Coggins, first of all, I love this:
Quote:
We could first state "wife" and then proceed to define "wife" as:
...an indispensible earthly and eternal companion in life, love, child rearing, spritual, psychological, and emotional maturity, and in the bringing to pass of the immortality and eternal life of man, that is, men and woman are inextricably linked to each other in the process of exaltation.
I think that this could serve as an appropriate definition for both wives and husbands.
Well, that's precisely what is intended.
I think, however, that you may be doing what Harmony is doing in reverse. You are lumping all feminist women into one very radical category.
I consider myself a feminist....not a radical, bra-burning, radical 60's feminist, but a feminist in the more "normal" sense. I believe in equal pay for equal work. I think that jobs involving intellect such as doctors, lawyers, professors, therapists, etc. can be done equally well by both men and women, provided they receive the proper education. I believe that it is just as important for a woman to complete her college education as it is for a man to complete his. I teach in the State College system, and love my job, but honestly love being a Mom more. My girls are teen-agers, so, until recently, working outside the home was not that big of a deal. I was usually home from work about the same time they were. However, we recently had a "suprise" baby boy. :) He is a welcome addition to the family, but he has drastically changed my priorities. As much as I enjoy my job, it kills me to have to take him to daycare every day. I'm in the process of getting a home business...a music studio...off the ground so that I can stay home with him, and still have a solid income. This isn't some scheme my husband hatched to "bring me home". This was my idea...my concept.
I agree with you here, and I think eveything I've said, at least I hope this is the case, has been an implicit admission of as much. I'm well aware, and always have been of a "moderate" feminism that grew up, and most certainly preceded, the 'radical" feminism that came to prominence in the late sixties. In future, whenever I say "feminism" I mean specifically "radical", leftist, feminism of the bra burning, sixties (well, it really reached ideological maturity in the seventies) Murphy Brown sort. I don't agree that I'm doing what Harmony is doing in reverse. She does lump all conservatives/Mormons into a very cut and dried, ideologically predigested mold. I'm well aware of the differences between the moderate and radical, cultural Marxist strains of feminism, as well as first, second, and third wave feminism etc. If I gave the impression of something else by using the general word "feminism", then that was a mistake.
I think one problem here is that radical feminism is really the only going concern in the popular media and culture and long ago displaced the moderates, at least in the public sphere and institutions of society (much like, after the death of Martin Luther King, the Black Power movement displaced the integrationists and became the "civil righs movement" and defined it ideologically). I think for many conservatives today, feminism is identical to "radical" feminism. This of course, isn't accruate. Interestingly, a female member of my branch has set me straight on this more then once. She always makes sure, in any discussion, that I preface the term 'feminism" with "radical" if I'm speaking of the Kim Gandy or Elenor Smeal kind.
Your point is well taken.
I agree with you that men and women are equal but different. We do have inherent strengths and weaknesses which balance each other out, and compliment each other. Women tend to be more effective communicators because we are more in tune with being able to read body language, facial expressions, etc. Men tend to be stronger physically, and have an inherent need and talent to protect, while women tend to have an inherent need to nurture.
Notice I listed these as tendancies. People are individuals, and there are always exceptions to the rule. However, in general terms, this is how I see things.
I think that men who use the priesthood for good can be strong, positive role models, and great husbands. If the priesthood is abused by a sense of wielding power over the wife, then the relationship is bound for disaster. There should be no condescention...no superiority complex. Husband and wife should be partners.
Interesting what you mention about woman's superior reading of body language. I've always been very good at that; always observing ideosyncracies of movement, positioning of arms, posture etc. Some of that is natural I think, but I really became intersted in it twenty or so years ago when I was heavily into the study of psychology and psychotherapy. As I said, some woman's and men's inherant traits are overlapping, and they can show up quite strongly in either case on occasion (few would argue about Jean Kirkpatrick's intellectual and logical reasoning abilities).
Loran