Some confirmation of a lot of my back of the napkin calculations, (in this post) especially after I looked up the BYU's sex ratio, and found that I had other, corroborating evidence that suggested that that number was correct not just for the universities specifically, but for the eligible bachelors and bachelorettes in the church overall. A few quoted sections:
Mormons today face longer tenures in singledom and a skewed gender ratio. There are 150 Mormon women for every 100 Mormon men, according to one study, creating a statistical dilemma that complicates church leadership's bold project to ensure all youth attain a temple marriage. In total, 51% of Mormon women over age 18 are single, according to internal statistics cited in a church public relations video, which leaked on the website "MormonLeaks." For these women, the dream of previous generations -- 87% of married Mormons have a Mormon spouse -- may not be statistically attainable.3:2 sex ratio in the church. Half of eligible women unmarried. And unlikely to be so.
The Mutual app is presented as if it's the way to solve this dilemma, but it's not, except in the case of a relatively few individuals who find success with it. More quotes from the article:
There's no data to prove that Mutual will ensure the continuity of Mormonism. Stories of marriages from the apps are powerful anecdotes, but their evidence is only qualitative.
Mutual also shares the criticism that has recently been levied at Tinder: that the prospect of infinite choice is making users lazier, and more selective. According to Pew, roughly 1/3 of online daters fail to convert on a fourth down -- they chat with matches on apps but say they have "never" been on a date with someone they met online.
As I described in my last post on this particular topic, unless you're one of the General Authorities, or a Singles Ward bishop, or the High Councilor over YSA and SA in your stake, or some such, it's probably not something you should or even could worry about much other than making sure that your own kids—especially your daughters—are prepared for the environment. Because seriously; what can you do about a 3:2 sex ratio? It's all well and good to talk about retention and activation, but that's already a major emphasis anyway. It's not changing the ratio overall. Unless plural marriages come back, there's going to be close to half of all women who just simply can't get the temple marriage that they want because the numbers preclude it. It's just math. Harsh, black and white, and unassailable. Plural marriage is the only solution to that particular conundrum.
But in the meantime, what you want to do is 1) teach your daughters how to greatly reduce the odds of being one of the nearly half of all women who are left behind by teaching them how important it is to be the kind of woman that will attract the kind of man that they want to marry, rather than simply believing that simply showing up at one of the BYUs is sufficient, and 2) teach your sons to take marriage seriously, and to be selective and discriminating.
The single biggest challenge most of the girls who end up not being married will face is the specific constant cultural thread runs through Western civilization that teaches women and girls to be narcissistic, honestly. That they're entitled to everything that they want just because they're such special little princesses, who graced us with their presence. Because they showed up, and daddy loves them, and Heavenly Father loves them, so why shouldn't everyone else too? That being pleasant to be around, that being likable, that focusing on skills and personality traits that will actually make you a high quality wife, mother, home-maker, etc. are passé, and should be passed over in favor of careerism, self-indulgence, self-actualization, etc. This persistent threat in our culture is one of the most pernicious, because there are few things that have led to more destruction (and less formation in the first place) of the family, which is integral to God's plan for us and our happiness.
Another recent anecdote from my recently married son. He came out to visit us recently for a few days. His wife couldn't get the time off work, but he was free, between classes, etc., and we were willing to pay for it, so he spent about a week here at home. His wife said in church while he was gone that many other young married couples commented to her that they never would have "let" their husband go away on a trip to visit his family for a few days. Huh? My son is very lucky to have married someone who has no trace of this kind of entitlement, but it was a great opportunity to speak to my other, younger, teenaged sons about the idea. It is important as a husband that you listen to and counsel with your wife. That you take seriously her concerns and worries. That you make decisions together, and be of one mind as much as possible. But that's a long way from the idea that a wife has any right to "let" her husband do anything. What kind of self-respecting man would ever take seriously as a spouse a woman who feels that she's entitled to put a leash on her husband? What self-respecting man would tolerate for long having that kind of leash? No, most likely that's a time bomb of building resentment waiting to happen. And while maybe the "let" language is spoken halfway jokingly, I've been around long enough to know that it's only halfway, if that. If it is a joke, it's funny because it's all too often true.
Now, I don't mean to put that burden entirely on the shoulders of the young women of the Church, of course. Young Men falling into inactivity and otherwise being unavailable to marry worthy young women is completely unacceptable; an abdication of duty and privilege both. Young men turning away from marriage because they're turned off by the bad behavior of too many of the young women that they interact with isn't much better. This is sometimes called the MGTOW movement; "Men Going Their Own Way" and it is a reaction to the gynarcho-tyranny tendencies of our society. Dr. Helen Smith in her great book Men On Strike refers to it as men "going Galt;" opting out of institutions that no longer serve their needs, and in fact, actively attack and thwart them. (That book is really worth reading, by the way. I highly recommend it.) But deciding that marriage isn't for you because it's hard to find a worthy young women that you actually can stand to be married to for eternity is both a denial of the plan of our Heavenly Father as well as, ultimately, kind of an act of cowardice.
Young Men absolutely need to step up, be worthy, be the best versions of themselves that they can be, and be willing to preside over and lead a worthy young woman to the temple and into the formation of a celestial family. But the reality is still what it is; there will be fewer such men than there are women. Which means that the men who do this can afford to be much more selective than young women sometimes wish to notice. And that even so, a lot of young women will end up without a chair when the music stops, because of the mathematical reality. While this sounds rather bleak for young women (or the parents of young women) I think that things aren't quite so grim, or at least they don't have to be so individually. Pleasant, nice girls who cause little in the way of drama and headaches tend to find that they rarely lack for social company from young men. It's not sufficient, of course—but girls who do the best that they can to be as attractive as possible, to develop social skills, and frequent places where they can meet the kinds of guys that they want to meet, most often will do so, especially if they do so in a prayerful way, seeking and acting on inspiration from the Lord.
But again; you have to be the kind of girl that a man you want to marry would also want in return. To me, that's the part that is often missing, and which few seem to be addressing, because few have seen the pattern and the trend so that it occurs to them to address it. And so for those who can see the pattern, it's very predictable and easy to tell way in advance which girls are likely to find themselves unwilling old maids. Because they've developed few if any of the traits that would make them less likely to avoid that. I said flippantly to my sons once that those are the girls are might as well order up cat lady starter kits now, because the way that they're trending, that's the most likely outcome for them. But what else do you expect when you're actively broadcasting how uninterested you are in having men take you seriously, by cultivating a brand that's unpleasant, sassy to the point of constant irritation, angry or bitter or resentful, entitled, bossy and pushy, and otherwise the kind of personality that any self-respecting young man would never consider suitable in a serious candidate for marriage?Apparently, that's a mean thing to say, at least directly to a woman. And I agree that flippant remarks are unlikely to be taken seriously anyway. But unfortunately, it's true. And in the end, what's meaner, telling someone a wintry truth (to paraphrase Neal A. Maxwell) that they don't want to hear, but which knowing will help them have a happier, more fulfilling life, or telling them a pretty little lie which may make them happier in the short term, but which increases their chance at finding little more than a lifetime of disappointment for missed opportunities that she didn't even know that she was sabotaging?
No comments:
Post a Comment