Today The Exponent just posted a link on this exact same issue: Sisters Speak: Preside vs. Equal Partnership, so I thought I ought to write about my terrible, horrible, no good, very bad lesson today.
So I took my lesson in a different direction. I did some actual psych research about the benefit of family roles and responsibilities, how to have success in sharing family responsibilities, and the like. If you're curious, responsibilities should be clearly defined, flexible, and chosen.
After discussing the different shapes of families (single, married with young children, no children, divorced, part member), I started by creating a list on the board with the help of the class--all the things that a family need to have done to function as a family. Love, food, an income, shelter, work, fun, clean laundry, family prayer, etc. The great thing about the list is that it was applicable to all genders, so the gender roles I so despise really didn't need to be discussed. But the best laid plans of mice and women...
Essentially in response to my family model, sister so-and-so raises her hand to share that the manual (which I intentionally did not even distribute) says that men cannot forget about their duty to provide and preside. And the lesson, which would have been productive and helpful, devolved from there.
Since it was unrecoverable, I made the class members really analyze what they were saying. Okay, says I, a husband presides. What does that mean? I got a variety of answers in the form of cliches:
"The buck stops here." "The trump card for decision making." "Men are in charge of everything in the home." "Families that don't fit this mold are not ideal because that's how the celestial kingdom is." "At the end of the day, God will hold men responsible for failure in their families. But not women....*pause* well. No. Sort of women. But mostly men. Because men are responsible." "It's by divine design that men preside and provide." "Ideal family." Yadayadayada...
I know this will come as a great shock to all who know Logan and me, but Logan does not preside in our home. As two rational adults who love and respect each other, we do not need a trump card for decision making. All big decisions are made jointly. All responsibilities are allocated based on availability, talent, enjoyment, opportunity cost, and value. We consider our salvation, spirituality, and relationship with God one of joint and several liability. Of course we acknowledge that because we are biologically different, there are certain things that we cannot do, but that list is very, very limited. Neither biology nor religion dictates who provides for my family, who calls on someone for family prayer, who cooks dinner, or who makes decisions.
As I look at the Mormon obsession over the "right" family structure, I'm baffled. What does it have to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ? What does it have to do with learning to be a better person? Why does it matter?It can't possibly matter how the family allocates its responsibilities as long as its the couples' own choosing. Heck--if you want to have someone preside, and that works for you--go for it.
But here's my question: can you be equal and have one person preside? I don't think so. No matter how nicely or sweetly or considerately or by "gentle persuasion" it is done, by definition, presiding creates a power differential. I don't think the relationship models can coexist. And listening to my devout class members squirm as they tried to reconcile these opposite principles illustrated this perfectly.
5 comments:
I got to teach about eternal families. I started off with talking about my parents' recent divorce and how I find the topic very painful and difficult. It actually made everything go better. Sometimes you are the right person to teach a lesson even if you feel like you're totally wrong for it. And sometimes nobody is thinking about how it might feel to the teacher, they just allocate stuff. If you feel uncomfortable teaching a lesson, say so!
1 Corinthians 11 in gospel doctrine was a similarly fun/exasperating experience (I personally think chapter 11 is a load of tosh). One poor girl stated that the husband has the final say in family decisions. In response to my horrified face, my husband quickly and courteously machine gunned her statement. When someone offered that a husband's priesthood gives him special guidance for his family, I questioned whether God would actually withhold revelation from a wife just because she lacks the priesthood. When they all started affirming "separate but equal", all I could do is repeat back "separate but . . . equal?" with a look on my face that said "how did that one work out last time?" Suffice it to say I found it necessary to bury my face in my hands.
Bravo for getting your class to think about this logically instead of just parroting back impossible dichotomies. Maybe you've planted some seeds.
Oh man, I'm sorry that my apostate working on Sunday job made me miss this lesson! There isn't a presider in our family either. Partners means equals. I like your point that there is no "right" family structure, just as there isn't a single, one, perfect way to be a follower of Christ.
I figure the 'preside' has a lot more to do with priesthood responsibilities - these are responsibilities, not a trump-card privilege. This includes blessings of counsel, blessings for sickness, etc.. This is one of the reasons that it's so important that single women, single mothers, and widows have access to the priesthood via hometeachers and others in the ward. It has nada to do with who does dishes, who calls who for prayer, or who has 'the last word'.. the latter of which is particularly silly given the incredibly adversarial implications it would have with respect to healthy partnerships.
Post a Comment