The Croods: Surprisingly and Refreshingly Feminist-Friendly (Guest Post)

This review is a guest post by Bailie.

The Croods is DreamWorks Animation’s latest film, released March 22, 2013. It follows the story of cavegirl Eep and her family, the Croods, who find themselves without a home and wandering through new and colourful lands while on the run from geological events that promise the end of their world. The film is charming on multiple levels, and adults and children alike will really enjoy this film’s quirky humor, family values, and stunning visuals. However, what is really interesting about this movie are its feminist messages.

Brave (Disney-Pixar), another cgi kid-flick with a female protagonist, got a great deal of media attention for its feminist messages, both positive and negative. Its decision to have a Princess that didn’t have a romantic interest was the one that garnered the most attention, but it also stood out against other Disney films by having the mother play a large part. The feminist messages for Brave are very predictable. She’s tough, she’s capable, she must battle the patriarchy and prove herself worthy! Now, she spends most the film being a real tomboy, rebelling against femininity, but in the end can see that her mother, even with her embrace of all things girly, is still a force to be reckoned with. This is actually quite good, as many people trying to appeal to feminists often force the character away from ‘girly’ things, essentially turning the characters into men, or belittling the ones who are happily performing their traditional gender roles. In this respect, Brave does very well, but it falls behind on the male characters. They’re really only there to provide conflict and humor.

Now The Croods is deceptively similar to Brave. It’s about a willful teen girl who wants more from life than her parents offer her, and the end moral of the story is to love, look after, and respect your family. Comparing the two, it looks like Merida has a lot on Eep when it comes to pro-feminist messages. Eep spends a good portion of the film fawning over a guy, while Merida don’t need no man -snap snap-. Merida hates having to wear the latest fashions; Eep screams in delight at the discovery of shoes. But while Brave shoves its messages down your throat, The Croods is more subtle.

Eep is tough as nails. She’s from a family of cavemen, it’s in the genes. But even considering that, she’s tougher than usual. She’s capable, solid, and generally reliable, unless her curiosity for the world around her overpowers her. Her Dad is big tough guy who uses his considerable strength to literally carry his family, protecting them with everything he’s got, but while he’s got the claim on being biggest and baddest, he bows to his wife. But she’s not the type to browbeat or nag, she respects and supports him as he does her, and their relationship is one of give and take, and equality. Gran and baby Sandy hold their own as well as the rest of the family, and it’s never assumed they are incapable of anything. The only other male in the family, Thunk, isn’t pushed to the sidelines - he’s right up front with the rest of the gang, and even though he comes off as slightly weaker, with more nervousness and less brains than his sister, it’s not really a downplay of his character, or a boosting of hers; rather, he is an example of what Eep would be like if she had taken their father’s messages of doom and destruction to heart. Thunk is not an idiot, he’s just very trusting, and throughout the film he loses a lot of his timidness entirely by his own efforts.

The biggest test for this film was the introduction of Guy, a teen male from outside the family who has evolved a bit more than the Croods. Eep and Guy’s interactions are beautifully thought out, and refreshing. So often in films we see the same formula; Mr Tough and Dumb falls for Ms Smart and Pretty, or Ms Gorgeous Idiot falls for Mr Weak but Brainy. We oh so often see the beautiful women fall in love with the unattractive man, but the opposite is very rare. And if we do, then it’s either played for a laugh, or she goes through some sort of amazing makeover where she’s suddenly super attractive. The Croods is different because Eek is an incredibly physically tough lady who does not possess generically ‘pretty’ features, with her beefy arms, non-existent forehead, and frizzy hair, and she falls in love and actively pursues a boy who is generically attractive, and super smart to boot. Her methods of getting his attention are played for laughs, but not her attraction, and more importantly, neither is his returned attraction. The best part is that neither of them change. Eep doesn’t get a makeover, and Guy doesn’t become manly and muscular. They love each other because of who they are, no makeover montage necessary.

The genius of this movie in regards to its feminist messages comes down to this: Eep is not a "strong female character." She’s just a good protagonist. If you can swap the genders of the main characters and not have anything taken away from the story and love everyone just as much, then you’ve got a winner. Eep just happens to be female, and unlike in Brave, it’s never even thought of or brought up as a flaw. She’s not allowed to hunt for while, not because she’s a girl, but because she’s grounded, which is a huge thing, because it implies that it’s something that she enjoys, and she’s not thought of as weird or wrong for that enjoyment. But neither is she weird for being flirty and giggly. She also eats with a ferocious gusto, very unlike Guy, who nibbles daintily at his food, and in that instance, it’s Guy you laugh at, not Eep.

So not only is this one of the funniest and most entertaining movies you’ll see this year - it’s also one of the best for breaking down gender stereotyping, and hopefully it will get the respect and praise it deserves. 

Bailie is a part-time student, part-time graphic designer, and full-time feminist. She spends any free time either at the cinema or home catching up on tv shows.

Rape Culture Among Feminists

Recently the term "rape culture" has made its rounds in popular culture, with many reporters and bloggers complaining about the victim-blaming, perpetrator-excusing behavior of major news networks. But rape culture is more pervasive than most of us want to admit. (Note: I'm about to go on a rant. Feel free to skip to the paragraph that starts "last night").

Because reporters aren't the only ones who tend to side with the perpetrators. After all, as many trauma theorists have pointed out, victims ask a whole lot more than perpetrators do. Victims ask us to listen to their accounts, to believe what they're saying is true, to stop it from happening, to protect them, and even to take responsibility for any part we played in their abuse, as complicit bystanders. At least, that's what victims would be asking if rape culture didn't shame them into silence.

What do perpetrators ask us to do? Nothing. That's right, nothing. They don't have to ask us for anything, because they already have power over their victims. And as long as we do nothing, they can keep victimizing people, and we can continue living our lives as viewed through rose-tinted glasses. We can continue believing that the only real perpetrators out there are people who look spooky and scary and whom we would never befriend. And when a victim or survivor tells us that they were abused by someone we know and like, we can assume they were lying, but then go turn on the news and pat ourselves on the back for getting angry at the true rapists out there, who fit our narrow definition.

I'm used to rape culture. I see it all the time in friends, family, and associates. I see it when people assume men can't be raped, or when a group of male scholars performs exhaustive research to determine what factors make women most likely to become victims of sexual assault and presents it as a checklist on how women can avoid being raped. And then the presenter is surprised by my frustration.

But I'm not used to seeing it among other feminists. Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention before now.

My preamble has gone on a bit long, I know, so I'll get to the story that has me so upset.

Last night, a member of a feminist group I belong to on facebook posted an article about a 17-year-old woman who came forward and testified that a former teacher and coach had been sexually assaulting her for the past couple years. The perpetrator is now 33, but the woman was just 14 when the then-30-year-old man first began courting her, so to say.

When she was 15 he kissed her, and by the victim's own account, she felt helpless after that day and felt incapable of saying no when he pressured her to have sex with him, as he suggested he would withdraw his love otherwise, and as he told her that she would be worthless and have no future if she ended things. Apparently learning that an LDS woman would now be eligible to serve a mission at the age of 19 (formerly 21) gave the victim a reason to hope and the courage to seek aid.

Fortunately, those she turned to actually believed her, and a judge agreed to bring the case to trial.

And yet, horrifying to me, at least half of the responses from members of this feminist group where the link was shared responded by questioning the victim's accountability in the situation and questioning whether she was a victim at all. Because it is a closed group, it would be unethical for me to share names or exact words, but here's a summary of the arguments that were made:

- Some 17-year-old women want to have sex, so she probably did; the only difference is she had sex with an adult, not a teenager.
- The fact that she ended things now shows she always had the power to end it, so she can't be a victim.
- She may have committed sexual sins that she'll need to repent of, so she's probably accountable for at least some of what happened.
- It sounds like she consented at the time, but now she's regretting it.

Bull. Shit.

When I responded that these statements were forms of victim-blaming and that I expected better on a feminist group, one person responded that she was merely being technical, while I was responding emotionally.

So, let me explain, in technical detail, why this is sexual assault.

1. A minor cannot legally consent to sex with a 33-year-old man. Sexual assault is not merely the presence of a "no," but the absence of consent.

2. Statutory rape is rape-rape, no matter what Whoopi thinks to the contrary.

3. This relationship went on for three years. That means a then-30-year-old man initiated a personal, emotionally intimate relationship with a 14-year-old girl. And took advantage of it a year later, when he first kissed her and began making sexual advances on a 15-year-old.

4. Courting a person in preparation for sexually assaulting them is known as grooming a victim. It is also a crime, and it makes it that much harder for a victim to leave or resist.

5. The now-17-year-old survivor of this abuse identifies it as sexual assault and describes how her perpetrator groomed, assaulted, manipulated, and threatened her. She identifies it as abuse. She says she did not consent. Based on her testimony and whatever evidence her lawyer presented, a judge saw at least enough evidence to take the case to trial.


And so, all my feminist friends out there, we need to be on our guard against rape culture from within. That's how prevalent rape culture really is.

Is a Terrorist Evil?

With Friday's arrest of one suspected marathon bomber and the death of the other, his older brother, I think anyone with connections to Boston is feeling some strong emotions. As a native New Englander, I'm feeling about as strongly as anyone outside of the Boston region. I have friends in the city, one of whom was two blocks away at the time of the explosion, and just a month ago I was in Boston for a conference. I road a bus past the site where the explosions went off several times while I was there. To New Englanders, Boston is our home city, the only real city in all of New England.

So the attacks literally hit close to home.

So I understand why my fellow Americans are angry at the arrested suspect - and I will refer to him as a suspect out of my respect for the US court system which considers a person innocent until proven guilty in court, though it's hard to imagine any reasonable doubt as to his guilt, after the shooting spree in which he and his brother killed one police officer and wounded another. And like my fellow Americans, I'm relieved to simply have a face and a name to hold responsible for the tragedy in Boston. During the first few days following the attack, when there didn't seem to be any clear leads, I felt just as overwhelmed and lost. I knew there would be evidence and that the FBI would track down the guilty parties, but until they did, the violent act felt all the more frightening because of the mystery.

But amidst all the relieved reactions to Tsarnaev's arrest, I'm seeing a troubling trend. Sure, most people I know are hoping for justice in court and are recognizing that the younger brother is an American citizen, unlike his deceased older brother. But even among those I respect and love and care about, a few make a quick and angry move to label Tsarnaev as "evil."

But is Tsarnaev evil?

Is this 19-year-old man evil?

I don't want to fall into the mistake that reporters did when they covered the Steubenville case, so I won't bemoan the opportunities these two men gave up in their own lives or complain if Tsarnaev is convicted, rather than considering the long-term impact on victims and survivors of the attacks in which he participated.

But is he evil?

I doubt it. I sincerely doubt that this young man is pure evil. I even doubt that his older brother, who was by all reports the likely instigator here, was evil. What they did was wrong, heinous, and tragic, but here's why we can't label these two men as evil:

When we label individuals or groups as evil, we cease to see them as people. If you ascribe to a faith like mine, we forget that they are children of God with divine potential. Driven by revenge, we suddenly want to see them suffer for their crimes, and who can blame us for making them suffer if they're evil?

So, does Tsarnaev deserve to suffer?

 Perhaps. But I'll tell you the kind of suffering I want him to experience - I want him to some day look in his God's face and watch as his God weeps in sorrow and disappointment over his actions from this week. I want him to recognize that what he did was truly wrong and horrendous and that the forces he believes supported those actions in fact condemn those actions. Because Tsarnaev is still a human. And both Tsarnaevs probably believed they had excellent reasons for doing what they did. .

Perhaps these brothers even believed they were avenging a specific act of violence perpetrated by the US government against people they loved and cared about. Even as a US citizen, perhaps Tsarnaev wanted other Americans to suffer as those he cared about had suffered. Perhaps he believed we were evil. That his victims deserved to feel pain.

Just try something with me for a second. I want you to think of the most pain you have ever experienced. If that's too strong of a trigger for you, then by all means don't! But if you can, think back to a time after a surgery, or in childbirth, or when you broke your leg as a kid. Think about that pain and how you felt at the time - that's what pain feels like to everyone.

That's what pain feels like to a murderer.

That's what pain feels like to a rapist.

That's what pain feels like to anyone, no matter the terrible things they've done.

It doesn't feel like justice. It doesn't correct them or fix them. And I can guarantee you it does not convince others who associate with the same terrorist organizations to not commit similar crimes. If anything, it's going to persuade the remaining members of that organization that the people they're waging war against are as evil - as un-human - as they believed when they planned the first attack.

So yes, press for legal justice against Tsarnaev. But not on the basis that he deserves to suffer. He might deserve that, but it won't do any good to anyone. The reason he needs to be in prison and needs to be tried is because if he truly is guilty (as he very well seems to be) he cannot be on the streets. He cannot be trusted, ever again for the rest of his life, to be free. He is a fellow human, a fellow American, who has surrendered that right.

Preventing Rape, Bipartisan Support for Immigration Reform and Same-sex Marriage, Jezebel's Flick-off to the Pope, and Twilight Feminism? Emily's Spring Break Catch-up

Well, it's been a month again, so let's play some Spring Break catch-up. Here's a list of interesting links:

First up, Stephanie Meyer has caused some waves by identifying herself as a feminist in a recent article on The Guardian. Says Meyers: 

"I think there are many feminists who would say that I am not a feminist. But, to me ... I love women, I have a lot of girlfriends, I admire them, they make so much more sense to me than men, and I feel like the world is a better place when women are in charge. So that kind of by default makes me a feminist. I love working in a female world." 

Can't say I'm a fan of any version of feminism that's defined by thinking "girlfriends... make so much more sense to me than men" and where Bella is the version of a woman "in charge" (whose boyfriend completely controls her...). But hey, maybe Ms. Meyer will have a change of heart in how she views relationships and eventually come to see why Edward's behavior is disconcerting. Dare I hope for a feminist-friendly rewrite 20 years from now? You know it would sell...

Next up, Utah has been surprising in the news recently, with support for same-sex marriage coming from an amicus brief that was authored in Utah and which includes support from 25 advocacy groups that are located in red states. The article I've linked is Joanna Brooks's coverage - Brooks is a Mormon who actively opposed Prop 8, despite general Mormon support for the proposition. Personally, I'm still relieved that as a Mormon who has never lived in California I was never asked to support the proposition, so I don't pass judgment either way on Mormons who did or didn't support prop 8. In a similar vein, Jon Huntsman recently offered his support for same-sex marriage and argued that it's actually a conservative cause to include same-sex couples in government-recognized marriage. 

Meanwhile, Obama has praised Utah's immigration reform and is pointing to the firmly-red-state's progressive stance as evidence that Americans can hope for bipartisan work in producing much-needed immigration reform. To quote a Salt Lake Tribune article on the topic, 

"A bipartisan group of civic and religious leaders, including two former governors, drafted the Utah Compact in 2010 in reaction to a wave of state-based attempts to crack down on illegal immigration.

"It comprises five principles, including that the issue must be dealt with in Congress and that the community should use a "humane approach" toward immigrants, legal or illegal, and strive to keep families together."

With the Catholic Church's recent change in leadership, Lindy west at Jezebel has published a controversial article entitled "F*** the Pope" (I'm censoring in case any of our more conservative readers have kids near the computer screen). Despite the sensational choice of title (doubtless intended to offend), the article  raises several interesting ideas. For one, West points out that people across the world have put an intense amount of energy into discussing one pope's retirement and the next pope's selection - why good might we do if we redirected that amount of energy into discussing some of the Church's current policies? she asks. West also points out some troubling stances The Vatican has taken in recent history on issues that impact violence against women and the spread of HIV in Africa. At the same time, I'm troubled by West referring to the Catholic Church as a "corporation," a claim that I'm sensitive to as a Mormon. 

Referring to any religion as a corporation and not a religion is a strong claim that carries some serious potential consequences. If it's not really a church but a business, the reasoning holds, then its tax-exempt status should be removed. The problem with that stance is that when only a few religions are targeted with those claims (and remember, the Mormon Church is one of very few international religions where the clergy aren't even paid, and the Catholic and Mormon Churches are both world-renowned for their service work) - when specific religions are targeted with that claim (a claim that's dangerously close to antisemitic stereotypes of Jewish people controlling money), we risk religious intolerance. As members of a country that has a history of persecuting both Mormons and Catholics, we Americans should be particularly cautious about making that claim against religious groups that fall outside of Protestantism. Note how much less likely we are to make those claims about Protestantism. We Americans have a bias in favor of Protestant churches. 

Anyhow, getting off my soap box for a minute, Kristen Bell, an actress many feminists love for her work with the TV series Veronica Mars, has made news again for her role in a record-breaking Kickstarter movie campaign. The campaign, created by writer Rob Thomas, features a short video in which Bell and other stars from the series discuss how much they'd like to create a Veronica Mars movie. After studio executives agreed to produce a film as long as the group could demonstrate that fan interest would be strong, Thomas created the kickstarter campaign, with a lofty goal to receive 2 million in pledges, within just 30 days. Within 11 hours, the goal was met, setting a record for the fastest-raised million on kickstarter (I assume the fastest-raised 2 million, too). Last I checked, the raised amount was close to 4 million, and we're still only 3 days in. Let's hope Joss Whedon is playing close attention. 

And lastly, because I think it's important and thus deserving of some emphasis, Zerlina Maxwell has published an article on ebony.com in which she suggests 5 concrete ways that we (meaning people in general, but perhaps parents specifically) can prevent rape. Maxwell argues that if we continue to make rape prevention a woman's responsibility things will never improve. Instead, she argues, we need to fight rape culture by teaching teenage boys to see women as people, not objects; how to understand consent (hint: rape is the absence of consent, not just the presence of "no."); how to express healthy masculinity; and the importance of validating victims who come forward; as well as the responsibility to intervene as a bystander. The comments are less inspiring than the article, so read them at risk to your gag reflex. 

My Day Wearing the Hijab: Guest Post from Laura

The following post originally appeared on Laughin Lalo.

As a devout, practicing Mormon the idea of wearing a hijab is somewhat strange. I originally heard of the idea on FMH ( a Mormon feminist group on facebook) and I instantly was hooked on the idea.

Muslim women challenged non-muslim women to try wearing a hijab for one day and then talk about our experience. My thoughts were "are we allowed" and "what will people think" many of you know me quite well and I hate to admit it, but I really do care what other people think of me! But I signed up and took pictures and really lived the day and was much more observant of those around me. It took a lot of courage for me to do this, I was scared, excited, and a little apprehensive of the reaction in my mostly mormon community here in Utah.

First what is a hijab?! It's the scarf muslim women wear for modesty, there are literally hundreds of styles and fabrics to wear. They are absolutely GORGEOUS!

Muslim women aren't forced to wear the hijab, it's a choice they make for Allah (God) to be modest for him. In some ways it's very similar to the garments we mormons wear for modesty and a reminder of our love for God.

I looked up tons of videos on how to tie a hijab, and what to wear. I didn't have a bonnet so I fashioned one out of black fabric, and then tied my hijab!

I was very modest,  I made sure to wear a long sleeve black lose shirt with jeans.

Then I took off to school!

The day was interesting, I got a lot of stares from men mostly in trucks or passing in traffic. When I arrived at school I took a very awkward elevator ride with a gentleman who literally stared at me the whole time. More like in awe that he is actually seeing a muslim woman (but he wasn't haha) I went to class and some people were a little startled (my class is of 250 people so I definitely could blend) but people sat next to me and didn't shy away. After class I walked down the hallway to the elevator and some people walked away from me and some walked too close almost brushing me while there was tons of room on either side (I assume they were proving to me they weren't scared or whatever). People in shops were wonderful, they were nice and I didn't feel discriminated.

I felt completely empowered by my appearance, I felt feminine and beautiful completely covered up and I felt like I was respecting myself. It was a really beautiful experience and I'm glad I stepped out of my comfort zone and participated. I understand so much more about the muslim religion and the women who wear the hijab.

As a woman who wears modest clothing in general (for my religion) I don't think I'll ever second guess my modesty again because of the beauty I felt with in myself that day. I won't feel like I have to spill out of my blouse in order to get attention from anyone including my husband.

As for my husband Andrew, he was all for it! He loved that I was getting out of my comfort zone and educating myself. I appreciate his support, I'm a lucky gal!

Laura is a student, artist and blogger who lives in Utah with her husband and their two cats. She is studying photography, and in her spare time likes to garden, watch British shows, and seek out new tasty restaurants. To read more of her work (art, photography, and writing), check out her blog, Laughin Lalo.

Call for Reviews for Bitch Flicks

From our friends at Bitch Flicks:

February 1st marked the start of Black History Month. So for this month's theme week, we thought it was the perfect time to highlight all women of color in film and television.

Here at Bitch Flicks, we often discuss the lack of female filmmakers and the need for women-centric films. We need more women directors, writers and protagonists. But we desperately need more women of color in front of and behind the camera. When studies on women in media are conducted, the numbers typically don't take into account the number of women of color. Out of the top 250 grossing films, women as a whole only comprise 9% of directors and 15% of writers and 33% of speaking roles. On TV in 2011, 15% of writers were women, women directed only 11% of TV episodes whilewomen of color only directed 1% (yep, you read that right...1%). Abysmal.

Sadly, film and TV often relegates women of color to racist and sexist tropes. Black women often appear on-screen as maids, hyper-sexual or the "sassy" sidekick. Latina women also appear as maids and with "fiery" tempers. It's time to end these stereotypes. While women filmmakers don’t merely depict female protagonists, when more women are behind the camera, we tend to see more women in front of the camera. When we have more women of color as writers, directors and producers, we'll also see more diverse representations of women of color on-screen.

When people talk about the need for more women in media, they often mean white women. When we talk about the need for more women on-screen and more women-created media, we shouldn't be satisfied with white female leads and white female directors. We must see women of all races, created by women of all races.

So we want to focus on celebrating as well as critiquing the role of women of color in film and TV. Here are some suggested films and television series -- but feel free to suggest your own!

The Color Purple 
Dreamgirls
Scandal
Middle of Nowhere 
Frida 
Pariah
What's Love Got to Do with It? 
The Cosby Show
Precious
Lady Sings the Blues
Daughters of the Dust
Selena 
Night Catches Us
Grey's Anatomy
Real Women Have Curves 
Eve's Bayou
Mi Vida Loca
Do the Right Thing 
Columbiana 
Diary of a Mad Black Woman 
Bend It Like Beckham 
Good Times
Crash
Sparkle 
Watermelon Woman
American Family
A Different World 
I Like It Like That 
The Help 
For Colored Girls 
Jumping the Broom 
Soul Food 
Maria Full of Grace
Girlfriends
Half and Half
Love and Basketball
Brown Sugar 
Ugly Betty
The Misadventures of Awkward Black Girl 
The Wire 

As a reminder, these are a few basic guidelines for guest writers on our site:

--We like most of our pieces to be 1,000 - 2,000 words, preferably with some images and links.

--Please send your piece in the text of an email, including links to all images, no later than Friday, February, 22nd.

--Include a 2-3 sentence bio for placement at the end of your piece.

Email us at btchflcks(at)gmail(dot)com if you'd like to contribute a review. We accept original pieces or cross-posts. We look forward to reading your submissions!

Links of Note

Four and a half weeks into the new year, we've clearly skipped over some major happenings. Rather than trying to catch up on political buffoonery and Hillary Clinton's awesomeness, I'm going to share a list of some interesting links.

First up, Slate has an article about Google's maternity leave and how the company increased it to 5 months paid leave, a measure that saved costs on training new employees by encouraging mothers to stay on at the company, while also increasing employee happiness. As the article points out, not all employers face the types of decisions Google does, so their policies won't work in every case. But it stands to reason that if increased maternity leave is helping out one business, there are probably similar businesses that would also see less turnover and increased job satisfaction in female employees if they followed suit.

Next up a fun article about the history of high heels - and why men originated and then abandoned the fashion. That's right, men wore high heels long before women did. This is why feminists insist on distinguishing between biological sex and the cultural expectations that become associated with sex (a category which feminists call 'gender'). Because even basic ideas like lace, tights, and high heels looking feminine are based in culture, not biology.

Also, the UK apparently has a bill on same-sex marriage that will be voted on in February.

This week we celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which coincided with President Obama's inauguration. Racialicious has some interesting commentary on the inauguration, as well as a response to the efforts of some gun lobbyists to claim MLK as posthumous support for their cause. 

And, if you're interested in Mormon discussions, Margaret Young wrote an article on Patheos that discusses Joseph Smith's stance on slavery and race, as well as how Brigham Young's very different stand took things in the church down a different path. Those unfamiliar with Mormon history often think that Brigham Young was the founding prophet, since he led the early church to Utah. In reality, the founding (restoring, we would say at church) prophet was Joseph Smith. While Smith's stance on slavery changed throughout his lifetime, his views appear to have evolved to a very progressive stance by the time he was martyred.

James Goldberg has also written some recent posts attempting to examine gender in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (official name for the Mormon Church) in a new paradigm. In his first post, James discussed the kinds of close relationships boys, girls, women, and men are able to develop within and between groups. In a follow-up post, he responded to some of the comments on the first post, with recommendations for ways that local congregations can make positive changes toward greater gender equality.