Kristine Haglund recently wrote a provocative article at Religion & Politics, in which she DOES NOT draw that conclusion. She boldly addresses a few of the incongruities of Mormon culture including weeping men, brotherhood, constructs of masculinity, and this elusive enigma of Churchball. It’s worth a read.
And she stirred up quite a response. I think that there are some themes of anti-patriarchy present in the article. Many of the responses I’ve read seem to be responding somewhat defensively to those elements of the author’s message. One reader in particular took issue with what he perceived as an out-of-context distortion of “an overwrought imagination.”
So, it’s my turn to weigh in on the matter. What do church ball, crying, and missions have to do with homophobia?I agree with Brother Campbell that there is nothing homosexual about serving God and his children or striving to develop Christ-like attributes. And developing a deep sense of love and brotherhood within the Priesthood does not equate to homophobia.
In response to Haglund’s main claim that men in the church have a paradoxical relationship with homosociality, I agree with her. As I read the article, I didn’t necessarily read into her article many of the paraphrased assumptions reported by Brother Campbell .
For me the key to understanding both perspectives lies in the fact that Mormon men don’t grow up in a vacuum. Especially in the last twenty years, young men are being raised in two worlds. In one, boys are expected to develop and value traits like charity, obedience, love, meekness, humility, chastity, and service; talents like piano and singing are elevated to forms of worship. Again, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with this.
However, in the other world of school and media, young men find traits like sexual experience, pride, individualism, competition, and materialism are valued as masculine. Not only that, but in many cases, the very qualities he is being taught in Church are labeled as “gay.” Showing them will subject him to ridicule and rejection. From music to sensitivity, he’s going to have to deal with the fact that outside of Church, these qualities make him less of a man.
This isn’t just a matter of living your religion by not drinking or smoking. Conflicts like this lie at the heart of issues of identity. Can a young man learn to identify himself as a son of God and see through the illusion of society’s false construction of masculinity?
If only it were that simple. While this larger macro-struggle is playing out between two cultures, little micro-conflicts are everywhere. In Church men are told to be humble and obedient, yet leaders and self-reliant. Meek, but bold in defending truth. In society, men are tough, independent, afraid of commitment, dumb, and insensitive. But women are looking for gentle, sensitive, intelligent, kind men. But again and again, we get the message that those traits are “gay.” An increasing number of men growing up in the Church are finding themselves stuck somewhere in the confusion.
Some feel natural in the role of priesthood holder, complete with sensitivity, compassion, creativity. They then struggle to identify as fully masculine in a culture that demeans and rejects them. The men in popular culture with whom they most readily identify are those depicted as “gay.”
Others grow up more or less fitting into society’s definition of masculinity. As they mature in the gospel, they find themselves uncomfortable with ideas of brotherly love, meekness, submission, sensitivity. They protect their sense of masculine identity with humor. They do have to make an effort to explain their behaviors as “not gay.”
This conflict was probably not as evident thirty or forty years ago. Homosexuality was seen as a relatively obscure sexual problem. That is why it is so easy to twist statements of Church leaders from that period. They weren’t addressing the cultural implications of “gay” on masculinity. But today, homosexuality has moved from being primarily a behavior to an identity. Keeping those two separate is a challenge.
Again, I think that there is nothing homosexual or homophobic about church basketball, scouting, brotherhood, crying, musical talent, or compassion. Those are normal, healthy, potentially divine parts of being a Son of God. The problem is that through the lens of modern culture, those qualities are distorted grotesquely. Though many young men will experience relatively little conflict in navigating these competing worldviews, many others will find themselves somewhat uneasy with their own sense of masculinity.
What can we do as parents, teachers, and leaders to help young men navigate this challenge?
You have caught the vision of the ideal–a perfect melding of both the traditional “manly” traits and “gay” traits. How do we pass that vision on to others or even believe them ourselves? Like any other eternal goal–the savior is our example, the scriptures teach the truths, and we just need to emulate them in our own lives so well that the young men at church, our quorum brothers, and even our coworkers and friends will see that it can work and that it can bring us greater happiness. And it doesn’t hurt to speak up, to “bear witness” to the truths that we are striving to implement.
Michael,
I love the way you brought up the Savior as our perfect example. It is so easy to absorb the messages that bombard us from the media. The Adversary would love nothing better than to confuse Priesthood holders about how to be men. What an obligation we have to speak up!
What bothered me the most, really, was Kristine melding the concept of gender identity with orientation identity and then proclaiming that the Church saw them as one and the same: “Mormon rhetoric betrays this sense that homosexuality is a confusion about gender, rather than an orientation of desire.” No. It’s an illogical stretch to take two parts of the Proclamation and say they are talking about the same thing.
I realize there’s an old stereotype about effeminate behavior as an indication of homosexuality for men. But I don’t think you could pin anyone down (in the Church or not) and get them to say that such a departure from a traditional gender role means the same thing as a deviation from biological gender identity. To put it more bluntly, “that man is acting like a sissy” does not automatically equal “that man really thinks he’s a woman”. I honestly cannot imagine the bullies of my youth meant anything like that.
Now, just taking gender roles alone, well… that’s a bit different. Some local members, a few leaders, have said things along the lines of “women are more spiritual than men”. Ask my wife; she’ll say that annoys me to no end. And I have seen some members express opinions that seem to cast gender roles that are traditionally seen as masculine as brutish, coarse, and worthy of rejection.
No, I’d assert that the gender role that is traditionally associated with women encompasses qualities that many Christian churches (not just ours) find very attractive. Or, rather, that many people that emphasize such qualities are drawn to such congregations and religions. And I do believe that there is a problem with some attempting to mute expressions of the traditional masculine role, rather than saying that examples they have seen are aberrations and twisted distortions of what the ideal really should be. The closer I have worked with Relief Society and Priesthood groups tells me that stereotypes and prejudices about gender roles are just that, and they don’t give the full picture of how the Church works.
My experience has been that Mormon men tend to be more concerned about their masculinity and being different from women than other groups of men.
I don’t mean to question your experience, so I won’t. There is a huge emphasis on gender and gender roles in church conversations.
I have to say that my experience and research about men and masculinity suggest that gender issues are very salient to most men. The Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity (SPSMM) is a division of the APA dedicated to research around the issue.
Kevin I think you hit the nail on the head when you ask:
“Can a young man [or any man] learn to identify himself as a son of God and see through the illusion of society’s false construction of masculinity?”
Bingo. Our society has a very skewed perception of what makes a man a man. It’s all about money, power, aggression, competition, the perfect body, and anything that is not stereotypically feminine or stereotypically “gay.”
The gay vs. straight paradigm that exists in our western culture has done a lot of damage to the platonic male-male relationship. Niobe Way’s book “Deep Secrets: Boys’ Friendships and the Crisis of Connection” tackles this topic head on and I highly recommend it. Not so very long ago in the US (and still today in some other cultures) men weren’t afraid to be physically close; there wasn’t a constant “fear” of being labeled the dreaded “gay.” There are accounts even of Joseph Smith and his companions laying their heads on each others’ bosom on a couple of occasions. And there was nothing homosexual or homoerotic about it at all.
Sadly, society’s definition of masculinity rubs off onto the male members of the church as well, and even gets mingled into people’s opinions of “worthiness” on occasion. Men are hesitant to display the intimate type of “brotherly love” that Joseph and Brigham (and the Son of God) had because of that cultural fear (and, I would venture, an uneasiness about what the other man’s “agenda” might be). The whole thing has made, in large part, our masculine culture one that is very stoic, sterile, and distant (one of my own personal challenges on why Elders’ Quorum and priesthood brotherhood in the church generally can be quite a drag).
Yeah, I do remember reading some Church History and reading what you described– that at the time, there was nothing read into touch and platonic intimacy between Joseph Smith and other men of the Church at the time. I would think that this was the same for Jesus and John the Beloved, later of Patmos, as it was described that John rested on the Savior in such a manner– but some *are* reading some homosexual associations into that.
I got thinking about Christ as the role model for the ideal man. At first the sensitive, caring, loving, merciful Christ jumps right out. But think of all the things he did that could show his “man” side–created a great earth (now that’s even better than changing the oil in your car or framing your own house), was in charge, was aggressive (flooding the earth, going to battle, cleansing the temple), provided for our needs (the atonement is the epitome of protecting his family). Every male trait is ideally embodied in this God we are commanded to be like.