A Housework Manifesto

So often, you walk into a home and the woman of the house apologizes for "the mess."  Do you ever hear men apologize to visitors for dirty dishes? Or children apologize to their playmates for accidentally leaving out toys? Of course not. Why is this? Because women are still seen as primarily responsible for housework (And don’t even get me started on women apologizing for not having had time to put make-up on...). Even if they are believers in equal sharing of housework, or if they have carefully portioned out chores to members of the family, or if they are the primary breadwinner, it is still the woman who apologizes to guests that there are dishes or laundry sitting out. This constant apologizing - and guests accepting that apology - reinforces an unfair expectation of women always accepting responsibility for housework and parenting and encourages guilt and shame on women who already know they are far from being the perfect mother, wife, employee, and housekeeper. Because this situation is somewhat maddening to me, I have written a personal “Housework Manifesto”:

I promise my children’s toys will never be completely put away. I promise there will always be dishes in the sink. I promise I will never “finish” the laundry. I promise that dinner will rarely be ready exactly when my husband gets home. I promise there will be many days when my children are the perfect example of a fashion faux pas. I promise that there will always be some dirt on my floor. I promise there will be books and homework sitting out. I promise that socks will often lose their mates. And last of all, for all of this, unless there is, literally, a poopy diaper on the living room floor or a visitor impales him/herself on a child’s toy, I will never, ever apologize.

On the other hand, I also promise that my apartment or house will be a home. I promise that I will try to be a kind and loving wife and to raise children who know they are loved and cared for. I promise that in my home, family will come before housework and that we will talk, laugh, argue, play, work, and pray. If these promises are not fulfilled, that would be a truly good reason for an apology.

Men Aren't Monsters

Is this how we teach our girls to view men?

 In recent decades, there has been a push to empower women, to help them get out of abusive or dominating relationships, and to help them build confidence, self-reliance and independence. These are all incredibly important and necessary goals. However, I'm worried about an unintended consequence of this campaign for women: The subconscious belief that men are monsters.

As women have fought against a long history of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, rape, domestic violence, and mental, emotional and physical abuse, they have, probably unintentionally, emphasized the weaknesses and sins of one gender. While these things needed to be brought to light to bring about true equality, the tendency was to beat the entirety of the male population over the head while never recognizing that men also have good tendencies and characteristics. With women emphasizing their own goodness and power and constantly undercutting the sacred nature of a man's role in the family, is it really any surprise that chivalry has almost disappeared and that so many children grow up fatherless?

An example: I believe most people would agree that the world is how you see it. Your life is about perception. As an example of the dangerous possibilities of this trend, let's take a hypothetical woman - Jenny. Jenny was raised to be suspicious towards men in dating relationships. She found a man whom she believed she could trust - while subconsciously believing that this was a rare occurrence and that most men are not trustworthy. Jenny is now in a good, stable marriage but is constantly barraged by media messages, friends, and organizations, that encourage women to be careful and not to be hesitant to leave an abusive relationship. If the idea is constantly in her subconscious that men are monsters, will Jenny begin to perceive her husband's mistakes as warning signs or even purposefully demeaning acts? If she is also under the impression that divorce is easily obtained - then what will hold her back? Do you see a problem here?

One other cause of the "men are monsters" phenomenon is the way modesty is taught to many LDS and Christian young women. Unfortunately, many parents and youth leaders teach that a girl should be modest because she could be a temptation to a young man. This teaches the young woman that men cannot control themselves or their thoughts, which is simply not true. It teaches her that men can't be trusted.

Women need to be empowered, confident, and independent; but so do men. We are all sons and daughters of God, born innocent and pure with potential for much good.  I have seen my husband, father, brother, brothers-in-law, and other men treat their wives with respect, love and affection.  Teaching women and girls to be suspicious of men can be harmful to personal and family relationships. We are all capable of sin and mistakes, but assuming that one gender is more likely than the other is not just dangerous, it's wrong.

 -------------------

Additional resources:
-A viewpoint from an Apostle of the LDS Church:

Brethren, We Have Work to Do by Elder D. Todd Christofferson
 -The Beauty Redefined Blog: Modest is Hottest?

LDS First Presidency Congratulates President

I just wanted to share with you the statement published this morning by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints:

"We congratulate President Obama on winning a second term as President of the United States.

After a long campaign, this is now a time for Americans to come together. It is a long tradition among Latter-day Saints to pray for our national leaders in our personal prayers and in our congregations. We invite Americans everywhere, whatever their political persuasion, to pray for the President, for his administration and the new Congress as they lead us through difficult and turbulent times. May our national leaders reflect the best in wisdom and judgment as they fulfill the great trust afforded to them by the American people.

We also commend Governor Romney for engaging at the highest level of our democratic process which, by its nature, demands so much of those who offer themselves for public service. We wish him and his family every success in their future endeavors." (Statement)

"The Future is as Bright as Your Faith"

To say that I was disappointed last night would be obvious. Nearly in tears, I tried to remind myself as I usually do that it was just one election. It was just 4 years. What real impact would it have on my life? However, this self-talk didn’t work as well as it once did. Forgive my ranting, but as I get closer and closer to being a “real” adult and getting a “real” grown-up job, I have to wonder – will there be a job for me to get? I know that I have talent, skills, and a good head; but where will that get me if there is no opportunity? Will I be able to put my husband through school as he has for me? We don’t want the government to pay for college. We just want jobs so that we can work through it! We don’t want government to provide healthcare – we want jobs so we can pay for and choose our own. How can we raise children in this economy and society? What happened to America, the land of opportunity?

I know in my heart that we are all in God’s hands, but I have to wonder what his plan is. Why has he given me a heart and mind for politics if I will always be pushing at a wall? If, in these latter-days, our country will just keep getting more corrupt, what is the point of fighting it? It was hard to get to sleep.

Gratefully, this morning I was reminded of a quote from Thomas S. Monson, the President of the LDS Church and our Prophet. He said, “The future is as bright as your faith.”

“Though the storm clouds may gather, though the rains may pour down upon us, our knowledge of the gospel and our love of our Heavenly Father and of our Savior will comfort and sustain us and bring joy to our hearts as we walk uprightly and keep the commandments. There will be nothing in this world that can defeat us. My beloved brothers and sisters, fear not. Be of good cheer. The future is as bright as your faith.” (Be of Good Cheer by Pres. Thomas S. Monson, Ensign May 2009)

God never promised us that we would win, but he did ask us to fight the good fight.  So we will press on in faith, not knowing the end, but knowing the path God would have us tread. 

I know I have LDS friends who are Democrats, and for them I am happy this morning. They fought for what they believed in and have received a reward. I can only hope the leaders we have elected will lead our nation in good paths. 

As for me, I will put my faith and my future in God’s hands. He knows what he has in store for me and my family and his love and guidance are all I can really ask for. I thank God for a living prophet and the hope that he has restored to me.

Becky Lockhart: A New Style of Leadership

*This is a rough post I wrote for a course blog. It is a demonstration of the argument that women and men lead differently.*

"I offered a different style of leadership to the House, one that would afford every Representative the opportunity to take part more fully in the process. I believe that debate should be embraced and encouraged. We should not be afraid of this great American process of making law and setting policy. This way of doing business is at times messy, and it is of course, more time-consuming. Not everyone enjoys this change, but I believe it is a healthier way for the House of Representatives to function.” ~Rep. Becky Lockhart on her first term as Utah’s Speaker of the House.(link)

In November of 2010 following the general election, Utah Republicans elected their state’s first female Speaker of the House. Rep. Becky Lockhart of Provo, Utah won the speakership by two votes over the incumbent Speaker, Rep. David Clark.  Lockhart argued that Republicans were tired of Clark’s heavy handedness and were ready for a change. The Salt Lake Tribune reported Lockhart saying, “I think the caucus made a decision tonight that they're ready for a new style of leadership and that's what we're going to provide. We're going to work to have openness and have collaboration and have discussion about the issues." Lockhart has certainly lived up to her promise to provide a new style of leadership. In this post, I’ll look at three characteristics of her first term as Speaker: her facilitating style, her encouragement of debate and openness, and her view on campaigning. 

Lockhart as Facilitator

Lyn Kathlene, a professor at Purdue University, has found that leadership style, on average, differs between men and women. In an academic article, she wrote:

“Research has found that women do not use or perceive their positions of power like their male counterparts.  Eagly and Johnson's (1990) meta-analysis of experimental and organization research on gender and leadership style found that women tended to lead more democratically, while men tended to be more autocratic. Similar results were found in a legislative setting, where women chairs were more likely to use their position as a facilitator or moderator of committee discussion, rather than as a way to control witness testimony, direct committee discussion, and join in the substantive debates" (p. 561).

The argument that women have a more facilitating style of leadership finds great evidence in Becky Lockhart’s first term. The Daily Herald published an article examining Lockhart’s leadership style, noting that some called it “leading from behind.” They reported that Lockhart “allows the process to work itself out rather than pushing her own agenda.” In interviews with several Republican representatives, there was general respect and appreciation for her inclusiveness, while still questioning the strength of her leadership. Several expressed frustration at the lack of clear direction to how a caucus meeting or House session moved forward.

When you consider Kathlene’s argument that men and women often have different leadership styles, it is interesting to note that out of 58 Republicans in Lockhart’s caucus, only 3 representatives, other than Lockhart, are women. All the representatives interviewed in the Daily Herald article were men. Perhaps their frustration and discomfort were rooted in the fact that they are more comfortable with a more dominant style of leadership.
 
Encouraging Debate and Openness

Lockhart’s facilitating style of leadership has led her to encourage debate in the House and openness between leadership, representatives, and the public. Lockhart came into the speakership on a promise of furthering open discussions and lively debate. In a 2012 legislative report found on Lockhart’s website, she wrote, “lively debate ensures we create the best policy for the state. It’s great to participate in these discussions.” The Daily Herald reported that Lockhart has been true to her word: “Lockhart has been said to be open and fair to all members of the House. She is not one to cut off debate or strong-arm lawmakers into voting a certain way, as her predecessors did.” While many representatives appreciate the opportunity to have a say in the process, others complain it takes too long.

As an example of this complaint, in the 2011 redistricting process sessions often seemed unorganized and occasionally came to a standstill. When progress wasn’t being made, instead of forcing an agenda, Lockhart called for a recess to give more time for discussion. Lockhart, rather than addressing the problem of lengthiness, boasts that the redistricting process was the most open, inclusive and transparent of any in Utah history (Lockhart Website). She and the rest of the redistricting committee held several public meetings around the state to get public input and created a website to give information to the public and to get feedback. Despite Democrats’ complaints, Lockhart believes the redistricting process was open and fair - a legislative success. It was a combination of her trademark emphasis on openness and debate.

Lockhart’s Campaigning Style

Another characteristic of Lockhart’s leadership style is her campaigning tactics. As leader and spokesperson of her party, a speaker is expected to rally support for her representatives during election season. While Lockhart has said she is working hard to campaign with her representatives to help them get re-elected (Salt Lake Tribune), she is bucking a tradition of contributing donations to their individual campaigns, calling the practice “wrong-headed” (Utah Pulse). While we could speculate on the reasons for this change, whether ideological or gender-based, this is quite different from her male predecessors. 

Though Lockhart is not contributing money, she is hoping the time she spends on the campaign trail will translate to votes for her as Speaker. Utah Policy reports Lockhart saying, “I’m taking nothing for granted and will campaign hard [for the speakership].  My style is that I welcome all input.”  Lockhart’s campaigning style fits well with her tendency towards openness and government transparency.

Conclusion

Whether or not Lockhart can be a representation of the leadership style of most women, her case study does fit well with Dr. Kathlene’s argument that women leaders are more democratic and facilitating. This facilitation and encouragement of debate and openness has led to both critics and supporters, which may be affected by the fact that the vast majority of the representatives she works with are men. However, Lockhart’s efforts to include every representative and to campaign diligently must be paying off - as of today, she has no challengers for her position as Speaker of the House (Utah Policy). In the end, perhaps we can conclude that Lockhart’s representatives prefer a more open approach, even when frustrating, as they have made Lockhart a shoo-in to again lead the Utah House of Representatives.

How Far Do We Go to Recruit Women?

*I wrote this post on October 26th*

I'm currently sitting in a seminar room full of LDS and Catholic philosophers. They are holding a conference titled "The Goods of the Family" and my political philosophy professor, who is the host, asked us to attend a couple sessions. When I sat down in the room, the first thing I noticed, after looking at the clock to see how late I was, was the lack of any women professors.

Stats:

3 female students

5 male students

18 male professors age 40+.

My first reaction was: how could you have a conference on marriage and the family without any women? That just seemed kind of… wrong. Were there really not any female professors that could be invited? As I listened, I realized all of these professors are specialists on the intersection of philosophy, politics, and theology. I could believe that finding a Catholic or LDS female professor of this type of specialty would be difficult.

This brings up a question that has been simmering in my mind: At what point, under what circumstances, does an organizer go out of their way to find women participants? If women do not self-select to be a specialist of the type needed for an event, what is there to do?

Most of the BYU faculty likely have wives who are at home with children, fulfilling a sacred responsibility to nurture children and build righteous homes. But if women limit themselves to the home, then what is the effect of a lack of female religious and conservative voices in the public sphere?

The Interaction of Party Affiliation and Gendered Campaigns: Case Study of Mia Love

*I first wrote this for a course blog, so if it sounds a little formal... it is.*

                Utah’s 4^th district is making a name for itself as one to watch in the elections this November. The tight race between incumbent Rep. Jim Matheson (D) and Saratoga Springs Mayor Mia Love (R) is making national headlines. The district really isn’t significant for any reason (unless you ask the locals). It is basically fly-over country.  So why the clamor? First, a six-term incumbent who is the opposite party from the majority of his constituents will likely finally get the boot. Second, his challenger is a woman. And black. And Republican. 

                Mia Love has the potential to become the first African-American Republican Congresswoman ever; and yet, that is not something she likes to point out. Though she has the possibility of making history and breaking a significant glass ceiling, NBC reported: “Love feels that her race won’t be a factor in her effort to become the Republicans’ first African-American congresswoman, saying that her race and gender “doesn’t matter.”” The Salt Lake Tribune added, “Love has tried to downplay her race and gender, insisting that policy differences should be the focus of the race.” The fact that Love is not making an issue of her gender or race (both of which are especially significant in Utah) seems to actually be a defining point of her campaign. I’ll first give you some background on Love’s campaign, and then address the question of why she is avoiding the gender issue.

Love’s Campaign Story

               
                 After Mia Love had served on her city council and now as the Mayor of Saratoga Springs, she began a bid for Congress early this year and soon won 70% of the delegates at the state convention (WashPost). Love’s campaign has focused on three simple messages: fiscal discipline, limited government, and personal responsibility (Issues). Her status as the challenger at first necessitated a grassroots campaign because of lack of funds. Love’s campaign website totes a list of “cottage meetings,” where a citizen opens his or her home to neighbors to meet Love.

                 Love’s campaign has certainly had its rough patches: Love is on her third campaign manager and there have been multiple miscommunications and scheduling problems among inexperienced staffers. The Salt Lake Tribune reported the Utah Republican Party “stepping in” to help manage operations.  As her campaign grew in strength, the Republican Party started sending in national figures to campaign for her such as John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Condoleeza Rice, Paul Ryan, and John McCain. The connection with the national Republican party grew as the National Republican Congressional Committee quickly became her largest supporter. The Salt LakeTribune reported that as of October 15^th, the NRCC had spent $1,076,721 on advertising on behalf of Love.  This all led up to an invitation from Mitt Romney’s campaign to speak at the Republican National Convention (DeseretNews). The following explosion in news coverage helped Love move ahead of Matheson in some polls and caused her to more than double Matheson’s fundraising in the third quarter (Love4Utah).

Is Love’s Avoidance of Gender Issues unique?

                So, why is Love refusing to campaign on the fact that she is a woman? Perhaps we can gain some insight from comparing her to a couple other female candidates.

                In the Love-Matheson race, we have a Male Democratic Incumbent facing a Female Republican Challenger. If we reverse just one of these points, we could compare this race to a Female Democratic Incumbent facing a Male Republican challenger. In other words, we could compare the Matheson-Love race to the race between Jan Schakowsky (D) of the Illinois ninth district to her challenger Timothy Wolfe (R).

                Though Love and Schakowsky are both women, there is little else their campaigns have in common. One commonality is that they are both strong partisans, running in a district where theirs is the majority party. Schakowsky is said to be an “outspoken progressive” (Progressive) - a far left Democrat who serves as Chief Deputy Minority Whip in the House of Representatives (House). Love is a strong Republican known to support the Tea Party. 

Love and Schakowsky approach women’s issues from opposite directions. As I mentioned before, Love largely avoids gender issues. In fact, the three issues her campaign runs on (fiscal discipline, limited government, and personal responsibility) are decidedly not stereotypical feminine issues. On the other hand, Schakowsky is deeply involved in women’s issues and uses that in her campaign. Her campaign website says that she is a “leading advocate for women’s issues in Congress” and lists the policies she has supported. 

                One other interesting difference between these two candidates is the use of family roles in their campaigns. Mia Love, being in conservative, Mormon, Utah, often emphasizes, “I’m a wife and mother, first and foremost" (SLTrib). Schakowsky, however, rarely brings up family except quickly at the bottom of her biography page on her campaign website. This likely reflects an ideological difference. However, it is important to note that family relationships would not be a strong point for Schakowsky – she has divorced and re-married and her second husband was recently convicted of bank fraud (NNDB).

                The comparison of Love and Schakowsky leads me to hypothesize that gender is used in different ways when campaigning in different parties. As one more slightly less similar example, I wanted to look at another Republican woman to compare to Love. One recent and well known example is Michele Bachmann. Bachmann and Love are both strong religious conservatives and both downplayed the gender card and largely avoided gender politics (HuffPost). They also both focused on their family roles and background as an important part of their campaign message. Bachmann often referred to her experiences as a mother of five and foster parent to twenty-three. An interesting point of departure is that as Bachmann got closer to the election, she started emphasizing her gender to try to collect votes (HuffPost). However, she still did not address women’s issues – she simply referred to herself as a strong woman and feminine leader. 

Conclusion

                The two comparisons to Schakowsky and Bachmann lead me to believe that how a female candidate uses her gender is a product of her party. It may be that Republicans are more likely to mention family roles, while Democrats are more likely to run on women’s issues. If we believe this, then it is not surprising that Love has largely downplayed her gender and the historic nature of her race. Noting that she is a strong partisan and is running in a very conservative area, it is to be expected that her gender not be highlighted in her campaign. Yes, Mia Love is a woman, but in her run for election, it is her Republican affiliation that determines the content of her campaign.

An Introduction

"25 Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.
26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people."
~Mosiah 29:25-26, The Book of Mormon

Ever since I was born, I have loved attention. Throughout childhood, I loved to talk, sing, dance, or do anything to get people to look at/ listen to ME. Bossy was my middle name.  As I got older and (maybe) more mature, being listened to wasn't enough - I wanted to be right. Knowing right and wrong was important to me. Everything should be black and white. There's a line. A solid line. And it shouldn't be crossed. Right?

This started to fall apart in my senior year of high school. I would credit my parents and my LDS seminary teacher to trying, ever so gently, to help me see a little more color. When I arrived at Brigham Young University, I was suddenly among thousands of other smart, articulate, and genuinely good people that made me start to question myself a little more and talk a little less. Why did I believe and think the way I did? Could I really back up my claims? What was my evidence? What were my credentials? When I went on a Study Abroad in London, and there encountered many different kinds of people, my motto became: Different isn't bad. Different is just different. In case you were wondering, that motto is a color spectrum pretty far off from black and white.

Now in the middle of my senior year of college, I've gotten to a crossroads: I think my voice is extremely important, just as I believe all of ours are. However, there are still relatively few things that I'm absolutely sure of. That brings me to the point of this blog: it is an exploration of topics that I feel are important to discuss but that I may not be absolutely sure of.  I may bring up a problem without knowing the answer.  I may present a theory and later be proved wrong. Sometimes, when it comes to central doctrines of the LDS Church and closely held personal beliefs, I will defend them strongly - no one benefits when you fudge what you really believe. And, always, I want my readers’ thoughts and opinions, but I want them in a thoughtful, respectful, and open-minded fashion.

This is why I chose Mosiah 29:25-26 as the theme for this blog. Through the voices of this people is how new ideas will be brought out and vetted, it is how corruption will come to light, it is how change will occur. My sub-title of “the intersection of LDS (Mormon) Doctrine, Politics, and Women's Issues” gives away the main themes of the blog. Having said all this, I'll be putting up my second blog post tomorrow. I’m excited to have a discussion with you!
 

An additional resource:
The Voice of The People by Michael A. Neider