Why I Can't Even with the Word "Dynasty"

13418938_10101596393441754_3868145670203328764_n What this post is NOT about:

  • the "evils" of Hillary Clinton or her "weaknesses" as a candidate.
  • Bernie Sanders, the Democratic primary, the "scourge" that is superdelegates, or whether the whole thing was "rigged." (It wasn't.)
  • Benghazi, emails, or poor Vince Foster, may he rest in peace.

Comments on those topics will be deleted. Write your own blog post.

I've heard from various people a lot of discomfort (or disgust) over the Clinton "dynasty." In a country of 300 million people, they say, must we continue to mine the same family to fulfill the nation's highest office? It's unseemly in a country that calls itself a democracy (or democratic republic), and yet another example of how we've devolved into oligarchy.

Google tells me the first definition of dynasty is "a line of hereditary rulers of a country." Which the Clintons are surely not. Get back to me in 10-15 years when Chelsea Clinton runs for office.

The second definition of "dynasty" is "a succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field." This one's obviously on point. But I'm wanting to focus on dynasty as a disqualifier, or at least a pejorative, when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

I don't buy it. 

A husband and wife rising to the top levels of their field (or fields) is very different than the younger generation of a family following an older one into leadership or public service.

George and Jeb Bush, for example, grew up with politics and public service as part of the air they breathed. It afforded them advantages, access, and a ready-made network of connections. (Substitute the Kennedy family if you prefer.) Hillary Rodham, by contrast, grew up in a middle class family with a mother whose own parents abandoned her to her grandparents (who weren't too thrilled about raising her either). Bill had a similarly modest upbringing. Remember "I still believe in a place called Hope"?

Did being the first lady of Arkansas open doors for Hillary Clinton? Undoubtedly. But her ability to leverage those opportunities came despite having had no nepotistic advantages from her youth. She walked through those doors herself (and became the first woman Senator from New York, Secretary of State, and the presumptive Democratic nominee for President in 2016). And although this is tangential to my point, she did so despite a multi-decade, borderline pathological assault on her family, her integrity, and yes, her womanhood. (Did the Clintons make serious mistakes and stumbles? Yes. Again--not about that. Write a blog post.)

I will also say--and this will bring out the pitchforks, I'm sure--that as much as we treasure our can-do, American, bootstraps, anti-elitist spirit, I don't want just anyone to be President. It's a position that anyone should aspire to, but hardly anyone has the chops to do well. In a country of 300 million, there are probably 25 people at any given time who have the skills, experience and temperament to do it. The fact that this year, one of those 25 people happens to be married to someone who's done the job before isn't some sign of ruin. (Though there are plenty of signs of ruin, this isn't one of them.) It's a testament to the fact that being President is freaking hard. Any leg-up that our next President may have, even if it's having 8 years of pillow talk as the President's spouse, is to be celebrated, not derided.

But here's the bigger reason I can't even with the hand-wringing over "dynasty." It has to do with the decisions that families everywhere make about careers and children and priorities: Does the family have the bandwidth and desire for both spouses to go full-bore with their careers? If not, which spouse's "advancement" will take priority? What are their financial resources? Will the couple have children? How many? What kind of childcare is available? How much support do they have from extended family and friends?

These decisions about who does what and when can be complicated and painful. In many families--we can probably still say "most" -- the wife/mother slows (or stops) her career for some period of time to provide primary care for the children. This has long-term financial consequences; women who leave the workforce never really catch up in terms of earning potential. But one thing's for sure: we need to be affirming of women at all levels who make the best decisions they're able to make--not sneer that their second act is somehow emblematic of a "dynasty." 

Because here's the thing about Hillary Rodham. People who knew her as a young woman before, during, and after Wellesley believed she'd be President some day. She had the intelligence, the vision, the leadership skills, and a desire to serve, a product of her Wesleyan religious faith. (That's not puff piece, that's fact.) But her journey took her to Little Rock, Arkansas, where she followed Bill as he pursued his political career. Along the way she broke all kinds of barriers, including becoming the first female partner of the Rose Law Firm.

The various calculations and conversations that led the Clintons to focus primarily on his career are known fully only to them. And yes, society at the time didn't know what to do with a strong, capable woman (and still doesn't, honestly). In some ways it made sense to wait for the world to catch up. But who knows how far and how fast she could have risen, had Bill been the one to follow her?

It's not dynasty. I don't know what to call it, except "the way it still works for women across this country."

We need better systems of support, so mothers who feel called to devote themselves to work outside the home can do so. We need affordable child care, better pay equity, and maternity policies that aren't an absolute joke. And we need to erase social stigmas that paint fathers as emasculated oddities if they decided to decelerate their careers and take primary responsibility for child-rearing.

But until we have those things, can we at least cut it out with the dynasty talk?

Mindful Parenting: A Q&A with Kristen Race

maxresdefault I reviewed the book Mindful Parenting recently, and today I'm delighted to share a Q&A with Kristen Race, the author of the book. Thank you for your time and expertise, Dr. Race!

1. What first led you to research stress responses in the brain, and especially its effect on children and teens?

When I was working in schools I became increasingly concerned by the high level of stress that students were experiencing. I knew that this stress was influencing their attention, their mood, their behavior and their ability to learn. I want to learn more about how stress and these other symptoms were linked. When I first learned about the stress response in the brain it was like an "Ah ha" moment for me. I started sharing this information with students and it was as if I could see a weight being lifted off of their shoulders. They suddenly had an explanation for how they were feeling!

2. Your book is written primarily for individual parents to use in their own families. But I was intrigued by your "Hang Up and Hang Out" initiative that partnered with local schools to encourage parents to put away the cell phones and just focus on their kids. Are there other models or practices that you'd like see implemented throughout entire communities, rather than just household by household? (I see lots of potential in churches and other religious communities, for example.)

Absolutely. Hang Up & Hang Out is tailor-made for those organizations that you mentioned. During the Hang Up & Hang Out week we hosted a family fun night at one of the elementary schools. The theme of the night was "Ways to Engage without Technology." We had a family yoga station, a dinner games station, a station where families decorated boxes that they would use to hold devices during family time, and we had a dance party station in the gym. We were blown away when we had 480 people attend the event! It was a blast!

3. My favorite chapter of the book is "A Guide to Creating a Mindful Family," which has tons of activities and practices that parents and children can do together. I can't wait to try the Praise Pancake! Is there a particular practice that's your personal favorite, either for your kids or yourself?

We love Rose Bud Thorn in our house. We play it around the dinner table, and every person gets a turn to share their Rose (something good that they experienced over the course of their day), their Thorn (a mistake that they learned from today), and their Bud (an act of kindness that they witnessed or initiated.) It is a great conversation starter, and there are tons of elements to this activity that benefit brain development, including teaching kids that struggles are ok.

4. In my work around Sabbath-keeping, I've found that it's easier for parents of young children to envision making changes in their family's behavior, whereas parents of teens feel like it's too late, that the patterns are already set. What advice or encouragement would you give specifically to parents of teens who want to take your message to heart?

I am asked all the time, "Is it too late to start?" The beauty of practicing mindfulness, informally or formally, is that it benefits the brain for a 2 year old as well as the brain of a 92 year old. MRI scans demonstrate this. We need look no further than the Google campus, and the waiting lists for mindfulness classes that their company is offering, to see the demand for these types of support by adults. My single piece of advice for parents of teens is to start small, with one or two activities. Starting a ritual of a family adventure can be a great place to start with teens. And remember, modeling still matters when you have a teen! Think about how you manage your stress (do you go for a run or run for the liquor cabinet?), your teen is watching.

5. How have you changed your own parenting as a result of your research, and what aspects of mindful parenting do you still struggle with?

I have become much more compassionate towards myself as a result of my research. I am a recovering perfectionist:) I now realize that I AM going to make mistakes as a parent, that I can learn from those mistakes, and that modeling that mistakes provide opportunities for growth is incredibly important for my children!

~

So thankful to Dr. Race for her thoughts. Folks, do check out her book, it's worthwhile.

Related Posts from The Blue Room Archives: Jesus the Buddhist? What It Means to Be Attentive Brother Lawrence's Guide to the First Day of School What Are You Paying Attention To?

Does Sunday School Work?

A few years back, I was talking to a parent whose children had been enrolled in her church's Sunday School and evening children's program. By all accounts, and from what I could tell as an uninvolved observer, this church has an absolutely exemplary children's ministry. And yet this mother was looking for another church. "I recently asked my kids some basic questions about the Bible and some of the foundational stories of Christianity," she told me. "They couldn't answer the most basic questions. What are they learning in Sunday School? Is all this programming even doing what it's supposed to do?" I thought about that mother this week when I saw this article from Associated Baptist Press about a new documentary. It should go without saying that the theology that undergirds the study, and the video (excerpt) at the link are quite foreign to me. But here's the gist:

In Divided, young filmmaker Philip Leclerc sets out to discover why so many people of his generation are leaving the church. ...Leclerc acknowledges grouping kids and age and developmental stages makes sense on the surface. In the Bible, however, parents are given the responsibility for religious instruction of their children. 

The modern idea of age-graded Sunday school, youth ministry and children's church came from somewhere else. When it started in the 1800s, Sunday school was intended for poor children without Christian parents. In most American churches today, Leclerc insists, Christian fathers [sic] relinquish their leadership to programs based on secular educational theories instead of the teaching of Scripture.

The video uses the word "carnal" about eleventy-five times, and I didn't even watch the whole thing. I don't resonate with many of the article's comments either. But I suspect the basic thrust is right. Now I want to go back to that mother and say, "What about your responsibility as a parent? What could the church do to support you as your child's primary Christian educator?"

Let's take my church as an example. We are small, with a good number of kids for our size, but the "Sunday School" aged kids range from kindergarten through third grade, with a smattering of middle and high school students.

We have Sunday School twice a month, during the worship hour---it is not practical to have Sunday School at other times---and we have a team of teachers who take turns leading. We went to this model because, well, our old model of having one teacher lead every week until s/he gets burned to a crisp didn't feel very biblical.

But even if we had a top-notch Sunday School every week, our most dedicated families are here maybe twice or three times a month, due to sports, out of town trips, and other weekend activities.

This is insane.

Churches are smaller, budgets are smaller. Tiny Church is not unusual. I look at this situation and think, This doesn't make any sense. Why are we trying to have a traditional Sunday School? Why aren't we offering truly intergenerational worship, and training parents to do religious education at home? 

I could easily dismiss this study as so much patriarchal BS. (Why is it only the father who bears primary responsibility for faith formation in the family? That's rhetorical; don't answer.) But I can't dismiss it outright.

It reminds me of the REVEAL study that came out of Willow Creek church some years back. The study found that greater involvement in church activities did not foster deeper commitment to the way of Jesus. (My paraphrase.) Some mainline folks crowed about the study, feeling vindicated that seeker-sensitive megachurches were finally admitting that they were serving up the thin gruel we'd always suspected. But the REVEAL study is not cause for smug rejoicing, but serious self-reflection. We are often no different in our mainline churches.

So what is the answer? I wish I knew. But I'd like to get some people together to talk about this. Let's start here. What do you say? Has your church figured this out?

Today's Episode of Not Getting It

I guess I shouldn't expect anything much from Parade Magazine. Yet I keep coming back, because I like reading about celebrities I've never heard of, and I've been pleasantly surprised by a few feisty articles, debunking conventional wisdom and afflicting the comfortable (really). But this one is just a load of tone-deaf idiocy: Mitch Albom: The Joys of Summer

I feel sorry for today’s kids. Summer comes, they’re finally free from school—and bang! Band camp. Science seminars. Internships.

Instead of downtime, it’s get-up-and-go time. Chorus travel, archaeological digs, dance tours. My nephew from Michigan flew to Georgetown University for a summer medical program, replete with cadavers. He was 16.

(Am I the only one thinking that the doctor camp sounds awesome?)

When I think of my childhood summers, I remember lying in the grass, hands behind my head, feeling the blades dig into my fingers. I studied the clouds. I joked with my friends. None of us wore watches.

And none of you had a mother who worked outside the home.

BINGO!

EUREKA!

And I am shocked, shocked to learn from Wikipedia that Mitch the Parenting Expert does not have children of his own.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: “If we don’t enroll our kids in an activity, all they’ll do is text. Or watch TV (and text) or talk on the phone (and text).”

No you don't. I'm thinking, if we don't enroll our kids in an activity, I'll be put in jail for leaving an 8 year old at home by herself to study clouds while I go DO MY FREAKIN' JOB.

...Mitch.

Mitch, Mitch, Mitch.

These are serious times we live in. And you have completely missed the point.

I wonder if the people who've been out of work for 18 months or more are thinking, "Well, we're one illness away from losing our home, but it's worth it because my kid can lie on the grass without wearing a watch while her friends are at archaeology camp."

What an opportunity you had, Mitch, to talk about the economic realities of two-career families, or maybe even single-parent families, remember those? Or to wonder whether three months of summer vacation even makes sense anymore when parents work and other countries are cleaning our clock in math and science. Perhaps an oblique mention of the fact that the gap between rich and poor keeps widening to dangerous levels, especially in communities of color, even as those of us lucky enough to have jobs continue working our tails off.

Aw, who am I kidding?! Who wants to read depressing, eggheaded stuff like that? Much better to offer up a big stinking pile of parental guilt-mongering and get-off-my-lawn buffoonery.

That sells.

Actually it doesn't sell. But it does come free in the Sunday newspaper.