Ryan I Am

« Older Entries |

Politics

Breitbart fails

A rubbish article appeared on Breitbart this evening. I know, what else is new? But this is important to me as it concerns women in the Mormon Church. It’s a takedown of a BuzzFeed article about Ann Romney’s stay-at-home-momness. Surprisingly, it continually references BuzzFeed, as if BuzzFeed was the author. But actually, the article it references was written by McKay Coppins. I’ve followed Coppins’ writings for a while now. He’s a BYU grad and active Mormon, loves his faith, and in my view has always reported fairly and accurately. Usually you can find him explaining and defending the Church on Twitter.

However, this author, who hides under the initials “B.W.”, sets up the straw man argument that Coppins thinks the Church is oppressive (he states this four(!) times) and that women are unappreciated. (I’m just going to assume that the author is male, because it sounds as if it’s written by one.) On the other hand, the word ‘oppresive’ is only found once in Coppins’ article, where he writes that Benson’s quote ‘may seem antiquated or opporessive.’ You can be the judge of that:

I beg of you, you who could and should be bearing and rearing a family: Wives, come home from the typewriter, the laundry, the nursing, come home from the factory, the cafe. No career approaches in importance that of wife, homemaker, mother–cooking meals, washing dishes, making beds for one’s precious husband and children. Come home, wives, to your husbands. Make home a heaven for them. Come home, wives, to your children, born and unborn. Wrap the motherly cloak about you and, unembarrassed, help in a major role to create the bodies for the immortal souls who anxiously await.

And the only time Coppins uses the word ‘appreciated’ (‘unappreciated’ appears exactly zero times):

That’s because for many Latter-day Saint women, staying at home to raise children is less a lifestyle choice than religious one — a divinely-appreciated sacrifice that brings with it blessings, empowerment, and spiritual prestige.

Yet, this is B.W.’s main thesis!

I’d like to take on this idea that Mormon women are oppressed because they are expected to stay home with their children while fathers are expected to provide for the family.

The entire article is spent railing against Coppins BuzzFeed and his the extreme left-wing liberal media’s supposed beliefs (which Coppins never even stated), and defending the Church’s openness and understanding of the difficult choices women face, to the point of laughability. For example, B.W. applauds the Church’s flexibility with working women, quoting from the Proclamation on the Family that “Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.” By only naming two of the most extreme circumstances in the human condition, the Church hasn’t exactly opened the floodgates of understanding towards working mothers, at least by this reference.

Whoever this B.W. is read Coppins’ article with a chip on his shoulder. Which is understandable, considering the ridiculous, mean-spirited attacks on Mitt Romney made by liberal media types in recent weeks. Unfortunately, this causes him to fail to notice the giant gulf between the Church’s official statements on working women (which he correctly points out is allowed), and strong words that discourage it. If an official statement told you it’s okay to drive your car to work, but but a prophet strongly condemned it, wouldn’t you feel a bit of pressure to ride your bike, and perhaps a touch of guilt when you drove on a rainy day?

Until statements about working women by Kimball, Benson, and others stop being quoted, the Church’s conflicting statements will continue to cause working women, who do so by necessity or even out of choice, to feel pressure and guilt, and that’s really not fair.

It would be great if B.W. actually interviewed some working Mormon women, and explored issues such as budgetary needs and wants, the desire to stay at home vs. the desire to get out of the house (or just get away from the kids and interact with some adults), weighing possible options that could reduce the cost of living in order to stay at home, and how the women felt about what they were doing. Instead, Mr. B.W. sticks his head in the sand and seems to say, “This is a black and white issue.” (Was this the inspiration for his pseudonym?) “Any perceived conundrum working Mormon women face doesn’t exist. It is crystal clear that working Mormon women are loved and appreciated just as much as their stay-at-home counterparts, and nobody has conflicted feelings about it.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Just check out Feminist Mormon Housewives if you don’t believe me.

Ironically, it’s difficult to even understand B.W.’s own beliefs. Note his attempt to paint the Church as open and understanding of women’s choices:

Particularly note the need for individual adaptation, and the obligation for LDS mothers and fathers to help each other as equals. Contrary to what Buzzfeed and the rest of old media would like you to believe, Mormon women are not only not oppressed by being forced to stay home, they choose their paths individually just as everyone else does. Agency, or the freedom to choose and make decisions, is a highly valued gift from God in the minds of the members of the Church.

But then note how that directly contradicts the quote he uses from the Proclamation on the Family:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

The reality is much more complex than either of these statements. Not despite, but because of agency, there are consequences to every choice. It’s not always possible to live up to ideals, and everyone’s physical, mental, and financial circumstances are different.

So, how about we put it like this? Working moms are appreciated. Stay at home moms are appreciated. No woman should be judged by her decision to either stay at home, work, or do both. It is both parents’ responsibility to love, teach, and nurture their children, and it is nobody’s business but the couple’s on how chores are divided.

B.W. did get one thing right. He quoted a great message by Dieter F. Uchtdorf:

Our second key relationship is with our families. Since “no other success can compensate for failure” here, we must place high priority on our families. We build deep and loving family relationships by doing simple things together, like family dinner and family home evening and by just having fun together. In family relationships love is really spelled t-i-m-e, time. Taking time for each other is the key for harmony at home. We talk with, rather than about, each other. We learn from each other, and we appreciate our differences as well as our commonalities. We establish a divine bond with each other as we approach God together through family prayer, gospel study, and Sunday worship.

Breaking — Bankers Lie About Stuff

Thanks to Facebook, I can now know when fatcat bankers write blog posts, because there’s always a conservative friend to post it for me. No really, it’s a good thing. I don’t want to become narrow-minded. I welcome a diversity of opinions.

But only when their premises are based on, you know, facts. Not damn lies statistics that said banker pulled out of his nether regions.

The offending post is from no less than the New York Federal Reserve Bank. I’ve ripped apart Fed blog posts before (they’re ridiculously easy) as they’re always incredibly biased. Banks are, after all, stakeholders in our financial system. They’re no less biased about economic policy than labor unions are about minimum wage laws.

So, off our intrepid economists go, waxing mathematical about the Labor Force Participation Rate. Look how it has dropped so! Under Obama, it’s droped by almost 5%. But wait, that’s interesting. This is one of those odd “Percentage of change” charts, not an absolute percentage, and for some reason, 2006 was chosen as the zero baseline. Kind of odd that this moment in time, an economic bubble of gargantuan proportions, was chosen as the “normal” state, isn’t it?

But wait, there’s more from our creative team, one of which looks uncannily like Uncle Rico. Look at all those complex equations they have used to calculate the Labor Force Participation Rate. So is this a metric our smart fellows concocted? Actually, according to Wikipedia, it’s a common economic statistic, and apparently, it’s neither calculated nor measured they way they present it.

Shockingly, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics publishes data and charts for this very metric. Of course, they allow you to see the long-term trend, that the Labor Force Participation Rate has declined since 2009 by less than 2%. Thanks to Wikipedia, we know that this statistic doesn’t include the discouraged who have stopped looking for jobs. And due to the increased numbers of new jobs, we know that over the last few months, more and more people have entered the labor force to begin looking for jobs again. So it’s really not surprising to see this stay flat or even take a slight dip. In fact, it’s expected.

Instead, the New York Fed seems more interested in publishing its made-up propoganda about how bad things are under Obama. Because they would have nothing to gain from a Republican candidate that promises less regulation and less oversight over the financial industry, right?

A Change of Heart

In my last post, I came down pretty hard on the Occupy Wall Street movement. After watching them for a while and giving the issue some thought, I revoke my previous criticism. In general, I’m glad to hear the progressive call to action, even if it is muddied and confused. I don’t particularly identify with them, because I don’t feel that Wall Street is the right place to effect change, but I admire their spirit and tenacity.

I suppose I care more about the regulating agencies themselves than the corporations they regulate. I care more about policy and politics than protesting. But since reform is ultimately a common goal, I tentatively support them.

But in all honestly, I think we have more pressing issues. Such as the erosion of our civil rights, as exemplified by the 2012 NDAA.

Next Page »