Women
"Woman was taken out of man -- not out of his feet to be trampled underfoot, but out of his side to be equal to him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be loved." - David O. McKay, ninth LDS Church President
"Women - you can't live with 'em, and you can't get 'em to dress up in a skimpy li'l Nazi costume and beat you with a warm squash." - Emo Philips, disturbed comedian
"Women are soft and gentle, but they hit things." - vintage Volkswagen ad
"Women - you can't live with 'em, and you can't get 'em to dress up in a skimpy li'l Nazi costume and beat you with a warm squash." - Emo Philips, disturbed comedian
"Women are soft and gentle, but they hit things." - vintage Volkswagen ad
The childish, neurotic fear of women that characterized my adolescence is by now long gone. In its place is a far deeper and more rational fear born of experience. But enough about that. One morning around three a.m. I was having insomnia as I often do, and the thought came to me: "You should make a page on your website about how amazing women are, and then some woman will see it and think you're really sweet and swoon and fall in love with you."
I said, "That would never work, and even if it did, I would be ashamed of myself for stooping so low."
The thought said, "Fine, whatever, but if you don't talk about how amazing women are then people will think you're gay." I realized it had a point. I'm not gay, just asexual/heteromantic. So here goes. See also a page on problems faced by women in today's world, and one about the new girls I encountered at school growing up.
I didn't make this into a treatise on how all women are perfect goddesses and stuff. I hate those. (The treatises that is, not the goddesses.) I hate especially the one that extolls their supposedly universal virtues and then says at the end, "HOWEVER, IF THERE IS ONE FLAW IN WOMEN, IT IS THAT THEY FORGET THEIR WORTH" (emphasis in original, or at least the version I saw). What a sweet thing to say. Why does it irk me? I'll tell you why. Because Margaret Sanger was a woman, and her "ONE FLAW" was being Adolf Hitler with different chromosomes and less ambition, that's why. Do the research. And disregarding that, there's no woman on Earth who consistently lives up to all those attributes so why make them feel like they need to? I think whoever wrote that thing was just trying to get a woman to sleep with him.
I said, "That would never work, and even if it did, I would be ashamed of myself for stooping so low."
The thought said, "Fine, whatever, but if you don't talk about how amazing women are then people will think you're gay." I realized it had a point. I'm not gay, just asexual/heteromantic. So here goes. See also a page on problems faced by women in today's world, and one about the new girls I encountered at school growing up.
I didn't make this into a treatise on how all women are perfect goddesses and stuff. I hate those. (The treatises that is, not the goddesses.) I hate especially the one that extolls their supposedly universal virtues and then says at the end, "HOWEVER, IF THERE IS ONE FLAW IN WOMEN, IT IS THAT THEY FORGET THEIR WORTH" (emphasis in original, or at least the version I saw). What a sweet thing to say. Why does it irk me? I'll tell you why. Because Margaret Sanger was a woman, and her "ONE FLAW" was being Adolf Hitler with different chromosomes and less ambition, that's why. Do the research. And disregarding that, there's no woman on Earth who consistently lives up to all those attributes so why make them feel like they need to? I think whoever wrote that thing was just trying to get a woman to sleep with him.
Am I Not Pretty Enough?
Circa 1937. The more things change...
Society sends conflicting messages about appearances. It assures us (correctly) that looks don't matter, while at the same time bombarding us with images of impossibly perfect and gratuitously sexualized models and celebrities. Society's obsession with appearance is merely the outward symptom of a root cause; our animal instincts which say that if you're not attractive then you don't mate, period. Most people are intelligent enough to have controlled these instincts for thousands of years and love each other for who they are, and that hasn't changed. What has changed is that the decline of morality in civilization has led to a validation of these instincts, and fed them with Photoshop-perfect celebrities with cleavage hanging out and sex for the sake of sex, without attachments or consequences.
The American Psychological Association has found that this objectification has a strong correlation with declining academic performance among young women, and a decrease in the number of them who seek careers in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. It also correlates with an increase in sexism, sexual harassment and demands for child pornography. The report said: "In study after study, findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed in a sexual manner (e.g., dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (e.g., used as a decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person). In addition, a narrow (and unrealistic) standard of physical beauty is heavily emphasized. These are the models of femininity presented for young girls to study and emulate." Virtually nothing has changed since then.
The American Psychological Association has found that this objectification has a strong correlation with declining academic performance among young women, and a decrease in the number of them who seek careers in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. It also correlates with an increase in sexism, sexual harassment and demands for child pornography. The report said: "In study after study, findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed in a sexual manner (e.g., dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (e.g., used as a decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person). In addition, a narrow (and unrealistic) standard of physical beauty is heavily emphasized. These are the models of femininity presented for young girls to study and emulate." Virtually nothing has changed since then.
Feminism
When the term "feminism" is used in its proper and accurate sense to mean a belief in equal respect, rights and opportunities for men and women, then along with most reasonable people I'm all for it. (I love New Wave feminism in particular.) But when the term is highjacked by the self-righteous cult of victimhood created by an avowed Communist who never had to wash a dish in her life and currently filled with women who think they have an inalienable right to taxpayer-funded birth control and abortion on demand, and dress up as vaginas or mail bloody tampons to legislators when they don't get their way, then I approach it with a bit of cynicism. (For the benefit of those who will deliberately misinterpret what I say and choose to be offended, let me clarify: I'm not saying that she should have had to wash a dish in her life, I'm just saying that she was a liar and a hypocrite for writing a book about how oppressed and marginalized she was. Also, the gender pay gap is still a myth.)
Equality and sameness aren't synonyms, though, and there are some instances where we need to keep in mind that gender isn't analogous to race. Men and women are not identical at heart. Besides the obvious differences, there are less obvious differences that should still be fairly obvious. It's not an issue of claiming one is superior to the other (although no one seems to complain as long as the claimed superior is woman) but their minds and bodies are still fundamentally different and we need to respect that. I don't get why that's offensive. Rose bushes are prettier and have smaller thorns than cacti, but no one argues that they're superior. Each is as suited as the other to its own niche and no one calls you a bigot for suggesting that each has its own niche.
That's why, for instance, the LDS Church opposed the Equal Rights Amendment. With our luck it would have been the only part of the Constitution our government pretended to care about by now. Imagine - mothers drafted into the army. Men, even fathers can be drafted, so women must be too. It's equal, after all. (There's still a draft in this country. It's only turned off and that could change at any time.) On the other hand, no maternity leave. Men don't get maternity leave, so neither do women. It's equal, after all. But in fairness I suppose you could just give maternity leave to men as well and lose a few billion dollars from the economy. These extremes might have sounded absurd in the 1970s when the Amendment was under consideration, but the succeeding decades of gender-neutralization have said otherwise.
Some people both outside and inside the LDS Church find it sexist for not ordaining women to the priesthood or giving them as many leadership positions as men. We can only speculate on God's reasoning for this, and as a male I can say nothing that probably wouldn't come across as patronizing, so I direct curious people to this fascinating article and this rebuttal to its methodology. It's one of the most thought-provoking discussions I've ever read. Basically the main point is that in Mormon theology every role is equally important and leadership is not supposed to be seen as a status symbol. It concludes that the theology isn't sexist but the culture sometimes is, and that it can change. We have seen in recent years that it is changing, even though most LDS women were okay with it in the first place and the rebuttal demonstrates how selective sampling severely exaggerated the problem.
Equality and sameness aren't synonyms, though, and there are some instances where we need to keep in mind that gender isn't analogous to race. Men and women are not identical at heart. Besides the obvious differences, there are less obvious differences that should still be fairly obvious. It's not an issue of claiming one is superior to the other (although no one seems to complain as long as the claimed superior is woman) but their minds and bodies are still fundamentally different and we need to respect that. I don't get why that's offensive. Rose bushes are prettier and have smaller thorns than cacti, but no one argues that they're superior. Each is as suited as the other to its own niche and no one calls you a bigot for suggesting that each has its own niche.
That's why, for instance, the LDS Church opposed the Equal Rights Amendment. With our luck it would have been the only part of the Constitution our government pretended to care about by now. Imagine - mothers drafted into the army. Men, even fathers can be drafted, so women must be too. It's equal, after all. (There's still a draft in this country. It's only turned off and that could change at any time.) On the other hand, no maternity leave. Men don't get maternity leave, so neither do women. It's equal, after all. But in fairness I suppose you could just give maternity leave to men as well and lose a few billion dollars from the economy. These extremes might have sounded absurd in the 1970s when the Amendment was under consideration, but the succeeding decades of gender-neutralization have said otherwise.
Some people both outside and inside the LDS Church find it sexist for not ordaining women to the priesthood or giving them as many leadership positions as men. We can only speculate on God's reasoning for this, and as a male I can say nothing that probably wouldn't come across as patronizing, so I direct curious people to this fascinating article and this rebuttal to its methodology. It's one of the most thought-provoking discussions I've ever read. Basically the main point is that in Mormon theology every role is equally important and leadership is not supposed to be seen as a status symbol. It concludes that the theology isn't sexist but the culture sometimes is, and that it can change. We have seen in recent years that it is changing, even though most LDS women were okay with it in the first place and the rebuttal demonstrates how selective sampling severely exaggerated the problem.
Chivalry
Today we've taken one of the small bits of the code of chivalry that wasn't about fighting, and just call it "chivalry". Given what women and girls are put through by our degrading culture , a bit of special treatment doesn't hurt. Of course, there's no reason not to help everyone you encounter and treat them with super respect. Holding doors comes to mind; I do it for anyone who's close enough to make it feasible. If they're too far away, I don't stress about it because there are more meaningful things I can do for people than acting like a butler every time you go out in public. The whole "ladies first" thing we can also keep. It's old-fashioned, but I don't give birth or deal as much with the unattainable narcissistic expectations of society, so I can handle this miniscule inconvenience even if feminists find it patronizing.
But sometimes chivalry for its own sake is stupid, e.g. when it creates more inconvenience for the recipient than it alleviates. On my first date we were in the back of the car and it stopped and my date got out. I thought "Hey, you're supposed to wait for me to get out and go around to the other side and open your door for you!" Then I realized that would be a waste of her time. Oh, and sometimes chivalry seems to create unforeseen issues. In the past, at ward luncheons we always let the ladies get food first and then they tended to all sit together while the guys went up, creating a bit of gender segregation. All I'm saying is it seems a little counter-intuitive to the overarching goal of marrying us off. It also seems unnecessary since I'm pretty sure no one is going to poison our food, which is why that tradition started in Western civilization in the first place.
Some adamantly believe that it's the male's duty to initiate courtship and the female's duty to wait for it, just because. I say that attitude has no place in the twenty-first century. It's based on the natural pattern which dictates that, in every species where females invest more time and energy in their offspring than the males (e.g. nine months of pregnancy), they get to be picky about whose genes go into that offspring, and the males have to take the initiative and prove themselves. In those rare species where the males invest more in offspring, this status quo is reversed. And in the case of humans it's been exacerbated by a long history of traditions saying that men should be aggressive and women should be passive. The evolutionary part is neither good nor bad. The tradition part is bad. But in any case, this mindset places on males the entire burden of rejection anxiety and rejection itself, and on females the entire burden of never being asked out by anyone. When both burdens are shared by everyone they may cancel each other out, like when you have a mosquito bite and you dig your fingernails into it so it hurts instead of itching.
If you want to ask someone out, or call them or whatever, just do it regardless of your gender. If you're a female and insist on sticking to tradition then that's your choice, but you forfeit all right to complain when you haven't got a prince for the ball. Maybe guys don't really notice you, but if you ask one he'll probably say yes, and who knows what could happen from there? If he says no without a legitimate reason, or gets upset with you for "emasculating" him or something like that, then he isn't worth your time. By the way, I'm in no way qualified to give advice about such topics, but you'd probably guessed as much. One of my friends used to look up to me for advice on women, and my reaction was "Lord have mercy on you."
But sometimes chivalry for its own sake is stupid, e.g. when it creates more inconvenience for the recipient than it alleviates. On my first date we were in the back of the car and it stopped and my date got out. I thought "Hey, you're supposed to wait for me to get out and go around to the other side and open your door for you!" Then I realized that would be a waste of her time. Oh, and sometimes chivalry seems to create unforeseen issues. In the past, at ward luncheons we always let the ladies get food first and then they tended to all sit together while the guys went up, creating a bit of gender segregation. All I'm saying is it seems a little counter-intuitive to the overarching goal of marrying us off. It also seems unnecessary since I'm pretty sure no one is going to poison our food, which is why that tradition started in Western civilization in the first place.
Some adamantly believe that it's the male's duty to initiate courtship and the female's duty to wait for it, just because. I say that attitude has no place in the twenty-first century. It's based on the natural pattern which dictates that, in every species where females invest more time and energy in their offspring than the males (e.g. nine months of pregnancy), they get to be picky about whose genes go into that offspring, and the males have to take the initiative and prove themselves. In those rare species where the males invest more in offspring, this status quo is reversed. And in the case of humans it's been exacerbated by a long history of traditions saying that men should be aggressive and women should be passive. The evolutionary part is neither good nor bad. The tradition part is bad. But in any case, this mindset places on males the entire burden of rejection anxiety and rejection itself, and on females the entire burden of never being asked out by anyone. When both burdens are shared by everyone they may cancel each other out, like when you have a mosquito bite and you dig your fingernails into it so it hurts instead of itching.
If you want to ask someone out, or call them or whatever, just do it regardless of your gender. If you're a female and insist on sticking to tradition then that's your choice, but you forfeit all right to complain when you haven't got a prince for the ball. Maybe guys don't really notice you, but if you ask one he'll probably say yes, and who knows what could happen from there? If he says no without a legitimate reason, or gets upset with you for "emasculating" him or something like that, then he isn't worth your time. By the way, I'm in no way qualified to give advice about such topics, but you'd probably guessed as much. One of my friends used to look up to me for advice on women, and my reaction was "Lord have mercy on you."
