UVU Mormon Studies - Women of Mormondom

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

Dudes have dominated virtually every Mormon-related conference since Joseph Smith gathered his family together for story time--including almost every Mormon women's conference. Heaven forbid that women get to exclusively discuss themselves for once.

In my world, gender discrimination is Verboten.  There can be no excuse for it, Loyd.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Are you planning on boycotting the priesthood session this general conference?

Bzzzzz, right over the head; left with just knee jerk response with no thought. 

[sheilauk]

What stories do women want told about their lives today?  What shape do their lives reflect in contemporary American culture and how are those lives mediated by contemporary politics and culture?  You think a man can answer those questions about the lives of women?   Something he can only experience 2nd hand and would involve hearsay?  Wouldn't that be an example of mansplaing?  Sometimes it's necessary to be gender specific. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There are men who have expertise in that area, and who should have been invited.  A psychologist like Professor Jordan Peterson, for example.  Or sociology professors Ryan Cragun and Rick Phillips.  Jana Reiss knows Cragun and has interviewed him.

There are limited slots for speakers available.  If there are qualified women to fill them, then why not use them?  Why insist slots be saved for men?  Especially men who are often heard elsewhere?

Would anyone be insisting there were women who had expertise and should have been invited in a topic about the history of men in whatever with all male speakers or would they just assume the speakers were the ones who were both available and appropriate?

Edited March 5, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I wish they could do it without gender discrimination.  Reminds me of Black-only conferences, along with blaming all white folk as privileged and therefore automatically racist.

Being privileged does not make you automatically racist. Chafing at the designation of privilege might be an indicator though.

[Gray]

55 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Bzzzzz, right over the head; left with just knee jerk response with no thought. 

Hopefully you've given it some more thought now.

[strappinglad]

Will any of the presenters look at the contributions of Mormon women in Africa, Asia, Latin America , etc. ?

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In my world, gender discrimination is Verboten.  There can be no excuse for it, Loyd.

Is a woman’s conference taught by women really an example of discrimination? 

Do you really need women as Boy Scout leaders? 

If I do ladies night out and tell my friend she can’t bring her husband am I being sexist? 

Let it go.  Women like to be led by women at women’s conferences.  

[Robert F. Smith]

59 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Is a woman’s conference taught by women really an example of discrimination? 

Do you really need women as Boy Scout leaders? 

If I do ladies night out and tell my friend she can’t bring her husband am I being sexist? 

Let it go.  Women like to be led by women at women’s conferences.  

In honest academia we don't play silly gender games, but instead pursue truth however we can, and we do it in a convivial spirit of sharing.  A conference isn't "led" or "taught," but is a participatory enterprise among equals.  Regardless of the subject-matter being addressed, we need diverse points of view and experiences, not a one-sided exposition.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Being privileged does not make you automatically racist.

Of course not.  Yet, ironically, that is precisely the notion now being bandied about.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Chafing at the designation of privilege might be an indicator though.

Some of us have paid our dues, only to be told now by those who weren't even born yet that perception is everything.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

There are limited slots for speakers available.  If there are qualified women to fill them, then why not use them?  Why insist slots be saved for men?  Especially men who are often heard elsewhere?

Would anyone be insisting there were women who had expertise and should have been invited in a topic about the history of men in whatever with all male speakers or would they just assume the speakers were the ones who were both available and appropriate?

I suppose that it could all be a matter of chance, that only women applied to speak, and that any possible male speakers simply couldn't make it.  However, I have seen this type of exclusion before and am very suspicious of the actual line-up.  If men were under discussion at a men's conference, I would certainly want to hear a female POV.  We simply do not see ourselves as others see us, which can be very valuable.  I am tired of the same old same old.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In honest academia we don't play silly gender games, but instead pursue truth however we can, and we do it in a convivial spirit of sharing.  A conference isn't "led" or "taught," but is a participatory enterprise among equals.  Regardless of the subject-matter being addressed, we need diverse points of view and experiences, not a one-sided exposition.

Makes sense. 

I may be coming from a bias.  Last night I entertained myself with a vintage 50s instructional video on how to apply makeup.  It was narrated by.... you guessed it, a MAN.  !  It seemed ridiculous, honestly. 

I still don’t want dudes at my ladies night.  Maybe I just don’t want the sexual tension.  I wouldnt be opposed to a gay man popping in for part.   There’s a certain freedom I feel in excluding men from certain events. 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by MustardSeed

[Robert F. Smith]

57 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Makes sense. 

I may be coming from a bias.  Last night I entertained myself with a vintage 50s instructional video on how to apply makeup.  It was narrated by.... you guessed it, a MAN.  !  It seemed ridiculous, honestly. 

I still don’t want dudes at my ladies night.  Maybe I just don’t want the sexual tension.  I wouldnt be opposed to a gay man popping in for part.   There’s a certain freedom I feel in excluding men from certain events. 

I have known many guys (especially the pub crawlers) who feel very much the same about a men's night out.  However, this event is open to the general public, so men will presumably be there as part of the audience.  I may even show up.  

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course not.  Yet, ironically, that is precisely the notion now being bandied about.

No, not really.

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Some of us have paid our dues, only to be told now by those who weren't even born yet that perception is everything.

I will call in some help for your hurt feelings immediately!

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If men were under discussion at a men's conference, I would certainly want to hear a female POV

It would depend on what was being discussed and the purpose.  If, for example, it was a discussion of childbirth from a woman's POV, unless the man was presenting extensive stats from research that has no lived experience content, I see listening to a man speaking about how women live and feel and think as me getting solely secondhand info from a person who might or might not relate well enough to an experience different than his own to convey clearly what the selfreports by women mean on a nuanced level.  

Can a blind person have something of value to say about the paintings of Gustav Klimt...certainly she could find something of value, but is she going to be able to share what her first experience with that intense color and shape is like and how that might reflect on my own experience.  Will she be able to take the commonalities of experience she shared to build up a fuller, deeper picture if her commonalities are sparse and possibly shallow.

My best doctors are the ones who share similar problems for the most part.  That mydaughter's  first doctor was a diabetic type 1 made that experience very positive and she essentially has good control and confidence over that aspect of her life.  Her doctor for anxiety clearly had no sense of connection with her, no personal experience that he allowed to be part of the process, but just gave her the "standard" treatment which probably destroyed any chance of being normal post teen years because his tight focused treatment threw everything else out of wack,  for him it was a simple equation solved by finding the perfect medication and if it didn't work, not interested any more,  if he had every experienced severe depression or anxiety, he would have known it needs to be treated by considering the whole person.  

The experience of shyness...Stats and dry facts are useful for determining extent and treatment perhaps, but for conveying the experience itself, it is night and day when I read articles by those who have experienced it themselves as opposed to observed it in others.  

I can collect the experiences of shyness that others have shared and I will synthesize those experiences with mine because they live for me, even on flat paper.  I don't see them just as facts and words and numbers and dates, but they become visions that I can then share with others who speak my language to yield a greater internal awareness that can then maintain its meaning for us when encountering outside observation and influences rather than allowing outsiders to define who we are.

In summary, I think every community we belong to can benefit from figuring out for themselves who they are, otherwise they are not a true community themselves but if lucky a minor subset of one and if not, more of an appendage or accessory...there to fill in the gaps, not to take actual form.

----------

Cultures and communities can benefit from having outsiders coming in and tell insiders how they see them...but if the insiders want to learn how they themselves see each other, how they can expand and narrow their view to give themselves more insight into the personal experience shared with others like them in their own community, I think higher priority to communicate should be given to community members.  There will always be constant input from outsiders if there is any involvement in the world.  One has to take time to listen to the internal voices to know who one is, whether as an individual or a group.  If we allow others to define us, that definition will never capture our imagination, our passion...it will be a duty and obligation, but probably not much of a joy.

Women in the Church currently lack a central image of themselves imo.  We lack a deep connection to history due to few historical women stories being circulated in the Church context in the past.  So much of our history and what women spoke about in our church was no longer a part of Church practice so there is no reason to include that material, so I see a lot of women with no strong sense of connection with church heritage.  It is like missing a leg on a three legged stool (past, present, future).  Instead they substitute Church culture in many cases which is a foundation of sand imo.

 We don't have a Priesthood lineage to tie us back to Jesus Christ right there on the wall for all to see ( https://deseretbook.com/p/14x19-priesthood-line-of-authority-frame-2016 ).  Our female heritage as presented to me growing up was faithful families at Sunday dinners, charitable works (big, big, big for which I am grateful for), and what can be summarized as great table decorations (women in the Church made things look good, cute, fun...but not meaningful...unless they were just transmitting what the men provided).  There were no female scriptorians I knew of to study.  My mom had to go outside the church to find anything of substance by women about women in her studies of the feminine role in scripture.  I got taught to study meant to say my prayers, study scriptures, but not how to understand...just read them a lot, say them a lot, and how to wear makeup by my Primary and YW leaders.

We don't have significant rite of passages for girls in the Church save for missions, endowments, and temple marriages  and I am not sure how well they are taught as coming of age as opposed to just a checklist of experiences they need since they aren't tied to specific ages as tightly as Priesthood ordinances are at least to begin with.

Roles that are untethered to history, to community structure aren't generally supportive, assertive, or progressive, the roles are reactive and often passive, waiting around to be told what is needed or what it means rather than finding that meaning for ourselves.  And when individuals try to fit themselves to such roles, they lose out in many ways.

Women need to talk to women about our history of experience so we can find a stronger foundation to keep expanding our Sister community on. We need to talk to our sisters to find what works as individuals and groups in the present.  We need to share ideas about what the future can be so as to share hope and learn to work toward goals together more effectively.  A stronger Sister community means a stronger ward community and stronger family communities.  It means when multiple communities come together, if they have all put effort into creating their own strong, assertive, meaningful community, they can build greater and greater ones...whether down to the individual or up to the entire church.  They won't feel cheated by see other communities if they feel strong in their own, instead they will more likely be supportive of other communities that they see tied into them.  There will be no need to restrict oneself to one community because one will have meaningful roles and ties in all of them.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

am tired of the same old same old.

This is not the same old same old for women in the Church in my experience or even talking about women in the Church.

I have never been at a woman's conference put on by church member where they didn't have a man speaking on something.

I may have missed some academic gatherings that had only women, but the ones I saw included men.

I don't get the problem.  It is not as if there are no other opportunities for men to be heard about these topics if they want to be.  It is generally quite easy to find men who see themselves as expert on LDS women and there are even some that are if that is the voice you want to hear for some reason.

Women in the Church have had limited opportunities to see women talking about women in a larger context or even just to see women as leaders outside of classes.  Slots for speaking at local women's conferences imo are often a third or more men.  We have one or two women speaking in general conference outside of the women's sessions and with women's session last time, we had three women talk for about 35 minutes and then three men talked for about 45 minutes.  Not having opportunities to see women leaders speaking mean it is harder for youth and other women to understand their full roles and less understanding means more difficulty translating things learned from other roles into our own.

So if this limited opportunity in a church context can be balanced out by providing expanded opportunities to see women in visible roles, talking extensively on what they do outside the Church but still related to it, I think it is great.  If younger women have a harder time seeing others like them involved in Church, they are going to have a harder time figuring out how they can fit into it.

If young men are having the same sort of issues, then I strongly encourage men only gatherings/conferences, etc. where men can learn from men.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

It would depend on what was being discussed and the purpose.  If, for example, it was a discussion of childbirth from a woman's POV, unless the man was presenting extensive stats from research, I see it as getting secondhand info from a person who might not relate well enough to convey clearly what the reports by women mean on a nuanced level.  Can a blind person have something of value to say about the paintings of Gustav Klimt...certainly she could find something of value, but is she going to be able to share what her first experience with that intense color and shape is like and how that might reflect on my own experience.  

The experience of shyness...Stats and dry facts are useful for determining extent and treatment perhaps, but for conveying the experience itself, it is night and day when I read articles by those who have experienced it themselves as opposed to observed it in others.  

........................................

Cultures can benefit from having outsiders coming in and tell insiders how they see them...but if the insiders what to learn how they themselves see each other, how they can expand and narrow their view to give themselves more insight into the personal experience shared with others like them in their own community, I think higher priority should be given to community members until well established.

Women in the Church currently lack a central image of themselves imo.  We lack a deep connection to history due to few historical women stories being circulated in the Church context in the past.  So much of our history and what women spoke about in our church was no longer a part of Church practice so there is no reason to include that material, so I see a lot of women with no strong sense of connection with church heritage.  Instead they substitute Church culture in many cases which is a foundation of sand imo.

There is the larger phenomenon of anomie pervading society at large, and the Mormons cannot be far behind in being affected by that -- despite built-in resistance and a more or less stable, healthy LDS society.  I have in mind the current demise of Western culture and the uniquely lonely direction America is heading (Japan is even farther along the path to extinction):  We now have fewer people marrying than ever in history, fewer births, and greater numbers of people living alone than at any time in history.  Something is terribly wrong, and it needs to be addressed. Now.

ETA:  "U.S. deaths from alcohol, drugs and suicide hit highest level since record-keeping began," https://news.yahoo.com/u-deaths-alcohol-drugs-suicide-050104684.html?.tsrc=notification-brknews .

Quote

....................................

We don't have significant rite of passages for girls in the Church save for missions, endowments, and temple marriages  and I am not sure how well they are taught of as coming of age as opposed to just a checklist of experiences since they aren't tied to specific ages as tightly as Priesthood ordinances are.

...............................

So do Mormons need some sort of Caucasian version of a Quinceanera?  Or a worldwide version of same?

Edited March 5, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, not really.

I will call in some help for your hurt feelings immediately!

I'll pop for a dozen cupcakes.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is the larger phenomenon of anomie pervading society at large, and the Mormons cannot be far behind in being affected by that -- despite built-in resistance and a more or less stable, healthy LDS society.  I have in mind the current demise of Western culture and the uniquely lonely direction America is heading (Japan is even farther along the path to extinction):  We now have fewer people marrying than ever in history, fewer births, and greater numbers of people living alone than at any time in history.  Something is terribly wrong, and it needs to be addressed. Now.

So do Mormons need some sort of Caucasian version of a Quinceanera?  Or a worldwide version of same?

I would prefer something more parallel to how boys progress through Priesthood levels rather than a one time thing.  Even baptism isn't a one time thing in our faith as it repeats in a similar rite of Sacrament.  Our culture views life as a process rather than series of events, imo...one eternal progression.  More like marking the steps up the ladder or passing of grades.

With the outside culture having such a huge impact on members, we need to provide more of our own role models that are easier to connect to, takes less struggle and rewriting and likening to get it to apply to our own situations,  We need more reasons to feel at home in the Church, that we belong.

Having others we emotionally and mentally identify with up there in front of us showing it can be done, hopefully providing ideas we can adapt to our own lives, being leaders in meaningful ways for us will help strengthen bonds, imo.  In the past where girls were tied much closer to home, they had plenty of examples of roles they could lead right in front of them in their mother's and grandmothers and women in the neghbourhood, leaders at church.  Youth just don't spend that kind of life with parents any more, they are not expected to walk in the footsteps of parents, but choose their own path.  Women (and others) need to see lots of devout women in a variety of roles or they may begin to believe that being devout means having very limited choices and assume that the path they feel drawn to therefore means they can't be truly devout, they will have to sacrifice their faith in some way...which isn't true for most paths from my POV.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Calm

[the narrator]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In my world, gender discrimination is Verboten.  There can be no excuse for it, Loyd.

Meh. I'm sure you can find some Jordan Peterson videos to comfort you as you go through this hurtful phase of being discriminated against.

[the narrator]

13 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Will any of the presenters look at the contributions of Mormon women in Africa, Asia, Latin America , etc. ?

The last session on Friday is focused on cross-cultural issues. Don't know what everyone's will be speaking on, but I know that my friend Taunalyn Rutherford's dissertation is on Mormon women in India.

[the narrator]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I suppose that it could all be a matter of chance, that only women applied to speak, and that any possible male speakers simply couldn't make it.  However, I have seen this type of exclusion before and am very suspicious of the actual line-up.  If men were under discussion at a men's conference, I would certainly want to hear a female POV.  We simply do not see ourselves as others see us, which can be very valuable.  I am tired of the same old same old.

Nah. The organizers (who happen to be men by virtue of their roles as directors of the Religious Studies and Mormon Studies programs at UVU) consulted with women on who to invite and, as far as I'm aware, only invited women--probably to prevent old Jordan Peterson loving dudes from grandstanding about how men were sadly discriminated against by not being given equal 50% speaking slots.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Nah. The organizers (who happen to be men by virtue of their roles as directors of the Religious Studies and Mormon Studies programs at UVU) consulted with women on who to invite and, as far as I'm aware, only invited women--probably to prevent old Jordan Peterson loving dudes from grandstanding about how men were sadly discriminated against by not being given equal 50% speaking slots.

Nah, Loyd.  You do Jordan Peterson wrong:  He's all about reality therapy, which sometimes entails puncturing favorite PC fantasies not based on hard data.  What tells me that there is a problem is the lack of even a token male.  I would be equally unhappy with any all male docket.  Have been calling that sort of thing into question for years, and normally getting insouciant responses.  Too much diversity, you know.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Meh. I'm sure you can find some Jordan Peterson videos to comfort you as you go through this hurtful phase of being discriminated against.

I'm too old to care about it for myself, but there is this Weltschmerz I feel.  Something none of you young folk seem to be bothered with.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I suppose that it could all be a matter of chance, that only women applied to speak, and that any possible male speakers simply couldn't make it.  However, I have seen this type of exclusion before and am very suspicious of the actual line-up.  If men were under discussion at a men's conference, I would certainly want to hear a female POV.  We simply do not see ourselves as others see us, which can be very valuable.  I am tired of the same old same old.

That makes sense that you would feel that way.  Men (in mormondom) rarely get to hear a female point of view on male issues.  

Women, on the other hand, are inundated with the male point of view.  My last stake women's conference (about a month ago), the keynote speaker was a man from some other stake (so he had no ecclesiastical authority for the people in the room) who talked on why women feel less than men in the church and how they need to stop feeling that way.  He talked for an hour.  He said nothing new or of consequence.  His talk was nothing out of the ordinary, as having men talk to women on the female perspective at church is a normal thing that happens multiple times throughout the year.

Women in Mormondom already know how men see us.  We don't need to hear that anymore.  At this point in history there is much more value to be gained for women by focusing on something other than the male perspective.