Todd Christofferson and Gender Roles

[Anonymous]

I was very disappointed in Elder Christofferson’s mothers’ day talk in GC.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/watch/2013/10?lang=eng&vid=2722266089001&cid=5

I fully agree that it is wrong to overlook the combined strength that different genders bring to the table. My wife and I are quite different people and to a large degree we reflect classic gender traits. Together, it is a beautiful arrangement (although I think I’m getting the better end of the deal). But while I recognize that there are different gender TRAITS, it is dangerous and demeaning to talk about gender ROLES.

Unlike EC, I would have approached the topic in a way that didn’t box women into specific roles. In one segment, EC talked about key contributions being purity, modesty, and virtue. What I really disliked about this is the notion that the LACK of poor behavior constitutes goodness. Women contribute… not by staying away from bad stuff, but by adding good. It’s no different from men.

He seemed to indicate that the “moral influence” of women was their responsibility.

He certainly lumped women together into a collective, rather than individual, effort.

This is one of my hot-buttons. One of my big-three. Draconian tithing expectations and not finally putting polygamy behind us are the others. But the second-class role of women is painful. I’m a man, so in theory I should benefit from this… problem is I have a wife and daughters, and I don’t want them to have to take a back seat because of their gender. So, I struggle. The point of my writing this isn’t to simply complain. I don’t know what to do with this. I increasingly feel that I can’t stick with the Church and this is one of the reasons. I don’t need or expect the Church to start ordaining women, but I would love the Church to separate priesthood from hierarchy, and I’d love for the Church to be more accepting of and involving with women outside of motherhood and primary.

I may be too sensitive, because of this being one of the big-three for me. I’m eager to hear your thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

But while I recognize that there are different gender TRAITS, it is dangerous and demeaning to talk about gender ROLES.

Yep.

I spent the entire talk knowing how it was going to be perceived negatively (rightly so) by many people, and I said so in my written summary of it in the GC thread here, but I also believe he is a good, sincere man – as Ann mentioned in a comment. (http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4666&p=63681&hilit=christofferson#p63681) I think if we had a chance to sit down with him and express our concerns about the talk, he probably would understand and apologize for the reaction it caused.

I can’t say that about all of our leaders, local or global, but I can say that about him.

[Anonymous]

Disappointing that “feminists” were lumped into a straw-woman argument in that talk. I honestly don’t know any feminists, never have, who denigrate motherhood.

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, I do know some feminists from my college days who denigrated motherhood, openly and vehemently – but they were the exception that prove the rule.

I agree that General Conference is not where I want to hear discussions of things like feminism – especially from men.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Disappointing that “feminists” were lumped into a straw-woman argument in that talk. I honestly don’t know any feminists, never have, who denigrate motherhood.

My wonderful Mum has the following fridge magnet:

Quote:

I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.

Rebecca West

[Anonymous]

This is also a sensitive topic for me. I didn’t listen to EC’s talk, but before I turned conference off on Sunday I heard something about women choosing careers over bearing children. (I don’t remember the speaker) I knew I needed to stop watching conference at this point because I’m still too sensitive about it. I’m trying to look at it in a less black and white manner. What it feels like to me is that the leaders want women to put child bearing first above all else. Is this right? I believe motherhood to be the most difficult and most rewarding job in the world. But is that the main reason we’re here? If so why did God give us other desires and wishes? In the LDS church it seems like men can follow their desires and it’s ok, but it feels like women are asked to sacrifice their desires. I’ve been told that there aren’t exceptions to the rules that leaders establish, but as a high school teacher in a crazy urban school I can tell you that some people just shouldn’t have kids. So, isn’t it more about following what God wants you to do, whatever that is? What if Mother Theresa decided to marry and have kids? I’m sure she would have been a great mom, but instead she was the mother to the most downtrodden of all people in India. I’m sure she followed God’s plan for her. So are there exceptions? I’ve never been married and am in my 40’s. It’s strange to try to fit in that womanly box because I don’t fit very well. 😆

[Anonymous]

This is also a hot-button issue for me. I have never been so depressed in my life as I was after I decided to be a stay-at-home mom. I have a lot of strengths and talents in life, but literally NONE of those seems to be child-rearing-related.

I have nothing but respect (okay…that’s not true; there’s also a healthy dose of awe) for those women who can/want to do this role. It’s pretty freaking remarkable. But my strengths lie elsewhere. I’m just a little sick of feeling like this makes me a failure as a woman, when in reality every member of my family has been happier, and our home has been a better place, since I decided to go back to work.

I just don’t believe that God made 50% of all people nurturers and then decided that would correspond exactly with their gender. Plenty of guys I’ve met have been more inherently nurturing than me. Plenty of gals, too. Through my work, I’m able to help a lot of people who are in desperate need of it, and I have a real knack for my work. Talks like these give me a guilt complex. Should I quit work, which makes me happy and benefits a lot of other people, so that I can stay home, where I am miserable and my talents are crammed under a bushel? I feel the only answer the church has for me is, “Develop more womanly talents,” but that’s not really consistent. In every other area of the Gospel we’re taught that everyone has different talents, and that our responsibility is to use what we’re given and nurture that. But somehow, every single woman on Earth (except me, apparently?!?!) got the nurture bug and I need to get on board with that.

Sigh. This was not my most favorite General Conference.

[Anonymous]

Some men are much more nurturing than some women, and some women make far better providers than some men – and it’s discouraging to be told you should feel or be something you simply aren’t. That’s why I really dislike talks like that one.

Luckily, the Proclamation to World actually says, ultimately, that each couple has the right to adapt the traditional “primary responsibilities” to their own needs and situations – and it blows some members’ minds (especially the older generations – mine and above) to be shown that simple fact. :crazy: Sometimes, when I’m in the wrong kind of mood, I do it (gently and with a smile on my face) just to see their expressions.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

This is one of my hot-buttons. One of my big-three. Draconian tithing expectations and not finally putting polygamy behind us are the others. But the second-class role of women is painful. I’m a man, so in theory I should benefit from this… problem is I have a wife and daughters, and I don’t want them to have to take a back seat because of their gender. So, I struggle. The point of my writing this isn’t to simply complain. I don’t know what to do with this. I increasingly feel that I can’t stick with the Church and this is one of the reasons. I don’t need or expect the Church to start ordaining women, but I would love the Church to separate priesthood from hierarchy, and I’d love for the Church to be more accepting of and involving with women outside of motherhood and primary.

I may be too sensitive, because of this being one of the big-three for me. I’m eager to hear your thoughts.

Aside from what I consider the flagrant foul of polygamy, and the problems I have with the temple, I don’t honestly know what I think about gender roles. I thought Maureen Proctor’s “open letter” to Kate Kelly in Meridian Magazine was condescending. But I don’t know that I agree with Kate Kelly when she says that “equality can be measured.” I have never been on board for priesthood=motherhood. I read big, flowery talks about women “presiding over the entryway to mortality” in the birth process – as in, that’s sort of their priesthood, so it makes sense that men preside from that point on….. I don’t get it. I thought our church culture’s condemnation of the historical sexual double standard (which Elder Christofferson referred to) for men and women would mean that the physical siring and birthing or a baby would be equal. And that seeing them as equal is what makes them both sacred and provides the backdrop against which all the other issues can be discussed.

[Anonymous]

This talk is depressing. And it will fan the fire for unthinking local members who also like to deal in stereotypes.

[Anonymous]

Apollyon wrote:

But somehow, every single woman on Earth (except me, apparently?!?!) got the nurture bug and I need to get on board with that.

During this talk I couldn’t help but think of the movie “Elf” and the scene where Buddy is being told that all the elves have different talents as a way to make him feel better about not being good at toy making. His response, “But it seems like everyone else has the same talent but me!” (paraphrased. . . )

That is what I think when I hear these talks. It can’t be true that all women have the same talents, because I am the exception if no one else (But of course there are many other, they go unacknowledged in these talks though.)

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Luckily, the Proclamation to World actually says, ultimately, that each couple has the right to adapt the traditional “primary responsibilities” to their own needs and situations – and it blows some members’ minds (especially the older generations – mine and above) to be shown that simple fact.

I felt like Elder C. undervalued this in his talk when he essentially said that a stay at home mother is the ideal but that some less fortunate members will need to make do with what they have. “….People strive to duplicate its benefits as best they can in their individual circumstances….”

Old-Timer wrote:

Fwiw, I do know some feminists from my college days who denigrated motherhood, openly and vehemently – but they were the exception that prove the rule.

I wonder if some strains of liberal Mormon feminism might be in response to the excesses of conservative rhetoric. I believe that part of why I find grace, mercy, and unconditional love so appealing is as a partial rejection of the “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” camp that seems so pervasive. It is easier to let others do as they will in peace when you don’t feel like you are being forced to follow suit.

Ann wrote:

I read big, flowery talks about women “presiding over the entryway to mortality” in the birth process – as in, that’s sort of their priesthood, so it makes sense that men preside from that point on….. I don’t get it. I thought our church culture’s condemnation of the historical sexual double standard (which Elder Christofferson referred to) for men and women would mean that the physical siring and birthing or a baby would be equal. And that seeing them as equal is what makes them both sacred and provides the backdrop against which all the other issues can be discussed.

I agree. I don’t want to be a bystander in the birthing/rearing process. As much as I am able, I want to be a participant. But then this leads me to what I feel the thrust of this talk really was; that women have a stabilizing influence on societies and that by not having premarital sex they are performing that greater role.

I do think that there is a point to be made about the stabilizing influence of women. I understand that China is running into some of these issues because there are now not enough marriageable women to go around. So yes, being able to pair off into committed relationships is stabilizing. Marriage is stabalizing. I guess I can also see the argument that abundant free sex diminishes the incentive to make commitments – The whole milk from a cow analogy. This would make women and their ability to deny extra marital sex as the gatekeepers of marriage.

But from there it really breaks down. I believe the weakness of this argument is that it sees only the extremes of sex in marriage only on the one hand to free promiscuous sex everywhere on the other. Then it goes on to create links between things that I don’t believe are related by talking about wearing modest clothing and not using crude language as though to permit these behaviors would be the start of a slippery slope to pure debauchery and the destruction of civilization. Is feminism anti-civility? anti-civilization?

I do wish that sex wasn’t such a commodity but that may be naïve. “Revealing dress reinforces the lie that a woman’s sexuality is what defines her worth.” OTOH, Much of this talk seems to be saying that a woman’s ability to lock away her sexuality (with the single exception of her husband) is what defines her worth/”moral authority and influence”/strength. Sex is still a commodity.

I think the key is in respect and responsibility. I need to respect myself and my body. I need to respect the thoughts, feelings, and bodies of others. I need to be responsible for myself, my actions, and the consequences of those actions. I feel that it is also appropriate, in the spirit of respect and responsibility, to join together with other like minded individuals in organizations that together we might have a greater influence for good than any of us could hope for on our own. That, IMO, is the heart of Civilization and the message applies equally well to both genders.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Then it goes on to create links between things that I don’t believe are related . . . .

I can definitely agree with this, but my gut reaction is still that he doesn’t lord himself or any man over a woman. He pointed out:

1. Fathers and mothers work in harmony to provide for, teach and nuture their children.

2. There should be no sexual double-standard.

3. Men’s responsibility to serve and sacrifice is not less than a women’s and cannot be left to women.

But in general, I wish we could just take a break from talking about gender. Christ didn’t talk about it much. Why do we?

[Anonymous]

Ok, Ok maybe I’m beating a dead horse on this subject but as I was lying in bed last night a phrase from this talk was troubling me.

Quote:

To the young women, don’t lose that moral force even before you have it in full measure.

What is meant by this? In context, he goes on to talk about not using course language or wearing immodest clothing. What I am really wondering though is what is meant by the YW not yet having the “moral force…in full measure.”

I have my theory but I’m wondering if there is any other approach to this.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Ok, Ok maybe I’m beating a dead horse on this subject but as I was lying in bed last night a phrase from this talk was troubling me.

Quote:

To the young women, don’t lose that moral force even before you have it in full measure.

What is meant by this? In context, he goes on to talk about not using course language or wearing immodest clothing. What I am really wondering though is what is meant by the YW not yet having the “moral force…in full measure.”

I have my theory but I’m wondering if there is any other approach to this.

Unfortunately, in that sentence I think having moral force is being equated with being physically mature, i.e., having fully gone through puberty.

Edited: I had a story in here that maybe wasn’t appropriate for the thread, so I deleted it.

[Author]

Posts