Women teaching patriarchy to women.

[Mrs. Funk]

What happens when you're not included in the "best and brightest" inner circle?

I don't understand the question. Are you asking if I seek a more affirmative role when my opinion is not actively sought out?

[Mrs. Funk]

Only if you replace "best and brightest" with "loudest and nosiest."

I agree. And nobody likes a nag (I wish there was a better, gender-neutral word for this, but I can't think of it).

Unfortunately, however, sometimes women in leadership positions do feel they have to nag the bishopric to get any attention for issues important to their callings. I know the primary callings frequently got back-burnered and we'd have to wait weeks (and a couple of months, a few times) after submitting names to get callings approved.

[LA Ute]

Pssssh. It's a good sentiment, and the attitude of a bishop actively seeking the involvement of women in the ward should be applauded. It doesn't happen all on its own.

There was a regional meeting here in SoCal last weekend. Only bishops and stake presidencies were invited. Elder Cook, Elder Marlin Jensen, and several area authorities spoke. According to my bishop Elder Cook hammered hard and long on the need for bishops and SPs to involve the women leaders in all decisions (other than the confidential info only bishops know). I thought that was interesting. Of course, all the smart and successful bishops I have known do that anyway.

[Mrs. Funk]

There was a regional meeting here in SoCal last weekend. Only bishops and stake presidencies were invited. Elder Cook, Elder Marlin Jensen, and several area authorities spoke. According to my bishop Elder Cook hammered hard and long on the need for bishops and SPs to involve the women leaders in all decisions (other than the confidential info only bishops know). I thought that was interesting. Of course, all the smart and successful bishops I have known do that anyway.

This is certainly encouraging, and may show at the trajectory the church is taking regarding women in the church.

[Pheidippides]

I agree. And nobody likes a nag (I wish there was a better, gender-neutral word for this, but I can't think of it).

Unfortunately, however, sometimes women in leadership positions do feel they have to nag the bishopric to get any attention for issues important to their callings. I know the primary callings frequently got back-burnered and we'd have to wait weeks (and a couple of months, a few times) after submitting names to get callings approved.

It's a real problem, and I scolded my wife more than a few times over the fact that I was the voice of the YW in the Bishop's office, and not the YW president (this was when I was the clerk). But in fairness to her, the counselor over YW dropped the ball and should have been more proactive. The entire situation was a complete...well, you know.

Primary staffing is very, very hard because so many people refuse to do it (I actively lobbied to do it because I find it refreshing to focus on simple doctrine with kids who care, rather than hashing out meaningless nuances (and yet I hang around here!)).

Unfortunately, my very limited experience is that there are a number of women in the ward who would like nothing better than to be bishop. They are just as crazy as the bretheren that would like to be bishop, but, unable to work their way there as things currently stand, they take an aggressive approach to getting the bishop's ear.

[Pheidippides]

There was a regional meeting here in SoCal last weekend. Only bishops and stake presidencies were invited. Elder Cook, Elder Marlin Jensen, and several area authorities spoke. According to my bishop Elder Cook hammered hard and long on the need for bishops and SPs to involve the women leaders in all decisions (other than the confidential info only bishops know). I thought that was interesting. Of course, all the smart and successful bishops I have known do that anyway.

The same think happened in my area recently. And to be clear, when I talk about a counsel of women advisors, I'm not talking about something rigid and formal; I'm talking about making sure that the female leadership of the ward has immediate access to me and the decision-making process.

Caveat: not only is my desire to be bishop affirmatively zero (the best two-day stretch of this year was the Saturday I was released as clerk and the Sunday I ran my marathon), the chances will also be close to null after my temple recommend interview this Sunday. But that's a story for a different thread.

[Mrs. Funk]

It's a real problem, and I scolded my wife more than a few times over the fact that I was the voice of the YW in the Bishop's office, and not the YW president (this was when I was the clerk). But in fairness to her, the counselor over YW dropped the ball and should have been more proactive. The entire situation was a complete...well, you know.

Primary staffing is very, very hard because so many people refuse to do it (I actively lobbied to do it because I find it refreshing to focus on simple doctrine with kids who care, rather than hashing out meaningless nuances (and yet I hang around here!)).

Unfortunately, my very limited experience is that there are a number of women in the ward who would like nothing better than to be bishop. They are just as crazy as the bretheren that would like to be bishop, but, unable to work their way there as things currently stand, they take an aggressive approach to getting the bishop's ear.

I remember with one round of callings we submitted, the bishopric lost/misplaced the list we gave them thrice before they actually called people. We had to rewrite the list and resubmit it. (Perhaps this would have been less of an issue in a more tech-savvy ward?) In a few instances, they called people we had suggested to different callings and told us we should have told the bishopric that we wanted Brother and Sister So-and-So before they made the call.

The women you speak of are problems, I agree, and certainly no better qualified to be bishop. I think everybody should be doing whatever possible to lighten the bishop's load, not cause more headaches. Bishops deal with enough as is.

[RobinFinderson]

What happens when you're not included in the "best and brightest" inner circle?

Then you are too dim to realize that you are being excluded, and you don't care.

[I.J. Reilly]

I don't understand the question. Are you asking if I seek a more affirmative role when my opinion is not actively sought out?

My question is less personal and more general, in the sense of, "what sort of infighting happens as soon as someone realizes they aren't on nikuman's 'best and brightest' committee?"

Personally, I think the issue is one of bishops properly executing their job. They already have the theoretical ability to get input from women, creating any sort of extra committee would be redundant and unnecessary.

Of course, nikuman clarifying and saying that he wouldn't really create a formal committee makes my point more or less moot.

[Rosebud]

I'm only sort of kidding here. I think it is a good thing too, but I have heard from numerous bishops that something like 75% of their time is occupied by a select few women in the ward. Nothing wrong with that, but there are usually a couple who are very needy and/or have lots of suggestions.

In my experience, people who have the ability to make decisions and impact their environments are less likely to nag. Naggers are sometimes created when begging and pleading are the only available courses of action. Perhaps giving these women more decision-making power would reduce everyone's loads.

There was a regional meeting here in SoCal last weekend. Only bishops and stake presidencies were invited. Elder Cook, Elder Marlin Jensen, and several area authorities spoke. According to my bishop Elder Cook hammered hard and long on the need for bishops and SPs to involve the women leaders in all decisions (other than the confidential info only bishops know). I thought that was interesting. Of course, all the smart and successful bishops I have known do that anyway.

It's a great sentiment, but I'm sad that the women weren't invited to hear it. I am glad the door is opening a crack, but it's kind of ironic that the stake and ward RS presidencies weren't involved in a meeting about involving women. I'm sure it takes a lot of work to pull regional meetings together and it makes sense to me that including all of the leaders would have been a simple and productive move.

Last week we were specifically told in a joint priesthood/RS meeting that the bishopric had decided to ask the women to participate in a ward missionary effort. The stated rationale was that we bring different experience and insights to the table. Maybe this was the result of one of these regional meetings. It was definitely different and nice to hear, but we weren't exactly asked to give input in how the effort would be organized. IOW, we weren't asked to make any decisions. They had already been made. We were the invited participants.

Hey... but maybe this means that someday we'll be invited to participate in prayer circles at baby blessings.

[UtahDan]

In my experience, people who have the ability to make decisions and impact their environments are less likely to nag. Naggers are sometimes created when begging and pleading are the only available courses of action. Perhaps giving these women more decision-making power would reduce everyone's loads.

Could be!

[Pheidippides]

In my experience, people who have the ability to make decisions and impact their environments are less likely to nag. Naggers are sometimes created when begging and pleading are the only available courses of action. Perhaps giving these women more decision-making power would reduce everyone's loads.

Yeah, I don't think so. Not the ones I'm talking about (and I'm thinking of one in particular). You give these women more decision-making power and I'm outta here (meaning I start forum shopping). Same for the men who "audition" for bishop. I want no part of either being in any position of authority (sometimes the latter are, and I hate it).

[beefytee]

Yeah, I don't think so. Not the ones I'm talking about (and I'm thinking of one in particular). You give these women more decision-making power and I'm outta here (meaning I start forum shopping). Same for the men who "audition" for bishop. I want no part of either being in any position of authority (sometimes the latter are, and I hate it).

I agree. Yes it is justified when some women's voice are not being heard. But there are women out there that just don't like to be happy and feel the need to spread their unhappiness. And of course there are equivalent men.

[Pheidippides]

I agree. Yes it is justified when some women's voice are not being heard. But there are women out there that just don't like to be happy and feel the need to spread their unhappiness. And of course there are equivalent men.

To me, it's not even about happiness. It's about wanting the position. Anybody who wants it is somebody I don't want to have it (also, they are insane).

[Rosebud]

Yeah, I don't think so. Not the ones I'm talking about (and I'm thinking of one in particular). You give these women more decision-making power and I'm outta here (meaning I start forum shopping). Same for the men who "audition" for bishop. I want no part of either being in any position of authority (sometimes the latter are, and I hate it).

Agreed. I hate it too.

It seems to me like power-seeking women seem to be more of an "annoyance" than power-seeking men, though. I'm wondering if that might be because auditioning men have a way of getting the roles they want. Women like this, OTOH, can't audition and have to resort to immature and "annoying" behaviors to get the power they crave. If they were considered in the auditions, they'd probably act pretty similarly to the power-seeking men and therefore wouldn't be as "annoying."

Of course the best thing would be to keep power-seekers out of power regardless of gender. That's pretty tricky, though, considering there are lots of ways for them to deceive others into thinking they're the best people for the job.