In third grade, my teacher taught us a little about China. The only thing I remember was that I heard of China’s ancient custom of footbinding for the first time. I learned that very young girls would have their feet bound so tightly that toes and bones of the feet were broken to adhere to a cultural beauty standard. The forefoot and heel were brought toward each other in an unnatural arch that made walking difficult. Even as a child I was appalled to hear of this tortuous practice that girls younger than me had been subjected to for a thousand years, trying to get their feet as small as 4 inches. That was considered the gold beauty standard. At the time I didn’t realize that women in my own culture also suffered for beauty.
As I grew up I learned about corsets, plucking, shaving, high heels, and cosmetic surgery. I burned myself trying to fix my hair with a curling iron. Foot binding still seemed barbaric, but gradually my view of my own culture also admitted barbarity in what was expected of or tried by women to adhere to a beauty standard. I learned of anorexia and bulimia, ‘nose jobs’, and ‘tummy tucks’. I am inclined to look at extreme beauty customs as a perversity. Gradually among my own adult female friends I have heard things about wanting a ‘mommy makeover’. Apparently, the sacrifice our bodies go through to bring children into this world is acceptable only as long as it doesn’t permanently change our bodies. We must ‘fix’ them by liposuction of the belly, removing saggy skin to make it taut, and surgically ‘lift’ the breasts that have grown heavy and then empty again after nourishing new life.
Lately, I have been thinking about this footbinding practice. As in many patriarchal practices, it was most often chosen by the mother to make her daughter more attractive to a future potential mate. Apparently it was considered a luxury to afford an ornamental wife with ‘lotus feet’, and it was difficult to marry off a daughter who had regular functional feet. The small crippled feet and awkward gait became aligned with sexual attractiveness. As a mother, I like to think that I would never subject my daughter to such a practice, that I would never restrict her natural growth to make her more attractive to society. But the truth is, we all do it. In what ways do we restrict our daughters as they grow into women? Every time we accept a worldview that marginalizes women or restricts their opportunities and life expectations solely due to their sex.
In many areas of the world, educational opportunities for girls and women are restricted. Women and girls in many areas cannot own property or land. Many areas of the world do not guarantee equal rights for women and girls by law. In certain areas girls are still subjected to “honour” killings, female genital mutilation, trafficking, restricted mobility, and early marriage. Some areas restrict healthcare for women and girls. If we want to unbind our sisters, I feel we should challenge systems that continue to bind women’s figurative feet. Women will only be able to walk on their own feet when society allows girls and women equal access to health services, education and information, employment, ownership, and political voice.
I live in America, where privilege sometimes blinds us to the conditions under which others live. I grew up in the LDS church in a deeply orthodox family. I heard lip service given to the idea that men and women in the church are ‘equal’, while at the same time I was observing practices that seemed to indicate otherwise. I feel that girls in the church are conditioned to expect less. As in many areas of the world, Mormon women are expected to carry out the lion’s share of manual, emotional, and mental labor in the family, with a primary responsibility for household production, meals, and childrearing. Girls and boys in the church grow up seeing men in most positions of leadership and authority. The general authorities who I looked to for the words of God taught me that a woman’s place is primarily in the home, that the ideal woman walked quietly by her husband’s side and sustained him by supporting his him in church responsibilities. To me it seemed that basically a woman takes care of all the day-to-day stuff so a man can be freed up to do the ‘important’ things. In patriarchal systems men take on more prestigious tasks, and any task performed routinely by men will become more prestigious than tasks routinely performed by women; while tasks taken on by women will become less prestigious just because women do them.
Sex has definitely defined and circumscribed roles and aspirations of girls in the church. Girls who thought they’d like to pass the sacrament when they got older were quickly told that although it was a righteous ambition for their male classmates, it was unrighteous for her. Girls would see their brothers ordained to the priesthood, given God’s power and authority to act in God’s name, while even their righteous mothers can not. In fact, they are not allowed to want it, and will be quickly criticized and corrected. Women are encouraged to perform invisible supportive roles, and are excluded from visible roles, even those that don’t require priesthood.
I wonder if we are binding our daughters’ ambitions. Are we ‘binding’ them by teaching them to unilaterally submit to external authority figures without teaching them of their own internal spiritual authority? Are we binding our girls by teaching them that however ‘things are’ is because that is ‘the way God wants it’? Are we teaching our daughters to be meek and submissive so they will be more likely to get a mate and ‘fit in’? Does something break inside them when they are raised in this system? Is their growth restricted by being bound?
My view of the gospel is that the only binding we should be doing is binding up wounds and broken hearts. Sexist attitudes that become entrenched subliminally from a young age by observing policies in the church are not necessarily God’s way, and we should be careful to not pass on harmful imbalanced policies as if they were doctrine.
10 Responses
You mentioned that it is the mother who binds her daughter’s feet so that she will be acceptable to a marriage partner. In the exact same way, women in the church say they do not want priesthood and enforce the girls into the “sweet spirit” mold of niceness subjection.
Then when feminists protest what patriarchy does to women, the men turn around and throw it in our faces that “most women don’t want priesthood.” They just can’t see that patarichal society forces women to be patriarchy’s enforcers. Sure, the men are not being mean to women. They just refuse to marry someone who does not fit the mold.
As a child in the late 50s I didn’t understand why my already feminist mother complained about how women did not have rights, equal pay, equal opportunity, equal access. Then she turned around and made me stay in the house doing housework while my brothers were off playing. She even told me things like I should pretend to lose at the board game I was playing with my younger brother to build up his ego. My older brothers were not expected to throw the game to make me feel good. Nope, they were allowed to slaughter me on any playing field, but I was supposed to throw any game to build up my brother’s ego. I was not allowed to have an ego. Or freedom, or equal opportunity, or even equal toys for Christmas. My brothers got expensive bicycles, sports equipment, and electric trains. I got the one buck doll. And my mother didn’t see that she was treating us unfairly, just that she was treating me as a girl and the boys as boys.
Hmmm, I wonder why I resent my brothers?
A woman can feel the unfairness of it all, but she still has to train her daughter in proper female rolls. Or the girl will grow up and be unable to find a man who wants such a bossy selfish girl who won’t even pretend to lose at tennis to make her boy friend feel good.
My mother realized what she was doing about the time the first hints of the 1960-70s feminist movement, and my much younger sister was raised quite differently. And, um, guess who never married?
thank you for sharing <3
I love this. And I give a huge, resounding amen to all of it.
“The general authorities…taught me that a woman’s place is primarily in the home, that the ideal woman walked quietly by her husband’s side and sustained him by supporting his him in church responsibilities.” Yes! In addition, women sometimes serve in difficult and demanding callings while supporting their husband in their time-consuming callings as well. Very draining, difficult, discouraging and depressing!
You speak truth even if it is painful. But shining a light on it is the only way to correct it. Thanks for sharing.
Outstanding post, Chiaroscuro. I think you’ve pointed out some excellent analogies to foot binding. One other that occurs to me is that women, if they do work for pay, are seen more negatively if they actually pursue a career. If they work low-paying jobs that don’t lead anywhere, they’re viewed in a more positive light, because at least they weren’t *choosing* to be employed, but rather were clearly forced into it. I think this is a good analogy, because women with limited employment options are seen as more attractive by (orthodox) Mormon men just as women with lotus feet were seen as more attractive by Chinese men.
definitely! when I expressed my desire to work outside the home I was told I was “being lured away by the great and spacious building”. I think women and men are capable of looking at their lives and deciding how best to care for their family’s nurturing and physical welfare. I feel that the whole family would benefit from sharing the tasks of providing with those of loving nurture.
Profound observations. This really resonated with me because I have young daughters and intend to raise them without patriarchal constraints. But because we are active in the church, I really have no idea how to do that.
I used to subscribe to the thinking you and many of those who responded have written about. Boy was I am angry person. I was angry at God and men, and had issues with the LDS Church and the priesthood.
But “men are that they might have joy” is what I was taught so I was confused. How can I be part of something that makes me so angry.
Over time, for myself, I have learned why the 2 greatest commandments are to love God and love others as yourself. The anger and lack of joy was because I didn’t get it.
Men are given the priesthood to help them to learn and serve the way I have learned to love and serve as a mother. I now see that my role as a mother is the most powerful role I could ever fill on this earth because I am creating, teaching and guiding eternal beings with infinite capacity and potential.
I have taken on many significant roles outside of my home and within the church but nothing will compare to what I have done as a mother. Global companies and high ranking positions come and go, its really inconsequential other than providing a way to care for your family but what will matter is that we try to love God and others, as mothers, fathers, neighbors, etc. and a servant (through the priesthood, which I have been delegated) at church. The most important things are the lasting things – who we become and how we help others on their journey. What I have done as a mother of amazing children will last into eternity.
Mathew 23:11-12
But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
I don’t need the priesthood to help me to learn and serve, I got that from being a mom. And I don’t need the priesthood to know that I am amazing and powerful, I got that from being a daughter of God (which I admit being a mom helped me to figure out). I just need to continue in my efforts to be loving, humble and trying to be like Jesus. What a great world this would be if everyone were doing that.
I’m sorry that the people in your life taught you these negative messages about the. Church. I have also grown up and lived as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and as a women, I have never felt demeaned or put down in any way. If I wanted to pass the sacrament, I was told that even though it was a righteous desire for me to want that, I was not required to do so.
It sounds like your issue with the Church is much more related to the treatment you received as a girl/young woman rather than anything to do with the actual teachings of the Church. And since you obviously were told some pretty damaging things (aka you’re unrighteous if you wish to pass the sacrament or feeling criticized for wanting to hold priesthood), it makes sense that you would see the Church as you do.
I deeply wish that the teachings of men (and women) mingled with scripture would not be confused with the actual doctrine of Christ, which is perfect, wonderful, simple, and equal. But unfortunately that just isn’t so in the world we live in… We have to figure out how to distinguish between the fake and damaging philosophies of men and women and the actual truths of the gospel. And we also need to choose to not be offended or put out when someone either purposefully or accidentally says or does something that hurts us.
Additionally, please keep in mind that though men’s roles and responsibilities may seem more prestigious to those seeking outside recognition and fame (for lack of a better word), there is nothing so great and prestigious as bringing children into the world and raising them in love, patience, kindness, and faith. Most feminists don’t recognize how beautiful and eternally prestigious it is to be a mother because they’re too caught up in the pride of wanting to have “great” actions and responsibilities like men appear to have.
But there is nothing more prestigious, more valiant, more important, more impactful than a strong woman who brings her children up in faith, diligence, and love. She will do what no one else can do by being a mother who decides to take care of her children, not to receive recognition, but to do good in the world. There is nothing demeaning or wrong with that. Instead, isn’t it greater for someone to do something not to be seen and recognized for it, but rather because they understand the worth of doing so, even if no outward recognition or laud is given?