What does equality for women in the LDS church look like?

Does this mean at a fireside I attended last night when the 70 opened it up for questions and answers he should of cut it off after 4 women asked questions and only 2 men and said I am only going to take the next 2 questions from men until we have an equal number of questions from both the men and the women? Or…Would it still be considered equal when he answered next two women’s questions without taking a question from the men because he saw their hands first?

Shouldn’t YW get the same budget as scouting? Or is the implication that RS would administer over YW?

Does this mean a straw man argument?

Good question.

I’m really curious why people react to this particular line of thought with either: “that is so dumb” or “that is so obvious” rather than anything else.

Btw, here is the Facebook thread with a comment from a focus group member:

Erik– that is a good question. Obviously the original author didn’t think it through completely.

Elsie– good point about the difference between equity/fairness and other concepts.

Mark– good question. Have you ever been in a mixed group church where women got to ask more than 20% of the questions? That would be fascinating to see.

Happy Hubby — excellent that local practice doesn’t necessarily follow church headquarters.

I agree with Q. Without addressing inherent inequalities in our understanding of gender at the doctrinal level, these will be meaningless surface gestures. So my gut reaction is more along the lines of “This is stupid” because the problem is deeper than just how many men versus women are sitting at the table.

I was in a situation a couple nights ago where we had an equal amount of men and women sitting at the table. A woman was conducting. An older guy and I (we have equivalent callings in different wards) were having a disagreement and he dismissed my argument in part because of church authority issues. There’s more to equality than just visible numbers.

Re: the E. Holland focus group quote: gag. “General Authorities, we’re a dime a dozen – when I die, they’ll roll me over and call someone new. But these women are volunteers, and they’re overworked as it is. Perhaps we should have called them to boards sooner, but we were hesitant to add their already overflowing plates.” –this is the definition of pedestalization. To avoid overburdening women, maybe they could call a few more than THREE to spread the load.

I like the suggestions in your list, but there are so many more needed for true systemic change and equality. For starters, there needs to be hierarchical authority of the women’s organizations: the RS Gen Pres needs to have authority over a group of female…70’s? or equivalent who need to have authority over stake RS pres who need to have authority over ward RS Pres. The way it is now, there is no continuity of authority: the bishop is over the ward RS pres, and the SP is over the Stake RS pres.

For women to be seen as equals, they need to be given authority over men as well, not just over other women/children. A woman should give a talk in the priesthood session of conference, just as a man speaks in the women’s session. We should have approximately equal talks in general conference and stake conference and high council sundays and sacrament meetings by men vs. women.

Women should be able to preside over/conduct their own meetings.

Women should be addressed by appropriate titles (e.g. “President”).

Women should be able to conduct or at least sit in on worthiness interviews of YW or RS sisters.

Women should be able to serve as witnesses, as Sunday School presidents and ward clerks and ward mission leaders.

The covenants women and men make in the temple should have parity. Women should be permitted to pray in the ceremony and to check recommends.

Women should be encouraged to follow their own life/career path, not feel forced to fit into narrow gender roles.

Women should be able to give blessings to their children and others as they were once able to.

Women should participate in the decision making process (not just the input-giving process) on every level.

The rhetoric around modesty, body shaming, and sexual gate-keeping should be changed to reflect that both women and men experience desire/pleasure and all are accountable for their own thoughts and actions regardless of how someone else is dressed.

Bishops will be trained in how to deal with victims of abuse (disproportionately women/children) and how to avoid/recognize victim-blaming.

Oh my gosh I have so many more, but I’ll stop for now.

Q– I like the thought that somethings look like concessions or pandering and not equality because of basic structures. Especially when there was early debate over those points that was resolved not by revelation but by a basic appeal to the bottom line belief that women were inferior.

If we embrace equality then perhaps that discussion should be revisited.

Oh I’m so with ElleK on that Elder Holland quote. I barely know where to begin with all the problems it represents…
How about …
Are the men not also volunteers?
What is it that’s making the women so busy?
Wouldn’t the men also be busy otherwise?
And yes… the numbers… more than 3 would be a great idea!!!!!

I differ with ElleK on some of the other stuff though. I don’t think separation helps. Whilst we’re stuck with separate organisations for men and women then I do feel very much that the General RS / YW presidencies boards seem to be consistently undermined by the male GA’s (see my post on the European Women’s conference, which mentions this). It urks me no end that in both the sisters’ conference session and the general sessions the women are not mentioned by name, when many of the men are; this is particularly egregious in the sister’s session! I’d really like to see a mix of men and women working together on all issues. I’m not saying it has to be 50:50; but until it becomes the norm for men and women to work together as people first in a church setting (rather than men or women first) then the numbers will need to be looked at!

For myself– I think analyzing the proposed changes doesn’t get us very far as I don’t see them connecting — I do not get the sense that proposals circulating on the outside get any interest v

On the other side I do think we can learn a lot by how people react to such things and why they have the reaction they have.

I’ve learned more from the reactions than I ever did from the proposal.

I’m curious what other readers think –and why– as well.

That’s not to say that other changes wouldn’t be welcome or good. I just think we need a foundational shift in how we see each other.

I think Ruth is right. We need a foundational shift. In fact, we need several:

1. Recognize that the temple teaches that women are inferior and change that language. The endowment ceremony has been used since the beginning as a reason to subjugate women.

2. Stop making women responsible for men’s sexual behavior. “Modesty” as currently taught (still, in the 21st century!) focuses almost solely on women. From YW lessons on dress, covering one’s self, etc., to the pedestalizing of women’s “virtue” to the incredibly damaging and wrong things the Miracle of Forgiveness says about sexuality in general and sexual assault in particular, we’ve simply got to stop. We should also lighten up about sex in general, btw, but I don’t want to threadjack here.

3 . Give women the priesthood. The way we prevaricate about “oh, women have the priesthood in equal partnership through marriage” is simply absurd. Women cannot give blessings, cannot bless and pass the sacrament, cannot, in fact, ever share equally in leadership positions. And the defenses of denying women the priesthood take such tortuous twists of logic that it would be incredibly amusing were it not for the fact that the priesthood is still used to keep women in a subordinate position. (see Rob Osborn’s post above for a good example of this)

4. Stop using motherhood and the notion that women are “naturally” more spiritual and nurturing than men to keep women in a subordinate position. This would also require repudiating the Proclamation on the Family. That document has done more to keep women “in their place” than anything else the church has done for a long time. We really need to lose the rigid way we think about gender roles. What’s wrong with saying something like, “Hey, family is important and all parents should do all they can to care for and raise their children. It’s up to you to determine how best to do that.” Simple, to the point, and it keeps gender politics out of it.

Stephen Marsh, you’ve done some great posts lately. You’re on a roll.

I don’t understand why the women’s top leadership positions are unpaid. Is their time worth less than a paid General Authority? Is the work they do less valuable? Or is it because the women called to these positions are all married to wealthy men, and have not had to work or had professional experience? I agree with ElleK…I’m sure if they looked hard enough, they could find plenty of qualified women to share the load.

Rob,

You’ve unwittingly made the case for more women in church leadership through your reductive portrayal of the young women of this church. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Also, it’s my understanding that one of the General Primary Presidency members (prior to the most recent presidency) was released from her calling because her husband was being called as a mission president.

If that’s true, I can’t impress enough how disheartening that is as a female member of the church. Apparently general female leadership is steal beat out by local mission presidency?

*still

I agree that there will absolutely be no real equality in the church until we flesh out female exaltation. Pretty much every discussion of exaltation applies to men, and we as women just hope that we get the good stuff too. Our core doctrines are still centered around the idea that a man will become a God and a myriad of women will be his silent tools used to repopulate planets. We can deny this as much as we want, but all the revelation we’ve had on exaltation uses this idea as it’s basis.

Pete, from what I can tell none of the Auxiliary presidencies are paid: RS, SS, YW, YM, and Primary. It has more to do with the nature of the relationship between the Auxiliaries and the main Priesthood quorums rather than explicitly men versus women.

“Why is priesthood work compensable but not auxiliary leadership?”

For the same reason that only men can be seminary teachers in places like Utah where it is a paid position, but women can be seminary teachers everywhere else where it is volunteer work. It is ok if women work outside the home as long as they don’t get paid for it. As soon as they get paid for it, they are no longer financially dependent.

Mary Ann,

Sorry about the threadjack about priestcraft…not trying to pick a fight. Just trying to tease out the difference why administering ‘auxiliary’ programs is not compensable.

EBK, they finally changed the ridiculous rule about mothers of children under 18 not being eligible to be paid CES teachers (but could be employed as secretaries).
LDS women with children now eligible for full-time seminary, institute jobs

Stephen,

There was a couple. The first one was how was the prophet? I should say this was asked by a man on the first row who can 90 minutes before the meeting started so he could ask. Also the two women who raised there hands right after he did declined to ask a question ( am assuming they had the same question and that is why they did not ask a question when given the opportunity…not sure how to tally those who were given an opportunity but did not ask a question.) The answer is the Prophet comes to work every day. He conducts the meeting and actively takes part in their meetings on Thursday. One of his problems is he has diabetes and it is hard from him to walk.
The second question I remember was what countries do we not have missions. Long answer but he highlighted that we have a regular operating mission in Turkey and that we have missionary couples in some sort of capacity in most countries. Examples were North Korea where they are working on farming projects with on going discussion. Uzbekistan where we are helping them organize their records. He commented that we have 40+ missionaries from China proper though no active teaching missionaries.
There was a very technical question asked by a women wanting to understand why the data bases used for genealogy gave so many false positives and why some of the corrections made in the data base did not stay. The 70 did not know the answer. Two questions later he called on a person who explained the technical problem about data bases talking to each other and when the the problem would be resolved. But what would you expect when 20% of the people attending work in the high tech field.
There was a question about sealing ordinances and who is sealed to who. He answered it by answering the question the same way that an Apostle answered it when they were in the south pacific. He said we often look at our children and see them as being in our hut and worried about our hut. Sometimes we need to understand there is a larger hut we need to be concerned about and that is being in Heavenly Father’s Hut. The local Temple Matron and President offered to answer the question in more detail if they wanted to come to the temple.

There is more but I do not want to be side tracked from this conversation about equality.

If I apply what I am reading does this mean if I have 4 children and one needs braces for their teeth they should all get braces. If the first one gets braces for 24 months then the others should have them for 24 months weather they need them longer or shorter? Or do I go back to the first one and say you need to have them on another 6 months because one of the other children needs to have them on longer and I don’t want to treat you any different?

What do you think?

@Rob:

I hear what you’re saying. But what about that young woman when she becomes a young wife? And what happens to that wife when she becomes the victim of domestic violence and is forced to separate from her spouse? What if her husband dies or divorces her, flees and leaves her with six kids and doesn’t pay child support? Or what if they stay married and he succumbs to some devastating medical condition or permanent disability and can no longer work?

Traditional roles are all well and good until sh00p hits the fan.

Every young woman needs to have the skills (fresh job skills) to earn a *living* wage at any time just in case real life shows up and she is FORCED to become the primary breadwinner.

I speak from personal experience.

Just something to think about.

@Rob:

In regards to your comment about the church trying to keep women from being treated as sexual objects.

I’m an active 39 year old woman, divorced single mother, because of domestic violence issues that went unresolved several years ago. I hold an active temple recommend. I’m not ashamed of my body, my curves, my hair, my eyes or anything else about me that makes me feel “pretty.”

I can dress in a way that a “hooker” dresses and still come across very classy, with demeanor and grace by the way I hold myself. People only treat me like a “sex object” if I portray myself that way and allow others to treat me as such.

Women and young girls should not be feel to be punished or ashamed of our bodies just because the overall tone of the church makes you feel that normal healthy sexual feelings are bad.

I’m glad I was convert to the church and didn’t grow up in an oppressive culture. My active temple recommend holding boyfriend loves it when I dress myself up because I feel pretty and he definitely likes it when I portray my sexuality with class, grace and chastity.

Food for thought.

Rob — you need to rephrase your first sentence in comment #40: “Modesty in general is a girl problem more than a boy problem because of the way MEN have sexualized women as sex objects and created imodest clothing for women way more so than for men” [My change in caps]. When a man gets aroused looking at a woman it is his fault/problem/concern. Full stop. You can and should choose to look away, no matter what she is or isn’t wearing. Men are staring at women because they haven’t been told enough to STOP LOOKING! Instead, they hear that it is not their fault, that she should have changed her clothes. If he can’t handle what she is wearing, it is his issue. Blaming someone else is exactly what the parable of the mote in the eye is about, and it is one of the largest issues relating to gender equity in the Church [well, really the world].

If that becomes the norm in society (broken families) our society fails. Success in society relies heavily upon the traditional family to work and as such we should invest in that ideaology. Our society will fail if the general traditional family becones a minority.

I will just say this- I certainly am not going to let my daughter dress like a hooker and go out in public. Its not proper

Rob,

But following your logic you are devaluing the girls’ futures, especially considering that the boys would have increased training in college/vocational school/on the job training. This would be the only training for the girls if they get married right out of high school.

What if we kept the exact same funding for the boys and just elevated the girls funding to the same number? The scouting program is developed and successful. Shouldn’t we have something equal to that for the girls?

Or is the idea that they SHOULD be lopsided, regardless of the numbers, because that reinforces the importance of males over females?

Side note, my husband and I share nurturing and breadwinning responsibilities so neither feels overburdened. Not sure if that’s what you’re referring to by “broken families” but we’re doing pretty great!

One more thing, Rob.

When I moved to my current ward my VT told me our ward was exceptionally active. She said that in the past 10 years all but just a couple of boys have served missions. Also, there have been a number of teen pregnancies, and the ward really rallied around those girls!

I don’t think she saw the irony there. Perhaps that’s another result of lopsided ward budgets.

I’m mostly out of Internet service right now as I’m hiking with my wife on a vacation she suggested. The snow quit so the rain isn’t so bad.

Mark–I think that if you have a thousand kids and give those who need them braces, you will get about a 50/50 split in which sex of child gets braces.

If you aren’t getting that kind of split there is probably a bias.

So, not every child gets braces regardless but if they get an equal shot based on need you will get an equal distribution.

I’m surprised nobody is calling out how unequal Stephen’s vision of equality is. I’ve had it explained to me that separate is not, and cannot, ever be equal. You cannot have separate but equal schools, for example. It’s apparently a fundamental principle of equality. If two things are truly equal, they’re interchangeable. Accordingly, you wouldn’t have separate meetings for men and women, or separate priesthoods. There would be no separate YM/YW budgets to equate. You’d have no issue with same-sex marriage, as any two partners would be equivalent. We wouldn’t even have the transgender bathroom issue because we wouldn’t have separate bathrooms.

Personally, I don’t feel men and women are the same. Although all human characteristics I can think of can be manifest by either sex, there exist bimodal statistical distributions based on sex for some of them. I also think there’s a beauty found in complementarity of the sexes that doesn’t exist in equality, so I’m not convinced equality, per se, is truly a worthy goal. I think separate YW/YM makes sense, for example. But if you accept they’re different, you’re accepting that men and women AREN’T equal. So the question isn’t whether things should be unequal, but how and in what ways things should be unequal, and it’s just a matter of opinion and personal preference vs. tradition.

I’ve been around the church blogs for a while, and there are a lot of people advocating equality. After all, how many things are there in our modern world in which men and women are not interchangeable? That’s why I’m wondering why these people haven’t spoken up. They can’t be satisfied with more women in leadership councils or an independent RS.

If our gospel is correct and the scriptures are generally correct, then the patriarchal order is an eternal principle where the male is the head of his family. I think what clouds our judgment in this debate is how we view equality from a worldly perspective instead of a godly perspective. Let me ask, in matters of “equal” importance, which is more important- presiding in a meeting, or carrying the seed of God in ones womb so that Gods works continue? I think from a godly perspective this whole “presiding” issue disappears and “equality” is more viewed as the husband/ wife working together as “one” in complete full support of each others equally important roles of bringing to pass Gods work and glory. In worldly views, the world demands equality between man and woman in all things including usurping man and women roles by the opposite gender and creating gender confusion and a lack of importance on the family.

I think the various solutions/adjustments that people suggest try to address the issue in quite different ways and thus have very different impacts. I recently came across an image that seems applicable.

http://www.liveninegag.com/Media/ajAerM1

There are three images:

Image 1: People of different heights are given the same size box/crate to stand on in order to see over a fence with the result that still some of the people cannot see over the fence as they are still too short — Equal Treatment

Seems like this image reflects solutions like giving equal budgets to YM and YW ar having equal numbers of women and men speak in sacrament meeting.

Image 2: People of different heights are given different sizes of boxes/crates to stand on in order to see over a fence with the result that all the people can now see over the fence – Equitable Treatment

Seems like solutions focused on increased leadership development among women may fit here – an extra help to overcome long-standing barriers to participation.

Image 3: The fence is removed and people of different heights can all see ahead – Removing Systematic Barriers

Seems like EBK’s “fleshing out female exaltation” fits here.

So. They rebooted the wifi.

Mary Ann, that is an interesting analysis.

Maybe, I’m curious more about what is wrong with the post rather than what is right.

Martin–so, when you say not equal, what do you mean by that?

It is almost 3:00 here. I’m hoping that lunch will be available soon. 🙂

I apologize for commenting so much. I think it’s an interesting conversation.

Stephen, the more I ponder your question, the more difficult time I have answering it. I’m a feminist, but for me true equality isn’t really the end goal. I think Martin makes some incorrect assumptions and generalizations about feminists, but I think he’s right when he says that he’s “not convinced that equality, per se, is truly a worthy goal.” For example, I don’t advocate for equality to the extent we have a female prophet and a male prophet. Or even female ordination. I understand some feminists feel differently however.

For me a more worthwhile question is “How can we better incorporate women’s voices into our leadership?” For me, the answer would involve more meaningful administrative input by women, with real power to make changes. Or “How can we better support women in their sacred spaces?” To me this looks like women having control over the handbooks and curriculum they use in RS. “How can we help our young women feel more valued and supported during their development” would include equitable budgets and a more developed YWs program. And of course, one that is most important to me, “How can we better understand women’s divine role?” The temple is very difficult for some of us. The only way I envision an answer to this question is by our male leadership actively seeking further light and knowledge.

I realize too that these questions are of importance to myself, but may not be important to other women. Many women (such as those who frequent the MWS blog), may see the current place of women in the church as ideal.

Stephen,
The two comments were not strawmen. Simply to display that no matter how one cuts the budget or calls on people in class or reimburse people or…there is going to be someone who believes it is not equitable. As you pointed out if you have 1,000 kids you’ll get a 50/50 split or close enough that the difference is not meaningful. I would like to add to your numerical increase a longer time line. If both are added many of the problems become mute even if in the short run it does not seem that way.

So why the “Well duh” or “I’ve never”. I think it is a problem of looking at too small of a sample size or two short of a time frame.

So here is the question from Sunday Night fireside with the 70. He was asked why the church allows 12 year olds to get on the internet and mess up their genealogy? (Okay I have shortened up the question but everyone can get the idea.)
Here is his answer. Before the 60’s if you went to the temple you had to bring your own names. The church decided to help increase temple attendance to do name extraction. No longer were you required to bring your own names to the temple which had been approved by SLC. More names were taken through the temple and temple attendance did go up. However this created a welfare state with the majority of the names provided by the church and not the individual members. The infrastructure and change which has been pushed over the last few years, although not perfect, is seen as an improvement and as placing the responsibility back on the members. (One of the Family History Consultants was asked to work with the person so she could understand how to better document her family tree.) I am not sure the question would have even been asked if a longer perspective or a larger sample size was used.

Here is the tie in. There are many things I hope would change when I was 14 and worked on my family genealogy. Some of those things have happened in the last five years. There are other things I would hope would happen. But until those things do happen or if they never happen I believe God has the ability to concentrate all my affliction for good and that makes life something more than miserable.

>Rob This is what “Men will be providers and need education and women will stay at home and so don’t need education” looks like

I used to run a day home out of my home (so that I could be a good mormon wife and stay at home while my husband worked/went to school).

It looks like the one woman I used to work for. Her husband left her and her five children; just walked away and never came back. She was stuck with the mortgage, five children and no education. She had bought into the whole “men will provide thing” so much that she had never even obtained a driver’s license and now had to figure out how to feed 6 people with a high school education and no car in a city with horrendous public transit.

It looks like another woman I used to work for. She worked entry level jobs and was stuck with two kids and a husband who beat her and treated her like garbage. She couldn’t leave because she couldn’t feed the kids without his income. She knew she was stuck and was terrified that one day he would kill her.

Just in case you want to argue this is all because men are not living up to their responsibilities, it also looks like my mom. When I was 12 she went back to work as a secretary to put my dad through school. My dad had worked hard labour on the docks all my life. It was good money, but his body was breaking down and it was go to back to school or be permanently crippled. Four children at home while paying university fees does not leave any wiggle room while living on secretary wages.

And it looks like me, as apparently I am a slow learner. I graduated RN six months after getting married, but rather then work as an RN, since I also graduated pregnant, I ran a day home during the day and taught piano in the evening.This way I could help put my husband through the next six years of his education while being the aforementioned good mormon stay at home wife. Fast forward several years to the economy tanking. My husband’s factory decided that it would try to preserve as many jobs as possible and instead of firing people it would slow down. So, first a year on 3/4 time. We tightened up the budget. Another year on 3/4 time. We trim a little tighter. Then the next year was 1/2 time. Him quitting was not an option as there were no other jobs to go to. As we watched our food storage disappear (yup, we drank powdered milk and survived to tell the tale, for those who are curious) we made the decision for me to work for real money. We took the last little bit of our savings, I pounded through a six month training program and I now make 2/3rd the money I would make as an entry level RN and 1/3 of the money I would make as an experienced RN (my certificate having expired years ago) but 4 times the money I made as a babysitter.

One thing we never cut completely in all those lean years of powered milk and home ground flour and cloth diapers was my children’s RESP. It may have only been a little money put away but my daughters and my son will all get an education. This money is sacred. It was sacrificed for. My sweat and tears have gone into it and it is holy to me.

How much better it is for women to do honourable, respectable, well paying work and to already have the skills and education in place so when there is a need it is already there. Instead, we teach our girls that “men will provide” and those who believe it are left scrambling when things go sideways to get skills and education after the fact. When the tornado is bearing down on you is not the time to be digging the storm shelter, but that is what so many women end up doing.

Yeah… so I was being facetious with that divine role of son. A woman’s worth in a patriarchal society is determined by the status of the closest male in her life – father, husband, son, etc. Think of how many mothers of prophets and wives of prophets we revere for their accomplishments as… wives and mothers of prophets. Typically men are revered not in their roles as husbands and fathers, but in accomplishments outside the domestic sphere.

Young men do not need to focus on their roles as sons because in a patriarchal society they have intrinsic worth, without relying on relationships to another man for identity. The role of a son is less important because they are valued more for becoming the head of their own family. In a patriarchal society, a woman has less control over establishing her own family. For many women, the role of a daughter needs to be enough to establish an identity and purpose.

Think about it this way – would we ever have young men stand up and say, “We are sons of a Heavenly Mother, and we love Her.”? Probably not. Our relationship to the Father is paramount.

By the term “traditional family”, people usually mean family as portrayed on TV in the post WWII 1950’s era. That narrow era of time has nothing to do with the the longer tradition of women bringing real skills into a marriage. They knew how to run a household, they managed accounts, they managed the hired help, they managed all the fiber and cloth and clothing production. They raised fowl, small stock, huge gardens. They ran businesses that sustained households. They ran everything when their husbands traveled for business or war.

Since WWll, we have had huge changes in home mechanization. Clothing is no longer washed by hand. Other electrical devices have taken servants out of the average home. Traditionally, food was sugared, salted, brined, or dried to preserve. It wasn’t until the mid 1800’s that canning came about for the military. Germ theory followed in the 1860’s. By the 1930-40’s home canning are a huge thing, and refrigerators and freezers were replacing ice boxes. Suddenly, a family wasn’t facing literal starvation if there wasn’t a wife making sure food was set aside properly for winter and famine.

I bring these things up because the role of women has changed drastically. Technology has changed how men and women work. Society has adjusted to the changes in how men work. Unfortunately, religious tradition is trying to keep women home. There isn’t enough in a home for a woman to do. The post WWll LDS answer was to suggest that families be bigger. Huge families are not an easy fit in modern society. LDS tradition is telling women to stay home in their traditional roles, but those roles are gone. They no longer exist. It is time to let women find their new roles within the industrialized world.

YM and YW budgets should be equal. Both YM and YW need to learn real life skills. Currently, the LDS youth program diminishes YW. Their time is spent in activities that lack substance. There are too many activities spent on manicure and crafts. The YW are taught through that treatment that they have no value other than as uterus. That is wrong.

YW need to know household finances, investing, budgets, home repairs, first aid, cooking, sewing, and car repairs. In a very traditional home in which the husband works and the wife is home, she handles EVERYTHING in that household. I was grateful to know how to install a garbage disposal, hang a ceiling fan, built a fence, hang a gate, pull up the toilet, and retile the shower. My husband was working .. He didn’t have time. I was home. It made sense that I did those things.

Bluntly, YW is a pathetic program in its current state. It isn’t going to improve until leadership acknowledges that women’s traditional roles have changed just as men’s roles have changed and the leadership trusts women as individuals to make excellent decisions for themselves and their families.

While I don’t know that the initial comment is supportable I do know:

1). When it happens to over 50% it isn’t an edge case.
2). That more than 50% doesn’t deserve to be enslaved, thrust into poverty or to starve
3). That some may be able to construct short term examples of imbalance doesn’t mean that long term imbalances are justified.

So. One widow or abused woman starving? That is an outlier. That the majority will find themselves at risk? That is systematic.

If one group has more women or men called on in a short sample size? That is just a bad statistical example being used as anecdotal evidence (which would get you flunked out of statistics or logic class). If I look at a twenty year span of general conferences (for example) and I don’t see “spiritually superior ” women breaking my 40% of the speakers– that tells me that no one really believes they are spiritually superior.

Hope that is clearer.

So. While I don’t claim the starting comment I cited is necessarily correct — and I appreciate the thoughtful explanations of why some think it is obvious and some think it is stupid — I’m not amused at the preaching about it.

I think it has real flaws –so I’m not the person to defend it.

But I’d rather not have my intelligence insulted by people trying to bloviate rather than discuss.

I went to graduate school. I am state licensed and nationally board-certified in my area of expertise. Those credentials matter to people who hire me. They matter when I volunteer. In human society, titles and credentials have always mattered. One thing that would help with equality in the church is those two things titles and credentials.

Male missionary — Elder
Female missionary — Sister

Head of Congregation — Bishop
Head of Relief Society — Sister

Stake President — President
Stake RS President — Sister

Mission President — President
Mission President’s wife — Sister
They are ALWAYS called as couples, she had duties, but no title. She is merely the Mission President’s Wife.

Men get titles at church. Men that are called to higher positions have their professional achievements mentioned.

All women, no matter how high up, they are called “Sister”. Their achievements are not mentioned.

In the last few rounds of women being called to auxiliary board positions, their marriages and number of children were mentioned. The church lists them as wives and mothers. The majority have incomplete educations and no work experience. That is listed as if it the Gold Standard. Those ladies have some real credentials in the world of volunteerism. The church has chosen to list their credentials in as poor of a fashion as possible. They would never do that to men.

Take a look at mission president announcements. In every single case, the husband’s profession (and most times education) is noted. Then read the bio about the wife. I have never seen anything reported about her education or work experience. Only the number of children and church callings held. This diminishes women’s experience beyond the limited scope of the home.

hawkgrrrl – preach it sister! Love your list. So much that should change, I’m struggling to stay optimistic.

Mary Ann – Sorry, your joke totally went over my head. If you ask Rob, he’d probably say it’s because my ovaries make me stupid, or that decreased understanding is God’s punishment for my wearing a tank top last week, or other such nonsense. Good one!

You said “The role of a son is less important because they are valued more for becoming the head of their own family. In a patriarchal society, a woman has less control over establishing her own family. For many women, the role of a daughter needs to be enough to establish an identity and purpose.”

C’mon Mary Ann. I’ve got daughters to raise in this Church, and this kind of stuff is so disheartening.
The last thing I need is light shed on yet another aspect of patriarchy I hadn’t previously understood.

Stephen #86- agreed. Despite my angst I still really respect and admire the leadership and the difficult place they are in.

Here’s my take:
Perhaps the “This is stupid” folks don’t see any problem whatsoever. Where there is no problem, there is no need of solution. So why even go there? And you’re a jerk for going there, everything is just so so true and perfect, so stop it!

The “Well duh” folks may be fed up with the current situation and sadly we’ve seen things move at a snails pace. So although attempts to come up with lists of how things could become better, they might be a bit tired of it all and don’t feel like rehashing old arguments since it just makes them remember why they were frustrated in the first place. Why come up with solutions when there’s no change in sight? And thanks a lot mister for reminding me of why I’m so frustrated!

Is it obvious which camp I belong to?

Quote:

“Stephen #86- agreed. Despite my angst I still really respect and admire the leadership and the difficult place they are in.”

Amen.

Excellent summary Mary Ann. Thank you.

Mary Ann,

I get where you are coming from. Can I ask though can you point me to one “separate but equal system” that does end up in some sort of near equality? Serious question. The only “separate but equal” systems I know end up entrenching inequality but I may be missing one.

The only one I can really think of is say the US’s 3 branches system full of hard checks and balances. I would be ok with that type of system in the church. Say men hold the power to do ordinances and women control the finances. The issue with our current “separate but equal” system is that all hard decision rights, all financial control, all control of saving ordinances and all theological control belongs to only one of the separate but equal groups. Women don’t have a single hard decision right – meaning the responsibility of making a final decision. And if you can find one – maybe you would say the Primary President….clearly they have no where equal the amount of decision rights as men do. And we wonder why it is taking decades and decades and decades for cultural inquality in the church to change and why legitimate women’s concerns are put on the back burner over and over and over again. I say give women some of the hard power, the power of the purse so that women, institutionally are needed as much as men and see how fast that changes.

From a structural viewpoint women just are equal to men in the church in any meaningful way. Equality is not a feeling. Culturally, they aren’t equal either (thanks Rob for demonstrating the most obvious and obnoxious culturally unequal attitudes that can exist among our community).

Reading through the comments, it’s fascinating to me how people can see the world through one specific filter and work so hard to invalidate other people’s lived experiences.

I also found one of the arguments above very interesting. Since men have placed themselves at the tippy top of the economic system we have to spend more money on them so that they can remain at the tippy top of the economic system. You can talk about sacred duties and supposed gender differences until we’re all blue in the face, but the fact is that as long as men are the bread winners they are in charge. And I get it, I do, you would never abuse that position, you always take it as serious, sacred responsibility. And I applaud you for that. That is fantastic. But you have to recognize that you have the economic power, if you left, if you took advantage of your position, your wife and children would have very little recourse against you. Without meaning to you hold that over her, you have all of the power. That’s just the way it is.

Acting like that responsibility is such a burden is a little disingenuous. Yes, it is a burden, I absolutely agree, but allowing women equal opportunity, providing women an equality in funds and an equal chance for education, employment, and autonomy, you actually reduce that burden. But, and here’s the kicker, it also reduces the inherent power that comes with being the one who earns all of the money and holds all of the cards. The only way that women’s equality hurts men is by taking away the power a man holds over a woman.

The Church teaches that husbands are to preside over the family while counseling with their wives. It’s a 1:1 ratio, there is one husband and one wife and they counsel together. However, the ratio in Church leadership is nowhere near that equal. Only within the past year are female leaders able to participate in all of the important local counsels and committees, and the numbers still aren’t balanced. Women’s voices, by weight and representation alone, simply aren’t as loud and aren’t given as much acknowledgement. This is just a fact, by the numbers alone.

Having women equal men on committees is lowest common denominator stuff, it’s merely asking the Church to live by the same standards it sets for the individual family.

If we say that we value women’s voices and contributions we have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Talk is nice, talk is pretty, but talk without action is meaningless.

Oh man, I’ve never examined these mission president postings so closely before.
I wish you wouldn’t have said that about the ages, Anon. Seriously?

Following these mission presidency postings, as a woman my most important attributes are the number of children I’ve had, my past callings in the church, and who my parents are. My past career and non-home experiences aren’t worth mentioning. And now – I either need to stop the aging process completely (because beauty is of course my most important attribute), or we all just need to pretend it isn’t happening at all.

Let’s all just be the same ageless, unambitious, lovely, self sacrificing, maternal women who, as church stock photos (such as the one for this post) would have you believe, wear jewel toned sexless shapeless boring clothing because modesty.

Waaaaaah!

I regret seeing rah’s comment no. 98. It was an unkind personal attack on a fellow commenter.

89, Anon.
On minor correction. Before mission president announcements are published, both the husband and wife are asked to review the information that the mission department has about both their past callings and are asked about their most current work/job/profession. A rough draft of the announcement is later also given to them to edit before it is published.

I don’t know about all of the other women involved, but my family member who currently serves says she limited the callings to two, non-leadership ones and eliminated her profession not because she didn’t think they were pertinent, but rather, she said, she knows that so many of her sisters read those announcements and compare themselves to the list of accomplishments or make erroneous assumptions according to that list, and she despises the idea of facilitating comparing and judging among us.

It strikes me as ironic that by doing so she may have facilitated your jumping to a wrong, judgmental conclusion about an anonymous article writer or editor.

Anyway, the women involved have the final say on what is published.

MB,

That is quite a coincidence in these announcements that every husband chooses to list his profession and every wife chooses not to.

I currently teach the youth and I enjoy teaching the true gospel doctrine about the true nature of the roles of men and women and how they do differ and are a perfect compliment to each other.
One of the big problems we face in society is the false belief that men and women are equal in every facet of life and that as such, patriarchy is void, man is no longer head of household, and each are or should be equal providers financially. But it doesnt stop there. It goes on into gender confusion issues where the roles are blended, children are encouraged to find their own “natural” sexual attractions, clothing becomes less gender specific and more provacative, children are taught they can do anything the other sex can do, etc etc…

As the traditional roles of mother and father fade, so to fades the relationship, divorce enters in, and broken families become the norm further enforcing the notion that women need to be independent of men and take over their jobs.

Interesting, but…why is the Savior a “man”? Just curious why reality of heaven shows a male patriarchy.

It may be an indication of the difference between many men and women in the percentage of their self-esteem and self-identity that is tied to their professional life.

There is an equal word count limit for each individual in those short announcements, so each person has limited space. It makes the choosing what goes into the article an interesting exercise, whether one uses all of that word limit or not.

Most LDS women will work outside the home at some point. If we value women we will make sure we prepare them to have satisfying jobs that compensate them well for time spent away from their families.

Not investing enough in our girls, or teaching them they are less valuable through the poor representation they see, sets them up to be away from their families longer working lower paying jobs to make ends meet, when they could work shorter hours at something better paying that requires more skill, confidence and education.

LittleRedHen,

Yes! I’m a a working professional and dropped to two days a week when my first was born. I’m still in the job market honing my skills. I have financial security and I love what I do.

I’m so grateful for the women before me who changed the work environment such that part time employment is now a normal regular thing. With so many scheduling options out there, I think we should go away from encouraging the strict traditional roles espoused by folks like Rob. Instead lets just let families figure it out for themselves. I think folks like Rob might be surprised at how many women in that situation fenagle it so they can have financial security while still being the primary nurturer in their home.

Interesting.

Maybee,
Call me oldschool I guess but my honest belief is that if a husband and wife are planning to have children and raise those children with best setup for success and learning patterns, the father should be as the presiding figure the main provider for the families needs, the law enforcer and protector. The mother should be there as much as possible to birth children, nurture them and raise them to maturity. Just the process of birthing children, bonding with them and suckling them to where they fare on their own to some degree is almost a two year process. I dont see where a full time mother can be a full time provider also. I am old school where I see the importance of mothers in the homes securing the homefront when children are born and raised. I have a sister who is now pregnant with her 11th child. She is the very definition of a full time mother. As children get older I see mothers, who choose to, to go back to work to help financially. But, the main role of provider should fall onto the father. We dont have to be filthy rich to be happy. A good father in an average job makes adequate income for the entire family. But no, we live in a world now where we have added expenses of luxurious lifestyles that require more than the father himself can provide for. Couple that with fathers shirking their divine responsibilities and it begins to crumble.

I find it interesting that I have been reading about me and my wifes ancestors journals and biographies from 100+ years ago and have noticed how drastically our society has changed for the worse. The divine roles of mothers and fathers is quickly fading and as such, divorce rates are skyrocketing, crime rates are increasing, broken families are almost the norm now. My belief is that as these divine roles have diminished, there is no longer a directive to fulfill ones responsibilities, expecting the other to take more responsibility for ones lack of diligence. Fathers no longer preside, they no longer are seen as the protector nor provider. Mothers are increasingly seeking more independence from their husbands, want to also equally preside and now are wanting “equality” in priesthood and leadership. Thus, my belief that all this has led to the predicament of creating fathers destined to fail and not care.

hawkgrrrl,

A historical example of the church valuing women’s time less is back when you used to be able to pay proxies to do temple work if you couldn’t travel to do it yourself. Men received 75 cents, women received 50 cents per session.

Pete, I suspect supply and demand played a big role in that discrepancy. Even today if I submit names to the temple it takes at least twice as long for male names to get done when compared to female names.

Mark, all those Family Tree issues make a lot of people angry. Adults are probably much more often at fault for messing things up than youth. Having a collaborate tree is meant to eliminate duplication of temple work, but man it’s a horrible system for keeping genealogical information reliable.

Rob, I’ve had two thoughts as I’ve been reading your comments (a little late to the party!)

1. How do you/we know that society will fail if we move away from traditional gender roles and nuclear families? I recognize that it could happen that way. The way you write it, though, it sounds like we’re already there and we just don’t know it yet. I see our society evolving… Is that what you mean, or did you have something else in mind? Every society evolves. Even God’s, as His children learn and join Him.

2. “Traditional” is relative. If we accept what social scientists say, the nuclear family with father as breadwinner and mother as nurturer had only existed for a a few pages of humanity’s 8 (and counting) volume story (metaphorically). Before specialization of labor, everyone helped with every job. The whole clan hunted AND farmed AND raised the kids. So traditional doesn’t mean it needs to be that way… It just means it worked for some people for a while. If that particular way still works for your family, then keep it up.

Stephen,

What a thought provoking suggestion. Seeing how many of the interviews are conducted by the councilors. Seeing how the RS president generally has been involved with as many if not more confidential conversations with their parents. I am not sure I see it as a better marker of equality as just a better method.

EM,
Im going a lot off the Proclamation to the world on the family along with all the teachings of our prophets, ancient and modern, coupled with the reality of todays broken homes and broken families. Facts are facts. Both anciently and today, the man has always been the presiding figure and the brute force physically to get work done. Its not rocket science to see that the physicality of the man is designed for everyday labor whereas the woman is more designed as softer, gentler and better natured to nurture and teach young children. Thats basic reality. Even in ancient times it was man who went to war and conqured, explored, and carried out the direction and work of infastructure in society.

Now that the feminist movements and “equality” have taken hold, women and men have become less dependent on each other and as such families are weakening and being destroyed. Not only that but crime is up, morality is disappearing, new families fail to form, more children are born out of wedlock, divorce is normal, etc etc…

Even in BoM times, families were very traditional where the father was the presiding figure, protector and provider (just look at Nephi and his going hunting, ship building, etc, while the wives were busy giving suck to their children).

Rob,
Your using the term “suckling” is actually more old fashioned than your views on the family 🙂

I have many potential responses to your comment, but from what I’m gathering here’s where we likely differ fundamentally. Please, let me know if I get this wrong. I don’t mean to mischaracterize your views.

You believe the traditional gender roles of father as presiding, working, protecting, and mother nurturing and being home are fundamentally divine. They are rigid. In order to succeed, children should be thus raised. Any other structure does the children a disservice and leads to the breakdown of society. Our society is failing, and it’s because of peoplen no longer following these traditional roles. Heavenly Father wants us to live these roles and will bless us for doing so.

I believe Heavenly Father has given us guidelines on how to live and wants us to figure out for ourselves how to best implement those guidelines. Some of these guidelines include viewing men as providers and women as nurturers, but there can be overlap. Husbands and wives, counseling together with the Lord, are able to figure out what works best for their family. For many this means the “traditional” family structure you have discussed. But for others it can look different. The beauty of marriage is figuring this out together. It encourages compassion, communication, and mutual respect. Faithful couples raising their children in a church that places so much emphasis on the family understand these concepts and will find a situation that ensures everyone is cared for, loved, nurtured, and set up for success. I believe that stress is the greatest plague to families. Stress over finances, dreams or goals unmet, pressure due to lopsided responsibilities. Stress can lead to depressed parents and stressed kids. Families can find creative ways to reduce stress as the needs of their family changes, and often this involves sharing responsibilities across those strict gender roles.

Our church does have some great guidelines, by the way. FHE, family councils, etc. We have so many tools. We’re trained and ready, we just need to allow families space to do it their own way.

Also, I “suckled” each of my children to 18 months.

Rob O: “I completely disagree that mothers with young children should be entitled to high power careers.” No, nobody is “entitled” to a high power career. People who are qualified apply and are hired, and it should have zero to do with their family situation. If policies were supportive of families and women in general, the “issues” with women working would be greatly reduced. As it stands, though, the women who have high powered careers, even with young children don’t have issues with their children because they also have better support and resources (and yes, more equal marriages). They are better educated. They have access to better benefits. It’s women who are poor who suffer from the stay-at-home rhetoric. They can barely make ends meet. Their schedules don’t allow them to provide much support to their kids either emotionally, financially or from a child care assistance standpoint.

“Mothers need to be at home with children of young age.” Parents should jointly ensure that there is an appropriate caregiver for young children, whether it’s one of the parents or another qualified caregiver. When you make care-giving the sole default responsibility of one sex, you create the Susan Smiths of the world. Not all children are better off in their mother’s care. Women need choices, not guilt trips.

I think we generally agree. Im just coming from the angle of growing up as a young person in a society where traditional families was still the norm and there werent as many divorces and broken homes. Now, some 30 years later, traditional families are becoming rare with the father seen as head of household, mother a homemaker, etc. Along with that, I see more divorce and broken families. I see an increase in immorality and all other negative aspects creep into our homes.
I honestly, completely, believe that the majority of all these surmounting issues are because of the breakdown of proper divine roles of man and woman. I believe there is a direct correlation between broken families and nontraditional familial roles creeping in. The Proclamation gives us a general outline of what those roles are and the consequences of not adhering to it. And so, its a no brainer that as we are now departing from that divine instruction, our society is weakening and families are breaking up or failing to form.

hawkgirrl,

Not that I completely agree with how Rob presents the message but reading Dallin H. Oaks April 1989 conference talk and the talk which came after by James E. Faust might be of interest.

Stephen,

As for Nibley, in class when he was asked if they actually had the power and authority the church in the 20th century associates with those positions he said he didn’t know. Wish he was still around so he could be asked what he thought.

Rob,
You said “I think we generally agree. Im just coming from the angle of growing up as a young person in a society where traditional families was still the norm and there werent as many divorces and broken homes.”

I understand you value traditional roles, you’ve really communicated that well. But you’ve done so from a standpoint of rigidity. So I’m scratching my head because I don’t see how we generally agree. Those two descriptions I gave are very different.

Haven’t read all the comments, but the document is not.even.close.

It addresses only symptoms, not causes. These targets are temporary and temporal. Think bigger- after all we are talking about eternal equality and value.

Ordain women – revelation in women’s priesthood

Egalitarianism

186 years of complete female leadership (to balance out the same # of male leadership we’ve had). Then, some sort of millennial co-leadership based on readyness, aptitude, attitude, service, and everything altruistic.

A very quick search online supports this. My government’s website lists crime stats, broken down by category. Violent crimes are down, property crimes are down, youth crimes are down. This is not just comparing to last year, but the last several decades. Violent crimes are at their lowest since 1969. We may be more aware of crimes. We may be more afraid of crime. People can debate WHY crime rates are down. The reality is my children are growing up in a much safer world then I did.

” A replay of Eden…”

Brilliant, Hedgehog.

I imagine my dad reluctantly leaving paradise to enter the fallen world simply because being alone scares him more than anything.

Rob, thanks for clarifying. When you start with the Family Proc/current church leaders as your main source of authority, then your argument is valid. That’s also the point where I disagree. I sustain current and past LDS leaders. I believe there’s a lot of wisdom in the Family Proc. I also believe we shouldn’t say “men are this way because men say they’re this way.” We need to accept multiple perspectives, instead of one document drafted by three older white men, EVEN IF those men are divinely inspired.

And like I said, if that way of life fits for you and your family, then keep it up. I know it doesn’t work for my family, so my wife and I both work, and we share nurturing responsibilities.

When you say that morality is failing, what does that mean? Maybe your morals aren’t common anymore. But a change in common morals isn’t the same as the absence of morals. And divorce isn’t really normal… It peaked around 40% in the early 2000s, and has become less common since then.It’s more common than it was 100 years ago, but not normal. And yes, we see different kinds of families now besides the nuclear family popularized in the 1950s. That’s the point–a lot of us think it’s time for a different kind of church experience, too.

Back to the original question for a moment, what does equality look like?

I would have the same access to handbook one as men do. Yes not all men get to read it, but every three years a new set of men get access to it. As it is now I will never read it unless I read a pirated version on line. But I get it used against me in the “but that’s what’s in the handbook” way as I get shut down or shut out. It might even be true what the man is saying but I will never ever know. I am judged out of a book I can’t read.

I would be able again to be a witness.

I would be able again to give blessing of healing.

Better and worse are opinions. The reasons you give to show that it’s getting worse actually seem like evidence of improvement to me. Could you provide some evidence of how those things show regression?

Well then, there wre certainly lots of liberal religions out there. Go and find one that fits.

Rob, throughout this conversation you have consistently relied on your feelings and opinions to counter facts. That is fine, I suppose, but your feelings and opinions do not change the facts, which you seem incapable of understanding. You assert the world as a whole is degenerating into lawlessless and violence yet the facts prove the opposite. You assert that families in which both parents fill the roles they are best suited for rather than adopting rigidly defined gender roles cannot possibly succeed. Yet, millions of families demonstrate you are wrong. And here, again, you say you disagree with the very clear, scientific evidence that any family structure is capable of meeting the fundamental needs of children. Which begs the question, why should I, or anyone, care that you disagree? What is your point? You have offered no evidence, no supportable counter argument, nothing whatsoever that leads me to take you seriously. I can shout from the rooftops that the world is flat. All that shows is I am willfully and embarrassingly ignorant. I fear this forum has been your rooftop.

Rob wrote:
“Well then, there are certainly lots of liberal religions out there. Go and find one that fits.”

Rob , that is literally what is going on. People are leaving. They are not leaving the church due to the teachings of Christ, they are leaving due to cultural intolerance.

You are happy with how you are living your type of Mormonism. But when you are unwilling to make room for any variance, you become part of the problem. When you state adamantly that all women should be home suckling their children, and that women are not supposed to be in executive positions, that stance is rather offensive.

Church is supposed to be about following CHRIST. It isn’t supposed to be a power struggle, or judging your neighbor. It is supposed to be about helping, nurturing, loving and and caring for those in need. The fact that some men have their personal identity caught up with their priesthood position is a problem. This discussion is about an earthly organization. A church. A church that claims to represent Christ. To me, it just makes sense that it would involve men and women at the very highest level. The primitive church did. The OT and NT are a bunch of letters that were put together and modified and edited over the years. We know the words of Paul were changed. We know so much of the ancient mentions of heavenly mother were removed. We know theOT and NT were edited in a way to remove women. Christ wouldn’t be very proud of that one. Women being marginalized isn’t very Christian.. Christ allowed a women to anoint HIS head with oil. If women would good enough to anoint Christ, seems like women ought to be good enough to anoint others.

Women did so much in the early days of the LDS church that have now been removed or discouraged.

Increasing the roles of women in the power structure of the church makes sense. It allows women to have a voice, it is a Christian thing to do, it follows the original structure of the church, and it keep people from leaving.

Sorry to come back so soon, but I’ve been unsettled all day about the comment someone made to go find “a liberal religion that fits.”

This sort of comment has been made frequently in the various wards I’ve lived in throughout the years. It shows a lack of love for those who have different hopes and deep concerns about how some things are versus how they might be. It shows lack of respect for those feelings and views. It says, “there’s no room in the inn” here for you and your perspective. It implies, “Get out!”

These types of comments are so far from love unfeigned. “…There are plenty of liberal religions out there. Go find one that fits.” Just go. We don’t love you or your ideas. We don’t want them or you.

Such comments usually cause a sudden quiet in the room. Perhaps the one who made them feels he or she said a thing so powerful it shuts the liberals up….or maybe that’s down. I know from experience that some “liberals” remain silent, even as Jesus sometimes did. If they respond they will be blamed for causing contention and/or driving the Spirit from the room. But in that sudden silence when the original comment is made, yeah, that’s when the Spirit grieves, then often leaves. How much better to say, “Come, let us reason together…” The Savior invites us all–not just conservative Mormons–to “come, follow me.”

I dont wish to be understood. Obviously there is going to be some flexibility in marriage and families based on circumstances, etc. Im not saying its black and white. What I am saying is that in general, we need to get back to the traditional roles of working fathers and stay at home mothers for the most part. Im not suggesting that all women must stay at home and all fathers must be the 100% provider. What I am suggesting is that in “general” we should teach that fathers are providers for their families while mothers provide the general nurturing and teaching of children in the home.

As we stray more and more away from the traditional roles we are just creating more problems for our families and society.

I never said women shouldnt be executives. I said I dont think its wise for a mother with very young children to be a powerful executive. Theres a world of difference there.

Im curious as to what you think of the BoM with its traditional teachings of traditional roles with the males who officiate in the priesthood, run the government of society, etc. It appears its really no different than the NT in those respects.

Maybee,
Both brotherhood and sisterhood should be celebrated. We should take great pride in our creation.

So, you must think our church is insulting, not just me. I am only suggesting the same thing our church teaches, nothing more and nothing less.

Rob, you are taking church teachings and communicating them to a rigid extreme. It’s confusing for people to hear these things at church. Life is beautiful and complex, and so are people and families. We should be given the principles and then the space needed to flourish.

People sometimes say things at church that don’t necessarily reflect the current teachings and instead reflect their own ideological views. Your discussion on this thread about men’s and women’s roles have been more restrictive than what I’ve heard from general conference over the past several years. Then you backtracked and said you were speaking in generalities, which was a shocker because that’s not the impression you had been giving.

I don’t think President Monson really cares too much if I work a couple of days a week and my husband stays home those days, in fact he might think it’s great that my husband gets so much quality time with our kids. I think he cares that we’re invested in our family and seeking God’s help. I don’t think he cares about the details as much as you seem to.

So please, just lay off. Let us do it our way.

Maybee,
Im not being harsh or anything. Im just saying that the general teaching of the church is still the same. Teaching young men is about raising them to be the priesthood leader in the home and providing financially for their welfare. Teaching young women is about raising them to be good homemakers and mothers. This teaching hasnt changed.

Maybee,
I think we are just talking past each other. perhaps I have been mistaken.

The problems in our world come right down to fathers and mothers shirking their divine roles and responsibilities. As this world seeks to move towards this supposed “equality” of genders, it undermines Gods work and glory. It places worldly esteem, self acknowledgement and power above the marriage, family and home. When we seek in society to demand perfect equality between the sexes, it only destroys and undermines both men and women in their true proper roles. The world no longer wants the father to be the provider nor the presider nor the sole priesthood leader. This same world now demands a mother to be independent from her mate, place mothers in high paying fulltime jobs, and be given the same equality as co presider and co priesthood leader in the home.
The great feminist movements are about women becoming not only all powerful, but also completely independent of men in society. Its a bad movement that undermines all of Gods work.

I agree we’re talking past each other. I’m understanding your ideology, even if I don’t agree with it. I just hope that you can understand when such an ideology is presented to others in a rigid way, it undermines their individual efforts and desires that can also be good for themselves and their families.

“The great feminist movements are about women becoming not only all powerful, but also completely independent of men in society. Its a bad movement that undermines all of Gods work”

No. Feminism is about making sure women have the same rights as men. That’s it. Thanks to feminism we can vote. We can hold jobs we otherwise couldn’t in the past. We have control over our bodies. We have rights in our marriages. Feminism makes sure I have opportunities. It doesn’t care what I do with those opportunities, it just makes sure I have them. Hooray for feminism!

Feminist movements are not good for society. Whats the counter to it? A male chauvinist? Suppose a group of men decided a movement to take back their believed rights, whats that called? Sexist! Thats my point. In the church, the doctrine of Christ does not support sexist groups. Feminism is one such “sexist” group.

Rob,

You stubbornly cling to a myopic and outdated definition of feminism. Feminism allows women to use all their diverse abilities to best meet the needs of their families, in whatever form those families may take. Not everyone subscribes to your Little House on the Prairie fantasy. You continue to assert that feminism is anti-family. That is so far from the truth, but you refuse to see that. Open your eyes, Rob. You’re missing out. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Rob,

Pete nailed it. I’ll just add that Elder Oaks’ quote highlights good things that come from feminism. I think the negative aspects he’s talking about are perhaps a response to extremist views of feminism that aren’t reflective of the core principle of feminism.

We all have our own value system and our church does a great job of teaching the values it espouses. Growing up in a church like ours you aren’t going to find many girls who say “I want a career, not a family.” But when girls grow up seeing the world is open to them (thanks to our feminist predecessors), they can figure out for themselves how to raise a family in this world of opportunity.

Perhaps a succeeding post here could be “what does the feminist movement in the church look like and is it good or bad?”

I dont see how feminist movements arent sexist in nature. For i stance- “ordain women” is all about blaming males for their problems. How is that not sexist?

Rob, I find it so interesting that we can come from the same religious tradition and yet have such different opinions. You accuse feminists of being the fringe of our society. From where I am standing, you are the far fringe of Mormonism. Please do not take that as a compliment.

The Feminist movement has allowed women to buy and sell property. It has allowed me to open my own banking account. The feminist movement means that when I do equal work, I received equal pay. The feminist movement means that I can get on a bus or a plane without a signed note of permission from my husband. The feminist movement has allowed me to go to high school, college, graduate school and to take national boards. The feminist movement has allowed me to plan my family. I am one of those women who ovulates 2 weeks after giving birth while breast feeding. Without birth control, I would either have to give up sex, or have babies every 10 months throughout my life. I do not find either option healthy.

The feminist movement has allowed me to decide for myself what is the best path for my life. My father doesn’t get to barter my body away to the highest bidder. My husband doesn’t get to rape and beat me. I can divorce if I am abused. I am allowed equal consideration for the custody of my children.

The feminist movement has done these things for women.

When you portray feminists as bra-burning, man-hating, bible-burning cartoon-stereotypes, you are not describing real people. You keep describing some odd nightmare under your bed that is going to rise up, castrate you, take your man-card, your priesthood, and leave you weak and nutless. Whatever that bizarre fear of yours is .. Those are not feminists.

Enough already.

For a nice citation:

“Our heritage of learning the healer’s art began at the very dawn of the restored Church. Soon after the Relief Society was organized in 1842, the Prophet Joseph Smith set apart “noble and lofty women . . . to go about among the sick and minister to their wants” (in “Nursing in the Relief Society,” Relief Society Magazine2, no. 7 [July 1915]: 316–17). When the Saints arrived in the Salt Lake Valley, Brigham Young established a Council of Health. Women went east to medical school. In 1873 (the year Linda Richards graduated in New England as the first professional nurse in the United States) President Young called for three women from each ward in the Church to study nursing. Eliza R. Snow personally traveled the valley recruiting nursing students “for Zion’s sake” (in “An Address by Miss Eliza R. Snow,” Woman’s Exponent 2, no. 8 [15 September 1873]: 63). The first classes were taught by the women doctors of the Church. Graduates “were blest and set apart for their professional work””

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/elaine-marshall_learning-healers-art/

Quoting from the actual Journal of Discourses:

Another thing I will say with regard to our trading. Our Female Relief Societies are doing immense good now, but they can take hold and do all the trading for these wards just as well as to keep a big loafer to do it. It is always disgusting to me to see a big, fat, lubberly fellow handing out calicoes and measuring ribbon; I would rather see the ladies do it. The ladies can

learn to keep books as well as the men; we have some few, already, who are just as good accountants as any of our brethren. Why not teach more to keep books and sell goods, and let them do this business, and let the men go to raising sheep, wheat, or cattle, or go and do something or other to beautify the earth and help to make it like the Garden of Eden

Pete. I’m not saying he was a feminist. And I’ve written before on his use of hyperbole and his willingness to change positions often (read him on pork).

But where the metal hit the road he was willing to invest time, money and energy in promoting female doctors and nurses and to support female shopkeepers and businesswomen.