Last week I put up a post called “Half a Church.” This is a continuation, of sorts, of that post.
The church is a social institution. It is comprised of individuals whose behavior is governed by social norms and organizational policies. These norms and policies are sustained over time by the actions of the same individuals they govern. It is a closed, self-reinforcing cycle.
Footbinding
I think this is easier to see with something like footbinding in China.
Footbinding started around the year 1000. One theory suggests the practice may have had its origins in a empress’s club-like feet, which came to be viewed as fashionable. For hundreds of years it was practiced by a relatively small portion of the population (the rich, the elite), but by the 1800s, the practice was widespread. From the start of the practice to its demise in the 1950s, it is estimated that a billion Chinese women endured the practice.
In most cases, proper foot binding involved breaking the bones of the arch and essentially folding the foot in half. The ideal size of the foot was 3 inches. It was a painful process. Here (and here, and here) are some pictures. Now, let me pose a few questions:
1) Did the parents who did this (take a look at the pictures again, if you want) love their daughters?
2) If the practice was harmful (and clearly it was, it hobbled a good percentage of the Chinese female population), why was it perpetuated for hundreds of years? Why didn’t “they” just stop doing it?
3) If we have to blame somebody, who do we blame? Do some of those involved in the practice deserve more blame than others? If so, why?
Of course Chinese parents loved their daughters. You could argue that parents did this to their daughters because they loved them. They wanted them to be accepted by their peers, to marry well, to have social status, etc.
If it was harmful, why didn’t “they” stop? They didn’t stop doing it because it was just something that was done. It comes down to sticks and carrots. No one wanted to risk being one of the first (or few) to stop, because of the negative social consequences (i.e. the stick). On the other hand, everyone wanted the individual benefits of adhering to the institution, such as the admiration of their peers, social status, etc. (i.e. the carrot). And so, people continued to do it, and because people continued to do it, it was perpetuated “as just something that was done”–and because it was “just something that was done,” people continued to do it (and so on).
Think of the social institution of footbinding as a human pyramid. Think of social change as moving the pyramid from point A to point B. So how does change happen? Those in leadership positions (i.e. those on the top of the pyramid) might demand that those on the bottom move (and they might). On the other hand, those on the bottom might demand that those on top climb down so that they can move (and they might). Or we might end up with a stalemate that leaves the pyramid intact (and in the same place).
So who do we blame? The higher up the pyramid, the more balance is required–and the less latitude for action. Leaders are sustained by those under them. If they lean too far in any direction, they’ll fall (and be replaced by others with better balance). Those on the bottom of the pyramid are absolved from responsibility by the weight they carry. If I have to assign blame, I blame those in the middle rows. They’re high enough to see the pyramid for what it is, and close enough to the ground to do something about it.
Half a Church
So what does this have to do with women in the church? Here are a few assertions:
1) Church leaders don’t deserve all the blame. They can’t lean too much, or they’ll topple (or be toppled) off the pyramid and be replaced. Boyd K. Packer, in a sense, really can’t help himself (even when he makes comments like these).
2) Climbing on someone’s shoulders (i.e. accepting a leadership role) limits one’s freedom of movement. It requires one to balance, and by balancing, one becomes part of the problem for at least two reasons. First, one becomes part of the structure that weighs down the pyramid and keeps it from moving (it’s like trying to move a stepladder while standing on it). Second, being “a good guy” in a leadership position decreases the likelihood of social change, because it reduces the motivation of those under you to move the pyramid. In other words, by attempting to soften the realities of a patriarchal system (or shield individuals from it by being “progressive”), men actually protect the institution by creating a buffer between it and those whose dissatisfaction (if channeled) could change it.
3) It shouldn’t be surprising that those that benefit from the existing social structure will be the most likely to support it. The obvious cheerleaders? The wives of men in leadership positions. In other words, we should expect women themselves to be among the primary “enforcers” of sexism in the church (or at least the women that benefit from it). For example, not even Boyd K. Packer would produce something like this (from a recent BYU women’s conference, original link is here.)
4) When someone asserts that the church isn’t sexist because the men in the church love their wives (as Boyd K. Packer does in the comments linked above), it should be clear that this is the equivalent of asserting that footbinding wasn’t bad because Chinese parents loved their daughters. How men “feel” about their wives is completely irrelevant to the question of sexism at an institutional level.
5) The “nicer” men are about the patriarchal structure of the church, the more likely it is to be perpetuated (because the “nicer” men in authority are, the less onerous this authority is perceived to be). In other words, the more benevolent the patriarchy, the more durable it will be will. If the problem is patriarchy itself (regardless of whether benevolent or oppressive) then the best way for men to promote change may be to act like authoritarian jerks.
6) Those who understand how human pyramids work and could advocate effectively for change (i.e. those in the middle rows), but don’t out of convenience (or because they benefit from the status quo), deserve the most blame.
7) And finally, it is really really hard to move a human pyramid. It took the combined efforts of Western missionaries, feminists, and the full weight of the Communist regime to stop footbinding. It also took hundreds of years.
[Last Post: 20 Half a Church]
I have a dear friend who writes quite regularly for feminist LDS publications/blogs. We’ve talked about “how far” to push change – how much agitating is too much, how much is just right. In her life, the church works quite well – her husband is successful financially, she lives a very comfortable live in Salt Lake, she serves in auxiliary presidencies, has the “right” number of kids and doesn’t want to rock the boat. She gets upset and wants to distance herself from other bloggers when they get “too out there” on issues like women in the priesthood, etc. Until individuals like my friend are willing to “rock the boat” I don’t see anything changing. I love the analogy of this middle tier of the pyramid.
Exactly. The middle tier could do a lot to move things forward, but. . . . Thanks for the comment, Lyn.
I think it also expresses how difficult it is to be in the middle, caught between two places and how stuck that can make people feel, even if they have the perspective that is suggested by the post.
Great post Brent.
I’ve been thinking about this for about three years now, and I keep going back and forth. I have male friends, whose choices I respect, who have resigned from their callings and decided to not be part of the priesthood hierarchy until changes are made. Sometimes I am very comfortable with that stance. Other times, it makes more sense for me to want to be on the inside, exerting whatever influence I can.
I agree, Mark. Hard to know which decision is “right.” I guess it’s a totally individual decision, no?
“When someone asserts that the church isn’t sexist because the men in the church love their wives (as Boyd K. Packer does in the comments linked above), it should be clear that this is the equivalent of asserting that footbinding wasn’t bad because Chinese parents loved their daughters. How men “feel” about their wives is completely irrelevant to the question of sexism at an institutional level.”
Exactly. This is perfect, thanks.
Sociologically speaking as I understand it, there is also a phenomenon where the lower the payoff a behavior has but with a high level of commitment, the more likely it will stick around longer, or the more devoted a person will remain to it. I can’t remember what they call it…but in the case of the bound feet for example once a parent has done that to a daughter, and received zero benefit from it themselves they are less likely to advocate against it because they’re perpetrators – a low payoff but high commitment=devotion. And in the case of the LDS faith, you get very little in return for all your time, money and talents and so to turn against it once you’ve done all that for a period of time is unlikely. Who’s going to admit they paid 10% of their income for years and got nothing in return? No, people are more likely to search for imaginary reasons that 10% paid dividends.
Women clearly get the least of of Mormonism and sacrifice the most for it too typically…and they seem to be the most devoted to it in most couples that I’ve seen.
@dadsprimalscream, very interesting stuff. . . the idea of retrospective sensemaking in organization studies seems to capture some of what you describe. . .
I have had some recent opportunities to assert myself and urge for some local policy changes. And what has surprised me most is the response I have witnessed from the women around me. I have witnessed women defend the stake priesthood–in their presence– with the most condescending, shrill, sing-songy voices. These “enforcers” tried to explain to me, for these men, what the priesthood must surely be thinking to continue this lame tradition. Months later when nothing had been changed, I went to petition the bishop on the ward level for the change that the stake wasn’t willing to make. The women I invited to go with me lost courage, straightened pictures on the walls or listened from the doorway. I like the pyramid analogy because as I tried to lean push for change, the women around me couldn’t stand the pressure and had to lean back to balance the equation. These behaviors were almost more shocking to me than the actual, original issue. Oh, and by the way, I got my change, almost, mostly.
Thank you for taking the time to write these insightful articles. Spot on!
@Hinged, I thought this sentence was really interesting: “These “enforcers” tried to explain to me, for these men, what the priesthood must surely be thinking to continue this lame tradition.” I’m always surprised when I see women playing this role (i.e. defending sexist policies, etc.). I guess I shouldn’t be.
I am caught somewhere in this triangle. I serve on the RS Stake Presidency, and I am baffled how I even got the calling when the SP knows exactly how I feel about women in the church. He did say something to me about using my passion about it to help serve the sisters. However, the RP and the rest of the women on the presidency are all about enforcing the system, so they block me in on all sides.
Oh I love this.
So well articulated, so emotionally balanced.
This is so relevant of many subject in the church and not only about this priesthood thing. As I have said everytime I have commented on a blog I must really say that I hear of situation in the US that people don’t want to believe when I tell them in France. They really think i am making things up or exaggerating because if what i learn would be done in France the man would quickly feel the odd one in priesthood meetings.
I must say that generally speaking I feel blessed to live in France on this subject and I really don’t want the priesthood I guess because most of the priesthood holders I know (although they may be the stupidest men and the worse in many fields) hold the priesthood to such a sacred level in their lives that they would not use it to oppress women in any way.
But I do see areas to improve even in France concerning the women status and the very very sad thing is that the problem is coming from the sisters themselves and absolutely not from the brothers.
Sad uh?
I just read this article, and viewed the footbinding issue, and both full texts of the President Packer references.
I stated my peace earlier (on Half a Church), but I didn’t see (apparently), what you believe is the problem. (In regard to point #5) If I understand this correctly, you are not stating that women should have the Priesthood, you are stating that the Patriarchal order is incorrect? Or that it needs to be disbanded? Wow. I didn’t see that coming on. I have never thought that people would think that THAT, the Patriarchal order, was the problem.
Here’s a quick glimpse of how I see it.
Patriarchy-presided my men
Matriarchy-presided by women
Oligarchy-presided by wealthy
Monarchy-presided by noted birthright monarch
Anarchy-presided by no one. Satan maybe? He might like that one.
As far as I can tell, those are your options. (I might be limited in my knowledge of ‘archies’…my apologies) Somebody has to preside. If the adage of ‘too many chiefs and not enough Indians’ doesn’t make sense, I don’t know a better analogy. There has to be a leader at every level. The only way to do this simply is by either saying ‘all men preside’ or ‘all women ‘preside’ or ‘anyone with the birthdate closest to the first Tuesday following the winter solstice’s following Wednesday present at a meeting preside’ or…etc. It was chosen by God, BEFORE ADAM, that it was to be men. I don’t see how it’s a problem. It’s worked for more than our earth’s temporal existence and we think, in our few short years of living on earth we have found a flaw in God’s plan? We’re kidding ourselves.
We might not have everything right now (AoF 9) but if we are so blatantly wrong to not even know if the patriarchal order is ordained of God, we might as well be pagan.