Jennifer=Queen of Gender and Education! I was worried about my test. It turns out I had no reason to be! *is really happy*
But, alas, I have two more tests this week and an essay to write. Tonight. So I shan't blog for long. Off to write!
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
While not studying for my test...
I found this. It's about former Bogotá Mayor Antanas Mockus, a math professor who decided to run for mayor. The article talks about some of his programs, which I found really exciting.
--The city streets are notoriously unsafe for women. Mockus declared a "Night for Women" where men were supposed to stay home and take care of the children, while concerts and specials in bars and restaurants for women gave them a night on the town. It actually worked. The mens' curfew was voluntary, but many abided by it. The Mayor encouraged the men to use that evening to think about women's role in society.
--Water usage was too high, so he filmed a commercial of himself in the shower, encouraging everyone else to, like him, turn the water off when soaping up. Water usage subsequently dropped 14% and continued to fall.
--He asked citizens to pay 10% in extra, voluntary taxes. And they did it. The city brought in more than three times the amount of money it had in 1990.
--Mockus put mimes on the street to improve the traffic. The shadowed pedestrians who broke the rules, mocking whatever they did. They also made fun of bad drivers.
--To restore morale in the city, he dressed up as a superhero: "Supercitizen"
Seriously, this guy is the sort of creative leader that we need today. Maybe they don't have to wear red capes. Or air commercials of themselves in the shower. But, Mockus shows us that a little creativity can go a long way.
--The city streets are notoriously unsafe for women. Mockus declared a "Night for Women" where men were supposed to stay home and take care of the children, while concerts and specials in bars and restaurants for women gave them a night on the town. It actually worked. The mens' curfew was voluntary, but many abided by it. The Mayor encouraged the men to use that evening to think about women's role in society.
--Water usage was too high, so he filmed a commercial of himself in the shower, encouraging everyone else to, like him, turn the water off when soaping up. Water usage subsequently dropped 14% and continued to fall.
--He asked citizens to pay 10% in extra, voluntary taxes. And they did it. The city brought in more than three times the amount of money it had in 1990.
--Mockus put mimes on the street to improve the traffic. The shadowed pedestrians who broke the rules, mocking whatever they did. They also made fun of bad drivers.
--To restore morale in the city, he dressed up as a superhero: "Supercitizen"
Seriously, this guy is the sort of creative leader that we need today. Maybe they don't have to wear red capes. Or air commercials of themselves in the shower. But, Mockus shows us that a little creativity can go a long way.
Spring!
Something about the weather today is positively cheery. The birds are singing, there is a slight breeze. It's sunny, but not hot. But, more than that, it feels like spring. Today is, in general, a Very Good Day, and there's no reason why. Which is the best kind, really.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Jennifer the AMAZING Procrastinator, installment 2
This is an illustration to my last post. And, it is also another way to procrastinate. And use my nifty scanner.
Fiction
Before college, I read voraciously. All during classes, at night when I should have been sleeping--I always had a book, and was transported to different times and places. I took on the roles of different people. Sure, I had "real life," but fiction was how I really lived.
Since I came to college, I got a real life. And I also got alot of school work. And alot of books. And I became totally and completley fascinated by sociology. When I read books in my spare time, they were sociological. I don't think I had read a fiction book that was not for class in three years (not a new one, anyway; I'd re-read books that I liked, but that doesn't count, really).
But, recently someone suggested Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale to me, so, when I was in the library on Saturday I decided to pick it up. I started it yesterday, and finished it just now. Wow. I had forgotten the thrill that came with a good piece of fiction. The way time just soars by. You look at the clock and it's 2am, and the next time you emerge from the pages it's 5:30 and you realize that you ought to get to bed. That's what I miss.
The writing in this book was stunning. It would be easy to compare this book to Orwell's 1984 (which is due for a re-read!), but I think there is so much more to it. It, too, deals with the role of language in constructing our reality. Women in this future society are known soley in terms of their function: Wives, Handmaids, or Marthas. Their names denote their "owner." The narrator's new name is Offred (Of Fred).
In this new political system that emerges, womens' bodies are political tools. They are only good for reproductive labor. Handmaids are there for when upper class women are unable to have children (taken from the Bible). Marthas cook and clean. Women cannot vote, hold jobs, or even read. There is a strong "pro-woman" rhetoric that is belied by their constant oppression. Women are complicit in this. Given nominal bits of power over other women, they are complacent with their lot.
The narrator splices her tale throughout with fragmented memories. The reader is left with more questions than answers. The, ending, especially, is frustrating and at the same time satisfying. There could be no other ending.
I could go on and on. But I won't. I have homework to do. It's tempting to go check out some more fiction. Any recommendations? I'm afraid, though, that if I let myself back into the dark abyss that is fiction, I'll never find my way out again! I'm (mostly) kidding. But, I do have homework to get done and papers to write and (non-fiction) books to read...
Since I came to college, I got a real life. And I also got alot of school work. And alot of books. And I became totally and completley fascinated by sociology. When I read books in my spare time, they were sociological. I don't think I had read a fiction book that was not for class in three years (not a new one, anyway; I'd re-read books that I liked, but that doesn't count, really).
But, recently someone suggested Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale to me, so, when I was in the library on Saturday I decided to pick it up. I started it yesterday, and finished it just now. Wow. I had forgotten the thrill that came with a good piece of fiction. The way time just soars by. You look at the clock and it's 2am, and the next time you emerge from the pages it's 5:30 and you realize that you ought to get to bed. That's what I miss.
The writing in this book was stunning. It would be easy to compare this book to Orwell's 1984 (which is due for a re-read!), but I think there is so much more to it. It, too, deals with the role of language in constructing our reality. Women in this future society are known soley in terms of their function: Wives, Handmaids, or Marthas. Their names denote their "owner." The narrator's new name is Offred (Of Fred).
In this new political system that emerges, womens' bodies are political tools. They are only good for reproductive labor. Handmaids are there for when upper class women are unable to have children (taken from the Bible). Marthas cook and clean. Women cannot vote, hold jobs, or even read. There is a strong "pro-woman" rhetoric that is belied by their constant oppression. Women are complicit in this. Given nominal bits of power over other women, they are complacent with their lot.
The narrator splices her tale throughout with fragmented memories. The reader is left with more questions than answers. The, ending, especially, is frustrating and at the same time satisfying. There could be no other ending.
I could go on and on. But I won't. I have homework to do. It's tempting to go check out some more fiction. Any recommendations? I'm afraid, though, that if I let myself back into the dark abyss that is fiction, I'll never find my way out again! I'm (mostly) kidding. But, I do have homework to get done and papers to write and (non-fiction) books to read...
Father Ted
The highest concentration of writing/study hours occurs, for me, on Sunday afternoons/evenings/nights. It's when I write the most essays, get the most work done on major papers, it's when I do the bulk of the reading for classes early on in the week. So, by 1am, I'm tired and quite in need of a break.
So, for at least a year, Sunday nights at 1:00am on the local PBS station, KERA 13, "Father Ted" has been my weekly ritual.
I never laugh out loud when watching TV by myself. It's not that I don't find things amusing, but rarely do I find them laugh-out-loud funny. But "Father Ted" regularly has me (not quite literally, but almost) rolling on the floor.
For those of you who don't know what it is (which, I suspect, is most of you), it is a British comedy that aired in the mid-to-late 1990s. It's set in Ireland, on Craggy Island, where Father Ted Crilly, along with the very, very dim Father Dougal McGuire and the perpetually drunk-or-asleep Father Jack, is the parish priest. They have a housekeeper, Mrs. Doyle, who loves making loads of tea and sandwiches, for everyone who doesn't want them.
The comedy ranges from totally immature to slapstick to character comedy to satire to anarchistic. It is all of these at once. It is hilarious! The very low-budget-ness of it all makes it even better.
They show it on PBS without commercial breaks at all, so it is only 20 minutes long. But, not until tonight, when I missed it by falling asleep, did I realize what an important part of my week those twenty minutes are. It's become a ritual. As those of you who know me are aware, I get into habits (good or bad) and it's hard to change them. This, somewhat unbeknownst to me, has become a weekly habit. I didn't miss it 'till it was (temporarily) gone.
Anyway, to get my weekly hit, I decided to go online, convinced that for such a wonderful show, there must be loads of websites about it. I was not disappointed. I now feel compelled to share some of the sheer hilarity of it with you, by giving you a few select quotes:
"Did you know you could praise the Lord, just by leaving the room?" --Ted to Dougal
Father Fitzpatrick: And this is the last known photo of Herr Hitler; he's signing a few death warrants there.
Ted: Funny how you get more right-wing as you get older!
Dougal: Sorry Ted. I was concentrating too hard on looking holy.
Dougal: God, I've heard about those cults Ted. People dressing up in black and saying Our Lord's going to come back and save us all.
Ted: No, Dougal, that's us. That's Catholicism.
Dougal: Oh right.
Ted: Dougal, don't you think that if we put this baby's moustache, this baby's head hair and this baby's sideboards together we'd get....Pat Mustard?
Dougal: D'you think the babies could be copying his style?
Ted: No, Dougal, I think Pat Mustard's been delivering more than just dairy products, if you see what I mean.
Dougal: Yes.......well........er...y..well.......yes.
Ted: Do you?
Dougal: No.
Ted: I'm not a fascist. I'm a priest. Fascists dress up in black and tell people what to do. Whereas priests......More drink!
Re-reading those quotes just now, I realize that you may not find them as funny as I do. I have a few hypotheses about this. 1) Perhaps one must hear them in their context, both situational and thematic. 2) It is possible that I've chosen poor quotes. I've just picked these from websites devoted to "Father Ted." I can actually recall quite a few funnier things, but not well enough to quote them, so I didn't. 3) It's possible that the show itself is not all that funny. Rather, my enjoyment of it stems more from my context... I am watching it after spending hours and hours on academic-y things, so anything is funny. 4) We must always consider the option that you simply lack a sense of humor and thus don't appreciate the genius of "Father Ted" (or at least those select quotes).
Either way. I'm off to bed. I've gotten my Sunday night Father Ted fix.
So, for at least a year, Sunday nights at 1:00am on the local PBS station, KERA 13, "Father Ted" has been my weekly ritual.
I never laugh out loud when watching TV by myself. It's not that I don't find things amusing, but rarely do I find them laugh-out-loud funny. But "Father Ted" regularly has me (not quite literally, but almost) rolling on the floor.
For those of you who don't know what it is (which, I suspect, is most of you), it is a British comedy that aired in the mid-to-late 1990s. It's set in Ireland, on Craggy Island, where Father Ted Crilly, along with the very, very dim Father Dougal McGuire and the perpetually drunk-or-asleep Father Jack, is the parish priest. They have a housekeeper, Mrs. Doyle, who loves making loads of tea and sandwiches, for everyone who doesn't want them.
The comedy ranges from totally immature to slapstick to character comedy to satire to anarchistic. It is all of these at once. It is hilarious! The very low-budget-ness of it all makes it even better.
They show it on PBS without commercial breaks at all, so it is only 20 minutes long. But, not until tonight, when I missed it by falling asleep, did I realize what an important part of my week those twenty minutes are. It's become a ritual. As those of you who know me are aware, I get into habits (good or bad) and it's hard to change them. This, somewhat unbeknownst to me, has become a weekly habit. I didn't miss it 'till it was (temporarily) gone.
Anyway, to get my weekly hit, I decided to go online, convinced that for such a wonderful show, there must be loads of websites about it. I was not disappointed. I now feel compelled to share some of the sheer hilarity of it with you, by giving you a few select quotes:
"Did you know you could praise the Lord, just by leaving the room?" --Ted to Dougal
Father Fitzpatrick: And this is the last known photo of Herr Hitler; he's signing a few death warrants there.
Ted: Funny how you get more right-wing as you get older!
Dougal: Sorry Ted. I was concentrating too hard on looking holy.
Dougal: God, I've heard about those cults Ted. People dressing up in black and saying Our Lord's going to come back and save us all.
Ted: No, Dougal, that's us. That's Catholicism.
Dougal: Oh right.
Ted: Dougal, don't you think that if we put this baby's moustache, this baby's head hair and this baby's sideboards together we'd get....Pat Mustard?
Dougal: D'you think the babies could be copying his style?
Ted: No, Dougal, I think Pat Mustard's been delivering more than just dairy products, if you see what I mean.
Dougal: Yes.......well........er...y..well.......yes.
Ted: Do you?
Dougal: No.
Ted: I'm not a fascist. I'm a priest. Fascists dress up in black and tell people what to do. Whereas priests......More drink!
Re-reading those quotes just now, I realize that you may not find them as funny as I do. I have a few hypotheses about this. 1) Perhaps one must hear them in their context, both situational and thematic. 2) It is possible that I've chosen poor quotes. I've just picked these from websites devoted to "Father Ted." I can actually recall quite a few funnier things, but not well enough to quote them, so I didn't. 3) It's possible that the show itself is not all that funny. Rather, my enjoyment of it stems more from my context... I am watching it after spending hours and hours on academic-y things, so anything is funny. 4) We must always consider the option that you simply lack a sense of humor and thus don't appreciate the genius of "Father Ted" (or at least those select quotes).
Either way. I'm off to bed. I've gotten my Sunday night Father Ted fix.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
A random rant (as promised in the title of this blog)
For many reading this (well, in no sense do "many" people read this, but many of those who do), my rant won't be anything new or shocking about the world. But, grr.
When men do things that women are "supposed" to do, they get extra credit for it. If a man cooks dinner, or if he spends alot of time with his kids, he's super-awesome. If a woman does it, well, duh. Isn't that her job?
This is not new or surprising, but in the past 24 hours I have seen like four blatant examples of this, and it's starting to annoy me!
First off, I was with two of my friends, and one was talking about a guy in one of her classes who is a single dad, raising a four year old son because the mom left as soon as he was born. The other friend said, "oh, that's awesome that he's doing that!" As if he's so special because he's taking care of his child. I mean, how often do we talk about how wonderful single mothers are? I pointed out that he didn't have that much of a choice in the matter. If the mom left, he was stuck with the kid. Not that what he's doing isn't tough, and not that it's not good that he didn't abandon the child or something--but I never hear anyone talking about how wonderful a woman is if she's had a child and the dad decides not to be present at all.
I guess alot of it has to do with the fact that we view pregnancy as a woman's "fault" rather than the man's. When teenage couples get pregnant, somehow it's the girls' fault, at least in society's eyes. They're the "gatekeepers." They're also the ones responsible for birth control. Now, I'm all for teaching birth control to every teenager, boys and girls. And I think that girls ought to know enough to prevent pregnancy. But so should boys. That way, when a man is raising a child alone, it's not seen as some wonderful, altruistic thing he's doing, while a woman in a similar situation is seen as reaping the consequences of her irresponsible actions. grr.
With this fresh in my mind, this sort of thing kept standing out to me all yesterday and today. While being a lazy bum and watching sitcom reruns on Nick at Nite rather than studying for my several midterms next week, I noticed it alot. Men are wonderful when they take care of the kids, cook meals, etc. Whereas women are expected to do it. We don't even notice it until they don't do it, and then we blame them for not doing their "job."
Anyway, sorry for going on and on and repeating myself.
When men do things that women are "supposed" to do, they get extra credit for it. If a man cooks dinner, or if he spends alot of time with his kids, he's super-awesome. If a woman does it, well, duh. Isn't that her job?
This is not new or surprising, but in the past 24 hours I have seen like four blatant examples of this, and it's starting to annoy me!
First off, I was with two of my friends, and one was talking about a guy in one of her classes who is a single dad, raising a four year old son because the mom left as soon as he was born. The other friend said, "oh, that's awesome that he's doing that!" As if he's so special because he's taking care of his child. I mean, how often do we talk about how wonderful single mothers are? I pointed out that he didn't have that much of a choice in the matter. If the mom left, he was stuck with the kid. Not that what he's doing isn't tough, and not that it's not good that he didn't abandon the child or something--but I never hear anyone talking about how wonderful a woman is if she's had a child and the dad decides not to be present at all.
I guess alot of it has to do with the fact that we view pregnancy as a woman's "fault" rather than the man's. When teenage couples get pregnant, somehow it's the girls' fault, at least in society's eyes. They're the "gatekeepers." They're also the ones responsible for birth control. Now, I'm all for teaching birth control to every teenager, boys and girls. And I think that girls ought to know enough to prevent pregnancy. But so should boys. That way, when a man is raising a child alone, it's not seen as some wonderful, altruistic thing he's doing, while a woman in a similar situation is seen as reaping the consequences of her irresponsible actions. grr.
With this fresh in my mind, this sort of thing kept standing out to me all yesterday and today. While being a lazy bum and watching sitcom reruns on Nick at Nite rather than studying for my several midterms next week, I noticed it alot. Men are wonderful when they take care of the kids, cook meals, etc. Whereas women are expected to do it. We don't even notice it until they don't do it, and then we blame them for not doing their "job."
Anyway, sorry for going on and on and repeating myself.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Census follow-up
Well, as you can see below, I decided to take a census of my "readers." Here's the thing: it doesn't work if you don't respond. Now, don't worry going down there and quickly commenting to make me feel better. My feelings are already hurt.
Thank you to Kitty and Jeremy for actually responding. Those comments did provide the requested self-esteem boost because they're actually people I don't know in real life--who, at least once, looked at my blog!
As for the rest of you: four of you sent me a message saying, "hey, I saw your post. I read your journal!" For some (no doubt mental disorder related) reason, I need to see it in the comments to believe it. Was it really and truly a great big hassle to click on "Post a Comment" and say something like, "This is _____ and I'm reading right now." ?
You all disappoint me.
(But I still love you. And if you get blogs I will always comment.)
Thank you to Kitty and Jeremy for actually responding. Those comments did provide the requested self-esteem boost because they're actually people I don't know in real life--who, at least once, looked at my blog!
As for the rest of you: four of you sent me a message saying, "hey, I saw your post. I read your journal!" For some (no doubt mental disorder related) reason, I need to see it in the comments to believe it. Was it really and truly a great big hassle to click on "Post a Comment" and say something like, "This is _____ and I'm reading right now." ?
You all disappoint me.
(But I still love you. And if you get blogs I will always comment.)
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
In which the author seeks a self esteem boost
I've been told by an authority on the subject that a "proper blog" must be updated at least twice a day. I average around twice a week. But a proper blog has more than two readers. I'm not convinced that this one does. So different rules must apply here.
But, out of curiousity, I am going to take an official Random Rants and Ravings census. No matter who you are, whether you randomly stumbled upon this site or read it regularly (ha!), if you are reading this post, take a moment and comment. Just anything. Give me some confidence!
But, out of curiousity, I am going to take an official Random Rants and Ravings census. No matter who you are, whether you randomly stumbled upon this site or read it regularly (ha!), if you are reading this post, take a moment and comment. Just anything. Give me some confidence!
Sunday, February 13, 2005
"Biblical Masculinity"
Tonight on the way back from Denison I was listening to the radio. I had intended to come home and rant on here about the right winger I listened to who was saying Bush was justified in cutting funding for Amtrak because government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing transportation. Now, I don't know enough about the history/uses of Amtrak to say whether it was a legitimate cut or not. But, it's like, dude, come on. Think about the highway system, think about the billion-dollar bailouts given to the airline industry. We certainly subsidize transportation in this country, and that is a Good Thing.
And, no doubt, I would have gone on and on and on about this (and other ridiculous, living-in-some-alternate-reality stuff that he was saying (like, Europeans killing off Native Americans wasn't so bad because Native Americans had wars and were killing themselves off anyway... dude!)). But, I found something marginally more interesting and certainly more enraging.
Before I go on, I am putting this disclaimer here: I have never read anything by John Eldredge and my only exposure to his work was tonight on NPR and the Amazon.com page for his book, Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul.
So, the topic on Religion Talk tonight was "Are Christian Men Wimps?" John Eldredge came on to talk. His opinion was that, yes, indeed they are. We have "feminized" the church and taught men to become "really nice, sensitive guys" rather than the men (who are wild at heart) that God created them to be. Now, he starts off by quoting Proverbs 20:5, saying that it says "The heart of a man is like deep water..." Well, having a Bible there in the car (by this point I had already arrived back at my apartment and was just sitting out there listening to this story cause it was interesting), I decided to look it up and see its context.
The problem is that... oops... Eldredge totally 1) cut off the sentence it was in and 2) changed the meaning of the phrase!! Here's what it really says (according to the KJV I had in my car... weird translation to randomly have, but it was one of those little bitty ones that found its way in there somehow): "Counsel in the heart of a man is like deep water." Umm. Not quite the same thing, Mr. Eldredge. Yet he says his entire book is premised off this verse. Makes me question the entire premise of his book, really.. :-)
But, this thinking has just now set me off on a tangent. Let's assume for one moment that Eldredge had actually not taken the quote out of context. "The heart of a man is like deep water." Are we to believe that this only applied to men, rather than to men and women? How did we decide this? Is every reference to "man" or "men" in the Bible solely meant to be for/refer to men? I can't think of a single person who would actually contend this. So, yeah, even if he weren't blatantly ripping off this verse to make his own point, it would still be suspect. How can we know that the author of this saying wasn't referring to "man" in the general, everybody, sexist way?
I also have issues with his rendering of the story told in Genesis for its gender implications. He talks about how man was formed before Eden (the super-cool, paradise-like place God gave humans before the Fall) and thus he has always had this longing in his heart for more. He was born in the "outback," (aka creation before it was "tamed"). Eve, the woman, however, had only known domesticated Eden, and thus lacked this innate desire for adventure and danger. I don't know whether he is viewing the creation story literally or metaphorically (he may say in the book, but he didn't in the interview), but his implications are troubling. Some people may have other, theological issues with him. He seemed to be suggesting that man (the gender-specific term) was better off (and in a more suitable environment) before God gave him Eden to live in. Only when man sinned (non gender specific) was he (again, meaning he and she) kicked out of this place that repressed his (now meaning just male) inner desires and put in the world, where he could fulfill his longings and desires.
Any theologians out there have opinions on this? Anyone read Eldredge? Did he just get way off in the interview, or does he believe this, and is this acceptable from a mainstream Christian POV?
He talks about God as "dangerous" and "wild," as men should be. He says that God took a "risk" in creating Adam and Eve, not knowing if they would obey or not. So, umm, God didn't know what was going to happen? God was surprised when man (non gender specific) sinned? Again, going back to what I believe to be mainstream Christian doctrine, I don't think many would say that God takes risks, because the very essence of risk is not knowing what's coming next and taking a gamble on it. But, the thing is, God (in the Christian worldview) is omniscient and omnipresent. Adam didn't shock or surprise God. This "dangerous" side of men that Eldredge wants to cultivate, this risk taking side, may be a very good thing, but, is it really godly (in the sense that it is god-like)?
I found Eldredge's numerous references to militarism very interesting, but will likely save that for another post about masculinity and militarism in general.
He made some interesting points about how we have "feminized" Jesus in the modern church. He didn't have anything much to say on that point, but I think it is a fascinating one. Certainly, people of all periods in time have constructed "Jesus" to their liking. I am not using quotation marks here to deny the existance of a historical Jesus but to point out that our view of his personality is deeply shaped by our culture. During the early 20th century, when America was having a bit of a masculinity crisis (not unlike now), we saw a tough, macho Jesus (similar to the one Eldredge wishes to present). At other times we see the suffering saint, sometimes it's the lover of children, sometimes it's the godlike, righteous man. Jesus, in some eras, takes on a "feminine" persona, and in others is given very masculine characteristics (we focus on his confrontations with demons, his turning over the temple tables, etc). I find this fascinating. I want to study (and I've been saying this for a while, so who knows when I'll get to it) representations of Jesus, and the divine in general, over time to see how different periods portray him. Any thoughts on this social construction of how we think about/relate to Jesus?
Now, on to my most broad point of argument with Eldredge. He talks about how men (gender-specific) are supposed to be like God and Jesus. Well, sure. No Christians would disagree. But, aren't women supposed to be like them as well? I mean, come on, it's not like God is a man after all. S/He has no gender!! I won't debate Jesus's biological male-ness, but that's sort of irrelevant to my point. Wouldn't Christians all say that Jesus is the role model for... all Christians (gender-inclusive)? Or should women take the long-suffering, patient parts of his personality and men take the table-turning, adventurous parts? Again, I can't think of a single Christian that would really contend this.
So, here is my overall challenge, to anyone who cares, Christian or not, theologian or not: What is Biblical masculinity? Don't give me some weak answer about imitating God/Jesus. Shouldn't everyone do that? Don't talk about "examples" of Biblical masculinity in abstract terms. Give me concrete, specific people and what they did that exemplifies how men (and, importantly, not women) should act. Better yet--give me adjectives: strong, adventurous, outdoors-y. But don't just give me adjectives. Tell me why you think what you think. How is "Biblical Masculinity" different from "Biblical Femininity"?
Or tell my why my question is silly/flawed.
And, no doubt, I would have gone on and on and on about this (and other ridiculous, living-in-some-alternate-reality stuff that he was saying (like, Europeans killing off Native Americans wasn't so bad because Native Americans had wars and were killing themselves off anyway... dude!)). But, I found something marginally more interesting and certainly more enraging.
Before I go on, I am putting this disclaimer here: I have never read anything by John Eldredge and my only exposure to his work was tonight on NPR and the Amazon.com page for his book, Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul.
So, the topic on Religion Talk tonight was "Are Christian Men Wimps?" John Eldredge came on to talk. His opinion was that, yes, indeed they are. We have "feminized" the church and taught men to become "really nice, sensitive guys" rather than the men (who are wild at heart) that God created them to be. Now, he starts off by quoting Proverbs 20:5, saying that it says "The heart of a man is like deep water..." Well, having a Bible there in the car (by this point I had already arrived back at my apartment and was just sitting out there listening to this story cause it was interesting), I decided to look it up and see its context.
The problem is that... oops... Eldredge totally 1) cut off the sentence it was in and 2) changed the meaning of the phrase!! Here's what it really says (according to the KJV I had in my car... weird translation to randomly have, but it was one of those little bitty ones that found its way in there somehow): "Counsel in the heart of a man is like deep water." Umm. Not quite the same thing, Mr. Eldredge. Yet he says his entire book is premised off this verse. Makes me question the entire premise of his book, really.. :-)
But, this thinking has just now set me off on a tangent. Let's assume for one moment that Eldredge had actually not taken the quote out of context. "The heart of a man is like deep water." Are we to believe that this only applied to men, rather than to men and women? How did we decide this? Is every reference to "man" or "men" in the Bible solely meant to be for/refer to men? I can't think of a single person who would actually contend this. So, yeah, even if he weren't blatantly ripping off this verse to make his own point, it would still be suspect. How can we know that the author of this saying wasn't referring to "man" in the general, everybody, sexist way?
I also have issues with his rendering of the story told in Genesis for its gender implications. He talks about how man was formed before Eden (the super-cool, paradise-like place God gave humans before the Fall) and thus he has always had this longing in his heart for more. He was born in the "outback," (aka creation before it was "tamed"). Eve, the woman, however, had only known domesticated Eden, and thus lacked this innate desire for adventure and danger. I don't know whether he is viewing the creation story literally or metaphorically (he may say in the book, but he didn't in the interview), but his implications are troubling. Some people may have other, theological issues with him. He seemed to be suggesting that man (the gender-specific term) was better off (and in a more suitable environment) before God gave him Eden to live in. Only when man sinned (non gender specific) was he (again, meaning he and she) kicked out of this place that repressed his (now meaning just male) inner desires and put in the world, where he could fulfill his longings and desires.
Any theologians out there have opinions on this? Anyone read Eldredge? Did he just get way off in the interview, or does he believe this, and is this acceptable from a mainstream Christian POV?
He talks about God as "dangerous" and "wild," as men should be. He says that God took a "risk" in creating Adam and Eve, not knowing if they would obey or not. So, umm, God didn't know what was going to happen? God was surprised when man (non gender specific) sinned? Again, going back to what I believe to be mainstream Christian doctrine, I don't think many would say that God takes risks, because the very essence of risk is not knowing what's coming next and taking a gamble on it. But, the thing is, God (in the Christian worldview) is omniscient and omnipresent. Adam didn't shock or surprise God. This "dangerous" side of men that Eldredge wants to cultivate, this risk taking side, may be a very good thing, but, is it really godly (in the sense that it is god-like)?
I found Eldredge's numerous references to militarism very interesting, but will likely save that for another post about masculinity and militarism in general.
He made some interesting points about how we have "feminized" Jesus in the modern church. He didn't have anything much to say on that point, but I think it is a fascinating one. Certainly, people of all periods in time have constructed "Jesus" to their liking. I am not using quotation marks here to deny the existance of a historical Jesus but to point out that our view of his personality is deeply shaped by our culture. During the early 20th century, when America was having a bit of a masculinity crisis (not unlike now), we saw a tough, macho Jesus (similar to the one Eldredge wishes to present). At other times we see the suffering saint, sometimes it's the lover of children, sometimes it's the godlike, righteous man. Jesus, in some eras, takes on a "feminine" persona, and in others is given very masculine characteristics (we focus on his confrontations with demons, his turning over the temple tables, etc). I find this fascinating. I want to study (and I've been saying this for a while, so who knows when I'll get to it) representations of Jesus, and the divine in general, over time to see how different periods portray him. Any thoughts on this social construction of how we think about/relate to Jesus?
Now, on to my most broad point of argument with Eldredge. He talks about how men (gender-specific) are supposed to be like God and Jesus. Well, sure. No Christians would disagree. But, aren't women supposed to be like them as well? I mean, come on, it's not like God is a man after all. S/He has no gender!! I won't debate Jesus's biological male-ness, but that's sort of irrelevant to my point. Wouldn't Christians all say that Jesus is the role model for... all Christians (gender-inclusive)? Or should women take the long-suffering, patient parts of his personality and men take the table-turning, adventurous parts? Again, I can't think of a single Christian that would really contend this.
So, here is my overall challenge, to anyone who cares, Christian or not, theologian or not: What is Biblical masculinity? Don't give me some weak answer about imitating God/Jesus. Shouldn't everyone do that? Don't talk about "examples" of Biblical masculinity in abstract terms. Give me concrete, specific people and what they did that exemplifies how men (and, importantly, not women) should act. Better yet--give me adjectives: strong, adventurous, outdoors-y. But don't just give me adjectives. Tell me why you think what you think. How is "Biblical Masculinity" different from "Biblical Femininity"?
Or tell my why my question is silly/flawed.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Does this strike anyone else as ironic??
In talking about his "Passport to Manhood" program:
"We want to show an ideal of manhood that respects life and rejects violence," said Bush, who is leading the effort.
uh.
"We want to show an ideal of manhood that respects life and rejects violence," said Bush, who is leading the effort.
uh.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Smoking is bad... for your lungs and your job.
I just heard this on All Things Considered a few minutes ago. Basically, this company requires all of its employees to be smoke-free in a year or they're fired (or they can resign). The company has good reasons for this: employees who smoke drive up health care costs. The company offers to pay for programs and supplies to help quit smoking. But, if after a year you test positive to random nicotene tests... you're outta there.
What are your thoughts on this? Is this a reasonable attempt by a company to 1)reduce costs, and 2)protect their employees? I agree that it's legal. We have laws protecting people from being fired/not hired due to race, ethnicity, gender, and even alcoholism (per the ADA, as long as it doesn't affect work performance), but stuff like this (private behavior) is out in the open. (Some states do have laws protecting from discrim. based on lifestyle, which would include things like this.)
Should companies be able to regulate private behavior? Can we not hire people because they eat junk food, engage in risky hobbies (motorcycling, parachuting), don't practice safe sex, etc? To what extent is this "okay" for companies to do?
Where would we draw the line? Any thoughts?
What are your thoughts on this? Is this a reasonable attempt by a company to 1)reduce costs, and 2)protect their employees? I agree that it's legal. We have laws protecting people from being fired/not hired due to race, ethnicity, gender, and even alcoholism (per the ADA, as long as it doesn't affect work performance), but stuff like this (private behavior) is out in the open. (Some states do have laws protecting from discrim. based on lifestyle, which would include things like this.)
Should companies be able to regulate private behavior? Can we not hire people because they eat junk food, engage in risky hobbies (motorcycling, parachuting), don't practice safe sex, etc? To what extent is this "okay" for companies to do?
Where would we draw the line? Any thoughts?
"Reading too much into it"
This is for all of you who tell me constantly that I "read too much into things." This is scanned in from an assignment for Gender and Education:
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Straight Pride Week
http://www.thekcrachannel.com/education/4139721/detail.html
If you don't want to go read the article: basically, a bunch of College Republicans at a school in Oklahoma are having a "Straight Pride Week."
This reminds me of when people had the whole "Conservative Coming Out Day" on the same day as the National Come Out Day. Totally insenstive, really. Making fun of people when they are at their weakest.
Now, I've heard from a few people similar arguments, "What's wrong with being proud of being straight?" Nothing. I'm straight. And I'm "proud" (if you can call it that) of being attracted to men. However, "pride," in the sense of "gay pride" is less about celebrating one's attractions as celebrating one's ability to be oneself. It's celebrating how far our society has come (and recognizing how far it has yet to go).
Here's the thing though: if anyone says that this is about being "proud" of being straight, I think they're being disingenous. The point of this is not to celebrate attraction to the opposite sex. We celebrate that in our culture everyday. Going with the definition of pride in the previous paragraph, straight people have no need to celebrate the ability to be oneself. They always have that option.
Gay people do not. They can't talk about significant others at work. They can't have pictures on their desks.
No, the point of "Straight Pride Week" is to go against gay people. I can't really think of a reason that someone who wasn't anti-gay would really need a "straight pride week."
This makes me think of someone doing something like "white pride week." Is there anything wrong with being proud of one's heritage, white or not? Absolutley not. Is there a need for a "white pride week"? Absolutley not. White people have their history and heritage affirmed every day, on television, in the media, in text books, and in countless other ways.
Just like blackness, homosexuality is associated with threats of physical violence. Think of yourself as a black person in the segregationist south, where lynchings and assaults are common. Now, what would White Pride Week mean to you? It would mean a constant fear. Now, think of today, where reports about of men and women being killed and assaulted because of their sexuality (suspected or real). Just as then, most of these crimes aren't reported by the media. But they happen. And people are afraid. What does Straight Pride Week mean to gay people? It increases the fear, the threat level.
I'm sorry. But the very idea of this week is offensive to me. Not because of the idea of being proud and open about sexuality but because of the anti-gay sentiment that is behind it. I think the test would be is this: would this group be willing to have a "Gay-Straight Pride Week"? Would they be willing to celebrate the diversity of sexuality?
All year is Straight Pride Year. They aren't just the majority, they are the default.
But, yeah, go ahead and have your Straight Pride Week. Then your White Pride Week. Then your Rich Pride Week. I know how difficult it is to be one.
If you don't want to go read the article: basically, a bunch of College Republicans at a school in Oklahoma are having a "Straight Pride Week."
This reminds me of when people had the whole "Conservative Coming Out Day" on the same day as the National Come Out Day. Totally insenstive, really. Making fun of people when they are at their weakest.
Now, I've heard from a few people similar arguments, "What's wrong with being proud of being straight?" Nothing. I'm straight. And I'm "proud" (if you can call it that) of being attracted to men. However, "pride," in the sense of "gay pride" is less about celebrating one's attractions as celebrating one's ability to be oneself. It's celebrating how far our society has come (and recognizing how far it has yet to go).
Here's the thing though: if anyone says that this is about being "proud" of being straight, I think they're being disingenous. The point of this is not to celebrate attraction to the opposite sex. We celebrate that in our culture everyday. Going with the definition of pride in the previous paragraph, straight people have no need to celebrate the ability to be oneself. They always have that option.
Gay people do not. They can't talk about significant others at work. They can't have pictures on their desks.
No, the point of "Straight Pride Week" is to go against gay people. I can't really think of a reason that someone who wasn't anti-gay would really need a "straight pride week."
This makes me think of someone doing something like "white pride week." Is there anything wrong with being proud of one's heritage, white or not? Absolutley not. Is there a need for a "white pride week"? Absolutley not. White people have their history and heritage affirmed every day, on television, in the media, in text books, and in countless other ways.
Just like blackness, homosexuality is associated with threats of physical violence. Think of yourself as a black person in the segregationist south, where lynchings and assaults are common. Now, what would White Pride Week mean to you? It would mean a constant fear. Now, think of today, where reports about of men and women being killed and assaulted because of their sexuality (suspected or real). Just as then, most of these crimes aren't reported by the media. But they happen. And people are afraid. What does Straight Pride Week mean to gay people? It increases the fear, the threat level.
I'm sorry. But the very idea of this week is offensive to me. Not because of the idea of being proud and open about sexuality but because of the anti-gay sentiment that is behind it. I think the test would be is this: would this group be willing to have a "Gay-Straight Pride Week"? Would they be willing to celebrate the diversity of sexuality?
All year is Straight Pride Year. They aren't just the majority, they are the default.
But, yeah, go ahead and have your Straight Pride Week. Then your White Pride Week. Then your Rich Pride Week. I know how difficult it is to be one.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Myers-Brigg
Recently, I've been having some discussion about personality type in fiction, particularly Myers-Brigg in Harry Potter.
I won't bore you with that discussion (though, I assure you, it is fascinating).
But, you (yes, I mean you!) should go take the test: http://http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp and come back and tell me what you came up with and whether you think it fits you or not.
I am an INTJ. Someone (with the nicest intentions, I'm sure) pointed out that one paragraph in particular was quite accurate:
Now, surely, my (hypothetical) readers, you disagree with this assessment of me?
However, by and large, I can see that the description fits. (http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html)
What about you?
I won't bore you with that discussion (though, I assure you, it is fascinating).
But, you (yes, I mean you!) should go take the test: http://http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp and come back and tell me what you came up with and whether you think it fits you or not.
I am an INTJ. Someone (with the nicest intentions, I'm sure) pointed out that one paragraph in particular was quite accurate:
Many INTJs believe that they are always right. In some INTJs, this belief is quite obvious, while in others it is more subtle. Some people may have a difficult time accepting what they see as a "superior attitude" or "snobbery". Not to imply that INTJs are snobbish, just that some people with strong Feeling preferences may perceive them that way. And some individuals simply have no interest in the theoretical pursuits which the INTJ enjoys.
Now, surely, my (hypothetical) readers, you disagree with this assessment of me?
However, by and large, I can see that the description fits. (http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html)
What about you?
Jennifer the AMAZING Procrastinator
This is the extent of my boredom.
Despite the fact that I have two books to read, a test to study for, and two essays to write.
*Is sad and pathetic*
Despite the fact that I have two books to read, a test to study for, and two essays to write.
*Is sad and pathetic*
Monday, January 24, 2005
Baby X
This is for all of you who I told I'd send you the Baby X story the other day. You should read it. It's short and interesting.
For those of you who don't know what it's about, it's the (fictional) story of X, a child who has no known gender. The child was raised to like dolls AND trucks, to excel at sports AND cooking.
The story shows just how much of our world is gendered, though we don't notice it. It illustrates the social construction of femininity and masculinity by showing the means through which they are created. Is it at all a shock that boys act a certain way and girls act another, that they like different toys and different clothes? No. Because we raise them to do just that!
Edit: here's the link! duh! http://www.trans-man.org/baby_x.html
For those of you who don't know what it's about, it's the (fictional) story of X, a child who has no known gender. The child was raised to like dolls AND trucks, to excel at sports AND cooking.
Meanwhile, the Joneses were worrying about other problems. Toys, for instance. And clothes. On his first shopping trip, Mr. Jones told the store clerk, "I need some clothes and toys for my new baby." The clerk smiles and said, "Well, now, is it a boy or a girl?" "It's an X," Mr. Jones said, smiling back. But the clerk got all red in the face and said huffily, "In that case, I'm afraid I can't help you, sir."So Mr. Jones wandered helplessly up and down the aisles trying to find what X needed. But everything in the store was piled up in sections marked "Boys" or "Girls." There were "Boys' Pajamas" and "Girls' Underwear" and "Boys' Fire Engines" and "Girls' Housekeeping Sets." Mr. Jones consulted page 2,326 of the Official Instruction Manual. "Buy plenty of everything!" it said firmly.
So they bought plenty of sturdy blue pajamas in the Boys' Department and cheerful flowered underwear in the Girls' Department. And they bought all kinds of toys. A boy doll that made pee-pee and cried, "Pa-Pa." And a girl doll that talked in three languages and said, "I am the Pres-I-dent of Gen-er-al Mo-tors." They also bought a storybook about a brave princess who rescued a handsome prince from his ivory tower, and another one about a sister and brother who grew up to be a baseball star and a ballet star, and you had to guess which was which.
The story shows just how much of our world is gendered, though we don't notice it. It illustrates the social construction of femininity and masculinity by showing the means through which they are created. Is it at all a shock that boys act a certain way and girls act another, that they like different toys and different clothes? No. Because we raise them to do just that!
Edit: here's the link! duh! http://www.trans-man.org/baby_x.html
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Media de-programming re:social security
We have a serious problem with social security. Is it that it is
running thin, going bankrupt, or dying? No. The problem is that the
media and politicians have convinced us that it is.
How have they done this, you may ask.
Most people simply assume that social security is bankrupt or will be
any day. The media reports it as if it is fact. Yet nothing could be
further from the truth.
Last year, Social Security paid out $383 billion in checks, and
received $436 billion in taxes and an additional $49 billion in
interest. Instead of red ink, Social Security made almost $102 billion
in profit, to add to the more than $652 billion it had in profits from
previous years.
The Trustees of the SS system use very conservative estimates in
discussing the future of the program. But even using their figures, it
is not until sometime after 2020 that the program will collect less in
taxes and interest than it pays in benefit checks, and even then, it
will have more than $1 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund, left
from previous years. Their most recent estimate is that, for the next
34 years, the taxes that are collected, when added to interest and
money from the Trust Fund, will be sufficient to pay all the benefits
currently planned.
It is not until 2034 that the Trustees project that there will be no
money left in the Trust Fund, and not enough taxes to pay all the
benefits that are expected. But even when the Trust Fund is empty,
and for the foreseeable decades thereafter, the Trustees expect there will be enough taxes to pay 75% of the planned benefits.
Now, ok, let's pretend that social security were going to go bankrupt
tommorow (as conservatives and the media would have us believe).
Presumably we would still be paying out benefits to seniors. This
would cause us to create a defecit, no? We would be spending that
which we do not have.
So, here's a puzzle for those loveably misguided cons out there: why
is it horrible, unthinkable, untenable that the SSA run a defecit while
it's perfectly reasonable for the general budget not only to run on a
huge honking defecit but to multiply that defecit by cutting revenues
(ie tax cuts) that go to those at the top?? This makes very little
sense to me, this distinction.
So, now that we've "established" that SS is an agency in crisis, how
have we made the jump from the need for preservation to privatization?
The claim that so much money could be made through investment
conveniently ignores the massive costs of such a transition. Their
conclusions can only be drawn by pretending that all the money that is
now paid as SS taxes could instead by invested in stocks and bonds in
individuals' accounts. Since current payroll taxes are used to pay
benefits to beneficiaries, transferring money into individual accounts
means that less money will be available to pay promised benefits.
To avoid major benefit cuts, younger workers would have to pay twice: once to fund the new account and again to meet SS's current obligations.
But, to the real point. I do not deny a fiscal crisis in the US, but
the crisis is more with the general budget than any program in
particular. Certainly not Social Security.
As to privatization itself (ie investment):
The only possible way that stock returns can be high enough to make
privatization work is if the U.S. economy grows at three to four
percent a year for the next fifty years. But Social Security's own
trustees expect the economy's growth rate to slow to 1.8 percent. If
that happens -- if their own assumptions are correct -- then
privatization would be a disaster. And if that doesn't happen -- if the
economy continues to grow at a steady rate -- then the trust fund is
good for the rest of the century, and we don't need privatization.
I quote Eric Bates, summarizing economist Paul Krugman's findings:
The privateers are claiming that you can have something for nothing.
They're basically saying, "Let's assume that pigs can fly." And when
you say, "You know, it's not good to assume that pigs can fly," they
respond by saying, "What's wrong with you? Don't you understand the
enormous advantage of flying pigs?"
So, what is our real crisis?
The health care system. The private insurance system is slowly falling
apart, with rising costs due primarily to administrative costs, which
eat up many times more of the annual health care spending here than
they do in other industrialized countries. Health care is an arena
where privatization raises costs. It doesn't (for many reasons that I
can go into if you like) work like a perfect market economy.
So, if this all makes very little sense, if social security isn't
actually bankrupt (as is clearly the case) and if privatization is a
Bad Call (which is fairly evident), why are so many people pushing for
it??
It, unfortunatley, all boils down to politics (as so many things do).
The people who want rid of this hate the idea of a social safety net,
of "their" tax dollars supporting someone else's retirement. These
people have never liked any of the New Deal legislation (which
ironically saved capitalism as we practice it) and have worked
ceaselessly to dismantle its programs.
running thin, going bankrupt, or dying? No. The problem is that the
media and politicians have convinced us that it is.
How have they done this, you may ask.
Most people simply assume that social security is bankrupt or will be
any day. The media reports it as if it is fact. Yet nothing could be
further from the truth.
Last year, Social Security paid out $383 billion in checks, and
received $436 billion in taxes and an additional $49 billion in
interest. Instead of red ink, Social Security made almost $102 billion
in profit, to add to the more than $652 billion it had in profits from
previous years.
The Trustees of the SS system use very conservative estimates in
discussing the future of the program. But even using their figures, it
is not until sometime after 2020 that the program will collect less in
taxes and interest than it pays in benefit checks, and even then, it
will have more than $1 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund, left
from previous years. Their most recent estimate is that, for the next
34 years, the taxes that are collected, when added to interest and
money from the Trust Fund, will be sufficient to pay all the benefits
currently planned.
It is not until 2034 that the Trustees project that there will be no
money left in the Trust Fund, and not enough taxes to pay all the
benefits that are expected. But even when the Trust Fund is empty,
and for the foreseeable decades thereafter, the Trustees expect there will be enough taxes to pay 75% of the planned benefits.
Now, ok, let's pretend that social security were going to go bankrupt
tommorow (as conservatives and the media would have us believe).
Presumably we would still be paying out benefits to seniors. This
would cause us to create a defecit, no? We would be spending that
which we do not have.
So, here's a puzzle for those loveably misguided cons out there: why
is it horrible, unthinkable, untenable that the SSA run a defecit while
it's perfectly reasonable for the general budget not only to run on a
huge honking defecit but to multiply that defecit by cutting revenues
(ie tax cuts) that go to those at the top?? This makes very little
sense to me, this distinction.
So, now that we've "established" that SS is an agency in crisis, how
have we made the jump from the need for preservation to privatization?
The claim that so much money could be made through investment
conveniently ignores the massive costs of such a transition. Their
conclusions can only be drawn by pretending that all the money that is
now paid as SS taxes could instead by invested in stocks and bonds in
individuals' accounts. Since current payroll taxes are used to pay
benefits to beneficiaries, transferring money into individual accounts
means that less money will be available to pay promised benefits.
To avoid major benefit cuts, younger workers would have to pay twice: once to fund the new account and again to meet SS's current obligations.
But, to the real point. I do not deny a fiscal crisis in the US, but
the crisis is more with the general budget than any program in
particular. Certainly not Social Security.
As to privatization itself (ie investment):
The only possible way that stock returns can be high enough to make
privatization work is if the U.S. economy grows at three to four
percent a year for the next fifty years. But Social Security's own
trustees expect the economy's growth rate to slow to 1.8 percent. If
that happens -- if their own assumptions are correct -- then
privatization would be a disaster. And if that doesn't happen -- if the
economy continues to grow at a steady rate -- then the trust fund is
good for the rest of the century, and we don't need privatization.
I quote Eric Bates, summarizing economist Paul Krugman's findings:
The privateers are claiming that you can have something for nothing.
They're basically saying, "Let's assume that pigs can fly." And when
you say, "You know, it's not good to assume that pigs can fly," they
respond by saying, "What's wrong with you? Don't you understand the
enormous advantage of flying pigs?"
So, what is our real crisis?
The health care system. The private insurance system is slowly falling
apart, with rising costs due primarily to administrative costs, which
eat up many times more of the annual health care spending here than
they do in other industrialized countries. Health care is an arena
where privatization raises costs. It doesn't (for many reasons that I
can go into if you like) work like a perfect market economy.
So, if this all makes very little sense, if social security isn't
actually bankrupt (as is clearly the case) and if privatization is a
Bad Call (which is fairly evident), why are so many people pushing for
it??
It, unfortunatley, all boils down to politics (as so many things do).
The people who want rid of this hate the idea of a social safety net,
of "their" tax dollars supporting someone else's retirement. These
people have never liked any of the New Deal legislation (which
ironically saved capitalism as we practice it) and have worked
ceaselessly to dismantle its programs.
Monday, January 17, 2005
Our Cultural Amnesia
Every once in a while I have a brilliant idea for a new post. And then I either forget or, upon reflection, decide that it's not that brilliant after all. However, one thing has consistently been bugging me--so much that I'm actually stepping out of my laziness to post about it. This thing is our collective forgetfulness, our ahistorical view of the world.
What do I mean? I am speaking of the current (and perpetual) fight by conservatives against "liberalism" that vague evil that stands as nothing but a straw man for them to use in arguments for legislating their own values and for deregulation. So, what is liberalism?
Perhaps, better than defining it in a succinct, dictionary-style sentance, it is best to look at its legacy.
If you work in a job where you don't risk being maimed or killed everyday, you've benefited from liberalism. If your children go to school rather than being sent off to work, liberalism gives you that ability. If you get paid overtime, based on a forty-hour week, and are paid a living wage, guess who worked tirelessly for that? If your water is drinkable, if your food doesn't kill you from disease, you should know that not only did liberals work for these safeguards, but conservatives actively opposed them. If members of your family are eligible for social security, medicare, unemployment, disability... they owe their livelihood to liberals. If your children go to school with children of different races (at least in theory) and people of all races share public facilities, you can thank liberals (and an "activist" Supreme Court) for that.
--safe, approved medicines
--safe, affordable public transportation
--FDIC, FSLIC and bank protection
--student loans and grants
--rural electrification
Have you benefited from any of these?
I promise you have.
Let us also define conservatives by their legacies. Their legacy is that they started off opposing every single one of these progressive ideas. Is it any wonder that they are now trying to dismantle social security? They never liked it.
What really irkes me, however, is how quick we are to forget these things. We (and by "we" I mean dominant culture) are quick to condemn liberals and liberal ideas. Even John Kerry and the 2004 Democratic candidates (some of whom could have been considered liberals) were quick to eschew the title. Liberals should proudly proclaim. "Yes. I am a liberal. I believe in the American liberal ideals that have made this country great! Public education, free speech, safe drinking water, and the 40-hour work week." Those are things that we can all agree are good. And they are things that would not be here without the work of liberals and would not be here if conservatives had had their way.
Now they're on board for most of these things (with the possible exception of Newt Gingrich).
But, in policy debates it is wise to remember the trajectory of history. I read a quote once, and I cannot remember who said it, but it was: "The heresy of today is the orthodoxy of tommorow." That gives me hope because I see it in the past. It was madness to think that the government could have a part in regulating the workplace. Now it's madness to think otherwise. We (even conservatives) believe that the government has a legitimate part in making sure workplaces are safe and that discrimination doesn't occur. (even if such safeguards are being slowly dismantled)
The things that progressives stand for now (heresy according to conservatives and the media) will be the orthodoxy of tommorow; 50 years from now we will think it crazy that at one point we denied health care coverage to people because they couldn't pay for it. Even conservatives will be on board, always one step behind. And people will forget how much they fought against it. That's the way it goes.
I have confidence in America. I just wish we had a better memory sometimes.
What do I mean? I am speaking of the current (and perpetual) fight by conservatives against "liberalism" that vague evil that stands as nothing but a straw man for them to use in arguments for legislating their own values and for deregulation. So, what is liberalism?
Perhaps, better than defining it in a succinct, dictionary-style sentance, it is best to look at its legacy.
If you work in a job where you don't risk being maimed or killed everyday, you've benefited from liberalism. If your children go to school rather than being sent off to work, liberalism gives you that ability. If you get paid overtime, based on a forty-hour week, and are paid a living wage, guess who worked tirelessly for that? If your water is drinkable, if your food doesn't kill you from disease, you should know that not only did liberals work for these safeguards, but conservatives actively opposed them. If members of your family are eligible for social security, medicare, unemployment, disability... they owe their livelihood to liberals. If your children go to school with children of different races (at least in theory) and people of all races share public facilities, you can thank liberals (and an "activist" Supreme Court) for that.
--safe, approved medicines
--safe, affordable public transportation
--FDIC, FSLIC and bank protection
--student loans and grants
--rural electrification
Have you benefited from any of these?
I promise you have.
Let us also define conservatives by their legacies. Their legacy is that they started off opposing every single one of these progressive ideas. Is it any wonder that they are now trying to dismantle social security? They never liked it.
What really irkes me, however, is how quick we are to forget these things. We (and by "we" I mean dominant culture) are quick to condemn liberals and liberal ideas. Even John Kerry and the 2004 Democratic candidates (some of whom could have been considered liberals) were quick to eschew the title. Liberals should proudly proclaim. "Yes. I am a liberal. I believe in the American liberal ideals that have made this country great! Public education, free speech, safe drinking water, and the 40-hour work week." Those are things that we can all agree are good. And they are things that would not be here without the work of liberals and would not be here if conservatives had had their way.
Now they're on board for most of these things (with the possible exception of Newt Gingrich).
But, in policy debates it is wise to remember the trajectory of history. I read a quote once, and I cannot remember who said it, but it was: "The heresy of today is the orthodoxy of tommorow." That gives me hope because I see it in the past. It was madness to think that the government could have a part in regulating the workplace. Now it's madness to think otherwise. We (even conservatives) believe that the government has a legitimate part in making sure workplaces are safe and that discrimination doesn't occur. (even if such safeguards are being slowly dismantled)
The things that progressives stand for now (heresy according to conservatives and the media) will be the orthodoxy of tommorow; 50 years from now we will think it crazy that at one point we denied health care coverage to people because they couldn't pay for it. Even conservatives will be on board, always one step behind. And people will forget how much they fought against it. That's the way it goes.
I have confidence in America. I just wish we had a better memory sometimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)