Daniel Peterson wrote:
I guess, since I really don't like to criticize other faiths, that I won't mention my life-long enthusiasm for the novels of Jane Austen. It's Scratchite dogma that I dislike her because she was a woman, and that, in fact, I disdain any art or literature by women. (My wife and I have even gone on pilgrimage to the home of the Brontë sisters, in Haworth, West Yorkshire. But to mention that might be to rub the salt of reality a bit too cruelly into the Scratchite wound.)
This doesn't come as any real surprise. During our discussions of the course content for 461, it was driven home repeatedly that we'd need to cover the token mentioning of females. (Austen and the Brontes? What a challenge to our expectations!) A parallel can be drawn here between your name-dropping of Austen and the Mopologetic mentioning of Utah's voting rights for women. Sure: you might be able to toss out one or two contradictory points, but is that enough to counteract the overall tone/mood/impression?
P.S I don't know who "Sacha Baron Coehn" is, but I find some of the work of Sacha Baron Cohen excruciatingly funny. And etc.
Like what? His acceptance speech at the Golden Globes?