Women And Apologetics

[Yirgacheffe]

Why would a man feel the need answer a question not posed to him or bother to explain why the questions don't matter?

Because when you ask "why don't women" or "why do women" it's really  the men being accused of something and they go all defensive, it's all about the men.

[Robert F. Smith]

...............................................................   

 

Do you think this may be one of the reasons why women don't engage?  (Nothing personal, men!)

This phenomenon has been observed in schoolgirls not responding in class as much as boys, perhaps because it was not considered good form for a girl.  This has been changing in the West, and women now outnumber men in many university graduate schools.

 

Within the LDS community this development has come more slowly, where the mere existence of male religious leadership tends to diminish expectations for women to lead in secular areas of endeavor (business, medicine, industry, etc.), perhaps due to the emphasis on marriage and homemaking.  However, LDS women are obtaining increased political and business power, and there are more significant female defenders of the faith now than in the past century, e.g., Ann Madsen, Gayle Strathearn, Neylan McBaine, Julie Smith (no relation), Valerie Hudson, et al.   In early Mormonism (throughout the 19th century) LDS women had far more responsibility and power.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Nofear]

Turns out this isn't just an apologetics issue but is reflective in many areas. There are some interesting women looking at the issue and wrote an interesting article for the Harvard Business Review: Women, Find Your Voice.

[Rain]

They discussed a little that women are too silent in church, or when a woman speaks up in class she isn't given the same respect.

I thought a lot about this in my last ward. When I first moved in I commented and felt my answer was shrugged off. It took a little time to get the courage to speak again and then the same thing happened. So I was silent for quite awhile. By the time I left 7 years later I understood that it wasn't just me or most women. It was most people in the ward and it wasn't a lack of respect. He just didn't realize he was doing it.

After my last education week teaching class I find that most teachers are not great at responding to comments, including me. The little training I got has helped a lot, but I still have a way to go.

I do think sometimes there is a lack of respect shown from some men, but also think we as women only apply what is happening to ourselves sometimes.

one thing I noticed in that ward was the silence of women - women older than me (46), especially those who were 70 and 80 (we had quite a few because we had retired condos). I noticed it in RS and mourned for their voices. It wasn't till it was mentioned here that I realized the 70 and 80 year old men were not silent in SS. Is that a problem of a men verses women like spoken of here or does it have anything to do with the younger men being separated from the older men during priesthood or both?

[bluebell]

Because when you ask "why don't women" or "why do women" it's really  the men being accused of something and they go all defensive, it's all about the men.

 

I don't believe this is about blaming men at all.  It's not unusual to find out that we as women are our worst enemies and that we are treated a specific way precisely because we have taught that group of people to treat us like that.

 

I think this is about understanding the momentum that has lead to some discrepancy between how men and women use their voice at church and then trying to understanding how to halt that momentum.  

[mfbukowski]

Tell me more about that. And thanks for the comments, ladies.

It is more subtle than that, I think. We have two former bishops in our ward. Once they talk the debate is over. All a man has to do is pull out his authority position...we seem to assume that priesthood grants greater knowledge as well as power. So all the respect in the world can be shown to women's comments, but men with priesthood authority will often have the final word. I'm not complaining, just pointing this out. I hear a lot of bad information about something I have graduate training in...New Testament. But to say anything would put me in the position of disagreeing with a former bishop...a lot.

We have 6 former bishops in my ward who would not even think for a moment to stick our noses into what the present bishop is doing, so that phenomenon does not exist everywhere. In our stake the RS presidents come to pec as well as ward council. I don't see how we could function without their input. So things are not the same everywhere.

And to me the term "apologist" is rather stilted and formal and doesn't belong in an online forum. This is more of a "there's someone wrong on the internet" thing.

Edited January 12, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I don't believe this is about blaming men at all.  It's not unusual to find out that we as women are our worst enemies and that we are treated a specific way precisely because we have taught that group of people to treat us like that.

 

I think this is about understanding the momentum that has lead to some discrepancy between how men and women use their voice at church and then trying to understanding how to halt that momentum.

"It's not ladylike to argue"??

[ERayR]

"It's not ladylike to argue"??

 

[mfbukowski]

We had a stake council meeting yesterday. All the women there were stake level presidents of their organizations, all were polite and pretty much waited to be called on for their reports, which were pretty much about difficulties they were having in communication with bishops. The men would jump into the discussion, as one would do in a conversation at a family gathering- interrupting occasionally,cutting into the middle of a story, etc. Some of the women would do that too, but some of them would actually raise their hands in the free-for-all and wait to be called on. Actually that was effective, because then the SP would recognize them and give them the floor, and they would make their point without interruption.

Because we were at church, that would work. But in an argument on the internet there is no hand raising.

In short, the very styles of communication shown in meeting were a microcosm of the problem we were discussing.

I believe that there are certain innate God given differences between men and women, and I applaud that

My wife thinks correctly that I am a cave man who needs desperately to be civilized, and I think she is right. But I also think that is the way it is supposed to be. There is a reason for stereotypes.

Edited January 12, 2015 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

"It's not ladylike to argue"??

 

Exactly.  

[mfbukowski]

Until men and women are equally aggressive, that problem will always exist, and I pray that that never happens because then we are lost as a civilization

Edited January 12, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

Until men and women are equally aggressive, that problem will always exist, and I pray that that never happens because then we are lost as a civilization

Thus the problem! Why are women being aggressive a bad thing?  And why are women put in their place more than they ever were in the early church when they anointed and blessed other women?  And perhaps given the PH?  We've gone backwards in some ways.  But that's a different topic for a different day I guess. 

 

Your quote below is telling.  Women tend to hold back, maybe in fear that they are possibly wrong or not educated enough, or not confident that they'll be really heard, but this comes from personal experience.   

 

"The men would jump into the discussion, as one would do in a conversation at a family gathering- interrupting occasionally,cutting into the middle of a story, etc. Some of the women would do that too, but some of them would actually raise their hands in the free-for-all and wait to be called on. Actually that was effective, because then the SP would recognize them and give them the floor, and they would make their point without interruption."

 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So it comes down to culture. And it is funny that more men than women respond in this very thread. Ha.

[ERayR]

Thus the problem! Why are women being aggressive a bad thing?  And why are women put in their place more than they ever were in the early church when they anointed and blessed other women?  And perhaps given the PH?  We've gone backwards in some ways.  But that's a different topic for a different day I guess. 

 

Your quote below is telling.  Women tend to hold back, maybe in fear that they are possibly wrong or not educated enough, or not confident that they'll be really heard, but this comes from personal experience.   

 

"The men would jump into the discussion, as one would do in a conversation at a family gathering- interrupting occasionally,cutting into the middle of a story, etc. Some of the women would do that too, but some of them would actually raise their hands in the free-for-all and wait to be called on. Actually that was effective, because then the SP would recognize them and give them the floor, and they would make their point without interruption."

 

 

The more I read (on the board) about what is happening in other wards the more I am convinced my ward must be one of the exceptional wards.  In Gospel Doctrine Class the women do not seem to hesitate to participate substantively.  Of course that may be that there are3 or 4 former and present seminary teachers in the group.

[bluebell]

Until men and women are equally aggressive, that problem will always exist, and I pray that that never happens because then we are lost as a civilization

 

Not necessarily.

 

There is no law that says that women have to become more aggressive in these kinds of situations.  Maybe the issue is that men need to become less.

[mfbukowski]

Thus the problem! Why are women being aggressive a bad thing?  And why are women put in their place more than they ever were in the early church when they anointed and blessed other women?  And perhaps given the PH?  We've gone backwards in some ways.  But that's a different topic for a different day I guess. 

 

Your quote below is telling.  Women tend to hold back, maybe in fear that they are possibly wrong or not educated enough, or not confident that they'll be really heard, but this comes from personal experience.   

 

"The men would jump into the discussion, as one would do in a conversation at a family gathering- interrupting occasionally,cutting into the middle of a story, etc. Some of the women would do that too, but some of them would actually raise their hands in the free-for-all and wait to be called on. Actually that was effective, because then the SP would recognize them and give them the floor, and they would make their point without interruption."

 

We are a few nukes or one global natural disaster away from being back in the stone age.  Pull the plug on the internet and see what happens.

 

It has taken us millions of years to evolve what has been necessary for humanity to survive, and it is not going away soon, like it or not.

[mfbukowski]

Not necessarily.

 

There is no law that says that women have to become more aggressive in these kinds of situations.  Maybe the issue is that men need to become less.

Agreed, that works, but see above.

 

As long as we are all nice civilized social democrats this works.  Pull the plug on any of it, and it all gets dirty again real fast.

 

Je suis Charlie.

Edited January 12, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

The more I read (on the board) about what is happening in other wards the more I am convinced my ward must be one of the exceptional wards.  In Gospel Doctrine Class the women do not seem to hesitate to participate substantively.  Of course that may be that there are3 or 4 former and present seminary teachers in the group.

Probably so, since in states other than Utah perhaps, they have more women seminary teachers that teach at home, so a calling of sorts.  But I did read the other day that it's being opened up for women to teach in seminary buildings now, unless that was just hearsay.  So woot-woot to the women who do this and in your exceptional ward.  Though granted the last time I've been in Gospel Doctrine was several years ago, I've been in Primary for a long time now.  So different from what I remember, and my ward only had one or two women that would speak up and were really into their scriptures that I remember.  It was that bad, unless I have a really bad memory.  I do remember the men in my ward who would come up with some over my head doctrine that probably made me clam up as to keep up with those who knew their doctrine/history/scriptures much better than me.  But do remember some great GD women teachers, so I guess the women are out there, just need to open my eyes.   

[Nofear]

We actually had an incident in December. I wasn't there but heard this second hand. The Gospel Doctrine teacher (male) was giving a lesson but a visiting grandmother (female, obviously) kept raising her hand and correcting some inaccuracies asserted by the teacher, He became so flustered and diverted from his intended message that after a bit he stormed out with an exclamation to the effect, "Then why don't you teach the lesson!". The corrector followed and appealed for his return with the promise she would be quiet.

Would that have happened were the instigator male? Very likely. But it is an example of female assertiveness being possible.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Nofear

[JAHS]

We actually had an incident in December. I wasn't there but heard this second hand. The Gospel Doctrine teacher (male) was giving a lesson but a visiting grandmother (female, obviously) kept raising her hand and correcting some inaccuracies asserted by the teacher, He became so flustered and diverted from his intended message that after a bit he stormed out with an exclamation to the effect, "Then why don't you teach the lesson!". The corrector followed and appealed for his return with the promise she would be quiet.

Would that have happened were the instigator male? Very likely. But it is an example of female assertiveness being possible.

Sometimes a person can go too far to the point of being rude. 

[stemelbow]

Here is the podcast Tacenda referred to  http://mormonstories.org/discussing-gender-mormon-apologetics-nancy-ross-kevin-barney-jessica-finnigan/

Listening to the above was a bit frustrating.

Labeling and categorizing people is no fun, sometimes. why can't feminists feel like they can also defend the faith? it seems like plenty do. I'm no woman but I support feminism ("That’s like someone being like, 'I don’t really believe in cars, but I drive one every day and I love that it gets me places and makes life so much easier and faster and I don’t know what I would do without it,"" -Amy Poehler on being a feminist and the label). It seems like these two women don't want to be associated with certain "apologists" because to do so would be to give the impression that they are agreeing to anything the Church does or teaches that they disagree with, personally.

Addressing the lack of women associated with FAIR by having all women present at a FAIR Conference, as was suggested, seems backwards. Refusing to be a part of defending the faith, while defending the faith is a problem.

Why can't we all be in this together? I'm just frustrated. I knows it's harder then it seems, all the time.

[juliann]

Because when you ask "why don't women" or "why do women" it's really  the men being accused of something and they go all defensive, it's all about the men.

 

I disagree. It is only about men if the men make it about men. There are ample studies about the differences between how men and women speak and are received.  Pointing out that women tend to move aside more than men on busy sidewalks, for example,  isn't an accusation, it is an observation.

 

We have 6 former bishops in my ward who would not even think for a moment to stick our noses into what the present bishop is doing, so that phenomenon does not exist everywhere. In our stake the RS presidents come to pec as well as ward council. I don't see how we could function without their input. So things are not the same everywhere.

And to me the term "apologist" is rather stilted and formal and doesn't belong in an online forum. This is more of a "there's someone wrong on the internet" thing.

 

Thanks for the observations, mfb. The above isn't what I was referring to though. It is the deference ex bishops (or anyone else with PH status) are given in informal settings like classes We just have one who does know a lot, especially about Mormon history stuff. But he also thinks he knows a lot about Bible stuff. He starts with "scholars say...." when he isn't really familiar with the world of scholarship. So we got some really bad information about how the Bible came about that was accepted by the teacher.  Now he would be doing the same thing if he hadn't been bishop but there wouldn't be that air of finality....former bishops are still called bishop so and so in our ward (which shouldn't be.)  There are no such roles that women fill where they are able to walk in and be seen as an expert.

 

Like I said before, I think the biggest shut down for women is when men walk into a debate with "when I was stake president/bishop, high councilor, etc." and then give the "facts" behind what is being debated. It is a Catch-22 for sure. We need that information and men shouldn't be expected to hold back....but women will never be able to give it or claim equal in the know status.

Edited January 12, 2015 by juliann

[ERayR]

I disagree. It is only about men if the men make it about men. There are ample studies about the differences between how men and women speak and are received.  Pointing out that women tend to move aside more than men on busy sidewalks, for example,  isn't an accusation, it is an observation.

 

 

Thanks for the observations, mfb. The above isn't what I was referring to though. It is the deference ex bishops (or anyone else with PH status) are given in informal settings like classes We just have one who does know a lot, especially about Mormon history stuff. But he also thinks he knows a lot about Bible stuff. He starts with "scholars say...." when he isn't really familiar with the world of scholarship. So we got some really bad information about how the Bible came about that was accepted by the teacher.  Now he would be doing the same thing if he hadn't been bishop but there wouldn't be that air of finality....former bishops are still called bishop so and so in our ward (which shouldn't be.)  There are no such roles that women fill where they are able to walk in and be seen as an expert.

 

Like I said before, I think the biggest shut down for women is when men walk into a debate with "when I was stake president/bishop, high councilor, etc." and then give the "facts" behind what is being debated. It is a Catch-22 for sure. We need that information and men shouldn't be expected to hold back....but women will never be able to give it or claim equal in the know status.

 

Again all I can speak to is my own ward and I find current and former seminary teachers receive considerable deference.

[juliann]

Listening to the above was a bit frustrating.

Labeling and categorizing people is no fun, sometimes. why can't feminists feel like they can also defend the faith? it seems like plenty do. I'm no woman but I support feminism ("That’s like someone being like, 'I don’t really believe in cars, but I drive one every day and I love that it gets me places and makes life so much easier and faster and I don’t know what I would do without it,"" -Amy Poehler on being a feminist and the label). It seems like these two women don't want to be associated with certain "apologists" because to do so would be to give the impression that they are agreeing to anything the Church does or teaches that they disagree with, personally.

Addressing the lack of women associated with FAIR by having all women present at a FAIR Conference, as was suggested, seems backwards. Refusing to be a part of defending the faith, while defending the faith is a problem.

Why can't we all be in this together? I'm just frustrated. I knows it's harder then it seems, all the time.

 

I agree Stemelbow. As Kevin pointed out, it is very hard to get women to speak at conferences. The apologetic well has been poisoned to the point that it is set against scholarship....which is bizarre when the defenders of the church graduate from the same universities as the accusers.

 

I sensed that for the two women "apologists" are a different species and don't do the same scholarship everyone else does.  They have created such a narrow and phobic view of "apologetics" that the accusation of having decided the outcome before researching the problem is frequently used. That, of course, is what happens in all scholarship because research is a process. You look around, find something that interests you, see a pattern, create a theory....and then research like crazy to create the outcome you want. And boy, once scholars have established turf in an area they will defend it to their deaths. I heard some great stories about that in my grad seminars. It has become a hello???? type thing to me at this point.  We are still in the if I do it, it is unbiased scholarship. If you do it, it is twisted research. So last season.

[juliann]

Again all I can speak to is my own ward and I find current and former seminary teachers receive considerable deference.

 

That would make sense. There are always a few women, we have one in particular who dominates every class. But that doesn't account for the rest of the women.  The only way to know would be to graph responses by gender and it wouldn't be too meaningful unless it took in a lot of wards.

 

Thanks for links, guys.