Will there be more women in heaven?

"God placed within women divine qualities of strength, virtue, love, and the willingness to sacrifice to raise future generations of His spirit children." --Quentin L. Cook, April 2011 General Conference

This is what I'm wondering: Is he implying that God did not place within men strength, virtue, love, and the willingness to sacrifice?  I don't think that he would say that this is what he means.  So why point out that women have those qualities if they're not unique?

Does he think that women possess these qualities more than men?  

Yes, I could be reading far into this, but the suggestion that the willingness to sacrifice is a feminine virtue just seems to suggest that women are the ones who are supposed to sacrifice more—which of course is not equal.  From the same talk:

A recent United States study asserts that women of all faiths “believe more fervently in God” and attend more religious services than men do. “By virtually every measure they are more religious."

So this is a pat on the back for women because they are more faithful?  That's still benevolent sexism to say that women are somehow better than men (and so don't need the leadership positions that men get).  Honestly, the habit of saying, "Of course you're not equal to men, ladies—you're better than them!" sickens me.  I of course would not prefer that they said, "Ladies, you're worth less than men"—just to make that clear.

If women really did have an equitable position in the church, there would be no need of this talk.  When we exchange the feminine words for the masculine, we get this: 

"I believe the men of the Church today meet that challenge and are every bit as strong and faithful. The Relief Society leadership of this Church at all levels gratefully acknowledges the service, sacrifice, commitment, and contribution of the brethren.

Much of what we accomplish in the Church is due to the selfless service of men. Whether in the Church or in the home, it is a beautiful thing to see the priesthood and the Relief Society work in perfect harmony. Such a relationship is like a well-tuned orchestra, and the resulting symphony inspires all of us."

To me, that either sounds ridiculous or sexist.  When I say sexist, I say that in this context it sounds like we're raising men up above women.  It's clearly sexism when it's done with men—but it's still sexism to imply that women are better.  Neither is better—we are equal.  We have equal potential for qualities such as sacrifice, virtue, love, and—yes—nurturing and child rearing!  It's a disservice to men to say that they somehow lack the capabilities to care for children as well.  

Really, I think most of any ineptitude on the part of men to know how to care for children comes from the cultural expectations—little boys aren't taught to dream of being fathers the way girls dream of being mommies.  If we didn't separate the genders so much when dealing with children, I don't think they would grow up thinking that they are as different from one another as we currently think we are.

A friend recently had a conversation with her roommates about the possibility of polygamy in heaven.  They seemed to think that it would be necessary because there would naturally be more women in heaven—since women are somehow more righteous.  I know that this isn't official church doctrine, but I've heard this idea elsewhere as well.  I've even heard someone claim that none of the souls who followed Satan were women.  Once again, women are the ones called on to sacrifice because of their better nature!  Honey, I know you have to share a husband with other women, thereby implying that one man is equal to several women—but it's because you're so much better than he is!

It seems we are so desperate to prove women are as good as men, even resorting to hyperbole about how there will be more righteous women than men (of course, theoretically, there would probably not be an exactly equal number of men versus women, but the suggestion seems to be that the disparity will be so great that most women will need to practice polygamy).  I honestly think that if men and women truly had equal positions and opportunities we wouldn't have to work so hard to convince ourselves that women are treated as equals.

A Response to a Viewpoint Which I Didn't Send In Which I Now Wish I Had

After I read this lovely Viewpoint (which, in my memory, originally had the subtitle of something like "Confessions of a Former Man Hater") in my favorite publication, the Daily Universe, I wrote this down in a notebook during class:

I'm sick of having my role defined for me. If I fit the role of nurturer (which, to be honest, I do), then let me own it; but if I don't, don't tell me how I should be—respect my personality for what it is.  I've seen the nurturer/provider dichotomy become a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially among men.  I've seen them think that they somehow don't have the capacity to love and nurture as much as they actually do, so they don't try to cultivate it.  I am nurturing and I happen to be a woman; many, but not all, of us are. There are certain men who are more nurturing than certain women. 

It may seem easier to just say all men are one way and all women are another, but there are always exceptions. I imagine people of both sexes who don't fit the stereotypes must feel alienated.  You only make people feel like misfits when you assign such strict gender roles. Let people be as they are instead of telling them how they should be (in other words, be descriptive instead of prescriptive).

I would also add now that believing that women in the church are oppressed doesn't make you a "man hater.  The author makes it sound like if you don't accept traditional gender roles, you must be an angry, bitter woman.

The Fiftieth Post

I started this post more than a month ago.  It's been difficult to write because the experience contained herein hurt me so much, but also because I've been afraid of representing the other people unfairly.  At the time, I would even use hyperbole and tell them, "I don't want to sound like an angry man-hater, but...".  It's sad that being branded as that is a fear whenever you're talking about women's rights.  Anyway, here's the post that was started on February 4th:

I had a particularly frustrating conversation with two young men last week about a woman's place in the church.  It's very difficult to have these conversations because you can just be dismissed as an angry feminist man-hater (a gross exaggeration).  

I realize that people reading this may have different opinions than I do, and that's fine, of course.  It wasn't the differing opinions of these two guys that upset me—it was their unwillingness to even try to see my side of things and the methods they used to back up their opinions.

First of all, let me say how much I noticed the irony of two men telling me that they believed that everything regarding women in the church was as it should be; I even pointed out to them how messed up that was, but they didn't seem to understand.

I've probably taken more than an hour to write what I've already written because I keep putting it off; there's so much to tell, plus I worry about somehow representing these two guys unfairly.  So I will merely sum up. Some highlights: I basically brought up the points in  these two posts.  One guy said how it isn't even an issue because women have the priesthood in the temple—to which I said that that was only in the temple, so it still means that I can't baptize my friend who joins the church or bless my own baby (or even lay my hands on his/her head during the blessing).  The fact that women use the priesthood in the temple is even more reason for why they should be allowed to use it everywhere.  I was also told that in the "eternal perspective," this will be such a small issue and it doesn't really make a difference (to which I said, "Because you're a man!").  Plus, that's extremely dismissive of valid feelings to say that it doesn't matter anyway. 

It was mainly them talking with me sitting there and listening, simultaneously fuming and sobbing on the inside.  Like I said, I even brought up the point that they were two men speaking about women's issues to a woman and saying that I should be content with my place—since when is that OK?  In a context other than a religious one, that would be clearly sexist.  But since they veil it with spirituality, it supposedly makes it OK because that's the way that "God wants it."  

I'll give this disclaimer because I mean no disrespect to anyone: If I were given the choice between being able to have the priesthood or being able to carry children, I would probably choose to carry children—but that's because I love kids.  Not everyone does.  I'm not trying to debase motherhood at all.  I just wish it wasn't presented as the end-all/be-all of a woman since not all women find satisfaction and fulfillment in motherhood.  The role just seems more limited than a man's.

Apparently, my personal revelation isn't as valid as theirs is, according to them.  I must have been asking the wrong way or just expecting an answer and that's why I have feelings that contradict theirs.  If my feelings disagree with current church policy, then I am automatically wrong.  One guy said that sometimes when you go into prayer expecting to get a certain answer, that's the answer you think you get, which is true.  However, I pointed out that I could say the exact same thing about the "answer" that he got, to which he had nothing to say.

This same guy testified to me that he knew that the church leaders knew the will of God and that he had even met some of them.  Well, zounds!  You've even met them!  I totally trust you then.  After all, general authorities met Mark Hoffman, and by meeting him they knew he was a counterfeiter!  (But that's an issue for another day.)

I'm reading a book called Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine, which explores how many characteristics of gender are actually innate as opposed to shaped by society (answer: fewer than public opinion currently thinks).  One of the sad sides of believing in strict gender roles is that both men and women discredit abilities that they have that are not stereotypically either feminine or masculine.  An example from this discussion: this young man asserted that women have more of a capacity to nurture and, as a man, he just couldn't match that.  That actually makes me sad for him because he underestimates his potential and probably doesn't  nurture that characteristic in himself.  He thinks that he could never be as nurturing as a woman, so he doesn't even try to be.  I think that women should also preside and protect and that men should also nurture and that both sexes have potential for both of these traits.

To fully back up his claim that the ability to nurture was equal to the ability to hold the priesthood, he had to diminish men's capacity for nurturing, making it something that was physically impossible to have.  Since women can't hold the priesthood, men would have to not be able to nurture as much. as women can.  I think it's damaging to both sexes.  Although the main issue with women's rights is sexism toward women, there's also a great amount of sexism toward men that goes on in those same discussions.  No one wins.

The whole conversation was filled with antiquated ideas of gender roles, faulty logic, dismissing of my opinions, no attempt to understand further what I thought, and (in my opinion) self-righteousness.  In the end, in an attempt to be civil, I thanked the two guys for discussing this with me, then went out to my car and cried.

His children

At the most recent Worldwide Leadership Training meeting, President Boyd K. Packer said this:

I have been very careful, and am very careful, to treat my wife with that respect and reverence that is due her in performing that thing that is of most worth for a woman in this life to live the gospel, to be the wife and the mother of the children of a worthy holder of the priesthood.

I've heard people interpret this as just saying that family is most important and that "multiply and replenish the earth" is still a commandment.  If that is what he meant, I wish he would have chosen different words, especially gender-neutral terms (e.g., "that thing that is of most worth for a person in this life to live the gospel, to be a spouse and a parent in a home with a worthy priesthood holder").  However, at face value, it seems that what he's saying is that the most important thing that a woman can do is be married to a worthy priesthood holder and have his children; in other words, a woman's importance comes from her relationship with a man.   Maybe President Packer believes that conversely, the most important thing for a man to do is to be married to a worthy woman and be the father of her children.  If he believes that, I wish he would have said that, too.  The way he said it...well, I just don't like it.  The fact that he says that he pays his wife respect seems to soften it until you realize why he's respecting her—because she's married to a worthy priesthood holder (him) and is the mother of his children. 

intelligent, but not intellectual

I like to make collages out of pictures I find in books.  I wanted some photos of real people, so I checked out some issues of Newsweek from 1965.  At the same time, I'm both grateful for how the world has improved and appaled at how it used to be.

Two cases in point:

An article discussed a new higher demand for stewardesses because of the increase in international travel by plane and because so many of the current stewardesses were quitting because they were getting married.  Ads gave a height and weight range that potential employees had to conform to, and they had to pass rigorous tests, among them an IQ one (an IQ of 105 was required).  Stewardesses were important, because they brought that extra magic and hospitality that could make a man leave smiling even if his steak was cold and his margerita was in a paper cup.

Sure, these women are complimented for their manner and service, but they're important because they're serving the businessmen who fly on the plane.  Women may do a great job at what they do, but what they do is always subservient to men.  Also, the idea that bothers me to no end is that women work/go to school while they wait to find someone to marry, and then their life goes out the window.  Having a job is just a placeholder until you marry someone to support you.

The caption below a photo of a stewardess quoted in the article read "the best school for brides."  I am glad at least that the article acknowledged that this phrase, appearing on ads encouraging young ladies to apply for a job as a stewardess, was just too much.

An article that did profiles of college students interviewed one Matilda Gholson from the University of North Carolina.  Here is an excerpt:

Matilda, the 22-year-old daughter of a Henderson, N.C., attorney, is a "straight-B" student, a senior majoring in education who chose teaching because "I like children and it seemed important."  But Matilda sees her true career with "a husband and a family."  She has no steady now, dates mostly on weekends, more and more for quiet dinners instead of swinging fraternity "combo parties."  She knows what kind of wife she wants to be.  "A woman's role is secondary to her husband's."  While at college Matrilda looks to her parents for direction.  "I like to think I'm not a conformist," she says, "but I am."

Intelligent, but not intellectual, Matilda sounds like the belle ideal of Southern womanhood.

So many things.  The idea that teaching was an ideal job for women because they work with kids.  And I say this as a female studying to be a teacher!   Look, if you want to stay at home and make being a wife and mother a career, that's perfectly acceptable;women don't get enough recognition for their household roles that really can be considered careers (except you don't get paid and don't get vacations!)  However, it is disturbing to me that this young lady said with her own mouth that her role will be secondary to her husband's.  Not secondary, Tilly—equal.  She believes this because that's all she hears.  I just wonder how often she thinks about these tenets and if at any time something in her brain tells her that there's something wrong with these thoughts.

It's a similar feeling I have when I hear people talk in sacrament meeting or in a class about how gracious God is and how they're less than dirt, etc. and how they're so grateful for forgiveness.  It's so often in a way that really insults them themselves.  We should be grateful for forgiveness, but not in a I-should-be-damned-to-hell-for-eternity-for-this-mistake-but-instead-God-is-SO-merciful-and-does-this-when-I-don't-deserve-it-at-all way.  It bothers me so, so much when people think that to elevate God or some other important figure that they have to debase themselves.

That last sentence quoted—I love that not being an intellectual fits in with being a Southern belle.  And I'm not sure whether the author's comment about her intellect should be taken as a sexist remark.  I watched a video on youtube that's a news story from around 1964 about the new popularity of the Beatles.  The reporter, a man, mentioned that so many girls loved the band, and "some of them can write," referencing to the amount of fanmail the Beatles received.  Not "some of them write fanletters," or "some of them do also write to the band," but "some of them can write."  It didn't stand out tome when I watched it, but someone in the comments brought to my attention how awful that can sound (yes, there were intelligent comments on a youtube video!!!!1!).

I read the news today, oh boy.

I thank the Daily Unifarce and its pinheaded minions for giving me fodder for this blog. Thank you for allowing dimwitted students, through the "Readers' Forum" voice their narrow-minded, offensive viewpoints. I swore off reading the Readers' Forum for awhile on behalf of my blood pressure, but the feeling still lurked that even though I wasn't reading about these opinions, there were still plenty of students around me who held them--ignoring these idiots doesn't make them go away.

I read today's Readers Forum during an hour lunch break but was still steaming mad when I got to German. I had stopped going to class because of my medical condition, but I came back today because we were talking about the Holocaust; to stop a horror and atrocity against humanity like that from happening again, we need to know about it, so I went to learn (and because I wondered how it would be different learning about it in a German class). I listened, and then before too long I realized I needed to write the response to these nincompoops I had been brewing in my head. So, while listening to my professor talk about those evil "democratic socialists," I fired this lovely letter off to some modern-day Nazis:

(by the way, here is the opinion page from today; my letter is directed to "Respect Yourself" and "Considerate Clothing." Man, those titles just say it all.)

To the self-righteous, arrogant pigs who had the gall to write letters to the editor:

What authority do you have to lecture your fellow students? How do you even have the nerve to chastise and talk down to them? I am not even one of these horrid sinners who burn copies of the Honor Code for fun and show affection on the grass, but I am still insulted. I am embarrassed that people like you go to this university. How is it your business what couples do in public? If it bothers you, don't look, you idiot. If couples lying (not laying, you uneducated slob) on each other sends you into such an uproarious tizzy, maybe it's you that needs help.

As to your suggestion to not do anything you wouldn't be comfortable doing in front of a parent or general authority–This is an oft-used method to keep people in line. For example, John Bytheway asks youth (well, female youth) how they would feel if the prophet was staying at the same hotel where your prom was and he saw you in your immodest dress?! Well, I don't want to dress modestly out of fear of being caught, judged, and embarrassed. I also think that if I, clad immodestly, did run into the prophet, he would be kind and loving, as you ought to be. He would not make me feel bad or ashamed. There are many things I would want to do in front of a parent or GA, such as enthusiastically play air guitar complete with slashing windmills or pretend to be a duck, but that doesn't make those things wrong. We shouldn't have to live in fear of being caught doing bad things by others like parents, GAs, or back biting morons like you. Thank you, Honor Code police for keeping us all in line.

And to the sexist premie (who with his appropriate Priesthood authority, of course) blamed the young women of Helaman Halls for his unclean thoughts: how dare you. You are just perpetuating unrighteous dominion and the beating down and blaming of women for what is not their fault. If their being "half naked" (what a hyperbole) offends you, don't look at them. If they're wearing a tank top and shorts (the absolute horror!!!!), that's more modest than a bathing suit. Do you flagellate yourself after accidentally glimpsing a girl at a pool or beach? I hope you douse your eyes with acid as you should after seeing such a horrendous sight. Would you prefer us women to wear veils and long sleeves and skirts so as not to tempt you? I mean, women are sinful creatures who are temptresses to otherwise righteous men. It is always our fault that we are your pornography.

No, I'm sorry, I'm being ungrateful. I'm glad you've pointed out whom we can blame if the freshmen men of BYU aren't worthy for missions–those devilish young harlots in their slutty clothes.

Authors, maybe these iniquitous, hard-hearted people in question would actually be willing to respect what you say if you weren't so condescending, holier-than-thou, and didn't speak as if you were calling these people steeped in iniquity to repentance.

Get over yourselves and stop judging others. You are absolute jackasses, and I'm ashamed on behalf of all Latter-day Saints that there are such myopic, misguided, pompous, unspeakably arrogant moron Mormons like you.

On Friday, the issues & ideas editor Samantha Strong (whose piece on R-rated movies I actually liked) described the letters that come in reaction to other letters to the editor:

"Usually, the knee-jerks pop in first–the letters that vehemently applaud or condemn the original message. The authors of these letters have either already thought through the issue and are eager to communicate the conclusions they have carefully arrived at previously, or they are simply reacting. They say the first thing that comes to their minds, often impassioned and often unintelligible. It's usually the latter."

Yes, this characterizes my letter. Yes, it could be viewed as hypocritical since I'm berating these idiots for berating others. But whatever. I'm not sending it in. And even though it is an impassioned reaction, that doesn't mean that it has no value or is not correct.

I really wonder how those students would function at a more liberal university (and I know, there's not many that are more liberal than BYU, let me tell you!). I imagine them curled up in the corner of a dark room, holding up a crucifix to the unwashed heathen who try to communicate with them. I wonder how they survived high school; maybe they're from Utah or were home schooled.

My main issue with these letters' authors is that they feel the need to correct others, feel justified to do so, and their tone suggests that they are a moral compass to these wayward souls, who definitely need to listen to them.

Also, I had just read my sociology textbook's chapter on gender inequality, which made me notice the sexism in "Considerate Clothing" more. We discussed last semester in New Testament class that in New Testament times (plus before and after, as we see it still exists today), if a man and woman committed adultery it was always the woman's fault. Women were temptresses who needed to be contained to protect the virtue of men. My terrific professor, Dr. Holzapfel, pointed out that even nowadays, if a guy messes around and then repents or whatever people let him move on. But if a girl does that, she has soiled her name forever. There are different standards for men and women. This dumb"Considerate Clothing" letter is just another example of those horrible letters to the editor about how the women on campus are disobeying the Honor Code and need to cover up more, because they are disturbing the men. PIGS! Those people make me sick.

Stay posted for more. . . posts mocking Daily Unifarce letters to the editor! It'll be fun!