Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Dragon Lady wrote:We should just leave the priesthood out of all equality discussions and I think everyone would be happier. </personal opinion.>

The priesthood is the impetus behind a lot of the equality discussions in the first place, though. Leaving it out is ignoring the elephant in the room.

I realize people think that. I just... don't. I honestly don't think the priesthood makes anyone better or worse. I realize that most people don't agree with me. But it'd sure be a lot easier if more people did.

Dragon Lady wrote:I realize people think that. I just... don't. I honestly don't think the priesthood makes anyone better or worse. I realize that most people don't agree with me. But it'd sure be a lot easier if more people did.

Oh no, I absolutely agree with you that the priesthood doesn't make people good or bad. But it does provide opportunities for service, leadership, representation, support and decision making that aren't available without it.

And being a woman also offers many of those things. For example, we joked today about making one of my font coordinators (who is male) part of my Stake Primary presidency and he quickly pointed out that he *couldn't* do so because he's male.

Perhaps the number of male callings that are gender-specific are more, but there are female-specific callings as well. And I've yet to hear a guy say that he wishes he could have my job.

Would you be happy if the number of gender-specific callings were split 50/50? Or is it just the fact that there *are* gender-specific callings?

Dragon Lady wrote:And being a woman also offers many of those things.

In an abstract sense, yes. But in a concrete sense, there are many more opportunities and more important opportunities available to (priesthood-holding) men than to women.

Dragon Lady wrote:And I've yet to hear a guy say that he wishes he could have my job.

The fact that men don't envy women's roles is not evidence that that men's and women's roles are equal. It is evidence that women's roles are unenviable. If he thought his life (or the life of other men or boys) was being negatively impacted by women being in your job, he would want to have your job, or want to have a say in how you did your job, or want a man to be in your job. As it is, you have no influence over him, and he's apparently unconcerned by the influence you have over the male teachers or boys in your charge. Plus, you ultimately have male stake leadership over you, so any egregious behavior in that regard would likely be called out by your male superiors.

Dragon Lady wrote:Or is it just the fact that there *are* gender-specific callings?

It doesn't bother me that there are gender-specific callings (for instance, it makes sense to me that women should lead the women and young women's organizations and men should lead the men and young men's organizations). But there are many gender-specific callings that give men more power and decision making authority than women, and that give them power and decision making authority over women.

A very few examples:

1. Men have budgetary authority. The status quo is for the young men's organizational budget to dwarf the young women's organizational budget and men can furthermore reject or override the budgets set by women for women's organizations.

2. Men have ecclesiastical authority over sexual sins. American culture vastly misrepresents women's sexuality and the reality of women's power and motivations in negotiating sexual relationships. Men who have authority over women regarding sexual sins have no personal experience of life as a girl or woman (which is very different from life as a boy or man) and are subject to a host of mistaken messages regarding women's sexuality. This is the type of situation which leads bishops to blame or accuse girls and women who are raped or sexually assaulted. This is also the type of situation which leads the male president of BYU not to take the sexual harassment of female students seriously.

3. Men speak to women in church functions more often than women speak to men, and the disparity grows higher the more important the meeting is. This means that when women are told what to do and how to behave or think, it's more likely to be a man (who has no experience of being a woman) telling them that than a women telling them that.

4. Men have ultimate "hiring and firing" power over women in any level of church hierarchy, and men vastly outnumber women in leadership positions, which means that the women who are put into leadership positions are likely to be women who won't tell those men things they don't want to hear or otherwise rock the boat.

If you're interested, this article gives many, many more examples: http://www.the-exponent.com/mormon-male ... he-church/

Lastly, I'm going to go ahead and anticipate one possible counterargument: If you say that you haven't experienced any of these problems or you haven't seen anyone else have problems with them, that isn't evidence that these problems don't exist and it isn't evidence that we don't need structural ways of addressing these problems. As an analogy, just because your husband doesn't beat you, that doesn't mean that domestic violence isn't a real problem and that doesn't mean that we don't need strong laws against domestic violence with police support to back them up. And if you were to go looking for women who have experienced domestic violence, you might learn some very eye opening things which would cause you to want to work towards ending domestic violence even if, again, it has never been and is never likely to be a personal problem for you.

Ok. Let's see if I can cover all of this. Now, this will only be from my own experience. I know others have had other experiences. But I can't speak for those. I can only speak for me. My experience includes: RS president, Primary president, YW counselor, and Stake Primary president. As well as Activities co-chair and Food co-chair, both of which put me on Ward Council.

Katya wrote: As it is, you have no influence over him, and he's apparently unconcerned by the influence you have over the male teachers or boys in your charge.

I suppose theoretically, yes. In reality, I have a lot of influence over him. The reason he doesn't envy my job (at least as of today) was because of the amount of work I have to put into things like Stake Baptisms. Where he comes, mostly as backup help, and to make sure that the ordinance itself is performed correctly. We had two sessions today and the first one our stake presidency member couldn't come, so the high councilman was in charge. The second session he got "demoted" when the stake presidency member came. He came up to me and pointed out that I did all of the hard work all morning, but he was the one who got the break. I pointed out that made him the smarter one (in good natured fun) and he pointed out that I had the more important job.

As a calling as a whole, he possibly has more things to do than I do. At least, more meetings and more speaking in church. And I suppose he has more authority in that he could tell me to do or not do something. But in practice, I make 99% of the decisions. And in the few times that he and the stake presidency member have vetoed my authority on something, I either had little opinion or they just didn't have all of the information they needed. When I presented my reasons as to why I made the decision I did and requested that they think it over again, they changed their minds. Men in charge may have more authority on paper. But I have found in every calling I have held that they hold my opinions in high esteem and almost always default to me (and the other women) when I have a strong opinion. When I was a ward primary president my bishop took the viewpoint that I knew far more about the Primary than he did and unless he had a very good reason to submit his authority over me, he left me autonomous. I don't believe he ever vetoed a single decision I made. He questioned a few, for the good of the ward as a whole, but upon discussion, letting both of us in on the concerns of the other, we worked around the problems together.

As for having no concern about my influence over the boys... I could only wish. Then I wouldn't have to spend 60% or more of my attention on cub scouts. I wouldn't have to be a Unit Commissioner. I wouldn't have to attend at least two cub meetings/month. I wouldn't have to try to figure out the complexities that is cub scouting. As is, they've requested that I've focus a large portion of my energy on their boys. And that is by request of the stake president. Clearly he thinks that women's influence is appropriate and desired over the boys in our stake.

Katya wrote:1. Men have budgetary authority. The status quo is for the young men's organizational budget to dwarf the young women's organizational budget and men can furthermore reject or override the budgets set by women for women's organizations.

And Primary trumps them both. Seriously. I'm requesting a ridiculous amount of money this year. More than I know for a fact either the YW or YM spent. And in the stake this year I know the YW had a significantly larger budget than the stake YM had. On a stake level, though, that's because the YW need a bigger budget because they do stake girls camp, whereas the YM do that at a ward level. When girls camp is at a ward level, their budget increases significantly.

Time for a personal rant. Sorry about this. Why do YM get a bigger budget in general? Because of Boy Scouts. (This is also the main reason that the Primary budget is so huge on a ward level. Cub Scouts.) Because the BSA program is convoluted and has no competition. You're pushed to earn awards, then the ward is charged an arm and a leg to buy those badges, arrowheads, awards, etc. Just the adult uniform shirt is around $40. Plus badges you have to immediately buy and put on. It doesn't even look nice on women, despite having ladies' shirts. I disagree with the Church being involved in BSA, but I know nothing will change there so long as Pres. Monson is prophet. He's too deeply involved in BSA. I think BSA is a great program in general; I just don't think it's necessary and the same results can be achieved in the church in a much more simple manner, more akin to the YW program. There are many more things I could say about why I don't believe BSA should be part of the YM program, but I won't. As it's not specifically related to this topic. It only really relates here because it costs SO MUCH MONEY and that's why the YM and Primary get larger budgets.

True, men get the ultimate decision as to how much money goes where. But I've been told multiple times that the reason I get the budget I ask for (when other auxiliaries, including YM and YW, often get cut short) is because of *how* I ask for my budget. I am very detailed and tell them exactly what I need the money for. I think I overwhelm them a little so they just give me my money so as to not have to deal with me anymore. lol. That has nothing to do with my gender. It has to do with my organizational skills. (And I've taught many a leader how to ask for a budget. Someday that will come back to bite me when I no longer stand out...)

Your argument here that men can reject over override the budgets is valid. In practice, I've yet to see that happen in an unrighteous or unfair sort of way. I've never seen men give the male organizations preference simply because they're male. I've seen them give more money because of the BSA program that requires a much larger budget. So the YM ask for more. (Note: the church is now paying registration fees for all leaders directly, so those fees are now gone from the ward and stake budget. Thus their budgets will now drop in part because of it.)

I have no experience with #2. I can see the validity of it, though.

As for #3, I think that goes back to number of male vs female callings. If the percentage of female centric callings are lower, then they will, of course, have a smaller showing in meetings. In our last stake conference, the president of every organization spoke, as well as 2/3 of the stake presidency, the stake patriarch and one younger speaker (a girl, actually, who was about to go on a mission.) Because there were only three female callings, there were only 3 female speakers, plus the one girl. The rest were male. More male callings = more male speakers.

I can again see the priesthood argument in here, especially as you get to general conference. But again I have no experience that high.

And... I have a headache (not related to this, but, ironically, to my calling) so I'm not going to finish this. Also because I'll just emphasize your last point.

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. 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.

I... feel like I am not making any point at all here. My brain is all muddled right now and I feel like I'm just stream-of-consciousness here. And that you'll read this and say, "DL! YOU ARE PROVING MY POINT EXACTLY! WHY ARE YOU BEING SO STUBBORN AND SINGLE-MINDED!" Or something like that.

I am not saying the setup is perfect. I am not saying things will never change. I am not saying there aren't problems. I guess... I've just never felt unequal to a guy simply because he holds the priesthood. I've never felt unequal because technically my husband *could* become the prophet whereas I could not. But 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. That not all women want to hold the priesthood. And yes, I actively do not *want* to have the priesthood. I have waaaaaay too much on my plate to desire adding one more thing.

And... I feel my brain checking out even more now. So for all of our sanity, I'm checking out too.

Maybe the problem isn't women lacking "the Priesthood," but men having it. The correlated, management-style hierarchy of the church causes a lot of overhead, squabbles, and worst of all, wasted time better spent with one's family and friends. Just because the Church organization exists in a given way now, I don't think that makes it inspired or eternal. I'm always disturbed by the Elder's Quorum presidents that just "have" to stay out late night after night. You don't "have" to do anything. I see little connection between priesthood qua power of God and the endless stream of busymaking. Assuming you believe in the Gospel, everything beyond taking the sacrament (should be able to be blessed and passed by any believer, I think) is so much fluff.

I find it interesting when people talk about the "men" have this or that power. It really isn't a case of men versus women. At the ward level there are about as many men in leadership positions as women. I've been high priest group leader, a counselor in the bishopric, a counselor in the elder's quorum, deacon's quorum adviser, Sunday school president, Sunday School teacher, ward clerk, membership clerk, teacher development leader, and just about any calling you can think of. I've had numerous stake callings. My wife has been Relief Society President, Primary president, Young Women leader, and many other callings in the ward and stake. It isn't that the women get supervised by men and the men don't. In every calling I had I had no more say in the budget than the women had. Women leaders and men leaders have an equal voice in the budget. I had far less autonomy than the Relief Society President. In the ward it is all the same for men and for women. Only the bishop has the final say on any program, any activity, any budget, any class, any instruction, any decision, any hiring and firing power, any ecclesiastical authority over sexual sins, anything at all. So it is not men making all the final decisions, it is one single man, the bishop. So there is perfect equality in the ward except for one single person. The only change that would create more "equality" would be to ordain females as bishop.

Even the bishop is subject to authority over him. And above all, I firmly believe that God is in charge. God tells the bishop what to do and not to do. So, in reality, if you wanted some sort of equality you would have to have a female God once in a while.

I don't normally jump in on things like this because people have very strong opinions and, well, I just don't.

But, I wanted to say that I agree with Dragon Lady. Sure, you'll all say "But you're young. You're still brainwashed..." or something like that. But I'd like to think my opinion is just as valid.

I've never really had a problem with the idea of priesthood authority. Perhaps it was the home I grew up in. My parents were very much equal partners, and in some sense, I think they have a relationship very much like DL's...at least from what I'm reading. From what I personally have seen in the church, I don't feel unequal. I don't think that I am any less of a person because I can't hold the priesthood. I've never felt at a disadvantage hearing men speak vs. having women speak in conference. On the contrary, it's like I'm getting to hear my dad speak a dozen times over. And when the women speak, especially after this past RS and General Conference, it reminds of my mother.

I dunno. It's hard to phrase, and like DL, I feel like I'm not getting the words out the way I want to. But I don't feel as if I am unequal. I don't feel less of a person because I can't serve in the same callings. I don't feel bad that my roommates couldn't give me blessings when I was having a really rough week. I *needed* to reach out to more people than just my roommates. I *needed* to give my home teachers, my good friend, and my roommate's home teachers the opportunity to serve. I *needed* to know that people beyond my small circle of friends cared and were willing to help me. When men righteously hold and use the priesthood, it isn't exercised in unrighteous dominion. Instead, it provides a way of service that is unique to their gender.

Remember that article Katya posted awhile ago about men wanting to feel needed? This is one way that they can.

Anyways. DL, you aren't alone.

I'm not particularly passionately discontent with the inequalities of men and women in our church, but I know that doesn't make them exist less.

And I agree with Vorpal--for true equality we should learn more about Heavenly Mother (and Her priestesshood). Too bad a woman can't really do much about that in our church, huh?

That raises a really interesting question, Whistler via Vorpal. In this church we are taught that mothers are paramount to the success of children, and that we ought to be nurtured and guided by our mothers. Then we are taught motherhood is a calling that is both divine and eternal, and that no calling is greater. And then we are taught that we have a heavenly mother, but we can't talk about her, pray to her, communicate with her in any way, or even know pretty much anything about her. If mothers are so important, why don't we talk more about my heavenly mother?

That, Marduk, is an excellent question. One I haven't thought much on. But it reminds me that I do follow some bloggers that *have* thought of things like that. And, pulling from memory, the temporary conclusion they've come to is that they needed to find that revelation on their own. That it's mother asking Mother for herself, not church asking Mother for all the mothers. And while I don't find it a perfect solution, it is a solution I do like. It suddenly makes my revelation for my mothering a personal and sacred experience. It's more like calling my mom on the phone to say, "How do you deal with this? What can I do? You know my specific children and my weaknesses, what do you suggest? I need my mommy." and less "I need help. Let me go read a book/conference talk and figure out how to be a good parent."

It isn't perfect. I can see ways I could refute that even as I type it, but I'm going to bed instead. Instead I just offer it as a theory I've read.

And thanks, Tally! [hugs]

vorpal blade wrote:I find it interesting when people talk about the "men" have this or that power. It really isn't a case of men versus women. At the ward level there are about as many men in leadership positions as women.

I refuse to believe that there are as many leadership positions for women as there are for men. In fact, that's impossible. Women have RS, YW, and the primary presidency. Aside from that, everything is led by men, including mixed sex organizations like Sunday School. Also, since you listed it as one of your callings, I'll point out that ward clerk is also reserved for men.

If you want to include the "quick, make up a new committee so that everyone can have a calling" positions, then sure there are more women in "leadership" positions. But to try to assert women have equality because they can decide what kind of refreshments to provide at the ward party just makes this more insulting.

@Tally - Don't let anyone make you feel less-than because of your age. You're an adult, and perceptive, although inexperienced (duh). Although now I'm extra alarmed that your bishop was so pushy about your ex-boyfriend and you, sheesh!

@those who do not feel excluded (DL, Tally, possibly Whistler), I thought that this Joanna Brooks article was interesting. I'm by no means some spokesowman for Kate Kelly, but I think she has a darned valid point with this:

“I have heard from many women, ‘I see nothing wrong with the status quo. I feel equal,’” said Ordain Women founder Kate Kelly to a pre-demonstration gathering in a downtown Salt Lake City park. “To them I say: you can feel respected, supported and validated in the church, but equality can be measured. Equality is not a feeling. In our church men and women are not equal.”

@Vorps and Whistler - I think the Heavenly Mother stuff is New Age and hippy-dippy. We don't worship God because he is male. (I hope.) It's all Mother Goddess-y and pagan inspired in my opinion. Ancient Rome was hella sexist and they had goddesses. Not suitable for a modern age.

@bob - Yep.

I've heard that quote before. And yes, I do realize that there are a few things that could change. But I think the reason I don't see a lack of equality is because I don't think of "equality" in perhaps the same terms. Or that the equality that is discussed is necessarily necessary.

bobtheenchantedone wrote:

vorpal blade wrote:I find it interesting when people talk about the "men" have this or that power. It really isn't a case of men versus women. At the ward level there are about as many men in leadership positions as women.

I refuse to believe that there are as many leadership positions for women as there are for men. In fact, that's impossible. Women have RS, YW, and the primary presidency. Aside from that, everything is led by men, including mixed sex organizations like Sunday School. Also, since you listed it as one of your callings, I'll point out that ward clerk is also reserved for men.

If you want to include the "quick, make up a new committee so that everyone can have a calling" positions, then sure there are more women in "leadership" positions. But to try to assert women have equality because they can decide what kind of refreshments to provide at the ward party just makes this more insulting.

Let's talk about this for a moment. For the men we have the High Priest group leadership and the Elders quorum presidency. For the women we have the Relief Society presidency and board leaders. The Relief Society has a leadership role over more people than the High Priests and Elders quorum combined, so the impact on the ward of the Relief Society is greater. What about all the leadership roles in the Relief Society such as Visiting Teacher coordinator and such that the men don't have? I'm claiming rough parity in numbers of leadership positions here.

The number of leadership positions for the young men is roughly equal to the number of leadership positions for the young women. The number of leadership positions for the primary is quite a bit greater than for the Sunday School. The Sunday School presidency does very little in a ward. They don't conduct any meetings, make few decisions, and have little impact in the ward. Many times they don't even bother to find counselors for the Sunday School president.

The clerks are men, but we don't normally call them leadership positions any more than we call the secretary of the Relief Society a leadership position.

There is also the bishopric which consists of three men. So it is arguable whether or not the number of positions of leadership is equal or not. Did I leave out any leadership positions? I still think the number is roughly the same.

The point I was trying to make is that there is no difference in the level of authority the women exercise in the ward leadership positions than the level of authority the men exercise, except for the single position of bishop. One person in say about 400 has a little more authority than the rest. The women leaders are under the same limitations and operate under the same restraints as all of the men leaders in the ward, except the bishop. The women leaders have as much or more ecclesiastical authority and power as 99% of the men in the ward.

I realize that there is not full equality in the sense that every woman can have exactly the same position as a man has. And ultimately all of the authority in the ward goes to the bishop, and God only calls men to that position. But there is a lot more equality than you might realize if you phrase your language to say that the men make all the important decisions. As I see it, 99% of the men don't make decisions any more important than the women do. So, from that perspective, we have 99% equality in leadership function.

That's not logical, Vorpal. If you say that most men are not in leadership positions, and therefore there is parity, that ignores the power structures that are in place. Perhaps an analogy would help.

Let's say you are in a city with a mayor and three city council members who make all decisions. There are numerous other city officials who are under them: sanitation, water management, parks, police, etc. In these positions there are roughly the same number of men as women. However, each and every one of these officials is directly responsible to the mayor and the city council who can override any decision they make. By law, these four individuals MUST be female. Now, one can argue that in practice, these women seldom override decisions that are made unless they have good reason, or that the vast majority of positions have parity, but do you imagine that this sort of system is not inherently discriminatory? The same holds true for a church wherein every decision is overseen by a hierarchy composed entirely of men.

Of course, there's another argument tacitly in what you are saying, which is that really, all these decisions are made by God, and God isn't sexist, therefore there is no problem. But can we really say that in every decision made from prophet down to every bishop that God is controlling every decision made? This does not correlate with agency as I understand it.

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

"There is a difference in the way the priesthood functions in the home as compared to the way it functions in the church...In the Church there is a distinct line of authority. We serve where called by those who preside over us. 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.

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

"There is a difference in the way the priesthood functions in the home as compared to the way it functions in the church...In the Church there is a distinct line of authority. We serve where called by those who preside over us. 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."