Blatant Sexism in a Utah Organization: Can We Just Call It What It Is?

Hold on to your herbal tea—this may be an eye-opener.

We live in America. We live in Utah.

In 1923, the first version of the Equal Rights Amendment was introduced, declaring, "Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States." Nearly a century later, we’re still debating what equality means. (U.S. News & World Report)

A friend of mine works for a nonprofit organization—one of the wealthiest in the world. It owns vast real estate, has billion-dollar investment funds, and operates multiple businesses under its umbrella.

Despite its global reach and humanitarian work—disaster relief, clean water projects, education—it upholds a deeply ingrained patriarchal structure.

The Reality of Women's Roles in This Organization

My friend, who holds a leadership position, describes herself as a feminist and speaks often about women’s empowerment. Yet, in her company:

• Women cannot hold decision-making positions.
• Women cannot oversee men in any capacity.
• The highest executive position a woman can ever reach is 71st in command—and even then, she will have no authority over a male colleague.
• If a disagreement arises between a male and female leader, the decision will always side with the man, unless an obvious error is found.
• Regardless of her education, experience, competence, or contributions, a woman in this organization will never hold equal standing to a man.

This is sexism, plain and simple.

The Justification: "Different Roles"

When I asked my friend if she recognized this as sexist, she said, "I don’t really think so. I feel valued and appreciated. It’s just the way it is."

She explained that women have different roles—that their primary role is to care for children. The structure, she believes, honors women by keeping them available for their families.

Let’s be clear: Parenting is vital. But does that mean a woman with a degree in business and a proven record of leadership should be denied a top executive role simply because of her gender? The company policy is outlined such that this woman would have to defer her decisions to a male. If no adult male was available, any male over twelve years old would have the authority before she did.

If a company had a policy stating that no man could hold authority over a woman—no matter his qualifications—we’d call it discrimination. But when it's framed as a "sacred role," it's somehow acceptable?

Can You Be a Feminist and Support a Sexist Institution?

Here’s the real question: Can my friend call herself a feminist while working for an organization that systematically limits women?

Feminism is “the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.” (Oxford Dictionary)

You can still dedicate your life to this organization. You can believe in its mission. You can see the good it does. But let’s call a spade a spade—this is not equality.

       Credit:Getty Images/iStockphoto

Now, reread this article.

But this time, replace every mention of "company" with "religion."

Does it still feel justified?

Katie Jo

*1 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-the-national-football-league-given-tax-exempt-status-2012-3

*2 The LDS Church is RICHER than the VATICAN btw. https://fox13now.com/2018/05/30/mormonleaks-lds-church-controls-billions-of-dollars-in-investment-funds/

*3 Brigham Young Whiskey Company https://www.utahhumanities.org/stories/items/show/224

*4 https://www.lds.org/topics/humanitarian-service?lang=eng&old=true

*5 “[The priesthood] is … the power of God delegated to man by which man can act in the earth for the salvation of the human family” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed. [1939], 139). The Lord has assigned to men the chief responsibility for the governing and presiding over the affairs of the Church and the family.” Brigham Young

  https://www.lds.org/manual/the-latter-day-saint-woman-basic-manual-for-women-part-a/women-in-the-church/lesson-13-women-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

*6 https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/12/why-tithing-settlement?lang=eng

A Note of Clarity and Respect

I want to be clear—I am not against any religious faith. In fact, I’ve made an effort to acknowledge the many positive contributions of religion and have included references from its own sources so readers can explore its perspective firsthand.

The woman in this story is not fictional. She represents countless conversations I’ve had with women actively engaged in the LDS faith—conversations that, at one point, reflected my own internal dialogue, having been raised in this culture myself. The patriarchal structure I discuss is not unique to one religion; it exists across societies worldwide.

I hold no malice toward the LDS Church. Many of my closest friends and most respected individuals are deeply devoted members who do incredible work in their communities. I welcome open-minded discussion and encourage readers to explore the faith for themselves. However, I will not tolerate hateful or derogatory comments about the LDS Church.

I chose to frame this discussion by comparing the Church to a company because it’s often easier to recognize ingrained biases when we remove the lens of religious conditioning. Many people quickly call out sexism in corporations but justify the same structures in religion, often with the reasoning: “It’s what God says.”

My goal is not to attack but to spark reflection. Can we truly stand for equality in one area of life while upholding inequality in another?

And if we choose to remain part of a system that limits women, that’s our personal choice. There’s nothing inherently wrong with it.

But let’s at least call it what it is.

Thanks for reading.