by

About ten years ago, we were renovating our master bathroom, making the shower larger with a stone surround, and adding a big sunken garden tub (that literally has been used TWICE since we put it in, grrrr). As we discussed the options with the builder, he quoted a set amount to add a “bench” to the shower.

My husband, looking to save money perhaps, quickly said, “We don’t really need that. When do I ever sit in the shower?”

I interrupted to explain. “That’s not for sitting. I need a place to rest my foot when I shave my legs. It’s a foot shelf!”

It had never occurred to him that we might have different needs and uses for features in our shower until I educated him about it. Trying to balance on one foot to shave my other leg or to hold on to a one inch overhang with my toes to keep in place was, up to that point, a frequent frustration, one that he was completely unaware existed.

I have sometimes thought back to that incident and wondered about what would have happened if he had renovated the bathroom as a surprise for me. That would have been a nice gesture, but it would have resulted in a shower that met his needs much better than my own, a shower that would cause me inconvenience and frustration for years to come while he remained blissfully unaware of my plight. If I had then complained, he’d feel put out. Why was I being so ungrateful when he had been thoughtful and given me this gift?

That’s sometimes how it feels being in a church where all the decisions are made by men with very limited female input. I’m sure it’s also how other underrepresented groups (like singles, people of color and LGBT people) feel in the church. Without input from these folks, why would anything change unless it’s an inconvenience or a frustration to those devising the policies and solutions? Nobody is seeking to inconvenience us. They are probably trying to make improvements. But they don’t understand our needs, and often it never occurs that anyone’s needs might be different from their own.

How do we remedy this problem? It’s not easy, particularly because people in power often believe that they deserve those positions so their ideas are all gold, better than the ideas of those not in power. Our dialogue about positions of leadership or power within the Church often talk about respect for the role or mantle, but less about what those who hold those positions owe to the humans in their purview who are directly impacted by their actions. Additionally, the dearth of female input is a historical world problem with plenty of precedent. We humans have a long track record of disbelieving women and not listening to them when they share issues. Women are characterized as nags or scolds when we voice concerns.

Church leaders counsel women to speak up (but only nicely and not too much) and to avoid hectoring their husbands with complaints. Advice given to men is to cherish and praise their wives, but without an emphasis on listening to women and heeding their counsel. Women have literally been told to hearken to their husbands while the reverse is not true. No wonder women’s needs are so poorly understood. “Good” women suffer in silence rather than explaining their needs if those needs aren’t being met. That’s how we got where we are, and I can’t see that anything has systemically changed. Even without giving women the priesthood, it would be great if women were given equal voice in every decision-making council.

Two stories that have been shared by leaders in the last few years come to mind that I found mind-boggling at the time. Elder Christofferson shared a story about his mother who had a lot of physical pain when she ironed clothing due to a radical cancer surgery. His father saved money by skipping lunches for a year and surprised her by buying an ironing machine that would make it so she didn’t have such a painful time ironing. Now, the way he tells it, and perhaps the way it happened (the past is a foreign country after all), his mother was afraid they couldn’t afford it and just so, so grateful for how thoughtful the gift was. When I heard the story, all I could think was that she ironed in pain for an entire year while he quietly went without eating lunches. Why didn’t he or their kids just do the ironing?? Why was this plan in secret? Why didn’t they have a conversation about how to better solve this problem? The talk is titled “Let Us Be Men,” and that about sums it up for me. [1]

The other story that was shared in a BYU address by Elder Bednar called Quick to Observe. He talked about a young man who had returned from his mission and was dating a woman when Pres. Hinckley counseled women to only wear one earring in each ear. He waited passive-aggressively and watched to see if she would remove her second earrings, and when she didn’t, he dumped her! I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: that girl dodged a bullet. But somehow in his story, this passive-aggressive kid who can’t be bothered to have a conversation with a girl he supposedly loves enough to marry is in the right, and she’s not worth his time because she doesn’t remove a second pair of earrings. [2] I will grant this, they were clearly not a compatible pair, and marriages with so little willingness to communicate are unlikely to last anyway.

The one thing these two stories have in common is the utter lack of communication between the men and women who are in a potential life partnership, and the unstated but obvious assumption that the men are right and their decisions correct despite the total lack of female input. That’s not partnership or grounds for a solid marriage, at least not in my book.

Just last week I was talking to my oldest son who just bought a house and is talking about renovating his shower. He said he really wants to get one of those cool rain shower heads that you stand under. “Noooo!” I said. “Don’t do it! Women don’t want to get our hair wet every time we shower!” And so the cycle continues.

How do you think we can improve the Church’s understanding of women’s (and other non-leaders’) needs?

What’s behind this lack of understanding? Is it due to assumptions of prior generations? Over-confidence in leaders’ discernment? Women not speaking up enough? Lack of representation?

What gaps between policy or practice and your needs have you experienced? Have these things been minor inconveniences (like foot shelves) or bigger issues? Do minor things rankle more as time goes on?

Discuss.

[1] I recognize two things about this story that are important caveats: 1) the past is a foreign country with different rules and culture that are often incomprehensible to us today, and 2) family stories take on a life of their own and have morals we don’t question. We aren’t very critical of those stories or their lessons, assuming that the meaning we have been told they have from a young age is the meaning they have. With my contemporary perspective, I see this story very differently, but I recognize that I’m also a product of my own time. (Not that I’m any spring chicken, but I didn’t come of age during the Great Depression like E. Christofferson’s parents likely did).

[2] arbitrary prophetic advice if ever I’ve heard it.