Get back in the kitchen, Wall Street women

From Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 547-548; cited in the 2003 Eternal Marriage Student Manual:
“You [women] were not created to be the same as men. Your natural attributes, affections, and personalities are entirely different from a man’s. They consist of faithfulness, benevolence, kindness, and charity. They give you the personality of a woman. They also balance the more aggressive and competitive nature of a man.
“The business world is competitive and sometimes ruthless. We do not doubt that women have both the brainpower and skills—and in some instances superior abilities—to compete with men. But by competing they must, of necessity, become aggressive and competitive. Thus their godly attributes are diminished and they acquire a quality of sameness with man.”
I wonder if this news is making ETB roll over in his grave. I also wonder if the folks who decided it was a good idea to use this quote in an LDS Institute manual published a mere six years ago are regretting that decision right about now.
Interestingly enough, the Washington Post article does maintain that there are differences between the sexes, but probably not the type of differences that would make gender traditionalists happy:
It’s time to admit the obvious. Men and women are different, and our management styles are different. Research by the University of Pittsburgh and Cambridge University, among others, finds that some of those differences are intrinsic, thanks to hormones.
Gender stereotypes aren’t politically correct, but the research broadly finds that testosterone can make men more prone to competition and risk-taking. Women, on the other hand, seem to be wired for collaboration, caution and long-term results.
According to a 30-year study of fund managers released last month by theNational Council for Research on Women, female investors and professional money managers used more measured strategies. They didn’t take huge risks, but they also didn’t lose big. Their returns were consistent. Men took larger risks and wound up with results that varied more widely. A study by the French Fund association found that funds managed by women had more consistent results over one-year, three-year and five-year measurements. Female-managed funds weren’t usually top performers, but they were never at the bottom.
Whatever the future, we hardly need to explain why, after all the trouble the testosterone-infused Wall Street culture brought us, a bit of that caution would be a healthy ingredient in our financial mix.
Maybe it’s time to go back to the drawing board on this “separate gender roles” stuff, for everyone’s benefit?
(H/T: Julie M. Smith for putting the WaPo article in the T&S sidebar)

Comments

Get back in the kitchen, Wall Street women — 20 Comments

  2. Yeah, I have that same manual and took the marriage class. As I started reading through the articles I found it fascinating that there were a few from Spencer W Kimball on the evils of birth control. Very odd to throw that one in. Maybe they just don’t enough even-handed articles by GAs and so they must resort to ones a bit more out-dated! And I definitely agre about going back to the drawing board on gender roles! Great post, thanks.
  3. Here’s the other funny thing about the ETB quote. These are the attributes he lists as belonging to men and women:
    faithful
    benevolent
    aggressive
    kind
    charitable
    competitive
    Which of those attributes do we normally ascribe to Christ? I rarely hear Christ described as “aggressive” in either religion, only in regards to things like the cleansing of the temple, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard Christ described as “competitive.”
    I really think that if God intended for men and women to have separate traits which must be maintained and not cross over, He would have given us an exemplar from each gender, instead of a male exemplar with apparently feminine qualities.
    Zelophehad’s Daughters had a good post on the subject a few years ago.
  4. BJM said:
    I rarely hear Christ described as “aggressive” in either religion
    Obviously, you haven’t been hanging about Mark Driscoll lately.
  5. I don’t think the problem is with the idea of gender roles generally, but with specific ideas about what those roles should be and why.
    Look at nature, and you will see gender roles in basically every animal species. At the same time, the wild diversity in terms of what the roles specifically are tells us that while “roles, generally” may be universal, there’s no specific role that is anything close. There’s no particular role or set of roles that is inherently male or inherently female. There’s no specific job that fits men because of some kind of cosmic significance of maleness (otherwise, why do lionesses act as the hunters and providers of the species?). I mean, other than purely biological functions, but those are not what I am talking about: they only become roles when we add cultural significance to them, and then they are the only roles that actually are inherent to our gender (there is nothing inherently male about bringing home the bacon, but there is something inherently female about gestating and giving birth to babies).
    So what I am trying to say is that I think it only makes sense to assign roles and expectations to the different genders, especially in light of the fact that men and women are different and are not really interchangeable.
    But the big difference comes in a kind of descriptivist vs. prescriptivist approach. If we assign these roles based on what the different genders are actually better at based on their actual demonstrated abilities and potential it makes a lot more sense than starting with a preconceived idea of what men and women “should” be doing (based on some ideology or some worldview or anything other than actual observation of the differences between men and women), and impose gender roles based on that.
    The difference is between roles based on observed differences and roles based on differences you believe in. The former are going to fit a hell of a lot better and are also going to be a lot more forgiving of exceptional and nonconforming individuals. The latter is probably just going to make people unhappy.
  6. I’m about to walk out the door to visit my father, but here’s one question if we’re taking our gender cues from nature: what about species which have the ability to change genders when the need arises, like those frogs (and dinosaurs!) in Jurassic Park?
    Oh, and Eric, I think I would rather smash myself in the face repeatedly with a hammer than listen to too much Driscoll. :P
  7. Oh, and Eric, I think I would rather smash myself in the face repeatedly with a hammer than listen to too much Driscoll.
    Funny, that’s the same reaction I had upon reading that quote from the marriage institute manual.
  8. Oh man. See my latest SideBlog item. Now Jimmy Carter is trying to rescue women from religious oppression.
    I don’t know what’s sadder, that Jimmy Carter gets it while LDS and complementarian evangelical leaders don’t, or that we’ve reached the point of needing Jimmy Carter to speak up for us.
  9. Jack — A question I’m asking out of curiosity:
    Based on what you’ve observed, all theology aside, who would you say in practice tends to have more egalitarian marriages, evangelicals or Mormons?
    I haven’t been around many evangelicals all that much in the past decade, and society has changed in that time, so I’m not in a good position to make a current assessment. But back in my evangelical days I heard more of “the man is the spiritual leader” stuff than I hear “the man leads because he’s the priesthood holder” in the LDS church. In fact, I hear a fair amount of the somewhat opposite: Being the priesthood holder doesn’t mean you’re the boss, because the priesthood acts by persuasion, not by virtue of position, and Jesus set the model of sacrifice, and that sort of thing.
    I’d assume it’s more common for women to be stay-at-home moms in the LDS church, because the culture and to a significant extent the theology support that. But of the educated LDS women I know (and that’s a decent percentage), not all that many are exclusively stay at home much beyond the years when they have young children (if then). Of the LDS couples I know somewhat well (and it isn’t all that many, and they may be an unrepresentative sample), the husband and wife seem to have a fairly we’re-equal-in-value approach to things (regardless of who earns the income), actually more than in evangelicalism (although, as I said, times have changed since I was an evangelical).
    I’m curious to know what you’ve observed in this regard. Thanks!
  10. Interestingly enough Eric, I think that you’re right. While I think that the two systems of male headship are remarkably similar on paper, in practice, I feel like I meet more evangelicals with a “the man is the head of the household” attitude, while in LDS circles it’s, “Yeah, he has the priesthood, but we’re still equal.”
    I also feel like evangelicals tend to be a bit more abrasive about their doctrine in this regard. For example, here’s a quote from an old post by Mike Seaver at the official Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood blog: saying that a woman can teach in church just so long as she is under the authority of a man “is the same as saying that a drunken adulterer is allowed to be an overseer in a church as long as they are ‘under the authority’ of the other pastors in the church.” Women teaching in church is the same as a drunken adulterer teaching in church, eh? And this is not some little podunk nobody blog; this is from the main organization for evangelical complementarians.
    Anyways, ask Mormons about their doctrine on men being the head of the household and they’ll usually get pretty hesitant, say that it’s because God says it’s that way and we don’t really know why, then affirm that their wives are equal in spite of this. Ask evangelical complementarians (which is a majority of evangelicals, I think) and they’ll tell you it’s because Eve sinned first in the Garden of Eden and the husband is to his wife as Christ is to the church. The idea doesn’t make them uncomfortable at all. I think Mormons are better at emphasizing the idea that this “headship” is one of service and not of being the boss than evangelicals are.
    It is true that I see more evangelical women working outside the home though, even when they have young children.
  12. I’m about to walk out the door to visit my father, but here’s one question if we’re taking our gender cues from nature: what about species which have the ability to change genders when the need arises, like those frogs (and dinosaurs!) in Jurassic Park?
    What about them?
  13. Remember me? Thanks for your comments. I very much agree. The manual needs major revamping. Some of the articles are very applicable, some are extremely outdated. though well-intentioned.
    I think it’s interesting that LDS church leaders have for so long described women as good and virtuous while they describe men as insensitive and boorish, more inclined to sin than women. I hate this! Thre’s no reason for it, unless people are raising their sons to behave like this, which I think has actually been happening for a long time. Men are no less virtuous, kind, nurturing, loving by nature than women, except that their parents teach them to be tough and insensitive and perpetuate (rathen than correct) behaviors that are not acceptable and definitely not like those we see in Christ.
    Regardless of religion, we need parents (mothers and fathers) who will be nurturing and loving to their children, who gives examples of hard work, charity, kindness, faith, and mutual respect for their spouse.
  14. I think it’s interesting that LDS church leaders have for so long described women as good and virtuous while they describe men as insensitive and boorish, more inclined to sin than women.
    I, for one, am far more inclined to sin than my husband. In fact, I’d go so far as to say I am exceptionally sin-prone.
  15. I think I failed to say that I think LDS church leaders have been really wrong in painting men as less righteous than women. Women aren’t perfect. There may be an expectation that we should be, but we aren’t. Neither are all men unfeeling, grunting animals. That’s enough from me.
  16. “…if we’re taking our gender cues from nature: what about species which have the ability to change genders when the need arises?”
    Well, one cue we could take from nature is to be pragmatic.
  17. Remember when God allowed the earth to be destroyed by rain? That destructive time will come again, because mankind continues to push the natural order of the all things. I feel it is the role of the wife to help keep their husbands in ckeck when it comes to aggresive behavior. As Bridget said, that is not a characteristic of our Savior. There are going to be a lot of men/husbands in troulbe at the judgement bar for not taking care of their God given spiritual duties and obligations to their families.
    There are many women who by necessity have to work. Whose husbands have faltered in their duties and responsibilities to their families.
    Question? How much impact did the womens movement have on this question?
  18. Ivy, people like you drive me crazy. I suppose it’s sinful for a woman to enjoy working on behalf of her family while the husband stays home. And I suppose that a husband who is physically or mentally unable to hold a steady job is a failure if his wife graciously steps in to keep her family afloat. You may take agree with scenario number one, but your total ignorance of the reality of scenario two is just irritating.
    Oh, and I don’t know if you noticed, but our economy sucks right now, and it seems grossly arbitrary to label a woman’s ability to get a job as some sort of failure on her husband’s part, especially if they bring different skill sets to the table.
  19. Dear Whitney! I have two broken ankles can not walk and have not worked for the last two and a half months. I will not be able to walk for another two months. My wife has had to shoulder the burden of taking care of myself and our 4 children because of my accident. I wish that I could help because she wishes that she did not have take on that burden. My wife has not worked for over 15 years, and it is a tremendous struggle. Ten years before becoming an LDS member my wife came to me and said she no longer wanted to work and was tired of the bull one gets from co-workers. Two years of law at the University of Washington and two years of paralegal studies at Baton Rouge Paralegal College. I also helped her to start her business,http://www.thebrokewivesclub.com. for women who are struggling for resources to take care of their families.
    When I mentioned men faultering in their duties and responsibilities, I talking about men leaving their wife and children through divorce. I know some of those women as well.
    I love my wife and I express that to her daily!
  20. Ivy,
    I’m glad to hear you and your wife are happy with your choices, and I’m sorry times are trying right now.
    I suppose I read too much into your comment, and I apologize if I did. Obviously a lot of men fail to live up to their promises in a marriage. Then again, so do plenty of women. What does get me revved up is people who assume that women shouldn’t want to work because it’s against the natural order of the world. That it’s sinful ambition on the part of the woman and sinful sloth (or whatever) on the part of the man who lets it happen.
    I obviously appreciate the point that the article raises regarding the value of perspectives fromboth genders, and, to address your point, I think both partners in a marriage have made a commitment to help the other grow, which means helping them temper whatever vices may crop up–regardless of whether that vice is a stereotypically “man” thing or “woman” thing.
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity