Equality is not a Feeling 2.0 depicted the number of minutes of General Conference addresses delivered by men as compared to those delivered by woman.
As guest writer Anderson points out, the chart on Equality is not a Feeling 2.0 conceals a greater inequity: the short length and doctrinal poverty of the talks these women give.
First, some data:
Here’s this data depicted in pie charts:
Using the number of verses cited per page as a proxy for the doctrinal richness of a talk reveals a lot of mathematical inequity, even correcting for the relatively few and short talks women give:
- Number of verses cited per “page” (2000 alphabet characters), using speakers who have given 3+ conference talks: male speakers average 5.0 verses per page, females 2.3
- Probability such a large difference occurs by chance: 0.0000008
Finally, here’s a depiction of the scriptural density of the General Conference talks from 1974-2014, broken down by gender.
In sum, most male General Conference speakers cite 2-7 scripture verses per page. A few male conference speakers cite 10-15 (Neal A. Maxwell, maybe?).
Most female General Conference speakers cite 1-5 scripture verses per page. No female General Conference speaker used more than ~6 scripture verses per page.
You lost me. “Allowed to give”? Do you really believe some Elder Packer boogie man is telling the women to limit the number of verses they cite?
Ha ha. No. That’s not what I meant. I’ll have to edit it.
Good, because I love this series.
For whatever it is worth, I’ll give my take as to why their talks have fewer scriptures. The women chosen for these leadership positions have speaking styles that tend to be more relationship and story driven than driven by an exegesis of the scriptures. President Monson has a similar speaking style. I won’t call it doctrine light (although that shoe may fit), but he usually tells didactic stories, usually involving himself, and expounds doctrine or lessons to learn from there, rather than taking us on a tour through the scriptures.
Aristotle taught that there were three methods of persuasion: logos (appeal to logic), ethos (appeal to authority), and pathos (appeal to emotion). President Monson and many of the female leaders tend to focus far more on pathos than the other two modes of persuasion. There are plenty of exceptions, but that is my perception of the norm.
Good point, Haggoth!
Also, Haggoth, if you have any other ideas, send them my way. Ha ha.
Do you know what would be interesting doing scriptures references over time, by gender. Do we use more less how does that compare?
Also I love these posts.
Hi Jessica. I’m not following your question. Are you asking if there are specific verses of scripture that are cited more (or less) by men?
Another reason talks by women may be less scriptural dense is that they often talk about issues relevant to women (e.g. the history and mechanics of RS) which are not as prevalent in the scriptures.
Really interesting! I wonder if in general speakers in positions of less power cite fewer scriptures. It would be interesting to compare RS/YW/Primary presidency speakers to YM/Sunday School presidency speakers and see if that’s the case. Tangential to your major point, but just a thought.
I love this series! The message is depressing, but I appreciate you documenting the differences so starkly.