Fem Speak

One hundred years of celebration

Determined, feisty suffragettes celebrated the first National Women’s Day one hundred years ago, on February 28, 1909.  Within a few years, the observance went global and became International Women’s Day, celebrated around the world on March 8^th of every year. 

 

In a host of countries around the world, International Women’s Day is now an official holiday with flowers and small gifts.  The United States designates the entire month of March as Women’s History Month.  This year, the theme for International Women’s day is “Women and men united to end violence against women and girls.”

 

The subject has never been more apropos.  According to the National Institute of Justice, one in four women will experience domestic violence during her lifetime.   The Centers for Disease Control estimate that 1.3 million women per year are victims of sexual assault here in the United States, with an annual cost exceeding $5.8 billion per year.

 

 

Intimate partner violence recently exploded into the national focus when R&B crooner Chris Brown was arrested for beating, threatening, and choking pop star Rihanna nearly to death.  Chat groups and news forums continue to crackle with the usual tired arguments:  Why didn’t she leave him before this?  Why is she silent now?  Do some women want to be abused?

 

 

It is an easy thing to state that battered women should leave their partners.  Of course they should, if and when they can do so safely.  Yet when we focus on the actions or inactions of the victims, we overlook the most important aspect of these cases.  Men should not hit women.  The epidemic of domestic violence will never be resolved until we stop asking why women are there, and instead begin to ask why some men brutalize those they profess to love.

 

 

We are frustrated that Rihanna has not spoken out to repudiate Chris Brown and by extension condemn dating violence.  Perhaps we forget that she is only twenty years old, did not ask to be in this situation, and never stated a desire to become the new face of domestic violence.  As badly as we may want her to condemn Chris Brown and testify against him, the girl is probably scared to death.  A few days ago, this man bit her, punched her, and choked her to the point of passing out.  Now he walks around as a free man, simply because he has money.  Who can blame his victim for lying low and playing nice?

 

Unfortunately, the maximum penalty for announcing your intent to kill a woman and then choking her unconscious appears to be four years.  And who wants to place bets on whether a wealthy celebrity will receive the maximum sentence? Judging from the OJ fiasco, America will be lucky if Chris Brown is even found guilty. 

 

So many people are calling Rihanna stupid for being with the wrong man.  How stupid then is our society to allow over a million women a year to be thus treated, with only a slap on the wrist for those men found guilty of crimes against their own wives and lovers?  Here in developed, “civilized” America, women are beaten into submission every day.  Over a million women live in fear.  Over a million women curb their actions, their words and even their thoughts to avoid retaliation. 

 

We say “They should leave!” and yet society does almost nothing to assist women in leaving safely.  75% of intimate partner murders take place during or after the breakup.  Most battered women do leave their abusive partners, but in doing so they encounter enormous risks as well as facing poverty and homelessness and risking the loss of their children.

 

That doesn’t mean battered women should stay.  It means society should assist women in leaving safely.  One avenue of assuring women’s safety is to lock up abusers until their obsession has passed.  Courts regularly issue restraining orders instead, proving themselves far more “stupid” than the women we love to blame.  If a man is willing to ignore a universal taboo against hitting women, will he not also ignore a little piece of paper telling him to stay away?  Telling an abuser to stay away from his victim is as effective as telling a wolf to stay away from sheep.  She is his prey.  He will not stop of his own accord.  Neither will he stop simply because she breaks up with him.  If we want abusive men to stop attacking women, then we as a society must forcibly stop them.  That’s what jails are for.

 

Those who say Rihanna will die if she goes back to Chris Brown have an excellent point.  But she may also die if she breaks up with him, thanks to the low value America puts on the safety of women.  For this reason, we have no right to judge Rihanna.  While the whole world watches, she is on her own to work this out. 

 

Meanwhile, invisible to the paparazzi and gossip rags, women who are less famous and less wealthy than Rihanna suffer in silence.

The not-so-bitter truth

“You’re just bitter.”  This is a phrase commonly used to silence women.  Another variation says, “You are so unforgiving.”

The bitterness accusation is used to bully a woman and tell her how she “should” feel instead of asking her how she does feel.  Someone who uses this label expects her to pretend there has been no harm, no foul.  She is expected to pretend the one who abused her is a great person, even when she knows he is a terrible person.  If she does not pretend, it is because she is “bitter and unforgiving.”

(See full story at www.waragainstwomen.com)

Misogyny in America

A culture of violence against women

If you think females have achieved equality in the United States, just scan the headlines sometime.  Misogyny is alive and well.  Consider the marine who raped his female comrade, then killed her and buried her in his back yard to avoid a paternity test.

See the full article at:

http://www.waragainstwomen.com/2008/03/misogyny-in-ame.html

ACOG says homebirth is fashionable trend

Pregnant women read the writing on the wall

A few years ago I noticed a sign on the wall at a local women’s clinic. It stated “Our doctors will no longer perform VBAC.”

The sign made me laugh. VBAC stands for vaginal birth after cesarean. Since the doctors in that practice were males, it was difficult to imagine them performing a vaginal birth. Doctors do not perform vaginal births. Pregnant women do.

For women with past c-sections, the sign is not funny at all. This prohibition jettisons women’s rights back to the 1950’s when the mantra was “Once a cesarean, always a cesarean.” Women are being robbed of a fundamental childbirth choice, even though studies confirm the safety of VBAC for most women.

Healthy People 2010 urges doctors to cut the cesarean rate in half, from over 30% down to 15% by 2010. According to Dr. Marsden Wagner, former director of women’s and children’s health for the World Health Organization, international studies show that the optimal cesarean rate for a country is 10-15%. “If the rate is below 10 percent, maternal mortality goes up,” he said. “If it’s over 15 percent, maternal mortality goes up.”

In fact, a study published in the February 13, 2007 issue of the Canadian Medical Association journal reported that women undergoing planned c-sections are three times more likely to die. Cesarean section is major abdominal surgery. It exposes the mother to increased risks of infection, hemorrhage, anesthesia complication, organ damage, scar tissue, secondary infertility, postpartum depression, maternal-infant bonding complications, breastfeeding difficulties and death. Is it any wonder maternal deaths are on the rise here in the US?

Cesarean section subjects infants to increased risk as well. In November, the British Medical Journal published a study showing that the risk of neonatal death was 70% higher for surgically delivered babies than for normal deliveries.

The International Cesarean Network (ICAN) advises pregnant women that they have the right to refuse any medical treatment, including cesarean section. But how can a woman with a previous c-section refuse surgery when no physician around will attend a VBAC?

Obstetricians have pushed pregnant women into a corner. Some women are weighing their options: Unnecessary surgery vs. homebirth. Homebirth is relatively rare these days. In 1900, 95% of babies were born at home. Since 1955, that number has hovered somewhere around 1%. Yet the practice persists, not only among VBAC-seekers, but also among women who were unhappy with previous vaginal birth experiences in the hospital, and even among some first-time mothers.

Homebirth is gaining recognition within the mainstream as the result of Ricki Lake’s highly acclaimed documentary “The Business of Being Born.” The movie focuses on the profiteering that goes on in the birth industry at the expense of mothers and babies, and offers a look at how empowering and thrilling natural birth can be.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is striking back. On February 6, 2008, ACOG published a press release condemning homebirth. What the statement leaves unwritten is that every homebirth represents an economic loss of thousands of dollars for doctors and hospitals. After all, ACOG is essentially a trade union for the OBGYN industry. An anti-homebirth statement from ACOG is like an anti-tap water statement from Pierrer.

Taking a swipe at Ricki Lake, ACOG says, “Childbirth decisions should not be dictated or influenced by what's fashionable, trendy, or the latest cause célèbre.” Calling homebirth “fashionable” or “trendy” is laughable. Hospital birth is the recent historical trend. Babies have been born in homes for thousands of years. Women birthed them, and women caught them, and women nursed them.

In fact, if ACOG members would cast their myopic gaze across the Atlantic, they would find that European births are primarily attended by midwives. One third of Dutch babies are born in their own homes. Or if they peered across the Pacific, they would find that 70% of Japanese births are attended by midwifes, often in dedicated birth houses or in private homes.

The CIA states that babies are more likely to survive in 41 other countries than in the United States. Babies fare better in South Korea and Cuba than here. The safest places to be born are Singapore, Sweden, Japan and Hong Kong, followed by a long list of European countries.

Are US newborn deaths the result of over-medicated birth, c-section, or lack of health care? Take your pick. Countries where babies are less likely to die typically offer universal healthcare and home midwifery.

ACOG seems more concerned with evoking emotion than delivering facts. Consider this statement: “Choosing to deliver a baby at home, however, is to place the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby.” Translation: Homebirthers are selfish mothers who put their babies at risk. Does ACOG at least support their contention with scientific data? Perhaps a study actually showing that hospital birth is safer? Not a chance.

The studies, in fact, offer the opposite conclusion: Uncomplicated pregnancies end just as well at home. In fact, US hospitals aren’t doing so well. Our country has the highest rate of cesarean sections, and the second worse newborn death rate in the developed world.

According to the 2007 State of the World’s Mothers report, “The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn [death] rate is higher than any of those countries.”

All ACOG can say about studies is: “It should be emphasized that studies comparing the safety and outcome of births in hospitals with those occurring in other settings in the US are limited and have not been scientifically rigorous.” In other words, the studies do not support ACOG’s contention that hospital birth is safer – which makes it completely irresponsible for them to assert that homebirthers have misplaced their priorities.

ACOG has apparently done enough market research to determine one of the factors drawing some women to homebirth: America’s soaring cesarean rate. The obstetricians have a response to this, too: “Multiple factors are responsible for the current cesarean rate, but emerging contributors include maternal choice and the rising tide of high-risk pregnancies due to maternal age, overweight, obesity and diabetes.”

Translation: “The only reason we’re cutting 1/3 of American mothers is because they’re old, they’re fat, they’re lazy and they want to be cut.” These doctors refuse to take responsibility for America’s outlandish c-section rate, even though the rate varies widely between practices and is lower in natural (drug-fee) labors where women are allowed to eat, drink, and move around.

The ACOG statement even addresses VBAC, stating that women with cesarean scars are more prone to uterine rupture and thus VBAC should always take place in a hospital, never in a home. Anyone smell a rat? It’s dishonest to say VBAC should be hospital-bound and obstetrician-supervised, when obstetricians and hospitals refuse to participate.

Whoever penned the ACOG statement needs a crash-course in marketing. Obstetricians will find they are unable to shame homebirthing women back into the maternity ward. Given a choice between fat & lazy vs. selfish, we prefer to selfishly protect the precious lives of our little ones.

-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com

An open letter to Christian pastors

Pastors, have you ever preached a sermon against domestic violence?  Odds are, you haven’t.  I’ve listened to approximately 4,000 sermons and have yet to hear a pastor condemn domestic violence from the pulpit.

Southern preachers prefer to pontificate on matters like abortion and homosexuality.  Sometimes they rail against feminism.  On occasion they preach against pornography, using the occasion to slam churchwomen over immodest attire.  In every denomination, pastors preach often enough on tithing, and never fail to pass the plate.  Yet they fail at addressing an issue faced by approximately one fourth of their congregation.

Recently a wildly popular pastor shoved the problem of Christian violence into the spotlight when he choked, kicked and stomped his wife in the parking lot of an Atlanta hotel.  In the South, beating your wife may or may not be a crime.  Records show that the most common law enforcement response to domestic violence is “separating the parties.”  Victims rarely press charges because they fear reprisal.  Law enforcement rarely presses their own charges (though they could and should), essentially treating wife-beating as a “victimless crime.”

Bishop Thomas W. Weeks, III crossed the line that even Georgia will not tolerate:  He was wearing shoes when he kicked his wife.  That’s a felony.  Besides that, he committed the acts publicly and on video surveillance tape.  He also threatened to kill her, which is another Georgia felony.

The abused wife, Prophetess Juanita Bynum, is an internationally acclaimed televangelist and best-selling author who empowers Christian women with her preaching.  Church members say that couple of weeks before the attack, Weeks announced that Bynum would no longer be preaching at the church they founded. 

Bynum is pressing charges against Weeks and seeking to end the marriage.  Attorneys for Weeks say he will contest the divorce on the grounds that she was cruel.  The strangest part of this story is not that the man who kicked and stomped his wife is contesting the divorce or fighting the charges; that happens all the time.  What is so bizarre is where this man was just a few days after the beating:  He was behind his pulpit telling his congregation that the devil made him do it.

Finally, a preacher is talking about domestic violence!  If only his congregation had responded with a resounding movement down the aisle – and right out the church door.  No one should sit under the teaching of a wife-beater.  The elders should have stripped this man of his title and never let him behind the pulpit again. 

T. D. Jakes, the famous televangelist who helped bring Bynum to power, condemned violence against women in a written statement two weeks after the attack.  He pointed out that every day, four American men murder their wives or girlfriends, resulting in 1,400 deaths per year.  That’s an FBI statistic.  He also mentioned that over half a million cases of intimate assault are reported each year.  Most cases go unreported.  According to the most conservative estimates, between 2,000,000 and 4,000,000 women are battered each year.  In 1990, the U.S. had 3,800 shelters for animals, and only 1,500 shelters for battered women.

Other Christian leaders even try to blame the victims.  Christian author Gillis Triplett claims that there are thirteen traits common to abused wives, including “THEY LOVE THE DRAMA!”  (Emphasis his.)  Evangelical leaders John MacArthur and James Dobson have both gone on record stating that women must be careful not to “provoke” abuse.  In the 1996 printing of “Love Must Be Tough,” Dobson told a story about a woman who was physically beaten by her husband.  Dobson concluded that the woman “baited” her husband to hit her so that she could show off her black eye, which he calls her “prize.”

Following the advice and example of such leaders, thousands of pastors regularly dismiss domestic violence and send women back into dangerous situations.  With “saving the marriage” as the highest aim, these pastors seek to prevent divorce at all costs.  Women receive the subtle message that their pain – or even their lives -- are not as important as keeping the marriage intact. 

One woman told a victims’ support group how she took her children and fled the state in fear of her life.  Her church responded by sending her a letter of ex-communication.

In the introduction to her new book "Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence,” Jocylen Andersen states that "The practice of hiding, ignoring, and even perpetuating the emotional and physical abuse of women is ... rampant within evangelical Christian fellowships and as slow as our legal systems have been in dealing with violence against women by their husbands, the church has been even slower." The Christian wife abuse cover-up is every bit as evil as the Catholic sex abuse cover-up.

Christian leaders set the stage for domestic violence by perpetuating pop-culture stereotypes of femininity and masculinity.  T. D. Jakes claims in his book “Woman, Thou Art Loosed” that all women were created to fulfill the vision of some man.  Jakes bases his gender theology solely on the physical characteristics of male and female genitalia, insisting that all women are “receivers” and all men are “givers.”  This false dichotomy breaks down quickly when one considers that female sexuality includes giving birth and giving milk.  More importantly, Jakes deviates from Scripture in claiming that women and men must operate like their genitalia in every facet of life.

John MacArthur also does his part to set the stage for female subjugation.  He calls the women’s movement “Satanic.” In a sermon called “God’s Design for a Successful Marriage:  The Role of the Wife” MacArthur blames working women for everything from smog to prison overcrowding.  As an antidote, he offers this quote from Charles Haddon Spurgeon on the disposition of a godly wife toward her husband:  “He is her little world, her paradise, her choice treasure.  She is glad to sink her individuality in him.”

Finally, consider Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Patterson recently dismissed Hebrew professor Sheri Klouda, simply because she was female.  He claims the Bible does not allow women to instruct men.  Patterson then launched a new major at the seminary:  Homemaking.  Only women are allowed to take these courses, which focus on childcare, cooking and sewing -- as well as a woman’s role in marriage.  The courses are taught by Patterson’s wife, who is the only surviving female in the school’s 42-person theology faculty.

Considering Patterson’s view of women, we should not be surprised at his response to domestic violence.  Participating in a panel on “How Submission Works in Practice,” Patterson tells abused wives to do three things:  Pray for their husbands, submit to them, and “elevate” them.  He admits that this advice sometimes leads to beatings, but also claims that the men eventually get saved.  Apparently, it’s only the men that matter.

Pastors who truly want to help people and save marriages should stop attacking feminism.  Instead, teach couples never to hit, choke, kick, threaten or verbally batter their spouse.  Preach against domestic violence from your pulpit.  Help abuse victims to escape their batterers – permanently.  Encourage them to press charges so that justice can be served.

Pastors, if you want to defend marriage, set an example of a loving relationship.  Instruct couples to live in a way that makes their spouse want to stay with them.  It really does not take a six-tape series to teach the number one tool of a successful marriage:  the golden rule.

-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com

This piece was published several months ago in Catoosa County News, Walker County News, and Ethics Daily, a publication of the Baptist Center for Ethics.  Dr. Klouda is currently bringing a lawsuit against Patterson for her discriminatory firing.  I wish her well.

Why Women Should Support Hillary, Not Obama

If you want proof that Hillary is the smarter, more capable candidate, just look at how Obama's campaign is trying to dodge and put off upcoming debates with Hillary. The reason? The Obama team knows that Hillary does better in debates. She is better at discussing issues on the spot, has deeper knowledge, and responds better than he does to tough questions.

Yet people are enamored with Obama over his motivational speaking. Who cares if he has experience or know-how? He's inspiring, so let's vote for him!

What's really upsetting to me, however, is how many young women don't get Hillary. I actually heard a young woman speak with contempt about Hillary this past weekend, saying that Hillary shouldn't be president because she couldn't keep Bill "in line." Excuse me? Since when did someone's ability to keep their spouse from cheating (as if that's even possible) have anything to do with their ability to run a country?

Why doesn't Hillary get any credit for forgiving Bill after a huge public humiliation, and getting past it to keep her marriage strong? Isn't that what family values is all about? She lives it, and yet no-one gives her credit for it. She could have left. She could have married another man in power (if that's all it was about for her). But no. She forgave him and you can see the love they have for each other now, some 10 years later.

Women, wake up. Stop getting sidetracked by these stupid non-issues, which are all about keeping Hillary the woman down and have nothing to do with a presidential campaign. You are being hoodwinked to betray your gender.

I'm not saying that Obama is a bad candidate but GIVE HILLARY A CHANCE. Obama is young. He has time. He can be a good VP and run again for President in another 8 years (if we're lucky). But Hillary's time is NOW. She needs your support NOW.

And if you're not all gung-ho for Hillary, ask yourself, quite seriously, why?

Is it because you believe she's too "ambitious"?

Stop and think for a second. What person who runs for president ISN'T ambitious? But when a woman runs, somehow we're wary and skeptical. God forbid someone - a woman - runs for president out of ambition! Horrors!

Is it because she's not "likable"?

Whenever is a powerful woman "likable"? Powerful women are made into jokes in this country. (Look at Janet Reno.) "Likable" women are the smiling, pretty Julia Roberts. Or Britney Spears before her meltdown. Cute, non-threatening, and maybe a little ditzy. Who needs a woman running for president to be "likable" in the female sense of the word? What do you want? Hillary wearing Hello Kitty clothes? How about baring her midriff? (And for the record, I think Hillary is highly likable.)

Is it because you think she's got a vast corporate conspiracy behind her?

I was shocked to get a slanderous anti-Hillary email in my box the other day from a female Obama supporter. From the likes of this email, Hillary not only flexes her political muscles to put Obama down, but she's directly responsible for global warming, the attacks on 9/11, the death of JFK, and all sorts of other nonsense. These are the same types of ridiculous attacks the right wing used against Bill Clinton for years - only some younger folks apparently don't realize they have been duped into repeating the same tired old crap in support of Obama instead of the right.

The Truth: Hillary is Brilliant, and Has What it Takes to Lead

If you get past the knee-jerking and sexism, and open your eyes, you'll see that Hillary is the one who really knows her stuff and has the ability to lead. And when it comes to consensus building? She, not Obama, is the one who blew away her Republican "enemies" and got them to work with her while in Congress. She knows how to reach across the table and get things done.

As for heart: I constantly hear people saying that when they get up close to Hillary, they are stunned at how warm and genuine she is. So what that she doesn't give a speech as flowery as Obama's? She still cares and she has the brains and know-how to get things done.

She's made tremendous strides in this campaign while also having to battle a lot of unconscious sexism...read the following to really understand what's been going on:

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

Still doubt Hillary's brilliance, passion, and commitment to women and children? Read the following excerpt from her speech at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing (taken from the above article with that writer's emphasis). Then tell me that we women should not support Hillary:

“For too long, the history of women has been a history of  silence. Even today, there are those who  are trying to silence our words.

“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are  sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to  be heard.”

And the right to run for president. Now let's give Hillary her voice.

Stephanie Brail

Are we there yet?

All the way from north Georgia to Boston, my four-year-old Christianna punctuated the hours with, “Are we there yet?”

“No, baby,” we’d answer, “we’re not there yet.” Then we’d pull out the map to offer the children another geography lesson. As we sailed up I-81, I began to consider the philosophical implications of my little girl’s question, “Are we there yet?”

It has never occurred to Christianna that she lives in a world where being female will often count against her. She hasn’t yet learned about women like Susan B. Anthony who had to fight the male establishment for decades so that someday women would be able to vote. She does not know that voting is still the only right constitutionally guaranteed to women today.

Christianna sees Mommy excel in the business world and bring home a good paycheck. She doesn’t know that in America, the average woman earns only 70 cents on the dollar compared to men with the same qualifications. She does not know the top three questions women are asked in job interviews: Are you married? Do you have children? Who’s going to take care of your children while you work? She doesn’t know that answering these questions “wrong” means a lower paycheck, or none at all.

When Mommy ran for office, it did not strike Christianna as unusual. She has not yet noticed that the government is owned by men, with less than 20% representation by women. She does not understand what people mean when they dismiss Hillary Clinton with “America is not ready for a woman.” (I’m not sure I understand the meaning of that comment myself.)

Christianna sees her home-educated sisters play soccer and hockey along with the boys. She doesn’t know that around the country, schools give much greater emphasis and funding to boys’ sports than girls’. She doesn’t have a clue what Title IX is, or just how many loopholes allow schools and communities to keep funneling most of the dollars and scholarship opportunities to the boys. She hasn’t heard that Georgia public schools now have the legal option to simply close their doors to female students – making Title IX a moot point.

Christianna is growing up in a home where Mommy and Daddy treat each other with respect and make decisions jointly. She hasn’t yet learned that many women in America face sexism in their own homes. She doesn’t know that women are more likely to be physically attacked or murdered by husbands than by strangers. She doesn’t know that women who report domestic violence often receive no help at all.

At church, Christianna receives most of her spiritual instruction from female teachers. She doesn’t know that radio preachers and best-selling authors claim women dishonor God when they teach the Bible. She hasn’t heard of “complementarians” like Wayne Grudum and John MacArthur who say that men and women are not equal before God. She hasn’t heard them dismiss her favorite Bible heroines Deborah and Miriam as aberrations used to shame men.

Christianna isn’t aware that many church denominations are shoving women backward to the days before the light of Christian feminism. She hasn’t heard of Baptist chaplains stripped of their endorsement just for being female. She doesn’t know about the missionaries who lost their funding because they refused to sign a statement of belief that men are above their wives.

Christianna lives in a safe haven where women are respected, honored and given opportunity to succeed. Soon enough she will discover the hazards of being female. She’ll find out that she has to work longer and harder to succeed – and that people of both sexes will despise her when she does.

“Are we there yet?”

“No, baby, we’re not there yet . . .”

- Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.OntheOtherHandColumn.blogspot.com

No Baptist left behind

A year ago, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a resolution urging churches and parents “to investigate their public schools to determine, among other things, whether they are endangering children in their care by collaboration with homosexual advocates.” The resolution stopped short of demanding that all Southern Baptists pull their children out of public school. This year, “exit strategy” advocates are pushing for a mass pull-out. Their ultimate desire is to end public education in America.

Those promoting the exit strategy include Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler, who claims that “atrocities” occur non-stop in public schools. World Net Daily, Jonah Goldberg, Dr. Laura Schlessinger and conservative pundits across the nation have also joined the posse, demonstrating that the idea is more GOP than Baptist.

Dr. Bruce Shortt, who helped draft the resolution, claims the idea is to start “a new public school system.” Yet there is nothing public about the system they propose. Americans are supposed to trust individual churches to create private Christian schools that anyone and everyone can afford. “Public” in this sense only means that the schools would be open to students who do not attend church there.

Not all Southern Baptists agree with the exit strategy; after all, plurality of opinion is a hallmark of the Baptist faith. Robert Parham of the Baptist Center for Ethics says, “The anti-public education agenda fits nicely with the anti-women, anti-science, anti-Disney, anti-everything ideology within the SBC. That agenda runs counter to the best of the goodwill tradition with Baptist life that seeks the welfare of the public square.”

I have no argument with people who want to remove their children from the public school system. My own children have been educated outside the public system for many years. We are not running from evolution, homosexuality or even drugs in the schools. Rather, education is a matter of personal freedom in our family. My children love the opportunities they have to learn “outside the box.” They have taken charge of their own education, seeking new opportunities to learn and grow. They have learned in private schools, at home, on the road, in student-lead collaboratives, at the library, through tutors and over the Internet. In America, parents already have the freedom to teach and train their children however they see fit.

That’s not the problem. The problem is that for some fundamentalists, focusing on their own children is not enough. They want to remove the right of all American children to receive a free local education.

As exit strategy advocate Voddie Baucham recently wrote in his blog, “I want to bankrupt the American educational establishment one student at a time.”

Baucham and his ilk claim that the public school system cannot be reformed. “We cannot mend it; we must end it. If the system loses enough money it will have to be scrapped.”

Their hope is to strip away enough per-student funding that the public school system will collapse. They pretend to be concerned for the children, painting a picture of public schools so toxic that registering a child there is tantamount to child abuse. Exit strategy advocates use phrases like “Pharaoh’s school system,” and “children rendered unto Caesar” to evoke strong emotions.

Baptist parents are encouraged to place their children in private Baptists schools if they can afford it, and if not – then homeschool. No one mentions the cost of homeschooling. Even if you dig most of your curriculum from the free bin at McKay’s Used Books, the cost of having at least one parent at home full time is tremendous.

If the souls of children were number one on the Baptist agenda, the churches would be focused on adding more educational options, not sabotaging the options we have now. Just imagine if church activists took the millions spent opposing abortion, homosexuality and public school, and simply funneled it into free Christian schools. Imagine if any child who wanted a Christian education could walk into the church and – at no cost – receive twelve years in math, history, science, language studies and Bible. Provide a superior education at no cost, and students will flock to the church in droves.

In fact, the church could reach children even earlier by offering free daycare to the community’s children. With free Christian daycare available to all, the majority of area children would learn to pray before they learned to ride a bicycle. They would grow up believing in God. They would be far more likely to attend church and identify with Christ as adults. A recent study by the Barna Group indicates that children under 14 are three times more likely to accept Christ than adults. If the church really wanted to bring people to Christ, free daycares and free schools are the surest path to achieve that goal.

“We can’t do that,” some are already grumbling. “It might encourage women to join the work force!” In fact, churches around the country have shut down existing daycare programs for just this reason. They do not want to be responsible for encouraging the “selfishness” of women. Isn’t it interesting how women are characterized as selfish for obtaining honest employment – while men are considered selfish when they don’t?

As for the Baptist/GOP hope that pulling out kids will bankrupt the system, their logic is flawed. Although Southern Baptist wealth is growing, many members will find themselves unable to afford private schools. It is doubtful that all Southern Baptist mothers will drop their careers to homeschool.

We can expect to see a continued trend of homeschool growth, but it will be offset by the continuing trend of public school growth. Just consider how many public schools are filled to capacity and overflowing into trailers and temporary buildings. Only a mass exodus of Baptist children would register on the radar – and in that case schools would downsize, not close. Fewer students require fewer teachers, fewer administrators, fewer buildings, fewer textbooks, and so on. In fact, if student numbers fall while tax revenue remains the same, it could actually help the public school system. More dollars per student would be available to educate those who remain.

The late Rev. Jerry Falwell once said, "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools.” He did not live to see such a day. The public school system outlived Falwell, and it will outlive this plot as well.

- Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.OntheOtherHandColumn.blogspot.com

Fans still worship Woman-killer

It seems fitting that she was known simply as “Woman.” She was smart, she was funny, she was successful, and she was beautiful. Yet Nancy Benoit died simply because she was a woman.

That’s not shocking, really. It happens to approximately 1,200 women per year. Many times children, like Nancy’s seven-year-old son, are also killed. Frequently the killer kills himself afterward, so that should not shock us, either.

It is the fans that are shocking. In thousands of posts on dozens of sites, Chris Benoit fans are creating all sorts of conspiracy theories and excuses to justify or explain away the tragic murders he committed before hanging himself.

Some wrestling fans blame Nancy: “She’s not so innocent.” (Seeing as how she was hand-cuffed and strangled a day before her son was suffocated and two days before Chris Benoit’s hanging, she sounds fairly innocent to me.) “Maybe she cheated on him,” dozens of fans suggest, as if murder is a reasonable response to infidelity. Interestingly, no one suggests that he may have been cheating on her, or the more obvious conclusion, that he was an abusive megalomaniac with a lust for violence.

Imagine the outrage if a professional wrestler broke into a home here in north Georgia and slaughtered a woman and child. We would condemn the murderer and demand change in the industry. But our society still views women as belonging to their husbands, and children as belonging to their parents. Thus Benoit fans talk about the “mistakes” he made with his “own” family. They mourn the three victims as if they were hit by a meteor or died together in a car crash. They talk about them playing together in the afterlife. They write “Rest in peace, Chris Benoit.”

Most disturbing are the attempts by fans and wrestling promoters alike to eulogize Chris Benoit as a hero and a really good man. Good men don’t kill people. They certainly don’t kill women and children. Many fans feel they knew Benoit from his TV or ring appearances and claim the Canadian Crippler “wouldn’t hurt a fly.”

Chillingly, World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) responded to the killings by airing a 3-hour tribute to the dead wrestler. After the public found out that Benoit himself was the killer, WWE vowed not to talk about Benoit again. It is telling that no tribute is planned for his victim Nancy Benoit, who was also a WWE star known as Woman or Fallen Angel.

The excuses offered for the murderer’s behavior are myriad. Some blame “roid rage.” Federal agents raided his doctor’s office and made over a dozen arrests, as if steroid use had suddenly come to light. It hardly takes a toxicologist to recognize that these entertainers are using anabolic steroids and have been for many years. As terrible as steroid use is, it does not explain a man handcuffing and strangling his wife one day, smothering his son the next day, and on the third day taking the coward’s retreat by hanging himself.

Here’s another item steroids cannot explain: the accolades offered by fellow wrestlers. For example, Stone Cold Steve Austin declared after learning of the deaths that he had nothing but respect for Chris Benoit.

Perhaps Austin’s ex-wife Debra Williams can explain it. “The domestic and drug abuse is out of hand in the WWE,” she said in a recent interview with Fox 31 news. According to Fox, Debra and Nancy led similar lives. Both went to the police seeking protection from their own husbands. Both lived in fear and both filed for divorce after repeated attacks. In Debra William’s case, Austin coerced her to write a letter to the authorities stating that the complaint was a mistake. Austin was put on probation for one year, and Debra was placed under a court gag order that prevented her from going public about the drugs, alcohol and domestic abuse so prevalent in the world of wresting. Nancy also withdrew her complaint, and remained with her abuser until he killed her on Friday, June 22nd.

“Why do they stay?” misinformed people ask, implying that battered women can just leave if they do not like being abused. It is a misguided question, which can be answered in three words: They don’t stay. Half of all marriages end in divorce, after all. The number of women who intentionally stay with abusive men for the rest of their lives is a fairly small number.

Leaving an abuser is not easy -- particularly when a woman faces losing her children, her home, her financial stability, and quite possibly her life. Every week the news is filled with stories of men who would rather kill their wives than watch them walk out the door. In fact, the majority of spouse murders take place during separation and divorce. Some men take “till death do us part” to a whole new level. Each year, more Americans die at the hands of husbands or boyfriends than fighting in Iraq.

Wrestling fans are accustomed to suspending belief when a steroid-enhanced maniac lands an elbow on the slick, shiny abdomen of another wrestler. Apparently they are equally willing to suspend belief when the facts (Chris Benoit is a murderer who doesn’t deserve a tribute) diverge from their altered reality (Chris Benoit is a saint, a hero, and a good man.)

WWE producers surely see reality. They know that their actors are not gods. They know that they are strung out on booze and steroids. Rather than condemning steroid use among athletes, the WWE has maintained that steroids could not possibly be responsible.

They know that domestic violence is rampant among their ranks. The slaying of Nancy Benoit presented an excellent opportunity to mourn her passing and highlight the problem of domestic violence in America. Imagine the impact! Wrestling fans could have been presented with warning signs, help-lines, and prevention guidelines. WWE bypassed an unprecedented opportunity to save women’s lives by talking about what one man did to one Woman. Instead, they glorified the monster.

-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.OntheOtherHandcolumn.blogspot.com

Parenting tips for dummies

You don’t own them. Children are not possessions that belong to you. Children are a blessing, but it’s more important that we bless them. They are not here to entertain or titillate adults, to make us look good, to justify our existence or to give adults a whipping post for taking out anger. They are not even here to love us; they are here to be loved.

Since you don’t own them, don’t be mean to your children if they act badly in public. The public will be more disgusted with your behavior than the child’s. The purpose of discipline is to nurture and train the child so that he or she grows into a healthy adult. It is not to vent your anger, or even to make your life easier. It isn’t about you.

Note to men: Dating a woman does not give you the right to discipline her children.

Note to frustrated parents: Children are not things you can put away when you’re tired of them — not in a closet, not in a car, not in a cage, not in a drug-induced stupor, and not in a shallow grave. They are in your care, but you don’t own them.

In fact, they own you. According to the law, every child has a right to be cared for and financially supported from the moment he or she emerges into the world until the age of 18. If you are the biological or adopted parent of a minor child, that child owns you.

You have certain responsibilities, and the rest of society will condemn or punish you for failing to meet them. Children have the right to expect that their caregivers will feed them (more than once a day, and something other than Lucky Charms), clothe them, nurture them and teach them. When you can’t take care of them, you have to find someone who can.

State law does not specify at what age a child may be left alone — but 6 isn’t it. Parked cars do not make good babysitters, although they do make good ovens. For a small child, being inside a car unsupervised is as dangerous as standing in the highway. In the summer it only takes minutes for a child to become brain-damaged in a parked car (even with the windows “cracked”).

Children in cars are also at risk for kidnapping, car-jacking, parking lot wrecks, engine fires, putting the car in gear, or injuring themselves on the power windows. Many automobile-related child deaths occur in the parent’s or grandparent’s own driveway.

Committing a crime against “your” child is not somehow better than committing a crime against a stranger. In fact, it is worse because you had a responsibility to protect that particular child from harm.

Children are people. This would seem to be self-evident. You would think that when a child emerges from the womb, both new parents would look down at that tiny face — a mirror of their own — and instantly fall in love. You would think that for them, that child would suddenly become the most important person in their life — the very sun around which the rest of their solar system rotates.

But here are some tips for those parents that do not experience such a paradigm shift: Ropes are for cattle, not children. If it is illegal to do to your dog, it’s also illegal to do to a child.

Pavement is blisteringly hot, and the men’s restroom floor is nasty, so put shoes on your child when you go out. Children should never be subjected to addictive, cancer-causing, asthma-triggering cigarette smoke — and certainly not in an enclosed space like your car. Oh, and when the diaper package says a diaper will hold “up to 34 pounds,” that indicates the size of the child, not the amount of excrement it will hold.

In our society, there is no excuse for cruelty to children. If you cannot or will not give your child the basic requirements of life (food, clothing, cleanliness, safety and a little love) then please be grown-up enough to hand that child over to someone who will.

-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.ontheotherhandcolumn.blogspot.com

The family-values candidate

In recent years, Democratic candidates have focused on “issues” while Republican candidates focused on “values.” Through forces like Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and The Christian Coalition, Republicans have used religion and guilt to coerce Christians into ignoring the issues (education, health care, the economy) and voting a straight Republican ticket. For 2008, they will have to try a new tactic.

The field of philandering, thrice-divorced candidates put forth by the Republican Party lead lives so far from anything that can be construed as “family values,” no honest preacher could tell church-goers to vote for them.

Who then is the family values candidate this go-round? Surprise, it’s Hillary Clinton. Clinton has honored her marriage vows through some pretty rough times, when most of us wouldn’t have faulted her for leaving. She demonstrates true commitment to her own family, and to the families of America, too.

Rudy Giuliani entered the American limelight as the heroic mayor amid the ashes of New York City. Never mind that Giuliani broke up with his second wife and the mother of his children at a news conference. Never mind that he moved out of Gracie Mansion to live with a couple of gay men during the divorce. Never mind that he married the woman he was already having an affair with while still married to Hanover. His children are so upset they have refused to help him campaign. Then there are the well-circulated YouTube videos of Giuliani in lipstick, heels and a dress, raising money for pro-homosexual organizations. He even sent money to Planned Parenthood. And this is the #1 choice of the Republican Party – the so-called “family values” party? While Giuliani has been running around in high heels smooching with Donald Trump, it is Hillary Clinton who has shown the world that a woman can be both strong and feminine at the same time.

John McCain, 2nd choice Republican candidate, has led an equally appalling personal life. McCain ditched his first wife, who raised their three children while he was in Vietnam, after she was crippled in a car accident. One month later he married 25-year-old Anheuser-Busch heiress Cindy Hensley. He used the family money to launch his political career. During the last election, James Dobson (often considered the evangelical “Pope”) issued a statement of non-support for McCain, citing his marital infidelities. McCain was deeply involved in the Savings & Loans scandals of the 1980’s, as one of the five Senators known as “the Keating Five” who received large political contributions from a firm accused of civil racketeering and fraud. McCain later admitted, “The appearance of it was wrong.” Contrast McCain to Hillary Clinton, who has never been disciplined for wrongdoing, and was named by Arkansas as the 1984 Mother of the Year.

"Let Our Family Represent Your Family." This was Newt Gingrich’s 1978 campaign slogan. He was reportedly cheating on his wife Jackie at the time. He divorced the woman who had put him through graduate school while she was still undergoing cancer treatments. According to his campaign treasurer, Gingrich divorced Jackie, who was 7 years his senior, because, “She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer." Gingrich did not pay child support, so the local church had to take up a collection to support the children.

Gingrich’s next wife, Marianne, stood by him through 84 ethics violations, including violation of federal tax laws. He was sanctioned for $300,000 for violating House Rules, breaking federal laws and lying to the ethics panel. In 1999, while spearheading impeachment efforts against Bill Clinton for lying about sex with a staffer, Gingrich was lying about an affair with one of his own staffers. At the time, he resigned and slunk into the shadows. He soon divorced Marianne and married Callista, the object of his affair. Reverend Jerry Falwell assures Conservative voters that Gingrich has “genuinely sought forgiveness.” Contrast Gingrich’s sleazy personal life with that of Hillary Clinton, who has never embarrassed her family or her nation.

Oddly, the press does not yet seem interested in the enormous moral failures of the Republican hopefuls. Instead, publications like the New York Times spend thousands of words evaluating whether the Clintons are emotionally close or mostly leading “separate lives.” Faced with Hillary Clinton’s professional and respectable lifestyle, detractors try to smear her with her husband’s failings, as if to impart guilt by association. The fact is, in spite of her husband’s failings, Hillary Clinton has always behaved as a true stateswoman.

Another tactic launched at women politicians is the subtle suggestion that any woman so smart and so strong must be a lesbian or a man in disguise. In 1998 John McCain made the following joke at a Republican fundraiser: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.” McCain apologized to Bill Clinton for making a tasteless joke at the expense of Clinton’s awkward teenage daughter. I do wonder whether he ever apologized to Chelsea, Hillary, or Janet Reno? I also wonder, will women vote for a man who expresses such contempt for smart, successful women?

Hillary Clinton inspires women everywhere with her example of integrating family life with big dreams. She held her own family together in spite of her husband’s embarrassing infidelities. She raised a daughter who is beautiful, smart and successful just like she is. For years she has fought to help other families by championing affordable health care, reasonable family leave policies and other pro-family legislation. It is Hillary Clinton who is the family values choice for 2010.

Come to think of it, Democratic favorites John Edwards and Barak Obama are also faithful to their original spouse and children. Awkwardly, the only top Republican candidate still with his first wife is Mitt Romney, the Mormon from Massachusetts. Until recently, Romney was as pro-choice as any Planned Parenthood donor and also favored domestic partnerships. McCain has also flip-flopped on those issues. Just a few years ago McCain was rated as one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress, and now he is rated as the 3rd most conservative. Giuliani has always been a strong supporter of state-funded abortion, and he marched in the Gay Day Parade just a few feet away from the NAMBLA banner exalting “man-boy love.” It looks like Republicans will have to stop appealing to Bible-belt voters with hypocritical “family values” rhetoric. We Christians are surely smarter than that.

-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.OnTheOtherHandColumn.blogspot.com

Wage gap hurts men, too

In every ethnic group and every occupational category, American women still earn significantly less than their male equals. In fact, no progress has been made since the 1980s. This is not because women work less. In fact, the more hours women work, the larger the wage gap grows. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women working 41 to 44 hours per week earn 84.6% the wages of men working the same hours, while women who work more than 60 hours per week earn only 78.3%.

Education does not narrow the gap, either. The wage gap actually widens at higher levels of education; women with professional degrees only earn 60% the wages of their male counterparts. Some “war-on-boys” pundits are complaining that more women than men graduate college. They imagine that women are getting ahead of men. Actually, what they are witnessing is the efforts of individual women to level the playing field through education. According to the US Census Bureau, a woman must graduate college just to make the same wage as a man who only graduates high school. A woman with a master’s degree typically earns less than a man with a bachelor’s, and a woman with a doctorate earns less than a man with a master’s. If women are rushing to fill the halls of education, it is because we know we must.

The wage gap is not caused by job choice, either. It exists across every occupational category. In fact, when men choose a female-dominated industry such as nursing or teaching, the men tend to be propelled quickly into management positions over the women. For example, male coaches become principals, in management over women with master’s degrees. Women must work an average of three years longer to attain the position of school principal.

The harm to women is obvious. What many people miss is how the wage gap hurts men. It may give some men an edge in the marketplace, but other men find no place in the market at all. This phenomenon is a matter of simple economics. We all want to buy more for less. Given two applicants with equal strengths, employers will often chose the one they can hire at a lower wage. Since women still earn significantly less than men with the same qualifications, women are more likely to accept a lower offer. Thus the wage gap causes male unemployment.

To see the other ill effects on men, we must step back from the competitive model where applicants are battling for position, and consider the family. About 60 percent of married women work full time. Their paycheck benefits the entire family – husband, wife and children. Through wives and mothers, the wage gap robs men and boys of income, too. In the case of divorced or widowed households where the mother supports the children alone, the effects of the wage gap are devastating. Since the greatest factor in determining a child’s future earnings is the earnings of that child’s parents, the economic impoverishment of mother-headed households has far-reaching consequences.

Some voices seek to obscure the wage gap by claiming that it is caused by lifestyle choices. The theory goes something like this: Women are the ones who take time off work to care for babies and sick family members. These breaks in employment cause women to be less experienced, less relevant, and less committed. Employers presumably hire women fairly, but the women miss chances for advancement because of these absences.

Recent studies debunk the lifestyle myth by comparing only full-time, year-round workers, and looking at men and women who have been employed without breaks for the same length of time. The AAUW Educational Foundation recently found that a significant pay gap exists within just one year of college graduation. Straight out of school, women graduates make 80% the wages of their male peers. Within ten years, the gap grows wider, with women earning 69%.

Employment breaks do not cause the wage gap, but the reverse may be true. Since 70% of men earn more than their wives, most families sacrifice the woman’s job when family needs arise. This also hurts men. With their wives underpaid, men are unable to take unpaid leave when they want or need to.

The wage gap hurts men, women and children. It causes male unemployment. It locks families into rigid gender roles, and prevents men from spending more time with their children or caring for their aging parents. Like other forms of discrimination, pay discrimination hurts even those it favors.

Who really benefits from the wage gap? Employers looking to hire quality employees and pay them less than they are worth.

--Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.ontheotherhandcolumn.blogspot.com

A few good men

It isn’t that America lacks good men. It’s that our current culture does not know how to recognize them. Over the past week I have received several emails from Chris Benoit fans angrily defending the wrestler turned murderer. They all say the same thing – Yeah, he killed his wife and child, but Chris Benoit was a good man. They offer evidence to support their claim: “I met him once and he gave me his autograph.” “He was always smiling,” says another.

Many people do not understand the difference between polite and good. Mass murderer Jeffrey Dhamer was always described as polite, but that does not make him a good man. There is more to being a good man than knowing how to nod and smile. A good man does not take lives; a good man saves lives.

Liviu Lebrescu was such a man. He was a Romanian holocaust survivor who went on to become a highly honored professor. Normally he taught college students aeronautical engineering, but on April 16th of this year, he taught us all how a good man should react to terrorism. As the Virginia Tech killer approached Liviu Lebrescu’s classroom in Norris Hall, the professor blocked the doorway with his own body while his students climbed out the windows. He laid down his life so that others might live. Liviu Lebrescu was a good man.

Most good men will never step into the worldwide spotlight as Liviu Lebrescu did with that split-second decision. Most good men are good simply because they do what is right day after day. They change diapers, check homework, and help strangers stranded on the highway. They work to support their children, whether they live together or not. They pay their taxes and their bills. They thank the drive-through attendant. They leave good tips. They treat women with respect. A good man does these things even when no one is watching.

Chris Benoit enjoyed the spotlight. In the ring or in front of a cheering crowd, he wore his assumed persona. He was, after all, an actor. In the world of wrestling, he played “the good guy.” To those of us who are not avid wrestling fans, a “good guy” wrestler is a bit of a contradiction. How can anyone who engages in the sadistic, gratuitous violence showcased by modern wrestling be considered “good”? In the ring, he pretended to hurt people. At home, he really did hurt people. He hurt the very people he was supposed to love and protect. Finally, he killed them.

A man demonstrates his true character in private – away from TV cameras and cheering fans, or (in the case of more ordinary men) away from church friends and work colleagues. At home, a man shows who he really is. A good man is honest. A good man is gentle with women and children. He is responsible. He can be trusted.

My grandfather was such a man. Even if you knew Herchel Babb, you probably did not know about his military service before reading it in the obituary last week. He served in the Asiatic-Pacific theatre in WWII. Papaw rarely mentioned his service, and he certainly did not expect others to praise him for it or to give him special privileges or accolades. He never seemed to feel that civilians owed him something. He served not for personal glory, but because it was the right thing to do.

Papaw understood that a person can honor the troops and the veterans even when they do not agree with the President or the war. In fact, Papaw did not always agree with the Commander in Chief he served. He lamented the loss of life in Hiroshima, and speculated that the Allies would have been victorious soon enough without the devastation of the atom bombs.

My grandfather also felt uneasy about the bombing of Baghdad. He could say so without any sense of disloyalty, because he understood the difference between politics and patriotism. Today that line has been obscured. War hawks preach that anyone who opposes the war is a coward or a terrorist, and that you cannot be a good American without being a Republican. Anyone who disagrees with the status quo is branded as a traitor. We have forgotten what the founding fathers understood so well: Open dissent is only possible in a free country, and a free country is only possible where open dissent is allowed to flourish.

Papaw never preached a sermon – but perhaps his life was a sermon in itself. He loved his wife and delighted in his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. He spent his youth scrimping and saving while he built a business with his brother Jack. As their sons grew up, they were welcomed into the business. Illness forced Papaw to retire before I joined the family business, but he was thrilled to see the younger generation coming in. That was always his desire. He wasn’t building a fortune for himself; he was building a legacy for future generations. Proverbs 13:22 says, “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.” On June 30th, we held my grandfather’s hands as his breath came slower and slower, till his body at last lay still. The world lost a good man.

Ultimately, we look to Jesus Christ as the perfect example of a good man. Like the other good men I’ve mentioned, Jesus was strong but gentle. He could not tolerate injustice. Jesus courageously challenged the leaders of his day. He used his great power to help the young, the weak and the sick – not to force his will on others.

Jesus did not seek accolades, even though no one deserved them more. Although he was Lord of Lord and King of Kings, Jesus knelt on the dirty floor to wash his disciples’ feet. He did not miss a beat when he came to the feet of Judas, who he knew would betray him that very night. He loved and he served, knowing that in the end the task before him would cost him his very life.

Yet even Jesus, for all his goodness, shied away from being called good. “Who are you calling good?” he asked. “Only God is good.” Perhaps you know a man like this. I’ve got one at my house. All the Christian marriage books say that men want praise. Wives are instructed to compliment and openly admire them. But I found that when I put that advice into action, my good man cringed. He said that he was only human, and did not want to be put on a pedestal.

A good man is humble. He does not demand that others honor him for doing what is right. He doesn’t do it for glory. He does it because that’s just who he is.

-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.ontheotherhandcolumn.blogspot.com

More Troubles for Girls Gone Wild

Girls Gone Wild is in the news again:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070614/ap_en_ce/girls_gone_wild_5

Basically, some women are suing because they claim they were given alcohol (even though they were underage), videotaped while drunk, and then put into GGW DVDs without their consent.

Joe Francis, the founder of GGW, is in jail right now for tax evasion charges. From the story: "He is also charged in Florida with using minors in sexual performances, conspiring to use minors in sexual performances and prostitution." I've read other stories that he has also allegedly raped some of the girls he has lured into his van.

I'm not a fan of porn in general, but at least when you are watching standard pornography you are dealing with women who have actively decided to pursue porn as a career and who are doing it consensually while (mostly) in their right mind. (Although, it's worth noting that most major porn stars come from backgrounds where they were sexually abused as a child or raped...including Traci Lords and Jenna Jameson.)

With GGW you instead have a bunch of girls (many underage) who are being taken advantage of while they are out drunk and partying, and they are not in a place to make a proper judgment about these things.

Now I don't know about you, but I'll bet that many of us have had moments while we were perhaps drinking too much or having too much fun, where we did something stupid that we might regret later. Now how would you feel if those moments were put into a porno DVD for the world to see? And all you got for it was a lousy t-shirt?

So if you want to go out and buy some porn, go buy some regular porn, but please do young girls a favor and don't support GGW. It's not "cute and harmless." It's a sick man who is making a million dollars off of exploiting young women who aren't in a position to know any better. Girls these days are confused enough what with MySpace and the pressure to be constantly sexy...this is not helping. I have a 3-year-old niece and it upsets me that she's growing up in a world where it's normal for 14-year-old girls to post pictures of themselves in thong underwear up on the Internet.

I will be so happy when that guy is put out of business once and for all.

Stephanie Brail

Stay-at-Home Moms Worth $138,095 a Year??

Here we go again. It's the yearly assessment of housewive's imaginary "salaries":

Stay-at-home mother's work worth $138,095 a year

Don't get me wrong. I have the greatest respect for parents. But this sort of study pisses me off for a number of reasons:

1. Hello. Ever heard of a guy called a DAD? And yes, some of them actually stay at home while the wife works. Heck, some of them don't have a wife bringing in the bacon. A guy I'm dating will have his kid living with him all summer. He's divorced. He doesn't have a new wife. Who's taking care of that kid for the entire summer? Him, and no-one else. Do we see his "salary" added up anywhere? No, and that's not fair.

2. Do all moms work that hard? Sorry, but no. Would you like to meet the welfare mom who got kicked out of our apartment building in March? I'm not saying all welfare moms are like her, but this particular gal was a lazy slob who was perfectly fit, healthy, and young, and spent all her days hanging out with her boyfriend while her neglected kid ran around the complex leaving his toys everywhere for other people to trip and fall on.

3. Here are the 10 jobs that comprise a mother's work, according to the report:

housekeeper, cook, day care center teacher, laundry machine operator, van driver, facilities manager, janitor, computer operator, chief executive officer and psychologist

First off, this list is utterly ridiculous. Computer operator? CEO? Gimme a break.

As a single woman, I also serve as housekeeper, cook, "van driver," facilities manager, janitor (um, isn't this the same thing as housekeeper?), computer operator, chief executive officer...and heck, even a shrink (to all my friends who call me on the phone for advice).

I'm not saying it's easy to be a mom. But you know what? The idea of staying home with the kids while a partner goes out and deals with bringing in the money sounds a heck of a lot easier than being single and starting up a business on your own.

Kids can be a handful, I know. But for pete's sake, if you have a husband bringing in the money, and all you need to do is take care of one or two kids and keep a house clean...please, stop whining to the rest of us about how hard your life is.

I respect good mothers. Just don't try to tell me that you should get a special dispensation for the choice you made to have children. I'm sure the moms out there would be the first to say that the benefits of children far outweigh any drawbacks.

So why the need to put a monetary value on that? Housework is just housework. We all need to do it, kids or no.

Stephanie Brail

A tale of two Marys

When the Virginia Tech shooter killed his first two victims, officials detained the girl’s boyfriend and did little else.  After he killed another 30 people, officials admitted that they discounted the first two murders as a “domestic dispute.”  Last week, in a column written before this incident, I noted that this euphemism is used to downplay acts of violence against women. 

“Domestic dispute” is codespeak for the things men to do their “own” women, which therefore do not really concern the outside world.  The distinction is artificial, because violence that begins at home frequently spills into the rest of the world.  Consider, for example, Buckhead shooter Mark O. Barton.  After he shot 9 people at his office, police later found the bludgeoned bodies of his wife and children at home.  In fact, Barton may have killed before.  Someone bludgeoned his first wife and mother-in-law to death years before the Buckhead killings.  Barton was named a person of interest and investigated by police – but the prosecutor did not proceed with indictment.  It makes you wonder if we could prevent some mass murders by taking “domestic disputes” more seriously.

The trial of a woman named Mary Winkler who shot her husband also made front page this week.  When a woman shoots a man (or even a man’s tires, in the case of Miss America 1944), it always makes great headlines.  “Tennessee preacher’s wife convicted” national headlines read.

Meanwhile, another trial involving another Mary never made front page.  Mary Babb (no relation to this columnist) was the victim of many “domestic disputes.”  Because the violence was male-on-female, most of us never read about it.  “Witness describes fatal shooting,” was the local headline for her story.

Mary W. testified that her husband abused her physically, sexually and emotionally.  Friends and relatives said her personality had changed since marrying the controlling preacher, and testified of a black eye and other visible injuries.  Mary W. said he subjected her to sexual acts she found physically painful and morally repugnant.  She was afraid to divorce her husband, who had sworn to kill her and cut her up into a million pieces if she ever crossed him.  After he tried to silence their baby by covering her mouth and nose, Mary W. says she snapped.  She does not remember pulling the trigger.  She fired one blast from his own shotgun – the one he had threatened her with so many times – then she packed her three little girls in the car and fled. 

On Friday, a jury found Mary W. guilty of voluntary manslaughter.  The verdict recognizes that she shot her husband intentionally but without forethought.  Though Mary W. claims the shotgun went off accidentally, pointing a gun at another person certainly suggests intent.  If she was not in imminent danger, her actions can hardly be considered self-defense.  Although the gun had been pointed at her many times in the past, one crime does not excuse another. 

She should have gone to the police.  She should have prosecuted Matthew Winkler for beating and threatening and sexually abusing her.  She should have divorced him instead of shooting him.  Right?

But let us consider the other Mary.  Mary B. was also a victim of an abusive husband, and she did all the things we would have advised Mary W. to do.  Mary B. filed for divorce.  When her husband Thomas responded by threatening her with a knife, Mary B. sought to prosecute him for assault, domestic violence and criminal sexual conduct.  Mary B. obtained an order of protection.  She moved to another city with her three-year-old son and she found a job working for a newspaper. 

While in jail, Thomas was so vocal in his threats against Mary B. that cellmates requested he be moved.  In spite of the threats, and in spite of a prior sentence for assaulting Mary B., the judge let him out of jail on bond.  Several months later, with the court date and charges still pending, Thomas found his prey again outside her place of employment.  He rammed her Ford Explorer till it overturned.  As Mary B. lay trapped on the ceiling of her vehicle, he shot out the window, and then killed her with one blast from a shotgun.

Two Marys faced controlling, abusive husbands.  Mary B. did everything right.  She did not fight violence with violence.  She trusted the authorities to protect her.  Mary B. is dead. 

Mary W. fought back.  Afraid that involving the police would result in her death, she took matters into her own hands.  Mary W. survived.  Because she survived, she is going to jail.  We fail to protect those women who turn to the law for protection – and we prosecute those who protect themselves. Until judges stop letting abusive men go free, we should not condemn women like Mary W. who fight back.  What other recourse do they have? 

Divorce is a legitimate reaction.  The longer an abused woman stays, the harder it is for her to get out alive.  Since abuse gets worse with time, churches and counselors should not advise abused women to tough it out or give him one more chance.  Yet filing for divorce is not sufficient – particularly if Georgia legislators succeed in prolonging the waiting period between divorce filing and finalizing to 120 days.  Statistics show that the rate of marital homicide is highest during the separation preceding divorce.  Some abusers continue to harass or physically attack their victims even after divorce.  Mary B. had already filed for divorce.  Divorce did not save her.

Orders of protection are useless.  These are men who ignore social taboos and break existing laws every time they assault their wives.  They are not going to be deterred by an additional rule on a piece of paper.  Neither is a $30,000 bond (of which he pays just 10%) going to keep such a man from going after his prey. 

Violent men are not stopped by un-enforced laws, restraining orders or fines.  They can be stopped by prison bars.  Until the American judicial system starts locking up abusive men, it should not lock up women who protect themselves. 

-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
On the Other Hand
April, 2007

Reading Between the (Head)lines

A Canton, Georgia headline reads, “Couple, child victims of apparent murder-suicide.”  The headline is sanitized and de-sexed, suggesting that everyone involved is a victim, as if none of the three were to blame.  The headline does not tell us who shot who, but we all know.  It is not just that 94% of murder-suicides are male on female.  It is the headline that gives it away, by what is left unsaid.  If the shooter had been female, the headline would read “Woman murders husband, leaves baby to starve.”  As another example, consider two arrests that were made Easter weekend.  The male-on-female murder was noted in this gender-neutral manner:  “Arrest made in teens’ death.”  But when three women were arrested for delivering a baby and discarding it, that headline read:  “NY sisters arrested in baby’s death.”

Acts of violence by women against men are still extraordinary enough to rate “Man bites dog” news status.  When Lorena Bobbitt was arrested for maiming her husband, that story was a great headline-grabber.  News of the forced abortion and the continual abuse she had endured at his hands -- so horrible that the judge chose to acquit her for the attack -- barely made a ripple on the news radar.

The media gender bias extends beyond perpetrators; it is also evident in the treatment of victims.  Consider the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal.  The world was outraged at the discovery that priests were molesting altar boys.  We barely noticed that they victimized girls, too.  One priest raped numerous teenage girls upon the altar, yet it was boys who made the news.  Defenders of the Roman Catholic Church note that children are more likely to be sexually victimized by school teachers than by their priest or pastor.  Yet public outrage against student sex abuse has never risen to the level of calling it a scandal.  The difference?  Girls are the usual target.

Abu Ghraib stands as the strongest testament to the media neglect of female victimization.  Emblazoned on our collective consciousness are the images of abused and humiliated men, out of context with Lynndie England’s thumbs-up and happy camper smile.  But where are the photos and the stories of the women who were tortured at Abu Ghraib?  Perhaps you’ll have to look it up, as I did, but women were (and still are) incarcerated in Abu Ghraib.  Many women were stripped of their clothes, tortured, raped, and sexually humiliated right along with the men.  A 70-year-old Iraqi woman was harnessed and ridden like donkey.  But it was only violence against women, so it did not make the front page.

When mentioned at all, the abuse of women at Abu Ghraib is downplayed.  The Taguba report makes no bones about the sadistic torture inflicted on male Abu Ghraib prisoners.  As for the women, the report includes an innocuous-sounding admission of “a male MP guard having sex with a female detainee.”  The legal term for such an event is rape, because the law recognizes that a prisoner cannot give meaningful consent to an armed guard.  Acts against males that involved penetration were termed rape, but the rape of women was categorized as sex.  The women who have been released alive went home tight-lipped.  After all, this is a culture where a rape victim’s family often stones her to death in order to restore their “honor.”

Journalists tell us about violence against women in the passive voice, as if these things just happen.  Consider “school shootings.”  Schools don’t get shot; people do.  And someone does the shooting.  The shooters are nearly always male (boy students or sometimes a man from the community) and the victims are predominantly female.  Sometimes the shooters even excuse the males and shoot girls exclusively.  Very few media outlets have noted the gender component, preferring instead to imagine that school shootings are senseless or random acts of violence.

Another passive term the media likes is “domestic disputes.”  This one sounds like two people on an equal playing field, who are having a bit of trouble working something out.  Yet we most often hear this term after the discovery of a dead body (usually female), e.g. “The couple had a history of domestic disputes.”  To me, a domestic dispute is what happens when somebody uses up all the hot water on a Sunday morning.  The term does not adequately describe what it is like for a woman to be dragged through her house by her hair, choked, or threatened by a person who may be twice her size.  Journalists should avoid using vague, sexless terms like “domestic dispute” and instead write strong sentences such as, “Police reports indicate this was not the first time the man choked his wife.”

Statisticians are also guilty of using this neutered, passive vocabulary.  For example, they inform us that 1 out of 3 girls “will be sexually victimized” before age 18.  Although sexual abusers are almost invariably male, we do not read that “Men sexually abuse 1 out of 3 girls before the age of 18.”  Nor do we ever hear the percentage of men who abuse.  We read about women in the military “getting raped,” not about “male soldiers raping their female comrades.”

If my rephrasing of these sentences disturbs readers, it should.  We should be very disturbed that there are men in our midst, in this very community, perhaps at our church or our children’s schools, who perpetrate crimes against women and children we know.  According to the CDC, men commit over 90% of the sexual violence in America against victims who are 78% female.  Every year, American men kill 1,000 wives or girlfriends and rape or sexually abuse hundreds of thousands more.

Male-on-female violence is pervasive and is mostly ignored by our society.  We cannot adequately address it by talking about how many women are abused.  The problem is not abused women.  The problem is abusive men.

-- Jeannie Babb Taylor

On the Other Hand

April, 2007

The Law of Attraction, Science, and a Challenge to Rhonda Byrne

I am a mystic, but I am also a science geek. I used to teach science to elementary school students. I believe in miracles, but I believe these miracles occur within the framework of a very real world that is subject to certain laws of physics. Science is very complicated, and you cannot reduce the way the universe operates down to one simple formula.

Yet, many are accepting the idea that the so-called Law of Attraction is the way the universe works, or, in the least, the way people’s lives work. This idea, now put forth into the mainstream by The Secret, has been called “scientific” by many of its adherents. Yet, this label is not only misleading but downright false.

The basic idea behind the Law of Attraction is “like attracts like.” Adherents point to science as the reason this is true, citing magnets or quantum physics as “proof.” Actually, science does not say “like attracts like” whatsoever. In the most simplest of scientific explanations, the real truth is “opposites attract.”

Explained simply: A positively charged particle will attract a negatively charged particle and vice versa. Two positively charged particles will repel one another.

This is how magnets really work. This is how electricity works.

So right away, we see how science does not prove the Law of Attraction; in fact, science can be said to completely negate the Law of Attraction.

Yet, we’re not really talking particles here, are we? The Law of Attraction is dealing with human life and interactions, so what we’re really looking at is apples and oranges.

So let’s just step back and look at the concept that one simple law can explain everything that happens. I’ve seen, over and over again, people trying to justify the “truth” of the Law of Attraction by stating that universe is simple and runs by very simple laws. So, the logic goes, people’s lives must be just as simple.

Are the laws of the universe really that simple? Can they be reduced to one simple statement? In fact, when you study science at all, you realize that the universe functions smoothly not because of one reductionist law, but because of a complex series of forces and opposing forces that create a certain amount of equilibrium that allows for the creation of life. (Still, over time, this equilibrium will disintegrate, as entropy and energy dispersal breaks down the fabric of the universe as we know it.)

For example, if the only law of the universe was the law of gravity (and no other forces were opposing gravity), then everything would just stick to everything else and there would be no motion, no movement, no life.

The conflicting forces of the universe create a dynamic interplay that allows for the complex interactions that occur in the natural world. Inertia, for example, could keep that baseball you’ve thrown into the air moving on its trajectory for all of eternity, but it is gravity that ultimately pulls the ball down out of the sky. Inertia, however, is what helps the ball fly in the first place. It’s all interrelated.

It is thus scientific nonsense to suggest that one simple law such as the Law of Attraction is solely responsible for all interactions between humans. Is it possible that “attraction” can and does affect human interactions? Of course. But there are also other opposing forces that temper and mold “attraction” to create a complex system just like the one that operates in our natural world.

What then, of the idea that thoughts create our reality? Let’s give this the mystical benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it is possible that our thoughts have some organizing effect. Yet, those thoughts are also interacting with other thoughts and forces. What determines what will win out? The thought? Or the basic laws of the universe? Is the power of a thought more powerful than scientific law? Is it more powerful than gravity? Care to try that out by jumping off a tall building and believing you can fly?

Thus, when Law of Attraction proponents claim it is “scientific,” they are showing a poor understanding of science.

The true irony, of course, is that the people behind The Secret want you to believe the science “proves” their claims, yet, they are more than willing to dismiss science when it is inconvenient for them.

In a most egregious example, Rhonda Byrne, author of the book The Secret, claims that overeating will not make you gain weight. She writes:

“The most common thought that people hold, and I held it too, is that food was responsible for my weight gain. That is a belief that does not serve you, and in my mind now it is complete balderdash! Food is not responsible for putting on weight. It is your thought that food is responsible for putting on weight that actually has food put on weight. Remember, thoughts are primary cause of everything, and the rest is effects from those thoughts. Think perfect thoughts and the result must be perfect weight.”

This flies in the face of every study that has ever been done on the cause of obesity. It flies in the face of biology. It flies in the face of common sense.

And yet, when you look at Rhonda Byrne, she has aged. Isn’t it her belief about aging that makes her age? C’mon, Rhonda, make yourself younger already!

But it’s no surprise that Rhonda can’t take the wrinkles off her face. And you won’t see Rhonda Byrne flying around in the sky like Superman anytime soon. So one has to ask: Why isn’t she? If thoughts truly are the cause of everything, then why isn’t she defying gravity and wowing us with her mental prowess as a high-flying superhero?

So thoughts affect your metabolism, but not your aging or your flying ability? Hm.

Well, let’s give Rhonda the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe she can affect her metabolism, like a seasoned yogi on a mountaintop.

If this is the case, prove it. Here’s the way to do it scientifically. It’s called the “Supersize Me” Challenge, inspired by the documentary of the same name. So I challenge Rhonda Byrne:

Go overeat at McDonald’s every day for three months. We’ll monitor your health and fitness before, during and after. You must eat nothing but McDonald’s, and not just the salads but the hamburgers too. You must eat until you are stuffed and then some. And we’re going to follow you into the bathroom to make sure you aren’t purging yourself of the food. Finally, you cannot exercise during this time.

If, after three months, you show absolutely no weight gain or adverse health effects, then, maybe then, you will have shown some scientific evidence that what you say is true.

But Rhonda, as we can guess, probably won’t take up this challenge. There is always some sort of excuse or modifier put on these challenges. And that should be your first clue that the “truth” that they espouse isn’t so cut and dry after all.

We in America have been suffering from poor quality science education for decades. As our mystics continue to dilute the discourse with false science, we are in danger of creating an ignorant populace that bases decisions on superstition instead of critical thinking.

I am a believer in the mystical. But I don’t think mysticism or spirituality should conflict with science. The two, in fact, should support each other. True spirituality will not conflict with science whatsoever, but see science as evidence of the beautiful intelligent consciousness underneath it all.

Stephanie Brail

The Sexualization of Girls

Yesterday I happened across something on TV that I didn't watch long enough to learn the name of the program, nor who was speaking, but it was interviewing experts and others about the problems young girls have who sexually mature early.

They said the effects on those children were multiple and affected them at school and at home, causing both their school mates and the adults in their lives to treat them differently than if they had not developed early.

They were teased and resented at school by their peers and subjected to inappropriate sexual attention from older males. Their parents tended to expect more of them than would be reasonable for children their age because they looked older than they were. Girls who developed early were more likely to become depressed than those who had not.

Recently the BBC news web site, USA Today, and other sites have featured items about the damaging effects on girls of commercial efforts to sexualize them.

Among the contributing elements to sexualize young girls are sexually suggestive dolls. Everyone knows that Barbie is a sexualized doll, but now we also have the very popular Bratz doll series.

Linked to the Bratz dolls are suggestive clothing for girls that match up with Bratz doll clothing.

Let's allow our children to be children.

And let's allow all females to be fully human persons, not objects.

Don't buy the dolls.

Don't buy the clothing.

Write or email companies that sexually exploit children, even if they do it indirectly, and object.

Treat children like children, even if they have developed early.

It is their right.

Enough With the Girls Gone Wild Ads

I am not a huge fan of porn for a variety of reasons, but if people want to watch it, that's their business. Just don't shove it in my face. Yet, that's exactly what happens if you watch Comedy Central late at night.

The Girls Gone Wild juggernaut is a soft-core porn empire that builds its business on the backs of drunken teenagers who strip and perform sex acts for the camera. Usually, these girls are picked up at nightclubs where they are already drunk and not quite in their right minds. (Read this article for an eye-opening look at what really goes on behind the scenes at Girls Gone Wild.)

The "brilliant" marketing strategy of Girls Gone Wild has been to pander to mainstream audiences by advertising on cable networks such as Comedy Central. Originally, the ads were tasteless but cheesy more than anything, and involved shots of girls flipping up their shirts for a quick flash that was censored by a black bar across the chest.

Now, the Girls Gone Wild ads have turned into full-on soft-core pornography. Women lick other women's breasts, take each other's clothes off, and quite obviously masterbate onscreen - all in a 30 second commercial.

Trendy lesbianism is the focus of the current ads, which seem to be all about showing women having sex with other women.

The ad I saw last weekend was during a showing of an edited version of Trading Places, where Eddie Murphy couldn't even say the word "fart" on the air. Yet, misogynist porn seemed to be OK as long as it was in an ad form and shown 10 minutes after midnight.

Frankly, I'm sick of being subjected to pornography when I simply want to watch some comedy. I'm also sick of men thinking this sort of thing is "normal." (I got accosted by a man at a gas station last week who wanted me to flash him.)

Therefore, I have started a campaign to ask Comedy Central to stop showing the pornographic Girls Gone Wild ads. I'd be thrilled if they stopped showing all Girls Gone Wild ads, period, but I feel it would be at least some small victory if they would tone the ads down in the least.

If people want porn, they can go pick it up from an adult store or pay extra for the Playboy Channel. It should be kept off of mainstream cable channels as far as I'm concerned.

If you agree, please sign the following petition and forward to as many like-minded folks as possible. Since I just posted it, there aren't many signatures yet, but it needs to gain momentum to carry any sort of weight.

Remove Pornographic Girls Gone Wild Ads From Comedy Central

Thank you.

Stephanie Brail