Patriarchy in Mormonism negatively impacts men and boys by afflicting them with shame, anxiety, and unrealistic expectations. I term this “Toxic Mormon Masculinity.”
When I’ve written about a particular effect that our patriarchal church system has on women, like breastfeeding in church or how we respond to a young woman’s outfit, readers are sometimes curious about my thoughts on how men can be affected as well.
Today I’ll tackle that request by taking a closer look at the ways gender essentialism (the idea that our innate traits and attributes are due to our sex) and patriarchy (a gender-based hierarchy which assigns most power to men) harms men and boys, limits their options, and stunts their healthy development, both psychologically and spiritually. This damage radiates outward in ways that harm men, women, relationships, and society as a whole.
Talking about “Toxic Mormon Masculinity” relies on a foundational understanding of its parent term, Toxic Masculinity. When society narrowly proscribes what it means to be male, and when masculine traits get taken to the extreme, (like emotional stoicism, violence, and sexual aggression) Toxic Masculinity magnifies a man’s very worst learned tendencies and behaviors.
Remember Gaston from Beauty and the Beast? This is “Toxic” Masculinity on full display: dominance, arrogance, bullying, physical aggression, violence, homophobia, insensitivity, and hyper-sexuality, all wrapped up into one character who is all wrapped up in himself. Gaston is such a caricature of toxic masculinity that we can laugh at him, but we’ve all encountered Gastons in our schools, workplaces, communities, and wards. He resonates because he exhibits, in extreme form, traits that some still see as desirable and powerful for men and leaders.
How do we reverse course on hyper-masculinity and its deleterious effects?
Psychologist Janet Shibley Hyde, PhD, wrote in 2005 that there is greater variety within a gender than there is between genders, and that gender role stereotypes are learned behavior, not innate and universal as some presume.
If men and women are inherently more similar than previously thought, why do men have such differing outcomes?
The statistics are sobering. Men are far more prone to commit violence and acts of physical aggression. They are more likely to suppress emotion and suffer the resulting psychological effects of doing so. They are more likely to be the perpetrator in a sexual assault, and the least likely victims to report being sexually assaulted. Toxic Masculinity hurts men, and it hurts society at large.
Teachings on Mormon masculinity diverge from mainstream masculinity in several important, non-toxic ways. Following the path of Christ, LDS men are encouraged to be servants to others, to be loving parents and spouses. While Toxic Masculinity wrongly discourages men from exhibiting “feminine” traits like kindness, gentleness, nurturing, or collaboration, LDS doctrine emphasizes that men should be compassionate and charitable. These teachings have an impact. To their credit, most Mormon men do not exhibit the more overtly machismo type of toxic masculinity.
However, many LDS church leaders still preach gender essentialist beliefs as doctrine and elevate gender roles as divine and eternal, despite the dissonance it creates in many young women and young men.
Instead of embracing a full spectrum of positive human traits, Mormon men are instructed to perform their masculinity in particular ways, especially in regard to presiding, leadership and decision-making. Gendered expectations are presented as “the ideal,” with direction for “How-to be a Righteous Priesthood Holder” entwined with manhood and fatherhood. Maleness is almost always equated with Priesthood, and less frequently with fatherhood (unlike women, whose femaleness is almost always equated with motherhood). Men are encouraged to “rise up,” and “lead out.” But when they don’t perform as expected, many men internalize shame because of their perceived failures.
Modern Mormon men show deep strength of character as they develop Christ-like attributes regardless of gendered stereotypes. Jesus taught everyone to love one another, to turn the other cheek, to create peace, to forgive, to show kindness, and was no respecter of persons. Gender role stereotypes are inherently limiting because the wholeness of pursuing Christ-like attributes surpasses maleness or femaleness.
With the help of consultations with dozens of Mormon men, I’ve compiled a list of specific ways we’ve observed how patriarchy hurts everyone, including men.
*****
It Stinks to be a Sole-Provider
“Providing for the family” is a hallmark expectation of Mormon masculinity teachings.
Many men reported intense pressure to provide for the family on their income alone. They felt pushed into pursuing more lucrative careers out of duty, and discouraged from following their own personal interests. In contrast to financial partnership marriages with two incomes, men who are sole-providers face extra pressure if they are ever fired, unemployed, or if they become injured or disabled and unable to work. Some men reported working two or more jobs so that their wives “didn’t have to work.” Providing a “work-free” life, rather, “profession-free” life, for a stay-home wife is seen as a badge of honor. Many men reported feeling shame at hearing comments like, “Did your wife have to go back to work?” and “He just doesn’t make enough for his wife to stay home.”
When righteous Mormon motherhood is defined as staying home to raise children, Mormon fathers face tremendous pressure to provide for the whole family so that SHE can live her divine role. Forcing men into sole-providing roles and women into sole-caregiving roles can minimize their ability to work together as partners. Parents should determine how to provide for and nurture their children in whatever balance works best for them.
The unrealistic expectation to be a sole provider may inhibit some men from pursuing marriage altogether.
One friend states, “Definitely the sole provider idea stressed me out a *ton* as a teenager. I said over and over that I didn’t ever want to get married, and it wasn’t just because I was shy (which I was), it was mostly that I was so worried that I would never be able to get a job that made enough money to support my family. And it was clear to me that to be righteous, my family would be required to have as many kids as possible. I didn’t think I could even provide for *myself*, let alone a wife and a ton of kids.”
When a man believes his divine responsibility is to be a sole-provider, to the exclusion of allowing his wife to participate in their financial partnership, or experiences shame when she does contribute financially, he suffers the effects of Toxic Mormon Masculinity.
Pushed into Patriarchal Presiding
Men are told their divine appointment is to preside in the home, and then they are given specific lists of things that count as “presiding.”
Not all men want to preside, but not because they are lazy or cowardly. Many men are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that their stance toward their wives and children should be one of wielding authority over them.
Not all men believe exercising dominion is their God-given duty, nor do they wish to develop this trait. Many men express deep desires for partnership marriages. They not want to preside over their wives, but to work together as complete equals. They find it troubling when benevolent patriarchy tells them that they’re supposed to be in charge, but as long as they’re nice about it. In speaking about equal partnership in marriage, my friend Ziff said: “Patriarchy was never benevolent, and dominion was never righteous.”
Another friend told me that the expectation to preside at home was like being “forced into wearing an ill-fitted jacket,” and that neither spouse should have unilateral “veto power” over the other.
One man shared: “As the inevitable marriage friction arose, my good-Mormon-brain basically said ‘We’re having problems because I’m not being a good enough priesthood leader for my family. More church! More scriptures! No time for empathy, we need action!’ Ashamedly, I think I was the epitome of toxic masculinity justified through ‘religious’ adherence.”
A man in Sunday school class made the comment, “I come home from work and I’m tired and stressed, but I should be a better patriarch and lead my family in prayer and scripture study.”
When judged to be presiding improperly, some men reported being questioned about their worthiness to exercise the Priesthood in other ways.
Inherent in all of these examples is the effect of shame for not achieving what the man thinks he “should” do.
Toxic Mormon Masculinity demands that all men, and only men, preside, because of their sex, regardless of circumstance. When personal preferences incline a man toward partnership rather than dominance, he may experience shame for not “measuring up.”
Not allowed to be Nurturers
Toxic Mormon Masculinity makes no room for men who wish to be stay-at-home-dads. Since women are assigned the sphere of nurturing children, men may worry that parenting won’t come “naturally” to them. They may feel incompetent, or have some amount of reluctance or shame in caregiving. Prospective SAHDs might wish to encourage their partners to pursue a career if she desires, but may feel bound to perform the role they’re given instead.
When men do care for their children, it’s often called “Babysitting,” as though it’s only done rarely, i.e. “Men, be sure to babysit the kids this Wednesday so the Relief Society sisters can attend their meeting.”
Some fathers push back on this by saying, “We’re not ‘babysitting,’ we’re ‘parenting.’”
One SAHD describes his experience: “I’d love to arrange for some sort of play dates within my ward but there are no other stay-at-home-dads and it feels incredibly socially inappropriate for me to want to get together with a group of moms and our babies. So it ends up feeling pretty isolating for someone as social as I am. I also certainly feel a sense of disapproval at being “Mr. Mom” instead of being a provider. Can’t I choose to be a full-time father for a season?”
The parental attributes of Jesus Christ appeal to all genders: love, gentleness, kindness, care for children. Rather than telling men that nurturing does not fall to them, these attributes give men freedom to develop care-giving skills as the Savior did. Parenting is a skill that can be learned, and is not more naturally occurring in women than men.
When a man believes that it is not his role to nurture children, or that he infringes on a mother’s duty if he does so, he is derailed and his father-child bond is potentially inhibited or undermined by Toxic Mormon Masculinity.
Female Friends Feared and Forbidden + Manufactured Sexual Tension
Whether in professional or personal circles, Mormon men are discouraged from having female friends. When LDS men and women interact in a neutral space, both are taught to expect (and fear) temptation and conditioned to perceive sexual tension, as though neither sex is in control of their attraction or behavior. It negatively affects workplace mentorship as well as normal interpersonal friendship.
One man describes, “For me, I feel like I have missed out on a lot of friendships with other females because the church assumes every interaction between men and women must be sexually charged. This is reinforced as we are taught on the mission that young women are the devil sent to tempt us and distract us from our purpose. There are a lot of rules about not being alone with members of the opposite sex.”
Another shares: “With one exception, my closest friendships in life have all been with female-identifying folks. That always was awkward, especially after getting married. Even though I kinda taught myself not to care, there would always be lots of side-eye if I was enjoying a conversation with a female friend in church settings without my wife present (and/or their husband).”
One sad extension of this taboo over female friendships is the lack of female mentorship for men. Beyond their mother or wife, very few Mormon men recognize any female as a spiritual leader.
When a Mormon man believes that women are not friends, authority figures, leaders, or colleagues, but romantic partners, maternal figures, subordinates, or sex objects, he is conceding to Toxic Mormon Masculinity. The underlying mistrust that all men are philanderers who can’t be alone with women may burden a man with undue shame for actions he hasn’t committed. He is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Returned Missionary Privilege and Stigma
A significant way Toxic Mormon Masculinity is projected onto men by others, including women, is in the privileged status bestowed upon full-time, full-term returned missionaries.
Men are explicitly told that missionary service is a duty of their Priesthood. Men who choose to serve in different ways are shamed and underappreciated.
Returned missionaries are held in high esteem: they are automatically considered for leadership callings, seen as more desirable husbands, and hold a life-long badge of honor compared to men who do not serve missions. Church activity retention programs are often geared toward the returned missionary demographic. No matter the diligence and efforts made by a man who did not serve a mission, he will rarely overcome the stigma of not serving a mission. Missionaries who return early also face a similar challenge. Insensitive questions like: “Why didn’t you go on a mission? Were you not worthy? Did you get sick? Did you not want to do your Priesthood duty?” afflict a man with shame and judgment rather than appreciation for his efforts. Men who join the church after the age of missionary eligibility may escape the stigma, but may be less likely to be considered for leadership callings.
Says one man of his time in church service: “Let’s ignore the fact that I had been extremely active serving in multiple callings. Never mind that I have paid close to $200,000 in tithing over a 17 year period. Never mind that I gave up weeks and weeks of annual vacations to go to young men’s camps and youth conferences without having a youth aged child at the time. I was seen as less-than in the kingdom of God because I had not served a mission.”
Church members project Toxic Mormon Masculinity on to men by connecting his worth in the church to his missionary service. Embracing a man for all his contributions and showing him that he is of value to the church and to God, regardless of missionary status, will greatly reduce shame and anxiety surrounding missionary service.
Leadership Aspirational Pressure + Prescripted Life Path
Toxic Mormon Masculinity harms the self-worth of men who are not called into leadership positions.
Milestones measure a young Mormon man’s life, including Priesthood advancements, scout rankings, leadership positions, and other accomplishments.
He is rarely allowed any deviations from these expectations without facing shame or ridicule. Men’s church service is defined by which leadership callings they occupy. “I’m so proud of my missionary – he just made District/Zone Leader/AP!” “He was just made Bishop.”
These leadership callings are discussed as something he’s “accomplished” rather than been called to do. In many positions, extroversion is prized over introversion, and in some cases prioritized over spirituality, or even, sadly, worthiness. There is social pressure to meet Priesthood rank advancements as a teen. Church leaders emphasize the importance of a man’s leadership calling when sharing countless stories in talks and lessons about Bishops and Stake Presidents doing the most valuable ministry and administration work.
Some women value rank, position, missionary status and leadership calling as indication of a man’s worth in the church, and therefore more desirable as a potential spouse. Some women feel their spouses have let them and their family down if they’ve never attained a high leadership calling. In these cases, women project disappointment and shame onto the men in unhealthy ways.
When men are released from leadership callings, they are often still called “Bishop” or “President,” even though their stewardships no longer include that title, perpetuating the emeritus status given to men for having served in those positions. Men are regularly lauded with resume-like descriptions of their past callings in biographical sketches. (It’s far less common for women’s contributions to be so well remembered and celebrated.)
Men are also judged for their leadership capacity or eligibility to perform Priesthood ordinances by their dress and grooming. They understand “the uniform of the Priesthood” to be a white shirt, suit and tie, with a short haircut and no facial hair. Men and women alike shame other men for wearing bright colors or beards.
One woman shares, “My Dad never had any high profile leadership callings before he retired. I know he was bothered by not being ordained a High Priest, or having a chance to serve in the callings requiring that office.”
Equating merit with leadership rank inflicts needless harm on men not called into leadership roles, frequently reiterating that they are somehow lacking if they don’t lead, and presumably aren’t worthy to do so. The shame he may feel for not being called into a leadership position is a negative effect of Toxic Mormon Masculinity.
Unchecked Unrighteous Dominion
Toxic Mormon Masculinity flourishes when men exercise unrighteous dominion. Fueled by the admonition to preside, exercising unrighteous dominion can corrode a man’s character, inflating him with pride and power. Such hubris will lead a man to think his opinions are more likely right, his judgment calls are more likely correct, that he is generally in control of a situation, and that he has little to gain from collaboration. At its worst, it will result in people who fear him rather than love him. He can be corrupted by the size of his ego and a false sense of invulnerability, and his most prized relationships may wither, sometimes without realizing it.
Many church members and families have experienced unrighteous dominion at the hand of a Priesthood leader, or father. Despite being led by the Spirit, Priesthood leaders can overstep.
When making decisions or counseling with others, a Priesthood leader may be vulnerable to drifting outside the scope of his own expertise or stewardship. Without a system of checks and balances to hold him accountable to those he serves, pride and arrogance may creep in, with no one to declare “Amen to the priesthood of that man.”
Toxic Mormon Masculinity harms men when it encourages them to use their position of power and influence to control others. It is deleterious for a man to be imbued with so much unquestioned authority. When men are given broad power and authority without a formal feedback system for accountability, their integrity may crumble.
Sexual Development, Gender Identity, and Marriage
Toxic Mormon Masculinity heaps shame on young men for what would otherwise be considered normal, age appropriate behavior regarding sexuality. This shame may follow them into marriage and make marital intimacy difficult.
As they progress through adolescence, young men are taught that their developing sexuality is to be all-but shut down until marriage. Many age-appropriate expressions of sexuality are seen as sinful, and can disqualify a young man from performing Priesthood ordinances. Some young men retreat in shame to develop their sexuality in secret, leading to unhealthy relationships, or use of pornography. Many young men, upon marrying, are left with conflicted feelings about how to express the sexuality that up until now they’ve been taught to fear and suppress.
Mormon young men are rarely believed or supported when identifying their gender or attraction authentically. Many are still told that being gay or trans is a choice, or a temptation to be eschewed. Countless young men are still disowned by their families after coming out. Teen suicide rates in Utah are the 5th highest in the nation, a large number of which are queer kids who feel rejected by a hostile family or church environment. Binary gender essentialist roles are inherently exclusive to trans men, who are told they don’t fit in anywhere.
Projecting the Mormon male gaze onto young women harms young men. By observing girls being taught that they become pornography by how they dress, and other similar messages, young men may internalize the false idea that they are not in control of their urges, and that if a girl is dressed “immodestly,” it’s perfectly reasonable to objectify her. When a young man has a sexual response to a woman’s appearance, then blames her by thinking, “It’s her fault! She made me do it!” he shifts the responsibility away from himself, and builds in himself a habit of non-accountability. When young men feel justified in seeing women as objects, they stunt their ability to have a truly open, vulnerable, equal partnership with a woman, crippling the intimate bonds they could otherwise forge in marriage thereafter.
By defining one narrow, approved stance toward sexuality, Toxic Mormon Masculinity shrouds sex in fear and shame with damaging consequences that ricochet far past the harm it causes in adolescence, and disregards and dismisses the worth of any who deviate, even briefly, from the dictated norm.
Conclusion and Invitation
Prescribed roles for a man to “preside, provide and protect” in his family and in the church are the underlying causes of Toxic Mormon Masculinity.
When teaching others how to live their best lives, leaders should center their messages on how to be like Jesus by developing more of his attributes, not by delineating lists for correctly performing one’s gender, for “…there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
The life of Jesus Christ is exemplary. His attributes transcend gender: he was strong and gentle, a leader and a friend, a teacher and a listener. Setting aside gendered expectations and fully embracing the complete spectrum of Christlike attributes will help Mormon men heal from the frustration and shame they carry, and improve the fabric of our church culture. Men who are free from the burdens of this shame will be happier, healthier people.
***
In the coming weeks, The Exponent blog will share responses from men for how they experience Toxic Mormon Masculinity in their lives, and what they do about it. Please check back to hear more from them, and consider submitting your own experiences as a guest post to the series.
Further recommended reading and viewing:
Hannah Gadsby’s monologue on “The Good Men”
Gillette’s ad about Toxic Masculinity: “the Best a man can be.”
A Thoughtful Faith: How Patriarchy Hurts Men and Boys with Wendy Christian
60 Responses
Amen and amen! This is a really excellent breakdown of the ways patriarchy hurts EVERYONE!
One other harmful aspect of gender essentialism that doesn’t often get discussed is the way it homogenizes individual strengths and gifts into gendered expectations. If a young boy is especially courageous, he is unlikely to understand that as a personal strength because his scripts are telling him that that’s just “what boys are supposed to be.” If a girl is especially compassionate, she won’t internalize that as an individual trait she can be proud of, it’s just “normal” and nothing to celebrate. By pushing people into gendered boxes where certain traits are expected and others are discouraged, we aren’t just hurting the outliers. We’re hurting the “in-liers” too, by telling them that the things that make them unique aren’t unique at all.
Down with boxes! Up with people! 🙂
Brilliant, Olivia! Excellent point. Thank you.
This is outstanding, Violadiva. You’ve hit on so many important bad effects of toxic Mormon masculinity. Just to pull out one I hadn’t thought of until you mentioned it: I’m middle aged and probably half or more of the men my age had been moved up to high priests before last year’s announcement that we would just combine the quorums. This change was actually a big relief for me because I’m a borderline heretic and not ever serving in big callings that would require it, so it was unlikely that I would ever be moved to that quorum. I was figuring that at some point, I would just start going to their meetings to avoid sticking out among all the twenty-somethings in elders quorum. Anyway, I guess the point is that patriarchal hierarchies don’t always serve men’s needs any more than they serve women’s.
Absolutely. This is a great point. This was something that my dad experienced as well, got tired of sticking out in EQ and just started caucusing with the HPG. I think the combined quorum will greatly reduce this stigma. We shall see!
Thank you for another thoughtful article helping us articulate the damage and pain on all sides of toxic masculinity. Your careful organization helps me explain to others with evidence and examples, not just rage, so therefore hopefully will be received instead of simply dismissed as another angry feminist. You are brilliant and hard working. Thank you.
Thank you, Jennifer! I hope the article will be helpful to you in your conversations. ❤️
I think that we live in a world now where we have the luxury of being able to argue a point based on the society we live in. Impoverished nations always always fall back into the natural gender roles that fit the strengths of each of our genders. Toxic masculinity is a false term as it denotes masculinity being negative. In fact, toxic masculinity is NOT masculinity at all. Masculinity in itself is always essential as is femininity. Feminism has always pushed the idea of equal rights, being anti-patriarchy etc etc etc…..but there is one very very simple idea that almost no feminist ever thinks about much less understands: Women’s rights will ALWAYS be enforced by men. This is the nature of all humans on this planet. Women have rights simply because men can protect those rights. That in itself shows that men have the physicial and realistic power to defend women as they should. If another country invades with the intent to rape and pillage who will defend from it? We like to make arguments about how woman can defend themselves simply because we live in a lawful nation (laws which by the way are enforced by men). But what if there were no laws? It falls back to masculinity. Men need women and women absolutely also need men. Men that think they don’t need women are foolish. Women that think they don’t need men are foolish. Feminism has created a bigger rift between men and women than bring us closer.
This article states that “toxic masculinity” teaches men to not express emotions, hold in feelings and suppress anything that makes us human and instead makes us feel like men. The truth is you can be a strong male leader full of testosterone yet still understand when to weep and when to speak what you feel. This is a result of strong emotional control and self understanding which is taught by strong centered men to their sons. It goes off on tangent a bit but this is exactly why strong fathers are needed at home. There are just some things that women cannot do with the same effectiveness as a strong man. If you line up the top 100 strongest and most masculine females and the 100 top most masculine men none of those females will even get near what those men are. It’s not a bad thing, either. The balance between men and women has always served us better as humans. Our survival as a species depends on one another for a myriad of reasons and capabilities that we have innately as men and women. We absolutely need each other to survive and terms like “toxic masculinity” only create ways to break men and women apart. There is no such thing as “toxic masculinity” because as soon as you put the word toxic in front of the word masculine it’s already not masculine to begin with! Women that find true strong and intelligent men never complain or have a single problem with how being with a man like that makes them feel as women. Why is that? Honestly, I think women just have to do better in the men they have children with because absent fathers create societies where a person like the author of this article even has a reason to use the term “toxic masculinity”.
The one about female friendships hit me. My best friend was seriously dating a girl and every leader in his life, every person he looked up to and respected, told him it wasn’t appropriate that his two best friends were girls. He had heard that all his life and felt it was the right thing to do. So he friend dumped us. When the couple broke up, he realized his mistake and promised that the next girl was just going to have to understand the fact that we were his friends and he loved us.
I also taught an elders quorum lesson in a YSA ward once where I told the men that cultivating friendships with women was important for these very reasons you outline. Our bishopric kept telling us that friendships were “fine” but we were in singles ward to find eternal companions. But men not having perspectives on anything, spiritual or worldly or anything else, from women is so limiting. That’s how you end up with men who had “never even considered” things like the temple ceremony wording or only having male leaders. And those friendships add so much value to both parties’ lives.
When you’re constantly taught that the only two categories for women are “date” and “don’t date and don’t associate with” you lose all of the types of relationships in between
You bring up a really good point. It highlights the limited ways men view their relationships with women.
Fantastic! As a man in my 60’s in the church, I have lived in this soup all my life and heartily agree with your conclusions. I think that it’s good for all readers to see how difficult it can be for many men in the church. Yes, patriarchy is not only harmful to women, but indeed, for many of us men, it can be almost debilitating due to the many rules, regulations and expectations put on us. I am finally to a point now in my life where I am living and engaging the church the way I feel best for me, and not for patriarchy.
By way of an example: I was in my late 40’s before being called to a “real” leadership position. I know that my wife was wondering and worried about me and my personal “righteousness” since I was still and elder and most of my friends were now high priests, having served or were serving in bishoprics or as high counselors. I’m sure that there were others in my family and ward wondering about me as well. To me, it was as if a huge burden were being lifted on many fronts when I was finally called as a counselor in the bishopric. What a relief to “know” that I was on track. It seems ridiculous now, but I really was concerned since I hadn’t moved along the “progression path”. I view the merging of elders and high priests as an amelioration attempt by the church based on this, but I feel that there is still a very real segregation of the men that have “served and led” and those that haven’t.
Another example: When I was serving in the bishopric, we were engaged in conversation in a meeting about who to call for the new young men’s president. The bishop and I both came up with a man that we felt would be fantastic. The other counselor responded with, “well, I don’t know, he didn’t serve a mission.” His reasons being how could he prepare young men for missions if hadn’t served, and that it might not set the proper example. I shot back with “You may recall that Howard W. Hunter did not serve a mission and he was the prophet” Needless to say, that counselor and my relationship was down after that exchange. But it goes to show your point of mission stigma.
The other point missing (at least among the mormon corridor) is the sports culture (although this is probably prevalent among almost all most manly settings) where knowledge and/or participation in sports says who the “normal” men are. So many lessons given use sports as the metaphor for almost everything. As a man who is only slightly interested in sports, and sees many other analogies that could be examples for so many of life’s situations, I just have to sit back and go somewhere else in my mind. If one is not tuned in to the latest in the sports world or doesn’t participate or show excitement for ward basketball, my perception is that they are kind of looked down on as a wimpy guy.
I could go on with other examples from each of your major points, but it truly is very real that there is a toxic mormom masculinity in the church man’s world. I appreciate your insights and giving this nod to us men who have also experienced this toxic patriarchy firsthand.
Thanks for sharing your perspectives, Bryant! I’d be happy to see you submit your experiences as a guest post for the series!
I don’t suppose anyone here would want to listen to the perspectives of men who have positive experiences with Mormon Masculinity. Nor do I suppose most men who feel that Mormon Masculinity has been a positive influence in their lives would want to share their experiences here only to be told that their experiences aren’t authentic, or that they’re blind to the realities of Mormon Masculinity, or something similar. No, I suppose only one sided opinions are welcome here.
DB,
I understand your point, as snarky as it may be. From my post above I am acknowledging the realities of my experience in the church, and how there truly are some very toxic things as the original post shared.
Yes, there are many wonderful things in the church that did help me as a man growing up, and I could go on about how some things in scouting and love and example from male shephards were fantastic. The church and evironment is not all bad.
I would personally love to hear other discussion to the contrary, and you should post your thoughts and opinions as a counterpoint, rather than give a passive/aggressive post.
Thank you Bryant, I’ll consider it, though when I’ve posted opinions on the Exponent before they were met with all kinds of untruthful accusations about me and sarcastic and much snarkier comments about how wrong I was.
My main disagreement with this post is not so much the content as it is the one sidedness. It’s not discussing whether the masculine culture within the church is harmful to men but rather declaring that as a statement. It presents perspectives from men who agree with the thesis but no counterpoints. Whether or not the masculine culture within the church is toxic, and how and to what extent is a great discussion, if it is in fact a discussion.
DB, thanks for stopping by the blog and for reading my piece. As stated in our guidelines, this is a place where people can share their lived experiences, and listen to the experiences of others without invalidating them. As such, I’d be very interested to hear about your positive experiences, provided you share them from your own perspective without invalidating the experiences of others. I did not speak universally for all Mormon men, I was very careful to speak about “some” men, and supported those claims with quotes and examples. It’s not an attempt to exclude other perspectives, but the types of examples I shared here are rarely featured in the Ensign. Feel free to share your counterpoints.
I’m one for a robust discussion as long as we are respectful to each other. So DB please share your thoughts.
Violadiva,
I am especially interested in your comments on the pressure of being the Sole Provider. I understand only too well as the sole provider for my family at various seasons, (for years) of our marriage/family. That pressure exists no matter whose shoulders it rests upon.
Interesting article and comments especially the visual with the steps to the mission call.
I remember, as a fairly new adult convert, serving in the Primary Presidency, attending one of my first ward council meetings before Sacrament Mtg. The Bishop talked about the 10 year plan between ordination and marriage and all the steps leading to marriage by age 22, after returning home from a mission.
I was flabbergasted and too new in the church to realize this was the normal expectation.
I recall saying, “I hope my kids are not married at age 22, I think that is way too young”
The reaction I received in the meeting was mixed with the Bishop realizing I was new in the church.
The pressure to conform is real and does cause pain for those measure themselves by these standards.
that’s an excellent example. thank you for sharing.
Wow. This is a masterful breakdown, violadiva. It should be required reading for everyone beginning to question Mormon gender roles.
Thank you Violadiva. Your points were well presented. I would like to bring up another perspective. One problem I find with the very popular use in the media now of the term “toxic masculinity” is that it doesn’t explain what is healthy masculinity and as such many men and boys now fear being masculine. They are being taught to equate masculinity with negativity. Obviously not all masculinity is toxic, and I know you never said it was. But I am concerned that there is a social movement today to condemn toxic masculinity without teaching what is healthy masculinity (which can’t simply be femininity). Similarly, if toxic masculinity exists then I think also we must accept that toxic femininity exists, though I have not heard that term. I am curious, what do you think would be toxic femininity and do we see it in our society or in the church?
I think we should embrace healthy masculinity and healthy femininity, but that means we need to teach those attributes. I think those attributes complement each other. I don’t think they have to be enforced on people by anatomical sex/gender, but we should encourage boys to be healthy masculine. What are your thoughts?
Thanks for the comment, anon. Regarding healthy masculinity, I think the gendered traits generally assigned to men are pretty commonly understood, and I don’t need to list them all here. I see some elements of toxic masculinity as an outgrowth of what might normally be considered a positive trait, thus confidence begats arrogance, athleticism begats physical domination or aggression, leadership begats bullying, etc.
But confidence, athleticism, and leadership, etc al, are not uniquely male traits. When it comes down to the nuts of bolts of what makes a man masculine or what makes a woman feminine, as I state in my links in the post, there is much wider variety within a gender than there is difference between genders. I suppose the most healthy way I would teach these concepts to young men and boys is to confidently embrace the development of all positive traits, regardless of how they are divided up socially (sometimes erroneously). Men can be compassionate, good listeners, collaborative. Women can be strong, competitive, articulate leaders. So, what’s a masculine trait? Anything a man can be is masculine. If it’s a trait and he’s a man, then it’s a masculine trait. That includes the softer traits as well. I don’t think all soft traits are inherently “feminine” — they’re just HUMAN traits. We harm our kids by making them their traits one-dimensional.
As far as toxic femininity, it’s talked about in my circles, but not as broadly in the news, etc. It doesn’t get as much traction because it tends to only affect women and children. The best example I have of toxic femininity is the book, Fascinating Womanhood by Helen B. Andelin. In it, she recommends that women pout, sulk, and throw tantrums to get their husband’s attention. She tells them to dress in little girl dresses, to stay helpless so that their big strong husband can help them. She tells them not to assert their opinions, not to take the lead. The worst consequences of toxic femininity seem to hurt the woman herself the most. Crazy thing is that this book has sold over 2M copies, and that’s a lot of toxic femininity going around if women are taking those suggestions.
Violadiva, I absolutely agree with you that there are no human traits that are either uniquely masculine or uniquely feminine. Everyone, generally, will posses some degree of all human traits and some degree of all vices (harmful traits) and virtues (beneficial traits). So we agree that a masculine trait or a feminine trait cannot be defined as something that only a man or a woman can posses. As such, I disagree that anything a man can be is masculine and anything a woman can be is feminine, otherwise all traits are both masculine and feminine and therefore the terms masculine and feminine become meaningless as there is no distinction.
I, and I think many would agree with me, see masculine traits as those more predominate (not unique) in men and feminine traits as those more predominate (again, not unique) in women. This holds for both virtues and vices. I believe there is value in recognizing and cultivating the distinction between masculine and feminine traits though the distinction holds less relevance in modern technological society than it has in the past. Taking this a little further, I would then describe healthy masculinity as the cultivation of masculine virtues and toxic masculinity as the cultivation of masculine vices. Likewise, healthy femininity as the cultivation of feminine virtues and toxic femininity as the cultivation of feminine vices. I, for one, feel that it is extremely important to recognize and understand this distinction. Masculinity is not toxic, masculine vices are. Likewise, femininity is not toxic, but feminine vices are. Recognizing and cultivating both masculine and feminine virtues will result in healthier individuals and healthier societies.
I agree with what you’re saying about human virtues and vices. We are all a sum total of all our traits, for better and for worse.
I’ll let stand your assertion that there are feminine and masculine traits for the sake of asking a few follow-up questions. Why do you suppose certain traits are more predominant in men that women, and vice versa? Is that because of innate, inborn tendency, or the product of environment and opportunity to develop those directions? Who should be the one to determine which traits are masculine and feminine?
My thoughts: If those differences are truly natural and innate, then treating both genders equally and teaching that individual identities are more important, and more varied, than gender differences won’t change that, and people will be free to express the gendered characteristics that are “innate” or natural to them anyway. But if those differences are man-imposed, teaching that they are natural can only harm those who don’t fit the mold by telling them that there is something innately wrong with them.
Either way, teaching that individuals are varied and unique, characteristics and skills are not gendered or categorized, and every person should find and magnify their own best qualities regardless of previous gender stereotypes can only benefit everyone, and can do no harm.
Sorry for the delay in my response, I just don’t spend much time on computers during weekends. I’m surprised you stated that you’ll let stand my assertion that there are feminine and masculine traits since that is articulated in the article by Hyde that you referenced. Although there is certainly greater variability within genders than between genders (which I think is rather obvious), when looking at the male and female populations as a whole, the data does reveal that some traits are expressed stronger within the male population and other traits are expressed stronger within the female population. Those are the masculine and feminine traits. I also agree with Hyde that the presence of masculine and feminine traits is both innate and environmental. While certain traits are innately more predominate among males or females, environmental influences determine how strongly those traits are expressed. Since you referenced that article, I’ll assume you agree with the conclusions and as such, you and I appear to be in agreement on this issue.
As for your list of ways you’ve observed that patriarchy hurts men, I can only say that like human traits, there is clearly a great amount of variation among individuals. Certainly you can find examples of men who have been hurt by cultural mormonism like the ones you have included but it would be far fetched to claim that this is the experience of most mormon men. My opinion is that the number of men who have been hurt by cultural mormonism is relatively small and when they have been hurt the issue may be with them rather than with the church. In other words, did mormon culture hurt them or was the hurt a product of their own insecurities or of their personal interpretation of what is expected of them? I suppose some good statistical and individual analysis would be required to truly determine that. We should also recognize that cultural mormonism and cultural expectations of mormonism differs across the globe. Utah culture is very different from mormon culture in other parts of the U.S. and in other parts of the world. So when evaluating cultural mormonism, we need to keep a geographical perspective.
Not every man thinks it stinks to be the sole provider and there are many women in the church who are grateful that their husbands are the sole provider. And what about the women who want to be stay at home moms? Return missionary stigma is certainly not the same everywhere. One the counselors in my ward bishopric wasn’t a missionary and I’ve had EQ presidents who weren’t missionaries. Not every male aspires to leadership positions. I don’t. Those who do and don’t get called to leadership positions probably do feel some shame but that begs the question of why they have those aspirations in the first place. At least a third of the men in my ward have beards and about a fifth wear non-white shirts every Sunday. I will admit that some ward leaders have instructed my sons that should only wear white shirts to pass or administer the Sacrament but I have quickly put those men back in their place and they never said another word about it to my sons again. Again, I won’t disagree that some men are hurt by cultural mormonism, but it would be disingenuous to claim that Mormon Masculinity hurts men (and thus inferring all or even most men in the church) without putting that claim into perspective and providing counterpoints to those claims.
DB, I hear you on the “not all men” rationales, because I use them myself the other direction. What of the many men who told me, in as many words, “The expectations placed upon me because I am a man, and for no there reason, are not helpful, and in fact, hurt me. Yet when I deviate from those expectations due to my own preferences or circumstances, I am shamed and told I’m not faithful/obedient/striving for the ideal.”?
For those who wish to embrace gender roles, and who have worked out with their partner who works vs who stays home, and so on, as long as it’s happening with mutual consent and it’s what they both want, Great! My concern is for the number of men for whom this is not the case, whose choices are legitimate and thoughtful, and yet who are looked down-on, shamed or otherwise ostracized for how they manage gendered expectations. I made no claim that ALL these problems are happening to ALL Mormon men, because as you say, some prefer to be a sole provider, some aspire to no leadership callings, etc., but the way Mormonism as a whole (church teachings + cultural expectations) fails to make room for the men who choose differently is harmful. and yes, even toxic. Of the men I spoke with personally, a significant number referenced these exact issues for their main reasons for leaving the church: that they were told enough times and enough ways that the way they performed masculinity was not good enough, not the ideal, that they generally didn’t fit in the way they were, and weren’t welcomed that way. If the way we’re teaching Mormon Masculinity is hostile and exclusive to men, to the point that some are so burdened with shame that they leave the faith altogether, I think that is toxic. When men are given proscribed lists of how to perform their manliness that go beyond “Be like Jesus,” we’re missing the mark by overshooting it quite a ways.
Maybe we just have to disagree on this issue but I don’t see it the way you do or the way you’re presenting it. If the same cultural expectations are placed on two different people, and those two people have different perceptions of those expectations, and the two people have very different experiences with the culture, then the cause for the experiences is not the culture, it’s their perceptions. Or maybe we really are talking about two different cultures. I don’t know where you live or where the others who contributed to your post live but maybe we are experiencing different cultures because we live in different places. A lot of the statements and examples you’ve provided I just don’t see in the church myself and in a lot of the examples you’ve given, it appears to be the men telling themselves, not someone else telling them, that they are not living up to the cultural expectations. Maybe the difference is perception or maybe the difference is location.
As an example, you stated, “Toxic Mormon Masculinity harms the self-worth of men who are not called into leadership positions.” This would be true for someone who believes that their self-worth is tied to callings but for someone who doesn’t believe that, church callings have no effect on that person’s self-worth. Both of those people live in the same culture but have different perceptions of the cultural expectations so their experiences are different.
Another example, “Not all men want to preside, but not because they are lazy or cowardly. Many men are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that their stance toward their wives and children should be one of wielding authority over them.” Many men who interpret presiding as wielding authority over someone might feel that way. But not everyone interprets presiding that way. Someone could argue with me that that’s how the church has always taught presiding and I could argue back that I’ve never been taught that. Who’s right? We both are because we have different perspectives.
I can see what you’re saying about interpreting cultural expectations differently due to perspective. And there’s something to that. Two different people in the same system will experience it differently, for sure.
In addition to the narratives I gathered from men, I also examined countless conference talks, Ensign articles and church lesson manuals. We can’t pass the buck on “different perceptions of cultural norms” when those cultural norms are preached as doctrine, and set forth as divine, eternal, and unchanging. (see the livescience link in the piece)
Mormon teachings and practices value their male leadership, and go to great lengths to cultivate future leaders. We’ve highlighted numerous stories in our #hearLDSwomen series (and other pieces on the blog) from missionaries of male converts being prioritized and prized over female converts so that the men could be tapped for their leadership potential. Church reactivation efforts have specific purposes for prioritizing MP-holders so that they can return to the fold to fill leadership callings. Perhaps your perception is that you’re not pressured to have a leadership calling, but that doesn’t change the way men and their leadership callings are usually top priorities for church programs.
And sure, some men believe they “preside” with love and gentleness, call it ‘equality,’ and have no problem with it. But after combing though all the conference talks I listed “Be men! Rise Up! Lead out!” and the lesson manuals I linked, if you think that that Mormon presiding isn’t exercising authority over others, we likely have a very fundamental disagreement about what that word even means. If you haven’t been taught that about presiding, and you’ve been listening to all the same conference talks I’ve heard, what on earth does presiding mean to you? “Preside” doesn’t mean “preside”?
For me, Preside means preside. Words mean what they mean. I’d argue that we are wrong to assign presiding to men based on their genitals alone. And we are doubly wrong to teach that men preside because that’s the way God wants it. God does not want us to exercise dominion over each other like that, no matter our sex. Some men agree with that, and are shamed for it. I think consensus model leadership is much healthier for men and women. We work together as equals. Nobody is given an edge in the decision making hierarchy. Telling the man he “presides” inherently sets him up as the final say. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard male-presiding defended as “We talk about it together, I express my wishes, and then my husband (or bishop) takes it all into consideration and he makes the final call.” I think that is a harmful system, no matter what end of it you’re on.
On a few occasions, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve or of the First Presidency has spoken about how decisions are made within those quorums. While they will often have differing opinions and will not always agree on a particular course of action, they will discuss an issue until they come to a unanimous decision. If a unanimous agreement is not made, no decision is made. Although the president of the Q12 presides over that quorum and the president of the church presides over the FP and the Q12, those men do not “make the final call” and choose the decision they want when others are in disagreement. Rather, they work with their counselors and fellow quorum members to come to a consensus before making any decision. Essentially, every member of those quorums has veto power over any decision that is being made and those who preside over those quorums respect that veto power. To me, this is presiding as it should be, this is how I have been taught to preside, and this is the example of presiding I try to follow as a husband. Although I preside in my home, that does not give me authority over my wife to make unilateral decisions or to tell my wife what to do. We discuss issues and make no decisions unless we are both in agreement. Essentially, we both have veto power over the other. I do not make decisions over her and she does not make decisions over me. If presiding means something different to you, I respect that, but this is what it means to me. This is just another example of how we can live within the same culture and yet have different perspectives on cultural expectations and meanings. And yes, I do recognize that many members of the church will interpret preside the way you do, but the church actually doesn’t teach it that way (though some members of the church will) and the scriptures do not teach it that way. Like we’re taught in the Doctrine and Covenants, almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose (because they think preside means to have authority over someone), they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
Aha! DB, you’ve just landed on the exact dissonance that Mormon Feminists have been writing about for decades. It’s a confusing double speak in some ways, isn’t it? Because what you describe about counseling together, making decisions together as equals, is exactly what almost all of us want (especially Mormon feminists.) Lots of us love the term “egalitarian” for this reason. But what you describe isn’t “presiding,” it’s “equality.” And the confusing part of it is that some church teachings do the same: describe equality and tout its virtues, but then simultaneously declare that the father/husband “presides” in the home. The Family Proclamation is the prime example of this. It’s not possible to be equal partners if one presides and the other doesn’t. You see, the church teaches two definitions of “preside” – one, the equality version you mention, the other where the father is the head of the house and that he is the presiding authority in the home. Many of the conference talks and lessons manuals I link to in the piece demonstrate rhetoric of the latter interpretation of “preside.” So those definitions and expectations of “preside” are definitely out there in the church lexicon, and not just the way I’m interpreting it. And you’re exactly right – presiding is the gateway drug to unrighteous dominion.
The closer we get to embracing a partnership doctrine and culture, and do away with the emphasis on presiding, the healthier and happier our marriages and families will be. It seems like you’re already operating in that mode, and that is excellent.
When you say that what I describe isn’t presiding, I must disagree with you. I just described how the president of the Q12 and the president of the QFP preside in their quorums. And it’s not confusing at all. Not to me anyway. The church doesn’t teach two different versions of preside, they teach one version, to preside with equality. This is exactly how the FP and Q12 teach the men of the church to preside in their wards and stakes, and in their homes. I know that many men in the church don’t preside this way and there is a big difference between what is taught, at least from the Q12 and FP, and what is practiced and understood by many men.
You, and many others, may believe that it is not possible to preside this way, that one cannot preside and be egalitarian, but that is your perception and that’s ok. I just hope you will also be ok with my perception that one can preside and be egalitarian. I think this is a good example of how we can have different perceptions of the same culture but in order for us all to understand each other, we have to recognize and accept the authenticity of one another’s perceptions.
I think the disconnect between our perceptions is our interpretation of the meaning of preside within the context of the church. Many members of the church associate preside with authority, and it’s usage outside of the church would normally be synonymous with authority. However, within the church, preside should be associated more with responsibility or even accountability rather than authority. A husband is responsible or accountable for how he treats his wife and for ensuring equality within the marriage. It is his responsibility to ensure there is no unrighteous dominion. He does not have authority over his wife, he does not control her, command her, or treat her as lesser. He is accountable for ensuring that he and his wife treat each other as equals and that their children are raised properly and nurtured. The same true for any leadership calling. We should view the bishop as having responsibility over his ward rather than authority over he ward. The same for the EQP, the RSP, and the SP. Sometimes, all we have to do is tweak our perceptions and our cultural expectations will take on a whole new meaning. When we perceive presiding as having authority over, that leads to unrighteous dominion; when we perceive presiding as being accountable for, that leads to harmony.
The tension between presiding and equality isn’t merely a matter of perception; it’s a matter of etymology. “Preside” comes from the Latin pre-sidere, meaning to sit in front of. The word denotes a hierarchical relationship defined, literally, by the precedence of one person over others. I grant that culturally we’ve done a lot of work in recent decades to insist, a la Inigo Montoya, that the word does not mean what we think it means, but at the same time such insistence is only necessary because of the word’s entrenched meanings.
Accountability in marriage and accountability in the church unfold in differently gendered ways. Marital accountability can be fairly egalitarian (if the couple does the work to make it so), but in the church, a majority of the time, men are not structurally accountable to women. Informally and morally accountable, sure, but not structurally. Kristine’s post at BCC articulates this point with exceptional clarity: https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/08/28/can-women-matter/
This structural reality underwrites the tension around “preside,” because in our ecclesiological structure men do preside in the sense you’re advocating against. Admittedly, we have all kind of counsel telling them not to preside in that way, but they have to fight the structure to do it.
Just because my husband and I have worked in cub scouts and with youth a couple small thoughts…
I can’t wait to see what changes are coming to the youth programs in 2020. Scouting is a hard program for any boys who don’t find themselves interested in sports or outdoor activities. And the “boys will [or even should] be boys” attitude is very prevalent.
My husband was sitting in on a young men planning meeting when a boy very excitedly suggested a karaoke night as an activity. One of the leaders scoffed and said that is a “girl’s activity”. We can’t expect our youth to become Christlike leaders if our inappropriate actions discourage appropriate behavior.
I also think the white shirt and tie is a funny culture. We say it doesn’t matter what you wear. But any youth passing the sacrament in a blue or maroon shirt is seen as rebellious.
Yes! Excellent point, thank you! I’m hoping for an improvement on the programs for boys and young men as well. I know one of our guest submissions is writing about how he experienced bullying and the narrow scope of acceptable activities in scouting. We can do better than that for our boys.
I appreciate this — I had thought of many of these before but I was struck differently by the provider perspective. I work part time and I have always mentally constructed it in the “does this make me a good or bad mother” framework (for the record, I don’t think it does, but I struggle with the narrative.) But it had genuinely never occurred to me that my husband may feel more peace of mind with extra income coming in, or with me having an up-to-date resume. I know it helps ME feel a bit more peace of mind, but I never thought my husband might feel anxiety about providing (because expressing anxiety is another not-manly thing I guess?)
Anyway lots to think about here. And to other commenters who didn’t like how this post focused on the negative — well I do think there are a lot of good things about LDS masculinity, but this post was specifically about when gender ideals are toxic. Perhaps you’d like to submit a guest post about the ways that you feel your gender expression has been positively affected by church teachings? I can think of a lot of things I love about my husband that I think are tied to his being taught from a young age certain principles and traditions that are different from our general culture.
Right?! I know my ability to work and contribute equally to the family finances has given my spouse some extra cushion and freedom to take on “passion projects” that don’t necessarily pay very well, but because he wants to do them, and he knows I’ve got the income gap covered. I’m really glad we can do that for each other.
Em – just a comment about your statement that this post was specifically about when gender ideals are toxic. An issue I have is labeling an ideal or an expectation as toxic because someone, or even many, have been hurt by that ideal or expectation. Assuming the same cultural expectations exist for all males within a population, if some are hurt and some are benefited, if some thrive and others whither because of those expectations, can we truly say that the culture is toxic? Why do individuals have different experiences with the same culture? It’s because of the differences between the individuals. A particular culture will be good for some individuals and bad for others. If the culture changes there will still be some who thrive and others who don’t. That doesn’t mean that the culture is toxic, it just means that we are all individuals with individual experiences.
To add to the provider prospective you brought up, I am the sole provider in my family. I’ve never had any anxiety about that and I’m grateful that I’ve had that expectation for myself so that I haven’t placed any expectations on my wife that she doesn’t want. Me being the sole provider has been a great blessing for my wife because it gives her so many more options. She can work if she wants but doesn’t have to. She can care for our children how she wants. She can spend time pursuing her passions without the stress of having to provide for our family. Of course this is not everyone’s situation but it is mine, it works for our family, and I’m grateful for it. Also, as a man in the church, I’m never felt that I had to be the sole provider, it just worked out better that way for us. If my wife needed to work or wanted to work, I wouldn’t have an issue with that.
I’ve been interested in issues of masculinism for twenty years (using traditional feminist critiques to explore the effect of gender essentialism or gender roles on men). And I’ve had this conversation with several people inside the Church over that time. I think you’ve hit on most of the issues I’ve considered, in one way or another, and have addressed them quite nicely. But I would make one comment, and then add one to your list to consider, which I’ve thought a fair bit about.
First, I do find it problematic to call something “toxic masculinity” or “toxic Mormon masculinity.” I find the invocation of “toxic” unnecessary much of the time. (This, I think, is quite different than referencing something like “Rape Culture,” which is much more specific and pointed, and could be summed up in so many bullet points.) Such a label is so loaded with a prescriptive assessment of what’s going on. It’s the same reaction I would have to “toxic femininity.” I just don’t think the extra pejorative label is necessary. In a piece like this, you can simply describe the modern American Mormon male experience, and then describe the several points you’ve made and their attendant effects. I understand the utility in coming up with a shorthand, but once shorthands are adopted, out goes the the very dialogue you’ve taken so much care to develop. And pretty soon, people are just throwing around, “oh, you know, toxic Mormon masculinity.” I think there is a way around it, which is with good discussion. The problem is that some of this stuff, for certain individuals, may not be toxic at all. A discussion needs to allow for somebody to respond, “hey, you’ve pointed out some of the costs attendant to this gender role, but let me point out some of the benefits.” The toxicity-dynamic doesn’t allow for that, because people are put on the defensive to defend a poison. It’s the same problem we’ve had with people having to defend a “feminism” label when used as a pejorative. The label has become easily twisted and misunderstood. I think what your article does well is point out that many of the things we note about female roles in the Church–women working in the home, women being the primary caregivers and more nurturing, women being subservient, women being selfless, women being dependent, etc.–almost always have an attendant gender role for men that corresponds to it, that can be equally problematic. And we need to carefully evaluate the resulting culture, along with the limitations, pressures, and demands that they place on men. But we don’t have to call it toxic right out of the gate. Instead, we should only label the more specific aspects of the effects that a cultural pressure has on certain men as toxic. Certain men are going to go through life in Mormon culture, and be completely unphased or unaffected with regard to one aspect or another that you’ve listed. We see women in the Church like this as well, who have been largely untouched by a certain teaching, doctrine, or cultural norm. As a result, that specific aspect of the feminine or masculine gender role in the Church isn’t necessarily toxic for them–for whatever reason–and we shouldn’t be looking for harm where there isn’t any. That is a sure way to develop victimization.
My other suggestion is to add to your list the idea of mandatory–or necessary–priesthood ordination. Our very doctrine–I believe it only exists in the modern Church–requires that a man be ordained to the priesthood in order to receive exaltation. In effect, some additional gift from God, accompanied by additional covenants, is required in order for men to be seen as worthy of God’s favor. It is something crucial that women do not need. Why? What does it say about the nature of a man, compared to a woman? (And this lends itself to criticisms of the veneration, adulation, or pedestalization of women in the Church, which we sometimes run into.) Male members cannot do all sorts of things that women members can do, until and unless they are ordained to the priesthood. Women can serve missions without the priesthood, women can receive an initiatory and endowment without the priesthood, and women can be sealed without the priesthood. Young men cannot even do baptisms for the dead, unlike their young women counterparts, if they have not been ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood. If there is any person who is more doctrinally dispossessed than a woman in the Church, it is an unordained man. Why can man not act in the name of God or fully avail himself of the atonement without the “power of the priesthood” if a woman can? Why does a man need power that he was not born with? Does it suggest that men are fundamentally less-than or more damaged than women to begin with? Do they need extra help? I think this idea that you cannot receive the full grace of God without entering into a promise and covenant with God, in a way that the other gender does not, does no good for men growing up in the Church. And I would suggest that it has the effect of leading men to believe that there is a fundamental gender-dependent aspect to their fallen nature, in a sense that does not exist for women. But it’s just a thought worth exploring.
Oops, typo: *unfazed
Really interesting points. And it does feed into some of the cultural narratives I’ve heard in my life about men v. women. For example in the MTC I remember that the Elders were told they needed to work for quiet dignity, but the sisters “have it naturally” — perhaps it would be more accurate to say that at 21 having graduated from college I was more mature than a 19 year old fresh from high school, but it had nothing to do with gender and everything to do with age and life experience. But it was just one of the many ways that I was put on a pedestal and the men were subtly insulted. It also I think makes getting the priesthood a necessary hoop to jump through rather than a divine calling you prepare for and receive. You can’t have x calling, or you can’t go on the temple trip unless you are ordained. Oh, you don’t feel spiritually prepared for ordination, but you would like to be able to do baptisms for the dead? Sorry bud.
I appreciate Ian’s perspective here. I just wanted to reiterate what I tried to articulate above about the term toxic masculinity. It is commonly thrown around today in a way that so many people overlook the qualifier and jump to the conclusion that masculinity in itself is toxic, or that masculine is a pejorative term. Masculine traits can be good and healthy and my concern is about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It is the abuses that are wrong and hurtful. Unfortunately because people have different experiences they carry different connotations with the terms, and we are subject to the weakness of language in our communications. I just hope we don’t lose sight of the good by strongly condemning the bad. I hope we don’t teach our young boys and men that masculinity is wrong.
Violadiva!!! This should be turned into a book. So thoughtful and thorough. And I love the discussion it’s generating. I can only imagine how much time and care went into this post. Thank you for caring enough to make those sacrifices.
Superb work, Violadiva. This clear and thoughtful analysis resonates powerfully with my experience as a Mormon man. Thank you!
Thank you for this. Very well put.
There’s one thing I would add, that’s not often recognized despite its pervasiveness.
From the age of 12 onwards, male worthiness is the subject of frequent public display and inspection. Getting ordained to the priesthood. Passing or blessing the sacrament. Going on a mission (that one you did list). Blessing your children. Baptizing/confirming your children. Ordaining your sons. All of these occasions trigger people asking “Oh is he not worthy?” if a man does not do them. This overlaps with what Ian writes above, but I think the public nature of these displays is worth emphasizing. The effects on young men in particular can be devastating, as they’re whipsawed each week between their raging teenage hormones and having to present themselves in front of the entire congregation as clean and pure when they bless or pass the sacrament.
Well said! I feel for the YM and men of the church. It is bad enough as a YW sitting in a pew discretely letting the sacrament pass over you.
Violadiva, I always look forward to your posts. And quite frankly, with this one, I think you hit it right on the head! Also, I think “toxic” is a perfectly acceptable word to use here!
This is such a wonderful breath of fresh air. Thank you!
Everything you listed here was a contributing factor in my divorce. Not the only reasons. But ooof, this was a hit-home post.
I have pondered this piece and thread deeply since it was published (actually, well before as I have pondered the use of the term toxic masculinity). I really appreciate everyone’s perspective, and especially Violadiva and DB. I understand and agree that there are wider differences among the genders than between them, that some traits are innate and some traits are learned. I also agree that just because some trait is generally innate in one gender does not mean it is deterministic or absolute across that gender, or consigned specifically to that gender. Humans are much more complex. I have read many psychologists (social, clinical, neuro) and the general agreement is that there are innate gender differences, but again, those should not be used to define any specific individual person. We are complex.
I agree with what Violadiva points out as numerous problematic areas within the church culture. But I also agree with DB that those problems are not universal, and may have more to do with geographic culture than Mormonism, or human traits than gender specific traits. I also agree that what is harmful to one person may not be harmful to another, just as what is a blessing to one person may not be a blessing to another. It is complicated.
I still struggle with the term ‘toxic masculinity’ because of the social and political connotations and a tendency to denigrate masculinity itself as toxic. I believe that any trait, even any virtue, taken to an extreme can become a vice. Do we have ‘toxic chastity’, ‘toxic honesty’, ‘toxic athleticism’, ‘toxic diligence’? I think we could probably include the toxic modifier before any value, characteristic, or trait. But putting it before masculinity in effect pits masculinity against femininity, and intended or not it subsumes masculinity within toxicity. It can unfortunately delegitimize masculinity.
Would you consider ‘toxic blackness’ to be sexist? What about ‘toxic whiteness’? How about ‘toxic Islam’? Is that offensive or Islamophobic? What about toxic conservatism or toxic liberalism? I think these are all divisive and fail to address the root of the problems.
Some men are just jerks, plain and simple. Some men are abusive. Some men are mean and cruel. Some men are misogynistic. Some men are bullies. Some men are tyrants. Some social or cultural attitudes can unfortunately put pressures, stress, guilt, and shame on us. Sad. But, this is not limited to men or masculinity. The human condition is fraught with the unfortunate, the sad, the harmful as we people hurt other people – intentionally or unintentionally. Just like men, women too can be domestic abusers, can be power hungry, can be bullies, can exercise unrighteous dominion, can be prideful, can inflict guilt and shame and fear on others. Do some women suffer toxic masculinity? Do some men suffer toxic femininity?
I think in some ways the term toxic masculinity is a sexist term because it has become a lazy way to express dislike for men’s behaviors, or stereotypical behaviors, or abusive behaviors, which while not solely attributed to men are more dominant in men, even if not in the majority of men. And that is the problem, it paints with too broad a brush. Rather, it think it would be so much more meaningful to address head on each of the negative traits or behaviors rather than lumping them together in a big stereotypical basket.
(Note: this response is not intended in any way to be offensive or contentious. I do respect different points of view and I am not trying to invalidate any other person’s opinions or lived experiences. I am merely trying to see things from different angles, and to share some thoughts to ponder. Many of you have given me much to consider; hopefully I have been able to do the same in the spirit of sharing in the pursuit of enlightenment.)
Well said, anon!
Anon & DB, your points about the limits about using the term “toxic” as a modifier for masculinity are well taken. I do notice pushback about the term “Toxic Masculinity” in general, and I’ve seen the criticisms that the term in and of itself is alarmist and reductive. While I refuse to give men a pass on bad behavior because they’re just “being men” and exhibiting “masculine” tendencies, I do see the pitfalls of using the term as shorthand for anytime a man is being a jerk.
I agree with the points you both make: they’re toxic Human traits. Do men want to be seen for their masculinity, for better or worse, or do they want to be seen for their humanity? Do you want your good traits to be seen as your masculine traits, and your bad traits to be seen as human traits? Which is it? I think we can’t have it both ways. I think the answer is in de-emphasizing gendered traits and in emphasizing the focus on the individual as a human. In a Mormon context, I think that looks like focusing more on Christlike attributes than gendered traits and expectations.
The reason why I think “Toxic Mormon Masculinity” as a term works is exactly because Mormonism puts such a high priority on gendered expectations and traits to begin with. If the whole emphasis were shifted toward developing Christlike attributes, I think it would likely be unnecessary to address Toxic Mormon Masculinity at all.
I think I agree with this approach about needing to shift the discussion away from gendered traits. My preference is to work away from “gender essentialism,” where we think that gender matters in every discussion. But that can only remain aspirational until we first unpack why this gender essentialism is so harmful–to all parties. The idea that “Mormonism puts such a high priority on gendered expectations and traits to begin with” is undoubtedly true and one would be a fool to argue to the contrary. That is why your essay is powerful, and much needed. There is so much work to be done before we can even get there, and that includes identifying what these very rigid and prescriptive gender roles mean for both men and women and how it limits men in their approach to what their lives can look like, and what options are ostensibly taken away from them from the get go. Those limitations can radically skew one’s thinking, and really hurt an individual’s development. I actually do wish we could get away from a discussion of “masculine” traits and “feminine” traits, and instead be able to just talk about “traits.” But in the Mormon context, and in light of something like the Proclamation of the Family, it seems very hard to ever get the dialogue there without first breaking down what that looks like in a pretty brutal way. I very much welcome the discussion, and wish we had more of it. I’m also not offended with the “toxic” conclusion. I just want to be sure that we don’t lapse into the laziness of using conclusory language, without also identifying or explaining the reasons why we reached that label (which your article does well).
“Do you want your good traits to be seen as your masculine traits, and your bad traits to be seen as human traits? Which is it? I think we can’t have it both ways. I think the answer is in de-emphasizing gendered traits and in emphasizing the focus on the individual as a human.”
I agree that we should emphasize the focus on the individual as a human. Though I believe that due to human nature we all prefer to see our good traits as our personal traits and our bad traits as human traits. Just as it’s human nature to attribute personal accomplishments to our own efforts and personal failures to external influences we can’t control. You’re right that we can’t have it both ways but we sure try to.
I just want to applaud Violadiva’s masterful work in this thread. Exponent II at its best. Brava!
Thanks Jason! Will you write a piece for the series?
I’ve been kicking the idea around. It mostly depends on surviving this week and getting another project off my desk. But your OP spoke to my experience in a big way.
I cannot express my gratitude enough to the author of this piece. It opened my eyes to more than I thought it would. Christlike attributes have no gender. Oh how did I miss that all these years. And the fact that we are all in this together, the struggle and the pain, male and female. I can’t wait to read more from you. I wish I could meet people like you, I’d make me feel less lonely in this complicated journey.
[…] part of our Toxic Mormon Masculinity series, we are featuring guest posts from men who share their experiences of operating within the […]
Beautifully written. Agree with every word.
Violadavis’s patience in this comment thread is extraordinary.
[…] potential of what compassionate leadership looks like when it’s disentangled from male ego and toxic masculinity.Thank you for valuing education and for the ways you suggested we strengthen our education systems […]
[…] or without, are taught that motherhood is a defining essence of who they are as women. Though not a key point of the gospel as taught by Jesus Christ in his day, modern church leaders have spoken at length about the doctrinal role of women as mothers in this […]