Sisters and Brothers
On the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' website, the Church sorts out General Conference talks by topic.
Since the 1980s, there have been 99 talks given on the topic of “women,” from Russel M. Nelson’s “Lessons from Eve,” to Henry B. Eyring’s “Sisters in Zion.” Inexplicably, the topic “womanhood” has only three talks, which were all given at the October conference in 2005. There is no clear distinction between what makes a talk about “womanhood” instead of about “women." Maybe the three brethren who spoke on womanhood were given that theme to speak on, maybe whoever uploads new talks to the topics page is bad at their job, I really don’t know.
For young women, there are 38 talks, my favorite of which is “Fat-Free Feasting.”
There isn't, however, a topic for “men.” There isn’t one for “manhood.” And there's not one for “young men.”
There is a topic for “sisterhood” and one for “brotherhood," But I was let down when I realized that although every sisterhood talk was given during a women-only session, only one-fifth of the brotherhood talks were intended for men specifically. Priesthood is another topic that, while it could be seen more as “male” centered, is filled with talks addressed to everyone.
Why are talks on "male" topics fit for general audiences, while women have to receive their messages separately?
When men are treated as the default, it strikes a blow to the idea that gender is binary. Instead, it tells us that men are people, and women are their wives.
All the same, using only the talks that were given in the segregated sessions, I found some interesting takeaways on what “brotherhood” and “sisterhood” mean in the Church.
Brotherhood is helping the unemployed in your quorum find employment. It means turning an old barn into a repair shop. It means taking supplies to pioneers crossing the plains. It means leaving no man behind in battle. It means succumbing to bullet wounds after rescuing your comrades from the same fate. It means being able to see the spiritual wounds of your brethren with your x-ray priesthood eyes. It means not waiting for someone to ask for help. It means treating every person as your neighbor, and every neighbor as your brother. It means lifting others up. It means showing mercy. It means growing together like a tree with few branches. It means laboring in the service of people you may never meet. It means doing temple work for people who cannot do their own. It means strengthening your brethren who lack your spirituality. It means learning to see all men as sons of God. It means proselytizing.
Sisterhood is gathering together in one place. It is knowing that we are different, but acknowledging that we have a fundamental similarity. It is an unbreakable bond. It is caring for each other, watching out for each other, comforting each other, and being there for each other. It means being part of something organized by men, and then given to women, or maybe even organized by women, it depends who you ask. It means not judging someone else’s exercise habits. It means having compassion for ourselves and others. It means rejoicing in our differences. It transcends age, this is mentioned in half of the talks. It means understanding the love of the savior through each other's love. It means making casseroles for each other. It’s acknowledging that women naturally seek friendship, support, and companionship. It means putting lotion on someone else. It means bonding with other pregnant women. It means sharing wisdom with the younger generation. It means sharing your faith. It means giving hugs. It means seeing every sister as a different flower in the garden of the Lord. It means letting others help you. It means becoming one. It is power through community. It is delivering babies, caring for the sick, and praying for inspiration.
What’s the point of dividing along seemingly arbitrary lines? Is it not good, charitable, and Christlike for a man to make a meal for someone as an act of service? Should women refrain from helping others in a job search? I don’t think the Church would ever say it like that, and yet, when it comes down to it, that’s the lesson that’s taught.
The Church buys heavily into the idea of gender roles, as a consequence of the belief that gender is eternal, but am I supposed to come away from conference thinking that the willingness to die for someone else is an eternally masculine trait? Some of the “gendered” actions, like giving hugs, could be explained away as a representation of the eternal female trait of compassion even though that requires you to think that compassion is limited to women in some way. But what eternal thing can be compared to giving up your life? What will men do once they’re immortal to prove their masculinity?
If these differences that the Church teaches, implicitly and explicitly, are not eternal, then to teach them so pervasively is either an error, or it is an attempt to separate men and women further. If the traits aren’t eternal, then they aren’t inherent. If they aren’t inherent, then they have been taught.
A member in my ward was upset the first time she heard about a school teaching “gender studies” because she didn’t think that children should be “exposed” to that sort of thing. I asked her what exactly she thought was taught in young men and young women classes every third hour on Sundays. For some reason, she didn’t like me saying that. I suppose people don’t appreciate the idea that the Church is indoctrinating their children with gender studies, or that gender performance isn’t a natural phenomenon.
I doubt that it is a surprise to anyone that when the Church speaks on brotherhood and sisterhood, the boys get war stories and the girls get flower metaphors. But reading through these talks, I’ve found a much more interesting lesson hiding in the subtext.
Brotherhood, for the most part, is about being the hero. It means being in a position where you have the power to help others and using that power to forge a bond with those who need your help, who need to be lifted up by you. Sisterhood, on the other hand, is about joining in a community where you all play a part and garnering power through your bonds with others.
Brotherhood is empowered, sisterhood is empowering.
That is to say, in the Church, brotherhood is taught from the perspective that you are in the position to help others. The one time that men who are in need are addressed in these brotherhood talks, they're told that they're responsible for themselves, even when it comes to asking for help.
This whole idea of men as the hero in the brotherhood narrative of the Church can quickly become a problem. First, it teaches young men that they have to be the strong one, the reliable one, the sacrificial one. That is a lot of responsibility for someone to bear, and it reinforces this idea of not being weak or vulnerable in any way. Secondly, it can isolate men from one of the main virtues of brotherhood which is community, and the intimacy and solace found in community.
This relationship-oriented version of brotherhood is available in the Church’s narrative for women in sisterhood, which I think is in general, more healthy. However, the collectivist, community-based sisterhood can also erase individual identities and agency in a way that brotherhood does not. Brotherhood is much more of a meritocracy, where your ability to help others earns you a spot, regardless of anything else. In sisterhood, the currency is kindness and the ability to get along and match the average sentiment of the group.
These underlying lessons in General Conference and Church rhetoric are not things that I think will be going away anytime soon. However, we can all make a more concerted effort to recognize these messages, and not just internalize them.