A Matter of Modesty and Male Responsibility

               I recently reposted a video of Jessica Rey (of Rey Swimwear) giving a nine minute talk on why women should dress more modestly (YouTube link is below).  About 4 minutes and 20 seconds into this video she mentions a Princeton University study indicating that men’s brains may be the cause of their animalistic reactions when viewing bikini-clad women.  A red flag immediately went up in my brain.  While trying to sell her line of modest beachwear, was she suggesting that women have a responsibility not to trigger natural reactions from men?  Or, was she suggesting that women are actually at fault when men behave badly after viewing a scantily clad woman?

                I decided to repost the video and see what kinds of comments my Facebook friends would make.  Being one who enjoys a good discussion and even an occasional argument, I was quite disappointed in at least four of my friends.  Nobody made any comments at all.  That, in itself, leads me to think it was not well-received by them.  I suspect they, as I often do, refrained from making critical comments out of deference to me, thinking I would be offended.

                I did some internet searching to determine whether or not this study even existed, and if so, what the findings actually were.  Too many people quickly accept whatever they hear or read without asking the most basic questions.  For example, this week I heard a news reporter (he doesn’t rate the title of journalist) report that there is national crime wave involving drug addicts stealing liquid Tide detergent.  A simple look at Snopes.com indicates this assertion is questionable at best.  Yet, it got reported as fact right along with the death of James Gandolfini and the firing of George Zimmer (who another reported referred to as George Zimmerman).  I am a self-proclaimed skeptic.  Some have accused me of being a cynic.  Maybe occasionally.  So, I found several articles from trustworthy sources that shed a little more light on this study of men’s brains.

                The most complete report I found was in The Daily Princetonian, February 17, 2009 (the link is below).  The very first sentence offered a slightly different perspective than the one Ms. Rey gave in the video, “Some men may view scantily clad women as objects rather than as people, a recent study found.”  Some men may…  That is quite different than, “When men are shown pictures…”  The Princetonian article further states that one of the researchers, Susan Fiske, “said the results indicated that some men may objectify or dehumanize partially clothed women, though further research is needed to confirm these findings” (emphasis added).  These types of words should always warn the reader not to jump to any conclusions the researchers haven’t reached.  This was the part of the study that discovered brain activity in the area associated with tools when the men viewed the pictures of scantily clad women.

                A part of the research not mentioned in the Rey video concerns the fact that the participants were given a survey prior to the experiment.  The men were asked questions designed to determine “how sexist they [were]” (Interesting that these female researchers assumed they would all register someplace on the sexist scale).  The men considered the most sexist not only registered heightened activity in the tool portion of their brains, they also were “least likely to activate a part of the brain associated with thinking about people’s minds and thoughts…”  In other words, they further objectify the scantily clad women, not seeing them as humans with thoughts and intentions.  This lack of activity in this part of the brain has been noted by scientists before when people were shown pictures of homeless people and drug addicts.

                There are at least two ways of interpreting these findings.  One would be to conclude that scantily clad women are responsible for provoking men’s demeaning thoughts and actions.  Researcher Fiske gives some credence to this view, “I think [the study] does relate to the effects of having pornography and sexualized images of women around and in the media because they spill over into how people treat women in general…You have to be aware of the effect of these images on people.  They’re not neutral.  They do have an effect on how people think about other women.”  Fair enough.  She’s drawing a conclusion from her research that is difficult to dispute.  Men are wired in such a way that certain images may, in some of them, necessarily stimulate a particular part of the brain, which results in objectification of the women being viewed.

                Another way of interpreting these findings is to conclude that men may have to work harder at overcoming certain innate urges.  Nowhere in this article are men let off the hook for their behavior.  Society’s emphasis on sexualized female imagery is identified as the cause of the brain activity, but it was not determined that as a result men had no choice but to dwell on the images, continue to objectify and fantasize, and behave in an inappropriate manner.  Remember, only “some” men “may” view scantily clad women as objects.  And only those already deemed “most sexist” experienced the additional phenomenon of the lack of brain activity area associated with thinking about people’s minds and thoughts.  This indicates to me that the men’s brain responses may have been initiated by their predisposition to thinking about women as sex objects, not necessarily the other way around.

                An important observation is necessary here.  While certainly related, there is a huge difference between being hardwired for sexual activity and making a choice to treat women as sex objects.  Of course men’s brains are stimulated by observing scantily clad women.  That should come as no surprise to anyone.  But this is not license to demean, degrade, misuse or abuse women.  We humans are hardwired for all sorts of actions that most of us believe need to be subordinated to our codes of morals, ethics, and spiritual imperatives.  If a specific area of my brain informs me I am hungry, I don’t just grab whatever food is handy and stuff it down my throat.  Stealing someone else’s food has legal, social, moral, ethical and spiritual consequences that must be weighed before taking any action.  So does attacking someone when I feel threatened, or lying in order to get ahead at work.  Recognizing the sexual urge, then, does not require fulfilling that urge through means unacceptable to those norms by which we live.  The Princeton study does not give us men a free pass due to our biological and chemical wiring.  We still have the capacity to think, reason, and love.  Call it a spirit or a soul or just a conscience.  It can and should be more powerful than any basic instincts imbedded in our brains.

                Here’s another part of the study Ms. Rey doesn’t mention.  One of the researchers, Mina Cikara, stated, “This research can certainly help to further our understanding of the effect of sexualized women, whether in adverstizing or in the office…men can totally override this response.”  She notes that men don’t look at all women the way they look at those they have objectified.  They don’t look at their wives or sisters, for instance, in the same way as they do the centerfold.

                I am certain there are those who would like very much to somehow invalidate this study and any implication that men and women are different, or that men are constructed in such a way that sexualizing women comes naturally.  I honestly thought some of my Facebook friends would express those thoughts and feelings.  The truth, however, is that this study validates what many have been saying for quite some time.  The male human nature encourages some basic instincts that are different from those that women experience.  It is, therefore, more difficult for men to conquer certain urges.  But difficult is not impossible.  Difficult is not an excuse for being lazy and flowing with the urges. 

                Women who want men to view them as individual, thinking, feeling human beings worthy of respect and compassion should carefully consider how they dress before leaving their houses.  They should understand how the male brain works, and have some compassion on their male counterparts.  In fact, it is in their best interests to do what they can to de-sexualize our society’s view of women.  Women who disarm that tool section of a man’s brain and stimulate that part that views them as thoughtful, will find a man who may actually exhibit some fine qualities.  But regardless of women’s behaviors, men must recognize they are more than the sum of the chemical reactions in various parts of their brains.  They are not only physical, but social, intellectual and spiritual beings capable of and having a responsibility to answer to a much higher calling.

                By the way, the Princeton researchers also pondered how women’s brains might have responded in a similar study.  They agreed the findings would probably be close to what they found with men.  The only difference would be that those same parts of their brains would likely light up if the pictures of scantily clad men included status symbols like expensive cars. 

               

Major portions of this article quoted from The Daily Princetonian http://dailyprincetonian.com/2009/02/17/22773/

The Youtube video of Jessica Rey, The Evolution of the Swimsuit can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJVHRJbgLz8

Loud Talking Theories

                Loud talkers.  It’s difficult to avoid them.  They often mean well, but just can’t control those loud voices.  I encountered two of them this past weekend.  I am ready to offer two theories about why their voices are so annoying.

                We hauled our little travel trailer up to Silver Lake for the weekend.  We found a beautiful sot on the farthest loop, and settled into the fir and pine tree forest.  The sky was incredibly blue, the air crisp, and the sounds of nature relaxing.  I set up my chair in a bit of shade and just leaned back and took in my surroundings.  Then I heard it.  The couple next to us had a small travel trailer about 100 feet away.  They were standing maybe five feet from each other having a conversation about someone else.  I would not have known the topic of discussion had I depended on the woman’s voice alone.  I could tell she was talking, but I would have had to concentrate to make out what she was saying.  The man, on the other hand, was easy to understand without out trying at all.  In fact, I was so disinterested in what he was saying that I tried hard to ignore him.  I couldn’t.  It was as though he was standing six feet from me instead of 100 feet.

                Later in the day a few friends or relatives of theirs arrived.  They talked a lot, and loudly, as friends do in those kinds of circumstances, greeting one another, kidding around, catching up on each others’ lives.  But one man’s voice stood out.  Once the initial louder-than-normal conversations subsided, their voices faded to that kind of low humming that indicates speech but which is too imprecise to discern the actual words.  Except for that one man.  Every word was a clear as Silver Lake on a windless day.  Then it hit me.  It wasn’t just the volume of the man’s voice that made it stand out from all the others.  There was a tone I can’t describe, but which I associate with the resonance of the peel of a bell that can be heard for miles.  It’s that tone, along with a cranked up volume, that was making this camping neighbor so clearly understood from so far away.  If I was going to be tone deaf, I’d like to choose that tone.

                My second encounter was Sunday at the River Cats game.  What a great way to spend a Father’s Day!  My son, his wife, their two oldest children and I arrived at the front gate at 1:05 P.M.  Being a punctual organization, the national anthem was just beginning.  I couldn’t hear the singer, but the big screen in center field was visible, as were the words displayed on that screen.  The line had stopped.  That’s one of the many aspects of attending River Cats’ games I enjoy the most.  When the Star Spangled Banner begins, everything else stops.  I mean everything.  I once was in the middle of purchasing a hot dog and soda, but the cashier would not complete the transaction until the last note has been sung.  And the ticket takers stop taking tickets.

                We walked inside and headed for our seats in section 113, almost directly behind home plate and about twenty rows from the top.  “LEMONADE!  ICE COLD LEMMMONNNAAAADE HERE!”  I don’t care what they’re selling.  I just love the sound of it.  I don’t normally enjoy being in a crowd, but there is something different about a baseball crowd.  The announcer’s voice is easily heard above the happy voices of thousands of fans.  The children look around in awe, some clutching their baseball gloves, sure they will be going home with a foul ball that landed in their mitt.  It was a sunny day, the temperature pushing 90, and not a breeze to be felt.  The smell of sunscreen almost, but not quite, overwhelmed the aroma of garlic fries and beer. 

                We settled into our seats and watched as the red shirted River Cats pitcher hurled that white orb  past the Tacoma batters.  It wasn’t long before the Cats were up.  The first batter was announced and then the beginnings of a song he had chosen were played as he sauntered to the batter’s box.  He used his right shoe as a kind of shovel to dig into the red dirt.  He got into his customary crouch, his bat raised a little over his right shoulder.  Then it happened.  “LET’S GOOOOOOOO!  C’MON RIVER CAAAAAAAAAATTTTTS!”  It was definitely a woman’s voice, but with more gravel in it than one would expect.  That was just the beginning.  Just the first inning.  At first, we all thought it was kind of cute.  Just another bit of Americana at a ballpark that defines the term.  But by the fifth inning, it had lost most of its appeal.  I turned around, scanning the stands to find the owner of that huge voice.  I didn’t see any likely prospects, and as soon as I turned my attention to the game again, she let loose with another, “LET’S GOOOOO, RIIIIIVERRRRR CAAAAAATTTS!”  The man behind me could see that I was trying to find the enthusiastic fan.  “She’s sitting next to the guy in the yellow Hawaiian shirt.  Not what you would expect for that voice.”  Sure enough, this time I watched the petite blond bellow her admonition to the next batter.

                I have already attributed an indescribable tone to the loud talking campground man, theorizing that the tone along with the volume was what made him a loud talker.  I have a different theory about the River Cats woman.  With her it was volume and beer.  You see, I realized the reason we thought she was more irritating as the innings passed was because she was.  What began as baseball fan behavior, slowly degenerated into inebriated baseball fan obnoxious behavior.

                It was still a wonderful weekend, canoeing, playing games, reading, roasting marsh mellows, and watching the River Cats beat Tacoma, all with some of the people I love the most.  I would shout that out like the man and woman who were a part of my weekend, by typing in all caps, but I have already overused that symbolism, and I don’t want to annoy you any more than necessary.

They Talk Funny!

            There is a set of maps making the rounds on Facebook that are pretty interesting.  Joshua

Katz, from the Department of Statistics at North Carolina State University figured out a way to show graphically some of the basic differences in the way Americans speak the English language.  At least one of the 22 maps is a statement of the obvious.  People in the southern states say, “Y’all” while the rest of us say, “You” or “You all.”  Well, that one certainly is no great revelation.  But some of the others may be news to many.

            I found these maps particularly interesting as they show differences between the two primary places where I grew up.  I spent the first eleven years of my life in Syracuse, New York.  My next ten years were spent largely in Southern California.  I still remember my first year in California and the way kids made fun of the way I spoke.  They, for instance, claimed I was pronouncing the word fog like the word frog, and that I was putting the accent on the wrong syllable when I spoke the word downtown.  And one of them looked at me funny when I mentioned the davenport in the living room.  I never thought any of them spoke with any kind of an accent.  After living in Southern California for about eight years, I visited Mexico with a group of people.  Upon reentering the state the Border Patrol officer asked me a few questions about where we had been and whether or not we had any fruit in the vehicle, all of which I answered casually.  Then he asked, “What part of New York are you from?”  I was shocked that anyone could tell my origins after so many years.

            As I looked at these maps, I realized that I still pronounce some of those words like a New Yorker (the state, not the city).  Been, crayon and pecan are some examples.  However, I was surprised to see that there is no great difference between the two regions for many of the chosen words.  I guess our world is getting a little smaller.

            My interest in language in general, the fact that I have relatives living in various states, and the fact that I have visited quite a few states, has aided in my awareness of many of the differences pointed out on these maps, and some differences not mentioned.  I was always quite aware that my nieces in Minnesota drank pop, not soda or coke.  They also asked their friends if they, “…want to go with?” not, “…want to go with me?”  I can easily spot a Southern California transplant to the northern part of the state.  All they have to do is refer to I-5 as, “The 5.”  I’m sure there are other tells, but that’s the one that always catches my attention.

            These maps surprise me in one respect.  We Americans can actually understand each other.  We may recognize obvious differences, but we don’t usually have difficulty comprehending others’ speech.  I find this amazing, having visited the United Kingdom.  The UK is slightly smaller in area than the state of California.  Yet the difference in dialects and accents from one end of that country to the other is vast.  There are good, understandable reasons for this, most of which concern politics, social structure, and historical geographic separations.  However, these factors in the U.S. have produced quite a different result.  We may be separated by thousands of miles, but we have, for the most part, always shared common threads and intermingled easily.

            But if you listen carefully, you will hear those differences in your acquaintances’ speech.  Who knows, you may even hear me speaking like a Knickerbocker while sitting on the davenport or heading downtown.

Danger! Our Language is Being Profaned!

                The new neighbors were moving in down the street.  The father could be heard screaming profanity and obscenity at his son, who apparently was not working hard enough or fast enough to suit his father.  The young men walking down the street were not angry; just having a friendly conversation.  Yet, their vocabulary seemed to be limited to words I’d prefer my grandchildren not hear.  The woman on the home improvement show appeared to love the final result of the bedroom makeover as she repeated over and over, “Oh, my God!”

                I remember a time when profanity and obscenity were used mostly in private.  If somebody let something slip in public, they were embarrassed and may have apologized to those in hearing distance.  That time has passed into memory along with the notions of decency and consideration for others’ sensibilities. 

                Last weekend I was talking with an old friend about this topic, specifically concerning the question of why profanity and obscenity are such dangers to society.  Yes, I am calling them dangers.  I will explain, but first let me define some terms.  The word profane is derived from the Latin pro (before) and fanum (temple).  So, something is profane if it is outside the temple, not sacred, common.  Obscenity is a broader term derived from the word for filth or muck.  Profanity, then, includes those terms that were once sacred but are now used in a common manner, and obscenity encompasses all the expressions that most people, even those who use them, consider filthy.  I use the term vulgar to include both.  Vulgar simply means common, as opposed to refined.

                I have always contended that words mean things.  Many people automatically spew words out of their mouths without much accompanying thought.  It doesn’t matter if they are precise in their use of the English language because their listeners aren’t either.  They hear what they want to hear or what they think the person meant to say.  But many of us listen more carefully than that, wishing to understand exactly what is being communicated.  To us, every word matters.  I know I frustrate people who are not precise, because I interpret what they have actually said, not necessarily what they thought they were saying.  I reason that if we don’t consider every word as important, the language will degenerate into a mushy heap of meaningless gibberish.  So, I am concerned about the profaning of the language concerning the respect for people and the worship of God.  Its demeaning effect permeates the whole of society, making every generation more ignorant of the consequences and more debase in their actions.

                I contend that profane and obscene language are dangers to society.  How can words endanger an entire collection of people?  The answer can be summed up in one word, desensitization.  The more a word is used, the more people become desensitized to it.  The more a word is misused, the further removed it becomes to its original meaning.  Let’s start with obscenities.  I will use one particular example, but I am sure you will be able to add others to the list.  Out of concern for the sensibilities of those reading this article, and in keeping with my basic premise, I will not specifically identify the words with which you likely are already familiar.  There was, as I mentioned previously, a time when the so-called “F word” was so offensive to most Americans that even those who used it were very careful to limit its use to their own, known, accepting group of peers.  Today I see it emblazoned on bumper stickers and t-shirts.  I hear it used in public venues like restaurants and parks.  I hear it at events designed to attract children, including parades and amusement parks.  It is shouted on the public sidewalks.

                So what?  Sure, it’s offensive to some people, like me, but what real harm is being done?  First, let’s go back to my premise: The more a word is used, the more people become desensitized to it.  The more a word is misused, the further removed it becomes from its original meaning.  Consider the word I’ve chosen as my example of obscenity.  At its root, it is a word that demeans an act that, at the human level, involves not only an enjoyable physical sensation, but the emotions, the thoughts and interrelations of two people.  This word reduces other humans to objects of one-sided sexual pleasure.  At a spiritual level, it reduces the loving union of a couple who have committed themselves to each other, becoming one with one another, to the level of a couple of dogs gratifying a natural urge without regard for the other’s heart, mind or soul.  Why wouldn’t a young man brought up in a society or subculture that commonly refers to sexual intercourse as nothing more than a physical act believe he is only doing what comes naturally and what is acceptable when he mistreats a young woman?  Why wouldn’t a young woman ignore her innate warnings about getting involved with an irresponsible young man when she has been immersed in the idea that it’s just physical fun?  We are all too aware of the dangers to society when men generally view women as existing to fulfill their base desires.

                Again, this is just one example of obscenity and the ramifications of its accepted use.  There are other words denoting filth that are also used and misused to the point that they have ceased to conjure up their original, repulsive meanings.

                Profanity is particularly damaging, as its overuse and misuse desensitizes people to God and his principles of living and his warnings about eternal consequences of sin.  Damn just doesn’t carry the significance in today’s society that it ought.  Certainly, it is still recognized as a “swear” word.  But how many people, when they hear that word, recognize damnation as a very real danger to mankind?  The same is true about the use of the word hell.  And the repeated profane use of Jesus and God relegates them to something less than real beings.  The immediate response of the hearer eventually becomes no different than when he hears any other profane or obscene word.  Consequently, when the TV watcher hears the excited recipient of a home renovation declare, “Oh, my God!” for the upteenth time, she isn’t prompted to ponder the omnipotence of the God of glory.  Instead, she simply understands that a great emotional response being expressed.  It is just another common (vulgar) word.  This is a danger to the foundational structure of a society based on well-defined morals derived from our Judeo-Christian heritage.  When that foundation is completely eroded, we will be left floating in a river of amoral behaviors, with everyone’s own standards swirling in different directions, eventually being pulled under in a whirlpool of Humanism.

                Finally, the profaning of the language inhibits the acquisition of vocabulary.  Rather than acquiring useful adjectives that actually describe people, places or things in a way that enlightens the listeners and leaves them with word pictures that aid in their understanding of the situation, too many people seem limited a half dozen vulgar words.  As an example, I refer to those who limit themselves to various forms of the “F word.”  An angry driver could describe a situation as follows, “A gentleman obviously impervious to brain damage,  driving a vehicle taken down from the blocks in his front yard way too soon, lurched into my lane without signaling, almost causing me to careen off the road into the lush, green pasture, disrupting the ruminations of several brown bovines serenely chewing their cud.”  Instead, all he is capable of uttering are six nouns preceded by six variations of the “F word,” concluding with an additional “F word” moniker linked to the other driver’s parentage.  This, I believe, is a true sign of an uneducated person, and a danger to our society’s ability to effectively communicate.

                 I will add a short thought about substitutions for profanity and obscenity.  OMG is still Oh, My God.  Heck is still hell.  Shoot and frickin’ are still…well, you get the point.  The effect of profanity and obscenity may be minimized by these substitutions, but the result is still a level of desensitization.  But that’s probably fodder for another meal. 

                
**I wish I had seen this article before writing this blog.  There are some great observations here:  http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/april/what.html