It wasn’t that long ago I sat next to someone in a JRCLS meeting who was promoting the cause of young women being encouraged to do what they wanted to do, be it go to law school, have children or anything else, in a world of financial equality. I suggested that she might want to go to a FMH bloggersnacker and she said “but I’m not a feminist.” It puzzled me, but then I realized, that in many contexts, she was right.
Not, mind you, as I see feminism, but she is right as it may be said that some feminists define feminism.
In thinking about that, I am also taking the opportunity to go over definitions (with reference quotes) and then discuss each.
For some people, claiming to be feminists is a source of social superiority. e.g.
The woman I sat next to is not looking to be fashionable, and is not engaged in what she is doing to be fashionable. As a result, she claims not to be a feminist.
For some people, feminism is a struggle to take power.
The woman I sat next to is seeking to empower others, but not to struggle for power herself and definitely not seeking to impose sameness on anyone, but rather to assert the right women have to choose to be different from each other, as they need or see fit.
In fact, the following quote captures her feelings on choice (vs. sameness):
Feminism is in direct conflict with the Church
Mormon assumptions conflict dramatically with basic feminist assumptions,
(Note that quote is not in context, but it captures a feeling many have).
The woman I sat next to was not in conflict with the Church.
Feminism is a far cry from Zion
The woman I sat next to I would say earnestly seeks Zion.
Feminism means compromise.
The woman I sat next to did not want to compromise at all.
Feminism means baking brownies instead of plowing snow.
I told my dad that I made a pan of decadent brownies instead of plowing.
The woman I sat next to was not coming up with reasons not to do work she did not like.
….
Of course, by now, you’ve hit the fascinating point. Just as all of those definitions of feminism are not necessary or universal or complete or compelling, so are definitions of Mormonism that people use to claim one can not be Christian and Mormon at the same time.
So, feminists don’t need to seek to claim that they are bearing a mark of superiority by claiming feminism (and Mormons don’t need to be claiming that they are the elect just because they are LDS); feminists are not necessarily engaged in a struggle to take power (and Mormons are not claiming power by being LDS); feminism is not in conflict with the Church — the two should be the same (and Mormonism is not in conflict with Christianity); feminism is part of the path to Zion, not a far cry from Zion (and the Church is a precursor to Zion); feminism does not mean compromising values, it can very well mean expressing them (the same for the Church); and feminism is not an excuse.
Interesting how the Church and Feminism have so many points in common, once you think about it.
Wheat & Tares 
Stephen, I sort of see the point you are making here, and it’s a creative way to do it, but your penultimate paragraph goes too far, I think in overgeneralization. For example, the statement “Mormonism is not in conflict with Christianity” ignores many nuances of the definition of Christianity, the tension between the two traditions, etc. I feel the same about the other statements as well.
And I say this as a feminist.
Bored,
Well, I’m not a feminist (since I’ve been told that as a guy I can never be a feminist), so I could well be wrong (having been told that as a guy I am always going to be wrong about feminism) …
My point was that every large movement has many definitions and many nuances, both with a broad brush and a narrow one. Anything will be in conflict with anything else, depending on which nuance you choose.
But it is a matter of choice of nuance rather than core meaning and purpose.
I learned a great deal of what might be called proto-feminism from reading Brigham Young’s sermons on the equality of man and woman, how women were just as qualified as men to be shopkeepers and doctors and lawyers and legislators. Yet most people do not think of Brigham Young in that light.
Since I think of Mormonism as true Christianity, from my perspective, any choice of nuance that separates the two is merely a side effect of the great apostasy and the hijacking of Christianity by Babylon.
I know that isn’t what you meant, and I appreciate that you were willing to read the entire essay.
Peace. The essay was long enough as it was without taking more room to make it more nuanced.
Stephen,
Many mainstream Christians do see Mormonism as being in conflict with Christianity since Mormons do not accept the Nicene Creed and have polytheistic ideas. Also Mormons spent much effort trying to bring traditional Christians into the Mormon fold.
Saying that Mormons are not in conflict with traditional Christianity is like saying splinter polygamist groups are not in conflict with mainstream Mormonism.
Stephen,
Well, I’m not a Mormon (since I’ve been told that as a DAMU I can never be a Mormon), so I could well be wrong (having been told that as a DAMU I am always going to be wrong about Mormonism) …
I agree with your point that every large movement has many definitions and many nuances. It is a matter of choice of nuance rather than core meaning and purpose.
I think I’ve learned a great deal of what might be called proto-Mormonism from reading several early century Christian documents (although I’m not quite sure that things like theosis go as far as exaltation as people would like.) Yet, most people do not think of early Christian doctrines in that light.
It’s all well and good to say that any choice of nuance that separates the two is merely a side effect of great apostasy and hijacking, but not only is this incredibly offensive, but it puts you in the hostile minority. The vast majority of Christians will deal in kind by calling you the heretic, you the hijacker of Christianity.
I’ve got an upcoming post that also talks about feminism, and why men often don’t care about it (and many women). Like any cause, there’s a lot of fragmentation and elitism in feminism. I consider myself a post-feminist, which many feminists find offensive or ignorant. Given the hostility, I can understand why many men shy away from this topic. It can be a minefield, and yet, as one with the equipment and a daughter as well, gender equality and freedom to choose is a right I would champion wherever it is challenged.
For true equality: matriarchy must exist with patriarchy, and gynocracy must exist with androcracy. There must be a balance of power, and power must be shared — not concentrated in the hands of a few.
Matriarchy and gynocracy are tribal functions, and thus they typically don’t exist outside of one. Therefore, the tribe must be established. But what has power to establish the tribe? Patriarchy does, which doesn’t currently exist among the members.
Therefore, Mormon women have the means [the keys of the priesthood held by their husbands] to the end they seek [which is equality] — but to get there they must acknowledge the patriarchy and work to establish a tribe along both matriarchal and patriarchal lines.
If Mormon feminists seek any other way — like seeking a gynocratic oligarchy to replace our androcratic oligarchy, then we aren’t achieving true reform. Like Moroni, we should seek not for power, but to pull it down.
Oh yeah — and what’s a DAMU?
I wonder how long it will take before bloggers stop trying to justify Mormon feminism. No matter how you slice it, it doesn’t work. It’s not doctrinally sound.
This holds especially true with any third-wave feminist who’s really just a misandrist still waving her victim flag.
The noble aspects of feminism are in fact nothing more or less than humanism. Basic justice.
“Feminism,” like other labels, is an imperfect shorthand, and means different things to different people. There is one strain of feminism that is focused not only on equality between the sexes (as there ought to be, as a matter of basic humanist justice), but rather on the notion that the way women think and act is so thoroughly superior to the way men think and act, that society ought to be set up according to “female” thinking.
(Of course, what is meant here is a particular kind of female thinking — which is why this type of feminist will often say that conservative women lack uteruses, or are not “authentic” women.)
Justin,
“Like Moroni, we should seek not for power, but to pull it down.”
Well said.
justin, can you define gynocracy and adro-whatever (for those of us unfamiliar with the terminology)?
Androcracy is more of a broad term than “patriarchy” — and means rulership by men. As in 1 Cor. 11:3, But I would have you know, that…the head of the woman is the man…
Gynocracy is likewise more of a broad term than “matriarchy” — and means rulership by women. As in Gen. 2:24, Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife. It is also seen as women, manifesting the keys of the church, give or withhold consent for the actions of the priesthood.
“Mormons don’t need to be claiming that they are the elect just because they are LDS”
This kind of statement continues to baffle me. It just doesn’t jibe with church teachings. It’s not possible to embrace the truth of the mormon church yet also be religiously and socially egalitarian. As Mormon Man pointed out, some things are simply not compatible with mormonism. The idea that mormons don’t necessarily consider themselves the “elect” is nothing more than a platitude intended to ingratiate the church and its members with nonmembers.
I think the same is true with mormonism and feminism. The idea that a woman can and should be able to do whatever she aspires to is flatly incompatible with mormon doctrine. The church has clearly and pretty unambiguously defined the role of women, even though it likes to make lots of PC noises that hint at the opposite. In fairness, the church has also defined the roles of men, it’s just that the roles drawn for men happen to include everything associated with power, prestige, control, choice, etc. Either way, I think it’s disingenuous to pretend that “feminism” is a totally flexible and subjective concept which is only at odds with the church if one chooses a definition that puts it at odds. This is nothing more than moral/social relativism in a different package.
I’m completely unqualified to speak on feminism, but I do think it is a hard thing to do within the LDS Church. Newspeak can be used to talk about the “exhalted” role of women and pedestals, but at the end of the day, we exist in a very hierarchal and very patriarchal organization.
People can nip around the edges, but on every level, from ward to stake to general, a man is in charge. And even if that man is wrong (as all of us sometimes are, from bishops to stake presidents to apostles), the important thing is NOT necessarily correcting the wrong, but in recognizing that person’s role in the hierarchy and “supporting” him anyway.
Mike S:
The important thing is NOT necessarily correcting the wrong, but in recognizing that person’s role in the hierarchy and “supporting” him anyway.
This is simply not the case, in manifesting the keys of the church, baptized members give or withhold consent for the actions of leaders by their vote.
It is precisely because woman hold the majority vote in most congregations that they have begun referring to votes as “sustaining”. The act of raising a hand for [not against] is now called “sustaining” — [while raising one’s hand against is called “not sustaining”] — and it is continuously taught that it is our duty to sustain our leaders [presumably by raising our hands for them].
This means that a person who raises a hand in opposition is not “sustaining the leader,” therefore, must be sinning.
How sad that some could say, in regards to the servant-ship [the Lord’s vernacular for leadership] positions in the church of Jesus Christ, that it’s not important to correct wrongs — but only important to bow the knee to some man.
Wow.
Stephen,
It’s interesting that you mention FMH, becaue despite the blog title, the blog is hardly feminist- it’s liberal. In the Mormon world, (and especially on FMH) you can’t be a feminist with out being liberal or simply by being a registered Democrat you’re in the feminist club.
The ‘Mormon Feminist’- it’s an easier label to wear than ‘Mormon Liberal’- not that it’s worn with any less air of superiority.
The Feminist Deception
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=199339
It’s all well and good to say that any choice of nuance that separates the two is merely a side effect of great apostasy and hijacking, but not only is this incredibly offensive, but it puts you in the hostile minority. The vast majority of Christians will deal in kind by calling you the heretic, you the hijacker of Christianity.
Ah, the vast majority won’t care. But true, there are people, whose beliefs reject early Christianity for the Hellenic glosses, who will be offended, claiming that the Christianity of the Middle Ages (which is basically, for the Western Tradition, Catholicism) is a bench mark.
Which, of course, makes all protestant groups heretics.
As for me, my mother’s family was Greek Orthodox, let the west wallow as it always has 😉
Feminist is a title, and particularly a title that doesn’t sit well with many Christians as it is often associated with derogatory speak or actions. Perhaps this young lady, while espousing values that could be considered feminist did not want to associate herself with those conotations. Feminist means different things to different people. What they all have in common is fighting the oppression and derogation of women. They often disagree on how this is best done.
Justin:
In discussing the hierarchy and how some of these ideas exist in the LDS Church, it is taught, directly or indirectly.
These types of quotes are where it comes from. Whether this is what God intended or not is obviously up for debate, but within this organization, this is how it is.
Since there are no females in this hierarchy there is essentially no mechanism to change this, unless the hierarchy itself decides to change.
Although I understand your comments about change from within (ie. >50% of the population being women), realistically, I think it will be much like the issue of blacks and the priesthood or polygamy, and that change will only occur when/if outside societal pressures become enough that the growth of the Church starts to become affected.
“Whether this is what God intended or not is obviously up for debate, but within this organization, this is how it is.”
So when you think of “the church”, you must mean The Corporation — that group of men who hold all the power — right? Do you think that is what God intends or not? It’s not really open for debate b/c the answer is already given in D&C 10:67-68, and methinks your definition smacks of “more than this.”
Mike S, if you say that that organization, that androcratic oligarchy, that Church(TM) is the church of Jesus Christ — then none of us here are a member of that Church. Methinks that when Mormons have been Mormons as long as Catholics have been Catholic — we will be more Catholics than the Catholics.
“Since there are no females in this hierarchy there is essentially no mechanism to change this, unless the hierarchy itself decides to change.”
But luckily none of what you say applies to families and tribal worship services and ordinances. The priesthood, when used within a tribe, becomes a tribal priesthood. When using priesthood in a church setting — you’re right, then one would need the hierarchy’s permission. However, when used in a tribal setting, the tribe has jurisdiction — not the church.
In this way, families can be free to organize themselves according to the revelations of the Lord — thereby recognizing both the patriarchal and the matriarchal aspects of the gospel — instead of bowing the knee to the hierarchy.
SaltH2O- I think there’s at least one “conservative” permablogger at FMH. 🙂
There are lots of wonderful people at FMH.
re 7:
Justin,
DisAffected Mormon Underground.
Salt – actually, I have to agree with you on this – one of the most annoying things that “liberals” are really good at is contempt – sort of this air of superiority – if you don’t agree you’re a lesser being. This comes through in “liberal” humor as well. See Al Franken.
And I can say all this because I’m a closeted liberal.
I wonder why no one ever simply says they’re for gender egalitarianism…. I guess that’s not dramatic enough. Also these little picture things… I just can’t take anyone serious who uses Brigham Young for their picture…
#27 – actually, most women I know do say they are “equalists” rather than “feminists.” Outside the church, the term feminism seems to be a bit passe. Inside the church, it’s perhaps still relevant and radical. That’s just my limited viewpoint.
Stephen M:
That’s a great quote. I put it in a “Daily Universe” letter to the editor, in response to some “a woman’s place is in the home” chest-thumping.
Of course, Brigham’s thinking was pragmatic: He wanted the women to do “soft” white-collar work, to free up the men to do manly things like haul trees down from the canyons (if I remember the rest of the quote correctly).
Another reason “feminism” may be looked sideways at by Mormons, is that among first-wave feminists, abortion is virtually a sacrament.
I have a coda to my remarks at:
http://ethesis.blogspot.com/2010/12/coda-krista-oakes.html
Thomas, you are right, Brigham Young felt that men had an advantage doing brute labor, and that the community was best served by having the women think and the men doing heavy lifting.
That has always given me a different view of the Priesthood, more of a call to janitorial and ditch digging duties than anything else.
Ethesis:
LOL. In the CofChrist we’ve fought for a long time to get people to understand that the office of Deacon was NOT the Office of Janitor.
I guess Brigham Young was all about gender equality except for when it came to polygamy.
Interestingly enough, I had someone read this and post the following at my blog:
Are you using Krista’s tragic passing as a opportunity/tool to take a swipe at feminists? That’s what it sounds like. That’s just really, really not classy.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5861130&postID=234615379384096712
I need to work harder at being clearer.
Stephen M – whoever told you that you can’t be a feminist because you’re a man is very silly! And also, you have a right to define feminism. As a feminist, I believe men suffer from a patriarchal society, just as women.
I know I’m a bit late in replying but I just came across this post. Interesting read. I quite agree that feminism is in conflict with the church, although I wish it wasn’t. I think it is because in some aspects of the practice of Christianity, women are not treated equally. e.g. women are not allowed to become bishops. But definitely I think Mormons/Christians could call themselves feminists.