“A Mormon Mother” was the way I was described as my Prop 8 video was linked around the internet. I can’t blame them, I am the one who introduces the topic of gay marriage with mention of one of my children, and when I identify “who I really am” I use the number of children I have to help earn credibility with my listeners.
Because I had never spoken publicly against a church policy, I wanted my video to be above reproach with nothing anyone could possibly disagree with. When my first take sounded angry, I insisted we shoot it again. I used emotionally based appeals, complimented the motives of my opponent and only asserted myself as an expert in the role that my LDS tradition defined as mine – in being a mother. I was attempting to appeal to a Mormon audience, and my tactics resulted in a product that was both successful and stifling. Part of its appeal that week was disbelief that the institution would try to silence someone as innocent as I appeared.
As I watch the video from the distance of two years I find power in my sincerity, my sympathetic situation and my likability. I am immensely proud that I put it back up because I believe in its message and because I did so despite incredible fear and discomfort of having people I love be ashamed of me and not approve of my actions.
But I wonder at the same time if my approach that made my video so relatable and successful also set the women’s movement back (I speak in jest a bit here as I certainly understand that my actions alone can not make or break a larger movement)? Can a woman speak forcefully and be likable in the LDS community and how important is the likability part in persuasion?
I feel like Exhibit A from the book The Curse of the Good Girl where author Rachel Simmons argues that “in idealizing the ‘good girl’ – unerringly nice, polite, modest and selfless – we teach girls to embrace a version of selfhood that curtails their power and potential.”
“Despite every door that has opened, girls continue to grapple with confusing, conflicting messages about personal authority: be successful but say nothing about it, or about yourself; be strong but don’t make anyone angry; and be confident, but do it ‘quietly.'”
My husband also made a video, one that appeared on Andrew Sullivan’s The Daily Dish during the Prop 8 campaign. His arguments came across as such, with appeals to the church’s former stance on the role of government in regulating secular marriage (ie the days of polygamy). And he never mentions how many children he has.
As I consider the gender roles that influenced my own decisions about how to speak out, I also see my gender as an issue in some of the response I received. While the majority of comments were directed to my argument and tactics, or at least the idea of religion in general, sprinkled throughout were comments about my hair, my weight, my makeup, and my sexual appeal. I was surprised by how I could feel both flattered and cheap reading them (the complimentary ones, that is). Just like a whistle on the street, hearing you’re a MILF can be a boost to the ego. But there’s something about having a total stranger see you bare your soul and the only thing they have publicly to say about you relates to how they would use your body, and it starts getting a little creepy.
I’m surprised at how much I now see gender at play in my actions and their response. I had assumed that because the internet was a modern technology, the communication would follow suit as more progressive. But I still see traces of traditional gender roles in both the way I present myself and some of the response I got. What gender roles do you see at play in internet communication?
As far as gender playing a role in online communication, I think just looking at the trend of monikers shows that even when we are hiding our identities, the terms or names we pick for ourselves reflect gender in some way. I’ve often wondered how women feel about being viewed as women in some conversations, and whether it is a conscious decision, because some forums are more difficult to make yourself heard in if you are pegged as one or the other. fMh is a good example. Many of the women that comment there don’t comment elsewhere, and I would say that many of the larger blogs are more heavily male because it feels like you have to be exceptional in expressing your voice as a woman to get noticed or feel part of the conversation at large. That could simply be my own experience though (as I’m not very witty), but I do wonder what would change in the tone of discussions if everyone used gender neutral handles.
Of course, more and more people are feeling comfortable using their names (which I think is good in general) so we’ll never know if words on a digital page could be read differently in the context or absence of gender roles.
I totally agree with this. Especially the “you have to be exceptional in expressing your voice as a woman to get noticed” part. It’s nice to hear that a man notices this as well. It’s kind of the same in everyday conversations to. To be heard in a political or intellectual conversation at dinner parties, a woman has to prove herself. Everyone does to a certain extent but especially women.
Interesting point, I hadn’t even thought about the use of gender neutral monikers. I will admit that I considered gender neutrality when naming my girls. Both of their names are predominantly used for girls, but could swing either way technically. I remember thinking I wanted them to not have to overcome a girly name to prove themselves.
For better and worse, the power of your message was generated from your very personal revelations. And you did get the full gambit of responses, but also the most moving responses were all tied-up in your person. I think we grow tired of the stilted and anonymous voices out there, so that when we experience something more real it just _really_ pops. And certainly something of the full force of your personality was hidden so as not to distract … that’s a decision made with every message we humans send to each other.
So I guess what I’m saying is that gender roles lend authenticity to communication and you pick the facets of your personality that are most relevant to your message and you highlight them. Just like how that LDS book ‘Womanhood’ written by a bunch of old white men is a laughing stock, your message becomes utterly moving and beautiful and believeable for who you are.
Matt — I agree that Mel’s loveliness, both inside and out, came across very clearly in the video and was one of the things that made it so compelling. However, part of the reason that people were so taken by it was the fact that she did seem like an ideal version of a Mormon mom and therefore a perfect poster girl for the cause, but Mel is so much more and so much more complex.
Agree. Just saying that it’s probably not practical to convey the full complexity, nor would it help the message.
I agree that it is impossible to convey full complexity in a short video, but I think (and I might be off, so Mel can correct me :) ) that her concern in this post is the last part of your sentence — the “nor would it help the message.” It is a shame that being a complex, difficult, or, heaven forbid, angry woman won’t help your message (and I realize that complexity doesn’t usually help messages for either gender).
Matt and Heidi. I agree with you both in a sense. I believe the sincerity of what I had to say (I really did find this little drawing by Wally the day we were writing our videos and it was just too perfect to pass up) is one of the striking elements of my video, but it would never have gone as far as it did were I not the perfect poster girl for the cause. Especially having the idea of the big patriarchal church silencing a sweet Mormon mom. When I made the video I wanted people to see that “good” moms and “good” Mormons could oppose Prop 8.
Mel, these are questions I ask myself all the time, in both my real life interactions and on-line. I am a vocal feminist and very conscious of presenting myself in a pleasing, non-threatening way, partly because it is my personality (I tend to be pretty measured in my responses) and partly because I know that it makes my message more palatable (which sometimes makes me feel ashamed).
When I was working a cops beat as a reporter, I was hit on a lot by police and firemen. I always felt there were a lot of things going on there — one was the power struggle for information. I could see very clearly that hitting on me was a way to put me in my place for asking questions they didn’t want to answer. The other thing I constantly struggled with is that I knew that I had more access if I was good-natured about their flirting or flirted a little myself. I never felt completely comfortable about it and I really understand what you mean when you say you felt both cheap and flattered.
Beyond this, our on-line communications are becoming more visual, erasing some of the anonymity that might have allowed us to look at the differences in real life and on-line communication.
I like this comparison Heidi. We are, at the end of the day, people. So much more than words and ideas are part of our communication with each other, both online and in real life. I don’t want a world where healthy flirtation doesn’t exist, but I want to be taken seriously too.
I remember reading (or someone telling me) a story while I was in college about the first women undergraduates at my school when they were accepted in 1969. It was a big deal, then, to integrate the campus (when before it had been [white] men only) and members of both sexes watched with anticipation (and probably some dread) on the outcome of the “let’s have men and women in the same classroom” experiment.
Anyway, one of the professors at the time, I was told, was overtly and obviously sexist, to the point of grading women’s papers down just because they were women because he thought it was impossible that women could ever be as intelligent or articulate as men. Since the classes were made up of roughly one woman for every 15 men, it wasn’t unusual for women undergraduates to be the only women in any given class during the first few years. This same professor took to asking what the women thought of the subject at hand “as a woman”, expecting them to speak for their entire sex.
One group of ladies found this so ridiculous that they took the “as a woman” phrase to an extreme to point out its absurdity: “As a woman, I think the weather is lovely today” or “As a woman, I want you to know your cooking is delicious”…
Anyway, I think that the internet was meant to be the great equalizer and instead it ended up being a place for everyone to assume that everyone else is “the norm”; that is: (white) male. It’s like saying, “I’m going to watch Baylor Bears basketball…” but if you mean you’re going to watch the women’s team, you have to specify: “I’m going to watch Baylor Bears women’s basketball”… being a man is the norm; therefore anything else must be clarified.
Mel,
I’m still wondering whether your bishop has had anything to day about your beliefs of presentation?
As for your question It seems we have often to limit ourselves in order to be acceptable in certain situations. This can be very frustrating. I often have thoughts in church classes that I do not share . I drive a car that is limited to 250kph but the speed limit here is 110, equally frustrating but with no moral content. ( not sure about headline “mormon high priest caught driving at double the speed limit” )
Anyway I support you and wonder how the leadership are coping with you?