Today’s amazing guest post comes to us from Laura C.
The newest LDS youth manuals are online now, and teachers are getting ready to prepare lessons from them for Aaronic Priesthood (YM), Young Women and Sunday School classes beginning January 2013. Each month, teachers may choose from 5-7 lessons, with the instruction that they pick topics best suited to their teens’ situations. The lessons are structured to be guided conversations rather than lectures.
In the LDS church, men and women have prescribed, often different roles. When the new Duty to God manuals were developed a couple of years ago, I took a couple of months to look at the differences between those new manuals for the young men and the Personal Progress manuals for the young women. I was fascinated (albeit in the “wow, look at that train wreck” way sometimes) by the different ways the manuals approached teaching the Gospel to the rising generation. The differences I noticed in those manuals a few years ago, appear to be extended into this newest curriculum.
I work in an alternative elementary school that focuses on community-building and whole-child learning, and we spend a lot of time as adults discussing the importance of language – what the adults say to the kids, what the kids say to adults, and what we say to each other. Language builds our community and shapes our goals. I’ve found that language sets expectations and drives character in many subtle ways. It’s interesting to see the different way our youth manuals “speak” to instructors, and how instructors, in turn, are guided to “speak” to the youth.
We tend to speak to boys with active, hands-on lessons about applying duty, responsibility and leadership and we give them opportunities to practice those leadership skills in quorum meetings. We tend to speak with girls about preparing for future roles or considering feelings or other less-concrete ways of approaching topics and regularly leave “preparation” time in YW lessons. While we expect YM to step up and lead, we lead YW and tell them what they should do. While we ask YM to act in the present, we ask YW to think about how their actions might affect their futures. Case in point, the newest YM/YW manuals, this one on marriage.
The left-hand column is from the YW version, the right-hand from the YM version. Text in pink is only in the YW version; text in blue is only in the YM version. It’s more than just taking one lesson and adding/subtracting priesthood to it. The language differences are subtle, but telling.
Just by looking at the lesson plans and language used, it’s clear we want our young men to grow up and be leaders. What do we want our young women to grow up to become?
Reading this made me feel slightly sick. Sorry. What do gender roles have to do with Christianity? Jesus Christ? Or being redeemed from sin? How does a lesson like this bring us closer to God when it works so hard at replacing the “human” classification with “man” and “woman.” How is this inspired? Or, perhaps what I should really ask is, how could God possibly have inspired something that does nothing to bring us closer to Him? This is not religion, it’s micromanagement.
Just one last thought, a hammer and nail, seriously?
You seriously think that gender has nothing to do with Heavenly Father’s plan?
Yes, we are all redeemed from sin in the same way, but that is the central part, not the whole of Heavenly Father’s plan.
Gary, I think gender is largely a social construct.
Trying to write a coherent response, but I’m too **** mad right now. The implications of all this are just insulting.
Why? Just…why? The YM manual wOrding is perfect for both…who decided to dumb down and soften up the YW one? Sigh. if I were teaching, I would use the YM lesson for either group.
This would, in part at least, explain why my ex-husband looked at me funny when I’d explain my experiences in the LDS church. He chalked it up, time after time, to having grown up in a different ward. (And, since there is room for YW / YM leaders to add or delete as needed, I’d grant him that little bit.) Seeing the two lessons side-by-side, I see just how incredibly different it’s set up to be. I just don’t get it.
Wow, I just wanna throw up… For so many reasons, I just want to throw up. The whole thing is just so damn frustrating.
And the whole paper and pencil thing makes me gag. I get it! I’m the paper- to be written upon- but not to write. Oh yes, of course, it is a complementary role. You know, the complementary role to abuser? The abused. Complimentary role to ruler? Ruled over. The complementary role to leader? Follower. Everything has a compliment! That is the meaning of the word! But not everything should be complemented or completed.
The whole hammer and nail thing makes me laugh too. Because women would never identify with that metaphor, right?
At my brother’s sealing, the sealer (?) explained the ceremony briefly right before, and said he was going to ask the bride first, and then was going to ask the groom “the exact same question”. The hairs on the back of my neck stood up. I wanted to say “well, not the EXACT same question”, but I didn’t because, well, it would have been rude, and my brother would have been angry. But, it is never EXACTLY the same, is it?
Has anyone ever figured out how you preside over an equal? At work, we had a board with 5 members. All had one vote. They rotated who was chair each year so that each one of them could preside. That would be equal I guess. If BOTH presided, or took turns presiding… but you can’t be equal to someone who ALWAYS presides over you. And how do you effectively preside if you are never taught you can or should?
This is the stuff I hate. This is the stuff I have always hated. ALWAYS. I hated YW for this very reason. It was stupid and sexist and the focus was always on what I should be for men, and never what I am for me or my personal relationship with God. I love the doctrine of intelligences. I love the scope of the ideas in Mormonism. But all this gender stuff is just… what can I say in a nice way?? – oh.. MALARKEY
Rachel,
Do you think men and women should be exactly the same?
I find it very interesting that you immediately assume that the using an example of something complementary that the woman is automatically the paper or the nail. As a man, I can say that most men wouldn’t even think of that, or think that a woman is a nail to be hammered upon. Do you reflexively feel that all men would feel completely dominant over women?
Would you prefer oil and vinegar – totally separate, and then making an emulsion? What complementary example would work well for you?
Why the need for separate examples? That’s a bigger issue than the actual examples, IMO.
Why would she assume that the paper and the nail were automatically the female half of the analogy?
Because it is all over that lesson. In terms of the lesson, the female is passive, to be acted upon, and the male is active. Even without the (highly unfortunate) analogies this didactic is being taught by this lesson in terms of structure and content.
As a man, I believe you are mistaken. For my part at least, I came to the exact same conclusion as Rachel and I think the conclusion is based on the logical conclusion of where the text is leading. It is very subtle but definately there. The entire setup is being used to reinforce the role of provider and presider as more of a ruler even in this context. My wife would also agree that the wording is very male vs. female.
As stated by others above, gender in deed is a social construct. Take any genderbased social class in college and they will all say the same thing. It is no longer sex based, it is gender based. If the sexes are equal, then wonderful as long as we can keep the gender roles seperate. It maintains power of one over the other.
The Christ never seperated the gender roles to my knowledge. We are all of us equal. Christ embodies both the male and female, all inclusive. How can they be divided?
I have 4 daughters and I fight my own learned behaviour of “what I say goes, I am the head of this household”! That is bunk or malarky! My wife also fights it by constantly asking what I think and deferring to me and I throw it right back at her. She is a fierce and independant woman but she too has been conditioned to “defer” to me even though she grew up with an abusive father who to this day lauds his authority over his wife who is a timid mouse of a woman afraid of her husband. She is getting better by observing our family dynamic and seeing how my wife and I treat each other.
If you can’t tell, you struck a nerve with that comment and I don’t mean to be rude I am just trying to illustrate my point. Plus, if you really think about what the Saviour did and said regarding baptism and the pure simple truths in the gospel, there is no place for men to be over women in the Spirit of the Higher Law and not the Letter of the Carnal Law which will always retain mankinds social interpretations and impressions.
Hope I made sense with the word vomit.
EVERYTHING you just vented about is the very reason I hated going to YW every single week, raised hell, and had a long list of upset YW leaders that my mother had to deal with every Sunday. I didn’t even like children when I was in high school. Someone always had to talk to me because I “was such a little intellectual that [she] wasn’t focusing on the Spirit of the Law.” My spirit tells me that I am more than just a baby maker. My spirit tells me that I can do whatever I set my mind to and these women were seriously suffocating me. I love every word of this Rachel. Thanks!
I am raising my two daughters in the church. And I hate to think what their expectations will be once they are out of Young Women and into the real world (hopefully they won’t go on a mission). Strict gender roles make no sense in today’s society. There are certain things that have to be done within a marriage, and a couple will do much better if they figure out for themselves who should do what, rather than simply expecting the other to do things that need to be done…
Ugh, so many references to the Proc. Ugh.
I was feeling pretty good about the new YW/YM manuals, that the church was finally progressing a bit.
I see now that I was wrong. Really, really, really wrong.
The church is a fundamentally sexist organization. The roots of its sexism go deep into the culture, mythology, structure and doctrine in a way that make it impossible to eradicate. I believe it is folly to expect any substantive change, at least in our lifetimes. The presentation of it may be softened a bit here and there (as the church bumps up against more progressive cultures), and there may be some efforts to make it less visible to members (but I’m not sure that’s necessary at this point, because for many members, unbelievably, it’s still invisible), but I don’t believe it will go any further than that. . .
So then the question, at least for me, becomes whether or not it makes sense to try to work around the sexism (work with Heather to insulate our girls from it, to a certain degree, ignore it, try to swim again the current and makes things less sexist at a local level, etc.). Is there enough value in the church to outweigh the weight of the sexism? Of course, this exercise also becomes corrosive in the sense that for those of us who do not believe that God is sexist, questions naturally arise regarding the discrepancy between how we experience deity and the nature of the church. . . Is it possible to see the church in more nuanced terms in which it it not viewed as an accurate reflection of diety, on top of being sexist, and still find value in it?
You’ve just summed up my entire disaffection & faith transition.
I ultimately decided that sexism promoted by God, was far more powerful than anything I could instill in my children. God, and God’s male prophets will always carry more weight. I want to raise my kids without that celestial pressure to conform.
Like Whitney, you have just summed up my disaffection as well. For many years (most of my adult life), I believed that the sexism was just cultural and had no basis in the doctrine, so I kept working for change, mostly on the local level. However, when I really took the time to do an in-depth study of LDS doctrine as it relates to women, my testimony crumbled. If there is a God(s), I simply cannot believe that I, as a woman, am lesser than a man in her/his estimation.
CatherineWO…. yes, it really is in the doctrine, and with the potf, now more than ever. The doctrine and leadership of the church have the smell of “man-made” (and I do mean, MAN-made) all over them.
Well, shit.
I think you just summed up my entire tirade in two words.
The reason I picked this particular lesson, “How do the roles of men and women complement each other in families?” was because I was in the midst of a discussion about how the old YM/YW manuals treated marriage. The lesson itself is probably one that would specifically divide and highlight the differences between men and women in very obvious ways.
That being said, despite the topic, the other lessons I’ve glanced at *do* continue to have significant differences in how the lessons are approached for boys and girls. The boys’ lessons include directions to have quorum presidents conduct classes, make suggestions/goals and otherwise have hands-on leadership experiences. The girls’ lessons have no equivalent opportunities for class presidents, instead having YW teachers give direction to the girls. These lesson formats appear to be the structure scaffolding upon which everything else is framed.
It would be very easy to make changes to these lessons, as they are all presented in digital format. It should also be easy enough for YW and YM teachers to look at each lesson plan and choose the presentation methods that work best with their students. I suspect that girls would benefit from small group discussions and hands-on concrete learning experiences the same way boys would, and I also suspect that boys would benefit from the opportunity to think more deeply and plan/consider the effects of their actions in more abstract ways. Because both sexes miss out when we focus on just one way of teaching/thinking.
One thing I wonder- Who wrote these lesson manuals? I know there had to be some collaboration, but the “girls version” was probably altered by women in the church. The YW presidency. The passive language, the passive requirements, the ideas of reflection and inclusion seem like something out of a GC talk by an RS president, or YW president, or Primary president. Women who have been taught this way continue to teach this way. I don’t know why they felt it needed to be different, but I think this sexism is something not just enforced by the men, but re-inforced by the women. In my family my dad was the feminist. I didn’t know when I was young how much my mom tried to curtail me because I was a girl. And it was because her mom did it to her.
i apologize for my i/e spelling issues.
I agree. Both ways of thinking/learning are benefitial to both.
This is really deeply saddening to me. I was under the impression that the lessons would be exactly the same for the young men and the young women, as it is for elders/relief society. Now I see differently. I am still holding out hope this is taken from an early draft. What a huge disappointment.
Brent, you just stated, very clearly, the reasons why I left the church. When I was talking to my daughter about it, she put it very succinctly: “Mom, nothing’s going to change in that church as long as the women have no real institutional power. And I don’t see that changing.” Neither do I. Sad, but true.
Ugh!!!! I was so excited for the new manuals. Men and women are different. I get that. But dumbing things down and making us sound like passive players in some game is NOT how we are different!!!!
“Begin the learning experiance” vs. “Introduce the doctrine”
Enough said.
It kills me to see this side-by-side comparison. The differences are so clearly intentional, and they do not need to be there at all.
Sigh.
We piloted this program in our ward and were asked to take an online survey each time we taught. I consistently complained about the unnecessary and insulting gender divisions in the lessons. If anyone even read my responses I’m sure they just thought I was crazy.
Before this new curriculum I refused to use the existing manuals in teaching the Laurels. I would glance at the topic and then create a lesson based on scripture and applicable stories. With the new curriculum I follow the same course. I look at the theme for the month, ask the young women what their interests are around it, and plan discussions accordingly. I don’t use the outlines and encourage the other leaders to rely on their own inspiration as well. The youth will let us know what their questions are if we ask. I’ve also been so impressed with the girls’ excitement to participate in teaching one another. We turn their questions into assignments and they come prepared to teach the class the next week. They guide the direction of our discussions and the focus is on the gospel, not proscribed gender roles.
Hello. I’m a new reader here. If you know me, you know I clicked the Facebook link ready to be enraged at sexism in the manuals.
I’m happy to call a sexist spade a spade, but honestly I’m having a hard time getting bothered much about this particular lesson. Since most commenters here disagree, I’m wondering if you could point out more specifically what bothers you and why?
For example, StarieNite noted this:
I understand they are DIFFERENT, but I can’t see the sexist point. When I read her contention and looked back, I expected “begin the learning experience” to be on the YW side and the “introduce the doctrine” on the YM side, because the latter sounds stronger and more intellectual to me.
Would we rather have YW having an “experience” or learning doctrine? What if the “experience” part means that the YM aren’t yet capable of a real doctrinal discussion?
That said, maybe I come from a strange place. I don’t like sexism, but I’m actually willing to concede that God might be more sexist than I (in my current understanding) would like. I’m also willing to concede that maybe it’s not, ipso facto, wrong or bad.
He created us with DIFFERENT body parts when he could have provided a reproduction mechanism that didn’t require them. Why would God be prohibited (or wrong) for creating other differences, in roles, in expectations, in general tendencies? Or maybe he didn’t create them at all and those differences predated him?
Amen
Alison Moore Smith writes, “What if the “experience” part means that the YM aren’t yet capable of a real doctrinal discussion?”
We cannot treat our young men like babies any more than we can allow our young women to be eternally supportive shadow figures. These lessons are not divided by age – if 18-year-old Priests are incapable of having a real doctrinal discussion while 12-year-old Beehives are just fine with that, we have dropped the ball for our young men.
We all have the potential to become gods. We all have the potential to become “noble and great ones” leading spiritually, educationally, emotionally, socially and physically. We are the light of the world, the salt of the earth. Many of us are Ephraimites, after all.
You develop the skills you practice. Your thoughts mold your character and your actions.
There are some young women who are awesome leaders in embryo and there are others who, with just some practice and fine tuning could really shine as well. But if they’re never given the chance to develop those skills, if they don’t get weekly reinforcement on the drills and exercises of leadership, they will not grow.
There are some young men who are wonderfully thoughtful and supportive, and there are others who, with just some practice and fine tuning, could develop those skills and apply them to great benefit. But if they’re never given the chance to develop those skills, if they don’t get weekly reinforcement on the drills and exercises of thinking and reflecting about how they are part of a community, they will not grow.
There are benefits to having separate education for boys and girls – but I think we’ve missed an opportunity for girls to gain leadership without the boys around and for boys to be emotional without the girls around.
To me, this is the meaning of the phrases, although slightly exaggerated to make the point more clear:
“Introduce the doctrine” – This is the way it is, period. Accept it and follow the rules.
“Begin the learning experience – Discuss, examine, apply it individually.
Hope that makes sense.
I can’t believe they’re still fostering the misconception that “helpmeet” is a word.
Really doubling down on the KJV errors, aren’t they?
how should that word be translated?
That word should be translated as “partner” or “companion.” It’s not difficult to see the difference.
This kind of bums me out, because I was really looking forward to a lot of progress in the new manuals. While I’m glad that they are pretty close, so many of these differences are totally arbitrary and unnecessary, and subtly show that what is taught to the young women emphasizes passivity and submission, while young men are taught to be leaders.
I should add that while I wish a lot of doctrine regarding to gender would change, I don’t expect manuals to reflect my preference. The differences I see as “arbitrary and unnecessary” are by definition not related to doctrine, but are just cultural gloss that results in YM and YW having a very different feel, and men and women experiencing the gospel and their relationship to it in very different ways. I also think that when something is truly doctrinally fundamental, it should be taught to everyone in the same way.
Ugh. I am so done.
“Introduce the doctrine” implies a teacher telling students what they need to know. “Begin the learning experience” implies an interactive classroom where students will be involved in discovering truths for themselves. Coupled with the ongoing differences, and the message becomes more clear – make sure the girls “know,” but make sure the boys “understand” and “do.” Think about versus create. Discuss something’s importance versus come up with your own connections. I shudder to think about why the boys’ lesson included a hammer and nail for showing how two different things are used to accomplish a common goal. As a breastfeeding mother, I absolutely believe my role is an important one. They don’t need to stifle girls to help them see that parenting is a blessing. I know many strong, feminist women who are fierce mothers and homemakers. The only conclusion I can reach with this is that the other side of the coin is the patriarchy.
This kind of conditioning is so subtle that people often fail to see what the Big Deal is. It’s the subtlety that is powerful. I do not want my daughter conditioned to see her main purpose in life to be a mother, or a supportive partner, or to believe that she should be passive – as a general rule. She is a whole person all on her own and any relationship she chooses to add or not add is superfluous.
Laurie,
AMAZING that you think being a mother, or a supportive partner is passive (especially as a mother).
No relationship is superfulous. All relationships make us who we are. If they are superfulous, then you are saying that your relationship with your daughter is completely superfulous and of no consequence?
Your comments are incoherent within themselves.
I’m quite sure that Laurie doesn’t see her mothering role as a passive one. Quite the contrary.
The point of this post is to illustrate that the church curriculum subtly sends messages to girls that they ARE passive. That they are not active agents, that rather than act, they are to be acted upon. This language is EVERYWHERE–both in church curriculum and in common usage.
Think of the number of times you’ve heard a father bless his baby daughter “so that she will find a worthy male who can take her to the temple.” It’s always the man acting and the woman passively waiting to be acted upon.
Yes, Heather. Exactly.
I just heard that phrase used today in a baby blessing. Why don’t couples go together? Why is it the man taking the woman?
Gary,
I was not referring to motherhood as a passive role. I was referring to the idea that we are taught to passively accept that all females are innately called in life is to be a mother and wife as their identity and their main purpose. I do not believe that everyone needs to be, or should be a mother or wife. This is what I am referring to when I used the word superfluous…. per the definition as I understood it: Definition of SUPERFLUOUS -a : exceeding what is sufficient or necessary.
I love my children and I take my co-parenting role seriously. But mothering and partnering do not define me, they are not WHO I am, they are what I have chosen to do. While my choices have provided me with ample spiritual practice within relationship, I think it is an inaccurate and abusive system that tells women that they must be mothers in order to fulfill their highest potential as spiritual beings. I am at the point of only investing time and energy into spiritual teachings that help me be a better person rather than a better parent. I find the first set of teachings cut right to the chase, and the end result is better parenting because I have a deeper set of skills from which to function.
I am complete and whole just as I am, as a small part of the great whole. It’s wonderful to add relationships to that equation, and work within the framework that they offer, but the relationships do not make me who or what I am.
Thank you, Laurie. This is the problem in a nutshell.
EXACTLY.
exactly. The subtle messages are the most damaging because they come in without any worry or concern.
Well crap. I thought it was going to be so much better. And I thought it was supposed to be exactly the same for both. I WAS SO EXCITED. (insert long string of expletives here).
What a waste of potential. I wish I could save my neices and nephews from this garbage. At least I’ve saved my son.
I cannot express how furious I am that I was subjected to this bullshit my whole life and the deep scars it left behind.
I was so hoping for great changes with the new curriculum. I assume it will be better over all, but the implication that women need to sit down so that the men can stand up…. sickening and sad.
Great analysis, LRC! This is a great way to look at the differences. I’d love to see this for all the lessons (you know, since I’m sure you have tons of free time ;) ). Well, actually, I would probably only be more depressed, but it would be an interesting comparison.
We’re not just talking about the differences in the voice used for guiding the kids – there’s a difference in how the adults are addressed as well:
To the women:
“Prayerfully study these scriptures and resources. What scriptures and talks will help the young women understand the complementary roles of husbands and wives?” (Guiding teachers to look outside of themselves for authoritative commentary and instruction. Providing explicit instructions as to what they should look for.)
versus
To the men:
“Prayerfully study these scriptures and resources. What are you inspired to share with the young men?” (No direction to outside authority – their inspiration is authoritative enough. No explicit instructions about divining and understanding complementary roles.)
It’s the difference between saying, “Here is a book that explains what you’re teaching. Review it and pass the lesson along,” and “You are an educated, experienced person with answers and a brain. Use them to educate.”
If a woman is guided to look one place for answers, is she likely to look in other places as well? Would she be confident in straying off the beaten path and searching for answers elsewhere? Or in providing personal anecdotes and experiences? Or is she more likely to rely on others’ experiences (as related in scriptures and talks)? And which is the more powerful and direct teaching tool?
I noticed that right away too. We treat our women as children.
I don’t know who wrote the new manual materials. I suspect that there was a committee of YW leaders who came up with ideas for the YW and of YM leaders who came up with ideas for the YM. Both committees had to run their plans past the general curriculum committee (which, I believe, is mostly members of the Quorum of the 12. I can’t remember if the auxiliary presidents (YM, SS, RS, YW, Primary) have representations there, but they probably do). Both committees had to have First Presidency approval. Both sets of lessons were probably given dry runs and testing and focus group discussions (just because that’s what businesses do when they’re rolling out new and improved products).
It’s very clear that the YM/YW online lessons are meant to tie in to the Duty to God/Personal Progress programs. The DtG materials are notably more active-voice, leadership-training, prepare-to-be-missionaries-now than the Personal Progress materials.
Perhaps the next revision to Personal Progress will not be adding another value to explore or another line to memorize in the theme, but will instead be to incorporate explicit leadership training experiences for the young women.
After all, if it’s important for young men to learn how to conduct quorum meetings and teach lessons, isn’t it equally important for young women to do so? And if it’s important for young women to reflect on their experiences and consider how their lives influence others for good or ill, it couldn’t hurt young men to develop those attributes as well.
I can’t believe they are using the Julie B. Beck, Mothers who Know talk for the YW. That talk is one of the most damaging pieces of crap to ever come out of GC.
The hammer and nail analogy is just wrong. I’m glad my girls are done with YW.
Agreed about the Julie Beck talk. It’s horrible. I feel the same way about D&C 25 which essentially says “You better accept everything your husband does *or else*!” That is the kind of talk that gets women in (and keeps them in) abusive marriages. I don’t want my daughter to think that’s what she has to put up with in order to be in good standing with God.
My oldest daughter started YW this year. I have been so worried that she would be taught the same sexist and damaging “doctrine” that I was. Looks like I still have to worry. :-(
My husband has never understood what sexism I experience as a woman in the church. This side-by-side makes me realize that his experience as a male in the church is drastically different from my experience as a female.
Ummm….hmmm. ok, standard bona fides statement (I have friends that are gay/black/feminist, yada, yada), but really, I’ve got a sister that’s an attorney (held a fairly senior position), another sister that’s a neuroshrink (well published, highly respected), my daughters are studying to be biologists – both excelled in math. I have a counseling degree from one of the recognized leading feminist schools in the field. My wife is a voting Democrat (I’m disillusioned with the whole political arena and think we should send all politicians to their own island). I understand the concerns of bias and sexism, and certainly the Church is influenced by similar influences of sexism as any mainstream culture. It is absurd naivete to think that any individual or organization is impervious to cultural influences. As an ecclesiastical leader in the Church, I see it and try to adjust for it when/where I can.
Yet…I wonder if there’s not a bit of elitism in this conversation. Sure, I cringed at a couple of things (e.g. hammer/nail) but I’ll bet the old 80/20 rule applies, and the majority of the members are comfortable with this languaging – and probably even well served. Do the 20% that are disgruntled/upset/enraged have an inside track on enlightened living?
Do we really want to fall into the ridiculous trap of 1970s feminism and try to pretend gender/sex differences don’t exist? I love the concept of teaching our children to embrace who they are as individuals AND as members of a family/tribe/community. (the extreme focus on individualism is very much a product of western european/north american cultures and is NOT global). But the war on gender makes no sense. Its a wallpapering over of diversity – not an enlightened form of it. What is gained by pretending that estrogen and testosterone don’t have an impact? Rather than trying to undo the biology, let’s acknowledge it, embrace and channel it in ways that are rewarding, uplifting and edifying. My sons need that just as much as my daughters. The Western destruction of the healthy role model for men has had a very real impact on my oldest son, and I worry about my younger ones. Western culture has told them what not to be, but hasn’t given them many guidelines on who they should be. Personally, I embrace and find my greatest fulfillment as a husband first, then as a father. My career is tool that allows me to provide for my family, but it’s not who I am. My primary identity is NOT as an individual. It’s as a member of my family and I have spent decades learning to become that. It is fulfilling. It brings me far greater happiness than any pursuit of individual fulfillment EVER did.
So back to the manual, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the individualized differences in the manuals came from YW/YM leaders adding their take. And it probably does work for the majority, so let’s see what we can do to also make them work for the individuals. Each one is precious and valuable, and if they don’t “fit with the program” lets create enough flexibility in the program to empower them as well. We’re all richer for it.
Sometimes our personal crusades have us so sprung loaded to see our own individual motes & beams within the Church, we miss the greater good. What a shame. I don’t ever want my daughter to regret being a woman. Neither do I want her to feel badly for enjoying Pinterest.
Amen, Stanley!
It’s not a mote and a beam. It’s the subtleties that condition us not to see the sexism, or to relegate it as silly nonsense or the whining of a simple 20% . Just because 80% of people don’t see the sexism, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, and that it isn’t harmful. I don’t want my daughter to regret being a woman either – I do want her to know her own power and equality.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with powerful, assertive, tough, pragmatic women, and I don’t understand why anyone with a decent education, like you Stanley Davis, would still think that men should lead women inside or outside families. Some people are well suited to leadership and some are not, but gender has nothing to do with it. You may not like the way this poweful woman expresses herself, but you may still find it enlightening. I dare you to watch it. She puts a powerful man, who happens to be a sexist, in his place and, whilst there’s a great deal of additional background to this remarkable speech, there was enough in it to cheer woman (and men) who are tired of outdated stereotypes of the type promoted in LDS youth manuals.
My link to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s Speech had an error. If my new link doesn’t work, paste this into your browser address bar: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-09/julia-gillard-attacks-abbott-of-hypocrisy/4303634
The problem with the manuals are that those principles become institutionalized in the culture. I have four daughters. Before I had girls, I didn’t believe in sexism. Now I see it everywhere and it pisses me off to no end.
Case in point:
A few months ago, I dropped my 10 year old son off at Webelos and my 9 year old daughter off at Achievement Days (because, I have been informed, the Church does not believe in Girl Scouts). When I returned, my daughter was moody and obviously upset. I listened to her story, then entered the building and sought out her leader for confirmation.
After I had dropped them off, The Webelos were taken to the field behind the church, digging around in the tall grass and hunting for things for one of their pins. My 9 year old daughter looked out the church-room window, saw what the boys were doing, and asked her leader if they, too, could go outside and do their activity for the day in the field. That day’s activity: memorize the 9th Article of Faith and make a craft.
The leader frowned at her and told her that going outside would just get her clothes dirty, that Achievement Day lessons don’t inovolve any fields, and – most importantly – that the Church’s pre-planned lesson for the week involved memorizing the 9th Article of Faith and making related crafts, and so that was what they were going to do.
So I asked her leader if any of the activities in the near future would involve going outside (so I could tell my daughter and she could have something to look forward to). She informed me that *none* of the activities involve leaving their pre-designated wardhouse room, except for a few that would be performed in the wardhouse’s kitchen. She waived her Church-supplied lesson plan in the air for emphasis.Other activities on the lesson plan? Sewing, cooking, jewelry making, church history.
Compare this to the wide variety of activities in the Webelos book. My son has a scholarship pin, athletics pin, carpentry pin, chess pin, first aid (?) pin, some kind of zoology pin, some kind of environmental science pin, a video games pin, etc. (I’m probably misremembering the names).
How can I put my daughters through these programs? It doesn’t get any different in young women’s. My son will get even MORE choices in Boy Scouts. Be what you want, pick the badges you want, do a variety of things or not – your choice. My daughters will sit in a group and be fast-tracked into homemaking.
We’re done with Achievement Days. And with Primary. And Young Women’s. And Young Men’s. My girls deserve options, too. Options the Church is not willing to give them. My daughters are too smart and too capable to be railroaded by bronze age mythology reinterpreted and reinforced by nearly 200 years of successive rule by an orthodox-obsessed patriarchy.
Thank you Thayne! I don’t understand how some individuals don’t see it – I mean that sincerely. It is right in front of them in both doctrine, policy and culture. Your well stated post screams it! But some don’t have ears to hear or eyes to see.
Angela, your post (the first post) is one of the main reasons I don’t want my daughter raised in the organization. If I were as articulate, that’s exactly what I would have said.
Someone else mentioned God’s “plan”. Back to the basics of the ultimate authority on that – Jesus Christ, it’s quite a beautifully simple message. We have added so darn many philosophies of men and mingled it with scripture in the church – we can’t even see the “way” anymore.
Thayne: Wow, you must belong to a different church than I do or live in a very different culture. The girls in the units I’ve attended have been every bit as rambunctious as the boys, digging in the dirt, learning to build a fire, long hikes, boxing matches, etc. They might not get pins and badges for it, but I think that the program is flexible enough to create opportunities (there is something ironic about boys needing a formal program so they can wear accessories!). I wonder if people are confusing local cultures with Church programs, or at least interpreting the programs through their own cultures. What a shame, Thayne, that you can see how to enrich these programs, but instead turn away to rail impotently from afar.
John: I’m at a loss. I’ve re-read my post several times and I never mentioned leadership. Again, I think you are perhaps reading your issues into my post. Over the course of my 25 year career, I’ve had more women than men bosses and they turned out to be among the best and worst bosses I had. Recently, I was the senior priesthood leader at a women’s Church activity. The leader of the activity paralleled me in the reporting structure and she presided over the activity. I had no problems taking her direction, or supporting her as she requested. Even though there were times that I might have handled things differently, I had no rank that I could pull, and I fully sustained her.
Perhaps, your unstated assumption is that you are questioning why I would support a Church hierarchy that is male dominated. I guess that goes to the basic essence of what our testimonies are and what they rest on. I tend to be VERY cautious about what I testify of, and I am very choosy about my wording, but I am comfortable saying that I believe we are fairly well organized as God would have us be – at the current time. I have no idea how we will be organized next year. I certainly have no clue how we will be organized beyond this life, with the exception of families being the basic organization. I can say that I cannot imagine a family life in which I am the head of my wife. We are equals – not the same fortunately, she’s more attractive than I am. I rely on her wisdom, her strength, her leadership, her love, her support, her friendship, her intelligence (her IQ spanks mine), her inspiration, her insights into gospel principles. I learn at her feet all the time.
Perhaps we too often fall into Hollywood’s version of leadership – the lone ranger-type chauvinist. As Sting once sang in the punk anthem, “Fall Out”, “the meek shall inherit the earth, but how long will they keep it?!” On the other hand, gospel-based leadership is based on qualities that modern society too often deems feminine – “by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned, [b]y kindness, and pure knowledge.” Please note, this scripture makes crystal clear that the priesthood is not a source of power. Perhaps men were given the priesthood in this life as a test of how well they would exercise it. The prophet Joseph indicated that the principle of the first being last and vice verse applied to a number of things. Wouldn’t it be ironic, if the tables were turned in the next phase of our existence.
By the way, I’m not advocating subservient acquiescence to everything that gets taught in a classroom or manual, only that a measure of humility and a willingness to put our own crusades in the context of a greater whole might allow us to raise children who are more fully enriched without the bitterness that seems so prevalent in much of feminism.
i love this. it shows us why the LDS church is becoming less and less relevant in today’s society. It is antiquated and completely out of touch with the real needs of today’s youth. That is the saddest part – the youth need information and training that will genuinely help them and prepare them for the challenges of life and this is all this old-fashioned out-of-touch million dollar real estate corporation posing as a church can come up with. This also explains the recent Pew Research numbers showing zero growth for the Mormon church during the period 2007-2012. The zero growth is a direct reflection on its irrelevance to today’s society.
I’m jealous of those of you women who hated YW. I ate it up – I used to be one of those people who simply didn’t see the sexism in the church. I thought it exalted me to put aside my “selfish” desires (i.e., to major in something like linguistics) with a singleness toward preparing myself to be a good mother (so I majored in nutrition – the closest subject to home ec that I could tolerate). I can remember a time when I would have read these differences and felt my heart swell with pride and self-assurance in my eternal [gender] role. It’s interesting to me, to compare how I felt then and how I feel now. I still look forward to being a good wife and mother, but I have a very different idea of what that means to me, and I feel that my best preparation is in becoming a good person (not in gaining gender-specific skills and attributes). To me, the danger of this kind of differential treatment is highest for those who accept it without question. I am reminded of this John Stuart Mill quote:
“It is not the mind of heretics that are deteriorated most, by the ban placed on all inquiry which does not end in the orthodox conclusions. The greatest harm is done to those who are not heretics, and whose whole mental development is cramped, and their reason cowed, by the fear of heresy.”
I have a little daughter and I worry about how she will experience the church as she grows up. I have always struggled with it… from being chastised for wearing dress pants to primary, to the blatant differences between my activities (crafting, scrap-booking, writing letters to our future husbands) and my brother’s activities (car repair, camping, archery) to the stream of tearful testimonies and earnest lessons about modesty and homemaking in YW. This manual doesn’t give me much hope.
Golly, I grew up in the 70’s feminism and never once heard a word about men and women being the same, or women desiring to be men. It was about women doing what they chose to do, even if that was something men traditionally did — like being a firefighter (they used to call them firemen), police officer, lawyer, doctor, engineer, architect ,etc. Women have never wanted to be men. Women just want the equal opportunity to do anything we feel important to do without doors slamming shut and laws shutting us down because of perceived gender roles. Women can be terrific mothers, as well as many other things. Men can be terrific fathers, as well as many other things. We aren’t meant to “complement” one another, but rather are commanded to become one. Each gender needs to truly SEE and FEEL what the other gender sees and feels in order to comprehend HOW to become one. “I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.” Husband and wife must be in the other to have the fullness of oneness. This necessitates walking in each other’s shoes as much as possible.
I served in YW for over 20 years. All the wards I served in had the girls conducting Sunday meetings, Presidency meetings, BYC meeting, and combined YW/YM activities. The girls learned to make agendas for meetings. They learned conflict resolution, organizational skills for activities, and how to critique these meetings/activities afterward in order to improve future ones. All our YW were rotated every six months through the class presidencies. They learned to be president, counselor, secretary, and class participant in a non-leadership capacity. We pushed education, education, education. We pushed missions. We asked often what they wanted to do in life, and if they said, “Be a mom,” we asked what else in addition to that. We held career nights, college prep/trade school nights. We had women of various careers come as guest speakers. We had returned missionaries — all women — come speak. There was no such thing as teaching passiveness. These girls grew up to serve missions and become all types of professionals. Most are married and have kids. But they aren’t, and never will be, the older stereotype of LDS women in Zion. So much prayer and fasting, and attending the temple as YW presidencies to seek the Lord’s direction for teaching the beautiful young ladies.
It’s obvious women will be mothers and men will be fathers. But both genders can help each other succeed in raising children, pursuing educations, careers, and magnifying callings. Each gender needs to be taught how to seek after these things, giving realistic advice about the seasons of pursuit, the wonders of sacrifice, the difficulties of working through all the daily muck toward oneness. Forget hammers and nails and all that. Teach them to each bring all their own individual light and together light their candle of oneness. Talk about working together, sacrificing together, supporting each other wholeheartedly, leading their family along — together — sharing responsibilities earnestly together, how to communicate safely and effectively together, how to resolve conflict together, how to seek and give forgiveness together. My husband and I serve as Senior missionaries in a YSA ward right now. The newlyweds are woefully lacking in such concepts and skills.
And even more sad, there are many confident, educated, well kept women who date the men, but are regularly told they are “too much to handle.” The majority of the men in our ward want “Molly Mormon” in a Kim Kardashian body. They tell me these wonderful women are “too strong, too smart, too willful.” It makes me cry………It makes me so angry……….It’s appalling. Jesus weeps.
I love this. This is everything I want our youth to know!
JennyP1969, you said it much better than I. Thank you. I particularly appreciated your statement, “We aren’t meant to “complement” one another, but rather are commanded to become one. Each gender needs to truly SEE and FEEL what the other gender sees and feels in order to comprehend HOW to become one. “I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.” Husband and wife must be in the other to have the fullness of oneness. Your whole comment was beautiful.
And you spoke very well when calling out the men – “And even more sad, there are many confident, educated, well kept women who date the men, but are regularly told they are “too much to handle.” The majority of the men in our ward want “Molly Mormon” in a Kim Kardashian body. They tell me these wonderful women are “too strong, too smart, too willful.” It makes me cry. . .. . .. . .It makes me so angry. . .. . .. . ..It’s appalling”
My wife and I have raised my daughters to be confident and well educated. I worry that there are fewer and fewer men that can celebrate them for such.
Laurie, I agree. I hope I didn’t convey that having concerns was whining or that the 20% should be disenfranchised. I feel just the opposite. As a grasshopper among ants, I hope there’s a place for me as well. What I was hoping to convey was that in spite of the weaknesses found in a Church that has imperfect human beings in it, there is a great deal of good. It can even still be Christ’s Church (I believe it is). Christ as he walked among his disciples was surrounded by people with weaknesses, yet he did not abandon them for it.
FYI, there have been some changes made to the way these lessons are worded. (Or there were changes made between October 2012 when this comparison was created and late February 2013 when I updated the comparisons.)