Traditional religions tend to be very patriarchal, giving men most if not all social, political, and familial power while relegating women to second-class status at best. The attraction of so much power for men isn't that hard to imagine, but why are so many women attracted to such a situation? Why do women voluntarily enter it, stay with it, and even defend it?

In Desert Patriarchy: Mormon and Mennonite Communities in the Chihuahua Valley, Janet Bennion writes:

What possible reasons would women have to join these male-dominated groups? What is the female perspective of fundamentalist patriarchy? What does it offer them? First, we should clarify our terms. Men do not dominate every aspect of life in the fundamentalist world. There is definitely an informal side to this lifestyle that is dominated and operated exclusively by women. Against all logic, patriarchal communities provide women with power: autonomy and relative power, in the absence of their men, and a high degree of manipulative power in their united opposition in the presence of their men. [...]

Paradoxically, fundamentalist women feel a kind of liberty in this submission to their husbands. They do not tap into women’s liberation philosophies for this freedom (feminism is the enemy; feminists support the usurpation of the traditional family and the erosion of moral values), but rather seek power in the knowledge that their duties to their homes, children, husbands, and God will bring “blessings without measure” and a queenly status in the next life.

The female role is empowered, as depicted in the statement made by Elder Russell Ballard of the LDS First Presidency: “The adversary is having a heyday distorting attitudes about gender and roles and about families and individual worth — God’ s plan is for you [women] to become queens and to receive the highest blessings a woman can receive in time or eternity.”

So, the first thing to keep in mind is that women aren’t virtual slaves, lacking any and all possible power. Their freedom and power might be severely constrained, but they are able to assume some real power and influence over certain aspects of their lives. Moreover, some of these areas where they assume power aren’t areas where the men are likely to try to compete — because of the strictly enforced gender roles, men are no more permitted to interfere with women’s spheres of control than women are permitted to interfere with men’s spheres of control. Outsiders may not see the trade off as being worthwhile, but it’s not inconceivable that some might think differently.

Freedom through submission? It’s not an entirely crazy notion. Sometimes complete freedom is too much for a person — given the freedom to choose absolutely anything at all, they are paralyzed into being unable to choose anything at all. Some people need guidance in what to choose, or at least what choices to prefer. This is true even in mundane things: studies demonstrate that the more choices of a product a person is offered, the less likely they are to choose any of them; if a store offers a small product line with few choices, they may actually make more sales in the long run.

So, the idea that some people might actually experience a sense of liberation by having their choices constrained isn’t as paradoxical as it might at first sound. These women are able to focus closely on what choices they do have and, as a consequence, feel more in control of their lives, their choices, and where they are going. The fact that they are constantly told that their submission to male authority is the same as submission to God’s authority, and that being submissive ensures them an honored place in Paradise, certainly doesn’t hurt.

 

Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.