A New Framework for Understanding the Poor

Sydney Poitier was a pioneer black protagonist in films from the 1960s (Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, To Sir with Love). In an era of gross underrepresentation of people of color, Sydney Poitier became more than just a token black person and became an icon and a hero for many black Americans. However, even though I love his films, it’s always bothered me a little that he always plays a doctor, a professor - always kind, professional, well-dressed - as if, in order to be acceptable to white movie-going audiences in the 1960s, his “blackness” needed to be consistently offset by wholesome, pro-social behavior and credentials.

Black people, I often say, do not deserve equal rights because they are good; they deserve equal rights because they are people. We make no claim as to anyone’s “goodness” or “badness” because that’s frankly irrelevant to how we should treat one another, both legally and interpersonally.

I think we sometimes suffer from the same misunderstanding with those who are poor. As with Sydney Poitier and the movie commentary on race, when we portray the poor as Will Smith does in “The Pursuit of Happyness”, in some ways we actually make the problem worse. 

Our society tends to fall into one of two false beliefs about the poor. Some people want to cast the poor as lazy, immoral, irresponsible - “undeserving”, while the other group in society sometimes pretend that everyone who is poor is merely “down on their luck” or simply suffering from “oppression” or “institutional racism” - all things that are beyond their control. Both groups are wrong.

When we moved to Detroit, I was definitely in the second group. I assumed that the only reason the poor struggled was because of factors outside their control, and I was angry at people in group 1 who seemed full of judgment and blame - probably because they couldn’t see all of those obstacles. If we could only fix the environment - provide jobs, shelters, financial resources, education, housing, bring food to “food deserts” - then the poor would spring into the middle class and fulfill the American dream. 

Hollywood backed me up. In “The Pursuit of Happyness”, Will Smith emulates this ideal. He plays a good, loving, hardworking, scrappy father who does everything he can to help his son and just finds doors of opportunity shutting around him, unfairly. Once he breaks through those walls and is given the chance to succeed, he does! And they live happily ever after (and again, I feel the need to say I actually really loved the movie). 

There was a general understanding throughout much of history that the poor were poor because they deserved to be. Most were by nature “improvident, reckless and intemperate, and with habitual avidity for sensual gratification.” Speaking of the Irish, Friedrich Engels wrote “The facile character of the Irishman, his crudity, which places him but little above the savage, his contempt for all humane enjoyments, in which his very crudeness makes him incapable of sharing, his filth and poverty, all favour drunkenness.” In this framework, there’s not much to be done for the poor - both because they don’t deserve it - pearls before swine etc - and because it probably wouldn’t help much anyway. John Snow “almost uniquely among medical authorities (in the mid 1800’s) he did not blame the poor for their own diseases, but saw that their conditions of living left them vulnerable to influences beyond their control.” (428)

There certainly are obstacles in the lives of the poor that are outside their control. There are many things that we as fellow citizens, local and federal governments, and other institutions and agencies can do to change - unfair laws, inefficient justice and immigration systems, poor schools, gang- and drug- promoting media, lack of childcare options, exorbitant healthcare costs - it’s a huge list. It’s so huge, in fact, that it’s tempting to take away any responsibility from the poor at all, and consider them innocent victims of a society that has done them wrong.

The downside of this more charitable approach is that it may have unintended consequences. That is, we Hollywood-and-college-educated folks may find that when we interact personally with these people, a lot of the stereotypes we have carefully avoided turn out to be true.

When we lived in Detroit, we saw a lot of ugly stereotypes being fulfilled. There was a lot of sexual promiscuity among teenagers. A lot of lower class friends of ours made really stupid financial decisions.

We became close friends with three young single mothers (Hispanic, white, and black, ironically) who received many of the resources designed to remove society’s obstacles. One of them for example got a huge tax return every year, a free therapist who traveled to her home for appointments, donations of clothing and furniture, food stamps, rental assistance, job training, free college tuition, subsidized daycare, and church assistance with meals and other necessities. As a high schooler she had had some of the best-paid teachers in the state, with field trips to inspiring museums and performances. She had access to free public transportation and medical care.

On the one hand, it was nice to see so many things working in their favor. Many wonderful people have found ways to meet the needs of people like our friends, and it’s incredibly encouraging to see. 

On the other hand - their situations over the years has remained virtually unchanged.

The uncomfortable realization I had was seeing the ways in which their situations were perpetuated by their actions. They choose to remain with an abusive boyfriend. They choose to beat their child with a hanger/belt/shoe instead of using time out. They choose to stay near family instead of moving to a safer neighborhood. They choose to start a fist fight with a coworker and therefore loses her job. They choose to buy frozen pizza bites instead of apples. They chooses to put their children in front of the TV all day instead of reading books with them. They choose not to take birth control. 

Again - it is possible that poor people are arrested more often because police are biased against them, or because of horrible treatment based solely on skin color (I have seen this happen personally). It is crucial that we don’t pretend these events are imaginary. 

But what is uglier is the terrible conclusions we come to when we are taught that poor people are all victims and as pure as the driven snow, and then our experience teaches us differently. I look around and see that the black kids in my classroom are the most disorderly and get the worst grades - no one is telling me this, I’m just drawing my own teenager conclusions. I am robbed at gunpoint on my driveway in a neighborhood that was “pretty safe” but definitely lower income. Without providing context, especially for children, we fail to show how a history of bad TREATMENT by society can result in bad CULTURAL changes that result in bad ACTIONS. Instead, kids will think - well, maybe there IS something wrong with that group of people.

Some people deflect even at this point, wanting to say that whether an action is “good” or “bad” is itself a value-laden or even a racist statement. But this isn’t unusual. Our society regularly promotes certain actions and discourages others - We promote quality teachers in schools because we believe that learning effectively is “good”. We create Child Protective Service because we believe that scalding children is “bad”. We fund campaigns for fruits and vegetables because we think eating fruits and vegetables is “good”. Frankly, if we can’t judge actions as good or bad, it’s hard to judge any changes as good or bad either.

I think it is fair to say that, generally, actions that lead to financial self-sufficiency, strong relationships, public safety, healthy bodies and minds and interconnected communities are good. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, I’m comfortable listing a whole host of things that are bad (or we may say “wicked”): Addiction is bad. Stealing is bad. Lying and cheating are bad. Killing and hurting are bad. Ignorance is bad. Laziness, gluttony, fornication, adultery, and anarchy are bad. They are bad because they destroy individuals, families, and communities, harm bodies and minds, threaten safety and every kind of well-being.

So, recognizing my bias in this regard, I will identify the framework that makes more sense when understanding the plight of the poor: it is both institutions and personal actions (impacted by said institutions) that lead to the suffering of the poor.

There is a name for this combination of effects in the Book of Mormon. It is called the "wicked traditions of fathers"

There are extensive references to one group of people, the Lamanites, who are considered a “filthy, loathsome people”, full of “violence”, stealing, “idleness” and “idolatry” (Again - taking into account potential bias - the record was kept by a different group of people). Even former Lamanites themselves acknowledged the need to leave behind the negative traits they have inherited from their culture.

“Wicked traditions of fathers” are the negative cultural traits that we unwittingly adopt from our parents and culture and pass on to the next generation because we were taught that they are good, or that they don’t matter. Sometimes we adopt these traits simply because we have never been presented with another option

One prophet, Jacob, tells the Nephites - I know you think you are better than them (because they steal and kill each other and you don’t), but “a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.”

My Detroit friend grew up in a society where she was never taught the importance of being financially honest, paying bills on time, or having sexual restraint. No one ever mentioned what a credit score was, or set the expectation that doing well in school was important. Getting off Medicaid and food stamps was never treated as a goal or even seen as something desirable. On a visit to our house she gasped as she had never seen someone jogging. She didn’t know anyone who was actually married. She owned several cars before learning that she needed to get the oil changed occasionally. She had no clue how to vote, budget, write a resume, cook vegetables or use time-out with her kids. 

Most of this is due to what she learned from her parents. Her dad was a nonexistent presence in her life and her mom abandoned her at the hospital when she was born. My friend's mom didn’t graduate from high school, had no assets or even a bank account and spent much of my friend's childhood “squatting” in abandoned houses and stealing electricity from neighbors. Her mom either ignored them or beat them when they misbehaved, so there was not a lot of direction or support in many ways. My friend's mom had a reputation in the neighborhood for her promiscuity and neglectful of her children. My friend remembers being hungry enough once that she and her sister ate toothpaste. 

This wasn’t from a lack of resources - her mother had food stamps, but she sold them for cigarettes or used them to buy nice food for her boyfriends. She had medicaid but her lifestyle was so unhealthy she developed diabetes and had to have several fingers and toes amputated. TJ’s mom had free transportation and probably similar supports to TJ, but her actions often sabotaged the intent behind these supports and didn’t improve her life.

I don’t know where these “wicked traditions” came from, but I’m guessing many of them were handed down in a similar way, from the previous generations. And where did they originate? We don’t know exactly how certain traditions came to be, whether they were CAUSED by external factors or by “wicked fathers”, but I don’t actually think it matters.

In conclusion, this girl is poor for many reasons, a lot of them are not her fault, some of them are, but the things that are her fault are still in large part due to the “wicked traditions” of her parents. Frankly, whether they are issues of morality or social responsibility or even just living a self-reliant lifestyle - my Detroit friend is impoverished. She needs both institutional change and the personal relationships and mentoring that can help her succeed.

Gaza, Racism, etc.: How to Change the Blame Game

Why do we get so upset when told that a situation is "complicated"? I saw one protestor today in Israel with a sign that said "It's NOT complicated. It's Ethnic Cleansing!" Israeli missiles have killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians. Bad guys, right? Well...the Palestinians have been firing thousands of rockets at Israel too. Okay...so they're bad guys too? Well no - because only a few Israelis have actually died. So...Israel is mostly the bad guy, and Palestine is mostly the good guy?

It sounds kind of silly. And yet we do this all the time.

Saying a situation is "complicated" sounds like we're trying to appease everyone by not assigning ANYONE as the bad guy. Well, how would we feel about someone responding that way to...

Rape? “It’s complicated”

Slavery? “It’s complicated”

That feels insulting, doesn’t it? Fundamentally though, it points to the fact that we don’t deal well with nuance. We assume that the word "complicated" removes responsibility from the "bad guys", or somehow downplays the awfulness of the situation. Or, worse - "complicated" means that we think some blame should go to the victim.

Are these the only two options?

When thinking about various social evils, most of us come from a perspective grounded in conflict theory - the belief that society is fundamentally us-vs-them. Who are the good guys and bad guys in this situation? Who is fundamentally the victim and the oppressor? Seeing society as a series of dichotomies makes us feel better. It makes for a nice narrative (and great for fundraisers, headlines and tweets), when a situation can somehow to boiled down to the forces of good and evil pitted against each other. 

But assigning roles like oppressor and victim doesn’t actually solve problems. Like, ever. It just makes everyone angry and unwilling to listen to each other. The one who gets to be the “victim” is given free license to unbridled indignation, the “oppressor” is resentful for being misunderstood and feels unfairly demonized.

The song "Officer Krupke" from West Side Story makes light of this. Who’s fault is it that this kid is messed up? Why, it’s his parents! No, it’s his society! No, it’s biology! No, it’s just bad luck! - There’s no solution in the song, but as the baton of blame is passed around, it’s apparent that playing the blame game is about as silly as it sounds.

Even making this point will anger some people - again, because the assumption then is victim-blaming and victim-shaming, which are the last thing we want to do.  THE PROBLEM IS that this assumption still fits into the same mindset - conflict theory demands we assign blame, so if it’s not going to the oppressor, it must go back to the victim (or, Officer Krupke, we’ll have to find some other designee).

How can we let go of blame? How can we drop our moral obligation to be offended on behalf of "marginalized groups"? Doesn’t this minimize the problem being discussed? How is it possible that saying “It’s complicated” doesn’t diminish the trauma, the horror, the social destruction that occurs because of these horrendous actions? Doesn't it let the bad guys off the hook?

I’m so glad you asked. Not at all.

The trick is to reject the entire paradigm. Replace it. 

Good heavens Kindra - with what?

A paradigm of social UNITY.

Choose to see a problem - whether it is war, rape, slavery, racism, domestic violence, child abuse, homelessness or whatever (regardless of how clear the issue is to assign blame) - with a paradigm founded in social unity instead of division.

If we believe society is like a soccer game with two opposing sides, then even if we play fairly, only one side ever really gets to win. It’s a permanent zero-sum game. But if we really believe the soccer game is ALL OF US against PROBLEMS and SITUATIONS, then suddenly we all get to work together to solve the problem.  What if we talked about working together against racism like we need to work together against cancer? Does that minimize or downplay the problem at all? 

It doesn't matter whether one party clearly seems to bear the brunt of responsibility (like slavery) or the responsibility may fall on multiple sides (like political polarization). Frankly, if our goal is solutions instead of blame, we will empower EVERYONE to help understand the nature of the problem and solve it, which of course includes individuals taking responsibility for whatever role they play, as well as identifying other contributing factors. By discarding our narrow blinders of blame, we will be better able to see larger social forces, institutions, norms and social patterns that play a significant role in creating social problems. It’s harder to bash social norms on Twitter than it is to bash some guy, and maybe not as satisfying, but the approach is a whole lot more effective.

For example: during the 90’s, child abusers were talked about like serial killers. Child “predators” were treated as unspeakable monsters of unknown origin who roamed the streets, looking to inflict harm on any child in their path. Watch out for those people, we used to say.  Then, in the 2000’s, we looked at the data and started to shift and think about child abuse as a social problem that was potentially influenced by lots of different factors. People who hurt children (usually their parents) are often frustrated and stressed out - they are often struggling with legal, health, relationship, and financial problems. Maybe, we thought, if we focused on solving child ABUSE instead of removing child ABUSERS, we would widen our scope of inquiry and improve our solutions. Should child abusers still go to jail? Um, heck yes. But is jailing child abusers the sum of the solution? Not even close.

I don’t think this approach minimizes the seriousness of child abuse at all, but even if it did, I would frankly rather enjoy the awesomeness of solving abuse than magnifying its horrible-ness. Wouldn’t you?

Gaza is no different. Is it more important to us to point fingers or solve problems? Are we willing to let go of the us-vs-them paradigm so that we can effectively work together to end war and suffering? Can we sacrifice some of our anger so that our desire for unity overcomes our desire to be the “more righteous” person? I hope so. Then, instead of accusatorially insisting "You are the problem" we can ask "How can you and I solve this problem?" And just maybe...if we adopt this mindset ourselves, we can encourage others to do so as well. 

Sexual "Orientation" Is Too Simple

 I've been slogging my way through Herbert Blumer's classical treatise on Symbolic Interactionism. Important - not exactly a page turner. He explains the assumptions of symbolic interactionism (basically, that we create society from moment to moment through our interactions with each other, and that we act based on a shared sense of meaning of objects and situations and perceptions). He also dives into research methodology, and condemns his contemporary peers for scientific studies that fail to incorporate real observations and experiences and analyses of "the empirical world" as he calls it. In other words, we can't start hypothesizing or designing surveys or drawing conclusions about an aspect of society if we have not established the validity of our mental images or theoretical frameworks about that topic. "The predominant procedure," he asserts, "is to take for granted one's premises about the nature of the empirical world and not to examine those premises; to take one's problems as valid because they sound good, to regard as empirically valid the data one chooses because such data fit one's conception of the problem; to be satisfied with the empirical relevance of one's concepts because they have a nice connotative ring or because they are current intellectual coins of the realm" (pg. 33). We are far more likely to allow our theories and concepts to "coerce the research" to suit one's form. "In this sense, much current scientific inquiry in the social sciences is actually social philosophizing" (p. 34).

Whenever we study an area of society, we come to it with unconscious stereotypes and biases, assumptions that we make, a picture we have created based on our previous experiences. Blumer argues that we cannot solve that problem by diving into a scientific study - in fact, that will likely worsen the problem because then we feel SURE that we KNOW something, when in fact we have only found ways to validate our preexisting notions.

There are so many good examples. Blumer points out the popularity of intelligence tests, and how merely operationalizing the concept of intelligence (so we can measure it!) doesn't actually mean we're measuring what we claim to measure. Anyone who knows a good military strategist, or a slum survivor, or a brilliant poet, or an ingenious business developer recognizes that the type of competence measured by intelligence tests captures only a small fragment of what may be characterized as intelligence.

Another example: Good research in the 1930's hypothesized that the facial or cranial features of an individual were related to their criminal conduct. "Negroid" features in particular were characteristic of all kinds of negative social behaviors. This research was usually done correctly - they asked the research question, they may have had a good sample size, their statistical analysis was probably spot on, and the resulting data proved that black people were more likely to be socially inferior, as demonstrated by their clearly inferior physical makeup. The research validated all of the racist dogmas and policies of the time. Just because a hypothesis was tested, however, does not mean truth was discovered. At no point was there a practical exploration of the premises of the study, or whether the concepts made sense, or whether the methodology truly captured what was going on, or whether the conclusions were actually borne out. Truth can only come from a "direct examination of the empirical world."

In modern terms, Blumer emphasizes the critical first component of the scientific method, which is observation. A theoretical framework can't "talk back" to us the way empirical reality can. Empirical reality comes from firsthand acquaintance with the sphere of life - "free exploration in the area, getting close to the people involved in it, seeing it in a variety of situations they meet, noting their problems and observing how they handle them, being party to their conversations, and watching their life as it flows along."

Furthermore, "the scholar who lacks that firsthand familiarity is highly unlikely to recognize that he is missing anything" (p. 37). Our focus on correct scientific protocol "becomes the unwitting substitute for a direct examination of the empirical social world."

This direct examination requires flexibility, doing whatever is ethically allowable to get a clearer picture of what is going on. he should "cultivate assiduously a readiness to view his area of study in new ways...to ask all kinds of questions, even seemingly ludicrous questions...to sensitize the observer to different and new perspectives...to record all observations that challenge one's working conceptions as well as any observation that is odd and interesting even though its relevance is not immediately clear." Darwin was the master of this strategy of exploration, asking new and different questions, writing down observations that later became "the pivots for a fruitful redirection of (his) perspective." Better description alone often answers questions without having to evoke a fancy, complicated theoretical scheme.

I hope no one has fallen asleep yet. This is what I read for fun.

Now let's talk about LESBIANS...

A friend commented on the statistic that most lesbians first sexual experiences were rape or some other kind of sexual assault. How do we interpret this? Well, there are many ways - some would say that rape causes one's orientation to change, some might claim that orientation can't change and therefore lesbian girls are more likely to find themselves in precarious situations, some would say it doesn't matter, orientation is as important as yogurt preference...there are many ways to interpret this fact. Normally, I would jump to theorizing as well. But in the spirit of Herbert Blumer, maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves...

How many of us who are jumping to conclusions about this topic have significant personal experience with the world of middle and high school girls and their sexual feelings, attitudes and experiences? (Having been a teenage girl at one point doesn't count) If we don't, we may not realize that we are missing something...we may not realize that the very picture from which we are arguing is flawed. The concepts themselves may be misleading. Our premises may be totally missing the mark. Without a doubt, our conceptualization of the issue is far less complete and complex than the reality we claim to be discussing. We may actually be debating a cartoon version of empirical reality.

Without claiming to have conducted significant ethnographic research in this particular area, let me throw out a guess. I would guess, that if we were to interview hundreds of teenage girls about their sexual feelings, attitudes and experiences, we would find that they are rarely simple, linear, or naturally prone to be categorized. I would guess that what girls and women find arousing is more than just about sex but also body types and parts, external vs. internal characteristics, experiences, time, moods, and social climate. 

Maybe trying to decide whether someone is "lesbian" or "gay" or even softening the line with "bisexual" assumes a picture of sexuality that is far too simplistic. If we followed Blumer's cue and acquainted ourselves with this area of research WITHOUT prematurely attaching labels to our findings and concepts, without theorizing what we will find in advance and then devising methods to validate it, our experience with reality - the "reality of the empirical world" - might actually lead us to some interesting discoveries. My guess is, those discoveries would encourage us to shy away from any kind of sexual labels and instead teach us something really remarkable about ourselves. 

My Experience As a Woman in the Church

I had a friend recently share a post from an ex-Mormon about the things she didn't like about the church. Among other things, she claimed that the church is inherently sexist.

I was hurt, of course. And I’m always surprised to see comments like that. To contrast her claim, my 36 years of experience in the church has been virtually the opposite of sexism. For most of my life, the church has been the only entity that empowered me as a young woman to study my "Individual Worth" and "Divine Nature", to develop my talents, to be a force for good in the world, to recognize the sacredness of womanhood and to see motherhood as a divine gift and responsibility instead of a nuisance. My experience in the church has always featured male and female leaders with enormous respect for each other. Sheri Dew, Linda K. Burton, Elaine Dalton, Eliza R. Snow, Emma Smith – these are my role models and some of the best women I know: women with integrity, grace, beauty and strength that they have developed because of, not in spite of, the teachings of the church. 

Certainly enough has been written about the topic of women in the church that my voice may not delineate anything new. But as someone who has personally experienced the power that comes from the church’s teachings and practices around gender and womanhood, I feel the need to add my small teaspoon of testimony into the ocean of evidence that this church is truly being led by God.

In the 1800s, at a time when American women were denied the right to vote, enter most universities, or manage property, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was paying for women to go to schools in the East and obtain medical degrees. In fact, the church covered the cost of their books and tuition and travel and their wards took care of their families while they were gone. The church helped women start their own businesses. Utah was the second state to allow women to right to vote. While most of the country still believed that women served little purpose other than to bear children, Joseph Smith told the women in 1842, “The Church was never perfectly organized until the women were thus organized." In fact, when the idea of a women’s organization was initially proposed - to fundraise and gather clothing for the temple builders – Joseph Smith rejected the tiny scope of their mission and instead declared that the Lord "has something better for them than a written Constitution." He expressed his love and appreciation for the women of the church and gave them great promises. "If this Society listen to the counsel of the Almighty, they shall have power to command queens in their midst.” And “If you live up to your privileges, the angels cannot be restrained from being your associates." Emma Smith affirmed in that first meeting that "We are going to do something extraordinary," and we certainly have, from then on. Because of the organization of the Relief Society, the Lord affirmed a special role for women, rejecting the socially accepted premise that women were the “weaker sex”, and that the characteristics of women were actually divine gifts to help them fulfill a critical role in God’s work.

Since the ERA movement of the 1970s, the pendulum of Western thought has swung from denigrating womanhood to valuing the masculine attributes within women. This has led to more opportunities for women, which is wonderful, but also created social expectations that a woman’s value is measured by the extent to which she embodies characteristics typical of men: physical strength, assertiveness, power and position, sexual liberation. And yet the majority of women still fail to see how physical vulnerability, weakness, beauty, and sensitivity are in fact sources of power that enable us to influence others and promote social change.

Both swings of the gender pendulum have missed the mark. Both continue to undermine the importance of womanhood. The reason we haven’t seen similar great shifts in the church is because the teachings of church leaders since the very beginning have laid out a vision for womanhood that is already both defining and empowering. Because of the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints, I am able to see how both historic views of women are flawed, and how God's view of women not only liberates us from the host of social expectations that has produced such staggeringly high rates of anxiety and depression among women, but it makes sacred the things I already am, the things I already love. It brings the natural role of motherhood into the realm of divinity. It strengthens and enables my desires to serve, to build my community, to save souls, to develop my talents. Without it, women are pressured to prioritize careers over family, trivialize homemaking, and derive their sense of self-worth from how they measure up to men and the values of men. Even as I write this, I still find in myself a struggle to let go of the need to assess my value by how well I fit these parameters; by how much I’m paid and what kind of worldly recognition I receive. 

If I didn't have the church, I wouldn't know who I was and how special God made me. If we as women don’t think we’re anything special, then there isn’t anything special we have to do. In fact, we have a mission that is so much more important than the size of our salary or the credentials on our resume. I am not just a homo sapiens - I am a daughter of God. And because of that, my life has meaning, purpose, and direction. This is not what I learn in biology, or history, or even sociology. This is what I learned in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

We have a special identity, and therefore a special purpose. I once made this comment in a Relief Society meeting, and had a women approach me afterward. “What do you mean? Like, I know this sounds dumb but what IS so special about being a woman?” I have since heard similar frustrations echoed in other settings. One possible reason we struggle to understand the importance of our identity as women in Western society is because, other than our reproductive capabilities, we don't have a really good idea of what sets us apart. This is not by accident. For the last fifty years, social scientists like me have made consistent, calculated efforts to downplay and undermine studies demonstrating differences between men and women. There’s a good reason for this, in their eyes. In a feminist framework (which is based on conflict theory), acknowledging any differences between two groups creates inequality, and therefore an imbalance of power. If we acknowledge statistical differences between men and women, we promote sexism. “Oh, you need a negotiator? Well we’d better hire a woman because women are statistically better at negotiating.” Nobody wants that.

Once again, the paradigm of competition makes it impossible to view differences as anything other than quantitative. In Leonard Hayes book The Importance of Gender, he highlights some of the following scientific findings:

- Men and women's eyes are constructed differently at every layer. Our rods and cones are connected to nerve cells in such a way that men are more likely to notice movement, spatial orientation, and women's eyes focus more on color, texture and detail.

- Men and women react differently to different dosages of medication - as well as drugs and alcohol

- Men process more information longitudinally through the hemispheres of the brain, women process more information laterally across the hemispheres

- Men and women experience different hormonal reactions to emotions like fear and anger. 

- Men and women experience the desire for sex in completely different parts of the brain, one that controls appetite and one that focuses on decision-making and judgment

- Male and female day-old infants spend different amounts of time gazing at a smiling face (girls more) verses a spinning mobile (boys more)

This is just a small sampling. Dr. Leonard’s goal is to push back against the idea that differences in gender are all socially determined, and to help us identify more effective approaches in parenting and teaching boys and girls. How can we prevent sexism if we acknowledge these things? We promote opportunities, without forcing expectations. Boys can play with trucks and dinosaurs if they want to, and we make other toys available if they change their mind. Girls can take piano and dance lessons, but there is also a girls' soccer team available. Boys are free to become nurses and elementary school teachers, but we don't shame them if they choose to pursue MBAs or politics instead. The natural result of these relaxed expectations is that men and women, boys and girls, will often make decisions that are influenced by their gender. And that’s okay. Pretending the differences don’t exist is not the answer, and it actually creates many more problems.

The point is this, these are studies that have been conceived of and carried out by scientists – and even these are barely understood or acknowledged by women today. How many other things does our Heavenly Father see in the identity of manhood and womanhood that we are still unaware of? What other sources of strength and power are we completely unaware of?

On a side note: One thing I have been curious about is the claim of trans-gendered individuals that they feel stuck in the wrong body, or that they "feel" like they are the other gender. With just a cursory look at the list above, I would ask, how could they possibly know? They may feel different, sure, and they may see characteristics in themselves that are more typical of one gender than the other, but if we sort through all of these thousands of studies, the differences between men and women are often subtle but incredibly profound, and so fundamentally related to our perception and processing of the world around us, I would counter there is literally no way a man could truly understand what it means to be a woman, and vice versa. Being allowed to simply decide one's gender completely ignores the multitude of differences that make people so uniquely, and so entirely, male or female. Changing one's clothing or even genitals to be accepted into that category is just as superfluous as me putting on black face and claiming to be African American.

Gender is not an accident, and it's not superfluous - it is an eternal part of our identity. It's not a limiting identity - There are all kinds of men, and all kinds of women, just as there are all kinds of twenty year-olds and sixty year-olds, and all kinds of Mexicans and Koreans. Our identity is important, and wonderful, and I learned this from being in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Important issues can rarely be captured in a single Tweet or meme, and the same thing is true with gender. For those who look at the church from the perspective of conflict theory or feminism, they will see inequality and oppression, no doubt. In this church, we hold different positions; we play different roles; we interact and are sometimes even treated differently (in General Conference, men are more often chastised, and women more often are reassured). If your definition of inequality is simply acknowledging differences, then you’ll find ample evidence. But who is more important in creating life, a mother or father? Neither - for every child is an equal combination of the two. I believe this particular example is God's way of letting us see how two very different creatures, with very different roles in the creation and protection of life, are still equal in God's eyes.

If we can begin to see ourselves as men and women the way God does, and let go of our philosophical need to view the world in terms of competition and oppression and fairness, I believe gender will simultaneously become more meaningful and also less of a big deal. Understanding and appreciating this one aspect of our identity will give us greater peace, greater joy, greater freedom, greater appreciation for the gifts and talents of ourselves and others, and greater direction for the mission that He has for each of us. It will allow us to focus on becoming great women and men without comparing ourselves to each other. I know this is true. I’m so grateful to be a woman, and have the sacred privilege of being a wife and mother. I’m so happy to know who I am, and that God loves me just the way I am. Most of all, I’m grateful for the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - the prophets, bishops, Relief Society presidents and Young Women teachers that have brought me closer to Christ, who is the source of all wisdom.

Which Theory is TRUE??: A New Proposal

Conflict theory, functionalism, feminism, exchange theory, social learning theory...with all of the frameworks that govern people's view of society, one might wonder in a Joseph Smith sort of way which of all of these frameworks is true?

First of all, theory does not need to be "true" to be "useful" - there is not, for example, an actual giant invisible hand that governs and balances the forces in a free market economy - it's just a shortcut, a framework to explain how things work and to predict what will happen to the economy. It's a useful metaphor.

Similarly, there is no actual Maslow pyramid of needs inside of every person, there is no male-led war against women, there is no giant functional organism into which every member of society fits together, and Piaget did not build any actual concrete stages that children grow into or from. These are different theoretical paradigms that help us make sense of the world and answer questions and figure out what to do. All of these theories, like metaphors used to illustrate a point, have strengths and weaknesses, making some more helpful than others. More importantly, the implications for those who use these lenses are real and measurable.

For example: Functionalism - believing that everything has a purpose and that everyone has a place can discourage change and justify horrible inequality and social conditions. Exchange theory supports self-centeredness through the acceptance that everyone is entirely motivated by self interest. Conflict theory assumes oppression and discrimination in every social interaction and leads to war and demonization of other groups. Eugenics was about seeing all behavior as a product of one's genes and led directly to the Holocaust. So how you interpret the world leads to certain actions, and it also dictates what behavior you see as good, bad, necessary or foolish.

Bad theoretical frameworks may be to blame for much of the evil in the world. In fact, as my husband has coined "White Hat syndrome" or what I call "Darth Vaderism", we sometimes forget that real life "bad guys" usually don't realize they're bad! They act out of a mental framework that makes their behavior seem righteous or at least justifiable (Hitler: wiping out members of "inferior races" might seem like the right thing to do if you believe "racial impurity" is causing all of society's ills). When frameworks affect groups, they are called culture. This probably explains why missionaries have more success in Peru than in Greece: every culture includes assumptions and values about God, individual privacy, Christianity, America, etc that make the individuals in that society more or less receptive to the Gospel.

So paradigms are clearly important! And until we know all things, God recognizes that we will make mistaken assumptions (like the Brother of Jared, assuming that God did not have a body, or Mary, assuming that she couldn't have a baby). But while we struggle through our inevitable mortal misunderstandings, is there a BEST paradigm? One that is CLOSEST to God's? I've been railing against conflict theory and encouraging symbolic interactionism for a long time, because of the pros and cons I perceive in those - but is symbolic interactionism the best way to view society? Which theories are the MOST useful, in God's eyes? Or should we be looking for something different altogether?

If our goal is to organize truth in a way that is similar to God's, the first glaring error we should acknowledge is that none of these social theories acknowledge a higher power, eternal existence, or any kind of overarching plan. They merely seek to describe and explain what is going on the visible world, right now, between individuals and in the world around us. But without the overarching truth of God's plan, we are easily "tossed to and fro" and "carried about by every wind of doctrine", or whichever philosophy of men "seems right". This week I even had my diet app describe different theories around eating - vegan, keto, intermittent fasting - list the pros and cons of each, and suggest that we pick whichever one worked best for us. Works best? Seems right? Is that the strongest argument we can hang our mental hats on?

You see, the problem with the philosophies of men is that because they do not include God in their framework, they are all flawed. There will always be elements of the human experience that they can't explain, or that they get wrong, and therefore they include implications and recommendations that are also wrong (wrong as in, untrue, and wrong as in, wicked).

How do we build a more relevant, useful, true framework that helps more accurately answer questions about individuals and society by also including the role of God and His plan? Or in other words, what is the pair of lenses that God wants us to be looking through? What glasses should we wear in order to see things how God sees them? Here are some experiences that led to my epiphany this morning:

As a new mom, I worked part time as a research consultant for the American Families of Faith project at BYU. We were studying interfaith couples - couples that come from different religious backgrounds - and how they form strong families. We interviewed lots of couples and I read lots of books about how these couples raise their children. They are generally introduce their children to both religions, often encourage them to try both and see which one works for them (again with the "seems right" approach). But the overarching unspoken assumption of these families which is never mentioned is this: In order to be satisfied with this approach, you must assume that there is no way to come to know actual truth; that once again, God is not part of the equation; that religion, for the most part, is a lifestyle choice, like a diet, that we choose because it makes sense to us and therefore works for us - to give us guidance about how to behave, to provide explanations and answer about life's tough questions.

The minute you decide (consciously or not) that religion is something created and executed by men, you've written God out of the universe. When your church is something that needs your criticism, or even your critical analysis, your insights - when you feel the need to correct church leaders or contextualize and downplay their direction, you have decided that you are the grownup in the room, and not God. In other words, you view yourself in the role of an adult, not as a child.

Story number two: My sister-in-law, who teaches first grade, once had a student raise her hand in the middle of an unrelated class activity and say "I have an important question for the whole class!" - when allowed to speak, she said with sincere, tender anxiety, "What if Chewy eats BB8??!!" 

The question was irrelevant and funny, but the intention behind it was not. No amount of grownup comforting could help. She was genuinely concerned for BB8's welfare (I can't believe I just used a possessive apostrophe for a number). My brother, on retelling the story, commented that sometimes our very heartfelt questions to the Lord may sound like this little kid's question did to her teacher. When we see the big picture, some of our concerns we will see were simply irrelevant!

This story provided a helpful metaphor to explain our relationship to God, and to truth. Both of these stories use a framework to illustrate the importance of viewing ourselves as children, rather than adults, when understanding the workings of God. Metaphor, paradigm, framework...hmm...

What if we created a "Child of God" theory?

What if we used a lens through which we viewed individuals and society was not about consumers, or power players, or communicators, but as children? Children of God, specifically?

While this may not answer every question about society or how to solve many of the pressing social problems we have, choosing a theoretical framework that frames people in terms of children of God includes a number of helpful assumptions:

First of all, it assumes our need to take an appropriately subservient role to the One who is all-knowing and all-powerful - He gets it, and He's got this. This aligns with Jesus' and King Benjamin's counsel to "become as little children." We acknowledge that there are many things that we don't know, and that answers will eventually be given and all injustices will be righted. Our subservient role allows us to take prophetic direction without needing to see "where it leads", and without stressing about why it was given. We assume that all direction is given because we are children of God - and that a God who loves us always acts in a way that will promote our happiness and eternal progression.

Secondly, the lens of children of God assume individual divine nature and worth, focuses on our eternal identity and our important responsibilities in this life. This identity encourages loving and responsible action.

Finally, this perspective reminds us that the people around us are similarly divine, and therefore deserving of our respect and support. We don't need the framework of feminism (which establishes equality as a balance of power) in order to establish equality - if we are all children of God then we are equal by nature. If we are children of God, then everyone has something important to contribute, a voice to be heard, and needs that we need to address - as James Farrell puts it in the Anatomy of Peace, needs that are not above or below our own but equal in reality and validity. 

By adopting this framework, we are given a measuring stick against which to compare other theories and frameworks. We could ask ourselves: do the assumptions of _____ theory align with the truth that I am a child of God? That we are children of God? For every theory - the problems it focuses on, the solutions it points to - does it align with God's laws and the truth He has revealed? We may have to reject some theories in order to prioritize this truth. Europeans who chose to hide Jews from the Nazis may have also been raised to seen the world through the lens of eugenics and racial superiority, but they chose to put FIRST their framework of others as children of God, and consequently put first their first responsibility to love and protect everyone. Similarly, whatever justifications were used for slavery may have been very persuasive, but Quakers and other abolitionists rejected whatever arguments may have kept them from viewing and treating others as children of God. 

I hope that promoting "Children of God" theory as a social framework as well as a spiritual one will provide important perspective for Christian social scientists as well as consumers of science. How we view society impacts our thoughts and actions - and if we begin with this framework (or, as Elder Hafen called it, the "eternal perspective" or Elder Anderson the "eye of faith"), the issues we care about will have new meaning, problems will have new context, and solutions will be clearer. We will be able to throw away things that are of no use to us and imagine new ways of addressing society's ills. Furthermore, as I said earlier, social scientists who are not of our faith can test and adopt this framework as helpful without necessarily worrying about whether or not it is true. I encourage everyone to do so, knowing personally that someday the assumptions of this theory will be known as truth.

Thoughts on the "Preside" Problem

In a recent lesson in church, we read the words of past church president Gordon B. Hinckley declare that, "In His grand design, when God first created man, He created a duality of the sexes. The ennobling expression of that duality is found in marriage. One individual in complementary to the other. In the marriage companionship there is neither inferiority nor superiority. The woman does not walk ahead of the man; neither does the man walk ahead of the woman. They walk side by side as a son and daughter of God on an eternal journey. Marriage, in its truest sense, is a partnership of equals."

This sounds pretty good, right?

But how do we sync this with the idea expressed in the 1995 Proclamation on the Family read by President Hinckley that "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families"? Moreover, how can we bear to swallow the similar but even more difficult passages by Paul in the New Testament, such as "the head of the woman is the man" and "wives, submit to your husbands"? It's difficult to see how both sentiments could possibly be true.

An initial disclaimer, before I get into this: This is not a comprehensive treatise on Christianity and gender. I am not an expert on the subject, I acknowledge that this brief examination may be flawed, and it is only intended for those who already accept the validity of scripture. However, for those who are looking for answers, I feel compelled to share some hopefully useful personal insights.

Let's stick with the concept of "preside" for the moment, although this may help with Paul's comments too. To preside means to chair, officiate, conduct, or lead. The concept of fathers presiding over their families is only difficult because we're required to view it in a different context than we're used to. Simply put, how can a husband and wife then both be equals if the husband presides (and note the implications of the preposition) OVER her?

Perhaps the solution is to see the family like an onion, instead of like a ladder. There are layers, yes, but they don't have the linear implications that we usually associate with organizational hierarchy. Linear understanding sees anything that is higher as better, more important. This mode of thought works to some extent - clearly the head is at the TOP of the body, and the head is the most important. But what about the parts of the head? Ears and eyes are both at the same level…and does anyone other than Eric Matthews want to claim that hair is the greatest of all?

Husbands and wives have different divinely-appointed roles, just like an eye and an ear, and I think most people are comfortable with that concept in theory. But when we move past generalities and start listing off specifics, we get uncomfortable - we can’t seem to let go of the notion that somehow, with separate roles, someone is going to come out on top. Why are we so convinced that there has to be a hierarchy?

I believe it is partially the result of the mammon-ization of mankind (mammon, the extremely fancy Bible word for money). As our society falls more in love with money, we increasingly see the value of people, objects and activities in terms of financial worth. In the lens of roles, we believe that less compensation indicates less value or less importance - and in the eyes of the world, that is increasingly perceived to be the case.

When money is your primary indicator of value, it’s easy to see what is more or less valuable because it’s a uniform, interchangeable, measurable variable: more money=better,  less money=worse. But when used as a single measure of value, money fails to capture the true complexity of value as we intuitively understand it. What is better, saws or hammers? Doctors or farmers? Air or happiness? Economists use the terms like “use value” vs. “exchange value” in order to quantify these variables - (use value meaning an old truck is more valuable on a snowy road than a diamond-studded watch). While money is an ordinal variable, nominal or qualitative variables simply can’t be turned into numbers (you can’t rank colors, or directions, or shapes). 

While we may be able to monetize and therefore rank pretty much anything (go ahead and Google “top ten ____” anything), clearly, our identity as men and women can not be boiled down that simply. While similar in most ways, women’s eyes are wired to recognize more colors and patterns, while men’s eyes are more aware of shape and movement. Men’s brain waves move in more longitudinal patterns, women’s more latitudinally. Men have more strength, women have more flexibility. These are characteristics that are just as meaningless to rank as red vs. blue, or squares vs. circles.

Anyway, back to presiding…First of all, the definition of preside is correct. We don’t need to twist this word to make it fit our worldview. Apparently a significant number of people Google “preside definition lds” as though they’re looking for the secret alternative definition. There isn’t one. We believe it is the husband/father’s role to preside - to conduct, lead, officiate, chair. But, we also believe that being the presider has no implications of superiority. How can that be the case, in practical terms? What’s our new framework? 

Some examples might help.

My husband pointed out that one of the responsibilities of the vice president of the United States is to preside over the Senate. He doesn’t handle every matter of the Senate, he’s just in charge of making sure that the rules and procedures are followed. I think presiding over the family means to be in charge of general oversight - ensuring that the family as a whole is honoring the commandments, is financially solvent, is protected. Like a project manager, I was responsible for making sure project milestones were met, and that we came in under budget. But the people actually doing the work on the project were usually higher ranked and much higher paid than I - they were the ones actually doing the work that led to the success of the project. We worked together to get it done.

Another example is school principals. Principals preside: they handles logistics of the physical facility and finances, ensure that teachers have the equipment and books they need; principals hire personnel and administer student disciplinary action. Principals are the public face of the school if the county or community want to complain. In a way, like a father, the principal takes care of everything outside the classroom, so that the teachers can focus inside the classroom on the work of actually educating the students. Who can say that the principal, in his leadership role, is more important? Again, the issue of hierarchy in this context is simply irrelevant.

Another analogy I’ve used is thinking of men and women as given the roles of providing different levels of protection around a great treasure. The mother actually holds the treasure and personally cares for it, and the father stands guard at the door. The mother is the closest or inner-most element of the home and family - her responsibilities are the most intimate and personal, and the father is the outside layer wrapped around all of them.

 Again, the command for fathers to “preside” should only bother us if we view leadership as an inherently superior status, or worse, an excuse for domination. In the qualitative “onion” of the family, "higher" layers need carry no such status implication (in the case of onions - we actually even throw away the "highest" layers).

We are told that presiders (fathers) and nurturers (mothers) are equally important in God’s eyes, and that we should work together as a team, helping each other in our various responsibilities like we were members of each other’s committees. Mothers are chairs of the nurturing "committee", fathers are chairs of the provide-and-protect "committee" - each are accountable for making sure that aspect of the family is taken care of, even if they do not carry out all the actual tasks involved. 

From my personal experience, being aware of such a sacred personal responsibility gives me purpose and meaning, and gives me greater respect for my husband as I help him fulfill his separate but critical role. Moreover, whatever God's reason for creating these specific assignments, I know that fulfilling them brings us great peace, wisdom, unity, and joy, which I know is the goal of everything God does. 

All You Need is Love?: The Real vs. Ideal Family Debate

In the textbook I use for my class, the book begins by addressing "the great debate" of American families: are they getting worse, or are they simply changing? The issue stems from a common disagreement among social scientists.

The problem is that we all want to promote happy and functional families, but we have virtually opposite views on how to do it. Do we best promote happiness and functionality by promoting specific family structures? Or should we focus on helping people love and see strengths in whatever family they're in? In other words - should our motto be "strive for the ideal", or "love what is real"? Let's look at an example...

"Family is important, but who's in a family? Why, the people who love you the most!" 

-Robert Skutch, Who's in a Family?

Who's in a Family?, a children's book published in 1997 and the subject of a lawsuit in Massachusetts, "shows the various combinations of individuals that can make up a family, emphasizing the positive aspects of different family structures, including grand-parent headed, single-parent, adopted, gay-headed, and mother-father families. Uses examples from the animal kingdom to illustrate how family groupings can differ."

Why is that important? Well, as the traditional family of two-heterosexual-married-parents-plus-their-kids continues to diminish, an increasing number of children find themselves in alternative family arrangements that may be stigmatized and devalued by the rest of society. As such, we should stop worrying about family form and instead focus on helping children be proud of whatever family they're in, stressing that family is just any group of people who love each other. 

Right?

Well, on the surface that sounds good, because it is inclusive. But here's the problem: When we stress inclusiveness, the term "family" gradually expands until it loses any specific meaning and eventually comes to embrace everyone we love, even pets and aliens, such as the following clip from Disney's Lilo and Stitch (just the first 40 seconds or so):

When "family" means anything, "family" means nothing. If we want to promote the family, we need to have some agreement on what it is, and "people that we love" is practically speaking not enough to guide discussions of welfare or tax policy or child custody arrangements.

Similarly, while the all-encompassing definition of family may sound good, significant evidence contradicts the idea that family form is irrelevant, and that "All you need is love" . Countless studies have shown that family form itself has a significant impact on outcomes for children and society. Children do better with two parents who are married and love each other. Children do better when they're reared with love and consistency. Children do better when they're born to adults rather than teenagers. And by "do better", I refer to outcomes in academics, mental health, drug use, teen pregnancy, future marriages and overall self esteem. If we agree that these outcomes are important and desirable, then we certainly have empirical evidence that an ideal family form does exist.

As social workers, we already create programs and legislation and policies to promote this kind of family. We encourage couples to stay together for the good of the child. We try to prevent divorce and teen pregnancies and infidelity. But while we push for this kind of behavior, we are still extremely hesitant to openly admit that some forms of families are simply better than others. 

This topic scares social workers because we don't want to make value judgments. We want to be client-centered, and as such we are sometimes quick to chastise others for "forcing their values" on clients. But what we fail to recognize is that the choice to not make people feel bad IS a value judgment. We can respect people who make that choice, but they should recognize that it is a choice, and one with consequences for society. 

For example - one of the most effective AIDS-prevention strategies in Uganda was been the "Zero Grazing" campaign - people were encouraged to "tie" themselves to one partner and only have sex with that person, permanently. There was no mention of abstinence, or condom use, there were no allowances made for culturally-accepted polygamy or divorce; it was a value-laden campaign, proscribing a specific family form, but it was extremely effective at reducing the spread of AIDS. If Ugandans can do that with AIDS, isn't it worth it for us to promote certain family forms in order to prevent so many other types of individual and social sicknesses?

This book wants us to believe that all types of family arrangements are equal in love and happiness and functionality. And we certainly want them to be! But we shouldn't mistake compensating for the ideal as achieving it. Adoption, for example, is a wonderful and needed thing. But there should almost never be a need for adoption in a society where all parents are physically, financially, emotionally, and mentally capable of rearing the children they create. Being raised by a grandparent may be the preferred method in some cultures, but in America it usually occurs when parents are not able to raise their own offspring. Similarly, there are single parents who do amazing things - like raise the future President Barack Obama - but almost no parent would choose to take on such a daunting task alone or wish it on their children. 

Adoption, kinship care and single parents - All three of these family forms result in severing or straining ties between a child and the individuals who gave them life, who are, biologically-speaking, the individuals most likely to love and care about that child. Cutting the bonds of biological parents creates emotional and mental difficulties for children in all three groups that reflect in poorer social, financial, and academic performance as well as physical and mental health outcomes, sometimes for the rest of their lives.

Are there unique strengths that children possess in each of these family forms? Absolutely. Children of adoption can claim to have two sets of parents, sometimes have both present in their life. Children raised by grandparents have the benefit of their maturity and wisdom and experience. Children from single parents learn to be more responsible, grow closer to their parent, and children from all three groups can learn resiliency in the face of difficulty.

So are these strengths meaningful alternatives? Or are we just handing out pity points? As always, let's focus on outcomes. Instead of talking about what feels good, or what sounds good, or what makes us comfortable, let's compare actual results (see the Moneyball example of avoiding biases). If it's true that children of single parents are more resilient but also more likely to do drugs and drop out of school, then we need compare the two outcomes and decide what is more important to us.

Ultimately, the decision is ours - either we openly promote some family forms above others, and as a result some kids may feel stigmatized, or we abandon the ideal and risk having kids face a host of other consequences.

Even more seriously, by abandoning any notion of an ideal, we deprive children of an incredibly useful template when forming their own families some day. The children I knew in Detroit never learned that abstinence before marriage was even a thing people did, or that waiting until marriage to have kids was even possible or desirable. They would come to my house and watch me and my husband interact, some of them seeing a functional marriage for the first time, and they'd always ask questions as though they knew there was something good here that they wanted, but they weren't quite sure how to achieve it. Even if we choose not to teach children the best ways to create and maintain a family, children will still formulating their own ideas. They will simply use their own observations and experiences to create a mental picture of an ideal family. Would we rather those mental pictures be shaped by good examples or bad ones?

Like a copy machine, families tend to reproduce themselves - functional families create children that create more functional families, and dysfunctional families create children that create more dysfunctional families. By not making any attempt to teach these ideals - to wait until marriage to have children, to wait until adulthood to get married, to be permanently and lovingly committed to their spouses, etc. - we virtually condemn children to replicate negative family patterns that they grow up believing are normal and good, which is why children of single parents are far more likely to become single parents themselves one day. Furthermore, those incorrect beliefs may never be challenged, even by those of us who know the data, which may avoid hurt feelings now but fail to prevent tragic decisions later on.

The other danger of abandoning ideal family form is that we eliminate any expectations for individuals to make responsible decisions regarding family creation and function. Creating and maintaining the ideal family form is not easy - it requires forethought, sexual control, perseverance, patience, and love - and we cheat people by implying that you can have a happy family and positive outcomes without doing those things. When people can do whatever they want without any negative push back from society, their choices are likely to be focused on their own happiness and well-being, and not that of children or the greater community.

In conclusion, this reminds me of another seemingly unattainable "ideal" preached by Jesus: "Be ye perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect." Well, that is certainly a nice idea that we are nowhere CLOSE to! How can we continue to function from day to day, striving for something quite unattainable, without wallowing in misery about our continual lack of success?

Maybe, like getting a shot, some children will have to experience some emotional pain in the short term in order to experience greater happiness in the long term. Maybe, when comparing the outcomes of both family types, we decide that it's worth it for children to see the flaws in their own family situation if it results in them creating something better when they grow up. Maybe instead of focusing on being happy with their current situation, we need to show them the data, and teach them how to form and maintain a family in a way that is most likely to help them achieve their goals. We can help children best as we allow them to learn from the good and bad that they experienced in their family and continue to teach the ideal as something to aspire to, knowing that the closer they get to that ideal, the more happiness and success they are likely to experience. Weighing the alternatives - I think it's worth it.