I was dismayed to see young conservative girls celebrating Trump’s ban of trans athletes in women’s sports as a victory for feminism and claiming that the right is the “new feminism.” [1] This was quite a claim given that Trump has deliberately fired more qualified women to install men who are openly misogynist and who have credible claims of sexual and domestic abuse. Hillary referred to conservative women who embraced Trump as “deplorable,” which certainly didn’t endear her to to them, but just what is going on here?
Recently Chip Roy, a Republican Texas congressional representative, (re)introduced the SAVE act, a voting bill that would require voter identification to match the name on one’s birth certificate. While that sounds like it’s aimed at voter fraud, it immediately would disenfranchise women who took their husband’s name at marriage (my first thought, and apparently the first thought of many married women), if those women do not also have a passport. How many would that impact? 69 million American women. It’s as chilling a prospect as the opening scenes of the Handmaid’s Tale when all women’s bank accounts are frozen and can only be accessed by their husband or nearest male relation. June’s husband assures her he’ll take care of her and make sure she can access her money, but that’s not the point, is it? Or is it?
Chip Roy isn’t the only Republican who seems to think the 19th amendment should be repealed. John Gibbs, a Michigan GOP candidate, went on a screed about women’s suffrage leading to many evils including expanded government, changing the “chemistry” in the workplace, and even claiming that women are not smart enough to be in the workplace. Some GOP legislators believe that there should be a household vote, cast by the male head of household. These ideas sound increasingly mainstream under the current administration which has also paved the way for Romanian sex traffickers, the Tate brothers, to return to Florida, and elevated less qualified men with a history of sexual harassment, misogyny, and gender-based violence, under the guise of being anti-DEI.
Men who hate women are certainly not a new thing, but why do some women embrace their oppressors and look to men for protection?
Women are subject to violence both within the home and without, provided a patriarchal bargain that puts Faustian ones to shame: whether to accept one’s lot as a domesticized indentured servant and saddled with the bulk of childcare, domestic work, and sexual labor, or to reject this heterosexualist imperative and incur the wrath of entire communities. Will you accept a slow, monotonous, banal death, crushed under the weight of gestation and repetitive, unrewarding ardor, or will you allow yourself to be an acceptable target of abuse by all, having repudiated a woman’s only role and function under patriarchy?
“Heterosexuality is a Regime”: On the Coercive Nature of Patriarchy
I recently finished George Eliot’s classic, The Mill on the Floss. In this book, author Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot) explores the impacts on both women and men in their highly patriarchal society. Maggie and Tom Tulliver are children whose parents lose everything in a lawsuit. Their father, against the wishes of his wife who knows not to contradict him, believed so strongly that he would eventually win the suit that he borrowed additional money against his future win. In his male pride, he cannot see reconciliation as an option, and his opponent does in fact want to exact revenge and financial ruin on him and his family. The children, raised to be genteel, will now be penniless, thrown on the mercy of judgmental relatives. Their maternal aunts see their father as having been a bad provider, making poor decisions, probably always having been beneath their sister and their superior family connections. They don’t want to financially support someone who makes foolish financial decisions. Their paternal aunt is worse off financially and has actually received additional money from their soft-hearted father who didn’t want her to be burdened with repayment.
Teenage Tom decides he will personally rebuild the family’s fortunes despite being less intelligent than his sister Maggie who bested him at both math and Latin when he was a student. She also seeks employment, but is limited to sewing and governess work. As she grows into womanhood, she is pursued by two suitors who take an interest in her before she even has such thoughts of her own, kind-hearted Philip, an old schoolmate of Tom’s whose physical deformity from an accident repulses Tom, and whose father is the man who caused their family’s misfortunes. The other suitor is the ardent Steven, Maggie’s beloved cousin’s fiance whose actions result in a total loss of reputation for the blameless Maggie, and yet her brother refuses to listen to her explanation, casting her out of her family home.
Every character in the story is hurt by patriarchy. The marriages are unequal, making both the men and women more vulnerable to financial problems and other hardships. The men who suffer setbacks (monetary or physical) are much less protected than they would be in a less patriarchal society. Maggie’s reputational harm is mostly because the women in her town spurn her and spread untrue gossip about her to protect their own reputations. Maggie is resolved to make her own way and not rely on anyone else, but this is extremely difficult with so few options available to her. I’ll leave the novel at that point, having already shared plenty of spoilers. The novel was written in 1860, and yet it’s as salient today as ever, maybe moreso.
Andrea Dworkin wrote Right Wing Women, an exploration of why some women seek the unreliable protection of men as a remedy against the evils of patriarchy. Among her key arguments as to why women fall for patriarchy:
Socialization and Indoctrination – From birth, women are taught to accept patriarchal values as normal. Through education, media, and family structures, they internalize the belief that their value lies in pleasing men and fulfilling traditional gender roles.
Coercion and Fear of Violence – Dworkin contended that patriarchy is upheld through male violence against women. Many women comply with patriarchal norms out of fear for their safety, making resistance seem too dangerous.
Psychological Manipulation and Stockholm Syndrome – She argued that women develop psychological attachments to men and the structures that oppress them, similar to the way captives bond with captors. This survival strategy leads them to defend and perpetuate the system that harms them.
Economic Dependency – Financial structures often leave women dependent on men for economic security. Limited opportunities for financial independence force many women to accept traditional roles for survival.
False Notions of Empowerment – Patriarchy often repackages female subjugation as empowerment. For example, some women may believe that embracing hyper-femininity or serving men grants them power when, in reality, it reinforces male dominance.
Complicity for Limited Benefits – Some women gain social status, protection, or material advantages by aligning with patriarchal power, particularly when they conform to roles that men reward (e.g., the “good wife” or the “desirable woman”).
I recall about ten years ago when a Gospel Doctrine teacher asked the question: Do Mormons believe in egalitarian or complementarian marriages? Several of us said “egalitarian,” while a roughly equal number, but that notably skewed older, said “complementarian.” It was similar to an observation I made years earlier to a fellow Mormon feminist, that Mormons talk complementarian like Evangelicals, but act far more egalitarian. My evidence for this was my observation that Mormon dads of my age and younger were far more likely to share parenting duties like diaper changing than both their Evangelical and other non-LDS counterparts. Nearly all the Mormon dads I knew were very involved caregivers, embracing fatherhood as much as women were encouraged to embrace motherhood. I still believe that, although I’m sure there are counter-examples.
Complementarian marriages, though, are patriarchal, and they are not like egalitarian marriages. Church leaders are more apt to think of marriage this way, with some notable exceptions (Uchtdorf’s marriage seems much more egalitarian). Complementarian marriages follow a traditional model in which men and women have distinct, God-ordained roles.
- Male Leadership: The husband is viewed as the head of the household, responsible for leading, providing, and making final decisions.
- Female Submission: The wife is expected to support her husband’s leadership, focusing on homemaking, childcare, and emotional support.
- Rigid Gender Roles: Men are often seen as providers and protectors, while women are primarily caregivers and nurturers.
- Spiritual Hierarchy: In Christian complementarianism, men are seen as spiritual leaders, with women encouraged to seek guidance rather than lead.
This is the type of marriage that many on the right are currently touting as the ideal, which is not a surprise because it’s how Evangelicals talk about marriage. They do see women as subordinate to men. I was at a dinner with some other couples years ago, and each of us was asked to introduce ourselves. A Southern Evangelical couple came before us and she declined to introduce herself, instead bowing her head and saying that as a Christian wife, she knew her place and would let her husband speak for her. Her husband’s chest puffed out like she had just called him a special boy for pooping in the potty. It was utterly shocking behavior to me; I honestly couldn’t imagine a Mormon couple behaving in this way.
By contrast, egalitarian marriages are based on mutual partnership, where both spouses share authority, responsibilities, and decision-making equally.
- Mutual Submission: Rather than a hierarchy, both partners support and submit to each other in love and respect.
- Shared Leadership: Both partners have equal say in major decisions, such as finances, child-rearing, and career choices.
- Flexible Roles: Household and parenting duties are divided based on individual strengths, preferences, and circumstances rather than gender norms.
- Economic Independence: Both spouses are encouraged to pursue careers and financial independence, with no expectation that one partner (usually the wife) must prioritize homemaking.
I’ve seen some Mormon marriages that were egalitarian, and I’ve also seen many that were a mix of both, in which both partners made decisions jointly, but financial and caregiving responsibilities were more traditionally divided. Regardless Nelson’s nonsense double-speak about both being equal while one “presides,” in my experience how egalitarian marriages are is mostly generational and partly learned at the family level.
- Do you see it as reasonable for heterosexual women to embrace patriarchal protection given the sexist limitations faced on a regular basis (pay, physical protection, being sexually targeted by creeps, etc.)?
- Do you think most Mormon women embrace patriarchy or see their marriages as egalitarian?
- Are notions of egalitarianism regressing in the country as misogyny is normalized? Or is this just rhetoric that isn’t really changing how normal people behave?
Discuss.
[1] Personally, I think that trans women in athletics isn’t a hill to die on either way–let the sports leagues decide–and I do agree that there are potential fairness issues when it comes to things like athletic scholarships. I’m less worried about someone getting a volleyball in the face because we’ve all played mixed sports–sports injuries happen. But absolutely none of this makes Trump or today’s GOP actual champions of women. In fact, using the example of someone getting a ball spiked in the face is the example chosen for good reason–men who commit violence on women can vilify trans women as violent to obscure the real threat, themselves.
Wheat & Tares 
i think a lot of this depends on when and where one lives. A woman in U.S. middle class circumstances and with U.S. middle class sensibilities might choose a different course than a woman in Belarus or Cairo, or even another woman in the U.S.
I sometimes wonder if gospel counsel should be (1) aspirational, universal, and/or idealistically pure; or (2) mindful of real (even if unfortunate) local social realities and possibilities. I tend towards the latter, while knowing that church correlation and many fellow saints (on both sides of whatever continuum one imagines) prefer the former.
I salute the progress of women in U.S. middle class society, and hope for continuing evolution (and not retrenchment), but I cannot help but to think that local social realities must be acknowledged — I say “acknowledged” rather than “sustained” because a woman living in poverty in Mexico or even in wealth in Afghanistan will find it difficult or impossible to accept and implement counsel or opportunity that is available (or even aspirational) for a U.S. middle class woman. Life is neither equal nor fair.
As a Father of three (very athletic daughters) I’m 100% against Trans Athletes competing in Women’s Sports; and IMHO “it is a hill to die on”! Yes, all need to be treated with humanity and kindness, but the sacrifice of Women’s rights on the alter of Trans rights….is not something I will ever embrace. It’s an idea that has gone a “step too far”; and should be stopped in it’s tracks.
What ever happened to the tremendous impetus behind the fight for Women’s rights?!
The biggest problem with the debate around trans women in sports is lumping adult, professional sports into the same discussion as 14 year old kids at a public school. My state high school organization in their mission statement claims to be about “stressing education and cultural values, improving the participation experience in activities, promoting life skills and lessons involved in competitive activities, fostering sportsmanship and mutual respect and assisting those who oversee high school sports and activities.” If those are your values, you should include trans kids. Of course, participation in sports is about the 20th most important thing in the trans rights debate, where Utah has in the last few years restricted trans health care, banned trans people from bathrooms, banned trans people from college dorms, added huge costs to changing minors’ name and gender legally and probably a few other things I can’t think of at the moment. Sports bans are just the olive on the tip of the giant middle finger directed at trans people.
But I think this was all supposed to be about patriarchy and not trans rights.
I’m confident that I am less patriarchal than my father is. And I am confident that I am a better feminist today than I was 10 years ago. But I also know that I both fall short of my own expectations, and undoubtedly have blind spots where I’m falling short and I don’t even realize it. Patriarchy is too big a thing to be eliminated in a society, religion or person in one fell swoop. So we’ll have to live with incremental improvements even as we’re frustrated that we can only make incremental improvements. It is reasonable for women to admit that there is a practical balance between fighting for a society that ought to exist, while acknowledging that they have to grapple with the realities of the world that they actually live in. I won’t judge choices that I’ve never had to face.
I think many Mormons want to have an egalitarian marriage, but get caught in the currents of a patriarchal society. In my marriage, I have always been the primary bread winner. Did we make that decision because I’m a man, or because my college degree had better earning potential? Did we pick our degrees because of the patriarchy, or because of our natural interests? Is my degree higher earning because it is male dominated? Or is it male dominated because it is higher earning? Or neither of those? Did we just naturally fall into this structure for our marriage because we were raised in a patriarchal Mormon culture? I think many Mormon women view their marriages as egalitarian even while they often settle into patriarchal patterns because that is what is around them. As demonstrated by my case, I can easily make the argument that the years my wife spent as a SAHM was a very logical, non-patriarchal, decision based on our own preferences and the facts about our respective earning potentials. But when you zoom out and I can’t think of a single instance in my ward where a man is the stay at home parent, or where the woman’s career was more important, or where the wife out earns (or even matches) her husband, it’s hard to conclude that it is anything other than patriarchy being demonstrated.
Marriage is a flexible institution. Most couples are pretty good at flexing marriage arrangements to deal with changing circumstances, whether children or work or health challenges or financial challenges.
The Church ought to get out of the “let’s tell you how to run your marriage” business. Couples do better making their own arrangements.
Really, there ought to be a discussion contrasting SUCCESSFUL from FAILED marriages. There are successful and failed egalitarian marriages. There are successful and failed complementarian marriages. I supposed there are successful and failed plural marriages. Why should I care the way my neighbors model their marriage, unless they are breaking the law (spouse abuse, child abuse, etc.).
I think Mormon marriages tend more patriarchal than most of the people in them claim. I have listened to how people talk, then observed how they act, and they act much more patriarchal while claiming egalitarian. So, while maybe 50% of Mormons claim an egalitarian marriage, I think only 20-30% of them actually do.
Let’s face it, we are affected by the society and institutions around us and the Mormon church is highly patriarchal, thus forcing Mormon couples to act more patriarchal than those outside the church (except for Evangelicals who are even more sexist). Look at the how Mormon men act at work. They have more trouble accepting female authority than most other men and how does that not affect how they treat their wife?
But the church talk is “women are equal” while its behavior is “some are more equal than others” and so Mormon marriages are the same, much more “equal” talk than behavior.
As far as trans rights, that gets complicated. Just as trans and intersex is very complicated medically, so are trans rights. Whether or not trans women participate on women’s teams is complicated. Look at Caitlyn Jenner. Would you want to put her on a women’s swim competition? Seriously, you think that is fair? But, on the other hand, she certainly should not be put on the men’s team. So, which do you put her on? It is a problem that is not fair either way you look at it. But nothing in life is fair, so it is a matter of who gets the unfair treatment. The cis women or the trans women? You can’t be fair to both. So, who you gonna be unfair to?
I understand why women support the patriarchy, but why do poor people support tRump? They think he is one of them and when he say he will cut taxes for the ultra rich, they think, “good we get a tax cut.” And their taxes go up so the ultra rich get tax breaks. And they cheer. But that is not part of this conversation, so let’s not go there.
Quick perspective on transgender persons and athletic competition. The sole basis for there being a female division of athletic competition is the recognition that biological men – males who have experienced puberty – are as matter of empirical observation physically stronger than females. Without such a division, the opportunity for women and girls to compete in sports would be greatly limited. Title IX was made law in the 1970s to ensure that at federally funded institutions, women would have equal opportunity as men to compete in athletics.
Enabling biological men to compete as women defeats the purpose of there being separate athletic divisions. It also robs women of fair competition. On the matter of competitive fairness, we see this issue raised in men’s competition with the question of PEDs and of technology. An athlete who uses drugs or technology to gain an unfair advantage is disqualified. No one cares about Lance Armstrong’s feelings or his “identity”. He cheated. He is disqualified.
It is a victory for women for them to be allowed to compete without biological men showing up to take their spot on the medal stand. I personally never thought such behavior by men would have been tolerated as it was with the Penn State swimmer and other examples. I’m all for coed sports and I view the men’s division in many sports as an “open division” where both sexes and all genders are welcome to compete. But a women’s division needs to be reserved for biological women or else it has no purpose for existing.
Fun fact: There are more cases of measles than there are of NCAA trans athletes. You’d never know it listening to the media. A little perspective when considering whether it’s a hill worth dying on.
I agree with both DaveW and Anna.
Does the temple still teach that a man hearkens to God while a woman hearkens to her husband? I haven’t seen to the temple since 2019 so I’m not asking for a friend. And even if the wording changed, is that old language still present in the room? That doesn’t sound very egalitarian to me.
While it’s not a very good movie, I sometimes reflect on Runaway Bride. A lot of women I knew before they were married changed significantly in their marriage and seemed to assimilate their husband’s hobbies and pursuits and world views. Perhaps some of them were introduced to new things they didn’t know they liked, but I think there is a broader culture that men can maintain their individuality in marriages and due to time scarcity women either assume his pursuits or assume the children’s pursuits. This movie came out in 1999 and I think that culture is slowly changing.
I’m trying to do better. One small example: my wife introduced me to her hobby, sea glass hunting, and now every vacation includes day researching the best beaches to find foreign sea glass.
Are we seriously going to derail comments section on an excellent post about patriarchy and marriage over a brief side comment regarding trans participation in sports? It’s clear people have strong feelings about it, but how about everyone save it for a post actually focused on that.
I appreciate the examples you provided of how some Evanglical couples view their marriages. It provides some meaningful context to appreciate just how far people can take things in a truly patriarchal marriage. In that context, I agree with you that Mormons tend to have more egalitarian attitudes, and that they do actually believe in egalitarian marriages as an ideal, even if a lot of marriages are functionally less egalitarian than people think they are.
The big problem with “patriarchal protection” is that the dependence that it creates (economic dependence in particular) traps a lot of women into situations that are every bit as bad as whatever the marriage was meant to “protect” them from. Even in situations where there is not abuse, the economic dependence can create unhealthy power dynamics that make for less partnership and more unilateral decision making by the one who brings in the income. So, no, don’t embrace the idea, stay away! I honestly think even women who wish to prioritize full-time parenting ought to seek out men who think in egalitarian terms about marriage. I think even when couples are embracing fairly traditional gender roles, thinking of each other in equal partnership terms has a better likelihood of success.
I was never smart enough to understand how the husband and wife are “equal” partners but the husband was the “head” and presides.
In my experience, I think Mormon marriages have become more egalitarian over time, just as the rest of society has evolved in that direction with younger generations jettisoning patriarchal baggage. However, Mormon marriages – as well as the relationship between men and women in general in our church – will *never* be truly egalitarian as long as priesthood and leadership remain purely patriarchal, which is a (current) doctrinal bedrock. Church leaders can talk about councils and listening to women’s voices all they want, but that doesn’t change the simple fact that only men rule in our church. And our nonagenarian leaders are incapable of making any doctrinal change to remedy that situation. It may happen some time down the road (along with church-sanctioned gay marriage), but it will be years behind accepted societal norms and morals, just like the church’s racist past.
The younger a couple is, the more chance there might be for a truely egalitarian relationship. But the older a couple is, the more tied they are the family proclamation, the more they adhere to one person working in the family or some slight variation of that where the woman has a very part time or meaningless job and the closer she is responsible for the children particularly if the family home schools the less likely a husband and wife will be truly egalitarian. If a woman has to depend on her husband for housing, income, health care/insurance, transportation, the less egalitarian the relationship will be. Sure she may have a car or some income of her how from a small job but if she was having a problem in her marriage, she would not be free to divorce or make it on her own because so much is tied up in those other things. In addition even if she didn’t want to get a divorce, there would be an undeclared sense of entitlement by someone for their role with either making the money or raising the children. Whenever you hear some priesthood holder talk about the neck turning the head or the spirutal one being his wife, or the reason he’s not in some gutter somewhere being his wife’s spirituality, you can pretty well surmise that the egalitarian relationship is on paper only if it’s even recognized. Then of course there is the status symbol of both income and a beautiful woman on a man’s arm that makes it hard to think there is any kind of quality.
I also agree that transgender is also a topic for another day. I don’t think though that any real progress can be made on it because it’s a trigger issue like abortion. It’s all talking points and emotion.
I’m a boomer who is also an avowed feminist. My husband and I want an egalitarian marriage. We think we have an egalitarian marriage. And yet sometimes we are floored at the things that we instinctively do or say. We were both raised in an unquestioningly sexist society. It was in the water we drank and the air we breathed. Despite our consciously rejecting those ideas, they are very much still there within us.
I am hopeful that we as a society will continue to grow in this area. The fact that my husband and I recognize and try to change our harmful attitudes and responses is good. Our daughters are better at it than we are. Our grandchildren are better still. They easily see and reject the sexist assumptions.
In the words of the song Keep Marching from Suffs: Progress is possible, not guaranteed. But still we made strides, so we know you can too.
Chadwick:
Frankly I don’t care “how many Trans athletes” there are nationwide; that is inconsequential. For whatever reason, and whomever the primary driver’s were (and are) the opportunity for Trans Men to compete in Women’s Sports has been put forward as a major national priority (and need) and then force fed to everyone across the country; for quite a while now. The constant nonsensical “drumbeat” has been mind numbing.
It is wrong headed and needs to stop.
Dave W: Your entire comment is so thoughtful, and exactly what I was going for here, so I really appreciate that!
“I can’t think of a single instance in my ward where a man is the stay at home parent, or where the woman’s career was more important, or where the wife out earns (or even matches) her husband, it’s hard to conclude that it is anything other than patriarchy being demonstrated.” Since wards are defined by geographic boundaries, they tend to be pretty homogenous socio-economically. You are theorizing that the similarities you observe are social (patriarchy), but they could be economical (as you point out, also with patriarchal themes–choice of degree, etc.) By contrast, I have known quite a few Mormon couples where the wife was the primary earner, including my own, and not quite so many where the husband was a SAHP (my own for a while at least). But then again, these numbers aren’t that different from the non-LDS couples I know, so I don’t think it’s the Church culture driving it necessarily, even if that is the preference of Church leaders who have been retired since before the Mary Tyler Moore show aired.
Anna: “Look at the how Mormon men act at work. They have more trouble accepting female authority than most other men and how does that not affect how they treat their wife?” That is an interesting observation. My own experience has been *mostly* the opposite, meaning most of the Mormon men I have known have given lip service to the patriarchal rhetoric, but in reality, they are changing diapers, helping cook meals, doing dishes, doing laundry, buying groceries, etc., at least on par or more than their non-LDS counterparts. But I have also met a few who had trouble accepting female authority–that was mostly at BYU and seldom in the actual workplace. I’ve seen some weird behavior from Mormon men in the workplace, but it was mostly just social awkwardness and not being threatened by women in leadership. There was one employee I can remember who truly did have a hard time accepting correction from me, his female boss, but he was not Mormon. He was Muslim. He also never progressed past that level. Another man whose career stalled due to weird ideas about men & women was not LDS but had a crazy jealous wife who would show up when he was at dinner with clients, embarrassing everyone, so it limited his ability to do his job, and he was passed over and eventually sidelined. It’s possible that my better experience was due to a better corporate culture, one that didn’t accept sexist attitudes or entitlement from male employees. I know the Church culture absolutely accepts those attitudes, but American Express did not.
Chadwick: I love finding sea glass! If you haven’t been to glass beach in Kauai, it’s worth a visit. It’s also next to a cool old Chinese cemetery that appears to be falling into the ocean.
Instereo: I always used to think that until women earned on par with men, there could be no egalitarian marriage, but I’m not sure I still think so. You could in theory have a husband who is the primary or sole earner but who relies on his wife’s decision-making and who essentially functions as a work-horse in the marriage as she guides everything. Also, if we want to reduce historical marriage to a battle of the sexes, men could beat their wives, but wives could poison their husbands. In many cases, both got away with these things–his crimes sanctioned by the state, hers undetected.
I’m not going to address the trans athletes question because I agree that it’s been overblown by opportunistic politicians and the sensationalist media. Perhaps another day, but for today, there’s plenty to discuss about patriarchal society and marriages.
The issue of trans athletes was raised in the OP’s first sentence and again addressed in the note at the end, so I think it is fair game in this post.
The question is asked of women: “Will you accept a slow, monotonous, banal death, crushed under the weight of gestation and repetitive, unrewarding ardor…” Sounds like my job at work. I accept it as my lot to be an indentured servant to my employer to earn a wage 5 days a week (thanks to unions that it isn’t 6 or 7) for thirty or more years. I don’t do this because of anything in the Family Proclamation or anything taught at church. I do it because I see it as my role and my wife and I have agreed on this course. Is that bad? Is that patriarchy?
Women today can work and can pursue education, and that is good. My wife earned more money than I when we were married, and she has skills and is re-employable. She depends on my income now, but she is not beholden to me; she can kick me out without worrying about starving. She quit work (her decision) when child #1 came along (she was still earning more than me). The OP asked: “Why do some women embrace their oppressors and look to men for protection?” Is that what my wife did? That brings up another issue: women judging women. Why do some women think that other women who stay home and raise children “embrace their oppressors and look to men for protection”? An American woman’s choice to work or stay home is a choice that only a privileged few have. Most women today don’t have that choice, but I sense that some women resent some of their fellow women.
I agree with josh h: “I was never smart enough to understand how the husband and wife are ‘equal’ partners but the husband was the ‘head’ and presides.” My wife and I have come up with a division of labor. No one can properly say we that we are good or bad, right or wrong. We came up with what works for us through trial and error. So far, we’ve made it work for ourselves. My wife is my best advisor and best friend, and I do nothing in a vacuum. And yes, I use the vacuum cleaner at the house.
Georgis: Nothing you’ve described about your behavior sounds like you being oppressive, but I do think that’s a valid question in this discourse, as is the patriarchal definition of men’s roles as “an indentured servant to my employer to earn a wage 5 days a week.” So many things about the responsibilities of both men and women have been defined by patriarchal norms that they can feel oppressive to both sexes. I don’t think we should assign blame for that to the men only or to the women only, but should instead try to alleviate and provide more choice, individual adaptation and opportunity to everyone.
By contrast, though, there is a huge backlash on the right currently in which men who feel blamed for patriarchal advantage see women as the enemy, the ones making victims of men (or withholding sex, not being grateful for their provision, refusing to date or marry specific men), and taking it out on women as a whole while claiming to be restoring “common sense.” Trans women are not the enemy of women (or men), just a useful scapegoat in this backlash, a distraction from the less qualified, misogynists who were just elected or appointed to the highest offices in the land. That women would vote for a rapist should shock us all; we should be beyond that by this point, but we aren’t. Some women feel so vulnerable to poverty (and due to educational gaps) that they would rather find one man they can manage (a husband), and use that man as a human shield from other men (a protector), even while ignoring the fact that their basic civil rights are being stripped away. It’s not the husband doing that, but he might not object either. Those are, IMO, not good husbands. But the ones I know aren’t Mormons–I mean we know statistically a bunch of Mormon men voted for this and are happy about it, but I curate my feeds and friendships.
It’s not that people voted for that person despite that person being a rapist, they voted for him because he was a rapist. People are willing to suffer, if the others– the people they’ve been taught to hate, suffer more. Cruelty is the point. I look at the history of witch burnings and public executions, I see community celebrations.
Everything is regressing to the dark ages.
We are so genetically similar, yet we demonize those pointed out as different. Our closest relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos. They are also very genetically similar, but so different behaviorally. We do not have to be acting like this. We need to stop championing misogyny and vilifying those who support human rights.
What stick’s in my craw, is those who don’t give a rat’s ass about women’s sports, using “protecting” women’s sports to oppress the most vulnerable. It’s despicable, but that’s the point. Fairness is redefined as the term for harming those we don’t “approve” of.
I realize that elite sports are big money, so things get cutthroat. But sports at the childhood level, is about developing social relationships and everyone in the community having the opportunity to participate. I can see hierarchies, such as patriarchy, opposing that. But this herd animal thinks we don’t have to be the sheep who think only wolves have wisdom.
One thing I often notice from those on the far left is that when they can’t rebut an argument on its merits, they brush it off by saying that the thing being discussed is so rare that it just doesn’t matter. This crops up most often on the topics of biological males in women’s spaces and late term abortion.
But if it being rare diminishes the merits of their opponents arguments, doesn’t it render their own arguments moot as well? In my mind, the fact that it exists is enough to justify a robust debate on the merits. How else can we make decisions (and sometimes change our minds) about how we feel on these difficult issues?
I enjoyed the thoughtful OP as well as the comments. I don’t really have anything more to add that hasn’t already been said. However, I will say that “The Patriarchal Grip” is one of the most clever and awesome titles for a Mormon blog post ever.
That little graph at the top is pretty close to the mark. It depicts a journey into sacred space–with the bringing forth and nurturing of new life found in the most sacred precincts of temples both in heaven and on earth.
Jack: that graphic is Evangelical, not Mormon, in origin. The ideas it portrays are rooted in Evangelical ideas.
Fred: I’m not sure why you are raising this comment here. Trans people are rare. Trans athletes are exceedingly rare. But we should have a good faith discussion, IMO, about the parameters of participating in competitive sports when scholarships are on the line. I would be more comfortable with the leagues and scholarships determining it, as they always have, not legislators. Several comments here have addressed the issue of trans athletics with thoughtful suggestions although it is NOT the topic of the post.
You know what’s not rare? Rape. 1 in 4 women will experience sexual assault as will 6% of men, and not only do the majority of those who commit these crimes go unpunished, but several have been elevated to the highest offices in the land, including POTUS. Claiming a rapist is the champion of women is appalling, but apparently not to all women. That’s the topic of the post.
Hawkgrrrl,
Your post invites thought which is a good thing. I have many thoughts and questions and they conclude with this one: Can an Egalitarian society coexist with a political culture that is constantly demanding group privileges and protections? Follow up would be to ask, “What would be the characteristics of an Egalitarian society?” Would such a society still save “women and children first?” Or would it be “every man for himself?”
Jack,
I think I understand you. It seems that for you the female sacred space is just a whole lot smaller and is a subset of the male’s sacred space. After all, it’s all about the size of one’s “sacred” real estate. And as Hawkgrrrl already noted, the graphic is not fully reflective of LDS teachings such as the Proclamation on the Family. Remember that in the responsibilities of parenthood, “fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.” While that statement receives little emphasis from social conservatives, it is still there, and it gives one hope for further evolution in the Church’s thinking and practices.
A Disciple,
Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to conflate group privileges with rights. An egalitarian society would not endorse “every man for himself.” That is literally a Hobbesian state of nature. There are rights and responsibilities. One possible responsibility is to respect the different characteristics of other individuals and demographics. Another would be a responsibility to exercise kindness and compassion. Forms of coercive power, granted to elite groups as the “privileges” you speak of, is an anathema in an egalitarian society.
Another way to look at it is shifting “privileges” (that have the connotation of “earned” aka “entitled to”) with “accommodations” (that have the connotation of “in place”).
Accommodations from a hospitality perspective are “the items/experiences put in place” to address the needs of the customers.
Accommodations from a disability perspective are “the items/experiences/expectations put in place” to address the needs of those requesting care.
One of the paradigm shifts that I had was about my husband’s prescriptions. There was an assumption we both held to for the first 10 years of our marriage was that he was entitled to me managing his life-stabilizing (but not-life threatening if missed) prescription load and making all the phone calls, picking them up, etc.
And we both leaned into the habit of me “handling it” because it cost me less time and attention to just do it myself rather then him be engaged with it. And I used to give myself “nurturing brownie points” resentfully because I was handling it – up until I wasn’t (over and over again). But this is a form of “presiding over” – of making countless decisions about who/when/where/why/and how. And this a form of “protecting” because I was protecting him from discomfort. But I was not being given the respect and compassion for the work I was doing to make sure the medications were available on demand. And I was not asking for that respect and compassion, in part because I had been raised not to.
My husband is not entitled to my care because he is my husband. I accommodate him by keeping his medications on a calendar, making phone calls for refills (he doesn’t do phone calls yet – baby steps), and stepping back so that he can accommodate me (and the process) by telling me when he is running low on medications and he now handles some automated refill requests. He has ADHD, so some of this is a delayed/disabled skillset scenario as well.
The work I have done to shift my perspective would have amounted to little had my husband’s mind shift not changed as well – he recognizes that I am offering him accommodations for managing his prescription load and he acts less “entitled” to my service as his representative.
Fred – leftists do a great job of refuting those ideas on the merits. The argument about the vanishingly small number of cases is brought up to protest spending so much political time and attention on these tiny areas when politicians ought to be solving real problems.
your comment also revealed the utter uselessness of hosting discussions about transgender women in sports and late term abortions. Your feelings on those topics do not matter at all. Not even a little bit. The only feelings that matter belong to the women involved. Right wing discourse seems to focus on turning irrelevant feelings into legislation. Rightwing feelings are based on false information. Conservatives have no real world experience with these situations because they are so rare. You’re just talking about disinformation and yet your irrelevant feelings are hurting people in the real world.
A Disciple,
I believe a political – or religious – culture that demands protections for “the least of these,” e.g., those who have no power, who are minorities, who are looked down on, etc.) is the way to an egalitarian society. I think that’s what Jesus was getting at with his teachings and with the way he elevated and included in his society those who were excluded by the political and religious elite – including women. And by telling his leading disciples that whosever was chief among them should be their servant – that is, by breaking down hierarchies that were so common in the Roman world and Jewish religious culture.
Your question about the characteristics of an egalitarian society saving “women and children” first reveals patriarchal thinking – women are grouped with children and considered too weak to save themselves or other men, who are the ones in charge. An egalitarian society like Jesus taught would simply put “others first” regardless of sex. All are considered equal and worthy of saving.
Fred: kudos to you for speaking your mind in what (is quite clearly) an uber Liberal space; which is a reality that is so tedious and exhausting sometimes. Anyway, I salute you.
I am not persuaded that “saving ‘women and children’ first reveals patriarchal thinking.” Seems like a patriarch would see himself as most important, and he would favor letting everyone save themselves as best as they could, so long as he (being the most important) was saved first. I would not save women and children because they are too weak to save themselves. Maybe saving women and children first comes from humility or duty, and I don’t think that is bad. If I had to choose between me or my wife and children, I hope that I would always save them, and not because I want to be a hero. Frankly, I love them and would do anything for them. If that is patriarchal thinking, then sign me up. But when we say patriarchy it is usually a hiss and a byword for things such as a tyrant in his home. I knew a man, now deceased, who personified this evil patriarchy for me. My mother was best friends with his wife, and my wife knew his sons growing up, so I know some about this man’s evil. He was a monster at home, but at church on Sunday he was well dressed, gracious, and let everyone know that he did his home teaching, went to the temple, and checked all of the boxes. Had he and his family been on the Titanic, I’m not sure that he would have put his wife and children in a lifeboat while he remained on board. Evil patriarchy is bad, especially in homes where women and children suffer, but I’m not sure that the traditional two-parent family is always, by definition, evil patriarchy. If the husband tries to provide and the wife manages the home front, and if that is their uncoerced choice as partners, then I don’t see that as evil. (I also freely acknowledge that families come in many forms, and I acknowledge that some men are evil, but some women are, too.) I am grateful that women have more choices today than in the past, and as a society we are moving, albeit perhaps too slowly, to more real equality. But no matter how equal we become, I think that I would always sacrifice for my wife and children, and I think that my wife does the same, out of love and not because of patriarchy.
Grizzer,
I don’t think this place is as liberal as you think it is. I tried passing out autographed copies of Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book and free red flags in order to start a revolution and there simply were no takers.
What makes me chuckle about the graphic is: The way that umbrellas work… women don’t need to be under the men’s umbrella… If they are under Christ’s umbrella (who presumably will never fail us), then they should be fully protected from the rain and storms, and no 2nd umbrella is needed, right?
Maybe I’m like Josh H., and I’m not smart enough to understand how the husband and wife are “equal” partners but the husband was the “head” and presides. And I’m not smart enough to understand why you would want or need a 2nd umbrella under the umbrella of Christ.
A Disciple,
I live in that place.An egalitarian society, where all are respected and cared about. There is no need to “demand” priveledges, because they are already in place. Because there is respect and caring the question of whether women and children were saved first would depend on whether someone else was in greater need.
last week we had a cyclone, which is the southern hemisphere equivalent of a hurricane except cyclones turn clockwise. We were forecast to get between 2 and 3 feet of rain over 4 days, and wind. We live half way up a hill, with forest above us, and were concerned about the amount of water that might come down the hill. Our house and a neighbour are partly underground and concerned about flooding.
We cleaned out gutters, and drains but thought we should get sandbags to divert water. The local council provided bags and piles of damp sand. I went by myself to the place where the bags were available. It took one person to hold a bag open and another to shovel the sand in. I got bags then approached the sand pile. Person with a foreign accent turned to me a said when my mates bag is full I will fill yours if you hold it open. I was ready and he did. A neighbour also added a shovel full. This went on for 25 bags. The bags each weighed about 50 pounds, and I was struggling to carry them to my car so others joined and helped me. I am 76. I went back for a second load with equal help.
There were a range of people there all helping each other. From 2 muslim women fully covered, to 2 police men, and all sorts of others, working together. When I got home neighbours on both sides came out to help position them. We got the rain and one house got a little water in one room. The wind didn’t hurt us but friends lost power.
Janey,
Wow. Did you really mean to say that to me? My feelings on these issues don’t mater at all? How do you know what my feelings are? I didn’t reveal any of my thoughts or feelings on any issue. I just enjoy hearing robust debates on these issues so that I can either confirm my current opinions or adjust them if someone presents a persuasive argument that causes me to change my mind.
I think you may have rushed to judgement on who I am and what I believe. But no hard feelings…I do that sometimes too.
Hawkrrrl,
Yeah–I’d make some adjustments of my own to that graphic. But even as it is–it reflects a sacred pattern, IMO.
Old Man,
If we think about Moses’ temple the most sacred of spaces (the place where God dwells) was the smallest in terms of its physical dimensions. But I’m not sure that’s the case in the heavenly temple. We know that the closer a system is to the throne of God the greater its reckoning of time–and the same might be true of space as well as time.
That said, in dealing with sacred space — as it relates to the temple — what we have is a clear exposition of “the first shall be last and the last shall be first” principle. We encounter the elements of the outer court first–and then move through the inner precincts until will arrive at the Holy of Holies last. But the irony is that while the most holy may be the *last* in linear terms it is the *first* sacred terms.
And motherhood must take that central position in a society that wishes to reflect the heavenly system.
@Jack, you said:
I don’t think you or the Q15 know much of anything about the position of motherhood in “the heavenly system”. Dale Renlund said this in the April 2022 General Conference (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/04/36renlund?lang=eng):
You are speculating on something that the Q15, who you believe to be infallible as a body, has asked you not to speculate on. The Q15 claims almost no knowledge about Heavenly Mother or Her role/position in the “heavenly system”. Are you saying that you know more than the Q15 on this subject?
How do you or the Q15 know that Heavenly Mother isn’t constantly making trips away from Her planet near Kolob all over the universe to do Her heavenly work? How do you know that Heavenly Mother isn’t away from Kolob far more frequently and does even more important work while away from Her home than Her husband? Maybe the picture should actually be inverted with Heavenly Father living under the umbrella held by Heavenly Mother. Mormonism has zero doctrine saying this isn’t the case. Therefore, if society ought to reflect “the heavenly system”, as you stated, might it not be entirely possible that women should have a much more prominent role in society that isn’t just a homemaker mother existing in the shadow of their husband’s umbrella?
Well, if we’re talking about the heavenly order of things, mustn’t we speak of heavenly mothers in plural? Yes, nothing has been revealed, but the historical provenance of our heavenly mothers doctrine (may I call it that?) is wholly steeped in and drawn from the argument for plural marriage.
Personally, I do not believe in such a doctrine absent revelation, and I say so as a wholly faithful Latter-day Saint — my preference would be that we not introduce the doctrine in our worship (which I prefer to be focused on our Savior) — but I know that many among us do believe the doctrine. Given what was said by church leaders in Deseret and then Utah who established the doctrine, mustn’t we speak of the doctrine in plural?
mountainclimber479,
I’m not talking about mother in heaven per se. I’m talking about motherhood–and the prophets have had plenty to say about that topic.
“Therefore, if society ought to reflect “the heavenly system”, as you stated, might it not be entirely possible that women should have a much more prominent role in society that isn’t just a homemaker mother existing in the shadow of their husband’s umbrella?”
I’m saying that motherhood (and fatherhood) should be the most prominent role in society–that is, if an earthly society is to reflect an heavenly society.
The misogyny that is foundational to Mormon belief is a large part of why I left the church. The role of polygamy, an all male godhead, all male priesthood – all led me to conclude that this was most certainly not the only true church, because I simply cannot buy the notion that the universe is run by three with dudes who get more glory by having more wives and progeny than other guys. That’s simplifying it a bit, but foundationaly, that really is what the LDS church teaches.
I have three daughters, one who is quite disabled, so could never be an official member of the church. The other two however, looked at their brilliant mom – a paleontologist, doctorate in evolutionary biology from a top 5 univerisity, and chair of a prestigious biology department – and quite rightly wondered why it is that they couldn’t pass the sacrament, let alone have true leadership in the church. Having been both a bishop and in a stake presidency, one would think I would have had a good answer ready. However, having to dig really deep and be truly honest with myself and them, I had to agree. I realized that this was not a church I wanted to raise them in. I didn’t want them to think they were less than. And there is no other way to view LDS theology and practice on this matter. Women are less than. Always subordinate to the man. Even in heaven. So I left. Honestly, best decision of my life. I and my family are truly much happier now. We focus on things that really matter. The here and now. Caring for those around us and in our community. Trying to build a better world for all, because when you accept that there may or may not be an afterlife, you realize you need to make life better now. For everyone. Because there might not be some supernatural being to make it all better in a next life. We need to make it better now.
Happy In the Wilderness, I wish more men were like you. I wish they wouldn’t stand for the dehumanization and subordination of the women they love. The church would change over night if this were the case. Society would change over night. My husband and I also left, in large part because we couldn’t reconcile a loving God who intentionally designed a system where His daughters would never fulfill their divine potential. The introduction of polygamy revealed so much, in a bad way. It’s mind blowing that a “prophet of God” couldn’t cinceive of women as anything greater than a celestial status symbol, meant to provide him with endless children and godly glory. Every Mormon man should have to read A Walk in Pink Mocassins and Dear Mormon Man ad nauseum until the depth of the injustice against women really sinks in. Patriarchy and misogyny seems to be the most pervasive systems of hatred and inequality that consistently get a pass in religious contexts and other areas of society.
About equality, George Orwell wrote in “Animal Farm” this most famous sentence:
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
Of this statement, ChatGPT explains:
“It is a satirical and paradoxical statement that critiques hypocrisy and inequality, especially in political systems that claim to promote equality but ultimately create new hierarchies… In a broader sense, the phrase is often used to describe situations where fairness and equality are proclaimed, but favoritism, privilege, and power imbalances still exist.”
Egalitarianism is desirable. The challenge is that there will never be social agreement on what equality means. Not only are there innate differences between people based on age and biological sex, there are innate differences between people according to preferences, skills and talents and how society values and rewards those things. The result being that no matter how much society tries to make people equal, there will always be differences in outcome.
Observe that in the lay LDS church, men hold the top leadership roles and likely always will. At the same time, those men go to great lengths to treat men and women equally in the church. And yet whatever the leadership does will (1) Never be good enough for some people and (2) Risks creating an environment that is so “safe” that men disengage because they find they have no role to apply the abilities that they as men uniquely possess. For any who balk at this claim, please consider that it is a demonstrated pattern that women prefer talk and men prefer action. The lay LDS church program as it exists today is almost all talk and no action!
And it is not just the church that has embraced a “unisex” culture that leans towards female preferences. Education has become feminized and to such a degree that women now earn 60% of college bachelors and masters degrees and 54% of PhDs. But if you listen to certain advocates, women are still at the back of the line and can’t catch a break! I don’t know what to make of this other than that when people argue for equality they are not advocating a 50-50 balance, but something else.
By the way, the most dangerous occupations continue to be dominated by men: logging, fishing and construction. Equality in those industries does not seem to be much of a priority.
A Disciple, the only change to higher education I’m aware of was to stop excluding women outright. Turns out women are good at it, and at the moment seem more interested in it than men. I don’t think it’s more complicated than that. Can you point to any other specific changes that have been made to “feminize” education? I do think that the gender imbalance in higher education is worthy of study, and I expect the causes are complex.
I find the notion laughable that the church leadership are going to great lengths to treat men and women equally. Surely you’ve noticed the gender differences in the temple ordinances, and the different policies for things like sealings? I reject any notion that this is a result of church leaders operating within boundaries established by God. I think God is a lot bigger than the assumptions of elderly men who haven’t shown the imagination or courage to question the ideas they were raised with. All of the published histories of how we got to the priesthood revelation in 1978 tell a story of men struggling to unlearn things they assumed God had established and hadn’t questioned.
“those men go to great lengths to treat men and women equally in the church” HA!
Is it backwards day? That statement is just wrong. I cannot understand that anyone believes that men and women are treated equally in the church. The church treats men and women different, for no reason other than their sex, in so many ways. If you can’t see that, I don’t expect that me listing the ways will make a difference, so I won’t bother. I can acknowledge that some people may believe that the unequal treatment of men and women in the church is right, or correct, or inconsequential, but to deny it’s existance?
Someone further up asked about the idea of “women and children first” and I believe that relates to A Disciples comment about differences between people based on age, sex, preferences, skills, talents, etc., as well as equality of outcomes. Egalitarianism isn’t the idea that everyone should be treated the same, it is the idea that everyone should have equal rights and opportunities. In a sinking ship example everyone has a right to a spot on a lifeboat, and some women and children will likely need help to get there. The fact that they need that help might be related to the fact that they are women and children, but their age and gender is not the reason they need or merit help. Able-bodied women should be helping older men. Teenagers should be helping someone on crutches. And some of the last people on the lifeboats are going to need to be some of the most physically capable, because that is what makes sense in that situation. Everyone merits an equal opportunity to be in the lifeboat.
Most of our challenges in life are no longer about brute strength. We need moral courage, we need motivating leadership, we need wisdom, we need teachers, we need pastors, we need community builders. The LDS church denies the majority of these opportunities to women simply because of their gender, and that’s just stupid. Even when we place women in leadership positions we repeatedly reinforce that every consequential decision they make has to be approved by a man. We are shutting out 50% of our talent pool.
As a man, I have no idea what abilities I “uniquely possess” that A Disciple is referring to, unless that is producing sperm. And if the LDS church program as it exists today is almost all talk and no action, it is ludicrous to place that at the feet of women and not the 15 men leading the church who are supposed to be hand picked by God, appointed to his high priesthood, and called to prophets, seers and revelators.
Hawkgrrl, thank you for this excellent post and discussion.
Dave W makes many excellent points on the topic. I agree that a great deal of these disparities are connected to economic realities. What is interesting is that in my neighborhood, my next door neighbor was laid off during the 2008 recession. His wife, a government worker (both nonmembers), continued to support the family with income and health insurance. He stepped up and cleaned the house, did the laundry and made all the meals. He hung out with a group of house husbands each day at school drop off and pick up. This is in red, conservative northern Nevada. They are both Trump voters. Eventually, as the kids got older and helped more around the house and the economy picked up, he went back to work. His wife told me how she dreaded that, and how they delayed his returning to work because it is such hard work for both spouses to be full time workers. They only have two children so as a mother of five I don’t think they grasp the scope of that issue. This is only safe when you have full partnership and trustworthiness from both parties as it increase vulnerability in the party that doesn’t work.
PWS! You really state it well. Patriarchy is totally infused into our marital relationships even when we believe we are egalitarian. My father died last year, and as I have worked with my mother to close up my dad’s separate home in another state (as an old hunter he refused to give up his Wyoming residency even when his wife worked in Idaho) and to help her adjust her life to his absence, I have learned a lot about patriarchy. They were both counselors and I always understood their relationship to be egalitarian. However, I have learned that he felt free to spend whatever money he wanted to and she always felt she only had the right to spend if he okayed it. Even after his death she was considering if he would approve of her spending, rather than focusing on her own ideas. Although she worked late in life, the years as a stay at home mom impacted her independence, still. I also came to see how much she deferred to him. I have conflicts with my own husband where he expects me to defer, and I won’t. When that happens, he feels disrespected because he was raised in a patriarchy and feels disrespected when a woman doesn’t defer. It’s a subconscious and underwater feeling that he struggles to avoid and I sometimes struggle to avoid accommodating in advance.
Amy, I did handle all my families prescriptions at one time, including three of my adult children with disabilities that live at home. I have been struggling with handing that off bit by bit to each of them including my husband. The online services such as MyChart, Healow, and Express Scripts online have really helped with this because access is limited to the actual patient typically (without special arrangements). Most of the phone calls are no longer necessary. So far, I am still monitoring and reminding on this, and that is a lot of the work.
Chadwick, the “hearken to your husband’s counsel” phrasing has been removed from the endowment entirely. However, they added that the husband presides into the sealing ordinance.
Josh H, I am totally with you on that. How can two people be equal while one presides? I know that my bishop presides over sacrament, and as the chorister, I am not equal with him in deciding if the congregation will stand for a hymn. That’s his decision regardless of what I want. I can ask, but it is still his decision. That’s not equal at church, and using the the same word to describe a marital relationship can only result in inequality. The person who presides may be benevolent and kind, but he still has the choice to decide what is done, which the people presided over, do not. That’s the definition of preside, and no kind hearted gaslighting by Elder Soares can change that.
Georgis, benevolent patriarchy has great value in improving the actual conditions women live in. For instance, in Africa and other areas where men feel justified to drink all the time, beat their wives, and spend all the money (including their wife’s earnings) without considering their wife and children’s needs, when men join the church and follow the counsel of church leaders to become benevolent patriarchs, women and children (and the men) greatly benefit. However, there is no denying that they still are making the decisions for good or ill, not their wives. It still is not full partnership.
Fred, the hostile, angry discussion about our rare transgender athletes has a caustic affect on all other transgender people and even some lgbtq people in general. It specifically tells transgender people that they aren’t wanted in society because of their differences. They don’t choose these differences (they are born with them) and they often hide them and pretend they don’t have them because they know they will be rejected. This has a definite negative affect on mental health. The ongoing discussion of transgender athletes results in more suicidal ideation for transgender youth and adults, and yes, more actual suicide. So, in this instance, I have to agree with Janey. Your feelings aren’t important in this matter. I agree with Hawkgrrl that the sensible thing is to left individual sports leagues make these decisions. And if it isn’t competitive, please just let everyone participate. This is just about mental health and inclusion.
@Jack, you said,
You again seem to be claiming to know what heavenly society–in terms of the roles for women and men, fathers and mothers in the eternities–looks like when there really is no established/canonized Mormon doctrine on the topic whatsoever (other than the idea of eternal polygamy that the Church can’t bring itself to disavow while at the same time can’t run away from fast enough). Remember, you made your initial comment in the context of talking about how mothers will be confined to the smallest, most holy places in the eternities, but (praise be) their domain of existence might not really be that small because of the apparent space-time distortion that you claim exists as one approaches Kolob (gotta love Mormon “science”). In other words, it sure sounded to me like you were speaking about Heavenly Mother (and the future Heavenly Mothers-to-be that Mormons believe in). I completely agree that Church leaders have had a lot to say over the years about the roles of mortal men and women, mothers and fathers living on earth (much of which they’ve had to backtrack on since they were apparently wrong, and they will undoubtedly continue to backtrack on more because they’re still wrong). However, you sure seem to be speaking about these roles in the eternities, as if you know more about the eternities than the Q15 does. Could it be that you are simply creating your own Heaven with your own God/Goddesses in the image of your own personal biases as a male who grew up in a patriarchal society many decades ago in the United States under an even more patriarchal system like Mormonism?
There is no law or regulation that requires that women and children should be saved first. The instances where men have followed that expectation are rare and usually glorified in order to bolster the view that men prioritize the wellbeing of others over themselves. When we study institutions in which men are in the majority or where men have created the social structure, we need only look at the ignorance and intolerance with which reproduction is viewed, to know that the wellbeing of women and children is at best secondary, e.g. we have a system where erectile dysfunction treatment is considered sacrosanct, women’s contraceptives are not.
Shortly after Donald Trump was sworn-in as president in 2017, a survey of American women conducted not long after his abundant misogyny was exposed to the world revealed that a majority of respondents nonetheless found appealing his alpha-male-like great financial success and confidence. To me, it was revelatory of the often-unfortunate aspects of the human Id, notably that involving sexuality.
Perhaps alpha males’ sexual aggression or ‘toxic masculinity’ in general is related to the same constraining societal idealization of the ‘real man’ (albeit perhaps more subtly than in the past): Stiff-upper-lip physically and emotionally strong, financially successful, confidently fights and wins, assertively solves problems, and exemplifies sexual prowess.
Power can be intoxicating thus reckless, and absolute power can corrupt absolutely. For example, there’s the immense power/influence obtained so relatively quickly through #MeToo and Cancel Culture, largely via social media.
But, then, I’ve long viewed humankind, as individuals and collectively, as not being very good at moderation. Still, while the social/political pendulum can swing to extremes, such great shifts should be expected with historical social injustices, in this case after so much that’s been endured by transgender and ‘non-binary’ people.
A similar pendulum-swing effect might also occur in response to the prolonged immense economic injustices in Western neoliberal democracies, had there not been the enormous obstacle of virtual corpocratic and big power/money interests with which to contend.
The police and military can, and probably would, claim they had to [using political terminology, of course] bust heads to maintain law and order as a priority during major demonstrations against economic injustices. Especially with a complacent, if not compliant, corporate news media, which is virtually all mainstream news media, the absurdly unjust inequities/inequalities can persist.