How to Prevent Mass Shootings, Step One

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The Deceptive Difference of Paradigms on Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at them again. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why I Am Not a Feminist

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

Well, maybe we're asking the wrong question.

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

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

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

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

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

I am not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn't that just SOUND terrible?

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

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

Feminism: men and women are both pears

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Going "Straight": Why it doesn't matter that reparative therapy doesn't work.

A recent study by a retired BYU professor and his colleague at Utah State found that gay Mormons in a heterosexual marriage have a high likelihood of divorce. Shocker, I know. However, the article included several other interesting statistics, such as that 70% of the individuals had left the church either before or after their divorce, and that 80% of them had made some kind of efforts - private, groups, religious, therapy, etc - to change their orientations, all unsuccessfully.

This is a common finding regarding the effects of "conversion" or "reparative" therapies - very few have demonstrated any kind of success, and some even employ strategies that have been damaging. The Pan American Health Organization, a regional office of the World Health Organization, has stated that these practices “lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.” In 2000, the American Psychiatric Association published that, “‘reparative’ therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure” which has led them to “oppose any psychiatric treatment such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder."

This brings up some interesting questions. Why isn't homosexuality a disorder anymore? Why did it used to be? What makes something a disorder like ADD, or transgenderism, or bibliomania (compulsive book-collecting - I think my husband and I have this)? And thus we leave the realm of science and enter the sociological swamp of competing ideologies. Here's the issue: What we can ethically "treat" depends on what we consider to be a "problem".

In general, when someone presents any kind of unique condition, we generally place it into one of two categories: for this article I will conceptualize them as "disorder" and "orientation". A disorder is a problem that we agree needs to be fixed. An orientation is just a characteristic that makes someone different. 

Many conditions have switched categories in the past - being left handed, for example, which used to be considered a disorder, is now a relatively neutral condition (which I am personally thankful for). Hyperactivity in children has gone from being considered an orientation to a possible disorder. We may pretend that there is a scientific difference between these categories: The APA has created a rubric for determining whether something is considered a disorder - such as requiring it to be "distressing" or to negatively impact one's life, etc. - but even those definitions are derived from our values, and full of moral assumptions. Giving something a definition does not mean it has anything to do with science - like whether you label an embryo a "human being" or just a "clump of cells". It's a moral label, not a scientific one, but that label has real implications.

For example - if you see homosexuality as simply an orientation because you believe that there's nothing WRONG with it, then you obviously don't want it to be considered an illness. The illness label creates negative stigma and unneeded pressure to change (imagine me and a bunch of lefties with inferiority complexes).  People who believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable therefore obviously disapprove of orientation change efforts, even if the change efforts were effective. 

On the other hand, if you believe that patterns of homosexual thoughts, feelings, and emotions ARE a problem, then it does make sense to continue pursuing change strategies - even if CURRENT modalities are ineffective.  If we agree it's a problem, then we'll continue researching and experimenting and looking for better solutions - like we do with every other mental and emotional condition of concern. 

Here's the problem: If people with moral oppositions to changing someone's sexual orientation rush to publish the negative results of  existing modalities in order to make their viewpoint look like a rational and not a moral one, they miss the point. Existing modalities are irrelevant to the argument. If orientation change therapy is morally wrong, then it shouldn't matter if it's effective of not - it's wrong, and it should stop. And if changing one's orientation is morally right and important, then it shouldn't matter if our current tactics are effective or not - it's right, and we'll keep working until we figure it out. Remember how many things were tried before penicillin?

Blootletting scene from the 1600's

Bad current treatments are not evidence of an incurable condition.

What's even sadder is that those who are actively fighting against and shutting down attempts to change people's orientation prevent those who WANT to change from having the chance to do so. The APA discourages it; no respected grants promote research in that field. In fact, conversion therapies of any kind are banned for minors in California, New Jersey. and Washington D.C., effectively shutting down the conversation entirely and preventing new and better therapies from ever being developed. For a group that seems so intent on preserving individual rights and freedoms, that seems to be an awful lot of hand-tying.

In some ways, sexual orientation is unlike being left or right-handed. It's fluid; some people feel it to varying degrees and in different ways. Some people have been gay from birth, while others develop a gay orientation because of circumstances such as childhood abuse. Queer theorists agree with me. So if we already acknowledge that orientation has at least an element of changeability, and since clinicians commit to not impose our morality on client, then at the very least, don't people deserve the right to pursue an orientation of their choosing, with our support? For a child whose sexual feelings have been skewed through abuse and desperately wants to change; for a father who has a wife and kids that he loves - shouldn't we at least allow strategies that might help these people, and preserve their families? Or are we so presumptive as to assume that ANY efforts in ANY realm of change strategies are doomed to fail? 

As a Mormon and an American, I respect the right for others to disagree with me on moral and religious issues. I can respect people who reject the concept of changing someone's sexual orientation. But let's not hide behind the weak argument that the whole idea should be rejected outright just because there happen to be bad therapies out there. It is a moral issue, and both sides are taking a moral stance.  If you are someone who believes that homosexuality is a disorder that should cured, then let's stop defending bad programs and let's get to work figuring out how to do it right. A lot of people are waiting on us.

You Can't Have Your Cake and Eat it Too: Why We Will Never Agree on Race

While writing this post, the following clip from Fiddler on the Roof came to mind:

One man argues that worrying about the world outside is useless. Another argues that we can't close our eyes to the outside world. "He's right, and he's right... they can't both be right." ... "You are also right"!!

Tevye humorously illustrates an important issue about which religious folks and social scientists often disagree. That is, while we allow for the differences in perspective and cultures, Christians recognize that there are sometimes two things which cannot simultaneously be right.  Social scientists are adamant about their own fundamental uncertainty about truth, and point to the vast relativity in perception and morality that exists between cultures. However, unless you are Nietzsche, you must acknowledge that some fundamental realities exist outside of our conception of them. There is either an afterlife or there isn't. Jesus either rose from the dead or He didn't. Yesterday was the same 24 hours long as the day before. I am currently in my apartment, and not in Spain.

Sometimes, however, we want two contradictory realities to both be right - thus the expression, "you can't have your cake and eat it too". You can either eat the cake, or leave it on the plate and continue to hungrily lust after its buttercream frosting. You can compromise - eat half of it, and keep half of it - but the whole cake cannot be on your plate and in your stomach simultaneously. You must choose.

This year, a ballot is being put forth in the Colorado legislature regarding the concept of "feticide" - the killing of an unborn child - and whether it should be considered illegal. Years ago I read an interesting example of this dilemma: a very pregnant woman was robbed on the street and stabbed in the stomach. She survived but her unborn child did not. When the man was apprehended and taken to court, she was dismayed to discover that there were no laws in her state against "fetal homicide" (12 states do not). In an interview, she affirmed that she considered herself pro-choice, but was still frustrated by the lack of legal protection for her baby. Unfortunately, she was confronted by the dilemma of both wanting a fetus to be a person, and also not a person, depending on whether the mother wanted it or not. Like the cake, we cannot have it both ways.

Here is another dilemma: Does race matter, or not? Here are some scenarios to check your racism meter. Which of the following would you consider to be examples of racism?

1. In the movie Star Wars: Phantom Menace, one alien race all have Jamaican accents
2. A TV show has very few non-white actors in its cast, and those who have "have had their identity minimized."
3. When asked which of the women in the shop was Melissa, she said, "The black one."
4. White American women don't tend to be attracted to Asian guys.
5. Once a year, we have "Black History Month" but there is no equal representation for Hispanic or Asian Americans.
6. A white guy hosts a Mexican-themed party where the guests arrive in sombreros and ponchos and watch The Three Amigos. 
7. A black girl straightens her naturally curly hair to style it like her caucasian friends.

Here's a surprise: the answer to all of these is absolutely yes, or no, depending on your answer to the following question... 
What is racism? 
Your definition of racism actually depends a great deal on your definition of race, and whether or not you think it matters as a meaningful and fundamental part of one's identity. Here are three of the most common definitions of racism:
1. Racism means acknowledging race, and pointing out racial differences --> racial stereotyping.
2. Racism means NOT considering race, treating everyone like white people, pretending "blackness" doesn't exist and hoping any differences you do notice go away.
3. Racism is just another word for racial discrimination - viewing and treating people of other races as inherently inferior. 
While I think everyone can get behind #3, there is a vast difference between racism definitions 1 and 2. What do we do with these three definitions which are so different?

Fundamentally, our national dilemma is whether race matters or not. Does race make you the same, or does it make you special and unique? We can't seem to agree. All of our difficulties in discussing race seem to flow from this basic conundrum: are we the same, or are we special? Are differences real or not? Are they important or trivial? Should we ignore race or celebrate it? Here is an example of each approach. 
Celebrate it: This year President Obama and his family sent their prayers and best wishes to those celebrating Kwanzaa, stating that "Kwanzaa celebration highlights the rich heritage of African Americans."
Ignore it: In an interview with Mike Wallace in 2005, Morgan Freeman called Black History Month "ridiculous" - saying that relegating one month to one race's history puts up unnecessary boundaries between blacks and whites. "Black history is American history", he said:

So, which is better? Which approach do you believe will do a better job of eliminating racial inequality and tensions? 

Those who argue for color-blindness believe in equality and not considering your race when making assessments about you; they see that every attempt to categorize people by race and discuss their differences accentuates the problems and the sense of "other"-ness that lead to stereotyping and discrimination (this concept when applied to gender is widely accepted by most social scientists).

Those who argue for multiculturalism believe the solution to racial problems is by acknowledging, not ignoring, race; they believe that celebrating and seeing the value in one's racial background builds self-esteem and strength in individuals and communities.

To be honest, I don't know the answer, but what is clear is this: these perspectives are mutually exclusive. Race, like gender, cannot both be both trivial and special. Over and over again, our attempts to ameliorate race relations problems in this country either causes us to acknowledge, measure, and discuss race, which annoys the color-blinders, or to ignore race and focus on unity, which offends the multiculturalists.

This is not fun for any of us though, because it means regardless of which viewpoint we adopt, we must recognize and accept all of the consequences of our chosen package, good AND bad:

If we ignore race in our efforts to promote equality, we lose the cultural identity that gives many people a sense of pride and community. We leave the door open for people who do still harbor racist ideas to segregate and discriminate, whether they do it knowingly or not. By making race irrelevant, we no longer have a way to quantify and address problems that are clearly driven by racial attitudes, and we leave whole swaths of the population at a historically perpetuating disadvantage. We say we believe in the equality of all men, but as President Obama has said: "Those self-evident truths have never been self-executing."

On the other hand, if we continue to use race as a salient characteristic of certain groups of people, the younger generation continues to grow up learning that some people are different than we are, and that they need to be treated differently (given extra help, etc.). If it matters, and it IS a relevant part of one's identity, then one's race matters and can therefore be used to make judgments about them - both good AND bad. For example--That's called stereotyping. Are we okay with that? 

Whether we ultimately choose to eat the cake or gaze longingly at it, we must recognize that there will be negative consequences either way, and a lot of people are going to be unhappy about it.

What is the official stance of the government? The Supreme Court's position is that in a federal case, the race of the plaintiff or defendant is not to be considered, UNLESS race is being considered in an effort to justify past racial discrimination, or to promote diversity in higher education (Fisher v. University of Texas and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In other words - race is a meaningful component of one's identity.... or not... depending on whether it's considered a worthy cause.

What is the stance of the NAACP? The organization seems to straddle both sides as well, claiming to both use "affirmative action" with regards to race and other statuses, AND to be an "equal opportunity employer". But legally, this doesn't work. The concept of "equal opportunity employment" as stated in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 11246 by Lyndon Johnson refers to a prohibition on discriminating against employees on the basis of race, sex, creed, religion, color, or national origin. And discrimination means recognizing differences between people, and then treating people differently as a result of those differences. Isn't that what affirmative action is doing?

Here's the thing though - affirmative action might be the right thing to do. Discriminating in one direction may be the best way to address historical discrimination in the other direction. But it is still discrimination. It is still differentiation of people based on their race. And that approach has both positive and negative outcomes. We just have to recognize that that is in fact the case, and then make the decision about whether or not it's worth it.

Unfortunately, like the Supreme Court's confusing position on race, it is irrational to decide whether something like race is real and meaningful and important only when we want it to be. The shoe that you drop on the floor will still be there when you're stumbling around in the dark, whether you want it to be or not. The alarm clock you set will go off, regardless of how little sleep you've gotten.

So how do we choose? Like all of our actions in society, our decision about how to treat race should not focus on theory (what sounds good), but on outcomes (what actually works) - (see this lesson from Moneyball). Recognizing the deeply sensitive nature of this issue, we should be wise, acknowledge the fact that either decision has pros and cons, and then have the courage to choose the approach that will ultimately lead to the most equality, the least discrimination, the most inclusiveness and happiness.

In the spirit of outcomes, and in an effort to avoid researcher bias, I think one helpful approach would be to study the current and historical approaches of other societies that seem to be ahead of the curve on racial equality, such as (in my opinion) the United Kingdom (<-- this post is fascinating. Experiences of black individuals who have lived in both the U.S. and the U.K.. I will talk about this more in my next blog post about my own experience with racism).

Until we recognize that there is in fact two mutually exclusive opinions on race and racism, we will continue to fearfully avoid discussions of race and condemn any mention of race with blind indignity, for fear of being considered either racist version #1 or #2. 

As far as theoretical paradigms go, I am not a conflict theorist - I believe most people genuinely want racial equality. I believe we are all trying to accomplish the same objective, but that we have different (and admittedly contradictory) approaches to solving it. We need to stop condemning people as "racist" because their strategy differs from ours, and not "make a man an offender for a word" (Isaiah 29:21). Whatever WE decide to do with the cake, let us be loving and patient with others who are still struggling with the decision. However we choose to view race, the logical result will have positive and negative outcomes for everyone. Let's be both sensible and sensitive as we work together to find solutions.