Hulu is finally ponying up with its own original series, using Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel The Handmaid’s Tale as its premise. At the same time, the AHCA or “Trumpcare” has been under review, passing Congress and headed to the Senate. Some of the plan’s most vocal detractors are those who note that “women’s health” issues are considered pre-existing conditions and as such Health Care companies can legally refuse coverage for them: Pregnancy, Anorexia, Bulimia, Hysterectomy, C-Section, and Post-Partum Depression. Conversely, Erectile Disfunction is not listed as a pre-existing condition. Is this evidence of the GOP’s priorities, preserving the status quo (a patriarchal agenda) at the continued expense (both literal and figurative) of minorities, women and children?
Given the timing of the new series and the AHCA, it’s an interesting time to be a woman. And by interesting, I mean welcome to dystopia.
**SPOILER ALERT**
If you’ve continued to read, I will be sharing spoilers of both the novel and the show to discuss women’s issues, so be forewarned.
An OP this week by scholar Taylor Petrey in the Deseret News talks about how church culture has shifted from progressive values to near total alignment with conservative politics, a shift that represents a change to core values:
Mormons from an earlier era were not only more politically diverse, they also were champions of various progressive social movements, including women’s rights and economic and social welfare institutions. The rise of Mormon conservatism was a reframing of values, not an inevitable interpretation of the tradition.
Petrey continues, pointing out some of the specifics to conservativism that he views as moral failings:
The appropriation of the religious right’s values made sex and gender issues central to political identity and organizing — against women’s and LGBT rights — in the name of “family values.” While it often strung together some short-term victories against the Equal Rights Amendment and same-sex marriage, these victories were futile in the long run. The legal and cultural changes came about anyway.
It also turns out that conservative political approaches have little impact on strengthening families. Progressive values like greater marriage equality and educational opportunities for women have produced more stable marriage rates and could complement Mormon interests in the family. Further, these wins were counterproductive by creating bad will among members and potential friends and converts to the church. For Americans age 18-29 — the group most likely to support progressive politics — Mormons are the least liked by a wide margin.
Petrey’s observations match my own, that the increasing alignment with the GOP has altered many of the progressive elements to our doctrines that were familiar in my youth. As a result, many of Atwood’s dystopian observations, although an exaggeration of our current state, make poignant commentary about the underlying aims of social conservativism that are familiar in a church culture context, specifically as it relates to women’s rights. Obviously her novel is an extreme view; that’s the point of literature as social commentary. She presents a world that, although unfathomable (I hope), takes the underlying conservative thinking about the role of women to a logical, if extreme, conclusion.
The world of Handmaid’s Tale is set in a post-apocalyptic near future in which large parts of the population have been rendered sterile due to radiation fallout. Our present day is referred to by the subsequent nationalist state as “the days of anarchy” because citizens had freedoms and differences of opinion and diversity and weren’t required to adhere to strict gender and hierarchical roles. In this dystopian future, women are prohibited from owning property or money or having a job. This was accomplished in one mass event during which all women’s funds were seized by the government and reallocated to their husband or closest adult male relative. This event is retold in flashbacks:
Did they say why? I said. He didn’t answer that. We’ll get through it, he said, hugging me. You don’t know what it’s like, I said. I feel as if somebody cut off my feet. I wasn’t crying. Also, I couldn’t put my arms around him. It’s only a job, he said, trying to soothe me. I guess you get all my money, I said. And I’m not even dead. I was trying for a joke, but it came out sounding macabre. Hush, he said. He was still kneeling on the floor. You know I’ll always take care of you. I thought, Already he’s starting to patronize me. Then I thought, Already you’re starting to get paranoid.
That night, after I lost my job, Luke wanted to make love. Why didn’t I want to? Desperation alone should have driven me. But I still felt numbed. . . It occurred to me that he shouldn’t be saying we, since nothing I knew of had been taken away from him. We still have each other, I said. It was true. Then why did I sound, even to myself, so indifferent? . . .
But something had shifted, some balance. I felt shrunken, so that when he put his arms around me, gathering me up, I was small as a doll. I felt love going forward without me. He doesn’t mind this, I thought. He doesn’t mind it at all. Maybe he even likes it. We are not each other’s, anymore. Instead I am his. Unworthy, unjust, untrue. But that is what happened. So Luke: what I want to ask you now, what I need to know is, Was I right? Because we never talked about it. By the time I could have done that, I was afraid to. I couldn’t afford to lose you.
Saturday Night Live did a sendup of the series on last weekend’s show. Male cast members are hanging out, talking about a fun weekend, when they run into their former friends, the “girl squad,” four women they used to hang out with who are now subjugated as “handmaids” by the state, given as property to the conservative commanders and forced to bear children on behalf of the sterile wives. The joke is that the men are mostly clueless about what has happened to their friends because they lost nothing in the process. They are wondering why the girls missed the recent party.
In the novel, women are separated into several different roles, including:
- Wives – these are the mostly sterile wives of the powerful political commanders
Ordering prayers from Soul Scrolls is supposed to be a sign of piety and faithfulness to the regime, so of course the Commanders’ Wives do it a lot. It helps their husbands’ careers.
- Marthas – responsible for cooking for the families
- Handmaids – women who are fertile (e.g. already have children) who are not married to the men in power. They are taken and reassigned to powerful men to bear their children for their sterile wives. (This part sounded a whole lot like how polygamy was actually practiced). Their names are erased, and they are named “Of” and the name of the commander to whom they are assigned as property. The heroine is named “Offred.”
I tell myself it doesn’t matter, your name is like your telephone number, useful only to others; but what I tell myself is wrong. It does matter.
This quote reminded me of the frustration some women express at the church’s computer system’s inability to consider a woman the joint head of household or to deal with a woman who has not taken her husband’s last name.
I think of her as a woman for whom every act is done for show, is acting rather than a real act. She does such things to look good, I think. She’s out to make the best of it. But that is what I must look like to her, as well. How can it be otherwise?
Because freedom of speech is not permitted, the women are limited to presenting a unified appearance, but it also erodes trust and prevents them from becoming allies for one another.
- Gender Traitors – are lesbian women. When caught, they can be executed (if sterile) or have their sex drive removed (if fertile). Male homosexuals are also executed.
This reminded me of the stance requiring gay people to remain celibate for life or to enter heterosexual unions only.
- Aunts – tasked with training the fertile handmaid “recruits” (who are torn from their children and husbands to become surrogates) and to make them submissive for assignment to families where they will be impregnated repeatedly until they are past their fertile age.
Modesty is invisibility, said Aunt Lydia. Never forget it. To be seen–to be seen is to be–her voice trembled–penetrated. What you must be, girls, is impenetrable.
I couldn’t help but think of groups like Mormon Women Stand who are militant in their promotion of the interests of patriarchy at the expense of feminism.
A thing is valued, she says, only if it is rare and hard to get. We want you to be valued, girls. She is rich in pauses, which she savors in her mouth. Think of yourselves as pearls. We, sitting in our rows, eyes down, we make her salivate morally. We are hers to define; we must suffer her adjectives.
I was also reminded of the two sided coin of objectification of women: modesty on the one side, and pornography on the other. Both are casting women as things to be desired.
For him, I must remember, I am only a whim.
Because the only power the women have is that of the male leaders, their status depends completely on patriarchy. The women are forced to be complicit in their own subjugation.
Most of the stores carrying things for men are still open; it’s just the ones dealing in what they call vanities that have been shut down.
Not all the men are happy with things as they are. The commanders are the real winners because they have all the power.
Better never means better for everyone, he says. It always means worse for some.
Some men might be allies, but they are powerless to change the situation. The women spend most of their time alone, often for hours or days at a time, waiting for the next fertility period.
Maybe boredom is erotic, when women do it for men.
In the poignant words of the protagonist, Offred, who has lost her freedom, her marriage, her daughter, her money, her ability to earn money, and is now at risk of losing her life if she doesn’t become pregnant from a Commander who is likely sterile (but only women are capable of being barren in this future):
We lived, as usual, by ignoring. Ignoring isn’t the same as ignorance. You have to work at it.
Doubtless, there will be those who look at the novel or the series and say that it’s an absurdist view of how conservatives view women. I would have liked to think so, too. It is extreme, but it’s on the same continuum as some of the conservative rhetoric we are hearing, both in our country and in the church: women shouldn’t work, motherhood is the most (or for women–only) important thing, and only men can be in positions of power.
In one online forum, it was reported a year ago that a local leader asked one of the Q12 how he could get the women in his ward to quit working. The apostle said, “You don’t. That’s none of your business. They have to be able to support their families like anybody else.” While that’s doubtless a paraphrase (I wasn’t in attendance), it’s a fascinating exchange, both the assumption of the local leader and the clear answer to dial it down. While the answer to this specific question may have been clear, if it were truly clear, the question wouldn’t have been asked in the first place.
- Are you watching the show or have you read the book?
- Do you think the church’s conservative bent will continue to increase (if that’s even possible) or will things like immigration policy and a Trump presidency finally cause a swing toward moderation?
- Do you see the church softening or hardening its stance on women and gender roles in the next 5-10 years?
- Does patriarchy and conservativism undermine family values in the long-run as Petrey’s article suggests and as illustrated in the impacts to Offred’s marriage to Luke when women’s assets and jobs are taken from them? Or do you see this as mere liberal hand-wringing and hyperbole?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I have wondered aloud why conservatism seems to be aligned with righteousness. No answers are forthcoming. Admittedly my question has been voiced to only a few people.
Are you watching the show or have you read the book?
I’ve read the book.
Do you think the church’s conservative bent will continue to increase (if that’s even possible) or will things like immigration policy and a Trump presidency finally cause a swing toward moderation?
I think it will increase, primarily because of the current bent of leftists to demand change or leave. I don’t see much space for a Nibley in the modern Mormon left. Speaking generally, it seems leftists are conceding the field for conservatives to dominate the space. Think of the acronym TBM – is it true blue Mormon (implying conservatism, with the blue being Cougar blue)? Or is it true believing Mormon (which ought to encompass liberals as well as conservatives)? Would a Liberal willingly adopt the TBM acronym as a self-descriptor the way I would?
There are economic Gospel truths that do not match my conservative economic leanings, for example. The Church could use another Nibley – someone to say that the Church is true, the Book of Mormon is ancient scripture, the Prophet is the Lord’s mouthpiece, and yet we as members need to better live up to our obligations to build a Zion society (for example). But someone who were to take that position would likely be attacked by many liberal posters and sites as an apologist (as if that were a pejorative). Unfortunately those who probably could and should be be positioned to convey such a message of caring for the poor, for example, seem to spend more time criticizing the Church (City Creek, as an example). The Gospel does not conform to any one political ideology, but until Mormon liberals as a whole find the way to reconcile their politics with the idea of the true and living Church, the center of mass will keep shifting right.
Do you see the church softening or hardening its stance on women and gender roles in the next 5-10 years?
Likely hardening. As long as the SSM movement and OW movement continue to provoke confrontation, the Church will have little choice but to remind the members where the truth is. Again, this is a tactics rather than ideological thing. For example, there is already significant pushback from the Brethren on immigration – making sure those on the right can have little doubt where their politics conflict with the Church. Imagine, then, what the Church would do if several hundred people marched on General Conference protesting the Church’s immigration stance. That is the response that the SSM/OW movements are eliciting.
Does patriarchy and conservativism undermine family values in the long-run as Petrey’s article suggests and as illustrated in the impacts to Offred’s marriage to Luke when women’s assets and jobs are taken from them? Or do you see this as mere liberal hand-wringing and hyperbole?
Therein is the rub. And I cannot say I know for certain. But I do see that the rise in liberalism, the breakdown I the families, and similar events correspond in time with a dramatic decrease in the measured happiness of women. For me, I find that persuasive. No fault divorce, sought by women to escape abusive marriages, has seemed to correlate in time with a decrease in conservatism and patriarchy along with the decrease in the measured happiness of women. This would also indicate that liberalism and the downfall of the patriarchy are more destructive to the goal of stable, happy marriages.
For what it’s worth, my view on it is that instead of hand-wringing about conservative patriarchy, the focus should be on helping men become Priesthood holders who can fulfill their responsibilities and bless the lives of those they are in a position to serve. Most men I know are like me – just day by day trying a little harder to be a little better. Many, like me, struggle with knowing how to fulfill the obligation to preside in the home and simultaneously not exercise unrighteous dominion. It serves no purpose to respond to those in that position with the assertion that life would be better if men just stopped presiding – I wouldn’t mind not presiding, but see it as a duty. Same with our Priesthood leaders – with some exceptions in my life, most would love to not be presiding, but see the choice not to preside as shirking a responsibility. I’m convinced that many on the left have value to contribute here, but if the first premise in the discussion is ‘stop presiding,’ it is hard not to tune out the rest.
Finally, for a little philosophical basis, unless you believe that Heavenly Mother is oppressed (which I don’t), then you may need to consider whether the Patriarchal Order really is order of Heaven. Unless you believe that Heavenly Mother (despite Exaltation) is not happy, you might need to consider whether this Patriarchal Order leads to a fullness of joy not only for men but for women also. Again, it is not definitive, but I find that persuasive.
Patriarchy taught me that Heavenly Mother isn’t actually real, so there’s that.
Excellent comments, Jonathan. I’ve seen part of the 1990 movie (with Robert Duvall).
The Church’s established policies and beliefs, if they remained as they are today, would probably be viewed as an increase by some liberals if leftist views are not adopted. Being attacked causes some to dig in their heels. Not supporting modern feminist views will be seen by some as a hardening.stance.
The extreme feminist viewpoint that, for a family, men are not wanted or needed causes me to wonder. What if the child being raised is a son? At what age does he realize that as a man he is not wanted nor needed?
I didn’t actually mean to say “patriarchy” (which is such a loaded term). I was referring specifically to the Patriarchal Order that the church endorses.
I have considered that it’s the order of heaven, but I guess I’ll deal with that when the time comes. I’ll have all of eternity to get used to it. In the meantime, while it’s allowed, I prefer to believe that my destiny is not to be erased.
Jonathan, I feel the need to point out, while wiping away tears of mirth, that women’s issues are not all about you. Your desire to have “help” in your role as a “Priesthood holder” seems–unbelievably, somehow–less important to me than my right to equality or self-determination. But with that, I’ll just step back, pop some popcorn, and enjoy the truly epic level of cluelessness and self-involvement. Who needs Hulu?
“At what age does he realize that as a man he is not wanted or needed?”
I’m not sure about this, but my daughter realized that she was not needed by the church at age 12.
“Are you watching the show or have you read the book?” Nope and nope. No desire.
“Do you see the church softening or hardening its stance on women and gender roles in the next 5-10 years?” I see it further refining its stance. For example, in the past it has stressed a stiff heirarchy in marriage, but more recently stresses husband and wife as equal partners, with husband as more of a symbolic head. While the church has held to priesthood for men only, in recent years it has added more leadership opportunities and responsibilities for women. So I say “refine” in that the church is reevaluating what, exactly, it sees as essential versus merits improvement. Some people will see it as hardening (not changing the core element), others as softening (easing the tensions by making changes surrounding that core element).
“Does patriarchy and conservativism undermine family values in the long-run as Petrey’s article suggests and as illustrated in the impacts to Offred’s marriage to Luke when women’s assets and jobs are taken from them? Or do you see this as mere liberal hand-wringing and hyperbole?” As a stay-at-home mom, I am in that situation where someone would say that I have no real job or assets. The key is choice. If women don’t have a choice on the matter, their personal agency is obstructed. That’s the problem I see with the dystopian Handmaiden’s Tale world – women are not considered full-fledged humans equal in worth to men. But I have a really hard time believing that type of future to ever occur. When I look at the cultural assumptions my mom had growing up in the church, and compare them to the assumptions I and my daughter grew up with, it becomes clear that the level of patriarchy my mom would accept can look oppressive to me and my daughters. At the same time, I’ve been surprised how quickly my daughters pick up on gender discrepancies. They are much better tuned to that than I was their age, and I have a hard time believing that sensitivity to disappear as they grow older. I think that’s a big part of the refinement I just mentioned – a strict heirarchy in marriage just doesn’t work within our cultural milieu.
I really struggle with comments like Jonathan Cavender’s that suggest the patriarchal order is perfectly fine because obviously Heavenly Mother(s) is(are) happy with it. It’s the same justification Brigham Young used with polygamy – “Our women aren’t oppressed! See? They’re happy!” Given the cultural pressure in our church to smile and look happy in whatever our circumstances, it’s just not convincing to me.
Markag, at what point in this article did you get the impression Hawkgrrrl was arguing that the only alternative to patriarchy was a system where men weren’t wanted or needed? Must someone be in an authority position to be wanted or needed?
My comment was that a family with, by choice, no husband/father present is often portrayed as having no disadvantages. Raised in a household with such a sentiment would surely affect a male child. And my comments aren’t directed to families that had a intolerable situation with an adult male.
Markag: “My comment was that a family with, by choice, no husband/father present is often portrayed as having no disadvantages.” In what way is that relevant to anything cited in the OP? Such situations were not described in the OP, the Taylor Petrey article or the Handmaid’s Tale (either movie or book). Did you not read the OP? Is this just random strawperson argument on your part?
“I really struggle with comments like Jonathan Cavender’s that suggest the patriarchal order is perfectly fine because obviously Heavenly Mother(s) is(are) happy with it. It’s the same justification Brigham Young used with polygamy – “Our women aren’t oppressed! See? They’re happy!” Given the cultural pressure in our church to smile and look happy in whatever our circumstances, it’s just not convincing to me.”
Me too. How can we possibly know a) that that is how it actually is and b) if so – a big if, in my view – she’s happy with it!
Regarding Jonathan Cavender’s assertion that all is well in Zion, the important caution is that it is never a good justification for the status quo to say “If it weren’t good, it wouldn’t be the status quo.” It’s also silly to think, “If people who aren’t in power don’t like it, they would do something about it.”
A few other points:
“Would a Liberal willingly adopt the TBM acronym as a self-descriptor the way I would?” Yes, there are absolutely liberals who are ‘TBMs,’ although it’s an acronym not many self-ascribe because it’s become a bit of a slur online. I don’t know how it started. Maybe it always was that way. You’re using the term “leftist” which is political (although I’m assuming you mean anyone left of John Birch here?), but ‘TBM’ is about one’s religious belief. Are you implying that nobody who votes Democrat can have a testimony? On what basis? Is that a vote of no confidence in the gospel? Does the Holy Ghost only testify to conservatives?
I do agree with you that as more liberals and progressives find the church culture to be hostile to them and preaching things contrary to their values, the church will become increasingly conservative. That’s a moral disaster, IMO. I agree with Petrey on that point.
“No fault divorce, sought by women to escape abusive marriages, has seemed to correlate in time with a decrease in conservatism and patriarchy along with the decrease in the measured happiness of women.” So your conclusion is that women trapped in abusive marriages were ecstatic? Or that their happiness wasn’t measured? You seem strangely eager to blame their unhappiness on the rise of liberalism.
“Many, like me, struggle with knowing how to fulfill the obligation to preside in the home and simultaneously not exercise unrighteous dominion. It serves no purpose to respond to those in that position with the assertion that life would be better if men just stopped presiding – I wouldn’t mind not presiding, but see it as a duty.” Yes, poor you. It must be really hard to hold back from exercising unrighteous dominion, but *sigh* such is your lot in life. Let’s be sure to subjugate 51% of the population to give you more practice at being a decent human being. That certainly sounds like a divine plan.
Although most of us can’t imagine this type of thing happening in the future, I’m reminded of the TV series Revolution. If something truly catastrophic were to happen, and men and women were relegated to pre-technology days,, I think you’d see a return to “might makes right,” and men would rule with power and brute strength, and in all likelihood, would subjugate women to a large degree as people lived prior to modern technology. Truly, technology has been the true equalizer the last several hundred years, not any women’s movements. Take it away, and we”ll revert to armed conflicts, tribalism, etc. Women will no longer have any “rights” because as a whole they aren’t strong enough to enforce them. (Remember, it took a number of years before anyone dreamed that women deserved constitutional protection). If that were to happen, I think a righteous priesthood holder would be a cherished anomaly who would try to rise above the cultural expectations of the day.
Apparently, in markag’s world if men aren’t completely in charge they might as well not be there at all?
I read the book last month and it shook me up. I mean that in sense that it did exactly what literature as social commentary is supposed to do — it engaged me deeply and profoundly.
Reading The Handmaid’s Tale was difficult because, much like you, I found it paralleled my experience too closely. I posted a comment on Facebook after April conference that I was tired of not hearing from women, and close to a hundred men felt the need to call me to repentance for not feeling joy in subjugation and fulfillment in silence. None of these men were strangers. They were my former students, my cousins, my coworkers, and the husbands of my best friends. And they experience my church so differently than I do that they couldn’t make room for my perspective to exist.
A few days of social media conflict are clearly not on the scale of Margaret Atwood’s dystopia, but reading her book a few days afterward was cathartic and terrifying. She absolutely nailed it in terms of how women’s lives are policed and freedoms are jeopardized. I’m not sure if I’m ready to dive back into that by watching the show.
Ooo ooo! Let’s play who said it? Margaret Atwood or someone online in 2017!
“The problem wasn’t only with the women, he says. The main problem was with the men. There was nothing for them anymore.
Nothing? I say. But they had. . .
There was nothing for them to do, he says.
They could make money, I say a little nastily. . .
It’s not enough, he says. It’s too abstract. I mean there was nothing for them to do with women. . . I’m not talking about sex, he says. That was part of it, the sex was too easy. Anyone could just buy it. There was nothing to work for. We have the stats from that time. You know what they were complaining about the most? Inability to feel. Men were turning off on sex, even. They were turning off on marriage.”
“For what it’s worth, my view on it is that instead of hand-wringing about conservative patriarchy, the focus should be on helping men become Priesthood holders who can fulfill their responsibilities and bless the lives of those they are in a position to serve. Most men I know are like me – just day by day trying a little harder to be a little better. Many, like me, struggle with knowing how to fulfill the obligation to preside in the home and simultaneously not exercise unrighteous dominion. It serves no purpose to respond to those in that position with the assertion that life would be better if men just stopped presiding – I wouldn’t mind not presiding, but see it as a duty. Same with our Priesthood leaders – with some exceptions in my life, most would love to not be presiding, but see the choice not to preside as shirking a responsibility. I’m convinced that many on the left have value to contribute here, but if the first premise in the discussion is ‘stop presiding,’ it is hard not to tune out the rest.”
“He asks, are you happy,” says the interpreter. I can imagine it, their curiosity: Are they happy? How can they be happy? I can feel their bright black eyes on us, the way they lean a little forward to catch our answers, the women especially, but the men too: we are secret, forbidden, we excite them.
Ofglen says nothing. There is a silence. But sometimes it’s as dangerous not to speak.
‘Yes, we are very happy,’ I murmur. I have to say something. What else can I say?”
“Finally, for a little philosophical basis, unless you believe that Heavenly Mother is oppressed (which I don’t), then you may need to consider whether the Patriarchal Order really is order of Heaven. Unless you believe that Heavenly Mother (despite Exaltation) is not happy, you might need to consider whether this Patriarchal Order leads to a fullness of joy not only for men but for women also. Again, it is not definitive, but I find that persuasive.”
“There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don’t underrate it.”
“Her speeches were about the sanctity of the home, about how women should stay home. Serena Joy didn’t do this herself, she made speeches instead, but she presented this failure of hers as a sacrifice she was making for the good of all. . . She doesn’t make speeches anymore. She has become speechless. She stays in her home, but it doesn’t seem to agree with her. How furious she must be, now that she’s been taken at her word.”
“Although most of us can’t imagine this type of thing happening in the future, I’m reminded of the TV series Revolution. If something truly catastrophic were to happen, and men and women were relegated to pre-technology days,, I think you’d see a return to “might makes right,” and men would rule with power and brute strength, and in all likelihood, would subjugate women to a large degree as people lived prior to modern technology. Truly, technology has been the true equalizer the last several hundred years, not any women’s movements. Take it away, and we”ll revert to armed conflicts, tribalism, etc. Women will no longer have any “rights” because as a whole they aren’t strong enough to enforce them. (Remember, it took a number of years before anyone dreamed that women deserved constitutional protection). If that were to happen, I think a righteous priesthood holder would be a cherished anomaly who would try to rise above the cultural expectations of the day.”
“The women will live in harmony together, all in one family; you will be like daughters to them, and when the populations level is up to scratch again we’ll no longer have to transfer you from one house to another because there will be enough to go round. There can be bonds of real affection, she said, blinking at us ingratiatingly, under such conditions. Women united for a common end! Helping one another in their daily chores as they walk the path of life together, each performing her appointed task. Why expect one woman to carry out all the functions necessary to the serene running of a household? It isn’t reasonable or humane. Your daughters will have greater freedom.”
In all seriousness, I have met plenty of men in my lifetime who believe the dystopia described by Atwood would be leaps and bounds preferable to the world we live in today. As a few here have stated, women’s rights are seen as utterly unimportant if men are righteous. Agency doesn’t matter as much for women. We are too righteous to be permitted to make our own choices. Men know what will make us happy and it sure as heck isn’t the ability to choose!
EBK, Your quotes look a whole lot like the highlights I made in the book!
One of your quotes reminded me of another thing in the novel: the “econo-wives” who were scorned at by the higher ranking Commanders’ wives. Again, the number of women in the household was really a sign of male status and power more than anything. The poor wives who had to do it all alone were pitied, all the cooking, cleaning, and breeding. That sure sounded a lot like some of the justification for polygamy in the early days of the church. And yet, as the novel points out, the handmaids spend most of their days in boredom, waiting to ovulate.
Yes, EBK, why is it that in Mormon theology men are to act and women are to be acted upon? Why is our agency valued less?
I’ve asked myself for years, and the only answer I can come to is that the LDS Plan of Salvation is for men. Women are an accessory. It’s why Heavenly Mother is shrouded in mystery. Ultimately, I can’t believe in a deity who views me as ancillary, so I’m left only to conclude that Mormonism is of, by, and for man – not woman or God.
Yes Hawkgrrrl!
I still see those defenses of polygamy today. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had people tell me that polygamy is good because it gave women the chance to have an education and career, as if that was the only possible way women could have education and careers. It is extremely common for women in Utah (I’ve lived in Utah most of my life so maybe it’s the same everywhere, but it seems unlikely) to joke about how great it would be to have a sister wife to do all their cooking and cleaning. It drives me nuts to see other women discuss getting a woman in a way that makes her essentially an unpaid maid and cook (I think they call those slaves).
Elizabeth St. Dunstan I’ve wondered for a long time how much (if any) of the plan of salvation was actually intended to apply to women.
I just finished reading this book a few days ago so it’s pretty fresh in my mind. The other thing that reminded me so much of the culture growing up in Utah is how they discuss rape. Rape (that happened prior to the change in government) is a consequence of women’s choices, even if the man is at fault, the woman is always partially at fault as well. After the dystopia begins, rape is seen as one of the worst crimes possible, but only if that rape falls in the right category. Women are essentially given the choice between being a handmaid where they are required to bear children for rich families, being a prostitute in the secret clubs for rich and powerful men, or being shipped off the the colonies to be slaves where they will likely die from radiation poisoning. None of these women are capable of consent (if the choice is sex or death, there is no way to consent). These rapes are considered holy or at least part of a functioning society. But if a man who has not been state sanctioned rapes a woman, the penalty is death. This is pretty extreme but it reminds me of the way we talk about rape and the honor code at BYU. If a woman alleges she was raped, she’s most likely lying unless the story follows exactly the scenario that we believe to be the only real way women are blameless in rape (a stranger jumps out of the bushes at night – but not after curfew – and forces himself on you and you fight back and get bruises and injuries but he overpowers you). All other rape is suspect and the woman is either lying or she brought it upon herself.
Yes, sadly, it is much as I expected when I posted. A great deal of strawmen burning, some reductio ad absurdum, and some ad hominem thrown in for good measure. I was tempted to just disengage rather than go through the trouble of preparing a thoughtful response (which, of course, might be the reason for the responses made to my original post — driving those with contrary opinions out of the public sphere is a great deal easier than responding to their arguments), but in the end I would prefer to actually engage in the discussion. After all, if I am 95% right and 5% wrong, and after the discussion I have learned enough to be 96% right, then that is a win. If, instead, I am 5% right and 95% wrong, and after the discussion I have learned enough to be 6% right, that is also a win. So I would prefer to engage with the hopes that a reasoned discussion can be had.
Karen H.:
“Jonathan, I feel the need to point out, while wiping away tears of mirth, that women’s issues are not all about you. Your desire to have “help” in your role as a “Priesthood holder” seems–unbelievably, somehow–less important to me than my right to equality or self-determination. But with that, I’ll just step back, pop some popcorn, and enjoy the truly epic level of cluelessness and self-involvement. Who needs Hulu?”
Your tears of laughter, of course, are not an argument. I well understand that women’s issues aren’t all about me. You will note that my post was directly responding to the questions asked in the article. Is it your position that my arguments are a priori invalid because I am male? Is the truth not the truth if spoken by a male? If that is your position, that is the very definition of sexist bigotry.
I may be right and I may be wrong, but my gender in making the statement is irrelevant as to whether I am right or not. And, as to your statements concerning equality and self-determination — is it not fully compliant with our theology that a Priesthood leader presiding in a manner consistent with our beliefs will not impinge either equality or self-determination (indeed, the scripture seems pretty clear that the Lord puts a pretty high value on our individual agency)? So, again, is it not fully compliant with our theology that if men better fulfill their role as a Priesthood holder women will more fully experience their rights of equity and self-determiantion? The idea that it is one or the other is a false dichotomy.
Mary Ann:
“I really struggle with comments like Jonathan Cavender’s that suggest the patriarchal order is perfectly fine because obviously Heavenly Mother(s) is(are) happy with it. It’s the same justification Brigham Young used with polygamy – “Our women aren’t oppressed! See? They’re happy!” Given the cultural pressure in our church to smile and look happy in whatever our circumstances, it’s just not convincing to me.”
Thank you for this — I feel that this (and other posts in this vein) are legitimate engagements with my argument. The distinction I would draw is twofold. First, just because another used similar reasoning in an invalid sense does not make the reasoning itself invalid. The second is that Heavenly Mother, as an omniscient, omnipotent, and co-equal being with Heavenly Father, could presumably change Her circumstances if she so chose, while others may not have been able to.
Hedgehog:
“Me too. How can we possibly know a) that that is how it actually is and b) if so – a big if, in my view – she’s happy with it!”
I think the former is the question here. If it is actually how it is, then the reasonable assumption is that she can change her circumstances (which I believe must be within the capacity of a co-equal Deity). In other words, if She wasn’t happy about it, I would presume She would change it. As for how we can know it is actually the way it is I don’t think we definitively can. We have the indications that the Father has appeared periodically and we can draw certain conclusions out of that, but those conclusions are necessarily suspect because you are quite right that we don’t have an extraordinary amount of information. To me, the limited information that we have nudge me into the way I am viewing it as the best understanding of the information that we have. But knowing that is actually how it is? That would probably require personal revelation on the subject and I have not received any.
Hawkgrrl:
“Regarding Jonathan Cavender’s assertion that all is well in Zion, the important caution is that it is never a good justification for the status quo to say “If it weren’t good, it wouldn’t be the status quo.” It’s also silly to think, “If people who aren’t in power don’t like it, they would do something about it.””
This is a strawman. At no point did I say all is well in Zion — in fact, I believe in several ways I have explicitly said all is not well in Zion. There is a difference between saying that the Patriarchal Order is the manner of Heaven and saying the Patriarchal Order as practiced in mortality by imperfect people is all good. There is even a difference between saying the Patriarchal Order is what we should be practicing here in mortality and saying that the way it is currently practiced is all good.
““Would a Liberal willingly adopt the TBM acronym as a self-descriptor the way I would?” Yes, there are absolutely liberals who are ‘TBMs,’ although it’s an acronym not many self-ascribe because it’s become a bit of a slur online.”
Glad to know it — I have almost uniformly seen it as a slur. I believe that there is all the room in the world in this Church for TMBs who are liberal, leftist, conservative, alt-right, communist, socialist, or any other political ideology. I am absolutely serious when I say that the Gospel cuts across all political affiliations, and so long as you are a Mormon who happens to be a (Republican, Democrat, etc.) rather than a (Republican, Democrat, etc.) who happens to be Mormon — i.e., that your politics does not displace your religion as the defining characteristic of your worldview, then you are doing things right.
For what it is worth, I would love to see more of those on the left side of the political spectrum recapture the TBM label. It shouldn’t be exclusive to the right, nor should the left view it as a pejorative.
“You’re using the term “leftist” which is political (although I’m assuming you mean anyone left of John Birch here?), but ‘TBM’ is about one’s religious belief. Are you implying that nobody who votes Democrat can have a testimony? On what basis? Is that a vote of no confidence in the gospel? Does the Holy Ghost only testify to conservatives?”
It should be obvious that isn’t my belief (my appreciation for Nibley should have been your first clue — his economic ideas were well to the left of Bernie Sanders). I am using leftist not as a pejorative, but strictly normatively (as distinct from the more classical liberal). The Holy Ghost testifies to everyone, and the Church can use more liberals and leftists who are TBM. We can argue politics at that point if you like (and we probably won’t agree much), but the conversation hopefully will make us both better. But the starting point must be that the Gospel trumps politics — then we can jointly discuss how the Gospel should inform our politics.
“I do agree with you that as more liberals and progressives find the church culture to be hostile to them and preaching things contrary to their values, the church will become increasingly conservative. That’s a moral disaster, IMO. I agree with Petrey on that point.”
I also agree that it is a disaster. But this is not a disaster that either the Church or conservatives can fix.
“So your conclusion is that women trapped in abusive marriages were ecstatic? Or that their happiness wasn’t measured? You seem strangely eager to blame their unhappiness on the rise of liberalism.”
Admittedly my phrasing here was inelegant (maybe even confusing), but I would hope that you would give me the benefit of the doubt sufficient to not believe that I was advocating that no-fault divorce was bad because it gave women an out from abusive marriages. Correlation is not causation, but it is not irrelevant, either.
“Yes, poor you. It must be really hard to hold back from exercising unrighteous dominion, but *sigh* such is your lot in life. Let’s be sure to subjugate 51% of the population to give you more practice at being a decent human being. That certainly sounds like a divine plan.”
Really, do you think that I was engaging in self-pity? Is that really the tack you want to take — that when I man tries to be a better man, you had best castigate him for it?
Let me try to make my point another way. I love my agency, and my freedom. I like to spend my time how I like. And yet, when the Lord tells me to do something, I try hard to obey. Why? Well, it is not inconsistent with my agency, because I know the Lord and I know that He both loves me and respects my agency fully. I trust that when He instructs me to do something, He fully has my best interests at heart. I know He loves me completely.
So, let’s transition that into a marriage context. If you were married to the Savior, and the Patriarchal Order was in place, would you find that a bad thing? Would it be awful, knowing that He loves you perfectly and He wants only the best for you and that He respects your agency? In my mind, any explanation as to why it would be a bad thing would be just as applicable to our obedience to Divine Law in general. But if being married to the Savior and living the Patriarchal Order would not be a bad thing, then maybe the problem isn’t with the Patriarchal Order — maybe it is a problem with the men involved. Maybe, from the greatest and most Christlike men in the world all the way down to people like me who might be the scum on the bottom of the barrel, the problems all arise from the weakness and frailty and foolishness of us mortal men. If so, maybe the solution to the problem might not be the scrapping of the Patriarchal Order, but rather the efforts to improve men to live up to the obligations placed upon us. This isn’t a “woe is me,” but rather the argument that maybe the solution to the very real problems that women face is not found in the prescription that might leap to mind — maybe the correct prescription is helping to build better men.
You can disagree, of course, but to label that as “truly epic level of cluelessness and self-involvement” is unfair. And to say that any man who wonders where to draw the line is struggling to be a decent human being is also unfair. It is an oversimplification that ignores obvious tension. Let me put it in another context, to maybe give an example. If a person is experiencing sadness secondary to their own sins, we have the commandment to love them, mourn with them, stand as a witness of God at all times, and call all men everywhere to repentance. If we point out their unhappiness comes from their sin, are we insufficiently mourning with them? If we don’t, are we not standing as a witness of God? I don’t expect answers to that question, because I don’t think there is a clear answer — I think it is very situational. So too is it situational as to how to preside without exercising unrighteous dominion. There is only one fast rule — you must have the Spirit or you can’t figure out anything — but beyond that it isn’t a clear dichotomy between being an abusive and horrible human being on the one hand a being a decent human being on the other.
EBK:
“Ooo ooo! Let’s play who said it? Margaret Atwood or someone online in 2017!”
Please note, snark is not an argument.
“As a few here have stated, women’s rights are seen as utterly unimportant if men are righteous.”
This is a mischaracterization of the argument. The argument is that if men are righteous, women’s rights are protected.
“Agency doesn’t matter as much for women.”
If you perceived this in my argument, you read into it something that was never there and which I do not believe.
“Men know what will make us happy and it sure as heck isn’t the ability to choose!”
In our theology, we all rejoiced in the agency we were blessed with. I presume that I cheered along with you both for my agency and for yours. We likewise cheered, I expect, that the Savior would Atone for the mistakes that we would make in the improper use of our agency.
Elizabeth St Dunstan:
“I’ve asked myself for years, and the only answer I can come to is that the LDS Plan of Salvation is for men. Women are an accessory. It’s why Heavenly Mother is shrouded in mystery. Ultimately, I can’t believe in a deity who views me as ancillary, so I’m left only to conclude that Mormonism is of, by, and for man – not woman or God.”
In LDS theology, women are not ancillary. They are co-equal with men. The logical flaw in your comment is the idea that if there is any hierarchy, then agency must be diminished. The one does not necessarily follow from the other. My Bishop presides over me in my Ward. That does not invalidate my agency. God presides over this world, and yet He perfectly respects our agency. Therefore the problem is not that there is someone presiding, but problems arise in the way that someone presides.
Jonathan Cavendar,
I’m aware snark is not an argument. My snark was intended as pure snark. Sometimes when it becomes so utterly clear that there is little you could say to someone who believes that his ability to hone his presiding skills justifies the subjugation of women (or not subjugation, women have choice as long as they choose the Patriarchal Order), snark is a coping mechanism. I didn’t come onto this site to convince you that I’m right. I don’t plan to engage each of your claims because I believe you and I fundamentally disagree about things at such a basic level that trying to convince you would not go anywhere. Likewise, I have found none of your arguments to be persuasive since they rest on a number of assumptions with which I disagree. I bear you no ill will, but I believe that arguments similar to yours, taken to their extreme conclusion, would result in a world similar to that in The Handmaid’s Tale (Mormon Version).
Jonathan –
“Therefore the problem is not that there is someone presiding, but problems arise in the way that someone presides.”
Why should my agency be dependent on the righteousness with which you preside? Or the lack thereof? I am deliberately using the terms I and you because in our church’s gendered policies of priesthood, there is no situation in which I as an adult woman will ever preside over an adult man. There is also no situation in this LDS hierarchy in which I, again an adult woman, will not be presided over by a man. Inequality is inherent in this system because one group (males) are by default presiders over about group (females). Our theology defines this world as mortal, fallen, and imperfect. It then logically follows that the people in it are also mortal, fallen, and imperfect. So if we’re saying that I (as a female) still have agency as long as my presider is righteous, we’ll have to accept that he (as a fallen human) will limit my agency, consciously or not. Therefore, in this system, his agency is preserved to a much greater degree than mine. So either God values his agency over mine, God had condemned him by Adam’s transgression (3rd A of F rules that out), or God isn’t the one imposing and perpetuating this system.
EBK-
Amen!
Jonathan Cavender: “I would love to see more of those on the left side of the political spectrum recapture the TBM label.” I don’t think this is a case of ‘recapturing’ the label or redeeming it from being a pejorative. I think it was always a slur used in online forums. So why try to redeem it? Instead let people be who they want to be without trying to lump them under one label. It’s a label used toward people. not one people claim. Probably 99% of so-called TBMs don’t know the term.
” this is not a disaster that either the Church or conservatives can fix.” If you want non-conservatives to fix it, then quit driving them out of the church! Make it clear that all are welcome, and that not only conservatives are “worthy.” Nothing you’ve said makes that clear.
“I would hope that you would give me the benefit of the doubt sufficient to not believe that I was advocating that no-fault divorce was bad” I don’t know you well enough to give you the benefit of the doubt. If that wasn’t what you meant, I’m still unclear what you did mean.
“do you think that I was engaging in self-pity?” Yes, because you said that you would prefer not to preside, but you have to anyway because it’s your duty. I took you at your word. Apparently you were just being patronizing.
“If you were married to the Savior, and the Patriarchal Order was in place, would you find that a bad thing?” Patriarchy is not godly. I know what the Holy Ghost testifies to me. It is of men and it is for men. It is a mortal failing. Nothing the Savior did can even remotely be described as patriarchal behavior. For one thing, women were the first witnesses to the resurrection. Women aren’t even allowed to witness a baptism today. In the book, women’s ability to be witnesses in crimes is one of their first rights to go. Men don’t have to win at the expense of women, but the way things happen in our church, women are usually not even an afterthought. Because women were historically utterly dependent on men, many of our church leaders don’t see why that’s harmful to women. Women with no other options are some of the staunchest defenders of patriarchy.
“You can disagree, of course, but to label that as “truly epic level of cluelessness and self-involvement” is unfair.” I don’t know who said that, but it wasn’t me. Check again.
@Jonathan Cavender: When I read your first comment, I agreed with your answers as to WHAT would likely happen, but your reasoning went way off kilter. Since others have responded to specifics, I’ll only say, “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”
Logical extremes in literature are always interesting to me. When libertarians walk around with copies of Atlas Shrugged they are nuts but for some reason this book should teach us about what conservative church members believe? Logical extremes always seem to be things we like to apply to others, but not ourselves. Petrey’s article sadly made the same mistake. He wanted to have a pragmatic discussion on creating governmental institutions of shared responsibility. He correctly pointed out that creating those institutions is not communism and that personal charity may not be enough to create a society the scriptures describe. All great points, except he then gave conservatives the same straw man treatment he wishes conservatives wouldn’t give progressives.
I do think literature like this is useful in motivating and rallying people with a certain viewpoint. These books frequently act as “the Ghost of Christmas Future” encouraging readers to go out and do what they can to avoid the dystopian future (be it Ayn Rand’s socialist hell-hole or this patriarchal hell-hole.) I also think dystopian literature reveals how afraid we as humans are of people who think differently then we do and how quickly we are willing to turn them into Hitlers and Stalins of immense brutality. I think the OP handled the material in as reasonable a way as possible admitting frequently “I know this is a bit extreme, but it is for the purpose of making a statement and/or proving a point.” I just wonder if imagined right wing dystopias would be taken as seriously in the name of “this work, though extreme is trying to say something really important.”
Jason B: Honestly, I think in context, Ayn Rand’s work is valuable social commentary. Not so much in 2017, but if you watch old movies like It’s a Wonderful Life with a belly full of Fountainhead, it’s a whole different movie.
Jason B.
While I enjoyed the book, I agree that it presents a number of strawmen – mostly of conservative arguments, but also of feminism (although I admit I am no expert on the kind of feminism that was prominent when the book was written or on the prevailing conservative rhetoric on gender roles so to me things that seem like an exaggeration now, may not have been then).
I have heard a few people say things like, “if the GOP/the church/Trump/conservatives had their way, this is how we’d be living.” That’s clearly ridiculous. I think our world would have to suffer some catastrophic event that wiped out half the population and all technology for their to be even a remote possibility of this world. That being said, I think the novel is valuable in showing things like: how those in power can use any set of beliefs (i.e Christianity which should mostly be about love and service) to justify pretty horrible things, how members of an oppressed group can easily become oppressors if it is their only way to survive or gain a bit of power, how easy it is to watch injustice happen and do nothing about it, how viewing another group of humans as fundamentally different from yourself can make it easier to dehumanize and mistreat them.
The reason I tend to enjoy reading dystopian novels is because it is interesting to analyze the problems in our society and our human nature that could lead (however unlikely) could lead to such a world. Conservative thought is not what could lead to The Handmaid’s Tale, but since a lot of conservatives recently have fought so staunchly against racial and women’s equality, the two sometimes get confused.
I have not read the book or seen the show, as I recognize that it would be triggering for me. I want to believe that the scenario described is some far out exageration that could never actually happen. Unfortunately, experience tells me it is closer to reality than many suppose. Consider history, women couldn’t vote, own property, couldn’t offer meaningful consent to sex in marriage (because there was no such thing as married rape, sex could happen with or without consent, effectively rendering any idea of consent within marriage meaningless.) If they were abused, there was little they could do, and since men had the rights to children, a woman couldn’t leave an abusive situation without abandoning her children. Women were vilified and burned at the stake. Billions of women throughout history have been sexually assaulted in some way. Today, there are women who can’t drive, who have experienced horrific genital mutilation, who have been married as young as eight and impregnated at eleven or twelve, all but guaranteeing that they die in childbirth.
My own experience of rape, sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment by professors and bosses, and domestic violence, as well as the men that protected men who did these things, shows me that we cannot just cross our fingers and hope that every man will make the choice not to practice unrighteous dominion. Almost every single man who has been in a position of power over me has abused that position, so no, I don’t think that this is some far-away imagined possibility. It doesn”t even have to look like the book (with handmaidens and what not) for it to be pretty awful for women in patriarchal systems. I want to bear my testimony, as witnessed by the Spirit of God that patriarchy is a man made thing and is deeply dssappointing to God. No loving God would think so little of his daughters that he is willing to sacrifice their physical, emotional and sexual well being, just so that men can feel extra special about themselves and their imagined right to ‘preside’.
Rachael- I’m sorry you’ve had those experiences and I hope you are free of them now. It is brave of you to speak up and I hope it indicates that you’ve done some work and know how to recognize unsafe situations and people now.
My very best wishes for your future and your happiness and safety.
Alice, thank you for the well wishes. Yes, I am currently in a very good place with a husband that treats me as an absolute equal. I did learn from experience. I learned that it didn’t matter how a girl or woman was dressed (I was always dressed modestly) or how righteous a man supposedly is (my rapes, child sexual abuse and the domestic violence that I suffered were all at the hands of seemingly good LDS men). I also learned that men would not take my ‘no’s seriously as long as I came across as gentle and sweet, so I have spent decades unlearning some seriously heavily socialized sweetness that I acquired in my youth.
I remember a lesson at a young women fireside that told us girls that it was morally wrong to turn down a guy who asked you out on a date because it would hurt his feelings and make him feel rejected. Between a very patriarchal father, a very passive mother, and certain aspects of Church culture, I am surprised that I even had the boundaries to be able to say ‘no’ to these men at all. But I guess they just sensed that they could blow past my many protestations and I would not feel confident enough (or supported enough) to report them. Also, the fact that I was consistently dissuaded from reporting by family and Church leaders only made me less confident in my own worth and therefore, more vulnerable.
I know that my experience is outside the norm. But, I do believe that the LDS Church attracts predators who can use patriarchal ideals, as well as the high levels of trust in the LDS community, to get at victims. Add to that the desire of many LDS to forgive and forget rather than put perpetrators behind bars, and you have a rape culture that has Utah the number one in the nation for childhood sexual abuse, (while also being known for ridiculously high rape rates.) In every social system in the world, the more heavily patriarchal it is, the more women suffer. Conversely, the least patriarchal countries are the ones in which women thrive the most. I honestly don’t know how anyone can believe that patriarchy is better for humanity than true equality.