Fascinating Woman, Part 2
You can read Part 1 here.
Reading this book has changed my life.
No, seriously! Reading “Fascinating Womanhood” has impacted my life in two major ways. First, it helped me to recognize institutional sexism. Second, it gave me ideas for a few changes to strengthen my marriage. This post will focus on the first.
I started reading this book with a notebook and pen. I made three lists for the things I read: the good, the bad, and the pour-bleach-in-your-eyes-and-rip-out-your-hair horrible. The good list stayed relatively short at 9 items. The bad list was the longest at 27; and the horrible list came in at 19. However, I also stopped recording things toward the end because I was feeling sick to my stomach from what I was reading. I also started to notice patterns and can sum up the major ideas from the book in four statements:
First, we live in a man’s world, and this book is all about protecting the dynamics of that world.
Don’t compete with men for advancement on a job, higher pay, or greater honors. Don’t compete with them for scholastic honors in men’s subjects. It may be all right to win over a man in English or social studies, but you’re in trouble if you compete with a man in math, chemistry or science. Don’t appear to know more than a man does in world events, the space program, science or industry. Don’t try to excel men in anything which has to do with masculine fields of endeavor. (302)
Of course the reason Andelin gives for this is to “preserve your femininity” so men will like you, but it sounds suspiciously like an attempt to keep women from being self-sufficient or from having any kind of real say in the world around them. This keeps women dependent on men. And if women are dependent on men, they essentially must do whatever the men require of them. To me, this is essentially the definition of institutional sexism: structure, procedures or practices that have been established on the basis of a belief that women can only undertake certain roles.
What I find even more disturbing is that Andelin advocates that women give the power over them to men. If you marriage is not working out, give all the power over finances to your husband, and then allow him to show his love for you by bestowing a bit of that power on you through purchasing you a new washer and dryer. Her efforts at upholding this power structure of a man’s world are to encourage women to willingly relinquish any power or any capability for power they may have. This leaves women in an extremely vulnerable position. Andelin acknowledges that. If you follow her program, you may find yourself in this position:
Take for example a young widow left with several small children to support. She sets out single-handed to battle against all odds. She slaves and struggles, dares and suffers in her efforts to provide for her children. When defeat stares her in the face, she doesn’t whimper. Taking her lot as a matter of course, she grits her teeth and braves the struggle again. No matter what pain she suffers from overwork, she has a smile of comfort for her little ones; no matter how weary, she forgets her own weariness at the slightest hint of danger to her children. (303)
What I would really like to ask Andelin is this: Why do you hate women so much? Why do you hate women enough to encourage them to support a system where they have no power and must depend on a man for survival, and then when something happens to that man, they must battle and slave and struggle and face pain from overwork to survive - all while smiling at their children? (Because that is the “sweet promise” that men will love about you - although you are helplessly dependent on a man to take care of you and protect you, if he’s not there, he needs to know that “in times of urgent need, you would . . . not be helpless”.) Why not encourage those women to get an education where they could actually support themselves so that if they were to become widowed they could survive and have a decent life and be able to provide for their children without working themselves to the bone? What a horrible system for women!
I am so grateful that both our secular and our church culture is beyond that now - that our church leaders are encouraging young women to get their education to prepare to support themselves and their families. That our society has opened up all opportunities to women to study math and science and politics. Yay for feminists!
Second, most work in the outside world is men’s work, and domestic chores are women’s work. From the book:
Even if she rejects her home sphere and turns her heart and soul to the working world, she will have difficulty. In many jobs, she will have a natural disadvantage. She will not meet man’s excellence in his world, but will always be secondary to him. So she wanders between two worlds, having rejected her own where she could have been superior and chosen another where she will never be anything but a second-rate man. (318)
So don’t even bother attempting the math, chemistry or physics anyways because you’re just not good enough. Telling women they are not good enough is another way to assert the power of men.
Women in the feminist movement are inclined to feel that women’s work in the home is inferior to men’s work . . . Feminists fail to realize that someone must do the woman’s work. Someone must tend the children. (321)
Do you notice how she asserts that work in the home is “women’s work”? By establishing domestic work as woman’s work, it further establishes the division between the man’s world and the woman’s world. Why should men bother with “women’s work” when they have so many other important things to do? And how dare women consider neglecting “their work” to attempt anything else? (particularly when they will suck at it anyways)
Third, womanhood and motherhood are interchangeable. Even the Proclamation on the Family distinguishes between women and mothers. The Proclamation says that “Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children”. It does not say anything about the responsibilities of women. However, Andelin (and this view in general) conflates the two so that a woman is responsible to care for a man.
Fourth, the book infantilizes both men and women. Andelin tells women to be childlike.
Little girls wear ribbons, bows, barrettes, and flowers in their hair. They wear cute little hats. If you think it is ridiculous for a grown woman to wear youthful styles, wear them in your own home and let your husband be the judge. (376)
When a woman matures there’s a marked tendency for her to lose this childlike trait, especially when she gets married. She somehow feels that she must grow up, without realizing that men never want women to grow up completely. Truly fascinating women always remain somewhat little girls, regardless of age. (377)
But she also tells women to treat men like children:
You prepare him nourishing meals, wash his clothes, and watch over him to see that he doesn’t neglect his health . . . You try to prevent others from taking unfair advantage of his generous nature, try to keep his foolhardy courage from endangering his safety, and try to make sure that his manly indifference to detail doesn’t lead him into trouble. (304)
Kind of hard to prevent others from taking unfair advantage of him when you don’t have any power, but whatever . . .
It wasn’t until after I started reading the book that I realized I have been a feminist my whole life. I grew up assuming I could do anything any man could do if I wanted to. My parents taught me that I am smart and capable. I had access to a good education and was able to succeed (and beat out the boys pretty much from elementary school to graduate school). I encountered sexist people along the way, but it was easy to dismiss them as the exception instead of the rule because they didn’t fit with my view of the world. Even after two years on FMH, I still didn’t really get the institutional sexism that feminists fought against because it just didn’t seem to fit with my own experience.
But after reading this book, the culture we have evolved from is so clear to me. It made me understand things I have encountered that I couldn’t place before. Unfortunately, I can never go back to a naive sense that my own experience represents reality. I am seeing institutional sexism where I used to just see sexist pockets of jerks. The fact that many ideas expressed in this book are now considered “old fashioned” or just plain wrong by most people gives me hope. We as a church have already rejected many of the things put forth by Andelin (like that women don’t need to go to college). Despite the fact that she calls FW the gospel doesn’t make it so. It is in fact contrary to the gospel in many ways. This gives me hope for the future on what other cultural practices that are currently called “gospel” by some might change.
I am so glad we are moving toward the way that I always thought it was where men and women are equal and husbands and wives are true partners. Yay for the feminists who got us here.
This is awesome Stephanie. I have so loved watching your discovery, because it proves that feminism is so much more than what it’s enemies say it is.
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 19, 2010 @ 5:23 pm
Let me just say FINALLY! I am so excited to read this post! K see you in 10 minutes…
Comment by pdig — March 19, 2010 @ 5:28 pm
Holy. I feel like you, like I didn’t realize or understand how bad it used to be. How can women read a book now that says ‘you will never be as good as a man at physics’ and go on to recommend it to someone else?! Did she even give qualifiers like ‘…because you should be busy with your kids’ or is she just calling women stupid? If we are stupid, why didn’t a man write FW for her so it could be THE BEST and not just second-best? Poor lady. Gag.
Comment by pdig — March 19, 2010 @ 5:37 pm
pdig - that is an interesting comment because one of the quotes (the one about how women are second-rate men in the workforce) is actually a quote from Andelin’s husbands book “Man of Steel and Velvet”. She quotes it in her own book to make her point.
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 5:40 pm
Oh gosh, at work, don’t have time to read this post yet, but it’s the first this I’m going to do when I get home.
Comment by Hammie — March 19, 2010 @ 5:53 pm
It’s interesting to read the book with an eye on classifying manipulators…childish tactics being key…and understanding why they do it…do people manipulate becuase they think everyone else really is better? is it a self esteem thing?
it is frightening that the same is applied and identified as womanhood-be childish and manipulate becuase you just aren’t good enough. frightening.
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 19, 2010 @ 5:55 pm
Fabulous post! I’m not sure what more to add except I wish most women would read this book so they could truly see what a would without feminism would be like.
Comment by AllieKay — March 19, 2010 @ 5:57 pm
I would not want to be a party to that marriage one single day
Comment by pdig — March 19, 2010 @ 5:57 pm
Ridiculous Marie Curie’s life in a nutshell:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie
And, she wasn’t bring her husband food to help him work late in the lab. She was working there, too.
Comment by Mike H. — March 19, 2010 @ 6:04 pm
This is a great post. Well-done.
Unfortunately, most of what you quoted sounds like the stuff we used to hear at church during the Benson era. Sigh.
I think it will be decades before we can truly recover from that.
Comment by A Paperback Writer — March 19, 2010 @ 6:25 pm
Thanks for reading this drivel so I don’t have to.
Stephanie, I am so curious how your book club meeting went (goes?) down!
Comment by Lupita — March 19, 2010 @ 6:48 pm
My book club was completely canceled for the month with no explanation - just an email that it was canceled. What happened is that I was so shocked that the Bishop would approve this book (since I was told that all books had to be approved by the Bishop) that I asked the RS President about it, and she didn’t know about it. She said, “I thought all the books were written by general authorities”. Turns out the Bishop thought the same thing.
All the books on the list were by GAs except this book and one other (Kathryn Lynard Soper’s book called “The Year My Son and I Were Born”, which I requested to be on the list because I want to read it). Unfortunately, the fallout from this was that all books are apparently now written by GAs because Kathryn’s book is no longer on the list either.
I’m a little miffed by all of this. I suppose I just shouldn’t have said anything in the first place. These two books were really the only ones I was planning on reading this year for the book club, so I’m not sure how involved I’ll be.
On the flipside, I was able to have a couple of conversations with my single friend about it where we expressed our horror to each other and laughed at things in the book. She did end up reading the “Fascinating Girl” book. I don’t know if my three other friends are going to get together to discuss the book in an “unofficial” setting anymore. Considering how vastly different my interpretation of the book is from my good friend (the one who said this book represents the most Christ-like way to be a wife), I am thinking that it might be best to let this die and move on.
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 6:59 pm
Women who act that way can still be getting what they want day to day, but they don’t ever really mature into full adults, in that they get stuck in the childish way of interacting - whining, pouting, crying - and they don’t learn to effectively function, getting and giving what they really want. Their men don’t either, as they know they are being manipulated and so the relationships retain a certain amount of superficiality. I don’t understand why that was ever touted as ideal. It seems dishonest , and more than a little depressing. How can you be striving for perfection when you have made a pact with someone that you will never change- never grow up? I can only see that working if both people know it is a game, but being real people underneath the surface of their schoolgirl/pervy old man game they have decided to play to ’sustain his affections’ or however she says it.
DH and I have talked many times about how we love each other because we each want to be better, and we make each other want to be better. Where is the room for that in FW’s world? Is there?
Comment by pdig — March 19, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
I came across Fascinating Girl in the library today, and just from the back cover I can see that the books contents are “don’t be smart, boys don’t like that. You must always be cute and feminine. Boys might throw a temper tantrum if you are better than them, so always let them win.”
wth.
Props to you for suffering through that horrid thing!
Comment by Amanda C — March 19, 2010 @ 7:12 pm
I’m not saying that the book says to whine, pout, and cry, but I just see that happening as a byproduct of living your whole life as a character (in certain cultures, women still act very FWey, and I notice a lot of those things going on because they think they can not constructively discuss their frustrations)
Comment by pdig — March 19, 2010 @ 7:16 pm
I second what Lupita said (#11). Thanks for letting us know what the book is about so I know to avoid it like the plague.
Comment by berzerkcarrottop — March 19, 2010 @ 7:16 pm
pdig, you reminded me. In my first post, I quoted a part where Andelin says that no matter how good your marriage is, FW will make it better. As I was reading the book, I thought, “Oh no. My marriage is better than FW could ever be”. Like you said, it’s a very superficial relationship structure designed to manipulate the other person into giving you what you want. Except that the man doesn’t have to manipulate. He has all the power and control, so he can pretty much get what he wants. The woman needs to manipulate.
And what she calls “celestial love” is really just romantic attraction. She calls that “the highest kind of tender love a man feels for a woman, or a woman feels for a man”. BS. Romantic attraction is just the beginning.
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 7:16 pm
No. 5 Hammie, there’s your problem right there, you’re at work, having quit your proper sphere in the home. Get with the program!
No. 12 Stephanie, I frankly can’t imagine wanting to be in a book club that read only GA books. My wife’s book club, basically all LDS women, gets around this by having a rule that they don’t read church-related books at all. It’s not a church function, so if someone thought to try to tell them what they could or couldn’t read, they could tell him to go jump in a lake.
Comment by Kevin Barney — March 19, 2010 @ 7:21 pm
I’ve really enjoyed these two posts.
The thing that just galls me (among the multitude, but for the sake of brevity, just this one) is that any man who would WANT a woman who is a perpetual child- who stymies herself to make him look good, who relegates herself to insipidity- is not only not a healthy, functioning human being, but not a many I would want anything to do with. Ever.
Whew. Good thing too. This creature and I may never cross paths…
Thanks for the posts.
Comment by Tracy M — March 19, 2010 @ 7:23 pm
pdig, actually, Andelin does advocate pouting and crying. Specifically,
There’s another one about crying, but I can’t find it right now.
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
I can’t shake the feeling that the working title for the book was ‘how to make sure your husband keeps wanting to do you’. Her idea of the best relationship sounds eerily like what Anna Nicole had with that old raisin.
please don’t kick me out for being a total perv lol
Comment by pdig — March 19, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
Me, too, TracyM! I wouldn’t want to be married to a man who viewed me that way.
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 7:26 pm
Why do I feel so dizzy and nauseated. I’m grateful to you, Stephanie, for taking the time and energy to deconstruct this…er…excrement. I’m glad you have the intestinal fortitude.
Comment by Lorian — March 19, 2010 @ 7:28 pm
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Is that a real real quote? I’m serious.
What is Christlike about being a whiny baby?!?! What is Godlike (celestial) about manipulating people?! That is so backwards!!! How can you cleave unto someone and lie to them at the same time? What else is ‘being an actress’ in your own house but lying?!
Stephanie, how did you manage to finish it without ripping it in half I’ll never know
Comment by pdig — March 19, 2010 @ 7:29 pm
pdig and Lorian, at first it was kind of fun, but then it really just made me sick. I had to take it in small pieces.
pdig, I could write 10 posts full of obnoxious quotes straight from the book.
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 7:31 pm
I have actually been known to stomp my foot. Much laughter ensued (from both parties)
Comment by pdig — March 19, 2010 @ 7:32 pm
Stephanie, pleeeease join facebook.
is it working on you? Or was it deflected by your ovary shield
Comment by pdig — March 19, 2010 @ 7:34 pm
Oh, my! I read that 40 years ago as a newlywed. I thought it was oppressive even then, but it was considered conventional wisdom at the time, so I tried to make it work. It just made me more of a feminist. But do you want to hear the worst of it? It was one of the few books we could read that contained sex advise of any kind. We have come so far. Not done yet, though. Keep the faith, girls, in all its implications.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — March 19, 2010 @ 7:34 pm
Is the book working? Stay tuned for Part 3!
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 7:35 pm
I was actually going to ask you to do a post just outlining the 19 horrids
Comment by pdig — March 19, 2010 @ 7:36 pm
IdahoG-ma, it does have a section on sex, and, honestly, I found it pretty acceptable.
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 7:37 pm
Wait… Ther is actual SEX advice in there? Oh no…
Comment by pdig — March 19, 2010 @ 7:37 pm
Totally. But if my husband was turned on by this stuff, I’d be worried about him ending up on “To catch a predator.” Seriously, this gives me a terrible feeling in the pit of my stomach:
I’m the mom of three little girls and I’m totally getting bad chills from hearing about this book.
Comment by jen — March 19, 2010 @ 7:38 pm
Jen, I know. Yuck.
I don’t know about her husband, but mine prefers boobs.
Comment by pdig — March 19, 2010 @ 7:42 pm
Stephanie, great post! I hope you still read The Year My Son and I Were Born, even if it did get removed from the book club list…
One of the comments you made really stood out to me, because it is very indicative of a personal question I often struggle with:
My first reaction to that was, what’s wrong with being vulnerable? Isn’t that better than being cold? Wasn’t Christ the very definition of vulnerable? It’s like Andelin has taken a true principle of the gospel: the importance of being meek and kind and serving others and humble, etc. in following the example of Christ, and mutated it just enough to be a very twisted form of humility, but not so much that people don’t fall for it.
To be honest, it’s a balance I have a hard time finding myself. For me, it’s not an issue of a relationship with a husband, but even with my family and friends I find myself feeling like I should be more like a Fascinating Woman but then I just can’t bring myself to do it, and then blame the fact that I have a hard time keeping relationships on my inability to be as meek as I should have been, or that I didn’t serve quite enough or selflessly enough.
When you talk about institutionalized sexism, I think we are dealing with even more than that. I think we are dealing with deeper issues of people being able to be true to themselves while being Christ-like to others. Co-dependency and emotional manipulation is an aspect of FW and sexism for sure, but it pervades every other “ism” as well.
Comment by Enna — March 19, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
Gaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!! Whew, glad I got that off my chest. Stephanie, thank you for taking it for the team and reading this so we don’t have to.
Comment by sister blah 2 — March 19, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
Stephanie, I meant was my whining working on you. I also pouted, but it didn’t make it through.
Comment by pdig — March 19, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
Great points, Enna. Yes, of course I am still going to read Kathryn’s book! Too bad for everyone else, though.
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 7:46 pm
Wow. I am so grateful that I was raised in a home with parents who encouraged me to pursue education, get advanced degrees and, you know, not be a simpering servant to my husband. I can’t imagine feeling remotely functional in a marriage like that.
Comment by Mrs. H-B — March 19, 2010 @ 7:47 pm
This discussion is reminding me of something I’ve often overheard… the idea that women should be “in charge” but let their husbands believe it is really them that wear the pants. Everytime someone says this, it’s like they are the epitomy of wise, and to me it just sounds manipulative and dishonest….
Comment by Enna — March 19, 2010 @ 7:48 pm
Oh, I get it, pdig.
I do plan to join Facebook soon, but I want to be really careful about how I do it. (And, no, pouting and whining DO NOT work on me!)
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 7:49 pm
Enna! Don’t do that to yourself, you are great SIMPLY becasuse you want to be better! No one is perfect, but only douchebags dump real friends. If someone ever feels like you aren’t ’serving them enough’, they are not good for you, not the other way around. We are here to learn to give and accept service, blessings, and kindness-not to be policing people to see if THEY do. Sometimes people can act like jerks, and it’s great to reflect and change things you don’t like about yourself, but the best people to have in your life are the ones with an equivalent level of patience as you. JMH (bossy as usual) O
sorry so yelly :O
Comment by pdig — March 19, 2010 @ 7:55 pm
Thanks for your post. I’m in the middle of “The Feminine Mystique” by Betty Friedan and even though she’s on the other side of the coin, I’m having a similar experience.
Comment by Yoga Mama — March 19, 2010 @ 8:02 pm
One of the things that always amazes me about the type of ideologies expressed in Fascinating Woman, is how hard it is and how much work it takes to support the supposedly “natural” order of things.
Comment by Genavee — March 19, 2010 @ 8:14 pm
Elna Baker has a bit on Fascinating Girl in her book. It was hilarious (of course). She basically applied the principles, including going up to her prey and saying, “you look so strong and bearlike” and won the most eligible bachelor of the singles ward.
And as you might expect from a guy who falls for that stuff, he turned out to be a total tool.
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 19, 2010 @ 8:15 pm
pdig, thanks for the encouragement
But it’s enough of a pattern in my life that it would be, frankly, stupid of me not to see myself as a common denominator at least partially responsible. Even if that responsibility is choosing friends poorly.
But that’s kind of my point, I’m not sure that there are very many people that can be 100% without guile, sincere, etc. in every relationship, even if we don’t recognize it in ourselves. We are a product of our environment and our genes, and that includes protecting ourselves emotionally and spiritually. I think it’s part of human nature we are trying to overcome.
Comment by Enna — March 19, 2010 @ 8:16 pm
I just finished David copperfield and was so disgusted by Dora (whom is idealized in FW). She was completely childish adn so unsuited to be any sort of partner…so unsuited to real life that she dies.
Then there is Agnes-the angel who lets people walk all over her father and demurely waits for a man to come and fix it. YUCK.
humility is recognizing your abilities and gifts come from God, using them how He wants you too and for His benefit. It does not snivel, stomp it’s foot or pout. It does not fail to develop it’s talents, fail to prepare and call that humility. The name for that is stupid ingratitude.
Comment by britt-the pregnant — March 19, 2010 @ 8:25 pm
Enna- I feel you as far as attracting certain types of people. It sucks. I do like working on it, though.
Reese- I almost bought that book, is it as good as the amazon reviews say?
Comment by pdig — March 19, 2010 @ 8:39 pm
britt, the part of Andelin’s book that analyzes Dora and Agnes is particularly disturbing. Andelin says that Agnes represents the angelic side of women that men want and Dora represents the human side (also that men want). Although David “had worshipped Agnes from the time be first beheld her”, he became infatuated with and married Dora. Dora wasn’t much of a wife, but she appealed to David:
After Dora dies and David turns to Agnes, he “enjoyed real peace and happiness. She filled up the void in his life. She was a wonderful homemaker and gave him true understandin. They had children and a wonderful home life. He loved her but there was something lacking.”
Barf barf. Puke puke. And later in the chapter, Andelin says:
So apparently “once in a while” a woman inspires true love from her husband. Yuck.
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 8:44 pm
Enna #35, I’ve always thought there’s plenty of vulnerability already in a healthy relationship between two adults who act like adults, if they are deeply honest and open with each other and willing to undergo the personal challenges that marriage brings. There’s just no need to manufacture vulnerability by “giving” power to men– in fact, things like that could be seen as a substitute for genuine vulnerability, and an avoidance tactic. Certainly faking a FW persona is a way to avoid showing one’s “real” self.
I do have a bit of sympathy for the FW women of generations past, because I think maybe they felt they could not be their “real” selves in marriage no matter what. So constructing the FW persona may have been a way of responding to that pressure by withholding even more of the “real” self, or by leveraging the small amount of power that society did give women at the time. I don’t judge too harshly because I think a lot of women felt they had few other options. For women who felt they had no hope of being treated as an adult, no economic leverage, no education, no societal support, etc., childish manipulation doesn’t seem so unreasonable. The only other option I can think of is guilt-tripping and a persona of pious self-sacrifice– seems like that one was pretty popular too.
Comment by z — March 19, 2010 @ 8:53 pm
BTW, Stephanie, I would love, love, love to hear in more detail about how you came to understand institutionalized sexism. Were there other books or resources that helped? What was it like emotionally? Did it affect your relationships with others? Was it depressing? Did it affect your religious activity? I’m so curious!
Hugo Schwyzer had a good post on that issue a while ago that I can’t find– something about how difficult it is for some young women to come to terms with the depth and nature of the problem of sexism. Finding out that it’s not just a few jerks here and there means accepting that the problem of sexism is much more serious, and likely to impact one’s life in a much more insidious way and be more difficult to overcome.
Also, I’ve kind of been wondering, why do you describe yourself as “conservative”? Do you mean doctrinally?
Comment by z — March 19, 2010 @ 9:02 pm
Stephanie, the conclusion I gained from reading DC was that David never had love in his life because he was an idiot. I picked it up because it was dickens and that’s good right? sigh
The whole attraction confusion with love really ticked me off in FW.
Hey maybe FW could help people with really low blood pressure….
Comment by britt-the pregnant — March 19, 2010 @ 9:08 pm
z, well, I’m still kind of going through it. I just started the book about a month ago and finished it last week. I wouldn’t say that I really understand institutionalized sexism - just that I am beginning to recognize it. For example, I had a really hard time with Elder Pace’s talk because I felt that it supported this concept of it being a man’s world, and a woman’s role is to support the man. That was emotionally challenging to deal with and discuss with my husband (who saw absolutely nothing wrong with it). We had a pretty good fight over it, actually.
But, ultimately, where I am at now is that I see there is institutionalized sexism, but I also see that it has been broken down in some ways. So, I have hope that it will continue to break down. Being hopeful is easier than being angry.
(and it keeps me “soft” so DH will like me)
I consider myself to be politically conservative.
britt, I like your conclusion better.
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 9:19 pm
K, I am putting my food down.
britt. pick a name and stick with it!
brittK works. it’s short, sweet and there’s a good chance no one will ever show up with the same name.
[insert big goofy smiley face here.]
Comment by mfranti — March 19, 2010 @ 9:24 pm
stephanie,
EXCELLENT post.
i knew putting you on the payroll was a good call.
[pats herself on the back…]
Comment by mfranti — March 19, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
Thanks, Stephanie. Although I’ve never really gotten how “politically conservative” and “feminist” go together– I’ve always thought that feminism, at least in it’s ordinary manifestation in the US, was a pretty un-conservative set of ideas at its core, in addition to the general hostility of the US political and religious right to feminist ideas. But that’s another topic for another time, I guess.
Sorry to hear you had a fight with your husband. Feminism really tends to complicate marriage, even if the man is a feminist and especially if he isn’t. I think there’s sometimes sort of a grieving process for the imagined marriage that could have existed in a less sexist world.
Comment by z — March 19, 2010 @ 9:33 pm
Yea, I think we are dealing with a bit of this. Our fight was because DH takes my concerns so personally. When I say, “I don’t want to covenant with you - I want to covenant with the Lord or both of us covenant the same way”, he takes it personally like I am rejecting him. He said, “How do you think that makes me feel?”, and I said, “This isn’t about you!” The only reason I went back and married him after doing my endowment was realizing that he just isn’t “like that”. No matter what the church “told” him to do, I knew that he wouldn’t treat me as anything less than equal.
And he doesn’t. But I am finding that as we are becoming more entrenched in our roles, things are changing. And it bothers me. He doesn’t help out with dinner like he used to or enjoy grocery shopping with me like he used to. For my part, I am not enjoying those things like I used to either! I am wondering how much our roles are defining who we are.
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 9:44 pm
My husband and I argue about this kind of stuff all the time and it is sooo good for us. It is really eye opening for both us to understand where the other is coming from and requires us to really solidify how we feel about things. And really, he is the only person I can really fight with about things like this because there is this solid foundation of love and trust and respect that I don’t have with anyone else. Most of the time it is just discussion, but we’ve totally had major fights about a few things. I learned it from my parents who never fought a day of their marriage, but totally didn’t understand each other and let frustration build up until years later when it burst.
Comment by jen — March 19, 2010 @ 9:46 pm
mfranti, of course I think putting me on the payroll was a good idea, but I am a little biased . . .
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 9:46 pm
I’m just happy that the “Fascinating Women” parts of the gospel I was taught as a child are no longer true.
The idea that anyone, woman or man, should deliberately be less than their best just to keep someone else happy is loathsome.
Comment by Melissa — March 19, 2010 @ 9:56 pm
Fascinating, Stephanie. I think one of the hard things about coming to feminism is that it does mean a lot of difficulty in the most important relationships with men. And the example you give seems like a great illustration of how the current regime allows men to take for granted a lot of their special perks, and feel diminished when they are asked to return to mere equal status with women.
It’s interesting how you say he’d never treat you as less than equal, but then give an example of how he doesn’t see institutionalized sexism in the same way as you do. Do you mean that he would never knowingly or intentionally treat you that way? Because I think a key point in understanding institutionalized or culturally normative sexism is that it causes individuals to treat others unfairly without even noticing that it is happening.
Comment by z — March 19, 2010 @ 9:56 pm
Oops, I guess “fascinating” wasn’t the best choice of words. Very interesting, Stephanie!
Comment by z — March 19, 2010 @ 9:57 pm
Yes. Actually, z, I think that my husband is very much the same as me. I think he also has always been a feminist and just doesn’t know it. He doesn’t see the institutional sexism either. Or, rather, I just see a bit more than he does. His parents are fairly egalitarian and do a lot of role swapping. Our relationship with each other has never been anything other than a full partnership. I think that’s why he gets so frustrated. He thinks that the things I am concerned about aren’t an issue because they don’t apply to us.
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 10:08 pm
Just got done reading the post and all the comments. Thanks so much for letting us know your point of view on it… I will NEVER ever read that book, and if someone ever offers it to my daughter they are going to have one ANGRY mama bear on their hands. I’ve been trying to read “The Feminine Mystique” and see some of the same cultural norms in it…. boy does it ever make me happy I was born when I was!!!!!
Comment by April — March 19, 2010 @ 10:11 pm
DH wants to read the book. I should give it to him now that I’m done with it. Maybe it will tip him over . . .
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 10:12 pm
I’m interested in hearing more about other people’s experiences with feminism in traditional marriages — I’m not LDS (Catholic) but I am married to a Japanese man, and living in his country now, where “institutional sexism” doesn’t even begin to describe it here.
Stephanie, I hope you plan to post about the GOOD things in the book — particularly for the benefit of those of us who are highly unlikely to waste our precious free time reading it.
Comment by L. — March 19, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
L, I’m working on it.
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 10:14 pm
Oh DO let him read it… PLEASE
Maybe it will help him see a little better through your eyes when hard discussions come up.
Comment by April — March 19, 2010 @ 10:18 pm
#45 Reese, that part was hilarious. Of course, the whole book was hilarious.
Pdig, it’s a little risque in places, but definitely a great read.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 19, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
Sigh. #63, It’s a mystery to me how anyone could say the issues don’t apply to you, when at the same time he’s being like that about covenanting! I think “it’s not about you” is a useful approach, and maybe he’ll be able to hear it more clearly after some time to get used to the idea. I will say I think you’re setting the bar for “always been a feminist” rather low if you’re saying someone who doesn’t see institutionalized sexism is a feminist. It’s kind of a basic tenet of the theory.
One reason I’m so interested in your posts and your path to feminism is that I find it hard to understand when people aren’t feminists. I know that makes me sound totally sheltered! I was raised in a community where feminism was the norm, so I don’t have much perspective on what it’s like for people who can’t get their heads around it even as adults– I just don’t know why they can’t see how all this stuff adds up.
Comment by z — March 19, 2010 @ 10:24 pm
Just a thought… and this is if he still doesn’t see the unfairness of this. Might he understand if you explained that if you are going to “hearken unto him as he does to the Lord” that you want him to also “hearken unto you as you do to the Lord”? I know that is what you were saying… but I don’t think telling him it isn’t about him really clarifies much. Of course, you are probably way past that by now… either way though, I think the absurdity in that book would probably open his eyes a lot.
Comment by April — March 19, 2010 @ 10:33 pm
z, maybe feminism isn’t the right word, but based on that cjane thread (where she said that she isn’t a feminist and many commenters said, “If you believe in equality for women, then you are a feminist”), I guess I am using feminist in that way. Is that acceptable? I’m new to this. DH fully believes in equality for women. He supported me through my MBA, supported me in choosing to stay at home, supported me when I started my PhD, supported me when I quit. There’s not a bone in his body that believes women are anything less than equal to men. I think he’s just as baffled by the same things I am in the church. He says, “You don’t understand”, but he can’t explain it either.
We’re basically on this journey together, poor guy.
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 10:33 pm
ya, I think that being raised in an environment often times makes you oblivious to the day to day things within that environment that may be harmful. I don’t think that says much about the person unless the troublesome things have been brought up and they simply refuse to acknowledge that there may be an issue even when they can’t explain it.
Comment by April — March 19, 2010 @ 10:38 pm
My husband is the exact same way. Early example: he couldn’t understand why I didn’t want to change my last name, like I was somehow rejecting HIM and didn’t want people to know we were married.
I think that is pretty unfair. I’ve always been a Mormon, but am continually discovering new aspects of it and understanding it differently and am therefore a much better Mormon now than I was when I was 18. Isn’t being and -ist the same? No one starts out as a perfect anything.
Comment by jen — March 19, 2010 @ 10:43 pm
Wow, I don’t think I could stomach something like that myself, so THANK YOU for reading it and giving us a taste of the horror, Stephanie. Great post.
Comment by corktree — March 19, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
I mean being any “-ist”.
Comment by jen — March 19, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
Here is a GA’s response to FW’s claim that women should not try to compete in “masculine fields:
Those are two good quotes from a talk to women students at BYU. It is a talk I share with my BYU students every semester. And I probably should share it more often that that. You can read the whole thing here.
Comment by JesS — March 19, 2010 @ 10:54 pm
He sounds like a great guy, and I’m sure he’ll get caught up eventually. You’re on a long and complicated journey together, but I think the journey men make is necessarily a very different one. The identification and renunciation of privilege, and coming to terms with past embrace or even abuse of privilege in one’s closest relationships with people most dear, is a very difficult and complicated thing. And then it’s possible to overshoot, to become too passive, to avoid all assertion for fear of being too assertive, and miss the opportunity to be equal partners in that way as well. I have a lot of admiration for men who really work at this, because it’s not easy.
It’s not really up to me or any other individual person to say what’s “acceptable”– but I think the term “equality” is pretty problematic and ultimately not that meaningful. There are lots of people who insist that very gender-restrictive situations are “equality” in that they offer equal opportunity for personal growth or something. And then there are all the lovely commenters who constantly remind us that “different” is not the same thing as “unequal” but can never provide explanations for why a particular difference is or isn’t unequal. Perhaps that’s where he’s coming from on the covenanting issue.
One thing I firmly believe is that feminism, and equality, involves a lot more than just supporting women in doing whatever they want to do. Yes, feminism seeks to expand choice for women, but not all choices are feminist choices, and not all women who actively choose are feminists because they have done so. I think a lot of people conflate being a feminist with being a beneficiary of feminism. And the choices of men (and the extent to which men have choices) are a feminist issue as well, of course. I think being a feminist means striving to reevaluate one’s entire life, belief structure, and surrounding culture for gendered implications. So it goes way, way beyond supporting women’s choices.
Anyway, I’m sort of rambling here– night night!
Comment by z — March 19, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
Hmm, that gives me lots to think about, z.
JesS, thanks for that link!
Comment by Stephanie — March 19, 2010 @ 11:12 pm
jen, I don’t really think it’s unfair. “Being” “Mormon” is kind of a different thing than being a feminist, for several reasons.
1) it’s possible to be a “cultural Mormon” without having very much doctrinal knowledge at all– maybe that’s what you’re saying you were? The general idea is that having been raised in a thoroughly Mormon environment tends to instill certain Mormonesque ideas, beliefs and practices even without theological foundations, and that’s a way of “being Mormon.” Similarly, I do think there’s a “cultural feminism” or an intuitive feminism– it’s part of my own experience. And I don’t think a person needs to go to school or use particular academic terminology. But just like knowing some things about Mormonism doesn’t make one a Mormon, understanding some feminist ideas isn’t the same thing as being a feminist, even in the cultural sense, and I think understanding institutionalized sexism is accessible even for those whose feminism is primarily cultural. It’s not that tough a concept, in my opinion.
2) There’s a way of being “Mormon” in the official sense of having been baptized and entered into the various records. Feminism doesn’t have the same structure of authority, so it’s not possible to “be” a feminist in that sense.
I guess I tend to be one to police the label of “feminist” a bit, but that’s because it’s one I really care about, and I think handing it out to people with a very limited or partial grasp of the basic tenets ultimately makes the label less meaningful. If everyone who’s not a committed misogynist is a feminist, it doesn’t really mean much.
Comment by z — March 19, 2010 @ 11:12 pm
pdig - totally hilarious. Worth every penny. Elna is my kind of Mormon.
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 19, 2010 @ 11:28 pm
I guess I just don’t understand where your line is for who is a feminist and who isn’t, especially since, like you said, there isn’t a structure of authority. I look at my husband, who was raised by a flat-out misogynist father. I consider him a feminist, even though he does struggle with understanding some of the basic tenets. He has a desire to understand, but it isn’t just as simple for him. Sexism was so much a part of his upbringing that it is hard for him to always recognize it for what it is. I, meanwhile, have a hard time understanding what it is hard because I was raised culturally feminist, if I get what you mean. So is he an apprentice feminist and can be a feminist when he does come to the point where he does grasp the tenets?
I used Mormonism as an example because there were things about it that I just didn’t understand that I was doing wrong at the time, but life experience has helped me to see that I wasn’t quite living the gospel correctly. And I know that I’m still getting plenty of things wrong now that I will come to understand in the future. I know it isn’t the best comparison because religion is an endless journey and feminism does have a more solid goal.
Comment by jen — March 19, 2010 @ 11:35 pm
I actually was kind of disappointed in the book. It was very funny. I was laughing out loud, which I don’t usually do when I read. But it felt too phony to me. I’m sure most memoirs are embellished, but it seemed like she really wanted you to think she was being genuine when she wasn’t. She was a great writer. I’m sure she’d write awesome fiction. But this book as a whole just didn’t do it for me.
Comment by jen — March 19, 2010 @ 11:43 pm
I call DH a feminist because he would do anything I needed to become my best self. Some of the ways we interact and some of the responsibilities we have chosen look decidedly un-feminist from the outside, but I know that my wants carry equal weight. He doesnt qualify my feelings due to my gender. I am willing to call anyone a feminist who is willing to look at people as a brain first, and who values and strives for equal say and mutual respect. To use the above metaphor, we call someone a Mormon if they take the first steps, and they have to prove us wrong to lose the name. I personally prefer that kind of inclusion. I don’t fault him for what he has seen or not seen so far in the world, because he has shown me that my feelings are as important to him as his own. I get the feeling Stephanie has the same kind of marriage, but I obviously can’t know that for sure.
I did say ‘best self’ which differs from your ‘whatever a woman wants’. If DH were deciding what ‘best self’ meant, I know this would be a whole different story, but that is something between me and God.
Comment by pdig — March 20, 2010 @ 12:00 am
81–I loved 95% of it, which is pretty remarkable. She had me hooked from the dedication to her parents, where she apologizes for each swear word, page by page. Hilarious.
Comment by Lupita — March 20, 2010 @ 12:08 am
Haven’t read the whole conversation, but this stood out to me:
I am so grateful that both our secular and our church culture is beyond that now
I’m going to push back a little on this and say that our church has taught the value of education for women since early on. I know that there are some cultural changes, too, but I think sometimes we don’t always realize enough of what we have had for as long as we have.
Just my half a cent, since I don’t have time right now to read through comments, etc.
Comment by m&m — March 20, 2010 @ 1:15 am
yes, m&m, but in the 70s we were taught education *while* parenting, not before (unless you happened to find yourself single)
Comment by venus — March 20, 2010 @ 3:58 am
Yes, jen #82, that’s roughly what I would say. In the absence of an authority all we have is our own reasoning. I think calling people “feminist” when they have yet to master the basics of feminism is a mistake because it waters down the label and confuses the question of what it means to be a feminist. People are confused enough about that already. And if someone doesn’t understand the basics, how do we know they would embrace those ideas if they understood? It’s kind of like if I said “I believe in God, so I’m a Mormon!” without ever having heard of Joseph Smith or polygamy in the afterlife or whatever. It’s just going to confuse everyone, and it makes people think they’ve understood something when they really haven’t. It’s not fair to anyone, really, even to the person being labeled, because they don’t have the information they need to decide whether to accept or reject the label.
Comment by z — March 20, 2010 @ 6:59 am
Stephanie: Isn’t it amazing that the context in which something is resented can make such a stark difference to the way we react to it. I was especially surprised to read the following sentence.
It struck me that this tells us something about Ms. Andelin’s own marriage and who it is who is/was really in charge. You can’t give over power that you don’t have. I heard rumors after Mr Andnelin wrote Man of Steele Man of Velvet that the marriage broke up.
The other thing that struck me was how similar this advice is to what Carlfred Broderick, a marriage counselor gave, when he said the way to end a power struggle is to resign the throne. It was basically the same advice. It is good advice. It might not straighten out the finances but it will make it clear who it is that is messing them up. And it will defuse the power struggle so the couple can work on the real problems.
If I our book group was told they could only read books by GAs we wouldn’t have a group.
Comment by Claudia — March 20, 2010 @ 9:01 am
m&m, that’s a good point. Brigham Young emphasized education for women, and the church took steps to support that. Women used to have much more autonomy in the early church, and that seemed to change with correlation. It makes me think that a lot of the things that bother me are cultural or are temporal solutions to a specific time or problem, not necessarily the will of God.
Claudia, I don’t get the impression from the book that Andelin is advocating turning finances over to the man to avoid a power struggle or to expose his faults in managing them. Her reasons are the following:
I submit that giving the husband complete control of the money goes back to the idea of defining roles, with the idea of protecting his position of power. Everything is cased in this idea of protecting a woman’s femininity - that if she loses it, she will no longer be “fascinating” to her husband.
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 9:26 am
88 z: That totally makes sense and I agree. Thanks for the clarification.
Comment by jen — March 20, 2010 @ 9:34 am
Isn’t it the boy who is supposed to sparkle?
Comment by jen — March 20, 2010 @ 9:35 am
Claudia-why not just check the rumor? No the marriage did not break up.
Venus education during parenthood is a far cry from no education. My sister graduated pre-med after having twins. Many people on this board have continued their education after children. Education has always been emphasized…you can argue that a few parts of FW have been said by GAs but not the don’t get educated part.
Comment by britt-the pregnant — March 20, 2010 @ 9:45 am
One more thing about m&m’s point. I don’t know that any or all of Andelin’s ideas have ever been supported by the gospel or the church. I’ve never heard a quote from a GA that would discourage women from obtaining education. But, I do think these ideas have been supported by some in Mormon culture and that the culture and the gospel have been confused so that people think that her ideas were/are the gospel.
I think I mentioned before that my friend who believes in FW chose not to take an accreditation exam with her husband even though she could because she didn’t want him to think she was competing with him - she wanted to make sure he knew he was secure in his role. And she told me this is the most Christ-like way to be a wife. Maybe that was the best thing for her marriage, but I definitely do not think support for that has ever come from the church or gospel.
At this point in time, I think that even our culture is beyond that - helped by President Hinckley and other church leaders telling the young women to get as much education as they can pretty much every time he spoke to them.
But, anyways, my original point was that this was about church culture, not the gospel.
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 9:48 am
abdicating the throne is great advice—why should there be a throne? Why wouldn’t you just look at the partnership and see how it works best-skill wise, time wise, ability wise…etc? Even deciding that wouldn’t put someone on a throne….I just don’t think that’s wise. I just don’t think throne’s have anything to do with companions or partners
Comment by britt-the pregnant — March 20, 2010 @ 9:55 am
Reading the quotes from the book made me physically ill.
“Stomp your foot, lift your chin high, square your shoulders, pout …”
I won’t tolerate behavior like that from children - it is rude and disrespectful. For an *adult* to behave that way would be utterly appalling, especially a spouse, who is supposed to be an eternal partner.
Seriously, Stephanie, I don’t know how you ever managed to finish that book. Talk about taking one for the team! I don’t normally advocate book burning, but for this one I could almost make an exception.
“Yay for the feminists who got us here.” - totally agree. Thanks for the illuminating post!
Comment by Matt A. — March 20, 2010 @ 10:36 am
THIS BOOK IS A SET BACK TO FEMINISM, WOMEN’s RIGHTS nad propegates the ridiculous persecatory behavior so many modern day mormons men and women alike are striving to move away from. I wonder does the author know the heritage of the mormon women… Strength, love, nurturing, and setting examples to thier children, thier community , thier peers. It is an OUTRAGE! HAs she forgotten the relief society’s tireless and profound work in giving women the right to vote, the right to own property, the numerous amounts of charitable organizations, the hospitals, the schools etc they helped to organize and build up. I seriously doubt the relief society women stomped thier feet and pouted to the men in government that they wanted ownership and voting rights… How dare she put this book out there for our young women to see. Yes we should promote beautiful loving familiy relations and homes, but we should also support our young women’s educational needs and teach them to use education and intelligence to thoughtfully and compassionately work out thier differences. My husband and I equally share household chores such as cooking cleaning and laundry, We have 8 beautiful children 5 daughters 3 sons…. We have 2 college graduates 1 daughter and 1 son, one in college daughter, 1 daughter who is in LA signing a record deal and is an amazing singer songwriter 2 in highschool, i in middle school and 1 in elementary school. All of our children are chaste, moralistic, active church members and the ones old enough are in strong relationships with other mormons who agree that these ideas are disturbingly against the true belief system. I have a very demanding career and I am currently obtaining my masters degree… So ladies out there LDS or not if your husband seriously likes it when you act in this manner and you feel that this is the way to be, as a loving sister i beg you realize the problem is not YOU! the problem is your relationship. Any marriage civil or eternal should be based on faith,love, honesty, mutual respect, support, and trust. If yours is based on playing ridiculous games and acting in less than mature manners, please seek out council and pray and reflect on how this relationship really promotes the true goodness of a christ centered and family centered life. IF YOU HAVE CHILDREN…. please put serious thought on how acting in the manner this book promotes can teach them some disturbing lessons about adult relationships.
Comment by jan — March 20, 2010 @ 10:59 am
jan, it’s not so surprising to me that the book was written (in the 60s). I think it’s fairly reflective of its time and culture. My friends told me that it was a backlash to feminism. It is surprising to me that it continues to be reprinted - and purchased! Let’s just let it die already!
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 11:34 am
(And of course I have to admit that I purchased the latest copy - I didn’t want to read what was written to the 1960’s audience. I wanted to read what was directed to women today)
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 11:35 am
I think my friend wanted to bring me back from my “dangerous” flirt with feminism by encouraging me to read this book. I don’t think it worked out so well.
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 11:37 am
Great post, Stephanie. It’s hard to believe today that such extreme beliefs were mainstream not long ago. It seems like deliberate caricature, but it’s chilling when you realize it is absolutely serious. And it all shows how dangerous and limiting it is when society applies gender roles and characteristics.
re: education
The issue of education and the LDS church is rather complex. Yes, the Church has always encouraged education for women. But the level and type has not been very egalitarian. The Church very much promoted education along the lines of conventional conservative society through most of its history. Women should learn home economics, and advanced training should be in the areas of nursing, teaching and other skills which fit into the traditional feminine, nurturing roles. Women were not encouraged to train as engineers, entrepreneurs, doctors, or architects: those were “manly” vocations. And women have typically been admonished not to let education get in the way of family–a warning we men have rarely heard (except perhaps as it relates to fathering children…).
Comment by Derek — March 20, 2010 @ 11:43 am
I agree with your first post… it was reflective of a group of woman who when civil and womens rights, vietnam etc were trying to change the world they were trying to hold on to a lifestyle that was slipping away, however even then I think it was a poor STAB AT IT! lol … I am glad your friend loves you enough to try to help, i dont think feminism is “dangerous” as long as like anything else it is kept in perspective and used as guidance and not overall submission to it.. (i hope I am making sense here lol) I am glad you read it and not so secretly glad you didnt fall into that stinky garbage!
Comment by jan — March 20, 2010 @ 11:46 am
I know this is way past, but I just have to stand up to defend my boy C.D.
I read most (if not all) of Dickens as a satire on the class struggles in western culture at the time. To me he made Dora and Agnes so utterably one-sided (as he makes many of his characters, or caricatures) to remark specifically on that aspect of their personality. Not to endorse it, but to pick it apart and draw attention to asking why we have those aspects as a part of us…
Anyway, I love Dickens and hate to see him maligned
okay, back to FW…
Comment by Enna — March 20, 2010 @ 11:47 am
z- great point about a healthly marriage having plenty of vulnerability in it. I think that’s why something like FW is appealing to so many. You take something like vulnerability (good!) and manufacture it so that it becomes unnatural and fake. (bad) But because we read vulnerability=good, a lot of people don’t catch that there has to be honesty and sincerity in that as well, otherwise it’s just a cheap copy…
Comment by Enna — March 20, 2010 @ 11:50 am
Derek,
I agree that the church’s stance has changed on education of woman through its history however its stances were more often but not always a ( sign of the times) it is very similiar to the debutantes of the early and mid 20th century who were sent to college for the express purpose of meeting a male counterpart (julia roberts did a movie that focused on this) and in many select groups other than mormonism these types of gender assignments still thrive today. I would also like to point out that I think all christian based religous sects have the attitude that if a family can afford for the mother to stay home with the children that it is often better for the child, actually non secular non biased studies have proven for years that children with a non working or part time working stay at home parent overall did better in many areas of education, emotional development, and behavioral arenas. As a happy side note of changes occuring in our area, which is southeastern nc, 85 % of the women in my direct area hold jobs, 55% have a higher education than just highschool and 50 % could stay home if they wanted but have chosen thier career. Me being one of those women. I have never had one instance in my childrens church teachings that I felt my daughters were not being supported to educate themselves or to only do it in certain areas.. Maybe it is a geographical variance. I am not sure.
Comment by jan — March 20, 2010 @ 11:58 am
re: 105
And I’m certain that this study is accurate. But the Church remains rather traditional by asserting that ideally it is the woman whose role is to be that SAHP, rather than embracing the idea that either parent can fill that role.
Comment by Derek — March 20, 2010 @ 12:22 pm
How can you say that, when Brigham Young called women to go to medical school, and Utah had a disproportionate number of female physicians, who in turn trained nurses and midwives, making Utah one of the safest places to deliver a baby in the early 1900s? Just saying.
Comment by Naismith — March 20, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
Regarding women working, I think that is why it is so significant to me that Andelin does not distinguish between women and mothers in prescribing gender roles. I feel strongly about children having a parent at home. I just do. However parents can work it out, I think it is ideal to have a parent at home with children. And when you factor in pregnancy and breastfeeding and recovery from that, I don’t have a problem with the Proc encouraging fathers to be responsible for providing for their families while the mothers are nurturing.
However, I just don’t think that extends to women who are not in that situation. Yes, I agree that we should prepare for the potential roles of mother and father, but that doesn’t mean that we need to neglect preparing for other roles. And it certainly doesn’t mean that once a SAHM has finished raising her kids that she needs to stay in that “role” of housekeeper for the rest of her life. That’s just ridiculous.
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 12:43 pm
Enna #103 - I think your bit of insight makes Andelin’s use of these characters that much more amusing. Here is what she says about the characters she uses as examples:
The fact that Dickens’ characters are satirical makes me laugh out loud!
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
re: 107
You’re right, I was partly mistaken about the physicians. The Church did encourage women to enter medical school–primarily for basic work related to childbearing and other “feminine” areas.
Comment by Derek — March 20, 2010 @ 12:51 pm
Re 110 - the interesting thing about that is that it was progressive and empowering to women. Look at what happened when women were essentially shut out of the medical field. They were knocked out for childbirth with their husbands in the other room. With the rise of feminism, we have had a turn back to more natural childbirth. Is that a coincidence, or are they related? With more women in medicine, medicine is getting better for women again.
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 12:57 pm
I think that in some regards this is encouraged bythe LDS church but I also believe that the church uplifts and honors women in many ways and I think they make suggestions based on the natural tendencies of women to be the better SAHP and the factual truth that for every 1.00 a man makes a woman will make 0.77 cents for the same job with same educational level. I think the church is attempting to give generalized advice to counsel its members for what generally works the best for raising a strong eternal family and on paper it is generally the most suitable environment to foster good results financially and spiritually, however the church also makes it very CLEAR that there are different scenarios that can arise and that these things such as child rearing, finances, and personel family relationships and inner workings are really decisions ultimately left to the family as long as the family whole recognizes its responsibility in the making sure they are stll reaching the goals that will make thier eternal family excel!
Comment by jan — March 20, 2010 @ 1:04 pm
If anything I think the burden of the churchs suggestions fall heavily on the father… he is bread winner and often for very large families and he is also required to nuture his children and ensure his childrens religous, educational, and emotional success. He is the one who is blamed at a higher level for the families failures as well. If I was going to say there were gender issues in the churches teachings, I would say they have strengths and weaknesses for both genders… But again I dont think the church is trying to do that just providing strong advice for what is unarguably the best scenario for a majority. A church as large as this has to focus more on a majority when giving generalized advice and direction. I think the majority of mormons realize this is advice and do not take it to be doctrinal law.
Comment by jan — March 20, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
My mom just emailed me a great point related to your comments, jan:
In our society (and in a lot of societies around the world), it is very easy for the father to take on little to no responsibility. I appreciate that our church teaches that men are responsible to their families.
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
re: 111
Yes, it was progressive within a very restricted framework.
I do think that the rise of natural childbirth does relate to the evolution of feminism. Interestingly for those who feel feminism is anti-man, feminism has lead to a greater egalitarianism and more involvement in men and husbands than any other time in history (in traditional childbearing, only women members of the family and midwives were present). There is a recent book on the subject which sounds very interesting: Get Me Out, by Randi Epstein. I haven’t read it, but heard several interviews with the author on various radio shows.
Comment by Derek — March 20, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
re: 112
That gets back to the idea of gender characteristics, about which I’m extremely dubious. I’m unconvinced that women are innately and naturally better nurturers.
That is a fact, no doubt. And I believe we should respond to that fact not by then insisting women shouldn’t work because of that fact, but rather fight to eliminate the wage gap.
re: 113
In some ways true, though that is balanced by the fact that he has authority and is higher in the hierarchy of the family, which also gives him greater freedom and opportunities for abuse of power. But to the extent that men do experience a greater burden, I believe we should push for greater egalitarianism. Neither sex should experience the greater restrictions and burdens caused by traditional gender roles.
Comment by Derek — March 20, 2010 @ 1:29 pm
I don’t mean to disagree too strenuously, Stephanie, and maybe I don’t disagree at all. But I think it is easy for people to overlook that LDS men often work 60-70 hours a week to support their families, often taking on a 2nd part-time job. It is simply taken for granted that he will do whatever is necessary to shovel money in the front door, regardless of any other circumstances. It has been my experience that the way a man’s life changes as children come to the family is that he has to be away from home more. His work burden shifts from a 40 hour week to a 60-70 hour week, but it’s all work outside the home so it isn’t really appreciated or acknowledged. The church also doesn’t care, because it will often call men to demanding callings that require many hours a week to fill. Against this backdrop, I wonder how much work at home with the kids it is reasonable to expect men to do.
I think a reasonable solution would be for the mother to work part time. Most studies show that she is happier with that arrangement, and that would also allow for dad to be with the kids more. However, I do not anticipate that this practice will be officially encouraged anytime soon.
Comment by Mark Brown — March 20, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
Re 115 - As I take on the label of feminist and try to figure out what that means for me in terms of activism, I think that what I want to push is that work in the home and childcare is work for both men and women. It’s not contrary to the gospel, it puts children and families first. If fathers are more involved at home, it frees up mothers to pursue their own interests without children being neglected. Anyways, we each need a cause - that’s mine.
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 1:31 pm
I’m sorry, but your comments are just rubbing me the wrong way. “Basic work related to childbearing and other ‘feminine’ areas?” Basic work? So encouraging women to become doctors isn’t good enough because they only wanted them to deal with women’s issues? Is that really what you are saying? Teachers and nurses are some of the most important jobs in a community, and ones which men tend to reject because they are “lower status.” The Church, meanwhile, in it’s focus on education and service lifts up the status of those jobs. I’m not making sense, but you are coming across as belittling those “feminine” careers, which I’m sure you aren’t meaning to. I think this is an area that the church has done very well.
Comment by jen — March 20, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
Mark Brown, I totally agree! I have actually been thinking about that a lot lately. But why shouldn’t that practice be encouraged? It doesn’t interfere with the mother being the primary nurturer. It doesn’t interfere with the father providing for his family. It is “helping one another as equal partners” while giving both father and mother the opportunity to spend time with their children.
If we needed additional income over what DH could provide working full-time, I think I would likely work part-time during the day and find childcare for my children not at school. I would want to preserve as much family time as possible.
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 1:40 pm
The family time is really important. I would work nights and weekends which was good for the kids because they always had a parent home with them, but bad for my husband and I because we never saw each other. It would have been better to have the kids in daycare two days a week and have the whole weekend together as a family. We actually did that when I first started and had to work days and it really worked well because they still had so much time with us.
Comment by jen — March 20, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
re: 119
I’m describing how the people at the time saw it. For most of human history, and frequently even now, work which is seen as “feminine”–work which, as you said, is some of the most important work out there–has been undervalued, as evidenced that society considers it “beneath” men. Regardless of how crucial those things truly are to society, as long as women are pressured into those roles, and men are discouraged from those roles there will be a big problem regarding equality, and that work will be undervalued.
Comment by Derek — March 20, 2010 @ 1:53 pm
117-that has definitely been the situation in our home-add the baby sleeping in our bed-which affects him, him slinging the baby when possible-and almost always at church-when he is home it’s whoever can -does
Sometimes I think we see the man walking out of the home (to go to work) and think “freedom”-when he is think about working 60+ hours, his calling and family and not exactly free.
There need to be a more willing individual application and review of what the needs really are for the family and how and who can best fill the needs-
I do think someone should be home with the children if possible.
IME Father cannot always step in enough so mother can pursue interests-in that case I have found other women to be invaluable-trading babysitting, book groups with children, classes online, dad stepping in where possible-just flexibility
Comment by britt-the pregnant — March 20, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
I don’t have time to even get started on reading all these comments, but I have to say, Steph. I have noticed this before, and mentioned it a few times, but I am so so impressed by your level-headedness and ability to have an open mind.
I have never witnessed someone examine their own thoughts and ideas so honestly, with so much willingness to listen to others and give new ideas a fighting chance. On this post, definitely, but just in general, you are an amazing example of continuing to learn and expand your own mind.
So, high five.
And BOOOOO Andelin.
Will part 3 give a synopsis of your book club discussion about the book?
Comment by Hammie — March 20, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
No, Hammie, see comment #12. The book club was cancelled.
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
And thank you for your kind comment!
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
re: the Burdens of Men
Yes, there is a lot which traditional culture expects of men. But in my observations, men seem to get a lot more passes than women. For example, I’ve seen men get “the night off” to go to the game with the guys than I’ve seen women get the night off to go out with the girls. And when the guy is watching the game at home, he’s much less likely to be involved in the activities around the house (corralling kids, changing diapers, cleaning). But when a woman is watching her show at night, she’s typically still expected to be “on the job” with the kids and house.
re: 123
Perhaps people would be more likely to do so if there was less institutional emphasis on one particular model and its supposedly natural and divine status as the norm.
Comment by Derek — March 20, 2010 @ 3:15 pm
I haven’t read any of the comments and I guess I am not really even responding to your post. I just wanted to say that however well-meaning the author of Fascinating Womanhood was, she authored a book that is truly evil. The work of the devil. And I am not overstating. When I think how many people have been influenced by this book, it is sickening.
Comment by E — March 20, 2010 @ 3:16 pm
Actually, the Relief Society opened the Deseret Hospital and it treated all kinds of folks, not just women’s health issues.
Comment by Naismith — March 20, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
For me, the really critical thing is that when he is home, he shares the work that crops up during that time. He does not get to flop on the couch while I continue working.
Comment by Naismith — March 20, 2010 @ 3:22 pm
I was under the impression that the RS had a great deal to do with the founding of the Primary Childrens Hospital as well, but I could be greatly mistaken.
Comment by April — March 20, 2010 @ 3:22 pm
I agree with that. But is it feminism? Why would you want to take on the label of feminism, when so many feminists don’t agree with that goal?
Wouldn’t it be better to come up with a new term that doesn’t come with all the baggage of the f-word?
Comment by Naismith — March 20, 2010 @ 3:24 pm
I want to re-iterate that what the church stance really is and what is practiced in our home is equal importance on all things…. career for both, ny husband does more cleaning than i do but he is not a cook, i take kids to school and he picks up, i grocery shop and pay bills he does all the yard work and we both nuture the children based on the issue and who is better at it. I was merely stating that the norm is if there is a stay at home parent it is the woman because of differences in salary although many woman non mormon and mormon are fighting to equlaize that playing field and because typically due to breast feeding and the like with toddlers women are the nurturers… that is not true of all men but medically and reality speaking it is a human make up of women verses men, it is not a trumped up thing by anyone… it just is…. THE BIGGEST point to make is that suggestions are posed on mass level in all sects of society but the church stance is it is really what works for the family…. I have never been treated by my sisters in relief society or church leadership based on my career choices… actually i speak to our church groups often concernig my community based as derrick put (womans work) as nurse manager for the largest healthcare corporation in the eastern portion of America….. My husband a pharmaceutical rep… we are excepted encouraged and well reicieved in our community and I think the problem really is interpretation of the leaders advice and being unable to seperate it from church law…
Comment by jan — March 20, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
Naismith, what Brigham Young taught, in the days of Polygamy–which for many women, equalled single-motherhood, has as much to to with Mormonism as taught and lived in the 1950’s through ? as many of his other doctrines do.
Here’s someome much more recent, Ezra Taft Benson speaking in 1987:
“[I]n the Doctrine and Covenants, we read: “Women have claim on their husbands for their maintenance, until their husbands are taken” (D&C 83:2). This is the divine right of a wife and mother. She cares for and nourishes her children at home. Her husband earns the living for the family, which makes this nourishing possible. With that claim on their husbands for their financial support, the counsel of the Church has always been for mothers to spend their full time in the home in rearing and caring for their children.
“We realize also that some of our choice sisters are widowed and divorced and that others find themselves in unusual circumstances where, out of necessity, they are required to work for a period of time. But these instances are the exception, not the rule.
“In a home where there is an able-bodied husband, he is expected to be the breadwinner. Sometimes we hear of husbands who, because of economic conditions, have lost their jobs and expect their wives to go out of the home and work even though the husband is still capable of providing for his family. In these cases, we urge the husband to do all in his power to allow his wife to remain in the home caring for the children while he continues to provide for his family the best he can, even though the job be is able secure may not be ideal and family budgeting will have to be tighter.
“Our beloved prophet Spencer W. Kimball had much to say about the role of mothers in the home and their callings and responsibilities. I am impressed tonight to share with you some of his inspired pronouncements. I fear that much of his counsel has gone unheeded, and families have suffered because of it. But I stand this evening as a second witness to the truthfulness of what President Spencer W. Kimball said. He spoke as a true prophet of God.
“President Kimball declared: “Women are to take care of the family–the Lord has so stated–to be an assistant to the husband, to work with him, but not to earn the living, except in unusual circumstances. Men ought to be men indeed and earn the living under normal circumstances” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 318 ).
“President Kimball continues: “Too many mothers work away from home to furnish sweaters and music lessons and trips and fun for their children. Too many women spend their time in socializing, in politicking, in public services when they should be home to teach and train and receive and love their children into security” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 319).
“Remember the counsel of President Kimball to John and Mary: “Mary, you are to become a career woman in the greatest career on earth–that of homemaker, wife, and mother. It was never intended by the Lord that married women should compete with men in employment. They have a far greater and more important service to render.
“Again President Kimball speaks: “The husband is expected to support his family and only in an emergency should a wife secure outside employment. Her place is in the home, to build the home into a haven of delight.”
Comment by djinn — March 20, 2010 @ 3:57 pm
re: 129
Yes, they did open Deseret Hospital. and here is some of what we know about that hospital:
The focus was on obstetrics, maternity…women’s issues. Given that the Deseret Hospital was created in an era before medical specialization really came onto the scene, we can’t say for certain women would have been discouraged from the full range of specializations. But since women were definitely discouraged from other supposedly masculine professions, one can speculate…
re; 131
Yes, the RS was a primary mover (forgive the pun) in Primary Children’s Hospital. And the care of children was definitely considered the feminine realm.
Comment by Derek — March 20, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
yes, m&m, but in the 70s we were taught education *while* parenting
haha…I still don’t think that has necessarily changed.
I don’t see any specific counsel to get education before parenting. I think ultimately we each have to pray and figure out what and when and how with balancing education and family.
Stephanie,
Interesting to read your thoughts about correlation, etc. I’m one who has a very different view of correlation as actually something that had and has a divine role in the progress of the Church. So I suppose there we’ll just agree to disagree.
Comment by m&m — March 20, 2010 @ 4:15 pm
I think a reasonable solution would be for the mother to work part time.
I find it interesting that the implication is that such a solution is officially discouraged by the Church.
I think it would be wrong and confusing to encourage it directly, though. I think the key is that people are encouraged to be prayerful about the solutions that will work for their families, with certain ideals in mind. It’s like Elder Holland taught — the ideals are there for a reason, but then it’s our job to figure out the specifics, often in less-than-ideal situations.
Comment by m&m — March 20, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
I really don’t understand how the church encouraging women to fill those important roles (at the time) is negative. You would rather they were encouraging the men to become OB’s? Or are you saying that the church saw those things as woman’s work, but in order to influence society as a whole, they should have been sending out the women to become engineers and encouraging men to become nurses and teachers in order for those positions to gain more importance? I see it as the church seeing that there was a need to be filled because the men saw these things as unimportant, and the church understood how crucial these things were, and therefore encouraged women to fill those needs.
I guess it’s just that I value the personal more than the impersonal. It’s one of the reasons that I don’t really care about the hierarchy of the church being primarily male, because I think the most important work in the church is done by the bishop and relief society president, as they meet the individual needs of those whom they serve. What bothers me is that so many of the men within that hierarchy DO consider their service to be more important. Kind of like all those ambitious APs. And it bothers me that they don’t involve women more in their councils. Okay, I’ve lost my train of thought. I guess I’m just saying that I always thought that the top leaders of the church have had the same value on the individual (not always, of course) as I do even back then and that they considered those “feminine” jobs to be crucial and couldn’t let them be ignored. But it is hard to understand the motivations of an institution. Sorry for the rambling.
Comment by jen — March 20, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
Naismith - yes. It is feminism.
As in any other philosophy on earth, there are different ways of going about the same goal. Republicans don’t agree on everything. Democrats don’t agree on everything. Feminists don’t agree on everything - except for equal rights for women.
The majority of modern feminism - third wave feminism - is exactly as Stephanie described. A major critique of 2nd wave feminism is that women were trying to succeed in the “man’s world” to the detriment of the home, and leaving out women who felt called to me mothers or homemakers. Many many 3rd wave feminists now are focused on elevating traditional “woman’s work” to be equal to that of “men’s work,” thereby removing stigma and just making it all “work.”
Much of the DIY movement, Bust magazine running craft projects, Etsy, all came from a return to appreciating the work of the home.
You’re going to find feminists who don’t see things that way - and my guess would be that those feminists either aren’t up on current theory or don’t have an inclination towards the home themselves, but that doesn’t make it unfeminist.
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 20, 2010 @ 5:08 pm
I was merely stating that the norm is if there is a stay at home parent it is the woman because of differences in salary
Hm. Are you saying the church’s stance on mom being home is due to salary issues?
If so, I strongly disagree with that. There are no qualifications to that ideal, except to say that it is ‘by divine design’ that the primary roles are as they are stated in the Proclamation. I think we have to realize that is the case rather than try to pretend that gender roles really don’t matter anymore to the Church, or that somehow this is still just behind-the-times thinking. The Proclamation has been talked about as being scripture-like, and it’s very clear about the divine nature of these roles.
But there still is also much space in all of for personal revelation — considering all the counsel about having children, gender roles, education, etc. I’m constantly amazed at how much variety there is in the specifics of different people’s lives, even when embracing all that the Proclamation and prophets teach.
I like what Elder Scott recently said — (paraphrasing, of course) that the complexity of our lives requires personal revelation, in ways that perhaps are even different from ages past.
Comment by m&m — March 20, 2010 @ 5:28 pm
re: 138
Encouraging women to fill those important roles was not negative. Discouraging them from filling other roles to which their gifts might suit them was negative. To give women freedom to seek an education, so long as it is only along these certain lines, is a pretty hollow freedom. They could have and can do better.
Comment by Derek — March 20, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
m&m, I don’t think I said my comment on correlation very well. In fact, not well at all. I didn’t mean that correlation is not God’s will. I mean that I think correlation was/is the solution to specific temporal problems, not the eternal order of things. I definitely see the value (particularly in reading the posts over on BCC) and agree that it has enabled the church to progress and grow. But, considering that God is unchangeable, I don’t think that correlation and the structure of the church represents eternity. It sounds to me based on everything I know about the gospel that we are organized in eternity by families. So, husband and wife are pretty much the beginning and end of authority. Does that make any more sense?
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 5:39 pm
Stephanie- thank you for having the patience to read FW. Seriously, I think I would have had a stroke if I tried to read it. After reading all the comments, the only thing that has really struck me (since so much of it has already been said), is that I wouldn’t want anything even remotely resembling Andelin’s version of marriage. It’s not even a relationship- I cannot imagine living such an inauthentic sort of life and cannot imagine thinking so poorly of my own sex. It’s really sad. Anyone who reads it nowadays, I hope they use it as a measure of how far we’ve come and where we never want to go again.
Assistant. At least it’s honest about a woman’s actual position in the context of her husband presiding. I’m tired of hearing it denied.
Comment by Kimberly — March 20, 2010 @ 5:59 pm
Kimberly, I missed that quote in the comments. Where did it come from?
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 6:06 pm
I found this article yesterday comparing FW and The Stepford Wives. It was very insightful.
http://www.lsu.edu/faculty/jpullia/fascinatingwomanhood.htm
Stephanie ~ This statement from FW gave me the creeps.
Why would a grown up man want a woman to be childlike? I find that mindset perverse.
Comment by Kalola — March 20, 2010 @ 6:28 pm
Kalola…I think anyone might appretiate childlikeness that we hear about in the scriptures…I think that’s where andelin got it…unfortunatley what she talks about is childishness-stomping feet and tossing hair-being inept
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 20, 2010 @ 6:35 pm
Stephanie #134 djinn Quoting President Kimball.
Comment by Kimberly — March 20, 2010 @ 6:37 pm
It is perverse, Kalola– it’s a system designed to cater to male insecurity by giving men someone to look down upon. Be feminine so he’ll feel masculine, be immature so he’ll feel adult, be incompetent so he’ll feel competent, be passive so he’ll feel active, be irresponsible so he’ll feel responsible, etc., etc., etc.. Because men can’t handle their feelings of insecurity, so women have to sacrifice almost everything to protect them from such terrible suffering.
All this is supposed to maintain a happy marriage, but really it’s a trap– having sacrificed all earning capacity and general power, a FW woman would probably to be desperate to maintain her marriage, since it’s the only thing keeping her out of poverty. That’s what makes all these crazy shenanigans make sense. Once she’s gone down the FW route and acted like a child, it’s almost impossible to back out of it and regain an equal relationship, so doubling down on the FW routine is all she’s got.
The alternative, i.e. being a competent adult and having a happy marriage anyway– or, gasp, a self-reliant single woman– is never really discussed in FW.
And the cost to women, and to society, of all this fake incompetence, is never examined. What might a FW woman have contributed to her household and to society if she thought her husband could withstand the crushing blow to the ego that is an intelligent, competent, mature partner?
Comment by z — March 20, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
There are a fair number of men who excuse their immaturity as boyish charm. I, for one, am not impressed. I can’t imagine men being charmed by immaturity, either.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — March 20, 2010 @ 7:26 pm
#148 z- I think that’s a perfect analysis. Thank you.
Comment by Kimberly — March 20, 2010 @ 8:29 pm
Please note that talk was a North American Fireside. It wasn’t given in general conference and it wasn’t given to the entire church.
Here is some of my experience with the church and these issues:
1976 - I was reading FW, and an LDS guy (stake missionary) told me how much he hated it because it was so manipulative, and he was glad he was best friends with his wife instead. He baptized me a few months later.
1977 - I remember numerous talks at BYU about the importance of women finishing their education.
Also, I had neighbors who were both in law school, with two little kids. She took the LSAT only to help her husband study for the test, but someone from the law school contacted her, encouraged her to apply, offered financial aid, convinced her that it could be a great career for a mom (part-time opportunities).
1978 - Had neighbors who had part-time scholarships. (In comparison, the university where I am currently employed doesn’t even allow part-time undergraduates, which screws mothers over IMO.)
1979 - Got pregnant and faculty at BYU were entirely supportive, allowing me a year to finish term papers, etc. Unlike my own grad school elsewhere, where a pregnant woman was flushed from the program when she couldn’t keep up the pace.
Also, that summer met some moms who were staying in Helaman Halls with their kids, as part of a summer program to encourage moms to finish their degree/recertify. Apparently June Oaks, Elder Oaks first wife, had finished her degree that way.
early 1980s - got a distance learning scholarship from BYU to take a course that would later be a prerequisite for my graduate degree.
So clearly, everyone in the church back then did not fall for the FW line. Most in my experience did not. My experience at BYU was that they were MUCH more supportive of women’s education than any university with which I have been associated since.
And of course we can pick and choose GA quotes like playing a violin. President Kimball also said some awesome things about women being equal partners and great scriptorians, etc.
Comment by Naismith — March 20, 2010 @ 8:33 pm
I think Linda Hirshman would be a bit outraged at being told she is “not up on current theory.”
Well, I guess part of it is where you live and who you deal with. I am active in the League of Women Voters, which is neutral regarding such issues, but we do join with self-described feminist groups for common causes and co-sponsored events during the year. They have made it clear that to be a feminist one has to (1) be pro-choice when it comes to reproductive rights and (2) value women’s professional accomplishments. They are quite disdainful about “choice feminism” as not really being feminism, and opting out of the workforce being bad for society.
Comment by Naismith — March 20, 2010 @ 8:41 pm
Ug. Don’t get me started on Linda Hirshman.
Hirshman and her ilk might be “aware” of current feminist theory, but they certainly aren’t subscribers to it, and I think their continued alienation within the movement reflects that by refusing to leave the 2nd wave they are getting left behind.
I’m having a total brain fart - who was that Harvard regent or something who recently said that women who stayed at home were wasting their education? She faced major criticism for that one, and if I could remember her name I’d look up and see if she managed to keep her job. I’m thinking she did? But barely? Anyone know what I’m talking about?
Anyway, the criticism came from feminists too. This group you work with regularly is giving you such a narrow example of feminism and is the equivalent of the Teabaggers.
OK, maybe that’s harsh. They’re not total racist loons or anything, the point is that they are one segment within a much MUCH larger group trying to accomplish a similar goal. They don’t get to set the terms.
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 20, 2010 @ 8:51 pm
Naismith, you’ve led a charmed life. I’m delighted that it’s all worked out so well for you. But frankly, the fact that one very, very outspoken women, with a very, very accommodating husband and all the advantages of education and financial security managed to succeed, doesn’t really persuade me that everything’s A-OK when it comes to gender. Sometimes I think that when you recite your own experience in this way, you’re setting up a straw-feminist. Nobody’s really arguing that it’s impossible for any woman ever to succeed or to have mostly positive experiences being LDS. It’s more about the additional barriers that are placed in women’s paths because of their gender. Especially women who aren’t as naturally outspoken as yourself, or who don’t have the advantages of education and a supportive husband. I’d love to hear your thoughts on that topic, rather than the old “I did it so everyone else can too.”
Comment by z — March 20, 2010 @ 8:53 pm
Also, I totally don’t buy the “I’m only taking the LSAT to support my husband” line. Taking the LSAT costs several hundred dollars, and there are a lot of easier ways to help a man study. Sounds like a case of “I can’t admit I’m smart and ambitious” to me.
Comment by z — March 20, 2010 @ 8:56 pm
I find that just as limiting as telling a woman she has to be a SAHM. Having choices and getting support to live them is true emancipation. Being put in another kind of box (you must be in the workforce)- that just sets us behind in the other direction. Both men and women moving towards balance in their home and work lives (which can overlap for a SAHM or SAHD) seems to open up a broader spectrum of choice for both. How can raising children be bad for society. All the studies prove otherwise. They also show that it doesn’t really matter if it’s mom or dad who is there, just that someone is there who is consistently available.
I think I’ll keep sticking with humanist, if I’m forced to declare, because I think a lot of things have to change for both sexes. I don’t think choice feminists should back down to the feminists who tell them they only belong if they believe A, B, C- when the baseline should just be equality for women. (Along the lines of the basic definition of a Christian is acknowledging Christ as Savior- but look at all the denominations out there who call themselves Christian and believe so many different things.)
Wonder what Cady Stanton would have thought of being told she wasn’t a feminist because she was pro-life? Or Alice Paul, original writer of the 1923 ERA, who said that “abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women”. I’m pro-choice myself, but, I don’t have the nerve to say the founders of feminism weren’t feminist.
Comment by Kimberly — March 20, 2010 @ 9:03 pm
I think what’s really going on with the hostility to “choice” feminism, or at least with my suspicion of it, is that it can easily devolve into “I’ll just do whatever I feel like doing and call it feminism.” Feminism means working toward equality– working hard, challenging yourself, making sacrifices. It doesn’t mean just doing whatever you want and patting yourself on the back for being sooooo brave and empowered for making what is really a very common decision to stay home. There are lots of “choice” feminists who are great hardworking feminists who are really making a difference, but I think the idea has a tendency to let people off the hook. Yes, feminism wants women to have more choices, but no, that’s not all there is to being a feminist. I also can’t stand it when people say “I don’t work, but I’m raising my children to be feminists, and isn’t it just so incredibly important to do that.” Working mothers raise their children to be feminists too.
And that I think having more women in the workforce really is very, very important, for the construction of a more gender-equal workforce and also for the movement of wealth and the conduct of business in our society. What corporations and governments do is a big deal and affects all of us, and if women aren’t involved at every level, it will be to our detriment. When women work, the workplace and its impact on the society is altered. This doesn’t mean that any particular woman has to work, but I don’t think it’s an issue that can just be shrugged off. And the second wave went through a lot of struggle to make the workplace as hospitable to women as it is now. I have my disagreements with that generation, but I really don’t like to see their contribution in that area discounted by younger folks who don’t even know what it was like back then. I think “choice” feminism has an unfortunate tendency to dismiss this whole line of thinking.
Comment by z — March 20, 2010 @ 9:19 pm
re: 151
I’m sure he did. And yet he continued as leader of the Church to perpetuate the notion that the role of women is to be housewife and homemaker, and that of men is to be provider and presider, didn’t he?
I don’t think what we’re talking about here are individual quotes, but rather the cultural pressure generated by the combined direction of wonderful men who were nonetheless products of an era in which many assumptions were made about sex and gender, assumptions which don’t seem to be particularly valid as we come to recognize the true diversity of people regardless of sex, but assumptions which are still used to pressure conformity to those old stereotypes. As Z has noted, just because some notable outliers are able to experience that pressure less or resist that pressure does not mean the pressure does not exist.
Comment by Derek — March 20, 2010 @ 9:32 pm
z- is there a reason you write ‘ “choice” feminism ‘ every time? It’s not a made up thing you know. It’s a tad dismissive.
I actually agree with you that labels do need some boundaries or else they lose all meaning. But I get so stinking frustrated when that policing alienates people who might be willing to adopt the label, learn more about the movement, and contribute to the goals.
Like, say, Stephanie and Kimberly. I get so stinking frustrated when people get the impression that one vocal wing of the philosophy speaks for everyone.
The 3rd wave rose up in response to changing needs that the 2nd wasn’t reflecting. That’s not an abandonment of the efforts of the 2nd, but an adding to. The work done in the home is just as vital to society as work done in a traditional workplace. Healthy kids raised to be productive members of society is important. That can’t be shrugged off either.
Making the workforce hospitable to women was - is - of vital importance. The next step is elevating the work done in the home.
I think the only women in your scenario that deserve criticism is a SAHM who spends all day watching television or on the computer, and just being around to feed kids and make sure the house doesn’t burn down.
A SAHM who actively chooses to stay home in order to educate her children, serve in her community, participate in the classroom, help give other moms the flexibility they need to be in the workforce. You know, it takes a village and all that.
A lot of readers here don’t comfortably wear the feminist label, and don’t spend their time debating feminist theory. I think we should be trying to encourage more converts to the cause, not creating additional divisions.
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 20, 2010 @ 9:45 pm
I don’t recognize myself as a feminist for precisely what Kimberly is saying-add to being told I cannot be a feminist because…depends (I’m a sahm, mormon, conservative, complicated stance on abortion)
I think we rather unite on the issues we can. I have found it easier to unite when not everyone is focusing on what I don’t have in common or do, or if I’m something enough-ahh the freedom.
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 20, 2010 @ 9:59 pm
Reese, I put quotes around “choice” because that’s what I see other people doing. I’m not really sure why that happens– I’m not intending to dismiss it, even though I don’t really buy into the idea. Maybe because “choice” is used as an adjective to mean “select” or “superior”, like “choice nectarines” or something so it seems weird to leave off the quotes, because it would imply “feminism of the highest quality.” Sometimes I see it capitalized, but that seems weird to me too.
I guess I just see staying home as a little bit more problematic than you do. I’m not one who thinks all women have to work, or that all work automatically advances the feminist project. And I recognize that some SAHMs really do a lot for working women, and that it often goes unrecognized. But I do see that lots of women manage to further the feminist project in both the home and the workplace. So I don’t think saying “we’re raising healthy kids to be productive members of society” really gets anyone very far, because it suggests that working parents are somehow failing in that capacity, or that raising healthy children is incompatible with working. And I think there are serious theoretical problems with being a traditional SAHM– for example, that it reinforces the norm of greater male economic and governmental power, and that it enables and reinforces the assumption that women can be counted on for all kinds of uncompensated labor in their communities in a way that men cannot. I’ll probably be a SAHM for a little while myself, so it’s definitely not fair to say I’m “against” it or think it’s not ok for a feminist, but I do think these are theoretical problems that choice feminism needs to confront. Also, it seems like it conveniently lets women off the hook if they really wanted to stay home anyway for unrelated or outright unfeminist reasons, which is kind of a watering-down. So that’s my thinking– I have the feeling you won’t like it, and I promise I’m not trying to make you mad or hurt your feelings.
I know that a lot of readers here are new to feminism or uncomfortable with it, but I don’t think we should try to paper over the different strains of the movement. Most people are mature enough to handle the idea that adults have strong differences of opinion, and I think they’ll be attracted to the idea that the movement is vital enough to have multiple waves. Serious disagreements are a sign of a big tent in which interesting things are happening. I think developing a bit of a thick skin is an important prerequisite to being a feminist, especially if you’re going to be a feminist among Mormons and a Mormon among feminists, so if people are alienated by a little bit of policing, they probably weren’t going to end up participating much anyway.
Comment by z — March 20, 2010 @ 10:11 pm
No no, you’re not making me mad. This is a great example of someone who disagrees but does it in a totally calm, respectful, impersonal manner. Only good can come from that.
I recognize all of the theoretical problems you name. Absolutely. And I think Choice Feminism (
) does wrestle with them but not in a way that might be easily recognizable, because Choice Feminism is so very much about individual choice. It’s not like there’s a governing body saying “OK, none of us can stay home until we get 300 more women in the work force. Who’s going to take one for the team?” It’s all a big ol’ “personal is political” issue. The way I see it dealt with is article after article, or heck whiny blog post after whiny blog post worrying about reentering the workforce, or financial dependency, or even *ahem* sacrificing personal dreams.
I can’t stand the whole Working Moms/SAHM debate, and conversations about elevating the work of the home so often devolve into that. But the fact is that working parents cannot do both without support. Somebody has to watch the kids. And that support often comes from unemployed women doing favors, or underemployed women earning a very low wage. Childcare is important, and we should value people who do it right.
I certainly understand the whole “free ride” issue. Oh my gosh do I understand. But every movement has those. People who are happy to find a philosophy that just allows them to do what they want to do anyway. I don’t think that’s a sign there’s a problem with the movement, but problem with lazy people who still want to feel brave.
I’m really active in the mommy blogging/social media circles, and let me tell you. These SAHM’s are quietly starting a revolution. Their networking power attracts Fortune 500 companies, they have new entrepreneurial clout, they’re creating an entirely new industry that is friendly to the hours of family life. Mark my words, if we ever reach an economy that is anywhere near egalitarian, it will be because these SAHM’s turned the concept of work hours on it’s head and created a business model that isn’t enslaved by the typical full-time demands. But none of that could have been done with out a whole lot of free labor.
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 20, 2010 @ 10:41 pm
Oh! I agree with everything you say about discussing the different strains of feminism, my beef is when anyone says…”Feminism is…” and then proceeds to give one narrow groups definition. Or makes it sound like that narrow definition is where the majority of the movement is headed. Which you didn’t do, obviously,
Since feminist theory is so new to so many people here, I just bristle at any suggestion that the majority of feminists think that SAHM’s can’t belong. It’s like I want to add a disclaimer to all those posts and say *views expressed do not represent those of this site or many feminists.
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 20, 2010 @ 10:47 pm
z, I think your comments reflect why it is important to distinguish between “women” and “mothers”. Being a mother is one particular condition of womanhood that causes a woman to make choices she might not otherwise make. Yes, it is important to have women in the workforce, but the same women who are in the workforce now may leave for a while and others may return. The same woman who is a SAHM at one point in her life can contribute to society in other ways at other points.
You said that you anticipate you might take a break from working to stay home with kids. I am currently taking a break from working. But, essentially, we’re the same. I was in the workforce before becoming a mother and anticipate returning to the workforce at some point in the future. I don’t think the fact that I took a break is harming society or the feminist movement, just like I don’t think it will be harmful for you to take a break.
I think that if we as a society acknowledge the demands of motherhood (really parenthood) and adapt jobs and careers to be more accommodating, it won’t be such a big deal for a parent to leave and then reenter the workforce. More women would have the opportunity to work AND more women would have the opportunity to be the primary caregiver of their children. More men, too.
I guess I just don’t see being a SAHM as being that much of an alternative to something else. I see it more as one job in a lifetime of careers. Or, rather, that’s the potential I see because obviously there are a lot of barriers now. With more well-educated women and more flexible work arrangements and more men who are willing to adapt to something besides just 9-5, I think we’ll see a lot more options open up for women so it doesn’t have to be so all or nothing.
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 10:51 pm
Reese 162, it sounds like we have a lot of the same thoughts on this.
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 10:54 pm
To add to my 164, we don’t just need more well-educated women, we need more well-educated men! Derek linked to that article about women earning almost 2/3 of college degrees now. Couples have more options when both have higher earning potentials.
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 10:57 pm
Virtual High 5 Stephanie!
To your last paragraph let me add a hearty, “Word.”
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 20, 2010 @ 11:01 pm
A charmed life? Because everybody wants to be an unwed mother, alcoholic, have serious health issues, ghastly pregnancies….yeah, such an easy life:)
Please note that most of the examples I gave were NOT from my own experience, but my neighbors and acquaintances at the time. It was my neighbor who had the part-time scholarship, another neighbor who was recruited into law school, other women who came back to BYU in the summer. And I know other moms who got distance learning scholarships.
What I was trying to show was that at BYU in the 1970s there was an infrastructure that was supportive of moms getting an education. There was institutional support, both over the pulpit and in the financial aid office, for moms getting an education.
I don’t know what your definition of accommodating is. For years, he was gone 12 weeks out of the year. And when in town, he hasn’t been home most nights of the week due to church work. So while it is true that he does the dishes when he is home, I do the dishes most of the time.
?????? I was an unwed mother as a young adult. I put myself through my undergraduate college, including scum jobs like working nights and washing dishes in a cafeteria. Even after I married, we were raising three kids on $6,000 per year. For the first three children, I lugged cloth diapers to the laundramat. There was no financial security for the first two decades that I was a mother.
Succeed? In whose book? A lot of people consider me an abysmal failure because I hadn’t held a full-time job for 30 years. I don’t have a PhD.
I agree that the issue of barriers is important. That’s why I brought up my experience at an LDS-operated school, in the 1970s, during that backward time when supposedly FW was at the height of its influence. And I found that there was much more support than barrier!!!!!!!!!
Frankly, I found the state-run universities where I did my graduate work and have been employed since (in states far from Utah) to be MUCH less supportive of moms’ education and throw up MANY more barriers.
So let’s talk about universities that don’t make any accommodation for moms, but insist they go full-time just like men, all in the name of being equal.
Comment by Naismith — March 20, 2010 @ 11:06 pm
Reese, I think we’re largely on the same page, and I’m your fan. Mommyblogging (as much as I loathe the term) is a really fascinating phenomenon– although I am a little weirded out by the Caitlin Flanagan-esque pretense that one can spend a ton of time on a massive media empire and nationwide book tour and still purport to be a “full-time” mother. It’s like moms can only work if they do it secretly and pretend they’re just having fun.
I will point out, also, that concepts like “results-only work environment” and flextime have been in use in a lot of major corporations for years. I’m sensing a little bit of boosterism.
I also don’t think all the anxiety about entering the workforce is really dealing in any significant way with the feminist critique of staying home. It tends to focus on the impact on the particular woman or family rather than the larger implications. Like “Oh no, I can’t earn much money or find interesting work” rather than “Oh no, I’ve subtly reinforced our society’s reliance on uncompensated female labor.”
Do people really tend to assume that the views expressed on Feminist Mormon Housewives really represent mainstream feminism? Maybe LDS women would assume that if this is their only entree into feminism, but I think the title alone would indicate that the blog is atypical in the feminist world. I usually figure that if people want to know what feminists think, they’ll google around a bit and figure it out.
Comment by z — March 20, 2010 @ 11:08 pm
All I can really say, Naismith, is that being supportive of moms getting an education is a very, very different thing than supporting women in getting an education for whatever purposes they may choose. The latter is much more threatening to the gender hierarchy status quo.
When I describe your husband as accommodating, I mean that he seems to generally go along with whatever ideas you may have. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, much to the contrary. But a lot of women don’t have that advantage. Anyway, I think my point still stands: you tend to focus on specific examples drawn from your own experience to the exclusion of addressing the larger issue, and it’s kind of a straw man.
I’d sure love to know who all these people are who consider you a terrible failure.
Comment by z — March 20, 2010 @ 11:16 pm
This is so mean and ugly. Where the hell did I say that “everyone else can too”? I did say that others were doing it. That’s what I observed. Maybe I just had very unusual neighbors?
Okay, deep breath. I apologize that my writing was so horrible that the point was missed.
The point was never supposed to be “I did it so everyone else can too.” Rather, the point was, “It wasn’t like that. The 70s in Utah were actually a very supportive environment for women to get an education and fulfill their potential. There was great institutional support at the church-run BYU for moms finishing their degree, something that was and is sorely missing in other places. So the FW mentality seemed to me to be limited even during that era, not widespread or dominant as some have implied.
And I remember THE CINDERELLA COMPLEX being a bestseller at the BYU bookstore.
Comment by Naismith — March 20, 2010 @ 11:18 pm
Stephanie, I think I could have been clearer– I don’t think a brief time out of the workforce is a very big deal. Life is long, work is long, why not mix it up for a year or three. But as long as the gender disparity in full-time parenting exists, I think those who choose to do it for any significant period of time (i.e. long enough to permanently damage their earning capacity) really have to look critically at the norms they are reinforcing.
And if we want more women in the workforce, more women will have to go to work– I just don’t see any way around that one.
Comment by z — March 20, 2010 @ 11:20 pm
But are they used much by people who are advancing in their careers yet? Are they used much by men? DH works with several women who have flexible schedules (come in early at the same time he does but leave a few hours before). They have flexible work schedules but aren’t advancing in their careers. They aren’t working toward the top positions.
It seems to me that women have done a good job of entering the “man’s world”, but the next step is for men to have more flexibility, and to have it be more culturally acceptable. Sure, some men do it, but is it really acceptable yet? Can they do it without being penalized?
I am thinking of the men at Lehman brothers in the post ECS wrote. They make millions but never see their families. Would it be possible to split one of those jobs and two people each make half a million but only work 40 hours? I imagine that if it were, more men would take it.
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 11:22 pm
I have to admit….I cringe whenever I read sentences like that. Probably what you mean, Stephanie, is that you feel strongly about your own children having a parent at home? If so, great — and I can relate I was a SAHM when my first two were young, and I also took some time off after my family made a difficult international move for my husband’s job.
But when our third baby was born, I went back to work fulltime when he was 14 weeks old. It caused a rift with my mother-in-law that has only recently healed — he’s almost 8 now, and has turned out to be a wonderful, sweet kid, “despite” the fact that his evil feminist career woman-mom neglected him and dumped him with a babysitter.
I could have stayed home with him. I chose not to, for a long list of reasons. (And because I worked when he was infant, we had the savings that enabled me to stay home after our rough transition a few years later, when I think all my kids needed me there much more.)
So my point is….it’s great for kids to have a parent at home, and good parenting should be encouraged — but it’s not necessary bad parenting if both parents choose to work outside the home. It’s like homeschooling, which I think is great, and whole-heartedly support, but did not choose to do myself, for many reasons. It’s possible to encourage and support scenrios without suggesting that other scenarios are less than ideal, and should be discouraged.
Speaking of Linda Hirshman……more than three years ago, she used to have a blog, and I made the mistake of commenting there, only to have her rip me apart for being a “choice feminist.” She has since taken hers down, but what I preserved her unconstructive words on my blog at the time:
http://thehomesickhome.blogspot.com/2006/09/my-own-special-little-conversation.html
Final thought — a SAHM mom I know once rhetorically asked, “Why is it that when a father works only part-time — or not at all — to spend more time with his kids, feminists hail him as a modern hero, but when I do the same, I am making ‘wrong choices,’ and ‘don’t have my priorities straight?’”
I think Hirshman and her ilk on one side, and the FW crowd on the other, are polar opposites of the same ugly, judgmental spectrum that keeps women — and men — down.
Comment by L. — March 20, 2010 @ 11:27 pm
My point, Naismith, is that it seems like a lot of women remember the 70s in Utah quite differently, so I’m questioning (especially in light of your atypical personality) whether your experience is representative. It seems to me that you tend to pick out certain supportive elements for your narrative and dismiss everything that doesn’t point to the same conclusion. I just have trouble believing that BYU in the 70s was such a feminist paradise, even if only for moms.
For example, the very fact that a special supportive environment was created for “moms finishing their degree” indicates to me that women had a hard time finishing their degrees! Why was there no special program for dads finishing their degree? Maybe because parenthood didn’t derail men’s education in the same way? Sure, it’s better to have the program than not to have it, I guess, but it seems like kind of a band-aid on a problem, rather than indicating the absence of a problem.
Anyway, if I don’t write you anymore it’s because I’m asleep.
Comment by z — March 20, 2010 @ 11:28 pm
Is it indeed? Then why is it that our church says NOTHING negatively about women per se getting an education? (At least in the 30 years I’ve been a member.)
Quite the opposite. One of the tenets of Relief Society is that we are women who “love learning.”
It’s only when there are young children involved that our church makes a suggestion for moms to consider being at home during those years.
It’s an important thing for us to hear, because the world at large tells us so loudly that it is unnecessary. It was only from meeting women like Sandra Covey (wife of Stephen) and Sydney Sperry Reynolds that I could imagine myself as a mother at home fulltime.
So exactly how does our sexist church discourage women from getting an education?
How do you know that I am not going along with his ideas in a subserviant manner? *sarcasm off*
Actually, we go along with EACH OTHER’S ideas because we are equal partners, to quote President Kimball. Partners intellectually, emotionally and spiritually, to quote Elder Pace.
Comment by Naismith — March 20, 2010 @ 11:31 pm
Darn straight. My husband never vomited once during our five pregnancies. He never passed out from nausea during a lecture. He never had to nurse all night, or suffered from a high fever due to breast infection. He was never put on bed rest for weeks during our pregnancies. He never got hypoglycemic from breastfeeding.
There are biological reasons why it may be harder for a woman to go to school during pregnancy and early motherhood. Reasons that other universities conveniently ignore in their quest to treat men and women exactly alike.
Comment by Naismith — March 20, 2010 @ 11:37 pm
z 172, it’s always painful when it gets personal. [insert sad, tired smile]
I guess this is where I say that when push comes to shove, I’m willing to damage my earning potential and risk reinforcing norms to do what I feel is best for my kids/family right now. And at the same time push back against the “gender disparity in full-time parenting”. Because that is where I feel we need to go next.
Also, regarding one of your other comments, my dad kind of laughed at me (in a nice way) when I told him I blog for FMH. He said, “What is feminism to you (as a Mormon) is just normal to the rest of the world”.
Another interesting dynamic to this discussion is the number of children a couple has. It seems to me that it is easier to take a short break from a career and to utilize childcare when you have fewer children. Having a large family (like a lot of Mormons do) and so many more needs to manage requires more of a full-time parent, IMO. I don’t think I quite realized this until I was already in the thick of it. Does anyone reading this have four or more children and two working parents? I am interested in hearing how you manage it. We have a few families in my ward with four children whose moms work full-time, but the dads are home during the day and work at night (and grandparents baby-sit a lot for one family). I don’t think I personally know of any families with 4 or more children who use childcare.
Comment by Stephanie — March 20, 2010 @ 11:54 pm
Yes, exactly, L.
Comment by Stephanie — March 21, 2010 @ 12:00 am
That’s what I figured you meant, Stephanie.
I was once at a party in Tokyo making small talk with a woman I didn’t know, who said to me, as a cheery conversation-starter, “My kids DESERVE a stay-at-home mother!”
I think I said, ah, mine don’t…..and fled.
Comment by L. — March 21, 2010 @ 12:08 am
At first I didn’t believe that the blocked quotes were ACTUAL QUOTES from a real book.
Once I realized they were, my soul puked a bit at the line about men never wanting women to totally grow up, and wanting them to still be a bit of a little girl…
Ew.
Ew.
Ew.
God bless you for reading and deconstructing this book, because I think I would have thrown it across the room and then chewed my partner’s ear off with a rant
Comment by Sophia — March 21, 2010 @ 12:21 am
But, considering that God is unchangeable, I don’t think that correlation and the structure of the church represents eternity.
Stephanie, 142, yes that does help me understand a little better where you are coming from.
Naismith 151: FWIW, I saw your comment as a statement on the culture and church support for education in the 70s, and I thought it was awesome.
Sure, some men do it, but is it really acceptable yet? Can they do it without being penalized?
I think ultimately we may have to also realize that some of this boils down to personal choice, which is one reason why I appreciate the reminder from the Church that family really is first. While I always hope that ‘the culture’ can make this more acceptable, honestly, I think a lot of this will have to come from individuals deciding that they don’t NEED the fast track to have a happy and fulfilled life.
it’s great for kids to have a parent at home, and good parenting should be encouraged — but it’s not necessary bad parenting if both parents choose to work outside the home.
Hm. I think there is room for people to get personal guidance that is an exception from the rule, but I think it’s important to still keep the ideal on the table, and that isn’t the same thing as automatically going to a place of labeling those who work outside the home as ‘bad parents.’ Because, of course, there ARE situations that will necessitate such a choice.
But the statement above to me makes it sound like at-home parenting is more of a nice option that really doesn’t matter much in the end, so fine if it works for you, but it’s not really that big of a deal. I’m all for respecting individual choices, but I start to push back if those choices are used in ways that feel to me to minimize the ideals we are taught.
I don’t see it in the same camp as homeschooling, esp because prophets have taken a stand on one thing (having moms at home whenever possible) when they haven’t touched the other (homeschooling). In fact, fwiw, I push back, too, when homeschoolers want to generalize their personal choices in ways that want to create doctrine that isn’t there.
Comment by m&m — March 21, 2010 @ 12:48 am
I have enjoyed reading about you reading this book. Pretty scary stuff.
I sent this along to one of the permas to send to you via emal, but I don’t know if you got it. Bitch magazine had a piece recently about this book.
Comment by TAG — March 21, 2010 @ 12:54 am
M&m, I’m not coming from an LDS perspective, so my “ideal” is not backed by LDS gospel. And there are people within my own Catholic religion who do claim that there is doctrinal support for the idea that it’s “ideal” for mothers of small kids to be at home.
I don’t necessarily think it’s ideal — obviously, or I would have done it with all of my kids, not just the first two. To me, at-home parenting is just that — a nice option. It’s a wonderful thing, in fact, when freely chosen because parents agree it is in the family’s best interest in their particular situation — but it’s not an ideal worth setting forth as an example for society, to the detriment of couples who personally think two working-outside-the-home parents is an ideal situation for them.
There are many of us parents who work outside the home entirely by choice, not necessity, who can’t help but feel hurt when people say our family situations fall short of being “ideal.”
But I know it’s hard to define any kind of “ideal” because there are really three things at work here: 1) views based on religious beliefs; 2) views that apply to society as a whole; and 3) views based on a particular person’s individual experience. They don’t always line up perfectly!
Comment by L. — March 21, 2010 @ 1:44 am
Reese,stephanie
“Childcare is important, and we should value people who do it right”.
“I feel strongly about children having a parent at home. I just do”.
Reese. There are parents who both work and put their children first and are doing it RIGHT! With only needing just as much help as sahm’s. Yes even when they have 4 children. Example my Mother and Father. THey did it RIGHT. Just as well as a full time sahm. No they did not make tons of money but we got to feel close to both are parents.
Stephanie. Big families do it as well. Sometimes easier when there is a large age gap. Older children help with younger children. I hate the concept that a child will suffer just because they got a nanny or sitter. I think it’s more important to have happy parents (I just do) and if that means two parents working even with daycare then it’s just as good!!!! It’s the way we spend time with our children not how much. She was raising the next generation and she did a great job.
Comment by cz — March 21, 2010 @ 1:47 am
By the way — I don’t consider myself an “ideal” parent, by any means. I do the best I can, and I make plenty of mistakes along the way and try to fix them and move on, and learn from experience. But I think my choice to be a working mom was an overall neutral one as it applied to my family. If I viewed it as a clear negative, I would have likely made different choices, and I support people who do exactly that.
It’s possible to say traditional families are great, while also saying that not all families SHOULD ideally be traditional. (Again, just my non-LDS opinion.)
Comment by L. — March 21, 2010 @ 1:52 am
L,
You are my new Hero! Why keep an ideal on the table that destroys so many peoples lives, and then ultimately theri children’s. If it’s not right for the parents and it’s forced because they believe it’s the “ideal” it only ends badly. I am always judged so harshly because I have the money to stay home and not go to school, so i can eventually work. BUT that is not the family dynamic that we desire. I know we are doing the right thing but reading your word has made my night. Thank you so much. I don’t think others realize hoe bad it sound to use the words IDEAL, THE RIGHT WAY, and I JUST Do. As they are assertions that there is only one way.
Comment by cz — March 21, 2010 @ 1:58 am
I think probably, everyone would agree would the statement, “Ideally, kids need lots of love and attention.” The disagreement starts when people say, “Ideally, xxx should provide kids with the love and attention they need.” Mothers? Fathers? Relatives? The proverbial “village?”
My own mother worked, but my grandmother lived with us. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone said to me that this arrangement still met some traditional “ideal” because I was looked after by a relative.
While it’s true my grandmother was indeed a wonderful, loving person, my own mom has…..issues. I would not have felt entirely comfortable leaving kids in her care. The babysitter we had when our third son was an infant was a wonderful, loving person who reminded me a lot of my own grandmother. I knew she loved my son and was devoted to him, even though they didn’t share any blood connections.
Then, suddenly, we moved across the ocean, and I had an option to continue working fulltime — but realized I was needed at home to help my kids with a rough adjustment to a new country/culture/language.
And hey, they adjusted — and I went back to work.
Comment by L. — March 21, 2010 @ 2:19 am
Thanks, cz, as I said — I’m just doing the best I can.
I think the word “ideal” is not itself ideal, because it implies that anything different is therefore inferior.
Comment by L. — March 21, 2010 @ 2:45 am
M&m, I’m not coming from an LDS perspective, so my “ideal” is not backed by LDS gospel.
Fair enough. Obviously, my perspective is influenced by my religion, although it does go beyond that for me. I need to remember, though, that not everyone who reads or comments comes with an LDS perspective, so thanks for reminding me of that.
But I think my choice to be a working mom was an overall neutral one as it applied to my family. If I viewed it as a clear negative, I would have likely made different choices, and I support people who do exactly that.
I really sense that you care a lot about your family, so please don’t take my perspectives personally.
It’s interesting, though, how our different perspectives *could* affect one another. Many make a lot of sacrifices for SAH parenting for the very reason that they don’t believe it to be a neutral issue, and it could feel hurtful to have such a choice (in their view) minimized by having it labeled as ‘just a nice option.’ (I don’t take offense at your view, though, fwiw.)
Ultimately, we each have to figure out for us where those non-neutral points are, and then make decisions accordingly.
I don’t know if this helps, but I imagine that if I saw this as a neutral, I might have made a similar choice; I loved my pre-marriage and -motherhood career and I did not come into parenting with a ‘natural’ inclination toward mothering. I’m much more comfy in a lively business meeting than dealing with active, young children.
(But I think I’ve gotten better over time. At least I hope so.)
And, for the record, I’m easily distracted from mothering even as a SAHM, so I don’t pretend to have the corner on good parenting! I, too, make lots of mistakes. (Hard, huh, when we care so much about our kids!)
But by the same token, I feel a bit between a rock and hard place. I don’t want to cause any personal pain to you or anyone. I want to respect the space for everyone to do what they feel is best — but also would like to be able to share the perspective that has influenced my own choices, which by definition is just different.
Does that make sense? I really do mean no hurt to you, L. Nor is your personal choice my business. That is between you, your spouse, and God.
I appreciate hearing your perspective. I think I would like you if I knew you in real life. (Some here might take that as an insult, so take that for what it’s worth.
)
Comment by m&m — March 21, 2010 @ 3:11 am
Same here, m&M! I think I would like you in real life, as well as other commenters — which is why I am drawn to this site even though I am not LDS.
I can see someone might think “a nice option” sounds dismissive, and I would never intend to sound that way. I know families who make huge sacrifices of all kinds — fathers who work long hours so mothers can stay home, and couples who both work part-time or flex-time jobs and know this might hurt their future career prospects but accept it as a tradeoff to get more time with their kids.
And my own most recent SAHM interlude was anything but nice — my older son was really traumatized and had a horrible time adjusting to live in America (and ended up with a truly mean old nun for a teacher, which made it all so much worse).
Also, I think the reason so many of us (including me) tend to get so defensive about our choices is that other people’s choices DO affect us. The more people who make the same choice, the more society “validates” our choices. If you’re the only working mom in your kid’s kindergarten class (I’ve been in this situation — 51 kids, 48 SAHMs!), your kid might feel like an oddball, and might not know what to say when his friends ask him why his mom never picks him up after school. This works both ways — I have a good friend with a successful career in media who just quit to spend more time with her girls, and feels as if she has to justify her decision all the time.
When I was first a SAHM, in Los Angeles 15 years ago, I was in a Christian mothers’ group, and heard members say the most dreadful things about working moms — and I have also heard working moms say really condescending things about SAHMs. Since I’ve been both over the years, I tend to cringe a lot!
And I agree with you 100% that “we each have to figure out for us where those non-neutral points are, and then make decisions accordingly.”
Comment by L. — March 21, 2010 @ 3:35 am
Thanks, L. I agree that this can go both ways and can sometimes get nasty.
There’s more nuance in my opinion, too, than might come through in a comment or two. (I’m naturally longwinded, too, so best not to try to expound right now. hehe) Suffice it to say that while I hold to the notion of ‘an ideal’ on this issue (and others, for that matter), I realize there is variance that can happen that can be ‘right’ at the individual level.
I don’t think the two concepts are necessarily mutually exclusive on this issue, if that makes sense.
Comment by m&m — March 21, 2010 @ 4:05 am
It makes perfect sense — I am married to a traditional Japanese man, who has a notion of an “ideal” family in his head, that doesn’t happen to match the (overall happy) life he is living with his non-traditional non-Japanese wife. I think he gets around this by telling himself that our life is different, so comparing it to his cultural ideal is apples and oranges.
It’s funny, I’m having a very similar discussion with people from my church right now, who say that a Christian (Catholic) marriage is “ideal.” I am saying to them that in order for me to accept this definition of “ideal,” it would mean I thought my own marriage was less than ideal, or inferior — and I just can’t honestly say I believe that. I know they mean well, but…I am just not on the same page.
Comment by L. — March 21, 2010 @ 4:23 am
Homeschooling is an interesting thought and brought me to this point. Learning is the ideal-it necessitates parental involvement. There is no way to have an educated child without involved parents. Homeschool is ONE way to be involved. Any parent with children in public school who wants their child to succeed is invovled-checks on homework, is in the school at times, back to school night (homework alone takes almost as long as homeschool)
Wouldn’t it be interesting if we changed the dynamic from SAHM (whatever that is-never writes a book? never goes to school? never what? stays at home? Never does pampered chef (or insert latest sell from home thing here) never sells her knitting, or painting or what have you?) to the ideal being-nurture children and put their needs first-to do this may involve one parent in the home, both parents working-or a whole variety of options. It is more gender flexible and recognizes the actual ideal as the ideal-that the children are loved and cared for. they are our future after all. We had them, we owe them that.
Comment by britt-the pregnant — March 21, 2010 @ 7:25 am
Stephanie 178– I don’t really know how you’re pushing back against that gender disparity by being a SAHM– looks like exactly the opposite to me. Are you referring to some activity that I haven’t heard about? Or just to getting your husband to do more?
Here’s where I come down on the dilemma you describe. Ultimately, we all have to make choices like that. Feminism doesn’t have to determine the outcome of every single choice in our lives. And every child and family and situation is unique. But I do think one has to come to terms with the idea that feminism raises fundamental conflicts of interest within the family. While I think feminism is in everyone’s long-term best interest (of course), the interests of feminism, and of a family’s mother, are not always well-aligned with the short-term interests of children and men. When you start comparing the long-term, diffuse, widespread impacts of feminism against the needs of particular individuals in a given month or year, of course the individuals are going to seem more pressing. So it’s easy for feminism to be underweighted and ultimately slip away. So the feminist approach is to be aware of that possibility, and to be brutally honest about the conflicts of interest that feminism brings into focus. That doesn’t mean any particular person has to do any particular thing, but feminism requires a different calculus. So while I don’t leap to any conclusions about any particular SAHM and her level of feminist activity, I do ask that all people squarely confront the norms we are reinforcing and the cultural/economic impact of staying home and the various other decisions we make in which feminism may not win out. And that may mean that, in the absence of other activities, it’s not necessarily “just as feminist” to stay home. Does that make sense?
Comment by z — March 21, 2010 @ 7:57 am
Sorry, Naismith, I must have missed the part where men were cautioned not let education diminish their “sweet masculinity.”
Comment by z — March 21, 2010 @ 7:59 am
Sometimes it doesn’t come into play. For instance, can I choose a more “feminist” brand of laundry detergent, by researching companies and giving my business to the one with the best record of promoting women to managment positions? Sure, but it seems a bit of a stretch.
My decision to stay at home for a while seemed almost as much of a stretch — should I have kept working fulltime, just to prove the point that I COULD, or take a couple of years off, with the full intention to go back (which I did?). In some ways, I can say what I did was provide a concrete example of career flexibility — I am living proof people sometimes can get right back in to the work force. Would the more “feminist” choice really have been to keep working fulltime, no matter what? I’m not sure it’s that easily defined.
Comment by L. — March 21, 2010 @ 8:23 am
z, I’m just talking about blogging, creating awareness, and thinking of other ways to accomplish similar things without accepting the status quo. You talk about me being a SAHM as if that is the end-all, be-all of my life - as if that defines who I am. I guess I push back at that. I am a woman who has done many things with my life and hopes to do more - the main thing being raising my children. I always plan to be the primary caregiver to my children while DH is the main provider, but we are thinking of ways to help our relationship to be more egalitarian. One thing we plan to do is to move closer to his work so that he can be more involved in day-to-day stuff. Another is to possibly work toward him working four days and me working one. I don’t know if it is possible with his career right now, but we are going to explore options.
I think this is good to face. Maybe I’m not really feminist. I am not interested in doing anything to hurt families. But, I guess I also don’t see the conflict as clearly as you do (perhaps because I am not schooled in feminism).
After reading Naismith’s comment, my mom coined the term “familist”. Maybe I’m aiming for something more like that. If I have to choose, my priorities go like this: 1. Family 2. Gospel 3. Feminism. So, I won’t make choices that actually pit feminism against my family or even the gospel. But, I will work within the frameworks to further equality
Comment by Stephanie — March 21, 2010 @ 8:51 am
You know, maybe I’m in deeeeeeeeeep denial here, but I don’t think that feminism necessarily “raises fundamental conflicts of interest within the family.”
I don’t see it as a choice of, “Should I put my family first, or feminism first?” Feminism is what has allowed me to do what’s best for my family over the years.
And I don’t think there is an easily described “feminist” answer to very question, particulary the “to-work-outside-or-not” question — which is the point I was trying to make in my comment above, but maybe I wasn’t so clear — it’s 11:30 pm in Tokyo, and I’m fading…..
Comment by L. — March 21, 2010 @ 9:27 am
Doh! I forgot - Lawyer Lady has 5 children and both she and her husband work full-time. I love how she and her husband work together in their family. It is beautiful to behold.
Comment by Stephanie — March 21, 2010 @ 9:37 am
Well, absent other activities, it’s not necessarily “just as feminist” to work either. Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter spring immediately to mind.
I think every woman who takes time off and returns to the work force makes it easier for another woman to do the same. Anytime someone forces flexibility, it allows someone else in the door behind them.
I think your point about honestly evaluating the implications of our actions is valid. But while I’m pretty sure you’re talking about the exception, it’s coming across like the rule. Just do me one favor for people like Stephanie who has gone from proudly proclaiming her feminism to now renouncing the label…
Just say something like “SAHM can be feminists. As long as they’re not …..” whatever. lazy. deadbeats. Refusing to explore any employment ever.
cz - I wasn’t saying there was one right way to do it, I was saying WHEN it’s done right, we should value it.
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 21, 2010 @ 10:39 am
Resse HOw is it done right?
m&m I know as you say you are just want to “share the perspective that has influenced my own choices, which by definition is just different.” But I am a LDS women also and my personal ideal is not anywhere close to yours. But I don’t think my perspective is better and when I share it! I don’t put others down at the same time. Maybe you didn’t mean to but thats how it came across for me.
Comment by cz — March 21, 2010 @ 10:56 am
Been trying really hard not to comment on this, forgive me Mel, I can’t help myself.
Someone said: “But I do think one has to come to terms with the idea that feminism raises fundamental conflicts of interest within the family.”
With all respect, I just don’t see that. Families are not just a bunch of small children needing extra care. Feminism isn’t “SAHM vrs Working mom”. Lets face it - much as we like those little babies, we are partners to our spouses for DECADES longer than we are
caregivers to our babies. Our marriages and hence our families may be all the stronger for the feminist reminders that we are equal, that we expect to share decisions as well as work, that there are times when that work need be outside the home and times when it’s needed at home. Feminism is the reminder that we wish to develop relationships with our life partners AND our growing kids based on honesty, trust and respect as well as love, that our kids are better off and our sweeties are better off and we are better off when all participants in a family operate from strength, courage and confidence. Seems to me there’s no reason a woman can’t choose to defer gratification of a particular career or anything else to tend a loved one (whether they be young or old) without handing in her creds. as a feminist. Just as there’s no reason a man can’t tend his ailing wife or mother without handing in his creds as a hunk.
I see no fundamental conflict of interest to teaching our children that families are strongest when all the participants get to play too.
Comment by Betty Jo — March 21, 2010 @ 11:32 am
Absolutely not. When I was a working single mom, I believe I was doing a very good job- I made it my priority and worked off shifts 6 nights a week so that my children didn’t feel my absence. But…I was damn tired and it was a lot harder than having a partner help and I wasn’t doing it because I was out there trying to prove that I was equal because I was working. I was putting food on the table.
It’s my belief that feminism would best serve women by helping us have options. That includes acknowledging that somebody (and yes, especially in the case of nursing mothers, sometimes it’s more sensible for that to be the woman) needs to raise the children. That could involve outside help- a daycare or a sitter or a grandparent. But it would help if maternity leaves were generous and paid and they applied to both women and men. Just because we were coralled into staying home and that contributed to dependence, doesn’t mean no one should do it to prove a point. If that were so, then frankly, men should be forced to stay at home with the kids to even things out…and that doesn’t really work either, does it? If even the women who want to stay home to raise children jump ship, what does that say about how we feel about the importance of raising them?
So, maybe it’s right we should call it something else- maybe womanism…where women can work, stay home, volunteer and men have all those same choices within our own families and the work world is set up to support those efforts.Or both parents can mix it up and do a little bit of both with society’s support and blessing. For the moms who need to work or want to work, there should be more flex time options and on site affordable and reliable daycare. Re-entry into the workforce after an absence due to bearing and raising children needs to be facilitated and welcomed- the sacrifice of staying home to raise the babies should be seen as life experience and valued for the very real work it is.
I agree that women in the workforce has changed a lot. It does provide an opportunity for men to see women in an independent light and allows women to see themselves in a different context as well. But it’s not worth forsaking the well being of a family just to demonstrate that. There is time to return to work when the raising is done- for either men or women if that is what they feel strongly about doing for their families.
Comment by Kimberly — March 21, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
And when were women told that education would diminish their sweet femininity?
In FW, sure. But by the church? That book was never official doctrine. I picked it up as a non-member in Europe. Many of the proponents aren’t LDS. FW ne LDS.
Comment by Naismith — March 21, 2010 @ 2:12 pm
Thanks for your concern, Reese, but it’s okay. It took me two years to decide if I accept feminism. My biggest concern is whether or not feminism hurts children and families. When I felt comfortable that it doesn’t (or doesn’t need to), that’s when I felt comfortable enough to accept feminism and call myself a feminist.
However, whether feminism accepts me is another story, and I’m not particularly concerned either way. It wouldn’t change who I am or what my goals are. I am what I am. So, if I can’t be a SAHM and “be” a feminist, that’s okay. It wouldn’t cause me to reject feminism.
The past 10 years of having 5 kids and being at home to raise them have changed me in a lot of positive ways. I think that when I have a chance to do more outside of my home, I will be able to make more positive changes in the world than I might otherwise have. My education is in finance. If I worked full-time instead of staying home, my job would have been to figure out how to help a big corporation make more money. The PhD I started was in finance. If I were to go back to school today, I know I wouldn’t want to stay in the field of finance. I am more interested in work/life balance issues. BYU has a professor I would love to study under. In another 10 years, who knows what my interests will be? Maybe I will hone them down to know exactly what I want to do with the rest of my life. Getting my MBA was done out of necessity to make sure I could provide for myself and my family. I got it when I was 22, so I didn’t have a whole lot of life experience. I just worked my butt off in school. While raising my children, I have a lot of freedom to explore different ideas and possibilities. Every week I call my husband and say something like, “Maybe I should go to medical school to become an endocrinologist. I am really interested in hormones and how they affect womens’ bodies”. And he says, “Okay, is that really what you want?” Sometimes ideas stay on my to-do list and sometimes they don’t. I feel very blessed to have this opportunity to be raising my kids while DH financially supports me, and I figure out who I am. I am in a safe place to do that. Anyways, I just don’t see being a SAHM as being harmful to who I am as a woman because I wasn’t (and am not) forced to do it by DH or the church or anyone else. I made this choice, and I am proud of it. I like who I am.
Comment by Stephanie — March 21, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
Agree to disagree, Stephanie because I don’t like you, I adore you.
Comment by crazywomancreek — March 21, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
CWC, you always make me feel good.
Comment by Stephanie — March 21, 2010 @ 4:46 pm
I got pregnant with my #2 in the middle of nursing school (suprise!) and a good friend did as well. They were horrible to us about it (this was a school in the East). They told both of us that we should drop out and there would be no accommodations made for us. Neither of us were asking for anything from anyone. But what infuriated me was that they actually increased the standards for us. It was flat out discrimination. They told me that I couldn’t complete clinicals for pediatrics because I couldn’t do heavy lifting (I got a doctor’s note–it was pediatrics, for goodness sakes). I missed one clinical due to contractions and they told me if I missed another one, I would be kicked out of the program. Meanwhile, there was a man in the class who claimed he had to keep running to the bedside of his sick momma and missed at least 3 or 4 clinicals with no negative consequences (and he was totally lying, by the way). I gave birth over Thanksgiving break, was back in school on Tuesday, and graduated top of my class. So there! Anyway, long story. It just made me so crazy mad. Especially since all of my teachers were women and most of them were moms.
Comment by jen — March 21, 2010 @ 5:02 pm
Yes, Jen, you are right about nursing school. It is ironic that a nurturing profession is so completely nasty to its students. That’s pretty common in nursing school.
Comment by Kimberly — March 21, 2010 @ 5:42 pm
“In his day, President Brigham Young encouraged women to get an education. This is still good counsel, but I hasten to add: in all your getting, do not lose your sweet femininity.” - James E. Faust, “What It Means to Be a Daughter of God,” October 1999 Semiannual General Conference
I found it by going to LDS.org and entering “sweet femininity” in the search engine there.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 21, 2010 @ 6:44 pm
Thanks for doing the research, Jack! I wonder what they would really say to men– don’t study so hard that you become a hopeless nerd and make Mormons seem uncool?
Thanks to everyone for responding to my posts, and sorry I was gone all day. Reese #201, I’ve already said a bunch of times that I think SAHM can be feminists. And of course I agree that not all forms of work are feminist. Obviously. But I don’t buy into choice feminism to the same extent you do, and I think we’ll just have to learn to live with that. I think almost any work does a lot for the feminist project, and being a SAHM has a lot of real theoretical problems. If someone’s engaged in a lot of feminist activities and making an effort, I’m fine with it. But I’m not willing to draw the line at “barely competent mother and not totally lazy.” I don’t see what’s feminist about that, just because a woman has made a choice that’s genuinely her choice– I think that’s pretty entry-level stuff. It’s hard to express exactly what a standard should be, but my feeling is we’re not going to agree.
Seems like the thread has gotten overlong so I’ll save my other responses for another day, but generally, to the point of feminism raising fundamental conflicts of interest within a family– as I said, in the long-term I do not believe there is a serious conflict. But in the short term it’s really fraught with “his career or mine” competition, “kids are sick so which one of us misses work” or “should I quit my job so we can move for hers”. “kids in crappy daycare so we can afford my PhD”, type stuff. Sure, some people are able to avoid feeling the conflict too harshly, but I really think it is there as a general theoretical matter. In some families, people’s needs or desires are aligned in such a way that the resource conflict isn’t very extreme, like when one person happens to want to work and the other just doesn’t. There is competition for resources within a family, and patriarchy/misogyny deals with this by oppressing women and denying them resources, and avoiding the issue by convincing women they aren’t entitled to anything better. Feminism tries to be more fair, but it’s a very complex issue so its really no surprise that people struggle with it.
Comment by z — March 21, 2010 @ 7:39 pm
I get what you are saying, z.
Comment by Stephanie — March 21, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
I’m so happy, Stephanie! I always find it so interesting when people are coming to feminism from the right (probably why I’ve been a FMH regular for half a decade)! So I’m really glad you’re hear and promise to read all your posts. You’re such a clear and insightful writer that it’s really a pleasure.
Comment by z — March 21, 2010 @ 8:09 pm
Thank you, z!
Comment by Stephanie — March 21, 2010 @ 8:12 pm
Mrs Jack–at what point did we decide to let FW define words for us? So any time some one says feminine or any variant…the only option is the FW definition? His Aunt Ada who never married (and he celebrates her not having settled for less than a great man) and went to medical school- didn’t loose her sweet femininity-doctor, not midwife or nurse.
I’m not saying I love every part of his talk, but just because a word comes up within a talk does not mean we can say anything by it. It says right in the Book of Mormon that learning can lead to pride-a hardness to be avoided by either gender.
whatever…
stephanie…I’m glad you have determination and will stick to your goals and not stress about what you are “allowed” to be identified as, or if your something enough right now.
Comment by britt-the pregnant — March 21, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
“…in light of your atypical personality…”
I couldn’t decide whether to laugh or cry at that bit of bitchiness. On the one hand, if the best you can do is come up with an ad hominem attack, the argument must be weak to begin with.
But more importantly, going to church today reminded me of why it is so outrageous. Because for me to be “atypical,” it implies a typical exists, and there *is* no typical personality of LDS women. Relief Society is not a melting pot where we surrender our identities to the greater good, and we’re not Stepford sisters, programmed to behave only one way.
Relief Society is like a multi-colored tapestry, where each of us bring our threads and weave them together with other sisters. We are not asked to mute our tone nor change our color. Rather, we are asked to entwine our thread and make our contribution.
Or if you prefer it is like a mosaic, in which each of us fits in a spot, and the whole picture would not be as detailed and rich without our particular color of stone to lend a certain sparkle.
In Relief Society, we each contribute in the way that we are, with the gifts that we have. And thank goodness we all have different talents. I have no knack for centerpieces. But someone on one of our committees does. I really haven’t learned the new FamilySearch. Someone else has. And as each of us weaves, the whole becomes stronger.
I am a typical Relief Society sister, simply because I am. I show up. I believe. I am there. And I weave my part.
Comment by Naismith — March 21, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
Naismith, I really don’t mean it in a bitchy way. I think you are an uncommonly assertive woman. As am I. In a good way. I wish more women were like us. It’s not an ad hominem attack, but a statement that a norm exists, you’re kind of an outlier, and that means that your experiences aren’t generalizable. You’re the one who’s always bringing up your own experiences as rebuttals, so you can’t really expect people not to push back on the topic.
Comment by z — March 21, 2010 @ 8:54 pm
Amen Stephanie!
Comment by Alliegator — March 21, 2010 @ 9:02 pm
#216 britt–the pregnant, I think you’re misunderstanding my purpose in posting Faust’s quote. Earlier in this thread, z said (#196):
To which Naismith responded (#205):
So I checked LDS.org to see if the church leaders had ever made any statements to the effect that getting an education might diminish a woman’s “sweet femininity.” Turns out that someone has. That’s all I was establishing.
Naturally, I find the sentiment absurd because I cannot possibly conceive of how getting an education would threaten a woman’s femininity any more than getting an education would threaten a man’s masculinity. Whether it comes from Fascinating Womanhood or the LDS church makes little difference to me.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 21, 2010 @ 9:27 pm
220. I think it threatens the idea of femininity in that if we get too educated our desires and wants may turn from wanting to breast freed our children to having our Husbands bottle feed so we can make it to work on time during traffic hour.
I sometimes take notes and then loose them so I can’t remember when/who I heard this from. During a talk an apostle said he was glad men are helping more in the home BUT for them not to do too much as to take over the women’s job. I laughed so hard. I think LDS men must be starting to pick up the slack more at home and thus freeing up women to do other more masculine things. 
So men working more in the home is making them loose their “masculinity”.
Comment by cz — March 21, 2010 @ 10:33 pm
221 — husbands can bottle-feed pumped breast milk! Win-win!
Comment by L. — March 21, 2010 @ 10:43 pm
#220
.
I despise this kind of proof texting. I looked up the talk to. I read the whole thing. That is not what I got out of it. May I suggest that the preponderance of what Pres. Faust said in no way demeaned women. What is demeaning about being feminine anyway? Unless of course you are talking about being fascinatingly manipulative. To take two words out of the many and say they mean something they don’t is intellectually dishonest.
Let me point out a few other statements by a sitting prophet, Spencer W. Kimball in 1979, taken from a talk to the young women of the church.
And finally from the man so much maligned on this forum Brigham Young
Comment by Claudia — March 22, 2010 @ 9:57 am
I read the whole talk too Claudia…then i read the talk President Faust gave to the young men. He warns the when talking about education and careers that they must put God first and not be tempted by money-he talks about pride and what true manhood is siting Paul “follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.”
So he’s worried about both genders with education and such..
Comment by britt-the pregnant — March 22, 2010 @ 11:21 am
Thanks so much for setting me straight on that. Of course, it wasn’t during the 70s, the time period we were discussing. And of course it was a small part of an overall wonderful talk, not the main focus, nor a recurring theme.
I can indeed conceive of how getting an education threatens a woman’s femininity, because I lived through it. Or certainly, her spirituality, of which femininity is an integral part. Keep in mind that the talk you found was directed to women age 12 and older. So if it were being given to a mixed-gender audience, he might have said “spirituality.”
I went to graduate school in my early 30s. I was surprised when my bishop pulled me in and counseled me that LDS students should be attending Institute as well. I was married with three kids; I thought the advice was for young singles. He showed me the policy and it was neutral on such issues.
And he was so right. I was fortunate to attend a university with lots of choices of tute classes, and mine was a Friday lunchtime class. There were times I felt myself spiritually bleeding as I raced across campus to that class, bruised from a week in such a hostile environment. It was a joy to walk through the door and relax, knowing that I shared core values with those in those walls.
Where I went to graduate school (UT Austin in the mid-1980s), both faculty and fellow students routinely made fun of believers, looked down on monogamy, and were dismissive of homemakers. One student in particular said “dumb housewife” over and over as if it was all one word, that you couldn’t have the second half without the modifier. When we all went around the seminar room and shared our career aspirations, and I said that my career ambition was to be employed part-time to have time to raise my family as well as contribute to an organization, the professor said, “We’ll disabuse you of that notion.”
I was constantly told that I was an overprotective mother, and nobody with a brain stays home with kids. Interesting they felt that it was okay to criticize my choices, because I don’t go around criticizing others (I only have stewardship for raising my own family).
So yeah, I can understand how education can erode one’s femininity, if it is defined as knowing you are a daughter of heavenly parents, with priorities in this life.
Comment by Naismith — March 22, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
Not really, and let’s look back at the period we are talking about. I moved to Utah in 1977, a month after baptism. I was a very new convert. I didn’t even understand the Mormon lingo. How assertive do you think I was at that time? Not very. I wouldn’t have even known who to be assertive to, if I had been so inclined.
At the time, my first reaction was that the policies at BYU (many of which I observed through my neighbors) were right out of a chapter of THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE. But I didn’t really appreciate how wonderful those policies were until later, when I moved and saw how poorly women are treated at the universities where my husband did grad school, I did grad school, and I’ve been employed.
And I don’t think I am a particularly assertive person, in many ways. As a disciple of Jesus Christ, I do try to act on promptings, and if I feel impressed to speak up, I do. Very often that is not something I feel strongly about, but something that may be a problem for other sisters, and because of my calling, I am in a position to bring their voice to the table where it matters.
As far as being naturally assertive or whatever, I am trying to resolve an issue with a new couch that was not right, and not being particularly assertive about that issue.
If you would like to share your experience as an LDS woman in the 1970s, I would be glad to hear it as comparison. I was at BYU, which I fully recognize is not the entire church. I am sure LDS women in other settings had differing experiences But BYU is a university run by the church directly, and so its policies would seem to be indicative of the church policy at the time.
Why would I expect people to “push back” and try to convince me that what I heard and saw around me was not so?
Comment by Naismith — March 22, 2010 @ 12:57 pm
Naismith 225 - great points!
Comment by Stephanie — March 22, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
I know there are 225 + comments on this thread, but I still think reading this book was worthwhile (for me) and for others. This kind of stuff is important for all people (women and men) to realize exactly where we came from. I am not someone who agrees with sanitizing or deleting history.
BYU in the 1970s - women couldn’t wear jeans on campus?
I’m trying to remember other examples of what I’ve heard and read - but I’m pretty certain that there were plenty of women who were discouraged from continuing their education in majors other than home economics (including my mom??). I’m not trying to negate anyone’s experience here, and it wouldn’t surprise me that BYU had better family policies for pregnant grad. students than other campuses.
z - this is probably a complete threadjack, but when I was reading your comments, I was thinking of Sharon Firestone? Or one of the women who wrote that men and women should live separately? I agree that our choices are important - but I’m not sure that all of the ideas that have been floated as a part of feminist theory are worth adapting. And I say this as a proud feminist myself. Have you read those theories? How do you think feminists can evaluate and reconcile some feminist theory and practice vs. other theory?
Comment by aerin — March 22, 2010 @ 3:35 pm
Maybe you didn’t mean to but thats how it came across for me.
I’m sorry you felt that way, cz.
Comment by m&m — March 22, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
#225 - Naismith, I don’t really mean to clash with you. I think it’s no secret that you and I have very different views on these issues and I hate to go round and round with you on things where we’ve already heard each other out. And just so you know, I honestly admire your ability to articulate said views and your willingness to defend them when you’re often the only one doing so amidst a pack of people who disagree with you.
All that said, I find it interesting that when you thought it was Fascinating Womanhood that had warned women not to let education erode their femininity, you disavowed it. When you found out that LDS church leaders said it, you defended it. Seems like something of a double-standard to me.
So if it were being given to a mixed-gender audience, he might have said “spirituality.”
How do you know that’s what he really meant? I hate to be a cynic, but we can make all kinds of religious texts mean all kinds of things by re-defining key words to mean things that they don’t really mean.
In any case, it’s not like Mormon men don’t get at least 12 talks a year directed exclusively at them. When have they ever been cautioned to not let education diminish their “sweet masculinity”? I can’t imagine men never come under fire in the classroom should they choose to aim for a career that lets them work part-time so they can stay at home with the kids the rest of the time (although I think they’re a bit more likely to come under fire for this in the church itself than in the classroom).
And that’s really my point. I just don’t think I equate full-or-part-time SAHPing with femininity as you apparently do. A woman can be a parent and work full-time and still be feminine. A man can be a full-time or part-time SAHP and still be masculine. If the church is concerned that getting an education will discourage women from staying at home when they’d really prefer to, seems to me they should just say as much, rather than issuing cautions about education for the perceived dangers it poses to “femininity.”
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 22, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
Maybe because in his talk to YM he does say spirutality, and earlier in the talk you sited, the unique power of women he sited as spirituality. Then he went on to encourage education…
whereas in fw she was very clear as to what she meant…don’t get too smart or your poor sniveling man won’t feel manly enough. It’s good to be helpless and stupid-it’s childish and pouty and darn right cute!
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 22, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
That’s a pretty weird definition of femininity. I think one could be pretty thoroughly butch and still feel like a daughter of heavenly parents, with priorities in this life. I guess by “priorities” you mean being a SAHM (because nobody can imagine any other priorities for a woman), but still. SAHM doesn’t necessarily equal “feminine”. My interpretation of the “Sweet femininity” remark is that it’s more about how education might instill assertiveness, willingness to be perceived as smart and knowledgeable, lack of submissiveness to men, and the ability to generally behave as an adult participant in professional and civic life. This is considered unfeminine, apparently.
I wasn’t at BYU in the 1970s, so I don’t have a personal anecdote to share. I’m just saying I’m not convinced that it was as nice for everyone as it was for you. You seem to be reducing the entire gender issue to whether or not a university makes suitable arrangements for students who are mothers of young children, but there are a lot of other issues, aren’t there?
Comment by z — March 22, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
What he says is:
“Surely the secret citadel of women’s inner strength is spirituality.”
I’m really not getting from that how femininity = spirituality. And I’m still waiting for someone to point me to a priesthood talk where men are cautioned not to let education erode their masculinity—which was z’s original point. Heck, I’ll even let you substitute a talk where men are cautioned not to let education erode their spirituality if you so desire.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 22, 2010 @ 6:02 pm
aerin #228, I’m not really sure what you’re getting at. I’m not hugely familiar with Firestone, but in general there are always lots of different ideas within feminism, and it’s through reasoned argument and personal exploration and reflection that we evaluate and reconcile the different feminist ideas. Thus is progress made. I think it’s a normal part of the developmental process for political theories.
Comment by z — March 22, 2010 @ 6:05 pm
What z said.
Also, so long as personal anecdotes are carrying so much weight around here, I would say that the three years I spent as a full-time SAHP were some of the most unspiritual years of my life. Day in and day out of Teletubbies and Signing Time between all of my daughter’s surgeries, check-ups and appointments just left me feeling exhausted, spiritually drained, and highly bored. Participating in a church that thought women were best off working with more children and didn’t give two cents about my background in Hebrew, Latin, Greek and biblical studies certainly didn’t help.
Can I expect now that LDS leaders will do a talk on not letting the tedium of stay-at-home motherhood erode our
spiritualityfemininity? And that none of the people who enjoy being SAHMs will be offended by that?Being enrolled in school (both undergrad and now graduate school) and working in balance with motherhood has been some of the most spiritual time of my life.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 22, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
I’d like to hear that talk. I’ve chosen to be a SAHP, but it’s tiring sometimes, and I can see how doing it (especially if you feel forced into it) would erode pretty much any sense of who we are.
Comment by Alliegator — March 22, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
Mrs. Jack…you could take this from Elder
Packer-he did say it to both young men and young women….
Elder Packer : This summer at a family reunion, Sister Packer and I announced the end of a family tradition. Our ten children and some of our grandchildren have attended BYU. It will not be possible for all of our grandchildren to follow that tradition.
We advised them to follow the counsel of the Brethren. If they cannot attend a Church school, and this will be increasingly the case, they should gather with other members of the Church at a school where an institute of religion is available to them. Then, as they study secular subjects, they may learn the “covenants and church articles” as the scriptures tell us we should. (D&C 42:13.)
They will not be judged on how many degrees they hold or how extensive their schooling may be, but on how well educated they are in those things which are of eternal value.
We told our family that we will be quite as proud of them learning a trade as we would a profession. We will be equally pleased with them if they choose vocational schools and make their living with their hands.
After all, education continues as long as we live. If there is ever an end to secular learning, surely there is no end to spiritual learning.
The Lord’s work moves forward on the strength of those who labor in the workaday world: the apprentice, artisan, journeyman, laborer, office worker, waitress, and, in a class by itself—homemaker.
A Warning
We must not ignore these warnings in the Book of Mormon:
“The people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning because of their riches.
“Some were lifted up in pride, and others were exceedingly humble; …
“And thus there became a great inequality … insomuch that the church began to be broken up.” (3 Ne. 6:12–14.)
Jacob warned us of those who “when they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.” He added: “But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.” (2 Ne. 9:28–29; emphasis added.) http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=a42b9209df38b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
Bishop Burton said… Some may feel they are too intelligent or sophisticated to be influenced by the craftiness of Satan. What a tragic miscalculation. Nephi warned us of the perils of this misjudgment when he said: “O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God. …
“But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God” Again said to both…
sorry I don’t hav time to dig deep, but those are two quickies
Comment by britt-the pregnant — March 22, 2010 @ 6:31 pm
I think that you are overstating the extent of my reaction either way.
You found one quote with those particular words used together. It wasn’t even from the time period of FW’s publication, but much later. It’s not like a recurring them that we hear from church leaders, the way the men are regularly warned about the dangers of pornography.
Even in the talk you quoted, the speaker was NOT discouraging women from getting an education. He was cautioning. He was not engaging in nor supporting the “play dumb” rhetoric of the FW mentality in the least.
How do you know that’s what he really meant?
I don’t know. But that interpretation would be entirely consistent with what he described in the rest of the wonderful talk, where he described our status as daughters of God and referred to our “rich womanly endowments of spiritual strength, goodness, tenderness, mercy, and kindness.” You may argue that femininity is not the same as “rich womanly endownments.” But certainly when he says femininity he is not talking about painting one’s toenails.
Sweet? Not that I know of. What is your point here?
I have read numerous General Priesthood talks where men are warned of the dangers of education distracting them from eternal things, just as women are. Some of those references have been posted by others.
It’s not like men get to get whatever education they want and do whatever they want careerwise. They are expected to support a family and take part in raising the kids. My husband absolutely was criticized for his schooling and occupation taking him away from home too much.
Why would a man come under fire for spending more time at home? That’s the ideal. A lot of guys telecommute at least some days a week, to be home more. Our elders quorum president was a fulltime dad while his wife supported the family, and nobody had a problem with that. The high priest group leader in a neighboring ward is a supportive spouse while his wife is in a medical residency. (Oh, wait, that was my experience, it doesn’t count!!)
No, I don’t. I believe that how you raise your children is much more important than your employment status per se. It isn’t the first time I’ve written this, but some of the worst moms I’ve ever known are women who are smug about being at home, then squander their time that could have been spent teaching their children by directing the school play/ doing genealogy research/ at the gym /at the mall/ on the phone to friends. Not being distracted is also important for moms at home!
I agree. And I believe that the definition of being feminine is being a daughter of God, and fulfilling that potential, and using our “rich womanly endowments.” And being masculine is fulfilling one’s priesthood responsibilities.
Well, you’ve made it clear on a zillion occasions that the church isn’t as near as smart as you are, so what do you really expect?
I don’t think the church IS particularly concerned about women “staying home” because that is just geography. Being concerned about mothers teaching their children, and wives supporting their husbands in church callings–yes, I think they are. Not just concerned about higher education, but all kinds of worldly influences.
Does education pose a danger to fulfilling one’s female roles as a nurturer? I certainly found it did, as I explained earlier. I was constantly told that I didn’t have to do all that, that I was overdoing and atavistic. It was very tempting to listen to those oh-so-logical arguments and rationalizing voices. *sarcasm on* And let’s keep in mind that apparently I am not some wishy-washy “typical” Mormon woman, but an “outlier” when it comes to assertiveness and not being influenced. So if I was susceptible, then others might be as well. *sarcasm off*
Ironically, 10 years after my graduation, I ran into my grad school mentor at a conference. She had since adopted a child and gotten divorced, and had come to see a bit more of where I was coming from as far as being adamant about my priorities. At one of the conference luncheons, she introduced me to a younger woman, and recommended me to her as “the person who had it all together as far as work-life balance.” I did share some of my thoughts with that younger woman, and in the ensuing years as we hung out together, hiking, shopping, going out to eat, and so on at various conferences. By the time she had her own children, she had an idea that the parenting/job juggling wasn’t as easy as some would make out, and she and her husband were both able to cut back to part-time and do equally shared parenting. It’s been a joy to have that influence in her life.
Of course, my motivation and priorities comes from my role as a daughter of God, and the one designated to see that my children are nurtured and taught the gospel. It isn’t just raising sane, caring human beings that is my goal, but rather producing a righteous generation of missionaries and church leaders. A slightly different objective from what they have as parents.
Comment by Naismith — March 22, 2010 @ 8:14 pm
Well, you’ve already established that I’m “atypical” so what do you expect?
I agree. I don’t shave my legs, I don’t do my nails. I read science fiction instead of romance novels.
And I loved President Faust’s talk and agree with him.
Okay, this sarcasm and making up straw men is not worth answering. I bared my soul about the challenges and temptations that I faced in grad school, and this is the best you can do?
It wasn’t “being a SAHM” (a term I never used because it was not descriptive of my work) but rather not making nurturing and church service a priority in my life, being seduced by people who told me how smart I was and that I should go on for a doctorate and so on.
Then you didn’t read the rest of the talk. I loved that talk, and have tried to follow the counsel in my life.
Yet you find me to be unusually assertive, I am very involved in my local community, serve in leadership in my national professional organization, and look forward to serving as a missionary in a few years. So do you feel that I failed to heed his advice, or what?
No, don’t bother to answer, because I won’t. Go find someone else to piss on.
Comment by Naismith — March 22, 2010 @ 8:26 pm
I agree, this has become pointless. But shall we refrain from vulgar language? It’s so unfeminine!
Comment by z — March 22, 2010 @ 8:56 pm
But since you asked, I’d have to say no, I don’t find you especially sweet or feminine. But I suspect that would be true even if you weren’t as well-educated.
I wonder why you think “nurturing and church service” is incompatible with a doctorate or with believing people who tell you are smart. If you’re setting up the choice in that way, then doesn’t it indicate that the church does in fact discourage education for women, preferring that they invest their time in church service instead?
Comment by z — March 22, 2010 @ 9:05 pm
Naismith “Why would a man come under fire for spending more time at home?” I think the issue is when men spend more time at home replacing the women’s role. “I am glad men are becoming more involved in the raising of their children but don’t so much so that you take over your spouses role”. It went something like that at last years conference. It doesn’t really bother me so I just ignored it and can’t remember who gave the talk but it’s definitely a viewpoint out there. One of which I disagree with.
Comment by cz — March 22, 2010 @ 10:58 pm
I still think what I “thunk” before…
“I have a remarkably revolutionary thought…how about treating your spouse/partner as a human being, with their own thoughts, feelings, emotions, trials, and hurts? How about lifting one another’s burdens? How about being a good friend to your spouse? How about being a good lover, a relationship where both your needs are met and neither one is abused or coerced into sex. How about being the soft place to fall for each other. How about treating each other with respect? How about being each other’s best friend? How about courtesy and open, honest communication? How about being loyal to each other and putting one another first? I don’t know, but my husband and I have been practicing that kind of relationship for the last 11 1/2 years and we are really happy. How insulting that there is a belief out there that men have to be “manipulated” into loving us. I don’t want to have to manipulate anyone into loving me.”
Comment by Risa — March 23, 2010 @ 12:25 am
I concur.
My FIL was a very controlling husband and made all the decisions in the household. In order to deal with that and have her needs met, his wife learned to be manipulative. And she was really good at it. I felt bad for her, but really, what else could she do? After my husband and I got married, FIL sat down and told me how manipulative I was because he had observed that I expressed my feelings and ideas to my husband, even when I disagreed or got upset. Funny, huh? The guy lives in his own universe.
Comment by jen — March 23, 2010 @ 9:17 am
#238 Naismith ~ Even in the talk you quoted, the speaker was NOT discouraging women from getting an education. He was cautioning.
I agree. It’s why he was cautioning women in getting an education that I’m worried about. And it is a fact that Utah has the lowest ratio of women attending college in the nation, so apparently all this caution has sunk in.
Sweet? Not that I know of. What is your point here?
That the church doesn’t pander to men concerning their masculinity the way it panders to women over their femininity.
Why would a man come under fire for spending more time at home? That’s the ideal.
I don’t know. You could ask all of the members of my husband’s ward who were incredulous that we moved across the country from Washington state to Illinois so that I could pursue my graduate education with the understanding that he would work part-time at whatever job he could get and spend the rest of his time at home. Or do I not get to justify all of my positions with anecdotal evidence like you do?
Well, you’ve made it clear on a zillion occasions that the church isn’t as near as smart as you are, so what do you really expect?
I was very sincere when I said I admired you, Naismith. But on the other hand, your whole “stop calling us stupid!” complex has really gotten old. I’ve re-iterated to you again and again that I don’t think the church or those who defend its positions are automatically stupid, yet you just keep playing this card. And I’ve seen you do this multiple times (here and here, for example).
So, I guess I have to agree with what you told z in #239. This conversation is going nowhere (and whose fault is that?). Go find someone else to accuse of pissing on you.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 23, 2010 @ 9:53 am
[…] been reading the discussion of “Fascinating Womanhood” recently on Feminist Mormon Housewives. I myself own a copy of Fascinating Womanhood. Holly of Self Portrait As has discussed the book […]
Pingback by BYU in the 1970s | Main Street Plaza — March 23, 2010 @ 12:15 pm
I hear your experience, Naismith. I do think BYU accommodates more than other schools, and I had crap experiences in grad school too as a parent.
But we ought to ask whether Mormon women are MORE likely to have a degree than other women because there is more flexibility. Does the church culture encourage higher ed at the end of the day?
I just checked the numbers, and there is a huge difference for UT relative to other states. I was really surprised at how big. UT has the lowest ratio of female to male students by FAR. For the US, 1.24 full time women are enrolled for every full time man. In UT, the ratio is .95. WY it’s .97 and everywhere else it’s far above 1. And it is even MORE striking when you look at part time enrollment. 1.52 women enrolled part time for every man enrolled part time. UT is the low at 1.02.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_211.asp?referrer=list
Of course there are lots of people in from out of state, and those numbers are rough and UT is on the high end as far as the fraction of students who go on to college. But if we want to ask whether the church disproportionately encourages men to get educated, the answer I think is yes–at least if you look at the end result.
Comment by cms — March 23, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
I have a question about those numbers on the proportion of women and men at universities. Is the story that less women in Utah go to school, or is it that less men outside of Utah go to school? In this article, it says that the proportion of women in college in Utah is 49%, and in the rest of the country it is 57%. I remember reading somewhere else that the proportion of women in college is expected to rise to about 2/3 by 2050 based on current trends. Is that really what we want? It seems to me that what we want is for the number to be about 50/50 so that both men and women are getting higher education.
Comment by Stephanie — March 23, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
This is interesting… Eighteen percent of LDS women and 22 percent of LDS men in the NORC survey have graduated from college. This is significantly higher than the comparable percentages among Protestants and Catholics, but lower than among Jews and those with no religious affiliation. Fourteen percent of LDS men and 8 percent of LDS women have received graduate education. Jews and those with no religion have higher percentages, while Catholics and Protestants have lower percentages.
Comment by britt--and the brat — March 23, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
It would be interesting to see how those stats line up with ethnicity and wealth. I saw a chart the other day which showed a spread of income brackets among the religions. Jews and Hindus were by far the wealthiest.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 23, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
That would be particularly interesting in light of 3 Nephi 6:12
Comment by Stephanie — March 23, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
BTW, I’ve had some further thoughts on this subject today.
The male-female ratio in America is 48%-52%. If 52% of college students were women to 48% men, that would be “even” for our country. So if we’re seeing 1.08 women for every 1 man attending college, then we have even numbers. As such, the national average is 1.24 for every 1 man, so it’s higher than what we’d want to see for even numbers. But the average in Utah is much lower than the national average and somewhat lower than the “desired” average - .95 to every 1 man.
It should also be remembered that the LDS church doesn’t have an even male-female population, or even a male-female population that matches the national average. It has a 44%-56% ratio in America. So according to britt—and the brat’s statistics (#249), in a room full of 44 LDS men and 56 LDS women, approximately 10 men and 10 women have college degrees, even though there are more women present.
(That assumes that Britt’s numbers are for America and not the world. Otherwise scratch that last paragraph.)
My statistics on the gender ratio in the country and the LDS church in America come from the Pew Forum on Religion in America. I do not claim to be good at stats, so if I’ve gotten data wrong, please correct me.
http://religions.pewforum.org/portraits
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 23, 2010 @ 8:16 pm
I think I’ve just had a comment get picked up by the fMh spam filter. Anyone care to rescue it?
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 23, 2010 @ 8:17 pm
You’re free!
Comment by Reese Dixon — March 23, 2010 @ 8:40 pm
I agree those numbers I gave above are imperfect. It is hard to know what the “right” ratio is–and I don’t think there is very good research really explaining why more women than men are going to college (at least not that I know of). It could very well be the case that Mormon culture/doctrine is boosting men’s enrollment rates (relative to non-mormons) rather than depressing women’s enrollment rates (relative to non-mormons). But whatever it is, it does appear that it is encouraging more men than women to get an education.
I tried to look up britt’s numbers, and I think they are for 1972-88. I can’t get the NORC tables for now and I’d be silly to keep trying.
Comment by cms — March 23, 2010 @ 10:36 pm
Pander? See, this is the kind of negative spin that is put on things that makes it seem like you are constantly putting the church down. Pander?
Totally, you do. And if you had mentioned your personal experience, rather than making a general pronouncement, it would have made more sense to me.
I’m curious as to whether your current ward is more supportive, having more academics etc. when you moved to school. I have freely admitted that my entire time in the church has been either outside the US or in a US college town, and I am sure that does skew my perspective.
I take some responsibility for getting tired of the criticism. I think there is also some responsibility in the choice of words such as “pander.”
In particular, I was upset because I (stupidly) shared some intimate and spiritual things that I learned in graduate school, and they were dismissed. I don’t know if anyone has done a content analysis on this blog lately to see what the ratio of believing LDS is, but this is not an environment where I will share such things again.
Comment by Naismith — March 24, 2010 @ 7:59 am
Let’s please keep in mind that most LDS in the US live outside of Utah, and most Utahns are not active LDS. So looking at rates for Utah is a poor proxy for LDS. The Pew Religious Landscape data is available for download if anybody wants to crunch the numbers.
Here are some recent enrollment data from BYU, which while not 100% LDS is much closer than Utah. According to this, more women GO to college, but fewer graduate while there.
However, a better number would be lifetime educational attainment, which few datasets can support because they don’t have enough sample size of LDS. Because a lot of us do quit to have children while we are young, and go back and finish later.
Comment by Naismith — March 24, 2010 @ 8:07 am
I confess that I missed most of last October conference to attend a family wedding, and am still trying to finish before April hits.
of course many of us live in homes where the line between roles is not starkly defined, and thus it does seem strange. But some of that depends on the context. I have known families in which dad is so domineering that he does take over mom’s role, and anything else she has. Because even in the most ultra-conservative reading of the PotF, mom is responsible for the children’s nurturing, he does not get to dictate in that arena. In two of these families, dad was ultimately excommunicated. I support speaking out against that kind of treatment.
Then too, a few years ago when I worked on a breastfeeding promotion program aimed at grandmothers who hadn’t breastfed, it was interesting to see the research on male partners’ influence. A non-trivial percentage of men don’t like their wives to breastfeed, because it is something they can’t understand or contribute to. In that sense also, I think it can be a problem when husband’s undermine their wife’s role in that unique aspect.
Comment by Naismith — March 24, 2010 @ 8:34 am
#256 - Naismith, I thought non believers’ comments were welcome here. Is that not the case?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I certainly didn’t mean my comment (or my follow up post on MSP) to be anything but a further discussion on this post, women’s experiences in the LDS church, BYU and in Utah. If I have crossed a line, I would appreciate it if you or others would let me know.
Comment by aerin — March 24, 2010 @ 9:20 am
I was deliberately being negative with “pander.” I suppose it was my way of washing my hands of the conversation. I generally don’t actually try to be negative, but subtlety isn’t my gift. I tend to put things in very frank terms, and I’m sure that comes off as negative sometimes when I don’t mean it to be. It’s probably something I can work on.
I personally like hearing your anecdotal accounts, Naismith, but anecdotal evidence sort of occupies the bottom of the totem pole of things I consider when evaluating the church’s position on women. It just seems that whenever anecdotal evidence runs in the opposite direction, someone is always on hand who thinks “that doesn’t happen in my ward” is a sufficient apologetic (not necessarily you). But I mean it when I say that I usually enjoy the counterpoint that you provide as a strong woman who supports most of the church’s views on gender.
I don’t really attempt to explain my husband’s ward. There just seem to be a lot of couples following the male-breadwinner / female-SAHP model who are stunned that a family would make such a big move to support the woman’s education and career (a lot of wealthy families, too). In better news, my husband visited the other ward that meets in our building on Sunday and a woman there gave a talk about how she had wanted to pursue her education and her career, so her husband had prayed about it with her and they had decided that he would become the SAHP while she worked full-time. Maybe we need to switch wards!
I agree that Utah ≠ LDS church, and correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation. However, Utah is 62.4% LDS (as of 2004; probably slightly less now), a far higher portion of LDS people than any other state. I don’t think the LDS factor should be completely discounted.
Comment by Ms. Jack Meyers — March 24, 2010 @ 9:28 am
Don’t ask me, it is up to the perma’s to set a tone.
I totally think nonbelievers comments should be welcome here; they need a place.
But there is a huge difference between (1) sharing frustrations about sexism in the church or asking questions versus (2) straw-man arguments about the church (”I wonder what they would really say to men– don’t study so hard that you become a hopeless nerd and make Mormons seem uncool?”) and trying to hammer our unique way of doing things into a different-shaped hole labeled “egalitarian” or “traditional” or whatever.
And too much of the latter can make it seem a hostile environment for believers.
Comment by Naismith — March 24, 2010 @ 10:23 am
Naismith,”I think it can be a problem when husband’s undermine their wife’s role in that unique aspect”. uuuuuu i don’t think the emphasis was so much take over in a specific home but take over in general. Don’t get the roles confused kinda thing.
Comment by cz — March 24, 2010 @ 10:41 am
Also, both of those example are abusive and fall under a different talk. But agree with you that it is sad.
Comment by cz — March 24, 2010 @ 10:42 am
I concur. It should be possible to be able to discuss the content of a book, neither published nor sanctioned by the Church, without that discussion deteriorating into attacks on the leadership or way of life.
Comment by Claudia — March 24, 2010 @ 10:55 am
Claudia and others
While FW was not published nor sanctioned by the Church, in the 70’s I was( according to my memory)frequently taught from it. Mutual seemed to consist of lessons of being fascinating by not changing light bulbs.
I went to BYU in the late 70’s, but the University I attended was apparently in an alternate universe from the BYU many of you attended.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — March 24, 2010 @ 12:23 pm
Suzanne Neilson: I was too busy in the late 70’s dealing with my little kids to be fascinating. I think it is fair to say though that anyone who was teaching out of FW was doing it because they personally found it of value, not because anyone at the general level of the church asked them to do it.
There was a time period when the emphasis was less guidance is better. The materials from Salt Lake got smaller and smaller. People were expected to teach by the spirit and rely less on what some committee had prepared.
After awhile that went away. Perhaps what you describe is the reason why.
Comment by Claudia — March 24, 2010 @ 2:46 pm