W&A: Notes on Chapter 4
[Hanks, Maxine, ed. Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism. Salt Lake City, Ut.: Signature Books, 1992.]
So, I’m late posting this week’s chapter, “Historic Mormon Feminist Discourse—Excerpts.” Believe it or not, in spite of this chapter’s inordinate length (75 pages when most essays in this book are 15-30), I had it read by last Monday, but I never got around to writing a post on it until now. Better late than never I guess.
As the title would suggest, this chapter consists purely of excerpts from six different areas or publications where Mormon women have written and delivered talks throughout history:Woman’s Exponent (excerpts from 1872 – 1884), Exponent II (1974 – 1991), the Alice Louise Reynolds / Algie Ballif Forum (1979 – 1990), Mormons For ERA material (1978 – 1983), Feminist Issues at Brigham Young University (1976 – 1992), and the Mormon Women’s Forum Newsletter (1989 – 1991). I noticed some interesting names among the writers and letters cited: Judy Dushku (mother of actress Eliza Dushku?), Jan Shipps (Methodist historian of all things Mormon), Claudia Bushman (wife of Richard, adjunct professor at Claremont), Sylvia Nibley (Hugh Nibley’s niece and friend of Martha Nibley Beck?), and Mary Stovall Richards, who was one of my history professors at BYU.
For me, the most intriguing material in this chapter was the ERA material. I’m always amazed by the reactions I get from Latter-day Saints should I mention the ERA to them. Mormons have told me:
- That the ERA was the most evil law that anyone ever attempted to enact. (Wow. Worse than interning Jews and shipping them off to gas chambers?)
- That the ERA would have forced the LDS church to ordain women to the priesthood and allow non-members in its temples. (Never mind that Utah is one of 22 states with an equal rights clause in its constitution, yet somehow the LDS church hasn’t been forced to do any of the above.)
- That the ERA would have forced the government to include women in the draft, and it would be inappropriate for us delicate flowers to have our periods in foxholes. (No, I’m not making that up. It’s what I was told.)
- That the ERA would have brought about the horror known as unisex bathrooms. (You know, just like how the 13th and 15th amendments brought about an end to racially segregated bathrooms.)
So you see that I still run into some strong (and wildly uninformed) opinions about the ERA even today, over a quarter of a century after it was effectively killed. The story of Mormon activism both for and against the ERA and the tale of Sonia Johnson’s excommunication are fascinating to me in that light.
Anyways, here were my favorite excerpts in the chapter. First up, in the ERA section, let’s hear from mission president Hartman Rector, Jr. on why women can’t be ordained to the priesthood:
Letter to Teddie Wood… The very belligerent tone of Sister Johnson’s remarks will do little to win the favor of the Brethren or the Lord. He who made them made them both Male and Female and there is a difference. The female has the greatest influence on the children of our Heavenly Father, because she prepares their earthly body and then nurtures them during the most formative period of their life. Therefore there is no power on earth as strong as mother love and mother influence.In order to attempt to get the male somewhere near even, the Heavenly Father gave him the Priesthood or directing authority for the Church and home. Without this bequeath the male would be so far below the female in power and influence that there would be little or no purpose for his existence in fact would probably be eaten by the female as is the case with the black widow Spider.Therefore the Lord has made plain by revelations both ancient and modern that the male rules over the female but always with love and great respect … —HARTMAN RECTOR, JR., Mission President, California San Diego Mission, August 29, 1978 (p. 118-19)
I dunno, Brother Rector. I would say that, under the right circumstances, most men are big fans of a good devouring.
Thankfully, the eleven and twelve-year-old boys were a bit more sensible than the mission president:
Why Don’t Women Hold the Priesthood?: A Brief but Insightful InterviewOn a June morning in 1988, I was cooking pancakes for my eleven-year-old son and his friends after a sleep-over. Twelve-year-old David had recently been ordained to the priesthood and the other boys were asking how many times he’d passed the sacrament. While slapping a few more pancakes on their plates, I asked, “Why don’t women hold the priesthood?” Their answers were as follows:DAVID: (age 12) “Men have better looks.”ROBERT: (age 13) “Some women have their priorities wrong and men are more distinguished.”STRYDER: (age 11) “My sister’s Sunday School teacher said giving women the priesthood would be like giving them an open-ended credit card.”RICKY: (age 11) “My grandpa says maybe they’ll get it in heaven.”ROBERT: “Women aren’t strong enough because it would fatigue them like when Jesus blessed people he would get weak.”DAVID: “Yeah, if women had the priesthood they might beat the men up.”ROBERT: “And women have their times when they aren’t cooperative and I give you my permission to quote me.” (He’s a lawyer’s son.)ERIC: (age 8—interrupting impatiently) “Hey, you guys, let’s go play Power Lords.”RICKY: (Hurriedly stuffing the last bit of pancake into his mouth) “Well, I think (long pause with a shake of his head) I don’t know why.”End of pancakes. End of interview. Exit Power Lords. —BETINA LINDSEY (p. 139-40)
Finally, there’s this excerpt from BYU’s VOICE in reaction to a proposed curfew on women meant to protect them from nighttime attacks on and around campus:
Committee to Promote the Status of Women
—Voice NoticeDue to the increase in violence against women on BYU campus, a new curfew has been instated. Beginning Wednesday, November 20, men will no longer be allowed to walk alone or in all-male groups from 10 p.m. until 6 a.m.Those men who must travel on or through campus during curfew hours must be accompanied by two women in order to demonstrate that they are not threatening.Provisions have been made for men who need to be escorted home. Contact your BYU ward Relief Society Presidencies any time. (p. 136-37)
Now that’s my kind of snark.
Later this week, it’s chapter 5, “An Expanded Definition of Priesthood?: Some Present and Future Consequences” by Meg Wheatley.
Comments
W&A: Notes on Chapter 4 — 2 Comments
Categories:
this book in mind.