Rachid and I had a really nice home teaching visit tonight—it was one of those nights where the lesson really feels spiritual, not just being an obligatory part of the visit. Plus, I just love Joaquim and Ana Maria and their kids—they’re wonderful people. And their little baby Jeshua is seriously adorable, and the most playful little guy you ever saw. He’s particularly fond of noses, ears, and glasses. And climbing.
Today, while headed downtown to buy a new cell phone battery, I was listening to a really interesting archive mp3 of a BYU Devotional by Bruce Hafen called “Women, Feminism, and the Blessings of the Gospel” (for those that are curious, you can get all kinds of amazing old devotionals and talks here, as mp3s, PDFs, whatever). One thing I like about Elder Hafen is that, even when there are details in his talks and speeches that come up that one might not agree with, he’s such a thoughtful man that you’re able to see that you agree on the big picture and thus are able to let some things slide, just in the same way as you would hope he would let it slide should you be the one talking and him the one disagreeing ever so slightly with a particular word choice or phrasing.
Anyhow, one of the things that I started thinking about as he was talking was a man’s role in the home. I started thinking about the doctrine that our role here is to strive to become more like our Heavenly Parents—and that got me thinking about what I know of my Heavenly Father and His priorities. He’s created worlds without number through His endless power—and yet, His preferred title for Himself is not “Heavenly Creator”, but “Heavenly Father.” The Man that it is my purpose in life to try to become, more than anything, lives for His family, and does everything within His grasp that He can for the eternal well-being of His family. When you think about how so many LDS men simplify their roles, and focus on the provider aspect, that seems like such an amazing robbery that these men are pushing on themselves. God is not our Heavenly Provider—He’s our Heavenly Father. He has power to do amazing and good things, much more illustrious than the ones that tempt us (being able to whip up a new solar system makes getting a promotion to mid-management seem rather crass), but, that’s not His focus. His focus is us. The work that is most important to Him is our immortality and eternal life. It really brings to mind a quote my dad often cites from an old
3 comments:
Right on, Rolf. To me, when career demands take the place of family as the first thought in decision-making (be it time management, resource allocation, and more basic...where your values are placed), there's something amiss in life. To be denied the joy of calling your treasure your home life, and having your heart there first and foremost, seems tragic to me: for both men and women. "Devoted companion, loving parent," as Elder Hafen listed, are titles I hope to live up to someday. Heavenly Father truly valued those as most important to Him, because *we* were most important to Him, and I think the goal of eternal dadship is worth it, as much as mine of eternal momship. I hate to see when the former's worth isn't placed equal to the latter. It hurts to hear from a guy, when we talk about future family/children decisions, "I'd leave all that up to you." Because, shouldn't he have been as invested in and excited about children and home life in his own future as I've dreamed for in mine? If so, would he not have thoughts on the subject? Being equally yoked in those dreams has, from my experience, been necessary and sad when not allowed...and, I imagine (since I don't know--my parents are co-equals and I've never been married) feels pretty lonely in an unequal marriage, when one ignores the other and their children for their career, and decision-making isn't a joint process in the family. That's not God's plan. In fact, no, the thought makes reason stare. :) Loved your reference to middle-management vs. Creater of the cosmos: choice prosity, dude.
Interesting post. I read it, re read it and decided to listen to the mp3. I jotted down some thoughts and thought I'd post some here.
fyi- I believe the talk is called "Women, Feminism and the Blessings of the Priesthood..." at least that is what he says in the first 20 seconds.
I thought it was interesting how he blamed the first and second wave feminist movement on the industrial revolution. I"ve never heard it described in such a way. As the househould changed from a production center to a consumption center, a lot changed, including caring work and child care (what a "traditional" family) consisted of. Truth is, back then, as it is today, only a section of the population of women can actually afford to stay home. Most families have to be supported by two paychecks. Capitalism only works if the poorest people are working the most- man or woman. I thought it was interesting how he tried to make it sound like the "traditional family" rhetoric started back in the 19th century.
Also, he says that "Changing climate gave women need for leadership outside the home" was how women got involved in activism, I think he is actually describing rich, upper class women that could afford to take up causes to build their "leadership skills" (obviously the relief society is an exception). I think the women who were fighting child labor laws, unequal healthcare, and domestic abuse laws were women who were on the frontlines of the workforce, actively changing these policies for the betterment of their communities and families.
I have a real problem when a white male authority figure tries to sum up what an entire movement that belongs in some part to every man and woman in the world (who wants choices and equal opportunities for women). I think to understand feminism we need to look at the political and economic contexts of the time, and to actually read what these feminists wrote because they can explain it better than we ever could.
Making jokes about "cowpersons and indians" doesn't help much.
I'm fine with how people in the church divide up housework and gender roles as best they see fit- that's not what I'm frustrated by- it just seemed flippant and dismissive in some instances. The de Toqueville quote was also a little overbearing.
But good post because it made me think and got me riled up enough to post this long annoying commet. :)
Just my two cents. Say hi to eric for me. XO
Hey Nikki! So I’ve been a bit slow on my blog lately, but late or not, I figured that thoughtful thoughts deserve to answer by, y’know, more thoughts.
I totally hear you on chafing a bit to hear someone authoritatively summing up a movement he doesn’t agree with and isn’t at all a part of—that’s the part I was most heavily referring to when I talked about disagreeing with word choice and such, because I really think he is overly simplistic in his summary of feminism. I wasn’t a big fan of the “cowpersons and indians” comment, either.
But personally, I was perfectly willing to let those things slide in the wake of the insights he provided further on, especially about the oversimplification of gender roles (i.e. excluding men from all that is home-centered and/or sensitive).
Thanks for the two cents—that’s about 500 meticais, enough for a tangerine. Eric says hi back, with a big enthusiastic Eric-face.
Post a Comment