Thursday, November 9, 2023

The Righteous Mind

Do you ever get to a point where you feel like you're just not learning anything anymore? It's all kind of the same? You've heard it all? Well, I was at a book club, and some of the ladies were talking about a book from a different book club, and when I heard what it was about, I thought: "I think I'd like that!"

There are few books that have been totally awe inspiring and perspective changing to me. I'd say the first one was A Return to Modesty. Others have been Outliers, Freakonomics, and Why Gender Matters. The latest one is The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt.

This is a book about moral psychology, something I've never heard of. A lot of what Haidt says just makes sense. He also gets into religion and speaks positively of how it unites people (and blinds them), but how it's generally good for communities by creating connection and collaboration. During parts of the book, I was a little bit afraid that it would weaken my testimony because he was pointing out just how practical organized religion is and how our brains create reasons for things (like why the gods do certain things to certain people), but near the end of the book as I was evaluating my feelings, I realized religion is more than community connection or rewards/punishment from the gods that humans have created. I've experienced things that are more than oxytocin. I've seen experiences in people's lives play out that shouldn't have. I think Haidt is right, but I think religion still goes deeper.

In the end, couldn't our Heavenly Father have used masterful psychology as part of his perfect plan? I already believe he used science in His creation, so it only make sense He would use other disciplines, too.

I started out by taking a few notes on paper, so I don't know exactly where Haidt said some of this, but later, I just started bookmarking my audiobook and can note a reference time. Anyway, here are a few thoughts worth saving:

(Chapter 1, I think?) Haidt talked about our brains systemizing and empathizing. Those who systemize too much fall in the autism spectrum.

Psychology is based on behavior observation, not measured like science and math [religion is the same way - not measured, which is why some people have a hard time believing]. There was a decreased in non-science/measurable disciplines as science gained popularity [a loss of faith in things they couldn't see and and increase in things they could see and measure].

He talked about coming to feel that dead bodies were sacred. That's something I've always felt, but my husband is opposite. I found it interesting that my husband isn't the only one!

Men lean toward tribalism and loyalty and being a traitor is really bad. Women lean toward coupling.

(Chapter 2, maybe?) Without punishment, people are selfish.

(5:10) If there's no disgust, then there's no sacred [opposite?]. Sacredness leads to a moral community. Liberals appeal to care and fairness. Conservatives appeal to care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. WOW. When I heard this, it explained a lot about how my husband and I think differently. It explianed Republicans and Democrats. My husband is definitely a care and fairness guy, but I also value the other three. He doesn't really value loyalty, authority, and only partially, sanctity.

(8:13) Synchrony Builds Trust: When we do things together/have commonalities, we are more likely to trust each other and help each other out. We create commonalities/groupishness with how we look, dress, talk, shared name, birthday, move together, exercise, haka, sing, march, parties, karaoke.

(8:14) Create healthy competition between teams (armies, sports, corporate divisions), not individuals.

(8:25) The Hive Switch: Becoming a part of the whole through awe in nature, Durkheimian drugs, raves; oxytocin binds people to their groups, not all of humanity.

(8:28) College football example: makes you feel like you are part of a whole, even though it is costly, wasteful, and extravagant and "impairs people's ability to think rationally." Moves people "from profane to sacred" (Durkheim), leads to donations, improved school experience, stronger community.

(8:31) Morality Binds and Blinds: Scientists miss the point by studying religious "individuals and their supernatural beliefs rather than focusing on groups and their binding practices."

(8:46) Successful religions expend precious resources to spread, just like a virus, you can also spread religion to make groups cohesive and cooperative (8:48). The Gods of larger societies are "concerned about actions that foment conflict and division" (murder, adultery, false witness, breaking of oaths). 

(8:49) People cheat less when there is an image of an eye nearby, or when the concept of God is activated in memory. They cheat more when the lights are dim. Gods who can see everything and hate cheaters and oathbreakers is a good way to reduce cheating and oathbreaking (good for society).

(8:51) The more "costly sacrifices" a religious commune provided, the more likely it was to survive [think Pioneers]. "Giving up alcohol and tobacco, fasting for days..., conforming to a ... dresscode..., cutting ties with outsiders." Demands for sacrifices in secular communes did not work. Rituals, laws, and other constraints work best when they are sacralized. When secular groups ask for a sacrifice, individuals want a cost/benefit analysis and "many refuse to do things that don't make logical sense." Ritual practices are a solution to bringing cooperation and rationality. "Sacredness binds people together, then blinds them to the arbitrariness of the practice." Gods help a group succeed. Haidt mentions the spread of "Mormonism" here at about 8:54.

(10:18) Corporations are super-organisms that will change their host countries. National governments are the only thing that can stand up to the large corporations.

(10:24) Haidt talks about pollutants driving up rates of ADHD, so maybe we do need to give more money to the EPA so that pollutants will go down, ADHD will go down, and we'll have potential less violence and crime.

(10:30) Example of absurdity of using insurance for routine practices and and how this inflates prices.

(10:42) Social capital: High levels of immigration and diversity actually reduced social capital. Bridging capital is trust between groups. Bonding capital is trust within groups. Diversity reduces both types of social capital. Diversity triggers social isolation. Diversity makes people more selfish and less interested in contributing (turtling). Turtling is opposite of hiving (working together like bees in a beehive). So, in an effort to break down oppression, exclusion and arbitrary barriers, liberals (meaning to care and provide fairness) inadvertently push for changes that "weaken groups, traditions, institutions, and moral capital." Inner city poor help > welfare programs > reduced value of marriage > increased out of wedlock birth [others may say this change was also created by the availability of birth control]. Emphasizing differences makes people more racist, not less, so we need to focus on our similarities.

(10:47) Animosity between political party candidates increased when politicians stopped moving to DC with their families and people didn't have to live and work together to cooperate. Cross party friendships are disappearing.

(11:00) Find commonality with others and develop trust. Give praise, develop interest.

Monday, March 6, 2023

Helping YW understand why they aren't ordained to priesthood offices

 We've been having a temple-related Sunday School class in our ward for a couple months now which has been amazing. I'm still not sure if they were supposed to deviate from "Come Follow Me," but it was fortuitous that the temple class was happening right when the most recent changes at the temple were made. It has been such a sacred space! Anyway, in the class yesterday we were talking about women and the priesthood. I was sad to hear that some of my dear sisters felt "less than" as women in the gospel. I still can't say I've really felt that personally, but I'm sad to know that in my generation women have still felt that.

I'd have to say three contributing factors to me NOT feeling that way are:

1. My mom served a mission back when not so many women served missions (1970s), and she went to Argentina! This really gave me a sense of pride and if my mom could do it, I could do it, too (although I chose not to serve a mission).

2. When I was about 12, my mom gave me this for my bulletin board. (Well I'm pretty sure it was this one!)

Much of the major growth that is coming to the Church in the last days will come because many of the good women of the world (in whom there is often such an inner sense of spirituality) will be drawn to the Church in large numbers. This will happen to the degree that the women of the Church reflect righteousness and articulateness in their lives and to the degree that the women of the Church are seen as distinct and different—in happy ways—from the women of the world.

Among the real heroines in the world who will come into the Church are women who are more concerned with being righteous than with being selfish. These real heroines have true humility, which places a higher value on integrity than on visibility. Remember, it is as wrong to do things just to be seen of women as it is to do things to be seen of men. Great women and men are always more anxious to serve than to have dominion.

Thus it will be that female exemplars of the Church will be a significant force in both the numerical and the spiritual growth of the Church in the last days.

-Spencer W. Kimball, delivered by his sweet wife Camilla in 1979.

3. In my early days of college the Proclamation to the World came out.

In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. 

-Read by Gordon B. Hinckley, 1995

Then there are other quotes that helped me feel strong after that time like,

4. “Women of God can never be like women of the world. The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind. There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined. We have enough women of fame and fortune; we need more women of faith. We have enough greed; we need more goodness. We have enough vanity; we need more virtue. We have enough popularity; we need more purity.”

(Margaret D. Nadauld, “The Joy of Womanhood,” Ensign, Nov. 2000, 15)

And then of course there was lots of good stuff by Julie Beck, but I won't take the time to look that stuff up because that's not what this post is about!

Last summer I was called to serve as YW president in our new ward (we had a boundary change). I learned about some of these helpful YW presidency facebook groups and joined some. This morning I saw someone ask a question about helping young women who are wondering about why they don't hold the priesthood. The replies were so kind and well said. I just thought I'd list them here for future reference. I just remember back in the Kate Kelly days how contentious the topic got online, that it was just a breath of fresh-air to see this type of conversation without everything blowing up. There are all types of answers for this topic, and I think there may be truth in all of them, but honestly the bottom line is we don't know why women don't hold the priesthood (offices), but it can be helpful to study it all out. Here are things people shared:

1. Understanding priesthood office, priesthood authority, priesthood keys.

2. Understanding that women are authorized in the temple to give priesthood ordinances.

3. Latter-day Saint Women Podcast: 85 Rebecca Mehr "How Priesthood Power Offers Divine Help to Every Woman"

4. The Priesthood Power of Women by Barbara Morgan Gardner.

5. We have different roles: women bearing children, men holding the priesthood (I know this one can be controversial).

"Just because I carried and gave birth to our baby, doesn't mean the baby is any less my husband's. Likewise just because my husband carries and performs blessings and ordinances with the priesthood doesn't mean it's any less mine." -Someone named Lacy

"Both are equally important, just different." -Denise

Division of labor -Desiree

Different roles -Monica

"Women are the conduits for bringing Heavenly spirits to earth, and men are the conduits for bringing the power of Heaven on earth. This allows us to truly be a help-meet for each other." -Gwen

"Think of a circle. At the top is Heaven. At the bottom is Earth. Women's power is to bring the souls from Heaven to Earth. The Priesthood keys is to take the souls back to Heaven after death. Is the circle of life." -Diana

6. GOD COMES TO THE WOMEN

👇🏻 writtten by Heather Farrell

Have you ever noticed how in the scriptures men are always going up into the mountains to commune with the Lord?

Yet in the scriptures we hardly ever
hear of women going to the mountains,
and we know why — right?

Because the women were too busy
keeping life going;
they couldn’t abandon babies,
meals,
homes,
fires,
gardens,
and a thousand responsibilities to make the climb into the mountains!

I was talking to a friend the other day,
saying that as modern woman
I feel like I’m never “free” enough
from my responsibilities,
never in a quiet enough,
or holy enough spot
to have the type of communion
I want with God.

Her response floored me,
“That is why God comes to women.
Men have to climb the mountain to meet God, but God comes to women where ever they are.”

I have been pondering on her words for weeks and have searched my scriptures
to see that what she said is true.
God does in deed come to women
where they are,
when they are doing their ordinary,
everyday work.

He meets them at the wells
where they draw water for their families,
in their homes,
in their kitchens,
in their gardens.

He comes to them
as they sit beside sickbeds,
as they give birth,
care for the elderly,
and perform necessary mourning and burial rites.

Even at the empty tomb,
Mary was the first to witness Christ’s resurrection,
She was there because she was doing the womanly chore of properly preparing Christ’s body for burial.

In these seemingly mundane
and ordinary tasks,
these women of the scriptures found themselves face to face with divinity.

So if — like me — you ever start to bemoan the fact that you don’t have as much time to spend in the mountains with God as you would like. Remember, God comes to women. He knows where we are and the burdens we carry. He sees us, and if we open our eyes and our hearts we will see Him, even in the most ordinary places and in the most ordinary things.

He lives.

7. Linda Burton, "Get Thee into the Mountain"

8. President Nelson "Spiritual Treasures"

9. It's ok to mourn or validate not holding the priesthood 

10. The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood -Oaks

11. A Future Only God Can See for You -Susan Madsen

12. Study the administrative and ministrative functions of the priesthood in the D&C. 

13. At Last She Said It podcast (I'm not sure what this is).

14. "Drawing the Power of Jesus Christ into Our Lives" -Nelson

15. "The Two Trees." -Valirie Hudson Cassler

16. Women and Priesthood in Gospel Library

17. "Spiritual Treasures" -Nelson

18. "Attaining, Accessing, Using Priesthood Power" -David Clare, BYU Women's Conference, 2014.

That's kind of a lot, huh!? Maybe it will help clarify it for someone some day.

Someone pointed out that some women struggle because ultimately they will not hold the priesthood keys, they will not ever be a bishop or a prophet because we are a patriarchal organization. I don't know if it really answers anything, but yes, it is a fact. It's a definition of what our church is. Patriarchies are run with men in the head positions.

And I just want to add one last thought. In the Sunday School class, someone asked a question and I felt compelled to share right at the end. I can't remember exactly what she asked, but I explained that I think we're trying to emphasize that we definitely do have the power of God, but we're just trying to call it what it is: the priesthood. It's almost a rebranding. I think after the Kate Kelly movement, the Church wanted women to know that they act with authority of the priesthood since the priesthood IS the power of God. That may help some women, but I guess there's still the ultimate patriarchal structure that creates some unsettlement. Maybe the fact that it is a patriarchal structure is to just show the pattern after Christ, who was male? (I did not say the last few sentences in my comment, and it came out really well in my comment; it must have been inspired :).)



Wednesday, June 1, 2022

Why Gender Matters by Leonard Sax

 Two posts ago I wrote about a Leonard Sax book. Why Gender Matters is another of his books, but from 2005. Apparently there is a more recent edition from 2017, which would have been nice to realize since he even mentions that new research will come out within the next 20 years on certain topics mentioned in the 2005 edition. Twenty years into the future would be 2025; we're almost there.

I wanted to listen to this book to learn more about gender issues that are so confusing to me today. I expected more of that in the book, but it was actually more of a parenting book on how boys and girls think differently and how to treat them based on their needs. It was really quite fascinating! There are a couple parts in the book that are quite disturbing (mainly teen sexuality in chapter 6), but the other parts were easier to listen to.

I wanted to save a few thoughts for future reference below.

You know how we say men compartmentalize their thoughts? Well, in chapter 2 we learn that if a man has a stroke on the left side of his brain, it lessens their verbal IQ by 20%. If the stroke is in the right hemisphere, they see virtually no affect to their speech. However, if a woman has a stroke on the left side, her verbal IQ is decreased by about 9%; if the right side, it's decreased by around 11%. So, it appears that women use more of their brains for language; whereas men use a certain section.

Also in chapter 2, Sax states that scientists can look at brain tissue samples and identify which came from males and which came from females because they are different.

You know how we all learned how music was so good for babies? Well, in one study with babies who  were in the ICU (I think), it appeared that girl babies who received music therapy came home 9.5 days earlier than girl babies who did not. Music therapy did not make a difference in boy babies and how early they got to come home from the hospital. The researcher who published this info just gave averages of babies coming home early, but did not specify the sex. Sax suggests we need more research, but since boy babies don't hear as well as girl babies, perhaps music therapy would make a difference with them if the music was louder? - Chapter 2

In another study, newborns were placed in front of a young woman and a mobile. Researchers tracked what the babies looked at. Boy babies were more twice as likely to look at a mobile. Girl babies preferred looking at the young woman. This may be related to differences in the retina between males and females. - Chapter 2

In a study from Concordia, 77 18 month olds were tested, and researchers discovered kids couldn't really tell who was a boy or a girl, and boys had a harder time choosing than girls. The researches also looked at the types of toys the children liked and boys tended to like boy-typical toys, and girls liked girl-typical toys. In a different study with 9 month olds, researchers found the same toy preferences and that the babies couldn't tell who was a boy or who was a girl. Even in monkeys, researchers have found male monkeys prefer boy-typical toys and female monkeys prefer girl-typical toys. Sax is pointing out that without any training or influence from others, boys and girls have general toy preferences, and boys more strongly than the girls. - Chapter 2

I don't know if we all say it, but I can easily say that my husband and son are definitely not very emotional. Apparently before adolescence, negative emotions are processed in the amigdala, so if you ask a kid to explain why they are sad, they may not be able to tell you very well. But, during adolescence, girls start to process negative emotions in their cerebral cortex, where communication also happens. So, when you ask a girl to explain her feelings she can. Boys continue to process negative feelings in the amigdala, so they have a more difficult time expressing their feelings. Their emotions aren't connected to speech in the brain like they are in women. - Chapter 2

Sax believes that gender is a more fundamental characteristic for grouping people than even age. Girls and women hear and see better than boys and men. Girls and women affiliate more with adults than boys. They also have a more mature (I don't know if that's the right word) emotional development than boys and men. Also, lesbian women still have more in common with straight women than they do with gay men or straight men. Later in the book (chapter 9), Sax will even state that gay men exhibit more masculine traits than straight men. We tend to think gay men are less masculine than straight men, but chemically, and sometimes physically (less sensitive hearing as an example, bigger ears), they appear to be hyper masculine. - Chapter 2

In chapter three we get into risk. This chapter totally explains why my husband does what I consider to be dumb things. There was one study where students were asked to toss rings to a target both alone and within the presence of classmates of the same sex. Whether alone or with other people in the room, the girls tossed the rings from the same distance. Young men, though, when alone tossed the rings at a certain distance, but when watched backed up around twice as far as when they were alone. One male student explained that he didn't want to look like a wuss. Well this explains macho behavior, doesn't it? - Chapter 3

Boys are more likely to do physically risky behavior than girls, and they are more likely to do it around other boys, and not stop when a parent asks them to. Boys and men are more likely to drown and have gun or head injuries. They attribute their accidents to bad luck, not bad choices. They get a kind of rush when they take risky behavior; whereas girls, may have more of a sick feeling, which is due to the autonomic nervous system. It seems to me that they take more risks because it's fun. Most of the time nothing bad happens, but when something does go wrong, the consequences are big. After boys successfully complete risky behavior and succeed, they are more likely to do it again because they see they were able to get through it the first time and the consequences weren't that bad. Boys in a bike simulation were less likely to brake in a dangerous situation than girls. Girls were more fearful and cautious. Boys also "overestimate their abilities while girls are more likely to underestimate their abilities." Girls need encouragement to take risks. 

In regards to risks with employment, men are more likely to be CEOs even though there are plenty of well-trained women. Men are still more likely to start their own businesses and be leading politicians. Women still make 73% of what men make, but part of that is explained by differences in occupation (like male software engineer vs female teacher). Even when adjusted for the same work, education, and hours, there is still a significant gender gap in pay persists. Sometimes this is due to men asking for more money (taking a risk), when sometimes women don't. Starting salaries of men were 8% more than women. 57% of men asked for more money in hiring negotiations, but only 7% of women asked. Students who asked for more money seemed to get more money. - Chapter 3

It's safer for a boy to participate in organized sports than to have him participate in unsupervised activities (like skateboarding). If he takes unacceptable risks just take away/disable the thing. Don't negotiate or argue. Lock up the bike, take away the helmet. - Chapter 3

Can I just tell you that chapters 2 and 3 just explained my husband??? This chapter made him make so much more sense!

Chapter four is on aggression.  Apparently boys fight 20x as often as girls, but boys are more likely to be better friends later, after the fight. Girls, on the other hand, don't fight with fists, but with words, and are not likely to make up later. This was the same as in chimpanzees. 

At 2 years old, boys tend to prefer violent stories; girls prefer warm and fuzzy stories. In another study of 5-7 year old kids, girls who chose violent stories tended to have behavior problems; however, boys who also liked violent stories did not necessarily have bad behavior. - Chapter 4

Ten year old kids were asked what if someone took your soccer ball and you hit the other kid to get your ball back. Boys tended to not feel guilty about hitting back and felt like others approved of their behavior. It brought up their standing with other kids as long as it wasn't bullying. Ten year old girls, on the other hand tended to feel guilt for hitting and felt that their peers would look down on them for acting back at the ball-stealer. - Chapter 4

Girls are more interested in babies than boys. - Chapter 4

When boys want to make friends, they are sometimes playfully aggressive, like pulling pigtails or teasing. Girls rarely do this. When treated like this by someone else, boys tend to know to tease back. (I don't know if I've seen this?) - Chapter 4

Chapter 5 is about school. Although teachers teach boys more actively, boys are 1.5 years behind girls in reading and writing and are less committed to school and less likely to go to college.

Small group learning is a great teaching strategy for girls, but not for boys. Girls are more likely to ask for help in assignments. Boys might get rowdy rather than ask for help. Asking for help lowers their social status; even the geeks know this. Boys do better with some competition and timed activities. Those teaching styles stress girls out. Sax again convinced me that there are some great things that can happen in single-sex education.  - Chapter 5

Chapter six is about kids and sex. Some of the descriptions of what kids do was bit much for me, but after that part was over, there were some really good things. 

Sax points out that impersonal sex is harmful to young men because it doesn't allow them to create relationships that they'll want and need later in life. They're less likely to have guy friends as they age. Lonely men are more likely to die of suicide and experience depression, and die of illness. Women, however, have other relationships in their lives, and can fill that emotional void with other people.

Sax suggests sex should be reserved of responsible adults. A boy who exploits his girlfriend for his own personal pleasure and neglects her needs sets himself up for loneliness and failure.

Tell your kids what you think about sex. Even though we don't think they listen, most kids still say their parents are their most influential people.

Tell your kids they MUST tell you they are going to another party after leaving a party. 

No more than three years age difference between your daughter and the oldest boy in the group.

Encourage girls-only activities, including sports. This builds girls' self confidence and they're less likely to be sexually active. Sports help them not focus "on the rating and dating game." Boys who play competitive sports are more likely to be sexually active than non-athletes. Boys will also feel more self-esteem with being a good athlete, and increases his likelihood to have sex. Sports make boys more popular. Girls choose to have sex to help them feel more accepted.

Sometimes girls drop out of sports because they don't like people looking at them (I definitely don't like people looking at me!). So girls' only sports and PE are good.

Girls are more likely to participate in girls'-only PE. (I'd say true. As a kid in SLC, we had girls' only, and it was fine. In Davis County, it was combined, and boy I hated it.)

Have girls do activities where the focus is on what she does, not on how she looks.

There are no activities that are proven to decrease boys' engagement in sex. Sax encourages, cross-generational activities where older men teach younger men good behavior, like Boy Scouts, Somos Amigos, (or Young Men's).

Chapter 7 is on drugs. Academic stress in girls is a pathway to substance abuse.

Danger doesn't deter boys, it may spur some boys on. Educating boys about the dangers of drugs can be counterproductive because they may want to try to prove the teaching wrong; think of "This is Your Brain on Drugs." That commercial worked well on girls, but not on sensation-seeking, risk-taking boys. 

Eat dinner together. The more often teens have dinner with their families, the less likely they are to smoke, drink, or use drugs. This protective effect is greater for girls than boys, but is still good. You know what your kids are doing; you are involved in their life. They have to be home for dinner, then they can't be somewhere where you don't know what he's been doing.

Chapter 8 was on Discipline. I'm not so sure about how I felt about this chapter. It seemed pretty old-fashioned and strict. I think that was the point that Sax was trying to make though---that we're having all the problems we're having now because we're not strict enough, and kids are just running all over the place making all sorts of crazy decisions. He says we've had a loss of parental authority, which I think is true. The kids seem to have the power, not he parents.

Obese kids tend to be disobedient.

"If you're spending more time disciplining your child than your spending enjoying life with your child, then you need to spend more time having fun with your child." Yes, that one hit home for us.

Bad behavior in the past needed discipline, but today it's considered a psychiatric problem. Now that's something to explore.

Chapter 9 is more what I thought the whole book would be about, but it's just this one chapter on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans. This is the chapter where I'd like to know the more up-to-date research. Sax seems to be pretty fair in his science-backed conclusions. Sometimes I expected him to conclude one way, when he would go the other way, based on science. To me, he seemed unbiased. Honestly, I wish I would have heard some of this stuff years ago because the whole trans-movement of today confuses me and is heartbreaking, especially when it comes to fitting with our church.

There does not seem to be any difference between straight and gay men's brains. In the 90's there was some research stating a difference, but newer research states otherwise. There are subtle differences, but not significant. Causes may be genetic.

Some research indicates that trans brains are more similar to to other sex that they feel they better relate to.

Old research claimed that lesbians were that way because of negative sexual trauma/experience in the past, but newer research doesn't support that. It appears that there may be a stronger genetic factor.

One researcher found that because women and men experience sexuality differently, thinks gay/straight may even mean slightly different things to men and women. Some women only become sexually involved with another woman because it seemed like a natural next step, not because she wanted the sex. Some of these women reject the labels, but just want to connect with others as an individual. I was talking to an old neighbor the other day and she said she was "pan sexual." I had no idea what she was talking about and had to look it up (it's that connecting with another individual). I wondered, but isn't that what we're all looking for? But when we want to procreate, we just have to limit it to a member of the opposite sex so we can have that benefit and follow Heavenly Father's plan? Nothing says you can't have close relationships still with members of your same sex. Sax says, some women's non-sexual "relationship with each another might be more intimate and more emotionally fulfilling than the sexual relationships they have with their boyfriends or husbands."

Female astronauts are prone to dizziness after a flight. Only 1/4 non-pilot men (the pilots appear to be more "masculine" and don't get this dizziness) seem to experience this same phenomena and it is believed they have a bit more female physiology. Sax shares a study of baby boys who are more timid, fearful, and withdrawn, and these seem to be the ones that grow up to have more allergies, asthma, eczema, regular resting heart rate (without variation as in other boys), narrow face, don't like rough & tumble play, are precocious, loners, and prefer non-contact sports. Apparently a parent can help a boy through this timidity through strong discipline before the age of three. If the parent is too sensitive to the boy, he won't grow out of it.

There are a couple of quizzes at the end of the book on how female or male you are, or how your brain works. There were only 10 questions for each quiz, so I don't know how accurate it is. It was interesting and quite funny. We had our whole family take it, well except for our missionary son in California. Here's a link to the quiz, but the author forgot to put how to score the male section, but it's similar to the female section. http://feministing.com/2009/10/23/how-masculinefeminine-are-you/ 

I scored in the most feminine category, which I thought was weird because I'm not all that girly. But I guess that's the point, it wasn't a quiz about how culturally girly you are, it was how much your brain does what other female brains typically do. I scored a 0 to negative one in the masculine category, which I thought was interesting, too, because I do like some traditionally guy activities like building and camping etc., but of course those weren't the types of things the quiz asked. Daughter #2 got the middle category on feminine and 0 on masculine. My husband got middle masculine and zero feminine. Daughter #1 got the highest masculine category and the lowest feminine category!!!! She didn't get a zero, but I think she got a two. My husband got a 5 in masculine, and that daughter got a 7! If you adjust for some of the things my daughters just wouldn't know in the quiz, that would bring the older daughter into the middle category, and the second daughter into the higher feminine category with me. I do wonder how my son would score. I would imagine he would score higher on the female quiz than my husband, and probably in the middle on the male quiz like my husband?

So, like I said at the beginning, this book is a little old. I thought it had some interesting insight and research, and I'd love to see the updates. In some ways it was more of a child raising book than anything else, and I wonder how it would have influenced the raising of my children had I read it 18 years ago!

Monday, January 3, 2022

The Proclamation

 You guys. I'm starting to have more time now that my youngest is in kindergarten and my oldest is on a mission in California. (Well I would have more time, but I started painting the interior trim when my girls got Covid in August, and I'm still working on it! Once that is done, I should have a whole 1 hour and 45 minutes some days when my youngest is in kindergarten.) Maybe I'll write more. Not that anyone reads blogs anymore, haha. But, the last while I've been listening to podcasts, lots of them. Sadly, I haven't written down what I've learned like I used to when I read stuff, so it will be difficult to go back and find what I learned. However, I wanted to jot down one really great podcast my husband recommended after he listened to it. I'd listened to a lot of the Follow Him podcasts with John Bytheway and Hank Smith, but I'd missed the on on The Family: A Proclamation to the World, Dec 10-11, parts 1-2, episode 51 with Dr. Jenet Erickson. She touched on gender, the importance of fathers, preside, the sexual revolution, and so much more. It was so good, and worth taking notes on, even though I didn't!

Sunday, August 29, 2021

Boys Adrift and Mens' Organizations

As I've been repainting the trim from yellowish to white in our house (this project started just before school began when the little girls caught Covid and they were isolated to the office, so I knew I'd have a little bit more free time as I wouldn't be taking care of them quite so much), I've been listening to books, primarily the Maze Runner books, and podcasts including Jay Mac as well as several on Come Follow Me. A friend a bit ago mentioned how good Boys Adrift (2016) by Leonard Sax was, so while I was waiting for the last Maze Runner to become available, I grabbed Boys Adrift. IT WAS SO GOOD! The Maze Runner was fun, but....

I've heard many of the concepts mentioned in the Boys Adrift, but never to that depth and never all together. I particularly enjoyed chapter 3 about boys and video games. Luckily, my son (now 18) has never really been into video games, but the information was still fascinating. Sax mentions how distractibility is rewarded in video games like Call of Duty. It is treated like an asset, not a liability (usually it's not a good thing to be so distracted). Risky actions are rewarded and required. Boys who play violent video games are more likely to be pulled over and engage in risky driving. They are three times more likely to be in a car crash in the next five years as compared to those who don't play those games. Not only does the sitting around lead to weight gain, but the games tend to have an appetite stimulus effect. Boys who play violent video games tend to see themselves and others as less human. They experience a myopia for the future despite negative consequences. Violent video games are worse than non-violet because the players become desensitized to violence and have less empathy and a loss of connectedness. Success in the virtual world overrides success in real world. Apparently there is lots of evidence saying this can happen. We need to learn patience in real life, not just blowing something up when we don't like it. Boys used to hunt and fish and learned patience in doing those activities, but it is not being learned now. Sax implies there's a connection with these behaviors to ADHD.

In chapter 7, Sax talks about guiding boys to manhood and girls to womanhood. He says people who have a community helping their kids make this transition are most successful. Parents cannot do this alone. He mentions how the Navajo teach boys to be men. He mentions helpful organizations such as Boys to Men, as well as the Boy Scouts, and I believe he one called Somos Amigos who teach: using your strength in the service of others. I started to think about our Priesthood organization and Relief Society and even our youth programs. It was so interesting that he said this about the organizations because like many, I've wondered why this whole hierarchy of priesthood organization when the women don't have an equivalent. Additionally, why did the boys in the church have the Boy Scouts and the girls didn't have the equivalent. I've heard people say, well men/boys need an organization like that; whereas the women and girls don't. That never felt really fair, but according to Sax, there's actually some truth in it. Men apparently thrive more on these hierarchies and goals and competition, and women don't respond to it quite the same; it's not as necessary. Then, there was that whole thing about using your strength to serve others! Isn't that what the priesthood is? A way for the men of God to organize and serve? Honestly, I've heard more than once that without the priesthood, men just aren't likely to organize and serve like the women are. That felt so unfair to the men, but I suppose there's some truth to it. Also in regards to others who help our youth become adults, yesterday, two of my kids got to participate in youth conference. So, I had a greater appreciation for those youth leaders who are helping my kids learn how to become women and men. I'm so grateful for this Church that helps me raise my children into adults. Anyway, lots to think about.

Chapter 8
Sax says he likes to share true stories of real men and the value of masculinity without disrespecting women and devaluing them. He tells the story of Joshua Chamberlain, born 1828, who was educated and inspired to help free the Black slaves. He wanted to serve in the military, but his school wanted to send him to Europe instead. He decided to enlist and led the 20th Main in the battle of Little Roundtop at Gettysburg where they ran out of ammunition and turned to bayonets. This scholar and seminarian felt it was his duty to fight because he knew what really mattered. When it came time to accept victory, Chamberlian told his men to salute the defeated Confederacy rather than act unhonorably. His classic education taught him manners and how to be a gentleman. This was the only part in the book that made   me cry because there was so much sacrifice!

Anyway, this is kind of a ramble, but there's so much more good stuff in the book. I'd highly recommend it! I'm now excited to read Girls on the Edge also by Sax because I have four daughters!

Saturday, March 6, 2021

Saving Capitalism and Women's Work

I've been on a quest to learn more about the economy. It mostly started 20 or so years ago when I wanted to know how to invest money in the stock market when I worked. My dad never trusted the stock market, but our employers were (are) always saying put your retirement money there, so I wanted to understand it better. Finally, I'm starting to get it after listening to Saving Capitalism by Robert Reich. Basically many regulations were dropped making it, well less regulated, and there's a whole bunch of insider trading going on. The stock market used to be more predictable and make more sense, but now it sounds like it's kind of wild territory. So, it really helps to know the right people. But, that's not the point of this post, although I do have a lot more to say about the book.

In chapter 22 of the book, Reich is talking about the mechanization of jobs, and therefore the loss of jobs (lab techs, tax software...) to machines, yet the in-person service "one-to-one" jobs like nursing home aids, home health care aids, child care, etc. cannot and are not being replaced! It struck me that these are the jobs with the "human touch" as he says, and the responsibilities so often fulfilled by women/mothers. So, even economist, Robert Reich might say women/mothers are irreplaceable. It's easy to devalue women's work, but when it comes down to it, it cannot be replicated by a machine.

Raising Helpful Children

 I saw this article on NPR this morning while I was scrolling before getting out of bed.  Are We Raising Unhelpful, Bossy Kids? Here's The Fix

For decades, scientists have documented a surprising phenomenon: In many cultures around the world, parents don't struggle to raise helpful, kind kids. From ages 2 to 18, kids want to help their families. They wake up in the morning and voluntarily do the dishes. They hop off their bikes to help their dad carry groceries into the house. And when somebody hands them a muffin, they share it with a younger sibling before taking a bite themselves.

. . .I realized there are two key practices that parents, all around the world, use to teach children to be helpful and cooperative. And yet many American parents (including the one writing this essay) often do just the opposite. . . .

Basically, the concept is that when kids are little, we need to let them help when they are interested. For example, if we are scrambling eggs, let them try it. If we are cleaning, let them try it---even if they won't do as good a job as we would like.

The second suggestion is to regularly (like three times an hour) ask your kids to help in little ways, even as small as opening the door for you, or handing you a spoon while you are cooking. This helps them learn good cooperation skills.