In a frenzy of personal, emotional, and academic happenings, I have been sorely neglecting this blog. Now, at the beginning of the Triduum, I don't quite have time to catch up, though I can promise (or threaten) another feminist manifesto coming shortly. To keep you entertained in the meantime, here is a recent discovery of mine. Stephen Colbert + Oprah. Check out the interview in all its 4-minutes-at-a-time glory here. He drops character and talks about his life, his joys, his tragedies, and his family. One of them includes his wife. Shelly and I both fell a little more in love with him after seeing Colbert and his wife interact. That struck me (I want that after 19 years of marriage!) as well as his great humility, which is astounding for someone with such a cocky on-screen personality and so much cultural influence.
All in all, this is my Holy Thursday treat to you. Watch it today, go to Mass tonight, and your day will be complete.
In the 2003 film, as Peter Pan and Wendy Darling part, he to Neverland and she back home, Peter says: "To live would be an awfully big adventure."
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Thursday, March 21, 2013
GetReligion on Abortion Case
I normally poke around my (dying) Google reader at breakfast time, catching up on friends' blogs and the happenings of the world. One of my feeds comes from GetReligion, a blog that critiques the media's coverage of religion. And it's not much trouble -- easy morning reading.
Today, however, I stumbled across an article that made my stomach turn so much I couldn't click the link to the story being critiqued. It is about Dr. Kermit Grosnell, who is on trial for murder due to horrendous practices at his abortion clinic. While I understand pro-choice people who might say, "This isn't what all clinics are like," the sympathy with his practices -- including the murder of children born alive -- is almost as horrific as the facts of the case.
I'm posting it in hopes that my three faithful readers will read the GetReligion piece and take note especially of the lack of media coverage of the story and pass it on.
Today, however, I stumbled across an article that made my stomach turn so much I couldn't click the link to the story being critiqued. It is about Dr. Kermit Grosnell, who is on trial for murder due to horrendous practices at his abortion clinic. While I understand pro-choice people who might say, "This isn't what all clinics are like," the sympathy with his practices -- including the murder of children born alive -- is almost as horrific as the facts of the case.
I'm posting it in hopes that my three faithful readers will read the GetReligion piece and take note especially of the lack of media coverage of the story and pass it on.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Habemus Papam!
I know I am late as far as news goes, but this event occurred during spring break, and I was taking off to make times for family and school work. However, I am posting this on the day of his installation, so maybe I still win.
Happy Feast of St. Joseph! (A day when Lenten resolutions don't count.)
Happy Feast of St. Joseph! (A day when Lenten resolutions don't count.)
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Gendered Thoughts, Part IV
Here's the fourth & final part. I hope you enjoy the ending... There's another series coming soon with more about vulnerability and gender!
I am not yet willing to shift from the world of “is” to the
world of “ought.” I do want to note a
scene the vulnerability-dynamic can draw.
A man and a woman stand face to face.
As a female body before a male body, she has a vulnerability that she
cannot help and he cannot have. However,
he has just told her that he finds her fun and charming (not to mention pretty)
and would love to take her out to dinner.
He has a vulnerability before her that she does not have – he has no
idea what she thinks of him. If she
accepts him, both will have made an implicit agreement to accept and guard – at
least to a limited extent – the vulnerability of the other. He is guarding her physical vulnerability and
she his emotional vulnerability. This
dynamic, though by no means the only one at play here, sets the stage in an
interesting manner for “traditional” gender roles in marriage, where the
husband provides materially for the family and the wife acts as emotional caretaker. Often times, behavior that seems to fall to
the other gender is constructed to fit the acting gender’s norm, a tendency
that fascinated my sociologist self in undergrad.
Again, I do not wish to move from the realm of “is” to
“ought” or to insist that any particular gendered interaction fits this
perfectly, especially since it relies on purity of intention. I also do not mean to imply that a marriage
with “traditional” gender roles necessarily follows from the date scenario
described before it. I merely wish to
explore these as interesting gender dynamics that are largely ignored, or, when
discussed, inextricably conflated with other ideology.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Thoughts on Gender, Part III
(To make sense of this, be sure to read parts one and two first.)
I’m not sure how to transition here from female
vulnerability to male vulnerability.
Part of the trouble is that up till now I have been concerned with
physical differences, and now I need to turn to social norms.
Social norms are always difficult to deal with, not the
least because they tend to be amorphous and variable. However, again simply based on my recent
life, let me offer two norms in our society: malefold ask out femalefolk;
malefolk propose to femalefolk. I
propose merely that this is the way, by and large, that things are done – not the way things have to be done or should be done.
Now I not something interesting: asking another person to go
on a date with or to marry you puts you in a position of vulnerability. (This assertion assumes that the other person
is reasonably free to answer in the negative.
If refusal is not a viable option, this, of course, changes the power
dynamic.) In asking a woman out, a man
says, “See? I am an interesting
person. Please consider investing some
time in me.” Rejection can’t help but be
personal – it is, in a small way a rejection of his person. A marriage proposal all the more so. I heard a young man describe his proposal as
offering “everything” of himself and, on one knee, waiting to find out if it
was enough.
(Incidentally, this scenario illustrates why I dislike the
pre-engagement decision that “we should get engaged.” It’s like showing someone his Christmas gift
and proceeding to wrap it anyway. You
don’t half-give gifts or commitments.
Either you are committed to marrying each other (engaged) or you are
discerning (dating). If you are both
done discerning, you need to be either
engaged or broken up.)
This scenario (before my parenthetical aside) assumes that
the man is seeking an actual relationship and not just a hook-up. A relationship says, “I want to give myself
to you.” A hook-up says, “You will be
fun for me.” It is also complicated by
the idea of the “waiting woman” – a common complaint that women are trapped sitting
around waiting desperately to get asked out.
Doesn’t this change the dynamic?
Only if we assume that women need men to be complete – and I offer as a
counterpart men who ask out dozens of women in a short span of time, yet do not
find that any of them stick it out beyond a second or third date.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Simply a Pilgrim
I interrupt my regularly scheduled Gender Series to bring a brief Catholic sidebar. As of yesterday, non habemus Papam. Here is Papa Benedicto's farewell:
On a related note, I know the title is "Pope Emeritus," but that sounds too formal. My vote is for "Grand Papa," and I intend upon calling him "Grand Papa Benedict."
On a related note, I know the title is "Pope Emeritus," but that sounds too formal. My vote is for "Grand Papa," and I intend upon calling him "Grand Papa Benedict."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)