Jul 31 2010

Mormonism and the Bechdel Test for Religion

How many of you have used “The Rule” to decide whether or not to see a movie? Also known as the Bechdel Test, The Rule goes like this:

  1. The movie must have at least two women
  2. who talk with each other
  3. about something other than a man.

The Rule isn’t a litmus test for feminism, but it certainly is astonishing how few movies pass it, even in our day and age.

Adam Lee and Hemant Mehta have suggested a similar test for religions. Does your religion (or a particular faith you are considering)

  1. have at least one woman in a position of authority
  2. who plays a formal, recognized role in shaping doctrine or practice
  3. that is binding on male members of that religion?

Mormonism sure as hell doesn’t. Let’s examine this.

The Mormon church (by which I mean The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) bars women from its hierarchy altogether. All bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, general authorities, apostles and prophets are men, by definition. The only positions of responsibility open to women are those in auxiliaries that contain only women and/or children—i.e., the Relief Society (the women’s auxiliary), the Young Women’s program, and the Primary program (the children’s auxiliary)—so women in these positions not only have no authority over men but are also not allowed to set policy or practice without getting permission from the male hierarchy. This isn’t an accident—it is by design.

It’s possible for a misogynistic movie to pass The Rule, just as it’s possible for a misogynistic religion to pass this new rule. But while it’s possible for a movie that fails The Rule to be feminist in other ways, I would argue that it is not possible for a religion that fails this new rule to not be patriarchal, oppressive and sexist.

Mormonism fails this new rule because it is founded on sexist, patriarchal, oppressive principles, most of which are handily spelled out in the revered document “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” Go read it for fun feminist times!

What similar questions would you guys pose of a religion to assess its acceptance of gays, lesbians and transgendered people?


Jun 19 2010

When I Knew

I don’t know how many times I’ve told my deconversion story, in whole or in part, on this blog or elsewhere, but my impression has been—for years at this point; yes, I’ve been an ex-Mormon atheist for that long now and it blows my mind—that the fundamental seed of my apostasy, the moment I first broke from the faith, was when I was about twenty-two and finally began to accept myself as a gay man.

In fact, I’ve found myself defending this position several times, when people have implicitly and explicitly accused me of leaving Mormonism so I could go “sin” and “be gay.” I’ve been forced to say repeatedly that my being okay with being gay, as the first point of doctrine I disagreed with my church on, was a (perhaps the) deciding factor, the first step in my journey away from religion, but wasn’t the REASON I ended up leaving. After all, I pointed out, there are any number of practicing Mormons who are also okay with gays or with being gay and they haven’t felt the need to leave. I left the Mormon church because I disagreed with virtually every point of doctrine, including the existence of deity.

I realized today that I’ve been fundamentally wrong this whole time. Not about Mormonism being full of shit, or about the existence of deity, or about religion being a net negative in today’s world, but about when I felt the first disconnect with religion.

It all comes back to patriarchy. You see, I was a feminist long before I realized I was a gay man. I was a feminist in the making before I started kindergarten. Why? Because when I was a kid I wanted to be a girl. When I was REALLY young I very nearly thought I was a girl. I had no interest in the “boy” things other boys were obsessed with—I wanted a Barbie and a My Little Pony and a Rainbow Brite and pretty dresses and I wanted to be a princess AND a sorceress AND an enchantress and forget that moron He-Man, I wanted to be SHE-RA.

I identified strongly with my mom over my dad, and, especially when I was super-little I had trouble accepting that my (one-year-older) sister and I were not functionally the same person. (I mean, we did everything together, and we always would, right?) So when I found out what the Mormon patriarchy expected of young women, I took it very personally.

My mom had her own visible struggles with patriarchy as well. She told us how her father was a Scoutmaster when she was a tween and she fought long and hard for the right of going on campouts with him and her brothers without success, and I watched her do her best to turn the local Young Women’s camping program into something resembling an actual outdoors exploration course.

It upset me that my mom, who was so smart and capable and (let’s face it) ambitious, especially when compared with my go-with-the-flow dad, was expected to accept a background role and take orders from all the stupid MEN around her just because she was a woman. My mom tried to be philosophical about her lot; denying her natural gifts was God’s way of teaching her to be patient, and a better person, and what-the-fuck-ever-else, but I didn’t, couldn’t buy it.

Polygamy bothered me for a similar reason. Why had men been “given” (yes, that’s right—GIVEN) more than one wife, but women were only allowed to marry one man?

Why were there so few independent females in the scriptures, which were otherwise crowded with independent men? Why were there vanishingly few female prophets?

I’m sad to say I learned fairly quickly that voicing concerns about this got me labeled as weird and girly, and I learned even quicker that these were “bad” things to be. As I got older and became more convinced that I actually was male I found myself participating in the patriarchy, both overtly by becoming a deacon at age twelve just like all the other guys, and by laughing uncomfortably at my friends’ sexist jokes. But I was still never comfortable with the whole thing, just like I was never entirely comfortable being male.

Another thing I’ve often said is that I was a “true believer” back before I started explicitly questioning Mormon doctrine when I was in my early twenties. But I’ve been wrong about that, too. I certainly tried hard enough to be a true believer—doing everything I could think of to convince myself and everyone else that I believed. Hypnotizing myself into suppressing my doubts. Testifying to others with passion, zeal and throbbing sincerity that I not only believed, I knew that the Mormon church was the true church of Jesus Christ on the earth.

But the seed had already been planted. The seed of feminism, of fairness, of this isn’t right, this can’t possibly be right, because it contradicts everything that makes sense. And once I took that next step of acknowledging that I was gay, and accepting myself for who I was, it couldn’t be held back any longer. Because if I was gay, then not fitting into the straight male paradigm was completely irrelevant! I could be as girly or as feminine as I liked. Everything else in my ex-religious journey, I’m convinced, followed from there.

The Mormon church, like almost every other existing religious sect, is fundamentally patriarchal. It is anti-feminist, anti-fairness. Anti-sense. Not just because its doctrines are not true, but in its philosophy, organization, culture and outlook. It pains me to say this, because so many people I love and value are still part of it, and have defended and will continue to defend its destructiveness to me and to others. I just hope that if enough people point out the reality of religion and Mormonism that we can make a difference in the future of girls, women, boys and men everywhere.


May 9 2010

Overheard at the Checkout

I was at the corner store yesterday to buy a few necessities, and I ended up in line at the checkout counter behind an attractive, blond, college-age couple who were buying some random groceries.

Cashier: That’ll be thirty-seven dollars.

Woman: (Holds out credit card.)

Man: No, no, I’ll get this. (Holds out his own card.)

Cashier: Well, I have to let the guy pay, if he offers. (Smiles knowingly and takes man’s credit card.)

Me: (Teeth grinding)

What the fuck is wrong with people? “I have to let the guy pay”? What is this, the Fifties? Oh wait, it’s Utah, so yes it is. AAAAAARRRGGGGHHHH

[Note: I have no idea how the woman felt about having her offer to pay declined; I didn't see her face. She may have expected it, if they were on a date, or whatever. Still, dating norms are fucked up, too.]


Mar 21 2010

Severing My Ties with the Past

Through the magic of the Internet, I’m still in contact to some extent with many of the Mormon acquaintances I had at BYU. Even if I haven’t spoken or even directly corresponded with them in five years, their thoughts and episodes from their lives still show up in my Facebook feed or my Goodreads list, or are reflected in the comments, photos and FarmVille announcements of other, mutual acquaintances. One by one, of course, as their overt religiosity and conservatism has become more and more alien to me, I’ve hidden their updates or defriended them, but I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that hundreds of them still remain.

Today I read a former BYU friend’s review of a book on miscarriage. She writes that she is disturbed at how many of the women who had contributed their stories to the book

had thought about an abortion or actually had one. With that said, I also think that it is very telling how deeply all those women grieved even those who didn’t want their babies. I guess that only shows what a disservice we are doing to women to let them abort their babies.

A miscarriage can be a devastating event. If she has recently had one (and I have no proof that she has), I really hope she has people she can turn to for comfort. As it is, I couldn’t even come up with something non-belligerent in response to such an infantilizing view of the kind of women who seek abortions. In the end, I severed our last connection, thinking she probably didn’t need me bringing war to her doorstep over an off-topic comment in her book review.

This blog post was brought to you in part by Day Five of the Mind on Fire Group Creativity Experiment, and the Nine of Swords card in the tarot deck.


May 9 2009

The Semester Is Over! Long Live the Semester!

I turned in my last assignment for the Spring 2009 semester a few days ago, and it still hasn’t hit me that I DON’T HAVE HOMEWORK TO DO. Unfortunately, I won’t have long to get used to the idea—the summer term starts in nine days, so I need to get my party on.

That last assignment, by the way, was one I should have enjoyed thoroughly, and should have done very well on, but (as usual) I put it off until the very last day, which meant it was a stressful, slapdash, rush job. The topic: the evolution of feminist science fiction. Which allowed me to read such gems—and I am not being sarcastic here—as “Your Faces, O My Sisters! Your Faces Filled of Light!” by Raccoona Sheldon (AKA James Tiptree, Jr., AKA Alice Sheldon) and “When It Changed,” by Joanna Russ. Both keep returning to bother and delight me, just like all the best fiction does. Cannot recommend either story highly enough.

Last night I went to a karaoke bar for the first time since I started drinking, and my friend Denice and I blew everyone’s minds with our rendition of the Scissor Sisters’ “Filthy/Gorgeous.” Also mindblowing, I’m sure: our filthy, erotic dancing. We didn’t carry no watermelon, if you know what I’m saying.


Mar 20 2009

A Response to “Why Women Don’t Make Games”

Cross-posted as a comment on the Trembling Hand post “Why Women Don’t Make Games,” in which Tim Dean claims the reason more women don’t become computer programmers is because men are naturally better at math.

His argument, boiled down to its essentials:

  • A 1988 study of high school math scores shows that men are more likely to be very good at math than women.
  • This disparity has a biological basis.
  • Only people who are naturally very good at math are likely to become computer programmers.
  • So there will probably never be equal numbers of men and women in the field of computer programming.

Go read that blog post and then read this response.

Tim, while it’s clear that you read the data in the article, or at least a rough summary of the data, it sounds like you didn’t read the conclusion. [Or] if you did, you’ve chosen to ignore it.

It is true that the study shows a gender-based disparity in math scores at the higher end of the scale. However, the authors of the article don’t make any claims to understand *why* such a disparity exists, since their study didn’t address that question in the slightest. Instead, their conclusion is as follows:

“If educators and others are concerned about encouraging women to enter S&E [science, mathematics, and engineering] careers, the gender difference at the high end of the math score distribution is an important problem that must be addressed….

“Future researchers in this area should focus on identifying the determinants of this gender difference. Among the likely determinants are attitude changes toward math learning, social expectancies for math achievement, and social stereotyping of female students’ career options. Also, future research should use longitudinal panel data to examine math achievement change at the individual level. For example, a group of male and female students with above-average math achievement could be identified in eighth grade and followed as they progress through higher grades to determine whether the male students become progressively better in math achievement while the female students remain at the same level or become progressively worse.”

In other words, the data show a disparity; now it is up to further research to continue the research, and to determine possible causes *and remedies* for this disparity. Your conclusion (that there is a biological basis for the disparity and that it is irremediable) is a non sequitur.

I also take exception to your generalizing high-school-level mathematics scores to ability in higher mathematics. The kind of math studied in high school (even at the higher level) and actual higher mathematics are almost two completely different subjects. I have a master’s in math, and I tutored and TA’d college level math for years, and I never encountered a difference in ability between male and female students in math courses (including a number of CS/programming students) that could be easily reduced to purely biological terms.

Another part of the article that you ignored is the *opposite* gender-based disparity in the test scores of African-American students. Do you have some made-up racist explanation for that portion of the data to round out the sexism of your other made-up conclusions?

I’d like to add that there are several other problems with Tim’s assertions. One that immediately springs to mind is the fact that gender disparity in male-dominated occupations and gender disparity in female-dominated occupations are not parallel cases. Research shows that men do quite well in female-dominated occupations such as elementary education, nursing and librarianship, being promoted faster and higher and earning more money than their female coworkers. The same cannot be said of women in male-dominated occupations, where women are not promoted, and do not earn as much as their male coworkers. (See The Gendered Society by Kimmel for an entire book full of this kind of information.)


Dec 3 2008

Why Can’t Boys Just Figure It Out?

I have a straight female friend who regales me occasionally with tales of the latest Boy she is interested in, and I’m always fascinated by the things she takes for granted about her role in her dating relationships.

“I invited Boy A to go on a hike, because I know we both like hiking. Do you think I was too forward?”

or

“Boy B said I should let him know if there was a fun lecture I wanted to go to, but I’ve invited him to a chamber music performance instead. Do you think that looks too aggressive?”

or

“Boy C and I went out on a few dates, but then he didn’t call for two weeks. When he finally called I let him know that WASN’T OKAY.”

So, basically, a woman can ask a guy out, but she’s walking a fine line. If she’s too retiring and never takes a risk, maybe she won’t get dates; if she’s too outgoing, maybe she’ll be viewed as mannish and dominating, and she won’t get second dates. Of course, my friend’s last comment also shows the double standard men are held to: in the earliest stages of a relationship, the guy is supposed to call. If he doesn’t, the girl can call him… but she risks seeming desperate. Really she’s supposed to wait for him to call her. And if he doesn’t, she’s supposed to agonize over it with her friends for several days before (maybe!) picking up the phone.

Another straight female acquaintance, erinannie, recently wrote a short blog post in which she said, “If my marital status is always going to depend upon me making the first move, I’m going to be single forever.”

The commenters sympathized thusly:

“Why can’t boys just figure it out?” one said.

“You shouldn’t have to [make the first move]. Men need to be men,” wrote another.

And: “I am so tired of my guy friends telling me that I need to make the first move. I am not going to do their job!”

“Was I too forward?” “He didn’t call for two weeks.” “Men need to be men.” “I am not going to do their job.” Once again, I’m glad I’m not heterosexual. Straight guys have it tough! In order to be seen as “real men,” they have to always make the first move, ask the girl out, pay for her way, call the girl back after the date—but not too soon! Straight girls have it tough, too: they’re supposed to attract the man’s gaze (as erinannie puts in, “I have done everything except lay down across his desk naked and poured chocolate across me to get his attention”), but—no matter how interested they are in the guy in question, they are supposed to wait for him to ask them out. (Am I missing anything? I was never very good at the straight mating game.)

Things are changing for straights, but homosexual relationships are still so much easier in this regard. Since both people are men or both are women, neither is “the man” and neither is “the woman.” Either can take initiative, either can pay for the date (or they can just split the check), and either can make that after-date call.

This isn’t to put erinannie and her dating practices on the spot. I understand being timid or otherwise reluctant to make the first move. Rejection is a bitch. As I explained in my own comment on erinannie’s post, I would never have had a boyfriend and would be dateless now if it depended on my taking the initiative, because that’s my personality. What I don’t understand is buying into the whole American patriarchal culture of dating and courtship.

So, straight people! Speak up. Why do you or don’t you follow the patriarchal norm in dating and relationships? Guys, do you mind if a girl asks you out, pays for a date, calls you first, etc.? Girls, do you mind doing the asking, paying, calling? Why or why not? What would you say the actual norm is these days, and what negative consequences are there for breaking it?

Non-straight people! What are your relationships like? Egalitarian? Patriarchal? Dom/sub? Butch/femme? Poly? What dating rules do you feel you must follow? People are dying to know!


  • Subscribe to My Stuff

  • Where You Can Find Me

  • Blogs I Read

  • Webcomics I Follow

  • Websites I Recommend

  • Ajax CommentLuv Enabled fa9086e7a20b8329228eadd86e4efc5a