Sister missionaries-Resentments?

Fwiw, I’ve never heard that explanation – and I hope and believe it’s an exception to the rule. It’s sad and says more about that leader than anything else.

If I heard that statement, I would go right to the Bishop and express my concern.

It has come to my attention that in a neighboring area, a YM leader teaching the YM blamed the young male missionaries for the change in the policy regarding sister missionaries.

We tend to come up with reasons to explain church policy. I had heard many times that females don’t go on missions until they are 21 because their first duty is to try to get married. If they are still unmarried by 21 and still wish to serve then it is ok. Now that the policy has changed what are we to conclude? Is marriage for YW being less emphasized? or was that whole line of reasoning just sexist speculation to begin with? :think: Trying to explain is what we do.

Very sorry to hear that there’s been some negativity spun out of what should be, by all accounts, a very positive development in Church gender roles. I can report that in my little corner of the vineyard there’s been nothing but positives come out of the age change – I haven’t heard any speculation or condemnation about it. Only excitment for the large number of sisters who will now get the benefit of serving a mission. :clap:

I will add, however, that I am aware of a small, hidden undercurrent of negativity in the Church towards sister missionaries. I think this is true for several reasons. First of all, before the age change, there was often a bit of an age and maturity discrepancy between elders and sisters in a mission. For instance, I was a ZL counselling a sister missionary – I was a high school graduate with zero college, she had a BA and MA and was a Licensed Clinical Social Worker. Very weird. Some guys didn’t take that well. Also, elders seemed to highlight some of the “drama” that surrounded sister companionships. Of course, there was also plenty of drama in some of the elder companionships as well, but when there was sister drama, it seemed like it got blown up a bit more. Lastly, once we got home, I think there were a small group of men who felt intimidated by the returning sister missionaries. The sisters were more educated, more successful professionally, more squared away in the Gospel post-mission, and had newly-acquired second language skills after serving in S. America, Europe or Asia. When these beta males met an alpha female, they retreated to the familiar territory of contempt and denigration. Again, I think this is a small number of guys, but there are a few of them out there. Too bad, really.

Personally, I think this will go a long way toward creating more equal expectations for women and men, therefore, both will be stronger. Men will be less sexist because their missions will teach them how to work with women. Women will be more apt to focus on spiritual independence and the independence that comes with serving missions – they will also be more likely to finish their education, IMO. I actually worry that boys who go on their missions straight from high school may fall off on the education track. We’ll see.

I’m somewhat offended by the idea that lack of “success” on a mission is as a result of a lack of effort on the Missionary’s part. How’s that saying go? You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them come back to church after a quickie baptism.