Church has become the only place where some of these women experience what they consider to be discrimination

[the narrator]

Oh the irony of a bunch of dudes in here telling women what their experience of sexism really is.

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Oh the irony of a bunch of dudes in here telling women what their experience of sexism really is.

If we had women here telling us I would be more respectful. Instead we have some banal generalities of questionable origin and some nutty surveys. I am okay with contesting those.

[Amulek]

28 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Oh the irony of a bunch of dudes in here telling women what their experience of sexism really is.

Actually, it is because of my experience listening to women that makes me skeptical of the claim in the article that church is the "only" place where these particular women experience discrimination. 

 

[phaedrus ut]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 Instead we have some banal generalities of questionable origin and some nutty surveys. I am okay with contesting those.

This is how you characterize an academic volume written by a women with a  PhD in American religious history from Columbia University, co-written with a professor of political science, and published by Oxford University Press?  How are you remotely qualified to question this? This is a serious question for you Nehor.

Phaedrus 

[Gray]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Considering how women are discriminated against generally in society I find it surprising they would pick the church as their bogeyman and not their employers or the people they date or how they are treated socially, and the like.

Most employers don't at least have some kind of explicit policy barring women from leadership roles. The best employers have a good mix of men and women in leadership positions.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

This is how you characterize an academic volume written by a women with a  PhD in American religious history from Columbia University, co-written with a professor of political science, and published by Oxford University Press?  How are you remotely qualified to question this? This is a serious question for you Nehor.

Phaedrus 

Allow me to answer your question with another question. How are any of us remotely qualified to comment on this pure ur-text of truth? How dare you deign to drag it into the midst of the unwashed masses that make up this thread and tarnish its nature with our vulgar thoughts and opinions.

Let he who is without sin cast the first pearl before this herd of swine.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Most employers don't at least have some kind of explicit policy barring women from leadership roles. The best employers have a good mix of men and women in leadership positions.

Definitely but many organizations have an implicit unspoken bias even though “officially” all are equal.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Definitely but many organizations have an implicit unspoken bias even though “officially” all are equal.

Sad but true. YMMV

[phaedrus ut]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Allow me to answer your question with another question. How are any of us remotely qualified to comment on this pure ur-text of truth? How dare you deign to drag it into the midst of the unwashed masses that make up this thread and tarnish its nature with our vulgar thoughts and opinions.

Let he who is without sin cast the first pearl before this herd of swine.

That is just misdirection.  You called a serious academic work, published by respected individuals , by a major academic press something "of questionable origin" and some "nutty surveys". Those are very specific criticisms you offered.

Phaedrus

[MustardSeed]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

Most employers don't at least have some kind of explicit policy barring women from leadership roles. The best employers have a good mix of men and women in leadership positions.

This. 

But I don’t care. Should I? Probably. 

[MustardSeed]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Definitely but many organizations have an implicit unspoken bias even though “officially” all are equal.

So let’s hope for and work towards something better. 

Nothing wrong imo with people looking at what we do and saying “that’s really imbalanced”, because let’s be honest , it is.  Maybe the individuals respect women.  But the organization doesn’t. 

Maybe I care, after all, but have felt powerless. 

Edited February 26, 2019 by MustardSeed

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

Maybe the individuals respect women.  But the organization doesn’t. 

Is that true even if the organization sincerely believes they are set up the way that God commands?

[MustardSeed]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is that true even if the organization sincerely believes they are set up the way that God commands?

When I say organization I mean how things are organized, not the people.  I know that sounds confusing . 

I do believe that the brethren are sincere in their desire to follow God and believe this way is Gods way.  

I just know that if God were running a business on earth today he’d have women as involved as men because He knows women are capable and effective. ***last sentence is my OPINION****

and if God wants the imbalance for godly reasons so be it.  As per earthly definitions, it’s imbalanced , and on earth here we call that discrimination.  I can totally handle the idea of God seeing it differently.  

Edited February 26, 2019 by MustardSeed

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

When I say organization I mean how things are organized, not the people.  I know that sounds confusing . 

I do believe that the brethren are sincere in their desire to follow God and believe this way is Gods way.  

I just know that if God were running a business on earth today he’d have women as involved as men because He knows women are capable and effective. ***last sentence is my OPINION****

and if God wants the imbalance for godly reasons so be it.  As per earthly definitions, it’s imbalanced , and on earth here we call that discrimination.  I can totally handle the idea of God seeing it differently.  

I agree.  I do think that the church's organization is unequal in structure but I don't believe that it is inequitable in structure (though we are still dealing with some unacceptable sexism in our culture and by some members but I think that has greatly improved and will continue to) when it comes to men and women so it doesn't bother me personally.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

This is how you characterize an academic volume written by a women with a  PhD in American religious history from Columbia University, co-written with a professor of political science, and published by Oxford University Press?  How are you remotely qualified to question this? This is a serious question for you Nehor.

Phaedrus 

I’m not Nehor, and I haven’t been following this thread. But the above post strikes as an instance of the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. 

Edited February 26, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

Oh the irony of a bunch of dudes in here telling women what their experience of sexism really is.

Well, 4 of the 5 women who have posted in the thread have mentioned sexism outside the Church.  Also rpn did not say there wasn't any, her post was focused on discussing sexism in the Church, so I don't know if she would claim she had experienced sexism outside the Church or not.  Based on my experience talkingwith other women, I give it a 99.9% chance she will say she has though.

I accept the possibility that individual women have not experienced sexism outside the Church, but I find it impossible to believe that it is a general experience.  Now if there was an unusual defining of "sexism" (organized vs, unorganized perhaps) or a phrasing or if it was a comparison or perhaps "significant vs insignificant" (men being the ones giving final approval as an example vs. catcalls, comments about appearance rather than capability, other encounters that don't have a lasting effect on one's life), that is more likely imo.

The article doesn't go into detail in terms of percentage of women, but just uses "some" as well.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

That is just misdirection.  You called a serious academic work, published by respected individuals , by a major academic press something "of questionable origin" and some "nutty surveys". Those are very specific criticisms you offered.

Phaedrus

Much more specific then the quote in the OP for example.

[phaedrus ut]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Much more specific then the quote in the OP for example.

I included a link to the full news article in the original post which has many details on the years of research they used in their 328 page book. 

Phaedrus 

[phaedrus ut]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not Nehor, and I haven’t been following this thread. But the above post strikes as an instance of the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. 

At least you are willing to share your opinion even though you admittedly don't know the context. 

Phaedrus 

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

I included a link to the full news article in the original post which has many details on the years of research they used in their 328 page book. 

Phaedrus 

And I spent 20 seconds of my life composing my comment but you do not see me bragging about it.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

I included a link to the full news article in the original post which has many details on the years of research they used in their 328 page book. 

Phaedrus 

Outside the quote you provided there was no additional info on sexism and how they measured that, correct?  If I didn't miss that, I don't see how we can conclude anything about that key finding unless someone has access to more info.

[Buffy]

20 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The Church is the only thing that exists on this earth that can pave the way for women to be exalted.  Wealth and power beyond understanding for all eternity.  Secular organizations and government can give women and social standing.  It can give them awards to put on their wall but once these women die, what do they have?  Nobody will care in the spirit world.   I am all for more equality in the work place but perspective needs to always be front and center.  The kingdom of God is not a democracy nor are initiative voted on for change.  God rules the kingdom and makes the rules.

I'm not sure I take any comfort in this.  As a never married childless woman, I have zero status in the Church.  (Please don't give me the Sheri Dew speech).  As for the next life?  Probably polygamy.

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Buffy said:

 As for the next life?  Probably polygamy.

Why do you assume that given the higher mortality rate of males in their youth (both below 8 and being unmarried)?

[MustardSeed]

45 minutes ago, Buffy said:

I'm not sure I take any comfort in this.  As a never married childless woman, I have zero status in the Church.  (Please don't give me the Sheri Dew speech).  As for the next life?  Probably polygamy.

That sucks.  

I have to believe that God is Good and will not allow you to settle for anything that leaves you wanting. ***opinion*** 

but in the meantime, we don’t offer much , do we?  Not when our ideal is something you don’t have.  I feel compassion. 

[CA Steve]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why do you assume that given the higher mortality rate of males in their youth (both below 8 and being unmarried)?

I am not sure being the only wife of an 8-year-old  is an improvement over polygamy.

😉