Of course, there’s the refrains in the media that boys are being left behind in education, are more likely to be held back, commit suicide, etc.
This isn’t really about that, though it might be connected. Why does it seem to me that Mormons hate boys? For a supposedly patriarchal church, there seems to be a lot of deep dislike for primary age boys – at least in my experience.
Here are three experiences that make me wonder:
1. I was once called to teach a primary class for “trouble makers.” The idea was that these kids were so out of control, they were disrupting the other classes. What did I get? A class of around a dozen boys. In fact, this created a segregated primary in the ward I was at. There was my class (all the boys) and the rest of the classes, which were all girls.
2. I served in a (different than above) primary where one of the presidency members, when doing sharing time had a policy of refusing to call on boys. She was not silent about this, and let everyone know. I seemed to be the only one who objected.
3. A straw poll at a ward activity came back with over 80% of couples preferring girl babies over boy babies. Personally, I just like kids, so the idea that a girl or a boy would be preferable seemed shocking to me, but everyone seemed rather content with the idea that people should prefer one over the other (and that girls were better than boys).
This is all rather anecdotal (and doesn’t include hurtful remarks heard in casual conversation), but these experiences are from three geographically distant areas of the church. I admit I’ve heard my share of men hoping their next kid is a boy so they can do “manly” things like play catch with them, but they seem to be rare compared to the venom I see aimed at boys within the church on a regular basis.
I don’t disagree with you. Primary is very girl-oriented in nature. When I was a member of a stake primary presidency, one of the things I made a point of telling newly-called primary presidencies was to examine their teaching styles to be sure they were boy friendly, and to include motion and hands-on participation in sharing-time.
I also reminded them that Cub Scouting (in the US) is the way gospel-principles are learned in boy-friendly ways, and to make quality Cub Scouting a high priority. (A message I also stressed when training bishoprics.)
I was just called to be a Primary teacher earlier this year; I have three sons in Primary. I’ve never seen any evidence of what Naomi’s talking about, either at my ward in Ohio or my former ward in Ohio. Having said that, I agree with Coffinberry that Primary does seem to be very girl-oriented; girls are much better at sitting quietly and paying attention than boys typically are.
Oops. Sorry about that, Ivan! I skipped right over your name when reading the OP.
Ivan,
Your beef with primary goes right back to the beginning. Aurelia Spencer Rogers, Primary’s founder, first envisioned it as a way of socializing boys who were always getting into mischief. The program she originally proposed called for 1)putting them in umiforms, 2)teaching them to march in formation, and 3)teaching them to sing while marching. President John Taylor eventually approved the organization of the primary with the stipulation that it include girls as well, and that gospel teaching be included in the cirriculum.
All I can say is, thank goodness for priesthood oversight.
For the same reason our society hates anyone who won’t “sit down and shut up.”
We don’t care if you’re learning anything, as long as you shut up.
Seth R. –
I’m not sure about that. I find that pop culture celebrates people who are rebellious for the sake of being rebellious.
Of course, it’s often faux rebelliousness, but anarchists get more positive play than authoritarians in society.
All last year I would gladly have taken all of the boys at the age level my class was in if I could have traded in one girl who wouldn’t listen to me (she’s doing much better now with an older — i.e. “my mom’s age” — teacher.) The boys in my Primary class are always willing to participate, try new things, answer questions, be wrong sometimes, argue their viewpoint, and jump up and down when I ask them to. The girls usually reject at least one of those things — one won’t sing, ever; another only answers with what she thinks I want to hear. I have to admit there are some boys I have problems with in the Primary at large — the ones who keep whacking each other on the head, or kicking the seat of the kid in front of them — but there are girls with the same issues. I find it easier to persuade the boys to change their behavior over time, in any case; I’ve been working on the “please, I know you like to sing, I know you know all the songs, your voice is pretty, won’t you join me” campaign for 10 months without success, and it took 8 months for one girl to stop asking me what our snack for the day was (I’ve brought snacks a total of 7 times, witheld them once for bad behavior, and stopped bringing them all last November, when the new Primary Presidency banned them altogether.)
Then again, the boys I knew at dance class and in Sea Cadets, as a teenager, were a lot easier to work with, as well. About the only thing you could count on my fellow teenage females to do was to sit, and be quiet if you pushed for it (as soon as the adults left the room, it was a different story.) And they didn’t show much, if any, interest in actually excelling in terms of either knowledge or behavior; they’d whine while being forced to do pushups, but refuse to learn the stuff we were being quizzed on (which is what saved me from the pushups.) At least the boys liked doing the physical stuff more.
([rant]by the by, I hate that “enter this code” stuff… why can’t spammers just get a clue already and leave the rest of us alone? Their tactics can’t possibly gain them anything, especially if you’ve put nofollow in your site’s comment tags. [/rant])
“There was my class (all the boys) and the rest of the classes, which were all girls.”
That suprises me a lot. I would think that boys would be better behaved with girls around. I know that I had many teachers that made us sit boy/girl/boy/girl because it improved behavior (boys won’t rough-house with girls) and reduced talking (girls won’t talk to boys).
I’ve actually heard the other argument, that we favor boys over girls.
Personally, I think primary teachers and leaders are just trying to survive.
I guess that I have an affinity for active children. I remember how one of the fathers seemed to give an offside apology for his son when he picked him up. His son was a joy to me. I like him from day one when he jumped out from under the desk where he was crouched when I was introducing myself and said that I had a cat named Oliver and with much excitement he said, “Oliver, Oliver and Company.” I had another boy the previous year that was a smart alec for his age. He would say well, well, well, in a sacrastic voice unusual for that age. And I thought it was so cute.
My cousin’s son has been in behavior disturbed classrooms for the most part since first grade although they have to mainstream him a few times with very painful results to him. He is a hard child to handle in so many ways and can be very violent. And yet, I see such sweetness in him. Once when we were at a place called “Discovery Zone” and he was laying in the rubber balls, I though that his bliss was far beyond any child there. And when he gets something that he likes, his face still lights up to this day. He is 14 now, but backwards for his years.
I do think that the boys that are at the older end of primary would do much better if they did not have to be in the same sharing time or music time that has songs that are rather baby like and geared to the younger children.
I remember once when I was involved in a recreational program for special needs children to fullfill a requirement for my Introduction to Special Education class seeing a woman who was paired off with what seemed to be a hyper child. They were moving a ball along and she was keeping him on task by constantly telling him to keep going. It may have just been me, but I felt like the was sending a long stream of messages to that child that he was a bad boy.
I think the last thing we should want to do is send the message that someone is bad because they have a short attention span or act up now and again.
Find ways to involve the child and learn about their talents. I know there are people that think we are too much into “self-esteem” in this day and age. However, children who are constantly told that they are bad when they cannot control their impulses are at risk for very poor self-esteem.
We need to be very age appropriate while recognizing different learning styles and needs.
I think that over-active children can grow into fine men. I believe that I recall hearing President Monson tell of how his teacher kept him busy passing out the papers to his class.
Well, I know that I jumped around a lot so I hope you can make heads or tails out of my comments.
Send me all the “bad” boys!
Ivan,
My two cents is that you’ve experienced the bias some individuals have with regard to gender issues. I’m sure you would agree that there are those who prefer boys and those who prefer girls. I must admit that when I taught a primary class I was informed the boys were difficult to handle, only because it was partially true. Every week one or more boys would make teaching difficult, even using all the tricks like questions and activities didn’t help. The girls would only cause problems every other month.
I’m also certain you know that boys and girls are different and that many of the principles the church teaches are associated with the fairer sex. (Had to throw that last part in). So don’t be surprised that they’re treated differently, its human nature. I also applaud you for speaking out though, most people in the church are content to sit idley by while incorrect doctrine is taught or while people are in need of correction. I would suggest taking the person aside and correcting them in private if at all possible.
Ivan, the examples you cite are really galling. However, I think the biggest problem is that Primary is torture for all children. It’s just inhumane to ask children to sit “reverently” through Sacrament Meeting, and then require another TWO HOURS of mostly sitting still and listening. Girls are socialized to care more about other people’s opinions of them, and they develop more quickly physically in some ways that make it *slightly* easier for them to sit still and be quiet, so it’s true that they are at a small advantage in Primary. But it’s an advantage that can cost them dearly as they get older.
The real shift that needs to happen is that we need to start thinking about what children need, rather than thinking first about what’s convenient for adults (the 3-hour block, the heavy emphasis on densely intellectual indoctrination in Primary) and forcing the kids to conform.
I think a lot of children love primary. I know one mother would talk about how her two girls went on and on about how they loved primary. As far as learning to conform, I think that is part of socialization in general. Yes, free thinking also is important, but children at this age are really not ready for critical thinking. Reaching a child and helping them to internalize important teachings such as having a Heavenly Father that loves them or how to pray when they are lost or how to share with other children is reinforcing teachings that can bless the lives of children. I did not join the LDS Church until 19. In addition to training in the faith of my youth, I used to like to watch a local program that featured puppets and a lady. Children were asked to draw a picture of the selected items such as a telephone, sunshine, cat and then the lady would tell the story each week while pointing to the wall of pictures. I think all pictures that were sent in were shown and there were credits at the end. Children are very teachable and that is why we instruct them while they are young. Teach them correct principles so that they can have a foundation. I skimmed a book that was by the child of a renown athiest who was responsbile for taking prayer out of public schools. This child was indoctrinated against religion and this book seemed to be a tell all of the horrible experiences. From what I skimmed, I think this person had become a believer in God. My point is that children are going to be taught something and all people pass down their beliefs whether they are religious or secular.
I think that people do understimate children’s receptive skills and ability to take in a good narrative. In fact, using speech that is not tied to the context of a situation is important to helping children develop abstract reasoning. Learning about pioneers or different lands or prophets or valiant people helps children conceptualize these things and are there is carry over to success in school. In case someone is not sure what I mean by language that is tied to the context of the situation, context driven language would be telling children to get out their ruler or to get dressed. One of the shortcomings of some preschool programs is the lack of decontextualized language. Children who lack ability with decontextualized language often have trouble as the get into grades with more difficult curriculum. The narrative is something valuable and essential to both the boys and the girls. However, we need to engage them and use examples that are age appropriate. Again, we should not underestimate children’s ability to listen with interest. I still remember the nun who taught my first grade class telling the story behind the writing of our National Anthem. I also remeber my kindergarten teacher going on at length about how we could not take for granted that something that looked like water was water and should just call it a liquid. The former was a lesson that I comprehended and the later lesson may have been a bit over my head. Children do think in qualitavely different ways than adults so we do need to be careful as they are very literal.
Sorry if I have strayed too much, Ivan. Hopefully somebody else will bring this more on task than I am doing at present.
Sorry if I try to sound smart. I was a Speech Pathology major for a whole semester and an Elemetary Education major for a lot of years before I had to change majors due to my personal health problems. And if I had been able to complete my degree of choice and work in my field of choice, I would be workign with boys with attention deficit disorder with hyperacity. As it is, once in a great while, through the years, I have been able to spend time with my cousin’s son. But my health permitts me from doing it very often. He was a reason for me going on though when the door of my dreams of being an educator closed. In small ways, I have been able to use what I have learned with him. I wish my health would permitt me to go to Church and teach children. As it is, I have not been to Church since December 2004 and am not able to teach in a classroom setting due to my health problems. Unless someone constructed a classroom where I could enter and have a barrier between me and the class and my class were of an age that they would not be at a risk to themselves or others. Well, that is indulging in a dream of mine to entertain children as I love to do without allowing my severe ocd keep me from them. But back when I was able, I was good at what I did. I know this is boastful, but I will tell. When I taught my second year of Sunbeams every parent in the class of active children asked the Primary President if I could move up to the next year with the children. Those were the days! As it is I have no children and am not able to be apart of children’s lives as I would like. But I am sheltered from the real worry that parents face day in and day out. My worry keeps me from that worry.
Well, this is not back on task or anything. So while I am at it I want to add….
Happy Mother’s Day!!!!!
It just occurred to me that the Church doesn’t really facilitate male-bonding that much either. Any spare time you have is supposed to be spent with family and not with your buddies.
Last ward I was in, about the only “guy time” I got was in Bishopric meeting and Priesthood Executive Commitee.
Maybe the Church just dislikes men in general …
I still say we need to either set up a seperate program for the girls or integrate our Boy Scout activities. Just because it’s considered “boy friendly” doesn’t mean that there aren’t girls out there who’d respond more to a pinewood derby than yet another Makeover Night.
Seth R.-
part of it is represented in General Conference rhetoric as well.
What do the GAs tell the women? We love you! You’re wonderful! You’re beautiful! You’re great?
What do they tell the men? Shape up, you sorry losers.
That’s a bit of an exaggeration, but not far from the truth.
My sister has been, I think, welcoming the day when she no longer has to attend YW activities ever since the night the YW leaders physically picked up a girl and took her to their manicure area (after she declined their invitation to join in.) She probably wouldn’t like most of the things the Scouts are doing, either (she was quite happy to find out she wouldn’t be available for our YSA canoe trip today; all high school seniors were invited.) But the forced makeup thing has led to a whole clutch of girls sitting in a corner drawing and talking, and inspired my YSA activities survey idea, in which a grade of “1” corresponds to “Not only would you have to physically drag me to the activity, but I would further attempt to escape at my earliest opportunity, even if it meant walking the 5 miles back to my house in a blizzard.” Anyway, church activities aren’t supposed to be eyebrow plucking occasions — that’s the kind of thing one really ought to keep at home or in the salon, I think.
(I HATED the make-up & clothes thing in YW… but that was more than 2 decades ago… oddly enough, the Lord has never seen fit to call me to a YW calling).
Yes, and shoe-on-the-other-foot, I was counseling the PriPres’s to make sure that there was more of substance, both spiritually and preparedness-for-life-wise, in the girls’ program.
More than anything, when it comes to the youth programs in general, success depends on whether the adults ‘catch the vision’ of what God wants them to do with the program for the particular kids they’ve got at the particular time. Where the adults are trained in both the program and in listening to the Spirit, the kids are more likely to have a good experience.
But, sadly, not enough adults are trained in listening to the Spirit, and acting on it.
I’m going to tell Bill, “the prophet said to shape up, you sorry loser.”
I’m with Kristine, though, wiggly kids don’t bother me much, though.
Barb, it sounds like you would be the ideal dream primary teacher. A good primary teacher can make a lot of difference. I had one in the fourth grade.
It sounds like the Primary organization could perhaps benefit from more male input. Why are only women eligible to be called to Primary presidencies? I’ve never entirely understood that (or, for that matter, why a woman can’t be called to serve in a Sunday School presidency.)
I’m not sure this is necessarily true. I’ve been lately pondering the idea that the bias Ivan and Seth are referring to may actual be simply based on how many men are socialized view each other, themselves, and their responsibilities.
I’ve noticed, for example, in singles wards it’s very common for the Elder’s Quorum presidency to get up and ask us that, if we’re unable to do all our home teaching, to at least make sure we teach all the sisters. On its face, this makes some sense in the context of trying to make sure single sisters have access to priesthood holders… but on the other hand, brethren are generally unable to exercise the priesthood in their own behalf. On one occasion last year, this particular point was made *very* clear to me as I became ill enough I needed to (a) get a blessing and (b) get to the hospital. None of my friends or family were available, and I hadn’t seen a home teacher in over two years. I eventually raised a member of the bishopric for the blessing and a female friend returned an earlier phone call and took me to the hospital.
Within a week or two, the familiar plea of “home teach the sisters first” came up in Elder’s Quorum, and I felt like I had to say something. I related the story and… nothing. Nothing beyond the “nod of assent and let’s move on now,” anyway (you know, the one where you’ve made a comment in Sunday school that the teacher obviously didn’t know how to respond to or work into their agenda, so they just make a kind affirmation and then plow on to the next point).
Something else I’ve noticed about Elder’s Quorum: as an institution, it’s given some church funding for the purpose of social activities. Institutionally, I think, priesthood quorums are expected to function as brotherhoods in much the same way relief society is supposed to function as a sisterhood. With only two exceptions in my memory, every quorum I’ve participated in as an adult has failed to operate on a social/activity level (beyond sports, anyway, and sometimes, even that doesn’t work!). It simply doesn’t seem to show up on the radar of concern.
The conclusion I’ve come to is that while institutionally, there’s little evidence to suggest that we “dislike men”, culturally, men are less socialized to look out for each other.
Hence my suspicion that things might not get better for boys with more men in the primary. To the extent any anti-male bias exists in the church, I suspect men themselves may be some of the source (I mean, hey, look at me, here I am blaming the problem on men ;).
On the other hand, we are socialized to at least be conscious of the value of looking after women and children. So perhaps introducing men into the primary would help to address the issue.
Weston, welcome to my world. You have no idea how often I get that response in Sunday School and Relief Society. And I look around and think, “what a bunch of morons.”
Interesting topic; never would have occurred to me in 1000 years. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, consider this as a plausible explanation to this phenomenon: payback from Women who believe the LDS Church/doctrine “hates women.”
From age 12+, girls/women take a back seat to boys (priesthood). Take into account the negative aspects of feminism (anger and hatred of men folk), add to that the reality primary is a women-run auxiliary, and you have a formula ripe male hatred; means, motive, method.
Ivan: Why do we hate boys?
Duh! It’s because boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider. If we boys had any sense we’d do like the girls and go to Mars to get more candy bars…
Let me just say.. I like active.. rowdy boys. It seems to me that is pretty much how God Made them… and they are learning to control their natural man just like eveyrone else.
I do prefer directness of obnoxious boys… as opposed to some of the quiet treachery of girls. That is just me.
And for the record, given the choice of being locked in a room with 3 Deacons or 3 High Priests for 8 hours.. I would take the Deacons any time.. they are a heck of a lot more fun.
Thanks Geoff, your scientific answer gets to the crux of the problem. Annegb I think your answer is the key to the crux, we’re all morons. We all have personal biases and treat people differently, I heard a comedian once discuss the class that is discriminated against the most is ugly people. No matter your race, religion, gender, or nationality, your life will be harder if you are less attractive. physical attraction is not associated with the ability to perform almost any task or job (obvious exceptions aside). Yet, every study shows that a more qualified, less attractive person will lose to a more attractive, less qualified person.
The point is that illogical biases taint every decision that everyone makes; the real key to solve this is vigilance. Pay attention to how you treat people and try to change when you catch yourself treating someone better because of their gender or appearance. Only constant effort will change society and though we’re on the right track try and observe how someone is treated if they are less attractive. I was standing in a line and the person in front of me was treated very poorly by the clerk and as soon as I stepped up I saw the countenance of the clerk change (not that I’m attactive–I’d say more charismatic, LOL).
Personally, I have a lot of trouble with rowdy boys, and with boys in general. And boys are often rowdy. So I have always had trouble relating to boys, even when I was one.
My experience is that boys are gross, smelly, rude, crude, and generally impolite. Also, boys turn into men. Most of the problems in our society are caused by men.
Look at the sick instances of child molestation that are becoming ever more prevalent in our society. Men.
Look at the horrible instances of child and spousal abuse. Usually men.
Look at rape camps in Bosnia and other wartime atrocities involving rape and the subjugation of local women. Men.
On my mission, I was shocked and embarrassed by the crude “potty” humor used by many of the missionaries I served with. All men.
At work, the worst types of jokes I hear and the crudest sexual innuendos have always been from – wouldn’t you know it- men.
I hate cleaning the toilet after we have male guests because for some reason they have to pee standing up- it’s disgusting. I have trained my boys to sit when they pee in my house so that neither I nor my wife has to clean up their splatter. I know that’s gross- but that’s men. Men are gross.
Men generally do not seem to care about their grooming. Looking at most men’s finger and/or toenails is enough to make me ill. Men.
The boys I dealt with in young mens have no problem with loud and obnoxious flatulence any time- they glorify in the “pull-my-finger” disgusting crudity.
Personally, I love that I am a man, but I wish my fellow men would wisen up and be a lot less crude and gross. I have always loved being a boy/man, but I have always HATED the general crudeness and disgusting habits that many men seem to have. For some reason, I have never had the desire to do most of the disgusting things other men/boys seemed to love and think was funny.
In my opinion, the Church is right to be deeply suspicious of men, and to come down fairly hard on them. I hope it continues to do so. Men need all the refining they can get. Believe me- I was in young mens (finally got released this Sunday- YEAH!). No more will I have to put up with young man nastiness!
I have two sons and two daughters. Luckily, my sons (so far) are not crude and rude the way other boys their ages tend to already be.
But don’t get the wrong idea. I believe that men generally have great god-given potential. Getting them to realize that potential is the difficult job we all have.
Once a man realizes his potential, I believe it has a very refining effect which transforms him from a typical, crude “natural man” into something exemplary. And that is, of course, what the Church will strive to do. Perhaps Ivan raises a good point that we should consider less beating the natural man out and more loving it out. I am not sure either one really works, though. My experiences with boys (other than my own) have generally left me feeling frustrated and hopeless.
We need a better prod for orderly behaviour than associating it with reverence and suggesting that children run down the halls and yell because they’ve forgotten God. “Reverence is more than just quietly sitting …” And sometimes it’s not even quietly sitting.
Re: #30…
LOL! Oh the cracks I would like to make about some of those comments… but I’m trying to beat the natural man in me down so I will refrain.
Oops — make that #29.
Glad I made you laugh, Geoff! 🙂
#26 –
Men are from Mars, so perhaps that’s what seperates the men from the boys….
I should also add that my current ward in Austin, TX is actually farily fair in this regards, so my comments above should not be construed as complaining about my current situation.
I have spent most of my post-married life in primary related callings – probably to keep me out of Elder’s Quorm and Sunday School where I think I probably spent too much time condeming the love of riches in wards where the Bishop was a millionaire (that’s not the case in my current ward, so I figure here I’m in primary because I’m actually willing to do it).
I think #29 more or less typifies what I see as the problem. Boys are considered deviant, girls are the norm. I think it’s time to start seeing something good and positive in “rowdiness” and “crudity” (although not of the “pull my finger” variety).
Jordan,
Life isn’t meant to be antiseptic.
Jordan, 29 –
You have laid out a pretty comprehensive bill of indictment against men. According to your reasoning, we are guilty of everything from mass murder to rape camps to inadequate cuticle care, and your logic is airtight, especially your contention that “…boys turn into men.” Sad but true, sad but true. But girls turn into beehives.
You left a few things off your list. Did you know that men are responsible for MENstruation, MENopause, and MENtal illness? Also prostitution and lesbianism.
Here is something odd. I am a devotee, practicioner, aficionado, and connoisseur of humor you probably find crude and obnoxious. I can say *pull my finger* in 8 languages. I giggle whenever I hear Barbara Walters say *election*. And yet, my sense of decorum prevents me from disclosing personal details about my micturition habits in a public forum. Let’s not be too hard on each other, compadre.
Why do the YM get all the cool trips/activities, and the YW don’t?
Susan,
The YSA get better trips and activities than the YM and YW together (it’s so nice to have a 95% mobile group) and we usually get significantly more women than men to show up (canoeing on the Hocking River was I believe 15 to 5 female to male ratio; YSA FHE yesterday was 9 to 4.) I suspect the YW don’t get “cool” activities and trips because the YW leaders don’t have a significant interest, and the YW themselves aren’t sure how to influence things (or influence them towards the hated “eyebrow plucking” zone.) Remember that the YW need to have adult female leaders (almost always between 25 and 50, usually with at least one or two children living at home) to not only agree to but actively sponsor and attend all their activities (YSA just need priesthood holders — our sponsors/chaperones for canoeing were members of the Stake High Council.) So a better question might be, “why don’t moms between 25 and 50 want to run activities for the YW (or, for that matter, themselves) that are cool” — one I think I can come up with some very obvious answers for.
LDS Patriot (#25), your analysis of the problem suggests an obvious solution: quit making women and girls take a cultural back seat to 12-year-old boys. Then women wouldn’t get the strange idea that the the Church and doctrine “hate” them, as you put it.
For the record, I have a soft spot for the rowdy kids on the back row, whether they’re boys or girls. Basically, if they can make me laugh, then despite my best efforts to be a tough disciplinarian I’ll let them get away with more than I should.
Susan and Sarah, good question and good answer. My guess is the fact that YW leaders usually have kids at home has everything to do with it. It’s simply harder for them to get away for fun trips than it is for YM leaders. But it’s sad. I so envied the YM growing up because they were constantly going camping while we sat around and glued little crafties together.
Eve,
But if the YM leaders are fathers too, then what we really have is an imbalance in parenting/household repsonsibility and freedom to perform callings while the oposite parent takes the lead at home.
If that’s the case, there is plenty chruch leadership could do to urge men to be more “primary caretakes” and less “babysitters” in their own homes, and then our culture could change, freeing women up to lead “cooler” evening and weekend activities and their husbands feeling more tied down. After all, working men have precious few hours with their kids as it is.
Back in my day, the YW were expected to plan their own activities. The YW really end up planning the activities that they want to plan.
I was in one ward where the girls kept skipping the activities and playing basketball in the gym (I was a straight arrow and new, and wasn’t sure how to handle this). Eventually, we planned better activities that the girls actually wanted to attend.
So, blame the leaders for getting too involved, blame the girls for not planning activities they want. If they really want to go camping, they can go. The problem is, some of them actually don’t want to go camping.
cchrissyy, I completely agree, and I’d love to see the changes you describe. I think that if we emphasized fatherhood rather than babysitting and encouraged fathers to be primary caretakers, everyone would benefit–the fathers, the kids, the mothers, and the YW. Sadly, however, a lot of families in the Church just don’t operate this way, and the men are freer than the women to leave the kids behind and go off on a youth activity. In some of my experiences with youth, I felt as if it were a constant uphill battle trying to get the ward leadership even to see this imbalance as a problem, let alone take steps to correct it. In many wards, including the one I’m in now, evidently, it remains a challenge to get some men to care for their own children one night a month so that their wives can attent Enrichment. We have such a long way to go. [Sigh]
JKS, I agree that it’s a serious cultural problem when some girls would rather make crafts than go camping ;> But I also think that girls wanting to go camping isn’t enough to make it happen for the reasons cchrissyy outlines above.
What’s so great about camping that some people actually want to do it?
Thankfully, around here the boys have also seen the light that camping is (1) messy; (2) uncomfortable; and (3) generally boring. Since they don’t generally like camping, we don’t have to feel obligated to take them as much. Hooray!
Jordan, my first thought on reading your post was that perhaps we ought to rearrange YW and YM into groups based on interest rather than gender (a la the recent innovations in Enrichment Night). But of course co-ed camping is out, so….as usual, there are no easy solutions, and I suppose the reality is that no activity is going to appeal to every single person.
“JKS, I agree that it’s a serious cultural problem when some girls would rather make crafts than go camping ;> But I also think that girls wanting to go camping isn’t enough to make it happen for the reasons cchrissyy outlines above. “
I don’t like camping. I didn’t like it as a YW. And as a YW leader, I would resist camping. What exactly wrong with crafts? What is important is to help the girls plan some activities they are interested in. If they love the outdoors, then they can plan a hike, if they love sports they can play basketball, if they love music they can learn guitar.
JKS–Well, I’m of at least two minds about crafts (and scrapbooking and the avatars thereof, gingham geese and plastic grapes, etc.) They’re not my cup of tea. On the one hand, I realize it’s not at all fair to hijack RS or YW so that everyone does what I want to. So I’ve sat quietly through many a pot-painting, scrapbooking, gluing little thingies together session. Some women certainly love that stuff. And I’m loath to criticize their particular outlets, having many strange ones of my own (reading Harry Potter compulsively). But on the other hand, like Janice Kapp Perry, crafts really don’t have aesthetic value. They’re kitsch. I’d much rather see the women of the church either engage in meaningful service or seek out things that are truly beautiful (such as the natural world). That’s why I’d prefer camping to crafts, myself, and why I think maybe we all ought to keep our weird little hobbies–me and my Harry Potter, others and their crafts–out of church.
But I realize I’ve wandered far, far astray from the original question about why we hate boys, so I’ll bow out before I drag the discussion any further off topic.
Don’t bother with crafts or doing anything creative if it can’t have true “aesthetic value”. Otherwise, it’s wasted effort. Janice Kapp Perry clearly has been wasting her time all these years producing music without aesthetic value. Her time would have been better spent walking in nature.
Of course, if people follow that standard, only the 0.001% of the population who can produce things of world-class aesthetic value would ever create anything, and everybody else would be told that they just aren’t good enough and shouldn’t even bother. But everybody would be better off that way.
That’s why when my son comes up to me with a sloppy drawing he made with crayons, I crumple it up and throw it away in front of him. That way he’ll learn that he’s not creating anything worth creating, and he should spend his time on more productive things.
It’s like Happy Gillmore said to his girlfriend. “I’ve seen those finger paintings you bring home and the SUCK!”
JR, that is hilarious.
Eve, I’m actually not that into crafts. But I see nothing wrong with occasional crafts–I occasionally do something a little crafty. I have had the pleasure of being in wards where crafts were only a small percentage of RS (or YW) activities. If you’ve been in a crafts-only type of ward, I really do feel bad for you!!!
To both Eve and JR, I actually just did something that is considered a craft but actually has great aesthetic value!!! I would post a picture of it if I knew how. Some people who do crafts actually have good taste.
To say “Janice Kapp Perryreally doesn’t have aesthetic value” is to confuse personal tastes with some objective idea of art.
Her work has a lot of aesthteic value, and she clearly puts a lot of effort and inspiration into her work. I personally don’t like her music, but I recognize that as personal taste on my part. Just because something is popualr and easily consumed does not mean it lacks aesthetic value. It just means you have a rather high opinion of your own likes and dislikes.
JR, I clearly hit a nerve. That wasn’t at all my intention. I am sorry. (I get the sense lately I’m out of touch enough with the Mormon mainstream that I occasionally say things that seem perfectly noncontroversial to me but obviously–judging by others’ reactions!–aren’t. Woops. Just pretend I’m a foreigner or a small child who hasn’t been entirely socialized in culturally appropriate discourse ;>).
If I could clarify just a teensy bit….I don’t think kitsch necessarily has no place in life. I like a fair amount of kitschy lowbrow stuff myself. (You know, the guilty pleasure stuff–ABBA, a few Neil Diamond songs, Harry Potter, trashy ER spinoffs, navel-gazing Young Adult novels…) I’m just wondering if it belongs in church or at Enrichment Night. I’d clearly be out of line to play my ABBA Greatest Hits album mid-sacrament meeting. I’m just wondering if we couldn’t pull up the standards of Enrichment a little as well. But as I said, I’m of two minds about the whole issue, and I’m even of two minds about the whole highbrow-lowbrow split.
I will confess, tho, deep in my deepest heart I do believe that Janice Kapp Perry would be a better composer if she spent time Walking in Nature. Or at least read some Harry Potter. But I solemnly promise never ever to crumple up your son’s, or anyone else’s, fingerpaintings.
JKS, I will also confess it’s entirely possible that a craft with aesthetic value might exist. I’m hardly an expert in crafts, so absent photos and an Olympic-style panel of judges, I’ll happily defer to your assessment.
Ivan, I’m sure I have not just a rather but an entirely overblown opinion of my own likes and dislikes (;>) or I wouldn’t like and dislike the things I do. But I think as your comment itself acknowledges, there’s a difference between personal taste and aesthetic value. You yourself make the distinction in saying that her work has aesthetic value but that it’s not to your personal taste. I’m not at all claiming that my personal tastes are aesthetic standards or that popularity necessarily indicates a lack of aesthetic value (look at the way Dickens was gobbled up in his day–and his plots remain absolutely yummy). As I said above, I myself have a lot of personal tastes that I recognize as kitschy and lacking in aesthetic value. They’re frothy and fun, and I don’t begrudge anyone else her kitsch just because mine is different.
Where I do disagree with you, I think, is that Janice Kapp Perry has aesthetic value. To be honest, I’m really surprised that’s such a controversial statement! Sorry, but Janice Kapp versus Bach or Handel or Brahms? There’s just no comparison.
And, I don’t hate boys. In fact, may I take this opportunity to say that I find them to possess both the highest aesthetic value, as well as being to my taste, personally. (The grown-up ones, that is, of course.)
Sorry Eve, you just keep digging a bigger hole with your explanations and apologies. Liking Harry Potter and ER is one thing, but Neil Diamond is really beyond the pale.
Just kidding – I’m in complete agreement with most of what you say. If there is anything lowbrow, trashy, kitschy, or of bad report, I seek after it.
Just to bring the discussion back around to where it originally began, it is my perception that lots of the things boys and men like in terms of lowbrow entertainment is looked upon with more than the usual amount of opprobrium. Rugby, football, video games – they have all recently been subjected to official disapproval.
I know, Mark. I’m so ashamed. I blame it all on a twisted fifth-grade assembly that ended with “They’re Coming to America” and that scarred me for life. Perhaps someday there will be a twelve-step group for such as me.
You may very well be right about rugby, football, and video games being officially disapproved of. I have to admit that I hadn’t noticed, probably because those (unlike Neil Diamond) aren’t my guilty pleasures. Are you thinking of official pronouncements against them over the pulpit? Now that you mention it, I do recall, vaguely, hearing a thing or two about spending too much time in such pursuits in recent General Conferences.
What I object to is the pairing of ABBA with Neil Diamond. Tsk Tsk. ABBA is the soundtrack to the Celestial Kingdom. In fact, I have it on good authority that they were going to play “Take a Chance on Me” during the credits of “The Lamb of God” but one of the GA’s objected.
Starfoxy, [LOL and rolling round on the floor!]
I’ll never hear THAT song the same way again…;>
Eve, you’ve asked for it. You’re getting the complete works of Janice Kapp Perry for Christmas. And I’m going to confiscate your Harry Potter until you’ve completed ten crafts.
Regarding the YW activities, I’m currently serving in YW. Every 4 to 6 months we (leaders and girls) spend one of our Wednesday nights planning. What we do for activities is totally up to them, and I believe that’s how all wards are supposed to operate (now, whether or not they do…). Our last planning session ended up taking two Wednesdays because of an unexpected change in plans, so the first week we did brainstorming: write down at least ten things you’d really like to do, even if you aren’t sure it would be feasible. The YW president then took all those lists and made one list and gave a copy to everyone. The next week we split into our classes to do planning for the next several months.
“What do you want to do?” we asked. They had the list to give them ideas, but they could come up with other things too. The list had some pretty cool stuff on it – more than just crafts and make-up. There was camping, how to give a good talk, learn about the local insects. What did the Mia Maids (the age I am with) want to do? Paint sweatshirts. Meet at the 1st councilor’s house to make and eat a dinner. Get the new lady in the ward who is a hair stylist to come do a demonstration. Etc. (they were all in that sort of area). So you can’t say we leaders didn’t try to introduce variety.