This is not yet another post about the infamous racist, sexist screed that Brad Wilcox gave to youth of the Alpine Stake last month. But I am going to start with his words, and specifically, what he told the young women they “don’t have” and what they “do have.”
Wilcox told the youth that women and girls don’t have ecclesiastical keys and ordination. He suggested that because most men don’t have keys within a ward or stake at a given time, it shouldn’t be a big deal that the women never have them. He then suggested that we are asking the “wrong question” about why women aren’t ordained—that we should ask why women “don’t need to be” ordained. He couldn’t identify a reason, but this unnamed characteristic women presumably carried from the premortal world was supposed to satisfy the young women in the audience as sufficient reason to keep them out of decision-making positions of power and authority in the church.
What the women have, he said, is influence. He said, “So girls, don’t mix keys up with influence. We’re certainly not saying the only ones who have influence in the church are the Bishop, the Elder’s Quorum President, the Teacher’s Quorum President, and the Deacon’s Quorum President. Surely there are others at all levels of the Church who have great influence without having keys. So don’t mix those up; don’t think that that’s something that’s needed to be able to make a difference.”
As though women are “mixing those up” and limiting themselves and their influence when facing systemic inequality.
This argument that women have “influence” paired with the implication that they, therefore, don’t need institutional positions of authority is nothing new. I’ve heard it in the church my entire life. It has been in articles and podcasts given by women (here and here) and is oft spoken and written about by men (such as here and here).
Why is there so much talk about the influence of women in the church? Certainly, there is talk about the influence of fathers and male church leaders and the influence of the Spirit. But there is something different in the discussions of the influence of women, both in frequency and function.
The rhetorical function of the frequent talks and articles about the influence of women is not to honor or praise women, but to persuade women to be satisfied with influence divorced from power. This is not asked of men. Men are allowed both influence and power.
As a noun, “influence” means, “the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways.” As a verb, it is “to affect or alter by indirect or intangible means.”
“Power,” on the other hand, is the “ability to act or produce an effect” and “possession of control, authority, or influence over others.” “Power” involves both the ability and position to act. This is direct and tangible. In my favorite definition, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. defined power as the ability to achieve purpose and effect change.
Power is direct and tangible. People in positions of power have both influence and the ability to act to achieve purpose and effect change. Influence alone is indirect and intangible. When categories of people are cut out of positions of power based on immutable characteristics such as race, sex, or gender identity (specifically for women and gender and racial minorities), we are saying that these entire categories of people are cut out of the avenues by which they can achieve purpose and effect change in direct and tangible ways.
When men have access to power while women are limited to influence, maleness is treated as active, while femininity is treated as passive. This feeds unhealthy gender dynamics where women feel they cannot say what they want, think, or believe lest they be accused of overstepping. They develop passive-aggressive tendencies to hint, suggest, and consider, and are left slamming their purse on the counter when they get home after being dismissed and ignored once again by the men with the power to make the decisions.
While certainly within their callings, women can and do act and make decisions and exert influence, there is no calling held by women in the church that is not overseen by male authorities. There is no decision or budget item that cannot be overturned by men. There is not even a pretense of partnership. And when men do abuse their own power over women in the church, there is no recourse for women. There is no system in the church whereby women or gender minorities can hold men accountable.
Women are treated to article after article about their great influence in order to persuade them to develop this influence without seeking positions of power to accompany this influence. Women are explicitly taught the bounds of their influence and the cost they will pay for going beyond that or out of line. Let’s look at two examples.
In his September 2009 First Presidency Message, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf shared, “The Influence of Righteous Women.” He tells the women, “I hope that my dear sisters throughout the world—grandmothers, mothers, aunts, and friends—never underestimate the power of their influence for good, especially in the lives of our precious children and youth!” However, he also cautions women, “May I invite you to rise to the great potential within you. But don’t reach beyond your capacity. Don’t set goals beyond your capacity to achieve.”
What is beyond the capacity of women? What is it that women cannot achieve? He doesn’t get specific, but he seems certain that there are hard limits on what women can or should do.
In his October 2013 general conference address, Elder D. Todd Christofferson spoke on “The Moral Force of Women.” He said, “From age immemorial, societies have relied on the moral force of women. While certainly not the only positive influence at work in society, the moral foundation provided by women has proved uniquely beneficial to the common good.” As he went on, it became clear that the primary moral force and influence of women is in policing and enforcing chastity and in recognizing that “there is not a higher good than motherhood and fatherhood in marriage.” He also cautions women not to blur the masculine with the feminine—that women must protect their moral influence through clean language, modest dress, and chaste behavior, lest they degrade themselves and lose their influence in the world.
If women do not adequately perform womanhood as he and other church leaders define it, they will lose their influence and proximity to power. These cautions do not apply to men the same way. Surely men are taught of their great influence and are cautioned to remain morally clean, but their influence does not need to come at the exclusion of power. Both are seen as good for men.
Women run into hard limits of their influence when they are cut out of positions of power. Even if a woman is an active, temple-recommend-holding, tithe-paying, calling-serving, married mother, she has no recourse when a stake president dismisses her opposition to the calling of a morally questionable man into the bishopric. The stake president can shake her hand, thank her for her concern, and walk down the hall to set apart the man in question. And when eleven months later, the stake president is faced with seven victims of this man’s sexual harassment and professional misconduct, he can quietly release the man with a vote of thanks. And if the woman then attempts recourse through the area authority seventy, she can again be thanked for coming forward while being assured that an early release from a calling is embarrassing enough in place of discipline and that she shouldn’t worry because the church has the “gold standard” for handling sexual misconduct. Influence means little when it clashes against someone with both power and influence. And no, this is not a hypothetical situation.
When women are limited to influence while men are allowed both influence and power, women are dehumanized. Women can be dismissed as easily as the weather in a church that holds most activities indoors. Certainly, wise church leaders check the weather forecast before planning an activity outdoors and may adjust accordingly. But except for in extreme weather conditions, indoor meetings and activities can go on regardless of the weather outside. Consult the weather or don’t—and carry on as planned.
Boys and men in the church don’t need to be convinced of their great influence. They get to live it. If women (and gender minorities who are completely left out of the talks and articles) are to be treated as fully-human adults, they need more than influence. They need the ability to achieve purpose and effect change.
For a healthier church structure, we need to fully reconsider the system that places men exclusively in positions of power over others. It is not enough to call women into the current power structure that still holds power over others rather than a system that shares power with and extends power to others. For a healthier church and world, we need systems of power that do not exclude anyone based on immutable characteristics and allow an equal place for all at the table with both a voice and a vote.
Fantastic piece that had me saying, “Amen” over and over again. There is nothing unrighteous about being unsatisfied with influence.
In the church hand book neither male or female should be seeking for positions of power or aspire to callings. The power of the priest hood women do have. This is the Lord’s work and His church. We just need to all whether male or female true, humble followers of Jesus Christ. The Holy Ghost is the influencer and the light of Christ.
Maree – I do not advocate for women seeking specific callings for themselves, but rather for dismantling the dehumanizing and abusive system as currently constituted. Seeking priesthood power that also allows for positions of power to make decisions and effect change is actively encouraged for boys and men. Including women and gender minorities in the structure of power in the church is not in opposition to the idea of being a humble follower of Christ, but would actually make it more possible for everyone.
This is a great post. The messaging around women and influence is exposed for its absurdity when used in other contexts. Playing the same argument ad nauseum that prevented women from exercising their God given civil rights, like voting, owning property, running for office, serving on juries, managing their finances, etc. should be a clue that you don’t have a winning strategy. It should also be a clue that your fundamental premise (women aren’t human the same way that men are human) is completely immoral and contrary to Savior’s teachings. But why let Jesus’s teachings get in the way of your cherished cultural biases or prejudiced policies? It’s far easier to placate and gaslight women than it is to confront institutional misogyny.
For a moment, let’s say that “God’s plan” of separate but equal is really true, then the church still wouldn’t be acting this way. If women’s moral authority and insight is so indispensable, then women would be proactively consulted on all church decisions. And the perspectives of women who are mothers and grandmothers would be especially authoritative. Clearly God has blessed these exceedingly righteous women with stewardship of His offspring, has given them the highest and holiest calling. Therefore, these women are the most qualified to counsel the male leaders on how to run the church. Yet instead you see women on councils routinely ignored, too nervous to speak up, or used as token representatives.
Amen.
100% heartily agree! Thanks for taking the time to formulate & share these thoughts.
Katie – thank you. I wonder sometimes if I’m contributing to the inequity by continuing to show up each Sunday. Do we try to shape from within? I ask myself this, and even in that question I see that all I have is influence. Of all the examples you used, the quote from Elder Uchtdorf seems to be out of context. Here’s what I mean — when Elder Uchtdorf talked about not reaching too far, he was talking about wearing yourself out, not about reaching for power: “ May I invite you to rise to the great potential within you. But don’t reach beyond your capacity. Don’t set goals beyond your capacity to achieve. Don’t feel guilty or dwell on thoughts of failure. Don’t compare yourself with others. Do the best you can, and the Lord will provide the rest.” However, in reading his talk again I did see the same rhetoric of “get an education in case you need it” that isn’t helpful to women, even if our leaders still think it is.
Hi Lisa – thank you for your comment. I understand why within the full paragraph the words of Uchtdorf are softened and sound more gentle, but I disagree that I used them out of context. I think the softness of telling women not to “reach beyond their capacity” is what makes it so troubling. He doesn’t seem to be saying make sure to rest or take care of yourself or ask for help when you need it, but not to “set goals beyond your capacity.” What does he think is beyond the capacity of women in order to give this blanket advice to all women in the church? The lines he follows with do sound more generally comforting, but I think the lines I quoted function to encourage thinking of hard limits on what women (not “people” generally) can do within an article about women’s influence. But I do agree that language of education “in case you need it” is not helpful.
Katie – I can see that. I took it as general advice, regardless of gender, to “not run faster than you have strength.” And tbh Elder Uchtdorf is one leader that I anchor my hope to, so I simply want to defend his words! It’s interesting for me to examine that. Thanks for getting the message out here. I used to think things would change – I’m 56 now – and now I’m not so sure. Trying to find my place in that.
I loved this post in so many ways – thank you so much for the time and thoughtfulness it took to put it down.
Thank you for showing that this isn’t just women being hungry for power. We have valuable insights to add, but they are lost when women are kept from decision making spaces. And everyone suffers when there is no one holding the people in power accountable. Sexual abuse in the church is a huge problem and it makes me sick that the men in power often put the feelings of the abuser (usually a man) above the safety/healing of the victims (often women and children) in the name of “atonement”. This is the worst form of taking the Lord’s name in vain, and further proof that to men in the church they cannot imagine their life in church separated from their power. Removing a man from positions of power is NOT denying the atonement. Holding abusers accountable is more loving and in line with the atonement. I feel strongly that more women in leadership would make the church a safer place for women, children, and gender minorities.
Great analysis of an utterly bullshirt situation we have as women in the church. I’m so discouraged about seeing and hearing these types of things every where we go in the church. We write about how awful they are and hold out hope that the tides are turning or maybe it will be different for our daughters. When I look back at the long lens of how many decades feminists have been showing and pointing out these terrible stripes of misogyny in Christ’s church, I remain disheartened. May your wise words land on the ears that can make a difference.
Outstanding post, Katie. I especially appreciate this point you made that I think you so perfectly nail. The discussion of women’s influence is an attempt at placation.
“The rhetorical function of the frequent talks and articles about the influence of women is not to honor or praise women, but to persuade women to be satisfied with influence divorced from power.”
I appreciate how you have teased out some of the nuance in the difference between power and influence and how men also have influence in connection with their power. Men are also given more opportunities to influence others and those opportunities also allow them to influence a greater number of people.
I recently ran across the short story “The Strike at Putney” by L. M. Montgomery. The text can be found here:
http://www.online-literature.com/lucy_montgomery/1902-1903/20/
It’s a fictional story written in the early 1900s that tells about how the women’s auxiliary of a church used their *influence* to allow a woman to speak from the pulpit. What struck me when I read it was how many more bargaining chips the women had in the story, compared to the typical modern Relief Society. Their fundraising social directly impacted the finances of the local congregation. And they didn’t worry about the influence of men at a level higher than their congregation. I’d guess that in most Relief Societies an idea as drastic as that church strike would have been shot down pretty quickly by at least a few women who could not imagine going against the “the brethren”. And that made me really sad.
Excellent post! So many thoughtful, important points made here. I was trying to pick 1 quote to share and struggled to narrow them down.
Yes, so many good points! I think it’s easier for men (like Brad Wilcox) to talk about how great influence is because they’re rarely in a position to rely on it alone to get things done. He may think he’s influenced by his wife and that she’s got lots of power over him – but would he want to swap roles with her? Would he want to be in the position that requires him to be the one doing the influencing and hoping for the best? It’s so frustrating.
Thank you for bringing awareness, I have always felt dehumanized and unheard in church and am grateful for those who speak up about the inequality ❤️
Wow. Thank you, Katie for articulating the feelings of inconsequentiality that rhythmically pushes up against me again and again like waves as I serve in this church – because I do not identify as a heterosexual man. Those waves of inconsequentiality are the lack of power, they are influence. As I read your post I realize again that the gender roles in religion are created by limited people; they are not inherent – they are based on a strict historic paradigm of attributing certain qualities to humans based on their genitalia. It is absurd. I love your comparison of influence and power – which is arbitrarily allocated based on genitalia.
[…] and other people. Women rarely have power in a patriarch. Rather, as Katie Rich eloquently explains, women are limited to influence. In a patriarchy, what is the worst thing a person can be? The Mask You Live In, a documentary […]
This is so good. So many valid points. I have a wonderful husband who treats me as an equal and listens and makes decisions with me. However, he still takes the side of male church leaders when given most scenarios. I know there are good men in the church that value women for “all the things”. But do any of you have ideas on how we make this change within church culture? I feel this strongly but don’t know how to do it.
Annie, this sounds like a fabulous question to explore. I don’t know how to do it either, but changing church culture is one of my motivations for writing. This would make an excellent topic for a guest post if you want to delve into it.
https://www.the-exponent.com/site-map/submit-a-guest-post/