The Marlboro Man is Dead
Despite what you’ve been led to believe, not all entrepreneurs are men.
Think about it. The popular cultural entrepreneurial narratives are dominated by men. From the 19th century, there’s Edison, Vanderbuilt, Carnegie and Rockfeller. Last century, you’ve got Henry Ford, Howard Hughes, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Today’s news tells us the stories of Richard Branson, Mark Cuban and Mark Zuckerberg.
What we’ve taught is that entrepreneurs are sort of corporate Marlboro men. You remember the Marlboro man? A man, alone on the prairie, astride a sweaty stallion, all stubble and grit gazing confidently into the distance.
Or maybe not.
According to this article and infographic, having women involved in a tech start-up can be economically advantageous:
“OnlineBusinessDegree.org says women-led private technology companies achieve 35 percent higher returns on investment and bring in 12 percent higher revenue than male-owned, venture-backed tech companies.”
As you can see in the infographic, the data shows that when women are involved in the entrepreneurial enterprise with numbers (at least 5 women in the org), the companies are twice as likely to succeed.
Want a greater return on investment? Want the company to succeed? Have women entrepreneurs involved.
In my line of work, I’ve had the opportunity to work alongside many women with entrepreneurial gifts. One of these women is right now pioneering a new ministry at a small community college. Compelled by a vision to reach the whole campus, last year she started a Bible study with the football team. The football team.
With schools starting, this week it was time to recruit. So picture this. A pint-sized, brave-as-you-can-imagine woman standing up in front of more than 100 hulking football players and inviting them to join her every week to study the Bible.
She got 41 interest cards. Amazing.
When it comes to starting something new, it’s time to recalibrate our paradigms. What if women are not only just as competent as men at new ventures, but in some cases they are even better?!?
Ultimately, as a culture and in the church, it’s time.
Let’s put the Marlboro man out to pasture.
On Mileygate
In a week where an already ugly and tragic situation further deteriorated in Syria with the news of the use of chemical weapons, the American populace as one turned it’s attention to:
Miley Cyrus.
Unless you live in the wilderness, you probably caught wind of the fact that erstwhile popstar Miley Cyrus made quite a stir at MTV’s Video Music Awards (VMAs) last Sunday night. I’ll spare you the details, but suffice to say her act involved tongues wagging, stuffed bears, very little apparel and a dance move known colloquially as “twerking.” (full disclosure: I’d twerk, but I think I’d throw out a hip).
By and large, Miley’s antics have been roundly panned. As over-the-top hyper-sexual. As inappropriate for prime time TV. As a shameless publicity stunt. And more. The backlash has been strong. For instance, the Parents Television Council condemned the performance, writing:
“MTV continues to sexually exploit young women by promoting acts that incorporate ‘twerking’ in a nude-colored bikini. How is this image of former child star Miley Cyrus appropriate for 14-year-olds? How is it appropriate for children to watch Lady Gaga strip down to a bikini in the opening act?”
For my money, two things are true about Miley’s behavior. First, we really don’t need that on TV. What good did Miley’s performance do? How did it help our culture? How did it build up people? I think the answers are “none, it didn’t, they weren’t.” And, second, her stunt distracted us as a society from what we really should be paying attention to; namely, Syria, or the 50th anniversary on the march on Washington and what’s next for the national conversation about race.
But lost in the “what the heck is wrong with Miley and what the &*%$ was that at the VMAs?” conversation is Miley’s dance partner. That’s right. Because at the VMAs, Miley’s act involved one other critical component:
Robin Thicke.
Rocker Robin Thicke was Miley’s “twerking partner,” if that’s such a thing. And he’s been largely ignored in the post-VMA kerfluffle. Why? Could male privilege have something to do with it? Does a cultural bias in favor of men in some way explain how a 36 year old, married father of a 3 year old son could participate in a sexually charged dance with 20 year old popstar in front of a bazillion television viewers and come out basically unscathed?!?
For the most part, in Tertullian’s reductionistic world, when it comes to sexuality men are there to be serviced. It’s our privilege. And at the VMAs, Robin Thicke was certainly playing his part, singing lyrics about liberating the young “animal” grinding against him.
In the end, I appreciate this take on the topic, with this summary of what was happening last Sunday night:
“This is about how the music industry uses every aspect of women’s lives, bodies, and sexualities in order to benefit off of their careers, and then lets them take all the fire for being sluts, dumb, shallow, crazy, and other endearing terms that the public and the media throws at them. The producers, agents, and Robin Thickes just get to smoothly walk away with all the money and none of the public shaming. “
Indeed. Robin Thicke, you need to better than that. We all do.
You’ve heard the expression “it takes two to tango?” Let’s update that expression to read:
“It takes two to twerk.”
Kicking Male Privilege in the $%#!
If you know my wife, you know she is amazing.
Published author. Mom of four. Wife of a guy with a crazy job, a weakness for grad programs, and a fondness for long runs.
And soccer coach in training.
As I type (on Saturday morning), Amy is at the second session of her two day coaching certification course. Today is the field portion of the training. She’ll spend four hours this morning, busting her tail learning how to wrangle a group of under 8 girls into some semblance of a soccer team over the course of this Fall.
I’m guessing she’s going to come home tired, sore and overheated. I’m guessing she’ll also come home…
Relieved.
Turns out that of the 30 coaches-to-be in Amy’s certification course, 2 are women. On top of that neither of the facilitators are women.
Talking with Amy before last night’s kick-off lecture, she was anxious about going, knowing that there would be very few women in the room. Would the instructors take her seriously if she had questions? Would she have to endure innuendo? Would she feel safe in the room? Walking to her car after?
Processing with her beforehand, I was struck by the contrast to my experience in the same course, two years ago. I had none of those concerns. Instead, my big worry was being bored. It’s laughable really. And illustrative.
Male privilege is the real deal.
This morning, as Amy prepared to head out the door, there was more to fret about. What should she wear? Fresno summer mornings are hot, but you want to cover up, especially in the presence of 30 male strangers. Or, it was clear that there wouldn’t be bathrooms at the field site, and it’s, uh, tough for a women to pee behind the bushes…
In the end, mercifully, the whole experience was better than she feared. We’re thankful. And yet that still makes the point. The men at this training had the privilege of not worrying about what they’d experience, a privilege that Amy did not have.
So, let’s add this to the list of Amy’s amazingness:
Woman of courage.
A Letter to Smurfette
Dear Smurfette,
To be honest, I was more of a Voltron guy growing up. It’s not that I didn’t watch the Smurfs from time to time, it’s just that, well, to me Voltron was cooler. Five mechanical lions morphing into an evil-fighting robot? What’s not to like?!?
Still, I will say congratulations on the success of the Smurfs franchise. You blue-bodied, Gargamel-fighters have done really well. Comic books, nine years on television and now two movies. Bravo!
Smurfette, what I want to do in this letter is to express my sympathy.
Because it’s surely been a difficult journey for you. After all, it couldn’t have been easy to be the only female smurf in your community. I can’t begin to imagine what it must have been like to be the only female out of about 100 smurfs. I’m sure you felt alone and isolated, the perpetual outsider.
As if that wasn’t enough, I’m sorry that you have had to go through life being identified solely by your gender. While all the male smurfs around you got names that reflected their personalities or attributes, you were defined only by your chromosomes. Again, I can’t imagine what it would have been like to watch Brainy, Grouchy, Lazy and Papa live into their names while you remained shackled with a gender-only moniker. Truly, as this article states:
“These characters, originating as they did in mid-century Europe, exhibit the quaint sexism in which boys or men are generic people–with their unique qualities and abilities–while girls and women are primarily identified by their femininity.”
Finally, it kills me that you were created by Gargamel himself. Not only that, you were created as a weapon. I’ve seen the cartoon that depicts your creation as an agent of revenge, as “a ruthless curse that will make them beg for mercy.”
Smurfette, none of this is right.
And while I’m glad that later on you were joined by Sassette and Nanny, I ache that you had to endure 100 years or more of smurf male privilege. Whoever the smurf equivalent of Tertullian was or is, I’m sure he’s smiling at all you’ve had to endure.
So, Smurfette, keep your head up, hang in there and be tough. And look for allies.
Heck, where’s Egalitarian Smurf when you need him?!?
Pain and Hope in India
Human trafficking remains a global scourge. According to the U.S. State Department’s 2013 report, “social scientists estimate that as many as 27 million men, women, and children are trafficking victims at any given time.”
27 million people.
And while we have come a long way in combating trafficking, the report estimates that only around 40,000 victims have been identified in the last year. In other words, we are barely making a dent in the problem.
Closer to home, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services estimates that California is one of the top three states in the nation for human trafficking (here). Just last month, the FBI recovered 105 sexually exploited children in this country, including several in this state.
Today allow me to share with you this photo essay. For me it’s equal parts pain and hope. Pain, in the sense that girls and women have to endure this in today’s world. Hope, in the sense that there are people who are doing something about the pain.
I recommend slowly experiencing the photo essay in an attitude of prayer.
Lord have mercy.
Some Thoughts on Power
I t
end to think about power as a neutral thing.
That is, in its pure form, power, defined as the ability to influence others in some form or fashion, is morally neutral. It’s neither good nor bad, it just exists. Like money, power is something with a whole lot of potential that’s wholly dependent on the whims of people for its use.
This isn’t to say, of course, that power remains morally neutral. Indeed, power often (always?) has morally significant results, either for good or for ill.
I realize that not everyone shares this notion of power being morally neutral. 19th century British moralist Lord Acton, commenting on the state of the monarchy, was famously quoted as saying, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Another British politician, William Pitt, was quoted as saying that “unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it. ”
Hmm…
I was reading this article the other day, about how power affects the mind, and I came across this insightful quote, from New York University Professor Joe Magee:
“What power does is that it liberates the true self to emerge,” he says. “More of us walk around with kinds of social norms; we work in groups that exert all pressures on us to conform. Once you get into a position of power, then you can be whoever you are.”
For me this quote captures a core truth about power:
How power is used depends on the character of the user.
In other words, once placed in a position of power, a person’s character is given a platform for expression. Who we are comes out when we have access, control and influence.
And maybe this is where Acton and Pitt come in. Because outside of the “Word made flesh,” nobody is morally pure. At least I’ve never met anyone, including when I look in the mirror. And so it could well be that power is a potent enough force to expose the subtle flaws in even the most pure person’s character, resulting in corruption.
What is clear is that due to the complexity of the human soul, there exists a million ways that power can be used.
And, no doubt, power can be used for good. When a mayor uses her political capitol to improve the lives of the homeless, power is used for good. When a painter manages to stir the heart of a nation to embrace the unity of all people, power is used for good. And, sorry Tertullian, but when a male pastor advocates on behalf of the leadership gifts of women in his congregation, power is definitely used for good.
On the other hand, too often power can become abusive. Politicians, reflected in the allegations against San Diego’s Mayor Filner, use their power to sexually assault women. Or, Hollywood takes the influence we give them and offers us an image of a world marked by mistrust, violence and broken relationships. And, yes, citing selected Biblical texts, male pastors too often shut the door to women serving in their congregations, particularly in authoritative teaching roles.
All of this ought to compel us to embrace the caution expressed by Jesus in Matthew 23, as he spoke to the power brokers of his day, the Pharisees:
“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them…those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
May those of us with power indeed be humble, in our statehouses, marketplaces, houses of worship and in our homes.
Want more thoughts on power? Last December I blogged on “Christmas and Power” here.
“You Just Keep Moving Forward”
When I think of the biggest male-dominated professions, I think of airline pilots, mechanics and people in the helping professions, like police and fire personnel. Oh, and then there’s construction, tech, finance, politics and, yep, pastors.
Come to think of it, it’s sort of tough to narrow down.
So I paid attention the other day when I saw this NPR article about a woman named Judy Brewer. In 1974, the Arlington County, VA Fire Department made Miller the first female career firefighter in the nation.
And as you might expect, Brewer faced more than her share of pushback. For instance, according to Brewer:
“‘The wives were upset about their husbands bunking with a woman,’’’ Brewer recalled in an article in the Dec. 25, 1990 edition of The Washington Post.`I’m still here, so obviously the concern died down eventually.’’
It wasn’t just her co-worker’s wives. Again, according to Brewer:
“When I applied at my local fire station to volunteer in Fairfax County, I was told essentially to go back to my kitchen, it was no place for a woman,” she says. Fellow churchgoers asked how she could “lower” herself to do that kind of job. Brewer’s fellow firefighters weren’t accepting, either. “When I first was hired, people were worried about different things,” she says. “The one that they used as a reason was that they were afraid that I would compromise them in a fire by not being able to help them if they got into trouble.”
So how did she persevere in the midst of this climate?
“…you just keep saying, OK, I’m doing a lot of good. And you just keep moving forward,” she says.
Friends, that’s self-confidence. It’s also perseverance.
In the end, Brewer thrived. She saved lives. She inspired (and continues to inspire) other women to serve. And she did the job well. In fact, in 1999, Brewer retired…as a battalion chief. Yep, she was the first woman to attain that leadership role in the country as well.
So here’s to Judy Brewer. Thanks for leading the way, and for continuing to “just move forward.”
Katniss, Tris and…Lucy Dixon
I really need Veronica Roth to hurry up.
In case you aren’t up on your dystopian young adult literary trilogies, Veronica Roth is the author of the Divergent series, and the reason I need her to hurry up is because the books are amazing and she’s only 2/3rds of the way done!
In Roth’s world, society is divided up into five factions, delineated by a particular virtue. So, there’s Amity (the kind), Erudite (the intellectual), Abnegation (the humble), Candor (the truthful) and Dauntless (the brave). Toss in a bit of violence, some impossible moral choices, and, of course, a wee bit o’ teenage romantic angst, and you have the makings of a really entertaining read.
Like its dystopian twin, The Hunger Games, Divergent has a young woman as the main character and heroine. And as with The Hunger Games‘ Katniss, Divergent‘s Tris weathers a slew of trials, both external and, more significantly, internal on her way to surviving her situation. To be sure Katniss and Tris are complex characters and yet in the end, Tris emerges, as Katniss did, with perhaps the most precious of commodities:
Self-confidence.
And this begs the question: why do you think these young adult authors are casting young women as their heroines?
Could it be because young girls/women in our culture need a confidence boost? Could it be that in a world dominated by male privilege, our young women need to know that they have power? That they can choose their destinies? That they are more than able to fend for themselves, thank you very much?
Needless to say, strong, confident, even violent female leads are not the norm in our culture’s epic stories. In this article, sociologist Kathryn Gilpatric diagnoses the situation:
“This research provides evidence that the majority of female action characters shown in American cinema are not empowering images, they do not draw on their femininity as a sources of power, and they are not a kind of ‘post woman’ operating outside the boundaries of gender restrictions.”
In short, they’re not Katniss, or Tris. They’re not confident.
In our house, we are focused on raising three strong and confident women. Of course we want more than just “strong and confident,” and we’ll need to help them learn how to relate in healthy ways with the men around them, but a dose of Katniss or Tris would be fine with us as well.
Today we cleaned out the living room, and in a box of papers from last school year, I found our daughter Lucy’s “Alamanak,” and specifically the “Sports Rap” page. Yes, we’re raising an artist.
One of the things I noticed was how Lucy is talking about boys. In true Katniss/Tris spirit, right now she doesn’t need any boys!
After all, they’re just “wacky:”
This Quote Royally Stinks
OK, first, the obligatory best wishes:
Amy and I would like to congratulate Prince William and Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, on the arrival of Prince George Alexander Louis, third in the line to the British throne. We wish the happy family nothing but the best as they enjoy their newborn and each of his royal poops.
Seriously–and I know I’ve blogged about this before–I don’t get the American obsession with the British monarchy. After all, long ago we dumped the English on their royal arses, didn’t we?!?
And so I’ve scratched my head this week at the overwhelming coverage of the royal birth. Unless you’ve been in a cave for the week, you’ve seen the coverage on the morning shows, the evening news, on the web and everywhere in between. It’s royal baby mania.
And then I about scratched my head off completely when I read the following quote from CNN royal commentator Victoria Arbiter:
“I can’t believe we finally, after all this waiting, know that we have a boy,” she said shortly after the birth was announced. “My first thought, I have to say, was this is how brilliant a royal Kate is. There are women throughout British royal family history that have panicked over not being able to deliver a boy. And here we are — Kate did it first time.”
Now, there are asinine quotes, and then there’s this one.
For one thing, I have no idea how having a boy was in any way Kate’s decision. I mean, the quote reads as if she willed it and it was so. And, by contrast, other royals have not had that same super-power and hence they’ve panicked. Last time I checked, outside of some serious science, there’s not a whole lot a mom-to-be can do to pick a baby’s gender, old wive’s tales by damned.
Secondly, and most vexing, is the quote’s juxtaposition of “brilliant” with “able to deliver a boy.”
As I reported when Kate announced her pregnancy, the British law of primogeniture (male heirs accede to the throne, even in the presence of older sisters) was happily expunged by Parliament in the run-up to this royal birth. Still, the perception persists, at least on the part of Ms. Arbiter, that because the baby was born with a y chromosome, it’s better for the baby, for Kate and for the nation.
If she’s “brilliant” for bearing a boy, what would she be if she had born a girl?
In the end, it’s a ridiculous quote, one that’s easy to dismiss out of hand. In this article on slate, one writer gives this comment “the award for worst royal baby commentary ever.”
Indeed that’s so. But it’s also more than that.
It also wins the Tertullian Award for most egregious male privilege quote of the year.
Amos and Dubai
I really like the prophet Amos.
After all, the brother authored a powerful book, full of vivid, poetic imagery and compelling teaching featuring a strong call to justice and righteousness.
On the other hand, I “like” the prophet Amos in the same way I “like” a trip to the dentist. Or a performance review. Or someone sitting me down and setting me straight.
What I mean is that it’s not always easy to have our experiences or our perspectives challenged.
And in Amos’ case, the challenge is about injustice and false spirituality. For me the central message of Amos is that God cannot abide injustice and so God’s going to do something about it. As humans, then, the right move is to whole-heartedly join God in that pursuit. To not be on the side of justice is, well, akin to the ironic horror of “a man [escaping] from a lion only to meet a bear.”
See what I mean? Amos is a handful.
One particular hotbed of injustice in the book of Amos is the city gate. In Amos’ day, the gate was the hub of civic life. If you had judicial business, you went to the gate. If you needed the marketplace, you hit up a vendor at the gate. If you wanted to debate the issues of the day, forget an early morning at your local Panera and instead go to the gate.
As one commentator puts it, “when the Bible talks of the ‘gate’ it may mean: the ‘market’, the ‘law court’ (either formally in criminal cases or less formally as the place where family business or disputes were settled), the public forum where community business was discussed and gossip exchanged or the administrative center – the ‘Town Hall’.”
Basically, the gate is where you took the pulse of the city, for good or for ill.
In the spirit of Amos, I want to call out some injustice right now at the global gate. Specifically, in the cosmopolitan yet socially traditional country of Dubai.
According to this article, over four months ago, Norwegian woman Marte Deborah Dalelv was sexually assaulted while on business in Dubai. After a court process, her attacker was sentenced, but only to a 13-month sentence for sex outside of marriage and alcohol consumption. I daresay that sentence feels too lenient for the caliber of the crime.
But then it gets worse.
Because Dalelv was ALSO sentenced. To 16 months. For the same two crimes with perjury added in. Simply put, the Dubai court didn’t believe her.
Why not?
It could be because Dubai’s legal standard for what constitutes sexual assault is steeped in male privilege. One London-based group is calling on Dubai, and the United Arab Emirates to which the country belongs, to overturn the decision, with the following rationale:
It said the UAE’s claims that it is attempting to end discrimination against women was undermined by a legal system that “prohibits the achievement of justice for cases of sexual violence against women”. According to the Emirates Centre for Human Rights, UAE law states a rape conviction can only be secured after a confession or as the result of testimony from four adult male witnesses to the crime.
An outright confession, or the testimony of four adult male witnesses? Really? That threshold for proof is just not good enough. It’s too high. Ultimately, it’s unjust to the violated woman.
And so in this case and too many more around the world, we join the prophet–we join the Lord–in yearning for a day when justice is established at the city gate. From Amos 5:21-24:
“I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
your assemblies are a stench to me.
Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.
Away with the noise of your songs!
I will not listen to the music of your harps.
But let justice roll on like a river,
righteousness like a never-failing stream!”
UPDATE: I know I’m good but not this good! About 10 minutes after I posted this, I read on the front page of cnn.com that Dalelv had been pardoned (here). She can now go home to heal. Great news for her, and yet the fact remains that the U.A.E. laws need to change!
Challenging Tertullian 