And I don’t really mean that in a good way.
It’s not that the movie was bad. It was a bit absurd for me, but still a great action flick.
I’ve decided they just had an excellent PR team. Because they knew that if you say something enough times, and give it enough buzz, people will believe it. Like telling a child that a red drink is yummier than an orange drink, and so it never matters what flavor the drinks actually are the child always wants the red one more.
So before Mad Max hit theaters there was all this buzz about how it was a feminist action movie unlike any other feminist action movie. And the Feminists were excited and Men’s Rights Activists were calling for boycotts and before anyone actually saw the movie we’d all decided it was a feminist movie.
But it’s not. And after seeing it I can’t figure out why everyone thinks it is.
I mean, maybe because it has a female lead? It kind of does, although the story is much more Max’s than it is Furiosa’s. But either way, it is so far from being the first action movie with a female lead. Maybe it was because the storyline is about women escaping a cartoonishly misogynistic overlord? Perhaps, but since they are saved by the men in the movie, it isn’t exactly an empowering storyline. This movie didn’t actually portray women in a much different light than most action movies do.
But none-the-less, my Facebook feed is all full of people seeing the movie and coming away about how awesomely feminist it is. And each time I see it I feel confused. And disappointed, because movies that pretend to be feminist but actually aren’t are going to hurt the cause of equality more than help it.
Somewhere along the way I realized how familiar the confusion and disappointment felt. And then a friend posted on Facebook about her recent temple trip and how happy it made her and I thought, “Oh yeah. That’s the familiar feeling.”
I hear a lot people at church talk about equality in the temple. I hear women say it is where they learn that they are partners with their husbands and will be forever. I hear women talk about how that is where they find all the answers about what we will experience after earth life.
But it’s not. And after attending the temple many, many times, I can’t figure out why everyone thinks it is. Heaven knows it isn’t the portrayal of women in “the movie.”
And it doesn’t matter how much good PR we give it, or how many times we say otherwise, the temple is still sexist.
Because women are not given an equal place. They are servants to their husbands, and not partners. Because Heavenly Mother is not mentioned at all, and so women actually have no understanding of what becomes of us after earth life.
When women go to the temple, and they come away talking about equality, I feel a lot of confusion and disappointment. Because if we pretend there is equality there when there actually is not, nothing will get better.
Leah Marie
Leah Marie earned a BA in Political Science, and a Masters in Public Administration. She is currently working towards her PhD in Public Policy. She is wife to an English professor, and mother to 3 beautiful boys.
All posts by Leah Marie
Maybe it’s the circles we run in, but I haven’t heard anything about it being/pretending to be a feminist movie until this post. In fact, most reviews I’ve read talk about it being the “ultimate guy movie”. Am I that out of the loop?
Yeah, google it. There has been much discussion of the feminism of the movie.
To be fair, there was only really one writer and article calling for a boycott of the film. His article went viral, and received a lot of attention (where things went from there, I didn’t follow.) He isn’t a men’s rights activist, and the site he wrote it on isn’t a men’s rights activist site though both he and the site were incorrectly labeled as such. It’s a pick up artist site. It’s absurd article nonetheless.
I accidentally hit reply too soon!
It’s an absurd article that calls the film out as being hyper feminist, and a lot of other hyperbole, and went into some exaggerated details about how the film was part of some feminist agenda.
I think it started with that benign and bizarre article, and the MRA and feminist groups alike took up the cause. Either way, it has been all over the internet.
Great points about the temple, Leah Marie. (Sorry–I haven’t seen Mad Max, but I like your comparison there too.) I think it’s particularly difficult to have any kind of discussion of what kind of equality people might be seeing in the temple because of the strong norm of not saying anything but the most general things about it while outside. So it’s even harder to pin down what people are thinking of when they say they see equality there.
Thanks Ziff! Indeed, discussions about the temple are often shut down when you specifics are brought up. It is silly because there are very specific things that we actually covenant not to share. The rest is fair game. It is a weird stigma.
About the movie. I agree it isn’t a feminist movie, but I did find it very empowering. It set up this cartoonishly misogynistic world and society that the protagonists had to escape from (and Furiosa very much drives the plot, and we sit much of it if not most of it through her eyes), and work together to survive. I loved how it developed in a way that had the group overcome stereotypical gender roles. I didn’t see the male protagonists saving the female ones any more than the female ones saved the male ones. In the end, they were all willing to sacrifice themselves for each other, and they even had older ladies doing battle (which was just fun.) I just liked that, and liked seeing a group of people overcome inherent mistrust for survival.
Now onto the more important part, about the temple (and your correlation based on your view of the movie.) I couldn’t agree more. It really is difficult to see and hear female friends talk about how wonderful it is, and how they “feel” equal when all I have ever seen there is a strict hierarchy where I, as a male, am on top and the ultimate role of women is submission. Somehow this gets justified because that submission, and “head of the household” thing are supposed to be done in complete, and unselfish love, but it baffles me to see the lengths people go to justify it.
My family had this discussion last Sunday when we got together for dinner. My brother only sees equality, and thinks it’s perfectly righteous and equal. My sister in law (that is married to him) hates it, and has always hated the message of the temple and the way it makes her feel. She always thought it was something wrong with her, and was basically always told that if she didn’t feel something great going through the temple then maybe she had unresolved sins etc. My experience going through the temple for the first time was the same. It just felt wrong, and off, and I really did not like how women were portrayed (among other things that were just uncomfortable.) I heard the same things when discussing with priesthood leaders about how I must have unresolved sins, and I always took it as I must be faulty and unworthy even though I had done everything I was capable of to make sure I was worthy, and really devoted myself to it. I told my sister in law that first experience in the temple was the first time I really ever questioned the church. She felt the same way, and really struggles with the temple message and the mormon culture of it all with people defending it, and justifying the inequality. My brother (of course) was not pleased with the whole conversation, and said how he just can’t see his wife as anything less than him or submissive to him and would never treat her that way. I told him that was because he was filling in the blanks as a good person, but not filling in the blanks with what is shown and taught at the temple. He’s changing things to fit his needs and desires as a good person. I think a lot of people do that. They change or twist what is actually said and presented there to fit their narratives as good people so they can more easily accept it.
RE: the movie – You’re not the first to argue that it was an empowering role for Furiosa. I completely disagree, but will set that aside because I don’t want to fill the comments sections with spoilers, and because it isn’t really the point of the post. But, I will that it was a cartoonishly misogynistic world was part of the problem, not a point in its favor. Modern-day men won’t see themselves in that. A modern-day man can watch this film and pat himself on the back for not having sex slaves, all while ignoring the everyday sexism he engages in. Modern-day women can celebrate that they are free from this kind of mega-tyranny, and so overlook the hundred microaggressions they face every day. It is a step backward, not forward.
RE: the rest – I think you’re spot on. People who *want* the temple to be egalitarian choose to see that it is. They trade what it actually says for what they want it to mean.
Thanks for this post. I struggle with the same thing. I’ve had conversations with my parents and female friends who tell me to not pay attention to the wording and focus on how I feel. What? As if the actual wording doesn’t matter? To me that’s like trying to read the scriptures without reading the actual words. I’ve also heard interpretations that to me don’t seem even close to what is actually being said. It frustrates me even more when I’ve found out what was said prior to 1990. How did people interpret that as equal? I just don’t understand. I am open to my interpretation being wrong, especially since a non-woman friendly interpretation goes against what I know about God based on my relationship with him. But I get frustrated with interpretations that claim the opposite of what is actually said. It is also extremely difficult for me to believe stretched interpretations of the wording as a linguist. I understand semantics and pragmatics and the associations people have with language. Please dont tell me that the word for up really means down. I do understand that the words can be symbolic, but there is such a patterns of verbal and nonverbal communication that definitely seems to create a hierarchy with gender.
Thanks for the comment, Mary. It is funny you mention this because before I went through for the first time I was advised to focus on how I felt and not on everything else. At the time, I think the advice served me well because I was naive enough for it. But since then it has struck me how incredibly silly that is. Everything that is said and done in the temple frames what it means. How I feel about it doesn’t frame what it means.
I SO appreciate this. I recently received my endowments/got sealed and I felt so disgustingly guilty for hating the whole process. I feel like there must be at least SOME women claiming to love the temple for the sole purpose of appearances…it can’t really be the opinion of the majority, right? I’ve spent weeks wondering if it was just my sealer that hates women… I’m glad to hear I’m not alone in feeling the sexist undertones (and I use that word lightly. It was pretty blatant).
Thanks for your comment Hailey. You are definitely not alone. The temple is difficult for many women, and I think you’re right that most just don’t say it because it is socially isolating to be vocal about it.
Great post. I used to think that the only part in the temple that could really be construed as sexist was the part where Eve (and each woman) covenant to obey their husband.
I now realize that a certain brand of sexism permeates the ceremony (source):
* Adam helps make the earth, Eve does not.
* Adam is made directly by Christ, Eve is made through a piece of Adam.
* Adam is named directly by God, Eve is named by Adam. Eve is given to Adam, Adam is not given to Eve.
* Adam is specifically by name given the Garden of Eden, Eve is not.
* Adam covenants directly to obey God. Eve covenants to obey her husband.
* Adam is ordained to be a King and Priest to God, Eve is only ordained to be a Queen and Priestess to her husband.
* In the prayer circle when God’s presence is called into the room, Eve must veil her face as she cannot have direct access to God’s power. Her connection to God is through the grip of the man next to her. The man has direct communion with God.
* When they are kicked out of the Garden, Adam builds an alter prays to God, Eve does not.
* When women die, their faces are veiled symbolizing their inability to have direct access to God’s presence. Instead, their husbands must bring them into God’s presence by knowing their secret temple name. The women do not know their husbands’ name as he does not need her to bring him through the veil.
* In the sealing, the wife gives herself to the husband. The husband simply receives the wife, he does not need to give himself.
* Yes, men must be married to get into the highest level of Celestial Kingdom but that is NOT because he lacks the full priesthood without her, but because the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom has eternal increase, so he needs a woman to create his children.
I think there are many ennobling ideas taught in the temple. But there is definitely a sexist undercurrent that permeates the ceremony. Maybe someday it will be modified again?
That it will be modified again in the future is my hope and prayer! We can’t ignore this (very valid) list of problems forever.
Hailey Marie,
You’re definitely not alone. For me, that realization came on more gradually rather than during the first time (although the sexist/unequal parts always bothered me from day 1). I’m super vocal at church, but I’ve still held back about my real feelings about the temple because it seems nearly impossible to voice anything but complete enthusiasm. There’s no venue, no history, no accepted way to talk about the temple except in superlatives.
I was just about to speak up the last time the temple came up in RS, but I had just moved to France and the ward didn’t know me all that well yet, and I just didn’t want to go in all bull-in-a-china-shop-like at that point.
I’ve been open with my bishop about my issues with the temple. For him, the temple is the ultimate place of peace and comfort, a place where he goes to to solve problems, while for the temple *is* the problem.
I’ve never understood the rational of saying, “a lot of people feel this way, but they’re wrong. I should know because… reasons.” Perhaps people feel the temple creates equality because it does. What if it’s you whose wrong and they are right, and not the other way around? Claiming to be feminist doesn’t make you an authority on equality. Sorry.
Don’t need to be a feminist to see the inequality in the temple, and the church. It’s pretty obvious, but it’s also obvious we are taught from very young ages that we aren’t to question these things, or that they are somehow a good thing we are to embrace. Some can reconcile that. Some can’t.
Which would be a fine opinion to have, as long as you recognized it as an opinion and not cold hard fact. Viewing something as “unequal” is, by definition, subjective. It’s your perception of the thing in question. You and Leah see your view on the temple and the Church as the gospel truth and that’s why this is a you problem. You can’t hide behind the “I’m right about this because… I JUST AM!” shield for so long.
Your interpretations of the “sexism” in the temple are just that, interpretations. What if I told you that all the reasons you believe that the temple is sexist are the reasons that I think it’s beautiful and I feel the importance of feminism even more?
The problem is that your definition of feminism is the definition the world gives you. Heavenly Father’s definition is much different, and much more empowering and loving. But I understand why you can’t see that yet. I would encourage you to open your heart and your spiritual eyes when you visit the temple to understand the special place God has for each of his daughters. It is equal to man…but it is also different. Stop trying to make them the same.
The only way you can feel this way is if you are actually ignoring the words of the endowment. There is no interpretation of my covenanting to my husband while he covenants to the Lord that puts us on equal ground.
@Leah, it’s not on equal ground according to the world, no. Believe it or not, some of us care about the Lord than we do the world. The Lord celebrates the differences between men and women. I suppose that’s why He created a man and a woman instead of two slightly different versions of a man. Modern feminism, on the other hand, just wants a woman to be a man.
You are so completely off. The last thing modern feminism wants is for women to be men. They want women to be considered in equal regard to men. They want the world to be less male centric. To have equal opportunity and acknowledgement. Believe it or not, somebody can care about God more than the world, but disagree with church policies or things that feel wrong to them and not be any less faithful or worthy than you.
Having differences is fine. Appreciating, and respecting them is fine. Using those differences (especially when they are purely based on something uncontrollable such as gender/race/sexuality etc, not capability or willingness) to deny opportunities is not. The blanket statement of a textbook definition of inequality somehow being equality in the Lord’s eyes does nothing. It serves no purpose, and has nothing but empty faith to back it up, and no base in reality to solidify it.
@Dusty – and perhaps the very fact that you see no value in discussing what is actual equality to the Lord is the problem. That can be brushed away. That “does nothing.” But you seemed very quick to hit the pulpit in hurling accusations of “textbook inequality” just so long as no one asks who wrote the textbook.
You absolutely can find both the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Gospel of modern media important to you. But as time goes on, that rift is gonna get deeper. You can’t serve God and Mammon forever. Eventually we will all have to choose.
The problem is you strawman everything and toss things in that have no bearing on the actual issue. Gospel of modern media? Where did that even come from, or what does it have to do with anything? It hasn’t been the media that has guided many people to feel wrong about the inequality they see in the temple/church, it is the temple ceremony/policies itself, their own prayers, their own study that has lead them to that. You dismiss their legitimate feelings with no desire to ever listen because you believe yourself to be the righteous one, on the righteous side without bothering to look around and see that line of righteousness isn’t exactly where you picture it, and there is a far more diverse group of people on the same side of it as you believe yourself to be. You redefine words because you’ve labeled them unworthy, or not God’s definition then dismiss them and their value in conveying understanding between people (the entire purpose of language.)
Yes, I did hurl things back at you because you’ve been condescending, combative, and insulting while throwing out ignorant statements about feminism in general and seem to have no desire to understand the reality of what is going on, or show any empathy to those that are legitimately hurt by the one sided nature of the temple. (I apologize for being combative back.) The pain it has caused these women for years is real, the journey to try and reconcile it has been a serious struggle for so many that I know. Maybe you haven’t had the opportunity to see what that does to a person’s psyche yet, but it can be very emotionally devastating and take a toll on self esteem over the years.
And please, feel free to explain to me what equality is to the Lord then, and how the temple somehow conveys equality. What about the ceremony tells you there is equality? How does the female side and the male side convey equality in the ceremonies?
@Dusty – I didn’t straw man a single thing. These are real people and this is their real position. Your problem is hypocrisy. You call me combative, condescending and dismissive and fail to acknowledge that you and others are fostering those same views on this very website, no less. Claiming that the temple is like a violent movie “and not it a good way” is combative. Did you call Leah out on it? No. Saying “I hear women all the time talk about equality in the temple and how it means they will be partners with their husbands forever, but they’re wrong” is condescending. And intolerant. She’s saying in essensce they’re wrong to find the happiness that they do. Did you call Leah out on it? No. When someone challenges her on the article in the comments, she blankly ignores it and suggests that only a person who doesn’t understand the words used in the temple could think this way. In other words, she acts dismissively. Did you call her out on it? No. Because you agree with her. So what is it that I’ve done that’s so terrible? Take the other side of the issue? That doesn’t sound very tolerant of enlightened to me.
You can reign fire and brimstone down on the temple ordinances for affecting some women negatively and giving them low self esteem. That’s their perception. But guess what? There are literally millions of other women who it gives peace and strength to, who find happiness in them and believe they create equality. Why do have to dismiss them? Why is THEIR perception of the temple okay to disregard and ignore? Why do we have to convince them that they are wrong?
It’s hypocrisy, plain and simple. And that’s not okay, especially if you’re trying to paint me as some insensitive monster.
“I’ve never understood the rational of saying, “a lot of people feel this way, but they’re wrong. I should know because… reasons.””
“You can’t hide behind the “I’m right about this because… I JUST AM!”
These are strawmen arguments you set up that simplify the actual arguments being made for the purpose of you proceeding to promptly, and easily knock down and dismiss easily without addressing any valid points.
And I’m not trying to paint you as anything. I don’t think you are an insensitive monster (though I do think you are wrong about this subject, and haven’t offered enough yet to prove otherwise.) I would wager outside of this one discussion that I would find you a likeable guy, and a pretty good person in general. I clearly disagree with you, and your method of communication in this particular discussion and I called you on these things because you were misrepresenting, and doing so in a disrespectful way (particularly your claim about modern feminism.)
You can call me what you wish, but I have been no hypocrite. I have been pretty consistent. I even apologize for being combative back toward you, because I do recognize that I have been. This is an important subject to me, and in my failings I do sometimes let emotion overrule reason. The way you responded from the very beginning seemed to want to agitate, and not interested in discussion/understanding. You then accused me of not being interested in discussion. I asked for explanations, and you addressed none of those things only to accuse me of hypocrisy and things I have not claimed, or addressed. I’ve never said people are wrong to feel good about the temple. I have said I don’t understand it because it isn’t what I have personally seen, that is perception on my part for certain. The actual words being said in the rituals in the temple though are pretty clear if we listen to them, and don’t put any spin on them. The fact that we need to spin or twist things in order for them to mean something else in our minds, or to us is something I just don’t understand (pertaining to this particular subject.) I only dismiss somebody going wholeheartedly in on that if it is causing harm to others, and these things are causing harm to others and preventing progress. I don’t agree with fostering that, or fostering harm even if it is something that brings personal comfort to some. Would change coming to the temple harm any of these people that already believe “the Lord’s equality” is already there? No, it would just mean real equality and the “Lord’s equality” is another step closer to being the same thing, and the same understanding for us all.
As far as Ms. Silverman goes, I can’t speak for her or her intent. I disagreed with her about the movie itself in ways, but did agree with the topic she addressed, and I think it is an important discussion to have or be aware of. Where does this disconnect happen where there are obviously quite a few women that believe the temple teaches equality, when if we look closer that is not what the words or rituals are saying? Or, if you prefer, what is equality in the Lord’s eyes, rather than our mortal understanding of what it is or supposed to be, and where is the disconnect for the people that don’t feel the Lord’s version of equality? A helpful starting point would be to clarify what equality is in the Lord’s eyes.
Dusty,
If you are unwilling to be honest about your hypocrisy on the most basic level, I don’t see the point in having a discussion.
Projection. But I concur, if you are unwilling to actually discuss and only here to toss insults in an attempt to claim the moral high ground, there can’t really be a discussion.
Dusty,
Speaking of projection…
Lol