Faces of Courage: Girls of the LDS Church and Malala Yousafzai

Sorry, it's been so busy lately with school and such that I haven't posted foreeeeever. But the upside is, I still have a 4.0 for this year (which is a miracle, even though school's only been on for a month and a half). But I've definitely been hanging around the Feminist Mormon Housewife's website lately because of *drumroll please* General Conference and the OW Movement, and I've been pretty active in the comments section...

Anyways. I think that some of the talks so far are so good that there's good possibility that there will be some posts from here about them, like President Uchtdorf's talk in the first session, and Elder Holland's talk in the second session. But a few of the talks made... a few emotions flare, not only from me but countless others as well. Elder Christofferson's talk irked a few people, but then today Elder Oak's talk just about did a bunch of people in. Including me. **Note: I haven't exactly been paying the closest attention to conference this year, but it's been on in the background and I'm catching all of the highlights from fMh's live blogging and re-caps.

Here's "Thunderchicken's" recap of Elder Oak's talk: [my emphasis added]

• Elder Oaks speaking: Loves to hear his brother and sisters speak (thanks). Ten commandments important for Christians and Jews. First commandment deals with what our priorities should be – no graven images and no idols and all. Jealous means “sensitive/deep feelings” – so we offend God when we have priorities above God ie. career aspirations, political correctness, material possessions, power, prestige, and some I missed.
• What is our ultimate priority? Are we focused on following the Savior? For Mormons commandments are inseparable from Plan of Salvation. If we do not establish our priorities in accordance with that plan, we’re in danger of serving other Gods. We’re a family centered Church. Our theology begins with Heavenly PARENTS. A man and woman necessary for fulfillment of plan.
• We grieve at declining birth rates in Christian/Jewish countries. US has low birth rate/decline in birth rates. Median age for marriage is now at highest in history (26 years for women). Traditional family is coming to be the exception rather than rule. Pursuit of career instead of family is increasing goal, and necessity of fathers is diminishing. Concerning trends. Plan of Salvation for ALL children.
• We still respect all those who do not believe as we do, or don’t believe at all. All sexual relations are sinful to one degree or another outside of a married relationship between a man and woman. Many Churches agree with us on the importance of the sacredness of marriage. Concerned with all the many children born outside of marriage, and couples who lives together unmarried. Now cohabitation exceeds 60 percent of marriages. 50 percent of teenagers thought that out-of-wedlock children are a worthy life style.
• We cannot justify laws or condone laws that support stuff like gay marriage (sorry, totally paraphrasing – kids climbing over me).  Laws legalizing same-gender marriage to not change God’s laws. We remain under covenant to obey God’s commandments, and not serve other Gods, even if they become popular in our time. We may be accused of bigotry or suffer discrimination. If so, we need to remember our first priority to serve God. (DOES THIS TALK NOT END????)
• A moral coward is one who is afraid to stand up for something because of what others will think (or something like that????). We must not set our hearts on the things of the world/honors of men that we forget our destiny. We have a responsibility to never deviate from our desire to achieve eternal life, to have no other God and serve no other priorities before God.

Okay, so one thing I heard that Thunderchicken didn't really dwell on is how apparently the average age for marriage in women is 26, or 26 and a half or something like that, and the average age for marriage in men is 29 or something like that. When Elder Oaks said that, my parents gasped and went something along the lines of "Wow!" and "Oh man!" with disapproval in their voices. They thought that was a pretty big deal. Me? Not so much. But that's where the generation and age difference comes in.

My parents probably wouldn't appreciate me putting this here, but my mom is 53 years old and my dad just turned 61. Back when they were raised, the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, women and girls didn't really have much of a choice with their life besides getting married, having kids, and staying at home to take care of them. You remember the image of the typical 1950s housewife?

That's what they (especially my dad) was raised with. Plus, add on the fact that my paternal grandparents never graduated from high school and got married at sixteen... That's why those statistics were so shocking to them. While they were busy hemming and hawing about it, I didn't see anything wrong with those numbers. In fact, I would be perfectly fine getting married at 26.

Then Elder Oaks started going on about not delaying having children because of college or career goals. Wait a second... funny thing, I think that being pregnant and having children affects the wife more than the husband in that department. And it's difficult to go to college with a baby or little children on hand. So this is probably why traditionally the breadwinning is up to the husband. Which leads me to the fact that I believe we're cheating children out of their dreams.

Kids get asked all the time what they want to be when they grow up. A doctor, a firefighter, a policeman, a nurse, an engineer, a scientist, a builder. We smile and nod as they say it, whether it
be a male child or a female child. But little do they know that sometimes it's not that simple. Girls and boys know how to answer the question what they want to be when they grow up, but as girls get older they get bombarded with the expectations that they are going to get married. And have kids. And be the perfect stay at home wife and mother. Then the boys, they have hardly any restrictions when it comes to the career department. Get married, make sure that you have children, be a worthy Priesthood holder, and go to work and make a living. So why do we implant these false hopes and dreams in little girls when we ask them what the want to be when they grow up? Because we all know that they can go to college and get a degree and a good job, but that's not hardly expected of them. My mom didn't even go to college, and only had to get some kind of higher education when she had to become a CNA after her divorce to her first husband. She never even had to worry about going to college when she was married. And now she spends her days "busy" being the YW prez and cooking and cleaning and crocheting and running errands. This may be perfectly fine with some people, but not for me. I don't want to be that kind of wife. I want to get out and have a job, not just sit around the house all day. It may seem like freedom, but in the long run it may seem like a weight tied to your ankle.

Which brings me to a reply to one of my comments on the fMh live-blogging post of Sunday morning General Conference.

This is what I'm talking about. It's not like we're completely banned from getting an education and going to college, but obviously if we're going to stay at home and have kids (unless we get divorced or widowed) what's the point in going more in depth when it comes to schooling and education?

Elder Oaks is a great guy, and an amazing apostle. He really is. But he doesn't know me personally, or know my plans or dreams, or know my situation. The only thing he knows about me is that I am of the female gender. The reality is, not all women end up getting married. Not all women can have children. Everyone's situation is different. So please, General Authorities of the LDS church, please stop emphasizing the need to get married earlier, not delay in having children, and how women should stay at home to raise their children.

"Adam fell that men might be; and men are that they might have joy." If we are to have joy in our lives, then we need to stop doing things just to please other people or be "in the norm", or rise up to the expectations of others. We need to do what we feel is best for us individually, not what is expected of you because you are a female. I don't want to make the mistake of doing something that I felt pressured into that will eventually make me feel like I'm dying inside. I want to be happy, and if I follow the commandments and live my life the way *I* plan it to be, I will be happy.

And here's to Malala, who is trying to make education available to girls everywhere no matter what. She is an inspiration to me, and I think that if a girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban for going to school can make such an impact on the world and keep going, I can go to college and have a career and make all the life decisions that I want even with resistance and cultural restrictions.

 This morning I cut out the cover and article on Malala and put it on my wall. Only after I taped it up there, I noticed that I put it under this quote, one of the many I have on the walls of my room. Coincidence? I think not.

I Am Not a Boy.

I am not a boy.

I know you've probably realized that by now. I am definitely a girl. I don't leave the house unless I've at least employed the use of my eyebrow pencil. I enjoy shopping for clothes, though that doesn't happen very often. I read and read and read and read (not sure if that's considered a girl characteristic any more than a personality trait). Not gonna lie, I still once and a while got out my Barbies when I was 13.

I believe I have much to contribute to society. I have the potential to start college as a sophomore. I'm glad that I have been blessed with the opportunity to attend college, when I know a lot of other people don't. I plan on going to college, getting my bachelor's, and maybe getting my master's. I don't want anyone to prevent me from following my dream or telling me how to live my life. But this is the pressure I feel, that I have to be wife and a mother because I am female. I have to be beautiful and pretty and confident.

I am still not a boy.

Ability and knowledge are not gender-inclusive. It doesn't matter if you have a Y chromosome or another X one. You can be who you want to be. You may be a band nerd, a computer geek, a football player, a ballerina. Your genetic profile doesn't change your hopes and dreams and abilities. YOU are what changes your hopes and dreams and abilities. And sadly, society and culture do too.

Have you ever seen a boy in ballet? You may have, you may have not. It's not as common, since ballet is almost universally considered a "girl" activity. Have you ever seen a girl playing football? I have. She was my best friend. It's not as common, since football is also almost universally considered a "boy" activity. Most of the time you just don't see a girl try out for your local high school's varsity football team.

My friend was strong-willed and filled with vitality. Her step was always filled with vibrancy and energy.. She was what brought life into my surroundings. She was the kind of person who would make you not just feel like you were alive, but make you feel like you were actually living. Almost every day during recess in 5th and 6th grades, she would be out playing football with the boys. She would always joke around with them at school and act so comfortable around them. And while I was playing on the swings with my other friends, or doing whatever most of the girls did, she would always happen to be out in the field playing football with the boys.

My friend was not a boy, either.

One time I confronted her about it. I was mad that she spent so much time playing football and never wanted to play with me and all of our other friends at recess. She replied that she loved playing it, and that she was sure that I could find more people to play with my group of friends, but she wouldn't stop. I eventually learned to respect her choice, and I always ended up laughing at the funny exchanges she would have with the boys during class. It was almost as if they were all her brothers.

I remember that at one point, the boys started wondering why she was playing football with them, and that some of them didn't like that very much. When they told her that she shouldn't be playing anymore, my friend wasted no time in taking action. She started a petition that stated that it was perfectly fine for girls to play football. She had a bunch of people sign it, including neighbors, friends at school, and I think even the principal. Eventually, the guys didn't really care if she played football with them or not, and the petition didn't matter anymore. But she, even in grade school, knew that if someone judged her because she was waltzing across cultural divides that were meant to separate the genders, that was their problem.

I am not friends with this person anymore. Her strong-willed personality and my stubborn personality made us love and gravitate towards each other during the end of grade school, but caused some differences that I wish could have been resolved. Still, I see her in the halls at school almost every day and sometimes wonder, "Does she still have that same outlook on life? Does she still believe that she should be free to do what feels best for her, whether it's against cultural norms or whether the unwritten social restrictions will try to crush her considered a 'boy' thing or a 'girl' thing?" I don't know, and I may never know. But her example has set the stage for me in my life.

I grew up in a typical Mormon family. Stay at home mom, dad that worked from 8-5. Girls grew up and became sewing, cooking, loving mothers while boys became the head of the home, the bread-winner. I remember my brother's favorite color being red up until he started going to first grade, where he learned that red was a girl color, and that his favorite color should be blue or green since he was a boy. I remember being that evil older sister that could coerce her little brother into doing almost anything, including suggesting he play "Superman" at the park in his underwear (don't EVER ask Kevin about it unless you want another homicide in the ranks), or most importantly getting him to dress like a girl. We have pictures of it, and my mom and I sometimes joke that we could use it as blackmail if we really wanted to.

But is that so bad? Little children are born with a clean slate that eventually ends up getting filled and filled as they get older and as time goes by with rules and most importantly, ideas and expectations. The little girl realizes that her mother dresses her in pinks and purples a lot (with a few butterflies and flowers thrown in) and gets her hair done in cute little braids. She has dolls and stuffed animals and Barbies galore, but then turns around to find her little brother playing with dinosaurs and cars. Why doesn't she have the dinosaurs and cars? Why do dinosaurs and cars have to be boy toys? Why doesn't her brother ever get Barbies for his birthday? Things like these slowly start forming in a child's mind, and they learn. Children go to school and their eyes are opened to the true social norms of the world.

The moment a baby is born and pronounced a boy or a girl, its whole life is laid out before him/her. We immediately start assigning pink and blue bows, stating how beautiful your baby girl looks or what a handsome little guy your boy's going to turn out to be. Little baseball or foot ball shirts are collected and Daddy's Little Princess shirts flow freely It is normal.

Ideas are impressed on them that the boys in the next grade up play sports like football and baseball, and that those older girls on the swings at the playground take gymnastics or piano lessons. Everyone wants to belong and fit in, so we gently and effortlessly try to conform to our gender's standards.

Well, at least, most of us. Then there are the few exceptions.

In 7th grade band, no boys played the flute. It was a girl instrument. We were all the epitome of femininity. Then, when we arrived in high school we realized that one of the senior boys played the flute in band, and was pretty dang good at it. He was the son of our town's counseling/therapy center founder, so we knew that with a guy like that as his dad, he was probably well-adjusted, even if a little bit weird for playing the flute. He was extremely nice to everyone, and the point is, we respected him, just like we respected my friend who played football every day and hated wearing skirts for being herself.

And then the struggle continues. Us girls try to fit into the standards that we need to be rail thin, or at least have airbrush-sculpted abs and a push-up bra that advertises our... you get the picture. With highlighted hair flat-ironed to a 375 degree crisp, the latest skinny jeans or maxi dress or lace top, Victoria's Not-So-Secret bra and underwear and eyelashes coated over and over again with black sludge, we need to look pretty. Beautiful. Sexy. Feminine.

The sporty, athletic girls, gum chewing in mouth, have their straightened and styled hair in a ponytail or artistically messy bun, iPhone in hand, wearing a see-through tee over a tank top, yoga pants that show off their long shaped and shaved legs, and bright-colored Nikes. The punk or fashion statement girls wear side-parted, hairspray-poufed/curled hair, ripped shirt with usually not more than a bra under it, bright or dark skinny jeans and any kind of shoes you can imagine.

The guys wear a cleverly-conceived Nike or Under Armour shirt, athletic shorts or dark-wash jeans, Nikes within the color range of neon yellow, neon orange, blue, or black, and gel/mousse styled into their hair. They need to not only look or act cool, they need to be cool. Sexy. Suave. They need to feel it.

We have to be perfect. We have to be liked. We have to be feared, for being feared is so much better than to be afraid. We have to try and claw our way to the top to prevent from being stepped on in the bottom. We have to stab others in the back and put them down to drive the incessant insecurity back down into its gilded, shiny box, always threatening to emerge.

We are Prozac Nation, the laser-brightened teeth smiling and smiling and smiling, clear blue eyes wide and open and strained and occasionally red from the tears that illegally surface.

We are America's teenagers, suffering from the gender roles and expectations that are pushed on us that try and make us seem perfect. We are victims of our own X or Y chromosomes.

Eventually, every once and a while, someone turns their head around slowly, in the hallway at school, at church, at work, on the street. They look around as if they have been woken up for the first time, and finally realize what they are ultimately seeing beyond the superficiality.

They see human beings, eyes clear and knowing or clouded and confused, walking away, trying hurriedly to get to their destinations. They see a person with feelings, with a heart, with a moral compass that sometimes doesn't match up with the brain. They see a person whose dreams sometimes don't coincide with reality. They see a person who just wants to be loved, to be liked, who is finally just so tired of being alone.

They reach out and see past the bright appearel or masculine look, the smile or the frown, and see what that person truly is.

Everything.

"Gender is an essential characteristic of eternal identity andpurpose"? The Church's problem with gender

Soooo, this month we've been learning about marriage, family, etc. at church, and something from "The Family: A Proclamation To The World" has caught my eye.

"ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Kay. That's nice and all, but there is something serious and VERY important left out. I'm going to use real-world and anatomically-correct words, so I hope you are grown up and mature enough handle it or can put on your big girl panties or big boy underwear within the next few seconds. 

Approximately 1 in 1500-2000 children born is born noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia (source: Intersex Society of North America [ISNA]). There are many different disorders that tie in to intersexuality, the most common being Klinefelter Syndrome (having XXY chromosomes instead of XX or XY), Turner Syndrome (having only one X chromosome or an incomplete pair of XX), 5-alpha reductase deficiency (reductase deficiency caused by a mutation of the 5α reductase type II, causing the person to have male gonads but female primary sex chatacteristcs), aphallia/micropenis (lack of a penis or an unnaturally small one), ovo-testes ("true hermaphroditism")  and gonadal dysgenesis (functionless and/or underdeveloped gonads). 

So, what happens when a newborn child can not be clearly identified as being male or female? The ISNA recommends that "newborns with Intersex should be given a gender assignment as boy or girl, depending on which of those genders the child is more likely to feel as she or he grows up. Note that gender assignment does not involve surgery; it involves assigning a label as boy or girl to a child (http://www.isna.org/faq/patient-centered)."

So what does that paragraph from TFAPTW have to do with something like this? EVERYTHING. 

In the "olden days" (oh, it probably still happens today, but most likely not as often) many boys who were born with a micropenis (thank you, autocorrect, for continuing to change "micropenis" to "micro pennies"), 5-alpha reductase deficiency, and other similar disorders underwent surgeries as infants to *makes-cutting-motion-across-neck* their under-formed or nearly non-existent penis, leaving them to be raised as girls, along with those with aphallia. Could these boys raised as girls technically have the priesthood, since genetically they could be male, though they were raised as a female?

So, who is to say that "gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose"? I could understand if the church was talking about it on a strictly homosexual basis, saying that men shouldnt be with men or women shouldn't be with women, or if they were talking about their specific gender roles, such as "fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families [...] Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children" kind of thing. But it isn't clear.

What if the Smith's little baby was born not clearly identifiable as a boy or girl, and they had to choose the gender that the child would be raised in? Let's say that they decided to raise the baby as little Jimmy. 

Because of little Jimmy's genetic condition, he has both male and female parts, or severely underdeveloped male parts (pick a genetic condition listed at the beginning). Little Jimmy could end up developing a few female sexual characteristics too, because of this. What if Jimmy felt like he never fit in, or maybe had a more female nature about him?

What if, by the time he found out about the true nature of his sexuality, he decided he wanted to now be identified as a girl? Would this be a sin, since technically he would be changing his gender identity, like a transsexual would voluntarily want to do? Or would it be fine with the church, since technically his parents could have decided to raise him as a girl in the first place? 

What would happen if little Jimmy was a deacon, and had already been given the Aaronic priesthood? True, Jimmy had been raised a boy, but he wasn't completely physically a male. So if he decided to become a girl, what would happen concerning the priesthood? 

Next case scenario (now, this going to be pretty much the same as the last one, but a little different): What if the Smith's little baby was born not clearly identifiable as a boy or girl, and they had to choose the gender that the child would be raised in? Let's say that they decided to raise the baby as little Jane. 

 Because of little Jane's genetic condition, she has both male and female parts, or severely underdeveloped male parts (pick a genetic condition listed at the beginning). Little Jane could end up developing a few male sexual characteristics too, because of this. What if Jane felt like she never fit in, or maybe had a more masculine nature about her?

 What if, by the time she found out about the true nature of her sexuality, she decided she wanted to now be identified as a boy? Would this be a sin, since technically she would be changing her gender identity, like a transsexual would voluntarily want to do? Or would it be fine with the church, since technically her parents could have decided to raise her as a boy in the first place? 

What would happen if little Jane was a Beehive and had already been participating in the Young Women program? True, Jane had been raised a girl, but she wasn't completely physically a female. So if she decided to become a boy, what would happen concerning the priesthood? Would s/he be able to have the priesthood and be a Boy Scout? Would s/he be able to participate in male-dominated callings when s/he was older, such as Young Men's president or bishop? Would s/he be able to serve a full-time, two year mission?

Okay, this also ties in with the church's expectations of men and women. Women's main responsibility is to nurture their children, while men's responsibilities are to preside over their family, and provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. But then what about intersexual people? What about Jimmy and Jane when they become adults who haven't had hormone therapy or sexual surgery? They're neither completely male or female. What if Jimmy was more nurturing to children? What if Jane got married and had adopted a few kids? Jane's legal gender is female, but she isn't technically one. So would she technically still have this responsibility? What if she had a great job, and her husband stayed home and took care of the children?

This, in my opinion, shows that the church's idea of gender and the responsibilities that come with it, are flawed. 

The question that really gets to the point is, are women considered more nurturing because of biology or because of how they were raised, and the social & cultural expectations? I mean, it's scientifically proven that women have maternal instincts, but does that mean that women can love their children more or take care of them better than their husbands? NO! Men can love and care for their children in the same capacity as their wives! So why, exactly, does the church try and impose the belief that women shouldn't work while their husbands take care of their kids? 

Sorry, I totally just got off subject. But it makes me angry! Women can work and provide for the family just as well as men, and men have the capacity to take care of and nurture children just as well as women. 

Why can't the church recognize that?

Sorry, back on track now. 

Third case scenario (this is different): What if the Smith's little baby was born not clearly identifiable as a boy or girl, and they had to choose the gender that the child would be raised in? Let's say that they decided to raise the baby as little Jimmy. 

Because of little Jimmy's genetic condition, he has both male and female parts, or severely underdeveloped male parts (pick a genetic condition listed at the beginning). Little Jimmy could end up developing a few female sexual characteristics too, because of this. 

What if, when Jimmy found out the true nature of his sexuality, he decided that he wanted to truly feel like a boy, and decided to have a phalloplasty and hormone therapy? Actually, he would technically be having a sex reassignment surgery, since he was also born with a few female parts. 

PROBLEM: People who have had or are considering having an elective sex reassignment surgery are accepted in the church and may be baptized, but may not receive the priesthood or enter the temple. (Church Handbook of Instructions: Book 1, Stake Presidents and Bishoprics [Salt Lake City: LDS Church, 2006] pp. 41, 78.)

Does anyone else see the paradox??

Okay. He was raised a boy because of his inconclusive genitals (or combination of male and female organs). So if he wants to truly feel like a boy by getting the female parts removed and a phalloplasty, is there something wrong with that? Or would it be like when a woman has a complete hysterectomy, has ALL the plumbing removed (because of cancer or a personal decision)?

A few months ago, I read the book "As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised As A Girl" by John Colapinto, a true story about David Reimer, born Bruce Reimer, a male who endured a botched circumcision as an infant and whose parents decided to have him undergo sex reassignment surgery (which includes a penectomy and orchiectomy) because of the severe damage to his penis and raise him as a girl. 

This was not a good idea. 

Bruce was then raised unhappily as Brenda, which was pretty much disastrous. She was a tomboy, bullied and harassed, and very, VERY unhappy. She took estrogen and other female hormones, and was highly encouraged by a doctor to have a vaginoplasy. After finally finding out the truth of her sexuality, she decided to assume a male identity, and called himself David. He eventually had a double mastectomy and two phalloplasties and got married, but the emotional trauma of it all was too much to bear, and he eventually ended up committing suicide. 

This could be an example that gender IS an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. Bruce/Brenda/David did not feel comfortable as a girl, as if subconsciously he knew he was a boy. But another thing to be considered that at the beginning, he was completely, 100% physically a boy, not intersexual. Later, even though his male parts were removed, he still had male DNA, and male hormones. THAT was maybe one of the reasons why he felt so uncomfortable being a girl. 

So, IS gender an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose? Maybe, maybe not. 

If so, were intersexuals the way they are in the premortal life? Is it their eternal identity and purpose to stay intersexual for the rest of eternity? After the second resurrection, everyone will have perfect bodies. But if gender is an eternal identity and purpose, then what? I don't know, and I probably won't know, at least in this life. But seriously, I hope the church realizes how intersexuals can show that this belief about gender is not necessarily correct or set in stone. Biology and nature have proved that wrong. 

**Just A Note** Sorry if there are any spelling errors or misplaced words... I typed this all on my iPod using the Blogger app. It took me four hours, so if I did make any mistakes, I hope you will be understanding. Autocorrect can be dumb sometimes :)