While sitting in the drive thru at Jack-in-the-Box:
B2: "Mom, guess what?"
Me: "What?"
B2: "Daddy thinks you're a special girl."
Awwww.
B2: "Mom, guess what?"
Me: "What?"
B2: "Daddy thinks you're a special girl."
Awwww.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
The Tolerance Debate
An article was recently written in one of our local papers titled "Can Modesty and Tolerance Coexist?" I didn't bother commenting on the article, because those message boards are full of bad spelling and grammar and angry, rude people. However, I haven't been able to let this question out of mind. So, I'd like to write this down. Maybe by the time my kids are older and modesty becomes more of an issue (or tolerance, for that matter), my opinions will have changed. But, this is what I believe.
The author's debate in this article is summed up by one of her final sentences: "How do I teach my kids to dress modestly but to also be kind, accepting and tolerant toward others?" I believe the author is asking a genuine question, which first of all must mean that she does not believe modesty and "tolerance" to be mutually exclusive concepts (despite the title of the article). Otherwise, her question would have read "Is it even possible to teach my kids to dress modestly AND to also be kind, accepting and tolerant toward others" instead of "How do I do it?"
Any time a discussion arises on the idea of "tolerance," I cringe. The biggest problem with tolerance is the variation definitions of the word. For example, dictionary.com lists the following as possible definitions for tolerance:
So, when you are asking for tolerance with modesty, what are you asking for? How do you define "permissive attitude"? Often, when you hear a group demanding tolerance, what they really want is for the opposing group to agree that they are perfectly right. Take, for example, the current gay marriage debate. The LGBT community not only wants equal rights regarding housing and hospital visitation rights (which I believe the majority of people agree with), but also wants all religions to change their dogma to state that homosexuality is not a sin, and wants all scientists to affirm that homosexuality is a biological and unchangeable facet. It's not enough to be respected as contributing members of society; they want schools to have special emphasis placed on contributions made by members of the LGBT community. Essentially, they not only want the same legal protections as everyone else, but they also want everyone else to change their opinion and admit that they are the only right ones.
As a contrast, let's take a largely non-argumentative group like vegetarians. (Yes, I'm sure there are probably argumentative vegetarians, but as a whole you don't see them picketing slaughterhouses and grocery stores demanding tolerance, and the argument between a vegetarian/carnivore diet is hardly as highly-charged as the gay marriage debate.) Vegetarians expect a certain level of respect given to them by their friends and neighbors. That level of respect, or level of tolerance, would include not sneaking meat products into their food or rubbing hamburgers on their faces. They do not expect that all meat-eaters will admit that eating meat is unhealthy or immoral or devil worship; they do not expect the government to shut down all meat-producing services and destroy all meat products. They don't insist that we all give pigs kisses on the snout. They will, however, express their opinions about eating meat (hopefully in kind, considerate ways, and not by throwing pig entrails onto someone's plate). Likewise, meat eaters can appreciate that vegetarians don't eat meat, and be considerate by not bringing out meat plates at dinner when they have been invited over or making sure that there are plenty of vegetarian entrees at a neighborhood BBQ. And, perhaps, each side will engage the other in friendly discussions of why it's good to eat meat or why it's good not to eat meat, and everyone leaves the conversation happy, even if no opinions have been changed and no one converted to the other side. And then we all hold hands and sing songs while the sun sets and a double rainbow spans the sky. Perfect scenario, right? What does this have to do with modesty? I'll come back to this later.
So, back to the article. The crux of the author's debate for modesty v. tolerance is illustrated by two personal stories. First, a story from when she was in high school. To fully understand this story, you must understand a bit about the culture in which this author was raised. In her community, the major religion was practiced by roughly 93% of the community (source). This religion has a strong emphasis on modesty, which is defined (for women) as keeping shoulders and stomachs covered; not wearing low cut shirts or short shorts or skirts; and not wearing clothing that is too tight or otherwise revealing and sexually suggestive. This post is not to debate whether these standards of modesty are appropriate or old fashioned; I am simply describing the culture in which her story took place. So, the author is in high school and attending a formal dance. She picked out a dress that, in her words, "wasn't bad, revealing … nothing of the sort"; nevertheless, it was strapless, which was considered immodest in her culture. Some members of her group (both boys and girls) laughed, pointing fingers, and said, "We took bets to see who would be dressed immodestly, and you were the one we picked."
The author writes, "I felt so small the rest of the night. I wasn't embarrassed or ashamed of what I was wearing. It wasn't bad, revealing … nothing of the sort. What was said to me, however, made me feel worthless and dirty."
Fast forward, and now the author is a mother of both sons and daughters. She writes:
So, here's my answer: Yes, but it depends on your expectation of "tolerance."
Tolerance does not mean you do not have the right to your own opinion and that you have to accept that someone else's opinion is more right than yours. In my vegetarian example above, if you are a meat-eater, being tolerant of a vegetarian does not mean that you have to give up meat yourself, or that you have to acknowledge that living a vegetarian lifestyle is "higher" (healthier, smarter, more moral, etc.) than living a carnivorous lifestyle. Likewise, dressing to a specific standard of modesty does not mean that you have to acknowledge that those who don't adhere to the same standards are more free and happier than those who do. And, if you are one who has a looser definition of modesty (or don't care about modesty at all), you don't have to acknowledge that dressing with your thighs and shoulders always covered is a better way of doing things and that you are a better person for not being bound by such an old-fashioned system.
I think, as a whole, our society is generally there. Yes, I was teased in Jr High for wearing shorts that went to my knees and for wearing shirts with sleeves in the 110 degree summers. But you know what? We were kids! I'd like to meet just one person (who wasn't home schooled) who went through his/her Jr and High school careers NOT being teased for something he/she believed in, whether that be his/her religion, the honors classes he/she was taking, the clubs he/she joined, the sports he/she played (or didn't play), or something else. I had my best friend tell me once that I wasn't funny--no one thought I was funny, and I should just stop trying to be funny. Did I go on a rant about how she should have been tolerant of my brand of humor? No. I cried, avoided her for a few days, and then everything went back to normal. Nearly 20 years later, we are still friends. My point is my story, and hers, are not as much examples of intolerance as they are examples of kids being mean, either because they intend to be mean or because they did it unintentionally. Does that excuse rude behavior? No, but this instead becomes a discussion on teaching our children to be kind and considerate and less a discussion on tolerance.
Now, here's the tough pill to swallow with tolerance. Tolerance to someone else's opinion goes both ways. Just as vegetarians have the right to talk about their diets with carnivores, carnivores have the right to enjoy their meat and talk about their diets to vegetarians. This means, as a religious person, I should be able to express my religious views just as much as the atheists can express theirs. Those who advocate refusing religious people to speak about their religion (trying to eliminate the ability to have prayers in school or to mention God in a classroom) are not spreading tolerance, but instead the opposite. Refusing to allow someone to discuss their beliefs is intolerance. So, back to the high school story--is the group's expression of the author's state of modesty tolerant? The manner in which is was said was rude (or, at least, taken to be rude, and reported as such), but those girls had just as much of a right to express their beliefs about what is modest as the author had in picking and wearing her dress. And, had she replied that she felt her dress was well within her modesty standards, she would have had that right as well.
Now, here's what I really hate about tolerance discussions--they are so self-centered. When discussing tolerance, we are mostly concerned with what WE can do, how WE are perceived, and what rights WE have. Rather than focusing on tolerance, and ourselves, I would instead argue that we should focus outward. How our actions are affecting those around us, and how we can make life better for them. As mentioned in my vegetarian example, rather than simply "tolerating" the vegetarians, carnivores can go out of their way to make life easier for them. If the neighborhood had a block party and is grilling hamburgers, a nice gesture would be to make sure there are plenty of vegetarian entrees and sides for those neighbors who don't eat meat. Or, they could plan a completely vegetarian BBQ, complete with veggie burgers. This is more than tolerance--this is loving your fellow man. And this ought to be our focus for teaching our children.
Likewise, when we are sitting around demanding tolerance for our actions, we fail to notice how our actions affect those around us. Example 1: you are a parent of young children and you go to the neighborhood park. After a few minutes, you hear a group of adults swearing like sailors within hearing range of the playground where your children are playing. You go over and nicely ask if they will refrain from swearing while around the children. Now, stop, and put yourself in the swearing group's place. You have two choices--you can demand tolerance for your behavior, citing your First Amendment right to the protection of free speech, and tell that mom where she can stick it, or you can accept that your language might have unwanted consequences on the children around you, and stop.
Example 2: You are one of those lucky women who have very high metabolisms. You can eat whatever you want, you've never dieted a day in your life, and you're still a size 2. Your best friend is not so lucky. She struggles with her weight, and the medications she's on only worsen the problem. She's been trying to eat healthy and exercise regularly, and she's down 10 pounds. Her favorite food (before the diet) is chocolate cake--it's been her favorite since she was a kid, and she's always struggled to resist it or keep her portion size small. Knowing this, what do you do? Do you demand that she tolerate your high metabolism and let you eat whatever you want, even in front of her, or do you be understanding of her plight and leave your chocolate cake at home, well out of sight, so as to not make her diet any harder than it needs to be?
Example 3: You are a smoker. Your best friend was also a smoker, but she quit recently. It's been very hard for her, but she's happy she's done it. You currently have no desire nor intention to quit smoking. When the two of you get together, do you smoke around her, even blowing smoke into her face, and demanding tolerance for your habit? After all, she's so high and mighty now that she's quit. Or, do you acknowledge her struggle, and not smoke around her, going to your car or some place else to spare her that temptation?
As a society, we have spent so much time focusing on ourselves--our own needs, our own desires, our own wants, and how we are perceived by others--that we fail to recognize, or simply don't care, that our attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs influence those around us, for good or for bad. Just because we have the "right" to do it does not mean we should. Now, we will all differ on what is in the best interest of society. As a religious person, I have my beliefs, but I know there are many who do not believe that prayer and stronger family units will solve any problems. But, as a member of society, I believe that I should encourage people to do what is right, what is good for society, and what is of high moral ground. They can choose not to agree with me, but I believe I would be doing a disservice to them by keeping quiet. Jessica Rey, an actress and swimwear designer, recently gave a speech encouraging women to ditch the bikinis and dress more modestly. She mentioned some studies in which men saw women in bikinis and the portion of their brains that registered tool use lit up. The video doesn't cite her sources, so it's hard to know how valid or well-executed this study was. However, the point is that Jessica Rey believes that modesty is good for humankind. Likewise, as my husband and male coworkers have frequently commented, it's very difficult for men to keep their thoughts from straying to un-virtuous, unholy thoughts when women are dressed immodestly. (See chart below--not to scale)
So, like the cake example or the smoker example above, the considerate thing to do for those men who are trying to keep their thoughts clean would be to dress modestly around them. That's not to say that you have to be covered head to toe, not showing any skin. Nor does that mean you are responsible if they choose to let their thoughts wonder in inappropriate ways, or they choose to act immorally based on those thoughts. But, you do have a choice--you can choose to demand tolerance, or you can choose to make someone's struggle a little easier by not wearing a skirt so short that it shows half your butt when you bend over. (And, as a woman married to a man, I appreciate those who do dress more modestly; I don't want my husband thinking about anyone's naked parts but mine.) :)
So, back to her question--"How do I teach my kids to dress modestly but to also be kind, accepting and tolerant toward others?" Well, first, you teach them your standards, unapologetically. Hopefully said discussion also includes the impact our behaviors have on other people, and how modesty is not only a reflection of your respect for your God-given body, and a respect for your God who asked you to dress so, but also a discussion of the struggles that men have with visual stimuli and how modesty is a selfless act to help make their lives a little easier. Second, you teach them to always look for the best in others, regardless of their similarities or differences to you. Third, you teach them high moral standards with how they treat others. Tolerance is no longer an issue when you are kind and considerate.
That's my two cents.
The author's debate in this article is summed up by one of her final sentences: "How do I teach my kids to dress modestly but to also be kind, accepting and tolerant toward others?" I believe the author is asking a genuine question, which first of all must mean that she does not believe modesty and "tolerance" to be mutually exclusive concepts (despite the title of the article). Otherwise, her question would have read "Is it even possible to teach my kids to dress modestly AND to also be kind, accepting and tolerant toward others" instead of "How do I do it?"
Any time a discussion arises on the idea of "tolerance," I cringe. The biggest problem with tolerance is the variation definitions of the word. For example, dictionary.com lists the following as possible definitions for tolerance:
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.
So, when you are asking for tolerance with modesty, what are you asking for? How do you define "permissive attitude"? Often, when you hear a group demanding tolerance, what they really want is for the opposing group to agree that they are perfectly right. Take, for example, the current gay marriage debate. The LGBT community not only wants equal rights regarding housing and hospital visitation rights (which I believe the majority of people agree with), but also wants all religions to change their dogma to state that homosexuality is not a sin, and wants all scientists to affirm that homosexuality is a biological and unchangeable facet. It's not enough to be respected as contributing members of society; they want schools to have special emphasis placed on contributions made by members of the LGBT community. Essentially, they not only want the same legal protections as everyone else, but they also want everyone else to change their opinion and admit that they are the only right ones.
As a contrast, let's take a largely non-argumentative group like vegetarians. (Yes, I'm sure there are probably argumentative vegetarians, but as a whole you don't see them picketing slaughterhouses and grocery stores demanding tolerance, and the argument between a vegetarian/carnivore diet is hardly as highly-charged as the gay marriage debate.) Vegetarians expect a certain level of respect given to them by their friends and neighbors. That level of respect, or level of tolerance, would include not sneaking meat products into their food or rubbing hamburgers on their faces. They do not expect that all meat-eaters will admit that eating meat is unhealthy or immoral or devil worship; they do not expect the government to shut down all meat-producing services and destroy all meat products. They don't insist that we all give pigs kisses on the snout. They will, however, express their opinions about eating meat (hopefully in kind, considerate ways, and not by throwing pig entrails onto someone's plate). Likewise, meat eaters can appreciate that vegetarians don't eat meat, and be considerate by not bringing out meat plates at dinner when they have been invited over or making sure that there are plenty of vegetarian entrees at a neighborhood BBQ. And, perhaps, each side will engage the other in friendly discussions of why it's good to eat meat or why it's good not to eat meat, and everyone leaves the conversation happy, even if no opinions have been changed and no one converted to the other side. And then we all hold hands and sing songs while the sun sets and a double rainbow spans the sky. Perfect scenario, right? What does this have to do with modesty? I'll come back to this later.
So, back to the article. The crux of the author's debate for modesty v. tolerance is illustrated by two personal stories. First, a story from when she was in high school. To fully understand this story, you must understand a bit about the culture in which this author was raised. In her community, the major religion was practiced by roughly 93% of the community (source). This religion has a strong emphasis on modesty, which is defined (for women) as keeping shoulders and stomachs covered; not wearing low cut shirts or short shorts or skirts; and not wearing clothing that is too tight or otherwise revealing and sexually suggestive. This post is not to debate whether these standards of modesty are appropriate or old fashioned; I am simply describing the culture in which her story took place. So, the author is in high school and attending a formal dance. She picked out a dress that, in her words, "wasn't bad, revealing … nothing of the sort"; nevertheless, it was strapless, which was considered immodest in her culture. Some members of her group (both boys and girls) laughed, pointing fingers, and said, "We took bets to see who would be dressed immodestly, and you were the one we picked."
The author writes, "I felt so small the rest of the night. I wasn't embarrassed or ashamed of what I was wearing. It wasn't bad, revealing … nothing of the sort. What was said to me, however, made me feel worthless and dirty."
Fast forward, and now the author is a mother of both sons and daughters. She writes:
"I look at teenage girls dressing in clothes that I don't want my daughters wearing. I find myself watching television with both my sons and daughters when Victoria's Secret commercials showing women dressed in almost nothing come on the screen.So, this becomes the basis for her article. In one case, she was treated meanly because she was not dressed "modestly," but as a mother she wants to teach her children the same standards of the culture in which she was raised. And so, she raises the question--is it possible to teach your child one thing and still have them be tolerant of those with different beliefs.
In both instances, my instinct is to turn their heads away from it all, or in the case of the Victoria's Secret models, turn off the TV or run in front of it so that I can block what I don't think is appropriate for their little eyes. However, this does nothing other than to pique their interest more — 'What is mom hiding?' — and/or make them look at those girls and think that they are 'bad.' Neither of these reactions are going to illicit a positive result, let alone one that I intended."
So, here's my answer: Yes, but it depends on your expectation of "tolerance."
Tolerance does not mean you do not have the right to your own opinion and that you have to accept that someone else's opinion is more right than yours. In my vegetarian example above, if you are a meat-eater, being tolerant of a vegetarian does not mean that you have to give up meat yourself, or that you have to acknowledge that living a vegetarian lifestyle is "higher" (healthier, smarter, more moral, etc.) than living a carnivorous lifestyle. Likewise, dressing to a specific standard of modesty does not mean that you have to acknowledge that those who don't adhere to the same standards are more free and happier than those who do. And, if you are one who has a looser definition of modesty (or don't care about modesty at all), you don't have to acknowledge that dressing with your thighs and shoulders always covered is a better way of doing things and that you are a better person for not being bound by such an old-fashioned system.
I think, as a whole, our society is generally there. Yes, I was teased in Jr High for wearing shorts that went to my knees and for wearing shirts with sleeves in the 110 degree summers. But you know what? We were kids! I'd like to meet just one person (who wasn't home schooled) who went through his/her Jr and High school careers NOT being teased for something he/she believed in, whether that be his/her religion, the honors classes he/she was taking, the clubs he/she joined, the sports he/she played (or didn't play), or something else. I had my best friend tell me once that I wasn't funny--no one thought I was funny, and I should just stop trying to be funny. Did I go on a rant about how she should have been tolerant of my brand of humor? No. I cried, avoided her for a few days, and then everything went back to normal. Nearly 20 years later, we are still friends. My point is my story, and hers, are not as much examples of intolerance as they are examples of kids being mean, either because they intend to be mean or because they did it unintentionally. Does that excuse rude behavior? No, but this instead becomes a discussion on teaching our children to be kind and considerate and less a discussion on tolerance.
Now, here's the tough pill to swallow with tolerance. Tolerance to someone else's opinion goes both ways. Just as vegetarians have the right to talk about their diets with carnivores, carnivores have the right to enjoy their meat and talk about their diets to vegetarians. This means, as a religious person, I should be able to express my religious views just as much as the atheists can express theirs. Those who advocate refusing religious people to speak about their religion (trying to eliminate the ability to have prayers in school or to mention God in a classroom) are not spreading tolerance, but instead the opposite. Refusing to allow someone to discuss their beliefs is intolerance. So, back to the high school story--is the group's expression of the author's state of modesty tolerant? The manner in which is was said was rude (or, at least, taken to be rude, and reported as such), but those girls had just as much of a right to express their beliefs about what is modest as the author had in picking and wearing her dress. And, had she replied that she felt her dress was well within her modesty standards, she would have had that right as well.
Now, here's what I really hate about tolerance discussions--they are so self-centered. When discussing tolerance, we are mostly concerned with what WE can do, how WE are perceived, and what rights WE have. Rather than focusing on tolerance, and ourselves, I would instead argue that we should focus outward. How our actions are affecting those around us, and how we can make life better for them. As mentioned in my vegetarian example, rather than simply "tolerating" the vegetarians, carnivores can go out of their way to make life easier for them. If the neighborhood had a block party and is grilling hamburgers, a nice gesture would be to make sure there are plenty of vegetarian entrees and sides for those neighbors who don't eat meat. Or, they could plan a completely vegetarian BBQ, complete with veggie burgers. This is more than tolerance--this is loving your fellow man. And this ought to be our focus for teaching our children.
Likewise, when we are sitting around demanding tolerance for our actions, we fail to notice how our actions affect those around us. Example 1: you are a parent of young children and you go to the neighborhood park. After a few minutes, you hear a group of adults swearing like sailors within hearing range of the playground where your children are playing. You go over and nicely ask if they will refrain from swearing while around the children. Now, stop, and put yourself in the swearing group's place. You have two choices--you can demand tolerance for your behavior, citing your First Amendment right to the protection of free speech, and tell that mom where she can stick it, or you can accept that your language might have unwanted consequences on the children around you, and stop.
Example 2: You are one of those lucky women who have very high metabolisms. You can eat whatever you want, you've never dieted a day in your life, and you're still a size 2. Your best friend is not so lucky. She struggles with her weight, and the medications she's on only worsen the problem. She's been trying to eat healthy and exercise regularly, and she's down 10 pounds. Her favorite food (before the diet) is chocolate cake--it's been her favorite since she was a kid, and she's always struggled to resist it or keep her portion size small. Knowing this, what do you do? Do you demand that she tolerate your high metabolism and let you eat whatever you want, even in front of her, or do you be understanding of her plight and leave your chocolate cake at home, well out of sight, so as to not make her diet any harder than it needs to be?
Example 3: You are a smoker. Your best friend was also a smoker, but she quit recently. It's been very hard for her, but she's happy she's done it. You currently have no desire nor intention to quit smoking. When the two of you get together, do you smoke around her, even blowing smoke into her face, and demanding tolerance for your habit? After all, she's so high and mighty now that she's quit. Or, do you acknowledge her struggle, and not smoke around her, going to your car or some place else to spare her that temptation?
As a society, we have spent so much time focusing on ourselves--our own needs, our own desires, our own wants, and how we are perceived by others--that we fail to recognize, or simply don't care, that our attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs influence those around us, for good or for bad. Just because we have the "right" to do it does not mean we should. Now, we will all differ on what is in the best interest of society. As a religious person, I have my beliefs, but I know there are many who do not believe that prayer and stronger family units will solve any problems. But, as a member of society, I believe that I should encourage people to do what is right, what is good for society, and what is of high moral ground. They can choose not to agree with me, but I believe I would be doing a disservice to them by keeping quiet. Jessica Rey, an actress and swimwear designer, recently gave a speech encouraging women to ditch the bikinis and dress more modestly. She mentioned some studies in which men saw women in bikinis and the portion of their brains that registered tool use lit up. The video doesn't cite her sources, so it's hard to know how valid or well-executed this study was. However, the point is that Jessica Rey believes that modesty is good for humankind. Likewise, as my husband and male coworkers have frequently commented, it's very difficult for men to keep their thoughts from straying to un-virtuous, unholy thoughts when women are dressed immodestly. (See chart below--not to scale)
("As [modesty] goes up, [unholy thoughts] goes down. See, I made a graph. I make a lot of graphs."--Lisa Simpson)
So, like the cake example or the smoker example above, the considerate thing to do for those men who are trying to keep their thoughts clean would be to dress modestly around them. That's not to say that you have to be covered head to toe, not showing any skin. Nor does that mean you are responsible if they choose to let their thoughts wonder in inappropriate ways, or they choose to act immorally based on those thoughts. But, you do have a choice--you can choose to demand tolerance, or you can choose to make someone's struggle a little easier by not wearing a skirt so short that it shows half your butt when you bend over. (And, as a woman married to a man, I appreciate those who do dress more modestly; I don't want my husband thinking about anyone's naked parts but mine.) :)
So, back to her question--"How do I teach my kids to dress modestly but to also be kind, accepting and tolerant toward others?" Well, first, you teach them your standards, unapologetically. Hopefully said discussion also includes the impact our behaviors have on other people, and how modesty is not only a reflection of your respect for your God-given body, and a respect for your God who asked you to dress so, but also a discussion of the struggles that men have with visual stimuli and how modesty is a selfless act to help make their lives a little easier. Second, you teach them to always look for the best in others, regardless of their similarities or differences to you. Third, you teach them high moral standards with how they treat others. Tolerance is no longer an issue when you are kind and considerate.
That's my two cents.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
.0625
.0625
What's .0625, you ask? It's the probability of having four boys in a row.*
I guess we'll know soon which way the odds go for us.
(And, to answer the question now, no, I don't have a preference either way.)
*[Of course, that's assuming a baby's sex is entirely random. I'm not going to get into that debate.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)