Women In Apologetics

[juliann]

I have a question for the women who defend the church (which doesn't mean you agree with every policy.)

 

1. Do you consider apologetics to be a "male" activity? Or at least male dominated?

 

2. If so, in your opinion does that discourage women from joining in?

 

3. What experiences have you had as a woman where you were treated differently or talked to differently than a man?

 

4. Have you noticed  situations where women were treated differently? (Not given the same credibility, etc.)

 

5. Do you feel like you are more free to speak up online than in church or in person without having to defer to "the priesthood?"  (i.e., if you were speaking to a bishop online would you consider him to have the last word as often happens in wards when it comes to doctrinal or scriptural matters?)

 

6. Do you notice more women coming online to talk about religion?

 

 

Any other insights?

Edited March 28, 2015 by juliann

[Calm]

Note:  this refers to my total experience, on and and offline so no one should assume I am talking about them….

 

1.  Male dominated by numbers and volume of content, certainly

 

2.  I have been told by some women that it discourages them, others have expressed a lack of interest getting involved because of it, but most women I've talked to about apologetics it is more about the perception it involves debating and negativity (they don't think of just providing information for those who need it, they see it as mainly confronting those who attack the Church).  With me, it is more my lack of training that discourages me at this point…at least in online encounters.  I still have enough of my natural shyness that I think a loudmouthed jerk (male or female, gender would not make a difference to me) would shut me down pretty quickly in person.

 

3.  There have been some occasions that someone I am challenging responds to me claiming I am being emotional, etc.  But I've seen that happen to men to on the board so I have learned that it may be a generic approach.   It is hard to tell how much is due to them seeing me as a woman and how much is just a typical attempt to diminish the credibility of someone they see as an opponent.  It is much easier to figure out charges of emotionality face to face.  There are also usually visual clues of a lack of interest or attempt to dominate.  And as of yet, my face to face apologetic debates are so few and that particular dismissal tactic hasn't come up yet.  It also appears at times that sometimes I am ignored and others are responded to, I would say that I only know for sure this occurred a couple of times with a partiuclar individual because I was a woman.  Other times it could be because my comments don't appeal as much to the type that want to argue rather than discuss the issue or turn it into a personal confrontation or as was obvious at times, posters were there only to interact with those who had a reputation such as Dan Peterson.  But it does become obvious that someone is not reading my stuff when they mention something I have already dealt with, never address me while appealing to male participants and is not responding to other women's points either save to label them as emotional rants or claiming what the woman is saying is inappropriate criticism, yet participating in other discussions with men that are doing the same thing.

 

4.  There have been times where it is assumed in a discussion that women don't have sufficient background, experience or training but men do so questions or challenges are made directly to the men involved while any women are treated as on the peripheral.  Also see above…I have encountered a few men who appear to assume that criticism from a woman is almost always based on a emotional dislike rather than a reasoned approach.  If a woman is pointing out a problem with the discussion about plural marriage for example, these individuals generally include a comment along the lines of "_______ obviously doesn't like polygamy" and only approach the discussion as if their challenger is only reacting on a gut level.

 

5.  No

 

6.  Yes, but then men are too so I don't know if the percentage overall has shifted.

Edited March 28, 2015 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

1. Do you consider apologetics to be a "male" activity? Or at least male dominated?

 

 

No, i've never thought of it that way.

 

3. What experiences have you had as a woman where you were treated differently or talked to differently than a man?

 

I honestly can't think of any, but almost all of my apologetic experience has been online and I think there are less gender issues in this medium than in person.

 

4. Have you noticed  situations where women were treated differently? (Not given the same credibility, etc.)

 

 I haven't, but again, online it's hard to tell.

 

5. Do you feel like you are more free to speak up online than in church or in person without having to defer to "the priesthood?"  (i.e., if you were speaking to a bishop online would you consider him to have the last word as often happens in wards when it comes to doctrinal or scriptural matters?)

 

I do, but I don't know if that's because I'm a woman or just because i tend to shun conflict in person as part of my personality.  I've seen it with other women though, where  certain men in the ward are treated in a special way because of previous callings they've held.

 

6. Do you notice more women coming online to talk about religion?

 

 

It doesn't seem that different to me than it did ten years ago, with the exception of all the stuff that's going on with women's issues and gender.  I think there are a lot more women out now talking about that stuff than there used to be.  I don't really have enough experience to say in other venues.

 

 

 

[rpn]

As a percent, I'd imagine that there are more men who feel themselves confident in knowing the scriptures than women (which will change now that women are going on missions in about equal numbers with men).   And I've seen plenty of women cooking and cleaning and taking care of kids while men study church history and the like --- it does seem that women may have a harder time finding time to learn what is necessary to be an effective apologist, and may not choose to spend limited free time that way.

 

In business many women will tell you that ideas that are propounded by men get approved even when a woman's same suggestion was treated lightly.   I just have never experienced that.   But I do think that the Bishop is the last word on doctrine in a ward.  Wouldn't/hasn't stopped ME from challenging doctrine and history that the bishop gets wrong, or things that I think are inconsistent with my understanding of the gospel.  Just that once I've done so (kicking it up the chain for certain things when I feel inspired to do so), I accept that the ward's doctrinal purity is not my problem. 

 

But  I just don't seeing most women making their decisions on defending the faith on what the men think or how the men treat them.  Seems to me that women who are in a position to defend the church are also likely to be independent in other ways as well.

Edited March 29, 2015 by rpn

[Robert F. Smith]

We have had several women on this board who exhibit strong personality and can carry on a debate without kowtowing to any men, and I think that's good.

 

I have had occasion to meet a few LDS women who were strong theologians and didn't hesitate to make their opinions known.  I recall one in particular from the Jerusalem Branch, but have met some others along the way.  I'd also mention my experience with a Restoration splinter congregation which was begun by a very charismatic woman in Independence, Missouri.  When she died, she was replaced by a male pastor, but whose wife was the actual successor to the founder, and who was a formidable theologian in her own right.

 

Oddly, although both of them were baptized in that Independence congregation, Jerald & Sandra Tanner were part of a traditional male-dominated evangelical congregation in Salt Lake City.  However, Sandra was very forthright in her theological or historical opinions, and did not generally shirk a good confrontation.

 

Ann Madsen (widow of Truman) is an outspoken instructor at BYU, and there are some other female faculty who take avant garde positions without ruffling any feathers (Alyson Skabelund Von Feldt and Gaye Strathearn come to mind).  I don't know anything at all about Camille Fronk Olson, who is chair of the Dept of Ancient Scripture at BYU.  There are some other female faculty members, but I know nothing of them.  My impression is that women generally possess superior people skills, and are less likely than men to be abrasive.  Those who are called to teach Sunday School are often quite gifted and capable.

[Believing]

I find it intreging that from the current comments outspoken and having opinions equals strong and thus an apologist (one side or another). Not outspoken and faithful equals weak. After you read each post does anyone see the bias.

[bluebell]

I find it intreging that from the current comments outspoken and having opinions equals strong and thus an apologist (one side or another). Not outspoken and faithful equals weak. After you read each post does anyone see the bias.

 

I'm not seeing it.  Can you provide some examples of what you are talking about?

[ERayR]

I'm not seeing it.  Can you provide some examples of what you are talking about?

 

I think he is pointing out that not being outspoken does not equal weakness.

[bluebell]

I think he is pointing out that not being outspoken does not equal weakness.

 

I get that, but it seemed like he's saying that people on this thread are exhibiting a bias in the other direction (that posters believe the opposite).

 

I don't see that bias and asked for some examples so he could illustrate what he was talking about.

[Rain]

I have a question for the women who defend the church (which doesn't mean you agree with every policy.)

1. Do you consider apologetics to be a "male" activity? Or at least male dominated?

Formally, I would say it is more male dominated. I'm thinking of published papers, online apologetic groups etc. Informally, on non lds message boards and blogs I think it is female dominated.

2. If so, in your opinion does that discourage women from joining in?

No, but the more argumentative a group gets the less females want to be involved.

3. What experiences have you had as a woman where you were treated differently or talked to differently than a man?

My gut tells me that it has happened from SOME more traditional men online, but I haven't analyzed things to see if there is any truth to it.

I have had an experience offline recently though that I have wanted to talk about, but was too hurt, because the man who treated me this way was my dad. We were talking about women and the church. At one point when I was talking to HIM he just got up and left the room.

4. Have you noticed situations where women were treated differently? (Not given the same credibility, etc.)

Nothing specific. If it happens to me then I would more likely blame it on my lack of being able to communicate well so it may be hard for me to tell.

5. Do you feel like you are more free to speak up online than in church or in person without having to defer to "the priesthood?" (i.e., if you were speaking to a bishop online would you consider him to have the last word as often happens in wards when it comes to doctrinal or scriptural matters?)

No, but then I don't really see it in wards, at least until I moved here and saw it with one specific person.

6. Do you notice more women coming online to talk about religion?

Actually, I notice more men coming online to talk about it. I've been online except for a couple of years since 1986. Perhaps whether we see men or women more depends on where online we are visiting.

Any other insights?

[Calm]

I'm not seeing it.  Can you provide some examples of what you are talking about?

I would like to see it as well.

[why me]

When one looks at feminist lds site, one can see outspoken women. But they are not generally dealing in apologetics but in criticism of lds policy. In fact, they are very radical and vocal in their criticism. However, there does seem to be a lack of women available to defend the lds church. Also, where is the vehicle to defend the lds church? I think that there are some very prominent sites that deal in criticism from a feminist perspective. But I don't know many sites where women can voice apologetics. And this begs the question: Do lds women need there own site where they can practice apologetics and debate the more radical feminists about lds gender roles and culture? Maybe so. But then this begs another question: if lds women are rather vocal in voicing criticism of lds policy, why are women hestitant to engage is apologetics? Both can be aggressive and deliberative.

Edited March 30, 2015 by why me

[theplains]

Do lds women need there own site where they can practice apologetics and debate the more radical feminists about lds gender roles and culture? Maybe so.

 

I believe LDS women are qualified to practice apologetics, but not specifically relegating them to topics

like gender roles and culture. Apologetics is also about preventing false prophets or false teachers

from taking root in the church.

 

But some may not feel qualified since they don't hold the priesthood as members of the Mormon

Church. In the church I attend, women see themselves as priests of the royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:5)

working together with their male counterparts.

 

Regards,

Jim

[BCSpace]

Apologetics often involves debate.  Most LDS women I see in Gospel Doctrine classes seem to abhor debate, at least when men are present. I hear that there are sometimes some real humdingers in Relief Society though.

Edited April 1, 2015 by BCSpace

[bluebell]

Apologetics often involves debate. Most LDS women I see in Gospel Doctrine classes seem to abhor debate, at least when men are present. I hear that there are sometimes some real humdingers in Relief Society though.

I think this what Juliann is trying to understand.

Do women, in general, actually abhor debate or do they feel uncomfortable debating with men?

[Senator]

Absolutely not!

In my experience.....

[bluebell]

Absolutely not!

In my experience.....

Just to clarify, I think she means in church (like in gospel doctrine class for example) as well as other places.

[Senator]

Just to clarify, I think she means in church (like in gospel doctrine class for example) as well as other places.

I have not known women to shy away from debate with men anywhere.

[bluebell]

I have not known women to shy away from debate with men anywhere.

 

I know a few.

[stemelbow]

Just to clarify, I think she means in church (like in gospel doctrine class for example) as well as other places.

Debate in Church? on accident I've done that and it always turns out bad. I usually just state my opinion and give plenty of room for people to disagree if they want. debating in church is about as taboo as you can get in all the wards I've attended--no matter gender.

[bluebell]

Debate in Church? on accident I've done that and it always turns out bad. I usually just state my opinion and give plenty of room for people to disagree if they want. debating in church is about as taboo as you can get in all the wards I've attended--no matter gender.

 

I think it depends how it's handled.  Debate doesn't have to equal contention.  

[stemelbow]

I think it depends how it's handled.  Debate doesn't have to equal contention.  

I'm not talking about contention.

The mantra of sticking to the lessons squelches debate. Disagreements arise, sure, but it never gets into debate.

[bluebell]

Disagreements arise, sure, but it never gets into debate.

 

Sometimes it does.