Typical Church Building Layout and Sexism

[Deepthinker]

Something just hit me a few months ago about the building layout for a typical LDS church. Something I had never thought about before and I wanted to see if it is your experience. Of all the LDS meetinghouses I've attended, ever single one has had the kitchen located right next to the Relief Society room. Has this been your experience?

If so, doesn't it seem to be another sign of sexism within the church? I picture a discussion on the layout and someone says "hey, let's put the women by the kitchen where they belong". It seems like such a small thing to notice but it still makes me upset.

[moksha]

Are the Relief Society women actually allowed to use the kitchen? I thought actual cooking was off limits to reduce the risk of fire for the Church since they are self-insured.

[Emower]

The relief society room is generally one of the biggest rooms outside of the chapel and gymn. Some buildings have large primary rooms, but those rooms typically have all kinds of stuff on the walls, cabinets, etc. It makes sense to have the serving area attached to the larger room, it makes events where food is served a lot easier. I dont think this is sexism. There are plenty of other areas for that.

[Corsair]

Yes, it's totally sexism and I suspect that much of the LDS church thinks this is awesome. I would someday like to speak with a believing Mormon that would honestly and happily speak about the critical importance of traditional gender roles in the LDS church. I think Oaks would get more traction if he said this rather than the usual anti-LGBT rant. I am confident that many forum members are about to denounce me publicly and angrily, but let me propose that this is the obvious reality that the LDS church actually embraces. Set aside whether or not this is right or wrong from any moral stand point and look at this from a pragmatic standpoint. I'm saying that it works for conservative religious groups even if harm is claimed for individual members.

It's easy to find church PR and Mormon Women Stand trying to claim that they are just as supportive of women as Kate Kelley or Diane Feinstein or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Instead, it would be refreshing if a church leader would simply come out and say:

Yes, the kitchen is absolutely right next to the Relief Society room. You can call it sexism if you want, but we call it traditional gender roles and it works if you want a healthy, growing population of happy saints. Do you know what we love to see inside the homes of members even more than a picture of the temple on the wall? We love to see that family portrait showing Grandma and Grandpa at the center with their married adult children and positively surrounded by grandchildren. Organic growth of healthy LDS families is one of the best ways to grow this church.

Yes, we know that divorce, death, and other complications means this does not always happen. But we have to give credit to the families that do make it work and encourage our young people to work towards that. We simply happen to believe that this is model that builds families, and putting the kitchen right next to the Relief Society room is one not-so-subtle nod towards that.

[wtfluff]

Something just hit me a few months ago about the building layout for a typical LDS church. Something I had never thought about before and I wanted to see if it is your experience. Of all the LDS meetinghouses I've attended, ever single one has had the kitchen located right next to the Relief Society room. Has this been your experience?

If so, doesn't it seem to be another sign of sexism within the church? I picture a discussion on the layout and someone says "hey, let's put the women by the kitchen where they belong". It seems like such a small thing to notice but it still makes me upset.

All of the chapels where I've attended (or near me, since I quit attending) in the last ~20 years, right in the heart of the mormon corridor, literally within sight of temple square have NOT had the kitchen next to the Relief Society room.

The kitchens in the Mc-Chapels where I live are next to a "multi purpose" room that is several classrooms that can be converted to a single room by pushing aside the sliding accordion walls.

[MerrieMiss]

In the last building I was in the kitchen was next to the YW room - the RS room was down the hall a bit in the corner. In the building I'm in now, the kitchen is not next to the RS room as the RS room is in the center of the building, no windows (I wonder if it's a weird 1990s building plan that never got traction, definitely has the Mormon look though); the kitchen is equidistant from the RS room and the chapel. In my parents' building the kitchen is on the other side of the building from the RS room, it's next to the primary room, which is also where the font is. Just my most recent experience.

[Red Ryder]

Don't forget all buildings have a priesthood antenna too!

[Korihor]

The relief society room is generally one of the biggest rooms outside of the chapel and gymn. Some buildings have large primary rooms, but those rooms typically have all kinds of stuff on the walls, cabinets, etc. It makes sense to have the serving area attached to the larger room, it makes events where food is served a lot easier. I dont think this is sexism. There are plenty of other areas for that.

I'm on the same page as Emower. It just seems to be a decent design.

[Give It Time]

The relief society room is generally one of the biggest rooms outside of the chapel and gymn. Some buildings have large primary rooms, but those rooms typically have all kinds of stuff on the walls, cabinets, etc. It makes sense to have the serving area attached to the larger room, it makes events where food is served a lot easier. I dont think this is sexism. There are plenty of other areas for that.

I'm on the same page as Emower. It just seems to be a decent design.

In the ward of my youth, the kitchen was next to the EQ room. The RS room was the next room down from the EQ room. In the buildings with the current design model, I've noticed it is consistently next to the RS room. Many weeknight RS activities are cooking-based and there are usually doors or a pass-through to the RS to facilitate demonstrations and serving. In that regard, the layout is sexist, but RS doesn't meet very often during the week, anymore. Scouts or choir are more likely to use that room. I think the room is multi-functional and they just call it the RS room.

Now, I'm beginning to think it's interesting that there used to be EQ rooms, but they've been placed on the chopping block and now the EQ just meets in the "cultural hall" which is really a basketball court with a stage which should really be called the cafegymatorium.

[MerrieMiss]

Totally off topic:
The thing that gets me more than where the kitchens are placed is the RS using men to serve them for activities. I may get pushback for this, but I find it repulsive.

I have been to RS activities where members of the EQ are wearing aprons and serving the women their salads and dessert for activities like the RS birthday. I don’t like it and not because aprons are emasculating, which I don’t think that they are.

I look at it this way: if the EQ/HP were having an activity and asked the RS to wear aprons and serve them, everyone would be appalled. It is true that women do spend disproportionate amounts of time serving or in the kitchen for various activities, but having men serve the RS doesn’t correct that. If I don’t want to serve the men at an EQ/HP activity, I’m sure as hell not going to ask the men to do it for RS.

When I was in the RS presidency a few years back one of the counselors wanted to do this. She told me that the women really needed that birthday party. They needed to feel special, that they expected a lot from this activity, and thus needed the men to serve them. I protested. We’re big girls and can serve ourselves, thank you very much. And frankly, I don’t need an RS birthday party to feel special. I’ve never felt more patronized as a woman than at church activities where I’m told I’m special. Only non-special people have to be told that they're special. That irritated me even as a teenager.

It is my opinion that if women want to be treated better in the church (which I am not sure all women in the church want) then they need to pull up their polygamy panties and start acting like adults.

[nibbler]

Our building used to have an interior window that opened directly into the RS room. Another building I attend has one of those accordion partitions separating the RS room from the kitchen.

Hey, at least you've got a dedicated room. Half the PH meetings are in the hallway because all the other rooms are occupied.

[Korihor]

The relief society room is generally one of the biggest rooms outside of the chapel and gymn. Some buildings have large primary rooms, but those rooms typically have all kinds of stuff on the walls, cabinets, etc. It makes sense to have the serving area attached to the larger room, it makes events where food is served a lot easier. I dont think this is sexism. There are plenty of other areas for that.

I'm on the same page as Emower. It just seems to be a decent design.

In the ward of my youth, the kitchen was next to the EQ room. The RS room was the next room down from the EQ room. In the buildings with the current design model, I've noticed it is consistently next to the RS room. Many weeknight RS activities are cooking-based and there are usually doors or a pass-through to the RS to facilitate demonstrations and serving. In that regard, the layout is sexist, but RS doesn't meet very often during the week, anymore. Scouts or choir are more likely to use that room. I think the room is multi-functional and they just call it the RS room.

Now, I'm beginning to think it's interesting that there used to be EQ rooms, but they've been placed on the chopping block and now the EQ just meets in the "cultural hall" which is really a basketball court with a stage which should really be called the cafegymatorium.

Well, if you want to go down the "they don't give a shiz about EQ" path, then we've got something in common.

Whether the EQ room or RS room is adjacent to the kitchen seems to be a non-issue. But the guys get super screwed in the whole "having a place to meet" debate. Even if the kitchen is adjacent, at least you get a designated place. We might be on the stage, in the gym, an unused classroom, who knows? If priesthood is so important, I can't figure out why they ignore the EQ.

I don't really care about the whole McChapel thing. THere is efficiency on using the same plans over and over and it's just being intelligent with your money. Putting the kitchen next to this room or that room, really seems to come down to semantics and a decision had to be made. THey try to make the buildings flexible.

However, if you want to argue the horrendous idea of carpeted walls, I will stand by you till the death.

Now, if the building layout was Kitchen - RS - HC, with direct access between the Kitchen and RS, then you would be on to something.

[Just This Guy]

Growing up in Utah, our building had the kitchen right off the RS room. The building where I live now, they are on opposite sides of the building.

Don't forget all buildings have a priesthood antenna too!

What does it say that I look at that picture and think: "That's a poorly insulated building."

[Give It Time]

I'm on the same page as Emower. It just seems to be a decent design.

In the ward of my youth, the kitchen was next to the EQ room. The RS room was the next room down from the EQ room. In the buildings with the current design model, I've noticed it is consistently next to the RS room. Many weeknight RS activities are cooking-based and there are usually doors or a pass-through to the RS to facilitate demonstrations and serving. In that regard, the layout is sexist, but RS doesn't meet very often during the week, anymore. Scouts or choir are more likely to use that room. I think the room is multi-functional and they just call it the RS room.

Now, I'm beginning to think it's interesting that there used to be EQ rooms, but they've been placed on the chopping block and now the EQ just meets in the "cultural hall" which is really a basketball court with a stage which should really be called the cafegymatorium.

Well, if you want to go down the "they don't give a shiz about EQ" path, then we've got something in common.

Whether the EQ room or RS room is adjacent to the kitchen seems to be a non-issue. But the guys get super screwed in the whole "having a place to meet" debate. Even if the kitchen is adjacent, at least you get a designated place. We might be on the stage, in the gym, an unused classroom, who knows? If priesthood is so important, I can't figure out why they ignore the EQ.

I don't really care about the whole McChapel thing. THere is efficiency on using the same plans over and over and it's just being intelligent with your money. Putting the kitchen next to this room or that room, really seems to come down to semantics and a decision had to be made. THey try to make the buildings flexible.

However, if you want to argue the horrendous idea of carpeted walls, I will stand by you till the death.

Now, if the building layout was Kitchen - RS - HC, with direct access between the Kitchen and RS, then you would be on to something.

My ex used to complain about the EQ being shafted on meeting space. I never understood what he meant until this post and noticing the fact that the EQ had their own room in the building I attended as a child. I don't mind the idea of McChapels either. I thought the plans were smart when I first saw them. I still do.

The carpeted walls are for encouraging people to climb up them instead of each other's asses, but they still haven't figured out how to phrase that memo.

[didyoumythme]

This is definitely sexist toward the men in the church. I agree! Women always get the big rooms with the soft chairs, while the men are left sitting on cold, hard fold up chairs that we put away ourselves. Women have eaiser access to the snacks and goodies in the kitchen too. So unfair!

[Jeffret]

This is definitely sexist toward the men in the church. I agree! Women always get the big rooms with the soft chairs, while the men are left sitting on cold, hard fold up chairs that we put away ourselves. Women have eaiser access to the snacks and goodies in the kitchen too. So unfair!

It's true. For there to be sexism against women, which there certainly is, there also has to pretty much be sexism against men. In the Church, these are presented as the eternal gender roles. This is how they maintain the façade of men and women being equal but different. To place women up on the pedestal they declare for them, men have to be prevented from those things that create the pedestal. Men have to be prevented from doing women things and women have to be prevented from doing men things. Separate but equal never really works, so it ends up becoming inequitable. For the most part, boys are socialized to do men things and girls are socialized to do women things. As long as everyone goes along with and accepts the limitations of their roles there is a degree of equilibrium perhaps, or at least stability, though there certainly isn't true equity. If an individual isn't satisfied with their declared role then issues arise. If boy wants to do women things. Or a girl wants to do man things. Or if the subservient class (women / girls) eventually realize that separate is never going to be equal.

It's true that women get the RS room, which is generally nicer than other subservient rooms. But, the men get the bishop's offices, the clerk's offices, the stake offices, (all of which are generally quite a bit nicer than the RS room), and the elevated positions on the stand to control meetings and activities. It's true that the Elder's Quorum gets ignored to scrape about and find their location as best they can. That's the nature of patriarchy. It's not that all men have it better than all women in all things, though generally men have a number of privileges. But, the wife of the chief patriarch has no direct authority, but usually receives substantial recognition reflected off her husband. The whole system is based upon creating different things for men and women and creating a hierarchy. Women have to have some advantages or it collapses. But, the only ones who real power are men.

[didyoumythme]

The whole system is based upon creating different things for men and women and creating a hierarchy. Women have to have some advantages or it collapses. But, the only ones who real power are men.

Agreed. Women are constantly told how special and precious they are, and this is thought to someone maintain balance so they can continue with the separate but equal mantra. My wife is certainly annoyed by this treatment, and I am surprised more aren't annoyed by it. Women have no authority and no eternity to look forward to in Mormonism. Their power lies solely in their ability to silently make babies for eternity.

[Give It Time]

This is definitely sexist toward the men in the church. I agree! Women always get the big rooms with the soft chairs, while the men are left sitting on cold, hard fold up chairs that we put away ourselves. Women have eaiser access to the snacks and goodies in the kitchen too. So unfair!

It's true. For there to be sexism against women, which there certainly is, there also has to pretty much be sexism against men. In the Church, these are presented as the eternal gender roles. This is how they maintain the façade of men and women being equal but different. To place women up on the pedestal they declare for them, men have to be prevented from those things that create the pedestal. Men have to be prevented from doing women things and women have to be prevented from doing men things. Separate but equal never really works, so it ends up becoming inequitable. For the most part, boys are socialized to do men things and girls are socialized to do women things. As long as everyone goes along with and accepts the limitations of their roles there is a degree of equilibrium perhaps, or at least stability, though there certainly isn't true equity. If an individual isn't satisfied with their declared role then issues arise. If boy wants to do women things. Or a girl wants to do man things. Or if the subservient class (women / girls) eventually realize that separate is never going to be equal.

It's true that women get the RS room, which is generally nicer than other subservient rooms. But, the men get the bishop's offices, the clerk's offices, the stake offices, (all of which are generally quite a bit nicer than the RS room), and the elevated positions on the stand to control meetings and activities. It's true that the Elder's Quorum gets ignored to scrape about and find their location as best they can. That's the nature of patriarchy. It's not that all men have it better than all women in all things, though generally men have a number of privileges. But, the wife of the chief patriarch has no direct authority, but usually receives substantial recognition reflected off her husband. The whole system is based upon creating different things for men and women and creating a hierarchy. Women have to have some advantages or it collapses. But, the only ones who real power are men.

I think that the fact that RSP doesn't have an office is interesting. That speaks volumes.

[alas]

I'm on the same page as Emower. It just seems to be a decent design.

In the ward of my youth, the kitchen was next to the EQ room. The RS room was the next room down from the EQ room. In the buildings with the current design model, I've noticed it is consistently next to the RS room. Many weeknight RS activities are cooking-based and there are usually doors or a pass-through to the RS to facilitate demonstrations and serving. In that regard, the layout is sexist, but RS doesn't meet very often during the week, anymore. Scouts or choir are more likely to use that room. I think the room is multi-functional and they just call it the RS room.

Now, I'm beginning to think it's interesting that there used to be EQ rooms, but they've been placed on the chopping block and now the EQ just meets in the "cultural hall" which is really a basketball court with a stage which should really be called the cafegymatorium.

Well, if you want to go down the "they don't give a shiz about EQ" path, then we've got something in common.

Whether the EQ room or RS room is adjacent to the kitchen seems to be a non-issue. But the guys get super screwed in the whole "having a place to meet" debate. Even if the kitchen is adjacent, at least you get a designated place. We might be on the stage, in the gym, an unused classroom, who knows? If priesthood is so important, I can't figure out why they ignore the EQ.

I don't really care about the whole McChapel thing. THere is efficiency on using the same plans over and over and it's just being intelligent with your money. Putting the kitchen next to this room or that room, really seems to come down to semantics and a decision had to be made. THey try to make the buildings flexible.

However, if you want to argue the horrendous idea of carpeted walls, I will stand by you till the death.

Now, if the building layout was Kitchen - RS - HC, with direct access between the Kitchen and RS, then you would be on to something.

Back in the days when our current leaders were elders, the priesthood meeting was before Sunday School and the elders met in the RS room, and the HP took the chapel, and the YM used classrooms because there were no women or children in the building. Buildings have not changed, which is the biggest problem. We changed to the three hour block ages ago, and did not change our buildings to accommodate that everyone is in the building for three hours, plus the next ward is already using the chapel. So, perhaps our top leaders being old men who no longer attend normal church meetings but live in a bubble has something to do with it, and maybe it is just that they are too damned cheap to build buildings that are big enough.

Our buildings are simply way over crowded and it is just getting worse as the church tries to cram 4-5 wards in one building. Last time I was active, we had one building in the stake and one building we used that was actually outside of our stake. One building had 4 wards and the other had 5. (One was Spanish speaking and one young single adults) There were not enough rooms for bishop's offices, so they took the coat closets and remodeled for bishop's offices.

[Silver Girl]

.

I'm a feminist, and I don't think the design is sexist. I've been in several chapels of various vintages and design eras, and some have the kitchen near the RS room, while others do not. I'm not an architect, but I can think of several considerations that could affect placement:

1. Placement of pipes and plumbing - usually a building is designed to be as efficient as possible, and that might be a factor.

2. If RS rooms are larger (which is fine - nothing particularly sexist about that - it probably reflects usage), and kitchens have to be large enough to accommodate counters, etc., and hallways need to be straight, it makes sense to position rooms with similar space needs in the same area or along the same hallway. Not all rooms will be that size, of course, because they can divide the space to put in closets or two smaller rooms, but the load bearing walls would likely be positioned to support the largest rooms on a hallway (the kitchen and RS room being possible examples).

3. Finally, I actually think women are so overlooked in the church that nobody even considered providing "ready access" to the kitchen. The designs are uniform, and were probably designed for the men (just look at the suites in stake centers, for SPs and the HC), and the emphasis put on the cultural hall (not exactly a huge hangout for women) etc. It's all about men, and upcoming PH holders (basketball players). They don't care if women are inconvenienced at all. Here's a kitchen. Here's the RS room. Here's the room where you can sit and nurse your fifth baby. You're on your own in figuring out how to get from Point A to Point B. Shut up and feed your baby.

Most churches of any type have kitchens. I guess we could think of kitchens themselves as sexist, but they provide a useful purpose in churches (unless, of course, you're not allowed to cook in them - oops, that's because women cook!).

Not sure if that makes sense, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.