#56581 Divine purpose of women

[Imogen]

Wait, so...are you guys going to put your little boys in pink dresses?

Sure boys=blue/girls=pink (and all that goes along with that) may be a totally arbitrary construct of society...but it still exists. Don't we have to play by at least some of the rules for the sake of our little ones' social lives?

And some of the boys=blue/girls=pink stuff is just useful. Babies come out looking ambiguous. If just for the sake strangers who ask, "How old is he?" or "What's her name?" it's handy to have your baby dressed in the expected color.

Baby Voldy still gets called a girl when he's wearing blue, though.

honestly, i think it's more damaging to kids to force a "blue/pink" ideal on them. if a stranger mistakes the gender of my baby, i can correct them politely and easily. being mistaken for a boy/girl when one is an infant isn't going to be damaging. yes, we probably must follow some societal norms (no boys in dresses), but we also must remember they are always changing. it used to be common to dress boys in dresses before they got short pants because it made it harder for them to crawl and get into places they shouldn't be in. all babies used to be dresses in baby gowns. in some cultures. men wear what we would consider dresses as part of everyday clothing.

really, if we just let kids follow their instincts when it come to clothes and toys, i think they'd be better off. i certainly was teased at school for playing with block or trucks or any other "boy" toys and the boys at my school all played "house" at some point. that's where i think people go overboard. some people think if a boy wants to play with a doll, he'll become gay. but both of my older brothers played with dolls, and only one is gay!

[Damasta]

Here's another article that's interesting. It's a little condescending at some points, but there is also some good information.

Damasta and Vorpal: Some gender roles serve practical purposes based on innate differences, but some are arbitrary and based on false perceptions. It is difficult to tell which is true. You can’t tell without testing it, which many conservatives oppose.

We oppose it being tested on us. Especially since it's difficult to test things on a small scale anymore. If one party or the other doesn't like it, it gets swept up to the Supreme Court or the U.S. Congress and then there's a judicial precedent/national law mandating that it either can't be tried at all or that the U.S. as a whole has to try it. The Founders of the Constitution set up a system of federalism (balance of powers between the national government and state governments) so that the states could be testing grounds for new ideas. But many things have taken place to erode federalism in the U.S. (e.g. the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the 16th and 17th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution). So until such time as federalism is restored, (like you suggested) you'll have to create an entirely willing community from scratch and then proceed with the experiment(s). Unfortunately, that hasn't worked so well for the libertarians (clicky clicky).

In various areas, differences between men and women don’t exist, at least nowhere near the extent that tradition said, and we’ve proved it by trying it in society, yet gender roles persisted for a long time.

Examples?

We didn’t educate women for thousands of years because rich, white, Christian men held all the power absent universal suffrage, universal education, separation of church and state, and other economic rights. Are women not the intellectual equals of men? Or did they have no interest in being educated or having control over their lives?

That's an easy one to test. Try to educate some women and see if they perform, on average, as well as their male peers. Then it ceases to be a wild claim; either it's true or it's false.

Some women choose tradition, but some are coerced by tradition.

And some choose/are coerced by non-tradition, or rather, the new feminist tradition. Until we really know what really is learned and what really is innate, such statements don't really mean much.

I don’t think that women are lesser at managing family finances either, yet often that is the man’s exclusive responsibility. I don’t get why women do that. They surrender all their power when they don’t help manage family finances.

I'm afraid I don't know where you're coming from on this one. Most of the couples I know (and most of their parents for that matter), it's the woman who (primarily) manages the finances.

I support the freedom to live life on your own terms, not majority culture. Don’t restrict my freedom unless it is to protect someone else’s rights.

What if children had a Constitutional right to be raised by their mothers and not by daycare workers? Would you lie down and meekly submit? I suspect not. (And that's not a criticism.) Really this would be a fruitless discussion since we'd probably also disagree about what constitutes legitimate freedoms and legitimate rights.

Let the free market determine the value of female labor.

Really? I think that would be great! Stop using legislation and judicial fiat to force women into the workplace, let them get in on their own merits! Though I can't be sure, I suspect that this is a hypocritical statement on your part. If the free market determined that a workplace with a balanced male-to-female ratio was more optimal than a male-only workplace, I'd accept it with no qualms. But if the free market found that a male-only workplace was more efficient and more profitable (and some would argue that it previously has), I suspect that you'd rescind your esteem for the free market and demand governmental intervention—in defiance of the free market (which would no longer be free). Or if the free market determined that paying men and women equally and providing maternal benefits to women was more optimal than paying women 70% the salary of men, I'd accept it with no qualms. But if the free market found that paying women 70% the salary of men was more efficient and more profitable, again I suspect that you'd rescind your esteem for the free market and demand governmental intervention.

Personally, I believe in the freedom of a company to choose who it hires. If company A only hires men, then so be it. There is no such thing as a right to work at company A. If company B hires both men and women, then so be it. If hiring both sexes is really superior, then company B will out-compete company A and company A will will either have to change its policies in order to survive or go extinct. That is a free market. But if company A out-competes company B, company A shouldn't be forced to change their policies just because someone outside of company A dislikes said policies.

I appreciate and agree with your fervor for research methods, but are the claims made by scientists completely useless unless you’ve read the primary sources for everything? That would take an entire lifetime. It took 4 years to read all my psych books.

If they're claims and nothing more, then yes they're pretty useless. If they're conclusions based on carefully designed and properly controlled experiments, then they're useful. But when someone (from either side of a disagreement) comes in here and states something as fact which is unfamiliar or controversial, those statements are automatically going to be suspect. For those statements the primary sources would be valuable. And if the science turns out to be sloppy, then their conclusions are going to be dismissed.

And some of the boys=blue/girls=pink stuff is just useful. Babies come out looking ambiguous. If just for the sake strangers who ask, "How old is he?" or "What's her name?" it's handy to have your baby dressed in the expected color.

The only way I could tell the sex of the babies in Mexico was that the baby girls had their ears pierced and the baby boys didn't. Otherwise they looked totally androgynous.

[NerdGirl]

People have mistaken my 18-month-old nephew for a girl when he was wearing camouflage pants and a shirt with a truck on it. My mom thinks it's because he has curly blonde hair.

But yes, I do plan on dressing my baby girls in pink and my baby boys in blue, should I ever be lucky to have any.

On a somewhat related note, when I was a kid my mom found a picture of my father as a baby in a baptismal gown with enough lace and ruffles on to rival an 80s wedding dress. Apparently they did that sort of thing in the 40s. We thought it was hilarious to see my dad in his "dress".

[Damasta]

But yes, I do plan on dressing my baby girls in pink and my baby boys in blue, should I ever be lucky to have any.

May you be so lucky. Babies are awesome!

[Marduk]

So we dress our children a certain way to distinguish what gender they are? Since it makes us uncomfortable not to know? But why does it make us uncomfortable? And is this something we need to be disabused of? I would postulate that we want to know specific traits of a child in order to associate both with the child and with the parent. And we attach several gender constructs to either gender, to give us a predefined interaction pattern based on sex. I think that shows to what extent we have gender constructs in mind (whether they are societal or innate is irrelevant in this, unless we are trying to ascribe this behavior as normative, which I am not).

Also, I think we need to address an axiom we all seem to be operating under, since I would like to question it, or at least have it considered. It seems as though we are saying, in terms of gender differences, innate=acceptable and good, whereas societal=unacceptable and bad. I would submit that this is not necessarily the case. I think it presupposes another axiom, that is, that some how social and societal norms impinge upon choice, either disallowing, or at least discouraging, behavior seen as belonging to the other gender. We can logically assume that this has the effect of shifting the population that engages into this behavior. For example, let's say that mothers nurturing their children is a societal impulse, as opposed to an inborn one. (It doesn't matter whether it is or not, this can be adjusted to any trait or behavior.) We can see a positive benefit of this behavior on society at large, hence it is something that can be encouraged. Since we aren't forcing this behavior, the option still exists, and certainly many will choose not to do so. But by encouraging it in terms of a specific gender role, society as a whole is improved. So societal gender roles can be good, as long as opposing behavior isn't punished (whether the punishment is real or percieved. Both yield the same.) On the other side, there can be innate behavior, if the behavior is bad, that it should not be encouraged. Suppose we accept the conjecture (as many have, but again, it isn't necessary, this can be generalized to any specific trait or behavior) that males are naturally more violent, stemming from perhaps inborn hunting instincts. This behavior, in a society as culturalized and socialized as ours, impairs an individuals ability to function well in groups. Hence, it would be something to overcome, rather than celebrate.

TL: DR;

Innate behavior isn't necessarily good, and societal behavior (both in terms of gender role constructions) is not necessarily bad.

[krebscout]

Right - I can totally get behind letting a kid choose whatever toy they like, encouraging them to dig into whatever sport or dance or art they feel passionate about, etc. But, like everything, there has to be a balance, right? We don't put boys in dresses, and we don't name them Isabella. So they can survive childhood.

This may sound lame, but the only place where I've really noticed a sexist bent in my life is in humor. Sometimes I'm funny. But so many times my joking gets ignored...until it's repeated by a male (usually my brother) who paid attention, and then everybody laughs. And it's not because I'm talking too quietly.

Or maybe that's just my family.

[Marduk]

Sometimes I'm funny. But so many times my joking gets ignored...until it's repeated by a male (usually my brother) who paid attention, and then everybody laughs. And it's not because I'm talking too quietly.

Aw, that's so sad..... tell me your jokes! I promise to laugh! (Also, I will then repeat them, since, being a male, they will then become funnier)

[Damasta]

Also, I think we need to address an axiom we all seem to be operating under, since I would like to question it, or at least have it considered. It seems as though we are saying, in terms of gender differences, innate=acceptable and good, whereas societal=unacceptable and bad.

...

Innate behavior isn't necessarily good, and societal behavior (both in terms of gender role constructions) is not necessarily bad.

My argument isn't that "innate=acceptable and good", it's that "innate=not worth trying to expunge from all our children (or able to be expunged, for that matter)". In other words, if it is innate, it is more wrong to push the majority that feel/act that way into not feeling/acting that way than it is wrong to push the minority that don't feel/act that way into feeling/acting that way. And since there doesn't seem to be good evidence for what is innate behavior and what isn't, we don't know whether we're fixing a problem or creating one.

[Imogen]

Right - I can totally get behind letting a kid choose whatever toy they like, encouraging them to dig into whatever sport or dance or art they feel passionate about, etc. But, like everything, there has to be a balance, right? We don't put boys in dresses, and we don't name them Isabella. So they can survive childhood.

This may sound lame, but the only place where I've really noticed a sexist bent in my life is in humor. Sometimes I'm funny. But so many times my joking gets ignored...until it's repeated by a male (usually my brother) who paid attention, and then everybody laughs. And it's not because I'm talking too quietly.

Or maybe that's just my family.

well, even names change genders or are unisex (Leslie, Courtney, Ashley, Aidan/Aiden, etc.)

[Tao]

well, even names change genders or are unisex (Leslie, Courtney, Ashley, Aidan/Aiden, etc.)

True, though they tend to drift male to female, perhaps due to a more ready acceptance of women with masculine traits than men with feminine ones.

As for the rest of the issue, I'm not sure where I stand. while it is true that there are plenty of unnecessarily imposed un-written biases, (my guess is that a significant portion of the 'glass ceiling' is due to high-level decision makers being from a previous mindset), many of the governmentally imposed regulations can be restricting to a detrimental effect. The classic case being the gender quota required by some municipal facilities leading to an alteration of minimum requirements to meet quota.

While being in a female dominant field myself at the moment, I could see the appeal of a gender quota, as it would likely guarantee me a job. The problem is, any quota that seems even close to 'fair' would be far more than the market is ready for. People just do not want to see a young male in my line of work. If I were hired out of respect to such a law instead of demand of the market, I'd likely end up a detriment to the institution that hired me, getting money for (relatively) nothing.

I think what bothers me the most is a sense of entitlement. A man should not feel entitled to a job over a woman due to his gender, regardless of their respective qualifications. Nor should a woman feel entitled to a job over a man due to a quota, regardless of their respective qualifications.

TINSTAAFL, the world doesn't owe you anything.

[Marduk]

My argument isn't that "innate=acceptable and good", it's that "innate=not worth trying to expunge from all our children (or able to be expunged, for that matter)". In other words, if it is innate, it is more wrong to push the majority that feel/act that way into not feeling/acting that way than it is wrong to push the minority that don't feel/act that way into feeling/acting that way. And since there doesn't seem to be good evidence for what is innate behavior and what isn't, we don't know whether we're fixing a problem or creating one.

It amounts to the same thing, doesn't it? I've overgeneralized a bit, but it still yields the same methodology; namely, that we need to analyze whether a behavior is innate or not before attempting to correct it. What I'm suggesting is a reversal of that; in other words, that we consider as normative behavior that which is beneficial for the individual and society as a whole, and promote it if it is, but if it isn't, discourage and correct it, regardless of whether it is innate or not. It may seem counter-intuitive, but we overcome instictive behavior all the time, especially within organized religion. I'm suggesting we analyze the structures of society as a whole (specifically in terms of gender construction) and decide the extent to which they promote what we consider beneficial behavior, then adjust accordingly. To say that it is wrong to push a majority into acting/feeling a certain way is counter productive in this methodology, and ultimately irrelevant.

[Damasta]

My sister-in-law showed me these two videos tonight (here and here), so I thought I'd share. They're from a BBC Comedy, have the faked appearance of a 1950s public service announcement, and present cases of extreme sexism. I'm posting them as an endorsement of their humor, not an endorsement of their message.

What I'm suggesting is [...] that we consider as normative behavior that which is beneficial for the individual and society as a whole, and promote it if it is, but if it isn't, discourage and correct it, regardless of whether it is innate or not.

Ah, but the reason this discussion comes up in the first place is a disagreement about what is more "beneficial for the individual and society as a whole"; the two major camps being "women staying home and raising their children" vs. "women being able to pursue a career free from legal, societal, or corporate obstacles". The "innate vs. learned" debate started as an attempt by the latter to bolster their position. But if most of the behaviors that they claim are learned turn out to be inherent, then the underlying claim that men and women are almost entirely similar (and thus should occupy more similar roles) is suspect.

[Imogen]

just a point of interest i thought i'd bring up because of my direct connection to it:

back when betty friedan wrote "the feminine mystique" it was groundbreaking for a certain class of woman (namely, white, middle-class women who could afford to stay home). but women of color (like my great-grandmother and grandmother) had always worked because they were black, poor, and lived in the country in arkansas. so the "should women stay home or work" argument is meaningless for a class of women. they HAVE to work, no matter what their desires are.

so for me, if i HAVE to work (because, i do) i want to make sure that i am making more money than someone with less education or experience than i. i don't want to struggle with 79 cents if some dude who is as qualified as i am is making a full dollar for the same job.

also, there are certain industries where having a certain amount of men or women is beneficial to the program. i used to work for a non-profit education department and we did a program called Strengthening Families at night. because we were generally working with poor, Hispanic populations, it was EXTREMELY important for us to have men working in that program for the boys to look up to as role models. but there would be times that we would put out a hiring call and only get female applicants. but my boss would hold off on hiring until she found a suitable male so that the staff was two of each. it may have sucked for the women, but we needed men for this job.

[Marduk]

Ah, but the reason this discussion comes up in the first place is a disagreement about what is more "beneficial for the individual and society as a whole"

I think this view inherently rejects the individual, or at the very least, dismisses the opinion of those women as valid. It certainly isn't a hard argument to make to suggest that it is both more beneficial to society and the individual that any individual, regardless of gender or race, be allowed to pursue any course of life that isn't immoral or unethical, free from societal constraints (both real and percieved). I agree with you on one point, and that is that there is not good evidence for what is innate behavior and what isn't. This is why we need to fundamentally change our approach, but ensure that we don't value the individual benefit to certain individuals over others.

I would further this argument to suggest that if there are innate gender differences, these will become apparent when societal constraints are dropped. In other words, if we pursue establishing a course of normative behavior that defines as unacceptable any behavior (within society as a whole, not just in specific economic or religious segments) that coerces specific behavior or trait under the guise of gender difference, gender difference won't dissappear, only artificial gender difference will.

[Damasta]

Interesting insights, imogen.

[Tao]

... if there are innate gender differences, these will become apparent when societal constraints are dropped.

Do I read you right in my understanding that you question the existence of innate gender differences? With only minimal medical training I can tell the difference between a male or female skeleton within ~90% accuracy, and with a little more study, the same could be done with individual bones. Without active MRIs I'm not so sure I could pull off differentiation of brains, but cardiovascular and neuromuscular systems are fairly simple to differentiate gender on, sex organs notwithstanding.

While such physical traits aren't necessarily demarcators of one gender having superiority in any given field, the innate gender differences are real and pronounced in the body, and I would find it surprising if subsequent gender differences were not to naturally follow.

Forgive me if I missed your sentiment completely, I guess I see any significant gender difference as innate, and any societal constraint of consequence arising from people's reaction thereunto.

[Marduk]

No, I'm not questioning the existence per se, but certainly any specifically instantiated gender difference (speaking in terms of behavior trends) can be called into question. That is to say, when we see more female nurses than male, for example, one can make arguments both for innate gender differences being the root cause, or for contrived gender differences resulting from societal constraints being the root cause. What I'm suggesting is that we analyze any societal behavior that may be responsible, drop it, and allow the system to readjust naturally. After a period of adjustment (perhaps a few generations) there may remain gender disparity, but we can logically assume the resulting disparity is the result of innate difference, instead of learned.

[NerdGirl]

Now that I've actually read the talk in question, I can say that it was not at all what I was expecting. It didn't seem to me that he was trying to explain what the role of women should be at all. It was more of a very sweet tribute to the women in his life, and an exhortation to respect women and not see women as the sex objects that we are often portrayed as in the media. I really don't find anything offensive in it.

Yes, he does focus on the ways that women complete men and not the ways that men complete women. But maybe he feels like it's not his place to be talking about how women need men. His perspective is that of a man reflecting on how women have helped him fulfil his spiritual potential, so that's what he spoke about. And can you imagine how much more offended people would have been if he had talked about how women need men become exalted? You just sort of can't win sometimes.

I'm reminded of a comment I read on feminist mormon housewives after the last general relief society meeting. Sister Barbara Thompson (who has never married) had spoken, and she said the following:

"When I left high school, my goals were to attend college for at least a couple of years, get married to a handsome man, and have four perfect, beautiful children (two boys and two girls). My husband was to have a large income so I wouldn’t need to work, and then I planned to do Church and community service."

Someone commented on the FMH blog that as soon as she heard that, she turned the whole thing off because she couldn't stand to listen to another talk about how all women are supposed to do is get married and have kids. Well, it's too bad she was so offended by that line that she didn't bother to stick around and listen to how Sister Thompson's life hadn't turned out like that all and how she had learned to find joy and happiness as a women in the church even though she didn't fit into the typical marriage and motherhood mold. Her talk's right here if anyone's interested: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?h ... 82620aRCRD

Wow that's a long link. But I think it's a little too easy sometimes to take one little thing out of a talk that sounds a bit iffy and be too offended by it to hear the rest of the message.

[vorpal blade]

But I think it's a little too easy sometimes to take one little thing out of a talk that sounds a bit iffy and be too offended by it to hear the rest of the message.

Like the way some people react to Dr. Laura, because she is conservative.

When I had a beard I interpreted every glance without a smile to be a look of disapproval. If you are sensitized to expect people to be sexists, or racists, or intolerant, or hateful, or homophobic, or bigoted--it is easy to "see" those traits in almost anything they do, and to stop looking for evidence to the contrary.

[C is for]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm not as smart as other people because my goal in life is to stay at home, nurture my children, and cook dinner for my husband.

As far as the original topic goes, I really liked the quote and I don't even think it needs to be restated as "one of the roles" -- I think that's clear. It even makes me feel better about myself (oh, so OLD and so SINGLE, right?) that I can "complete"* men without needing to be married to them. I can elevate and bless my dad, my brother, my friends. I embrace that role.

I'm gonna have to read this talk.


*in quotes because obviously the only person I'll really complete and truly elevate/exalt is my husband. But helping those I know and love become who they can be is kind of like "completing" them.

So fun times, one of the YSA bishops in my area invited his ward to read the devotional that spurred this Board Question and this thread in order to discuss...something about the difference between men and women. I don't know, it's not my ward.

And...wow am I a different person than I was 5 years ago. Because I was appalled at most of the address and his thesis statement. And I'm a little tiny bit appalled at past me right now? (I do actually embrace that role still, and I enjoy it, but now I'm like "absolutely you needed to clarify that's only one of my roles!")

Because I am not going to read this whole old thread (which got way off the original topic) to see if the link to the devotional was actually ever posted, I'm simply going to quote the opening paragraph that got my dander up:

My focus this morning will be on the divine nature and destiny of women and the sacred role they play in the sanctification and purification of men.

And, like, today it's not as bad. I've recognized it in the spirit it was given and I've mellowed. But I still have kind of sad feelings about it for the following reason:

There's nothing in it for me to get married. (Oh, past me, that was so OLD and SINGLE and that was 5 YEARS AGO.) I mean, there is something in it for me to get married. It's that I can't be saved without it.

The guy gets that too and he ALSO gets the bonus of having my sanctifying influence on him.

I guess I get the blessing of dealing with a guy that needs my help as well as trying to be righteous for my own sake! Yippee!