The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood

[Mars]

14 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik.

indeed.

perhaps we should all remember to seek first to understand, and then, if you REALLY must, seek to be understood.

[ttribe]

16 hours ago, Mars said:

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

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

Actually, it's bad form no matter at whom it is aimed.  But, I digress...

[Mars]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Actually, it's bad form no matter at whom it is aimed.  But, I digress...

well, yeah, i guess it is bad form.

it's also kinda par for the course on this board.  critics, former believers, and believers alike can get testy.  russell's really good at what he does.  when it's reserved for people who are arguing in bad faith i love seeing them get a taste of their own medicine.  when it's aimed at people i thought had a good demonstrated history of being a part of the restored gospel, or criticizing in a respectful manner, it sucks.

also - ending your sentence on a verb instead of the preposition?  that's something up with which i never put.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Mars

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Mars said:

well, yeah, i guess it is bad form.

it's also kinda par for the course on this board.  critics, former believers, and believers alike can get testy.  russell's really good at what he does.  when it's reserved for people who are arguing in bad faith i love seeing them get a taste of their own medicine.  when it's aimed at people i thought had a good demonstrated history of being a part of the restored gospel, or criticizing in a respectful manner, it sucks.

also - ending your sentence on a verb instead of the preposition?  that's something up with which i never put.

LOL!  I read that sentence several times and knew I was doing something wrong...but, hey, at least I know how to use capital letters!

[Rain]

40 minutes ago, Nofear said:

The Quorum of the Twelve are pretty advanced in years and grew up in when social norms where much more gendered. I find it interesting how we get the instructions to do better when in some cases that may well go against their own personal upbringing. Sometimes we see some of the old norms slip in here or there but the overall message is, as you note, pretty consistent and positive. I like what you say about how if we do a better job at creating more inclusive and equitable interactions then for many the "debate" about priesthood ordination would not be the battleground it is now.

 

Do you have a brief summary of ideas you think would help realize the more Zion-like (one heart, one mind) society -- those taught by the Brethren and General Officers and your own or other borrowed ideas? Same question opened broadly to others.

I'm currently avoiding something that I need to go do and it would take me awhile to go through and remind me of ideas, but I highly recommend "Counseling with our councils" by Elder Ballard. You can get an audio version of the book as well as print. It is excellent advice not only for ward councils and high councils, but for families or any other council. 

Edited February 8, 2016 by Rain

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, Mars said:

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

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

I'm seeing Smac getting beaten up here too. And he actually tried to extricate himself from the fray but got drawn back in when his name and comments kept coming up by reference. Do you plan to stick up for him as well?

In truth, I'm seeing people I respect a great deal and hold in high regard turning on each other in this thread. I don't like it.

I'll probably try to avoid looking in on it anymore; it's too painful to watch. And I'm not trying to shut down discussion, but for the record, I hope the internecine salvos end soon.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm seeing Smac getting beaten up here too. And he actually tried to extricate himself from the fray but got drawn back in when his name and comments kept coming up by reference. Do you plan to stick up for him as well?

In truth, I'm seeing people I respect a great deal and hold in high regard turning on each other in this thread. I don't like it.

I'll probably try to avoid looking in on it anymore; it's too painful to watch. And I'm not trying to shut down discussion, but for the record, I hope the internecine salvos end soon.

I'll help you with that.  I will withdraw from the thread (permanently this time).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mars]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm seeing Smac getting beaten up here too. And he actually tried to extricate himself from the fray but got drawn back in when his name and comments kept coming up by reference. Do you plan to stick up for him as well?

In truth, I'm seeing people I respect a great deal and hold in high regard turning on each other in this thread. I don't like it.

I'll probably try to avoid looking in on it anymore. I'm not trying to shut down discussion, but for the record, I hope the internecine salvos end soon.

i don't think smac got beat up.  i think he misunderstood juliann's original point.

no one accused him of being a sexist.  no one questioned his motives.  no one said he was mean, awful, a jerk, misogynist, or otherwise part of the machinery that perpetuates those crimes.  i disagree with the characterization that he was beat up or drawn back in.  so no, scott.  i don't see a need to stick up for someone i don't believe is getting beat up.  i am a little annoyed at the "you're inconsistent" bend to your comments, but whatever.

i believe ('believe' because i'm not him) he feels like women in this thread are saying that a man has no space, ever, to speak.  that men are not allowed to voice their opposition.  i think that's not what they're saying.  they said that there are some instances where men need to keep their peace.  there are some instances where men need to keep their peace.  trying to say why women want the priesthood is one of those times.  trying to say "yes i am respectful, look at all the things i do" when women are saying "that's now how you show me respect" is another.

there are some instances where women need to keep their peace, but this is mostly a man's world, and women do tend to be background voices, so there's no point in concentrating on it.  women already seem to know how to keep their peace.  maybe men need to learn.

after the "women who know" talk a few years back, i cruised feminist mormon housewives to see what they had to say about it.  it wasn't pretty.  i almost got into it in the comments but decided it wasn't my place.  i think a great deal of the posters and commentators were way off in how they took the talk and what it meant and all the implications.  i was more than a little ticked that they'd be so quick to accuse the Church and people who were ok with the status quo as being perpetrators of misogyny.  but i realized i wouldn't get anywhere by trying to convince them of anything.  so i didn't.  in a related vein, i've asked a pretty staunch mormon feminist - a woman i know personally and not on any social media account - what the difference was between "mansplaining" and just plain ole "disagreeing."  her answer didn't satisfy me in the slightest.  felt like any time a woman wanted to win a discussion or argument, they could just say "you're mansplaining!" and that'd be it. but we talked about it, and both agreed that you don't mansplain if the woman opposite you is in full confidence that you aren't the kind of guy to do it.  i took it as a moral lesson that seemed so obvious that i was a little impatient with myself that it took someone else to point it out to me: if you want to engage with someone, they must feel safe.  they must feel confident you care for them.  that's how the Gospel works, why wouldn't it work in interpersonal relationships?

i don't think anyone is turning on anyone.  we're talking about very sensitive topics and i am willing to bet that everyone in this thread would still sustain, support, honor, and have charity for everyone else in this thread.  we're just swimming in deep and choppy water.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Calm, I do those things because I want to. I don't stop to analyse myself as to whether I am doing it "for me" of "for them". I just do it. I was taught by my parents to be polite and respectful to my elders and to people in general. I have never had anyone grumble or even frown because I opened or held a door for them. In fact, I do not ever remember anyone not saying thank you.

But, don't you think that this is being over analysed here? This is what I see about some of the feminists, that they want to look at everything through a critical feminist viewpoint, injecting gender equality into just about everything. Even opening doors.

Glenn

Overanalysed, probably, but that is what happens when something is used as a symbol/focus for a greater argument.

Just so you know, I have no problem with anyone opening doors for me unless they make a big show of it.  That makes me feel awkward.  As it happens, my experience is the same as Nofear's and that is generally speaking it is not gendered attached, everyone does it, including myself.  I don't do it as a sign of respect though, but because it is helpful in many cases and I err on the side of caution assuming it will be helpful.

If someone recognizes they are acting this way because it makes them feel good, great.  My only issue is when it is used as evidence that they are treating others respectfully in a global sense, in other forms of interaction.  This may be true but it might not be.  Simply because one opens doors for someone doesn't mean they respect that person as an individual or even as a group in other situations.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Mars said:

i don't think smac got beat up.  i think he misunderstood juliann's original point.

no one accused him of being a sexist.  no one questioned his motives.  no one said he was mean, awful, a jerk, misogynist, or otherwise part of the machinery that perpetuates those crimes.  i disagree with the characterization that he was beat up or drawn back in.  so no, scott.  i don't see a need to stick up for someone i don't believe is getting beat up.  i am a little annoyed at the "you're inconsistent" bend to your comments, but whatever.

i believe ('believe' because i'm not him) he feels like women in this thread are saying that a man has no space, ever, to speak.  that men are not allowed to voice their opposition.  i think that's not what they're saying.  they said that there are some instances where men need to keep their peace.  there are some instances where men need to keep their peace.  trying to say why women want the priesthood is one of those times.  trying to say "yes i am respectful, look at all the things i do" when women are saying "that's now how you show me respect" is another.

there are some instances where women need to keep their peace, but this is mostly a man's world, and women do tend to be background voices, so there's no point in concentrating on it.  women already seem to know how to keep their peace.  maybe men need to learn.

after the "women who know" talk a few years back, i cruised feminist mormon housewives to see what they had to say about it.  it wasn't pretty.  i almost got into it in the comments but decided it wasn't my place.  i think a great deal of the posters and commentators were way off in how they took the talk and what it meant and all the implications.  i was more than a little ticked that they'd be so quick to accuse the Church and people who were ok with the status quo as being perpetrators of misogyny.  but i realized i wouldn't get anywhere by trying to convince them of anything.  so i didn't.  in a related vein, i've asked a pretty staunch mormon feminist - a woman i know personally and not on any social media account - what the difference was between "mansplaining" and just plain ole "disagreeing."  her answer didn't satisfy me in the slightest.  felt like any time a woman wanted to win a discussion or argument, they could just say "you're mansplaining!" and that'd be it. but we talked about it, and both agreed that you don't mansplain if the woman opposite you is in full confidence that you aren't the kind of guy to do it.  i took it as a moral lesson that seemed so obvious that i was a little impatient with myself that it took someone else to point it out to me: if you want to engage with someone, they must feel safe.  they must feel confident you care for them.  that's how the Gospel works, why wouldn't it work in interpersonal relationships?

i don't think anyone is turning on anyone.  we're talking about very sensitive topics and i am willing to bet that everyone in this thread would still sustain, support, honor, and have charity for everyone else in this thread.  we're just swimming in deep and choppy water.

 

I could ask Smac how "safe" and "respected" he feels here, but I see he has determined to withdraw from the thread permanently -- a wise move, I think, under the circumstances.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Mars said:

trying to say "yes i am respectful, look at all the things i do" when women are saying "that's now how you show me respect" is another.

One slight alteration...

It is often said the way you've put it, but to avoid confusion it is better, imo, to say "but that is not how I feel respected, so if you want me to feel respected it would be better to .... because that is what makes me feel good".

[Mars]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I could ask Smac how "safe" and "respected" he feels here, but I see he has determined to withdraw from the thread permanently -- a wise move, I think, under the circumstances.

what are you trying to say?  i get the sense that you're trying to draw some lack of consistency - again.  that the women feel safe but not smac, so, there's some imbalance and it's not right.  do i understand you properly?

[Mars]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

One slight alteration...

It is often said the way you've put it, but to avoid confusion it is better, imo, to say "but that is not how I feel respected, so if you want me to feel respected it would be better to .... because that is what makes me feel good".

i accept that distinction

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm seeing Smac getting beaten up here too. And he actually tried to extricate himself from the fray but got drawn back in when his name and comments kept coming up by reference. Do you plan to stick up for him as well?

In truth, I'm seeing people I respect a great deal and hold in high regard turning on each other in this thread. I don't like it.

I'll probably try to avoid looking in on it anymore; it's too painful to watch. And I'm not trying to shut down discussion, but for the record, I hope the internecine salvos end soon.

I'm not seeing much of anything that has been said about Smac personally.  

[Nofear]

This, of course, is true for both men and women. Sometimes there are moments when bad behavior or behavior with unintended effects should be called out; but then we are to show "forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;" D&C 121:43.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I could ask Smac how "safe" and "respected" he feels here, but I see he has determined to withdraw from the thread permanently -- a wise move, I think, under the circumstances.

Also wanted to say that for my part, Smac was not drawn back in because I referenced his name after he decided to leave the thread, but because i responded to his reply to me.  

I respect his decision to leave the thread permanently though if he feels that is best.  We've all been there and sometimes it needs to happen.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Mars said:

 both agreed that you don't mansplain if the woman opposite you is in full confidence that you aren't the kind of guy to do it.  i took it as a moral lesson that seemed so obvious that i was a little impatient with myself that it took someone else to point it out to me: if you want to engage with someone, they must feel safe. they must feel confident you care for them.  that's how the Gospel works, why wouldn't it work in interpersonal relationships?

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

And that confidence isn't going to come by someone doing what they think will make the other feel they care, but doing what the other sees as caring.

Example:  my dad expressed caring by solving people's problems.  He would just step in and do the thing he saw needed doing.  A lot of people needed this kind of help from him so that was wonderful for them.  For some, however, it didn't make a difference because that problem wasn't a big deal for them.  For others, it made things worse because they had to take their attention away from what they were experiencing as their most pressing problems, to make accommodations so that my dad could accomplish what he saw as important for them because they understood he was trying to help.  Sometimes these would try to explain to Dad that his energies were better spent in other places, but unfortunately he couldn't or wouldn't shift gears and so his options he gave people, was take it this way or don't get anything.  This is not an approach that conveys the message "I care about You as an individual, as the person you are and not something I want you to be" but there were some who were able to get past that and accept Dad for what he was without resentment and when necessary, just graciously turned down his help.  And then there were those who pushed him competely out of their lives because they saw him as interfering and they themselves couldn't or wouldn't make an effort to see him as an individual and recognize his efforts for what they were.

A simple change (simple in the sense of easy to define, not easy to do) in mydad's approach would have removed all that complication that surrounded him and open up a much larger group that benefitted from his help (plus would have avoided a lot of conflict at work and elsewhere) and that was if he had just learned to stop at the beginning and listen to input from others with his full attention and respond to that instead of acting on his own assumptions of what others needed or wanted.

[Calm]

I should say my mom did much the same thing in assuming she knew what others needed, but her way of helping was to talk about it.  Took me decades to figure out more interaction, even when one is quiet when the other is talking, doesn't mean one is actually listening.  One has to put one's own assumptions aside in order to listen.

I don't see the ability and choice to respond to the individual as an individual as gender linked.  More  experience linked.

The talk I linked to earlier is good at pointing this need out, imo.  ("What are you thinking?" by Elder Craig Zwick sp?)

Edited February 8, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not seeing much of anything that has been said about Smac personally.  

Well, I haven't been following the thread closely. As I said, it is too painful to watch.

But I've seen Smac accused of a double-standard. I've seen it implied that his exercising of common courtesies that have been part of society for many generations amounts to insincerity on his part. In short, I've seen it implied that he doesn't respect womanhood, not really. And as I have observed Smac's online behavior over many years, frankly, that strikes mes as a bad rap.

And then there was this:

Quote

The way you come across often Smac is like a 6'5" man. Often I agree with your points, but I sometimes feel beaten by them. I get why Jana felt like she did while agreeing with nearly everything you said.

But I'm finished here as well. I don't want to come across as a 6'5" man.

You all can carry on as you see fit.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But I've seen Smac accused of a double-standard.

Yes, i said that i felt he was using a double standard because that is how i interpreted his remarks.  When he took issue with it, i said that we could call it a different term if that would be more accurate.  

I don't think it's reasonable to label that as someone being 'beaten up.'

Quote

I've seen it implied that his exercising of common courtesies that have been part of society for many generations amounts to insincerity on his part.

I did not imply that of him, and I stated that I was not implying that of him.

Quote

And then there was this:

She also lovingly accused her husband of the same thing.  It did not seem like it was said with any kind of malice or insult intended but that it was an observation she thought would help Smac understand some of the responses that he was getting.  

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I'm seeing Smac getting beaten up here too. And he actually tried to extricate himself from the fray but got drawn back in when his name and comments kept coming up by reference. Do you plan to stick up for him as well?

In truth, I'm seeing people I respect a great deal and hold in high regard turning on each other in this thread. I don't like it.

I'll probably try to avoid looking in on it anymore; it's too painful to watch. And I'm not trying to shut down discussion, but for the record, I hope the internecine salvos end soon.

We are all going to see different things depending on what we bring to the conversation. The reason I turn to academics is so that it is not personal. But that comes to naught if someone wants to make the topic about them and up the ante by substituting inflammatory words that are not responsive.  It has always been the case that women's topics bring out some rage. At that point one has to decide to not discuss women's topics or just keep going. Unfortunately, keeping going sometimes brings out even more resentment which is expressed by the surprising anger and strawmen argumentation. We have disagreement. I am unsure why you would ever consider that to be "turning on each other." It happens every day on this forum.  

This is not going to go away. We aren't going to be shouted down anymore. The women have been extraordinarily patient, calm and cooperative. I am filled with pride and hope when I watch them not responding in kind.

[stemelbow]

This is not going to go away. We aren't going to be shouted down anymore. The women have been extraordinarily patient, calm and cooperative. I am filled with pride and hope when I watch them not responding in kind.

Worth repeating, I'd say.

[Rain]

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

She also lovingly accused her husband of the same thing.  It did not seem like it was said with any kind of malice or insult intended but that it was an observation she thought would help Smac understand some of the responses that he was getting.  

I don't know that I would use the word accuse because I don't feel my husband is doing wrong.  I just think he is unaware of how his size has an affect on those smaller than him sometimes. He spends most of his non work time with me, a 5"4" woman and after 25 years his size doesn't phase me anymore so he probably gets used to that and doesn't even think that it might be different for someone else. My guess is that smac is an excellent lawyer and debater.  I just think he is unaware of how his style affects others in conversation, especially when he doesn't realize it isn't a debate for them and they don't realize that he sees it as a debate.  The debate/conversation goals confusion makes a huge difference. 

By the way, I can always tell when someone is about 6'7" or taller because I start to feel smaller.  There is only one other man who is shorter that I felt this way around in the last 23 or 24 years and that was President Monson.  My daughter and I were waiting in line and he came up to talk to her.  I was surprised when I looked at how tall he was that he was shorter than I was expecting because he had such a presence.   With that though he was so gentle with my daughter that when President Hinckley died my testimony was so strong for President Monson because I felt he knew how to lead the church through Christ because I saw in his example a gathering and love for my daughter, a child. 

Edited February 8, 2016 by Rain

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

  Do you have a brief summary of ideas you think would help realize the more Zion-like (one heart, one mind) society -- those taught by the Brethren and General Officers and your own or other borrowed ideas? Same question opened broadly to others.

Excellent question. I think your observation, amidst all the old white men disdain going on, that these so-called "old white men" have come up with things that do not represent the stereotypes of their generation at all.

I think councils are the key to elevating women's input. The problem is that not many get to experience them. And obviously, there should be women in every deliberating body the church has under that same unanimous rule.

I think everyone should be aware of the ways in which women are routinely silenced.( If men were doing it on purpose there wouldn't have to be awareness building.) You would have to be living under a rock to not be aware of the sad statistics of women in politics, sciences, CEOs, etc. But few go beyond that to understand why that may be happening in an era where more women than men are graduating from college. Once aware, is isn't hard for both women and men to curb negative behaviors. Now that I am aware of interruptions, I can say "let me finish, please." Or if men are giving each other double the positive feedback they give to a woman, aware men and women can make up for that. 

Those men who are not part of the problem make excellent facilitators and, statistically, have the advantage of greater authority and influence. So a bishop in a council can make sure the women aren't being overlooked or given signals they are less important. I have had some funny examples in GD of being interrupted by men...mid-sentence. Or being corrected rather than allowed to have a different opinion. My biggest chuckle was with a man who waited until the teacher was closing the class to correct me to ensure he had the last word.( In our church culture, I think everyone recognizes someone merely expressing another opinion as contrasted to being corrected.) This was over our practice of assigning cowardice to Nicodemas for visiting Jesus privately at night when that would have actually been a respectful gesture given the cultural demands of winning rhetorical debates. 

We have a woman who dominates all lessons. She also interrupts and talks too much.  But I have never seen a man shut down for it. She is. One of the biggest interrupters is a former bishop who likes to turn around in his seat to address the class. He misuses early Christian theologians or texts on a regular basis. He gave a talk that began with using Justin Marytr quote  to "prove" that our meetings were still the same after all these years. Yet because of his former office he is never corrected and is allowed to interrupt and correct others at will where the woman is not. (The class would benefit if both were required to give up the podium.)

If men who are not part of the problem gently say they would like to hear the rest of what she said....etc. it would build awareness. They could make sure that women who make comments are given positive feedback (keep in mind that critical feedback if it is meant to improve/help is positive!) Let women know they are as much an authority on religion than men are. Even if they have been bishops. It probably isn't disputed that men talk the most in mixed classes (yeah, I know there are exceptions!) Use one woman as a starter. Say things like "I remember you saying something about......I'd like to hear more" kind of stuff.

Most of all drop the "women we love you" "you are so special" "you are so spiritual" stuff. That is the opening doors black hole. Something I would like church leaders to stop doing is using a divisive "we" to speak to women. "We (the church) appreciate you (you female people who help us, the church.) These are small easy things but carry a big message.

[Rain]

I have to say Julian that I am so aware of how I have been writing the last couple of pages wondering (and often seeing) where it falls in your studies!