This is How LDS Patriarchy will Survive or Die

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

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

It is not knowing how stuff works and how one could contribute that is causing a huge amount of frustration.  So many things are allowed and encouraged, but get neglected because it is easier to just ask people to trust rather than to educate.  And when asked to trust over and over again, but are not reciprocally trusted, depended upon to do things, contribute, etc. rather than 'trusted' to be content in ignorance...in the end many will lose that trust and begin to question.

And it is much harder to get trust back if lost than to maintain it.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

 

If it is okay with you, I will message you the story.

 

 

[Meadowchik]

19 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

Thanks alot for your questions. I wrote this post late at night (I live abroad, different timeline) when I could not sleep, because of my distress. Unfortunately I don't have the time in the daylight hours to do this justice yet, but I intend to as soon as I am able.

[Meadowchik]

***Everyone else***

I do intend to revisit my OP and all the replies especially on the more intellectual, less-personal level. I'm just overwhelmed right now.

[Meadowchik]

9 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 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.

I'm going to comment here because I can do so quickly.  Lay leaders are not equipped to deal with mental disorders, like for example pathological lying, NPD, ect.... When someone is lying constantly and very, very convincing, it takes very specific, assertive types of responses when the right opportunities arise.

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Thanks alot for your questions. I wrote this post late at night (I live abroad, different timeline) when I could not sleep, because of my distress. Unfortunately I don't have the time in the daylight hours to do this justice yet, but I intend to as soon as I am able.

I look forward to continuing our discussion.  Out of curiosity, in which country do you live?

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

 We no longer have to worry about natural environments all we have to worry about are cultural environments. That means but for now mankind is directing its own evolution.We just have to decide what works and do it. Of course after the nukes fall we might be back to square one

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm going to comment here because I can do so quickly.  Lay leaders are not equipped to deal with mental disorders, like for example pathological lying, NPD, ect.... When someone is lying constantly and very, very convincing, it takes very specific, assertive types of responses when the right opportunities arise.

Indeed.  Been there once or twice.

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

 

If it is okay with you, I will message you the story.

 

 

Yes please!

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 We no longer have to worry about natural environments all we have to worry about are cultural environments. That means but for now mankind is directing its own evolution.We just have to decide what works and do it. Of course after the nukes fall we might be back to square one

There is intentional direction and clueless...I hope one of these days we start pushing for the first (outside of religion, that is, and a few interesting groups).

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm going to comment here because I can do so quickly.  Lay leaders are not equipped to deal with mental disorders, like for example pathological lying, NPD, ect....

If by "equipped to deal with" you mean "able to clinically diagnose and treat," then you are quite right.  This is why bishops regularly refer mental health issues to qualified/trained professionals.

Nevertheless, I don't think bishops are totally bereft of any ability to help an individual or family who is coping with a mental illness.

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

When someone is lying constantly and very, very convincing, it takes very specific, assertive types of responses when the right opportunities arise.

Apart from "Judge in Israel"-type situations where a bishop is called upon to take action in relation to something like "lying constantly," I'm not sure a bishop can or should assume a confrontational posture when dealing with profound, associated-with-and-arising-from-mental-health-type problems.

I guess I'm not sure what we're talking about here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

That's the thing. Change will naturally occur in every organization and culture but if it's not managed then the change won't necessarily be positive. Feminism seems to be a counterbalance to patriarchy. It's not an end unto itself  but rather a way to help improve the systems that already exist to be more equally beneficial. I hope this can happen in the church by choice instead by coup because it will strengthen the church if change is embraced and managed well. I think we're already seeing the destabilization of the old system that is resisting change.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It is not knowing how stuff works and how one could contribute that is causing a huge amount of frustration.  So many things are allowed and encouraged, but get neglected because it is easier to just ask people to trust rather than to educate.  And when asked to trust over and over again, but are not reciprocally trusted, depended upon to do things, contribute, etc. rather than 'trusted' to be content in ignorance...in the end many will lose that trust and begin to question.

And it is much harder to get trust back if lost than to maintain it.

This is exactly the problem. We have an amazingly efficient stake young women's leader, who organized a wonderful activity. She emailed the bishops, notified the stake president got all the permissions et cetera. Of course the young women leaders in each Ward were completely behind the activity.

Only a few wards showed up.

 Some of the Bishops didn't know about it because they do not use email. Some of the bishop said there were conflicts with other activities.The young women leaders in the wards thought that a notice in the Sunday bulletin would be sufficient, instead of announcements over the pulpit, reminders for announcements over the pulpit to each bishopric every sunday, flyers, etc.

 We have a multicultural stake and several very independent Bishops.

All the male leaders know this but this sister did not.

In our stake you have to phone each Bishop individually and sell him on your project or it's not going to happen. He  has to see how it will benefit his ward .

It's  not a question of sexism I have to do the same thing. It's just the way it works around here. But if you don't know that nothing is going to get done.

The  sisters don't know that because they do not have experience in stake leadership. This is just the sort of thing that comes with experience. I  have just as much difficulty working the copier as anyone else,  but I learned it long ago and now don't even think about it.

These are the sorts of things that the sisters need to learn, that are almost on the level of muscle memory for the brothers.  You just do it because that's the way it works.You don't complain about the gear shift pattern on a car, or try to change it, you just shift the gears and go forward.

 You want something done you just call the Bishops and sell them on it.

So I am not sure how to even train that sort of thing and therein lies the problem.

Edited December 22, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is exactly the problem. We have an amazingly efficient stake young women's leader, who organized a wonderful activity. She emailed the bishops, notified the stake president got all the permissions et cetera. Of course the young women leaders in each Ward were completely behind the activity.

Only a few wards showed up.

 Some of the Bishops didn't know about it because they do not use email. Some of the bishop said there were conflicts with other activities.The young women leaders in the wards thought that a notice in the Sunday bulletin would be sufficient.

 We have a multicultural stake and several very independent Bishops.

All the male leaders know this but this sister did not.

In our stake you have to phone each Bishop individually and sell him on your project or it's not going to happen. He  has to see how it will benefit his ward .

It's  not a question of sexism I have to do the same thing. It's just the way it works around here. But if you don't know that nothing is going to get done.

The  sisters don't know that because they do not have experience in stake leadership. This is just the sort of thing that comes with experience. I  have just as much difficulty working the copier as anyone else,  but I learned it long ago and now don't even think about it.

These are the sorts of things that the sisters need to learn, that are almost on the level of muscle memory for the brothers.  You just do it because that's the way it works.You don't complain about the gear shift pattern on a car, or try to change it, you just shift the gears and go forward.

 You want something done you just call the Bishops and sell them on it.

So I am not sure how to even train that sort of thing and therein lies the problem.

And then how do you train all you need to know- that you don't know if the sister doesn't know it or not without "benevolent sexism"??

Even asking "Oh by the way do you know how......"  can be answered with a snippy "Of course I know that!!"

And now you are a benevolent sexist!

 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Abulafia said:

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

These are latin phrases generally known in legal circles,  I suggest you google them for an instant "translation"

[HappyJackWagon]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is exactly the problem. We have an amazingly efficient stake young women's leader, who organized a wonderful activity. She emailed the bishops, notified the stake president got all the permissions et cetera. Of course the young women leaders in each Ward were completely behind the activity.

Only a few wards showed up.

 Some of the Bishops didn't know about it because they do not use email. Some of the bishop said there were conflicts with other activities.The young women leaders in the wards thought that a notice in the Sunday bulletin would be sufficient, instead of announcements over the pulpit, reminders for announcements over the pulpit to each bishopric every sunday, flyers, etc.

 We have a multicultural stake and several very independent Bishops.

All the male leaders know this but this sister did not.

In our stake you have to phone each Bishop individually and sell him on your project or it's not going to happen. He  has to see how it will benefit his ward .

It's  not a question of sexism I have to do the same thing. It's just the way it works around here. But if you don't know that nothing is going to get done.

The  sisters don't know that because they do not have experience in stake leadership. This is just the sort of thing that comes with experience. I  have just as much difficulty working the copier as anyone else,  but I learned it long ago and now don't even think about it.

These are the sorts of things that the sisters need to learn, that are almost on the level of muscle memory for the brothers.  You just do it because that's the way it works.You don't complain about the gear shift pattern on a car, or try to change it, you just shift the gears and go forward.

 You want something done you just call the Bishops and sell them on it.

So I am not sure how to even train that sort of thing and therein lies the problem.

And the women don't have the same experiences as the men because they are not allowed to. So it is definitely a result, at least partially, of institutionalized sexism.- also known as patriarchy.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes please!

You must change your settings or something, it says you cannot receive messages.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

You must change your settings or something, it says you cannot receive messages.

I don't know what the deal is- I pm'd you my email- just use that I guess!

[Buckeye]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is exactly the problem. We have an amazingly efficient stake young women's leader, who organized a wonderful activity. She emailed the bishops, notified the stake president got all the permissions et cetera. Of course the young women leaders in each Ward were completely behind the activity.

Only a few wards showed up.

 Some of the Bishops didn't know about it because they do not use email. Some of the bishop said there were conflicts with other activities.The young women leaders in the wards thought that a notice in the Sunday bulletin would be sufficient, instead of announcements over the pulpit, reminders for announcements over the pulpit to each bishopric every sunday, flyers, etc.

 We have a multicultural stake and several very independent Bishops.

All the male leaders know this but this sister did not.

In our stake you have to phone each Bishop individually and sell him on your project or it's not going to happen. He  has to see how it will benefit his ward .

It's  not a question of sexism I have to do the same thing. It's just the way it works around here. But if you don't know that nothing is going to get done.

The  sisters don't know that because they do not have experience in stake leadership. This is just the sort of thing that comes with experience. I  have just as much difficulty working the copier as anyone else,  but I learned it long ago and now don't even think about it.

These are the sorts of things that the sisters need to learn, that are almost on the level of muscle memory for the brothers.  You just do it because that's the way it works.You don't complain about the gear shift pattern on a car, or try to change it, you just shift the gears and go forward.

 You want something done you just call the Bishops and sell them on it.

So I am not sure how to even train that sort of thing and therein lies the problem.

My stake recently began using a free service called remind.com. Our youth are familiar with it because the schools have relied on it for a few years. 

Check out this app. It's been a great way for our stake to directly communicate with youth and parents and avoid the telephone game of announcements through ward leadership. 

[Kenngo1969]

As others have hinted at, there's a difference between patriarchy and unrighteous dominion.  As much as the two might co-occur, they are not synonymous.  It is possible for anyone, of either gender, to exercise unrighteous dominion, as long as s/he believes she has power or is perceived as having power.  As Peter Parker's Uncle Ben so wisely said, "With great power comes great responsibility."  My $0.02, actual value, as always, much less.  

[Abulafia]

On 22/12/2016 at 6:28 PM, 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.

I disagree.  Gender roles and rationships have seen a variety of approaches and experience outside the Islamic and Judeo/Christian Tradition.

 

http://www.second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com/purpose.html

[Avatar4321]

So if men serve the Lord and do their duties toward their wives, their wives won't rebel against their authority.

 

Sounds about right.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

I disagree.  Gender roles and rationships have seen a variety of approaches and experience outside the Islamic and Judeo/Christian Tradition.

 

http://www.second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com/purpose.html

Irrelevant. That is not our culture obviously.

[Abulafia]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Irrelevant. That is not our culture obviously.

Again, that's not what you said.  You generalised to all humanity.  If you had said the Judeo Christian tradition, I would have agreed, with the proviso of how developing religious belief along patriarchal lines  has played into that.

 

So, my point still stands and "Happy Christmas!"

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Again, that's not what you said.  You generalised to all humanity.  If you had said the Judeo Christian tradition, I would have agreed, with the proviso of how developing religious belief along patriarchal lines  has played into that.

 

So, my point still stands and "Happy Christmas!"

I am not playing for points

Take a thousand if you like- it's Christimas!

The point was what WE had to do- no other culture was being discussed.  This is a Mormon board and we were discussing Mormons.  Note the title of the thread

Edited December 25, 2016 by mfbukowski