Girl Power!

In 1950's America, women had little control over their own lives. They were stuck at home barefoot and pregnant. They weren't valued or respected in the same ways men were. They had no real career options. They were dependent on their husbands, for better or for worse. Women as a group were repressed and unhappy.

Or were they?

Conventional wisdom today paints a picture of the mid-century housewife that looks like - well - Betty Draper. Sad, trapped, powerless, frustrated Betty Draper. But if we look at how people back then actually saw themselves, a very different image emerges. If film and television reflect the current culture, we can gain insight into how people viewed themselves by looking at the icons of the day.

What we find is that female icons of the 50s were hardly timid, obedient doormats at the mercy and whim of the male power structure. Quite the contrary, they were the likes of Lauren Bacall, Maureen O'Hara and Katherine Hepburn, whose power  and influence left legions of heartbroken, defenseless men in its wake! Their power came not from attempting to "beat men at their own game", but from their brilliant and bold expressions of femininity. 

Could it be that modern feminism got it all wrong? That we abdicated our true power in favor of some second-rate version of masculinity - and that in doing so we've actually made women less happy, less powerful and less fulfilled than their mid-century counterparts?

To answer that question we need to put aside conventional wisdom and find out how life really was in the 50s.  Were women truly as unhappy and stifled as we're given to believe? Are women in fact happier today? Is American society stronger and healthier as a result of feminism? Let's take a look.

Were women in fact unhappy and unfulfilled in the '30s, '40s and '50s?

What kind of children did they raise? It's probably safe to assume that unhappy, repressed women generally do not beget happy, smart, productive children. This would be even more true retrospectively since most women back then stayed home with their children rather than dropping them off at day care, amplifying the impact they would have had on their children's' psyches.

So how did they turn out? Well, in 1969 the children of those powerless, repressed women living under a misogynistic patriarchy figured out how to put a man on the moon!  We also know that between 1945 and 1960, the gross national product more than doubled, growing from $200 billion to more than $500 billion. Unemployment rates, crime rates, housing costs and inflation were all low, while middle class wages, literacy rates and high school graduation rates were soaring. America, by any objective measure we have available to us was thriving and growing.

This alone should lead us to question our assumptions about the mothers of those remarkable achievers. It also forces us to confront two possibilities. Either:

1. Unhappy women raise overwhelmingly happy, productive children, in which case we need to revisit the claim, "I'll be a better parent if I'm happy and fulfilled" - or,
2.  Women were actually quite fulfilled in their roles providing strength and encouragement to their husbands and raising smart, happy, inventive children.

Has modern feminism made women happier?

Let's turn to data which are statistically linked to stress rates and depression. These include suicide rates, drug addiction/abuse rates and stress-related conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, ulcers and infertility (which is frequently cited as a cause of depression among women today). If women of the 40's and 50's were chronically unhappy and feeling trapped and devalued, we'd expect them to suffer from much higher rates of these types of conditions. But that's not at all what we find. By all objective accounts these numbers are far higher today especially among women than they've ever been before (see below for links to common data sources).

Note: One could rightly argue that "Women's issues were undiagnosed or under-reported." Maybe. Maybe not. We simply have no way to accurately measure if and to what extent that is true. Likewise, one could say that women have heart attacks today for all sorts of reasons other than stress or depression -  environmental changes, food preservatives, moon cycles and so on. But it would only be speculation since we don't have any credible data linking those factors to heart attacks in women, while the correlation between happiness and stress-related illnesses (in both men and women) has been well documented for decades.

The actual data seem to invalidate the claim that women are happier today than they were in 1950. Have we cut off our noses to spite our faces? Women of the 50s didn't have to worry about finding a replacement sitter when they were up against a deadline and the nanny called in sick. They didn't have to stress about skipping work to attend parent meetings at school. They didn't have to spend evenings and weekends catching up on laundry, housework and chores. They didn't have to make arrangements for someone to pick up the kids from school when they had to work late. They didn't have to call in sick because a child was home with the flu. They didn't have to dash out of the office every day, pick up the kids at day care, stop at the store for groceries, cook dinner, help with homework, bathe the little ones, read bedtime stories and tuck everyone in - all after a stressful day at the office. Honest women can't deny that while modern feminism may have improved certain aspects of our lives, it has also given rise to  an entirely new set of stresses which can seriously impact our happiness.

Did some of our 1950s counterparts wish they had broader career options? Sure, some did. Did some wish they could divorce their husbands without financial devastation or public shame? No doubt about it. I just wonder how those troubles stack up against all the new ones we've inherited  in the name of a "better life" for women.

And what about society in general? Has society benefited from the feminist movement? Societal health is measured by things like cost of living, crime rates, housing costs, unemployment levels, literacy rates, healthcare costs, percentages of high school and college graduates, and so on.

I'll spare you the inclusion of pages and pages of raw data. These figures are easily accessible from the US Census Bureau, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Center for Financial Stability, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the National Center for Education Statistics and many other substantiated sources.

Suffice it to say that by any measure we have available to us today, society was extraordinarily successful in the 1950s. In fact the data seem to indicate that it was more successful in many ways than American society in 2015.  We can debate why this is true - the issues are many and complex. Nobody is claiming that the reason for the downtrend is women in the workforce! But to claim that modern feminism has improved life in America - for women or for anyone else - would simply have no basis in fact.

Still, the feminist movement is lauded unchallenged as a huge leap forward for women. Maybe it's time to ask ourselves on what basis we make that assumption.

Maybe conventional wisdom has it wrong and Betty Draper has little to do with reality after all. Maybe the truth looks a lot more like Lauren, Maureen and Katherine standing up tall and defiant, hands on hips and chins in the air, eyes blazing, setting the record straight.

Postscript:

In a world where women are indeed powerful, would they be so quick to sue men for saying offensive things? Before you start licking envelopes to send me your hate male - it goes without saying that physical violence should NEVER be tolerated. However when I see women suing men over saying offensive things or looking at them the wrong way, they strike me as no different than a petulant little girl who goes running to Daddy because someone was mean to her on the playground. Just because she's running to her lawyer now instead of Daddy, she is no more powerful than the sad little girl who needs someone to rescue her. A strong woman ignores rude remarks, walks away, or issues a clever comeback when it's safe to do so - she doesn't need her Daddy or anyone else to save her. 

I recognize that many of you will disagree. Some may even call me ignorant, naive, wrongheaded or worse. That's perfectly ok, I can take it like a man :-)

Related article: Sex and Conversation 

Ode to the Patriarchy

In the spirit of amplifying Unconventional Wisdom, I’d like to challenge the current narrative that overwhelmingly lauds the feminine and vilifies the masculine. The fact that "Toxic Masculinity" is part of our vernacular in the West speaks volumes about women's attitudes about men. In recent decades women have been given sobering levels of power, but seem to lack the wisdom to understand where it came from, and that it comes with equally sobering levels of responsibility.

Ironically, the only reason American women can prosper and enjoy our independence is that MEN built a civilization in which Betas like us can thrive. In a world where survival depends on the ability to build shelter, hunt for food and defend against armies – women are acutely aware of the value of their men. But from the safety of modern life in America we can afford to insult and belittle the men who afforded us the very right to do so.

Despite conventional wisdom, Judeo-Christian men have never treated women with the degree of contempt women level at them today. I recently saw The King and I at a local theatre and was struck at the true story of a lovely young widow traveling across the world with her young son in the 1800’s. During the long voyage she shared the ship with an all-male captain and crew, and yet she was perfectly safe. Not only did British leadership tap her for this most important diplomatic mission (it seems men did respect women back then after all), but she was treated with utter deference by the crew. Did she think herself somehow "unequal" because she relied upon them for food, shelter and protection along the way? On the contrary, I suspect she was secure in the knowledge that she was there because of her intelligence, diplomacy and skill. Appreciating the men who endured the punishing demands of the voyage to deliver her safely to her destination in no way diminished her own power and worth. 

One more note: it’s very easy to confuse a cultural shift with misogyny. Of course men looked askance at women participating in business and politics, because it was a new idea. But that is not the same as a nefarious desire to hold us back, or an institutional lack of respect for women. If it were, life in the west would look very different for women than it does today. The inconvenient truth is that women are where they are today because the patriarchy of yesteryear allowed it. Modern women love to rail on about the overbearing, domineering, disrespectful patriarchy - while completely missing the irony that if their claims were true, they'd never be allowed to complain about it!

Instead of honoring the men who honor us in so many ways, and appreciating their extraordinary strength, loyalty and fortitude, like petulant teenagers our pride and arrogance fool us into thinking we no longer need them at all. Worse, that men are ignorant, bullying creatures who must sit down and be quiet, and let women rule. In this humble writer’s opinion, we are profoundly poorer for it.

My Superlative Man

I think about my husband a lot. When something funny happens, when I've had a rough day, if I need his advice - he is always the first person I think of. It struck me recently that when I think of Mike, or when I'm talking to others about him, I so often use superlative language: "He is the wisest", or "He is the kindest" or "most brilliant" person I know.  Bias aside, my husband really did hang the moon.

We've only been together 18 years at this writing, but that's long enough for me to have seen Mike in different stages and situations; when things were going his way and when they weren't. The longer I know him the  more I admire him. One of my very favorite quotes is, Your Character is Who You Are When No One is Looking. This man has Character with a capital C. He's what I like to call "quietly extraordinary." His knowledge of history, science, literature and even pop culture is deep and wide, and matched only by the humility with which he carries it.  And his heart is as big as his mind. I have yet to see Mike exhibit selfishness or pride, or to put himself above others either in word or in deed.

My wise, wonderful mother once told me, "You should never marry a man until you can name three things you don't like about him." Mom was married for nearly 60 years to the love of her life so she knew what she was talking about. I thought that was such sage advice: Make sure you know this person inside and out and are ready to love him forever, ignoble attributes and all. On my wedding day I told Mom that I hadn't been able to find three things I disliked about Mike. All these years later I'm still stumped.

Lest you think I'm either hopelessly deluded or am not in fact married to a mortal being, there are things about Mike that do challenge me. He is a very, very masculine man. He's the quintessential "take charge" guy. I am - let's just say - no shrinking violet. I'm equally as passionate about My Way as he is about his. Cooking together rarely ends well since neither of us will relinquish the title of Head Chef! Mike has strong opinions about everything. He knows what he believes and why, and unless "the data" tell him otherwise he won't be shaken. However, even in his stubbornness he is thoughtful and kind and never, ever demeans or insults when others disagree.

I can be sure - every time - that Mike's positions stem from goodness and honesty and never from pride or emotional immaturity. And he always has my best interests at heart. He looks out for me, he has my back, he is my constant advocate and true friend. It's very common for people today to paint the uber-masculine man as a bully; someone who uses his machismo to lord over women. We think we must "cut them down" in order to be equal. The truth is, when all that machismo is inside of a good man and it's directed at elevating the woman he loves, it makes an already strong woman all but invincible. I'll take that all day long over a man who will simply bend to my will.

When we were dating I asked Mike what he needed in a woman. He thought for a minute and said, "I need someone who can stand toe to toe with me and be my equal" (I enjoy reminding him of this often!)  We take "equal" to mean "the same" these days, but it's our differences which enable us to fit together into a perfectly choreographed whole that is so much more than either of us could possibly be alone. Isn't that, after all, what marriage is all about?

Someday I hope to be the kind of person who is worthy of a partner like Mike. Until then, he remains my hero, my desert island person who could find food, build shelter, craft a raft out of reed scraps, use his knowledge of military strategy to defend us from the natives and devise an ingenious radio signaling device to call for help. All with quiet humility.

I'll concede, there's a possibility that Mike didn't actually hang the moon. But I bet he could figure out how if he needed to.

 

Related: Girl Power!

Confused Compassionates

People can say whatever they like. Even to themselves, and even when it's a lie.

Case in point: the self-proclaimed "Compassionates" who advocate for those poor little lab rats with tearful aplomb - and then (with a straight face, mind you) turn around and advocate for killing unborn human babies.   

Question if you are a PETA donor: What is it that makes a human baby less worthy of our compassion than a lab rat or a chicken or a baby seal? Is it that the human mother gets to make the decision? So - if we could "pay" a female monkey a bunch of bananas to hand over her baby for scientific experimentation, would you be ok with that because after all, it's her decision to make? If you answer "yes" then at least you are consistent. 

The parallels between this issue and issues of the civil war cannot be denied. In the latter, there were two groups of people:

1. Those who believed that blacks were not "fully human", which exempted them from the rights and protections others enjoyed. 
2. Those who believed that blacks were fully human, thus deserving of the same rights and protections as anyone else. 

In the abortion debate there are also two groups of people:

1. Those who believe the unborn are not "fully human", which exempts them from the rights and protections others enjoy. 
2. Those who believe the unborn are fully human, thus deserving of the same rights and protections as anyone else. 

If you fall under the same group in each case you are intellectually honest. If you don't, maybe it's time to think again about what you really stand for. 

Before you call yourself compassionate because you refuse to dissect a frog in biology class - Remember that compassion must extend not only to animals or "causes" but most importantly to your fellow humans. 

We've Won the Lottery!

What are the odds of winning the lottery in your country or state? Most estimates in the US are around 1 in 300 million or so. Now consider this:

Of the world's population, only 17% are lucky enough to live in a developed country. Of those, only about 70% are employed right now according to Statista. And of that group, a mere 30% report enjoying the work they do.

Even if we stopped right there, many of us would find ourselves amongst a scant 3% of humanity who enjoys similar blessings. If we piled on things like happy children, a good marriage, and decent health the odds become so small they're nearly incalculable. 

None of this diminishes the pain and turmoil life throws our way. It's just a reminder that while every last  human being experiences heartache and tragedy very, very few enjoy the privileges most of us take for granted every day.

Odds of winning the lottery? That's nothing we haven't already beat several times over :-)

First Offendment

I recently wrote a very polite objection to Honeymaid after seeing a television ad on their new “Wholesome” campaign in which they celebrated same-sex couples as archetypes of wholesome living. My intention was to simply write a note to the company respectfully letting them know why I wouldn’t be purchasing their product moving forward. Their corporate website routed me to the facebook page to submit my comment, so I did:

“I've been eating Honey Maid graham crackers every day (breakfast of champions, lol!) for years. However, I've switched to the store brand because of this campaign. It seems you're not at all worried about offending Christians, who still constitute the majority of the country. You have every right to propagate your beliefs, no complaint there whatsoever. However, I also have the right not to partake. So after years of yummy Honey Maid breakfasts I must say goodbye to the brand.”

As a person who has always believed that good people can differ on issues of the day, I was shocked by the slew of profanity, vicious rhetoric and name-calling my simple little note was met with. After all, the worst thing I said was that I was offended as a Christian. I shrugged it off and didn’t bother responding since clearly these are not people who value diversity, or are capable of tolerance toward people whose views differ from their own. The level of sheer irony would be amusing if it weren’t so sad.

I thought nothing more about it until yesterday, when I received a note from Facebook saying they had “removed the post below because it doesn’t follow the Facebook Community Standards.” No complaint about the F-bomb-riddled, malicious responses – but my own comparatively mild post had violated some “standard” or other. I’m including a link to said standards so you can make up your own minds, but I was mighty hard pressed to see how my rather innocuous comment had breached any of them even in the slightest.  In fact Facebook goes so far as to emphasize, “Because of the diversity of our global community, please keep in mind that something that may be disagreeable or disturbing to you may not violate our Community Standards.” So apparently my comment was so egregious as to blow right past merely “disagreeable or disturbing” and move right into “harmful” or “dangerous”.

There is a link on the standards page to a letter signed by both Monika Bickert, the head of Global Product Policy and Justin Osofsky, the Vice President of Global Operations, both of whom have been invited to read this blog. I’ll keep you posted on any response I may get.

In the meantime, to my progressive friends:

• If you are a person who fights for the rights of minorities, gays and the poverty-stricken, and you believe that whether someone is blue, green, transgender or handicapped they have the right to live free in America without fear of retribution or persecution, I genuinely applaud you. I hope you know that most Christians agree with you.  Just know that if the respect and freedom you advocate for is not extended to everyone – including and especially those who disagree with you – what you’re actually advocating for is tyranny.
• Please don’t let anyone trap you into a false dichotomy. It’s a very common but effective logical fallacy that goes like this: There are two and only two possibilities, only one of which can be true. In the context of this discussion it goes something like this – there are only two possibilities. Either:

a.      Someone agrees with the progressive doctrine (“green” lifestyle, gay marriage, abortions for all and so on). These people are to be considered virtuous, loving, compassionate, enlightened, caring, open-minded and generally “good” human beings.

b.     Someone disagrees with the progressive doctrine. These people are to be considered evil, hateful, bigoted, racist, sexist, fill-in-the-blanksist people who are less than human and certainly not deserving of kindness or respect.

Is there no room for someone like me to believe that every human being - yes, even one whose lifestyle I may not endorse -  is a precious child of God, and is to be treated with respect and dignity and kindness? Isn’t that in fact the very definition of “tolerance”? Or, is it that “tolerance” isn’t enough and that if I don’t openly endorse, celebrate and whole-heartedly embrace the acceptable progressive doctrine I am summarily loaded onto the “category B" train (words chosen intentionally)?

How can a person treat conservatives with open contempt and public ridicule, while claiming he advocates for every person's right to be treated with dignity? His very behavior undermines his credibility! Or, are conservatives somehow less than human, and thus exempt from the progressive versions of compassion and tolerance? What is the meaning of tolerance if it's only extended to people you agree with?

Why it’s so easy to lure people into a false dichotomy, I don’t know. Maybe it’s easier to just group people into categories and label everyone who differs with you as “bad” because it makes you feel safe and accepted. Maybe that’s what drove the Nazi’s in the ‘40s, and the people who hung blacks by trees in the 60’s. Maybe it’s what drives the progressive elite today. All I know is, wherever that kind of thinking has prevailed society has become less kind, less tolerant, and a whole lot less free.

To my conservative friends:
Make no mistake. “Diversity” and “Tolerance” are reserved for a very select group of people and it’s abundantly clear that Conservatives and Christians are not among them. So we all have a choice to make. We can either “sit down and shut up”, or continue to stand up, speak up and be subject to persecution and ridicule for holding a certain set of beliefs – even when those very beliefs command us to treat others with respect and dignity. I choose the latter, and I hope you'll join me.

Sock Blindness

How many times has your husband walked right past a pair of dirty socks on the floor and NOT picked them up? Or crammed one more thing into an overflowing trash can, or reached for a paper plate instead of emptying the dishwasher?

Is he blind? Is he lazy? Is he inconsiderate? Why on earth doesn't he just PICK THEM UP?

The answer is  . . . wait for it . . . He Doesn't See Them.

How can he not see socks that are laying there right in front of him? It's a good question, with a simple answer. People notice what they value. I could walk right past a 1948 Astin Martin DB1 in a parking lot and it would never even hit my radar, guaranteed. The man I'm walking through the parking lot with might conclude that I'm ditsy or unobservant. The truth is, I just don't care about cars. I was too busy noticing some woman's great shoes, or the lovely sunset, or I was thinking about work, or dinner, or the kids, or pretty much anything other than cars. We value different things, so we notice different things. It's as simple as that. Don't make the mistake of believing that others (even your husband) value the same things you do.

There's another layer to this argument. You might say, "If he loved me, he'd care that dirty socks bother me. He'd pick them up for me." That sounds well and fine, but think it through for a minute. If your husband loves fishing and you love him, do you magically begin noticing different brands of fishing rods? Of course not! You would never hear a man say, "If you really loved me, you would have noticed that guy's incredible fishing rod!" How absurd that sounds, yet we do it to men all the time. So no - his loving you does not make him suddenly begin to notice socks on the floor, or an overflowing trash can or a leaky sink.

Now that we've established that Dear ol' Hubby has Sock Blindness, what's the cure? Ladies, pay attention because this will change your marriage forever.

The cure is Admiration and Respect.

A man who is admired and respected will move mountains to please you. A man who is nagged and belittled will withdraw faster than you can say Henpecked Husband. Men only participate where they can win, so the secret is to set your guy up to win, and win big! Men WANT to be Super Heroes, we just need to hand them their capes and let them fly.

So how do you set him up to win?

1. Know that he's not leaving the socks on the floor on purpose, or out of laziness or neglect. 
2. Understand that what's important to you (a clean floor) may not be important to him; therefore, you are asking HIM to do YOU a favor by picking up his socks. This sets you up to appreciate that he's picking them up, rather than being disappointed in him for not picking them up without your asking.
3. Ask, and be specific! In other words, tell him precisely how he can win. "You're such a slob - you're always leaving your dirty socks on the floor" means the game's over and he already lost. That's hardly going to inspire him to participate the next time around.

Don't believe me? Try it: Next time his dirty socks are on the floor ask him very sweetly, "Honey, would you mind tossing those in the hamper for me?" (the "for me" is important because it gives him a real shot at winning your appreciation). I bet he'll take it in a New York minute. A kiss of genuine appreciation will seal the deal, and he'll redouble his efforts to please you.

So ladies, remember to be kind to the the sock-blind. They DO love you. In fact, they'll go to any lengths to show you. All you have to do is let them.

Fat Chance

CVS Pharmacy recently announced their plan to penalize employees who have a higher BMI than they deem acceptable. At the same time their own diversity policy states:

"We celebrate differences in age, gender, family status, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, appearance, thought and mannerisms." 

Their argument is that overweight employees incur higher health care costs, and that it's unfair for others to have to share the burden of those costs. Why should folks who eat organic foods and work out every day have to pay for their couch potato colleagues when the 'taters have a heart attack? Other companies have imposed similar fines on smoking employees citing similar logic.

The truth is, if this was really about fairness CVS' policy would have to include people with high blood pressure, whether they're overweight or not. And what about people with arthritis or kidney disease or congenital heart issues? They'd certainly have to impose a pretty steep fine on homosexuals since they are at far higher risk of contracting AIDS and other costly illnesses.

By the way, if we're looking at risk of possible future health care costs we'd also need to include people who ski or mountain bike or skydive or run marathons. Really, anyone who is not currently sick or injured but who has a high likelihood of becoming sick or injured due to activities they engaged in.

Wait a minute . . . isn't that the inherent definition of insurance?  Isn't insurance a form of risk management used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss? Do we know that an overweight person will become sick? Do we know that a marathon runner will develop shin splints or a sprained ankle? Of course not! These are uncertain losses, risks we have agreed to collectively share in the event of illness or injury.

A policy like this institutionalizes intolerance, while expecting us to swallow that it's in the name of fairness.

At the end of the day, a company which cares so little for the privacy and dignity of its employees cannot be trusted to care for the privacy and dignity of its customers. CVS has every right to do what they want with their own business. Likewise, I have the right to drive past CVS and travel the extra mile down the road to Walgreens, which is exactly what I'll be doing from now on.

Open Sesame

If the eyes are the windows to the soul . . . where's the door?

Recently a friend asked for my advice about a guy she was dating. We had a great discussion about the distinction between "fun to be with" and "good", and how one actually has nothing to do with the other. Ideally our friends are both fun to be with AND good people. We're smart to expect both - but we're fools if we don't understand the difference between the two.

If you ask most people why they're friends with someone they'll say things like, "We have a lot in common", "We have fun together", or "He has a great sense of humor". These are all important aspects of friendship. That's why it seems natural to superimpose the same criteria onto a romantic relationship. After all, shouldn't your boyfriend, girlfriend or spouse be your best friend? Absolutely! But that's not ALL he or she needs to be. Above all, a spouse has to also have good character. Fun is NECESSARY but not SUFFICIENT to a happy and lasting bond.

This is why it's so important to recognize the difference between Fun To Be With and Good, and to understand that the two are utterly unrelated. The fact that he's fun tells you as much about a guy's character as his shirt size.

All this begs the question, "Well then how can I know a person's character?" Start paying close attention to Character Markers. These are traits that reveal themselves when a person has nothing to gain - and perhaps even something to lose, even if it's just his pride. One of my favorite quotes is, "Your Character is Who You Are When No One's Looking." Here are some examples of Character Markers that open the door into a person's soul so you can have a look at his true character (I'm using "him" but of course the same goes for "her"):

• When you go out to eat, does he treat the wait staff with courtesy and respect? 

• Does he call his Mom regularly, even when his Mom rattles on for hours about her sciatica? 

• Does he take responsibility for himself or does he blame others for his mood? 

• Is he kind to strangers? 

• Does he admit it when he's wrong, and honestly try to make things right? 

• Does he bash his ex, or does he take his share of responsibility for his last breakup? (remember, this is how he'll be talking about you someday if the relationship doesn't work out) 

• Does he treat you with respect even when you're in the middle of a fight?

These are just a few, but you get the idea. Life is a series of challenges. No matter who you are or where you live, only one thing is certain. You will experience loss, pain and hardship. Those are the times you'll be the most grateful to have someone of good character alongside you in the foxhole. And that - not how fun the person is during the good times - will determine the strength of your relationship. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking fun in the foxhole. Nothing beats a good laugh when the going gets rough! Just be aware that fun is not enough on its own. Without character it won't go the distance.

So if you're considering getting serious with someone, be sure to open the door to their character so you can catch a glimpse of who they really are, especially in those quiet moments when no one's looking.

Running Out of Esteem

There are very few absolutes when it comes to children. But having had three of them I can say with some authority that there are a few universal truths, and that these are among them:

A. Junior High and High School can be a very tough time.
B. Self esteem is a huge issue as evidenced by recent, tragic tales of teen suicide which many schools around the country have attributed to bullying.
C. Teens - particularly girl teens - are painfully sensitive about their weight.

Would it be fair to say that someone who publicly calls a young teen "obese" could be characterized as among the cruelest of bullies? It would be hard for an honest person to disagree.

How is it then that public schools around the country can get away with doing just that? Weighing and measuring children, then sending home a "fat note" if Susie is a little too round for the State's liking?

And wait a minute . . . aren't these the very same schools that ban soccer scoring, lest the losing - (shhh) team suffer damage to their self esteem? Come to think of it, these are also the schools that have multiple valedictorians because, well, we wouldn't want anyone to feel left out, would we?

Is anyone else having a hard time reconciling the actual policies of the Left with their oft-billed traits of compassion, tolerance and kindness? I'm not seeing much compassion for people who are chubby; or tolerance for Christians who want to post scriptures in their offices; or kindness toward people who choose to smoke. In reality the far Left has become the party of force, intolerance and cruelty aimed at anyone who doesn't' embrace their dogma.

Either they care about children's self esteem, or they don't. All I know is, there's not much I can think of that would crush a child's self image more effectively than labeling them fat. Looks an awful lot like just another government policy that's sold as "For the good of the children". Huh. Where have we heard that line before? . . .

Imagine what the world would be like if society spent as much time teaching children to be good as they do teaching them to be recycling, vegetarian, Prius-driving, globally-aware, religiously neutral, politically acceptable Citizens of the State.

Whether you're Left, or Right, or Tea-bag Middle; let's all just agree to be a bit kinder and gentler with each other. Especially our children. And let us never forget that it's good children, not skinny ones, who are our best hope for the future.

The Christian and The Straw Man

Someone engaged me in a dialogue this week that I thought was worth sharing. This person is a thoughtful, kind woman who was talking about how we as Christians are in constant battle against our own "dark urges", which range from simple every-day things like jealousy or laziness, to more insidious urges like gambling or adultery. In fact, it was her point that everyone has them, and that being a Christian meant a lifetime of daily battle with those "less holy" aspects of our natures.

She was pondering the question of "Is homosexuality wrong?" She clearly had no bias against gay people and in fact ended her thoughts with, “In the Bible, it's wrong ... however I know so many nice, good people who are gay."

It was the “however” that rang my logic-alarm.

Of course there are many nice, “good” people who are gay. There are also horrible people who are gay. Their sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with how good or nice they are! To say, “I know many perfectly wonderful people who are gay" is nice to know, but utterly irrelevant. That gay people are awful human beings was never the claim! It’s a classic straw man fallacy. One may as well say, “I know plenty of gay people who wear a size 8 shoe.”

So what is the “real” question, and how does the thoughtful Christian answer it? The real question is: "Is homosexuality one of many dark human urges that Christianity insists we battle, or is it simply one of many human traits – like hair color or height – that have no inherent moral value?"

The honest answer of a secularist might be, “Homosexuality is not a dark urge. It is just the way some people were born. We don't blame people for being tall or short or fat or thin, why should we hold someone accountable for being gay?"

I might then agree or disagree with that person, but at least they would be responding intelligently to the argument at hand, rather than knocking over a cheap straw man.

Another common misnomer is that because something is “natural”, or because you’re “born that way”, it is inherently good. There are many things we’re born with that we are called upon to battle every day in the name of decency. It could be an aggressive nature. Or crippling shyness. Or a speech impediment. Or a propensity toward alcoholism. We are certainly not encouraged to celebrate these things just because we were born that way!  Whether homosexuality falls into this category we honestly don't know, but it's not valid to assume that because a trait is natural it is to be celebrated.

It's very likely that the Christian and the Secularist will never come together on this particular issue. But my hope is that as we continue to discuss and debate these difficult issues we do so with deference and respect.

Sadly many people prefer the straw man because it enables them to engage in ad hominem attacks; “Christians are intolerant”, or “You just hate gay people”, or "You're a bigot" - like a petulant child the offender shouts out insults, shuts down the discussion and walks away fraudulently claiming victory.

I guess in the end we all just have to demonstrate the courage of our convictions while maintaining respect for peacefully opposing viewpoints. It is, after all,  the Christian thing to do.

A Soldier’s Profile

I post this story every year for Memorial and Veterans Day, in honor of my wonderful son Kevin. I am happy to report that he is home now for good and is pursuing a successful civilian career. This was written in 2006 while Kevin was fighting in Ramadi, at the height of the conflict there. A prominent politician at the time had made a derogatory remark about the type of person who joins the military. I wrote this not only to speak for Kevin, but in honor of the men and women who never came home like he did, so full of the promise of a life yet lived.

It’s hard being the mother of a soldier. There are all the obvious reasons: you never know whether your child is safe; and if he is, for how long. You worry about how the stress and trauma will affect this marvelous person you kissed goodbye at the airport, and if he’ll ever be the same. Most of all, you worry about whether he’ll remember how much you love him.

But by far, the hardest thing is hearing casual stereotypes being thrown around about what kind of people our soldiers are. Most often they are subtle, passing remarks which reveal an attitude or impression about the men and women in uniform. If you will forgive the source and look past the “pedestal syndrome” so inevitable when a mother talks about her son, I would like to tell you a little bit about my son Kevin in the hopes that you come away with a more thoughtful impression of exactly who the American Soldier is.

Kevin has always been an extraordinary person. When he was four he cried himself to sleep because his baby sister had had her vaccinations that day, and it so bothered him to see her in pain that he begged me through his tears to let him take them for her next time. Throughout his life, nothing bothered Kevin more than seeing people mistreated, whether it was the handicapped kid on the playground or the victim of a crime. His childhood was very typical, and I’d like to think happy. He was active in sports and had a very full social life – sometimes a bit too full! The first day of Junior High School Kevin declared, “By the end of the year, I’m going to know every single student’s name.” I’m not sure if his goal was ever reached, but Kev would think nothing of walking up to someone he didn’t know, stretching out his hand, and introducing himself.

In high school, Kevin was very active in sports and music. Around his sophomore year, he had to make a choice between the two because it became impossible to commit to both. It was a difficult decision because he so loved sports. But ultimately he chose music, thinking it would be something he could enjoy well into adulthood. He went on to earn a prestigious spot with the Pacific Symphony Youth Orchestra in California and played with them for a season or two. The highlight of his musical “career” was placement with the 2000 Olympic Band, which performed during the opening ceremonies at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia. Kevin told us that performing for 100,000 people live was an unbelievable experience, but that most of all he enjoyed staying with his host family and learning about the people and culture of Australia (years later Kevin would return as a professional skydiver, his love of 'down under' had made such an impression).

Like every High School Junior, Kevin began to seriously contemplate what he was going to do with his future. One of Kevin’s biggest strengths – and most maddening challenges – was that he was passionately interested in so many things. He had thoughts of becoming an engineer like his grandfather and uncle; a veterinarian; and my personal favorite, an Imagineer for Disney! This at once excited and frustrated Kevin. His father and I counseled him to relax a bit, begin college undeclared, and see what interested him once he was there. But Kevin has always been unusually driven by purpose and direction so having too many choices (normally a great problem to have!) was very hard on him.

One day, out of the blue (if there is a stronger word for “where on EARTH did this come from?” insert it here) Kevin came home and told us he’d been talking to an Army recruiter. This was very shortly after 9/11. I say this was out of the blue because we were not a military family, and had no first-hand knowledge of what this was all about. Thinking it was nothing more than a fascination with something he hadn’t explored before, my husband and I nodded our heads with an “uh huh – that’s interesting” sort of dismissal. A few weeks later Kevin declared that he was actually seriously thinking of joining the Army. He had done his research and had chosen the Army because of the sheer number of job choices he would have. He had taken the evaluation exam and had scored so high that he literally qualified for any job that was open. He became the proverbial kid in a candy store, exploring all of his options.

In the end, Kevin decided to forego the more glamorous choices and “get his boots dirty”. He wanted to earn his way up the ranks and feel like he was making a tangible difference in defending his country. So, our beautiful son – the intelligent, sensitive boy with a future in music or whatever he wanted – joined the Infantry. You can only imagine the shock! One thing with Kevin though; we could always be 100% confident that the decisions he made were made for the right reasons, whether or not they were the ones we would have made for him. Because of the kind of young man he had become, we had no choice but to admire and trust his decision and support him all the way.

I watched with sadness and quiet pride as Kevin was mercilessly persecuted for the choice he had made, all the time holding his head high and being respectful to those who differed. At that time, Kevin attended a high school in California where joining the military was tantamount to career suicide and a breach of the unspoken but very real “Harvard-or-bust” expectation. Even faculty members belittled his decision to join the military. 

The overt patriotism of post 9/11 had died down in California and was replaced with open condescension toward the military. One prominent politician even went on record in October 2006 saying that the military was "for college dropouts with no other options." Ironically, Kevin went on to receive the largest scholarship award in his graduating class of 500 students - then began his travels around the world to experience first-hand what others could only read about in books.

For the next four years, while his friends were at Harvard and other universities around the country Kevin served two terms in the Middle East and lived, worked and played in every European country imaginable. His newest hobby became photography, and he enjoyed many photo trips to the most beautiful churches and buildings in the world. At work, he was consistently commended for extraordinary courage and honor. He has literally, personally, saved many lives – one time jumping into a moving Bradley to stop it from colliding with several people at the bottom of a hill. He has alternately had the best time of his life, meeting people from all over the world, learning about culture, people and politics – and the most horrible.

Kevin’s friends have literally died in his arms. These were people Kev lived with, worked with and socialized with. These were his brothers.

People throw around the word “sacrifice” very freely. Just stop and think about the kind of sacrifice these men and women make every single day. They live in nightmarish conditions of extreme heat, bone-snapping cold, violent windstorms, dirt, disease, and misery. They have to work hard to conjure up thoughts of comfort, home and the people they love. And they live every day with the real knowledge that their brothers and sisters in combat, and they themselves, could die at any time.

I am stunned at the capacity of these very young people to fully internalize the risks they are taking. Yes, they are brave and strong, and on some level invincible. But they are also old, and wise, and know the score. These are men and women of purpose, who have devoted their lives to something they believe is right and good and true.

No matter your political or philosophical position, the story of the American Soldier is unchanged. If your son believed a bullet was going to hit you and jumped in front of it, would the character of that young man be any different if the gun turned out to be unloaded? The men and women serving us are literally living through hell itself because they believe that a bullet is headed our way and they have voluntarily stepped between it and us. Where else in society can this type of selfless courage be found?

These are not rag-tag, dead-end kids who had no other option than to join the military. These are our sons and daughters who live and love and believe in the dream that is America. They are smart, capable, talented, ambitious, driven people who – despite all stigmas – are the very best and brightest of us. So please, honor them. Pray for them. Admire them. And see them for who and what they really are.

Cause for Celebration?

Three high school students in California were sent home this week for wearing t-shirts sporting the American flag on Cinco de Mayo. School officials were quoted as saying the shirts were "incendiary".

Since Progressivism is all about equality and fairness I thought I'd help the school board by publishing a list of dates for other countries' independence days. This way the school can enforce the rule equally and ban apparel showing any flag other than that of the country who is celebrating its national holiday on that day. Hmm, this may cause an issue since some countries share the same independence day. Maybe they can allow one flag to be shown before lunch and the other after lunch, or maybe they can alternate years to keep it fair.

America is, after all, the great melting pot. It's fair to assume that every last one of these countries is represented in some public high school or another in America. If you don't allow the American flag to be displayed on Cinco de Mayo in deference to the Mexican student population, you should naturally extend the same courtesy to all immigrant populations, shouldn't you?

Oh and by the way, don't forget to send home students wearing any national flag other than that of the U.S.A. on July 4.

01/01/09 Brunei, Haiti, Sudan
01/04/10 Myanmar
02/04/10 Sri Lanka
02/07/10 Grenada
02/11/10 Iran, Vatican City
02/12/10 Chile
02/15/10 Serbia
02/16/10 Lithuania
02/18/10 The Gambia
02/24/10 Estonia
02/25/10 Kuwait
02/27/10 Dominican Republic
03/01/10 Bosnia & Herzegovina
03/06/10 Ghana
03/12/10 Mauritius
03/20/10 Tunisia
03/21/10 Namibia
03/25/10 Greece
03/26/10 Bangladesh
04/15/10 Ireland
04/18/10 Zimbabwe
04/27/10 Sierra Leone, Togo
05/05/10 Mexico, Netherlands
05/09/10 Romania
05/14/10 Isreal
05/15/10 Paraguay
05/17/10 Norway
05/20/10 Cuba, East Timor
05/21/10 Montenegro
05/24/10 Eritrea
05/25/10 Jordan
05/26/10 Georgia, Guyana
06/01/10 Samoa
06/04/10 Tonga
06/12/10 Phillippines, Russia
06/17/10 Iceland
06/25/10 Mozambique
06/26/10 Madagascar
06/27/10 Djibouti
06/29/10 Seychelles
06/30/10 Democratic Republic of the Congo
07/01/10 Burundi, Rwanda
07/03/10 Belarus
07/05/10 Algeria, Cape Verde, Venezuela
07/06/10 Malawi
07/07/10 Solo,on Islands
07/09/10 Argentina
07/10/10 Bahamas
07/12/10 Sao Tome & Principe
07/17/10 Slovakia
07/20/10 Colombia
07/21/10 Belgium
07/26/10 Leberia, Maldives
07/28/10 Peru
07/30/10 Vanuatu
08/01/10 Benin, Switzerland
08/03/10 Niger
08/05/10 Burkina Faso
08/06/10 Bolivia, Jamaica
08/07/10 Cote D'lvoire
08/09/10 Singapore
08/10/10 Ecuador
08/11/10 Chad
08/13/10 Central African Republic
08/14/10 Pakistan
08/15/10 India, South Korea
08/17/10 Indonesia
08/19/10 Afghanistan
08/24/10 Ukraine
08/25/10 Uraguay
08/27/10 Moldova
08/31/10 Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Trinidad
09/01/10 Uzbekistan
09/02/10 Vietnam
09/06/10 Swaziland
09/07/10 Brazil
09/08/10 Macedonia
09/09/10 North Korea, Tajikistan
09/15/10 Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua
09/16/10 Papua New Guinea
09/19/10 Saint Kitts & Nevis
09/21/10 Armenia, Belize, Malta
09/22/10 Bulgaria, Mali
09/30/10 Abkhazia, Botswana
10/01/10 Cyprus, Nigeria
10/02/10 Guinea
10/04/10 Lesotho
10/08/10 Croatia
10/10/10 Fiji
10/18/10 Azerbaijan
10/24/10 Zambia
10/26/10 Austria
10/27/10 Turkmenistan
10/28/10 Czech Republic
10/29/10 Turkey
11/01/10 Antigua and Barbuda
11/03/10 Dominica, Panama
11/09/10 Cambodia
11/11/10 Angola, Poland
11/18/10 Latvia, Morocco
11/22/10 Lebanon
11/25/10 Suriname
11/26/10 Mongolia
11/28/10 Albania
11/30/10 Barbados, Yemen
12/01/10 Portugal
12/02/10 United Arab Emirates
12/06/10 Finland
12/09/10 Tanzania
12/11/10 South Africa
12/12/10 Kenya
12/16/10 Bahrain, Kazakhstan
12/18/10 Qatar
12/24/10 Libya
12/26/10 Slovenia

Candy Bars, Cigarettes and Church

This was a full news week. But the story that stood out to me was the "Happy Meal toy ban" issue. We've been going there for a long time now - beginning with the tobacco ban and the vilification of smokers. To have the government legislate personal behavior and morality is beyond offensive. It's tyrannical.

Naturally it was only a matter of time before fast-food was targeted. The "logic" goes like this:

1. We have a huge problem in this society - childhood obesity.
2. Childhood obesity is caused by poor eating habits.
3. Poor eating habits cost us billions in health care each year, making it "everyone's" problem.
4. Since the problem affects every American, the government must do something about it.

Therefore we will legislate eating habits and "force" people to eat more healthily.

It works for smoking, too:

1. We have a huge problem in this society - heart-and lung disease.
2. Many of these illnesses are caused by smoking.
3. Smokers cost billions in health care due to smoking-related illnesses. This impacts every American.
4. Because of the cost to society the government must step in and do something about it.

Therefore we will legislate anti-smoking behavior through bans, high taxes, higher health premiums, etc. and "force" people to quit smoking.

One can go down this road with any number of things that are controlled today by our federal government; including how much water we can use in the shower, what type of light bulbs we need to use, what type of paint we must use in our homes . . . the list goes on and on and on and on.

Can it be denied that every single one of these intrusive initiatives comes from the left? I want you to imagine for a moment what the equivalent right-leaning legislation would look like. And if anyone wishes to challenge the analogy go ahead, but I think it's pretty sound. It goes like this:

1. We have a huge problem in society - crime; theft, fraud, assault, robbery, rape, murder and the like.
2. Crime is caused by immoral behavior.
3. This immoral behavior costs our country billions of dollars each year in damages, law enforcement expenses, soaring insurance costs and so on.
4. Since crime clearly impacts every single one of us, government must step in and do something about it.

Therefore we will legislate moral behavior by forcing every citizen to attend church every Sunday.

I would be the first one in line to oppose the government forcing people by threat of fine or imprisonment to attend church every Sunday. So why are obesity and smoking legislation any less egregious?

I'll go a step further. Arguably (actual not, but I'm being generous) immorality is the "disease" from which all other societal problems come. Theoretically, if every single American followed the ten commandments to a tee, healthcare costs would plummet due to the obsolescence of fraud, malpractice insurance and frivolous lawsuits. Police forces would all but disappear. Employment law would be unnecessary. Affirmative action would go away. In fact, lawyers would become extinct. *sigh*, a person can dream . . .

The argument will be: "Not everyone who was forced to attend church would actually follow the Commandments." EXACTLY RIGHT! Just as not everyone who is denied a Happy Meal will go home and eat Kashi. Government cannot legislate behavior. It not only doesn't work, whenever and wherever it's been tried it has led to more tyranny, cruelty, megalomania and mass murder than all the religions of the world combined.

Has ANYONE read our constitution lately? Our brilliant founding fathers knew that like it or not, human nature seeks power and control. They knew that unharnessed governments inevitably lead to tyranny. That's why the constitution specifically outlines what our government cannot do. It is purely a document of limits. People call Republicans the "party of No". For some reason the Republican establishment defends against that claim as if it were a bad thing. The constitution is a "document of No". Darn right we're the party of No! That should be the party tagline, loud and proud. No more micro-managing our lives. No more legislating behavior. No more choking regulations on the nation's employers. No more crippling taxes.

If you think the constitution is obsolete, that's a different debate. But as long as we are a nation of laws - beginning with those restricting our own government - we must uphold them diligently as they are the hinge upon which our freedoms depend.

I caution my friends on the left to think beyond what they want on any given day. If you give power to this government to dictate what you eat or whether you smoke, you're giving the exact same power to the next administration - who may just want you to go to church.

Hot Topic

I have no special knowledge of science - I think I got a "C" in college Biology. So please don't mistake this blog as some sort of expert commentary on Global Warming. Oops, sorry - Climate Change.

Without any special knowledge of Geology, Astronomy, Meteorology, or any other -ology, here's where my garden variety common sense leads me.

The earth is over 2/3 ocean, right? Of the 1/3 that is land, most is uninhabitable. Of the land that is inhabitable only a fraction of that is actually populated by human beings (most estimates fall between 4 and 10 percent of the earth's surface). 

 

Now of that small number, a tiny minority constitutes "developed countries" - those who consume plastic goods, use hairspray, and drive SUV's. It seems to me that if that itty bitty speck of humanity proactively tried their best to affect the earth's ecosystem - well - I don't understand how that could be possible. Especially in the relatively short time that we've even existed, let alone been consumers of fluorocarbons and gas-guzzling vehicles. How could we possibly offset the power of all the ancient, immense forces of the universe - including the massive star at the center of our solar system that has a surface temperature of about 5,510 °C, which adheres to rhythms and seasons of its own? Again, garden-variety common sense tells me that this massive, fiery ball has a heck of a lot more to say about the temperature trends of our planet than who drives a Ford Escalade or uses Suave hairspray. 

 

I'm not saying it's impossible that we few, tiny creatures are taking on these forces of God and nature and winning; but when something defies common sense to such a staggering degree the burden of proof becomes that much higher, and I'm just not seeing it. In fact it seems that whenever someone raises these questions, rather than receiving an intelligent response they are met with vicious ad hominem attacks and immediate ejection from the public square.

Thinking through this has led me to the epiphany that it's not "saving the planet" that's the agenda of most environmentalists. If it were, reaction to the recent debunking of the global warming data would have been met with celebration in the streets: "This is the best possible news! After all the frightening predictions it turns out that industrialized nations are in fact not destroying the planet!" They'd get to work filling children's heads with hope and inspiration instead of fear and dread. The fact that these groups are willfully ignoring the data and doubling down with religious fervor tells me it's about something else entirely. Whether it's that people need something to believe in and feel pious about, or that Eco-business has just become too big to fail, I don't know. What I do know is that truth nearly always (save quantum mechanics) aligns with good common sense. If it doesn't, the rational response is to question the narrative.

Perhaps Carl Sagan said it best:

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge - even to ourselves - that we've been so credulous. So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise."

History really does seem to repeat itself, doesn't it?