Are Latter-day Saint Women Oppressed?

[Nofear]

Oped getting all kinds of comments: https://www.deseret.com/faith/2023/10/16/23916141/mormon-lds-church-organization-women-not-oppressed

TLDR: "Last year, I wrote about how media accusations that my church oppresses women were the opposite of my own experience. It was when I entered The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that my needs and interests, both as an individual and as a woman, began to be met in ways I didn’t know I needed.

My experience points to something else missing from the ongoing discussion about the state of women and faith: that far from being a hindrance to women, men’s participation and service in church is designed to make them more responsive to the needs of women and children, and to practice putting others’ needs first."

To what degree do you agree or disagree with her assertion or find the basis of the assertion relevant? She makes a couple of other points, but the crux of her essay is that Priesthood service helps make men better in ways that she feels women need them to be better.

[bluebell]

She makes some good points and backs them up with data.  

[CA Steve]

I don't need data to tell me LDS women are oppressed. One only need look at the leadership hierarchy and see proof there.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I don't need data to tell me LDS women are oppressed. One only need look at the leadership hierarchy and see proof there.

I think that makes sense, if your view of oppression is the inability to be in charge (for lack of a better term).  But, that definition also means that all children are oppressed, since they are never in charge.  So are most men since by far the vast majority will also never be in charge. 

In that way I don't know how useful it is to tie being in charge with being oppressed.

 

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think that makes sense, if your view of oppression is the inability to be in charge (for lack of a better term).  But, that definition also means that all children are oppressed, since they are never in charge.  So are most men since by far the vast majority will also never be in charge. 

In that way I don't know how useful it is to tie being in charge with being oppressed.

 

So women and children are comparable when it comes to leadership abilities? Not sure you want to make that argument.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Oped getting all kinds of comments: https://www.deseret.com/faith/2023/10/16/23916141/mormon-lds-church-organization-women-not-oppressed

TLDR: "Last year, I wrote about how media accusations that my church oppresses women were the opposite of my own experience. It was when I entered The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that my needs and interests, both as an individual and as a woman, began to be met in ways I didn’t know I needed.

My experience points to something else missing from the ongoing discussion about the state of women and faith: that far from being a hindrance to women, men’s participation and service in church is designed to make them more responsive to the needs of women and children, and to practice putting others’ needs first."

To what degree do you agree or disagree with her assertion or find the basis of the assertion relevant? She makes a couple of other points, but the crux of her essay is that Priesthood service helps make men better in ways that she feels women need them to be better.

No agreeing or disagreeing at this point. Just questions. Did it separate priesthood out from being religious? Is there a similar trend with women of the church? 

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think that makes sense, if your view of oppression is the inability to be in charge (for lack of a better term).  But, that definition also means that all children are oppressed, since they are never in charge.  So are most men since by far the vast majority will also never be in charge. 

In that way I don't know how useful it is to tie being in charge with being oppressed.

 

But women in the church aren’t given equal opportunities to be in charge. 

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I don't need data to tell me LDS women are oppressed. One only need look at the leadership hierarchy and see proof there.

While it doesn't mean you're wrong (or right), this response suggests to me that you didn't read the op-ed (or even the TLDR).

[Nofear]

23 minutes ago, Rain said:

No agreeing or disagreeing at this point. Just questions. Did it separate priesthood out from being religious? Is there a similar trend with women of the church? 

Well, as a believer, I think the Gospel and the Church both have very positive aspects that help women be better individuals and approach their divine potential. I would say the same for men too entirely independent of the priesthood question. The op-ed asserts that priesthood service gives men (needed) additional growth opportunities. The question is whether or not that that is true and/or justifies gendered priesthood office.

[MustardSeed]

27 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

But women in the church aren’t given equal opportunities to be in charge. 

I would add that children are not a good comparison because children don’t have the ability or the brain development to be equal in terms of power. Women do. 

[MustardSeed]

Yes we are oppressed.  It’s so traditional that it’s hard to see from within. 
 

“This church is the most sexist organization I belong to” is no lie. 

[Pyreaux]

Some define "oppression" as a systemic issue of representation in institutions. We could be fighting nature. The church isn't lead by elected leaders, however by looking at the political sphere where the idea of representation derives, as I hear it, there are gender gaps in politics and political ambition. Large-scale surveys of women who have professional and economic credentials, thus potential political candidates, report lower ambition to occupy executive offices than comparable men (Fox and Lawless, 2004). Women’s willingness to advance in their political careers can be influenced by family and relational considerations. Recent work from Folke and Rickne (2020) shows that in Sweden female politicians who are promoted to mayor (i.e. the highest office in municipal politics) experience a significant increase in the likelihood of divorcing their partner, whereas this is not the case for men. Women seem to face higher costs for their career achievements, as the evidence in Folke and Rickne (2020) suggests, so may be discouraged from pursuing such objectives.

While there is evidence that women may on average be less willing to advance to top positions than men, it is not clear how quantitatively relevant this factor is to account for the lack of women in power. Do the majority of women even want leadership in the church? If a woman doesn't, does her "oppression" depend on her feeling oppressed; trapped, restricted, inhibited, controlled, disrespected, helpless, and imposed upon?

Edited October 18, 2023 by Pyreaux

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, Pyreaux said:

Do the majority of women even want leadership in the church? If a woman doesn't, does her "oppression" depend on her feeling oppressed; trapped, restricted, inhibited, controlled, disrespected, helpless, and imposed upon?

The majority of women in polygamist communes would possibly not want anything different either. 
 

How are we defining oppression? 
 

[Smiley McGee]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

Oped getting all kinds of comments: https://www.deseret.com/faith/2023/10/16/23916141/mormon-lds-church-organization-women-not-oppressed

TLDR: "Last year, I wrote about how media accusations that my church oppresses women were the opposite of my own experience. It was when I entered The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that my needs and interests, both as an individual and as a woman, began to be met in ways I didn’t know I needed.

My experience points to something else missing from the ongoing discussion about the state of women and faith: that far from being a hindrance to women, men’s participation and service in church is designed to make them more responsive to the needs of women and children, and to practice putting others’ needs first."

To what degree do you agree or disagree with her assertion or find the basis of the assertion relevant? She makes a couple of other points, but the crux of her essay is that Priesthood service helps make men better in ways that she feels women need them to be better.

Oppression is a strong term, resulting in claims of oppression being easy to knock down (as is usually the case with hyperbolic statements). A better question for an op-ed would be “are the views and experiences of women in the church subordinate to those of men?” Then define “subordinate” in practical terms so readers have a better chance of understanding of what the question is asking and how it is being answered. 

Edited October 18, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[MustardSeed]

I should clarify.  I personally do not want a leadership position in the church. I don’t even want an official calling. But I do think the church and the people would benefit if it were normal for women to have as much of a voice and influence in power as men have. Why shouldn’t they?

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Yes we are oppressed.  It’s so traditional that it’s hard to see from within. 
 

“This church is the most sexist organization I belong to” is no lie. 

I think I technically still belong to an organization that doesn’t admit women at all so not sure I can say the same.

[MustardSeed]

This topic steams me lol.  I’ll do my best to remain chill. 
The tired argument that “ most women don’t want to be Bishop anyway, so there’s no problem here” just doesn’t jive for me. 
Let’s say there’s a new restaurant in town. Their policy is that women are not allowed to be in manager positions. Women do the serving, the cleaning and the hosting. That’s it. The men manage and do the chef work. Everybody agrees, and nobody wants anything different.  How do we feel about that restaurant folks? They actually have a policy that doesn’t allow women to be in management. None of the women want it either. 
Frankly I wanna burn the place down. 

I’m still chill btw 😂😅

Edited October 18, 2023 by MustardSeed

[Nofear]

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

The tired argument that “ most women don’t want to be Bishop anyway, so there’s no problem here” just doesn’t jive for me. 

Agreed. The above argument is not a good argument at all. I wouldn't even say the op-ed's argument is necessarily a good one either. But, a not "can't see because of red in my eyes" response to the op-ed's main argument would be potentially helpful.

"Well, as a believer, I think the Gospel and the Church both have very positive aspects that help women be better individuals and approach their divine potential. I would say the same for men too entirely independent of the priesthood question. The op-ed asserts that priesthood service gives men (needed) additional growth opportunities. The question is whether or not that that is true and/or justifies gendered priesthood office."

[MustardSeed]

14 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Agreed. The above argument is not a good argument at all. I wouldn't even say the op-ed's argument is necessarily a good one either. But, a not "can't see because of red in my eyes" response to the op-ed's main argument would be potentially helpful.

"Well, as a believer, I think the Gospel and the Church both have very positive aspects that help women be better individuals and approach their divine potential. I would say the same for men too entirely independent of the priesthood question. The op-ed asserts that priesthood service gives men (needed) additional growth opportunities. The question is whether or not that that is true and/or justifies gendered priesthood office."

I have always proposed men have priesthood, and women be given “priestesseshood” and have equal power in voice and authority in different ways that honor strengths of gender.  
why in the world would we not have women be the ones who are interviewing women for temple recommends? Why was I was a teenager going to a man’s office to discuss my sexual sins? Would have killed any of us for me to be able to do that with another woman? Why do final calls be on decisions  have to be filtered through only a man? Is it believed that women are not capable?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

So women and children are comparable when it comes to leadership abilities? Not sure you want to make that argument.

I definitely don't.  So it's good I'm not making it.  

Mostly I was asking for clarification because you seemed to be saying that "can't be in charge" = "oppression".  I outlined some basic flaws I saw with that reasoning and figured you would clarify by adding nuance if it was necessary to explain yourself better.

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Raingirl said:

But women in the church aren’t given equal opportunities to be in charge. 

True.  Does that equal oppression? 

To be oppressed means to be subject to harsh or authoritarian treatment, subjugated, repressed, exploited, tyrannized, etc.  Does that describe latter-day saint women in your opinion?  (sincere question)

[CA Steve]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

True.  Does that equal oppression? 

To be oppressed means to be subject to harsh or authoritarian treatment, subjugated, repressed, exploited, tyrannized, etc.  Does that describe latter-day saint women in your opinion?  (sincere question)

When women do not have an equal opportunity to exercise authority, I would call that authoritarian. I cannot speak for LDS women, but from my point of view, this should not even be an argument. 
At best one might argue they are comfortable with the system, but to try and claim it is not oppressive is silly.

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

When women do not have an equal opportunity to exercise authority, I would call that authoritarian. I cannot speak for LDS women, but from my point of view, this should not even be an argument. 
At best one might argue they are comfortable with the system, but to try and claim it is not oppressive is silly.

From my perspective it's not silly, it's English.

It's probably partly my personality, but I love to read, and words (and thus definitions) mean a lot to me.  I earn money as a writer and I've had to write a lot throughout the years, and being able to communicate via words is really really important to me.  That's why I pushback at labels that, from my perspective, don't fit.  At such times it seems to me that the word is being used solely because of its negative connotation and not because it accurately describes the situation and that, (again, from my perspective) cheapens and muddies the communication process.

In other words, when it seems like the label is chosen to express outrage and disagreement rather than to explain what is really going on, I find that less than useful means of discussion.  Usually it seems to even make discussion much harder in fact, and much less effective.

So having said all of that (so you'll know where I'm coming from), authoritarian means "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority". 

Do you feel that latter-day saint women are "forced to be strictly obedient to authority" because they are not ordained?  I have not seen that, and that is why the label of "authoritarian" very much is an argument for me.

There could be other negative labels that you can give to the situation of women not being ordained, but I don't see how "authoritarian" or "oppressed" makes the list given the actual definitions of those words.

Edited October 18, 2023 by bluebell

[Pyreaux]

My point was if oppression means unequal representation, I'm not sure this can get naturally fixed even if it were permissible, at least outside a quota system that pushes qualified women or even unqualified women into leadership roles. If a serious suggestion is requested, I say shanghai the leadership's wives into an (at least for the time being an honorary) leadership role, make leaders a "couples' calling". You already have to be married to be in higher leadership. The wives should have the qualifications. Marriage is the crowning ordinance, the Highest Order of the Priesthood. We could get a Prophetess right way.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I should clarify.  I personally do not want a leadership position in the church. I don’t even want an official calling. But I do think the church and the people would benefit if it were normal for women to have as much of a voice and influence in power as men have. Why shouldn’t they?

Yup, only three women spoke in conference... possibly wrong, but thought so. And there is no excuse, none whatsoever. Not going to accept the excuse that there are more men than women deal.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Tacenda