Church Renews Opposition to ERA

[Jeffret]

I think, using the language of their time, this is what the Founders thought they were saying.

Nah, that's clearly not the case. They considered women's rights only as a very limited subset of men's as they were granted by men. When they said "mankind" or "men" they meant males. And pretty much only white, adult, property-owning men.

Women didn't get the most essential right, the right to vote, until well over 100 years later. After lots of hard fought effort and vile opposition. They weren't fully counted in the census until 1850.

There was Abigail Adams' famous letter urging her husband to Remember the Ladies in creating new laws that would prevent men from tyrannically ruling over women and treating them only as vassals. He declined

to adopt his wife’s proposed “extraordinary code of laws.”

“We have,” he wrote back wryly, “only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope Gen. [George] Washington and all our brave heroes would fight.”

Instead, this interpretation is a retroactive attempt to justify further excluding women. John Adams and the other Founding Fathers knew that women were not equal and that "mankind" didn't include them the way it includes men. In the 60's - 70's as the push for women's rights and equality really mounted, people retrofitted a soft inclusion of women onto the earlier terms and writings, distorting what they originally intended. People, dominated by men, of course, didn't want to really have to change things or really accept women's equality, but they didn't want to appear too overtly sexist. So, they said that's what the terms meant all along, now go away women and stop bothering us.

[Jeffret]

I wonder if it comes down to them being fearful of women coming to expect equal treatment.

Absolutely.

The Church fears the ERA for the same reason it fears gay marriage. It undermines their patriarchal system. It calls into question their demanded exclusive moral authority. It disputes their claim to power.

As women and men become more comfortable with the idea that men and women should be treated equally (i.e., not be discriminated against on the basis of gender), the old men running the church become more divergent from societal expectations. As that gulf widens, the church becomes more out-of-step with society. It becomes less attractive to people inside and outside, particularly the younger generations. Legally they would be allowed to continue discriminating, but their love of power, money, and claim to moral authority make that difficult.

[Fifi de la Vergne]

duplicate post

[Fifi de la Vergne]

duplicate post

Sorry!

[Fifi de la Vergne]

. . . I would really like to see our society do the right thing by way of integrity, good principle and rational thinking rather than having to codify good behavior. As I recall the intent of the Founders was to restrict the government in it's ability to interfere in our lives. The more we codify, the more power we give to the government to coerce our behavior.

We don't become better people, we just learn to avoid punishment from a domineering government. And then we look to that government to permit us our rights rather than reminding society by persuasion (legal if need be) what our rights are.

To paraphrase, if I may -- you'd like people to be taught correct principles and then allow them to govern themselves , and I actually don't disagree with you. I'm not a fan of pharisaical codifying of minutiae myself. But c'mon! -- to argue that this:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

will put us on a slippery slope to the equivalent of counting steps and limiting our soda intake -- really?

Should we be "mature enough as a society" to make the "small leap" to acknowledging that women are entitled to equal standing under the law? And should we be grown up enough as individuals and a society, to acknowledge that women . . . have every right assumed to all "human" citizens of the United States? Well, I think so. But similar arguments were made against the Bill of Rights when it was proposed -- and yet those foundational rights were found to be important enough to not be left to chance -- important enough to be codified in the Constitution.

My grandmother came of age before women had the vote. My dad walked out on our family (literally, as in he just disappeared one day) when I was a young teen and I sat by my mom's side as she battled with utilities and banks and credit card companies to try and get them in her name -- to obtain the ability to function without him. This was in the 70s and it was literally a battle, because women weren't legally/systemically accorded the same status as men. It doesn't seem all that long ago or far away to me; these were immediate and personal issues.

If we as a society agree that women are fully human and entitled to equal protection, why can't we make it legal? Why, in 2019, is it still such a controversial concept to codify in law the right to equal treatment of women and men?

[Not Buying It]

I personally think men ought to be a little careful in weighing in on how society is perfectly fair to women now and there is no need for something like the ERA. Until we've had a female President of the United States, until women have parity in financial compensation in the workplace, until women don't have to worry about men dragging them back into the Dark Ages with legislation - I say something like the ERA is desperately needed. In one midwestern state there is pending legislation to force doctors to reimplant ectopic pregnancies (see https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2 ... 617099001/) - which isn't even medically possible. You'd never see that kind of ridiculous legislation proposed about men's health. Women do not stand shoulder to shoulder equal with men, and anyone who thinks they are isn't looking closely enough.

I know plenty of men who think our society is perfectly fair to women. Just like plenty of men thought society was perfectly fair to women back when they couldn't vote and were treated like property. We are a long, long ways from true equality by most measures.

And yes, the Church fears things like the ERA because it exposes their BS patriarchal structure for the misogynist garbage that it is.

[Hagoth]

I wonder if it comes down to them being fearful of women coming to expect equal treatment.

Yes, and specifically fear that someone like Kate Kelly could take them to court and win. They have certainly noticed that even private gentlemen's clubs, like the Alta Club, have recently been forced to accept women. They might conclude that a constitutional amendment that requires equality without definition or restrictions might encroach on religion's hitherto untouchable societal exemptions.

[Jeffret]

Yes, and specifically fear that someone like Kate Kelly could take them to court and win. They have certainly noticed that even private gentlemen's clubs, like the Alta Club, have recently been forced to accept women. They might conclude that a constitutional amendment that requires equality without definition or restrictions might encroach on religion's hitherto untouchable societal exemptions.

Let's be clear -- that isn't going to happen. It didn't happen with gay marriage (someone still owes me a dinner on that one) and it isn't going to happen with the ERA.

I don't understand the reference to the Alta Club. According to the Wikipedia article, the Alta Club first admitted women in 1910, though their access was originally restricted. "In 1987 the Alta Club welcomed its first non-widow women members. ... In 2008, the Alta Club elected Ceri Jones as their first female president." I find no indication that it was forced to accept women, though it might be considered a public accommodation and prohibited by law from discrimination.

But, no, the Church isn't going to be forced by law to treat women equally. Now in all their business ventures that's a different story. BYU would be impacted. Anything that isn't part of a direct religious ministry.

[1smartdodog]

I just wonder why the leaders can not help themselves and keep stepping in it.

Does not take much to realize they will be doing some backpedaling on this one.

It bothers me when religious organizations which are tax exempt get involved in social policy. If you believe your own rhetoric just stick to preaching the word and convert people that way.

I am fine with any organization making a statement or taking a political position but not on my dime. You want to craft social policy pay taxes first. If you want to be tax exempt shut up. Use your voice to feed the poor, clean the streets, or offer comfort to the down trodden.

Dont act all high and mighty like you talk to god. Oh wait RMN thinks he does. That explains it. Sigh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wtfluff]

I just wonder why the leaders can not help themselves and keep stepping in it.

Does not take much to realize they will be doing some backpedaling on this one.

I was thinking basically the same thing.

Which one of the old coots said they don't live in a bubble? It continues to be blatantly obvious that real social issues have not penetrated the LD$-Inc. leadership bubble in the least.

Maybe this will get rolled-back as quickly as the Medicaid ban at BYUI?

[alas]

Maybe someone needs to organize another mass resignation, like there was for the pox. I keep expecting to see a reaction to this on the feminist blogs, but crickets. The feminist blogs seem to have given up on feminist ideas and are busy advocating for the disabled, racial issues, and LBTG issues.

[glass shelf]

Why not "all people are created equal"?

I think, using the language of their time, this is what the Founders thought they were saying.

As our language has changed and society has progressed (in some ways) it is we who somewhat unfairly find fault in them when there was no intention on their part to restrict.

But as Jeffret has pointed out, if someone of the caliber of Anton Scalia surmised that in order to clarify the law, the language should be more specific, then perhaps that is what is needed to secure the rights of all citizens.

I don't think that's what they intended at all. See also: women didn't have the right to vote

eta: I should have read all the posts before replying. Everything Jeffret said about this quote.

In fact, I think the way that Palerider is trying to use this quote to say "Look, women were always part of "men." shows the problems with not using langauge that is more conclusive. Men can decide women are included or excluded whenever it's convenient for them when using a word like "men" instead of "people."

[Thoughtful]

Why not "all people are created equal"?

I think, using the language of their time, this is what the Founders thought they were saying.

As our language has changed and society has progressed (in some ways) it is we who somewhat unfairly find fault in them when there was no intention on their part to restrict.

But as Jeffret has pointed out, if someone of the caliber of Anton Scalia surmised that in order to clarify the law, the language should be more specific, then perhaps that is what is needed to secure the rights of all citizens.

Given that women at the time were NOT treated equally, I dont think we can assume that was their intention.

[Hagoth]

I don't understand the reference to the Alta Club.

I haven't read the Wikipedia article, but according to the Tribune no women were admitted as members until 1987, which is the timeframe I remember:https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/20 ... c-moment/

It wasn't quite as dramatic as I remembered it, decrepit memories and all that. I was conflating it with other situations at the same time that involved legal disputes and led directly to pressure on the Alta Club and similar institutions. From the Trib article:

...for 104 years, no woman had ever entered the Alta Club that way — at least officially. Female guests were expected to arrive through a side door meant for servants....Lawsuits were filed around the country challenging such male-only bastions as Rotary International and Kiwanis International, which ended the patriarchal policy around the same time the Alta Club was feeling the heat from many of its own male members.

My point was that even private clubs (like churches) get legal and social pressure that forces change. Discrimination against African-descended members was fundamental doctrine that was sanctioned by scripture and prophets. Now it is disavowed. They hate to have to try to explain these kinds of things.

Here are some questions: does the ERA require to equal pay for non-profits?
Utah has the 2nd highest gender pay gap in the nation. How does church employment compare to statewide and nationwide pay gaps?
In other words, how does the church's tight grip on the Lord's Sacred Funds inform their attitude toward the ERA?

[Jeffret]

My point was that even private clubs (like churches) get legal and social pressure that forces change. Discrimination against African-descended members was fundamental doctrine that was sanctioned by scripture and prophets. Now it is disavowed. They hate to have to try to explain these kinds of things.

Here are some questions: does the ERA require to equal pay for non-profits?
Utah has the 2nd highest gender pay gap in the nation. How does church employment compare to statewide and nationwide pay gaps?
In other words, how does the church's tight grip on the Lord's Sacred Funds inform their attitude toward the ERA?

Legally, there's a big, big difference between churches and private clubs. Or between churches and other kinds of non-profits. The ERA isn't going to change that. Issues do arise where a church is behaving like a business. So, eventually the Church may find itself having to treat its paid employees equally. But, it won't impact their clergy -- any leader who is directly engaged in the religious ministry of the church. And it probably won't legally affect volunteers. That's surely one reason the Church wants to have volunteers, including missionaries, fill so many positions. Besides the cost savings.

In practice, pay gap or equal pay problems are incredibly hard to deal with. Unless there is something in the management manual dictating unequal pay, it's tough to get anywhere with any legal process. The ERA is straightforward in its statements of equality, so it should prohibit discrimination in pay by purposeful means but as always it's hard to demonstrate that in specific situations.

The social pressure is a different thing. It's happening and will happen more if the ERA passes. Church leaders probably feel they've managed that, having quieted Kate Kelly and friends, I believe they're going to find themselves in a more precarious position as time continues and they're ill-prepared to deal with it. It's not necessarily a big pressure on them to change, as it is a pressure on the members, particularly the younger generations. That secondary pressure may delay their action a good while.

[Jeffret]

One of the reasons why the ERA is important is because it establishes the standard or the expectation. Then people know what is expected and most of the time they behave accordingly. Or at a minimum they try a lot harder to not be overtly out of compliance. There are always lots of little micro-aggressions or biases we engage in that we aren't aware of.

We saw the same thing with gay marriage. When the Obergefell decision was released making marriage equality the law of the land, the incidence of anti-gay discrimination dropped dramatically. Certainly it hasn't all gone away, but the overt, public acts of discrimination have decreased. Both legal and illegal cases. There were the illegal acts in states or localities with anti-discrimination laws like New Mexico, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon. Before Obergefell these popped up from time to time by people who were adamant that no matter what the law was they had a God-demanded right to discriminate. Once gay marriage was the law of the land, new instances pretty much disappeared. The only notable one I can think of is Brush & Nib in Arizona and #1, they're not actually accused of discrimination, and #2 they were created with the sole purpose of giving the ADF a case to challenge the law. Even in places where anti-gay discrimination is legal, the new standard of legal marriage made people a lot less comfortable advertising their discriminatory acts. Of course there is still plenty of discrimination, primarily covert, but the legal situation definitely set the expectations, which people have tended to publicly follow.

The same will be true if we can finally manage to pass the ERA. While women have already achieved many of the gains, the statement the ERA makes and the standard it sets will help society towards better expectations and achievements. This is one of the Church's big fears -- that people will come to see them as out-of-touch, unacceptably old-fashioned, and without moral authority. They're already well down that path but as long as they get the adulation and peer respect, they don't realize it.

[wtfluff]

Utah has the 2nd highest gender pay gap in the nation. How does church employment compare to statewide and nationwide pay gaps?

Oh man... That "church emplolyment" pay gap statistic would be very interesting to know. I'm sure the Holy Corporation™ has that statistic available. I'm also pretty sure that Holy Corporation™ would use all of it's might, mind, and strength to keep that statistic hidden from public view.

Just a wild guess on my part, but methinks the pay gap in the Holy Corporation™ is awful, and much worse even than Utah in general. (My confirmation bias tells me so.)

I know that for at least one large corporation in Utah, the pay gap issue is front and center. There are fairly large initiatives in place to try and reduce the pay gap. With the theocracy in Utah, fixing the pay gap is a huge uphill battle in my opinion. It's such a huge cultural shift to begin with, and then beyond that it is something Holy Corporation™ that runs the state is is obviously opposed to...

[Hagoth]

This is one of the Church's big fears -- that people will come to see them as out-of-touch, unacceptably old-fashioned, and without moral authority. They're already well down that path but as long as they get the adulation and peer respect, they don't realize it.

Amen. In other words, that people will come to see them for what they are.

Thanks for the clarifications, Jeffret.

[moksha]

President Nelson could perhaps have a revelation in order to cement opposition to the ERA in place, at least until it becomes uncemented through another revelation (depending on the feedback of young members skedaddling).

[Hagoth]

President Nelson could perhaps have a revelation in order to cement opposition to the ERA in place, at least until it becomes uncemented through another revelation (depending on the feedback of young members skedaddling).

You're right. Anything goes when you can pass the blame to God.

Or he could have a revelation that gives women the priesthood. That's the wonderful thing about claiming to speak for God, you can do ANYTHING and sidestep the blowback. Your job is to just answer the Bat Phone and repeat what the voice on the other side says. Or, for the skeptic, to pretend to do so. In either case you must ask, are the consequences representative of your own personal prejudices?

These prophets and apostles may very well believe that they have special callings but they also know that they don't actually talk to God the way our missionaries and lesson books say they do. We have plenty of 1st hand evidence that they just receive impressions like everyone else. I believe the kinds of impressions you receive tend to be a pretty good indicator of what's swimming around just beneath your cortex.

When prophets COULD embrace people people with love and kindness but "God" tells them to do the opposite, that's the moment an open minded critical observer recognizes as Toto pulling back yet another curtain.