Tom wrote:I am not quite ready to grant complete infallibility to Peterson's memory--especially his memory of events from 30-plus years ago. (See here, for example.)
In describing membership loss in the Mormon church, what term or terms did Steinem use? Perhaps her claim was more circumscribed than Peterson recalls 35 years later.
Can we be certain that in criticizing patriarchal religions for the oppression of women, Steinem "singled out . . . for particular criticism" Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, and Mormonism, to the exclusion of Islam and other religions? In a column published in The Washington Post in 1980, Richard Cohen briefly mentioned Egyptian press coverage of a lecture given by Steinem at American University in Cairo. Perhaps it was the very lecture that Peterson and Hamblin attended.
The next day in the Egyptian press, there was an account of a lecture given at the American University of Cairo by Gloria Steinem. She told Egyptian women to do something outrageous within the next 24 hours in the name of feminism -- like refusing to pick up something dropped by a man.
I really wish we could get a less self-interested account of the speech than we get from Peterson. Daniel Peterson surely knows that the Egypt of 1980 was a vastly more liberal society than the Egypt of 2015, and feminism in Egypt has nearly as long history as feminism in Europe and America (e.g. feminists like Huda Shaarawi and Qasim Amin) and about as vocal (Shaarawi famously made a very provocative and public display of removing her higaab; higaab was not commonly worn again by women in Egypt until the late 1990s). In fact, to criticize Islamic patriarchy wouldn't be that shocking to a crowd at AUC even in 2015. I strongly suspect that Peterson is just 1) making a dig at a well-known person who criticized his religion and 2) showing that he talked to a well-known person one time.
Also, I commented here the last time he referenced this story that I doubt Steinem spent much time with Mormonism, since nobody really knows what it is there. It would be like Steinem giving a speech about patriarchy at NYU and singling out Mandaeism for particular attention.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."
Tom wrote:I am not quite ready to grant complete infallibility to Peterson's memory--especially his memory of events from 30-plus years ago. (See here, for example.)
In describing membership loss in the Mormon church, what term or terms did Steinem use? Perhaps her claim was more circumscribed than Peterson recalls 35 years later.
Can we be certain that in criticizing patriarchal religions for the oppression of women, Steinem "singled out . . . for particular criticism" Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, and Mormonism, to the exclusion of Islam and other religions? In a column published in The Washington Post in 1980, Richard Cohen briefly mentioned Egyptian press coverage of a lecture given by Steinem at American University in Cairo. Perhaps it was the very lecture that Peterson and Hamblin attended.
The next day in the Egyptian press, there was an account of a lecture given at the American University of Cairo by Gloria Steinem. She told Egyptian women to do something outrageous within the next 24 hours in the name of feminism -- like refusing to pick up something dropped by a man.
thank you Tom for reminding us of Daniel Peterson's history of misremembering slights from the distant past.
i suspect that Mormonism got no more than a fleeting mention in this speech, but that was all that Peterson could hear then and all he can remember now.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
by the way, here's Steinem demonstrating in support of Iranian women in NYC in 1979...
i'm sure Peterson will find a way to construe this as cowardly, unlike his own brave actions defending a recently desegregated church during this period.
Tom wrote:I am not quite ready to grant complete infallibility to Peterson's memory--especially his memory of events from 30-plus years ago. (See here, for example.)
In describing membership loss in the Mormon church, what term or terms did Steinem use? Perhaps her claim was more circumscribed than Peterson recalls 35 years later.
Can we be certain that in criticizing patriarchal religions for the oppression of women, Steinem "singled out . . . for particular criticism" Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, and Mormonism, to the exclusion of Islam and other religions? In a column published in The Washington Post in 1980, Richard Cohen briefly mentioned Egyptian press coverage of a lecture given by Steinem at American University in Cairo. Perhaps it was the very lecture that Peterson and Hamblin attended.
The next day in the Egyptian press, there was an account of a lecture given at the American University of Cairo by Gloria Steinem. She told Egyptian women to do something outrageous within the next 24 hours in the name of feminism -- like refusing to pick up something dropped by a man.
Symmachus wrote:I really wish we could get a less self-interested account of the speech than we get from Peterson. Daniel Peterson surely knows that the Egypt of 1980 was a vastly more liberal society than the Egypt of 2015, and feminism in Egypt has nearly as long history as feminism in Europe and America (e.g. feminists like Huda Shaarawi and Qasim Amin) and about as vocal (Shaarawi famously made a very provocative and public display of removing her higaab; higaab was not commonly worn again by women in Egypt until the late 1990s). In fact, to criticize Islamic patriarchy wouldn't be that shocking to a crowd at AUC even in 2015. I strongly suspect that Peterson is just 1) making a dig at a well-known person who criticized his religion and 2) showing that he talked to a well-known person one time.
Also, I commented here the last time he referenced this story that I doubt Steinem spent much time with Mormonism, since nobody really knows what it is there. It would be like Steinem giving a speech about patriarchy at NYU and singling out Mandaeism for particular attention.
After I started another thread, Symmachus, I saw that you and Gadianton were asking for other verification of Steinem's speech. In that thread I couldn't verify the exact speech but only a few months from it Steinem commented on three conservative religions-but unlike Peterson's rendition, the three did NOT include Mormons.
It seems pretty clear his story about Steinem's Mormon membership data is not true. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39961
I have a question wrote:When I've re-read the blog piece it becomes abundantly clear that the piece about the NYT potentially overstating the number of resignations has absolutely no correlation with Ms Steinem. It was just he wanted to bitch about her again, for some unfathomable reason.
He's got his eye on her to be one of his many wives in the Celestial Kingdom.
“Those who never retract their opinions love themselves more than they love truth.” ― Joseph Joubert
I have a question wrote:When I've re-read the blog piece it becomes abundantly clear that the piece about the NYT potentially overstating the number of resignations has absolutely no correlation with Ms Steinem. It was just he wanted to bitch about her again, for some unfathomable reason.
It's not unfathomable, I think, if you think about Peterson's style: the story allows him to broadcast, once again, an international lifestyle and an association with well-known people. Peterson portrays himself pretty consistently as the Mormon equivalent to a Davos Man.
Exactly Symmachus. The main point of the story that Peterson wants readers to take away is A: He was in Eygpt doing Scholarly things and B: He spoke with a famous person, Gloria Steinham. The rest of the story is just content used as a vehicle to deliver the first two points.
As an aside for that blog post, it's interesting that the chief concern of this post is misrepresentation, when so much by the TBMs on this thread is misrepresented and wildly innacurate.
- "New York Times overplays ‘mass resignations’ from ‘harmful’ Mormon Church" (the NYT does not refer to a 'harmful' Mormon Church nor does it refer to "mass resignations" or user either term in the article. A picture labels an event "mass resignation event" as that was what people were calling it.) - "The Times editorial is also inaccurate. It says that the Church has labeled children of gay parents apostates." -- from "ideeho". (the NYT does not label the children of gay parents apostates. When called on it, Ideeho admits to creative license.) - "I am shocked! Shocked! To learn that the NYT didn't get its facts right. What is the world coming to?" -- Kiwi57 (Not a single fact has been shown in error. The author cites another article and then goes off on a tangent about a story he's reminded of, nothing about the NYT article has been shown factually incorrect on this blog.) - "I'd go so far as to say that some of those who have been most critical about the treatment of children as per this new policy have been biased toward the children of Gay parents in their moral outrage." -- Jack. (helping a kid in a particular circumstance does not equate to bias against all other children outside of that circumstance) - "So 1,500 left. I truly feel bad about that." --rockyd (sure) - "I suspect that every time there is an "apostasy party" announcing resignations from the LDS Church, it is primarily people who already participated in one or more such parties." -- Raymond Swenson (how do 1500 people get their names removed multiple times?) - "Mass resignation connotes larger percentages. Last time I checked, 1,500 is not a large percentage of 15 million. In fact, it is 0.0000001." --Kelly Knight. - "Actually it's 0.0001, or 0.01%.A very small fraction still, but accuracy matters.Not that the NYT worries overmuch about that." --Kiwi57 correcting KK. (It's unthinkable that the NYT would refuse to correct a simple math error as awful as Kelly Knight's apologist math. Nearly as unthinkable as any apologist admitting they are wrong about something other than a mistake in simple arithmetic that is impossible to cover up).
Gadianton wrote:As an aside for that blog post, it's interesting that the chief concern of this post is misrepresentation, when so much by the TBMs on this thread is misrepresented and wildly innacurate.
- "New York Times overplays ‘mass resignations’ from ‘harmful’ Mormon Church" (the NYT does not refer to a 'harmful' Mormon Church nor does it refer to "mass resignations" or user either term in the article. A picture labels an event "mass resignation event" as that was what people were calling it.) - "The Times editorial is also inaccurate. It says that the Church has labeled children of gay parents apostates." -- from "ideeho". (the NYT does not label the children of gay parents apostates. When called on it, Ideeho admits to creative license.) - "I am shocked! Shocked! To learn that the NYT didn't get its facts right. What is the world coming to?" -- Kiwi57 (Not a single fact has been shown in error. The author cites another article and then goes off on a tangent about a story he's reminded of, nothing about the NYT article has been shown factually incorrect on this blog.) - "I'd go so far as to say that some of those who have been most critical about the treatment of children as per this new policy have been biased toward the children of Gay parents in their moral outrage." -- Jack. (helping a kid in a particular circumstance does not equate to bias against all other children outside of that circumstance) - "So 1,500 left. I truly feel bad about that." --rockyd (sure) - "I suspect that every time there is an "apostasy party" announcing resignations from the LDS Church, it is primarily people who already participated in one or more such parties." -- Raymond Swenson (how do 1500 people get their names removed multiple times?) - "Mass resignation connotes larger percentages. Last time I checked, 1,500 is not a large percentage of 15 million. In fact, it is 0.0000001." --Kelly Knight. - "Actually it's 0.0001, or 0.01%.A very small fraction still, but accuracy matters.Not that the NYT worries overmuch about that." --Kiwi57 correcting KK. (It's unthinkable that the NYT would refuse to correct a simple math error as awful as Kelly Knight's apologist math. Nearly as unthinkable as any apologist admitting they are wrong about something other than a mistake in simple arithmetic that is impossible to cover up).
Wow, thanks for the fact checking, Gadianton. It's a little disturbing to see so many errors being passed around like little verbal hors d'oeuvre trays everybody snacks on. I had a little familiarity with the Steinem issue so I had incentive to track down that part of the blog but I'm embarrassed to say I did not even double check what was being said about the NYTimes story-and that's my daily paper! It's a pretty bizarre to think that every single thing one reads on DCP'S blog is suspect but it seems to be the case.
feminist Sonia Johnson had been excommunicated by the LDS Church in December 1979. Gloria Steinem's Ms. Magazine had written about Johnson in 1979, and the two of them were among the 7 women attending a Washington DC event in January 1980 to receive "Women of Courage" citations (other awardees included Bella Abzug, Sister Theresa Kane, and Rosa Parks).
so at the time Steinem spoke at AUC, she was no doubt well acquainted with both Sonia Johnson and the oppressive nature of the LDS patriarchy.
