Do women rule in the home and in relationships? #74665

[Katya]

So I guess I'll close with saying that maybe I've just served under all good, righteous men. Maybe you'll consider all of my experiences as not-normal. And maybe they're not.

I don't doubt that you've served under good men and I don't necessarily think your experiences are abnormal. But do think they're due largely to luck. You're lucky that you've served under good leaders and you're lucky that your life has reasonably followed the Standard Mormon Template™ so that others in the Church are more willing and able to support you and then, by personality or by choice, you've decided that you want a life that aligns well with what the Church supports for women. But if any of those had failed, you could quite easily find yourself in dire circumstances. And I think that women who are unlucky in one or more of these circumstances still deserve to be treated with respect.

And if men are using their authority unrighteously, I don't think the problem is, necessarily, that he's male and thus has the priesthood. I think the problem is that he's unrighteous. (At least in that situation.) The solution then would be to teach the priesthood to, well, be more righteous. But I'm absolutely convinced that women in positions of power would have many of the exact same power struggles. I've seen it in how my sister's RS president treated her as a counselor. Women are not immune to power struggles.

No, of course not. I absolutely agree that these problems originate with individuals, not with groups. However, if power always lies in the hand of one group and never in the hands of another group, then the injustices perpetrated by one group on the other will be perpetuated, while the injustices perpetrated by a member of a group on another member of the same group will balance out.

Imagine that you have a Relief Society President who hates people with green eyes. She might be mean to a counselor with green eyes or a RS member with green eyes or any member of the ward with green eyes. And that would be wrong. But some day she's going to be released, and the new Relief Society President might be someone who has green eyes who wouldn't be prejudiced against people with green eyes, or the old RS President might serve under a bishop with green eyes, and if he saw she was treating someone else badly for having green eyes, he'd tell her to knock it off. So, even though she is acting personally badly towards someone else (and even towards a group of people), that attitude isn't going to spread because the power structure doesn't reinforce it.

But look at the example of a male ward clerk who changes a woman's surname upon marriage without asking her first because he just assumes that's how it should be. Any woman who has that happen to her will never be in a position to control whether or not that happens to anyone else and to thereby change the culture, because she'll never be a ward clerk. And any male ward clerk who does that will never have to answer to a female superior who will tell him to go about things a different way, because the entire leadership structure above him is male. And no one ever changes a male's name without asking him because people just don't treat men that way (probably because other men would put a stop to it). Ditto for software that demotes a woman from "head of household" to "spouse" upon marriage (and only heads of household are allowed to verify certain types of information). Ditto for being certain that your tithing will be entered under your name and not under your spouse's name. Ditto for being certain that your contact info will be entered at all. (This has been a problem in my current ward; women's contact information is mysteriously never being entered by the membership clerk.) And these are all just relatively minor clerical examples. Imagine if there were more important callings that were restricted to men.

I *know* I'm not agreed with by many. In fact, on this forum, I'm probably far, far, far in the minority. Maybe that's why I spoke out? Just to show that not all women feel oppressed in the current system.

Do you care about the women who do? (I mean that as a genuine question, not as snark.) I see a lot of women coming into such discussions to proclaim that not all women are unhappy or have a problem with the status quo, but I don't usually see these women deigning to acknowledge the pain and problems of the other women in the conversation. Are you willing to do that?

[Portia]

I just wanted to add a quote that makes sense in some part of the discussion...

"In the home it is a partnership with husband and wife equally yoked together, sharing in decisions, always working together. While the husband, the father, has the responsibility to provide worthy and inspired leadership, his wife is neither behind him nor head of him but at his side." - Boyd K. Packer.

Here's a fun exercise for the linguistics student: Define "preside" in the sense of "The father presides over his family" or "The husband presides over his wife."

preside (v.)
1610s, from French présider "preside over, govern" (15c.), from Latin praesidere "stand guard; superintend," literally "sit in front of," from prae "before" (see pre-) + sedere "to sit" (see sedentary).

<satisfied smirk>

[Dragon Lady]

I still don't believe I have the mental capacity to deal with this conversation. In fact, every time I open it I call myself stupid. Haha. Pregnancy brain? I don't know. I find myself wanting to comment on every thing that I have a reaction to/opinion on. But that would take way too much work right now. I apologize for the timing of my part in this debate. But since when has non-clarity stopped me from talking? Never. Nor shall it now. But I shall be brief.

Do you care about the women who do? (I mean that as a genuine question, not as snark.) I see a lot of women coming into such discussions to proclaim that not all women are unhappy or have a problem with the status quo, but I don't usually see these women deigning to acknowledge the pain and problems of the other women in the conversation. Are you willing to do that?"

Yes. I do care. If there is anything I take to such an extreme some would consider it a fault, it's empathy and sympathy. I hear stories of women serving or just living under unrighteous men and I just want to gather them all under my wing and bring them all to my ward where they can see an incredibly righteous bishop who has my utmost respect. I want to give them my experiences. I want to show them how it could be. (And in my opinion, how it is supposed to be.) I want to take away their hurt. I want to go to those unrighteous leaders and make them see the hurt they're doing. Because I'm willing to bet that they think they are good people doing good things. In my heart of hearts, I think most people truly believe that. And they don't realize when they're being jerkface slimeballs. (But let's be honest. I'm way too much of a non-confrontationalist that I would never actually tell someone that they're being a jerkface slimeball. Instead I'd ask Yellow to have tact for me. He's way better at tact than I.)

You see a lot of women coming in and saying they're happy as things stand. I see a lot of women coming out and saying they're not. I fear that soon everyone will think that all LDS women are discontent. Because that's the majority of what I hear. But I know it's not true. So I want to make my voice heard. I want to make sure that the other side is heard. Maybe both of us just hear more people speaking out about the opposite opinion. That seems natural. People who disagree seem louder than people who agree.

But I also know that I tend to be the kind of person who sits quietly and watches the debate. I don't want to join the debate because I know I'm not as smart or logical as many of you. And when I do join, I tend to get involved emotionally and then say stuff that I later regret. Or hurt feelings. And we all know how I feel about hurting feelings. Just don't do it. Sometimes though, especially on the Board Board (and previously on the Board, when I wrote there and the writers went through a very liberal phase (not that I'm saying liberal is wrong; just that I differ in many opinions)), I tend to disagree. A lot. And I start to worry that if I don't speak up and show another side, then other people just sitting back and quietly watching will start to believe that there is no other side. So I speak up. Such as now.

Also, when I debate, I tend to argue the side that no one else is arguing, simply to get a better discussion going. Whether or not I agree with it. In this case, I do agree with what I'm saying. But that doesn't mean I'm as extreme as I may sound. I do see the other side. I do see why many women would feel inferior and not equal with men in the church's eyes. I can see potential and actual problems. I can see that there need to be changes. But I do not see those problems inherent in the way the church is set up. I see them in the fact that men (in the all-inclusive, not gender-specific sense) are imperfect. I feel like more focus should be paid to training those in authority. Especially in those parts of the world where men are socially seen as better than women. The priesthood leadership should be even *more* focused on showing gender equality. Which means there should be more focus on training them to do so.

If someday women get the priesthood, I won't revolt. (Though, I might grumble, because as I said, I don't want it.) I won't be upset. Because I believe in modern-day revelation and the living nature of the Church to change. But until then, I am going to be content with how things are and work to change what can be changed instead of grumbling to change what I can't change.

(Now to work on getting that same attitude towards the church and BSA. In my strong dislike of that relationship I find I can empathize more with women's attitude about the priesthood. And I find myself more likely to accept what is and work with it. As much as I *intensely* don't want to. And then pray a lot for a change in the future. Before I have cub scouts of my own.)

And for fun, a conversation had while I started to type this:

Yellow: I have thoughts.
Me: Maybe you should get on and write them.
Yellow: Maybe I will. But first I will do dishes. Because that is the manly and priesthoodly thing to do. [pause as he walks back to the kitchen.] Yes, I am in the kitchen.

[Dragon Lady]

...

Sorry, I didn't get the time to respond. Church, etc. got in the way.

No, that wasn't directed at you. I had a weird bug that made my post not show up but also not be able to be deleted, so I just replaced it with dots.

Hah! I was wondering what that was about.

[Portia]

Dragon Lady, I think that siding against the status quo has inherent risks that siding with it does not. There hasn't been a purge of lady non-feminists who are content with the way things are. From polygamy to ERA to modern feminism, there most certainly have been excommunications due to women (and some men) speaking their mind on these issues.

It's not an abstract problem only. The Church knows that only about 5 million of the reported 15 are active. This last General Conference, it felt like a real punch in the gut. I'm not married, I don't have children, I don't know that I ever will on either point. It has caused me too much cognitive dissonance and confusion heaped upon an already incredibly difficult year to feel like the day-to-day Mormons I know are kind, reasonable people, if a tad conservative, but that the party line is incredibly reactionary and makes me feel like crap and reduces me to a pile of tears. So I haven't been back to Church since then. (I went to FHE once.)

I think that the Church will become more and more homogenous and only the True Believers will stick with it. A lot of the "liberal" Board writers are no longer active, and we all know that BYU is God's Chosen University. (We don't need any dirty Rexburgers, please.)

Marduk said God isn't sexist. The Mormon God, in my experience, kind of is. It's not a fight I'm willing to make. With my boyfriend, more than half my family, and several close friends long gone or on the way out, the thread tying me to the community wears ever thinner.

I would be content to let the sexists have their group and me have mine, except I'm moving back to the state and escaping the influence of Church culture in hiring and firing decisions, and more subtle expectations, from everything from how dolled up one should be (answer: very) to the overwhelming baby culture ... well, I'd like the Church to be less sexist.

My ideal job encourage "women and minorities" to apply. Kind of a sad state of affairs when the majority sex by numbers has to have some kind of affirmative action-like encouragement to go do paid work.

[thatonemom]

I have so many thoughts, but I will try to avoid being jumbled and nonsensical. I feel like I agree in parts with everyone, but kind of disagree with everyone, too.

Here's where I wish things were presented differently in "the church" I wish women were presented in a way that made them more like people (meaning, men.) I'd like to see marriage and motherhood presented as an important, holy, essential part of a full, robust mortal experience. But as a part, not the whole thing. Not the only acceptable goal, or career, or service. And we should do it all with a Sis Dalton smile and nary a complaint. In "the church" (and I can't decide if this is just the culture, things coming from the pulpit, or both), women are really only allowed to be mothers/caregivers/nurturers. President Monson talked about all the support and comfort his wife gave him. E. Anderson talked about this faithful mom who raised all those Brazilian sons with similar sounding names who went on to leadership positions in their wards (but what happened to her daughters?!?), E. Christofferson lauded women's "moral influence."

And that's great. I like being a mom, in general. I'm happy I'm married and I'm grateful it's worked out that we can have kids. They're small and adorable and I've learned a lot. But holy hannah, some days it's a lonely, frustrating abyss of bodily fluids and "I wants!" and "me, me, me's" that never ends because my husband has to work late and then his church callings and blah, blah, blah. Staying home with small kids can be so draining. And marriage and family don't come remotely close to meeting all of my needs, or wants, or desires, or developing my talents.

Because, of course not! No one thing can do that for anyone. It wouldn't be a balanced life. But it's the life presented as the ideal for women. I've thought a lot about what vorpal said, about when women feel unhappy it's the man's responsibility to fix it. And I've tried to understand where he's coming from on that, despite my disagreement. I think it does make sense in a way, though. If all Mormon women are allowed is marriage and family, and they're unhappy, it's sure easy to blame the marriage or the family.

But that's not the problem. The problem is the wife needs a life! She needs balance. And maybe I'm projecting here, but I feel like this applies for a lot of women I know. I can only imagine it's worse for empty nesters. If you're a stay-at-home Mormon mom, and you have no children in the home to take care of, who are you anymore? Your life's work is gone. Time to blame your husband for not doing more to "make" you happy.

Can you imagine if missionary work were presented to young men the way motherhood is to young women? All the youth years, just a preparation for a mission. Then waiting around for the call, knowing anything else you do at that point won't really matter. Because you'll have to give it up for the mission. Then the mission, which lasts your entire adult life. You wanted to study? Or have paid employment? Or do anything outside of being a missionary at any point? Maybe being a missionary doesn't play to your strengths or interests? Well, that's not the ideal. Are you sure you're not being prideful? Oh, you can't go on a mission? Well, you can support the other missionaries in their work. Write them letters, or scrapebook for them, or something.

I know there's lots of pressure to go on missions, but there's never the expectation that men will never do (or want to do) any other thing for the rest of their lives.

Anyway, I feel like this turned into a rant. That's not what I meant to have happen. I just wish women were allowed and encouraged to develop themselves in every way, and not just in parenting and whatever "homemaking" means. It doesn't have to be "all motherhood, all the time" or "prideful, worldly worldliness." And I have absolutely zero interest in having the Priesthood, if anyone was curious. But whether women get the Priesthood or not, I don't think much will change unless the way women are viewed changes.

[vorpal blade]

I’d like to thank everyone who has participated so far in the discussion. I’ve learned a lot from all of the comments. I know it is a frustrating and difficult topic, and it hits close to home. I also feel frustrated and inadequate to express my point of view, and sometimes I’m wrong. I’m not likely to forget my inadequacies as I have so many friends on the boardboard who are happy to point them out to me! I think for the most part people have been respectful of other opinions, and I hope that anyone who still wishes to contribute will do so in the future.

Like everyone else I have limited time. I cannot respond to all that I would like to respond to, and I don’t always make good choices of what is most important to respond to. So I’ll say a few words about something that for the moment bothers me.

When I hear statements that seem to denigrate the importance of the leadership roles women have in the Church it bothers me for a couple of reasons. One, women do make incredible important contributions. Two, the things said about the women’s leadership role can also be said about the men’s leadership role. With very few exceptions men in leadership positions have no more authority to hire and fire then the women do. Men in leadership positions have no more say in their budgets than the women do. And so forth and so on. But what I read in these kinds of statements that women make is a kind of assumption that there are two separate classes in the Church, men and women. The assumption is that there is strife, conflict, opposition, and antagonism of one sex for the other. So when a woman’s budget is cut it is because some man did not understand women. When a man’s budget is cut it is because there were good financial reasons for doing so.

Let’s take the example Marduk gave of the city government where by law the four people in charge must be female. A really interesting aside would be to discuss how this law came to be put into effect in a democracy, and how a theocracy such as the Church is different from a democracy. But the question I wanted to discuss right now is the statement

but do you imagine that this sort of system is not inherently discriminatory?

I think this statement may highlight a fundamental difference in world views that we have. I don’t look at the world as divided up between different classes that are at conflict with one another. I don’t see history as the suppression by the evil capitalists of the working class. Nor do I see the world divided in conflict between men and women. Although when some women join ranks and give each other high fives for putting down the men I think that some do see the world as patriarchy versus the women.

In Marduk’s analogy, I have no desire to be the decision maker. It doesn’t matter to me whether the major and city council are men or women. What matters to me, and I think this is the crux of the issue, is that whoever is in charge shows equal respect and consideration for both men and women in the city government.

However, if power always lies in the hand of one group and never in the hands of another group, then the injustices perpetrated by one group on the other will be perpetuated, while the injustices perpetrated by a member of a group on another member of the same group will balance out.

Here again we have created a division in the Church of two separate groups, or classes. The stereotype here is that if men are in charge there are going to be injustices perpetrated against the women, just because they are men in charge. There is no allowance here for the idea that a man may be just as capable of administering justice to women as a woman is, that different men will have different opinions, or that a man can learn. And the idea that the injustice will be perpetuated indicates a belief that God has no way of intervening and stopping the injustice. The stereotype Marduk is proposing is that if women are in charge then they will naturally do things in the city government that is not in the best interests of the men. The assumption is that if men were jointly in charge they would look out for the interests of their own “class” better than the women. I don’t agree with these assumptions.

Obviously there are some men who don’t trust women and slight the feelings and needs of women, and there are some women who don’t trust women and slight the feelings and needs of men. I’m sure this is also true in the Church to some extent because none of us are perfect. It may be deliberate, but it most likely is due to a lack of knowledge. However, in my experience men in church leadership positions bend over backward to understand and support the needs of women. One thing you have to remember is that with few exceptions men in Church leadership positions are required to be married. And these women are rarely reticent about speaking their mind in the privacy of their own homes. A priesthood leader who slights the needs of women is sure to hear about it from his wife (who hears about it from other women, typically). And because he loves his wife and tries to please her he will quickly mend his ways, in most cases.

So, the bottom line is the question, are there checks and balances in Church government that ensure that the women are treated just as fairly and justly as the men? I believe there are. My experience, and the experience of many of the women I know, is that there are such structural safeguards without the need of ordaining women to the priesthood. And I am concerned about the feelings and needs of all the women and men in the Church, not just those who agree with me.

[Portia]

Can you imagine if missionary work were presented to young men the way motherhood is to young women? All the youth years, just a preparation for a mission. Then waiting around for the call, knowing anything else you do at that point won't really matter. Because you'll have to give it up for the mission. Then the mission, which lasts your entire adult life. You wanted to study? Or have paid employment? Or do anything outside of being a missionary at any point? Maybe being a missionary doesn't play to your strengths or interests? Well, that's not the ideal. Are you sure you're not being prideful? Oh, you can't go on a mission? Well, you can support the other missionaries in their work. Write them letters, or scrapbook for them, or something.

I know there's lots of pressure to go on missions, but there's never the expectation that men will never do (or want to do) any other thing for the rest of their lives.

Um, that's actually exactly how missionary work is presented to these freshly minted high school grads (although there's an idea that every member is a missionary, that doesn't really happen). Except for the lifelong part: then you get to "work your 40 hours," in Anne C.'s phrase, to support the wife and kids you may or may not want! Being a Mormon man sounds like no picnic either. If I were a dude, I'd never sign up for that bargain.

I just wish women were allowed and encouraged to develop themselves in every way, and not just in parenting and whatever "homemaking" means. ... I don't think much will change unless the way women are viewed changes.

They are! Once again, this comes from some pretty weird, ingrained assumptions. Once you get out of this mindset, it's hard to imagine thinking otherwise. Clearly, I never was steeped in it to begin with, so I guess my family had more of an influence on me than the Church.

[thatonemom]

They are! Once again, this comes from some pretty weird, ingrained assumptions. Once you get out of this mindset, it's hard to imagine thinking otherwise. Clearly, I never was steeped in it to begin with, so I guess my family had more of an influence on me than the Church.

I'm confused by what you mean here. Women are encouraged to pursue things outside of motherhood at church specifically? Or in general? Because I agree in general, but I don't feel that support coming from the pulpit necessarily.

This comment is part of what started my thoughts to begin with:

This last General Conference, it felt like a real punch in the gut. I'm not married, I don't have children, I don't know that I ever will on either point. It has caused me too much cognitive dissonance and confusion heaped upon an already incredibly difficult year to feel like the day-to-day Mormons I know are kind, reasonable people, if a tad conservative, but that the party line is incredibly reactionary and makes me feel like crap and reduces me to a pile of tears. So I haven't been back to Church since then. (I went to FHE once.)

I mostly thought it would be great if women of every background and circumstance and life-choice felt welcome and included and encouraged at Church, and not just the few who stay home with kids. (Because staying home with kids is not the picnic it's presented to be, either!) And also that women need more encouragement to develop themselves in all the areas of their lives (mentally, emotionally, socially, etc).

Maybe we feel differently about it because we are in different circumstances in our lives. It's a topic that comes up pretty frequently among the playgroup set, so maybe it's better suited to stay there.

[Katya]

I mostly thought it would be great if women of every background and circumstance and life-choice felt welcome and included and encouraged at Church, and not just the few who stay home with kids. (Because staying home with kids is not the picnic it's presented to be, either!) And also that women need more encouragement to develop themselves in all the areas of their lives (mentally, emotionally, socially, etc).

Maybe we feel differently about it because we are in different circumstances in our lives. It's a topic that comes up pretty frequently among the playgroup set, so maybe it's better suited to stay there.

No, I think it's good to bring it up in different venues and forums. The less we pigeon-hole ourselves and each other into narrow slots, the more we'll be able to value ourselves as individuals and make friendships across traditional dividing lines.

[Portia]

They are! Once again, this comes from some pretty weird, ingrained assumptions. Once you get out of this mindset, it's hard to imagine thinking otherwise. Clearly, I never was steeped in it to begin with, so I guess my family had more of an influence on me than the Church.

I'm confused by what you mean here. Women are encouraged to pursue things outside of motherhood at church specifically? Or in general? Because I agree in general, but I don't feel that support coming from the pulpit necessarily.

This comment is part of what started my thoughts to begin with:

This last General Conference, it felt like a real punch in the gut. I'm not married, I don't have children, I don't know that I ever will on either point. It has caused me too much cognitive dissonance and confusion heaped upon an already incredibly difficult year to feel like the day-to-day Mormons I know are kind, reasonable people, if a tad conservative, but that the party line is incredibly reactionary and makes me feel like crap and reduces me to a pile of tears. So I haven't been back to Church since then. (I went to FHE once.)

I mostly thought it would be great if women of every background and circumstance and life-choice felt welcome and included and encouraged at Church, and not just the few who stay home with kids. (Because staying home with kids is not the picnic it's presented to be, either!) :) And also that women need more encouragement to develop themselves in all the areas of their lives (mentally, emotionally, socially, etc).

Maybe we feel differently about it because we are in different circumstances in our lives. It's a topic that comes up pretty frequently among the playgroup set, so maybe it's better suited to stay there. :)

I think it's a genuinely helpful and kind sentiment, but ironically enough, without the institutional power, will never really make a change among those who set the agenda. (Men.)

The Relief Society meeting was very different. There's lots of research about how women don't speak up if there are men in the room. Well, put one in charge, and it's revealing to see the tone change.

Why offer the veneer of acceptability of one's life choices are in conflict with the foundation of your group? I don't expect the playgroup set to approve of my lattes or relatively loose sexual standards, either. (Although my best friend just interviewed at Goldman, so yeah, I'm officially Old and Boring.)

I don't think SAHMs are some sort of mindless victims of propaganda. On the contrary, I think that the LDS are unique in validating what is the choice (parenthood) of most people, anyway, but is viewed negatively most everywhere.

I don't think the Mormon Church really is for everyone, so maybe better to know where I stand than have that be in question.

I think I meant that I don't need the validation of an outside authority to justify my life choices. It would be interesting to poll and see how many practicing LDS women would be parents if they felt if was a choice and not a commandment.

[Katya]

Portia, you seem to be talking about women in the Church (in general) and women outside of the Church (in general) and yourself, specifically, more or less interchangeably. It's very confusing.

[NerdGirl]

I mostly thought it would be great if women of every background and circumstance and life-choice felt welcome and included and encouraged at Church, and not just the few who stay home with kids. (Because staying home with kids is not the picnic it's presented to be, either!) And also that women need more encouragement to develop themselves in all the areas of their lives (mentally, emotionally, socially, etc).

This is exactly what I want to have happen in the church. But instead we hear things like this from Elder Oaks at the last conference, "the pursuit of a career instead of marriage and the bearing of children is an increasing choice of many young women." No. In many cases, it is not a choice. And that particular talk couldn't have come at a worse possible time for me, because I have recently had to start taking methotrexate to prevent an autoimmune disease from causing me to go blind. I will probably have to be on for the rest of my life to avoid serious health problems. Methotrexate is toxic to a developing fetus. It is actually used to terminate pregnancies. You have to be off of it for several months before it's safe to even try getting pregnant, so add up those months, and then the months of trying, and then the months of pregnancy, and that's a long amount of time to be off something that is keeping me healthy. I will very likely never have children. That's not a choice. I'm also 31 and not married, and that wasn't a choice either. LDS men are simply not interested in dating me, and I actually still am holding onto the idea of getting married in the temple (that may change in the future depending on how much I decide I just want to be with someone - the only long-term relationships I've ever been in have been with non-LDS guys, but all two of those have ended when they broke up with me because they couldn't talk me into having sex with them). But I have never been on more than three dates with the same LDS guy, and I am usually the one to do the asking. They don't ask me. I don't fit the ideal of what an LDS woman should be, and I have been told this. And they can be as picky as they want to be, because single LDS women outnumber the single LDS men by like a 5:1 ration in some places. And yeah, I'm pursuing a career. I'm pursuing a career because I need to support myself. That's the primary reason why people work. It's not because they don't want to have a family. I feel like some of the leaders of the church understand this, but it is clear that some of them still don't.

[vorpal blade]

I mostly thought it would be great if women of every background and circumstance and life-choice felt welcome and included and encouraged at Church, and not just the few who stay home with kids. (Because staying home with kids is not the picnic it's presented to be, either!) And also that women need more encouragement to develop themselves in all the areas of their lives (mentally, emotionally, socially, etc).

This is exactly what I want to have happen in the church. But instead we hear things like this from Elder Oaks at the last conference, "the pursuit of a career instead of marriage and the bearing of children is an increasing choice of many young women." No. In many cases, it is not a choice.

I believe you understand Elder Oaks to say that every woman who pursues a career has chosen a career over marriage and the bearing of children. I didn't understand him in the same way. I understood him to mean that there are many more opportunities today for women to choose careers than there used to be, and many young women have decided a career is more important, but not that every young woman who chooses a career did so deliberately choosing not to get married. Elder Oaks would be the first to understand that not all women who would like to be married can find a suitable mate. I don't think he is criticizing women for choosing a career, and certainly not criticizing them if marriage is not an option. I'm sure he would encourage women to get a good education and learn skills where they could earn a living if they chose to do so. And while raising a family is really hard work, it is not to be disparged as it so often is today.

[Dragon Lady]

There seems to be a thought in this discussion that women who aren't stay-at-home moms, or stay-at-home moms that do other things to pursue their careers/interests aren't welcome at church.

That hasn't been my experience at all. I have met many women at church who do lots of outside-the-home things. Everything from Mary Kay and doTerra to owning a dance studio or working as a nurse every Monday. Some go out and volunteer, some are actively involved in their kids' schools (maybe that's part of the stay-at-home mom thing, though?). I know several hairdressers. My next-door neighbor is an author. Another who sells hair bows and runs a very successful boutique. I don't know a single person who has criticized any of them for their choices to work or pursue other interests. I do know many people (men and women) who have applauded them and encouraged them.

I wonder how many women who do that feel judged, not because they are, but because they feel they should be in our culture.

[NerdGirl]

Vorpal: He may not have intended it that way, and I hope that he didn't. But people still take it that way. Someone actually messaged me that talk on Facebook and suggest that I read it and "think prayerfully about whether or not I am making the choices that will lead me to an eternal family" or something along those lines. And that is certainly not even close to the first time someone has assumed that I am single and childless entirely by choice and tried to call me to repentance for it. And you're right that he especially would understand that marriage is not an option for all LDS women, so I just wonder what he was hoping would happen as a result of saying that.

Dragon Lady: I'm glad that hasn't been your experience. But it has been the experience of many women, especially single women and mothers who work outside the home. I don't feel judged/unwelcome because I feel like I should feel that way. For me it's really the feeling of being unwelcome that bothers me more than feeling judged. I feel that way because the following things have happened to me over the years:
-I have had several sets of home teachers who told me that they would not be coming to my home because their wives did not want them entering the home of a single woman.
-I have gone to sit down in Sacrament meetings and been asked to move because a family did not want me to sit in their pew. In my ward in Utah, I sometimes ended up in the foyer (with a couple of other single women going through the same thing) because of that.
-I have had people (both who know me well and people that I barely know) tell me that I am doing something wrong by getting an education past undergrad and that it will lead to me never being married.
-I have had people tell me that I have wasted my fertile years pursuing a career rather than family and that I need to repent of that.

Those are just a few examples, and I'm not the only woman I know who has experienced similar things. It doesn't stop me from going to church, because it's my church too (I say that a lot - it's my church too). But it has ended up meaning that I don't find much in the way of social support at church, and I don't really have access to things like Priesthood blessings unless my dad happens to come visit, which, as someone with a chronic illness, is something I really wish could be a bigger part of my life.

I don't know what the answer to all of this is. But there are some parts of church culture that I just wish were different. And I'm having a really hard time with all of the motherhood being the most noble calling stuff right now because I feel like I'm having to let go of the hope I had of getting to be a mother one day. I don't think people intend to be hurtful when they talk about it, but I wish we could talk about motherhood in a way that is sensitive and validating to women who won't be mothers.

[bobtheenchantedone]

Pretty sure the phrasing of "pursuit of a career instead of..." was meant disparagingly.

DL, you just listed a whole bunch of women who earn money through crafts, working from home, or working in female-heavy fields (nursing, hairdressing). Do you know any women who, say, are the head of a department at Adobe? Who teach at a university while the husband stays home with the kids? Who are accountants or lawyers or any other job that requires many hours out of the home and aren't in a traditionally female field? Because there is a huge difference between the first group and the second group, and while I can easily see the first group being welcomed without judgement in the Church I have heard from many women in the second group who feel looked down on.

My dear NerdGirl, you are a stronger lady than I am. Confronted with your situations I would either cry or swear. Or probably both, actually.

[NerdGirl]

Confronted with your situations I would either cry or swear. Or probably both, actually.

Don't worry, I have done both! One thing I actually really miss about Utah is that I had lots of male LDS friends from physics who I could ask to give me a blessing even if couldn't ask my home teachers.

[Dragon Lady]

Bub, bob. I don't know many women who ever studied accounting or law. Even when I was single. I don't know anyone in my wards who studied anything of the sort in school. So in my social circle, the women I know *are* fulfilling their desires and passions.

Ok, I thought of one that *maybe* fits your qualifications. I have a friend that stays home with twin 1-year old babies who still finds time to research and write papers about the Bible. She recently presented at a conference. And she intends on going back to school and pursuing it more fully when her children are grown.

[Dragon Lady]

And to flip the table a little (though I know my woes are not nearly as hard as the side we've been talking about), I often have people ask me, "What did you study in college?" "Ancient Near Eastern Studies." "Oh ... uh... and what did/do you hope to do with that?" "Be a mom." ".... [awkward silence]"

Yes, I'm one of those women who got a degree knowing full well I wouldn't pursue a career in it. I did it because I loved it. I didn't even get married in college. (But I did about a year later!) Turns out, I had a promising career in something down a completely different path. Which I chose to turn down when I had kids.

But even deep in the Mormon bubble I often feel judged *because* I didn't have a major that would lead to career.

Again, my situation is way different and I'm not trying to compare myself to your situation, NerdGirl. At all. I just find it interesting that both sides of the coin are judged. Just can't win, I guess?