Many comments below yesterday’s post have been thoughtful and provocative, but I want to pull out one to which to respond. Anthony wrote:
The fundamental (and fundamentally correct) conservative insight is that human nature is not particularly malleable, which makes pretty much any social change which requires a "change of heart" impossible to enact or sustain without some sort of agency outside the individual enforcing conformity with the change.
Men (in general) will always feel lust, and will always be drawn to look at attractive women dressed revealingly. And some of those men will look in disrespectful ways, or act disrespectfully, unless there is a strong social or legal constraint against doing so…
Appealing to men’s "better nature" isn’t going to create change, unless you can show men that they will be better off, or if you can create a sanction which men will care about. Being hectored by feminists is not a sanction which will deter most men.
Well, here’s where Christian conservatives — particularly folks with a Pentecostal bent — and secular conservatives disagree. The whole promise of the Gospel is that through conversion, men and women DO become new creations. What else does being "born again" mean but a complete transformation of our nature? And nowhere in Scripture does it suggest that those of us who are "new creations" need to rely on the power of the state to keep us mindful of our conversion promises. Indeed, a moral vision that is reinforced by state sanction is the enemy of true morality. True conversion is first and foremost a personal inner experience, and second of all an ongoing process of transformation that is supported and encouraged by one’s spiritual community. But it can’t be the job of the state to remove temptation from the path of the believer!
But of course, though I do find that pro-feminist principles work best in church settings where a common language of faith can be used, I also think we can challenge young men to change even outside of a religious context. So rather than make a philosophical point, let me share an anecdote.
Two of my good friends coach the boys’ cross-country team at a local high school. I’ve joined my friends and their charges for long trail runs and speed workouts many times in recent years. I never was on a sports team myself in high school; I only became serious about working out in my mid-twenties. Still, I’ve had ample opportunity to watch my friends do the rewarding work of helping couch potatoes transform into proud, sleek, fast distance athletes. Every summer, the new boys come out for cross-country (practices start in July). As most of us know, kids who choose cross-country are often there by default — they simply lack the skills or the size to play the more popular sports. I say this as one who loves distance running, of course. And by the time they gain experience, many young men will say that they love cross-country more than anything else. But usually, when they first join the team, they do so with a kind of reluctant resignation.
I’ve gone out with the boys and their coaches on some of those July runs. The younger boys — the incoming frosh and sophomores — are usually gasping after two miles. I’ve seen some fight back tears of frustration. The tentative willingness to try is there, but the lungs and the legs are not yet ready. Many think about quitting after the first day. It seems too much work, too much pain. Why get up so early? Why do something so counter-intuitive as run hard, when your mind screams "stop!?
My friends love coaching these sorts of boys. Yes, they like getting the kids who’ve been running since they’ve been walking, the boys who have always liked running, the ones with the talent to win the league and "go to state." But those boys are few and far between, and rarely are they the most satisfying to coach. Coaching is about creating the desire to transform one’s nature. It is about inspiring young men to overcome the natural instinct to rest, to take it easy, to sleep late. Before you can teach young men how to be better runners, you have to inspire them to want to run.
I watch my friends spend hours with each of the boys on the team. They meet with each lad, going over his training schedule and making sure he’s not trying to take on too much too soon. They talk diet and sleep patterns. But they also, always, always, talk about family, school, girls, boys. And because my friends take seriously their task to help boys become kind, loving, courageous young men, they do a fair amount of "life coaching" as well. Though neither of my buddies would call themselves "pro-feminists", their ideological principles and personal behavior reflect a profound commitment to justice and equality. They coach because they love running and they want to spread the gospel of the sport, but also because they see this most democratic and least violent of sports as a vehicle for the emotional growth of young men. (My hero, in this regard, is the much-celebrated Maryland football coach, Joe Ehrmann.)
Any boy who sees, as a result of his own efforts and those of his coaches, his mile time drop from over seven minutes to under five — an astonishing progression I’ve seen more than once — can begin to believe that as with his body, so too with his mind and his nature. My experience with God taught me that the Holy Spirit can change a man utterly; my experience with my friends and their cross-country team taught me that even in a secular context, young men can be given the tools to transform both their bodies and their very souls.
Anthony is right to suggest that change for men will only happen when they see change as in their best interests; he’s correct that we need rewards to make change endure. Though I suppose I do a good bit of "hectoring" here on the blog, it’s not how I interact with real life, flesh-and-blood teenage boys. To the best of my ability, with God’s help, I’m committed to imbuing my students and my youth group boys with the desire to change and the tools to do so. (And though I have little time to spare, I’m thinking seriously about listening to the entreaties of my buddies and going into cross-country coaching. A great opportunity to do two things I love at once: mentor boys and run.)
Seeing women as radical equals, worthy of respect, is something that can be taught. It can’t be taught through a lecture, at least not very effectively. It must be taught through example, and through patient relationship. It will not be taught in the classroom, but it can be taught on long runs and church retreats. And in the right context, the desire to be something different, the desire to think differently about men, women, and human dignity, can be created and sustained. I’ve seen it, and frankly, I’m devoting my public and private life to it.
Somehow, I feel I’ve been saying the same thing over and over a lot lately. Maybe I need a change of subject.
And in the right context, the desire to be something different, the desire to think differently about men, women, and human dignity, can be created and sustained. I’ve seen it, and frankly, I’m devoting my public and private life to it.
Somehow, I feel I’ve been saying the same thing over and over a lot lately. Maybe I need a change of subject.
I’ve gone out of my way to read your blog more in the past week than ever before. Don’t stop, Hugo!
Hugo, there were reasons I was skipping that post of Anthony’s. I’ve only got a certain amount of time to constructively disagree with others on here. lol
Now, ’tis time to drive into town and give myself a few minutes to write an article for a homeschoolers’ e-zine before the kidlets are ready to head home. Our 16yo daughter has been working at McD’s 4 days a week since her b-day a month ago (one of the kids’ perks of homeschooling), and our 15yo exchange student meets us there after school.
While I respect everyone’s religious views on this topic, I have to submit that religion is exactly what has caused these problems. Islam says this about women; Christianity says that. Whether or not a woman wishes to dress in a miniskirt or burqa is immaterial to men respecting them. We have to move beyond these religious constructs and treat each other with dignity. Christianity and Islam specifically are anti-women, no matter what “spin” a denomination or sect puts on it. If we continue to look at this issue and others through the fog and bigotry of religion, we as a people will be destined to make exactly no progress on this or any other substantive issue.
Well, Magnus, which camp should I report to so the “Final Solution” can be implemented most expeditiously?
This time, try to do it without all the slave labor, mass graves, and such - it leaves a hell of a mess which is hard to cover up with future generations.
I’d suggest cremations. And when you do an area, move in, interdict it, and get everyone before you move along. It covers all the rumors. Don’t want anyone hiding the Jew Bast - er, Incorrect Thinking Subversives in their attic.
And - Just to show ya I’m yer buddy - here’s a tip: Re-education camps are a waste of time. There’s always a few who just won’t accept the conditioning, and who can fool the examiners. Kill them all, and - well, I guess nobody will sort them out.
Christianity and Islam specifically are anti-women, no matter what “spin” a denomination or sect puts on it.
Hmmm… interesting. Where’d you come across this concept, about either Christianity *or* Islam?
What else does being “born again” mean but a complete transformation of our nature?
Religious people often confuse the literal with the figurative, and in fact the teachings of religion promote that confusion. Let’s consider this from the point of view of science and propose a thought experiment related to your larger point about lust.
If I were to take a group of born-again, pro-feminist Christian men of faith and hook them up to a machine that measured GSR, heartbeat, blood pressure, and brain waves, and then had a parade of women march before them in various states of dress and attractiveness, would they register different readings than a control group of heathen men of similar background and physical characteristics?
I believe they wouldn’t, because human nature is what it is. Religion (and other forms of social pressure) can shape how we respond to the basic biological impulses that move through our carnal natures, but it doesn’t change the nature of nature itself.
Think that over, pray on it, and consult your pastor if you need to. But don’t take the idea of “transformation” too stupidly.
Richard, the nature of the transformation lies in the fact that no Christian man would willingly subject himself to such an experiment.
OK, so in your round-about way you agree with me that being born-again doesn’t change your carnal nature. That’s progress.
Religion (and other forms of social pressure) can shape how we respond to the basic biological impulses that move through our carnal natures, but it doesn’t change the nature of nature itself.
Actually, practice, be it religious or spiritual practice, psychological practice, or physical practice, can and does change our biological response to stimuli. This is how habits are formed, and how habits are broken.
If I were to take a group of born-again, pro-feminist Christian men of faith and hook them up to a machine that measured GSR, heartbeat, blood pressure, and brain waves, and then had a parade of women march before them in various states of dress and attractiveness, would they register different readings than a control group of heathen men of similar background and physical characteristics?
Probably not. But then again, a man who gets a hard-on in the presence of an attractive naked (or near-naked, or fully clothed) woman is having an autonomous bodily response. If he yells out, “Hey! Nice tits!”—that’s a learned response—nothing biology-based in that!
Richard, being born-again does not necessarily remove our humanness. But we are given the strength to avert our eyes, knowing that if we do allow our eyes to linger, we will “fall”. Conversion is about being given the power to lead a new life, but we still always have the choice to return to our old ways, to fall away, and go back to the darkness.
Gonzman,
I find your comments hilarious. I look more like Jesse Owens than Erwin Rommel and I am definitely not a national socialist. Perhaps calling a communist would have been a better example, since the Nazis used the veneer of religion to achieve some of their goals. However, I’m not a communist either. My argument could be summed up by saying a feminist Christianity (in my opinion) is not possible. It’s a fruit of the poison tree argument. Critical thinkers do not succumb to dogmatic arguments, nor do they believe that a book (which is really a collection of stories) is the word of God. At least in my opinion.
Hugo,
I want to say that I respect your (and everyone’s) faith. I do believe that you and people that identify with your particular Christian views are a far cry from the right wing zealots out there. I disagree with you, but I respect your right to believe in whatever you want to believe in. I think that open and honest discussion about these issues is both healthy and in the best interests of everyone. Thank you for providing a medium for people to openly talk about their positions.
Caitriona, check out these sites for examples (old & new testament) of anti-women sentiment in the bible: http://www.cybercollege.com/antiwoman.htm
and in the Koran: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html
Christians are called to be followers of Christ. Perhaps you’d like to take a look at that link yourself, then look at John 8:3-11. There are additional cites to be found regarding Jesus’ treatment of women, as well as of all others, but it’s late.
Interesting discussion here. I am new to blogs and am trying to see if this is a medium to engage dialog on what I see as the root of many of the social justice challenges facing modern society. If anyone on this site is willing to engage in dialectic with me to try and refine an idea that I sincerely believe has the power to start the world anew, please view my nacent offering at http://www.comestartanevolution.blogspot.com. I believe that people of faith will be a critical component of this evolution, as they have been in many others. Thank you for your time.
Richard, the nature of the transformation lies in the fact that no Christian man would willingly subject himself to such an experiment.
Oh come on!!! Where do you get such silly ideas?
Richard, being born-again does not necessarily remove our humanness.
Being born again does not remove our humanness. Are you a Gnostic in Christian’s clothing?
Gonzman,
I find your comments hilarious. I look more like Jesse Owens than Erwin Rommel
Racist political ideologues aren’t confined to Northern Europeans.
and I am definitely not a national socialist. Perhaps calling a communist would have been a better example, since the Nazis used the veneer of religion to achieve some of their goals. However, I’m not a communist either.
Same dice, different face; but probably more accurate. When it comes to cleansing on the basis of religion - or lack thereof - the atheistic communists are by far and away the champs at it, beating even the top three below them put together.
And that just counts the 20th century….
My argument could be summed up by saying a feminist Christianity (in my opinion) is not possible.
Any chump can use any religion, ideology, or what have you to excuse any behavior. Christian Feminism doesn’t even approach unrealistic with that in mind.
Mind you, I think it misses a mark in seeking a biblical foundation in that one has to either compromise the feminist ideology or the christian one - or both - to achieve a synthesis; but it is indeed possible.
It’s a fruit of the poison tree argument. Critical thinkers do not succumb to dogmatic arguments, nor do they believe that a book (which is really a collection of stories) is the word of God. At least in my opinion.
Which is a dogmatic argument in and of itself. But I suppose the irony of that escapes you.
One of the more important things in what I wrote was:
unless there is a strong social or legal constraint against doing so…
Appealing to men’s “better nature” isn’t going to create change, unless you can show men that they will be better off, or if you can create a sanction which men will care about.
You’ve partially addressed that in your post, with your anectdote about coaching. It is possible to create social sanctions against behavior that is difficult to legislate against, but it is not easy. Sometimes having laws about some behavior makes it easier to enforce social sanctions against similar acts not covered by the laws.
My 9th-grade Enlish teacher managed to convince most of the boys in my class (at a Catholic boys’ High School) to significantly reduce their use of profanity. Not by terrorizing them, but by persuading them it wasn’t in their interests to use the f-word like a comma.