This is How LDS Patriarchy will Survive or Die

[Meadowchik]

A recent blog post over at BCC discussed the patriarchy in the Church in terms of benevolent sexism:

https://www.google.it/amp/s/bycommonconsent.com/2016/11/02/hostile-sexism-and-lds-trump-supporters/amp/?client=ms-android-Samsung 

As a woman and even when I was a girl,  I've been defending patriarchy my whole life. The article brought to mind the point that women who are complicit in benevolent sexism are more likely to do so when they feel it benefits them.

I've got a confession to make: I'm no exception to that. My resistance to feminist attitudes has been greatly worn down of late, probably faster than at any other time in my life, because I feel the Church patriarchy is not protecting me and my family when it should.

So this is my hypothesis: support for feminism in the Church and opposition to the patriarchal structure of the Church will increase if that structure protects women less now and in the future. If it distinguishes itself as being beneficial to women, the opposite will happen: LDS patriarchy will enjoy continued support.

I cannot overestimate how deeply and broadly my lifelong convictions have been challenged by my recent experiences. I suppose that all these years as the intellectual arguments against patriarchy have accumulated, I chose faith in the Lord's Way as I understood it. So with my faith in that shattered to some extent, there's not much left.

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by Meadowchik

[HappyJackWagon]

The problem is that the way the church protected women in the past, doesn't really work in the present and will likely work even less in the future. I agree that the patriarchy is benevolent but it simply doesn't match modern sensibilities. Many women seem to want different benefits and levels of participation. It will be increasingly difficult to lift women on a pedestal while simultaneously not allowing them to participate in many meaningful ways in the church. In the world today women can aspire to anything they choose, but aspirations have a distinct limits in the church.

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

A recent blog post over at BCC discussed the patriarchy in the Church in terms of benevolent sexism:

https://www.google.it/amp/s/bycommonconsent.com/2016/11/02/hostile-sexism-and-lds-trump-supporters/amp/?client=ms-android-Samsung 

As a woman and even when I was a girl,  I've been defending patriarchy my whole life. The article brought to mind the point that women who are complicit in benevolent sexism are more likely to do so when they feel it benefits them.

I've got a confession to make: I'm no exception to that. My resistance to feminist attitudes has been greatly worn down of late, probably faster than at any other time in my life, because I feel the Church patriarchy is not protecting me and my family when it should.

So this is my hypothesis: support for feminism in the Church and opposition to the patriarchal structure of the Church will increase if that structure protects women less now and in the future. If it distinguishes itself as being beneficial to women, the opposite will happen: LDS patriarchy will enjoy continued support.

I cannot overestimate how deeply and broadly my lifelong convictions have been challenged by my recent experiences. I suppose that all these years as the intellectual arguments against patriarchy have accumulated, I chose faith in the Lord's Way as I understood it. So with my faith in that shattered to some extent, there's not much left.

 

From what I understand, it might be helpful to disclose what you can about what has caused the change in your attitude.  I seem to recall it is a personal conflict with a church leader, which is tragic.  As it is the topic is too vague for me to understand, give advice, comment intelligently or understand what I can do in my local area to correct the perceived problem.  I am in a position to be somewhat influential in my stake and want to help correct this kind of thing if it is something that applies locally.

The reason I am asking is whether or not it is a doctrinal change or your perception of a doctrinal change, or for personal reasons about individual poor leadership.

I believe that would help others understand the situation better.   What is important I think that if it is a personal conflict with a given poor leader, perhaps you should show how that poor leadership impacts the church as a whole and why others should be concerned about the direction the church takes in these situations, so that others may just write it off as a "personal problem"

I certainly agree that patriarchy is and should be seen as beneficial to women, so my concern is that the central flaws which have affected you be clarified.  It is not necessary obviously to disclose personal details, simply something along the lines of "My bishop has not handled a situation well and that impacts the church generally because....."

If it is a doctrinal or policy problem, perhaps there are things we can do as members to help change the situation.  The new essays on church history I think have been issued because of widespread member questions about these issues, so member concerns, it appears, are being answered.

Just a suggestion.

The bottom line is what can I do locally to help the situation, if that is relevant, because I agree with your central premise, but at this point cannot put my finger on the problem precisely

[Meadowchik]

I will try to clarify within a day, which is as soon as I can.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

A recent blog post over at BCC discussed the patriarchy in the Church in terms of benevolent sexism:

https://www.google.it/amp/s/bycommonconsent.com/2016/11/02/hostile-sexism-and-lds-trump-supporters/amp/?client=ms-android-Samsung 

As a woman and even when I was a girl,  I've been defending patriarchy my whole life.

I am curious in what ways you have been "defending patriarchy."

Also, what do you mean by "patriarchy" as it pertains to the LDS Church?

Quote

The article brought to mind the point that women who are complicit in benevolent sexism are more likely to do so when they feel it benefits them.

"Benevolent sexism" sounds an awful lot like a loaded term, of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" variety.

Is there some sort of widely-accepted, coherent, and sociopolitically objective definition of this term?  If so, who crafted it?  When?  Where?

Or is it, as I suspect, a provocative neologism, packed to the gills with questionable assumptions, the definition of which we are nevertheless expected to accept uncritically?

Quote

I've got a confession to make: I'm no exception to that. My resistance to feminist attitudes has been greatly worn down of late, probably faster than at any other time in my life, because I feel the Church patriarchy is not protecting me and my family when it should.

"The Church patriarchy?"  What is that?

And are you accusing "the Church patriarchy" of "benevolent sexism"?

Also, in what ways is the Church failing to protect you and your family?

Also, you appear to be saying that you are fine with "benevolent sexism" (whatever that means) as long as it benefits you, but that otherwise you take exception with it.  Is that correct?

Quote

So this is my hypothesis: support for feminism in the Church and opposition to the patriarchal structure of the Church will increase if that structure protects women less now and in the future.

What, in your view, is the relationship between "benevolent sexism" and "the patriarchal structure of the Church"?

Also, in what ways is that "structure" failing to "protect women?"

Also, is "benevolent sexism" inherently bad?  It seems not, since you are open to it as long as it benefits you.  And yet it seems like an inherently negative, hostile term.

Quote

If it distinguishes itself as being beneficial to women, the opposite will happen: LDS patriarchy will enjoy continued support.

In my experience, the Church does a lot of good for, and is beneficial to, women.  The Relief Society is one of the best women's organization on the face of the earth.  Women are given all sorts of opportunities to serve and be served by others in the Church.  Women can and do receive assistance in terms of rent, utilities, commodities, food, counseling, etc.  And I have never heard of such things being withheld from a woman because of her gender.

So what do you mean by "the patriarchal structure of the Church ... distinguish{ing} itself as being beneficial to women"?  I do not understand what you mean here.  It is too vague and oblique.

Quote

I cannot overestimate how deeply and broadly my lifelong convictions have been challenged by my recent experiences.

I am sorry that you are undergoing difficulties.  I hope your situation improves.

Quote

I suppose that all these years as the intellectual arguments against patriarchy have accumulated, I chose faith in the Lord's Way as I understood it.

What "intellectual arguments against patriarchy" are you referencing here?

Also, are these "arguments" against "patriarchy" as a generalized sociological/athropological/political/economic/ concept?  Or are you referring specifically to "patriarchy" as it exists in the LDS Church?

I think you are using terms that are too broadly defined.  For example, let's take a look at Wikipedia's treatment:

Quote

Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property.

The LDS Church has very little (nothing?) to say about "patriarchy" in terms of "political leadership" or "moral authority" or "social privilege" or "control of property."  

Instead, so-called "LDS patriarchy" would seem to consist principally of A) limiting the priesthood, and hence priesthood offices, to men, and B) prescribing and encouraging gender-based familial roles.  Would you agree?  

Quote

In the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children.

Per The Proclamation: 

Quote

THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

Those last two sentences sound rather "patriarchal", and yet...

Quote

In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

These provisions seem to substantially mitigate the "patriarchal" thing.

Back to Wikipedia:

Quote

Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

Not applicable to the LDS Church.

Quote

Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, religious and economic organization of a range of different cultures. 

This is objectively true, don't you think?

Quote

Even if not explicitly defined to be by their own constitutions and laws, virtually all societies today are, in practice, patriarchal.

And this as well?

Quote

Patriarchy literally means "the rule of the father" and comes from the Greek πατριάρχης (patriarkhēs), "father of a race" or "chief of a race, patriarch", which is a compound of πατριά (patria), "lineage, descent" (from πατήρ patēr, "father") and ἄρχω (arkhō), "I rule".

Historically, the term patriarchy was used to refer to autocratic rule by the male head of a family.

It seems that the LDS Church hews far more closely to the "historic" reference, although clearly the "autocratic" descriptor does not apply.  

Quote

However, in modern times, it more generally refers to social systems in which power is primarily held by adult men.  

I think this is how you are using the term "patriarchy", is that correct?  And by "power," you would be referring to "priesthood offices"?

Quote

One example definition of patriarchy by Sylvia Walby is "a system of interrelated social structures which allow men to exploit women."  

What are your thoughts here?  Do you think the structure of the LDS Church, particularly its priesthood hierarchy, is a form of "patriotism" designed to "allow men to exploit women"?  

If so, in what ways do you feel are women "exploited" in the LDS Church?

Quote

So with my faith in that shattered to some extent, there's not much left.

I won't inquire as to the particular circumstances of what has led you to your current state.  I think anonymous online message boards are not a very healthy or productive means to sort out such personal things.  Nevertheless, I wish you well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 22, 2016 by smac97

[Jeanne]

I think women are acknowledging that they have huge potentials.  In the world around them, they can be anything...strive for goals and share their talents to help them grow and be a better part of community, family and their "selves".  Achieving your potential in the church just means be better at what you're supposed to do.  (IMO)

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am curious in what ways you have been "defending patriarchy."

Also, what do you mean by "patriarchy" as it pertains to the LDS Church?

"Benevolent sexism" sounds an awful lot like a loaded term, of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" variety.

Is there some sort of widely-accepted, coherent, and sociopolitically objective definition of this term?  If so, who crafted it?  When?  Where?

Or is it, as I suspect, a provocative neologism, packed to the gills with questionable assumptions, the definition of which we are nevertheless expected to accept uncritically?

"The Church patriarchy?"  What is that?

And are you accusing "the Church patriarchy" of "benevolent sexism"?

Also, in what ways is the Church failing to protect you and your family?

Also, you appear to be saying that you are fine with "benevolent sexism" (whatever that means) as long as it benefits you, but that otherwise you take exception with it.  Is that correct?

What, in your view, is the relationship between "benevolent sexism" and "the patriarchal structure of the Church"?

Also, in what ways is that "structure" failing to "protect women?"

Also, is "benevolent sexism" inherently bad?  It seems not, since you are open to it as long as it benefits you.  And yet it seems like an inherently negative, hostile term.

In my experience, the Church does a lot of good for, and is beneficial to, women.  The Relief Society is one of the best women's organization on the face of the earth.  Women are given all sorts of opportunities to serve and be served by others in the Church.  Women can and do receive assistance in terms of rent, utilities, commodities, food, counseling, etc.  And I have never heard of such things being withheld from a woman because of her gender.

So what do you mean by "the patriarchal structure of the Church ... distinguish{ing} itself as being beneficial to women"?  I do not understand what you mean here.  It is too vague and oblique.

I am sorry that you are undergoing difficulties.  I hope your situation improves.

What "intellectual arguments against patriarchy" are you referencing here?

Also, are these "arguments" against "patriarchy" as a generalized sociological/athropological/political/economic/ concept?  Or are you referring specifically to "patriarchy" as it exists in the LDS Church?

I think you are using terms that are too broadly defined.  For example, let's take a look at Wikipedia's treatment:

The LDS Church has very little (nothing?) to say about "patriarchy" in terms of "political leadership" or "moral authority" or "social privilege" or "control of property."  

Instead, so-called "LDS patriarchy" would seem to consist principally of A) limiting the priesthood, and hence priesthood offices, to men, and B) prescribing and encouraging gender-based familial roles.  Would you agree?  

Per The Proclamation: 

Those last two sentences sound rather "patriarchal", and yet...

These provisions seem to substantially mitigate the "patriarchal" thing.

Back to Wikipedia:

Not applicable to the LDS Church.

This is objectively true, don't you think?

And this as well?

It seems that the LDS Church hews far more closely to the "historic" reference, although clearly the "autocratic" descriptor does not apply.  

I think this is how you are using the term "patriarchy", is that correct?  And by "power," you would be referring to "priesthood offices"?

What are your thoughts here?  Do you think the structure of the LDS Church, particularly its priesthood hierarchy, is a form of "patriotism" designed to "allow men to exploit women"?  

If so, in what ways do you feel are women "exploited" in the LDS Church?

I won't inquire as to the particular circumstances of what has led you to your current state.  I think anonymous online message boards are not a very healthy or productive means to sort out such personal things.  Nevertheless, I wish you well.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't know for sure, but I think you got it backwards.  I think her point was that she is in favor of patriarchy and sees it as beneficial to women, but is concerned about the erosion of patriarchy in the church due to not-yet-disclosed issues.  She is objecting to the idea of "benevolent sexism" nevertheless would like benevolent patriarchy, but is concerned that it is disappearing due to events or policies or doctrines she has recently observed, or experiences she has had.   That's my take anyway.

I know many women, including my wife and most of the active sisters in our pretty traditional ward, who feel that they are in a privileged position by being a traditional woman who is protected and allowed to stay at home being a mother and having full-time input in working with their children, and have no desire for priesthood responsibilities and find their role as wife and mother fulfilling.

Even if they have had careers or have been trained in careers as a "back-up" position, they find enough fulfillment in their roles as wives and mothers which is often a 24 hour a day "job" that they are grateful to be able to remain at home and take on those sometimes crushing responsibilities in raising a righteous family, and as full partners with their husbands, gladly accept the role in the division of labor which they have chosen.

Such sisters "defend patriarchy" by affirming to those who might demean those traditional roles that they would not have it any other way, and find joy and fulfillment in their lives.

I imagined that is what she meant.  I guess we will have to wait for confirmation about her more specific concerns.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The problem is that the way the church protected women in the past, doesn't really work in the present and will likely work even less in the future. I agree that the patriarchy is benevolent but it simply doesn't match modern sensibilities. Many women seem to want different benefits and levels of participation. It will be increasingly difficult to lift women on a pedestal while simultaneously not allowing them to participate in many meaningful ways in the church. In the world today women can aspire to anything they choose, but aspirations have a distinct limits in the church.

Of course since aspiring in the Church gets you damned (whether you are male or female) I do not see the appeal.

[Five Solas]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

...

they feel it benefits them.

...

Always enjoy your posts, Meadowchick.  There was an interesting article on BBC News shortly after the election explaining why large numbers of women in the United States voted for Donald Trump--over half of white women, jumping to over 60% for white women without a college degree.  And rightly or wrongly, the author gave the same answer you did above--the candidate in support of traditional roles/values is perceived to benefit many of them, especially where the male is the primary household earner (e.g., - the preferential tax implications of married filing jointly when one spouse doesn't work vocationally).     

There's more to it than just economics, of course.  But the point stands that women vote their interests and support the institutions they perceive support them (although clearly not all women have the same perspective or priority, women who are part of ethnic minorities voted *very* differently).  And to a point you also make, sometimes the benefits fail to meet expectations--and then things must change.  It sounds like that's becoming the case for you. 

--Erik

Edited December 22, 2016 by Five Solas
extra word

[Abulafia]

Ugh

[Abulafia]

Meadowchik, I hope you work it out.  My personal belief is that how the church operates today is very much based on a hazy and misplaced view of history and tradition.  It is beset with problems that do not benefit women and it is not God's way.

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Meadowchik, I hope you work it out.  My personal belief is that how the church operates today is very much based on a hazy and misplaced view of history and tradition.  It is beset with problems that do not benefit women and it is not God's way.

Q.E.D.?

Res Ipsa Loquitur?

Ipse Dixit? 

Oooh-kay!  

[Abulafia]

Kengo...I am learning Greek.  Not latin!  Could you translate please.

[Calm]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Of course since aspiring in the Church gets you damned (whether you are male or female) I do not see the appeal.

It is not the inability to aspire to certain callings that is usually the fundamental issue with benevolent patriarchy gone wrong, though that might be the solution in some views; most men won't have the chance to serve that way as well, so I don't see it as all that effective in getting voices in general heard as opposed to just a few more (percentagewise).  It is more the attitude that exists here and there, in my opinion, of patting women on their head... In essence responding to information about problems or even positive ideas without explanation of the decision process or allowing them to participate in decisions that involve them.  This not involving them in the problem resolution is often simply because they are women and without the Priesthood offices, you don't even have to get the men who think that women are irrelevant to the process because without anticipation of being involved in Priesthood offices such as every young man anticipates, they aren't seen as the ones going to be eventually making the 'important' decisions and therefore not only don't need training like young men and elders often get, but are also intentionally kept uninformed as to how, when, and why decisions that involve us or our family are made as if what we don't know can't hurt us or treating us as if we have no jurisdiction in parts of our own life.  "Trust me" only works when that trust is deserved.  If errors are made consistently, trust will be lost and without a willingness to explain the whys and hows and to involve the people impacted in the exploration of problem resolution including making some of the decisions that most immediately impact them, women (and men for that matter) who see themselves as being left in the dark, out of the loop, without effective input will not regain that trust.  I have had great leaders, but I have had a few losers where I saw no response to even important, necessary for safety concerns (like the safety of young scouts on inappropriate camp outs planned with only one adult leader or the lack of half the needed Primary teachers in a quite large Primary) and there was no recourse that was allowed save waiting around until the man was released (in half a year in one case, several years in another).  Concerns were brushed asides with comments from a number of male leaders amounting to "I am sure you can adapt" completely ignoring the stated concern that what was going on was not only unsafe in my mind, but unsafe by the Church's direction.  I know in both cases it was not something else important in the way...nothing would have been affected by pulling the scout activity save having to face disappointed scouts and I know for a fact the leader never even tried to get someone else to go with him as he stated it was too much trouble; in the second case, the bishop was doing no callings because he had lost his desire to lead (it was discovered later he was having an affair instead)...and yet it took four months for the stake to do anything about it.  I don't know what the quorums did, but the auxiliaries run by women were having the Presidencies do double duty as teachers and leaders...resulting in several going inactive at least for a time when released when they found out that it wasn't something necessary that led to the hardship.  It is harder to believe one is cared about as an individual when one isn't listened to or trust others when one isn't trusted oneself, but intentionally kept in the dark.

While the Church Leadership currently pushes for a few women in each ward to be involved in the decision making process...behind the scenes so they can not only contribute, but learn how things are structured and interact and even get training, even there the women often don't have the long years of being involved in the process even in the small ways deacons are (the bishop is directly over the Aaronic Priesthood, they are much more likely to see him in action, hear from him how things work than young women) and are less able to make the impact they desire.  The vast majority of women won't have this direct involvement with male leadership ever in their lives if things continue as they are now.  (Young women don't get to see the RS in action either, so there is from whatI have seen little natural training by observation going on,  training for young women depends on having very good leaders throughout their years.  One here and there does not provide enough opportunity or build enough momentum if the next year they have a leader who finds it easier to make decisions and lead herself instead of backing the young women up.

Also while it is possible for women to be involved, it still rests solely on the local male leadership to determine how much, if any, happens and there is very little a woman can do about it if not enough for effective learning save hope her next leader in five years or so is more open...but women will not be part of the vetting process if I understand correctly, so again it becomes all about patience, silence, depending solely on men for change and being willing to put up with poor treatment in hopes that it will change (unless a ward has high turnover, local ward cultures can often resort to rotating the same men and women through callings because it is easy, more predictable, etc. so change may be decades in coming, way too late to be helpful).

I think much sense of helplessness, no or little control over what decisions are made about one could be removed if there was an independent feedback system instead of pretty much only being able to discuss a problematic leader with the man who chose him in the first place and who therefore will likely be biased and less likely to instigate needed change.

apologies for the run ons.  Somewhat doped, but couldn't sleep and my mind was having a problem focusing.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Calm

[mnn727]

18 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I feel the Church patriarchy is not protecting me and my family when it should.

 

May I ask in what way? How is the Church not protecting you and your family?

[Abulafia]

Patriarchal systems bring with them inherent problems.  I have seen it again and again in the lives of my active female friends.  These are women that are loyal to the church but must exhibit patience and forgiveness with male leaders at the most difficult times of their lives. Particularly  when going through a divorce.  They kept going in a bad marriage or were blamed for it's failure.  A horrendous burden in an already horrendous situation. Still active.  Still loyal.  How they found the strength is beyond  me.

[stemelbow]

In some ways I feel like I'm so inherently benevolent in my sexism I wouldn't know how to even recognize it.  I, for instance, can relate to Mitt Romney's words without even batting an eyelash without seeing sexism.   I wouldn't even know how else to say it.  He's talking to men is the problem.  Trying to reach men's hearts by saying their wives and daughters are being demeaned here.  I dont' think it doesn't mean all women aren't demeaned.  Trump tried to pass it off as men talking to men.  Well let's talk to men and say that sucks. 

I get frustrated because on the one hand every reference to women being more spiritual than men, or how much of support they are to men, I'm disappointed.  Every time I speak up for feminism or for my desire to protect women from what I perceive as sexism, I feel like the benevolent sort. 

I relate well to the comment above from our friend Mfbukowski, what can I do to help?  Am I the benevolent sort for asking?

[Jeanne]

22 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Patriarchal systems bring with them inherent problems.  I have seen it again and again in the lives of my active female friends.  These are women that are loyal to the church but must exhibit patience and forgiveness with male leaders at the most difficult times of their lives. Particularly  when going through a divorce.  They kept going in a bad marriage or were blamed for it's failure.  A horrendous burden in an already horrendous situation. Still active.  Still loyal.  How they found the strength is beyond  me.

And if these women are already strong..not only in the gospel, but in their courage, intelligence and accomplishments/talents, wouldn't it be hard to be widowed or a divorcee that is already equipped to protect her family. I don't know..this is the "ugh" you were referencing Abulafia!

[mfbukowski]

A basic reality here.

 Men have been taking care of women and children for hundreds of thousands of years, for hundreds of thousands of years Humanity could not have survived without it. You cannot go to war or kill the buffalo while suckling a child, and with a few more tagging along. It was essential that culture evolve this way.

Now things are different.

 Give us some time to re-evolve culture.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not the inability to aspire to certain callings that is usually the fundamental issue with benevolent patriarchy gone wrong, though that might be the solution in some views; most men won't have the chance to serve that way as well, so I don't see it as all that effective in getting voices in general heard as opposed to just a few more (percentagewise).  It is more the attitude that exists here and there, in my opinion, of patting women on their head... In essence responding to information about problems or even positive ideas without explanation of the decision process or allowing them to participate in decisions that involve them.  This not involving them in the problem resolution is often simply because they are women and without the Priesthood offices, you don't even have to get the men who think that women are irrelevant to the process because without anticipation of being involved in Priesthood offices such as every young man anticipates, they aren't seen as the ones going to be eventually making the 'important' decisions and therefore not only don't need training like young men and elders often get, but are also intentionally kept uninformed as to how, when, and why decisions that involve us or our family are made as if what we don't know can't hurt us or treating us as if we have no jurisdiction in parts of our own life.  "Trust me" only works when that trust is deserved.  If errors are made consistently, trust will be lost and without a willingness to explain the whys and hows and to involve the people impacted in the exploration of problem resolution including making some of the decisions that most immediately impact them, women (and men for that matter) who see themselves as being left in the dark, out of the 

While the Church Leadership currently pushes for a few women in each ward to be involved in the decision making process...behind the scenes so they can not only contribute, but learn how things are structured and interact and even get training, even there the women often don't have the long years of being involved in the process even in the small ways deacons are (the bishop is directly over the Aaronic Priesthood, they are much more likely to see him in action, hear from him how things work than young women) and are less able to make the impact they desire.  The vast majority of women won't be directly involved ever in their lives if things continue as they are now.

Also while it is possible for women to be involved, it still rests solely on the local male leadership to determine how much, if any, happens and there is very little a woman can do save hope her next leader in five years or so is more open...but women will not be part of the vetting process if I understand correctly, so again it becomes all about patience, silence, depending solely on men for change and being willing to put up with poor treatment in hopes that it will change (unless a ward has high turnover, local ward cultures can often resort to rotating the same men and women through callings because it is easy, more predictable, etc. so change may be decades i

Could not edit well on this device, but brilliant post

 I agree completely that training is the issue. Communication Styles also factor in. men tend to be more direct and blunt more later this device's drive me crazy

[HappyJackWagon]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not the inability to aspire to certain callings that is usually the fundamental issue with benevolent patriarchy gone wrong, though that might be the solution in some views; most men won't have the chance to serve that way as well, so I don't see it as all that effective in getting voices in general heard as opposed to just a few more (percentagewise).  It is more the attitude that exists here and there, in my opinion, of patting women on their head... In essence responding to information about problems or even positive ideas without explanation of the decision process or allowing them to participate in decisions that involve them.  This not involving them in the problem resolution is often simply because they are women and without the Priesthood offices, you don't even have to get the men who think that women are irrelevant to the process because without anticipation of being involved in Priesthood offices such as every young man anticipates, they aren't seen as the ones going to be eventually making the 'important' decisions and therefore not only don't need training like young men and elders often get, but are also intentionally kept uninformed as to how, when, and why decisions that involve us or our family are made as if what we don't know can't hurt us or treating us as if we have no jurisdiction in parts of our own life.  "Trust me" only works when that trust is deserved.  If errors are made consistently, trust will be lost and without a willingness to explain the whys and hows and to involve the people impacted in the exploration of problem resolution including making some of the decisions that most immediately impact them, women (and men for that matter) who see themselves as being left in the dark, out of the loop, without effective input will not regain that trust.  I have had great leaders, but I have had a few losers where I saw no response to even important, necessary for safety concerns (like the safety of young scouts on inappropriate camp outs planned with only one adult leader or the lack of half the needed Primary teachers in a quite large Primary) and there was no recourse that was allowed save waiting around until the man was released (in half a year in one case, several years in another).  Concerns were brushed asides with comments from a number of male leaders amounting to "I am sure you can adapt" completely ignoring the stated concern that what was going on was not only unsafe in my mind, but unsafe by the Church's direction.  I know in both cases it was not something else important in the way...nothing would have been affected by pulling the scout activity save having to face disappointed scouts and I know for a fact the leader never even tried to get someone else to go with him as he stated it was too much trouble; in the second case, the bishop was doing no callings because he had lost his desire to lead (it was discovered later he was having an affair instead)...and yet it took four months for the stake to do anything about it.  I don't know what the quorums did, but the auxiliaries run by women were having the Presidencies do double duty as teachers and leaders...resulting in several going inactive at least for a time when released when they found out that it wasn't something necessary that led to the hardship.  It is harder to believe one is cared about as an individual when one isn't listened to or trust others when one isn't trusted oneself, but intentionally kept in the dark.

While the Church Leadership currently pushes for a few women in each ward to be involved in the decision making process...behind the scenes so they can not only contribute, but learn how things are structured and interact and even get training, even there the women often don't have the long years of being involved in the process even in the small ways deacons are (the bishop is directly over the Aaronic Priesthood, they are much more likely to see him in action, hear from him how things work than young women) and are less able to make the impact they desire.  The vast majority of women won't be directly involved ever in their lives if things continue as they are now.

Also while it is possible for women to be involved, it still rests solely on the local male leadership to determine how much, if any, happens and there is very little a woman can do save hope her next leader in five years or so is more open...but women will not be part of the vetting process if I understand correctly, so again it becomes all about patience, silence, depending solely on men for change and being willing to put up with poor treatment in hopes that it will change (unless a ward has high turnover, local ward cultures can often resort to rotating the same men and women through callings because it is easy, more predictable, etc. so change may be decades in coming, way too late to be helpful).

I think much sense of helplessness, no or little control over what decisions are made about one could be removed if there was an independent feedback system instead of pretty much only being able to discuss a problematic leader with the man who chose him in the first place and who therefore will likely be biased and less likely to instigate needed change.

Nailed it!

Quote

MFBukowski-

A basic reality here.

 Men have been taking care of women and children for hundreds of thousands of years, for hundreds of thousands of years Humanity could not have survived without it. You cannot go to war or kill the buffalo while suckling a child, and with a few more tagging along. It was essential that culture evolve this way.

Now things are different.

 Give us some time to re-evolve culture.

You mean 6000 years, right?  

Evolution occurs through necessity and pressure. To make social changes there must first be recognition that a change is needed. Hopefully a little pressure can encourage authorities in the social structure to evolve a little faster.

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Nailed it!

You mean 6000 years, right?  

Evolution occurs through necessity and pressure. To make social changes there must first be recognition that a change is needed. Hopefully a little pressure can encourage authorities in the social structure to evolve a little faster.

Yes but viva la differance!

 What will evolve will be  neither patriarchy nor femininism but something wonderfully new.

Truth is found by proving the contraries

[hope_for_things]

I'm trying to deprogram myself from all the sexism that I've learned throughout my life in my family and culture.  Its very hard, and I feel like I definitely fall into that benevolent kind of sexism, even though I'm really trying to educate myself and I feel like I'm trying to be a feminist ally, but I don't know exactly how all the time.  As stemelbow also pointed out, I was glad when I saw what Mitt Romney tweeted because I felt like he was taking a strong moral stand publicly against Trump's hostile sexism, but I can see from what the BCC article stated how this is benevolent sexism and why its a problem.

I too want to change the system and become more empathetic and aware of ways in which I'm contributing to sexism, but I don't always know how to do this.  Hoping for change, but unsure how to make a meaningful difference.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Patriarchal systems bring with them inherent problems.  I have seen it again and again in the lives of my active female friends.  These are women that are loyal to the church but must exhibit patience and forgiveness with male leaders at the most difficult times of their lives. Particularly  when going through a divorce.  They kept going in a bad marriage or were blamed for it's failure.  A horrendous burden in an already horrendous situation. Still active.  Still loyal.  How they found the strength is beyond  me.

That is imo, more a problem with having a lay leadership and a cultural attitude.  Lay female leaders are just as prone to give poor or great advice as males.  From what I understand, in an significantly oppressive culture, the women are as active participants in the oppression of women as the men.  They are as heavily invested to maintain their cultural standards.

I assumed this is likely consistent for most cultures unless they have a built in progressive assertive cultural attitude for women, which could theoretically exists in a patriarchal society in my view (one form of benevolent sexism) through seeing women as counselors, though 'permission' in such would eventually come from male leaders and thus pushback could happen.

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

A basic reality here.

 Men have been taking care of women and children for hundreds of thousands of years, for hundreds of thousands of years Humanity could not have survived without it. You cannot go to war or kill the buffalo while suckling a child, and with a few more tagging along. It was essential that culture evolve this way.

Now things are different.

 Give us some time to re-evolve culture.

Not a problem in my view...but it is important to recognize dynamics, agree which are important and which are better discarded and which help keep us grounded and connected even if they don't initially appear useful (community rituals are too often discarded as meaningless rather than trying to pass on or adapt meaning) and not ignore them, otherwise evolution will be haphazard and may end up with the world in a worst state, not better.