You Are Not A Feminist

I was recently told that, because I'm male, I can't be a feminist. I can only be an “ally” of the women who are true feminists.

This kind of mischaracterization of feminism as a women-only issue makes me worry that there isn't a future in which the supposed goal of feminism – complete gender equality – can ever be realized. Can't you see the contradiction in calling yourself a feminist when you draw gender lines regarding feminism itself?

Stop and think about it. How often do you, a feminist, discriminate based on gender?

Do you participate in a “ladies night” or “girl's night out?” You're not a feminist.

Finding a unisex changing room at a boutique, would you decide you didn't really need to try your outfit on? You're not a feminist.

I know what some of you are thinking. You like your ladies' nights. You like the privacy of the ladies' changing room. And I don't blame you. But if you want to be a part of the exclusive man-clubs, you have to stop insisting on your right to exclusive woman-clubs. There is no separate-but-equal segregation in feminism.

Are you fine with your son/daughter being alone with same-sex friends, but keep a close eye when other genders are around? You're not a feminist.

Do you let your sons date whomever they will, but vet your daughters' boyfriends like a private eye? You're not a feminist.

It's important to protect your children. But using gender as a basis for when to be protective is ludicrous. Leaving any children completely unsupervised can result in a bad situation, regardless of their age or sex. When you treat children of one gender one way and the other another, especially relating to sex and sexuality, you enforce gender biases. Gender biases are not feminist.

Would you get your daughter's ears pierced, but balk at doing the same for your sons? You're not a feminist.

Sure, you nod approvingly when the Relief Society president wears a pantsuit, but would you be appalled if your bishop wore a dress? You're not a feminist.

Gender equality means the road goes both ways. Sure, women should be the equals of men, but men must then also be the equals of women. What is okay for one sex has to be okay for the other, even when it comes to jewelry and clothing. Anything else wouldn't be equality, but simply an illusion of equality.

So what would a feminist world look like? What would it be like to have true gender equality?

Since I'm writing from an LDS perspective, let's look at a gender-equal LDS church.

First, let's say goodbye to YM/YW, goodbye to RS/Priesthood meetings. The two-hour meeting block has become a reality: only Sacrament Meeting and Sunday School. Once a month, the Priesthood offices (male and female) meet together during Sunday School to discuss specific topics related to their office. Monthly adult activities are all overseen by the Ward Activity Committee, and the youth are encouraged to look after the children while the parents attend the activity.

The “Mother's Rooms” are removed from the ladies' toilets (which are no longer gendered anyway) and replaced with spacious rooms, with speakers that broadcast during both Sacrament Meeting and Sunday School, that accommodate parents of both sexes who are trying to care for fussy babies and young children. Women who want to breastfeed in the “Parent's Room” do so covered or uncovered as they choose. But the diaper-changing stations are in the toiletry next door.

Meanwhile, on the stand, the bishops are encouraged to call both male and female counselors. The stake council is roughly split between brethren and sisters. And just last conference, the first female apostle was called to be a member of the First Presidency. From the mundane to the lofty, feminism has restructured the church and the world.

 Maybe I'm just crazy to think that real equality is what modern feminists really want. Is this dream I have of a truly gender-equal church and society actually achievable within our lifetime? Probably not. But should you be working toward it? Yes. If you're a feminist, like I am.



Disclaimer: It was brought to this author's attention that this blog post might be taken too seriously, and that the examples noted may be taken to be the author's views on the most important issues surrounding feminism. Please know that this is a satirical piece, written as a response to several recent blog posts about the "problems" with LDS men who consider themselves feminists, to point out that even the feminists who wrote those blogs don't really espouse 100% gender equality. Just think about what you really believe and what you stand for, and know that there are many of both sexes who stand with you.

What's this blog for??

When I initially created this blog, I had intended to use it to write media reviews for LDS church members as a guide to finding the good in mass media. Then I realized that I didn't really care about that. So I kept trying to come up with something that this blog could be good for. And I finally decided I'd found it. I'd use this blog to write about the parts of "Mormon culture" that, rather than supporting the truth of the Gospel, often act to tear it down. My first post was going to be about modesty. I've written several starts on that essay, and eventually it will appear. But in the meantime, I'll post whatever else I feel like writing.

What Makes "Hobbit" Different From "Rings"

Today I read a review written by Michael Smith which complained that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey followed a plot so similar to that of The Fellowship of the Ring as to make the new movie seem like a formulaic copy of the former. On a superficial level, this might be true. On a deeper level, however, Hobbit is the more complex of the two movies.

The Lord of the Rings bases itself in an inclusive journey. We, as the viewers, are invited to be members of a small, handpicked band of fellows on an epic quest of good-vs-evil. Although individual members of this fellowship may be weak, the fellowship takes strength in its overall goodness. As we watch our fellows brave evil again and again, we are buoyed up with the sense that "the right will prevail.

In The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo is the center of the journey. He is the ring-bearer, selected to destroy Sauron's ring of power in the fiery bowels of Mount Doom. Every other member of the group is selected as a companion or protector of Frodo.

The Lord of the Rings confronts the viewer with profoundly Christian themes. Frodo in particular embodies personal sacrifice; although his death is not required by the quest, his life is. Frodo is no longer able to enjoy life after being the bearer of ultimate evil, and retires to the afterlife of the elves. Frodo is one of the hobbits, the little people, known for their kindness and hospitality. As such, Frodo is of the meekest and lowliest of Middle Earth's races. That this humble, childlike person is the only one capable of bearing of the ring (read: cross) shows him to be a Christ archetype.

The Hobbit, on the other hand, is a journey based in alienation. The dwarves are not the divinely-appointed destroyers of evil that the fellowship is; they are, instead, a race driven from their homelands to find support in the communities of men. Thorin and his band are tradespeople and former warriors on a quest to reclaim their rich heritage, but their quest is based as much in pride and greed as any noble motivations.

Whereas Frodo is the center of the fellowship, Bilbo is not accepted into the band of dwarves until the end of the movie. His motives are constantly questioned, and his lack of worldly knowledge is looked at as a sign of neivete rather than innocence. Although he is designated as the group's burglar, even he doubts his ability to be useful to the dwarves.

The alienation and quest for a homeland reflects not Christian but Jewish influence. The dwarves are a race scattered by the dragon, a symbol of evils that are in the earth. Although they prosper among the men, they seek a return to their ancestral land. Other aspects of dwarvish culture and propensities easily lend themselves to a comparison with the Hebrews, but in order to avoid stereotyping and PC issues I'll let it stand at that.

So, while the stories involve travel across the same territory and battles with many of the same beasts, they are in no way the same underneath the surface veneer. The Lord of the Rings tells a perfectly imagined (but somewhat standard) Christian moral fable, while The Hobbit's complexity lies in the fact that it is not a standard good-vs-evil story but a tale of aliyah, of a displaced people's return to a lost home. Rather than write up trite comparisons, the truly critical viewer should leave the theater with a profound sense of the importance of heritage, and sorrow at its loss.