- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m not sure exactly what Elder Nelson is envisioning in his talk, but he referred to himself first and foremost as our brother and created space for something different to happen. Every LDS woman will filter his talk through her own lens, but I’m going to keep it as a guidepost. I see a lot of potential in it. I just don’t want to hold my breath yet. But I don’t plan to waste it either. I have been carefully outspoken and will be looking at positive ways to keep moving the dial upward. If he was talking to E. Ballard (who told women not to talk too much in councils in the April GC), it’s a win. If he was talking to women of the church at large, well, there are a few minor details to be overlooked: 1) he said it in a conference in which only 2 of 39 speakers were women.
2) he said the church needs women of vision, grit and love after excommunicating Kate Kelly, who for all her flaws certainly had vision and grit.
3) see #3 – what happens when women speak up and men don’t like what they say? We all know what happens.
Again, if he’s talking to the men who don’t listen to women, great, but to tell women to “lean in” when most of us know that women speak up plenty, and we are sometimes listened to and sometimes dismissed because we have no institutional authority, well, here’s a thought for the men: listen up. Also, quit placing women on a pedestal as the crowning achievement of humanity and “angel” mothers. It makes it easy to justify marginalizing them because those kinds of women being extolled are the ones who don’t speak up.
I believe a good start (recognizing that change tends to be incremental if it is accepted by most large, bureaucratic institutions) would be stop advertising men as the “head of the household”. It doesn’t make sense to say one person is the head, while at the same time, the husband and wife are “equal partners”. Both of these roles can’t exist at the same time in the same organization. I really liked it as something that can be referenced for increased involvement and expanded roles. As with everything, it might take a while for the water to get to the end of every row, but I like it.
hawkgrrrl wrote:but to tell women to “lean in” when most of us know that women speak up plenty
But I haven’t been one of them; that’s what’s about to change in terms of what I do.Quote:and we are sometimes listened to and sometimes dismissed because we have no institutional authority
And I hope to be listened to because I’ll be speaking with this sort of day pass from Elder Nelson. I’m not a flamethrower, but it’s nice to be clear-headed about what I need to do to live with myself in the church. Because in the moment, all the habits and conditioning of a lifetime kick in and it’s very hard to “go” anywhere but the rutted trail.I appreciate that Elder Nelson seems to have given tacit approval for my faithful agitation as an LDS woman. However, I would like to ask him one question: How?I am not one of the three women in my ward who participates in ward council (nor is it likely that I ever will be – I am NOT auxiliary president material). I am mindful of not wasting my bishop’s time, and I understand that 95% of my concerns, he is powerless to address. (He can’t change the temple ceremony, for example.) Ditto the stake president, who I don’t really know all that well anyway. Writing a letter to my area authority or a general authority is likely to be fruitless, as my concerns will simply be forwarded back to my local leaders –
who can’t do anything to change them anyway. (This is leaving aside the game of leadership roulette, and the fact that as a woman I can be excommunicated by my bishop.) Discussing these issues online, while cathartic, is unlikely to produce any real change – though I do remind myself that at least we got women to start praying in Conference. Basically, the top-down leadership structure of the Church makes it almost impossible for the lay member’s concerns to be heard by anyone with any power to change things – doubly so if you’re a woman; you don’t have to go very far up the chain of command before it’s all men the rest of the way up. I am happy to make my voice heard. I’m happy that Elder Nelson has indicated that he
wantsmy voice to be heard. And I don’t have the faintest clue how I’m supposed to make that happen. I am waiting for the cat fights to begin because as Joni pointed out very few women will be able to affect change in the “talk to your leader” style. But all us girls in RS together could get exciting. Who brings up polygamy first? Gay Marriage? Essay’s? I have sat in my ward, I have gently spoken up and sat silent at other times – NOW, hmmm. What will a ward RS Pres. do if an Ordain Woman Supporter and a Mormon Women Stand sister are in the same room? I am definitely bringing Ghardetto’s to church every week. It could be fun.
Hmm. I hope there aren’t any free-for-alls in RS. 
Joni, my focus these days is just on the peace that will come from speaking my mind, and what I consider my obligation to my daughters.
Joni wrote:I am happy to make my voice heard. I’m happy that Elder Nelson has indicated that he
wantsmy voice to be heard. And I don’t have the faintest clue how I’m supposed to make that happen. Given how centralized the church is, the applicability of Elder Nelson’s talk seems to be for local types of issues in Wards and Stakes — input on how to run the Ward, callings for people, local visioning and planning, and operational issues. These sorts of things are changeable at the local level. How to effect change at the central level? Not possible unless the leadership wants to initiate it. And as we said in a different thread, there is no upward mechanism for effecting such change.
Quote:Ann wrote: Hmm. I hope there aren’t any free-for-alls in RS.
I went to hear N. McBaine speak. She was so concerned about not wanting to say anything contraversial that she ended up saying nothing. She rambled on and on about how important it was to have important conversations about important topics. She never got around to stating what she considered important.
She is published, she is touring and speaking all over, but if we are expecting her to lead us .. It isn’t going to happen. It isn’t her fault. It is the culture.
Opinionated mouthy women are excommunicated. Quiet women are blown off as submissive and seen as part of the problem. It is hard to find just the right balance. She has done well on the speaker circuit by being so non-contraversial that it is painful.
amateurparent wrote:Quote:Ann wrote: Hmm. I hope there aren’t any free-for-alls in RS.
I went to hear N. McBaine speak. She was so concerned about not wanting to say anything contraversial that she ended up saying nothing. She rambled on and on about how important it was to have important conversations about important topics. She never got around to stating what she considered important.
She is published, she is touring and speaking all over, but if we are expecting her to lead us .. It isn’t going to happen. It isn’t her fault. It is the culture.
Opinionated mouthy women are excommunicated. Quiet women are blown off as submissive and seen as part of the problem. It is hard to find just the right balance. She has done well on the speaker circuit by being so non-contraversial that it is painful.
I did like her book and she at least touched on a few very benign issues that the church could change during one conference talk by the prophet. But I do see her being very careful about what she says and if she overplays her card she could be bumped to “outsider” status and her effectiveness diminished. I look at OW and I very easily could be wrong, but I wish they had not staged the protests at conference and took a bit more of a long-term “keep the pressure on, but don’t stray too far from what will keep you ‘in’ the group”. But as the economist Keynes said, “In the long run we are all dead.” There is something to be said for pushing hard and going for broke. It could be that their specific efforts were matched by equal amounts of resistance, but that sets up the next generation that looks at the whole situation quite differently and then change start occurring.My personal take of OW is they they used the tactics that work in politics. In politics, you decide that your goal is some middle of the road rational request, but you know your request will be blown off. So .. You ask for some outrageous outlier request. Everyone is stunned, media gets involved, everyone talks about how extreme your organization is, and you end up with a nice middle of the road rational things put into the laws and budgets.
IMP, OW didn’t understand that the church doesn’t react like a political democracy. The church had all the power AND a very powerful PR machine. They crushed OW on both levels. They took church membership away from OW leaders, and the church launched a very successful campaign to undermine the personal integrity of the leaders and the organization.
Quote:OW didn’t understand that the church doesn’t react like a political democracy. The church had all the power AND a very powerful PR machine. They crushed OW on both levels. They took church membership away from OW leaders, and the church launched a very successful campaign to undermine the personal integrity of the leaders and the organization.
I agree. What’s frustrating is that the church doesn’t really want women of vision, grit and love. They want women who will loudly do whatever they are told. It’s OK to have vision as long as it’s not different from the brethren. It’s only OK to have grit in defense of the home. Love is fine, but only for the status quo. Sorry to come across as jaded, but how can anyone say they want to hear from women when 2 of 39 speakers were women?
So really, if the audience was men it tells them to listen. If the audience was women, it grants them permission to speak. But last time I checked, actions speak louder than words. As someone else pointed out, bring up polygamy and the sexism in the temple and see how eager they are to hear that. Not very.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.