I’ve been in Utah for the last several weeks, and yesterday I was able to attend a couple of Sunstone sessions, including the panel on Mormon Feminist Bloggers. It was really fun to put faces with some familiar names. I’m a little behind on sleep–it’s been a bit of a crazy week, and I’m about to leave to drive back to California. But here are some of my hopefully not too incoherent notes on what was said.
Margaret Toscano noted that earlier online groups of LDS feminists were less public; you had to know someone involved to join them. Blogging has opened new possibilities in that anyone can join, and blogs reach a larger population. Will this kind of open internet communication raise awareness about problems of gender inequity? What is the function of blogging– Venting? Finding a support group? Working for change?
fmhLisa told the history of FMH, how she started it after searching for “Mormon feminism” and not finding anything. Blogging for her has been an education in Mormon feminism, including some of the scarier things that have happened historically. It’s been an essential tool for creating networks, and has helped her find a way to be both Mormon and feminist, rather than feeling that she has to choose between them. She maintains the blog to help others find that, too. She feels legitimate as a result of blogging, both as a Mormon and a feminist, and that feeling transfers into into daily life.
John (of Mind on Fire) talked about contributing to feminism as a male. The internet can raise awareness among men as well. Blogging has taught him about feminism, and given opportunities for networking as well as entering into feminist discourse. Blogs have enabled him to discover what the world looks like through the eyes of Mormon women. It’s important for men to be converted to feminism, and the promise of Mormon feminist blogs is that they are a way for men in priesthood positions to encounter the experiences of women.
Jana talked about the history of Exponent II, which she and Caroline put together after doing a Southern California issue of Exponent II and finding that there were topics they hadn’t been able to bring up but wanted to discuss. ExII fills a unique niche; it includes a more diverse group, including people who aren’t housewives and who are at different life stages. Feminist Mormon blogs are a way to discuss issues LDS women can’t discuss in real life, to address topics for which there is no other space to have conversation. If there is any hope for feminists to effect change, it will be through blogs.
Some of the issues I found particularly interesting: Can blogging lead to change (and in what ways might that happen)? Can blogging make you compartamentalized–are you a different person online than at church? Is it a problem that blogs are so scattered, that there are so many different ones–or is this a strength?
Thank you for your notes. I have found the feminist mormon blogs to be a great support. I may have left the church by now had I not found women who have similar struggles but find a way to stay. These blogs are a place where I can speak out and break my silence. I feel empowered when I enter into discourse with other feminist women. We can dialogue in deeper and more meaningful ways than I have ever seen in RS.
Am I a different person on blogs and at church? Most certainly. At church I am silent (and silenced.) On the blogs I have a voice. I am outside the patriarchy and can autonomously contribute in whatever way I choose. I can be myself on the blogs, whereas, at church I put on a false front and act like everything is okay.
I still find it to be unsafe to talk about many of my feminist issues at church or with most of the people I know from church. I have found certain blogs (for me, ZD and EXII) where I feel safe to speak and where I have learned a tremendous amount. This community is exquisite, and my only regret is that I can’t meet more of you in real life.
Thanks for the write-up. I *really* wish I could have attended this year, for this session alone — to finally meet some more of you women I’ve come to admire based on word alone. A little choked-up thinking about it, actually.
Thanks for your notes, Lynnette.
I particularly like FMHLisa’s point about feeling legitimate through blogging. I enjoy how every so often someone will comment at FMH that she is so relieved to find that she isn’t the only person who has particular responses to the Church. So in response to the question that was raised at the beginning–what is feminist Mormon blogging for–I do think it serves at least partly as a support group. It’s so much easier to put up with things you don’t like in the Church when you know that there are other people out there who feel like you do.
Before reading this post, I was kind of bummed about missing Sunstone this year. Now, I’m even more bummed. Thanks a lot, Lynnette! 😛
I like (your summary of) Jana’s comment about finding a new niche in feminist blogging. I think it’s right that X2 has found a new niche, one that it is filling nicely. (And, to build on Amy’s thought, it’s a niche X2 shares with ZD.)
For better or worse, FMH set the Mormon-women-blogging tone early on. It was (and still is) good stuff, and I can’t praise Lisa enough for her foresight and moxie in launching FMH, for her sharp and insightful posts, for her persistently good blogging, for her friendly and supportive kindness, and for her superhuman ability to do this all while raising three stinky punks.
That said, FMH is necessarily limited by the demographics of its readership and writership. It often focuses on the realities of motherhood, with posts on breastfeeding and childraising. (And other early prolific Mormon feminist bloggers, such as Kristine, also fit the young-mother mold.) This is great for many Mormon feminists, who want a place to discuss these issues. But it’s not going to be the perfect environment for everyone, and X2 and ZD are just different enough in tone and scope to meet the needs of a slightly different group of Mormon feminists. They are, for lack of better adjectives, a little less mother-y and a little more woman-y.
(Of course, this dichotomy is incomplete and oversimplified and there are a lot of gray areas and overlap. Still, I think Jana’s right to assert that X2 found and filled previously-unfilled niche in the bloggernacle world, and is doing so very well.)
Can blogging lead to change (and in what ways might that happen)?
Of course! As AmyB pointed out, getting in touch with like-minded folks at least lets you know that you’re not alone in your problems, and that can make a big difference in dealing with them.
Can blogging make you compartamentalized–are you a different person online than at church?
I think I’m more like my “real” self online than I am in person with a group of strangers. In many ways, there are fewer negative repercussions for sharing what you really think in an online forum than doing the same in real life; there’s the benefit of anonymity, the ability to sit and observe for a long period before trying to participate, and (if nothing else) the ability to “pull the plug” if the group becomes hostile or the interaction becomes unhealthy. This is not to say that some online interactions can’t be unhealthy in their own way, but I think that online and real life interactions can complement each other quite nicely.
Is it a problem that blogs are so scattered, that there are so many different ones–or is this a strength?
No, I don’t think so. It might seem inefficient to have four mutually exclusive blogs devoted to the same subject matter, but there’s the issue of community size to consider. Different people are comfortable interacting in different sized communities, depending on the amount of attention they crave and on the time they have to devote to those communities. Although I read many threads on fmh and T&S, I’m much more likely to comment on ZD, simply because I’ve established enough of a presence here that I think my comments will actually be read and seriously considered. I don’t have nearly enough time to devote to establishing a similar presence on the other, much larger forums.
Lynette:
Thank you so much for posting about our Feminist Blogger panel! I hope you don’t mind if I add a link to SunstoneBlog here for people who might want to hear more about his and other sessions at the Symposium:
http://www.sunstoneblog.com
That should say “had I NOT come across the women’s blogs…”
Deborah, I would have loved to attend too. I’m very jealous of Lynnette.
As for Lynnette’s questions, I’m with AmyB and Ziff and Katya–blogging helps me to discuss the religious issues that interest me in the ways I like to have them discussed. And I agree that it’s really nice to find a lot of other Mormon women struggling with the same kinds off issues that I am–it definitely helps to keep me sane.
I also agree with Kaimi’s comments on different blogs filling different niches. I think our blog and ExII do feel different than FMH. And while I think that ExII and ZD are a lot alike, there are some differences as well (for example, most of us who post on ZD are hard-core academics). I think the different communities are good because different people are going to feel more comfortable in different kinds of settings (as Katya pointed out).
I so wanted to go to this! Thanks for the update.
Can blogging make you compartamentalized–are you a different person online than at church?
Actaully, I feel differently about this than a few of the commenter’s have expressed. Because of blogging, both reading others and clarifying my thoughts by writing, I feel more confident in my position and opinions than I otherwise would. At chuch, I am no different than I am online, because of this confidence I have gained. Had I come across the women’s blogs, I’m not sure I would feel so comfortable being myself- I might wonder more at my own viewpoint, and feel more isolated. Because I know I am not alone, even if I might be in my own ward, I am ok with just being who I am, now. The convert factor might play into that, too; I already am different and new, and don’t have walls of family around to buffer me from outside influences.
Is it a problem that blogs are so scattered, that there are so many different ones–or is this a strength?
This is no problem at all- you can find the space you are most comfortable in. Who cares if the same topic is beign discussed at four different sites on the same day? Like Katya says, find your comfort zone. We all tend to link to one another anyway, and mutual support and lack of competition is lovely, I might add.
Can blogging lead to change (and in what ways might that happen)?
Yes, although I suspect any changes at first will be on interpersonal levels, and not at an institutional level. I do beleive the chuch is aware of us, plunking away out here. That doesn’t mean anyone is looking for our advice on how to run things, but just the fact they know we exist is the first step in acknowledgement.
I haven’t read all the responses yet, but wanted to chime in. Finding T&S, then watching FMH, ZD, ExII form and take shape has been a study in miracles for me personally–finding others who also struggle with doctrine and church culture but who also are intelligent AND want to remain active (or at least on the rolls) has been a tremendous boost. Despite being primarily a lurker, I have been challenged to examine and re-examine things that I’ve put on the shelf for too long–not necessarily with any closure or conclusions, but I’ve felt I’ve had a friendly, sympathetic hand on my shoulder and a soothing if firm voice in my ear while I look things over.
The feminist blogs in particular are home to me. Where else can I find fellow Mo feminists that also love Battlestar Galactica and Settlers of Catan, and wink a knowing eye when I tell them that two of my daughters are named Kira and Kess?
p.s.
” . . . and I’m about to leave to drive back to California . . . “
An added reason to kick off a California bloggersnacker . Are you So-Cal, No-Cal, or the barren wasteland in between?
John’s musing on the level of involvement that men should have in feminism and feminist causes intrigued me.
It reminded me of when I referred a friend to fMh and the first thing she said to me about it was “Why are *men* commenting on this website?” I agree with John–as more men read pre-feminist blogs, the number of ‘converts to feminism’ should increase.
I like the idea of the bloggernacle affecting perceptions because they are reflecting the thoughts and feelings of the members/authors. This is how I see that change is coming. It starts with understanding and awareness and goes from there.
I’m also sorry I couldn’t attend this.
For the life of me I cannot figure out what I want my relationship to the Church to be. A year or so ago I just decided my new strategy for coping with the Church would be to pretend it didn’t exist (church? what church?) and think about it as little as possible, in the interest of preserving my sanity. Quite often I suspect I would be happier as a participating non-member, though I haven’t yet found the courage to make that decision. Instead I’ve developed the habit of attending irregularly and generally showing up in black.
As others have also remarked, feminist blogging has had, overall, a very salutary effect on my quite tenuous relationship to the Church–it’s one of the few filaments holding me to it. Threads on controversial, sensitive topics are often labeled “disastrous,” and maybe for some they are. But certain conversations I’ve had online are a large part of what keeps me in the Church. I can’t express how much difference it’s made to me to find other people who see problems in the Church similar to those I see and who have similarly intense negative emotional reactions to them. The message I get from church is that if you have a problem, you are a problem; people are usually frantically eager to resolve my concerns but have little interest in understanding them.
(On some fundamental level, though, I think we can’t understand why people react passionately to different things. Sometimes we just have to take it on faith–which is why it’s so validating to find connections to people with similar issues.)
I adore FMH, and, although I’m neither married nor a mother, I find even their childcare/housewife conversations fascinating. (I like to browse on Mormon Mommy Wars and Tales of the Crib for the same reason!) But I rarely comment, because the issues usually aren’t personally applicable to me. So I do think there are important niches to be filled by other feminist blogs like ours and ExII. My impression is that the bloggernacle is somewhat divided between men addressing theological issues and women blogging about feminism and/or childraising. I like seeing that gap bridged more.
(Wicked cool names, Idahospud! [knowing wink])
Just another plug for Sunstone– those of you who missed the sessions can listen to mp3s of the sessions soon– $4.00 per session for the 2006 symposium. I don’t know when they’ll be posted for this past symposium, but in the meantime, you can listen to some of the older sessions free– you can search by speaker name, or topic, such as feminism. http://www.sunstoneonline.com/symposium/symp-mp3s.asp
Thanks, Paula! There are so many cool podcasts and mp3s all over the bloggernacle now, I’m going to have to hone my multitasking skills so I can read and listen at the same time while actually understanding both.
I’ve really enjoyed reading everyone’s thoughts on this. (And thanks for the Sunstone links!)
As I mentioned, someone in the audience asked about whether it was a problem that feminist blogs were so scattered. But like others who’ve commented on that, I’ve never felt that way. I would guess that most if not all of the regulars here at ZD (both bloggers and readers) also keep up with FMH and ExII; I see a real network, and not just isolated blogs. And I agree that each one seems to fill a somewhat different niche. (Where does ZD fit? Like Anya on Buffy, perhaps we “provide much needed . . . sarcasm.” ;))
The compartamentalization issue is one I’ve thought about a lot. Before I got into this blogging thing, I spent years involved in a different online community. It was a positive thing for me in a lot of ways, but it was also very split from the rest of my life and I was always a bit uneasy about that. With blogging, I’ve made a conscious effort to fight that tendency–which of course has been made far easier by the fact that I’m doing it with siblings and friends, creating significant overlap already between my online world and my “in-real-life” world. I do say things here that I probably wouldn’t say at church, but I don’t think I’m a drastically different person.
My siblings and I have maintained an email group for the past five years or so, which has been useful not just for keeping in touch, but also for all kinds of random discussion. A lot of that energy has gotten shifted here, and I think it’s been fun to add so many more voices to our conversations. One of my favorite things about blogging is that it’s been a way to interact with so many interesting people. And like others, I think it’s helped a bit with my sense of legitimacy and confidence in a church context.
P.S. Kaimi, I’m No-Cal. Perhaps someone should have an all-Cal bloggersnacker in the barren wasteland in between.
Thanks, Lynnette, for the synopsis!
I’m very pleased that the blogs have been spiritually salutary for women like AmyB and Kiskilili. I also know, however, that they have been spiritually damaging for many other women, and that troubles me very much. There’s no way, of course, to measure net gains or losses, and in the end I blog because it’s enjoyable, not because I have a strong sense of mission or responsibility. But it does seem to me that the blogs are better for the “feminist” aspect of the feminacle than for the “Mormon” aspect: the very technology of blogs—inviting active response in comments—elicits (active) dissent rather than (passive) assent, and thus tends to attract and amplify anger and complaint. I am one of those that has grave concerns about very controversial blog topics—-not because I don’t want the conversations to occur, but because I think that blogs are uniquely unsuited for fruitful exploration of those topics in particular. Occasionally I have been (happily) proven wrong, but I still feel that private, personal discussions provide a much better venue for those topics. I realize, though, that those venues are not available for many women.
I’m not completely convinced that blogs are an unalloyed good for feminism, either. Blogs, again, by their technological nature, aren’t very good for careful, extended inquiry; they’re much better for short, sensational treatments of topics, or personal rumination, and immediate responses in the comments. They’ll never replace the crucial work that journals do—but they may steal the audiences for those journals. I love FMH, but I haven’t seen a lot of important theoretical work appear there. Furthermore, the virtual nature of the interaction would make on-the-ground organizing very difficult, if it should come to that.
Blogging has been rewarding for me in the two years I’ve been doing it, but I have many reservations about the more optimistic assessments of its purpose and potential.
I should have asked, how is Margaret Toscano doing these days?
Interesting comments, Rosalynde. Ahh, another opportunity for us to disagree (civilly, I hope!).
I very much concur that blogs can have a deleterious effect on one’s attitude toward the Church (I’ve experienced this personally too many times to count!) Problem is, I suspect what buoys my faith shakes someone else’s, and vice versa. (I would be interested, though, to hear from a non-feminist who nevertheless participates regularly on feminist blogs and feels its net effect has been damaging, in what ways, and what draws them to such discussions.)
So to whom do we tailor our posts and comments? I think one could construct a valid argument that the most orthodox members have the best claim on the Church, and that what they find damaging should be dispensed with, where what they find uplifting should be encouraged.
On the other hand, such peole are MUCH more likely to find a space in their offline Church community to foster the types of conversations that build their faith. My own impression is that the bloggernacle slants disproportionately toward unorthodox tendencies for the very reason that the space in which certain views are expressed is simply not available in the Church offline. I occasionally encounter or hear indirectly of Church members who have privately reached the conclusion that God simply values men more than women, leading me to believe that people often develop such concerns entirely independently of one another, and frequently feel isolated or stifled in their Church interactions as a result but for obvious reasons have difficulty connecting to anyone who might share their views. Again, I can speak only for myself, but my own experience has been that feminist blogs assuage rather than amplify my anger.
I’d also be interested in exploring how much energy the feminist blogs potentially siphon away from Mormon publications. I know of very little regarding feminism appearing in the years immediately preceding the birth of FMH (certainly the topic had cooled down significantly since the early ’90s).
But I suspect I’m bound to disagree about the value of feminist blogging with those who do not consider feminist concerns valid to begin with (which is not to say that I don’t respect many such people). Fundamentally, our difference of opinion likely lies in our attitudes not toward the medium of blogs per se, but the messages being propagated themselves.
I’m not completely convinced that blogs are an unalloyed good for feminism, either. Blogs, again, by their technological nature, aren’t very good for careful, extended inquiry; they’re much better for short, sensational treatments of topics, or personal rumination, and immediate responses in the comments. They’ll never replace the crucial work that journals do–but they may steal the audiences for those journals. I love FMH, but I haven’t seen a lot of important theoretical work appear there.
Rosalynde, but is “important theoretical work” the gold standard of feminism? Surely feminism’s forms need not lust after the fleshpots (as it were!) of the mind-body problem and all its attendant hierarchies of universal/particular and abstract/personal…personally (heh heh), I find the most engaging thinking and writing cuts across these categories and brings them to bear on one another. I love George Eliot’s fascinating narrator expostulating wryly on the action, or Augustine’s psalm of an autobiography intertwining the most intimate thoughts of his heart with the most abstract reflections on time to the glory of God.
The audiences for highly abstract journal articles are inevitably limited, so I’m a little skeptical of audience-poaching claims. I’m also skeptical that the technology of blogging makes it inherently unsuited to the kind of highly abstract inquiry you prefer. As in blogging, so in print: such inquiry garners much, much smaller audiences in hard copy than best-sellers do, but do we ascribe that imbalance to Gutenberg? 🙂
Damn Gutenberg ruined my chance for fame and fortune! 🙂 I don’t consider myself an expert on blogging, and perhaps there’s stuff out there I haven’t seen. But in my limited experience, even the overtly academic blogs like Crooked Timber don’t typically put up journal-caliber work; that sort of piece is simply too long to be read and digested online, and blog audiences don’t care for them. I think BCC recently put up a scholarly paper, which received almost no response; I confess that I didn’t even read it. Too long, too sober for blogging, which has developed as a lightning fast, entertaining, 3- or 5-paragraph form. As for audience poaching, well, it would of course be difficult to prove definitively; the graying of Dialogue and ilk is a commonplace, however, and our generation doesn’t seem to be positioning itself as a robust successor. I think this is too bad. Like I said, I enjoy blogging very much, but I don’t think it’s an adequate substitute for more thorough, research- and time-intensive work.
By the way, I may have misled with the word “theory”: I’m not insisting on purely abstract work in the vein of high critical theory—I’m only adequately fluent in that language, and I prefer history anyway. By “theoretical” I simply mean the ideological framework that organizes any social movement, whether that framework is built principally on history or philosophy or theology or sociology or, heck, astronomy. For example, until Mormon feminism can formulate a coherent theoretical model of authority, I fear it’s consigned to muddle in indignant and mostly impotent recrimination on this topic. (I loves me some George Eliot, but Ruskin she was not; both were necessary and mutually informative. )
Kiskilili, you’re exactly right that one woman’s Sinai is another’s wilderness, and I’m not at all sure how we should draw lines. I confess that I’m surprised to hear that the discussions of controversial topics have worked to assuage some of your anger; if you’ll forgive me for the observation, it had appeared to me like they had never provided you with any remotely satisfactory settlement—indeed, that you (along the lines of Lynnette’s post a while back) resented efforts in that direction. Has the cooling been mostly an effect of having a forum and like-minded women to vent with and to, thus relieving the pressure of isolated rage—and I’m not discounting the therapeutic value of this for you and many others—or is it something else?
It’s not a matter of my concerns having been resolved so much as validated, “relieving the pressure of isolated rage,” as you put it. I felt so much better after Caroline’s infamous temple post that I started attending church again after months of inactivity.
However, I recognize that this certainly presents no long-term solution. In spite of the fact that I have a strong witness that God is involved in this Church, it may be inevitable that I eventually reach a point of recognizing that there simply is no place for me in it.
Rosalynde, I’m all for a world of both Ruskin and Eliot, and that kind of mutually informative situation remains my ideal of the intellectual life. Where I likely disagree with you, though, is on the necessary priority of Ruskin, so to speak. I’d be extremely interested in what you call “a coherent theoretical model of authority,” but I have to wonder if the model need really be that theoretical, even in the limited sense you suggest.
I must say I’m surprised, and a little dismayed, to hear that feminist blogging has been damaging to women, given that blogs are self-selecting and that no one has to read any of them. Personally, I choose not to read certain blogs, both anti-Mormon and conservative mainstream Mormon, because they are damaging to my testimony and to my relationship with the church. (Ironically, what such forums seem to agree on is that there’s no place at church for a peson like me, and both are panting with eagerness to resolve my concerns without having half understood them. I get enough of that in real life; I don’t need to go to a blog for it.) But I’m very curious–have you found feminist blogs have damaged your testimony or your relationship with the church, and if they have, in what ways? I’d really hate to think that we, or other feminist blogs, had caused you distress or raised painful issues for you or complicated your relationship with the church. The problem that what comforts one person may distress another is a thorny one, without an easy answer, and I’d genuinely like to hear what your experience has been.
I also think there may be value in viewing online communities of saints somewhat in the way we view offline communities of saints. Our SS discussions are rarely graced with rigorous academic theoretical justification for faith claims; their value lies elsewhere–as I see it, at their best, in the opportunity for saints to worship collectively, share a hodgepodge collection of personal religious experience and varying perspectives on God’s nature, and generally support one another.
This is another idea I’m not sure of but am just throwing out there: since we’re talking about the feminist component to blogs in particular, is it more likely that they expend the available energy among interested Mormons to explore such topics, or is it possible they raise the level of cultural awareness such that academic work on Mormon feminism becomes increasingly likely? I’m not sure–maybe time will tell?
It sounded to me (if I was hearing correctly!) like Margaret Toscano and the Mormon Women’s Forum are planning to get into blogging, so maybe you’ll see her on the Bloggernacle one of these days.
Just to clarify, since I think I may have given the wrong impression with that post, I don’t resent any and all attempts to find answers. I’ve actually encountered ideas and perspectives (both on the Bloggernacle and from people at church) that I’ve found quite helpful. 🙂
A couple more thoughts on feminist blogging. I remember reading Peggy Fletcher Stack’s article, “Where Have All the Mormon Feminists Gone?” a few years ago and feeling discouraged, wondering if most of the other women who shared my concerns had simply left the Church. Unlike some others here, I’ve been really lucky in that I’ve always known at least a few Mormon feminists (even if most of them were related to me!), so I’ve never thought that I was the only one; nonetheless, it’s been fabulous to find so many others here. It’s made me (correctly or incorrectly) feel more optimistic about the Church.
The issue of controversial topics is a difficult one. I do see a real danger in that discussion of them runs the risk of simply intensifying already angry feelings. However, I also see real potential benefits from such conversations . For one thing, I really don’t see another space for people to talk about these issues. And while there’s certainly a lot to be said for private, personal conversations, I actually think there are things these more public conversations can do that private ones couldn’t. Looking at Kiskilili, for example, it’s hard for me to imagine where else she could have found what she’s found on the Bloggernacle: not just one sympathetic ear, but multiple women who really “get” her experience. Also, public conversations mean that people who quietly struggle with these issues can read how others have dealt with them, without even having to participate in the discussion if they don’t want to.
Another advantage I see to these kinds of conversations is the potential for people to be anonymous. I don’t think talking about things anonymously is (usually) the ultimate ideal, but I do think it can serve an important function. I’ve had a lot of experience with online discussion of sensitive issues (I was involved for years with a mental health forum), and I’ve noted that quite often, through the process of talking about things anonymously, people get in a place where they are able to initiate those real-life, personal conversations that Rosalynde advocates.
I would be interested, though, to hear from a non-feminist who nevertheless participates regularly on feminist blogs and feels its net effect has been damaging, in what ways, and what draws them to such discussions.
Kiskilili,
I responded to this, but my thoughts took up too much space. If you are interested, you can find my thoughts here. I’ve been thinking about this for months, and so my thoughts are pretty longwinded and probably repetitive in places, but that’s the best I could do today.
p.s. I should have also added that any “advice” I seem to give, I could turn around and give to myself regarding my own trials, struggles and questions. It was not my intention to be condescending (which someone has pointed out that I did). I happen to believe that the answers for any of our struggles end up being the same, and I have to figure out how to live those answers more fully in my own life. Just because I don’t struggle with feminist issues (not that I never have questions, mind you) doesn’t mean I don’t struggle in my own ways.
One more thing to add to the ‘nacle bummer list: it’s too easy to be missunderstood on hot topics. Sigh.
er, misunderstood…
As I mentioned on M&M’s blog . . . this exchange highlights one of the advantages of blogging: a thoughtful conversations — albeit in an abreviated form — between people who have contrasting perceptions and emotional reactions to the word “feminism” and who may not have found the time or trust to engage each other in a different sphere. Yes, we stumble and misinterpret and get defensive, but at least we’re talking. If we can get a little more of this listening and give-and-take in our wards as well, then perhaps that is a “good” to come out of this experiment.
Other “goods”? I’ve found that participating on the ExII blog has increased my compassion for the ward Relief Society sisters. Why? Because I don’t need Relief Society to be my only spiritual communion with LDS women. When that was the case, I often felt frustrated and a little isolated — and this would too often colored my perceptions of lessons, etc. By sharing the burden, so-to-speak, it’s easier to let my ward family be what it is — quirky, varied, loving, well-intentioned, profoundly human. In other words, feminist LDS blogs fills a need and that, in turn, has opened up new wells of compassion. Fear and love, as Jesus points out, do not coexsist easily.
It looks like a lot of this discussion has moved over to m&m’s place, and I don’t have the time to participate over there, but I do appreciate the responses here, ZDs; I think this has been a good discussion.
Eve, I think the net effect of the bloggernacle on my faith has been prety close to neutral. My faith isn’t too vulnerable to feminist critiques these days; I think I’ve confronted most of the big issues, and while I struggled with them some in college, I simply, for reasons I can’t explain, don’t get very angry about them anymore (although I remain very interested). I certainly don’t have many answers to the big problems, and it’s very possible that the demands of my children simply absorb all my emotional energy. On the other hand, I have encountered in the bloggernacle ideas and arguments that have weakened my faith, mostly at the deepest substrates like “does God exist?”
As far as other women’s negative experiences with feminacle, the ones I am familiar with (wanting to respect privacy here, of course) discovered the blogs by accident or through a friend or family member, were by turns intrigued and dismayed by what they read, and found the novel format and fast pace difficult to resist. They were thus immersed rapidly in a flood of ideas and angst that they hadn’t developed organically in the context of supportive real-life relationships, and the effects were very difficult for some. Others, of course, simply turned away from the bloggernacle and continued on.
Kiskilili, you’re certainly not alone in your attraction to the bloggernacle as a kind of virtual ward; there’s been a long-running debate among various participants about whether the blogs constitute (or ought to constitute) a community of fellowship or a seminar room. I confess that I prefer the latter; it’s been my sad experience on other online fora that the very strong social simulus of online discussion yields only very brittle friendships and communities, and when they shatter—as they often do—people who have invested a lot personally can be deeply hurt. For this reason, together with my native temperament, I come to the blogs principally because I get great pleasure from the fast-paced play of ideas. But I understand that others come primarily for the comfort of a support-group.
Lynnette, I think print journals and magazines are on the whole a better public venue for dealing with very controversial topics. Print publications are are slower and more expensive to produce; these higher costs encourage more investment (in terms of time and research) in individual treatments of difficult issues and have yielded, I believe, more substantial and satisfying results than have the blogs. Furthermore, print journals minimize the echo-chamber effect of the blogs’ comment function, which on the more popular sites frequently drowns out substantive discussion. Blogging’s very low barriers to entry, generally a positive feature, are, in almost all very sensitive and controversial topics—not only those related to Mormon feminism—real drawbacks, even impediments to useful debate. Unfortunately, the high costs of print publications make them much more difficult to sustain, and we now have no such animal in Mormon feminism, since Exponent II recently went paperless. These are very thorny dilemmas, and there are no easy answers.
Unfortunately, the high costs of print publications make them much more difficult to sustain, and we now have no such animal in Mormon feminism, since Exponent II recently went paperless.
Lest anyone think the ExII blog has taken the place of the paper . . . .
Though it will be printed in PDF format (the way I have chosen to subscribed for a couple of years, BTW), it will still be a journal — a slow, editted, formatted beast! I’m not on the board, so I’m not privy to all the details, but don’t count us out of the equation!
I discovered the bloggernacle accidentally. The first post I read was by Eve on FMH and it dealt with her experience with seminary. I had always struggled with my seminary experience and felt a lot of anger towards the teachers and the students. After reading her post I felt that a burden had been lifted from my shoulder, and I was able to reconcile my anger.
By reading your blogs I have felt validation. I love knowing that others share the same concerns, but still remain in the church. I have also come to realize that my concerns are not a reflection of my own spirituality.
I can’t help but think that so much of this has to do with how closely we associate our online selves with our ‘real’ selves. I think some of us see blogging as a highly impersonal fora in which to discuss our ‘dirty little secrets’ amongst strangers who will never hold it against us in our real lives. Meanwhile others of us see blogging as a primarily public fora, like a newspaper, or public debate, in which it is important to maintain decorum, and isn’t unlike attending sacrament meeting.
I think that those who see blogging as primarily public are the ones who care most about balance. They want to see complete people represented accurately. Those who see blogging as anonymous largely don’t want to see whole people, they are there for very specific concerns and ideas.
Now, obviously one way is not better than the other, but when the two mix we get a lot of assumptions that hurt feelings.
A public style blogger might read an anonymous style blogger’s post about feminist concerns, and see a person who is completely wrapped up in crippling doubt about the church and feel a deep need to help this struggling person, help which isn’t really needed (and might be resented).
At the same time a public style blogger might put up a post about real crippling doubt that really is consuming their life and an anonymous-style blogger would blow it off as just a glimpse into an otherwise well adjusted life, thereby missing a chance to help, or worse exacerbating the situation.
I think LDS feminist blogs *thrive* on anonymous style bloggers and readers because within the church feminist thought tends to be a dirty little secret.
Did someone just accuse me of not having done important theological work?
Now there’s a shocker!
I was told yesterday that the mp3s from this symposium should be up on Monday. Several staffers are taking vacations now, and so they’re a bit short-handed for getting them up more quickly.
Lucy, Thank you so much for saying that. I really needed to hear it today.
fmhLisa, of COURSE you’ve done important theological work. You ARE my theology 😉 .
Eve you have extremely creative definitions of “important” and “theology”, and there’s nothing I admire more than that sort of creativity. Well, maybe I admire pastry chefs more, but we can’t all be pastry chefs, can we? But Right after pastry chefs, there’s you, Eve, my hero.
Seriously, though, I’ve like read at least ten-thousand comments you’ve written in the last few days and I’m thinking of starting a Eve fan club, because it’s pretty much inevitable that this fan club will happen, (I have a history of predicting these things) and i want to be president and founding member because everything you write is perfect. I want to own an Eve action figure that I can carry around in my pocket, and when I push the button on its back it will say things like “Surely feminism’s forms need not lust after the fleshpots (as it were!) of the mind-body problem”
Now that’s an action figure that can kick GI Joe’s little hiney.
fmhLisa, I can’t believe I’m right after pastry chefs in your world! I’m flushing all over! The Bouncer will be so jealous. He wants to be right after pastry chefs because he has a major crush on you, but he’s really shy about it, so don’t let on.
A little Eve action figure, pocket size (maybe with a sequined fig leaf and matching Adam forthcoming?). I fear that the Eve Action Figure (copyright FMHLisa 2006, all rights reserved, large red screen appears threatening that INTERPOL will kick your hiney and hard if you so much as put a toe on FMHLisa’s intellectual property!) might be recalled for a manufacturer’s defect. The first time you pull the little string in her back, she’s oh-so-polite. But the more you pull, the snarkier she gets! Also, her tongue cannot be pried from her cheek.
Tragically for all concerned, these defects may be uncorrectable. 😉
Just wanted to say that it was not my intention to take discussion away from here…just didn’t want to dump on your blog, that’s all (my comment was just way too long). I wasn’t really expecting the comments that came. So, FWIW, sorry. 🙂
M&M, not to worry. I think the discussion had drifted significantly from Lynnette’s original post–and in any case, there’s no reason to have it all here! We’re happy to share. 🙂
Actually, M&M, I think that nicely demonstrated the point I mentioned earlier about blog networks, and conversations taking place across blogs as well as within them. Which I think is a good thing!
The 2006 SLC sessions are now up at http://www.sunstoneonline.com. Click on “Play or Listen to mp3s, then you can search by session. In the list of 2006 sessions, the feminist blogging session was SL06131.