In a discussion about the election results, one of my friends asked why so many white women voted for Trump if he is so sexist. My intuitive response was “Because they are married to white men.” It was a guess that had a certain ring of truthiness to it, but I wasn’t entirely sure I could articulate why.
What I meant by it is that, sexism aside, many Trump voters felt that the Republican platform will mean a better economic future for them, that they feel the Democrats have reduced their financial prospects, and that white men in particular feel held back and disenfranchised. If their wives are financially dependent on them (whether secondary income or no income), we shouldn’t be too surprised that they agreed with their husbands. [1] But to vote for Trump, even out of self-interest, voters of both sexes in 2016 also had to overlook the misogyny of their candidate. To me, that was where the more interesting story was.
There was a great article in vox explaining why so many women voted for Trump. There had been a pre-election article that I blogged about here showing that Trump’s popularity correlated with hostile sexism among his supporters. This post-election article explained why women will support a hostile sexist, and the reasons sound pretty darn Mormon. Here are the conditions that foster sexism among women:
- A sense that their opportunities are limited.
- Doom & gloom rhetoric about the world getting worse.
Two Types of Sexism
Before we get into the culture that fosters sexism in women, let’s review a couple terms. There are two types of sexism, and both exist in our society at large and in the church.
- Benevolent sexism. This is based on the idea that women are morally superior, kinder, gentler, more nurturing, and so on. Men should protect women, and women should be treated with extra special care and respect. See talks like “LDS women are incredible!” This type of sexism is patronizing, and literally, men are patrons (a person who gives financial or other support) to women.
- Hostile sexism. The underlying belief of hostile sexism is that women are out to manipulate and trick men, that women act in bad faith, that they want something from men or are to blame for the shortcomings of men. This paints feminism as a zero-sum game. If women have opportunities, men are emasculated. Success for women is seen as a threat to men. Hostile sexism is also behind rape culture, victim blaming, and modesty rhetoric that implies men are not accountable for their actions if women dress a certain way. When Trump said that Bill’s infidelities were probably because Hillary wasn’t a good enough wife, that was hostile sexism. While most Mormons are not hostile sexists (neither are most people which makes Trump exceptional), there were a few chilling comments from female Trump supporters that illustrated what hostile sexism looks like coming from a woman.
For an interesting contrast between the two types of sexism, consider E. Oaks’ 2005 talk entitled “Pornography” that cautioned young women:
And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you.
If he is saying this as a caution to protect women from men’s baser instincts, the statement is benevolent sexism. If he is saying this to blame women for the actions of men, the statement is hostile sexism. It all depends whether he views women as innocents who don’t understand the reactions they create in men (benevolent sexism) or as temptresses who understand only too well (hostile sexism).
By contrast, a non-sexist perspective would be to hold individuals accountable for their behavior regardless of sex, and to defend and protect those who are assaulted or victimized regardless of their sex–because they are people. From the vox article, here’s how Benevolent Sexism interacts with Hostile Sexism:
Benevolent sexism is the carrot, Glick explained, and hostile sexism is the stick. If you’re a “good” woman who meets expected gender norms — who has warm feminine charms, who maintains strict beauty standards, whose ambitions are focused on home and hearth — you will be rewarded with affection, protection, and praise. But step outside those norms, and you risk being labeled as one of the “bad” girls who are abused and scorned only because they deserve it.
It’s a tidy little cycle. Benevolent sexism is supposed to protect women from hostile sexism, and hostile sexism is supposed to keep women in line with the ideals of benevolent sexism.
As the article points out, male dominance is difficult to maintain.
Male dominance actually requires a pretty delicate balance, Glick said. If men want to maintain the control over women they’ve enjoyed for thousands of years, and continue their species, and satisfy their desires for heterosexual love and companionship, they can’t just use brute force. They need women to actually like them and not resent their dominance.
And so a compromise emerged — or at least a “protection racket,” as Glick calls it, like when the Mafioso tells the businessman he’d hate to see his nice shop burn down, so why don’t they make a deal.
The basic agreement is that as long as women cater to men’s needs, men will protect and cherish women in return. If women have few good options for independent success, this is a pretty good deal — which explains why in more overtly sexist societies where women have fewer opportunities, cross-national studies show that women endorse benevolent sexism at even higher rates than men do.
The Politics of Sexism
To some extent, it’s easy to see why conservative women (married to conservative men) would be more tolerant of sexism, but there’s also a populist angle. Women with college degrees voted for Hillary; those without voted for Trump (see analysis here). Women overall supported Clinton over Trump by 54% to 42%; white women who were college graduates supported Clinton 51% vs. Trump 45%. White women who were non-college grads showed a marked preference for Trump, 62% vs. 34% for Clinton. If education is a proxy for opportunity, women with less opportunity felt drawn to Trump.
On one level, that sounds like an economic and political reason, even if they had to hold their noses to vote. If we look closer, though, we see that there’s an intersection between sexism and conservativism when women have limited financial prospects.
Women who supported Trump said some very interesting things in his defense:
“I do find the words offensive, but that’s locker room talk. That’s the boys club.” Michelle Werntz
“I heard that he said something about groping women, and I’m thinking, Okay, No. 1, I think that’d be great. I like getting groped! I’m heterosexual. I’m a woman, and when a guy gropes me, I get groping on them! I grope them back. Groping is a healthy thing to do. When you’re heterosexual, you grope, okay? It’s a good thing.” Jane Biddick
Seeing feminism as a threat to masculinity is a hallmark of hostile sexism. Hostile sexists believe that “most women interpret innocent remarks as sexist” and “many women are seeking special favors under the guise of asking for equality.”:
“If women grabbed men like that, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But if men do that to women, they blow it out of proportion.” Valerie Still
“We have become so wussified. Pretty soon, saying hello to someone is going to be considered harassment.” Merchon Andersen
Another mark of hostile sexism is seeing women, particularly ambitious or independent women, as acting in bad faith, liars, untrustworthy, while holding men to a lesser standard, excusing their bad behaviors, applying different motives to men and women that exonerate men and condemn women.
“I honestly don’t trust Hillary Clinton. I just feel like she’s a liar.” Nicole Martin
“We believe that Trump has made some recent changes, growing stronger in his own Christian beliefs and putting Christian people around him. As a woman advocate, I still have no sympathy for Hillary Clinton. I’m sure if a woman were a godly person, I could be proud of that. But I would never be proud of Hillary. Unless she totally recanted, repented — and frankly, if she did that, she would reveal what’s she’s done, and she’d be in prison. She has a very dark side. I think Trump put it in good words, I just recently read, about a dark soul.” Debbie Eberly, comparing a Methodist grandmother who can’t manage her emails with an accused child rapist who is apparently an expert on dark souls
“I think Hillary is crooked enough to pay women to talk badly about Trump.” Valerie Still
Voting statistics from this election showed that women support sexism when their opportunities are limited. For those whose choices are limited through lack of education or financial dependence on a single breadwinner, sexism protects them, even though it’s also what limited them in the first place. Women in the church are encouraged to stay at home with children rather than pursuing a career, making them completely financially dependent on a husband. Sometimes women have been told to finish their degree as a “fallback” position, and yet without workplace experience, even a short off-ramp can drastically reduce opportunity for women. As one commenter on a recent blog post at By Common Consent put it:
I always prided myself that I got my degree. I never realized how worthless it would be twenty years later. How I could only get the same jobs my freshly out of high school kids could get. My degree seems to mean very little.
When a woman is dependent on sexism for survival, sexism doesn’t bother her–or at least she can maneuver her way around it; she can tell herself it’s normal (“boys will be boys”) or every man is like that. She can afford to overlook it. When sexism is a threat to her survival, it bothers her. She can’t afford to give it a pass.
Pessimism and Sexism
“The world is getting worse and worse” is a mantra we often hear at church. The world is a dangerous place, increasing in wickedness until the second coming. If you don’t believe that, you must be wicked, too, or “past feeling.”
“In many ways, the world is like a jungle, with dangers that can harm or mutilate your body, enslave or destroy your mind, or decimate your morality.” E. Scott, Don’t Face the World Alone, 2007
“Friends, you know what I know—that there is in the modern world so much sin and moral decay affecting everyone, especially the young, and it seems to be getting worse by the day.” E. Holland, Standing Together for the Cause of Christ, 2012.
The thinking is so prevalent that it’s nearly unquestioned when it’s raised. I’ve often found that the surest way to find fellow progressives is to look for the others at church who raise their hands to refute this statement. The past we compare to is often worse in many ways.[2] One reason for this rhetoric, aside from conservative politics (which I’ll discuss in a moment) is premillenialism, a belief that the world will get wickeder until the Second Coming. From the Patheos blog:
“Not all Christians believe the world is getting worse. But those who hold to what is called “premillennialism” do, and they tend to dominate the evangelical conversation in North America. (In premillennialism, the expectation is that the world will get worse and worse overall until Christ enters history and establishes his peaceable milllennial kingdom.)
Premillennial evangelicals tend to be rather selective in identifying putative evidence that the world is getting worse. For example, they focus on issues like gay marriage and transgender washrooms. My concern here is not to debate the morality of gay marriage or transgender washrooms. Rather, my point is that even if you do believe that these things are morally errant, it would be absurd to think isolated examples like those are sufficient to establish an overall trajectory of societal decay.” Randall Rauser
This negative view of the modern world is consistent with conservative politics. Conservative pundits have been known to rail on this topic, encouraging viewers to buy gold and stock up on guns. From the conservative site Townhall:
“I cannot imagine any thinking person who does not believe the world is getting worse.” Dennis Prager
Another factor is a tendency for the elderly to romanticize the past. This phenomenon is called the “reminiscence” bump. People in their 70s are better at remembering events from their early life, between the ages of 10 and 30. They are more forgetful of what happened in their 30-60s. They also experience a positivity effect, meaning that positive events are more easily remembered than negative ones. We develop a rosier picture of our youth as we get older, and that in turn creates a nostalgia for a past that never really existed, or at least wasn’t as great as we remember it.
The doom & gloom rhetoric from the right and nostalgia for a disappearing (and often mythical) past creates an environment in which women who are financially dependent on men may feel hopeless about their own prospects and look for ways to be protected or supported by men since they believe they are vulnerable. Given the doomsaying in most Mormon congregations and even General Conference talks, is it any wonder that women in the church (many of whom are vulnerable financially because of complete dependence on their husbands thanks to the single breadwinner model so encouraged at church) support sexism? It is in their self-interest to do so.
The second verse of “Follow the Prophet” sounds like it was ripped from a Fox News broadcast, and its refrain is all too common at church: “Now we have a world where people are confused. If you don’t believe it, go and watch the news.” Given the minor chords in this song, particularly with the voice of children singing it, it sounds very cynical indeed. [3] There’s a common belief that everyone at church will agree with this pessimistic view of “the world” and that things are getting worse and worse.
A third factor is that in a dual-income economy, families who are doggedly pursuing the single breadwinner model are in fact more vulnerable to economic turmoil. Their situations are worse because they are more fragile. Voting to preserve their economic standing without adapting to economic realities we live in may feel right to some, but it probably won’t actually provide real financial security.
Financial dependence on men, pessimistic outlook for the future, and economic instability: these are the conditions in which sexism thrives. Mormonism provides a unique recipe for creating female sexists.
Discuss, but nicely please, as if you were on a tiny little pedestal and might fall off at any moment.
This article was originally published at BCC. It was preceded by this article, also as BCC, on hostile sexism among Trump supporters.
[1] Bear in mind that one of the original arguments that only white men should vote was that they were the land owners; therefore, they were seen as having more stake in economic policies and legislation.
[2] Conservatives like to decry abortion, but in ancient Rome, it was legal to leave an unwanted infant in the streets to die. That’s pretty outrageously pro-choice.
[3] Or apparently like a Jewish folk song, according to one commenter when I posted this at BCC. Tomato, to-mah-to! So, imagine Larry David singing it. I stand by my statement.
Wheat & Tares 
Hawkgrrrl,
I think you err in your analysis and over-simplification. You seem to believe that all others, especially women, should have joined you in your dislike for Mr. Trump and that there must be some pathology behind their voting decision. You posit that if white women voted for Trump, they did so because of their husbands — sexism, you call it.
I disagree. I met a couple of white Latter-day Saint women on Thanksgiving who both admitted voting for Mr. Trump. Neither is married — one is a widow and the other is a divorcee. They voted against Mrs. Clinton because they found fault in her — they are a little troubled about Mr. Trump, but they purposefully voted against Mrs. Clinton. They are both liberated and with feminist perspectives. They are not rubes, dupes, misogynist, and so forth.
We all know of your dislike for Mr. Trump. But the election is over, and you should stop criticizing others (especially women) who voted for Mr. Trump. There will be another election in four years.
Let’s face it — both major parties put forward unlike-able candidates — I have read that both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton scored higher in unlike-ability than any other major party candidates since they started measuring. One citizen’s vote for Mr. Trump cannot be seen as an endorsement of everything Mr. Trump has ever done or said — that citizen’s vote likely was a decision between two unlike-able candidates, and that citizen made a free and independent decision. That decision differed from yours — but that doesn’t make it wrong. You err in attributing fault or pathology to any other person who voted differently than you did.
I’m glad that we had free and fair elections. We’ll have another one in four years.
Frankly, hawk girl, I find your conclusion that the reason a white woman would vote for Trump is because she’s married to a white man sexist and racist.
I don’t think that every situation should be subscribed around sexist or racist lines. It gets kind of old after a while. Seems like an excuse.
Look, I despise Trump as a candidate for many reasons and I still shake my head that he even got nominated, let alone elected. Of all the reasons given, I find the economic one to be the most compelling. Coupled with two other reasons. One, dislike for Hillary, especially among lower middle class women and the democrats ignoring that demographic and taking some segments of voters for granted and not reaching out to them.
Everything else seemed to be of lesser importance. Not saying it should have , but all the Trump crazy talk and his out and out lies ultimately didn’t matter.
Never underestimate the ignorance (meaning uninformed) of the average American voter. All the fake news didn”t help either. It’s gonna be a crazy four years. (or at least two)
Looking back at the Vox article, this election aside (the election was just the underlying question behind the article on sexism among women), the Vox data linked women supporting sexism with these two things: a sense that their opportunities are limited, and doom & gloom rhetoric about the world getting worse. It sounds like the Vox data is equating the current conservative platform with sexism, which may be true (I’m not sure), but I don’t think it was always the case. It used to be that being conservative was also about limiting the scope of government. Personally, I often agree with a conservative economic approach (I don’t implictly trust the government to do things better than the private sector); I do not usually agree with socially conservative positions, so that’s where the GOP loses me. It’s possible that a woman could vote for Trump for purely economic reasons, but she would also have to be willing to overlook his misogyny. Many women were, particularly if they believed the misinformation that was being spun. I think Jeff hits the nail on the head about this election.
Back to why LDS women (Trump supporters or not) are often sexist, the key reason is probably that they are when it benefits them. They aren’t when it hurts them. We even saw this trend in the Pew forum survey about ordaining women from 2011. Almost no LDS women supported it, but a majority of LDS men did. Successful LDS women are well-behaved and derive their authority from soft power, not direct authority. They derive their social standing from what their husband does, not what they do. This is not of course true for 100%, but it is true for many. When women believe their prospects are limited, they seek a protector or provider who has better prospects than they do (rather than seeking better prospects for themselves).
“Back to why LDS women (Trump supporters or not) are often sexist, the key reason is probably that they are when it benefits them. They aren’t when it hurts them. ”
I’d pretty much agree with this. If they feel the church’s patriarchal structure helps make their husbands more involved at home, more participatory in church and spiritual matters, more obligated to be good examples for their children, and those are the things they’re most concerned about, they’d probably be resistant to changing the status quo. If they feel the church’s patriarchal structure gives their husbands license to exert authority over them, or limits their ability to achieve their personal goals or growth, or decreases their sense of self-worth, they’re going to want changes.
I think it would be worthwhile for you to read Nibley’s old article on the historical and perpetual conflict between the patriarchy and the matriarchy. It can still be found at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1065&index=1. It’s premise is that history has been shaped, in part, by a conflict between the patriarchy and the matriarchy — “that old Devil’s dilemma, in which we are asked to take sides with Gog or Magog as his means of decoying us away from our true dedication to that celestial order established in the beginning.” Participating on either side leading us to destruction (a common tactic of the Adversary).
You include language in your post such as “Seeing feminism as a threat to masculinity is a hallmark of hostile sexism,” but (of course) ‘feminism’ is terminally equivocal. Does feminism mean equality of opportunity and legal rights? If so, I think you would be correct. Does is mean a denial of gender-based differences? On that we would disagree, and I think seeking such feminism as a threat to true masculinity would be a legitimate perception. Or is it the “I bathe in men’s tears” mold of feminism? From the outside looking it, it seems as though the latter are more common and growing in number. Perhaps they are simply louder and more noticeable. In any event, there seems little condemnation of the latter type of feminists from the former — far more electronic ink seems dedicated to the idea that they don’t exist (when they quite clearly do).
In any event, I have seen enough of feminism that my personal reaction to the word is as primarily describing of a subset that has voluntarily adopted the very worst aspects of male nature that men are called upon to overcome by hard effort. As Nibley described it, “Though nothing is to be gained by men and women in fighting for the whip handle, that disgraceful tussle will continue until God cuts it short in righteousness.” I have been called to overcome my nature to control and dominate through application of the Grace of Christ — I see no reason why others would condemn these instincts in men while simultaneously praising their acquisition in women. This was always something that I found odd when listening to the Ordain Women movement — while not uniformly true, so many times the “priesthood authority” they described themselves as wanting would have amounted to unrighteous dominion if engaged in by men.
“Not a healthy relationship; but matriarchy and patriarchy must always be mortal enemies. Why? Because of the last part of the word, the -archy. In Bailly’s dictionary, the first definition given for the word -arche is “beginning, specifically the origin of a quarrel or a murder’“; the second definition is “command, power, authority,” which is what the quarrel is about. The suffix archy means always to be first in order, whether in time or eminence; the point is that there can only be one first. To be first is Satan’s first principle: “Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav’n.” Whatever the game, the object is to be Number One.”
In any respect, I think there would be much in there for you to engage with. You may not agree with the article (Nibley, in the end, finds the ideal situation to be patriarchy absolutely constrained by charity but recognizes the difficulty of having such a situation short of the Second Coming), but it would at least give you another perspective from a firmly believing, yet liberal (in the current sense of the word) Latter-Day Saint.
That being said, I do have a few substantative differences with your post. Your criticism of Elder Oaks’s quote seems a deliberate misreading. We call on men to exercise charity in their understanding of women — can he not also call upon women to exercise charity towards men? Is it wrong to point out that, while each person is responsible for their own behavior, that the appearance of women can assist or detract from a man’s efforts to turn his thoughts to Christ? Aren’t we here to lift each other and help each other? If so, is it really so wrong to make aware (or remind) sisters about how their appearance can help or hinder?
Then the statement “comparing a Methodist grandmother who can’t manage her emails with an accused child rapist who is apparently an expert on dark souls” is frankly absurd. I didn’t vote for Trump, but this is either rhetorical excess or shows a lack of awareness on your part. There are numerous reasons not to trust Clinton (and, frankly, far more persuasive reasons not to trust Trump). Charitably I will presume your rhetoric just got away from you. In any event, it hurts your point far more than it helps it — and writing that sentence in the very part of your post discussing the assumption of bad faith was unintentionally ironic.
I also think most women think of men and women as having significant differences, whether fundamental or simply statistical. And one difference in particular that they tend to acknowledge is that men and women don’t experience sexuality the same way. To even acknowledge such a difference is sexist by definition, regardless what accommodations they’re willing to grant (to either group) because of it.
The “doom and gloom” rhetoric inspired a lot of people to vote for Trump because he represented changing course. After the Supreme Court ruling in June 2015, people at my church on Sunday were acting like the world was ending. To them, it was like America had lost it’s moral center and rejected God, which meant all the destruction forewarned in scripture was imminent. Clinton (and her support of abortion) was seen as a continuation of the status quo, increasing moral decay.
Benevolent sexism allows for Trump to make sexist remarks. Women are pure and vulnerable (except evil temptresses who use their bodies for gain), where men must deal with constant temptation. That’s why fathers and husbands have to protect the women in their life. Trump’s locker-room excuse was believable, and people would have accepted any measure of “My bad. Shouldn’t have said it.” The women who came forward claiming assault were seen as temptresses or people just wanting the limelight. “Good girls” would never put themselves in those situations.
I disagree that women choose benevolent sexism *because* they have limited opportunities. They have limited opportunities *because* they subscribe to benevolent sexism. The article made an observation that women who supported Trump were more likely to have limited opportunities. But, women who accept benevolent sexism are more likely to subscribe to a single breadwinner model because they feel their duty is to the home. Those are the women who would have married young, had children young, and therefore created for themselves much more limited economic opportunities (due to social pressure, but still). Strong men are encouraged in benevolent/hostile sexism, so people who subscribe to that thinking wouldn’t have had a problem with Trump’s abrasive strongman personality. Hillary Clinton represents a rejection of benevolent sexism – she would be abhorrent to many men and women on that basis alone.
The whole premise is wrong. It makes it sound like all men are male chauvinists and that our women are all sexist. Nothing could be further from the truth
Not sure why it is here….it seems to have been thoroughly discussed over at BCC.
While there is some interesting analysis in the post, there is also some simplistic thinking. Those are NOT the only two types of sexism. There is also the type of sexism that recognizes the differences between men and women (who were apparently made that way by a divine creator) and values what women do as much as what men do. Frankly, that’s what I hear most often at church–so where does that fit?
That is something that I find lacking among the (non-LDS) feminists that I interact with. They have totally bought into a male-normative idea that traditionally male work is more valuable/real and that women should limit their family size and leave their kids in daycare to avoid being put at risk of not doing things the way men do. And if they have more than one child or leave the paid workplace for a season, then they deserve the lack of respect and extra hoops to workforce re-entry because they are not following the rules of the game.
Rather than rejoicing in what women do, appreciating their contributions, and expecting men to support their wives who are pregnant and nursing because only women can do that kind of work.
As far as “SAHMs” being dependent, this may not always be the case. A lot of us are interdependent on our husbands, who value what we bring to the family. I have a non-LDS friend whose husband asked her to give up her career for a season to focus on their three kids so that he could be chief medical resident, something he didn’t feel he could do while also keeping up with half the housework, childcare, etc. It was really important for him to have that line on his resume, because it turned out that he did not like his clinical specialty, but thought he could excel as an administrator and researcher. Which he has. And he is grateful to her for giving him that year. (She is an occupational therapist with a specialty in pediatrics, so she could get a job easily on her own merits at any hospital.) My husband couldn’t do the travel that “made” his career if I wasn’t willing to handle things at home and take the family on sabbatical for season.
I returned to paid professional work twice after seasons at home full-time, and I feel that the experience of running a large household taught me valuable management and triage skills. Yes, I appreciate that the woman you quoted did not have that experience.–but her story is not more typical than mine. A lot of women return to college and/or the workforce after their families have grown (Nancy Pelosi, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich….) Frankly, in my experience one of the biggest barriers for a parent’s workforce re-entry is the negative attitude of some people who felt that I should be punished for “sitting on my butt for years” while they were “working.” Fortunately I found enough people who actually saw the reality of my skills and abilities to hire me, although my co-workers might be resentful.
I voted for Clinton, and I understand the downside of hostile sexism, which is why I always ask for a woman when I am shopping for a car, looking for a new dentist, or seeking any professional service.
But neither do I think women are morally superior, kinder, gentler, more nurturing.
So what do we want to call this third way?
Johnathan Cavendar: “Your criticism of Elder Oaks’s quote seems a deliberate misreading.” Not at all. His remark is usually mistakenly painted as hostile sexism whereas I believe it is more accurately benevolent sexism. I see it as trying to protect women from men; you see it as trying to help women protect men from women. Your interpretation is more of a hostile sexist reading. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that Oaks is trying to explain to women how to “help men” by taking responsibility for the male response of which they were previously unaware. If Oaks thought they were aware, that would mean his statement was hostile sexism (women are temptresses). By making them aware, he’s forcing them into the role of temptress that they wouldn’t occupy otherwise (by your reckoning). The women in this case have no mal intent. Their innocent actions are imbued with negative meaning by the men observing them. Do I think Oaks gave this much thought? No. But that doesn’t change that it’s motivated by sexism. I happen to know that Oaks is (mostly) a feminist in terms of wanting equal pay for equal work. But he swims in the water he swims in as do we all.
“Does feminism mean equality of opportunity and legal rights?” Yes.
“Does is mean a denial of gender-based differences?” No, that’s one strain of feminism (“radical feminism”).
“Or is it the “I bathe in men’s tears” mold of feminism?” I don’t know which feminism this is other than some exaggerated construction, but then again, I characterized Clinton as a Methodist grandmother and Trump as a child rapist. We are all prone to exaggerations for effect.
Martin: Most feminists are not radical feminists who acknowledge no differences between the sexes, but remember that “separate but equal” almost never leads to equality.
Mary Ann: “I disagree that women choose benevolent sexism *because* they have limited opportunities. They have limited opportunities *because* they subscribe to benevolent sexism.” Great point.
Naismith: “Not sure why it is here….it seems to have been thoroughly discussed over at BCC.” Laziness–Christmas season is too busy a time to create fresh content. Plus, we get different commenters here. “So what do we want to call this third way?” I think you are contrasting second and third wave feminism. Third wave acknowledges all choices women make as valid. Second wave focuses more on the entry of women into the male structured workforce. “They have totally bought into a male-normative idea that traditionally male work is more valuable/real” That’s the most common criticism of second wave feminists (people like Betty Friedan). I imagine that among a certain age of women (40+), second wavers would be the most common you’d encounter in the workplace.
hawkgrrrl:
Sometimes hyperbole is an effective illustrator of a point. Would it be sexist to tell a man to restrict his behavior around a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault? Are trigger warnings (in their medical sense) sexist? Or are the an acknowledgement of the necessity of charity when dealing with our flawed fellow-travelers?
In the same sense, it is a call to charity, not chastity, to remind (or inform) sisters of the affects their appearance may have. You keep going back to the strawman of responsibility (“taking responsibility for the male response”), but it is not an issue of responsibility. Each man is responsible for their own thoughts, behaviors, and relationship with the Lord. But it is an issue of charity. To return to hyperbole, would it be charitable to drink in front of you if you were a recovering alcoholic (leaving aside the Word of Wisdom)? Would it be fair to say, in such a circumstance, that it is wrong to call upon me not to drink in front of you because I am not responsible for the your continued sobriety? That, of course, is an objectively true statement. But it is also an objectively true statement that someone who casually confronts their fellow-travelers with additional opposition is not charitable.
In the article, you get it right — but you seem to miss your own point. “By contrast, a non-sexist perspective would be to hold individuals accountable for their behavior regardless of sex, and to defend and protect those who are assaulted or victimized regardless of their sex–because they are people.” What about those who are assaulted by the temptations and buffetings of Satan — are they not worthy of defense? Yes, individuals are responsible for their own behavior, but advocating against modesty because of sexism is advocating against kindness for ultimately selfish reasons.
Or, to paraphrase Romans 14:14-15, 21 (tongue in cheek, but with the point intact):
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing immodest of itself: but to her that esteemeth any thing to be immodest, to her it is immodest.
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy cleavage, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy cleavage, for whom Christ died.
…
21 It is good neither to go strapless, nor to wear a two-piece, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
““Or is it the “I bathe in men’s tears” mold of feminism?” I don’t know which feminism this is other than some exaggerated construction, but then again, I characterized Clinton as a Methodist grandmother and Trump as a child rapist. We are all prone to exaggerations for effect.”
Nope, not an exaggeration for effect. See, for example (language warning):
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/08/08/ironic_misandry_why_feminists_joke_about_drinking_male_tears_and_banning.html
http://www.mtv.com/news/2110217/misandry-is-a-joke/
http://www.thehouseofriot.com/blog/2016/8/3/the-shameless-misandrist
I get irony, and while I am not persuaded by the self-serving thinking that bad behavior isn’t really so bad when it is done by a group out of power, I am at least aware of the argument. To me, it appears as abject hypocrisy. But what is more important, to me, is the effect of such statements on those who make them. Words have meaning — particularly to the speaker — and even if the speakers are not hiding their true opinions behind a mask of humor no one can long say these sorts of things (even in irony) without ultimately coming to believe them. They say that humor is funny because it contains the seed of truth — if that is correct, then what does that say about the thinking of feminists engaged in the “humor” of ironic misandry?
In any event, I have gone afield of the original post so I will bow out rather than threadjack.
Jonathan Cavendar: Nobody here advocated against modesty, although we Mormons are certainly excessive in our focus on it. How often do we talk about women as having sexual desire? Almost never. The way we talk to and about women in this church is pretty stereotypical and lacking in actual understanding of how women think and perceive things. I do consider it harmful to introduce sexual motives to innocent situations. As a young woman I found it disconcerting and alarming. Are we trying to create fear between the sexes? These actions do have long-term consequences to how men & women relate to one another. When we treat women like sex objects by pointing out that men see them as sex objects so they’d better cover up, we create downstream impacts: 1) women who fear men and their own sexuality, 2) men who fear and blame women, 3) women who blame other women (for not covering up), 4) women who exploit their sexuality for gain. As a middle aged woman, I can look back and say it is not wise to do this.
Jesus never said the things you ascribe to Paul in your paraphrase, and perhaps that’s for good reason. He said if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he’s committed adultery in his heart. He doesn’t say that women should hide themselves to prevent men from lusting after them. We know that no matter how much you cover women up, men can still be lustful. (And obviously women can be lustful, too). And being a sex object to someone isn’t the same thing as alcohol addiction. Alcoholism is a disease, for one thing. Psychology doesn’t recognize porn addiction as a real addiction. If you lust after someone, that’s on you, the lusting person, not on the person you’ve made the object of your lust. It’s up to you to curb it. It’s also problematic to ask women to be responsible for this because the woman is both the object and the person. In your analogy, you seem to be saying the woman is like a bartender, but really she is like the bottle of alcohol. It has to be obvious at some point how it must feel as a young woman to be told that you aren’t really seen as a person but as an object, and that it’s your job to make sure you aren’t seen as an object. It ceases to feel like advice of how to be charitable and starts to feel like an attack on your character and that your body is public property. It’s very invasive. It doesn’t feel safe to be talked about this way.
I don’t frequent the sites you mention, but I would caution that it’s a way to dismiss feminist concerns by assuming that misandry is going to be thrown in the cart at the checkout. But I do appreciate your engagement and general thoughtfulness on these topics.
This is a threadjack indeed because we started out in the OP by talking about why women who benefit from benevolent sexism would support a system that limits opportunities for women and would overlook the hostile sexist statements made by Trump (some women quoted even lauded those as masculine) if they feel their opportunities are limited or that the economy is getting worse.
I like the modesty threadjack. I figure it’s harmless now, since the OP’s run twice (and was clearly a lot of work). One of my biggest beefs with LDS feminists is their unbalanced attack on the modesty doctrines. I’m not so bothered by their attacks on how those doctrines have been taught, especially historically, because some of the methods have been problematic, but a great percentage of LDS feminists seem to feel that modesty should not be taught at all. They reduce the whole thing to “men’s lust is their problem, not ours”, which is not only a terrible over-simplification (since I don’t think those teachings are even primarily for men’s benefit), but also offensively dismissive of men.
Hawk makes the point that you’re going to have problems with men’s lust regardless how women dress. That’s true. You’re also going to have all four categories of the people she mentioned above (men and women resentful/fearful of their own sexuality and each other) regardless how modesty is taught or whether it’s taught at all. That doesn’t mean that the way women dress doesn’t affect men or that the way we talk about modesty doesn’t affect how men and women relate to each other.
I think a strong case could be made in defense of LDS modesty teachings. Maybe not to the extent they’ve been emphasized in the past, but certainly that they have value and shouldn’t be done away.
Martin, which modesty teachings are those? The ones that say a person’s outward appearance should be based on their confidence as a child of God? Or the ones that say women should be covered up to prevent men from lusting after them?
Here are the quotes at the top of “dress and grooming standards” for missionaries:
Elders – “Servants of the Lord have always counseled us to dress appropriately to show respect for our Heavenly Father and for ourselves.”
Sisters – “You can dress attractively without being immodest. Within the Lord’s guidelines, there is room for you to be lively, vibrant, and beautiful both in your dress and in your actions.”
Which quote emphasizes dressing in a way to show respect for ourselves? Which quote emphasizes us looking good for other people? Men are to emanate respectability. Women are to emanate beauty (A 2000 conference talk by James E. Faust said, “a beautiful and chaste woman is the perfect workmanship of God.” Could you ever expect a church leader to say, “a handsome and chaste man is the perfect workmanship of God”? No, because appearance is not seen as a core part of a man’s purpose on this earth.)
Martin: As to modesty being taught, I’m fine with it so long as we do two things: 1) actually teach modesty, not just policing women’s dress, and 2) don’t teach modesty in terms of impacts to others (which is almost always impacts on men), but rather teach modesty as an innately valuable quality to the person who is modest. Modesty is really about not drawing attention to oneself, usually by not being ostentatious or showing off wealth. Wearing something expensive is immodest. Spending lavishly is immodest. Being prideful and arrogant is being immodest. Modest means “unassuming or moderate in the estimation of one’s abilities or achievements.” Being humble.
Emboldening creepy guys at BYU to reproach cute girls about how their dress has “impacts to others” is not only socially awkward for all involved, but it really feels unsafe if you are a girl being approached in this way. It can result in body dysmorphia, victim blaming and unhealthy relations between the sexes. And the creepy guy is probably going to make all us Mormons look bad when he takes these beliefs into the workplace and gets hauled in for sexual harassment when he starts telling women that how they are dressing is getting him excited and could they please stop.
“Could you ever expect a church leader to say, “a handsome and chaste man is the perfect workmanship of God”?”
Of course not. They’d be afraid of hurting women’s feelings.
Mary Ann, the way the leaders spoke (and still speak) is shaped significantly by the culture in which they functioned. You’ll have to better explain to me how the words to missionaries is so unfortunate. You seem to view them as re-enforcing societal norms of which you don’t approve, and I tend to view them more as acknowledging societal norms while trying to maintain standards (ie., many sisters don’t like the idea of appearing frumpy). I doubt sister missionaries who strive to appear respectable are viewed as missing the mark.
Hawk, I agree with your definition of modesty, however I think you’re underselling the significance of women’s dress. For every creepy guy you run into at BYU who thinks he can tell a girl her skirt is too short, I’ll match you 20 teenage girls at my local schools with a good inch of butt cheek hanging out the bottom of their shorts. I know, I know, the creepy guy is a much worse problem because he makes you feel unsafe. But that doesn’t mean the other isn’t a problem as well (or maybe you don’t think so). I just think modesty in dress can be taught (and usually IS taught) in ways that don’t embolden mr. creepy.
““Could you ever expect a church leader to say, “a handsome and chaste man is the perfect workmanship of God”?”
Of course not. They’d be afraid of hurting women’s feelings.”
Of course not because that would be pedastalizing and we only reserve that for women. We don’t mind hurting men’s feelings at women’s expense. So long as men keep the real power.
Martin, how many modesty lessons did you have growing up? Our YW have them all the time. To me this speaks volumes about on whose modestly adorned shoulders the responsibility is projected to reside.
What if our modesty lessons focused less on the young women and more on the young men? Showing respect to young women regardless of what they’re wearing to the prom. Seeing people as people and not their body parts. Self control. Maturity. Maybe our LDS modesty culture has created the problem. I grew up in an inactive family and socializing involved adults drinking alcohol and hanging out on the beach. Most of the adult women wore bikinis. And crazy thing, everyone acted like grown ups. Some LDS men are so fearful of “immodest” women. I can’t help but wonder if the sexual repression is driving it all. Which may explain why Utah ranks #1 in porn subscriptions.
Maybee,
You’ve described my exact experience. I grew up in South Florida in the 80s in a non-member family and we hung out at the beach and on boats a lot. Lots of people of both sexes wore clothing the church wouldn’t approve of and, like in your case, everyone acted like adults. I think part of what the church modesty culture does, intentionally or not, is to fetishize women and sex in ways that are unhealthy and, as you state, repressive. Much of the church’s thinking around sex, gender and women actually infantilizes the members by keeping them naive and unfamiliar with important issues such as: consent (see the BYU honor code fiasco, e.g.), sexual health, sexual orientation (not “same sex attraction”) and gender identity. As long as our discourse stigmatizes any kind of sexual behavior , sexual feelings, sexual thoughts, etc. that don’t occur within the bonds of heterosexual marriage, we’re going to have a huge blind spot about a lot of things, including both modesty and an unnecessarily restrictive (IMHO) code regarding non-marital physical relations. I think the patriarchal order is pointedly intentional about a lot of this. If you can tie modesty and sexual behavior directly to morality and virtue, then it becomes much easier to maintain authority over women and, secondarily, men. And there is a very high price that members are paying for that.
Bro Sky – yes!
Creepy story – RS instructor during one Sunday’s lesson (don’t remember the topic) mentioned her teenage daughter once wore a skimpy tank top and PJ bottoms after a shower. The instructor pulled her aside and in an angry mom voice told her “You do NOT dress like that in front of my husband!” (the girl’s father). This instructor is a really cool lady and strong member of the church. I was so grossed out by the interaction, especially that she felt her audience would accept it as ok enough for her to use it in a lesson.
No person should be sexualizing my girls, especially their own father. Messed up. Ick.
Why LDS members have a really warped sense of Modesty:
1: LDS Teen girl wears tank-like shirt to church. Everyone looks at her askance and she gets called into the Bishop’s office for a discussion on her modesty choices.
2: LDS Man arrives at church in a $200K new car. Everyone looks at him admiringly. He gets called into the Bishop’s office to be asked to be the new second counselor.
True story, although the timing on the new calling was coincidence.
Martin, there is little difference between re-enforcing societal norms and acknowledging societal norms. Either way, we’re dealing with the societal norm that physical appearance is a key part of a woman’s identity and purpose. If you don’t understand why that gives people the right to judge a woman’s worth by her appearance, and blame her for causing other people to think inappropriate thoughts, then I’m not sure how to proceed with the conversation. I’m assuming that the “that would hurt women’s feelings” line was a joke, but regardless, it reflects the societal norm that a woman’s self-worth is tied to being the prettiest thing in the room. What else could she possibly be good for?
Maybee brings up an interesting point about the mutual wariness we create between the sexes with all the focus on modesty rhetoric. In a discussion group just last night several female friends were reflecting on being dumped by Mormon boyfriends because they had made him feel guilty for finding them attractive (e.g. the girl “made him” have lustful thoughts). Again, looking back with the wisdom of middle age, that’s kind of the point of boy/girl relationships, right? Without attraction, the world would not be peopled. But Mormon girls get dumped for being vile temptresses because their Mormon boyfriends blame them for causing them to feel aroused.
A brief anecdote: last month, a septugenarian grandma was discussing the post-mission marriage prospects of her college-age granddaughter. The grandma suggested that the girl’s prospects were good – not because this girl has a fun sense of humor, was high school valedictorian, is musically talented, is fluent in mandarin chinese, or is awesome with kids. Of course not. The granddaughter had good marriage prospects because she would make “a nice arm ornament” (her words, not mine). She was trying to say her granddaughter was attractive, but the compliment came in the form of stating that her granddaughter will be a nice accessory for a man, like a trophy wife. The worth of a daughter of God.
So between Hawk’s point and mine, we have Mormon girls stuck. Needing to look attractive enough to get a mate, but not *so* attractive as to cause a man inappropriate thoughts.
@ MaryAnn I was just about to make an innuendo about your “rock and hard place comment” but you must have anticipiated that since you changed your comment 🙂
Mary Ann, I believe the main purpose of the modesty teachings of the church is specifically so we DON’T judge a woman’s worth by her appearance. One thing the modesty teachings did for my daughters, I believe, is that it helped protect them from getting caught up in that crappy competition. Just to illustrate that point, several years back I was doing dishes and my 13 or 14-year-old daughter was in the kitchen helping me. Britney Spears had just shaved her head or done something bizarre, and my daughter had been a fan when she was younger. She said something about how it was so sad what had happened to Britney, and I concurred, asking her what she thought had caused Britney’s troubles. She said she thought it all happened when Britney decided to quit being modest. Quite surprised, I asked her why she thought that. I think I was new to blogging and had just started reading the anti-modesty posts at fmh, and I assumed my daughter had had modesty shoved down her throat in YW. And, she was just at that age where she’d become very aware of what she wore to school. But her reasoning surprised me. She said that she thought Britney had been told she needed to change who she was or she wouldn’t make it as a grown-up star. She said Britney probably felt she had to dress sexy so she could get people’s approval and attention, and then had to do other things to keep getting their approval. But no matter how much she compromised to get their attention and approval, it never made her happy. My daughter said that Britney probably didn’t know if she had any real friends and didn’t feel good about herself. She said if she’d just stayed who she was, she might not have been as big a star, but she wouldn’t be so unhappy. That one conversation has really stuck with me, and sure, you can tear it apart for it’s simplicity, but you have to remember this is the wisdom of a younger teenager that really served her well.
We use the word beautiful in so many overlapping ways I think it can cause confusion. A little girl might want to pretty like the princesses in the video, and when her daddy tells her she’s beautiful, that’s what she’s thinking. Her daddy, of course, means something different. I still think of my girls as beautiful, and I still tell them that, and I sometimes think it helps them feel that way, but they know it’s not really their appearance I’m referring to. What’s beautiful about them gets attached to their appearance, in that I can just look at them and think they’re beautiful, but it’s not their appearance itself that makes me think they’re beautiful. There’s definitely something sexist about it because I don’t look at my sons and think of them as beautiful. I’d use different words, and to honest, the feeling isn’t even quite the same. But I certainly don’t agree that my daughters have been taught their self-worth is in their appearance.
“I think you are contrasting second and third wave feminism. Third wave acknowledges all choices women make as valid. Second wave focuses more on the entry of women into the male structured workforce…… I imagine that among a certain age of women (40+), second wavers would be the most common you’d encounter in the workplace.”
I am not sure there has been a consensus as to what third- or fourth-wave feminism is. At least various speakers who come to my campus give various opinions and acknowledge the ambiguity there . And it is my younger colleagues, far less than age 40, who are most adamant about how women should not have more than one child and should not leave the paid workforce.
Make no mistake, I am a sexist by many definitions. While of course each couple should adapt based on their own situation, I totally endorse church teachings that assign men to support their families. It is not because I think women are morally superior, kinder, gentler. It is because the burdens of pregnancy and lactation are much heavier for women. Yes, the teachings that men should support their families benefit me.
If I had been blessed with infertility instead, I might see this differently. But as someone who gets pregnant all too easily, I see the church teachings as providing equity given the reality of how a divine creator made us.
This in no way limits the accomplishments or goals of other women. I voted for Hillary.
@martin
“I assumed my daughter had had modesty shoved down her throat in YW”
Mormons don’t necessarily corner the market on modesty, and Mormon women perhaps grow up relatively unscathed *in spite* of the rhetoric and role models they see in the LDS church. For one thing, Mormonism is only about 1% of the religious makeup of the world, yet, somehow, 99% of women in the world mature into fine people with healthy self-esteem.
@Naismith
“I totally endorse church teachings that assign men to support their families. …because the burdens of pregnancy and lactation are much heavier for women…”
As with the point I made to @martin, the vast majority of couples work out how to share working and raising children without any mandate from their church. Also, I have seen plenty of women who manage to work while they are pregnant with no problem whatsoever, so it’s not necessarily such a “burden” that being pregnant and working are mutually exclusive.
Bottom line for me is that directives, messages and teachings from the LDS church about “modesty” and gender roles are, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, psychologically harmful to women.
Anecdotally speaking, I certainly remember my mom yelling at my sisters for wearing makeup or revealing clothes when they pre-teens or young teens. But this was a fairly sporadic thing, and not some sort of modesty indoctrination tied into their self-worth, morals, or spirituality. It was simply their mom upholding her own standards for appearance versus her daughters rebelling against those standards. Of course, the girls simple waited and put on their makeup and revealing clothes in the car (duh). I think both boys and girls go through a stage where they experiment with their sexual powers of attraction and try on other adult roles. Young girls wear grown-up makeup and wear revealing outfits and young boys strut around like peacocks. To my mind, this is all perfectly natural and normal, and the vast majority of kids come through it just fine. In my view, making a big deal about it, preaching, and adding a huge guilt trip just makes things worse.
Maybee, yes, I immediately regretted that “rock and a hard place” comparison just after I posted. I knew it would be difficult to resist. LOL.
“…..the vast majority of couples work out how to share working and raising children without any mandate from their church….”
Yes, it’s wonderful to see the various ways that different families come up with their unique solution.
But I have also talked with many, many non-LDS women who feel pressured to continue paid work when they would rather be home, or would like to have a second child. They don’t follow those desires because they want to continue being an “equal partner” with their husband, and it was what they had agreed to going into parenthood, and they feel pressured by their spouse….it’s just that they felt differently when the child was there, especially if the daycare did not seem to be not as good as they had heard, or if the baby would not take a bottle of expressed milk. They cannot envision that they could still be “equal partners” while having different roles. They are intrigued that my husband has always considered my contributions to the family to be equal, and when he gets a bonus paycheck he asks how I want to spend my half. I am grateful for those teachings.
“Also, I have seen plenty of women who manage to work while they are pregnant with no problem whatsoever,”
I have, too. They are really lucky, aren’t they?
“….so it’s not necessarily such a “burden” that being pregnant and working are mutually exclusive.”
Please understand this: For some women, IT IS. It is a physical condition. And even though some men talk about “when we were pregnant…” it is only the woman’s body that is affected, during and after pregnancy. NEVER the male. Since men’s and women’s bodies are different, I do not see a problem with policies that encourage the protection of women who lose the biological lottery and need to be supported.
This does not hurt in any way the women are so fortunate that they can continue work at a high-powered job right up to delivery. Good for them. And I would in no way judge another woman’s childcare choices, only they have stewardship in that area.
And let’s be clear, it is not the fault of the church but the Creator who made us this way. If things had been done more sensibly, like in Ursula LeGuin’s THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, we wouldn’t have this problem.
Truth is a matter of the imagination.
@Naismith
“And let’s be clear, it is not the fault of the church but the Creator who made us this way.”
There are plenty of other churches around with pregnant women in them made by the same Creator. Those churches don’t teach women that their primary reason for existence is to stay home, have babies, and take care of their husband. So, I’d say that LDS teachings and culture *are* the issue here.
” Those churches don’t teach women that their primary reason for existence is to stay home, have babies, and take care of their husband. ”
I wouldn’t be a member of this church if I thought that was true.
My understanding is that our primary reason for existence is to fulfill the mission that each of us has been given, which hopefully will allow us to be tested and prove our valiance to return to our Heavenly Parents through the atonement of our big brother Jesus Christ.
There is a huge gap between valuing motherhood, which our church certainly does, and telling women what to do. A woman who simply “stayed home” and did not use that opportunity to nurture children and practice provident living may not be fulfilling her mission.
I see LDS women following all kinds of paths. My last two bishop wives were employed in professional careers, while the current one is home full-time with kids. My son’s mission president had not had children of his own–and he and his wife felt inspired not to become parents through adoption but to serve in other ways. The wife of a neighboring bishop accepted her first Assistant Professor job at age 52 after childrearing.
We each have our patriarchal blessings and have the opportunity to prayerfully consider the counsel of church leaders as we each find our unique path through this earth life.
I don’t hear the “mandates” that some do, but I have chosen to live far from the intermountain western USA and was not raised in the church.
“I do not see a problem with policies that encourage the protection of women who lose the biological lottery and need to be supported.” Me neither, but I don’t know what those policies in question would be exactly. Policies we are generally talking about are equal pay and non-discrimination. I think what you are referring to would be family law that would require support of a spouse with a disability. Perhaps you’re talking about FMLA (because it also means people can take up to 12 weeks off to care for another person). “Policies” are generally aimed at employers, so requiring a working spouse to support a non-working spouse isn’t really a question of policy that I can see. It’s certainly a social norm to do so. If a husband and wife aren’t on the same page about this stuff, that sounds like a reason for marriage counseling more than policy.
@Naismith
” Those churches don’t teach women that their primary reason for existence is to stay home, have babies, and take care of their husband. ….. I wouldn’t be a member of this church if I thought that was true. ”
“By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.”
~~LDS “The Family: A Proclamation”
I disagree. A mother can preside over a family and provide the necessities of life and protection for her family, and a father can be primarily responsible for the nurture of children. God didn’t *design* families the way the LDS church proclaims He did. Families come in all shapes and sizes.
“Me neither, but I don’t know what those policies in question would be exactly.”
I was mostly thinking of church policy, such as the family proclamation that gives to husbands the assignment of seeing that the family is provided for. I think that is a good thing.
Also, as far as the workplace and employers, I would welcome any policies that actually recognize the biological differences between men and women. In 2010, there was a landmark study about female scientists, “Keeping Women in the Science Pipeline,” that caused great controversy by daring to mention the needs of “birth mothers” specifically, rather than only discussing benefits available to any parent. I applaud such efforts and would like to see more of that approach.
I watched that play out in my own department. One year we had hired two bright young faculty, grads of the best programs in the country. They had babies around the same time, but there was a key difference. She was on bedrest and had a difficult C-section. He never missed a day of work. Yet they were supposed to come up for tenure at the same time? That seems very unfair to me. Yet like far too many universities, ours does not stop the tenure clock merely for childbirth. They think that is being equal but it is not equitable.
The Pregnancy Disability Act of 1978 was a huge step forward, but it does not cover all employers or situations. When I was an undergrad at BYU, my “sexist” male professors were very supportive of my pregnancy illness, allowing me a year to finish term papers, etc. When I was in graduate school in Texas, a fellow student who was pregnant was flushed out of our program because she couldn’t keep up. As this was discussed, I wondered how they would treat a male who was injured in a car accident. Would they give him an extra year to recover? But my classmates said that was not a fair comparison. Having a baby was her choice, while the guy had no choice about the accident. They had no recognition of the good to society that comes from raising a child.
“…so requiring a working spouse to support a non-working spouse…”
Okay, I am just going to ignore how offensive and detrimental it is to refer to a person not earning a paycheck as “non-working.”
“…isn’t really a question of policy that I can see. It’s certainly a social norm to do so.”
Is it? Inside the church, yes, because it is stated in the proclamation, etc. But outside the church? I don’t have that impression at all, based on what people tell me.
anon, how did the family proclamation morph into teaching women “that their primary reason for existence is to stay home”?
Actually, what they teach us is, “There is no one perfect way to be a good mother. Each situation is unique. Each mother has different challenges, different skills and abilities, and certainly different children. The choice is different and unique for each mother and each family.”–Elder Ballard, April 2008 General Conference.
I am happy for you that you have found a faith tradition that works for you. Please do not mis-characterize ours.
And I am bowing out.
@Naismith
“There is no one perfect way to be a good mother. Each situation is unique. Each mother has different challenges, different skills and abilities, and certainly different children.”
Thanks for making my case. Not only does the proclamation say that God designed families so that a father is tasked with supporting the family materially and the mother is tasked with rearing children, but then Ballard reinforces the idea that *woman* has to deal with the challenges of child-rearing should they arise, not the man. I guess all those other family models are “counterfeit”.
It’s not a mischaracterization to say the LDS church teaches “women that their primary reason for existence is to stay home, have babies, and take care of their husband”. That’s exactly what it teaches:
“By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to *provide the necessities of life and protection* for their families. Mothers are *primarily* responsible for the nurture of their children.” ~~LDS “The Family: A Proclamation”
“It’s not a mischaracterization to say the LDS church teaches “women that their primary reason for existence is to stay home, have babies, and take care of their husband”. That’s exactly what it teaches:”
My sense now, especially after my wife was a YW’s prez is that women are to stay home if she wants, have babies if she wants and be a good mother and a good spouse. if she has kids and if she gets married. I think it’s best to add the words “back in the day” to the above quote.