Bystanding: Confession & Apology

The firs LDS Relief Society presidency.

“All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness?”

“I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”                                                   

 --Martin Luther King  A Letter from Birmingham Jail

Ordain Women on their way to ask for admittance to LDS General Priesthood Session.

This weekend, I stood by while a group of brave women showed up in Salt Lake City to request entrance to the all-male priesthood session.  Though the women and allies of Ordain Women were denied access to the meeting, their actions definitively shaped the discourse of the October 2013 sessions of The LDS Church General Conference. Concerns about gender roles, and especially the roles of women,  were addressed in each session.  

The talks about women continued in the beloved and much defended Mormon tradition of benevolent sexism.   (Despite complaints by those who feel this stereotyping and limiting of Mormon women is damaging and offensive.)

These sermons were delivered by all men and only one woman.

None of the speakers, however, answered the main question asked directly by OW: will you pray for revelation about female ordination? Speakers fell back on explanations that were neither fully reasonable nor fully evidence based, even in the documents of our own history and scripture.  Some of the questions I wish we could talk about more explicitly and accurately include: 

1.

Why was female ordination revoked (there was no acknowledgment in the meeting that early female ordination existed, despite the fact that anyone who can Google can discover this fact.) Instead, there was a tacit implication in several talks that the priesthood has always been held only by men.  I believe the wording was deliberately carefully vague in order to avoid statements that might later be challenged by facts of history.  Nonetheless, the implication that priesthood has only ever been held by men hung over the conference without explanation or evidence-based backing.

Where is the sin in asking for and expecting transparent, fully truthful explanations?  If the answer around female ordination is, “we really don’t know right now,” tell us.  If the answer is, “We believe Joseph Smith was wrong to allow women to ask him to start the Relief Society/receive revelation/inquire of the Lord about Word of Wisdom, etc.,” tell us.  If the answer is, “We think female ordination in the early days was different from female ordination now,” say that.  If the answer is, “It says here that only men should hold the priesthood.  We are going with that scripture rather than this scripture here for X, Y, and Z reasons,” please tell us.  If the answer is, “We don’t yet know how to address female ordination in a global church that we are only beginning to understand,” why not just say that?

Parsing words and being opaque can make listeners feel there is a need to cover up or hide.  Transparency shows confidence and belief in what you are saying.  On the part of members of the church, asking for clarity from God, leaders, or in discussion with other members implies that you care, that you want to know—how is this a sin?  We should not be afraid to ask, and we should be answered with full transparency.

2.

Peoples of African descent (and their allies) asked the same question before 1978: will you inquire of the Lord for revelation concerning ordination for all worthy men?  Why were the priesthood privileges of men of sub-Saharan African descent revoked and then subsequently restored?  The revelation to restore priesthood to all worthy men occurred upon many petitions by Mormons concerned about equality to the prophets David O. Mckay and Spencer W. Kimball.  Members of the LDS Church asked McKay, and then Kimball, to inquire of God about this racist practice. Though priesthood privileges have been restored to "all worthy men," there has been no subsequent apology or explanation for why this racist practice was part of our church for so long.

In the October 2013 conference, we heard that the priesthood is God’s priesthood to be restored or bestowed when and where God wants it to be.  What is the difference between the restoration of the priesthood to all worthy men and what Mormons concerned about sexism in the church are requesting right now?  Why was it seemingly okay to ask about that, but not about this?  Why were African-American men able to "get a meeting" with the First Presidency while women have not been able to "get a meeting" about female ordination despite decades of petitioning?

3.

What is our common definition of equality, and do Mormons really believe in equality? Do we agree on the definition of the word “equality” contained in the dictionary, basically:   “Being equal in status, rights, and opportunities?” If the answer is yes, we all agree on this definition, then we need to admit that our church is okay with inequality, and we need to explain why. 

In fact, I think we need to acknowledge that equality is not our primary goal, that it is secondary to other purposes, such as our belief that enacting separate gender roles is important to preserving order on earth and in the church.  9 and 1 are not equal.  They are different numbers, and they have different roles in different equations.  By definition, equal means same or exact in terms of quantity.  This fact of equality is quantitative.  Most discussion of gender roles in the LDS cosmology addresses qualitative issues.  Qualitative issues can not replace quantitative in discussions of equality. In true equality, both the quantity and quality of opportunity, status, and rights have to be the same, not 9 and 1, but 1 and 1, or 9 and 9 .  

Or am I misunderstanding the definition of "equal"? (As opposed to the "feeling" of equality.)

Most people who lived through “separate but equal” have agreed that there is no such thing as "separate but equal."  Dr. King says, “Segregation is morally wrong and sinful.” As a church, though, we continue to hold on to this notion of “separate but equal," without a fully articulated defense of how “separate but equal,"  in the case of gender, operates as simply “equal" in the case of the LDS church. "Separate but equal" is the main rebuttal I've heard given over and over again by those who do not believe inequality exists in the Mormon church.  I want to know how those holding this view believe that "separate but equal" can work in some spheres and not in others.

If you are white and you don't feel discriminated against, you can't claim there is no racism.  Personal experience can't determine whether  equality exists in a system or institution.  Only weighing and measuring can accurately tell us whether or not equality exists in any particular realm.

Private institutions have the right to determine how much equality they will enact, and individuals have a right to participate or not participate.  I mostly wish we could be more honest about how much we value equality in our religion.  If we feel it is less important than other concerns and purposes, we should admit that and explain why, not continue to claim, against reason, that there is no inequality in our organization.

***

For months I’ve been trying to work out why I continue to be a bystander on this issue of female ordination.  For months I’ve been feeling guilty for acting like (and being) the “white moderate” Dr. King talks about, the one who is worse than the out and out bigot, the one who has an investment in the status quo and therefore upholds the status quo, the one who covers up the ugly boil of injustice so it cannot heal in open air. 

Why did I not speak out and show up at the OW event?

1.  

I’m tired and scared.  On a daily basis, the balancing act of children, work, and church leaves me feeling like I could fall off the tightrope at any moment if anything tips slightly or goes even slightly awry.  Maybe I felt like I couldn’t take the emotional fall-out of involvement in such an event—an event that would surely take a large emotional toll on my psyche.  The difficulty of living in an all-Mormon community when I have such strong objection to inequality takes a daily toll on me.  The pain of misunderstandings and differences with the most beloved people in my life, all Mormons, is something hard to explain to those who say, sometimes in honest bewilderment and sometimes in angry callousness:  “Then why don’t you just leave?”

Beginning in my teen years, I was upset about inequalities for women in the church, and was shut down by mansplainers in leadership meetings when I raised issues of sexism and gender discrimination in the youth organization.  I watched my feisty Laurel teacher also get shut down when she tried to defend me. Eventually, I stopped talking, at least publicly. 

I suppose I wasn’t sure I could take the shut down one more time. 

2. 

I’m conflicted about ordination.  Let me be clear:  I am not at all conflicted about the righteous act of questioning and inquiring of the Lord and our leaders for clarification on issues we don’t understand or want further light and revelation on.  I am in full solidarity with the women who attempted to attend priesthood on Saturday, October 5th 2013.  I believe the act of doubting, questioning, and searching for answers is following the model Joseph Smith set forth when he received his first revelation, and then subsequently organized the church to allow for a hybrid theocratic and democratic institution.

I am conflicted about what priesthood is, what it means to hold it, and about my personal connection to it.  What would it look like to ask a sister or mother to give me a blessing?  I can’t even imagine.  And perhaps because I have a more ecumenical notion of worthiness, I don’t want to think that some of my sisters are more worthy to bless me than others simply because they have followed a checklist of church and temple attendance, adherence to word of wisdom and tithe paying, and have been ordained.  Many of the sisters I know who bless me the most are not “worthy.”  They are not and have never been Mormon, or they are what we call “apostate”.   The sisters who seem most worthy to me are those who bless others because of their goodness, tolerance, wisdom and love.  Some of the best women I know would be worthy to hold the priesthood, and some wouldn’t. In short, I don’t place priesthood power above the power of good behavior, whether or not you drink a cup of coffee in the morning. 

3.

I still haven’t worked out the whole gender roles thing.  Being of the generation of second wave feminists, the generation who is feeling around in the dark for how to enact a more equal society, I feel quite muddled at times.  I was raised in a very traditional household, and I am myself a rather traditionally hetero-normative woman.  I like to cook and be home with my children (I also hate to clean, decorate, and craft), to wear heels and lipstick, and I love my career.  I have loved receiving priesthood blessings from my father and husband.  I have loved praying with my children when they can’t fall asleep at night because they are afraid, or when they are hurt or sick.  And that act does indeed feel separate but equal to me.  

We are a family of women’s college alumna and attendees (currently three alumna from Mills College, Barnard and Sarah Lawrence –after it was made coed, however--and one attendee at Bryn Mawr).  I value homo-sociality, perhaps more than most, and am not sure how this fits with priesthood and relief society respectively. 

Women of the first Relief Society.

Although I suppose Relief Society is no longer truly homo-social as, unlike at its inception and continuing through the 1960’s, it was when it was administered by a female leadership. 

And, contrary to popular belief, men ARE invited to the General Relief Society (they preside over and speak at this meeting, and a few random guys were coming in and out during the session I attended at our Stake Center. There were no female ushers there to tell them, “This meeting is for women only.”)

Finally, I’ve always loved the sound of words containing the suffix “-ess” and have been only too happy to reclaim this diminutive as an act of feminism:  poetess, authoress, speakeress, etc.  Being a “priestess” just appeals to me more than being a boring old “priest.”  I suppose I would rather have my own thing than borrowing his thing. 

(And by thing, I don’t mean to imply any(thing) in the Shakespearean sense.  By thing, what I mean is no(thing).)

Women leaving the LDS Tabernacle after being denied entrance to the Priesthood Session.

4. 

  

 I adamantly support the right for a Mormon woman to choose whether or not she can be a priesthood holder.  Equality means equal access.  Period.  If women cannot make their own free choices, if their choices are dictated by an all-male leadership, then it follows that they are not equal in “status, rights, and opportunities.” 

This is a denotative fact. 

The end. 

To continue our current paradigm of what Mormons call “ gender equality” is to say something along the lines of what Victorian men said about female superiority in the 1800's:  “Sisters, you are better than us, and therefore we need to make decisions for you in order to make up for our inferiority to you.”  Holding women on a pedestal is not the same thing as equality, although this is a popular argument used against those who hold that there is gender inequality in the church. 

Popularity does not equal truth, though Ruth Todd, spokesperson for the LDS church, used this as one of her main defenses when asked about the OW movement when she said in her official statement:

"Millions of women in this church do not share the views of this small group who organized today's protest, and most church members would see such efforts as divisive.”

Those who listen to General Conference each April and October will remember that we hear a “popularity does not make it right” sermon at least twice in every session.  

When is this reasoning correct and when is it incorrect?  Can the same flawed reasoning be used in correct and incorrect ways?

5.

I am deeply concerned with the disenfranchisement and exclusion of Mormon women from the leadership of the church.  I am one hundred percent sure that we would have a stronger organization if our leadership was split equally between men and women. 

I’m not sure this can happen unless women can be ordained.  We heard in October 2013 Conference that women have a special role in the lives of children.  The lives of Mormon children are shaped by decisions made by the church leadership.  Having a female primary leadership does not cover the gamut of decisions being made for and about Mormon children.  If we really believe that “working with children” is a special dispensation for women, then we need women working in every single capacity of LDS administration, because every capacity of the church affects our children. 

Today, the Monday after my sisters were turned away, shunned, and dismissed. My daughter Eva was there, holding a card for her sister Ingrid, who has never, ever been afraid to speak out against inequality and oppression.  

Today, I’m relieved I didn’t attend.  

I still don’t know how long it would have taken me to recover. 

And, today: 

I’m sad and ashamed that I didn’t attend. 

I wish I had been strong enough to stand up with my sisters.  

I’m sorry that I didn’t. 

This is my apology, and my timid attempt to continue the discussion around equality in the Mormon Church.

p.s.--

I am thrilled to hear opposing viewpoints, especially ones that use sound reasoning and evidence, are thoughtful, seek greater understanding, and are nuanced.  However, you should, before posting your rebuttals, read this list of reasons that I've already researched, considered, and discarded.  If you don't have a fresher or more nuanced perspective to offer in rebuttal than the ten reasons in this post that I've heard hundreds and hundreds of times without being convinced, you may not be able to convince me now with those same reasons.  

I will however, cherish every kindly and sincere attempt at dialogue and understanding, whether or not we agree!

back in the a.m.

eva in prada heels

anna in vintage red heels

cecy in golden tights and t-strap holiday shoes 

guys, i have stuff to write and pics to post.

but, in the depths of another round of strep throat and

spent many hours in three doc offices today with

streppy mo

and sicky mama

and truncated day and

still have grading to do.

but right now

must rest.

so back tomorrow, i hope.

xo

Gurley in a Tight Place: RIP Helen Gurley Brown

Lara, I always have to remember the road paved for me by former rad Girls in Tight Places--women who resisted with every fiber of their beings the narratives that were handed to them, and so I feel compelled today to muse about Helen Gurley Brown, who died yesterday at the age of 90.  (And here is a contemporary version of a women escaping an imposed tight-place narrative.)

Here's what HGB says about her own inherited tight-place narrative, from her obituary today's New York Times:   “'I never liked the looks of the life that was programmed for me — ordinary, hillbilly and poor — and I repudiated it from the time I was 7 years old,' Ms. Brown wrote in her book “Having It All” (1982)."

As for myself, I learned about "culturally appropriate narratives" for girls early in my life while persuing my mother's high school yearbooks that were stored in my grandmother's basement.  My mother graduated from a small Utah high school in 1956.  All of the seniors had "future aspirations" printed beneath their portraits.  The  female classmate's future aspirations were as follows:  "wife/mother," "nurse," "teacher."  I remember being stunned by this.  Three choices?  Really?  Talk about your tight places.

Anyway, it made me feel very thankful I had more than three choices for my life.   

 From today's article in The Daily Beast: 

"In 1962, a decade before Gloria Steinem launched Ms. magazine as the bible of the women’s liberation movement, Brown published her first culture-buster, Sex and the Single Girl. That little book liberated the minds of millions of homely, working-class girls stuck in hardscrabble towns across America where life after high school held no more promise than a job at the 5 & 10, a bossy husband, and no control over the birth of too many children. Brown challenged them to take the same liberties as young men: to enjoy a long and lusty sexual prelude to marriage and to use the rest of the time to build a successful career."

This was, of course, proclaimed during the relatively small window of time in world history between the advent of the Pill and the onset ofAIDS, but you can imagine how radical this sentiment was in 1962.

Helen Gurley Brown of course became the editor of Cosmopolitan magazine--or Cosmo.  I remember in high school being very afraid of this magazine.  It was sexually bold, way too advanced for me, a girl still waiting for her first kiss, a girl who left high school still waiting.  As a Mormon college student, I thought Cosmo was tacky--the covers lurid.  As a budding feminist, the over-sexualized cover girls--displaying not just their face but provocative, cleaving-baring bodies--offended me. Besides, I was taken with the second-wave feminists who were anti-sex, anti "girlie"--a girl couldn't be both "girlie" and empowered, could she? Fashion-wise, it didn't matter--it was the androgynous, boxy '80s and I looked like a boy anyway.  Andrea Dworkin's strident thesis that all intercourse was rape intrigued me.  But for me, it was all theory.

It wasn't until I graduated from college (single, which was a definite swerve from my expected narrative--although I probably would have let someone sweep me off my feet if they had wanted to) and moved to a new city--San Francisco--alone, that I finally understood Gurley's premise without ever reading her:  that empowerment could be dressed many ways, and that what really mattered for women, according to HGB, was to be financially independent (preferably in a career rather than a job).   In San Francisco, I supported myself with a job that might have become a career, had smart friends, a studio apartment, a boyfriend, a Betsey Johnson dress, and a pair of Doc Marten's.  I went out at night and alone, a far milder version of Diane Keaton in Looking for Mr. Goodbar and without the moralistically tragic ending (due, no doubt, to the fact that Mormon girls don't enact the Sex and the Single Girl narrative very impressively).  The summer I turned 25, I tried lipstick for the first time at B. Altman's in New York--(up until then, I always thought my mouth was too small for lipstick, but that's another story), kick starting a life-long addiction. Plus, by then the riot grrrls and third-wave feminism had ascended-- sex-positive, mini-skirted, punk rockers, displacing for me the chambray- bloused folk singers of the second wave. 

Many second-wavers decried Gurley Brown, but third-wavers owe a lot to her, in my humble opinion.

This older New Yorker article sketches out her in detail, including how problematic HGB can be.

This again from The Daily Beast:

"Helen is usually left out of encomiums to the early pioneers of women’s liberation, because she was nothing like the movement ideologues. Helen cultivated a low and seductively breathy voice and gushed with compliments to win people to her wishes. She loved men and sex, and enjoyed using feminine wiles, and she encouraged women not to give up on any of that, ever. But she worked hard to reconcile those natural drives with boosting women’s self-confidence to take charge of their own lives. She believed in chutzpah, “the drive to put yourself ahead,” as she defined the Yiddish word. A woman had to know when to push and how hard."
HGB on her feminism:

shoe museum and some laboutins

christian laboutin, 2007, paris

i never got to toronto while my sister-in-law, who is writing a dissertation on shoes and french literature, was living there. i really, really wanted to visit the bata shoe museum.  one of the big regrets of my life is missing the window of opportunity to visit with the extremely brilliant emily.

then ingrid posted this great article on high heels from collector's weekly--sex, power, and high heels: an interview with shoe curator elizabeth semmelhack.  i read this article twice, all the way through.  i love semmelhack's feminist discourse that volleys back to her obvious devotion to the lines and sensuousness of a beautiful shoe.

shoes are wierd, no?

here's one of my favorite passages:

For example, in 2000, the “New York Times” wrote, “High heels are women’s power tools.” What’s problematic about that is that the power that is supposedly wielded by women in high heels is sexual power. And so it seems like what wins for women in the culture is not the Harvard education that you have and how many cases you correctly argue in court, it’s whether or not when you walk into a room, you make all the men want to drop to their knees.

For me that’s very problematic, because if the high heel is an accessory of female power—and if the definition of female power is sexual—that power has a very short shelf life. Is a 90-year-old woman in spike heels powerful or silly? Is a 12-year-old girl in spike heels powerful or inappropriate? So at what point is a woman allowed to be powerful? If her power is based simply on her sexuality, then that’s a very limited amount of time that women are permitted to be powerful.

Obviously, there are many, many different types of shoes, and even in one woman’s closet, she might have fabulous high-designer shoes, a pair of sneakers, and a pair of Prada bowling shoes. So it’s not that the high heel was making the only social statement in the 20th century. It’s just that the statement that high heels make is extremely complex and, by the end of the 20th century, it’s become intimately related to the construction of femininity and socioeconomic standing.

what are your favorite shoes, and why?  and where do you "stand" (ha ha) on the issue of the high heel?

xo


p.s.--we might be conflicted about stilettos, but who on earth could have a problem with a warm, fancy pair of designer tights?  go leave a comment on this post to win a pair.


today's legwear:  dark blue jeans, a borrowed pair of black diabetic socks from christian's bottom drawer (omg--diabetic socks?  they're the best to make you feel all supported and comfy of a frigid january day.)

looking forward:  to sandals and bare legs.  some day.

inspiration:  a little kiss of red on the inside of a tall, thin heel.  & gabrielle hamilton's blood, bones, and butter.