The Rexburg Response to Pants to Church

As we approach the two year anniversary of my wearing #PantsToChurch, I asked the UVSJ editor to search and send me two of the most popular "letters to the editor" written in response to their front page article they blindsided me with. I'll be publishing a response to these two letters tomorrow over at Wheat and Tares.

I wear a skirt to church

Dear Editor,

In our culture, the strongest meaning associated with a skirt is femininity. It is not weakness or inequality. Especially not these days.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has proclaimed, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” It may not be a very popular view these days, but that doesn’t keep it from being true.

Out of practicality and comfort, I generally wear pants throughout the week, but when I want to highlight my femininity, I wear a skirt. That is why I wear a skirt to church. I believe wearing a skirt helps me pay reverence to my divine femininity and the Creator who made me. This reverence is part of my worship. The way I dress not only shows reverence, but that I embrace the revealed truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I do not believe there will ever be a revelation declaring that women will be priesthood bearers. Women already have the opportunity to participate in the priesthood and in priesthood ordinances as much as men have the opportunity to participate in child bearing and child rearing. It is equal.

While the roles are different, that’s the way it should be. God intended for certain roles of men and women to be different because each is a vital role. He wanted us to realize that we can’t do it alone, that we need each other. If one or the other gender had the ability to perform all vital roles in life, it would make it so we felt that one gender didn’t need the other.

The divine feminine and the divine masculine are inseparable. I glory in the creation and wisdom of God. That is why I put a skirt on when I go to church to worship Him.

Sincerely,

Heather Duncan

Rexburg

Make the best offering possible

Editor,

Regarding the thoughtful and thought-provoking Dec. 19 article regarding Ms. Anderson’s wearing of pants to church meetings, it’s always healthy to live the examined life, isn’t it?

Here are some thoughts also to be considered: as vital as love and inclusion are, scripture and prophets give at least as much weight to submission and deference to God and approaching Him His way.

There are great lessons about making our best offering to God, which specifically includes our dress. I, too, have had the opportunity to travel, and am so impressed with the love for God I see among the poor and, in humble circumstances, their wanting to make their best offering to God, expressed in their dress as they come to worship.

There is the point, making the best offering possible. People initially "come as they are" and are welcomed, then progress to come as God wants them to be. A cardinal principle I’ve found in worshiping and approaching God is that we always do so His way, as He asks.

I can only speak for myself, but if I were to approach God making anything but my best offering, reflected in my dress, that would interfere with my worship. It’s never about me.

Someone who hasn’t given the same amount of thought to issues as Ms. Anderson might make that mistake. And since Paul was invoked, he also spoke strongly to the strong in the faith to not introduce behaviors into the church that might be a stumbling block to the weaker in the faith, for the faithful who are confident in their relationship with God to cause a distraction for others approaching Him. That would be contrary to inclusive discipleship.

He also spoke specifically of customs of the day and warned, though obviously transitory, that not living inside those customs could be a distraction for our brothers and sisters.

Greg Palmer

Rexburg

Moderate Mormon Feminist Wish List 2015

We saw a lot of feminist changes in the year 2014 in the LDS church, big and small. We saw women of color praying for the first time in a General LDS Meeting, CES policy changes of women with children at being able to teach as a full-time employee, and many more.  As a moderate Mormon Feminist, I advocate for baby step changes that help expand the understanding of the role of women in God's plan. This morning on twitter I put together a list of wishes of my own, big and small, that I'd like to see happen as a Mormon Feminist in 2015:

• Women may serve as witnesses in and out of the temple 
• Women can serve in Sunday School Presidencies (and eventually, as Clerks)
• Primary teachers will share stories of women from the scriptures for our young girls and boys to look up to.
• more depictions of biblical characters as not just white Europeans
• That I never hear another lds (wo)man say "I don't respect women who don't respect themselves by covering up" and instead respect all humans regardless of what they wear because they are children of God.
• That lds youth will learn principles of +body image in modesty lessons  
• never give up hope, be grateful and long suffering 
• We begin celebrating all the ways fathers nurture children
• a new policy that allows women to hold their babies for their blessing   
• No more Mormon LGBTQ suicides. No more homeless Mormon LGBTQ youth. 
• the #ldsChurch change the name of priesthood session during #ldsconf to "Men's Session"
• That mothers of children younger than 18 can be temple workers just like fathers can.  
• My daughter's activity day leaders will skip modesty shaming and have a career exploration day
• be grateful for baby steps and bear my Christ-based testimony more often
• a woman of color praying in a general session of #ldsconf 
• that wearing #pantstochurch isn't seen as a protest or statement, but just a valid choice for Sunday best
• when possible, replace "Heavenly Father" with "heavenly parents"
• the #ldsChurch curriculum department produces a "Teachings of Eliza R. Snow" for 2016
• more 8-11 yo girls get to participate in pinewood derbies than ever before 
• when teaching the law of chastity, we cover consent - what it is and isn't, and help a lot of people avoid a visit to the bishop's office this year

Change has got to start somewhere, right? Do you have any Mormon Feminist Wishes for 2015? Remember to be grateful for every baby step change, and remember that the core of what we want is to improve Zion with a heart full of love!

I'm tired, too

I feel like I'm just tired. I'm a little battered and bruised. No matter how much time I take off to recuperate from being on the front lines in mormon feminism (in my own way), I get bruised by misogynistic, sexist attitudes in american culture (FYI #Condi4Commish).  So I come back to the mormon community, and no matter how much we try to share that we think modesty will sink deep into our daughters' hearts if we teach the doctrine instead of application via hemlines; we still get that blasted harmful, inaccurate Jessica Rey video repeated in our newsfeeds and hundreds of white shirted young men telling us they NEED our modesty or trendy-wannabe-viral bloggers begging us to consider their husbands! The general response for my plea for doctrine based teachings is, "I can't believe those feminists don't believe in modesty!"

No matter how much I share about the things I have questions about, or that I would like you to try to walk in our pink moccasins (this even applies to women who disagree with my questions, read that plz); nothing ever changes.  Well one thing has changed. We're getting more pep talks! ZD blog has a great post that went up this week, Tired of Pep Talks, Zelophehad's Daughters:

For the last 5 years or so, I think we have seen a definite uptick in the number of pep talks us LDS women have been getting. We’ve been told how incredible (!) we are. How needed we are. How moral we are. How important we are. And it seems to me we can’t go even one General Conference (not to mention a single Sunday) without being told how equal we are 10 times. It is clearly a priority that we be buttered up.

Hoo-rah, sis-boom-bah, goooooo WOMEN! (My mom was a Rigby Trojan Pep Team Girl, in case you're wondering where my mad cheer skilz come from) You know I do think this church values women. It cherishes them. Holds them near and dear.  But there is only so long I can listen to people talking AT me telling me how incredible I am in one sentence and in the next to make sure I don't talk too much in meetings.  Part of the reason I can't just let this slide as the jovial harmless joke of an octogenarian is the paragraph he wrote in last month's ensign:

So Elder Ballard has shown a pattern of consistently saying: women speak up, we need your voice, but ONLY in an advisory capacity.  We are decision makers and we will decide if and when to listen and encourage your participation when we choose to and then we make the decisions.  That was what his joke was about. If men and women really ARE different, our thoughts and experiences and perceptions are different and should be considered as equally as the next.  (remember, I am not an advocate for female ordination. this issue could be remedied in a number of ways).  Men and Women are different.  And we can't have one in an appendage/advisory role without one gender's perception carrying more weight.

So there are women out there like me saying, "um I love this restaurant but I think there's a fly in my soup!"  And the response we get is, "God's purpose is for you to have that fly in your soup.  And oh, by the way women are the best customers at this establishment and we couldn't exist without you!  You play a special equal role in the running of this restaurant, and you are INCREDIBLE!"

Back to the ZD blog:

What I personally don’t think the church office building is aware of is how ineffective their pep talks are to the people they are trying to pep talk– the people who see problems and inequalities. They have a very effective echo chamber up there. Consider the time the church PR counseled with the women behind Mormon Women Stand to “discuss” women’s issues. I picture the PR team asking in concerned voices “Does the new book about women and the priesthood by Sheri Dew alleviate your concerns?! What about our talks in General Conference? Did they make you feel equal?!” Of course those women said yes, they were fine and felt totally equal and we can prove it by putting quotes about womanhood on pastel chevron backgrounds. They are a group that already agreed 100% with the status quo. They didn’t represent those that leave. 

So here’s my point: the clip of Elder Ballard is an absolutely perfect example of the problem. And I hope that church leadership watches it a lot and realizes that all the pep talks have got to stop as long as the follow up message to them is going to be *but not THAT equal!

Amen, amen, and amen.

Dear Bishop

Man I am on a roll this week with my second guest post:

Dear Bishop

I was invited to guest post at the Bloggernacle Bohemoth, By Common Consent. Which is basically like Regina George asking me to be a Plastic for the day. Hoping they let me wear pink on Wednesday! Based on how this goes, they may let me sit with them again

Does Mormon Feminsm Hurt the LDS Church?

There was quite a popular post that made the rounds of the Internets lately, one called "Ordain Women: thanks for nothing" on Millennial Star, a conservative thought bastion of the Bloggernacle.  There is a wide divide of understanding of what people think OW is doing, and what they are actually doing, I don't want to focus on her misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of them, but of this quote:

However, what the OW have done is take their cause to the Court of Public Opinion. Innumerable news outlets have covered the story, painting a picture of courageous, marginalized women finally standing up against centuries of oppression from a religious institution bent on discrimination.

Essentially, dragging my beloved Church through the muck of spin and sophistry.  Some of the headlines are truly nauseating to me “LDS Church says Hugs and Heart-felt Conversations ‘Divisive’” “Mormons Exclude Women from All-Male Meeting” and endless articles more. If you choose to violate the useful maxim “Don’t Read the Comments” you will find hundreds of folks chiming in to damn the Mormon church, Christianity and all religions and belief systems of every kind. 

Allow me to pose a few questions. When a group decides to take an issue to the media, exposing it to scorn, ridicule and hatred, does it increase interest in the Church or decrease it? Will the media coverage inspire individuals seeking for the truth to look at the Church? Or to turn away in disgust?

I submit that the actions of OW and its subsequent media attention will make it more difficult to overcome the wave of anti-religious sentiment that is sweeping our society, that it will inhibit the work of the Lord and the work of missionaries. In this way, it is contrary to building the Kingdom of God. 

Who stands to benefit from the clamor and calumny that result from OW? I’m going to go ahead and say it, Satan. Yeah, I’m sure that he is reveling in the disruption to the work of the Lord because of the methods of the OW movement. And in the resulting contention and war of words between church members because of it.

I have no doubt that Satan is behind the contention and hateful things being said about each other within the Church in this situation (both sides are guilty of a lack of Christlike, empathetic understanding - don't even get me started about the 'they are stoning my prophets' accusation . . . gag).  I do take issue that she represents the troll-hating comments on the internet as representative of the responses of people to the article.  Most people who are open-minded, thoughtful, interested people (1) don't comment (2) don't read troll-hate comments (3) if they do, they see them for what they are, hateful trolls who don't add value to a discussion.  That's just a part of the Internet, no matter what topic. 

I want to take issue with her assertion that public Mormon feminism hurts the Church.  Have you ever heard of the adage, "There's no such thing as bad press?"  First, let's examine another somewhat derogatory, very public Mormon spectacle at the moment:  The Book of Mormon Musical.  What has been the Church's response?  Advertising and using it as a conversion tool.  It's worked, we've had converts from people going to see TBoM Musical.  Second, has every single public coverage been nasty and negative?  I thought a lot of it was rather thoughtful and nuanced, even if it didn't favor the "traditional" viewpoint held by most members of the Church.  Especially the recent front-page NYT article about the growing role for Mormon women.  Seriously, you guys, you can't buy that kind of ad-space.

So why do I think all of the movements of public Mormon feminism isn't hurting the Church, but might actually help?  Well,  The SL Tribune recently ran an article about why did the nearly doubling of our missionary force numbers only produce a 4% increase in converts?  There are a variety of reasons, I'm sure.  One thing that stuck out to me was when I saw this tweet on Twitter.  I follow Neylan McBaine, an executive at Bonneville Communications and one of the brain-childs behind the "I'm a Mormon" campaign.  She also founded the Mormon Women Project.  I don't think she'd label herself a Mormon Feminist, but I love and respect her voice and the work she is doing to lift Mormon women's profile at the grassroots level.  She's amazing.  Back to the point, she retweeted this, which I think is telling, since she's basically one of the people over branding for the Mormon church.

I'm going to make a few assumptions here, but I don't think I'm going very far out on a limb.  I'd say that most non-Mormons closely associate the LDS church with socially conservative politics/the anti-gay marriage movement (prop 8), republicanism (Mitt Romney), polygamy (images of Big Love come to mind), conformity (white shirted missionaries all look the same, stepford wives), and the corporatization and $ the church holds (spent more $ building a shopping mall than on humanitarian efforts).

And what could change people's stereotype perceptions of what a Mormon is, or what a Mormon has to be, than an article about how Mormon women wore pants to church? What if a woman is looking for a Church to join and wants to make sure she'll find one that will welcome her wearing pants?  But she's always thought Mormonism was part of the right-wing Christian political movement?  Maybe she'll take a second look because after reading that article she thinks she might be welcome there, that she might have been wrong about what Mormonism is.  Perhaps changing people's ideas of what a Mormon is needs to happen before they'll let Missionaries in and listen to what they have to say.  That, I think, may actually spread the Gospel.  But not the articles about how they received death threats.   Above the author says, "media attention will make it more difficult to overcome the wave of anti-religious sentiment that is sweeping our society, that it will inhibit the work of the Lord and the work of missionaries."  I think one of the things fueling the anti-religious sentiment in our society is the awful, un-Christlike things said and done in the name of religion.  Maybe the hostility to different opinions on doctrine and perceptions of how to view the Gospel of Jesus Christ is what is hurting the message. In fact I find it telling that the people in charge of the 'I am a Mormon' campaign purposefully present as many of diverse and non-conformist profiles as possible. 

I haven't shared this publicly before, but I was interviewed by a freelance journalist who was doing an article on the complexity of Mormon feminism.  It's not an article about Mormonism, it doesn't want to teach you about our beliefs or doctrines or preach to you or convert you.  Originally The Atlantic planned to publish it and they dropped it in favor of a more controversial MoFem story - the journalist shopped around until he found a publishing space.  It turns out The Toast, a very secular feminist website, agreed to publish it here: "Like Wearing Pants to Church".  I didn't share it before because right next to my article was one on transgender issues - and that most people I know will NOT be comfortable on this website and the things they say or discuss.  If you do choose to go read it, I want to ask you to then read the comments and hear what secular humanist feminists have to say about how it changed their stereotype of religious or Mormons.  This is a good thing, I think.   Is there only one way to be a good Mormon?  We're supposed to spread the Gospel to all the world, but are we going to screen out all progressives, feminists, etc. because they won't be welcome here?  Do we really want to put ourselves into this situation? 

This is one of the reasons I have not joined the Facebook Group "Mormon Women Stand."  Like Lisa Downing, a conservative convert to the Mormon Church living in Texas, in a post about her conversion  on her blog "Life Outside the Book of Mormon Belt":

A new Facebook page, Mormon Women Stand, has gained broad appeal and describes itself as a group of “LDS Women who, without hesitation, sustain the Lord’s Prophet, the Family Proclamation as doctrine and our divine role as covenant women for Christ.” In the Guidelines on Discussion and Tone, we find, “Discussions focused on questioning, debating, and doubting gospel principles do little to build the kingdom of God.” The passage then states: “With this in mind, anything contentious, contrary to or criticizing the teachings, doctrines or leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on this page will not be welcome.”

I’m not sure how to react to this. If this group holds strictly to this platform, I, as a teenage investigator, would have had no place there. I (and my comments) would’ve been rejected for the very doubts, criticisms, and questions that lead to my testimony.  In fact, I don’t think I’m welcomed there now. I continue to have questions–real doubts about some things. Yet, I don’t feel my questions call into question my devotion to the Lord, my commitment to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or my willingness to sustain the current president and prophet.

There are a lot of men and women who feel alone, ostracized, and so afraid to share their thoughts.  Because it's not kosher for people to talk about questions or doubts, even how those lead to increased faith . . . there are many in our culture who need understanding so they don't feel they have to leave.  There really is a cultural belief that you are not a good Mormon if you have doubts or questions.  I know because consistently, several times per month, I get notes, messages, comments, or emails from people I have or haven't met thanking me for sharing.  For being a voice to throughts that they are terrified to say, because they see the reaction and abuse that members get who do share.  There are members of OW that receive the same types of notes.  Here is one note I received yesterday.

 I just wanted to tell you thanks for... all you post on Facebook and your blog. It's hard to find people who have similar views and even more difficult to find those who will share them. I think you are articulate, well reasoned, and brave. So thanks. You've helped me more than you realize.

You have fellow saints around you living in fear, and it's not healthy.  It needs to be acceptable for people to say, "I don't know.  I don't know if that's true but I'm studying it out and pondering it in my mind.  I'm going to give myself room to think/study/ponder/pray about this topic/quote/subject."

Many of these doubts and questions concern our doctrines, practices, and history or past.  I think anytime I'm presented with a perfectly clean history or hero (or even Church organization), a little bit of scrubbing has been done.  One thing that may have been stumbling block was that a some non-Mormons knew more historical facts about the Mormon church and Joseph Smith than a lot of Mormons.  For example, Joseph translating part of the Book of Mormon by putting his head in a hat and looking at a seer stone.  It's a historical fact, and the Church has been wont to publicize anything it doesn't think will build faith - recently it's been taking steps towards transparency, even acknowledging work with the seer stone in a series of essays it's been publishing to make our history more transparent (The essays include the Book of Mormon Translation,  Multiple Accounts of the First Vision,  Race and the Priesthood, Polygamy, DNA Studies, and the refutation that we believe we'll Become Like God and get our own planets).  I mean, they're not having bishops read the essays from the pulpit (I wish) but at least publishing them is a step.  Yay for steps.  This could actually be a step towards retention and new conversion!

In conclusion, I want everyone to get rid of the notion that the only thing good for the Church is to only have one perfect, conformist, foot forward.  The story of the bible is rife with imperfect humans and prophets and their story of their attempting to communicate with God and rise above this world.  You guys, the Bible is a mess!  We find ourselves in their weaknesses, and we know if they can do it, we can too.  Anytime you want to accuse Mormon feminists of being divisive and hurting the Church, I want you to remember the quote I shared from Rachel Held Evans on my own blog post about On Being Divisive and Becoming One:

I suspect Paul combined this call for the Body’s unity with an acknowledgement of the Body’s diversity because he knew that unity isn’t the same as uniformity.
We’re not called to be alike; we’re called to love.
We’re not called to agree; we’re called to love.
We’re not even called to get along all the time; we’re called to love each other as brothers and sisters, as people united in one baptism, one communion, one adoption.
Maybe we need these differences to be animated, to be alive, to mature. Maybe friction isn’t a sign of decay, but of growth.
The world is certainly watching. But this doesn't mean we hide our dirty laundry, slap on mechanical smiles, and gloss over all the injustices and abuses, conflicts and disagreements, diversity and denominationalism present within the Church;  it means we expose them. It means we talk about them boldly and with integrity, with passion and with love. I suspect that talking about our differences is better for our witness than suppressing them, and I'm sure that exposing corruption and abuse is better for our witness than hiding them.
And when it comes to injustice, a far more important question to me than "What will the world think if they see us disagreeing?" is "What will the world think if they don't?"

What is Feminism? Part 1: The Waves of History

Don't run, it's okay to learn about the history of feminism without you catching the "feminism" virus.   Historical feminism has been categorized into 3 waves.   I think it's important to note that not all players in the history of feminism claimed the term (as it was first suggested derogatorily) and in every era feminists have disagreed about the whys and hows of issues and activism. 

First Wave Feminism:  1800s - Early 1900s
Jane Austen could be considered a precursor to the feminist movement for her work in popularizing the social critique of limited choices available to women.  During this era industrialization and global politics came to the forefront and informed the movement.  The main goals were to create more opportunities for women and to gain suffrage.  In addition to fighting for the right to vote, they also fought for the right to an education, the right to work, the right to work safely, the right to the money they earned when they worked, the right to a divorce, and the right to not be property of their fathers or husbands or lose their children in marital conflicts.  First wave feminists were also very active in abolition and temperance.  This period is where women would be the "firsts": first female reporter, Nellie Bly; first female doctor, Elizabeth Blackwell; etc.   The right to vote was granted in the 19th amendment in 1920.  This period of feminism is probably taken for granted; most women who "hate feminism" would shudder at the thought to give up the rights gained during this period. 

Second Wave Feminism:  1960s - 1980s
This period was one of anti-war and civil rights movements, where I think the movement was being overshadowed and women became a little more radicalized to be heard.  This wave fought for equal pay, equal hiring opportunities, rights to contraception/abortions***, for divorce, a right to property in the case of a divorce, and the right to have marital rape be outlawed.  They established "women's studies" programs in academia.  They staged a counter-protest at the 1968 & 1969 Miss America Pageant where, "feminists parodied what they held to be a degrading "cattle parade" that reduced women to objects of beauty dominated by a patriarchy that sought to keep them in the home or in dull, low-paying jobs.(1)  Many militant and radicalized feminists looked down on women and mothers who were traditional and stayed home.  Four legal wins for the 2nd wave include the outlaw of marital rape, the pregnancy discrimination act of 1978, Title IX (1972), and Title VII (1964).  They failed to pass the  ERA amendment: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."  Opposition argued that this would eliminate the all male draft.  The STOP ERA leader "Schlafly defended traditional gender roles and would often heckle feminists by opening her speeches with quips like "I'd like to thank my husband for letting me be here tonight." (2)  They argued legal protection for women under the law would destroy the family and even eliminate the existence of single-sex bathrooms.  p.s.  traditional Mormons, here is the feminism you love to hate.  Many in the church associate the word feminist with negative connotations from this era as well as the Church's active campaign against the feminists ERA amendment. 

Third Wave Feminism:  1990s - ??
Third wave feminism is often seen as a response and push-back against some second-wave principles.  Sometimes they love lipstick, high-heels, cleavage which the first two waves identified with male oppression.  "Pinkfloor expressed this new position when she said; "It's possible to have a push-up bra and a brain at the same time."(3)  This wave focuses less on laws and politics and more on individual identity and choices - realizing there are many different backgrounds and many different ways to be a woman, it challenges the assumption there is a universal way to be a 'good woman.'  "It allows women to define feminism for themselves by incorporating their own identities into their belief system of what feminism is and what it can become."(4) This wave challenges stereotypes in the media, words used to describe gender, rape culture, gender expectations, body image issues, institutionalized patriarchy, etc.  This wave also attempts to avoid "us-vs.-them mentalities" thus often avoiding the label of feminist themselves.  Often described today feminism is the radical notion that women are people, too.

Historical Perspective
Throughout the history of the world, power had been held by those with the most strength.  World history is basically a story of one empire becoming stronger than another and defeating it.  Because strength = power, men did have all the power, decision making, access to education, etc. which consolidated their power.  Survival in past society was dependent upon using the strength of men:  it is true that men were the hunters, warriors, builders, farmers in the fields, etc.  Families needed the muscles of men to provide and protect them.  In today's society providing for oneself and protecting oneself is no longer dependent upon muscles and strength, but brains and talent.  The historically weak (women) are no longer kept from literacy and education, which are keys to success in today's world.  A woman no longer *needs* to stay at home and be the one cooking and cleaning to survive.  For the first time in history, success and survival are not dependent upon your role or your gender.  There has been a great equalization, and those in power will always be reluctant to give up their hold on it. 

What will the world look like in the future where more of the leaders of the business and political world are women?  I don't know but I look forward to it.  Based on some gender studies I read about in the book The Big Short about the global meltdown, females take less risks and have a buy-and-hold strategy.  So female-led investment banks didn't take during the financial crash because they never fell for the lies of easy money.  There would also be less wars and government shutdowns  (Women the Only Adults Left in Washington, TIME)  as women are more likely to reach across the aisle and negotiate. 

I think it's important to note that in the history of the world women have only been allowed to vote in (arguably) the most free country on the planet for less than 100 years.  For less than 100 years (and only in the most democratic countries) have women not been considered the property of men.  I get a little confused when people talk about how feminism is bad and we don't need feminism.  Does gender inequality and sexism still exist?

Have you seen the latest RAINN statistics, 97% of rapists are never prosecuted?  That the Stubenville rapists were defended by everyone in town?  That teenage sexual assault is written off as a prank?  Are women starving themselves with eating disorders because of body image issues?  Are women equally and fairly represented in media?  Do they continue to be objectified by others (ex. porn) and ourselves? Could we attempt to get more momentum for family friendly employment policies?

Pause for a moment.  Have I said anything about how they hate men?  How they think they are stupid and worthless?  That men and women are the same?  Sure, some feminist thinkers despise men and motherhood.  Some feminist thinkers love men and motherhood.  Some feminist thinkers are vegans and some eat Paleo.  Some feminists thinkers support gay marriage, some don't.  Some feminist thinkers are man-loving stay-at-home mothers who honor womanhood and cherish motherhood (hi! that's me!).

Keep that in mind as you read in part 2 about Modern American & Global Feminism.
____________________________________________

Read more:
What are the Three Waves of Feminism?, Ehow
Feminism, New World Encyclopedia
353 Feminist Glossary
(2) ERA, Wikipedia
(4) Being Feminist Blog
(1)(3) The Three Waves of Feminism, Pacific.edu 

What is Feminism? Part 2: Modern US & Global Feminism

Modern American Feminism
Feminism doesn't mean women and men are the same and have to be treated exactly the same, it does mean they shouldn't be treated less just because they are female.  Women don't have to be treated equally - but they should be treated equitably.  Studies have proven that men and women are different, but there are more variances within a gender than there is variance between the two genders.  

The image below shows the suggested results in Google when I type "women should" or "women shouldn't".  Google suggestions are items that are frequently searched for. 

Which is why today's feminism is founded on choice, because there is more than one way to be a good woman.  There shouldn't be a set standard of what a woman looks like or does.  A woman can choose her path in life, and there shouldn't be anyone telling her she can't do something. 

Women are able to make their own choices.  She can choose to work or she can choose to stay at home.  She can choose to be an engineer or she can choose to be a stripper.  She can choose to be a mother or to not have children.  She can choose to dress in all skirts and makeup or she can choose to dress in pants and short hair.  She can like gossip mags or she can like comic books.  She can choose to use contraception or not, she can choose abortion or not***.  Where do men fit in?  Wherever they want, the beauty is that feminism seeks to empower expanding choices for men and women, as an acknowledgement that some men are better nurturers than women, because we are individuals first.  He can to choose to be stay-at-home dads or to work.  He can choose to be school teachers or nurses or welders.  He should have more support in custody cases where fathers rarely win.

But, but -- women are choosing bad things, you say?  Like being a stripper or working or not having children?  Or by choosing no-fault divorce just because you fell out of love (when no other abuse is present)?  Sure, by gaining the freedom for women to make choices, some of them will make poor choices.  Some of those poor choices harm families.  But does that mean we should restrict and take their choices away from them?  Go back to the days when women suffering in abuse couldn't escape?  That they weren't considered for employment positions by being female?   I don't think so.  I also don't think that by making choices outside of cultural expectations (short hair, no makeup, pants, working PHd in bio-nuclear engineering) that it precludes me from raising a family in love.  Being a good woman has everything to do with your character and who you are on the inside. 

***p.s. I'm going to save this topic for another post (abortion)


Modern Global Feminism
Has there been and does there continue to exist a systematic oppression of women, a restriction of their choices in life, and ability to empower themselves to succeed?  You know that women still can't drive a car in many countries because it would require them to uncover their face and leave their homes?  Um, have you seen Half the Sky?  Two journalists whose mission is to spread the word about the worldwide, under-reported oppression of women.  You don't have to be feminist to care about the plight and suffering of fellow humans (all statistics taken from their website):

1. Economic Empowerment: Women comprise 70 percent of the world’s poorest people and own only 1 percent of the titled land, according to a U.N. report. They suffer not only from unequal access to education and training, but also from discrimination by their employers. For every dollar a woman earns, she invests 80 cents in her family. Men, on the other hand, invest around 30 cents and are more likely to squander money on alcohol and other vices.
2.  Education:  Today more than 75 million primary school-age children are not in school. More than half of these children are girls and 75 percent of them live in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Of all the primary-school age girls globally, 20 percent are not in school, compared to 16 percent of boys in this age group. That’s 1-in-5 eligible girls worldwide who aren’t going to primary school.
3. Forced Prostitution:  Economic necessity, a lack of employment options, drug addiction or coercion by family, pimps or traffickers are all factors that can force women into sexual slavery. Paradoxically, it’s the countries with the most straitlaced and sexually conservative societies, such as India, Pakistan and Iran, that have disproportionately large numbers of forced prostitutes. Since having sex with girlfriends may not be an option for most men in these cultures, prostitutes have become an acceptable solution.
4. Gender Based Violence:  A leading expert on safety and violence, Gavin de Becker, says, "Men's number one fear is that a woman will reject them.  Women's number one fear is that a man will kill them." In fact, women aged 15 through 45 are more likely to be maimed or die from male violence than from cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war combined. This violence can take many different forms, and is constantly mutating into new forms, be it acid attacks, bride burnings, rape or domestic violence. Surveys suggest that about one-third of all women globally face beatings in the home. Another major study found that in most countries between 30 and 60 percent of women had experienced physical or sexual violence by a husband or a boyfriend. The figures for female murder by male partners are also astounding: Up to 70 percent of female murder victims are killed by their male partners, according to the World Health Organization. 
5. Maternal Mortality. Around 1,000 women die from pregnancy- or childbirth-related complications globally every day, according to the World Health Organization. That’s one every 90 seconds. Some 99 percent of maternal deaths occur in poor countries, particularly in Africa and Asia.  A majority of these causes are easily preventable with access to basic health care.
6. Sex Trafficking.  Far more women and girls are shipped into brothels annually now, in the early 21st century, than African slaves were shipped into slave plantations each year in the 18th century.  And the problem of sex slavery is getting worse.  Trafficking for sexual exploitation is one of the fastest-growing organized crimes, generating $27.8 billion each year. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and Indochina, which opened up markets for commercial sex, and globalization have added to the problem. So has the fear of AIDS, leading some customers to prefer younger girls, whom they think are less likely to be infected. Some men target virgins, believing the girls can cure AIDS.

There are many different kinds of feminists.  Yes some are more radical and militant than others - but that doesn't mean we limit the definition of the term to loud outliers and extremists.  Please, before judging a feminist, try finding out what issues they care about and are passionate about.  It may surprise you that one-on-one, you have more in common with a feminist than you think you do.