Sex and world peace?

Read this.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/24/what_sex_means_for_world_peace?page=0%2C0

It's the truth.

Men who see women as beings to be subjugated will themselves continue to be subjugated. Men who see women as equal and valued partners are the only men who have a true chance to win their freedom and enjoy peace.

Approaching Modesty

How interesting that I stumble across this literally a day after posting about For the Strength of Youth... The article is one woman's take on why the doctrine of modesty is harmful and even destructive for girls. Her main beef with it is that it is sexist and that it creates shame, essentially:

"Modesty taught me that I was a decoration. Everything about my life was governed by whether or not a man was watching. How I moved and what I ate or wore all depended on the male gaze. Modesty taught me that nothing I did mattered more than avoiding sexual attention. Modesty made me objectify myself. I was so aware of my own potential desirability at all times that I lost all other ways of defining myself."

Read the article, it's not too long. To be fair, her bio line indicates she was raised in an ultra-conservative religion, so of course she probably had a very different experience than most of us. But still, the way she views modesty makes me sad. It's such a wrong image of what should be a beautiful doctrine. My friend Anneke, who posted the link, had this to say:

"I believe in modesty because it protects women's self-respect in an age where our culture believes that women are for looking at and using. There are so many people who treat a woman's body as their own personal property. Dressing modestly is my way of saying 'No - this is not yours. You have no right to possess my body with your eyes and ignore who I actually am.' To me, modesty is the feminist answer to pornography. It's us saying NO."

Agreed. Modesty isn't about being a prude or protecting men from sinning. Modesty is about respect for yourself and respect for your God. It's about cherishing the precious gift that is your body and treating it with care. Another commenter, Joy, added the following:

"To me, modesty starts with respect for self and others and applies both men and women. Modesty is about recognizing that our behavior, words and appearance matter. Speaking, behaving and dressing in a way that shows respect for oneself and others, and is appropriate for the situation, impacts our own feelings and behavior and makes it easier for those around us to maintain positive thoughts and feelings. Modesty does not make a person a passive object nor does it render one invisible. It is the exact opposite. Modesty says we are here and we are powerful. Our thoughts, feelings and actions matter. Modesty does not ask 'Is this skirt going to make men lust?' Modesty asks if our behavior, speech and appearance help ourselves and those around us feel uplifted. Modesty recognizes that we influence others by our very existence and encourages us to be an elevating influence."

All that being said, do we get a little confused about modesty, even in the Church? I think so.

I still hear people say we should dress modestly so men won't have bad thoughts about us. It happened a few weeks ago in Relief Society, as a matter of fact. (Yes, I raised my hand... and pointed out that burqa-clad women in Egypt get groped all the time. Nicely, of course.) Well of course wearing a bikini to school would be distracting! But does that mean I have to constantly worry about some poor unsuspecting man catching a glimpse of the back of my knee? No. That's not the point. Additionally, the author kind of hit home in talking about the fact that modesty is typically only taught to women. Maybe that's not entirely true in Mormonism, but it feels like it sometimes. What does modesty mean for a man anyway? It's not like most men walk around in mini-shorts or halter tops...

Maybe one definition of immodesty for men would be wearing their pants so low that their underpants show? But other than that, I don't know. Maybe there really is something more exciting about a woman, more fundamentally appealing about her body, but it doesn't make much sense to me. Besides, modesty is about more than just clothing, it's in the way you act, speak, and yes, dress. But maybe it's fundamentally more about the way you present yourself to the world. I wish we spent more time talking about how you can present yourself rather than what you shouldn't wear... especially since it can be so subjective from one situation to another, from one culture to another, from one age group to another.

I ran into this article the next day from a Christian website. This author writes about how the phrase "modest is hottest" is silly and can even be damaging because of what it insinuates:

"Perhaps the phrase’s originator hoped to provide a more positive spin on modesty. I sympathize with that. However, 'modest is hottest' also perpetuates (and complicates) this objectification of women by equating purity with sexual desire. The word 'hot'” is fraught with sexual undertones. It continues a tradition in which women are primarily objects of desire, but it does so in an acceptable Christian way. Making modesty sexy is not the solution we need. Instead, the church [not sure what religion she is, but based on who she quotes I think she may be Catholic] needs to overhaul its theology of the female body. Women continue to be associated with their bodies in ways that men are not. And, as a result of this unique association, women’s identities are also uniquely tied to their bodies in a manner that men’s identities are not."

I feel like a big part of all these issues is the doctrine of original sin. No wonder all these ideas are lurking when people see Eve as the original temptress, the cause of mankind's fall. What a wonderful thing that in Mormonism we respect her, even admire her for her courage in taking the next step into mortality she knew was necessary. But maybe even we have remnants of "original sin mentality", when we put the responsibility for sin on women in cases like modesty or sexual purity for example. I worry that sometimes the ideas that both of these authors describe creep into our own rhetoric. And yet, official Church publications like For the Strength of Youth make it very clear that this should not be the case: "a young man and a young woman on a date are responsible to protect each other’s honor and virtue." Both of them equally.


So here's my question: how should we teach modesty to girls? What can we do better? And how should we teach our boys modesty too?



Oh and here's a fun fact: there may be scientific evidence for the value of modesty: "Brain scans revealed that when men are shown pictures of scantily clad women, the region of the brain associated with tool use lights up. Men were also more likely to associate images of sexualized women with first-person action verbs such as 'I push, I grasp, I handle,' said lead researcher Susan Fiske, a psychologist at Princeton University. And in a 'shocking' finding, Fiske noted, some of the men studied showed no activity in the part of the brain that usually responds when a person ponders another's intentions. This means that these men see women 'as sexually inviting, but they are not thinking about their minds,' Fiske said. 'The lack of activation in this social cognition area is really odd, because it hardly ever happens.'"

Little girls... they turn into women someday

And what they hear when they're young goes a long way. I just read this, and I like it.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with telling little girls they're pretty--and that's not the author's point. I certainly like dressing up, taking care of my appearance and whatnot. Although I didn't enjoy so much being paraded around with a huge fat bow over top of my polygamist hairdo... But it doesn't hurt to make a point of talking about something else than girls' appearance for a change. I like it.

Plus I've always loved books anyway :)

My favorite picture as of late

Although I'm not sure what sandwiches have to do with anything...

Single-sex classrooms

Wow, I didn't even know this existed. My first thought was "that is so NOT politically correct?!" and then my second thought was "what if this actually worked?"

Depending on who you ask, there is either no conclusive evidence or very strong evidence that separating boys and girls in school is effective.

From singlesexschools.org:

"Researchers at Stetson University in Florida have completed a three-year pilot project comparing single-sex classrooms with coed classrooms at Woodward Avenue Elementary School, a nearby neighborhood public school. For example, students in the 4th grade at Woodward were assigned either to single-sex or coed classrooms. All relevant parameters were matched: the class sizes were all the same, the demographics were the same, all teachers had the same training in what works and what doesn't work, etc. On the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test), here were the results:

Percentage of students scoring proficient on the FCAT

boys in coed classes: 37% scored proficient

girls in coed classes: 59% scored proficient

girls in single-sex classes: 75% scored proficient

boys in single-sex classes: 86% scored proficient.

Remember, these students were all learning the same curriculum in the same school. And, this school "mainstreams" students who are learning-disabled, or who have ADHD etc. Many of those boys who scored proficient in the all-boys classes had previously been labeled "ADHD" or "ESE" in coed classes."


Ok, so it looks pretty promising. But I can't help but wonder what other effects might come of this... in the real world, men and women interact on a daily basis, so wouldn't this create a bunch of very socially awkward kids? Isn't socialization the most important part of public school? 


I really don't know what to think. My initial reaction is not terribly positive, but have I just been brainwashed into being too politically correct? If this really works and helps both genders, than why not? I think that it's generally accepted that there are real gender differences (or perhaps we should call them sexual differences since gender is a social construct whereas sex is biological), but for some reason it is not ok to really talk about it.  


NOW is not cool with it (not surprisingly, doesn't it sound an awful lot like "separate but equal"?) but from what I've been reading, it sounds like boys are getting the raw end of the deal in our school system these days, a huge reversal from a few decades ago, so my gut feeling is this isn't really discriminatory against women. If anything, this is almost geared more towards helping boys, and I don't think the feminist agenda is to destroy little boys.


Single-sex advocates argue that the key to successfully teaching boys and girls separately is to really understand gender differences instead of making sweeping generalizations like "boys like to build robots and girls would rather read about unicorns." 


Wait, wasn't there a Simpsons episode where Lisa and Bart are put in separate classrooms, and Lisa pretends to be a boy to get into the boys' class?


A few more stories on the topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/education/11gender.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13229488/ns/us_news-education/

I'm curious to hear what you think. Is this weird? Is it wrong? Or could it be the answer?

Perfect

A friend introduced me to this gem. I think it eloquently portrays the struggles of today's youth:



I am absolutely speechless.

And sadly, it's off to a bad start

International Women's Day starting out poorly in Egypt. Women gathered to request more equality in the new government, but it didn't seem to be received too well.

http://www.businessinsider.com/womens-day-protest-tahrir-2011-3

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/7232/Egypt/Politics-/Women-excluded-from-Egypt-constitutional-reform-me.aspx

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/03/201138133425420552.html



On twitter, @pakinamamer was posting updates all morning (she was on the square) and it doesn't sound pretty.

More stories:


http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0308/On-International-Women-s-Day-Egyptian-women-demand-revolutionary-role


http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/08/2104157/egyptian-womens-rights-protest.html


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/08/rival-protesters-clash-women-tahrir


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134369238

And on a somewhat more inspiring note: Women of the revolution

Women's day: let's party!

Happy international women's day!

And while the following video is actually quite serious in nature.... well, James Bond dressed in drag is quite amusing.



Hope you have a wonderful day.

Also, if we were in Russia we'd be receiving flowers all day from complete strangers in the streets.

Today, to celebrate, I am going to go to school. Then I am going to go to my job where I work side by side with other men, then I'll dance, have enough to eat for all my meals, and go to bed in a comfortable apartment with a husband that is kind, respects me and encourages me to follow my dreams. Perhaps someday all the women in the world will be able to say the same.

Girls night out (in)

Awww yay a FLSR reunion... sigh. I miss these girls.

Miss Cassi (ok, she's actually been married for over a year now but I still think Miss Cassi sounds better... it's an alliteration thing :) graced us with a visit from China, where she is currently exiled. Of course, it was a fantastic excuse to get together, plus our awesome sister missionaries got to show off their mad skills!

Ukulele playing

Asian photo-taking 

I'm terribly jealous... Oh well, I have no one to blame but myself.

You know what else I missed?

O-O (eyes popping out of my head)

Seriously???
"one of the new law’s [from health care bill] benefits would be to ban the denial of health coverage to women who have had a prior Caesarean section or been victims of domestic violence. Some companies providing individual policies have refused coverage in those circumstances, regarding Caesareans or beatings as pre-existing conditions that were likely to be predictors of higher expenses in the future."

wow. so if you're beaten up by your husband and finally gather up the courage to leave, you not only get to put the pieces of your life back together, but insurance companies get to make more money off you.

Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/health/30women.html?ref=health

I understand that it makes sense in a way that pregnancy would be a preexisting condition: if you've had a baby once, it generally means you're able to have one and are capable of making more. I guess if you've never had a kid there's no way of telling that you're not sterile or something. I don't know. And if I remember/understood correctly, once you've had a C-section you have to deliver that way every time after, more expensive etc etc... so fine, it makes sense.
But a woman who's been beaten???!!!
Insurance companies are the devil.