Hiatus

Hello! 

Yes, I'm still here.  Just ended up taking a bit of a break.  Work was particularly hectic.  Family life too.  A lot more on my plate than normal.  Something had to give.  Eventually I had to push the pause button on blogging for a while.  That is over now.  I'm back at it.

Taking a step back from every day responsibilities and routines is deeply entrenched in Christian culture.  Jesus took breaks to spend time alone in prayer with his Heavenly Father.  He encouraged others to do the same.  Throughout the ages, Christians have periodically taken a step out of the hussle and bussle of the world for spiritual renewal and reflection.  Those of us who tend to be more like Martha need to follow Mary's example, at least sometimes.

Taking those breaks can be helpful on many levels.  Our weary souls need a little R&R sometimes.  But those breaks to listen to the Holy Spirit can also lead to epiphanies, both great and small.

During my time away from blogging, I read and listened to a lot of perspectives.  I was exposed to a lot of information relevant to the focus of this blog.  I believe I had at least a few epiphanies while I was away.  Some are going to shape the focus of this blog in the future.

For example, I had some time to get back to why I wanted to start this blog.  During my lifetime, I had been perplexed by the use of Jesus's name and teaching in secular politics and in the shaping of public policy. 

My first exposure to this was in the late 1970s.  Ronald Reagan was divorced, rarely went to church and was passionately devoted to his wife, who was an ardent follower of astrology.  Yet he was embraced so vigorously by the "Religious Right." He was touted by many as a president with "Christian values."  This was particularly perplexing to me because they embraced him over Jimmy Carter, who has tried hard throughout his life to integrate his faith and his politics.  You may not agree with his politics in all cases, but he did seem to be walking the walk, not just talking the talk.  I found Mr. Carter's efforts to use diplomacy over militarism in keeping with the teachings of the Prince of Peace.  His concern for the poor seemed to reflect the thrust of much of the Bible, which emphasizes economic vulnerability over and over again.  Yet I still don't understand where the Bible says anything that remotely endorses increasing military spending, tax cuts and trickle down economics.  I've read and thought about these issues a lot.  I just don't see any Biblical support for these political issues.

Then the use of Jesus for political gain seemed to reach fever pitch in the 2000s.  Based on what I've read, I do believe that George W. Bush had a meaningful conversion experience in mid-life that saved him from a life of drunken debauchery.  But with all due respect, his political life has not shown much evidence of his conversion.  As governor of Texas, he oversaw a racist, error-ridden capital punishment apparatus, which he made no effort to fix.  He apparently lied when he told us that he reviewed each case carefully before determining whether or not to intervene.  It turns out he had no interest in more than cursory reviews; human life was not important enough.  As president, he took us into two disastrous wars that were of questionable legitimacy or utility.  Misinformation and the use of fear enabled him to take us into those wars. Because of his policies, thousands of civilians have been displaced or killed.  He has created power vacuums in which the already vulnerable in society lead an even more perilous existence.  During his reign, we came to use torture--TORTURE--against our supposed enemies.  Instead of being a leader on human rights and setting an example for others to follow, we joined the ranks of rogue nations like Iran and the People's Republic of China.  Finally, to win reelection after all these horrors, Mr. Bush and his political cronies demonized gay people because homophobia apparently entices many to the polls in critical swing states.  In sum, Mr. Bush's political legacy is based on a lack of honesty, fear-mongering and disregard for human life.  I don't believe any of that is grounded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I grew up inside the Beltway.  I'm not politically naïve.  I know full well that politicians embellish, stretch the truth and outright lie.  Those are sad realities.  But when you go exploiting the Son of Man to achieve earthly political power, that is where I have to draw a line.  I find that deeply offensive, more than I can even put into words.  Blasphemy is the only word to describe it.

But politicians get away with that only because Christians let them.  Shame on us if we fail to study God's word, to really dig deep for ourselves and try to understand it.  Shame on us if instead we let ourselves be duped by politicians who use the name of Jesus Christ to convince us to campaign for issues that have no grounding in Biblical teaching, but have everything to do with exaggerating plutocratic trends that are destroying our nation.  Shame on anyone who uses Jesus's blessed name to justify cutting the rates on capital gains, eliminating estate taxes on the wealthy or opposing meaningful efforts to protect God's creation.  If you support those political positions, that is fine by me.  But don't you dare use my Savior to justify those positions.  Jesus said nothing that would support coddling the rich at the expense of the poor.  Nothing in his teachings can justify our callous disregard for the harm we do to the beautiful planet our Lord gave us.

To be clear, I'm in no way saying one cannot be a Christian and also support politicians like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush or the policies they've championed.  Both Messrs. Reagan and Bush were Republicans.  I'm certainly not saying you cannot be a Christian and a Republican.  I'm also not saying that the Democratic Party is more in line with the Gospel.  What I am saying, however, is that it is blasphemy to use Christ as the rationale for endorsing politicians or political positions when what they advocate is not supported by the Bible.  The Bible was written at different times several centuries ago, and unfortunately it does not speak to every issue we face in modern America.  We have to do our best in the gray areas.  But call a spade a spade.  Acknowledge the gray areas, don't propagate misinformation by saying the Bible supports things that it does not even address.

In that vein, I've decided that I'm going to get back to what I saw as the original focus of this blog.  Many of the hot button issues that have attracted some modern American Christians to the polls are complex.  I've shied away from them to some extent.  Not because I was afraid of wading into such areas of controversy, but because their complexity merits in-depth study and consideration.  In many areas of life, Christianity does not offer easy, quick answers.  Things are not always as clear cut as some of our brethren assert.  In the past, however, I have not had time to really dig deep to explore some of these issues.  I anticipate I will finally have some time this year, so that is the direction this blog will be going.

Supporting Women in the Workplace…from an Economic Perspective

As I mentioned in a previous blog post, in the United States, people are often not sympathetic to issues involving the challenges of parenting.  At least in the red states where I’ve lived, people reject the notion that “it takes a village” to raise a child.  Instead, the attitude is that if one brings a child into this world, one is on one’s own to raise that child.  When this attitude is expressed, there is usually a failure to account for the harm to the child when parents get no support.  Christian concerns about family values and the vulnerability of children often fall on deaf ears in this context.

And many people are also unsympathetic to the notion that the juggling of paid work and family responsibilities disproportionately fall on women in our society.  Many people of both genders simply want to ignore any inequality between men and women.  There is a tendency to want to view everyone as on equal footing: we’re all the same.  I disagree with that attitude.  It is equivalent to the tendency to want to be colorblind to the extent it permits glossing over racial injustices that continue in our society.  Perhaps it is easier to think we’re all getting the same opportunities and being judged equitably than to acknowledge difficult problems without simple solutions.

Last year I had an interesting experience with this tendency to want to gloss over issues impacting women’s advancement in the professional world.  I wrote an article touching upon this issue specifically in the legal profession.  Prior to publication, I asked a dear friend of mine to review it to give me feedback.  She is a talented lawyer who was a bit of a mentor of mine when I was in practice; she juggled a demanding career while raising her kids, who are now young adults.  I asked her to review the article because I thought she would have some unique insight since she had faced the issues described. 

Her reaction surprised and saddened me.  Though she agreed with the premise of the article, she urged me to re-write the article from a completely different perspective to ignore the gender impact of the issue.  She explained that as a working mom of nearly two decades, she knew first-hand that people didn’t want to hear about such gender issues. 

I was shocked to hear this advice from this particular friend.  She is a compassionate human being and a brilliant professional.  She is also a feminist.  But she was adamant that raising the concern in gendered terms would not be well-received.  She did not for a minute dispute the premise of the article that women disproportionately bear family responsibilities, which forces many to leave the legal profession if that is economically viable for them.  However, my friend knew the hornet’s nest that would be stirred to challenge the status quo.  She probably has a point.

For folks who aren’t inherently concerned about family values or gender equality, I have a third reason why you should care about the difficulty of women with families to participate in paid employment: the health of our nation’s economy. 

The health of our economy is dependent on productivity and growth.  Women make up more than half of the adults in our society.  Over 90% of women will be mothers at some point in their lives.  If the workplace is inhospitable to women with family responsibilities, then many women will either not work in paid employment or they will work just part-time.  That is a significant loss of productivity in our economy.  Making the workplace more hospitable to women can be a source of economic growth.

In support of this third rationale for policies that empower women to more successfully balance paid work and family responsibilities, I offer three articles of relevance.

 

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/creating-economic-opportunities-women

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/16/hillary-clinton-s-apec-speech-women-are-key-to-global-economy.html

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/job-growth-has-been-increasing-faster-men-women

 

1 Corinthians 12:12

We were all baptized by one Spirit into one body, whether Jew or Greek, or slave or free, and we all were given one Spirit to drink.

Europeans and Bigotry

I wanted to follow up a bit more on the previous post.

I have traveled throughout and even lived for a school year in Europe.  As a student, I have studied its languages, its literature and its art.  Later in my life, I have worked with Europeans in professional settings.  For several decades, I have had close personal friends who are from Europe.  Though I don’t purport to be an expert, I do know something about the cultural attitudes of Europeans.

In my experience, Europeans are not exactly highly evolved on gender issues.  I mention this because Americans often view Europe as highly progressive on social issues, so this is counterintuitive to many of my countrymen and women.  After all, Europe has outlawed the death penalty and has provided universal health care.  European nations have been leaders in providing legal recognition of same sex unions.  And the people of Europe have high levels of literacy and education. But in my experience, we Americans sometimes overestimate how progressive Europeans actually are. 

From an American perspective, I’ve often been shocked—and at times simply horrified--by bigoted things that I’ve heard come out of the mouths of modern Europeans  in casual conversations.  A number of specific examples come to mind, but frankly I don’t feel comfortable repeating them in a public forum.  To an American audience, such comments would be viewed as inflammatory and very hurtful.  They are simply not the sorts of things that are said in polite company in the United States. 

And I’ve been surprised because such comments have typically come from well-educated, young, otherwise progressive Europeans.  I’ve also heard such shocking things come out of the mouths of Hitler-era Germans, but sadly one might expect that more readily.  Such comments are akin to hearing the bigoted things that I’ve heard from my own white relatives who grew up in the Jim Crow South. 

The sorts of bigoted comments of Europeans that I’m referencing have primarily been disparaging of people of color, especially people of African, Asian or Middle Eastern heritage who have migrated to Europe for economic or political reasons.  But I’ve also witnessed a good deal of stereotypical attitudes on gender and a lack of sensitivity on gender equality issues.  In my experience, women are often viewed in sexualized terms by others and even themselves. 

 

1 Corinthians 12:12

Christ is just like the human body—a body is a unit and has many parts; and all the parts of the body are one body, even though there are many.

Anne-Marie Slaughter on “having it all” (Socioeconomic and Cultural Biases)

I’d like to address one final point in Dr. Slaughter’s article.  It is fascinating when she writes about hiring “the help that can be indispensible to your juggling act.”  This statement is quite telling.  It assumes two things: (1) significant disposable income at some point in one’s career and (2) no extended family to assist in the care of children.  As a result, this statement seems to envision a white Anglo mother in a high-prestige career.  That is a rather narrow socioeconomic and cultural perspective from which to advocate on behalf of women.

A mom who is a waitress at Denny’s or a Wal-Mart cashier, or a mom who is working in a meat packing plant or picking produce in the fields is not likely to ever earn enough to hire the nannies and other domestic help that Dr. Slaughter seems to be referencing.  So, in reality, her analysis and her prescriptions are about doctors, lawyers, business executives and certain other very privileged workers.  That is a pretty small slice of the total female population.

My husband and I are both white and Anglo.  I’m also a lawyer.  So, I probably fit well into Dr. Slaughter’s target audience.  Before my husband sacrificed his accounting career, we were spending our ample disposable income on hiring people to care for our children, to mow our yard and clean our bathrooms.  That “help” was indeed indispensible to our attempt at juggling professional and family responsibilities.  So the statement in question in the article does resonate with me personally.  But I’m cognizant that Dr. Slaughter is not describing everyone’s reality. 

Over the course of our careers, my husband and I have both had lots of friends who were women of color—women who have been raised with very different cultural attitudes about family than my husband and I.  When such female friends have had children, their parents or their in-laws frequently have made themselves available on an on-going basis to care for the new grandchildren.  Often these grandparents even took their grandkids to pediatrician appointments so the new moms can go back to work and focus on their professional responsibilities.  And I’m not just talking about grandmas in our friends’ families—plenty of grandpas also make great sacrifices to help the sandwich generation out.  I even had one Asian American friend whose in-laws sold their family home and relocated to another city in order to be full-time, live-in babysitters to their grandchildren. 

I’ve spoken about this type of amazing support with other Anglo moms and frankly we are envious!  In Anglo culture, there seems to be much more emphasis on individualism, less on family.  Anglo grandparents might occasionally be available for babysitting, but I don’t know any who do it full-time or would relocate specifically to help their adult kids with childcare.  Culturally, that is not common—at least in the other Anglo families my husband and I know.

I understand Dr. Slaughter to also be white and Anglo, so I assume she has the same cultural biases I do.  As a result, when she writes about having to hire “the help that can be indispensible to your juggling act,” that statement is consistent with my own experience before my husband resigned to be a stay-at-home dad.  But I’m surprised that a woman of Dr. Slaughter’s sophistication and education would apparently not realize the cultural biases of her phrasing.

I flag this language not to pick on Dr. Slaughter because I’m quite grateful that she has used her ample talents and her relative fame to focus on these issues that are so important to women and families.  Instead, I flag this language in her article to point out certain problematic implications of her baseline assumptions. 

First, her writing seems to envision readers who are in elite professions, not the bulk of working women.  Dr. Slaughter seems to focus on the professional “1%” and not everyone else.  Second, her writing also seems to envision a white, Anglo audience, and not recognize that in our multicultural society, that perspective is not shared by everyone.  Heck, if you pay attention to census data, it appears to be shared at most by a quickly shrinking segment of our population. 

As a result, this narrow audience may be a pretty weak paradigm from which to begin one’s advocacy.  If one’s focus is structural change to empower women professionally, then it doesn’t seem wise to target one’s arguments only to such a narrow socioeconomic and cultural minority.  To achieve the kind of change Dr. Slaughter advocates, a much bigger tent is necessary.

Indeed, it is this lack of a big tent that has alienated the women’s movement in recent decades and made feminism a four letter word to many.  A large segment of the population has viewed feminism as a movement of cultural and socioeconomic elites, which glosses over the challenges and needs of poor and middle-class women, as well as women of color.  Feminism is criticized by many as grounded in paradigms reflective only of upper-middle class white women.  Sadly, Dr. Slaughter’s article is vulnerable to the same criticisms.  If feminism or a women’s movement is ever to achieve traction, it must appeal to a much wider base.

Matthew 11:5

The blind are now able to see, and the lame can walk. People with leprosy are being healed, and the deaf can hear. The dead are raised to life, and the poor are hearing the good news.

The Election of Rev. Fred Luter, Jr.

I recently came across an article about the election of Reverend Fred Luter, Jr. to lead the Southern Baptist Convention:

http://news.yahoo.com/southern-baptists-elect-1st-black-president-200546902.html

The headline read: “Southern Baptists elect 1^st black president.”  I had heard several months ago that this was a possibility, so this news did not really surprise me.  But it was interesting nonetheless. 

More so than some other mainline Christian denominations, I actually have a relatively close connection to the Southern Baptists.  I’m from the South, so I’ve certainly had plenty of friends and acquaintances who were Southern Baptists, but my connection is closer than just that.  A lot of my family and many of my closest childhood friends are Southern Baptist.  I’ve attended Southern Baptist churches all my life.  As a teenager, I even worked at the day care center of a Southern Baptist congregation in the neighborhood where I lived. 

Based on these experiences, I can say honestly that the Southern Baptist denomination is not my cup of tea. I never felt led to be baptized in that denomination or even attend one of its churches regularly.  That is ok.  Everyone is different.  I mean no disrespect in saying the Southern Baptist Church is not for me.  I respect that lots of fine folks are Southern Baptists and the Church does a lot of great work. 

One of the reasons I was never real comfortable in the Southern Baptist churches I attended was my sense of its homogeneity.  Pretty much everyone was white and middle class.  They were also very conservative politically; “Reagan” was a name folks liked, “Jane Fonda” was not.  When they went to church, the Southern Baptists I knew wore their Sunday best.  Many of the ladies had the same floral patterned cloth Bible covers.  Everyone was good at rote memorization and could rattle off Bible verses.  I never felt like I fit in with any of that.

I think I was always familiar to some degree with the history of the Southern Baptist Convention.  But more than the reason it was formed in the 19^th century, as a kid I always had a sense of the modern, on-going implicit racism. 

My own Southern Baptist grandparents were white Southerners of a generation pretty warped by bigotry and poverty.  The “n word” was certainly a part of their vocabulary, which horrified and confused me even as a little child.  I knew that was a vile word you were not supposed to ever say.  So, it always stunned me when my Southern Baptist grandparents muttered it. 

And it really confused me because that set of grandparents were the most religious ones in my family.  How could my most religious relatives also be the most racist?  That never jived in my little brain.  I didn’t understand how people who seemed to take Jesus so seriously would be so racist.  Even as a kid, the little I knew about Jesus led me to think he would not have been uttering racial epithets or supporting second-class treatment of people of a different race or ethnicity.  I did not understand. 

What’s more, I was particularly confused when we went to my grandparents’ huge church and the only non-white faces were the row of gentleman in the back row in traditional African garb.  Their presence was evidence of the church’s enthusiastic support of foreign missions.  It didn’t make sense to me that my grandparents’ church would seem inhospitable towards people of African descent when they were born on American soil, but would go out of their way to bring people from Africa across an ocean to Texas.  That really seemed like a contradiction my little brain couldn’t comprehend.

But I know the Southern Baptists have made great strides over the years. 

My Dad’s church (which is the same one where my grandparents were members) is much more diverse now.  They have a very vibrant ministry to Laotian immigrants, and the church does extensive work to help the immigrants get settled into homes and find jobs in the community. 

One of my close friends is on the board of the congregation where I worked as a teen in the day care center.  That Southern Baptist church hired a pastor a few years ago who is a woman and African American.  Their congregation also has a strong ministry in the Latino community and has learned to do quinciñeras. 

When I was in law school, my husband used his extra free time by teaching in an ESL ministry of a local Southern Baptist church.  They taught hundreds of Latino immigrants practical language skills regardless of their religious affiliation.

Because I know Southern Baptists have made great strides, I wasn’t surprised by the headline of this article.  It simply seemed like a good thing.  What actually got my attention in reading this article was a point very relevant to the recent posts of this blog.  Per the article, Reverend Luter grew up with “a divorced mother and no father in the house.”  As a result, he prayed that he would be the role model for his own son that he himself never had. 

Apparently, Reverend Luter’s ministry has involved an “intensive outreach to men” in his hometown of New Orleans.  He has also expressed “concern that men in his inner-city neighborhood were not taking responsibility for their children.”  I’m not even sure what his ministry does exactly, but it sounds good to me. 

I think more churches need to minister to men.  It is confusing in this day and age as to what is expected and appropriate of men.  For the past century or more, the role of father in the family has consisted almost exclusively of breadwinner.  Dads left the home to earn money to support the family.  Period.  That model doesn’t really work in the 21^st century when many women outperform men in terms of educational attainment and earn a paycheck. 

Moreover, in many economically depressed and isolated communities, there are few if any legal means to earn a paycheck.  Not being able to provide for one’s family can be such a crippling blow to a man’s self-respect due to society’s expectations.  “Demoralizing” doesn’t begin to describe the impact.  I certainly don’t condone but can perhaps understand to some degree why men in such situations might withdraw from their families when they cannot provide for them financially.  I’ve seen in happen in families I know.  It is heartbreaking on many levels.  The church may not be able to provide jobs to men in such situations, but we can certainly help men cope with that sort of challenge.

Job 29:16

I was a father to the poor and assisted strangers who needed help.

Fathers’ Grief and Service

I ran across another pertinent article from ABC’s Nightline.  It was about two fathers, who are honoring their deceased children’s memories by serving the people of Haiti.  The article is available at the following link:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/grieving-fathers-rebuild-haiti-deceased-childrens-honor/story?id=16562261

I love this article!  It got me misty-eyed.  I cannot imagine a worse grief than a parent who has lost achild.  But what a productive, loving expression of grief to help others in God’s family.

Genesis 41:52
Joseph named his second son Ephraim, for he said, “God has made me fruitful in this land of my grief.”

Job 16:5
But if it were me, I would encourage you. I would try to take away your grief.

Discovery Atlas: China Revealed (Female Beauty)

I love learning about different cultures.  For various reasons, I have a particular interest in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”).  A while back I watched a fascinating documentary on the country.  It was part of the Discovery Atlas series, which apparently features vignettes of people in different parts of the planet to give viewers a sense of the culture of a particular land. 

The episode I watched was called Discovery Atlas: China Revealed.  It was released in 2006 and is narrated by actor James Spader.  I found it fascinating and would highly recommend it.  I watched it with my children; we all enjoyed it and learned a lot.  In particular, to continue with the themes of recent blog posts, I would like to focus on a few aspects of the documentary that I especially found interesting.

The film described how there is huge competition for professional jobs in the PRC. And the film noted that such job competition was particularly difficult for women.  To explain the situation, one woman, who went by the Western name “Eliza,” was interviewed along with her boyfriend. 

In the interview, Eliza’s boyfriend noted that getting a good job in the PRC was not dependant entirely on one’s professional qualifications.  With Eliza standing next to him and listening to everything he said, the boyfriend explained that if there are two female candidates with the same qualifications, the better-looking candidate would get the job.  I felt rather humiliated for Eliza because the clear suggestion was she was not good looking.  And it was a strange suggestion because to me Eliza looked quite lovely.  The narrator then explained that with such intense competition, aspiring professionals do whatever they can to get a leg up on fellow job-seekers.

The documentary then followed Eliza’s consultation with a traditional Chinese medicine expert who noted her dehydrated skin and the impact stress was having on her appearance.  Eliza then went for more extreme measures; she visited a plastic surgeon.  The documentary then followed her decision to get a number of cosmetic surgeries. 

This was mind-blowing to me.  These were expensive, painful and time-consuming surgeries.  Moreover, any surgery involves serious risks, including death.  It was tragic to me that anyone would feel compelled to devote such resources and take such risks just to improve one’s appearance.  And it was particularly tragic when the pressure was attributable to trying to get a job in an office that would not appear to have anything to do with one’s appearance.  Eliza was not applying for jobs as a model or actress.

One of the surgeries Eliza elected involved changing the shape of her face.  Another involved a controversial procedure to create more of a crease in the eyelid to give Eliza’s eye more of a European appearance.  These were surgeries with huge repercussions and would completely alter what this young woman looked like.

Eliza explained to the filmmakers that she knew that she had classical Chinese beauty, but she said that was not enough.  Without any sense of irony, Eliza noted that the surgeries would make her look more like a “Barbie doll” and such dolls are so “lovely.”

I’m not even sure where to start.  The documentary was fascinating, but this portion of the film was one of the most depressing things I’ve ever viewed.

To American ears, it would be easy to look down on Chinese culture for such blatant sexism.  It would be easy to take the superior attitude that such things could never happen in the U.S.  I’m not sure that is true though.  We may just be less open and honest about it.

Several years ago, Barbara Walters did a report on 20/20 about the role of appearance in how people perceive others.  Studies showed that we make judgments on people based on their appearance.  We are drawn to make favorable judgments about attractive people, harsher judgments on people who are not attractive. There was a part of the report about job interviews.  Attractive people did better with the same qualifications than less attractive people.

I think I have seen such subtle attitudes play out in the course of my professional life as a lawyer.  I’ve known female colleagues with great credentials and talent, who are obese or have very visible acne scars, and somehow never get a good legal job.  I’ve always suspected that their appearance had something to do with it. 

I’m no longer in practice and am now an academic.  Even before I stepped into the classroom, I was well aware that female profs get judged (at least in part) based on their appearance.  I had heard that through the grapevine, e.g., from trusted female advisors and at a new professor conference.  Many of us feel the need to powder our noses, put some lipstick on and/or comb our hair before stepping in front of the class.  We know our appearance is scrutinized—much more, I suspect, than our male colleagues. 

Over the semesters I’ve been teaching, I’ve had countless student comments about the shorter (or longer) length of my hair and details of my jewelry.  I even have had students feel at liberty to ask pretty personal questions like whether I color and/or perm my hair!  I was visiting with a female colleague not long ago, and we laughed that we both avoid mid-semester hair cuts if at all possible.  We have learned through past experiences that such changes are too distracting to students.    We now limit our hair cuts to winter and summer breaks.

I had heard over and over in various ways that course evals are in part a reflection of snap judgments at the beginning of the course, and such snap judgments are disproportionately influenced by physical appearance.  Repeatedly, I’ve heard female profs half jokingly say they’ve considered plastic surgery.  I don’t think the American women who’ve said that to me really mean it.  But I think it is telling that in the 21^st century anyone even makes jokes of that kind.  In the United States, we may think we’ve come a long way, baby, and the status of women here is vastly superior to their status in China.  I’m not sure that we necessarily are light years ahead in this area.

John 7:24

Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.

Bachmann Played the “Gender Card”?

Just prior to the Iowa caucus last January, the results of which prompted Representative Bachmann’s decision to end her run for the GOP nomination for president, one article particularly got my attention.  The headline was “Bachmann plays gender card as Iowa GOP vote nears.”  It is available at the link below:

http://news.yahoo.com/bachmann-plays-gender-card-iowa-gop-vote-nears-140934217.html

I thought the headline was interesting because from my vantage point, Representative Bachmann had not seemed to emphasize gender much.  And after reading the text of the article, in my mind there did not seem to be a lot of evidence that Representative Bachmann was emphasizing her gender.  The article by Brian Baskst of the Associated Press quoted her as describing herself as an “Iowa girl” and saying “We need a strong woman to turn this country around, right?”  To me, such throw away lines don’t seem to be much if any emphasis on gender.  So, she used gendered nouns instead of a more neutral term like “person.”  Big deal.  That hardly means that Representative Bachmann was making some sort of claim of superiority due to her gender.

Mr. Baskst also noted in his article that earlier in the campaign Representative Bachmann had shared an “emotional story about how a miscarriage fortified her anti-abortion views,” and she had made references to motherhood in the campaign.  Again, I don’t see that as particularly different from what male candidates have done in the past. 

Some of them have referenced their children or shared difficult family trials to make political points.  Rick Santorum has made references to his large clan to shore up his support for family values.  John Huntsman talked about his sons’ military service to shed light on positions he’s embraced. 

Again, these points don’t seem to support Mr. Baskst’s claim that the congresswoman played the “gender card.”  Sure, she may be the only one to talk about her experience of having a miscarriage.  But obviously that is simply because she is the only one running for the GOP nomination in this election cycle to have been pregnant.  Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich by virtue of biology simply could not have those life experiences to draw upon. 

Mr. Baskst also describes Representative Bachmann’s status as a mother of five and a foster parent to several dozen as a “favorite biographical detail” of the congresswoman.  But plenty of male candidates have done the same sort of thing.  Senator Santorum in particular comes to mind.  If family values are a critical part of your political philosophy, it makes sense you are going to play up to voters how your own family has been important in your life.  Again, I don’t see anything about Representative Bachmann’s gender that makes that different.  Perhaps I am wrong, but if her husband were running for public office, I suspect he would also be touting those same credentials as a parent.

In the article, Mr. Baskst also describes Representative Bachmann’s affectionate nature on the campaign trail.  He talks about the “warm hugs” she gives, as well as running “her hand along another woman’s back during conversations.”  Interesting.  So, being affectionate is playing the “gender card” per Mr. Baskst?  I find that to be terribly sexist. 

Apparently like Representative Bachmann, I too tend to be a hugger.  When people are happy or sad, my reflex is to hug them.  That is one way I myself express empathy to those around me.  But I don’t think that has anything to do with having a uterus.  I know plenty of women who are not affectionate.  And I know plenty of men who are.  It is very sexist to associate affection with gender.  It plays to gendered stereotypes that women are supposed to be nurturing while men are supposed to be tough and stoic. 

As both a modern 21^st century person and a Christian, I think such stereotypes are just caca.  Indeed, Jesus was male, but he was apparently very nurturing and in touch with his emotions.  He ministered to people in gentle, personal ways.  He often healed them by the laying on of hands. 

I also understand that Jesus was affectionate with his friends.  Indeed, it is said that he was “betrayed by a kiss.”  Judas Iscariot used a kiss to Jesus as the sign to signal the authorities who he was so that they could arrest him.  I glean from this that such expressions of affection were not uncommon among the disciples.  Judas was trying to subtly signal the authorities.  He was doing something that would not arose attention or suspicion.  If Judas and Jesus never expressed affection in that way, then the kiss would have not been received or would have attracted commotion. 

Further, when his friend Lazarus died, it is recorded that Jesus wept.  As I understand the Scriptures, this was apparently out of empathy for the grief of Mary and Martha who were mourning the loss of their brother.  Jesus seemed to know that he was about to raise Lazarus such that his death was not permanent and was not worthy of mourning.  As a result, Jesus does not seem to have wept for Lazarus, but instead for the pain Mary and Martha were experiencing.  That passage suggests that Jesus was so empathetic that he was feeling the pain of Mary and Martha.

Beyond examples from the New Testament, I also think the focus on Representative Bachmann being affectionate is misplaced based on modern political context.  She is hardly the first candidate for the Oval Office to be affectionate on the campaign trail.  I recall Hillary Clinton doing the same thing when she ran for president.  Heck, her husband was even better known for his big bear hugs when interacting on the campaign trail.  And I’m pretty sure Bill Clinton does not have a uterus.

Anyhow, the article by Mr. Baskst provided little evidence of an alleged playing of the “gender card,” but instead focused on comments of voters on the gender issue, as well as comparisons to Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.  Instead of reporting on what Representative Bachmann was or was not doing to emphasize her gender, the article seemed more a bit of analysis of how gender was impacting her campaign. 

The misleading title of the article is annoying to me.  It was lacking in transparency.  If Mr. Baskst wanted to write some analysis of gender, then he should have done that without suggesting that Representative Bachmann was herself exploiting her gender. 

Moreover, the title of the article, in my mind, suggested that there was something to be exploited to the benefit of Representative Bachmann’s campaign because she was female.  In my observation that is far from the truth.  Being female is much more of a hindrance on the campaign trail than it could ever be a benefit. 

Further, the wording of the title plays into fears and even paranoia of many in our society who believe that affirmative action gives unfair advantage to those who are unworthy and unjustly denies benefits to those who are deserving.  There are many in our country who have never been able to see beyond President Obama’s race and believe that he was elected simply because he is partially of African heritage.  I disagree with those who hold such views.  Like being female, I think being African American is much more of a hindrance in a nation-wide election than it could ever be a benefit.  But I am cognizant that many disagree with that conclusion.  The title of this article on Representative Bachmann, however, feeds underlying fears and paranoia that are very much alive in our country.  I do not know Mr. Baskst and have no idea if that was his intent.  Perhaps it was an unintended consequence.

Matthew 26:48

The man who was going to help them catch Jesus had told them that he would give them a sign. He said, “The man that I kiss is the one. Catch him and hold him.”

John 11:30-35

Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him.

The Jews then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there.

Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled.

And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see.

Jesus wept.

“Red State Feminists”

Last month I heard a really interesting interview on NPR.  Michelle Bernard, a conservative political analyst, was interviewed to discuss the presidential campaign.  The transcript from the interview is available at the link below, as is an option to listen to the interview.

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/03/147861387/where-gop-women-stand-on-the-political-race

There were a number of points in the interview, which I found intriguing. 

It was noted that over half of the votes cast in the last presidential election were cast by female voters.  Thus, women are an important segment of the electorate.  Candidates overlook them at their peril.  Indeed, Ms. Bernard sees women as a voting bloc in their own right.  She opined that overwhelmingly she believed they were “absolutely dismayed” at the focus in the GOP primaries on contraception.  Instead she wanted to hear the candidates talk about the economy and “the least amongst us” for whom “the American dream seems to be a very cruel joke.”

In the interview, Ms. Bernard described what she referred to as the concept of the “red state feminist.”  That was an intriguing concept to me.  I’ve lived in red states most of my life, but I’d never heard that phrase before.  Ms. Bernard also explained that red state feminists felt that in the last presidential election Sarah Palin had spoke for them.  Such women did not want to feel “demeaned” because they were raising children and not in the workforce.  As I understood the concept, a red state feminist is a woman who may opt to stay at home to raise her kids full-time, but wants to be respected for that choice.  A red state feminist is apparently someone who doesn’t agree with our culture’s emphasis on respecting only those who bring home the bacon.  Amen to that!  As a Christian, I don’t believe that our worth as human beings is equivalent to the number of zeros on our pay stub.

Ms. Bernard was asked about her reaction to Mr. Limbaugh’s comments about Sandra Fluke.  Ms. Bernard said she was “stunned” and “there really are no words to describe how sad” it made her to listen to his words about Sandra Fluke.  Ms. Bernard also said that she believed people running for the highest office in the land have a “moral obligation” to speak out against such bigotry, whether it was sexism, racism or religious bias.

Matthew 25:40

“And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’”

Bill Maher’s Use of the “C” Word and the “T” Word

In my last post, I mentioned that some conservatives have defended Rush Limbaugh's attack on Sandra Fluke by asserting that certain liberals are just as misogynistic.  The main focus of such assertions has been comedian, Bill Maher.  The link below takes you to one of the many articles covering this controversy.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-15/news/31198749_1_bill-maher-liberal-comedian-rush-limbaugh

Mr. Maher has rejected comparisons between his use of the “c” word and the “t” word to refer to Sarah Palin in comedic routines and Mr. Limbaugh’s attack on Sandra Fluke.  To differentiate his own language from Mr. Limbaugh’s disgusting rant on Sandra Fluke, Mr. Maher has explained that Mr. Limbaugh had gone “after a civilian” while Mr. Maher had used filth to describe a “public figure.”  (OK, to be honest, the term “filth” was my characterization, not Mr. Maher’s.) 

Mr. Maher elaborated:

“I used a rude word about a public figure who gives as good as she gets, who’s called people ‘terrorist’ and ‘unAmerican’... The First Amendment was specifically designed for citizens to insult politicians. Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts.”

Interesting.  I’m not exactly sure that that is what James Madison had in mind when he drafted the Bill of Rights.  But I suppose Mr. Maher has a point.  And although his choice of words does trigger my gag reflex, I am a fervent defender of the First Amendment and would vigorously defend Mr. Maher’s right to speak his mind. 

 To defend his use of these terms in question, Mr. Maher also countered that audiences at his comedic performances loved the use of those terms to describe Governor Palin:

“The bit I did about Palin using the word c--- was one of the biggest laughs in my act, I did it all over the country, not one person ever registered disapproval, and believe me, audiences are not afraid to let you know. Because it was a routine where that word came in at just the right moment. Context is very important.”

The fact that audiences at his comedy shows did not object to the use of these terms doesn't say much. Mr. Maher is a self-confessed "potty mouth," so people paying the big bucks to attend his live show expect (and arguably demand) such filthy language.

Finally, Mr. Maher also seemed to think part of the problem with Mr. Limbaugh’s word choice was that the radio host was “speaking for a party that has systematically gone after women’s rights all year, on the public airwaves.”  Mr. Maher seems to be suggesting that the GOP is hostile to women, but the Democrats are somehow their savior.  That is a rather questionable claim of superiority.  I would suggest that both parties are dominated by white men who are either rich or middle class, and neither party has done a particularly good job of representing people of color, women or the poor.  There are a lot of issues impacting women.  Being against the re-criminalization of abortion does not somehow make one a champion of “women’s rights.”  If Mr. Maher thinks it does, then he certainly has a lot to learn about women.

All in all, I don’t think Mr. Maher quite understands the controversy over Mr. Limbaugh’s attack on Sandra Fluke, and the comparison to Mr. Maher’s own attacks on Governor Palin.  It frankly has nothing whatsoever to do with context.

The main point, in my opinion, is that “slut” and “prostitute” are words that convey certain sexual connotations.  As I explained in a prior post, the term “slut” is an epithet that only makes sense when used against a woman.  It is a joke or a compliment when used to describe a man.  The term “prostitute” is generally equated with women only.  Both terms denote individuals who have had multiple sexual partners, for which there is a strong sexist double standard in our society.  These terms when used against women can painfully bring shame and humiliation.  By contrast, accusing a man of having multiple sexual partners is typically viewed in our society as praise for his virility. 

It is important to note that the specific terms that Mr. Maher used to reference Governor Palin are actually much worse than the terms Mr. Limbaugh used to describe Ms. Fluke.  So much worse that I won’t even write Mr. Maher’s words out in this blog.  Not even once.  They are that disgusting.

Before I go on, let me be clear that I am no prude.  Christians are often stereotyped as nerdy, sheltered squares, so I do feel the need to state this fact at the outset.  Let me elaborate on my credentials as a non-sheltered person. I have been happily married for 15 years. I’ve had a lot of friends from different backgrounds and with different value systems.  I have been to comedy clubs, I’ve seen plenty of Hollywood films, and I’ve even listened to hip hop music.  (Oh, my!)  I’ve taught grade schools in tough neighborhoods fraught with gang violence.  I have heard all kinds of language.  Curse words have indeed come out of my mouth.  I am also a Criminal Law professor; periodically I must lead sexually graphic class discussions when I teach the law of rape.  I do not blush or even get nervous when I have to lead these discussions with 70+ law students.  The bottom line of all this is that I have not lived in an ivory tower isolated from the world.  I don’t flinch when people use filthy or sexually explicit language.

But the two words in question that Mr. Maher used are particularly vile.  They are both epithets that only make sense when used to describe a woman.  Insightfully, both the “c” word and the “t” word technically refer to female genitalia.  I think that is interesting and no fluke.  (No pun intended.)

If you think about it objectively, why on earth would it be an insult to call someone female genitalia?  I mean, it is weird.  I grant you that.  But then again, it would be pretty weird to insult folks by calling them other body parts.  “You elbow!”  “He is such an ankle!”

But in our American profanity, we have at least two epithets where we put women down by calling them female genitalia.  As a Christian, I understand that God designed our bodies; as his creations, they are beautiful.  That includes the genitals. 

Nonetheless, in our culture, the connotations associated with the “c” word and the “t” word are so incredibly foul.  I mean, the “b” word absolutely pales by comparison.  Not even close.  It is like the difference between “stupid head” v. “m----- f-----.”

The “c” word and the “t” word are so incredibly taboo and heinous, I was actually in my 20s before I ever heard them.  They just don’t get used that often in pop culture or in the circles I’ve frequented.

To me, the fact that words for female genitalia have come to have such a deeply offensive connotation is suggestive that those who coined the “c” and the “t” words find women’s sexuality awful and shameful.  I’m at a loss to understand that attitude fully, but it clearly is rooted on some level in misogyny. 

I get that Mr. Maher doesn’t like Governor Palin.  You know what?  She is not my favorite person either.  Frankly, her politics and her rhetoric appall me on many levels.  But calling her the “c” word or the “t” word is blatantly sexist.  And I deeply resent Mr. Maher’s use of those terms to describe any female.  I don’t care if the female in question is a “public figure” or not.

These two terms are misogynistic.  They allude to shameful connotations associated with female genitals.  They are epithets reserved exclusively for women.  I’m doubtful that Mr. Maher has used the terms for Senator McCain, Governor Romney or any other male politician.  That is not how the terms in question are used.

Thus, using the “c” word and the “t” word to deride Governor Palin has the effect of dismissing her as a politician.  The insinuation is that she is not to be taken seriously.  It is quite condescending.  Again, male politicians don’t get dismissed like that.

If Mr. Maher has a problem with Sarah Palin—or any other female politician—I would hope that in the future he would explain his concerns without the use of misogynistic epithets.  If he has to use profanity, I would prefer he at least stuck to gender neutral epithets!  

Genesis 5:1-2 (Common English Bible)

On the day God created humanity, he made them to resemble God and created them male and female. He blessed them and called them humanity on the day they were created.