The Secret Weapon of Social Change

In our new home in Detroit, there is an awful lot of work to do. Yesterday, while using Google maps to get to an interview, I found myself driving a solid two and a half miles down a main city road, lined with restaurants and barber shops and boutiques that were all completely deserted, boarded up or surrounded with broken windows and graffiti. A few stoned old men stumbled across alleys. 

People like me drive through places like this and think, what is to be done? I'm sure you have had that thought as well. And the list of answers we come up with is long indeed.

Perhaps you think that we need to boost industry by creating local investment opportunities.

Perhaps you think, Guiliani-style, that we need to focus on reducing crime, by spending money cleaning the graffiti and broken glass and increasing the police presence.

Maybe your answer is drug prevention - improving D.A.R.E. programs, building better rehab centers, and instituting better regulations on alcohol and drugs.

Maybe your inclination is education - let's learn from Teach for America and focus on better teachers, and more money in the schools. Then kids would achieve more and improve their own communities.

Maybe you gravitate toward community building through better public facilities and extra-curricular activities. In this spirit, Detroit boasts an abundance of YMCAs, after-school programs, corporate-sponsored sport facilities and dance camps and jazz festivals.

Maybe your answer is to address the race problem. Maybe it's gun control. Maybe it's healthcare.
Maybe it's better government assistance to the poor. We could probably keep going down this road for quite awhile - many people have. Whatever you see as the root of the problem is likely to be where you put your efforts to solving it. However, like a fire out of control, we won't solve the problem if we end up shooting water at the ominous, billowing smoke. We need to identify the causes within causes - the rootiest of the roots - in order to aim our efforts at the fire destroying society.

There are many examples of well-intentioned, smoke-drenched attempts to solve social problems. A friend from Uganda came to visit us a few weeks ago. He commented that, while half of the world's NGOs are in Africa (by one count there are 1,902 separate NGOs in Uganda alone), it is hard for the Africans to see that things are getting much better. That was discouraging to hear, as a former volunteer with such an organization, but I saw his point. Even while we were there, the problems seemed so overwhelming and so daunting. As happens in Detroit, each charitable organization in Africa picks a specific problem to attack - AIDS prevention, digging wells, teaching business skills, working in orphanages - but after all the money spent and interventions made, there seems to be so little of a dent made in the overall poverty and well-being of the African people. This may be, as the Centre for Basic Research in Kampala argues, because so many NGOs are "fragmented, project‑oriented, donor‑driven, urban‑based and sometimes, poorly managed."

So again...what is to be done? How can we get to the root of social problems, so that our interventions can be effective? The solution surprised me....

In recent years, Mormon women have been encouraged to study the history of the Relief Society (the women's organization in the church), and that led to the publication of a book called Daughters in My Kingdom, a history of the Relief Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In it, prophets and former Relief Society presidents teach the sisters of the church that their duty is to relieve the suffering of the poor and strengthen families. All of a sudden, reading that I had a revelation. Our duty is to relieve the suffering of the poor by strengthening families. That is our solution!

Why is that such a revelation? Families are as much a part of our lives as the air we breathe, so we may take it for granted that such a universal institution could be a powerful tool for social change. Church leaders have made it clear that families are not just a nice thing to have. Families are in fact God's secret weapon. What I realized in that moment was that families ARE the solution to social change. It is not only the most best way to raise children, it is the best way to save societies.

Instead of focusing on helping individuals, our focus should be on fixing the machine that creates happy and healthy individuals, which are happy and healthy families. When individual spouses and parents are able to do their job well - in a healthy, loving environment - they teach their children to do the same. They create a rock of support for the community around them. They create interconnected relationships of support with other families. Recall a time before health insurance - when your entire family and community WAS your insurance policy, and you were theirs. When we support families, families will do their job for individuals. So, in every aspect of individual and social struggles, whether solving poverty, or crime, or illiteracy, or health crises -- our question should always be, what can we do to help families?

As Elder Eyring said in 2012, "Bishops and Relief Society presidents always invite family members to help each other when there is a need. There are many reasons for that principle. Foremost is to provide to more people the blessing of increased love that comes from serving each other...That is why the Lord has created societies of caregivers."

There are many ways to help build our struggling communities, including many of the approaches listed above. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is involved with a number of initiatives including clean water projects, neonatal resuscitation training, vision care, wheelchairs, immunizations and food production. In my husband's discipline, lobbyists and politicians create legislation that changes aid programs, zoning laws, access to public transportation and more. I'm proud of the accomplishments that we've made in helping the poor.

But like Africa, Detroit will likely continue to struggle if the interventions are aimed at individuals and not done in the context of helping families. How can we help family members spend more quality time together? How can we help families understand and teach the importance of literacy and good citizenship? How can we reduce divorce and out-of-wedlock births? How can we encourage fidelity and commitment to family relationships? How can we make pro-marriage welfare policies? How can we help fathers be better role models? How can we provide relief for working mothers? How can we strengthen ties to extended family? How can we improve communication and cooperation and commitment within the home? Like a jammed printer, if we focus on removing the obstacles in their way, families are a machine that will naturally support healthy and happy families. And healthy families, automatically, do most of the things that are needed to strengthen individuals internally, and communities externally.

Family processes are already understood as an effective and efficient social machine - we gradually migrated from orphanages to foster homes in the 1950's as we discovered that not only is a family setting cheaper, but children tend to do better when they are raised in a family instead of an institution, especially if the family is at least distantly related to them.

Our church focuses on the family so much, not only because it is in the family that we can find the greatest individual happiness, but also because it is the key to our success in the world today.
Neal A. Maxwell said:

Isn't it ironical that in an age when we are learning almost feverishly about what is most ecologically sound, what are the most efficient and economic ways to produce energy or protein in order to help other human beings, that we should be so incredibly blind--because like ancient Judah, we are "looking beyond the mark"--when it comes to pursuing those processes which are best for the production of good human beings? [As with the relative inefficiency of the amount of grain needed to raise cattle versus chickens,] The social and spiritual sum of our political, educational, ad economic institutions is usually not sufficient to offset the deficits in the home. 

Analogously, we have far too many lonely humans foraging on deficient "homesteads" and too many governmental programs which attempt abortively to substitute a less efficient system of helping humans than the home; it is the home that we must rescue, repair, and sustain. Only when homes are full of truth, warmth, and trust, can our other institutions perform their tasks...If we are really concerned about the most economical way of achieving happiness for ourselves and/or our fellowmen and about those skills that are needed in successful human enterprises, then we should seek these gains through the family. (The Inexhaustible Gospel, pg 3)

Perhaps we have gone "beyond the mark" with regards to the family because of our almost unconscious culture of individualism. Perhaps we look past the family because our own personal experiences with family have been negative (if 60% of the baby boomers are divorced, then that means approximately 60% of their children--adults my age--are victims of divorce and either terrified or apathetic toward the idea of finding happiness in a family setting). Perhaps we undervalue the family as an institution because we don't really agree what a functional family looks like, or whether we should even define it.

While the argument about the defining a functional family may be full of controversy and potential stigma, what is the alternative? We can either use the overwhelming statistics to define what healthy looks like (including factors such as having a father and mother who are married and committed to each other), and strive for it, knowing that we may fail in our endeavor, or we can say nothing out of fear and allow society to risk duplicating negative family patterns that children grow up believing to be normal and good.

We can and should still love and support those whose lives do not turn out ideally. Most lives don't. Divorce, unwanted pregnancy, infidelity, and single parenthood are realities for many many people. But while avoiding generalizations may soothe feelings, it may destroy futures. After struggling with the decision personally, I have decided that I care more about helping the child of a single mother see the importance of fatherhood and encourage the desire to have a loyal partner in raising children than to coddle their upbringing as "good enough" and thereby risk them becoming a single mother as well. We admire the strong, courageous women who parent alone, but those single mothers would never wish such a life on their children and neither should we.

So that aside, assuming that I have already offended whoever is going to be offended by the idea of defining what makes a strong, functional family.... what should that definition be?

Unlike many others, I have a few advantages in this field. First and most importantly, because I belong to a church with modern day prophets, I have clear and specific guidance about what a strong family should look like. Second, I know the research, and third, my childhood in a family community in Saudi Arabia afforded me a unique vantage point to view strong, functional families from around the world. With these in mind, I have distilled the following characteristics:

#1 - Marriage. That is, a family is headed by a couple that is permanently, legally, spiritually, physically, emotionally committed to each other.
#2 - Gender (of parents and children) is acknowledged and respected and honored as an asset.
#3 - Fidelity. Couples keep sexual relations only with each other, and in the protective bonds of marriage. "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity"
#4 - Mothers and fathers both take responsibility to rear, protect, and teach their children to become good members of society.
#5 - Positive principles are observed in the home, including faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and positive recreation.
#6 - Division of labor occurs according to the situation and strengths and preferences of each parent, ensuring that top priorities are providing for and protecting the home, and nurturing children.
#7 - Equality. However specific tasks are divided, couples should be committed to helping each other as equals (without keeping track).
#8 - Relationships with extended family are maintained and strengthened.

These eight points allow for a wide variety of adaptations for personal and cultural differences. Positive recreation may be mountain biking or karaoke. Honoring gender may be recognizing the beauty of one's artistic talents or one's dedicated service in the community. Marriage may happen in a chapel or on a beach. Division of labor may translate to one person doing the dishes, taking turns, or making the kids do them. A relationship with extended family may be grandma living with you, or remembering to send your cousins birthday cards.

Note that none of these eight points put any kind of requirement on children. That's because they're children! Any resilience or competence we observe in children should be applauded but not expected; A strong society can never be built on such an unstable foundation. And yet - how often are governmental programs and resources directed toward building this resilience in children, as though their parents were already a lost cause?

As a final thought - I volunteered at a youth detention facility years ago and spent time talking with the delinquents who managed to put themselves behind bars before getting to their 18th birthday. The overwhelming number of those children from distressed families was too obvious to think their behavior was unrelated. Interventions include detention, mentorship programs, medication, therapy, boot camps, behaviorists (like me). I've seen just about everything. And while I don't have the solution for most of these problems, I do know this - fixing a bad kid and then putting him back in a bad family is just as ineffective as the efforts of the NGOs my Ugandan friend lamented. Fix the family. It doesn't matter that it's more complex or expensive. Fix the family and the kids will follow. Fix the family and society will follow too.

The Evolution of Ridiculous

Statement 1: One study showed that children without fathers in the home, and in neighborhoods with a high percentage of single moms, are more likely to engage in crime.

Statement 2: Oh, so you're saying single moms are to blame for high rates of teen crime.

...
WHaaATttT?!!

How did we get there?

I call this the evolution of ridiculous. Here's another one.

Statement 1: Hobby Lobby doesn't want to be forced to pay for drugs that they disagree with morally

Statement 2: Hobby Lobby is preventing their employees from accessing birth control.

Also ridiculous. That's not what's happening at all. But the tweet version of the story is shorter, simpler, and... more inflammatory, which makes for more clicks. All kinds of assumptions are baked into this, but the impatience of society refuses to wait for them to be identified and then challenged or refuted:

1. Why do companies have to pay for birth control to begin with? 
2. How did private companies get forced to be involved with paying for health care? 
3. If women do have a right to birth control, couldn't we make it someone else's duty to provide that, like the government? 
4. If we just decided that women have a right to birth control in 2008 via Obamacare, shouldn't someone's right to freedom of religion supercede that, since that was codified in the Constitution in 1791? 
5. Couldn't disgruntled employees petition for a change of policy, or change their job? 
6. Is Hobby Lobby really preventing their employees from accessing birth control if it costs $10 to buy themselves? Couldn't we say that Hobby Lobby is also preventing their employees from accessing free day care, or subsidized college tuition? 
7. Isn't forcing a company to pay for something they morally disagree with kind of like forcing a gay baker to make a "faggots suck" cake for a hate group party?

Every evolution of ridiculous requires someone to take an action, a study, a comment, and then swallow huge amounts of unquestioned assumptions in order to spit out a completely unfounded and absurd conclusion.

It reminds me of a fourth grader realizing that your name "Daisy" rhymes with "crazy" and then extrapolates: "You're crazy Daisy! Ha ha - (add sing-songy voice here) You're a cra-zy Dai-sy, you're a cra-zy Dai-sy..."

Why do we put up with this?

I think we're scared. We've been in fourth grade, and we know that it doesn't matter which side logic favors. What matters is who says it louder.

Statement 1: I think marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman.

Statement 2: You hate gay people.

What, what? No! Of course not! It has nothing to do with that...
It doesn't matter. Everyone has already stopped listening and are now plugging their ears and singing. "You are a bi-got, you are a bi-got..."

But, but, if you keep acting like fourth graders, how can we possibly learn anything from each other! You're stifling civil discourse! You're creating a straw man! You are completely misrepresenting science! You're misrepresenting me!

"I can't heeeear you....la la la la...."

Pioneers In Petticoats: What the Church REALLY Teaches Girls

In our house growing up, we had a "Sunday shelf" which contained all the videos we were allowed to watch on the Sabbath (in case you're interested, these included big hits like the Living Scriptures videos, The Ten Commandments and Fiddler on the Roof). One tape was a VHS collection of Johnny Lingo and another short film from the 70's called Pioneers in Petticoats. Recently, I found this film on Youtube and insisted that my husband watch it with me - complete with horrible film quality and acting. As we watched the depiction of the early Young Women's organization of the church (aka Mutual Improvement Society, aka Young Women's Retrenchment Society), we were both surprised by what we noticed.

First of all....okay, it's dated. Got that. And the specific policies and procedures of the organization were different back then. But for all of the arguing about modesty and family roles in today's society, we realized that many people (including members of the church) have totally missed the point of the church's program for girls as it was and is envisioned.

Modesty in 1869 was not about not showing skin, but about teaching girls to stop being so vain and materialistic. It was about focusing less on your bows and bustles and trains and focusing more on education, self-improvement, and community building. Girls were taught to "retrench" (or cut back) on frivolity - stupid, unimportant things that distract us and weaken our ability to have an impact for good. And who can say that that's not still an issue for us today?

The Young Women's society, like the Relief Society, was inspired by male prophets who believed that women were better than they gave themselves credit for, who believed women had untapped power that could be better harnessed through an organization designed to do so. The organization was inspired by God through prophets, and then given to women to organize and run according to their own inspiration.

I found it rather symbolic that, while the story of Abigail Harper and her "scandalous" dress (you can see her collarbone! Gasp!) runs as a theme throughout the movie, it wasn't until I watched it as an adult that I realized how much more there was to the movie, much like my perspective on the Young Women's organization. The message is not about Abigail's clothes, but about her learning to be humble and teachable, reaching out to others who struggle, repentance and forgiveness. The story teaches girls to avoid gossiping, to take responsibility, to help those in need, to recognize the divine worth in every soul no matter what their behavior, and to stand up for what's right no matter where you are. Near the end, the Rentrenchment Society marches in a parade with a banner between them that says "The Glory of God is intelligence" This is in 1869! This is what the Lord saw that we as women could become, even when we may not have seen it in ourselves.

Feminism, as an offshoot of conflict theory, makes womanhood into a comparison game with manhood. Who's getting paid more, who is treated better, who is better represented, whether things are fair and equal - it's always a competition. God does not compare us, and neither does the church, which this movie makes very clear. Womanhood is about what we can become, period. It's about us living up to the best within us, just as men are encouraged to do.

I'm so proud to belong to a church that teaches these values to girls and women. I'm so proud of a church that not only encouraged voting rights for women decades before most other states (Utah in 1870 was preceded only by Wyoming in 1869), but understood and promoted the sacred nature of womanhood from the church's very onset. I know that God sees the greatness in us, and I know that He is continuing to teach us how to harness that greatness through the teachings and organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Here's the link to the film (43 min.)

How to Prevent Mass Shootings, Step One

I can see why President Obama is angry about the lack of action in the wake of school shootings. As a country, we haven't done almost anything legislatively. But while his anger is real, the president (and everyone else) is jumping to conclusions. we can't argue about the merits of a particular solutions until we agree on the nature of the problem.  We are skipping a step in good social research. We don't know if the problem is increased access to guns, or mental illness, or the media, or bad families, or how society treats men, or video games, or a critical combination of these, or something entirely different. Instead of jumping to conclusions ("gun control!") or shrugging our shoulders ("we can't predict it-- gee I guess we can't do anything"), let's use good science!

The terrible silver lining of increased school/public shootings is that they continue to provide us with additional case studies. We may never agree on gun control, but what I think everyone could agree on is this: let's encourage Congress to fund the most comprehensive research study in history to identify and study every imaginable factor that may be contributing to mass shootings.

Many studies of school violence have focused on one or two potential factors, but clearly that's not enough. Here are a couple of things we have learned: First of all, while mass shootings continue to increase, individual shootings in schools are the lowest in 23 years. It just seems like they're increasing because of the clustered nature of the killings, and the media coverage. As one researcher commented, "I sit here in Philadelphia with 400 homicides a year. It's not just mass murders. It's just everyday slaughter." Maybe the studies need to start by identifying whether the problem is more about violence or notoriety. Second, there are several "profiles" of school shooters - some come from typical traumatized homes, others suffer from mental illness, but some shooters have no history of either. Clearly there are factors here we haven't explored. Third, while there are a few simple factors that shooters virtually all have in common - current or former students, 18-30 years old, male, carrying multiple weapons - other factors are not universal, and certainly not predictive. In a 2001 study of 34 mass killers, 70% were described as "a loner", 61.5% had issues with substance abuse, 48% had preoccupations with weapons, 43.5% had been victims of bullying. Only 23% percent had a documented psychiatric history of any kind―which means three out of four did not. About half have a history of animal cruelty. School shooters have been mostly white but not all. As most scientists wisely point out, since the overwhelming majority of young male loners  are NOT shooting anyone, even if these characteristics were 100% correlated, they would still give us a pattern but not a prediction.

Here's one obvious problem - all of these studies are done independently, piecemeal. Most of them are looking at fairly obvious factors. Where is the push from politicians for us to be smart, and multi-disciplinary, in identifying more predictive factors or combinations of factors that contribute to mass shootings? Has anyone bothered to consider whether it's relevant that all of these guys were single? That all of these schools have been coed? Is there a correlation between gun laws and shootings in individual states? Were these shooters rejected from sports teams in middle school? Did they have positive male role models? Did they eat their vegetables as kids? Is any of that important? I don't know... but more information gives us a greater chance of identifying factors that are truly relevant and can be changed.

Unless we expand and correlate our search for related factors in mass shootings, we are stuck with the same old theories and may overlook data that doesn't seem relevant. It is like trying to predict which national anthem will be played by studying the heights of the athletes standing on the Olympic podium. We may find a correlation, and we may even publish a paper about it, but we don't actually get any closer to understanding the real issue. It's the nationality, not the height, that really matters. Could the same phenomenon be occurring with school shootings? We need to ask the right questions. As we all learned in 8th grade science, before you can form a theory and then a hypothesis about why something is happening, you have to begin with good observation, and in this case, good observation means gathering EXTENSIVE data about school shootings in MANY disciplines, and not settling for a handful of studies that "prove" that we're "right" about guns and mental illness.

Perhaps the national dialogue keeps coming back to the same small list of explanations because they are easy and familiar targets to blame. Sometimes we look for solutions in the wrong places, or we fail to look for solutions in the right places, because they're counterintuitive and even offensive to suggest. Two classic examples:

1. In 1822, obstetrician William Campbell, and later, Ignatz Semmelweiss, identified correctly that the horrifically high death toll of childbed fever in maternity wards was not due to the hospitals or the method of care - it was the doctors themselves who were carrying "disease particles" on their unwashed hands. The suggestion was immediately rejected because, as one Philadelphia practitioner said, "Doctors are gentlemen...and gentlemen's hands are clean." The theory was rejected because it offended practitioners and Campbell could offer no scientific explanation because germs hadn't been discovered.

2. Suicide clusters have similarly puzzled the public for decades, until researchers in the early 1990's identified the media as a key factor. It turns out that media coverage or publicity over one death serves to presents suicide as an option to other vulnerable people and encourages suicide in the same way - called copycat suicides. Two Viennese studies showed that less dramatic and extensive media coverage of subway-related suicides led to fewer suicide deaths in the following months. After introducing a campaign to encourage safe media reporting, suicides and attempted suicides in the subway actually dropped by 80%.

Intuitively, it makes no sense that a newspaper article should influence whether a 16 year old boy chooses to end his life, but it doesn't matter - when we notice a connection, we should pay attention. And as with the lack of understanding around germ theory, we may not be able to immediately identify WHY a factor is related, but if changing it helps, it doesn't really matter if we understand it.

I don't know why school shootings seem to be so common. I don't know why mass shootings in schools increase while individual homicides decrease. I don't know if or how shootings could be related to gender, policy, religiosity, biochemistry or Pokemon, but I hope that in our desperation we will stop squabbling and work together to find out.


As a final note, I recognize that with all the data we collect, we may still fail to identify the true causes of mass shootings. We will continue to invent and test various theories, and hopefully those theories will become more sophisticated and helpful - but if we put our trust in science alone, our survival relies on the skills and creativity of our PhDs, none of whom can see into the future. A situation like school shootings puts into perspective how limited we are as mortals in this respect. That is why we inscribe on every dime: "In God We Trust". God is not just for Sunday or to make us feel good - He can also help us survive: Heavenly Father has promised us that if we obey the commandments, we will prosper in the land, and if we don't, we will suffer (this promise is repeated at least 14 times in the Book of Mormon). Following the discussion above - if more information is critical to better decision making, then God is the ultimate decider. His recommendations should hold far more weight than any scientist or politician. What has He asked us to do? Love each other, be honest, keep the Sabbath day holy, honor our mothers and fathers, be sexually clean. In the Proclamation on the Family we're commanded to strengthen our families with a warning that a failure to do so will result in individual and national calamities. Am I saying that failing to love each other and strengthen families is contributing to school shootings? I don't know, but in our quest to understand and solve "calamities" like these, let's start here.

The Deceptive Difference of Paradigms on Religion

Last night, my husband and I had a long and fascinating discussion with someone from a very different political background. For the sake of polite conversation (and our somewhat desperate attempts to make friends in a new city), everyone's views about most things were expressed in general terms that called on shared values of love and tolerance. However, later that night, something occurred to me about the narratives that both sides use to discuss the role of religion in society. On the surface level, they sound very similar, but there is a small, sinister difference between these two arguments. See if you can identify it:

1. We shouldn't go around judging who's right and wrong.

2. We shouldn't insist that everyone agree with us.

The first argument could be reworded to say, "What gives me the right to claim that I'm right and that someone else is wrong?" It challenges the ethnocentrism of our personal beliefs and values. By saying we shouldn't "judge" the beliefs or actions of others, it implies that our own opinions of rightness and wrongness aren't necessarily universal. What I perceive is “wrong” may be just wrong for me, but not for someone else. In fact, my insistence on being right could lead to fanaticism and even terrorism (see Andrew Sullivan's post-9/11 New York Times Magazine cover article, "This is a Religious War"). This argument naturally leads to the view that organized religion itself can be dangerous, so it's important that we keep them in check by adapting our beliefs, or at least becoming more flexible with them, in order to foster a free and civil society. Let's call this group "relativists".

The second argument says, "I absolutely believe I'm right, but others have the right to be wrong." It just accepts that people will always have strong beliefs about what is right and wrong, and that in fact, personal convictions are inevitable, regardless of whether we realize we hold them (even 3 year-olds recognize the immorality of something being "unfair"), or whether they are contained in an organized religion (think:"We hold these truths to be self evident"). It also acknowledges that even if we agree on certain core values, we still differ in our beliefs about the nature of God and mankind and the universe, the purpose of life, and what actions are good and bad. But the second argument doesn't see inflexible beliefs as a problem - in fact, this argument is fine with people believing ridiculous or even dangerous things and disagreeing with each other vehemently - the second argument believes we can still live in the same pluralistic society where we respect each other's privilege to worship without being required to accept the rightness or wrongness of those beliefs. Let's call this group the "pluralists".

Can you see the difference between these two arguments? Two similar phrases each reflect the tip of a metaphorical iceberg representing a different social paradigm toward religion. So why is this difference so sinister? And why does it matter?

Look at them again. 

While wearing the clothes of respect and tolerance, there is something deceptively intolerant about the relativistic argument of religion. Relativism is itself an ideological paradigm. The belief that there is no universal code of conduct is, in fact, a belief, a value system: a religion. The church of relativism seeks social unity not by embracing diversity, but by eliminating it. And when that paradigm becomes the law of the land, it becomes paramount to a state-instituted religion. It's a bit paradoxical, but think about it this way. An adherent to the relativist argument will say "I believe there is no universal moral code of right and wrong" but the unspoken follow up is, "...and if you don't agree with that, then you're wrong." You see? Moral absolutes are still strongly held, it's just being done in a way that is less noticeable. Those who use the paradigm of irreligion as their religion are like fish in the sea claiming they don't believe in water.

Pluralism, as I describe it in argument two, is also a belief system - but it's about the nature of society, not the attainability of truth. Rather than seeking to whitewash religion or restrict certain actions and beliefs, it provides a framework under which adherents of all faith groups can believe and practice freely, however their conscience dictates. Requiring "flexibility" sounds perfectly reasonable to irreligionists, but it may be a ticket to hell for some groups, for whom any flexibility in keeping God's commandments is not patriotism, but sin. And remember - requiring people's beliefs to be flexible is in of itself a very inflexible belief!

Kevin Seamus Hasson, the founder of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said, "We can, and should, respect others' duty to follow their consciences even as we insist they're mistaken. Why? Because others have their duty to follow their presumably mistaken consciences as we do to follow our presumably correct ones." So...shouldn't that make us relativists? Not at all:

Respect for conscience makes sense of clashing truth claims without denying them or relativizing them. It's not that there is no truth, as the deconstructionists would have it, or that everything is somehow true for somebody, as the greeting-card writers would. It's that people make mistakes about what truth is, yet still have to obey their consciences nonetheless. So we can respect their duty to follow their consciences and embrace a particular faith-- and at the very same time be utterly convinced that the faith they're embracing is absolute drivel. [The Right to Be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America (San Francisco: Encounter, 2005), pp. 15-16.]

Pluralism doesn't waste any time trying to decide who is right or wrong, or whether there is a right or wrong. It doesn't need to. It accepts that even if I was utterly convinced of the rightness of my beliefs (including the belief that all religions are oppressive!), others have the right to be wrong, even holding beliefs that I consider oppressive, misogynistic, racist, old-fashioned, unscientific, or just weird. 

Adherents to the first argument believe that their position respects all different viewpoints, that their 'tolerance' is making this country safe for minorities and American pluralism. However, by insisting that "the price of freedom for everyone is that no one can be allowed to publicly claim that anything transcendent is absolutely true" (Hasson, p.3), these self-appointed guardians of public trust actually just eliminate pluralism itself. Hopefully, it is clear to everyone reading this that we don't keep our country safe by excluding persons we disagree with from national discussions (Evangelical Christians or nazis, communists or polygamists), but by including everyone. 

Reflecting on relativism as a religion, bent on eliminating religious diversity in order to protect it, Catholic commentator M.J. Sobran said the following (replace the word "secularism" with "relativism"): 

The Framers of the Constitution...forbade the Congress to make any law 'respecting' the establishment of religion...and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge 'the free exercise' of religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism [we might say aggressive relativism]. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it.  

What the secularists [relativists] are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secular [relativist] grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And--I repeat--the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism [relativism]. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs. [Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51-52, 60-61]

I agree with Neal A. Maxwell that "irreligion as the state religion would be the worst of all combinations...its orthodoxy would be insistent and its inquisitors inevitable." If the state religion is irreligion or relativism, than every other religion is oppressed and marginalized in the name of tolerance. Elder Maxwell continues:

In its mildest form, irreligion will merely be condescending toward those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values. In its more harsh forms, as is always the case with those whose dogmatism is blinding, the secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments. It is always such an easy step from dogmatism to unfair play--especially so when the dogmatists believe themselves to be dealing with primitive people who do not know what is best for them." ["Meeting the Challenges of Today", The Inexhaustible Gospel: A Retrospective of Twenty-one Firesides and Devotionals, Brigham Young University, 2004]

Even with its tenets of liberality and tolerance, note the word Maxwell uses to describe relativism: Dogmatism. Isn't that ironic?

"Not judging" is not the same as "not insisting that we agree," even if it sounds very similar. I have written many posts about the importance of being able to recognize and analyze our own social paradigms. It is in large measure because of this problem – when a paradigm is so persuasive it no longer seems like a paradigm at all, but rather the only way to possibly interpret the facts. But let us stop and question the most fundamental tenants of this "religion" which by its very nature condescends, discounts, and oppresses those who hold any other firm religious belief that differs from our own. Is that the way we want to look at society? Is that how we want America to be? Is there a better way?

As a Mormon, I care deeply about this topic because I personally hold some very strong, unusual, and admittedly inflexible beliefs. I believe that a man named Jesus who actually lived in Judea was the Son of God and died for our sins. I believe Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to a 14 year-old boy in a grove of trees in New York in the Spring of 1820, and that that boy later uncovered and translated by the power of God the Book of Mormon, another witness of Jesus Christ. I believe there is a living prophet today who gives us counsel from God for our current challenges - and that acting on that counsel will lead to better and happier lives for everyone, universally. I believe my religion teaches me not just to take these actions myself, but to encourage those around me to take these actions, so they can be happy too.

You may not agree with me. But that's the point isn't it? If your religion believes that "there is no universal code of good and bad", then I won't stop you from preaching that. But I hope you will be a pluralist as well as a relativist, and allow me to practice my faith as well, which insists that there is an eternal law, and commands us to "discern between truth and error" and between "good and bad" (1 Kings 3:9).

I agree with Hasson that fundamentally, every person “share(s) a thirst for the true and the good, and a conscience that drives our quest to find them." I hope America will continue to be a nation that respects and protects our individual quest to do so. 

Why I Am Not a Feminist

The media made a big deal about Taylor Swift being a feminist. In an effort to prove that it wasn't a big deal, she said "I just think men and women should be equal." Don't you? 

Well, maybe we're asking the wrong question.

First of all, what is feminism? Taylor Swift actually quoted the Mirriam-Webster definition:

Sounds great. But let me explain the weird underlying problem with that statement.

The concept of equality as defined by feminism carries very specific assumptions. Feminist theory is derived from conflict theory. Karl Marx, the father of conflict theory, believed that the inherent nature of society was about competition. Society existed as a means for various groups to compete for scarce resources. That's why we're together - to see who can get ahead, who can climb the ladder, who can win the game. It's based on the assumption that everyone is fundamentally motivated by self-interest.

If conflict theory/feminism is your paradigm, your main concern will be things like equality, fairness, rights, and a "level playing field" (an apt metaphor). If it's all about the competition, then naturally ANY differentiation between groups means there is inequality, or at least the potential for inequality (which is why everyone lines up at the same starting line, uses the same sized bowling pins, etc.).

If you're mainly concerned with equality and fairness between the sexes, chances are good you are a feminist.

I am not.

What? Are you saying we should be unequal? oppressed? marginalized? No. I'm saying that I don't think feminism is the solution, for four reasons:

#1 - I have a problem with the framework of competition.

Feminism adapts Marx's conflict theory by taking his idea that society is all about "bourgeouis vs proletariat" to society being all about "men vs. women" Once that becomes our framework, it's easy to start measuring who is "winning", who has the "power", and who is "oppressing" the "victim" -- all terms laden with values and assumptions. Without ignoring all of the terrible crimes that have been committed throughout history against women, I don't think that viewing men and women as competing groups is a particularly helpful way to view the world. And, considering the fundamentally cooperative natures of our biological designs (ahem, procreation), one could even argue that God doesn't think it's particularly helpful either.

Think of this argument in terms of our relationships: how much time and effort should we spend worrying about whether everything is equal between ourselves and our significant other? Do we keep score? Count the number of chores done, or money contributed, or loving gestures made by each partner? That sounds terrible to me! Even if the idea of equality sounds good, the framework of competition or comparison which is required to defend the notion of equality is inherently damaging to relationships. And if it is damaging to a marriage, it is damaging to all of society.

Feminism and conflict theory divide people into two teams. It assumes that we're inherently pitted against each other in order to reach our goals.

But do you see the inherently unnecessary construct there? It divides PEOPLE into two teams. Why don't we instead develop a theory where the two teams are us (all people) against bad situations? Against bad institutions? Bad ideas and laws? Unhelpful norms, values, and traditions? What if we assume that all of us were on the same team to fight injustice? Then maybe unity, instead of equality, would become our target goal. When our focus is equality between individuals, we unconsciously frame others as our adversaries, even if we are trying to play fair.

The father of sociology, Emile Durkheim, saw society as all members of the same team. He referred to society as a machine, or a body - I'm a hand, you're an eye, he's a heart, and we all play important but distinct roles that cooperate with each other to create society (he called this framework "functionalism").  If functionalism is how you view the world, does it particularly matter whether the hand and the eye are "equal"? Not really. It's not that we promote inequality, it's just that the concepts of equality and inequality in a functionalist framework aren't particularly relevant. Instead, he asked questions like: Is every part functional? Is everyone useful? Is everyone integrated and happy? Is everyone using their own unique skills to contribute to the whole?

Functionalism may not be your paradigm, but I hope this demonstrates a point. The framework, or metaphor, that we use to explain society and our roles within it, is not set in stone. Feminism is not the only framework for understanding society, or defending womanhood.

I don't know all the answers about gender issues, but as a Christian I don't believe that conflict theory is a particularly helpful way to look at things. In the scriptures Christ says, "He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me." Whether we (as Taylor said it) "hate men" or not, the fundamental assumption that all individuals and groups are selfish and that this is all a big fight I believe causes more problems than it solves. Competition creates the assumption of a zero-sum proposition. One of us has to lose in order for the other to win, and therefore every other person outside of my group (gender, race, religion, etc.) is also my adversary.

Doesn't that just SOUND terrible?

So - to return to Taylor Swift, if asked "do you think men and women should be equal?" I might respond by saying, well, yes, but we're asking the wrong question. A better question might be "do you think men and women should be unified?" I can't focus on being my best self if I am focused on comparing my group to some other group. Furthermore, if I'm focused on who has more, who is further ahead, and who is doing better, especially in family relationships, we all lose. I can't rejoice in or be a part of the success of others, because if they do better, I am doing worse by comparison.

#2 - My second reason for not being a feminist is because the I believe the premise of feminism destroys our ability to objectively view and appreciate our distinct natures as men and women. Classic feminism is based on gender theory, which holds that any differentiation between men and women creates inequality - As demonstrated in Brown vs. Board of Education, where it was established that separate but equal is unequal (in regards to race). In other words: if we want to be equal, we must demonstrate that men and women are inherently the same. Sure, some will acknowledge, there are a few reproductive differences, but other than that we are basically the same and should therefore be treated the same. The premise holds that men and women are not apples and oranges - we are both pears.

Feminism: men and women are both pears

Believing that men and women are both pears helps in some ways - if we are pretty much the same, we can be side-by-side "compeared" (ha ha). We can sit in coed classrooms, benefit from the same learning activities, be evaluated by the same rubric. We can work in the same positions for the same pay, be given the same consideration for raises and promotions, participate together in any sport or activity, and receive all of the same legal considerations and benefits. We like that. 

But what if we're wrong? What if gender is not like race at all? What if men and women are just as different as we are alike? This is the constant debate of most books on gender - on the one side you have those who fight for similarity ("The Gender Myth", "Delusions of Gender") and on the other side you have those fighting for distinctness ("The Female Brain", "How to Raise a Son", "Why Gender Matters").

The argument against the pear perspective is that problems often arise when we pretend that gender differences don't exist, or that the differences are irrelevant. Most observed differences between boys and girls are slight - plotted, they look like two bell curves that mostly overlap. But where those differences exist, they should be taken into consideration (like the developmental differences between a 5 year-old and 8 year-old, for example). Boys and girls are different in shocking numbers of ways. They develop different brain structure and functioning, different hormonal reactions to events and medication and other people, different physical and emotional proclivities to certain skills and characteristics; they even process seeing and hearing differently. 

When we expect the same performance from girls and boys in every field (pretending everyone is a pear), the comparison hurts both sides. We either develop inferiority or superiority complexes, depending on the characteristic: one boy doesn't read as early as his sister did, or the girls don't run as fast as the boys in track. One area where we seem comfortable with these differences is in gymnastics, where men and women compete in completely different events based on physical strengths (pommel horse for men vs. balancing beam for women), but studies have shown that the differences go much deeper than just one's center of gravity and muscle mass. It is possible that apples and oranges are a better analogy after all.

After teaching classes on gender and reading a number of books on either side, I am still undecided about whether the differences between men and women are primarily social or biological, but I can say this: if our system of government or society DEPENDS on the answer to this question, then we are in big trouble! There is simply no way to ethically prove "nature or nurture" - or whether the answer is some combination of the two.

So here's the good news: we don't have to make that decision. It doesn't fundamentally matter where gender differences comes from. As long as there ARE measurable differences between men and women, boys and girls, male and female fetuses, we must have a social system that can view these differences with respect, and find value in both sets of characteristics. That means we should not freak out when we discover there are more male engineers or female English teachers, nor should we slam anyone who claims the situation is "sexist", nor rush to assign blame, nor hide behind notable exceptions (prominent female athletes, sensitive men, etc.). Recalling my earlier point about rejecting the comparison paradigm, we CAN appreciate these characteristics individually without comparing them. We can all just chill out.

It is possible that in general girls are biologically prone to be more nurturing. It could be that girls are more taught to be nurturing. It's possible that girls simply tend to fulfill more nurturing roles in society. It doesn't matter - we just need to agree as a society that being nurturing is a good characteristic to have. And, in fact, that all characteristics that tend to be attributed to women - being humble, nurturing, compassionate, cooperative - are just as important and valuable as their masculine counterparts, such as being strong, confident, assertive, and analytical. (see my article on the power of vulnerability here). If we truly value all of these characteristics, we shouldn't feel upset by or feel an obligation to change the fact that women and men demonstrate different strengths or proclivities. If we're willing to look outside of feminism and see men and women on the same team instead of opposing teams, different strengths can be seen as complementary and not threatening.

At this point, someone will likely say something like, "But Kindra, shouldn't we be encouraging boys to be nurturing too? Shouldn't girls learn to be confident and assertive?" Absolutely. We begin with the premise that God wants us ALL to develop ALL good characteristics - but if we don't acknowledge the fact that men and women come with certain predispositions that tend to be correlated with our gender, then we end up becoming angry at each other and ourselves for not being "naturally" good at certain things. 

Another example: Because of differences in how and where men and women experience sexual arousal in the brain, it is probably easier for women to control their sexual feelings. Men's sex drive seems centered in the hypothalamus, which regulates appetite, and women's sex drive lights up in the frontal cortex, which process higher thought like judgment and memory. If we've decided we're both pears, and so we ignore this difference, we women can get really angry at men when they're distracted by scantily clad women. Alternatively, men who don't understand how women view sex differently than they do may be more prone to sexual violence and rape, believing in a twisted way that since they themselves would enjoy being treated that way, women secretly must like it too. 

One more way in which ignoring gender differences hurt us both: If you look at hormonal responses to danger, men tend to release testosterone, which feels good - they get a rush! By comparison, women in dangerous or risky situations release hormones that make us feel nauseous. If we're thinking everyone's a pear, women think of men as inherently irresponsible, and men will think women are just wusses because they are less prone to taking risks, and think of them as mentally weak. Different strengths and weaknesses are merely that: different.  It is a feminist perspective that demands a hierarchy.

#3 - The third reason I am not a feminist is because feminism condemns and fights against the existence of gender roles and stereotypes. It is simply unrealistic to demand or even expect the elimination of all gender roles in society. I think we have this idea in our mind that a perfect society would have all husbands and wives both working and caring for children in equal amounts, or at least having an equal number of stay-at-home moms and dads. But what if that's not what we want? If you're a feminist, and your priority is to eliminate inequality by eliminating differences, then you end up condemning a lot of people for making any life decisions that feed into gender stereotypes. Most women do want to have children, for example, and work only part time if at all. If we eliminated all legal and social restrictions so that men and women could make whatever choices they wanted to, it's possible that we would still make different choices, regardless of whether our strengths and preferences are inherently biological or social. Are we okay with that? 

It is possible that women would rather teach than be engineers. It is possible that when offered great maternity benefits from their high-paying career, women will want to give it up anyway and stay home to raise children, because of an overwhelming sense of love and connection and commitment to care for those children. Are we really going to call that internalized sexism? Or can we admit that teachers and engineers are both important; and that having a cool job and raising kids are both valuable contributions to society? I'm fine with expanding opportunities - but I also insist that we grant men and women the freedom to choose their own route to happiness, even if we do end up with more stay-at-home moms and more male engineers.

#4 - Feminism squashes the beauty and unique significance of womanhood. Here's an uncomfortable juxtaposition: If we're equal, as feminists demand, can we also be special? Would we rather have equal rights, like equal pay, or would we prefer special rights, like maternity benefits? This debate goes back to the Seneca Falls convention. Some modern feminists claim that while their focus is on equality, feminism is also about recognizing the role of women in society - that a woman's perspective is important and unique, and that events, legislation, and literature needs to be viewed in terms of how they influence women specifically. But do you see the inherent contradiction in that position? That is an apples and orange perspective! That says that a woman's viewpoints needs to be considered because it IS different and special, and therefore women and men are NOT interchangeable.

(As a side note, I do very much believe in the modern feminist idea that a woman's perspective is unique and important. If that's your definition of feminism, ignore the title of this post and count me in. But you must also recognize that the natural companion of that perspective is a belief in the inherent difference between men and women, and that gender is not entirely a social construct. Most feminists won't go there with me) 

As I mentioned in an earlier blog post with regards to race - we cannot decide that gender is both special and irrelevant. Being a woman either makes you special - and gives you special characteristics, roles, responsibilities, which may influence the way you behave and the way you are treated - or it must be irrelevant. 

First of all, as a daughter of God, I am proud of being a woman, and I do believe that gender is a critical part of my identity. Secondly - and without going too far on this tangent - I also believe that eliminating gender in an effort to make society all-inclusive has led to a sense of universal directionlessness. If there's nothing special about being a man, then there's nothing society expects of you because of that. You are never taught any special regard for women or womanhood. There's nothing about your identity as a man that you're taught to value or treasure, or gifts you're taught to recognize in yourself. If there's nothing special about you as a man or as a woman, then there's nothing special that you need to do.

I think enough social research has demonstrated that, despite popular opinion, people are HAPPIER and MORE SUCCESSFUL when they are given clear roles, responsibilities, and expectations. Even though kids complain about it, children of permissive parents (high on love, low on rules and expectations) turn out to be the least happy of any other parenting styles. 


You can never meet expectations that don't exist, and more often than not, for men, when expectations are not placed on them, they make few expectations of themselves. For women, when expectations are not placed on them, they make unlimited expectations of themselves. I know that a lot of people don't fit traditional gender expectations, but eliminating them entirely cannot be the answer. No one is likely to experience success or happiness under these conditions. 

I believe God has a plan for his sons and daughters, and he has specific work for us to accomplish in this life BECAUSE OF, not in spite of, our similarities and differences. I do believe that men and women are meant to be seen as complementary, not competitive, sexes. The essential framework of feminism abolishes strengths, magnifies weaknesses, pits husbands and wives against each other, condemns us for our natural desires, and eliminates the unique male and female qualities that add vibrancy, complexity, strength and beauty to society. I hope we will eventually get sick of comparing pears and choose a social framework that allows us as men and women to be as distinct and yet equally beautiful as apples and oranges. When we recognize gender as an important part of human development and identity, we will cultivate greater love and respect for ourselves and others, and we will hopefully put more effort into making society a cooperative venture instead of a competitive one.