Hang On, I'm Putting on My Pants

Oh my, oh my. The last couple of months have been craaaaaaazy! And with all the craziness of life, I have avoided writing for awhile.  But I'm back. 

So I kind of lied in my last post.  I said that this next post would be about issues concerning multicultural feminism, which I will indeed get to eventually.  But in the past month, I've just had so many breakthroughs on our little quirky Mormon-BYU gender system.  I've been conducting interviews for my Psychological Anthropology class (and does transcribing take FOREVER or what?) and have had so many interesting viewpoints on topics concerning gender roles and "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." Not to mention, on a separate note, the whole "Pants to Church" thing and the "Ordain Women" movement. I feel like maybe I need to write a separate blog for each of these, but....

If you are: A) not Mormon or B) living under a rock, these links will clear some things up for you.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

Wear Pants to Church Day

Ordain Women

So where do we start?

Awhile ago, I talked with my sister over the phone, and she said she read my first blog post....and was left a little confused.  What is it even supposed to be about?  And what are my thoughts on the whole "Pants to Church" issue?  If my overall goal is to redefine feminism, then this blog is a collection of my research and opinions about common misconceptions that occur about feminism and about the roles of women in society.  Many of these misconceptions are subtle cultural practices and beliefs that worm their way into our minds from the time we enter this world. Often, in the LDS church, I think we mistake cultural practices for doctrine. 

That being said:

I believe there is nothing inherently wrong with women wearing pants to church, but I do have a problem with the movement as a whole - not the women who started it, but the social banter that was created as a result.  Wearing skirts to church, kind of like having only men pray in General Conference (April General Conference - Women Pray?), has become part of our American Mormon cultural practices. Believe it or not, cultural practices in the church differ around the world. Some men wear skirt-like articles of clothing, but you don't typically see that in America.  (Actually, I have seen some return missionaries wear similar items to church because they were souvenirs from their mission.)  Now, I can't say that I would be entirely comfortable if I saw a man come to church in a feminine maxi skirt (the word "feminine" might be a bit redundant here).  It's interesting how we are more comfortable with women adopting more masculine practices, but when men adopt more feminine practices, we automatically assume he is gay.  On average, men and women are different - there is an implicit cultural code that implies a man should not wear this to church (yes, I'm allowing you a laugh here):

What's wrong with a man wearing a dress, and a woman wearing a men's business suit?  Technically....nothing, I guess, but culturally....it makes us very uncomfortable.  There are cultural meanings and contexts applied to the clothes we wear, the images we project, the people we associate with, the hobbies we have, etc. What is wrong with wearing two pairs of earrings as opposed to one? Nothing, really, but we have been counseled against it because of certain connotations connected with it even though in some cultures, decoration is an implicit part of the culture. So we circle back to cultural contexts and meanings. Where do we draw the line with this whole culture dress thing?  How closely should we stick to cultural codes because of the connotations that certain actions/appearances hold?  I don't have that answer, but I can say that women have been wearing pants for decades now - feminized pants at that.  And I don't really think women wearing pants is a form of masculinization anymore. Why shouldn't we make that part of our Sunday best?

My problem with the "Wear Pants to Church" movement includes the following points (and I am in no way saying that everyone in support of this movement is at fault with these points, because I do believe that the original intent of the movement was in no way malicious or accusatory of doctrine):

*Some people, as part of this movement, began to point at the Church as a gender-oppressive system that won't let women wear pants.  This will become more apparent over my blogging process, but I can't think of a church whose doctrine promotes the sacred identity of women more than the LDS church.  Perhaps there are some quirky cultural practices that lead people to believe women are somehow lesser, but there is nothing in doctrine that oppresses women.

*If you want to wear pants, wear them. But don't wear them as an irreverent statement against the Church. If you have issues with the church, please seek guidance from your local leaders and try to resolve issues with them.  Reform doesn't always have to come through a huge, socially aggressive movement.  Just be a confident example of what you believe in.

*I think the key problem that we struggle with in the church is judgment from the members.  The amount of hatred and social bullying instigated by both sides of the movement that came about because of the Facebook page is unacceptable.  Our key responsibility in the Church is to love and support one another, not to take it into our hands to criticize others' viewpoints and make death threats because someone wants to wear pants to church (yes, there were mentions on one of these FB pages saying that these women should all be shot) or because someone doesn't agree with your decision to wear pants to church.  As President Uchtdorf would simply say concerning judging: Stop it. You are entitled to have and express your opinion, but please don't make a big stink about it and compromise your integrity by blaming and criticizing others.

*I never really even thought about wearing pants to church...I never felt oppressed by the fact that girls are "expected" to wear skirts.  So when this social movement came up, my first reaction was to think, you know, they're right, I don't think there is a problem with wearing pants to church.  But now that it's become so controversial and hatred-centered, there would be a completely different stigma attached to me wearing pants to church.  Now I feel like it's become taboo to wear pants to church because I would be branded as one of those "fiery Mormon feminists who thinks women in the church are oppressed."  The movement has become less about women's agency and more about pointing out other people's faults.

All of this being said: Let me take a stab at redefining feminism.

I am a feminist.  No, I don't believe in ordaining women to the Priesthood (and this will be discussed later), but perhaps I will find an appropriate pair of dress pants that I have an urge to wear to church someday.  Right now, I don't really care enough to go out and buy a pair to make a statement.  I am a feminist not because I hold radical beliefs and feel oppressed.  I am simply a feminist because I hold the belief that as a child of God, I am entitled to receive personal revelation and follow a life course approved by God that may not be approved by many members of the church.  If God approves my decision to be a full-time working mother someday, then no one has any business judging me and pointing to the Proclamation and saying that I am not a good mother or that I am defying church doctrine. I believe that feminism is inherent in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that its true meaning has become corrupted and tainted over time through its misuse.

Feminism is about being okay with the divine gender roles set forth by our Heavenly Father. It is about embracing my God-given gender, talents, and passions and learning how to make this world a more loving, positive place. It is about men respecting women and women respecting men. It is about following an individual path approved by God without suffering from the judgment of other people because it doesn't follow the "proper" model.

That being said, let's talk about another hot topic:

I absolutely loved conducting interviews on this document because everyone I interviewed is a faithful member of the church devoted to the gospel, but there were so many different viewpoints. Some of them, I found sad, some of them I found inspiring. In general, I would say that BYU Mormon students cling to this negative stigma about working mothers. I know of female faculty members here that have blatantly been asked, "Why aren't you at home taking care of your kids?" I've heard of a woman who worked because her husband had cancer, and they decided as a couple, under God's approval, that it would be better for him to stay home and take care of the kids while she worked. She said that the one of the hardest parts of this stage in her life was the judgment and derogatory comments she received from fellow members until they found out that her husband had died from cancer. 

There is nothing wrong with the doctrine in the church, but rather the way that so many people implement it, especially when it concerns other people. The most common response to my question "Can you summarize this document?" was essentially, "The family is the most important unit on earth, the man provides for the family, and the woman nurtures the children." This summary, unfortunately, covers about three sentences of the entire Proclamation. As a culture, we focus on these three little sentences not because they have more truth than the rest of the Proclamation, but because it's something we can measure in the public eye. We can look at a family and say: "They're not following the prophets. The man is a stay-at-home dad. They are doing something wrong." No one in my interviews mentioned anything about the sections concerning fidelity, abuse, chastity, citizenship, or the divine plan of happiness. We skim over these parts because for some reason, we view the gender roles part as more striking or important. And we also interpret these short sentences to say: "Women should stay in the home. Men should find a job that provides a lot of money."

Now let me preface by saying that I do believe in the gender roles set forth in the Proclamation. I believe that I do have a different role than my future husband. Again, feminism is about embracing this and not creating a hierarchy out of it, as we tend to do. (Side note: I was talking to a professor today about my fascination with the Proclamation and how we tend to create a hierarchy out of it, even if we do add the qualifier "but men and women are still equal." This is where we get women with a lot of intimacy issues, depression, self-esteem problems, and feelings of inferiority. The doctrine itself does not create hierarchy, but we often do through our interpretation and implementation of it.) However, I do not believe that I am restricted to one lifestyle because of this model. The Proclamation says that I am primarily responsible for the nurture of my children. Primarily. But it does not say that I can't have a career or that I can't follow individual passions in addition to nurturing my children. In fact, one of the primary ways in which I wish to nurture my future children is by setting an example for them to follow their dreams and passions. Being a parent involves sacrifice, but it is also about self-fulfillment through finding how your passions and interests can serve other people. I have a righteous desire to find a career that will allow me to do that and to teach my kids to do the same.

A correspondent and I were talking a bit about this. She said that through her divorce (which involved heavy abuse), she came to discover that she is responsible to God and to the Prophet and Apostles. She is not obligated to follow a Priesthood leader such as a husband simply because he has the Priesthood. A husband does not have authority over his wife. They are to work together as equal partners, and the wife has just as much ability to receive personal revelation for herself and the family. This correspondent also realized that half of her calling on earth was to be a mom and raise her children, but there was another almost, if not equally, as important calling. I won't say much for anonymity purposes, but I will say that it involves vocal performance. She truly believes that she is fulfilling one of her mortal and eternal purposes by following this road - being a mom and pursuing a degree that will allow her to perform for other people. She finds her fulfillment in using her talents to serve other people. She isn't restricted just to being a mom! She is being a mother in setting this example as well.

Who am I to tell my daughters that they need to stay in the home when they grow up and only pursue an education to be better mothers? Who am I to encourage my sons to pursue whatever they want and set qualifiers for my daughters? That they can only pursue something if they can do it in the home? I will not do that. I do believe that for some period of time, I will be a stay-at-home mom, but I also know that I have another calling in life. I want to pursue an education and fulfilling career that will serve others and improve the world in some small way. Some women find complete fulfillment in being stay-at-home mothers and having hobbies in the side. I think that is exceptional. This is the purpose which God has given them. God has given each one of us a different, unique purpose. We must discover what that is. A mom is not just a mom in the home, just as a father is not only a father in the home or at work. Often, people will refer to a stay-at-home dad as "playing mom." He is a father, and a mother is a mother even if she is outside the home. Do not diminish the sacred relationship that a father has with his children. It is no less special than a mother's relationship with her children. Please, please stop looking at families and women and criticizing the way they choose to spend their time and talents. You don't know their whole situation, and you don't know what's best for them or what God has set them forth to do.

I would now like to share, with permission, parts of an interview that I found truly inspirational. Let's call the interviewee Alex (made-up name). I beg you to consider Alex's point of view and the issues presented. It is truly worth the read!

5:31: M: How do you think your membership in the church has affected the general goals that you’ve set for your life…these things that we’ve been talking about?

A: I think it makes a huge difference because I strongly believe in the teachings of the church that we should aim to be the best people that we can be, and to make the most of the talents and gifts that God has given us...[talks about pursuing a career in English teaching]...I’ve always felt like that would be the best. And on a long-term perspective, I want to have a family.  I want to be a mom. And so I feel like the best - my mother was the best example of this, but to be passionate about your own life and be driven in your own goals, it’s the best way you can teach your children to do the same…If they can see that role model and example in their lives.  I think I would go absolutely stir-crazy if I was the typical housewife that didn’t leave the house and stayed here every day. And so, I want to find a balance in my life, and  I’m a woman’s studies minor, so that really affects the way that I look at things, and...they recently did a study that showed that the children who rated themselves the happiest or the most fulfilled in life were those that had two parents who both worked a combined total of under 40 hours a week, so that they were both providing income, but they were both there to be a part of their children’s lives, and that to me seems extraordinarily incredible. I would really love to have a family unit that worked that way. Granted I know that things get more complicated and you make life choices that are different, but I always feel like if I’m in consultation with the Lord, then it’ll work out. (7:27)

10:17

M:  Jacob and Sadie have been married for six years and have 3 children between the ages of 2 and 5.  Jacob has been going to school to obtain a master’s degree in English, while Sadie has already graduated with a master’s in electrical engineering. Jacob and Sadie decide that Jacob will drop out of school and stay home with the kids while Sadie goes to work for a tech company. Was this the right thing for their family to do?  Why or why not?

A: I would say yes. The person who has the more schooling could be the one to pursue a degree, and if he’s happy with it, then that’s why I would say yes.  If he feels like he’s unfulfilled pursuing his master’s degree or that it’s not taking him places that he wants to, then yes. However, it also sounds like they may have made this decision because people often sequester English into this idea that its…oh a Humanities major, so it’s harder to find jobs…It’s not harder to find jobs, you just have to learn how to market yourself right, so…if he doesn’t have a clear path, and he’s only studying literature, then it’s not going to be as easy to be like “oh I could pursue editing, or I could pursue journal writing or like journalism” or things like that, like if he doesn’t have that direct goal. Whereas, if you received a degree in electrical engineering, then it’s like…clear path into the job employment world, so. That’s kind of why it seems they would make a decision like that. But I have nothing…I have no qualms against stay-at-home dads, so.

M: Ok, can you – do you know any stay-at-home dads?

A: I do.

M: Ok, and what’s your experience with them?

A: So…in my home ward, there’s a woman who works as a lawyer, and her husband stays at home with the kids, and he just really loves it because that’s where he finds the most fulfillment. He feels like being with his kids and getting to interact with them on such a daily basis and with so much time, that’s where he finds the most joys, and she loves to be a lawyer, so that’s where they found the happy balance. It’s kind of like, I feel like sometimes we deem certain genders as the ones that are more…have a stronger proclivity towards child-rearing or raising, and I don’t think that’s fair because just because I birthed the child doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m going to be the expert in pediatric care or be the better diaper-changer or any of those number of things. I think those are skills and talents that anyone can hold and can claim. But I’m also a strong believer that housework should be shared with both parents, not just the one who isn’t pursuing a full-time career.  Because you live in the same household together. It’s kind of like being roommates. Everyone has a responsibility towards cleaning up after themselves and taking care of that. So I don’t….I don’t like the term "stay-at-home" or whatever because it starts to label them as, like, a primary home…provide – or like primary home taker-carer-of…there’s not a word for that…I cannot think of a word. But that kind of mindset really frustrates me.

M: So in this situation, what duties does Sadie have to her family?

A: To be a home as much as possible when she’s not at work, but because she is the primary financial provider, then it is to devote herself to her job as strongly as possible. Just like any spouse would do to make sure that you’ve found a balance between work and the home life as best as possible.

M: And what duties does Jacob have to his family?

A: To make sure that things are running smoothly in the house as far as the children are going and because he is the one that is primarily at home, it is his responsibility to make sure that the schedule is maintained for both of them. I feel like that’s a really important balance in a family life. But he’s not necessarily one that has to have the meal on the table when she comes in the door or has to be the one who does all the laundry.  They need to balance that out according to the time that they have together.

M: How would this situation change if Jacob were handicapped and that is why he’s unable to pursue a degree...or to pursue a career. Would this situation change at all?

A: No. My mother has a disability, and there’s actually a stay-at-home father in my ward as well that has a disability, and I haven’t seen it affect them in those ways. Um, my mother was just as capable of pursuing different avenues, you know, as she chose to do so. And sometimes it can limit mobility issues, so every time we would move as a family, we always bought a one-story house because my mom has crutches, and so up and down stairs….and she tore her ACL a few years ago, so we call her the football player, but she…stairs are just really difficult. And so it was like one-floor home is the only option. But I mean it depends upon the person because it’s usually independence or motivation that makes the change. So the stay-at-home dad that’s in my ward is an extremely independently motivated individual and he continues to do everything in the same situations, it’s just more of a sensitivity towards certain tasks or things that cannot be formed, if that makes sense. Both my mother and this father in our ward, um, can drive, they can get themselves around the house easily, they can take care of the kids, like all of those sorts of things. (15:24)

15:33: M: What might you say to someone who says that it’s still his responsibility to try to pursue a career because he is the father, as best as he can even though he is handicapped, and to fulfill his role as given by, let’s say church doctrine...fulfill his gender role as a man? What would you say to that?

A: I would say that’s a…the trouble that I have, and that actually comes specifically from the Proclamation to the Family where it says that it’s the father’s responsibility to be the main provider. But then there’s that great line at the very end that said this should be worked through an individual basis with each family and in consultation with the Lord. Because I feel like anytime you make a gender-blanketed statement, you’re going down a dark path. Where you say that, you know, all men should love sports or all men should want a career that is financially stabilizing or sufficient for their families. I feel like that’s really damaging and really difficult to say, just like the blanket statement of all men should serve missions. Well, what about those who have medical conditions, what about those, you know, like, XYZ that makes it so that they can’t do that. So I struggle when people say it’s still his responsibility to find a job, because if he has prayed about it, and he feels like the best path he can pursue is to be at home, then why not?  And…if we really are sincere in what we say with the idea that the roles of the mother and father as the main one to stay at home and the main provider for the family, that they’re equal roles, then why would it not be equal if they were reversed between the two genders? I feel like if they are really on equal playing fields and we treat them as such, then we should do so if it’s swapped with the genders. (17:15)

Robert and Katie have been dating for about a year. Robert has hopes to become a violinist, while Katie has aspirations to be a photographer for National Geographic. They have talked about having children immediately when they get married, but nothing is official. Can they still achieve their professional goals?

19:19: A: Oh, that’s a difficult…I can’t make decision like that, it just like makes me cringe inside, because I feel like I have this strong passion and a belief that pursuing a career is not strictly for monetary reasons, it comes from a desire to want to benefit society….to be beneficiary to the world in which you are a part of, and I feel like both of those are such excellent choices. But to be honest, like if I was to say one would be more flexible or more possible than the other, I feel like being a professional photographer would be easier to manage than being a professional violinist. Because being a photographer, you’re not limited to your surroundings, you can find things to photograph in your area. But being a violinist you’re limited to specific performing groups that you could find, and if you live in certain areas, then it can be even more difficult because there’s only local groups, whereas you wouldn’t be in a metropolitan area where you could pursue lots of different companies or orchestras or those kind of things.  Unless he was to tap into a technology-performance-based avenue. Then otherwise I feel like it would be the more beneficial to be a photographer….that’s difficult.

M: So do their plans to have children basically immediately to get married…does that have anything to do with who should continue their career?

A: Yeah, it does.  I mean, especially for her, because if she’s pregnant, then it’s going to be more difficult for her to pursue…she can still, you know, actually participate…we see people on campus all the time who are still pursuing their degrees and who are, you know, about to breach and you’re thinking [laughter through words] “why are you sitting in this classroom? Go home and put your feet up. Your body just must be exhausted.” That’s honestly what I think every time, I’m like, “I have a ton of respect for you, but I would be taking an online course. I would not be in this room.” And I don’t…I would never judge someone who would take semester off to do something like that, like that would be really wonderful, but you’re right because of the fact that you know she would be the one that’s actually giving birth to said child, then it makes a huge difference. And there’s the fact, well she has an upper leg when it comes to pursuing a career because the U.S. has better maternity leave policies for employees than they do paternity leave policies. And so if he wanted to be actively involved in that familial role, it would be extremely difficult for him, especially as a violinist. I doubt that companies and unions have great paternity leave options.  We’re like thirteenth in the world for offering  those kinds of things, which is just absolutely mortifying to me, but I think for her it would definitely be more difficult in actually giving birth to said children. (22:05)

[Upon being asked if the fact that Katie would make more than Robert has anything to do with who should continue pursuing a career, putting aside the children situation for a bit.]

22:22: A: I wish I could say no, but I feel like in this society and the economic difficulties that we live in, I would say yes.  It would make it so that hers would be the more lucrative, the more beneficial option for the two of them. And that’s usually where it comes down to for typical male-female relationships, but, the man tends to make more. In the state of Utah right now, in Provo, a woman makes 64 cents to every dollar a man makes on average, and that makes a huge difference in this economy. 40 cents can make or break somebody’s, you know, per hour, it can make or break something in a quite extreme way, so that’s usually why families decide, “well you’re gonna make more money because of XYZ, so you should be the one to pursue the career.” But we also have the weird bubble in Utah with so many return missionaries, that it’s actually really extraordinary to watch the number of working wives for the first few years of marriage while their husband continues to pursue their bachelor’s because they’re so far behind in education. That’s the way my parents worked. My mom was 23 when they got married, and my father was 21, so, he couldn’t complete – and he obviously was not more lucrative than my mom because he didn’t have his bachelor’s degree finished. So she was the one that worked ‘cause she could make more money than my dad could.

M: And bringing children back into the equation, would that still be the case?

A: Absolutely. Because children are [laughing]…I want to have children, but I definitely recognize that they are just an absolute drain on financial resources. That’s the way it works because to raise a child today, it’s so expensive to have diapers, to have clothing, to feed, you know, to, if you want education then you’re paying for preschool,  and you’re paying for better school districts, and school fees are out the window, you know, just all those things. It would absolutely make a difference.

M: So if she can earn more money as a photographer than he can as a violinist, but they are planning on having children right away, should she still pursue…?

A: I would stay yes, because he could be the one to be the stay-at-home parent with their children. He could be the active presence in the home, and then she could continue to pursue her career, but they could, I mean, there’s a way to strike a balance, that I’m, there’s a movement starting in the U.S., and unfortunately the things that I discuss, they come from a very 1^st-world socioeconomic status basis. You can’t feasibly achieve these if you’re a black woman in the United States, you’re in the worst demographic you could possibly be in…a black single mother, I’m sorry, I should say. You will make almost no money, and you will be the one who needs the most money for her children, which is just absolutely horrifying to me. So a lot of these things that I talk about, it’s very much like a 1^st-world perspective…very idealistic. But to achieve, it’s being called third-path parenting, where both parents work part-time jobs, and they do it on a rotational schedule. So someone works in the morning and someone works in the evening, and then that way one parent is home at those two different times. That sounds really wonderful to me, but that’s also looking at it from the perspective of when they’re from the ages of 0 to 5, because after about 5 years old, you have an 8-3 window every day where the children are not home, and that you have the freedom to pursue, you know, a career, or path, or at-home job, any of those kinds of things. So it starts to become much more flexible the older that your children are because of the school districts. (25:49)

 26:45: M: What does the gospel teach about gender roles? What are we taught that is gospel doctrine about gender roles?

A: It depends on what sources you’re looking to. It really does. If you’re looking at "A Proclamation to the Family," I have a strong testimony and a strong belief in the importance of being a mother and motherhood and those roles that they play, but I really become wary when people start to say that motherhood is the binary of the Priesthood, because fatherhood is the binary of motherhood, not the Priesthood.  And the Priesthood to me represents the power to act in God’s name on this earth, and I don’t have an answer for why men hold the Priesthood and women don’t.  I simply understand that we have equal access to the blessings and opportunities of the Priesthood. And with that basis, that’s where I work from.  I remind myself that everybody has that equal opportunity, and I always remind myself that men cannot perform Priesthood ordinances for themselves, that it is purely a service-oriented position, and so that’s the comfort, I guess, that I draw from. But from that perspective it means that we are on equal footing in God’s eyes, regardless of gender. And I think sometimes in the church we also limit ourselves into saying that there are two genders – that there is male and that there is female, and that we all fall into certain specificity to those two genders because we have to take into account the people who are born into this world that don’t identify with their gender. And the church handbook has a bunch of specific stipulations for those individuals to follow and to decide how they should live their lives to the best, especially people who are both born with both genitalia – you know, how do they identify themselves? Male, female…and the church has specific guidelines for that, to work with bishops and to say this should be a prayerful decision, and when they’re at the age of accountability they should make the decision as to which gender they feel that they align themselves with best. I can’t imagine how difficult that would be in this life. We don’t realize how ingrained our gender stereotypes are, and unfortunately I feel like, this is where I struggle.

The doctrine in the church on gender stereotypes changed drastically in about 1950 because the church really moved with the bandwagon of the American movement to encourage stay-at-home mothers because there were so many women working in the field during WWII that they wanted to push them back into the homes so that the men who came home from war could have positions again. And so this was rhetoric that was being shoved at you from every corner, that they had all these propaganda posters that said “Thanks, women, we didn’t know you could do it.” And it was like, “okay, now you’re gonna go back home.” And that’s where you get the 1950’s housewife. That’s where that birth, that era, comes into play. Prior to that in the church, every single person had talked about the willingness and greatness of women working outside of their home. Eliza R. Snow, Emmaline B. Wells, all of them hadlives outside of their homes. Brigham actually encouraged most of the mothers to get nannies to take care of their children so they could continue to pursue public spheres, but that’s also because he had a lot of fears about plural marriage reflecting poorly on women’s ability to have liberty and have freedom. So he wanted them to be out and working. So in that time period, those early years of the church, Joseph especially and Brigham – they were gung ho about women having equal opportunity for working, and that there was more of an equal playing field in the gender binaries. Then we move into the 1950’s where it’s like we have to find this stability once more; we have to  have this squeaky clean perfect image of a family unit, and so “women you stay at home and this is your option.”

And I’ve seen that evolve in the church recently, like with Elder Cook’s talk, "LDS Women are Incredible!", where he said, “Do not ever judge a woman for working. Everyone makes their own choices.” And so I don’t feel like we stick as – I wanna use a word like paranoia, but it doesn’t work as well in that sentence.  Like we have this paranoia that women have to be primary nurturers and providers because they are the ones that birthed the children and that’s the thing that makes sense and that men are supposed to be the ones that provide for their families in almost a very caveman-like perspective, that they are ones that are gonna hunker down and guard the home. And to me that’s just laughable. I just don’t understand that because from what I understand and from my true testimony of the Lord, I don’t understand why He would want to create something that was somehow lesser. There’s this great quote from Elder Kimball that says, “I don’t believe that we should trust the words in Genesis that Eve came from Adam’s rib.” He says, “I think that was misinterpreted and we believe that scripture should be translated correctly,” because that – that’s the moment you can point to Eve as the moment when people started to say women are somehow lesser and men are somehow more, and that a woman is supposed to try and become like a man.

But in LDS theology, we have this really great perspective that there are two divine beings that are our Heavenly parents, and so that [means] that women [are] trying to be like Heavenly Mother. That’s your eternal goal and that’s what you want to obtain, is to be like her, and then in that equal partnership together, being the eternal family unit that raises children and bear that. That is a completely different idea from Christian theology to frame that there is actually a female deity, and that’s why the Catholic church latches so strongly onto Mary, ‘cause Mary is this female image that a woman can finally say “I have a spiritual place,” but with Heavenly Mother, it just changes our frame so much greater, and there’s really great beauty that it comes from Eliza R. Snow in conversation with Joseph, so that this is something coming from a woman asking questions about her divinity rather than “This is a man’s [sic] on the way that it’s going to be shaped for both genders”. Sorry, that was a lot. (32:35)

32:44: M: Can you summarize the Family: A Proclamation to the World?

A: "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" points specifically to the way that Adam and Eve were created and their specific roles that they were given by God. And it points specifically to the importance of the family, that we want to maintain the family unit, and that we as Christians will unite with others of the same beliefs to maintain that order. And then it points specifically to the idea that a man is a primary provider for his family... [skip]... and then it simply says that women should be the primary nurturers and they watch over their children, essentially. [skip] But then it discusses the idea that anything like disability or family death or differences of circumstances, divorce, any of those things, can alter the shape in which we run the family. And then it points to the idea that we believe in the Savior as kind of bringing this cohesiveness together and that this is where we try to be more like Him in creating our family units. (33:51)

When asked how the Proclamation shaped her education: [Women do have an ability to nurture and to love and to care. She wants to do this both in her career goals and her family. Not feminine or masculine attributes, but Christlike attributes.  Nurture and care for and love other people like he did.]

33:55: M: How has the Proclamation influenced your educational career goals?


A: It made a huge difference for me because I look at it and I point to it, and I see that there is absolute truth that women have an, on the aver- (I’m not going to say on the whole, because I don’t believe that every single woman comes into this world feeling like she is the nurturer. I feel like from a sociological perspective we definitely understand that your interactions with other human beings make a huge difference, so if you come from a home with parents who didn’t care, it’s going to make a big difference in the way that you respond to the idea of having a family yourself.)  But on the average, I would say that women have an ability to nurture and to love and to care. For me that means that I wanted to nurture and to love and to care in both my career goals and in my family goals. So teaching is a beautiful way to do that. And I see those as not feminine attributes or masculine attributes, but I see them as Christ-like attributes. So I see them as…if I want to become more like Christ, I wanna be more like my Savior. How can I do that? It’s to nurture and to love and to care for other people just like He did. So that shapes the way that I want to be as an individual because I want to be more nurturing and caring. But at the same time, the Proclamation also teaches me a great deal of respect and tolerance and love for other people’s choices in their families because it’s a constant reminder that every single person has a different situation. We all face different challenges in life, and so if one family unit decides to do it one way and another tries to do it a different way, whatever they feel works best for them. And I’ll leave the Lord to be the one to make the judgment calls on whether or not they made the right decisions, ‘cause I’m in no way qualified to make those kinds of judgments.

M: Thank you. And then finally, have you ever experienced any kind of conflict with these things that we’ve been talking about...the roles set forth by the Proclamation? Have you ever felt any kind of conflict or fear or anything that would …that you felt inhibited..?

A: Absolutely. All the time. There are moments when you feel like...I had a professor who used to describe it as, like, an innate fear that you feel like if you’re not the perfect mom, then you’ve somehow failed. Or that if you’re not fulfilling those roles that you’re somehow lesser or incapable of doing so. And it’s interesting because it’s not just the Proclamation to the Family, but it’s also the words of the prophets and the apostles.  So when Elder Holland gets up and talks about the family, and he says that “My primary goal as an apostle is to be a father first and then turn to my other responsibilities,” it’s just like my whole heart rejoices. It’s this incredible feeling inside when I hear Elder Holland speak, and he was the first president of BYU to ever speak in combination with his wife. Every devotional they gave together. And that patterned it for President Samuelson. He doesn’t do it the same because Sister Samuelson usually speaks for a short time, and then he speaks for a lot. But Elder Holland and Sister Holland used to speak simultaneously. And that to me is the beautiful idea companionate relationships. But then when Elder Packer speaks, it’s like my heart hurts. It’s like I don’t know how I fit into his idea and his mindset. And it’s a constant reminder that there’s a reason we have twelve apostles and not just one, or that we have fifteen leaders of the church because they all come from different backgrounds, and they all have different ideas, and  Elder Packer and his wife never went on dates when they were married. They only stayed in the home together all the time. And my living prophets professor said as a marriage and family therapy counselor, “I would never suggest that to anyone, but if that’s what works for them, that was the right thing.” They had nine children. Sister Packer has always been a very silent, passive role in their relationship, and to me I look at that and think I couldn’t be Sister Packer. That not where I cling or understand, and it doesn’t match anything it says in my Patriarchal blessing. It just says it’s in conflict for me. But that’s that moment where it’s like, okay. We have different perspectives on the way that gender works, and maybe I relate better to Elder Holland and President Uchtdorf. I relate better to their perspectives, but that’s okay because the Proclamation points to the idea that it’s okay for it to be specific circumstance and each individual to work it out on their own. So I say if that’s what worked for Elder Packer and his wife, then that’s what made sense for them (which by the way, they grew up in the height of the 1950’s turn towards the normal family) then that’s great because that’s what they resonated with. But for me as someone who was born with the time and age and the perspective of the history of it, I look at it and say to myself “I wanna be Sister Uchtdorf or Patricia Holland rather than…” If that makes sense.  Sorry, I pulled that into the apostles but it goes, it goes with the ideas, that mindset.” (38:45)

Thank you, Alex, for saying so much that's in my head but that I can't articulate!

A few final thoughts to wrap up:

I won't write a long schpeal about the final issue at hand in this post - just a few thoughts. Concerning the new feminist movement in the church to ordain women to the Priesthood...I don't know why women don't have the Priesthood. And I personally don't believe we will be ordained. I don't believe it's part of a woman's role on earth, and I don't see any inequality in that.  Like I said, part of feminism is being okay with different gender roles...but not letting social and cultural impediments stop your personal progress. This idea doesn't seek to change the doctrine...only the minds of people who may not understand less prevalent interpretations of the doctrine.  I understand the frustrations and feelings of inequality going on and the desire for more discussion on this topic. Again, I don't think this movement is starting with maliciousness. Many people are saying that all races eventually received the Priesthood...maybe women will as well. I think, though, that this is different. I believe our leaders, including President Monson and the Apostles, have the members' best interests at heart. They are aware of our feelings, our struggles, our desires. I am putting full faith in the idea that they have been praying about issues like this and know what they are doing. I trust the men that the Lord has placed to be in charge of His church here on earth.  They love us and want the best for us. If you feel disadvantaged or angry, seek guidance from local leaders, and most importantly, from Heavenly Father.

Now...just to let you know, I have heard it all. I see guys get automatically turned off when they hear about my academic interests and my drive for a career. I guess that will just help me weed out the guys faster haha. I know a lot of women feel the same way as me. Women. You are getting an education not only to possibly be a mother (for some of us will never know motherhood, or possibly even marriage), but to go on a personal journey. You  are here to discover yourself, to improve yourself, expand your mind, find a calling, serve others, learn to be more like your Savior, and to thrive. To learn how to love with all your heart and to learn how to serve your brothers and sisters. Each individual is unique and profoundly wonderful in his or her own way. I know that both men and women feel unique social pressures in this church. I am in no way diminishing the struggles of men or saying that all men view women in the ways that have been discussed above. I am simply trying to relate some of my personal discoveries and passions to reach someone who may be feeling the same way. Do not let cultural inhibitions get in the way of your self-fulfillment and calling in life.