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

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

They have authority in their callings, under the direction of the bishop.  It seems like the people who did the study understood that both kinds of authority existed.  Authority in a person's sphere and authority over the entire congregation.  

It would be interesting to see an analysis that isolated the LDS participants and compared their health results to non-LDS participants. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Do you think responsibilities they shoulder are made more or less difficult due to not having as much authority as the bishop or bishopric members?

Unless you are the bishop (and most men will go their whole church lives and never be one), everyone in the ward, male and female, has less authority than the leader of the congregation.  Thinking about your question, I don't think that makes any of those responsibilities more difficult.  I don't know that it makes them less difficult either though.  

The responsibilities are what they are, and they are set up to include the reality of being accountable to a higher authority.  This is true for everyone in the ward, male or female (even the bishop has to meet with the SP once a week and answer to him in that sense).

I do believe that a sexist bishop can make callings more difficult for the women leaders in his ward.  Thankfully, in the many different wards I've lived in in five different states, I haven't had to deal with one of those yet.  I've heard horror stories though, mostly from older women.  

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It would be interesting to see an analysis that isolated the LDS participants and compared their health results to non-LDS participants. 

Yes, that would be really interesting.  I also think they would have to include way more participants for it to be of any use. The opinions and health of 88 people being asked a couple of questions a couple of times over the course of a few years isn't going to be very conclusive. 

The size of the study needs to be bigger.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 Authority in a person's sphere and authority over the entire congregation.  

 

44 minutes ago, webbles said:

 

I tracked down the actual data (https://www.thearda.com/Archive/Files/Downloads/NCSIV_DL.asp) and took a look at all of the responses that had the denomination (the DENCODE column) of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (value 30).  There were 88 responses over all of the years (1998, 2006, 2012, 2018)

Over the years, it looks like there were 5 questions related to women and leadership.  Here's all of the different questions that were asked and the responses:

55 responses (only asked in 2006 and 2012).  2 were Yes. 53 were No.

78 responses (not asked in 1998).  60 were Yes.  17 were No.  1 was Don't Know.

55 responses (only asked in 2006 and 2012). 53 were Yes. 2 were No.

78 responses (not asked in 1998). 75 were Yes. 3 were No.

78 responses (not asked in 1998). 78 were No.

It is interesting and imo notable that among these questions, the most split, and the only one with a "don't know" response is the one about governing body. 

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, that would be really interesting.  I also think they would have to include way more participants for it to be of any use. The opinions and health of 88 people being asked a couple of questions a couple of times over the course of a few years isn't going to be very conclusive. 

The size of the study needs to be bigger.

This study examines two different surveys, the General Social Survey, from which they get the answers on self-reported health, and the National Congregations Study, which asks the questions related to sexism. It then uses the answers to both to look for patterns. So the 88 respondents referred to above are only respondents to the National Congregations Study.

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Unless you are the bishop (and most men will go their whole church lives and never be one), everyone in the ward, male and female, has less authority than the leader of the congregation.  Thinking about your question, I don't think that makes any of those responsibilities more difficult.  I don't know that it makes them less difficult either though.  

The responsibilities are what they are, and they are set up to include the reality of being accountable to a higher authority.  This is true for everyone in the ward, male or female (even the bishop has to meet with the SP once a week and answer to him in that sense).

I do believe that a sexist bishop can make callings more difficult for the women leaders in his ward.  Thankfully, in the many different wards I've lived in in five different states, I haven't had to deal with one of those yet.  I've heard horror stories though, mostly from older women.  

Of course not all men will be bishop, but no women will. The bishop is the authority over the whole ward and he need not be sexist in order for the sexist structure of leadership to have impact. There can be inherent characteristics to structural inequality.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It would be interesting to see an analysis that isolated the LDS participants and compared their health results to non-LDS participants. 

I think the study also has some flaws when trying to compare LDS with other denominations that are also perceived as sexist, because the lds church is set up so differently from other protestant and catholic churches. 

Neither a man nor woman can lobby or apply for a leadership position in the lds church, for example.  Men have the chance to lead a congregation, but they don't have the choice to seek it out.  Whether or not they ever will lead is not within their power to dictate.  Leadership positions in an lds congregation cannot be self-selected or chosen as a career path.   

But in other churches, that's not the case.  A man might be able to choose a leadership position as a career choice, while a woman in the same church might be barred from that choice.  That difference (choice for one and no choice for the other) would probably have an impact on women in that church that would be important to account for.

There's also the issue of how income would affect the study results as well.  Higher income can have a positive effect on health, and in that way having access to the income of a leader (including paid health insurance) could give men in some religions a boost toward better health than women who were barred access to the same because of their gender.  

So, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we can't self-select for leadership and there is no monetary gain if we are in leadership.  But neither is true for the other "sexist" denominations that were studied.

It seems like both of those things would have an impact on health and/or psychological distress for women and would need to be taken into account to make the results fair and accurate.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course not all men will be bishop, but no women will. The bishop is the authority over the whole ward and he need not be sexist in order for the sexist structure of leadership to have impact. There can be inherent characteristics to structural inequality.

There probably can. I haven't personally experienced it and can't say what 'inherent characteristics to structural gender inequality' would look like.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There probably can. I haven't personally experienced it and can't say what 'inherent characteristics to structural gender inequality' would look like.

One of the inherent characteristics is that the person in the highest authority in the ward is a always a man. The person who produces the church position personal worthiness is always a man. We already see it. 

 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

One of the inherent characteristics is that the person in the highest authority in the ward is a always a man. The person who produces the church position personal worthiness is always a man. We already see it. 

 

Yes, but how that inequality would always create inequity between him and the female members of the ward is what is in question.  That's what I was referring to when I talked about not knowing what that would look like.

Because something is different does not have to mean that it is unfair or negative.  I can agree that a woman will never lead a congregation and also say that I don't know that that will always produce negative consequences for women.  

Edited April 22, 2021 by bluebell

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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. 

Yes, of course, but we are talking about the Bell curve, without even considering childhood rates of survival -- or past tendencies of many men to die in war.  There is nothing accidental or random about rates of female longevity.  The claim that women suffer more sicknesses is attenuated by male unwillingness to see a doctor when necessary (false bravado).  That, along with men needing women as care-givers may also play a role in the statistics.  One of the prime female advantages was that, unlike men, most women avoided drinking booze and smoking.  In an age of equality, that may not play as big a role, as quite a few women seem to be on a race to the bottom with men.  One would like to see the breakdown of opioid deaths by gender.

I'll take your word for it that female primates have greater longevity than males.  Humans are primates and that may just be part of the natural order of things, which raises the question whether other matters of gender are really inborn traits and instincts which we as humans cannot actually control.  Reminds me of Aldous Huxley's Ape and Essence (1948), which I read as a youngster.  I systematically compared human and chimpanzee behavior for a class long ago at UCLA: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h9YcTp4huUSDzEraSvR59aG-XR-bmfK2/view?usp=sharing .

The upshot is that all this demand for equality may miss the main point, which is that we may not be so sophisticated as humans as we suppose.  Most of what we do may be quite instinctive, inborn, and predictable, even though we erroneously tell ourselves that we are making real decisions.  In most cases, our "decisions" may be no more original and spontaneous than those of our pet dog.  

Edited April 22, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

True, but I think we can measure an internal state by outward manifestations.  By their fruits, and all that.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but how that inequality would always create inequity between him and the female members of the ward is what is in question.  That's what I was referring to when I talked about not knowing what that would look like.

Because something is different does not have to mean that it is unfair or negative.  I can agree that a woman will never lead a congregation and also say that I don't know that that will always produce negative consequences for women.  

What it does mean that the church is structurally sexist. 

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, of course, but we are talking about the Bell curve, without even considering childhood rates of survival -- or past tendencies of many men to die in war.  There is nothing accidental or random about rates of female longevity.  The claim that women suffer more sicknesses is attenuated by male unwillingness to see a doctor when necessary (false bravado).  That, along with men needing women as care-givers may also play a role in the statistics.  One of the prime female advantages was that, unlike men, most women avoided drinking booze and smoking.  In an age of equality, that may not play as big a role, as quite a few women seem to be on a race to the bottom with men.  One would like to see the breakdown of opioid deaths by gender.

I'll take your word for it that female primates have greater longevity than males.  Humans are primates and that may just be part of the natural order of things, which raises the question whether other matters of gender are really inborn traits and instincts which we as humans cannot actually control.  Reminds me of Aldous Huxley's Ape and Essence (1948), which I read as a youngster.  I systematically compared human and chimpanzee behavior for a class long ago at UCLA: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h9YcTp4huUSDzEraSvR59aG-XR-bmfK2/view?usp=sharing .

The upshot is that all this demand for equality may miss the main point, which is that we may not be so sophisticated as humans as we suppose.  Most of what we do may be quite instinctive, inborn, and predictable, even though we erroneously tell ourselves that we are making real decisions.  In most cases, our "decisions" may be no more original and spontaneous than those of our pet dog.

I would say that the upshot is that, as we can talk about it and ask the questions like those asked in this study, we have the potential to do better.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What it does mean that the church is structurally sexist. 

For me, it means that men and women are treated differently.  Other people would have a different definition.

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

For me, it means that men and women are treated differently.  Other people would have a different definition.

That is called sexism. Treating people differently based on their sex. The LDS church espouses its own version of complementarianism, which is still a form of sexism.

[bluebell]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

That is called sexism. Treating people differently based on their sex. The LDS church espouses its own version of complementarianism, which is still a form of sexism.

Yes, I know that's what it's called.  That's why I gave it as an answer to the question:  "What it does mean that the church is structurally sexist".  

I don't have a problem with the idea that the church is sexist in the basic definition of the word.  But to me there is the basic definition of the word: "treating someone differently," and then there is the cultural use of the word:  "treating someone unfairly".

Inequality and inequity are two different things.   I don't agree with the idea that in order for something to be equitable it must be equal. 

At the same time, I fully believe that it very easy for inequity to exist in environments that espouse inequality, and I believe that the church has struggled with that in the past and that some men continue to struggle with it today (though rarely on purpose).

 

[Peacefully]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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).

I think we can take comfort in our belief that we are led by inspiration and revelation, therefore, if female ordination happens, it will have nothing to do with “wokeness.” 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Peacefully

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I think we can take comfort in our belief that we are led by inspiration and revelation, therefore, if female ordination happens, it will have nothing to do with “wokeness.” 

I'm out of rep points for now but I agree.

[juliann]

7 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

 

     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, 

When you have to pull out a sock puppet who always agrees with you, you have lost the debate. 

[juliann]

Yes, the church is "sexist." It does discriminate against women. That is no longer debatable. We look ridiculous for denying it. 

But in the meantime,  this study with a sample size that small with such a disregard for enormous variables looks ridiculous. 

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

Yes, the church is "sexist." It does discriminate against women. That is no longer debatable. We look ridiculous for denying it. 

But in the meantime,  this study with a sample size that small with such a disregard for enormous variables looks ridiculous. 

The combined sample size of attendees and non-attendees was 2,234. For a population of 313 million (2012 level), the sample size would be quite good, with a slightly over 2% margin of error and a 95% confidence level.

[MustardSeed]

Of course our church structure disregards many strengths and potential contributions of women.  
Just the fact that women only recently were given green lights to pray in general meetings should alert us to the likelihood that our routines and traditions blind us to our cultural limitations.  
Never mind getting the priesthood. I think we already have it.  Rather, my proposal is that the church recognize the myriad of options there are to lift women and use their talents more to progress the gospel and build confidence in our girls. 
 

Women can count money and conduct meetings and greet ward members and be final speakers and on and on and on- things we don’t even consider.  For what? Because someone’s wife says they don’t want the responsibility? 

Edited April 22, 2021 by MustardSeed

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Of course our church structure disregards many strengths and potential contributions of women.  
Just the fact that women only recently were given green lights to pray in general meetings should alert us to the likelihood that our routines and traditions blind us to our cultural limitations.  
Never mind getting the priesthood. I think we already have it.  Rather, my proposal is that the church recognize the myriad of options there are to lift women and use their talents more to progress the gospel and build confidence in our girls. 
 

Women can count money and conduct meetings and greet ward members and be final speakers and on and on and on- things we don’t even consider.  For what? Because someone’s wife says they don’t want the responsibility? 

😍

[Calm]

On 4/22/2021 at 12:19 PM, Meadowchik said:

The combined sample size of attendees and non-attendees was 2,234. For a population of 313 million (2012 level), the sample size would be quite good, with a slightly over 2% margin of error and a 95% confidence level.

But it was only 88 Saints and did not examine the variables that Bluebell pointed out.  That could mean putting Saints in the same category as other denominations without adjusting for lack of choice of callings and financial benefits, which could lead to major error of findings. 

Edited May 1, 2021 by Calm