I remember as a young boy in elementary school lining up in two lines for class, boys on one side, and girls on the other. While we were waiting to be let in the classroom, we would count how far we were back, and then count which girl we were lined up with. Much teasing and laughing then ensued depending on which girl we got “paired” with. I always secretly hoped I would line up with Norma, the girl I had a crush on all through elementary school.
Enough about me and my schoolyard memories. Why did they line us up in boys and girls lines? Why the separation of the sexes, and what was that teaching us at such an early age? I thought about these lines recently, and the separation it created when the church announced it was doing away with the “segregated” Saturday night General Conference meeting. They said it was because “all sessions of general conference are now available to anyone who desires to watch or listen.” I’m not sure what that even means. It seems to be saying that because men could watch the RS session on the internet (and women the Priesthood session), that there was no need to have them anymore.
But all of that just begs the question: Why do we still separate by the sexes in YW and Aaronic Priesthood classes, and Elders Quorum and Relief Society? The argument could be made that the YM need to learn Priesthood stuff like how to break the bread, and there is stuff YW need to learn that the boys don’t, but for the life of me I can’t come up with a single thing without sounding totally sexist.
For the adult classes the reason for separation is even more blurry. In our ward the lessons for EQ and RS are exactly the same week to week, the same general conference talk picked during Correlation Council meeting. So why the separate classes? I have read that in education, particularly junior high and high school level, there are distinct advantages to having all boy and all girl schools. But I wonder if they translate to adult men and women in a church setting? We meet together for Sunday School, for all ages, and there seems to be no negative impact.
Lastly, why the separation in the Endowment ceremony in the temple? Could this be due to the masonic roots of the ceremony, which is male only? Perhaps Joseph Smith, when co-opting the masonic rituals for the temple, was just enough of a feminist to allow women to partake, but not enough to allow them to sit side by side. Then of course there are the different covenants that men and women make in the endowment, and maybe it would be too hard for the elderly officiators with failing eyesight to ascertain if all the women raised their hands when promising for obey their husbands (my age is showing, I first went to the temple in 1976).
Do you think EQ and RS will ever meet together? What about YW and the Aaronic Priesthood?
Wheat & Tares 
Back when I attended church, I actually appreciated the separation of men and women for RS/Priesthood. One reason could be that some women were more comfortable or felt more free to express themselves without males in the room, but for me the reason was more basic. I have a non-member husband and I’d already sat through sacrament meeting and Sunday School without a partner. Being in RS where every other woman was “alone” was more of an equalizing experience. That said, I agree with you – it is redundant for everyone to meet separately and discuss the same exact thing. Maybe today it’s just a way to have more callings to keep more members involved.
I have attended a very crowded endowment session where the additional women were permitted to sit behind the men… Of course it was still the woman officiator who dealt with the women …
As to why the separation… I have no idea… I remember it in my junior school lining up when the bell went…but not my infant school… possibly it was just a straightforward way of dividing the children into two neat lines that weren’t too long, so purely practical… in my 3rd year (age 9-10) at junior school girls and boys were divided for crafts one afternoon per week. The boys did basket weaving and the girls embroidery. But I do recall a couple of boys in my class expressed a preference for embroidery and were allowed to do that.
My secondary school started off as a girls’ school, but combined with the boys school next door after my first year. I was the envy of the girls during my first year though, because I got to go to the boys’ school once a week for my trumpet lessons… The amalgamation of the schools was beneficial at the time because it meant girls could take separate sciences at O level ( exams taken at 16), rather than a combined General Science, which was all the girls’ school had offered.
As to the segregation at church.. everything is just sooo gendered. Primary has improved there’s no longer merrie miss and blazer boys classes. That said.. there never was scouting here in the UK in connection with primary and our activity days involved both boys and girls together, rather than segregated. I gather the US experience has been rather different…
But the rest of it. Ugh! I mentioned previously that back when I was a student attending a singles ward here in Britain, sometimes I would find RS just too much, and go and sit at the back of the EQ class for a change…
Given the quality of lessons taught by the current generation of young Elders Quorum instructors, I would say that any sister who demands to sit in on the lesson would get what she deserves. Those lessons are as interesting as watching mold grow on a cantaloupe.
TRADITION… TRADITION…
It is a known fact that if a man and woman are in close proximity for over 10 minutes, there is an 80% chance they will be humping like wild jack rabbits. – Mike Pence
In all seriousness I do think we are separated at church because men are suppose to learn how to preside, how to use your keys and how to be manly men.
It would be hard to sit with your wife in the temple if you happened to have ten wives. They probably did that one to avoid any jealousy. “You always sit with Hannah , probably because she’s your skinny wife”. I guess I am having a hard time being serious.
Our ward has done a good job in the last few years of making sure mutual is more equitable. More joint activities and more expectations that the girls get to spend money, go places and not do crafts while the boys shoot guns and play basketball.
Why separate EQ and RS? I can think of one reason in our society. That would be so that women are given a chance to discuss items without the know-it-all guy answering every question and mansplaining everything. But separating just takes it down a notch as even within RS there are those that know exactly what God thinks and are willing to tell everyone precisely what God thinks.
John Charity Spring – I think you need to respect for mold! I just watched “Fabulous Fungi” on Netflix and it was really interesting!
Given the quality of lessons provided in RS in my BYU ward, I would attend EQ sometimes.
That being said, in a church run almost entirely by men, getting rid of the separation of women and men for RS/EQ or YM/YW would mean just creating another space dominated by men. Or getting rid of the only meetings run by women. Almost all the 5th Sunday lessons I’ve attended were taught by men. Honestly, women share differently when talking to other women. Women teach differently. I’m not big on gender segregation in the whole, but when so much of the church is male-oriented, I think having meetings just for women is important. The power structure of the church is unlikely to change to give women equal voice, taking away RS would give women fewer places to have a voice.
When I was in the bishopric I attended RS exactly once (at their invitation to teach the lesson) and I got the clear message from most of the attendees that the meeting should be for women ONLY. After that I was happy to give women some space, as it seems everything else requires male oversight – even the monthly meetings on Thursday nights required 2 men to sit in the foyer to make sure the women folk were safe.
I think until all decision making in the church is truly gender equal, women will probably want and need their own space.
JCS , this was back when EQ and RS had separate lesson manuals, with the RS manuals full of nauseating quotes from male leaders telling women who they (the women are)are, and how they (the women) feel about things… It was grotesque! It was not unknown for me to throw those manuals at the wall…
Whereas the EQ manuals appeared to actually discuss topics in a neutral non-gendered way. It was really refreshing. Also there were some pretty good EQ teachers there at the time.
In my current ward, our Gospel Doctrine instructor is a woman who prepares for every lesson extensively. Her class discussions always get dominated by a couple of men who seem to want to mansplain the scriptures to everyone. It’s refreshing to go to Relief Society in the alternate weeks and have a good class discussion with ten or more different women making great comments that are appreciated by everyone. I feel like lots of women have contributions they could make in Gospel Doctrine, but they don’t want to get shot down by the mansplaining men.
Not every ward I’ve been in has been like this. But some have. It happens way too often.
Inner – a hundred times yes and to other commenters who noted Relief Society is the only space left to the sisters without the brothers.
I love hearing strong, thoughtful women’s voices. It’s the thing I miss most about the women’s meetings when they were for adult women. Some women are able to hold their own in a male dominated class. Most are not. I wish it were otherwise, but I recognize reality.
I don’t think either men or women are usually consciously relegating women to the back of the bus when it comes to gospel discussion. For many of us, we are just so socialized into that way of working in the world that we often don’t even recognize that men are the only ones speaking. My husband has been happily married to an outspoken feminist for over 40 years. And yet all too often we start laughing as we realize that once again we have unthinkingly fallen back into the patterns we were raised with. It was the air we breathed and the water we swam in.
One of my BYU roommates brought up the idea of something clicking when we suddenly recognize that we are participating in something that devalues women. We began snapping our fingers when we had that click moment. Most of us need something like that in our daily lives.
I remember, on my mission, someone bearing testimony about how the separation in the endowment was reassuring to him because Leviticus mentions separating the sexes in the temple (or perhaps the congregation more broadly). But I don’t know the reference, nor does that necessarily have anything to do with the endowment.
I have a theory about why women will never be ordained with the priesthood and this theory also explains why we remain segregated at Church: women are now outperforming men in schools and universities and they would do so in the Church and in corporate America if they were given the opportunity.
The Brethren do not want to marginalize the conservative men because they could risk losing them. If women were given equal authority in the Church, we’d lose a lot of men either because the women outperform or because the men simply couldn’t handle it.
Thus, we’ll be sitting in opposite rooms for the foreseeable future.
@Immer, Rita, Klee – yes.
I am conflicted on this because I don’t love gender essentialism but I have found women-only spaces to be valuable to me as a woman in many settings (including professional).
I don’t think any meeting where decisions are being made that impact other people should be only one gender, of course, but for kinship and safety and discussion I like women-only spaces. Maybe if we were totally egalitarian I wouldn’t feel that way anymore. Dunno.
Bishop Bill,
Did you give your final answer to last week Gecko location? or did I miss it?
Be it Male or Female, there are some individuals in every group who want to dominate and take up all the oxygen in the room and be the center of attention.
In the LDS church structure, it forces some males to be involved who many times would not be. Those tend to be the better decision makers. Unfortunately, it allows some Males who want to control all the narrative, to use the term “Priesthood” and abuse power.
For females who want to be and should be in a “leadership role”, the current cultural structure of the church is stifling. However, some women in that decision making role could be just as abusive as some Males. I have had some RS Presidents who were rude and excessively demanding (very un-Christ-like)
I think one solution, is musical chairs. I see too often the same individuals, the same families control all the power structure in the wards and stakes. Once you have been in a decision making calling, you go to the back of the line. Give every one a chance to serve.
No excuses that “this person is talented”, “no one else wants to”. The church decision making structure is NOT about service in many situations and it is about prestige and “look how good we are”. The church is full of nepotism and cliques.
Especially, as a requirement once you have been a Bishop/Stake President/Mission president/Relief society President you have to serve in Nursery for a minimum of 1 year, no exceptions! If they want to serve, why are they not serving the children as Christ did ? They take the youth, but never the little kids.
Many talented and potentially talented people are overlooked, both male and female. With the current structure, just that many more females are overlooked compared to males.
When you break it all down, the LDS church system is broken.
@hedgehog I grew up in UK too and chose to go to an all girls high school rather than the larger coed school – the boys seemed like a rough bunch at the time and I wasn’t up for the distractions 🥴
On the temple – I expect separation of the sexes is patterned after other religious traditions like most Jewish and Muslim congregations for example. Very old world where definite patriarchy was and is prevalent.
And as other commenters have said – despite the problems with patriarchy I continue to enjoy our women only spaces where we can more comfortably share a voices and don’t have to deal with mansplaining.
I agree with Josh H. Women are outperforming men in education and business, and would do so if given the chance in church leadership. Many men clearly do not want that to happen. In fact, one of the regular writers of articles on this blog regularly posts things that criticize women and shuts down his comment feature when this is pointed out. Rick B, we’re looking at you.
I vote for a new way of segregating people at church. Put all the extroverts in one class and the introverts in the other. Introverts tend to like to dig deeper into doctrine, while the extroverts like to dominate the conversation. So, let the noisy extroverts compete with each other for attention, while the introverts finally can get an intelligent comment heard. That has the advantage of putting the obnoxious mansplainers all into the same class. In order to change classes, an extrovert has to remain silent in class for six months. And to change classes, an introvert would have to comment more than six times in one lesson. Should solve several problems us introverts have at church.
OK, I think I am kidding, maybe, … but could we try it and see how it works?
Anna – I completely agree with your comment.
Anna, as an introvert I LOVE that idea!
When I taught GD a few years ago, I made a rule to myself that I could only comment twice or less on the weeks I wasn’t teaching. Because as a teacher I was reading all the lessons and probably more prepared, but still wanted to make sure I didn’t dominate the class.
If we implemented that rule church wide, do you think we could then mix classes more? Because I definitely learn more when the classroom is more diverse.
Chadwick, No one learns or grows when it is the same 10 people. It may be diverse with butts in seats (female to male, TBM to nuanced, authoritarian keys to non key holder) but you can not speak your truth or experience when the pushback occurs from the dominant narrative.
What makes these blogs good is ability for the diversity to speak (although this is a more open minded audience). There is only one answer to every question in a LDS classroom, and that is to support the faith promoting story of the church instiution. The church does not want you to learn because that would create division. However the divisions are all present but hidden and swept under the rug. This topic today is females feeling divided and not included. We could substitute female for other excluded groups.
Sharon Eubank and her councilors get it. They just said the number one reason people leave religion is not being included and feeling judged. They set the example by inviting a queer member to speak. Why have the Q15 not shown this example? Why is the church 20 years behind.
Se dice y contradice!!!!! The church is bipolar!
BYU opens an office of inclusion on the same day JRH opines and creates more division.
Is the purpose of a class for the indivudual to learn or for reenforcing group think?
The cookie cutter approach does not work and the Q15 know it, but correlation sqaushes the potential of schisms in the church, at the expense of individual growth and learning.
Its easier to seperate the boys from girls than to have a rational discussion.
When my great-grandfather was in his early nineties, he figured he had learned all there was to learn in priesthood, and started attending Relief Society. The RS wasn’t exactly thrilled about that, so he received the calling of “Primary Greeter” at that point. It was a calling he loved.
I personally enjoy the separation. I’m generally a family man and don’t give much of my time to anyone else at all, but there is something rejuvenating about being around other men and being men (in the most appropriate sense). Having said that, I do look forward to 5th Sundays with my wife.
I always thought the temple separation was symbolic of the ultimate unity that comes once Celestial Glory was obtained, but I could be wrong.
I don’t understand how separation can be symbolic of ultimate unity? Might offering more?
Alice,
From what may very well be my limited understanding, and without getting into too much detail, we progress through kingdoms as the ceremony progress. Only in the Celestial room/kingdom are man and woman truly together again. Although I am certain individuals will be able to associate freely in all kingdoms, I think it more points to the idea that exaltation as a couple is the ultimate coming together moment of unity between a man and woman.
Anna, how would we decide who was an extrovert, and who was an introvert? Would we self select? Would there be a test?
Faith, you missed my answer last week. here it is: I hate to give my answer, since there have been so many great connections you guys found. Hedgehog got the closest. The gecko in question in my photo is a gold dust day gecko, native of Madagascar and the Comoros Islands. The capital of the Comoros islands is the city of Moroni. Comoros was known for a place where Captain Kidd might have buried gold. Some think that Joseph Smith, and his fascination with treasure digging and lost treasure lore, might have found a map or book that talked about Comoros and Moroni and that was the influence for the names in the BofM. Others think it is just a coincidence Joseph found golden plates in a hill called Cumorah guarded by an angle named Moroni.
I don’t know of my own logic and imagination, but listening to others I have learned that women are quite consistent about wanting some women-only spaces. This seems to be the case even though some of the comments are attached to complaints about poorly functioning RS meetings.. Also, single adults (a majority of the adult members) remind me to watch out for joint meeting ideas that reinforce couples belonging and singles not.
That kind of listening makes me wary of making it up on my own. I’m pretty sure any ideas I came up with without broad consultation would have a better than 50% chance of making things worse. For one thing, I’m an advocate for girls passing the sacrament and calling a woman as my next bishop. That’s not likely to happen in the short term (my lifetime), and there’s a risk my meeting plans could be distorted by my wishful thinking.
The argument I’ve heard the most (in schools, church, etc) for gender segregation is that having the opposite sex around is “distracting” which I assume is a euphemistic way of saying that sexual attraction is distracting. The thing is, this line of thinking completely breaks down when we remember that gay people exist. The gay men I’ve been around all my life have proved themselves perfectly capable of functioning and learning and excelling in all-male spaces. I think it’s only fair to expect that same maturity from straight people in mixed-gender spaces as well.
Seeing as gender-exclusive spaces are meaningful and safe for a lot of people though, maybe the solution is to make those meetings opt-in? Imagine a version of church where priesthood offices are held by women, men, and non-binary people and Sunday School consists of a wide variety of elective classes including female only or male only discussion groups.
Actually I think a lot of the church’s problems could be solved by making more things opt-in.
Bill, tell you what, if the church ever asks me how to implement my idea about segregating along personality lines, I’ll get serious and figure it out. People could self select, then if their behavior proves their self selection wrong, they could be sent to the other class, or everyone could take one of the on line standardized tests and be assigned appropriately.
But basically, I am in favor of anything that breaks up the huge classes of all the adults in the ward. I would even settle for classes based on age, so the adults are spread out over ten or so classes. Anything to have classes that everyone can participate in and you can actually get to know your class mates. Say, ten to fifteen active and some partially active per class, instead of 80-120 of every adult not otherwise occupied during Sunday School and RS/PH. I really like Kirkstall’s idea of a wide variety of classes that people can select from. Anything to get away from one huge class where only a handful of people participate, and they participate whether they have anything meaningful to say or not.
I’ve always felt that the gender separation in classes is undoubtedly painful for our LGBTQ youth.