They say airports are good for people watching.

Unfortunately, sometimes, when you watch people, you watch them mistreat others.

Case in point. At the San Jose, Costa Rica airport the other day, I was watching an airport employee doing his job. He was a baggage handler, and his job was to lug suitcases onto the conveyer built to begin their journeys into some aircraft’s underbelly.

So I was watching him and, all of a sudden, his eyes locked onto something. Or, more precisely, to someone. Because passing in front of this guy was a woman, another airline employee. She was walking from one station to the other, but she was not doing so unnoticed.

Because baggage guy’s eyes had a radar lock on her. As she was walking toward him, he was examining her chest. And, when she passed by, he took a good, long look at her rear. And it seemed like she had no idea.

I wish this was an isolated event, but of course it’s not. Sadly, my personal experience tells me it isn’t. And, in a vivid and eloquent way, so does the writer of this post over at Katie and the Real House. Here’s an excerpt from her post:

As I walked to my car after work, I was on edge.  My heart was racing just a little bit and I felt agitated.  I love my work and I’m usually happy and peaceful when I leave, so these feelings were baffling.  Then I realized.  PBR McStinkyshirt had done this to me.

Even though I was working, even though I was clearly about 40 years younger than him, even though I was certainly not displaying any feelings toward him other than employee-like hospitality, this man decided that none of those things mattered.  He decided that his interest in me entitled him to interrupt my work and aim his creepiness at me, whether I wanted it or not.

I am still shaken and annoyed (mostly annoyed because ewww, you nasty man, you really messed up what was supposed to be a fun morning at work) when I think about this day. I am very, very (very!) tired of men and their ogling.  I am tired of stares that last way longer than they need to.  I am tired of words that make my stomach knot up, of men standing closer than they should, of having to keep my eyes straight ahead so I don’t appear to be inviting attention.

There are some charming humans who will say that the attention from these men is harmless (he was just looking!) or that it’s because of the way I was dressed (maybe I was asking for it) or that it’s because of the way that I look (you have to get used to that, Katie, it’s just because you’re pretty) but all of that is, as the French say, le bullshit.  The implication is that it’s not a man’s fault when he does oglethings, that his hormones or a little pointy-eared devil on his shoulder or Rambo make him incapable of behaving in a civilized manner.  Women are supposed to be cool with all kinds of unwanted attention because the men just can’t help themselves.  They’re only men and besides, it’s all in good fun.

Guess what, guys.  It’s not fun and it’s not good.  Every time your eyes rest on a woman for more than a few seconds, you’ve gone too far.  You’ve made her uncomfortable because you’ve barged your way into her life uninvited.  Every time you hoot and holler on the street because you like the way she walks, or speed up in your car to get a better look, or do the sleazy “Goooood morning,” as you pass her in the hallway and stare at her chest, you’re forcing a little bit of yourself onto her without her permission and when it’s over, you take a little bit of her away with you.

Looking back to that experience in the airport, I wish I had gotten that guy’s attention and given him a shake of the head or maybe a finger wag. Because who else is going to stop him from doing that?

Only those people watching in the airport.

Want to read some edifying reflections on our time in Costa Rica? Go here to experience the trip along with us!

Chances are you’ve seen the “Like a Girl” Always ad somewhere.

I think it’s magically appeared maybe 10 times on my Facebook wall recently.

In case you haven’t seen it, the ad is an attempt by the company Always to help us think about what we mean when we say someone does something “like a girl.” It starts with adults offering sad and cliched impressions of throwing, running, etc. “like a girl,” before young girls come on the screen and do the same things…normally. Naturally. Like a girl.

What’s the point?

That somewhere along the way, culture convinces us that being “like a girl” is a bad thing. And that’s tragic.

As you might expect, it’s a convicting piece. To see the ad, and a brief article describing it, go here.

Among other things, for me the ad raises an interesting question. When does male privilege really kick in? Because one of the messages of the ad is that early on girls are not negatively impacted by the phrase “like a girl.” Indeed, for the first part of a girl’s life, it’s an empowering thing to be that way.

So when does that change? Junior high? High school? Different for everyone? It would be an interesting study. Perhaps for a post-doc…

The other thing that intrigues me is the giant corporation behind the proverbial curtain. Who would it be producing this ad? Always, sure. But who’s behind that brand?

Proctor & Gamble.

That’s right, Always is a member of the Proctor & Gamble stable of brands. Challenging Tertullian readers might remember Proctor & Gamble because they’ve been featured on these pages before, and not in a good way.

P&G is the company behind last Winter’s Old Spice “momsong” commercial, an ad campaign that essentially distilled manhood down to “having fun with women and misbehaving.” Commenting about this ad back in January, I wrote:

Reducing “manhood” down to merely the carnal instinct to chase women, especially with the connotation of inappropriateness, doesn’t serve anyone, male or female. Not only does it neglect every other aspect of what it means to be a man, it also perpetuates the man as hunter/woman as quarry narrative, one that too easily and often becomes toxic.

So, two ads from the same conglomerate. And yet two radically different, indeed diametrically opposite messages: one empowers women and the other perpetuates the problem of privilege.

What to make of that?

On one hand, we have to acknowledge the profit motive. To be sure, Always and Old Spice are trying to make money, and the different ads reflect each company’s target demographics. I think the “Like a Girl” campaign is excellent, but I know that at the end of the day it’s still about the bottom line.

But on the other hand, maybe there’s a bit of a parable or metaphor here. After all, aren’t we all simultaneously broken and redeemed? Don’t we all get it right one minute and blow it the next? Speaking personally, when it comes to dealing with male privilege, I know I do (examples here and here).

It would be much easier if people (or companies) were good or bad, one or the other. Instead, we live in shades of gray. Sometimes we’re Always and sometimes we’re Old Spice.

I’m reminded of the Apostle Paul’s words to the church in Rome, in Romans 7:18-20:

“I want to do what is right, but I can’t. I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway. But if I do what I don’t want to do, I am not really the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.”

Ever feel like that?

So what do we do with this? For one thing, we acknowledge reality. We’ll get it right sometimes and other times our brokenness will get in the way. On this journey toward a male privilege-free  and gender-equal church we must give ourselves and others some grace.

At the same time, we must continue working. We have to challenge ourselves to continue to grow, to mature, to develop.

To become more like Always and less like Old Spice.

As I’ve dived in to blogging and writing on gender equality issues, I’ve faced some level of pushback. Or, maybe, pushback is too strong. More like raised eyebrows, pointed questions and, too often, silence.

One thing I have not faced:

Excommunication.

But that’s exactly what a Mormon gender equality advocate named Kate Kelly has now experienced. According to this article, Kelly was recently excommunicated for encouraging others to rethink how the church handles gender and leadership. Her church ban is scheduled to be in place for one year.

The email she received contained the following proclamation:

“In order to be considered for readmission to the Church, you will need to demonstrate over a period of time that you have stopped teachings and actions that undermine the Church, its leaders, and the doctrine of the priesthood…”

“You must be truthful in your communications with others regarding matters that involve your priesthood leaders, including the administration of Church discipline, and you must stop trying to gain a following for yourself or your cause and taking actions that could lead others away from the Church.”

Though it sounds like something from medieval times, excommunication is a big deal in the Mormon faith. According to this article:

Mormons who are excommunicated lose all their ordinances, such as the one in which she and her husband were sealed for eternity in the Salt Lake LDS Temple in 2006. [Kelly] previously described excommunication as a kind of spiritual death. “You are being forcibly evicted from your eternal family.”

In response, Kelly sounds both grieved and resolute:

“Mormonism doesn’t wash off,” she said. “But it will seriously negatively impact my worship, my connection to the community, my participation in rituals.

“I think it’s a hideously painful blow to any woman has ever looked around her and recognized the plain and simple truth that men and women are not equal in our church.”

Indeed.

Though I am not a Mormon, I say keep it up Kate (and others). And here’s hoping the church revisits this decision.