At work I can engage in mediation/facilitation initiatives as long as they do not create a conflict of interest, I take the time for them out of my vacation and I’m not paid to participate. As you may suspect, I don’t do many. But I was called up on one that involved restoring trust. After some analysis, it became obvious to everyone that there was a single solution that would work very, very well. The problem is that it involved sacrifice and none of the things it would take were “required” by law or by ethics codes. Now they are off to find half measures.
But it got me thinking.
President Hinckley was very clear with Kathy Pullins when she ran the BYU Women’s Conference that he felt the Church had an overwhelming need for more leadership from the women in the Church. Echoes of that show up over and over again.
Recently, in focus groups, frustration was expressed over the fact that to use female leaders involves a great deal of sacrifice for them and that the number available in Utah to basically work full time for the Church without pay is small. The question is how to solve the problem.
Not to mention, there are a number of other gender related problems vis a vis women in leadership. Everyone knows that organizations with more gender balance in the leadership out perform those that do not have it. Governance boards with more women on them do better than those without. Yet many companies have trouble implementing the necessary changes.*
I’ve been listening to proposals for solutions.
Ordain Women has suggested that we just ordain women. As many have noted, ordaining African-American men has not resulted in a significant presence of them in the upper level of the leadership of the Church. Many have expressed concern that ordained women would have no more presence at the higher levels – especially with the other issues.
Some have suggested telecommuting and using people from outside Utah by using that method. If any of you have telecommuted full time in a collegiality heavy environment you can see the limitations in that approach.
Others have suggested that all who receive stipends from the LDS Church should receive the same stipends in amounts that are disclosed (which they did when stipends were announced, as to the present policy all that we hear is rumor) and that stipends should be extended to women in leadership positions.
Equality of support would translate into direct public perceptions (we are, alas, a society that values people based on what they are paid compared to others in a hierarchy) and would reflect valuing women the same as we do men. It would also free up women from a wider socio-economic background to serve.
It also fits a general trend and complaint about equality of funding for young women and young men and other related issues about where the money flows in the church and how.
As to downsides – our commenters will pretty much list all of those as to stipends and related issues.
Another solution is to wait for something to evolve and just keep talking about the need. That hasn’t made much progress in the last twenty-thirty years but maybe it will work in the next twenty to thirty. Sometimes waiting is the answer though.
Still, so many things just work out if you just wait. Think of the “we will sell no wine before its time” advertising campaign. And “just wait” is easy to ask of someone else if it doesn’t cause you any stress or pain (See my first paragraph).
It is the standard half measure — though it is sometimes the right one.
Which leads to my questions.
- What approach do you see for increasing the amount of leadership we obtain from women in the Church? Feel free to criticize the examples above (I have felt free to criticize them).
- What would you suggest? I don’t have the answers but I’m hoping those who comment here might have better questions or better ideas.
*For a look at the same issues in Fortune 500 companies, see this article: “Why Corporate Boards are still an Old Boy’s Club.”
Wheat & Tares 
Just to clarify, I don’t know any Ordain Women supporter who thinks we could “just” ordain women and that will resolve the problem with lack of female leaders. We are very aware that just ordaining Black men did not go far enough. However, women must be ordained as a first step toward full equity. Asking, “How can we have more female leaders and ensure that they are as empowered as men, but without having to ordain them?” Is like asking, “How can we have more female graduates, but without having to enroll any women at the school?”
The biggest barrier that I can see to equal representation of women is that women are barred from so many leadership positions because they are banned from ordination. Of course, even after that problem is remedied, we will certainly need to do more work to encourage the church to call women to positions they are newly eligible to hold.
As of right now it seems like the general auxiliary leaders, technically general officers, serve on a part-time volunteer basis (I could be wrong). If they are against switching to full-time employment like general authorities, then perhaps they could use a full-time mission model. Require a minimum 40-hr a week commitment (the international travel requirements belie a part-time volunteer commitment, anyway).
Currently, a woman can rise up to the level of Stake Relief Society President. Then there are no intermediate steps between that position and the General RS board — which is a global position. The closest thing to an intermediate regional role is that of a PR Liaison.
Ordination is something that gives authority on a ward level. Once past the ward level, we talk about ordination, inspiration, and prophecy, but the actual positions are much more administrative and managerial in nature.
Women ought to be sitting on disciplinary councils held for women — that would give women a jury of their peers. Women ought to have intermediate steps within the RS organization that take them up the administrative organization from the stake level onto a regional and national level.
There are so many ways to add women into the organization that would benefit the church as a whole. It is time to start that process.
Stipend equality would be the first step. Whether we like it or not, the LDS culture cares very much about money. Stipend equality would send a strong message.
Appreciate the thoughts and clarifications. Blog posts are too short and cursory many times. I’m grateful for commenters who point out the longer and deeper text and additional ideas.
I do think that the point of just what leadership roles are open to women is a good one. It is one thing to ask for more leadership from women. But the next thing is that there must be place for those female leaders to lead from.
And value placed.
But I am leary of an expansion of the “Same Twenty People” problem where a small group runs everything — with the group getting smaller even as it includes more women.
I look forward to more thoughtful comments, corrections and additional ideas.
Start by performing this thought experiment. Replace every single man in a traditionally male role with a woman. Replace every single woman in a traditionally female role with a man. Here’s what I expect you’ll find: men don’t want women having any authority over them, but have no problem with men having authority over women (and other men). Until you can imagine the LDS church operating with women in authority and men taking orders from women, the problems in the LDS church I this regard will never go away. So go ahead and imagine it. All the first presidency and 70 are women. All the men are leading young womens’ groups and baking cookies.
I’ve got to say I’m with Ordain Women on this. The way to have more women leadership in the church is to ordain them to the priesthood. Like April said, it is only a start, and a great deal of work would have to come after. But it is the critical first step.
I am not particularly impressed by President Hinckley’s call for more female leadership. Perhaps he meant volunteer, unpaid “leadership”? Because it was entirely within his power to hire lots of women to leadership positions, as long as he was willing to pay them.
It is pretty egregious if the female presidencies are volunteer, unpaid positions and do not receive stipends like the Seventies do. Do Mission President’s wives get a stipend like their husbands do? What about temple matrons? That in itself says how much the church really values female leadership.
Joel, auxiliary leaders (general officers) include RS, YW, Primary, Sunday School and YM. This is core Priesthood quorums versus Auxiliary programs. All the female leaders happen to be in the Auxiliary category because of the priesthood issue, but there are male leaders in the Auxiliary programs as well. As for mission presidents and their wives, they receive joint living stipends.
MaryAnn, of course the Sunday School and YM presidencies should receive stipends as well. To me, it is not a sufficient excuse to undervalue female leaders just because there are six men in similar positions who are similarly undervalued. As for joint living stipends, I just don’t see it that way. MPs and TPs are given stipends to support them and their families. I’ve never heard it referred to as a joint stipend. Women are not compensated separately for their individual contributions.
The US Foreign Service used to be almost exclusively male, and female diplomats were automatically kicked out when they married. Male diplomats were evaluated and promoted, in part, based on how good their wives were at hosting receptions. These policies were changed because it was unfair to the single diplomats and it was unfair to the spouses, who were expected to do work for the government without being paid for it. Sure, they benefited from their husband’s work and got to live in diplomatic housing. But the husband was the employee and the compensation, including housing, was for the husband’s work. The State Department could no longer take into account or expect that spouses provide unpaid work for the government. I see the Church’s position regarding wives of general authorities and mission presidents as being essentially the same. They are expected to do a number of duties but are not in the same employee-employer relationship with the church. It is all volunteer and unpaid.
If we had female apostles, they would be clamoring for abortion and gay marriage. Women tend to be very liberal and support things like abortion, gay marriage, goddess worship and witchcraft.
The leadership in Salt Lake City’s supports none of these things.
A few simple and non-expensive steps to start with would be: restore the Relief Society to its original, autonomous position. Allow the RS at the ward level to extend its own callings and have its own budget. Have the ward RS president report to the stake RS president in monthly PPIs, not to the ward bishop. Have these stake RS presidents report to area RS presidents, who report to the general RS board, etc. Remove the word auxiliary, and remove the practice of the RS functioning with permission from the menfolk. Refer to the general RS, YW, and Primary presidencies as general authorities, not “women authorities” as stated on church press releases this week. Let the RS create its own instruction manuals and plan its general conference meeting without supervision from the male authorities. (I’m not opposed to them communicating with each other for ease of planning, but be clear that the women’s meeting is under the women’s direction). Train male general authorities, stake presidents, and bishops to quote from the teachings and conference talks of women as often as they quote from men, and be sure that men in authority are heard quoting female authorities when addressing mixed gender audiences as well as all male audiences in the same way that male authorities are quoted to all audiences. Give the RS president authority to oversee church discipline for female members and women’s worthiness interviews (For the record, I’m sick of old men asking me about my underwear. I don’t really want old women to either, but it’s a step in the right direction.) Invite parents to attend interviews between leadership and their minor children. Include the YW in the visiting teaching program the way the YM participate in home teaching. I could go on, but those are a few starters.
Is there any reason to think our leaders are even thinking about the role of women constructively?
After the pox, they might be using their time on this subject to think of ways to prevent any progress. I expected they would accept gay marriage when it became legal.
There are ideas of how things might improve the position of the church, relative to the Gospel, but there is no indication that our leadership, both male and female are at all interested, is there?
I even thought the Donald moment might be an opportunity to decouple the church from conservative politics, but I no longer have much hope of anything positive coming from our leadrrship. They can not even speak clearly to us. No explanation of the pox, and no discussion of the issues in the election, and their strange priorities relative to what is a moral issue.
Is there any point discussing what might be when there is no indication the leaders are not working to prevent such changes?
@elizabeth
“presidencies as general authorities, not ‘women authorities'”
…also refer to female presidents as ‘president’, not ‘sister’…
P.S. I loved your comment. Those are very constructive and practical suggestions.
@geoff
“Is there any reason to think our leaders are even thinking about the role of women constructively?”
I’d say no, there’s no reason to think so, and that’s part of the problem: sexism has been baked into the LDS church by the men who have constructed and controlled the church’s narrative. For example, part of the problem with the “priesthood” business is that it’s basically a concept manipulated by men after the fact to restrict the roles women have in the LDS church. The argument–in my opinion, an artificial one–is that women can’t do this or that role because they don’t “hold the priesthood”. Holding the priesthood ought to be completely decoupled from roles in the LDS church. In other words, if somebody claims “You have to hold the priesthood to do X” then ask “Why? Why is holding the priesthood necessary for that? Will *not* holding the priesthood render me incapable of performing that role?” As long as men are making these arbitrary rules–that then become baked into the LDS church’s structure for no rational reason–women will never achieve equality. In a similar vein, we have authority handed down and decided upon by men. This is based, supposedly, on an unbroken chain of authority reaching back to God himself. What a convenient mythology for maintaining power. How about we posit an unbroken chain of authority leading back to Heavenly Mother for women? I mean, as long as we are making things up, why not do it equitably?
The sexism is baked in in the temple. What real objection can there possibly be to changing the initiatory and endowment so women relate directly to God and not to God through their husbands?
I wish with all my heart that we would do this first thing first. Let that sit with us all for awhile and then see, in time, what good things happen.
But I don’t believe anything of significance will happen until the change is made.
Amen to Ruth.
A start would be to listen to what women have to say. I gather the leaked videos were a kick in the teeth on that front. And yet they literally shut their doors to the women of Ordain Women, and refuse to accept delivery of hand-delivered mail from Ordain Women. As ‘activist’ action goes those things are so mild that they hardly qualify for the term ‘activist’ in my view.
I agree that the fundamental problems are always going to hold the church back, the most basic of this being the differences between the sexes in the temple. Until polygamy is disavowed, there is no reason to believe our church leaders will ever take women seriously. They must think we are a completely different species.
But moving past that, we aren’t exactly as limited as our evangelical counterparts either. Women do function as “ministers.” We give talks, pray in General Conference (*cough*cough*), serve proselyting missions, and lead organizations. We don’t tell women to submit to their husbands’ rule like many evangelicals do, nor to be silent in church. We do talk about equality at least, even if we are imperfect at putting it into practice.. And yet, in many other ways, evangelicals have become our closest peer group (much to our chagrin, I have to say as a woman).
The church doesn’t have to continue to limit women in ways that it doesn’t limit men on the basis of child-rearing. BUT even if we go back to the 1950s and assume women are tied up with this from the children’s ages 0-18, and that a woman’s children could span up to 20 years apart, the maximum a woman is “out of bounds” for church leadership roles is 38 years. A 58 year old church leader is about as youthful as they come in our gerontocracy. And of course, most women don’t have kids that span 20 years. More like 10-12 is most common, so that would mean only 28-30 years with non-adult children.
Practical solutions: 1) put women on every committee at a 50/50 ratio immediately and see what happens–that will drive a lot of change, 2) call women the same titles, 3) extend stipends to women, 4) cut the sexist jabs that folks like E. Ballard employ to get a cheap laugh (jokes about women talking too much or needing makeup). As we have learned in government, when men talk about things that affect women, they are often speaking from a theoretical standpoint. When women do, it’s with experience and compassion. The solutions tend to be more practical. But it only works when we avoid tokenism. Committees with all men and one woman are not getting a balanced perspective. They might feel like patting themselves on the back for not being sexist, but get real.
@angela c
+10
Angela, I agree that there are things we could try.
Re. the first suggestion for 50/50 representation on committees, do we mean the ward council, the stake high council, higher up? Or does “committee” not mean any of those in this setting? I’m not against any of that, just trying to get clear on the suggestion and talk it through.
Ruth: For starters, I’d put 50/50 women in all the church’s top committees, without adding “and family” to the end of the committee as if that’s the only reason to add women. Wards generally do better at getting input from women than do the church’s top councils.
Ruth, I agree that the temple is fundamentally unequal, and it has to change. It’s a hard topic for me because the sexism in the temple isn’t just outdated, backward policy — it’s sexist doctrine.
Geoff, I, too share your worry that the upper levels of church leadership aren’t grappling with the same things the rank and file members are. I was invited to participate on a panel of young-ish adult members a few months back where a general authority was workshopping his newest book idea. Basically, he wanted to write a book that said it’s okay to experience cognitive dissonance in your faith, just trust that the Lord will get the church to the right place eventually. As an example from his own life, he shared his feelings as a young missionary on the race-based priesthood and temple ban and his joy at seeing it reversed a decade or so later. I expressed that it’s hard for me to believe that my concerns are even on the table in upper level church meetings. When there were recently 3 vacancies in the Q15 at the same time, I was distraught to find that all three new members were white Utahans from the same 50 mile stretch of I-15. It’s hard for me to believe that my diversity related concerns are reflected in a completely homogeneous governing body. I explained that the blacks and the priesthood comparison falls flat for me because in regards to the pox it feels much more like I’m sitting in the 1850s congregation where Brigham is rolling bad policy out than like I’m waiting near the end of it. I currently feel that it’s my religious responsibility to stand and voice my opposition to these patently un-Christlike steps the church is taking. I’ve lost faith that the Q15 understands why they need to hear from people of color and women and non-US members and LGBT members and liberal members, etc. The general authority in question didn’t really have an answer to that. He mostly seemed surprised that several of us on the panel had been living with cognitive dissonance for years and were fine with it as long as we felt that our concerns were taken seriously, and the pox was almost universally seen as proof that they aren’t.
Elizabeth : “I expressed that it’s hard for me to believe that my concerns are even on the table in upper level church meetings. When there were recently 3 vacancies in the Q15 at the same time, I was distraught to find that all three new members were white Utahans from the same 50 mile stretch of I-15. It’s hard for me to believe that my diversity related concerns are reflected in a completely homogeneous governing body. I explained that the blacks and the priesthood comparison falls flat for me because in regards to the pox it feels much more like I’m sitting in the 1850s congregation where Brigham is rolling bad policy out than like I’m waiting near the end of it.”
That’s brilliant.
“He mostly seemed surprised that several of us on the panel had been living with cognitive dissonance for years and were fine with it as long as we felt that our concerns were taken seriously, and the pox was almost universally seen as proof that they aren’t.”
Exactly. I don’t know the ages of those on the panel. I’m nearer 50 than 40 and have also been living with cognitive dissonance for years, and feel the same. If only he could now make that loud and clear to the men at the very top! And have them take it seriously.
One concern about 50/50 men/women on top committees is that these committees are essentially invisible to the rank and file of the church, and they would be drawn from the very small Mormon Corridor.
If we could add women in some formal way to the operations of the high councils – it wouldn’t disrupt the wards, where representation is best anyway – and we would have the input of women church-wide.
I have been snowed under at work due to some travel and I am only getting to this 2 days after it was released.
I was really liking several of the comments.
I agreed with ArmatureParent that women can rise to stake RS president and then it seems the next jump is all the way to the top 9 seats of the church as general RS, YW, or Primary. That in itself is a VERY large jump in level of responsibility. No “stepping stone” positions along the way to learn some valuable lessons. I think that leaves many of these women a bit more less-confident than their male peers that have been bishops, SP’s, area authorities, MP’s, … I think the church has selected some great and capable women and I assume there are TONS more out there, but the only way I seem to see women get to those top 9 is to be married to a successful man that is known and respected by the high church leaders.
I was about to move on past my comments on ArmatureParent’s thoughs and comment on Elizabeth’s and Ruth;s great comments – and even April’s clarification.
Then it occurred to me that all these comments all came from women. Enough said.
Ruth – the most recent iteration of the YW general board included women of many ages, family situations, and ethnic backgrounds who live on several continents. They teleconferenced in. I don’t know how it worked, but maybe that’s the start of the 50/50 conversation. I especially loved that at least one was a working mom.
Elizabeth — thank you for pointing out where the assumptions of the post and its sources were wrong. That is invaluable.