quick hit: infant morality

Tangentially related to my post last week about treating children as people, Paul Bloom @ The New York Times Magazine discusses current research into how human beings acquire morality (or if they are born wired, so to speak, with a sense of justice and injustice)

Morality, then, is a synthesis of the biological and the cultural, of the unlearned, the discovered and the invented. Babies possess certain moral foundations — the capacity and willingness to judge the actions of others, some sense of justice, gut responses to altruism and nastiness. Regardless of how smart we are, if we didn’t start with this basic apparatus, we would be nothing more than amoral agents, ruthlessly driven to pursue our self-interest. But our capacities as babies are sharply limited. It is the insights of rational individuals that make a truly universal and unselfish morality something that our species can aspire to.

I don't necessarily agree with all of the ways he defines moral and immoral sentiments and actions, but it is an interesting overview of some of the more recent theories vis a vis how we construct a mutually agreed upon moral framework in which to operate as a human society.

multimedia monday: clean living

Two videos for you this morning that attempt to teach young people just how narrow a road they must walk in order to survive into adulthood.

First, a health education film for 1950s college students. While it ostensibly targets both men and women, notice how much more time they spend panning the camera up and down the coeds' bodies, and how clearly the female students are positioned as primarily objects of the male gaze (forget about your homework, girls!). It's also clear that although the women are supposed to be sexually alluring they are not under any circumstances supposed to cross the line into sexual availability (slut!) or actual sexual activity.

And second, thanks to Hanna,who found this at Genevieve Valetine's livejournal, we have "Pamela's Prayer," a 1980s Christian anti-kissing propaganda film that teaches young adults to save their first kiss until after the marriage vows (or something truly unspeakable will happen).

As my friend Rachel put it: "CREEPIEST. DAD. EVAR."

Enjoy. And then go wash your eyeballs with carbolic soap.

sunday smut: links on sex and gender (no. 21)

Thursday, May 6th, was International No Diet Day, but as gwen @ Sociological Images reports, some news outlets seem to have missed the point. " Perhaps illustrating the article with an image of a slender body indicating a significant amount of weight loss wasn’t the best choice?"

Lena Chen, also known as Elle @ Sex and the Ivy graduates this month from Harvard (congrats!), and as part of her senior thesis on evolution of the virginity ideal, she held a one-day conference on Rethinking Virginity. You can find a round-up of related blog posts and media coverage at Sex and the Ivy. If rethinking virginity is your thing, I totally recommend clicking through and checking some of the posts out. For a nice thumbnail recap, check out Feministing's list of ten virginity myths that were discussed (and debunked) at the conference.

On the not-so-positive side of things, Femocracy @ Feministing Community muses about why media stories about rape so often get it wrong, while Jacelyn Friedman @ Salon analyzes how CNN took her anti-slut-shaming talking points and made her sound like a prude. "The woman on the television screen looked and sounded a whole lot like me -- in fact, she was me -- but she appeared to be saying things that...I would never say. This is what it's like to see yourself quoted out of context and turned into a sock puppet on national TV." Friedman was allowed to follow up with a counterpoint which you can read on the CNN blog.

Mary Elizabeth Williams @ Salon also muses upon the perilous balance teenage girls (in particular) must strike in our culture between youthful testing of boundaries and behavior that will earn them the status of social pariah in Miley Cyrus: Not a girl, not yet a Britney. "Very few people ever transition seamlessly from cute teen to mature adult – whether they're an ordinary girl or Disney's biggest princess. Cyrus, like anyone who's ever been 17, has a right to stumble and look silly. But if you're going to tell the world you can't be tamed, maybe you should consider doing it in a way that doesn't look so painfully contrived." Sady & Amanda @ The Sexist discuss.

In other awkward bids for attention, Andy Wright @ AlterNet reports on the six strangest things men have done in the quest for the perfect penis.

lisa @ Sociological Images offers us an intriguing set of graphs showing trends in the social acceptability of homosexuality and prostitution in selected Western nations and offers five possible explanations for the disparity between the two (homosexuality steadily more acceptable, prostitution not so much).

Not all Christian fundies are opposed to sex, they just want to make sure it's God-approved sex. Sadly, it is often difficult to find those God-approved sex toys without being subjected to icky non-Christian depictions of sex. Never fear! As Cath Elliot @ The Guardian reports, these Christian sex enthusiast can now shop at Christian Love Toys, an online sex you store for those with vanilla tastes.

Tracy Clark-Flory @ Salon, however, reports on the limits of Christian sex. "Sex addiction" has, of course, been a topic du jour for Christian conservatives long and long. At Dirty Girl Ministries, however, they tailor the message specifically for "impure" women: "On the Dirty Girls Ministries message board, visitors swap tips for keeping on the straight and narrow -- for example, wearing a rubber band around your wrist and snapping it every time an impure thought crosses your mind."

Let's just not hope that particular Dirty Girl isn't into a little pain with her pleasure.

And finally, via Hanna, comes this lovely blog post on How to Be Attractive ("First, remove some of the mirrors in your house.")

^{*image credit: "Siege" by Clayton Cubitt. Hat tip to Hanna this week for finding the image for this post, via Warran Ellis' blog.}

alma mater update: in other unsurprising news...

Here's the promised update re: Hope College and its Institutional Statement on Homosexuality, which I wrote about on Thursday.

The group Hope Is Ready, which has been one of those petitioning to have the statement withdrawn by the Board of Trustees, shared (through their Facebook page; apologies if this means you can't follow the link) the following letter from Hope College President James Bultman yesterday afternoon.

May 7, 2010

Dear Members of Hope is Ready:

Thank you for your interest in Hope College and for the time and effort committed to sharing your concerns with the Board of Trustees. Your insights were helpful in our discussions. Those elected to hold the college in their trust have thoughtfully, thoroughly, and prayerfully considered your petition.

Relative to your petition, the Trustees have taken these actions:

1. The Board of Trustees denied your request to remove the 1995 Institutional Statement on Homosexuality

2. The Board of Trustees appointed a Trustee committee to expand the college’s 1995 position statement in the larger context of all human sexuality in such a way that the Hope community is called to a renewed encounter with the clear, demanding, and healing biblical witness regarding human sexuality.

The college’s current position on homosexuality is based on its interpretation of scripture. It is recognized that well-intentioned Christians may disagree on scriptural interpretation. Still, humbly and respectfully, the college aligns itself in its interpretation with is founding denomination, the Reformed Church in America, the orthodox Christian Church throughout the ages, and other Christian colleges and universities.

On behalf of the Hope College Board of Trustees, I thank you for your concern for the college we love and respectfully ask that you accept these decisions in the spirit with which they are rendered.

Cordially,

James E. Bultman
President

In short, it basically says nothing that hasn't already been said, and the fact it was up on the web by 2:33pm yesterday afternoon makes it pretty clear that the Board of Trustees didn't spend much time deliberating on their course of action.

Sad, despiriting, but unsurprising.

I'll be thinking today about all those folks in the Hope College community -- many of whom I've known my whole life -- who do not think this way, and who work hard everyday to make sure the official college position is not the only one that gets heard.

I said in my letter to the Board, and I'm going to repeat it here: to tell any person that being sexual and making positive, fully consensual, sexually intimate connections with another human being is destructive to their spiritual well-being is an act of violence. To codify such a belief in an institutional statement makes it institutionalized bigotry, giving that belief the authority of college administration that has the power to materially effect the lives of students and employees.

I absolutely believe that such an act of violence runs counter to the Christian message that we are all called to increase joy, practice love, and work toward wholeness in the world. I don't see how this decision by Hope's Board of Trustees does any of that. So it sure as hell doesn't seem very Christian to me.

^{*image credit: Hope College Voorhees Hall, made available through the public relations office website.}

quick hit: general theory of individuality

Hat tip to my friend Joseph for sharing this article with my on Google Reader earlier in the week. Davis Barash @ The Chronicle of Higher Education asks why scientists have historically shied away from acknowledging and exploring the reality of the individuality of organisms.

One of the unspoken secrets in basic scientific research, from anthropology to zoology (with intervening stops at physiology, political science, psychology, psychiatry, and sociology) is that, nearly always, individuals turn out to be different from one another, and that—to an extent rarely admitted and virtually never pursued—scientific generalizations tend to hush up those differences. It can be argued that that is what generalizations are: statements that apply to a larger class of phenomena and must, by definition, do violence to individuality. But since science seeks to explain observed phenomena, it should also be able to explain the granular particularity of such phenomena. In fact, generalities lose potency if they occur at the cost of artificially leveling otherwise significant features of reality.

* * *

The current dearth of "individuality theory" may thus reflect the fact that, until recently, advances in applying evolutionary biology to human behavior have been almost entirely the work of biologists, who typically have given individuality short shrift. By contrast, psychologists—stimulated in part by the early work of Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton—have generally been more receptive to individual differences, with anthropologists occupying a more or less intermediate position (although with no small amount of individual differences!). Perhaps the growing involvement of the latter disciplines in attempts to flesh out a truly evolutionary theory of human nature will result in fuller incorporation of behavioral individuality.

Western science since Aristotle has sought to identify and understand classes of phenomena, looking beyond the particular to organize knowledge into general categories. Accordingly, my request for greater attention to individual differences may seem strangely retrograde. Maybe the best way to justify so perverse a preoccupation is to substitute individual differences for the famed question about climbing mountains: Why study individual differences? Because they are there.

You can check the whole piece out over at the Chronicle of Higher Education, and I think it's well worth the read.

booknotes: end of semester omnibus edition

This is the last week of the semester, and although I only had one class that met regularly (and will continue working on my thesis throughout the summer), I still feel that end-of-the-semester accumulation of Things Undone that always hits me this time of year.

A few of those Things Undone are some booknotes blog posts that have been sitting in my drafts file for weeks, waiting for inspiration to hit. Since inspiration is apparently being sucked dry by other things at the minute, here are some thumbnail reviews of a few books I read, enjoyed, and hope you'll read and enjoy as well.



S. Bear Bergman | The Nearest Exit May Be Behind You. It's been a while since I read a book from the library and loved it so much that I turned around and bought it a week later. The Nearest Exit May Be Behind You is just such a book. A collection of essays by self-described "gender-jammer," author and speaker Bear Bergman, The Nearest Exit is like if Anne Lamott's Traveling Mercies had been written on the subject of gender, rather than faith. Although it has some faith in it. And family. And stuff about trying your best to be a good person in the not-so-perfect world we live in. Just go read it, everyone!

S. Bear Bergman | Butch is a Noun. Since I loved Exit so much, I hunted down Bear's other book, published in 2006, Butch is a Noun. While I'm still browsing my way through it a few essays a night, I'd say Noun feels less comfortable in its skin than the later book. It's possible I'm just responding on an emotional level to the butch/femme culture so many of the essays are about, which is something I've never quite gotten on a personal level. Still, it definitely still has that gentle, forgiving, thoughtful Lamott quality I enjoyed so much in the later book. So enjoy this one too :).

Loraine Hutchens & Lani Kaahumanu (editors) | Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out. Continuing on the theme of human sexuality (which I am wont to do, as you know), Hanna found this 1991 anthology for me on a dollar cart recently and I've been browsing my way through it. Twenty years is centuries when it comes to the politics and culture of sexual identity, and a lot of the contributions feel super dated . . . but it's a valuable snapshot of bisexuality in an era where people with more fluid sexual identities felt intense pressure from the gay and lesbian community to identify as exclusively homosexual, and from the straight community to identify as hetero. Bi invisibility is still an issue today, but I think fewer queer folks, at least, question the very existence of folks who aren't exclusively interested in one sex or gender.

Susan J. Douglas | Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminisms Work is Done. When I had this book in the reading room of the MHS one day, a researcher saw it and remarked "now there's a contradiction in terms!" Which of course is Douglas's point. She argues -- drawing on her background in media studies and cultural criticism -- that women of all ages are being sold neo-traditional notions of gender packaged as "feminist" or "post-feminist" by the media, marketers, and politicians who want to believe that inequality based on gender and sex is a thing of the past (or at least want us to believe it.

Rick Perlstein | Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. Perlstein is an independent scholar whose passion is clearly American politics: the 748 densely researched pages of Nixonland chart the political career of Richard Nixon in the context of the postwar/Cold War politics of 1960s and 70s America. While I am only part of the way through the book, I suspect he may be slightly over-stepping his evidence when it comes to arguing that Nixon's style of presidential politics (and the opinions of those for and against him) are emblematic of our era. He spends more time on the ins and outs of politicking in Washington and less of the public's response to said politics than I would like. But then, I'm primarily a cultural historian and an historian of ideas, not politics.

Connie Willis | Blackout. I had some vague hope of holding Connie Willis' latest novel out as a carrot for the end of my semester -- but then Hanna found a copy on the library's express read shelf and I was a lost cause. (Blackout, readers should be warned, is volume one of at least a two-part narrative arc, the second volume of which is coming out in September. So if you won't want to be left hanging, hold off.) The plot takes a while to gather steam, mostly because of the vast cast of characters and locations, all of which have to be introduced. But readers familiar with Willis' time travel fiction, such as To Say Nothing of the Dog will likely find they can ride along until the critical problem becomes clear -- while enjoying the period details on the way by.

Next on the reading list? Laurie R. King's latest installment in the Mary Russell/Sherlock Holmes series, of course (The God of the Hive) and Patricia Briggs' latest Mercy Thompson novel (Silver Borne). Not to mention (ahem) the more serious, scholarly reading that will likely come up in the process of drafting my thesis. Wahey! More books: here we come!

in which I write letters: dear alma mater

Today, the Board of Trustees at my alma mater (Hope College) convenes for its spring meeting. On the agenda is the Insitutional Statement on Homosexuality (PDF), written by the college president in 1995 and formally adopted by the board in 2001. The statement basically affirms the position of the Reformed Church in America which condemns homosexual "acts" while "affirming the responsibility of Christians to be fair to and accepting of persons with a homosexual orientation" (yeah, don't ask; I'm not sure how they expect anyone to actually carry this off).

Anyway, the Hope LGBT Alumni Association called on folks to write the Board a personal letter opposing the statement and calling for its repeal. And because I enjoy writing letters and welcome any opportunity to get up on my soapbox and declaim on issues near and dear to my heart, I jumped at the chance.

And because it's a shame to share self-righteousness with only the Board of Trustees when you can spread it around the internet, I'm posting it here. I'll let y'all know what happens in the weeks to come!



Anna J. Cook (’05)
XX Xxxxxxxx Xx Xxx #
Allston, MA 02134

16 April 2010

Joel G. Bowens, Chairperson
Hope College Board of Trustees
c/o Office of the President
141 East 12th Street
Holland, MI 49422-9000

To the Board of Trustees:

I am a third generation alumna of Hope College, a 2005 graduate (summa cum laude) in History and Women’s Studies, and daughter of Mark Cook, Director of the Hope-Geneva Bookstore. I was born and grew up in Holland, only blocks away from the Hope campus, and there are many reasons I am proud to recognize Hope College as part of my heritage.

Since I am also a feminist and in a committed relationship with another woman, the college’s Institutional Statement on Homosexuality is not one of them.

As I know that the Board of Trustees plans to review the Institutional Statement on Homosexuality at its May meeting, I would like to take this opportunity to share with you some of my experiences at Hope College as a non-heterosexual student and as someone who believes non-straight sexuality is completely compatible ethical sexual practice.

I started taking classes in the fall of 1998 as a seventeen year old, eager to explore the brave new world of higher learning, creative writing, and political engagement. In the fall of 1998 Hope College hosted a Critical Issues Symposium on “Feminism and Faith” that was, for me, an initiation into a world of scholarship that spoke directly to my values: I was introduced to a community of scholars and theologians who believed deeply in equality, justice, and the glorious chaos of human existence. In the wake of the Symposium, throughout the 1998-1999 academic year, various speakers came to campus to talk about human sexuality. During that time I witnessed first-hand a great deal of hostility, both among students and on an institutional level, to those values of equality and justice and to the acceptance of human diversity.

I thought seriously after that first year about leaving Hope and transferring to a more welcoming campus. To be honest, despite generous tuition benefits, I would probably not have stayed if it had not been for the Women’s Studies faculty who gave me the space to explore the world of human sexuality and human rights without limiting the possibility of sexual morality to heterosexual relationships. I will be forever grateful for that space in which the faculty at Hope encouraged me to develop my scholarship and articulate my values. Yet it was always clear to me that those values were not in line with the beliefs held by those who formulated institutional policy. The stories I hear from family and friends still involved on campus indicate to me that this situation has not materially changed.

As the Board revisits its support of the Institutional Statement on Homosexuality, I urge you to consider the possibility that a same-sex sexual relationship offers us manifold opportunities to bring joy, love, and well-being into the world – as does any sexual relationship between two enthusiastically consenting individuals. I would encourage you to imagine that Hope College’s role as an institution of higher learning, in the context of the Christian faith, could be to encourage its students to explore their sexual values and ethical sexual practices regardless of the gender of those individuals engaged in any particular sexual activity. This, it seems to me, would be a much more life-affirming than to sit in judgment, suggesting that non-straight people who act on their sexual desires, regardless of ethical practices, are unchristian and therefore marginal members of the Hope College community.

I cannot hope that by writing this letter I will be able to persuade any of you, single-handedly, that non-straight sexual intimacy is no more or less sinful than heterosexual sex. Nor can I claim to understand the myriad pressures that are brought to bear on the Board of Trustees by certain stakeholders to reaffirm the condemnation of a certain proportion of its student, faculty, staff, and alumni population (not to mention their families and friends) for the nature of their love relationships and sexual practices.

Speaking for myself, however, I would like to make it clear to the Board that unless the atmosphere at Hope regarding human sexuality demonstrably improves, I will not support the college as an institution, financially or otherwise. I was clear about that upon graduation, and I am even clearer about that now. I will not support an institution that does not recognize the legitimacy of my primary relationship and continues to create a hostile environment for faculty, staff, and students who are not straight or do not believe that non-straight sexuality is immoral. This makes me sad, since some of the most dedicated faculty and highest-quality teaching I have ever encountered have been at Hope College. However, in the end I am unwilling to support the institutional marginalization of some in the Hope community just for whom they have fallen in love, or share sexual intimacy, with.

To tell any person that being sexual and making positive, fully consensual, sexually intimate connections with another human being is destructive to their spiritual well-being is, in my opinion, an act of violence. To codify such a belief as an institutional statement makes it even more destructive, as it is amplified by the position of authority a college administration holds over its students and employees. I believe such an act of violence runs counter to the Christian message of increasing joy, love, and wholeness in the world.

Ultimately, you may well choose to uphold the current institutional policy. However, it is my hope that before you do, you reckon with the pain and alienation you have caused (and will continue to cause) some within the Hope College community by doing so.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,

Anna Jane Cook
Allston, MA

^{*image: Hope College Arch, made available through the public relations office website.}