The Evolution of Ridiculous

Statement 1: One study showed that children without fathers in the home, and in neighborhoods with a high percentage of single moms, are more likely to engage in crime.

Statement 2: Oh, so you're saying single moms are to blame for high rates of teen crime.

...
WHaaATttT?!!

How did we get there?

I call this the evolution of ridiculous. Here's another one.

Statement 1: Hobby Lobby doesn't want to be forced to pay for drugs that they disagree with morally

Statement 2: Hobby Lobby is preventing their employees from accessing birth control.

Also ridiculous. That's not what's happening at all. But the tweet version of the story is shorter, simpler, and... more inflammatory, which makes for more clicks. All kinds of assumptions are baked into this, but the impatience of society refuses to wait for them to be identified and then challenged or refuted:

1. Why do companies have to pay for birth control to begin with? 
2. How did private companies get forced to be involved with paying for health care? 
3. If women do have a right to birth control, couldn't we make it someone else's duty to provide that, like the government? 
4. If we just decided that women have a right to birth control in 2008 via Obamacare, shouldn't someone's right to freedom of religion supercede that, since that was codified in the Constitution in 1791? 
5. Couldn't disgruntled employees petition for a change of policy, or change their job? 
6. Is Hobby Lobby really preventing their employees from accessing birth control if it costs $10 to buy themselves? Couldn't we say that Hobby Lobby is also preventing their employees from accessing free day care, or subsidized college tuition? 
7. Isn't forcing a company to pay for something they morally disagree with kind of like forcing a gay baker to make a "faggots suck" cake for a hate group party?

Every evolution of ridiculous requires someone to take an action, a study, a comment, and then swallow huge amounts of unquestioned assumptions in order to spit out a completely unfounded and absurd conclusion.

It reminds me of a fourth grader realizing that your name "Daisy" rhymes with "crazy" and then extrapolates: "You're crazy Daisy! Ha ha - (add sing-songy voice here) You're a cra-zy Dai-sy, you're a cra-zy Dai-sy..."

Why do we put up with this?

I think we're scared. We've been in fourth grade, and we know that it doesn't matter which side logic favors. What matters is who says it louder.

Statement 1: I think marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman.

Statement 2: You hate gay people.

What, what? No! Of course not! It has nothing to do with that...
It doesn't matter. Everyone has already stopped listening and are now plugging their ears and singing. "You are a bi-got, you are a bi-got..."

But, but, if you keep acting like fourth graders, how can we possibly learn anything from each other! You're stifling civil discourse! You're creating a straw man! You are completely misrepresenting science! You're misrepresenting me!

"I can't heeeear you....la la la la...."

Pioneers In Petticoats: What the Church REALLY Teaches Girls

In our house growing up, we had a "Sunday shelf" which contained all the videos we were allowed to watch on the Sabbath (in case you're interested, these included big hits like the Living Scriptures videos, The Ten Commandments and Fiddler on the Roof). One tape was a VHS collection of Johnny Lingo and another short film from the 70's called Pioneers in Petticoats. Recently, I found this film on Youtube and insisted that my husband watch it with me - complete with horrible film quality and acting. As we watched the depiction of the early Young Women's organization of the church (aka Mutual Improvement Society, aka Young Women's Retrenchment Society), we were both surprised by what we noticed.

First of all....okay, it's dated. Got that. And the specific policies and procedures of the organization were different back then. But for all of the arguing about modesty and family roles in today's society, we realized that many people (including members of the church) have totally missed the point of the church's program for girls as it was and is envisioned.

Modesty in 1869 was not about not showing skin, but about teaching girls to stop being so vain and materialistic. It was about focusing less on your bows and bustles and trains and focusing more on education, self-improvement, and community building. Girls were taught to "retrench" (or cut back) on frivolity - stupid, unimportant things that distract us and weaken our ability to have an impact for good. And who can say that that's not still an issue for us today?

The Young Women's society, like the Relief Society, was inspired by male prophets who believed that women were better than they gave themselves credit for, who believed women had untapped power that could be better harnessed through an organization designed to do so. The organization was inspired by God through prophets, and then given to women to organize and run according to their own inspiration.

I found it rather symbolic that, while the story of Abigail Harper and her "scandalous" dress (you can see her collarbone! Gasp!) runs as a theme throughout the movie, it wasn't until I watched it as an adult that I realized how much more there was to the movie, much like my perspective on the Young Women's organization. The message is not about Abigail's clothes, but about her learning to be humble and teachable, reaching out to others who struggle, repentance and forgiveness. The story teaches girls to avoid gossiping, to take responsibility, to help those in need, to recognize the divine worth in every soul no matter what their behavior, and to stand up for what's right no matter where you are. Near the end, the Rentrenchment Society marches in a parade with a banner between them that says "The Glory of God is intelligence" This is in 1869! This is what the Lord saw that we as women could become, even when we may not have seen it in ourselves.

Feminism, as an offshoot of conflict theory, makes womanhood into a comparison game with manhood. Who's getting paid more, who is treated better, who is better represented, whether things are fair and equal - it's always a competition. God does not compare us, and neither does the church, which this movie makes very clear. Womanhood is about what we can become, period. It's about us living up to the best within us, just as men are encouraged to do.

I'm so proud to belong to a church that teaches these values to girls and women. I'm so proud of a church that not only encouraged voting rights for women decades before most other states (Utah in 1870 was preceded only by Wyoming in 1869), but understood and promoted the sacred nature of womanhood from the church's very onset. I know that God sees the greatness in us, and I know that He is continuing to teach us how to harness that greatness through the teachings and organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Here's the link to the film (43 min.)