Amen, Sherri Dew!

[CMZ]

I don't know that this issue will ever die. Someone or some group of people will always have the idea that "not getting the Priesthood" means that God/the bishop/a husband, etc., thinks a woman is inferior and that such "inferiority" will finally be corrected when women are given the Priesthood. This is a "when will you stop beating your wife?" type of argument. The very way in which the issue is discussed implies that there is a real or perceived inferiority that needs to be overcome. The reality is that men and women are equal and men being given the priesthood before exaltation does not prove favor over women. Of course, a LOT of work needs to be done so that men (some, anyways) in the Church will understand this and then behave better due to improved understanding. When the question is seen as, "When will women get the priesthood so that they can be equal to men?" or even, "When will women get the priesthood so it will be clear to everyone that they are equal to men?" then all of the discussion that follows after that will be stunted. True understanding will never come when a foundational misunderstanding is never removed.

[juliann]

I don't know that this issue will ever die. Someone or some group of people will always have the idea that "not getting the Priesthood" means that God/the bishop/a husband, etc., thinks a woman is inferior and that such "inferiority" will finally be corrected when women are given the Priesthood. This is a "when will you stop beating your wife?" type of argument. The very way in which the issue is discussed implies that there is a real or perceived inferiority that needs to be overcome. The reality is that men and women are equal and men being given the priesthood before exaltation does not prove favor over women. Of course, a LOT of work needs to be done so that men (some, anyways) in the Church will understand this and then behave better due to improved understanding. When the question is seen as, "When will women get the priesthood so that they can be equal to men?" or even, "When will women get the priesthood so it will be clear to everyone that they are equal to men?" then all of the discussion that follows after that will be stunted. True understanding will never come when a foundational misunderstanding is never removed.

 

I agree with your last sentence to some extent because part of that foundational misunderstanding is assuming that women and men are "equal" in the sense they have the same responsibilities and opportunities.  They do not.  That is not equality no matter how you try to define it.  That you allow for those men who need to behave better is an admission that there is a mindset that needs fixing...but it can't be fixed without the foundational understanding that inequality does, indeed, exist. It is black and white.  It can be clearly outlined on paper merely by listing what women can't do.  It is in-your-face visible.  The next step is then how and why women have less opportunity within the church ...outside of parenthood... than men do.

[bluebell]

I agree with your last sentence to some extent because part of that foundational misunderstanding is assuming that women and men are "equal" in the sense they have the same responsibilities and opportunities.  They do not.  That is not equality no matter how you try to define it.  That you allow for those men who need to behave better is an admission that there is a mindset that needs fixing...but it can't be fixed without the foundational understanding that inequality does, indeed, exist. It is black and white.  It can be clearly outlined on paper merely by listing what women can't do.  It is in-your-face visible.  The next step is then how and why women have less opportunity within the church ...outside of parenthood... than men do.

 

I think an important step is for people to investigate whether or not the inequality that exists in the LDS church is actually inequitable.

[ERayR]

IMNSHO equality is not that everybody have exactly the same things but rather that everybody have what is most beneficial to them.

Edited November 27, 2013 by ERayR

[juliann]

I think an important step is for people to investigate whether or not the inequality that exists in the LDS church is actually inequitable.

Since equity is based on synonyms like equal/fair/impartial our practices are inequitable by any known definition.  We need to start with the accepted meaning of words.  Not allowing women to have leadership positions or priesthood only because they aren't men is inequitable.  It is unequal.  It is discriminatory.  Fairness tends to be more "feely" kind of thing.  But equality is not.  We have no trouble whatsoever recognizing it when it comes to race. 

 

There, we said it.  Now, if it doesn't matter...or if it works for us...we have to explain it based on easily observable and definable practices.

 

IMNSHO equality is not that everybody have exactly the same things but rather that everybody have what is most beneficial to them.

 

 Which is decided for women by....men.    

[ERayR]

 Which is decided for women by....men.    

 

How did I know you would misinterpret what I said.  I have no desire to continue to exchange misinterpretations with you so bye.

[bluebell]

Since equity is based on synonyms like equal/fair/impartial our practices are inequitable by any known definition.

I don't think that is a given.

 

The definition of equitable, as you said, is fair or just.  There are real world examples where people are not treated equally, but no one argues that it's not just or fair.  Most if not all parents embrace the difference.  I don't treat my children equally, but I believe that I treat them justly and fairly for example.

 

We need to start with the accepted meaning of words.  Not allowing women to have leadership positions or priesthood only because they aren't men is inequitable. 

 

 

I don't think that's a given either.  I think it can be inequitable, but I don't believe it has to be. 

 

If it truly is God's will that women not be ordained to the priesthood, and if there are actual leadership positions that require the person to be ordained to the priesthood, then to suggest that not allowing women to have those leadership positions means that God is unjust. 

 

It is unequal.  It is discriminatory. 

 

 

Absolutely.

 

Now, if it doesn't matter...or if it works for us...we have to explain it based on easily observable and definable practices.

 

 Exactly.  If it doesn't matter to God, then it's not inequitable. If it were unjust, God would not be the author of it.

 

 Which is decided for women by....men. 

 

 

I'm not willing to go that far yet..   I'm not comfortable suggesting that these men are not being guided by God on the issues. 

[juliann]

I don't think that is a given.

 

The definition of equitable, as you said, is fair or just.  There are real world examples where people are not treated equally, but no one argues that it's not just or fair.  Most if not all parents embrace the difference.  I don't treat my children equally, but I believe that I treat them justly and fairly for example.

 

 

But women aren't children.  Not that you don't have a point but I kind of cringe when a woman's situation is explained by citing what happens with children.  This was also used to explain how men could love more than one wife but never used to explain how women could love more than one man.

 

 

If it truly is God's will that women not be ordained to the priesthood, and if there are actual leadership positions that require the person to be ordained to the priesthood, then to suggest that not allowing women to have those leadership positions means that God is unjust. 

 

But we don't even need to include the priesthood and women are still not treated equally.  Again, it is black and white and can be put into a list.  It just is.  The time spent denying would be put to better use by explaining why it doesn't matter.

 

 

 

 

 Exactly.  If it doesn't matter to God, then it's not inequitable. If it were unjust, God would not be the author of it.

 

 

I'm not willing to go that far yet..   I'm not comfortable suggesting that these men are not being guided by God on the issues.

I don't think God is the author of cultural practices and a good amount of what we do is guided by culture, that again is very easy to outline through a historical analysis. 

[bluebell]

But women aren't children.  Not that you don't have a point but I kind of cringe when a woman's situation is explained by citing what happens with children.  This was also used to explain how men could love more than one wife but never used to explain how women could love more than one man.

 

 I definitely am not comparing women to children.  That was just one example which illustrated the point.  But so far as I believe that it is God who will ultimately decide the issue, the comparison works.  We are all (men and women) His children and this example is explaining the situation of both sexes by citing what happens with children, not just women.

 

The same concept is often used in divorce proceedings (something very much between and about adults).  Dividing up assets unequally but equitably is often one of the jobs of the court. 

 

It also happens when budgets or funding for programs are decided and divided in cities, states, and other organizations. 

 

My only point is that one cannot say that unequal is always inequitable, because there are real life situations where that's just not true.   And generally, we don't have a problem with such situations in the secular world because we recognize that it's more important that things are just, than equal.

 

So, it might be beneficial for all of us to investigate how we think this situation in the church stacks up in the equity department because that's what really matters.

 

I don't think God is the author of cultural practices and a good amount of what we do is guided by culture, that again is very easy to outline through a historical analysis.

 

 

I don't disagree.  A good amount of what we do is guided by culture.  But not everything that we do is, and you did not limit your statement to be speaking about only cultural practices. 

 

Unless the statement is limited in some way in how it is applied or what situations it is talking about, it makes it sound like you are saying that it is always men who control what happens to the women and that God never has anything to do with it.

 

It's that sweeping and broad implication (which you might not have meant to make) that I don't agree with. 

Edited November 27, 2013 by bluebell

[juliann]

 

 

 

I don't disagree.  A good amount of what we do is guided by culture.  But not everything that we do is, and you did not limit your statement to be speaking about only cultural practices. 

 

Unless the statement is limited in some way in how it is applied or what situations it is talking about, it makes it sound like you are saying that it is always men who control what happens to the women and that God never has anything to do with it.

 

It's that sweeping and broad implication (which you might not have meant to make) that I don't agree with. 

I thought saying a "good amount" would be enough of a disclaimer, sorry for the confusion. 

[bluebell]

I thought saying a "good amount" would be enough of a disclaimer, sorry for the confusion.

I must have missed where you said good amount.

All I saw was where you said "which is decided for women....by men."

Sorry for not reading more carefully.

[juliann]

I must have missed where you said good amount.

All I saw was where you said "which is decided for women....by men."

Sorry for not reading more carefully.

Ha, we may be talking about different posts. 

[bluebell]

Ha, we may be talking about different posts.

It wouldn't be the first time I've done that, I'm sure!

[MorningStar]

So what I'm hearing is that women are unequal or feel unequal because we don't have opportunities to do x, y, and z that the men do, but the thought keeps coming to mind, "Why aren't we more bothered by being unequal by nature if being different means being unequal?"  Men and women both have their difficulties, but it seems like we bear a lot more physical trials and have the heavy burden of having to go through 9 months of suffering followed by horrific pain in order to have children.  Then comes the breastfeeding problems, sleep deprivation, often postpartum depression, etc. and at the same time being expected to be a super awesome mom.

 

And if you don't have kids, there are still periods to deal with that can cause crippling pain.  I spend a quarter of the month in pain!  And it's not just the cramps.  Every pain I have normally is amplied for some reason.  Later, the joys of menopause.  So I think if I were to have a beef with anyone, it would be with God for the way we were designed rather than the church for not giving me additional responsibilities.  Or I would find it much more troublesome that men are talked about way, way more in the scriptures than women are, so these things women are campaigning for leave me scratching my head.  "Really?  You have major hurt feelings over that?"  Why not campaign to retroactively add a lot more women stories in the scriptures?   

[Deborah]

Amen, MS.