Children, at what price?
See this excellent column by Nancy Gibbs at Time magazine about the moral cost of reproductive technologies.
Women’s solidarity
For much of American history women’s solidarity, the way women identified with each other, was grounded in the fact that all women were either mothers or potential mothers. This solidarity drove women’s political and social involvement outside the home. After the reproduction revolution of the twentieth century, women’s solidarity has become significantly eroded. Now, motherhood is strictly an option and potential motherhood is receding in the minds of many western women. The result is that feminism has lost its political traction. What is left of liberal feminism? Check out this article by Utne Reader entitled “Shelf Life: Feminism 2.0″ which surveys the blogosphere for the conversations that are taking place. Twenty first century feminism has become a form of tribalism where every issue is equally valid, and therefore no longer politically or philosophically compelling. Check out the blogs and let me know what you find.
Bikini or hijab
The Turkish Parliament has lifted the ban on the headscarf on university campuses, but this has not resolved the issue for them or for us. See the buzz on Broadsheet. The hijab raises the question of where does social freedom end and oppression begin? The contrast between Western and devoted Muslim women could not be more stark. It’s become more common in American cities to see women wearing the hijab. Sometimes it’s more than a scarf. It can include long dresses, sleeves, and a rather plain appearance. My American feminist inspired sensibilities cringe a little by the sight of a woman feeling compelled by either religion, or culture to take on the hijab. While many of these women will assure me that this is a free choice, I find it difficult to believe.
On the other hand, recently I was at an upscale mall when a department store decided that parading bikini clad young women offering the latest in designer fragrances would be a good marketing move. I was offended. What makes retailers think that a middle aged woman would be inspired to spend money by the sight of bikini clad young bodies? If I had talked to the models they would assure me that they too had made a choice in how their bodies would be seen. In a liberal society, freedom of expression and religion demand that I accept both the hijab and the bikini as a legitimate choice.
What is going on? In both cases the female body carries a great deal of social meaning. We don’t have an equivalent issue regarding male bodies. Men feel neither compelled to cover, or display their bodies in public. Both cultural situations see female sexuality as potentially disruptive. One culture chooses to bring that disruption under control, whether it’s the woman’s, or the community’s choice, is debatable. The other chooses to tell women that they can control the meaning of their bodies for their own benefit. Neither tell the whole story that no individual can escape the larger social meanings in which they live. The question remains. What constitutes freedom when women’s bodies are continually viewed as disruptive? Regardless of whether we attribute the situation to the society, or the individual, the answer will fall short short if one is not willing to consider a more elemental spiritual source.
What money still doesn’t buy
Here is an article from the New York Times about how money doesn’t equal an abundance of friends. Whether it’s in the central city, or the suburbs, rich or poor, America is suffering from relational fragmentation. These are the times when the need isn’t for more information about God, or even a better church to attend on Sunday morning, but an incarnational,”God with us” theology. What does that look like for us in the 21st century city?
What is marriage for anyway?
Here is an article on marriage from the Atlantic that I think is rather frank regarding something I have noticed. Many bright, articulate women wanting marriage find themselves waiting year after year for the “right” guy, and not realizing how they might be contributing to their own situation. The ideal of marriage has become so romanticized and worked up by Hollywood that we have forgotten what marriage is for. It seems that every woman wants to marry up (why is that?), and when you are pretty impressive yourself it’s rather disconcerting that maybe the ordinary guy in the next cubicle, or the quite nice guy at church might just be what this author calls “good enough.” I disagree that men who are “good enough” are really just that. Maybe the guy who seems to promise all the thrill of a Hollywood romance is really a candle in the wind put out by the first life storm that comes through. This is the point when women need to ask themselves, what is marriage for anyway? How about life long stable, some would call boring, companionship? Most of life is ordinary and mundane so what a good woman needs is a stable “good enough” man. Maybe she can learn to be a “good enough” woman and not make herself into a pretzel trying to please. That may lead to “good enough” parents who aren’t running around trying to raise the next Bill Gates. So now my next question is, why are these articles always about women?