#79394 - women leaders

[Portia]

Mission presidents discussion.

On a humorous note, my mission roster always had my mission mom listed as the senior companion and my mission president as the junior companion. Take that as you will.

I.I. seems like a fairly well-rounded, if orthodox, fellow, but I fail to see the humor in this. It's just another not-so-subtle form of misogyny, where a woman's institutional lack of power is enshrined by a sort of elbow-in-the-ribs, wink wink nudge nudge, we know who really wears the pants kind of attitude that is more degrading than just acknowledging the reality that the man is the one with the responsibility and the woman is along for the ride. It reminds me of the attitude that women were just too pure to sully themselves with matters of politics, so, um, sorry about that franchise.

"Mission Mom" is rather patronizing (and what if one of these women had no children of her own? Surely that'd hurt), and while "Mission Matron" is more respectful, could also make a woman in her 50s feel like she had both feet in the grave.

Junia's relationship with Andronicus is somewhat ambiguous. While it is generally supposed that they were husband and wife, they could have been siblings or simply a team of evangelists. What is important is that Junia is referred to in her own right, not as an attachment to someone else. This means that she earned her title and position on her own merit, rather than it being simply a natural derivation from her husband's status.

Junia, an apostle from the New Testament

Until men AND women within the LDS structure see women as individuals in their own right, and not simply an attachment to someone else, nothing will change and women can hardly reach their full leadership potential. I wish that at the very least it would be acknowledged that this "eternal" order got established sometime between 1890 and 1968, and then we could move forward from there.

I know plenty of women, single and otherwise, who would make bang-up Mission Presidents. Wasting their talents is a shame.

[Zedability]

Biblically, we're told that the woman is not without the man, NOR is the man without the woman. To me, it isn't just about seeing women as equally valuable to men in their own right, although that is important. It's about recognizing that co-equality isn't about total independence where neither sex ever needs the other. It's about recognizing that men need women just as much as women need men, that we have something to offer each other, and that degrading one degrades and limits the power of both. This isn't about severing ties, it's about balancing and strengthening them.

[Tally M.]

Biblically, we're told that the woman is not without the man, NOR is the man without the woman. To me, it isn't just about seeing women as equally valuable to men in their own right, although that is important. It's about recognizing that co-equality isn't about total independence where neither sex ever needs the other. It's about recognizing that men need women just as much as women need men, that we have something to offer each other, and that degrading one degrades and limits the power of both. This isn't about severing ties, it's about balancing and strengthening them.

+1

[Genuine Article]

I almost asked a question just like this after attending stake conference a few months ago. The mission president and his wife were speakers, and I was trying to think, um, what's her title? Heck, what's her calling even? When that letter comes, what position does it say she's been called to? I just didn't know, and that bugged me. Still does, now that I know the answer.

Similarly, I've recently been trying to wrap my head around the use of titles in the Church. Men are called brothers, elders, presidents, bishops, high councilors, high priests, whereas women all fall under sister. Every ward I've been in it's "Once a bishop, always a bishop," and people will refer to past bishops as bishop so-and-so, which is really confusing for new people, not only because it makes you wonder who the current bishop is, but because you feel liked you've erred by calling someone just plain brother, when it turns out you should have been addressing him as bishop this whole time.

Here's the thing: I'm an auxiliary president, but nobody ever calls me President Article, whereas I hear EQ presidents referred to as President Such-and-such all the time. Same thing in Conference. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but the women GAs tend to be introduced as Sister Blah-blah, president of the Whatever, not as President Blah-blah of the Whatever. I don't need the ego trip of always being called president, but I want to explore why that imbalance is there. One course of action would be for me to not call anyone by their titles. Like, just calling the stake president brother what's-his-name instead of president what's-his-name. That feels kind of disrespectful, but why is that? I can't figure it out. The other option is to start referring to all my fellow auxiliary presidents, especially the YW president and the RS president, by their title of president. That feels too formal, too over the top, but why?

I have stewardships too, by gum, so call me President Article.

Also, I was looking at the profiles of the Apostles on lds.org after conference, and they list their birthdays, so it was kind of neat to see how old some of them are. Three are over 90, I had no idea. But when I branched out to read the profiles of the memebers of the general auxiliaries, I found that none of the women have their birth year listed. A few of the men don't either, but absolutely none of the women do. And none of them are wearing glasses in their pictures. Why is that? An accidental omission or is it vanity, do you think? I can only speculate.

[Portia]

I +1 all of G.A.'s points. I think I had earned the right to be called President Belmont while I was R.S. President, although I certainly wouldn't insist on it now, a decade later. I fail to see the two-way interdependence Zed describes ... in that case, being called as CO-PRESIDENTS would make SO much sense, especially considering the nature of the position.

[Marduk]

I think the only people who deserve titles are Jesus and Heavenly Father.

Though I can see the appeal of being called President Slayer of Tiamat.

[Zedability]

I think the two-way interdependence is something that's much easier to understand through experience than through describing it. For instance, my parents have a wonderful, co-equal relationship where they treat each other as equals, support each other, and make each other more together than they ever would be on our own. My dad elevates my mom and my mom elevates my dad. It's a synergistic, higher form of equality than my mom simply trying to prove herself to be equal to and sufficient without my dad.

[Yarjka]

"Mission mom" seems similar to "first lady" (which also sounds archaic to me ... what will we call Bill, first gentleman?). Yes, she's influential and very important, but there are some who do more than others and there is absolutely no obligation to do much of anything. While traditionally the "mission moms" take care of the missionaries and go well above and beyond the call of duty, the call of duty is not equivalent to the mission president's, so I don't think "co-president" is an accurate title unless they want to change the way things are done and give an equal obligation to both. The "mission mom" has no authority to approve baptisms, send missionaries home due to worthiness issues, conduct interviews, etc. (the etc. here is very long), so calling her co-president would actually be incorrect. But I never used "mission mom" myself ... I didn't feel that she was my substitute mother any more than I felt the mission president was a substitute father. I always just said Mission President's Wife when not referring to her by name. Perhaps calling her President's Companion would be more fitting?

[Portia]

Women have no authority to do essentially anything unsupervised in the LDS Church. I think this is something that could be easily changed without angering the traditionalists while cutting some slack to those of us who want to see women in true leadership roles. Let the Relief Society hold their own events without male chaperones. There's a starting request. (Does that make me apostate? If so, then yay attitude polarization.) Women zone leaders? Female mission presidents? (As a commenter pointed out, Mission President is NOT a "Priesthood Office" any more than "BYU President" is.)

[Portia]

"Mission mom" seems similar to "first lady" (which also sounds archaic to me ... what will we call Bill, first gentleman?).

This is what depresses me. A woman HASN'T been POTUS, but she could be. (And we'd continue to refer to Bill as, well, Bill, or Former President Clinton.) As it stands, there are many leadership positions that women are barred from, and I think the ordination brouhaha has inspired a backlash where Mormon women are now MORE constricted in their "roles" (a term derived from acting, which I have been heavily involved with -- you're pretending to be someone else). And some men and women who are far less skeptical than I don't want to be part of something where little girls know that no, honey, you can't be Mission President someday. Even if you agree with the status quo, I think it's possible to acknowledge how that would be demoralizing.

[Whistler]

I'm with GA. I'm going to call everyone Brother and Sister from now on. Because are we not all brothers and sisters in Christ?