Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 21
In Jean Baker Miller‟s (1976) short, seminal work on gender inequities, Toward a New
Psychology of Women, she discusses the differences between temporary inequity and
permanent inequity:
The “superior” party presumably has more of some ability or valuable quality,
which she\he is supposed to impart to the “lesser” person. While these abilities
vary with the particular relationship, they include emotional maturity, experience in
the world, physical skills, a body of knowledge, or the techniques for acquiring
certain kinds of knowledge. The superior person is supposed to engage with the
lesser in such a way as to bring the lesser member up to full parity that is, the
child is to be helped to become the adult. Such is the overall task of this
relationship. The lesser, the child, is to be given to, by the person who presumably
has more to give. Although the lesser party often also gives much to the superior,
the relationships are based in service to the lesser party. That is their raison d‟être.
(p. 4)
Former cult members often report that they were attracted to their group because they saw
the group and its leader(s) as teacher(s) who could help them transform their lives. At the
time they joined, they were not cognizant of the possibility of the inequity being permanent.
What Women Unconsciously Desire and What Cults Emanate
In the preceding section I elucidated what women might be consciously thinking about when
they are being seduced by a cultic group, and how groups deceptively advertise that they
can fulfill those wants. I also believe that women have unconscious, that is, unarticulated,
desires that cultic groups appear to be able to fulfill. Whereas women are often quite
conscious and adept at describing their wish for power, altruism, and mentorship, they are
less clear about equally compelling wishes for safety from gender inequality and for
recognition.
Return to the Safety of Latency
Recent books (Gilligan, 1982 Pipher, 1994) reveal that girls are confident, outgoing, and
perform well in school until they reach adolescence. During the latency period, roughly ages
7 to 11, girls are relatively happy, are un-self-conscious, and enjoy hobbies and sports.
Reports show that girls‟ math and science scores plummet in the junior high school years.
Self-esteem ratings on psychological tests fall as well. When girls reach puberty and become
more involved with coed groups, confusion, acting out, and chaos begin. Research during
the past 15 years indicates that in mixed-gender groups, boys are attended to more by
teachers, and girls acquiesce to talking about topics important to boys rather than to
themselves.
Given that these social inequities begin early on, elementary education harbors some
protection for girls. First, girls tend to socialize less with boys during the latency years than
they do in adolescence, so there is simply less opportunity to experience the inequity.
Second, the structure of early education is more concrete and less subjective than in later
school years. There is only one answer to the questions, for example, of how a particular
word is spelled, only one fill-in-the-blank or multiple-choice answer to other questions.
There is a greater focus on acquired, concrete knowledge and “getting it right,” and winning
is not yet influenced by the nuances of social discourse or bravado, which can, for example,
have an impact on the grade a student might receive on a debate or an essay. There is a
certain kind of orderliness characteristic of both elementary education and latency-age
behavior that affords girls a significant measure of emotional safety from gender inequities.
Everyone is in a classroom, they have their own desk, they all go to lunch at the same time,
and so on. There is certainly greater adult supervision than in later years when adolescents
In Jean Baker Miller‟s (1976) short, seminal work on gender inequities, Toward a New
Psychology of Women, she discusses the differences between temporary inequity and
permanent inequity:
The “superior” party presumably has more of some ability or valuable quality,
which she\he is supposed to impart to the “lesser” person. While these abilities
vary with the particular relationship, they include emotional maturity, experience in
the world, physical skills, a body of knowledge, or the techniques for acquiring
certain kinds of knowledge. The superior person is supposed to engage with the
lesser in such a way as to bring the lesser member up to full parity that is, the
child is to be helped to become the adult. Such is the overall task of this
relationship. The lesser, the child, is to be given to, by the person who presumably
has more to give. Although the lesser party often also gives much to the superior,
the relationships are based in service to the lesser party. That is their raison d‟être.
(p. 4)
Former cult members often report that they were attracted to their group because they saw
the group and its leader(s) as teacher(s) who could help them transform their lives. At the
time they joined, they were not cognizant of the possibility of the inequity being permanent.
What Women Unconsciously Desire and What Cults Emanate
In the preceding section I elucidated what women might be consciously thinking about when
they are being seduced by a cultic group, and how groups deceptively advertise that they
can fulfill those wants. I also believe that women have unconscious, that is, unarticulated,
desires that cultic groups appear to be able to fulfill. Whereas women are often quite
conscious and adept at describing their wish for power, altruism, and mentorship, they are
less clear about equally compelling wishes for safety from gender inequality and for
recognition.
Return to the Safety of Latency
Recent books (Gilligan, 1982 Pipher, 1994) reveal that girls are confident, outgoing, and
perform well in school until they reach adolescence. During the latency period, roughly ages
7 to 11, girls are relatively happy, are un-self-conscious, and enjoy hobbies and sports.
Reports show that girls‟ math and science scores plummet in the junior high school years.
Self-esteem ratings on psychological tests fall as well. When girls reach puberty and become
more involved with coed groups, confusion, acting out, and chaos begin. Research during
the past 15 years indicates that in mixed-gender groups, boys are attended to more by
teachers, and girls acquiesce to talking about topics important to boys rather than to
themselves.
Given that these social inequities begin early on, elementary education harbors some
protection for girls. First, girls tend to socialize less with boys during the latency years than
they do in adolescence, so there is simply less opportunity to experience the inequity.
Second, the structure of early education is more concrete and less subjective than in later
school years. There is only one answer to the questions, for example, of how a particular
word is spelled, only one fill-in-the-blank or multiple-choice answer to other questions.
There is a greater focus on acquired, concrete knowledge and “getting it right,” and winning
is not yet influenced by the nuances of social discourse or bravado, which can, for example,
have an impact on the grade a student might receive on a debate or an essay. There is a
certain kind of orderliness characteristic of both elementary education and latency-age
behavior that affords girls a significant measure of emotional safety from gender inequities.
Everyone is in a classroom, they have their own desk, they all go to lunch at the same time,
and so on. There is certainly greater adult supervision than in later years when adolescents
