Sexism in churches is harmful to women's health, new study says

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

What does the possibility of women holding the priesthood have to do with being “woke”?

Generally speaking, being "woke" entails great attention to powerful egalitarian demands for fairness -- for example, demanding equal outcomes in all areas of life, which has led to social grading, everyone being a winner, rather than the school of hard knocks, which is a meritocracy (meaning equal opportunity, rather than equal outcomes).  This rejects the MLK desire that everyone be judged on the content of their character, rather than on outward appearance.  Wokeness imposes strict ideological preconceptions.  Since humans do not function well in such a regimented and apriori fashion, failure is predictable.

Saint Paul's notion that the Body of Christ (the body of believers) can be classified into a wide array of mutually dependent skills or gifts is rejected as inherently unequal, since everyone wants to be the boss.  The whole notion of complementarity is thus considered evil, even though anthropologists consider humans as very similar to other animals in their normal cooperative behaviors and functions.  Wokeness requires that any such classification is inherently wrong.

See Harvard Professor E. O. Wilson, who pioneered the field of sociobiology, the study of the genetic basis of the social behavior of all animals, including humans.  Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975).

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why then do women tend to live so much longer than men?  Or is it only the women in traditional churches who suffer shortened lives?

This is about the relationship between church affiliation and self-reported health of women compared to men, not general longevity.

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Jesus and all 12 of his original apostles were male. If there is sexism it predates us by about 1800 years.

The traditional story is that the apostles were all male.

7 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I'd say before that, as the Old Testament is mostly about men. 

And recorded by men.

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

The first link led me to a paywall, so I couldn't read the actual study.  The third link left me with some questions.

First, how did they decide which religions were sexist.  I saw the parameters they used, but they still seem fairly subjective.  Do the researchers do the scoring or do the members of each congregation get to score their own religion?  

The creators of the study said that "they created a sexism scale, which is a measure of the number of things that women are prohibited from doing in the congregation: teaching co-ed classes, preaching at a main worship service, serving on the governing body, and being the head clergyperson/leader."

From my perspective, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints scores well on that.  Women teach co-ed classes, preach at the main worship service, and serve on the governing body.  The only thing they don't do is "be the head leader."

I'm guessing that from someone else's perspective, it wouldn't score as well.  

Also, what is the "health benefit" the women either get or don't?  Did they ever specify that?

On what governing body do women in the LDS Church serve?

They chose the questions with which to measure sexism, but the leader answered the questions:

Quote

We conceptualize structural sexism as systematic gender inequality in power and resources within religious congregations, and we measure it with three different congregation-level variables based on a series of questions answered by each congregation’s leader. First, we use a dichotomous measure (labeled “board”) indicating whether an “otherwise qualified woman” in the congregation would be permitted to “serve as a full-fledged member of the congregation’s main governing body or coordinating committee” (0 = yes, 1 = no). This measure of women’s representation in governance is particularly important for assessing the relationship between structural sexism and health given the accumulating evidence showing women’s political representation is vital for population health both in the United States and in the developing world (Homan 2017; Quamruzzaman and Lange 2016). Furthermore, although restricting women from governing boards is less common than other forms of religious institutional sexism, it is perhaps the most dangerous for health as it indicates a complete lack of decision-making power for women within the congregation.

  
    Homan P, Burdette A. When Religion Hurts: Structural Sexism and Health in Religious Congregations. American Sociological Review. 2021;86(2):234-255. doi:10.1177/0003122421996686
  
 

Women do not serve in the Quorum of the Twelve. They do serve in the bishopric. They hold auxiliary callings assisting the main leaders in specialized areas. When are women in positions of authority over the general membership?

 

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Researchers rated sexism.

Not quite. The researchers created the questions used to tabulate sexism, the congregational leaders answered those questions.

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

This is about the relationship between church affiliation and self-reported health of women compared to men, not general longevity.

Longevity varies according to the health of people.  It is not simply random.  If a given church-affiliation is harmful to health, it would certainly show up in longevity.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Normally, however, women are described as more spiritual and faithful than men. 

I wish people would use “religious” rather than “spiritual” as spirituality is, imo, an eternal state which can be measured only limited, indirect ways while religious behaviour is often external (such as attending church meetings) and more concrete (simply praying vs having a spiritual experience while praying).

Since spirituality is a very internal experience imo and may never be communicated to others by some (who knows if the most practical seeming, down to earth person is not receiving constant spiritual direction as they go about doing good to others if they say nothing about why they are doing such?), it is imo impossible to accurate measure whether women or men are more spiritual.

[Meadowchik]

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Longevity varies according to the health of people.  It is not simply random.  If a given church-affiliation is harmful to health, it would certainly show up in longevity.

No, that is not a certainty at all. A person can live longer while still experiencing poor health. 

I don't disagree that females experience higher longevity than males. (This is also true for many non-human primates.) But, for the scope of this thread, this was a study that used self-reported measurements of health, not longevity.

But to address your question, as far as I know some, not all, of the advantage is due to higher survival childhood rates for females. Also, while women tend to get sick more frequently, they also have better rates of recovery, or robustness. Something to consider might be the widowhood effect that impacts men more. 

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Not quite. The researchers created the questions used to tabulate sexism, the congregational leaders answered those questions.

Ok then, researchers defined how to non-subjectively calculate a religion's sexism rating. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Don't forget the worse self-reported health is only in comparison to "inclusive" religions. There is no difference in self-reported health compared to non-religious adherents. They surmise that religion stuff gives them a benefit, but that benefit is offset by sexism related decreases.

Frequency of attendance also had no effect, only whether they attend or not.

 

This point, imo, is also quite important, and the paper elaborates on this:

Quote

 

Religious structural sexism likely affects health via a number of pathways—for example, undermining psychosocial resources, increasing psychological distress, and increasing sexism in other structural domains—but additional scholarship is needed to understand how religious institutional sexism influences mental and physical health. Ancillary analyses finding that the impact of religious structural sexism does not vary by frequency of church attendance (i.e., no dose-response pattern) hints that psychological distress may not be the most important mechanism directly linking congregational sexism and health.

Instead, participation in a sexist church may be an indicator of exposure to a whole system of structural sexism because it is part of a constellation of positions within various other institutions and relationships. The family may function as a particularly important domain by providing institutional support for gender-stratified roles within the home. To the extent that structural sexism in religious congregations encourages a traditional gender division of household labor, such sexism may be particularly harmful in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Social distancing has limited the social support and engagement normally provided by religious congregations, and the lack of childcare has exacerbated existing gender inequalities in domestic labor and overburdened women, undermining their careers and mental health (Collins et al. 2020; Hamel and Salganicoff 2020). Thus, exploring the connections between structural sexism across varied structural domains and levels of analysis represents an important next step in understanding the mechanisms linking religious structural sexism and health.

 

This makes the findings relevant beyond active church-goers. And it is relevant to ex-believers inasmuch that despite disaffiliating with their church, they might still operate within the broader structures that developed with the church structure. 

Hot take: exmormons don't necessarily escape the sexism of the church just by leaving it.

Broad take: Sexism is something broader society must work on to reduce the detrimental effects on women and society as a whole. This is an area where, I think believers and ex-believers can impact each other.  If neither group does anything, women will still suffer from the negative impacts. If people in both groups work on it, then women in both groups benefit, and so does the community at large.

 

[AtlanticMike]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Women do not serve in the Quorum of the Twelve. They do serve in the bishopric. They hold auxiliary callings assisting the main leaders in specialized areas. When are women in positions of authority over the general membership

What about women like my wife and mother in law who like going to church and not having to worry about the stresses a leadership position brings? She wants nothing to do with a bishopric or stake calling. Many women like the way the church is structured now.

     After reading this thread last night I asked my wife what she thought. What she explained to me made a lot of sense. Between my wife and i, I'm the more opened minded one, she's way more traditional, but here's something we agree on. She and I agree that right now, women seem way more selfish than men. For example, why does it seem like women are primarily seeking "equality" in positions of power. I've been in the construction industry for over 30 years and probably only seen 4 or 5 women in a skilled labor job. When are women going to rough it down here with us men that carry 80lbs on their shoulder up a ladder extended on the side of a three story house? No man is holding a woman back from doing that. What about carrying a 3/4" piece of plywood up a flight of stairs and gluing it down to the floor, any man I know would let you do that task, just come out to the job site. What about laying brick from a 4 story scaffold, again, come on out, the job is yours, any woman please feel free, I'll bring lunch. What about unclogging a sewer drain under a house while laying on your back and the clog frees up spewing crap water all over the place, I've never had a woman by my side when accomplising that task. 

   My point being, if women want equality, come get it, but realize if your not willing to get your hands dirty and only want the "prestigious" positions, respect is going to be hard to come by. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[Calm]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

She and I agree that right now, women seem way more selfish than men.

Maybe because men generally already have more higher paying options available to them than women do. 
 

Quote

When are women going to rough it down here with us men that carry 80lbs on their shoulder up a ladder extended on the side of a three story house? 

When are men going to be housekeepers doing massive loads of laundry daily, lugging vacuums and carts around hotels, cleaning toilets and bathtubs, nannies changing tons of dirty diapers and spit up on clothes multiple times daily?

No woman is holding a man back from that.  
 

Compare construction work pay to hospital housekeeping pay. 
 

The idea that women aren’t willing to get their hands dirty when it is still the women doing the majority of unpaid grunt, dirty work at home is laughable. 
 

Going in sewers is hard, dirty work, but so is cleaning up dirty bums and beds and vomit.  Nurses who do the grunt work in hospitals and care facilities are still overwhelmingly female. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

 After reading this thread last night I asked my wife what she thought. 

I'm less interested in what a person says to their spouse and more interested in what they will say to someone with no personal investment in their answer. That's why studies like this are important. They allow people to answer anonymously, and they also use answers to examine specific questions which can be based around concrete parameters. 

ETA: And this study can ask questions about outcome (health) without directly connecting the outcome to any controversial issue. Then the respondent can answer without that external pressure to either support or subvert the prevailing position.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Meadowchik

[AtlanticMike]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

When are men going to be housekeepers doing massive loads of laundry daily, lugging vacuums and carts around hotels, cleaning toilets and bathtubs, nannies changing tons of dirty diapers and spit up on clothes multiple times daily?

I do all that! Actually two Christmas's ago my wife bought me a Speed Queen washer & dryer, I was wanting a set for years, I'm in love😍, my wife is jealous. I have my own steam cleaner and use it on our bathrooms stleast twice a week, I don't like harsh chemicals so the steam cleaner melts all the getms away.

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Compare construction work pay to hospital housekeeping pay

My uncle cleaned a hospital for years, before that he was a janitor at a high school cleaning and doing small maintenance jobs.

     Most entry level construction jobs suck as far as pay goes, even after a few years most still are lucky to get $15 an hour. No insurance for most also, so yeah, I will compare that.

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

The idea that women aren’t willing to get their hands dirty when it is still the women doing the majority of unpaid grunt, dirty work at home is laughable

Please!! Again, I don't get paid for the work done at my home either. 

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Nurses who do the grunt work in hospitals and care facilities are still overwhelmingly female. 

I agree.

[Calm]

So because you are willing to do housework that negates the fact that women do two more hours a day housework than men on average when working full time?

Working in the sewer or construction are not the only hard, dirty jobs out there. That you elevate them above the other crap work jobs more often done by women is ridiculous. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Btw, it is not only whether a woman likes the idea of construction work or not that influences whether or not she will apply, but the known level of sexual harassment a woman may encounter in such jobs that lead many women to be leery of them:

https://www.onrec.com/news/news-archive/we-need-to-brick-sexism-say-women-in-construction

Quote

41% say they have received inappropriate comments / behaviour from male colleagues

45% of women who have been sexually harassed say it has made an impact on their career

 

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Maybe because men generally already have more higher paying options available to them than women do. 
 

When are men going to be housekeepers doing massive loads of laundry daily, lugging vacuums and carts around hotels, cleaning toilets and bathtubs, nannies changing tons of dirty diapers and spit up on clothes multiple times daily?

No woman is holding a man back from that.  
 

 

That is yesterday's news. In my house I do more than my share of the laundry, dishes and toilet cleaning. Historically my wife has always made more money than me.

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

On what governing body do women in the LDS Church serve?

They chose the questions with which to measure sexism, but the leader answered the questions:

Women do not serve in the Quorum of the Twelve. They do serve in the bishopric. They hold auxiliary callings assisting the main leaders in specialized areas. When are women in positions of authority over the general membership?

 

From my perspective, the governing body of the congregation is the ward council.  And women serve on that.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The next logical step is inclusion in the Priesthood.  IMO that is the only option if the church wants to survive.

Unless church survival is in supernatural hands.

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, the governing body of the congregation is the ward council.  And women serve on that.

Does the ward council have authority over the general membership?

 

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

IMO that is the only option if the church wants to survive.

Survival seems like an extreme and a very low bar. It could survive a very, very long time in what it might consider very poor health.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This point, imo, is also quite important, and the paper elaborates on this:

This makes the findings relevant beyond active church-goers. And it is relevant to ex-believers inasmuch that despite disaffiliating with their church, they might still operate within the broader structures that developed with the church structure. 

Hot take: exmormons don't necessarily escape the sexism of the church just by leaving it.

Broad take: Sexism is something broader society must work on to reduce the detrimental effects on women and society as a whole. This is an area where, I think believers and ex-believers can impact each other.  If neither group does anything, women will still suffer from the negative impacts. If people in both groups work on it, then women in both groups benefit, and so does the community at large.

 

If a woman does not believe she is being treated unfairly (unequally) by a congregation due to her gender, regardless of what the congregation does, does that mean that she would have no 'psychological distress' even if the church was actually sexist?

I'm wondering how the woman's views and her level of pscyhological distress is connected?

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Does the ward council have authority over the general membership?

 

It has authority over the congregation.  And isn't that what the study deals with, congregations?

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It has authority over the congregation.  And isn't that what the study deals with, congregations?

What authority does the ward council have?

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If a woman does not believe she is being treated unfairly (unequally) by a congregation due to her gender, regardless of what the congregation does, does that mean that she would have no 'psychological distress' even if the church was actually sexist?

I'm wondering how the woman's views and her level of pscyhological distress is connected?

Good questions.  

I think that if the disparity is something that, perceived or not, does impact her life in concrete ways, then it's possible it could contribute to psychological distress via those manifestations. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I do all that! Actually two Christmas's ago my wife bought me a Speed Queen washer & dryer, I was wanting a set for years, I'm in love😍, my wife is jealous. I have my own steam cleaner and use it on our bathrooms stleast twice a week, I don't like harsh chemicals so the steam cleaner melts all the getms away.

My uncle cleaned a hospital for years, before that he was a janitor at a high school cleaning and doing small maintenance jobs.

     Most entry level construction jobs suck as far as pay goes, even after a few years most still are lucky to get $15 an hour. No insurance for most also, so yeah, I will compare that.

Please!! Again, I don't get paid for the work done at my home either. 

I agree.

None of this has anything to do with leadership over the members though. And I believe that conditioning matters a lot. Women aren't conditioned to do the jobs you mention. They physically can be plumbers, and the many construction jobs you mention, but may need to bulk up and be able to function in those jobs. My husband is a retired union ironworker and there were a few women doing the same job that he mentioned. But physicality is what must happen for them to be able to do their part in those jobs. That's the only thing that stops women, is that really. So this basically has nothing to do with women in leadership positions in the church. Other faiths have women in these positions. So I may have missed something but it has nothing to do with the topic, or maybe in your conversations there is something I missed. Also, I know a woman that is a manager over construction sites. And I'm with your wife, I don't want to do what the men do at church. But I know women that would, and have gifts of spirituality and could prophesy over a congregation. 

[webbles]

 

On 4/21/2021 at 8:06 AM, Meadowchik said:

When Religion Hurts: Structural Sexism and Health in Religious Congregations, by Patricia Homan and Amy Burdette, 

American sociological review, 2021-04, Vol.86 (2), p.234-255

 

Is there any way to read this study without needing a username and password?