consiglieri wrote:
More important is that girls can now go on missions at age 19.
But I could not help thinking that regardless of the change, girls still need to understand that are not on an equal playing field.
Why on earth couldn't they just make it the same for girls, just like the boys?
Where would be the harm in saying girls can go on missions at 18 if they have graduated from high school, too?
I am left to think it is an intentional decision to make sure women do not get the idea they are equal to men.
Just my two cents.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
I think this is one of the creepier policy decisions to come down from on high-- perhaps even since the all-important proclamation on a single pair of earrings.
I can't say I understand it, except as a concession meant to appeal to women who don't realize how sexist Mormonism is and will think this is some kind of move toward equality. The reasoning we always got for the age policy was that the first priority of a young woman was to marry and start a family, thus women women didn't need to be running off to serve a mission if they had viable marriage prospects. I personally was rejected by a bishop when I inquired about serving, because I was dating a worthy, priesthood-holding RM who wanted to marry me (never mind whether I wanted to marry him).
Why the gender gap still? Given the history of encouraging women to prioritize marriage before the prospect of missionary service, the lingering age difference suggests that during the year between 18-19, there's an expectation that women will be pursuing meaningful marriage prospects and that the age difference is meant to encourage that. in a world where lower age at the time of marriage is a strong predictor of marriage failure, is that really a message women of the church need to hear? Do women of the church really need institutional encouragement to marry during that year rather than serve a mission? Seriously? As if they don't face enough pressure already.