My wife, Heather Olson Beal, Tom Grover, and Ralph Hancock, a political science professor at BYU, recently participated in a Mormon Stories podcast that addressed the role of women in the church). Inadvertently, I believe, Mr. Hancock laid bare the issue in a profound way. Here’s is what he said (at 27:40 in the podcast):
Naturally I could unfold a whole different world view from Heather, just based on the points that I’ve heard there, but let me try to be as brief as possible. . . I notice in both Tom’s and Heather’s language, decision making, power structures, I mean. . . the question who is in charge of decisions. I see a great tendency to translate the question of whether God loves men and women equally into a sameness of function with respect to. . . huh. . . public. . . huh. . . policy-related power. First of all, I mean one would have to. . . who is making the decision? Do we not believe in the Lord’s guidance of the decision-making process? But in any case, I see this as an unwholesome concentration on political. . .power. . .as the validation, as some kind of spiritual validation, which seems to me to be an unfortunate distortion [emphasis added].
It’s a fascinating statement (and admission) from Mr. Hancock. First a little background (just to set the stage). When women in the church start talking about gender inequality (e.g. http://www.ldswave.org/?page_id=83), one of the first arguments that always gets paraded out in response is that men and women are “different” and that feminists (and their allies) are somehow engaged in an unnatural (and unholy) effort to make men and women “the same.”
Notice that Mr. Hancock introduces this carefully as “sameness of function.”
This is a dumb argument. Feminists (and others who care about gender equality) don’t want men and women to be the same. When my wife puts on lingerie, neither of us is the least bit interested in “sameness” (just the opposite, it’s the differences that are the most interesting). I don’t want to birth babies. She’s not disappointed by her inability to produce sperm. We’re not interested in parenting in the same way. We both recognize that men and women are different in a thousand ways that often influence how men and women communicate, the careers they choose, the way they form and maintain relationships, etc. I can safely say, from experience, that gender equality has nothing to do with “sameness.”
Well, that’s not true. Of all the ways in which men and women are different, feminists (and their allies) are committed to “sameness” in one respect: Men and women should be equal (or the same) when it comes to control over their lives and their ability to influence the social institutions in which they participate. That’s what women’s suffrage was about. That’s what the long struggle for women’s rights, in general, has been about. That’s what we’re talking about when we raise the issue of gender inequality in the Mormon church.
Back to Mr. Hancock.
He correctly identifies the crux of the issue (participation in the decision-making processes of the church), and then he starts down the path of criticizing the notion that God intends for men and women to be the “same.” “I see a great tendency,” he says, “to translate the question of whether God loves men and women into a sameness of function.”
So far, so good. He’s trotted out the notion that men and women are the same like an old show horse. “Clearly,” you can almost here him saying to the crowd, “men and women are not ‘the same,’ ergo I win the argument (and the feminists are crazy).”
But then he does something that one should never do when debating gender equality. He tries to define what he means by “sameness.”
“. . . sameness of function with respect to. . .”
As I was listening, time seemed to slow down a bit.
“with respect to. . .”
He hesitates. He’s not sure what word to use.
“. . . uh”
He’s doing his best to find a way to say what he’s thinking without being offensive.
“. . . public. . . uh. . .”
He decides that a few adjectives might provide some cover.
“policy-related power.”
And there it is. It’s like the show horse that he’s has been parading around the arena just stopped and took a leisurely bowel movement on Mr. Hancock’s shoes.
We’re talking about power, and in the Mormon church, men have all the power (and women have none). We don’t like to frame it that way. We like to talk about how men and women are equal partners (as long as it’s understood that men “preside”). We rely on clichés, telling ourselves that men may be the head, but women are the neck (and then pretend we don’t all know that it’s the head that controls the neck, not the other way around).
Perhaps the best example of this kind of doublespeak is from M. Russell Ballard in a recent talk titled “Let Us Think Straight” http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2133). He says that he want to “pay tribute to the faithful women and young women of the Church today” but then follows with this: “While your input is significant and welcomed in effective councils, you need to be careful not to assume a role that is not yours.”
In other words, feel free to offer us (men) advice, but be sure to remember who is in charge (men).
I laughed out loud at Mr. Hancock’s next sentence. He sputters a bit, trying to get some traction: “First of all, I mean one would have to. . . who is making the decision?” Then he spits it out: “Do we not believe in the Lord’s guidance of the decision-making process?”
I have this image of Mr. Hancock as a boy getting caught by his mother with his hand in the cookie jar. “But mom, it’s not me, God made me do it.”
Right.
I wish for two things. I wish we’d acknowledge that gender inequality in the Mormon church is a serious problem. And I wish we’d stop blaming God for it.
[For another exchange with Mr. Hancock, see this old Mormon in the Cheap Seats post: https://dovesandserpents.org/2012/04/26-mcs-mormonism-lite/]
The discussion about equality in the church is always brought to a halting stop whenever someone blames God for it. God – a male, made these roles for women, empowered men to lead his kingdom, and if you are wholesome, you won’t question God – the ultimate male authority. If he wanted it to be different, who would have made things work differently! End of story.
And any woman who questions it is: A) not righteous or obedient, B) welcome to leave, C) power-mongering to ask for equality in the church’s power structure D) clearly not understanding your place/role as a woman
There’s no talking with this kind of ignorance. Discussion shut down. And maybe I’m a little too suspicious, but this system is too problematic!
What if it’s true though?
Laurie, godhood (in the LDS doctrine) is reserved for couples (and I don’t want to start a row about a single spirit-only Jesus [the Son], or the Holy Ghost). So, his wife was in on the plan. What’s more, we were all in on the plan, and we shouted for joy (if the scriptures are correct). Were there complaints that the Savior had to be male? Maybe, maybe not. The whole shebang (gender roles, deity, quantum physics, the need for the Atonement) can be deconstructed until everything falls apart, but then we’re no place closer to an answer.
You mean, what if God really is sexist (and is going to punish for not being adequately sexist)? The God I believe in isn’t going to play the game that way. He created us with the capacity to make moral judgments, and I believe that he expects us to do so. I suspect he’s more concerned about how we use our agency (and the moral judgments we make) than whether or not we do what we’re told.
I was very excited to listen to this podcast and hear the different perspectives. In the end, I felt sick.
I found Brother Hancock to be rude and dismissive. He sounded self righteous.
I was so dumbfounded by his lack of grace and tact – – he sounded like a person of absolute privilege: he’s white, straight, male and priesthood bearing. He made the church look like a good old boys club that has no room for anyone but his kind and those who agree with him.
The worst part for me was when he basically called Heather a bad parent – – the hubris of that is astounding.
Good catch and nice analysis, Brent. I still haven’t listened to this podcast for exactly the reason km offers. I’m afraid RH would make me sick. I’m happy to see you caught him slipping up and saying the “p” word, though.
Two comments:
1) I would restate Kullervo’s question as follows: What if the current administrative structure of the Church is the one that best prepares men and women for the tasks, responsibilities and opportunities men and women Heavenly Father will have/assign them in the eternities?
2) There are many women in my ward and stake (and for that matter in the upper echelons of Church leadership) who have significantly more power and influence in the power structure and decision making process of the Church than I have. Even though I’m “white, straight, male and priesthood holding”, I’m far from being a “person of absolute privilege”.
I do some activism around gender identity. Progressive groups that I belong to support gender identity legislation. For instance, transgenders and transexuals in the workplace, public places, and in the bathrooms. For a person who has not known a person born in a physical form – that does not match how they identify – the world gets complicated. When a transexual goes through transition – it is a long complicated process. For those with gender identity transitions, even using the toilet is an issue – you can only imagine how degrading transgender or transexual persons feels. What most of us consider routine can be a crisis. And yes – those expressing different identites than the ones they were labeled with at birth – they are human. And no – they are not confused. Often they are bullied or physically harmed.
This has given me a different view of sexuality and gender identity. While I identify as a straight white heterosexual – I have never felt accepted in my home culture and the religion into which I was born. Submissive is not my forte. Oppression because I’m not a good Mormon woman or atypical because of my personality was the norm. This makes me question authority and seek for justice and equality and the pure love of Christ. Tolerance. Human Equality. Human Rights.
Watching transgenders and transexuals self identify, seek work, go through transition, seek companions, walk in public, and come out has made me reflect. What does it mean to be a man? Is it about the penis? What if you are genetically a man but your penis is missing? What if you are genetically a woman but your hormones, brain, and intuition tell you – you are a man? What if you are a child and begin to know and express something that is not on your birth certificate? What if you never come out – does this damage your spirit and your soul? What if you stay in a religion that never ever allows you to have sexual gratification? Is this life? Is this salvation?
What if you are a man – who used to be a woman? What would the Mormon Priesthood mean to you? Who do you submit to?
What if you are sexless? Or both? Humans come in such a variety.
Thank you Heavenly Father for diversity. Please help us to love one another.
I agree w/ KM. I was looking forward to hearing different perspectives, but Brother Hancock came across condescending and disrespectful. I was trying to have an open mind going into the podcast, as I expected him to take a very hard line based on his treatment of Joanna Brooks a while back. But in the end, his attitude and points left me feeling very empty and confused.
Could there not have been a better person to represent the right side (that’s an honest question)? Or is this simply another example of the reality we face in terms of engaging on this issue with more conservative members? I hope not.
Brent, your analysis here was spot on. I thought Heather did a great job in representing the left on this issue.
“In other words, feel free to offer us (men) advice, but be sure to remember who is in charge (men).”
Those little insertions, and the resulting (re)focus of the issue, will cause trouble (besides being erroneous, IMHO).
It’s not just men, but priesthood leaders who’ve been given specific callings and responsibilities. Ezekiel 3 covers some of it. There can be very specific awareness in leadership (for both men and women) as to who’s really in charge (the Lord). With that calling comes a mantle and gifts, one of which is the gift of discernment, and an insight given into the will and mind of the Lord that’s not normally handed out. When Elder Ballard says “you need to be careful not to assume a role that is not yours“. That applies to everyone, not just women. It means other men, too. When the prophet is said to possess “all priesthood keys”, that means his responsibility and insight is quite a bit.
Yes, the priesthood leaders are men, but slicing and dicing this issue along gender lines (as it has been) confuses it and reduces it to a worldly argument about gender roles, rather than specifically-assigned roles and authority from Deity.
So, just to clarify, your argument is that God wants us to be sexist, so it’s okay?
How did you get that? That’s a presumptive leap.
When you say that my argument is that “God wants us to be sexist”, how is God wanting us to be sexist by having prophets?