Some thoughts on "Mormon Feminism"

After talking about the pants movement with several people, I went back and read the initial statement made on facebook.  Here is what it said:

"We do not seek to eradicate the differences between women and men, but we do want the LDS Church to acknowledge the similarities. We believe that much of the cultural, structural and even doctrinal inequality that persists in the LDS Church today stems from the church’s reliance on — and enforcement of — rigid gender roles that bear no relationship to reality."

I thought I was in pretty good harmony with the pants movement.  No, I would never choose to make a political statement during Sacrament meeting and so did not ever consider wearing pants myself (although a lady in my ward said she was surprised I didn't :))  but from what I read second hand about the movement the general idea I received was that it was an effort to raise awareness of CULTURAL expectations versus DOCTRINAL expectations of women in the church.

I was okay with that.  Thought the timing was wrong and the method silly (why do we have to dress like men to prove our equal worth as women) but overall not without some merit.  There are always cultural things that creep into worship because we are humans and products of our cultures.  

But I have serious problems with the actual statement.  I wish I had read it before cjane's posts.  Here's the parts that really bother me: "doctrinal inequality" and "rigid gender roles that bear no relationship to reality."

If there is a group contending that there are problems with the doctrines of the church than I want absolutely no part of that group.  There are many doctrines that I do not yet fully understand.  There are major areas of the doctrine that I think I understand--which leads me to believe that I don't understand it well enough to be confused.  But if I believe, even for a second, that the problem lies in the doctrine and not with my current understanding, than I am walking a very fine line.  Other people view testimony as more fluid and that is fine for them, but not for me.  Either revealed doctrine is true or it is not.  Our understanding of doctrine evolves---that's why we have latter-day leadership--but the essential core doctrines have not changed.  The ability to resist cultural pressure to move with the times is one of the things I appreciate most about the church.

Also, I do not find the gender roles in the church to be "rigid."  I am not sure what that even means.  I interpret it to mean that there are no possible exceptions to women staying home and raising children and men working to provide for those families.  That would be silly, especially in a global church where many of our Sisters must work out of crippling necessity.  Just because we preach an ideal does not make us "rigid."  The term is very off-putting.

Also, "gender roles that bear no relationship to reality."  That part really bugs me.  The sentence is the worst type of sophistry.  There are many ways that spouses split work, but to try and act like men and women's natures don't lend themselves to certain types of jobs and a certain way of thinking and acting is to deny gender.  I am not a genderless individual and I do not want to be.  Neither is my spouse.  The reality is that men and women are different and this sentence is a subtle way of saying that we are not.  

After reading several articles on the pants movement and several blog posts, I found myself very curious to find out what exactly Mormon Feminists want.  I recognize that not all them agree about what they want.  For example, some agitate to get the priesthood and some do not.  That's a pretty significant schism.  I found a list of "inequalities" found in the church at http://www.ldswave.org/?p=402.  It was very lengthy.  

Some of the points are worth talking about.

I feel unequal when there are more (a lot more) men’s voices in religious texts, meetings, leadership positions, and decision making bodies.

I think this one is worth thinking about.  Because many of the leadership positions require a priesthood holder I don't worry much about the leadership position part of the first statement, but the incredible joy I felt at having Daughters of My Kingdom is pretty telling.  I would like more religious texts, books, articles written by women.  This is not a doctrinal issue, however, and I think it is happening more and more.  I also think we are starting to talk about the women in the scriptures more often.  Part of this is that in our day and age we live longer, have access to more education, and have more time after child rearing is over.  I certainly don't have the time to write any treatises currently.  I appreciate books like the one about Eve--a woman's voice about a woman.  I think we'll start to see even more of that.

I feel unequal when women doing the same job are called by different titles (i.e. Sister vs. President) and/or are accessories to rather than serving equally with their husbands, i.e. Mission President’s wives.

Many of these points make me think that some women choose to feel lesser.  This is a good example.  I can't imagine how anyone could feel like a temple matron isn't as important as a temple president or that a mission president's wife isn't every bit as important as the mission president.  These calls are never extended without both partners in attendance, understanding the full import of what they are taking on, and both being in agreement to accept.  However, it would be really easy to change the titles the women have if it would make some of our Sisters feel better.

I feel unequal when my value is primarily linked to being a wife and mother rather than by being a child of God.

This is just poor understanding of the doctrine.  Since I have never felt this way, I can only feel deeply saddened for those who have.  Better teaching of the doctrine is always a critical need.

I feel unequal when the men in my life acknowledge that they have no female spiritual leaders in their wards or communities.

Some of the points I found confusing.  Like the one above.  Do men need female spiritual leaders outside of their wives and mothers?  Do they not listen to the talks given by women in general conference?  What would a "female spiritual leader" do differently than the women in leadership positions already do?  I'm sincere in this.  I don't understand what she wants here or what the men she's referencing want.

I feel unequal when women have less prominent, prestigious, and public roles in the church, even before and after childrearing years.

This feels like a slap in the face to people like Sister Beck who changed my world.  I can't imagine a more prominent position than president of the largest women's organization in the world.  The only one more significant is prophet.  So what you're really saying is a woman should be the prophet.  I cannot agree with that.  Also, I find the world's standards of prominent, prestigious, and public to be incompatible with understanding God's view of these things.  I call for a paradigm shift.

I feel unequal because even one of the most inherently female-dominated time periods, having a new baby, is publically displayed at church in an all male ritual of the baby blessing.

This is one that I find downright selfish (and I am a very sympathetic listener to gender issues and concerns).  I do find childbirth very female centered and revel in that.  My child's welcome into the church has nothing to do with the sacred act of childbirth and my personal welcome to my babies.  A husband is also that child's father and his role in the child's life will be profound and equally necessary for the child's development.  That he has a special part in the celebration of new life is a blessing for man and baby. 

I feel unequal when males handle 100% of the church finances.

More paradigm shifting needed.  Who handles the money is only important in a world-centered paradigm.  

I feel unequal when I am taught at church that my husband presides in my family, he is the head, and all things being equal, he has the final say.

I have never been taught that--but I absolutely believe that it has been taught before by people who do not understand the doctrine well.  That it is absolutely false does not really help those who have been oppressed and mistreated by men who did believe it.  This is EXACTLY why I think these doctrines need to be talked about more often.  

I feel unequal when I realize that at church all men have the final say. Good leaders might consult with female auxiliary leaders, but ultimately even after being called to a position via inspiration, men still make the final decisions.

This is one that I struggle with a little bit more.  I like the patriarchal order because I think on earth all organizations work better with a chain of revelation clearly outlined.  President Monson said he makes no decisions until the entire 12 have reached an agreement.  So why have one person in charge?  Why not just have a "round table" approach?  I think, because of experiences I've had with my husband in our home, that stewardships and chains of revelation are important and valid.  

However, it is irksome that some male leaders appear to under-appreciate women's voices in the input department and decision making department.  I chalk this up to human frailty for certainly if I was the final decision maker I would make my own share of mistakes.  However, more teaching of the doctrine of equality of the genders might help to prevent younger men from growing up thinking women don't need to be a part of the decision making process and might make them appreciate the female perspective more.

I feel unequal when cub scouts and boy scouts have a larger budget (they are allowed to do fundraising- although this might be a local issue) than achievement days and Young Womens and thus, they often have better activities.

I wish we had stats on whether or not this is a reality.  I certainly felt this way growing up and was pretty bitter about it, but some people have mentioned that scouts have to fundraise constantly because they do not have extra funds and in our current ward the YM and YW have the same budget (that they both routinely exceed).  

I feel unequal when the Young Women and Young Men’s programs have such different manuals, budgets, activities, etc.

This one bothers me because it again implies that gender is unimportant.  Also it is untrue.  YM and YW have different programs for goal-setting but the Sunday school manuals are the same.  Under the new program they will have the same topics for YW and YM as well--although I am confident that our leaders will approach the subjects in completely different ways because men and women don't teach or understand things in the same way.  Good.  

I feel unequal when fathers and mothers are encouraged to fulfill primary roles to provide and nurture, but only the fathers are given the freedom to seek out the best way for them to provide, whereas, mothers are told the best way for them to nurture—to be stay at home moms.

Thoughts?  I don't know what I think about this one except that the importance of personal revelation is being ignored.

I feel unequal when people do not emphasize fatherhood as much as they do motherhood and when we have numerous annual lessons on the priesthood and I’m not taught anything about the woman’s role as a priestess.

Totally agree with her on this one.  Maybe not the priestess part as it would be hard to put together a lesson about something we're not sure about, but we should talk more about doctrines pertaining to women. I actually brought it up at the last ward council and was met with blank/her she goes again stares.  My bishopric is really nice though and I know they will think about it and talk about it with me again.  I can't expect my feelings and experiences to have shaped their thoughts.

I feel unequal because church disciplinary courts are made up of solely men and there are no female voices in the very sensitive matters of church discipline.

Have never thought about that and so have started thinking about it.

I feel unequal when women have to talk to men about their sins, especially sexual ones, and have no other church sanctioned options.

Don't know what to think about this one either.  I have heard such horror stories of the inappropriate handling of these types of things by male church leaders.

I feel unequal because men conduct, men preach, men speak.  Men teach us how to be women.

Doesn't she attend Relief Society?  I have never felt this way.  Most men speak about core doctrines like honesty and tithing and obedience--not how a woman should feel or act.  Besides that, women also speak, teach, preach and conduct.  If anything we should all be teaching and preaching about Christ and we should all be trying to be like Him.  

I feel unequal in the temple because women a have different script and role.

Again--denying gender.  And I just plain don't know what she's talking about.

I feel unequal when female employees of the Church Educational System and temple ordinance workers are no longer allowed to keep their positions after they have children.

Is that true?

I feel unequal because we know very little about Heavenly Mother and her role in the Godhead and there doesn’t seem to be any emphasis on the part of our leaders to pray and find out more. I don’t know what my divine potential means as a female and that makes me feel less important.

Better teaching of the doctrine.

I realize that this is long but I think this is important.  We have to reach out in love and support to women who feel alienated in the church.  We need to understand why they feel the way they do and we need to come to a place of understanding ourselves of our value and place in the eternal scheme of things in order to teach our daughters effectively.  This type of rhetoric is just going to get louder and more strident because Satan will use anything he can to draw women away from the church.

Burning Question

I guess what I really wanted to discuss the most is WHY these types of things aren't talked about more often.  Why do we have mother's day talks about "my mom was a great mom because she made cookies" instead of teaching the doctrine of womanhood and motherhood?  Why, when people ask (as they so often do) what sets our church apart from other Christian sects do we not answer: because of our understanding of Eve's choice in the garden at least as often as we say the priesthood or a latter-day prophet?

I wish I had understood all of this sooner.  I think when we talk about motherhood we treat it like a friendly head-pat.  No scriptural references, no quotes from the prophets like the one where Elder Holland refers to childbirth as an ordinance and a sacrament, nothing that makes motherhood/womanhood seem as vitally important as the priesthood.

I'm not blaming my teachers or leaders.  Maybe I think it is more important to teach this stuff than it really is.  I was talking to my family (beating head against wall) about the wear pants on Sunday thing and I made the mistake of saying that maybe if the doctrine of womanhood/motherhood was taught more often and taught more thoroughly women wouldn't feel the need to have a pants movement, and men would make fewer stupid remarks and misunderstand the patriarchal order less often.  My point was that teaching the doctrine changes behavior faster than talking about behavior.  My point was also that these women have experienced things in their life to make them feel like the members of the church believe women are lesser.  Their experiences are valid and important, whether or not I agree with wearing pants to Sacrament meeting.

My comment was not kindly received.  The general opinion was that those women are loonies, they should leave the church if they don't like it, and everyone understands that women are important--talking about it more won't change anything.

Am I wrong in thinking that we should preach the doctrine of Eve more often?  Shouldn't our YW know how Eve is perceived in other sects and how she is perceived in our doctrine?  Shouldn't our girls know that Satan is trying to convince women everywhere that motherhood is unimportant compared to careers and finding yourself and fulfilling yourself and whatever else you can think of that will keep you from becoming mothers?  Shouldn't we tell them WHY Satan is doing that and explain that motherhood, wifehood, nurturing, is critical and the most important thing we can be doing?

Shouldn't we be teaching that the Lord's paradigm (family is central and all-important) is different from the world's paradigm (self is all important)?  Shouldn't we?

I love that article too

And I could have sworn I posted about it on my blog one time, but I can't find it for the life of me! Maybe I just MEANT to write about it. I love the book Kelly mentioned too.  And there's another article somewhere too . . . this one is really interesting but there's another one on childbirth. Hmm . . . maybe this? Yes, here it is! I love this one.  See what you think.

And yes, I realize I did absolutely nothing to satisfy your urge to discuss that article. It's because I have so much to say that it makes me tired to think of writing it. But I will re-read it and try to come up with some thoughts later. :)

Re: feminist article

AWESOME article!  I'd read some similar stuff in "Eve and the Choice Made in Eden" by Beverly Campbell.  I really liked how this author likens childbirth to a gift that women give, and priesthood ordinances are the gift that men bring to the table.

I think so many feminists (I use that term in the worldly sense) start the talks about feminism by making the assumption that to work and to have a career is the most important thing a person can do in this life.  If that's where you're starting, then women will appear to be undervalued in society as they are "relegated" to the home.  Shift the paradigm and you come up with a completely different scenario.

I'm sharing that article with my sisters!

Read and Discuss

. . . because I am desperate to continue discussing it but my usual targets are talked out.

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1718/valerie-hudson-cassler

Little Britches

I haven't finished Little Britches, but I have read it several times.  As I think I mentioned, I'm reading it with my 9 year old son.  He thinks it's hilarious.  I'm sure most of the dad's lessons are not as obvious to him as they are to me, but the lessons that the boy learned are certainly making an impression.  He's learning so much about hard work and determination.  He's been begging me for ways to earn money.  Listening to Ralph's experience with herding the cows, stacking hay, etc., has been really eye opening for him.  I have always thought that this would be a great book for little boys to read.  I agree that it is pretty sentimental, but I think it reflects true to how Ralph viewed his dad at that point - larger than life, a hero for the ages. And, I think this was probably the best year(s) of his life.  After his Dad died, he grew up so fast and starting helping to provide for his family.  I can forgive his nostalgia.  ;-)

I've actually read pretty much all of Ralph Moody's books.  I highly recommend the one on the Pony Express.  Unlike most of his books, which are about his life, this one is a biography of the first pony express riders.  It's a quick, exciting, fantastic read.


Kami, as for your post about your school....I TOTALLY agree with your father.  That is seriously crazy.

My daughter is in full-time school this year for only the second time in her life.  She is a freshman at a small charter school.  She came home the first week just SHOCKED that most of the kids in her school have no desire to attend college.  They think school is boring.  They can't wait until they're done.
 I really think it's because the kids have gotten pushed too hard while they're young.  They've got to be so burned out by the time they get into high school.  College doesn't sound fun anymore!  Pretty sad, since college is WAY more fun than high school, in my opinion!

Little Britches and 1491

First,  Little Britches.   It was a good story, but I've heard about it so much beforehand as such a great book to teach values, that I think it ruined the book for me. Every time the father said anything, I was thinking, "Oh, and here comes the lesson I'm supposed to learn."  Also, the father had no faults whatsoever, and all in all it seemed too rose-colored.  I realize that the author probably idolized his father and with the father passing away while he was young, he might never had realized any faults or short-comings in his father.  And I think for a younger reader, and for this type of book, it isn't necessary to have a more critical approach.  However for me, it came across as too sentimental.

As for 1491, it was interesting, but seemed disjointed at times, giving it a kind of pointless feel by the end. (I mean the ending just kind of happens with no sum up or conclusion or anything, just talking about what he had been talking about in that particular chapter.) The political correctness was kind of grating at times too--I thought the author did a good job being fair and balanced in his views, but it was so obvious the effort he took to be politically correct, that it was annoying. Another thing was that many of the theories are still being debated and so the author would present both views and then just move on, (okay, I know that's not really his fault but it still made the book seem rather unconnected). But the author never gives his opinion, and I find that rather boring writing.  

I did enjoy learning about the cultures and archaeology. So fascinating! I wish I had read this book closer to the time I read Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond, because they seem to conflict in many areas concerning the Americas.  For instance, Guns, Germs, and Steel argued that the Americas didn't progress as rapidly because it didn't have enough grain crops to domesticate and that corn was inconsequential till recent hybrids and development, while 1491 had a whole chapter on corn and its importance.  1491 and GGS even differed on the location of pre-Columbian corn usage.  (Okay, I'm making these books sound extremely dull. They're really not.) 

My favorite parts of the book dealt with Squanto--yes, of pilgrim fame.  His history is fascinating!  If nothing else, you should check out this book and read the chapter about him and John Smith.  And yes, they knew each other.  The politics that Squanto was trying to put into play by helping the pilgrims--wow.  Who knew?  

Other things I would have found engrossing except I read about them before in other books, like Guns, Germs, and Steel and The Lost City of Z.   So if you've never read those, this book would be even better.  But seriously, read the Squanto chapter.

So much to post on...but first a rant.

This Tuesday, I went to two open houses, one for the elementary school and one for the junior high.  First of all, they overlapped the scheduling.  Umm..that's dumb.  Second of all, is it just me, or is this some heightened form of helicopter parenting?  That's what I felt like, but on the other hand, I did find out several things.  The first one of which will be my rant.

Rant:
Elena goes to all day kindergarten from 8:20 till 3:40.  I think this is much too long, and she comes home exhausted each day and cries half the mornings about having to go to school. However, I figured, it's kindergarten, they'll have lots of play time and recess, and she'll adjust.  At the open house, I received a detailed schedule of their day.  Guess how much time they have for recess during the entire day???

15 minutes!  

Seriously??  I would be exhausted with the schedule they have these kids on.  I literally cried when I was telling Leo about it at home that night.  (Okay that might be a bit of postpartum hormones.)  She does have PE for 55 mins, 2 or 3 days a week--it varies.  But that's not the same as unstructured play and downtime.  Here's her schedule:

8:20-8:30 Morning announcements and pledge

8:30-8:45 Calendar (reviewing days, months, seasons)

8:45-9:00  Phonemic Awareness (ABC chants, sight words review)

9:00-9:45 Writer's Workshop (kid writing)

9:45-10:30 Extended Learning/Developmental Centers

10:30-10:48 Handwriting

10:48-11:18  Lunch (this does not include recess time, I asked)

11:30-12:35 Math/Science

12:35-1:30 Specials (Art/PE/Music/Library)

1:30-1:45 Recess

1:45-2:00 Snack/Quiet time

2:00-2:20 Themed Interactive writing (science/social studies)

2:20-2:35 Shared reading/read aloud

2:35-3:20 Literacy Centers/Guided reading

3:20-3:40 Pack & Stack/Dismissal

So is it just me, or does this seem crazy?  And the teacher kept explaining how the district upped it's standards this year, and kids have to be reading at a 1st grade level by the end of kindergarten, and how they're requiring more sight words to be memorized, etc.   Really?  I know I'm the odd person out by not having Elena in preschool, but Kindergarten, I thought, was still supposed to be a transition into regular school.  But not only that, I would want my older kids (1st graders, 4th graders, etc) to have more recess too.  Even the national recommendations are at least 20 minutes of recess a day.   

My father referred to my school district as "abusive," and said that "No educator in the country would consider that as developmental appropriate for that age group."

My good friend who has a ten year old brother in an elementary school nearby--which is rated the number 1 elementary school in the entire Houston area, and one of the best in the state--told me that her brother is being treated for anxiety.  And the problem is the pressure he feels at school.  That's insane.  She herself went to a the number 1 ranked high school in Houston, and she said BYU (most of her classmates went to Ivy League schools) was easy for her, but that wasn't necessarily a good thing, because she was so burnt out from high school when she got there and she felt that her high school had been too extreme and not in proportion to the needs of preparing for college and a career. I definitely want my kids challenged in school, but this is too much. 

Back to play, here's some tidbits I found.

 In a comprehensive review of numerous studies on play, researchers found evidence that play contributes to advances in "verbalization, vocabulary, language comprehension, attention span, imagination, concentration, impulse control, curiosity, problem-solving strategies, cooperation, empathy, and group participation" (Smilansky & Shefatya, 1990). Recent research provides additional evidence of the strong connections between quality of play in preschool years and children's readiness for school instruction (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2000; Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 2002; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Further, research directly links play to children's ability to master such academic content as literacy and numeracy. For example, children's engagement in pretend play was found to be positively and significantly correlated with such competencies as text comprehension and metalinguistic awareness and with an understanding of the purpose of reading and writing (Roskos & Christie, 2000).

The Importance of Being Playful. By: Bodrova, Elena, Leong, Deborah J., Educational Leadership, 00131784, Apr2003, Vol. 60, Issue 7

Because of the positive effects of physical activity on attention-to-task, it is recommended that elementary school teachers consider implementing physical activity sessions throughout the school day in the form of recess and classroom-based physical activities.

Impact of short bouts of physical activity on attention-to-task in elementary school children Matthew T. Mahar Activity Promotion Laboratory, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA

When youth participate in at least 60 min of physical activity every day, health benefits accrue, such as healthy bones and muscles, improved muscular strength and endurance, reduced risk for developing chronic disease risk factors, improved self-esteem, and reduced stress and anxiety (Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2008).

So I'm going to write a letter to the principal and superintendent of the school district voicing my opinion.  Also, I am definitely holding my other children back a year before they start kindergarten and I'm going to start looking at other school districts nearby and charter schools.  However, the reason we moved to this area WAS the schools.  Elena is in the Spanish two-way immersion program, and I really want my kids to stay in a immersion program for Spanish.  So my options are limited.  (See me now banging my head on the table.) What to do?  What to do?

LB

I'm reading it aloud to my 9 year old son.  We're both enjoying it.  First time he's read it.  We won't be done for a bit, though.  I'm having him help read it aloud as reading practice.


side note:  If there's one thing that public school taught me (as a mostly homeschool mom) it's that children need to have time to read aloud.  It improves their fluency, and prompts discussions for what words mean.  I find kids are more likely to ask what a word means when they are the ones doing the reading.

Anyway, we're working on it!

Anyone?

Did anyone read Little Britches? I just barely got it in at the library, as my Sunday School teacher reminded me on Sunday.  His last names starts with an L too and he was picking up his wife's books and saw mine.  Anyway, I still plan on reading it but I would like someone else's comments.

Will anyone read 1491?  I read it this past month because I didn't have Little Britches and I would LOVE to discuss it.

 Tootaloo.