One woman speaker

[juliann]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

No, but you are comparing apples and oranges now. Since God is the one who set up this patriarchal organization thousands of years ago, it can't be considered sexist, unless you want to call God sexist. 

That is quite a dodge. How about answering the question?

Would you advise your daughters/wife to go work for a company that was set up as the church currently is? 

 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

That is quite a dodge. How about answering the question?

Would you advise your daughters/wife to go work for a company that was set up as the church currently is? 

I would. Upward mobility, crashing through the glass ceiling, etc. aren't considerations in our family. It wouldn't bother me, my wife, or my daughter if she worked for a company with all-male management. Her job would be . . . a job. 

We're a bit of an outlier, anymore, though. My wife was just telling friends Sunday night that she doesn't qualify for social security, according to the annual letter stating what your benefits are. She's almost 40. My daughter stunned her Freshman Seminar teacher when they were doing career planning when she put "mother." She was told that's not a career, pick a real one. She was annoyed at that response. She wants to get an art degree (she is amazing at all forms of art), and I've told her that she could teach school with that if she needed to. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

No, but you are comparing apples and oranges now. Since God is the one who set up this patriarchal organization thousands of years ago, it can't be considered sexist, unless you want to call God sexist. 

God may desire some form of patriarchal organization...or he may have desired an organization that is flexible to meet the current needs of his people in the best way possible for them at the time.

If the rationale is that we need to have an organization that mimics what was done thousands of years ago, we are drastically failing as there is little to no resemblamce to the tribal, familial structure of first born (monogamous or polygamous) inheriting leadership on the death of the patriarch if righteous enough.

We don't really have a patriarchal organization as offices are not filled by a man's position in the family.  With the change from tribal structures, patriarchal has come to mean any men only led organization, but that imo confuses organizations of the past that were based on family structure with men at the head and organizations that have little to no dependence on family structure.  It is like calling two dramatically different diseases by the same name because of one shared symptom, high blood sugar...diabetes type 1 is an autoimmune disorder that destroys the insulin producing cells and type 2 is insulin resistance, causes and treatment are dramatically different for the most part.

Labeling what we have now with the same label we apply to Abraham's time simply because men were in charge in both cases when they aren't even in charge for the same reason (Abraham was because he was the head of the family, not because of his priesthood as the tribal heads around him in the same governing structures lacked priesthood, nowadays men are leader pool  because they are the only ones who hold the priesthood) as if they are identical is confusing and will lead to poor policy making imo.

I am not saying our form of leadership is wrong, I am saying appealing to it on the grounds of this is God ordained as shown by how it was done in Abraham's day is wrong.  We should have one of Joseph or Hyrum's descendants as President if we were to be that structure.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Calm

[Gray]

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

No, but you are comparing apples and oranges now. Since God is the one who set up this patriarchal organization thousands of years ago, it can't be considered sexist, unless you want to call God sexist. 

Sexism is sexism, whether you wish to blame God for it or not. 

[juliann]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

I would. Upward mobility, crashing through the glass ceiling, etc. aren't considerations in our family. It wouldn't bother me, my wife, or my daughter if she worked for a company with all-male management. Her job would be . . . a job. 

 

Ah, but you are not answering the question. It's not about a "job" it is about a career.  Nor is it about male only management. It is about positions from the top to bottom that will never be open to your wife even though she has superior skills. Anyone could go on and on about the restrictions women would face that have little to do with upward mobility or glass ceilings. It has to do with day to day expectations, satisfaction, and opportunities that would be closed to women. 

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sexism is sexism, whether you wish to blame God for it or not. 

And God cannot commit evil. So by definition, sexism does not come from God. 

[Storm Rider]

On 4/3/2017 at 0:56 PM, stemelbow said:

Feel free to notify me when God actually speaks through someone.  I want to hear that. 

But I do care that only men speak at conference.  I thought this was settled and we'd hear regularly from women.  Now I'm not so sure. 

That is what is important to me - evaluating an event based on upon whose gonads are speaking rather than what is actually said.  It is the kind of thinking that will only produce abject mediocrity and stupidity.  

As for me and my house; we will follow the Lord.  It does not matter what gender is actually speaking, but it really matters what is actually said.  It is alot like evaluating the comments on this board.  Some of it is just crap that falls flat and ignored and then other comments and threads that demonstrate true inspiration.  

Keep on that path you are on; it will yield exactly what you deserve and want.  

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

Ah, but you are not answering the question. It's not about a "job" it is about a career.  Nor is it about male only management. It is about positions from the top to bottom that will never be open to your wife even though she has superior skills. Anyone could go on and on about the restrictions women would face that have little to do with upward mobility or glass ceilings. It has to do with day to day expectations, satisfaction, and opportunities that would be closed to women. 

You never said "career." You said "go work for." When my daughter gets her first job, she is "going and working for" so and so. 

As far as that goes, it wouldn't/won't matter if "positions from the top to bottom will never be open to your wife or daughter even though she has superior skills." It's a job while in school, or whatever. 

I agree that, if it came to a career, that would probably be different. 

 

[juliann]

1 minute ago, Storm Rider said:

   It does not matter what gender is actually speaking, but it really matters what is actually said.    

And this is why men have gotten the idea they can speak for women, all the while insisting that we are needed because we add a different perspective that only we can offer. I've noticed a significant decline in male talks telling women how to be women.  Also the "you are great!" meaningless generalities. Hopefully the "we need you" stuff, as if women aren't already part of their church, will folllow.  

Language is everything.

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

You never said "career." You said "go work for." When my daughter gets her first job, she is "going and working for" so and so. 

As far as that goes, it wouldn't/won't matter if "positions from the top to bottom will never be open to your wife or daughter even though she has superior skills." It's a job while in school, or whatever. 

I agree that, if it came to a career, that would probably be different. 

 

There should be no reason to have to explain that women need careers. I don't think you would be making those distinctions if you were talking about men. I'm just trying to point out how deeply embedded assumptions about women are, to the point where we are not even on the same page because of it. 

[Also, the church is a "career " so the comparison has to be similar: a life endeavor. A career.]

Edited April 4, 2017 by juliann

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

There should be no reason to have to explain that women need careers.

All women? Even those who want to be stay-at-home mothers?

I don't think you would be making those distinctions if you were talking about men. I'm just trying to point out how deeply embedded assumptions about women are, to the point where we are not even on the same page because of it.

You can stop backpedaling. I simply (honestly) answered your "gotcha" question that you thought could have only one possible answer. My wife and daughter would answer the same way I did, if they participated in discussion boards. 

I'm not presuming to speak for women. I fully realize that today, most women in the Church work, and many have careers. I can see these women not being happy about lack of opportunity, upward mobility, and things not being completely merit-based, sans gender consideration. But, there still are holdovers from the old days who prefer to have their husband work and consider their career to be a wife and mother at home. Even some young women in the rising generation still feel this way. Is it wrong of them to feel like that?

[Atheist Mormon]

On 4/3/2017 at 11:50 AM, JLHPROF said:

I only care what God has to say.  It doesn't matter to me who he chooses to say it through.

You are right, that answer fits 99.9% the story of how God chooses to deliver His message. And the women who listens the message time after time, century after Century (my sisters included), apparently majority of them (like you) are happy with the message and the women like Kate Kelly types (far & few in between) they are out.

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

You are right, that answer fits 99.9% the story of how God chooses to deliver His message. And the women who listens the message time after time, century after Century (my sisters included), apparently majority of them (like you) are happy with the message and the women like Kate Kelly types (far & few in between) they are out.

Happiness with the message is irrelevant.
Believing the message to be accurate matters more.

This idea that religion is about making me happy is not one I hold to.
Religion is about what God wants, and ours is to obey.  Happiness will be the end result.

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, rongo said:

You can stop backpedaling. I simply (honestly) answered your "gotcha" question that you thought could have only one possible answer. My wife and daughter would answer the same way I did, if they participated in discussion boards. 

 

You haven't been paying close enough attention to Juliann (not an issue, it is impossible even for me to keep everyone's ideas straight, I choose a few individuals that I make sure I read posts enough so as to understand their basic premises) if you think she is back pedaling.  She has made it clear in other contexts (and I think here as well) she is talking about upward mobility as well as other equality issues in jobs, which may not matter to someone taking a summer or longer job until they gets married, but matters to everyone else who is looking to add to their financial stability over the years through work.  Though I suspect equal pay for equal works and training/experience matters to any woman for no matter how long she intends to keep a job.  Ask your daughter if she would be okay to see unmarried, same in experience and training men do the same work and get more salary and more raises while she didn't in the same amount of time working even if her intent was not to make it her career.

Juliann has never come close to implying choosing to stay at home as a career is not a valid choice for a woman.  That you go there is based on your assumptions, not hers.

----

Your daughter's plans may include marriage and stay at home mom, what happens though if the first never materializes for some reason?  Are you and your wife teaching self sufficiency?  Would she be happy investing her time and effort into a job where she stays entry level no matter what she contributes while men who were there for less time moved up into nicer and better paying jobs?  If she would want to move up from entry level, why not continue to move up as long as she continued to work?  Because she really can't be certain she will get married or even if married, be able to be a stay at home mom.  Divorce, death, health, special needs for a child are realities.  Even living very frugally, if one has to pay thousands of dollars a year or even month in healthcare, one's plans may need to change overnight.

One moment I was planning on going back to school parttime to work towards a doctorate since my kids were no longer going to need me even as room mother.  Next day, my life is completely upended as it turns out my daughter suddenly needs her mom as more than she has since she started walking.  Plans and desires are all well and good, but reality is what needs to work.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

All women? Even those who want to be stay-at-home mothers?

 

 

You can stop backpedaling. I simply (honestly) answered your "gotcha" question that you thought could have only one possible answer. My wife and daughter would answer the same way I did, if they participated in discussion boards. 

I'm not presuming to speak for women. I fully realize that today, most women in the Church work, and many have careers. I can see these women not being happy about lack of opportunity, upward mobility, and things not being completely merit-based, sans gender consideration. But, there still are holdovers from the old days who prefer to have their husband work and consider their career to be a wife and mother at home. Even some young women in the rising generation still feel this way. Is it wrong of them to feel like that?

My daughter is a stay at home mom. She has a college degree and is soon to start working as a genealogist. She is doing a two year online program and I happen to have a cousin who is a well known professional who is taking her on as an assistant.  And you are talking to a widow that had to support herself and 4 year old daughter. I had a career before children so I was able to slide right back into it. You won't believe how many people told me how "lucky" I was when luck had nothing to do with it.  Very few women will not be working at some time or another. You can give away your time for almost nothing and have to work longer hours or more jobs, or you can acquire a skill set. Women do have to be more savvy in their choices so they don't become slaves to the job, though. I worked in the schools (which I would not recommend under current conditions) but not as a teacher who couldn't leave a classroom. I have an in high demand profession that gave me the upper hand in how many hours or days I would work. 

Being a mother outweighs anything I have ever done. But it isn't a substitute for being able to support or help support yourself or family. ic

But this is getting off topic.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

And God cannot commit evil. So by definition, sexism does not come from God. 

Indeed. But God is an easy scapegoat for our prejudices. 

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Juliann has never come close to implying choosing to stay at home as a career is not a valid choice for a woman.  That you go there is based on your assumptions, not hers.

It was certainly my expectation for myself until life intruded. I was so happy to quit my job.  Unfortunately, one needs a husband who can bring home an adequate salary and with the cost of basic living today, that is becoming less common.  

[bsjkki]

This is a bit snarky--I'm frustrated. Do any of you feel the Young Women's program is preparing our young women to be future general conference speakers and leaders? Tonight my girls are making hand scrubs for the fifteenth millionth time.  

Edited April 5, 2017 by bsjkki

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Indeed. But God is an easy scapegoat for our prejudices. 

I really don't understand why men keep pushing the idea that God gave them and only them special privileges. Maybe that is true, but it sounds sooooo self-serving that it might be better left unsaid. If a man is going to do that, he really should be coming up with things that  God withheld from him because he is male. And no, we are past the priesthood = motherhood stuff. so pretending to want to be pregnant and give birth doesn't count. Again, there needs to be a reason why that goes beyond "just because." 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

It was certainly my expectation for myself until life intruded. I was so happy to quit my job.  Unfortunately, one needs a husband who can bring home an adequate salary and with the cost of basic living today, that is becoming less common.  

And insurance.  We have been blessed that income is enough to cover two highly priced health regiments in our family (one close to a thousand a month if out of pocket, the other several thousands).  We had some panic when she turned 26, that has been put off for a few years.  Review happens every three years and then what happens when husband retires or if his health continues to deteriorate (we are hoping a pacemaker will solve his energy problems, last year he has been in a semi vicious cycle of losing fitness because of being tired and being more tired as he becomes less fit),

Life is rarely as one plans.  We were having minimum 4 children, he would have loved 6 or 8.  We got two 8 years apart and if she had been first, we would never have had our son, who was the easiest child to have ever existed save for eating and chores...and I could barely manage that (and I used to be one of the most efficient and effective caregivers in existence from what I have been told).

[juliann]

Just now, bsjkki said:

This is a bit snarky--I'm frustrated. Do any of you feel the Young Women's programs is preparing our young women to be future general conference speakers and leaders? Tonight my girls are making hand scrubs for the fifteenth millionth time.  

No kidding. But I do have to weigh that against the lack of a comparable to Boy Scouts program and funding for girls. Then it seems as if it is the double whammy. Women haven't been raised to do exciting or daring stuff on their own but we expect them to when they are older. This has to do with correlation, too. When I was young activities were done as a ward. So if there was water skiing or camping, the ward did it. Now it is just the boys who go camping on a regular basis (in my ward.) But like everything at the local level, it is leader roulette.

I'm always struck by the powerful talks given to the boys about their great responsibilities and powers in Priesthood session as compared to what girls are told. It would be nice to have it start at General Conference. 

But one very critical way girls are being prepared is by being expected to speak in front of crowds and we shouldn't underestimate that. I read a feminist article decrying that lack of skill in young women when women spokeswomen were so badly needed. There are mixed messages going on but women are masters at picking out messages even from those not directed to them, such as reading ourselves into all the male scripture characters. Or being told to be like our Heavenly Father when we are also told it is wrong to want to do what he does. 

 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This is a bit snarky--I'm frustrated. Do any of you feel the Young Women's programs is preparing our young women to be future general conference speakers and leaders? Tonight my girls are making hand scrubs for the fifteenth millionth time.  

Our YW presidency are all well off women with children in their teens or older.  They have fantastic plans for service and development,  The problem is that not all the teachers have the same amount of open time and resources, so it is a real sacrifice to do everything.  I think one of the main issues is they want to do more expanded efforts, but also keep the traditional stuff they grew up with.  It takes a lot of time in prep and could be overwhelming to girls already heavily booked with music lessons or sports or an after school job to help the family or save for a mission and schooling.  Balance is hard.

[bsjkki]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

And insurance.  We have been blessed that income is enough to cover two highly priced health regiments in our family (one close to a thousand a month if out of pocket, the other several thousands).  We had some panic when she turned 26, that has been put off for a few years.  Review happens every three years and then what happens when husband retires or if his health continues to deteriorate (we are hoping a pacemaker will solve his energy problems, last year he has been in a semi vicious cycle of losing fitness because of being tired and being more tired as he becomes less fit),

Life is rarely as one plans.  We were having minimum 4 children, he would have loved 6 or 8.  We got two 8 years apart and if she had been first, we would never have had our son, who was the easiest child to have ever existed save for eating and chores...and I could barely manage that (and I used to be one of the most efficient and effective caregivers in existence from what I have been told).

Insurance--what a nightmare. Our monthly premium is $2000 a month and we are self employed. I still stay home because I am extremely lucky. Most, I know would not be able to stay home with the medical costs in my family. I know too many childless couples and single sisters to ever think marriage and family are guaranteed. The high cost of medical and housing are requiring more dual income households. My sister works to acquire health insurance for her family. We do live in a different day and need to prepare our daughters for the times they live in. I was happy with the conference messages and I enjoyed the talk by the one female speaker. Why? I liked her forthright manner and that she didn't speak with a primary voice. I didn't think her message was off. I think teaching children to keep promises is important and we should try to raise sin resistant children. That is becoming increasingly difficult. I think providing our daughters with role models at conference is very important and was sad to realize as a I read this thread that there was only one female speaker. Female voices are important and our daughters need to see confident accomplished women who teach, preach, love the Gospel and lead.

[JAHS]

4 hours ago, omni said:

7 hours ago, JAHS said:

No, but you are comparing apples and oranges now. Since God is the one who set up this patriarchal organization thousands of years ago, it can't be considered sexist, unless you want to call God sexist. 

You are making a major assumption that the patriarchal structure in the Church (and many other religions) was instituted by God.

The same excuses for denying women the right to vote, own property, work outside the home, etc. have been used to defend religious patriarchy.  

Fortunately, as societies have progressed, we've learned (with a few exceptions) that providing women these freedoms is not only the right thing to do, but it benefits all of society, including us men.

Here's to hoping for continued enlightenment and progress!

 

I am sure there will be progress but I am also pretty sure women will not be ordained to the priesthood. 

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, juliann said:

And this is why men have gotten the idea they can speak for women, all the while insisting that we are needed because we add a different perspective that only we can offer. I've noticed a significant decline in male talks telling women how to be women.  Also the "you are great!" meaningless generalities. Hopefully the "we need you" stuff, as if women aren't already part of their church, will folllow.  

Language is everything.

I am not sure, are you disagreeing with anything I said?

I also dislike the "the sisters are so spiritual" and "they are so wonderful" remarks in church when it comes to women.  You mentioned you have noted that men are not telling women how to be women,but I have not noticed any decline in women telling men where they are wrong, how they are wrong, how often they are wrong, that all their problems begin and end with the male hierarchy, yadda, yadda, yadda.  

Yeah, and no.  I don't buy the argument that language is everything because what you are really saying is that "We" are so important that you may only address us in specific ways and if you don't then you will be angered, "hurt" (gads I get tired of that statement - it is like the entire world revolves around having their feelings hurt).  Yes, it is best that each of us speak plainly, but when humans are doing their human thing, then I think the rest of us ought to grow up and act more like adults rather than petulant children. 

Edited April 5, 2017 by Storm Rider