I exclude you out of respect...

[_MsJack]

Jersey Girl ~ It appears that after the ceremony was over, plenty of women approached the podium to turn over a shovelful of ceremonial dirt. café crema posted these pictures earlier. It sure looks to me like there were women there who would have liked to have participated and weren't concerned about their shoes. Indeed, I'm not seeing mud on anyone's shoes in the photos I've looked at, male or female.

Did any of the women who were present bitch about this? If not, why not?

If they accepted what he said, then what business is it of ours to criticize?

So, do you know lots of Mormons who have openly "bitched" to their leaders' faces when something was truly bothering them?

Because I don't. The church discourages its members from criticizing "the Lord's anointed," even when the criticism is true. My LDS friends would never speak up against a local leader, let alone a General Authority. Let alone while a ceremony was underway.

That said, there are plenty of comments over at By Common Consent from faithful Mormons who disliked this action on Oaks' part. For example:

Had I been there and known so I’d have been happy to kick my shoes off and join in. It must be the shoes that are being protected because I figure if my sweet little self can respectfully give birth I can probably recover suitably from mud.

I’ve mentioned before that when they broke ground for the Church History Library, I sneaked in to turn my own shovelful after the bigwigs had gone and left their shovels in the sand. Ridiculous, I know, but I wanted to take part in the groundbreaking and feel like I had a stake in this place that I expected to be such a large part of my life.

That really can be the only possible significance in participating in a groundbreaking. It’s purely sentimental, absolutely without significance except to gratify emotion. It doesn’t even have any practical value, because the dirt is always either trucked in for the occasion or at the very least already turned and broken up so that it will be easy for the man who puts the shovel in and turns the first spadeful while the cameras roll. Most of that emotion is anticipating the feeling of a personal attachment to a place, a looking forward to remembering that you were there at the start of a significant thing. “This is my temple. I was there at the beginning, and I’m still here, and I always will.” Those 12-year-old boys who were invited to participate didn’t bring any priesthood authority to bear — inviting them to participate could have had no purpose other than creating that emotional bond to the place and helping them feel important.

It would have meant just as much to any 12-year-old girl invited to participate. Or any 52-year-old woman. Anybody who cared more about muddy shoes than the symbolic participation — or who thought that someone would so care ….

Words fail me.

In 1855, my great-great-great-grandmother, Evaline Brown, gave birth to twins at Chimney Rock in the middle of her journey across the plains. She endured such extremity in order to reach Utah, where, among other things, she could receive her endowment at the Endowment House (which she did in 1856). I wonder how she would feel to hear that the daughters of her legacy were barred from participating in a ceremony related to the temple on account of not wanting their shoes to possibly get dirty.

[SNIP]

Even if he had extended the invitation to all, there was nothing forcing anyone to participate. Anyone extremely concerned about his or her shoes could have just not come forward. Why not let women choose? They will vote with their feet [so to speak] and we’ll see if they want to risk getting muddy or not.

Like most affronts to women in the church, by itself it’s not worth making a fuss over. But our dignity dies by a thousand stupid cuts, any one of which we could be justifiably cajoled out of getting upset over. I’d love to sit down with Elder Oaks and diplomatically explain what was wrong with this particular comment, but it’s hard to see what impact that would have on the larger problem.

And there's plenty more where that came from.

So does their "bitching" count? Or are you only interested in whether or not the Mormon women who were present (whom we have little account of either way) "bitched"?

so, an elderly gentlemen does something nice for the women present at a ceremony and we're going to bitch about that too?

[SNIP]

Lobbing grenades at guy for doing something he believes is nice for a woman, isn't good thinking nor is it good practice.

I don't think it matters much that Oaks thought he was being nice to the women. People do sexist and harmful things all the time under the banner of "I was just trying to be nice!" The anti-suffragists thought they were being nice by barring women from the rough-and-tumble of the polls. Doesn't mean they weren't tragically, horribly wrong in trying to withhold the vote from women. Doesn't mean that they didn't deserve to be criticized for their choice.

Now, I said earlier that this issue rates a "meh" for me, and I meant it. You correctly point out that Oaks is LDS. If anything, this incident just serves as a small reminder of how the LDS church likes to be "nice" to women---by taking away their agency altogether and their access to participation in meaningful rituals and ceremonies. I dislike it, but nothing about it surprises me.

[_Blixa]

Wait just a New York minute, Blox. ;-)

So, any time a guy does something he thinks is nice for a woman, now he is "sexist"?

Nope. It has to do with the idea that they were only excluded for worries about "soiling their shoes," a trivializing idea that places stereotypes about the things women are presumed to be concerned with above the more important consideration of them as human beings with the same desires for inclusion in symbolically important ceremonies, or above their allegedly equal standing as children of god.

I think Ms.Jack's round up of quotes puts the discussion back to where the OP started before it was derailed into a discussion of mere generational chivalry.

[_just me]

Yeah, this discussion really isn't about holding doors open. Not at all.

Blixa and Ms. Jack have done a wonderful job of presenting what the issue really is. It's not really about Oaks as an individual. But, I will say that he is considered by many TBM's to be more righteous than themselves and to be God's representative.

The two pictures we have of a woman among men turning earth, one woman is a community leader according to the notes under the pic and I am fairly confident that the woman in the other photo is also a community leader. I am unaware of the Relief Society or Young Women ever being included in a ceremonial groundbreaking. And if the women are never included that just makes Oaks comment all the more insulting.

The fact that after the ceremony many females went and turned the earth tells us that there were women who wanted to participate and didn't give a rat's ass about their shoes. The green turf also seemed to be doing a fine job of keeping everyone clean anyway.

[_MsJack]

I've got to quote Cynthia L. from BCC one more time. She had a very poignant response to those who were taking the "Golly, he was just trying to be chivalrous and nice!" defense, so I think it's worth repeating here:

Update:

I’d like to just add a quick further response to arguments along the lines of, “it’s truly intended out of respect and kindness, not to be degrading.” I thought I’d addressed it (a few times) in the thread, but maybe these analogies would help clarify the issue:

Situation: Woman in Old West days stands at the side of a muddy street, wanting to cross.
Here are several possible responses from a man in the vicinity:
Response A: “Here, let me enable your desire to cross the street by putting down my coat so you can cross without getting dirty.”
Response B: “I see you want to cross. Watch out, it’s a little muddy.”
Response C: “Sorry, but I am not allowing you to cross this street because it is muddy. Even if you came here and braved rainy weather in large part looking forward to the opportunity to cross, and even if it means so much to you that, while other women may opt not to cross, you personally would be willing to get muddy in doing so, I’m just excluding all women from crossing.”

Situation: Woman approaches door of building.
Here are several possible responses from a man in the vicinity:
Response A: “Here, let me support your desire to enter the building by opening this door for you.”
Response B: “Just so you know, that door is pretty heavy. You might have a hard time with it.”
Response C: “Sorry, but that door is heavy and you may or may not have a hard time with it, so, I am excluding all women from entering that building.”

Hopefully this illustrates that exclusion–--even when it is done with the very noblest and kindest of intentions--–is not true chivalry and kindness. Of course, response A is the “above and beyond” chivalry one, and I think that would almost universally be judged as a kind response. But response C, the response of sincerely attempting chivalrous action but having that action be to exclude women and inhibit their purposes and desires, is worse than response B, just issuing a warning but basically doing nothing. Excluding someone “out of respect for them” is the same mindset that was used for so long to exclude women from the right to vote–--a right, I will note, that our own Relief Society was very actively engaged in fighting for (see information about Relief Society general president Emmeline B. Wells’ suffrage campaigns, for example).

As a further note, I hope it is clear that perfectly lovely, kind, gentle, sensitive souls can quite accidentally do things that have unintended negative effects on or interpretations by others. I am not a perfectly lovely, kind, gentle and sensitive soul, but my goodness!--–I know I unintentionally hurt other people all the time! Sometimes it is because I don’t understand nuances of cultures or generations that are slightly different from mine, sometimes it is just not having lived other people’s lives and not knowing what it is like to be them, sometimes it is just a slip that happens in a moment. However, I hope that when I do that, people will not be afraid to point it out to me.

[_just me]

Jack, thanks for posting that over here. It is a great post!

[_why me]

I've got to quote Cynthia L. from BCC one more time. She had a very poignant response to those who were taking the "Golly, he was just trying to be chivalrous and nice!" defense, so I think it's worth repeating here:

Update:

I’d like to just add a quick further response to arguments along the lines of, “it’s truly intended out of respect and kindness, not to be degrading.” I thought I’d addressed it (a few times) in the thread, but maybe these analogies would help clarify the issue:

Situation: Woman in Old West days stands at the side of a muddy street, wanting to cross.
Here are several possible responses from a man in the vicinity:
Response A: “Here, let me enable your desire to cross the street by putting down my coat so you can cross without getting dirty.”
Response B: “I see you want to cross. Watch out, it’s a little muddy.”
Response C: “Sorry, but I am not allowing you to cross this street because it is muddy. Even if you came here and braved rainy weather in large part looking forward to the opportunity to cross, and even if it means so much to you that, while other women may opt not to cross, you personally would be willing to get muddy in doing so, I’m just excluding all women from crossing.”

Situation: Woman approaches door of building.
Here are several possible responses from a man in the vicinity:
Response A: “Here, let me support your desire to enter the building by opening this door for you.”
Response B: “Just so you know, that door is pretty heavy. You might have a hard time with it.”
Response C: “Sorry, but that door is heavy and you may or may not have a hard time with it, so, I am excluding all women from entering that building.”

Hopefully this illustrates that exclusion–--even when it is done with the very noblest and kindest of intentions--–is not true chivalry and kindness. Of course, response A is the “above and beyond” chivalry one, and I think that would almost universally be judged as a kind response. But response C, the response of sincerely attempting chivalrous action but having that action be to exclude women and inhibit their purposes and desires, is worse than response B, just issuing a warning but basically doing nothing. Excluding someone “out of respect for them” is the same mindset that was used for so long to exclude women from the right to vote–--a right, I will note, that our own Relief Society was very actively engaged in fighting for (see information about Relief Society general president Emmeline B. Wells’ suffrage campaigns, for example).

As a further note, I hope it is clear that perfectly lovely, kind, gentle, sensitive souls can quite accidentally do things that have unintended negative effects on or interpretations by others. I am not a perfectly lovely, kind, gentle and sensitive soul, but my goodness!--–I know I unintentionally hurt other people all the time! Sometimes it is because I don’t understand nuances of cultures or generations that are slightly different from mine, sometimes it is just not having lived other people’s lives and not knowing what it is like to be them, sometimes it is just a slip that happens in a moment. However, I hope that when I do that, people will not be afraid to point it out to me.

I think that I need to take some drugs to get a little high after reading this post. Is she serious? Women are certainly uptight these days. And this is the reason why I never hold the door open for any lady who is of the younger generation. But they can certainly open the door for me.

[_MsJack]

I think that I need to take some drugs to get a little high after reading this post.

Is this your usual response to having your arguments decimated?

Hmm. Actually, this explains A LOT.

[_why me]

Hmm. Actually, this explains A LOT.

I think that you are overreacting to the situation. Likewise for the young woman on the other board. It is no big deal as Jersey Girl said.

[_Rambo]

Hmm. Actually, this explains A LOT.

I think that you are overreacting to the situation. Likewise for the young woman on the other board. It is no big deal as Jersey Girl said.

You ass. You don't open the door for people. Just be nice and open it for everyone. I have guys and girls opening the door for me and I do the same for them.

[_Jersey Girl]

Do they have a list of people they want up for the ground breaking ceremony beforehand?

Couldn't some of the women been asked privately before and given the option to come up. If they don't want to come up because of the mud then that is fine.

I think he is making the decision for the women himself. He could've given them the option to come up.

Anyways, even if it was freakin muddy there would be plenty of women that would jump at that opportunity and they would be bearing testimony about it later.

Here's more questions based on the above.

1. How are these things organized?
2. After SLC (presumably) schedules an event like this, who takes it on at a local level?