Of beaches and bikinis

I tried to post the following as a comment to an article on someone's blog, but I kept getting an error message. Since I didn't want to waste my rant, I'm posting it here.

You know it's summer when article after article appears about "the bikini question". Not to insult the author, but this article is really no different than the hundreds, if not thousands, of others already out there.

Let me get to the point. If the author truly wanted to "sacrifice" for men easily drawn to lust [by wearing a cute tankini instead of a bikini] she should stay home and pray that they would have the sense to do the same. Because that's the solution I've never seen addressed in an article. I'll be so bold as to say it here:

DUDES! If you are so easily tempted by the sight of a woman in a bikini, DON'T GO TO PLACES WHERE YOU MIGHT SEE ONE! Don't go to the beach, or to swimming pools. Don't watch TV. Stay off the Internet. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

Chocolate cake analogy [several commenters used the analogy of someone following you around, offering you tempting chocolate cake]: since I don't want to eat chocolate cake, when my willpower was weak, I avoided places a chocolate cake was likely to be. Why torment myself? Now I've been without it for so long, and have such compelling reasons to avoid it, that it doesn't bother me if everyone around me is eating some. It would bother me if someone followed me around offering me a slice all the time, because I'm creeped out and annoyed by coercive people who disregard my "no thank you". (So, ladies, even if you are wearing a burka at the beach, don't follow guys around offering yourself to them when they don't want what you're offering. Respect their boundaries. Take a hint: the lack of an enthusiastic "yes!" should be taken as a "no".) At the same time that I am no longer overly tempted by chocolate cake, I see no reason to hang around bakeries, checking out what chocolate cake might be there. What's the point?

I can hear the menfolk whining about the unfairness of staying home so the women can wear what they want. I can hear the mothers complaining, "Are you saying I can't take my boys swimming or to the beach?" Let me put it this way. I have five sons, ages 16 - 27. There is no way that I would ever knowingly expose them to a temptation they are not spiritually mature enough to handle. I don't expect the world to arrange itself to be less tempting to my sons or to me. To use an old cliche, if we can't take the heat, we stay out of the kitchen.

If the sight of anything — chocolate cake, an athletic man in a speedo, your neighbor's new sports car, the latest cool techno-gadget from Apple, a scantily clad woman — whatever it might be, if you are easily provoked to sins of covetousness and lust, do whatever it takes to avoid the temptation! Jesus had some pretty extreme things to say about avoiding sin. He went so far as to talk about gouging out your eyes. What he didn't say is to tell your girlfriend how to dress or to blame other people for "stumbling" you. It's not what goes into you that defiles you, whether it's food or the sight of a body you find sexually attractive. It's what is already inside you, and inside me. We are responsible for our own lust and covetousness.

Yes, this article was written to the women. As are so many countless others repeating the same tired old theme. I guess I had hoped, because someone I know linked to this one, that it was something a bit better than same old, same old. Sigh...

My lucky 3 readers get more of my ranting:

You know what else? As an "older woman", I'm just about ready to start teaching me some of these young bloggerettes! Which is my funny way of saying that someone needs to take some of these young women to task for their pride. I mean, I'm all for healthy body image and all that, but that hardly means you have to jump on the Internet and brag about how men everywhere would be driven to lust at the mere sight of you if you weren't so loving, godly, and sacrificial as to clothe yourself modestly. I knew a woman who used to ask, whenever another woman online bragged about how her modesty kept men from stumbling, "Really? You're that hot? That tempting? Men can't help wanting you — they are driven to sin — by a glimpse of too much of you? Wow." Then we'd hear some hasty "I'm really not prideful or vain" comments about how God created all women to be beautiful, alluring, blah blah blah. Yeah, right. If we are all physically "beautiful", that renders the word meaningless. ("Darling, you look beautiful!" "Well, duh, all women do!" "No, I mean it." "I'd hope you think I look like a woman, since I am one." "Of course you look like a woman, dear — a beautiful woman." "Isn't that redundant? And I'm getting kinda tired of you constantly telling me I look like a woman! So what?")

Maybe beaches have changed since my beach days, and now they only allow women to wear bikinis if they look sexy in them — but back in the day, guys I hung around with admitted that most of the women and girls in bikinis were not that appealing and often more of a turn-off than a turn-on. It reminds me about my long-ago joke about speedos: men should not wear speedos lest they stumble me. Either I'll stumble over my own feet because I'm looking at the guy and thinking, "Whoa! That dude looks good in his speedo!" or I'll stumble because I'm gagging, "What possessed that guy to go out in public like that? Ugh! Dude, cover up! We're all about to lose our lunch!" (It seems like, back in the day, average guys in America didn't wear speedos.)

The other thing I find silly in these articles is that the young "I respect men too much to stumble them with my sexiness!" authors will hasten to tell us, in case we were worried, that their modest attire is still "attractive". Because heaven forbid this young lady lose her ability to attract the guys! Supposedly now her bathing suit attracts a better sort of guy, who is drawn to her personality and mind. Because, you know, men are able to discern that just by how we are dressed. ("Oh, her bikini just sucked me into its lust vortex, so she must be slutty. But that other woman is wearing a tankini and I am suddenly attracted to her sweet, fun-loving, wholesome personality and her interest in philosophy, because I can tell all that just by her bathing suit.") Even more ridiculous is when the author chirps, "Modest is hottest!" At least now we know her real agenda. She wants to be "hotter" than all those other girls! She doesn't want men to lust after her body parts; she wants them to lust after her modesty. Otherwise, if she thought she was such a huge temptation, she really would stay home from the beach.

Protecting our daughters, part 1

Recently I read an article wherein a father told a disturbing story about allowing his daughter to be subjected to continual harassment by a drunk man on a plane. Ironically, even though the father let this man persist in his unacceptable behavior, he actually believes he was protecting his daughter!

The father is Scott Brown. His daughter is Kelly Bradrick. (She was not yet married at the time this took place.) The article appears on the Vision Forum website.

"In 2003, I took my daughter with me on a mission trip to Romania. On the plane, there was a drunken man flirting with her in a very aggressive way. Unfortunately for him, there were 535 pounds of manhood in our party ready to protect her. Believe me, we were exercising much Christian patience with this man who persisted throughout the entire flight. He did not realize that he was facing deadly force, if he persisted. He actually touched her once and was making bold advances. He even continued the pursuit after the plane landed. I am convinced that, if we had not been with her to protect her, she would have been in serious danger." (Read it in context.)

Really? This creep was "facing deadly force, if he persisted"? But this guy DID persist - even after the plane landed - and absolutely nothing happened! Are we really to believe that men who are too cowardly to intervene and protect a woman from such obnoxious behavior are suddenly going to use deadly force? After sitting there passively and allowing his daughter to be mistreated in this way, does Scott Brown honestly think he is capable of manning up if things exceeded even his tolerance? And what were these men patiently waiting for? For the man to get physically violent?

"Unfortunately for him, there were 535 pounds of manhood in our party..." Don't make me laugh. Fortunately for him (from his perspective) these men gave him full permission to persist in his harassment of this young woman. I'm sure he had a wonderful time at Kelly's expense. I can only imagine what sort of awful ordeal the flight was for her.

From this account, I cannot help but conclude the following:

1. Mr. Brown sees no need to protect his daughter from "very aggressive" drunken flirting.

2. He saw nothing wrong with allowing this behavior to continue for the entire flight.

3. He saw no reason to intervene even when this man touched his daughter.

4. His daughter's feelings in this matter were of no concern to him. Can you imagine having to endure this while your father watched passively?

5. It was more important to exercise Christian patience with a man than protect a daughter.

6. He never taught his daughter how to behave in such situations. But, wait - maybe he did: "Exercise Christian patience and do nothing. Let the man's horrible behavior continue without challenge or protest. Here, observe my example."

7. Kelly would have been no less protected if she were traveling alone. She may actually have been safer. Perhaps, in the absence of the passive "manhood" accompanying her, someone else might have intervened - offering to trade seats with her, calling the flight attendant, and/or insisting, "Back off, buddy, and leave the young lady alone!" I know we can't count on being rescued by bystanders; at the same time, in my younger years, I benefitted from men who wouldn't tolerate a woman being treated disrespectfully. In Kelly's case, onlookers must have thought, "Well, if her father is perfectly OK with how she's being treated, why should I jump in?"

The huge irony is that Mr. Brown follows his story with these words:

"Where do we get the idea of protection from the Bible? We could make a long list, but here is a short one. Godly behavior is defined by shepherds who protect their flocks. The strong should support the weak. Women are the weaker vessels. And daughters should be protected by their fathers who are commanded to give 24/7 watch care over their children (Deuteronomy 6:1-9). This is enough for me to be convinced that women should be protected by men."

Let me respond: Please spare young women from your notions of "protection". I can't imagine any man I know allowing me to be treated as your daughter was. And if they did - out of fear perhaps - they would be ashamed. And, if they wrote of it, they would describe it truthfully - not pretending it was an example of the very thing they had so grievously failed to do.



Here are my alternate versions...how I wish things had played out...



Version 1:

In 2003, I took my daughter with me on a mission trip to Romania. On the plane, there was a drunken man flirting with her in a very aggressive way. Unfortunately for him, there were 535 pounds of manhood in our party ready to protect her. Believe me, we were exercising much Christian patience with this man - apparently too much, because an elderly woman seated nearby took matters into her own hands.

"Young man!" she addressed the drunk, even though he was much older than my daughter. "I will not sit back and allow you to treat a young lady in that way. You need to stop immediately or I will ring for the stewardess! Young ladies have the right to travel alone without being molested by strangers!"

I was shamed out of my passivity. Frankly, I'd been afraid to say anything. I didn't want to cause any trouble and I'd been hoping that, if my daughter continued trying to ignore this man's bold advances, he would give up and leave her alone.

"Um..." I said, feeling my face redden, "I'm her father."

"And you see nothing wrong with this man's behavior?" The elderly woman was incredulous. "In my day, fathers protected their daughters!" She then insisted on trading seats with my daughter. The rest of the flight was peaceful...giving me plenty of time to repent and to promise to treat my daughter with far more respect in the future.

Where do we get the idea of protection from the Bible? We could make a long list, but here is a short one. Godly behavior is defined by shepherds who protect their flocks. The strong should support the weak. Women are the weaker vessels. And daughters should be protected by their fathers who are commanded to give 24/7 watch care over their children (Deuteronomy 6:1-9). This is enough for me to be convinced that women should be protected by men.

My failure to protect my daughter on the airplane was without excuse. Thank God for an old-fashioned, elderly woman who taught me by her example.



Version 2:

In 2003, I took my daughter with me on a mission trip to Romania. On the plane, there was a drunken man flirting with her in a very aggressive way. Unfortunately for him, there were 535 pounds of manhood in our party ready to protect her. Even more unfortunately for him, he had no idea who he was dealing with. Kelly turned to face him and said, calmly but firmly, "I will say this once. Leave me alone. Do not speak to me. I am not interested in anything you have to say. Stop harassing me."

He responded with something I will not repeat. Mistake number one. Then he made an even more foolish mistake: he touched my daughter.

We knew what was coming next. Only he had no idea.

She caught his hand. Her hands were moving in a subtle but effective way - we could tell by his gasp of surprise and his grimace - and she kept applying pressure while saying, at twice the volume as before, "DON'T...YOU...DARE...EVER...TOUCH...ME...AGAIN!"

Then she summoned the flight attendant and explained the situation. The man was immediately moved - and this time he was seated by another man.

"You know we were ready to jump in," I assured my daughter.

She grinned. "Yeah, but I had it under control."

"That you did," I agreed.

Sometimes the best way a father can protect his daughter is by making sure she gets excellent self-defense training. Her lessons paid off. So did the hours I let her practice on me. Remembering, I rubbed my wrists, knowing exactly what the drunken man had felt, but I didn't feel sorry for him at all.



Version 3:

In 2003, I took my daughter with me on a mission trip to Romania. On the plane, there was a drunken man flirting with her in a very aggressive way. Unfortunately for him, there were 535 pounds of manhood in our party ready to protect her. We love her too much to allow any man to treat her like that. In addition, we would have intervened even if she had been a complete stranger. But, since she is my daughter, I had zero patience with this man.

"Sir," I said. Once I got his attention, I went on, "That's my daughter. See these other guys here? We are going to make sure you leave her alone."

He sputtered something unrepeatable and I motioned to Kelly to change places with me. Once I was seated next to him, I turned to the drunk and said, "Listen carefully. You have a choice. Either you sit next to me the entire flight or I call the flight attendant and have her find you another seat. After the way you dared speak to my daughter, I think you would be much more comfortable sitting next to anyone but me."

He opted to change seats. I let the flight attendant know why.

Kelly thanked me. Honestly, until she told me how this guy had made her feel, and how much my protection meant to her, I'd been on auto-pilot and my actions seemed like no big deal. Really, all I'd done was trade seats with my daughter and ask some creep to leave her alone. Hardly worth mentioning...but that's not how Kelly saw it.

I learned something that day. It's the simple acts of fatherly protection, the things we do automatically without even thinking, that speak volumes to our daughters. When we are faithful in the little things, they have the confidence to trust us in the big things.




Obviously I prefer happy endings...especially when evil has been thwarted rather than tolerated.

Beauty

Recently one of my Facebook friends made some posts about feminine beauty and how women perceive themselves. If I understood him correctly, he was saddened by the fact that not every woman thinks of herself as physically beautiful, and he had an admittedly romantic notion that each woman should/could find a husband who would affirm our beauty and find us drop-dead gorgeous. We had a bit of a dialogue back and forth, and I've found myself thinking some more about the topic since then.

The truth is that we are not all physically beautiful. If we claim all women are, we render the word "beautiful" absolutely meaningless. By insisting that, no matter what a woman sees in the mirror, it is some sort of tragedy if she does not "feel beautiful", we are making plain women believe they now have two problems: their physical plainness and their inability to conjure up feelings based on wishful thinking or pretense.

Over the years, I've read a few books and articles on dealing with a poor body image. Over and over again, the solution is some variation of, "Look in the mirror, preferrably naked. Admire all your wonderful features and say out loud everything you like about your body. Embrace those extra pounds...remember, real women have curves!"

This ignores and invalidates women who cannot bear to look in the mirror because of hideous scars from trauma, because of deformities, because the sight of their body triggers painful memories and feelings. It ignores those of us lacking in the curve department. But who cares? Apparently we are not real women.

Real women, it seems, are all beautiful. If we don't think we are, we should pretend otherwise and "feel beautiful". If we can't do that -- because we're too realistic and honest, or because what faces us in the mirror is too broken and scarred, or because we are not "womanly" enough -- we are basically invisible, as if we don't exist. We don't matter, and it's our own fault.

On the one hand, we are told that our worth is not determined by our beauty or lack thereof. On the other hand, we are told that we need to "feel beautiful". We are told that, if we are not confident in our beauty, we may never attract a husband and, if married, we will never be able to fully please him sexually. As wives, we are duty bound to be uninhibited and to act as if we were incredibly beautiful and sexy...and then somehow we will convince him.

The underlying message seems to be: It's bad enough if we are not beautiful. It's even worse if we can't pretend otherwise so convincingly that we fool ourselves and almost make people forget our crime of not being beautiful.

Christian books repeat this message. They tell us men NEED (not just want) us to be beautiful, that they need a "beautiful woman to rescue" and that we need to "reveal our beauty".

When you're not beautiful, all of this is like yet another cruel taunting reminder, a slap in the face. "Oh, but all women are beautiful," some men will blithely say...and yet these same men will make disparaging remarks like, "Even an ugly woman can find some guy somewhere if she is confident enough in her beauty and femininity." Don't they see the glaring contradiction there?

It's become somewhat popular in certain Christian circles to bemoan our society's standards of beauty. "Don't fall for the media's false messages!" we are told. We are reminded that we shouldn't feel inadequate and should not compare ourselves to media images of surgically-enhanced and airbrushed professional models and actresses. "That's not real!" we are urged to remember. We are told how tragic it is that, because of these false images and messages, teenage girls are growing up thinking they are worthless because they don't realize how beautiful they are.

At the same time, we are told that our beauty is dangerous and that we need to conceal it carefully lest we cause great damage to our brothers in Christ. Besides, "modest is hottest", so if we really want to be sexually attractive, we should wear modest yet feminine clothes that will make Christian men admire our beauty.

We are told that our value is not determined by what men think of us, yet we are urged, every time we get dressed, to prayerfully consider what every man we might encounter that day might possibly think when he sees us. How we appear to men, how they think and feel about us, is of the utmost importance. We are urged to read books and "study" men so that we can learn exactly how they think. One man might be "stumbled" by this, another by something else, and we need to keep all that in mind. A godly woman, apparently, somehow manages to walk that fine line: she is modestly hot, feminine, confident in her beauty, and appropriately attractive in every way -- yet not too sexually alluring to anyone but her husband.

The real problem is not our culture's standards of beauty. It's not that women are refusing to recognize their own beauty. It's not that women aren't realizing that, if they really want to be "hot", they should dress to appeal to certain conservative Christian men. The problem is that even Christians in America can't get it through their thick heads that a woman's worth has nothing to do with her beauty or lack thereof, or what men think of her, or whether her husband thinks she's gorgeous, or even whether she has a husband.

A woman's worth is determined in exactly the same way as a man's: she is created in the image of God, and that has nothing to do with her appearance. [Yes, I know there are some wackos who teach women were NOT created in the image of God. Read Genesis1: 27. "Man" doesn't always mean just males.]

Our worth as women is determined by God, and he doesn't look at our outward appearance the way shallow humans do. He sees the real us, who we are inside. There is no Scripture that admonishes us to be or feel beautiful. That is all a distraction, a diversion from what really matters to God.

I am as much a child of the King as any male...or as any beautiful woman. There aren't any ugly ducklings in His Kingdom. When He bought me with a price, it wasn't at some discount because of my flaws and blemishes.

When I stand before Him someday, my appearance will not matter. I doubt He will say, "If only you would have had a better body image! If only you had determined to feel beautiful!"

In fact, I prefer to think I will be so hidden in Christ that, for the very first time ever, I will be really beautiful -- because all that anyone will see is Him.

That is what really gives us our worth: Christ's sacrifice on our behalf. The only beauty that really matters -- really and truly matters because it is the only beauty that will last for eternity -- is His.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Rape Prevention

I've been preparing to teach some classes on personal safety and self-defense for young women. As a martial arts and self-defense instructor, I have read my fair share of material on this subject. I can honestly say that the following rape prevention tips, if followed, would be enormously successful, far more so than any other tips I've read.

Please pass them on to everyone you know.





-- Posted from my iPhone

Setting the record straight

As a martial arts and self-defense instructor, I am continually surprised at a number of the myths that people present as facts.

One of the newer myths that some men are attempting to perpetuate, without any sort of proof (because there is none) is that women are just as violent as men, and that women abuse their spouses as often or more often than men do. I just ran across this on the Bayly Blog:

The violence and victims literature tells us women are every bit as violent as men, and lesbian couples are the most violent of all. Even when asked to report on prior heterosexual relationships, lesbians report their present homosexual relationship to be more violent than any prior heterosexual relationship.

No footnotes, of course.

A quick Google search turned up the following:

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1998 and 2002:

• Of the almost 3.5 million violent crimes committed against family members, 49% of these were crimes against spouses.
• 84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
• Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers
• 50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.

  Matthew R. Durose et al., U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 207846, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family Violence Statistics: Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances, at 31-32 (2005), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf

In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime (based on survey of 16,000 participants, equally male and female).

Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, at iii (2000), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm

Sexual Assault According to the National Violence Against Women Survey:

• Women are more likely to be victims of sexual violence than men: 78% of the victims of rape and sexual assault are women and 22% are men.
• Most perpetrators of sexual violence are men. Among acts of sexual violence committed against women since the age of 18, 100% of rapes, 92% of physical assaults, and 97% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men. Sexual violence against men is also mainly male violence: 70% of rapes, 86% of physical assaults, and 65% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men.
• In 8 out of 10 rape cases, the victim knows the perpetrator. Of people who report sexual violence, 64% of women and 16% of men were raped, physically assaulted, or stalked by an intimate partner. This includes a current or former spouse, cohabitating partner, boyfriend/girlfriend, or date.

  Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 183781, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv (2000), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/183781.htm

• Another national survey found that 34% of women were victims of sexual coercion by a husband or intimate partner in their lifetime.
  

  Kathleen C. Basile, Prevalence of Wife Rape and Other Intimate Partner Sexual Coercion in a Nationally Representative Sample of Women, 17 Violence and Victims 511 (2002).

The National Women's Study, a three-year longitudinal study of a national probability sample of 4,008 adult women (2,008 of whom represent a cross section of all adult women and 2,000 of whom are an over sample of younger women between the ages of 18 and 34), found:

• 13% of adult women had been victims of completed rape during their lifetime
• 22% of rape victims were assaulted by someone they had never seen before or did not know well.
• 9% of victims were raped by husbands or ex-husbands.
• 11% were raped by fathers or stepfathers.
• 10% were raped by boyfriends or ex-boyfriends.
• 16% were raped by other relatives.
• 29% were raped by other non-relatives, such as friends and neighbors.

  See Dean G. Kilpatrick et al., Rape in America: A Report to the Nation (1992); Heidi S. Resnick et al., Prevalence of Civilian Trauma and PTSD in a Representative National Sample of Women, 61 J. of Consulting and Clinical Psychol. 984 (1993); Dean G. Kilpatrick et al., A 2-Year Longitudinal Analysis of the Relationship Between Violent Assault and Substance Use in Women, 65 J. of Consulting and Clinical Psychol. 834 (1997); Kilpatrick et al., Rape, Other Violence Against Women, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Critical Issues in Assessing the Adversity-Stress-Psychopathology Relationship, in Adversity, Stress, & Psychopathology 161-176 (Bruce P. Dohrenwend ed., 1998); Dean G. Kilpatrick, Rape and Sexual Assault, Aug. 7, 2006, http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/sa.shtml

11% of lesbians reported violence by their female partner and 15% of gay men who had lived with a male partner reported being victimized by a male partner.

Patricia Tjaden, Symposium on Integrating Responses to Domestic Violence: Extent and Nature of Intimate Partner Violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey, 47 Loy. L. Rev. 41, 54 (2003).

• One survey found that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2% of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 of the opposite- sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime.
  

  Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at 30 (2000), available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm

• 15.4% of same-sex cohabiting men reported being raped, physically assaulted and/or stalked by a male partner, but 10.8% reported such violence by a female partner.
  

  Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at 30 (2000), available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm

Physical Injury and Medical Treatment

• The U.S. Department of Justice reported that 37% of all women who sought care in hospital emergency rooms for violence-related injuries were injured by a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend.
  

  Michael R. Rand, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 156921, Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments, (1997) available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vrithed.txt

• Women are significantly more likely than men to be injured during an assault: 31.5% of female rape victims, compared with 16.1% of male rape victims, reported being injured during their most recent rape, and 39-42% percent of female physical assault victims, compared with 20-25% of male physical assault victims, reported being injured during their most recent physical assault.
  
• 35.6% of the women injured during their most recent rape and 30.2% of the women injured during their most recent physical assault received medical treatment. Approximately 21.5% of male victims of intimate partner physical assaults that resulted in an injury sought medical treatment.
  

  Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 183781, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv (2000) available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/183781.htm; Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv (2000), available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm

Ninety-two percent of women who were physically abused by their partners did not discuss these incidents with their physicians; 57% did not discuss the incidents with anyone. Additionally, in four different studies of survivors of abuse, 70% to 81% of the patients studied reported that they would like their healthcare providers to ask them privately about intimate partner violence.

Panagiota V. Caralis & Regina Musialowski, Women's Experiences with Domestic Violence and Their Attitudes and Expectations Regarding Medical Care of Abuse Victims, 90 S. Med. J. 1075 (1997); Jeanne McCauley et al., Inside 'Pandora's Box': Abused Women's Experiences with Clinicians and Health Services, 13 Archives of Internal Med. 549 (1998); Lawrence S. Friedman et al., Inquiry About Victimization Experiences: A Survey of Patient Preferences and Physician Practices, 152 Archives of Internal Med. (1992); Michael Rodriguez et al., Breaking the Silence: Battered Women's Perspectives on Medical Care, 5 Archives of Fam. Med. 153 (1996).

From: "Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, U.S. Department of Justice, March, 1998"

• Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend each year to 4 million women who are physically abused by their husbands or live-in partners each year.

• While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are 5 to 8 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.

• Violence by an intimate partner accounts for about 21% of violent crime experienced by women and about 2 % of the violence experienced by men.

• 31,260 women were murdered by an intimate from 1976-1996.

• Females accounted for 39% of the hospital emergency department visits for violence-related injuries in 1994 but 84% of the persons treated for injuries inflicted by intimates.

Over 500,00 women are stalked by an intimate partner each year.

5.3 million women are abused each year.

1,232 women are killed each year by an intimate partner.

Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women.

Women are more likely to be attacked by someone they know rather than by a stranger.

[from the American Institute on Domestic Violence]


I have no idea what "violence and victims literature" Tim Bayly is referring to, since he does not actually cite any, but this unnamed "literature" cannot be credible if it contradicts the most reliable sources.

As for the article referenced in the Bayly Blog: What sort of man, instead of calling the police, instead of leaving his wife, would sign "a contract with his wife that entitles her to attack him once a week"? Why not sign a contract that entitling him to live free of attack from her? Why not go to her kung fu sifu and demand that she not be allowed to misuse her martial arts? Something about this story is very fishy indeed...almost as fishy as the unsubstantiated statements Tim Bayly makes about domestic violence.

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

Intimacy? Sex? Same thing? Different?

The Simple Marriage Project posed an interesting question regarding intimacy and sex. Here is what I posted in answer:

My concept of intimacy is a closeness, an emotional bond, a true knowing of one another, a deep friendship that involves openness and vulnerability. This need not at all be sexual. In fact, the people that I am most intimate with are in my extended family.

Unfortunately, many people — and I’ve found that men tend to do this more than women — equate intimacy with sex. I’m reminded of something a friend told me about her marriage. She has felt, for all her marriage, that she is married to a stranger. He is uninterested in sharing any of his deeper thoughts or feelings with her, and he is even less interested in listening to anything she says beyond what is absolutely necessary and said as factually and succinctly as possible. In other words, it’s OK for her to inform him that their child is in some sort of awful crisis, but he doesn’t want to hear that she was up all night crying or that she is tormented with guilt and anguish.

My friend once, in a fit of despair, cried that she wished their marriage was more intimate. Her husband looked at her in complete bewilderment and asked, “You really want to have sex more often? Once a day isn’t enough for you? That’s enough intimacy for me.”

Well, yes, they are an extreme case. But I’ve found that most of my women friends have had to abandon the use of the word “intimacy” with their husbands, since for most men it is simply a code word for intercourse.

Unfortunately, sex — even in a loving, committed marriage — can be a barrier to intimacy. Many men seem to believe that intercourse should act as some sort of magic substitute for any attempt at true intimacy. Why talk, why be vulnerable with one another, why share life’s ups and downs, why bear one another’s burdens when one can simply pretend intercourse is an easy shortcut for all of that?

But! many husbands claim, sex makes me feel more intimate with my wife! Sex leads to intimacy! Hogwash, said another friend of mine. She pointed out to her husband all the ways in which his pre-intercourse and post-intercourse behavior made it clear that the only “intimacy” going on was entirely physical. He had to admit, with chagrin, that he really wasn’t interested in the same level of true intimacy that she was. Physical closeness was enough for him.

Some couples manage to avoid the trap of using intercourse as a bandaid for real problems in the marriage. Others work hard to achieve true intimacy. Yet others find their needs for emotional intimacy with friends and family members, realizing that intimacy is not possible or even wanted in every marriage.

But to equate intimacy with sex? They are very different…even though they can co-exist and overlap in a good marriage…very nicely, in fact. Ideally, sex should be a symbolic act of an intimacy that already exists. But life is usually not always ideal…

Some afterthoughts.....

I have a few friends that question whether or not true and deep intimacy is possible between members of the opposite sex, even husbands and wives. Oh, sure, husbands and wives can share closeness, friendship, a strong emotional bond --- but can they be as intimate as two women friends? As vulnerable with one another? As understanding? As capable of sharing thoughts and feelings? As emotionally close? As willing to share the bad, as well as the good?

When I was a new mother, I craved friendship with other mothers, and I enjoyed a level of intimacy with women that I'd never experienced before. It was a deep fellowship, a sharing of this overwhelming new adventure that had completely captured us. It was to my friends that I was able to admit a few "dark nights of the soul". At one point, I felt that maybe it was wrong for my fairly new friends to know me, the real me, so much better than my husband did, so I attempted to let him know how profound the experience of motherhood was for me.

Unfortunately, we both ended up frustrated. He simply couldn't handle the fact that I was not only and always happy about every aspect of motherhood. He didn't want to hear about sleep deprivation, about the numbing mindlessness of many days, about changing two dozen diapers in just 24 hours. He also didn't want to hear that I sometimes went in just to see my sleeping baby (during those rare moments when he slept) and wept with joy at his beauty. He strongly suggested I needed more time with my women friends. He also wondered if my reaction to motherhood was normal. To him, it was all wacky and disturbing. Couldn't life just return to normal?

At the next park day, the more experienced moms in our group laughed at my tale. They had been there. They had learned to share mostly the sanitized version of motherhood with their husbands, and to come up with a canned, pleasant answer to "What on earth did you do all day?!"

As one mom told me, "Marriage shouldn't be a contest about who had the most stressful day. Let your husband win that one. He will be happier thinking that he is creating a wonderful life for you through his noble sacrifice. He doesn't need your stress on top of his."

Once in a while, I listen to Dr. Laura on the radio while I'm running errands. One of her recurring themes is to remind women that they are married to men, and not to their girlfriends. Hours of talking? Deep sharing? Feelings? The daily minutiae of life? Save it for your girlfriends. Your husband will never be interested in that!

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

In the public eye

Ack! Someday this blog will be less about politics, I promise!

Yesterday I made another trip around the blogosphere, to see what people were writing about Governor Palin. I also read some of the articles in the media, both mainstream and otherwise.

And you know what? I got really excited. Not so much about the politics, but about the tremendous opportunity we, as Christians, have been given to be salt and light before a watching world. Governor Palin has suddenly brought all sorts of issues out in the open, issues that are now being discussed widely, in a more public way than I can ever recall, issues such as:

1. Outside of the pro-life movement, it is shocking news that 80-90% of babies known to have Down syndrome are aborted. The response has been interesting --- I've been amazed to read how many of those who are not opposed to abortion are still very troubled by this.

2. Suddenly the pro-life movement has a different public face. It's not just a bunch of white males who want to keep all women barefoot and in the kitchen.

3. The hypocrisy of many liberals is being exposed. It's not really about choice, after all --- people are more than willing to attack Palin for her choices.

4. We're all forced to face reality: not every women is liberal. Even more shocking, not every feminist is liberal and pro-abortion. You can be feminine, articulate, intelligent and politically conservative.

5. Having a baby with Down syndrome is not a horrible, life-consuming tragedy. It will not ruin your life or your family. Even if angry bloggers refer to your child disdainfully as "that child", and suggest it is unseemly for him to be seen in public, you and your family will love and unashamedly enjoy your special child --- at least that is the testimony that the Palin family lives out, loud and clear. (Other families live this testimony too, of course, but they don't get to do so on TV, in front of the entire nation.)

6. There is nothing shameful or degrading about being an involved mother. You don't have to be a crunch granola Birkenstock earth mama to wear your baby in a sling. Nor does wearing your baby in a sling turn your brain to mush or turn you into a primitivistic marsupial mother. You can be bright, successful, charming, and attractive --- and mother your baby right out there in the open, without apology or shame.

7. Not everyone who has five children is some sort of cross between Ma Kettle and a faceless, downtrodden cult member. Having more than the socially acceptable number of children does not rob you of brain cells, turn you into a boring drudge, or make you spend the rest of your life in shapeless dresses and/or frumpy sweatpants.

Many of us who are conservative Christians, pro-life, and who have dared to have more than 1.8 children could never have dared hope that we would ever have a "poster child for our cause" capture the national attention like Governor Palin has. Whether or not we agree with her politics, whether or not we think women should be vice presidents, we have to agree that she has been a remarkable public advocate and shining testimony on a scale that none of us could ever hope to be.

But there is more. I saved the best for last...

8. Over the past two to three days, I've had the amazing experience of reading in newspapers and hearing on the radio people trying to explain why evangelical Christians are not suddenly dropping Governor Palin like a hot potato after hearing that her teenage daughter is pregnant out of wedlock. And do you know how some of these journalists and commentators --- a number of whom I have no reason to believe are Christians --- are explaining it? With the gospel. Suddenly, people are feeling a need to explain why evangelicals are not shocked about sin, why we take sin so seriously, and why we are so forgiving! It is both deeply moving and, at the same time, amusing, to read/hear people in the secular world actually defending and explaining our beliefs (e.g., "Few people seem to understand what the Christian faith is all about...")

Do you realize what a tremendous opportunity Governor Palin has given us? The opportunity that I believe God has given us through her?

The world is watching. They are watching her. But they are also watching those of us who they believe she represents.

Think of this, fellow bloggers. What is our message to the watching world? Will we join many of them in condemning Governor Palin? Will they discover that our main message to them is angry words about what women can't and shouldn't do? Or will they discover that, as followers of Jesus, as recipients of His saving grace, we are known for being serious about sin and yet forgiving and gracious...the people who rejoice in that truth, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus". Will we be known as those who make love their rule? Will we be known as those who stand for truth? Will our words be so seasoned with grace as to be able to be used of God to win hearts for Him?

Or will we be known as being harsh, strident, judgmental, hateful? Much of the world already thinks that about us. Now, perhaps, we can, prayerfully, try to become better ambassadors and representatives of Jesus Christ.

I write this as much for me as for my fellow bloggers. And yes, I know I fail in this. Constantly.

Most of us cannot capture the attention of a nation. Most of us will never walk in the corridors of power, or have the ear of our nation's leaders --- or even be one of those leaders ourselves. But we can pray for those leaders and for those potential leaders. And we can rejoice in this wonderful window of opportunity, in our much smaller worlds, to echo the messages of grace, forgiveness, the sanctity of life, and the blessings of motherhood.

And we can thank God for the powerful and unexpected way in which He is using Governor Palin's life and testimony. May we be faithful in the little things, in our small arenas, and pray for Palin to be faithful in the big things, in her big arena.

Updated to add:

Here is Governor Palin's testimony of her faith in Christ.

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

We don't lose our minds when we become pregnant

Really, we don't. Even when we sometimes feel that way or possibly even act that way.

Having more than the socially acceptable number of children, contrary to what many might think, did not reduce my IQ to below room temperature.

But you'd never guess that from the way people have treated me and other mothers, especially in light of the ridiculous questions I've been asked. When I announced my pregnancy with Child #4, guess what question I was asked more than any other: "Have you even thought about where you will put this child?"

Come on, our house was small, but not that small. Another mom, much in the same sort of situation, gave me her answer. She would gasp, open her eyes wide in shock, and exclaim as dramatically as possible, "Oh, no! We never even thought of that! Whatever will we do? I guess we'll just have to stick the baby...on the back porch!"

Other questions/statements I've had to endure:

"I suppose you've never given any thought to what you will do if you are ever in an accident or incapacitated."

"Have you considered what you will do if your husband dies?"

"You might want to think about how you and your husband will manage to pay for all these children."

"Have you even thought about finding someone to deliver this baby?" (I kid you not --- I was about two weeks away from my due date, and as hugely pregnant as could be, when I was asked this question.) Despite the fact that I'd chosen the birth attendants long before conception, and was more than fully prepared to have the baby right that minute, I was tempted to give my blankest look and ask, "Huh? Deliver this baby? What do you mean?"

"What are you going to do with your other children after this baby is born? Have you even thought about how you're going to take care of them?"

"I don't think you have any idea of what it's like to try to handle six children." (Said by a father of two, who seemed oblivious to the fact that I had two years of full-time experience handling five children, and about 12 years of full-time mothering experience to his three years of part-time fathering!)

"Have you and your husband ever thought to discuss whether or not a large family is a good idea?"

"Have you even considered, for a moment, whether it's fair to your older children to keep bringing more children into the family?"

"I suppose you've never thought about what it will be like when all these children are teenagers."

Newsflash: Women are not stupid. Mothers are not stupid. We do think about these things. In fact, we tend to think about them far more than our husbands do. We lose sleep over such questions. We spend the "night watch hours" in prayer. We read; we study; we research; we consult trusted advisers; we plan. If anything, we spend too much time on these questions, not too little.

"Does she have any idea what she's going to do with her children once she's vice-president?"

I'm sure she does. After all, she's had a workable plan in place while being governor. Yes, handling six children was more of a challenge than handling five. Yes, being vice president will be more of a challenge than being governor. But I doubt that Governor Palin is a fool or an idiot. I doubt that you know more about combining family with governmental responsibilities than she does. I certainly doubt that you have given more thought to the issue than she has.

She has a husband, a man who is obviously no stranger to holding and tending his baby. That doesn't make him a "mom"; that makes him an involved father. She has experience working with babies in her office --- probably far more experience than you do.

I'm sure she answered that question, with much careful consideration, long before you even knew she was being considered for vice president. In fact, this is what her answer looks like.

Another friend of mine came up with a standard answer to what she termed "I know you're an idiot so I need to ask you" questions: "Don't worry. We already have all sorts of plans and contingency plans in place. I know the idea of this is new and overwhelming for you, but it's old hat for us. Thanks for your concern."

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

Where are the tears for the Obama children?

If I read one more blog commenter going on and on about how he/she weeps for the Palin children, I'm going to be awfully tempted to begin spamming the internet with the following reply:

Have you also been weeping for the Obama children? They have been dragged into the public spotlight. They have had to deal with an absentee father and a mother on the campaign trail. There are no hundreds of heartwarming pictures showing the parents working with their daughters at their sides and in their arms --- because the Obama family does not live this way. These little girls have had to hear that babies are a "punishment" and will no doubt some day wonder if their parents regarded them as punishments as well.

Where were your posts about weeping for them? And, since you haven't been weeping for them, what am I to assume?

1. You don't concern yourself with the children of those who are democrats.
2. You don't concern yourself with the children of those of other races than your own.
3. You don't concern yourself with the children of men who are running for office.
4. You don't concern yourself with the children of those you don't particularly like.
   
5. It's really not about the children. It's about a woman doing something you don't think women should do.
   

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

More silliness on the campaign trail

On this the patriarchal crowd and the ultra-liberals agree: bashing mothers is always fair game, even if one has to be illogical and hypocritical to do so.

On this the patriarchal crowd and the ultra-liberals also agree: no one really cares if a father is a "bad father" or not. Fatherhood is, for the most part, usually not even worth thinking or talking about, especially in light of more "serious concerns".

So today I've learned, from both the patriarchal crowd and the ultra-liberals, that Governor Palin is a bad mom for bringing her family up on the stage with her after her speech. Supposedly she should have left her children at home --- or, at least, she should have left her 17 year old daughter and her youngest child at home.

She did nothing different from what all other candidates for political office have been doing ever since I can remember. Where was the criticism for all these men? Why are they not being accused of being bad dads? You would think the patriarchal crowd, who do like to go on about superior upper body strength making men naturally suitable to be leaders and protectors, would at least wonder aloud why all the male candidates are not protecting their families from the grave harm of appearing on stage at conventions! But, no...it is only mothers who are expected to protect their children and who fail by not doing so.

This "it's harmful for children to receive national attention" idea must be some kind of odd, new-fangled notion. Or maybe the patriarchal crowd was simply too young (or not alive yet?) to raise their strident protests against Jackie Kennedy when she exposed her grieving tots to national scrutiny at her husband's funeral. No one seemed to think that abusive. Can any of us who watched it on TV ever forget the sight of tiny John, in his short suit, saluting his father's casket? I don't recall, then or since, anyone castigating Mrs. Kennedy for being a bad mom that day.

So...why not have at it now? And why stop there? Why not attack all the wives of politicians for being bad moms and allowing their children to be dragged on stage? Why not attack all the pastor's wives for not protecting their children from being used as sermon illustrations or, worse, having to stand at the door of the church and shake everyone's hand in the dreaded pastoral family reception line Sunday after Sunday? (I think I'm seriously dating myself here!) Why not attack all wives of public figures whose children are not being protected from having to appear at public functions, pose for the obligatory family pictures, and serve as props to further their father's professional image?

And the fathers who insist on these things? Why, they get a free ride, of course. Because they are only fathers. And what they do doesn't impact their children as much. What they do as fathers interests us less than their all-important careers and professions.

But let a mother get on our bad side! Why, it's open season!

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

The mark of a true leader?

Note to the humor-impaired. The following is a joke. Really. About the only true thing is the first sentence, and the final quote from the same pastor. But the rest of it is admittedly absurd and meant to be funny. In fact, it reminds me of a joke:

Q. How many patriarchs does it take to replace a light bulb?
A. Only a man-hating, ungodly feminist would think that was funny! Stop your male bashing! It's not funny!! Repent!!!

Recently on the internet, I read the following, written by a pastor: "My own thoughts begin with broad shoulders and superior upper body strength when it comes to God’s gifting for the calling of ruling men."

Realizing that I needed to check this out, I immediately called the pastor who had penned these words. He is a kindly, gentle-spirited man who was more than happy to let me know, as nicely as possible, that it did require broad shoulders and superior upper body strength in order to rule men and that, in fact, this was the obvious sign that God had chosen both men in general and a specific man in particular to lead. This was especially true in the Church. Leaders must be strong, manly men. And, he assured me, he was just that sort of man.

I immediately knew what I had to do. Offspring #3, a strapping young man, is always up for a challenge, especially a physical one. He was more than happy to meet with this pastor. Our appointment was that very afternoon.

It turns out that pastor in question is...well, not exactly slim. If his shoulders are broad, it is only because the rest of him is broad. And wide. And deep. But perhaps, underneath all that, lurked a man of superior upper body strength. We were there to find out.

The first test was push-ups. Pastor Un Trim offered to go first. This proved to be more of a challenge than any of us had foreseen. It was sort of like the equivalent of my attempting to do push-ups with a huge, heavy beach ball attached to my stomach. To be polite, we agreed that perhaps push-ups were not the best test. But my son could not resist having me demonstrate how many I could do.

The pastor was aghast. Trying to maintain his gentle composure, he said kindly, but with gritted teeth, "I'm sure there is a Scripture warning women against doing push-ups that pertain to a man. Besides, as your son said, they really don't prove anything."

So it was on to the bench press. Then the shoulder press. Then arm wrestling. By this time, dear Pastor Un Trim was not only drenched in prespiration and completely exhausted, but he was near tears. Just as my son was suggesting another contest, the pastor weakly sighed, "Uncle."

"Huh?" asked my son.

"You win."

So that's how my thirdborn, at the tender age of 18, became a pastor. It was clear that he possessed the broad shoulders and superior upper body sttrength needed to lead men. All the elders agreed, and they also politely refused to challenge him.

"That must be why," one elder said, "Paul told Timothy not to let others despise his youth. It's hard not to be envious of your strength and youthful vigor."

One of the elders' wives was obviously enjoying all this a bit too much. My son has the bad habit of exercising without his shirt on, and had begun to do so. Everyone watching had put an immediate stop to this, screaming in horror when the pastor began removing his own shirt. Now the elder's wife asked teasingly, "Pastor Un Trim, what was it that you wrote about feminists and chests?"

The dejected pastor quoted himself, "Feminists aren't limited in their rebellion to the commands of Scripture but hate and seek to obliterate even the distinction between man and woman visible on our chests. So sad, really--isn't it?"

"Yes, it is sad," the elder's wife agreed. "And I couldn't help but notice how our new pastor has such a manly chest, but you --- you --- why, you look like a big fat girl! So maybe it's not really the feminists who are trying to obliterate that distinction, huh?"

But all is not lost. Word has it that Pastor Un Trim has been dieting and hitting the gym. In fact, he has challenged my son to a rematch in six months. He figures by then he'll be strong enough to win his pulpit back.

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

What kind of feminist is THAT?!

Normally politics is not my thing. But the Palin nomination, and the response to it, has been so interesting, and so revealing as to attitudes about women, children, families, etc. I just can't help but write about it.

A lot of ultra-conservatives are extremely uncomfortable with Governor Palin. It's bad enough that she is a woman governor. Some of them could almost bring themselves to overlook that. But her real crime is that she is a member of Feminists for Life. Feminists. Yet, it's hard to savage and vilify her for that because...well...she puts to lie their favorite whipping-girl stereotype of feminist.

I'm reminded of the t-shirt, "This is what a feminist looks like".

The angry anti-feminists would rather not admit that a feminist can look like Governor Palin. She's not a man-hating lesbian with short hair stridently shouting about abortion rights. Instead, she is, as one reporter noticed, "pro-baby, pro-guns, and pro-Jesus". She is married. She has five children. She has been widely photographed going about her business with her baby in a sling. She is not shrill or angry. She actually has a sense of humor. And she's feminine, to the point that a popular bumper slogan in her state says "Alaska. Coldest State. Hottest Governor".

Other than working outside the home, she is that fantasy ideal wife for many of the ultra-conservative men. If she were a housewife at a homeschooling convention with Trig in her sling, men would be falling over themselves to hold her up as an example for their wives, and they would be commenting with envy, "Man, her husband is one lucky dude. She's not only pretty and feminine and having babies in her 40's, but she even goes moose hunting. She's the perfect wife."

Those same men simply don't want to admit that this sort of woman could possibly be a feminist. It makes it harder when a feminist looks so much the way you wished your wife did. It makes it harder to scream that all feminists are angry, bitter, ugly women that men would never want anyway, and who now hate all men and want to murder all babies.

"Real women" can be feminists too. I'm reminded of a woman I read about, a self-proclaimed feminist. She may have also been a member of Feminists for Life; I'm not sure, but I do know she was involved in pro-life ministry. She was also pretty and feminine with a fairly large family. In addition, she was a stay-at-home homeschooling mom who loved to cook, sew, and involve herself in stereotypically feminine pursuits. Men liked to argue with her and tell her that she was not a feminist, that she didn't understand what it meant to be a feminist, etc. She had her degree in Feminist Studies and could, of course, argue circles around these men, since she had actually studied feminist literature and was not relying on some pastor's ill-informed anti-feminist rhetoric or on silly stereotypes. She tended to baffle these men.

But it's not just the ultra-conservative men who don't know what to do with someone like Governor Palin. It's the ultra-left as well.

You see, Governor Palin is committing the crime of "doing it all". Worse yet, she's doing it all while wearning Trig in a sling. She's not insisting on the necessity of abortions and child care. She's simply doing what mothers without a socialistic agenda have always done --- working at one's calling while tending one's babies.

No one --- at least not the ultra-conservatives or the ultra-left --- want to admit that this is possible. It makes them angry. It puts to lie their hostile rhetoric. Mothers must stay home! Children get in the way of a woman's career! Babies have no place in the working world! Babies should be rarely seen and certainly not heard! Having a baby with an extra chromosone is a tragedy that will ruin your life or, at the very least, make it impossible for you to do anything else but spend 24 exhausting hours a day completely consumed by your special-needs child! Real women don't work! Real women don't go moose hunting! Real women don't have babies in their 40's! Real women are pro-abortion! Real women don't seek to rule over men! Real women need child care in order to live their lives! Real women never need any household help! Real women...!

Very few want to admit that, yes, Governor Palin is what a feminist looks like. And it's ridiculous to try to claim that she's not a real woman.

Many are much more comfortable with the idea that Hillary Clinton is what a feminist looks like.

The truth of the matter is that feminists are sort of like Baptists in that when you get two together, you have at least three opinions. Unlike Baptists, feminist embrace a much wider variety of beliefs and practices.

So...she may not be the sort of feminist you like to throw darts at. She may not be the sort of feminist that fits your stereotype. She may not be the sort of feminist you are. But she's a feminist. In fact, there are more just like her. Get used to it. Maybe every feminist is not your enemy...or not just like you. Or maybe some are more like you than you're comfortable admitting...it all depends on your perspective.

Time to face the truth, uncomfortable though it may be. Time to let go of the sterotypes...to argue ideas rather than straw women!

Updated to add:

This picture, taken --- to the best of my knowledge --- right before Governor Palin's speech accepting the vice presidential nomination, has been circulating on the internet, sometimes with the caption, "This is what a feminist looks like".


And why are so many uncomfortable with this picture? What does it tell us about what we really think about feminists and, more importantly, what we really think about women, especially mothers?

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

Why do "conservatives" sound so much like feminists?

It's really starting to both annoy and amuse me. In all the hooplah about the Palin nomination (and now the teen pregnancy) coming from the conservative side, I'm noticing something startling: they sound a lot like feminists. Oh, of course, they wouldn't admit it. And they certainly don't sound like feminists when they are saying that Governor Palin should stay home full time, and/or that her daughter's pregnancy is a result of the mother being outside of the home.

How do they sound like feminists?

They really don't act as if the role of the father is at all important. They ignore Governor Palin's husband entirely, unless it is to feel sorry for him for having an "unsubmissive" wife. His presence in the home, or his absence from it, seems to have --- at least based on what they are writing --- no influence on the children at all. Or at least it's not even significant enough to mention. He's not even significant enough to mention.

No one asks, where was the father? No one asks, should he have been more involved in his daughter's life? Could her pregnancy be a sign that he has failed her in some way?

No one asks these questions because...well, despite giving the rare lip service to the contrary, no one really thinks the role of the father is that important in the home. Most complementarians and patriarchalists really don't think that marriage and the raising of children is that tremendously important. Oh, sure, it is very important for women --- for them, it is their highest (and should be only) calling. But men have far more important work, dominion work, grand vision work. Being a husband and father is not a calling. It is something to be done as a sideline, almost like a hobby. Of course, the husband/father had better make sure he is "in charge", but no one really expects a father to make all that significant of a difference. Oh, sure, they'll tell women that they need to get married and that children need fathers, and that everyone needs to submit to the husband/father, but when they place blame for things wrong in the family, it's the wife/mother who gets blamed. That's where the buck almost always seems to stop. The husband/father escapes their notice.

And that's very telling.

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

The two shall become one

And, as the old joke goes, "But which one?"

I believe it is a new one, a one which never existed before. Some say this mystery speaks only of the fact that the married couple has sex. I've written about this elsewhere.

I believe it speaks of unity.

The two become one, and that one is a sum greater than its parts. No one dies; no one disappears. In fact, you become more. You become completed in this other person. In Christ, you become the three-chord strand that is not easily broken.

It's a good thing.

Yes, because we are sinful creatures, there are struggles along the way. Sometimes we want selfishness, power, laziness --- whatever --- over unity. Sometimes our natural inclinations make us seek out friends and advisers who encourage us to set other things ahead of unity. Marriage is not so much about unity, they will say. It's really about who is the boss. It's about a CEO and a plant manager and a bunch of employees-in-training. It's about a commanding officer, an enlisted soldier, and a bunch of raw recruits in boot camp. It's about getting what you want. It's about manipulating your husband into doing whatever you don't want to do, and being all self-righteous about how submissive you are. It's about the fact that men and women are so different that they can't possibly be one in any way other than through sexual intercourse. It's about having babies and little else. It's about the superiority of all males over all females. It's about winning in the culture wars. It's about providing men with an alternative to prostitutes and pornography, with the added benefit of a live-in cook and maid. It's about providing women with a free ticket to easy street, so they'll never have to work at a real job again. It's about me, me, me, and whether I am fulfilled and whether my needs are met and whether my spouse does what I want.

And, if it is about being one, let's make sure that I am THE ONE. I won't see beyond me. When I look at my spouse, all I see is me. It's all about me, me, me, me, me...

You know what? I don't get any of that when I read the Bible and see what it actually says about marriage. I don't read about business plans and military conquests and husbands wielding swords against their wives. I don't read about selfishness becoming sanctified and acceptable in marriage. I don't read that it's suddenly OK to seize authority and to ignore Christ's example of coming to serve rather than to be served. I don't read that passivity and weakness and manipulativeness and guile are wifely virtues.

Instead, I read about unity. I read about love, the sort of love that is described in 1 Corinthians 13. I read about living together in understanding. I read about respect. I read about submission. I read about being one. Not being one person or the other. Being one, both together in unity.

Recently I heard a husband who said that, no, he didn't submit to his wife. He didn't believe that was Biblical. But he did submit to the Lord and to his marriage. Specifically, he submitted himself to maintaining and increasing unity and intimacy with his wife. His wife submitted to him and, since that was his goal for their marriage, she was happy that it was her goal as well. In fact, that is a big factor in why she married him. They both believed that, in unity with Christ and with each other, they could serve Him far better than they could separately.

I've worked in the business world. I really am not looking to pretend to be a plant manager and to have a respectful, professional relationship with the CEO of the company. Because, the truth of the matter is that I know this is, at best, a distant relationship. I never wanted to have sexual relations with any of my bosses. It would have been unseemly and inappropriate and an abuse of his power. So why pretend this is a model for marriage? I don't want a business arrangement. I want a real marriage --- a Biblical marriage. The corporate world holds no appeal for me.

I believe in the order of creation. I take it literally. All six days. I honestly believe that it all happened in just that order. God can set me straight when we get to Heaven, and He can chuckle at my naive simplicity. But, in the meantime, I'll take His Words at face value. I also believe Him when He declared it all good.

That's not all I believe. I also believe that the husband should leave his parents and that he should become one with his wife. For some men, that has meant giving up their dreams, their entitlements, their friends --- all for the sake of unity with their wives. All for the sake of loving their wives as Christ loved the Church, giving up His life for it.

I also believe that God meant what He said when He declared that a man who finds a wife finds what is good, and finds favor with God. And I believe His warnings against husbands dealing treacherously with their wives. And I believe that a man's poor relationship with His wife can directly hinder his prayer life.

There is so much more that I believe...

I also believe that we are to die to ourselves, take up our crosses daily, and live for Christ.

And I believe that there is only one God, and that He is a jealous God.

I believe that, as wives, our desire for our husband can be so strong, so overwhelming, that we are tempted to make an idol of this man. Even though the Bible teaches us to be one with our husbands, it does not teach us to put this unity, this intimacy, ahead of God. God is a jealous God. He does not take kindly to idolatry, whether it is self or another that we worship.

I believe that husbands are tempted to rule over their wives, and that too many of them far prefer this over intimacy and unity. It is safer for them, more comfortable, and gets them what they want. Very few want true servanthood. They especially do not want to serve a woman.

But I believe that Christian marriage is different --- or should be different --- from what so many are stridently claiming marriage should be.

It's so much better. So much better. On the day I was married, I thought my father-in-law sweet but quaint and idealistic when he prayed a prayer over us that included the word "bliss" to describe marriage. Yes, he was sweet. Perhaps a bit quaint and idealistic as well. But not so much as I thought at the time. He knew. He grew into being a good husband. He laid down his own life. He gave much and served much, especially in his later years. He knew. He had experienced that bliss first hand --- the rewards of his obedience to Christ.

May we give up on the world's ideas of marriage, even if they are trumpeted forth loudly and eloquently and convincingly by those claiming to be Christian. May we instead submit to Christ and follow Him in all things, especially in our marriages. May we discover the bliss, the good thing, that God has always intended marriage to be.

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

What is a wife?

OK, I know I'm giving a certain blog way too much space than it deserves on my blog, but I was alerted to an interesting post and discussion over there. And I discovered one of the saddest, most haunting poems I've read in a long time. I'm not sure how the author intended it. If I'd read this poem in any other context, I would have assumed it was an extremely feminist poem, meant to point out what is wrong with the worst of "traditional" marriages. But I have to assume that this woman actually...well, meant what she said, and that she wasn't trying to make a shocking political statement against marriage. Maybe I'm missing something and misinterpreting her words.

So I'm asking my readers (all 5 of you) to read the poem "I Think You Want a Wife" and let me know what you think.

I am not ashamed to say that I do not worship my husband. He would be appalled if I did. He is godly enough not to want to be married to an idolater, even if he would be elevated to idol status.

I did not climb into a casket when I married. I die to Christ, imperfectly, but I do not die to mere mortals. Marriage, despite what the most extreme radical feminists (and Mr. Bayly's daughter-in-law) say, did not rob me of dignity. It did not make me disappear. Marriage has, by the grace of God, made me stronger, not weaker.

It is this bleak picture of marriage that makes some young women afraid to marry. Who wants to be forced to worship someone? Who wants to disappear, to be robbed of dignity, to purposefully weaken oneself, to cease to have any sort of ambition --- and then, in this helpless, hopeless state, to try to undergo the demanding task of raising children to the glory of God?

When I was warned, by a few radical feminists, but even more so by women in the church, that marriage would rob me of my person-hood, I was understandably a bit alarmed. My parents only laughed. "Does your mother seem to have lost her identity?" my father chuckled.

My parents, you see, are truly godly people who love Jesus with a great passion and who immerse themselves in the Word of God...and who live it out, humbly and without fanfare. My father loves my mother far too much to rob her of anything, especially her identity in Christ. He loves Jesus too much to want marriage to be anything less than what God intends it to be. Of course, my parents are human. They fall short. They sin. They would be the first to admit it. But rob each other of worth and dignity? Demand worship? Never.

I discovered that, in my mother's case and in my case, because we married men who attempt to love us in a way that will hopefully reflect Christ's love for the church, we lost nothing upon marriage. Oh, sure, for the last 24 years, I've hardly had what I used to consider a decent night's sleep. I've set aside what used to be my ambitions and dreams. I've done things I never wanted to do. My life has been turned topsy-turvy. But...oh, what I've gained. I've really lost nothing.

It's similar to coming to Christ. New converts are sometimes overwhelmed at what they are asked to "give up". Their focus is all on their dying and renouncing and sacrificing and losing. We are so eager to cram our idea of "take up your cross daily" down their throats that we forget to tell them the whole glorious truth.

We really don't give up anything. Not anything worthwhile anyway. Sure, a lot of garbage and rubbish gets thrown away. Some of it, in our foolishness, we are rather attached to. But, oh what we gain. We go from death to life. We get Jesus.

And sometimes a good marriage is a tiny, imperfect and smudged picture of that. We don't die. We aren't robbed of our dignity. We aren't forced to become idol-worshipers. Life does not become an endless drudgery of standing by someone's side,

"affirming, affirming, affirming, affirming, affirming, affirming
affirming, affirming, adoring, affirming, affirming, affirming"

No, if we marry well, we get a wonderful husband, a lifelong friend and companion, a father to our children, a protector and provider --- and we get a relationship that is full and intimate and life-giving, a relationship that is our haven in the storm. In that marriage, we discover a dignity and identity and purpose and strength that we never thought possible.

We become, with Christ at the center of our marriage, that three-strand cord that is not easily broken. Oh, what we gain.

If only all Christian marriage were like that. If only women would cease to make idols of their husbands. If only women were more willing to die to Christ and be made alive in Him, rather than feeling they had to die --- and stay dead --- on the altar of marriage. If only men were more willing to be humble servants of Christ, rather than usurping His role of prophet, priest, and king. If only men were less selfish, less willing to say, "When I look at my wife, I see myself". If only men would learn to better love their wives with the sacrificial love of Christ.

Then we would, as a Church, be telling the truth of the gospel in our marriages...marriages that would be joyous and long-lasting.

And the poems we would write! Joyous, triumphant, thankful, God-glorifying poems!

Updated to add:

Back when I got married (24 years ago this Sunday) it seems that most people were, in general, less negative about marriage than they are now. But I do recall that, although men in our church pretended that it was only with great reluctance that they married and though they made many jokes about the "ball and chain", it was pretty much understood that men tended to get the better deal in marriage. So there was a lot of "grin and bear it", "marriage isn't about you", "you need to be the grown-up" sort of advice given to young brides-to-be.

But what everyone definitely agreed upon is how awful it was to have children. Maybe "awful" is too strong a word, but everyone outside of our extended family had only negative things to say. The general consensus from non-relatives was that we should postpone the misery for as long as possible. Children were a detriment to marriage. I would lose all my freedom. My body would be destroyed and my husband would find it icky to get romantic with "someone's mother". Babies would scream constantly. It was all negative and bleak.

Of course, since I was significantly older than my younger brother, I remembered his early years vividly. No one's life was ruined. In fact, we were all tremendously enriched and agreed that he was pretty much the best thing that ever happened to our family. (When he got older, we older siblings felt a need to pretend otherwise at times...)

Life with a baby was wonderful! My parents actually believed that children were a gift from God --- a delightful, wonderful, joyous gift. So having my baby brother seemed like having Christmas all year round!

As soon as my husband and I became parents (days before our first anniversary) we discovered the closely guarded secret that few people want non-parents to know: babies are incredible. We couldn't get enough of our little guy. In the evenings, we were tempted to fight over who would get to hold him. "Who would have thought holding a baby would feel so good?" my husband would repeat with amazement.

Having a baby was just way too much fun, we decided. If people had any idea, they would all marry at 18 and have babies right away.

Oh, sure, I was incredibly sleep-deprived the first three months. I sometimes felt as if my life revolved around, as I called it, "input and output". (I tried to convince my husband that he should take over the output duties, but he refused.) There were many days of feeling overwhelmed, especially as we had more children. We were not footloose and fancy-free, able to flit about doing frivolous things at a moment's notice. Life was never the same again.

It was much better.

Because, you see, we had children! We didn't lose anything. We gained! In fact, we often felt as if we made out like bandits. All the horrible, dire predictions of misery and doom? Nope.

But...

Some people, especially women, seem afraid of joy. As my father jokes, they aren't happy unless they are miserable. They believe in embracing a life of martyrdom, and letting others know how difficult life is.

Marriage must be a path of death and sorrow and despair and loss, or how can it be godly? (These women usually will not marry well, but will prefer someone who will not disabuse them of the notion that marriage, for wives, is mostly a trial requiring great loss and sacrifice.)

Motherhood must be drudgery and meaninglessness and endless suffering and even more loss, or how can it be godly?

I'll admit that I sometimes have felt that life is unfair. I haven't suffered enough. I haven't been miserable enough. All the horrible things that people predicted when we were newlyweds have not come to pass. Sure, the years haven't been completely painless. I could tell labor and birth horror stories, for example. We've experienced loss and tragedy and disappointment and anguish. Many tears have been shed.

But all in all...have we lost anything? Have we given up anything of meaning? Have we been robbed of anything? No. We have gained. We have been blessed beyond comprehension, behind my wildest dreams.

God has been so good.

And that poem? I don't believe it. Oh, I'm almost sure that the woman who wrote it meant every word. But I don't believe that this is what God intended for marriage. I've tasted a tiny bit of what He intends. And it's beautiful and joyous and life-giving and...and...if people had any idea how wonderful marriage can be, everyone would be marrying at 18. Every man would want a wife and every woman would want a husband. And people would look on the writers of such poems with tearful pity...if only she had married well...if only she knew...

Edited slightly for clarity.

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.

If you are a woman...

...and you never read another thing, read this:

God's View of a Woman

It was like a healing balm to my soul, touching me in my deepest places. Truly, my Savior does really love me. He doesn't love me any less for my gender. I am not "less than" in His eyes:

But beyond all these wonderful things that the Lord did in showing us how beautiful women are in His eyes, He did something else. He chose you--a woman to depict that which He came to earth to die for--His very Bride. And He is not ashamed.

And...

Sisters, you are fellow heirs in the Kingdom of God. You are fellow priests in the church of God. You are honored. You are cherished. You are valuable. You are needed.

You are His friends, His followers, His daughters, yea, His own kin.

Updated to clarify:

Someone said the equivalent of, "Well, duh! This is news to you? It took that article to convince you that God loves you?"

Well, no, not really. But given the many clamoring voices today that claim that women are not created in the image of God, that only males can be fully Christ-like, that most of the Bible was written to men only, and other equally disturbing messages --- well, it's hard not to feel beaten down at times, and full of doubts. My head may know one thing, but it is good to have the glorious message of God's unqualified love for women penetrate into the deep recesses of my heart as well.

This post, along with my entire blog, is copyrighted. Please read and honor the copyright notice at the bottom of the sidebar. Thank you.