A misguided "guide" for women

We often talk about the impossible demands that are put upon women. Demands from the world that expect women to be thin, pretty, always young. The list goes on and on.
But today I discovered the impossible expectations put upon women of the church. Well, maybe not all churches (certainly not mine), but a segment nonetheless. I listen to a Christian radio station on occasion. It is mostly "talk format" with a lot of sermons and recorded workshops. Today's sermon was for women, given by a woman that I suspect has never looked at how hard it is to raise a family in today's world.
She had lots of advice for how to keep a Godly home. Emphasis was put on cleaning and cooking creative meals that husbands and kids will eat. I thought about how much I love to cook, but never have enough time after working a long day. Day after day...
She talked about how a woman has no need to work outside the home; her job is to keep her family happy. I wondered if this speaker had ever met a woman that was either divorced or widowed in mid-life with absolutely no job skills and thus no way to support herself.
The speaker talked about wearing clothes that were fashionable and interesting so that "your husband will be proud to show you off". I thought of the busy moms I know who have too little time and money to bother with fashion for themselves.
An emphasis was placed on a woman's responsibility to raise well-adjusted, happy children. I thought about my own mom who had me--a child that battled depression for years. No amount of creative cooking could fix my depression. It's a medical condition and must be treated as such.
A clean home. A woman with no desire--and no financial need--to work outside the home. A mom who is always making great food, and a wife who is there to support and inspire her husband. A woman that looks great, too. Kids with no issues that are perfectly well adjusted.
Wow. And I thought the entertainment industry was tough on women...

Hamilton

Lin-Manuel Miranda's Hamilton is the latest musical rage. I have heard about it--including the uproar over the recent proposal to replace Hamilton's image on the $10 bill with that of a female one (ironic, given that the recent interest in Alexander Hamilton is due to a play that deliberately depicts him incorrectly). As you can guess, I am about to pick a gargantuan bone with Hamilton. But, before I do, I want to give praise where it is due. It takes a lot to get kids excited about history, and probably even more to get them to watch a musical. The play absolutely does both.

But Hamilton is not without some glaring problems. The most obvious is the cast. Miranda explains that the cast--which audition announcements made clear that only non-white actors were wanted--reflects what America looks like today. That is OK, except that America today includes white folks. I understand wanting to have a play that reflects our country's diversity. Miranda points out that he wants non-whites to feel included. But should inclusion of non-white actors come at the total exclusion of white actors? Isn't exclusion what we have been trying to get away from? This hardly seems like the right approach. Instead, the roles should have been open to all who wished to audition, and then the best actors chosen. You might say I am missing the point--that really, Hamilton is about revisioning history in a more inclusive context. That it's an opportunity for non-white folks to see themselves on stage. Well, I get that. I am gay. I haven't seen too many historical characters--real or imagined--that looked or loved the way I do. But I am OK with that. I understand that our past isn't how I might have chosen it to be. It's simply our past. I must learn from the past and allow it to inform my present and future. Hamilton also has the misfortune of being presented as history. Casting issues aside, it is not an accurate depiction of Hamilton's life. There are creative liberties taken. To tout it as an historical drama is misleading at best.

Kids should learn about and get excited over our history. But is our history so awful that we have to dress it up with creative liberties and deliberately leave out the race of the historical people being portrayed? Wouldn't it be better to be honest? To admit that women and non-whites were left out of a lot of our early history? Of course, they were there, but not Hamilton there. And that's OK, because we now see the error of that, and we've come a long damn way in opening all kinds of opportunities to all Americans. To deny that we have come so far is to deny history itself.

Playing Trump's card

 Once again, Trump was the topic of discussion on NPR. In particular, it was his campaign  slogan,  Make America Great Again, that "black and brown people" find offensive (I am so tired of NPR's obsession with all things race-related). They claim it harkens back to a time when America was [perceived as] great because it was mostly white; that "great again" is a dog whistle for racist whites.

Whether or not his slogan is a dog whistle is a matter of perception.  For example,  I love the Sonic commercials that feature two guys in a car enjoying the array of products available there.  As a gay person,  I see a funny gay couple frequenting their favorite establishment.  A straight person likely sees two buddies, perhaps escaping the demands of a wife, kids,  and household chores, out shooting the breeze at their favorite establishment.  See? Same commercial, different understanding based on what we perceive. 

Is the slogan "Make America Great Again" a racist dog whistle? Well,  yes, if you're a white supremacist.  But for others--I would argue a majority of others--it's not a dog whistle.  Instead, it's about job opportunity  (real opportunity,  not minimum wage jobs with a higher minimum wage), safer communities  (ones where police are allowed to do their jobs effectively and safely,  and where people can legally have a firearm to protect themselves), where all of us have a chance to live a peaceful and comfortable life if we choose to do that (because no matter how hard we try,  or how many government benefits we allot,  some people will choose to forgo such things), and a country that is a real player in world affairs. It's about what many perceive as eight years of community unraveling--race relations are worse than they have been in decades, crime is increasing, and everywhere we look, we see violence.  Cities are broke, we still have a substantial number of people addicted to drugs, and thousands of veterans and civilians are homeless.  

When you look at things from that perspective,  it's easy to see that "Make America Great Again" isn't a call for going back to a time when straight, white people held a majority.  Rather,  it's a desire to see our country as she can be if better decisions are made. 

On the meaning of Holy Week

                       
Last night was breezy.  Clouds were visible as they swept across a bright moon. I wondered if Jesus saw a similar sky as he stood in the olive garden that night,  waiting for Judas to betray him. Maundy Thursday--the night Jesus gathered around the dinner table a final time, commanding his friends to love and serve each other. The night Jesus was arrested. The night our church was stripped of all the trappings of our faith.
Today offered another opportunity for the reflection of Holy week--it became increasingly cloudy as the afternoon wore on. I was reminded of the darkness that followed Jesus's death. Good Friday, we call it--which likely means "holy". At 4pm, I thought about those left behind that day--the family and friends who, while still in shock,  removed Jesus's body and prepared it for burial.
And now we wait. In two days, we'll celebrate the risen Christ. It will be the simultaneous end and beginning of a great love, of God stepping down to walk among us,  of God reuniting with his creation.  Of a promise made long ago, and finally fulfilled.

A few more thoughts on my previous post...

After reviewing my last post, I realize an addendum is appropriate.  Let me start by saying that my opposition to the Black Lives Matter movement stems from my support of law enforcement--a profession comprised of people of all colors--not due to a belief that black lives do not matter.
My ongoing criticism of BLM is due to what appears,  at least, to be their insistence that all cops are flawed and need to be retrained or tossed out altogether.  I also have a problem with those BLM members who openly call for the killing of police officers.  Finally, I take issue with any group that appears to care more about criminals than those who have truly been victimized. It's understandable that citizens want accountability for the actions of public servants,  but for the most part, people are victimized by other citizens,  not cops.  So if I seem dismissive, I really am not. I am just standing up for those who spend their lives protecting all of us.

The other BLM--Blue lives matter

I am not a fan of the Black Lives Matter movement.  I think at best it is disingenuous; at worst, a terrorist group.  Many members openly call for killing police officers,  and they have suggested that police departments be eliminated altogether,  an unrealistic demand that hurts black citizens stuck in dangerous communities that need police protection.
So it was with skepticism that I read an article about the selection of the new police chief for the city of St. Paul,  and how BLM wants to be a part of the process. I think this group wields far more power than it deserves,  so frankly,  I didn't think they should have a say at all. But then I read what they wanted,  and it was pretty reasonable.
To begin, they want a good relationship with the next chief.  They also want the new chief to understand that he or she will be closely scrutinized.  Well, that's not new--police are among the most scrutinized of all professions, so that's a given. They want police to be more involved in their "beats", one of the basics in the neighborhood policing movement.  Again,  not a ridiculous expectation. They want police to forge relationships with those in the community they serve, and they want to figure out a way to get people to talk and report what they see. Many crimes go unsolved in the black community due to the unspoken, but well understood,  "snitches get stitches" rule.
They did call for one thing that is unrealistic--the trendy demand that police be 'demilitarized'. I am pretty sure that these folks don't know what that means or what they're asking for exactly.  But it's the hot word, and so they've included it. But it's unrealistic to demand that cops give up the tools and gear of the 'trade' simply to put BLM at ease.  Policing is dangerous,  deadly work, and our officers need all the protection they can get.
So, let's consider the realistic demands regarding the new police chief: officers that are engaged in their community, that have good relationships with those they are sworn to protect.  Excellent!  I am glad they want that. And many departments have already started doing those things. But a relationship is a two-way street. You can't have a good relationship with someone that spits in your direction when you walk by, or someone who tells their kids to begin filming you the second you walk up, even if all you're doing is grabbing a coffee. You can't have a relationship with the coffee shop owner that refuses to serve you because "cops aren't welcome here". You can't have a good relationship with people that shoot at you, or run the second you pull onto their street.  You can't be at ease as an officer when people ambush you. You can't have a good relationship with community members that hate you "on principle, because cops are pigs",  and who refuse to ever acknowledge you in a kind way. So, it's up to you BLM (and all cop haters, actually), to do your part in making neighborhood policing work. Our officers would like to get to know you,  to enjoy a relationship with you. They'd love to have a less stressful job, and to be safer. So,  this is your chance. Because police lives matter, not just yours.

Blue•ish

I've been a big fan of the show Black•ish. It's funny,  and my wife and I have tuned in nearly every week since it premiered.
But no more. Last night's episode, Hope, left me angry and hope•less. Look, I understand wanting to be relevant.  I understand wanting to address current events. But for an episode chock full of facts and statistics,  they left out a few.
The most glaring one is that of the term "unarmed". They pointed out that 25% of people killed by police (in Los Angeles) were unarmed.  I'll throw a bone to the character Rainbow,  who quipped that 25% unarmed means 75% were armed. That's true. But unarmed doesn't necessarily mean not dangerous. As my wife pointed out, the most popular sport that people are getting involved in is mixed martial arts, or MMA. If you know some MMA moves, you likely don't need a traditional weapon. And consider this: a couple years ago, a female police officer was handcuffing a suspect when he unexpectedly turned around and punched her with so much force it knocked her out. But technically, he was unarmed. 
Also glaringly absent from the fact-filled dialog last night was how many officers are killed on the job. 13 so far just this year. If you want to have an honest,  relevant conversation,  that really should be a part of it. Unless you're looking to alienate and narrow down your audience.  If that was the goal, then congrats on a job well done, Black•ish.

My Facebook Apology

What is it with social media that allows us to behave like complete jerks, with no concern of how it will portray us? Why do we feel free to be mean, to talk down in ways we'd never do in person? Why do we allow ourselves to start arguments,  or to shred someone to pieces?

To be sure, I have tossed things into the Facebook universe in a moment of anger.  I have come across as hateful and uncaring more than once.  I use language that I'd never use in front of my pastor. Generally, I'm complelled to act this way because I'm mad about an injustice I see. I am a passionate defender of those I support.  And usually,  it's cops.

I have lived with police officers my whole life. They're in my family.  Their friends are my friends. And here is what I know about them--they are a strong bunch. Most of them like guns. They like the thrill of driving their police cars to a scene, lights on and sirens blaring loudly.  They like being physically fit, but also really like junk food.
Here's what else I know: they became cops because of their deep commitment to helping those in need. They want to right the wrongs in the world.  They love helping victims.  They love justice.  And this: they cry when a kid dies. They get sick when they are called to a scene where someone has committed  suicide.  Their hearts break when they take a report from a rape victim.  They worry about their cases--did they do everything right, not miss a detail, not do anything that will result in an attorney getting the perp off on a technicality?
They have nightmares--about bodies they've found, about terrible scenes they've worked,  about being killed as they step out of their police car.
They age quickly.  Their bodies break down because of the enormous physical demands of the job. They stress. They worry that they'll have to kill someone.  They worry about defending themselves,  and that whatever they do will lead to lawsuits, jail time,  or riots in their city.
They are depressed.  It's hard to work a physically and spiritually demanding job that has so many critics.  They turn on the TV and hear celebrities and politicians demean them, question their motives, accuse them of being murderers, even as those same celebrities and politicians seek their protection.
And so I fly off the handle.  I post angry rants. I share the latest pro-police meme.  And I act like I am a pretty hateful person.  But I'm not hateful.  Far from it.  I just want to protect those who would die to save me. And you.

So, please be patient with me. I'm still learning how to balance love and passionate support.

 I am supposed to be studying, but I can't focus. The dreary day keeps distracting me, causing my thoughts to wander. A song came on, one that was significant to me in a relationship from a long time ago. I silently pray that the person from my past is doing well. I imagine what it would be like to dance to that song with my wife, and decide it would be marvelous, as the words really suit this relationship better than the one it reminds me of.
It's almost Valentine's Day. I guess that's a big deal for some, but the older I get, the less I care. I think treating your beloved like they're special all year long is what matters most. As I was leaving a client's house today, I decided that I would do something special for my wife each day. Something servant-oriented. I know that seems antiquated, to want to serve your significant other. But when both people serve each other, then both get treated amazingly. If you think about it, it's exactly how God loves us. It's a pretty good kind of love, too. One that really shows your devotion to your beloved.

Core vs. pit values

There's been much talk lately about American core values.  In particular,  the real (or maybe imagined) value of tolerance. This is an especially popular topic with the president.
I find this belief curious.  At the risk of stepping on readers' toes, I'm going to say that tolerance is not an American core value. Instead, it's a pit value. It's not a positive thing. Look at our relationship with "tolerance" over the years. We didn't tolerate the first black Americans very well--many of them ended up in slavery. Whites entering our country in later decades didn't fare much better. Remember "Irish need not apply"?
We don't always  tolerate people that live differently--whether it's money that separates us, religious beliefs,  even the way a family is comprised can result in intolerance. College kids need "safe spaces" to hunker down in their intolerance.
But I like tolerance.  I think it has potential.  No one is the same. We can let our differences make us strong,  or let them drag us into a pit.  I think many of us are in that pit right now, but it's not too late to climb out.

It starts here...

Well,  after 8 years of blogging on another page, I've decided to venture into new waters. This is it, and I hope you'll read my stuff and add your own voice, too, by commenting.  Thanks for stopping by!