Dear Ryan,
Yes! I will call you back, but I need to speak with my husband first. I'm embarrassed to say that I don't remember you; in fact, I remember being in class with my students all evening on Monday. But you were so insistent on my voicemail (in both of your messages, sent just hours apart) that we met at WalMart and exchanged numbers in hopes of hooking up. I briefly considered the possibility that some other woman made up a number that turned out to be mine in hopes of getting you off her back. But no, it must have been me.
I'm intrigued by your voice, Ryan. Though you're clearly a native speaker of English, your barely comprehensible garbled speech would make a wonderful pairing with my standard fluency. Yin and yang. And the way you almost commanded me to call you back, and soon, was sexy. You're not a man to waste time with chit chat or sophisticated word play. Let's just get together, woman, was your message. I get it.
I have not been getting much attention from men in public lately. Something about my wedding ring, lack of self-care beyond basic hygiene, fully occupied double stroller with a spare in a sling, and post-partum junk in the trunk seems to shout "frazzled mom" to most men, but you saw through it all to the truth, which is that I am "AVAILABLE!"
The only hitch is that I have a husband and I don't believe in premarital sex. I am lecturing this very week in Intro to Anthro on polygamy, however. Can that really be a coincidence...or is it a God-incidence? Polyandry (one wife, numerous husbands) is rarely practiced, and usually only under conditions of severe scarcity of either females or land. And usually in Tibet. But we're in an extreme situation as well, here in south central Pennsylvania. We're moving this weekend and my husband really needs another man to help him move the major appliances. If we move quickly, Ryan, there might be a future for us.
Whatever you do, just don't go to WalMart and replace me. I'm going to call you back just as soon as I can
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies
Biblical inerrancy and fundamentalist legalism taught me that things are exactly as described on paper, which can be my tendency in approaching other parts of life. Through the study of literature and other secular humanist pursuits, however, I've learned to appreciate hyperbole, irony, and other enjoyable types of language play. Sometimes a lie is just a lie, however, and needs to be called out.
My health club is decorated with large wall banners that have images of athletes foregrounded with inspirational quotes. The inspirational quotes do not inspire me, however, because they are not true. I'm even beginning to wonder whether the pictures 'athletes' might just be models.
Consider three:
"It is the pain and sweat of the battle that let's me know that I have won." First of all, that apostrophe is enough to make me cancel my membership. Second, pain and sweat are not indicators of victory. Losers arguably sweat and hurt even more than winners. The winners are off celebrating in the locker room.
"Never let weakness convince you that you lack strength." Isn't 'lacking strength' the definition of weakness?
"Power is not revealed by striking hard or often, but striking true." I think power is revealed by striking hard, often, and true.
The other pack of lies is emblazoned on my baby's chest. His red onesie has a fireman's hat on it with the phrase "little hero." First of all, babies and fire don't mix. Second, my baby is not a hero. All he has done so far in life is preserve his own survival by draining me of youth, energy, and sleep. People who promote their own interests with total disregard for others are not heros. They're the opposite of heroes.
Maybe I'm just in a bad mood today, but it really does seem like everyone is lying to me.
Biblical inerrancy and fundamentalist legalism taught me that things are exactly as described on paper, which can be my tendency in approaching other parts of life. Through the study of literature and other secular humanist pursuits, however, I've learned to appreciate hyperbole, irony, and other enjoyable types of language play. Sometimes a lie is just a lie, however, and needs to be called out.
My health club is decorated with large wall banners that have images of athletes foregrounded with inspirational quotes. The inspirational quotes do not inspire me, however, because they are not true. I'm even beginning to wonder whether the pictures 'athletes' might just be models.
Consider three:
"It is the pain and sweat of the battle that let's me know that I have won." First of all, that apostrophe is enough to make me cancel my membership. Second, pain and sweat are not indicators of victory. Losers arguably sweat and hurt even more than winners. The winners are off celebrating in the locker room.
"Never let weakness convince you that you lack strength." Isn't 'lacking strength' the definition of weakness?
"Power is not revealed by striking hard or often, but striking true." I think power is revealed by striking hard, often, and true.
The other pack of lies is emblazoned on my baby's chest. His red onesie has a fireman's hat on it with the phrase "little hero." First of all, babies and fire don't mix. Second, my baby is not a hero. All he has done so far in life is preserve his own survival by draining me of youth, energy, and sleep. People who promote their own interests with total disregard for others are not heros. They're the opposite of heroes.
Maybe I'm just in a bad mood today, but it really does seem like everyone is lying to me.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Do you like being repressed? I don't.
"Max, am I going to have to blog about this?", I asked my 5-month-old while reading aloud "Pastor Provocatuer", Collin Hansen's parting feature article in Christianity Today's on Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. (The article is not yet available online).
"Aaggoooo," he said.
"I'm going to have to agree with you," I said.
It's not just the specifics of Driscoll, Donald Miller, John Piper, or the Desiring God conference that rankled me. And it's not just the thinly veiled support of all the preceding by Christianity Today's reporters and writers. (They publish my work, so I'd like to get along with them!) What really gets me is a new twist on an old game: repressing women and legitimating patriarchy. I visited an evangelical free church a while back and said to my husband, "It's not just that they repress women, it's the way they do it that bugs me." I realize I've raised four different issues here, but the one I want to write about is this new way of writing about and speaking of women, evident in both the story on Driscoll and the way it's written.
Women are mentioned numerous times in this article. There are several mentions of what one ought to do with one's wife: bathe with her, seduce her (and it will lead to ministry inspiration!), violently attack bullies who may harm her, and lead her. Driscoll's wife is described as 'attractive', as her father's daughter, and as 'looking on' in a photograph. A Mars Hill Church female staff member 'shook with emotion' during her interview. A Mars Hill attendee, described mostly in terms of what has victimized her, loves the church.
In the last few years I have seen too many male authors of a 'new generation' in evangelical books and magazines accessorize their texts with women, and legitimize patriarchy by quoting a woman who likes it. Men are referred to by name and in terms of accomplishment, whereas women are described in terms of their physical attributes, in terms of who they belong to (husbands or fathers or --aack!-- no one), and are belittled in terms of their supposedly constant need for protection, leadership, and emotional expression. I mean, I'm only attacked by bullies once a week or so - my husband gets the other six days off. But there's always a woman or two who loves it, and is quoted to that effect (see recent articles on Miller and Desiring God conferences - same narrative format as this one on Driscoll). I bet you that if I told students they had to mow my lawn in order to get good grades, most of them would do it. Many wouldn't really mind, a few would complain, a few would refuse altogether, and a few would say it was the most spiritual opportunity for service they'd ever had. And they'd believe it. People respond to repression in various ways, one of which is acquiescence. That doesn't make it right. And even I would embrace patriarchy -- perhaps even in my heart -- if participation in that system was my only way to shelter and feed my kids.
The only woman in the article whose physical appearance, emotional weakness, or family status remained unmentioned is Jennifer McKinney, director of the women's studies program at Seattle Pacific University and a critic of Mars Hill Church's effect on women she has known. We are left to our own assumptions about women of unknown marital status who run feminist academic programs. She has a doctorate, also, and should have also been referred to by her credentials, not only her administrative role.
Valorized male traits in the article include bulging biceps, aggressiveness, fighting, entrepreneurialism, and decisiveness. The final sentence, "And even the Good Shepherd had to fight off wolves," not only blows away any pretense of objectivity in the article by linking Driscoll with Jesus and his detractors with wolves, but also strangely casts Jesus as one who fought with his enemies.
Why is Driscoll even featured in this magazine? Because his church is big and growing fast? Because he draws attention by being outrageously offensive? Because he has long-standing disagreements with emergent folks? Weath, fame, glitz, and public conflict are all reasons to cover Paris Hilton in Star Magazine! The article suggests that Seattle is an important place to look at because of its low number of believers. If that is so, why not cover a church like Monkfish Abbey, an intensively relational, 'small is beautiful' collection of believers who aren't in media-covered conflict with anyone?
I used to be concerned about the overrepresentation of white, American, women-excluding, power-holding men in evangelical leadership of my parent's generation. Now I'm concerned about it in my generation. Wearing jeans, being web-savvy, and drinking beer/smoking/swearing might make new pastors cool, but it doesn't make the church or the world more just. Until women are included as full humans, emotional and rational, leading and being led, protecting and protected, gifted and limited, then it's just a new inning of a very old game.
"Max, am I going to have to blog about this?", I asked my 5-month-old while reading aloud "Pastor Provocatuer", Collin Hansen's parting feature article in Christianity Today's on Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. (The article is not yet available online).
"Aaggoooo," he said.
"I'm going to have to agree with you," I said.
It's not just the specifics of Driscoll, Donald Miller, John Piper, or the Desiring God conference that rankled me. And it's not just the thinly veiled support of all the preceding by Christianity Today's reporters and writers. (They publish my work, so I'd like to get along with them!) What really gets me is a new twist on an old game: repressing women and legitimating patriarchy. I visited an evangelical free church a while back and said to my husband, "It's not just that they repress women, it's the way they do it that bugs me." I realize I've raised four different issues here, but the one I want to write about is this new way of writing about and speaking of women, evident in both the story on Driscoll and the way it's written.
Women are mentioned numerous times in this article. There are several mentions of what one ought to do with one's wife: bathe with her, seduce her (and it will lead to ministry inspiration!), violently attack bullies who may harm her, and lead her. Driscoll's wife is described as 'attractive', as her father's daughter, and as 'looking on' in a photograph. A Mars Hill Church female staff member 'shook with emotion' during her interview. A Mars Hill attendee, described mostly in terms of what has victimized her, loves the church.
In the last few years I have seen too many male authors of a 'new generation' in evangelical books and magazines accessorize their texts with women, and legitimize patriarchy by quoting a woman who likes it. Men are referred to by name and in terms of accomplishment, whereas women are described in terms of their physical attributes, in terms of who they belong to (husbands or fathers or --aack!-- no one), and are belittled in terms of their supposedly constant need for protection, leadership, and emotional expression. I mean, I'm only attacked by bullies once a week or so - my husband gets the other six days off. But there's always a woman or two who loves it, and is quoted to that effect (see recent articles on Miller and Desiring God conferences - same narrative format as this one on Driscoll). I bet you that if I told students they had to mow my lawn in order to get good grades, most of them would do it. Many wouldn't really mind, a few would complain, a few would refuse altogether, and a few would say it was the most spiritual opportunity for service they'd ever had. And they'd believe it. People respond to repression in various ways, one of which is acquiescence. That doesn't make it right. And even I would embrace patriarchy -- perhaps even in my heart -- if participation in that system was my only way to shelter and feed my kids.
The only woman in the article whose physical appearance, emotional weakness, or family status remained unmentioned is Jennifer McKinney, director of the women's studies program at Seattle Pacific University and a critic of Mars Hill Church's effect on women she has known. We are left to our own assumptions about women of unknown marital status who run feminist academic programs. She has a doctorate, also, and should have also been referred to by her credentials, not only her administrative role.
Valorized male traits in the article include bulging biceps, aggressiveness, fighting, entrepreneurialism, and decisiveness. The final sentence, "And even the Good Shepherd had to fight off wolves," not only blows away any pretense of objectivity in the article by linking Driscoll with Jesus and his detractors with wolves, but also strangely casts Jesus as one who fought with his enemies.
Why is Driscoll even featured in this magazine? Because his church is big and growing fast? Because he draws attention by being outrageously offensive? Because he has long-standing disagreements with emergent folks? Weath, fame, glitz, and public conflict are all reasons to cover Paris Hilton in Star Magazine! The article suggests that Seattle is an important place to look at because of its low number of believers. If that is so, why not cover a church like Monkfish Abbey, an intensively relational, 'small is beautiful' collection of believers who aren't in media-covered conflict with anyone?
I used to be concerned about the overrepresentation of white, American, women-excluding, power-holding men in evangelical leadership of my parent's generation. Now I'm concerned about it in my generation. Wearing jeans, being web-savvy, and drinking beer/smoking/swearing might make new pastors cool, but it doesn't make the church or the world more just. Until women are included as full humans, emotional and rational, leading and being led, protecting and protected, gifted and limited, then it's just a new inning of a very old game.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
People who need people
We might buy the small-yarded house. A friend is very sad because her intentional urban community fell apart. A friend suggested that my marriage lacks intimacy because, instead of kissing my dear husband farewell, she observed me bitching at him on my way out the door.
Moving to the small-yarded house would put us smack dab in the company town, a small semi-rural village populated in significant measure by employees of my college (the house is 1/2 mile from my office). It's far from urban, far from the glitz and glamour of hummus-breathed young adults lying around on thrift store couches reading Wendell Berry poems by candlelight. It's just people living, working, worshiping, and playing in the same vicinity. And we need those people -- we need play space and playmates for our boys, and social support for us. By moving away from family, the need for community is more real than ever; there's no back-up.
If living in intentional community in an inner city is countercultural, working a full-time job while raising kids in a single-family house is, well, just cultural. But in all its ordinariness, this new place presents new possibilities for a resurrection of the values that animated my young adulthood that have been resting in a shallow grave. Now, however, it's more about intentionality and community, and less about being urban or countercultural (though I do have the Mad Farmer's Liberation Manifesto on my office door).
Idealized American family life is increasingly based upon self-sufficiency. Families -- even individuals within families -- have their own playspaces, media, entertainment, parks (big yards), and transportation. In some places, families or small communities even have their own security, utilities, tennis courts, pools, and the like. Community, then, along with the common good and public space in general, becomes increasingly voluntary. You might form bonds with other families because you like them, but when conflict comes, you can always retreat to your great room. And sadly, many radically countercultural urban Christian communities are similarly voluntary, and when conflict comes, people retreat to their own apartment, their families, or whatever life path they were on before.
God might keep his promises, but people rarely do; we need more than promises to hold us together. By embedding daily life in a dense network of relationships with other believers, perhaps community becomes possible. I suspect gossip, grudges, and hostility also become possible, but so does the need for reconciliation. When people's employment and houses and families are involved, easy exits are gone. I see it in marriage, too. Intimacy isn't only in the kiss. Bitching might not be an act of intimacy in and of itself, but love is in the understanding that contains it, and the reconciliation that eventually follows it.
Community is about embedding your life into something beyond yourself, so much so that you lose yourself. There's no prior 'you' to recover, and of course, in losing that self, a new and more real 'you' is gained. Some of the most committed church members are people who don't have families. They're not just playing with Jesus' words about the bond of belief being deeper than the bond of family. They enliven those words, and remind me of the beatitudes. Blessed are the have-nots, for they shall truly have.
These thoughts don't all hang together yet, much like the pieces of my daily life. I am often afraid and uncertain, but in my best moments, I sense some far-flung pieces of myself coming back together.
We might buy the small-yarded house. A friend is very sad because her intentional urban community fell apart. A friend suggested that my marriage lacks intimacy because, instead of kissing my dear husband farewell, she observed me bitching at him on my way out the door.
Moving to the small-yarded house would put us smack dab in the company town, a small semi-rural village populated in significant measure by employees of my college (the house is 1/2 mile from my office). It's far from urban, far from the glitz and glamour of hummus-breathed young adults lying around on thrift store couches reading Wendell Berry poems by candlelight. It's just people living, working, worshiping, and playing in the same vicinity. And we need those people -- we need play space and playmates for our boys, and social support for us. By moving away from family, the need for community is more real than ever; there's no back-up.
If living in intentional community in an inner city is countercultural, working a full-time job while raising kids in a single-family house is, well, just cultural. But in all its ordinariness, this new place presents new possibilities for a resurrection of the values that animated my young adulthood that have been resting in a shallow grave. Now, however, it's more about intentionality and community, and less about being urban or countercultural (though I do have the Mad Farmer's Liberation Manifesto on my office door).
Idealized American family life is increasingly based upon self-sufficiency. Families -- even individuals within families -- have their own playspaces, media, entertainment, parks (big yards), and transportation. In some places, families or small communities even have their own security, utilities, tennis courts, pools, and the like. Community, then, along with the common good and public space in general, becomes increasingly voluntary. You might form bonds with other families because you like them, but when conflict comes, you can always retreat to your great room. And sadly, many radically countercultural urban Christian communities are similarly voluntary, and when conflict comes, people retreat to their own apartment, their families, or whatever life path they were on before.
God might keep his promises, but people rarely do; we need more than promises to hold us together. By embedding daily life in a dense network of relationships with other believers, perhaps community becomes possible. I suspect gossip, grudges, and hostility also become possible, but so does the need for reconciliation. When people's employment and houses and families are involved, easy exits are gone. I see it in marriage, too. Intimacy isn't only in the kiss. Bitching might not be an act of intimacy in and of itself, but love is in the understanding that contains it, and the reconciliation that eventually follows it.
Community is about embedding your life into something beyond yourself, so much so that you lose yourself. There's no prior 'you' to recover, and of course, in losing that self, a new and more real 'you' is gained. Some of the most committed church members are people who don't have families. They're not just playing with Jesus' words about the bond of belief being deeper than the bond of family. They enliven those words, and remind me of the beatitudes. Blessed are the have-nots, for they shall truly have.
These thoughts don't all hang together yet, much like the pieces of my daily life. I am often afraid and uncertain, but in my best moments, I sense some far-flung pieces of myself coming back together.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
First day of class: contents of my bag
anthropology book
spoon
clean diaper
dirty diaper, wrapped up tight (seriously)
pair of baby socks
hand lotion
six pens
toothbrush
chapstick
sunglasses
nalgene bottle
top to sippy cup
two unidentified keys
To do list:
find out where my class meets
brush my teeth (I can't accomplish this at home, seriously)
anthropology book
spoon
clean diaper
dirty diaper, wrapped up tight (seriously)
pair of baby socks
hand lotion
six pens
toothbrush
chapstick
sunglasses
nalgene bottle
top to sippy cup
two unidentified keys
To do list:
find out where my class meets
brush my teeth (I can't accomplish this at home, seriously)
Monday, September 03, 2007
Watching the grass grow, or not
We're considering buying a house with a very very small yard. What do you think? Did you grow up with a big yard, small yard, or no yard at all? How did your relationship to your parents' yard shape you?
I have a powerful cultural value in my mind that runs thus: Good people live in suburbs, in yards of not less than .3 acres. Yard maintenance is a major indicator of a person's social status, personal values, and individual worth. If you don't live in such a way, it's because you can't, due to one of your personal flaws, like being lazy or a drunk.
Buying a house with a small yard exposes that value, and makes me wonder how other people from other parts of the world think about yards.
And secondly, from what song are the lyrics "take up so much yardage", and what is the context? This post got that phrase stuck in my mind, but I can't find the association.
We're considering buying a house with a very very small yard. What do you think? Did you grow up with a big yard, small yard, or no yard at all? How did your relationship to your parents' yard shape you?
I have a powerful cultural value in my mind that runs thus: Good people live in suburbs, in yards of not less than .3 acres. Yard maintenance is a major indicator of a person's social status, personal values, and individual worth. If you don't live in such a way, it's because you can't, due to one of your personal flaws, like being lazy or a drunk.
Buying a house with a small yard exposes that value, and makes me wonder how other people from other parts of the world think about yards.
And secondly, from what song are the lyrics "take up so much yardage", and what is the context? This post got that phrase stuck in my mind, but I can't find the association.
Good new book
In the scramble of starting a new academic year as a professor-mom, I failed to remember to share this link about professor-moms. Mama PhD is a site encouraging conversation, and offering a new book in 08, about academic women making choices about parenting and family.
In the scramble of starting a new academic year as a professor-mom, I failed to remember to share this link about professor-moms. Mama PhD is a site encouraging conversation, and offering a new book in 08, about academic women making choices about parenting and family.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
IM Ignorant
The problem with office hours is that students don't come to the office during them. Students tend to catch profs before and after class, or they just come by the office at a time of their convenience, hoping to find you in and available. For every 50 students I converse with, one conversation is during my announced office hours. Maybe.
I'd rather just go with that flow rather than try to block it. So this fall, I'm planning to launch my IM evening office hours. In order to do this, I need to do the following:
1. Learn how to IM.
2. Inform students of my availability.
Can someone tell me how/where to begin? I had one IM chat six years ago, attempting to discuss someone's dissertation with a group of other people. It wasn't very useful for that purpose, so I didn't try again.
The problem with office hours is that students don't come to the office during them. Students tend to catch profs before and after class, or they just come by the office at a time of their convenience, hoping to find you in and available. For every 50 students I converse with, one conversation is during my announced office hours. Maybe.
I'd rather just go with that flow rather than try to block it. So this fall, I'm planning to launch my IM evening office hours. In order to do this, I need to do the following:
1. Learn how to IM.
2. Inform students of my availability.
Can someone tell me how/where to begin? I had one IM chat six years ago, attempting to discuss someone's dissertation with a group of other people. It wasn't very useful for that purpose, so I didn't try again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
