In general I’m a fan of Neylan McBaine, I first ran across her a few years ago when I saw her presentation at FAIR making the rounds online and then when her “Moderate Mormon Manifesto” was published on FMH. I’ve tried to follow her work since then, and it wasn’t until listening to the Dialogue podcast last week that I think I nailed down her vision and philosophy of women and the Church.
She would like to see improvements in gender in the Church, but she’s pretty committed to gendered spaces and complimentarianism. I think she sees a lot of work on the ground we need to do to be prepared for further light and revelation regarding women. I believe, in her words, we need to show that we are prepared to walk through that door when the time comes. She envisions it somewhat that men men will continue to have priesthood power and authority and the Relief Society will be newly charged with some worldwide problem to alleviate (like illiteracy or human trafficking). She also knows there are two emotional sides talking past each other. Her book, Women at Church, is basically an action plan of “what we do next on the ground” to move forward together. I have a review of her book over at my blog here.
Professionally Neylan worked for Bonneville Communications (at the time) working on the I’m a Mormon campaign in brand management. She certainly understands crafting a message to it’s audience with a long-term goal in mind. If changes are to be made in our organization, they will need to be made by building on what we already have revealed line upon line. Her work reminds me of a lecture I had last semester in US women’s history on the labor movement. The 8-hour workday started picking up steam when they coined the slogan “8 hours work, 8 hours recreation, 8 hours rest” and used it to appeal to the conservative leanings of those in charge that everyone should have time at home with their families. This argument was more effective than, “You selfish, money-grubbing, life-sucking slave drivers!! Give us what we deserve!” even if it was true.
While I see Neylan as a centrist, I think she leans a bit more traditional than me. She’s definitely an advocate of bottom up change, using Clayton Christensen and his theories on disruptive innovation as her muse. I’m much more of a centrist who favors top-down change: my top three changes I’d like to see are (1) equalize funding and structure of programs (2) abandon motherhood worship in favor of Christlike discipleship in all its forms and (3) female leaders be equally represented on the church decision-making boards that make decisions effecting women.
One hallmark of almost anything she does is that she has haters on both sides. In her book Neylan asserts that God’s “divine math” does not always translate into statistics, which led some supporters of Ordain Women to compare Neylan to a Barbie doll. Meanwhile, Mormon Women Stand publishes a book review asserting her book is full of “doctrinal mistakes” and a lack of faith and respect in our leadership. She’s either not critical enough or not faithful enough. I hope both sides are wrong, as last year I met with my stake president to discuss some of my concerns and asked him to read my copy of Women at Church that I left with him. I’m hoping to meet with him Sunday to renew my temple recommend and to follow up and hear his own thoughts about the book.
One last thought: I love love love her book cover artwork: Women Debating Two Truths. My truth and experience does not invalidate your truth and experience and vice versa. Yet we operate in these strange tunnels that just because you haven’t experienced certain things the other person must be an anomaly. Is it possible for us both to be right? Can we validate both experiences and voices? I think that’s what Neylan attempts to do.
Have any of you read the book? If so, what were your thoughts? How have you used it since then? Have you seen any more of Neylan’s work? I enjoyed hearing her speak last summer about the Mormon Women Project at MWHIT. I’d be interested to hear about others who have heard her speak on other topics and what they thought. What do you think of her “moderate” feminist stance? Do you hope for top-down or bottom-up change or do you think we’re all faithless apostates? Does it give her work more credibility that she has haters on both sides?
Wheat & Tares 
I am a long ways from understanding the mind of a Mormon feminist. My feeling at the current time are easy to follow.
Whatever drives us to be who we are, we will go much further if we put God in first place.
I remember reading about an early Mormon “feminist”. She appeared to have it all because she put God first.
Her name, Susa Young Gates. I would think she is as good as model as there is for today’s feminist to emulate.
What do you think Kristine?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susa_Young_Gates
I’ll admit to having difficulty with Neylan McBaine’s views. Primarily it’s the complementarianism thing. And gendered spaces I find hard to swallow. I get that some people want them, but what about those of us who don’t? Still, I can see she is a lot more likely to get change from her position, than I am from mine.
I’ve listened to Neylan a bit and generally liked what she had to say but working for Bonneville Communications creates (created?) considerable tension if not an outright conflict of interest and while the I’m a Mormon campaign was professionally executed it created a very different image for outside consumption than we typically find in our home wards and stakes! So my general impression is Neylan’s substance is it’s more about image and the appearance of change than it is actual change. I hope I’m wrong here.
…the Relief Society will be newly charged with some worldwide problem to alleviate (like illiteracy or human trafficking). Or perhaps even RELIEF? Oops, I guess that’s a old problem and an old charter and a budget wayyyy too big for a woman’s organization.
Neylan is spot on. Jared suggests: “we will go much further if we put God in first place” and this is exactly what Neylan does. She has an agenda, but it never comes before her loyalty to the priesthood. She might not always agree with where the priesthood currently is at, but she will never push further than what is realistic and respectful.
Kristine thanks for enlightening me on the cover art. “my truth, your truth” They may be different, but if they reflect the honesty of our heart, they are both real.
As a pragmatist, I really liked her book. Sure, I would love to see even bigger changes in the Church, but since they aren’t likely to happen for a very long time, I think these small local changes are a good start. My bishop and our ward’s most recent YW President both read the book and have been implementing a number of the changes mentioned. I could be wrong, but I think minds and hearts are being opened in my ward because of this book. I like to think of it as Hastening the Work.
Jared: I appreciate your thoughts of putting God in first place. I think many people will disagree about what that looks like. To me I speak up because I believe its part of me being anxiously engaged in a good cause. I am prompted by the Spirit to share my experiences. And as for our foremothers, believe me, I’d definitely support more study and lessons on their work as feminists and suffragists. It was mormon women, back in the day, that gave feminism it’s negative connotations. One wing of the feminist movement rejected help from polygamists because of its moral failings in protecting the traditional family (ha!). The other side that accepted them worked on the philosophy of expanding women’s choices, even if they choose wrong (morally). This is where lesbians, polygamists, and advocates of “free love” found acceptance in the feminist movement. Ironic, eh?
Hedgehog: I have some issues with her complementarianism as well, and not because I’m for female ordination. That’s not even an issue for me. I just don’t like the continued gender roles. We can move to an egalitarian system even if men keep the keys to perform ordinances, everuthing else is still up for discussion. The one thing I liked about her book is in the first half I really felt like she understands where I’m at. She gets me, even if we disagree. And that is a rare thing. PS I think that an order of priestesshood could fit into her system, which has potential.
Howard: I love that: “RELIEF.” It shouldn’t take a new revelation to actually get back to what we are supposed to do.
Autumn: Im with you, my politics are just as pragmatic as I am here. Low hanging fruit, people. I have less patience with ideologues and their pie in the sky “how things should be.” Im all about “given the circumstances, what can we accomplish at this point?”
I liked her book, and I think she says some very bold things for a book sold at Deseret Book ( for instance, she actually mentions that some women are troubled by the temple). I liked it more than I thought I would since my views align more with Kristine K’s. I marked up my copy and it is currently being circulated throughout my ward. My problem with her approach, however, is that you are still subject to leadership roulette- you could make all these substantive changes at ward level, only to have new leadership put in and be back at your starting point in a week. But it is better than doing nothing other than really really hoping some institutional change happens.
Some of the words being thrown around here can be confusing and laden with assumptions.
Being a complementarian MAY NOT be “traditional” or “conservative.” It may be radically different from the way things were done in the past.
I think of “traditional” as father-knows-best, men-in-charge. And of the Mormon women that I know who are complementarians, they are not putting up with that second-class crap. They expect nurturing to be respected as much as breadwinning.
Which is pretty radical in today’s USAmerican society.
Naismith, again we’ll have to agree to disagree on the fact that modern society doesn’t value nurturing mothers. Twice I’ve left full-time jobs to be a stay at home mother and not once was my decision ever disparaged or insulted (I was in Vegas and Virginia). In fact both locations were flexible and understanding for mothers to do flextime work. There’s been a resurgence of stay at home mothers amongst the lower class (due to economics) and among the upper class (based upon the newest pew studies). Again I know you had a bad experience with that, but I don’t think it’s “radical.”
Kristine, I was not so much referencing my own experience as the Radical Homemaking Movement, see for example
which is all about increasing respect for nurturing and home production.
Moss – #8 – I haven’t read the book. Does she say much about the temple beyond some women are troubled?
I’m one who thinks that if the temple becomes the place where men and women stand as equals before God, other beneficial changes will follow relatively quickly.
When we start “put[ting] God in first place” we have a lot of repenting to do relative to the historical and current sexism therein. I’ve read enough of *Women at Church* to prefer the tack of OW. Is the Father the misogynist we’ve made of Him? I say, let the Mother speak to that.
I think the word “complementarian” has a blurred meaning in Mormonism in contrast to other contexts due to how we talk about men and women in Mormon discourse.
I think the church would like to present its status quo as complementarian (e.g., “Men and women aren’t the “same”, so they shouldn’t have the same roles and responsibilities, but they ‘co-preside’.”…this is a phrasing that sounds complementarian, but in practice, it often looks very unbalanced.)
So, there is a gap where the term “complementarian” could be used to describe positions that justify the LDS status quo (which would sound quite traditional to others…) vs using the term to justify changes to women’s roles and responsibilities that nevertheless do not require priesthood ordination (like Naismith said…not putting up with that second-class crap…)
“Is the Father the misogynist we’ve made of Him? I say, let the Mother speak to that.”
When feminists say this sort of thing, I’m not sure what they mean. If She exists, and if She has the characteristics the feminists imagine she has, then who could silence Her? The only argument I’ve heard made that makes any sense to me is that She doesn’t deign speak because we wouldn’t listen. But I don’t think the feminists would listen any more than the patriarchists if She had something to say they didn’t like.
Personally, I like what I’ve heard from Neylan McBaine. I’m a complimentarian, but I also think women need more opportunity to participate in church. I also think there’s got to be some significant revelation coming to fill in our understanding, and I’d like to think I’d be willing to listen to whatever it is.
Complementarian?
We’re in a transition and the outcome remains to be seen. These days the LDS feminists are (rightly) schooling future patriarchs while the senior brethren and a large number of older TBMs are pretending not to notice as official rhetoric searches for middle ground often occupying both the right and left at the same time as it moves slowly (slower than society as is it’s custom) toward a more egalitarian balance while covertly (wink, nod) preserving a slight pro-male podium bias in an otherwise all male power hierarchy. It’s a delicate spin job but these men of God and great and spacious building builders are certainly up to the task, they KNOW men and women are different: men build malls and women shop in them!
“If She exists, and if She has the characteristics the feminists imagine she has, then who could silence Her?”
You forgot to capitalize the third She and likewise, it seems to me, to recognize in God Their commitments to free will. There is no doubt that She does speak; many say they have heard and do hear Her, and that no one can silence Her if She wants to be heard. But Neither seem to tend to make anyone hear who doesn’t seek and humble themselves first.
We believe in an apostasy after Christ’s death. Was He silenced? Or does revelation require our humility and our very sincere inquiries with our intentions to act in love with righteousness?
Ellen #11, I don’t remember the specifics, but she mentions that some women are troubled by the temple a number of times- I don’t think she goes into why. It has been a number of months since I read it. I was pretty surprised at the time.
What I appreciate about this book is that it is safe. I can give it to my RS pres or Bishop and not wonder if I’m going to end up on some list.
The fact that there are “some lists” one might end up on makes the church feel less like a place to learn how to be a better Christian and more like a place where we have to evade ignorant patriotic inquisitors.