Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 17
Gender Attributes That Affect Women’s
Attraction to and Involvement in Cults
Shelly Rosen, C.S.W.
New York City
Abstract
The author describes women who join cults as intelligent, active, and seeking
to make an impact. These women are looking for an environment where they
can experience themselves as powerful but not competitive, be part of a
community where they can get recognition and mentorship, and feel
somewhat safe from the gender inequities that characterize the culture at
large. In reality, most cultic groups are characterized by attributes that are
diametrically opposed to those they emanate and espouse. Thus, women in
such groups become anxious and depressed but have difficulty leaving
because the manipulative techniques of the leaders mirror the gender power
differentials to which women are accustomed.
During the past 14 years I have seen countless women in my clinical practice who are
current or former members of destructive cults. These women impressed me as strong,
ambitious, and intelligent. Whenever colleagues, friends, or relatives discover that I work
with former cult members and families of cult members, invariably these friends tell me a
story about a capable, independent woman friend of theirs who has shocked everyone by
getting involved in a cultic group.
Why are so many competent, sturdy women getting involved in cultic groups today? My
hypothesis is threefold. First, that most people, and, in particular, women, have difficulty
knowing that what cultic groups advertise and emanate is deceptive, and that difficulty
“knowing” is unrelated to intelligence or psychological strength. Second, what cults claim to
do and appear to be fits like a glove with the wants and desires of women today. Third, the
techniques used by cult leaders to keep people involved mirror the power relationship
between men and women in our culture, which makes it difficult for women to question or
to put self-protection before that relationship.1
“Semiotic Incompetence” and Cult Advertising
In his book, The Ambiguity of Change, psychoanalyst Edgar Levenson (1983) promotes the
idea that psychological and interpersonal difficulties are not the result of powerful,
conflictual, instinctive drives, but rather that people become symptomatic, get involved in
dissatisfying relationships, and feel frightened and overwhelmed when they are confused
about the rules of social discourse. He writes: “I am claiming that mystification is not a
secondary dissociation or fragmentation covered by anxiety, but a failure in a primary vital
skill. From this perspective, neurotic difficulties in living arise from semiotic incompetence
rather than poorly integrated internal drives” (Levenson, 1983, p. 34).
Semiotic incompetence is the difficulty people have in discerning complicated social
communications. I take Levenson‟s use of the word incompetence to mean a lack of
knowledge in a particular skill. He is not referring to a person‟s intellect, general emotional
stability, or general competence in dealing with the social world. This lack of skill, or
incompetence, can be compared to the lack of skill someone could have in understanding a
foreign language or grasping the rules of a particular sport it does not indicate an overall
inability to communicate or to participate in sports. For example, when a woman finds
herself feeling bad and confused when a friend is teasing her, it may be because the teaser

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 18
is being somewhat mean-spirited in the teasing even if he is smiling. The person being
teased may be unaccustomed to this kind of veiled hostility, having had little prior
experience with it. She may sense that “something isn‟t funny” and feel melancholy and
confused. Similarly, when someone says “Let‟s have lunch” to an acquaintance, the
acquaintance may feel uneasy and disappointed when the initiator is not able to commit to a
date.
In both of these cases, the recipient is “incompetent” to discern the particular
communication within its social context. In the first example, the teaser is expressing
hostility in the guise of being playful, and the person being teased is not skilled in
understanding all the nuances of teasing communication. In the second example, the
speaker is expressing a friendly phrase, somewhat common among business associates and
professional colleagues, and is not offering a specific invitation but the eager-to-meet
friend is not familiar with this “business person‟s” parting phrase and so feels let down. If
the receptive person in either of these examples were able to discern what was being subtly
communicated, she would not feel anxious, confused, melancholy, and uneasy. Instead, in
the first example, the teased person might feel angry or annoyed that the teaser was being
hostile, but she would not feel the uneasiness we label neurotic or problematic. In the
second example, the acquaintance might simply say, “Sure, I‟ll call you to make a date” --
without any intention of doing so, and be spared the discomfort of interpersonal confusion.
All of us have varying degrees of semiotic incompetence in different areas depending on our
family histories, education, and exposure to different social contexts. The following example
will highlight this phenomenon in a more intimate (and consequential) context.
“Pam”2 came to see me 10 years ago regarding problems in her marriage. Her first
husband died young, and Pam raised two sons alone while developing her own
demanding business. She was not eager to remarry unless she met someone who could
ease her burden, and most of the men she dated were less successful than she was.
Finally she met “Dan,” an elegantly dressed businessman who wined and dined her.
Dan was the first man to come along who said repeatedly that he wanted to “take care
of her.” Unlike other men, he was relentless in his pursuit of Pam, entreating her to
marry him. She finally agreed to marry him and to finance his new business venture
which “would make them so rich she would never have to work again.”
When she came to see me, Pam was having panic attacks and did not understand why.
She was feeling distant from her husband and guilty about her uneasiness and
withdrawal. Within weeks of beginning therapy, she discovered that the new business
was never started, her husband was broke, and he was still legally married to his first
wife.
Did Pam marry this man because unconsciously she wanted to destroy all the security she
had attained? Was she a weak and vulnerable person? Were her panic attacks a result of
internal conflicts regarding marriage and her sexuality? I believe, quite simply, that Pam
was unfamiliar with the nuances of the behavior of charm boys and psychopaths. Although
she was strong and successful, she was raised by honest, hardworking parents who were
straightforward in all their business dealings. Pam‟s parents‟ words matched their deeds. My
client was, as Levenson would put it, semiotically incompetent to tease out the subtle cues -
-for example, Dan‟s not making eye contact when she asked him certain questions, his
secrecy around his first marriage --that would have helped Pam understand just what was
going on with Dan.
The story of Pam and Dan is illustrative of the type of semiotic incompetence typical of
people who get involved with cultic groups. They have difficulty reading the cues indicating
that they are being deceived and manipulated. This lack of skill in discerning lying and
manipulation is prevalent in our culture. We teach our children to be trustworthy, trusting,