I know this post will bring some heat....

It's not "P.C.," if you are sensitive to gender issues, you may NOT want to read on. But, I think this topic deserves some attention; at least on a blog where people are more blatantly honest. I just want to get some thoughts and opinions from other people outside of my own social circle. While reading keep in mind I am speaking in general terms, and feel I am only marginally correct.

TOPIC:
Women vs. Men in Living and, or Leaving the Church/Dependency Social Paradigms.

A few friends and myself have been discussing this topic at length. To start can we all agree that men (in general) are the stronger sex? I believe in general men are the stronger sex, and this is why men historically have controlled the world and held education for themselves. It is the same in nature; the stronger sex dominates the weaker sex. There are of course a few examples in nature where the female IS the stronger sex. Men control, manipulate societal organizations from the beginning, and from the top down (generally speaking). Women traditionally have never been in these social authoritarian positions. This is slowly changing in society today, women are being rightfully allowed (yes allowed) to have positions of authority. Women are just as intelligent as men, and may naturally retain some better organizational/multitasking (stemming from the instinct to nurture) skills that can be, at times, challenging for men.

I'm going to be blunt and POLITICALLY-INCORRECT here. Women, for the most part, in my opinion, seem to be more attracted to the status-quo in nearly any given social circle. Women like things to be "hunky-dory" and desire to be part of the main-stream, while men tend look a little deeper behind the scenes. Women like the approval of other women, men and peers while reaching for a spot in the social circle. Men may play the part, or have the appearance to keep everything together while being privy to skeptical perspectives. To me it really comes down to natural survival instincts.

In the church men may doubt, but keep the patriarchal authority in tact. (A better example of this is within Mormon Polygamist groups).

Even if some men know its a sham, they will say, "well its the best social system we have and leads to good things." More men will leave the church than women, because in this social situation it is a status-quo, a more prestigious social circle than to be on the out-skirts looking in. Even if they feel its not every thing it claims to be. Men are less dependent on social paradigms.

IN SHORT, because women are social creatures, more nurturing and the weaker sex, they depend more on social paradigms than men do; because of weaker arms. Their survival instincts create a dependency on the majority. The instinct to follow the heard (where ever the heard is going) makes women more readily accepting of a majority consensus (the Church). So, many more women are still in the church after certain age; men tend to leave the church, more so than women. My BIL (about to be divorced) got on "LDS-Singles" last night and there seemed to be, by far, more women than men.

My friends are very controversial and socially skeptical with all societal norms. We always try to include women in the discussion, but they would much rather talk about adaptation to any given social paradigm and always seem to gravitate to being more accepting of social collectivism and social norms.

In a pride of African lions a male will chase off the weaker male, kill the offspring, and bully the females into submission. I know that is a very simplistic example and possibly offensive, but aren't there some parallels to humans here? Do we not see this type of behavior in our own social circles as well? I see so many men leaving the church. More men than women. And then women eventually follow.

I'd like to see if there is some general truth to this. Post your gender if you read this and lets see where we stand as a group.

I know women here may be angered by these comments, however I think it holds some truth (though not absolute). The women on this board seem to be more enlightened, more individualistic, and self actualized. If I am wrong please give me general examples of how. Of course there are always the single/smaller examples that prove a theory less conclusive, but we have to look at the larger general numbers.

If there is truth to this theory it really doesn't matter anyway, its not that important. More and more women are becoming emboldened against oppressive male dominated social circles, and I think that's a great thing. But, religion seems to be a man's toy, especially Mormonism, and the dominant world religions.

Again, keep in mind this is a theoretical topic as it pertains to the masses. I'd love to hear opinions and thoughts, but hopefully it won't turn into a personal bash/insult thread. I'm not a male chauvinist; I admire and esteem women greatly. One of my all time heroes is Ayn Rand. I love the following Ayn Rand quote on religion:

"For centuries, the mystics of spirit had existed by running a protection racket - by making life on earth unbearable, then charging you for consolation and relief, by forbidding all the virtues that make existence possible, then riding on the shoulders of your guilt, by declaring production and joy to be sins, then collecting blackmail from the sinners."

[Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual]

CONCLUSION:
Generally speaking women are slightly more dependent on social paradigms/TSCC than men.

Thoughts.....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2014 10:16AM by gazelam.

I completey disagree with your premises. Perhaps too many Mormon women?

You may be right, my social circle includes only a few women.

..some classes on gender, anthropology, and social structures.

At the very least, you need to expand your horizons and maybe read a few books on the subject.

Men may indeed be physically stronger than the average woman, but otherwise, everything is comes from social constructs and mores, NOT genetics.

Angry? No. Amused at your lack of understanding? Yes.

" I'm not a male chauvinist; I admire and esteem women greatly."

Haven't you ever heard of benevolent sexism? I know plenty of men who "love and respect" women and they're misogynists.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2014 10:27AM by Itzpapalotl.

In my experience, when men say that, usually what they really mean is "I LOVE p***y. I don't like women much." Mostly because women are primarily valued for our sex appeal rather than being viewed as whole human beings with thoughts and needs.

+

In my marriage, my hubby like to maintain status quo - contention averse. I am the questioner.

Also, I believe we will see a shift in who 'runs the world' within 10-20 years. The shift has already begun. More women are getting college and advanced degrees, women are becoming leaders in other countries, etc. Advertisers are beginning to gear more ads toward women than previously because more and more women are making more money and more decisions for the family.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2014 02:53PM by dogeatdog.

"everything is comes from social constructs and mores, NOT genetics." "I need to take some classes."

Well, then school me....

Can you provide from examples, and explain how the stronger sex wouldn't have been able to originally dominate these social constructs, or create social constructs in the first place generally and historically?

You say this, as if there was an original agreement between the sexes, with a consensus of social domination.

I'm glad you're amused, you took the liberty of a personal jab, but still you failed provided examples.

Come on! Give some examples and explain yourself, don't just say your "amused and my lack of understanding."

Do your own research and reading so you can form your own opinion and ideas.

You wrote that you don't know too many women and came to some of these opinions with your group of friends. Get outside from the same ideas and opinions and see what else is out there.

What I gather from that is you have a very narrow world-view. Try to see things from another POV, not just your own.

Agreed. Men are physically stronger. Women have been treated as second class citizens for much of the history of the world. In the western world, they were looked on as inherently sinful (because of Eve), and thus were treated as the weaker, more inferior sex.

(Agreeing with itzpapalotl btw)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2014 10:47AM by twistedsister.

It sounds like you don't know any actual feminists. IF all your stereotypes were true and not just socially contructed nonsense, then your conclusion follows logically. However, I don't believe that women are the social creatures, and more nurturing, nor are we the "weaker" sex. Define strong/weak. Physically, okay sure. Mentally or emotionally? Mmmmm, nah, I can't buy it.

Every time someone trot out thoughts like this, my brain instantly goes to a million outliers which suggests confirmation bias to me. You've thought of many examples that fit your hypothesis but you can't think of a single example that refutes your hypothesis.

I suggest taking some women's studies classes, attend a few NOW meetings, get to know some women who weren't raised in a strict patriarchal system such as mormonism. Do some homework.

I'm not angered, but I am wondering what your point is. It seems to me that all you're saying is: Men are strong, women are weak, deal with it. What are you trying to accomplish or communicate with this thread?

By in large, do any of you think women are more dependent on social paradigms/the church than men? And what are your thoughts?

I think they are slightly more dependent on these paradigms than men. There seems to be more women who remain in the church than men. And, I am interested in what others can add to the discussion.

I do know some actual feminists. But, no, I haven't been able to involve them in this topic. But, this is not a feminist discussion. I thought I was clear on that point. Simply because of physical strength men have been able to lead the societal paradigms.

I can think of many examples that refute my hypothesis on a singular/smaller scale. However, generally speaking, men have created the social construct that governs society in the world. Women are more dependent on these constructs than men.

I could list examples, but still you have to admit that these would be exceptions, micro-studies. If I am wrong, please provide examples. Remember I am referring to general/large, scale/global paradigms.

What dominate world religions have women invented?
What governments have women created, and controlled?
What large scale social constructs have women built?
What wars have women started, fought and ended?
What game changing things have women invented?

I'm not saying they can't, could't or wouldn't had women historically been given all the same privy as men. Simply based on physical strength men have been able to withhold education, power, control, etc.. With brutal physical strength men have created the social paradigms with which we use to govern society.

I'm daring people to be to NOT be politically correct. And admit some harsh truths and reality. So far, people seem to be hanging on a word, or two and suggesting I take a class and do homework.

You want an example fine; Joan of Ark, or Grace Hopper and her contribution to translating language to computer code. But, this is getting off point. This is turning into a feminists crusade debate.

Should I just agree and say, yes, I need to take women studies classes, and no there is no difference in social dependency, and I need to do my homework?

I feel like the comments so far are right out of the "How to be P.C." book. I'm not attacking women, women's rights, feminism, or anything of the sort.

I thought I could get better feed-back and insight here.

I really don't know what to say.

+1

You seem to think it's all about strength. It's not. It's about what each sex wants.

There are a lot of factors that go into why the world has traditionally been a man's world. It's not as simple as men are stronger. Men in general want to be respected. Being respected by others is very important to a lot of men I know. (Recognize the phrase "men are to preside in the home"?) Women want to be loved. Ego and respect is not as important to women.

Since men wanted to be in authority, be respected, and make decisions, and since those values were not as important to women (women generally want to be loved, and want to nurture), societies evolved into men lording it over the women. It had gotten quite out of hand in many instances, then and now.

Add to that that as I said, the bible teaches that women are sinful, and you're giving men, who are already in power over women by that point, even more ammo to keep them in their place.

Women also of course have been burdened by pregnancy, childbirth, and taking care of children whereas men are not burdened with such matters and are freer to come and go. How many girls do you know have gotten pregnant and then dumped by the baby daddy, and are left with the burden of raising their child? Not so easy being master of the universe when you have a baby at home to care for.

Lots of reasons why men have traditionally ruled and women have not, and it's not all about who's stronger.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2014 11:39AM by twistedsister.

Best response so far twisted sister!

Well done, thank you for adding to the discussion.

Okay, forget my original post.

Question:

Do women have a stronger social dependency on the church, or do men?

This issue is not the question it is the premise. You seem hyper focused on the idea that if everyone would just speak their mind the truth would be revealed. That just isn't the case, politically correct speech is not the issue, that is your excuse for why you expected people disagree with you.

Why men rule is an interesting question. But it is utterly unrelated to the original question of do women need the church more than men. Are men stronger, sure but what does that have to do with your question. I hope you can at least see that your question was unidentifiable from your twisted reasons about why men are better than women. (I doubt you think that, you just write that way.)




As far as "social dependency" there is zero difference between men and women who "need" the church. Mormonism requires that you need the church regardless of your gender. It is the institution not the people. If you'll recall the shortest distance from A to B is a straight line.

Well, now we're talking about a specific subset of women, i.e., church women. This is a group of brainwashed people (the men and the women). The dependency is set up because women are told from birth onward that their one and only sole purpose in this world is to be a wife and mother. So how could a mormon girl possibly develop to be an independent person, who isn't as dependent upon "social"? You can't even get into heaven without a man! And that, I think, is the bottom line. Without a man, no heaven. That sets up this social dependency. Again, what's your point?

That is a completely different kettle of fish than your OP.

Forget it? Why? I thought you wanted a discussion on men vs women.

I posted that before I saw your last post.

It's all a matter of perspective. I actually know more female ex-mos than males. At work all the exmos I know are female and all the TBMs are male. So? Same with my non-mo spouse. He knows more females that are exmo. So what's the point? All of my sisters are out as am I, and my brothers are out as well.

Another reason women have no "ruled the world" is that societal constructs didn't let us for a long time. (Constructs, I'll add, that were endorsed by both men and women) Women were not allowed to earn money or be educated. The few professions that were open to them were very low ranking. It's hard to have any sort of power at all when you don't have your own money.

Did you know that Frederick Chopin had a sister who wrote music? Some people say that she was even more talented than her brother. But she was not allowed to pursue a career in music because it was not proper for ladies. What were her choices - stop composing and be a "proper" lady or get thrown out of her house and live on the streets.

There is a reason the Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalist organizations are against education for women. Education gives women power and increases their earning ability. Which makes them dangerous. Don't believe me, just look at what's going on in Nigeria right now with the kidnapped school girls.

As for a social dependency on the church, women and men have different types of relationships. There has been a bunch of psychological research done on this. Men tend to have few close friends. Women tend to have circular networks of friends. Perhaps they use the church as a circular network. Just because they are different doesn't mean one is better than the other.

Why the "VS"?
Why does it always have to be adversarial?

+1

Well, you tell me...

Are we not from a religious sub culture with the cult of personality objectifying women and even creating a religious doctrinal text out of the use of women and treating them as property. Why the "VS" you say? That is in part my question. Its part of our little Mormon sub-culture, and historically a larger part of society.

Are women more dependent on the social paradigms (LD$ Inc.) men have created, based on a physically weaker genetic evolution?

I'm just asking.

And, I'm not emphatically suggesting I'm right by thinking there is some truth to it. I just thought I'd get more objective input here. But, people seem offended and distracted from the point.

One thing I notice on this board, as long as we're putting unsubstantiated theories out there, :), is that I often have read of Exmo men complaining that their TBM wives have "rallied the troops" (as in getting all their TBM friends to side with them and commiserate). This confirms the need for the social network.

The TBM men don't seem to seek so much peer support when the wife turns exmo from what I have garnered. They keep it more to themselves and act accordingly.

If this is actually true, the reason may be that at least in the church the women are actually viewed as weaker--helpmates or assistants, (pick your favorite) rather than actual partners, and feel they need the social structure in order to have power. The TBM men with the "priesthood" and the "patriarchal order of things" already assume they have the power and tend not to need the "back-up band."

So I do understand your question and why you ask it. I think we all draw our "power base" from something and women may find their "something" in social dependancy-or-may understand that social networking can be a tool better than men do.

Maybe.

I keep coming back to this thread, it bothers me because it makes me feel stupid. I can't understand the point the OP is making, what rationale is being used for what a woman's place is, or follow the stream of the argument.

Is it just me?

It isn't hard to piece together a reasonable narrative without any background in the field. Ancient humans relied almost purely on strength for survival, women as the physically weaker sex get initially relocated to submissive roles, by the time the physical strength aspect gets marginalized, you already have society built on women being "less-than", and somehow the physical strength gets conflated with intellect (so that the leading men continued to assert that women can't or shouldn't do things, and that "real" work is for men). So, all this really tells me is that we are just barely starting to get over an eon old bias that is founded in a slight genetic difference that is no longer relevant.

Good grief it is about time.

So, a more interesting question to me: will society eventually swing the other way? With a (slightly) higher rate of women going to college now, will women eventually become the dominant gender in an intellectually driven society?

To answer what the OP seems to be talking about, if women are more dependent on social structures like that, it is only because men forced them into that role long long ago. However, I am not sure there is evidence to really support that. There seem to be more women in the church, and there seem to be more exmo women, but I haven't seen any real data. Are my samples biased, are men simply more religiously apathetic, without data it is all meaningless conjecture.

It's not just you. I've asked repeatedly for clarification on the point and got nothing but a further convoluted re-statement of the same ideas.

My best guess is the OP is trying to say that women stay in church more because women are more socially dependent.

I think it has nothing to do with strong vs. weak or any vs. in fact. It's just that, for many mormon women, there is no other social support system. Especially if the woman in question is A) BIC, B) somewhere in the mormon corridor, and C) stuck to the rules of women not working outside the home. If that were my situation, it would be terrifying to walk away from EVERYTHING and everyone you know and love. Thus, dependency.

But what of exmo women who have worked outside the home, or who were the primary breadwinner? What of the exmo women who were SAHMs? Bottom line is, nobody's done any real studies and there are no data about this at all. Just male privilege viewing the world from a male perspective and making assumptions.

Dogzilla,

Clarification:
My point is a question; "Are women in the church, and in general, possibly more dependent and attracted to social paradigms, prestigious social paradigms than men, based on a history of being physically the weaker sex and living in social constructs that men have built? (governments, empires, religions, etc.)

I'm just bringing it up as a topic, a topic that, yes, me a some "EXMO MEN" have been discussing. We don't claim to speak in absolutes, facts, or designating it as such. We simply are having a conversation. Maybe I revealed too many of the conversation points. I do think there might be something to the theory, but I have no evidence.

I like that you point out that there hasn't been any studies done on the subject. Great point! That's partly why its an interesting topic. I'd love to see a study on this.

I'm not suggesting I'm right on this either. In fact I may completely wrong. But, is there some truth to it? I don't know? Maybe.

I was simply hoping people would provide me with a yes, or no and then provide some reasoning behind their opinions, so I could then return to the conversation with my EXMO Male counter-parts and continue the conversation. But, people seem to instead be getting offended, misunderstanding my intent and throwing out some personal jabs too.

Oh well....

Ok, then, my answer is no, it's not some genetic/evolution thing. Women in the church (as I said in another post already) are dependent upon the patriarchally imposed social paradigms because the religion sets it up that way. When a woman is born and raised in the church and has been taught all her life to marry and make babies with an RM and never EVER work outside the home, what the hell else does she have? She can't even call a coworker to babysit for a minute because she hasn't even been allowed to work. She can't make any economic decisions for herself because she has no earning power. It's not because of some misogynistic notion that women evolved to be all touchy-feely and nurturey to babies. It's because they never had any personal power and have not ever been taught how to seize it for themselves. I don't know what more evidence you want or need.

What's starting to get my goat is A) your condescending tone. You need to check that shit, okay? And B) the notion that men are evolved to be logical and strong and women are evolved to be social and weak. Like I said, in the general population, more people are outliers to that theory than aren't, so that's why some of us have suggested that you get out more, or do some reading, or something.

So to be clear, it appears that you are still very much suffering from mormon brainwashing in thinking that nurturing is a feminine trait, men are not nurturers, and that men do not rely on social networks, and all this is evolution because science bitch! So do some googling about "evolutionary psychology" and get back to us. Because your basic premise is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy).

Cites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology

These are not my words, but I thought this was a fantastic comment: "Most feminist theory is, implicitly or explicitly, methodological holist and social constructivist. Methodological holism holds that human behavior has to be understood in terms of social structures and contexts, and not simply the actions of individuals in isolation. Social constructionism holds that gender and other cultural categories are fundamentally shaped by culture and social context. That doesn't deny that biological factors are expressed through cultural models for behavior - some people might believe that, but that's a pretty marginal position.

"Evolutionary psychology is methodologically individualist and essentialist. It explains behavior in terms of individual strategies for promoting reproductive success in a way that deemphasizes or completely ignores the influence of social contexts. And it is essentialist in that it explains how women or men behave as essential to their biology.

"So, beyond the use (or, to be charitable, misuse) of evolutionary psychology to rationalize gender inequality, there's not too much likelihood for common ground between the two perspectives."

You will have to pay to read the entire study, but: http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/20/5/296.abstract

This is just a blog, but well stated: http://ockhamsbeard.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/ep-myths-1/

OK, so let me see if I understand your hypothesis.

1) Men on average are physically stronger than women.

2) Therefore women are more likely to depend on social structures / groups to make up for this difference in physical strength.

I think your premise in #1 is clearly true.

However, I don't think that #2 follows. If that were the case I would expect to see women banding together to physically fight men - I don't see that happening.

I don't see a connection here.

I also think that how people are impacted by staying in the church has a lot more to do with personal variation in personality than gender - and that you are likely stereotyping by gender where personal personality variation is much wider. For example whether someone is an introvert or an extrovert is a much larger factor.

I also disagree with your basic observation that more men than women leave the church and that it is women who follow. I think you are making the basic mistake of taking too small a sample set to be statistically relevant and then allowing confirmation bias to bolster an incorrectly formed idea.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2014 02:52PM by The Oncoming Storm - bc.

And, there may not be a connection at all..

That is why I'd like to hear from people here, to get more sides of the discussion.

I appreciate your comments.

"and this is why men historically have controlled the world and held education for themselves." - AND in general haven't they done a remarkable job? Tune into CNN on any given day and see how well they've done! SARCASM CITY!!!!!!

"Even if some men know its a sham, they will say, "well its the best social system we have and leads to good things." More men will leave the church than women, because in this social situation it is a status-quo, a more prestigious social circle than to be on the out-skirts looking in. Even if they feel its not every thing it claims to be. Men are less dependent on social paradigms." - I can't agree with this at all. Men stay in the CULT for jobs frequently. Their entire career is based on working for a SCAM. So, it isn't social is it financial why they stay.

I also have NO IDEA what CULTers mean when they say that "it leads to good things." WTF? Are these GOOD THINGS IT LEADS TO things like suicide, serious depression with the highest rate of anti-depressants in the USA, ostracism from friends/family, not using your brain at all? Are those the GOOD THINGS? PALEEZE!
Can anyone NAME ONE good thing it leads to? It has to be something real that it leads to, NOT something the CULT "said" it leads to. NAME ONE THING IF YOU CAN.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2014 02:48PM by verilyverily.

First of all. People should be very careful about extrapolating into fields they know nothing about. It is assumed here that women, being physically weaker, got "relocated to submissive roles." Really, who said?

I was talking to an expert on ancient native peoples of the southwest and he said, due to the economic system, men and women were very equal because there wasn't that much difference in the work of subsisting. Hunting was mostly catching fish and snaring rabbits; it wasn't Neanderthals bringing down a mammoth.

Also, there's a theory going around that whether or not men dominate an economic system depends on whether agriculture in that area developed via the plow or the hoe. In that sense, male domination may be solidly a function of agriculture, which isn't very old in a "nature" sense.

Trying to illustrate a point about men and women using African lions is preposterous. It's a study in confirmation bias. Why not use bears or wolves or gophers, for that matter. Why not illustrate your point using bonobos? They're our closest genetic relatives. Oh, maybe because you don't know anything about them, and they're lives don't appear to illustrate some point you're trying to make, that's why. In other words, you choose your example to prove your point, not because lions, outside of your point, have got some similarity to humans that makes the illustration relevant.

You think women, in general, as in, all women for all time, are more dependent upon social paradigms then men are because more women seem to be more attached to the Mormon church than men are. Can you see how this is an enormous over-generalization? This is not a commentary on women as natural beings. This is a commentary on women as social beings, raised in a particular, and very narrow, social system. It's fine to discuss women raised in a very narrow social system, but let's not pretend--based on no evidence except our inexpert perception of how lions behave--that we're discussing women genetically or categorically.

It would not surprise me that a patriarchal, sexist, misogynistic religion handicaps women worse than it handicaps men. From early childhood, men and boys in the organization are empowered, while girls and women in the organization are disempowered. All men in the Morg are expected to be fathers. But they're not groomed for fatherhood, they're groomed for leadership: church leadership, economic leadership, familial leadership, and social leadership. Women are going to be mommy's. All women. That's their job. It's the same for all women. Men, taking leadership, may take it in myriad ways in society. They may locate a successful self, as a man, as distinguished from all other men. Women have got no individuality whatsoever.

Also, as blueorchid pointed out, women have got no individual power. They've got power only so far as they can get the support of someone else, a bishop, their husband, other women, who can tell an offender the woman's right and they're wrong. There's no teaching in the church that let's them elevate their own ego and strike out on their own.

Powerful women in the Morg are like Sherri Dew. A person telling women to do things she's never done: be married and have children. It's ridiculous. That's why feminists argue so strongly against organizations like TSCC. People, like the OP, think they're seeing women, when really, they're seeing the negative effects of a woman's being brainwashed since childhood by a misogynistic organization.

This isn't a question of being "politically correct." Like Jacob said, it isn't that if people would stop being afraid to face the "harsh reality" and tell it like it is, everyone would agree with the OP. Even to say "politically correct," implies that the speaker has got no idea what he's talking about. People are "politically correct," not because they're afraid of the truth, it's that they're correct. And the people who think "politically correct" people say what they say out of fear of political reprisal, don't understand that they say what they say because it's right, and the political reprisal comes because to say opposite is to be wrong.