I recently finished reading Richard Reeves’ 2022 book Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It. Of course, before I even read it my initial reaction, one he discussed in interviews about the book, was “Are you f***ing kidding me? It’s only been like five minutes since people thought maybe we should quit treating women like unpaid servants, and already with this?” But of course, we are back to seeing women as unpaid servants again (whew!) and fine, fine, fine, that’s not really Reeves’ point in this book (double whew!).
“The problem with men is not that there is something wrong with them—but that we have not yet figured out how to adapt our institutions to their changing needs.” Richard Reeves
This is a salient point–we have been making concerted efforts for decades to make centuries-long systems finally work for non-men, but those changing systems need to be adapted to work for men, too, unless we want men to grow into confused failures willing to follow the likes of Andrew Tate into misogynistic nihilism.
I also recently finished the excellent 4 part Netflix series Adolescence [1] about a 13-year old boy accused of murdering his female classmate who called him an incel on social media. **SPOILER ALERT** In the third episode, he explains to the psychologist why he became angry with classmate Katie who was someone “flat-chested” who should have been willing to go out with him because she wasn’t even that attractive, and besides, topless photos of her had been shared around the school so she was damaged goods. She spurned his advances, even when he showed her he had a knife. How dare she? In the episode, our young murderer has at first criticized the doctor’s offered pickle and cheese sandwich (this is a real sandwich? are the Brits alright?), but then he decides to take a bite out of it anyway, even though he doesn’t really like it, but now it’s ruined and nobody else can have it either.
The thought I had when I saw this scene was the memory of all the church lessons telling us girls that we should never decline an offer from a young man, for a date or a dance, because we might hurt his feelings, even if we had no interest whatsoever in him. It was our fault if we said no. It also reminded me of the saying that in dating, men are afraid they’ll be laughed at, and women are afraid we’ll be murdered.
Back to Reeves’ recommendations about what we should to improve how society supports the type of masculinity needed in a more equal society, here are the top ideas:
🎓 1. Redshirt Boys — Start School a Year Later
- Why: Boys tend to mature later than girls, especially in areas like executive function, attention, and emotional regulation.
- Solution: Encourage a standard practice of starting boys one year later than girls in school (“redshirting”), to better align developmentally.
- Impact: Helps close the gender gap in education, especially in reading and high school/college completion.
🏫 2. More Male Teachers and Role Models in Education
- Why: Only about 24% of K–12 teachers are male, and far fewer in early education.
- Solution: Create incentives, fellowships, and support to recruit more men—especially men of color—into teaching.
- Impact: Provides boys with positive male role models, reduces gender stereotyping, and builds engagement.
👷♂️ 3. Vocational Education and Career Pathways
- Why: Many boys struggle in traditional academic settings, but flourish in hands-on or skills-based environments.
- Solution: Invest in high-quality vocational and technical education (CTE programs), apprenticeships, and middle-skills training.
- Impact: Offers boys meaningful, well-paying career paths that don’t require a four-year college degree.
🧠 4. Mental Health Support for Boys and Men
- Why: Men are more likely to die by suicide, less likely to seek therapy, and face stigma around emotional expression.
- Solution: Expand mental health resources tailored to men, normalize therapy, and train providers in male-sensitive approaches.
- Impact: Helps reduce suicide rates, violence, and emotional isolation.
👨👦 5. Fatherhood and Family Engagement
- Why: Fathers play a critical role in child development, yet are often overlooked in policy.
- Solution:
- Make shared parenting the legal default after divorce.
- Provide paid paternity leave and support for low-income dads.
- Shift societal messaging to value engaged fatherhood.
- Impact: Strengthens families and gives boys better models of involved masculinity.
🧭 6. Rethink the Narrative About Masculinity
- Why: Cultural conversations about men often fall into two extremes: “toxic masculinity” vs. nostalgic patriarchy.
- Solution: Promote a new, healthy ideal of masculinity—grounded in strength through care, responsibility, and purpose.
- Impact: Helps young men form positive identities in a world of changing gender roles.
📊 7. Better Data and Research on Male-Specific Issues
- Why: Much of current policy and research is not gender-disaggregated or focused on boys’ challenges.
- Solution: Improve data collection on educational, economic, and mental health outcomes for boys and men.
- Impact: Allows for more effective, evidence-based policies and targeted intervention.
In the 4th episode of Adolescence, Jamie’s parents grapple with the potential of their own role in failing to meet the moment. His father in particular is disturbed by the idea that he has failed his son, failed to see the changes taking place, failed himself to model emotional strength and mental health, failed to be the father his son needed rather than just better than his own father.
Masculinity is not the problem. Bad scripts for masculinity are.
Reeves’ book has faced some critiques as well. Progressives worry about zero-sum narratives around gender. They also worry about how to successfully navigate the alternatives of vocational education and college academics. The political right disagree with recommendations like paid paternity leave and male teacher recruitment programs preferring cultural solutions to government intervention. Additionally, the right has become increasingly linked to figures like Andrew Tate and other manosphere darlings who are critiqued by the left.
- What solutions do you see to the crisis of bad masculine scripts?
- Did you read the Reeves book or watch the Netflix series from the OP? What were your takeaways?
- Historically, the LDS church has a fairly good track record with boys, better than with girls IMO. Do you think some of these lessons could be useful in the Church? If so, how?
Discuss.
[1] The single take episodes are an incredible cinematic feat–seriously worth watching just for that!
Wheat & Tares 
It’s a cheese and pickle sandwich. The pickle is a kind of chutney. It’s a tasty sandwich. Yes the Brits are okay. Back to the rest of the post..
Extremely interesting and important topic for both genders.
I’m a CPA and served a stint on the board of California CPA’s and when DEI was still a thing, we had a zoom call discussing this topic and the impact on the profession. So many white 50 year-old men clutching their gold chains. My board liaison was not a CPA so she didn’t understand why these angry white men were so up in arms about more opportunities for all. I had to describe to her that these men of a certain age labor under the illusion of a scarcity mindset, which is mind blowing in a professional field where people are overworked and university enrollment nationwide is very very down. There is way more work than bodies to do the work, yet they still worry about someone moving their cheese.
My point: re-wire privileged young white men to hold an abundance mindset rather than the scarcity mindset that has been shoved down their throats their whole lives.
Also, don’t let boys listen to JD Vance.
From a church perspective for example, while there may only be one male prophet, anyone with the right plumbing can receive the priesthood and progress to Elder. There is no priesthood scarcity. Can we help all men see that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness isn’t quota-limited, for example?
Thanks to COVID and some industries like accounting going permanently WHF/hybrid, I am seeing a lot more male volunteers in school, after-school, and other spaces where children spend their time. To wit, I currently volunteer in my son’s run club and my daughter’s PTA-sponsored musical. I do believe boys seeing more males performing invisible/free labor will show positive fruit in a generation from now.
I think Jonathan Haidt’s “The Anxious Generation” also has some good advice on how to help both genders become ok.
A lot of men are killing themselves–there’s definitely something wrong. There’s some disagreement over what the problems are that are causing such an epidemic of depression and suicide among men. Even so, I believe the primary solution to those problems can be found here:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng
I would like to see a solution for both the larger society that does a better job with mental health and does not hurt women. The church is “good” for men and it is women who pay the cost. So, now that women can find closer to equality out of the church, they are leaving the church. Things in the larger society need to get closer to equal and then hopefully the men will figure out how to feel good about themselves without having to put others down. Currently men feel good about themselves when they are the alpha male. But funny, not all men can be the one alpha…..so, what do we do with the rest of them. They have to figure it out. I really don’t think it is women’s job to make the men feel good about themselves. Girls should not be forced to have sex with incels. It is the incels job to figure out *why* women find them unacceptable as partners.
that comment froze up and it gets frustrating to always have to start over if I want to correct, add, or keep commenting. Could we somehow fix the comment box so it actually works?
Yes, it is time to change the narrative, but how is the big question. One suggestion I have is feature more men in child-caring rolls. And not as a single-parent or last resort situation. The simple truth is that more and more men are becoming stay-at-home parents and bearing the bulk of the parenting responsibilities, and in a normal way. That’s my situation. My wife’s job was more flexible, paid better, and was in line with her passions and interests than things that I was pursuing. So I stayed at home for the most part and did side jobs for some extra income. Eventually I started my lending business and trading stocks, which gives me lots of flexibility and time to be with kids, but still not enough to support the household. My wife’s sister’s husband, incidentally, is in the same situation as me. Honestly, I don’t think my parents have ever fully accepted or fully validated what I’ve done. They’ve been supportive of me and my wife, but have never fully been able to shake their antiquated was of thinking that the wife should stay home and the husband work. I think in the back of their heads they see my wife as depriving me of achieving my career goals. Sorry, but had I pursued my career, I would always be working overtime to chase deadlines and would never see my family. Nothing has given me more joy and relief than letting go of a dead-end career and focusing on my family.
First, let me join Anna in condemning this new comment box that constantly freezes and disallows editing before submitting a comment.
Next, it is sadly evident why males are struggling so much these days. They are being confronted with two many contradictory ideals. First, they are told they should model themselves after celebrities, with washboard abs and Bin Jovi hair. On the other hand, they are told that the ideal lifestyle is sitting in a basement playing violent video games, clad in sweatpants and crocs.
These tow ideals are obviously incompatible with reality. One cannot obtain a movie star body on a diet of Irish nachos and German beer.
How about teaching males that the greatest success is being a productive member of society who treats all people equally, regardless of race, sex, gender, or any sort of personal preference.
In one of my college physics classes we were told that men could more easily visualize rotation of 3D objects, thereby giving men an advantage in calculus. Since then I’ve come to believe that most behavioral differences between the sexes are learned rather than inherent. However the suggestions in the OP reminded me of a theory that seems somewhat plausible- that boys need to run around more outside than girls and perhaps struggle more behind a desk. You know – testosterone.
I dislike the idea that the church is beneficial for men – I think it’s great for *some* men but for most men in a patriarchy it’s not. I was inadvertently taught to be a “nice guy” which is a synonym for incel imo. I think males are taught that we deserve a woman who will obey us and put out whenever we want, after we pay our dues by serving a mission, etc. Lots of covert contracts and unspoken expectations that make for unhappy marriages in the long term.
As a white male I recognize I have a certain amount of privilege… but the system isn’t working great for many males. Treat men and women as true equals, not this placing women on a false pedestal BS and both sexes will be better off.
Also yeah – the comment boxes suck big time recently.
For everyone having issues with commenting, can you explain more about what specifically you’re experiencing? What do you mean by “freeze” and “disallows editing”? (I am not able to replicate any issues.)
Also, can you list which browser/device you’re commenting with.
Before my post froze up I was going to talk about those expectations that to be a real man you have to be an alpha male, and top dog in the dog show. Not only does the larger society teach men this, so does the church. I remember sitting through lessons in primary where the teacher said that “any one of you boys could grow up to be prophet.” Yeah, you have a better chance of winning the mega lottery, but you have about half a snowballs chance in heck that you will get to be prophet. All this kind of talk does is raise boys expectations that to be “successful” they have to be some bigwig important leader. But only a few ever get to even be bishop, so that leaves most men in the church feeling like failures even if they have a successful career and loving family. To misquote a prophet, “No success can compensate for failure to be top dog.” Butt hey guys, are you dogs that you have to be alpha of the pack, or are you human beings where being loved is the true success?
See, women are taught that being successful is to get a man and have children, with no worries about being top dog. So, when we don’t make it to president of the firm, or president of the US, or prophet of the church, we don’t have our feminism shattered. Now, there are women who don’t get the man or the children who feel like failures as women and that is a problem. But women learn to find other sources of success, instead of suicide.
So, in my view, the pressure to be top dog is what needs to change, both in the church and larger society. We need a different way to measure a successful human being for both men and women. But the unrealistic expectations of manhood is what needs to change most.
while we are griping about the comment box, could we also make it so when you backspace because you made a mistake, it doesn’t erase your whole post.
For the problems commenting, if you touch outside the key pad, it locks the comment box, and you can’t do anything but post or start over.
The other problem is that if you backspace at the end of your paragraph, it deletes the paragraph instead of the period you put when you really wanted a question mark.
I am typing from an iPad. Don’t even own a computer any more.
Browser is Safari.
OK, I have seen a bug report from wordpress about this on iOS. I think I have turned off the “feature” that was causing this. Would love another comment from an affected user if you can see if this is still happening.
This is a test comment. Inserted sentence after deleting and replacing preceding full stop. I am going to try and go back and insert a sentence. Corrected an error in sentence without difficulty. It looks as though commenting problems on an iPad have been solved. 😄
Test second paragraph. This isn’t affecting edits to preceding paragraph. Filled in submission details and came back to the comment box to add this sentence. It’s working much better now. Thank you. 👍
So, on the post topic. It’s not only boys who are feeling alienated, but girls as well, driving the sexes apart, at least according to a Guardian opinion piece last week. Apparently, while the boys are heading for the far right politically and all that entails, the girls are moving further left and going green.
As far as the situation at church stands, I have been seriously repulsed by the ever so full of themselves “aren’t I wonderful” attitude I have seen on display in recently returned male missionaries in my stake. I don’t want any of them anywhere near my daughter or nieces thank you.
I’ll also say, that while the church programmes might be good for some young men, they are definitely not a good fit for all young men, most especially for those who can see from the outset that they don’t fit the stereotypical model, and see little point in competing for the alpha position.
For myself, I am baffled by the idea that some women would find an alpha male attractive.
This comment has been much easier to write, even being so much longer than my first comment on this post, so thank you.
I don’t think that the “men are alright” in the church. I think the biggest problem that the men in the church face is being trained to orientate “gender first [and gender role] then human status”. I think that this creates situations that marginalize all individuals in the situation. This makes it easier for the man to see the stereotype/expectation before seeing the individual as a child of God. This allows them to objectify and pigeonhole women into the “mother/saint or prostitute” models before seeing them as fellow humans. This allows them to see their “natural man” stuff as “sinful acts that take away the Power of God in their lives” rather then dealing with themselves more compassionately and finding less self-harmful ways of dealing with stuff.
I need to dome a test comment too, but I will stay on topic.
I really like Hedgehog and Amy’s comments. Seeing gender first, gender stereotyping, and gender essentialism, and the whole idea of male and female complementing each other are all problems for both men and women. We just need to stop labeling people and deciding who they are by that one label.
For example, I was one of the very best math students in my high school. There were 5 of us in the very top class. I was the only girl. And even back when I had him in Jr high, this teacher had said I was pretty smart for a girl when I was top math student in Jr High. So, come time to get a scholarship, there was this national math test. But guess who did NOT get recommended. All the boys who had taken trig & solid geometry got told to take the test. I had those classes as a Junior. All the boys in this special top math class got told to take it. I got told that it was too bad I would never use my math for anything but doubling recipes. My math abilities, after all I had done, were still determined by what was below the belt instead of what was in my head. My teachers just couldn’t get past me wearing a dress to see who I was. I never thought I did math with those parts of my body! But I guess men think with their penis, so maybe they do. I decided the sexist a**hats didn’t deserve me and went into psychology because there they saw me as human first, female second. I CLEP tested out of all my required college math because I was SO done with the sexism in that area. Yeah, so that was years ago and school at least has gotten better. But not church.
Men need to start seeing women as human first and get over themselves. The crises men are in is only because their privileges are disappearing and they hate not being seen as better than all women just because testosterone makes them smarter, stronger, better. The white men really hate it because they are no longer automatically seen as smarter, better, stronger than men with darker skin. I want to tell some of them (not many of you here honestly) to grow the hell up. Stop acting like a pampered Russian princess and grow up.
And, yeah, I honestly like beta males best. The alphas are everything in men I find disgusting. Sense of entitlement, bloated ego, sexist attitudes, puts money and power before family and love, emotionally stunted, driven. I like my nurturing, emotionally available, sweet beta.
YES, problems fixed!!!
I honestly think that men go the “man first, human second” route and it winds up killing them as they compete with the mental image of “being a man” that shows up in their mind and distorts their sense of self.
“Natural man is an enemy to God” does not have the same connotation as “natural human/mortal is an enemy to God” even though the wording should be interchangeable. Using “man” with it’s key singular male original meaning extended to beyond that instead of “human” with a communal original meaning is in our community to point at individuals and their failure rather then a more diffuse and compassionate look at how the developmental process that each human goes through has points where we are “at odds with” God.
White men can’t jump to the front of the line any more. They have to wait in line like the rest of us, and they feel abused. While I realize it is not that simple, it applies in many cases.
My wife makes grilled cheese sandwiches with peanut butter and pickles. I laughed until I tasted one. They’re great!
There’s a black gentleman I follow in Instagram named Jason Wilson. Really interesting stuff. He grew up in some really rough neighborhoods and witnessed some really horrific things. Somehow, he was able to rise above all that and figure out a lot of what drives black men to behave the way they do in perpetutating a lot of problems that plauges that group. He runs this self-defense class, not to teach self-defence, but to use self-defense as a breakthrough tool to help black boys figure out how to deal with and approach all the hard emotions they’ve been wired into stuffing down. He helps black boys grow into what he calls being the comprehensive man. A lot of these boys, including Jason himself have fathers who left them. There is so much trauma there, yet they also live under the expectation that as boys, to become men you have to always have it figured out. I find it inspiring to watch Jason work, because what comes with a health man who can deal with all the male issues in a healthy way is better connection and presense with women and children.
I think Scott Galloway has also done a ton of research into masculinity and the issues men are currently experiencing that degrading their ability to engage in a healthy way with other men and also women. In addition to all that, I do think that one other thing we are witnessing, especially from white men is something I heard a psycologist refer to as the effects of behavorial extinction. It’s when a system or thing changes to incentivize a certain current behavior stop. The person engaging in this behavior with rage and ramp up the behavior to try and breakthrough the new barrier that is stopping it. After a while of this, seeing that the behavior can no longer continue, the behavior stops. I think we are in this phase where we are seeing the system change to longer accepting certain behaviors from these men and they are ramping up the behavior in response to try and protest the change. Eventually, it will stop….I hope.
Look at the church. Look at the marketing campaigns now to try and get women to stay or feel wanted so they stay–or the rhetoric in General Conference. I think this is their ramp up period in an attempt to keep a male patriarchical order in place. Yet, women aren’t buying it and are leaving. The behavior is no longer deemed acceptable. I guarantee you the structure will change at some point in response…but it seems maybe only after males leaders who think way too highly of their titles pass on.
I don’t know what the problem is now that we have eliminated DEI (which is NOT affirmative action) in favor of DUI, sexual assault, and lack of empathy. Males should be thriving. They’re getting the world they wanted.
The moves in the last century to address inequalities between the sexes is obviously a good thing. And there is still work to be done. At the same time, each gender has issues that should be addressed that re specific to that gender.
Education is a big concern for me when it comes to the treatment of young men. Yes, young women obviously face obstacles as well, but it has been clear to me that the current system is better suited for young women. Girls do far better than boys do in the same educational settings. They are « easier » to teach because they generally are able to sit and concentrate at a younger age. As a result, colleges are admitting and graduating record numbers of women, and men are not getting the same outcomes.
Ok the other hand, our church remains relatively limited when it comes to opportunities for young women (and women generally.) The current system harms both genders by elevating young men and somewhat negating the roles and abilities of young women.
I would love to see some of the suggestions by the author adopted to help boys. But there should also be specific suggestions to help young women in the church. Young women need more leadership opportunities in the church. End the silly names for YW classes. Teach seeing and car maintenance to both YW and YM. Have missions he the same length for everyone. Etc.
We need to do a better job of teaching boys and men not to feel threatened by women in their lives who have more education/skills/money/power/authority than they do. Get used to the idea of women as respected peers and superiors. Admittedly, as a “righteous” priesthood holding TBM raised with traditional Mormon gender norms, this did not come naturally to me in the entry-level stage of my career many years ago. I also remember while growing up, my blue-collar dad for a time had a woman manager at work (not common in his industry); when he came home from a frustrating workday, he would let loose a string of nasty, sexist criticisms of her, which my mom did not refute.
But with time, maturity, education and experience (including several iterations of female managers/supervisors) its become normal to me, and even more normalized among my colleagues in younger generational cohorts. I wish I had learned it earlier in life.
As a college student/young single adult in the Church, in those circles I occasionally knew LDS women who were pursuing advanced graduate/professional education, and certainly had the aptitude and drive to do well in those fields. The single LDS men largely considered them untouchable. Many of these women never married, at least not in the Church, and most of them I know have since parted ways with the Church altogether. I wish I had been mature enough back then to appreciate those qualities. But I also understand that LDS culture had conditioned me and other men to find intelligent, driven women unattractive. I have since repented, eventually marrying someone much smarter and more professionally accomplished than me.
Obviously, the LDS church does not help on this front, and makes the problem worse. A man deferring to a woman in the professional world today is normal, but in Church is unthinkable, as our power structure simply doesn’t allow it. My current stake president is a dentist in private practice; in the span of his entire career (both professional and church), he has never had to take orders from a woman. Despite being a decent person generally, he still has plenty of blind spots, such as focusing too much on the YM programs at the expense of the YW. There are lots of ways in which an LDS upbringing is limiting the social/emotional development of men, and this is just one.
I absolutely disagree that the Church has a good track record with boys. Sure, if one checks all the boxes: (first of all, being straight white male is required), “advance” in the priesthood, serve a mandatory “honorable” mission, repress any and all sexual urges, get married in the temple asap (again, those sexual urges) get into college, then law school or dental school etc. After all, you are solely responsible for supporting a large family on your single income. If your wife “has to work outside the home,” you’re a failure. If you don’t get on the leadership track, there must be some “worthiness” issues going on. Boys aren’t taught healthy emotional intelligence, healthy communication skills, or healthy sexuality in the Church imo (to be fair, girls probably aren’t either). And by the way you are literally responsible for speaking for God on a regular basis by way of blessings, ordinances ECT. Don’t f it up (again, those urges). I could go on. So, ya. Not too impressed with the Church’s track record with boys.
mat,
I’m sure you’re familiar with this quote from Will and Ariel Durant:
“A youth boiling with hormones will wonder why he should not give full freedom to his sexual desires; and if he is unchecked by custom, morals, or laws, he may ruin his life before he matures sufficiently to understand that sex is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a hundred restraints if it is not to consume in chaos both the individual and the group.”
The church may not be perfect in the way it guides young men–but (IMO) it leads a lot of them to live much healthier lives than they would without such guidance.
Alma’s counsel to his son Shiblon is telling: “See that ye bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love.” One of the keys to differentiating between love and desire is learning to bridle our passions. And it’s best if we learn it when we’re young–before we cause a lot of unnecessary heartache.
Jack, check the context of that verse you quoted. He was talking to the son that had zealotry problems, not the son that was sexually deviant.
Thanks, chrisdrobison. The quoted verse is in Alma 38, address to Alma’s son Shiblon. It was Alma’s son Corianton who had the sexual problem. Shiblon’s problem was different: “See that ye are not lifted up unto pride; yea, see that ye do not boast in your own wisdom, nor of your much strength. Use boldness, but not overbearance; and also see that ye bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love; see that ye refrain from idleness.” The counsel to Shiblon was not about sexual sin, as an earlier post would want to make us believe. It was about the righteous who become Pharasiacal, about the good who become overbearing, about the faithful who become too judgmental, about the person with a beam in his eye criticizing his neighbor with only a mote. The counsel to Shiblon is not to the sexualized person, but to the religious person. When one quotes scripture, one should check the context. The bridling of passions that Jack references has nothing to do with sexual passion, but with being overzealous in teaching, commanding, and leading people in the Lord’s name. Thanks, chrisdrobison, for making that catch. To Jack’s point, I agree with teaching restraint, but I don’t agree with telling young men and women those who have strayed that they are worthless, like chewed up chewing gum, and if we’re honest, that has been (and probably still is) part of our message. I’m not convinced, for example, that self-exploration is sinful, because it does not violate the law of chastity, which only deals with relations with two people, and I think the church has backed off what it formerly taught here.
Jack,
I think chrisdrobison and Georgis responded to your objection to my unhealthy sexuality point more eloquently than I could. My overall point is that the Church has historically utterly failed boys by setting up unrealistic fantastical expectations into adulthood, and then shaming them when they inevitably fail. Expecting boys to grow up to be Ward Cleaver, but with the Priesthood, has done one of two things: created a generation of patriarchal monsters who are “successful” in those terms (“providers” who rule [“righteously,” of course] over their families), or a generation of broken or emotionally and creatively limited men. IMHO, the extent to which Mormon boys have been able to grow into emotionally, sexually, and mentally healthy adults with healthy relationships (and there are many), has been in spite of the Church’s core teachings on gender roles (therapy helps) not because of it. While there are signs that this is changing, any male Mormon who belongs the millennial generation or older will continue to live with this unfortunate legacy.
Maybe, I’m proof texting a bit. Still, I think Alma’s counsel to Shiblon is comprehensive enough that the idea of bridling our passions can have general application.
That keeping our passions within their proper boundaries can cause us to be more loving is wisdom of the ages for us moderns.
I agree with Mat that the church sex shames the young men in damaging ways…but not compared to the sex and body shaming it does to the girls/young women. The young women are treated as if any sexual thought or feeling is sinful because good girls have no sexual thoughts or feelings. It isn’t just that we need to learn to control them or save them for marriage. We are not supposed to even have sexual feelings because good girls are nonsexual. And if your body shows in any way that you are female, you have to hide the fact. The girls are shamed about their bodies, told they are walking porn. They are shamed at girls camp that if they don’t put shorts and a t-shirt over their modest swim suit, they might temp the priesthood representative that has to be at camp to make sure the girls are not ever outside of priesthood control. Then if they have any sexual experience, even rape or child sexual abuse when they are small children, they are permanently damaged good, chewed gum, licked ice cream or cupcake, icky yucky spoiled food. Boys are never lectured on modesty because the girls don’t EVER watch them play basketball in the gym with their chest naked and lust after the boys. Just because the leaders are all *male* and have never themselves watched half naked boys play basket ball and had lustful thoughts, which of course good girls never never do. But the lusting after half naked boys is our sinfulness while if they lust after us it is also our sinfulness because we are not modest. It is *always* the girl who is evil. The girls lessons that say you are a licked cupcake don’t ever mention the idea that you might have been forced. No, we are taught nothing about rape, although 1 in 5 girls are raped and 1 in 4 have some kind of forced sexual contact. No, those common occurrences don’t ever happen and if you are not virgin, you are a worthless chewed piece of gum, fit only to be chuck in the garbage. And even if you were sexually abused by an adult when you were a child, you need to look carefully at how it was really your fault for existing as a female. So, guys, be grateful that you were only shamed for what you did or thought, not for your very existence or for developing a figure or being a normal human.
So, when we say the church does a better job with the boys, it is because you are given responsibilities that add to self worth. You are trained in leadership. Your self worth is actually encouraged. Well, admittedly it was probably better with the scouting program, but there are ways the church does a less shitty job with the boys than the girls.
This comments section is wild. The whole “suck it up princess” mentality is a core part of the problem. Being reductive and demeaning in the other direction isn’t going to solve anything.
There is no question that there have been major issues in the treatment of women or that that there’s still progress to be made. But this isn’t a competition and it’s certainly not zero sum. Men doing well does not mean that women have to suffer, and vice versa.
The current struggles many men are having are not because they’re whining about losing their privileges. It’s a void in identity and purpose that is having real, measurable consequences on individuals, on families, and on society. And based on the available data, there’s no indication that those trends are slowing down.
There is a dangerous vacuum in the lives of many men. If we fail to recognize and address it as a society, then that void will happily be filled by the conservative extremists and Christian nationalists who are already trying to force their way in. THAT is the what will erode the progress that has been made towards equality.
So we can take the data seriously, try to support those who are suffering regardless of gender, and try to make society better for everyone.
…or we can be dismissive, call struggling men whiney Russian princesses, and argue about who gets shamed the most at church for masturbating.
Jack, I agree that teaching self control is good. But consider something–that verse has always been deployed as if it were meant for the Coriantons of this world. It has hardly ever, in any context, ever been considered in the context in which it was given. And it may be that we’ve deeply missed out on something really important there. IMO, it is zealotry towards doctrines and teachings that drives people away and causes all damage we consistently see. Consider all the rhetoric around women, modesty, prophets, one true church, priesthood, male/female roles, blacks, indians, nature of God, LGBTQ, etc–imagine if that were all bridled and more measured rather than dogmatic and certain. We literally teach violations of chastity as a sin next to murder, imagine if that went away and we could talk about it much more measured, healthy terms. Frankly all that kind of rhetoric has done is create shame and fear around the feelings we all naturally experience in our bodies as if the devil as some outsized influence. That leads (according to the data) to break downs in marriage relationships and it actually makes the pornography problem worse. And when one generation cannot pass down healthy habits and perspectives of dealing with life and its experiences, then we continue in perpetuated suffering. Frankly at this rate, I’m not sure why any one would want the resurrection when we are so afraid of the “sin” we can commit in our bodies and brains and the sin that really is taught that is the body itself. We keep talking about having perfected bodies and that magically all these physical temptations we have will just not be there any more. That kind of makes having a body kind of pointless if all the sensations that a body brings with it are magically taken away.
Pirate Priest, I’m going to push back a little bit. But, I would love to see the data you are referencing to learn more.
“The current struggles many men are having are not because they’re whining about losing their privileges. It’s a void in identity and purpose that is having real,”
I agree and disagree. There is some interesting research (I’ll have to find it) the dug into why it seemed like the 1950s through some of the 60s was considered some of the US’s happiest years (for a particular segment of the population–the whites, but that gets extrapolated to being the whole US). Turns out the there were only ~3 major news sources, very few sources of entertainment and information. Community was church centric. Communication was very limited to your immediate co-located circles, anything beyond that was through slow asynchronous methods so outside influence was just not that big. The entertainment and news sources were all run by successful white men. Their messages, aimed at white families, were positive by framed in traditional patriarchic roles. All of this is essentially driven by “the church” (meaning really the large Christian movement, not some particular institution). In short, men have been handed their defined role and meaning by the church. And following that formula means prosperity, success, respect and power. I mean, those 4 things are drugs. As far as I have gleaned from some of the data, those were some good times, but also very much a facade as well as that was an epic time for keeping up appearances. Men were expected to have it all together and have it all figured out. They were the presider, the leader, the father, the wisdom giver, etc. Fast forward to the age of the internet and now the communication barriers are non-existent. Global communities can easily form around any topic or idea. Turns out that when a small group of people no longer hold total control over the thought of the people in news and entertainment, many start to recognize that the happiness we think they had may not have been what it really was. And you also get marginalized voices that have been suppressed by those in power being able to be heard now–women, children, non-white (in the US that is, other countries experience different power dynamics). Traditions, religious views, scriptures, politics–all of that has been men…all of it. And even though only a certain segment of “chosen” men. The Bible defines women as helpmeet to men. Men have been the center of the universe forever and that is in transition now and that will be painful for men. And that is okay.
Now that is not to poopoo any idea about helping men. They do need help like anyone else–and not just generic help, but help specific to men. But, it seems to me that what is happening to men is that they are still holding onto the framework they’ve been handed that promise power, success, respect, etc–and that is no longer working like it once did for a variety of reasons. They also hold tightly to living up to some of these toxic standards associated with what being a man means. Men spend very little time looking inward, but instead work super hard to change all the outward to compensate, because that is what they’ve been trained to do for millennia. Conservative extremists and Christian nationalists are just a slice of men going through withdrawals looking for another fix of the “glory days” where they are in power and control. It’s a powerful drug. There is plenty of help for men and I think there is a lot of awareness of male issues, but I think the real issue that has be tackled is figuring out how to get men to let go of all the toxic expectations and frameworks they think they need to live up to defined by religion and someone else, and instead find healthy connection to themselves and others.
We have just had a federal election in Australia. The conservative leader was soundly rejected, and even lost his seat to a young woman with an artificial leg. He had a number of trump like policies, and culture war things , but he was also trying to paint his opponent as weak, because he was kind and compassionate, toward women, and minorities particularly.
As America is much more conservative than Australia, and you have trump, is the idea that kindness and compassion for your fellows is a weakness causing problems in your society?
chrisdrobison,
I can’t help but consider how many problems in our society would be fixed simply by keeping the law of chastity. The difficulties caused by not (collectively) living the law of chastity are problems of the first order–the kinds of problems that have the potential to end civilization. 30% of children in the U.S. don’t live with their biological father–that statistic alone should frighten us to death. And so if we’re going to err–let it be in the direction of too much zeal rather than a lack of zeal when teaching the law of chastity. From the proclamation on the family:
“Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”
Jack,
What is your proposal? Do you want to codify the church’s law of chastity into civil or criminal law?
Some of that “30%” of children who do not live with their fathers is because of incarceration (which may or may not be something that the father could have done more to prevent) and divorce of parents with or without safety concerns regarding whether the father has the means to keep the children and partner safe.
In my limited experience, more men do not live with their fathers due to divorce then due to a lack of wedlock.
“In my limited experience, more children do not live with their fathers due to divorce then due to their parents being unmarried.” – That is what I wanted to say.
@chrisdrobison It’s perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of the idea that gender inequality has reversed course in some areas, because there has been such a long history of the suppression and marginalization of women. The suspicion becomes even more warranted in the current political environment. But once you take a step beyond that initial shock, it’s pretty obvious that there are problems.
The data really isn’t difficult to find. The author mentioned in the OP is a great source of real data in many different domains. If you don’t want to read his whole book, listen to his interview with Steve Levitt, or read the piece from Ezra Klein at the New York Times about Reeve’s research. Reeves is a nuanced and serious researcher…he’s not some muscly conspiracy theorist podcaster with no academic credentials. You could also read Sean Reardon, who is a professor at Stanford who focuses on poverty and inequality in education. Claudia Goldin at Harvard won a Nobel Prize for her research on the gender pay gap.
There’s also a massive difference in the perception between older and younger generations. Go talk to some older generations and they’ll roll their eyes when talking about the plight of men, but try to tell people in their 20s that you think men and boys aren’t doing so well, and they’ll say, “yeah obviously, the sky is also blue.” It just gets worse as you move down the socioeconomic scale as well.
I’m not going to make an exhaustive list of references, but here’s a few:
–There is a larger gender gap in colleges now than there was when Title IX was passed in 1972. In 1972 there was a 13 percentage-point gap in favor of men earning college degrees – it’s now a 15 point gap in favor of women. Most colleges are now split on average 60:40 female to male, and some colleges have had so few male applicants that they’ve had to actively try to recruit men to apply.
–In grade school, boys are trailing girls in literacy by 30 percentage points. The huge gap that used to exist with boys ahead of girls in math scores is essentially gone, especially in poorer schools.
–There’s a huge gpa gap in high schools where the top 10% of students are 2/3 girls and the bottom 10% are 2/3 boys.
–The suicide rate for men under 30 has gone up 33% in ten years, and now 80% of suicides are men. There was even a recent study looking at the most reasons listed in the notes they left behind, and the words “worthless” and “useless” were at the top. It gets even more bleak when you factor in other deaths of despair like those related to drugs and alcohol.
There’s data about labor force participation, family formation, earnings, education, mental health…The thing that’s more worrying in some of these areas is not just the current numbers, but the continuing trend downwards with no sign of letting up.
@Jack, zeal to chastity has been tried–for a very long time. Results are in, it doesn’t work, because it is not the root of the problem. The proclamation, in my view, has some good things in it, but is really just a codified snapshot of conservative christian beliefs of Pres Hinckley’s generation. I think it is worth considering, but it is not scripture nor canon and some of it has not aged well. In fact, I believe it was Packer that tried to refer to it as scripture, but then had to retract that. When Christians, including the LDS church, refer to chastity, what they are really referring is the reductive and toxic purity culture. Until the LDS culture is comfortable enough to talk about sex (or even just say the word) in a church setting without having it feel like some evil, gross or uncomfortable thing, we will never be able to approach the topic of health chastity ever. In our ward, a couple years ago, we had the yearly weird chastity talk and someone from the older generation said out loud that sex was too sacred to talk about. I just want to blurt out: “That’s the problem!”
@Pirate I didn’t mean to make it sound like I’m denying the idea that men are struggling, I absolutely agree that they are. And I’ve seen the data of the gender reversal. I guess I was just pushing back on it being just an identity problem. I see it being tied both to identity and privilege (or under privilege) in many instances, but I also realize that this is a very nuanced thing.
I think it’s a chicken-or-the-egg argument concerning male identity and male privilege.
Privilege defines “what one can get away with” or “is authorized for” (which becomes part of the individual’s identity). Patriarchal systems outline a lot of privileges that specific types of men have over other groups and reinforce aspects of an individual’s identity.
I don’t know if it is grounded in biology or not, but the men I know want to be “important to a specific woman” and have that woman dependent on them as part of how the man defines their identity. There is the “I’m worthy to be important to a specific woman” aspect, but it also ties into “if I am important to a specific woman, then they will take care of me”.
This wave of feminism questions that default assumption that a man intrinsically is worth devoting so much of a woman’s attention. The research is showing that when a woman hitches her stars with a man, she loses physical lifespan (a few years on average), hours of her time on household labor (It looks like around 8 hours a year as compared to her single sisters and around 24 hours a year as compared to her male partner) and earnings (though mostly when the woman has children). Add in the chance of intimate partner violence and sexual assault (we aren’t even talking about the “bad consensual sex” gray area here), and the understanding that when men get chronic illnesses – their wives stay and take care of them, but when women get chronic illnesses – their husbands divorce them. The rosy “I need a man” narrative looks like it’s a heavy price to pay to protect a man at the expense of a woman.
Now all this is threaded with “not all guys” – and LDS guys may have some non-abusive staying power. Some of what women are spending their time in yearly as part of their “household labors” may be more in line with “enhancements” then base functional requirements of cleaning.
But when there are a variety of really good reasons to choose “the man” or “the bear” or “nothing” – choosing “the bear” and choosing “nothing” does a number on the male identity development here. This situation is made worse by how the Patriarchy leeches power, authority, autonomy, and resources from men.
My husband shared a meaningful video game song with me that was an introspective bike ride on an errand of mercy for a friend. This mattered to him a lot and it meant something important to me that he shared it. One of the things that struck me about the song is that it was on many levels a man “mourning with those that mourn” and that the impact it had on my husband was far more massive then any church teaching had had. Maybe my husband wouldn’t have been ready for the experience mourning on a virtual bike ride at 14, at 24 – he needed to be in his 40’s for it to sink in. Maybe the church teachings were foundational enough to allow him to access that experience of introspection now, I don’t know.
Cynical update to my post about why women aren’t engaging with men….
It’s all the legal stuff. Women can deal with a reality of care-giving, but the red tape and paperwork to get proper care for their husband who didn’t take care of himself when he was younger becomes a final straw – and some of our young women are seeing grandma handle the legal stuff and the care-giving stuff and the stuff for grandpa and are like, “No – not for me”.
I get that males are having problems, but why do women have to mend them?
A glance at the legislative agendas in States with a preponderance of male legislators shows that very few regulations are designed to bolster women’s economic, social, medical, and emotional health. Note that Viagra, which addresses an issue which is neither life threatening nor debilitating is covered under most insurance plans while women’s reproductive care is often not covered or covered with an extra cost. In reading all the comments two quotations came to mind:
“A woman needs a man like a goldfish needs a bicycle.”
“A woman has to work twice as hard to be considered half as good as a man. Fortunately, this is not difficult.”
“…while women’s reproductive care is often not covered or covered with an extra cost.”
per https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/birth-control-benefits/: “Plans in the Health Insurance Marketplace® must cover contraceptive methods and counseling for all women, as prescribed by a health care provider. Plans must cover these services without charging a copayment or coinsurance when provided by an in-network provider — even if you haven’t met your deductible.” (There is an exemption explained on the page for religious employers.)
On another page at the same site: “All plans offered in the Marketplace cover these 10 essential health benefits:” with number 4 being “Pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care (both before and after birth).”
Is it really true that medical plans in the US can refuse to pay for women’s reproductive care? From another google search: “All medically necessary care related to pregnancy and childbirth will generally be covered by most health plans.” Of course, the deductible must be met, and the patient always pays a percentage of medical costs, but that is true for all medical procedures. I’m confused, but thought (perhaps in error) that most insurance in the US covered most women’s reproductive costs.
@Pirate my wife just sent me this out of the blue about male issues, it’s an interesting read: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/15GSs5Ubfw/
chrisdrobison,
I think preaching chastity has gotten old because we don’t want to hear it–not because it isn’t the root of the problem. That said, it may not be the exact root–but it springs very close to it. But the problem is people don’t want to hear about the root of the problem either–which is our failure to come to the Savior. And so what do we tell a people who refuse to live the gospel–that is, in order to cure most of the social ills that plague the West? We tell them exactly what’s in the proclamation on the family.
While the PotF may have theological underpinnings it can also be understood in purely pragmatic terms. And it’s my humble opinion that unless we wake up and start reforming our culture in a way that better reflects the precepts found in the proclamation we’re going to be in serious trouble–in the West especially–in the not too distant future. The West thinks it’s pretty tough these days–but I don’t think it has the strength to survive an internal collapse resulting from the shredding of the family.
@Jack, what we don’t want to hear is the same old tired rhetoric surrounding chastity. Chastity in church usually covers the same few things: no sex before marriage, watch your thoughts (the sex ones come from Satan, just stuff them down instead until you’re married), don’t touch the opposite sex, if you have sex outside of marriage you’ve almost committed murder and will be shunned—and if not shunned, be the ward pariah for a bit. You will forever be known as that crumped dollar bill, that shattered porcelain doll, that broke individual that made one choice that they can really never come back from that will forever make them the rhetorical example of condemnation. That may come across as harsh, but that sums up pretty much every chastity talk I’ve ever been a part of or talk I’ve heard. It’s couched in outdated and harmful views. That is not to say that there aren’t some good things in there, but you’d have to mine for them through all the layers of patriarchy. Patriarchy is what the PoF enshrines, which is in the process of tumbling right now, which is probably a good thing.
Now, what could the topic of chastity be focused on that would be helpful and healthy? It could be focused on normalizing sexual feelings towards someone else—helping them realize that this is part of being human and therefore, those feelings should be embraced with love and acceptance and not viewed as some Satanic temptation. They help us find deeper connection with another human being. In that same vein, we could talk about how to direct those powerful feelings towards useful things instead of trying to shove them away or think ill of them. We could talk about commitment and how those feelings can deepen that. We would talk about what a healthy sexual relationship looks like. I do not think anyone in the Q15 or their generation could tell you what that means or even looks like. We could talk about how marriage is the best place to further explore these feelings and really commit to someone and why shared commitment is important. We could talk about what it really means to give yourself or be in an equal relationship. We could teach men that women aren’t responsible for men’s thoughts. We could teach spouses how to communicate better, how to show up for one another. We could teach conflict resolution. We could teach couples how to have healthy conversations about sex. Etc, etc, etc. All of this and so much more is chastity. And guess what, all these principles apply to same-sex marriages just as well as heterosexual marriages. Even if the doctrine does not agree with same-sex marriages, at least it could teach all the same principles to at least give any healthy human relationships a chance to thrive. But good hell, we are so afraid of sex and sexuality in this church that all the lengths we go to to prevent certain things end up just creating more enticement towards it.
Jack, if the church wants to remain relevant, it has to change to keep up or get left behind. We can’t repeat the same talking points on chastity for 200 years and expect them to continue to be helpful. Culture is reforming. I don’t know that you see this but there is so much more discussion around healthy connection and healthy relationships—and it is occurring outside religion. Religion just does not remotely have all the answers or components to help people develop healthy relationships. It brings some good things to the table, but it misses very key things that other areas bring. If the church wants a seat at the table in this discussion, it too has to reform how it approaches this or risk getting left out and behind. We are seeing empathy and compassion labeled as toxic now by some powerful Christian voices. I think as far as everyone is concerned right now, Christian teaching is now taking us backwards rather than forwards towards better relationship with one another. Christianity, including our church, has beam in its own eye right now and until it can take it out, it has no business telling culture how to reform.
If we want to talk about “Chastity” in marriage, we need to talk about how most choices come down to a scale of “Purity” (rules enforcement) and “Loving Kindness” (connection). A super trite common example is that our modesty culture protects men from impure female shoulders by focusing on purifying the environment through garment wearing, through policing what young girls are wearing, and eventually showing unkindness and social disconnect towards those girls and women who bare their shoulders.
The problem that our church culture faces is it is so interested in “perfection” and “purity” (as defined by patriarchy – men in leadership), that it loses the humans in the equation.
At least 2x, women’s skirts on a system-wide level shortened in response to war because fabric resources could only support women’s fashion or the current war in a community – and the war won out.
chrisdrobison,
I appreciate your thoughtful response. I have to say–your second paragraph *is* my experience — and the experience of my 5 daughters — with the church on the subject of chastity.
Re: your first paragraph: I’m sure that there are still lingering vestiges of such things in the church. But my sense is that we’ve done a pretty good job of addressing modern sensibilities–without compromising the doctrine, that is. But however that may be, we should be careful not to assume that because some folks are offended by the doctrine that there must be something wrong with it–or with our presentation of it. Yes, sometimes we present it poorly–and we need to do better in that regard. Even so, some folks will be offended by the doctrine no matter how gracefully it is presented to them.
Re: the church remaining relevant: I’d say that, on the one hand, the church must always try to speak to the current culture in a way that is loving and inviting–and I think it’s trying very hard to do just that. On the other hand, the saints are a peculiar people–and there are some things about the gospel covenant that the world will never accept. And so, in spite of our best efforts to remain relevant in the world–we are going to appear outdated, bigoted, or even goofy sometimes. And as Neal A. Maxwell said ( in so many words) there are times when the world criticizes us–and we just have to “take it.”
Jack wrote,
And it’s my humble opinion that unless we wake up and start reforming our culture in a way that better reflects the precepts found in the proclamation we’re going to be in serious trouble–in the West especially–in the not too distant future.”
Jack, can you please share how you would go about codifying the family proclamation into civil and/or criminal law? Is there any other way to force non-LDS to start adhering to the proclamation to avert the calamity you foresee?
We can only do our best to get the word out–the gospel must be preached not imposed by law. And we members can certainly do a better job of upholding the precepts of the proclamation among our own ranks–though generally we fare better than the national averages vis-a-vis stable homes and so forth.
I don’t think that we need another role policing system in our LDS community culture toolbox to misjudge and abuse each other by.
Which is what would happen if we took that document more seriously in any environment.
The Family: A Proclamation to the World, was issued in 1995, some thirty years ago. The proclamation seems to declare an audience in the title: the whole world. But is that conclusion supported by the facts? Was the proclamation transmitted to citizens and officers of government everywhere? Did the church take out full page ads in the NY Times, Le Monde, The Times of London, Pravada, the Hindustan Times, the Wall Street Journal, and other major newspapers, so as to maximize the world’s exposure to the proclamation’s text? Did we ask mission presidents to deliver it to heads of government in countries across the world? Did we do a mass mailing? Maybe we did but I am ignorant, and I welcome correction if I am wrong. Printing in the Deseret News clearly doesn’t count.
Aside from the title, no audience is stated until the last paragraph: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere…” Great, except how do we know that the world’s citizenry or government leaders heard the trumpet blast? How did the FP and Q12 call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere? The warnings in the proclamation cannot be warnings to the world because the proclamation was not issued to them. If that is true, then they cannot be bound by it, for where there is no law, there is no transgression (Romans 5:15).
The proclamation does not warn the world about the risks of violating the law of chastity, because it was not, and has not been, delivered to the world. I see a proclamation as something akin to a trumpet blast or to sending a message to town criers in every village, but this proclamation is more like an edict published in Latin on one bulletin board in a courthouse. I make no comment here on the text of the proclamation, but I don’t see the act of proclaiming to the world. If we did communicate the text to all the world, someone please tell me how we did it. The target audience is only the church’s members. Am I missing something?
Amy raises a particularly salient point. Jack posits: “And we as members can certainly do a better job of upholding the precepts of the proclamation among our own ranks…” I agree with Amy that “we don’t need another role policing system in our LDS community culture toolbox to misjudge and abuse each other by.” Unfortunately, I have seen the proclamation used more as a weapon to bludgeon fellow members with, instead of as something to build, heal, grow, and edify. Does doing a better job of upholding the precepts of the proclamation among our own ranks mean that I measure my LDS neighbor by how I think he should be living according to the proclamation? Is that different from pointing the finger, shooting out the lips, and figuratively picking up stones to cast at an offender? Let’s admit that my neighbor has a mote in his eye. Didn’t Jesus tell me not to worry about the mote in his eye when I had a beam in my own? I am sure that Jack meant no ill will, and that he does not cast aspersions or stones at his neighbors for their failings, but the general truth is that in our Mormon culture (or in our mountain west culture?) our LDS compatriots are, in some ways, particularly judgmental and critical of their neighbors, and this ought not be. I would rather that we use the proclamation to model and teach right, instead of using it to point out wrong, but it was written to be a tool to attack, particularly in Hawaii and generally everywhere. It is a polemical document. It was written to attack same-sex marriage. Without getting into whether God approves or not, I have discovered that same-sex marriage in no way changes, invalidates, or casts shade upon my marriage. We use the proclamation more as a cudgel than as a flashlight, and maybe this ought not be so.
Jack spoke of church doctrine, but doesn’t a church’s doctrine exist for its own members?
And isn’t Georgis correct that the family proclamation has not been proclaimed to the world, but exists only within the LDS community?
I support the proclamation as church leaders (1) teaching church members; and (2) creating a text for lawyers to cite in the marriage argument — but I do not see it as revelation or scripture.
Jack says our world would be better if everyone observed the LDS law of chastity — but wouldn’t the world also be better if no one murdered, and no one robbed? I think such pie-in-the-sky statements serve no useful purpose. We deal with murderers and robbers through civil and criminal law, but Jack doesn’t call for the same for the unchaste? To me, Jack’s calls in this forum for the rest of the world to observe the LDS law of chastity are misguided, misplaced, and irrelevant, and are a distraction to the conversation that others are trying to hold (here, concern about men in our society). There may be a place for testifying righteously to sinners, but I look to this forum for honest, meaningful, and charitable conversations.
That said, I support the law of chastity as teaching and aspirational guidance for church members.
From STAR TREK II: Kirk’s former lover explaining why she never told their adult-age son who his father was. “Were we together? Were we going to be? You had your world, and I had mine; and I wanted him in mine, not chasing thru the universe with his father.” This kind of selfishness is part of the problem.
Jack writes “though generally we fare better than the national averages vis-a-vis stable homes and so forth.”
Source? Anecdotally, in my neighborhood outside Mormonland, I see no difference.
Mark Gibson
To be fair, David was promptly killed by a Klingon so Carol Marcus may have a point. (and I know what I thought when I saw red shirt boys)
This got recycled in season 3 of Picard season 3. (One of many recycled plots.) The admiral discovers Dr Crusher kept a son from him. Jack survives(barely) in this version of the story, when Picard rescues him from the Borg Queen.
Why does popular fiction keep telling this story? What sort of masculine script is this? (and a shout out to a different story with DS9 Miles and Keiko and family. Why does some of the fandom hate her so much?)
And in this version of the story, despite being initially very angry, Picard tells the Doctor she did nothing wrong. They’re all one big happy family(maybe). And Laris is still waiting at that bar in Chaltok IV.
Georgis,
I find it interesting the the proclamation was written at a time when the internet was just beginning to take hold of the world. And now, with the church’s website being almost universally accessible, the proclamation really does reach just about every corner of the earth.
ji,
Sexual misconduct between two consenting adults — as per the gospel — is not unlawful in the West. Plus, it is not always evident that such misconduct is harmful. And so, unlike murder or theft or what-have-you, we have to look for the problems that breaking the law of chastity causes on a more general level–that is, in order to identify them more clearly.
And so the question is: how does the West fare from a panoramic view vis-a-vis the question of chastity? And the answer is very, very poorly. 20 some-odd million children (in the U.S. alone) not living with their biological father is a really bad situation–not to mention the challenges of single motherhood and teen pregnancy plus rampant abortion, STDs and a host of other problems ranging from mental illness to unbridled criminality.
That said, government programs and policies may help a little–but they won’t be able to fix the problem entirely. In fact, I think some programs, however altruistic in their purpose, have actually done more damage than good. IMO, the only thing that can finally heal society from the ills of sexual promiscuity is adherence to the law of chastity. And the only thing powerful enough to cause people to adhere to it is pure religion.
Chadwick,
Here’s a good site sources:
https://mormonr.org/qnas/0uQ4aB/latter_day_saint_marriage_and_divorce_statistics
Jack asks, and answers,
“And so the question is: how does the West fare from a panoramic view vis-a-vis the question of chastity? And the answer is very, very poorly.”
Really? The law of chastity is observed more poorly in the West than in the East? Really? Jack, I think you have no idea how chaste people are (or aren’t) in the “East” — I am in the “East” for three weeks now, and was elsewhere in the “East” for two weeks last month, and will be still elsewhere in the “East” for three weeks later this summer — while I don’t pry, I have to think there is some unchastity happening somewhere in these parts even though I cannot do a comparison as you are able to do.
One of the things that is different is how it is dealt with. When a young woman in Pakistan, for example, is unchaste, her father or uncles or brothers may choose to murder her. In such a case, there will not be a single mother to count negatively in the statistics. So yes, the West’s rate of single motherhood might maybe be higher, but the rate of murdered girls in the East might maybe be correspondingly higher. They call them honor killings — you might approve of them as a tool to bring people to righteousness and reduce the rate of single motherhood?
I still think pie-in-the-sky statements (such as our world will be better if everyone lived the law of chastity) serve no useful purpose. They change nothing, they encourage no one. But they do allow some to look l on others with disfavor, and to blame those others for the world’s ills. As I wrote earlier, I see such comments as misguided, misplaced, and irrelevant. They might also be uncharitable.
All that said, I support the law of chastity as good teaching for church members.
Regarding pure religion, I agree with you — but pure religion is lived, not spoken. Living is more important than speaking. And to the purpose of this thread, I think more living (which includes patience and forgiveness) will help men and women in our society more than more speaking.
I don’t want to bore other readers, so I will not continue to engage on this point in this thread. I appreciate this forum for allowing meaningful conversations that could not happen in other spaces.
Dear ji,
Sorry for my muddled communication–I can’t always tell when my comments don’t say what I mean. But just to be clear: I wasn’t comparing the West with the East–at least that wasn’t my intention. I was talking about the West because of my familiarity with it–that’s all. And to further clarify: I’m talking about a culture–not individuals per se.
That said, I agree that pure religion is lived rather than spoken–but even so, it must be taught.
Thanks for the conversation.