Modesty, Part 1.- revealing our dignity?

"Modesty is about revealing our dignity."

~ Jessica Rey

The above video is of a talk given by Jessica Rey, a swimsuit designer (who does a fabulous job of promoting her business, by the way- I just wish she didn't use such poor logic to do it!) and modern proponent of "modest" swimwear for women. She basically argues that men objectify women who wear bikinis, as opposed to more "modest" (that term is never defined) swimwear, and that women showing skin is an invention of the modern fashion world. She says that "modesty" is about revealing dignity and being seen as people, rather than attractive bodies.



Normally, I think it is a mistake to judge an argument by its source. This time, I think the correlations between and origins of this argument and a very, very similar one are significant, simply because of the implications for the status of women in a society which adopts them.



"In the ’80′s, most of the religious rhetoric about hijab that I was exposed to stressed religious obligation, as well as women’s dignity. Supposedly, hijab would protect our dignity, by focusing (male) attention on us as believing women, rather than on us as female bodies."
(http://sobersecondlook.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/hijab-empowerment-and-choice-the-darker-side/)


Substitute modesty for the word hijab, and you have Ms. Rey's argument. The only difference is the definition of modesty. The only difference between requiring women to wear full-coverage, one piece swimsuits to "avoid objectification by males"  and requiring them to wear full hijab or even a burqa is one of degrees. The same logic that holds women accountable for rape, even in some cases punishing them as adulteresses if they file rape charges, the same logic that excuses honor crimes and forced marriages and domestic violence, is the same logic that the evangelical Christian world is using to regulate the dress and behavior of women. This should be a sobering thought to those Christians who in all other respects decry the mistreatment of and sidelining of women by Muslims.



Now, to unpack the other ideas here- Ms Rey cites a study, done at Princeton, as evidence for males' inherent tendency to objectify women who are wearing bikinis. For a more in-depth look at the study, try this post. Suffice it to say that this study was of a limited number of male college students. Also, the pictures they were shown were not only women in bikinis, but headless women in bikinis. The only thing the participants could see, unlike real life, was the woman's body. Even if the data from these students led to Ms. Rey's conclusions, (and I do not believe it does) this proves nothing about other demographics, other times, other cultures, or any person who has not been socialized into thinking that an attractive woman in a bikini is an object and fair game. She assumes that the reaction to the bikini is an inherent one in all males, rather than a socially conditioned one, and one which reflects ideas about women and their bodies which may not, in fact be universal. Not all men see a woman in a bikini and immediately turn her into an object. Some men see a woman who is beautiful and exposed in her beauty as the sacred living art of the Creator and as an actual person, with needs, goals, talents, and a mind.


Another thing- women can be, and are, ogled by pervs no matter what we wear. Even if all reasoning for modesty rules was legitimate- folks, it doesn't work. Whether or not I get leered at depends, not on what I wear, but on who I'm around. That's a fact. Those guys in the grocery store who were making catcalls? They would have done so no matter what I was wearing. (A loose tshirt and jeans at the time) The guys who treated me with respect and conversed with my face, not my boobs, or else ignored me altogether, when I was in a two piece swimsuit at my college gym, treated me as they did because they were decent humans, not because I was covered up. When I am objectified, it;s not my form that's at fault- it's the pervs who are viewing me as an object created for their pleasure.

What exactly is modesty, and who gets to define it? Modesty, being completely a function of cultural expectations and norms, is relative. What would be "modest" in Papua New Guinea and what would be "modest" in Norway and what would be "modest" in Lancaster county, PA are all totally different. Modesty varies from occasion to occasion, place to place, and time to time. Women showing skin is nothing new. Belly dancing costumes are little more than bikinis, and they have been around for longer than this country. In Japan, it's weird to wear anything when you go to the hot tub, no matter the company. I could name quite a few societies in which clothes were/are limited or optional for some or all normal occasions. Making the history of modern, western culture perennially normative when it comes to this or any other issue is a mistake- at best, we end up with a very limited perspective, and at worst, incorrect conclusions. I would contend that "appropriate modesty" is synonymous with practicality, a total lack of misplaced shame, and general social acceptability. The most stereotypically "modest" (covered) swimsuit won't be appropriate for a funeral, and long pants and a shirt will be horribly impractical at the beach. In a historical context, I think it's a mistake to glorify the fashion of days gone by- yes, in modern history, women were (a couple of hundred years ago) more covered in general. But- why is that automatically a good thing? Were women more respected, did we have more rights and freedoms, and was our equality more a given then? Did men objectify less, respect more, and treat us as holy sisters, or as valuable persons equal to themselves? Not exactly! I cannot think of another age since perhaps the Minoan or Natchez societies in which women have been as close (we're still not 100% there yet) to equality as in our own.

Gender Differences

I think it would be helpful, in light of topics I've written about recently, to define my perceptions of the differences between the genders. I've had people assume that, because I am a feminist and an egalitarian, I don't believe in any gender differences. That is not correct. According to my perception, gender differences fall into several categories, with varying degrees of sexual dimorphism present in each one.


1. Basic Plumbing
Men's and women's reproductive equipment are different. Women can nurse and gestate children; men cannot gestate children and generally, with rare exception, do not lactate. Plumbing differences are universal apart from genetic deformities and are constant within the genders but exclusive to one or the other.


2. Other physical differences
In general, men have more upper body strength, more endurance, and are taller than women. They also have different hormone levels and their brains look a bit different. However..... this is a generalization and isn't true in every case. While men are on average consistently and substantially stronger and taller than women, some women are stronger and taller than some men. There is also the issue of degrees- unlike basic plumbing, not all women are consistent nor are all men. Then, too, physical training and hormone therapy can greatly affect results. If men and women had the same training, nutrition, et c usually the men would be able to do things the women could not, (though not always, and the modern availability of hormone therapy is another possible equalizer) but a well-trained woman can often best an untrained man. As to brains, we can make generalizations, but they will not be universally accurate as every brain is different and brains vary widely within the subsets of women and men. In summary, the non-reproductive physical differences between the genders hold true as a generality, but are not exactly as universal and consistent as the reproductive differences.



3. Social/Behavioral differences
These are more subjective, and more an issue of degrees, than the distinctions in the previous categories. They are things like nurturing, relational, logical, emotional, competitive, passive, aggressive, et c. Here there are differences between the average man and the average woman, but those differences pale in comparison to differences between two people of different cultures, backgrounds, or personalities. Take logical vs. emotion-driven, for example. On a straight line, completely logical will be at one end and completely emotional at the other. The average (mean) woman and the average man will fall somewhere in the middle. (see this study) However, since this is the mean of a very diverse gender, the chances that any particular female or male will match the average designation for their gender are really miniscule. Then, too, the spread between "men" and "women" is not usually that large. There are both women and men who fall on every point of the spectrum. So, while there may be more women on one side and more men on the other, there can be, and often is, as much or more difference between two random women as there is between two random men. A woman with a certain personality will, in my experience, have more in common with a man of the same personality than with a woman of a different personality. For example- recently some friends and I took personality inventories for fun. The person whose personality was the most like mine was male, and the person whose personality was least like mine was female. We can say that "the average man is more aggressive(or less empathetic, or whatever) " than the average woman, but 1. This does not mean that all females are less aggressive or more enotional than all males, 2. This does not mean that the vast majority of females/males, or any particular female/male, are/is any more than slightly statistically likely to exhibit the traits associated with their gender more than the traits associated with the opposite gender. 3. This does not differentiate between innate and socially conditioned traits. Unlike reproductive/biological traits, social/personality traits have a great deal to do with environment and socialization. I really don't think it's possible to prove exactly what is nature and what is nurture, as they say. But ever assuming all present traits to be naturally innate, sexual dimorphism on a social, psychological, or non-physical level is a game of statistics, and really does not accurately predict the traits of individuals. In summary, yes, there are differences between the average man and the average woman. But they are not universal, not uniform, certainly not prescriptive, and gender can no more accurately predict innate traits than can culture, environment, and personality. 


So, we really can't say that "women are like x" or "men enjoy z" with any certainty. We can guess, but we may not want to lay a great deal of money on the results.

God made us unique and valuable, and that includes our personalities and social traits. A slight statistical probability, if that, does not mean that a trait is God's design for me, or for my husband.

Marie Curie

This is funny, but spurs some thought- there are many, many female "greats" that went unnoticed because of the time or culture into which they were born. I'm constantly finding "new" female inventors, scientists, etc of whom I was previously unaware. I am very grateful that, while sexism still exists in our culture, we have made enormous progress; a girl can get herself a patent now. :)


Also- we should teach our children, as this states, that the best way to greatness is not to make greatness their goal; rather, they should find what they love and what they are good at and do it with all their heart and soul. And also- watch out for the radioactive stuff. It's a bummer.

http://xkcd.com/896/

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, Part 1: Framing the discussion

I am often frustrated by some of the more illogical arguments that I see employed in the debate over same sex marriage. Frankly, I find them a little embarrassing, coming as they do from Evangelical Christianity, which is where I place myself as well. Sometimes I want to ask- How do people who believe same sex marriage is evil think they'll ever win their point when their arguments go down in a logical fireball at the slightest test? Why choose shoddy arguments to prove a point that can be addressed with much more reasonable hypotheses, perhaps with similar results? I'd like to propose a few arguments that I think should really never be used in such a policy discussion:

1. It's always been this way

By this logic, the world is flat and women do not contribute DNA to their children. Also, science is evil and germs are not a thing.

2. It was this way in the bible

 (as opposed to endorsed specifically by scripture-the normative/prescriptive
 distinction is important here)

By that logic, marriage does not require consent, monogamy, or female agency. Scary.



3. The Greek Philosophers were for/against this

Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle are fun to read. They have a great many very smart things to say, particularly about law and government. Are they, however, infallible, or even universally reliable? Not a chance, as per their draconian views on gender, women, and the origins of the human race. Are they worthy of citation and consideration and thought? Yes! Does their opinion prove anything? No! It is their opinion, nothing more. The most intelligent and forward-thinking opinion, without substantiation, is still just an opinion. And some of their warped views of gender issues (yes, I'm going to get into that in more detail later) have shaped society, even christian society, and its views of the subject from their day to this one. That is not, in my opinion, a good thing.

4. Things we like will magically disappear if this happens

If we were legislating homosexual marriage instead of heterosexual marriage, this would be true. I do not think, however, that anyone wants to do that. All of the heterosexual people that would have gotten married will still, you know, get married. And allowing gay marriage does not automatically remove the commitment aspect of christian marriage, nor does it affect in any way the manner in which I or any other heterosexual christian lives out our marriages. This point is debated sometimes, in that some people say that allowing same sex marriage must completely redefine the institution in a way that damages and cheapens all marriages. I disagree; more on that later.

There are variations of these arguments which I will explore in more detail as time goes on, but the four above are the basis for those arguments which, in my opinion, it would behoove us to dismiss entirely.
So- what questions do I think we should be asking? What arguments should we be making

Assuming, for the purposes of this discussion, that American judicial, legislative, an political policy is and should be based upon protecting its citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as they do not cause harm or infringe upon others' said rights:

Does same sex marriage infringe on the rights of others?

Does same sex marriage harm any one outside that marriage, specifically those who cannot advocate for themselves? (and yes, this includes hypothetical children raised in such a household)

Does same sex marriage remove/replace other, more expedient institutions?

What would same sex marriage cost, in resources, the state or community?

Does same sex marriage cause quantifiable harm to any person or institution which is not themselves causing harm?

Does same sex marriage carry any benefits to the state, community, or individuals?

Does the fact that many people believe something to be a moral sin mean that it should be legislated as such, purely for that reason?

Three things I think it's important to remember in discussions like these, particularly as we attempt to define harm and wrestle with what same sex marriage is and what are its implications for society-

 Correlation does not equal causation, 

 Genetic does not equal hereditary, and 

 Statistically likely does not equal universal, superior, or prescriptive.

In framing the discussion about possible harms from same sex marriage, too, I think that it is important to distinguish between data that may indicate a connection between harm (familial instability, for instance) and same sex marriage, and data that demonstrates in a reputable, scientific way a causality between harm of some sort and some aspect of same sex marriage: for example the gender of one's parents. To demonstrate this alleged harm, it would be important that the control parents be equitable in everything but gender. E.G. it would be illogical to cite two bisexual romantic partners who do not cohabit as a same sex couple for the purposes of comparison and statistics. We should try to approach data collecting and interpretation here with the same objectivity that we would any other question, in my opinion.

It should be noted that I have no intention of arguing whether or not homosexuality and same sex marriage are sin or inappropriate for christian practice. Nor do I feel that this series of posts is the appropriate venue to delve into my own opinions on that topic and my interpretations of the scriptures pertaining to it. Most christians believe that the bible clearly vilifies homosexual behavior, so for my purposes here I will equate that with the majority christian view. 

This series of posts is simply about legislating for or against same sex marriage- should we allow it, shouldn't we, or how do we decide?

Why have I never heard of this woman?

Thanks to my bro-in-law for this- very cool.