DiscussMormonism.com

After chatting with Liz and Harmony last night about how Mormon women are often judged not on their own merits, but by outward signs of success and the status of their husbands, I realized I had written a post addressing the subject and posted it on RfM many months ago. Here it is:



Women can achieve a certain status in Mormonism despite their lack of Priesthood authority. The status a woman is afforded relates directly to the calling her husband holds in the church, how much money her husband earns, and how many smart, pretty children she has. Women who have successful husbands with higher callings such as a Stake calling, Bishop, Elder's Quorum President, Counselor in the Bishopric, or even Young Men's President or Scout Master, are stay-at-home mothers and have four or more attractive, well-behaved children get the most respect in the wards I've attended.

Single women, women with inactive husbands or husbands who don't usually have "high" callings almost never, in my experience, get the more important callings that women can have in the church. It doesn't matter how capable or intelligent they are, or how dedicated they are to the "gospel", or even how many children they have - they don't get called as the Relief Society President, or the Young Women's President or even as the counselors to those positions. They don't rate because they're judged by the successes or failings of their husbands - or by the fact that they don't have a husband at all.

Missing any key ingredient - money, children, successful husband - puts a woman one rung lower in the Women's Ward Hierarchy. It's not only the men dedicated to promoting "Stepford Wives" in Mormonism. The women are very good at it, too. They've been carefully trained to be that way and to value conformity, subservience, humility, marriage, having many children and material success above almost everything else in life. Women who don't fit the ideal "Molly Mormon" mold are to be pitied or even feared. There is no place for them in Mormon society.

Surely this mistreatment of women is one reason convert retention is so low. If most converts are women, treating them with such pity or disdain (especially if they are single, divorced, or their husbands don't join) isn't a prescription for growing the membership. As far as I'm concerned, that's OK. I personally don't want the Mormon church to do anything that might retain converts, as the best thing for the duped souls is to get the hell out as fast as their feet can carry them.

Women's reliance on men for status is unfair to the men. This issue of judging women by the worthiness of their husbands is what crushes so many women when their husbands lose belief in Mormonism. The wife suddenly becomes someone to be pitied and that hurts. She has little hope of a decent eternity consigned to another man as his celestial concubine. Why wouldn't she be devastated? The Mormon institution has her convinced she's nothing without a righteous husband. How sad.

Kimberly Ann

KA wrote:Women who don't fit the ideal "Molly Mormon" mold are to be pitied or even feared.

LOL!

I'm feared.

;)

KimberlyAnn wrote:After chatting with Liz and Harmony last night about how Mormon women are often judged not on their own merits, but by outward signs of success and the status of their husbands, I realized I had written a post addressing the subject and posted it on RfM many months ago. Here it is:

Excellent insight, KA.

A few more thoughts on this subject:

Men without means do not as a general rule rise to the top of leadership. All things being equal (except SES), and the rich man will get the leadership calling. This pecking order holds true whether any individual would have the same calling in a different ward or not. For example, in a rural ward, the bishop will be someone from the Rich Farmer catagory (for one thing, because someone from the Poor Farmer catagory would not be respected by someone from the Rich Farmer catagory.) That same bishop who moves to a town ward would not be considered for leadership in town because Farmers are on the low end of any SES totempole.

Women who have the guts to return to school and have a career after fulfilling the major requirements of large numbers of children, all beautifully turned out, all active, active husband, etc don't necessarily lose their influence in the ward. They can, however serve as a role model for women who are stuck. But they can only do this if they first fulfilled the major requirements of the LDS woman, and if they don't actively proselyte among the sisters about the joys and wonders of life as a career woman.

Just as with the men, leadership positions among the women are handed around among a very small group. If you noticed Beck's resume, she was in the general leadership of Young Women's before she was picked as General Relief Society President. What the leaders don't realize is that many of us know exactly what's going on, and even if we've been on the inside of our own ward leadership pool, we still deplore the practice as both incestuous and exclusive. An elite leadership pool leads to exactly the problems we have right now with our leadership: they're out of touch, living in a fantasy world that has nothing to do with the reality that the general rank and file must deal with, and consequently they are losing their hold on the membership. Talks like Beck's show an appalling lack of understanding of today's world. Lord have mercy, but she was embarrassing!

I don't think the description of how women are judged by their husbands (economic status, children) is confined merely in the subculture of LDS. This is more of a societal concern than one solely found in the Church.

barrelomonkeys wrote:I don't think the description of how women are judged by their husbands is confined merely in the subculture of LDS. This is more of a societal concern than merely one found in the Church.

True...which is why it's sad that it occurs in Church. Church should be the last place you find this type of BS.

By the way, one of my good friends was just called into the Relief Society presidency. She knows I play the piano for Primary. I think she was trying to hit me up for some type of Relief Society calling. She asked me, "So, do you miss Relief Society?"

Without skipping a beat, I said, "No."

She kind of stammered for a minute and said, "Well...you're honest."


Being First Counselor in the Primary Presidency was more than enough hassle for me. I spent most of my time in the hallway desperately trying to find substitute teachers for classes where teachers had just failed to show up without calling or making arrangements. Good times!

Oh, the Primary President released me from that calling because I worked full-time. She was frustrated that coordinating meetings was a hassle.

Never mind that A LOT of what we needed to take care of, we could have done via phone conference or email(which I suggested to no avail).

No...modern technology should never be used in Church. Just have meetings for the sake of having meetings.

Some things never change.

LOL

barrelomonkeys wrote:I don't think the description of how women are judged by their husbands (economic status, children) is confined merely in the subculture of LDS. This is more of a societal concern than one solely found in the Church.

The difference is that society is changing. The church is not. The church is in a time warp to the 50's, to the idealic lifestyle our leaders remember so fondly. Nevermind that it was neither ideal nor especially fulfilling for women, and that as soon as we could, we ditched it for something better. The church has shown repeatedly that it does not let go of the past easily. Look how long it took them to accept Blacks at least with a token equality. We don't exactly have a plethora of Black leaders, decades after the revelation. The church will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century, only after this present generation of leaders is dead and gone. I only hope I live long enough to see it.

barrelomonkeys wrote:I don't think the description of how women are judged by their husbands (economic status, children) is confined merely in the subculture of LDS. This is more of a societal concern than one solely found in the Church.

I think that's true. But since leaving the Mormon church, I can say that in my experience as both a Mormon and non-Mormon, that the issue of women being judged by the status of their husbands is particularly grievous in LDS culture. The doctrine that women may not enter heaven without a worthy TBM husband makes the emphasis on having a worthy TBM husband quite heavy. It has eternal consequences if your mate isn't up to par, or even worse, if you've no mate at all!

No doubt combining Mormon culture with Southern culture makes it all the worse - which is what I experienced as an LDS woman. There may be places where the issue isn't as severe as it was for me.

KA

Great post, KA. I was just thinking that my wife is in trouble it her status depends on mine. ;)

barrelomonkeys wrote:I don't think the description of how women are judged by their husbands (economic status, children) is confined merely in the subculture of LDS. This is more of a societal concern than one solely found in the Church.

Come the revolution, this will all change Comrade. With some degree of poetic justice, the admonition that the first ones now will later be last does hold some intrinsic appeal.

moksha wrote:

barrelomonkeys wrote:I don't think the description of how women are judged by their husbands (economic status, children) is confined merely in the subculture of LDS. This is more of a societal concern than one solely found in the Church.

Come the revolution, this will all change Comrade. With some degree of poetic justice, the admonition that the first ones now will later be last does hold some intrinsic appeal.

How about a much less remembered commie slogan? From each according to her ability, to each according to her need. I think it was "his" in the original, but who cares.