it's all in how you say it

[cellio]

A fellow congregant called and asked me to be on the steering committee (read: board) of the sisterhood.

What I thought: Having a sisterhood (and brotherhood) is anathema to an egalitarian congregation. If we say that men and women don't have assigned roles, why on earth would I want to help perpetrate an organization that tries to go backwards by (re-)assigning those roles? It's not like our sisterhood and brotherhood are trying to move past conventional gender roles -- the women handle babysitting during services and serve cookies and coffee afterwards, and the men hold barbeques and talks by investment bankers. Feh! I want none of it! And not just because babysitting and serving coffee aren't my thing! There's a higher principle here. How can I help you see this?

What I said: I'm flattered, but no.

Comments

[tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com]

It's not clear to me that forming subgroups along arbitrary distinctions like gender is necessarily bad - many congregations (of whatever stripe) have groups for singles, or 20/30 somethings, or people in certain types of professions.

The big problem I see is when you start to associate certain programs or authority with those groups, especially because of the arbitrary distinction (the "sisterhood" always organizes babysitting, the youth fellowship always serves at dinners, the men's group always does the spring repairs, etc.)

In that sense, did you consider taking the position and "highjacking" the group toward more productive goals? You could wind up with a useful group if it got out of its ruts - even something as simple as trading traditional stewardships with the men's group for a month in the interest of building tighter bonds between congregants (which can be a non-threatening way of introducing the otherwise unthinkable :-))

To some extent, if this group is bringing value to its active membership (and you suggest it does), you would need to balance making big waves with a responsibility to the existing constituency (if only in self defense.) But there are good arguments if someone's offering you a leadership position in something you think isn't productive (but isn't going away as part of a larger group that's important to you) to take the opportunity to influence it in what you believe to be a more valid direction.

[cellio]

Thank you for helping to clarify that. As you say, it's not the group per se that is the problem; after all, there are other special-interest groups in the congregation (I even belong to some), so why not a women's club and a men's club if that's what appeals to them? The problem is in who owns what.

Role-swapping is a great idea. I think I will whisper it in the ears of a couple people involved in these groups and see what their reactions are. This time around, at least, I think I'll try to nudge things from the sidelines, not take the board seat. (I'll bet I could get another offer next year if I like.) If nothing else, I need better intelligence about how this organization really operates. I've never even been to a meeting.

But hijacking the group is clever, and I shouldn't rule out that possibility. I've been distracted by the congregation board, where my role seems to be "friendly but persistent PITA who's going to make us at least look at this issue" (iterate over several issues). I think I'll try to gather data and see if I can nudge things from outside, and that will tell me if trying it from the inside in a year would be a better idea.

Thanks!