Congratulations to Lisa and Christopher

Posted on by

Congratulations to Lisa and FMH for being in the New York Times (free subscription req.)

Also, congratulations to the Millennial Star’s own Christopher Bradford (aka Grasshopper) for having the word “Bloggernacle,” which he coined, appear in a major U.S. Newspaper. (See the article linked above).

34 thoughts on “Congratulations to Lisa and Christopher”

  1. while i am happy for lisa, i wonder if fmh is the kind of lds blog we want getting this kind of press? between gaia, the poop chronicles, why feminism makes one a closet mormon, and lisa’s own ennumeration of the reasons why she hates the proclamation on the family, fmh is not the blog i would hope to be people’s first introduction. and what will the brethren think? they will probably notice the bloggernacle now, and their first impressions of it will be fmh. you should repeat as many cliches you can think of about first impressions here.

  2. It’s pretty much to be expected that the NY Times would concentrate on a “liberal” blog rather than a more conservative one. The primary reason is that it makes for a more interesting story — “wow, here’s a feminist AND a Mormon, and here’s how she reconciles the two.” But of course the Times’ political bias is also relevant. Many people in the bloggernacle known I’m one of the more conservative voices out there. But still I think it’s healthy and positive for the Church to present many different types of people and many different types of voices. We are not all automatons — while the majority of Mormons are pretty conservative, there are all types in just about every ward. In my opinion, one of our major challenges is to make people with different viewpoints feel comfortable.

    Having said that, I wish I could get most “feminist” Mormon women to sit with my wife for a few hours and hear her incredibly articulate and insightful explanations of what is wrong with modern feminism and how comfortable she is with God creating the sexes with different strengths and weaknesses. She has some scriptural insights that are truly amazing and perhaps it would make the subject of a good post sometime soon.

  4. I think this is really really great news. FMH is a wonderful bloggernacle representative. It has some unusual and maybe even contrarian posts … but I believe Lisa is quoted as saying that her purpose is to vent a little … to say things she “can’t say in church.” Congrats to FMH for drawing the attention of the NY Times! 🙂

  5. By the way, since “Bloggernacle” has now shown up in the New York Times, perhaps the word could be submitted to the Oxford English Dictionary. I understand that the OED takes new words from researchers all the time but I’m not sure what the submission process is …

  6. Sheesh, no wonder that first comment was anonymous. How cowardly!

    Geoff B., I’m sure you could get the blogging feminists to listen to your wife, if only she would express herself publicly.

  7. It seems to me that the NYT may have misrepresented Lisa and FMH a little:

    Unlike the more mainstream Mormon blogs – known collectively as the Bloggernacle – that by and large promote the faith, this online diary focuses on the universal challenges of mothering young children and on frustration with the limited roles women have in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

    Unless I am minreading, this paragraph sets up dichotomy. It says that mainstream LDS blogs promote the LDS Faith but that Lisa’s blog does not not.

    I agree with Geoff that it is good to show diversity within the church and make people with different viewpoints more comfortable, but by focusing on a difference between what Lisa does publically while in church where she is “an image of Mormon devotion” and what she writes on her blog, the NYT makes it seem that diversity is not welcome. This is reenforced by Lisa’s quote saying that she couldn’t talk about things that bothered her in church.

    Of course, Lisa’s excellent quote mitigates the NYT’s framing some:

    “I wasn’t interested in bashing the church; I wanted to find something that could be faithful, liberal and feminist. I didn’t find that, so I created it.”

    But I think that the framing of her blog overpowers her assertion’s of faithfulness and not wanting to bash the church.

    Of course, the NYT wants a good story, and a faithful Latter-day Saint by day, seething feminist contrarian by night story is nore interesting.

  8. One of the reasons I got The Bloggernacle Times going was to meet just the concern expressed in comment 1: to avoid one LDS blog from being taken as a representative example of the LDS blogging community. I hoped (and still do hope) that by having a “composite” blog that draws from across the Bloggernacle spectrum, it would be possible to present the LDS blogging community (in all its diversity) in the best possible light. You would think “The Times” would at least have been a little flattered by our logo!

    The worst part–I guess I finally have to surrender to the all-seeing left eye of the NYT (blind on the right side, of course) and register, so I can read the stupid article.

  9. ” the NYT makes it seem that diversity is not welcome”

    Um, the NYT doesn’t need to do much to make it *seem* that way–diversity of opinion really isn’t much welcomed in church, at least not during the weeks when we discuss women and the priesthood, or Mother in Heaven, or non-homemaking career choices for women, or… (need I go on?)

  10. Geoff B.,

    Not only would I *love* to hear what your wife has to say about modern feminism, I suspect I’d be able to enumerate as least as many concerns with it as she has, and point her to other self-identified feminists who share her concerns–“modern feminism” is not a monolith.

  11. Well as a PR guy by trade (among other things), I can say that the big three places a business wants to get press are the AP, the WSJ, and the NYT. The readership is huge for the Times and these articles get syndicated all over the world. I won’t be surprised if FMH sees a big spike in readership and the Bloggernacle gets a lot of runoff for it. (Nice strategic move for Dave to grab “bloggernacle.org” already for the Bloggernacle Times). Geoff B. is right about the reasons for the Times choosing Lisa for the article. I know they interviewed J. Stapley over at Splendid Sun too but apparently he ended up on the cutting room floor. The unusual nature and amusing content of FHM is just the kind of stuff that journalists are looking for — plus it fits the general liberal tone of the Times. The amazing thing is that the hook was so good that not only did the FHM and ‘Nacle get mentioned — it was the lead item in the story.

    Last, I think that the anonymous poster is underestimating both FHM and the Brethren. FHM has some controversial posts but they are wonderful, faithful, intelligent, and funny women overall. The men in the top councils of the church are also wonderful, faithful, intelligent, and funny men overall so I think you do them a disservice to imagine they will not see the Bloggernacle as a whole for what it is — a community of faithful Latter Day Saints discussing anything from vital to banal topics in a general spirit of faith and support.

  12. I’m fascinated by the phenomenon of blogging, and hope to put my own blog up soon. But as I predicted over at T&S, I believe notoriety like this will have consequences, and sooner than we might have expected.

  13. Steve Evans wrote:

    “Sheesh, no wonder that first comment was anonymous.“

    Steve, which specific assertions by Anonymous do you find so outrageous that they shouldn’t have been uttered?

  14. Geoff, I’m afraid I must give credit for capturing the “bloggernacle.org” URL for BT to my media-savvy blogaholic co-editor Steve Evans.

  15. Kristine: Um, the NYT doesn’t need to do much to make it seem that way—diversity of opinion really isn’t much welcomed in church.

    I think that you frame the question of diversity the wrong way. Diversity of opinion isn’t welcomed or not welcomed. It’s simply the way things are; i.e., Mormonism represents a very diverse set of opinions. The fact that not all of these opinions are appropriate to discuss during worship is an altogether different matter.

    And I think you underestimate the typical member if you assume that he don’t have at least some opinions that aren’t appropriate for discussion during worship. Moreover, anyone who gauges the value of the fellowship that they give and receive based on the free reign given to their own opinion uses a very poor metric indeed.

    As far as FHM being mentioned in the NYT, I’m tempted to say that in a more perfect world, nobody would pay any attention at all to a rag like that. But given that they do, I think that FHM is a wonderful representative of how Mormon’s express their opinions and discuss Mormonism together. Nice work, Lisa!

  16. FHM = Feminist Housewives Mormon. FMH = Feminist Mormon Housewives. More than one have been mixing up the consanants. Just thought I’d point that out.

  17. Good point. After I posted it, I also noted that I do not sound too educated saying “he don’t,” but until I hire my own editors you’re stuck with sloppy proofing.

  18. Dave, I thought it was Eric James Stone that bought bloggernacle.com and .org? If I remember correctly, when I went to purchase the domains last summer, it was Eric that showed up in the registry.

  19. My mistake, I just looked at Whois and saw that Eric bought bloggernacle.com, and Steve bought bloggernacle.org. Oddly enough, they purchased the domains on the same day, May 12, even though we adopted the name bloggernacle in March, and it was official as early as April 21. I wonder what led both of them to seek out the names on the same day? Hmmm.

  20. Eric and I worked something out.

    Chris Grant, anonymous’ points aren’t outrageous. They’re insulting to Lisa, and I think they’re by and large stupid, but their anonymity is the real kicker. It’s really nice to say you think someone’s blog stinks when no one knows who you are.

  22. Steve Evans wrote:

    “anonymous’ points aren’t outrageous. They’re insulting to Lisa, and I think they’re by and large stupid“

    Anonymous makes some factual assertions about the content of Lisa’s blog (which as far as I can tell, including her hatred of The Proclamation on the Family, are accurate), and then states that he wishes her blog wasn’t people’s first introduction to Mormonism or the General Authorities’ first introduction to Mormon blogs. What exactly do you find stupid about that?

    “I would just add that IMHO anonymous comments are usually the worst.“

    That’s how I often feel when I receive my peer review reports.

  24. I would be soooo interested to know if the Bloggernacle is on the GA’s radar screen, and if so, what they think.

  25. Geoff,
    Have your wife write up her thoughts and send them to me. I’d totally post it on FMH.

    Hi everyone!
    I have to stop reading the comments now and get ready for chruch, but I”ll come back and finish later.

  26. Lisa’s blog is a wonderful,thoughtful blog. Although I don’t consider myself a feminist in the pure sense of feminism, many of the concerns that Lisa discusses are very valid. And I for one, think it would be wonderful for people to have their first introduction to the Church through her blog, as there are many who already think (including my own siblings who grew up in the Church and no longer consider themselves LDS) that LDS women are downtrodden, submissive, barefoot-and-pregnant chattels. And it’s nice for them to see this isn’t truly the case. I am not sure why there are men (and even women) who are afraid of strong women? Women who express their thoughts and concerns vocally? Lisa is to be congratulated for stepping out of the box and being true to herself.

    I agree there are lots of problems with modern feminism, just as there are lots of problems with modern patriarchy. And some men still don’t get the fact that bearing the priesthood doesn’t give them automatic power and control over women. Obviously not all, thank goodness. But it would serve some people well to have their long traditions shaken up. The Church is only as strong as the people, men AND women in it, and I think feminism has a place in it. Lisa’s blog certainly does. I am not referring to the Gospel. It is true and always will be, but the people IN the Church are not perfect, and some of this transfers into divisions that create frustration for women who don’t like being patted on the head and told to sit down and be quiet.

    Not all of us who read FMH find feminism to be the answer. It isn’t the difference between the genders that many have a problem with anyway. I am sure I would agree with most, if not all of your wife’s points. Personally I don’t have a problem with the Lord’s plan, or the differences inherent between men and women. What I do have a problem with is how some men consider themseves to be better than women or to have some control over women by virtue of being men. I believe that most men in the Church are respectful and honourable to women and believe in theory at least, in the equality of women. And spiritually we are equal, or should be. But we live in a society that still sees women, for the main part, through a warped window, and some of this DOES transfer into practices in the Church. Not all, of course. It has to do with individual prejudices. Thank goodness I married a man who doesn’t hold these views. And my testimony is of Jesus Christ and the truthfulness of this Gospel and not of individuals in the Church. Whew.

  27. Last, I think that the anonymous poster is underestimating both FMH and the Brethren. FMH has some controversial posts but they are wonderful, faithful, intelligent, and funny women overall

    I can second that. I enjoy FMH.

  28. ” I would be soooo interested to know if the Bloggernacle is on the GA’s radar screen, and if so, what they think.”

    They think, “no wonder home teaching doesn’t get done.”

  29. One of these days a general authority is going to post a comment and we’ll all be floored.

  33. Pingback: Zelophehad’s Daughters | I’m thankful for Feminist Mormon Housewives

Comments are closed.