Feminist theorist Deborah Cameron coined the term "unambiguous woman" when she read this quote in Writing a Woman's Life, "What does it mean to be unambiguously a woman? It means to put a man at the center of one's life and to allow to occur only what honors his prime position. One's own desires and quests are always secondary." For me the "man" isn't a husband, I don't have one of those, but it is the idea of a husband, it's a father, male colleagues, clergy, and even God. "Man" is the symbol of male authority itself, the collective rule of men in general.
"There is a limit to our spiritual development as long as we are single. There is a spiritual development which can only be obtained when a man and a woman join their incomplete selves into a complete couple...Although single men and women can accomplish great things on their own, they are incomplete until united intellectually, emotionally, physically and most important, spiritually."
~ The church is made up of a large percentage of single people. I can't believe that I'll NEVER fully be the best person I can be without marriage. I no longer believe that I need a man to make me more spiritual, intellectual, and saved. Please don't misunderstand me. I look forward to a beautiful marriage, but not having one is not going to make me EVER feel incomplete. EVER.
Referring to the phrase, "men have the priesthood and women have been given the blessing of procreation," Elder Pace spoke of the importance of each role in a relationship, and the ability couples have to complement one another in their eternal roles.
~ This is always the pat on the head that women are given in the church. "But you get to be MOTHERS? That's why men are in charge." The fallacies of this argument are many. The least of which is that MEN, too, are given the blessing of procreation (I mean, women, we don't do this alone do we?)
"Sisters, I testify that when you stand in front of your heavenly parents in those royal courts on high and you look into Her eyes and behold Her countenance, any question you ever had about the role of women in the kingdom will evaporate into the rich celestial air, because at that moment you will see standing directly in front of you, your divine nature and destiny."
~While I think this is a beautiful paragraph, I can't help but feel as if he is telling women NOT to question their role because he's given them the promise that it will all be sorted out in heaven. I just think that is a lame answer. Men don't have to wait until heaven to know Father in Heaven. He's present and explained in every facet of the religion. Women don't get the same knowledge and goals to aim for.
~I think this talk brings up a lot more questions than it answers. Yes, he says that when women see Heavenly Mother all our questions about women's role in the Plan of Salvation will be answered. But he gives no hint to what that answer will be and from the rest of his talk it really seems like women's divine destiny is only to be a comforter with no comparable power to men.
Hmmm...thoughts? What role does patriarchy play in your religion?
13 comments:
I love that my religion's Presiding Bishop (over the US) and the state's bishop are both women.
I find the comment about not being fully spiritual unless you're in a partnership to be really confounding -- um, wasn't Jesus single?
Stina: Jesus's marital status is generally believed to be single, but there are a substantial number in the LDS sphere that believe otherwise.
Stella: While I think that Pace's comments on marriage were just a typical reiteration of 1 Corinthians 11:11 and that the relative "power" contained in priesthood and childbirth (not procreation) can only be evaluated subjectively, I have to agree with your overall sentiment.
Assuming that the CN synopsis of the talk is accurate, I think you put it well when you said, "...he gives no hint to what that answer will be and from the rest of his talk it really seems like women's divine destiny is only to be a comforter." How patronizing.
I'd like to believe that Holman and Lunt presented a skewed version of the devotional, but I'm afraid odds of that are poor. I'll have to read the full talk when it comes out; I owe the author at least that much.
I think it's clear that Pace is speaking from a very very old reference frame, and I find it sad that many people accept it as the modern standard.
As for me personally, patriarchy is minimal in my religion. I do picture God as a man, but if I one day learned that was not the case, I would not be remotely affected. I really could care less about the sex of leadership and deity. (What I do care about is what said group has to say about the purpose of my existence.)
I didn't know that there were those within the LDS church who think that Jesus was married!? That seems surprising in a DaVinci Code/Mary Magdalene kind of way. Do they refer to the Gnostic gospels to support their theory?
“For the first thirty years of my life, I tried to cultivate the unambiguous woman in me, because I was taught that that was what I should be. I was advised to drop my pre-med studies because I needed to focus on becoming a mother. I was told that I wouldn't need a career because if I was faithful in my religion, God would give me a good husband who would take care of all my needs.”
I am so troubled that this is what you were taught as an LDS girl! Though we lived a couple of blocks away, my upbringing was different. I, too, was encouraged to get married and be a mother. But I was never told to give up my dreams to find a man. I was never told that if I was good and faithful, I wouldn’t need a career because God would give me a man. That is preposterous! But as we were in the same religion, in the same vicinity, at the same time, it makes me wonder how we got different messages. Were there more people in your religious experience who tried to engrain these things into you? And is that LDS doctrine or is that what sexist LDS individuals believe? I don’t think LDS doctrine espouses telling people the things you were told.
I am troubled somewhat by a couple of your interpretations of the sentences you have posted.
"Women have a sacred role in the sanctification and purification of men"
It’s very limiting to equate this to “women exist FOR men.” “A sacred role” not their only role and end all and be all. I agree, I would feel a whole lot better if he had also discussed the role men have in the sanctification and purification of men as well. But it seems from the other quotes you posted that what he is really saying is that men and women need each other to be sanctified. Which makes sense in the context of the LDS doctrine, which says you only get to the highest place in heaven if you are married. I can see why you would not agree with that piece of doctrine. But there is an equality to it.
"There is a limit to our spiritual development as long as we are single. There is a spiritual development which can only be obtained when a man and a woman join their incomplete selves into a complete couple...Although single men and women can accomplish great things on their own, they are incomplete until united intellectually, emotionally, physically and most important, spiritually."
Again, this fits in the context of LDS doctrine where only sealed individuals reach the highest kingdom. And again, that may not be something with which everyone agrees. But I also don’t think he’s limiting this quote to this life. Tons of people are single and fabulous and can achieve fulfillment in this life and I think the church recognizes this. (Or just hope and wish.)
Hang on there's more!
I do think God recognizes this. Even if a lot of the individuals in the church are sexist and wrong. I'm so not going to disagree that there are a lot of hard headed patriarchs in the church. I was speaking with one of my single sisters last night who shared a story about how her single friend, who is in a stake young women's presidency calling, was in a meeting where the man in charge said that singles could not chaperone a YW/YM dance because they don't want "creepy" single people sitting on the sidelines. He thought couples who would get out there and dance would be setting a good example for the kids who may be too shy to dance. If this man did not know a youth, he wanted to be able to talk to the couple in the youths’ ward, so he could better approach the youth. This same man then had the GALL to admit that his wife would be out of town the night of the dance and he would be going alone. Talk about creepy guy going up to kids he doesn't know at a dance and talking with them! My sister’s friend stood up to him in the meeting and it became heated. But good for her!
The point is, individuals in the church sometimes suck. Even some leaders. However, that may be just the people and not how God really thinks or LDS doctrine. After telling me this story, my sister said that she felt comfort from a talk by president Holland, who reminds us that the church preaches the ideal, knowing that most people do not fit that. It's hard because in doing so, there ends up being a lot of guilt and frustration. But I don’t think that guilt is from God. I appreciate that my sister’s friend stood up. I wish more sisters in the church would stand up and that things really would start to change.
this teaching/mentality assumes at least three things:
1. our growth as PEOPLE is based on fallible humans and not an infallible God.
2. that ALL people are called to marriage. the bible says that entering marriage is a decision, not a requirement.
3. all women AND men are capable of bearing children. i mean arent some men and women sterile?
even as a male i find this troubling.(and i hate that i have to preface that statement with 'even as a male.) i dont look at God as a male, but as God.
"Sisters, I testify that when you stand in front of your heavenly parents in those royal courts on high and you look into Her eyes and behold Her countenance, any question you ever had about the role of women in the kingdom will evaporate into the rich celestial air, because at that moment you will see standing directly in front of you, your divine nature and destiny."
i wrote something a while back dealing with the issue of questioning. a huge red flag goes up for me when people are told NOT to question things. isnt questioning a part of this intellectual, spiritual, etc growth?
voltaire said, 'judge a man by his questions, not his answers.'
Stina, I love that your religion is accepting women in various roles. I'm curious, was it a battle that was fought for a long time? When did they become open to the idea.
Also, yes, Jesus as married is taught in LDS doctrine because the doctrine creates a loop hole by saying ALL people who go to the highest degree of heaven HAVE to be married....oops, we can't leave JESUS out of heaven, ergo...he's probably married.
Saule,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. I really appreciate that you took time to read about the article and my blog. I agree, I will read the entire devotional when it is in print and then I will most likely write on exponent about it.
I have stopped thinking of God as having a gender assigned as well. It's opened up a lot of ways for me to deal with God on friendlier terms than I did at church.
Curious---what is the purpose of your existence as set forth by your religion?
Sammy, you have valid points, my friend, very valid. I want to thank you for all that you said. When I began to question my religion I was SHOCKED by how upset and appalled many people got at me even ENTERTAINING the questions/thoughts that I had. But I was ok with it because I kept thinking--my goodness people--we are talking about GOD here--can't God hold up to all of my puny little questions?
The truth was, he didn't, at least not for me, and thus I've had to reassess and redefine God for myself and I feel much better about that.
I know people think that is pompous and awful of me, but it's how I've had to handle it.
Don't worry though--I won't be off starting my own religion!!
Skippy, I am going to try and respond to some of your points.
First of all--I give God ALL the credit in the world for understanding us and knowing us and all the little problems that human have to deal with.
I just don't know if I see God directing religion anymore. How could we justify that? I think that organized religions all try very hard, but I don't see any of them hitting it just right (and yes, I know how I must sound saying negative things about Organized religion). I think religion helps certain people and I think it hurts other people. I am becoming ok with this reality. Not all people need ONE thing.
However, since women have been second class to men throughout the beginning of time (starting with Eve) then I have to wonder what this is all about. A test for women? I'm still trying to place this in the grand scheme of the world. Why would God continue to direct organized religion to treat women this way? I just don't buy it anymore. I have a feeling God wants more for us than that.
The simple fact is that single women are at the bottle of the totem pole in the LDS church and I just don't know the way of ramifying that situation. However, I still stay hopeful, but talks like this don't help.
And yes, my one liner about women existing for men is trite and cheeky, but really, isn't that the gist of Genesis and the creation of Eve? Isn't that the reason men have felt validated in placing women to certain roles and standards? Hasn't it been painted as part of the "plan?"
I don’t think God directs organized religion to treat women as less than men. But there are a few things to think about here. As I was pointing out, I think individuals are conditioned by culture and have been from the beginning of time to treat women as less than men. In ALL societies, ALL governments, in ALL cultures, throughout time. This is not just the LDS church or just organized religion. Inequality seems to be the nature of people. So then to equate that to mean God must not direct organized religion is far fetched. He allows it to happen in all situations and continues to allow it to happen in organized religion. For what reason, I could not say. As you suggest, maybe it’s some kind of test. Maybe it’s not that important. Maybe He knows things will all work out in the end. Why does He allow any bad thing to happen? Everyone has their agency and apparently this leads to relegation of women to lesser status than men. Culture is so engrained, it’s taken thousands of years for things to get any better. Then individuals in the LDS church are probably not going to change overnight, as enlightened as things are getting.
I do not believe God directs the church to treat women poorly. It’s all about what you think is equal and fair. I struggled a lot with the Adam and Eve story this weekend. Again, it’s a tale told by a man, handed down through generations of men. Possibly skewed? But in the LDS church, the end result of life is that women and men are equal. Even though Eve must hearken unto her husband and Adam hearkens unto the Lord. That seems hierarchal and has been skewed by imperfect individuals so that men dominate over women. But in REALITY, the relationship is triangular and dependent. Men and women have power in different spheres. And though some men would like to have power of women and vice versa, when they work together, they have it all. Again, that doesn’t appear to play out in every day activity and not in all talks given in the church or treatment of women. But I think it’s because it’s all contingent on everyone being perfect. Perfect men and perfect women, perfectly interpreting the will of the Lord, perfectly serving all. Without jealousy or domineering, without coveting or guilt. We are far from that. I agree, single women in the church are the low man on the totem pole and I don’t think that’s what God wants for them. But I don’t think it’s His doing so much as imperfect people not being open minded enough to accept what single women can offer.
hank you SO much Skippy for your comment. I hope that mine didn't come across as blaming God for any of the imperfection of religion. I guess I just question the LDS religion because they are the main ones claiming direct revelation from God...so it makes me continuously wonder just WHEN the church would be ready to receive the revelation that women should be treated more equally and patriarchy should be done with. Because those revelations don't come, I sometimes question the politics behind the institution.
I think all of the things you said are so spot on. It's something that happens (and has happened) since the beginning of time--this treatment of women. God, to be God, would obviously be for the equal and fair treatment of EVERYONE...women, men, gay women, gay men, children, black, white, red, blue....but this does not happen in organized religion...at least, not quite yet...but again...maybe?
For me, at least lately, I have had a lot to overcome in the past two years with the tiresome logic of several ideologies of the LDS church (the only one I've really ever attended with frequency and dedication) and it became better for my sanity and for my inner peace to distance myself from the things that troubled me for the time being. I feel I am learning, growing, and gaining a deeper understanding into my own divinity and godhood outside of the religion than I did inside of the religion because inside the religion I saw myself as having to fit a certain box. Outside of the religion I am free from labels and expectations and cultural cliches...whether this new me will be able to go back to organized religion is something I leave wide open and without a fixed answer.
Anyway, so glad we can talk like this!
Post a Comment