There Is Nothing Funny About Insecurity

In general, I don't find women comics funny. Often, they tend to be whiny, predictable, and outspokenly feminist. (By now, surely all of you know how I feel about the majority of feminists.) But I actually had high hopes for Tina Fey's book Bossypants, after waiting about three months for it to be available at the library.

I read the back cover in a bookstore and chuckled to myself. The description on the inside flap sounded promising. AND, everybody knows her Palin impersonation was spot-on-hysterical, so I decided to check it out.  So why, half-way through, was a I tempted to give up and return it?

Simply: my reading time is precious these days, and I try to keep it entertaining (as opposed to a chore). Bossypants' ability to elevate my blood pressure made it a bad fit. When the first three chapters contain nothing but the same-old cracks about homosexuals and style, I get concerned. When punchlines are few and political rants are frequent, I roll my eyes. When "abortion" is mentioned in jest, not once, but twice, I want to throw your book against a wall.

She piped about workplace inequality--which meant disproportional celebration whenever a female did something cool. (Nothing like favoring women as a means of combating sexism. Power to my people!)  She complained repeatedly about those who don't think she's funny--even dedicating Chapter 17 to personal responses to haters in internet forums. (It's possible to answer an opponent tactfully, like when she told the guy who called her a troll, "You've never even seen my guard a bridge!"  That's kind of funny, and shows she doesn't take herself seriously. But then, she abandoned the high road by referencing his small penis and joking about another commenter's mom. Classy.) Apparently she remains unaware how this discredited the chapter titled, "I don't f---ing care if you like it." Over and over, I reached the conclusion, "She's just an angry feminist!" And we all know there's nothing funny about soapbox preaching.

For some reason, though, I kept picking up the book again, and now I'm glad I did. If I hadn't, I would have lost my own challenge to consider the motivation behind somebody's actions before saying "I don't understand how someone could be that way!" Too often, we make no effort to look from another person's point-of-view before assuming they are crazy. So, I really needed to find SOMETHING positive to say about Tina Fey, and to attempt understanding her many, unexpected sore spots, even though she bugs me.  

And, little by little, I began to see the insecurity behind Miss Fey's inconsistencies. One of the best examples was when she said: “The worst question [about my personal life] is: How do you juggle it all?...They're asking, 'You're [messing] it all up, aren't you?'" 

THAT'S what she hears when people ask about her busy life? Friends, journalists, and talk show hosts want to know how a married, TV executive, with a three-year-old, manages everything at once, and she thinks this is code for secret judgement? Later, she tells the story of when she realized it "wouldn't be just me and the baby" any time soon because  “work wasn't just going to go away.” It devastated her. But she writes: “Of course, I'm not supposed to admit that there is triannual sobbing in my office because it's bad for the feminist cause. It makes it harder for women to be taken seriously in the workplace. It makes it harder for other working moms to justify their choice."  

Then she goes on to admit she argues with herself about whether to have another baby before her body says it's too late, or to continue her “dream job” at NBC. She really gets quite vulnerable about her internal struggles, and that's where I found the common ground. I understand battling with the self very well. This whole blog is dedicated to battling between choices for the Kingdom and choices for myself. It sounds like Miss Fey struggles with her "self."

The problem is, she wraps up her book with a great big “I know it's all going to be okay" without giving any specifics. My question is: what does it mean to be "okay?" And how can she be so sure in that prediction? What tells her it will be okay?

I have my security in Jesus. When I say "everything is going to be all right," I can follow it up with, "because my Father in Heaven has a plan for me, and I will spend eternity with Him in Heaven even if things on earth get crazy." I can identify with the Proverbs 31 woman, who laughs at the future because she knows her value isn't found in any earthly thing.  Not whether  men "take her seriously."  Not how others perceive management skills.  Not whether she has one or ten children. For that woman--and for me--everything WILL be all right.

Unfortunately, I couldn't laugh at Tina Fey's book because I perceived sadness and struggle between the lines. Amid overused, politicized punchlines, there is a woman looking for genuine answers. All I want to do is show her that she believes a lie--one that her worth is found in how much she is paid. what people are saying about her online, and whether she "advances the feminist cause."

Maybe those statements are enough to land me in chapter 17 of her next book. But, there just isn't anything funny about insecurity.

Victory for White People

At my Christian college, we "focused" on cross-cultural understanding. Every couple months, an African-American speaker encouraged us to sit with people from different backgrounds and remember that "Heaven will be multicolored."

Despite my tone here (and aside from one over-zealous black man who seemed to think his purpose was to "fix" we uneducated, bigoted white students), I didn't have a problem with the push to appreciate diversity. After all, Heaven WILL be multicolored. There is neither man nor woman, Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, in Christ's body. We're equals.

Equals UNTIL...

President Obama was elected. That's when a black student ran an article in the school paper about how happy she was to see this day in history. Why? Because "her people" had once been oppressed, and things finally were looking up for them. It was--I quote--an "African-American victory." If you don't understand the problem I have, imagine John McCain had won office and I--a white student--wrote about the great victory for white people...? Would it rub you the wrong way? (There is a chance you decided to read this post because those four words caught your attention.) It should offend you!

That's racism! 

I hate racism for the same reasons I hate ageism and sexism. Regardless of who does it, whether celebrating or lamenting, if you make an issue out of a person's physical body, you are drawing lines. AND, when you separate us with traits no one can control, you've created a very exclusive club. Unlike in Christianity (into which, all are welcome--truly equal.) I have no hope of being a member of this woman's "people." In her eyes, whether she was aware of it or not, John McCain and any other white person started out with a disadvantage...  So much for equality.

Unfortunately, most people who talk about desiring diversity quickly fall into the trap of elevating the minority. That's why the unnamed male student I mentioned got on my nerves. That's why feminism` generally makes me want to remove my high heels (the ones forced on me by chauvinist pigs) and assault most of the East coast senators with them. Most of the time, people repeating "equality, equality, equality" only mean "more perks for people who look like me!" And that attitude doesn't encourage compassion for "the oppressed." I don't much feel like celebrating the election of a black president based on black-ness alone.

Yes, disapproval of someone based on skin color, the year he was born, or what she keeps in her panties makes no sense.

But neither does considering these things "victorious."

The Selfishness of Big Corporations?

I am a member of the 99% of Americans who have bills to pay and mouths to feed, making less than $500,000 a year.

I'm also a member of the considerably-less-than-99% who will pay those bills and feed those mouths without stopping to blame corporate America for some ill-specified grievance.

Oh, I know it's "greed" at the root of all America's troubles. I agree, "Greed" (a close cousin of "selfishness") creates big problems, including poverty on one side and gross excess on the other. But the misunderstanding comes when we claim big business executives are the only greedy ones, all while saying, essentially, "give the wealth to ME!"  

Protestors of big business greed don't really specify HOW to "better distribute" wealth to the 99% other than taking it from the nameless rich. This is because writing their demands would more clearly highlight their foolishness:

1. We want someone else to create jobs. 
2. We want someone else to come up with a good idea.
3. We want someone else to take a risk and invest in it.
4. We want someone else to contribute to a company's growth until it turns a profit. THEN
5. We want that person to divide those profits with us.
Oh, and ...
6. We do not want this person to become "rich" in the process...

Sounds like nonsense, doesn't it?

Luckily, we already have a perfectly fair way of "distributing wealth" in this country. Those who contribute a desirable service, good, or idea get rewarded for that contribution. Those with nothing to offer must go to school or teach themselves a valuable skill OR, as many college-drop-out-billionaires have done, come up with brand new business idea and grow it yourself...

Or protest. It's America, you have the right, too. But don't expect me to honk my horn in support when I drive past the courthouse.

I am the 99% of people not classified as "very wealthy." But I am not selfish enough to demand punishment for those creative, hard-working, and daring enough to push into the 1%.

Square Circles: Undefining Ancient Concepts

-------

I was thinking today... Why do all circles have to be round?

It just doesn't seem fair, restricting "circularity" that way. What if a triangle wanted to be round, too? Or a square?

I realize the very definition of what it means to be a circle--since eternity--requires roundness. And, I know most people say anything with angles just isn't a circle. It's "impossible." But think outside the box with me! Get with the 21st century! Just because we've always defined something one way doesn't mean it can't change...

From now on, I'm going to push for acceptance of the "square circle."

I'll picket at the courthouse and call my congressmen. I'll talk about square circles every time I'm in public. I'll put "square circles" in the newspaper and on TV, so everyone can see square circles are funny and they have good fashion sense. Actually, they're really not much different from regular circles.  (Or, as I sometimes differentiate, "traditional circles.")

Come to think of it, just putting "square circles" and "traditional circles" in two different categories constitutes inequality. Why should there be a separate title for circles with angled-tendencies? Notify the press! Spread the word! Using a special adjective for one circle or another is narrow-minded and bigoted. It's time to move on and forget we ever prevented square circles from being circles at all...

Sorry if I'm going on and on about something you think is unimportant (or even downright nonsensical). My aim isn't to offend. I only want to be heard. And to have a couple holidays devoted to circularity. And to have my agenda taught in schools. And to be signed into law.  Is that so bad?

I guess you could say it's very dear to me--the issue of square circles.
Or, as I like to call them:
"CIRCLES."  

Hitler, Holocaust, and Her House is on Fire

Some of you may remember when I posted a fictional story about a woman making the most difficult choice of her life: waiting in a smoke-filled room with her infant child--possibly to burn to death--or throwing her baby to the flames as an "act of mercy," then saving herself.

Today, I watched a video which tells the same story a different way. It's the time of Hitler, and a Nazi puts a woman in a bulldozer, in front of a pit of Jews. Then, that Nazi holds a gun to her head and says, "Bury the Jews alive or I will kill you."  What does she do?

The video is only 30 minutes.... Find out what answers average people gave.

Just a Clueless Kid

Why would any self-respecting young person listen to the teachers, doctors, and politicians making excuses for them?

Supposedly, if kids see a cartoon camel on a pack of cigarettes, they will have to smoke. If their bodies desire sex, they probably will give in. And if their friends drink or use drugs, we expect our children to run alongside, like so many sheep. This offended me as a teenager, and it should continue to offend youth today.

Where is the faith in our young people? And, if kids really are incapable of making good decisions, where is that magical line between grown up and "too stupid."

When I was sixteen, I gave a speech in public speaking class outlining why I thought the death penalty should be extended to teens. I don't remember all the details, but my biggest point was, "You don't turn 18 and suddenly become aware of right and wrong." Even a toddler, I argued, knows when he or she is forbidden to do something, and will act appropriately sneaky when approaching the cookie jar. Can we really say a 13 or 14-year-old simply misunderstands that killing is a no-no?

You might as well say they're stupid.

Well, friends, (and especially my young ones), the Bible says let no one look down on you because you are young, but set an example for other believers..."  It would be nice if we had a get-out-of-trouble free card--and many adults are trying to hand us one. They call us immature and impulsive. But God says, even in our youth, we are not clueless.  We can set an example.

Nothing in Scripture suggests that kids aren't smart enough, informed enough, or controlled enough to be accountable. Be wary of people who say otherwise. 

In fact, be ANGRY.

Insurance

To what extent should Christians prepare for the "just-in-case" scenario? Where is that line between faith in God and taking unnecessary risks?

It's complicated. And, I have no doubt, it MUST be an individual decision.

This topic was brought up by a friend, who is weighing the pros and cons of vaccinating young girls against HPV--a disease contracted through sexual contact which often leads to cervical cancer. Without dispute, two individuals who come together as virgins and remain faithful to each other will not get HPV. But the question becomes: how often does that scenario play out? Can you be sure your child will conform to the plan?

Everybody knows teens experiment with sex, while STDs among them reach epidemic proportions. So, wouldn't a caring mother elect to vaccinate her daughter out of concern she will make a mistake?  Shouldn't I, as a Christian, teach Cami what God desires and then prepare for the worse?

I don't believe so.

Personally, I believe the vaccine is unnecessary if I'm trusting God has a plan for her life. I believe encouraging my daughter to get a vaccine reveals to her that I don't trust her--which sends a mixed signal. That said, I should mention my own mother argues with me.

When I was 20-years-old, I visited the gynecologist for the first time, for a premarital check-up. (This was about 6 months before the wedding.) The doctor really tried to sell me on the Gardisil (HPV) vaccine, and I remember being frustrated by the way he worded things:

 "It only takes having sex one time to catch it!"
"So some people are just born with it?" I asked for clarification.
"No, it's an STD. But it's spreading like crazy, and having sex with an infected person once puts you at risk."
"But, my fiance and I are virgins," I told him.
Again, he repeated, "The virus causes the most common cases of cervical cancer, which could put your unborn children in danger. Is it something you're willing to gamble?"
Finally, I demanded a straight, this-is-the-situation answer: "If two people have sex with ONLY each other, for life, is there a risk for HPV?" I asked.
"No."
"Well, then that sounds like a prenup to me. Thank you, I will opt out." 

I felt comfortable with my decisions, but my mom wasn't happy. She asked, "Are you willing to risk your life on the belief that Luke will be faithful?!" I was dumbfounded. Uh, yeah, that's why I was marrying him. It wasn't just my physical life at stake--my emotional and spiritual health were being invested in him as well. We would become one flesh, eternally united, dependent on each other in every, single way. This way my vote of faith in him--and in the God who oversees our lives. But Mom made the point many, many others are making: "What's wrong with just-in-case protection?"

-----
Now I'm a mother, too, and this issue will present itself AGAIN when Cami is about 9 years old and a candidate for the shot.

The control-freak in me wants to make SURE my baby stays out of trouble. I want to take precaution to guarantee her safety. But the Holy Spirit in me knows that's impossible.

First of all, none of us takes EVERY precaution to ensure physical safety. Kids die in car wrecks all the time, but we still drive with them. Kids choke, but we still feed them. If we wrapped our children in cotton and never let them out of the house, we'd be considered paranoid. So, clearly, there is a fine line between good, protective mother, and clinically insane. So, which risks are worth risking?

Of course, those who say I can't be sure my daughter will remain a virgin until marriage are correct. But those trying to keep their daughters from every pitfall cannot do so, either. Thankfully, it's not my job to worry about it! I'm supposed to teach Cami Jo what God expects of her, and then trust HE will guard her heart and body. Even at 9, I can have an age-appropriate conversation with her about the shot and why Mommy is refusing it. Something to the effect of: "If you follow God's plan for your life, you won't need to worry about getting sick." The rest is up to her...and her Savior.

But, I recognize than many--even other Christians--feel differently, and that is why I stressed the need for an individual choice. This push to pass a law requiring the vaccine for all girls assaults my parental rights. Throughout history, mothers have disagreed about what is best for their children, and no law forcing us to make the same choice will solve the problem. (Some people think feeding a kid fast food is akin to child abuse. Should we outlaw it? Some mothers think it's appropriate to let a boy wear dresses. Should we make a national vote of it?)  

But, specifically about the vaccine. How do you feel? And, while we're at it, how do you feel about Christian couples signing prenuptial agreements? They promise to be together until death, but prepare for the possibility of breaking that promise... Is this wise or wrong?