Showing posts with label Women's Roles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Women's Roles. Show all posts

Friday, September 30, 2011

Mary Harris Jones (a.k.a. “Mother Jones”)

After reading Mother Jones magazine for the first time, I became interest in its namesake and did a little research. I learned that “Mother Jones” (the woman) had a fascinating perspective, which in many ways is actually quite apropos to the focus of this blog.

Mary Harris Jones lived a long life from 1837 until 1930.

Mary Harris was originally from Cork County, Ireland. Her family were Catholics. They were tenant farmers in Ireland. She immigrated to North America with her family as a teenager.

Miss Harris received a Catholic education in Toronto, Canada. She later worked as a teacher in a convent. Eventually, she moved south to the United States and married George E. Jones of Memphis, Tennessee. He was active in an iron molders’ union.
Early in her adult life, Mrs. Jones tragically lost her husband and all her children in a yellow fever outbreak. She had had four children. They were all under the age of five when they died. What an unimaginable loss for someone to bear.

However, Mrs. Jones apparently did not wallow in her grief. Instead, she turned her sorrow into productive outlets by pouring her considerable energies into labor organizing. “Mother Jones,” as she became known, was active in helping to form unions and was affiliated with the Socialist Party of America. She is particularly remembered for her leadership in fighting against the exploitation of child labor.

Mother Jones was apparently an effective labor leader in part because she was such a gifted orator. She was famous for using humor and spirited rhetoric to inspire audiences. Some of her more famous quotes include:

“I'm not a humanitarian, I'm a hell-raiser.”

“If they want to hang me, let them. And on the scaffold I will shout ‘Freedom for the working class!’”

“Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living.”

“Some day the workers will take possession of your city hall, and when we do, no child will be sacrificed on the altar of profit!”

“Injustice boils in men's hearts as does steel in its cauldron, ready to pour forth, white hot, in the fullness of time”

“Often while sewing for the lords and barons who lived in magnificent houses on the Lake Shore Drive, I would look out of the plate glass windows and see the poor, shivering wretches, jobless and hungry, walking alongside the frozen lake front. The contrast of their condition with that of the tropical comfort of the people for whom I sewed was painful to me.”


Interesting quotes.

Mother Jones is remembered as a passionate fighter for workers’ rights. Many modern people think of her as a godless communist. However, in reality, she had pretty traditional beliefs. Indeed, in many respects one might say she was a “conservative.” For example, Mother Jones was outspoken against female suffrage. She was famous for having said:

“working men deserved a wage that would allow women to stay home to care for their kids.”


I also read that Mother Jones blamed neglectful mothering as the root cause of juvenile delinquency.

As I understand her biography, if she was a radical leftist, it was simply due to class-based, economic concerns. She was not consistently left-wing on all issues. Other famous Mother Jones quotes include:

“I have never had a vote, and I have raised hell all over this country. You don't need a vote to raise hell! You need convictions and a voice!”

“I preferred sewing to bossing little children.”

“That is, the wife must care for what the husband cares for if he is to remain resolute.”


In light of all this, Mary Harris Jones seems like a rather curious inspiration for the modern magazine bearing her nickname.


Deuteronomy 8:17

If you start thinking to yourselves, "I did all this. And all by myself. I'm rich. It's all mine!"—well, think again. Remember that God, your God, gave you the strength to produce all this wealth so as to confirm the covenant that he promised to your ancestors—as it is today.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

A Prayer for Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann

Dear Lord,

I thank you for the lives, the intellects and the dedication of my sisters, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. They are both women who love you, and who are passionate about their families and making a difference in our country. Thank you for their strength and tenacity.

Heavenly father, I get concerned about the ugliness in public discourse these days. It frustrates me that people seem to vilify those who have a different perspective, and there seems to be a tendency to take offense quickly and not even try to find common ground. When I read your Word, those things seem to be incompatible. As a result, I particularly don’t understand when my brothers and sisters in Christ do such things. It perplexes me. It overwhelms me. And to be honest, it depresses me and makes me feel somewhat hopeless about the future of our country. That alarms me, Lord, because I love my children and want them to live in a country that rises to challenges instead of falls into pointless bicker.

Lord, please help me to trust in your wisdom with all my heart and to lean not on my own understanding. Help me to remember that I am just one person, full of human limitations, and I do not know all that you know. Help me to remember that you have us in the palm of your hand. Help me trust in your plan for us all.

And Lord, I recognize it is human nature for all of us to take offense and not listen. I recognize it in myself. Help instill in me a patient heart and an open mind. Help me to listen and be enlightened to what my brothers and sisters have to say.

Thank you for your Word, and thank you in particular for James 1:19:
This you know, my beloved brethren, but everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger. Help me to integrate that wisdom in my own life.

Lord, I thank you for strong Christian mothers. Help guide all “mama grizzlies” to protect their children from harm and to nurture them to be the people you intend. Help us raise a generation of children who will dedicate their lives to serving you by ministering to your people and saving this beautiful planet that you created for us so that it will nurture and sustain generations of your people to come.

Thank you for your unending love of us. Help each of us to reflect that love as we interact with others so that they will come to know you.

Amen.

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Rush Limbaugh’s Comments about Michelle Obama

After I became aware of Governor Palin and Representative Bachmann’s panning of Michelle Obama’s efforts against childhood obesity and in support of breastfeeding, I read about Rush Limbaugh’s comments. The link below contains an article explaining his views.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110222/ts_yblog_theticket/rush-limbaugh-says-first-lady-is-no-swimsuit-model


If Mr. Limbaugh believes that Ms. Obama has been hypocritical, I think that is fair game for commentary. If he thinks her conduct doesn’t live up to what she is preaching, that is one thing. I don’t know that I would agree with him, but Mr. Limbaugh is certainly entitled to his opinion.

I don’t understand that Ms. Obama has advocated that we never ever indulge in foods that aren’t healthy. I’ve heard interviews where she admits a penchant for French fries, but she indicates she is careful to not eat them often or in great quantity. She advocates healthier foods to be the mainstay of one’s diet. Personally, I haven’t seen evidence of hypocrisy, but I’m a busy person and haven’t studied the White House dietary choices in detail. Maybe I’m wrong and Mr. Limbaugh is right on this point.

I think Mr. Limbaugh has a right to point out hypocrisy if he thinks he’s spotted it, but I think it is completely undignified, unhelpful, mean-spirited and hypocritical for Mr. Limbaugh to make snarky comments about Ms. Obama’s qualifications as a swimsuit model. Indeed, Ms. Obama’s emphasis is improving the health of our nation’s children, and I think most people understand that swimsuit models are not necessarily the best role models for healthy living. For a variety of reasons, I don’t want swimsuit models to be role models my children try to emulate. Many other parents feel the same.

But if hypocrisy is Mr. Limbaugh’s concern, then there is of course tremendous irony in Mr. Limbaugh of all people harping on another human being for perceived imperfections in physique. Politely put, Mr. Limbaugh is a heavy set man. He has himself struggled with his weight for a very long time. I don’t know Mr. Limbaugh personally, but for as long as I’ve been aware of him (about twenty years), he is has been pretty overweight. Impressively, he has been successful in losing a good deal of weight in recent years. Nonetheless, I understand this is an on-going effort and he is not yet to his ideal weight.

Because of Mr. Limbaugh’s own serious weight issues, it boggles my mind that he would ever say ugly things about someone else’s physique. I myself am sorely tempted to say something snarky about Mr. Limbaugh’s own qualifications as a swimsuit model. I will refrain from doing so. Snarkiness is compatible with neither Christ’s commandment to love our neighbor nor the Christian value of humility.

Sadly, Mr. Limbaugh has a history of judging women on their appearance. He has famously described feminism as a strategy to “to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.” See link below.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200508160001


Additionally, Mr. Limbaugh famously popularized the delightful term “feminazi.” I understand he has since distanced himself from the term.

In my opinion, such rhetoric is incredibly demeaning and disrespectful of women. Mr. Limbaugh is a media celebrity and in essence an entertainer. Maybe he doesn’t mean any of the things he says. Perhaps he has a great deal of respect for women and just says such things because it makes him richer. I frankly have no idea.






Genesis 1:26-28 (The Message)

God spoke: "Let us make human beings in our image, make them
reflecting our nature
So they can be responsible for the fish in the sea,
the birds in the air, the cattle,
And, yes, Earth itself,
and every animal that moves on the face of Earth."
God created human beings;
he created them godlike,
Reflecting God's nature.
He created them male and female.
God blessed them:
"Prosper! Reproduce! Fill Earth! Take charge!
Be responsible for fish in the sea and birds in the air,
for every living thing that moves on the face of Earth."

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann Pan Michelle Obama

My last post focused belatedly on Rush Limbaugh’s take on Thanksgiving. In my mind, that ridiculous rant was yet another of the seemingly endless examples of angry people on the right spewing anger to serve no productive purpose. Mr. Limbaugh and people like him spew their anger to attract listeners or adherents, but then never seem to do anything productive with their followers. They just encourage people to gripe and indulge in self-righteousness and/or self-pity. And sometimes such media celebrities frankly start to run out of material to spark outrage, so they have to really get inventive and dig deep to find something new. To me, Mr. Limbaugh’s silly rant against Mr. Obama’s expression of gratitude to the Native Americans on the occasion of Thanksgiving is evidence of that desperation to continually find a source of fuel for unproductive anger and outrage Similar examples of such desperation can be found in recent rhetoric by Governor Sarah Palin and Representative Michele Bachmann as they pan First Lady Michelle Obama.


Ms. Obama has been trying to champion non-partisan issues that impact many Americans. One of the main causes she has championed has been the fight against childhood obesity. She has been promoting the eating of veggies, portion control and leading an active lifestyle. She has visited schools, appeared on the Disney Channel and cultivated a garden at the White House in support of this cause.

I personally appreciate Ms. Obama taking on this issue. My husband and I have both always struggled with our weight. We dreaded P.E. because we were never any good at the sports played and were last to be picked for teams. Our childhood memories are full of fast food and many hours watching T.V. We both want something different for our kids. We work hard to include a lot of fresh produce in our family’s diet, and to limit sweets and fried foods to occasional treats. And though my husband and I both loathe sports, we try to hide that fact from our kids and to encourage them to get plenty of exercise. Beyond their soccer teams and dance lessons, as a family we all go hiking, bike riding, and swimming together throughout the year. Despite my own sedentary work life, I also try to set a good example for my kids by regularly putting my treadmill to its intended use instead of using it as a coat rack (which frankly would be my natural preference if little eyes weren’t looking up to me).

I also appreciate Ms. Obama taking on the issue of childhood obesity because I have seen firsthand what a huge problem it is in our country. When I taught grade school, I had a lot of obese children in my classes. It always broke my heart. The health consequences of obesity are serious. Many of the students I taught had family members with diabetes. A few of my students had themselves already developed the disease. Beyond the health issues, I also felt for the obese students in my classes because they were socially ostracized at times despite my best efforts to intervene and encourage everyone to be friends. Children can be cruel.

So, yeah, for Michelle Obama. I’m so glad she has taken on this challenging issue. And one would think that everyone would rally around her in a nonpartisan manner. Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee both have championed the cause. It seems like a no-brainer. I mean, no one is pro-childhood obesity, are they? Even if you have no intrinsic concern for the human suffering involved, from just a detached, economic point of view childhood obesity is a very bad thing. In this age of out-of-control health care costs, no one could possibly think rising rates of juvenile diabetes are a good thing, right?

Well, instead of being supportive of Ms. Obama’s efforts, Sarah Palin has chosen to make snarky public comments attacking the First Lady. Apparently, per Governor Palin, Ms. Obama needs to get off our collective backs. Governor Palin has always been slim and athletic, so maybe she hasn’t noticed that we have a nation of obese folks. The status quo has not worked. As a result, maybe it is not the end of the world to talk about this problem publicly and bring attention to it. I’m disappointed in Governor Palin’s attitude on this issue. Her ugly comments seem to have no purpose other than to encourage the anger of those prone to taking offense easily. The comments are not productive and do not in any way help solve the problem of childhood obesity.

For more information on Governor Palin’s comments, see the article in the link below:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/21/earlyshow/living/parenting/main7171134.shtml


Recently, Representative Michele Bachmann has jumped in along a similar vein. Ms. Obama made comments supportive of breastfeeding and making it easier for mothers who choose that for their infants. She has noted the evidence that breastfed children are less likely to be obese, so these comments are part of her efforts to fight childhood obesity. I frankly hadn’t heard about her comments, but good for her. Most women work outside the home these days, but logistically it is extremely difficult to breastfeed when you are not with your infant during the day. Again, who is against breastfeeding? What is wrong with Ms. Obama encouraging breastfeeding? Unless you work for a company making baby formula, I’m thinking no one could really be against it. Again, it should be a no brainer.

Michele Bachmann is even pro-breastfeeding. She has shared publically that she breastfed all five of her children. Good for her. Good for her kids. That is wonderful. But despite being in the pro-breastfeeding camp, Representative Bachmann finds fault in Ms. Obama encouraging others to breastfeed. Somehow such encouragement from the White House is a bad thing. A former tax lawyer, Representative Bachmann is also irate that modest tax incentives might be available in to help women who want to pump breast milk when they work outside the home. Per Representative Bachmann, this is all apparently evidence of a “nanny state.” I’m glad that Representative Bachmann was able to be with her five children in person to breastfeed them and/or to buy her own breast pump to provide them with breast milk when she was not with them. Not all women are financially able to do such things.
For more information on Representative Bachmann’s comments, see the article at the link below:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/02/18/20110218michelle-obama-breast-feeding-remarks-criticism18-ON.html


I find the attacks on Ms. Obama to be ridiculous. It is a good thing to encourage people to do things to benefit their health. That is particularly true when we live in a nation of folks suffering from diseases that are preventable and when we are in the midst of an unsustainable escalation in health care costs.

And Ms. Obama’s campaigns against childhood obesity and her comments in support of breastfeeding are certainly not unusual when looking at the work of her predecessors. Was Nancy Reagan being paternalistic (or maternalistic) when she encouraged kids to “just say no” to drugs? Were Barbara and Laura Bush pushing a nanny state when they were encouraging people to learn to read and patronize libraries, respectively?

Clearly there are a whole lot of Americans who use illegal narcotics and their lives are ruined as a consequence. But maybe First Ladies just shouldn’t get involved. Perhaps we ought to have told Nancy Reagan to get off our backs in the 1980s when she spoke out. The nerve. Lecturing us about drug use.

As First Lady, Barbara Bush used her platform to promote literacy. Maybe she should have just backed off. Maybe the folks who are unable to read just don’t like phonics. This is a free country. Step off, sister! Let us live in ignorance.

More recently, Laura Bush used her influence as First Lady to increase the funding of libraries. How dare she?! What meddling. We didn’t need her interference. We knew how much funding libraries needed without her butting in.

Obviously, the last three paragraphs have been sarcastic. That is how silly these recent attacks on Ms. Obama have been. What is Ms. Obama supposed to do? Is she not allowed to take on any causes? How pathetic that even nonpartisan efforts against childhood obesity and in favor of breast feeding can be manipulated to rile up the masses.

I feel frustrated that these types of manipulation have been so successful. It is just not productive and it is ugly. Clearly, as a nation, we did not achieve greatness by sitting around whining and indulging in pointless anger over minor points. That is not how we established the first modern democracy, stormed the beaches of Normandy to liberate Europe from fascism, developed a vaccine against polio or developed the internet. We Americans are better than that.





Job 26:2

"What a help you are to the weak!
How you have saved the arm without strength!”


Sunday, February 6, 2011

Law Professor Conference

Recently, I went to an annual conference of law professors. I always enjoy it and learn a lot. Professors give talks on a variety of legal topics from a wide array of disciplines. It is amazing and invigorating to listen to the different types of things about which legal scholars are thinking, studying and writing. Their ideas help inform my teaching and my scholarship—and it is just plain interesting.

Beyond the substantive content of the presentations, I admit I just also enjoy people watching at events like this conference. It is interesting to see certain patterns in the attendees depending on the topic.

For example, I attended a panel discussion about the dearth of conservative voices in the legal academy. I probably don’t fit the definition of a “conservative” in most respects, but the topic was interesting to me for a variety of reasons. I like to listen to perspectives different from my own. When compared to other sessions at the conference, there were relatively few attendees at the session on conservative voices in the academy. Apparently, there is not much interest in the topic within the legal academy, but that is probably not a shock to most people given the supposed “liberal” tilt of academics.

I must say, however, that the homogeneity in appearance of the attendees at that session struck me as rather funny. Initially, I was the only female in the room, but two or three other ladies eventually arrived. Nonetheless, it was an almost exclusively male audience and a completely all-male panel. While I was at that session, there was not one person of color in the whole room. Not one.

But what struck me as funny was the attire of the attendees at the dearth of conservative voices session. They were disproportionately dressed in tweed jackets. A large number were also wearing ties. As I didn’t see a lot of tweed or ties at the conference as a whole, this concentration really stood out and made me want to laugh. I could only stay for part of the panel discussion because I had committed to participating in a service project. And because I was going to be serving a meal at a homeless shelter, I was dressed very casually in jeans and tennis shoes. For a number of reasons, I rather stood out in the audience of the session on the dearth of conservative voices in the legal academy!

I saw similar patterns at sessions I attended on tax and business law topics. There were more women and some people of color in attendance at those sessions, but there were not huge numbers of non-males or non-whites. The dress of the attendees at tax and business law sessions was not quite as formal as the session on conservative voices in the academy. There weren’t as many suits and ties. But many of the women were in skirts and heels. The men often had dress shirts and jackets of some kinds. I guess the tax and business profs are used to a more formal dress code than some other parts of the academy.

During the conference, I attended a session on religion and the law, which was fascinating. There was a fair gender mix of the attendees, but almost everyone in the room was Caucasian. There was one person of color on the panel, but I didn’t see any other people of color in the audience, which was surprising to me. The folks at the religion and the law session were dressed somewhat conservatively. I didn’t see any tattoos or piercings, and no one was dressed in a particularly hip way. They dressed in a more traditional manner, but their attire wasn’t formal. Indeed, there were few people in suits. I would characterize the dress of most folks at the religion and law session as being dressy-casual. But there were also some folks in neat jeans and loafers.

I attended a session on minorities and the law. People in attendance were dressed similarly to those at the religion and the law session, but the racial composition was quite different. Most of the attendees and speakers were African American. I was one of only a few white folks in the room. I’m not sure why other academics were not interested in issues affecting minorities. Because the academy has a reputation for being very “liberal,” I would have thought more folks (and folks from more varied backgrounds) would have been interested in the concerns of the section on minorities and the law. Apparently not. That was pretty sad to me.

I attended several sessions on LGBT issues, and the audiences struck me as a pretty diverse group. Indeed, upon reflection, they were the most diverse-looking group of all the sessions I attended at the conference. There seemed to be a fair balance in terms of gender. A majority of the group was Caucasian, but there were many people of color representing different races and ethnicities. The attire of the attendees also really varied. There were folks very casually dressed in jeans and tennis shoes. There were people in knakis and button-down shirts. There were women in skirts and heels, or nice slacks and blouses. There were hip looking people and conservative looking fuddy-duddies.

Finally, towards the end of the conference, I attended a session on legal issues impacting women. Perhaps I was naïve, but I was sad to see that the attendees were almost all female. There were only three or four men in the room while I was there. I recognized several of those men because I had sat near them at one of the LGBT sessions I had attended. I’m not sure why more men were not interested in women’s issues. Again, the academy has a reputation for being very “liberal.” I am not sure why there aren’t more members concerned about issues impacting women.




Colossians 4:1


Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness,

knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Michele Bachmann

I’ve been blogging about the modern trend towards vilification of political opponents and the Christian duty to see our brothers and sisters as God does. In that vein, I wanted to blog about Michele Bachmann.

Representative Bachmann began serving her Minnesota district in 2007, but she has gained particular prominence in the last year because of her affiliation with the Tea Party Movement. She has received a lot of media attention and her political star seems to be on the rise. Like many, I strongly disagree with much of her politics and I’ve been frankly horrified by some of her polarizing rhetoric, which has often vilified Democrats. Her political positions seem to be based on misinformation at times, which is quite concerning for a number of reasons. And her political posture seems chronically angry and antagonistic, which is not productive or promotive of healthy discourse.

There is much I could write about Representative Bachmann to express my disagreement and disappointment with her use of the political arena. However, I am not going to dwell on the negative. Even if she vilifies those who think and/or vote like me, I’m not going to waste my time to do the same. Instead, I would like to flag some common ground I see.

First, I note that Representative Bachmann does appear to be a sincere Christ follower. In reading about her, I see that before she got into politics, her life choices seemed to revolve around her faith. Though I glean that she and I might not share a lot of common ground in our respective Christian theology, I understand her faith seems to have directed her choice of law school, her family composition, her career choices, and her community activism. Representative Bachmann has apparently been a life-long Lutheran. She attended a Christian law school, Oral Roberts University. Prior to her graduation, the law school became affiliated with Regent University, which was founded by Pat Robertson. Representative Bachmann and her husband have raised five kids and been foster parents to 23 children. They have also owned a Christian counseling business. Representative Bachmann was raised in a Democratic family, but as an undergraduate determined Republican values were more in line with her own. She has publicly indicated she believes God called her to run for Congress; she and her husband fasted for three days in their discernment of God’s calling.

Second, I appreciate that Representative Bachmann is a professional woman. Like me, she has earned a bachelor’s degree, a juris doctor and an LL.M. in tax. Also, like me, she worked in the area of tax law when she was a practicing lawyer. She is well-educated and has held her own in the professional world. She is now one of the few female political leaders of prominence in our country. She is a trailblazer in that sense. Although she herself may chafe at the label, some would consider Representative Bachmann a feminist for this reason.

Third, by all accounts, Representative Bachmann is a caring mother. She gave up her professional career in tax law to be a stay at home mother. It is impressive to raise five children. My husband and I have just two, and are always awed by parents who are outnumbered by their children. Raising a large family is not for the weak or passive; it is a difficult, on-going challenge. But of course it has great personal rewards.

I particularly admire the fact that Representative Bachmann has been a foster parent to so many children. Children tend to be among the most vulnerable in any society and children without parents are arguably the most vulnerable. The Bible tells us repeatedly to care for orphans. I applaud Representative Bachmann for taking that command seriously to make a home for children in foster care.







Jeremiah 5:28

They are fat, they are sleek,
They also excel in deeds of wickedness;
They do not plead the cause,
The cause of the orphan, that they may prosper;
And they do not defend the rights of the poor.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Blog Post on the Death of Feminism

Last spring I posted a series of blog posts on feminism. I came of age after the feminist movement, and the word “feminist” had never had a lot of relevance to me. But upon invitation to associate with a feminist law professor group last spring, I began to ponder the term more.

I sought insight from a number of people of different backgrounds. It was really interesting to hear their varied insights. I noted in the resulting blog posts that the rather benign dictionary definition of “feminism” is so different from the modern connotations that have evolved. These days, in many quarters, the term is viewed very negatively and can inspire tremendous hostility.

I received a lot of interest and positive feedback from those blog posts on feminism. For those who continue to be interested in the topic, I thought you might enjoy the blog post at the link below; it was written by Stephen Prothero (a religion scholar at Boston University). It was posted on CNN’s “Belief Blog.”

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/02/my-take-feminist-theology-and-feminism-r-i-p/?hpt=Sbin



Acts 5:29 (New King James Version)

But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Feminist Law Professors Blog

Although I don’t have time to follow it regularly, I enjoy the academic blog, “Feminist Law Professors.” It is accessible at: http://feministlawprofessors.com/. Contributors from a variety of scholars with a “feminist” perspective post essays and musings on a variety of topics. I don’t agree with everything on the blog, but some of it is interesting to me.

Two posts earlier this year particularly got my attention. One was about the gender divide in parenting. http://feministlawprofessors.com/?p=15830. The other was about the underrepresentation and oversexualization of females in the media. http://feministlawprofessors.com/?p=15827. Both are topics of great interest to me generally, and I thought both posts were worthwhile.

Issues affecting children and families are important to me. I have spent a good deal of my professional life and done a lot of volunteer work in the service of children. I have written two articles on issues involving children and the law, and have focused on children and families numerous times in this blog. Consequently, among other issues, I’m very interested in the role of fathers. For a variety of reasons, based on my own observations, I think that fathers are often undervalued in many families. (Sometimes they are undervalued by their own actions or inactions.) I wish more fathers had a greater role in parenting children. In my opinion, their contributions can be invaluable.

I’m also extremely concerned about the sexualization of women and girls in modern media. Particularly as a parent of daughters, this is a very disturbing trend. Such sexualization limits girls’ conceptions of who they are and forces them into adult roles prematurely. There are many aspects of being human. One’s sexuality is just one facet of one’s identity. Sexualization is a form of objectification, and denies the humanity of the individual. That is fundamentally inconsistent with basic Christian values.



Luke 12:7 (Contemporary English Version)

Even the hairs on your head are counted. So don’t be afraid! You are worth much more than many sparrows.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

The Death of Marty Ginsburg

Marty Ginsburg died last week. I never knew him personally, but I knew of him and admired him from afar. I would like to devote some time on this blog to express my admiration for him.

Some of you may not know who Marty Ginsburg was. He was a well-respected tax scholar and teacher at Georgetown. He broke the stereotype of tax lawyers as dry and humorless. Marty was actually very funny, and tried to inject humor into his teaching. As a tax lawyer and tax professor, I appreciated him for breaking the negative perceptions of those who work in our discipline.

Beyond his own professional successes, Marty was also known as Ruth’s husband. He was the beloved husband of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the nine justices currently sitting on the United States Supreme Court. Marty’s death apparently came just days after they celebrated their 56th wedding anniversary. I always mourn for people who lose their loved ones. I can only imagine how hard it must be to lose one’s life partner after so many years together. It absolutely breaks my heart.

I have always read what a devoted, inseparable pair Ruth and Marty were. They married just after Ruth finished her undergraduate degree. At various times, they each made geographical moves and made sacrifices to support the other’s career. They also cared for each other through serious illness; both Ruth and Marty have battled cancer.

I have also always read how very proud Marty was of Ruth’s professional accomplishments. The love and support of one’s partner means so much and is invaluable in helping us reach whatever accomplishments we achieve in this life. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has achieved a lot; she has been a pioneer. With the support of her husband, she went to law school when that was a rare path for women. Indeed, she was one of only nine female law students in a class of over 500. She was a trailblazer through out her career, and was the second woman to ever sit on the United States Supreme Court.

When I myself was a first-year law student, I remember reading an article about Justice Ginsburg. There was a description of how female law students flocked to her when she was a professor. The few other female professors on faculty were unmarried and did not have families. By contrast, the female law students admired and wanted to emulate Ginsburg because of her success in melding her career and family life. Similarly, as a law student, I know that I really studied the examples of the few female professors at my alma mater, who were married and/or had children. Though they may not have realized it at the time, they were a huge encouragement to me as I began my career. I remember studying their examples for clues to their successful juggling.

Now that I am a professor, I know that some female students look to me in a similar fashion. A number of young women have privately sought my thoughts and advice on the possibility and logistics of balancing career and family. Unfortunately, I never have any silver bullets for them. I’m sure Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not have any for her students either. But one thing I know for sure is that for most of us mere mortals the juggling would be nearly impossible without a loving and supportive partner. Whatever successes I have had in my professional life, I know I could not have achieved without my amazing husband. (I tell him that frequently though he typically rolls his eyes in modesty.) I certainly do not know Justice Ginsburg, but have a hunch she would agree about the importance of a supportive partner.

Husbands who support, encourage and applaud their wives’ professional talents are absolutely remarkable in my opinion. It requires selfless and sacrificial love to celebrate the talents of one’s spouse regardless of one’s gender. But it frankly takes a lot of guts for men to defy the cultural gender-based expectations of our society to support a wife’s career and at times even play second-fiddle to her professionally. It takes a strong and loving man to not be petty when his wife’s career gains more attention than his own. In many ways such men have been critical to the advancement of women in our society, and I am very grateful for them. With a husband like Marty as her partner, it is no surprise to me that Ruth has been celebrated as one of the best legal advocates for women’s rights our country has ever had.

The link below includes remembrances of Marty Ginsburg by his fellow tax professors around the country: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/06/remembering-.html.

The link below includes a piece from NPR about Marty’s love and support for his wife: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/07/npr-martin.html.


Romans 12:15 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep.


Ephesians 5:25 (The Message)

Husbands, go all out in your love for your wives, exactly as Christ did for the church—a love marked by giving, not getting. Christ's love makes the church whole. His words evoke her beauty. Everything he does and says is designed to bring the best out of her, dressing her in dazzling white silk, radiant with holiness. And that is how husbands ought to love their wives. They're really doing themselves a favor—since they're already "one" in marriage.

Friday, June 11, 2010

Julie and Julia

My husband and I recently watched the film Julie and Julia. We saw it on a whim. Initially, it hadn’t really interested either of us, perhaps because we don’t enjoy cooking. We would never dream of trying to cook something complicated from a Julia Child cookbook! Nonetheless, we found the film charming and quite enjoyable. (OK, maybe “we” is an overstatement. I at least found it charming and enjoyable. But I am happy to report my husband did not fall asleep until the closing credits began to roll.)

For purposes of this blog, I thought there were a couple of themes in the film worth noting. First, with respect to the role of women in our society and a follow-up to my recent posts on feminism, it was interesting to me that Julie and Julia was essentially about a young woman in desperate need of a positive role model and a mentor. The protagonist, Julie, was on the verge of turning 30, and her life seemed to have no real direction. She had a job, but no career. She wasn’t sure what to do with her life. The women in her life were not supportive of her, and they did not provide role models she wanted to emulate. Her mother was perennially disapproving and nagged her relentlessly. Her female “friends” were competitive, career-driven and self-obsessed. They constantly put her down and/or used her. In the film, Julie ends up turning to someone she doesn’t even know, Julia Child, for inspiration and guidance. She reads extensively about Julia’s life, and grows to admire her deeply. Julie writes a blog as she works her way through Julia’s cookbook. Even outside of the kitchen, as Julie encounters difficulties in her life, she begins to look to Julia as a role model. Personally, I found this a little sad because Julie did not even know her role model, and in the end she was trying to emulate someone to whom she ultimately attributed unrealistic, superhuman qualities.

In watching the film, it just struck me how tough it is to be an American woman in the twenty-first century. We’re still in the midst of great societal change in terms of the permissible roles for women. It is pretty confusing. And frankly many of us could use good mentors and role models to help us navigate the challenges. However, it often seems like few of us have really figured things out, and there are not a lot of mentors and role models to help lead the way. Although I personally cannot imagine trying to emulate a culinary expert, I can certainly relate to Julie’s struggles. I haven’t had many female role models who have successfully balanced a happy home life with a demanding career. And I’ve felt uncomfortable and ill-equipped when other women (e.g., junior attorneys when I was in practice, students now that I’m a professor) have looked to me for a silver bullet. I’ve done my best to mentor and give guidance when younger women have sought that from me. But perhaps like others in that situation, I have felt a bit like a fraud because I certainly don’t have it all figure out myself.

Another aspect of Julie and Julia that I wanted to mention involved some of the cultural war issues I’ve raised in previous blog posts. The plots of Hollywood films tend to involve couples at the early stages of a relationship—when they are falling in love and coming together. It is a standard approach that has been followed since the early days of movie making. Very rarely does a film involve a couple that has been married for a while unless they are in serious conflict and potentially breaking up. Occasionally, movies might show a long-married couple with kids, but in those films the married couple normally has just a parenthetical role in a plot that really revolves around the kids. It is rare in Hollywood films to see a story focus on a married couple, who are basically happy and in a long-term stable relationship. Julie and Julia is such a rare film. The protagonist, Julie, is married to a great guy. They love each other, enjoy spending time together, and are basically supportive of one another. They are not perfect, they have conflicts, but the film shows them working them out in a pretty healthy way and being committed to their marriage. Similarly, Julia Child is portrayed in the film as being in a passionate, supportive relationship with her husband. It is odd, but I cannot remember the last film I saw with such positive, realistic examples of marriage. I’m not sure why that is.



Mark 10:7-9 (New International Version)

'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Women in Developing Countries

I recently found a wonderful show on PBS called WorldFocus. It is a nightly news program with in-depth coverage each night on a different international theme. I tuned in on March 30th and there was a program focusing on the struggles and achievements of women in developing countries. They spotlighted a number of interesting stories.

The program reported on Liberia’s fight to eradicate a rape epidemic since the country’s bloody civil war. They also had an amazing piece on the post-genocide composition of the Rwandan parliament. As a strategy to heal the country, there had been efforts to get more women in government, but the efforts were much more successful than anyone had ever imagined. Rwanda’s parliament now has a larger percentage of women than in any other governmental body in the whole world.

The entire episode of WorldFocus can be watched if you use the link below.

http://worldfocus.org/blog/2010/03/30/special-edition-on-women-in-the-developing-world/10127/

Unfortunately, as I was searching for the link to prepare this blog post, I learned that this terrific show was recently canceled. It was apparently on the air for just 18 months. This is really demoralizing. I watched it several times in what was apparently its last month on the air. It was much more informative than other American news programs. I assume it was pretty expensive to send journalists out to research stories around the globe, and not just to pay talking heads to gab in a television studio.




Mark 4:24

Consider carefully what you hear,” he continued. “With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more.”

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Teaching Bilingual Education in Texas

In the prior post, I mentioned that I taught bilingual education in Texas while George W. Bush was governor. Around this same time, Pete Wilson was governor of California and was trying to use the scapegoating of illegal immigrants to his political advantage. Governor Wilson was advocating the elimination of bilingual education and the denial of medical treatment to illegal immigrants at ERs in California. In the circles where I worked and played, we frankly just thought those Californians were nuts.

I remember vividly that Governor Bush distanced himself publicly from his fellow GOP governor’s positions. Governor Bush reaffirmed Texas’s commitment to bilingual education, which was very much appreciated by and reassuring to my fellow bilingual education teachers. During this period, Governor Bush also liked to emphasize his own close ties to leaders in Mexico, and his admiration for Texas’s Latino population. In his two races for governor, he often campaigned partially Spanish. Though his Spanish was not that good, I personally did appreciate his attempts and his cultural sensitivity.

In that political context, and despite the conservative political climate where I taught, there was never a wavering of support for bilingual education by the staff or administrators. Outside of that context, I have sometimes heard ignorant proponents of English-only laws assert that bilingual education is a crutch for linguistic minorities, who should just stop being lazy, learn English and assimilate with the dominant culture. Those ignorant assertions frustrate me for a host of reasons.

The reality is that at least in Texas public schools when I was a grade school teacher, bilingual education for language minority students had nothing to do with promoting mastery of languages other than English or celebrating the culture of a particular racial or ethnic group. Instead, modern bilingual education came about after a Supreme Court case, Lau v. Nichols, recognized that instruction in only English deprived a meaningful education to children who did not yet speak English or who only spoke it a little. See Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). The Court’s opinion required that school districts do something to remedy that situation and meet the children’s needs. Bilingual education in public schools is one strategy to meet those needs.

At least where I taught, bilingual education was limited to just elementary school, and by junior high students had to be ready for English only instruction. As a result, the focus of bilingual education where I taught was to teach kids core subjects in their first language (e.g., Spanish or Vietnamese), while they were taught English intensively during part of the day. If you don’t teach linguistic minority kids in their first language while their English skills are still weak, they fall behind in the core subjects. By the time they get competent enough in English to function well in an English only classroom (e.g., by the end of elementary school), they are too far behind to catch up in their core subjects.

As a kindergarten bilingual education teacher, I taught my students their letter sounds and reading, math (including counting by tens, simple fractions, adding and subtracting), science, and social studies all in Spanish. However, I also spent significant time every day teaching them English. At the beginning of the year, few of my students spoke any English, so we would start out with ESL lessons that lasted an hour or less. But by the end of the year, half our school day was spent speaking English. By then, my students could sing dozens of songs in English, understand simple stories in English, and discuss addition problems in English. At the beginning of the school year, my students mainly played with each other on the playground. Due to their inability to speak English, they self-segregated. But by Christmas break, they were starting to feel confident enough in English that they began to play with the kids who spoke only (or primarily) English. By the end of the year, everyone was playing in an integrated fashion, which was very gratifying.


Mark 9:37

"Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me."

Thursday, May 6, 2010

My Bottom Line on Feminism

I began studying French when I was 12, it was one of my majors in college, and I spent a year living in France after receiving my degree. Languages can be tricky to master. In a high school French class, I remember writing an essay en français to describe my summer exchange experience with a family outside Paris. The French cheek kissing custom was mentioned at one point in the essay. To find the right word, at home I looked up the verb “to kiss” in my thick French-English dictionary. After receiving our graded essays, I was mortified when our teacher later explained to the class that the word “baiser” (which my dictionary had indicated was the correct verb) had at one time meant “to kiss” but in modern usage it now was a very crude word meaning to f*&$. My trusty dictionary had given me no clue to this modern usage. This alternate meaning had introduced a bizarre and unintentionally comical twist to my narrative about my dear French family giving me good night kisses before I went upstairs to go to bed. Several of my friends had made similar faux pas in their essays. We were dismayed that our dictionaries could have led us astray to make such an embarrassing mistake. How could a dictionary be so wrong? We were incredulous.

As I’ve pondered the words “feminist” and “feminism” lately, I’ve been reminded of that awkward mistake in high school French class. Again, the dictionary seems to provide one definition, but usage is giving a very different, quite negative definition. After my high school lesson, I could have insisted on using the dictionary-provided word “baiser” when speaking French to express the concept of kissing, but I did not. What would have been the point? No one would have understood what I was intending to convey. Instead, they would have been shocked and repulsed by my vulgarity. They would have not been receptive to whatever I was trying to convey.

Similarly, I don’t ultimately feel comfortable embracing the term “feminist.” I would likely embrace the term if the dictionary definition were the one in popular usage. But it is not. Many people in our country understand a very different meaning when the term “feminist” is used. In my opinion, it is not helpful to the cause of women’s equality to continue to use a term that triggers such a negative, even hostile reaction in so many.

I appreciate that some people want to reclaim the label “feminist” from its current negative connotation. To me, however, I don’t see the point. It seems like a wasted effort. It reminds me of the quixotic fight of the Academie Française to eliminate franglais terms like “le hot-dog” from the lexicon of people in France.

Moreover, even the dictionary definition of “feminist” does not completely sit well with me. I think it is outdated and misguided to try to isolate the cause of women’s equality. The treatment of women is inextricably intertwined with the treatment of men. I don’t just favor the advancement of women’s rights. I believe more globally in gender equality and would like to see the abolition of all gender-based stereotypes and limitations.



Mark 4:22

For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

More Perceptions of Feminism

In a prior blog, I explained that I had contacted a number of people to get their perceptions of the term “feminist.” When I reviewed their responses, I was very surprised by the overwhelmingly positive feedback I received from everyone. The folks who shared their perceptions were diverse in many respects, but I noted at the beginning of that blog post that they were all middle class professionals. And I don’t generally discuss politics with everyone I know, so I don’t actually know the political beliefs of everyone who shared their perceptions with me. Because of the disproportionate amount of positive responses I received, I began to wonder if I had inadvertently only sought feedback from people with a fairly progressive bent.

In reality, I also really wanted to hear the views of people who did not have a positive view of the term “feminist.” The folks I contacted in the first survey generally mentioned that they had a positive view of feminism, but were quick to note that popular connotations are often negative. I wanted to hear from people who embraced such negative connotations. I wanted to understand their views.

For this reason, I decided to seek feedback from a second set of folks (hereafter, the “second group”). This time around I deliberately sought the views of people I knew for sure were conservatives and/or were registered Republicans. In addition, I also contacted people I had reason to believe might at least have conservative sympathies.

In this second group, I only contacted women. They were all Caucasian. They varied in age from being in their early 30s to their 70s. All of the women I contacted have been married. Some are currently married, some were widowed, and some are divorced. All of the women are mothers. Their children ranged in age from babies to middle-aged adults. Some of the women have family members who are currently serving overseas in the military.

I am pretty sure all of the women in the second group are Christians. All of the women grew up in religious households and/or belong to a church now. Some have taught Sunday school, served on church committees, sung in the choir, participated in various church ministries, or otherwise have been active in their faith communities.

Most of the women in the second group are outspoken conservatives who vehemently dislike President Obama, oppose “Obamacare,” and/or are angered by the president’s decision to not observe the National Day of Prayer. Others are much more soft-spoken in their views, but seem to be in general agreement with the views of the more outspoken ladies. Still others in the group seem to not be that political. I may be incorrect, but my perception is that the less political folks have at least somewhat conservative tendencies. But regardless of their actual views, politics just does not appear to be a huge focus in their lives. They seem to have other priorities and interests.

About half of the ladies in the second group live in small towns. The others live in major metropolitan areas—though mostly in suburban areas. About half of the women have college degrees; the others did not continue their formal education beyond high school. Except for one respondent, all of the women consulted have been “stay-at-home moms” at some point in their lives. Some stayed home with their children just for a few years before their children began school. For others, full-time parenting was their priority until their children reached adulthood. At various points in their lives, the women consulted in the second group have had careers as teachers, nurses, medical transcriptionists, secretaries, teacher’s aides or real estate agents.

A couple of the women consulted in this second group had positive views on feminism. The way they defined the term “feminist” was in accord with the dictionary definition of the term. They expressed the notion that feminists want equality for women in areas like “jobs and politics.” One of these women specifically noted that men could be feminists. One woman added that feminists were not just “extreme activists, such as those that picket and speak out on key issues,” but also encompassed a "regular Betty" who stands up for a co-worker suffering the effects of gender discrimination. The same woman also expressed concern for reverse gender discrimination, indicating that in some contexts a person might receive “better” treatment because she is a woman.

These couple of women indicated they thought that being a feminist was a positive thing. However, one of the women did not think the feminist label fit her simply because she had never done anything to affirmatively promote feminism. The other lady indicated she thought she fit the definition of a feminist. However, she also added that the term made her sad. She reflected thoughtfully, “If we could all just be humanists, then we wouldn't need such words that perpetually remind us how large groups of us are mistreated based on a single quality. I am not just a woman; I am so much more.”

Honestly, I was pretty surprised by these ladies’ positive reactions to the term “feminist.” I wondered if they were influenced by their perceptions of my own views, and perhaps were trying to be polite. But I don’t think these women would misrepresent their own beliefs just to please me. However, these women were potentially the least politically active folks in the second group I consulted. They have a lot of other interests and activities.

A couple other women in the second group had lukewarm, but not hostile views towards the concept of feminism. One such woman defined the term “feminist” as a “female who strives to prove she can stand on her own, be in charge of life and ‘further’ the rights of women.” Another defined the term as “someone who works for women's rights to be equal in every aspect of social, economic and financial environments.” These women seemed ambivalent about embracing the term for themselves, but did not appear hostile to it either. One woman shared she felt she fit the definition of a feminist “by about 50%.” She indicated, “I'm not a true feminist, but I have a great respect for women and men who have broken the traditional barriers of society.” She expressed that her upbringing might account for her not fully fitting the term; she was not raised in a family that was particularly engaged in politics. The same woman indicated, “In general, I think it is positive to be a feminist. Unfortunately, as in everything else, the media tends to give light to the negative views and not the true definition of feminism.” Another woman indicated she was “not rabid for or against feminism” and had a somewhat “neutral position.” The same woman expressed support for the things feminists support but did not “fully agree with some of the aggressive means of achieving” their goals. She indicated a preference for retaining some of the “old fashioned” social customs like “being treated with deference and being ‘treated like a lady.’” She felt those attitudes were not embraced by what she considered to be “true feminism.”

The rest of the women I consulted in the second group had very different and extremely negative definitions of the term “feminist.” One woman expressed that a “feminist is just short of a communist.” The belief was also shared that a “feminist” was a “female who is unhappy with the role God gave her in life.” One of the ladies opined that a feminist is a “power hungry woman who always feels she is being cheated; she covets another’s blessings, abilities, position or strength believing no one is her better.” Another woman thoughtfully looked up the term before responding to my questions. She expressed that prior to looking up the term, it did not have a positive meaning for her. She expressed that feminists “say” they want “equality,” but in reality they “want all they can get.” This same woman observed, “The dictionary definition is interesting.”

The women who expressed negative views of feminism generally indicated they did not fit the definition. Several of the women who expressed this opinion did so in a very concise manner without elaboration. In response to the question asking whether they fit the definition of a “feminist,” they simply responded “no.” When asked if they thought the term held a positive or negative connotation to them, they simply responded “negative.” In response to these questions, some of the ladies used exclamation points or all caps.

One woman with a very negative definition of feminism later indicated a different, more nuanced and very thoughtful perspective with respect to my other questions. She indicated that usually she was not a feminist but at times she was one: “I believe each of us has an individual place in the world. Each of us, whether we be woman or man, are given talents and abilities that express our own personality and strengths through how we use them. Our gender should not limit those talents or the reward they reap.” The same woman also expressed, “Being labeled a feminist is both positive and negative depending upon the time, place and expectations of society. Also, how you present yourself in your current position will influence how the title effects and affects you, whether it be positively or negatively.”

Another woman who provided a negative definition expressed somewhat similar ambivalence. A retiree, she cited her “age group” to indicate her belief that the term “feminist” has a negative connotation.” She shared, “I still want the guy to open my door or help lift or carry something.” The same lady also indicated she believed in “fairness in job opportunities” but not “quotas.” She rejected the feminist label for herself, but noted that in her career she had been the supervisor to some men. She shared that she “didn’t make an issue” of her gender when she had been in such a supervisory role. She noted that even one of her male employees (whom she characterized as a male chauvinist) eventually admitted that it is “alright” to work for her though he was initially not “looking forward to a female boss.”

One woman in the second group declined to try to define the term “feminist,” but simply stated, “I don't think I am a feminist because I think it carries a negative connotation even though I believe in women's rights.”

When I contacted people in the first group to get their views on feminism, I did not get the impression they minded my questions. In fact, many of them indicated the questions were interesting and thought-provoking; they didn’t tend to think about those topics much. In contrast, I got the impression that most (but not all) of the women in the second group were not very happy to be asked these questions. Indeed, unlike the first group, some folks contacted in the second group ignored my request for feedback. Others responded but were a little curt. Still others expressed a degree of self-consciousness in expressing their opinions, noting that they were not sure if they were “right” or if their views “make sense.” One lady specified that she wasn’t sure I’d “approve” of her views.

There are many possible reasons that people in the second group may have been self-conscious or lacked enthusiasm about responding. However, my hunch is that they were concerned that they were going to be judged and disrespected for the opinions they expressed. Although I don’t discuss politics with most of these ladies, in many contexts over the years, many people have made certain assumptions about my own beliefs and values because I am a female lawyer with a hyphenated name. Additionally, now that I am an academic, there are certain presumptions about me that sometimes get made. In many circles, being an academic is equated with being an elitist liberal. Because some of the ladies may have viewed me as a liberal elitist looking to make fun of them, I did my best to put the women at ease and to express my respect for their views. I tried to emphasize that I was trying to understand different people’s perceptions.

Indeed, the whole reason I sought these ladies’ views was because I wanted to better understand the meaning of the term “feminist.” The dictionary definition is quite agreeable to me. However, dictionaries do not always provide definitions based on popular usage. Some terms change in meaning over time, or may have differing definitions based upon the setting and the people who use the term. I think definitions based on popular usage are valid and need to be taken into consideration. If a group of people believe a term means certain things when they use it, that is what the term means in their usage regardless of what Mr. Webster says.

I’m very grateful to the women in the second group who shared their views with me. Particularly if any of them were wary because they worried I would disrespect their views, I applaud their courage. It is never easy to speak one’s mind when one perceives that the listener disagrees. It is my fervent hope that none of the ladies in the second group feels I have expressed any disrespect for their views in this blog post. Certainly none has been intended.

I also appreciate the fact that these women responded to my questions in a very thoughtful manner. I know a number of other women whom I’ve heard use the term “feminist” as an epithet. They were obvious candidates for inclusion in the second group. However, I decided against consulting with those ladies because I sensed that they would react very angrily to me if I posed my questions to them. I am very grateful for the hospitality of the women in the second group for graciously tolerating my questions. Because of their graciousness, I have gained a lot of insight into the issue of feminism.






Matthew 15:10 (New International Version)

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand.


Saturday, May 1, 2010

Masculinism?

I was talking with my husband recently about his views on feminism. He comes from a traditional, rural community in South Texas. Feminism was not exactly a big topic of conversation in his hometown when he was growing up. He is a corporate accountant by profession, but in his experience--unless you count quoting Rush--bean counters don’t tend to sit around debating social injustice. As a result, this was actually his first discussion on the topic of feminism.

Initially, my husband joked that his definition of a “feminist” was someone who hated men and burned bras. When he saw I was displeased and was hoping for a serious discussion, the grin on his face disappeared and he went on to explain his true thoughts. In his opinion, feminists are simply people who want women to have equal rights to men—period. (I was actually pretty impressed by his response because this was an off-the-cuff response and unlike me he had not even had to consult the dictionary.) I followed up, “So, would you consider yourself to be a feminist?” He crumpled his brow and squinted. He explained technically he fit the definition, but the term has been warped and has different connotations these days. As a result, he indicated he wasn’t offended by having the label applied to him, but he didn’t exactly embrace it himself. I told him that I agreed the term had been warped, and for example there seemed to be a popular idea that feminism and the promotion of abortion were linked. He thought that was an unfair association. In his opinion, feminists did not want or encourage women to have abortions, but he conceded that access to safe abortions was an important issue to many.

Then my husband asked, “What about men’s rights? What about masculinism?” I laughed and sarcastically asked in what ways men suffered discrimination. After I posed the question, I immediately realized what an incredibly insensitive remark that was for me to make to him in particular. My husband has actually been a real trail-blazer on gender issues, and has not always been warmly embraced as a result.

My husband was a successful corporate accountant for over a decade. By all accounts, he excelled at his profession and was a valued employee. He was promoted consistently and rewarded generously. Before we became parents, we always assumed we’d be a dual career family. Both our moms always worked outside the home. It never occurred to us that our kids would not be in day care or with a nanny during the work day. But when we actually became parents, finding decent child care was a bigger struggle than we had ever imagined.

We went through several options, but they were very expensive, not what we had hoped for, and at the time our only child was frankly not thriving. It broke our hearts and led to a lot of soul-searching. We finally came to the surprising conclusion that one of us needed to stay home full-time, particularly since we were about to become parents to another child. We talked about it at length, pondered the matter carefully from all sides. We were both willing to put our children ahead of our career. Finally, for a host of reasons, we decided the best solution for our family was for my husband to quit his job. It was a scary decision on many levels. It also seemed a little revolutionary. We did not know any stay-at-home dads. Heck, at that time, we did not know that many stay-at-home moms!

When my husband turned in his resignation, shock and disbelief were the chief reactions at his company. He had just been offered (and had turned down) a promotion to management. Because he had cited the needs of his young kids as the reason for declining it, some managers already knew his priorities. But even they never thought he would do something so extreme like stay home as the primary caregiver to his kids. After the big announcement, some of his colleagues quietly came to his office, shut the door and asked him to confide in them. They thought he had accepted a great job at a competitor company and wanted to know if they could go work for him. They couldn’t believe a smart guy with a promising career would “throw it away” to take care of his kids.

I was incredibly proud of my husband’s tremendous courage to defy stereotypical gender roles and buck societal expectations. And I was awed by his dedication to our young family and his great love for our kids. I was euphoric that our children were going to be nurtured by the constant presence and love of their father. But when I shared with friends our exciting news, the reaction was polite and subdued. People did not express the enthusiasm I was expecting. “Good for him” was about as much excitement as anyone could muster. Certainly no one ever said it, but my sense was that they secretly thought my husband had been canned or they looked down on him for not having more drive. On a personal level, it was quite disappointing and surprising.

When he began staying at home full-time, my husband pretty quickly realized he and our kids were in a rather isolated situation. There weren’t other stay-at-home dads around. To my surprise, the stay-at-home moms were not very welcoming in most cases. I had had plenty of male friends over the years; in our generation, I didn’t think there would be a gender divide in social settings. I was wrong. Dads were explicitly not welcome at some of the play groups in our area.

In other contexts, the same attitude was conveyed implicitly. While waiting for the kids at dance or karate classes, the moms often complained about their husbands to one another, and refused to make eye contact or speak with my husband. Initially I thought he was being paranoid or exaggerating, but after a good deal of evidence, I came to agree with him that he was being shunned. He eventually found a local stay-at-home dads support group, but there were only three other families. Unfortunately, each family lived in geographically divergent parts of a large metropolitan area, which made it impracticable to get together much.

When we moved to Arizona, things were not much easier. Many stay-at-home moms seem to view my husband with suspicion. He takes our kids to regular park get-togethers with big groups, and most of the mothers will not even speak to him. It is very isolating and sad. But fortunately at one group there is often another dad or two that shows up. One has a job where he works nights. Another has his own business. They have a terrific guy-camaraderie.

As our kids get older, my husband would like to go back to work, at least part-time. He had a lot of success as an accountant, but it was never his passion. However, he has always had an interest in nursing. He loves science and helping people one-on-one. When we first met, we were volunteers for our church at a local hospital. Unlike me, he was very comfortable ministering to people with serious illnesses and seemed to put them at ease. He now wants to go back to school to be an RN, and hopes to eventually work in a hospital setting. Of course, nursing is a profession traditionally dominated by women. He has been reading for several years about the discrimination men experience on the job. It is rather discouraging, but if that is the field he wants to enter, he has no choice but to be a trail blazer—again.

In conclusion, I think my husband is right that men suffer gender discrimination, too. I think that the term “feminist” does not seem to acknowledge that explicitly, but it should. Or perhaps a whole new term (without the negative connotations of “feminist”) is needed to denote support for equality of both genders, and for the abolition of all gender-based stereotypes. Unfortunately, I’m not sure what term would encompass all of that. I’m open to suggestions.
John 8:32


Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Feminism and Christ Followers

I’ve never embraced the term “feminist,” but I think I’ve long recognized discrepancies in the treatment of men and women in our society. As mentioned in a prior post, the dictionary definition of “feminism” is “the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.” If the gist of being a feminist is advocacy of equality of women to men, I am clearly a feminist.

But that dictionary definition is not the one everyone seems to intend when using the term. Indeed, I recently overheard a very conservative Christian woman I know state that feminists are “women who negate the importance of men in society.” To be clear--I’m not a chauvinist, I don’t think women are superior to men, and I don’t advocate the supremacy of women over men. I am unabashedly proud of my brilliant husband. I’ve also had many good male friends and mentors. I am not in any way “anti-male.” As a Christ follower, I simply think all human life is equally valuable, and accordingly all human beings should be treated with the same respect and dignity.

In one e-mail, the law professor, who invited me to affiliate with the feminist law professor group, shared her opinion that she thought Jesus was a feminist. I shared with her that I agreed. Honestly, I had never thought of Jesus in those terms previously. But heretofore, I also hadn’t really thought about the term “feminism” much. However, with my current understanding of the concept of a “feminist,” I think Jesus fits the bill.

Jesus’s ministry was remarkable in terms of inclusiveness. At a time when the prevailing religious values and cultural norms emphasized purity, Jesus went out of his way to befriend impure outcasts. For example, in his culture, women were nobodies. They were considered impure. Their presence in society was marginalized and undervalued to say the least. Yet we know that Jesus did not treat them that way.

Women traveled with Jesus and his disciples. Mary and Martha were among his closest friends with whom he could just relax and hang out. Women were also among Jesus’s most faithful followers. After Judas betrayed him, and even Peter claimed not to know him, women were the last to stay near Jesus as he experienced a torturous death by crucifixion. After his resurrection, as his disciples despaired at the apparent defeat of their leader, Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene.

My sense is Jesus inspired such loyalty in women because of his radical attitude in treating them as precious human beings. People don’t follow a leader who denigrates them and makes them feel worthless. Leaders who inspire and empower people inspire enthusiastic loyalty.

Most of the New Testament was written by Paul as communications to various Christian communities. Paul has sometimes been disparaged by some progressives as misogynist. But as I understand, modern biblical scholarship has actually shed doubt on Paul’s authorship of certain controversial passages on the role of women. Indeed, Paul’s own writing memorializes his respect for the leadership of women like Priscilla in the fledgling Christian movement. And it is Paul himself who instructed us in his Epistle to the Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 King James Version).

I think this oft-quoted passage from Galatians is indicative of the respect for all human beings that Christians profess to have. If we truly believe that we are all one in Christ, and if feminism is about advocating for the equality of women, then all Christians should fall within the scope of the term “feminist.”




Acts 18:18 (Today's New International Version)

Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the believers and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila.


Romans 16:3 (Today's New International Version)

Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Is Feminism Still Relevant?

My sense is that some of the popular negativity towards the concept of feminism is generational. I was born in the waning months of the 1960s, was a child in the 1970s, but was a young adult in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Basically, I guess I missed the Women’s Movement. I dimly recall my mother being interested in the ERA, and being concerned with women’s rights. But the ERA never did get passed, and by the time I came of age, those issues seemed passé. As far as I could tell as a young adult, women seemed to be on fairly equal footing with men. Yeah, there weren’t a lot of them in leadership positions (e.g., principals, deans, politicians, law firm partners), but there weren’t a lot of men of color in those positions either. I vaguely figured it was just a matter of time, but both the Civil Rights and Women’s Movements were over because formal, legal barriers were removed.

In undergraduate school, in law school, and when I was a practicing lawyer, I often moved in circles with few women. At varying times, I seemed to have more male friends than female ones, and I never had the sense that my male friends treated me any differently due to my gender. They seemed to enjoy discussing coursework, politics, theology and various other topics with me. They seemed to value my opinions like anyone else’s.

But while I was in practice a variety of things began to happen subtly that led me to gradually realize that perhaps women had not made as much progress as I had previously thought. Certain comments were made by certain co-workers. Certain decisions were made about hiring, promotion and assignments. And certain patterns developed with respect to individuals’ workplace friendships. When I was in practice, for the most part I was blessed to have been placed under the authority of some very good human beings. And most of them were male. They were generous mentors, from whom I learned a lot, and to whom I continue to be very grateful. But there were a few other times when I was not as fortunate. And there were times when some male co-workers were frankly more hospitable than others.

Simultaneously while in practice, I developed a new-found respect for the value of female support systems. Prior to working as a lawyer, I had had so many male friends, perhaps in some ways I had undervalued the benefit of having a female network. In the eight years I was in practice, countless female colleagues reached out to me at various times to offer support at different milestones. It was really striking because there was such a gender imbalance in that context. Often women that I didn’t even know well would seek me out to offer congratulations, condolences or whatever was appropriate at those key times. For example, when an announcement was made about our family’s adoption of our first child, a normally stern woman I barely knew rushed to my office to give me an unexpected, speechless bear hug, and I received a slew of excited e-mails from other female co-workers.

Similarly, when my resignation was announced and word spread about my decision to enter academia, I had long, supportive discussions with so many female colleagues. And for days, different ladies took me out for congratulatory farewell lunches. I was excited at the new path my career was taking me, but I unexpectedly broke down into emotional sobs when I hugged my administrative assistant “good-bye.” For a long period, she was the only other woman in our work group. Her friendship and support had really helped me through some tough times; her camaraderie had made me feel less alone in the group. She and I couldn’t have been more different in so many ways. But it helped a lot just to have someone—another woman--to trade stories about our kids, to discuss the joys of mammograms and the fear of having to one day maintain a professional appearance while dealing with hot flashes!

I was recently asked by a law student about my experiences with “gender discrimination” while I was in practice. I reflected that it is typically very subtle these days. Obviously, American women in the twenty-first century don’t face the types of blatant gender discrimination that Sandra Day O’Connor and her generation faced. But in some ways such blatant discrimination would almost be preferable—it is easier to identify and fight. Subtle discrimination is insidious and can be much more difficult to overcome. This is particularly the case when many young folks are naive (as I once was) and don’t believe that gender discrimination still continues.

In light of these experiences, and these observations, I have come to the conclusion that yes, feminism is still relevant. Women haven’t achieved full equality in our society. There is still a need to work towards equality. Indeed, due to the subtleties of current discrimination, I think many of us need to be made aware that problems do continue to persist.




Psalm 45:4

In your majesty ride forth victoriously in the cause of truth, humility and justice; let your right hand achieve awesome deeds.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Perceptions of Feminism

Since this discussion with the law professor who asked me to affiliate with a feminist law professor group, I have been exploring perceptions of the term “feminist” and trying to reconcile them with the relatively tame dictionary definition. In this process, I’ve sought feedback from a number of friends inside and outside of the legal academy. I have purposely sought the perspective of people from many different walks of life—different professional experiences, different genders, different ages, different racial and ethnic identities, different religions, etc. Their insights have really been interesting to me. And I’m grateful to them for sharing time in their busy schedules to enlighten me.

Though I sought feedback from people with different backgrounds, there were commonalities shared by everyone I consulted on this issue. They were all well-educated professionals in the United States who currently enjoy a middle class lifestyle with some degree of financial security. Though I learned a lot in receiving their feedback, I recognize these are important commonalities that may bias to some degree the insights that were shared with me. Indeed, one person shared the perception that the feminist movement was primarily a concern of the more educated and economically advantaged in our society.

Another person I consulted grew up in a developing country that was originally founded by European colonialists on the exploitation of enslaved Africans. She shared that feminism is perceived in her homeland as a “western ideal” and an “alien concept.” She noted that any western ideology is typically regarded with suspicion, as “imperialism in new clothes.” She described the perception that feminism is an ideology based on an “individualistic lens” that is at odds with the culture of her homeland. She shared that “[f]or feminists in the ‘third world,’ power is measured in large part by a yard stick of familial progress. The family unit must realize its potential. The view, then, is that western feminists seek to divide the family – a concept that is almost heretical in most ‘third world’ societies.”

I also consulted several women who grew up in the United States. They varied in age from being in their twenties to their fifties. Some were lawyers in the academy, some were not. Indeed, one was not a lawyer at all, and another was a current law student. Some were white, some were women of color. These women were also all either married or were otherwise in long-term committed relationships with men. Some (but not all) were mothers. Interestingly, all of these women indicated their understanding of feminism in similar terms—as being concerned with the equality of women in the face of a long history of discrimination. They all seemed to be focusing on discrimination in the work place, as well as in public and private leadership roles.

These women all indicated that they thought of themselves as feminists, based on their own definitions of the term. However, almost all were quick to point out popular connotations of feminism are often quite different from their own definition. They noted the popular connotations are typically negative, e.g., feminists are anti-male. The term “bra burner” was mentioned several times, as well as the term “extremist.” Several of the women expressed that they thought the term “feminist” has been misunderstood and received a “bum rap.”

In the responses of several (but certainly not all) of the women I consulted, there seemed to be a bit of initial hesitancy to embrace the label “feminist.” That was interesting because the respondents all indicated a personally favorable impression of that term and a sense that they themselves fell within its scope. Some of the women seemed to be uncomfortable with labels more generally because they can be misunderstood, divisive, and can serve as a tool for exclusion. However, several of the women expressed a desire to see the term “feminist” reclaimed and the negative popular connotations challenged.

I also contacted a number of men to hear their views on feminism. They varied in age from being in their thirties to over sixty. They were all happily married to college-educated women, and they were all fathers. Their children ranged in age greatly: new-borns, adults, pre-schoolers, teenagers. All of these men were well-educated, but not all had attended law school. The men I consulted were of various races and ethnicities. They also came from different religious backgrounds.

I have to admit that each of the men I consulted share the commonality of being very sensitive to social justice issues generally. Even before contacting them for this blog post, I personally knew these gentlemen were all very supportive of women’s equality in the work place and in society more broadly. Before contacting them, however, I was not sure if that sensitivity and supportiveness would influence their perceptions of the term “feminist.”

I was surprised in a number of ways by the feedback I received from males. For example, I had initially thought their perceptions on this issue might be polarized along generational lines, but that was not actually the case. I thought perhaps some of the men who had come of age during the civil rights and/or women’s movement might be more inclined to embrace the concept of feminism. On the other hand, I suspected that those who are closer to my age and missed the women’s movement might tend to have more negative connotations. However, such trends were not evident. Some of the relatively young men embraced the term “feminist” for themselves, others did not. The same was evident among the relatively older men in the group.

Additionally, in several instances, I was personally surprised about individuals’ reactions to whether they considered themselves a feminist. Some men I personally thought might embrace the term actually rejected it out of hand. In contrast, some of the men I thought would reject the term embraced it. It was a very interesting set of responses.

Many of the men I consulted indicated they viewed a “feminist” as someone who was concerned about the equality of women and discrimination against women in society. I was intrigued that one gentleman defined the term even more broadly as someone who wants to advance gender equality, and is supportive of men and women who enter historically nontraditional roles. When asked if they were a feminist, the men with such egalitarian views indicated that they were feminists. However, it was interesting because not all came to that conclusion immediately. Several noted they had never really thought about the question, and for some reason several had always had an assumption that only women could be feminists. However, because the definition they provided did not mandate being female, these men did eventually indicate they thought they were feminists.

There were a few men who did not embrace the term for themselves. For example, one man (who was probably the youngest in the group and is a law professor) indicated he really thought of the term “feminist” as being primarily descriptive of a particular field of scholarship. He expressed a lot of respect for that discipline and was supportive of it. However, because that was not the field in which he did research, he did not believe he fit the definition of a “feminist.” Another gentleman, who was of a different generation, indicated that he generally had a negative connotation of the term “feminist.” Currently, he associated the term with people (usually female) who were “activists” on women’s issues, but in the distant past he equated the term with men-hating “bra burner[s].” He no longer thought of feminists in those terms and recognized that feminists were “very thoughtful people who are concerned about issues involving women.” And though I know this particular gentleman is supportive of women’s issues, he did not embrace the term “feminist”; he indicated he did not embrace “isms” of any kind.






1 Corinthians 12:22-27 (Today’s New International Version)

But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

National Organization of Women

As a follow up to the prior post, it seems that in conservative Christian circles I’ve often heard the concept of feminism linked to the promotion of abortion (and not just the de-criminalization of medical abortions). I’m not entirely clear about the source of this perception. Personally, I cannot imagine anyone actually wanting women to have abortions—let alone feminists who purport to have the best interests of women in mind. However, my own belief is that the perception is rooted at least to some degree in the fact that the National Organization of Woman has been an ardent supporter of the pro-choice position for many years. I know full well that “pro-choice” does not mean “pro-abortion,” but I think that some conservatives conflate the two, particularly when a person or a group (like NOW) seems to focus exclusively (or almost exclusively) on the issue of abortion rights.

These days it seems that NOW only makes the news with respect to abortion issues. A few weeks ago, I was watching Bill Moyers Journal and the current NOW president, Terry O’Neill, was invited to discuss the recent passage of health care reform. Though many progressives were rejoicing and exchanging high-fives that week, Ms. O’Neill was apparently not at all pleased. The interview began with her passionate critique of a lack of inclusion of abortion coverage in the bill that President Obama signed. She was so angry in the interview, she reminded me of Rush Limbaugh ironically enough. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03262010/profile2.html

This recent interview does not appear to be aberrational. When you go to NOW’s website, the group has a list of six leading issues important to its mission. The first issue listed is “Abortion and Reproductive Rights.” http://www.now.org/

I certainly don’t favor the re-criminalization of medical abortions. But I would take great offense to ever being labeled someone who is “pro-abortion.” That would be a cruel mischaracterization of my actual views. It is a topic for another post, but in my limited, indirect experience with the topic, I have come to the conclusion that abortion is never a happy choice. I have known women who struggle for years with a past decision to have an abortion. I would not wish that experience on any woman.

But the reality of the situation is that Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for nearly forty years despite decades of hollow GOP campaign promises to overturn it. At this point, it is pretty entrenched law. Even if it were somehow overturned, I highly doubt there would be a widespread move in state legislatures to re-criminalize abortions. Maybe I’m naive, but that is my sense of where our society currently stands on that issue.

And I recognize that even if the legal status of medical abortions is not seriously threatened at this time, for a variety of reasons there are many logistical obstacles to getting abortion care. Fewer and fewer doctors are willing to perform medical abortions for a variety of reasons including nonviolent but harassing protestors, very credible death threats, and varied economic pressures. Consequently, in some parts of the country abortion rights are effectively compromised for lack of access—particularly for women in rural communities and in states with few or no providers.

Nonetheless, in this day and age in the United States, I just don’t understand how the highest profile women’s rights group still touts abortion rights as its top priority. Abortion is only even a possibility for women while they are in their child-bearing years, so the issue has the potential to directly affect only one relatively small segment of the female population. And not all of the women in that segment are even ever going to consider having an abortion. In my mind, there are a lot of other more pressing issues facing women--issues that are important to a much larger cross-section of the female population of our country.

Though NOW continues to be viewed by many as the preeminent voice of feminism in our country, I’m not sure how reflective the group really is of most women today or even the modern women’s movement. Indeed, as far as I am aware, I have personally only known one individual who was an actual member of NOW. That person was a lovely human being, but frankly he had some odd views. He was an aging hippy with a Ph.D., and an erratic work history. He had several failed marriages, and used to reminisce about the good ole days of the 1960s when people smoked marijuana and shared “free love” without being “up-tight.” Hmmm.

To be honest, I haven’t ever followed NOW closely. One of my biggest memories of the group was that Patricia Ireland was its president for about a decade during my young adulthood in the 1990s. The one thing I remember about Ms. Ireland was that she caused controversy when she took over the NOW leadership because of her admission that in addition to a husband, she also had a female partner (who was a long-time member of the Socialist Workers Party). In the base case, being a polygamous bisexual is a tough sell in many parts of our country. But if your partner is also a card-carrying Socialist, you might as well pack up your bags. Interestingly enough, however, that didn’t happen; Ms. Ireland was at the helm of NOW for a number of years. For this and other reasons, I think the organization seemed out of touch with many of my generation. As young people beginning careers and families, none of my friends rushed to join NOW. It just wasn’t on our radar.

In conclusion, I don’t think access to abortion is the most important issue facing women these days. In fact, it would not even make my short-list. Perhaps because of NOW’s overemphasis on abortion rights to the exclusion of other issues, I think that conservative Christians are not the only ones who seem to think that at least modern feminism is primarily concerned with access to abortions. In my opinion, that has not served the cause of women’s equality. I also don’t think that helps others embrace the term “feminism.” It drives many of us from it.




2 Corinthians 8:13 (Today’s New International Version)

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.