Yes, there is chicken patriarchy. It’s only “chicken” because of the need to protest overmuch, methinks.

The first issue that comes to mind is the place of single women in the church. Where women seem to have less authority to men at any level, saying that the true authority of a woman lies in her ability to have children (and, as it is implied, equate homemaker with motherhood as well) essentially shuts out any unmarried woman from her ability to claim any authority at all.

Perhaps that is one of many reasons why single women in YSA wards feel more frustrated (from what I’ve heard, seen, and experienced) than do single men. There is more of a frantic feel with the women to get married than the men, perhaps because (well, there are usually a lot more woman than men anyway) but also because most of the men already have a recognized authority (holding the priesthood) regardless of their relationship status. However, under the priesthood/motherhood ideal, women can only gain a semblance of that same recognition after they’ve married and had a child.

I also know for a fact that at least some folk at Church headquarters are downright “prickly” about the idea of women “presiding”. According to them a RS president or Primary President never presides, which I think would come as a surprise to many of these women.

in all of these cases “preside” is never defined nor elaborated. It is a little surreal.

We seem to have a difficult time figuring out what exactly these mean, though–we’re rather vague on specifics. Our view does differ from the evangelical view when looked at comprehensively, for the reason that it’s a hodgepodge of different ideas poorly welded together. But certain not-insignificant segments of it look suspiciously similar to what evangelicals are saying about women.

In the Proclamation, roles are delineated, though often shared. An equal partnership still suggests deference to the parent/partner with the specific role, when applicable.

This differs significantly from the evangelical Southern Baptist view that women should submit to their husbands in all things. Women’s roles are placed subordinate to the husband’s role as head of household.

While in the LDS family, priesthood means something, so does motherhood. Each is viewed as of equal importance, and the experience and expertise of both are therefore of equal importance.

You will notice that most discourses warn men of not misusing their power. It is because abuse is alarmingly greater from men than from women, although recent studies suggest that is quickly rising to perhaps someday catch up to men’s sluggishness. So, while focused at men, such warnings can equally be placed on women who do not consider the responsibilities and roles she is also responsible for.

A common response to feminist angst is to focus on the problem of individuals exercising unrighteous dominion; that concern certainly shows up frequently in places like Conference talks, at least. I suspect this is at least part of the reason that men get chastised again and again for abusing their power (while women are reassured that their lack of power doesn’t mean God loves them less). But that focus, as you point out, leaves the underlying structural inequalities completely unaddressed. The problem is framed as that of individual men who don’t choose to have an egalitarian relationship, but the question lingers: why are men the ones to make that decision?

Yeah, Kaimi, I have to laugh whenever I read statements from women about how they can “get their husbands to preside.” It all sounds like a weird little game.

Traci, as I read your comment you’re advancing two very different arguments. On the one hand, you contend that women (seemingly?) have as much power in the Church as men. This is manifestly false. Headstrong RS presidents brandishing Lee Press-on Nails may be strongarming hapless church-goers, but when it comes right down to it it’s the bishop who’s actually making decisions for the ward. President Hinckley may have worshiped his wife (let’s hope, though, for his sake, that he wasn’t practicing idolatry), but the fact is, he was the one running the Church.

Your second argument, as I read it, is that someone needs to lead and this is acceptable since it parallels our relationship with Christ. I don’t think someone needs to lead in a marriage–I believe partnership is possible–and while someone needs to lead in matters of Church governance, on its face this has nothing to do with gender. And I don’t believe the situation adequately parallels that between the Church and Christ. Put simply, men are not gods. Leadership and followership are not defined as mutually loving and serving one another. That’s an egalitarian arrangement.