We sometimes hear two related but distinct chains of reasoning about the consequences of what are perceived as womens’ natural tendencies.
Chain One: Women are naturally more spiritual than men. Therefore, men need a strong incentive to force them to better develop their spirituality. Therefore, men are given the Priesthood and church leadership.
Men’s primary role in church is thus intended to compensate for their perceived lack of natural ability.
Chain Two: Women are naturally more nurturing than men. Therefore, women should be the primary child raisers, so that children are raised in the most nurturing environment possible.
Women’s role in the home is thus intended to rely on the perceived presence of this natural ability.
Do either or both of these chains reflect your experience with LDS culture and/or doctrine?
Are either or both of these chains accurate, as a matter of fact?
Are these chains logically consistent? (Can they be reconciled?)
Could we flip the two? For example: Women are naturally more nurturing; therefore men need to stay at home to best develop that trait.