I just finished reading two books: Jane Ward’s The Tragedy of Heterosexuality and Tia Leving’s memoir of life inside of a fundamentalist Christian marriage, A Well-Trained Wife. Reading these two books together was really interesting. The authors started from completely different places, and yet their conclusions and insights often aligned.
Leving was raised in a mainline Baptist church, married at 19 to a man who loved theology, taught to be sexually pure and submissive, and also taught not to recognize the abuse that was present from the beginning of their relationship. She turned to her church for help and was advised and mentored by men and women to submit better, obey more, stay quite about the abuse, and forgive freely. Her world continued to get smaller and more isolated, including living out in the country with no car, no job, no education, no cell phone, not allowed to vote or have friends, a house full of home-schooled kids, a husband whose internet search history included more and more bizarre corporal punishments when she disagreed with him or did anything he didn’t like or he simply felt insecure, and a sex life that made it clear he found her disgusting (she had to lie face down on the bed while he did what he had to do). Ultimately, she connected with smart women online who were willing to have open discussions about their lives, unlike the religious groups she was in where women talking with other women was part of the “problem” that undermined their husbands’ authority. Eventually she left when she realized that staying meant raising sons who would hit women and daughters who would stay with their abusers, just like she was doing.
“The Christian Patriarchy has a strategy and a plan. As they shelter abuses, riding on the assumption that no one knows what’s going on behind closed doors, and using religious freedom as an umbrella shield, true suffering is happening. Slavery, rape, trafficking, child neglect, medical neglect, baby abuse and more is the reality as they prepare for their holy war.” – Tia Levings
By contrast, Jane Ward is an American feminist scholar and a professor at UCSB (University of California at Santa Barbara). She is a lesbian academic whose work is focused heavily on gender and sexual cultures. As a professor, she has a finger on the pulse of culture among students in addition to the history antecedents from her own era. Unlike Levings, she does not have insider experience from a strict religious culture.
Both authors identify problems heterosexual relationships create for women:
Women are trained to accommodate men. Levings shows how patriarchal Christianity enforces submission, obedience, sexual availability and domestic service are requirements for women inside these groups. She learned from a young age “No one will love you unless you obey their rules.” Ward shows that women everywhere (not just in conservative religions) are taught that maintaining relationships is largely their responsibility.
Male entitlement is the norm. For Levings, the husband’s authority over his wife and family is presented as being divinely ordained. Ward illustrates that male privilege and misogyny are part of the “normal” heterosexual scripts, referring to the wife as the “ball and chain,” wishing women would talk less, complaining about wives who nag or who aren’t sexually available, and not caring about women’s sexual fulfillment. Heterosexual sex is defined as male penetration and completion without regard to women’s experience (e.g. only 18% of women experience orgasm during penetration).
Women’s needs are secondary. Levings equates her own desires, feelings, needs, and identity with sin if it is in conflict with the wishes or needs of her husband or family. Any family problems are a direct result of her “selfishness” in this construct. Ward explains how women are expected to manage themselves to attract and retain heterosexual relationships, and if they are not successful, it’s their fault.
Individuals are blamed, not systems. Levings shows that at every turn, she is told that his abuse would change if she were a better wife or mother–by her husband, by church leaders, and even by other women in her home-school group. Even when Josh Duggar was shown to have molested 4 of his sisters, conservative pastors raced to claim he was just a “bad apple” without evaluating the system (patriarchy) that taught him to behave this way and enabled him to get away with it for so long. Ward shows an entire self-help industry designed to maintain a gender binary in which opposites don’t attract but are taught to tolerate each other; the bulk of the work is relegated to women to appease mediocre, boring men so they won’t leave them.
Gender roles are portrayed as natural and inevitable. According to patriarchal Christianity, God created men to lead and women to submit to male authority. Ward shows that straight culture treats masculine / feminine opposition as normal and unchangeable (Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus) even though these explanations rely on stereotypes and exaggeration.
Women police themselves and other women. Levings is ripe for her abusive marriage because she has been taught from pre-pubescence what the standards for a “godly wife” are, and why everything that goes wrong can be traced back to her own failings. Ward points out the double standard in monitoring attractiveness, how women are taught to change their appearance, monitor their fitness, behavior and sexuality, and to do the emotional labor for their relationship with men in order to be able to be tolerated by their male partner.
The system is portrayed as “ideal” from outside. Patriarchal Christianity paints itself as the bastion of wholesome families, modesty, faith, and homeschooling. Ward shows that broader society lauds heterosexual unions as “romantic,” traditional gender roles as happy and fulfilling, and marriage and domesticity as the peak of human experience, despite the dangers within it, particularly for women who are often optimistic that their partners will finally show up and respect them, but constantly disappointed that they don’t.
Leaving the script requires agency. Levings finally realizes that there is no Savior coming to save her; it’s up to her to save herself. Ward points out what straights can learn from queer relationships–that the scripts we’ve been handed that don’t apply to queer relationships means queer people are forming relationships that work, not what they’ve been told will work, and they are often finding more fulfillment as a result.
Men perform for other men. Both books illustrated that in a patriarchal society, men don’t really need the approval of women. Attaining sexual access, service from, or control over women is a method to gain the approval of other men, a position that makes men vulnerable and constantly insecure. For a Mormon angle on this concept, consider the elite status polygamists in the early church had, or consider the more modern example of male missionaries being told that they will have “hot wives” if they baptize a lot of people.
Levings describes how the seemingly wholesome family life of fundamentalist Christianity concealed a coercive and abusive reality. Becoming more submissive, forgiving, dutiful and letting go of her own dreams and desires was never enough for a husband who believed his control over her was absolute and divinely sanctioned.
Ward explains the “misogyny paradox” in which heterosexual culture teaches men to desire women while simultaneously devaluing them. Intimacy cannot coexist in a patriarchal relationship because the women are not viewed as equal individuals, fully human, people with agency and autonomy.
Both books make it clear, that in a patriarchal culture, “the woman must fix it” when the relationship isn’t going well. In Levings’ religious context, the husband’s unhappiness is always because the wife is not submissive or obedient enough. Any failure is hers alone. Even when she complains of his corporal punishment to a religious leader, she is told to bear it with patience and not to do the things that set her husband off. She is told she is responsible to protect the children from seeing her being “punished” so they aren’t frightened. At one point, her husband has been told that it’s his responsibility to make sure she has a fulfilling sex life, so he asks if she is able to climax on command, and says that in future, he will tell her to have an orgasm, then turn her over and do his business as before.
Ward doesn’t say women must submit or obey (which feels particularly Evanglical). Instead, she points out that the modern relationship industry tells women to be more attractive, put in the work to understand their man, communicate better, don’t nag, keep romance alive, meet his needs, learn how men think. There aren’t a whole lot of men being given similar advice, although the chapters on pick-up artist culture are pretty interesting, and frankly better than you might expect in terms of the advice men are being given.
In 2016, the writer Erin Rodgers coined the term “emotional gold digger” to describe straight men’s reliance on women partners to “play best friend, lover, career advisor, stylist, social secretary, emotional cheerleader, mom.” Melanie Hamlett expands on this idea, pointing out that women read countless self-help books, listen to podcasts, seek out advisors and turn to friends for advice and support, pay a small fortune to therapists, and yet the men in their lives do none of these things, simply relying on them.
Queer feminists have argued that straight life is characterized by the inescapable influence of sexism and toxic masculinity, both of which are either praised or passively tolerated in straight spaces. Second, queer observers of straight life have pointed to straight women’s endless and ineffective efforts to repair straight men and the pain of witnessing straight women’s optimism and disappointment. – Jane Ward
I had a hard time with some of Levings’ memoir because unlike Levings, I don’t feel that I was raised inside a culture that was anywhere near this toxic and sick, although I can see that it exists on that continuum–and I have no doubt that there are some fundamentalist Mormons who behave in these ways. Unlike Levings, I was able recognize abuse, red flags, and problematic behavior. I have always been able and willing to say no. I could get an education and have a career without feeling shamed or barred from access. I would not tolerate being controlled in this way. I was taught my ideas had value, that I wasn’t second class. But I can also recognize that I was taught those things, too, just on a less extreme level. I was lowkey second class. I was often paid less than my male peers. I have occasionally been ignored by Mormon men who thought I was just a domestic servant in the background. I have avoided dating Mormon men who gave too much “main character energy.” I have deliberately tried to avoid men who needed too much “fixing,” which didn’t leave that many acceptable dating partners.
- Do you agree that love is incompatible with patriarchy?
- How do you square heterosexual culture as it exists today with the misery of so many women in it?
- Do you see these trends in the Mormon church? In society at large?
- Do you also see the misogyny of today’s religious right who want a society to resemble what Levings describes in her memoir? Do you think this is really what Mormons want or are they unaware of the extreme misogyny in these groups?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Like many of you I have multiple (3) daughters. They are adults now. Looking back at their childhood I see that they excelled academically, athletically, and in other ways (student government, etc). They certainly had as much opportunity to excel as my son.
The one area where they were not equal to the boys was at church. Sure, they could be in a presidency within the YW org but they always answered ultimately to men. So did their mother. And they saw up close that many of the women in the ward were sharper than their husbands but that didn’t matter.
If you believe in the organization it probably doesn’t matter how it is organized. But if you’re on the fence this is enough To drive you away because every other organization that you’re a part of treats you equally (at least on paper).
My sense is that the OP sort of lays out a worst case scenario for relationships. Consider:
A generational angle: I look at how my parents ran the household/family, how I did, and how my adult/married kids are doing so, and every generation moves farther along the equality spectrum in terms of education, work, parenting, household chores, and so forth.
A family angle: When I read some stories about dysfunctional Mormon families, it is often portrayed as a Mormon problem when I as a reader am thinking, “That’s a screwed up family or marriage or spouse problem, don’t blame the Church.” It seems like the Church sometimes gets credit when it doesn’t deserve it and sometimes gets the blame when it doesn’t deserve it.
A diversity within the Church angle: Things are different in Utah and, to an extent, the Mormon Corridor than they are on the West Coast or Midwest or East Coast. Church and family life in the Mormon Diaspora seems rather less problematic than in Utah and neighboring part-LDS states. Outside Utah, the term “Utah Mormon” has a rather odd and quaint connotation when used by regular Mormons, sort of like how mainstream Christians look at the Amish (sure, they’re Christians, but they are kind of strange).
Isn’t the whole “women can’t have education and a career” thing sort of a Utah thing? That’s sure not how it works in California or elsewhere. Or maybe a thirty years ago thing? I’m talking about LDS, not Baptists and Evangelicals, whose culture may be even more screwed up than LDS culture. I’ve read a couple of Ex-vangelical exit story books. And you think *we* have problems!
We’ve had several things happen to us that usually lead to marriages failing, and a few days ago my spouse quoted one of those statistics and wondered what was different about us, because we’re still strong. I didn’t have any particular insights and just said something to the effect of “We still like each other,” but now I’m wondering if it’s because our relationship has never been like the ones described in this article. A patriarchal marriage sounds strained at the best of times and probably doesn’t take too much to break it.
I do think that real love means real equality. Equality doesn’t have to look the same for everyone, but it has to be agreed upon by the partners in a relationship that both feel their opinions and ideas matter, and that however things are arranged it was a true choice made by both partners. My parents performed relatively traditional gender roles when it came to work, but when it came to things in the home it always appeared to be a true team effort. Those things are largely invisible to people outside of a marriage, just as abusive relationships can be. I would judge the marriages of myself and my siblings to be more successful than the average and I partially credit my parents’ example for that, even though my marriage looks quite different than my parents, with my wife and I both having careers.
Mormons do have patriarchy problems but I think we’re actually as a group a lot more progressive than some of the extreme misogyny that you describe. Progressive Mormons can (and I often do) bemoan our old leaders being behind the times, but in fact our nonogenarians in charge can be a moderating influence on this kind of thing because they turn out to be a lot more modern in their thinking than noted misogynist Paul, the primary reference for these more extreme Protestant groups.
I thought long and hard before posting this. Both because I have seen how women’s voices are not taken as seriously as men’s voices by some here, but mostly because remembering is so painful even after years of therapy.
Here is my experience. As a mormon California girl, now in her 60s, I experienced all of those abusive things, just not to the degree that Levings described. I was trained in church and family to accommodate men, to talk less, to not nag by speaking up for myself. An unhappy marriage was my fault both in the eyes of my husband and my parents and siblings. My world became smaller as hiding my despair became harder. I waited for nearly three decades for my husband to finally show up and respect me rather than treating me like a possession and a commodity. Self help books were read by me and ignored by him. He finally was honest enough to admit (during a short period of therapy) that he was born a hundred years too late because back then beating me into submission would have been acceptable.
Were we on the outskirts? No. We were very active. He had labor intensive callings and so did I. We were involved in temple open houses and I was actually a temple worker.
The damage to both me and my children was very real and long lasting. My children who have left the church have forged very different relationships after failed first relationships / marriages, so from that perspective they are much better off now. The arc does lead to progression when the abuse is finally named and healing happens.
However a terrible price is paid when abuse is invisible, ignored, allowed and / or blamed on women and children.
Hiding the abuse from children is not possible. It’s in the water. It’s pervasive even if unnamed. Education can help, but new patterns need to be learned and practiced. It is a long, painful journey that sometimes feels impossible. Please do not minimize how damaging abuse fueled by inequality is to all those who suffer from it.
And as a side note: Has anyone wondered, as I have, why we bother with temple sealings? How many women throughout the ages actually want to be sealed to abusive partners?
Anonymous: I read your post. It was well thought out and truthful. It’s sad how, in my 70s, I’m starting to understand the overreach of the church and how it hurts both men and women. I’m glad my daughters have thrown off the shackles in their lives/marriages. My wife and I, both in our third marriage, are trying hard to confront our past. The abuse she suffered and my insensitivity to my ex’s. I don’t think anyone wants to be married to an abusive partner. Eternal marriage then becomes a living definition of hell.
Dave B: A few responses to your comment. You mentioned the generational divide, which I also observe. In theory at least, equality becomes more and more normal with every generation. That’s certainly been true in most of my lifetime until 2016 at least. But author Tia Levings is 6 years younger than me, and the culture she was raised in is in every way more oppressive to women, on a much worse scale, than anything I personally experienced. She was in a string of fundamentalist churches in the south that were Evangelical. Eventually they ended up in the Orthodox church which was actually slightly LESS oppressive.
I have mentioned before how shocked I was at a dinner about ten years ago when a couple from the south, maybe 10 years younger than me, were at this dinner party we were at where everyone took turns introducing ourselves. When his wife’s turn came up she said she would let her husband speak for her because she needed to submit to him in all things. My mouth actually fell open, and I thought at first it was a joke. I looked at her husband to see if he was going to laugh and say “Yeah, right.” No, he was puffed up with all the pride of a toddler who made his first poop in the potty, looking around at the other men in the group as if to say “See what I’ve accomplished? Aren’t you jealous?”
Regarding whether church families are more anti-education or whatever in Utah vs. elsewhere, I am not sure. You suggest it might have also been different 30 years ago. I suspect that it’s got less to do with the church per se, and more to do with the family’s political views and their own sexist cultural assumptions. Most LDS families I have known well maybe do lip service to being patriarchal but are mostly egalitarian, at least among people my age or younger. My own personal “test” of this theory is how men parent inside the church vs. outside the church. Most LDS men I know change a lot of diapers and don’t see it as “women’s work” or beneath them. That is definitely not as true in Evangelical circles. (And of course you are right that older men are less likely to have pulled their weight in the home or in parenting–I doubt the majority of the Q15 would pass my “test”).
These cultural normas are potentially changing as the women who expect truly equal treatment are leaving. I have zero interest in a wedding ceremony that even gives lip service to the lie that good marriages have one who presides over the other. I don’t now and never have lived that way. But people have different temperaments, and different tolerance levels for mistreatment. Also, the ongoing MAGAfication of the church means that we are distilling down to a more Evangelicalized group of hardliners who are more susceptible to sexist ideas. The anti-woman ideas and personalities that people have shown they are willing to overlook are truly astounding.
Anonymous – thank you for writing that comment. I once was talking to a woman in my ward who admitted that her husband sometimes hit her. She said that as long as she could protect her kids, and her husband never hit them, she could handle what he did to her. That’s just so wrong. Kids know what’s happening. Like Leving, this friend of mine was going to raise sons who hit women and daughters who tolerated it. It isn’t just the action of hitting someone, it’s the entire mindset of contempt and control. I knew another woman whose husband stopped hitting her, but he ramped up the emotional abuse. The atmosphere and attitudes are so damaging.
Anonymous, I too wonder if women from hundreds of years ago want to be sealed to their husbands. I’m sure there were plenty of love matches and good marriages. But in a time in which women had no option but to marry, there were surely some bad marriages too. Some terrible, some just unpleasant. There are a whole range of experiences in marriage and assuming that every husband and wife wants to be sealed for eternity is really a big assumption.
Janey, assuming that all children want to be sealed to their parents is also a big assumption. My mother told herself the same thing, “well, at least he never hurts the children.” Only he did. Any man who abuses those who are weaker than he is, won’t stop with just one victim. Always assume that if a man beats his wife, he is also hurting the children.
I used to work at a battered women’s shelter and the #1 reason women finally decided to leave was when they finally figured out that he was ALSO abusing her children.
I saw a statistic that showed the abuse % and also divorce % for men married to men, men married to women, and women married to women. Well, men married to men is the worst for both. Men married to women a close second. And the most solid lasting and abuse free marriages was women married to women. Tells you something right there.
And speaking of sealing women to abusive husbands. My grandmother once (or twice, or a few times) ranted about how her relatives sealed one grandmother of hers to that grandmother’s abusive husband, as well as every Tom, Dick, and Harry who possibly could have been the father of her illegitimate son from years before that abusive marriage. Grandma actually said, “why not let her be dead in peace?” She was at that time sealed to about 40 men, because the different family members kept sealing her to different guys. Thinking “well, maybe him. He drifted through town for two days within 6 years of when the baby was conceived.” But that illegitimate son was the ancestor who joined the church, so of course he had to be sealed to the appropriate sperm donor. But she said there was a REASON the woman didn’t marry him when she was alive and pregnant, so why do the extended family all think she wants to be sealed to him in death. And this woman paid a hefty fine not to reveal the father, and the towns people couldn’t guess to make him pay the fine, so why do all these relatives think they can guess the father. But those determined relatives have eventually proved with DNA who the father was so she can be sealed to the sperm donor. Thousands of dollars spent just to make sure she is sealed to a guy she didn’t want to marry. Can we all say, “stupid.”
I kept reminding her that Heavenly Father knows all that and He will ask her who she wants to be with, not make her be stuck for eternity with the guy she made the mistake of sleeping with and didn’t want to marry. But I guess grandma didn’t trust God very much not to leave women stuck with jerks. I can’t imagine why she felt that way [end sarcasm]
God is going to have a lot of paper work to cancel out. Which to me just proves that what we humans are doing is worthless.