- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
There was a line that President Nelson said in GC that struck me funny. Quote:When a man understands the majesty and power of a righteous, seeking, endowed Latter-day Saint woman, is it any wonder that he feels like standing when she enters the room?
This struck me as odd mainly because I am not sure that I have ever done this or have been taught to do it. It is not part of my programming.
I have done some googling on this practice and it appears that it had to do with 1) freeing up chairs for ladies upon entering. 2) helping ladies sit in rather impractical and unweildly dresses. and 3) as a show of respect. Perhaps it is similar to the gentleman walking on the street or gutter side of the sidewalk and having his female companion walk on the house side. It once served a legitimate purpose as well as coforming to social custom. Now it can serve as a show of respect but is no longer practical or typically expected.
I am blinded by the lens of my own experience. I grew up in the church. I graduated from church institute and served a 2 year proselyting mission. I attended BYU and I married in the temple. Standing for women that enter a room has not really been part of my perceived LDS cultural experience. What might it look like to stand like this? Do you stand for all women all the time? Do you only stand for your wife? Do you stand for girls? Only at formal events or at home in your living room also? (I have been trained and I do observe to stand to greet and say goodbye to people and whenever shaking hands.)
According to President Nelson, should you stand when any woman enters the room or just a “righteous, seeking, endowed Latter-day Saint woman”? What of the woman is not LDS? Or if she is LDS but not endowed? Or maybe a man should stand for any woman but only really feel like it when it is an endowed LDS woman?
Is this just a vestige of President Nelson’s cultural ubringing, notions of chivalry, and benevolent sexism?
https://wheatandtares.org/2015/06/14/standing-for-women/ https://wheatandtares.org/2016/05/25/what-would-you-fall-for/ https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/05/25/standing-or-something/ These last two links reference an incident at BYU-I where the audience stood when Sheri Dew entered the devotional as the key note speaker. The following week the BYU-I President Gilbert reminded the student body that standing as an audience was only appropriate when a member of the FP or Q15 enters the room. Considering that Sheri Dew or any other member of the general RS presidency certainly ought to qualify as a “righteous, seeking, endowed Latter-day Saint woman” did President Nelson just countermand or supercede BYU-I President Gilberts direction? Are we now supposed to stand (or feel like standing) whenever an LDS female church leader/general officer enters?
I’ve rarely observed this in non church life. I’ve observed it only occasionally at church. A Bishop once told me that Adam set the example in the temple and that we should arise when a woman enters the room as Adam did when Eve arrived.
This is old school manners. Not just LDS. However, I can’t say I’ve ever noticed the power and majesty of an endowed woman. Most of the endowed ladies in my ward are elderly! It is one of those pieces of etiquette that can be applied too firmly and actually creates passive aggression and chaos. What if there are twenty or more women entering a room, but they do so gradually? You’d have to go up and down like a yo-yo. What happens when one of the women insists on it, and the other is a militant feminist who finds it offensive?
I agree with Sam, it’s old school manners. Not surprising coming from Nelson – he’s old. I don’t observe it very much any more and there are probably a variety of reasons why people stopped doing it not the least of which is just letting go of old traditions. I don’t want to derail, honestly it bothers me more that we stand when the president of the church (or sometimes other church leaders) enters the room. But I think the premise is the same in that standing is meant to show respect. When I meet a group of people (of any gender) coming into a café or bar etc or passing by, I’m technically supposed to stand to greet them. Half the time this happens to me, my legs are wedged under a table or I’m supposed to do this twenty times… I even know someone who used to insist on kissing women’s hands. Well, technically you’re supposed to blow on them instead of kissing the hands, or something like that. Eventually I had to say to him, “Stop that!” It always created confusion and a “bit of a scene”. Some women didn’t take to it kindly in this feminist age. Some were flattered and some a bit creeped out. Maybe if they were dressed in pearls and furs, but we’re talking about women in jeans and T-shirts here.
Some politeness is a good thing, but some manners need to go. I would put both of these into the trash can. Just say “Hello” to women politely, and acknowledge them… None of this constant standing and hand kissing…
I agree, Sam, I see little use for those old customs in our modern, enlightened, and equal times. Standing when a lady enters is very much like opening the car door for a woman (another old tradition that I do still see sometimes). I don’t usually do so for my wife, at least half the time she’s doing the driving anyway. It was probably etiquette back in 1776 when Nelson was in his courting years. :angel: :angel: nibbler wrote:
It was probably etiquette back in 1776 when Nelson was in his courting years.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. The other day, at church, I was sitting in the entryway of our chapel. There are places to sit & people were
coming in, sitting & talking right after sacrament meeting. As other people came out, I noticed there were no more places to sit so, I stood up
and offered my seat to one of the women. In a situation like this I will always stand for a woman.
It has nothing to do with the woman being LDS, endowed, old, pretty or anything else. It’s just the polite thing to do.
FYI, I’m really old and I wasn’t courting.
It was a bad joke. And I think there’s a difference between standing to offer up your seat to someone and standing just because someone walked in a room and then promptly sitting back down.
If a man were to stand up when I entered the room, it would really make me feel uncomfortable. This is definitely old-school. I don’t think it has anything to do with President Nelson being LDS; it’s more about his age. Yes, my googling of this practice has confirmed that it is old school manners. It was customary to stand and then sit down again at social gatherings whenever a woman entered the room or joined or exited from your group conversation. As women began to enter the workforce the practice declined. As women become work colleagues it becomes appropriate to recognize and respect them as coworkers and producers. Workplace etiquette has largely replaced these older social customs outside of the workplace. Be professional, courteous, and respectful. Do not be overly formal or perform little rituals that constantly remind everyone of gender differences. And this is part of why this comment bothers me so. In this custom, women are treated as an other. They are not on the same level as the man. Maybe they are treated lesser than, maybe they are put on a pedestal (depending on how you frame it) but they are not treated as equals.
In this GC talk President Nelson is talking about women’s access to priesthood power and he is actually making positive strides. For example he says that a single endowed woman, living alone, still has priesthood power in her home and that she presides in her home (even if she has priesthood bearing children).
But then he says stuff like this example about standing when a woman comes into the room and it is jarring to me. Why would he reference a ritual and social custom of a time when women had significantly less rights than men to help explain the power that an endowed woman should “seek” and aspire to today. He immediately follows the comment about standing with the following.
Quote:From the dawning of time, women have been blessed with a unique moral compass—the ability to distinguish right from wrong. This gift is enhanced in those who make and keep covenants. … But my dear sisters, your ability to discern truth from error, to be society’s guardians of morality, is crucial in these latter days. And we depend upon you to teach others to do likewise. Let me be very clear about this: if the world loses the moral rectitude of its women, the world will never recover.
This sounds like something that I might read in a Jane Austin novel. From the dawning of time, women have been blessed with a unique moral compass? Does the dawning of time only include mortality or were women so uniquely blessed in the premortal realm? Regardless it sounds like something that they are born with because of their gender. “This gift is enhanced in those who make and keep covenants.” Does this mean that the endowment of knowledge and God’s priesthood power is for the purpose of augmenting a female’s natural sense of right and wrong? So that these endowed women can become more fully equipped and prepared to … “be society’s guardians of morality?” WTH? Why must our conversation on this topic be so steeped in the ideas and assumptions of Victorian England?
Roy wrote:
And this is part of why this comment bothers me so. In this custom, women are treated as an other. They are not on the same level as the man. Maybe they are treated lesser than, maybe they are put on a pedestal (depending on how you frame it) but they are not treated as equals.In this GC talk President Nelson is talking about women’s access to priesthood power and he is actually making positive strides. For example he says that a single endowed woman, living alone, still has priesthood power in her home and that she presides in her home (even if she has priesthood bearing children).
But then he says stuff like this example about standing when a woman comes into the room and it is jarring to me. Why would he reference a ritual and social custom of a time when women had significantly less rights than men to help explain the power that an endowed woman should “seek” and aspire to today?
I think it comes down to the assumption that erasing the gender-priesthood connection means that men and women will handle the priesthood obligations, responsibilities, privileges the same way because gender is not a driving force for capacity/ability to complete the tasks. This changes the cultural gender role expectations by “un-assigning” them to specific genders. In American culture, this looks like working on integrating male nurses, females into STEM fields, male primary teachers, etc. It is implementing 2 deep leadership not to discriminate against men in women and youth organizations, but to protect more individuals.
I have heard nothing from President Nelson that implies that erasing the gender-priesthood connection will change the cultural roles of either gender. In fact, I think there has been a shift to equalize policy, procedures, and organization roles specifically because he believes that women will handle those obligations, responsibilities, and privileges differently, and that is becoming necessary. It’s as if women can now be witnesses so that they can have these experiences and change how things are done (in the sense that more gets done without having to wait for a specific subset of people). Receiving additional priesthood titles in the course of a woman’s duty will not increase or decrease her innate motherhood/divine female ability/moral leadership.
Roy wrote:
This sounds like something that I might read in a Jane Austin novel. From the dawning of time, women have been blessed with a unique moral compass? Does the dawning of time only include mortality or were women so uniquely blessed in the premortal realm? Regardless it sounds like something that they are born with because of their gender. “This gift is enhanced in those who make and keep covenants.”Does this mean that the endowment of knowledge and God’s priesthood power is for the purpose of augmenting a female’s natural sense of right and wrong?
That may be a side benefit.
I think that the endowment of knowledge and God’s priesthood for women is probably to aid in teaching doctrine (mostly in the home and to the rising generation) and getting the cultural/social/organizational requirements of the church leading done.
Roy wrote:
So that these endowed women can become more fully equipped and prepared to … “be society’s guardians of morality?” WTH? Why must our conversation on this topic be so steeped in the ideas and assumptions of Victorian England?
On some levels, I wish that the conversations were different.
But these ideas and assumptions are being expressed through the world view of our leaders who grew up using those symbols and understand those concepts that specific way. And the way it is conveyed winds up rubbing me the wrong way more often then not these days.
I don’t have the ability to discern whether the divine order of things is being expressed by President Nelson and that is the message that is getting lost in the translation to humanity, or if it’s just the natural world view President Nelson lives in that is a backdrop to other teachings.
Here I go being cynical about old leaders again (as I did with Ballard in another thread) – this is a veiled “women are born to be mothers, nurture their babies, etc., while real men go to work and provide all of her wants and wishes so she can be the queen at home.” It all fits together, doesn’t it? Old-fashioned, well-intentioned, sincere, good-hearted, benevolently-sexist men gonna condescend to women through old-fashioned, well-intentioned, sincere, good-hearted, benevolently-sexist stereotypes based on growing up believing in old-fashioned, well-intentioned, sincere, good-hearted, benevolently-sexist praise. nibbler wrote:
It was probably etiquette back in 1776 when Nelson was in his courting years.:angel: :angel:
RM Nelson or Horatio Nelson of the RN?
“England expects every man to do his duty – thusly to stand up whenever a lady enters the room.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.