#52184 and Dissin' "the MAN"

Damasta · Post by **Damasta** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:15 am

Something I've noticed (potential hasty generalization soon to follow) is that the Church leadership instruct the two genders differently. When I go the Priesthood Session of General Conference or read it later in the Ensign, I hear "Brethren, do this", "Brethren, we need to do better at...", "Brethren, we're not doing enough of..." and "Brethren, don't do that", &c. If I have or haven't been doing what I should, I come home feeling censured (and rightly so).

When I've read talks from the General Relief Society Meetings, I see "Sisters, we're so good at this", "Sisters, our job is to...", and "Sisters, we're the ones who...", "Sisters, we've accomplished...", &c. There's rarely a reprimand and always copious amounts of praise and uplifting. Yet, when my wife comes back from the meeting, she still feels censured.

The way I interpret this is that men are more likely to need to be commanded and/or reprimanded in order to have their consciences pricked, whereas with most women a simple reminder is sufficient for them to convict themselves. That's not to say that either gender is better than the other, just that they respond differently. In fact, speaking too harshly to a woman (when a soft reply will do) can actually wound them (Jacob 2:7-9).

But I'll go on to say that the lack of censure on the part of the Brethren doesn't justify shrewish, accusatory, and/or nagging behavior on the part of the wife. Nor does it absolve her of contributing equally to the maintenance and strengthening of the marriage. However, I believe (here comes another potential hasty generalization) that men are more likely than their wives to need reminders to contribute, which is why the Brethren seem to direct comments in that regard more often toward the priesthood holder. That, and the priesthood holder is the head of the household, so ultimately its his responsibility to oversee, maintain, and bless his familyâ€”including the relationship with his wife. An absentee husband can be very degrading and discouraging to a woman.

Well, there's my spiel. Hopefully I haven't said anything that's offensive to anyone.

krebscout · Post by **krebscout** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:54 am

Actually I find that very insightful. I've been pondering some of the apparent man-bashing going on in the married wards we've been in, and this, though it wouldn't excuse every case, helps put a new light on it.

vorpal blade · Post by **vorpal blade** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:41 pm

Good points, Damasta.

I've noticed that on Mother's Day the talks are all about how wonderful mothers are. My wife comes home thinking how far short she falls from being the kind of perfect mother they talk about.

On Father's Day they just talk about what fathers are doing wrong and how they need to improve. And we go home thinking, "Hey, they gave me a cookie at church because I'm a father."

I just realized I've been asked to speak in Sacrament meeting this Father's Day. What do I say?

Quiet Lamb · Post by **Quiet Lamb** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:23 pm

Women have a statistically significant higher rate of depression than men. Utah has one of the highest rates of depression, which could be correlated with LDS members considering the high number of temples in Utah alone compared with every other state and country. Thus, LDS females are particularly susceptible to being depressed, and my guess is that that's because they are perfectionists.

Saying that, I observe and propose that the general authorities don't chastise the women like they do men because they don't have to. Just trying to encourage the women to keep doing what they are doing and giving examples of really strong women does enough.

On the other hand, like in many experiences in dating (mine and otherwise,) subtle hints don't usually work for guys. Direct is often needed.

A source: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k7/states/depression.cfm

Darth Fedora · Post by **Darth Fedora** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:05 pm

Quiet Lamb wrote:Women have a statistically significant higher rate of depression than men. Utah has one of the highest rates of depression, which could be correlated with LDS members considering the high number of temples in Utah alone compared with every other state and country. Thus, LDS females are particularly susceptible to being depressed, and my guess is that that's because they are perfectionists.

Not statistically sound conclusions

Quiet Lamb · Post by **Quiet Lamb** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:40 pm

Utah does have one of the highest rates of depression, as well as many surrounding states. I don't think it is because Utah is a desert, do you? In many studies (just google it) we see more women suffering from depression than men. If A is high and B is high, we would conclude that AB must also be high, if not higher than average in both variable categories. I simply added that my guess is that this is because of the high number of perfectionists I've seen, from my personal experience.

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:12 pm

Quiet Lamb wrote:Utah does have one of the highest rates of depression, as well as many surrounding states. I don't think it is because Utah is a desert, do you? In many studies (just google it) we see more women suffering from depression than men. If A is high and B is high, we would conclude that AB must also be high, if not higher than average in both variable categories. I simply added that my guess is that this is because of the high number of perfectionists I've seen, from my personal experience.

I think the problem is assuming that it is because of, or even in, the LDS population. Unless you have some study directly pertaining to the LDS population world wide, and not just a study of the general population in Utah, it doesn't tell you anything pertinent. Especially since only about 60% of the state's population is LDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah#Religion.) The study is not specific enough in its demographic, nor wide enough in its geographic nature, to tell you that.

For all we know, it is because Utah is a desert. It would also explain the high depression rates in neighboring states. Maybe it is because of the wide swings in temperature, the long winter nights, the high altitude, the dry air. You can't just decide to throw out variables like that. You need evidence.

You also need to consider what the studies are actually measuring. They are actually measuring reported rates of depression. Maybe desert dwellers are more willing to report being depressed? Are more willing to seek treatment?

I'm sorry, but all a study like that tells you is that Utah has a high rate of reported depression. Period.

Have you taken a statistics class, Quiet Lamb? I think that the thing I hear people say the most after they have taken one is that they learned how little statistics actually tell us.

Quiet Lamb · Post by **Quiet Lamb** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:44 pm

I know statistics leave a lot to be desired, but you really can't deny that 60% is still more than half that are LDS. Our religion is a huge factor in determining anything about the Utah population. Why does Utah eat more ice cream per capita than any other state? Well, Texas, Alabama, California, New Mexico, etc etc all get hotter than Utah. Perhaps it is because there are more people that might not go to bars for dates, or that we go on dates more than other states (rather than going steady almost immediately.) Why is the average age of marriage significantly lower in Utah than every other state?

A large population density of LDS might not be the only reason, but it sure can't be ruled out as not one. How could one disprove it as being a factor? The LDS population density of Utah cannot be seen anywhere else.

Fredjikrang · Post by **Fredjikrang** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:32 pm

True, but as I said, it would take a vastly different study to give any real weight to the idea. (I even suggested how such a study might be set up, looking at LDS members world wide, instead of at the population of Utah.)

Damasta · Post by **Damasta** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 5:50 pm

There are ways that you could provide a statistically rigorous (but never conclusive) argument that depression is correlated to being an LDS woman. For example, if you could show that non-LDS people in Utah have depression rates that match the national average while LDS Utahns still have above-average reporting rates, then you'd have more of a case. But if both LDS and non-LDS Utahns report depression with equal frequency, then you have no case. Or, as Fredjikrang points out, if you could show that LDS populations outside of Utah also report higher rates of depression, then you'd have a case. Otherwise, the best you could pull off would be to claim that LDS activity correlates with depression in women only in Utah.

To show you how infeasible it is to claim that because two populations follow the same trend, there must be correlation, let me offer the following example. In 1906 the statistician G. Udny Yule gathered data and found that the graphical curve demonstrating the decline in stork populations in England and Wales during the end of the nineteenth century matched the graphical curve for the decline in human births in England and Wales during the same time period. (source). A similar study was done by Neyman in 1952, using more countries and arriving at the same "conclusion". (source) (source) Does that really mean fewer storks means fewer babies? Of course not! That's ludicrous. So just because there are lots of LDS women in Utah and there is a high percentage of depression reported in Utah, doesn't imply correlation.

If you really wanted to prove a causal relationship, you'd have to take a sizeable population of women and divide them into treatment groups:

a. non-Utahn, non-LDS women with a "normal" percentage of depression who receive the treatment (i.e. convert to the LDS Church and move to Utah)
b. Utahn, non-LDS women with a "normal" percentage of depression who receive the lacking half of the treatment (i.e. convert to the LDS Church)
c. non-Utahn, LDS women with a "normal" percentage of depression who receive the lacking half of the treatment (i.e. move to Utah)
d. Utahn, LDS women (positive control) with a "normal" percentage of depression who receive no treatment (i.e. stay in Utah, stay LDS)
e. non-Utahn, non-LDS women (negative control) with a "normal" percentage of depression who receive no treatment (i.e. stay outside of Utah, stay non-LDS).

This would be the minimum. You could also throw in other trials like having Utahn, LDS women move out of Utah or leave the Church; having non-Utahns move to other areas of higher or lower depression rates; have non-LDS join other churches, including demanding faiths like the Jehovah's Witnesses, &c. Then you wait a reasonable amount of time (5 years?) and check your subjects for any change in depression reporting. With this data you could then pinpoint that the relationship between any of your variables is non-random. However, this could be tricky because forcing your subjects to comply with the treatments (e.g. move when they don't want to, join the LDS Church when they don't want to, &c.) or bribing them to, for that matter, could artificially influence (skew) the reporting of depression.

But don't let that stop you from applying for an ORCA (assuming you're a BYU student)!

Whistler · Post by **Whistler** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 7:40 pm

having worked in the BYU Counseling Center, I can tell you that there are indeed higher than average rates of perfectionism in BYU students (99% of whom are LDS). While BYU has the largest counseling center of any university in the nation, it is also the 2nd largest private university (many public universities refer students to outside providers). And there are a lot of other factors to consider with LDS populations and reported rates of depression. Active LDS members are less likely to self-medicate depression with alcohol or abused drugs. LDS men are also more likely to be upset with themselves over issues with masturbation and pornography than non-religious males. I agree that we should be careful with our statistics, but I also think there is a problem with perfectionism among BYU students.

BYU students usually have great support systems, despite their problems (family, roommates, bishop, home teachers, etc.).