Is Religion in general anti-woman?

[applepansy]

I find this very funny and true. At the same time it’s sad.

I wonder if we actually left them alone with the responsibility rather than micromanaging and criticizing the way they choose to take it on might we find that they are in fact very much able to handle it. I know I've been guilty of doing that countless times. How many of us wives have said, "I'll just do it myself otherwise it will never get done right." I know I've said it hundreds of times in my mind... if not out loud.

If you keep tying your children’s shoes they’ll never know how to tie it themselves. It might take them 20 times of repetitively tying their shoes to get it right, but we continue to trust eventually through us teaching them they will soon be able to tie it correctly themselves.

Say it enough times and the person will start to believe they are incapable of doing anything right in your eyes. Do we in a sense contribute to this notion that “husband” can’t handle a simple task? Unbeknownst to us maybe we are creating the problem?

Mirancs, you make a very important point.

When I got sick and couldn't do everything anymore, my husband stepped up. He doesn't do things my way but often his way is better. :)

[prisonchaplain]

The ideal and the reality are two different matters, perhaps. Ideally, my faith (pentecostal) treats women practically as men. Likewise, our racial issues are resolved. During the Azusa Street Revival several articles were written triumphally proclaiming that Paul's proclammation to the Galations had finally been fulfilled...there is no male or female, no slave or master, no Greek or Jew, we are one in Christ Jesus (very loose paraphrase on my part). Alas, as the fire resided, our pioneers still found themselves in early 20th-century America, and racism still needed to be contended with, as well as economic jealousies and misunderstandings. We happen to ordain women as pastors, but they lead less than 10% of our churches. Culture does more to create separation and artificial distinctions than religion does.

[prisonchaplain]

Thanks for all the responses. I am certainly not a women's rights gal but on the other hand I have a hard time swallowing the fact that some men in the church are given so much responsibility when in the real world you would have a hard time giving them responsibility for your shopping list.

Most of the disciples probably fit this description--especially Judas. Yet even he had his role.

[RescueMom]

In some religions yes. And in some cultural leanings of members of a religion yes. Most of the male is better than female is a cultural teaching not an actual doctrine of the religion. But many times many traditions are cultural and not what God has ordained.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Men and women need different roles for an important reason. Men and women think, behave, and decide differently. With all the examples already before us, imagine a farm where both mom and dad got up to milk the cows before breakfast. Now, no doubt both mom and dad know very well how to do it, but someone has got to get breakfast started. There are duties and responsibilities that are natrually a better match for most men, and likewise for most women. Even in this there are exceptions, but if you think quietly, you'll realize that moms are usually better than dads at calming kids down after a nasty bump or crash on the playground.

[bluedreams]

Men and women need different roles for an important reason. Men and women think, behave, and decide differently. With all the examples already before us, imagine a farm where both mom and dad got up to milk the cows before breakfast. Now, no doubt both mom and dad know very well how to do it, but someone has got to get breakfast started. There are duties and responsibilities that are natrually a better match for most men, and likewise for most women. Even in this there are exceptions, but if you think quietly, you'll realize that moms are usually better than dads at calming kids down after a nasty bump or crash on the playground.

This begs the question of whether these roles are actually better suited for men and women. All cultures have different forms of gendered work (ie man's work and women's work). But each culture splits it differently. What is considered "natural" comes from a deeply ingrained way of life that we accept as normal in life. Whether these lines are actually good can also be in question. For example I read an article about starvation in ethiopia. The natural strains on the environment were exacerbated by very strict gender roles.

I personally don't think we need as many different roles (on the temporal level) than we give to men and women. We see things differently, true, but I'd say both of these perspectives are equally needed within differing work, social, religious, and political environments. The reason we don't I think is less about what men and women naturally desire or are made for but that we've built systems around gender roles. These reinforce what is already expected in the society.

With luv,

BD

[RipplecutBuddha]

This begs the question of whether these roles are actually better suited for men and women. All cultures have different forms of gendered work (ie man's work and women's work). But each culture splits it differently. What is considered "natural" comes from a deeply ingrained way of life that we accept as normal in life. Whether these lines are actually good can also be in question. For example I read an article about starvation in ethiopia. The natural strains on the environment were exacerbated by very strict gender roles.

I personally don't think we need as many different roles (on the temporal level) than we give to men and women. We see things differently, true, but I'd say both of these perspectives are equally needed within differing work, social, religious, and political environments. The reason we don't I think is less about what men and women naturally desire or are made for but that we've built systems around gender roles. These reinforce what is already expected in the society.

With luv,

BD

I agree. I guess what I was trying to say was that at the end of the day whatever work needs to be done is going to have to be done by either the man or the woman. My problem is the fixation some people have with 'men's work' and 'women's work'.

Feminists (the extreme side) tend to see the matter as either/or with little room for shared responsibilities, much less traditional views. Some go so far as to demand the Mr. Mom set up before satisfaction is met.

Whatever works best for the couple/family/society I think is fine. We're all individuals with varying strengths and weaknesses. We ought to be allowed to tailor our lives to harmonize with them as much as we can.

[momof7-2nheaven]

I realize that some women are fine with the hierarchy of the church. I am not. I try to be diplomatic but I do not have that kind of personality. Men are in power in the church. Women are yes 'ums. Which is fine for some but we who disagree should have the ability to disagree. Men judge alone, they make callings alone. Some are not equipped to make these decisions. Some will forever harm the members in their stewardship.

[Connie]

I suspect you may not have a very complete picture of what happens in the hierarchy of the church. But to be clear, may i ask. Are you a member of the LDS church? Have you ever held a position of leadership as a woman in the church, i.e., a ward auxiliary presidency, a stake auxiliary presidency, such as primary, relief society, young women, etc.? Have you been through the temple?

[Just_A_Guy]

I realize that some women are fine with the hierarchy of the church. I am not. I try to be diplomatic but I do not have that kind of personality. Men are in power in the church. Women are yes 'ums. Which is fine for some but we who disagree should have the ability to disagree. Men judge alone, they make callings alone. Some are not equipped to make these decisions. Some will forever harm the members in their stewardship.

You do have the ability to disagree. What you lack--what each of us lacks--is the ability to unilaterally impose our will on the Church by fiat, and the ability to have our openly-expressed views go unopposed.

And I would respectfully suggest you consider the implied double-standard in the post quoted above. I hope I am misreading you, but you do seem to advocate a worldview in which men must change both themselves and the Church in order to avoid giving offense; but women (or at least, you personally) need not undertake a similar obligation because you just "do not have that kind of personality".

The Gospel is all about change. Those who persist in celebrating their personality flaws rather than trying to overcome them--male or female--may be disappointed to find their spiritual growth and power in the priesthood stunted by their patent unwillingness to fully shoulder the burdens and responsibilities that pertain to that priesthood.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[momof7-2nheaven]

Yes I have been through the temple. Yes I have been Primary President and in the YOung Women's and RS Presidency. Why does that matter? I was discouraged much of the time frame I served in leadership roles. I was told who to call. I was told where I should place people, so in fact I was not in a leadership position. I liken it to having the Owner's son as a boss. Even when things go completely wrong the person in charge is never called to own these results.

And as far as being asked to change, Human beings have been asked to change and thank God for that since the beginning of time. The church has changed, blacks holding the priesthood and many other decisions. So just because that is the way things have been doesn't mean that they can not change. The idea that women might bring a fresh perspective to leadership is just an idea. What is wrong with new ideas? when I say my personality is not like that. I am not asking that things change because of my personality. I admit that I have a problem with authority, it is my fault but I can also see that things might run smoother with fresh thinking in the process.

[Guest]

Women sit on the ward counsels, and their ideas are considered and implemented as well as the men's are. Yes, the bishop has the responsibility to know and follow Church guidelines, to be aware of what resources they have to work with and distribute them accordingly, and to receive inspiration and act as a judge in Israel. It's no wonder that bishops often leave their calling with gray hair! You were probably told who to call and where to place them because of things the bishop knew that you didn't, not because he was trying to keep you under his thumb. Maybe this is a good thing to take to the Lord to get a good understanding of Priesthood responsibility and a testimony of your role as a woman in Zion, instead of griping about it on the Internet.

[bluedreams]

Feminists (the extreme side) tend to see the matter as either/or with little room for shared responsibilities, much less traditional views. Some go so far as to demand the Mr. Mom set up before satisfaction is met.

Whatever works best for the couple/family/society I think is fine. We're all individuals with varying strengths and weaknesses. We ought to be allowed to tailor our lives to harmonize with them as much as we can.

Personally, I think that's what most feminists want nowadays. The freedom to define their lives as they will. There's extreme versions of feminists, but they're not what I'd call overpowering IMO.

But yes, at the end of the day someone's going to have to do some work. I agree that this works best for the couple.

With luv,

BD

[bluedreams]

Yes I have been through the temple. Yes I have been Primary President and in the YOung Women's and RS Presidency. Why does that matter? I was discouraged much of the time frame I served in leadership roles. I was told who to call. I was told where I should place people, so in fact I was not in a leadership position. I liken it to having the Owner's son as a boss. Even when things go completely wrong the person in charge is never called to own these results.

Mind you, this is from the perspective of someone who hasn't ever served in any said leadership callings. I just had the priviledge of sitting in a number of ward councils, even some PPC's, and work with the leadership. What I saw was that the best wards were those that had strong women that were utilized in their callings. One ward inparticular stands out to me and the RS prez is forever my ultimate example of how to serve. She was so utilized that in councils when there was a question about this or that and how to reach out to a family, people just naturally turned to her expecting an answer. We sometimes would call the bishop asking about someone and be referrred to the RS prez. And the ward was just superb in large part because of how each part worked together and was used.

What you mention I don't think is the problem of the entire institution but how the institution is used within the community. It also shows a misapplication of what "leader" means. We, as people, look to much of leadership in a unilateral manner due to our culture. The words leader, power, and direction need to be examined and redefined within the context of the gospel. This, IMO, would alter how we look at leaders and our own callings.

With luv,

BD

[Just_A_Guy]

And as far as being asked to change, Human beings have been asked to change and thank God for that since the beginning of time. The church has changed, blacks holding the priesthood and many other decisions. So just because that is the way things have been doesn't mean that they can not change. The idea that women might bring a fresh perspective to leadership is just an idea. What is wrong with new ideas?

I didn't say otherwise. Why are you ascribing to me a position I did not take?

when I say my personality is not like that. I am not asking that things change because of my personality. I admit that I have a problem with authority, it is my fault but I can also see that things might run smoother with fresh thinking in the process.

Perhaps. All I'm saying is that a) a person (male or female) who aspires to priesthood office should not lightly dismiss an opportunity for self-improvement, and b) an advocate who seeks to shame her adversaries into adhering to a standard of self-improvement that she herself openly flouts, is not likely to be particularly persuasive or effective.

That's why I'm hoping I've misinterpreted you.

[prisonchaplain]

Since the OP is directed at religion in general, I'd like to point out an ironic reality. Many congregations are made up overwhelmingly of women and children. My own church (AoG) is sometimes jokingly referred to as the Assembly of Girls. So...if religions in are anti-women, why do women generally seem to be more pious?

[momof7-2nheaven]

Women sit on the ward counsels, and their ideas are considered and implemented as well as the men's are. Yes, the bishop has the responsibility to know and follow Church guidelines, to be aware of what resources they have to work with and distribute them accordingly, and to receive inspiration and act as a judge in Israel. It's no wonder that bishops often leave their calling with gray hair! You were probably told who to call and where to place them because of things the bishop knew that you didn't, not because he was trying to keep you under his thumb. Maybe this is a good thing to take to the Lord to get a good understanding of Priesthood responsibility and a testimony of your role as a woman in Zion, instead of griping about it on the Internet.

I am not griping but discussing. I have a right to my opinion. I take what the church has taught me try to use it and like you saying the bishop might have info I don't, but am I not called to that position and not inspired to make decisions also. Does he trump always? If not why am i there? And as far as my role as a woman...explain it to me. Is it to be seen and not heard? Do you practice that?

[prisonchaplain]

Here's a magazine article making the point I was trying to raise, that while the OP may have a point about women lacking decision-making power in many churches, culturally, churches tend to be far more feminine-friendly--so much so, that men have simply withdrawn.

Touchstone Archives: Missing Fathers of the Church

[Connie]

I'm very sorry you've had such terrible experiences as a woman in the church. My own experiences, including watching those of my parents (particularly my mother) while growing up, have been quite different. In my own personal opinion, in fact, i would say there is much more of a disparagment toward men than there is toward women in most Christian religions. The feminist movement had some wonderfully positive effects but also some very unfortunate negative ones.

You didn't really say, but i'm going to go with the assumption that you still consider yourself LDS as i can't really imagine why someone who is not a member or who has willingly chosen to disassociate themselves with the church would really care much about such an issue. And with that assumption, i'll just post some links to some reading material that you may or may not find useful.

Why don’t women hold the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? How do Mormon women lead in the Church? | Mormon.org

Women in the Church

Women of the Church - general-conference

A Woman?s Perspective on the Priesthood - Ensign July 1980 - ensign

Peace be with you and have a happy new year.

[bluedreams]

Here's a magazine article making the point I was trying to raise, that while the OP may have a point about women lacking decision-making power in many churches, culturally, churches tend to be far more feminine-friendly--so much so, that men have simply withdrawn.

That was an interesting article. I didn't read all of it, just here and there.

A couple questions that popped up for me:

Why isn't this same disparity found in non-christian religions? I think this would be extremely interesting

I had a little problem with the end note. I can't put my finger entirely on it. But I think it's moreso that its trying to legitimize traditional ideal of what equals masculine.

[Guest]

LOL if you knew me at all, the notion of me being seen and not heard would be pretty funny to you. All I have to say is that I do believe that men and women have separate but equal responsibilities in the Gospel, and that encompasses what happens in our ward families and families at home. I am not lesser than my husband or my bishop, but I understand and respect that they have responsibilities that I don't and those responsibilities come with a mantle, just as mine do as well. I think when we look for ways to be offended, we can always find them. I think that when we are struggling, whether because of outside happenings or because we're neglecting to do the things that feed our spirits, we lose sight of things as they are and instead see things as the world might. I son't take offense at the fact that the bishop has more inspiration than I do in certain things, because he has stewardship of the whole ward; and besides, unto whom much is given, much is required. I'm thankful for all he does and all of his efforts in behalf of our ward; the time and worry and efforts he gives freely, in his OWN TIME. I wouldn't want his job in a million years.

[Vort]

I have a right to my opinion.

This is one of those sayings I often see here on this list when someone doesn't like to consider other points of view. The intent seems to be, "Don't contradict me! I'm right, even if you don't think so!" Which raises the question: Why bother participating in a discussion list if you don't want to hear or consider the ideas of others?

Maybe someone should start a "discussion" list where disagreement is forbidden, and where such people could find sweet (and solitary) solace. But this list is not that place.

[RipplecutBuddha]

If this is going to boil down to "Why doesn't the LDS Church allow women the priesthood?" then might I suggest changing the thread title?

Look, something that needs to be kept in mind here; This is Christ's church, not the prophet's. The rule of males holding the priesthood goes back to Old Testament times, so we aren't really breaking new ground here. If anything, the LDS Church has more priesthood holders per capita than any other religion claiming such authority in the history of mankind. On that front, I don't think we have anything to be upset over.

However, if this really is about women holding the priesthood, this excellent website will not bring you any measure of satisfaction. There are a number of reasons why, but the most important one is this; Christ doesn't follow this website to decide how he will govern his church.

The root of this situation in it's most extreme is a lack of humility. I'm not saying this is the case here, but it often is at other times. We have to remember that this life is our time to remember how to obey Christ, not tell him what he could do better. There is a reason why women aren't allowed the priesthood, and I assure you it's an excellent reason. Even though I don't have a clue as to what it could be, I have faith that Christ is running this Church the very best way he can. If giving women the priesthood would make this church stronger, I assure you Christ would be working on getting it done.

Until then we must sit peacefully and humbly, seeking to discover and understand God's will however and whenever we can. We are not in charge of the LDS Church, nor should we attempt to be in this life, male or female.

[Jean]

I don't believe the LDS church treats women as lower status. I believe some men, as individuals, might do this. This thread has been interesting for me to read. I take it that the OP has issues with some of the men in her ward when she had a leadership position.

I've had the opportunity to serve in several leadership positions under various bishops. In my opinion, they have all had their strengths but I've related to some better than others. It's my theory that men who have good relationships with their mothers, wives, etc (the women in their personal life) relate better to women in the church. I've worked with some bishops who did not give much attention to my concerns or listen to my suggestions. (They did have some very real talents, though, and were very effective with various ward members.)

I've worked with other bishops, and I'm especially thinking of one bishop in particular, who sought out my advice and considered me a real counselor. We worked together and I felt like I made a real contribution to the ward. This bishop had a great relationship with his mother and had a good wife. I think he thought highly of the women in his life so gave great respect to the women in the ward. We are all on a learning curve and we need to forgive each other our weaknesses. You might have a different opinion about women and the church depending on your personal interrelationships.

[prisonchaplain]

That was an interesting article. I didn't read all of it, just here and there.

A couple questions that popped up for me:

Why isn't this same disparity found in non-christian religions? I think this would be extremely interesting

I had a little problem with the end note. I can't put my finger entirely on it. But I think it's moreso that its trying to legitimize traditional ideal of what equals masculine.

Frankly, I perceive that Islam is so male-oriented, that many Americans men find it refreshingly masculine. This might explain why an off-shoot, the Nation of Islam, appealed so much to African-American men. Buddhism, on the other hand, probably does have a strong female draw, at least in the U.S. I wonder, in other words, if women are generally more religious than men across the board, with religions like Islam offering one of a few exceptions.

BTW, I cut my teeth in prison ministry working with Promise Keepers. The basic premise of that movement was that church had become so feminized that men could not easily relate.

So, going with the gist of this string, are LDS wards gender-balanced? If so, is it because the teachings do stress traditional gender roles more than many traditional churches (though I think the Southern Baptists are even more focused on gender roles)?