From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #85 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Monday, June 16 2003 Volume 02 : Number 085 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:42:28 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] THURMAN, _Whitewashed Tombs_ (Review) Clark Goble wrote: > ___ Scott ___ > | Apparently no active Mormon can give fair consideration to > | an inebriated defendant--at least according to the lawyers > | (and judge) serving the circuit court in Provo. > ___ > > There is some good reasoning to this though. I understand that the defense wants to have the greatest chance of empathy on the part of the jury, and that a great many Mormons see alcohol itself as a sin nearly as bad as murder. It was kind of comical in many ways. I guess they normally call in about 25 people from which to select a jury, but because of the local demographic they started with more than 70, knowing that they were going to reject most right up front. In the end I think they ended up with exactly 12 who didn't get cut by the first questionaire, so they kind of had to go with what they had. In my case it was an emotional response because the reason for the systematized mistrust was my religion. While it may be understandable, it certainly doesn't change the fact that without any interview at all, they rejected people simply for the framework of their beliefs. I understand that it's done all the time with women or people of a particular ethnicity, and that there was no special animus against Mormons. It's been easy for me to be philosophical about the reason for other peoples' exclusion. Now that it's my wife that was excluded because of an issue of institutional mistrust, the practice became personal. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 22:24:09 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Next Week on AML-List... Folks, I'm going to be out of town for the last three days of next week. This provides a good opportunity for us to try out something that's been in the works for a while now: that is, a two-tiered moderating system, with other individuals acting as "screening" moderators (actually sending out the posts over the list), but with any questionable or borderline posts being referred to me. This next week, Jacob Proffitt will be the official "screening" moderator. I will be around for Monday and Tuesday to help with any questions that may arise. After that, any borderline items may simply have to wait in my in-box until I get back. I ask your for everyone's patience with myself and Jacob (and others as they are recruited to fill the same role) as we get this going. This will be a good move for AML-List, I think. I enjoy being the moderator, but outside pressures in my life make it impossible to continue with the level of consistency and commitment that the job really needs. This way, hopefully we can spread out the burden somewhat. Thanks to Jacob for being the first one to take a crack at this. And by the way, if any of you has an interest in serving as one of the "screening" moderators, please feel free to let me know. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:22:30 -0500 From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] re: SSA in Mormon Lit Recent discussion on a possible genetic cause for homosexuality, even a "gay gene," prompted some Listers to suggest that this would be an interesting basis for a novel or story. Many such stories have been written I'm not sure if anybody mentioned GLBT author Keith Hartman's "Sex, Guns, and Baptists" (in Bending the Landscape: Science Fiction. Edited by Nicola Griffith and Stephen Pagel. Overlook Poress, 1998). Here is excerpt from a description of the novel (from a review by Wendy Pearson, Science Fiction Studies #77, Volume 26, Part 2, July, 1999): [QUOTE] Both genetics and religion come together in Keith Hartman's "Sex, Guns, and Baptists." This exploration of the all too probable consequences that might ensue if a "gay gene" is ever identified certainly serves to clarify Sedgwick's assertion of the centrality of the homo/heterosexual difference to our cultural consciousness. Here Catholicism becomes a sign of gayness, because the Catholics have remained unbending on the practice of abortion, which in this landscape has become an even more polarizing social issue due to the ability to identify potentially "gay" fetuses. As the gay private investigator points out to his female client, "the Southern Baptist Convention doesn't like abortions. But it really doesn't like homosexuals." When the narrator does what he's been paid to do and exposes his client's Baptist husband-to-be as a closeted homosexual, she's also able to overcome her scruples about the sixth commandment: she tries to murder her fiance. The story... exposes the naive assumption made by some gay scientists that a genetic basis for gayness will end prejudice and, on the other, that sexuality is the one essential basis for identity. [END QUOTE] Hartman, by the way, includes Latter-day Saints in his novel _The Gumshoe, the Witch and the Virtual Corpse_ (Meisha Merlin: 1999), but they are not a part of "Sex, Guns, and Baptists" as far as I know. Preston Hunter - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 12:42:53 -0600 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] Jun 2003 09:50:05 PDT Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:50:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Sharon Bunch Subject: Re: [AML] Dan BROWN, _The Da Vinci Code_ To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list I've been unable to find M. Catherine Thomas' dissertation though I checked on-line at BYU Studies and in my distributor lists from them. I'm guessing it is now out-of-print. Sharon Bunch sbunch@fairlds.org Marny Parkin wrote: A good resource for this is Catherine Thomas's dissertation "The Influence of Asceticism on the Rise of Christian Text, Doctrine, and Practice in the First Two Centuries" (available from BYU Studies). [Marny Parkin] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 13:02:33 -0600 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] - -0700 X-Sent: 14 Jun 2003 15:16:06 GMT From: Melissa Proffitt To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:14:47 -0600 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:58:48 -0500 (CDT), Rich Hammett wrote: >I've been alternately amused and horrified by the way=3D20 "feminism" = has=20 >been attacked here in the last few days. I=3D20 am absolutely certain=20 >that some of the list's feminists hold=3D20 very strongly to some of = the=20 >opinions that have been=3D20 denigrated as the "evils of feminist=20 >institutions." I know=3D20 this, because I am one of them. I hope the = >others don't=3D20 feel silenced by the attacks. Is it an attack to voice one's opinion? To criticize the ideas espoused = =3D by an organization or by those philosophically attached to = it--particularly when they apply to you personally? It's good to hear that you have a counter opinion, but I don't see any difference between what you = consider an attack and what you are doing in your post. >A couple of women said they had never experienced=3D20 institutional=20 >gender bias in the Church. I must not=3D20 understand what those words = >mean...or have these women ever=3D20 served as bishop? Very amusing. If you consider all gender-related restrictions to =3D represent bias, then yes, it is institutional. But I happen to believe = that it's =3D not the restriction but the status that goes with it that = matters. I don't =3D care about being bishop and I don't think it makes a = difference to my role in =3D the church. It certainly won't get me to heaven faster = and it's not going to earn me more respect within the Church. So no, I = don't consider this =3D bias. >I think there's room for real feminism in mormonism and=3D20 mormon=20 >literature, not just the watered-down version that=3D20 some are=20 >espousing. There is no such thing as "real" feminism, and if there were, there's no reason it should apply only to =3D the kind of feminism you're = espousing. What you call watered-down feminism is just another evolution of the idea--one of many evolutions that has taken place in modern times. =20 In responding to many posts with a single one, you have made a lot of assumptions and left a lot of things out. This is the central point I made--something you appear to have missed by lumping posts together: Feminism has room for many approaches. It covers French feminists, = "women and men are the same" feminists, "women and men are different" = feminists, and so on. What I object to is when one of those groups tries to lay = claim to being the one and only true feminism. Such an approach marginalizes = the other groups and excludes many voices that give this movement vitality. This applies to the Church as well as to the world as a whole. Many = Mormon feminists would like to see the restrictions on priesthood ordination lifted. Others don't see it as a problem. Both those opinions are valuable--but when one group dismisses the other as not truly feminist because they don't share the same perspective (and it does go both = ways), it's wrong and it's destructive. It breaks down relationships that = ought rather to be strengthened by the desire to improve the status of women. I am glad you were willing to share your ideas, even though I strongly disagree with many of them. You sound as though you felt personally attacked, which I assure you is not the case. Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 22:26:25 -0500 From: "Margaret Dyal" Subject: RE: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone I have to say these restrictions are silly. My husband and I only have = one car and many times it is necessary for one of us to get a ride from = another person. He is a dental student and one of his lab partners, who is = female and not LDS (GASP!), gives him a ride home. Frankly, I'm glad--after fighting rush hour traffic at a long day of work, I get a stressed at = having to leave the house almost as soon as I start to relax because my husband = is calling for a ride. Other times, he has started walking home from school and women from our church have stopped and given him a ride. Granted, some of them had a = baby in the car--not sure if that makes any difference or not. One time a woman he did not know stopped and offered him a ride--and he = got in! He promised not to do it again; I was afraid it might not be safe. = But on the other hand, it's hard walking two miles in the scorching heat of Texas summers so I can't be too hard on him. I have, once or twice, been alone with a man I was not related to since I've=A0been married and I don't really see it as an issue.=20 Margaret Dyal - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 13:47:27 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list - ---Original Message From: Rich Hammett > > I will agree with the "anti-feminists" who said that it was a=20 >mistake of some feminists to denigrate motherhood. That is a=20 >critical function, and should be open even as a career choice. But=20 >we can also make laws to encourage allowing women to be a mother,=20 >and still contribute in other ways to society, and develop their=20 >other gifts. I disagree with this, but mainly because I don't think that laws should be a tool for social engineering on this scale. Legal institution of questionable ideologies (questionable in the sense that a substantial portion of the population questions them) is dangerous in the extreme and something I hope we'll avoid. For one, laws don't "encourage", they restrict and they force. Using laws to force ideological change is questionable at best. Certain gross injustices need legal correction, of course. Abolishing Jim Crow laws was a good thing and segregation was misguided when not actively evil. But that wasn't a case of "encouraging". Restriction and force was needed to maintain a civil, free society so legal recourse was perfectly appropriate. > "Women" can do everything "men" can do This is a strong general statement and as such, is easily refuted. Women *can't* do everything that men can do. When stated so absolutely, a single counter example is all that is needed for refutation. Biology being what it is, counter examples are easily discovered. Lists have been made. And even if you find *a* woman who can beat *a* man at, say, arm wrestling, the fact of the matter is that the top arm wrestler in the world will *always* be a man. And the average man will beat the average woman at arm wrestling. Legally changing that fact would be a disaster. Clinging to a statement that is so easily proven false is a disservice to your claims. Women and men are different. Much more useful, and interesting, would be if feminists would accept that and begin exploring what it *means*. In what ways *are* we different? How much of the difference is genetic and how much is cultural? Does society benefit by segregating certain activities by gender? Does society benefit by interfering with some of those differences? Would we benefit more if we *didn't* interfere with some of those differences? And that's before we even start discussing what it means to be equal. Do we want equality of opportunity or will we insist on equality of outcome? What if more women want to be, say, orthopedic surgeons than men? Will we force some men to become orthopedic surgeons just to balance the numbers? Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:48:49 -0600 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Restrictions on Being Alone A solution for this would have been for the priesthood leader to give the sister the keys to his car and let her drive herself home slowly while he jogged behind the car in the rain. Better even than a cold shower. This option may not have occurred to him, but you can bet it crossed her mind. Nan McCulloch - ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Christopher Bigelow" > I once heard a story about a priesthood leader following in his car=20 > alongside a sister as she walked home during a heavy rain storm. He=20 > kept shouting encouragement to her through the barely-opened window. > Her body may > have been wet and cold, but her soul was warm and secure that day, I'm sure. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 22:02:03 -0600 From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: [AML] Llyod Miller and Belly Dancing You know, Llyod Miller is one of the nicest men I have ever met, and he has actually lived for years in the Middle East learning various dances and instruments (he literally plays over a thousand instruments, most of them Arabic in origin). He may be wrong, but I'd take his opinion over some Middle East scholar who has never actually visited the Middle East or at least only briefly. So let's stop with the "down with this sexually repressed weirdo" comments, please? He wouldn't make the claim unless he actually had good info to back it up. I've never discussed it with him, or read anything by him on it (and the two belly dance performances I have seen in person I found offensive, but mostly because the dancers started simulating sex, shich I doubt is truly part of most belly dancing). But - anyway, Llyod Miller is not just some fly by night sexually repressed Mormon. This is a man who has throughly absorbed the cultures he studies. - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 07:39:58 +0000 From: "Carrie Pruett" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism D. Michael Martindale >Feminism took the mother out of the home and put her in the workplace. That's one interpretation, whether it's a bad thing or not - I'm no social historian, but I imagine another interpretation is that economic necesity "took mothers out of the home" (taking into account that the mothers who were ever in the home belong to a pretty limited socioeconomic group - plenty of mothers have worked in factories, behind lunch counters, or in other people's kitchens for decades without much handwringing about the decline of the family) - and feminism helped them to gain equal (or at least more equal) footing in the workplace. >In my opinion, the best >way to educate a populace that holds to a fallacious perception and does >so with great enthusiasm is through the guerilla tactics of literature. >We need LDS stories about feminists. We need publishers who will publish >stories about feminists. >We need authors who will write stories about feminists, cast in a mold >that _will_ get published and _will_ get read. In other words, stories >about feminists that are not labeled feminist stories. I've lost the thread of the argument here. Is it that LDS writers should sneakily write storiest that degrade "bad" feminism (mothers leaving the home, abortion, male bashing) without letting on to what they are doing? Or that the stories should show positive examples of some "good" feminism? What kind of mold could they be cast in that WOULD have them read? And what kind of guerilla tactics would hide the author's agenda? In my experience as a reader, it's pretty hard for a story that starts out with an agenda to "hide" that - I should say I see nothing wrong with a story having an agenda, as long as it's presented honestly. The suggestion of sneaking messages in leaves me a little uneasy - perhaps an example? Carrie [Pruett] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 21:41:27 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] MOD Message re: Mormonism and Feminism Folks, We've had a good, rather vigorous exchange on what it means to be a Mormon and a feminist, and what feminism means to Mormons of various stripes. At this point, though, I sense that the conversation is becoming a little more heated, and we're in some danger of losing sight of the connection of this subject to AML-List's focus. And so, some general guidelines: * We need to be very careful, in talking about each other's experiences--either in the Church or with respect to feminism--to respect the experience of others even if it has been different from our own. This applies to all sides of the conversation: those who feel that they've been the objects of discrimination in the Church; those who feel they haven't been; those who feel that feminism expresses what they most truly feel about themselves and is consistent with their Mormon identity; those who feel that feminism degrades what is most precious to them about their Mormon beliefs. Given the wide variety of different experiences and responses to them that are at work here, this part of the conversation can only work if done in an attitude of sharing--this is how I feel; this is what I've experienced. That's also the only real way that this part of the discussion relates to Mormon literature--because it describes the kinds of experiences that could be expressed in literature. Remember that sharing what has happened to you is always more appropriate, in this connection, than critiquing someone else's experience. * We need to be extremely careful in our statements about someone else's position--things that could be implied as placing a label or defining someone else's position for him or her. It's okay to say "I don't think this is the way most members of the Church understand feminism, and this is why" or "That's not been my experience with feminism." It's not okay to say "That's not what feminism is." * Discussion of the church's doctrines and policies is off-topic by definition for AML-List, except when given a very explicit literary connection and context. This includes, but is not limited to, discussion of whether the priesthood should be/ever will be held by women. I can see some cautious discussion of this *in a literary context*, or *as background for sharing someone's feelings.* E.g., it would be on-topic to say, "I've never really felt fully empowered in the church because I can't hold the priesthood"--and equally on-topic to say, "I've never really been bothered by the fact that I can't hold the priesthood, and it doesn't bother me as a self-defined feminist." But going beyond this to debate the pros and cons of the Church's policy in this connection takes us to a place where AML-List isn't really intended to go. I'm sorry if some of my moderating has made it seem like this is an okay topic for discussion here, because it's really not. This limitation has as much or more to do, by the way, with fear of losing sight of our mission as a list as with worrying about whether people will be offended. There are other places where Mormon policy and doctrine can be discussed, but we're the only place where literature is the main topic of discussion. That being the case, although I often will entertain broader discussions, they're intended to be subordinate to the discussion of literature, and tolerated only so long as they seem to me to be contributing to the context for our literary discussion. * Finally, I see no real merit to a discussion of whether the Church as an institution is or isn't gender-biased. I think there can be a very valuable discussion of how individual women (and men) can feel either empowered or not within the Church, particularly as it relates to the experiences of those on this list and individuals whom we know. I'd particularly like to see discussions of how those feelings can, are, and should be represented in our literature. But a discussion of whether the Church is institutionally sexist is, in my view, a different kettle of fish entirely--and one that (again) is not really part of AML-List's brief (or smorgasbord, to keep the metaphor at least vaguely self-consistent). Again, I don't want to cut off discussion on this topic. But I would like us to keep in mind why this is worth discussing on AML-List--with all the passions and feelings it arouses (and should arouse, and which I hope will continue to be shared within appropriate AML-List limits)--and stick to the parts of the conversation that relate to what we're here as a list to do. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 22:33:50 -0600 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormonism and Feminism Amelia, What a shock. I have been reading these publications for several years and NEVER read anything like what you are describing. I have never, however, been on line or read from any website. Something seems amiss here. Such issues as _eXfemina_June 2002--IWF Report Card on the Status of Women was good. The Spring 2002 and Winter 2002 issues of _The Woman's Quarterly_ are also interesting. Sorry it doesn't work for you. I find it witty and educational. Nan McCulloch - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #85 *****************************