Pants: Why I changed my mind

A few days ago I had, in reference to the Wear Pants to Church Day event, stated that I wouldn’t be joining the group, based on my own conceptions of equality and my disagreement with how the event was initially framed (the event description has since changed for the better).  My feelings on these two counts have not changed. 

However, the amount of abusive language levied toward those who have chosen to participate has caused me to rethink my former position about joining the group.  Let me explain.

After 9/11, the United States became a hotbed of antagonism towards Arabs, Muslims and anyone who slightly looked like they belonged to either of these two groups, including Persians and Sikhs.  The hijab, or veil, that Muslim women wear became a focal point of anti-Muslim feeling.  Within days of the 9/11 attacks, reports of widespread abuse of Muslim women surfaced. Women were verbally harassed and name-called. Some Muslim women told of being called “rag-heads” or told to “go home!”  Another woman was shouted at: “America is only for white people!” Many were physically violated and attacked (Ahmed, 2011, p. 204-205).

In response to these attacks, other women—many of them non-Muslims—began to organize campaigns against these assaults. The hijab, which had been the site of so much consternation, was taken up and publically worn by these women in order to show solidarity for Muslim women in the country.  Interestingly, The Feminist Majority Foundation issued a Scarves for Solidarity event, which started, fortuitously enough, on December 16^th (2001).  Their invitation was simply for women to wear scarves to cover their hair during Eid Muslim celebratory days as a “simple gesture of solidarity” meant to “communicate love and peace for women who wish to dress in a modest fashion.”  

One woman explained her participation thus: “I think it’s really important to speak out . . . because who’s going to be there for me.  Any sort of act of hate is an act against me.”  The slogan “Them equals Us” was taken up (p. 205).

Some of the women who chose to participate in these campaigns did so despite the fact that many hadn’t agreed historically with the hijab as a symbol.  Many of them had previously held complicated or even antagonistic feelings towards the hijab itself. But what they didn’t have complicated feelings about was protesting the abuse of women who chose to wear it, no matter their reasons for doing so.

One woman, after organizing such an event was criticized “for embracing a tradition that is viewed by many as a symbol of Islam’s oppression of women." She responded that her only intention “had simply been to reach out to let Muslim women know that they were not alone.”

One woman who had previously disagreed with the hijab as a symbol changed her mind because, as she explained, “I understand how it marks you as an object for someone else’s hatred….It’s still the same fight, but the symbol means something different” (p. 206).    

The women who have joined the Wear Pants to Church Day group have been called "dumb bitch feminists", "lesbians", "selfish", "stupid", "angry and masculine", "idiotic", "insecure", and "apostate."  They have been told to leave the church, and that they are not welcome. 

While I still have complicated feelings about the use of pants as a symbol of equality, for the reasons I’ve explained before, and while I may not agree exactly with how the event was initially framed or launched, or even (especially?) how it has been defended by the participants, I do not harbor any complicated feelings about now joining the event in order to extend love, compassion, and goodwill towards my sisters and brothers in the gospel who might believe differently than the majority, but who belong at church with us, regardless of what they wear or why they wear it.

I won’t be sitting there in pants thinking about anything other than how remarkable it is that Jesus and our Church leaders welcome everyone, regardless of their beliefs, motivations, actions, apparel, race or sexual orientation, to come and sit and be with us as we worship Christ, who loves us, and who can save us all.   

Ahmed, L. (2011). A quiet revolution: the veil’s resurgence, from Middle East to

America. Yale University Press.

Why I wear pants to church

I don't do it to be controversial. Some days I just don't feel like wearing a skirt or dress. Some days it's cold outside. Some days I'm helping with the Primary program and it seems like a hassle to keep my dress down while holding a kid on my lap. Some days it seems like a hassle to keep my dress from riding up while I hold my own kid on my lap.

Some days I think too much is made of what we wear, period.

Some days I like to tell people that the church actually made an official statement looong ago about it being no biggie for women to wear pants to church. 

Other days I think we take too seriously our cultural mores about dress. I'd like men to have more freedom to wear kilts or other cultural clothing that consists of something other than slacks to church and I'd like more women to know that it's okay to wear slacks to church. For me this isn't an issue of equality, which issue I take very seriously. Being able to dress like men, to me, is a pretty weird indicator for equality. I've read way too much feminist theory to fall for this one again. Does permitting women to wear pants to church equal more freedom and choice in dress? Yes. Does it indicate equality? No.

Normally it's easy for me to support my fellow MoFems. But the Wear Pants to Church Day group discussion is driving me crazy. In essence, I support what these fellow MoFems are trying to do: create more breathing room around cultural dress and make sure women who wear pants feel supported and less judged. But I haven't been able to understand or get behind the way it's been framed. I'll still wear pants to church to show support of my sisters who need it, but I don't think I'll be officially joining this particular group.

Your thoughts?

Wearing my Sunday best:

Art

When I tell people who aren't Mormon that Mormons take for granted that God is an embodied Woman (married to an embodied Man), I'm suddenly reminded of how very Pagan Mormons are and how very cool that is. Unfortunately, Mormons have barely scratched the surface of what this means and who She is, and historically haven't been too interested in delving deeper. Several BYU scholars have remarked at this oddity, and I couldn't more emphatically recommend that everyone read this review on their research. 

Because of many of the points in this article Mormons, despite their theological makeup, have been reticent to artistically imagine Mother God and to me this is a real shame.  However, female deity is hardly a new idea. In fact, it's one of the oldest ideas out there. Check it out. 

And so, lucky lucky me, I get to see how others have filled in the gap. Welcome to The Met, house of depictions of Mother God and Her daughters. 

Today I'm grateful for the belief I have in a Mother in Heaven who is mindful of Her daughters and sons. And for those courageous enough to try to bring her to life in the minds and hearts of others.

Beauty

Captured this image today, an older ward member caught the same subway car as us. She proceeded to play counting games with my daughter. She also happens to be a matriarch of Mormon feminism. Seeing her with my daughter was...simply beautiful.

Patriarchy: a look at both sides of the coin

For Every Woman
By Nancy R. Smith, copyright 1973
found here

For every woman who is tired of acting weak when she knows she is strong there is a man who is tired of appearing strong when he feels vulnerable.

For every woman who is tired of acting dumb, there is a man who is burdened with the constant expectation of "knowing everything."

For every woman who is tired of being called "an emotional female," there is a man who is denied the right to weep and to be gentle.

For every woman who is called unfeminine when she competes, there is a man for whom competition is the only way to prove his masculinity.

For every woman who is tired of being a sex object, there is a man who must worry about his potency.

For every woman who feels "tied down" by her children, there is a man who is denied the full pleasures of shared parenthood.

For every woman who is denied meaningful employment or equal pay, there is a man who must bear full financial responsibility for another human being.

For every woman who was not taught the intricacies of an automobile, there is a man who was not taught the satisfactions of cooking.

For every woman who takes a step at her own liberation, there is man who finds the way to freedom has been made a little easier.

Whether or not you disagree with the main voices of feminism, there are plenty of women and men who relate to Ms. Smith's words. Could it be that a main concern of feminism these days isn't equal pay (though it's definitely still an issue), birth control, or supplanting patriarchy with matriarchy, but an interest in making life fair for both women and men? And by extension, creating more sustainable, happier relationships? Just a thought.

Local Study Hits Home

Photo from theacademicmom.com

A recent study highlighted in the Deseret News last week made me feel both pleased and discouraged. The article pointed out that Utah women lag behind in higher education, much more so than women in other states. The study indicated that Mormon women in particular have a difficult time reconciling higher education with family. The article left me feeling pleased because women in this area, most of whom are of my faith, place high priority on family and child-rearing. It upset me for a few reasons. Before I go further, however, let me make it very clear that the purpose of this blog post is not to admonish all women, and especially Mormon women to pursue educational and career goals, whatever the cost. There are so many considerations to be made depending on the woman, her interests and her family, that I have absolutely no interest in making broad statements about women and what they should or should not do.

-

That being said, the article did discourage me because so many women feel, rightly or wrongly, that pursuing an education and raising a family are mutually exclusive pursuits. That may be true of some women and their families, but certainly not all. One quote in particular resonated with me. Susan Madsen, business management professor leading the Utah Women and Education Project, stated: "LDS young women get that it's important to go to college. That's not the problem. . . They don't see options. They do not see that one evening a week they could go to class and their husband could watch the kids. It's all or nothing." As the article outlines, many Mormon women do begin college, and it's highly encouraged; but finishing is given less emphasis and consequently, many of those women don't graduate. Anecdotally, I know several women who've waited until their children leave home to finish their degrees. A woman in my Navajo class is 69 and finishing her degree in Political Science. Props to her! But it doesn't have to be that way.

-

Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, Mormon woman and professor in Harvard's History Department had finished her bachelor's degree in English shortly after getting married and before having children. After moving to Boston for her husband's education and having several children she says:

-

"By that time I realized that there was life after marriage. . . We were just getting started out. I had these little kids and not much money. It occurred to me that I could do a lot with small amounts of time if I was organized. It was very hard at first, but I became disciplined. The whole experience convinced me that I could handle taking a class or two, and eventually I started thinking about the long term. So Gael and I came up with the money for me to take one course. We thought that if I got a masters in English, at some point I could teach part-time. That seemed like it would be a nice outlet while my kids were growing up. It was a one-year masters program that took five years for me to do" (Kimball 94).

-

Ulrich certainly is a success story for women who decide to abandon the "all or nothing" fallacy. She continued her education, won a Pulitzer, and landed the teaching position she now occupies while raising four children she describes as "terrific people. They can do anything" (98). And guess what? Her marriage even survived the transition she discusses above. In fact, her marriage became stronger and more interdependent. I'm confident that many women in Utah Valley who harbor regrets over not finishing their degrees could have equally happy stories to tell in a few years' time.

-

Works Cited:

Kimball, James. Mormon Women: Portraits and Conversations. Handcart Books, 2009.

In Search of Our Mothers' Gardens: of the need for female mentors

Alice Walker, famous author of The Color Purple and Pulitzer Prize winner, had a problem. Before she had won that well-earned Pulitzer, she faced an existential crises of sorts. Her way out? A much-needed mentor. She begins her essay, "In Search of Our Mothers' Gardens" thus:
"I became aware of my need of Zora Neale Hurston's work some time before I knew her work existed." But it wasn't just Hurston's work Walker needed, it was Hurston herself. Attempting to research "voodoo practices among rural Southern blacks of the thirties" for a story, she discovered that there seemed to be little to no research she could trust. "A number of white, racist anthropologists and folklorists of the period had, not surprisingly, disappointed and insulted me. They thought blacks inferior, peculiar, and comic, and for me this undermined, no, destroyed, the relevance of their books."






How fortunate that she then came across Zora Neale Hurston's book, Mules and Men. Hurston, trained at Barnard College, was an anthropologist and a respected writer interested in black life in the American South. "Because she immersed herself in her own culture even as she recorded its 'big old lies,' i.e., folk tales, it was possible to see how she and it. . .fit together." Walker was soothed by Hurston's "assurance that she was exposing not simply an adequate culture but a superior one. That black people can be on occasion peculiar and comic was knowledge she enjoyed. That they could be racially or culturally inferior to whites never seems to have crossed her mind." In short, Zora Neale Hurston provided Alice Walker with the confidence and inspiration to pursue her then-current direction. Walker wanted to be a great African-American writer and she is.

Like Walker's unexpected but welcome discovery of Hurston, I began to discover a need for Laurel Thatcher Ulrich before I knew who she was. I was a little familiar with her work. After all, I had purchased her book, A Midwife's Tale, more intrigued by the title and the fact that it had also won a Pulitzer than by Ulrich's personal story, of which I knew nothing. It wasn't until I had purchased a second book, Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History, and began to read that I thought she might be the mentor I had been in search of. Reading in the introduction, Ulrich reveals a little of her own story:

"I was not only a thirty-six-year-old housewife enrolled in a graduate seminar in early American history. I was a thiry-six-year-old wife and mother who with a handful of friends in the Boston area had helped to found an independent periodical devoted to the "twin platforms of Mormonism and feminism."

Obviously, this unexpected interest of hers in Mormonism intrigued me. She continues, "Both 'isms' mattered: despite my flirtation with the women's movement, I too went to church even when it snowed." So I looked her up on (where else?) Wikipedia. Guess what? She's an active member of the Mormon church, teaches institute in Cambridge, and has an illustrious position in Harvard's history department. She's also a self-identified mormon and feminist. Fancy that. When I read about her that day, my eyes watered with gratitude and relief. No joke.

-

Her balance more than anything else is incredible to me. Embracing not only feminist ideology and an active church membership, but also a career and family makes her a wonderwoman in my eyes. But, like Alice Walker, who never met Hurston (who had died years before, buried in a pauper's grave Walker found and decorated with a gravestone), I may never meet Ulrich, having moved away from the Boston area unaware of her existence. We may go back, at which time Ulrich and I will become bosom friends. (hollow laughter) But until then, I'm just grateful to know about her, read about her and read from her.

-

Walker and I had different backgrounds, experiences and interests that led us to our need for additional feminine support and validation. Walker was a southern black woman who wanted to be a writer, I'm a mormon white woman who also desires something outside of the established norm. However, I think the differences between us are irrelevant; we found what we needed, after all.

-

So I'm curious. What mentors have you needed or found? Why and how?

Me? A misogynist killer?

Tonight, after watching some profiles of Mormons on mormon.org, I jokingly said to Derrick, "Hey, maybe one day they'll do a profile on us because we're so diverse and nontraditional (Yeah, right)." He replied, "Yeah, I can see it now: 'My name is Jen, I've killed over fifteen misogynists, and I'm a Mormon.'" Oh, my husband. He knows me so well.

Mormon Women and Career Preparedness

Because I'm a dedicated member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and a self proclaimed "Mormon", my blog may highlight aspects of my life or attitudes that can be attributed to Mormonism. One of these, and one I think is very admirable, is the idea of Provident Living. The sum total of this idea can be found in self-reliance and emergency preparedness. For those of you who are mormons or who know mormons well, you may already know that this includes food storage: a surplus of food consistently kept in the home in case of catastrophe, economic or otherwise. This also includes a 72-hour kit in case of environmental disaster. But Provident Living also details the necessity of wisely taking care of our personal health, spirituality and finances while also taking advantage of employment and educational opportunities, thus lessening our chances of being reliant on others. What a great idea, right? But because so many women who share my faith are dedicated homemakers, the idea of further education and employment can seem out of reach, exhausting, or even oppositional to their familial goals.

I recently heard this startling statistic from one of my BYU professors: about 80% of mormon women are single, either because they haven't had the opportunity or inclination to marry, are widowed or divorced. I was shocked (though this statistic hasn't been verified by the reliable source itself, so until I see it with my own eyes let's just say I was shocked but dubious as well). So it seems women in my church, either out of choice or necessity have had to do some serious re-thinking in terms of career-preparedness.

Though I haven't received a lot of verbal flack for my tenacious pursuit of my undergraduate degree and ambitious preparation for graduate school while also caring for a small child, I've wondered at times how many unspoken thoughts have trailed through others' minds about whether or not I have my "priorities straight". Perhaps I shouldn't even waste the energy it takes to think about this, but it nevertheless happens from time to time. All I can say to those who may think this is: what a crock!

To me, a woman pursuing her education and heightening her earning power is just another extension of provident living. Why wait for undesirable, tragic events to impell us to become breadwinners? And since the unthinkable likelihood of my husband dying in a traffic accident is on par or much greater than some cataclysmic natural disaster causing me to pull out my food storage or 72 hour kit, I think I'm doing my part to become a "provident liver". Of course, just like other emergency preparations, a desire to increase one's earning power can be taken to extremes ("work double shifts? why, yes!"), and, of course, getting multiple college degrees isn't the only or most important way to become a provident liver, I think it is important, appropriate and completely justified for women to pursue their educational and career goals in order to benefit themselves and their families.

A little feminist rant from yours truly

I've been feeling bugged today. The reason for my annoyance can be traced back to a discussion in one of my literature classes in which we discussed the importance - or unimportance - of preserving "the canon", that tried and true collection of salient literature that has carried us to where we are today. I respect the canon. I agree that it has left a literary legacy that numerous authors have been able to build on. Additionally, its effect upon masses of people cannot be easily dismissed. The trouble with the canon, however, is that though it is important, protecting the canon at all costs includes using a standard of judgement that can be exclusive.

For some, this is a good thing. In the words of one of my classmates, it means that "the cream will always rise to the top." But what if the canon fails to reflect the truth of a particular time period? Or of life for enormous groups of people? For example, I took a late Renaissance literature class and would have had absolutely no clue that women were even putting pen to paper in the late 1600s had I not done some studying on my own, my professor being a "canon protector". Sure we studied Jonson, Donne, Herbert, Vaughan and Bacon. It was great. But what did women have to say about life and their situation during the late Renaissance? What about Margery Kempe or Mary Herbert? What about Mary Wroth and the ever present "anonymous" writer? What about freaking Queen Elizabeth? And hmm...what about people of color?

This is where the class discussion took a more disturbing turn. The classmate previously mentioned essentially insinuated that women just hadn't been capable of producing "cream". He couldn't help notice, as both an english and philosophy major, that women just hadn't contributed to these fields as men had. He continued that perhaps women just weren't rational enough, at which point I became extremely pissed off.

Huh. Women not rational enough for philosophy? So that explains it. I'm glad we have that so tidily cleaned up. Now whenever I note that men are at the forefront of certain professions I can say to myself, "women just aren't rational enough" and feel better.

My question is, how is it somehow excusable in the minds of certain persons to make ridiculous generalizations about women, even when we've learned that making those same generalizations about other entire groups of people is morally and intellectually reprehensible?

Let's take one very important profession. Neurosurgery. Wow. Not a lot of female neurosurgeons. In fact, I could pretty much guarantee you that female neurosurgeons are outnumbered significantly by male ones. This must mean women aren't rational enough for neurosurgery. Or smart enough. Or whatever easy mental solution you have for this issue. Easy, right? But wait, how many of those neurosurgeons are people of color? If they, too, are vastly outnumbered by white male neurosurgeons this also must mean that they are somehow deficient just as women are, right? Wrong.

Dr. Ben Carson is widely considered the best pediatric neurosurgeon in the world. He has directed the pediatric nuerosurgery unit at Johns Hopkins for years. And he is an African-American. Hmm...so it seems my classmate's simple formula has suddenly become a bit more complicated. Unless you believe the case of Ben Carson is a fluke, which is stupid.

Perhaps there are more Ben Carsons out there who, given the opportunity, will change the face of neurosurgery as we know it. Perhaps there are women who will do the same. I don't doubt it for a second. I just wish the idiot (confused individual) in my class didn't either.

A Cause I Believe In

If you've been within 30 yards of my house in the past few days chances are you have an idea of

why I'm more than just a little unhappy at the moment.

BYU has decided to "streamline" the Women's Research Institute (WRI)

and reorganize it's Women's Studies minor.

Though the university has justified the decision by claiming

that it will save funds and "expand resources" for

research pertaining to women in the future

many students, including myself, are upset by the decision.

The WRI is a symbol and an intellectual circle.

By separating the researchers into their respective fields,

BYU has lessened the power and legitimacy of

the research being done by this group of

thoughtful, intelligent women.

Through this move, BYU seems to have taken a stand

that says women's issues aren't one of their highest priorities.

Rather than think this is due to sexism, I prefer

to assume that such a decision was made out of ignorance

and thoughtlessness.

That' s why I stand with a group of students petitioning this decision.

I understand that though this is, undoubtedly, a time of financial

strain for the University's administrators, I also feel that

a Women's Council should take the place of the old WRI

in order to ensure that women's issues retain a meaningful

position on campus.

Those of you who oppose this decision are welcome to join the Facebook group

Save BYU Women's Research Institute!

To know more you are also welcome to follow the link below:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705342250/BYU-cuts-Womens-Research-Institute.html?pg=1