The New "Gilded Age" and a New Pope

I have been focusing on economic issues in recent posts.  The last few focused on an author who has flagged economically polarized access to technology.  Her book’s title incorporated the idea of a “new gilded age.”  That phrase is actually something I’m hearing more and more lately.

 

We as a nation tend to be uncomfortable with class distinctions, so we tend to ignore them and act like they don’t exist.  But in recent years, the income and wealth gap has drastically widened to the point that it is being noticed even in the mainstream. 

 

Beginning in 2004, former senator John Edwards a few years ago adopted the rhetoric of the “Two Americas” when campaigning for the White House.  The notion was that some Americans are rich and powerful, while others are economically vulnerable, living paycheck-to-paycheck. 

 

More recently, the Occupy Movement attempted to raise awareness of the divide between the very privileged and powerful, as opposed to the rest of us.  The terms “the 1%” and “the 99%” have been adopted into the wider culture, not just the few who camped out in urban centers to protest economic polarization.

 

Years of de-regulation of industry, a concentration of tax cuts for the most affluent, government bail-out of businesses deemed “too big to fail,” and legal developments like the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United opinion are all cited as reasons for this emerging focus.

 

As I was doing a little research for this post, I found an interesting website:  http://www.hermes-press.com/gilded_age.htm.  I don’t agree with everything in it, but it is thought-provoking. 

 

Further, former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, Robert Reich also wrote an interesting article on Mitt Romney as the epitome of plutocracy and the new gilded age:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/mitt-romney-bain-capital_b_1644856.html.

 

Last week, the Roman Catholic Church (the largest Christian denomination in the world) elected a new pope.  He comes from a developing nation, Argentina.  And he is the first pope to take the name “Francis.”  He has indicated he chose that name due to inspiration by St. Francis of Assisi, who ministered to the poor and the outcasts of his day.  Pope Francis I has said he “would like a poor Church, and for the poor”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/16/us-pope-poor-idUSBRE92F05P20130316

 

I am encouraged by this new pope.  In the last American presidential election, both candidates vigorously fought to be viewed as the champion of the middle class.  In recent years, however, it has become passé and out of fashion to speak of the poor.  Politicians typically don’t even mention them.  Out of sight, out of mind.

 

I am hopeful that this new pope, however, will bring attention to the plight of the poor worldwide.  I am encouraged by his emphasis on simplicity and humility, and hope that he is a prophetic role model to the affluent of the world to not overlook the needs of the poor.

 

 

Leviticus 23:22

When you harvest your fields, do not cut the grain at the edges of the fields, and do not go back to cut the heads of grain that were left; leave them for poor people and foreigners. The Lord is your God.

Diane Rehm on Shopping Addiction

Continuing with the recent focus on stewardship issues, during the holidays I came across several items in the media about the modern materialism of Christmas.  That is a topic I’ve explored in my blogs in past years during the holiday season.  As described previously, it is deeply distressing to me that a holiday of deep religious importance is exploited for financial gain.  I also just have trouble wrapping my mind around the irony of using the birth of the Prince of Peace in a humble structure for animals to encourage an orgy of retail consumption.  To me, these are extremely troubling aspects of our modern American culture.

Last month, I caught a radio program Diane Rehm did on “Shopping Addiction.”  The show is accessible at the link below.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-12-19/shopping-addiction

Clearly, Ms. Rehm timed this topic when she did because destructive shopping is particularly a problem in the weeks leading up to Christmas.  I appreciated the timing because as a Christ-follower I particularly worry that our savior’s birth has become a time of suffering for many due to overindulgence in consumptive spending.

There were several points in the radio program that particularly got my attention.

First, in discussing shopping addiction, the guests described it as “an emotional and even spiritual issue.”  One guest talked about going to Debtors Anonymous to “find a spiritual solution” in the 12 step program.  (The first step is admitting one’s powerlessness to the addiction, then the second step is belief in a higher power who can restore and give strength.)

I thought recognizing the spiritual aspect of this problem was a good point.  Blaise Pascal described the “God-shaped vacuum” in every human heart that we try unsuccessfully to fill with other things.  Listening to the stories of people who spend so recklessly and jeopardize their families’ financial health, it is hard for me in some ways to understand.  But thinking of this problem as a spiritual issue helps me to understand better.  We all have hurts and fears and vulnerabilities.  Different people deal with those issues in different ways.  A lot of people in our society drink large amounts of alcohol.  Others smoke, use narcotics, eat junk food, have lots of sexual partners or gamble.  And apparently, some folks shop excessively.  I find that so sad because that is not a sustainable solution to our struggles, and will never fill that “God-shaped vacuum.”

Second, one of the guests on Ms. Rehm’s show, Dr. April Benson, described shopping addiction as a “smiled-upon addiction because consumption fuels our economy.”  Dr. Benson went on to say that “[t]he only other addiction that I think is condoned by society might be workaholism. However, the same brain chemicals that are stimulated in alcohol and drug addiction we think are stimulated in compulsive buying episodes and some of the same underlying causes create a compulsive shopping behavior.” 

I thought these were fascinating statements. 

In essence, our modern consumer society is so dependent on copious spending that we turn a blind eye to very destructive behavior.  The focus on shopping is not just destructive because people get into debt or spend when they ought to be saving.  The overemphasis on consumption, in my opinion, is also spiritually destructive.  If our focus is always on accumulation of more stuff, then it is not on spiritual matters.  If we use our time shopping, we’re not spending time with our Higher Power, supporting our loved ones, or serving the least of those around us.  Recreational shopping may temporarily prop up parts of the economy, but in the long-run it does not help build a healthy society.

It was also fascinating that Dr. Benson describes workaholism as another condoned addiction.  To me, that is another manifestation of our consumerist society.  We value human beings for their productivity in terms of quantifiable, economic output, e.g., the number of billable hours, the number of widgets manufactured, the volume of sales, etc.  Our society approves of those who work excessive hours because that demonstrates a strong work ethic and produces quantifiable, economic output.  Due to the familial culture in which I was raised, and the fact that I’m a member of a workaholic profession, I certainly respect a strong work ethic.  I’m not advocating that we become a nation of slackers.  But when people work excessively at their jobs such that their family and/or community are neglected, that is not a healthy situation for any of us.  However, we don’t tend to recognize that much.

 

 

Matthew 6:19-21

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

Crown Financial Ministry: “Who Deserves Credit for Your Success?”

We live in a culture where capitalist values are deeply entrenched.  Last summer, President Obama made a campaign speech that got a lot of attention because of what some perceived to be a swipe against business people.  The president said:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back.  If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.  Someone else made that happen.

See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/20/obama-calls-didnt-build-that-furor-bogus-as-romney-releases-new-ad/.

The last two sentences of that part of the speech were taken out of context and used to justify the assertion that President Obama is anti-business.  Political hyperbole aside, our president would be a huge hypocrite if he were actually a communist out to kill capitalism.  He currently has a net worth of over $10 million.  Most of that was earned as an author of two best-selling books.  The free market system--and our intellectual property laws--enabled President Obama to amass that kind of fortune. 

Prior to hitting it big as an author and being elected to national office, the Obama family was primarily supported by the impressive salary earned by his wife, Michelle.  She practiced law for several years at a preeminent law firm that specialized in affluent clients.  She then moved to the non-profit sector while also serving on the board of a public corporation.  These activities hardly evidence an embrace of Marxism.  This type of well-compensated work in the private sector helped both Obamas service their considerable student loan debt.

Regardless of your own view of President Obama’s views on capitalism, the brouhaha last summer over the quote in question led to an interesting policy debate across the country.  Are business people solely responsible for their successes?  Does it take a village?  Or is the truth somewhere in between?

From a Christian perspective, in my opinion, that debate missed the mark a bit.  I firmly believe that God is responsible for all blessings—and that includes the economic ones. 

Our family has been graced with material resources to meet our basic needs and cover many of our desires.  Certainly, my husband and I worked very hard to secure the vast majority of those material resources.  We worked hard to get good grades in school, to secure jobs and to be promoted in those jobs.  Nonetheless, my husband and I understand that we are not fully responsible for our own good fortune.  We thank and give praise to God for each thing that he has given us. 

We also take it seriously that we are given these things not simply to make our lives more pleasant and cushy, but to be a blessing to others in turn.  We are given things to share.  God’s generous bounty is not an excuse to get a swelled head and think we are more deserving or special than the next folks.  We realized that we’ve been given opportunities that most people on this planet have not.  It is our responsibility to make good on that.  But clearly, we fall short of the mark.  Nonetheless, that does not diminish our responsibility or give us an excuse to stop trying.

Expressing a similar viewpoint, I serendipitously came across the Crown Ministries’ “MoneyWise” radio show on October, 6, 2012.  The topic of the program that day was “Who Gets the Credit?”  The hosts Howard Dayton and Steve Moore delved into the question “Who deserves the credit for your success?”  You can hear their exploration of that question if you navigate to the October 6, 2012 show at the following website:  http://www.compass1.org/compass-radio/money-wise/.  They have well-articulated an answer to that question.  It provides a lot of food for thought.

It is interesting because their answer does not sound that different to me from what President Obama said in his July campaign speech.  But I doubt anyone would say that Mr. Dayton or Mr. Moore is a Marxist.  In fact, in that same October 6, 2012 radio show, they expressed strong support of “free market capitalism” as the best economic system if Christ is the center of an entrepreneur’s motivations.  They emphasized that “if” part very strongly.

 

Matthew 6:25-26
“If you decide for God, living a life of God-worship, it follows that you don’t fuss about what’s on the table at mealtimes or whether the clothes in your closet are in fashion. There is far more to your life than the food you put in your stomach, more to your outer appearance than the clothes you hang on your body. Look at the birds, free and unfettered, not tied down to a job description, careless in the care of God. And you count far more to him than birds.”

 

 

Debt, Policy and the Bible

Debt has made the headlines in a variety of ways in the last few years.  People, businesses and governments have taken on more debt than it turns out they could actually bear.  When people or institutions cannot service their debt, tragic things happen. 

My husband, my kids and I live in a part of the country where the real estate bubble and subsequent crash have had a huge impact on just about everyone.  Our family has known so many who have lost their homes.  We’ve known folks who’ve been out of work, sometimes for years.  Those are traumatic experiences to say the least.

It breaks my heart what has been happening in Greece, Spain and Ireland recently.  There is a huge human toil.  The suffering seems to be getting worse.  The young are giving up hope; some are going abroad to earn money.  I worry that the extreme austerity measures may bring about a political situation like the one in Germany after World War I.  Indeed, I’ve been reading about violence against foreigners in Greece; people who are different from the majority make easy scapegoats when an economy is in freefall. 

I also worry about our own country because we have too much debt as well.  What we see happening in Europe could come to our shores.  We’re currently focused on going over the so-called “Fiscal Cliff.”  Regardless of the outcome of that struggle in the next week, it is unlikely to be the end of our national debate in trying to close our budget deficit.  Regardless of when we close the deficit, we will be burdened with the accumulated debt for many years to come.

Racist xenophobia is not a uniquely Greek phenomenon of course.  It is no coincidence that Arizona’s S.B. 1070 was enacted at a time of extreme economic crisis in the state.  The Latino laborers who helped build the homes in Arizona’s red hot real estate market were vilified once the market soured. 

In the national media in recent years, I have also noticed a rise in the jokes and cynical comments made about the Chinese.  It is easy to blame the Chinese as their economy expands as ours falters.  In our country, violence against people of Asian ancestry due to economic frustrations could spike.  It has certainly happened before.  The context in which the Chinese Exclusion Act was adopted in 1882.  Violence against Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor.  Violence against Vietnamese fishermen along the Gulf Coast in the late 1970s and 1980s.  The murder of Vincent Chin in 1982 without significant legal retribution.  These are all examples of Asians in this country being made scapegoats when economic opportunity contracts.

These are serious, complex issues that inspire long papers and books.  But right now in my humble little blog, I just wanted to spend a bit of time focusing on the Bible and debt. 

In recent years, this is a topic on which more Christians are focusing.  Whole ministries have come into existence to focus on money management.  When our family lived in Houston, I used to listen to Crown Financial Ministries during my commute to work.  I really enjoyed their show and I learned some helpful things.  The Crown Financial Ministries website is available at:  http://crown.org/

Dave Ramsey is probably the most visible Christian in the area of financial literacy and financial responsibility.  I never listen to Mr. Ramsey, but have heard of him.  I hadn’t realized he was a man of faith; I knew he had a pretty blunt, abrasive radio personality.  To me, he seems reminiscent of the style of Dr. Phil or Bill O’Reilly.  But our church sponsors Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University.  Our pastor is a huge fan of FPC.  My husband took the course a while back and did learn some helpful points.  The FPU website is at: http://www.daveramsey.com/fpu/home/

Some may be wondering why Christians care about financial stuff.  Some Christians may wonder too.  Many folks think it is just a ploy to get them to tithe or contribute more to the church.  Some are skeptical about financial ministries and believe they are just a money-making ploy of their founders.  I cannot really speak to these two concerns.  But I do believe that the Bible has important teachings about money.

First, in the Gospels, Jesus taught repeated about the poor and generosity.  Jesus expressed a lot of concern about those in society who were vulnerable and whose basic needs were not being met.  He also demonstrated in his actions and in his words that we need to use the gifts God gave us to take care of others’ needs.  Jesus also taught us about stewardship.  We need to use wisely what we have been given.  If we use our gifts wisely, we will have more to share with others.

Second, the Wisdom books of the Bible have great insights on debt.  Consider the following:

Job 22:6 “To guarantee payment of a debt, you have taken clothes from the poor.”

Job 24:9 “Children whose fathers have died are taken from their mothers as payment for debt.”

Job 41:11 “I am in command of the world and in debt to no one.”

Proverbs 5:9 “You will lose your self-respect and end up in debt to some cruel person for the rest of your life.”

Proverbs 6:3 “You will be under the power of other people, so you must go and free yourself.  Beg them to free you from that debt.”

Proverbs 11:15 “There’s danger in putting up security for a stranger’s debt; its safer not to guarantee another person’s debt.”

Proverbs 22:7 “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender.”

The Wage Gap and the Presidential Campaign

The article at the link below describes the continuing wage gap between men and women. 

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/wage-inequality-u-persists-181752413.html

On average, women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men.  As the article explains, this gap persists despite the rise in women as a segment of the American work force, and women’s “dominance in both the undergraduate and graduate degree arena.”  According to the article, if we keep the current pace of narrowing the wage gap, it will be closed by 2056.  That is not an encouraging pace.  2056 is around the time my young daughters are likely to retire.

The election is mercifully over, but during the campaign President Obama tried to appeal to women on the wage gap issue.  He often touted his support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.  He also frequently noted that the continuing wage gap was not merely a women’s issue, but was a family issue since many families are now supported in whole or in large part by female breadwinners. 

I appreciate the president’s support of that legislation and he made a good point about the impact of the wage gap on families.  However, I was dismayed because when he spoke of these issues on the campaign trail, President Obama frankly seemed to think this was breaking news.  He also seemed to not be terribly savvy about structural issues leading to the wage gap.  Perhaps I am wrong, but this is the impression I got when I listened to the president speak.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was the congressional reaction to an egregious Supreme Court opinion in 2007 that prevented a woman named Lilly Ledbetter from seeking redress from her employer after decades of covert sexist pay discrimination.  The legislation simply made a change to the statute of limitations that had barred Ms. Ledbetter’s case.  Form had triumphed over substance in Ms. Ledbetter’s case, so Congress made a small tweak to correct one procedural hurdle that had doomed her case.  The 180 day statute of limitations for an equal-pay lawsuit is now reset with each new paycheck impacted by the gender based discrimination.  The result is that there is a longer timeframe to bring suit. 

Certainly, I agree with this legislation, but it is no panacea to workplace gender discrimination or the persistent wage gap.  It is a mere band-aid on a much deeper wound.  Women still face all kinds of hurdles in even discovering such pay discrimination or bringing suit.  Indeed, what a world that such lawsuits are even necessary to right discriminatory practices.  I appreciate President Obama’s support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, but that is not even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to wage gap issues.

I was particularly disappointed with my perception of President Obama’s attitude on this issue due to his own life experiences.  He of all people should be more sensitive and knowledgeable about the wage gap and issues impacting women in the work place.  As a child, Mr. Obama was raised and supported financially primarily by two women who balanced paid work and raising children:  his mother and his grandmother.  As an adult, by his own account in his memoir The Audacity of Hope, his brilliant wife was the primary breadwinner for most of their marriage to-date.  Michelle Obama supported the family as an incredibly successful lawyer and corporate executive.  Moreover, again according to Mr. Obama’s own memoir, Mrs. Obama brought home the proverbial bacon while she was also shouldering most of the caregiving responsibilities for their young children.  As Mr. Obama admits in Audacity of Hope,  when his daughters were young, he participated in parenting only when it suited his schedule as he dabbled in politics and worked a bit as an adjunct professor.  Not until he became a national political star--and his book sales rose--did Mr. Obama significantly contribute to his family’s finances. 

Of all people, our current president should be more evolved on the wage gap issue.  Throughout his life, he has been supported financially by women who were juggling family responsibilities and paid employment.  Further, both his children are female.  This issue is one that his own daughters are likely to face as adults.

By contrast, I was actually pleasantly surprised by Governor Romney’s approach to this same issue. 

During the campaign, there was a lot of hoopla over his “binders full of women” comment.  Frankly, I thought that was silly and a colossal waste of time.  Perhaps “binders full of women” was an odd word choice.  But that happens when human beings speak spontaneously and don’t have prepared statements to follow.  We Americans whine that politicians rarely speak candidly or stray from tightly scripted stump speeches.  But the circus over Governor Romney’s “binders” comment is what happens when politicians speak in an unscripted fashion.  They get ridiculed if their wording is not perfect or even a bit goofy.  People get caught up myopically focusing on wording and ignore substance.  And we wonder why politicians don’t focus on substance in their campaigns.

Beyond the odd word choice, some also panned Governor Romney that he needed “binders” to be prepared for him and did not have a ready supply of female candidates in his social or professional circles.  Again, that is ridiculous.  There is a noticeable dearth of women in leadership positions that might be a logical stepping stone for serving in a governor’s administration.  I myself am a professional woman, and I know a lot of talented professional women.  But if I were on my own governor’s staff and looking to add women to the administration, I certainly wouldn’t have a ready list of candidates I could just whip out.  It is nuts to expect Governor Romney to have had such a list in his back pocket. 

Bravo that Governor Romney did something to increase the number of women in his administration and to get a broader cross-section of perspectives amongst his advisors.  Binders of resumes seem to me to be a rational way to go about such a hiring decision.  I’ve participated in hiring decisions at different organizations.  Putting resumes and other application materials in binders, folders or the electronic equivalent is an acceptable, routine approach. 

Beyond the asinine focus on the “binders of women” comment, I did not hear many others pick up on the substance of Governor Romney’s answer to that one town hall participant’s question.  He acknowledged the need for women to have flexibility to meet demands of both their paid work and their family responsibilities.  I thought this demonstrated a lot of sensitivity and savvy on Governor Romney’s part.  Yet, that part of his answer got ignored by most. 

Those in the media who did pay attention to it often panned it.  The article below from CNN.com is typical.  

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/debate-women/index.html

Only at the very end of the article does it reference Governor Romney’s attention to workplace flexibility.  In that context, the article states “And though Romney sought to highlight his support of flexible work schedules for women, his reference to women who need such schedules to race home to make dinner for their families may have ruffled some female voters the wrong way.”  The article then quotes Andra Gillespie, a political science professor at Emory University, who comments, “His discussion of work-life balance appeared condescending to some because of the reference to women cooking dinner.”  That was the sum total of the attention paid in this article to the substance of Governor Romney’s comment.

Personally, I thought that sort of reaction by Professor Gillespie was overly sensitive and prideful.  It was also out of touch with reality.  Families need to eat.  That is just a reality, no sense denying it.  Eating out on a frequent basis or relying on take-on meals is a waste of money and typically not good for one’s health.  So, someone in the family has to cook.  And there is a ton of empirical evidence that even today women disproportionately shoulder the burden of most caregiving responsibilities—including meal planning and food preparation.  To deny that reality because it hurts our egos is not productive. 

Over the years, my husband and I have traded cooking responsibilities in our family.  I know some families where the husband does most of the cooking.  But anecdotally, such approaches seem to be rather unusual.  I’ve had numerous fellow working moms respond with stunned awe when they hear my husband cooks and feeds our children on a regular basis.  Apparently this is not their reality. 

Perhaps I am wrong, but I suspect that most of the women who panned Governor Romney’s comment about cooking dinner are not parents.  A dear friend of mine and I had a spirited disagreement over the governor’s comment.  Like Professor Gillespie, my friend thought it was patronizing and it really annoyed her.  My response to my friend was, “Welcome to my world!”  This friend of mine is married, but she and her husband do not have children. 

Children do not raise themselves.  There is a lot of on-going work that has to get done to take care of them.  It takes considerable time, effort and financial resources.  In my experience, people who are not parents do not always seem to realize this.  I often hear comments in casual conversation and in the media that suggest that childrearing is some sort of cute little hobby.  It is not.  It is a serious, long-term responsibility.  Unfortunately, I discern that in the media we frequently do not hear enough from people who actually bear such responsibilities.  They are probably too busy cooking dinner, checking homework and making sure people are bathed and in bed at a decent hour.

This point gets back to the workplace inhospitableness towards caregivers.  Such caregivers (who are disproportionately women) leave the professional world altogether or remain but are relegated to a disrespected “mommy track” because of the difficulty in juggling paid work and family responsibilities.  But it is a vicious cycle.  Because they leave or are relegated to a lower caste at work, the perspective of such people are rarely heard in the media or behind closed doors when employment policies are decided.  Until their perspective is heard, I am pessimistic things will improve.

 

 

1 Corinthians 12:14-17

Certainly the body isn’t one part but many.  If the foot says, “I’m not part of the body because I’m not a hand,” does that mean it’s not part of the body?  If the ear says, “I’m not part of the body because I’m not an eye,” does that mean it’s not part of the body?  If the whole body were an eye, what would happen to the hearing? And if the whole body were an ear, what would happen to the sense of smell?

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.

Spoiled Children and Overworked Parents

I’ve been focusing a lot on women’s issues recently.  As expressed in the last post, I see this as an issue implicating Christianity because women have traditionally been a segment of the population who have been denied basic civil rights and have been viewed as second class citizens.  Such treatment is incompatible with Christ’s model when he walked this earth.  

However, another reason I have been so focused on women’s issues recently is that such issues are so intertwined with family and children.  Women in our society have long been the primary caregivers of children.  Whether paid as school teachers, nannies or babysitters, or unpaid familial caregivers (e.g., full-time moms), women still tend to be primarily responsible for and thus have the most impact on child-rearing.  Issues impacting women thus have a huge impact on families and on children in particular.  Christians tout family values.  And in the Gospels, Christ demonstrated a particular concern and sensitivity towards children, who were the most inconsequential persons in the pecking order of their society.  As I understand, their status was even lower than women in first century Palestine.

So, with this perspective, I was intrigued by the article below, which I came across last summer:   

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/easy-answer-why-american-kids-34-spoiled-rotten-192300981.html

The article discusses the notion that American kids are very indulged relative to children in other cultures and that outside the United States children help do household chores at an early age.

The article quotes a sociologist, Allison Pugh who notes that a child in another such culture isn’t “born chipping in; she was taught.”  Ms. Pugh also notes the impact of the “demands of the American workplace” that lead to American children not being similarly taught.  She explains:

“Americans work more hours than anyone else in the universe.  There’s a drive for efficiency.  It’s more efficient to do chores yourself or outsource them rather than teaching children to contribute.  That’s a shame, but I don’t think it’s a children’s shame, and it’s not just the parents’ fault.  There are only so many hours in the workday.” 

The article also quotes a writer and mother of five, Meagan Francis:

“Frankly, expecting kids to pull their weight—and enforcing those rules day in and day out—is tough.  When I had ‘just’ two kids, the daily trade-off hardly seemed worth it; It was better to just do it myself than try to oversee a pair of rambunctious, clumsy, pint-sized employees.”

The author of the article summarizes, “This seems like a practical, rational conclusion: We don’t discipline our kids because it takes time, and we often quite literally don’t have the time.”

In the United States we are often fairly callous to issues involving the challenges of child-rearing.  Often the attitude is: “You chose to bring that kid into the world, he/she is your problem to deal with.”  Personal responsibility is paramount; so many people are unsympathetic to the difficulties facing American families. 

I admit I used to feel like that before I was a parent myself.  If I were on a plane or in a restaurant where a kid was loud or kicking my chair, my attitude was to think poorly of the parents: “Why don’t they do something, their brat is bothering me.”  I was focused on my own annoyance and inconvenience.  I never thought about how difficult it is to completely control another energetic little person who does not have the same sorts of self-control and societal filters as an adult.

When I became a parent, I absolutely ate crow.  I began to realize how difficult it is to raise kids.  I find it a joy, but you never get a break.  You’re always on.  It is just exhausting.   So many of my fellow working moms neglect their own health by going years between check-ups.  Some wonder aloud if the constant exhaustion they feel is the sign of a serious health issue.  But when so many other working moms have the same symptom, it is easy to discount.  And no one is perfect when doing such a non-stop job, particularly if you feel exhausted most of the time.  At some point, we’re all going to fail under such conditions. 

It is also a challenge to be held responsible for everything your child does, even when he/she is not with you.  It is one thing to try to control their behavior when they are in your presence; that is frankly tough enough.  But it is another when they are not with you.  At such times, you have to hope that the lessons you have taught have taken root and they behave appropriately when they are not in close proximity.

That situation is difficult for every parent.  But in my opinion, it is particularly tough if you hold down a paying job and don’t actually get to spend much time with your child.  If most of your waking hours are spent attending to workplace responsibilities, the little time you have at home is often spent on the most pressing items like feeding hungry tummies and trying to make sure folks walk out the door wearing relatively clean clothes.  Time permitting, parents with paying gigs then attend to a sort of second tier triage which typically includes items like making sure homework is done and getting kids to various obligations from dental appointments, church services and/or soccer practice.  Realistically, in many families, disciplining and molding a child’s character become aspirational goals that are easily compromised in the constant time crunch many parents experience.  That is a horrible situation, but it happens.  It happens a lot.

I completely appreciate the need for efficiency and the issue of supervising “rambunctious, clumsy, pint-sized employees.”  My husband and I have seen that in our own up-bringings, the raising of our own children and our friends’ experiences raising their kids.  Instead of inviting a child to help with lawn care, laundry or toilet scrubbing, it is faster to do it ourselves in the little time we have available for those tasks. 

But as parents, we miss valuable opportunities to coach and guide our kids on important life skills when we take that more efficient route.  My father-in-law is an amazing amateur carpenter, but unfortunately he never passed those skills on to my husband until he retired and my husband had his own family.   When I have to bake for a church potluck or other event, I try to incorporate my kids into the process.  But invariably that prolongs the event considerably.  I have to fight the stress I feel from the time pressure.  I have to suppress my inclination to discharge my “pint-sized employees” and do the baking myself.  Beyond teaching my kids life skills in the kitchen, those are important bonding opportunities. And they are invaluable opportunities to encourage my kids to work through challenges.  Just because the egg cracking didn’t go smoothly the first time, doesn’t mean you throw a fit and give up.  Even if you don’t think you’ll ever incorporate all the flour into the creamed sugar, you keep trying and see it through until the end.

 

Proverbs 22:6
Train children in the way they should go; when they grow old, they won’t depart from it.

Europeans and Gender Equality Part III

Recently, I came across an interesting article relevant to the themes in recent posts.  The link below pulls up an article about male attitudes in France towards women.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/french-government-anti-sexism-lessons-17597856

The article describes how deeply ingrained sexist attitudes are in French culture.  Even in elite circles of well-educated men who should know better, and in circles of Socialist men who purport to value equality, women are viewed in sexualized, condescending terms.  Women are viewed as sex objects first and foremost.  Other potential contributions are secondary at best.  Incredible in this day and age.

The article focuses on sexualization as evidenced by members of the French government, but I don’t believe this is in any way a phenomenon only exhibited by politicians. 

I first began studying the French language when I was in 7^th grade and ultimately it was one of my undergraduate majors.  To improve my language skills and learn more about French culture, for years, I would watch French films whenever I could.  One thing I noticed over the years was that it was apparently mandatory that the leading actress appear topless at some point in every film.  It didn’t matter the type of film.  It could be a period piece about fictional characters or people from history that took place decades or centuries ago, or a modern drama, but at some point we had to see some female breasts on the screen. 

And there didn’t always seem to be a reason for it.  I remember one film where a very respected actress stood in front of her closet naked for several moments before choosing an outfit and getting dressed.  It was silly.  Isabelle Huppert, Nathalie Baye, Isabelle Adjani—no matter how impressive an actress was the star of the film, she was apparently always required to strip for the cameras.  Funny but the same was not also demanded of the male actors.  Indeed, I watched a lot of French films over the years, but I don’t remember seeing the men naked much.  Perhaps seeing Gerard Depardieu in the buff is not a big box office draw.

When I lived in France, I was stunned to discover that what Americans would label “pornography” was broadcast on French media.  As a student and au pair, I was pretty busy during the day and early evenings.  But I’d get some time to myself after I had cleaned up from dinner and the kids went to bed.  At such times, I’d listen to the radio with earphones while writing letters or doing homework in my room.  I listened to various radio stations but particularly those with pop music.  On one such station, sometimes the music was interrupted by a woman talking for prolonged periods.  Typically I was multitasking and the radio was background noise, so initially I didn’t pay much attention to this woman talking.  When I listened to the radio at that hour, I wanted to hear some good music, not someone talking.  And obviously she was speaking in French.  My language skills were still improving, but I would have had to really concentrate to be able to follow her message. 

At first, when this woman would speak I thought it was just the DJ and they’d return to music before long.  But then I noticed the music breaks were fairly long, and one night instead of flipping to another music station, I listened to try to figure out what she was saying.  When I did, I realized she was telling a story.  Ok, that was odd.  Interrupt music to tell a story.  Hmmmm.   

And the story wasn’t particularly gripping.  It was something mundane about a young man taking his new 14 year old girlfriend home to meet his parents for the weekend.  After a few minutes, the station would go back to the music, but later the same woman would come back on air to tell more of the same dumb story. 

This woman had a very distinctive voice and she spoke in an odd way.  I’m not sure how to describe it, but she was clearly trying to sound sexy and alluring.  I’m not sure how to explain what I mean, but trust me on this. 

Bits and pieces of the story interrupted the music over several hours.  It went on and on like that but towards the end, the story became more and more sexual.  Towards the end of the evening, it was extremely graphic.  I was shocked.  I wasn’t staying up particularly late.  Kids could be listening.  And even without the issue of kids, why would this be socially acceptable to broadcast over the radio the telling of a story with an obviously prurient aim?! 

My French family didn’t have cable and rarely watched TV.  That was fine by me.  French TV is not that good anyhow.  At one point towards the end of my time with them, they loaned me a small old TV to keep in my room.  Because the family’s main TV was right by where the babies slept, no one could watch it once they went down for the night.  The little TV they gave me for my room didn’t get good reception, so I didn’t watch it much. 

But one night I couldn’t sleep and turned it on to see if there might be anything worth watching.  Maybe a French David Letterman or something.  Indeed, I stumbled upon some sort of a comedy show.  But it didn’t take long to figure out the comedy was highly sexualized.  It was really graphic.  And at one point there was some female nudity that seemed to serve no real purpose. 

Again, I was horrified.  This show was borderline pornographic.  This was just being broadcast across the airwaves.  I guess most kids were asleep at that hour.  But why was it socially acceptable to air such filth?  The show seemed to be scripted by a couple of junior high boys going through puberty.  How did this get produced?

Europe has become increasingly secular over the years.  When I lived in France, it was depressing.  Churches were dead places.  They were typically these large, old, decaying structures.  Services were infrequent and sparsely attended.  Often I was the only person under the age of 60 to attend.

As an American and as a Christian, I cannot help but wonder if this rampant sexualization of women is at least in part a reflection of the secular culture of Europe.  Maybe I’m wrong.  But if you don’t see women as children of God created with inherent value and purpose—beyond simply sexual pleasure—then perhaps it is easy to be dismissive of them and to treat them in such a disrespectful manner. 

Indeed, if one's worldview informs that there is nothing worthwhile in this life but the pursuit of pleasure, it makes sense to me that prurient media would be common place.  Further, in a society dominated by men, it makes particular sense that the images of women in the media would be so sexualized.

What a sad state of affairs.

 

 

1 Peter 3:3

Wives must not let their beauty be something external. Beauty doesn’t come from hairstyles, gold jewelry, or clothes.