Last month I had a post - "The special gift" - that argued against women's intuitive understanding of men's needs being a special quality given from God:
https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-special-gift.html
(Yes, I know I am going slowly.)
That post was in large part a reaction to a talk, and a use there that struck me as profoundly incorrect Then last week's post was about how there isn't really a scriptural prescription for strong gender differences.
https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2019/01/this-may-be-stating-obvious.html
I hope those two can be building blocks as I briefly go over three specific harms that come from incorrectly attributing various skills and behaviors to God-given gender differences. There could be more to be said about these specific harms, and they are not the only harms that come from the current structure, but I think they are nonetheless important and need to be said.
The first is on a very simple level that we are not seeing reality clearly, which matters a lot to me.
A good analogy might be how we often talk about gifted musicians.
Perfect pitch may have a real hereditary element, and there are a lot of
genetic factors that can help or hinder. For example, having larger
hands (especially with longer fingers) can help you reach notes that are
further apart, but can get in the way of playing speed, at least on
piano. At some point, though, what matters most is the actual practice time
involved. An early inclination can help, a family can nurture that inclination, a home full of music can create a powerful background, but
being good at music takes becoming a skilled musician, with a lot of time spent developing that skill. It is not just accepting a
gift.
Crediting large-scale accommodation to women's intuition leads to underestimating women, and not crediting their actual experiences and abilities. "They're supposed to be that way" does not really appreciate the work that goes into it, which frankly is often exhausting.
Perhaps it is inevitable that the other side of not given women credit for their labor (or exhaustion) is not offering support.
I have thought of this more since reading Rene Denfield's Kill the Body, the Head Will Fall: A Closer Look at Women, Violence, and Aggression, inspired by Denfield's own foray into boxing.
One of the examples involved a mother with a colicky baby who was having a hard time dealing with the negative feelings this caused, including frustration and anger with her child. She even sought psychiatric help, but was only assured that her maternal instincts would keep her from harming her child.
It can be convenient to think that something is wrong with any mother who harms her child, but that philosophy left this mother who was not harming her child feeling like there was something inherently wrong with her. If the unwomanly thing is not acting on the feelings, but having the feelings in the first place, all that could leave her with was more stress and feelings of failure, with a vicious cycle. If you can admit that crying is stressful, and more stressful when you can't comfort the child but feel you should be able to (because of the power of a mother's love), and we can look at things like sleep deprivation and providing support to new mothers, and finding better treatments for colic, all of that is more helpful. It seems glaringly obvious, but then you hear the things people say on Mother's Day, and it clearly is not. This is not really doing mothers any favors.
But it also isn't doing men any favors to say that they lack emotional intelligence, or that they can't help themselves, and to excuse it all as boys being boys. That is the kind of thing that encourages men in mediocrity. That has no place in a church that believes in eternal progression.
And it is terrible to have smugly mediocre people in charge so much of the time.
Monday, January 28, 2019
Sunday, January 20, 2019
This may be stating the obvious
This series is focusing (if somewhat circumspectly) on the harm caused by gender dogma. I realize that it may be hard for some people to give that up, because it feels so essential and right: men are supposed to be strong and women are supposed to be soft and we totally respect both of them but they are eternally different and YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT!
To which I pose this question: is it women or men who are supposed to pattern themselves on the Savior?
Are men not supposed to be compassionate? Are women not supposed to have integrity? Are any of us supposed to be cowardly or prideful?
I don't see a strong scriptural basis for gender differences. There is definitely representation of existing cultural traditions, but if the best you can offer for proof is the Pauline Epistles (which I read, but I take some of it with more than a grain of salt) you are not making a convincing case.
I have referenced racial prejudice before for comparison; let's remember that people - including church leaders - accepted the prevailing beliefs of the time, even though we know it was wrong now. Part of their ability to do so related to the deep roots of those prevailing beliefs. There is a structure that is accepted, and there is social conditioning that reinforces the structure.
Looking at the gender structure for our day, sometimes that results in women judging other women and being catty to them. This is a way of exerting dominance in a culture where the men have dominance, and it totally isn't ladylike to exert physical dominance anyway, so all you have is gossip and insinuation. That happens, we all know people who were very successful at that and people who were hurt by it, but is it Christ-like? Absolutely not. Not even when the gossip and insinuation is about sluttiness which makes it seem like a Christian concern. It is a terrible thing to do, and should not be done.
What is the point of Christianity if it leaves us sniping at each other and contending for power? What is the point if we look at the world through the exact same eyes as those who don't believe in him?
Think about the belief that men are naturally bigger and stronger. There are averages, but think of the tall women and short men, the women who are more physically powerful and the men less - sometimes through working out or not, but genetics plays a role - and is there a problem with that variety?
There is a similar natural variation of temperaments and inclinations. Foolishly labeling specific traits as masculine or feminine primarily serves to make a lot of people feel like there is something wrong with them. Again, if you want to be sniping and grasping for power, that is a helpful system, but that is not for followers of Christ.
Perhaps most important point here is that we don't get there automatically when the structure is so pervasive. Even regular scripture reading and church attendance will not get you there. Those beliefs need to be ruthlessly examined and evaluated against those things that we truly know to be important rather than simply customary.
My circumspection is not so much a fear of offending; some days there is so much crap out there I want to offend people, though I would still question its usefulness. However, the real reason I drag things out slowly, taking a long time to make a point, is that hope that the quiet chipping away will do the work better. That if enough stories and verses and points get out there, it will be self-evident before I say it.
But let me make one more point back on that original question: who is supposed to try and be like Christ?
From Matthew 23:37... "How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
That is feminine imagery, and Jesus was not afraid or uncomfortable to apply it to himself. If his tenderness is feminine, then all men should be feminine, but maybe it is just better to quit obsessing over gender.
To which I pose this question: is it women or men who are supposed to pattern themselves on the Savior?
Are men not supposed to be compassionate? Are women not supposed to have integrity? Are any of us supposed to be cowardly or prideful?
I don't see a strong scriptural basis for gender differences. There is definitely representation of existing cultural traditions, but if the best you can offer for proof is the Pauline Epistles (which I read, but I take some of it with more than a grain of salt) you are not making a convincing case.
I have referenced racial prejudice before for comparison; let's remember that people - including church leaders - accepted the prevailing beliefs of the time, even though we know it was wrong now. Part of their ability to do so related to the deep roots of those prevailing beliefs. There is a structure that is accepted, and there is social conditioning that reinforces the structure.
Looking at the gender structure for our day, sometimes that results in women judging other women and being catty to them. This is a way of exerting dominance in a culture where the men have dominance, and it totally isn't ladylike to exert physical dominance anyway, so all you have is gossip and insinuation. That happens, we all know people who were very successful at that and people who were hurt by it, but is it Christ-like? Absolutely not. Not even when the gossip and insinuation is about sluttiness which makes it seem like a Christian concern. It is a terrible thing to do, and should not be done.
What is the point of Christianity if it leaves us sniping at each other and contending for power? What is the point if we look at the world through the exact same eyes as those who don't believe in him?
Think about the belief that men are naturally bigger and stronger. There are averages, but think of the tall women and short men, the women who are more physically powerful and the men less - sometimes through working out or not, but genetics plays a role - and is there a problem with that variety?
There is a similar natural variation of temperaments and inclinations. Foolishly labeling specific traits as masculine or feminine primarily serves to make a lot of people feel like there is something wrong with them. Again, if you want to be sniping and grasping for power, that is a helpful system, but that is not for followers of Christ.
Perhaps most important point here is that we don't get there automatically when the structure is so pervasive. Even regular scripture reading and church attendance will not get you there. Those beliefs need to be ruthlessly examined and evaluated against those things that we truly know to be important rather than simply customary.
My circumspection is not so much a fear of offending; some days there is so much crap out there I want to offend people, though I would still question its usefulness. However, the real reason I drag things out slowly, taking a long time to make a point, is that hope that the quiet chipping away will do the work better. That if enough stories and verses and points get out there, it will be self-evident before I say it.
But let me make one more point back on that original question: who is supposed to try and be like Christ?
From Matthew 23:37... "How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
That is feminine imagery, and Jesus was not afraid or uncomfortable to apply it to himself. If his tenderness is feminine, then all men should be feminine, but maybe it is just better to quit obsessing over gender.
Monday, January 14, 2019
Possibly the thing I hate the most
Our general topic is still sexism, but I am going to approach it via racism.
From 1849 to 1978, Black men were not allowed to hold the priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. That meant that they were not able to participate in temple ordinances and affected their ability to hold callings.
I was only 6 when that ended, but it sounds like it was not common knowledge that the ban did not start until 19 years after the organization of the church. There were people who expected it to change - even Brigham Young (who started the ban) said it would end - but there were also people who were not ready to accept that. I have heard that my own father said that if Black men were ever given the priesthood he would leave the church. (He did, though it took a few years and did not seem to be directly related.)
In 2013 the church's web site put out a number of gospel "topics" about things we don't talk too much about, like the ban and polygamy. Although the articles didn't use very strong language about being wrong, some people found them really disturbing. I thought they were overly gentle and glossy.
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng#14
I am sure some of the reason for not discussing things further was discomfort. It is embarrassing to be on the wrong side of history. Probably there was relief that we didn't need to worry about it anymore; since 1978 everything was good except for occasional awkward questions.
For my next anecdote, I can't remember if it came from an institute teacher or a mission president. Both of my mission presidents were church education men, so there were some similarities. As it was definitely either from college or mission, it occurred sometime between 1991 and 1996.
He was relaying a story of a Black girl (teenager or maybe young adult) talking about Black men not getting the priesthood, and she explained it as her Black brothers playing basketball in the pre-mortal life instead of doing the things that they should have been doing.
Now, this is an old theory, referenced in a letter from Joseph Fielding Smith in 1907 (see notes at the previous link), though at the time he acknowledges that while it is generally believed it was merely an opinion and not official.
There was never a good explanation given for the ban, because there was no good explanation. It was racism, it was common, and that doesn't sound good so we will say it is temporary and move on. It should have been clear that would never work; if you don't give people an explanation, they will imagine one.
So the thing I hate is that this imagined reason carried through the years and became a reason for this girl to look down on people who looked like her. It gave her a reason to think that her father and brothers and any male relatives were inferior. As it was a priesthood-specific issue, maybe she could tell herself that it did not apply to Black women. Maybe after 1978 she could tell herself it was just the older people, her ancestors that were inferior but her living family was good.
It is still a rotten thing to do to someone.
And I know that white man - and without remembering exactly which one he was, I know he was a good man that I was very fond of - used that story because her saying it made it better. If even one of their own accepts that it is not simple racism, then it's fine, even though it was wrong all along.
I hate that the people of the church taught her that, and that the leaders of the church did not prevent it.
I remember similar instructors also saying how the ban never applied to people of Asian descent or Native American people, and even some people who looked pretty dark but were not from Africa. There was still some pride there, a good decade after the ban, because it was just being descended from Ham (also debunked), and it was not simple racism. A more complex look at racism could have factored in anti-Blackness and model minorities, but they didn't go there.
Of course, if they had really dug into it, they would have had to examine and realize and remove the ban much sooner.
No one wants to think Brigham Young was racist, or all the others after him who did not lift the ban, or grant temple access to Black men who had gotten the priesthood before the ban (which also happened) were racist, because we also know them to be good men who did good things. It's uncomfortable (and might threaten your confidence in your own lack of racism) so we try to not think about it so much.
That's exactly how we avoid improvement. That's how we leave really good people responsible for justifying our racist acts.
We have to stop that.
From 1849 to 1978, Black men were not allowed to hold the priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. That meant that they were not able to participate in temple ordinances and affected their ability to hold callings.
I was only 6 when that ended, but it sounds like it was not common knowledge that the ban did not start until 19 years after the organization of the church. There were people who expected it to change - even Brigham Young (who started the ban) said it would end - but there were also people who were not ready to accept that. I have heard that my own father said that if Black men were ever given the priesthood he would leave the church. (He did, though it took a few years and did not seem to be directly related.)
In 2013 the church's web site put out a number of gospel "topics" about things we don't talk too much about, like the ban and polygamy. Although the articles didn't use very strong language about being wrong, some people found them really disturbing. I thought they were overly gentle and glossy.
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng#14
I am sure some of the reason for not discussing things further was discomfort. It is embarrassing to be on the wrong side of history. Probably there was relief that we didn't need to worry about it anymore; since 1978 everything was good except for occasional awkward questions.
For my next anecdote, I can't remember if it came from an institute teacher or a mission president. Both of my mission presidents were church education men, so there were some similarities. As it was definitely either from college or mission, it occurred sometime between 1991 and 1996.
He was relaying a story of a Black girl (teenager or maybe young adult) talking about Black men not getting the priesthood, and she explained it as her Black brothers playing basketball in the pre-mortal life instead of doing the things that they should have been doing.
Now, this is an old theory, referenced in a letter from Joseph Fielding Smith in 1907 (see notes at the previous link), though at the time he acknowledges that while it is generally believed it was merely an opinion and not official.
There was never a good explanation given for the ban, because there was no good explanation. It was racism, it was common, and that doesn't sound good so we will say it is temporary and move on. It should have been clear that would never work; if you don't give people an explanation, they will imagine one.
So the thing I hate is that this imagined reason carried through the years and became a reason for this girl to look down on people who looked like her. It gave her a reason to think that her father and brothers and any male relatives were inferior. As it was a priesthood-specific issue, maybe she could tell herself that it did not apply to Black women. Maybe after 1978 she could tell herself it was just the older people, her ancestors that were inferior but her living family was good.
It is still a rotten thing to do to someone.
And I know that white man - and without remembering exactly which one he was, I know he was a good man that I was very fond of - used that story because her saying it made it better. If even one of their own accepts that it is not simple racism, then it's fine, even though it was wrong all along.
I hate that the people of the church taught her that, and that the leaders of the church did not prevent it.
I remember similar instructors also saying how the ban never applied to people of Asian descent or Native American people, and even some people who looked pretty dark but were not from Africa. There was still some pride there, a good decade after the ban, because it was just being descended from Ham (also debunked), and it was not simple racism. A more complex look at racism could have factored in anti-Blackness and model minorities, but they didn't go there.
Of course, if they had really dug into it, they would have had to examine and realize and remove the ban much sooner.
No one wants to think Brigham Young was racist, or all the others after him who did not lift the ban, or grant temple access to Black men who had gotten the priesthood before the ban (which also happened) were racist, because we also know them to be good men who did good things. It's uncomfortable (and might threaten your confidence in your own lack of racism) so we try to not think about it so much.
That's exactly how we avoid improvement. That's how we leave really good people responsible for justifying our racist acts.
We have to stop that.
Sunday, January 6, 2019
The strength of our youth
This is going to seem like a digression from the current series, but I am confident it will end up fitting in.
A few months ago I was reading a conference talk that quoted a survey saying LDS youth lead the pack in all measurable ways. I immediately questioned it.
That wasn't so much due to my general negativity (which probably looks worse than it is) as it was due to two specific things. One is a memory of a person in a Gospel Doctrine class saying that our youth are so naturally good it's like they don't even have to try (questionable in its accuracy, not a good policy anyway) but also my knowledge that more missionaries are coming home early, encountering difficulties with completing their service.
(Perhaps add in that the missionaries I am encountering seem remarkably shallow and naive, though it is not affecting their ability to stay in the field.)
Anyway, I looked up the reference for the quoted survey and found that it was from a book with a 2005 publication date, based on a survey that had happened mostly in 2002. (The survey was part of a larger research project.)
The talk may have been as old as 2014, but the data was still older. You'd hope that the positive results still hold true, but it may be past time for bragging rights.
Obviously I had to read the book.
Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers; by Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton; Osford University Press, USA 2005.
From the first chapter the praise seemed like an exaggeration. Yes, LDS youth ranked highly in many fields, but Black Protestant youth were often pretty comparable, followed by conservative (as opposed to mainline) Protestant youth. The conference speaker left that out!
I did eventually find a quote that backed the speaker up: "...it is Mormon teenagers who are sociologically faring the best." (p. 261)
That is missing some context, but okay, the book did technically say we were doing the best, at least thirteen years ago, so bragging rights are there. Hurray for us!
If we are going to add context, some of the measures they looked at were risk factors for teen well-being, like drinking, smoking, and experimentation with drugs. Many churches may not want their youth to smoke or drink, but do not have specific proscriptions, and have adults who do them. It is not surprising that the church that completely forbids those substances - even for adults - would have more teens abstaining. (And it is a wonderful thing, no question.)
What I found more interesting in terms of where our youth do better is in understanding doctrine and being able to articulate their own beliefs. With Sunday school, seminary, Family Home Evening, testimony meetings, and that continual emphasis on being able to get answers, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, yes, we should be doing well there. That is something precious.
Here's another interesting tidbit, in terms of what the book found. A lot of adults had expressed concerns that new religions were tempting kids away. Evidence indicated that it was the reverse. Bluntly, parents that are Buddhist or Wiccan are far more likely to have their children become Christian than vice versa. Actually, a key point from the book is that children pretty consistently follow their parents. Whether that is encouraging or discouraging depends on you.
I think I had actually heard of this survey before. I remember some study coming out that was indicating that while parents thought that the friends of their children had more influence, the parents had a strong influence on the child's friendships. We may not always know which influences are working, but the parental influence is strong. That is good, but if you are kind of lukewarm in your faith, there is a downside.
We have very good things about our church that work, and they should, but that is not just a matter of "We're true, you're false, neiner-neiner." It is good to understand what we are doing well, and it is critical to understand what we are not doing well, including understanding that there are things that we are not doing well.
Is it possible that we are sheltering children too much? Are some getting so protected from the world that they don't know how to function in it when they get out there? Or do they have such a poor understanding of it that they can only spout the shallowest of platitudes when people are confronted with real problems? Perhaps even after successfully completing the mission?
Here was another interesting thing: a lot of adults feared a more tumultuous outside world, remembering the sexual revolution and campus discord and things like that, which did not really apply to their children. The youth of that survey were living in more of a "whatever" time, where the more likely pitfall was apathy. Parents were trying to solve the wrong problems.
As always, we can do better. Still as always, it's going to take more than relying on old patterns and habits, but on asking and seeking so we can be finding. It will take scrupulous honesty, especially when it is uncomfortable.
One final thing that I liked: as the book was concluding it pointed out that many teen issues are also adult issues. Many adults think of the youth as scary and incomprehensible; they are like us. Some listening should make that clear very quickly.
As we get back to exploring gender roles, let's remember how many men find women mysterious and unknowable, and see if we might not detect some patterns.
A few months ago I was reading a conference talk that quoted a survey saying LDS youth lead the pack in all measurable ways. I immediately questioned it.
That wasn't so much due to my general negativity (which probably looks worse than it is) as it was due to two specific things. One is a memory of a person in a Gospel Doctrine class saying that our youth are so naturally good it's like they don't even have to try (questionable in its accuracy, not a good policy anyway) but also my knowledge that more missionaries are coming home early, encountering difficulties with completing their service.
(Perhaps add in that the missionaries I am encountering seem remarkably shallow and naive, though it is not affecting their ability to stay in the field.)
Anyway, I looked up the reference for the quoted survey and found that it was from a book with a 2005 publication date, based on a survey that had happened mostly in 2002. (The survey was part of a larger research project.)
The talk may have been as old as 2014, but the data was still older. You'd hope that the positive results still hold true, but it may be past time for bragging rights.
Obviously I had to read the book.
Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers; by Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton; Osford University Press, USA 2005.
From the first chapter the praise seemed like an exaggeration. Yes, LDS youth ranked highly in many fields, but Black Protestant youth were often pretty comparable, followed by conservative (as opposed to mainline) Protestant youth. The conference speaker left that out!
I did eventually find a quote that backed the speaker up: "...it is Mormon teenagers who are sociologically faring the best." (p. 261)
That is missing some context, but okay, the book did technically say we were doing the best, at least thirteen years ago, so bragging rights are there. Hurray for us!
If we are going to add context, some of the measures they looked at were risk factors for teen well-being, like drinking, smoking, and experimentation with drugs. Many churches may not want their youth to smoke or drink, but do not have specific proscriptions, and have adults who do them. It is not surprising that the church that completely forbids those substances - even for adults - would have more teens abstaining. (And it is a wonderful thing, no question.)
What I found more interesting in terms of where our youth do better is in understanding doctrine and being able to articulate their own beliefs. With Sunday school, seminary, Family Home Evening, testimony meetings, and that continual emphasis on being able to get answers, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, yes, we should be doing well there. That is something precious.
Here's another interesting tidbit, in terms of what the book found. A lot of adults had expressed concerns that new religions were tempting kids away. Evidence indicated that it was the reverse. Bluntly, parents that are Buddhist or Wiccan are far more likely to have their children become Christian than vice versa. Actually, a key point from the book is that children pretty consistently follow their parents. Whether that is encouraging or discouraging depends on you.
I think I had actually heard of this survey before. I remember some study coming out that was indicating that while parents thought that the friends of their children had more influence, the parents had a strong influence on the child's friendships. We may not always know which influences are working, but the parental influence is strong. That is good, but if you are kind of lukewarm in your faith, there is a downside.
We have very good things about our church that work, and they should, but that is not just a matter of "We're true, you're false, neiner-neiner." It is good to understand what we are doing well, and it is critical to understand what we are not doing well, including understanding that there are things that we are not doing well.
Is it possible that we are sheltering children too much? Are some getting so protected from the world that they don't know how to function in it when they get out there? Or do they have such a poor understanding of it that they can only spout the shallowest of platitudes when people are confronted with real problems? Perhaps even after successfully completing the mission?
Here was another interesting thing: a lot of adults feared a more tumultuous outside world, remembering the sexual revolution and campus discord and things like that, which did not really apply to their children. The youth of that survey were living in more of a "whatever" time, where the more likely pitfall was apathy. Parents were trying to solve the wrong problems.
As always, we can do better. Still as always, it's going to take more than relying on old patterns and habits, but on asking and seeking so we can be finding. It will take scrupulous honesty, especially when it is uncomfortable.
One final thing that I liked: as the book was concluding it pointed out that many teen issues are also adult issues. Many adults think of the youth as scary and incomprehensible; they are like us. Some listening should make that clear very quickly.
As we get back to exploring gender roles, let's remember how many men find women mysterious and unknowable, and see if we might not detect some patterns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)