Note: This story was originally told at Feminist Mormon Housewives in the comments on Reese Dixon’s post, “Mad Men is turning my husband into a feminist.” It follows a similar theme of how film & television have helped my husband see the feminist side of things.
You may have thought otherwise from reading this blog or hearing my rants in other corners of teh Intarweb, but gender issues don’t get discussed in our household very much. Paul isn’t much for patriarchy, he’s supportive of my education and career goals, and he’s supportive of my egalitarian endeavors in as much as they pertain to the evangelical community, but a feminist he is not. When it comes to the LDS church’s gender policies, he thinks it would be nice if they changed, but he has complete faith that there is a good reason for them. So it’s one area where we try to just live and let live.
The subject does come up from time to time in spite of my efforts to not burden him with it. It happened a few weeks ago where he finally asked me point blank, “I just don’t understand. Why does it bother you so much?” I could tell from his tone that he wasn’t on the defensive or looking for the fastest way to shoot down my objections. He was honestly just asking so that he could listen.
“Okay,” I said, “Do you remember The Bourne Supremacy? In the beginning Marie [Bourne’s love interest] gets shot and dies. She’s out of the film after just a few minutes, but that doesn’t stop her from having a powerful and important presence in the film. She’s the emotional center of the film. She’s necessary to the film. Without sacrificing her in the beginning, it would have been just another popcorn action flick. Instead it was a fairly memorable gem among action movies. And yet, no one can really deny that it was a Jason Bourne show. Marie was important, and needed, but she didn’t actually do very much.
“I feel like that’s how the LDS church treats women. They’re important in some sense and they’re theologically necessary. It wouldn’t be the same religion without them. And yet, they don’t actually do very much. Their role is small.1 I don’t really want a religion that treats women like The Bourne Supremacy. I want a religion that’s more like, Mr. & Mrs. Smith.”2
Much to my surprise, Paul chuckled and nodded and said, “Okay, I think I get it now. That makes a lot of sense.” He really meant it.
Since then we’ve had several good conversations about church and gender roles. It used to be that when these conversations came up, they would quickly hit a wall. Now he shows a lot more compassion for my feelings on the matter.
I was reading threads at MormonDiscussions.com a few weeks ago, a forum where participants are given ranks based on how many posts they’ve made. At 400+ posts, I had obtained the rank of 2nd Counselor (in a bishopric). Currently I’m at 480+ posts, so I have the rank of Bishop:
When I was still a 2nd Counselor, my husband came up behind me, saw my avatar, and said, “Oh, you’re a 2nd Counselor now, huh?” I said, “Yup. It’s the only bishopric I’m ever going to get to serve in.” And he put his arms around me and said, “Sweetheart, I have faith that someday they’re going to give women the priesthood, and then you’ll join the church, and you’ll make a great bishop.”
Obviously it would take more than just giving women the priesthood to get me to join the church, but the sentiment was sweet. The compassion and sympathy for how I feel on the matter is a very welcome change.
Action movies: the key to helping my husband understand feminism. Who knew?
NOTES
[1] Please do not use this post to attempt to convince me that women in Mormonism really do have a prominent, central role. I have heard such arguments many times before. They are bad.
[2] In retrospect, I’m not so sure The Bourne Supremacy is the best example to equate with patriarchy since it does have a fairly pro-active female character in the villain, Pamela Landy. But that was the example I used at the time. Perhaps a better example would have been Equilibrium.
I like your analogies. Mostly, though, I am back to thinking about how gorgeous Matt Damon/ Jason Bourne is.
I am not sure how feminist my husband his. He won’t let me drop out of my PhD program to be a housewife and then SAHM, but we both know that would just drive me crazy. He brags that we are going to be “Dr and Mr W”. He’s supportive and encouraging of my career plans, but worried about how they might inconvenience him (like if we live halfway between our jobs instead of next door to his, or if he has to take care of a lot of the children’s doctor visits instead of me doing them). But we’re young, have only been married for four years, won’t have children soon, so there is plenty of time to figure things out.
Nothing like using movies to get through to a man. I know it works for me.
“They are bad.”
And Jack kills it before it begins!
I sympathize with Paul’s trust in the guidance of our appointed leaders. In spite of that though, I still consider myself a feminist by more than one definition (1st and 2rd wave cafeteria feminist to be exact).
But I have to quibble with the wording of your Bourne analogy. LDS women have no problem finding plenty of work to do in the church. Its the type of work that remains a possible issue.
Its more like the Bond movies – the woman is there throughout the film – but they can never be 007.
kew ~ My father-in-law is a neuropsychologist. He thinks it would be cool if I completed a PhD so that there could be two people called “Dr. Meyers” in the family.
CJ ~ LDS women have no problem finding plenty of work to do in the church. Its the type of work that remains a possible issue.
You’re right, I probably worded that poorly. Women in Mormonism do find plenty to do. Most of it is just neither very visible nor essential to the religion.
Kind of like they’re the key grips and boom mic operators of the movie.
Good thing you didn’t read the Bourne novels.
Marie was subjected to an attempted rape in just about every book it seemed like.
Robert Ludlum is about as feminist as Tom Clancy, if that gives any idea.
Nope, haven’t read the Bourne novels, or Tom Clancy. I’m not much for espionage and military intrigue in my reading. I usually go for hard fantasy, horror or occasionally science fiction.
I find it interesting that the Bourne movies deviated so quickly and so completely from the Bourne books. And I think that Marie plays a much more important role in the books than in the movies. However, old-school espionage writers like Clancy and Ludlum definitely write macho-man books.
So, Jack, are you a fan of the work of David and Leigh Eddings?
Women in Mormonism do find plenty to do. Most of it is just neither very visible nor essential to the religion.
Jack, I really struggle to believe that you believe this. The work that women in Mormonism do is incredibly essential to the religion. Women in Mormonism direct the church education of the children of the church. They also have a huge role in the compassionate service and humanitarian aid to others, which is a huge aspect of living the Christian life. How is this not essential to the religion?
*Please note that I am not saying that these roles are equivalent to the roles that men have in the church. I am just pointing out that they are quite essential.
It isn’t essential that women do those roles though, Alex. Men are perfectly capable of directing the education of children and providing humanitarian aid to others. Some would argue that the women do it better, but that doesn’t change the fact that men can get it done if they need to.
So, Jack, are you a fan of the work of David and Leigh Eddings?
Haven’t read them. The last really good hard fantasy series I had time to get into was the Mistborn trilogy and Warbreaker by Brandon Sanderson. Brandon is a friend of Paul’s and we usually say hello to him when he comes to our area of the country on tour. We met up with him in Chicago a few weeks ago.
There was a good post on Warbreaker at T&S a few months ago, here.
However, old-school espionage writers like Clancy and Ludlum definitely write macho-man books.
It’s not just Clancy and Ludlum. Even Pixar is against us.
No, really. Watch this.
Jack, I agree with you on women’s work being unessential. In areas where the church is weak, male missionaries are called as Primary and Relief Society presidents. I have never heard of a female missionary being called to priesthood callings in a branch or ward.
There’s a reason Primary, Young Women and Relief Society are called “Auxiliaries.”
Jack, I agree with you on women’s work being unessential.
We are having the same wording issue repeating itself. The women’s work isn’t non-essential. It is non-essential that the work be done by women. There is a huge difference here. The former claims that we don’t need Primary, YW, Relief Society, humanitarian aid, local compassionate service, etc. The latter claims that, in many respects, these roles can be played by either gender. I agree with that.
There’s a reason Primary, Young Women and Relief Society are called “Auxiliaries.”
Those are not the only Auxiliaries, though. Young Men, Ward Mission, Sunday School, and the Activities Committee are all part of the Auxiliary organisations list. The Melchizedek Priesthood quorums are the only organisations not part of that list.
So I totally understand the desire to have equal power/authority/whatever within the church. As I’ve said before, I don’t know why the Lord has organised the Priesthood the way He has, but I have confidence that there is a reason for it. And when it changes, I will not be one of those cranky old men who complain and refuse to accept the new way of doing things. (Rather, I expect to be one of those cranky old men who is telling off the other cranky old men).
(I should further add that, despite being just 26, I already consider myself a cranky old man, so there is no timetable here for me.)
It seems to me that having the women in the church serve in key positions (remember the positions are what are key, not that the women be the ones who serve in them) is a lot better than having no women serve in the church.
By the way, I think Adam and Mer are crying now that it has come out that you’ve never read Eddings. I haven’t told them – they just have that innate sense of knowing stuff like that.
I don’t really agree that the difference is huge, Alex. When a religion puts so much effort into reserving special, essential roles that can only be fulfilled by men as men, it’s kind of a slap in the face to not provide special, essential roles that can only be fulfilled by women as women. That’s what I’m complaining about, and I’m beginning to think that there isn’t a quibble-free way of saying it.
The Melchizedek Priesthood quorums are the only organisations not part of that list.
Aaronic Priesthood isn’t in the non-auxiliary group? Because Young Men is not the only Aaronic Priesthood group. The offices of the bishopric are AP offices and Sacrament meeting is an AP meeting.
I vaguely recall learning somewhere that Aaronic Priesthood is technically just a subset of Melchizedek Priesthood, but still, given how often Mormons themselves distinguish between the two, if we’re counting non-auxiliaries, I think AP deserves recognition.
Any reason that your name has changed to Ms Jack Meyers? I’m just curious.
Yup. I’m tired of people calling me “Bridget.” This will eliminate gender confusion while cutting down on the number of people calling me Bridget.
The definition come straight from the Handbook, and the Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders’ Guidebook.
Okay, your description of the roles now is different. I totally understand how you can bristle at the lack of “special, essential roles that can only be fulfilled by women as women” although it is my understanding that the Church no longer has the practice of having men (such as missionaries) serve as Relief Society presidents. The Leadership Guidebook and the GHI both indicate that the Relief Society is only to be organised when there are at least two women in the unit, and one of them serves as the RS President. This seems to be an effort to establish these callings as “special, essential roles that can only be fulfilled by women as women“.
However, I imagine you will not be satisfied on this particular point until there are no essential roles fulfilled by [men/women] as [men/women] at all.
It says that you need at least 2 women in a branch to organize a Relief Society; I don’t see where it says that one of the women must serve as RS president. At least, I don’t see it in the online copy you linked to.
I couldn’t find a thing about women being required to serve as RS president in the 2006 CHI, but I only have book 1. I don’t think book 2 has been leaked online.
However, I imagine you will not be satisfied on this particular point until there are no essential roles fulfilled by [men/women] as [men/women] at all.
Okay. Let me explain how I feel about this.
I’ve struggled a lot with the concept of gender differences in the last year. I think it’s pretty likely that I have what gender scientists call a bridge-brain, meaning I exhibit a number of character traits and thought patterns normally associated with men. I’ve always been abnormally competitive, combative and aggressive. Girl Scouts drove me crazy growing up because I lived in Alaska and the stupid scout troops never wanted to do anything outdoors. The other girls thought I was weird because I had collections of Ninja Turtles and Voltron action figures along with My Little Ponies and Jem dolls, and I was an avid gamer. I think my body missed out on the “you’re a girl” memo, too, because I kept on growing past my father and two of my three brothers, stopping at 6′0″—two inches taller than the national average for white men, eight inches taller than the national average for white women. None of the women in my family are taller than 5′7″ or 5′8″.
Then I grew up, and I started running into these religions with strict gender roles which were always going on about essential gender differences, and I thought… are you kidding me? Every time I had to read or sit through a lecture on how men are more aggressive and bold and competitive and that’s why they’re better suited to hold the priesthood or be pastors and elders, I just wanted to gag. It seemed to me that all people really meant when they talked about “gender differences” were general gender tendencies which may or may not be essential. Where did people like me who bucked these trends fit into such systems?
What helped me was history. I began reading up on the history of the egalitarian movement and the origin of the concept of “complementarity.” What surprised me was that it wasn’t modern-day male headship advocates who developed the concept of gender complementarity. Prior to about 1986-1987, in the evangelical movement they were known as hierarchicalists or traditionalists. It was the egalitarians who first began discussing gender complementarity. Why was that?
Earlier this year, the Washington Post ran an article about a number of recent gender studies showing that companies which have women among their top CEOs are more financially stable and turning better profits than companies which are all male. The article argues that this is because men and women have different, complementary attributes and when these differences are exercised in leadership together, they balance each other out to produce better results.
That’s what egalitarianism is. Egalitarianism is pro-gender-complementarity. It just holds that such complementary differences need to be observed and exercised at all levels of church hierarchy. It argues that restrictive, hierarchical gender roles don’t facilitate gender complementarity, they obliterate it. In an egalitarian system, there will always be a place for and a need for men because complementarity in the leadership can’t exist without them. Both genders are truly essential. I still don’t know where I fit as far as “gender differences” go, but I’m willing to believe they exist, and I believe I fit somewhere.
Alex, I can’t tell you how to fix the LDS system to my satisfaction without giving women the priesthood because until women are given the priesthood, the LDS system has nothing to do with complementarity. It’s all about restrictivism. Restrictivism makes one gender important at the expense of making the other irrelevant.
I do believe there are a lot of things the LDS church could do to improve its gender system without giving women the priesthood, and I’ve discussed that elsewhere. But it will always be at least a little bit broken until women have the priesthood.
You are very convincing, Jack.