Brand New Packaging!

Southern Baptists attempt to save denomination by going incognito

The webpage of Louisburg Southern Baptist Church reads: “We are still SBC; we still believe in inerrancy; we still cherish our seminaries and mission bodies: We changed our name from Louisburg Southern Baptist Church to Eastside Church of the Cross.”

What happened in Louisburg, Kansas is not an anomaly, but a growing trend.

Wikipedia describes the trend this way: A recent trend (most common among megachurches and those embracing the "seeker movement") is to eliminate "Baptist" from the church name, as it is perceived to be a "barrier" to reaching persons who have negative views of Baptists, whether they be of a different church background or none. These churches typically include the word "Community" or other non-religious or denominational terms in their church name.

Why are the Southern Baptists suddenly reluctant to use their own name? Simply put, it’s a marketing decision. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has been embroiled in controversy and declining in membership for the last decade. The longstanding doctrine of church autonomy and personal autonomy (known as soul competency) has been replaced with social and political messages of intolerance and top-down Catholic-style micromanagement.

Take, for example, the issue of women in the pastorate. While the SBC has always had issues with sexism, individual churches were historically allowed to call their own pastors. As a result, many SBC churches were led by women in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s.

In the year 2000, SBC leadership pulled out all the stops to eliminate these women. Married missionaries were forced to sign a statement recognizing the husbands as the true missionaries while the wives were just their underlings; couples who refused lost their funding. The SBC also stripped female chaplains of endorsement – but only those who were ordained. Although the SBC banned female pastors nine years ago, at this late date the purge continues with attacks on First Baptist Church of Decatur, pastored by Julie Pennington-Russell. FBC Decatur has been warned that unless they fire their pastor, they will be ousted from the Georgia Baptist Convention.

As a response to this religious fascism by the SBC, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) began to grow. The CBF is not a convention like the SBC. Emphasizing the freedom of every church and every individual, the CBF commits not to exercise creedal or papal authority over the network of churches that fund and endorse the organization. Many local churches, including First Baptist Church of Ringgold and First Baptist Church of Chattanooga, split their funding between the two organizations, allowing individual church members to designate which one they prefer to support.

Other churches pulled out of the SBC entirely – including the First Baptist Church of Greenville, S.C., whose founder William B. Johnson was the first president of the SBC in 1845 and is considered the father of the denomination. Pastor Harvey Clemons explained the church’s break with the SBC this way: “After about 150 years of the Southern Baptist Convention having unity in diversity, it's become a fundamentalist organization, more concerned with creedalism and politics, and we're not. When they added the statement to the Baptist Faith and Message about submissive women, it was just one more in a long series of incidents.”

Attempts at reviving the denomination include renaming old churches and misnaming new churches. Locally, north Georgia has seen the emergence of a number of misnamed Baptist churches. The Church at Catoosa may be the largest local SBC church hiding behind a non-denominational name. Although the church readily admits SBC affiliation when asked, the word “Baptist” does not appear on the website.

The newest undercover Baptist church around here is Origin Church, which uses the slogans, “For people who don’t go” and “No perfect people allowed.” Through MySpace and FaceBook, Origin stealthily targets people who have no intention of setting foot inside a Baptist church. Origin meets in the Ringgold Depot, offers free Starbucks coffee and does not use the word Baptist. Affiliation is sketchy, noticeably absent from their literature but not from the pastorate. A quick phone call receives a “yes and no” answer. They have gone back to the original Baptist message (None of us is worthy, but God loves us anyway) even as they ditch the Baptist name.

Is it really revolutionary and forward-thinking to pretend to be someone you’re not? Or, to put it more accurately, is it okay to pretend not to be someone you are? To the church-hunter who has already disavowed the Baptist denomination, it may seem like a bait-and-switch.

What’s wrong with being a Southern Baptist church? As a Nazarene, I could write a bullet list of points on which I strongly disagree with the SBC. Nevertheless, I think Southern Baptists should be proud to be Southern Baptists. If you cannot be proud of your faith, either disavow it or reform it. Don’t pretend to be above it, burying the truth somewhere down in your fine print.

The Bible tells us that by faith, our father Abraham was able to “call the things that were not as though they were.” It never says to call the things that were, as if they weren’t.

What I love best about Baptists is their humility. As a writer with a deep interest in religion and a healthy dose of skepticism, I have criticized many organizations and denominations in print. The Catholics ignore me; apparently I have not made the Pope’s radar. The Mormons threaten my business. The racists threaten my person. The Baptists inevitably respond with, “Wow, you are so right” and “I’m going to preach about this Sunday.”

This humility is what makes Baptists unique in the land. Their religious language for it is “the total depravity of man.” They read the same Bible I read, but their emphasis is a little different. They focus on the distance between God and humans – our complete inability to ever get it right. We can never reach God in the heavens; yet God reached down to us, becoming one of us and dying a sinner’s death.

The Baptist message is beautiful and important. I ask my Baptist friends not to lose sight of who you are, and why we need you. Give up the political agendas that don’t further your mission, but don’t give up your name. Grow out of the antiquated ideas about who is fit for ministry (because your writings teach that no one is fit, save through Christ), but don’t forget your heritage.

If you don’t like how the Baptist denomination is perceived, change the organization instead of the name. Be more inclusive. Get back to your roots and remember that no one is worthy of Christ – not even white, middle class, red-blooded, English-speaking American males who cut their teeth on the church pew. Reclaim the message and the mission that God set before you. Then you can be proud to put the Baptist name back on the signs.

Let them run

The past few weeks have been very interesting for runners of all kinds. An athlete who could not run was carried. An athlete who can run was finally told he could. And in politics, Hillary Clinton was barraged with yet more calls to stop running.

Over 200,000 viewers enjoyed the YouTube video of Western Oregon University athlete Sara Tucholsky’s first home run. In a game against Central Washington University, Tucholsky hit the ball over the fence. At first base, she tore a ligament in her knee. When the umpire mistakenly ruled that one of her own team members could not run the bases for her, two Central Washington players picked her up and carried her around the bases. All over the blogosphere, Mallory Holtman and Liz Wallace are heralded as heroes for the selfless act that cost them the game but won them a place in our hearts -- and an entry on Wikipedia.

In other sports victories, double amputee Oscar Pistorius won the right to compete for a spot in the Olympics. Pistorius was born without fibulas (the long thin bones that run from knee to ankle.) Surgeons amputated both his legs below the knee when he was eleven months old. Running on special carbon-fiber blades, Pistorius holds the 400-meter Paralympic word record at 46.56 seconds.

Pistorius is not quite there yet; the qualifying requirement for the 400-meter event in Beijing is 45.55 seconds. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) had barred Pistorius from all able-bodied competition including the Olympics, considering his carbon-fiber running blades a “mechanical advantage” over other runners. Their fear was not that he would fail, but that he might succeed.

If Pistorius makes the cut, he will not be the first Paralympian to qualify for the Olympics. Natalie du Toit, a swimmer from South Africa, qualified for the 2008 Olympics on May 3rd. Du Toit was already competing internationally when she lost her left leg in a motorcycle accident. Du Toit swims without a prosthetic, so fairness was never questioned. A poem on her wall states, “It is not a disgrace not to reach for the stars, But it is a disgrace not to have stars to reach for.”

Like Du Toit, Hillary Clinton is a person who is not easily contented by merely having stars out there. Both women are driven to win. In either case, a win represents far more than a personal victory. Clinton is hardly disabled in the political arena – indeed, America would be hard-pressed to come up with any candidate who is sharper, more well-known, or more qualified to lead our country than Hillary Clinton. Yet, in the political arena, merely being female is still a gigantic perception liability, almost like an athlete competing without a limb.

Throughout Clinton’s campaign, this column has recorded and analyzed a steady stream of media misogyny used to smear the senator and former first lady. While much of the onslaught is presented as humor, it is notable that comic references to Clinton’s sex are invariably negative, and frequently downright hateful.

Since Obama first became a serious challenger, pundits have called for Clinton to drop out of the race. As Clinton’s campaign noted, the drop out cries followed Clinton’s victories, not Obama’s. Clinton had become like the runner on carbon-fiber blades, and much of society wanted to deny her the right to even be a contender – not because she could not win, but because she just might.

Obama now commands a strong lead, but a Clinton nomination is still mathematically possible. Why should the Democratic nomination be ended prematurely? Some Democrats want to end it so the Democratic Party can unify against John McCain. Yet polls show that Clinton is a stronger candidate against McCain. Democrats may shoot themselves in the foot by trying to silence their best candidate.

Quitting now would not only mean giving up the nomination. It would also represent an enormous loss to women everywhere. What woman has not been pressured with these same tactics to “just go home?” Month after month, women continue to hear that they cannot “have it all” (i.e. family and career), even as the majority of American women continue to do just that. We are inundated with magazine articles, Internet essays and news items telling us that women are “opting out” and just going home in large numbers. The facts prove otherwise, but it does not stop the media from feeding the guilt complex carried by working mothers and discouraging us with claims that we cannot succeed.

Being female is still a disadvantage in many fields. Where women have made inroads, they still do not receive the same wages and honors accorded to men. The more education and training a woman has, the less likely she is to earn as much as her peers. The wage gap between male and female physicians, for example, is much greater than the wage gap between male and female cashiers.

Oddly, many feminists are among those calling for Hillary to pull out of the race. The Democratic contest has opened a generational divide between older and younger feminists. Younger feminists are apt to say that the gender of the candidate is completely immaterial, so long as he or she supports feminism.

Older feminists recognize a troubling historical parallel. In the 1800’s, the feminist movement was strong and suffragettes were closer than ever to their goal of votes for women. Many suffragettes were also abolitionists, and were willing to temporarily lay aside the cause of votes for women in order to fight slavery. After the Civil War, the feminist movement spent a great deal of energy and resources fighting for the rights of black men, including the right to vote. As a result, black men received the right to vote fifty years before women.

At a campaign stop in Kentucky, Hillary Clinton responds to those who urge her to quit. “You don’t stop democracy in its tracks. You don’t tell some states that they can’t vote and other states that have already had the opportunity that they’re somehow more important. I want everybody to vote and everybody to help pick our next president.”

So run for all you’re worth. Run in your dark pantsuit. Run on your carbon-fiber blades. Run till the wind in your ears drowns out the incessant whining of those who tell you to go home. They’re only afraid that somehow, against the odds, you just might win.

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.

Consider also the husband who stabbed his wife and then burned his own house, killing her along with their four children.

In Florida, police say a man beat his four-month-old daughter Ariana to death on Christmas day. His motive? He wanted a son, not a daughter.

Another man tossed four babies from a bridge after arguing with his wife. On national news, the mother sobbed, “Why didn’t he kill me instead of the children? It’s too much hurting.” She recognized that she was the true target of his heinous actions.

Other hateful men strike more directly, killing women they know and profess to love, or even strangers. As women’s bodies turn up in parks, ponds and parked cars across the southeast, new questions are being raised about old missing persons files.

Whenever the topic of domestic violence comes up, some ill-informed person will inevitably drone, “If the women don’t like it, why do they stay?”

The answer is easy: They don’t stay. The majority of battered women try to escape their abusers as the violence escalates. Most are successful in time. Some women end up in body bags, and others are made to disappear forever.

Part of the problem is that we, as a society, are always asking the wrong question. We should not ask why victims are abused; we should ask why abusers do what they do.

Why do some men feel it is their privilege to exercise control over the woman they profess to love? Why do some men rape and kill women? For that matter, why do some men feel they have the right to forward sexist emails, harass their female co-workers, or try to intimidate female columnists?

Abuse thrives on power inequities. That’s why female-on-male violence and child-on-parent violence are not nearly as common as wife battering and child abuse. We live in a society where most women experience lifelong power inequities.

Economically, men’s earnings still overshadow women’s. Many women are dependent on their husband’s incomes, particularly when women bear the brunt of childcare. Economic inequity places abused women at a disadvantage, as they find themselves weighing safety against homelessness. For the children’s sake, many women stay in relationships that make them prisoners in their own homes.

Biology determines that most marriages involve physical inequity. Men are, on average, taller and stronger and possess a greater percentage of muscle mass than their wives. In a healthy marriage, the physical difference leads to feelings of protectiveness. In an abusive marriage, the weaknesses of the smaller partner are exploited to incite fear and maintain control.

Violence against women is a crime. The law books say so, but society is slow to let go of a paradigm so ingrained in the culture. For women to be safe and equal in America, changes must occur in every facet of society.

Law enforcement must change. Authorities must arrest – and charge and sentence – men who hit, punch, choke, trap, kick, or yank women about the hair. These actions are not privileges included with the marriage license. These actions are crimes, and should be prosecuted every time. The prosecution initiative should not be on the shoulders of the victim, who often caves in to the abuser out of fear.

Policemen who attack or threaten women should be subject to stronger sentences. If a man does not protect women from violence (including his own), then society must not trust him with a badge and a gun. The abusive cop’s crime is double, because he violates his oath of office and his vow of marriage simultaneously. The woman’s fear is also doubled, knowing that such men have resources and training to track her down if she tries to escape, and the opportunity to destroy evidence and cover their own tracks.

Parents must change. We must teach our children that the secret to a successful marriage is in applying the Golden Rule: Treat others like you want to be treated. Parents must teach it, and more importantly, model it every day. Let children see that marriage problems are resolved through consensus, not one-upmanship. Romance is created by putting your beloved on a pedestal, not establishing power inequities where “might makes right.”

Parenting itself must change. Children who are subjected to violence in the home frequently grow up to participate in violence dramas of their own. Parents must learn gentle parenting techniques to guide children without inadvertently teaching them violent tactics or damaging their self-esteem.

Hollywood must change. Violence against women is glorified nightly in every cinema and most every home in America. Shows like Criminal Minds and Killer Instinct almost invariably focus on the glamorized murder of a woman. Another generation of young people is being raised to believe that violence against women is titillating entertainment. Until TV changes, just turn it off.

Churches must change. Many pastors teach that the man has “final say” and that wives should obey husbands. Such sermons typically close with a word about husbands being kind, but the connection cannot be missed: Spiritualizing manhood sets women up for abuse by establishing an eternal and church-ordained power inequity.

The president of Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary stands as a not-so-shining example of such white-washed misogyny. Ten years ago, when the Atlanta Journal Constitution asked Paige Patterson about women, he replied, “Everyone should own at least one.”

Perhaps he wasn’t joking. Patterson became the architect of the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention at the turn of the millennium. Under Patterson’s leadership, the conservatives succeeded in stripping ordained female chaplains of their endorsement. They sought to replace the “priesthood of the believer” doctrine with husbands being priests of their wives. They forced missionaries to agree to male-over-female marriages or else give up their funding.

After Paige Patterson became president of the Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS), he fired a theology professor just for being female. Dr. Sheri Klouda, PhD, earned her degree at SWBTS and taught Hebrew there prior to Patterson’s gender discrimination. Patterson claims he has a right to discriminate against women, since SWBTS is a religious institution. Klouda responded by filing suit in federal court.

What does this have to do with domestic violence? Everything. Those who strip women of their status and financial means are also happy to subject them to other forms of abuse. Patterson himself was caught on tape telling other pastors that he never condones divorce – and rarely even separation or seeking of help -- for victims of marital violence.

In that transcript, Patterson shares an example in which he advised a battered wife to stay with her husband. He told her to submit to the man, to pray for him, and to get ready for the violence to increase. Patterson said he was “happy” when the woman came back to his church with two black eyes, because her husband also came.

All of these attitudes contribute to a culture of violence against women. We cannot expect abused women to solve the problem any more than we would expect children to solve the problem of child abuse, or pets to solve the problem of animal cruelty. Those of us who are free and strong must intervene to help victims.

To help or receive help in northwest Georgia, contact the Family Crisis Center at (706) 375-7630. In other areas, call 1-800-799-SAFE or TTY 1-800-787-3224.

Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com

ACOG says homebirth is a 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-free) 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.

Who’s crying in their coffee now?

Media attempt to manipulate the election fails – this time

Just before the New Hampshire primary, the media was abuzz with the claim that Hillary Clinton was coming unraveled. Multiple sources claimed she had been crying. One columnist called it a “weepfest” while others speculated that it may be a calculated attempt to “cry her way to the White House.”

Most pundits said she was finished. AP writers even claimed to have inside information that she was planning a pull-out. Every story implied she was crying over her loss in Iowa and impending loss in New Hampshire.

Being the curious sort, I went to You-Tube for the video clip. She was not even talking about Iowa or New Hampshire. She did express herself passionately. At one point her voice, hoarse from campaigning, quavered a bit.

But there was not a single tear shed. How does one have a “weepfest” without tears? Yet this moment of perceived weakness was recounted and embellished in the media as they gloated over Clinton’s supposed political burial.

As the New Hampshire primary votes were counted, it was interesting to watch the news reports roll into Yahoo News and CNN. As Clinton took the lead, the AP article was updated to state that Clinton and Obama were “dueling for New Hampshire” -- yet it continued to claim she was considering dropping out. As her lead grew, reporters kept claiming the race was neck-and-neck.

When the New Hampshire primary was over, CNN put it like this: “Clinton wins back women, narrowly takes New Hampshire.” Actually, Clinton earned a higher percentage of votes in New Hampshire than Obama earned in Iowa.

Seems to me the pundits and reporters were intent on taking the woman candidate down. They presented to the world a caricature of Hillary Clinton crying in her coffee while her campaign team whispered about withdrawal. They believed, like all good Republicans, that if you repeat a story over and over, it becomes true. They hoped that voters would not cast their ballot for a “loser.”

When Clinton won New Hampshire, the pundits could not say “We were wrong.” They certainly would not admit “We misled the public.” So they had to say, “Wow, look what we did! We made all those silly women voters feel so sorry for Hillary Clinton that they actually voted for her!”

I have some news for the news people: Your projections were wrong. Hillary Clinton was always popular in New Hampshire. The primary voters did not cast a sympathy vote. They cast their votes based on a concept called issues.

In fact, exit polls showed that the greatest Clinton voting gap was not between men and women. It was between women with jobs and women without jobs. Women who are currently looking for work voted for Senator Clinton in faith that she can turn the economy around and strengthen the job market.

Although female voters were significant, Clinton was also favored among certain other groups, including college-educated voters of both sexes and voters over forty.

Hillary Clinton is well-respected among party Democrats. Democrats are well aware of Senator Clinton’s work. We know better than to believe the biased media that paints her as super-liberal or overly divisive. Clinton has a history of reaching across the aisle and getting things done. She is a known quantity. She’s a safe bet. In states where primary voting is limited to the parties, a strong Clinton showing is expected.

Radio preachers and Republicans always lament “the liberal media.” I’d like to know where this so-called liberal media can be found? You can’t tune the radio without coming across a horde of ranting, slobbering right-wing extremists, yet it is nearly impossible to find a left-leaning speaker.

Television and the air waves are owned, dominated, and narrated by conservatives. They falsely divide Democratic voters into groups, claiming “Obama will win the black vote” and “Hillary will win the woman vote.” Neither blacks nor women vote as a block – and if they did, it would create a real problem. Over half of black voters happen to be women. A fair number of female voters happen to be black.

The American media is not liberal. What we have is a sexist media that will prognosticate endlessly about Hillary Clinton’s hair, cleavage, laughter, voice, tears, clothes – anything that can be used to remotely suggest that women are something ‘other.’

Commentators make sexist remarks without impunity. Imus was publicly reprimanded for making racist comments toward female athletes, but what if those players had been white? Chattanooga radio personalities make sexist comments about female athletes, lamenting that they cannot watch sexy, half-clad models on the court rather than muscular women who know how to handle a ball. Few listeners complain, so long as race is not mentioned.

You would never hear the pundits discuss how well Obama meets their stereotypical perceptions of bi-racial men -- Not the same way Clinton’s femininity has been picked apart. That’s not to say that racism is not a major barrier in American life and politics, but at least it has been consigned to the whisper campaign. Woman-hating is still a public and accepted American pastime. Unfortunately, the media is no exception.

Media Matters has launched a campaign against MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews for his sexist remarks toward Clinton. His comments include referrals to Clinton as a "she devil," an “uppity woman” and a "strip-teaser." He called male Clinton supporters "castratos in the eunuch chorus." Other times he has called Senator Clinton "Madame Defarge,” a Charles Dickens character who spent her time knitting a register of people she wanted dead. On four occasions Matthews has depicted Clinton as a woman who wants to smother a baby in a crib – the baby, of course, being Senator Obama.

Chris Matthews and Rush Limbaugh both refer to Senator Clinton as "Nurse Ratched." Nurse Ratched is the sadistic woman who terrorizes mental patients in “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”

Intelligent voters make their choice based on the issues that are important to them, not media caricatures. I, for one, will vote my conscience.

copyright Jeannie Babb Taylor
http://www.jeanniebabbtaylor.com/

Racism, sexism and representation

Primary picks to make your vote count in 2008

Several readers have requested my primary picks. Here they are, from numerous angles and with a humorous twist.

If I were a super-conservative religious male (Christian, Muslim or otherwise) who believes that men are created in God’s image and women are lesser beings, I’d vote for Mike Huckabee. I’d sing hymns in my head while standing in line, and whisper “Amen” when I put my hand on the TV screen. On the way home, I would buy six months worth of groceries in anticipation of the 23% “Fair Tax” to come.

If I were a rich libertarian who wants to tell other Americans that their education and health care are none of my concern, I’d vote for Ron Paul. I would still have to stop for groceries on the way home. I would especially stock up on medicines, meats and other FDA-approved goods. There is no telling what toxins might be added once Ron Paul eliminates the FDA and gives us back our “health freedom.”

If I were the head of a powerful and corrupt corporation, I would vote for Mitt Romney. He’d be someone I could work with -- someone who understands that the bottom line is far more important than the lives of a few babies or the long-term health of women. Romney understands that government is just another form of business.

If I were a secretly gay conservative male bent on suppressing the lifestyles of openly gay liberal males, I’d vote for Rudy Giuliani. With his quick flip-flop from supporting Gay Pride to suddenly endorsing a marriage amendment, it is obvious he has no real scruples and will comply with whatever his handlers say on the matter. I’d try to remember to remove my lipstick before going the polls, and make sure my slip was not showing.

If I were a war-hawk with a T-shirt reading, “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out,” I’d vote for John McCain. I’d invest some money in Dyancorp and Halliburton. Then I’d send my son to Canada, knowing that McCain has stated he does not mind if the troops are in Iraq for a hundred, a thousand, a million or even ten million years.

If my greatest concern were the economy or healthcare – perhaps as a plant worker, a school teacher, a parent, an honest business owner or just a middle-class American struggling to pay the bills on time -- I would vote for a Democrat. Any Democrat I liked.

Then I would breathe a big sigh of relief, confident that if Democrats win the economy will soon improve and taxes will be held at bay. Democrats are historically much better at managing the national budget, and they don’t tax things like groceries and medical bills.

I’d go home with a smile on my face, knowing that soon our borders will be secure and the government will be targeting the corporations who bus in illegal workers – not raiding and breaking up families. I would feel relieved that our men and women in uniform will soon be coming home – with solid veteran’s benefits when they return. I’d take my family out to eat, hopeful that my candidate will win and the American economy will at last begin to recover from eight devastating years of Bush.

The differences between the top three Democratic candidates are slim. Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are all intelligent people with a solid history of serving Americans. I would be honored to cast my vote for any of them.

The differences between the Republican candidates are greater, and the chasm between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is gaping wider every day. Republicans want to kill, and Democrats want to heal. Republicans want to squeeze the life out of the American lower and middle class, while Democrats want to salvage the economy and strengthen the middle class. Most Republicans want to expand and escalate the war in the Middle East. Democrats want to bring ‘em home.

On February 5th, Georgia voters have the opportunity to make history. We can help put the first black person or the first woman on the national ballot. People of color are underrepresented in American government, as are women.

Women comprise the majority of voters, but only 16% of Congress. No female presidential candidate has ever before appeared on the national ballot for either major party.

Point this out to some Republicans and they will act like they’re vaguely sorry they didn’t think of it first. “It’s not that I’m against a woman president,” they’ll say, “just not THAT WOMAN.”

Very few can give a substantive reason for opposing Hillary Clinton. More common are knee-jerk reactions based on mischaracterizations or outright lies. Republicans frequently characterize Clinton as a super-divisive liberal, but anyone who follows her actual votes and agendas sees a very different picture. Clinton is a moderate.

Then there is the so-called “Clinton Body Count” that has been regurgitated from the 1990s and is re-circling the Internet. This piece of work claims to be a list of all the people who have died “mysteriously” because of their connections to the Clintons. The connection may be tenuous (such as Bill’s chiropractor’s mother, or a person who once lived in Arkansas) and the mysterious death usually is not mysterious at all. Nonetheless, it’s good fodder for fools who say “I got it in an email, so it must be true.”

Sadly, the United States is far behind the times in granting women full access to the government. Other countries have had women in the highest office as far back as the sixties. Great Britain has had Margaret Thatcher, India had Indira Ghandi, and Israel had Golda Meir. Pakistan, Turkey and Bangldesh are all Muslim countries that have placed women at the helm. This short list does not even touch on the extensive list of women who have ruled as royals, stretching from pre-history to modern times.

Who could have imagined that America would cross into the new millennium and journalists would still be asking, “Is America ready for a woman in the White House?”

We should ask ourselves how satisfied we are with the male who has been in office the last seven years. If we elect another man like Bush, we can expect four more years like the last seven.

Hardly anyone favors a candidate solely on sex or skin color. Such traits illicit more votes against than for. Yet there are many people who consider Clinton’s sex and Obama’s color an important part of who they are and how they will lead. All else being equal, many women (and indeed some men) prefer a female candidate. Likewise, many people consider Obama’s skin tone a perk rather than a liability.

What do you call it when a woman votes for Hillary Clinton because she’s female, or a black person prefers Obama because of the color of his skin? It’s called representation.

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.

Frequently asked questions

The most exciting facet of writing a weekly column is receiving reader questions and comments. Each piece goes out to tens of thousands, and then the columnist waits to see who will answer. Some questions tend to be repeated, and thus call for a public response.

Several readers have sent emails asking, “How can you be a Christian and a feminist?” That’s an easy one. A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus, the Son of God, laid down his life for humankind. A feminist is someone who believes that women are human. How can any Christian woman not be a feminist?

Other readers have asked, “Why do you hate George Bush?” The emotion that causes me to point at the Constitution with a look of panic in my eyes in not hatred. It is, in fact, love. Only those who love liberty cry when it is torn asunder in the name of fear. The rest of America shrugs and says, “It was only a Muslim who lost his rights. No one is spying on me or falsely arresting me or my friends, so who cares?” How quickly we forget the lessons of history!

Consider the famous quote by Pastor Martin Niemöller:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . .
And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

The real question is: When did the public forget the importance of holding our government accountable? Americans have been sold a lie. We have been told that we must agree with the occupation of Iraq, or else we cannot support our troops. Christians in particular are taught that we must only “pray for the President” rather than voicing our dissent. Nobody suggested such a tactic during Bill Clinton’s administration. These days, Bushies call those who disagree with Republican policy traitors or even terrorists. When open dissent is squelched, liberty is only an illusion.

Since last week’s paper was published, a handful of pit bull apologists from around the U.S. have sent a small torrent of emails accusing me of prejudice against their favorite pets. These dog-owners claim we should not judge their pets by their breed, just as we should not judge people by their skin color. My piece took a hard-line approach against all aggressive dogs. If a cocker spaniel or a pit bull bit my child, either dog would meet the same fate. The child would not. Large dog attacks are far more likely to result in death, maiming or disfigurement. Among large dogs, some breeds are more likely to attack than others. For this reason, it makes sense to keep tabs on which breeds have a greater tendency to attack the weak and defenseless. Studies implicate the pit bull as the number one killer dog.

Just since I wrote the piece on killer dogs, several more people have been attacked by pit bulls. A woman in California was attacked by a neighbor’s pit bull in her own garage. The dog wanted the baby boy in her arms. In desperation, she hid the baby in a trash can while she fended off the beast. The pit bull lunged at the trash can and knocked the baby onto the floor. The brave mother threw herself between the pit bull and the baby, so that the vicious animal clamped onto her arms rather than the baby’s head. Nearby construction workers responded to the woman’s screams and beat the dog with their tools until it ran away. They saved the mother’s life, but she still may lose the use of her arms. So much for pit bull lovers’ claims that irresponsible mothers are to blame for attacks on children!

On the first of this month, a six-year-old boy in Dallas was mauled to death by the family pit bull. On Saturday, another six-year-old boy was attacked by another pit bull. His older sister was also scratched and bitten as she tried to rescue him. Elsewhere, mail carriers, police officers and other professionals continue to face danger from aggressive dogs in their line of work. Police officers frequently shoot pit bulls in self defense.

Dogs are not people, and therefore charges of breed prejudice hardly carry the weight of racism or sexism charges. I like dogs, so long as they keep their teeth, claws, barking, and defecating to themselves. I like tigers, too, but I hope none of my neighbors decide to tame a tiger, call it a pet, and tie on a rope in their back yard.

Some readers express great relief at the common sense presented in my column, and want to know “Where have you been all my life?” Before I began the column, some had worried that the local paper was not taking a neutral stance toward politics. The fact is that the paper just did not have an independent weekly columnist who was left-leaning. I am thrilled to be here now, voicing a balancing opinion.

And finally, to all those who begin their letters with “I disagree,” I invite you to continue disagreeing and continue sending your responses via email. I write to address current topics, to expose inconsistencies in our culture, to hold the government accountable, and to facilitate public dialogue. Whether you agree or disagree, I have succeeded in bringing the subject to your attention and presenting a different angle. You are thinking about these issues, and thus the column is a success. Keep reading, keep thinking, and keep responding.

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 . . .”

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.

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.

May, 2052

“You’re fortunate to be living in this era,” says Nonna, brown eyes twinkling above the dimples in her wrinkled cheeks.

Rachel sips at the red raspberry leaf tea, the cup clinking against the saucer as she sets it down to respond. Her grandmother is already talking again. “When I gave birth to your mother,” she goes on, “I was not allowed to eat or drink.”

Rachel’s eyebrows shoot up. “The whole time?”

“That’s right. Back in those days, all babies were born in hospitals – even healthy babies. Laboring mothers weren’t allowed a single sip of water. I was so thirsty my tongue was swollen and sticking to the roof of my mouth. After many hours, I was given ice chips, but even that was taken away when I was caught swallowing some of the ice to stave off the gnawing hunger.”

“That’s horrible,” Todd interjects, dropping down to perch on the Victorian loveseat beside his wife. “Having a baby is like . . . running a marathon. What athlete would attempt such a feat dehydrated on an empty stomach?”

Nonna chuckles at his analogy. “You’re right, of course. But you see, laboring women were not treated like athletes. We were treated like sick patients, like there was something wrong with us. According to the doctors, our ‘condition’ was best treated with narcotics, opioids, and surgical intervention. By 2005, the c-section rate went through the roof, with nearly one out of three mothers sliced open for delivery. From the doctors’ point of view, laboring women were all potential targets for expensive surgery. That’s why they starved us.”

Rachel scowls, rubbing puffy hands over the swollen full-moon belly. “But labor can go on for hours -- or even days,” she notes.

“Especially when you’re lying down with feet in stirrups, pushing uphill,” the old woman acknowledges.

“That’s absurd,” Todd murmurs. “Why not let gravity work?”

Rachel shakes her head. “That position was designed to benefit doctors, not women”

“You’re right,” Nonna answers. “It placed us at a great psychological disadvantage, too. It allowed medical staff to treat us as objects, paying attention only to the ‘business end,’ as if we had no face, no heart, and no mind.”

“I’m so glad no caregiver would think of using stirrups today,” Rachel sighs, rubbing her belly again. “It’s a wonder women were able to push at all.”

“The doctors had ways of speeding up labor artificially,” Nonna answers. “But the drugs sometimes caused uterine rupture, killing the baby or causing permanent brain damage.
One drug, Cytotec, was not even FDA-approved for obstetrical use. Eventually they had to stop using it.”

Rachel smiles, her face transformed. “So they went back to the natural ways?” she guesses.

“Not at first,” her grandmother answers. “At first they skipped the contraction drugs and resorted to the knife much sooner.”

Rachel looks down, distracted for a moment by the contracting of her own womb. “I’ll go heat the rice bag,” Todd offers, trotting to Nonna’s kitchen with the hand-made cloth pouch. Nonna watches him round the corner, thinking how glad she is for Rachel.

At last Rachel’s attention comes back to her grandmother’s wizened face. “Why did the women allow it?” she asks.

Nonna sighs, holding out empty hands. “We just didn’t know better. Our own mothers were knocked out for birth. We thought we were making progress just by being awake. Some women realized things should be different, but it was a constant fight. I chose a hospital that was supposed to be supportive of natural birth. They still pulled the ice chip stunt. Before I registered, they said they allowed ‘rooming in’ so I would not be separated from my baby girl. But right after birth, they whisked her away! I begged for her, but they kept her ‘under observation’ for four hours. They also gave her sugar water against my wishes, and pushed to inject her with vaccines just hours after birth.”

“That’s horrid,” Rachel clucks. “Why didn’t women just stay away from hospitals? Have their babies at home?”

“Well, in Georgia it was illegal.”

Rachel laughs. “How can birthing a child break a law?”

“Oh, it was not homebirth that was prohibited, so long as we did it alone! It was homebirth midwives they outlawed.”

“So women could birth at home – but only without help?”

Nonna nods. “Things were different back in 2007 when your mother was born,” she says. “For one thing, 8 out of 10 lawmakers were men. There had never even been a woman President. Women only earned 70 cents on the dollar. We didn’t have the kind of power you gals have!” She beams at her granddaughter, so young and confident. “My next child – your Uncle Tim – was born at home with an ‘illegal’ midwife.”

“Wow,” Rachel whispers, throwing a glance at Todd as he tucks the warm rice bag into the small of her back, “There was a black market for midwifery?”

“Certainly. There were always women who refused to be mistreated, and there were always midwives willing to skirt the law to give excellent care. The legal risks were high for those midwives. Once in a while, a baby dies during birth. It happens sometimes, no matter where women give birth. In a hospital, these deaths were considered a statistical eventuality. In the early 2000s, no one was charged for hospital deaths, even when the damage was clearly caused by uterine-rupturing drugs or overuse of pain-killers. It was extremely rare for a baby to die in a homebirth setting -- but when it did happen the midwives were charged with manslaughter. In other cases, overdue women were jailed for refusing to have a c-section. It was actually against the law to disobey a doctor’s orders! Eventually it was the women who turned the tide.”

“Through lawsuits?” Todd guesses.

“That was part of it.” Nonna nods thoughtfully. “The studies showed clearly that it was doctors’ drugs and fasting that caused most of the ‘danger signals’ (like blood pressure drops and changes in babies’ heart rates) that led to the c-sections. But that went unreported for twenty years! It was not until women stood up for themselves that things changed. Women reporters talked about the studies on the six-o’clock news. Women journalists wrote about the prohibition of home midwifery and the barriers to natural childbirth. Women doctors watched the signs instead of the clock. Business women opened natural birthing centers. Women were elected to office and they legalized homebirth midwifery in Georgia, and later nationwide. Most of all, laboring women refused to let their needs be sacrificed to hospital protocols and doctors’ schedules. We had to insist on change!”

Nonna sets down her teacup. “We insisted on dignity. We did not let doctors push us into inductions or surgeries just to accommodate their schedules. Women who still used hospitals refused the wheelchair and the gown that were presented at check-in. Women refused to be starved, or to have their veins punctured with unnecessary IVs. Mothers refused to let doctors break their waters or insert electronic monitors in the baby’s scalp. When we pushed our babies into the world with our own fierce power, then we refused to let them out of our sight.”

Nonna smiles. “Eventually even the medical community came to recognize that birth is an act of motherhood, not an act of medical science. Today a laboring woman is not regarded as a body on a table, as if she and the baby needed some doctor to ‘deliver’ them from each other. Today women are honored as life-bringers.”

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

Who Needs the ERA?

As recently as last week, I heard someone refer to the ERA as “satanic.” The Equal Rights Amendment, first introduced in 1923 and finally submitted to the states for ratification in 1972, has been maligned in every way imaginable. Critics have called it unnatural, rebellious, and all sorts of derogatory adjectives. Some claimed it would make men “unnecessary.” Thirty years ago, evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell charged that ratification of the ERA would require women to go into combat and become prisoners of war, while conservative lobbyist Phyllis Schlafly invoked the feared specter of coed restrooms.

Have you ever actually read the text of the Equal Rights Amendment? Here it is, in its entirety:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Fast-forward to 2007. We are still waiting for three more states to ratify the ERA. It has been ratified by 35 of the required 38 states. These days, 20% of the U.S. military is female. Women have received medals, protected convoys, and yes, some have been prisoners of war. And how many of us have enjoyed the family restrooms at the mall and the airport? All without the ERA.

Those who opposed the ERA as an ungodly evil still oppose it. They have stepped back from most of their dire warnings, and instead weakly reply that ERA is “no longer needed.” I assert that it is.

We need the ERA because it establishes that the Constitution and the whole of the law apply to women in the same way they apply to men. The 14th Amendment, introduced after the Civil War, prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, but dealt a back-handed blow to women by adding the word “male” to the Constitution for the first time. The 19th Amendment established women’s right to vote, but stopped short of guaranteeing women equal rights in any other area. Currently a patchwork of state and federal laws protect us from some sex discrimination. Until we can count on uniform constitutional protection, women will always find ourselves having to prove that we have the same rights men already take for granted.

We need the ERA because it prevents a rollback of women’s rights. It only takes a simple majority for Congress to establish laws that could damage our freedoms. Writing equal protection into the Constitution guarantees that, short of another amendment, no new law could be applied to one sex alone.

The reason we need the ERA is because we do not have it yet.

-- Jeannie Babb Taylor