How to Teach About Womanhood: The View from 1969

This instruction was given to teachers in the Seminaries and Institutes program in 1969 –

How to Teach About Womanhood

Albert L. Payne

The young man in the flower shop was tall, clean-cut, and definitely masculine. As he waited, he shifted from one foot to the other; and when the flowers were shown for his approval, he hesitated as he considered what should be written on the card. The clerk, impatient and anxious to have the matter settled, offered several suggestions: “With love,” “Lovingly,” or “Affectionately.” The boy quietly declined each suggestion, and at last his decision was made. “Please write, ‘Happy Valentine,’” he said.

A capable young secretary told her employer she was going to resign her position in order to accompany her husband to live on a ranch. Although her husband had nearly completed his education for a professional life, he had decided to return to his boyhood dreams. When asked her feelings respecting this development, the young wife said that she and her husband had been considering this change for some time, and she had decided that whatever would make her husband happy, wherever it would be, would also make her happy.

These two experiences are deeply revealing of the attitudes these young people had about other people, and one may well contemplate the origin of such commendable attitudes. What kind of training or experience prompted the young man to send flowers to a girl friend? What caused the wife to think her happiness depended on the happiness of her husband? And, more importantly, how can adults influence the development of these attitudes?

The teachings of the gospel have helped us understand the eternal nature and worth of people, but as human beings we have not always been able to transfer this knowledge into meaningful attitudes and actions. We have tried various methods of teaching, but we have learned that some of these methods are not effective.

Careless drivers, for example, usually do not become careful, considerate, and defensive even though they may see a movie depicting the dangers of improper driving. Chastity is not necessarily the product of a lecture by a doctor nor even of a series of lessons in Sunday School, seminary, or MIA. Young people may not catch a vision of any ideal from an isolated lesson or lessons. Attitudes are so deep-seated and interrelated that teaching them becomes a complicated and lengthy process.

A youth who think of giving flowers to a girl friend is likely to be considerate and thoughtful of women under other circumstances. One may also safely assume that he knows that women feel and think differently about some things than he does. One would suspect that he is the kind of driver who adheres to the rules of the road, the kind of pedestrian who walks on sidewalks instead of lawns, the kind of friend who is courteous and inoffensive in his personal relationships with people, and that he did not learn any of these things in single lessons or experiences.

One might also conclude that wives who are considerate of the desires and feelings of their husbands and have the courage and love necessary to yield their plans learned to be understanding and considerate of the feelings of other people long before they were married.

How can adults teach ideals and attitudes that will result in superior behavior by young men and young women with respect to the ideals of womanhood? First, one must relate this ideal to many other things; and second, one must provide direct learning experiences.

Attitudes about womanhood begin with the first experiences of life. As a girl grows up, she finds it easier to think of herself as womanly if her experiences are feminine.

Girls who can knit, crochet, sew, arrange flowers and furniture, and who dress in dainty things; girls who know the refining influence of good music and literature; girls who see the art of motherhood exhibited in their homes – these are the girls who have, in all probability, grown to feel feminine and therefore want to act and be treated as ladies. When girls have been made conscious of beauty, harmony, and propriety, and see the potential of incorporating these qualities int heir own lives, they will, for example, dress in clothing that tends to be beautiful, modest, and appropriate rather than simply faddish. Such girls gradually begin to feel something of the glory of refined womanhood.

When young men are rough, thoughtless, and selfish – apparently thinking the world owes them something – one may be led to believe they may also think that women are created for their personal pleasure. Such an attitude cannot be changed by a lesson on womanhood. A boy who thinks he is the center of a universe created to please and serve him usually has difficulty imagining that he should sacrifice and serve other people.

A boy who does not care if he hurts or offends others has difficulty accepting the rules of etiquette. A boy who is insensitive to moral values has difficulty understanding the place of ideals of any sort in life. If boys have not been taught to have pride – in themselves, in the appearance of their homes and yards, in the care of their clothing, and in the impression they make on others – they will be less likely to respond to lessons intended to change attitudes about womanhood. If, therefore, we are to teach them the ideals of womanhood, we must begin by teaching many other things.

Teaching this ideal is not easy. It is helpful if boys have already learned to take pride in what they do – pride in such things as the way they mow lawns, pass the sacrament, do schoolwork, and participate in hobbies. They should also have learned to be conscious of their appearance and the impression they make, genuinely grateful for things they receive, and considerate of the needs and wishes of others. In other words, it is almost impossible to teach young men about the ideals of womanhood if they are weak and selfish and have not already learned something of obedience to standards, consideration of others, and the place of cultural things in life.

Young men and women must acquire a sense of their own worth and the worth of others, and they must accept a high and noble purpose in life, if they are to be receptive to teachings about the ideals of womanhood. They must learn self-discipline by being required to do things well, and to say no to temptation. They must learn something of the worth of people through giving service graciously and effectively. They must learn about self-respect and the feeling of personal dignity and decency through practicing self-control. These things together form a foundation upon which teachers may build concepts and feelings about womanhood that are appropriate and meaningful to young people.

The ideal of womanhood is based on self-respect. Since it is an ideal, we can find only imperfect examples; but it is believed that both sexes want women to be the personification of delicate, dainty, beautiful, feminine, gentle, loving, and spiritual elements of life.

Men who accept this kind of an ideal do not stop to ponder if the girl or woman approaching the door is worthy: they open the door for her because of their ideal. And women who accept this kind of ideal and try to live in harmony with it are disappointed when men treat them as if there were no differences between them and the roles each is meant to play.

The second part of the task of teaching the ideal of womanhood is to provide immediate learning experiences. These may be through observation or action, but if the experiences are to be effective, they must be directly applicable to the age of the students.

Young people need to have models that they can see and hear. If they are fortunate, they have examples at home and have already learned that womanhood is glorious and worthy of respect. If home models are not good, young people should have others pointed out in the ward or branch. In either case, the model is adult, and young people will need to learn how to adapt what they observe and hear to their own situation. They should also be given an opportunity to act out this ideal. This may be done at the time of teaching lessons on womanhood or on such social graces as courtesy, propriety, and etiquette. During and as a part of these lessons, enough role playing should take place to give a feeling of doing things graciously and properly. Following the lessons, there should be enough review to encourage application in the students’ lives.

Finally, young people should not only be taught the ideal of womanhood by precept and example, but they should also be made aware of its relationship to other important values in their lives. They should know the disadvantages to them, personally, if the ideal is lost.

Cite Keepa

Regrettably, meanies have stolen content from Keepa in the past! I'm confident you will choose honesty and cite this page like this:

MLA: Parshall, Ardis E. "How to Teach About Womanhood: The View from 1969." Keepapitchin.org, 26 May 2017, https://keepapitchinin.org/2017/05/26/how-to-teach-about-womanhood-the-view-from-1969/.

APA: Parshall, A. (2017, May 26). How to Teach About Womanhood: The View from 1969. Keepapitchinin.org. https://keepapitchinin.org/2017/05/26/how-to-teach-about-womanhood-the-view-from-1969/

HTML: <a target="_new" href="https://keepapitchinin.org/2017/05/26/how-to-teach-about-womanhood-the-view-from-1969/">How to Teach About Womanhood: The View from 1969</a>

7 thoughts on “How to Teach About Womanhood: The View from 1969”

  1. About Albert L. Payne, from his obituary: “Albert L. Payne passed away on May 27, 2003, of causes incident to age. Albert was born September 1, 1913 in Mesa, Az to Edward and Rozalia Payne. He married Sylvia Young January 20, 1939 in the Salt Lake Temple. He taught school in Duschesne and Granite school districts and was then employed by the Church Education System for the remainder of his professional career. His assignments included teaching seminary and serving at the Salt Lake Institute of Religion. He was also a contributing editor for “The Improvement Era,” and wrote four institute manuals, ending his career as Editor for the Department of Seminaries and Institutes. … Albert served seven years on the first Church Correlation Committee for youth, in two L.D.S. bishoprics as counselor and as a bishop in Provo, on the High Council, President of the Stake Seventies Quorum, and in the Stake Mission Presidency. …”

  2. “The young man in the flower shop was tall, clean-cut, and definitely masculine.”

    I love these blatant assertions of manliness you find throughout this time period: not a whiff of effeminacy here, nope!

    And the contrast between these two passages, which apparently describe ways of inculcating the same virtues, is so interesting:

    “When girls have been made conscious of beauty, harmony, and propriety, and see the potential of incorporating these qualities int heir own lives, they will, for example, dress in clothing that tends to be beautiful, modest, and appropriate rather than simply faddish.”

    “If boys have not been taught to have pride – in themselves, in the appearance of their homes and yards, in the care of their clothing, and in the impression they make on others – they will be less likely to respond to lessons intended to change attitudes about womanhood.”

    Women are taught appreciation and contemplation to learn self-respect and modesty; men are taught pride. Why not teach men about beauty and harmony, or help women feel pride?

  3. I’m sorry but I couldn’t get past this:

    “she had decided that whatever would make her husband happy, wherever it would be, would also make her happy.”

    My wife/partner was born in 1960. There is no way in heck she would have such an attitude by the time we were married in 1980. (yes, we were young). And I wouldn’t want such a partner. Yes, we have both compromised (not a dirty word) and worked out differences. But any major life change such as where we would live could only be by mutual agreement after much discussion and thought.

  4. Grant- that line stuck out to me too. Today it’s called “co-dependency” and it’s not a good thing to hand over control of your happiness to someone else.

    MH-When I read “clean-cut and definitely masculine,” I did a double take on the dateline. Yep, 1969. IIRC, that’s about when BYU codified the ban on facial hair and long hair for men. Ideals, you know.

    And Pres. Benson would probably insist that “pride” be replaced with “self-respect.”

    In all, a fascinating look into my parents/grandparents generation.

  5. I agree that this is a great insight into the world my grandparents raised my parents in.

  6. Thanks, Ardis, for this glimpse into the past. I appreciate the sincerity of fellow saints in different periods of our history.

  7. So, men act, and women yield? Not surprising for the church in 1969, I guess. There were a couple things that caught me by surprise, though.

    Like TOClark noted, “pride” was surprising. I think we’re less scared of the positive meanings of the word than we used to be, but my own seminary teachers in the ’90s would never have dreamed of telling us to take pride in our work.

    Also, I was surprised by how American it all is. I had to double check whether seminary was just for Americans in places with full-time instructors in 1969. I learned that by 1964, we had early morning seminary in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Finland, Germany, Japan, and Panama. I don’t know if walking on sidewalks instead of on lawns is a virtue in all those places. Do they even have lawns in Japan? I guess we were still new to thinking of the church as a worldwide thing in 1969.

Comments are closed.