A Skype wedding?

Does it sound crazy to you to marry someone you met on match.com?

What if you also met them in September of 2009 and married in December of 2009?

Okay, and what if you have both also been married and divorced twice before?

What if you fell in love over the video conferencing system Skype?

How about getting engaged without ever being in the same room together?

What if he is in Afghanistan and she is in the US? Not crazy enough?

What if this quadruple time divorced, wartime, Skype, three month long romance, couple who got engaged having never been in the same room with each other got married without ever being in the same room together?

What if that wedding occurred over Skype?

That is just a part of this curious story about the couple who have never even been in the same room together getting married via Skype.

But it's okay because they are both committed Christians, right?

I wish them well but this looks like a disaster in the making to me.

What do you think?

I love you....who says it first?

My boyfriend (I shall refer to him as "B") and I recently said those three little words to each other for the first time; "I love you". This was even after B bravely met my family for the first time at my brother's wedding last weekend (no pressure there!). But, I digress....

I found it interesting that my female friends, both Christian and non-Christian alike, universally agreed that the woman should wait for the man to say "I love you" first. The reasons for this included:

• The man should lead in the relationship.
• I would be embarrassed if I said it first and he did not reciprocate.
• He would feel "pressured" if I said it first.
• And, other variants thereof.

One friend suggested I "plant the seed on the sly" by signing an email "Love, Learner" and see if he noticed and said anything. I opted not to do that because I figured I was either going to tell him so or wait, not go half way or be "sly".

In the end, even though I knew that I loved B for a while, I decided to wait for him to say it first while doing what I could to express my love to him in ways that did not include just saying the words. I decided to wait because since we started to get to know each other he has had a good feel about when to move forward in our relationship, and I trust his judgement and want to follow his leadership. I later told B about my friend's opinions that I should wait for him to say "it" first and his response was something like "hmm, interesting".

After thinking about this some more I have wondered about another possible reason for waiting for the man to say I love you first. Given the masculine ability to separate emotions from thought and logic better than many women seem to be able to, myself included, perhaps it is prudent to follow the man's lead for when is the right time to say "I love you"?

What do y'all think?

*************************************************************

In other news, I just recently noticed I had a follower named Jody! Hi Jody and thanks for following my blog :)

Why my blog is pathetic

Dear blog readers,

Hello, it's me, Learner. I know I have not been around here much here lately. Life has become rather busy since the semester started and I have not had much extra free time to write here. I have been rather occupied with some increased teaching responsibilities (14 graduate credits, yikes!), professional writing projects, dissertating (yes, it is a verb, as in to work on a dissertation), going to help my dad care for my mom who is home after spending 3 months in a nursing home and daydreaming about a certain wonderful gentleman.

I have had ideas for posts such as:

• a rant about going through the review and publication process for a journal article (which I am sure most of y'all would find mind numbingly boring)
• a discussion of a recent conversation I had with co-workers where a family court judge was described as "biased toward fathers" because they tended toward 50/50 custody arrangements more often (er....isn't 50/50 kinda unbiased?)
• recounting a conversation between several of my female students about why a male neighbor of one of them was a "loser" (made no sense to me)
• describing a conversation from my single women's Bible study where a sermon one of the women heard was shared which the pastor specifically said was for "single men" though everyone was invited to "listen in". The subject of the sermon? Sexual purity. Yeah, no one but single men need to learn about sexual purity.
• a list of verses from the Bible about how God wants us to live as men and women outside of marriage, children, and sexuality for Catwoman since she doesn't seem to know where any of them are.
• a post about why some women don't seem to able to be happy for you when you meet a great guy (to quote one of my friend's after I said I had a wonderful time with the previously mentioned gentleman, "Gag")

Yet, none of these posts has come to fruition. At the moment I don't think any of them will. I also have a few more C.S. Lewis quotes I'd like to share, but that doesn't seem to be happening either.

So, if you'd like to read an interesting post, may I recommend this one over at Imonk about how to talk to Christians of other faith traditions or this one from Terry at Breathing Grace about the difference between falling in love and living in love, because you likely won't find one here! :)

Love,
Learner

Love, marriage and politically correct research

More on love and marriage from C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis has interesting things to say on love and marriage in the The Screwtape Letters. Senior demon Screwtape writes letters to his junior demon nephew Wormwood on how to take humans from "the Enemy" being God, toward "Our Father" being Satan:

Now comes the joke. The Enemy described a married couple as 'one flesh'. He did not say a 'happily married couple' or 'a couple who married because they were in love', but you can make the humans ignore that. You can also make them forget that the man they call Paul did not confine it to married couples. Mere copulation, for him, makes 'one flesh'. You can thus get the humans to accept as rhetorical eulogies of 'being in love' what were in fact plain descriptions of the real significance of sexual intercourse. The truth is that whenever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured. From the true statement that this transcendental relation was intended to produce, and, if obediently entered into, too often will produce, affection and the family, humans can be made to infer the false belief that the blend of affection, fear and desire which they call 'being in love' is the only thing that makes marriage either happy or holy. The error is easy to produce because 'being in love' does very often, in Western Europe, precede marriages which are made in obedience to the Enemies designs, that is, with the intention of fidelity, fertility and good will; just as religious emotion very often, but not always, attends conversion. (emphasis mine)

When we come from the place that elevates "being in love", a temporary feeling which should not be confused with love, to the pinnacle of human experience, we create an environment where the loss of the feeling of "being in love" can be used as an excuse for all sorts of behaviors destructive to marriage, including infidelity. After all, God wants us to be "happy", right? Right?

************************************************************

Politically correct research

You never know when you are going to run into examples of political correctness when it comes to the differences between the genders. I attended a dissertation defense on Friday in preparation for my own defense one of these days. The study being defended examined a certain type of knee injury in sports that is more commonly experienced by women than by men, the anterior cruciate ligament, or ACL tear. The researcher outlined the anatomic and kinematic differences between men and women related to this injury. Basically, men tend to land from a jump in more knee flexion than women due to different factors, not the least of which is better balance between the quadriceps and hamstring muscles (ie; women tend to overly rely on their quads resulting in greater knee extension upon landing). And, the ACL is more at risk for injury in extension.

The researcher then went on to describe the study she carried out which involved a way to change landing kinematics such that the women in the study had more knee flexion when landing. After her presentation the audience had the opportunity to as her questions and one of the female anatomy profs asked the following question; "In essence aren't you trying to masculinize these women's movement patterns?" I thought to myself that was true, and that it would make sense to do so to a certain degree if the goal is to prevent ACL injuries among female athletes. But, the researcher answered, "Well, I suppose you could look at it that way, but I prefer not to. It is, in a sense, true, but it isn't appropriate to consider the findings in that manner". The prof who asked the question nodded her approval and from the back of the room I could observe several other profs shaking their heads a bit. Brilliant! Never mind the truth if it makes you uncomfortable to think of it in that way or you find it "inappropriate". We can't imply that men in any way have any inherent superiority to women, now can we?

Love and competition

In 1942 Christian writer C.S. Lewis published The Screwtape Letters. The book is a series of “letters” between Screwtape, a senior demon and his nephew Wormwood, a junior demon about how to ensure the damnation of people. Lewis makes some chilling observations in the book about many subjects including love and marriage. In this passage “the Enemy” is God and “our Father” is the devil.

The Enemy’s demand on humans takes the form of a dilemma; either complete abstinence or unmitigated monogamy. Ever since our Father’s first great victory, we have rendered the former very difficult to them. The latter, for the last few centuries, we have been closing up as a way of escape. We have done this through the poets and the novelists by persuading the humans that a curious, and usually short lived experience which they call ‘being in love’ is the only respectable ground for marriage; that marriage can, and ought to, render this excitement permanent, and that a marriage which does not do so is no longer binding. This is our parody of an idea that came from the Enemy.

The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and, specially, that one self is not another self. My good is my good and your good is yours. What one gains another loses….’To be’ means to ‘be in competition’.

Lewis seems to have nailed the basis of the struggle in the current culture with marriage 67 years ago.

"Game", Marriage and Football

"Game"

It seems that "game" is a hot topic in many of the blogs I read lately. Anakin, Novaseeker, and Amir and others have written posts about "game" and PUAs (pick up artists) recently. This is not a subject that I know much about but I have recently done a little reading on the subject to try and understand it a bit more. It sounds to me like "game" is like many philosophies (does it qualify as a "philosophy"?) in that people will argue "it doesn't have to be like that" about the seedier or more objectionable elements. This "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" sort of approach can be seen in various situations such as when people argue that feminism is simply the "radical notion that women are human beings" and reject or down play the radical parts such as the belief that men are scum. Or, when people vilify Christianity because of the Crusades or because Hitler was supposedly a nominal christian.

In this way, Novaseeker writes that "Game is a way for generations of men who have been feminized to become more masculine again." I think it is very true that most women are attracted to men who are competent/confident and who understand their role as the leader and behave accordingly. If "game" helps men learn how to do that I don't think it is a bad thing. But, a lot of what is called "game" on the Internet seems to not just be about being masculine.

Some of the elements that I have read about are quite distasteful to me. For example, one well known blog on the subject of "game" put forth the idea that women are turned on by being afraid of their husbands. I find the idea repulsive. I have experienced very real fear of a man in a romantic relationship and it certainly did nothing to attract me to him and in reality resulted in only bad. I do think there is such a thing as a healthy "fear" for a leader that is about respect for the leader and concern about not displeasing the leader per se. But, I don't think it is good for that respect and "fear" to be a fear of physical violence.

So, I think when more "conservative" people (including yours truly) look at blogs about "game" that all of the distasteful parts are pretty tough to weed through to recognize whatever value there may be in some of the ideas. If there are ideas of merit for men who want to live a life that is pleasing to God in the philosophy of "game" it seems to me that it needs to be presented in a context that eliminates the godless elements.

Marriage: then and now.

I went to see the movie Julie and Julia today. I quite enjoyed it though perhaps many men would consider it a "chick flick" (there were 2 men in the theater with their wives/girlfriends). It was funny and touching and was about a subject interesting to me (and Meryl Streep was fantastic as Julia Child and had the most wonderful period wardrobe). It is a film about Julia Child, iconic American chef, cookbook author and pioneer cooking show host, and Julie Powell, a young woman who blogged her way through cooking all of the recipes in Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking in one year. I have loved Julia Child since I was a child for some reason. Maybe it was because I found her quite funny and she really was a marvelous teacher (I learned to make a fabulous brioche from one of her cookbooks among other things.....very user friendly). And, I read through the archives of Julie Powel's blog back in 2003 . So, I wanted to see this movie when it came out.

In the movie both Julia and Julie are married and their relationships play a large part in their stories. Both relationships are portrayed as good ones in the film and the husbands are portrayed positively for the most part. But, I noticed definite differences in the relationships of the two couples. Julia Child willingly accepts her husband's advice and help while Julie Powell states she does not need her husband's help yet runs to him when a lobster needs killin'. Julia Child is never portrayed as putting her interest in cooking and writing in front of her husband's work. Rather she moves from diplomatic post to diplomatic post across Europe with him and conforms the work on her cookbook to the needs of his career. Julia and her husband Paul Child are portrayed as having a very loving, playful, and sexually fulfilling relationship where Julia is always shown as welcoming of and enthusiastic about her husband's advances. Julie Powell complains that between her full time job and her blogging project that she doesn't have time for her marriage. In effect she puts a blog before her husband to the point that he complains about the lack of sex in their relationship and she is seen rebuffing his advances in order to cook recipes for the blog.

So perhaps it is not surprising that in the movie Julie Powell's husband walks out on her for a day because she is an admitted "bitch" (and apparently Powell has written another book called Cleaving: a Story of Marriage, Meat, and Obsession to be published later this year about an affair she had after her book about her blogging experience was published). I found the juxtaposition of these two marriages interesting though I doubt that the film makers (the film was produced by Nora Ephron) intended to present the picture they did. I think perhaps Julia Child's marriage would be viewed by many as more confining, however her more traditional model of marriage was "happier" than the "modern" version for both the men and women involved.

Preseason football

I would just like to say that I don't care how many pre-season games the Steelers lose now that they have beaten the Cardinals once again in a Super Bowl rematch. :)

190-something comments?

I had no idea that when I asked "what is a good woman?" that the post would end up with 190-some comments, so thank you to everyone who contributed to the conversation.

That said, c'mon people! 190-something comments? We are too close to 200 comments to stop now! Doesn't anyone have anything else to say??? :)

What is a good woman?

Over at Anakin's blog a reader who goes by Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech, left a comment that contained the following statement:

"There are very few good women out there. Good women are only two steps from being unicorns (as in completely mythical). It doesn't matter if I find one or not. Even if I do that means somewhere between 99.98% - 99.996% of good men will NEVER find a good woman."

I responded, 'So .004-.02% of women or 1 in 250,000 to 1 in 5000 women meet your definition of a "good woman"? That kind of begs the question...what is your definition of a good woman?'

This certainly is not the first time I have heard this sentiment regarding the rarity of the "good woman". I usually wonder what exactly a "good woman" is when I read it. So, I thought I would ask you all.

P.S. You don't have to believe good women are almost as rare as unicorns to answer.

Men and women are different

Men and women are different.

Shocking, isn't it? I have recently been spending some time in the anatomy lab examining cadaveric specimens and I have been struck, once again, at the anatomical differences between men and women. I am not referring to the obvious external differences in reproductive organs, height or body hair either. The muscles of men are obviously thicker, and longer, and even the muscle fascicula (bundles of muscle fibers) of men are visibly larger in girth. Combined with the greater force available via the longer lever arms associated with longer limbs on average, is it any wonder that men are so much stronger than women?

The other difference I noticed was the variation in subcutaneous fat between men and women. Women have an obviously thicker layer of the fat that lies directly below the skin (I am not referring to general body fat, just to the layer of fat that is sort of attached to the skin). It is what makes women's bodies generally more rounded and less angular than men's.

So, yes, men and women are different on the inside as well as the outside.

The generous people who donate their bodies so that those of us in medical professions can learn about anatomy come in all different shapes and sizes. And, sadly, different ages. The specimens currently in the lab ranged in age from early 30s to 80s at the times of their deaths. The youngest was a woman who died from cancer when she was 31 years old. 31 years old.

This week I also attended the funeral of an elderly family member. During the service one of the thoughts that ran through my mind was this, life is short. Whether you die when you are 31 or 88, life is short. Make the most of it. Take some chances and live.

Chick-Flick Lies

By way of Carolyn McCulley I came across an article from a Christian perspective by Beth Spraul about what has been referred to as "chick porn", titled Chick Flicks and the World's Approach to Men and Marriage. While I would guess that some men (and probably women too)would disagree with some of Mrs. Spraul's points in places (feel free to point them out if you wish), I think, on the whole, the article makes some excellent points.

Mrs. Spraul asks,

"Does watching such movies actually affect our understanding of romance or shape how we go about looking for this ideal husband?

I think the answer is yes.

We may think we are savvy enough to detect the subtle lies present in this genre of films. You might be reading this saying, “What’s wrong with a little escapist entertainment every once in a while? It’s just a Hollywood story, and I know it’s just fantasy.” If that’s the case, then why is there still that sigh or even a tear(s) after the 20th viewing of your favorite romantic movie? Something in us is stirred."

This is a point well taken. When something like a book or movie plays on what deeply affects you, such as a woman's emotions, it is undeniable that will have influence over you. Mrs. Spraul compares so-called "chick-flicks" and "chick-lit" to pornography in their ability to create unrealistic expectations.

"In this article, I’d like to discuss briefly what I think are three powerful lies communicated to and believed by women through this genre of “chick-flicks” as well as “chick-lit” (literature). The lies told to women are introduced at the level of women’s emotions (less harmful, right?), in how they dream about men, and in what they long for relationally. Like pornography, chick-flicks take a good gift from God (romance, relational intimacy) that women are created to desire, and distort it by presenting as “normal” an unbiblical and unrealistic picture of men, love and marriage. And just like men who buy into the lies of pornography, women who believe that their husbands and marriages should always be like what they see on the screen will be sinfully dissatisfied with God’s good gift to them of a “normal” husband and marriage."

She then outlines the lies that these sorts of books and movies tell to women.

Lie #1: Men think of romance and relational intimacy exactly like women do!

This one was shocking to me. I mean, who knew that men and women think differently!?!? I would say "duh!" to this one except that often I think both men and women expect the opposite sex to think about things the same way they do. We think they should know what we mean and know what we need from them without telling them and that the other should "understand" without having to explain it.

Lie #2: If I marry the right man, all will be right in my life.

Mrs. Spraul makes some excellent points about the fact that even a great marriage will not, and in fact can not, make all things right.

"If we as women approach our husbands with expectations that he will be the primary source that takes away all our loneliness, insecurities, fears and longings for love, we hold him to a standard no human being is able to meet in this life. We set ourselves up for great disappointment through these unreasonable expectations. When our husband doesn’t deliver such total sweeping happiness to our lives, we can be tempted to blame him when it is our own worldly and idolatrous expectations that are to blame! Such expectations can even lead us to be discontented wives who are unsatisfied with the day to day realities of life and responsibility in marriage. We can become unsatisfied with our husband’s love and service and care because marrying him didn’t cure our deepest emotional struggles."

I wonder how much of the current epidemic of divorce is the result of such thinking?

Lie #3: I will know that a man is right for me by feelings I get when I’m with him.

In a recent post, commenter SA related a story about a woman who rejected a man out of hand without getting to know anything about him. Perhaps this is an example of what Mrs. Spraul was referring to here:

"The dangers of putting all of your stock in emotion are serious. First, you can easily convince yourself that you are experiencing “true love” while having little regard for a man’s faith, character, service or ability to sacrifice himself for others. Second, for women considering a man who initiates a relationship with them, this over-emphasis on the emotional experience and level of attraction/chemistry can influence such women to dismiss possible suitors based on her “intuition.” I’ve seen it happen—a woman doesn’t immediately “feel” that a man is her “type” or the “ideal” that she’s had in her mind for her husband—so the man is simply dismissed without ever having a chance to demonstrate his possible worthiness."

Good points, I think, both for single and for married women.

Yes, but is it really a paradox?

This deserves a well thought out and concisely written post, but unfortunately I am currently incapable of that. I'll just do the best I can.

Anymore when I hear the word "paradox" the first thing I think is, "oh, they mean some data or evidence that does not fit their firmly held assumptions has come up". Recently I read a post at Carolyn McCulley's blog about an opinion piece in the New York times about a study recently reported on "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness". The study is a meta-analysis of data from multiple sources which uses logistic regression (beyond my statistical pay grade) to describe "happiness" for men and women for the last 40 years. In a nut shell the findings say that women are less happy now than they were 40 years ago relative to themselves and relative to men.

In his op-ed piece, Ross Douthat offers his opinion that this relative loss of happiness in women is ambiguous.

"All this ambiguity lends itself to broad-brush readings. A strict feminist and a stringent gender-role traditionalist alike will probably find vindication of their premises between the lines of Wolfers and Stevenson’s careful prose. The feminist will see evidence of a revolution interrupted, in which rising expectations are bumping against glass ceilings, breeding entirely justified resentments. The traditionalist will see evidence of a revolution gone awry, in which women have been pressured into lifestyles that run counter to their biological imperatives, and men have been liberated to embrace a piggish irresponsibility.

There’s evidence to fit each of these narratives. But there’s also room for both."

Douthat then goes on to say "Feminists and traditionalists should be able to agree, for instance, that the structures of American society don’t make enough allowances for the particular challenges of motherhood." Sounds more feminist than "traditionalist" (whatever that really means) to me, as in society should support women's choices. He also says that feminists and traditionalists "should also be able to agree that the steady advance of single motherhood threatens the interests and happiness of women. " This actually sounds feminist to me too, because it refers to the happiness and interest of women rather than the disastrous effects of single parenthood on society as a whole. He also advocates that both feminists and traditionalists should be able to get "behind a social revolution that ostracizes serial baby-daddies and trophy-wife collectors as thoroughly as the “fallen women” of a more patriarchal age." Hmm...okay this may get him into trouble with the feminists....

A blogger at the feminist blog Jezebel has a post on the op-ed and on the study itself. What did she focus on? This statement by Douthit: "But all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness. " And of course she objects vehemently. Because feminism has brought only light and rainbows and flowers and butterflies to the world, right? She postulates the unhappiness felt by women is not because feminism has screwed society up beyond belief and encouraged women to become dissatisfied with, well just about everything, but rather because feminism has not brought enough equality and so women are pissed. The idea that women are discriminated against is highly debatable in the current culture (and I would say not true). But, what she also doesn't get is that any group of people who share characteristics and are different from another group of people are gaining nothing by comparing themselves.

I am 5'5" in height, not short, but hardly statuesque either. What if I compared myself to people 6 feel tall and over? I bet they don't have to get on a kitchen chair to reach the top 2 shelves in their kitchen cabinet! These tall people's feet probably touch the floor when they sit in restaurant booths or when riding in an airplane! It's wrong I tell you. Houses, restaurant booths and planes should be built to accommodate me! I am discriminated against! Woe is me! No wonder I am less happy! The idea that it is reasonable to compare yourself with others who are not like you to begin with makes no sense to me.

Of course that completely misses the fact that like tall people who don't have enough leg room in planes or restaurant booths and probably hit their heads on things far more often than I, just like men experience things differently than women. It seems to me that women would be happier if they stopped comparing themselves to men.

An invitation to women

Over at Biblical Manhood, Anakin has a post about women finding his blog and or MGTOW/MRA misogynistic. Perhaps Suzanne and Janet would be willing to answer the following question here: What on Biblical Manhood did you find misogynistic?

Come ladies, let's reason together.

(Suzanne I am sorry for the recent loss of your father. Please feel free to ignore me at this time if this discussion may cause you further distress)

Insert snappy title here

Still struggling with brain freeze, though I was able to finish writing a proposal (whew!) that was hanging over my head. So, again, here are some random thoughts for your consideration.

Extremism: I while back I wrote a post where I talked about the benefits of considering opinions more extreme than my own. It takes a bit of mental work, but often there is some truth at the base of many extreme opinions. I just have to be careful that I don't get carried away with it. Yesterday in the comments to a post over at Novaseeker's I made the mistake of reading the comment of someone who I had previously decided to avoid reading the comments of. However, I saw that he referred to my friend Ame, so I read it. You know, this may be the first time ever that I saw some good from porn. Perhaps it is better for women if some men prefer porn to them. Of course the reason it would be better has to do with the effects of porn to begin with, so that is rather a circular argument (and yes, entirely facetious).

Purity: Via email, a friend recently commented on some of the discussion over virginity and particularly the, um, physical aspects of it. She shared this bit of wisdom, gleaned in part from The Facts of Life: Purity resides in the heart, not in the vagina. True that.

Along similar lines, but far funnier, was a conversation I recently had with a group of single christian women ranging in age from early 20s to early 50s. We were talking about singleness and sexual temptation when one of the women, a widow in her early 50s who I'll refer to as "J", began to relate a story about a date she was on several months ago. J said that she found the man very sweet and that she really liked him and was struggling with being sexually tempted when he had his arm around her waist. She then shared that she was simultaneously embarrassed that he may be able to feel her Spanx. This lead to her conclusion that Spanx = modern day chastity belt :) (I know the ladies will think that is funny...we laughed over that one for quite a while)

Being "Normal": Or normalcy or normality? I don't know if those are even words. Anyhoo, I am participating in a women's Bible study on the book of Esther and the teacher via video (Beth Moore) did a survey of women, both believers and unbelievers while preparing for the study. One woman, married for a few years but without children, who responded to the survey said that she feared losing her uniqueness. She does not want to be considered normal or ordinary. She does not want who she is to be defined by being some one's "wife" or some one's "mother", she just wants to be "happy". The teacher made a very interesting connection between this woman's thoughts about not wanting to be "ordinary" and the current obsession with the famous and with fame, especially among women. She talked about a term from social psychology, to BIRK, or "birking", which stands for "basking in reflected glory", and how it has become so common for people to idolize the rich and famous to feel worth rather than to ground our worth in God.

In closing: If you are so inclined, please pray for my sister who had a biopsy yesterday and will likely be having a laser surgery in the next month or so due to what they are currently calling "pre-cancerous/suspicious" cells in an area the size of a quarter in her cervix (and for those of you for whom the thought may enter your mind, no, she does not have HPV and was a virgin when she married at 40 years of age).

And...

LET'S GO PENS!!!!!!!!

Sex, marriage, humanity and hat tricks

Since I appear to currently be unable to produce an entire post on one subject that makes sense, and in imitation of Elusive Wapiti and Terri at Breathing Grace, I present to you, a potpourri of topics.


Sex and Marriage


In the comments to my post Um....yeah (brilliant title, isn't it?) Elusive Wapiti and I had a brief exchange about the role of sex in the marrying of a man and a woman. Briefly, I said that in the old testament sex = marriage, so to God, sex = marriage, and EW said nuh uh (okay, there was more to it than that...go read the comments and the post EW linked to). I'm still not sure what I think about this because of questions that I have about some scriptures. In a comment I made that was buried in the other comments, I said the following:


"I remember reading that post about Bristol and Levi last year. To be honest I am not certain what I think about this issue and perhaps it is a matter of semantics. Does "marriage" occur during the sexual act? I'm not sure, but it kinda sounds like it if you read about Isaac and Rebekah. Even so, if it is not the joining of the two into one flesh that "marries" the man and woman, in both Deut 22 and Lev 22 God commands that if a man has sex with an un-betrothed virgin that he MUST marry her. If he does not marry her and goes on to have sex with another he is having sex with someone other than the woman God commanded that he must marry. It may not be adultery by strict definition but I don't understand how the functional impact is any different.So, I guess what I would say in response is to ask what you would say about the following:- What about Isaac and Rebekah? It appears that their marriage did occur when he "took" her. -What about Deut 22 and Lev 22 that says if a man sleeps with a virgin he must marry her?"


So, what do y'all think?


Humanity

I get annoyed with many "politically correct" ideas. For example, what was the point of changing the tag line "To boldly go where no man has gone before" to "To boldly go where no one has gone before" in the new Star Trek movie (which was a great flick)? However I do insist that my students use what is called "person first language" when referring to our patients/clients. This means we do not call someone a "stroke" or a "nerve injury", we call them a person who has had a stroke, or a person who has had a nerve injury. I insist on this because it is important to see someone as a person, not a diagnosis, and because calling someone a "head injury" is dehumanizing. Other examples of dehumanization include when the Nazis transported the Jews in cattle cars and called them "dogs", and those who are pro-abortion insisting that a baby be called a "fetus" before birth. It's tough to kill people when you think of them as human beings.

Lesser ill will than murder is associated with dehumanization as well. Some feminists call men "animals" to make them easier to distrust and despise. Recently a commenter at MarkyMark's referred to women as "sweaty bags of cellulite". Well.... I'm not quite sure what to say about that other than ask the following. Do you really need to dehumanize women to make the decision for yourself that you don't want to marry or associate with women? If the answer to that question is no, why do it? If it is yes, maybe you should ask yourself why.

Hat tricks


Woo Hoo!!! Geno Malkin had a hat trick last night as the Penguins beat the Hurricanes 7-4 in game 2 of the NHL eastern conference finals. First playoff hat trick for the Pens since who knows when. Stanley Cup predictions anyone? I say it will be the Pens and Red Wings again, but this time my Pens will win (Why, yes, I was born and raised in the Pittsburgh area. Yes, I am a homer. Whatever made you ask those questions? ;) ).

I wish I was a man

Not me, I like being a woman. But, that was what a young woman said at women's Bible study last night. The woman's Bible study that I attend at my church started a new session last night. Since it was a large group of about 40 women who did not all know each other we started with an "icebreaker" activity where we each picked a question to answer about ourselves from a bag. The questions asked things like "Are you a morning or a night person?", "If you were ice cream, what flavor would you be and why?" and "What three words would you use to describe yourself?".

A college-aged woman a few seats to my right chose the question, "If you could be anyone else, who would you be and why?". She answered, "For one day, I wish I was a man. Just so I would not have to plan anything or worry about how I look. I could just sit back and chill." This was met with some laughter and a few raised eyebrows. I leaned toward the 30ish woman to my left, who I had met earlier in the evening and said "I bet a lot of men wish they could just sit back and chill too." She replied, "Yeah, my husband would agree."

The study is a video series/workbook type of study, with small group discussions, based on the book of Esther. The teacher said, as one of the few books of the Bible with a female protagonist, that a study of Esther was a great opportunity for women to examine our "issues". She did a survey that asked women about the most common issues they dealt with, and the top 3 were, yielding to/submitting to authority including their husbands, balancing competing demands, and estrogen. She also said that we would discuss and deal with these issues without devaluing or tearing down men.

There are about 40 of us in the study, ranging in age from late teens to 70's, married and single, with children and without, stay at home moms and working women. It dawned on me that this study is going to be an interesting opportunity to hear what many different women have to say on these subjects. Given the human propensity to assume that others think or feel in similar ways to the ways we think or feel, I am very curious to see if I will be surprised. Will my optimism take a beating? We'll see....

Boobs

Alternate title: A tale of two cleavages

This week I had what we call practical, or simulation examinations in one of my courses. It's where I have a simulated patient (someone who pretends to have a certain diagnosis) that the students have to perform some clinical skill with. Included in the scoring of the exam are elements such as the performance of the actual clinical skill(s), how well the student explains what they are doing to their "patient", and if they adhere to a professional dress code, among others.

The dress code includes basic rules such as no torn, dirty, or excessively wrinkled clothing, no jeans, no shorts, and no skirts or dresses shorter than 2 inches above the knee as well as what we call the "4 B's". The 4 B's stand for bellies, backs, butts, and boobs, or the parts of the body that we require remain covered by clothing, including while the student is reaching both arms overhead, bending over, or leaning forward. If it seems odd to you that we have to actually tell students that exposing their bellies, backs, butts, and boobs is inappropriate, you are probably old like me :p

We try to deal with dress code issues as a part of this exam because our male faculty are not comfortable commenting on the dress of our female students (we don't have dress code violations with male students, well, except once a male student wore a t-shirt with a mostly nude woman on it from one of the ubiquitous strip clubs found in college towns). So, it falls to the female faculty to address. It's not exactly my favorite thing to do either, but I understand how the already sensitive subject could be even more difficult for a male to approach with a female student.

I had three incidences of dress code violation this time. One occurred when a student raised her arms overhead and exposed about 2 inches of "belly" between the bottom of her shirt and the top of her low rise pants, and the other two involved "boobs".

I got very different reactions from the students regarding the "boob" incidences. The first student, a young woman who is quite well endowed, didn't have a dress code violation during the exam, but I wanted to, um, congratulate her on her efforts toward that end, and encourage her to continue.

Learner: You did a great job with the dress code today. It was a good idea to wear that tank top with a higher neck line under your top.

Student 1: Yeah, I wanted to make sure I was covered.

Learner: Good. There are some times you don't do as well with the dress code though.

Student 1: I know, it's not easy for me (said with chagrin).

Learner: I understand that it isn't really fair in some ways because there are a lot of tops the other girls in your class could wear without it being an issue, that if you wore would not work. I mean, you have the boobs you have, you need to find some ways to deal with it. Trust me, you won't want to be showing that much cleavage in a clinical setting. Your tank top/camisole thingy worked well for you today, that seems to be a good option for you.

Student 1: Thank you, I'll have to get some more. I know what you mean, when I did my (clinical rotation) some patients made some comments.

Learner: Oh, that's not good.

Student 1: I know, I don't want that to be the focus. I know I need to do better and I will.

Learner: Good

The other student, who is more average sized, was wearing a top that was so low cut that even when she was standing up straight you could see way too much cleavage and when she bent forward you could clearly see her bra. She also has a tendency to dress like she is going out to a club instead of class, so I needed to address the dress code in general with her as well.

Learner: There's a problem with your top (I put my hand on my sweater to indicate the neckline)

Student 2: I thought this was a nice top.

Learner: It's too low cut. When you bent forward I could see your bra.

Student 2: I have a tank top on underneath.

Learner: Well, I couldn't see the tank top, I saw your bra.

Student 2: [eye roll]

Learner: A tank top underneath is a good idea, but the neckline needs to be higher than the neckline of the top to help.

Student 2: Yeah, okay [arms crossed]

Learner: It has also been noticed that you are pushing the limits of the dress code in class.

Student 2: [another eye roll]

Learner: Some of your shirts seem better suited to a club than a class room or clinic, like that off the shoulder top you had on last week.

Student 2: Okay [looking away from me]

Learner: It's important to project a competent professional image to your patients.

Student 2: I know.

I got the impression that she thinks I am over reacting and that it is just a matter of changing styles, not professionalism or appropriate modesty. I have a feeling she is going to complain about me. Oh well. It won't be the first time.

* I debated about whether or not to title this post "Boobs", but then I started to wonder... what would happen if I did? Would I get more hits? ( I need to get over this "everything is an experiment" way of thinking.) I feel a little cheap...

Responsibility and choices

Last year a student came and told me she was pregnant and had an appointment to have an abortion, but that she was reconsidering her decision. As I tried to talk her out of the abortion, I silently implored God that He would give me the words to say. I am very sad to say that it now appears that she did have the abortion.

One of the things she said during our conversation kept going through my mind today. When I suggested that she consider giving the baby up for adoption, she said, "oh, I would never do something so irresponsible." After I managed to pick my jaw up off of the floor I asked her what she meant. She said, "If I'm not going to raise the child myself I won't have it, that would be irresponsible." I told her I didn't think that was irresponsible at all, but rather that it was a gift to the child and the adoptive parents. She said, "Oh, I know. I just want to take care of my problems myself. " I was stunned into silence at this "logic". I mean, what the freak is that about?

This conversation was on my mind, because today, my sister and brother-in-law legally adopted my niece. It was a very, very happy day for my family. I am so thankful that my niece's birth mother didn't think of her as a problem to be taken care of, because she is a gift to my family to be certain.

Welcome to the family, Peanut!

Uncle

Okay, I give up. I have been having an exchange over at MarkyMark's, trying to understand this apparent need for some men to paint all women with a broad brush. But, now that it has devolved to the point that instead of responding to me, people are talking about me, I think it is probably best for me to let it go. My question remains unanswered, which is frustrating for me. I would prefer to continue to try to gain understanding, but if the response is talking about me in the third person rather than addressing what I say, I don't see how understanding can happen. (I would really like to ask in what way I have been hypocritical...if anyone can let me know I would appreciate it)

Is it feminism or women?

I think it is human nature to assume, by default, that other people are similar to you. That they feel how you feel, think how you think, would react how you react and that their experiences are similar to yours. I suppose that many times those assumptions would be correct. But, sometimes they are not.

I read the blogs of some men's rights activists. I have learned a lot from them. I have also encountered a lot of hyperbole. Lots of "all women are.." or "all Western women are..." or "99% of women are" or "95% of women are" (you get the picture) types of statements. I have made no secret of the fact that I am no fan of hyperbole, because it makes it harder for others to hear the truth in what you are saying because they get stuck in the hyperbole. After all, probably the only "all women are..." statement that would be factually true would be "all women are female". When people engage in hyperbole their point gets lost because others will point out the factual inaccuracy rather than engaging the substance of the point. Of course it is possible that my nerdiness is what makes me impatient with hyperbole (no blanket assumptions allowed in my nerd-land). But, I think it is more about the fact that there is no need for hyperbole to demonstrate that feminism sucks. Further, the use of hyperbole actually detracts from the case.

Recently Coffee Catholic wrote a blog post addressing the "American women are skanks" bit of hyperbole. I am not comfortable with all the accusations of "whining" that CC makes. And, while I have felt pressured for sex and have been ridiculed by men for not acquiescing, I have found the vast majority of men to be respectful about my boundaries, even if those boundaries ended their interest in me. So, I have not shared CC's experience of feeling hounded or having my mental health affected. But, I do agree that it is disingenuous for a man to complain that women are skanks if he has participated in the "skankification" of women. I agree with her on that point, just like I would agree with a man who said it was disingenuous for a woman to complain about men being "sexually obsessed" when she dresses and behaves provocatively.

Over at MarkyMark's , CC also commented on a post about a related subject which seems to have started quite the discussion. One commenter, a Ruddyturnstone, asserts that CC believes that because she was looking for a long-term commitment when she was young, there must have been lots of other women out there doing the same thing.


RTS goes on to say It's the same old, same old with the women posters here. A man claims that Western women, in general, do X. The women jump on and say, "But I'm not like that" (or, sometimes, they say "But all women aren't like that" or "The women in my little circle of family and friends aren't like that"). Even if it's true, who gives a shit? Who was talking about you, or your sister or niece or even "all" women? It's a GENERALIZATION.


I have certainly made similar comments in response to a comment that was not expressed as a generalization (such as my exchange here with MS). These sorts of statements may have no indicators (meaning that they use words or phrases like: "women in general" or "most women" or "many women" rather than "women") that they are a generalization. Sometimes they have indicators that they are not generalizations ("all women", "each women" etc.).

RTS continues, Most Western women are, in fact, "like that." And what you are doing is derailing the conversation and delegitimizing a valid and generally true critique, and the experiences and observations of the man who made it.....Jeff is to be considered a "whiner" because every single woman he has ever dealt with cheated on him.That's what I meant when I talked about delegitimizing the male perspective. Jeff's experience is set at nought, because it does not jibe with what CC claims is her experience....No, it doesn't go "both ways." Jeff's tale is pretty much the same as the one almost any Western man could tell you. CC's is an outlier, at best. Western women lie and cheat all the time, just as in Jeff's portrayal of them. Very few Western women were virgins looking for marriage throughout their 20's but couldn't find anything but players, as in CC's tale....there really just aren't that many nice girls out there. And there certainly aren't many looking to get married in their 20's.Of course, CC says that SHE was a virgin and all ready, willing and able to marry at age 20, but no men were around who wanted to. And that is where I see the problem. That may very well have been CC's experience, but it is no way typical. And, it in no way nullifies or contradicts what Jeff, or you or I are saying. CC, like some of the other women who post here, is using her experience as way of "trumping" the experiences of men. What we say, even here, even on a blog that is supposed to be about Men Going There Own Way, is subject to being overruled by the experiences of women. (Edited by me, Learner, at the ellipses for length)


This discussion is very curious to me. While I understand the idea that what CC said delegitimized Jeff's experience and agree that is not just or helpful, I confess that it seems to me that both CC and RTS are assuming that their experience and the experiences of people they know is the norm. Quite frankly, I have no idea what the norm is anymore, but I would guess that while feminism has wreaked havoc on western culture, that the norm is not quite as cut and dried as "it doesn't go "both ways." Jeff's tale is pretty much the same as the one almost any Western man could tell you. CC's is an outlier, at best. Western women lie and cheat all the time".


Not everyone has the same experience. CC having a different experience doesn't nullify or trump the experience of men who have experiences similar to Jeff's. But Jeff's experience doesn't nullify CC's experience or the experience of other "outliers" either. Both are valid experiences and are not mutually exclusive. One experience does not have to be false for the other to be true. The problem comes when we assume that everyone's experience is like ours, or like the experience of the people we know. It seems to me that what derails the conversation is the hyperbole.

The problem with both hyperbole about men and women is that both of these issues blame a group of diverse people (men or women in general) instead of the specific persons engaging in the objectionable behaviors and the ideology, feminism, that resulted in the behaviors. When men say all women or all American women are skanks, it makes women the "enemy", just like when women say most men are to blame if women are slutty it makes men the "enemy" (or like when women say that an abused woman shouldn't have to even be in a room with a man because it isn't "safe" it makes all men the "enemy") Both reactions fail to focus on the real problem, which is feminism.


Maybe I am too optimistic (since I am an "idealist"), but I believe that if the hyperbole could be kept to a minimum that there is more of a chance that the truth that feminism is a scourge that is destroying society and the church can be exposed.

The gender gap

Today I was surprised that a columnist in my university's student newspaper addressed the topic of the so called "wage gap" between the genders. He did a fine job of covering the basics of the issue:

• Differences in wages between men and women are due to lifestyle decisions such as preferred working hours, having children, and work conditions such as required travel and hazards.
• Over the past 40 years wages for women, particularly black women, have gone up faster than other demographics.
• If women really make less for the same work, why would an employer hire men at all?

I am expecting there will be at least one angry letter to the editor on the subject tomorrow...we'll see.

For more information about the wage gap see this post by Elusive Wapiti.