Continued Discussion on "What's Sex Got to Do With it?"

Here are the last few emails on this point, just to jog your memory:

Jeffrey wrote:

I would like to thank Jessica for initiating a frank, considered discussion of the important issues raised on Monday. I would point out that most significant intellectual developments are not produced in isolation. Many of the core tenets of Enlightenment, Romantic, Modernist, and post-Modernist philosophy are the direct result of engaged conversation and debate. I feel enriched for taking part in a genuine exchange of ideas, even if the dialogue won't result in a critical re-interpretation of Romantic ethics.

I don't feel as though I can critique everything written above with due justice, and so I will refrain. Rather, I would like to solicit a response to what I believe is a guiding question behind the arguments. As a church we believe that inherent differences do exist between men and women, and we have fought fiercely to protect these distinctions. (Consider, for example, current Prop 8 legislation in California and the church's campaign against the Equal Right Amendment in the 70s.) Appropriate to our class discussion, it seems as though the church's interpretation of these distinctions is very Romantic. In respect to the intellect, men and women are generally described as equal, but passions and intuitive faculties are often specifically attributed to gender. If fundamental differences do indeed exist, how then do we incorporate these differences into moral judgements? Is it moral to judge men and women by different standards? Is it moral not to?

I'm strongly inclined to quote scriptures about removing beams from eyes, but I want to maintain a philosophical tone rather than a theological one. In lieu of such, I propose the following thoughts. Can a man (or woman) know himself perfectly? Is it possible to school one's feelings so thoroughly as to bring every facet of one's actions into complete control? I contend that the answer to both of these questions is no. If man cannot wholly understand his feelings, then he cannot wholly understand his motivations. Not understanding our motivations, we cannot understand the state of our morality. (Like Kant, I believe motivations are an essential component of morality.) If we cannot understand the morality of our own nature, how can we possibly understand the moral state of those with different natures? I realize I'm opening myself up to a bevy of religious counter-arguments, but think about it. When a bishop is required to judge the morality of another, is it him making the decision, or is it the divine influence in him? Even if it is him himself, do we not believe that he has been given the spiritual gifts necessary to qualify him for such judgments? I believe it is improper to judge men and women by different standards because it is impossible to do so fairly. If we believe that men and women have inherent natures, then we should trust that they will act according to those natures and allow them to do so. That is, after all, what 'nature' means. Instead, we should hold ourselves to the most rigorous standards possible, and expect others to do the same. Thus, when the day of our 'fall' inevitably comes we can stretch out in need and hope for the bracing hand of compassion. We should give no less.

(addendum: this message was written before Jessica posted the above response, but I believe the point is still valid and so will post it anyway. I would like to add my endorsement to things she's written. The subjugation of women to gender-based tyranny is a global problem that requires direct and forceful engagement. If we turn a blind-eye to these issues were are diminishing the entire human race.)

Lindsey wrote:

I think many of the problems we have today are because we are equalizing men and women. Women and men ARE different! Mostly in response to Jeffrey and Will, I say that men do have more of a sex drive than women. They therefore have to work harder to control themselves most of the time. Women sometimes act not out of real passion of hormones like men do--especially in pre-sexual relationships. What is wrong with the church's romantic views? Men are geared to be able to exercise dominion in most cases better than women. Not to say women cannot make decisions or exercise authority, but Men hold the Priesthood. Men are the leaders of the home. They should not be dictators or tyrants at all, however. This equalizing of men and women is what has led to such problems of homosexuality. Men and women are equal, so it doesn't matter what gender you hook up with, right? That is not how it should be under the Lord's laws. Men and women are different with different strengths and weaknesses. Maybe there are not too many gender-specific characteristics, but there are at least a few.I believe therefore that there is also reason behind the double standard of fidelity. I do not think it is right that men should be excused, but it extends back from when women had no rights and men could just take whomever they wanted and it was basically okay. Because men can turn around so easily, as Will stated, and because they usually have stronger hormones, they are excused for promiscuity.

My arguments here are just that everything can be justified from a historical perspective. So what do we do with all this? How do we change the present by understanding the past? How do we stop these trends from continuing?

Tim wrote:

I would just like to comment on a few lines of Jeff's response. First, what he said:
"I believe it is improper to judge men and women by different standards because it is impossible to do so fairly. If we believe that men and women have inherent natures, then we should trust that they will act according to those natures and allow them to do so. That is, after all, what 'nature' means."

First, Jeff's response was extremely well-thought out with many valid points. I think he hits at the heart of the problem by asking who should and who is able to define the differences between men and women and how those 'natural' differences can then be made the foundation for moral, social, or abstract, judgments on the sexes.Mary Wollstonecraft indicates that this is a power-centered problem:

”For man and women, truth, if I understand the meaning of the word, must be the same; yet the fanciful female character, so prettily drawn by poets and novelists, demanding the sacrifice of truth and sincerity, virtue becomes a relative idea, having no other foundation than utility, and of that utility men pretend arbitrarily to judge, shaping it to their own convenience.” (124)
This quote has a lot packed into it that could be discussed at length, but I am intrigued by her astute insight that if defining the nature of someone is left in one group's biased hands, the whole idea of virtue becomes relative. Therefore I think it is important that we realize the tricky nature of defining what is 'natural' and the ramifications of that definition. Leaving things open to a subjective interpretation of what is 'natural' exposes one to exactly the manipulative power struggle that history has seen too much of. I sympathize with an appeal to subjectivity, especially for us in the West where our liberal constitutions and societies allow us to leave much up to the individual and his conscience, but we cannot forget that we are a community and a community implies--at least on some issues--objective standards. This means (and has always meant) that public policy makes such objective decisions, especially in gender issues. Indeed, I cannot think of any more relevant community issue demanding subjectivity than the foundation of society--the family.Consider Barack Obama's recent statement that he supports the right to abortion because he trusts the woman to arrive at the right decision for herself. Consider also what a pure subjective standard on gender would mean for same-sex relations. If I have had 'natural' same-sex tendencies my whole life, then how can my nature be discriminated against?I am not saying these are right or wrong statements, I think it is important though to be aware that whether we decide that how we define 'differences' between the sexes is a subjective or objective undertaking, has important ramifications.

I look forward to class tomorrow.I think therefore that we see the tricky 'nature' of this discussion when applied to the social sphere and not merely the realm of individual relations.
“Let it not be concluded that I wish to invert the order of things; I have already granted, that, from the constitution of their bodies, men seem to be designed by Providence to attain a greater degree of virtue...but I see not the shadow of a reason to conclude that their virtues should differ in respect to their nature.” (95)

I think Kant's categorical imperative can only act as an equalizer here if have the ability to understand those different from us. Treating someone how you would want to be treated when the other person is inherently different from you would require that we be able to somehow feel empathy (experience what they experience) for that person in their particular condition.

Peter wrote:

Dr. Kerry and class,First, to be clear, I am writing this strictly for the publicity.

Secondly, I wrote this first part before similar comments appeared (I didn't see a name attached to them) so I am sorry for the repetition.From my point of view, the physical differences between man and woman can account for much of the inequality that woman has experienced and still experiences today. Regardless of whether or not man and woman are spiritually, metaphysically, or emotionally different, woman literally retains the results of sexual encounters. She becomes pregnant. Man does not. This naturally creates a dependent relationship for woman.

For example, Tolstoy's novel, Anna Karenina, begins with a wife discovering that her husband has just unashamedly committed adultery with their own governess. The wife naturally wants to leave her husband, but realizes that she is financially dependent on him. She has nowhere to go. She has five children and realizes that leaving would only harm the children and endanger their future. She feels trapped and finally decides that she must stay. The husband refuses to change his ways, because he knows he can get away with it.

Because of her unique anatomy, woman has limited mobility both physically and socially. Woman is financially, and physically dependent on man. Man, however, is, by physical nature, more free. He traditionally leaves the house as the bread winner. He is not "tied down" as woman is. Both physically and socially, he is more free to carry on sexual relations and having multiple partners. I think we all understand the consequences of this as viewed in Tess of the D'Urbervilles.

Even if we accept, as Dr. Kerry has presented, that it is during Romanticism that woman started being put on a pedestal and treated as a separate "creature," it does not mean that her inequality began in this period. Because of her naturally dependent relationship to man, woman has almost always been treated unequally.

Why is it that polygamy has historically been more prevalent than its opposite polyandry. Isn't polygamy, putting religion aside, quite similar to male promiscuity. Perhaps differences in male and female anatomy have something to do with creating and sustaining the practice of polygamy.

I think that we would all say (maybe I'm wrong) that polygamy, as God has revealed it to prophets, is morally correct (If we don't agree with that, we obviously have a lot more to discuss). Is this then condoning multiple partners for man and limiting woman to only one? I do not have all the answers, but I see a contradiction in believing that polygamy is part of a higher order, but then being astounded by a double standard in male-female relationships. Isn't polygamy a double-standard? I sincerely Hope that someone can shed some light on this for me.

Heidi wrote:

Peter and class,

Just a quick couple of thoughts...

How does a woman's being pregnant make her dependent on man? Becoming pregnant is certainly burdensome to the woman, but it does not carry with it an intrinsic dependence on man. Also, I think we are neglecting man's dependence on woman. Without woman, man cannot have his prized heir. Likewise, women cannot have children without men. We are co-dependent on each other in this way.

In Henrik Ibsen's "A Doll's House," Nora, the woman on the pedestal, becomes dissatisfied with her life. She has always been dependent on men for financial (and even emotional) support, but decides to leave her husband and children. Perhaps society sometimes "tethers" women, but they are certainly free to take off their collars and rely on themselves. Women, just like men, have a responsibility to think for themselves.

As to polygyny (polygamy is multiple spouses, polygyny is multiple wives), I think its being more common than polyandry may in part be due to women's less aggressive nature. Men naturally take the lead; it does not mean that women are incapable of leading. I think a great deal of what most of this email debate has been about is defining gender roles in the past and in the present. There are many traits that are intrinsic in each gender. That does not mean that those traits are exclusive to that gender, but simply that they generally come more easily. The best part of all of this gender role madness is that when man and woman can balance their intrinsic characteristics and be at least somewhat morally inclined, there is a beautiful unity that will occur.

As for God revealing that polygyny "is morally correct," I'm sure there will be future discussion/clarification/debate about that subject tommorrow…

And finally Doug wrote:

As an addendum to an engaging email discussion and classroom conversation:
I want to endorse the process of understanding historical ideas in our current context—especially when thoseideas directly flow out of what we are studying. Discussing romanticism without acknowledging our own history (polygamy) could have still been satisfying, but by including and confronting the harder questions of our own history (BYU, and by extension LDS) we have the potential for an enriched understanding.

Much of the semester has been spent discussing these ideas in a traditional classroom discourse (which is good and necessary) that doesn't always allow for individuals in our classroom community to voice their ideas. I applaud those who voiced their opinions with courage—even if some ideas incited passionate response. I personally haven't formulated my own thinking on the topic of (gender, marriage, etc) enough to speak out in that debate. (Not that I don't have opinions)

However, even without actively participating in the debate there is great value in understanding the variety of ways that people think and feel. Providing space in class or in your inbox for a variety of expressions enables such an understanding—and it can only enhance our understanding of Romanticism.