Archive for the 'Science' Category

Guys in love: celebrating the new SUNY Oswego study on teenage boys and relationships

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 18, 2008
in Age, All Saints Pasadena, Men and Masculinity, Relationships, Science, Sexual ethics and transformation, Youth and Youth ministry
. 7 Comments

Reader “English Rosebud” sent me a link this weekend to this story that ran in the New York Times on Friday: Inside the Mind of the Boy Dating Your Daughter. As she mentions in her email, it’s a powerful corrective to the widespread notion that teenage boys have just one thing on their mind.

The stereotype of the 16-year-old boy is that he has sex on the brain. But a fascinating new report suggests that boys are motivated more by love and a desire to form real relationships with the girls they date.

Based on a study that appears in this month’s Journal of Adolescence, the researchers (from SUNY Oswego) concluded:

Among the boys who had been sexually active, physical desire and wanting to know what sex feels like were among the top three reasons they pursued sex. However, the boys were equally likely to say they pursued sex because they loved their partner. Interestingly, only 14 percent said they sought sex because they wanted to lose their virginity, and 9 percent did so to fit in with friends.

The researchers note that there is no way to assess the truthfulness of the boys’ answers, but the rate of sexual activity in the sample is consistent with national trends, suggesting the boys were answering honestly. The survey group was ethnically and economically diverse, and 95 indicated they were heterosexual, while 10 boys didn’t answer the question.

Bold emphasis mine.

The overall findings are contrary to cultural beliefs that boys are interested primarily in sex and not relationships.

“Let’s give boys more credit,’’ said study author Andrew Smiler, an assistant professor of psychology at the university. “Although some of them are just looking for sex, most boys are looking for a relationship. The kids we know mostly aren’t like this horrible stereotype. They are generally interested in dating and getting to know their partners.’’

(I wish Professor Smiler hadn’t used the phrase “horrible stereotype”. I wince at the implication that wanting sex for pleasure is “horrible”. After all, both men and women do sometimes pursue sex outside of the context of an enduring relationship. While dishonesty and manipulation are indeed “horrible”, the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake need not be accompanied by deceit or abuse. It’s “slut-shaming” at its most tiresome to suggest otherwise.)

Still, I’m delighted with this study, and not at all surprised. I’ve worked with adolescent boys as a youth minister for many years, and I’ve taught slightly older young men for even longer. One of the most common complaints that I — and anyone else who works with teen boys — hear is “I’m tired of having everyone think all I care about is sex”. Like the boys in the SUNY study, the teens I work with don’t deny that they are sexual creatures; they don’t pretend that sex isn’t frequently on their minds. What they find more frustrating than unsatisfied horniness is the enduring stereotype that they have no real interest in love and romance. When speaking of teens of either sex, it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that they want either sex or a relationship. All the recent research suggests that adolescent girls can have powerful libidos; this study makes clear what youth workers already know: that teenage boys, as horny as they are, have deep and complex emotional desires. Continue reading ‘Guys in love: celebrating the new SUNY Oswego study on teenage boys and relationships’

The burden of being a change agent caught betwixt and between: a note to “Kendra” about women, the sciences, and grad school

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 16, 2007
in Age, Feminism, Science and Working
. 25 Comments

I got a long email from a woman I’ll call “Kendra”. Here’s some of it:

I’m writing you because I’d like to get your thoughts on a major frustration I’ve had for a while (if you have time or feel so compelled).

I’m a 32 year old graduate student in electrical engineering. I’ll be finishing my masters next spring, and then I know I want to get a PhD…

It really stinks being a woman who is pursuing an advanced degree in engineering (or physics, which was my undergraduate area). It is even worse as you get older. I have two very close friends, both of whom are women. However, I don’t see them often.

Most time is spent around my “peers”, who are often 10 years younger than myself and almost entirely male. Most guys that age seem a bit phobic of girls and women. Age-wise, I am as old or older than most of the junior faculty in the department. However, none of the faculty seem terribly interested in being friendly. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. If I walk into the lunchroom when the faculty are there, they often stop talking as long as I am there. I honestly can’t tell if it’s the fact that I’m “just a student” or if it’s because I’m female, or possibly both. Either way, I wish I could blend into the wall. It’s obvious that they know I’m there, but also as obvious that they have no desire to include me.

I also don’t have a terribly easy time relating to other people outside of school. I hate to say it, but it seems like the stereotype of the engineer without any social skills is true. So much of what I do is wrapped up in my work that I can’t seem to relate to most people effectively. Although I’m a social butterfly by engineering standards (probably too much so since I’m rather talkative once you get me going), but I am often perceived (especially by other women) as “showing off” simply by discussing things that interest me. The feeling I get is that it’s okay for men to be engineers and talk about that “technical stuff”, but not for women.

I really hate being in this position.

No matter which path I follow career-wise, I sense that I’m always going to be caught in this limbo where people don’t fully accept me as a peer because I am different. I’m either older, younger, female, married with kids, a student, (someday) faculty, what have you…and this cuts off a lot of options for friendships. It’s very isolating and makes me wonder what I am paying in order to have the career I’ve been trying to work toward for so long. I would hope that going someplace else may change some of that, but I’m really not sure.

Does this ever change? Once I have my PhD, will faculty magically start treating me like a peer? Or will other students distance themselves even more because I crossed that imaginary line?

I don’t have an easy answer for Kendra. My Ph.D. was in the humanities, and I went through a graduate program that was evenly divided between men and women who were almost all my chronological peers. We were a gossipy, emotionally entangled lot.

I had a good friend a few years ago who was a Caltech graduate student (I can’t remember exactly what she did. It had “materials” in the name). My friend was, like Kendra, in her early thirties and one of the only women in her program. She also felt isolated from both her peers and her professors. Her fellow graduate students either had obvious schoolboy crushes on her, or they ignored her, unsure of what to do with a woman in what they clearly thought of as “male space.” Her male professors tended to treat her with exaggerated formality, always civil and encouraging, but also a bit distant. She noticed that her chief supervisor regularly went out for beers with some of his male graduate students, but never invited her — out of fear, she suspected, that he might misinterpret an invitation as an inappropriate advance. She was never once sexually harassed — but she found the “walking on eggshells” treatment to be almost as frustrating.

We need to acknowledge that graduate school can be a terrifying business. Working on a Ph.D. in any field is frightening; no matter what your topic or your field, there’s always the fear that your research won’t pan out, that you’ll end up in a dead end, or — worst of all — you’ll discover at the last minute that some other grad student at another university just did their doctoral work on exactly the same thing, and finished a month before you did. Add to that the financial strain that graduate education almost invariably imposes, throw in some family responsibilities, and the whole thing can be fairly wretched. I spent years oscillating between intellectual elation and debilitating anxiety, between authentic cameraderie with my fellows and bitter competitiveness. It was a tough time, and I think it is almost certainly worse for women in male-dominated fields.

As for the questions Kendra asks, I can say that in my experience — and, anecdotally, in the experience of most of my fellow graduate students — things do change once you get the Ph.D. I was never especially close to my dissertation supervisor, though we certainly got along quite well. At the moment he signed my completed dissertation, with all my exams and research and writing done, he said to me just one word: “welcome.” Not “congratulations”, or “well done”, but “welcome.” I already had tenure here at Pasadena City College (even though I technically had only an MA), but in his eyes it seemed, getting the Ph.D. was a hurdle I had to get over in order to become his peer. Honestly, “welcome” was the word I most wanted to hear at that moment. It was the recognition not just of a significant accomplishment, but of belonging.

Of course, once you have the Ph.D. you cease to be a student like other students — even if you’re doing a post-doc somewhere rather than actually joining the professoriate. My friends in the sciences who are doing post-doctoral research (but not teaching, and not being paid as full-time academics) often do report feeling a bit “betwixt and between”. On the one hand, they’ve achieved the highest standard the western academy offers, and on the other, they’re not climbing the tenure ladder and they don’t yet have students of their own. Whatever your sex, whatever your age, it can be a rough time.

But in the end, things do get better. And in the sciences, they have started to get dramatically better for women. The percentage of women receiving advanced degrees in the hard sciences, mathematics, and engineering has climbed considerably in recent years. Caltech now is over 40% female, three times what it was just a quarter-century ago. At times, the continued obstacles all around us blind us to the happy reality that we have already come so far. And though women in science and engineering continue to experience the kind of treatment that Kendra writes about, that sense of isolation will decrease as more and more women like her continue to work for the Ph.D. and continue to take post-docs and tenure-track jobs.

I remember very well one thing my old friend from Caltech said to me: “Sometimes, when it gets really bad, I tell myself I’m taking this shit so other women who come after me won’t have to.” It’s hard to be a pioneer, and it’s hard to carry the burden of being a “change agent.” But sticking with it gives others the inspiration to follow in your footsteps. And as more and more women come into the sciences, as math and engineering departments cease to be all-male enclaves, the sense of isolation that “geek women” experience will inevitably diminish. And though that may not be much comfort to Kendra now, in the long run, I hope that it will be.

“Boys Adrift”: part one of a lengthy review

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 29, 2007
in Books, Feminism, Men and Masculinity, Science, Teaching and Youth
. 18 Comments

Last week, with not inconsiderable trepidation, I picked up a copy of Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men. The book is by Dr. Leonard Sax, who wrote the very troubling and numbingly essentialist Why Gender Matters a couple of years ago. I read WGM last year and was disturbed by Sax’s claims, most of which seemed to be largely in service of his pet issue: advancing the spread of single-sex education, which he argues is vitally important for boys.

But a couple of people who disliked WGM told me that they’d read “Boys Adrift” and thought that it was significantly better, if still flawed. It’s a quick and easy read, and I made my way through it during “chinchilla out time” last Saturday.

I’m going to review this book in two parts. The criticism comes today, the praise later this week.

First off, there’s much here that is troubling. Though this may be an instance of the pot calling the kettle black, Sax is still prone to the whopping and unsupportable generalization. In discussing the importance of competition, he opines:

Most girls value friendship above team affiliation…Boys are more likely to understand that friends don’t have to be teammates, and teammates don’t have to be friends. And boys are more likely to be invested in the success of their team regardless of whether any of their friends are on the team.

Dr. Sax, please, come and watch some of the girls I mentor and teach play soccer and softball. If “Megan” is playing catcher, and her best childhood friend “Melissa” is a runner for the other team trying to steal second base, I guarantee you that “Megan” isn’t going to hesitate for an instant in trying to throw out her closest confidante! I’ve worked enough with both male and female athletes to know that team solidarity and competitiveness flourishes just as effectively among girls as among boys. I suspect Dr. Sax spends very little time with young female athletes.

Of course, sometimes the good doctor focuses on the science he is far more qualified to discuss. But like most of those who defiantly cling to the “nature” side of the argument, the evidence doesn’t necessarily support his conclusions. For example, Sax has an interesting section about why boys don’t like reading any more. It’s not, according to him, because video games are inherently more interesting (though he is, I’m relieved to say, no fan of them). It’s because the kind of questions teachers ask about reading assignments don’t address boys’ concerns.

Sax comes up with the following scenario: a junior high-school English teacher has assigned the kids “Lord of the Flies.” An essay question is given for homework:

“Write a short essay in the first person, in Piggy’s voice, describing how you feel about the other boys picking on you. Remember to include lots of detail.”

Sax writes:

This homework assignment boils down to: How would you feel if you were Piggy? When I spoke with the teacher who assigned this homework, she explained that she wanted to teach the children about empathy… I submit that this assignment didn’t teach anything about empathy. Instead, the message reinforced for (boys) is that doing homework is for girls, not for real boys. No self-respecting boy, in this boy’s frame of mind, would do such a homework assignment.

The answer (you knew this was coming) is that boys and girls have different brains:

It’s easy for most middle school and high school girls to answer a question like “How would you feel if you were X?” because the area of the brain where the feeling is happening is closely linked to the area of brain where talking happens. For boys, that’s not the case… it’s not easy (for them) to answer, in a genuine and articulate way, the question “How would you feel if…?” He may attempt to produce the answer he thinks the teacher wants to hear, but it’s a chore. A better question for most boys would be “What would you do if…” That question may sound similar, but it’s actually a different question, and much more boy-friendly — for most boys.

I’m willing to concede that biological differences may explain why some boys have a hard time articulating feeling. I’m not qualified to disprove that possibility. But for heaven’s sake, one of the most vital tasks the schools have is to help young people overcome natural obstacles. If there are differences in the brain that make it more difficult for boys to empathize with fictional characters (or make it more difficult for girls to understand calculus), that’s hardly a case against teaching empathy or higher math! Rather, it’s a signal to teachers and parents that we have to work even harder with certain students (who may be clustered in one sex or another) to help them develop into full and complete human beings.

Dr. Sax complains that for a boy, it might not “be easy to answer, in a genuine and articulate way, the question “How would you feel if…” Fine, I concede his point. But boys do hard things all the time. Getting to level 346 on the latest video game is hard. Getting in shape for football is hard. Building muscle, building reflexes — these aren’t “natural”. Sometimes, getting in shape to be a soldier or a quarterback feels like a chore, but no one suggests that because it’s difficult for the young to do, they ought to be excused from doing it!

I suspect (and hope) that Dr. Sax is genuinely concerned with the well-being of young American men. I share his concern and his commitment. But he draws dangerous conclusions from his own considerable research. His diagnosis may be accurate, but his remedy is wrong. Though for the sake of discussion, I am willing to concede that his findings about brain differences are real, I think he sells boys woefully short by suggesting that these differences are so significant that they serve as obstacles to the development of empathy, tenderness, and an articulate vocabulary for one’s own inner emotional terrain.

Feminists are often accused of suggesting that “there are no differences between boys and girls, between men and women.” We’re accused of ignoring nature and over-emphasizing nurture when it comes to psychological development. Though some feminists may have denied difference, most feminists today accept that brains and hormones may operate differently between the sexes. But we also point out that once you start characterizing boys and girls as fundamentally different, you immediately encounter so many exceptions (sensitive boys, aggressive girls) that the usefulness of the whole damn dichotomy becomes moot.

More importantly, some feminists (I include myself in this bloc) argue that the whole purpose of social institutions (be they churches, schools, or extended families) is to help each individual achieve full human potential despite whatever limitations are imposed by biology. Access to birth control helps address the biological reality that women get pregnant and men don’t. Toilet training socializes children to overcome their own physical impulses. “Nature” might have us all peeing our pants; “nature” might have every woman the mother of ten. Though real biological differences do exist, they ought never be used as an excuse for failing to develop our children into complete, effective, kind, tolerant, well-rounded human beings.

I’m willing to accept the premise that for biological reasons, it may be harder for some boys to articulate empathy — and for some girls to do advanced mathematics. But all that tells me as a teacher and a mentor is that we may need to redouble our efforts to help our sons and daughters reach their full potential. Rather than doing as Dr. Sax suggests, and re-phrasing the questions in order to make things “easier” for boys, we need more commitment from teachers and parents to help our sons “do hard things.” And while “hard things” might include making the football team or playing a fantasy game at a very high level, it also includes learning to identify emotionally with the vulnerable.

In the end, feminists don’t deny nature. But we refuse to be in thrall to it. And we sure as heck refuse to buy the tired excuse that “nature” means that our sons cannot all be kind, gentle, articulate and ambitious.

Part Two soon.

Wandering over to Lake Avenue, and a great Mouw post on faith and science

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 12, 2007
in Christianity, Faith and Science
. 11 Comments

I’m taking an extended break from All Saints Pasadena, and have been wandering back to the Warehouse community at Lake Avenue Church. I attended intermittently in 2001-2002, and will be heading back there on quite a few future Sundays. I’ll post some of my reasons for this transition another time.

And at Richard Mouw’s site, he takes on the issue of faith and evolution, and how he — as an evangelical — came to embrace the latter while remaining firm in the former. He writes of what helped him:

…I was immensely pleased to come across a wonderful paragraph in a scholarly essay, published in the early 1990s in Christian Scholars Review, by Ernan McMullen, who taught in the Notre Dame philosophy department for several decades. Father McMullen affirms that over a period of millions of years, there have been “uncountable species that flourished and vanished [and] have left a trace of themselves in us.” The Bible, he says, sees God as preparing the world for “the coming of Christ back through Abraham to Adam”; but is it too much of a stretch, he asks, “to suggest that natural science now allows us to extend the story indefinitely further back?” And then this wonderful passage: “When Christ took on human nature, the DNA that made him the son of Mary may have linked him to a more ancient heritage stretching far beyond Adam to the shallows of unimaginably ancient seas. And so, in the Incarnation, it would not have been just human nature that was joined to the Divine, but in a less direct but no less real sense all those myriad organisms that had unknowingly over the eons shaped the way for the coming of the human.”

I love that. That makes this evangelical animal rights activist very, very happy.

Live Strong Day

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on May 15, 2007
in Animal Rights, Links and Science
. 4 Comments

Amanda Marcotte is helping coordinate the internet presence of the Lance Armstrong Foundation. The LAF, famous for their LiveStrong campaign that saw 40 million Americans don yellow wristbands, is annoucing that tomorrow, May 16, is LiveStrong Day. Lance and his supporters will be lobbying Congress for greater support for cancer survivors and their families.

The biggest priority of the LAF, I am happy to say, is expanding access to health care for millions of uninsured Americans. The Lance Arrmstrong Foundation is also eager to expand early screening, taking note that cancer deaths could be reduced by at least a third with early detection. And of course, the LAF wants to fund more research.

As a rule, my wife and I only support medical charities that receive the Humane Seal of approval, meaning that their research does not involve any use of animal subjects. Next to our own Matilde Mission, there is no charity nearer and dearer to our hearts than the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. They created the Humane Seal program.

The Lance Armstrong Foundation, I am sorry to say, still funds research that uses animal subjects. Yet I am happy to say that the LAF has a history of funding many of the projects of the PCRM. PCRM is eager to extoll the cancer-fighting benefits of a vegan diet; in recent years, their vegan nutrition classes have received direct support from the LAF. I am delighted that that support seems likely to continue.

Where the Lance Armstrong Foundation calls for early detection programs, for better support for those living with cancer, for immediate attention to the plight of the uninsured, I stand with them in full support. Where the LAF funds research on animal subjects, I withdraw that support. My adored father died of cancer last year, I held him in my arms on the day he passed. But if anything, his death only strengthened my opposition to animal research and testing. Even if it would have extended my Dad’s life, I remain steadfastly opposed to all forms of vivisection. I blogged that story here.

If you are considering donating to the LAF, please include a note with your donation asking that your money not be used for research programs except for those where animal subjects are never used. Lance Armstrong is a symbol of vibrant good health and radical commitment to personal transformation; I have long been in awe of his drive and his dedication. The LAF’s past support for PCRM programs is encouraging, and I don’t think it’s out of the question that the LAF could choose to fund research using non-animal subjects (a field growing by leaps and bounds). Your support for that shift may well help.

Whatever your views on animal testing, let’s applaud the commitment of the Lance Armstrong Foundation to helping people fight cancer and lead healthier, longer, happier lives. Let’s Live Strong indeed, and let’s Live Cruelty-Free to boot.

A long post about PCRM, veganism and gettin’ evangelical

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on April 16, 2007
in Animal Rights, Body, Environmentalism, Food, Science, Traveling and Veganism
. 23 Comments

My prayers this morning go out to all those affected by the Virginia Tech shooting tragedy. I have a few Hokie alumni in my family (though far more who went to UVA), and I know a couple of folks still closely associated with the Blacksburg campus. I know that several of my readers are Hokies, and my thoughts and prayers are especially directed towards them.

It’s spring break (Pasadena City College has what must be America’s latest spring break), and I’m in our little study at home. I was in Virginia yesterday, if driving from the District to Dulles in a downpour can be considered being “in Virginia”. (We did find some great vegan Ethiopian food in a little strip mall in Ballston.) My wife and I spent the weekend in Washington attending the Art of Compassion gala to raise money for and celebrate the accomplishments of one of our very favorite charities, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

What I love about PCRM is that more than any other animal rights outfit, they adopt a holistic approach to personal and global transformation. PCRM is one of the leading organizations advocating vegan diets for all. Backed by a growing network of hundreds of doctors and nutritionists across the USA and Canada, PCRM is reaching out to millions through increasingly savvy media campaigns. (My wife and I are particularly pleased with — and particularly interested in supporting — PCRM’s brand-spankin’ new Spanish-language campaign.) PCRM also campaigns against the use of animals in medical research, and has played a leading role in developing alternatives. (PCRM helped create “Digital Frog” to help end school dissections; they’ve helped popularize TraumaMan to replace the use of live animals in emergency medical education.)

Most animal rights organizations — and Lord knows, they all do fabulous work — want to save animals. The folks who run PCRM, led by the remarkably energetic and charismatic Dr. Neal Barnard, want to do the same. But saving animals is about more than stopping a seal hunt, or shutting down a few fur farms or puppy mills. (All very worthy causes, mind.) PCRM’s point is that what is good for animals is also good for us and for our planet. A balanced vegan regimen requires far fewer natural resources to produce than a meat-and-dairy laden one. And the health benefits of veganism (or even its softer form, lacto-ovo vegetarianism) are sufficiently well-demonstrated as to be nigh on undeniable.

The world says: “Children need milk to build strong bones”. The world says “Beef is the best source of iron and protein, especially for women.” The world says “Without animal research, we can’t make necessary medical breakthroughs.” The world says “A vegetarian or vegan diet is too boring, too miserable, and too time-consuming for the average modern person.” And carefully, with painstakingly documented research, PCRM works to disprove all of these deeply-held myths. (PCRM helped expose the roots of the Vioxx tragedy: what had proved safe in animals turned out deadly for humans. Animal testing too often makes animals suffer and tells us nothing about what works for people.)

Sigh. This post is turning into an infomercial. That’s not what this blog is supposed to be about, and I apologize. This is how I feel after retreat weekends with my youth group, or after a men- against-rape training. I feel inspired and invigorated, and more than usually evangelical!

Last month, Stentor at Debitage put up this post: Moral Relativist Anti-Vegetarianism. Stentor, a trained amateur philosopher, has pointed out more than once that I have an exasperating habit of making sweeping moral statements — and promptly disavowing the idea that I am actually proselytizing, claiming at times that “this is just me.” He’s right. The truth is that a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle almost always is about making a universal moral claim. Stentor writes:

So what makes vegetarianism especially threatening whereas diversity in other parts of life evokes less hostility? One inescapable part of the picture — which unfortunately vegetarians spend a lot of time disclaiming in a usually futile effort to avoid the proselytizing charge — is that vegetarianism is a moral position. Aside from the small number of people who are vegetarians purely for health or henotheistic religious reasons, to become a vegetarian is to implicitly endorse a non-relativistic moral code*. Second, vegetarianism is threatening – becoming a vegetarian involves a significant change in a fairly fundamental part of one’s lifestyle. Third, vegetarianism is realistic. For all the joking about how life wouldn’t be worth living without bacon, vegetarianism is within reach of the majority of developed world adults. (It’s not without hardships for some, and I’m not endorsing a purely personal-lifestyle-change-based policy, but the fact remains that most North Americans could drastically reduce their meat consumption if they really put their minds to it.) Adding to the realism is the surface plausibility of the vegetarian position — it’s comparatively easy for even a committed omnivore to understand what makes vegetarians think they’re right. Bold emphasis is mine.

Stentor is frequently right, and here, he’s dead on. I realize that on this blog, I write about many things: diet, feminism, faith, exercise. As a progressive evangelical writing for a general audience, I’ve deliberately disavowed Christian proselytizing in this space. Do I wish more people would pursue a personal, transforming relationship with Christ? Yes. Do I believe that no one can be saved without consciously forming that relationship? No, I don’t. Do I wish more people — especially men — would embrace feminist principles of egalitarianism in every aspect of their public and private lives? Yes. Do I want every man (and woman) to stop using porn, to stop objectifying women, to stop the economic, sexual, and physical exploitation of their sisters? Yes.

So the question I’m wrestling with is this: does my veganism correlate more closely with my feminism or my Christianity? If it’s like my Christian faith, it’s a “personal choice” — one among many. I do believe that my Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Wiccan, animist, and atheist friends will be saved (though how, exactly, is not something I can always articulate.) I do believe that I am called to follow Christ, but I also believe that others follow Him even as they call Him by other names. What would make the world a far better place isn’t necessarily everyone becoming Christian; what would make the world a far better place is if everyone actually lived out the principles of their faiths and creeds. But if every man and woman on this planet saw women as equally worthy of dignity and respect, as equally entitled to share in resources and in decision-making, as equally prepared to lead, as equally deserving of being seen as a whole person — then heck yes, the planet would be better off. Feminism is, in that sense, essential.


And I’m prepared to start arguing that vegetarianism (or better yet, veganism) has the power to bring about tremendous change. It will improve the health of the individual and of the planet, and it will exponentially reduce the unnecessary suffering of sentient, conscious creatures. So yes, I’m going to risk alienating still more readers with a more explicit commitment to veganism here on this blog.

In the end, I’m trying to follow ever more closely Forster’s maxim: “only connect.” What I wear matters. What I eat matters. Everything we do connects us to other living creatures. Every darned thing I do every day matters. And my brothers and sisters, the same does go for you too. Every dollar you spend is a vote. The food you buy, the clothes you wear, the words you speak: these impact the world. And I’m asking you to consider making the best possible choices in your public, private, educational, familial, sexual, and economic lives.

My commitment to full veganism is relatively recent (I’ve been a vegetarian for longer.) It’s been a slow evolution rather than an instant decision. Like most lasting conversions, it has come gradually rather than in a flash of light. But you’re gonna be hearing more on this blog about animal rights, veganism, and how they connect to faith and feminism.

More about my PCRM weekend below the fold. Continue reading ‘A long post about PCRM, veganism and gettin’ evangelical’

Biology, free will, and what’s “written in the genes”

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on April 12, 2007
in Body, Men and Masculinity, Science and Sexual ethics and transformation
. 32 Comments

A couple of folks have emailed me this New York Times piece: Pas de Deux of Sexuality is Written in the Genes.

It begins:

Desire between the sexes is not a matter of choice. Straight men, it seems, have neural circuits that prompt them to seek out women; gay men have those prompting them to seek other men. Women’s brains may be organized to select men who seem likely to provide for them and their children. The deal is sealed with other neural programs that induce a burst of romantic love, followed by long-term attachment.

So much fuss, so intricate a dance, all to achieve success on the simple scale that is all evolution cares about, that of raisingthe greatest number of children to adulthood. Desire may seem the core of human sexual behavior, but it is just the central act in a long drama whose script is written quite substantially in the genes.

I don’t have a personal animus towards evolutionary biologists. I’m no scientist, after all. I honor the work these men and women do. But I always shudder nonetheless when I get one of these articles e-mailed to me. And I shudder because I know that the laypeople who read these articles frequently come to the conclusion that these “latest findings” prove that heredity trumps socialization, and that genetics trump free will.

The field of evolutionary biology is intensely politicized, less so by the scientists themselves and more by those of us who interpret the findings to fit our own agendas. The right-wing often contradicts itself. Many conservatives I know believe that homosexuality is a matter of personal sin, not the hard-wiring of the brain; they believe that gay-ness can be cured. And just as they proclaim that gays and lesbians can become “completely heterosexual” (Ted Haggard just set a world speed record in that regard), they often rely on science to make the case that men and women are so enormously different that rigid gender roles actually make good sense. Where homosexuality is concerned, they think free will trumps biology; where gender roles are concerned, they think the reverse.

Is the left guilty of the opposite? Frequently. Many in the GLBTQ community have welcomed the increasing scientific consensus that the “cause” of homosexuality is biological, and thus not an individual choice. But there are problems with this, problems that the recent New York Times article hints at. Male homosexuality seems to be more closely correlated with pre-natal biology than female homosexuality. If GLBTQ activists attach themselves too closely to the scientific community, we end up with some awkward conclusions to wrestle with, particularly the serious possibility that women’s sexuality is far more mutable in adulthood than men’s. If we suggest that gay and lesbian rights ought to be based on the reality that some folks “are born this way”, we end up with an argument that might be much more helpful to men than to women.

I’ve never liked the “argument from nature” as a defense of gay rights. My support for same-sex marriage, for example, is not rooted in a sense that gay and lesbian folks were born “that way.” My support for SSM is rooted in a conviction that marriage is a fundamental good, and that we all ought to be free to marry the person with whom we feel we have the best opportunity to build a life most excellent. (In my case, that means trying over and over again until hitting the jackpot.) Whether or not someone’s brain is different from his or her brother’s isn’t of interest to me; who he or she longs to be with is, regardless of whether that longing is rooted in environment or heredity.

Evolutionary biology can go a long way, I think, in explaining why it is we want what we want. But there’s a colossal difference between understanding the origin of our desires on the one hand, and assuming that we have no choice in how we express those desires on the other. (See my “Biology and Bladders” post from last summer.) To quote myself:

What I do question as a pro-feminist man is whether our “nature” is ever an excuse for poor behavior. It’s one thing to acknowledge the very real presence of physiological factors that influence our wants; another thing altogether to suggest that men have little or no control over how they respond to those influences! What I find so exasperating is that so many men confuse an explanation for an excuse, denying their own ability (or that of the “average man”) to resist and control those impulses.

Obviously, I think same-sex marriage is a social good. Equally passionately, I believe that we all are capable of restricting and channeling our desires, whether those desires are rooted in our DNA, our brain, or our dysfunctional upbringing. No desire is so strong that it cannot be shaped by free will. At the same time, in a healthy and just society, we should challenge people to curb only those desires that have great potential for harm if acted upon. For a variety of reasons, I see prostitution and pornography as profoundly harmful — and argue that all of us can should choose not to make use of either industry. For a variety of reasons, I do not see cultural acceptance of homosexuality as profoundly harmful, and so I don’t see any reason to ask my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to transform themselves.

Mind you, I think our sexuality is highly mutable. Put another way, I do believe that if I wanted to be gay badly enough, and if I sought God’s help, I could make myself be attracted to men. I might even be capable of falling in love with a man. I see no reason to do so, of course. But my belief in the power of the will, aided by grace, is pretty profound. And my frustration with most popular coverage of science grows, as people continue to be tempted to use biology and evolution as an excuse to accept things — in particular, bad male behavior — as natural, inevitable, and beyond the capacity of the individual human being to change.

Fighting the “biology is destiny” myth: a response to Souraaron

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 15, 2005
in Faith, Science, Sexual ethics and transformation, Sexuality and Vanity
. 25 Comments

In his comments below my "Jesus told me to grow the *%ck up" post, blogger Souraaron suggests that my conversion/transformation experience is less a result of God’s grace or Hugo’s effort, and more a function of declining sex drive:

You act as though you are the first guy to hit your 30s, have your libido drop, and discover the freedom that is the ability to cease thinking with your schlong (stop looking at porn… please… you stopped because it became boring and stupid, not because of some self-professed new found ability to stop).

Nothing like running with the old "biology is destiny" pack, is there?  And as Breadfish points out, don’t we all know oodles of men over forty still looking at porn?  As more than one young woman I’ve worked with has discovered, there are few things as disturbing as realizing your dad is getting off looking at pictures of girls your age!

First of all, I have no intention of offering a personal refutation of Aaron’s argument.  As I wrote back in March, after Glenn Sacks raised the same point when I was on his radio show, nothing could be more pointless (and potentially embarrassing) than making a stirring declaration as to the enduring strength of my libido!  How can I disprove his implication without blogging about matters far too personal for even this relatively candid forum?  Fear not, I’m not going to discuss my sex drive today and how it compares to my libido ten or twenty years ago.  What good would it do?  I’d end up embarrassing myself and making my readers uncomfortable, and the likes of Aaron would still say "oh, Hugo protests too much!"

But the implications of Aaron’s argument are pernicious.  If men only become more decent and kind as a consequence of losing interest in sex, then it’s clear that a strong and vibrant libido is incompatible with a keen pro-feminist sense of women’s worth.   By this reasoning, it’s fruitless to spend time and energy working on reaching young men, because their colossally strong physical urges will always trump their humanity, their reason, and their self-control.  Better to focus one’s energies on older men, whose libidos have presumably quieted down to the point that they are prepared to listen!

Perhaps here is where I can find common ground with my men’s rights advocate (MRA) opponents! Aren’t MRAs also offended by the "young, dumb, and full of cum" (sorry for the vulgarity) stereotype that sees adolescent and twenty-something fellows as slaves to their libidos?  Don’t all of us who do men’s work, regardless of our politics, have reason to take umbrage at the notion that we are hapless victims of our own biological urges?

To be honest, I’m angry that Souraaron takes what I call "grace" (the power to be a faithful, loving, devoted partner who doesn’t look at porn) and attributes it merely to lowered testosterone.  In this reductionistic world of his, humans only make decisions on account of biology, not in spite of it.  In Aaron’s universe, virtuous self-restraint and a growing sense of empathy are all simply manifestations of aging, not the consequences of either conversion or hard work.  I’m annoyed that in this biological view, there’s precious little room for the notion of spiritual growth independent of physiological changes.

In my comment below Aaron’s comment, I wrote: "The outcome of my conversion was not the diminishing of my libido, thank you; it was the redirecting of my libido."  That’s obviously not something I can prove, nor ought I to try.  Ultimately, the only person (besides myself) to whom that distinction ought to matter is my wife.  She is the primary human being to whom I am accountable, and I need only "prove myself" to her and no one else.  But I can say, with firm conviction, that my ability to love my wife with singular passion is not merely a consequence of hormonal changes within my body; it is a consequence of God’s intervention in my life, and my own willingness to respond to the grace He offers.

Yes, it took me until my fourth marriage to finally grasp some essential truths.  But the real reasons why it took me so long to transform have nothing to do with sex drive, and everything to do with obstinacy, pride, and fear.  And those three evils can be found as easily in the old as in the young.

Taking down the album, and another follow-up

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 10, 2005
in Older Men & Younger Women, Photos, Science, Sexuality, Youth and Youth ministry
. 2 Comments

Dylan wrote beneath my Monday post on the fast that she was concerned about my publicly posting pictures of All Saints teens.  As she suggested might be the case, our church does indeed have a policy against publishing photographs of our teens, and I have hidden the album that had been up since Monday. (For the youth group kids, you can still email me and I’ll send them to you directly.)  Just when I think I know all there is to know about youth work, I find out something new.  Thanks, Dylan, for raising the issue! 

In the comments below this post we have gotten sidetracked into a discussion of what is "natural", and I’ve been forced to admit that when it comes to the discussion of the biological explanations for earlier adolescent development, I am at a loss. It’s also unfortunate, because I agree with what most of the commenters are saying, which is that we have to do as much as possible to address the social factors that lead to the early sexualization of adolescents.

It’s a busy day, and so I don’t have much time to work up a good post.   I am reminded, just from the comments section, of how many very young women experience being objectified by much older men.  The stories the commenters relate match those I hear from my students.  We have a culture that celebrates the erotic potential of those still in puberty, and sees children as appropriate fodder for male fantasy (and in the worst cases, male action.)  It’s absurd to place the blame on either girls’ bodies or the fashions they wear without challenging men to change the way in which they respond to the young and the vulnerable.

I don’t know how to work with pedophiles.  I’m not trained for it.  Those folks require a specialized kind of care that most men’s movement activists cannot provide.  But I do know how to work with "normal guys" who might find themselves responding with sexual arousal to teenage girls.  It’s these men, fellows whose conscience is alive and well, who can be reached.   It’s those men I’m interested in targeting and challenging.  I’m not asking them to deny their sexual responses; I’m asking them to channel those urges towards more appropriate outlets.  On a basic level, that means working to help men "de-eroticize"adolescents and helping them to respond enthusiastically (with arousal and desire) to adult women whose agency and maturity matches their own.  (Ideally, of course, that sexual energy — even in thought — would be devoted almost entirely to their partner.)  Beyond peer-to-peer mentoring and prayer, I don’t quite know how to accomplish that.  But I am damn sure it’s a worthy goal!

More another time.

Gang rape, frontal lobes, and adolescent restorative justice

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 30, 2004
in Age, Aggression and violence, Science, Sexual ethics and transformation and Youth
. 26 Comments

This one may get me in a bit of trouble.

Like many Southern Californians (and perhaps others elsewhere), I have paid a modest amount of attention to what is generally known as the “Orange County Gang-Rape Case”. (For those unfamiliar with the case, visit the Orange County Weekly site for an exhaustive archive of articles). Bottom line: three teenage boys were accused of raping and sodomizing an unconscious 16 year-old girl; the key piece of evidence was a videotape shot by one of the boys. A mistrial was declared on Monday after the jury deadlocked on all of the counts, and despite the fact that most of the jurors favored the defense, the case will now be retried.

It’s hard to think of anything original to say about this sad story, except to give thanks that (as of yet) the videotape has not started making the rounds on the Internet. I do wish that the case had been tried in secret, so that none of the sordid details would have been leaked to the public. But since everyone in this part of the country is now familar with the case, I have a couple of quick thoughts. They center not on the facts of the case, but upon the age of the victim and of the accused.

My heart breaks for the very troubled young girl whose violation is at the center of this case. My sympathies are, first and foremost, with her. But though I imagine it will annoy a few of my readers to say this, I confess that I am not without sympathy for the young men who have been accused in this crime. They face over 50 years in prison if convicted on all counts. In my mind, no teenager should ever face such a lengthy sentence.

As a volunteer youth pastor, I work regularly with 16 and 17 year-old boys (the age of the trio accused in Orange County). The longer I work with them, the more I love them. And the longer I work with them, the more convinced I am of just how very, very young most adolescents in our society truly are. I have always hated the idea of trying juveniles as adults. I hated it when I was a teenager, because it seemed unfair to give kids the same consequences as grown-ups without giving them the same freedoms. (Frankly, my position on that hasn’t changed — freedom and responsibility ought always to be concomitant.) But now, I hate it even more because I have come to realize that in no meaningful sense can adolescents truly be considered adults. That’s a sweeping statement, but the more experience I have with teens, the more convinced I am of its essential truth. And as a result, (I’m bracing myself for the inevitable reaction), I think there is a world of difference between a sexual assault committed by a 17 year-old and one committed by a 30 year-old, and I think the legal system ought to acknowledge that distinction. (I am, naturally, clear on the obvious fact that from the standpoint of the victim’s pain, that distinction may not exist.)

Recent studies have shown that adolescent brains don’t work the way adult brains do:

The researchers found that when processing emotions, adults have greater activity in their frontal lobes than do teenagers. Adults also have lower activity in their amygdala than teenagers. In fact, as teenagers age into adulthood, the overall focus of brain activity seems to shift from the amygdala to the frontal lobes.

The frontal lobes of the brain have been implicated in behavioral inhibition, the ability to control emotions and impulses. The frontal lobes are also thought to be the place where decisions about right and wrong, as well as cause-effect relationships are processed. In contrast, the amygdala is part of the limbic system of the brain and is involved in instinctive “gut” reactions, including “fight or flight” responses. Lower activity in the frontal lobe could lead to poor control over behavior and emotions, while an overactive amygdala may be associated with high levels of emotional arousal and reactionary decision-making.

I’m no brain expert, but I’ve spent plenty of time with teenagers to become quite clear on the premise that virtually all teens have trouble with “behavioral inhibition”. Add in alcohol (something that everyone in the OC rape case admits was involved), and adolescents simply have a drastically diminished capacity to make appropriate moral judgments. To acknowledge this is not bleeding-heart liberalism, it’s sound common sense.

I am not for a moment suggesting that these boys in Orange County ought to go unpunished. The fact that they had a diminished capacity to make good decisions does not, of course, vitiate their responsibility to refrain from drugging and violating another human being. But a fair and just legal process would take the age of all parties involved into account, both in terms of establishing guilt and, far more importantly, in terms of providing a penalty. Knowing that those boys might go to prison for more than half a century would make it impossible for me to serve on their jury. From a moral standpoint, had I been on the OC jury, I would have felt compelled to vote for a not-guilty verdict (despite the evidence), merely because such a lengthy sentence cannot, in my mind, ever be appropriate for someone who is not mentally, intellectually, or emotionally fully adult. (Parenthetically, I’ve been excused from two jury panels because when asked, I twice said that I could not imagine convicting someone of a crime without knowing exactly what punishment they might face. Call me crazy, but if I can’t have a say in the penalty phase, I won’t even dream of participating in the guilt phase.)

I am not proposing letting the boys walk without consequences. I am proposing that if found guilty, the focus should be on restorative justice. What might that look like? Here’s how it generally works:

(Restorative justice revolves around conferences). A conference is a structured meeting between offenders, victims and both parties’ family and friends in which they deal with the consequences of the crime and decide how best to repair the harm. Neither a counseling nor a mediation process, conferencing is a straightforward problem-solving method that demonstrates how citizens can resolve their own problems when provided with a constructive forum to do so.

Conferences provide victims and others an opportunity to confront the offender, express their feelings, ask questions and have a say in the outcome. Offenders hear firsthand how their behavior has affected people. They may begin to repair the harm by apologizing, making amends and agreeing to financial restitution or personal or community service work. Conferences hold offenders accountable while providing them an opportunity to discard the “offender” label and be reintegrated into their community, school or workplace.

The victim in the OC rape case may well need the opportunity to confront those who raped her. The boys need the opportunity to see her as a human being, and recognize the harm they did. And the legal system needs to recognize that they are dealing with teenagers, complex creatures who are hardly innocent children, but who at the same time cannot be considered rational adults. Rape is a very, very serious crime — but even the most serious crimes must be seen differently when committed by the as of yet biologically and intellectually immature.