Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Today at our faculty meeting when we were discussing the conference, a male professor commented on the selection of music played by the band at the opening festivities. One of the three songs the band played was Shania Twain's "Man!I Feel Like a Woman".
The male professor said that he thought it was a poor choice of songs given that we were not all women. He commented "You can bet the reaction would have been different if it was a song about being a man."
I commented that I noticed that and looked around to see how the guys in the audience reacted. Many appeared uncomfortable. I commented to my female co-workers at the time that coupled with the choice of the butterfly festooned lanyard upon which our event tickets hung, that the choice of music was not very man-friendly.
One of my female colleagues (she self-identifies as a feminist) said "I just thought of it as a popular song".
One of my other male colleagues replied "You're not thinking of it from a man's point of view".
The female colleague then rolled her eyes.
I said, "There's a shocker, (our professional organization) didn't consider the perspective of men."
My female colleague then said to the two male faculty who commented "If you don't like it, get involved in leadership. Oh, that's right....men can't manage to get elected."
I said, "You don't have to be a man to consider a man's perspective. Somebody just didn't even consider it."
Since my clinical profession is largely female there is always some sort of feminist ideology to wade through, particularly in some more active elements of leadership. Two years ago I attended a session where we were reviewing the proposed changes to official documents of the profession which outline the terminology we use to describe what we do. One of the proposed changes was to remove the word "roles" from our terminology. This stirred much discussion and confusion in the session because those of us in attendance could not understand why the word "roles" was problematic. The session moderator explained that "If we would examine the feminist literature we would see ther the word "roles" is opressive to women". Lest you think the entire profession is so silly, there was a great deal of eye-rolling and "you have got to be kidding me" from the attendees of the session, both male and female. There was also much debate with the majority of those in attendance finding the idea that the word "roles" was opressive to women to be ridiculous. Thankfully when the final version of the document came out the word "roles" remained.
Monday, April 27, 2009
I have been away for the past week to attend a work related conference. Here are my impressions:
1. I live in a beautiful state.
2. I drove through/visited five states that I have never been to before.
3. Chatanooga Tennesee looks like nice place.
4. Alabama looked pretty nice too.
5. Mississippi? Hmm...flat and kinda boring. (sorry any Mississippi visitors)
6. Louisiana? Um...flat, swampy, and huge juicy bugs plastered on the front of the vehicle. Saw a snake. Looked for an alligator but didn't see one :(
7. New Orleans? Yikes, the damage. The humidity. The above ground graveyards (what would you call that? Crypts?) were pretty freaky too.
8. Texas. Good food (but eastern NC barbeque is better than Texas barbeque). Saw an armadillo. I didn't realize there would be palm trees in Texas. Flat. Boring terrain. Hot. Humid.(sorry Texans....especially Ame!)
9. I was very happy to get home to my mountains.
Oh, and the conference was great too :)
Monday, April 20, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
"Of all the feminists I know (not many — there aren’t many left!), none would think that Paul was harder on the women."
Yet, others have said that feminists are ubiquitous. So, which is it?
Perhaps the difference in beliefs has to do with how one defines feminism.
It seems that many feminists look to create a sort of "big tent" of feminism by telling both men and women that they are feminists if they believe in the equality of women.
The number of women (and men for that matter) who identify themselves as feminists goes from 24% to 65% (and from 24% to 58% for men) when the definition "A FEMINIST IS SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES IN SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC EQUALITY OF THE SEXES" is given.
That sounds reasonable, doesn't it? After all, in Galatians 3:28, Paul said that men and women both have equal standing before God as His children. So, why don't all Christians identify as feminists? Why don't all reasonable people identify as feminists? Why don't more people identify as a feminist when a definition is not given?
I suppose the reason why most people do not identify as feminist (only 14% of men and 24% of women) is because the term "feminist" means more than the dictionary definition of "equality of the sexes" to most people.
So, is Catwoman right? Are there not many feminists around anymore?
Perhaps it is that even though many women today do not consider themselves feminists, they still are influenced by feminist ideology.
The same survey gives some insight into how many women hold feminist ideology to be true.
-69% of women believe the women's movement has made their life better, including 75% of women 18-35, 80% of women 36-44, 70% of women 45-64, and 47% of women 65 and older.
-48% of women think there is still a need for a strong woman's movement.
-According to to an online poll done by Working Woman magazine and the National Committee on Pay Equity, 83% of the respondents believe that the so called "wage gap" is a big problem in the work place.
According to another survey:
63% of those surveyed (Males [N=461], Females [N=542], Democrats [N=361], Republicans [N=301], Independents [N=341]) think women are treated unfairly in the workplace and in politics. 34% think women are treated unfairly in the home.
So, it would appear that even though most women would not automatically call themselves a feminist, that many women still hold feminist ideology.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
But Jesus' followers still doubted that things would work out. Just like we all do sometimes.
But, today is Resurrection Day, a day when Christians celebrate that our Savior, Jesus Christ, who suffered and died for our sins, was raised from the dead.
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
While we were still sinners, people. If that ain't a cause for hope I don't know what is!
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
I think we can add job loss, health problems, recession, socialism, feminism, divorce, unwanted singleness and whatever else we are facing to the list too. So, hang on dear readers... Jesus won.
A very blessed Resurrection Day to all! (I'm going to go hunt some eggs with my niece)
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
It seems the feminists are having quite the discussion about whether women should shave or not.
-If you shave you are just giving in to the patriarchy.
-You can shave if you want to, but you really should think about why you shave.
-If you think you shave for your own comfort or preference you are lying to yourself.
Maybe the fact that I think this is so funny is a reflection of my current mental state. I dunno. But, I am this close to getting approved by the institutional review board so that I can begin recruiting participants for my dissertation. After almost two years I am going to finally actually be allowed to do the study. No wonder I find things like this amusing.
Friday, April 3, 2009
I also have piles of books just waiting to be read. Right now, one of those books is Radical Womanhood: Feminine Faith in a Feminist World by Carolyn McCulley. Ms. McCulley is a self-described former feminist who earned a certificate in women's studies in college and later rejected much feminist ideology after converting to Christianity when she was 30. Even though it seems to me that feminism still influences some things Ms. McCulley writes on her blog, I have appreciated many things she has written about there, so I have been interested to hear what she has to say about feminism in this new book.
Carolyn McCulley currently has a guest post on Candace Watters' blog titled Early Views on Marriage about the negative views of marriage espoused by early feminists, which is based on her book, Radical Womanhood: Feminine Faith in a Feminist World. In this post she makes the statement:
The first feminists pushed for legal changes that we all benefit from today. I am glad women can vote, own property, and earn an equal wage for equal work—just to name a few benefits!
I have also had friends who oppose much feminist ideology say similar things, such as they are glad feminism has given them the right to work and earn a living. As a single woman, I am glad I have the right to earn a living and support myself too. I just doubt that I would not have this right without feminism. Women worked outside the home before feminism came along.
Regarding suffrage, feminists seem to forget that historically many men did not have the right to vote either. I'm also not convinced that giving women the vote has been beneficial to the United States at all. Given the tendency of women to vote for greater government influence it is far more likely that my political point of view would be better represented if women, including me, were not allowed to vote.
When I read quotes like Carolyn McCulley's it seems to me that she believes that women would have no property rights without feminism. But, single women have had property rights throughout most of history. Additionally, as early as the 17th century in the United States, there have been laws which supported married women's rights to property by requiring married women to give their consent to any transaction involving what was their property prior to marriage before the transaction could be approved. I have also been unable to find any information that states that historically women were paid less than men for the same work.
So, I am not convinced that any of the "good" that feminism has brought about would not have happened if not for feminism.
What about you? Do you think feminism has brought any "good"?