- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
[ 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?
Matching my generalization against yours I have to say I don’t see it. Not in my ward or stake. Sorry about that.
Quote:GBSmith wrote: Matching my generalization against yours I have to say I don’t see it. Not in my ward or stake. Sorry about that.
Part is leadership roulette.
The other thing I find is age makes a difference. Some things I did that were considered Non-Traditional were very accepted when I was in my 20’s. As I have gotten older, I find those same activities are now viewed with more disapproval. As I watch the dynamics of gender at work and at church, unfortunately there are some similarities. Young, cute, and bouncy can get away with just about anything. Add a note of seriousness or age, and it doesn’t work any more.
I’ve wondered if Kate Kelly would’ve done better if she had lost the glasses, lowered the neckline, and gone blonde.
GBSmith wrote:hawkgrrrl wrote:[ 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?
Matching my generalization against yours I have to say I don’t see it. Not in my ward or stake. Sorry about that.
I’m not sure I understand your remark. My comment is about the church as a whole, E. Nelson specifically. Some wards are fairly good at listening to women. The church as a whole is only taking the first baby steps toward it. So are you disagreeing? I can’t tell.
Also, be very aware please that someone who doesn’t experience the church as a woman has very limited insight into experiencing the church as a woman. We do a lot of segregating of men & women in our church. There’s a lot men don’t see, and there’s a lot of man stuff women don’t see.
hawkgrrrl wrote:GBSmith wrote:hawkgrrrl wrote:[ 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?
Matching my generalization against yours I have to say I don’t see it. Not in my ward or stake. Sorry about that.
I’m not sure I understand your remark. My comment is about the church as a whole, E. Nelson specifically. Some wards are fairly good at listening to women. The church as a whole is only taking the first baby steps toward it. So are you disagreeing? I can’t tell.
Also, be very aware please that someone who doesn’t experience the church as a woman has very limited insight into experiencing the church as a woman. We do a lot of segregating of men & women in our church. There’s a lot men don’t see, and there’s a lot of man stuff women don’t see.
Hawk had listed some very good articles that discuss how women are often interrupted etc. This of course is not unique to our church but I do think that Mormonism does tend to exacerbate some of these problems. There is the respect for the priesthood, the idea that priesthood holders preside, and having little to no female representation in church leadership and I believe this widens the gap.
DW and I have noticed that when I come to school meetings with largely female administrators, I am often given a sense of deference or respect for my time that is lacking when DW attends alone. It is not as though DW is disrespected but there does appear to be an extra layer of respect for my participation.
In working with the primary I am very non-traditional. I sing the songs with the kids. I dramatize the scripture stories to include superheroes and Spongebob. I always bring games and treats. I do not expect our class to be super quiet (if the class downstairs can hear us then we must be having more fun than they are.) I have been firm that I do not expect my class of kids to do any memorizing. I have given feedback on how to improve sharing time for a special needs boy and how to be more inclusive in talking about family structures (both suggestions were implemented). I have been vocal that my only goal is for the 4 year old class to have a positive church experience. I have been praised for my involvement. Several times I have been told how wonderful it is to have a priesthood representative in the primary. I do wonder if a female would be praised for doing as I do or if she would be pushed to get more with the program.
I need to listen again, but I seem to remember that Elder Nelson is talking about asserting ourselves for good in the church and in the world. But he does specifically talk about speaking up at church. So, about listening…. I generally feel listened to at church – at least as much as the average “enlisted” man/woman is. I do quite a bit and don’t make waves. I have a feeling how things would play out if a conflict arose, but on a given day, things are fine.
But no one is listening to my deep concerns about the temple, our scriptures, and how we teach our history. . . because I haven’t said a blessed thing. I’ve never sat face to face with my male friends and leaders – often one in the same – and gotten the words out. (I’ve barely done it with my female friends.) Until I have the courage to speak, I can’t know they won’t listen.
Quote:But no one is listening to my deep concerns about the temple, our scriptures, and how we teach our history. . . because I haven’t said a blessed thing. I’ve never sat face to face with my male friends and leaders – often one in the same – and gotten the words out. (I’ve barely done it with my female friends.) Until I have the courage to speak, I can’t know they won’t listen.
I guarantee you that my bishop would listen and be empathetic to all of these concerns. That’s because he’s a great guy, not generally sexist, and just a good listener. But you know what? He can’t do one thing about the temple or the manuals. And the people who can still don’t let women work in the temple if they have children between ages 0 and 18 at home, although no similar restriction applies to their husbands.
I blog about these types of things because it is the only way that these concerns are aired to anyone who might possibly have any influence on changing things. But it’s a lot like putting a message in a bottle and throwing it into the ocean. I don’t think that’s because I’m unwilling to share my vision, my grit and yes, my love for the church and my daughter. I’m no shrinking violet. I just don’t think the church wants to hear from anyone whose experience is less than ideal.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:But no one is listening to my deep concerns about the temple, our scriptures, and how we teach our history. . . because I haven’t said a blessed thing. I’ve never sat face to face with my male friends and leaders – often one in the same – and gotten the words out. (I’ve barely done it with my female friends.) Until I have the courage to speak, I can’t know they won’t listen.
I guarantee you that my bishop would listen and be empathetic to all of these concerns. That’s because he’s a great guy, not generally sexist, and just a good listener. But you know what? He can’t do one thing about the temple or the manuals. And the people who can still don’t let women work in the temple if they have children between ages 0 and 18 at home, although no similar restriction applies to their husbands.
I blog about these types of things because it is the only way that these concerns are aired to anyone who might possibly have any influence on changing things. But it’s a lot like putting a message in a bottle and throwing it into the ocean. I don’t think that’s because I’m unwilling to share my vision, my grit and yes, my love for the church and my daughter. I’m no shrinking violet. I just don’t think the church wants to hear from anyone whose experience is less than ideal.
I’m afraid you might be right, but I’m going to run my experiment and see what happens. I am considering blogging about these issues, so I have watched pretty closely as others have tried and failed – most of them – to speak their mind while keeping their faith and standing in the church.I’m going to see what I can find out about November 12th at USU. Fwiw, I think the current leadership is making changes that are important and significant specifically because so many members, including women, are talking about things. By Common Consent, Times & Seasons, Wheat & Tares, this site, even Feminist Mormon Housewives, Patheos, Real Intent, individual blogs, etc. are read – and the concerns are being noted. I am not saying anything like that we live in a perfect or even wonderful situation relative to quantitative gender equality, but we are WAY closer to it than when I was a youth or young adult. As a history teacher, I actually am impressed with the rate of change I have seen. I look at that and have to belleve that the people making the change want to do so. Some people will ascribe negative motives to these changes, but I think the leadership is sincere in doing what they think they can to move closer to equality. I think they care deeply about women.
I just think they feel they can’t make sudden, massive changes – even those who, I am sure, would do so if they felt they could without damaging the Church significantly. A very few at the very top might not want to make more changes – but the visible evidence says most do want to make changes. Age and traditional probably are slowing factors to change, but probably the two most progressive talks given in the last few years were given by two of the apostles who have a reasonable chance of becoming Church President at some point: Elder Oaks and Pres. Nelson.
hawkgrrrl wrote:GBSmith wrote:hawkgrrrl wrote:[ 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?
Matching my generalization against yours I have to say I don’t see it. Not in my ward or stake. Sorry about that.
I’m not sure I understand your remark. My comment is about the church as a whole, E. Nelson specifically. Some wards are fairly good at listening to women. The church as a whole is only taking the first baby steps toward it. So are you disagreeing? I can’t tell.
Also, be very aware please that someone who doesn’t experience the church as a woman has very limited insight into experiencing the church as a woman. We do a lot of segregating of men & women in our church. There’s a lot men don’t see, and there’s a lot of man stuff women don’t see.
What I’m saying is that your statement “What’s frustrating is that the church doesn’t really want women of vision, grit, and love” is a generalization and also an accusation that is only supported by anecdotes. That my insight is limited is not something I’ll dispute but the women in my life over the years have had and continue to have vision, grit and love and seem very welcome in the church. And with that I’ll grant anyone the last word.
Quote:I think the leadership is sincere in doing what they think they can to move closer to equality.
I agree with this.
Quote:I think they care deeply about women.
I question this. Women are a foreign race to most of the men of the church. Can you love what you don’t understand, what you see as eternally different from you? I think there’s too much deliberate misunderstanding of women, too much seeing us as something completely different from men. When people talk about gender essentialism as if it’s a real thing, it’s a way of putting distance in understanding between men and women, of making women incomprehensible and other.
This is a subtle thing. Just as an example, when I was a missionary I thought of myself as doing the same thing as the elders, one of them. It took me a while to figure out that even if we were friends, most of the elders didn’t view the sisters this way. I hope the change in mission age changes this.
FWIW, this talk was at the top of the list when we discussed GC in our stake PEC meeting. The comments were positive, of course, and we talked about how to do better in our own wards and stake. Part of the problem is the leaders are stuck on the same organizational structure as the rest of us. It is a structure that has been called divine, inspired, and of God. They are hesitant to rock the boat too much even when their personal views are different. We know a SP who went to a conference where a Auxiliary Board Member was speaking and teaching the SPs. This particular SP stood up to tell the Board Member how she was wrong. DHO was there. He had the SP sit down, tore the SP a new one, and explained that as far as SPs were concerned, the Sisters who were Auxiliary Board Members were to be treated like GAs. DHO considered their callings equal to a GA. DHO may feel that way, but there are still changes he cannot make within the structure of the church.
We all know women who feel like as long as they have children, they don’t need to do or accomplish anything else, their work is done. That mentality is a huge part of the problem. Those women see any furthering of women’s roles as a threat to the path they have chosen for themselves.
On every level, individuals are stuck in the roles assigned. Change will be hard and slow, but it is happening.
Ann wrote:Hmm. I hope there aren’t any free-for-alls in RS.
One issue with women being fearless to speak up is that we WILL get flamethrowers and those who live to complain. I think maybe men are a little worried that if women were given the all clear to speak up and that they WILL be heard, the men might be ousted.
🙂 My mother’s ward’s RS is fraught with petty teachers who incite arguments. Those women need to be duct taped. There is a place for heated discussion. RS is not it. Women should feel safe when they come to class and should expect to be discussing the gospel in a sisterly way – and maybe when we get out of the Presidents of the Church manuals that can happen a little easier.
Women who choose to speak up should do so with tact and class. I would love to lead a meeting where an ordain woman was present. If she could present her view without venom, I think I would welcome it. And that would apply to anyone who might want to express an unorthodox view – no venom.
WHAT IF…. What if the next Priesthood Session of GC was nothing BUT women speakers?
1 – how awesome would that be?
2 – how many men would walk away complaining about it?
3 – who wants to suggest that to the GA’s?
What if during the next EQ social, 2-3 women were present as the RS representatives…you know, in case something happened. Much like the men are present at RS functions.
1 – how awesome would that be?
2 – how many men would walk away complaining about it?
3 – who wants to suggest that to the GA’s?
What if the EQ and the HPG and even YM invited sisters in to teach a few of their lessons once in a while?
1 – how awesome would that be?
2 – how many men would walk away complaining about it?
3 – who wants to start that idea in their wards?
What if the executive secretary in wards were callings given to women?
1 – how awesome would that be? Can you imagine how organized the bishop would be with his schedule?
2 – how many men would walk away complaining about it?
3 – who wants to suggest that to the GA’s?
Maybe a general a Women’s Advocacy Committee could take in suggestions and concerns and present a concise but clear list of those concerns with the men at the top.
Good ideas?
Really, though – the next question that seems to be popular is HOW can women be heard without coming across as whiny or angry?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.