Scientology/Women and evolutionary drives
Lately I've been reading articles from the so called manosphere on the web. The manosphere is a collection of blogs, forums, videos that disagree with the way society portrays women (often referred to as the Disney version) and uses evolutionary psychology to paint a less flattering but supposedly more accurate portrait of women and what really drives them. This 'reality' is called taking the red pill because it's hard for men to swallow. A major part of this is that women are far more emotionally driven and less rational than men realise and that a strong drive for them is to mate with an alpha man (for genes) - equivalent of the tribal head honcho in pre-history, but be with a beta for day to day security. My question is, do you think there is anything to this (it seems to track well with what I have seen) and does this rather brutal animalistic 'truth' fit well with Scientology?
There is some biological and evolutionary effect on gender behavior but, on the whole, it is quite weak. One can find instances to support any theory - and that is what is happening in the "red pill" discussions. Similarly, anecdote, fabricated evidence and bad science are often advance as "indisputable proof" that, for instance, one race is genetically inferior to another. Same with the men vs women stereotypes.
What EVERY person is, is a thetan. Thetans do not have gender. What every human (body+thetan) is trying to do is to survive. Nature equips the genders somewhat differently, but not all THAT differently, and whatever gender a person's body is becomes part of the context of what options they may be able to employ toward survival (women, for instance, given the slight imbalance in sex drive between the genders, and being custodians of what men "must" have, gain leverage thereby). But it is not true that there are inbuilt and hard-wired genetic or biological behavioral keys that determine gender behavior. EVERYTHING (with the possible exception of sexual attraction) is modifiable by environment and education, and underlying EVERYTHING is a gender-free thetan making choices.
Hence, societal norms, outmoded though they often are, are MUCH stronger modifiers of behavior. Take for instance the "norm" that "girls don't fight" and "we don't hit girls." These are not biological imperatives. They are social norms. But one of the results of them is that females are freer to use verbal skills as means of attack and defense, means of manipulation, etc., than males. The penalty (under the "no hitting" rule) for female toxic speech is approbation, and the penalty for male toxic speech is often bodily injury. This molds verbal behavior for both genders, leaves women freer to express "emotion," and men more "reserved."
So what the discussions you are seeing are addressing is effects - not causes.