org theory and human tissue

From an organizational theory standpoint, my heart has rejected Max Weber's theory of the scalar chain of command and strict division of labor in favor of "empowering" other groups to determine such fundamentals as who gets to set the pace. The result is a lot like the tribalism that results when human communities lose a powerful feudal lord.

Chaotic. Apparently not lethal at this point, but probably not indicative of good things to come without figuring out a way to prop up the current government while it still stands.

And one more VERY important thing:

Happy Birthday

to my sister Bonnie,
who is the most awesome sister in the whole wide world!!!!!

...and one more thing

This week's posts are on a theme, the context of which is clear to me but, I have been informed, not so clear to you, the reader.

Context-wise, they are all taken from what passes as conversation on the ooze. Here's today's issue:

The attitude among pastors that says "I haven't seen or felt what you say you saw and felt. Therefore, your experience does not count," is a particularly arrogant and all-too-common attitude. (note: I know that there are lots of good men and women out there who are pastors.)

That said, the following rant is a response to a fella whose response to my comment

How much easier would it be for you poor, struggling, overly-tempted men to deal with life as it is if you were to put the same work into the discipline (could we call it "maturity?") of finding alternative, healthy ways to cope with sexual tempation as you put into the work of telling everyone how sexually provacative you find women?

was

How much easier would it be for you poor, struggling, sexy-babes to just deal with life and quit complaining about sexual harrassment.

He said my comments made him want to push back. Fair enough. His comments made me want to push back, too. So I did:

A lifetime of hearing from the pulpit that I am the problem makes me want to push back.

Watching young girls struggling with their budding sexuality in the hyper-sexually sensitive environment of church makes me want to push back.

Watching our daughter and others trying to embrace their femaleness, their beauty, in a so-called loving environment that equates beauty with sin makes me want to push back.

Knowing that anytime I walk into a room that I'll have to deal with at least some men who want more than anything in the world for me to recognize them simply because God saw fit (and I am lucky enough to honor) to give me a look considered attractive in this time and place is enough to make me want to push back.

Having to put up with women who percieve me as a threat (until they get to know me) based simply on my appearance makes me want to push back. (note: now that I am older, this is not an issue)

ftr, until the last few years, I hid my corporeal self in shapeless, drab clothing. Now I wear clothes that fit. I don't think you could find anyone who would accuse me of dressing in any manner provactively.

ok, so that last line is just plain silly. As long as there are people willing to comment on the color of a woman's lipstick there will be people perfectly comfortable with judging the way I dress.

God Created Eve for the Soul Purpose of Giving Christian Men Something to Blame Women For?

I have noticed that conversations about women and dress are almost never conducted without warnings along the lines of

Seriously, I don't think there is any justification for men who give in to sexual (or other) temptation. But there is enough scripture which promotes modesty in women's appearance to indicate that there is responsibility on the part of women as well.

as if the women of the world are single-mindedly going about the business of tempting men to fall into sexual sin.

It's difficult, however to frame a reasonable response in the middle of bible study or sermon or casual conversation. So here's mine, framed during a quiet space:

Why I object to someone's throwing in the first quote: It's the interjection of "but." It's the idea that a discussion of women's dress or appearance can't take place without that warning. It shows up again in statements like this one,

I'm talking about dressing without regard for how it affects others.

as if a woman needs reminding that our society (and others) spend a whole lot more energy on the outside of a woman than they do on the woman herself.

The constant warnings are like a constant parent message, like listening to your teenagers vent about school, and then ending the conversation with a stern warning about their behavior.

When parents do that, they send the message to their children that they weren't really listening, that they weren't in tune with the conversation, that, in the end, it doesn't really matter what the kids' day was like, how they felt, how they percieved events. All that matters, they tell their kids, is that the parent gets to hammer them on their behavior.

In this instance, I'm saying, why in the world would you think that I'm asking for the right (?) to dress provacatively? Why in the world would one assume that the run-of-the-mill woman is not aware of her 'responsibility' to dress appropriately?

To put it into very personal terms, think for a minute what it might be like to live in an environment that cannot have a conversation about women's appearance without the accompanying warnings about responsibility, pride, temtation, the overburdened 15-year-old boy, etc...

...as if women are not acutely aware for every second of their pre-teen to last gasp existence that they are not trusted in matters of their own appearance?

for lots of comments on the overall topic, click on the title.

God and Hunks and Hunkesses

as the converstation about the women, modesty, and men's sexual temptations evolves (or devolves) i am reminded of the guys at the gym where i work out.

some of them are very easy on the eyes. some of the women who go there are very easy on the eyes.

how does this very secular place handle it? the men work out. the women work out. it's not that people are unaware that they are sweating next to hunks and hunkesses.

it's that they choose to recognize the situation for what it is. they choose to respect each other's right to be present and they choose to internally move away from issues of sexual attraction and interest.

this does not say that those interests or attractions or temptations aren't there. it says that the persons there choose to move away from the tension.

it seems that in a secular environment with more flesh and curves showing than usual, it's easier to deal with sexuality than it is in the so-called holy environment of church.

hmm. kinda makes regular church look even less attractive. maybe this difference exposes some churches and pastors to the naked truth that they are the ones with the roving eye—not "the world."

I am a Damned Good-looking Woman and Proud of It

from a thread on the ooze a fella who identifies himself as a pastor says:

Men are designed to be visually stimulated by women's bodies.

Yes, that is the Truth as we keep being told.

My response: You know what, I'm pretty durn good looking (for a woman of my age, and for a woman not of my age) and I don't give a rat's ass how that bothers you. My being blessed with good genes and keeping fit is not the issue, and I sure as heck get sick of people acting as though their temptations are my problem.

How much easier would it be for you poor, struggling, overly-tempted men to deal with life as it is if you were to put the same work into the discipline (could we call it "maturity?") of finding alternative, healthy ways to cope with sexual tempation as you put into the work of telling everyone how sexually provacative you find women? Get over it.

Good looking women are not the problem. The problem is men who buy into the idea that they are powerless to find more effective ways to recognize and respond to temptation.

You, who glibly decree that men who are sexually tempted by other men are guilty of not exercising self-restraint, excuse your own temptation when it comes to women. Talk about a double standard.

got sin? blame the little woman

thanks to Julie at Emerging Women (The Fallout Begins) for posting a link to Mark Driscoll's finger-pointing in his response to The Rev. Ted Haggard's recent confession of sexual misconduct in the form of adultry and homosexual activity.

In his attempt to provide mature guidance for his fellow pastor-gurus, Mr. Driscoll thoughtfully provides a long list of precautions that men (in his world, pastors are by definition male) should take. He even provides a hint to women. Giving it all for God, he points out that he'll "bend over the plate" and "take one for the team" by letting the women know (through the men, of course) that they need to look good. Good would be good, but maybe add a little Hot for insurance. Not that if your man strays, it's the little woman's fault, mind you. Still, he says

A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.

He also seems to view woman as emotionally incapable of treating employment as—simply—employment:

Too often the pastor’s assistant is a woman who, if not sexually involved, becomes too emotionally involved with the pastor as a sort of emotional and practical second wife.

Ugh. Has he even taken a look at the average male? They ain't all that pretty. That's why love is blind.

It gets better. He seems to think that having ready access to hot nooky at home will protect him from homosexual impulses (is he saying that after 5 children that Mrs. Haggard may have cut off the luv machine?).

I have been blessed with a trustworthy heterosexual male assistant who can travel with me, meet with me, etc., without the fear of any temptations or even false allegations since we have beautiful wives and eight children between us.

Preacher, are yew strugglin' with a temptation of adultry in a homersexchul context? Quick now, hook yuhsef up withuh fertile, married male. Then yew won't be havin' them kinda problems no moh. It really is that simple!?

They're Dead Arreddy...let'm go

Some families get so wierd over what to do with the corpses of their loved ones. Don't believe it? Trying dying once, then hang around to see the fireworks. Failing that, read the paper. In my own (admittedly goofy) family:

My nephew: Adopted as an infant by my brother. Raised with his mother, my brother, and the three children they had together. Rare contact with his birth father through childhood, occasional contact with him until the fateful event of his passing. THEN the birth father swoops into the picture. While family members surround the death bed, the guy shows up and claims the body. Plans to remove it several states away and hold some sort of funeral. Thank goodness my brother and his ex-wife had the good sense to not intefere.

My father: Dies. Step-mother (of the wicked variety) whisks the body off to a crematorium. We held our own gathering to mark the occaision.

Some poor CIA agent shot down in Viet Nam in 1954. Surviving nieces and nephews fight over where to bury the guys' remains. WTC hoopla over finger bones and other non-flesh remains. Family members scream bloody murder over the finds.

I get that as a society it is a good thing to value the lives of those who die, and part of the way we demonstrate that value is by honoring the remains. But I think this trend of politicizing the remains of loved ones, related ones and memorialized ones is. Well. Just plain silly.

When I die, mourn. Please. (It's good for my ego to believe that I will be mourned.) As for disposing of the remains, do it cheaply. Tastefully. Respectfully. Legally, even. But for crying out loud, don't fight over it. I'll be gone and if I've done anything right, the legacy is that you will all be considerate of each other's feelings. If one of you has to have your own way, I hope the rest of you will honor my memory by giving each other a break during difficult circumstances.

The dead are dead, fer cryin' out loud. Can't we all just get along?