Women in business & politcs

[_guy sajer]

Sherri Dew?

Sherri Dew is such an unrepentant boot-lick and tool of the Brethren that I hardly think she counts.

Women as a whole are unrepentent book-licks and tools for the Brethren. The manner in which they so willingly consent to their marginalization is sickening to me. When are they going to stand up and challenge the Patriarchy? We're talking in many cases of highly educated women who sit by passsively and do nothing while a bunch of Octogenarians define, and limit, their role in life and marginalize them within the community to which they devote their lives. Yet, they do nothing. Pathetic!

[_Yoda]

It does if you intend to remain a committed, TBM LDS. Doing so would entail you having to submit to the will of your priesthood-holding DH, and likewise falling into lockstep with the Brethren 1950s-esque dictates vis-a-vis gender roles.

You are painting too bleak of picture. What the Brethren have furnished their opinion about and what an LDS woman chooses to do with her own life can be two entirely separate things. Old opinions formed from a previous era, are not binding on her choices or abilities and she can still remain an LDS member in good standing.

This is correct. Another wise statement from the Penguin. Now I know why GIMR loves you.

;)

[_harmony]

Sherri Dew?

Sherri Dew is such an unrepentant boot-lick and tool of the Brethren that I hardly think she counts.

Women as a whole are unrepentent book-licks and tools for the Brethren. The manner in which they so willingly consent to their marginalization is sickening to me. When are they going to stand up and challenge the Patriarchy? We're talking in many cases of highly educated women who sit by passsively and do nothing while a bunch of Octogenarians define, and limit, their role in life and marginalize them within the community to which they devote their lives. Yet, they do nothing. Pathetic!

Ahem. I guess I'll have to take this on, since I don't see anyone else doing so.

Guy, you are wide of the mark and here's why:

1. There aren't that many cases of highly educated women in the church. There are a few of us, yes, but I am the only woman with an advanced degree in my whole ward, and there are only a handful with a bachelor's degree. Most are for the most part uneducated. In order to become highly educated, one must circumvent the Brethren, and very few women have the support of their men that I had. More and more women will begin to gain a higher education as the number of worthy men shrinks, and the women are left with virtually no choices, but to have a career. This can only be a good thing. Both of my daughters have advanced degrees. Neither can be bothered to worry about the role of women in the church; the subject is simply not something either of them cares about.

2. Standing up and challenging the Brethren head on means having everything you have taken away. That is not a risk; that is a certainty. We must have leaders who care enough to lay their marriages and families on the line, and we simply don't have them. And the reason we don't have them is because the instant they raise their heads, they get them chopped off.

3. Relatively speaking, very few LDS women see themselves as marginalized. Liz and I are aberrations. On the contrary, LDS women generally see themselves as vital to the Plan, and are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to help bring to pass the Plan of Salvation. That they've been fed a line of bull is immaterial; that's what they believe.

4. To say that LDS women who have their eyes open do nothing is totally incorrect. It's impossible to imagine what the church would be like without those women who have gone before us, quietly changing the course of the church. We suffered an extreme setback at the turn of the 20th century, when Joseph F Smith radically changed the position of Relief Society and restructured the entire system. Many of the changes since then are a direct result of women. You don't think men cared if g's were one-piece, do you? You don't think men cared that Homemaking meeting was outdated, do you? You don't think men cared that church before the 3-hour block was torture, do you? Personally, I hate doing things behind the scenes, but most women aren't like me. We've been conditioned by society to do the same thing, so doing things behind the scenes in the church is no different.

[_The Nehor]

It does if you intend to remain a committed, TBM LDS. Doing so would entail you having to submit to the will of your priesthood-holding DH, and likewise falling into lockstep with the Brethren's 1950s-esque dictates vis-a-vis gender roles.

Since Pirate has stated on other threads that she believes God is a myth I think that might be the larger obstacle to membership.

[_Yoda]

Thanks for taking this one on, Harmony. :)

The only thing I can really add here is a big AMEN! LOL

In my Ward, there are actually quite a few women who are educated. Actually, those of us with advanced degrees are looked up to by other women. Many scratch their head and wonder how we managed to do it with small kids.

I have had many younger women talk with me, and feel defeated because they have small children at home and just don't know how to even begin attaining a degree. I have been able to give them some ideas and some direction since I teach for a local community college, and am also pursuing a Doctorate program, where a significant amount of the beginning work is done online in conjunction with my teaching.

Everyone should have an education if they want one, and it is very attainable. You may have to pursue it in baby steps, especially with small kids, but it is definitely possible.

I have taught several job preparedness classes as part of our Relief Society Homemaking night.

I think that things are changing...but as Harmony says, much of this is being done "in the background".

[_guy sajer]

Sherri Dew?

Sherri Dew is such an unrepentant boot-lick and tool of the Brethren that I hardly think she counts.

Women as a whole are unrepentent book-licks and tools for the Brethren. The manner in which they so willingly consent to their marginalization is sickening to me. When are they going to stand up and challenge the Patriarchy? We're talking in many cases of highly educated women who sit by passsively and do nothing while a bunch of Octogenarians define, and limit, their role in life and marginalize them within the community to which they devote their lives. Yet, they do nothing. Pathetic!

Ahem. I guess I'll have to take this on, since I don't see anyone else doing so.

Guy, you are wide of the mark and here's why:

There aren't that many cases of highly educated women in the church. There are a few of us, yes, but I am the only woman with an advanced degree in my whole ward, and there are only a handful with a bachelor's degree. Most are for the most part uneducated. In order to become highly educated, one must circumvent the Brethren, and very few women have the support of their men that I had. More and more women will begin to gain a higher education as the number of worthy men shrinks, and the women are left with virtually no choices, but to have a career. This can only be a good thing. Both of my daughters have advanced degrees. Neither can be bothered to worry about the role of women in the church; the subject is simply not something either of them cares about.

You’ll take me on? Ooh, that sounds kind of randy.
I’d bet that if we took a representative cross section of rank and file active faithful in the US, a non-trivial percentage of women would have at least a college education or a college degree. Maybe not a majority, but a non-trivial percentage. BYU, to take one case, produces thousands upon thousands of reasonably well-educated Mormon women. Where’s their collective voice? Nowhere to be heard.

2. Standing up and challenging the Brethren head on means having everything you have taken away. That is not a risk; that is a certainty. We must have leaders who care enough to lay their marriages and families on the line, and we simply don't have them. And the reason we don't have them is because the instant they raise their heads, they get them chopped off.

This is always a risk inherent in collective action. This kind of threat, for example, is one thing that kept workers from organizing for so long. But organize they did, and it revolutionized labor. If a core of women did organize and did press concerns/demands, it would put the Church in an awfully awkward position, and it might just work. It takes a courageous core, but I see nothing like that happening. The women in the Church are far too passive to do this.

3. Relatively speaking, very few LDS women see themselves as marginalized. Liz and I are aberrations. On the contrary, LDS women generally see themselves as vital to the Plan, and are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to help bring to pass the Plan of Salvation. That they've been fed a line of bull is immaterial; that's what they believe.

That so few LDS women see themselves a marginalized is a major part of the problem. They ARE marginalized by any reasonable definition. Were they treated equally in another other phase of their lives (e.g. the workforce), they would likely be well aware of their marginalization. That they can be so clearly relegated to second class status and not take notice says something, and what it says is not flattering.

4. To say that LDS women who have their eyes open do nothing is totally incorrect. It's impossible to imagine what the church would be like without those women who have gone before us, quietly changing the course of the church. We suffered an extreme setback at the turn of the 20th century, when Joseph F Smith radically changed the position of Relief Society and restructured the entire system. Many of the changes since then are a direct result of women. You don't think men cared if g's were one-piece, do you? You don't think men cared that Homemaking meeting was outdated, do you? You don't think men cared that church before the 3-hour block was torture, do you? Personally, I hate doing things behind the scenes, but most women aren't like me. We've been conditioned by society to do the same thing, so doing things behind the scenes in the church is no different.

I have seen no meaningful change in women’s status in the LDS Church. What you’re mentioning is window dressing and tangential to the real issue—the status of women, their rights and privileges compared to men.
Many of the women who do stand up represent a cliquish elite who have done nothing to broaden the appeal of their “movement.” They have not tried, from what I’ve seen, to reach out to the rank and file but are content to gather in elitist, intellectual venues such as, in times past, Exponent II. Their influence will always be limited and non-effective until they make genuine effort to broaden and craft their message to the rank and file. As it is, the rank and file view them as whining feminists.
It takes leadership, willingness to take risk, and a strategy to reach out to broad audiences. Who’s going to take this on?

By the way, love ya Harmony

[_Yoda]

It takes leadership, willingness to take risk, and a strategy to reach out to broad audiences. Who’s going to take this on?

The problem, Guy, is that most of us who feel this way regard the risk as too high. The risk involves my marriage...my family. Right or wrong...that's where the risk lies, and it's too great of a risk for me to take.

[_guy sajer]

It takes leadership, willingness to take risk, and a strategy to reach out to broad audiences. Who’s going to take this on?

The problem, Guy, is that most of us who feel this way regard the risk as too high. The risk involves my marriage...my family. Right or wrong...that's where the risk lies, and it's too great of a risk for me to take.

Understood. I do not minimize this risk. It is real.

Still, there's always risk in collective organization. Perhaps the feminist intellectuals are the ones to lead (other mass movements have been led by intellectual types), but if they are to do so, they've got to re-craft their message and reach out. They haven't done this so far.

[_KimberlyAnn]

It takes leadership, willingness to take risk, and a strategy to reach out to broad audiences. Who’s going to take this on?

The problem, Guy, is that most of us who feel this way regard the risk as too high. The risk involves my marriage...my family. Right or wrong...that's where the risk lies, and it's too great of a risk for me to take.

Liz, I had no inclination to take on Mormon hierarchy because I didn't believe the Mormon church to be true. For me, it would have been a waste of time trying to fix what I considered to be a fraud. I risked my marriage and family to leave Mormonism, and, for me, it was a worthwhile risk. It would have been worth it no matter the end result, really. I don't want a husband who loves me because I toe the Mormon line! You know? My integrity is too important to me.

I believe a good husband would support his wife in her efforts to make Mormonism more reflective of the true power, nature and talents of women. Personally, I don't believe Mormonism could even be recognizable as "Mormon" any longer if all the necessary changes regarding women were to be made because Mormonism is doctrinally misogynistic at it's core, but if a few brave Mormon women want to try, then more power to them, I say. And their husbands should say the same.

KA

[_harmony]

You’ll take me on? Ooh, that sounds kind of randy.

There seems to be a marked lack of air in here. *cough* *cough*

I’d bet that if we took a representative cross section of rank and file active faithful in the US, a non-trivial percentage of women would have at least a college education or a college degree. Maybe not a majority, but a non-trivial percentage. BYU, to take one case, produces thousands upon thousands of reasonably well-educated Mormon women. Where’s their collective voice? Nowhere to be heard.

I don't consider the vast majority of women who attended BYU to be visionaries, crusaders, or in any way extraordinary leaders. They are followers by definition. Were they not followers, they'd have attended a different university. The movement you posit needs leaders, and they won't come with a BYU label attached.

This is always a risk inherent in collective action. This kind of threat, for example, is one thing that kept workers from organizing for so long. But organize they did, and it revolutionized labor. If a core of women did organize and did press concerns/demands, it would put the Church in an awfully awkward position, and it might just work. It takes a courageous core, but I see nothing like that happening. The women in the Church are far too passive to do this.

This will not happen. The entity is too widespread and too diverse. There is no common ground on which to build.

That so few LDS women see themselves a marginalized is a major part of the problem. They ARE marginalized by any reasonable definition. Were they treated equally in another other phase of their lives (e.g. the workforce), they would likely be well aware of their marginalization. That they can be so clearly relegated to second class status and not take notice says something, and what it says is not flattering.

What it says is that they are unenlightened, and that darkness is deliberately kept in place by our leaders, both male and female. When we have women leaders like our present Relief Society General President, we have leaders who deliberately blind us. (Lord, save me from women who think pressed white shirts say anything about the character of the child's mother) Those who are blinded are not to blame for their blindness. They do not know what is deliberately kept from them.

I have seen no meaningful change in women’s status in the LDS Church. What you’re mentioning is window dressing and tangential to the real issue—the status of women, their rights and privileges compared to men.

*sigh* Guy, you know I love you, but you are not a woman(thank God), so how would you know what is meaningful and what isn't? Women praying in Sacrament Meeting is a BIG deal. Women having authority over men (thinking: Primary) is a BIG deal. Women wearing pants to church and to the temple is a BIG deal. Just because you don't see those changes as a big deal to you doesn't mean they aren't a big deal to women.

Many of the women who do stand up represent a cliquish elite who have done nothing to broaden the appeal of their “movement.” They have not tried, from what I’ve seen, to reach out to the rank and file but are content to gather in elitist, intellectual venues such as, in times past, Exponent II. Their influence will always be limited and non-effective until they make genuine effort to broaden and craft their message to the rank and file. As it is, the rank and file view them as whining feminists.

Now I've never thought of this in exactly this way, and I agree with you. However, the reaching out to the rank and file is problematic at best: anything that is viewed as contrary to the current leadership is immediately suspect, yet anything that agrees with the current leadership is useless. Catch 22, and I have no idea how to get around it.

It takes leadership, willingness to take risk, and a strategy to reach out to broad audiences. Who’s going to take this on?

Especially since there is no paycheck involved. Virtually everyone has to make a living, so this kind of tilting at windmills always takes a backseat and is relegated to wishful thinking at best.

By the way, love ya Harmony

Back at ya!