just under the deadline

a while ago a friend told me he thought i wrote better when i didn't give myself a whole bunch of time to ruin it with thinking. that made sense to me, at the time. (and he was an editor, after all)

but what that really means is that i've trained myself to procrastinate till the VERY last minute.

i'm exhausticated.

but the piece for Geez mag is finished, i'm actually happy with it (until i reread it tomorrow) and if they use it, huzzah!

new planetary system: a conversation

scene: a cab, on the way home from marshall field's with the roomie.

roomie: so did you see the emails today between me and K-?
ding: no. i was busy all day. i barely checked email.
roomie: dude! you don't know about the new planets?
ding: the new what?
roomie: the new planets. dude. they discovered a new planetary system.
ding: shut up. a whole system? are you sure it just wasn't a bunch of stars or something? and how far away are they?
roomie: a whole system. behind venus or something.
ding: shut up. that close?? there was an entire planetary system within our own system, hidden behind a planet? what??
roomie: i don't know. i can't remember the details of the article. but i was saying to K- that this is how it begins - they discover a new planetary system and then, boom, Battlestar Galactica happens.

ding: (laughing) you are so crazy. but you have a point. how cool would that be? we get invaded by aliens in this new planetary system. that would change a lot.
roomie: politics, religion - everything. the fundamentalists would crap. it would blow everything out the water. everyone would have to come together to face the invasion.
ding: true. who would care about the clash of cultures, christianity versus islam, when there are aliens who want us for food?
roomie: they wouldn't necessarily be bad.
ding: it's always bad. every twilight zone episode has shown us that earthlings are terribly naive and then we get eaten by the invaders. and i could see the christian right telling us the alien invasion is actually satan.

roomie: all i'm saying is that there is a new planetary system and no one thinks this is an issue.
ding: that's ok. you'll be our chicken little.

CNN.com - Three new planets found around sun-like star - May 18, 2006

friday is my new best friend

i have a day off today.

i so need it. the past few months at the office have been insane. phase 1 of a project just finished and i am so glad, i could do a dance (and the dance would look like that eileen dance on seinfeld - don't get me wrong. i have rhythm. but my joy requires total goofy dancing this very minute); i was taking work home, working 12 hour days and i was just exhausted.

so now i'm home, in my bedroom, emailing, reading the paper and getting ready to go outside and get some coffee and go to the bank down the street. when i get back i have to start writing that article for Geez. (bad freelancer, bad!)

isn't friday great?

this is how you evangelize: cylon fundamentalists and the coolest show ever

my roomie and i are new to 'battlestar galactica'. (she hates that i tell everyone how much we love this show.)

i mean, i remember the old show with lorne greene walking around in shiny robes and richard hatch and dirk benedicts with guns strapped to their thighs. (oh, how many pictures of those two did i have taped to the inside of my book case? i loooved apollo.) but all i really remember from the old show were the really bad firefights and, actually, i think most of my memories are mixed up with Buck Rogers.

anyway, to catch up with everyone else who loves this show, my roomie and i spent two weekends renting season one and season two (damn them for splitting up season 2!) and we've immersed ourselves in the whole mythology.

yes, we're dorks! i love science fiction! space opera is the best!

things we love:
that starbuck is a woman - this is a HUGE improvement and we love it.
the fight scenes are so much better!
lt. gaeta is hot

i'm fascinated with how BG treats religion; i sense that there's a fairly complex 'theology'/mythology behind the whole narrative and we get a glimpse of it when the President goes on one of her drug induced visions or when the really annoying blonde Cylon babe (she's SO annoying) ups her Cylon-witnessing gambit with Baltar. or when adama and the president get into one of their faith v. military maneuvering discussions. i love it.

but is this religious war supposed to be analogous to our christian/islamic clash of cultures or just a basic christian/heathen thing?

and there are other questions:
how can the cylons have religion if they're machines?
what is their religion? and how did they get it?
and the humans worship greek mythology? huh?

what's the deal with kobol, again?
can someone please explain this to me??

snob, pt. 2

and your point would be...?

this week in prebyterianism

so i'm a deacon. we have an all day retreat next weekend and i am going to need loads of patience and caffeine to get through it.

and i'm about to step into a com'tee chair position that i can just tell is going to make me lose my temper and snap in the middle of a meeting. why i agreed to this, i don't know. yes i do! as a favor to my roommate who was vacating the position! argh. i knew i should've said no. i hate meetings. and i hate meetings that last more than one hour. and all we presbyterians do is meet. about everything.

has NO ONE heard of email?
or at least meeting at a bar so i can smoke?
...
this morning (and let's not even think about why i was up at 6.45 am on a Saturday) i found an email from a guy wanting to ask me questions about feminism and blogging for some article he's writing. he's probably some undergrad who has to write a paper.

but i thought his questions were useful so i'm posting them and my answers here:

# When did you start your blog?
I started ChurchGal about 3 years ago; I’d already had another blog up and running but I really wanted a separate space to talk about religion, faith and feminism in a more specific way.

# How many visits the site every month (if you don't know, then your estimate)?
I really can’t say. I don’t have a site meter (I really should get one of those) but I’ve noticed that I am getting more unique visitors since I joined a Progressive/Moderate Christian web-ring.
Sometimes the only way I have of measuring visits is through comments – some topics get big hits (anything having to do with sex or reproductive rights) and some get nothing (feminist theory and cultural semiotics, let’s say.)

# Do you know how many feminists blogs are out there - how many do you know?
There are many of us. Many, many, many. There is a huge list of women, feminist bloggers over at What She Said! I read Bitch, Ph.D regularly; I Blame the Patriarchy is another must-read and Angry Black Bitch is simply phenomenal. From there, of course, I read other writers and it’s astounding how many really good, smart, intellectually fierce women are writing!

# Why do you blog?
I first began blogging to get out of writer’s block; but then, when Bush became President the first time, it became a place for me to vent my anger and frustration at the direction my country had taken. I wanted to be public in my anger, my vitriol, my contempt for this administration.

But now I blog because it’s good intellectual practice. Based on some comments, I’m realizing that there is a lot of intellectual/educational work yet to be done to raise people’s consciousness. For instance, I plan on writing soon about Oprah Winfrey’s talk-show as a skillful cover for her contempt for the suburban housewife; I can guarantee someone will ask me why I hate housewives and what I have against Oprah? Or, when I talk about ‘patriarchy’ people ask me why I have an issue with ‘men’, not realizing patriarchy is a system, not a collection of guys – though men benefit primarily from patriarchy. Blogging makes me realize that not everyone went to college or university the way I did.

Being in dialogue with people (even with people who don’t agree) forces me to really assume a strong stance on some issues and really defend that stance. It’s like being back in school with a really demanding professor.

# Why do you think these blogs have become so popular?
They’re free. Well, not all of them, but generally they’re flattening access to authorship. Instead of discourse being generated by a few culturally elite, now everyone’s creating it. It’s truly populist – from the teenage girls with their Hello, Kitty templates to the serious academics like Juan Cole or Michael Berube – and then women like me, too. My father, a Baptist minister, has a blog!

# Does "equal status" between the sexes exist?
It depends on how you define ‘equality’ and ‘status’.

# If no, is that why you blog?
I don’t blog to even a score between men and women. I blog primarily because I love writing and I write to live. If I didn’t write, I’d go insane. But there is also a part of me that blogs to give voice to the more political or academic Me. It was something that had disappeared for a while and now it’s back and it never would have reappeared if it hadn’t been for blogging.

However, there is a secret part of me that likes to think that when people ask that idiotically sexist question, ‘Where are the women bloggers?’ I can raise my hand and say ‘Over here, you idiotic sexist!’

# Is this in your opinion the revival of the third wave? (Or is it really the fourth wave?)
I don’t even know what this ‘wave’ stuff is. For me, feminist bloggers are returning to our most basic, fundamental beginnings because we have to. I love how people talk as if feminism has made huge strides forward – it hasn’t. It’s alarming how much farther we have to go. Women are still extremely vulnerable to economic upset, our decision whether to conceive or bear children are under serious attack, and the last time I checked women in the U.S. only made up 14% of our political infrastructure despite being over 50% of the population. That’s huge. In some ways, blogging by feminists is a step to galvanize women to look at those conditions and do something about it – change something. Change anything.

I was in a meeting yesterday (and I work for a feminist organization) and a coworker said this about the use of the word Feminism: “It’s about as relevant today as abolition.” I laughed my ass off, but that’s a serious statement.

# How can this "wave" reach those not fortunate enough to own or have the chance to use a computer?
That’s an excellent question. My simple and completely ill-educated answer is to make sure we get those people computers. Information and education is power and if we want to empower the disempowered we need to make sure they have the means to free themselves.

fork and spoon! fork and spoon!

pinay of the world unite - a little canadian boy is being persecuted because he used a fork and spoon at the lunch table!

down with single utensil hegemony! down with it, i say!

JP: Luc Cagadoc: The DoubleSpeak (jp is all over this like a fork over a spoon)

why fork/spoon eating is good:
it is more efficient
you don't have to chase your food around your plate
you don't have to switch hands
it's perfect for scooping the meat with the rice
my mommy taught me to eat like this

AKBAYAN!

the hypocrite housewife

i read this essay in the back of my roomie's latest Time mag while taking a morning constitutional and i had a suspicion that something was wrong.

1. the whiny victim tone. sweetie, you're not a victim. the image of ms. flanagan, homey homemaker, being marched back to the protective arms of the GOP while the mean girls of the Dem party hoot bad names and vulgar gestures because ms. flanagan is a nice girl who'd rather stay home than hold a picket sign is ridiculous. from all reports, ms. flanagan is just as privileged as her husband; she is an accomplished writer who earns money with her writing, and has a staff to help her do it. how many traditional housewives get that? (and, frankly, the notion that only SHE gets to have a dead mother whom she misses desperately is sickening and offensive.)

2. the sticking up for the white male. does the White Male (as signifier) really need another apologist? really? is it stigmatizing the WM to reveal the existence of those on the outside, rather than to always cater to those on the inside with ultimate cultural privilege? (like any other upper middle class white woman, she's uncomfortable with having privilege revealed and being called out on it.) i think it's interesting that she chooses to frame her argument like this, rather than say that the Dem party has abandoned the working man - which it hasn't and she'd be hard pressed to show that it has.

or perhaps her allegation would ring truer if she wrote that the 'beer-guzzling, union-dues paying' white guy got the shit scared out of him by the GOP when 9/11 hit. rather, flanagan makes the WM a victim like herself and we all know how much they suffer, don't we?

3. she's wrong. perhaps i'm watching the wrong Democratic party but i've always felt that the party has been abject in its pursuit of the Housewife. it's women like me the party's abandoned - single women, single women of color, single working men and women. in my particular case, the post-election backpedaling on the choice issue is one such example; discussion abounded that perhaps the language of reproductive choice was too scary for those housewives living in places like naperville; it was too angry. and where are the policies that look out for the interests of the people like me in the party - people who don't live in a subdivision, people without children, but still people who work hard and believe heartily in progressive causes? instead we watch as the party fumbles for its nerve and makes concessions to those easily upset.

so if anyone is being alienated by the Dems, it's not a housewife. and it's certainly not because of contempt. to muster contempt, a party must have vast stores of anger and the GOP spits it continuously while we swallow ours and hope no one notices.

TIME.com: We're Here, We're Square, Get Used to It -- May. 08, 2006 -- Page 1
Joan Walsh about Flanagan on the Huffington Post

icky, but interesting: Father-daughter balls, coverture, and the double standard

the incestuous overtones aside, father-daughter balls are interesting. i think hugo's comment about old english law and 'coverture' is particularly apt, because it puts the 'father owns daughter' idea front and center, despite the sweetness and light of having daughters dance with their dads.

let's be clear; i think dads should spend a lot more time with their children. i don't think teenagers should be sexually active.

but, personally, if my dad had told me we were going to some funky 'pseudo-prom' together and dance to some christian rock-lite, i would have gagged. WHO wants to be in a clinch with their dad?? when they're in junior high or high school?? totally icky. (it's weird enough there's that whole 'first dance' thing at weddings.)

but why the focus on daughters and not sons? why no mother-son proms or balls? daughters are precious, but so are sons. right?
any policy, activity or ideology that focuses solely on controlling the behavior of girls and women and not boys or men makes my anti-authoritarian hackles rise with suspicion.

anyway, the post is good and the discussion is especially good - which is why i like reading hugo. his community is really sorta cool. (except when all the MRM-ers get on it. they blow.)

Hugo Schwyzer: Father-daughter balls, coverture, and the double standard

about coverture, and the language of covering, in case you were curious:

In English and American law, coverture refers to women's legal status after marriage: legally, upon marriage, the husband and wife were treated as one entity (and not in that swoony, romantic soulmate way, either). In essence, the wife's separate legal existence disappeared as far as property rights were concerned.

Under coverture, wives could not control their own property unless specific provisions were made before marriage, they could not file lawsuits or be sued separately, nor could they execute contracts. The husband could use, sell or dispose of her property (again, unless prior provisions were made) without her permission.
(Almost as if she didn't exist!!)

Sir William Blackstone, in 1765, said this about coverture and the legal rights of married women, in Commentaries on the Laws of England:

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very
being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at
least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose
wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called
... a feme-covert...." [emphasis mine]

um, yeah. so by borrowing heavily on this language which legally served to erase women's individual. legal rights to property (which also gave access to other public rights), this father-daughter purity movement ideologically and symbolically erases the person at the center of all this purity and family unity - the daughter.

what do we call an institutionalized web of social practices that deliberately eliminate women from visibility? patriarchy!

missing the good stuff

this is what happens when you spend the entire weekend watching season 1 of Battlestar Galactica - you miss stephen colbert ripping the president a new one. to his face.

it rocks. it's uncomfortable. it makes you squirm. you want to look away. you can't believe he's saying it. and then you're glad he said it.

full transcript is at the end and if you can stand the video, you can catch it at crooks & liars. priceless!

The Blog Chris Durang: Ignoring Colbert, Part Two The Huffington Post

Ask your rep to Vote no on S.1955: why? because it's not 1955

as scintillating as wage equity is, here's an alert to protect some basic healthcare coverage for women (and some men). this will matter to you if:
you have a uterus
enjoy having a uterus
enjoy knowing your uterus' needs are covered by your health coverage

...
Click here to write to your senator: http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/benefits

If this current budget making its way through is carried, women in every state will lose benefits. It sounds like a bad joke, but it couldn't be more serious. S. 1955 would allow insurance plans to ignore important state laws that protect patients, directly affecting more than 90 million Americans. Chances are you're one of them.

That's why I'm asking you to write to your senator today anddemand that the federal government protect your health coverage: http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/benefits

You may have heard about this "Lose Your Benefits Bill" before, but now it has passed out of committee and the full Senate will vote on it. It's an insidious attempt by hardline senators to chip away at our basic rights. These lawmakers have tried before to restrict access to birth control and other health care you need. Their latest strategy? Force women to pay for these benefits out of pocket.

We've worked for decades to pass state laws that requireinsurance companies to cover birth control just like other medicines. This bill would trample those laws, but it doesn't stop there. Besides fair coverage for contraception, here are some of the other benefits that women could lose:
<> cancer screenings
<> mammograms
<> maternity care
<> the ability to go straight to your OB/GYN when you have a problem
<> the ability to stay with the same doctor throughout apregnancy
<> infertility treatment
<> osteoporosis screenings

And it's not just women who will be affected - the bill guts state protections for coverage for prostate cancer screenings, ambulatory surgery, emergency services, and more. To make matters worse, it will likely also increase the costs of health insurance for older and sicker people who need health insurance most.

Please take two minutes to speak out against this dangerous bill- the Senate could vote as early as next week. Contact your senator now:http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/benefits

Think of it as an investment - two minutes of activism now vs. hundreds or thousands of dollars in extra health costs for you and your family.

another brain buster: do women work less than men?

over at this thread, PV has made a startling pronouncement: women work less than men, therefore, it's ok to pay us less.

when i recovered from my brain bleed, it took me the whole weekend to decompress from the intense discussion of female submission, so i'm just now getting to this little brainbuster.

do we women really work less than men?

i tried to count how many meals my mother planned and cooked for our family between kindergarten and my sophomore year in college: i estimated that was roughly 20,000 meals cooked in a 14-year period. and she had a job for roughly the same period, outside the home. and that still doesn't count the other types of labor she contributed: housecleaning, shopping, food preparation, accounting, household administrative duties, child care/rearing, home repair (my dad was sort of helpless with this), and gardening.

folks, this is all labor. it's work. if it wasn't work, then it would be called fun. since it's not called Fun, then it's Work.

in the april issue of The Economist there are a couple of articles that examine the role of women on economic growth globally in rich nations (i guess we just got rid of that whole First/Third World thing, huh?) and they come up with some interesting ideas:

- in rich countries, we do better in school, are getting more university degrees and are filling most new jobs
- since 1950 men's employment in the US has slipped 12 points to 77% while women's employment rate increased by 1/3 (in America this growth has stalled though there's hope that we can use this market share in new ways in the future, especially as male-dominated industries like manufacturing and manual labor shrink, giving way to jobs requiring more brain power than muscle power)
- women working around the world have contributed more to global GDP growth than new technology or nations like China or India
- women make better investors and make 80% of all consumer decisions
- greater partcipation by women in the workforce could help offset effects of an ageing population and support growth
- the under utilization of women in developing countries stunts economic growth rather than the opposite
- it is untrue that in countries where women work, birthrate shrinks in the long run; rather, in countries where the decline in fertility is high, female unemployment is also high.

needless to say, i think this problematizes at the very least, the idea that wage inequity is ok simply because we 'work less.' the only time my mother 'worked less' was when she got sick and stopped working altogether. and i don't know about you all, but i work my ass off.

ok, discuss! (rules for this discussion: it's not about divorce! in other words, let's try and stay on topic. and if your main source of information is from a guy who could be considered by most academic sources a 'nutjob', i advise using other, less crazy, sources!)

potato, potahtoe: you say responsibility, i say misogyny

The other day, I was called irresponsible. I’m a little puzzled. I mean, I pay taxes, have a job, go to church (I even believe in Christianity), vote, brush my teeth and wash my face. I’ve never been arrested, I’ve never struggled with addictions, and I’ve never even been fined for anything. I’ve never been a single mother (or even been pregnant), I’ve never been on welfare (though I’ve been laid off a couple times) and I’ve never had the police visit my apartment to shut down a raging party.

By the standards of most people, parents included, I am the picture of Responsibility. Wherefore this ‘irresponsibility’?

I suspect that when the word Irresponsible is thrown around or directed at women like me, it is not ‘sloppy living’ or ‘wastrel-ness’ that they really mean. No, I think, for a certain group of people (men who believe that women need to learn their 'place' – a problematic, gendered and racially charged word that should NEVER be used here), what is called 'irresponsibility' is actually a cover for another word, ‘misogyny.'

Isn’t language wonderful? We can say a word but actually be thinking something else entirely!

(The weighty word Responsibility reminds me of something from Foucault: the panopticon. a structure to keep the human subject completely under surveillance and, through surveillance, control the subject .)

Of course I don’t think my life is irresponsible at all. I just define my responsibilities differently, according to my values. I put a very low priority on resting in my 'place.' You may even call me uppity. In this particular case, my irresponsibility stems from the fact that I ignore the ‘natural’ hierarchy established in the bible (God/man/woman on the bottom). I don’t just ignore that hierarchy; I think it’s irrelevant and bogus.

Like, am I subject to *all* men, or just the one I’m married to?
If I’m not married, is it my father I’m supposed to be subject to?
What if I don’t live with my father?
What if my father is dead?
What man am I supposed to be subject to then? Is it the next closest man in my family or just the one who lives across my hall?
Does this apply to just Christian women or would this also apply to slightly spiritual agnostics?
If it’s just Christian woman, are we subject to only the men in our church or perhaps men from visiting churches?
And what about men from other denominations?
Like, I’m Presbyterian – would this mean that a Methodist had mastery over me? Or a Catholic? And what about those free-wheeling Pentecostals?

See? Ridiculous.

If that’s real life, then every woman would be at the mercy of some whack-job simply because he had testicles. (And what do we call that? Patriarchy.)

And isn’t that what we’re really talking about? Patriarchal control. It’s all to put a woman in a tiny box and see her rattle around in it like a discarded toy. If you feel that a woman has a ‘place’ and should inhabit only two roles (wife and mother) in the human ‘chain of command’ you’re a straight up misogynist. You don’t respect women or value women; to you, women are objects to be mastered and used. And if that’s the ideology behind Responsibility/Irresponsibility, I’m willing to be that slacker.

(And I think it’s interesting that when you search for pictures under ‘women’ and ‘responsibility’ in Getty Images, they give you babies and marriage. haven't we progressed at all??)

happy equal pay day!

ah, what shall i do with that extra 28 cents my full dollar will bring me?
oh, the dreams!

yeah, hard to believe that, since the 60s and despite the federal law, women's wages have remained pretty darn flat - still earning only 71-77 cents on a man's dollar for comparable work.

but if you live in illinois and suspect that a wage violation has ocurred at your job, the Dept of Labor will sue for back wages!

all you have to do is call their hotline, file a complaint and they do all the work:
1-866-372-4365

(this is how i spend my lunch hours: at brown bag lunches with other women in the city, in the governor's office, listening to presentations from the department of labor and the dept of employment services. it's not exciting, but they gave us cake. lesson? we have GOT to learn how to negotiate salary.)

while i put the finishing touches on a post about the heavy word Responsibility here are two different articles about pregnancy and motherhood i thought were good contrasts to one another:

pregnancy as commodifier
working mothers in germany

i have thoughts on easter and holy week (and why every easter dinner should have beef in it) but right now i'm so brain dead from a hellacious work day (i was here at 7.30 am!!) that all i can think of is the dream i had this morning:

i'm on vacation with my entire family (mom, dad, married sister and her kids); we're in french polynesia (how do i know? it was tropical yet had good dishes and we all wore scarves really well). dressed to the nines (i was stunned at how chic i looked) i'm having brunch with my family when our hot franco-chinese pilot joins us. after brunch we flirt right in front of my mother (!!), he takes me back to his swank apartment full of pilot memorabilia (!!!), we open a bottle of wine and put on a record (!!!!) - and then my sister shows up because her kids want me to take them on a tour of polynesia.

this is why i don't live in los angeles anymore.

my dad and i talk about poverty and jesus

From Dad, re: my first post on Social Creeds, below -

I read your blog, you know. (LOL) What is biblical? Not daddy’s interpretation, rather the bible’s:
only that which is inspired by God written by those Apostles that wrote by means of the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit which is commanded for only Christians to follow.

(Just one way to put it)

Nowhere in the bible does Jesus command His followers to care for the poor of the world. As a matter of fact he says, "The poor you will always have with you." This does not imply that we ought not assist in feeding others and making their lives easier. Remember Helps Ministry day? That was my way of doing that. And, hey, it worked. The poor showed up every month and never got the spiritual lesson to help thyself!

Keep on thinking but never forget the value of remembering that which worked.

My reply to Dad, re: poverty –

i know you read my blog, dad!

and i know what you mean by biblical - that's not what i meant.

this is what i meant: you can argue that jesus does call for caring for the poor in his instructions to the young man to sell his goods and follow him, in his beatitudes that teach that the least shall be first and, at least in the parable of the banquet. now, is that the most important lesson? no - clearly, in his rebuke of the disciples (when they wanted the woman to sell her oil and give the money to the poor instead of washing christ's feet) he's rebuking them for not paying attention to the heavenly goals of his ministry - they're focusing on the wrong thing!

but the bible also calls us to be our brother's keeper, doesn't it? it exhorts us to exercise humility in the face of greater need and to be as christ was - a servant. if christ is humble enough to wash the feet of his disciples isn't there a moral lesson in this as well for us to wash our brother's feet? throughout his ministry he urges charity and compassion - as well as the spiritual lesson. there are more instances of jesus chastising an overwhelming dependence on material gain than the opposite.

and is 'help thyself' a spiritual lesson or a cultural lesson? really? i must have missed that in bible school, dad! if the argument can be made that christ didn't advocate for the poor the same argument can be made that he wasn't all about rampant individualism and self-sufficiency, either! everything about the bible says the exact opposite of self-reliance: we are to call on Him, we are to rest our thoughts and beliefs outside of our selves, relying totally on christ outside of our selves. we are, basically, to forsake mother, father, family, country and all for HIM. that's not self-reliance - that's ultimate dependence.

but peter also calls for us to display, among other things, brotherly kindness: "For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins."

so, you're right: the exact words "Take care of the poor" don't appear in the bible. But that doesn't mean that we ought not to.

(the words "go to college, move out of your parent's house, get an education and become a productive member of society" aren't in the bible, either.
but that doesn't mean that it's not a good idea.)

Love and all that,
Ding

P.S.:
Other words and ideas that aren't mentioned in the bible but pose no huge biblical conflict because, heck, it's just a good idea:
health care, insurance, literacy, 401k, democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech, public education, housing for the homeless, pasteurization for milk, airplanes, vaccinations, vacation time, anti-child labor laws

Dad’s reply to me –

Hey Girl of mine!

I got your point. I agree wholeheartedly. My thing is that, overall, the most important aspect of one's faith is being obedient to Christ first and foremost. I would never advocate forgetting the poor - those that have a greater need than me. You are correct; but to use the bible and the words of Jesus as a justification for social advocacy to me is pressing the button a little too firm. True; it is not about taking care of your business as it is advocating His which is clearly detailed in the scriptures. The text of 1st John 3:17 the Apostle writes: "But whosoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?" You are so correct. I know that the text is there; this was one of the primary ideas of the Christ. That is why I, too, can take communion.

My shabby life of material things is in no way a justification for me to be full and see any human being in need. I send money on a regular basis to the "Voice of the Martyrs," an agency that sends food and clothing to those Christians in Islamic countries that are being killed on a regular basis. My heart goes out to my brothers and sisters in foreign lands. I would also give the same to other needy people. I really do not have the resources to do that. Your church ministry is helping on a big scale and for that reason I praise God for your ministry.

It is not an issue of liberal vs. conservative. The greater issue is, as you would put it, Do we feel the pain of those who have nothing compared to the haves who are taking all that they can without regard of the feelings of others? This, I'm in agreement with you, is indeed a sin. You are my daughter. I do read you well. Know that I think that we are saying the same thing; but just a little differently. Good; so you do know what I mean as biblical. You see; I place that as the highest priority in that each of us will be allowed to enter in into the life to come on that basis alone.

Oh (LOL), one more thing. That one cannot perceive that the miracles of the scriptures could have taken place in no way verifies that they did not. It takes great faith to take, at first glance, all that you see in the text. I heard one guy say recently on TV that the miracles of the fishes and loaves was merely Christ taking a lunch bag of one young man and passing it around to over 5,000 people and they received the lesson about living for others so they took their own hidden lunches from their own waistbands and, since they learned the lessons of Christ, returned the lunch and then added their own. Justifying the myth of the miracle? Totally unlikely in that environment. Why, simply put, without the Holy Spirit dwelling in the sinful hearts of fallen man, ain't nobody gonna be that loving towards others - even in the presence of Christ. All of the miracles took place. I think that men make up excuses for things that they just find hard to believe.

Just my two cents; wow, look how much I've written. I must love my baby!

my father is vastly more conservative than i am in his theology and, yet, he fails to make me insane. i like talking with my preacher dad about christianity. (i mean, ok, he thinks the UN is a vast conspiracy ushering in the antichrist, but whatever.)
the point is that somewhere between Anonymous calling a desire for fairness Marxist/Socialist and me saying that an important aspect of christianity is about looking out for the less able, there has to be somewhere in between, where we can come together.

the carnival's here!

what's a carnival?
it's sort of a 'Best of' list of posts submitted by readers. there's the carnival of feminists (i love reading them) and now there's a carnival for the writing of women of color. excuse me, radical women of color.

read a point of view you mayn't have read before - that said, check your privilege at the door, cuz these women don't care about it.

radical women of color carnival!

damn you, black tie! damn you!

argh!!

i just had to turn down an invite to the hillary clinton event tonight.
why?

because i have nothing to wear!!

(to tell the truth, the very thorough security check scared the bejeebus out of me, too...who knows what kinds of petitions i've signed in my lifetime??)

Pro-Life Nation

Pro-Life Nation - New York Times

hm. interesting.

[update: discussion over at Bitch, PhD, here.]

pass the wine and crackers

i love Communion.

i've always felt that it was special and good and there is something about the ritual that's so comforting to me. we don't celebrate the sacrament every week at my church, but to have that sacrament every week, to me, is an affirming and edifying pleasure.

two stories:

1.
when i was a girl, the women in my church jostled for the privilege to prepare the communion table. it was a simple mission-style table but when it was covered with the special, embroidered white linens, it took on mystery. the old pastor's wife (we called her Ama, because she was such a close friend to my family) would take me and my little sister after sunday school and show us how to fill the little glasses, where the bread was and which silver plate to put it on; she'd show us how to fold the linens, how to lay the white gloves.

and doing all this while the yellow light streamed in from our colored windows was special.

i grew up watching the women in the church, including my mother, dressed in white, serving the pastor (first old Jake and then my father), and wearing their dainty white gloves while my godmother obliterated some hymn from the choir. i watched the ritual and wanted to be one of those women to participate in that ceremony but i grew up and moved away before that could happen. (and now i'm a presbyterian and the process is so complicated you need a degree to navigate it.)

2.
the most moving communion service i've experienced did not happen on a particularly special day on the church calendar. i was sitting toward the rear on the sanctuary, ready to leave quickly so that i could prepare for my duties at the following service. perhaps it was the song from the choir, an arrangement from holst's The Planets.

but it was after the whole congregation had been served, when we were reciting the 23rd psalm, that the meaning of the service sunk into me - and it felt just like that, a deep penetration. maybe it was that i knew the psalm by heart and could say it with my eyes closed or maybe it was the slow, meditative way all of us were participating but the feeling i experienced was a combination of repentance, of awe toward christ and deep community with those around me.

Feminary: Disaster!

geez magazine sent out a pitch call for articles.
due monday.
and i have nothing.

i'm spent. i'm empty. i'm utterly devoid of imagination.
dammit.

social creeds: would jesus be into collective bargaining?

so i'm doing some research for work and it takes me to the CME website where i start reading about their social creed. i'm also thinking about this because of something a commenter said about contextualizing my views about poverty in what jesus' ministry was (or something like that).

this is what the economic portion of the social creed of the CME is:

With full acknowledgment of stewardship under God and accountability to God, we stand for the acquisition of property by moral processes and the right to private ownership. We are thus obligated to evaluate each aspect of every economic order by the commands of Christ and judge its practices by the Christian gospel.

We believe that it is not only our duty to bring Christ to the individual, but also to bring the increasingly technological society in which we live more nearly into conformity with the teachings of Christ.

(a) Inflation. The Christian community is concerned with maintaining economic stability. We affirm that there exists a fundamental ethical challenge in inflation itself. We believe that inflation is detrimental to equality and casts an uneven burden upon our citizens, the greatest burden often falling upon those who are weakest politically and economically.

(b) Health Services. We stand for the provision of adequate medical care for all people, with special attention to the aging, the young and low-income individuals and groups. We support our government, individuals and foundations in required public health research, and we support legislation to meet these needs. We believe that adequate facilities with a professionally trained staff must be made available for the emotionally ill and the mentally retarded of every community. We also believe that churches may become spiritual centers of healing through worship, pastoral concern, and volunteer services for the emotionally ill.

(c) Wages and Working Conditions. Free collective bargaining has proved its values in our free society whenever the parties engaged in collective bargaining have acted in good faith to reach equitable and moral solutions of problems dealing with wages and working conditions. We do not support the opinion voiced in some quarters that strikes should be made illegal. To declare strikes illegal would be to deprive workers of their right to collective action and, even more seriously, would place in the hands of government the power to force workers to remain on the job.

(d) Automation. Through automation, a greater number of people face job displacement, economic loss, and obsolescence of their skills. We affirm that it is a Christian duty to provide for all people opportunity to earn an adequate livelihood, to avoid unemployment and waste of personal and economic resources. We believe that workers who are displaced by automation should be given opportunity for retraining.

(e) Poverty and Unemployment. We believe that the economic development which makes possible material plenty for all imposes upon us great moral responsibility, since physical, emotional and spiritual development of millions of people throughout the world is hindered by poverty. We therefore stand for the eradication of poverty everywhere.

(f) Christian Vocation. We believe that every employable person so far as possible should be engaged in some vocation to enhance the common good. This vocation should be viewed as a Christian calling for those who pursue it as well as by those who receive its benefits, and our daily work should be regarded as a sphere of service to God.

i guess i'm just wondering about the intersection of morality/biblicality (my word). in other words, this seems like a moral set of guidelines but could we call it biblical*? and if we con't call it 'biblical' per se, why isn't it still a good way to look at the economic world around us?

[what's 'biblical'? i don't even know anymore. clearly, the presbyterian biblical is vastly different from good old olivet baptist church biblical from childhood, which could be totally different from some other denomination...]

poo.

ohhh, my mighty bruins...
lost. to florida.

after all the busted brackets everywhere...this is what it comes to.

but what if God sent you the crackers?

talk about a marketplace...

Collections at the church's service bring in close to $1 million a week, with $20 million or so a year more sent in by mail, said Don Iloff, Lakewood's spokesman and Mr. Osteen's brother-in-law. The money goes to pay the staff of 300, service the debt on the $95 million it cost to turn the Compaq Center into a church (now about half paid off), support ministries in India and elsewhere and buy television time around the country. Mr. Osteen stopped taking his $200,000 annual salary from the church after he sold his first book.

or is equating the obscene amount of cash osteen's church is rolling in to crude capitalism an unfair assumption to make?

Joel Osteen's Credo: Eliminate the Negative, Accentuate Prosperity - New York Times

devotioning while...drunk?

so i'm reading today's devotional; it's about the miracle of the fishes and loaves. the devotional is put-putting along in standard fashion and then, this:

"The second part confuses me. It says that Christ blessed the food and broke it and set it down before the four thousand people, yet it doesn’t say how God multiplied the food. All Mark wrote down was that they were satisfied. After thinking, I came up with two answers. Either it was a miracle that God created more food, or, since they began with seven loaves and seven baskets remained at the end, then all that God did was make the crowd feel full without eating. When I thought about this I thought, “Why would Jesus require the disciples to go in search of bread if he knew that God’s miracle would make the people full?” I thought that maybe this was a test for the disciples. How far would they go to help Jesus?"

the tone was so bizarre, i thought, 'Hm. How refreshing (er, strange) to have a devotional that's totally up front with being confused. And what an...interesting (er, weird) way of entering the scripture.'

but then i kept reading and came to this part:

"Believe it or not, I had a lot more ideas about this passage that confused me and probably have confused some other people, too. Perhaps the Bible is supposed to confuse us and not be so descriptive in all the things that it says. If it were clear, then there wouldn’t be any good sermons in the churches."

OK, i thought, which of our pastoral staff submitted a drunk devotional?? (and i will admit i totally thought it was my friend, CM. the devotional was too weird to be american. it had to be the product of some bizarro european.)

but, no.

our candid and thoughtful devotional was written by ...
(wait for it)

a seventh grader.

he fed them first; then he ministered

I'm about to get wonky on you. Get ready. Bear down.
The point of this post isn’t to make us feel guilty for being well off or comfortable; I’m proud of what I’ve earned and accomplished. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

But I’d like us to start realizing what it’s like for people on the other side of the street. And if poverty is a complex social issue, which it is, then why are we willing to fob off uncomplicated and superficial remedies (like marriage policies, like bashing immigrants, like trickle down economics and tax breaks for the rich)?

Note: Most of the numbers mentioned in this post are from a report that can be downloaded from here.

What's poverty?
There are actually four kinds of poverty, based on our federal index which is based on what a family would need annually to earn to feed them (no, it's not a perfect measure, but it's the way we measure poverty now. If you want to read more about how the index is measured and critiques of how it's measured, go here:

Here's our federal poverty level index for 2006:
Family size - 2006 poverty guidelines:
1 - $ 9,800
2 - 13,200
3 - 16,600
4 - 20,000
5 - 23,400
6 - 26,800
7 - 30,200
8 - 33,600

You are Income Poor if you fall within the parameters of the FPL
You are in Deep or Extreme Poverty if you live at or below 50% of the FPL
You are Low-Income or Near Poor if you live at or below 200% of FPL and have trouble meeting your basic needs because of rising costs (child care, housing/rent, health insurance - if you have this at all.)
A household is Asset Poor if it doesn’t have enough net worth to live at the poverty level for 3 months - if you experience one significant life event (medical crisis, job loss or divorce) you can end up homeless or go straight into Poverty.

(While this index is based on food cost, which probably needs to be changed, here's what the index doesn't include: cost of transportation/commute to work, cost of child care, cost of utilities, or the rising cost of housing. Factor those costs and the number of those who qualify as poor would probably increase rather than decrease.)

Who’s poor?
You might be poor if you are old; nearly half of IL seniors would be in poverty if not for Social Security benefits; Social Security benefits are primary source of income for two-thirds of IL seniors; 70% of senior women living alone live near poverty. Senior men had a median income of $20,363 in 2003 and senior women had a median income of $11,845.
(Dude. Who can live on that??)

You might be poor if you are a child; 37.2% of children lived in low-income families in 2004; 15% of children in IL lived in houses where the head of household didn’t finish high school (an indicator of poverty); 11% lived in crowded housing.

You might be poor if you are disabled; in IL the monthly SSI payment is $564 (the national average is $617.02); a disabled person would have to spend more than ALL of their SSI income to rent a one-bedroom apartment.

You might be poor if you are a woman; IL women have higher poverty rates than men; 13.3% were living in poverty compared to 11.5% men in 2004; 31.4% lived in near poverty compared to 26.7% of men; compound that with the worst gender wage inequity of the 5 most populous states and you have women working their asses off for not a whole lot in return. Most single heads of households in the state are women.

You might be poor if you are Black or Latino: nearly 30% of the black population in IL lives under the FPL; 16% of the Latino population in IL lives in poverty.

Maybe most of us think of the victims of Hurricane Katrina when we try to envision who’s poor – they were visibly destitute, almost sharecropper poor. But that’s just one face of poverty; not the only face.
I argue that the more quotidian face of poverty is probably the face of someone you already see: the woman who provides you with childcare; your company’s receptionist or assistant; the security guard in the lobby of your building; the woman who checks out your groceries.

You might not be poor if 4 crucial areas of your life’s needs are stable:
Economic well-being. Are you earning a living where all your basic needs can be met? Can you live on your wage? Do you have a ‘cushion’ of some sort?
Health Insurance. Does your employer provide them? Are you relatively confident you won’t have to lose your house if your appendix bursts?
Housing Affordability. Can you pay your rent or mortgage easily and without much stress? Can you afford to live where you live? Have you never had to choose between food or rent?
Education. Do you have a college degree? Do you have a professional degree? Have you graduated from high school? Are most of your friends and neighbors literate?

Before indulging in a superficial discussion of poverty ('poor people suck!'/'poor people are saints!') I think it's important to dispel a couple of assumptions:
* poor people are lazy welfare queens who don't work and
* poverty is about bad financial planning

Poverty is about a maelstrom of bad breaks: illiteracy, generational poverty, economic downturns, cuts in social services, no education, rising costs in the standard of living; lowering wage values, no access to health care. Access to work. In Illinois, one quarter of our work force lives below the federally defined 'poverty line.' These are people (most of them single moms) who work full time jobs; they work 40 hours/week just like you and I work. And yet, they're poor. And these are people who, every day, make crucial financial planning decisions – the thing is, they’re making these decisions with less money than you or I can even think of using to even live.

I was at a retreat for an organization for whom I sit on the Board and a woman made the point that, for most of us, we think of low wages as entry-level wages; we think "Oh, I made 28k when I was out of school for my first job! That's totally livable!" But for many of the working poor, 28k is not entry level. That's a life wage. That's a wage that won't change. Ever. No bonus. No signing bonus. No relocation bonus. No holiday bonus. Through children, illness, divorce, and death - that wage won't change.

Think $30k goes a long way? I earn a little over that amount in my new non profit gig. But I don’t have children, I have health insurance, an education and my rent kicks ass. (And I have a roommate who makes triple what I make and is willing to buy me a beer or a movie once in a while.)

But how far does that $30k go for a family of 4?
Or, maybe it’s $25k.
Or, maybe it’s $19k.
If you made $19k/year and had to support a family of four (or even three), what kinds of decisions would you make?

These?

Yeah, Jesus said the poor will always be with us.
But that doesn’t mean their lives have to suck.

a modest proposal

why should churches be tax exempt anyway?
they provide services that people pay for, they take in income/revenue, some even have revenues into the milions, some have for-profit ventures, more than some are overtly capitalist in ideology and mission.

so why the tax protection? if we're all going to use our churches as marketplaces and political arenas, then why not strip off the mask and go whole hog?

Pastors' Get-Out-the-Vote Training Could Test Tax Rules - New York Times

i just deleted a comment in one of the posts below.
it pissed me off and then, after i had done it, i felt bad that i had broken some sacrosanct blogging 'rule': all comments are equal and must stand.

well, no. all comments aren't equal and comments that make me lose my temper and say something inappropriate get deleted.

blogging is like hosting a cocktail party; some guests have better manners than others. i am the hostess; this is my home. please disagree with me (jesus chick almost always does) but check the rudeness at the door or i'll have to get your coat and escort you out.

there. the hostess feels better now.

it's your fault: housing

thanks to Anonymous who gives me the perfect frame to start discussing economic empowerment and poverty issues here for a bit: It's Your Fault.

so, to kick us off, let's read about how It's Your Fault if you don't have affordable housing.

the mrs. apostle paul

i wonder what paul's wife did when he was away.

i wonder what she was thinking when, one day, after a few good months (or years) hunting down these new jesus people, her husband comes home and says, 'Don't call me Saul. I'm Paul and, by the way, I'm going to be leaving for a while. Some guy in another town is going to teach me some things. And hey! I used to be blind besause this big light thing happened and now I'm not blind, and oh, this is so cool. I wish I could tell you, but I can't. I'll be in touch.' and then he takes his cloak, his tent making tools, shuts the door behind him and goes away.

i wonder what happened to her. did she follow him? i can't recall any mention of her being with him. if she did follow him - fellowship to fellowship, town to town - i wonder what she thought. i wonder if she thought, 'you know, i never liked our old neighborhood anyway. now i get to see the world and take notes for Saul, i mean Paul, all the time. i don't have to sit in the back anymore. i just have to sit quietly. shhh.' i wonder if she thought that.

or i wonder if she thought, 'this sucks.'

there once was a boy from seattle...

over at JP's place, he's throwing a little bit of a limerick carnival. thanks to various links, his quiet blog is hopping with limerick-y genius (including yours truly). go visit and leave one of your own.
it's addictive.

here's a sample:

You Don't Know Nothing About It
by John Patrick

I'm not as dumb as you wish
Thought Alma while drying a dish
Left a note in your gear
But when Jack Nasty's near...
Ha! You don't go up there to fish.

harridans

the 10th carnival of feminists is up!
happy reading while i try to rid myself of all this phlegm.

indianwriting: Carnival of Feminists - No 10

i'm hacking up a lung at work so be miserable with me

a message from ding to all the children in middle america who think tweaking is fun: for god's sake, don't do drugs.

i wonder if it's meth that's doing all this damage or if the damage is the result of some attendant behavior while on meth.

Partnership for a Drug-Free America Faces of Meth

nope. no poverty post, yet.

i'm scrambling to get out of town to see my sister and dad (ha! my flight leaves so early on sunday i'll have to skip church services) and i'll just have to wait until i'm in los angeles. it'll be perfect, actually.

staying with my sister in sanitary santa monica will piss me off so much, haranguing against a culture of consumption and classism will be no problem.

why i love my friend jp: he's down with the poor

you don't have to read: You'll Have To Arrest Me.

moving away from the abortion posts for a while, i'll start writing on poverty and class.

let's see how many christian conservatives ream me on that.
or is sex the only issue they get upset about?

a little levity

so, before Anonymous down there finishes his sushi and then decides that God told him to track me down and stone me for being an apostate, here's a gem:

The Brick Testament

i love how he gets the battle scenes just right. the circumcision story in joshua is a hoot. really.

but even better? paul's instructions to women (in lego).

why am i feminist? this is why:

Chicago Tribune Alleged rape victim threatened with jail

so. though she's been cross examined already and has testified she has no recollection of consenting to sex with this group of men, she's basically going to be thrown in jail if she doesn't watch a videotape of her own rape.

before you write me and say something really idiotic, ask yourself this: if she was your 20 year old daughter, would you want her to watch a tape of her rape?

if you're as pissed off about this dehumanization of a woman as i am, contact the men who should know better here:

call the judge: Judge Kerry M. Kennedy at 708-974-6759
call the presiding judge: Judge Anthony S. Montelione at 708-974-6288
call the chief judge: Judge Timothy C. Evans at 312-603-6000

[update: within minutes of me posting this, the Trib updated the story - the judge backed down.]

it's official: women aren't people

echidne, a favorite blogger of mine, has a nice rundown of the anti-abortion law going down in south dakota as well as links to other writers who've been on this story all along.

ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES

i especially like the analysis at lawyers, guns and money .

this south dakota law is huge. it skirts chipping away at reproductive rights and goes for the whole enchilada - women, no matter the situation or medical context, won't be able to have access to abortion and doctors who perform abortions are criminally responsible - not women, which is an illogical and disingenuous move on their part.

i have to hand it to the opposition - when they decide to move, they really haul ass. i thought we'd have a few years for this fight, but it seems they're emboldened by roberts and alito on the bench. the way things are going (and i've said it before) birth control access is going to be the next reproductive issue to be narrowly defined and then toppled. check out the naral map to see what anti-reproductive freedom bills are wending their stealthy courses through your legislatures.

where are we going to stand, women? if we're okay with one state, or a few states, to put unconstitutional bans on abortion on the books, thus establishing test cases for the supreme court to decide, then what are we NOT okay with?

and how about it, guys in the democratic party? still waffling that reproductive rights is a 'niche' 'womens' issue and not so important as, say, the shrinking middle class or the economy? still feeling this is something that's going to scare the poor wittle moderates? still thinking that winning in 2008 is more important than what strange men are deciding NOW about your girlfriend or wife's uterus? still thinking feminists are shrill and humorless and hysterical about concentrating on reproductive issues and not our silly war on terror?

for many of us, this is terror. it is a war waged on the landscapes of our bodies. and i'm wondering why there's not a whole lot more of us getting angry about it.

so every so often i go on technorati just to see who links here (big wave to all 18 of y'all!) and in my vanity trolling i stumbled across this french anti-feminist men's rights site! they linked to me! somewhere! once!

how funny is that?!
i have to go to bed but i can't stop giggling.

a scary article

Jesus Plus Nothing (Harpers.org)

thanks to the commenter down below about this Harper's article. this is what alarms me: the conflation of worldly and spiritual 'power.' the masculinist vision of faith and faithful practice.

it also alarms me because it reminds me of the Omen. remember that movie? little damien being ushered through the halls of power, protected, perfect and ultimately powerful. how creepy is that? a group of christian politicians and captains of industry living for a spiritual war in which christ's power would be established on earth.

i don't recall that ever happening. but, whatever.
you need to read this article and ask how this jibes with faithful living.

Sola Scriptura? Not here.

A few times here I've said either that I'm not going to debate scripture or that I want people's arguments to be about more than scripture. Here's why: too often, scripture is used by us church folk as short hand for an idea rather than allowing the idea itself to stand alone.

We hide behind scripture to cover our ass. And since I believe we should all be moving targets, let's at least try for some ideological integrity.

For instance, when I wrote about gay rights a year ago, a reader immediately gave me a whole chapter from the new testament rather than try and explain how denying life insurance benefits for a domestic partner is a christian act.

Whole quotes from scripture don't tell me anything except you sure do know how to quote from the Bible. I want to know about your ideas. Ideas are the foundation for conversation and I can't keep having one-sided conversations. It gets boring. And whole passages of the Bible as a response to a question make me think that someone's not thinking as sharply as one might.

And besides, this isn't seminary debate team!!

When I used to teach I would say to students that if they had ideas about Shakespeare, they couldn't just say 'Hamlet is about incest' and then just pull a quote about Hamlet and Gertrude and stick it in the paper. They had to argue for it - build a thesis.

I already know what Jesus says. I want to know what you think.

one for the fundies: tell me how your theocracy works

i hate to flog a dead horse but it seems that i can't assert enough that it is NOT hyprocrisy to be a Christian AND think that a faith-based government is bullshit.

(shout out to Anonymous down there)

to argue avidly for a pluralistic society is not an anti-God argument (not that i think God cares, anyway.) it's a civic argument. you cannot have a pluralistic society based on christian law (whatever that is.) and FOR ONCE i'm begging anyone who thinks that we can to really really really lay it out for me.

tell me how you think a theocratic government would work here.

and don't cop out by spouting scripture - that's rhetorically lazy!
think it through and ARGUE for it.

workaholic

i've been working waay too hard. i totally need a break. so i bought a plane ticket to LA today and i'll have my first mini-vacation in over a year.

i always have grand plans when i fly back west.
not this time. i just want to relax and not have to answer a phone or read research reports or go to meetings or plan advocacy strategy.

i want to get a manicure, have coffee with my dad, catch up with my sister and sit in a cafe and read for a very long time. LONG TIME.

(i'm bad.)

[i was going to let my post below stand up here alone for a little bit. i rather like it. but then Bad Christian found this poor guy's page and it just seemed to personify everything i was saying about obedience, conformity, and the jesus-mask. i'm sure he's a nice guy - he's soooper obedient - but he seems to want to be amish.

you have to follow brandon's link. you must. and, for the record, the christian mingle website he mentions? i totally put an ad on there and got skeeved out!!]

a badchristian blog � the definition of TMI

whither obedience?

today was a full sunday.
church services, communion, church tour, bookstore, downtown wandering and the superbowl.
(damn you, pittsburgh 'stealers', damn you! you know that ball never made it across the line!)

after my pitiful whining about being obedient my dad sent me an email telling me the tension i'm feeling is my fighting against my need to be obedient. i can live with that but obedient in what context, exactly?

to rules of behavior?
to christian groupthink?

i think of that anonymous commenter in the 'choice' post below. (the one i called a self-righteous pharisee. sigh. that was harsh. damn my quick temper.) the way they went immediately from a thinly veiled ad hominem attack (i'm selfish) to a blurt of scripture to take away the sting. i bet whoever that commenter is, they're super obedient. they don't make mistakes, they do all the right things, they say only what's backed up by scripture, and they like the apostle paul best out of all the bible guys.

i don't want to be that kind of obedient christian. that kind of obedience reminds me of all the guys on those christian dating sites: they wore the jesus-mask and they all seemed ...odd. yes, the way is narrow but why is it the only models of christianity that we see (even here) are either the rigid, legalistic puritanical freak who seems to want to put everyone in jail or the flaccid, 'let everything hang out' hippie who thinks we should all give hamas a shout out?

a while ago, a guy told me that i didn't like church guys because, well, i wasn't a christian. i laughed. who else but a christian would be so concerned about not fitting in with the christian flock? (you think any old wanker would care? please.) but if christianity means conformity about *everything* then i'm at a loss. because, to me, that's what obedience means. to conform. it means the effing 'scarlet letter' and dimmsdale!

where is our identity as believers supposed to come from? our knowledge of the Word or...what? how well we adhere to correct forms of behavior? how well we hate the things we're supposed to hate? how well we...what? what is it? if paul can say that to the weak he became weak, to the gentile he became a gentile and to the jew a jew, then what's so horrific about saying, as a christian, that to the gay person i became their advocate; to the woman who's facing an intimate, personal choice, i will be that person who lets her make that intimate choice - how is that so disobedient?

[ha. you thought i didn't have a point and i did!]

this just in: bush speechwriter on drugs

by now you've heard about our president's vow to protect us from an imminent manimal threat.
(and if you haven't heard about this, good on you. you've successfully avoided exposure to our president's asshattery and for that you should be proud.)

michael berube has his own special, harry potter-inflected take on our nation's avowed vow to keep the species separate here.

(it's worth it for the roger daltrey pic alone.)

to obey is better than sacrifice

i remember those words most clearly from a keith green song. i know they're from the bible but i remember the keith green lyrics better.

i'm having a little bit of a problem with obedience right now. obedience to patience, obedience to Another's will, obedience to all sorts of things. this lenten season is going to be completely void if i don't buckle down.

but you know what? i find it really strange that i'm feeling this pressure to 'buckle down' when there's really not that much flying out of control! i dumped a pseudo-boyfriend, i'm a total workaholic, i'm frugal and prudent and such. what's making me think that there's more to latch down? what's left to latch?

anyway, below is a post on obedience from Hugo, the b'sphere's resident manly feminist with a tattoo.

Hugo Schwyzer: A note on obedience

i'm confused

so who's this guy going after?

adult men who have sex with underage girls?
or the prom king and queen who get it on under the bleachers? huh? i don't get what this guy's prosecution is supposed to stop.

and...let's say he's successful in prosecuting teenagers for having sex. what's next? hm. i can totally see some nutbag going just one step further and saying premarital sex, no matter your age, should be illegal.

wanna bet?

Trial Opens in Challenge to Law Over Teenage Sex - New York Times

sad day in munchkin land

craptastic. alito was confirmed.
what to look forward to: an out of control executive branch and a country that swerves a little bit closer to theocracy.
let's all say a collective goodbye to our uterus.

come on, God, where's that fiery meteor i've been waiting for?!?

and sad. coretta scott king died last night.

well, that was quick

i'm bored.
i'm still awake, my knees are a little achy from yoga (hope i didn't tear my acl) and am watching 'man from snowy river.'

love this movie but i'm effing bored. just a month into the new year and already i'm getting a little restless.

and you know what happens when i'm bored? nothing good.

all you needed to know about pregnancy

N C H S - Publications and Information Products - Fertility, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health of U.S. Women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth

it's not the most exciting piece of writing, but ever since i started working at National Non Profit, i've been digging studies, research papers and stats.

but in light of recent discussions about abortion and choice, let's get a good look at the whole picture: who's having babies, why and when.

2 things that stand out to me:
in 2002, 14% of births to women/girls between the age 14-44 were unwanted at time of conception (which leads me to wonder how accessible contraception was or how wanted the sex was - which leads me to the second thing...)

'younger age at first sexual intercourse was associated with higher incidence of nonvoluntary first intercourse' (in other words, 20% of women who had sex before age 15 were sexually assaulted)

the other stats are fascinating, too (the numbers about poverty, education level and use of contraceptives are telling). why bring these up now?

i like numbers.

hear, hear: no hillary for 2008

I Will Not Support Hillary Clinton for President

molly ivins' essay is *exactly* what i think about the next election. while i wouldn't mind a woman running in the race, i'll marry and have 10 babies before i give one more dollar to the dnc and hillary.

i think it's time for people of color and women in the party to stand up and say 'we're leaving your big tent because it's bullshit and you haven't listened to us in years.' without us, they lose. (and we've lived through two terms of BushCo. so i think we can survive another idiot republican president if we had to.)

where to go if not to the dems? hmm. not the GOP. there's gotta be somewhere else.

matisyahu

who's he? he's this guy.

he's hasidic and his live show at stubb's rocks. he's coming to chicago in march and i'm so so so there.

i don't know how to describe it. yeah, it's reggae but it's reggae about (i can't put it any other way) the old testament. it's apples and oranges to compare him to a christian artist (and i haven't listened to christian music since amy grant and russ taff crossed over - yuck) but it reminds me of listening to my parents' ken medema and keith green records when i was a kid.

i listened to 'king without a crown' in virgin and it was like my insides boiled.

his music feels like gospel.

how cool is this?

On Engine 22, It's Women Who Answer the Bell - New York Times

i think it's cool.

Blog for Choice: It's About Responsibility

I tried once before to outline why I'm so pro-choice, but I didn't like it. I was too wishy washy. I was too concious of the fact my dad reads this space sometimes and that, by advocating for choice because it matters to me personally, my stance marks a complete break with my fundamentalist upbringing. I was also highly conscious that making a personal argument of it, I might as well have put on a snappy little cami with a big scarlet F on it for fornicatrix.

Oh, well. Too late for that now. No more sqeamishness. I'm coming out:

1. I believe in the separation of church and state: whatever your political opinions on abortion, birth control or choice, most likely it’s colored by your faith (or even the absence thereof.) In other words being for/against abortion usually comes down to a religious argument. Our thoughts about zygotes, conception, what the egg thinks/feels, what it’s for, what women’s bodies are for – these are all faith-based arguments. But establishing civic authority over a woman's body based on religious orthodoxy is antithetical to the idea of church/state separation. Like it or not, we live in a secular country. And in this particular secular context, church and state are supposed to live in two different neighborhoods.

(And, no – I don’t believe that America was founded to be a Christian nation; if you do, then you have a wickity whack knowledge of history, dude.)

2. I believe that reproductive freedom is about more than abortion: most discussions among regular people (not policy nerds) begin and end at abortion. (It’s like most conversations about sex ed beginning and ending at abstinence or handing out condoms.) But imagine if your first choice didn’t have to be about abortion. Just as important to reproductive choice, if not more so, are issues around equal access to all methods of birth control, insurance coverage for contraception, comprehensive sex education for young people, information about sexual health and careful family planning. Wouldn’t it be nice if politicians and religious groups weren’t actually forcing someone to play the abortion end game, and let women and girls have access to what they’ll need so they won’t get pregnant?
:
3. I believe I shouldn’t be punished for having sex by being forced to give birth When conversations about choice or rights or women’s bodies crop up, there's always that smart-ass who thinks she’s scoring a philosophical or rhetorical point by sneering, “Well, you shouldn’t have had sex if you didn’t want the responsibility blah blah sneer sneer snit snit.”

Well, no shit. But it’s utterly beside the point. Better watch out - not only is your misogyny showing, you run the risk of toppling beneath the weight of your halo. Our biology automatically dictates that women assume most of the responsibility/consequences of sex. Any slip in vigilance impacts our lives immediately. It’s why the Christian Right’s recent moves against contraception must stop. If you take away my access to birth control, you take away my ability to be responsible for myself. That’s a heavy and ever present responsibility; to me, advocating for choice is ‘personal responsibility’ personified. And we carry that responsibility – why does Alito and his ilk think such responsibility should rest elsewhere?

The separation of religious and civic authority is at the heart of this fight and it’s the most important to me. It’s not that I don’t care what the bible says or what moral squeamishness other people might have; but, ultimately, your exegesis or your thoughts on your morality have nothing to do with whether a woman who’s not you should have the right to make decisions about what happens to her uterus and ovaries.

Her uterus.
Her ovaries.
Her faith.
Her moral agency.
Her responsibility.
Hers.

at National Non Profit, i've got four projects in the works this week so posting is going to be rather light - as it has been since the new year.

i don't know; since i've embraced my workaholic identity, i anticipate other things to sort of dip in and out of view.
bear with me.

i'm Making An Effort.

if you want a glimpse into my upbringing, check out this movie.

roomie and i rented it sunday and we were pleasantly surprised. not only was it better than the freaky movie about the rapture i saw back when i was twelve, it wasn't bad.

but, boy, did it put me through a few flashbacks about growing up in church: the loyal assistant pastor overlooked for promotion, the younger pastor protege who's way too ambitious for comfort, the senior pastor struggling to leave a legacy, the angry/supportive pastor's wife, the conflicted pastor's son who ran from the church but keeps coming back to it. yikes - it's totally my adolescence!

(um...and idris elba is h.o.t.)

every time i hear gospel, i realize how much i miss it. i miss singing it. i miss hearing it. i miss how i felt when i sang it - like nothing existed except me and God. that everything about my faith is true*, you know? too bad the Gray Dame doesn't have a kickass gospel lay choir. talk about a way to reach out to the community.

*[not false, but true as in 'sound.']

am i a heretic?

apparently, i am a Chalcedon compliant. i have no idea what that is, but good to know i'm not a heretic. my dad would be relieved.

from the rev gal pals here.

blog for choice

january 22 is the day a group of pro-choice bloggers are blogging for choice. it's also the anniversary of roe v. wade.

needless to say, anticipate a jeremiad. (and as soon as i can figure out how to put the button on my sidebar, i will!)

from a phone conversation with my sister the other night:

ding: i dumped b-.
sis: what, this is the 8th time?
ding: second. first was three years ago. this time, it's sticking.
sis: good for you.
ding: yeah. you know, the older i get the more i realize i'm turning into mom. i will swallow my feelings and bitterness and then resent the hell out of you for not knowing you're the cause. it's disturbing. i'm a workaholic like dad and a silent seether like mom.
sis: perfect combination for a heart attack.

so, since i don't want to have a heart attack, i'll come back to blogging over the weekend, when i've had some time to rest and imagine a social life that is apparently barren.

so.
i'm in the process of dumping the guy that i've been seeing on/off for the past 6 months. (it should be over in about 24 hours.) we've actually done this before. dumped each other. three years ago and it didn't end well. there was name calling and a cold cold silence that i studiously maintained for three years. why i decided to give him a second chance, i don't know. boredom, loneliness, impatience.

he is the first casualty of my new year's resolution: Make an Effort. sensing that we were really bad for each other i made an effort to be honest. i made an effort to share the feelings that i'd been swallowing for the past 6 months. i made an effort to respect him the way i hadn't respected him before. so i'm dumping him.

he and i were supposed to see each other over the christmas holiday to spend a few days together. but it never happened, for some reason. every plan we made fell through and then i got it: this isn't supposed to work. i suppose i should have called him then to tell him that, instead of waiting for now, but better late than never. that was before i was Making an Effort.

i can't help thinking about the premarital sex thread earlier this year (almost a year ago!) where you all talked about the spiritual model of intimacy. yeah, he and i didn't have that, so i'm not too broken up about losing this relationship. but i do feel bad about our mutual dishonesty; every time we were together we lied to each other - that this is what we wanted, that we were good for the other.

better to be honestly alone than a liar.

shut up, pat robertson: part 100

Robertson Suggests Stroke Is Divine Rebuke - New York Times

i want to be pat robertson.
i want to dress up in my robe, stand outside of my apartment and blather insanity to the worldwide media. i just want to be able to say anything, no matter how crazy, and then get it repeated everywhere, even insignificant blogs like this.

i want to be able to have a straight line into the mind of God, too. that would be neat. God and i could have lots of conversations about geopolitical current events. then, i could dress up in my robe again, go outside and tell you all about it.

that wouldn't be crazy at all.

block party: i got nothin'

the little baby jesus has just been born and now i have to think of something to write about for lent. can't we let the baby jesus hang out a little bit before we get all breathless for him to die?

i don't get lent. i mean, i 'get' it, but i'm so bad with it. i'm generally bad with the whole denial idea. (denial in the sense of 'doing without.') i grew up 'without'. i've already done that. not to say i'm a jabba the hut glutton, but i like my emollients; i do enjoy getting a manicure and having my eyebrows waxed by a detail-oriented asian woman. i miss going out to dinner every week. i sigh with longing when i see people throwing back a few cocktails in the middle of the week with abandon. i like indulgence! indulge me! pet me!

so what the frack am i supposed to say about lent and asceticism??

have you seen 'brokeback' yet?

this made me chuckle.
and i'm only posting it because there's nothing else really going on except cleaning my room.

i hate cleaning my room. hate it.

(how are y'all?)

just doing it: a resolution

this year, there's only one: *make an effort.*

i was a little lazy last year (except about work). i let all my relationships get a little sidetracked, i kind of slumped on my spritual butt. i coasted, frankly. but this year will be different. i will Make an Effort.

a broad resolution like this one is handy in practically any situation: walking to work, talking to boys, working on a project, going to church, sitting through a com'tee meeting. just imagine how much more useful we'd be if we all just Made an Effort.

rather than make a copious list of every single one of my failings, which will ultimately depress and anger me, this catch-all resolution will spur me to virtuous heights across the board, don't you think? don't you?

(cough)

my faves of 2005

over on his space, hugo listed a few of his favorite 2005 posts.

it seems almost silly, since he has scads more readers than i, but here's a list of my favorite posts this year:

the day i became a christian (feb 24)
letter to my father (feb 15)
the hardest easiest choice to make (mar 24)
'because i said so, young lady!' (mar 18 - the one about sex. tee hee.)
the 'women in ministry' posts (jun 4 & 6)
'amen' & snob (nov 10 & 17)
when the Other speaks (dec 8)

happy new year, people!