Emerging Women

Monday, June 09, 2008

Hillary's Speech

My apologies to our non-US readers for the political post, but I thought this could be of interest to many of us here.

Over the weekend Hillary Clinton conceded the Democratic primary to Obama. I know that in the US this was a bitter battle and emotions run high when the "Hillary topic" arises. But whatever your politics or opinion of her, I thought her words on what it meant to be a woman running for President of the USA were significant.

Together, Sen. Obama and I achieved milestones essential to our progress as a nation, part of our perpetual duty to form a more perfect union. A woman running for president, I always gave the same answer, that I was proud to be running as a woman, but I was running because I thought I'd be the best president. But ...

But I am a woman and, like millions of women, I know there are still barriers and biases out there, often unconscious, and I want to build an America that respects and embraces the potential of every last one of us.

I ran as a daughter who benefited from opportunities my mother never dreamed of. I ran as a mother who worries about my daughter's future and a mother who wants to leave all children brighter tomorrows.

To build that future I see, we must make sure that women and men alike understand the struggles of their grandmothers and their mothers, and that women enjoy equal opportunities, equal pay and equal respect.

Let us resolve and work toward achieving very simple propositions: There are no acceptable limits, and there are no acceptable prejudices in the 21st century in our country.

You can be so proud that, from now on, it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee, unremarkable to think that a woman can be the president of the United States. And that is truly remarkable, my friends.

To those who are disappointed that we couldn't go all of the way, especially the young people who put so much into this campaign, it would break my heart if, in falling short of my goal, I in any way discouraged any of you from pursuing yours.

Always aim high, work hard and care deeply about what you believe in. And, when you stumble, keep faith. And, when you're knocked down, get right back up and never listen to anyone who says you can't or shouldn't go on.

As we gather here today in this historic, magnificent building, the 50th woman to leave this Earth is orbiting overhead. If we can blast 50 women into space, we will someday launch a woman into the White House.

Although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it's got about 18 million cracks in it, and the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time.

That has always been the history of progress in America. Think of the suffragists who gathered at Seneca Falls in 1848 and those who kept fighting until women could cast their votes.

Think of the abolitionists who struggled and died to see the end of slavery. Think of the civil rights heroes and foot soldiers who segregation and Jim Crow.

Because of them, I grew up taking for granted that women could vote, and, because of them, my daughter grew up taking for granted that children of all colors could go to school together.

Because of them, Barack Obama and I could wage a hard-fought campaign for the Democratic nomination. Because of them and because of you, children today will grow up taking for granted that an African-American or a woman can, yes, become the president of the United States. And so when that day arrives, and a woman takes the oath of office as our president, we will all stand taller, proud of the values of our nation, proud that every little girl can dream big and that her dreams can come true in America.

And all of you will know that, because of your passion and hard work, you helped pave the way for that day.

So I want to say to my supporters: When you hear people saying or think to yourself "if only" or "what if," I say, please, don't go there. Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward.

You can read her whole speech here. So what do you think? Will such things ever become "unremarkable"?

Labels: Gender Issues, Politics

posted by Julie at 2:41 PM

¤ Permalink ¤

52 Comments:

At 6/09/2008 10:08:00 PM, marilyn

It seems funny to those of us outside the U.S. when you apologize for posting political or news-oriented articles. The majority of the world actually knows what is going on in the U.S.---and in most other countries as well. It's like you're admitting you live in a bubble, and you think the rest of us do to.

Hillary's speech was lovely and well-written, and I hope that whoever actually wrote it will get the credit someday. As to the question of female representation being remarkable or unremarkable, it seems a useless and arrogant question in light of the issues facing the rest of the world today.

I have friends in Iraq who know full well that if Mr. Obama is elected and pulls the troops out of Iraq, there will be a mass genocide rivaling that of the Jews in WW2, and this time, we will all know who to blame--the first African-American president of the United States.

Ideology has run it's course; as long as there are men on the earth, wars will be fought over the same things they have always fought over; ethnicity and God. It's time to fire a few University professors, pull your heads out of the sand, and start paying attention to the reality of what this world is heading for.

In light of the devastating consequences that this new American election could produce, you'll pardon those of us non-American readers for not giving a rat's ass about the status quo of female politics in America.
At 6/10/2008 08:32:00 AM, Kim

Interesting post Marilyn. While I appreciate the gravity of the future of Iraq regardless of what political leader is elected in the US, I’m fairly certain it doesn’t negate the seriousness of other issues currently facing the world today. Issues like hunger, poverty, child labor, and even the status of women. I have just spent more than a month in the Middle East, including rural Egypt, and I can tell you I was grieved by what I saw there. In over 100 degree heat, I walked beside women completely covered in black burqa’s, mesh over their eyes, who followed behind husbands wearing jeans and a t-shirt. It grieved me to learn that Egypt’s Criminal Code condones “acts of violence” used by husbands “in good faith” for disciplinary purposes upon a wife. That women rarely (if ever) have access to divorce in these situations and it can take years to secure one. Not to mention there is no social support system for a woman who divorces her husband, especially is she has children. Female circumcision is still practiced there. Women who are raped rarely receive justice and, as often happens in Middle Eastern countries, can be criminally charged for “instigating” it. Up until recently, women in Egypt have not been able to obtain ID cards which has meant that they cannot vote, hold property, or receive an inheritance or other legal entitlements. The fact that women are suffering makes this question hardly arrogant or unremarkable.

I like the idea you put forth that we do not live in a bubble and with that in mind I have to believe that a woman running for office in the States can have ripple affects that will change not only the status of women in North America, but might even begin to change the way people think in the Middle East.

Cheers to Hillary (or her speech writer) for an inspiring bit of oration.
At 6/10/2008 10:05:00 AM, kristi

I read this post yesterday and refrained from commenting at first. My thought when I first read the initial post was that when I listened to this speech, this exact excerpt bothered me. It bothered me because while Hillary should have been conceding to Barack, she was instead talking in lofty terms about women. I just thought it was a bit disrespectful to spend so much time talking about herself and about women in general when the purpose of the speech was concession.

But that's just me; we all know she hasn't shown much humility during all this, so it fit her character.

I am choosing to respond now, though, mostly because of what I consider to be a downright nasty comment by Marilyn. Wow. This comment is incredibly "useless and arrogant" in my opinion, to use Marilyn's words.

But what really got me upset about this response is that it is incredibly insulting to the Jews and also to African Americans. And to make general statements about something so grave, so serious, in such a flippant manner is more denigrating than any conversation we could have about women and politics (which, by the way, I don't really care much about!).

I didn't think that Julie was saying that other people across the globe don't know what is going on in the U.S. I took her initial apology to be just a heads-up that this post was going to deal specifically with what is going on in America.

If you want to point blame, Marilyn, for what is happening in Iraq, then I think you might need to start a little farther back than Obama (or McCain). I think you might need to take a look at the current U.S. president, or heck, why don't we go back 1300 years to the roots of the conflict. OR we could even put loads of blame on the British, who in the 1920s decided to partition the country according to their trade routes instead of taking into account ethnicity or religious views or not even listening to THEIR desires.

Marilyn, I think there is plenty of blame to go around, and plenty of blood on all our hands, so let's not be so hasty to judge before looking in the mirror of self-reflection.
At 6/10/2008 10:25:00 AM, Elizabeth Glass-Turner

It is interesting to me that a lot of comments regarding this post are negative, on both sides of the fence!
I did not support Hillary, not because of her gender, but because I disagree with her on some issues. That being said, I am proud that I can someday look both sons AND daughters in the eye and tell them they could have a shot at the Oval Office if they work hard and want to.
I am not an Obama supporter, but if we have an African-American president, I will be proud, because even though I disagree with some of his opinions, I respect the magnitude of what is taking place historically.
Change CAN occur, whether it's making strides for women, or helping to foster order, peace, and equal rights in the Middle East. It takes courage. It takes time. It takes leaders like Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. See a version of my recently published article on hearing her speak, here:http://thebigredcouch-bitty.blogspot.com/2008/04/madam-president-mama-president.html
At 6/10/2008 11:25:00 AM, Julie

Marilyn - I was in no way thinking people outside the US are unaware of these issues. But I've heard a lot of flack that this blog is too US centric so hence the apology. As I mentioned in the post, my point wasn't the politics of the day or to provide space for hate rants on Hillary, just to bring up the women in leadership issue - which yes is still a major issue for many around the world.

Kristi - I saw the inclusion as the exact opposite. I was glad Hillary made this about women and something bigger than herself.
At 6/10/2008 11:45:00 AM, Anonymous

Julie,

I am in definite disagreement with you regarding the speech. However, judging from your reaction, I do believe that she accomplished her task, which was to take her own ambitions and framed them into a bigger context- even if this was a somewhat cynical ploy (it worked, so the pragmatist she is would be overjoyed).

This was a poor concession speech, which I watched live in its entirety. It was not at all magnanimous (the mark of a great speech- see Gore 2000).

there was a 6 minute stretch in the middle where she even remotely did what the speech was supposed to do- tell her fans why they should vote for Obama (and that was done in a shoddy manner).

this is her speech....

"me, me, some random little girl, me, all my voters who loved ME, me, women, everyone, obama, me, obama, you, me and America, me, women, women, oh yeah- blacks, Bill and Chelsea and mom, me, me, God bless America."

I must say that I see Hillary as only a little bit helpful for women in American politics. She is only where she is because of her marriage to a former president and her parties love for that president. She owes her Senate seat to that same gratitude.

When a women is in this arena based upon something besides her relationship to a man, I think our daughters can be proud. Until then we can continue to be proud of our nation's nepotism and continued oligarchy (Obama's candidacy makes me prouder, because he is there on his own, not because of family ties-he is breaking more of a ceiling for women).

Gillian B
Seminole Heights, FL
At 6/10/2008 11:51:00 AM, marilyn

Wow. did I ever open up a hornet's nest.

Kim, in no way was I downplaying the importance of survival issues or the status of women; in the democratic world, or in the Middle East. I am well aware of the difficulties these women face on a day to day basis and I am often grieved beyond words at the stories I hear from friends and relatives. You are fortunate to have first-hand knowledge of the gravity of this situation. These women are one the reasons I felt so irritated at the post. The most prominent American Women's organizations in the U.S. DO NOT CARE ABOUT THESE WOMEN. There have been repeated attempts to get these organizations on side to help the plight of Middle Eastern women but there are precious few who do. And yes, if elected, Hillary's stand on the war in Iraq and her views on Middle Eastern politics would have had a ripple effect---none of it good.

Kristi, your comments about my mention of race are proof of my 'bubble theory.' I am of Jewish descent, and I assure you, I was not insulted. I also have many other ethnic groups represented in my family, and I can tell you that much of the world views race issues very differently than Americans do. My comments were intended to enlighten you on how many non-Americans would view the situation should he become elected. I am not interested in the American pastime of placing blame--I am trying to point out that none of you seem aware of the seriousness of the situation as it is now.

The use of the words 'useless and arrogant' stem from my frustration at seeing an article such as this show up on a supposedly 'Christian' site. I think some of you need to visit churches in other parts of the world where persecution is an everyday reality--it would give you a new perspective on what is important and what is not. I will not apologize for being irritated at those of you who claim to be Christian, yet seem more concerned with being accepted by the mainstream politically correct population than you are with trying to spread the message of Christ to other parts of the world.

What I find fascinating, is that I dialogue and argue with many different groups of people from all Faiths and backgrounds, political viewpoints and philosophies, but I do not encounter the open hostility I have found here at any other site I have visited...could anyone take a stab at explaining that?
At 6/10/2008 11:55:00 AM, Anonymous

Marilyn,

thank you for enlightening all of us Americans, many of whom claim to be Christian with your insight into our lack of understanding.

It is good to see that Americans are not the only ones that can be quite arrogant in their demeanor.

Gillian B
At 6/10/2008 12:08:00 PM, kristi

Marilyn, it's interesting to me that you would say that you are met with open hostility, yet you were the first person to comment on this post, which really did not have much to do with what you set out to make as your agenda, and you were the first person to use such hostile terms as "we will all know who to blame," "it seems a useless and arrogant question," "it's like you are admitting you live in a bubble, and you think the rest of us do to[o]," "pull your heads out of the sand," "start paying attention to the reality of what this world is heading for," "you'll pardon those of us...for not giving a rat's ass."

if you ask me, and by commenting i suppose you are, it was you who brought the conversation into hostile territory to begin with.

i also make it a practice not to assume i know things about people when i read their blogs or comments. when i commented back to you, i think i addressed your comments here directly. i think i tried not to attack you personally. if i am wrong, please feel free to point that out, as this was not my intention whatsoever. i am all for dialogue, even if it's tense.

however, your follow-up comments are downright offensive, from telling everyone here we don't have any idea what's going on in the world just because we don't agree with you, to telling us we just "claim" to be christians (but i guess we aren't because maybe we haven't traveled all over the world or because we disagree with you?).

i feel very comfortable in calling myself a person who tries to follow the tenets of jesus, and i feel equally comfortable in being incredibly bothered by your inflammatory statements here.
At 6/10/2008 01:32:00 PM, marilyn

My comments were not personal toward anyone who frequents this blog, and while I admit to a certain frustration, there is no hostility attached to it. Fear is probably the underlying emotion. Yes, I am afraid of what will happen to my friends, and I am frustrated at the seemingly uncaring, complacent attitude many American Christians display toward the world's suffering. This preoccupation with 'cultural relevance' and it's anti-evangelical bent is of deep concern to those of us who used to think American Christians were our allies. This is obviously no longer the case.

I find it interesting that with the exception of Kim, all of your comments have bypassed the fears and concerns I have expressed and have been directed at my 'arrogance' and 'hostility;' neither of which are true. It is common knowledge around the world that Americans know little or nothing about the countries it borders, much less the other parts of the world. Don't take my word for it; there is an amusing (hilarious) Canadian film called "Talking to Americans" that should be shown to every man woman and child in the U.S. It might give you just an inkling of how you look through different eyes.

My question about why I am treated differently here has not really been answered. I have not changed my writing style or my topics of concern so maybe it has something to do with women, or maybe you are not as prejudice free as you claim to be.

Seeing as none of you are willing to dialogue about the issues and address the hard questions, I will recuse myself from your little club and go somewhere where offense means something far different.

Thank you for the enlightenment.
At 6/10/2008 01:34:00 PM, Unknown

Marilyn,
I find it extemely offensive for you to insinuate that I (or any other readers here) only "claim" to be a Christian, simply because I have an interest and outspoken involvement with politics!!! I care too deeply about the future of our world and the lives of my 3 children not too!!!

And, by the way, if you were not looking for open hostility from your first comment... it certainly could have been worded more graciously!!
At 6/10/2008 01:49:00 PM, Unknown

Marilyn,
Okay, so after posting my last comment I saw that you had posted at the same time... truthfully, I do not care to take the time to dialogue with you about most of the things you are mentioning, because I think you are being ridiculous!!

I am just amazed that you obviously know that my many missionary (American)friends know nothing about the countries in which they have been serving for many years. Also, the small group which I belong to and has been doing work with orphanages in Egypt obviously does not REALLY care about the rest of the world either. I just posted this morning about an organization which does work here with in the United States, but obviously when I recently made an announcement to my church about the group... I was only joking about the importance of serving others locally, nationally and GLOBALLY.

If you are upset that people are focusing on your arrogance and hostility, maybe you should stop being so arrogant as to group all Americans into a group that does not know about or care about the rest of the world!!
At 6/10/2008 02:35:00 PM, Hester

Unbelievable. My teenage daughter just directed me to your site and I cannot believe what I have just read. She has been working on a cyber-bullying project and you have just supplied her with all of the material she needs. I had no idea that there were 'Christian' sites like this where the 'regulars' gang up on outsiders.

Distasteful, malicious, and disappointing. Is there no moderator here?
At 6/10/2008 04:39:00 PM, Julie

Hester - not to be rude, but this discussion doesn't even come close to cyberbullying. Sure there are comments here that talk past each other and a few rude things said, but just because this is a christian site doesn't mean there aren't real people with real opinions showing up. I don't censor such discussion or force people into a sugary mold.

It would be nice if people did engage fully and respectfully at all times, but expressing opinions, even poorly, is kinda the point of blog discussion.

Marilyn - what is it that you think makes a person a christians and what topics are considered okay for discussion? This blog is meant to be a place for women interested in emerging christianity to discuss issues that matter to us. And yes we all know that there is much pain and suffering in the world, but as some have pointed out gender issues cause much of that pain. we want to explore those issues in light of our faith. I posted this speech as one way of doing so and have instead been told that the topic is too petty/stupid to discuss or that its has the Hillary taint so it must be evil. not the discussion I expected, but these things never are...
At 6/10/2008 06:27:00 PM, marilyn

Actually Julie, I did feel a little bullied; I usually do when I show up here.

It has become painfully apparent that although the emergent agenda accuses the traditional church of judgment and condemnation, I have found more anger, more judgment and less tolerance of other views and belief systems at the emergent sites I visit than I do at any other venue.

I grew up in an extremely legalistic environment and often engage these same groups in debate and argument, but have found they are considerably more willing to discuss the reasons behind the emotion than you are here. That said, it seems that you aren't really interested in discussing opposing issues and are more of a support group for like-minded women.

Incidentally, Hester works for my husband. I had no idea she posted a comment until I logged back on. I did direct her daughter to your site for research, but did not request a defense. My apologies.
At 6/10/2008 09:07:00 PM, kristi

Julie, it seems as though the conversation you were hoping to have was railroaded by Marilyn's first comment. I'm sorry that I didn't just respond to what you had posted. I saw Marilyn's comment and got upset because I felt attacked. If I have been disrespectful to you or anyone else here I really do apologize. I wasn't even intending on commenting in the first place, because I wasn't sure I would be able to state what I was thinking during the Hillary speech very eloquently, and honestly I was worried that a bunch of women might not agree with me. :)

Marilyn, thank you for your final admission, because now I am a lot less bothered by your statements. Your confession that you come on this blog and try to rile things up because you have a poor opinion of "emergent" conversations really does explain things for me so that I don't feel so insulted now.
At 6/10/2008 09:45:00 PM, marilyn

Well, kristi, I'm not quite sure that you have understood my motivation for being here, but now that the decibel level has dropped considerably maybe you can get a better idea.

I do have a less than stellar opinion of emerging churches as a whole, but my opening comments here were not really directed toward the 'church' at all. (I do have friends and family involved to varying degrees in the missional lifestyle and have seen more heartache, more substance abuse and more abuse of 'Grace' than I ever care to see again. I have also talked to enough people who are involved or used to be involved to know that my experience is not unique.) My initial comments about Hillary's speech and the subsequent questions came right on the heels of a conversation I had with a friend who is terrified that his entire family could be wiped out with the cast of an American ballot. At that point, the subject matter of Hillary's concession speech seemed trite and unimportant. I believe I said much of this already, so maybe I am just wasting my time and your space. Anyway, I have taken the hint that my presence here is less than welcome. Shalom!
At 6/10/2008 11:33:00 PM, Amy

I'm coming in rather late on this conversation. I didn't respond initially as my feelings are pretty mixed about Hilary in particular and the entire election process in general.

Marilyn, I'm a frequent visitor on the site, but only chime in occasionally. I felt very defensive when I read your initial post. Some of what you said describes me in part. Some places me in a category wholly unlike me. My response was, "Wow and Ouch"...and not in a good way.

I thrive on learning, getting new perspectives and learning other's experiences, so your last comment really peaked my interest. Why is your friend so scared? What are the situations that influence this feeling he expressed to you? I've done a lot of reading and learning, but I have much left to do and will admit that I am at times naive, despite my best efforts to be otherwise. Your last comment encouraged me to engage with you in learning. The initial comment felt like a door slammed in my face. For me, that was the reason for for defensivenes and "inner" hostility. Thank you for coming back and sharing more.
At 6/11/2008 12:20:00 AM, Mike Clawson

"Actually Julie, I did feel a little bullied; I usually do when I show up here."

So if you don't like being bullied, then why did you start off doing that to everyone else here in the first place?
At 6/11/2008 12:27:00 AM, Anonymous

Marilyn, I sense a very different tone in your first post than your last...I like the last. What the last post does is open up your story...your motive and it opened my eyes and heart to read between the lines. The sad part of blog dialogues is there is no immediate interaction between thoughts and feelings, no nonverbals to pick cues up from. I think if you had shared some of your back story and then posted your original post the reaction would have been different. Let's face it we think we know each other's true self via cyberspace but we don't.

I feel the same thing about Hilary...I think she got a raw deal and has built over the years a tough exterior that at one point was her strength and now got in her way. I think if each one of us sat and had coffee or better yet a glass of wine with her and really engaged her story we would all have a different picture of who the real Hilary is. It may not have changed our votes but it may have reduced the mud slinging. I frankly was wanting to vote for her all along, but have been afraid (my bad) to voice my opinion because of the visceral responses I have heard about her. I am open to a good debate but not one full of cliches and name calling. I don't want to be attacked for my views...none of us do.

Marilyn...I am truly sad that you have felt attacked, I wish i could make it right. And it sounds like other's felt attacked by you...a no win dialogue, crap all over :) I guess as a follower of Christ my goal is to think the best of one another because that is what I would want done to me.

Peace
At 6/11/2008 10:09:00 AM, Anonymous

I kinda noticed that in the midst of the drama, mine was the only comment that actually responded directly to the initial post... was this speech good for women?

Any discussion of the topic at hand?

Julie?

Gillian
At 6/11/2008 11:19:00 AM, Elizabeth Glass-Turner

Ladies,
I can engage in discussions with passion enough for a lifetime. I tend to be opinionated, vocal, and intense. So I understand compassion, empathy, and worry about topics close to one's heart.
Let's acknowledge that women on the other side of the ocean and on this side are both aided and celebrated better when we acknowledge that we all have different issues that impassion us - and that that is a strength. "The eye can't say to the ear, 'I don't need you.'" We need people burdened for women's progress in America. We need people burdened for the plight of families in the Middle East. Surely these are not at odds?
Southern Baptists, Episcopalians, Catholics, and Methodists can surely align together to care for the homeless, feed the hungry, and love the poor, whether they sing from a hymnal or call themselves "emerging." We are part of One Body.
At 6/11/2008 11:23:00 AM, kristi

Loving each other, not coming to the table with assumptions about one another: amen, Bitty. Thanks for summing this up so nicely.
At 6/11/2008 10:05:00 PM, Deb

back to the speech... You asked "You can read her whole speech here. So what do you think? Will such things ever become "unremarkable"?"

It is interesting because my older daughter (17) and I had a good discussion about this. Her POV is that this primary season has broken a barrier, to be sure. When it will be come 'unremarkable'? She thinks it will take another generation. She said it's like people who are still living in the South waving their confederate flags - they are out of sync and step with reality. It will take a generation to change the dominant opinion and become the louder voice and opinion. She says that people do not always realize that gender has nothing to do with giftedness.

I say - Yeah, babe. preach it!

But her generation believes that it is unacceptable to NOT break the barriers. My peers (some of whom are pastors as I am) would label her a "radical feminist" for believing in "breaking barriers". She would like to see this continuing evolution of opinion and action spread globally. But that, she thinks will take several more generations...

Deb
At 6/11/2008 10:36:00 PM, marilyn

Mike--Why am I here? Morbid fascination..masochistic tendencies..
to learn the finer points of playground ethics...

Sorry, but your question didn't exactly come across as a conduit for mutual understanding.
At 6/12/2008 07:40:00 AM, Nancy

While some of the rest of the world has not hesitated to put their trust in women as political leaders, it is an obvious fact of history that this has not been the case for women in the USA. Let's hope and I do believe it will be the case, that one day, this will be "unremarkable". For Hillary not to mention this fact in her speech would be missing an opportunity to celebrate this milestone. And isn't it the same for Obama...why shouldn't he point out the obvious as well (and I believe he has)? It might seem a mundane issue to those who have not experienced racial or gender discriminiation on this level and I can understand that. I agree that when a country as "powerful" as the US is supporting a system of discrimination shows signs of change, it should have a "ripple effect" to those with similar issues. I don't think that ackowleding progress in this area by any means minimizes the huge concerns in other places in the world (eg, genocide in Darfur, Iraq). Nor is it a reflection of ignorance about what is going on elsewhere across the globe.

I think it would be enlightening for us all to discuss some of the other pressing issues in the world from the context of living out our faith (or not) ...and depending on where we live, we could certainly benefit from the viewpoint of others who have different vantage points.
At 6/12/2008 11:38:00 AM, marilyn

Nancy, once again, I need to say this; "the age of Ideology is over." No amount of wishful thinking is going to change what 'is' and what 'will be.' Yes, women have earned unprecedented rights in countries with a democratic system of government, but in all of the years we have held them, very little has changed in the rest of the world. The 'ripple effect.' runs right over those countries in the crux of ethnic hatred and religious oppression. These conflicts are not about oil, power and democratic reform, they are wars against progress; they are a clash of civilizations. And for many, they will fight change with a ferocious, bloody determination that seems incomprehensible to the western eye. It doesn't fit in with the ideology we have chosen to believe, so we no longer look at 'what is,' and instead, choose to look the other way.

There is a level of cultivated ignorance and arrogant complacency that rings hollow to those of us who watch American news day after day, and it is both frustrating and infuriating to realize it's anesthetizing the Christian community as well as the general population.

Those of us who watch America from afar grow increasingly concerned at the growing rift between your two political parties, and the obvious favouritism the media provides to the left-leaning candidates. It reminds me of days gone by.....and not good ones. We are also alarmed at the growing amount of discrimination that is developing among 'Christian' groups toward other 'Christian' groups who refuse to embrace a politically correct philosophy; from my experiences here, I'd say this forum is a good example of that.

My passion and my time are wasted here and I have work to do.
Thank you to those who can think out of the box.!
At 6/12/2008 12:28:00 PM, kristi

..."the obvious favouritism the media provides to the left-leaning candidates. It reminds me of days gone by.....and not good ones."

marilyn, do you have fox news where you live? if you have ever seen this news station (and it very much permeates the American culture of which you seem to be an expert) i do not need to say anything else to address this quote from your most recent comment.

"We are also alarmed at the growing amount of discrimination that is developing among 'Christian' groups toward other 'Christian' groups who refuse to embrace a politically correct philosophy; from my experiences here, I'd say this forum is a good example of that."

in all the ranting you have done on this site, accusing others of not being christians, accusing others of not being thoughtful, well-read, knowledgeable individuals, you have not told us what exactly your position is. instead of pointing fingers, why don't you just explain what your opinion is and what you think America should do to appease you? are you a fundamentalist christian? an evangelical? a republican who lives somewhere else now? i think i can say with full confidence that none of us cares if you are any of these things, in the sense that we would not judge you for having these opinions. it seems like what other people (including myself) have been asking from you is that YOU quit judging us without knowing us.

with your words you show that you think every woman on this site (or maybe in the emerging church? i have no idea) is some raging feminist, ultra-left-leaning, pro-abortion, burn-your-bra kind of gal (oh, who is also very uninformed of world politics and events).

i think maybe if you want to be taken seriously, you need to start over and just try explaining YOUR point of view instead of assuming you know anything about any of us, which i'm sure you do not based on your incoherent comments.
At 6/12/2008 03:01:00 PM, marilyn

Kristi--yes, I can access FOX news, as well as CNN, BBC and all of the major network channels. Out of all of them the BBC and Fox news are by far the most fair and accurate and are the stations most watched by those who are actively serving in the military.(in several countries.) I also read several blogs produced by French and German reporters, as well as Israeli and Palestinian newspapers. I also know many people who live in countries that your news stations never comment on, and have family involved in humanitarian work in many of these places. Is there something you think I'm missing?

I also wasn't aware that I needed to post a political profile or profess to certain religion in order to comment or complain...maybe I missed the fine print.

As for what I think of the content here? I would say the articles speak for themselves; you are a largely Democratic,anti-Republican, politically correct, nominally feminist group; critical of traditional Christianity, and intolerant of anyone who dares to question or criticize the content...as you have made me so painfully aware.

As for starting over, no thanks. I have suffered persecution in many ways throughout my life, and when I find it in a place that professes to be a Christ-centred genre where we are supposed to be free to complain(I did read that correctly, did I not?)you'll pardon me for not being very open to speak about who I am. I have found no sisters in Christ here willing to look at themselves in the eyes of the world outside the safety net, so to say anymore is just a waste of time.
At 6/12/2008 03:25:00 PM, kristi

you keep saying we are all a waste of your time; then why do you keep coming here to "suffer persecution"?
At 6/12/2008 04:08:00 PM, Hester

This blog should be the poster child for 'Relational Aggression.'

Marilyn doesn't need me to defend her, (sorry honey) but I was the one who was there to see the tears running down her cheeks as she wrote to you. She just looked up at me and said "They don't want to get it. Why don't they want to get it?"

I could hazard a pretty accurate guess, but if I don't offer you one, there may be one or two of you who will actually think about the reasoning behind it.

Marilyn won't be back here; she already promised me she wouldn't, and I am not even remotely interested in any comments you may or may not make.

I will be forwarding the link to the Sociology deparment---I think they'll find it useful and informative--thanks for the material.
At 6/13/2008 04:37:00 AM, Anonymous

Wow!
Marilyn's first comment (to my outsider eyes) was not hostile toward other writers here or even Julie's post though perhaps some of her conclusions were inaccurate like the "admitting you live in a bubble" part. In it I heard a frustration with American arrogance, liberal dreaming (nice sounding words but a lack of elbow grease). Her "useless and arrogant question" remark I think comes from the frustration that many (maybe even most) Americans seem to think that what happens here (right down to who even runs for office let alone is elected)impacts the world in profound (long lasting) ways. The fact that other countries have already broken the glass ceiling which keeps women from leadership roles in government sort of lessens America's impact, perhaps. The prase "and pulls troops out of Iraq" seems to have been missed by most commenting on Marilyn's comments about Senator Obama, in favor of focusing on "blame--the first African-American president". Some insist that she did not share her point of view and yet she actually did. The focus, however, became her "tone". (A dangerous thing when one must listen to the written word and not the voice). I probably have not faced the intense frustrations Marilyn has faced and so am not at sensitive to the bullying she felt. Some of her detractors obviously felt bullied as well, probably because they have faced their own share of criticism from hardline conservative voices with motives considerably less stellar than Marilyn's. I tried to find a place to write Marilyn and Hester directly but their blogger sites don't seem to allow comments so I can only hope that they do return and we can all eat a little humble pie, realize we might share more of the same concerns then we were first willing to see, and forge ahead to discussing possible solutions, places we can work together, insights we had not yet considered. Here's to asking more questions and seeking more clarity before coming to conclusions (especially the negative ones).
At 6/13/2008 09:30:00 AM, Anonymous

I have read this entire conversation and perhaps an 'outsider' can view Marilyn's post as not hostile, but it sure seems arrogant and full of assumptions at the least. It doesn't ring any bell of 'lets get together and talk'.

"It seems funny to those of us outside the US"

So you speak for EVERYONE outside the US?

Its like you're admitting you live in a bubble - no, its being sensitive to the fact that this is an international board.

You, Marilyn, came in swinging, speaking for the world outside the US and telling everyone in the US how wrong they are.

Did you expect everyone to thank you?

I have very often found myself at odds with the women here, but the longer I've sat on the sidelines and read, the more I have come to understand them. If you quit assuming, you might begin to understand them as well. And you may actually benefit from what they have to say and they may benefit from what you have to say.

Or you can stick with your holier than thou attitude blindly believing you have the only correct view on the world.

As far as pulling the troops out and blaming the first AA president. Now thats an interesting observation. I find it incredibly interesting that the world blames America for either not being involved, not doing enough, to then on the other hand blame America for being involved and acting like we're the world police, to then blaming America if it backs off and genocide ocurs. The whole freakin' world is watching what is going on in Iraq, but AMERICA is to blame if some whack-o's comitt genocide?

America is damned if they do and damned if they don't, all according to someone's 'easy' assessment sitting at home crying in front of a computer screen.

The entire world community is complicit.

While many American's are totally blind and uninformed, many aren't. And many more are waking up each day. But who will the talk to in the international community - you? Your arrogance and lack of compassion will surely prevent that.
At 6/13/2008 09:48:00 AM, Nancy

Minnow: I agree with you and had hoped by my own participation to nudge the discussion in that direction. Imagine my shock to find it just seemed to inflame things. Ugh! It seems hopeless at this point, unfortunately. And that is too bad because I think we all may have missed an opportunity here. The problem is, everyone has to have the same goal in mind (for example, achieving peaceful mutual understanding and acceptance?). And I saw many attempts to keep the discussion respectful. You are correct, it is difficult to achieve clarity with the written word because tone can be misunderstood and intention can be misattributed. But where the thread finally seemed to break down was individuals accepting in humble fashion, the feedback they were receiving. If you step on my toes, even unintentionally, and I inform you I am hurting, what is the best response? Should you question whether my toes are hurting, justify the injury, deny the mis-step, blame me for being in the way, admit you did it to get my attention, or apologize? I went back and forth last night as to whether to post on this thread again. On the one hand, it seems unhealthy to continue it. On the other, it felt (at least to me) somehow unfinished and a little disturbing. I'd like to see the situation redeemed but that can't be done when all guests refuse to come back to the table. Shalom.
At 6/13/2008 10:49:00 AM, Unknown

I found this article interesting in relation to some of the views that have been expressed here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/40901.html.
At 6/13/2008 11:08:00 AM, Janice

I just read this on my pastor's blog, he was recounting a reunion he attended:

Winding my way to the elevator, and then into my room I realized that for Christ-followers, every good reunion is a foretaste of what will one day be – in heaven – that one day we will be ‘home,’ never-again to be separated by geography, sin or death. And it dawned on me that this is why we are here. We are here to announce that the Kingdom of God has come, and with it, the promise that the Church is intended to be an imperfect, yet distinctive microcosm of heaven on earth, serving as a taste of what will one day.

somehow it seemed pertinent to this conversation.
At 6/13/2008 12:41:00 PM, Hester

Thank you, minnowspeaks, for actually reading Marilyn's content without looking for something to pull out and criticize. Considering the character of the current audience, you are a indeed a brave woman. Nancy, you were gracious and accepting as well and I thank you for it on Marilyn's behalf.

When my children were young and in the middle of an argument, I often would stop them and ask them to tell me what the definition of Grace was. For those of you who seem to have forgotten, I am happy to remind you; it means 'undeserved favour.'
At 6/13/2008 06:46:00 PM, medium guy

Marilyn - you're back!

When I saw how many comments had been made under this post, I figured you must be involved somehow...
Welcome back!

-Medium Guy
At 6/13/2008 06:53:00 PM, medium guy

Now, as to the post itself, I agree as an American myself having lived abroad that the majority [perhaps not vast and certainly not inclusive of the posters here, but majority nonetheless] of Americans are pretty ignorant of world affairs. I worked with a doctor who thought Darfur neighbors Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, and therefore couldn't understand why the US military was intervening in the latter two countries but not the former.

In terms of the speech, perhaps Hillary could have been more magnanimous but I don't fault her for not having done so due to the true historic accomplishments of her campaign.

I often have told my wife that the world would be a much better place to live and enjoy if women were in charge of about 60-65% of the vision and leadership vs. the men 35-40%, and in the areas of civil engineering policy and public services especially, that women would have designed things to be more family and child friendly and less dog-eat-dog. Just my pondering...
At 6/13/2008 09:18:00 PM, marilyn

Bonsoir Medium Guy! I think of you every time I buy my son a sweater! (medium?) I promised Hester I would drop this subject--so I will keep my word, I just wanted to say Hello.

You know, I don't try to stir up trouble....
At 6/14/2008 01:15:00 AM, Anonymous

As for Senator Clinton's speech. I did not hear it nor read what wasn't quoted here so I cannot comment except to say had Senator Obama followed the advice of party leaders and not run we would probably have a woman at the top of the Dems ticket. I sincerely doubt she could have gotten elected but one never knows. As it stands, if Senator Obama picks anyone other than Senator Clinton as his running mate he will probably be elected without much difficulty, especially if Gov. Romney is on the ticket with Senator McCain. Seems to me like politics as usual in the US. I understand foreign concern and frustration.
@ anonomous. I for one do thank Marilyn, for her honesty, if not her bluntness. We can argue until we're blue in the face if it was right or wrong to go into Iraq. What do we do now? America as a nations (and certainly I am NOT talking about the majority of commentors here) is the most self centered country in the world. We are greedy consumers who want instant gratification and rarely look at the big picture when we go after what we want. That is our history. And, Iraq is a perfect example. It was in our political best interest to put Hussein in power and in our best interest to take him out. And sadly, some will deem it in our best interest to cut and run. We obviously don't care about genocide or Darfur might have gotten our attention by now. And, we seem, at least to me, to be so arrogant that we really don't care what anyone else thinks about us. The sad reality is that the Church has become so nationalized (we might like to think it is the other way around but we are really only fooling ourselves) that it is difficult to tell it apart from the government (again, most of those who comment here are probably exempt from that broad brush). I believe, however, that the wind is changing, if ever so slightly, and a remnent is emerging from the Church that is called to action and willing to sacrafice. It must, however, be careful that it doesn't simply get caught by the swinging political pendelum and trade one form of political correctness for another. Just maybe that is what some of us are reacting to.
At 6/14/2008 09:12:00 AM, kristi

i think my problem with the first comment on this incredibly long string of comments is that it did not address the essence of julie's post. i felt (and still do) that marilyn (and later on her cohorts) used this post as a way to attack people she did not know. talking about whether we should be in iraq or should pull out or whether americans know anything about politics is not what julie's post was about. if marilyn's goal was to derail the conversation from the beginning, then she was unbelievably successful. even i took the bait...

i think there is a difference between talking about americans in broad strokes like minnowspeaks just did (and i agree with most of her generalizations about america as a country) and talking about the people who are here on this blog. last time i checked, the top of this blog doesn't say "emerging politics" or "emerging american thoughts."

even though i am a newcomer here, i expected from the title "emerging women" that there would be a sort of on-line community of people who tossed around thoughts and encouragement related to being outside the church "mainstream." to me, that is what "emergent" really means (even though i think it's kinda not smart that we have turned it into an adjective that we think will encompass everything emerging voices stand for).

as for more thoughts on hillary's actual speech and clinton vs. obama, i think that electing a black man to the highest office in the world will do at least the same amount of good for furthering minority rights in this country as if hillary had won. i also think that as christians, we need to think radically differently about politics and what goes on in our country and in the world than other people do who are not believers.

which brings me back to my main problem with the comment that started all this sidetracked mess: marilyn took liberties here to make generalized, broad-sweeping statements about everyone who comments here, about everyone in the U.S., about everyone who lives outside the U.S. i don't go onto anyone's blog i don't know and start making smart-ass remarks because it's just rude. if i know the person, fine. if i don't, i refrain from making assumptions about them. as minnowspeaks points out, most of the people on this blog probably don't fit into the mold marilyn tries to cram us into. we DO care about world events, we DO care about politics, we DO care about people, both our neighbors here in the U.S. and those outside the U.S. we DO watch with horror what is happening in iraq and darfur and everywhere else there is pain and suffering. we DO wish there was a simple answer to how to "fix" the mess we are in in iraq.

it's interesting to me (and perhaps a bit disturbing) that in all the comments regarding iraq, pulling out, staying put, etc., there has been not one mention of who got us into this mess in the first place. maybe a little anger should be directed toward our wonderfully inept current president, who has really caused such devastatingly low opinions of our country, who took us into war WITHOUT REASON, who has blood on his hands for all the innocent men, women, and children, both overseas and here in America, who have died because of this conflict.

for me, looking toward the future and hoping for something better--counting down the days till this idiot is out of office and someone new can at least try to clean up his mess--now THAT'S worth talking about!
At 6/15/2008 12:17:00 AM, Anonymous

Well Kristi--I guess we are "off topic" again. Oh well. Sadly, it is not as easy as blame the current president. I do not believe going into Iraq was the right thing to do. Starting a pre-emptive war is never, in my opinion, the right choice. Even if we had found WMDs that alone would not justify what America did. Having said that, the congress, the sentate and the American people in general supported the war--in the beginning. We were afraid and we were angry and we wanted revenge. Now we are paying for our foolishness. Again, in my opinion. Now, I believe we have a moral obligation to help Iraq stablize its government and rebuild it infrastructure. At the same time I believe we must recognize that we are addicted to consumption. Oil, diamonds, technology. We are willing to destroy the rest of the world so that we can have these things. Until we are willing to be honest with ourselves about that I am afraid America's soul is lost. Now--which politician comes close to talking about any of that?
At 6/15/2008 06:43:00 AM, Don't I Know You?

1) What if Marilyn's original response accurately reflects the thoughtful assessment of persons different from ourselves? (Does Christ call Christians to the business of judging the perceptions of others?)

2) Is it even remotely possible that the EW or USA POVs are not located precisely at the center of the universe?

3) Does the perception that other sites are much more vicious that this one have anything at all to do with Marilyn's perception that she has been bullied here?

4) What role did your group-identity play in your individual responses in this spat?

love,

the sociology department
At 6/15/2008 04:46:00 PM, kristi

hi minnowspeaks, thanks for your response. this is my last visit here--it's too stressful. but i wanted to own up to a few things first.

i lived in boston when 9/11 happened, and i can honestly say that i never once wanted to take revenge on the people who did this. i can honestly say that my husband, who was leading our house church community at that time, gave a sermon not long afterward about making peace, being careful not to make general judgments about arabs/muslims. i also think it helped me not to jump to too many conclusions because we had a large community of arab christian friends in boston.

that said, i can with all truthfulness say that i was against the war from the very beginning. i realize that most americans wanted to support this for all the reasons you mentioned. i just wanted to be able to say for myself that i was not one of these. at the time, it was a thing i didn't exactly advertise, because anytime i did, i got blasted for it.

and i also must confess that i have been ashamed to live in the U.S. for a long time now precisely BECAUSE of the attitude most non-americans have toward us--whiny, self-consumed, wasteful, consumers, all the things that have come up in this post. my husband and i have talked many times about moving to canada, but we have family here who are growing older and we don't really feel like we can move that far away from them now.

i actually have a lot in common with marilyn's views of americans, and i have lived here all my life, and have never really traveled much outside the U.S. it was never my intent to try to defend americans here. and since we are already off topic anyway :) i also think that most of the blame with what is going on in iraq actually CAN be placed on GW and the congress members who stood by and did nothing to stop him.

i also do share your view that now that we have made a mess of things we must try to figure out the best course to fix things. i don't really pretend to know the nuances of politics, so i would never say we should pull the troops out right away and open up the possibility of mass murder, as marilyn mentioned.

i will also say (although i'm sure it's obvious!) that i really do like barack obama--especially after 8 years (or more?!) of feeling like we haven't had a real promising candidate for president. and again, i do not pretend to know much about politics at all--i used to be very apathetic about all of it. i really didn't see how i could make a difference.

in light of the world issues we face these days, though, i think what i like about obama is that he doesn't pretend to have all the answers. we all know the president can't make most of the changes they promise to try to make, anyway. but he inspires us to believe that WE can help make the changes, whatever they are. and THIS excites me.
At 6/16/2008 07:00:00 PM, Mike Clawson

"Mike--Why am I here? Morbid fascination..masochistic tendencies..
to learn the finer points of playground ethics...

Sorry, but your question didn't exactly come across as a conduit for mutual understanding."

Well, that's not at all what I asked...

What I asked (to rephrase) was why you dish it out if you can't take it? Why do you bully others and then complain about being bullied yourself when you get defensive replies in return?

You're wondering why you feel bullied here? Look no further than that old wisdom from Beatles: "In the end, the love we take is equal to the love we make."
At 6/17/2008 06:53:00 AM, Don't I Know You?

Mike Clawson: Personally, I am appalled at your continuing defense of bullying behavior. May I kindly suggest you take your head out of your defensive stance for just long enough to consider the alignment (or lack of) the attitudes you are expressing with the attitudes that you claim to profess?

This board describes itself as a safe community where we can complain, deconstruct, brainstorm, network, dream, and encourage.

A steadfast refusal to practice grace under trying circumstances is hardly in keeping with that vision.

I claim no scholarly expertise, but I believe that it would be generally considered scripturally accurate to assert that the call to turn the other cheek is a call to each of us to engage in patience, tolerance and kindly response regardless of what our adversaries do.

Further, turning the other cheek is also a call to re-frame relationships. Is Marilyn an adversary? Or is she a fellow sojourner with whom one happens to disagree?

Lastly, can this board live up to its invitation while simultaneously responding unkindly to the voices of those whom at least some in the group find disagreeable?
At 6/17/2008 07:30:00 AM, Nancy

Wilsford: I too would like to see us approach such conflict with "patience, tolerance and kindly response"...if not to redeem this particular exchange, at least to be mindful in the future. Is there a chance here that we can resolve this peacefully?
At 6/17/2008 09:15:00 AM, Janice

Wilsford,

I have often questioned that same part of the description of this group.

It seems to me that it best describes the 'in' crowd..the 'we'..but not necessarily the 'other'.

"WE can complain, explore, etc"

I think its hard to extend that to those who come in swinging - not an excuse - an observation only.

So how does a group with (although varied in many ways) a cohesive approach or vision, welcome those who have a very different approach or are just tiptoeing around the discussion or who are flat out trying to stir the pot?

Maybe the blog just isn't for those outside the emerging discussion? I have often felt uncomfortable posting here when I didn't agree with certain things. I have felt its a catch 22. Safe for those 'in' but a bit scary for those trying to learn or for those who disagree on certain things.

I have felt many things posting here - most strongly or notably - mocked, dismissed, 'outside'......rarely
'accepted', 'welcomed', 'loved'.

There may have been a post here (or it could have been elsewhere) about bounded sets (groups) - and centered sets - there was a diagram that went with it (original idea/diagram by Paul Heibert I think).

I venture a guess that most groups, if they are not careful, become like the bounded set model. Is that what this blog is like?

That wouldn't be wrong necessarily, it just depends I guess on what the focus of the blog is....who its intended to be for, etc.

In any event, posts like Marilyn's, and posters like Marilyn, could be approached differently. In the end its all about choice.

Wilsford, I really appreciate your presence here and your speaking up on this topic. It was something I personally needed to hear.

~Janice
At 6/17/2008 09:41:00 AM, Elizabeth Glass-Turner

Just for fun, I thought I'd actually comment on the post. Novel, I know.
I think that women running for President, Vice President, and other high offices in our nation will become normal in the next fifty years. The best parallel I see is NASA. Did anyone notice that a shuttle landed the other day? A few decades ago audiences waited in awe to see the activities of space exploration. Now it gets a footnote in the nightly news. And it's a luxury to have it so.
I think in the next few decades we'll take it for granted that an African American, or a woman, or both, are running for the highest public offices in the land. And that's a good thing.
At 6/17/2008 11:42:00 AM, Don't I Know You?

Janice, that is the constant challenge, yes? Groups first define themselves as "outside" and declare themselves open to newcomers, who then begin establishing boundaries in order to create an identity.

Most attempts at establishing identity involve in-groups and out groups. The question here is, is the dominant group (the "in group?") willing to smudge the boundary lines in order for the site to move closer to its stated goals?

oh yah, hillary who? personally, i believe that the president's gender is a non-issue for most of the US public's consciousness. and obama is working on making color a non-issue.
At 6/17/2008 06:32:00 PM, LisaColónDeLay

the big inconsistency in postmodernity is the claim to cherish diversity, and say "we accept everything," (all claims are valid) but in reality, people go about the same as usual, and are territorial.

I haven't been here for awhile and I read all these many posts. Marilyn came in heavy-handed to be sure, and maybe a little off topic, but my was she smacked around. Not really a dialogue one would expect based on the description of this site. Let's do better.

In my experience, it is uphill if you diverge from the emergent cookie-cutter. Let's not kid ourselves. Who's on the "brand new" (ha ha) emergent "church basement roadshow" 32 city book tour? Three white, educated American, men, correct? What's so different about that? "Everything must change"? Really? not even the messenger has changed? It's all quite funny.

But God isn't done yet. There's time. There's hope. There's grace. We must be willing.

Maybe we can see this exchange as part of a growing edge!

The Lord works in mysterious ways, no?

We may disagree, but we do not have to be disagreeable. In all things, love.

About Me

Previous Posts