Comments on: The Sound of Women’s Heads Exploding

By: Paradox

Paradox — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:55:26 +0000

I don’t see why women should compartmentalize themselves–especially the way they do on the ‘nacle and in the Church. There seems to be this false idea that the Church expects us to have only the roles of wife and mother, to the exclusion of all else. But that’s errant nonsense and the Church teaches no such thing. They never could teach it and call it Christianity.

The reason Christ has so many names is because He doesn’t just define Himself by one role. He understands and accepts that Parenthood is completely inseparable from Godhood, and defines Himself primarily as a member of a family. Just like Heavenly Father does, I might add. But defining yourself primarily by a role and solely by a role are two completely different ideas!

Christ has so many other roles that show through in His teachings–a stone mason and architect, an astronomer and physicist, a gardener, an advocate, a governor of peace, the list goes on and on. Clearly, Christ shows us that to be a god isn’t to give up our interests and desires in exchange of being a Parent only. If He is such a multi-faceted, wonderful example of fulfillment–while also being a Parent–why would we ever argue with Him when He tries to guide us in that way?

Those who define themselves as feminists with an ax to grind against marriage and family, simply because they think that’s the only thing Christ and His Church have to offer them, do not know Christ. They rob themselves of the fullness He offers them, and in so doing forsake the one who could actually give them the fulfillment they crave.

By: ji

ji — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:11:31 +0000

While it may not be necessary to put down a differing path, still there is value in upholding and honoring the important role of mothers. If this playlet were presented in 2010 where girls picked their own preferred destiny, and one made a choice similar to the fifth girl, I hope her choice would be appreciated, supported, and honored.

By: Manuel

Manuel — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:36:54 +0000

Wow! The second girl was a true visionary: she was more than a century ahead of her peers.

I like the context that Marjorie Conder has contributed.

By: Marjorie Conder

Marjorie Conder — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:25:42 +0000

LLGR was the first editor of the Exponent as a single woman. She got married, had a miscarriage and then became pregnant again. At that point she resigned from the Exponent to become (as far as I know) a SAHM. I think there is an almost universal tendency/need to validate one’s own choices. This probably accounts for the tension that often exists between women who are employed and SAHM.

By: Chris H.

Chris H. — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:25:13 +0000

“…spin this supposed strawman into concrete blocks.”

Whoa,,,you are much better with words than I am.

Anyways, I will let it go. You rock.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:16:26 +0000

Really? I don’t want to start some kind of inter-’nacle feud, but there are at least two ‘nacle blog with current posts and comments that spin this supposed strawman into concrete blocks.

Mostly, though, I think this playlet is fun because it’s so easy to shift from the context of 1903 to 2010 and back, and from the point of view of its endorsing feminine achievement in the world (altho’ in second place) to its opposition to those careers under any circumstances. That the same issues can be of such importance to us a century away fascinates me.

By: Chris H.

Chris H. — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:22:59 +0000

“…some get so offended at anything that champions wifehood/motherhood over other careers.”

While I have oft met this strawman, I have yet to actually meet anyone who feels this way.

I think this is interesting in the context of 1903. However, it is also not all that different than what we find in Young Women’s manuals today.

By: Stephen Taylor

Stephen Taylor — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:30:54 +0000

This little skit seems to read like a conservative reaction. No exploding heads here.

By: David Y.

David Y. — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:12:53 +0000

To be complete, I should say that, to the extent Sister Richards’ dialogue was meant to underscore the importance of diligent parenting, I can totally get behind that.

(And yes, kevinf, I agree that most heads in Salt Lake in the year 1903 weren’t exploding at this little drama.)

By: Kristine

Kristine — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:06:47 +0000

Lula Greene Richards is so interesting–it’s worth noting in this context that she was also the first editor of the Woman’s Exponent.