In Search of Mormon Feminism: A Conversation with Lorie Winder Stromberg
For the first in a series of interviews called, “In Search of Mormon Feminism”, we asked Lorie Winder Stromber a few questions. Lorie graduated with a M.A. in humanities from Brigham Young University. She was the editor of the Mormon Women’s Forum Quarterly for seven years. Her essay “Power Hungry” can be read here.
1. How did you come to identify yourself as a feminist?
When I finished my master’s degree, I moved to
2. Within LDS culture, many feel that “faithful” and “feminist” are opposite terms. What is your personal definition of a Mormon feminist?
Quite simply, a Mormon feminist is a woman or man who self-identifies as Mormon and feminist, whatever their attachment to the Church or definition of feminism might be. There are all sorts of feminists, just as there are all sorts of Mormons. I’m careful not to make judgments about the faithfulness of either.
4. What do you feel are the main issues that LDS feminists are facing today?
Because of the threat of Church disciplinary action following Sonia Johnson’s excommunication and those of a decade ago, feminists who stay in the Church are often afraid to speak out. How can we expect change if we are silent? Are we willing to live with the possible consequences in either case?
5. “Power Hungry” is a forthright and potent essay. How did you come to “own” this term?
I suppose I got tired of taking a defensive posture, of feeling that I somehow had to justify my feminism to members of the Church. I no longer feel that way. It is clear to me that underlying such ridiculous comments as, “Women are more spiritual than men and, therefore, don’t need the priesthood,” is a tacit recognition of, but unwillingness to face, the inequity of women’s position in the Church. Using “power hungry” was a rhetorical device, a way of playfully re-appropriating a negative term so often flung at feminists much like gays have re-appropriated the term “queer.”
6. You have noted that an article by Peggy Fletcher Stack, which raises the question, “Where have all the Mormon feminists gone?” overlooks the Internet and the place of electronic lists. What are your impressions of the role and importance of the Internet to LDS feminists?
7. What is your vision for the women of the Church? What advice would you give to a new generation of Mormon feminists?
After 30 years of activism, I’m feeling pretty tired and cynical. I was pleasantly surprised to learn about your blog since many of the younger feminists I know have left the Church. However, it also saddens me that, after 30 years, we’re still talking about the same issues: How can women have a voice in a patriarchal institution? How do we combat sexual abuse in a Church where all men are seen as possessing a spiritual authority women don’t have? How do we deal with the schizophrenic messages that tell us men ought to preside over their families but also see their wives as partners? How do we live with the disconnect between sharing equal status with male co-workers in the secular sphere and taking a back seat at Church? How do we justify remaining part of an institution that encourages women to participate in their own subordination? Where is God the Mother in all of this? Perhaps we’re trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.
I take great heart in sites like this one. I think the real problem is that we have not found the right questions to get us to the right answers.
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
Comment by Anonymous — April 20, 2005 @ 5:20 pm
As someone that was born after Winder graduated from BYU, I’m interested in reading about all those experiences that she was involved in. What is the best place to go for such?
Posted by J. Stapley
Comment by Anonymous — April 20, 2005 @ 5:27 pm
BTW, some very timely posts on language issues and women at:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ozarque/
including the poem:
“The only song a woman knows
is the song she learns at birth …
a sorrowing song,
with the words all wrong,
in the manly tongues of Earth.”
and this thread:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ozarque/101861.html
Posted by Stephen M (Ethesis)
Comment by Anonymous — April 20, 2005 @ 5:31 pm
Thank you so much for this interview and post. I’ve loved reading FMH, it echoes many of my own feelings (although I’m only the FM part). Honestly, it’s really given my little brain an outlet, as well as pointing me in directions to read other Mormon thought. I remember being the 8-year-old who wondered why only boys got the priesthood and wasn’t happy at not getting an answer. It’s good to know I wasn’t a total freak:)
Posted by Catherine
Comment by Anonymous — April 20, 2005 @ 6:57 pm
Lorie-
What kinds of practical advice can you give women who are interested in working to effect positive changes in the Church, but who are wary of being labeled troublemakers and thus not taken seriously?
It seems to me that Mormon feminists are quickly dismissed by the establishment (and most members) merely for asking questions or expressing their own feminist views. It’s a Catch-22 situation - if women speak up, they are ridiculed and dismissed as troublemakers, and if they remain silent, their silence is interpreted as satisfaction with the status quo.
It was frustrating to hear Pres. Hinckley talk about the women in the Church as being utterly content and happy with the way things are, but I’m sure he and many other Church leaders feel this way because they never hear from faithful women who would like to see things handled more equitably.
Anyway, I’ve tried many different approaches in my Church experiences. Direct confrontation or challenges never work, no matter how pure my intentions are. And subtle questioning or suggestions are easily misinterpreted and ignored. What specific steps can we women in the Church do to express our concerns constructively, and to help move the Church forward in this area? Many women want things to change, but just aren’t sure where to start.
Posted by Tess
Comment by Anonymous — April 20, 2005 @ 8:09 pm
I do not understand. What exactly do you want changed? If you are looking for the the priesthood for women, it shows that you do not believe in the church (its ok, I don’t either). Don’t tell me that maybe you are the instrument God is using to enact change. If the church makes doctrinal changes due to pressure from within or outside the church, it proves (to me) that it is not ‘true’.
Posted by nitsua
Comment by Anonymous — April 20, 2005 @ 9:15 pm
“How do we live with the disconnect between sharing equal status with male co-workers in the secular sphere and taking a back seat at Church? How do we justify remaining part of an institution that encourages women to participate in their own subordination?”
I can understand and empathize with this view. I wonder though, about women who self-identify as both Mormon and feminist who don’t see things in that way. Church is one of the only places I don’t feel marginalized. And I’ve never felt that men holding the priesthood threatened my autonomy in any way, or that I was being required to participate in my own repression. For me, the question becomes, is there room within Mormon feminism for women like me, for whom the priesthood is not an object of desire? Will my feelings be taken seriously, or will it be assumed that I’ve just swallowed the party line to my own detriment? I don’t judge other women whose feelings conflict with mine, and I hope that those of you who disagree with me will respect a diversity of opinion on this subject.
Posted by Allison
Comment by Anonymous — April 21, 2005 @ 6:57 am
Just to be clear, I think there are more important issues in the Church that need to be addressed with respect to gender relations than giving women the priesthood.
1. Parity between the YW and YM programs. YM have constant affirmation as to how much the Church needs them through passing the sacrament every week to Eagle Scout programs sponsored by (and paid for) the Church. YW are told they need to prepare themselves to get married and have a family.
2. Separation between office of the priesthood and the priesthood itself. I believe that women have not been granted the priesthood for a reason. I’m not sure what that reason is, but I know God has a good reason for not extending the priesthood to women at this time. That said, there are many functions in the church that men hold that do not require priesthood. Women need to be given greater participation in setting policy (not doctrine) and in being able to control their own auxilliaries without constant guidance from men.
3. The role of motherhood. I love my mother and hope someday to become a mother myself, but I think that teaching young girls to devote themselves fully to finding an eternal partner and raising a family to the exclusion of fulfilling personal goals and developing individual talents is not helpful for many girls. Young girls need to be taught they are special and worthy of love independently of their relationship to men (future or current relationships). I think that there needs to be equal emphasis and encouragement for both boys and girls to find eternal companions, and then working together to raise a righteous family.
4. Women working outside the home. I think that the Church should allow men and women to structure their family relationships as they see fit, akin to the recent changes in the birth control policies. Women should be able to prayerfully choose whether to work outside the home (in fact, it is a necessity in many cases) without the guilt of knowing that the Church disapproves of working women. I believe that women (and men) will make the right decisions for their families in this regard, and should be given the opportunity to feel free to pursue goals outside of the home without a negative sanction from the Church. Since Church leaders have encouraged women to engage in challenging academic pursuits (see Cecil Samuelson’s recent talk about women in the hard sciences), it seems strange to hold on to the view that, after earning a degree in Chemistry, a woman should not be able to use her degree in work outside the home. Along these lines, I wish more Mormon women were out in the workforce encouraging corporate America to move toward more family-friendly, flexible work schedules and policies.
Those are some of my thoughts. None of these have to do with giving the women the priesthood, and many of them have everything to do with treating girls and boys, and men and women equally.
I don’t like to be accused of not believing in the gospel just because I disagree with some aspects of the temporal administration of the Church. Unfortunately, many people do jump to that conclusion whenever I voice my concerns.
Posted by Tess
Comment by Anonymous — April 21, 2005 @ 9:30 am
Allison said it perfectly.
Somewhere in the Doctrine and Covenants it says that the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind. Cafeteria Mormons are no better than cafeteria Catholics are no better than cafeteria Wiccans.
Contrary to Lorie’s ideas I believe that God concerns Himself deeply with our attitudes towards Him and His kingdom more so than with our insignificant, biased and arrogated judgments of His works.
I am sympathetic to women who think like Lorie, but I remain unpersuaded and view their ideas as generally spiritually unhealthy.
Posted by Lisa_K
Comment by Anonymous — April 21, 2005 @ 10:32 am
The term “feminist” sounds so dated. Why is it such a current term in the Church? Are assertive LDS women keeping it active as a way to define themselves and their viewpoint? Or is official LDS rhetoric keeping it alive as one of several stereotyped scapegoat groups? Or do both sides find the term useful?
My problem is that there are many LDS women who fit the demographic (educated, energetic, capable, and mildly frustrated) but who categorically reject the label “feminist.” For many Mormons, “feminist” just carries an irredeemably negative connotation. Not unlike how “Mormon” still conjures up negative stereotypes for many Europeans, perhaps.
Posted by Dave
Comment by Anonymous — April 21, 2005 @ 11:59 am
I can relate to Tess’ comments about YW. I am a YW Pres. and have a difficult time sticking to the lessons in the manual which only emphasize the wife and mother part of a woman’s role. I strongly feel that our job as leaders is to prepare our girls to be smart, self-sustaining women who are comfortable with themselves apart from any relationship to a husband or children. The Proclamation on the Family, the YW Theme, the lessons don’t prepare the girls for the fact that not all of them will get married and/or have children. Those who don’t ever marry might have a difficult time fitting in.
This Sunday my lesson is on “Choosing a Vocation” and I will not tell them to get an education as an “insurance policy” against the chance that their husband is out of work. Education is valuable for its’ own sake. If they choose to work outside the home I feel it is their choice. If they choose to stay home as they raise a family, that is their choice. My hubby reminds me that I am being subversive to the church’s teachings, but I cannot teach what I don’t believe is right.
Posted by Kirsten
Comment by Anonymous — April 21, 2005 @ 1:12 pm
I agree with Dave. “Feminist” is such a loaded word. And so is the term “cafeteria Mormon”. Obviously, you need to accept the basic doctrines of the Mormon church, but there is quite a bit of wiggle room in Church policy to accommodate alternative interpretations and practices that are more equitable.
For example, say you lived 35 years ago and believed everything the Church taught, except you did not believe that the Church should deny black males the priesthood, because you believed in treating all people equally regardless of race. I wouldn’t consider this person a “cafeteria Mormon”, but someone who prayerfully contemplated and studied the issue, and disagreed with the Church’s position.
That said, I liked Allison’s question/comment that we need to be mindful that women have choices and the freedom and wisdom to choose for themselves and their families how to live gospel-centered lives. We should be supportive of each other in creating a true sisterhood, while recognizing that each of us are individuals with different interests and needs.
Posted by Tess
Comment by Anonymous — April 21, 2005 @ 1:29 pm
Not to throw rocks, but I found Lorie Winder Stromber’s answers very fitting with her final comments where she describes herself as “pretty tired and cynical .”
I, for one, do not see a lost “generation or more of bright, young women and some older ones who valued their Mormonism but were tired of waiting.” I do, however believe there is a group of cynical, bitter people who believe the Church has left them because of its teachings, doctrine and world view when the opposite is in fact true.
The fact that the gap between Church and societal norms should not be a suprise. Last I checked we were still described as a ‘peculiar people’. Sometimes, acutally more frequent now than I can remember, living your life in accordance with the Gospel means living it in a way that is very contrary to what the world would tell you is acceptable. Its all part of the test we signe up for.
Posted by Cordeiro
Comment by Anonymous — April 21, 2005 @ 1:46 pm
Allison,
Yes, Yes, Yes! There is room for women like you, women who don’t see a need for priesthood ordination, in Mormon feminism. To me, being a feminist means wanting to support and empower women. I think there is a lot of room for differences in how we go about doing this. Sure, some people will disagree with you (I personally would fall down on my knees in tears and gratitude if women were ever ordained) but that doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t happily embrace you and discuss with you the issues that are important to you as a woman in the Church.
As for the term “feminist”, I find it curious that a couple of you think it so outdated/negative. I’ve self-identified as a feminist since I was 18 and I’m 27 now. I’ve always had a very positive relationship with the word. Maybe it’s because in an academic setting I studied current feminist theory, so it just didn’t ever seem old-fashioned to me. And it’s important to remember, as Lorie mentioned in the interview, that there are feminisms - all different types. I internalize and incorporate into my ideology those which resonate with me.
Tess, thanks for pointing out the loaded nature of the phrase “cafeteria Mormon.” I agree that there is a lot of wiggle room for interpretation and personal circumstance, while still having an faithful underpining in the basic gospel principles. (Besides, I don’t know how productive it is to label people “cafeteria Mormons” since I think the vast majority of us Mormons pick and choose in a “cafeteria” like way to some extent. Whether it be TV on Sunday, coke, R rated movies, Moms working or whatever, most of us are making deliberate choices about what counsel we’re going to put a lot of weight in and what counsel we’re not.)
Tess, thanks for defining the issues that are of particular concern to you. They certainly concern me as well.
Posted by Caroline
Comment by Anonymous — April 21, 2005 @ 6:59 pm
Hooray Caroline!! We are all cafeteria Mormons. Not a single one of us is doing it all right, or even doing it all. We can’t. There is not enough time in a day. And anyone who imagines that she is doing it all right has at least the sin of pride to work out. The best we can hope for is not to do any of it deliberately wrong, and each must decide what is right for herself to a great degree.
Mote and beam, sisters.
Posted by marta
Comment by Anonymous — April 22, 2005 @ 5:10 am
RE: YW (and other) Lessons
As a feminist, I attempt to always include stories about strong, independent, diverse women (from the scriptures and church history of course) in my lessons. There are so many situations and professions and attributes contained in these women’s lives, even those who are mentioned only in relation to the men they know, or only give one sentence (or less) treatment. They can still be used as examples. This is a great help (to me personally) in teaching in the church, from nursery to seminary to yw to rs to gospel doctrine (yup, done ‘em all) but nursery is the most important, of course
I also love to emphasize the maternal and feminine attributes and descriptions of and symbols of Deity throughout the scriptures, from creation to atonement and beyond. Just doin’ my part to provide some counterbalance. It is really hard when so much of the curriculum etc is written by men. No offense to these well-intentioned Brethren, but hey, let’s let the RS general presidency write the next few priesthood manuals for a change and see how that goes….
Comment by Lisa B. — May 9, 2005 @ 5:57 pm
I appreciate the comments about teaching YW. Another problem is that the manual is about 20 years old, and draws on conference talks and the like from things that are about 30 years old. So an easy way to bring some balance is to just update the lesson — as well as focusing on the more positive ideas, and incorporating examples from women and the scriptures or our own lives when what is there is just stupid. But I can’t decide if I want an update to the manual or not — I’m a bit scared of what it would be.
- KC
Comment by KCA — January 3, 2006 @ 1:31 am
I, too, believe women should be empowered to fullfill their measure of their creation. We should not settle for less than that.
But, what I do not agree with, is the mission of some “feminists” for eqaulity with men. Who wants to be equal to a man? We are not Men, we are Woman. Strong and powerful, born with more Christlike qualities than most men learn throughout their lives. The problem does not lie in the church, which teaches of the divine potential of Men and Women. The problem is the women that don’t understand, therefore not appreciating, their own missions and potential.
The problem is that, to be “equal” more and more women are setting aside God given maternal instincts and attributes for “bitchiness” and “power hungry” fights. They are trading raising children for climbing the ladder in the work place. They are trading service and humility for power and sef-gratification.
Good intentions coupled with pride and ignorance are what motivate feminists. Contention breeds anger and cynicism.
After 35 years of being a Mormon woman, I feel peace and hope in my role as mother and wife. That’s true empowerment.
Comment by Michelle — March 21, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
[…] Edited to add the cover image from the issue of Sunstone that published Wilcox’s essay. Lorie Winder Stromberg (who longtime fMh readers may remember from this interview) wrote: Heather, Linda’s piece on Mother in Heaven is classic! I was working at Sunstone when she presented it at the Sunstone Symposium and then had the assignment of coming up with the cover art featuring it when it was published. I went to the Salt Lake Library and found a great Leonardo drawing of a seated woman. The folds of her dress were well-defined, but as the eye moved up her torso to her shoulders and head, the drawing became increasingly sketchy, even unfinished. I loved this drawing and thought it visually captured the “sketchiness” of LDS theology when it comes to a Mother in Heaven. Permanent Link […]
Pingback by Feminist Mormon Housewives » Women and Authority: The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven — May 23, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
I am so glad to find a blog where LDS women can truly find their voices. Being raised in the LDS church I always took for granted the existing structure. Since becoming a YW leader I have noticed quite a disparity between some of the lesson materials and what I truly believe in my heart. I find it hard to stand in front of these bright and beautiful young girls knowing what I am teaching could lead to them feel marginalized and frustrated in later life. To michelle, being “equal” with men in the church, does not being the same as men. There will always be differences between men and women, I just don’t believe these differences should be used to determine who can use their voice and who cannot, who can hold power over another. I too love my role as a wife and a mother, and live my life in faith and service. How could you call any of these brave and educated mormon feminists prideful or ignorant?
Comment by Jill F. — May 29, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
I am curious to know whether or not Lorie still holds the opinion that if the Church did not introduce the priesthood to women that we would lose an entire generation of bright young women. We are now at least 2 years into the interview, and her opinion seemed to be expressed several years prior to that.
Is the Church still on a downward spiral leading to over-bearing men and oppressed, depressed women?
Comment by Kelly Knight — November 11, 2007 @ 11:19 am
Having joyfully served as a RS president twice and in pretty much every other leadership position at the ward level I never wanted the priesthood or questioned the authority. However, when I saw that the narrow guidelines of how one should approach life was destroying my youngest child’s self esteem I had to make a choice between his mental health and my devotion to the church. I took the matter to the Lord and low and behold, I felt strongly guided to move on to a new expression of faith. My husband of twenty five years ( married in the Salt Lake Temple while our parents stood outside) made it a matter of prayer and came to the same conclusion. The increased love and unity we feel in our marriage and family is indescribable. Freed from the schizophrenic counsel to be partners while he “presides,” he can finally let go of an impossible challenge and share in the responsibilities of family, work and life without trying to conform to a gendered mold. I never tried, and consequently found myself feeling like I had no “soul sisters” in the church. Most of the women I knew were frenetically trying to be perfect while fighting frustration, exhaustion, and a constant sense of failure. I was so shocked at the self-confidence in the women in the church we finally made our new home. My love of God has only increased. My desire to serve and obey continues. I support my daughter and her husband in their devotion to the church but am finding great new depths of spiritual discovery and joy.
Comment by Chris Woodbury — February 29, 2008 @ 6:20 pm