Feminist Inroads Into Mormonism

[blooit]

I am old enough to remember the feminist / mormon clashes of the 70s and 80s. I remember ERA and its effect on many members. I also remember how strongly we were encouraged to maintain our patriarchal principles in the face of the feminist movement. I believe that our leaders were correct in this counsel, and also believe that before that time many males abused the patriarchal order and women were faced with numerous double standards and mistreatments.

I came across this video that explores the effects of feminism on our society (please be warned, she uses some strong language a few times)

http://youtu.be/vp8tToFv-bA

After listening to her argument, I had some strong disagreements, but many more "Amen" moments. What's more, I believe the situation is even stronger within the church. As a Mormon male and priesthood holder, I would summarize my situation as follows:

As a priesthood holder I am expected to preside in righteousness in the home. This means that I am to serve my family, be held to a higher accountability for my behaviors, protect my wife and children, and if possible work to provide all the necessities of life thereby allowing my wife to stay at home. I am also expected to change my share of diapers, wash as many dishes as possible, take out crying children during sacrament meeting, and be as much of a nurturer as I possibly can.

My responsibilities are clear, and there are duties that cannot be passed on to anyone else, or if they must be they are considered an aberration, if not my failure. On the other hand, any duties my wife passes to me are not considered her failure, but my duty. Other than bearing children, I have yet to see (culturally speaking) what duties are hers and hers alone.

So what is the point? (Again, I am speaking of Mormons as a cultural group, not Latter Day Saints as religious followers of Jesus Christ.) All dispensations reflect the cultures they exist in. The "male disposable" culture we live in would seem to contrast with the patriarchal doctrinal background of Mormons, but instead the two have merged into what I believe is a "hyper male disposable" sub-culture. One has only to watch general relief society and then general priesthood meeting and see the difference in tone. We've all heard the most commonly quoted mormon "truthisms":

*Women are more spiritual. There will be many more women in heaven and that is why there has been polygamy.

*My wife is the only reason I'm here at church.

*Men only take children out during sacrament so they can get out of church.

*Taking care of one toddler all day is much harder than working a full time job and providing for a family.

*Men better not bash women verbally, but women can husband bash all day.

I realize this will offend some people, and that is not my intent. I am rarely a complainer, but several personal experiences recently have me really struggling with this one. As an anthropologist, I try not to be one of those academics who knows more than the GAs. On the other hand, I do find myself observing mormon culture. In that culture, we give men clear roles, and then ask them to take as much as they can from others. We rarely provide for their emotional well being, and chide them more than encourage them. I see marriages around me struggling because of wives who do very little and expect the world of their husbands, all the while quoting the most recent priesthood session to justify it. I think this may be the next big cultural swing both in the US and within the church. There is clearly a double standard to the point that I believe it rivals the double standard that "benefitted" men 50 years or more ago.

[Duncan]

for what its worth my very active, lived through the feminist movements of the 60s-70s and the ERA thing Mum doesn't like the idea of women being more spiritual then men, she says that in her worse days she doesn't feel more spiritually uplifted then say Pres. Monson or Hartman Rector Jr.

[blooit]

My wife is like that. I worry though because she is often on the "outside" because she won't bash me in public. When we attended BYU, she caught a lot of flack for not engaging in husband bashing.

[BCSpace]

I don't believe for a minute that women are more spiritual than men. We are just spiritual in a different "Boy Scout" sort of way. Once men believe that women are more spiritual, that becomes an excuse not to lead (as is the doctrine) or do the right thing.

[CV75]

I do find myself observing mormon culture. In that culture, we give men clear roles, and then ask them to take as much as they can from others. We rarely provide for their emotional well being, and chide them more than encourage them.

I am not an anthropologist, but it seems to me that giving “men clear roles, and then ask them to take as much as they can from others” and “ rarely provide for their emotional well being, and chide them more than encourage them” is a fairly time-honored cross-cultural approach. This may not seem quite right on the surface, but it does seem to be how men would best function (learn, motivate, reward, etc.) no matter how nuanced, gently and considerately anyone wanted to treat them. As an anthropologist can you reference societies and cultures that treat men differently than the Mormon culture you describe?

Edited December 30, 2011 by CV75

[bluebell]

My wife is like that. I worry though because she is often on the "outside" because she won't bash me in public. When we attended BYU, she caught a lot of flack for not engaging in husband bashing.

If it makes you worry less, i have never been in a group of LDS women that 'husband bashed'. Honestly, if it is pervasive where you are from, know that it's not pervasive everywhere. I grew up in church being taught by a wonderful group of women that we should always speak kindly of our husbands in public and have never had a group of friends that did not do so, at least around me.

If your wife doesn't fit in where you live, rest assured that she fits in elsewhere.

[blooit]

I am not an anthropologist, but it seems to me that giving “men clear roles, and then ask them to take as much as they can from others” and “ rarely provide for their emotional well being, and chide them more than encourage them” is a fairly time-honored cross-cultural approach. This may not seem quite right on the surface, but it does seem to be how men would best function (learn, motivate, reward, etc.) no matter how nuanced, gently and considerately anyone wanted to treat them. As an anthropologist can you reference societies and cultures that treat men differently than the Mormon culture you describe?

This is really a good point. Most cultures that I have studied are male dominated, however, that is usually balanced with a reverence toward women and some "benefits" like after a hard days work you can expect your wife to fix dinner and care for the kids.

Most cultures place women under a "double work load" where they are expected to work full time but still fulfill all the home duties. I have argued that Mormon culture encourages the opposite - men are expected to provide, but also do as much as they can at home. You should have see tne class explode when I brought that up in a BYU class.

I guess what I am saying is that there are always differences between the genders in cultures, but accountability is usually balanced with some sort of reverence. Much of that reverence is gone now IMHO.

Edited December 30, 2011 by blooit

[Libs]

Blooit, are you arguing that men should not have to help at home? Just trying to clarify what you are saying..

If that is it, as the mother of three grown children, I have to say that a woman's work is, literally, never done, especially if you have young children at home. I'm sure both parents are very tired at the end of the day, which is all the more reason (IMHO) that dad needs to pitch in, in the evening, with kids and dishes or whatever. Mom has worked all day, as well, and likely needs and appreciates the help. Plus, children need "dad time", as well.

[Deborah]

Well, Adam and Eve worked side by side and I think that is how it should work. I have two wonderful sons who work all day and come home and help with the kids, and even cook sometimes and help clean. If any man thinks staying home with kids all day is easy he needs to trade places for awhile.

Having said that, I agree that some women seem to be overly dependent on men and I think they need to stand on their own, but most women I know, especially in the church, are very much independent enough to take care of things on their own. In fact many husbands may be gone a lot, either with jobs or military (or even church service), and the women are left taking care of everything.

[blooit]

Blooit, are you arguing that men should not have to help at home? Just trying to clarify what you are saying..

If that is it, as the mother of three grown children, I have to say that a woman's work is, literally, never done, especially if you have young children at home. I'm sure both parents are very tired at the end of the day, which is all the more reason (IMHO) that dad needs to pitch in, in the evening, with kids and dishes or whatever. Mom has worked all day, as well, and likely needs and appreciates the help. Plus, children need "dad time", as well.

Thank you for clarifying. Let me qualify this by saying that I have eight children, including four young ones. Believe me, I have traded places and respect how much work a mother does. I wash dishes, change(d) diapers, and am fully involved in my kids' lives. However, I am saying that as a general rule, I see most marriages that place an undue burden on the father by asking him to work full time, or in many cases two full time jobs, and then return home to hear how they are not doing enough at home.

If I could give another example of the double standard. While at BYU, I was teaching a class. We went a little late and I watched a wife walk in and snap her fingers loudly, point at her husband, and then point at the door. It was very public and very humiliating to the husband. He ran out with his tails between his legs. When we later asked if something was wrong, he sheepishly said that he had not gotten home on time to help bath the children. Well, every marriage is different, but the general response of the class is what bothered me. They basically gave the "good for her" response to his wife. Had he done the same thing, he likely would have been called in and talked to by his bishop.

I must provide for and protect me family. If I shift that burden to anyone else, I am "denying the faith." Only extenuating circumstances can justify anything else. So what duties are solely a wife's duties, and her shifting them to someone else would be neglecting her duties? I guess that is my question. (I think )

[Duncan]

Thank you for clarifying. Let me qualify this by saying that I have eight children, including four young ones. Believe me, I have traded places and respect how much work a mother does. I wash dishes, change(d) diapers, and am fully involved in my kids' lives. However, I am saying that as a general rule, I see most marriages that place an undue burden on the father by asking him to work full time, or in many cases two full time jobs, and then return home to hear how they are not doing enough at home.

If I could give another example of the double standard. While at BYU, I was teaching a class. We went a little late and I watched a wife walk in and snap her fingers loudly, point at her husband, and then point at the door. It was very public and very humiliating to the husband. He ran out with his tails between his legs. When we later asked if something was wrong, he sheepishly said that he had not gotten home on time to help bath the children. Well, every marriage is different, but the general response of the class is what bothered me. They basically gave the "good for her" response to his wife. Had he done the same thing, he likely would have been called in and talked to by his bishop.

I must provide for and protect me family. If I shift that burden to anyone else, I am "denying the faith." Only extenuating circumstances can justify anything else. So what duties are solely a wife's duties, and her shifting them to someone else would be neglecting her duties? I guess that is my question. (I think )

I have seen that type of behaviour too, from both men and women at church functions, very awkward and you just kind of wonder what you don't see

[Loran Blood]

I've followed and observed feminism, as well as done a substantial amount of reading from primary sources, for a long while (I'm presently reading something by Angela Davis (Woman, Race & Class) who, yes, is primarily known for her socialist and black power beliefs, but who is also a strong feminist and representative of several of the key assumptions and attitudes present in second and especially third wave feminism), and you are correct about the damage it has done to the culture. Indeed, the damage feminism has done to the relations between men and woman, our understanding of human sexuality, and the proper priorities of mortality are probably irreversible.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Well, Adam and Eve worked side by side and I think that is how it should work. I have two wonderful sons who work all day and come home and help with the kids, and even cook sometimes and help clean. If any man thinks staying home with kids all day is easy he needs to trade places for awhile.

Having said that, I agree that some women seem to be overly dependent on men and I think they need to stand on their own, but most women I know, especially in the church, are very much independent enough to take care of things on their own. In fact many husbands may be gone a lot, either with jobs or military (or even church service), and the women are left taking care of everything.

I think we can agree on all of this, but when most LDS (and many Americans) say "feminism," they do not mean that kind of feminism, but the "second wave" and "third wave" varieties.

[CV75]

I guess what I am saying is that there are always differences between the genders in cultures, but accountability is usually balanced with some sort of reverence. Much of that reverence is gone now IMHO.

I guess you would need to provide more examples of how the current Mormon culture undermines the divine role of men by reminding them to be conscientious about helping at home, and in ways that men respond to.

I do understand what you are saying, but sometimes I find that what is dubbed “Mormon culture” (despite the efforts of our leaders to establish a Celestial or Zion culture) is actually a Utah / Mountain-Intermountain West phenomenon in light of its relatively more recent frontier/agricultural/mining history and European immigration (relative to say New England’s industrialization or China’s genealogy)--or simply what you'd find prevailing in a college environment, which is far, far from the outside world!--and the Church members in those areas have (understandably) adopted that.

I tend to view the “Mormon culture” as a “Zion culture” and obviously there are clashes where the higher expectation is being introduced. We sometimes think of introducing a Zion society in places where there are more barbaric traditions requiring obvious correction, but I think every culture, no matter how refined, has its own challenges to overcome.

Personally, I believe there will be a wider gulf develop between the worldly and the Zion cultures, with the faithful continuing to emulate Christ.

[blooit]

I guess you would need to provide more examples of how the current Mormon culture undermines the divine role of men by reminding them to be conscientious about helping at home, and in ways that men respond to.

I do understand what you are saying, but sometimes I find that what is dubbed “Mormon culture” (despite the efforts of our leaders to establish a Celestial or Zion culture) is actually a Utah / Mountain-Intermountain West phenomenon in light of its relatively more recent frontier/agricultural/mining history and European immigration (relative to say New England’s industrialization or China’s genealogy)--or simply what you'd find prevailing in a college environment, which is far, far from the outside world!--and the Church members in those areas have (understandably) adopted that.

I tend to view the “Mormon culture” as a “Zion culture” and obviously there are clashes where the higher expectation is being introduced. We sometimes think of introducing a Zion society in places where there are more barbaric traditions requiring obvious correction, but I think every culture, no matter how refined, has its own challenges to overcome.

Personally, I believe there will be a wider gulf develop between the worldly and the Zion cultures, with the faithful continuing to emulate Christ.

I'm a little uncomfortable with this example, but if I may...

A recent talk in General Conference (that I often hear referenced) talks about a group of women cleaning up chairs. At some point one of the sisters looks at a brother and says, "Could you brethren do something besides hold your priesthood." It's a funny quip, but it brings up a few questions.

1) If this elder's quorum is anything like the 20 or so I've lived in, just asking for help would probably suffice. If the men overlooked helping, it was in ignorance, not laziness. I have never seen a shortage of people willing to pickup chairs. but I'll give you that.

2) Imagine for a minute that the roles were reversed and a man said to a woman in the ward, "Would you do something with that kitchen other than stand in it?" or to a sister who didn't want to have children, "Would you do something with that womb besides carry it?" - In fact, if any man (other than maybe the bishop) were to presume to tell the sisters how to do their duty, they might be strung up and certainly wouldn't be talked about in conference, much less laughed at for doing it.

The comment was sarcastic and disrespectful, but it is celebrated in our culture because it came from a sister.

I agree with you largely about my concept of "mormon" culture. In latin america, for example, I see the opposite. At least in the cities, machismo is still very dominant, and women are treated very poorly. The indian groups I've seen usually treat the women very well.

[Libs]

Thank you for clarifying. Let me qualify this by saying that I have eight children, including four young ones. Believe me, I have traded places and respect how much work a mother does. I wash dishes, change(d) diapers, and am fully involved in my kids' lives. However, I am saying that as a general rule, I see most marriages that place an undue burden on the father by asking him to work full time, or in many cases two full time jobs, and then return home to hear how they are not doing enough at home.

If I could give another example of the double standard. While at BYU, I was teaching a class. We went a little late and I watched a wife walk in and snap her fingers loudly, point at her husband, and then point at the door. It was very public and very humiliating to the husband. He ran out with his tails between his legs. When we later asked if something was wrong, he sheepishly said that he had not gotten home on time to help bath the children. Well, every marriage is different, but the general response of the class is what bothered me. They basically gave the "good for her" response to his wife. Had he done the same thing, he likely would have been called in and talked to by his bishop.

I must provide for and protect me family. If I shift that burden to anyone else, I am "denying the faith." Only extenuating circumstances can justify anything else. So what duties are solely a wife's duties, and her shifting them to someone else would be neglecting her duties? I guess that is my question. (I think )

Thanks for the clarification. The kind of behavior you described is uncalled for, IMO, and I'm sorry to hear it was acceptable. Of course, I don't know why the husband was late...maybe, he was intentionally trying to get out of helping at home? That still would not justify public behavior, such as the wife displayed, but she may have had reason to be upset. Should have been taken care of it, in private, though. I am very big on respect between husband and wife..and it should go both ways.

I can't say that I saw this kind of behavior (at least, not often) in the Ward I was in. But, I was in a Ward with a lot of older people, so that may have been the difference. Children grown and gone, long time relationships that were very settled and always respectful and appreciative of one another. There is a learning curve in marriage, like anything else in life.

As for breaking down the roles, I think what women are expected to do, in Mormon culture, is hold down the fort, at home. That is a pretty specific role. It's one that's fading more, as time goes by, though, since even a lot of LDS women have to work outside the home, now, to help provide. So the roles are multiple and mixed for both genders.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Libs

[Deborah]

I do agree that husbands and wives should not so such humiliating things to each other. I've seen both men and women do such denigrating things and every time I cringe.

[Cobalt-70]

So what is the point? (Again, I am speaking of Mormons as a cultural group, not Latter Day Saints as religious followers of Jesus Christ.) All dispensations reflect the cultures they exist in. The "male disposable" culture we live in would seem to contrast with the patriarchal doctrinal background of Mormons, but instead the two have merged into what I believe is a "hyper male disposable" sub-culture. One has only to watch general relief society and then general priesthood meeting and see the difference in tone. We've all heard the most commonly quoted mormon "truthisms":

...

I realize this will offend some people, and that is not my intent. I am rarely a complainer, but several personal experiences recently have me really struggling with this one. As an anthropologist, I try not to be one of those academics who knows more than the GAs. On the other hand, I do find myself observing mormon culture. In that culture, we give men clear roles, and then ask them to take as much as they can from others. We rarely provide for their emotional well being, and chide them more than encourage them. I see marriages around me struggling because of wives who do very little and expect the world of their husbands, all the while quoting the most recent priesthood session to justify it. I think this may be the next big cultural swing both in the US and within the church. There is clearly a double standard to the point that I believe it rivals the double standard that "benefitted" men 50 years or more ago.

I think that girlwriteswhat is working with a very old (like, Sufferagette era) model of feminism. In particular, I disagree with the video as to the proposition that the "disposable male" phenomenon reflects a devaluing of male humanity. Rather, it reflects the linking of men with masculinity, which includes a mythologies of chivalry, fearlessness, and the "honorable death." Masculinity, however, is valued more than femininity. How do we know that? Because when you compare the masculine with the feminine, the masculine wins every time. For example, mind wins over body, rational wins over irrational, presence wins over absence, dominant wins over submissive, subject wins over object, active wins over passive, logic wins over intuition.

The Mormon devaluation of the feminine is not really different from that of Western society as a whole. It's not that women are necessarily devalued. It's that the feminine is devalued, and women are given the "role" of being feminine, and are therefore expected to follow a devalued "role." Women themselves--that is, their bodies--are valued highly. The body of a woman is valued far more than the body of a man, because it only the man's mind or spirit that is truly important, whereas the woman is useful primarily for her body. In Mormonism, this is reflected by the fact that in the eternities, it is only the woman's body that has an assigned eternal role--that of giving birth to billions of spirit children.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[juliann]

*Women are more spiritual. There will be many more women in heaven and that is why there has been polygamy.

*My wife is the only reason I'm here at church.

*Men only take children out during sacrament so they can get out of church.

*Taking care of one toddler all day is much harder than working a full time job and providing for a family.

*Men better not bash women verbally, but women can husband bash all day.

I realize this will offend some people, and that is not my intent. I am rarely a complainer, but several personal experiences recently have me really struggling with this one. As an anthropologist, I try not to be one of those academics who knows more than the GAs. On the other hand, I do find myself observing mormon culture. In that culture, we give men clear roles, and then ask them to take as much as they can from others. We rarely provide for their emotional well being, and chide them more than encourage them. I see marriages around me struggling because of wives who do very little and expect the world of their husbands, all the while quoting the most recent priesthood session to justify it. I think this may be the next big cultural swing both in the US and within the church. There is clearly a double standard to the point that I believe it rivals the double standard that "benefitted" men 50 years or more ago.

You speak as if men and women's roles operate in a vacuum. The church is due for some shifting due to the cultural changes you point out. In the meantime, the things you complain of are likely caused by the rigid 50s gender roles we are unsuccessfully trying to maintain. What you are not taking into account is that the "truisms" such as women being more spiritual are now more likely to be seen as an insult (it is so obviously untrue that it is condescending and a pat on the head kind of thing). Much of what is said to women that you are seeing as special treatment is what you would hear being said to children. It is a self-esteem campaign which only means that women aren't feeling like they are as meaningful to the church as men who hold the priesthood.

As for comparing work responsibilities, women are now working outside of the home at the same rate as everyone else. So they are more likely to facing the same problems you do with a job and home responsibilities. Men can work without having to order the household first, that is just assumed. That almost always falls to the woman. So she has to deal with her first job before she can go get a paying job.

Also, you are confusing jokes with bashing. There are just as many jokes about women, the one that comes to mind is the always present joke about tablecloths when they teach as if that is more important than the intellectual content. The practice of having new couples speak and giving the woman the job of telling all the cute stuff about the family while the man preaches. It goes on and on, the most damaging probably being the polygamy jokes that are always at the woman's expense.

I also think you will have a really hard time finding anyone who thinks taking care of ONE toddler is harder than a paying job. (I'm not even sure why anyone would attempt a comparison of such radically different things). I think the problem isn't trying to compare the "work", it is the obvious fact that a paying job has visible and immediate rewards and most do not have 24/7 demands.

Most of all. I am puzzled by your perception that men are bashed "all day". There has been a reaction to the very real issues the feminists are pointing out which has resulted in various ways of telling women they are special. But that in turn has consequences because it carries the unintended message that men aren't. The solution is to give women more responsibility in church leadership so that their input is visible. But if women bashed men all day they would be bashing their male children. They just don't do that. I have never seen Mormon women less concerned about their boys than their girls. I do see joking or slights from all sides but that is not a Mormon thing at all.

I agree that we are probably coming to a crossroads because of the cultural changes (and a Mormon in a political race will advance it) but I think what is happening can't be portioned out as being only male or female because the cause and effect is too intertwined. I do think Mormon men are raised with an extraordinary amount of respect for women which is very encouraging as mysogynistic cultures become more visible.

[juliann]

I think that girlwriteswhat is working with a very old (like, Sufferagette era) model of feminism. In particular, I disagree with the video as to the proposition that the "disposable male" phenomenon reflects a devaluing of male humanity. Rather, it reflects the linking of men with masculinity, which includes a mythologies of machismo and the "honorable death." Masculinity, however, is valued more than femininity. How do we know that? Because when you compare masculine ideas with feminine ideas, the masculine idea wins every time. For example, mind wins over body, rational wins over irrational, presence wins over absence, dominant wins over submissive, subject wins over object, active wins over passive, logic wins over intuition.

The Mormon devaluation of the feminine is not really different from that of Western society as a whole. It's not that women are necessarily devalued. It's that the feminine is devalued, and women are given the "role" of being feminine, and are therefore expected to follow a devalued "role." Women themselves--that is, their bodies--are valued highly. The body of a woman is valued far more than the body of a man, because it only the man's mind or spirit that is truly important, whereas the woman is useful primarily for her body. In Mormonism, this is reflected by the fact that in the eternities, it is only the woman's body that has an assigned eternal role--that of giving birth to billions of spirit children.

Eh, I don't know many women who think having a glorified body means they won't be able to tie their own shoes and get out of chairs by themselves for eternity. That begs the question of perfected eternal bodies as well as creation. I think projecting a mortal birth process to eternity is tied to the 19th century. Mormonism now emphasizes the mother role, not a bodily birth process. Nor is the pregnant body ever idealized as the perfect female form.

[Cobalt-70]

Eh, I don't know many women who think having a glorified body means they won't be able to tie their own shoes and get out of chairs by themselves for eternity. That begs the question of perfected eternal bodies as well as creation. I think projecting a mortal birth process to eternity is tied to the 19th century. Mormonism now emphasizes the mother role, not a bodily birth process. Nor is the pregnant body ever idealized as the perfect female form.

It's not that the eternal woman will be able to do nothing but give birth--but the birthing of spirit children is the only specifically defined role of celestial women in the Mormon afterlife. Women are assigned to the feminine role because they are important primarily for their eternal bodies, while men are assigned a masculine role because they are important primarily for their eternal minds and spirits.

I haven't seen any movement within church publications toward a more metaphorical interpretation of the "heavenly mother" role. As far as I am aware, there are publications that still say that heavenly parents are "literally" the parents of our spirits. The history of this view, incidentally, is very interesting. It originated with Brigham Young and his Adam-God doctrine. (Joseph Smith never taught this himself, and actually taught that spirits were never born, and could not be born.) But around 1916, after the church officially jettisoned Adam-God and adopted the modern theology we know today, the "giving birth to spirit babies" doctrine was one of the few elements of Adam-God that survived. I would prefer to just dump the "spirit babies" theory altogether, and return to something closer to what Smith was teaching: that spirits are co-eternal with God, and that God (and Goddess) gathered them together and organized them as a body of his (their) children.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[why me]

Thank you for clarifying. Let me qualify this by saying that I have eight children, including four young ones. Believe me, I have traded places and respect how much work a mother does. I wash dishes, change(d) diapers, and am fully involved in my kids' lives. However, I am saying that as a general rule, I see most marriages that place an undue burden on the father by asking him to work full time, or in many cases two full time jobs, and then return home to hear how they are not doing enough at home.

This is not just a problem in lds culture but in many general cultures throughout the world. More is expected from the man and this has created many burdens for men. Not only must they encounter work problems from bosses and clients but when they come home they may experience a different boss in the home. It is a no win situation for many men and it has confused gender roles. The point is: in many cultures women are drinking more and they are now becoming equal with men's drinking habits. This cannot be good. Also, the family is under severe pressure as men and women attempt to navigate through their marriage.as they shift roles around depending on need. There is nothing wrong with women's liberation but in some cases it has come at the expense of male liberation. Thus, the need for men's groups where men can speak about what is troubling them.

[why me]

As for comparing work responsibilities, women are now working outside of the home at the same rate as everyone else. So they are more likely to facing the same problems you do with a job and home responsibilities. Men can work without having to order the household first, that is just assumed. That almost always falls to the woman. So she has to deal with her first job before she can go get a paying job.

.

This may not be the root of the problem. We also need to see the nature of work today in many societies. It has become a dehumanizing process as productivity and efficiency become buzz words. The needs of the human being becomes overlooked at the behest of profit. What does this mean for the human being? It creates much alienation and marginalization. And this can be brought home to the home itselt. As workers become objects, the man and woman may begin to treat eachother as objects to love and abuse at will. And I think that this is what we see in today's families. The objectification of the human being.

[why me]

I also think you will have a really hard time finding anyone who thinks taking care of ONE toddler is harder than a paying job. (I'm not even sure why anyone would attempt a comparison of such radically different things). I think the problem isn't trying to compare the "work", it is the obvious fact that a paying job has visible and immediate rewards and most do not have 24/7 demands.

I am not sure that I agree with you here. There are many women who are leaving the workforce to become mothers or to attend school because they are finding work to be demeaning or stressful. Of course they must be able to afford to leave the workforce. Work is certainly not fun these days. There is a lot of pressure to create a profit and one must prove their worth on a regular basis. Not to mention the constant evaluations a worker must suffer from. And the possibility of losing ones job regardless if you were a great worker or not.

To be with a child can be very rewarding once a person no longer focuses on the importantance of work for self worth. For many, work no longer has visible rewards.

Edited December 30, 2011 by why me

[katherine the great]

I am not an anthropologist, but it seems to me that giving “men clear roles, and then ask them to take as much as they can from others” and “ rarely provide for their emotional well being, and chide them more than encourage them” is a fairly time-honored cross-cultural approach. This may not seem quite right on the surface, but it does seem to be how men would best function (learn, motivate, reward, etc.) no matter how nuanced, gently and considerately anyone wanted to treat them. As an anthropologist can you reference societies and cultures that treat men differently than the Mormon culture you describe?

Sure. Japan, China, Telefomin, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, many South American cultures, Islamic cultures (you must know that the balance of power is extremely uneven there...) Do I need to go on?

Blooit: are you really an anthropologist? I ask this because I am currently an anthropology student, and I'm kind of stunned that you would even make such an observation. Feminism is exactly what should be expected to emerge in a free society where the men held all the power and often abused it for so long. The pendulum swings. The church has observed the dynamics for many years and we are (hopefully) emerging from a phase where women were somewhat babied. I think equilibrium is on the horizon. (at least for awhile) These are the types of things that result in positive change.