BYU makes me want to cry.

Here is an official news release from BYU:

http://news.byu.edu/archive09-Oct-womens.aspx

For those who didn’t read it, it talks about how BYU is “reorganizing” its women’s studies program.  They say: “This reorganization will result in significantly expanded resources for research and creative activities pertaining to women.”  So in other words, there will be more opportunities for research and creativity because they are disbanding the organization and structure that is already in place.  Yep… they’re getting rid of the Women’s Research Institute.

This makes me really sad.  I didn’t use the WRI as a resource nearly as often as I should have, but I still enjoyed their programs.  They had inspiring lectures, showed fascinating films, and offered one of my favorite classes I took at BYU.  So many of the lectures they put on will stick with me, and I will always appreciate the fact that they would address issues that everyone else would try to avoid.  Their lecture on Heavenly Mother, for example, had an extremely profound impact on me, and I know I could not have gotten that anywhere else.  I always told myself that if I stayed at BYU, I would become more involved with it.  And although I didn’t use the WRI as much as I should have, I know how valuable it was.

So, I know I have some friends and family who have had experiences with the WRI either taking classes, working for them, or even just attending a program.  Since I feel like I didn’t appreciate the Institute enough while I had the chance, I’d like to hear how it effected the lives of those who did.  If there’s anything any of my readers want to share about their experiences, I would love to read  them.

Justice Sotomayor

I know I’ve been awful at writing lately.  My excuse is that I’ve been busy with labor-intensive work, and as such, I’ve spent most of the past two weeks utterly exhausted.  I’m still tired, but I just wanted to record something that made me extremely happy today.

At 1:20 this afternoon, as I was putting on make-up and getting ready for work, I received a text message.  I’m signed up with the New York Times to get sporadic messages whenever something important happens, and this particular one was from them.  Text alerts from the NYT most frequently consist of the news of someone’s death, so when I saw who the sender of this message was, I immediately began to speculate who could have died today.  After opening the text, I instead read this:

“NYT NEWS ALERT: Senate Confirms Judge Sonia Sotomayor as Supreme Court Justice by 68-31.”

It’s hard to apply eyeliner when water wells up in your eyes.  I can’t exactly explain why I got all watery-eyed.  Since the day she was appointed, we’ve all known Judge Sotomayor would be confirmed.  But today it was official, and the knowledge that another woman would join the Court made me so incredibly excited.

No, she’s not the first woman on the Court, but I still consider it a big deal.  To me, her confirmation signifies another person who has, does, and will encounter similar things that I do, keeping those experiences in mind and bringing them to the forefront as she helps determine what direction our Country should go in.  Her confirmation signifies another role model for myself and others who possess unrealistically large aspirations–another person who broke boundaries and paved a path for us to follow.  Her confirmation signifies a rare kind of Justice–one that is not inhibited by party politics, but instead can be appreciated for the pure intellect and logical reasoning that embodies what the practice of law should be.

I have a great feeling about our next Justice, and I can’t wait to follow her journey on the Court.

Also, at 2:58 this afternoon, I got an alert that John Hughes died.  I didn’t know who he was, but thanks anyway NYT.

Oh Dear.

Crazy old Pat Buchanan is at it again. Honestly, this man is batty. Really, there’s not even much I have to write about him to make him look stupid, because he’s completely got that covered on his own.
Case in point, he was on the Rachel Maddow show the other day. When asked how he felt about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, he had the audacity to respond, “white people built this country and deserve more.” To this remark, Maddow reminded him that 108 of the 110 justices have, in fact, been white, showing that we actually have received quite a lot when it comes to this area. Pat then retorted, “I think white men were 100% of the people who wrote the constitution, 100% of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country basically built by white folks.”
So basically he’s saying that 100% of our government officials should be white men because they signed a paper demanding freedom, wrote the Constitution, and fought in some wars? Doesn’t he realize that there is so much more to our country’s history than that?
Two things shock me here: 1) The fact that there are still people like him alive, and 2) the fact that I’m still shocked by the garbage that comes out of their mouths’. I mean, I really should have expected comments like that from the man who, in regards to feminism, said, “The real liberators of American women were not the feminist noise-makers; they were the automobile, the supermarket, the shopping center, the dishwasher, the washer-dryer, the freezer.”
Honestly…. what a tool!

It’s NOT all about me: why my family desires are not selfish.

During the last session of General Conference, I was slightly upset by something that was said. I’ve been wanting to blog about it for a while now, but first I wanted a chance to read over the talk again just to make sure I didn’t misunderstand the comment. Anyway, I just got a chance to read it, and I guess I’m still upset.
The talk was by Dallin H. Oaks, who I usually enjoy. His talk is entitled “Unselfish Service,” and it’s essentially about not being selfish. I agreed with most of it, and thought that it was much needed. I appreciated his strong admonitions and how he talked of how self-centered we have become as a society, but I did feel he was out of line in one of his examples. He stated:

“A familiar example of losing ourselves in the service of others—this one not unique to Latter-day Saints—is the sacrifice parents make for their children. Mothers suffer pain and loss of personal priorities and comforts to bear and rear each child. Fathers adjust their lives and priorities to support a family. The gap between those who are and those who are not willing to do this is widening in today’s world. One of our family members recently overheard a young couple on an airline flight explaining that they chose to have a dog instead of children. “Dogs are less trouble,” they declared. “Dogs don’t talk back, and we never have to ground them.”

“We rejoice that so many Latter-day Saint couples are among that unselfish group who are willing to surrender their personal priorities and serve the Lord by bearing and rearing the children our Heavenly Father sends to their care… None of this service asks, what’s in it for me? All of it requires setting aside personal convenience for unselfish service. All of it stands in contrast to the fame, fortune, and other immediate gratification that are the worldly ways of so many in our day.”

Now the reason I took issue with this is because I’m one of those people who does not know whether I want many children, if any at all. And, contrary to the talk, I don’t believe it is for selfish reasons. Now I realize that I am still young and immature, so in this sense, it is good that I do not currently want children, but even in the long run, I have a hard time imagining me being a mother.
Elder Oaks states in his talk that we can’t ask, “what’s in it for me?” I agree. Instead, I ask, “what’s in it for my children?” The thought of this makes me sick as two possible scenarios play over and over again in my head.
The first is of me staying at home. I can imagine myself finding some fulfillment in between the lunches I pack and the diapers I change, but I feel like I would get bored easily. It is not good for me to stay in the house because I don’t like seemingly-eternal routines. I would not feel intellectually or physically stimulated walking up the stairs and down the hallway to wake the child up every morning for eighteen years, nor would I feel stimulated driving the same exact route every day in between tennis practice and voice lessons. There are many wonderful women who are incredibly happy catering to the needs of their family, but I cannot imagine myself being one of them. When I’m not either working or going to school, I get lazy, and I get depressed. So, imagining my children suffering from a depressed mother who’s mental capacity is dwindling day by day as she forgets more and more Supreme Court cases makes me pause to reconsider, what’s in it for my children?
The second scenario is of me pursuing the career I’ve always dreamed of. I can imagine myself being happy as I take on new, demanding cases and work my way up the judicial ladder. This, however, will be a very rigorous career, and I don’t want to leave my children feeling abandoned along the way. I do not want my children to be raised on formulas. I do not want my screaming child to prefer the nanny’s attention over my own. I do not want my child to miss out on the school field trip because I accidentally sent the latest legal brief to school with him, leaving his unsigned permission slip in my chaos-filled, at home office. Pursuing my dream job might make me happy, but it still leaves me asking, what’s in it for my children?
So, Elder Oaks, I respectfully disagree with you. Undoubtedly, there are many who choose to not have children for selfish reasons, but it is unfair to assume that this is the case for all of us. Even the couple on the airplane probably had a better reason than “dogs are less trouble.” The problem is that these issues are personal–not something you share to the stranger sitting next to you on a flight. As for me, fear of being an inadequate mother is one of my biggest insecurities, and in the future, I might also make a joke about dog ownership to cover that up. So, no, I don’t feel like I’m being selfish. I feel like I’m being cautious.
Luckily, I have plenty more time to figure out how to create a successful balance. Meanwhile, I’ll just have to play the role of doting aunt to the two most adorable children alive.

General Conference thoughts so far:

So far it has been pretty good. I have not heard anything that I was hoping to hear yet–at least, not in the time I was awake–but that really does not surprise me. If they do choose to address anything, especially Prop 8, I’m hoping it will be addressed by President Monson (which means I’ll have to wait until tomorrow morning’s session) instead of passing the buck to some unfortunate pawn. That way, if something controversial is said, responsibility will be placed on the Church, not just some Primary President on her soap box.
I guess I’m thinking of the “Mother’s Who Know” talk. It was an upsetting talk, but I’ve had so many people tell me that it was not the position of the Church, but rather the position of Sister Beck. Really, though, is it a stretch of the imagination to think she could have been set up by the progression-fearing leadership who knows that the best way to stop progress is by oppressing women? Maybe I’m turning into a conspiracy theorist, but I wouldn’t call my “theory” ungrounded. As my sister put it in an article she wrote for The Exponent:

“The neo-traditional mindset of the correlated church is slowly dying. With every passing of a member of the Greatest Generation, the strangle-hold of “Father Knows Best” patriarchy loosens. And so it should surprise no one that we are seeing one last push for patriarchy.”

The rest of her article (It’s a really good one) can be found here: http://the-exponent.com/2009/02/02/the-times-they-are-a-changin/

Anyway, I’m ranting now, so I should end this soon. However, I did want to commend the church on having two talks from this morning’s session on living within one’s means. I believe that is very important, so I’m glad it was so immediately stressed by the Church. And I also want to commend the Church for not saying anything too offensive as of yet.

My General Conference Conflict

Four days from today General Conference will commence. Growing up, I never really enjoyed this biannual experience until I was around fifteen years old. It was then that I began an unspoken competition with my sister to have the best General Conference notes. Leah has always been very artistic, and although I never mentioned this to her, I envied everything about the notes she took. Her handwriting that was so sloppily slanted yet perfect at the same time. The delicate flowers and other doodles she would draw around the margins of her page. The colors she used to add interest to an otherwise dull sheet of loose leaf paper. Everything. As one of the vainest children to ever walk the face of this earth, I decided that that year, my notes would be better than hers. In order for me to do that, though, I had to listen very carefully to everything that was said. Each speaker’s name and title would be written in purple, then I would leave exactly one space between that line and the one where my bullet points would begin. To make my notes cuter, my bullet points would be little stars carefully drawn in yellow. For each speaker, I required myself to have at least three written observations, even if that meant I wrote down (in a sky blue colored ink) something painfully obvious. It makes me laugh to think of how frenzied I was at the end of a particularly boring talk about prayer where I had spaced out for a little bit, leaving me short of one bullet point. I hurriedly scribbled down, “Prayer is important,” just to fill the space. Although these meticulous notes still didn’t look as good as my sisters, I was proud of them because I had something substantial written from each talk. These notes were evidence that for the first time in my life, I did not fall asleep in General Conference, and I actually got something out of it. After Leah left for college, General Conference just wasn’t the same. I had lost my motivation to listen.
Putting aside the fact that I was a total brat who was overly competitive and always did everything for the wrong reasons, I can’t decide what I want to do for General Conference in a couple of days. Every time Conference is approaching, I am told by some church leader that if I make a list of things I want to hear and then pray about it, those things will be addressed.
Unfortunately, I think I’ll be sorely disappointed if I expect this. The thing that I really want to hear is an apology. I want to hear an apology for the stance that was taken against gay marriage this past year. I want to hear leaders admonish the members for fanatically distorting not only the Church’s position on homosexuality, but on pretty much everything. I want to hear an apology to the women of the Church for raising them in a culture of oppression. Along with this apology, I’d like to hear a resort to do better. That is what I want.
Here is what I expect: I expect women’s issues to be completely ignored like usual. I certainly don’t expect anything profound in a positive and progressive way to be said on this matter. Perhaps they will say something that puts the women’s movement back another ten years, but I suspect they’ll shy away from that until people forget about the “Mother’s Who Know” fiasco. If women are mentioned, I believe it will be in relation to homosexuality, perhaps with a not-so-subtle dig saying that both a man and a woman need to be in the home because each has their own prospective roles. I do expect the church to address homosexuality, stating that we love and accept our LGBT brothers and sisters, but emphasizing that we do not want to give them the sacred right of marriage. I expect that at least one speaker will talk about following “our beloved Prophet,” and that our willingness to do so is a “separating the wheat from the tares” sort of test. This last expectation is one of the main reasons I don’t want to go. I do not want to feel chastised by more self-righteous people about something that is so personal to me (or am I just being hard-hearted? And yes, I am saying that facetiously).
Another reason I do not want to go to Conference is because homosexual organizations, in a brilliant PR move, have decided to gather in Salt Lake to do service over the weekend. They are hoping to show the LDS community that they are productive and contributing members of society that do not need to be feared. I feel that this is the epitome of “turning the other cheek,” and I would love to be a part of it to show my support. And, to clarify because I already had my mother rudely ask me this question, I do not want to go because I am a lesbian. I want to go because I am an ally.
So those are my options: Go to General Conference hoping to be uplifted and hoping to hear my problems addressed, but most likely leaving offended, upset, and resentful; or try to find a gay group and pull weeds out of a flower garden in some random public park.
Any insights?

Update from the Daily Universe Editorial Section

I realize I have not posted anything out of the DU for quite a while, and for that I apologize. It’s not that there is no material to post on; in fact, there is so much it’s overwhelming. Sometimes I just don’t know which article to write about, and so I end up forgetting about all of them. But, there was one from February 20th that made such an impression on my ignorant mind, that I have not been able to forget about it. This article, entitled “I’ll Wear a Skirt,” was written by Sarah Adams and is a response to a former editorial on feminism and guys who wear skinny jeans. My favorite tidbit follows:

“I realized the reason guys are wearing skinny jeans (and I do say guys, not men.) It’s because apparently there are not enough pants to go around. The women mentioned in the editorial are taking them all! These women are not “feminist” though, they are indeed “masculinist” for they want to destroy the gender roles of women and make us become men.”

Oh… so we are apparently suffering from a denim shortage in the United States now? Shoot… I guess I’ll have to rethink my wedding dress plans:

Heavenly Mother Revisited

I’ve been thinking more about the “Absolute silence about Heavenly Mother does not protect her, it erases her” statement, so I’m back to give some thoughts about it.
My sister wrote an article over at Exponent II recently (http://the-exponent.com/2009/03/02/mistress-of-history/) that has been reverberating around my head along with the lecture from my class. One of the things my sister mentions is that women’s history will often be forgotten because they have not had the chance to tell their story. Of course we have the headline women–the women that embody the stigma behind “Well behaved women seldom make history.” But what about the other women? It seems like historically, women have only been remembered when they have greatly affected men. In the history books, we can see Alice Paul, who bravely harassed the President enough to help women get the vote. We can see Harriet Tubman who courageously risked her safety numerous times to bring others to freedom and take slavery away from the horrid slave masters. Of course, there are more examples, but the numbers pale in comparison to the amount of men mentioned throughout history. Why is this the case? It’s not that the ratio of men to women was significantly in favor of men. It’s not because women never did anything amazing. Rather, I think it’s because men wrote history. Ever since it has become more culturally acceptable for women to be educated, they have been more involved in the history writing process. As a result, we’ve seen women more frequently mentioned in modern history, and I am confident that this gender will no longer be forgotten.
So how does this relate to our Heavenly Mother? In my opinion, the Church has created such a taboo around Her that it seems impertinent for anyone who is not a proper authority to mention her name. However, due to restrictions on who is allowed to hold the priesthood, women cannot become authorities. So the very people who, by nature, have a strong connection to Heavenly Mother are not allowed to talk about Her. In “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the General Authorities told us that it was by “divine design” that women are responsible for “the nurture of their children.” If we are modeled after something divine, why can’t we know about it? Why can’t we talk about it?
I am familiar with the argument offered by the Church as to why we don’t talk about Heavenly Mother. They feel that if Heavenly Mother is mentioned often, she will become less sacred. I don’t agree. History has shown us that when people aren’t talked about, they are forgotten. This is an obvious statement, and I will not believe the church authorities are naive enough not to know this. So, my main question is: Why is the Church hiding Heavenly Mother? If we use the analogy of women in history, the mention of them has not made women less sacred. It has made women more admirable. It has enabled the non-“headliner” women to connect to history. It has helped women to feel like an important entity to society, instead of just something so insignificant that there is no need for mention. All of these effects have been very positive, and, if applied to the gospel, would continue to be so.
There is nothing not sacred about making women more admirable. There is nothing not sacred about enabling the non-“headliner” Mormon women to connect to divinity. There is nothing not sacred about women feeling like an important entity to the Church instead of something insignificant. So what is the issue here? What is the real reason we cannot discuss Heavenly Mother? And most importantly, what can we do to make sure that, just like the lecturer hypothesized, Heavenly Mother will not be erased?

Just a thought.

I’ve been pretty busy lately. I feel like I’ve been productive, and I’m proud of myself for that. I’ve been doing well in school, keeping up with outside responsibilities, and handling other stresses like a funeral and family coming into town. All in all, I’ve been doing well.
I’ve been continuously thinking about a comment made in a “Divine Mother” lecture from my Women’s Colloquium class, though. It was something that hit me really hard–something so poignant that I can’t really forget about it, even a week later. Our lecturer was talking about the mention of Heavenly Mother/ Mothers throughout Church history. One of the main themes was that Heavenly Mother is sacred, which is why she is rarely mentioned. We debated back and forth as to whether that is really the case, which General Authority said what, and whether that Authority actually had the authority to say what he did. The comment that got to me, though, was our lecturer’s closing statement.
“Absolute silence about Heavenly Mother does not protect Her, it erases Her.”