According to this site, I’m 70% Feminist, despite my plethora of (very manly, muscular) Y chromosomes.
“Feminism” is one of those buzzwords that means vastly different things to different people—why people tend to talk past one another when the subject is brought up, since each person has a unique (and often mutually contradictory) mental paradigm of what the term ‘feminism’ encompasses. After all, are we talking ‘women-are-people-too’ feminism, or ‘marriage-is-bondage-men-are-rapists’ feminism?
Like all polls, one can nitpick about vague wordings, or ask "But, what about…?” questions for each. Today, let’s take them at face-value, and look at each of the ten agree/disagree statements in the poll, commenting on them from an LDS perspective.
(Yes, I know I’m a guy and thus ‘not qualified’ to discuss such things, but I press forward regardless…)
The poll is based off of how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements, with—presumably—a 'true feminist’ strongly agreeing with each:
#1: Women should be economically and socially independent. They shouldn't rely on men to take care of them.
The Church has long encouraged both men and women to have the capability of being financially independent, through education and preparation for a career, whether it happens or not. A better phrasing might have been "[women] shouldn’t HAVE to rely on men to take care of them”, although they should be able to choose to rely on someone else for financially support if they want (see #7).
How do we define ‘socially independent’? Perhaps we could interpret it as ‘a woman does not need a husband (or a boyfriend) to define her identity to others’. A woman has an identity--in her ward, and her neighborhood--other than ‘Brother so-and-so’s wife’, in other words. (Said as someone whose primary identity in my own ward is as “[The Baroness]’s husband”)
A more extreme interpretation of ‘socially independent’ heads along the ‘marriage-(or any relationship with a man)-is-bondage’ route: that a woman should remain socially ‘free’ at all times—free of binding relationships and commitments other than casual flings at her discretion which can be broken off at any time without regret.
Taken to this extreme, we have an obvious conflict with LDS theology which teaches that women (and men) can reach their full individual potential only by being a part of a larger family--a relationship where personal freedom is constrained in many aspects for the sake of the greater good of the family unit. Marriage (and the commitments it entails) is honorable--and ultimately necessary--for all women, and that being ‘socially dependent’ upon a husband (and children)--is a fundamental part of the plan of salvation. (As it is, we should note, for men, too…)
Can one argue that the Church (culturally) is biased one way or the other in terms of ‘social independence’ regarding men or women? For all the legitimate concern that women feel pressured by Church culture that their highest glory is ‘only’ as a wife and a mother (i.e. in a relationship with a man), I might argue that there is an equally large bias against men.
Why? Simply because single women still have a ‘place of honor’ within the Church, which single men do not. From former RS 2nd Counselor Sheri Dew, to the newly called RS 2nd Counselor Barbara Thompson, single women still hold significant leadership callings, and regularly are reminded (in talks and Ensign articles) that being single is not a badge of shame.
Can you name an unmarried man who has been a ‘leader’ in the Church, even going all the way back to Joseph Smith’s era? (Widowers don’t count, of course…) Even ignoring the not-to-be-taken-seriously statement by Brigham Young about single men being ‘menaces to society’, single men beyond mission age are generally NOT called to positions of leadership, and are, in many respects, treated as pariahs.
Part of this is, of course, due to the imbalance in populations between single sisters and single brethren in most areas of the Church, but it is interesting to note that in many ways the Church treats a man without a woman beside him like he doesn’t exist, whereas a woman without a man still does.
#2: There is no such thing as a "man's job." It is wrong for men to be given preference for any job position, even if women traditionally aren't in that field.
The use of ‘preference’ here implies that all skills and qualifications are equal between our hypothetical male and female applicants. If all things are indeed equal, there is no problem with this statement.
But what if skills and qualifications are NOT equal...and never can be? Are there truly "man's jobs"--jobs that clearly rely primarily on brute strength and power, and are thus naturally suitable for men due to the uncontroversial difference in physical size and strength between the genders?
I think there are: take, professional football player, for example. There’s no legal restriction against women playing in the NFL…but how many women can run a 4.3 40 and/or bench-press 300 lbs, like the guys who play in the NFL? (Not to mention taking hits week after week from other guys who can...) Sometimes, there are legitimate reasons why women “traditionally aren’t in that field”.
Keep in mind, this does not mean there are not women that are physically strong or fast. There are many women who would do a lot better in football than I would, but that’s not really the point, because we’re not comparing against the ‘average’ guy, but the ‘strongest’ guy.
If the strongest (or fastest) 1% of men happen to be stronger than the strongest 1% of women, then jobs that rely on pure strength and speed would naturally give ‘preference’ to the strongest—without regard to whether the end result is an un-PC level of gender diversity.
Are there non-sports jobs that fall into the same category? Perhaps, to a lesser extent, firefighter, or some construction jobs that require lots of lifting and moving. Modern technology and machinery has lowered the bar for the physical effort needed to perform tasks in many fields (thus allowing women to be just as effective in fields that would have been 100% men even a few decades ago), but the implication that even in the 21st century there are NO jobs where you need and would clearly pick the applicant that’s physically stronger than the other, and that most women would not be at a clear disadvantage in terms of effectiveness, is false.
#3: Men and women should be held to the same sexual standards. If men can sleep around without judgment, women should be able to as well.
LDS doctrine (unlike some other churches) does hold men and women to the same sexual standards, and does not excuse any kind of sexual sin for men that it doesn’t for women. (When it comes to pre-mission-age men, it might very well be the opposite...) Both genders are expected to follow the same guidelines of chastity, including modest clothing.
In theory, anyway… It is probably true that in practice female modesty is more emphasized than male modesty, although it's arguable whether this is a true double standard, or simply a natural consequence of living in a society where female immodesty happens to be more constantly emphasized through culture and clothing styles.
(I was once told by a girl at a ward activity at BYU that my shorts were ‘too short’—despite fully covering my temple garments, the basic definition—I thought—of ‘modesty’…)
The second clause has that great big “if” in it—*IF* men can sleep around without judgment, women should be able to as well. One can agree with this statement on the face of it…while noting that it doesn’t answer the question of whether men should be sleeping around without judgment in the first place. That there is often a double-standard between how male and female chastity is viewed in the world is not in question—but isn't the answer to care about male chastity more, not care about female chastity less?
#4: Women should take an equal role in dating. Women should ask out people they are interested in and take their turn in paying.
Admittedly, as a Y-chromosome bearer, I do not have a clear pulse on the grand scheme of modern feminist principles, but this (predominantly cultural) issue does not seem to be that big a deal. I don’t consider it demeaning to a woman to have the guy pay for the date (nor have I heard any woman seriously suggest such), even if on the face of it, it contains the subtle implication that the woman isn’t paying because she can’t, and thus needs the man's 'charity'.
The interesting part of this topic is whether it’s the guys or the girls who really get the short end of the stick when it comes to dating. Putting the ‘who pays?’ issue aside, the major complaint from the girls’ side about the traditional dating structure is that they have to wait and hope that the guys they are interested in ‘notice’ them and ask them out (and hope the guys they are not interested in, don’t). Whereas, guys have the advantage of asking out (and ignoring) whomever they want.
As I guy, however, I don't think it's that simple. I do not think girls quite understand how hard it is for a guy to actually ask someone out. Why? When a guy asks out a girl, he’s basically admitting 'I kind of like you...", and is putting his heart and soul on the line to be embraced…or brutally smashed.
Guys set themselves up for rejection every time during the dating process, and--speaking from personal experience--this is not an easy or painless undertaking. (Since some girls take the philosophy of 'it's rude to say no to a date' whether or not they like the guy at all, guys can't even depend on having one or two dates with a girl as a sign that she's actually interested, and he's not just wasting his time and money).
Whether a person responds better to the 'asker' or the 'askee' role when dating depends largely on personality, and clearly there are men and women who are more naturally suitable for one or the other. I would have no problem with a girl asking me out (not that this ever, ever, ever happened…), although this is one area where LDS dating culture will probably ‘modernize’ slower than other parts of the country.
Waiting for dates is probably not very fun, but—as I see it—neither is being bold and then being rejected…and having to go through it again and again the next week.
#5: Women should accept their bodies as they are. Women should not have to conform to wacky beauty ideals.
The only problem with the first part of this statement is that, with modern society’s problems with obesity, there are many reasons why both men and women should not accept their bodies ‘as they are’. Larger women (or men) should not feel the need to lose weight to conform to magazine cover ideals of stick-figure beauty, but perhaps they should feel a desire to lose weight simply because…being skinnier might be healthier, maybe? (Yes, some obesity is genetic...)
The problem with idealism in terms of beauty is not that ‘trying to look good’ is bad—only that ‘going to extreme lengths that are physically and psychologically damaging to look good’ is bad. Would we be better off going to the other extreme: abandoning all concept of ‘beauty’ altogether? Is it in one’s best self-interest (male or female) to try to ‘look one’s best’?
Put another way: imagine an absolute scale of physical beauty, encompassing all men and all women—ranging from Nicole Kidman to Steve Buscemi, for example. Each person ranks somewhere on that scale but—and this is the point—imagine their rank is not a fixed location, but rather a scale of its own.
Each person has some personal control over their appearance, and we can view this control as a ‘relative scale’ of beauty around some central point, somewhere along the same absolute scale. This personal ‘beauty range’ represents the differences that person can make in terms of their physical beauty while still ‘accepting their bodies as they are’ (not needing plastic surgery, crash diets, or throwing up in toilets, in other words). It represents the range from looking your best (combed hair, appropriate makeup, nice clothes) to looking your worst (bed hair, no shower in a week, ripped T-shirt with chocolate stains on it, etc).
What are the benefits of maximizing your own relative scale of beauty—even if it’s nothing more than getting a different, more flattering hairstyle, and less ‘trashy’ clothing? Suppose it was true that an increase in personal ‘beauty’ (even on a relative scale) paid dividends in terms of better dating prospects--or even job opportunities--for both men and women? If staying near the top of your personal beauty scale happens to bring tangible benefits, then aren’t women (and men) better off from a purely self-interest standpoint, paying some attention to personal attractiveness rather than abandoning it altogether?
The point being: I think there’s a happy medium between not obsessing over weight and appearance, and not caring about your appearance and the health of your body at all. Common sense suggests the maximum utility for both men and women can be gained by finding that medium without going overboard in either direction.
#6: A woman should be able to marry and have kids with anyone she wants - including another woman.
We’ll save the discussion about gay marriage and whether it's truly a 'feminism' issue for another time, but we should note that this statement as constituted would also include polygamous and incestuous relationships.
Does a woman have a 'right' to get married to a man who already has a wife, if she wants to? (Or to more than one man, herself?) Is it more or less 'feminist' to have that choice taken away from her?
#7: Women should have the right to choose any path in life - from being a stay at home mom to a Fortune 500 CEO.
Does this contradict #1? (Ironically, some feminists *don’t* think a woman should be able to choose to be a SAHM.)
The gospel is built around the ‘right to choose’—free agency was worth sacrificing 1/3 of God’s spirit children, after all—but the gospel says not all choices are equal. There are tradeoffs to being a SAHM, as there are for being a CEO of a large company (and the heavy work schedule it usually takes to get to be CEO in the first place). Choices should be made with the recognition that no one—man or woman--can 'have it all': work comes at expense of family time and vice versa. Those who complain that the Church unfairly encourages women to 'stay at home', often miss that it equally encourages men to, essentially, 'stay away'. (See here…) Whether being 'trapped at home with screaming, rowdy, unappreciative kids', or 'trapped in an arduous, dead-end, soul-sucking job' day after day, is better (or worse) is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
#8: Women should be encouraged to pursue education as much as men are.
We hear about this in General Conference quite regularly…
“Encouraged” is the word that’s hard to pin down—what does it mean to ‘encourage’ or ‘discourage’ the pursuit of education? Does ‘encouraging’ marriage, ‘discourage’ higher education, for example? (See this related thread about the Church’s policy towards sister missionaries)
What about BYU's (allegedly open) policy of giving larger scholarships to male students of equal accomplishment than female ones, especially if--statistically speaking--it can be proven that (1) there are fewer male students at BYU to begin with, and (2) male students are more likely than female students to make full use of those scholarships?
#9: Women should have legal, easy access to all types of birth control - including the morning after pill.
The LDS policy on birth control is, again, more nuanced than many others—although a full analysis is beyond the scope of this article.
The key word in this statement is 'easy': Just how easy is 'easy'? Should all prescription forms be made 'over-the-counter' instead? Should insurance plans cover all forms of birth control? Should the government be subsidizing birth control for interested parties? As in all things, the devil is in the details--how you interpret 'easy' will determine how you respond to this statement.
Note that this statement deliberately avoids mentioning abortion—obviously the pollsters realize (correctly) that supporting abortion is not necessarily a ‘feminist’ issue...
(One side note: Rose Kennedy was once quoted as saying ‘if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament’ Probably…but isn’t it likely in this case you’d see most feminists become vehemently anti-abortion, considering most aborted fetuses world-wide—both now, and in our hypothetical with men giving birth—are female. I wouldn’t be surprised to see exactly the same pro-life arguments seen today being adopted by the feminist movement, once female ‘choice’ has been removed from the equation)
#10: You would support a woman for president (if you agreed with her politics).
But should a woman support a woman candidate for president (assuming she’s running against a man) even if she doesn't agree with her politics?
Conclusion: No one, in the end, will be able to argue conclusively that the LDS Church is 'feminist' or 'anti-feminist', because 'feminism' cannot be conclusively defined. I've never considered myself to be a 'feminist', but the fact that I can score 70% (and have good arguments that the other 30% are not necessarily genuine 'feminist' issues) shows that there is a wide range of opinions on the matter, even among active Church members. Certainly, I see no reason to conclude that LDS teachings and feminism are inherently incompatible, enough such that women and men will have to choose one or the other, eventually...