I have heard for years (especially from Relief Society ladies) about this mythical man that lurked inside most mild-mannered priesthood holders: a man who would, given his druthers, keep his wife barefoot, pregnant, and without book-larnin’.

I have never met this man. Not in my generation (I’m 29, with 5 kids) and not in my parent’s.

However, among the husbands of my same-age acquaintances, I have noted that more and more husbands ARE calling the shots on reproduction, but in the other direction. They put off starting families, they limit family size, and they shame other men who don’t choose as they do.

Many of the sisters I know have told me they would like to have more chidlren but their husband “wouldn’t let them”, or their husbands pressured them to keep part-time or full-time employment, sometimes to finance basic life stuff (mortgage, etc.) and sometimes for the extras (BIG house, boat).

But there’s not a lot of support for this problem. I used to mention this to Relief Society sisters; the older ones told me I should be grateful I wasn’t being kept barefoot and pregnant; the bishops I’ve discussed the issue with seemed to blink and say, “But why would you WANT to have more children?” and generally supported whatever the husband decided on limiting family size.

Maybe the problem isn’t a patriarchy; it’s a patriarchy that insufficiently respects and accepts the feminine. In all its forms, including in childbearing and childrearing.

women are asked to confess to men or receive counsel from men regardless of the issue.

Be very afraid of even talking with men who want to counsel in the church. As a school psychologist and counselor, I know, firsthand that Bishops believe that confidentiality means “Whoever they think needs to know.” When it is supposed to be a private conversation between a Bishop and a member.
They have nothing to lose if they break confidentiality and there is no oversight or accountability when Bishops violate ethics. The good ol’ boys will cover for the violator. I have a two page letter, from a sister in my ward congregation, following the non-interview, where I asked that the Bishop to recuse himself from the non-interview, after he asked for a questionable requirement, before he would interview me. I did not wish to spend a year soliciting his favor in the way he requested in order to have my temple recommend renewed.
The same requirement was not asked of my father or my son-in-law. I faced retalitory actions from the leadership after I offered to teach his stake leadership group the ethics of confidentiality according to our state psychologist’s ethics boards. I student taught this to Oregon educators at college level as part of my graduate degree and I work as a psychologist/counselor in my state. Currently, my husband and I are shunned, and relieved to be left alone. The priesthood is open to unrighteous dominion and there is little oversight process or accountability when unrighteous dominion is committed, at least in my personal experience in this stake. They could change this practice by allowing women to interview women for temple recommends. At least women would be less likely to embellish the procedure for their own personal gain.

Another very pragmatic cost of patriarchy (meaning sites in Mormon thought at which authority is granted to men to the exclusion of women) is that women are asked to confess to men or receive counsel from men regardless of the issue.

There are practical reasons to stop this in our current culture as well. I think two things could happen without challenging the priesthood. The first is not putting young women alone in a room with an older man to talk about things like sex. Another is to stop making priesthood a job description and opening up most church callings to women. If they can be “presided” over in the RS they can be presided over in any other calling.

Specifically one of the major formative experiences of much of the senior leadership is WWII, and until recently many of them had experienced that war as members of the military. One of the chief principles of good Military organization is clearly defined” chain of command and authority. As an example; in the recent welfare training we had he story of one of the Apostles asking a Bishop to go see to a families needs because only a bishop could authorize withdrawals from he Bishop’s Store House. One of the chief functions of the chain is to determine communication lines and organizational structure. Another important aspect of CoC is that just be cause I’m a a General and your a Private it doesn’t mean I can give you orders. Even if you are i still have to send them down through the proper channels.

I also see this as a computer programmer where if, as I understand it, in the celestial kingdom there is no difference between Family Government, Church Government, and State Government, than patriarchal organization is the framework that defines the “data structure” of the connections in the human family. In this case a tree .
Another possible metaphore; in the fabric of eternity the male line is the warp and the female the weft.

As a side note I am an EQ President and My Dad has been a Bishop, both of us are, personality wise, much more typically “female” then our spouses

if we are going to start the discussion with the assumption that the church is what it claims to be….do we have a responsibility as academics to keep all positions on the table. In other words….what if God does intend women to be subordinate?

I absolutely think we have to keep all positions on the table. I don’t think we can take for granted that women are full people just because we want it to be so. But then I’m a doom-and-gloom feminist of the darkest stripe.

I really like your point, Brian–I completely agree that the problem with creating a formal mode of interaction between father and children, through priesthood, is that this isn’t a relationship in itself, and might become a substitute for an actual relationship. And why would children seek that kind of interaction from fathers outside the larger context of a relationship with them?

I know a father who is like this. And I know one of his kids. And this kid does not want a blessing from Dad because of the perception that that is the only way Dad ever tries to connect. It’s an entirely new way of looking at:

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned

Exactly. And men are not being denied anything because some might not behave appropriately so that seems something of a non sequitur. I liked how Claudia Bushman described it…women are going out into the workforce as equals and then have to “shrink down” on Sunday.