For the past couple months the Bloggernacle has been ablaze with a spirit of activism. For a variety of reasons, I have kept my participation in these threads to a minimum, but I thought it might be nice to weigh in with a few considerations which seem to have either been taken for granted or side-lined from discussion. But before I get to these considerations, I probably need to address a few caveats in order to anticipate potential reactionaries, trolls and other replies which tend to bog down rather than forward the conversation. (more…)
A little more than a month ago I came across a BBC program on the subject of fasting. You can watch the whole thing here.
If you don’t have a whole hour to watch I recommend picking up around the 36 minute mark where they start discussing intermittent fasting, or alternate day fasting. The basic concept is to alternate between fasting days and “feasting” days. A fast day consists of 400-500 calories for women or 500-600 calories for men. (You are encouraged to drink all the water you want on fast days). On the feed/feast days you eat whatever you want.
What are purported benefits of alternate day fasting? All sorts of things according to the researchers interviewed. Here are some mentioned in the documentary:
- Weight loss. It turns out that people doing this intermittent fasting don’t normally eat double their daily recommended calories on feed days. They are more likely to eat about 110% of recommended caloric intake so there is a net calorie deficit every week and that means steady weight loss.
- Reduced blood sugar levels. Warding off diabetes is always a good thing, right?
- Reduced levels of triglycerides, bad cholesterol, and blood pressure. They say this is a good thing. Reportedly reduces risk of heart disease and whatnot.
- Improved brain function. Mice on intermittent fasting remain mentally sharp far longer than the mice that were fed well daily. The theory is that humans see similar benefits. Fasting reportedly causes brains to grow new brain cells. Researchers interviewed for the piece think that this is an evolutionary survival mechanism; as we fast our brains quickly get stronger to give us better odds of wrangling up some food to stay alive. (I’ve been told that other studies indicate fasting has been shown to improve student test scores as well.)
(Authorial Note: This post looks long, but if you ignore the appendix section, it should be a fairly quick read. )
Women and the priesthood, wearing pants, sexism, the place of Heavenly Mother, and so forth are all major issues on the bloggernacle these days. The common thread in each issue is whether women are equal to men in the Church. Some people take the apparent inequality as a given, while their critics argue that these people have the wrong perspective. Men and women are equal in the church; these folks just need to look at the issue differently. And so the debate rages.
Generally the discussion goes round in circles because the debaters share an actually unshared assumption: the meaning of equality. I suggest that there are three forms of equality that this discussion invokes, and since discussion partners are often using one or two different forms of equality, they end up talking past each other. We need to fix this if we are going to move the discussion forward.
So these are the three forms: equality in terms of responsibility, acknowledgment, and theology.
Responsibility equality: Women give service. Men lead and give service. Or, if we count leading as a type of service, men give more kinds of service. More than that, the priesthood has a special kind of value with no strong female equivalent. Usually we compare priesthood with motherhood, but a more fitting comparison is fatherhood with motherhood, which leaves priesthood something extra for men, a mark of worthiness, and a special dimension for spirituality in male lives (or also in female lives via worthy men).
Recognition equality: Women get acknowledged for their hard work, but priesthood camaraderie offers a kind of appreciation among men that keeps women feeling on the outside. We have a very appreciative culture for young men making the next priesthood office and going on missions. Young women are far less recognized. And sometimes this starts even in the primary, anticipating the kinds of tracks these two sexes will go on once they reach twelve. Furthermore, the recognition adult women get for their service is often demeaning or overlooked. This would probably be much less of a problem if there were more women in leadership roles.
Theology equality: Men and women have equal access to the celestial kingdom. They both receive revelation. They are (supposed to be) equal partners in the home. In this sense, there is a fairly undeniable equality between the sexes. However, there are also a few theological inequalities. Some women take issue with wording in the endowment. Heavenly Mother remains a largely mysterious figure and therefore an ambiguous role model for women. Nevertheless, on a theological level, the sexes are largely equal.
So what? I hope that this discussion shows that if women are equal to men in some ways, in other ways there are stark inequalities. Does that mean that those inequalities are wrong? That’s a topic for another time. But in the meantime, if we accept that these inequalities are real, we can at least know in what ways they are real. (more…)