Archive for the 'Modesty' Category

“Lana lacks humility”: a note on sexism and letters of rec

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 22, 2006
in Ethnicity, Feminism, Modesty and Teaching
. 34 Comments

Boxing lessons continue to go well.  We started work on the upper cut today; doing it with the left is difficult — I can’t quite master the hip movement that accompanies it yet. My body feels completely recovered from the marathon — I’m lucky that I usually can get back to my normal exercise routine in 48-72 hours after a long race.  Some folks have told me that’s a sign of good conditioning, while others grumble that it means I didn’t push myself hard enough.  I worry, at times, that it’s the latter.  But I was in a suitable amount of anguish in the latter stages of Sunday’s LA Marathon, and though I was slow, I did make a reasonable effort.

Anyhow, a student named "Lana" came to see me yesterday.  Lana took a couple of my classes last year, and distinguished herself as a truly outstanding student.  Lana immigrated to this country from Russia just a few years ago in her early teens, but her mastery of English has become nearly flawless and her accent is only slight.  She’s applying for transfer to a couple of very fine colleges, and asked me to write a letter of recommendation.  I wrote a glowing and enthusiastic one.

Lana came to seem me yesterday about another professor’s letter of rec.  One of my colleagues in another department wrote a letter praising Lana’s abilities, but after a brief recitation of her accomplishments and intelligence, added, "Unfortunately, Lana lacks humility."  He gave Lana a copy of the letter — after having mailed the originals off to the schools to which she is applying.

Lana was understandably upset, and wanted to talk about several things.  Was it appropriate, she wondered, for this professor to put this in his letter?  Should she write him a note about it?  And perhaps equally important, did I think that what he said was true?

By the time Lana was done telling me the story, I was quite cross with my colleague.  First of all, the issue of "humility" itself, which seemed charged with sexism and ethnic bias.  Lana is about 20.  She’s an immigrant from a family that came here with virtually nothing not so many years ago.  She’s also a young woman, and she’s ambitious and eager to succeed.  She’s not a grade-grubber; she earned her As easily.  But she’s got big dreams and she’s not shy about sharing them when prompted to do so.  She will raise her hand to ask questions, will challenge a professor with whom she disagrees (she took me on more than once!)

My colleague, like myself, is a middle-aged white native-born Christian male with tenure.  His views on politics are notoriously conservative, as are, apparently, his views on young women and their deportment.  What he calls "lack of humility" is code for what I’m fairly confident he sees as Lana’s unfeminine ambition, her willingness to speak up for herself, her eagerness for a better and more prosperous life for herself and her family.  (She’s also Russian, and without getting into ethnic stereotypes, I can say — having had a whole mess of wonderful students from that society — that theirs is definitely not a culture in which modesty and quiet self-deprecation are celebrated virtues for either sex!)  I cannot imagine that my colleague would have written the same comment about a male student.  I suspect, though I admit I have no evidence for this, that if he writing about "Dmitri" instead of "Lana", he might praise him as "driven and outspoken and ambitious".

So I told Lana I didn’t think she "lacked humility" in any meaningful or important sense. I also told her that I felt it was a whoppingly inappropriate comment to put in an academic letter of recommendation.  She’s not applying for a job as an etiquette teacher; she’s applying to competitive colleges where she wants to earn a degree in business.  Even if she did lack humility, I told her its absence will likely prove an asset to her in her future professional work!

I haven’t decided yet whether to confront my colleague. If we were friends, I’d be on him in two seconds flat (after, of course, getting Lana’s permission to discuss the matter with him.)  Yesterday, I wrote about my penchant for politeness — and while it’s true I value civility, if someone’s upset one of "my kids" (either a student at PCC or a teen at All Saints), I’ll be in the offender’s face lickety-split.  But Lana expressed no interest in having me talk to him, and I don’t know him well at all.  Besides, the damage, such as it is, has already been done.  I did my best to reassure Lana that I believed in her unconditionally, and that I believe that most college admissions officers will not take the line about humility seriously.

On a related note, I always tell a student up front if I can’t write a glowing letter of recommendation.  If I’ve got reason to doubt a student’s character or academic potential, I tell them as soon as they ask me to write a letter.  That way, they can decide in advance whether or not they want me to be one of their recommenders.  I also always give a copy of the letter to my student, even if he or she has waived access to it.  I don’t ever say things behind people’s backs I wouldn’t say to their faces, and that goes for evaluations as well as for private gossip.  I think that’s a good rule for my colleagues to consider.

Not saying anything…

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 20, 2006
in Age, Body, Feminism, Marriage, Modesty, Sexuality and Youth
. 9 Comments

Now, I’m not accusing anyone of anything.

But read this from conservative family pundit Jennifer Roback Morse’s column today on Townhall:

The average age of first menstruation is now 12.5, down from 16.2 in the nineteenth century. But the age at first marriage is 25.2  We aren’t ready for economic independence until our late twenties.

That means that we may have a gap of 10 to 15 years between the time we are biologically ready and the time we are economically ready. All those raging hormones are trying to get us to reproduce. That gap between the age at first menses and the age at first marriage creates, shall we say, a certain tension in society.

And what I wrote on March 10:

Yesterday in my women’s history class, we began making our way through Joan Brumberg’s The Body Project.  I’ve been using the book for years and years, and it’s a huge hit with my students each semester.

It is Brumberg who first drew my attention to statistics about menarche, marriage, and the loss of virginity.  She points out that a century ago, girls menstruated for the first time at an average age of 16 and got married at an average age of around 21.  Today, girls menstruate at an average age of just under 12 and get married for the first time at just over 25.

Here’s where it gets interesting.  A century ago, the time between the onset of puberty and marriage was but five years; today it’s close to fifteen. If a contemporary young woman is trying to "wait" until marriage to lose her virginity, she is waiting — in a very real sense — three times as long as women did in her great-great grandmother’s era!

I mean, it’s not a universally made point — actually, not many of us make it ever, and I can’t find it anywhere in anything else Roback Morse has written before.   

Just a co-inky-dink?

Whaddya think?

Pro-feminist responses to the “Queen for a Year” problem

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 11, 2006
in Class, Clothing and Fashion, Feminism, Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement, Modesty, Pasadena City College, Porn, Sexual ethics and transformation, Sexuality and War
. 50 Comments

Annika sent me a link to this NPR interview with Kayla Williams, author of "Love My Rifle More than You", about serving as a woman in the army during the current Iraq conflict.  As part of the interview, there’s a lengthy excerpt from the book in which Williams describes the "Queen for a Year" phenomenon:

A woman at war: you’re automatically a desirable commodity, and a scarce one at that. We call it "Queen for a Year." Even the unattractive girls start to act stuck-up. It’s impossible not to notice.

"Queen for a Year." You won’t find the phrase in the dictionary or any compilation of military terms. But say it among soldiers, and they’ll know immediately what you mean. That’s what we’ve called American women at war since nurses traveled to Vietnam in the sixties.

There’s also this "deployment scale" for hotness. Let me explain. On a scale of ten, say she’s a five. You know — average looks, maybe a little mousy, nothing special. But okay. Not a girl who gets second glances in civilian life. But in the Army, while we’re deployed? Easily an eight. One hot babe. On average every girl probably gets three extra points on a ten-point scale. Useful. After you’re in-country for a few months, all the girls begin to look good — or at least better. It changes — how should I say this? — the dynamics of being deployed.

Because there are relatively few women (compared to men) deployed in Iraq, these few can experience a significant rise in attention and status.  Resisting the urge to make use of that enhanced status was difficult for Williams, and impossible for others:

You could get things easier, and you could get out of things easier. For a girl there were lots of little things you could do to make your load while deployed a whole lot lighter. You could use your femaleness to great advantage. You could do less work, get more assistance, and receive more special favors. Getting supplies? Working on the trucks? It could be a cinch — if you wanted it to be. It didn’t take much. A little went a long way. Some of us worked it to the bone. Who says the life of the Army girl has to be cruel?

Lots of girls succumbed to temptation. The younger girls were the most susceptible. Many thrived and fed on the male attention they were getting for the first time in their lives.

I did my personal best to resist. So did my friends and the girls I respected. (That’s why I respected them.) But many girls became full-fledged Queens for a Year. We saw it. And the guys talked.

From a feminist standpoint, this is just a re-framing of the old question of whether or not women can ever be justified in using sexual desirability in order to gain professional or personal advancement. It’s all too easy to condemn those women who, as Williams describes, feed "on the male attention they were getting for the first time in their lives."  It’s too simplistic to insist to young women that they ought never use their sexuality, no matter what the potential rewards.

But as the excerpt makes clear, many young women feel profoundly dis-empowered in the traditionally male-dominated setting of the military.  Before she’s even opened her mouth or performed a single task, it’s likely that a young female soldier has already been judged and dismissed by many of her male peers who may remain deeply suspicious of women’s fitness for army service.  Even outside of the military, we live in a world where young women — particularly from the sort of economic background from which most enlisted women hail — are not taken seriously.

It’s axiomatic that the fewer educational and professional opportunities a young woman has, the more valuable her sexuality becomes as a marketable commodity.  (This is why, for the most part, most female sex workers come from working-class rather than affluent backgrounds.  One enduring fantasy in male-centered pornography is of "coeds" and "sorority sluts" — but the sad truth is that most of the young women who play those roles on screen will never get a chance to be in a sorority or experience the full richness of the undergraduate life.)   It’s also nearly as axiomatic that young women will be pulled in opposite directions on the subject of whether they ought to make use of that sexual desirability. 

Many middle-class feminists, and many irate men’s rights activists, find common ground in decrying young women’s use of sex in order to try and gain some small degree of power.  Of course, feminists and MRAs have different reasons for disliking the phenomenon!  Feminists are worried that by using their sexuality for career advancement (or merely the small perks that Williams describes), young women reinforce destructive stereotypes about female sexuality and power.  They are also concerned, and rightly so, that using sexuality tends to create rifts between individual women, particularly in male-dominated settings (like the army) where feminist solidarity could prove so invaluable.  On the other hand, MRAs are angry because they feel that men are being manipulated and "used" by "scheming women"; they are frustrated, I suspect, both by their own inability to gain access to women and by their own vulnerability to flirtation and arousal.  They become enraged by what they desire but generally cannot have.

I’ve pointed out before that there’s a consistent socio-economic element to young women’s dress here at the community college.  Generally speaking, the young women most likely to dress for school as if they are going to a nightclub come from working-class backgrounds. Those whose life experiences have made them uncertain about the likelihood of success through purely academic means (or who lack professional female role models) tend to be the ones most likely to want to "sexualize" the classroom.  Of course, countless women from disadvantaged backgrounds come to college and aren’t interesting in displaying their sexuality.  But there’s no question that a place like my own Pasadena City College is more likely to see female students "dressing to impress" than a more affluent four-year institution!

So, what’s the pro-feminist response?  Ultimately, we will only end the "queen for a year" problem by doing a much better job of making it clear to young women from all backgrounds that they do have other tools at their disposal besides their sexuality.  We have to continue to be aggressive about promoting women into positions of authority, and providing still more role models who can exemplify professional success achieved through hard work and intellectual ability rather than flirtation. 

Above all, men in positions of authority — superior officers, teachers, employers — have to hold themselves accountable for how they respond to sexually desirable subordinates.  Without shaming young women who do attempt to use their sexuality for advancement or perks, we must go out of our way to make it clear that we will give them our attention and mentoring irrespective of their appearance.   Every time we give extra attention or "perks" to a pretty student, or a flirtatious private, or an attractive intern, we do damage to her, to our institution, and to other women.  Yet every time we withdraw our attention from a woman merely because she is attractive, fearing our own response or the judgment of others, we also do damage.  The key to ending the entire problem is conditioning adult men to see beyond the surface appearance of the women around them. And once we’ve looked beneath the surface, we then have to have the courage to mentor fearlessly.  That’s not easy work, but it’s at the heart of the contemporary pro-feminist task.

“Family talk” — a note about Americans abroad

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 2, 2006
in Modesty, Politics and Traveling
. 37 Comments

It will probably take me a few days to get back into the rhythm of serious posting.

I wanted to reflect briefly on a little experience we had while on safari in South Africa.   In addition to our ranger and our tracker, we spent most of our time with two other couples (one English, one from Ulster) and a single American woman from Philadelphia.  The American (I’ll call her "Janet") was likable but profoundly opinionated and very liberal. 

At one point on Christmas day, we were stopped for tea and biscuits in the middle of the reserve.  We stood around chatting about animals and about what a strange Christmas experience it was for all of us.  Somehow, the subject turned to politics — and Janet launched into a set of apologies for America.  As the two couples from the UK and our African hosts listened politely, Janet told us all exactly how she felt about the "criminal Bush" and our current foreign policy.  She seemed eager to make clear that she was "different" from your average American.   Knowing that my wife and I are Californians, she presumed we shared her views, saying to everyone: "If it was only the reasonable people on the coasts who voted, we wouldn’t be in this mess."

Of course in many ways I do share Janet’s views.  But for some reason, I felt deeply uncomfortable with expressing such hostile anti-Americanisms in a foreign land to foreigners.   Though I’m a dual national with a UK passport, I think of myself as thoroughly American, and I suppose I’ve got an oddly protective streak towards this country. I tend to think of America much as I do of my own family — in private, with loved ones, I’ll be highly critical, but to the outside world, I’ll be much more circumspect.  When I’m with close friends or relatives abroad, I’ll speak my mind openly about what I see as the myriad shortcomings of the current administration.  But I am careful not to do so in public in other countries, or with people I don’t know well.

I found myself wincing as I listened to Janet "bash" Bush and the "fly-over states" with their middle-American values.  Again, in the privacy of my heart, I share some of her convictions, though not (I hope) her dismissiveness towards those raised with more traditional views!  But I was intensely annoyed by Janet’s airing of "family dirty laundry" to foreigners.  I don’t wave the flag when I’m abroad, but I don’t hide my Americanness either.  When traveling alone, I sometimes use my British passport, but on this honeymoon, I went with my US documents so that my wife and I would be sure to always stand in the same lines.  I am not ashamed to be an American abroad, and I see no need to run around apologizing to near and far for the actions of the current administration. 

Somehow, I am convinced that we all ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard when we are out of the country.  I’m always conscious, wherever I am, that other Americans will be judged based upon my behavior.  I make a big effort to be courteous, respectful, friendly, and inoffensive.  While abroad, I’ve rarely been questioned about American policies, and when I am, I express my views gently and tactfully.  I know that millions of folks around the world don’t approve of the war in Iraq, of the death penalty, of American economic, cultural, and military hegemony.  I know that millions of others deeply admire at least some aspects of our society.  I try and be mindful of that, and I avoid being either prideful or apologetic concerning my country.  But on Christmas day, in a remote corner of the Sabi Sands reserve, Janet from Philadelphia had no such compunctions.  And I was strikingly annoyed.

Thoughts?  Should we be more cautious about our words when abroad?

A lunchtime response to Artemis on girls and lust

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 22, 2005
in Clothing and Fashion, Feminism, Modesty, Sexuality and Youth
. 15 Comments

Yes, it’s another long one.  Feel free to skip.

Let it not be said I don’t "take requests."  Artemis at the splendid Feminist Mormon Housewives had a very kind post about my piece yesterday.  She also wrote:

The only thing I think is missing (but would be better addressed in a separate post) is more of the girls’ point of view and a validation of girls’ sexuality–letting girls know it’s okay for them to have (and enjoy and not feel guilty for) those feelings, as well as how they too are responsible for them. Which, I suppose, could lead to a discussion of whether men and their dress are responsible for women’s sexual desires, or–since there are double dress and sexual standards for women and men in our society–the repression or secondary-ness of women’s sexual desires.

For what it’s worth, here are two earlier posts some of you might have missed on women, dress, and responsibility: Propriety, Marie’s boobs, and the myth of male weakness and Sisterhood is Easier in Winter.  I’ve also dealt with the issue of men and dress, and specifically how I dress for the classroom, here: The Male Teacher’s Body and Propriety.  Here’s what I wrote at the end of the last of these posts: What I really care about is not using my body to make others uncomfortable.  I don’t want my clothes and my flesh to arouse others, I don’t want them to scare others, I don’t want them to inspire economic envy, and I don’t want them to distract others.

So that deals a bit with the second part of the Artemis query.  But what of the first part?  What about the healthy, pro-feminist validation of young women’s sexuality?  Let me take a lunchtime stab at the subject…

When dealing with young women and sexuality, I find it is always dangerous to confuse two issues: the joy of being an object of desire, and the joy of being a subject of desire.   The former and the latter are two fundamentally different experiences.  The former is the traditionally validated expression  of female sexuality, and it’s the one with which young women are much more comfortable.  From a very early age, most girls in this country are taught to dress themselves with a keen attention to their role as objects of scrutiny.  Parents and grandparents praise cuteness long before boys and older men leer.  Much more so than boys, girls are programmed to be alert to the various signals their dress and their bodies send.  And indeed, for many girls — not all — the attention and the validation they get as young girls for being "cute and pretty" feels good.

And then comes adolescence.  Is there anything as contradictory as the various messages that bombard young girls about their bodies?  Parents and teachers and op-ed writers urge them to "Cover up!"   Pop culture figures urge them to "flaunt it" (whether they have "it" or not).  And as always, young girls notice that their peers who do dress in certain ways get more attention and validation than others. 

Because of this, those of us who do youth work have to be aware that it’s never enough to ask teenage girls "What do you want?"  We first have to ask them another question, one I regularly ask my girls:  "How does it feel to be wanted?"  In both youth group and in college groups, I’ve had my female students share their feelings about being objects of desire.  The answers, of course, vary.   As always, it depends on what form the "wanting" (or at least the "noticing") takes.  If it’s what I call the "appreciative glance", especially if it comes from an attractive boy, then most of my girls say it makes them feel really, really good.  Even more common than "good" is the word "powerful".  Over and over again, girls report saying it feels exciting and empowering to be noticed and desired.

But if the "wanting" takes the form of a penetrating stare, particularly from an older man, then that doesn’t feel good at all.   "I feel creeped out", "Gross", "Icky", "Like I want to wear a raincoat or disappear" — these are some of the typical responses to questions about reactions that are either  flagrantly sexual or that come from considerably older men.  (And of course, as I’ve written in "Sisterhood", there’s the whole other question of how other girls and women respond!)

So we’ve got to be honest here about the fact that many young women enjoy "being seen"!  They enjoy being wanted, and they are keenly aware that what they wear can impact how they are viewed.   As youth workers or parents, we shouldn’t shame this perfectly normal desire to be wanted.  We can validate the fact that it feels good sometimes to be the object of another’s desire, even as we ask our girls to begin to take responsibility for how their clothing decisions make everyone else around them feel.  Dress that makes other people feel inadequate, or poor, or envious, is not appropriate.  And while we cannot always predict how our clothing choices will affect others, we can ask our girls to consider the well-being of the wider community, and balance that well-being against their own perfectly valid longing to be wanted.

But adolescent girls are not just objects.  They are also subjects of desire.  And here, of course, we tread on less familiar ground.  While traditional cultures are accustomed to teaching young women to gain at least some validation from being wanted, they aren’t nearly as comfortable with telling our girls that it’s okay to want!  Too much of what is written about teenage girls still insists that adolescent females don’t really have strong libidos; any apparent sexual agency that these girls display is really just a longing for attention.   According to this tired discourse, a sexually aggressive teen girl never really wants sex for its own sake, she merely wants attention and validation from a man (perhaps due to her neglectful father) and is "using" sex as a tool.  While there is some considerable truth to that stereotype, it’s also true that whether we like it or not, our daughters do have libidos of their own.

We live in a culture where even now, young women are very reluctant to talk about themselves as subjects of desire.  A girl who confesses to looking and lusting still risks being labeled as a slut by her peers.  From what I’ve seen, a conservatively dressed young woman who admits to lusting is far more likely to be ostracized than a scantily-clad gal who publicly denies her own sexual desires.  If what I hear anecdotally in many college and high school groups is true, girls are infinitely more frank about what they do to please boys sexually (like blowjobs) than what they do to please themselves (like masturbate).   Pleasing boys and men, no matter what it involves, still is part and parcel of a very traditional understanding of female sexuality.

I don’t write this to titillate or scandalize, but to make a larger point about our cultural messages about sexual desire.  We all acknowledge the reality of the adolescent male libido, and indeed, we are likely to over-emphasize its power.   Too many folks either shame boys for their sex drives, or see those same drives as so irrepressible that they are beyond the capacity of boys to control.  This narrative of the unconquerable male libido is used to make girls and women responsible for male behavior, a point that I have rejected many times (explicitly in yesterday’s post). 

But we need to face the truth that our little sisters and our daughters are sexual creatures.  However powerful their socially sanctioned desire to be seen, they also have a very real desire to see.  Again, as with boys, we must do everything we can not to shame our girls for these desires.    Even more so than with boys, we’ve got to do a good job of communicating to them that it is okay to want and to look and to fantasize.  Girls will, in general, be more reluctant to admit to their own libidinousness.  While I’ve never heard of a boy put down another boy for being horny, I have heard girls say incredibly cruel things about a peer who admitted to having strong sexual desires of her own.  This difference in peer acceptability is a key aspect of the discussion about boys, girls, and desire — and parents and youth workers and teachers need to be cognizant of that.

And of course, we live in a world where young women are sent the blunt message that their sexuality can get them hurt.  According to the dominant narrative of the culture, sexually aggressive women not only risk assault and rape, they deserve whatever they get if they are victimized.  Those are powerful warnings, and they serve to silence public discussion of the reality of teen girls and their own sexuality.  As adults and pro-feminists, we have to redouble our efforts to transform the culture and help create a world where young women don’t see their sexuality as a weapon that will be used against them!

In the end, those of us who have teens or work with teens have to be willing to acknowledge the full and complete humanness of both our boys and girls.   We have to admit that both our sons and daughters are sexual creatures.  And as with boys, we must be clear that our daughters have every right to be both objects and subjects of desire, but they also have responsibility for their actions — particularly as subjects. 

An exceptionally long post on girls, boys, dress and desire

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 21, 2005
in All Saints Pasadena, Clothing and Fashion, Faith, Favorite Posts, 2004-2006, Feminism, Men and Masculinity, Modesty, Sexuality, Youth and Youth ministry
. 29 Comments

A number of folks in the "femosphere" (my new term for feminist blogosphere) have been discussing the latest salvo in the "Teenage Fashions are Turning Our Daughters into Whores and it’s all Feminism’s Fault" wars, this Washington Post piece from yesterday’s paper:  What’s Wrong with This Outfit, Mom?  Today, Amanda and Jill both offer excellent "fiskings" of the Patricia Dalton op-ed.

I wouldn’t add my own thoughts, save for two particular paragraphs near the end of the article.  Dalton writes in the first one:

The girls who dress the most outrageously are often those most starved for adult male attention, first and foremost from their fathers. This happens most commonly with girls whose fathers have disappeared from their lives, perhaps following a divorce, or because their workaholic schedules leave them little time for their children. Children who are raised with attention and affection tend to identify with and admire their parents. This identification is the basis for both discipline and the transmission of values. Without it, parents can’t do their job.

I’m with her so far. Dalton is spot on that the absence of safe, loving adult male figures (fathers in particular) is linked to young women’s need for attention.   To be fair, it ignores the possibility that some teenage girls have their own agency, and are interested in sex with boys not because of absent fathers but because of their own libidos. I do not suggest that they are the majority of young women, but they are not an unheard-of subset of American adolescents.  Still, Dalton is to be applauded for her suggestion that men’s workaholic schedules play a part in the problem.  Anyone who is advocating that fathers spend more quality time interacting with their sons and daughters and less time at work, on the Internet, or in front of the TV is going to get no argument from me!

But the second quoted paragraph is a disaster:

I often recommend that fathers be the parent to take the lead in setting limits on their daughters’ dress, because opposite sex offspring typically cut that parent more slack. Fathers can say, "Honey, you can’t wear that. I know teenage boys — I was one!" A dad like this is looking out for his daughter and treating her as someone special.

Jill does a nice job tackling this:

No, he isn’t. He’s putting her in an even more vulnerable position — if something does happen with one of those teenage boys, she’ll internalize it as her fault for dressing in a particular way. When she goes out of the house and sees other girls dressing in more revealing clothes, she’ll become part of the group that looks at them and says, “You’re a slut.” Adolescence is hard enough on young women; when they’re already desperately trying to fit in and find their own identities, the worst thing one can do is encourage greater rifts between “good girls” and “bad girls,” and create even deeper insecurities in all of them.

And where is the dad who says, “Honey, I was a teenage boy once. I know that they’re capable of being reasonable human beings, and of treating women well. Don’t accept anything less than that” — and who tells his sons the same thing? Sexual equality and women’s physical safety simply cannot come from women alone. Shaming young girls about the way they dress isn’t the way to achieve anything.

Jill nails that,and I agree completely.

Thinking about what I would much rather have men say to their daughters, and thinking about what I say to teenage girls and boys, leads me into another youth group anecdote (you knew it would).  Three years ago, we were in the midst of our "sex month" with the kids at youth group.  (Four consecutive Wednesday nights of talking about sexuality, dating, and Christian ethics "All Saints style").  As we always do, we spent some time in single-sex groups.  There were just two youth leaders at the time, and my female colleague took the girls off to one room, while I went to another with the boys.

It was May.  The weather was warm.  One girl in our group, widely regarded by both sexes as being among the "hottest" of her peers, had worn some very short shorts, flip flops, and a tiny top to youth group.  As soon as I got the boys alone in the room, two of them started talking excitedly about what "Janae" (name changed, of course) had been wearing.   One of the boys, using what seemed to be the pervasive lingo of 2003, said "Dang, when I look at those shorts all I think is how much I want to ‘hit that’!" (The meaning of "hit that" ought to be clear even for those of you who don’t hang out with the younger set these days.)  The other boys all laughed and concurred,and then turned towards me with sheepish grins.  Yes, their youth minister was with them — but he was also a man, and they were operating under the homosocial assumption that even in church, it’s okay to objectify women and girls as long as only other men are around.

A younger Hugo would have rebuked them sharply.  I could so easily have given them the "Janae is your sister in Christ, boys!" lecture, and tried to shame them.  An even less mature Hugo might have validated what they were saying by agreeing about Janae’s attractiveness, if for no other reason than to affirm my masculine bona fides by showing them that I too was, after all, "just another guy" who enjoyed looking at pretty girls.  (Obviously, for the record, I never have nor will I ever use sexually objectifying language about any of the kids in my youth group.  But  I have heard stories of other male youth leaders at other churches who have not felt the same need to restrict, sadly enough).

But since the subject was supposed to be sex anyway, I figured I’d use Janae’s shorts as a teaching moment.   So I asked the boys: "What’s it like when a girl like Janae is showing a lot of skin? How does it make you feel?"  The replies came fast and furious:  "Dude, it’s so awesome!"  "I love it when you can see so much!"  And, of course "I can’t stop looking!"  I let the boys share and laugh and get squirrely, and then I quieted them again.  I asked: "When you say you can’t stop looking, what does that mean?  Do you really have no choice?" 

Silence.  One boy, "Aaron", blurted out "No way, dude.  No choice.  Girl that fine, can’t control my mind."  Other boys laugh and agree.  I wait, and then follow up: "Do all of you feel like Aaron feels?"  None of you think you can control where your eyes go and where your mind goes?"

More silence.  "Roger" speaks up: "I guess it kind of is a choice.  I mean, when you first see a pretty girl, you can’t help but look.  But you can choose whether or not you keep staring at her legs or her tits.  You don’t have to make the girl feel uncomfortable."  Several other boys quickly agreed, and Aaron found himself on the defensive: "I don’t know dude, I don’t know how you can say you really like girls and not be totally distracted by something so fine."  I smiled inwardly; Aaron, bless his heart, was trying to bully the other boys by threatening their masculinity if they didn’t take his side. 

To my delight, what followed was a serious discussion lasting fifteen minutes.  (That may sound short, but getting eight to ten boys in mid-adolescence to have a serious discussion for even that long is, I assure you, a significant achievement!)   With my prodding questions, the boys debated their own ability to control themselves. In the end, even Aaron grudgingly admitted that he too had a choice with where his eyes went.  Roger, his foil, high-fived him at this and said "Hey, Aaron, welcome to All Saints!" (A reference to the church’s staunch pro-feminism.)

What I said to the boys was something like this: "I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with noticing girls.  I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with fantasizing about them!  I do think there’s something very wrong when your focus on their bodies makes it impossible for you to also see them as people, as friends, as human beings. When you find yourself noticing a girl’s body, and staring at her skin, I don’t want you to beat yourself up.  But I don’t want you to make her uncomfortable either."

"Next time you’re looking at Janae’s legs, Aaron", I said, "I want you to gently remind yourself that Janae is more than just her body.  It’s okay to think she’s sexy.  But remember she’s not a pair of legs or breasts.  She may be hot, but she’s also a person, and whether you believe it or not, you are strong enough and good enough to never forget that she’s a person.    She gets frightened and tired and happy just like you do.  She may want you to look at her body, but even more than that, she hopes that you’ll also see her as a human being.   And no matter how hot she is, you’ve got it in you to never, ever forget that."  Aaron nodded solemnly, and I don’t know if he really heard me or not.

But other boys did, and I had a couple of them come up to me thank me for what I said and to talk more about the topic.  Boys almost never hear that they have choices about where they ultimately direct their thoughts and their eyes.  The myth of male weakness and the myth of the raging adolescent male libido that can never be contained are powerful influences. I don’t deny that young men can be very, very horny; I do deny that that horniness is so supremely overwhelming as to make it impossible for adolescent boys to see the essential humanity of even their scantily-clad female peers.

My goal is to reach young men "where they are" with a message about their sexuality that is realistic, loving, and both authentically pro-feminist and Christian.  Ultimately, I don’t want anyone, male or female, to feel ashamed of their desires.  I don’t expect them not to lust for each other.  But what pro-feminism and Christianity both insist on, even for young men, is that sexual desire, no matter how powerful, cannot be used as an excuse to rob our brothers and sisters of their humanness.  Whether Janae is in sweats or in short shorts, how the boys perceive her is ultimately their responsibility.  Of course they’ll be more easily aroused by her in short shorts!  Yet even if she were to wear a burka, plenty of her male peers would find themselves stimulated by even a flash of ankle.  The teenage libido is a powerful thing, after all.  We do well, I think, when we don’t fear all of that raging sexual energy.  We do well to acknowledge it, even celebrate it, and then ask that it always be tempered with a recognition of the other’s essential humanity.  That’s a far more effective strategy than either demeaning boys for lusting or asking girls to cover up in order to prevent the boys from doing so.

Yes, I do think adults should have input into how their teenagers dress.  I think it’s right and proper to ask kids to consider the consequences of their clothing choices, and to ask them to take some responsibility for the messages they send to others.  But I also think that we must do the more difficult — and yet ultimately far more rewarding — job of challenging the most basic beliefs about boys, sexuality, and the damaging discourse of the raging, uncontrollable, male libido.  When and if I have a daughter, I expect I will say to her what I have already said to many girls in my youth group and in my classes:

"Your body is not your enemy.  Whatever you wear, in winter or summer, you have both rights and responsibilities.  You have the responsibility to consider the time and the place you are wearing your outfit.  You should be aware that clothing can create envy.  But in the end, no matter what you wear, no one has the right to refuse to see you as a person because of your clothes or your skin.  You don’t ever have to choose between being desired and being taken seriously, and you don’t have to believe the myth that men cannot control their eyes or their actions.  Whether in a miniskirt or sweats, you are still a woman who deserves respect, because respect is not contingent on your body or your attire.  Believe it, and be willing to demand it."

“No right not to be looked at”: Reflections on lust and male responsibility

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 27, 2005
in Feminism, Men and Masculinity, Modesty and Sexuality
. 183 Comments

I’m a bit sleepy, here in my office early on a Thursday morning.  I had a pre-dawn breakfast with my friend Steve, and the three cups of coffee I consumed are helping me to join the living.  I’ve got three lectures today: a discussion, based on this book by Lynn Phillips,  of the competing "love hurts" and "love conquers all" discourses in my women’s studies class at 8:50AM; a lecture on Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age at 10:25; and Napoleon’s Russian campaign and eventual downfall at 1:00PM.  And I still have many, many midterms to grade.

I’ve been reading through the 90+ comments below Monday’s post on Tough Bunnies.  The thread moved on to issues of dress and the visual nature of men’s sexuality, and a couple of comments caught my attention.

Gonzman writes: There is no right not to be looked at - or a right not to be ignored. There is no right not to be admired - or a right not to inspire repulsion.

Well, he’s right.  But I’m not nearly as concerned with "rights" as I am with ethics and responsibility.  Many of the men and women commenting in the thread raise the point that women send signals to men with the way that they dress; some (particularly the MRAs) point out that women ought not to be surprised by the fact that men will make certain judgments about them based upon their clothing choices.

But while there is no right not to be looked at, I’m not sure that means that it is always right to look!   I’ve made it very clear that as a man doing pro-feminist work, my primary concern is on helping men to transform their thinking and their behavior.  This does not mean that I think that women are blameless victims, misunderstood angels, exploited and helpless little girls.  I’m perfectly aware that many women do use their sexuality quite consciously, often with an intense desire for attention and validation.  I’ve written about women and clothing before, and invite readers who have not done so to check out my post on the subject "Sisterhood is Easier in Winter."  I do not absolve all girls and women from responsibility, not by any means.

But because my concern is with boys and men, I’m adamant about insisting that the counterpart of "there is no right not to be looked at" must be "it is not always right to look."   I’m tired of the right-wing rhetoric in praise of female modesty and conservative dress, not because I am an enemy of modesty but because I loathe the perpetuating of the myth of male weakness that undergirds the discussion!   As a man, particularly as a pro-feminist Christian man of faith, I reject the implication that I am visually helpless before a bare midriff or a miniskirt.  The assumption that if girls and women wear revealing clothes, they deserve the penetrating gazes they receive is rooted in a notion that male sexuality is simply too powerful a force to be subject to self-discipline.   Modesty theory assumes male vulnerability and fragility, and thus makes women into their brothers’ keepers, protecting us from ourselves by dressing demurely.

But while modest dress is perhaps desirable, Scripture is very clear that male lust is something men must be expected to control.  I argue that we men are called, like Job, to make a covenant with our eyes not to "look lustfully" at girls and women.  That responsibility to avert our gaze is not abrogated when a woman wears revealing clothing.  Our responsibility to avert our gaze is not contingent upon whether or not the woman in question wants to be looked at; the responsibility not to objectify is ours regardless of whether or not we are being invited to gaze and lust.

I realize I’m taking an unpopular position.  Secular feminists are usually uncomfortable with my hostility to lust.  Mythago suggests that I’m taking the position that "lust is some kind of evil cancer whose mere touch destroys any aesthetic or intellectual value a thing may have."   I’ll admit that I do take Matthew 5:27-28 very seriously. I don’t think we can lust for someone without consequences for ourselves and for those around us.  Lust is never truly idle, I believe — it is the desire to appropriate, if only in fantasy, something for ourselves that is not ours to have.  Lust is distinct from sexual desire for one’s partner or spouse, precisely because with one’s partner, that desire is a reflection of a commitment that already exists.   Though we are all prone to lust as part of our human nature, that does not mean that we cannot, through effort and prayer and mutual support, channel our visual sexuality entirely towards our primary relationship.  I believe it can be accomplished without shame and guilt.

Of course, I lose most right-wing social conservatives by suggesting that the primary onus ought to lie with the one who is lusting, not with the one who is the object of lust.  While I am not encouraging immodest dress, ultimately the struggle against objectification can’t hinge on what other folks are wearing.  To put it in economic terms, I’m not interested in cutting off the supply of visually stimulating bodies and images, I’m interested only in addressing the demand.  I’m anti-porn, as my readers know — but I have no interest in lifting a finger towards the goal of getting laws passed to ban porn.  My hatred of porn rests comfortably with my zealous belief that porn is protected by the First Amendment.   And while I don’t think that low-riding jeans with high-riding thongs is a particularly enlightened fashion choice, I’m not interested in expending any energy railing against contemporary dress.   To paraphrase Paul, all things ought to be legal, but that doesn’t give us the right to do them: "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.  Whether the woman in front of me is in a thong or a burka, what I do with my eyes and my thoughts is all on me, 100%.

Look, I’m aware that women and girls lust too.  I’m not suggesting that we can create a society where none of us ever gazes at another person with a fleeting sensation of desire.  But lust is about more than passing desire, lust is a conscious choice to not only look for a moment, but to continue to look. It’s the difference between an "appreciative glance" and a "penetrating gaze."  I don’t think it’s a tortuous and artificial distinction, either. I think it’s straightforward and practical, and with discipline, easily applied.  And let me be clear that my goal is not to create a de-sexualized, guilt-ridden society!  My goal is a world where men and boys, women and girls, interact with each other as loving members of the human community, with a sense of responsibility for each other and a commitment to love and protect each other. I want a world where young women can feel validated and seen, not because of their physical desirability but because of their essential worth as human beings.

So I’m sure I’ve alienated secular feminists with my hostility to lust, MRAs with my insistence that men hold themselves accountable, and social conservatives with my conviction that overcoming lust is only about addressing demand, and not at all about supply.

Anyone I haven’t annoyed?

More on Modesty

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 24, 2005
in Clothing and Fashion, Modesty and Youth
. 21 Comments

Continuing on the subject of fathers and daughters, I was struck by this Rebecca Hagelin piece on Townhall yesterday.  Entitled "Fashioning a Response to Immodest Clothing", it’s Hagelin’s spirited defense of parents who refuse to buy what they regard as inappropriately revealing clothing for their daughters. (Hagelin has a thirteen year-old daughter).

On the one hand, I’m prepared to share many of the concerns expressed by parents across the country (not all religious conservatives, either) about the apparent ever-increasing sexiness of clothing aimed at young teen and "tween" girls.    Frankly, I don’t hear many feminists vigorously defending retailers like Abercrombie and Fitch, though many of us on the left are as troubled by A&F’s reputation for racism and "body fascism" as by their marketing of mildly provocative clothing to younger adolescents.   For not altogether different reasons, feminists and social conservatives can agree that dressing thirteen year-olds in tiny miniskirts is problematic.

So I have several "yesses" to Hagelin.  But I have a fairly big "no" as well.  Hagelin writes:

…it can be tough to take a stand in favor of modest clothing. But it can be done. Just ask some of the friends Kristin has brought to our house.

Occasionally, a girl visits wearing something inappropriate — a midriff-baring shirt, a short skirt, a low neckline.

I smile and say, “God made you a person of value. You’re somebody special who deserves to be respected. So when you’re in my home, I want you to dress in a way that reflects the treasure you are. So let’s go upstairs. You can pick out anything you like to cover up while you’re here.” There may be a gasp — often, nobody’s ever told them that their body is a treasure to be respected. But then they get it. And you know what? A bond is created, and they appreciate what I’m doing.

Well, I’d love to know what these girls’ parents have to say, particularly with the offensive implication that any parent who lets his or her daughter out of the house dressed "inappropriate" doesn’t see her as a person of value, at least as Hagelin defines it.

More importantly, it’s a reiteration of the ancient lie that one has no right to be both sexually alluring and respected!  While I agree with Hagelin that thirteen year-olds ought to be allowed to remain innocent a while longer, I’m concerned about the message these girls will have as they progress through adolescence into adulthood.  The message is this:  "You have a treasure, but it needs to stay hidden.  Remember that men will only value that which is hidden from them.   Displaying your sexuality undermines your credibility, and it robs you of the chance to be seen as a full and complete human being."

I think that’s a fair characterization of the subtext of Hagelin’s message, and the message of the neo-Victorian modesty crowd that has recently emerged in all of its blue-nosed splendor. (If it’s unfair, please tell me how.)

The feminism which I have embraced, and which I try and inculcate in the teen and twenty-something women with whom I work, is one in which they are taught one overriding lesson about sexuality: it belongs to them.   On the one hand, this approach is critical of consumer culture (ala Abercrombie); it works to strengthen young women to resist the often-exploitative and fat-phobic messages of the mainstream fashion industry.  Feminism is critical of the message that young women’s bodies exist only to be judged or fetishized or lusted for.  On the other hand, it is equally critical of the message that women’s sexuality ought always be tamed, suppressed, and hidden in order for a woman to be respected. 

I want the women with whom I work to see their sexuality as theirs; it doesn’t belong to their fathers, their future husbands, the leering boys in math class or the older men at the bus stop.  It doesn’t belong to the church, or to MTV, or to the magazines, or to their peers, or to their parents.  Are girls of thirteen ready to understand the implications of this?  Almost certainly not.  But girls of seventeen and eighteen may well be, and they deserve better than to hear a message which is only a few rhetorical flourishes removed from that of the Taliban.

On a lighter note, Hagelin links to this site as a suggested resource for frustrated parents: Modest by Design, a Utah-based company that seems closely affiliated with the LDS church.  Rather tellingly, the motto of the company is "clothing your father would approve of."    Huh?  Is mom too influenced by a depraved modern culture to be trusted to pick outfits for her daughter?  I am particularly troubled by the notion that it is fathers who are the more reliable guardians of their daughters’ burgeoning sexualities.  After all, continuing to dress his adolescent daughter as if she’s a small child allows Dad to fantasize that he remains the central male figure in her life.  If he can hide her sexuality, he can deny that it’s there at all, and he can remain his innocent daughter’s shining knight a little while longer.   I’ve always been bugged by the whole "Daddy’s little princess" bit, but when it continues into adolescence, yikes. I’ve seen the damage it does in my teens in youth group.

Of course, these are the musings of a childless man!

And for what it’s worth, the fashions at Modest By Design are very inexpensive.  They also, frankly, are hideous to my Los Angeles eyes.  Tell me, my readers who live elsewhere, does this look like an attractive outfit for going out?  Should I teach in this?   And check out this princess dress for little girls, which comes with the following caption:

This dress is fit for a little Princess! Whether you are a Flower Girl or on a date with your dad, you will look your best. Embroidered bodice, with an organza overlay full skirt, back zipper, and organza ties to make the perfect fit.

Emphasis mine.  Gotta love writing a description for a dress for pre-teens in the second person.

Bike shorts, the pope, and burning private papers

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on April 8, 2005
in Christianity, Clothing and Fashion, Memories, Men and Masculinity, Modesty, People, Politics and Vanity
. 22 Comments

I’m home from the car dealership.  Inge (I named my Solara after an Austrian great-aunt of mine) is feeling much better with her mirror restored to working order.   I will do a better job of backing out of the garage, I promise!

I threw my bike in the car on the way, and was able to get in a nice ride in the hills while they worked on the Toyota.  I stopped off to get some food on the way back to the dealership and forgot that most folks will stare when men wander around in public in tight-fitting bike shorts and jerseys.  At my favorite taco stand on North Fair Oaks (where I stopped for lunch) a little boy said very loudly, "Mama, I can see his thingie!"  Great.  Just great.  I write posts extolling modesty, and yet I seem to have caused a scene at "La Estrella" this morning and frightened small children.   I guess that’s what I get for once again falling off the vegetarian bandwagon.

Russell Fox has a terrific post up about the Pope and leftist politics.  It’s a long one, but a worthy read.  I liked this bit very much:

No, for this man (JPII) , democracy and freedom were basically a means, important primarily because of what they make possible:
the realization of a spiritual, meaning-full, non-materialistic
culture, and that means a culture that never treats human beings as
merely "material"–no matter if they are young or old, rich or poor, or
for that matter, a condemned murderer, an enemy soldier, in a
persistent vegetative state or even a fetus. For a great many
conservatives in America today, a (unfortunately usually quite partial)
attachment to these spiritual absolutes is common, but the ability to
make it part of a socio-economic and cultural argument is lacking…

Preach it, brother Russell. 

Jonathan Dresner, my fellow Cliopatriarch, is a bit troubled by the pope’s desire to have his personal notes destroyed:

…as an historian, I have deeply mixed feelings about this: as an
historical figure, the late Pope’s personal papers could be extremely
valuable sources for answering questions we haven’t even considered
asking yet. It saddens me — and piques my curiosity — as an
historian, to see such valuable materials intentionally destroyed. This
isn’t an accident, a side effect of war, archival degradation or
deaccession, theft, etc. It’s a deliberate closing of avenues of
investigation and understanding. On the other hand…  I
respect the desire to be remembered for public works and words, without
the added complications and ambiguities that private papers and drafts
could instill.

Jonathan puts it perfectly.  I’d love to read his private papers, for just those reasons.  At the same time, I know how easy it is for one’s personal, unedited musings to be misconstrued.    In my work as a medievalist, of course, I never encountered diaries or journals or private notes; I dealt with the Calendar of Close Rolls and other crown documents.  As a gender historian, however, I am aware of how complex and dangerous a task it is to reconstruct a life from personal papers.  (I always think of how controversial the work of one of my heroes, Lillian Faderman has been — especially when she argues that women living more than a century ago can accurately be called "lesbian" based upon tantalizing fragments in personal letters and diaries.)

In my home office, I have my private journals that date back to my college years.  I wrote things in those journals that I would never want revealed to the outside world.  I would never want my children to read them, much less an historian (should my life ever merit professional interest).  Though there is much within their pages that reveals how I became who I am, these little volumes are mainly filled with embarrassing self-obsession and a whole litany of unpleasant and tawdry stories rendered in painful detail!

Every so often, I make a resolution to destroy all these journals.  I know I must do so before I have children old enough to read them.  I rarely, if ever, glance through them anymore.  I don’t dwell these days on who I’ve been and where I’ve been and who was with me at the time.   But yet, I can’t quite seem to bring myself to toss them, or burn them.  Part of me claims it’s the historian in me, but that’s a professional excuse.  I know that there is little good that can come of having these old documents lingering around, but part of me still wants to cling to them for just a little while longer.  Somehow, part of me wants to hold on to the man who I was, even if the accounts of what that man did and thought are painful and humiliating.  Cicero said,  "There is pleasure in the calm remembrance of a past sorrow".  He was right.  But I’m not sure it’s always a healthy pleasure.  I think the time to dump or burn the journals is coming soon. 

I think it needs to happen before I marry my fiancee later this year.

Courtly love and double standards

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 3, 2005
in Christianity, Faith, Feminism, Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement, Modesty and Sexual ethics and transformation
. 77 Comments

First off, read this post from Lauren about hair.  Off you go and read it now.

Longer post from me:

The comments on this post from last week about accountability have shifted to the topic of bad male behavior, particularly the sort that takes place when no other fellow is around.  Mythago recently wrote:

Chivalry has always been about good manners towards ‘ladies,’ not to women, period. It’s as true in the modern day as it was when The Art of Courtly Love was written.

She’s right about the Art of Courtly Love.  Andreas Capellanus, who wrote that famous medieval tract, argued for immense patience in pursuing women of gentle birth.  As for peasants:

"If you love a peasant woman, praise her and force her–peasants don’t respond to gentle wooing."

So much for seeing all women as one’s sisters in Christ!  Capellanus makes it clear that the pursuit of courtly love is likely to be immensely frustrating for a man — which is why peasant women make such a convenient outlet for pent-up sexual desire.

Mythago is right when she suggests that nine centuries after Capellanus wrote his tract, the attitudes within it survive.  Many of the male commenters on my recent posts about responsibility and propriety have implied that good manners are essentially reciprocal.  Their thesis?  If a woman dresses appropriately, she is deserving of respect in return.  If she doesn’t respect herself or her community, then she forfeits her right to be respected.  In other words, "nice" girls, "demure" girls, have the right not to be objectified and openly lusted for; "bad" women (you know, the bra-less ones, the ones in short skirts), deserve the wolfish stares from their brothers and resentment from their sisters.

I find that attitude sad and infuriating.   I was raised to believe, and still do believe, that the whole point of good manners is that they aren’t reciprocal!  Any fool can be polite to those whom he perceives as deserving of that courtesy; I was taught to believe that a gentleman insists on seeing the humanity even in those who are doing their damnedest to disguise it.  Christ says in Matthew 5:

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

Surely, that’s applicable to how men of character, decency, and faith ought to see all women.  At the risk of blasphemy, let me rewrite that passage in a way that (with all humility) I think is consistent with His intent:

You have heard it said, "Respect decent women, but condemn those who appear promiscuous."  But I tell you, respect and honor even those who do not seem worthy in your eyes.  If you merely respect those whose demeanor demands it, what reward will you get?  Do not most men manage to do that?  And if you are only courteous to your sisters who do not arouse you, what are you doing more than others?

Mythago goes on:

I’ve worked as a stripper, and it’s very illuminating to see how some men act when they perceive that there are no "nice girls" around and therefore they are free to be as sexist and obnoxious as they please.

I don’t have a lot of experience in strip clubs, but I’ve known many women who’ve worked in one facet or another of the "adult industry", from porn to stripping to prostitution.  Most have said what Mythago says here.  Most report seeing plenty of husbands and fathers and other "nice guys" who feel perfectly at ease saying the most appalling things to the sex workers whose services they are purchasing.  Indeed, perhaps because they are behaving so "nicely" to "deserving" women, they feel free to be as obnoxious as they like to their sisters who work in the adult industry.

As both a pro-feminist man and a Christian, I loathe the idea of categorizing women as "nice girls" and "sluts."  My worth as a man of faith will be measured by how I treat all women, particularly, perhaps, by how I treat those whom society says I am entitled to objectify!   

As Christians, we know that Christ often appears to us in disguise.  In Matthew 25, we are told that when we feed the the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the sick, we are in fact caring for Him.   Doing these corporal works of mercy is not easy.  The homeless often smell bad.  They can be frightening.  They repulse and scare us.  But Christians must override their senses and their fear and their disgust and embrace those who seem unembraceable.  To hug such people is to overcome one’s natural urge to withdraw.  And I am convinced it is exactly so with men, women, and sexuality.   I think it possible that Christ is also to be found in the sex worker, in the scantily-clad classmate, in the pages of the porn magazine! Just as I’ve learned to touch and hug the homeless (even when they reek of urine and alcohol and the street), I know that I — and other men — are called to overcome our natural urge to lust and see "unrespectable" women as our sisters, made in His image, worthy of far better than to be used for our own pleasure and release. 

This Saturday, I’ll be taking the All Saints kids to feed the homeless, something we do fairly regularly.  In my own extroverted way, I’ll be doing my best to talk to the clients we’ll meet.  From years of experience, I know what some of them will look like and smell like.  I will want to keep my distance, feeding them with a forced smile while trying to avoid body contact.  Instead, Lord willing, I will gently and politely draw close to them.  I will shake hands and give hugs (if the latter are welcomed), and I will pray the same prayer over and over again:  "God, show me this person not as I see him, but as you see him."  It’s the exact same prayer I was taught to use to overcome the equally human desire to objectify and lust.  And I can assure you from experience that it works.

I could have posted this in less explicitly Christian terms.  But to be honest, it is only my faith in Christ that puts me in the homeless shelter.  It is only my faith in Christ that lets me, one day at a time, renew the "covenant with my eyes" that lets me see all women as my sisters. It isn’t easy, and I am so far from perfect it’s not even funny.  But if I can do this, any man can.  And in the interests of justice, I think we all ought to be giving it one hell of a try.

The male teacher’s body and propriety

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 25, 2005
in Body, Clothing and Fashion, Men and Masculinity, Modesty, Pasadena City College, Teaching and Vanity
. 71 Comments

Four new Matilde pictures are in her photo album. 

My post below on propriety and display has me thinking.  More specifically, I’m thinking about a question Tyler had in a comment on Jenell’s blog yesterday:

On the same note I was wondering your opinion on what us men do to
distract the body as well? by that I mean is there something similar,
but gender opposite, that men do to affect men and women from genuine
worship?

My post below was focused entirely on asking men to take ownership of their responses to sexually attractive women and revealing dress.  But though I briefly acknowledged that women are also visual creatures, I didn’t address the flip side, largely because it doesn’t immediately seem to be as consequential a problem.  But it’s worth thinking about. 

Men, in general, underestimate how often women do "look."   We like to assume that women aren’t visual creatures,largely because if we acknowledged just how visual women are, it might make us fellows feel decidedly insecure.  I am not suggesting that all women are equally visual, or that they are visual in the same way as their brothers.  But women do look, they do lust, and presumably, they can get distracted.  Beyond those general remarks, I’m not going to dare and presume any more about my sisters’ libidos.  Perhaps in the comments section below, a few women will volunteer some reflections on how women’s "visual sexuality" is similar to and different from men’s.

I’m going to put myself at tremendous risk of embarrassment here.  (What else is new?)  Judging from my evaluations and "rate my professor" reviews and other remarks, I acknowledge that for whatever reason, I am often regarded as a "hot" professor.  I’m not suggesting that I am magnificently handsome, just that I tend to get more such responses than many of my colleagues.    Presumably, this will begin to be less noticeable as I age.  It certainly has been more embarrassing than flattering.

It’s difficult to write this without first overcoming the fear of
appearing narcissistic!  But all of this talk about women’s bodies and
women’s dress means that it is right and proper that we focus on how
men’s bodies and dress affect those around them.

I know that when we teach, we bring our whole selves into the classroom.  I bring my maleness in, a point I am quick to acknowledge in my gender studies classes.  I bring in my whiteness, I bring in my Christian faith, I bring in many components of my culture and background.  (Of  course, I am always struggling towards that elusive objectivity!)  I also, clearly, bring in my body.   But what I try very hard NOT to bring is sexuality!  All of us who teach (or preach) do our public work as embodied beings.  It is natural that others will consider our bodies just as they consider our words. Sometimes, how our bodies appear may even enhance our words — or distract from our message. 

I don’t dress up much for class.  The tie makes a brief appearance the first week and then disappears.  As the semester wears on, I head quickly for the realm of jeans and t-shirts.  I don’t wear my old holey jeans, of course.   And though my jeans are made to fit me (I loathe the baggy look), I am careful not to wear anything absurdly tight that might be construed as flagrantly sexual.  I want to look good because I want to send the message that I take what I am doing seriously enough to be presentable.  But I am aware that like all human beings, I have that unfortunate desire for validation!   I have to be very careful not to allow that desire to affect my clothing choices.   Praise and validation should be a one-way street in the classroom — it’s not their job to respond to my embodied self.  The classroom will be safest when the teacher’s body is acknowledged but does not constitute a distraction.

As I’ve written before, I no longer buy leather belts or shoes.  I still have some old leather belts and shoes I wear to class. When I was younger, I went through a very heavy "designer" phase.  I had my Ralph Lauren year, my Donna Karan year, my Kenneth Cole year, and — naturally — my Hugo Boss year.  (I was single and living in a small apartment and not yet in tithing mode.)  I stopped spending so much on clothes a few years ago for three reasons.  One was financial: as I bought a home and began tithing, my discretionary income for expensive clothes dropped.  Two, I didn’t want to arouse envy — labels have a way of making other folks uncomfortable, and I didn’t consider that I could do that in good conscience.  Three, some of my favorite clothing styles tended to be quite tight and relatively revealing (leading to much speculation about my sexual orientation).  I realized that in the classroom, that distraction was not helpful.

I still care about clothes.  I care a lot, frankly, about the health and fitness (and yes, the appearance) of my body.  I don’t work out six days a week on trail and treadmill, bike and track and weight rack just for my own well-being!   But what I really care about is not using my body to make others uncomfortable.  I don’t want my clothes and my flesh to arouse others, I don’t want them to scare others, I don’t want them to inspire economic envy, and I don’t want them to distract others.  There’s only so much I can do, of course.  As I stressed below, we are all ultimately responsible for our own reactions to others’ bodies.  But we can take reasonable steps to make certain that we don’t cause others to stumble in lust or fear or envy, and I am trying to take those steps today.

 

Propriety, Marie’s boobs, and the myth of male weakness

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 25, 2005
in Body, Feminism, Men and Masculinity and Modesty
. 84 Comments

Jenell Paris had a great post this week about propriety, dress and accountability.    In her marvelously playful style, Jenell describes the following incident which she learned of second-hand:

Fifty people have come together for worship, from around the country,
from different Christian traditions, though the organization is
presumably evangelical. Marie leads worship. She is a Liberated West
Coast Feminist Environmental Democratic Hemp-Wearing Christian. She is
in front of the group, arms raised, eyes closed, praising Jesus. She
wears a light white t-shirt with no bra. Her bobbling breasts and
nipples were reportedly more interesting than Jesus. Debby took her
aside and said that she needed to wear a bra with this group,
especially when leading worship. Marie said, "I’m liberated, and Jesus
loves me the way I am. I love my body, and I won’t allow you to bind my
breasts!" She left the event, and reportedly the organization, furious.

What
do you think? Was Marie’s dress inappropriate? Was Debby’s
confrontation inappropriate? Should the people have been able to
worship even in the bold presence of Marie’s boobs?

A fine discussion ensued in the comments section, and as of this morning, Jenell has posted a follow-up with her own thoughts on the matter. 

My own interest is less in defining appropriateness and more in male responses to what they interpret as provocative or arousing dress.  A commenter named Javier wrote:

I don’t know any heterosexual man whose head doesn’t turn when they see nipples. 
They are like kryptonite to men.
A
man could be having a conversation with Billy Graham, the Pope, and the
Dalai Lama about celibacy and some nipples followed by a woman walk by
and the man will forget all that was being discussed. No telling what
the 3 other guys would do…

And Phil said:

Breasts in church. Well, I’m both male and weak, and if I get
distracted by them, I get distracted by them, but that would be
something I would want to clearly mark under the category of "my own
damn problem." Men need to have the kindness to assume that women who
dress in seemingly "provocative" ways are not doing so to provoke and
are not inviting stares, objectification or admonishment.

I like how Phil handles that.  Honestly, I’m very troubled by the common acceptance of the "narrative of male weakness."    When we repeat the canard that men "can’t help looking" and that "we’re hardwired to lust", we reject responsibility for our eyes and our thoughts and place it on to our sisters.  We take, as Phil rightly seems to imply, something that is fundamentally "our" problem and make it "their" issue.  As I’ve written before, this myth of male weakness is misogynist and misandrist simultaneously (a neat trick).  It assumes that men are simply incapable of self-control and focus in the face of sexual arousal, and it assumes that because of that weakness, women have to do the work of making public places "safe" for their brothers.

I am not for a minute suggesting that women ought not to consider the impact of their clothing choices on others.  After all, we are creatures who live in community.  All of our decisions, public and private, influence and affect those around us.  Christians in particular need to be mindful of that, but really, it’s something of which all of us ought to be aware.

Am I holding men to a very high standard here?  In some ways, yes.  I am not unsympathetic to the tremendous power of sexual attraction.  (I’m also aware that we make a mistake when we assume that men are the only ones who respond with arousal to visual stimulation!)  But I know from my own experience and the experience of men I admire that it is quite possible to remain focused and mindful even in the presence of what might be considered am attractive, provocatively dressed woman.   Some of this is just basic common sense.  Sometimes, guys, we just have to make the conscious decision to focus on a woman’s eyes, and only her eyes.   Most of us are "weak" in this area because we’ve never really believed we could develop the strength necessary to resist.  Honestly, if a fellow who had never lifted weights before walked into a gym and looked at a man doing bench-presses and said at once "Oh, I could never do that, I’m weak", what would we say?  We’d say "You may be weak now, but start working out and before you know it, you’ll be stronger than you ever imagined."  Just as we can develop our muscles, we can develop the strength to see women as fully human even when they are sexually alluring.

The subtext of a lot of the discussion about feminine modesty and male weakness is that a woman cannot expect to be both sexy and taken seriously at the same time.  Her body — what sets her apart as a woman — is thus an obstacle to being seen as a fully human person.  She’s told there’s a (false) dichotomy in place:  a woman is  either "looked at"  or "heard", but she bloody well can’t be both at once, because you see, men are too weak to see breasts and hear words simultaneously!  AAAAARGH!  As a man I am infuriated by that all-too-common reasoning.  It assumes that my biology will always trump my faith, my will, and the grace of God.  I know through my own life experience, I know in my bones, that men can transform the ways in which they see women.   An initial awareness of that which is provocative is natural, but lust and distraction are conscious choices.

Let me put this in explicitly religious terms.  (Non-believers might want to skip this paragraph.)  Years ago, a very wise man made an interesting suggestion to me.  When faced with the kind of visual distraction that Jenell recounts, I should consider the possibility that I am being tested.  Something wants me not to focus on the words I am hearing.  It may well be, my old friend said, that Satan himself very much wants me not to see this woman as a real person.  Above all, he doesn’t want me to hear what she has to say.  My job, in the face of that kind of provocation, is not to blame a woman for distracting me, but to understand that it is all the more important that I focus and concentrate on her as a child of God and on what she is trying to share with me.  I was taught, in moments like that, to pray the following prayer:  "Lord, show me your daughter as you see her, not as I see her." Let me offer you, out of my own experience, the assurance that that prayer will be answered!  I am not being willfully ignorant of the power of human sexuality, I am giving testimony to the far greater power of God to transform the way in which we use our eyes.

Jenell’s final question was: Should the people have been able to worship even in the bold presence of Marie’s boobs?

Yes!  A thousand times, yes!  Churches — like schools — cannot always be "safe" places where we are immune from temptation and distraction.  (I do believe we should be protected from overt harassment and assault, of course!) Indeed, almost certainly unwittingly,  Marie was offering the people an opportunity to challenge themselves.  She was offering them an opportunity to confess their weakness to God.  She was inviting them to see past the obvious distraction and to feel the presence of the Spirit.  Indeed, I suspect that those who were forced to concentrate on her words and her message rather than her body might have found themselves closer to Christ as a result.

Pat-downs, search terms, tampons

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 23, 2004
in Aggression and violence, Blogging, Body, Feminism, Modesty, Sexual harassment and Traveling
. 20 Comments

Today’s New York Times has this piece on the growing problem of "pat-down" searches of female passengers by security screeners at the nation’s airports:

In dozens of interviews, women across the country say they were humiliated by the searches, often done in view of other passengers, and many said they had sharply reduced their air travel as a result.

The new security policies on body searches were put into practice in mid-September, after a terrorist attack in Russia a few weeks before that destroyed two planes, killing 90 people. Two Chechen women were thought to have carried nonmetallic explosives onto the planes, officials said. It is not known whether the explosives were hidden in the women’s clothing, or whether the women merely boarded unimpeded, carrying the explosives.

But the Transportation Security Admini