A Feminist Discussion

From this post.

This post was by a guest blogger, and it was on Feminist Mormon Housewives a week or so ago. It was a complaint about a BYU devotional talk by Elder Pace given recently. Here is the original post:

It was with great sadness and disappointment and, I’ll admit, more than a bit of anger that I read Elder Pace’s BYU Devotional talk regarding women’s divine purpose Wednesday morning. I read it with an eye on tonight, when I would attend New Beginnings with my headstrong, smart, articulate 13-year-old daughter. I’ll be honest: when I first saw it, I thought it was a parody, like The Onion for Mormons. But alas, I read about it in several other places, including the Church News, so now I know it was for real.

I go to church every Sunday. I’m the ward organist and the Primary chorister (the world’s greatest calling, hands down). I went to BYU and got married in the temple at age 19 (gasp—what was I thinking?). I have three kids who are so great that I know better than to take credit for anything they are or do. I’m an assistant professor of education. And I wear pants to church. Yep, that’s me in a nutshell.

I’m also a feminist. I want both my girls and my son to grow up believing that men and women can do anything and be anything they want to be. I worry about my girls getting that message because they will not be able to participate in priesthood ordinances (unless you count watching). I worry at least as much about my son understanding that message as well because he will be able to participate in those things. I worry about my daughters because they will have to defer to men while they’re at church. They’ll have to worry about finding a man to babysit a group of adult women at the church building. They’ll have to get approval for their ideas from male leaders.

So here I am, ten minutes after getting home from work, hoping my kids feed themselves dinner in time for us to get to New Beginnings, wondering why today feels more like a continuation of a cycle of uncomfortable messages I’ve received throughout my life about the “divine role of womanhood” (cringe) than like a new beginning. I remember coming home from YW one day when I was about 15 after a lesson on careers. I had volunteered that I wanted to be a concert pianist when I grew up (I was never good enough for that!). One of my friends said she wanted to be a doctor and our YW teacher smiled and said: “That’s great! You’ll be able to administer first aid to your children!” We had a little talk about that over dinner. My dad—wise, diplomatic, un-exciteable, and patient—told me to “rise above the occasion.” And so I laughed it off and carried on.

Then there was the General Conference Sunday when we heard the “Mothers Come Home” talk. I was too young to have paid attention, but I remember the family drama that ensued after one of my sisters at BYU called home in tears. Again, my dad listened patiently and reminded her to rise above the occasion.

Years later, it was my turn to make a tearful phone call home from BYU. One of my religion professors had told us in class that if women worked, they shouldn’t pay tithing on their earnings because it was like gambling proceeds. He actually called it “blood money.” Again, my dad smiled and told me to rise above foolish advice.
Another time, that same professor told us that when we died, Christ himself would personally escort working women to the gates of hell for going against their divine nature. I guess this comment was ridiculous enough that my dad forewent his previous mantras and laughed out loud. Then he told me that if that were true, we’d have to rent a 15-passenger van and the whole family would ride to hell together because all the women in my family are professional women. Another religion professor told us that we didn’t have to listen to what Chieko Okazaki said because “last time I checked, she didn’t have the priesthood.” Sigh.

I could go on. My poor dad has listened to a lot of stories like these. My husband has probably heard even more. Since I don’t see these attitudes towards women enacted in my own family, I am mostly able to rise above the occasion and blow it off as old school. But every once in a while, I see something like this devotional talk and wonder: How do I rise above this occasion? How do I shelve my hopes and dreams for my children and tell them to follow this counsel? How do I tell them that they will be broken or deficient if they don’t marry? I don’t want my daughters to wonder why Heavenly Father has such a limited vision of their potential. Surely Heavenly Father wants women to do more than complete men. I’m a wife. I like my husband. But being a wife doesn’t complete me. My husband doesn’t complete or sanctify or purify me. And I don’t do those things for him, either. It’s just the five of us—my husband, my two girls, my son, and me—and we’re just doing this life thing.

I’m also a mother. Motherhood brings me plenty of joy (and heartache). But it doesn’t complete me. I’m lots of other things, too. I’m a friend, a daughter, a sister, a teacher, a primary chorister, a pianist, a professor, a book aficionado, and I just started guitar lessons! I like to think all those things together complete me.

I want my girls to be strong and of good courage—just like we heard tonight at New Beginnings. I want them to think, like the closing song we sang tonight: “How vast is our purpose, how broad is our mission . . .” I want them to figure out what completes them and go do it—whether that includes marriage or motherhood or not. And I long for the day when the church—and that includes BYU Devotionals, the Church News, General Conference, General Relief Society meetings, General YW Meeting, the Ensign, the New Era, the Friend, and our Sunday lesson manuals and weekly activities—can get on board and join the new beginning that’s happening over here at my house.

P.S. My son is coming along for the ride, too.



Here is my response:

Men say stupid things sometimes. Even though they hold the priesthood. ;)

Having said that.. I went and read through this talk and found nothing that really blatantly made me wince. I thought it was nice. I can see how it might ruffle some feathers… I guess. There was the discussion of marriage as necessary to fulillment (though I’d argue he was talking about men AND women, though his talk was directed at women) and the discussion of women’s “roles” that seems to always stir up trouble.

The thing is… I do think women have certain roles that men don’t have, and vice versa. That might not jive with modern feminist theory, but dang. Modern feminist theory is a product of the world. There’s good and bad in it. I’d be just as worried about someone holding up modern feminist theory and theoreticians as above reproach as I’d be about them holding up a priesthood leader as such.

The author's response:

Although this may be foolish and naive, I’m too stubborn to admit that the world can so easily be divided up into two big categories–women, who have a unique divine purpose, and men–who have a different unique divine purpose. Sure, there’s plenty of research that shows that there are biological differences between men and women. But IMO, the world is so diverse–full of all different kinds of people, all of whom have unique strengths, challenges, limitations, talents, perspectives, etc. If that’s not evidence of the divine, what is? So let’s embrace those differences. Let’s say their names out loud and recognize them, rather than try to squeeze everyone into one of two possible boxes.

FWIW, I agree that modern feminist theory is not above reproach. Any feminist worth his/her salt should be able to admit that. My post didn’t suggest that I thought modern feminist theory was above reproach, did it? If I did, that was an unintended message.

My response:
I don’t necessarily want to accuse you of promoting feminist theory as above reproach. I guess what I’m saying is, I see this a lot: any discussion of the “roles” of men and women is immediately countered by some modern theoretician or piece of “scientific evidence,” etc. Oh, yes, people are so different and diverse. And each different society provides stereotypical roles for men and, and some for women, that are unique to culture and geography and perhaps socioeconomic status.

I think, though, that there are certain, spiritual roles that men and women are primarily responsible for (ie proc on the family) and it makes sense to me, and I don’t see how that’s degrading or anti-feminist. It just is. My stewardship and my husbands are different. You could argue that this mirrors the “seperate but equal” way of thinking that was debunked with the Civil Rights movement, but I don’t think the two situations are all that similar. Biologically, men and women ARE different. Biologically, our drives and processes are different, especially in the face of such things as sexuality and parenting. Why would we be biologically given different purposes and functions, and not spiritually? I think Heavenly Father has beautiful way of mirroring his spiritual creations in the physical. I feel that, as a woman, I have certain roles and stewardships that are primarily my responsibility, and so does my husband (though that doesn’t mean there’s never any crossover.)

Anyway.



So what do you think about these issues? (Gender, Roles, the church, misunderstandings/misinterpretations that can happen on both sides of the discussion.)