Vulnerability: When Weakness Is Power

"Being tender and open is beautiful. As a woman, I feel continually shhh’ed. Too sensitive. Too mushy. Too wishy washy. Blah blah. Don’t let someone steal your tenderness. Don’t allow the coldness and fear of others to tarnish your perfectly vulnerable beating heart. Nothing is more powerful than allowing yourself to truly be affected by things. Whether it’s a song, a stranger, a mountain, a rain drop, a tea kettle, an article, a sentence, a footstep, feel it all – look around you. All of this is for you. Take it and have gratitude. Give it and feel love."

— Zooey Deschanel

Here's a paradox...

When is weakness a strength? Probably more often than we realize. Like in the quote above, there is power in being open and vulnerable to the world around us. There is also power in being vulnerable to the people around us.

Vulnerability means being open to love AND hurt, available for joy AND pain, sensitive to good AND bad. Thus, vulnerability is a paradoxical strength which presents as a weakness. Both elements make it an essential part of a happy relationship.

Traditionally considered the "weaker sex", women have been trying to combat that moniker for the last fifty years by adopting the attitudes, dress, priorities, and behaviors of men. What if this is the wrong approach? What if sensitivity and vulnerability are, paradoxically, our greatest source of power?

One of the negative consequences of feminism is that it has tainted our ability to develop healthy, beautiful interdependence with men by insisting that our relationships be at best "independent...together" or, at worst, in competition with each other. When my Protestant friend Shannon got engaged at age 24, she blogged about this issue:

During my four years at (the University of) Chapel Hill, I definitely joined the camp of “Me Women. Me Must Be Strong. Me Must Find Career.” I really did. I never thought about weddings because they’re so girly and frivolous, because I wasn’t (and still am not) earning a salary, and because I wasn’t (and still am not) truly “independent.” And because Chapel Hill taught me I wasn’t ready for marriage, you know? I hadn’t “found myself.” I hadn’t dated around. I hadn’t “figured out my life.” 

But, I did have Bryan who is always so good to me – and so encouraging and loving and supportive.

If I’m ignoring what society tells me – everything in the Bible tells me marriage is the opposite of this idea of independence; marriage is two becoming one – it is a union of unshakable commitment. It is love and humility and compromise. It is strength through losing your independence.

And that’s really hard.

Really hard.

...But what makes me angry, what truly upsets me, is how blind we are to the self-destructive “Me Independent. Me Woman.” mantra. This is particularly highlighted  in relationships. Society empowers our hedonistic pursuit of “The Career,” but fails to consider the effect this can have on relationships – or on an individual’s heart. This is true for both men and women." 

(Read the rest of her post here)

"Strength through losing your independence" - how is that possible? Here is an analogy to demonstrate:

An A-frame is a basic structure, such as might be found on a swingset. It derives its structural support from two poles leaning at angles that would, on their own, be very unstable (45 degrees). Standing straight up by themselves, two well-balanced poles could hypothetically stay up for a while (assuming there's not a strong wind), but they're both much better off leaning against each other. While in this most vulnerable position, they are responsible for holding up the other pole, and paradoxically, this formula makes a basic swingset work. 

Similarly, a marriage derives its strength from two strong, independent people voluntarily giving up their independence and safety to risk being in a relationship. This precarious leaning position is strong when both people are equally committed to metaphorically leaning against one other. When we make ourselves vulnerable to another person, we find power and strength through our unity we could not have found on our own.

When members of a couple lose sight of this fact - one person is scared, or selfish, for example - they may be tempted to protect themselves by withdrawing from the A-frame and standing up alone. Or, one pole may say to the other "You lean first, then I'll go." One pole may have a history of being let down by other relationships and therefore be hesitant to lean. 

What makes marriage awesome is that because it is such a significant social, legal, physical, financial, and spiritual commitment, it cements the connection between the two people in a relationship by placing a metaphorical padlock between them, and makes it safer and easier for both people to be completely vulnerable to each other.

However, our experiences with divorce and infidelity and heartache can make the lock on marriage seem a lot less secure, and make us more afraid of being vulnerable to another person. 

"I don't need anyone!" "I'm strong and independent!" Is it a coincidence that our increasingly loud declarations of independence coincide with increased rates of broken marriages? I don't think so. Our proudly-worn independence may often just be a clever cover up for fear. Maybe we keep saying these things because, deep down, like Shannon, we're terrified that what we really want is true love. We want to rely on someone. We want to give ourselves up to someone else. 

In today's world, not needing someone is seen as a strength. Maybe it's because the desire for love seems either unobtainable or just embarrassing. No wonder we have such a love-hate relationship with Disney princesses! We hate our own desires for vulnerability, for sensitivity, for interdependence. Outwardly, we're pumped that neither princess in Frozen ends up married and yet we are increasingly the loneliest generation in American history. 

This fear and hatred is one result of viewing relationships from a wholly individualistic perspective: we're looking at relationships as an issue that's all about us (which is...weird). When the beauty of marriage and love is reduced to a personal indulgence for weaker people who just can't handle being alone, "I" is the key word in our feminist rants above. Vulnerability has no place in a society that's all about ME.

Marriage however, is virtually the antithesis of individualism. Marriage acknowledges that life is actually about one's spouse, and the impact that the marriage will have on kids, grandkids, community, etc. Our society is not just an A-frame of two people - we are a veritable teepee of thousands of poles, all leaning against and relying on one other. We rely on stores to carry food, we rely on doctors to prescribe us medicine, we rely on schools to teach our children, we rely on polling officials to be honest. We rely on emergency responders to pick up the phone when we dial 9-1-1. Doesn't it make sense that we would benefit ourselves and everyone involved if men and women learned how to rely on each other as well?

When we look through an individualistic paradigm, we can't see the other participant(s) in our A-frame. We just see within ourselves a terrifying, ridiculous desire to be at a 45 degree angle, and we will do pretty much everything in our power to fight against it.

Vulnerability is still dangerous. Could we get hurt? Yes. Could the swingset completely fall apart? Definitely. But our best chance for long term happiness is to marry the right person and then be TOTALLY and COMPLETELY COMMITTED to them, "leaning" confidently, letting our spouse know that it's safe to lean on us. The unlikely antidote to save our marriages is the power of strength that comes from weakness.

When you make the sacrifice in marriage, you're sacrificing not to each other but to unity in a relationship.

Joseph Campbell

Giving up love to be a strong, independent woman doesn't help anyone. And frankly, it's not very much fun. If we have the courage to really look inside and confront our desires for vulnerability, we may find that what we want and what we should want are actually the same thing. The weakness we fear is the key to the strength we desire. We've had it with us the whole time.

We All Come From Bad Families

I spent some time yesterday with a friend who came from an abusive childhood home. A decade later, she shared some of the quiet struggles she still has in recognizing and separating the negative influence of her mother from her own mental and emotional identity. Now in the process of raising her own children, my friend is often faced with this dilemma: With all the dysfunction during her formative years, how can she clearly separate what was good from what was psycho?

One of the difficulties with being raised in a dysfunctional household is that it shapes children's understanding of the world, and it serves as the benchmark for what behavior is considered normal and good. Unchecked, this behavior benchmark can perpetuate cycles of abuse as each successive generation of children unwittingly recreate the patterns, structures, roles and interactions from their dysfunctional past.

This is difficult even for people like my friend who recognize the problems in their past and want to change them. Being the product of a dysfunctional home makes it difficult to assess exactly where the crazy began and ended: in showing love, setting limits, spending money, developing romantic relationships, spending time together, the type and amount of entertainment pursued, the role of school and education, communication, diet, religious beliefs, safety measures, responsibility and chores... poor parenting may be reflected in some or all aspects of family life. Maybe my friend's mom put her to bed at a reasonable time, and monitored her entertainment appropriately, but she also pressured her into sexual activities early in life and sometimes used a butcher knife or scissors as her tools of discipline.. How could she possibly know which of these behaviors were "reasonable" and "appropriate" and which were abnormal and abusive?

To use a metaphor, growing up with abusive parents is like being served a daily lunch of sandwiches, apple slices, and monkey brains. As an adult, it may not be clear which part of the meal was the problem when she's kneeling over the toilet later, and experiencing the psychological effects of her experiences. How can she know what part of lunch was the problem, and how on earth is she going to decide what to serve her children?

This may seem like an obvious question to people raised in healthy homes - we may assume that people naturally know what is right and wrong. Most kids learn that hurting people is bad, and making people feel bad is bad - but we can all think of circumstances when it is acceptable for parents to do precisely the opposite: children are hurt when they get shots, or when they are spanked; children are given guilt trips; sometimes parents get angry and take away things that their kids want. These are all behaviors you see in high-functioning, loving households. How can children, with no other basis for comparison, expect to know when it goes too far? To continue the metaphor - to my friend's perspective, it could have been moldy bread or monkey brains, or maybe she just ate too much.

Fortunately, in my friend's case, her predicament has been helped by a wonderful husband, a competent therapist, and a degree in elementary education and early childhood development. She has used many professionals, other family members and friends as reference points to compare her mother's behavior and make adjustments in her own life. As a mother, she sets good limits, shows love, has reasonable expectations, and serves her kids PB&J sandwiches with apple slices and carrot sticks. When she is unsure about whether forcing her children to take piano lessons would be a good idea, she consults other healthy families and reads books in addition to referencing her own judgment. Her kids are beautiful, happy, healthy, and well-functioning members of their schools and community.

So, why the title of this article? The story of my friend and her dilemma actually parallels a larger problem that affects all of us together: Like an abused child, our society does not know what a good family looks like. Our national myths and even current debates swirl around mental pictures of the ideal we were raised with: farm families, 50's families, and sitcom families that are outdated, unrealistic, and unhealthy. Because of our flawed images, we also struggle to know what aspects of our childhood image of families are good and normal, and which are unhealthy and abnormal. These cultural images, and our common reactions to them, hinder our efforts to make and keep healthy marriages and families.

We have spent the last several decades desperately trying to fashion a functional, realistic, healthy, politically acceptable image of what the family should look like. We recognize the importance of families as the basic unit of society, and the impact of families on individual and societal outcomes has been demonstrated conclusively, affirmatively, and repeatedly. But what are we aiming for, exactly? What counts as a family? Who should work? Who should raise children? How many children should be had and when? How long should women breast feed? How involved should families be with extended family members? What kind of discipline is appropriate? How much should children watch TV? How prominent should religious education be? How often is it okay to leave your kids with other people? How much time should husbands and wives demand for hobbies and friends? How often should they have sex? Should boys and girls be treated or educated differently in any way? Should parents be okay with their teenagers/college students experimenting with sex or drugs? How soon? How can we balance the demands of equality with the different family roles? More importantly, how can we know that our individual answers to these questions are correct, or complete?

For Mormons, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" gives the Lord's opinion on some of these matters. There are general instructions on the role of family, the role of gender, the sanctity of sex, the rights of children, and the Lord's expectations of parents and spouses. These are enormously helpful guideposts for those of us who believe that they were revealed by a living prophet.

However, for Mormons and everyone else, we have all come from a society where our mental images of "the perfect family" are badly skewed. Even saying "the perfect family" may bring a picture to mind - maybe a family from the 1950's - and you may immediately start scoffing and poking holes in it. Sure, you may say, they're charming and healthy and stay together, but who can survive on one income these days? And why does the mom always have to wear a dress and do all the cooking? And who said it was ever a good idea to get married at 18?

Maybe your mental picture of "the perfect family" comes from another cultural nostalgic icon: the family farm. Many children's songs and books reinforce this idyllic setting - People working hard together, working with animals, being frugal and prepared and grateful and healthy - isn't that inspiring? But everything is so different now! With TV, Internet, Facebook, globalization, population growth, medical advances, political changes, education, industrialization - how can that farm possibly serve as the ideal for the modern American family?

Maybe your "perfect family" is one of the modern depictions of families from sitcoms. These tend to be reactionary in nature to the first two - women are empowered and working outside the home, belts are for wearing and not for discipline, families are more racially diverse - but these families fail in other ways. Women are burnt out, men are slobs, people divorce and cheat, kids experiment with sex and drugs... No, the perfect family is not the Beavers, but clearly it is not the Simpsons or the Osbournes either.

Because these concepts of family are so riddled with holes and obvious flaws (and our attempts to reach perfection inevitably fail), as a society we have come to a conclusion: there is no perfect family, we should stop trying to reach it. This bitterness is reflected in our resignation to politician and athlete infidelities, our love-hate relationship with happy endings and Disney Princesses, and increasing cultural emphasis on independence and individuality. Unfortunately, the result of that decision is that modern individuals and families have even fewer role models to help them in their efforts to form strong, healthy family relationships. To return to the metaphor - we are so sick of being fed monkey brains, we've decided we're never going to eat lunch again.

What's wrong with believing in and striving for an ideal family? Most arguments continue to dwell on the word "ideal" as referring to these false and unhealthy images we've created, and how the "ideal" family doesn't seem to let in biracial couples, or adoption, or remarriages. Easy solution: those images are clearly not ideal. So let's change what ideal actually looks like!

The other argument against the ideal family dwells on the personal guilt and shame that people face when they don't have an ideal family. Without diminishing the difficulty of their experience, I would argue that family ideals ultimately benefit everyone, especially those in bad family situations, and those who are teaching their children to make better choices.  Ideals give us something to reach for, even if none of us ever fully reach it. Christians are used to this: Jesus said "Be ye therefore perfect", even though He knew we couldn't do it. This is not a competition - we win prizes for every step we take in the right direction, regardless of how far we get or who gets there first. Lowering expectations does not encourage us or improve our families one bit.

In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Mormon writes about the importance of cleaving unto that which is good, and rejecting that which is evil. In doing so, he creates a standard by which we can judge the aspects of our family life:

For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night. For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work...Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ [emphasis added] (Moroni 7:15-19).

Essentially, we must look through ALL our experiences and keep the good while rejecting the bad. Finding good elements in bad experiences can be a distasteful exercise. Do we really want to emulate the disciplined record-keeping of the Nazis? Do we want to uphold the judicial process that throws out critical evidence which is obtained illegally? Should we keep the delicious enchilada recipe from our racist grandmother? The answer should be a resounding YES. By splitting and analyzing our past experiences (both as individuals, and as a society) we can separate our overall experience with "lunch" into "apple slices" and "monkey brains", and use the Light of Christ to help us decipher which is good and which should be thrown out. We avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater - and in this case, the baby represents the good things from families in the past and present that we must keep and instill in families in the future.

We need to stop re-creating the mistakes of the past, stop living in complete reaction to them, and stop our bitter national diatribe against perfection so that we can actually see what our ideals look like and start aiming in the right direction.

Many individuals are lucky enough to have parents worthy of emulation. Many others are earnestly trying to build strong families by studying, praying, observing, discussing, and adapting. For all of us, the principles in the Family Proclamation and Moroni chapter 7 provide critical guidelines. The challenge remains, however, for society to re-create the image of the ideal family, combining ALL good things from the past and present in a form that is powerful enough to stick in the national mindset. Once we have identified and adopted the good things from the Brady Bunch, the Raymonds, and Little House On the Prairie, we can update these images with depictions of strong, healthy, yet realistic modern families for ourselves and our children to emulate. We will only strive for these types of families if we believe they're possible, and we'll only believe they're possible if we can see actual examples of them.

Tough, Sexy, and Smart: Cultural Ideals in Women's Fitness Videos

For my New Year's resolution and continuing quest to recapture my pre-marital body, I have been spending a lot of time lately looking at workout videos on YouTube. Being more of a sociologist than a fitness freak, I also find myself looking at these videos as a window into American culture, and a commentary on our values and beliefs.

Like any reasonable person, I tend to click on the videos with the most hits. Not only do they tend to be higher quality workouts (and achievable for semi-sedentary academics like me), but they're also indicative of the kinds of things that motivate other women like me. Although the smorgasbord of actual exercises is quite diverse (hips, abs, cardio, warmups, zumba, yoga, pilates, etc.),  the workout videos targeted for women seem to appeal to three distinct cultural ideals:

1. The Tough Girl
Being tough is definitely considered an asset in American culture today. The girls and women we admire are ones that don't care about girly things - and who can beat a boy in any competition she wants. Katniss Everdeen, Hermoine Granger, Mulan and Xena are all strong, independent women who can take care of themselves - and we want to be like that too. Girl power!

The tough girl of the fitness world is Jillian Michaels, who is a trainer on the Biggest Loser, and she has a reputation for pushing people to their limits to get into shape. She has a lower voice, a muscular build, and while the photoshop artists enhance her features for publicity photos and her DVDs, "sexy" is clearly not her mantra. Her favorite exercises are elements of kickboxing. Jillian's points come from being tough, and from making you believe that you can be tough too.
"Power through it!"
"Remember - if you don't get uncomfortable, nothing's going to change. This is not your mother's workout."
“Unless You Puke, Faint or Die, Keep Going!” 
"I want you to feel like you are going to die!"

 

  2. The Sexy Goddess

There can be no doubt that today's women want to be sexy as well as strong. Every video called "Look Good Naked in 40 min a Day" or "Hot Body Warm Up Routine" or "Victoria's Secret Workout" reflects this ideal. A real woman should be sexy - sexy means powerful and self-confident. The best combination is tough AND sexy - think Tomb Raider.

The "Pump It Up" videos from Diane Barry teach fitness through dance. The outfits in this and other similar dance workout videos say more than anything else. While the moves are only occasionally suggestive (body rolls, pelvic thrusts, etc.) the atmosphere with songs like "Satisfaction" and high-cut bikini bottoms are more than indicative that the fitness goal is to look and feel sexy:
"Over the body... nice and sexy"
"Have some fun with it."
"Do this every day and you will see the curves."




3. The Well-Balanced Woman
The third cultural ideal is that we need to be smart and take care of ourselves. This is the ideal that stresses that it's not about how you look, but how you feel that matters most. These women recycle, eat organic, vote, detox, care about what kids are watching on tv, and try to have balance in their lifestyle. They applaud P&G for their Olympic "Proud Sponsor(ship) of moms", and Dove's "Real Beauty" campaign.

The ClassFit Sugar videos are set it what looks like either a home or an elementary school classroom, with bright curtains and cubbies in the background. The women are more average-looking and wear less revealing clothing. The three featured women lead the exercises in tandem - they interact with each other more naturally, and don't have the same polished synchronicity of the Jillian and Michaels and the dance workout videos. The message is - we are just normal women, like you, and you can be fit and healthy and happy like us.


Working out, it seems is mostly motivated by the desire to be tough, to be sexy, or to be healthy. What do you think? Is this accurate? Is it helpful? How do these three ideals reflect the reality in society, and how do they impact women?

Nazi Doctors: The paradox, and what it means for you

Science and religion. There's a debate that's gone on for a while. I stumbled across this article by a medical student at Johns Hopkins that dramatically changed my perspective on the issue, and I hope it will yours too. Here is the first part of the article, and then I will follow with a discussion. Let me only prep the reader by saying, exchange the words "physician" and "medicine" for "scientist" and "science" and the same message will apply:

"Moral Luck and Medical Murder: Are Physicians in Jeopardy?"
by Alessa Colaianni, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Class of 2014

"On a rainy summer day in Oswiecim, Poland, I stood next to the rusty railroad tracks  leading into Auschwitz and realized that I was standing in the same place where Nazi doctors had performed "selections," sentencing millions of innocent Jews to death or imprisonment by pointing either left or right. Though I had spent weeks reading and discussing the role of physicians in the Holocaust, I was in a state of disbelief. The value of physicians to the Nazi regime is clear: physicians legitimized the "scientific" principles of eugenics on which the Nazis built their so-called Rassenpolitik (Racial Policy), and rationalized murder under the logic of "medical necessity." But what could possibly have motivated these doctors to so wholly ignore their own professional code?

"By enlisting physicians, first in the sterilization and T4 "euthanasia" programs, and later, in the "Final Solution," the Nazis seemed to have science and medicine on their side. Without active physician participation, the Nazi regime could not have achieved its murderous aims: physicians helped disguise the horrors by using deliberately misleading medical jargon, by systematizing murder, and by subverting their own professional values. The more I reflect, and the more historical analysis I read, the more elusive the answer to this fundamental question seems to become. How could so many doctors, all of whom presumably took the Hippocratic Oath, have become such an integral part of torture and genocide? (it should be noted that the Nazis were neither the first nor the last to facilitate the transformation of physicians into murderers).

"It is crucial to understand that not all physicians that participate in murder and torture do so because of some latent psychological illness or because they are under duress. It is natural for physicians (and future physicians) to try to find some fundamental difference between themselves and the Nazi doctors - to distance themselves as far as they can from the perpetrators of such heinous crimes - but to do so misses the point. Philosopher Thomas Nagel's concept of "moral luck" provides one reason why. Nagel compares the relative moral status of two men, each of whom becomes equally intoxicated and drives home impaired. one man strikes and kills a small child who happens to run out in front of his car. The other man makes it home safely: no child runs out in front of his car. Both men were equally negligent, but by virtue of circumstance -- luck  -- only one man ended up with blood on his hands. In another oft-cited example, a man who may have led an uneventful life as a German citizen became a concentration camp guard and committed unimaginable crimes when the Nazis came into power. Political circumstances did not entirely cause, but certainly facilitated, the change in that man's moral record. The reality of moral luck forces us to consider the unpalatable possibility that these doctors were ordinary people under extraordinary conditions - and that we, as physicians, have the same capacity for wrongdoing."

She then goes to explain characteristics of medical practice, such as clinical detachment and medical euphemisms, that facilitated physician participation in the Holocaust, and how they exist in medical practice today.

What was the movement that provided the impetus for this terrible behavior? It's closer to home than you think: 
"Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

"Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then (used) their data to serve eugenics' racist aims.

"Stanford president David Starr Jordan originated the notion of "race and blood" in his 1902 racial epistle "Blood of a Nation," in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.

"In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation's social service agencies and associations.

"Even the United States Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes's words in their own defense" (retrieved from The George Mason History News Network at http://hnn.us/article/1796).

So, eugenics began in the United States long before it reached Germany. In fact, Hitler quotes American scientists in his autobiography Mein Kampf who he says led the way for Germany to learn how cleanse their "racial stock". Racial cleansing occurred in numerous ways, from lethal neglect and poisoning in mental institutions to forced sterilization, especially in the state of California. The Nazis were the first to take these ideals and implement them on a large scale through systematic executions. 

This is all a long-winded introduction to this simple point: just because someone is using scientific methods to distill information is no guarantee that the information will be used for any particular good purpose. Science should be a tool used by the righteous in their quest for truth, but how we find that information, and how we interpret it, and what we do as a result of it, are actions that depend entirely on our personal and social morality. 

As I said in my previous post, physical and social facts are just facts. They're nothing to get angry about, until you filter the fact, or study, or survey through your lens of social understanding and say - "Aha! Someone is being oppressed!" or "Eureka! I've been right all along about men!" (or gravity, or big business, or organized religion or global warming, or whatever). 

In the early 20th century, Eugenics became a popular social framework for viewing people. People's behavior, appearance, thoughts and beliefs were merely considered as evidence for a racial hierarchy. In fact, even those who disagreed with the actions of eugenicists often still adopted the lens of eugenics. Haim Nahmen Bialik, a distinguished Hebrew and Yiddish poet, believed that the eugenics studies proved that Judaism was a race - and a superior one, compared with those who claimed Judaism by practice and belief but not ethnicity. "I too, like Hitler, believe in the blood idea." 

Fortunately, the eugenics framework has taken a back seat over the last several decades, but they have been replaced by other frameworks that now study people in terms of oppression, gender, socialization, media, lifestyle, sexuality, mental illness, etc.

What is your framework? If a house burns down, do you consider it a reflection of crime rates in the area? Are you concerned about the environmental impact of the smoke? Do you think about whether or not God was punishing the people who lived there? The types of questions you ask, and the answers you find, will come from the social framework through which you view the world. 

Notice - your framework influences how you engage with the science, but it is not science in of itself. No scientific study can say "Skin color should not be used to determine how qualified someone is for a job" or "Women should be treated equally". Our frameworks determine that. And our frameworks are determined, to a large extent, by our morality.

So going back to the eugenics movement - How do we know we're not repeating the foolish and immoral actions of our science-loving predecessors in the early 20th century?

First of all, we must recognize that scientific intelligence has zero affect on our moral intelligence. Good people need not be educated, and educated people need not be good. The danger we currently face is that scientific knowledge is rapidly increasing, but our sense of morality is increasingly weak and simple and easily overcome for most people. We are current beneficiaries of the "moral luck" Nagel discussed, and it may take only a mere shift in the political winds, or current rhetoric, or pop culture, to leave blood on our hands as well: "The reality of moral luck forces us to consider the unpalatable possibility that these doctors were ordinary people under extraordinary conditions - and that we, as physicians, have the same capacity for wrongdoing."

Science cannot guide morality. It simply can't. The nature of science answers questions about "what", "where", "who", and "how", but it cannot answer the "why"s, or give any insight about "what should be". If we assume that science will give us those answers, the answers we get will be a reflection of our own beliefs about what is "natural" or "obvious". And if our moral education has not been thorough, the nature of these "obvious" answers will be hugely influenced by whatever winds of political and philosophical change we happen to be experiencing at the moment, whether it's eugenics or feminism. Without a consistent, reliable source of moral education, we can unwittingly make foolish decisions, all the while believing science to be our ally.

Science is not the only Kool-Aid that disguises the poison of immorality. Philosophical arguments, peer pressure, professional norms, politics, pop culture, and rhetoric can also woo us into complacency about moral principles that haven't been sufficiently anchored. Dishonesty because "it's just business", contempt because of someone's party affiliation, casual sex because you live in a frat house. The whimpering voice of morality is an easy target of mockery when everyone is having a good time: Mark Twain said "Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand." Rhetoric can deceive even very good, reasonable people, as Hitler's impassioned speeches deceived the Germans. Like science, rhetoric can paint an issue persuasively and reasonably, and yet be completely wrong.

So how do we ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of Nazi physicians and all those who went along with the eugenics movement? The answer is this: Our individual and collective sense of morality must be cultivated and educated. Distinct from education in science, philosophy, politics, or sociology, we need to cultivate a sense of morality that derives from religious faith, and recognize that science is a tool, not the brains, behind moral action. 

We have a duty to seek out the best and most correct religious teachings we can find and then teach their principles of morality as the basis for proper social conduct - if not in our public schools then in every other possible forum. I don't refer to dogma or extremism - I mean to say that most world religions teach a common base of principles that emphasize the Golden Rule, respect for others, acknowledgment of a greater power or at least that we don't have all the answers right now, and a desire to seek after goodness and truth. If the overwhelming majority of the world believes these things are good and true, why not put a stake in it? Why not teach it to our kids in formal or even state-sponsored settings? Where else should morality come from?

Who wants to argue that if we practiced genetic selection, we probably would create a healthier, stronger, longer-living population? No one - scientifically, it's still probable. But our sense of conscience dismisses that argument because we believe (for mostly unprovable reasons) that the actions that would come from that argument are just inherently wrong - no study needed. These beliefs can't come from science, and so they must come from religion. We codify these unscientific religious morals in our Bill of Rights and Constitution because we have decided that every person should be granted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Nazi doctors failed their own morality. Their skills, experience, jargon, and trust in the science overwhelmed their ability to distinguish right from wrong. Does that make science bad? No! But without educated core convictions that grow with equal strength to our dependence on science, morality will not have the power to govern our use of science, and as with the physicians in Nazi Germany, we will not hear the quiet voice or moral reason that cuts through the distracting jargon and frameworks and speaks of right and wrong to our innermost souls. 

As we study the history of our society and the foolish, immoral actions of the past, we must never believe, as Coloaianni stated, that our ancestors were simply less moral or less intelligent than we are. They, like us, acted according to contemporary philosophies, politics, and popular trends, and like us, they did it unwittingly. Let us be intelligent about morality; let our social frameworks be grounded in religious truth; let us not only accept but embrace the unscientific, unprovable, and yet essential "shoulds" that give us our humanity and provide an anchor for civilization itself.

How to Avoid Getting Angry at Stupid Comments

I was reading on a Yahoo page today a user that commented on the fact that girls raised without fathers in the home are 7 times more likely to become pregnant. Like many blogs and articles you've read, the comments below were mostly angry, and extreme:

"Wow! Are Moms actually 7 times worse at raising little girls? Wow!"

"So we should make a law forcing the courts to give daughters to fathers, no matter how violent or abusive they are. Great choice."

"The highest rates of divorce and single parent homes are among conservatives - not liberals. So here's my advice to all the 'value voters' - try making YOUR actions fit your words."

"Daughters? What about the sons sticking it in the daughters?"

Each of these comments approaches the issue from a different paradigm. The solution to avoiding getting angry is laid out here:

Step 1: Understand the nature of social facts.
A social fact is like a physical fact in the sense that it is real and measurable, but it's also intangible. Here are some examples:

• Women in the U.S. are paid less money for the same work done by men
• Working mothers are more likely to struggle with anxiety than stay-at-home moms
• The largest demographic group in federal and state prisons are African American males

These are not value statements - they're just facts. Don't get upset yet.

Step 2: Understand the nature of theoretical paradigms.
We rarely discuss social facts without attaching a "therefore" to the end of them. You  interpret these facts through your social lens -  conflict theory, religion, feminism, environmentalism, biological theory, etc. - and you assign values to them as a result. Here are some possible interpretations of the previous examples:

• Women in the U.S. are paid less money for the same work done by men
• Conflict theory/feminism: Overall, we are still a sexist society - and employers are still discriminating against women
• Evolutionary theory: Men are paid more because it's their nature to be more aggressive, and men are more likely than women to negotiate for a higher salary

You see? Same fact, two different interpretations. Let's do one more:

• The largest demographic group in federal and state prisons are African American males
• Oppression theory: Black men are in jail because white men have more social and political power to put them there.
• Organic functionalism: Because of the changing nature of American markets, manufacturing jobs are disappearing from many predominantly black communities. Without jobs, these individuals are more likely to turn to drugs and other illegal sources of income.

Every fact can be valued and judged a million ways, depending on what aspect of the situation is most important to you. When an empty house burns down for example, are you concerned for the safety of the surrounding trees and the decrease in air quality? Do you want to look at crime rates in the area? Are you concerned about the emotional well-being of the owner? Are you angry that schools aren't providing more education about fire safety? 

It's important to note that while individual causes may be studied, you cannot disprove a theory. It's just a way of looking at information. Recognizing and appreciating theories other than your own can be liberating. If there's a theoretical paradigm that makes your life miserable (mine would be the selfish gene theory, which postulates that all behavior is inherently self-serving) - pick another one! 

Step 3: Understand how interpretation leads to emotion

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, probably the most popular theory in modern mental health counseling, postulates that how we mentally interpret a situation leads to how we emotionally feel about it. To return to the article mentioned at the beginning of this post: Saying that girls raised without fathers are 7 times more likely to get pregnant is not a value statement - it's not extremism or propaganda or anything - it's just a fact. Based on your interpretation of the fact, you will be happy about it, angry about it, or not care at all. Here are some options:

• I'm neutral because: Not having a father doesn't CAUSE girls to get pregnant - it's a correlation. The type of families without fathers also tend to be the types of people who are more lax about sexual behavior.
• I'm happy because: There's nothing wrong with that fact. Society is changing, and it will keep changing - it's just going through some growing pains. (or) Having children is a wonderful, beautiful thing and the fact that these girls are become mothers earlier than most is totally fine.
• I'm angry because: People prey on easy targets. Not having a father in the home is a symbolic sign to the neighbors and the community that the home is unprotected, and that the family inside is unprotected, so daughters without fathers are more likely to be victims of sexual predators.
• I'm sad because: Without a father in her life, girls struggle with feelings of rejection and loneliness and a strong psychological need for male companionship, and so they're likely to be more sexually promiscuous, which leads to teen pregnancy.

You can probably think of other ways to see this as well.

What you should probably NOT do is make yourself angry by interpreting facts through a lens of extremism. If you think not having a father is a cause of teen pregnancy, and if you believe that's bad, you must not dismiss that with fallacies like: "Well that may be true, but having a father who beats the living daylights out of you isn't good either." Two horrible choices don't cancel each other out. You can acknowledge that both are bad.

Step 4: Understand the difference between interpretation and action

Acknowledging a fact is not acknowledging an interpretation, and acknowledging an interpretation does not dictate a course of action. In fact, it is crucial that we separate these. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. are classic examples of two men who went through this process together, and then split when they got to action:
Fact: Black Americans are not allowed to ride at the front of buses
Interpretation: Society is structurally discriminating against black people
Emotion: Anger! Frustration!
Action: MLK- peaceful protest, Malcolm X - violent protest

Here's a modern example of how people might behave toward poverty today:
Fact: The gap between the rich and poor in America is increasing
Interpretation: The wealthy have more power to maintain and increase their wealth, while the poor are becoming more disenfranchised
Emotion: Anger! Frustration!
Action (option #1): Lobby to change the tax code in order to equalize the playing field
Action (option #2): Give to charity. Encourage others around you to do the same
Action (option #3): Lobby to put more federal tax money into low-income schools
Action (option #4): Create a families-helping-families program in your local congregation, where individuals can sign up to provide resources, networking, tutoring, etc. for families that are less well-off

Step 5: Realize your own decision making process, and respect the process of others
Once you understand how this process of understanding people's reactions to things, you should recognize how flexible and fluid it really is. That alone should give you the patience and love to allow others to disagree with your interpretation, your emotions, and your actions. Good luck.

Why You Should Be Upset about the Overturning of Utah's Marriage Amendment

Most important issues are also complex, which means they can't be pithily stated in a two-sentence tweet. Explaining how planes actually fly takes a lot longer than just posting "gravity doesn't exist!" So, I hope you will read with sincerity my non-pithy explanation of why gay and straight people alike should be upset about the decision today by a federal judge in Utah to rule their marriage amendment unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby overturned a 66% majority vote on an amendment to clarify the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, stating that "The state’s current laws...demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason."

"Why should I be upset about this?", you may say, "This is awesome! I'm totally excited about it" If this is you, my next point may not seem like a big deal, but I will explain: If we want laws to change, it needs to be because we vote on it, not because one person just decides we should.  Suspend for a moment your opinion on this particular issue: are we okay with having one person decide to strike down the voice of the people just because he personally doesn't believe it's a good idea, or because he doesn't like the rationale of the other side?  The judiciary is there to protect our rights, not to decide which laws are terrible. As Chief Justice Roberts said in last year's decision to uphold Obamacare, even though he personally disagreed with it, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,”

Do we want a king or a democracy? In the Book of Mormon, a hefty number of people keep saying they want a king. Why would anyone want that? Well, think about it: if the king supports your views, he/she would sure get things done a lot faster and more efficiently than having to go through Congress. We could even still call them "president" or "judge" to make ourselves feel better. But even if you like the current outcomes of that system, you should not be okay with judicial fiat just because this one happens to support your view. The next one may not:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

(from A Man For All Seasons)

"But Kindra", you may say,"the judiciary isn't legislating - they're just protecting the civil rights of a minority group, who are not being allowed to marry." Okay, let's be very clear about this - yes, their job is to strike down laws and amendments that violate the Bill of Rights, but this is not a Bill of Rights issue. Saying that lesbians and gay men are being denied their right to marry is actually a logical fallacy. Let me explain.

Every adult in America has the right to marry. Think about it. No one asks you your orientation at the courthouse. In the sense of how we are treated by the law, we are completely equal. You can be lesbian, black, atheist, whoever - you already have the right to get married. But all states decide what that contract looks like, and WHO you may marry. You're probably more okay with this than you realize. In most states, you are denied the right to marry more than one person, or marry a close relative, or marry a child, for example. Are you okay with these? Yes? No? Well, that's why the states vote on them: because marriage is a social contract with social functions and implications.  Gender theory and conflict theory would have you interpret everything as though it's an issue of oppression, hate and bigotry - it's not. This is just a definition; It's a social contract, and it's flexible, and we can vote to change it. Please keep in mind - those of you who support gay marriage - you can and should still believe this!

"But they ARE being denied their rights", you will then say, probably indignantly. "They have the right to have their loving relationship legally validated just like anyone else." This is very important, please don't be mad at me - but you don't actually have that right, in any state. Getting married is an individual right, but defining marriage is not. Gay supporters - you can still be okay with this too! 

What you're actually saying is, they SHOULD have the right. Aha! If you believe they should have the right to marry, and you think we should change the marriage laws, let's VOTE on it! Let's pass an amendment! This is a time for discussion and campaigning, not self-righteousness and accusations. We have to respect each other enough to do that.

While the justice system ensures that no one's civil rights are violated, the voice of the people decides on the nature and extent of every other type of right, and they are not nearly as clean-cut as we'd like to believe: does the doctor have the right to peace and quiet in his home, or does the drummer next door have the right to play? Do you have the right to walk around naked in public, or do I have the right to experience public decency? According to Hobbs, the mere fact that you live in a society of any kind requires you to give up certain rights. Fortunately, in this country and in this age, you have a say in what those are.

On a final note - while having your love validated is not a right defended by the Constitution (or at least, it is questionable), religion unquestionably IS. That means, whether you worship God or a giant flying squirrel or nothing, you have the right to believe, act, and vote according to your conscience. We are a country that is free for Orthodox Jews and white supremacist groups, gays and straights, progressives and conservatives. The beauty of America is that we don't eliminate any opinions from the table - EVERYONE is invited to come, to discuss, to debate, to persuade, and ultimately to vote. Just because someone believes something for religious reasons does not disqualify them from the conversation. Let's be a civil society - let us uphold American values in the way we treat one another, and let us uphold the system of governance that has been the ensign of freedom to the rest of the world for the last 250 years.

Legislating (All) Morality

If it's okay with everyone, I'm going to argue with myself. I will be "K" and myself will me "M":

M: You can't legislate morality. I don't like religious people shoving their beliefs down my throat

K: I hear what you're saying. That sounds good. There are some flaws in your argument though, that you're probably not aware of. All of our laws are based on moral assumptions - in many ancient cultures, including Romans at the time of Jesus, it was clear to everyone that some people were inherently more valuable than others. The king was even seen as a God. It is a Judeo-Christian idea that America was founded on that all men are created equal - we legislate this moral belief that we all voted on and agreed to.

M: But there are some things that are just being opposed for religious reasons, not for rational or scientific reasons - like gay marriage for example. There are lots of scientific studies on my side.


K: What if I told you that gay couples are less likely to be monogamous, and more likely to be promiscuous? What if I told you that studies have shown that children raised by gay couples are more likely to be homosexual themselves? What if I cited research about the spread of disease, or the increase in social approval of legalized polygamy and incest, or the corollary reduced value of families in general, or the devaluation of gender, or the emasculation of American men?

M: I would say I don't believe you. Or, at least, I want to see the studies.

K: Why are you more willing to believe your studies than mine? I'm guessing it's because your studies make more sense to you - to your worldview, to your set of moral beliefs. What I hear you saying is, even though this is presented in a rational format, I don't believe evidence that disagrees with what I have already concluded I will believe. From the experiences of my life, I've decided that gay marriage is okay and good and not harmful, and I'm not going to change my opinion no matter what.

M: Well, you can twist things to mean whatever you want them to

K: That's the problem, isn't it? Everything can be twisted - even logic, even science. What about religion?

M: Well, religion isn't valid. It's not based on logic or reason - why should we care about religion when we're talking about politics?

K: Because that's the reason you're voting FOR gay marriage. By accepting some scientific studies and not others, you've demonstrated that your decision-making process, or the process by which you determine validity, has nothing to do with science. When you say the word "should", you're implying inherent "rightness" or "wrongness" in the universe, which, although you may call them ethics, others would call values or morals or religious beliefs - beliefs about what is real, what is good, and what is important, things that can't ultimately be proven. It doesn't have to have a Bible or Quran attached to it to be called a religion - it can be whatever you believe. And I won't disregard your beliefs just because they aren't in a specific category, or because they aren't particularly ancient, or because they're not logical, or because they contradict mine. Your beliefs are welcome, but so are mine.

K: Democracy doesn't mean keeping certain groups from legislating morality. It means allowing all groups to legislate morality - or rather, to vote on their own version of morality. That is the great misunderstanding. If we all have the opportunity to exercise our religious rights, hopefully the good that I believe is inherent in all systems of religious beliefs will rise to the occasion, and out of many good people's beliefs, a democratic society will be able to run with peace and prosperity.