For conservatives, the mere word brings up images of carping women demanding not parity, but outrageous concessions. Feminists are, in my faith, considered some of the worst examples of apostates, overturning a natural order of things that is not only wholesome but sacred. To women, they are the narrow-eyed critics of stay-at-home-moms and threaten the right and freedom of every domestic to be happy in her calling. To men, they are the less-than-feminine threat to the simple opportunity to be a man, bring home the bacon, and be comfortable that they’re doing okay at manhood. In every way, feminists are modern lepers.
I am a feminist. And I am a Mormon. So I am a Mormon feminist. It’s neither oxymoronic nor leprous. And I am none of the things the cultural definition indicates.
This is my definition of feminism, copied right from the online dictionary that google so politely provides me: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. Thank you Merriam-Webster. I don’t know a single person with whom I deal regularly who would challenge any of that, but were I to self-identify publicly as a feminist, they would as an entire group be aghast. The problem is a poor cultural understanding of true feminism.
It reminds me of a story I read earlier today of a black woman in my area. She was awarded a position of some prominence and responsibility. Along with the position came a parking space, but hers was not to be out front with the other executives. It was in back by the dumpster. When she asked why, she was told that if it were known that they had hired a black woman for a position of this prestige and authority, the company would be in a difficult position and so would she. They didn’t want to impose that kind of racially-motivated backlash on her, so they would “bring her in through the back.” This explanation was offered with the greatest kindness and deference and deepest respect for her skills and abilities to do the job she’d been hired to do. Not a one of those involved considered themselves engaging in racism. Still, from our perspective their behavior is absolutely jaw-dropping, and quite obviously racist.
In the same way that people of color are marginalized politely, women have been as well. In progressive countries the issue is not as often a protection from abuse or horrific laws as it is a set of assumptions that are flawed, though applied with the greatest kindness and good will. We can eliminate these last vestiges of racism and misogyny first by defining them accurately and examining our assumptions.
I’m not going to go into the issues of feminism in Mormonism, nor of the many, many types and flavors of feminists. I’m interested in unpacking the assumptions in the word feminist and the belief that Mormonism is not compatible. Feminism doesn’t deserve its baggage.
Deseret Hospital Board of Directors. Top row: Ellis Shipp, MD; Bathsheba Smith; Elizabeth Howard; Romania B. Pratt Penrose, MD. Second row: Phebe Woodruff; Mary Isabella Horne; Eliza R. Snow; Zina D. H. Young; Marinda N. Hyde. Bottom row: Jane S. Richards; Emmeline B. Wells. Courtesy the Utah State Historical Society.
For instance, Mormon women have always been some of the most progressive of American women. While Utah was the second territory to award the vote to women, it was the first to fully institute it. 19th century Mormon women were trained in medicine, started hospitals, provided most of the relief/welfare work, started social organizations, and were active in politics. They stored enough grain in commercial granaries prior to the start of World War II that the US government bought grain from them to boost domestic supplies. Mormon women were actually some of the first feminists, and they were awesome – not carping, not leprous.
Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, who is one of my heroes, is a Pulitzer-prize-winning historian who now teaches at Harvard. She is also a Mormon feminist, and she talks about how those two things work together much better than I ever could (please, if you read nothing else, click the link and read it). In her words:
Each group reduces the other to its own worst nightmare, and the war is on. In such a climate it is tempting to run for shelter, saying less about feminism among Mormons and less about Mormonism everywhere else. But a silence based on fear is no solution.
What an apt description of the unnecessary conflicts women feel between one another and with men. She also discusses the benefits and opportunities that are coming to women in our day as our church publishes an unprecedented historical survey that it has put, cost-free, into the hands of 6 million women worldwide. Julie Beck, former president of that 6-million strong Relief Society, also discusses the heritage made available to us in Daughters in my Kingdom.
Nobody is saying the F-word (feminism) aloud, but that is exactly what this book is. It is a story of the noble history of one of the world’s greatest organizations, meant to awaken within a sleeping population an understanding of the potentials and destiny of our sex by demonstrating its earliest proponents. Arm-in-arm with men in our church, women are invited to enjoy every spiritual gift, engage every noble impulse, and vanquish every evil on this earth.
That’s feminism. It doesn’t have anything to do with what you do for a living. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether you are wearing a bra. And it’s not just for make-up-less lepers in comfortable shoes anymore.
So, what has your definition of feminism been, and can it accommodate cookie-baking, pinterest-interested women right along with single ladies in sensible shoes? And if you are a man, are you a feminist?
Bonnie Blythe 
hawkgrrrl
April 15, 2012
Love your post.
I was slow to embrace the term feminist, but nobody else would have been slow to call me one. I would have said I have lived my life as a post-feminist, assuming equality rather than fighting for it.
I don’t know many people who don’t really believe in equality of the sexes, but the gender essentialism preached in the Proclamation on the Family is certainly a stumbling block to true equality. Traditional gender roles create a social disadvantage for women. Staying home rather than having a career creates a financial disadvantage to women only overcome through marriage and reliant on a husband who takes full advantage of the privilege afforded by his wife’s choice (rather than just taking advantage of his wife). We can say it shouldn’t be that way, and maybe it shouldn’t. But it is.
Brenna Woodbury Williams
April 15, 2012
I don’t feel like it’s difficult to be a feminist in the LDS church if your perspective is that of the prophets. The culture of the church may be different, repressive, even, but I think that has more to do with passed down social influences that infiltrated the church and less to do with doctrine. I loved how Julie Beck has said that the world wants women to think that they can have it all now, and in the church we want women to have it all in seasons and times, and eventually have everything. I believe that Joseph Smith and Gordon B. Hinckley were some of the greatest male feminists in the history of the world!
My first qualm with the social definitions of feminism is that I feel in order to fit the mold of a “feminist” I have to be a female who actually wants to be and act and do all things that men can do. I think that’s nonsense. As a female, I want to be free to choose, as a man does, how to live my life, enjoy my liberties and pursue my own happiness, I don’t want to have to want to join the army or feel inferior because I like to sew my daughter cute dresses. I don’t want to have to defend my choices as a woman to other women. I just want them to fight beside me for the right to choose to work, or choose to stay home, or choose to work from home, or choose to be a doctor or choose to be a ballerina, or whatever I choose–and then rejoice with me that I am free to choose and be happy for me whatever I choose. Also, I want to have tools made to fit my hands/size so that if I choose, I may use a drill or saw with ease. They don’t necessarily need to be pink, though. 🙂
My other qualm with the social definition is that it’s unbalanced. It’s socially acceptable to be a feminist, but to a male-ist (I don’t know that there is even a word, somehow “masculanist” doesn’t seem like a real word..) isn’t ok. I’d prefer there to be some balance in that it’s not just women who want to be treated equitably. Plenty of men and certainly children throughout the world need activists to help them gain access to the same kinds of liberties. I think the true form of feminism would actually be called “humanism,” because I believe it when the prophets speak of women having the power and divine gifts to lift others and relieve suffering in a way that is unique to women. Real feminists, I believe (and especially those I admire most), work to promote liberty for all, not just for 1/2 the population. So feminism in the social sense seems so unbalanced and on-sided…almost selfish. And almost pushy to the point of devaluing the other side.
I recently read about how, anthropologically speaking, it is more genetically favorable for a species to produce more female offspring when the living conditions are such that the mother is undernourished and resources are sparse, because it is easier for malnourished females to attract mates than it is for malnourished, small, and weak males to attract a mate. These principles are also at play with humans, and not just animals, in that women who are underweight or malnourished tend to have more daughters across a population, than do their healthy or overweight female peers in other areas of the world.
While the author made no connection between this principle and the need to improve the living conditions of those females, I couldn’t help but think about how cultures like those in India and China where sons are favorable. They are actually shooting themselves in the foot by their mistreatment of women. If they really valued males, they would elevate the status of women in society and with that elevation and improved health, and then they would get more boys. Instead they perpetuate the problem by abandoning, beating, and killing women and female babies. It really is impossible to pick up one side of the stick without lifting the other! 🙂
Sorry for the novel-length response. I’m just wordy. Is that a female stereotype that happens to be true in this instance? 🙂
Bonnie
April 15, 2012
I really appreciated your perspectives. One of the great glories of a diverse gospel is the variety of perspectives we each have. The fact that the guidelines are manipulated and used to produce the very inequalities that I think God designed them to prevent is also a source of angst to me.
While I see the PotF as a huge boon to equality, I know people who do not at all feel that way, and my perspective (though passionately held) doesn’t negate theirs. I love how it places everyone into a community context with both eternal and mortal ramifications. Although some feel that it fails to acknowledge the uniqueness of individual lives, to me it establishes an eternal template and verifies the promise to each unique individual that the eternal is promised and will override the inequities of the mortal. I am single and in a perfect world, I would not wish to be, and I’m promised that I won’t. The principles of happiness in life are laid out, and if followed, happiness does result. Am I wildly, deliriously satisfied with my life all the time? Bah! But I am genuinely happy, and that laundry list of behaviors is my salvation.
I love the idea that we can’t pick up one side of the stick without picking up the other. Devaluing women is counter-productive in doing any good at all, as poverty efforts worldwide are constantly aware. It’s reality, not misogyny, that if you loan impoverished men money, less good occurs in the community at large than if you loan impoverished women money. The natural networking women tend to do lifts a family and a community with the women, which is where I find great truth in the ideas of the PotF: mothers, whether they have children or not, are married or not, are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children (whether they bore them or not) because the fact is that women elevate society. Society, then, is responsible for the care and protection of women, as prophets all through time have continually reminded peoples.
And I’m really sorry about the tools thing. My hands are the size of a man’s so I hadn’t thought about that. I shall organize a letter campaign.
Jennie Komp
April 15, 2012
The Power Of Femininity by Michelle McKinney Hammond
That is the book that changed my life. Because of it I am what the author calls “a womanist”
I had to resist highlighting every page. Bonnie, after reading this addition to your blog I know you’d love this. Thanks for posting your feelings on this topic. It is always great to learn more about what we have in common,
And thank you for reminding me of this book. I’ve read it several times but I think its time to crap it open again.
Kate Pinkerton Craig
April 15, 2012
I really appreciate your thoughts on the definition of feminism. I think it’s easy to define a woman’s “equality” with a man as just being able to do everything that a man can do. One problem that I’ve seen with that point of view is that feminism, when interpreted in that way, seems to be man-centered (which then appears as an oxymoron to me). I appreciate how you pointed out how women are capable of and can do so much in the world, especially in the name of humanity (and that it’s no small job of diminished worth, either). I feel like feminism is realizing our divine role and eternal worth in the eyes of our Heavenly Father (who understand us and our femininity much more than we do). I feel like I’m learning more and more about this, especially as I’ve served in the Relief Society over the past few years. Thanks for posting this!
Bonnie
April 16, 2012
Jennie, I’ll add this book to my reading list too (it’s getting longer fast.) With so many perspectives out there, I think it’s tempting to assume that we know what other people think about topics like this, and that nobody thinks as we do. This networking, communicating thing women do – it’s a good thing.
Kate, I agree about male-centered or culturally-centered definitions of feminism missing the boat. It’s something that has always seemed obviously out of kilter to me as well. Another of my beefs is that economics should drive any of our social definitions. I applaud people across the spectrum who have chosen their life focus based on an internal value rather than an economic outcome. I’m the first to acknowledge that economics sometimes forces choices on us because I live that, but I’ve still been free to choose how much I let that control me.
I’ve really enjoyed these comments. Thanks for jumping in, ladies!
Bonnie
April 17, 2012
I just found this quote on another blog: Ina May Gaskin points out, “even the writing of modern-day feminists have contained echoes of the recurrent theme of revulsion of the body – especially of the life-giving female body” (Birth Matters: A Midwife’s Manifesta, 69) I love this in the context of not allowing feminism to become male-imitation but instead focusing on the many manifestations of what it is to be female.
Jennie Komp
April 17, 2012
We (men and women) must let go of the fear that to be different is to be wrong, that what we do not understand is a threat to our individuality etc or a judgement against our value. In a world where every type of man already exists there is no reason for me to be man-ish. A woman, fully alive within her own divine power never diniminishes a man or other women. Just because we can use a knife as a screw driver does not make it a screw driver. It also doesnt mean that the knife is less valued, just different. Next time you eat a steak, whip out that screw driver and see how it works. Careful, don’t dispose it for not being more like a knife!
So why do we persist in devaluing a home/life that required multiple different tools to build? I don’t ask my dryer to wash my clothes, I love my washer for its unique role in the function of my life. But because of the conditioning of my youth I must make a conscious effort to equally love my “dryer”. But I do it for me and so that the next generation will not have to be constantly reminded.
I don’t look for anyone else to define me anymore because I am not a copy. I no longer waste my energy questioning why I am female, rather I pour it into what kind of female I can be. I know that she is someone who empowers the people, men and women, around her so much that they let go of their’s and societies indoctrinations and work to find their own integral spark of the divine.
I believe that the feminist movement will always been seen as a competition with men for superiority because it has been too long defined by their rules and valuations. It is a reflection of everyone’s insecurities.
Only us women have the power to change the conversation and the future experience of our gender by being something they can’t define, explain, measure or quantify – our true selves.
Bonnie
April 17, 2012
Nice thoughts! I think you might really enjoy this. I agree with many of her points.
Helen
April 18, 2012
I simply eschew the term “feminist” because no matter how we try to define it for ourselves, its overarching connotation in society is fraught with negatives I choose to distance myself from. Do I embrace many feminist ideals as the dictionary defines it, yes. But most people do not go to the dictionary for their perception of that term, they look to the images in soceity that represent themselves as feminists. Much like corporations must be vigilant about their product branding, lest “Kleenex” becomes ubiquitous for facial tissue (which it has).
In light of this “branding” problem that feminism faces, I prefer to think of myself as an egalitarian, if we must label it. In the same way that hyphenating one’s racial background draws disproportionate attention to the race before the hyphen (Native-American, African-American, Mexican-American….) such labeling doesn’t focus on what we have in common, which is where all cooperation begins.
Pres Eyring (Our Hearts Knit as One, Oct 2008 Gen’ Conf) offers these two thoughts that I think say it better than I can:
“A second principle to guide our progress to become one is to be humble. Pride is the great enemy of unity. You have seen and felt its terrible effects. Just days ago I watched as two people—good people—began with a mild disagreement. It started as a discussion of what was true but became a contest about who was right. Voices became gradually louder. Faces became a little more flushed. Instead of talking about the issue, people began talking about themselves, giving evidence why their view, given their great ability and background, was more likely to be right. You would have felt alarm as I did. We have seen the life-destroying effects of such tragic conflict.” (Sound like any newsmaker/talking head shows you’ve viewed on feminism, or any other political topic, lately?) Additionally, it is what bothers me about “Pride Days” of any variety. Celebrations, yes, and some would say that’s semantics, but we start communication with the wise choice of words, don’t we?
Pres Eyring goes on: “That same principle applies as we build unity with people who are from vastly different backgrounds. The children of God have more in common than they have differences. And even the differences can be seen as an opportunity. God will help us see a difference in someone else not as a source of irritation but as a contribution. The Lord can help you see and value what another person brings which you lack”
Modern day “feminists” as more universally accepted, still appear to me to be strident. I don’t want to be guilty by association with a label that has that or other negative connotations that I have to spend valuable time “explaining” my distance from.
I choose to label myself differently, not putting “femi—” anything in front of the word, because in so doing, I think it provides an imbalanced view of the importance of men in our society. They’ve been getting a bad rap for decades now. Just watch any commercial or sitcom and see how the woman is smart, accomplished, etc and the man is a blithering idiot who is lucky he is tolerated, something like the court jester.
Anywho – my two cents.
Bonnie
April 18, 2012
It’s one of the reasons I don’t self-identify as a feminist often – what I say is less important than what people think I say. But I do believe in having the discussion. I have really enjoyed everyone’s thoughts and I’m so grateful you guys chose to sit down and make full-blown statements. It’s here for someone to come back later and find, and hopefully the breadth of ideas and perspectives is useful to others who visit. I’m so glad to live in a day when we do not have to fight for our rights as women once did, that we can focus on having our hearts knit as one. So much more happens when we are unified. And so completely agree, Helen, I have no use for man-hating discourse either.
Michelle
April 22, 2012
“I simply eschew the term “feminist” because no matter how we try to define it for ourselves, its overarching connotation in society is fraught with negatives I choose to distance myself from. Do I embrace many feminist ideals as the dictionary defines it, yes. But most people do not go to the dictionary for their perception of that term, they look to the images in soceity that represent themselves as feminists.”
I feel this way as well.
And even as the dictionary definition seems simple enough I think even the dictionary definition can be a little hard to pin down, and in practice, the quest for equality can, imo, clash with some of Mormonism. What does equality really look like? Does it have to mean an equal number of women in certain positions at all times in an organizations? As a business woman by background, I am uncomfortable with the press, for example, to get more women in the workforce just so that they can be equally represented in organizations. I don’t know that you can celebrate some aspect of gender roles as we do (primary responsibilities) without having some of these kinds of ideals clash. Even as I continually hope for more family-friendly policies so that people can make choices as they need to, for example, or I don’t believe a woman should be discriminated against because she’s a woman, I’m not a fan of letting externally-driven measures of equality be absolute measures/absolute quests.
Part of why I believe this is because I think the full measure of equality is a spiritual principle, not one limited or measured by what happens in the political, social, or economic realm. Feminism sometimes to me feels like a replacement savior — that all will be well for women when ____________ rather that all can be well for us now because of Him. I believe equality at the core to be an eternal truth. I think we have to keep how that is true in our dialogue within the realm of Mormonism. Equality as a pursuit won’t save us. Christ already has, if we come to Him. “He inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26: 33) Sometimes feminists I have seen interpret that scripture to mean that the church is failing women. I read that scripture to mean that we already have equality because of Christ. All that we need for salvation is given us, through Him and His gospel and God’s eternal plan.
Michelle
April 22, 2012
p.s. Bonnie, I hope you know that I’m not trying to suggest that you don’t feel the same way about the doctrine…just sharing some of my thoughts on why the label for me doesn’t really resonate. (Nevermind the times I have seen feminists tear into Mormon women for being a. religious and b. part of a Church with gender roles/male prophets.
Bonnie
April 22, 2012
Michelle, I’m so glad you added your thoughts, and that Helen and you found wording that you both agree on. One of the great things that comes from these conversations, I think, is the oneness we often find with people we’ve never met. I believe in stirring the pot occasionally, not to create disharmony but to remove the sediment at the bottom so it can be tossed. Many times we have such knee-jerk reactions to one another that a conversation with “what I mean by” often helps us come out understanding one another better. One of my life goals is to tone down the conversation of defensiveness and accusation between women, and I think if we’re speaking the same language when we begin, that understanding is more likely. I love your emphasis that we already have equality (and equity) before Christ. And that’s the only place it really matters, so we’re free to connect with one another just by understanding that. Thanks!
Michelle
April 25, 2012
“One of my life goals is to tone down the conversation of defensiveness and accusation between women, and I think if we’re speaking the same language when we begin, that understanding is more likely.”
LIKE.
Sage
April 23, 2012
I’m glad you linked to Valerie Hudson Cassler’s testimony, “I am a Mormon Because I am a Feminist”. I read it last week and found her interpretation of the two trees in the Garden of Eden as symbolic of the roles of woman and man so enlightening. I have thought about it since I read it. It is such a beautiful way to see the equal importance of men and women, recognize their unique offerings and also for me, to see the central role that Christ plays in bringing us back to God.
I am also one who doesn’t identify as a feminist, but have strong feelings about allowing each of us to be who God wants us to be. We do need to speak up when we see inequalities that limit an individual’s choices, wherever that might occur.
Thanks for this important discussion.
Melody
July 4, 2012
I think however each chooses to label themselves is certainly up to them. I can go along with your definition of feminism, I suppose, though I would never label myself as that, as others have mentioned, because of the negative connotations. However, I have stumbled upon some current feminist Mormon blogs in which they do continue to further the stereotypical definition. They talk about how they ignored the prophets when they said that women should stay home with their children, and they believe the prophets changed their teachings because of it. They teach young women that they don’t need to be strapped down to only being a housewife, and that they will be more fulfilled by having a real job, etc. So from what I’ve seen, in spite of the dictionary definition, there are still plenty of Mormon women out there who appear to be identifying very strongly with what I see as the negative, and currently most-widely accepted meaning of the word. Plus, the idea of women needing to prove that they are as good as men at everything, and who don’t want to be tied down by men and children is exactly what came out of the feminist movement of bygone years. I don ‘t understand why women who don’t identify with that definition, feel a need to still call themselves that. If contemporary Mormon women are content with their roles as given by the Lord through His prophets, it seems like there would be a better label. Or maybe labels aren’t all they’re cracked up to be, and we could just dispense with them altogether. Let’s just be women, and accept the fact that we are all different from one another, and that’s okay.
Bonnie
July 5, 2012
Melody, glad you joined the discussion! You make a point that many women do – that they don’t want a label at all. And your point that women who do self-identify as feminists often espouse different values from those who embrace freedom and equality for women generally is well-taken. My purpose is to build bridges. I hate labels too, and I think they lead to societies of -ites. There are things in feminism that I can agree with, and for now, that’s where I’m trying to work for the sake of the continuing dialogue. So glad you’re joining the conversation!