No, no, and no.

However, I would say that falling into an intellectual void is the path of least resistence for an at-home mom, and you will certainly not be criticized at Church if you have no ‘intellectual’ interests and are solely devoted to your home, family, and maybe a hobby or two.

However, no one will stop you from advancing your intellectual interests, either.

I think LDS men are more repressed. What acceptable choice is there besides working 40+ hours per week? Whereas a ‘righteous’ woman can fit everyone’s expectations as long as she is not working full-time when her kids are small. That leaves a lot of leeway for part-time work, hobbies, activism (not that this actually happens a lot, but it is institutionally possible), education, etc. I feel blessed to live in a time where conveniences and low standards make the burden of actual housework very low, and allow me time and energy to pursue other things.

With regard specifically to Mormonism, I think we have to acknowledge that there are some factors that we can’t do much about which not unreasonably influence general public perceptions, such as the right-wing voting habits of our brothers and sisters in Utah and the Church’s occaisional pogroms against certain outspoken feminists and intellectuals.

The thing we can do something about is responding to modern attitudes toward faith and belief. Apologies to any readers who hear me babble on way too much as it is in Gospel Doctrine class, but I was struck in reading through the recent BoM lessons on how this issue is addressed there. In Alma 30:13-17 Korihor very concisely presents a modern sceptical materialist epistemology. Then in Alma 32:17-36 Alma presents a religious epistemology. At the end he asks “is not this real?” (Alma 32:35).

I think that is the nub of the question. We are dealing with two different worldviews when we contrast modern materialist scepticism with religious belief. The two have very little common ground on which to base a rational discussion. The believer can only say “I have had these experiences and they are real to me.” The sceptic can only respond “no, they are not real, they are only in your own head” (Alma 30:16).

I think the only productive discussion that can follow is an affective one — what are the consequences of the two worldviews. Then you can have an exchange of some sort if the discussants are open-minded. As has been pointed out, this is not always the case for many on both sides.

I think what you’ve alluded to is that women in the church have varying notions of what kind of power they have under a patriarchal system. I think you could ask 10 different women and get 10 different answers ranging from “I don’t want power” to “my power is informal” to “yes, I don’t have power and I want it.” We live in the grey, but so often philosophize in black and white. And then there are the true believers who live in black in white, and it sounds like this woman was probably one of them.

I’m pretty much living in the grey myself, (but not actually going grey….mind you…) And I do consider myself to be of the second generation of feminism, the one that enjoys the freedom and opportunity for power, but also feels comfortable making less militant decisions for myself.

At the risk of sounding like a communist, I think it can be compared to the Hegelian dialectic. The thesis was life before feminism, when the entire society was patriarchal and oppressive, the antithesis was the feminist movement (necessary to break down the entrenched injustice) and now we are living in the synthesis. Valuing both the traditions of family and God, but also valuing the greater power and equality given to women. I agree with Heidi, in that I’m also glad to be a woman now.

Anyway, I think I understand where this anonymous American intellectual was coming from. During high school and college I felt exactly the same way. [It didn't help matters that my Bishop at the time had exclaimed that "it is always the smart ones that have problems with the church"--not exactly reassuring.] I even had several arguments along the same lines as Jen and this mystery woman with my Mormon friends.

For me, the first step in clearing this obstacle was getting to know several bright (even brilliant), well-adjusted, and yet exceedingly faithful members who were willing to put up with my skepticism. It is easy to lose site of the importance of faith when one is surrounded by the philosophies of man. Perhaps Jen’s “friend” will never come to see the other side of things, but hey, you never know; perhaps her run-in with Jen was the first step down a different path.

I’ve found this many times. (With me on either side)

We can try and isolate the causes by wondering, would the woman Jennifer encountered be equally as close-minded were she not as educated?

On the other hand however, there continue to be women in Afghanistan who vigorously defend the Taliban regime. Women in Saudi Arabia happily accept their lower class status. Fundamentalist women in Colorado City, many of whom I would consider “repressed” (having never had a chance to see or know anything about the outside world) insist that those who want to help them are doing the devils work. These examples seem extreme to us, but to someone on the outside of Mormonism, not being allowed any leadership roles, not being allowed to bless your own children, being told a career is not for you if you’re a mom, etc, may sound pretty extreme in itself.

As a side note, a member of the bishopric in my ward (a great guy I really admire and respect) asked me if they could extend a calling to my wife. I was caught off-guard and said “Sure,” and was about to follow up with “Don’t you think you should ask her?” when he said they’d contact her. Is it a tradition or policy to ask husbands first in the Church, or is this a unique situation? And couldn’t that be seen as a sign of repression to an outsider?

Point is–she was not an academic and could not even engage in a rational arguement with me. My colleagues who know I’m religious generally respect that because they know they don’t have superior evidence for their worldview or belief structure. At least those who are intellectually honest with themselves admit that their beliefs stand on the same kind of faith as mine do.

I have noticed though a sort of view in academics where in one sees an intrinsic opposition between academics and religion. This is more pronounced, of course, in the humanities. It’s fairly common in the sciences and engineering for there to be deeply religious people. (Even if many aren’t) Further it never seems to be a big deal. I’m not sure why that is – there are people upset at religion of course. Dawkins is the classic example although there are many others. But in the humanities there often is this oughtright amazement that someone can buck the dominant social view.

It always facinates me.