Pro-Life Feminist?

Dear Victoria,

Have you read this article in Vox, http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10808062/pro-life-feminist

The article caught my attention because of several of our conversations about abortion and feminism. One of our earliest conversations about feminism was that you can’t be Pro-life and a Feminist. The two are mutually exclusive. You said that a right to abortion was a primary tenet of feminism. I remember this one pretty clearly the conversation happen while we were wandering around the Minnesota State Fair waiting for the Bonnie Raitt concert, (That was Amazing Concert).

That remembered conversation as well as others is why I wanted to share this article with you. The author makes it clear that, for her, feminism and a pro-life stance are not mutually exclusive but in fact a pro-life position should be part of a feminist philosophy.

Granted the author takes heat for her position because of her unorthodox position. The author readily admits that hardcore ideologues on both side of the issue have a hard time imagining someone who can be both be pro-life and a feminist.  I think that  simply points to the fact that many on both sides are unwilling to compromise on any point of the pro-life/pro-choice debate.  Both sides, look at the other side as an enemy to be totally defeated not as fellow citizens with whom you disagree.

I think the author makes some important points. Hard-core feminists should civilly engaged her in debate and not simply discounted her with curses and tired cliches (the F-bomb quote in the article).

Interested in your thoughts

Love

Dad

Acceptance and Happiness

Dear Victoria,

Your blog on thankfulness and body image had some very wise reflections. http://feminismformyfather.com/2015/12/22/thoughts-on-thank-you/ My favorite sentence was, “This reinforces for me that it’s okay to be happy with my body just the way it is, and it’s also gracious.” It also started several thought trains chugging down the tracks of my brain.  It is important to be thankful for who you are. In fact, I believe, a sense of thankfulness is a much more powerful motivator than a sense of  inadequacy.

A feeling of inadequacy, whether with one’s body or some other part of life, is not simply a girl/women concern.  Every person struggles with some issue because no one has a perfect life.  All of us wrestle with multiple shortcomings (whether real or perceived) through out our life.

What is important is not to let those inadequacies rule our life but rather a sense of thankfulness.  Each of us have a set of talents, abilities, and opportunities for which we should be thankful. We should also use them for the greater good. To focus on what we have been given and not on what we lack leads to a greater sense of happiness.

Let me share a short video that gets at the point.

Well that is all for now.  Except to again say I enjoyed your post.

Love Dad

Islamic Terrorism and Reality

Dear Victoria,
I always enjoy your visits. I miss both you and your brother Nathan, so I revel in the time we get to spend together. This was a particularly sweet time. I hope in the near future you’ll be able to convince fiancé Tom to make the trip, summer or winter.

I am glad that you brought up our discussion on December 28^th. http://feminismformyfather.com/2016/01/06/ideologically-speaking/#respond I too was disturbed by the tenor of the conversation, mainly because it did not clarify anything but only muddied the issues. When we talked about everything from the early church’s treatment of women to biometrics–as a means to prevent mass shootings–in a space of 15 minutes, it is hard to get clarity, much less agreement. To be sure, I am not trying to reach agreement with you, but I do want clarity, so we understand where both of us stand.

So let me be clear: I did not simply single out the Islamic Terrorists as the only people who are influenced by ideology. You brought up specifically the Isle Vista shooter. He was not influenced by a specific ideology, in the traditional sense, but rather Internet chat room filth. An ideology is a systematic structure that shapes our worldview. Shooting young women because he is a virgin is not a worldview. By the way, that doesn’t make what he did any less evil.

In the case of the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood Shooting, I grant you that the individual was influenced by pro-life rhetoric. He was not commissioned by leaders in the movement, nor was he recruited to shoot up the Planned Parenthood clinic. This guy reminds me of the Unabomber, a recluse who passionately believed in a cause (In the Unabomber’s case: environmentalism.) and decided to take matters into his own hands. I don’t blame environmentalism for the Unabomber, nor should you blame the pro-life movement for the actions of this individual. The description of the suspect lends credence to my conclusion. He was a recluse who was deeply disturbed.   Listening to him during his arraignment supported that overall impression.

It also needs to be pointed out that murders in the name of the pro-life cause are rare. There have been only eleven murders in the last twenty-five years. Here is my source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence.   In addition many pro-life Christians, myself included, came out and condemned the murders. Here is one list of organizations that spoke up, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-leaders-condemn-shooting-at-planned-parenthood-facility-urge-cauti. This is not the only list. My experience through the years has been that Christian leaders and leaders of the pro-life cause are quick to condemn those who twist their message for the purpose of terrorism.

Now to Dylan Roof, Nazism is scurrilous ideology that should be stopped at every turn. The Christian Church of Charleston did just that and thwarted Dylan Roof’s objective. He wanted to start a race war of hate; the Christian community of Charleston came together in love. A side note–that is why I am so excited to be pastoring a multi-racial church here in Minnesota; I see it as the hope of the future, an antidote to racial hate of any kind.

Having clarified these individual mass shootings lets consider Islamic Terrorism. You are right in perceiving that I see Radical Islamic Jihadist terrorism as a different animal altogether. Please, note that this is not condemnation of the Muslim faith. Sadly, it is the people of the Muslim faith that have faced the brunt of Islamic terrorism. I see Islamic Jihad as one of the global challenges of our day. I continue to be surprised at individuals who equate radical Jihadism with other acts of violence. Just looking at the numbers exposes the foolishness of that path. First, let’s look at the number of people killed by Islamic extremism:

• San Bernardino shooting – 14
• Chattanooga, TN– 5 (Recruiting station bombing)
• Boston, MA — 4 (Boston Marathon bombers)
• Waltham, MA — 3 (Three Jewish Men had their throats slit by Muslim terrorist)
• Marquette Park, IL – 5 (A Muslim convert kills family for not following Sharia Law)
• Fort Hood, Texas – 13 (Nidal Hasan shoots 13 unarmed soldiers while shouting “Allah is Great.”)
• Maryland and Virginia Snipers – 11 (Multiple sites in Maryland and Virginia)
• New York, NY – 2752 (9-11-2001)
• Washington, DC – 184 (9-11-2001)
• Shanksville, PA – 40 (9-11-2001)

These are not the only murders by Islamic terrorists. Since 9/11, there were over 30 other murders made in the name of Allah, but I did not list any of the single or double murders. Murder and terrorism in the name of Islamic extremism outstrips any other ideology in the United States. Let’s compare violent Pro-life extremists with Radical Jihad. Even if you exclude the 2976 individuals who died in the terror attacks of 9/11 and the 30+ single and double murders from that same time, Radical Jihadists still have murdered five times as many innocents as the radical pro-life individuals.

It should also be noted Radical Jihadists and Violent Pro-life Christians are both small subsets of the larger populations. In the case of Radical Jihadists, it is the Muslim population living in the United States. In the case of violent extremist it is, of course, Pro-life Christian population. So let’s look at both populations. The percentage of the population that identifies itself as Pro-life Christian is 35% of the overall population. Here is my source, http://www.lifenews.com/2014/07/07/percentage-of-voters-who-call-themselves-pro-life-at-all-time-high/ . The percentage of population that identifies itself as Muslim is 0.9%. Again here is one source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States. Since we also have a great number of Muslim visitors and workers lets round up that .9% to 3%. Here are the facts: over three thousand people have been murdered by a subset of individuals that come from 3% (Again, please note that not all Muslims are terrorists, and most Muslims are the first to face the violent terror of Radical Jihadists.), while 11 murders have been spawned by violent pro-life rhetoric which comes out of 35% of the population.

There are several reasons for such a huge discrepancy. First, Islamic Jihadism is a significant portion of the Muslim population. Second a war of annihilation had been declared on all who disagree with the terrorist worldview. Third Terrorism is a major strategic method of this war. Finally the leaders of the movement actively recruit individuals to commit acts of violence. These four facts separate Islamic Jihadism from other random acts of terror that are occasionally spawned by rhetoric.

Finally I am surprised that you have not spoken out more forcefully against radical Islam considering their treatment of women. It is, to say the least, barbaric. Here is just one article, http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-terror-yazidi-woman-recalls-horrors-slave-auction-n305856. I could talk about Boko Haram and other groups that specifically terrorize women.

Well I hope that clarifies my position. I look forward to your response.

Love Dad

Sadness at Violence.

Dear Vicki,

While I did not shed tears I agree with your recent post that the violence in Washington State is tragic. It is not the way life should be.  Children men and women should be able to go to school in peace and safety.  Your tears are an acknowledgement of that obvious fact. Being a parent my heart goes out to those children’s parents.  I agree with you because of this incident and another in Sacramento it was  a rough day.

I am not surprised that the line in the story that struck you talked about the boy being angry with a girl who refused to date him.

Here is what I noticed. The shooter texted the victims he intended to kill which included boys and girls. The shooter’s rage and hatred was directed not just at the one girl but a group of people he perceived as his persecutors.

This is not about misogyny and  the solutions you prescribe (while some are worthwhile) would not stop one more shooting death.  Let me give you one case in point; you mention restrictive gun laws would be a step in the right direction. This seems an easy solution but according to the New York Times Chicago has very strict laws  yet Chicago has unprecedented violence.  Please note that everyone of those victims are male, but that is not my point.  Chicago with some of the strictest gun laws of any large city  has one of the highest murder rates. At least in Chicago’s case restrictive guns law do not seem to work.

The two police officers murder in California shooting spree

Finally, I was shocked by another shooting tragedy that happen the same day. An illegal immigrant couple went on shooting spree that kill two sheriff deputies and wounded a third.  This is worth as much attention as the shooting in Washington state.  After all whether it is a 14 year-old girl or a 25 year-old male gang-banger or 33 year-old male police officer any murder is a tragedy.   I am deeply sadden by the events of the past couple weeks.

 

Love,

Dad

 

Wow, What Courage

Dear Vicki,

A virus that has captured the attention of the world

The Ebola crisis has captured the country’s attention. It certainly has mine, while not scared I am  concerned.  One of my chief concerns is not so much the disease but the hysteria. We have a large West African population at the church that I serve and I don’t want them or us to be ostracized because of unfounded fears.

The fear and resulting hysteria is what makes these two women so special in my eyes.  Despite their fears they are being prompted by their faith to go serve the ebola victims of west Africa.  They remind me of the Christians of the early Roman Empire. According to Rodney Stark (a secular sociologist)  in his ground breaking book The Rise of Christianity. There were two things that help the Church grow.  It wasn’t large evangelism gathering nor was it arguing people to faith.  Rather it was the willingness of Christians to serve plague victims when everyone else abandoned them, as well as, how Christians treated women particularly baby girls who had been abandoned.  The babies were  literally thrown away at the garbage dump. The Christians rescue them.  Yet that Baby girls were not the only women that early church protected.  Women of every age and class  felt safe within the Christian community because of  how Christians treated women which was a direct result of their Christian faith.

The two women featured in the story capture that powerful witness of the early church.  They are not the only ones. There are Christian men and women around the world making a difference.

Love,

 

Dad

No More

Dear Vicki,

In response to my last post you noticed that I hadn’t blogged for a while.  The reason — I was so disappointed at the behavior of Ray Rice and Adrien Peterson. What may it worse is I saw both of those men as sort of the good guys of football. I guess even in my mid-50’s and despite my understanding of human nature as fallen, I can still get caught up in hero worship.  In any case I was deeply disillusioned so I wasn’t sure how to respond.

The one good thing is that it has again raised our awareness of domestic violence.  If you have watched any football you have seen this commercial entitled No More.  I couldn’t agree with it more (No pun intended).

I’ve also been sensitive to domestic violence in my career as a pastor.  I would be interested in your opinion on this sermon on forgiveness.  I talked about domestic violence toward the end of sermon.  In any case, I think this is an issue that we agree on.

Love,

Dad

Joni Ernst, a Strong women.

Dear Vicki,

Hey, I’ve been in Iowa for the past couple days at the  LCMC international gathering. It has been a great week with excellent speakers.  My favorite, surprisingly, wasn’t my old Professor Dr. Sundberg. He was good but not as good as the  Rev. Margaret Manning of RZIM ministries.

Have you heard of Joni Ernst? She is running for the senate here in Iowa.  She was a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Iowa National Guard serving in Iraq, rides a Harley and is a State Senator.  This is a Women that should be held up by feminists as an example; she is not.  Why? because of her deeply held Catholic beliefs and her pro-life stance. She has been accused of waging a war on women.  You could read about the race in this Washington Post article.

Now I don’t want this to get into another abortion debate but rather to point to another strong woman that instead of being celebrated for her accomplishments is demonize for her political viewpoints.  The perspective from those of us standing outside the feminist movement is that feminism is not about lifting up and celebrating all women but rather a specific agenda that ranges from left of center to radical left.

I am looking forward to putting our blogs together.  What is our next step?

Love

Dad

Fatherhood and Leadership

Dear Victoria,

David Popenoe

I am going to use your post on being a feminist dad to explore the sub-title of your blog, A Patriarch’s Guide to Dismantling the Patriarchy.  You might have noticed that in our fantasy football league I have named my team the Northland Patriarchs.  I had hoped you would take the bait and name your team the flaming feminists or something similar.

Despite this whimsy, the words patriarch and patriarchy are interesting words.  As I understand the way the words are used today, patriarchy denote a system devised by men and run by men to keep women from achieving their full potential.  The American Oxford dictionary defines it as, “a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.”  In that sense of the word there is no question that the patriarchy needs to be dismantled.  I think we both can agree that men and women need to be in partnership. We might not agree on what that partnership looks like or how we might achieve it, but we do agree that men and women should be equal partners.

That however brings me to the original meaning of the word which has a much more positive connotation.  The word patriarch comes comes from two Greek words: patri which means father and arkhes which means leader.  In other words, a patriarch is a father-leader. In this sense of the word we need more father-leaders not fewer.  We need more systems to help men step up and provide leadership (without excluding women of course) not fewer.

From my perspective the lack of father leadership has led to much of the dysfunction that is occurring in our culture.  This is not only my observation but it has also been documented by a broad swath of sociologists.  The lack of father leadership has led to an increase in male violence as well as the dramatic rise in teen pregnancy.  The most compelling argument is David Popenoe’s book, Families Without Fathers.  In the book he outlines that girls without fathers are more likely to become pregnant while boys without fathers are more likely to be incarcerated because of violent crimes.  Here is an article that lays out some of the same evidence.  In reading the article you will see that he is not some right-wing ideologue.  For example Popenoe acknowledges that the 1950’s nuclear family was not such a good deal for women but that doesn’t mean we completely abandon it and are content to dismantle father-leadership within the family.  Popenoe makes this point.

Across time and cultures, fathers have always been considered essentia—and not just for their sperm. Indeed, no known society ever thought of fathers as potentially unnecessary. Marriage and the nuclear family—mother, father, and children—are the most universal social institutions in existence.

Let me give you three examples of how a lack of father-leadership has harmed young men:  The basement dweller, young men who while not harming anybody spend most if not all of their time playing video games and not contributing to society; The ghetto hood, young men who live a life of crime and violence seeing no other way out (this particular example has been documented by Popenoe); The obnoxious frat boy, who thinks the world owes him a living — rude to women thinking of them only as sex objects.  The lack of strong male role models contribute to each of these archetypes.

Your description of a feminist dad is interesting.   In your example, the discussion your friend had with his son was great but there is one thing that wasn’t done that should have been done.  The child’s computer privileges should have been revoked or at least modified, requiring any computer usage to be done in common place.  That would send a very clear message that the viewing of pornography was unacceptable. Maybe that sort of response is “paternal” but the last time I checked a parent’s job is to be parental.  Having said that, I am delighted that your feminist dad is involved in his son’s life.  In my book and using my definition he might even be a patriarch! 🙂

Again we need more father-leadership — not less — to protect children from those things that threaten to warp body, mind and soul.

Love Dad

Debate and Political Change

Dear Victoria,

I wish we would use the Susan B. Anthony coin and phase out the dollar bill

You seem to be misunderstanding both the video and my response. So let me try to be very clear. First, Susan Anthony and the other women and men who promoted suffrage are without question — heroes. I am not trying to erase the hard work done by women and men who kept women’s rights in the public sphere. Like any issue of grave import there was a vigorous and prolonged debate, which at times got very nasty. Because of their perseverance and hard work, they won the debate.

That, however, is exactly the point!  In this society, debate can lead to profound social change. It can also lead to profound political change as long as the electorate is convinced. That electorate was male at the time, and they voted for the change–freely and fairly. The key word in the preceding three sentences is ‘can’. Just because someone protests long and hard does not necessarily mean that a society will change. In fact outside of western culture it seldom does. Instead the protest are squashed, and the protestors are eliminated or marginalized. The most obvious example of this is the 1989 Tiananmen Square protest in Communist China.

Your rant (your words not mine) and this response which seems to be unable to acknowledge the simple facts: that the electorate was male and that they voted in a free and fair election to give women the vote seem to confirm my initial concerns.

Love Dad

I didn’t expect that

Dear Victoria,

“Wow that was unexpected”

Wow, I didn’t expect this response and I am sorry to upset you.  It was not my intent.  I think the video pushed a score of buttons; that was not what I was trying to accomplish.  Going back however to my overall goal of this blog, which is clarity over persuasion, this has been a very helpful conversation.  Why? Because I think it has helped to clarify for me some basic premises of feminism.

First, I think you confirmed Ms. Bruce’s contention that feminism demeans women who choose the role of wife and mother over a professional career. When you talk about how classmates wrestled with career AND family. The implication is that any woman who choses family solely is looked down upon.  That has been my experience.  Every feminist that I have known seems to harbor that condescending attitude.  Sometimes it is expressed openly like in this article by Amy Glass.  Sometimes the thought is not express so openly but rather implied through innuendo, “Well of course you wouldn’t understand this struggle because after all you are a stay-at-home mom.” I actual heard the preceding quote. True, not so subtle but subtler than Glass’s article.

Here is the ironic thing, the strongest women that I have known are educated women who freely have opted for the stay-at-home Mom choice. Please understand I am not criticizing those women who make a different choice. I truly think that women should be free to choose: career, family, or some balance between the two. I am just observing that those women who choose the traditional approach in face of such cultural opposition and financial obstacles have a very strong inner drive.  Their strength is not noticed, however, because that drive is directed to the private sphere of family and children as opposed to career and public accolades.

On the second point I confess that I was a little shocked at your response but at the same time I think I learned a great deal about one of the foundational values of feminism.  I suspected this core value in our Hobby Lobby debate but it seemed to be confirmed in your response to Ms. Bruce’s video. What is that central feminist value?  It is total and complete sexual freedom no matter the consequences.

So when Ms. Bruce makes the contention that the “Hook up” culture of the late 20th and early 21st century might be harmful to both women and society, while at the same time suggesting that it would be helpful to develop structures that would empower women (and men) to say no to casual sex, your response is to play the metaphorical victim and accuse Ms. Bruce of “slut shaming.”  I need to point out that Ms. Bruce never used the word “slut” or any other derogatory term for women.  Therefore I can only assume that your emotional response is due to the fact that sexual freedom with no responsibility is a primary value of feminism. It is so deeply held that the first and primary response is emotional and evocative.

Before I respond to the final point I want you to know that I know you love me and your brothers with few if any strings attached.  In fact I have no doubt of the fact.  I am simply responding to your post.

You mention in an earlier post that you love men but your response to Ms. Bruce’s third point seems to add a caveat to your love.  You love men as long as men stay in their place. Men should never venture an opinion (except to agree with the liberal feminist view) over profound issues that deeply effect our society if those issues touch a women’s life in anyway.  Particularly if these men have the potential to influence public policy and public opinion as in the the Hobby Lobby case. In other words, if you don’t agree with the feminist view men should know their place and shut up.   They certainly should not venture an opinion that effects women which includes: abortion, health care, poverty, foreign policy, welfare, education, taxes and a score of other issues that are shaping our society.  If they refuse to be silent or spout the party line then they should be shamed and eventually destroyed.

Therefore to even acknowledge that it was men who freely gave women the vote is some sort of betrayal of feminist values. Ms. Bruce’s point was not that men should be worshiped because they gave up the vote, provided birth control and work-saving devices that primarily favored women at the time, but rather that men wanted women as their partners in this society at least since the early 1900’s.   My fear is from your response that feminist, despite their rhetoric, are not looking for partners but only supporters of feminist values as define by hard-core feminism. Feminist are fond of saying that they don’t hate men.  I agree with that point, they don’t hate men as long as the they agree with them.  If  they disagree men become the enemy and worthy of feminist disdain and deserving of feminist ire.

Love

Dad