A few things to enjoy/chew on: The Art of Jim Denevan
Love the art Jim does in sand---some whimsical, some vaguely unsettling.
There is a war on women, argues the author:
The battles go from the rape tactics of war in Sudan to the sex trafficking of eastern Europe, from the pervasiveness of girlie-girl hyper-sexualised stealing of childhood to the proliferation and acceptability of pornography.
I am even beginning to wonder if the evangelical culture war about "biblical" womanhood - narrow stay-at-home vs. working, from complementarian vs. egalitarian (full disclosure: unapologetic egalitarian here) - is disingenuous at best and neutering half the church at worst and, to be honest, completely missing the point. [MaryAnn: wonder no more. It is all of those things.]
If it is a war on women, I can't be Winston Churchill. I am not the one leading the charge and very few listen to my small voice with its strong Canadian accent. I may not be a Katie Davis or a Christine Caine or a Dorothy Day. I may not be a Nancy Alcorn, let alone a Mother Theresa or an Oprah Winfrey or any other well-known woman fighting some small or large battle in this war against our sisters, mothers and daughters, our friends. Our big voices of freedom and workers for the wholeness of women stand as the generals and governments, the tacticians and leaders are our Allied forces.
No, I am not that important. I am small.
And my life is a bit small.
So I will be the French Resistance.
I will be the small underground movement, the insurgency, the one taking every opportunity, however small, to strike a blow for the Kingdom's way of womanhood.
I would like her to unpack "Kingdom's way of womanhood," but I really like the image of the French Resistance, the idea of being subversive in place.
Here is a discussion of a recent Time Magazine article (subscribers only) that deals with the amount of work men and women do each week. You may remember The Second Shift, published in the 1980s, that showed that women worked 15 hours more per week than their partners. Now that gap has shrunk to, basically, nothing. Men still work more hours outside the home, and women still do more housework, but the total amount of work done is the same.
So why does it still feel radically unbalanced to many women, the Time article asks? The blog post, written by a stay-at-home dad, explores some possible reasons. I will add another possibility: the work men do at their offices is "hidden"---that is, women who are working part-time, or who don't work outside the home, don't really see the fruits of that work on a daily basis. The fruits come in the form of a paycheck every two weeks (hopefully). By contrast, the housework is in plain view, every single day: the meals they cooked, the toilets they scrubbed. I can understand how that would contribute to a feeling that the men do "nothing around here, it's all up to me." Doesn't mean it's right.
A graphical comparison of the ideas of Aldous Huxley and George Orwell as expressed in the book Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman.
Example: "Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism." Which vision do you think has played out more fully?
For my clergy friends: Church volunteerism is down 8% over the past 20 years.
"And in 1991, just one-quarter of adults (24%) were unchurched. That figure has ballooned by more than 50%, to 37% today." More at the link.