Mormon Misogyny

[_barrelomonkeys]

He has been taught from his youth to view women as weak, incapable and beneath him in every way - as objects who exist to serve men - bearing their children, cooking their meals, cleaning their houses - and aren't really fit for anything else.

I didn't catch this the first read through. How precisely, in your opinion, are young men taught to view women as "weak, incapable, and beneath" them?

[_truth dancer]

and the gap is wider in the LDS Church than in the general public.

I didn't realize this... do you have stats on this? Do you know why?

~dancer~

[_Doctor Steuss]

and the gap is wider in the LDS Church than in the general public.

I didn't realize this... do you have stats on this? Do you know why?

~dancer~

Just musing here... but perhaps it has to do with hombres spending 2 years in Botswana while the senoritas are at BYU.

[_The Nehor]

and the gap is wider in the LDS Church than in the general public.

I didn't realize this... do you have stats on this? Do you know why?

~dancer~

Here's a brief article on President Hinckley's statement with the stats he quoted in that talk. http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3853

I can't find the statistics I read not too long ago. While LDS men and women attend college in greater numbers than their non-LDS peers there were more LDS women than LDS males.

I read a poll done in Utah studying LDS in particular. The reasons for low enrollment by men were never entirely explained though Missionary Work and the lower age of marrying were suggested. This doesn't tell the whole story though as LDS women tend to get married even younger than the men. Sorry, I tried every Google search I could think of. Call it anecdotal for now ;)

Another thing to note about President Hinckley's talk. I just listened to the audio. It was said in a very tongue-in-cheek way and the message was for directionless Priests and RM's to stop being losers (It was in Priesthood session).

Here was one person's reading: “So, you’re planning to marry above yourselves, eh? Because you’re lazy? Well, the scriptures speak of being equally yoked and no highly educated woman should be tied down to a slug like you, unless you get off your duff and get educated as well.”

I'm also wondering whether there's a deeper issue. I'm speaking VERY generally here. But from all I've read women care more about how smart a man they're in a relationship with is than the man cares how smart the woman is. I've seen this to be true being in the single's scene for so long. I like to think I'm an exception because smart women are HOT but it's hard to judge yourself as I'm very biased.

[_The Nehor]

Just musing here... but perhaps it has to do with hombres spending 2 years in Botswana while the senoritas are at BYU.

That could be the issue but the men tend to marry girls 1-3 years younger in general in the LDS faith meaning the senoritas do not have that much of a headstart before a relationship kicks in.

[_KimberlyAnn]

He has been taught from his youth to view women as weak, incapable and beneath him in every way - as objects who exist to serve men - bearing their children, cooking their meals, cleaning their houses - and aren't really fit for anything else.

I didn't catch this the first read through. How precisely, in your opinion, are young men taught to view women as "weak, incapable, and beneath" them?

I only have a minute, so I'll quickly give you a condensed reply and get back with more later. I promised to take the kids to the pool and it finally stopped raining this afternoon.

First, the exclusion of women from the priesthood, and therefore all positions of authority, automatically makes females subordinate to males. This subordination of females to males begins at the age of twelve when young boys first get the priesthood. The boys are the head of all dance committees, activities committees and any other activity that combines males and females. At least that's the way it was in my ward. They had the priesthood. The priesthood directed all the activities of the church, including Young Women's and Relief Society. There is no auxiliary in the Mormon church that isn't controlled by men, and again, it starts at the age of 12!

Girls and boys are taught that the proper place for a woman is in the home and that a woman's primary value is her ability to have children, which of course she can't do without a husband. As girls, we were taught in church activities how to cook and clean and care for children. The boys noticed this. They were busy planning extravagant scouting activities, like mountain climbing, while the girls were learning how to make crafts and change diapers.

In Young Women's, it was emphasized that nothing, including higher education, should come before marriage and children. I was specifically taught, like Blixa, that girls could educate themselves right out of a man! The boys, obviously, hear things from the President of the Mormon church that make it sound demeaning for men to marry women with more education than themselves.

Men make covenants with God in the temple. The women make covenants to their husbands.

Some LDS fathers pass on "authority" over their daughters to their daughter's new husbands when they get married. I was witness to two such blessings.

That's the short list. I need to run...er, swim. :)

KA

PS - One more quick thing: Boys are taught that non-virginal girls are gross and that they're "licked cupcakes". Girls are not taught that non-virginal boys are gross. At least I never was. But it was made clear to me that if I were to become a licked cupcake that no one would want me.

[_why me]

He has been taught from his youth to view women as weak, incapable and beneath him in every way - as objects who exist to serve men - bearing their children, cooking their meals, cleaning their houses - and aren't really fit for anything else.

I didn't catch this the first read through. How precisely, in your opinion, are young men taught to view women as "weak, incapable, and beneath" them?

I don't believe they are taught so. But for KimberlyAnn that is not important. What is important is her own perception or lack of perception on the matter. People are encouraged to get an education, period. This applies to men as to women. Kimberly is blowing a lot of smoke in her posts. I know many highly educated LDS women. I also know many educated home bound moms. KimberlyAnn just has an ax to grind. She needs to head on over to Feministmormonhousewive.org to see the real picture. She would find that LDS women are a very diverse group of people.

[_why me]

I only have a minute, so I'll quickly give you a condensed reply and get back with more later. I promised to take the kids to the pool and it finally stopped raining this afternoon.

First, the exclusion of women from the priesthood, and therefore all positions of authority, automatically makes females subordinate to males. This subordination of females to males begins at the age of twelve when young boys first get the priesthood. The boys are the head of all dance committees, activities committees and any other activity that combines males and females. At least that's the way it was in my ward. They had the priesthood. The priesthood directed all the activities of the church, including Young Women's and Relief Society. There is no auxiliary in the Mormon church that isn't controlled by men, and again, it starts at the age of 12!

Girls and boys are taught that the proper place for a woman is in the home and that a woman's primary value is her ability to have children, which of course she can't do without a husband. As girls, we were taught in church activities how to cook and clean and care for children. The boys noticed this. They were busy planning extravagant scouting activities, like mountain climbing, while the girls were learning how to make crafts and change diapers.

In Young Women's, it was emphasized that nothing, including higher education, should come before marriage and children. I was specifically taught, like Blixa, that girls could educate themselves right out of a man! The boys, obviously, hear things from the President of the Mormon church that make it sound demeaning for men to marry women with more education than themselves.

Men make covenants with God in the temple. The women make covenants to their husbands.

Some LDS fathers pass on "authority" over their daughters to their daughter's new husbands when they get married. I was witness to two such blessings.

That's the short list. I need to run...er, swim. :)

KA

PS - One more quick thing: Boys are taught that non-virginal girls are gross and that they're "licked cupcakes". Girls are not taught that non-virginal boys are gross. At least I never was. But it was made clear to me that if I were to become a licked cupcake that no one would want me.

More generalizations from the woman of generalizations. My girls have been taught no such thing. Sorry you had pretty poor teachers while growing up in the church. Or perhaps your ideas are only wishful thinking on your part to justify your own decisions. Go on over to mormonfeministhousewives and see just how diverse LDS women are. You will find a mixed bag of women there....something that is very natural for the human condition.

[_Blixa]

I have yet to see any of KA's descriptions that don't ring true with my own experiences and those of many other women I know.

I don't find the range at FMH all that wide, either.

[_sailgirl7]

Are there any generalizations in this quote?:

There are basic things that a man needs that a woman does not need. There are things that a man feels that a woman never does feel.

There are basic things that a woman needs that a man never needs, and there are things that a woman feels that a man never feels nor should he.

These differences make women, in basic needs, literally opposite from men.

A man, for instance, needs to feel protective, and yes, dominant, if you will, in leading his family. A woman needs to feel protected, in the bearing of children and in the nurturing of them.

I think much of the rationale that is used to defend traditional gender roles in the church are indeed generalizations. These justifications for God given gender roles do not take into account differences amongst the sexes. Individual personalities, strengths, weaknesses, are set aside for the one-size-fits-all approach of "God made men and women how they are" so that's the way it is. And the way "it is" cannot possibly be untrue or found unuseful but if per chance some individual doesn't "fit" within the prescribed role- it is seen as a fault and a flaw in the person and not the system. The sendiment that woman "need" to feel protected for example is a hasty generalization that really has little useful meaning. Sure there are times when a person needs to feel protected- in fearful situations and times of hardship and stress- but men have this need in certain circumstances just as women need it - but to imply that women need it all the time in all places because they are women is quite silly really. And yet hasty generalizations like that are the foundation for the justification for gender roles. Anything that starts with "Women are like this" or "Men are like that" are broad stroke ideas used to pigeon hole people into the current acceptable mores of the day.
So we need to be careful about critizing people who don't like the "system" and using generalizations to attack it- because it would seem the "system" itself is based on such generalizations too. And it's not really useful or compassionate to just tell someone they are wrong and bad because they have a different perspective on something.

That quote comes from Boyd K. Packer from his ERA speech.

By the way, another related issue that throws a wrench into this whole neatly tied up package of God making male/female- is the fact that thousands are born with no clear cut gender- these children will face enormous stress and presssure in society- in the LDS church they would have some unique worries. Here are some statistics of such children:

Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births
Klinefelter (XXY) one in 1,000 births
Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births
Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births
Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals
Vaginal agenesis one in 6,000 births
Ovotestes one in 83,000 births
Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause) one in 110,000 births
Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother) no estimate
5 alpha reductase deficiency no estimate
Mixed gonadal dysgenesis no estimate
Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft) one in 2,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis) one in 770 births

Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births
Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births

http://www.isna.org/faq/conditions

So what happens to the generalization that God creates only male/female? It ceases to be useful to a significant group of people.