Great post, Starfoxy. I couldn't state it so eloquently, but this is how I feel about being a Mormon Feminist.

Starfoxy, this is a very good post. It still doesn't answer the central question, however, of why you would choose to be a member of a patriarchal religion.

You say:

My goal is damage control, and improving individual lives as much as possible, changing the structure of the world where we can, but otherwise working within the existing structure for the benefit of individuals.

Do you think that the LDS religion is the best place for you to achieve your goal of improving the lives of individuals? I guess I'm just not seeing the connection between your goals (damage control and improving lives) and the LDS Church.

Thank you. I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my question. Because I do feel like it was legitimate. I love my family very much, but it's hard for me to interact with them lately knowing that my four sisters and mother practice a religion that I've decided, for myself, supports a patriarchal society. So I tried to bring it up just to find more understanding/sympathy/empathy for them. Your answer is very encouraging because it seems that you don't necessarily support the system. That, perhaps, you see it as an Earthly answer to a Celestial problem. I don't know if viewing men as controllable in their positions is necessarily helpful from a feminist perspective that respects all genders and variations of, but I like that you have found ways to make it work for you. Thanks.

I respect the note not to debate "feminist" but it probably should have also included "patriarchy."

I was raised Catholic (changed religions at age 21) and I think that our tradition is much, much, MUCH more female empowering.

I joined the church because of my feminist leanings. I had read THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE in high school, as well as in undergraduate classes, and to me, the LDS were an embodiment of those principles.

(I didn't stop self-identifying as a feminist until years later, when people outside the church told me that I couldn't be a feminist and full-time mother, and I got tired fighting over it.)

Wow. Excellent post, excellent comments, including the probing question by #2 anon. (Do you think that the LDS religion is the best place for you to achieve your goal of improving the lives of individuals?) I am very much a feminist and being pretty old I've had quite the battle to go where no woman had gone before in many of my jobs.

I also remember being told at church in the 70s that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was the work of Satan, that it would lead to horrible consequences if women were mandated to have the same rights as men under the law. I believed it fervently, while my non member husband was aghast (being much more liberated than myself at the time.)

Having finally left the church, I have always wondered why strong, intelligent women would continue to stay there and tolerate the indignity of being a subclass of humankind. I know such a woman, who is beautiful, gentle, kind, and very intelligent, and yet decidedly very devout.

It took me awhile to support her choice, and I'm glad it works for her (and most of you, it seems) but it's always been a puzzle. So I'm happy to read some really insightful thoughts on this matter, because they bring some clarity to this issue for me.

Anon- I should have clarified better, I do think that the LDS church does damage control. An example that is in the forefront of my mind now is my sister. She recently divorced her abusive husband. While they were married he didn't hold down any job for more than a few months. He insisted on living with (and mooching off) his parents and siblings members. He was emotionally abusive, and very controlling. When she left him she felt a ton of pressure from him, his family, and friends to stay together.

Relationships like this happen all. the. time. both inside and outside religious environments. While there were certainly religious overtones to the pressure my sister felt to stay, I doubt that the pressure would have been significantly more powerful than other cultural pressures. The added value that the LDS church brings to this situation is this- if her ex doesn't pay child support he is not worthy to enter the Temple and is failing in his priesthood responsibilities which is a big deal for active members and he'll feel the pressure. If he wants to remarry in the Temple his bishop will attempt to contact my sister for a letter describing why they divorced (and could presumably counsel with the new fianceé and even potentially request that permission be denied). I think that things like this could do a great deal of good when executed properly.

Hi, Starfoxy - thanks for your response. I agree that the LDS Church does try to do "damage control", and that was a good example. Wouldn't you rather be part of an organization, however, that allows women to contribute all of their talents instead of being shoehorned into a few female-prescribed roles? There are plenty of volunteer organizations, including religious ones, where women aren't limited by their gender when being considered for leadership positions or opportunities for service. So my question is - if you hadn't been raised in a patriarchal religion (and hadn't married a member of the LDS Church) and if the missionaries knocked on your door tomorrow, would you join a patriarchal religion?

Wow, starfoxy. Wow. I have said pretty much the exact same thing - the whole world is a patriarchy; at least the LDS are overt about it.

Thanks for writing such an excellent response!

I just would like to query, whence comes the optimism that within Mormon theology, all gender inequality will be rectified?

In Church teaching and scripture, the pre-existence was a patriarchy.

Then God initiated and repeatedly sustained patriarchal social systems upon the Earth. When Jesus returns, we have no indications that He will be sharing the government with his putative wife, much less that he would devolve political power upon some gender-egalitarian general population... It's called a Kingdom.

And there is every indication that male-centered polygyny will be the form of family organization. In Heaven after the end of this planet, the same is supposedly going to continue, with the highest a woman can aspire to being "goddesses to your husbands" (one among many, apparently).

I'm not questioning feminism at all; I would just like to know some of the bases (whether in Mormon revelation/scripture or elsewhere) for your sexual-egalitarian outlook.

I guess I don't really buy it. How do you know that the priesthood is a substitute for ordinary male privilege, rather than an additional privilege? Do you really think men who don't have the priesthood have no male privilege at all? It seems that men are doubly privileged in this system.

Starfoxy:I'd say that the the patriarchy isn't going away until the nuclear holocaust (and even then it's iffy)

I'm really confused by this one... How would a nuclear holocaust make patriarchy go away? Wouldn't an Mad Max style anarchistic post-apocalyptic world pretty much spell the end of any semblance of modern feminism?

As an ex-mormon & a feminist, I feel that you're bringing an external belief system into Mormonism. It is inherently male dominant & to say or feel otherwise is giving a false hope & I feel it's quite delusional!

As a woman you are taught that your role is to marry & have children, to educate yourself so you can educate your children. It is very clear that the husband is head of the home, is the decision maker. Women clearly have secondary roles in church, men have all the power & make all the decisions, as set out in the temple ceremony.

Polygamy was taken off the earth but it is clearly believed that this will be restored after the second coming (check your D&C or ask your bishop!) Tell me again how this allows for feminism? I think you're kidding yourselves.

I'm going to channel The Princess Bride for a moment, probably paraphrasing:

"I do not think that means what you think it means."

I think that too often, people look at patriarchy in the church in isolation, instead of understanding the big picture of what the gospel and the Church are all about.

Not only does the Church empower women to know who we really are and what our potential is, and help us make wise decisions about how to spend our time on earth. It's an organization designed to help us come to Christ, and to become like Him, and become like God -- so that we are then given power (power!) and grace necessary to enjoy eternally all that God has to offer. With that understanding, we don't need to be able to hold a position or have all the roles that exist available to us. We don't worry so much about who does what in the Church. We realize that the authority in positions in the Church is all God's anyway. We realize that the work of God is about men and women working together, and that it's not a competition. We're not focused on earthly power and position. We know that God has promised ALL that He has to people who are true and faithful. It is an understatement to say that, for those of us who are devout and happy as women in the Church, there is simply nothing more that a woman could want! It does take a different pair of eyes to see what it's all about. We don't live for power and position now in the Church or other termporary measuring sticks that feminism uses; we live and strive to become like Christ so that someday we can inherit all the blessings of eternity, as part of an eternal family. The Church exists for that purpose, as does family life. The different roles and responsibilities we have help us toward our eternal goals. Our focus is on our eternal goals, not on who does what now.

Feminism's typical measuring sticks are too limited to judge the Church, imo. Besides, the Church is not the gospel. The gospel is about Christ's atonement making eternal family life and relationships possible, and in that context, the specifics about who does what matters less than knowing that God's promises are sure. I cannot speak for all women who are members of the Church, but I do believe there are many, many of us who feel this way. That is what makes it possible for many of us who are advocates for women to be able to give our whole hearts and souls to living the gospel and loving our membership in the Church. It fills our lives with joy, peace, perspective, and understanding.

Also, I do agree with the commenter at fmh who pointed out that feminism means a bazillion different things. To some of us, the most empowering thing we can do as women is be part of this organization and be true to our covenants -- all of them because in our mind, it is by doing that that we will get more than any worldly system can every dream to offer.

It is very clear that the husband is head of the home, is the decision maker.

This is a misrepresentation of how things are supposed to work. The husband as the head of the home is supposed to sacrifice and love his family as Christ loved the church and even gave His life for it. Decisions are to be made jointly, with the Spirit.

A recent talk was given by an Area Authority Seventy, where he talked about someone asking him a question about decision-making -- who should make the decisions when the husband and wife each feel they have different inspiration about something. He said, "You don't move forward until you BOTH feel good and right."

Are women not supposed to sacrifice and love their families in the same way, m&m? And if they are, would that make them also "head of the home"?

My take is a little different. I was raised out of the church by a wonderful, empowering kind father. I joined the church and married the very same kind of Mormon man. He's been a bishop, stake president, and beyond--yet I have never felt anything but supported and respected. We make decisions together and discuss everything. He asks my advice and counsel on all decisions. As I have watched men operate within the priesthood in our ward the last 30 years that we have lived here I have noticed something I think is significant. Radical feminists always seem to describe the priesthood in terms of male privilege. But I usually see it operating in one on one situations. Men with the priesthood hold their babies in their arms and give them blessings. They stand next to a sick child or spouse and give a blessing. They take a son or daughter into the covenant waters of baptism. The bishop counsels a young person. A scout master puts his arm around a boy or hikes in the mountains with my son.
In every one of these experiences, the priesthood holder is drawn out of the normal workaday world in which he functions-- as a male hunter/gatherer, bringing home the bacon, fighting the dragons--into the more female world of relationships, nurturing and empathy. Each blessing, each ordinance, each prayer, is like a thread, tying a man to his wife and children and to his ward family in loving service. The forces of the world draw him out. The priesthood draws him back in. When I saw my husband put his hands on my boys heads and ordain them to the priesthood, I rejoiced. Women have by nature the nurturing tides that pull them in. Men have testosterone, and it pulls them out and away. So men are given the priesthood by God, to give them responsibilities to bless and help and lift and give life through ordinances. This is not to exalt them over women. It is to bring them back to their women and unite them with their women and children in unity and love.
Any man who uses his priesthood as an excuse to "Lord it over" his family or ward members has already lost his priesthood when the Lord said" Amen to the authority of that man", as He clearly promised to do in Section 121:37. But the fact that it is the nature of fallen man to abuse power is not a reason to leave the church. Sorry. I think that's silly. The good men are going to be made better men by the exercise of priesthood. They are going to be brought into the family circle--where we've been all along.

These are my reasons, either you buy them or you don't. The only additional information I can offer is that I have a testimony that this is where I'm meant to be.

So, to anon #7

"Wouldn't you rather be part of an organization, however, that allows women to contribute all of their talents instead of being shoehorned into a few female-prescribed roles?"

Yeah, I would, and I'm trying to be the change that I want to see.

#9 Kan- I don't know where you are coming from, so I don't know how detailed I need to be in order to answer your questions properly, perhaps I'll write a post about it sometime soon. As a short answer I find things here and there and they come together rather cohesively. The thing that is most important to me is that in the Temple, everyone sits together in the Celestial Room.

#10 z-

Do you really think men who don't have the priesthood have no male privilege at all? It seems that men are doubly privileged in this system.

I think *all* men have privilege. I think *all* men in heterosexual relationships have disproportionate amounts of power. I think the patriarchal structure of the church is only 'giving' men what they already have, but by appearing to be source they claim authority to dictate what men do with that privilege and could use that authority to make relationships more egalitarian.

#11 Geoff, it's iffy that people would survive the nuclear holocaust, and if they survive the patriarchy would too. Maybe I'm showing my age (or lack thereof) but all I really remember about Mad Max (beyond the Thunderdome?) )was Tina Turner's awesome jewelry.

Thanks for the comments all!

I get that you think that, but what makes you think the double-privilege view is incorrect? It seems to me that if a man lost or renounced the priesthood, he would still have some regular male privilege, and would also have the opportunity to regain the priesthood, so he would still be privileged relative to women even without the priesthood. You seem to think the priesthood succeeds in appearing to be the sole source of authority for male privilege, but I'm not sure that's true-- I think masculinity itself, and the authority of the culture outside the Mormon religion are also sources of male privilege.

Z- I think we're talking past each other.

I think masculinity itself, and the authority of the culture outside the Mormon religion are also sources of male privilege.

I think that masculinity and the authority of the culture are the primary (if not sole) sources of male privilege. I don't think that the church structure adds anything substantial to already existing male privilege. So I agree with you that the loss of priesthood authority does little or nothing to reduce a man's privilege in relation to women.

The thing that makes male privilege so dangerous is the fact that it is invisible to nearly everyone. I have never met a man who believed that the structure of the world privileged him by virtue of his maleness. This belief in the non-existence of male privilege allows all sorts of men to believe they're just nice guys surrounded by cuh-razy women who do all sorts of nutty things for some weird reason that has nothing to do with him.

Most men aren't making efforts to share their power, because they don't believe they have any. But when the church tells a man "you have power and authority in your home" then he can't pretend anymore that there isn't a power imbalance which favors him.

Certainly lots of men take this information and use it to be bigger jerks than they were before- which I heartily dislike and spend my time speaking out against. However the church has made increasing efforts to explain that being a jerk is unacceptable, and that because of their priesthood (privilege) men need to make extra efforts to ensure that they are nice, thoughtful, and treat their partners with respect.

Starfoxy, I'm happy that you've found a way to stay for the quite selfish reason that, as Eve has pointed out to me, the more feminists who leave the Church, the less feminist-friendly the remaining membership is. :)

Huh. Well, I think you're working towards an interesting point, but it doesn't really add up for me yet. Maybe I'm still confused. If the idea is that the priesthood is a way of naming and talking about male privilege, and using it as a way of granting or withholding privilege (as you state in your original post), isn't that at odds with your statement that loss of the priesthood wouldn't constitute a significant loss of male privilege?

I see the priesthood as giving men yet another reason to consider themselves more special and important: believing God wants them to have all the institutional power, etc.. Why do you think the church structure doesn't add anything substantial to male privilege? I think it adds a lot of real power and a reason to feel special. Do you think men feel the same way outside structured patriarchal religions? How could they?

I also don't see why you're so pessimistic on the issue of getting rid of male privilege generally. It seems to me that various of groups of people, even religious people, have succeeded in reducing it at least somewhat. Is this view based on LDS-specific reasons? Why don't you think men will ever admit that they have male privilege? It seems an awfully low opinion of men.

Z, I appreciate your feedback because it is helping me think through this whole idea more thoroughly, and the more I think about it the more I like it.

I think I'll answer your last questions first, since the other questions seem to flow from that. By nature privilege is invisible. A few men will admit that they have it, some will even admit it without being subjected to a barrage of evidence. However, unless those men are incredibly vigilant they will continue to exercise that privilege unaware. And, even if they are that vigilant, in many ways they just can't take it off because a large part of privilege is in how other people react to you.
So I don't, as a rule, think that men are bad un-redeemable people , I just think that the whole structure of our society is so hopelessly messed up that there is no way to fix it without taking hundreds upon hundreds of years or just starting over from scratch (hence the desire for damage control rather than wider social changes). Also, I think that a large part of male privilege is based in biology, and until the biological functions of pregnancy, nursing, and dependent childhood are no more then women will continue to be at a disadvantage. I just think that male privilege is a permanent feature of a fallen world.

If the idea is that the priesthood is a way of naming and talking about male privilege, and using it as a way of granting or withholding privilege (as you state in your original post), isn't that at odds with your statement that loss of the priesthood wouldn't constitute a significant loss of male privilege?

I don't agree with the idea that the church uses priesthood as a way to grant or withhold privilege- rather I think the church uses priesthood as a way to direct by use of peer pressure the privilege that is already there.

I have more points to make, but I'm having trouble getting them out in any coherent way. I may have to sleep on it and tackle some more tomorrow.

Am I the only one that read comment #16? It seems like an amazing comment! Unfortunately, in discussions of frustration and bitterness these comments of sound, rationale seem to go unheard or skipped over. Thanks Eliza-Anne for a great post and a little bit of enlightenment.

ANSOOBTMM,

I think Starfoxy has articulated a good response to Eliza-Anne's perspective in this classic comment at T&S that remains one of my favorite ever written on the bloggernacle.

I'm looking forward to it, Starfoxy. Also I was wondering, are you presenting this idea as a reason to support patriarchy/gender-exclusive priesthood even though you think it's not divinely mandated? Or is this intended as a possible explanation for a divine mandate that you believe does exist? I can never keep track of which bloggers take which position, and if you ever mentioned, I've forgotten.

On the Mark Man,
Thanks for the compliment. Feminist-leaners talk over this stuff, I feel, IMHO, because they do not have a basic sympathy for their male brethren. So maybe they dealt with abuse in their own home or ward growing up, or whatever. But they cannot relate to the priesthood as a means to bless—only as an exercise of power.
This of course, is the way all forms of patriarchy are discussed in feminist literature and there is no way to really pierce their mental armor. I did read the post recommended by ANSOOBTMM. I agree that “Spanish inquisition style Amen squads” are impractical, but that isn’t their main drawback. They would amount to an anti-gospel. I know y’all can’t remember the big meeting we were all at in pre-mortality, but there was a plan presented there which would have insured that no fathers, husbands, bishops or stake presidents would ever do anything abusive or unkind toward any female. We rejected that plan. We chose life on earth this way. That means that there is the possibility for abuse and unrighteous dominion in the church, made up as it is of mortal men.
You have a couple of choices. You can leave the church and any other human organization where there is the possibility of such stuff. You can hope that feminist consciousness raising will succeed in changing men’s hearts, but I wouldn’t hold your breath. You can stay in the church but pout and whine about the cultural and social backwardness of the male membership that blinds them to so many of their abuses.
Or you can lean on “the everlasting arms.”
Without a personal real private spiritual connection to Jesus Christ himself, you aren’t going to make it in this church if you are so finely tuned to the faults and failings of the men. Feminists want to make it a political issue. But you’ve already lost the battle with the enemy when you think this way. Starfoxy says,
“Of course it will all be worked out at judgement day, but that is of very little value to those who are being hurt by such abuses now.”
At the judgment day we will all stand before Jesus Christ and get justice and be able to be heard. Well, do it now. Stand before Him now. Take your grievances there. If your relationship is real He will talk back to you. That is all I know about that. I don’t know what He will say to you or how He will help. It is a PERSONAL relationship. It doesn’t depend on church handbooks. I just know from my own experience that the back and forth of that real relationship enables me to forgive other people’s sins against me and continually see my own sins against other people. I cannot imagine trying to live the gospel without that “interior life source.”
When my sister, Diana, served in one of the French missions in the 70’s, a church patriarch was coming through her area because there was no locally called patriarch. The district president announced that the man was going to have too little time to give blessings to the general membership. He would only have time for the leaders.
A faithful elderly sister that Diana knew well was heart sick when she heard this. So she went straight to the top. She prayed. Since Diana didn’t know the leadership involved personally, she doesn’t know just how things happened. But she does know that a week after this announcement, the district president reversed himself without explanation. The French sister got her blessing.
Quit making a life out of cataloguing the sins of others and use the spiritual resources the church offers to make a living relationship in your life with the Master. That may sound pat. Believe me I know it is not easy. His way is demanding in every possible way. But it is the way that heals all wounds and leads to all answers. He is, after all, The Truth and The Way.

Eliza-Anne,

Please debate with half your brain behind your back, because you're mopping the floor with the radical feminists.

Oh! Sorry, I just used a tired, old, patriarchal idiom that involves violence.


On a serious note, though, Hugh Nibley gave a great speech 28 years ago called "Patriarchy and Matriarchy". It should be required reading for all of us. Essentially, Satan wants the two sexes to do battle, since it furthers his nefarious purposes. However, men and women living together in harmony: he hates that intensely.

Eliza-Anne. I love your post and your perspective. I have never seen this put into words more eloquently. Thank you !

Sigh, I didn't feel like tackling this problem tonight, but it looks like this may get out of hand if I let it go much longer.

#23- Not short of..Man- Eliza-Anne's number 16 post was not responded to due to the notice placed at the beginning of this post. I'll copy it again here for those who may have missed it:

This post accepts feminism as a given, and isn't really the place for explaining just exactly what is wrong with feminism. If you want to discuss the merits, pitfalls, and problems related to a feminist world view, I would encourage you to consider submitting a guest post via email- starfoxy7 at gmail dot com.

At risk of sounding cliche this post is for and about feminists; I did not write it to defend feminism to the world, but to defend my faith and activity in the church to the feminists.

I'll let the existing off-topic comments remain but will mercilessly delete any new comments on this thread that debate the general merits or failings of feminism and feminists from either side of the aisle (I'm looking at you Ziff, Michael Towns, Katie, Mr Man and Eliza-Anne).

Lest I be accused of censorship or unwillingness to face up to a real debate, I will again urge you to submit a guest post- unless it is egregiously bad I will post it. In fact I may just take Eliza Anne's #26 and put that up as a post. But not tonight, I'm going to bed.

I actually thought post no. 16 was a pretty good example of feminism. As for the priesthood, I kind've always thought it was given to the men to keep them out of trouble while the women did the important stuff like teach the next generations and run the important stuff of the Church. Honestly, how hard could asking people to give the talk in Sacrament meeting in 3 weeks be?