Feminist Mormon Dads dot com
By Rory on Aug 16, 2006
Two weeks ago I skipped Sunday School (again) and slipped into Primary, as I much prefer to sit in the back of the primary room and watch my four-year-old son participate. The sharing time lesson that day was on Scripture Heroes. It consisted of pictures of different individuals placed face down on a table, while one by one children were called upon to come forward. The selected child would choose a hero, hold up the picture, and then tell the story. Sometimes the child would know the story, sometimes other children would help, and sometimes the Primary President would bail them out.
Job, Nephi, Adam, their stories related and celebrated. Benjamin, Moses, Noah, the children eagerly raising their hands to be the next selected to come forward. Samuel, Peter… I slowly realize that these heroes have something in common. They are all male. Every last one.
There wasn’t a Mary, no Ruth to be found, Esther was missing, as was Sarai, Mary Magdalene, Eve…
My four-year-old is all boy and he was sitting in front, trying to participate, caught in that maddening childhood paradox of desperately trying to be noticed by raising his hand high, squirming in his seat, and yet still show reverence.
But my thoughts drifted to my 10 year old daughter. She wasn’t in the room. Her class, the older class, had already participated in this sharing time. What did she think? Did she notice this disparity? Does she notice it, each week? What does this communicate to her? To her friends?
The bell rang twice and the Primary President closed the sharing time. As I walked down the hallway, holding my four-year-old’s hand, I was deeply bothered. I have three boys and one girl. I worry about her. I worry about the messages we send to her.
To be fair, the lesson was “heroes” and not “heroines”, and the scriptures come from a decidedly different era. However, this lesson and its accompanying handouts were written today, and they did not originate with this particular primary president. She was using the tools provided for her, and she did an admirable job - even closing with the comment that “there are women heroes in the scriptures, too.” But it almost seemed like an afterthought. A correction.
There are women heroes in the scriptures, too. But they don’t get a cardstock picture cutout.
As the father of five daughters, I can certainly relate to your comment. I noticed the same disparity in terms of modern Mormon “heroes,” when the Primary room was decorated by cardstock prints of various presidents of the church and other male leaders, with nary a female face to be seen. I nearly went out and purchased pictures of Emma Smith, Eliza R. Snow and other notable women in church history to put up in my young girls’ rooms, so they could see there were great women to emulate!
I frankly found Primary disturbing on a whole variety of levels. The “teaching” techniques I have seen in various wards Primaries have a great deal in common with known brainwashing techniques. The program is structured to mold otherwise creative, adventurous young minds into conformity. This idolatry toward male leaders is just one aspect of that conformity.
Comment # 1 by Nick Literski | Aug 16, 2006 | Reply
I couldn’t agree more, Rory. The amazing thing to me is that I never even “saw” (as in really “internalized” or “understood”) this until I became a father myself. Yes, I recognized the lack of heroines and/or female role models (apart from one’s mother) in the Church since I was old enough to know what was going on, but I always just accepted the status quo as normal.
To be fair, this has been somewhat of a problem in society at large until recently, and society probably still has a ways to go.
I’m hoping we’ll eventually arrive at the party, though Mormon Standard Time usually means we’re late by about thirty years.
Comment # 2 by Matt Thurston | Aug 16, 2006 | Reply
Well, the interesting thing about your post, Rory, is that you are interested in imbuing your own values onto the interpretation of scripture in a public context.
I’m not saying that’s bad. We all do it.
I mean, it probably used to be that Joseph Smith was lionized because of his ability to get many wives, but now that’s hushed up. When the Mormons were feeling picked on, they probably interpreted scriptural calls to war much more literally than we do now, and probably downplayed calls to peaceful interaction with one’s enemies.
We always interpret stories according to our current values and worldview.
So what you’re saying is, “It’s important to ME to talk about female historical figures in primary.” And your ideals reflect current humanistic tendencies.
Yet at the same time, a lot of us who hang around Sunstone like gigantic worms around deep sea vents get annoyed when other people interpret scriptures according to their “backwards” contexts. We like to accuse them under our breaths of igoring the actual scripture in favor of upholding their value system.
So I’m curious, what are the ethics around foisting our interpretations onto scripture, especially when we would be affecting a context as public and formative as primary?
Comment # 3 by Stephen Carter | Aug 16, 2006 | Reply
Nick - 5 daughters? You likely noticed this long before I did.
Matt - I’m with you. I didn’t consciously recognize this until after becoming a father. I’m not happy about that.
Stephen, you write:
I respond:
Yep. I’m a product of the times.
But I don’t think it is accurate to say that I am trying, here, to interpret scriptures according to a specific bias in a public context - I’m not trying to foist an interpretation contrary to established doctrine. In fact, I’m silent on the interpretation of the stories.
My point is that primary consists of a healthy mix of girls and boys. I’m simply saying that it would be nice to illustrate some of the stories about women for the benefit of the girls AND the boys.
I don’t expect it to change. Yet. But in the mean time the fact that I am finally conscious of it enables me to act as a responsible father and to supplement the limited instruction my kids get at church. In addition, to the extent that discussions might raise awareness with others, that’s a win.
Comment # 4 by RorySwensen | Aug 16, 2006 | Reply
This month’s Sharing Time outline in the Friend specifically includes Ruth as one of the scripture heroes to be discussed. I believe the Church curriculum folks are quite aware of gender imbalance issues, and work for an equitable focus.
Comment # 5 by Rosalynde | Aug 17, 2006 | Reply
I have had these same feeling many many times. But interestingly, as my son is starting to reach Sunbeam age, I’m finding I’m liking the lesson this teaches my Son even less than the lessons it teaches my daughters. I don’t want my son to think that he needn’t listen to womens stories, that his sisters play no important roles in our church and our history. I don’t want my son to “accept the status quo as normal” as you did. This ingrained entitlement must be corrosive to men’s souls.
Comment # 6 by fMhLisa | Aug 18, 2006 | Reply
Rory, Primary is preparing your daughter for Relief Society, where we don’t hear any women’s stories or read any statements by women. Sometimes a woman will be mentioned or quoted in the Visiting Teaching message, but not always.
My Relief Society president has me write a page about some woman in church history for the monthly RS bulletin. I modified the call slightly to make it “some woman that nobody has ever heard of before.” I’m not really sure whether the sisters in my ward care about these pages; I’m having a blast identifying these women and telling their stories.
But it’s a lot of work — maybe more work than most Primary presidents want to go to — to present feminine examples.
Comment # 7 by Ardis | Aug 18, 2006 | Reply
Rosalynde - I hope they are aware, and I hope such an awareness is eventually reflected on Sunday.
fMhLisa - I agree. Though my awareness didn’t just happen this past week (it’s been buidling for the last 15 years) this particular class seemed to be a good opportunity to express it.
Ardis - Wow! Sounds like you could have another book in the works?
Comment # 8 by RorySwensen | Aug 19, 2006 | Reply
Sorry Rory, I didn’t mean to cast any aspersion on you, I’m sure your awareness has been budding longer than my own . . . I was just saying it doesn’t only harm our daughters is all.
Comment # 9 by fMhLisa | Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
Ardis, if you do have a desire to publish your bio-sketchs in someplace other than your RS bulletin, fMh would love a series of guest posts like that! (Is it very bad taste to solicit guest posts on a “rival” blog?
Comment # 10 by fMhLisa | Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
I didn’t take it that way, Lisa, and I think your point about it being a problem for boys also is a very good one.
I didn’t give this a single thought until I was serving a mission. The sister missionaries - most especially the older ones, but also the younger 20-somethings - were pretty impressive. But we, as 19 and 20 year old boys, were leaders, with our first qualification that we had a Y chromosome. When I had sisters in my district it struck me that they seemed to have it together more than I, and could do as well or better than I if they were given the chance. (I’m generalizing here, but I hope you understand.)
The seed was planted and subsequent experiences and observations helped it to sprout over the years. But now, in the past few years, with a daughter growing up and finding her own way in life, it has grown significantly.
I’m getting there.
Comment # 11 by RorySwensen | Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
I’d think it great if they had cardboard cut-outs of the women too. Particularly the year of Old Testament studies, when women are easy to find.
However, once we have the pictures of women of the Old Testament, we’ll be talking about why the women are all younger than the men and why the women are anachonistically wearing make-up.
Comment # 12 by Raising California | Aug 23, 2006 | Reply