There has been a lot of discussion lately about how being a woman is not a disadvantage. It is true that it is a good thing to be a woman, but sometimes being a woman is not a good thing.
There are currently 200 million girls missing. These girls aren't alive today simply because they were girls.
The documentary, "The Three Deadliest Words in the World - It's a Girl" highlights this gendercide that is happening before us (click the link below for an introduction to the documentary).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeSYN2c8f_A
What can we do about it? It all boils down to two words: human equality. To stop the killing of little girls, we must help the grownups to see that girls are as valuable as boys. It is the only solution to a problem that is getting out of hand and creating a gender imbalance. Who knows what will happen in the future if we allow the gap to get bigger.
We can help people in places such as China and India value their girls by affirming the value of women and girls where we live ourselves. For, after all, if don't value our girls, how can we expect others to do so?
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Monday, May 6, 2013
Feminine Cognitive Dissonance
In 1963, Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique that dispelled the mystique that surrounded womanhood and the many myths that went with it. But we are seeing today is nothing like the mystique of the 50s. What we are seeing today can only be called Feminine Cognitive Dissonance.
Women are told to say "no" to contraceptives and family planning (and have all the children they can), "no" to too many children (that they can't feed), "no" to short skirts (or they run the risk of being raped), "no" to drab clothing (or they run the risk of not catching a husband), "no" to having an opinion (for that's a man's job), "no" to the wrong opinion (for they must know right from wrong, or they will be wrong), "no" to having a career (homemaking is a woman's proper role), "no" to being on welfare (for no one should get a free lunch), "no" to being unattractive, plain, or shapeless (for a woman is public property, and we all have a right to comment on her looks), and "no" to being considered an individual (a mom is not a person, she is mom).
Let's go over this one more time.
Essentially, what we are saying is that a woman must be what ever others want her to be. The ultra-religious want her to have a quiverfull of children, but children cost money, which leads to the question who is going to feed them? The husband of course is the usual answer, but what if there is no husband? What if he died in Iraq or Afghanistan, doing what he was told was his duty? Welfare is the last resort of more than one single parent, but those who believe they have a right to keep their earnings, reject welfare, which helps single parents. So what is a woman to do? Stay single? Oh no! that's not an option, not at least in the religious circles, for women were created to have children - and so the argument goes on ad infinitum.
The problem is that we have too many ideologies that define womanhood according to their own restrictive principles. Yet, what it means to be a woman cannot be defined by an economic model or a religious dogma. A woman is a woman, regardless of what the supporters of ideologies would like her to be. Yes, women have children, and yes, they are her children, but imagine a world in which women have no more children. That world would end in a generation. We all know it, and we fear it, which is why we put pressure on young women to marry early, and have as many children as possible. But when the moment arrives that these same children must be fed, another fear kicks in: what if there isn't enough for me? And so we hoard to secure our own survival, and let the very same children, whom we know are the key to our own future, die. But because we can't handle the idea that we are the cause of it, we put the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of women. "You deal with it," we say, as we demand that they produce the future generations and feed them too.
The Feminine Cognitive Dissonance is caused by a global cognitive dissonance. We all participate in it, but few recognize it. While we point our fingers at "bad mothers" and "welfare queens," women are being slowly crushed under the weight of this global denial as they try to do the impossible. Like most problems, this isn't going to go away on its own. If we as a society demand that women have children in order to secure the existence of humanity, women have an equal right to demand economic support in order to secure the existence of those children. Otherwise, what's the point?
Women are told to say "no" to contraceptives and family planning (and have all the children they can), "no" to too many children (that they can't feed), "no" to short skirts (or they run the risk of being raped), "no" to drab clothing (or they run the risk of not catching a husband), "no" to having an opinion (for that's a man's job), "no" to the wrong opinion (for they must know right from wrong, or they will be wrong), "no" to having a career (homemaking is a woman's proper role), "no" to being on welfare (for no one should get a free lunch), "no" to being unattractive, plain, or shapeless (for a woman is public property, and we all have a right to comment on her looks), and "no" to being considered an individual (a mom is not a person, she is mom).
Let's go over this one more time.
Essentially, what we are saying is that a woman must be what ever others want her to be. The ultra-religious want her to have a quiverfull of children, but children cost money, which leads to the question who is going to feed them? The husband of course is the usual answer, but what if there is no husband? What if he died in Iraq or Afghanistan, doing what he was told was his duty? Welfare is the last resort of more than one single parent, but those who believe they have a right to keep their earnings, reject welfare, which helps single parents. So what is a woman to do? Stay single? Oh no! that's not an option, not at least in the religious circles, for women were created to have children - and so the argument goes on ad infinitum.
The problem is that we have too many ideologies that define womanhood according to their own restrictive principles. Yet, what it means to be a woman cannot be defined by an economic model or a religious dogma. A woman is a woman, regardless of what the supporters of ideologies would like her to be. Yes, women have children, and yes, they are her children, but imagine a world in which women have no more children. That world would end in a generation. We all know it, and we fear it, which is why we put pressure on young women to marry early, and have as many children as possible. But when the moment arrives that these same children must be fed, another fear kicks in: what if there isn't enough for me? And so we hoard to secure our own survival, and let the very same children, whom we know are the key to our own future, die. But because we can't handle the idea that we are the cause of it, we put the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of women. "You deal with it," we say, as we demand that they produce the future generations and feed them too.
The Feminine Cognitive Dissonance is caused by a global cognitive dissonance. We all participate in it, but few recognize it. While we point our fingers at "bad mothers" and "welfare queens," women are being slowly crushed under the weight of this global denial as they try to do the impossible. Like most problems, this isn't going to go away on its own. If we as a society demand that women have children in order to secure the existence of humanity, women have an equal right to demand economic support in order to secure the existence of those children. Otherwise, what's the point?
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Fear
Having been deceived by the serpent to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the first humans were afraid and hid from God. It wasn't so much their lack of clothes that was the source of their fear, but the realization that something had changed.
Evil looks good on the outside. It is like a GMO corn that doesn't reveal what's in the inside; not even eating it does anything to you, until you go to the doctor and realize that something has changed.
Although the first humans were afraid, God was merciful and provided clothing to hide their shame. Wouldn't be wonderful if humans were also equally merciful when their neighbors (that is, anyone and everyone) fall prey for the deceptiveness of evil? Why is it that instead of mercy, we get the chilling silence of a cold shoulder?
God didn't ignore evil, but neither did he let it disconnect humans from himself. From the first "What have you done!" speech, God has been actively working to connect humanity to himself, and to itself; love God with all of our being comes also with the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. But we would rather talk about the merciful God (because we are the recipients) and not be merciful ourselves; it takes too much effort, not to talk about money!
When evil arrived, everything changed. The first man blamed the woman and God, and the woman blamed the serpent; they disconnected from God and each other out of fear and shame. Ever since that day fear has been a powerful force that keeps us from experiencing the love of God, and the love of other humans. But there is a solution: mercy triumphs over justice. When we accept God's mercy, and become merciful ourselves, we'll find acceptance and love. It's the great reversal, the return to a time when we loved without fear. Now that's Good News.
Evil looks good on the outside. It is like a GMO corn that doesn't reveal what's in the inside; not even eating it does anything to you, until you go to the doctor and realize that something has changed.
Although the first humans were afraid, God was merciful and provided clothing to hide their shame. Wouldn't be wonderful if humans were also equally merciful when their neighbors (that is, anyone and everyone) fall prey for the deceptiveness of evil? Why is it that instead of mercy, we get the chilling silence of a cold shoulder?
God didn't ignore evil, but neither did he let it disconnect humans from himself. From the first "What have you done!" speech, God has been actively working to connect humanity to himself, and to itself; love God with all of our being comes also with the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. But we would rather talk about the merciful God (because we are the recipients) and not be merciful ourselves; it takes too much effort, not to talk about money!
When evil arrived, everything changed. The first man blamed the woman and God, and the woman blamed the serpent; they disconnected from God and each other out of fear and shame. Ever since that day fear has been a powerful force that keeps us from experiencing the love of God, and the love of other humans. But there is a solution: mercy triumphs over justice. When we accept God's mercy, and become merciful ourselves, we'll find acceptance and love. It's the great reversal, the return to a time when we loved without fear. Now that's Good News.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Disrespect
Although it is so dreadfully difficult for us to respect other people, disrespect comes with ease; we don't have to think twice about it. Quite honestly, we are experts at putting people down, telling them how meaningless they are, and how little they are worth. We crush people under our bloated egos everywhere we go.
The more we have, the greater the temptation to disrespect those who have less. When we believe we don't need other people, respecting those we don't need seems unnecessary. Respect is reserved to those who can give us something, be it money, attention, or admiration. The problem, however, is that disrespect creates resentment, and resentment creates bitterness and hate. Although we may think we are not going to feel the effects of our disrespect towards others, it is an illusion that has been dispelled by more than one broken human relationship.
Respect creates respect. When we treat others with respect, we connect with other humans instead of free-floating on out own private islands, expecting to the adored by the occasional visitor.
Respect causes us to treat other humans well, just as we expect them to treat us well. It is a cycle that creates harmony - a vital component in the creation of human happiness. Although we deceive ourselves to think that others should make us happy, our happiness should come from within. When we realize that we are responsible for our own happiness, we realize also that our happiness is connected to the happiness of others. Very few can stand in a room filled with weeping and sorrow, and yet remain happy.
When we see other humans as our equals, respect comes more naturally. We don't have to strain the camel through the eye of the needle in order to be respectful. The impulse to create a hierarchy of worth at every encounter (with the goal of placing ourselves at the top) disappears as we realize that the hierarchy is only in our own minds. It isn't real.
Respect doesn't make us human, but we deserve respect because we are human. The difference may seem slight, but it makes, well, all the difference.
The more we have, the greater the temptation to disrespect those who have less. When we believe we don't need other people, respecting those we don't need seems unnecessary. Respect is reserved to those who can give us something, be it money, attention, or admiration. The problem, however, is that disrespect creates resentment, and resentment creates bitterness and hate. Although we may think we are not going to feel the effects of our disrespect towards others, it is an illusion that has been dispelled by more than one broken human relationship.
Respect creates respect. When we treat others with respect, we connect with other humans instead of free-floating on out own private islands, expecting to the adored by the occasional visitor.
Respect causes us to treat other humans well, just as we expect them to treat us well. It is a cycle that creates harmony - a vital component in the creation of human happiness. Although we deceive ourselves to think that others should make us happy, our happiness should come from within. When we realize that we are responsible for our own happiness, we realize also that our happiness is connected to the happiness of others. Very few can stand in a room filled with weeping and sorrow, and yet remain happy.
When we see other humans as our equals, respect comes more naturally. We don't have to strain the camel through the eye of the needle in order to be respectful. The impulse to create a hierarchy of worth at every encounter (with the goal of placing ourselves at the top) disappears as we realize that the hierarchy is only in our own minds. It isn't real.
Respect doesn't make us human, but we deserve respect because we are human. The difference may seem slight, but it makes, well, all the difference.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Weddings that Lack Character
Wedding season is about the begin and yet again thousands of couples will vow to love and cherish each other - except that they don't vow to love the person that stands before them; they vow to love the feeling that the other person creates in them, and we all know what happens to feelings over time.
Our societies actively encourages this behavior with visual and audio enforcement in the form of movies and songs. We are practically inundated with the idea of romantic love that lasts forever; romance can blossom any old time, and it never fades away - except that it does.
What if we instead encouraged people to take a closer look at the person they are marrying and not only the feeling that the person creates in them? The reason the feeling of love vanishes rather quickly is due to the fact that no one fishes with an ax. We use a bait that the fish likes, which is most likely something we don't (unless we have a thing for worms). When the fish is in the hook, the bait is no longer needed. In the case of love-struck couples, both walk down the aisle thinking the other person will always remain the same, interested in all the things they are interested in, for that was after all how they behaved before the wedding.
When the couple begins to behave in a more realistic way, and they become more self-oriented wanting to do the things they want to do instead of the things their spouse wants to do, the feeling of being in love begins to fade. If they didn't take a closer look at whom they actually married, the shock of the realization can cause love to vanish into thin air, and the marriage ends before it really had a chance to begin.
Love is a wonderful thing, but it is quite fragile and bruises easily. Character isn't quite as exiting, but is far more enduring, and can handle the inevitable blows that life serves us. While planning all the details of your special day, don't forget to take a closer look at the character of the person you are about to marry. For a wedding happily lasts only one day, but a marriage should last a lifetime.
Our societies actively encourages this behavior with visual and audio enforcement in the form of movies and songs. We are practically inundated with the idea of romantic love that lasts forever; romance can blossom any old time, and it never fades away - except that it does.
What if we instead encouraged people to take a closer look at the person they are marrying and not only the feeling that the person creates in them? The reason the feeling of love vanishes rather quickly is due to the fact that no one fishes with an ax. We use a bait that the fish likes, which is most likely something we don't (unless we have a thing for worms). When the fish is in the hook, the bait is no longer needed. In the case of love-struck couples, both walk down the aisle thinking the other person will always remain the same, interested in all the things they are interested in, for that was after all how they behaved before the wedding.
When the couple begins to behave in a more realistic way, and they become more self-oriented wanting to do the things they want to do instead of the things their spouse wants to do, the feeling of being in love begins to fade. If they didn't take a closer look at whom they actually married, the shock of the realization can cause love to vanish into thin air, and the marriage ends before it really had a chance to begin.
Love is a wonderful thing, but it is quite fragile and bruises easily. Character isn't quite as exiting, but is far more enduring, and can handle the inevitable blows that life serves us. While planning all the details of your special day, don't forget to take a closer look at the character of the person you are about to marry. For a wedding happily lasts only one day, but a marriage should last a lifetime.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Pray, or Not to Pray? That's Not the Question
There has been a lot of talk about prayer in public schools in the US for quite some time. Some say everything went sour once prayer ended in schools. But aren't they really saying everything went sour once schools were integrated? You see, the ending of teacher-led religious activities in schools (1962) coincides with the ending of segregation due to the Civil Rights Act (1964).
Since we are talking about prayer, what did Jesus have to say about all of this?
According to Jesus, public prayer wasn't the "fix-it-all" that is has been touted lately. We should pray in private instead of praying to be seen by others. But how does this relate to the obsession of public prayer in public school? It appears that those who advocate for public prayer in public schools are really saying that if school children were all Christians (of their kind, not the Jesus-kind), then life would be returned to the normal they once knew; if all school children were white WASPs, then life would be the way it always was.
But would Jesus agree with it? Not really.
If students would really begin to pray at school, what would happen? Segregation of schools? Not a chance. Humans who know they are of equal value do not segregate according to the color of one's skin. If students would pray the way Jesus prayed, we would get more integration, more "we are all human." But that's not what the advocates of prayer in public schools are talking about. They are trying to re-establish a world in which praying in public means you belong to the right group. Just like the Pharisees, they want to be seen by others, applauded for their piousness. Those who truly follow Jesus pray in private, for they are not looking for the rewards that are given by people, but the rewards given by God.
Since we are talking about prayer, what did Jesus have to say about all of this?
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matt 6:5-6, NIV)
According to Jesus, public prayer wasn't the "fix-it-all" that is has been touted lately. We should pray in private instead of praying to be seen by others. But how does this relate to the obsession of public prayer in public school? It appears that those who advocate for public prayer in public schools are really saying that if school children were all Christians (of their kind, not the Jesus-kind), then life would be returned to the normal they once knew; if all school children were white WASPs, then life would be the way it always was.
But would Jesus agree with it? Not really.
If students would really begin to pray at school, what would happen? Segregation of schools? Not a chance. Humans who know they are of equal value do not segregate according to the color of one's skin. If students would pray the way Jesus prayed, we would get more integration, more "we are all human." But that's not what the advocates of prayer in public schools are talking about. They are trying to re-establish a world in which praying in public means you belong to the right group. Just like the Pharisees, they want to be seen by others, applauded for their piousness. Those who truly follow Jesus pray in private, for they are not looking for the rewards that are given by people, but the rewards given by God.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Respect
Why is it so difficult for us to be respectful towards other humans? For example, why do we think children deserve less respect than grownups, and why do men get more respect than women?
Some say children and women need love instead of respect, presumably because of their physical weakness. However, such thinking assumes that respect and love are fundamentally different. Love is seen as something that is soft, cuddly, forgiving, enveloping; something that soothes the nervous tendencies of the weak. Respect is something that is firm, impersonal, affirming, empowering, something that the strong need to remain strong. In this view, the strong must be strengthened to protect the weak, who cannot be trusted to take care of themselves.
The idea that love and respect are fundamentally different is based on the concept that those who are physically weak are also mentally weak, that their natural irresponsibility must be handled with love - but only as long as they show proper respect. As soon as they fail to show proper respect, love is replaced with coercion, belittling, even violence. The physical weakness of women and children lends an opportunity to the physically stronger man to demand respect through force. Thus respect becomes an excuse not to love, and the whole model is effectually shattered.
But what if instead of loving some and respecting others, we affirmed that all humans are equally worthy of love and respect? What if we recognized that respect is the byproduct of love? Love is, after all, the reason why we treat people well. We are respectful towards the people we love, for we wish them well. Those who hate, or are indifferent, do not show respect, for they do not care what others think. Even children are worthy of respect, for we do not become more human as we grow up; we are born human. If we do not deserve respect because we are human, neither do we deserve love. Those who are loved only when they please others, are not truly loved. They are merely tolerated until they fail to please.
Love and respect are fundamental parts of the human experience. When we fail to respect all humans, we fail to love all humans. According to the New Testament, failing to love all, is equivalent to loving none (Jas 2.8-11). How respectful is that?
Some say children and women need love instead of respect, presumably because of their physical weakness. However, such thinking assumes that respect and love are fundamentally different. Love is seen as something that is soft, cuddly, forgiving, enveloping; something that soothes the nervous tendencies of the weak. Respect is something that is firm, impersonal, affirming, empowering, something that the strong need to remain strong. In this view, the strong must be strengthened to protect the weak, who cannot be trusted to take care of themselves.
The idea that love and respect are fundamentally different is based on the concept that those who are physically weak are also mentally weak, that their natural irresponsibility must be handled with love - but only as long as they show proper respect. As soon as they fail to show proper respect, love is replaced with coercion, belittling, even violence. The physical weakness of women and children lends an opportunity to the physically stronger man to demand respect through force. Thus respect becomes an excuse not to love, and the whole model is effectually shattered.
But what if instead of loving some and respecting others, we affirmed that all humans are equally worthy of love and respect? What if we recognized that respect is the byproduct of love? Love is, after all, the reason why we treat people well. We are respectful towards the people we love, for we wish them well. Those who hate, or are indifferent, do not show respect, for they do not care what others think. Even children are worthy of respect, for we do not become more human as we grow up; we are born human. If we do not deserve respect because we are human, neither do we deserve love. Those who are loved only when they please others, are not truly loved. They are merely tolerated until they fail to please.
Love and respect are fundamental parts of the human experience. When we fail to respect all humans, we fail to love all humans. According to the New Testament, failing to love all, is equivalent to loving none (Jas 2.8-11). How respectful is that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)