The Mormon Feminist Fighting for Priesthood

[Calm]

Quote

These are small easy things but carry a big message.

Messages that generally are not intended, but just because they are not intended doesn't mean they aren't going to have the effect they have.  And the only way to avoid that effect is to become conscious of how the messages are being received, not just how they are being intended.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

51 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

I haven't noticed that in this thread.

51 minutes ago, juliann said:

It has always been the case that women's topics bring out some rage.

Has it?

I've seen no "rage."

Although I think I finally see why you regard this as a "women's topic." If you focus exclusively upon what a group of women are saying among themselves and what their concerns are, etc. you could call that a "women's topic."

But since the focus of their activities is campaigning for Priesthood ordination, that is clearly a matter that concerns all Latter-day Saints.

51 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

As this thread clearly demonstrates, nobody is trying to shout you down.

Indeed, it appears that it is the women who are doing the shouting.

51 minutes ago, juliann said:

The women have been extraordinarily patient, calm and cooperative.

I agree that the patience, calmness and cooperativeness demonstrated by many the women in this thread is not what anyone would consider ordinary patience, calmness and cooperativeness.

So I guess that makes it "extraordinary."

51 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am filled with pride and hope when I watch them not responding in kind.

To what, precisely?

[bluebell]

 

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't know that I would use the word accuse because I don't feel my husband is doing wrong.  

I agree. I used the terminology that Scott used but I should have put it in quotes. 

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

This reminds me of something painful for me.  In my last ward there were a number older women and men who could no long hear well.  Because of my conversations with them and a somewhat deaf friend I knew how frustrated they were when people wouldn't use a microphone in class.  Teachers would get up in class and say they had a loud voice felt they didn't need to use it.  Soon after my friend who had expressed frustration to me about this a sister in RS mentioned her loud voice and asked if she should use the microphone.  I raised my hand and said yes, that there were some people that did need it, but would probably not feel comfortable telling the class about it.  This surprised her, but she immediately put the microphone on and went right on with her lesson.

That worked well in RS so I was comfortable responding that yes a microphone was needed when one of the male teachers got up in class and stated he didn't need it. I asked him to please wear it because, like the first time, there were people in class who were not comfortable saying anything, but really did want and need it to be worn.  He tried to make it as a joke that I was wrong.  Said something more about how he didn't need it.  I sat there and thought of those poor people who needed it because if they heard how I had politely asked him to wear it and how he cut me down they would NEVER ask him themselves.  I waited a few minutes and left the class.  But he didn't leave it there.  He referred back to the situation the next week before class started and restated that he would not be wearing the microphone.  

 

[juliann]

Oh, ouch Rain. I usually just stop trying in those situations. I limit myself to one come back comment in classes and then let it go. But...in your situation I have professional background. That gives me some authority that I can't get when paired off against a man who considers himself in charge. (And I do think our morphing "men" and "priesthood" has created some of this.) So to be of equal or higher standing as a concerned woman in such a situation, I have to pull out a Masters degree that they don't have. It is that degree that would give me the confidence and authority this man takes for granted.  It is the degree that would then enable me to remedy this because I would then be listened to. That is kind of discouraging.

Women, statistically, are more empathetic and more concerned about caring for others needs. 

[Rain]

40 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

But since the focus of their activities is campaigning for Priesthood ordination, that is clearly a matter that concerns all Latter-day Saints.

 

Totally agree with that.  Maybe we should work together through the Lord for a solution on that.  Not maybe. We really should work together on that.  Are you game?

 

Edited February 8, 2016 by Rain

[juliann]

Nofear's new thread says it perfectly. And it is said by a woman with Church authority.

 

Quote

"The compensatory approach is the idea that women have been left out of history in the past, and that we need to recover and make women visible, we need to compensate for the lack of women in the record by focusing specifically on women and women's history. The impetus behind having women's history specialists, like we do here in the department, is that we've got to have some balance, and that women's history has got to be an area of focus so we don't lose sight of that." - Lisa Tait

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865647165/Women-hired-by-LDS-Church-History-Department-making-huge-strides-in-Mormon-womens-history.html

So again, the Church is going gang busters trying to set things right. My biggest concern is why some men would see compensation to create balance as a negative. (I like the word balance, equality seems to bring out negativity in some.) Women are socialized into having to read ourselves into just about everything when we are not specifically addressed. We are told to liken ourselves unto men and no one flinches. Men and women are socialized to see men as the default position. 

[Rain]

Edit:  This actually excites me.  A conference talk came to mind after I posted last.  This talk had a profound impact on me and how I work with my son.  What if we used this as part of the solution to the "priesthood campaign": Elder Scott's, "I Have Given You an Example"?

 

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, Rain said:

Edit:  This actually excites me.  A conference talk came to mind after I posted last.  This talk had a profound impact on me and how I work with my son.  What if we used this as part of the solution to the "priesthood campaign": Elder Scott's, "I Have Given You an Example"?

 

 This is what gets forgotten,

Quote

Remember, loving them is the powerful foundation for influencing those you want to help. The influence of my Grandmother Whittle and my wife, Jeanene, would have been negligible had I not first known that they loved me and wanted me to have the best in life.

I notice he didn't say A foundation, he said THE foundation. This is what disturbs me when people start going off on "feminists" without even knowing if the people they are talking to consider themselves one or if there might be something important about some of what they say. I am so tired of seeing some of the mofems beat up on "TBMs" and some Mormons beating up on the Mofems. There is a body of women who are in the center, like the Church historian who are caught in the middle of ugly rhetoric. I sense that there is some coming together over common needs. Everyone would celebrate what Holbrook is saying, regardless of ideology.

[Calm]

I love that they are doing it both ways:

""The compensatory approach is the idea that women have been left out of history in the past, and that we need to recover and make women visible, we need to compensate for the lack of women in the record by focusing specifically on women and women's history. The impetus behind having women's history specialists, like we do here in the department, is that we've got to have some balance, and that women's history has got to be an area of focus so we don't lose sight of that."

Holbrook and Reeder, with their titles as women's history specialists, chiefly do compensatory work.

"The other approach is what I'd call integrative," Tait said, "so the idea that we're going to simply treat women and women's voices and women's stories as part of the larger narrative. It's not some separate history of its own, but it's integral to telling the whole story of history."

"History needs to be told," Holbrook added, "in a way that integrates what men were doing with what women were doing.""

 

For me the integration is the ideal so we need to have that now so that we can see what we are aiming for as well as because history would be still unbalanced if it was primarily the women's side that was being examined.  We need to not only see how men and women operate in their own spheres (and much of history has significantly separated spheres for men and women) but to see how these spheres interacted.  We can then not only just be informed, but take the good, drop the bad and improve our own interactions with this expanded awareness.

[Rain]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

 This is what gets forgotten,

I notice he didn't say A foundation, he said THE foundation. This is what disturbs me when people start going off on "feminists" without even knowing if the people they are talking to consider themselves one or if there might be something important about some of what they say. I am so tired of seeing some of the mofems beat up on "TBMs" and some Mormons beating up on the Mofems. There is a body of women who are in the center, like the Church historian who are caught in the middle of ugly rhetoric. I sense that there is some coming together over common needs. Everyone would celebrate what Holbrook is saying, regardless of ideology.

And it's perfectly natural to forget the love. I feel attacked when I read mofem writings. Except for Jana's blog post talked about on this thread I haven't read some for some time because of it. There is a physical reaction when you feel attacked and that love gets lost in the reaction. 

I was lucky with my son because when I first read the article he was living hours away from me after reading the article and the Spirit told me I needed to learn to love him again and to start I should tell him something good about himself every day. So each day I would think things over, sometimes praying for help and text or call him with a compliment. The texting was easier because when I talked to him on the phone he would invariably tell me something I didn't approve of and I would bite my tongue and sometimes the Spirit would bop me and say, "it doesn't matter if you are right." 

Slowly things have gone the direction of the article and last night he told me how he defended his position against a wrong thing he was formerly for or was at least apathetic towards. He still has no interest in spiritual matters and it kills me because he has such a gift for them, but little by little I see a light coming back on in him.

So I think we have to recognize that it isn't always easy to love those in opposition of us and that's ok. We just need to ask Heavenly Father for help in loving others and be patient, even when it seems our efforts are going nowhere or that things seem to be spinning out of control. Sometimes we just need to send a text of love and then step back for 24 hours so they can learn to trust and we can learn to be trustworthy.  

Edited February 9, 2016 by Rain

[Storm Rider]

21 hours 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.

I am not sure if I have ever observed a worthwhile discussion on this topic and similar topics.  It always devolves into men, or whatever group is supposed to be the group in power, are defective and don't understand women or the aggrieved group.  In this instance, women are supposed to have a completely unique, unknown contribution that is lost without their direct input in all things and at all levels.  Of course, there is also a host of other subsets of humanity who feel the exact same things.  Some Blacks studies propose they are absolutely convinced that all other races, particularly whites, don't understand them, their culture, and their contribution to society. 

This desire to Balkanize society into these very separate, individual subgroups based upon race, gender, religion, and whatever possible distinguishing difference that may allow for a group identity to be perceived as unique and each subset is self-assured that all other groups are incapable of understanding who their chosen group is or the message they have as to why they are, have been, and continue to be abused by the majority at large results in the destruction of civil society.  It maintains and demands an illusion of separateness and of self-value; that the subgroup is unique from all others, and they have something that is inherently unique to provide the world IF everyone else would just adapt and allow them to contribute.  None seems capable of achieving their "place" by merit, but all others must adapt, change, move out of their way in order for them to ascend to their desired space.

I just don't buy it; it seems so.....unhappy, self-centered, and worse, unwilling to actually recognize that no subgroup is unique in the world.  We are all the same with similar feelings, desires, wants, and wishes.  It is not us - it is we.  We feel, we need, and we want.  Yes, it takes time for truth to rise to the top, but it does rise.  When things go too far they will eventually find their balance.  If the conversation cannot fit into that paradigm I seldom trust that the group waving and fussing has a valid argument. 

Edited February 9, 2016 by Storm Rider

[juliann]

19 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

  In this instance, women are supposed to have a completely unique, unknown contribution that is lost without their direct input in all things and at all levels.  

 

This is a very serious request for a CFR saying women, as a group, contributions or tendencies are the same as men. Or are you saying that whatever unique contributions they do have can be represented adequately by men in all things and levels? I have to say this is one of the strangest posts of this thread. You can start with conference talks that say women do not have unique characteristics that are necessary to the health of the church and then move to secular stats.

[juliann]

Quote

In a recent study of group problem solving, researchers found that the number of women in the group substantially affects the group’s ability to solve problems collectively—even when accounting for the capacity of the individuals in the group. The gender composition affects group ability through the members’ average empathic ability. These effects held even after controlling on the members’ intelligence. That is, some groups were “stupider” than the sum of their parts, and that is partly due to the dearth of women, because the presence of more women was correlated with equal talk and with the presence of empathetic people. Neither the group’s average intelligence nor the intelligence of a few brilliant members affected the group’s problem-solving ability; what did affect it was equally distributed talk and a high average ability to empathize, both of which were produced by having lots of women. The implication of these results is that gender inequality matters not only for justice but also for the group’s ability to solve problems accurately.   The Silent Sex, p 140-141

 

[rodheadlee]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Those are certainly good things (and things i try to remember as well), but they aren't limited to the priesthood.  Women should do the same, right?

Of course not but you asked my how I would use my AP 24/7. Let me ask you this: When should I ever lay my priesthood down?

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, juliann said:

 

Quote

In a recent study of group problem solving, researchers found that the number of women in the group substantially affects the group’s ability to solve problems collectively—even when accounting for the capacity of the individuals in the group. The gender composition affects group ability through the members’ average empathic ability. These effects held even after controlling on the members’ intelligence. That is, some groups were “stupider” than the sum of their parts, and that is partly due to the dearth of women, because the presence of more women was correlated with equal talk and with the presence of empathetic people. Neither the group’s average intelligence nor the intelligence of a few brilliant members affected the group’s problem-solving ability; what did affect it was equally distributed talk and a high average ability to empathize, both of which were produced by having lots of women. The implication of these results is that gender inequality matters not only for justice but also for the group’s ability to solve problems accurately.   The Silent Sex, p 140-141

 

Julian, Did this study look at female only groups also???

On a related note, I really enjoyed the times when our Relief Society President and Primary President (who was also a former Relief Society President joined us in the PEC during my tenure as the Executive Secretary in a small branch. (Note the abject attempt to curry favor here.) They were not hesitant to voice their opinions and our Branch President listened (as in heeded) to their advice. Of course there were some things said that I would rather not have heard, like "If a man lives long enough he has  100 percent chance o getting prostrate cancer." Don't know how true that it is, but makes the the idea of dying young(er) more appealing. Too late for me though. 

 

Thanks,

Glenn

[Storm Rider]

12 hours ago, juliann said:

This is a very serious request for a CFR saying women, as a group, contributions or tendencies are the same as men. Or are you saying that whatever unique contributions they do have can be represented adequately by men in all things and levels? I have to say this is one of the strangest posts of this thread. You can start with conference talks that say women do not have unique characteristics that are necessary to the health of the church and then move to secular stats.

I think the contributions of individuals are different.  Do you have a CFR that states a gender possesses a completely unique perspective or contributions that no man can possess? 

If it is strange then...I really don't know where you are coming from at all.  I have read feminist writings that like to infer that the feminine gender is unique, but I have not read that it is completely unique and that no other individual - specifically a male - can possess or imagine. 

I find it outrageously strange for someone to think that a gender or a race allows a completely unique perspective.  The foundation of this type of philosophy assumes that humanity is really non-existent and that we are all just small subsets of what was once considered humanity.  We either can understand one another as members of the human family or not.  If we are human, what is the benefit of breaking in down into genders, races, etc. 

I believe individuals have a wealth of diverse ideas and perspectives.  It is the individual that is paramount when it comes to contributing rather than a gender or race or whatever other group, subgroup that can be imagined. 

[Storm Rider]

On 2/5/2016 at 0:03 PM, Jeanne said:

This quote feature is driving me crazy - it keeps a previous quote and does not allow new quotes to engage.

Juliann, does the quote you provided from the book describe what type of problems are solved when a mixed gender group versus a same gender group is used?  Is it math, social science, business case analysis, or something else?  How were results evaluated?  Were the same problems addressed by all female teams, all male teams, and the a range of ratios of females to males?  

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 

Julian, Did this study look at female only groups also???

On a related note, I really enjoyed the times when our Relief Society President and Primary President (who was also a former Relief Society President joined us in the PEC during my tenure as the Executive Secretary in a small branch. (Note the abject attempt to curry favor here.) They were not hesitant to voice their opinions and our Branch President listened (as in heeded) to their advice. Of course there were some things said that I would rather not have heard, like "If a man lives long enough he has  100 percent chance o getting prostrate cancer." Don't know how true that it is, but makes the the idea of dying young(er) more appealing. Too late for me though. 

 

i don't know what the book mentions on this questions, but I found this article here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjatcKS_urKAhUP1GMKHbfFDj0QFggjMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffortune.com%2F2014%2F09%2F18%2Fwomen-make-groups-smarter%2F&usg=AFQjCNGZE22XHy3zsX56mfBdotxYdXyitw&sig2=W3iZV6MQoBYZdEcrBHZyQA

According to this, female only groups also had this effect and it was tied to social sensitivity. It's interesting that the results held for online groups as well, which I think Juliann noted was a hole in the book. That stated, I wouldn't want solely all female groups anymore than I'd want all male groups solely. 

I found it interesting that competition tended to remove the effect for all group types. In a lot of ways I could see how the structure of the church could easily capitalize on this - our system governance reduces that likelihood for competition. We already have counsel groups where competition for leadership is limited if not entirely removed by external pickings. What would need to be ascertained and changed is making sure there were more women on differing counsels. 

 

And you only get so many brownie points for abject attempt for favor  

 

With luv,

BD 

[Calm]

Stormrider, when it won't let you delete a quote and start over, try refreshing the page.  Hopfully this time a little four arrow box will appear on the top left side of the unwanted quote.  Click on that and then hit delete.  Hopefully this will work for you as it does me.  Must be done first thing though, so you might need to refresh again if the box disappears and you can't get it again.

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, juliann said:

This is a very serious request for a CFR saying women, as a group, contributions or tendencies are the same as men. Or are you saying that whatever unique contributions they do have can be represented adequately by men in all things and levels? I have to say this is one of the strangest posts of this thread. You can start with conference talks that say women do not have unique characteristics that are necessary to the health of the church and then move to secular stats.

I think I can sum this up with two simple questions:

1. Can the LDS Church function without men?

2. Can the LDS Church function without women?

The answers to these questions pretty much say it all. 

 

[Tacenda]

deleted

Edited February 9, 2016 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Is the Church the LDS Church without Primary, YW, and RS?  

Can the Church function in the temple without sealings?  Since women are the only ones to give the beginning of the ordinances to women, even if women are allowed to participate, without their officiating, nothing can be done past baptism....so no sealings for either men or women, no eternal families.

So the answer to both your questions imo is No.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Juliann, does the quote you provided from the book describe what type of problems are solved when a mixed gender group versus a same gender group is used?  Is it math, social science, business case analysis, or something else?  How were results evaluated?  Were the same problems addressed by all female teams, all male teams, and the a range of ratios of females to males?  

The subject would be interesting to look at. I wonder also if it makes a difference in how comfortable one is with the subject. For example, if you have a group of fourth graders with girls who think they are not good at math but consistantly have the same grades as the boys will the problem solving be the same as professional math professors?

[Calm]

http://wliut.com/staff-member/ally-isom/