I would be willing to bet you have heard this one before:

You can either be part of the problem or part of the solution.

It is my assertion that posting memes like this one when a beloved celebrity dies are a prime example of being part of the problem.

The crazy thing is most of the people I see posting this one are socially liberal people.  People who are generally kind, loving and inclusive. This is none of those things. It is mean. It is part of the problem NOT part of the solution.

This kind of love.

This week Kent and I went to see Sister Hazel at The Grenada Theater in Dallas with a group of friends. The couple on the right was with a group of their friends who were standing right in front of us. The Grenada is the kind of theater where it is 90% standing room so there is nowhere to put your purse or other belongings. This dude in front of his carried his girlfriend’s purse slung across his body messenger bag style for the entire evening. It was clearly not his purse. It was her purse but he held it for her. The whole concert. It was really sweet. They hugged and kissed and swayed and held their hands in the air. It was beautiful. As she said to my friend Nanette when she spoke with them, he doesn’t mind holding my purse, he is very comfortable with who he is.

This kind of love.

The picture on the left is another couple from the concert. They were seated in the assigned seats to the left of us, but I couldn’t help noticing them. They were a lesbian couple and I loved how comfortable and safe they felt out at the concert. Many times I think LGBT couples are reticent to show their affection in a physical way in public because of the fear of judgement. But I think there is something about live music. Something in the sharing of such an intimate event with strangers that can put people at ease. I enjoyed seeing them hold hands, put an arm around each other and even steal a kiss. The way they treated each other had a tenderness about it. It made me happy.

This kind of love.

Today is my parents’ 50th wedding anniversary. 50 years y’all. What an amazing thing. My parents have taught me a lot about marriage and this kind of love. They laugh. They dance. They forgive. They carry. They pursue. They connect. They are equal. They are a team. They give. They are the light in each other’s eye, the strength in each other’s weakness and the epitome of what it means to be better together. I am honored to be their daughter.

Sister Hazel sang a beautiful song Thursday night called This kind of love. I would like to dedicate it to my mom and dad today.

This kind of love is what I want for all of you. For all of us. Because when we all know this kind of love, wars will cease, hearts will be content, everyone will be accepted and the world will be a much better place.

I read an article yesterday detailing the statements of Saudi cleric, Mufti Sheikh Abulaziz Al-Sheikh who was defending the Saudi Arabian ban on issuing driver’s licences to women. He said,

…men with “weak spirits” who are “obsessed with women” could cause female drivers harm and that family members would not know the whereabouts of women.

He is not alone in his assessment. Last year Saudi historian Dr. Saleh Al-Saadoon had a controversial exchange on Saudi Rotana Khalijiyya TV:

Dr Al-Saadoon: “If a woman drives from one city to another and her car breaks down, what will become of her?”

Host:“Well, women drive in America, in Europe and in the Arab world.”

Dr Al-Saadoon:“They don’t care if they are raped on the roadside but we do.”

Host:“Hold on, who told you that they don’t care about getting raped by the roadside?”

Dr Al-Saadoon:“It’s no big deal for them beyond the damage to their morale. In our case, however, the problem is of a social and religious nature.

Host:“What is rape if not a blow to the morale of the woman? That goes deeper than the social damage.”

Dr Al-Saadoon:“But in our case it affects the family…”

Host:“What, society and the family are more important than the woman’s morale?”

Now, you are probably asking yourself what this has to do with Harvard. And no, they have not banned women from driving.

What is happening is that an effort to reduce on campus sexual assault by integrating women into the last of the so-called final clubs at Harvard is underway. The Crimson explains the administration’s reasoning this way:

…citing qualitative and quantitative data, the University’s sexual assault prevention task force sharply criticized male final clubs for a high prevalence of “nonconsensual sexual contact.” Among undergraduate female seniors “participating in the Final Clubs”—including women who attend male final club events and seniors who are members of female final clubs—47 percent reported having experienced “nonconsensual sexual contact,” according to a University-wide sexual climate survey.

For the first time in recent memory, the Porcellian Club (Harvard’s oldest final club) felt this was a good time to break their silence to defend themselves against being forced to [GASP] go co-ed. While there may be benign reasons for wanting a single gender club and while in his letter to The Harvard Crimson, graduate board president Charles M. Storey (Class of ’82) enumerated some of these points, he also could not help but unwittingly echo the statements of the men mentioned above.

In his letter, Mr Storey opined, “Forcing single gender organizations to accept members of the opposite sex could potentially increase, not decrease the potential for sexual misconduct.” Apparently, Mr. Storey feels that integrating clubs like theirs will INCREASE the possibility that these women will be sexually assaulted. This directly contradicts another of Mr. Storey’s points. Namely, that “Sexual misconduct is absolutely unacceptable in all its forms but it is not an issue at the Porcellian Club.” Interestingly, the club already has a members only policy at its clubhouse which, in Storey’s words, “greatly reduce[s] the potential for sexual assault.”

Well, which is it? They do or do not have an issue with sexual misconduct? It seems to me that if the only way to ensure women are not assaulted is to keep them out of the club and even out of the clubhouse entirely you certainly have an issue. Or maybe he is trying to say that sexual misconduct is only not an issue because there are no women members and no women guests?

Sound familiar?

Let’s see if I have this right: Not allowing women to drive in Saudi Arabia keeps them from being sexually assaulted in the same way that not being admitted as members (or as guests) of the Porcellian Club at Harvard keeps women from being sexually assaulted. It doesn’t guarantee that they won’t be but it definitely “reduce(s) the possibility for sexual assault”.

Thank you so much for thinking of us gentlemen.

 

 

Yes, I know, it has been way to long since I have written a post. I have been in a bit of a writing slump. It seems to happen when I am super busy and life gets in the way. I am hoping to be back at it in earnest starting today. I am feeling inspired today.

Why you ask? What has me so inspired? Why Facebook, of course!

Have a look see with me, if you will at what I just witnessed in my newsfeed…
[I have blacked out the names except for my friend Todd’s who is the author of the original article.]

The thinking espoused by the woman commenter (highlighted in blue), is indicative of a syndrome I have seen way too often among conservative Christian (particularly evangelical) women. Women like Clare (name changed) have been taught that this is what God expects of her and every other woman. She has been taught that anything outside of this narrow definition is sin. Therefore, in order to validate her own beliefs or life choices, and to suppress any desires in herself that fall outside these narrow parameters of what it means to be a godly woman, she must react in a visceral way by condemning some form of the “Jezebel spirit” in other women. She must do so to the point of oppression if necessary. By this point in life, women like Clare have often convinced themselves that they have never wanted anything that falls outside these parameters. To do so would likely cause a vicious cycle of guilt, condemnation, and repentance that only serves to deepen the hold that the belief has over you.

What a load of flimflammery.

This makes me sad. Not just for humanity as a whole, but for Clare. Clare who honestly believes every single word of what she just said on the above post. Clare who has no idea what true freedom tastes like.

I long for the day when women like Clare are free from the chains placed on them by others that they now wake up every day and place on themselves. Part of the reason I write this blog is for that very purpose. There are too many Clares in the world who have been sold a bill of goods that they cannot go against without risking the very fires of hell. Sadly, they don’t realize that when they are finally free from those chains, when they finally wake up in the morning and say, I will not put those on one. more. time., that it is then that they will actually be FREE FROM HELL.

There was a time in my life when I put on my own chains in the morning. Every time I write this blog, I remind myself that I have laid them down and that I am (hopefully) helping others to lay theirs down as well.

How about you? What chains have you been conditioned to put on every day?
What could happen if you just refused to do it ever again?