(Part 1 of 2) Dew and Dewn't: A Critique of Sheri Dew's Women and the Priesthood
One of the biggest difficulties for me prior to joining the Church, was my (flawed) understanding of the role of women within the church. A common external perspective perceives women as subjugated and subjected to male authority. This understanding emerges in large part from a general misunderstanding of the relationship between women and “the priesthood.”
I recently started reading Women and the Priesthood by Sheri Dew, a prominent woman in the LDS community. She is the CEO of my favorite bookstores, Deseret Book (books AND church stuff?!? uh yes please!) and a personal hero. I love strong women with a testimony of the Gospel!
I won't get into too many of the details of what the priesthood is and the role it plays in men and women's lives as this post is focused specifically on response to Sheri Dew's writings. However, I want to clearly state that I have a testimony of the power of the priesthood and of the divine origin of men's administration of the priesthood. To generally define priesthood for those that might not know: it is the divine authority to act on behalf of our Heavenly Father. I won’t discuss its definition further because this post is already far too long, however, I encourage those who are interested, to find more comprehensive information here: www.lds.org/topics/priesthood.
Before I get into my responses/critiques, I want to make a couple disclaimers. Firstly, it is evident that Dew truly is a woman of God. I feel the spirit clearly as I read and while I might not agree with all of her views or the way they are communicated, her intent and goals are absolutely Godly. Further, as Dew asserts in regards to her own opinions, the post that follows are my opinions and mine alone and she and I are both entitled to them. Lastly, with fear of redundancy, I want to make clear that I personally feel no sense of being minimalized or oppressed as a result of women not administering priesthood power. Priesthood power has worked many miracles in my life and I am eternally grateful for it and the men that have been charged with its administration.
Okay. Let’s do this.
NUMBER ONE: Feminist is not a dirty word.
"I am not a feminist." I don’t know if I will ever understand the aversion so many women have to this word. After this assertion, Dew goes on to say, "But I am pro-progression, meaning that I am in favor of opportunities and experiences that allow for the personal development and growth of men and women alike…" (Dew, 2)
I continue to be dismayed by the incredible number of men and women who still actively avoid being described as a feminist. WHY?? Feminism seeks equal opportunities for men and women. That's about it. If you're for equality of the genders, congratulations! you're a feminist. For the record, feminists are abundant in the Church and while Dew is not a minority for avoiding an association with feminism, she is also not representative of ALL women in the Church as feminist saints exist in droves, I myself being one of them.
Sheri Dew is a highly intelligent woman. I believe she likely has a full understanding of how feminism is defined. So why the aversion to the word?
First of all, the word tends to be associated with 2nd wave feminism, the bra-burning (fun fact this phrase was based on a beauty pageant protest in which a myth emerged that women were burning their bras- no bras were in fact burned), man-hating feminist. While I'm sure there exist self-identifying feminists that hate men, I would venture to guess that the vast majority do not, nor do they seek superior societal position to men (if they did, they would be erroneous in labeling themselves feminists because as we have seen, by definition, feminists seek equality). Regardless of the reality, a stigma remains perpetuating a narrow representation of what a feminist woman is, and is one that many if not most self-proclaimed feminists fail to identify with.
*also it feels important to mention that men can be (and many are) feminists. Part of my personal identification as a feminist is rooted in my dad's self-declaration of being a feminist throughout my childhood. Feminism is for everyone.
Aaand that leads me to my second and last response for Part I of this two part series.
NUMBER TWO: The Question of Women's Progress… or Lack Thereof
An excerpt from Women and the Priesthood: "…some kinds 'progress' with respect to women haven't been progress at all. Society's diminished view of motherhood and marriage as God defined them is troubling, as are the dramatic escalation of the sexualization of women in all forms of media and the ever-increasing number of out-of-wedlock births. The Desperate Housewives, Sex and the City approach to life that glamorizes adultery and paints immorality as normal and even desirable is alarming …. in the clamor for women to be treated "equally" with men, many appear to have missed, misunderstood, or discarded as insignificant the innate, transcendent gifts women have been given and the unique position women have occupied in the yes of our creator all along." (Dew, 2).
Let me start off by acknowledging and confirming Dew's fears for the increasingly cavalier nature with which our world commodifies sex. I have experienced first-hand the pain that results from such casual treatment to the sacred subject and act of sex. I believe Dew is trying to express the negative effects the escalation of sexualization has on both men and women as Satan pulls us further from God's will. However, I think Dew misses out on an important point with her rhetoric about "progress." I do not think Dew is wrong or making an invalid argument. Only that she could expand her discussion to give women a little more credit in a traditionally patriarchal narrative.
I'm disturbed by the underlying message that women are at fault for the "increase" in their own sexualization. Whether or not intended by Dew (once again I want to and will give her the benefit of doubt!), I came away from this passage feeling uneasy. The sexualization of women is indeed being normalized. I agree with Dew in thinking that this is not a good thing. However, I don't think women are the only ones at blame. Women are constantly surrounded by a world that demeans, subjugates, and harasses them. How much blame can we assign the women who are trying to reclaim their bodies from those who think they own it? Speaking from experience, it can be liberating (albeit never fulfilling) to embrace your own body and claim it for yourself. Of course there is a Godly way to do so, a way a quickly learned and loved, and one that healed me (only through the atonement). Once we learn that we are God's and our bodies are temples this lesson becomes easier. But for those who see two options: someone else owning your body, or owning it yourself, it is clear which choice will be made. Sexualizing our bodies is dangerous, but let us not place the blame solely on women of modern history.
A central tenet of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is the principle of agency. With respect to Dew, and others who comment on the status of the digression of women in modern history… I ask them to think back throughout the history of women. Women may have been less sexualized in the past, which seems to be Dews assertion (although I would fervently argue this is not true… possession of one's OWN sexuality is entirely different than the someone else's perpetuation of YOUR sexuality, which has occurred throughout history), had fewer children out-of-wedlock (just a reminder that men have children out-of-wedlock too… it's just a whole lot harder to measure), and immorality may not have been "desirable" as it is now, but women were not making these choices for themselves. Women have been relegated to a patriarchal society for ALL of history. The option to make a decision for righteousness did not exist. Patriarchal systems told us how to dress and how to behave. Heavenly Father has given all of us agency. It is an essential piece of the puzzle. Satan did not want us to have choices. Is a woman forced to live the commandments really living them? I'm sure many would, maybe correctly, argue yes and although not ideal,it is still a better fate than living outside God's will. I'm not convinced.
Let us turn to scripture:
"And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away." -2 Nephi 2:13
Women deserve the agency they have been fighting for. Without the opportunity to choose righteousness, righteousness itself does not exist according to the verse above. We should celebrate the slow and deliberate liberation of women from the patriarchy of the West and encourage it elsewhere. It is a right that women should chose for themselves how their bodies are perceived, treated and dressed. And while there may be a right way- God's way- to behave, we should still celebrate the progress in women's liberation. Because we as women belong to God. Not men, not anyone. To Him alone our glory shall go.
Again, I do not disagree with Dew on the pervasiveness and seriousness of the problems she outlines above. They are not to be ignored and deserve attention from both men and women. Yet, we should be careful in the language we use when dismissing the progress of women. Dew's paragraph (again, I'm sure unintentionally) comes dangerously close to blaming women for asserting their rights. Let us not pass up the opportunity to celebrate strong, brave women for the progress they've made before we condemn their choices.
A final disclaimer:
I am sorry for the number of disclaimers I'm including in this post. Please dear readers, know that I have good intent. My goal is too create dialogue and get people to think. For the final time I will repeat, I do not disagree with Dew! I simply would like to add and expand her assertions to consider easily neglected factors. I am NOT NOT NOT trying to blame men for the sexualization of women!!! The patriarchal societies in which much of history has operated are created and sustained by both men and women and do not inherently implicate men! I simply want to expand the narrative of the "digression of women's progress" to reevaluate all factors at play.
Brothers, sisters, and everyone in-between,
I LOVE YOU.
I love the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I love Jesus Christ. I love every bit of the Gospel.
We are so blessed beyond measure- every single one of us.
And finally, I love you Sheri Dew! Thank you for creating such a spiritually enriching, thought-provoking book. It's a new staple in my spiritual library and one that has helped guide me in my quest to prayerfully find answers.
Thank you for bearing with me, for giving me the benefit of the doubt, and for assuming the good intent I have in creating this blogpost.
With all the love in my heart,
Sam
This is part 1 of 2 in regards to Dew's book, Women and the Priesthood.
