The Story That Started the Debate for Me
On Feb. 19th, I encountered a Utah news report citing an article by LDS sex therapist, Natasha Helfer Parker, entitled, Morality? We can do much better than this… . Her blogpost criticized a BYU-Idaho campus devotional address given by general authority, Elder Tad R. Callister, in which Parker remarks, "[Elder Callister's] article successfully sets us [LDS society in general] back about 35 years [regarding 'rape culture']." (Callister's devotional address is being reprinted in the 2014 March Ensign and Liahona magazines). To fully appreciate this post, you should quickly review both of their remarks.
Before reading Parker's criticism, I had never heard the term, rape culture.
Rape Culture — "Within feminism, rape culture is a concept that links rape and sexual violence to the culture of a society, and in which prevalent attitudes and practices normalize, excuse, tolerate, and even condone rape." (wikipedia)
Parker's post made me feel…uncomfortable. I felt that Parker painted a very one-sided picture of Elder Callister's message. While I felt that the underlying issues motivating Parker's post deserved attention ("rape culture" in particular), she may have been calling a gila monster, Godzilla (or whatever the saying is that means you see whatever you are preoccupied with in everything that remotely reminds you of that thing). In Parker's eagerness to lend her expertise as a sex therapist to a very real and too-often-misunderstood set of issues, it seemed to me that her emotionally-charged rebuttal may have been a little too quick to [mis]interpret the words of one of the Lord's representatives on earth.
Religious Aside
Parker's isn't the only dissenting voice in the Bloggernacle. Between the subtle attacks on modesty and the increasing support for redefinition of marriage, the Church membership definitely has some bumpy times ahead regarding chastity, and morality. I fear that mere "obedience to the law" will be an insufficient motivation to resist the doubts and temptations for many covenant-making, Latter-day Saints. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must learn to act out of integrity (doing what they believe is right) in order to have the resolve to stand up to the ever-divergent mores professed by the world. But the sad truth is that, while these "elect of God" seek earnestly to follow their hearts, if they fail to stay close to the doctrines taught by the Brethren, many will be lured away by the sophistries of man. For me, Parker's article is a gentle prelude to a more raucous score.
After stewing over this concern for about a week or so, I finally found a blog post, written by Nathaniel, that helped me identify what it was about Parker's clinical argument that upset me so: The thing that bothered me was her call for a more relaxed, "sympathetic" standard of morality, which negates the need for the Atonement. That's a serious problem for me. It's okay to admit that life is hard, that bad things happen to us for no apparent reason, and that sometimes we make poor choices all on our own. But to say, "since we'll never live up to the perfect example of Christ, we should relax our standards or just stop trying" contradicts the very heart of my belief system. (Note: This is where I initially stopped writing, and then I spent a few more hours deconstructing the rest of Parker's argument.)
The Argument Breakdown
Here are some excerpts from Callister, Parker, and Nathaniel's respective writings, in which they summarize the controversy. Let's start with a rebuttal to Parker's article—a blurb from Nathaniel's mildly-sarcastic blog post:
"[Modesty standards] are unequally emphasized to males and females because of the fundamental reality that females are on the supply side and men on the demand side of the sex equation. That is common sense which everyone who is not motivated by politics can see, but it is also (in case you’re skeptical) scientific fact. Men and women approach sex differently but it is men who are primarily motivated by visual cues and also who want to have sex more frequently and more casually. (Once again, these aren’t just random assertions. There is data.) A gender-blind approach to sexuality would be no more reasonable than a gender-blind approach to professional sports. If the WNBA did not exist, how many women would make the cut to play pro basketball against men? Zero. Pretending gender differences do not exist when they do in fact exist may be politically expedient, but it does not actually serve the interests of equality. If you’re looking for symmetry, this is where you will find it: women are encouraged to dress modestly (partially for their sake, partially for the sake of men) and men are encouraged to stop watching porn (partially for their sake, partially for the sake of women). There is equality, but not sameness, in the Lord’s standards for sexual morality. Make no mistake: that is the core outrage which [Callister's] article perpetuates in the minds of its critics. Mormonism espouses a view of humanity in which gender matters, and therefore believes that men and women owe certain obligations to each other in a complementary relationship. The modern world espouses a denialist political ideology in which gender has no deep or lasting significance that we do not create for ourselves." [Emphasis is paraphrased]
 |
| April 2014 General Conference |
Callister’s statements on modest dress are sexist and offensive to both men and women. First of all 'modesty' is only talked about in the context of clothing and it is only addressed to women. He participates in classic 'rape culture' ideology where the woman is responsible for the man’s sexual thoughts and actions. This paragraph was truly shocking: 'Women particularly can dress modestly and in the process contribute to their own self respect and to the moral purity of men. In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for.' I am literally left speechless. [Highlighting added.]
I think I can sympathize with Parker's grievances. To Parker, "rape culture" includes the ideology that male predators bear little to no responsibility for their unwanted sexual aggression towards women—it's all the woman's fault for provoking the man's animal instincts. I also condemn this ideology. But I don't believe that this was was the intention of Callister's complex generalization. All Callister says is that female modest dress is a factor that influences the moral purity of males. No where does it say that women are soley responsible for men's thoughts and actions.
Nathaniel does indirectly address to this point with the following dismissive rebuttal:
"Not only does [Elder Callister's] article not blame women for men’s mental purity [as Parker alleges], but it never even gets remotely close to discussing rape."
Here's where I feel communication broke down. So this is where I will add my two cents. Parker accuses Elder Callister of participating in "classic 'rape culture' ideology," based primarily on the following anecdotal statement:
"In the end, most women get the type of man they dress for."
If we're being hyper critical, I could see this statement interpreted to support the idea that women "ask for it" when they show skin. But instead, I read the adage as a fatherly caution employed as a soundbyte to support a point, not as a divine doctrine or principle. Elder Callister makes his position clear when he explicitly states the Lord's standard of morality: "The creative power is to be exercised in the marriage relationship for two key reasons: to bind and strengthen ties between spouses and to bring souls into this world."
My Conclusions
- Elder Callister was right; "Your dress and grooming send messages about you to others and influence the way you and others act." (Strength of Youth: Dress and Appearance).
- Parker was right; men are ultimately responsible for their actions.
- And Nathaniel was right too; Elder Callister's central and intended message had nothing to do with "gender equality" or "rape culture."
So What Can We all (Church and Society) Do to Prevent Rape Culture?
Nevertheless, all good-hearted stakeholders agree that sexual abuse is a devastating and pervasive issue that ought to be frequently addressed. I just listened to a podcast that referenced a sickening statistic that 1-in-3 women will experience sexual abuse at some point in their lives. (In an attempt to validate that statistic, I found a 2012 CDC report, which states that 3-in-10 women are victims of "intimate partner violence" that impacts their ability to function throughout their lives.) Time and time again, I've heard feminists and therapists criticize Mormon church leaders for less-effectively teaching sexual education and not fighting hard enough to end "rape culture." But isn't everyone fighting on the same side—against abuse? Why not ally with each other? By working synergistically, ecclesiastical and clinical leaders could help put an end to their common enemy. Let there be more understanding. Let clinicians praise and support the eternal doctrines and principles set forth by the Brethren. And let the general authorities earnestly attend to concerns raised by specialists in the field to earnestly seek to better understand vocabulary and modern-day issues of abuse victims.But even if the two groups were to work in harmony, could they make a dent in global change? Is a global change effort even possible? Perhaps someone like Kerry Patterson, a thought leader at Vital Smarts, could come up with a generalizable model, scaleable on a global level. I certainly don't feel capable to move the world on my own. However, I can share my personal story of how I've managed to make it in life, thus far, without entertaining rapey thoughts, words, or deeds.
Everyone has deep-seeded values and beliefs that drive their behaviors and are incredibly difficult to change. These values are typically taught and espoused from at an early age. My parents planted in me the idea that I am a moral agent. They taught me that mortal bodies house immortal spirits, which have an eternal nature and destiny. They taught me that "gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose" (Proclamation to the World on the Family). With these three pieces of information, I understood that, along with every other human on earth, I was a member of God's family. This understanding allowed me to construct a Christ-centered reality, as opposed to a self-centered construct of reality. With Christ at the center, I viewed the human family as an interconnected unit, striving for an ultimate, shared goal—to become like our Father in Heaven. I desired to start a family that would be eternal, like God's is.
As I grew, I managed my sexual desires through (what I consider now to be) a less-effective, temporary technique I call sports-distraction. The Church now has a whole slew of resources now to help teenagers navigate the hormonal tempest known as high school. (E.g., Teaching Adolescents: from Twelve to Eighteen Years.) However, eventually I discovered that understanding true doctrine about the family and God's creative powers is the best resource for strength and focus.
Ever since the first grade, I have been physically attracted to girls around me, but thanks to my understanding of my place in the universe, I never had thoughts that would have compromised one of my spiritual sister's agency. If it is wrong to take someone's toy without asking permission, how much worse is it to—as Moroni puts it—"…depriv[e] them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue…" (Moroni 9:9)
These things I know: Sexuality is sacred. Men and women are equals; counterparts, divinely-designed to form a basic eternal unit called a family. Women are not objects, created for men's hedonistic pleasure. They are cherished daughters of God, and moral agents with equal potential for Godhood themselves.
Towards the end of his address, Elder Callister made this concluding statement, "Love is motivated by self-control, obedience to God’s moral laws, respect for others, and unselfishness." I personally don't know how or why some men are born with/develop deep-seeded misconceptions about women being objects. But if rape culture is ever going to be replaced by a holy respect for women, abusive men will somehow need to transform their relationships with women (and the world) from what Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber, described as "I-It"relationships to "I-Thou" relationships. I believe the way we develop these loving, selfless relationships is by studying the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, our Exemplar in all things. As the world diligently seeks to know Christ, we cannot help but become more like him—Love.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please share your thoughts.