The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood

[juliann]

First, what we are seeing here is textbook. This is why I find this book so useful. It gets to the heart of the problem:

Quote

 

The key questions we aim to answer should now be clear: under what conditions will women achieve an effective voice in deliberating bodies?

Christopher F. Karpowitz & Tali Mendelberg, The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation & Institutions (Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey, 2014), 29.

 

 Why is this critical?

Quote

What it can do for women specifically is to bring their distinctive concerns into the discussion. p 171

This is a thread about women's concerns yet women who voice them are not treated as credible in many instances. This even goes to the extent of using men's behavior to determine what women should be saying or thinking. There is research showing that male communication is not equivalent to female communication styles/interests. So using how men talk to men says nothing about how men talk to women, let alone setting a standard.

 In a nutshell:

Quote

 Because men have more authority than women do in society, they tend to use communication acts that symbolize high status, while women tend to employ those that mark low status. . . men tend to negatively interrupt more than women, especially in groups. Other studies confirm that men issue negative interruptions more often and positive interruptions less often that women, and talk longer. Moreover, because women lose influence when they act too assertively, and may intuit this fact, women may be more likely than men to interpret disagreements they receive as a negative signal of their authority. . . women are three times more likely than men to yield when negatively interrupted in a group discussion on a gender-neutral task. Gender differences of this kind are sharpest when the task involves a domain considered masculine. Politics is such a domain; women are viewed, and view themselves, as less confident and expert about politics, regardless of their actual level of expertise. Because women are more likely to enter a formal discussion of politics with a lower sense of authority, they may be more subject to and more affected by interruptions.  p 203

Quote

In addition, women are socialized to engage in cooperative discussion, while men tend to engage in more competitive and assertive forms of exchange. The more men in the group, the more the discussion is likely to reflect a norm of assertion. A balance of members tilted toward men may create stereotypically masculine characteristics for the exchange. p 194.

Quote

 

 And for those who like to blame women for this situation,

Quote

 Men become nicer to women as the conditions elevate women’s status. Some might say something like this: “well, why don’t women just talk more? It’s women’s responsibility to speak—no rule prevents them from doing so, and no one stands in their way.” Our reply is our finding that men change their behavior in such a way as to make women’s participation less rewarding and more difficult. The process is subtle and, by any formal measure, legitimate, but it ends up carrying particularly negative consequences for women. 233

We have several examples here of attempts to make it more difficult for women, most notably the refusal to join the same conversation or refusing to use the same vocabulary. Even though repeatedly told, and even asked to stop, some men continued to derail by refusing to allow for a woman's meaning of "respect" thus requiring them to respond to irrelevant who opens the door stories. Or characterizing women's participation as "deference."

 

 

 

[bluebell]

59 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I said no such thing.  

Their interaction with both men and women has been exemplary.

Leaving out whether I agree or disagree with you, i would love to understand what you believe they have done (that others haven't) that has been exemplary.

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Is reducing someone's argument or point down to its most absurd form a fallacy?

Is that what I was doing?

I'm just trying to get a handle on what is actually expected of us. From the OWM (only women matter) crowd, I'm just not seeing very much in the way of specifics. But there's an awful lot of how women "feel" intimidated if men interrupt them, and women can only "feel" comfortable expressing themselves if the men have fairly restrictive (if not outright draconian) rules to keep them in check, etc., etc. So I'm just trying to cut to the chase here: exactly how much "deference" do you all "feel" is due to you?

Let's accept as our starting point that no men could possibly have any stake in this discussion. (After all, how could we?) On what basis are our Betters willing to deign to allow us to say anything at all?

 

[juliann]

Having to explain why this research matters signals the problem itself. Some women are so fed up with men who diminish them or do not value their unique input they just want to go straight to a solution. Priesthood. Others, like me, don't think that will make men treat them anymore respectfully. If we build awareness of the cultural expectations we have brought into the church, men will begin to step back and value women's participation and input in deliberative bodies. That is all this discussion has really ever been about. For the women. Some men don't want to talk about women's distinctive concerns and won't. That is why this book matters. Once men do value women's input, they will begin to want women's participation.

Quote

The assumption that women are not valuable in discussions that decide the fate of the collective produces gender inequality.  If women are not needed for making decisions, then they will not be much included. Conversely our findings about rule imply that when women are needed, women are included. p 234.

So if our collective input and concerns are not needed for making decisions, some men will not even bother to listen, use the same vocabulary, talk about the same ideas.. while increasing the mockery and disrepect for women's concerns. These concerns are to be judged only through their male standards and opinions. To date, not one shred of documentation has been produced by them. Most of it has been slap downs. (See above quotes.)

The church is beginning to see that women are needed in decision making bodies, thus they are starting to include them. My experience in ward councils had been very positive. The church is way ahead on this and has actually created an ideal configuration for optimal female involvement. (Which doesn't require equal numbers only that every member has to participate.) The more women are included, priesthood ordination will perhaps not need to be the battleground.

Edited to acknowledge the men here (sometimes it is hard to know by screennames) who have taken women's concerns and experiences seriously.

 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2016 by juliann

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Is that what I was doing?

I'm just trying to get a handle on what is actually expected of us. From the OWM (only women matter) crowd, I'm just not seeing very much in the way of specifics. But there's an awful lot of how women "feel" intimidated if men interrupt them, and women can only "feel" comfortable expressing themselves if the men have fairly restrictive (if not outright draconian) rules to keep them in check, etc., etc. So I'm just trying to cut to the chase here: exactly how much "deference" do you all "feel" is due to you?

Let's accept as our starting point that no men could possibly have any stake in this discussion. (After all, how could we?) On what basis are our Betters willing to deign to allow us to say anything at all?

 

When one of my sons argues that he didn't reply in a sarcastic or caustic tone when he clearly did, i ask him if he would ever speak to a teacher or someone else in authority (but not family) the same way that he just spoke to me.  He always answers no, because he recognizes that while he can claim innocence, no one, not even him, actually buys it.

In that same vein, i don't believe that you would speak that way to someone you really respected and valued, or to an authority figure in your life, if you were sincerely just trying to 'get a handle on what is actually expected of you'.

Because i don't believe your attempt at communication is actually in good faith, there doesn't seem to be anything to be gained by engaging with you on this topic.

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

  From the OWM (only women matter) crowd, I'm just not seeing very much in the way of specifics. But there's an awful lot of how women "feel" intimidated if men interrupt them, and women can only "feel" comfortable expressing themselves if the men have fairly restrictive (if not outright draconian) rules to keep them in check, etc., etc. So I'm just trying to cut to the chase here: exactly how much "deference" do you all "feel" is due to you?

 

 

I must have a page of research up by now but you see no specifics.

One thread devoted to women's concerns means "only women matter."

Enclosed in demeaning mockery with not ONE response to the research.

[Russell C McGregor]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

I must have a page of research up by now but you see no specifics.

I certainly see no specifics about what you actually expect us to do in this thread.

The closest thing I can see is your original assertion that "this is a woman's discussion," which seems to equate to "butt out." Is that it?

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

One thread devoted to women's concerns means "only women matter."

One thread discussing women's expectations regarding the Priesthood and its role in the Church, in which men are told they have no stake in the discussion, sounds an awful lot like "only women matter," yes.

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

Enclosed in demeaning mockery with not ONE response to the research.

What is there to respond to? It's all vapour. Here's an example: According to you, if the women are 17% of the participants in a deliberative body, the men think there's gender parity. Really? One women and five men in the same room, and all the men think there's the same number of women?

We're all that bad at math, are we?

But apart from that, presuming we accept that odd statistic, what is the action arising therefrom?

What is it that you expect us to do in this thread?

"This is a woman's discussion." Just butt out?

What is it that you expect the institutional Church to do?

"This is a woman's discussion." Leave you to make the decisions on your own, and then carry them out by your command?

That's your idea of equitable participation in decision making, is it?

I guess the problem is that I'm looking for outcomes, and all I get is more and more and more about how women feel like they can't speak up if there's a man on hand to disagree.

[juliann]

I must have a page of research up by now but you see no specifics.

One thread devoted to women's concerns means "only women matter" and men have to "butt out."

Enclosed in demeaning mockery with not ONE serious response to the research.

[Russell C McGregor]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When one of my sons argues that he didn't reply in a sarcastic or caustic tone when he clearly did, i ask him if he would ever speak to a teacher or someone else in authority (but not family) the same way that he just spoke to me.  He always answers no, because he recognizes that while he can claim innocence, no one, not even him, actually buys it.

In that same vein, i don't believe that you would speak that way to someone you really respected and valued, or to an authority figure in your life, if you were sincerely just trying to 'get a handle on what is actually expected of you'.

An "authority figure."

Got it.

So you expect me to treat -- just you, or all the women here? -- as if they were my bosses.

Is that it?

Well, I'm glad at least to know what you mean by "deference."

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because i don't believe your attempt at communication is actually in good faith, there doesn't seem to be anything to be gained by engaging with you on this topic.

There's something charming about ostentatiously announcing that you're not going to engage with me -- but only after scolding me, in detail, for my awfulness. Only  a woman could pull that off. 

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Russell C McGregor said:

An "authority figure."

Got it.

So you expect me to treat -- just you, or all the women here? -- as if they were my bosses.

Is that it?

Well, I'm glad at least to know what you mean by "deference."

There's something charming about ostentatiously announcing that you're not going to engage with me -- but only after scolding me, in detail, for my awfulness. Only  a woman could pull that off. 

 

I would hope you would treat us as if you valued and respected what we had to say.  

I'm realizing that's not likely to happen, so there isn't much else to say. 

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

First, what we are seeing here is textbook. This is why I find this book so useful. It gets to the heart of the problem:

 Why is this critical?

This is a thread about women's concerns yet women who voice them are not treated as credible in many instances.

So the Priesthood is uniquely a woman's concern. Who knew?

And what is it that's not credible? Who has tried to tell a female participant here that what she says is not credible because of her gender?

You leaped to the conclusion that that was what I tried to tell Jeanne; but I told Consiglieri exactly the same thing (and in exactly the same words.) So whether I was right or not, how can you possibly conclude that gender had anything to do with it?

Do you simply not notice when someone says the same thing to a man as to a woman? Do only women matter to you?

1 hour ago, juliann said:

This even goes to the extent of using men's behavior to determine what women should be saying or thinking. There is research showing that male communication is not equivalent to female communication styles/interests. So using how men talk to men says nothing about how men talk to women, let alone setting a standard.

Is that supposed to answer what I said above? Are you arguing that saying exactly the same thing to a man as to a woman is somehow qualitatively different, just because of the gender of the participants?

1 hour ago, juliann said:

 In a nutshell:

 

 And for those who like to blame women for this situation,

We have several examples here of attempts to make it more difficult for women, most notably the refusal to join the same conversation or refusing to use the same vocabulary. Even though repeatedly told, and even asked to stop, some men continued to derail by refusing to allow for a woman's meaning of "respect" thus requiring them to respond to irrelevant who opens the door stories. Or characterizing women's participation as "deference."

"Deference" seems to be what you are expecting (or demanding.) Apparently starting with women getting to define the vocabulary to suit their purposes. If a man thinks he's showing respect to a woman, then he's wrong, because that's not what the woman calls respect.

Or is that not what you're trying to say? Because it's the message I'm getting.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But Bluebell, I thought you weren't talking to me.

Why stop now, when it's doing me so much good? (With apologies to J. K. Rowling.)

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I would hope you would treat us as if you valued and respected what we had to say.

I'd like to, but I'm genuinely having trouble trying to work out what that really is.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm realizing that's not likely to happen, so there isn't much else to say. 

Ah well. Hope springs eternal!

[juliann]

Quote

There's something charming about ostentatiously announcing that you're not going to engage with me -- but only after scolding me

 We are getting some good examples here of gendered language, framed in anger and meant to exert social control.
 

Quote

 

A central bit of gender ideology is that women are emotional and excitable, while men are unemotional and steady. Such ideology is useful in denying women a place in serious deliberation and occupations.  

Penelope Eckert and Sally McConnell-Ginet, Language and Gender, 2^nd ed.  New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 158

 

Quote

Anger is the emotion most expected and tolerated (in some contexts even encouraged) from men. Raised voices and abusive insults are part of expressing anger: they can be frightening and thus function in social control. Anger is seen as heightening someone’s power, their capacity to get others to respond as they want.  . . . Women’s anger is often repositioned as frustration or emotional upset, framed as non-threatening and, indeed, as rendering its subject vulnerable. “You're so cute when you’re mad.” 163

 

 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

 

 We are getting some good examples here of gendered language, framed in anger and meant to exert social control.
 

 

You are right, we are seeing some good examples of the data you've been sharing happening in real time. 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

 We are getting some good examples here of gendered language, framed in anger and meant to exert social control.
 

Not up to your usual standard, Juliann. That's 0/3, I'm afraid.

1. I can show you plenty of examples of both "charming" and "scolding" being used of men. For example, I don't remember (in all my enormous piles of reading) any significant literary characters going by such monikers as "Princess Charming." However, I might just have come across a male here and there with a similar handle.
2. "Framed in anger?" Sorry to disagree with you, inappropriate as it may be to do so, but I was actually chuckling when I wrote it.
3. "Exert social control?" I fully expect Bluebell to write exactly what she feels like writing.

I know that I'm just one of those mere males who has no business disagreeing with a woman about anything; but as the sole world authority on my own state of mind, I thought my input on that subject might just have some value.

But how about you, Juliann? Was your comment, accompanied as it was by an intimidating array of footnoted erudition, possibly "meant to exert social control?"

[juliann]

1 minute ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 

But how about you, Juliann? Was your comment, accompanied as it was by an intimidating array of footnoted erudition, possibly "meant to exert social control?"

Of course.  Although it is disheartening that you see footnoted quotes as intimidating.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You are right, we are seeing some good examples of the data you've been sharing happening in real time. 

Really?

For example?

 

[Mars]

Juliann

Total sincereity: what did you mean by 'this is a woman's discussion'? 

[Rain]

5 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 

I know that I'm just one of those mere males who has no business disagreeing with a woman...

Let me repeat this a third time. We don't care if you agree with us or not.

You are sarcastically mocking something we did NOT say and even clarified that it was not meant. In essence you are NOT disagreeing with us on that so it seems strange that you would keep fighting for your right to do it.

[Russell C McGregor]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

Of course.  Although it is disheartening that you see footnoted quotes as intimidating.

I'll tell you quite frankly: I have, for a very long time, regarded the "social sciences" as so soft as to be downright squishy.

I don't know whether they are soft because they are thoroughly politicised, or so easily politicised because they are soft, but I do see a correlation in there somewhere.

And no (to anticipate your likely reaction) I didn't just think this up as a way to dismiss, demean, or otherwise devalue your input. As I said, I've had this view for a very long time.

Every time someone cites some "study" that proves some (usually politically controversial) point, someone else seems to be able to cite another "study" that flatly refutes the first one.

Study A says Mormons have five times more depression than anyone else.

Study B says Mormons have seven times less depression than anyone else.

So you've got a "study A" that supports the point you want to make: evidently men simply ignore women in "deliberative bodies" (presumably committees or something) and the only way to combat that is to raise the status of women participants.

So setting aside the question of any as yet unintroduced "study B," what is it that you expect us to do, here, today?

So far, it seems that we're supposed to let women make the rules, define the vocabulary, and tell us what's in our minds.

Have I missed anything?

 

 

[Mars]

russell, it's great watching you in action when you do this against our critics.

but when it's against other members, it sucks.

[Raingirl]

36 minutes ago, juliann said:

 

 We are getting some good examples here of gendered language, framed in anger and meant to exert social control.
 

 

 

 

Wow.  That's a heck of a spin. 

Who knew the words 'charming' and 'scolding' were "gendered"?  I am wondering where the rule/law is written that those words can are only used to describe females.  Because I didn't get that memo and I've used those words any number times in reference to males. Females, too.   I daresay the sentence quoted above is an example of scolding. Shame on me for using verboten language.  And, of course, for having the opinion that a women can be scolding in her choice of words.  I am sure I will be scolded for that, too.  Whoops!  There I go, using banned words again!

And I also didn't get the memo that the use of those words is "framed in anger" and that I am only using them to "exert social control".  I guess there's a super-secret handbook I am not privy to.

Thanks for making it crystal clear that not only are men forbidden from certain topics and conversations, but so are women who don't see things in exactly the same light.

[Russell C McGregor]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

Let me repeat this a third time. We don't care if you agree with us or not.

You are sarcastically mocking something we did NOT say and even clarified that it was not meant. In essence you are NOT disagreeing with us on that so it seems strange that you would keep fighting for your right to do it.

Well, you might not care about it. But Juliann keeps quoting reams of material that seems to say that whenever men disagree with women, the women feel intimidated, and if they try to assert themselves, the men double down on the intimidation.

At least, that's what I think that material is trying to say.

And at least at one point, she was citing it in support of groups that have rules specifically directed at keeping the male participants submissive and subservient. (Or at least behaving in a way of which the women approve, and submissive and subservient is how I sum up the descriptions on offer.)

And again, if I'm getting it wrong, nobody is willing to tell me how; only that I am, and I'm wicked for doing so.

But in any case, thank you for saying that it's okay for me to disagree with you.

(No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Look, I came here for an argument.

No you didn't....)

 

[juliann]

18 minutes ago, Mars said:

Juliann

Total sincereity: what did you mean by 'this is a woman's discussion'? 

I actually meant it more like a woman's topic. And yes, that does require that men take a back seat sometimes. It is not much different than when men insert "when I was a bishop/stake president" etc. to clear up a debate. But notice the difference in response to a simple declaration of experience. The latter does indeed quiet people down based only on a declaration of experience. The former seems to be a  trigger for some men,  a sense of being told they can't say anything at all or that they don't matter anymore if they can't disqualify a woman's experience.

I've clarified this earlier but I think what we are seeing here is actually very helpful for those that do not see more women's involvement as a loss to themselves. Imagine this bombastic mockery being directed at women you care about in real life. (I'm assuming you are male?) Just as I am documenting, a woman in a meeting could be standing next to a spreadsheet in a business meeting and get the same response (hopefully toned down.) Then they are blamed for going silent.  What has happened here, and I think it is a first, is that we have enough women in the conversation to tip the scales when it comes to the bullying. That is exactly what the first book I used found through research. It gets really interesting because the configurations are very nuanced. 

We can see from this thread that some members in the Church have a long way to go in elevating women. In their minds, despite all evidence, documentation, stats, and experiences women relate, they see women as being at their level or even competition. So to elevate women, in their minds, means women will be above them not next to them.

[Russell C McGregor]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Back when society decided that in order to show respect to women we need to hold open doors and stand when they come and go, etc. it was also believed that men should show deference to women in communication as well.  A gentleman, for example, would never do anything to cause a woman embarrassment or to appear wrong in public.  They would always assume the fault in any disagreement.   This was just good manners.  Any man who did less was considered a boor.

When such social conventions were invented, men understood that if women needed to be treated differently than men in some situations, then they needed to be treated differently than a man would be treated in every situation.  It didn't matter if doing so made the man look bad, or if he had to swallow his pride, or whatever else the consequences might be.  

In short, a real gentleman would never treat a woman the same way he treated another man, regardless of the situation, because doing so wasn't good manners.

In our day, things have changed, but not in a way that makes much sense. 

Good manners as you have described them is that you don't treat women like a man in silly things like holding open their own door, (such wouldn't show them respect), but of course a man could never be expected to carry such ideology over into every part of their interaction with women because that's not fair to them.  The manners that cost men the least to observe have been preserved while those which would cost them the most have become "insidious" (to use Russell's term).

Ah, you noticed that.

Well, I'll tell you why I said that.

In my view, in a discussion of ideas, it is the ideas that matter, and not the personalities involved.

If men have to defer to women just because they are women, everywhere and all the time, then the women's views will prevail, whether they are the better ideas or not.

Whereas, I've always thought that the point of discussing ideas in the first place is to enable the better ideas to prevail on their merits.

But it seems that there is an alternative view out there. That alternative seems to go something like this:

"Merits, schmerits. What's important in these discussions is that everyone's input is equally valued. And various studies have shown that when women and men interact, if the men don't think they're obligated to defer to the women, the women end up being bullied into silence."

Now there may well be some kinds of discussions where valuing everyone's input is more important than the robustness of the discussion. However, that sounds more and more like some kind of "group therapy" situation, rather than a serious discussion of serious ideas where actual decisions are to be made.

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Acknowledging and challenging this flawed thinking isn't an attempt to say that good manners don't matter or aren't important.  It's challenging the idea that manners to prove respect to women don't make much sense.  

If women need to be treated differently than men to be respected, then the logical conclusion is that they must be treated differently than men regardless of the situation or respect isn't being shown them. Half deference and half no deference as a way to show respect to women isn't logical (just as our fore-bearers recognized).

So what's your solution? Abandon good manners altogether?