"30 Domesticities I Don't Do"

In the age of Pinterest and Instagram, it's important to remember that none of us do everything. Jana gives us details:

30 Domesticities I Don't Do:

"So yes, 'No one does everything!' we chirp to one another, scattering the phrase further. Yet it often just lies there in a pile waiting till we need to peck at it again to ease the guilt.  Rarely does it root and blossom into more than an excuse for imperfection in someone’s life, giving her freedom to focus on what she loves and leave the rest. With that spirit, here is a list of things that are often cropped out of my pictures:"

Impossible Choices

Growing up Christian I heard that a variety of ideas, positions, and practices are incompatible with Christianity, such as:

voting for Democrats

pacifism

veganism

animal rights activism

pro-choice

feminism

anti-war

pro-LGBTQIA rights

liberation theology

Philosophy (yes, as a discipline)

Rock music

I accept some of the things on this list, I don't accept others, but that's not the point. The point is:

If you insist that certain things are incompatible with Christianity, you better be damn well sure that you're right. Because when you force a person to choose between two beloved concepts, you may not like the one they choose to stand by.

An argument I frequently hear is that the government shouldn't offer assistance programs because that's the place of the church.

Ignoring the fact that the idea that all charity efforts should be solely the business of churches is nowhere found in Scripture or Tradition, it has another glaring flaw:

the church hasn't. 

45,000 people die each year due to lack of health insurance coverage.

1 of these unnecessary deaths would be a tragedy. 45,000 is an epidemic.

The church helps individuals. But the kind of systemic change required to prevent unnecessary deaths is either not within her power, or not important enough to work toward.

Oddly, we have no problem with others forms of government "assistance." I am assisted by the roads, the library, the US postal service, public education, etc, etc.

In Response to Someone Who Said Vegans Must be Atheists

I encounter this argument a lot. You know, because the Bible mandates ritual sacrifice and Jesus ate fish. This was my response:

People who think that those who adhere to a religion must throw it out entirely because that religion has been wrong on some issues tend to view religion in the same manner that fundamentalists do: the texts and traditions must be accepted literally or simplistically, or rejected altogether. This is such an affront to the way we really interact with history and religious or philosophical literature. I could claim to be Cartesian without accepting Descartes views on vivisection; I can claim to be Christian without accepting ancient Hebrew laws for ritual sacrifice.

When Jesus Said, "Thou Shalt Work Hard or Get Nothing."

Don't you remember in the Gospels where Jesus says to the woman with the issue of blood, "Sorry, I can't heal you. If you had taken better care of yourself this wouldn't have happened." And when he gave that lecture to Jairus that if he had only fed his daughter a healthy diet she wouldn't have died? Or that time he told those lepers to forget it, he didn't care about them since they obviously did something to deserve their plight? Or that time he told the story about the Rich Man and Lazarus and said that Lazarus would have had a good life and a job if he hadn't been lazy? Or that time he told the 5,000 people to go home to eat because there's no such thing as a free lunch? Or that time he told the man born blind that the Pharisees were right, he DID sin?

Remember that Jesus said to people, "Suck it up, you can't always get help for your problems. Pick yourself up by your bootstraps. God can't help you and you shouldn't expect other people to do so."

And then when the Apostles didn't appoint anyone special to do the work of caring for the widows, because the widows should get off their lazy bums and get some work done?

Obviously if someone isn't a Christian none of that holds any water. But I am shocked and appalled at Christians who believe in and assert the bootstrap myth. I disagree with, but understand, people who think this--providing healthcare, food, housing--is the business of charities. I disagree with, but understand, people who think the ACA is flawed enough to be thrown out and to start over. But people who oppose government assistance because they believe everyone who is sick, poor, or uenemployed is that way because they deserve it, is not aware of the systemic, pervasive, and/or personal issues at play that cause poverty, unemployment, and even illness (how many children in low-income families are sick because the cheapest food at grocery stores is processed junk made available because of corn subsidies?).

As George Monibot says:

 "If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire. The claims that the ultra-rich 1% make for themselves – that they are possessed of unique intelligence or creativity or drive – are examples of the self-attribution fallacy. This means crediting yourself with outcomes for which you weren’t responsible. Many of those who are rich today got there because they were able to capture certain jobs. This capture owes less to talent and intelligence than to a combination of the ruthless exploitation of others and accidents of birth, as such jobs are taken disproportionately by people born in certain places and into certain classes."

Veganism Isn't Extreme

I wanted to post this insightful status from Gary L. Francione: Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights facebook page here for quick reference, since scrolling through facebook's timeline to find a status is a nightmare. Enjoy:

"There is nothing extreme about ethical veganism.

What *is* extreme is eating decomposing flesh and animal secretions.

What *is* extreme is that we regard some animals as members of our family while, at the same time, we stick forks into the corpses of other animals.

What *is* extreme is thinking that it is morally acceptable to inflict suffering and death on other sentient creatures simply because we enjoy the taste of animal products or because we like the look of clothes made from animals.

What *is* extreme is that we say that we recognize that “unnecessary” suffering and death cannot be morally justified and then we proceed to engage in exploitation on a daily basis that is completely unnecessary.

What *is* extreme is pretending to embrace peace while we make violence, suffering, torture and death a daily part of our lives.

What *is* extreme is that we excoriate people like Michael Vick while we continue to eat, use, and consume animal products.

What *is* extreme is that we say that we care about animals and that we believe that they are members of the moral community, but we sponsor, support, encourage and promote “happy” meat/dairy labeling schemes.

What *is* extreme is not eating flesh but continuing to consume dairy when there is absolutely no rational distinction between meat and dairy (or other animal products). There is as much suffering and death in dairy, eggs, etc., as there is in meat.

What *is* extreme is that we are consuming a diet that is causing disease and resulting in ecological disaster.

What *is* extreme is that we encourage our children to love animals at the same time that we teach them those that they love can also be those whom they harm. We teach our children that love is consistent with commodification. That is truly extreme—and very sad.

What *is* extreme is the fantasy that we will ever find our moral compass with respect to animals as long as they are on our plates and our tables, on our backs, and on our feet.

No, ethical veganism is not extreme. But there are many other things that we do not even pay attention to that are extreme.

If you are not vegan, go vegan. It’s easy; it’s better for your health and for the planet. But, most important, it’s the morally right thing to do.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
www.AbolitionistApproach.com"

What I Want From My Brothers

from the nakedpastor

I want my brothers to stop saying, when I bring up how the so-called biblical limitations make me feel, "It's scripture." I want a conversation about Scripture, not a conversation-stopper.

I want my brothers to stop saying, when I bring up the limitations women face, "Men can't give birth. Men can't be mothers." Childbirth and motherhood are beautiful parts of femininity. But role limitation that is caused by biology is not the same as role limitation that is caused by theology.

I want my brothers to enter my world for a moment, to understand what it's like to hear, "Women don't struggle with lust, pornography, masturbation."

To understand what it's like to hear, "You should stay beautiful so your husband doesn't cheat on you."

To understand what it's like to be told that I won't enjoy sex as much as men, but that my body is so intensely sexual that I must be overly-fastidious about how it's covered.

I want my brothers to understand what it's like to hear, "You'd be a great pastor if you weren't a woman."

Likewise, I want my brothers to imagine what it would be like to hear, "You are perfectly qualified, but you can't because you're a man."

I want my brothers to understand that "feminist" is not the same as "man-hater."

I want my brothers to understand that this issue isn't a rights issue, it is a theological one.

I want my brothers to understand that I am asking for the opportunity for my gifted sisters to serve in the role of priest, bishop, deacon. This isn't about power. This is about gifted women being able to serve God to the best of their abilities. The old line that women are told, "Those who demand to be priests aren't suitable to be priests," is true. But I'm not demanding anything. I'm asking for a re-evaluation. I'm asking for my view to be considered. I'm asking my brothers to entertain the possibility that complementarianism might be theologically incorrect.

I want my brothers to know that I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion that complementarianism is correct and that I am wrong. I just haven't been convinced yet.

I want my brothers to understand that women have been systemically marginalized for centuries, something men, as a group, have not faced.

I want my brothers to allow me to explore the hard questions without telling me I'm on a slippery-slope.

I want my brothers to understand that questioning traditional gender roles isn't the same as questioning the Gospel or the inspiration of Scripture.

I want my brothers to understand that I don't want them to change their position just because it makes me feel bad, but because they're convinced.

But I want my brothers to understand that the emotions and intuition of a redeemed person can be as valid an indicator of orthodoxy as reason. Let's pair them together.

I want my brothers to understand that I know that some of them understand some or all of these things (even if they disagree with my conclusions).

I want my brothers to understand that I don't think they're misogynists if they disagree with egalitarianism.

I want my brothers to understand I say all this from a place of love and respect for men, for the importance of fatherhood, brotherhood, husbandhood.

I want my sisters who disagree with me on these issues to consider these things as well. [Edit: As one friend pointed out, sometimes complementarian women can be far less sympathetic than complementarian men, because they live under gender hierarchy but don't feel oppressed].

And I want my brothers to know that I want women to enter their world of struggles as well. I'm sure a man could write a loving, thoughtful post entitled, "What I Want From My Sisters." But this post is about women, because I'm a woman, and this is the world I know to write about. The world I want my brothers to understand.