One of the most common arguments against women’s ordination is that the church works just fine as it is now. All is well in Zion so why do we need a change? The argument goes that the women are only seeking to benefit or aggrandize themselves, since there are no specific problems that women would be able to solve with the priesthood that the male priesthood holders can’t solve themselves. I’d like to make a very specific argument as to how empowering women with administrative authority within the church could directly benefit the church’s membership.
The Roman Catholic Church is reeling from continued revelations of child sex abuse at the hands of male priests. In the US alone, there have been nearly 17,000 victims of clergy sex abuse since 1950, and legal settlements have amounted to over $2.5 billion[1]. As that faith community has looked for answers to the question “how did this happen?” and “how do we prevent this from ever happening again?” many experts have pointed to the lack of women’s voices in the decision-making process.
Serene Jones, president of the Union Theological Seminary in New York , told a CNN reporter earlier this year: “It is clear that, statistically, women abuse much less than men. And in terms of reporting, are much more likely to (report abuse)…It would make a big difference if my Catholic women students at the seminary were in positions of power right now. This would not be handled this way at all”[2]
This sentiment is consistent with a landmark UNICEF report from 2006 that states: “Eliminating gender discrimination and empowering women will have a profound and positive impact on the survival and well-being of children… Women’s influence in key decisions improves the lives of women and has a positive effect on child well-being and development.”[3]
The horrible, awful truth is that the Mormon Church is not immune from the stain of abusing women and children. Just this year there have been several headline cases of Mormon men abusing their power and privilege and assaulting women and children or covering up known instances of abuse (see here, here, here, here and here for a small sampling).
As the church has never produced a comprehensive report on sexual abuse by leaders and members with special access to youth through their church privileges, the full extent of the problem within the Mormon Church is unknown. However, an evaluation of the known facts in specific cases shows that there is a problem in how the church safeguards children and how it handles situations when these situations do come to light. Take the case of Frank Curtis. After being excommunicated for sex abuse in the 1970s, he was rebaptized and allowed to serve with youth again. Over 15 years, he abused 20 boys and girls in three different cities, each time gaining access by exploiting the trust of ward members and the discretion of priesthood leaders who chose not to disclose his past to the parents and children Frank was given access to[4].
True, the male leadership of the church has, of its own volition and in concert with its attorneys, made some improvements in child protection policies since this time (namely marking membership files of known abusers and establishing an abuse hotline for Bishops use only). But consider what the church still has not done. The CDC has established a list of six components of child sexual abuse prevention for youth-serving organizations[5]. To date, the LDS church has chosen not to enact any of these policies:
- Background checks for all youth-serving adult leaders
- Guidelines on appropriate forms of discipline and physical contact between youths and adults
- Policy on constant monitoring of youth-serving adult leaders
- Written policy on ensuring safe environments (ie privacy in bathrooms)
- Response guidelines: which leaders need to respond, to whom, and in which scenarios
- Mandatory training of all youth-serving leaders on preventing sex abuse
Some of these guidelines would be difficult and/or expensive to enact. The leaders have many other issues on their plates. Making changes to create a child sex abuse prevention policy where none now exists requires acknowledging there is a problem. If I had to guess, I’d wager that admitting the problem is probably the over-riding issue that creates this inertia. In my view the brethren have shown a strong and consistent desire to prioritize preserving the good name of the church over other priorities.
I don’t believe that the LDS Church leadership has refused to enact these protection measures because they are evil, or because they don’t care about children. A woman I love dearly was beaten by her husband. When the Bishop counseled her to “learn to keep the house tidier”, I don’t believe that he was being wantonly mean. A child I love dearly was physically assaulted by a male substitute primary teacher who took him alone to the bathroom. When the Bishop said “don’t ruin this man’s life, he is a good man” and proceeded to make him a full time primary teacher, I don’t believe that he was purposefully being evil.
I do believe, however, that we are shaped by our life experiences. I believe that we all have blind spots that happen as the road of life takes us down a highway and we speed over the alleys and side streets that others occupy their entire life. The effect of shared privileges, power, and perceptions can be unifying but can also create holes in our shared vision which we cannot fill on our own. When it comes to child welfare, that hole has enlarged and is swallowing our most vulnerable. We often hear in church that God works through other people. I believe that this hellacious crater in our midst will be filled when women are given the power and authority necessary for the church to truly benefit from their moral force.
Do women abuse less than men? In the teaching environment, do women have fewer incidences of abuse than men, per capita? Assuming that the CNN article who quoted a speaker who quoted uncited statistics is true, what is the premise as to why women abuse less than men or wouldn’t have handled the aftermath the same? Is it that women are more nurturing and therefore would be less likely to abuse or cover abuse? Women are wiser and therefore would be less likely to abuse or cover abuse? This smells like a pedestal argument.
Don’t get me wrong. I like where the conclusions are leading–the full inclusion of women in counseling and leadership–but I question your support and premises.
Here is some information about the statistics of female sex offenders. Many of the references normally used, such as the FBI, are down due to the US government shutdown. I will link to the report below:
“National criminal justice statistics reveal that of all adults and juveniles who come to the attention of the authorities for sex crimes, females account for less than 10% of these cases (FBI, 2006). Specifically, arrests of women represent only 1% of all adult arrests for forcible rape and 6% of all adult arrests for other sex offenses.” (See link below for citation)
Juvenile female sex offender rates are on the rise, but are still significantly lower that the juvenile male sex offender rates. “It is of interest to note that while arrests of adult women for sex offenses have decreased in recent years, the number of adolescent girls coming to the attention of the juvenile courts for sex offenses has increased significantly
(Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). More specifically, between 1997 and 2002, juvenile cases involving female-perpetrated forcible rapes, other violent sex offenses, and non-violent sex
offenses rose by 6%, 62%, and 42%, respectively.” (See link below for citation) See the graph on page two of the report. While there was a 42% rise, the reported rate is around 80% male offenders and 20% female offenders in this study.
When victims were surveyed this is what was reported: “In addition, although the National Criminal Victimization Survey – which captures information from victims who may or may not have reported the incident to the authorities – indicates that females represent up to 6% of rapes or sexual assaults by an individual acting alone, it also implicates female offenders in up to 40% of sex crimes involving multiple offenders (BJS, 2006).” (See link below for citation) These increased rates compared to the justice system reported rates is not surprising. We know that 54% of all rapes are never reported to the police (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates). We know that men who are sexually assaulted are less likely to view it as a sexual assault. Many of these men will have difficult feelings related to the incident or may even boast of the incident as a way to compensate or because that is the way society has framed it for men. The most recent example of this was Chris Brown reporting that he “lost [his] virginity” at the age of 8 to a 14-15 year old young woman. He did not state this in a manner that framed as traumatic (I’m not saying if it was or not), but he did it in a boastful manner. I have worked with men who were sexually assaulted and they struggled, in part, because much of society said it was supposed to be thought of as something “cool” and “manly”.
The report that is cited below has a whole section about the factors that may attribute to the under representation of female offenders in the justice system and other reportings.
http://www.csom.org/pubs/female_sex_offenders_brief.pdf
I have to admit, this question caught me off guard. Are men more likely to perpetrate physical or sexual assault? Undoubtedly. In the US, bureau of justice stats say 99% of rapes are committed by men. Child sex abuse is similar: 84% of male victims and 94% of female victims. were assaulted by males. To say an assault perpetrator is more likely to be a male is hardly a pedestal argument.
Mel, thanks for the stats. Those are really helpful. Scott, I think the question is worth exploring still. Why are women less likely to perpetuate these crimes against children? Why are women less likely to cover up these crimes against children? Some intuitive, unexamined answers might be that they are more nurturing or have better developed moral compasses than men. Those answers will rile some feathers because not all women are or want to be nurturing. The fact that the answer offends some doesn’t make it wrong or right. It just means that it offends (perhaps becuase it has been used prescriptively and abusively to keep women “in their place.” Are there other answers that don’t depend upon a “women are so nurturing/ so moral”‘ argument? If so, I think they are worth exploring.
Insulting and sexist to say that men as a gender are less capable than women in looking out for the well being of children. Put the broad brush down and step away from the canvas.
Well done, Scott! Impacting the abuse that happens within the church (or within any patriarchal system) is a legitimate reason for bringing women into positions of true leadership and authority.
Patriarchal systems are fraught with opportunity for predators to abuse vulnerable populations. People can reference all the empirical data they want, or they can look around themselves and enjoy mountains of anecdotal evidence. Everywhere. Every day.
This is a powerful. Thanks for writing.