What The LDS Church Tells Young Women

[_Madison54]

This article makes me so grateful I got out of the church before my daughters were in the YWs program. Here's the link to it:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/2 ... ia=siderec

The comments are interesting to read through too.

[_DrW]

Wow.

What an article.

Really surprised to see something at this depth and level of detail in the electronic media.

This is getting copied to my TBM daughters.

Thanks.

[_Buffalo]

Awesome article, thanks for that. Sunshine is the best disinfected for the sick and perverted lessons the church is teaching to its youth.

[_DarkHelmet]

There is nothing in it that anybody on these boards doesn't already know, but looking at the comments, it appears to be a bit of surprise to many non-mormons. I expect more of these type of articles to come out in more mainstream media outlets if Romney gets the nomination. The TBMs won't care too much about this article because it is a left-wing feminist news site.

[_malkie]

There is nothing in it that anybody on these boards doesn't already know, but looking at the comments, it appears to be a bit of surprise to many non-mormons. I expect more of these type of articles to come out in more mainstream media outlets if Romney gets the nomination. The TBMs won't care too much about this article because it is a left-wing feminist news site.

Quite a bit of misinformation there too - though I expect it's not deliberate. Of course, in some cases the correct information would look worse than the misinformation.

[_quaker]

I've never paid any attention to the RF/YW manuals or what they teach. I don't have a clue what they talk about in their classes - if they have doctrinal discussions, if they compare their boyfriends/husbands or if they talk about One Tree Hill.

All I'm familiar with is the discussions in EQ and the prevailing attitudes from the guy perspective. I don't think the actions and mentality of the guys towards women align with what this YW manual is telling women to be. There is a realistic recognition that only a woman can be a wife and mother and that only a man can be a husband and father, as well as the differing strengths of either sex. The actions and attitudes about gender roles in the church are far more dynamic than the impression this YW manual gives.

What I'm curious about is how the women teach this to one another, what they emphasis and what areas tend to be grey. It's interesting that the ideal is mostly left to women to perpetuate among themselves so they are free to adjust it as necessary and as seems practical. Obviously there will always be the outlier types. My experience locally is that they often are called as teachers.

I just question what the difference is between what seems like the reality from reading a few clips from a book versus reality.

[_Buffalo]

A summary of the Church's position on women:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__NGZsCdaxsA/T ... eguide.gif

[_DarkHelmet]

A summary of the Church's position on women:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__NGZsCdaxsA/T ... eguide.gif

That's awesome! With only a few minor exceptions, that guide could appear in the RS or YW manual and nobody would think it was odd.

[_just me]

I've never paid any attention to the RF/YW manuals or what they teach. I don't have a clue what they talk about in their classes - if they have doctrinal discussions, if they compare their boyfriends/husbands or if they talk about One Tree Hill.

All I'm familiar with is the discussions in EQ and the prevailing attitudes from the guy perspective. I don't think the actions and mentality of the guys towards women align with what this YW manual is telling women to be. There is a realistic recognition that only a woman can be a wife and mother and that only a man can be a husband and father, as well as the differing strengths of either sex. The actions and attitudes about gender roles in the church are far more dynamic than the impression this YW manual gives.

What I'm curious about is how the women teach this to one another, what they emphasis and what areas tend to be grey. It's interesting that the ideal is mostly left to women to perpetuate among themselves so they are free to adjust it as necessary and as seems practical. Obviously there will always be the outlier types. My experience locally is that they often are called as teachers.

I just question what the difference is between what seems like the reality from reading a few clips from a book versus reality.

The pressure to marry and have children is immense. Certainly you see that.
The ideal that is perpetuated is to get married in the temple to a "worthy priesthood holder" asap and to not put off having children for worldly reasons.
The ideal is to be a stay-at-home mom. The ideal is for a woman's hopes and dreams to take backseat to that of her husband. He is the provider so his education and career are more important than hers. If hers are deemed important at all, that is.

Yes, there are mothers who work, but it is usually done apologetically. It is not socially acceptable to be a mother who actually ENJOYS working and WANTS to work. You may find a few women here and there who will say, I am better as a working mom and I enjoy it, but it is very rare in my experience.

It's also not socially acceptable to be completely happy and satisfied as a single. You have to want to get married, you are supposed to want to have children.

[_DarkHelmet]

I've never paid any attention to the RF/YW manuals or what they teach. I don't have a clue what they talk about in their classes - if they have doctrinal discussions, if they compare their boyfriends/husbands or if they talk about One Tree Hill.

All I'm familiar with is the discussions in EQ and the prevailing attitudes from the guy perspective. I don't think the actions and mentality of the guys towards women align with what this YW manual is telling women to be. There is a realistic recognition that only a woman can be a wife and mother and that only a man can be a husband and father, as well as the differing strengths of either sex. The actions and attitudes about gender roles in the church are far more dynamic than the impression this YW manual gives.

What I'm curious about is how the women teach this to one another, what they emphasis and what areas tend to be grey. It's interesting that the ideal is mostly left to women to perpetuate among themselves so they are free to adjust it as necessary and as seems practical. Obviously there will always be the outlier types. My experience locally is that they often are called as teachers.

I just question what the difference is between what seems like the reality from reading a few clips from a book versus reality.

The pressure to marry and have children is immense. Certainly you see that.
The ideal that is perpetuated is to get married in the temple to a "worthy priesthood holder" asap and to not put off having children for worldly reasons.
The ideal is to be a stay-at-home mom. The ideal is for a woman's hopes and dreams to take backseat to that of her husband. He is the provider so his education and career are more important than hers. If hers are deemed important at all, that is.

Yes, there are mothers who work, but it is usually done apologetically. It is not socially acceptable to be a mother who actually ENJOYS working and WANTS to work. You may find a few women here and there who will say, I am better as a working mom and I enjoy it, but it is very rare in my experience.

It's also not socially acceptable to be completely happy and satisfied as a single. You have to want to get married, you are supposed to want to have children.

The odd thing is Sheri Dew is pointed at as an example of the church being progressive on women's issues. Look, we have a woman who is single and a CEO. We aren't sexist. It must get confusing for a YW to be preached one thing, while someone like Sheri Dew is put on a pedestal for ignoring all those lessons.