See the previous discussion on this topic here.
Some individual points we found interesting this time around:
Stephanieeeeee –
1. At last, a concise, easy-to-read summary of the various waves of feminism! Not that I’ll remember the particulars, but at least I know where to go to jog my memory.
2. Maxine Hanks thesis statement seems to be, “Men are running this Church wrong, and we women need to fix it! Right now!” Her approach isn’t subtle. Even I, a fairly liberal individual often uncomfortable belonging to a patriarchal church, was somewhat taken aback by Hanks’ strident tone. This book is only going to alienate women that have never had problems with the Church.
3. Hanks had to know this was going to ruffle some feathers. I think she was probably the person least surprised by her excommunication. I’d wager that writing this book with this tone was a calculated step in a bigger plan.
4. Hanks outlines a strategy for resisting and altering male discourse and creating female discourse: Deconstruction, Editing, Authoring, and Mysticism. Could these really affect any change in how the Church is run? My gut reaction is no, not as long as women that speak out are promptly excommunicated.
5. As far as the prologue goes, the point of the dream I would guess is to advocate taking charge of advancing feminism in the church. Unfortunately, I don’t do symbolism unless my name’s Indiana Jones. Who has dreams like that anyway? I never do. I’m always in my underwear at the bus stop or can’t remember my locker combination.
6. Since women in the Church enjoyed so much autonomy and so many privileges in the early church, my hope is that that some day we will do so again.
7. My fear is that the way things are now are the way things are supposed to be and always will be.
Lula –
1. Wow. Women and authority. What a…simple topic to take on. I marveled at the list of all those women who participated in this project. Brave women. Women wanting their voices to be heard. Women not afraid to explore an unordinary, probably difficult path. Even if I might not necessarily agree with everything, I’m looking forward to reading their thoughts on these issues (And not in a Vulcan – Spock sort of mind meld even though that would be cool!).
2. Maxine Hanks is clearly very intelligent. Her analysis weaves both Mormon and US feminist history together effortlessly. Instead of just being brushed over in a text book with brief sentences, correct punctuation, and bland generalizations, I got times, dates, thoughtful perspectives, and careful analysis from a female point of view. Bravo.
3. Republican motherhood….not even touching that one. Can’t we call it something else? What would a Democratic motherhood be I wonder? Probably we’d let our kids be raised by monkeys and live in energy saving huts. Something more apolitical maybe?
4. Surprise, surprise! I’m not the only female that has a problem with the word authority. Well, duh! I can’t figure out why we aren’t all crazy mad all the time! My most recent high blood pressure example: Sherlock Holmes (which I just watched last night) and the fact that one of only two female leads had to be rescued by the dashing hero. Again. With the fact that there were no female writers on that project. (Since I’ve been paying attention, I have yet to see one. One for crying out loud! Is Tina Fey the only female writer in the entertainment industry? Although she does represent more than half the world population very well I guess…must be quite a burden to carry.)
5. We live in a male dominated society and culture, and of course in Mormonism. The language, the discourse, even the texts. How do we keep our voices from being continuously drowned out when we ask questions, or try to initiate some dialog? And then I read an introduction like this one and realize, there are resources. Like Hanks says – we must be aware of other feminists work. Even if you don’t always agree, we must be aware of the language, the discourse. It’s not enough to just have text. Just because we’re reading these essays, and because Maxine Hanks was ousted from the church because, I believe, of this book, doesn’t mean we want to leave the church or we want the priesthood. Nothing wrong with learning something new. Getting a different perspective. I don’t know, maybe someone should start a blog about women and religion…feminism, or something.
6. That all being said, I agree whole-heartedly with Stephanieeeeeee here. Maxine Hanks seemed to know what she was doing. The overall tone of the introduction lays it completely on the line. She’s clearly saying nothing will be held back here and declares her intentions from the very beginning. The Church’s reaction must’ve come as no big surprise.
Some questions to discuss, or feel free to make up your own. This is fMh after all. Just please be nice and respectful.
* Can we participate in these types of discussions without worrying about repercussions from the people who know us, and are upset that we are reading this book?
* What did Maxine Hanks do to the dialog by coming out so vocally against some specific church teachings? Did it help or hinder it? I’m also curious if more people are interested in reading this book because she was excommunicated. I was totally that way with Avraham Gileadi’s book, The Last Days. I wanted to know what all the fuss was about.
* What kinds of authority do women have in Mormon culture? Is it sufficient for your needs? Do you think it will ever change, or will it remain as it ever did, and are you okay with that?
* Should a small group with certain ideas be able to set the tone for the larger group perfectly happy with things as they are? Is that fair? In what ways can a difference be made then?
***Next Wednesday: Chapter 1 – The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven by Linda P. Wilcox