Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice

It's a charged word. I'm sure you've already formed an opinion concerning what you think you're going to read in this blog post. I get it.

But hear me out and try - just try - to put yourself in my shoes. Because when you FEEL it...because you've LIVED it...after you learned to RECOGNIZE it...it becomes highly triggering anytime it confronts you.

And It's highly triggering for me whenever I'm confronted by it and whenever it hits me in the face.

The official definition of misogyny - the hatred of women simply because they're women - sometimes seems too strong and too exclusive. It almost sounds like no one but a hardened criminal who perpetrates heinous and unspeakable crimes against women simply because they're women could be classified as a misogynist.

But that's not how the word is traditionally used. And that's not how it FEELS.

When women are diminished - simply because they're women - that's misogyny.

When women are considered to be less than men - in any respect - that's misogyny.

And women buy in as well. When you've lived with the belief that you're less than the men around you - only by virtue of the fact that you're not a man - it becomes your reality. When that's the model in your home growing up that becomes your reality when you're a grown up yourself.

Men who are raised to believe that men are in any way superior to women grow up to believe it. It shapes how they treat women, how they talk about women, how they think about women, and how they interact with women.

It truly is the world's oldest prejudice.

Misogyny was - and is - alive and well in Mormonism. Misogyny was - and is - pervasive in Mormonism. Mormon misogyny opened the door to Mormon polygamy, and polygamy exacerbated the problem of misogyny even more.  (And I'm not so naive as to believe Mormon misogyny exists in a vacuum. It's ubiquitous.)

Here's just a tiny example from Mormon history.

In the Quorum of the Twelve Minutes dated 9 December 1847 (here), George D. Grant wrote about a previous promise made by Brigham Young to John D Lee (infamously known for being the only one later convicted and executed for the Mountain Meadows Massacre). John D. Lee was a member of the Quorum of the Seventy at the time of this quorum meeting. Lee had previously been courting Emmeline Free, but Brigham had his sights on her as well. Grant wrote, "Brigham told him if he would give up Emeline to him he would uphold him in time and in eternity & he never should fall, but that he would sit at his right hand in his kingdom". Grant also wrote:

Bro Lee also said he had frigged Louisa Free 20 times in one night and I told him I did not believe it, [but] he called God and Angels to witness that he told the truth-I then told him he was a bigger fool than I thought he was if he would allow his arse to run away with his head, [and] he said he believed he had the Devil in him for he could not get satisfied, [and] he went home from here after frigging so often and frigged all the women he had in his house. [He] also told him me that Emeline Woolsey was a dirty little strumpet & if she went of[f] to St Louis or St Joseph where her Bro[ther]: was that she would allow everybody to frigg her & he would not take her when she came back.

Further down the minutes of the same quorum meeting, Brigham Young is quoted as saying the following:

I know of instances in the Ch[urch] [where] 90 tim[es] or 100. he will tell you the truth, 99 times out of a man where /you will get/ once a woman to an[swer]. [T]ake a sister & she will cry and look & live in the name of the Lord. [W]hen a man will tell the truth. Men are honest-but women have to be dependent of men for their Salvation, You get a woman that wont lie when punched hard enough & if she wont lie, she is a miracle. I ll tell you I never love a woman so wel[l] that I cannot say good bye. [W]hen men have their affections placed in a woman then they can put a sting-but if you can give all your women a discharge & feel well-I say I m glad to get a preaching Hallelugh-Glory- & when a man dont feel so he is in bondage & I feel will never put fetter in my life.

What do we learn from this? In a meeting attended by the prophet of God and the senior apostles, vile, sexual slang was used to discuss multiple women being used as sex objects when a man was unable to achieve orgasm and become sexually satisfied. It was reported that the prophet himself used his position of power to barter for the affections of another man's intended love interested in exchange for promising the man eternal exaltation. (By the way, Brigham Young did marry Emmaline Free. She was 18 years old. He was 43. When they married he already had 19 wives, making her wife number 20. She bore him 10 children.)

The prophet Brigham Young also taught those present that between 90-99% of men could be considered honest while only 1% of women will tell the truth. And even when "punched hard enough" it would be a miracle for a woman not to lie. Women are dependent on men for their eternal salvation. Men should never be fully committed to their wives. If their wives cause trouble or are unhappy with the circumstances of the relationship men should have no qualms in casting them out and setting them free rather than a man feeling he is "in bondage" to a woman.

If that's not blatant, unjustifiable misogyny I don't know what is. To me, it's sickening.

Why bring it up now?

Remember the journal entry Joseph wrote concerning his encounter with the priest in Krogsered, Sweden when he was trying to have access to his family genealogy? The priest was far from accommodating. In fact, if Joseph's interpretation of the encounter was at all accurate the priest was a bona fide jerk.

As a side note, throughout the multiple times I read Joseph's journals it seemed to me that he wasn't just keeping track of his daily events, he was writing the story of his life - the book from which he wanted to be remembered. His personal "Book of Remembrance".  A book that contained his best thoughts and best words and best works to prove his innate goodness and righteousness and which illustrated just how much he earned his place in the eternal kingdom of God. And I really can't think of anything I read in which he carelessly let his guard down. He always seemed to be very careful to make sure everything he thought, wrote, and felt was in complete harmony with the laws of God and with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Seldom did he write disparagingly of anyone - unless someone really was being a jerk.

So I believe the comparison Joseph made to this particular parish priest was intentional. In his mind it was completely accurate. It was true. It was justified. And Joseph saw nothing wrong - whatsoever - with the comparison he made. 

Did he call the priest a snake? A dog? A servant of the devil? Did he resort to slang or profanity? Did he use his God-given Priesthood power to condemn him to hell or call down the wrath of God upon his head?  

Nope. But the words he did use, because words such as his are so triggering to me, profoundly and forever prejudiced me against him. They created a lens through which I viewed every single one of his subsequent thoughts, beliefs, and actions. It especially influenced the way I interpreted his relationship with his wife and his daughters as well as every other woman he came in contact with.

It was my first glimpse into the true nature of his soul and the way in which he viewed the world. Every subsequent journal entry: every time he left his home, every sporting event he watched or participated in, every church assignment he accepted and fulfilled, every conversation he had with a general authority of the church, everywhere he went, everything he did, and especially every interaction with and everything he wrote about his wife, Lily - for the rest of his entire life - was flavored by this one characterization. 

I won't excuse my bias, but I will acknowledge it.

If you read it and think, "Meh, that's nothing," you may want to think again. And think a little harder. And think with more compassion and care. Because the way we are (or are not) influenced by other people's words really are a reflection of our own values and beliefs. It's certainly not language on par with Brigham Young's, but the underlying connotation and belief are one in the same. They stem from exactly the same source.

Oh, and by the way, in the Mormon world genealogy is REALLY important. It was a big deal then and it would have been a really, really big deal when he was denied access by that jerk parish priest (who, by the way, should have known the bible backward and forward since religion was his chosen profession). Without the genealogy, Joseph could not perform the temple ordinances required to save those particular ancestors in the Celestial Kingdom. With that in mind, I couldn't help but read between the lines concerning his characterization and beliefs about the priest: that only the lowest, God-forsaken form of life would intentionally thwart the eternal works of God. And who else in all the earth could possibly be compared to the likes of that?

With such high stakes on the line, no wonder Joseph allowed his real, true feelings to come to the surface. For me, I vividly remember the stabbing pain I felt directly in my heart the first time I read it. He wrote:

At Krogsered I called on the Priest, to see if I could get som genealogy.  He soon found out who I was when his tune changed entirely.  From being friendly he became a bitter enemy.  Looking as though he could swallow me alive.  He began talking bad about us, and when I attempted to defend our people, he offerd to drive me out. Sobered him several times by asking what a Christians place was. He asked why I could not stay at home in my own land. Because, said I, the Lord has called me to preach the gospel to the inhabitants of this land. Begged me not to preach in his district, which would not promise; though told him shouldn’t think he needed to be afraid of much damage being done to his flock in 2 or 3 days.

We mainly hitched on polygamy, and baptism for babes. In discussing the former he abused me, in the later he begged me to say that the Savior had not forbidden sprinkling, etc; but to no purpose. He not being able to prove it from the scriptures. Could have been harder on him, but wanted some genealogy, so tried to be as easy as possible. However, found this much: that a common woman who has read the Bible a little, can beat that Priest in an argument on religion.