LGBTQ and LDS - A Guest Post from the Archives

This is a guest post by David. We originally posted it last year, but with recent movies like the "It Gets Better at BYU" video, it seemed like a good time to review David's perspective.

President Uchtdorf's CES Fireside entitled "The Reflection in the Water" focused on how we often feel that we don't fit in. And that "too many go about their lives thinking they are of little worth when, in reality, they are elegant and eternal creatures of infinite value with potential beyond imagination." He used the story of the Ugly Duckling to express that "There will always be voices telling you that you are foolish to believe that you are swans, insisting you are but ugly ducklings and that you can’t expect to become anything else. But you know better. ... You are glorious and eternal. ... It is my prayer and blessing that when you look at your reflection, you will be able to see beyond imperfections and self-doubts and recognize who you truly are: glorious sons and daughters of the Almighty God. 

I draw strength from this talk because as an active, temple recommend holding member who is unashamedly and openly gay I all too often look around at church feel very much unlike the swans around me. like the ugly duckling, I don't fit, but unlike the story of the ugly duckling I am given a chance of acceptance if I make severe changes to who I am. The current advice of the Brethren is for LGBT members to be celibate. (see "God Loveth His Children"). Please take a moment to suspend your current views on homosexuality and ask yourself, doesn't this seem counter to everything we were taught growing up?

First off, this life is preparatory for the next, it is here that we learn the basics of relationships, of being parents, of raising a family, etc. David O. McKay famously stated that "No other success can compensate for failure in the home" so what earthly successes can compensate for the failure of even having a home? How is remaining celibate a success at all when, by nature it is destroying any earthly possibility for having a home? Second, how many times have the words of Lincoln been repeated in our youth? "Whatever you are, be a good one." Or the story of the ugly duckling telling us to realize our full potential and then reach for it? In my family it was Emerson's "Hitch your wagon to the stars" that provided the inspiration to reach beyond our mortal potential.

If God made me gay who am I to change his design? If he doesn't desire me to be gay then He will, in his infinite atonement change me to be straight per his original design. Are we not instructed to look at our weaknesses, humble ourselves and let God turn them into strengths? Asking LGBT members to change themselves is just as ridiculous as asking the deaf to spend time trying again and again to hear. Like the deaf who find ways to live brilliant non-hearing lives, shouldn't we encourage LGBT members to do the same?

There are LGBT members of the Church who are border-line suicidal because each week, each day, each hour, they hear that they are an abomination either from others or they repeat the words inside their heads. I know I once tried to take my own life. As such I have seen how staggering the death-toll is, but even for those who survive, our actions are leaving these LGBT members handicapped just as if they were left-handed and we forced them to write only with their right-hand. To put this into sharper relief, Da Vinci was left-handed. Imagine how much we would have lost if he had been forced to go against his natural tendency to use his left hand. Would we have the art and science that fueled the renaissance? Without the renaissance we would likely be 200 years behind in the pursuit of religious freedom and the fulness of the gospel would most likely still be withheld.

Do we doubt God's power to perform miracles? Is our faith insufficient that we feel the need to do it all ourselves? I would hope not, and yet we persist in trying to force a singular view of sexuality onto all people when, if it be God's will He will change it. In the meantime wouldn't my life be a waste to wander in the cold alone like the Ugly Duckling barely surviving instead? Should I not embrace my sexuality as a healthy part of who I am looking at myself and acting well my part?

Guest Post: Sofia Coppola's "Marie Antoinette" Surprisingly Feminist

This guest post, written by Megan "The Opinioness" Kearns, comes to us from Bitch Flicks and was posted on the site on 27 March 2012. The article appears here with permission from the author.

Kirsten Dunst in Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette

Many chastised Sofia Coppola’s re-imagining of Marie Antoinette. Some critics complained about the addition of modern music while others thought it looked too slick, like an MTV music video (remember those??). But I think most people missed the point. Beyond the confectionary colors, gorgeous shots of lavish costumes and a teen queen munching on decadent treats and sipping champagne is a compelling and heartbreaking film that transcends eye candy. Underneath the exquisite atmosphere exists a very powerful and feminist commentary on gender and women.

Marie Antoinette chronicles the life of Austrian-born Maria Antonia Josephina Joanna (Kirsten Dunst) as she becomes the Dauphine and then Queen of France leading up to the French Revolution. Writer and director Sofia Coppola loosely based the film on Antonia Fraser’s sympathetic biography of the French queen. Coppola injected the dialogue with actual quotes from the queen’s life. Dunst skillfully exhibits the queen’s naïveté, loneliness and charisma. In an outstanding and underrated performance, she adeptly captures the jubilance of a young woman who desperately desires freedom as well as a woman burdened with the knowledge that her only value lies in her ability to bear children.

In the beginning of the film, we see Marie Antoinette travel from her homeland of Austria to France as her mother has arranged for her to be married to the Dauphin, Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman) in order to unite the two antagonistic kingdoms of Austria and France. In a heartbreaking scene, Judy Dench tells Marie Antoinette she must leave everything she knows behind to make room for her new French identity, including abandoning her adorbs dog Mops. No, not her dog! That scene seriously broke my heart reducing me to tears. Marie Antoinette is upset yet she swallows her pain and obeys. She enters a tent placed on the two countries’ borders, entering on Austrian soil and exiting on French land. In the tent, she must strip off all of her clothes in order to don her new French garb – a symbol of her having to strip away her identity.

Once Marie Antoinette marries Louis XVI, we see Versailles' ridiculous and over the top traditions again and again. Every morning, an entourage of servants and royalty awakens Marie Antoinette, dressing her in garments with outlandish pomp and ceremony.

As she navigates royal society's mores, we witness Marie Antoinette’s close friendships with the free spirited Duchesse de Polignac (Rose Byrne) and the reserved Princesse de Lamballe (Mary Nighy). When she is told she should choose more appropriate friends, particularly ditching Duchesse de Polignac, Marie Antoinette defends her friend saying she enjoys her fun spirit. Yes, there are moments when Marie Antoinette indulges in vapid, decadent luxuries. But people forget she’s a teenager. Um, that’s what they do! To take her mind off the constant societal pressure, she distracts herself by gambling, singing in plays and shopping. She’s so confined by societal expectations; she’s exploring her identity and experimenting as much as she can.

Marie Antoinette’s mother, the Austrian duchess Maria Theresa warns her, “All eyes will be on you.” After their wedding night, it’s clear that Louis XVI has no sexual interest in his bride. Through her constant letters, Maria Theresa perpetually reminds her daughter that “nothing is certain” about her place until she gives birth to a son. Even after Louis XVI is crowned king and Marie Antoinette becomes queen, her place is still not entirely secure until she has a son. After her sister-in-law gives birth to a son, Marie-Antoinette feels even more pressure to have a child. Her mother condemns her for not being charming enough or patient enough to entice her husband. As Marie Antoinette reads her mother's letter, the stinging words wound her, we see and feel her solitary pain.

Women were reduced to their vaginas, only valued if they got pregnant so they could produce an heir. No one bothers Louis XVI about this, even though he’s the one who doesn’t want to have sex. Nope, just the woman; of course she’s to blame. Eventually after 7 years with no children, Marie Antoinette's brother, the Holy Roman Emperor, talks to him. But Marie Antoinette is repeatedly blamed for not becoming pregnant. Clearly her body and reproduction are her only salient attributes in the eyes of society.

Throughout the film, we’re reminded that women aren’t desirable, lesser than men. When her first child a daughter is born, Marie Antoinette says to her:

“Oh, you were not what was desired, but that makes you no less dear to me. A boy would have been the Son of France, but you, Marie Thérèse, shall be mine.”

In a world where nothing, not even her own body truly belongs to her, it's touching to see Marie Antoinette, a devoted mother, take such joy in her relationship with her daughter.

Throughout history, people erroneously vilified Marie Antoinette, attributing her with more political influence than she actually possessed. And of course she was demonized after she supposedly told starving peasants, "Let them eat cake.” As civil unrest grows inching ever closer to revolution, the film's Marie Antoinette says she would never say such a thing. Because of her Austrian heritage and I would also argue her gender, Marie Antoinette was repeatedly used as a scapegoat for France’s financial woes and the public’s strife.

The film divided audiences. At the Cannes Film Festival, critics notoriously booed yet it also received a standing ovation. Some critics dismissed it, saying it was nothing more than a pop video or that “all we learn about Marie Antoinette is her love for Laduree macaroons and Manolo Blahnik shoes.” Sofia Coppola, who consciously chose to omit politics from the film, fully acknowledged Marie Antoinette was not a typical historical biopic:

“It is not a lesson of history, it’s an interpretation carried by my desire for covering the subject differently.

Would people still complain and moan if a dude was at the center of the film or a dude had directed this?? Nope, I think not. Does anyone else remember that Mozart acts like an immature douchebag in the critically acclaimed Amadeus??

But some delved deeper, understanding its rare beauty. Critic Roger Ebert praised Marie Antoinette astutely pointing out:

“This is Sofia Coppola's third film centering on the loneliness of being female and surrounded by a world that knows how to use you but not how to value and understand you.”

Told almost entirely from the Queen’s perspective, we see the world through Marie Antoinette's eyes. Her loneliness and the pressure she faces to be everything to everyone is palpable.

With its commentaries on gender, women’s agency, reproduction and female friendships, Marie Antoinette is surprisingly deeper and more feminist than many realize. Sofia Coppola created a lush and sumptuous indulgence for the eyes. More importantly, by humanizing the doomed queen and adding modern touches, Coppola reminds us of the gender constraints women throughout history and today continually endure.

Guest Post: CEDAW, Women's Rights, and the United States

In honour of International Women's Day (and, this year, coinciding with Holi and Purim), we bring you a guest post from the lovely Danielle Price. This article originally appeared in Go Girl Magazine.

I am fortunate to be taking an online course on monitoring women’s human rights around the world through the Human Rights Education Association. As with any globally-oriented class having students from more than 20 different countries, we are asked to analyze and reflect upon our own country’s commitment to the subject at hand. In this case we are looking at women’s human rights, a relatively new classification in the 60 year history of universal human rights.

Charlotte Bunch and Samantha Frost have written an accessible introduction about women’s human rights, stating that:

“The concept of women’s human rights owes its success and the proliferation of its use to the fact that it is simultaneously prosaic and revolutionary. On the one hand, the idea of women’s human rights makes common sense. It declares, quite simply, that as human beings women have human rights. Anyone would find her or himself hard-pressed to publicly make and defend the contrary argument that women are not human. On the other hand, ‘women’s human rights’ is a revolutionary notion. This radical reclamation of humanity and the corollary insistence that women’s rights are human rights have profound transformative potential. The incorporation of women’s perspectives and lives into human rights standards and practice forces recognition of the dismal failure of countries worldwide to accord women the human dignity and respect that they deserve-simply as human beings.”

One of the most important ways countries can demonstrate commitment to women’s human rights is to sign and ratifyCEDAW: the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. CEDAW defines discrimination as “…any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.” With the help of the United States, this document was drafted and finalized in 1981. Under President Jimmy Carter’s administration CEDAW was signed, the first step in demonstrating the US’s moral commitment and healthy intention towards ratification (making this document legally binding).

One of many forms of Violence Against Women: Acid Burning. Photo: Danielle Prince

Except that ratification never happened. Many CEDAW supporters see the religious right as having had substantial influence on subsequent presidential administrations’ abstinence from ratification. Notably, late Senator Jesse Helms thought CEDAW was “negotiated by radical feminists with the intent of enshrining their radical anti-family agenda into international law.”

Recently the United States, thanks to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (who has been a champion of women’s human rights since the International Women’s Conference in Beijing 1995), has made progressive steps towards integrating the perspectives and voices of women and girls and making women’s rights a priority. In 2009, she stated in her confirmation hearing that “The United States must be an unequivocal and unwavering voice in support of women’s rights in every country on every continent.”

Ms. Clinton has been a positive and heroic force for the empowerment of women and girls around the world and has influenced the Obama administration to follow suit. Once President Obama took office he rescinded the Global Gag rule and reinstated funding for the UN Population Fund (both defunded during George Bush’s 8 year tenure because they funded family planning which could potentially include abortion). Mr. Obama also created the first ever office of Global Women’s Issues in the State Department.

South Sudanese girls hard at work, potentially missing school to collect firewood for the day's meal. Photo: Danielle Prince

Yet, of the 187 countries to ratify CEDAW the United States is the only democratic country which has not. We keep company with the following nations: Iran, Palau, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia and Tonga.

I am not going to argue that women in the United States are in a similar position to women in the above-mentioned countries; we are fortunate to have more rights and freedoms than many places around the world. However, I will point out that the United States stands at a familiar crossroads when it comes to women’s human rights, namely, that of hypocrisy.

Not ratifying CEDAW aligns with the US’s non-committal stances on other critical international issues such as global warming and torture – we did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol and grant ourselves impunity from the Geneva Convention regarding treatment of al Qaeda and the Taliban. While the United States frequently likes to be heralded as an example and leader for other countries to emulate in terms of democracy, freedom and championing of human rights, we need to re-examine our international commitments, such as CEDAW, if we want to be a true example to other nations by taking a stand to protect vulnerable populations.

We cannot hold other countries accountable to standards we do not adhere to ourselves.

Guest Post: Child Brides and Toddlers and Tiaras: a reflection

This article, written by Danielle, originally appeared here at GoGirl Magazine in January 2012 and is re-posted with her permission.

Just having finished the book I Am Nujood, Age 10 and Divorced & a recent National Geographic article on child brides (Too Young to Wed, June 2011), I feel compelled to explore the ramifications both within the countries perpetuating child marriage , as well as take a closer look at our own practices here in the United States of ‘growing up’ our girls.

In over 20 countries around the world from Afghanistan to Yemen, girls, often considered property, are married off without their consent at the excruciatingly young ages of 8,9,10 years old to men frequently decades older. According to the International Center for Research on Women, 25,000 girls are estimated to marry every day. That is a staggering statistic. The projection is that 100 million girls will be married off in the next decade. This practice not only hurts the girls themselves, but hampers the whole country’s development by keeping half of the population uneducated and focused on the hearth and home (included is the religiously-justified marriage of young girls in the US and Canada by the likes of Warren Jeffs).

Nujood, now 14, is an incredibly brave young woman. Married to a man three times her age, he raped and beat her every day. This is when, she said, she learned the definition of cruelty. Her escape is one of the most heroic acts I’ve heard of and her courage earned her the first divorce ever in the country of Yemen for a child bride. She has set an example to other girls married off in the same fashion; so far two more girls, ages 9 and 12, have successfully sought divorces from men that deprived them of unrecoverable innocence.

As with so many acts of VAW, poverty, custom, and lack of education are pillars upholding the convention of child brides. Both tradition and culture justify this patriarchal and soul-robbing practice, but marrying child brides also holds monetary value. Young girls are used to pay back loans, right family wrongs, preserve family honor, and bring in cash or commodity that carries economic benefit. As child marriage is receiving more attention, governments are slowly changing laws to accommodate a more moderate version of marital ‘readiness.’ Indeed, Nujood’s case influenced her own government’s take on marriage, moving the official age to 17 for both girls and boys in 2009. NGO’s and women’s organizations are working in local capacities to identify other ways to make ends meet and keep girls in school longer, thereby postponing marriage.

While my rancour is initially directed to the practice of marrying off young girls, I reserve a good portion of it for messages, often seen as benign, aimed at girls in the US. The show Toddlers and Tiaras reveals to anyone with cable that we continue to value girls, toddlers in fact, for their looks and their entertainment value. These little girls are dressed up in suggestive outfits, wear make-up, sport painted nails, fake eyelashes, spray tans and incredible ‘up’ dos. It is the essence of making tiny girls look and act grown up, channelling them into the stereotypes women’s rights activists have been working so long to redefine.

Source: Amelia Alisoun Blog

This show highlights a struggle (one of many) in the US: perpetuation of gender stereotyping at an age when girls should be able to express interest in many other activities beyond those traditionally “feminine”. An unfortunate consequence, Toddlers and Tiaras provides an example of yet another type of pageant for girls to follow, focusing on shallow hallmarks of traditional femininity. Unremarkably, it appears as if the mothers of these little girls are the ones most eager to perpetuate the gender stereotype that girls should be pretty and perform for others. While incomparable to the practice of child brides, this show lauds a perverse form of sexism for entertainment.

Newest Miss Representation Trailer (2011 Sundance Film Festival Official Selection) from Miss Representation on Vimeo.

Girls in the US are pummeled by mainstream media to grow up quickly. From Disney films that embody gender stereotypes and roles (think Beauty and the Beast), to the shows Bad Girls and Real Housewives, which maintain that women are bitchy, self-absorbed, back-stabbing, one-uppers, girls need to purposefully seek out role models who profess a range of qualities, intelligence and talents apart from what is routinely offered. I hear from friends and family who have girls of Nijood’s age express with frustration that “they are 10 going on 18,” implying that they already are reflecting mainstream needs for the beauty and glam of mainstream women. Our media culture, constructed in bulk by men (men own all the media conglomerations), is a key factor for girls wanting to pursue womanhood as narrowly defined by sexism in order to feel valued.

This is tragic.

And begs a bigger conversation around culture and women’s and girls’ rights. A couple of suggested websites to visit are:Gender Across Borders and Miss Representation. The latter, a documentary everyone should see, is coming to SIFF at Seattle at the end of the month.

From Laurel House: A guest post on the impact of Farrah Fawcett

NB: This post comes to us from the blogs of Laurel House, a non-profit domestic abuse organization in southeastern Pennsylvania where Erica spent a year doing counseling with survivors of domestic abuse.

With the passing of Farrah Fawcett yesterday, it's easy to remember her for the 70s icon that she undoubtedly was. But it is her later work, first in the play Extremities and the 1984 groundbreaking movie The Burning Bed that is significant.

Her portrayals of women affected by violence and domestic abuse allowed others to become educated and aware of the signs of domestic violence.

This was in a time when domestic violence was talked about in a whisper, if at all. The Burning Bed was a controversial movie for the heavy issues contained within.

It was a role that many other actresses might not have felt brave enough to take on, but which Farrah did. And by making a contribution to erase the stigma of rape and domestic abuse, she became a champion for women whose voices were silent. Finally, they were beginning to be heard.

They were heard on the hotlines, and The Burning Bed was reportedly the first such movie to include a toll-free domestic violence hotline at the closing credits, that of the National Domestic Violence Hotline, which continues to be available for people in crisis at 800-799-SAFE. Farrah later became a board member of NDVH, and identified with the issue of domestic abuse.

There's no way to measure how many women Farrah touched by her portrayal of a battered wife. But if she saved only one life, or inspired only one woman to seek help and find her way out, then Farrah becomes more iconic in a way that deserves our remembrance, honor and gratitude.