Call me crazy, sexist, misogynist, or even the anti-feminist . . . but why are people still obsessed with President Julie Beck’s talk given some six weeks ago in General Conference? (Hat Tip Gary at NDBF). And, just what is it that they think they know? Well, this is what they claim:
Several ideas within the body of President Beck’s talk conflict with our inspiration and experience. We are authors of our own lives, and this is the story we know to be true . . .
The key phrase here is conflict with our inspiration and experience. Sound familiar? Yeah, I’d say so. Just a quick couple of thoughts–since this 15 minutes should long already have passed:
I think what troubles me most about this missive is its condescending tone to those of us who are so unenlightened as to think President Beck gave a fine talk, with many good points for both men and women in the Church. One small example:
Men are our fathers, sons, brothers, partners, lovers, and friends. Many of them also struggle within a system that equates leadership with hierarchy and domination. We distrust separate-but-equal rhetoric; anyone who is regularly reminded that she is “equally important” is probably not. Partnership is illusory without equal decision-making power.
A system equating leadership with hierarchy and domination? Oh please. I had no idea of the depth of my struggles with this “leadership/domination” thing until enlightened from what these women think they know.
Another:
Cleanliness depends upon access to resources and has more to do with priorities than purity of heart. We do not place the additional burden of “outward appearances” on our sisters who are hauling fuel and water long distances; who are struggling with poverty, isolation, or ill health; or who choose values that take precedence over orderly living quarters and polished looks.
This one is really a winner. Take a look at one of those “sisters” and her family outside the Ghana Temple on the day they were sealed for time and eternity:
Truly a picture is worth a thousand words. For those who are regulars here, you are well aware of the West Africa Ghana posts I have done. Feel free to scroll through them again, and take a look at the photos of those Ghana Saints. These are the people who actually haul water and fuel on a daily basis (usually on their heads). They don’t sit smugly in the comfortable confines of their Wasatch Front mansions pontificating on “outward appearaces” and the “struggle of poverty.” No. These are the Saints who actually live it day in and day out–and who clearly are not obsessed about that which has little or no import beyond their daily struggle just to live. Yet, somehow each and every photo of these Saints I have seen shows clean, well groomed, and very happy people.
Ok, enough. Final thought and additional memo to Peggy Fletcher Stack: I know this is one of your pet topics, but please–it just isn’t news, at least not important enough for continuing articles placing President Julie Beck in a negative light. Or, maybe that’s the point–I guess I’m just not in the “know.”
Messenger and Advocate 
November 21, 2007 at 9:38 am
That picture is an excellent rebuttal. I’m glad you had something to say on this.
The phrase “the soft bigotry of low expectations” comes to mind when reading that quote on not wanting to place additional burdens on their struggling sisters.
I suppose they mean well but, like you, I don’t understand the big controversy w/ Sister Beck’s talk. And what a self-serving way to respond.
November 21, 2007 at 10:29 am
One of the points that leaves me cold and wondering what WomenWhoKnow are really saying has to do with the “Men are our fathers …” paragraph you quote, as well as with the later paragraph listing some of the roles of women.
Those lists do not include the roles of “husbands” and “wives.” Why not? It hardly seems possible that it was a mere oversight. Why are they excluding those roles in favor of “partners” and “lovers,” neither of which carries the same legal/stable/permanent connotation of marriage?
November 21, 2007 at 10:33 am
Incidentally, I wrote to WomenWhoKnow to ask this question; the response was that my query was being forwarded to the FAQ committee.
November 21, 2007 at 10:35 am
Sorry for yet another comment — obviously I mean “WhatWomenKnow” rather than the way I wrote it above. My apologies to WWK for my error.
November 21, 2007 at 10:40 am
Ah yes, they are nicely colonized for our consumption! Finally, those “dirty” Africans are Westernized enough to partake of God’s love!
November 21, 2007 at 10:59 am
“neither of which carries the same legal/stable/permanent connotation of marriage?”
Ardis, surely you’re not implying that all these women are lesbians. Or that marriages are more stable and permanent than partnerships?
November 21, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Ardis, you didn’t get a longer response because there have been a couple of hundred emails just yesterday. Mostly people wanting to sign. Thos of us involved in drafting and posting it are also cleaning, cooking, working and/or traveling these last few days too. Basically, I think that the women who wrote the document feel that husband is covered in the term partner.
November 21, 2007 at 1:03 pm
6: Don’t put words in my mouth, Lunar. I’m not implying *anything* other than the supposition that it was an intentional omission, and I sincerely want to know the reasoning behind the omission. (Implying lesbianism would be ludicrous in the paragraph listing men’s roles, in any case.)
7: I’m not impatient for an answer, pjj, and in fact I suggested that my question, along with two others, might reasonably be considered as questions for the WWK FAQ. If “covered by ‘partner'” is going to be the group’s stated answer, that’s what I want to know (I would argue such a coverage is inadequate, because one may be a partner or lover without being a spouse). If there is some other reason, I’d like to know that, too.
November 21, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I don’t believe it at all.
November 21, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Guy,
…why are people still obsessed with President Julie Beck’s talk given some six weeks ago in General Conference?
I’m sorry, has the talk been withdrawn? Are you claiming that because it is six weeks old that it is no longer valid? Are there any other talks from October conference that we should forget about?
November 21, 2007 at 4:53 pm
David,
Yeah, I like that photo. And, like you, I don’t get the obsession of some with this talk. Oh well. Thanks for stopping by.
Ardis,
Good points. Of course, using terminology like the “roles” of “husbands” and “wives” is traditional terminology and is used in documents like the Proclamation. I don’t get the sense that these good sisters who are only looking out for our collective good are letting things slip through by mistake. I think their wording is probably carefully chosen. And, who would have thought that all these women who think they know would have a correlation committee that has to approve responses to questions. I’d be curious to hear what else they have to say to you.
Lunar,
I have no problem with the notion that “marriages” in a general sense are in fact more stable and permanent than partnerships.
TT, Yes. Very clever–does that make you feel better–cheap shots at the expense of some of the Ghana Saints?
arj, No, I don’t think the talk has been withdrawn. Do you? But, that certainly hasn’t reduced some folks obsession with it. This group and others like it are not so interested in remembering President Beck’s talk as they are in trashing it, belittling it, and making President Beck and those who support her look silly.
November 21, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Guy,
Thanks for yet another consideration of this trivial but interesting controversy. Would that aspiring Latter-day Saints paid such particular attention to _all the other_ conference talks as well. Perhaps if we read all of them so carefully, there would never be such obvious (or such willful) misunderstanding of such as Sister Beck’s clear and inspired counsel.
November 22, 2007 at 7:33 am
Guy, thanks for this post. You make great points! I agree with you and I have to say that I found the “manifesto” too condescending and overly politically correct. Sister Beck’s talk was wonderful and deserves more serious consideration. Along with all the other conference talks, as Jim Cobabe says. Ardis, thanks for your comments.
November 22, 2007 at 9:21 am
Guy,
I am not the one making the cheap shots at the expense of the Saints of Ghana. You’re the one attempting to use them as evidence for your anti-feminist, colonialist agenda, not me.
November 22, 2007 at 9:25 am
“overly politically correct”
The horror!
November 22, 2007 at 10:33 am
This talk was 6 weeks ago, why the chip in your shoulder about other LDS members still discussing the talk? So others disagree with you, how in the world does that affect your salvation? I’m sorry, but I thought this was a little tasteless.
November 23, 2007 at 7:46 am
Jim, I agree it is really trivial. Why they get so much press, should really be a mystery–unfortunately it’s not. As you point out, how fascinating the obsession with this one particular talk and their ignoring all the other talks at conference.
Hi Mary, Thanks for stopping by. It is incredibly condescending. But, then we anti-feminist colonialists just have to be taken by the hand and shown the truth by those so much more enlightened than we.
TT says:
Oh really? Is the WP (see here and here) also a rag tag group of anti-feminist (btw, I really like that term–though to this very day, I still don’t really know what a “feminist” is) colonialists? In case you haven’t figured it out, TT, these Saints–all over Africa, and the world–make their own choices to look and act the way they do. And, their lives are changed for the better. You just keep on thinking there TT–that’s what you’re good at.
Shepra, You know, I really respect your opinions a great deal–and we probably agree on more than we disagree–but, I’m afraid this is one on which we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’m sorry you think this post is tasteless. I don’t think it is nearly as tasteless as the anti-Beck amen corner crowd’s condescending diatribe.
I don’t have any problem with anyone discussing any general conference talk. Though, I think this probably rises to a level a bit more than “discussion.” And, I think it is certainly fair game for rebuttal comments.
November 25, 2007 at 12:22 pm
So my question is, why can’t people just ignore Beck’s talk instead of trying to actively attack it?
How many other conference talks have people already ignored?
In 20 years, Beck’s talk will be quoted time and again, while the WWK crowd will be a footnote that will have been forgotten, except on the Bloggernacle. In the meantime, no one who put their name on the WWK survey will have served in any significant leadership position.
November 25, 2007 at 4:23 pm
queuno:
Good question. In part, I believe there is a sub culture both in and out of the Church that is obsessed with criticizing and belittling the Church leadership and it’s doctrines and teachings, particularly when they do not agree with popular culture and custom. It goes hand in hand with Elder Maxwell’s observation a few years ago of those who leave the Church, but just can’t leave it alone:
Mostly all of them.
At least one, and probably more are not even members of the Church.
November 26, 2007 at 9:38 am
queuno,
I would guess that in the future Sister Beck’s talk will almost never be quoted in Conference. Especially the part about ironing.
November 27, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I too am amazed that this topic is so ‘hot’ right now. Especially as a woman that was turned off by the talk. I heard that nurturing equaled housework and I left the room.
I believe that the women who started this petition, and sign it are insecure.
A woman that is secure in who she is and the relationship she has with her Savior will not be up in arms over a talk by a General Relief Society President. She’ll realize that those words do not apply to her and move on with her life. A woman who is secure in who she is will not lead the life her peers lay out for her, is not subject to criticism, but continues to lead the life she chooses to lead, with confidence.
I am lucky enough to know many such women, and it looks like the world could use quite a few more.
December 14, 2007 at 11:20 am
Guy, here’s where I’m coming from. I’m more or less critiquing the style, but not the message. You can’t fight anger with anger, although its understandable to feel angry. Its not a big deal though. I was wrong in not explaining myself, but well, I’m a very analytical person and the emotional tone of your post was a big turn-off.
As far as the talk goes, I was turned off by it also. As someone who is analytical, this talk was hard to swallow. I’m glad there’s people who enjoyed it though and got something out of it.
That being said, these women who you reference, well I disagree with their actions, I disagree with their fanaticism in their cause, and well, they should give it a rest.
Here’s the deal, its hard to be tolerant towards someone who isn’t tolerant towards you. I see where you’re coming from though.