Are Latter-day Saint Women Oppressed?

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

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 understand that.  What I am asking is if we see similar things with the women because if we do then that may mean it is something about the church and not the priesthood. If that's the case it may mean that the premise isn't true.

Edit: In your OP you said "designed to make them more responsive to the needs of women and children, and to practice putting others’ needs first."

This is what I was talking about. Are women of the church also more responsive? Do they put other's needs first more than those out of the church? If not has priesthood done any more of that for the men or was it only church doing it?

Edited October 18, 2023 by Rain

[CA Steve]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Distinctions without a difference IMO. I've been down the definition road before in our discussions and did not find your efforts to categorize a word that precisely added to the discussion.

The LDS system, like many male dominated systems, is oppressive in many aspects to women. My wife was also unable to see any negative aspects of it, even though every time she got called to a position the bishop asked my permission first if he could issue the calling. Even though time after time as she sat in coordination meetings with male leadership, her input for her own calling was disregarded or ignored. The list of examples goes on and on. I am not going to debate definitions here. Call it what you want. Women ae not on a level playing field in the church and it is not going to change until they have the same opportunities as men do throughout the church.

[juliann]

5 hours ago, Nofear said:

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.

I think this is true. But it is also true that the church subordinates women. Both co-exist. So it is one thing to say that the church shapes better men while still saying nothing about how it limits women. We do ourselves no favors by trying to redefine sexism in the church. It isn't about how anyone "feels." It is about what women can do vs what men can do based on nothing but their sex, the divide isn't deniable. 

(Claudia Bushman once told me that the church's entire purpose was to create better men. It has succeeded, now it needs to expand.)

[MrShorty]

2 hours 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. 

It doesn't really jive for me either. If "doesn't want to be a bishop" is a valid reason for not ordaining someone to priesthood, why am I ordained? I don't have a satisfactory understanding of my own ordination. Obviously, the church believes that my ordination (starting just after my 12th birthday) is more meaningful than just, "now he's eligible to be called as a bishop if and when the time comes," but I have a hard time understanding what my ordination really means. The author of the op-ed seems to believe that my ordination does something to make me a better husband and father in terms of helping around the house and being kinder towards others, but I struggle to understand how my ordination accomplishes that (and, perhaps, the misandry that says that men seem unable to learn those things outside of LDS priesthood ordination and/or the pedestalization of women that seems to assume that women don't need any special instruction in this regard and just naturally know how to be good caretakers).

It's a really interesting topic. Maybe it seems to me that the op-ed feels incomplete somehow, in that it makes some assumptions, then has some data, but doesn't seem to dig deep enough into the issues to really answer the questions that it raises.

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The LDS system, like many male dominated systems, is oppressive in many aspects to women. My wife was also unable to see any negative aspects of it, even though every time she got called to a position the bishop asked my permission first if he could issue the calling. Even though time after time as she sat in coordination meetings with male leadership, her input for her own calling was disregarded or ignored. The list of examples goes on and on. I am not going to debate definitions here. Call it what you want. Women ae not on a level playing field in the church and it is not going to change until they have the same opportunities as men do throughout the church.

I can see where you are coming from.

I've never had any of those things happen to me as a latter-day saint woman though and that definitely has an impact on my perspective.  Part of it is probably my age as I'm 46 and I know it used to be a lot different than it is now. I've heard some horror stories of the way some women were treated in the past and they make my blood boil just thinking about them.

But, speaking for myself that has not be my personal experience.  I've served in multiple leadership positions in multiple wards in multiple states and my husband has never been asked for permission to issue me the calling.  He's been asked if he supported me in those callings (some of the time, not with every single one) but I've been asked the same when he's been given a leadership calling so that seemed normal and not related to gender.  And I've never been in a coordination meeting where my input was disregarded or ignored (but I have been in a couple where it was requested that I speak up more).  I've even been in meetings with men where I presided (as a young women's president in a meeting with the young men's president).

What are some current ways that you view latter-day saint women are oppressed because they aren't ordained?  And is there any way to end those examples of oppression other than ordination in your view?

Quote

Distinctions without a difference IMO. I've been down the definition road before in our discussions and did not find your efforts to categorize a word that precisely added to the discussion.

I've learned what to expect from our discussions as well and I'm fine with your not being able to see this issue from my point of view, but as long as you at least understand why I see things as I do then the discussion is worth the effort.     

Edited October 18, 2023 by bluebell

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

It doesn't really jive for me either. If "doesn't want to be a bishop" is a valid reason for not ordaining someone to priesthood, why am I ordained? I don't have a satisfactory understanding of my own ordination. Obviously, the church believes that my ordination (starting just after my 12th birthday) is more meaningful than just, "now he's eligible to be called as a bishop if and when the time comes," but I have a hard time understanding what my ordination really means. The author of the op-ed seems to believe that my ordination does something to make me a better husband and father in terms of helping around the house and being kinder towards others, but I struggle to understand how my ordination accomplishes that (and, perhaps, the misandry that says that men seem unable to learn those things outside of LDS priesthood ordination and/or the pedestalization of women that seems to assume that women don't need any special instruction in this regard and just naturally know how to be good caretakers).

It's a really interesting topic. Maybe it seems to me that the op-ed feels incomplete somehow, in that it makes some assumptions, then has some data, but doesn't seem to dig deep enough into the issues to really answer the questions that it raises.

Agreed.  Not wanting to be a bishop isn't a valid reason not to be ordained anymore than wanting to be a bishop is a valid one for being ordained.

I've never wanted a leadership calling that I was given and I hope I never have another one.  But somehow I don't think God really cares or takes that into consideration all that much in terms of what will be useful for my spiritual growth.  It's probably the same with ordination.

Edited October 18, 2023 by bluebell

[Calm]

7 hours 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 there are policies and traditions that oppress women in the Church, but there are also many, many policies and traditions that give them opportunities to grow and also create a safer environment as the data suggests in the research referred to in the op ed.  Men that are less self centered, more focused on needs of the family, less likely to use alcohol or drugs in excess means less child poverty and single mothers caring for their kids on their own.

The Church is a human organization, even if founded by the divine (I know that is an impossible “if” for some here, but from my POV it is God created and directed, though with a very loose hand on the reins imo), and therefore the Church, like humans, is multifaceted; many layered; a mix of good, bad, great and hopefully only a little really bad.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Calm

[Raingirl]

3 hours 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)

It’s a hard one for me to articulate. When I was an Orthodox Jew, I didn’t feel lesser because I had to sit in the women’s section. 
But isn’t not allowing women to hold leadership positions subjugating and repressing them? It certainly gives them less authority and less of a voice. 
I feel far more invisible as a woman in this church than I ever did as a Jewish woman. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

It’s a hard one for me to articulate. When I was an Orthodox Jew, I didn’t feel lesser because I had to sit in the women’s section. 
But isn’t not allowing women to hold leadership positions subjugating and repressing them? It certainly gives them less authority and less of a voice. 
I feel far more invisible as a woman in this church than I ever did as a Jewish woman. 

 I know some people do feel that it suppresses them and subjugates them, but personally I can't really see how not holding a calling that requires the priesthood automatically does that (which I don't say to discount your perspective but just to explain why it doesn't ring true for me).

Can you explain more about why you feel more invisible now than you did as an Orthodox Jewish woman?  I've heard that expressed by single women sometimes because of the church's focus on sealings, but I have no idea if that applies to you.  Whatever your thoughts on it I'd love to understand that better.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

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.

Why see this as nature?  Why not nurture?

Culturally even in Europe there is a looooong history of the view that the man is the provider, the woman receives what is given by him and creates a home with it.  Some men still have issues not being at least an equal provider, especially since many in that situation can’t say “well, I do more of the house work and care of family” (because women still tend to do at least as much with housework and childcare as the men even when they make more money or work longer hours) so they can see it as even contributions (though men do tend to inflate the amount of time they put into housework iirc).  As long as taking care of a home and family is not see as desirable or at least highly respected and valued work by men as well as women, men who are married to women who make more than they do or who have more powerful jobs are going to feel the relationship is imbalanced….and since men are typically more mobile than women are, they walk themselves or the relationship won’t be valued enough to make it work (the wife contributes to this too of course)

Women also typically have to continue to prove themselves even in powerful jobs.  I am unaware if this happens for men as much or at all.  Do people tend to assume a man deserves a job if he is given one?  This may mean the higher up a woman goes, the less attention she can give a relationship where a man may have less demand placed on him by others (he’s an important man, don’t waste his time).  It would be interesting to see research in this area, the difference, if any, placed on men and women in higher status jobs.

[MustardSeed]

My anecdotal examples of oppression are many,  but if needs be, let’s replace that word with sexist. Like racism, like agism, the behavior is damaging to enough people that it’s worth examining. 

Just a few anecdotal experiences that wind me up 😂

1. Just yesterday I met with two women who do not enjoy their sex lives because they have sex out of duty. It will take me all evening to type out the implications of a patriarchal society, and a patriarchal purity church that contribute to the attitudes that couples adopt without even realizing it.  This is a complicated topic, but I believe it is directly related to the imbalance of power between the sexes societally. When the church was established, society and tradition had a large impact on the culture that was created within the church. Our church today holds on to that culture.

2. Let’s look at modern day polygamy belief. The reality is, I know that if I die, my husband may likely get sealed to a second woman. Where is my choice in that? At that point in the after life I am forced to make a decision. But what a decision! My decision impacts many people. I recognize that our viewpoint at that point may be very different than our limited understanding. Right now, however, this IS my understanding right now, and I live with a reality that men will never have to live with. I think this is oppressive. We are just used to it and we have been given pats on the head and have been told don’t worry about it. 
 

3. Early on in my career and I’ve already talked about this here, I shared with my bishop some concerns about how bishops in our stake were dealing with sexual abusers.  Bishop was a good friend of mine, and I asked him what he thought of me talking to the stake president about teaching the bishops a few things about treating sexual abusers.  He told me and no one certain terms at the stake president would never allow a non-priest hood holder to direct his bishops. 
I found that deeply troubling. It didn’t seem to do “damage” to me. I still get up every morning and do my life routine just the same way. However, when I think about my granddaughter, living in a world where men tell her that she needs to keep her mouth shut, I get really riled up. What if I had been able to share what I know with those bishops? How might I feel more partnered? It doesn’t change how I see myself that I was not allowed to. Or does it? We will never know, because I never did. 
 

Of course, I have no data to indicate that LDS women are oppressed. It is my opinion that we are. We are not oppressed to the level that the Jewish people were oppressed during the war. But I do not think the word oppression belongs only to “capital T trauma”.  IMO 

Edited October 19, 2023 by MustardSeed

[rpn]

In some lds homes, women are not treated as equals because men either misunderstand their place or don't live up to the Lord's expectations.  My own take on it is that it tends to be more cultural than religious, which makes in more common the less diverse and open a community is.   And sometimes women either were never taught their possibilities and/or haven't claimed them, which makes the risk of outsiders seeing such oppression greater.  This is more common when women are uneducated and/or don't understand how to be fully their best self and value.  

But no there is no church sponsored and approved oppression of women generally.

Edited October 19, 2023 by rpn

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

But no there is no church sponsor and approved oppression of women generally.

The problem with this statement is, while I agree with it at a basic level, that there are structures and policies in place which do not offer development of females parallel to males because they lack the ritual role that males have starting at 12…actually earlier as much has been made of young boys anticipating getting the priesthood.  There used to be a Primary lesson where all the boys stood up and were recognized as future priesthood leaders.  In a nonChurch setting there would have been clapping and yells of approval given the context.

When I came across this as a primary teacher, I went through all the primary lessons and found nothing that came close for the girls.  There was talk of their mothers, but not much of a recognition in that same lesson that the girls would someday be mothers, no standing up and singling out because of a bright and glorious destined future such as the boys went through.

A particular ward might be able to figure out something that provides a significant and meaningful role for the young girls that allows them to develop like the boys and young men, but there is not a church wide program available and I have never seen a ward be successful in this and most don’t even try in my experience.  When some additional ward roles are offered, they aren’t usually even wanted because most of the women leaders have grown up with the attitude that it isn’t needed and it is just more work and probably most important, it goes nowhere, it is not connected to anything and the girls pick up this attitude from what I have seen. (One example in a couple of wards I have been in was having YW go with YM to shut ins to help with the sacrament, the YW would read a scripture and give a short thought while the YM prepared and presented the sacrament; it lasted until a change of YW leaders in one ward and less than a year in another because YW leaders felt it was being forced on them, they weren’t interested in it).

Think of it as both boys and girls going to school, but at the age of 12  boys get the chance to participate in computer classes, programming and they are given computers to work with and carry everywhere to develop their skills while the girls are directed to just continue to study English, history, etc.  

The girls and boys have been taught since they were babies that the boys would need these classes and computers to do what they needed to do and to fulfill their potential and it would be rewarding, if hard work, but the girls were assured they wouldn’t need it and it was even wrong for girls to try and use computers, especially by their women leaders and mothers.  

And when the separation occurs at 12 and continues through teen years, the girls may be curious, but they have been trained to think of it as unnecessary to them and their lives are quite busy and demanding, so it’s not something they really think about as missing from their lives at that point…until they are adults and start to see what now happens to the men with the skills of computer programming and who have access to computers while obviously no women they know does and how it opens up opportunities that will never be available to them…especially all the jobs that require these skills….and they wonder what that means for fulfilling their own potential.

 A school might make an effort to make up a difference by offering music or dance classes, very fulfilling in and of themselves, but still does not provide the opportunities for the type of mental and experiential growth that come with the male only classes and ownership of computers.  A woman who has never been taught computer programming or been allowed to sit down in front of a computer is never going to qualify for such a job or even more important feel qualified to act in certain ways, including certain ways of serving others.

Since there are only a limited number of spaces open for the more advanced computer jobs, society doesn’t see any need to open up the classes to women because any job that is needed gets filled quickly by the abundant pool of capable men….but maybe something is missing in terms of creativity, invention and discovery or problem solving though it is an efficient system that fills the needs of the society in general quite well, so there is no real sense of anything missing among the leaders of society (mostly men as to be able to communicate efficiently and otherwise meet the needs of their people, they need to have computer skills and a lot of computer experience).

Are women oppressed in this situation by not having the same opportunities for growth, for pushing themselves, even for service to mankind as men?  Lack of good things is not suffering after all.  And there are a lot of men who don’t even make use of the computer access they have and even if they wanted to, would not be able to use the nicer ones as limited number, so even if they have been taught how to use computers and have a familiarity with computers that women never will, the men don’t see the complete absence of computers in a woman’s as that big of a difference.  After all  if they really need something, they can ask their husband, father, or a male friend to get it for them.

Would it be understandable in this case if women were to feel they were being prevented from exploring how they could excel at computers and serve by being more efficient and capable in their efforts to communicate, etc and that translated to feelings of oppression, feelings that they weren’t even allowed to even know what they were missing?

Is limiting of freedom, being told “nope, not yours to play with”, “not yours to become” while watching the gifts being given freely to many others who are told to be all that they can be just because they were born with certain biological attributes oppression?

Edited October 19, 2023 by Calm

[rpn]

Am I understanding that you see celebration of young men priesthood participation (I don't recall the lesson you describe and I don't recall any suggestion to do what you describe growing up or when I was in two Primary Presidencies over 15 years in two vastly different in place and circumstance congregations, none in high member locations) as oppression against women?   I grew up not absorbing other's applause as something negative in my life.   I hope I'm not alone.

Edited October 19, 2023 by rpn

[Raingirl]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

 I know some people do feel that it suppresses them and subjugates them, but personally I can't really see how not holding a calling that requires the priesthood automatically does that (which I don't say to discount your perspective but just to explain why it doesn't ring true for me).

Can you explain more about why you feel more invisible now than you did as an Orthodox Jewish woman?  I've heard that expressed by single women sometimes because of the church's focus on sealings, but I have no idea if that applies to you.  Whatever your thoughts on it I'd love to understand that better.

I didn’t say anything about callings.  
 I feel invisible in the church as a woman, in particular an unmarried woman, because I AM invisible. IT’s demonstrated in so many ways, large and small. 
I just erased the long reply I had typed out, with several examples.  Because nothing is going to change and it’s too depressing. 
I will say that single women in the church are the most invisible.  That was also better in Judaism. Our existence was noticed and not ignored.  I once was getting a book signed by the male author. He noticed my unmarried status (my hair was not covered) and inquired as to whether I was open to meeting someone. Did I have a desire to marry someday? Now, some people will say this is sexist or oppressive or whatever. But this gentleman had a genuine interest and concern, along with the genuine desire that everyone gets to experience the joys of marriage and family.  In this church, I have been shamed and criticized for being single. In this church, my single status is seen as a reason to shun me and pretend that I don’t exist. In Judaism, it was seen as an opportunity to reach out and embrace my existence, and to do a mitzvah.  There was not a single Shabbos that I wasn’t invited to share the Friday night meal with one household or another.  I was welcomed and embraced.  I didn’t experience incidents such as the time in RS shortly after baptism, when my newly assigned home teacher’s wife stood up and threw a hissy fit because her husband had been assigned a single sister. You see, some of the women want us to be invisible, too. 
But invisibility and oppression are not limited to unmarried women. 
As a Jewish woman, I could fight on the front lines right alongside the men. I wonder how Mormon men would handle that situation. 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

don't recall the lesson you describe

Quote

Lesson 47: The Priesthood Can Bless Our Lives (Priesthood Preparation Lesson)

Primary 4: Book of Mormon, (1997), 167–71

Purpose

This lesson has been written to help eleven-year-old children understand the blessings and responsibilities of the priesthood. It should be taught before the first child in your class turns twelve.…

What is necessary for this object to make light? If you have a flashlight, show that it needs batteries, a lightbulb, and a switch that all work properly for it to make light. A lightbulb needs good filaments and must be screwed into a socket that is connected to a source of power. The switch also needs to be turned on to allow electricity to flow.

Ask the boys in your class to stand. These boys have the potential to receive the priesthood, which is a greater power than electricity because it is the power and authority to act in God’s name. Through this power Heavenly Father’s children can be baptized and receive other Church ordinances. But in order to receive this power and use it as God has intended, a boy must be worthy and properly prepared….

 

Make the room as dark as possible. Then tell the children the story of a group of tourists who went into a deep, dark cave. Once inside the cave the guide turned off the lights, waited for a few minutes, and then asked each person to point in the direction of the exit. When the lights came back on, people were pointing in all different directions.

Make your classroom light again, and share the following quotation from Elder Robert D. Hales: “If the power of the priesthood were not upon the earth, the adversary would have freedom to roam and reign without restraint. There would be no gift of the Holy Ghost to direct and enlighten us; no prophets to speak in the name of the Lord; no temples where we could make sacred, eternal covenants; no authority to bless or baptize, to heal or comfort. … There would be no light, no hope—only darkness” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1995, p. 40; or Ensign,Nov. 1995, p. 32).

My bold.

I don’t believe these are available online anymore (can be found by googling the phrase:  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/primary-4/lesson-47?lang=eng )and I purged all my old lesson manuals, but I found a place I posted it a number of years ago.  It may be somewhere in this forum too.  This lesson was present in all four manuals iirc.

There were also usually several lessons a year relating to Priesthood in Primary (understandable since it is one of the pillars of our faith imo), none on motherhood or anything specific to girls.

I once counted 12 lessons in the YW’s manuals on priesthood, none specifically on women in the YM’s manuals.

Quote

 I grew up not absorbing other's applause as something negative in my life.   I hope I'm not alone.

I have no problem with the boys and young men being celebrated in Primary and Young Men this way.  I think it is greatly needed.  The last thing I want is for that to be taken away, even to make things “equal”.  If I could only have it for the boys, I would eagerly say “yes!”.  A half full glass is better than an empty one.

What I wanted and still want is it for the girls I was teaching and for all the girls in the Church as well.  I want the glass brimming and overflowing for all the youth of the Church.

Which is why I feel the absence of similar celebration for the girls and young women.  They needed that kind of recognition too.

It is not a negative for the girls and young women that the boys and young men got singled out and told their destiny was special, important, powerful.  It is a positive for everyone that happened imo.  It is the absence of that positive for the girls and young women that I mourn.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

 I know some people do feel that it suppresses them and subjugates them, but personally I can't really see how not holding a calling that requires the priesthood automatically does that (which I don't say to discount your perspective but just to explain why it doesn't ring true for me).

Can you explain more about why you feel more invisible now than you did as an Orthodox Jewish woman?  I've heard that expressed by single women sometimes because of the church's focus on sealings, but I have no idea if that applies to you.  Whatever your thoughts on it I'd love to understand that better.

Oppression is not a feeling, it is an action. By excluding women from the leadership roles that are exercised over them, because they are women, the church oppresses women. 

The question is not whether LDS women are oppressed. Other questions need asking. Like for example, why are some--like you and like me when I so believed--measuring oppression by feeling. 

I remember when I first left and a family member invited me to tell my story. I mentioned sexism. His only response was that his young woman daughter does not feel the church is sexist.

If it was any other context this person would not have made such a nonsensical remark. Why did he, a highly logical and intelligent person, do that? Why do we as women do that?

[Leaf474]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

Hi! I'm just reading through the thread, so apologies if you've covered this already 🙂

 

What word would you use in place of Oppressed? What word do you feel is a better fit?

Edited October 19, 2023 by Leaf474

[Nofear]

10 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

1. Just yesterday I met with two women who do not enjoy their sex lives because they have sex out of duty. It will take me all evening to type out the implications of a patriarchal society, and a patriarchal purity church that contribute to the attitudes that couples adopt without even realizing it.  This is a complicated topic, but I believe it is directly related to the imbalance of power between the sexes societally. When the church was established, society and tradition had a large impact on the culture that was created within the church. Our church today holds on to that culture.

Rather unfortunate. Statistically speaking, their experience is atypical. "One analysis found women in highly religious relationships 'were twice as likely as their secular peers to say they were satisfied with their sexual relationship.'"

Indeed, the statistics are very much in favor that the influences of religion on men are an overwhelmingly positive cultural influence, especially when it comes to relationships with women and children. That fact, however, doesn't directly address the question of whether or not male-only priesthood is necessary or desirable for those influences to remain. Something largely ignored by the op-ed taking more of a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of approach.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Nofear

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Rather unfortunate. Statistically speaking, their experience is atypical. "One analysis found women in highly religious relationships 'were twice as likely as their secular peers to say they were satisfied with their sexual relationship.'"

Indeed, the statistics are very much in favor that the influences of religion on men are an overwhelmingly positive cultural influence, especially when it comes to relationships with women and children. That fact, however, doesn't directly address the question of whether or not male-only priesthood is necessary or desirable for those influences to remain. Something largely ignored by the op-ed taking more of a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of approach.

I’m going to be obnoxious and say that I do not actually believe the self-report that results in the statistic indicating that religious women are more sexually satisfied than not religious women. I think it depends on the religion and the level of purity focus. I think that there are way too many factors to be considered.

You will be hard-pressed to convince me that a patriarchal environment in and of itself leads to great sex for women. 

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Raingirl said:

I didn’t say anything about callings.  

Sorry for the confusion.  My part in this discussion started when I replied to a statement that CA made where he said "One only need look at the leadership hierarchy" to see proof that the church oppresses women.  I understood him to be saying that the oppression stems from women's inability to ever be called as a bishop, stake president, apostle, or prophet.

All of my comments were focused on that specific statement, which in my mind centers on callings.  So my comments were based on the question of whether or not women not being able to have certain callings was oppressive to them.  That's as far as my scope went on the thread. 

I assumed your comments were in that scope (since that's where my mind was), but it sounds like you weren't speaking to that specifically.  Sorry I misunderstood you.

Quote

I feel invisible in the church as a woman, in particular an unmarried woman, because I AM invisible. IT’s demonstrated in so many ways, large and small. 
I just erased the long reply I had typed out, with several examples.  Because nothing is going to change and it’s too depressing. 
I will say that single women in the church are the most invisible.  That was also better in Judaism. Our existence was noticed and not ignored.  I once was getting a book signed by the male author. He noticed my unmarried status (my hair was not covered) and inquired as to whether I was open to meeting someone. Did I have a desire to marry someday? Now, some people will say this is sexist or oppressive or whatever. But this gentleman had a genuine interest and concern, along with the genuine desire that everyone gets to experience the joys of marriage and family.  In this church, I have been shamed and criticized for being single. In this church, my single status is seen as a reason to shun me and pretend that I don’t exist. In Judaism, it was seen as an opportunity to reach out and embrace my existence, and to do a mitzvah.  There was not a single Shabbos that I wasn’t invited to share the Friday night meal with one household or another.  I was welcomed and embraced.  I didn’t experience incidents such as the time in RS shortly after baptism, when my newly assigned home teacher’s wife stood up and threw a hissy fit because her husband had been assigned a single sister. You see, some of the women want us to be invisible, too. 
But invisibility and oppression are not limited to unmarried women. 
As a Jewish woman, I could fight on the front lines right alongside the men. I wonder how Mormon men would handle that situation.

Thank you so much for sharing that.  I have a very close friend who has expressed similar things regarding the treatment of single sisters in the church.  She has pulled away from the church because of it.  We need to do better.  I hope things can change.

[Nofear]

54 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m going to be obnoxious...

It is indeed obnoxious when data contradicts our preconceptions. I am far from immune to that effect.
While off topic, if one really wants to get their ire up from the above sentiment, try https://upgrader.gapminder.org/.

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Oppression is not a feeling, it is an action. By excluding women from the leadership roles that are exercised over them, because they are women, the church oppresses women. 

The question is not whether LDS women are oppressed. Other questions need asking. Like for example, why are some--like you and like me when I so believed--measuring oppression by feeling. 

I'm not measuring oppression by feelings but by actions in a greater context. 

For example, I think that we can all agree that Afghan women are oppressed.  They certainly aren't the only women in the world who are but they are an easy target and one that we all know about.  When I think about labeling Latter-day Saint women as oppressed I think about what an Afghan woman would think about that, and I think she would laugh in my face (or worse). 

When compared to a basic example of the oppression of women in the world, I sincerely don't think that LDS women can legitimately claim that label. The differences between the two groups are too stark for it to fit both in my opinion.  I'm not asking anyone else to agree with me.  But that's why--when I measure oppression by action--it doesn't work.

Quote

 

I remember when I first left and a family member invited me to tell my story. I mentioned sexism. His only response was that his young woman daughter does not feel the church is sexist.

If it was any other context this person would not have made such a nonsensical remark. Why did he, a highly logical and intelligent person, do that? Why do we as women do that?

 

Probably because we've all had different life experiences or view different labels in different ways. 

In this case it's probably a difference between beliefs about inequality and inequity, mixed in with the common understanding of sexist as meaning unjust and prejudiced.  If someone sees the church not ordaining women as not being unjust or done through prejudice (even though they might agree that the practice is an obvious example of inequality), then they probably wouldn't see the church as sexist.

In my experience, highly logical and intelligent people come to all sorts of conclusions that I have no idea how they came to.  In those instances I'm reminded that reasonable people can disagree about so many things precisely because it's not logic and intelligence alone that shapes our beliefs. 

It's a whole lot of emotional and mental and baggage stuff too.

[Nofear]

I think Sis. Eubank would echo much of bluebell's post.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2014/womans-church

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Hi! I'm just reading through the thread, so apologies if you've covered this already 🙂

 

What word would you use in place of Oppressed? What word do you feel is a better fit?

Thank you for asking, I've been thinking about this exact question since yesterday.  

I've certainly complained on here plenty about some of the church's practices and teachings surrounding women.  And I've been in many a conversation that included a male poster or two not handling it very well when I and other women posters wouldn't just tow the line and agree with them on something or another gender related. I readily admit (and have over and over on here through the years) that the church had/has work to do on their treatment and understanding of women.

But it never occured to me to suggest that latter-day saint women are "enslaved, abused, maltreated, subjugated, exploited, victimized, crushed, etc." because the church used to teach about the priesthood in a male-centric way or skips those chapters in SS lessons that present God's dealings with women in a less than kind or loving light, or was really messed up in regards to women and modest.

I don't exactly know what word I think would work better.  Maybe marginalized?  I do think that women in the church are often marginalized.  Very much so.

Edited October 19, 2023 by bluebell