The thing about sitting on the back seat of a tandem bicycle is that it is objectively not equal to sitting in the front.
No matter how many times someone might say that sitting on the back seat of a tandem bicycle is equal to sitting in the front, that doesn’t change the fact that it is just not true.
Consider, for a moment, the most obvious unequal condition of sitting in the back: You. Can’t. Steer. All you can do is ask nicely for the driver to please consider going where you would like to go. If it is not too much an inconvenience for him that is. (Yes, it’s Him. It’s always gonna be a “Him”.) If the driver disagrees with your suggestion, he can just ignore you. He shouldn’t, but he could. And then there you are, along for the ride going somewhere you don’t really want to go but forced to pedal away just the same.
If the driver is a good man that understands the importance of using his privilege as the driver and understands he shouldn’t exercise unrighteous dominion as sole driver of the bike, he might ask sincerely where you want to go.
“Let’s go to Taco Bell!” the Back-Seat-Sitter says.
“What?” He might yell over the wind or honking cars. “What did you say? I can’t hear you because of the structural inefficiencies of this arrangement!”
“TO TACO BELL!” The Back-Seat-Sitter might yell back, desperate to be heard by the only person on this God-forsaken bike that can actually steer.
“What?!” The Priviledged-But-Trying Driver might yell back.
“TO TACO BELL! PLEASE STEER US TO TACO BELL.”
“Oh,” he might reply, exhausted at the effort something resembling an egalitarian partnership is taking on this miserable tandem bike.
What if she is the only one that knows where Taco Bell is? Wouldn’t it just be so much nicer for Back-Seat-Sitter to sit in the front for this and other jobs? This job that she (Yes, She. It’s always gonna be She) is more experienced or qualified or excited for? NO! Absolutely not. It is by divine design that she is in the back, pedaling in support of Driver who has no idea where he is going and is swerving dangerously into the road as he tries to use his GPS.
And what if the driver is just not interested in being the driver all the time. He dreams of the day when he can just sit back and enjoy the scenery and let Back-Seat-Sitter handle the logistics of getting to Taco Bell. His manly and strong legs seem well suited to being an exclusive pedaler. And oh? Hey! There’s a baby in a baby seat back here! The poor Driver rarely gets to see this cute baby because he’s always stuck in the front. Being the driver. Trying to provide for the family and lead and guide the group to the freaking Taco Bell. But he doesn’t know where he’s going and keeps swerving into the road trying to figure out his GPS. “Sure would be nice” the driver mutters to himself “to sit in the back sometimes so I could spend more time nurturing and caring for this baby.” But NO! Absolutely not! Not only is the back seat, by societal design, not sized correctly for the driver and his knees keep hitting the handle bars, but Back-Seat-Sitter is not given authority to do a lot of driver things. She doesn’t hold the keys of the driver-hood, so to speak.
The neighbors shake their heads disapprovingly as the Back-Seat-Sitter moves to the front, with plans to efficiently guide her family to Taco Bell and family sized nachos with expertise and passion. “It’s too bad she is so domineering and selfish. She doesn’t even love her child!” the neighbors say to each other. “And look! There’s the Jones family! They look happy in their assigned seats! Look how smoothly and righteously they are riding their tandem bike!”
“But I want to be in the back for a bit!” the Taco-Bell-bound Driver yells. “And I’m happy to take my turn up in the front!” the wayward Back-Seat-Sitter shouts. No one can hear them. Communication is hard on this hopeless bike.
She can’t “preside” on the tandem bicycle because her assigned complementary role, by divine design of course, is to sit in the back and just pedal and go along with whatever.
“But why?!” The two poor saps stuck on this gender-role-hellscape yell to the powers that be. “And what the heck does preside even mean, like…logistically!?” The powers that be have no good answer to that question.
To be sure, everyone makes it to Taco Bell and to Family Size Nachos when Driver is in the front and Back-Seat-Sitter in the back, but they are stressed and sweaty and their voices are hoarse from yelling directions. The baby is content but would love to see his Dad a little more often. Apparently there was a lovely view along the way but the back-seat-sitter couldn’t see over the taller and broader driver. They both could have seen the view if she were in front and he were in back. But oh well, she thinks. It’s my role to be back here. In the back. Pedaling behind the driver, not totally sure where the bike is going. For eternity.
Even though both riders are pedaling, this arrangement is not equal. This arrangement should not be the ideal. It’s inflexible and inefficient and both parties miss out on the benefits of the other seat.
A better system would be for each person to have their own bike, independently steerable and in the style of their choosing. Sometimes, She will lead when she knows the way, or happens to be pedaling faster that day, or just plain wants to lead the way. Sometimes, He will lead the way when he knows the way, or happens to be pedaling faster that day, or just plain wants to lead the way. They can take turns with the baby seat, to the baby’s delight. They can arrive at Taco Bell having both seen the lovely view, relaxed and happy.
That is the metaphor that would translate to an equal marriage. We do not have to force ourselves into tandem-bike roles.
This is one for the ages. A spot-on, deadly deconstruction of one of the most painful moments of GC. For what that’s worth. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Most useful pull-quote:
“She doesn’t hold the keys of the driverhood, so to speak.”
Favorite new descriptor:
“two poor saps stuck on this gender-role hellscape”
Thank you for writing this.
An apt analogy in ways the speaker did not intend. I can only assume that anyone who would hold up tandem bike riding as any sort of an ideal has either never rode a tandem bike or conversely has never rode a regular bike. And thus we see how such an analogy comes about.
Amen.
So the point of a metaphor is that it distills concepts and ideas. It is not a perfect match on every single point.
The riders aren’t glued to their seats.
On a bike ride, is there any reason, they can’t take turns, which is EXACTLY what happens in a healthy marriage.
Also, after an example like Taco Bell the next time the couple gets on the bike they would agree to a time-out, or stop, agreement. It’s an opportunity for them to get better and better at communicating, over time.
Our leaders are speaking to an international audience. I served a mission in a culture where often the men would work, and then drink away the paycheck, and be unable to work, and did absolutely nothing to help with the home or the children.
Getting men to invest in a marriage emotional and socially is not the default position in many cultures.
The gospel says, here’s the priesthood now get on that bike and pedal – don’t make her do all the work.
The essential point was harmonizing their efforts and energies.
It represents teamwork, and transportation.
It’s challenging to find a metaphor that stretches across world cultures, and economic statuses.
Each person having their own bike means they can go their own way and not coordinate effort and energy.
This tandem metaphor was focused on effort and energy, and sensing the need of both people.
Posts like this always make me wonder what kind of marriages the posters are stuck in, and why they think the vast majority of use are stuck in those.
Analogies are flawed, so we have to be careful about taking the analogy beyond what Sister Bingham intended. Sometimes, the trouble is understanding what the speaker intended, especially on a topic like this.
I expect that the idea of a tandem bike versus two single bikes was intended to represent unity in marriage. Interestingly, I am currently reading Intimacy & Desire by David Schnarch, where a tandem bike could probably easily represent emotional fusion. Two individual bikes could be analogous to his solid, flexible self where, sure you could ride off in your own directions, but you can also really choose to ride together towards a common goal/destination. Schnarch and Esther Perel and others often talk about the tension between “attachment/unity” and “separateness/individuality”. The tandem bike emphasizes the attachment/unity aspect of marriage and completely fails to represent the need for separateness/individuality.
The big question for me was whether it matters who is the captain and who is the stoker. I put my favorite search engine to work and found that tandem bikes are designed so that the larger/heavier/stronger person should be the captain. Of course, this fits very nicely into the typical complementarianism that Sr. Bingham was talking about. The problem I see with most discussion of complementarianism is that we never straight up address whether our complementarianism is rooted in a desire to truly combine individual strengths or whether they are rooted in gender stereotypes. If there is one thing I could ask Sr. Bingham to address in her talk, it would be the questions around gender stereotypes. Personally, I like the idea of complementarianism — my strengths coupled with my wife’s strengths. But are we required to align our strengths with gender stereotypes? Should a couple be able to decide that a wife/mother with greater earning potential should be the primary breadwinner? Should a couple be able to decide that a husband/father with significant experience in childcare can assume the role of stay-at-home-dad? I like complementarianism, but I don’t think it carries any credibility until we truly address the question of whether our complementarianism is rooted in gender stereotypes or in discovery of individual strengths/weaknesses.
This analogy is lacking and just plain wrong in so many ways. In the talk, the example of “teamwork” always involved the husband telling the wife what to do. If he wanted to turn a certain way, he told her to lean in a direction. If he wanted to go faster, he told her to pedal faster and give him more power. Then the culminating example of “unity” was that the wife had listened to and obeyed the husband’s commands so many times, that she could begin to predict what he would tell her to do. So they didn’t even need to verbally communicate anymore. She was so in sync with him that she could basically read his mind and do what he wanted her to do.
Never in this analogy did it go the other way. Never did the wife dictate to the husband. Never did he become so familiar with her requests that he performed them automatically. The only way unity was achieved in this example was by the wife not having independent desires from the husband and by her changing all her behavior to accommodate him and his desires. I mean, sure, I guess this is “unity,” but it certainly isn’t a partnership, let alone an equal one.
The analogy was specifically set up this way, where the husband decides and the wife falls in line, to showcase how presiding works in the family. Later Elder Oaks straight up said that the only way women can be the leaders of their families is if the husband is absent. So the husband always is the leader and decision maker. The objection to this type of content and analogy isn’t that the poster is stuck in a bad marriage without partnership. It’s the opposite where she understands what real equality looks like and sees no reflection of it in these messages. In my home, neither my husband nor I presides over the other. It’s absurd and wrong to impose a hierarchical relationship in a marriage.
This is so well put. Thank you!!
Love this! Thanks.
The analogy isn’t perfect, but not completely wrong either. I think the missing element is that sometime the husband takes the lead role and sometimes the wife does, depending on who is more apt or interested in that area of responsibility. Regardless of who is leading in any given moment, it is the other’s responsibility to provide support as needed so that both reach the desired goal.
She said the cyclists “took turns leading,” but she probably should have discussed a little more what that means both in terms of the cyclists and in terms of the intended metaphor.
Way late and seldom lurk here but…
Perhaps some people want a tandem bike marriage. There are other options, both in marriage and in recreational transportation. I would like to suggest another metaphor as the second of many additional metaphors- The canoe.
Most of my extensive experience in a canoe is courtesy of the BSA, in a large rowdy non-LDS troop, spanning 3 high adventures of ~10 days and ~100 miles each along with dozens of shorter weekend trips. At the most basic level, the person in front provides power and the person in back steers. But with increasing skill, both can make the other persons job easier. Working together always makes the canoe go faster, if that is your goal. Having the lighter person in front creates less drag, but may not outweigh other factors.
In my perspective, the goal of canoeing is to build character in rowdy boys. That requires getting wet and falling (being thrown) out and dumping the canoe over, etc. Unless over-supervised (or even if), they will do it to themselves. But I say, why not help the process along? This then requires more advanced skills and cooperation. Life-jackets and unsinkable canoes become a must. Oddly, father and son pairs in a canoe rarely work very well, in my experience. Except my son and I won every race and dunking contest, so having us together was not tolerated for very long. One can paddle a canoe for 2 alone, but they must sit on the front see backwards and propel the canoe in the opposite direction it was designed to go. Hard but not impossible. (Single parent). If a canoe loaded with gear tips over in deep water, it is close to impossible to turn it back up alone. But if a “buddy canoe” is along it can be turned back over using a T-bone rescue. This is similar to the influence of good friends and family.
White water canoeing with two is a whole other level. It requires quickness, almost instinct, luck, and the danger level is pretty high. As much from head injuries as drowning. Helmets are a good idea. I am so unreliable at steering that I can make a grade 2 rapid into a grade 3 rapid. I have been thrown into rapids and covered with bruises in seconds. One time I tried to take a 2 man canoe backwards alone down a grade 3 rapid backwards by accident (the damned 120 lb troop dog was my buddy up font and he jumped out early, flipping me around). The canoe was broken and I am still raddled from the experience 10 years later. Some marriages are like that.
It was the last day of my most challenging high adventure (Northern Tier in Minnesota-Canada). One of our scouts spiked a fever on a cold, windy and rainy morning. He was our biggest (240 lbs) and strongest boy. We were exhausted and a hard-day’s paddle (with several hard portages across land) away from help. Somebody screwed up the batteries in the emergency radio trying to set a fire the previous night. We had him lay down in the middle of the canoe wrapped in his and my son’s sleeping bags which would be in cold water. My son was put in front. His mother, the only other adult on the trip, was put in back and could steer as well as anyone. (No, we did not share a tent). That left 9 of us, 5 canoes and wet gear for 12. We towed one canoe empty, putting me with the 2 worst paddlers. (Like cheating on a spouse?)
This plan got the boy with a fever to the base camp 3 hours sooner than the rest of us. The only flaw was it left me with 1 deep leadership. (Some might say zero adult leadership). The scout mom went to the hospital with him where he was diagnosed with pneumonia and early meningitis. He did fine with whatever antibiotics they gave him. That’s life for ya and it remains the best trip ever for me, in spite of the problems.