no measures being taken to help the situation. These women would love the chance to have marriages without abuse, while on the other side of the world, we celebrate stories that imprison women. Why we would accept this book which contradicts our very cause in women's liberation, I have no idea. I am confident that this book can do nothing but add to the struggles our society is already facing with broken marriages due to pornography addictions and the alarming rate of domestic violence and sexual assault/ rape. Women, stop allowing us to be demeaned. Stop accepting eroticism as normal.