Gender Unity: A Nibleyesque Musing

So, I'll get around to an obligatory conference post eventually today, but I'm restraining myself from writing anything fun until I do the Nibleyesque Musing that was due last week. Unfortunately, the only way I can motivate myself to do it is by posting it on the blog, so you'll just have to bear with me. Hey, it's on gender roles instead of obscure doctrine, so that should be fun.

“Patriarchy and Matriarchy” was an interesting approach to the question of gender equality in the gospel. I’m not sure I agreed exactly with Nibley’s characterization of Adam and Eve. He seems to switch back and forth on who he “blames” for the Fall (assuming it’s something to blame for). He attempts to make Eve a conscientious actor (“It is she who perceives and points out to Adam that they have done the right thing after all.”), a deceptive trickster (“But Eve, who in ancient lore is the one who outwits the serpent and trips him up with his own smartness, defeated this trick by a clever argument.”), and finally an innocent victim (“The first daring step had to be taken, and if in her enthusiasm she let herself be tricked by the persuasive talk of a kindly "brother," it was no fault of hers.”). It seems that Nibley wants to have it all ways at once, to blame Satan, Adam, and Eve each for the fall in successive turns. After all, I suppose all are to “blame,” but I don’t think Nibley does a good job of pulling all three problems together into a coherent vision. Instead, his description of the Fall seems to remain fragmented and confused.

However, I do like Nibley’s final conclusion about apparent gender issues in the gospel. The problem with the Fall, he says, is not that it was a wrong choice. It was that the choice was made by Eve alone, rather than in conjunction with Adam and especially without consultation with God. He goes on to conjecture that the real problem with the matriarchy/patriarchy issue is that it shouldn’t be an issue. We shouldn’t be choosing one or the other, but both and neither. The problem is that we set it up as an issue at all, that our society is so concerned about who should be first. As Nibley explains, “the suffix archy means always to be first in order, whether in time or eminence; the point is that there can only be one first.” The problem is that we insist on trying to find out which gender is superior or better, or trying to find the exact nature of either gender, under the false assumption that one can really exist without the other.

Nibley’s explication of the loss of gender identities in Macbeth clicked an image in my mind of gender identity and struggle as a sort-of circle. At the bottom of the circle, we have those societies who, like Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, have lost their gender identity in a quest for power and authority. Here is the raw power sought by either pure patriarchy or matriarchy, complete chaos and domination by one set of principles or the other. Moving up to the middle of the circle, we have a society of opposites: extremely different and polarized gender roles, where we have given up some of our desire for power in order to achieve a more balanced society. Some would think this is the society the Church advocates, with men in the workplace and women in the home, each minding their separate spheres. But what the gospel really calls for is at the top of the circle, where gender becomes both extremely essential and also totally unimportant. As we move to the top of the circle, we move from a society desiring power to a society desiring progress—eternal progression. We give up our desire for absolute agency (being able to make all the choices ourselves) for the greater gift of unified action. Gender at this level becomes infinitely important, because society must be run by a man and woman working and deciding together, but also irrelevant, because of the perfect unity achieved. The two have become so one that both can do everything, and yet nothing, without the other.

(Long time readers may catch the definite allusion to one of my favorite posts on this blog, The Circle: A Theory of Knowledge. Like I say, everything relates to it!)

Sexuality at BYU

This was originally going to be the subject of my first BCC post. I chickened out, for obvious reasons. It was somewhat inspired by Courtney's post on sex education.

BYU students are naive about sex. Having grown up in a culture where sexuality is never discussed, they've essentially become asexual creatures. Anything sexual has become dirty, to the point where some students make the decision not to kiss until they're married in order to avoid the risk of tainting their love with any impure desires and to avoid any sort of temptation. My writing teacher, after lecturing on the persuasive techniques of a rather explicit article on abortion, once had a student approach her wanting to discuss some sexual problems in her new marriage. The student felt there was no way she could turn to her parents because they would think she was sinful to even talk about it. Clearly, BYU students need some help being well-adjusted in their sexual attitudes.

BYU students are obsessed with sex. Having grown up in a culture where sexuality is never disucssed, they've essentially become overly sexual creatures. Students crave physical intimacy--see the fascination with NCMO a few years ago--because no one has taught them how to deal with it appropriately. It's a long standing joke how quickly a couple can go from a first date to marriage at BYU, something some people attribute to sexual desire overwhelming common sense. I mean, it's a popular enough opinion to have its own (rather long) section on the Wikipedia BYU entry's talk page. Clearly, BYU students need some help being well-adjusted in their sexual attitudes.

Wait, what? Can two such opposite views be held about (apparently) the same group of people? And how can two such disaparate results both be seen as originating from Mormon culture's way of dealing with sexuality?

Now, granted, my experience with this topic is . . . limited, if you know what I mean. But I believe that these two different stereotypes say more about the people who fit them than the system that created them. If both of these types came through the Church, then I'd say personal choice has a lot more influence on your attitudes than does a particular method of sex education. From my observations, the vast majority of BYU students are actually pretty well-adjusted about their sexuality. They see that it's an important part of marriage relationship, that it's nothing to be ashamed of, but also that they should be careful not to worship it. The two groups described above are no more an accurate representation of the Church than the uber-liberal or uber-conservative Mormons are. It's an unfair and unjustified stereotype.

Yeah, this definitely wasn't solidly argued enough to hold up to a BCC audience. Woah, three posts today. I better take a rest and not over-exert myself.