Feminist Inroads Into Mormonism

[blooit]

My wife and I used to joke:

(hot) wife: "So Honey, what did you talk about in priesthood today?"

Me: "We talked about what we can do to be better husbands. How about you guys?"

wife (same one): "We talked about what you can do to be better husbands."

[blooit]

I'm trying to be very careful about accusing leadership - that's not what I'm really trying to get at. And I realize that both genders show selfishness, unrighteous dominion, etc. My main point is that when a women does it, it is more widely accepted in our society - maybe even celebrated as a sign of "powerful womanhood" while similar behavior by a male would be (rightfully) considered a sign of weakness.

Part of the answer, I think, has been hit right on the head. Men and women really are different, and God (and his leaders) are going to communicate with them differently. I certainly respond better to direct correction than beating around the bush. Maybe that's a large part of it. That being said, I do worry about close friends who are verbally abused, manipulated, etc., by spouses. I literally have male friends (in their 30s and 40s) who have curfews imposed by their wives. Similar behavior would put a male in risk of church discipline. And what I am really getting at is that this is not all that rare.

[CV75]

I'm trying to be very careful about accusing leadership - that's not what I'm really trying to get at. And I realize that both genders show selfishness, unrighteous dominion, etc. My main point is that when a women does it, it is more widely accepted in our society - maybe even celebrated as a sign of "powerful womanhood" while similar behavior by a male would be (rightfully) considered a sign of weakness.

Part of the answer, I think, has been hit right on the head. Men and women really are different, and God (and his leaders) are going to communicate with them differently. I certainly respond better to direct correction than beating around the bush. Maybe that's a large part of it. That being said, I do worry about close friends who are verbally abused, manipulated, etc., by spouses. I literally have male friends (in their 30s and 40s) who have curfews imposed by their wives. Similar behavior would put a male in risk of church discipline. And what I am really getting at is that this is not all that rare.

I agree, I don’t think our leaders are celebrating that either.

I would think that abusive behavior would be met with the same discipline once it crosses a certain line. I suppose the most generally speaking, a woman striking a man is considered less of an imminent danger physically, and it is hard to say what the psycho-emotional and spiritual impacts are; it must differ from man to man, but men are generally acculturated to be less vulnerable and in fact they may be less vulnerable biologically and psychologically.

As bad as abuse by either sex is, perhaps somehow a woman with temple covenants behaving without the Spirit / in the spirit of contention / under the influence of the devil is not quite as egregious as a man with the priesthood and temple covenants behaving the same way, and that physical and emotional harm by the former abuse of power and influence is less spiritually offensive than the latter, where the priesthood is God's own power and authority. Possessing the priesthood seems to tip the balance of power so that abuse by women is considered somewhat more tolerable than abuse by men, and abuse by men not tolerable at all.

[rpn]

My dh tells me all the time about how none of his friends are allowed to do anything they want. I told him a long time ago (and I was once asked to teach it in Priesthood), that the way a spouse gets that is to earn it by making sure through their daily actions that their spouse knows that they come FIRST, and that on those occasions when they ask dh to be there, do something, it is done and nothing stands in the way. (In priesthood I also taught them to teach their children to be self-reliant, independent, hard working, and competent people because marrying one makes this process easier too.) Once a spouse BELIEVES that if they need spouse, he/she will be there with bells on until she doesn't, then there is no reason to keep reins on the rest of the time.

And before you decide that spouses are being unreasonable about curfews, you would need to know whether the men in question have addictions or have otherwise been untrustworthy in any way in their choices, too.

And before you decide a spouse is being unreasonable, you would also have to know how often he lets her go out at all hours without a curfew and stays home with the children.

[katherine the great]

Are you saying that these cultures do not give “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”?

Yes that is what I'm saying.

[katherine the great]

It seems like most of these issues about curfew, verbal abuse, manipulation, etc. really show a gross lack of mature communication between the partners. Marriage is about partnership not about bullying or allowing ourselves to be bullied by our spouses.

[Damien the Leper]

I think there have been some appropriate justifications for the gender roles in the Mormon culture. However, I do tend to agree more with Margaret Merrill Toscano's piece Are Boys More Important Than Girls?

[The Nehor]

Carnal relations with her husband...

If it is a duty one or both of them are doing it wrong.

[TAO]

Mmm... I don't know about you guys... but I don't see much of a male or female dominated society in the church. Really... they both have their own different roles. Men hold the priesthood positions, and are the role model, yes, but women tend to have their man wrapped around her finger. Luckily, neither really seems to be a huge issue. If anything, I notice more cooperation than dominance by either side.

I think it probably has to do with what they teach in Young Men's/Priesthood and Young Women's/Relief Society. You know... 'show proper respect to women girl's and children' for us, and, 'we need women who are tender' for them (I forget which talk that was from by the relief society presidency). Ultimately... I think the church does a good job... and it teaches us (hopefully) to respect our spouse. =)

[why me]

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.

America is playing catch up. In european societies, women have been working outside the home for quite sometime and this includes in lds homes. In the past the european welfare state helped women to leave the home and enter the job market through a comprehensive state sponsored daycare system. And in Italy or Spain, the grandparents or nannies came to the aid of working parents. Both systems relieved unnecessary pressure on the couple working. We cannot find these systems in the USA unless one can afford a nanny. This puts a great burden on families as they attempt to find care for the child. It is not surprising that problems can enter the lds family as a result.

Someone needs to hold down the fort at home. It doesn't matter if the person holding down the fort begins this after work or not. Usually it is a natural process where one takes over the care of the home with the help of the other. But someone needs to hold down the fort.

There is now a mixing of genders in the USA. Many women need to work because the support of the family depends on it. And the USA is no longer a one salary nation. But is work satisfying to many people? Or does it fray nerves of tired couples so that when they come home they can become verbally agressive toward one another?

[why me]

It seems like most of these issues about curfew, verbal abuse, manipulation, etc. really show a gross lack of mature communication between the partners. Marriage is about partnership not about bullying or allowing ourselves to be bullied by our spouses.

I don't think that mormon familes are separating themselves from the ways of the world these days. Mormon culture seems to be diluted into the mainstream, especially with young couples who have been influenced by mainstream gender and work roles. All of your above abuses come from an internal agression which finds its source from the outside world. To create a society where work outside and inside the home is appreciated and respected is not easy. But certainly the ability to create a nurturing society for both men and women should be a goal. And to help create a work centered society where families are nurtured and respected and people in general are respected should be the aim, especially in the work process. Do we have that now in the western world? I don't think so. The buzz words are Profit, productivity, efficiency before people.

[Smith]

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.

Hi Loran,

Could you for the sake of an ignoramus like myself point out what sort of damage has been done?

[CV75]

Yes that is what I'm saying.

On the contrary, I think any culture where the balance of power is in favor of men gives men very clear roles to them, expects men to be stoic in carrying them out, and imposes severe consequences for not measuring up.

I do see where they are not taught to take as much as they can in the way of women’s roles or giving up power to women, but I was interpreting “taking as much as they can from others” as stoicism (interesting—my own filter!). And of course such cultures would not tolerate “husband-bashing” or even a general, generous sharing of household duties.

My points in connection with the OP were that LDS leadership defines LDS culture and promotes a Zion culture; that the term “Mormon culture” is often used to describe a more worldy (“Utah”) set of traditions, customs, behaviors, etc. instead of the spiritual ideal; and that the way LDS leadership teaches the ideal reflects the eternal gender characteristics of men and women that are also recognized (if not properly) in most cultures.

While both brothers and sisters are expected to apply the Sermon on the Mount in their relationships, I think the priesthood adds a layer of expectation and emphasis to how men are to behave in response to poor treatment, and how they are not to treat anyone poorly. This may inappropriately play out in some of the examples given that I believe reflect a “worldy” and not the “Zion” culture even though Mormons are engaged in them.

Edited December 31, 2011 by CV75

[bluebell]

It seems like most of these issues about curfew, verbal abuse, manipulation, etc. really show a gross lack of mature communication between the partners. Marriage is about partnership not about bullying or allowing ourselves to be bullied by our spouses.

This is what i was thinking as well. There is NO way my husband would ever let me talk to him like that! He would never allow himself to be treated poorly, just like i wouldn't allow myself to be. Despite the cheesiness of Dr. Phil's favorite platitude, i agree with it-you really do teach people how to treat you.

[katherine the great]

Despite the cheesiness of Dr. Phil's favorite platitude, i agree with it-you really do teach people how to treat you.

Indeed. There will always be the odd jerk who just treats everyone poorly and is abusive in general, but most people I know who treat their spouse poorly have a spouse who allows it--even subconsciously encourages it. (I'm not talking about spousal abuse, just general disrespect.) Patience and long suffering are sometimes mistaken for just being a doormat or a wimp.

[katherine the great]

On the contrary, I think any culture where the balance of power is in favor of men gives men very clear roles to them, expects men to be stoic in carrying them out, and imposes severe consequences for not measuring up.

Really? What severe consequences are imposed on Japanese or Korean men for not measuring up? During the time I lived there, none that I could see. The wife would just get a job or do whatever she needed to do to keep the family going.

[CV75]

Really? What severe consequences are imposed on Japanese or Korean men for not measuring up? During the time I lived there, none that I could see. The wife would just get a job or do whatever she needed to do to keep the family going.

Since Japan is your example of a male-dominated society that has no consequences for a man’s failure to live up to cultural expectations,I can comment on that, but I really cannot comment on what you could see. You are talking about what you saw the wife doing, not what the husband was suffering, which is understandable because the Japanese man has always been a bit on the outside.

It seems you are a late baby-boomer, reporting on what you saw in Japan during its post-war economic growth in 1980's-90s, so I will surmise what the impact might have been, on the man, not the woman, of losing his job in the situation you described:

Before losing his job:

1. Economic success was the top priority for men at the time, with masculinity measured primarily by succeeding in the workplace.

2. The demand for productivity, time and loyalty was paramount from all employees, especially for managers, so they were essentially married to their companies

3. Men were supposed to work hard, late at night and weekends, socialize with colleagues, clients, business partners etc. An absent husband/father was a sign of successful man and source of "great face."

4. Mothers reared the children virtually alone, and enmeshed relationships were not uncommon, even into young adulthood. Fathers were peripheral but were still expected to function as the family head and take the succession of family leadership when parents became aged (see 5).

5. Cross-generational relations were and still are most important, with adult children caring for aged parents/in-laws by bringing them into the household.

6. While relationships with wives were rather distant with little time together, trust was strong and they believed they could understand each other through osmosis.

7. Children lacked fatherly intimacy to a greater degree than their mother lacked her husband's intimacy and did not hold a positive image of him, understandable from a child's needy perspective.

After losing his job, he loses face on all fronts:

1. He cannot care for aged parents/in-laws.

2. Much like anywhere else, loses confidence and does not know how to take the role of a present husband/father in the family, disrupting the balance and how he used to be able to exercise authority.

3. The wife, who dominates the day-to-day household functions, inadvertently undermines him, by maintaining the enmeshed emotional bond with the children. Now at home more, he sees problems to be solved, which the wife/mother once shielded him from, and he is ill-equipped to deal with them, and there is no confidence in him doing so anyway.

4. He loses credibility and whatever basis for the legitimacy of his authority, and effectively loses his succession rights cross-generationally.

5. He becomes more and more peripheral, both emotionally and authoritatively.

6. These struggles don’t seem unique to Japanese culture, except perhaps for the underlying Confucian values (caring of parents), family succession and focus on economic success as a specified role, but the impact on the man for failing in his culturally-imposed duties is definitively there, especially in this quick reference from Wikipedia: “Suicide in Japan has become a significant problem nationally. Factors in suicide include unemployment (due to the economic recession in the 1990s), depression, and social pressures… 71% of suicides in Japan were male, and it's the leading cause of death in men aged 20-44… There has been a rapid increase in suicides since the 1990s. For example, 1998 saw a 34.7% increase over the previous year.” The article of course goes into greater depth about the economic tie to all this, which is alluded to in your example of a wife/mother having to go to work with no consequence on the ale psyche: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan

As I mentioned before, I’m not an anthropologist and can’t CFR everything I’ve said, but I’m responding to what you report to have seen from your personal experience and perspective. At any rate, best to you in your studies!

[juliann]

Also, what is feminism? There are many feminisms out there and feminists themselves find themselves disagreeing according to the feminism that one adheres to. We would need to look at the different forms of feminism and see just what they are advocating to make any sense of feminist inroads in mormonism.

The "forms" are nice philosophical academic labels but have little to do with what is going on inside Mormonism. When labels are applied it is likely to be 1st, 2nd wave type stuff. As I said, I Mormon feminists made a huge mistake using the label. It is divisive and evokes stereotypes that then have to be knocked down before a discussion can even begin. Those who fall under the banner of Mormon feminists have made very good points and explained them well. But just by using the label they have placed themselves on the fringe in Mormon culture. At that point I start to wonder if they are really going for change or just criticism. One of the most discouraging things I have seen is a full out attack on Valerie Hudson's credentials as a feminist on one of the Bloggernacle blogs. It was appalling. They didn't like her innovative theology and were attacking her under the guise of it not being supportable or done well enough. Yet I have rarely seen them attack male leaders for their theories or how they came to them. What they really didn't like is that Valerie's theories didn't go after the patriarchal church structure, she worked within it to create new places for women. Yet I am fairly certain Valerie wouldn't disagree with a lot of their points about the problems in a male dominated church. So what it boiled down to is protecting the boundaries of "feminism" in nonsensical ways. The irony, of course, is that Valerie is an international published expert on women's rights throughout the world. She deals in a much bigger arena while her accusers were in their narrow little world of of being a Mormon feminist. It still leaves me speechless.

The problem with any group who holds most of the cards complaining about the group who doesn't is it is always going to come off like whining. Men as a group are still advantaged, even in America. What makes it even more unseemly is that, like the group of feminists who denied a world expert in women's rights the right to call herself a feminist because she didn't toe the line in their much smaller world, the overwhelming awful things women encounter outside of our sheltered existence can't be ignored.

I just read an article about a man in a French hospital who wouldn't allow his pregnant wife to be uncovered to be examined and silenced her pleas by a divorce thread.... and after being removed, broke through the door and punched the nurse who removed her veil. I'm afraid I just can't see men, as a group, being painted as victims as women are routinely treated like animals throughout the world. We all have our personal hurts and injustices but all I can say is thank goodness I ended up not only in America but in a century where women are getting closer to equal access to the marketplace in order to support themselves and their families.

[blooit]

The problem with any group who holds most of the cards complaining about the group who doesn't is it is always going to come off like whining. Men as a group are still advantaged, even in America. What makes it even more unseemly is that, like the group of feminists who denied a world expert in women's rights the right to call herself a feminist because she didn't toe the line in their much smaller world, the overwhelming awful things women encounter outside of our sheltered existence can't be ignored.

I just read an article about a man in a French hospital who wouldn't allow his pregnant wife to be uncovered to be examined and silenced her pleas by a divorce thread.... and after being removed, broke through the door and punched the nurse who removed her veil. I'm afraid I just can't see men, as a group, being painted as victims as women are routinely treated like animals throughout the world. We all have our personal hurts and injustices but all I can say is thank goodness I ended up not only in America but in a century where women are getting closer to equal access to the marketplace in order to support themselves and their families.

No offense, but this is where I take exception. It is also off subject a little, but hey - why not.

1) As a white male, I am the only category that can legally be denied a job based upon my race and gender. Based on affirmative action policies, this is not only legal, but encouraged.

2) Two wrongs does not make a right, period. Just because France allowed a woman to be brutally mistreated, doesn't lesson the importance of equality for other groups. A wrong is a wrong, period, and the idea that present wrongs can be justified by past wrongs is a dangerous one. Ask any group who has been victimized.

I do not claim that white males don't still hold many advantages, but rather than until we start treating people as individuals rather than members of disadvantaged or advantaged groups, the cycle of discrimination and prejudice will only increase in strength.

Just a thought.

[bluebell]

No offense, but this is where I take exception. It is also off subject a little, but hey - why not.

1) As a white male, I am the only category that can legally be denied a job based upon my race and gender. Based on affirmative action policies, this is not only legal, but encouraged.

I think Juliann's point is that even with this fact, the white male is still the most advantaged group of people in the U.S.

[aspire]

Do women in Relief Society have something equivalent to the "PPI"?

No.

[juliann]

I do not claim that white males don't still hold many advantages, but rather than until we start treating people as individuals rather than members of disadvantaged or advantaged groups, the cycle of discrimination and prejudice will only increase in strength.

Just a thought.

Laws determine how we are treated (thus the fuss over the ERA) and laws by necessity will always apply to groups. The closest you will get to individual treatment might be getting a law for groups named after you. But you usually have to die horribly first.

[blooit]

I think Juliann's point is that even with this fact, the white male is still the most advantaged group of people in the U.S.

I think you are right. My question is, based on what criteria? For example, much of this is based on marketplace pay. On the other hand, as quoted in the OP video, 93% of all workplace deaths are men. Sounds like a pretty serious disadvantage to me. White women are actually the majority in the US, not men. They also have higher levels of education and outnumber men significantly in both graduate and undergraduate education. But some will look at this as only more evidence of Male advantage - as in "they have higher levels of education, but lower pay." Part of this may be true (although female salaries are over depressed by the higher number of female teachers in education).

I guess what I'm saying is that society is very selective in how they evaluate "advantaged" and "disadvantaged" groups, and it is only perpetuating the problem. Personally, I believe we are all different and experience disadvantages, but overall our society is one of the most leveled societies in world history (at this point). Just my humble opinion.

[Calm]

(although female salaries are over depressed by the higher number of female teachers in education).

and the high number could be a function of a cultural standard of teaching in elementary and secondary levels being seen as more of a female category, at least for many subjects and ages.

but overall our society is one of the most leveled societies in world history (at this point). Just my humble opinion.

the question being did we get here because of society's attempts through government, etc. to level the playing field or in spite of them or a combination (the attempts had both positive and negative effects). IMO it is the last with an overall positive trend. If so, we need to be careful not to remove incentives before they are truly not needed anymore....if one thinks having this type of change is a good thing.

[BlueDreams]

I think you are right. My question is, based on what criteria? For example, much of this is based on marketplace pay. On the other hand, as quoted in the OP video, 93% of all workplace deaths are men. Sounds like a pretty serious disadvantage to me. White women are actually the majority in the US, not men. They also have higher levels of education and outnumber men significantly in both graduate and undergraduate education. But some will look at this as only more evidence of Male advantage - as in "they have higher levels of education, but lower pay." Part of this may be true (although female salaries are over depressed by the higher number of female teachers in education).

I think this is what I had a major discrepancy with your original post. It's not simply on marketplace pay, though that's definitely one legitimate criteria. It can also go into categories of overall security. Safety within the law. Rights for women in the job markets. Etc. White women are the majority, they even receive higher levels of education (generally, not so anymore in Utah though), but that they still receive lower pay is significant and shouldn't be brushed off. That they still face major hurdles to their security and autonomy is significant. Majority in number doesn't negate minority in status and there's lesser socialy support for women in general.

And I think that the problems you've mentioned are legitimate. They are wrong and I hate the mentality that puts women on a pedastal. But they're reactionary to the general feel that women have had and continue to have. We're still battling a status war that's genderdized. Men are still vastly dominant. To me the major difference is that the legitimacy of this dominant status is being questioned as right and women's role is changing. It's problematic because it's still leaves both groups with a feeling of being in some form of a stand-off though. But its simply symptomatic. It's like someone noticed there's a big gaping wound and decided it needed a bandaid to make it all better. They've noted a problem to some extent (women are less valued) and decided to make them feel special without changing women's capability to contribute within the culture (oh women, you're just so darned special the way you are!). Where women's value is best found through full partnership and utilization in not only marriages but in the community around it. The answer, to me, is in real women's empowerment rather than the patronized version.That's beginning to happen, IMHO.

And though the reactionary problem that comes from false teachings like women are more spiritual do exist, they're simply not as prevelant as the other problems that face women: Domestic abuse, low self-worth, and high stress. It's no surprise to me that women aren't chastised left and right in church like men are: They're already doing it quite a bit in their own heads. More often than not it'll be compounded by what they've experienced in their homes (both present and past). And though I don't doubt that men also face some serious problems and suffer when men are dominant in a culture and have strict gender roles, I have a hard time believing its on the same level as what women face.

In general the major problem that I see in our culture is the devaluation of women's labor and the family unit. The policies, culture, and social structure that's built continues to harm both aspects.

Calmoriah:

"and the high number could be a function of a cultural standard of teaching in elementary and secondary levels being seen as more of a female category, at least for many subjects and ages."

True, as wells as its the one form of work that is going to be more family friendly: off when children are off and far more vacation time when your children are vacationing. Most work today is simply not family friendly.

With luv,

Bd