natalie's narrative

"Nominee Says Identity Wouldn’t Distort Decisions"

...so says a headline of a NY Times article regarding Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearings.  I didn't pay nearly enough attention to Alito and Roberts' confirmation hearings, but did anyone ask THEM whether their identity would "distort" their judicial decisionmaking?  When a white male Supreme Court appointee is in front of the Senate, I'm pretty sure his background, his race, and his gender are not issues.  No one asks whether a white male nominee's privilege, power, and majority position in society will affect his decisions.  In fact, a recent piece in the New Yorker discussed how Chief Justice John Roberts has more often ruled in favor of the strong and powerful as opposed to the weak.

Our lawmakers and the media are more likely to evaluate a white male nominee solely on merit--his accomplishments, education, and past decisions.  A Latina woman appointee has to repeatedly assure the Senate that she would apply the law to the facts, nothing more and nothing less.

Another aspect of this confirmation process that has bothered me was highlighted in a feature last week in NY Times Magazine about women on the Supreme Court.  An interviewer asked Justice Ginsberg whether the male justices can be more abrasive without notice or remark from others, while it is more attention-drawing for female judges to be abrasive.  Justice Ginsberg responded, "Yes, the notion that Sonia is an aggressive questioner — what else is new? Has anybody watched Scalia or Breyer up on the bench?"

Senators have questioned Sotomayor regarding the fact that she can be "a bit of a bully."  Please.  These people need to go sit in on an oral argument at the Supreme Court.  Sotomayor will fit right in.

Now I'm not so embarrassed...

...about reading the Twilight series and watching the movie over and over.  The final scene of the movie includes an Iron and Wine song!  They are one of my favorites. 

Twilight and the telenovas my husband and I watch are the two things of which I don't allow myself to perform a feminist critique.  One of these days I'm sure I can enjoy a good story without getting miffed about how women are portrayed...

60 Minutes interview with the Obama's

I continue to be impressed by the Obama's, especially with tonight's interview on 60 Minutes.  When Michelle (a Harvard law grad and mother of two) was asked how she will be first lady, she responded that one of the things we've learned is that women are capable of doing more than one thing well at a time.  She's had to juggle being a mother and having a career for a long time, and she's done it well.  I was pleased with her answer, because often the assumption is that something has to struggle, whether it be your family or your career, when you're a working mom.  At the same time, working fathers are never faced with that assumption.  

Michelle also made a remark about making a difference within their local community:

[T]here are many issues that I care deeply about. I care about military families and the work/family balance issue. I care about education. I, both Barack and I, believe that we can have an impact in the D.C. area. You know, in terms of making sure we're contributing to the community that we immediately live in. That's always been something that we try to do. Whether it's in our own neighborhoods or in the schools that we've attended. So there's plenty to do.

You can easily tell that the Obama's are a family that take into consideration their local community, and care about what's happening in their area.  I wonder if any other presidents have focused on the D.C. area and its issues while they were in office?

"Proof-texting" and a "repentance"

Love what Jenell Paris has written the past couple of days:  "It's not proof-texting when you're right," and "Repent..."   It's a biblical, um, defense of separate--but just as valuable--roles for men and women!

Questions for complementarians

David Gushee, in an editorial in USA Today, poses some great questions for conservative evangelicals who cheer Sarah Palin's role as vice presidential candidate.  They include:

If you agree that God can call a woman to serve as president, does this have any implications for your views on women's leadership in church life? Would you be willing to vote for a qualified woman to serve as pastor of your church? If not, why not?

Do you believe that Palin is under the authority of her husband as head of the family? If so, would this authority spill over into her role as vice president? 

Do you believe that women carry primary responsibility for the care of children in the home? If so, does this affect your support for Palin? If not, are you willing to change your position and instead argue for flexibility in the distribution of child care responsibilities according to the needs of the family?

I too wondered about this when I heard the news that Sen. McCain had chosen a female running mate, especially the second question:  If Palin's husband is to have authority over her, does that extend to her role as vice president--or even president??

It seems like hypocrisy and dualistic thinking to separate the church sphere from the secular, political one, as I believe Al Mohler has recently done.  So, how would a conservative Christian answer these?  All I know is that it would require a lot of gymnastics!

I love the weekend!

Weekends for me are all about (besides insane amounts of reading) catching up on these: The Daily Show episodes.  They're nice after another harrowing week of the Socratic method!

Also, I'm spending a lot more time in my car (unfortunately), so I get to listen to more NPR.  Did anyone catch this?  Diversity at GOP, Democratic Conventions Examined. 

At the Democatic National Convention, 44% of the delegates were non-white.  African-Americans composed 24%, and Hispanics 12%.  Females delegates slightly outnumbered male delegates.

The Republican National Convention had a very different composition of delegates.  One-and-a-half percent were African-American, and 5% were Hispanic.  Sixty-eight percent of all delegates were male.

I wonder what this will mean in the a few decades, when our projected demographics will see a shift.  White Americans will no longer be a majority by 2042, according to government projections.  By 2050, Hispanics will account for 30% of the US populution, and African-Americans will comprise 15%.  The only positive change for Republicans I can see--unless the Republicans make efforts to increase their diversity--is that the senior population will nearly double by the year 2050.  At least, with this current election, the GOP has that demographic covered!

Seriously,

it was SO hard to start my first week of law school with everything that happened politically this week! I'm supposed to be non-stop studying all this weekend, but I've already given in and watched a few speeches and interviews online that I missed this past week. Why oh why did my first semester of school fall on an election year??? I should've thought that one out a little more ;)

Speaking of, I just have to put my two cents in: it is insulting to me as a woman to think that I would vote for McCain/Palin based on the fact the Palin is a woman! You can replace Palin's name with Hillary Clinton and I would still say the same thing. Looks like it's going to be an interesting election...

Anthropology and gender

One of my anthropology professors at Wheaton, Brian Howell, has an essay in E-Quality, a journal from the Christians for Biblical Equality. Dr. Howell discusses how the discipline of anthropology can provide important insight for Christians when it comes to gender.

Many generalizations about gender exist in our culture and church (I've talked about this several times before!). For example, "men have medieval battle fantasies or that all women crave more foot wear." We mistakenly believe that many things that make us "masculine" or "feminine" are driven by biology, rather than culture. The  work of anthropologists shatters this belief. Dr. Howell points out a characteristic of Indonesian culture:

Indonesian families do not trust men with money. Men are too easily swayed by their emotions, they say. Men are full of passion and behave erratically. Women are more stable, better able to think rationally and handle money or business transactions. In this case, it would be the women of the church who are more likely to sit on the finance committee. Perhaps men would be selected for arranging the entertainment at the church’s anniversary celebration.

The whole essay is here: Beyond Damsels and White Steeds.

Michelle Obama and successful women...

While I was babysitting earlier this week, I decided to take advantage of having satellite TV and watch some CNN. They were covering the new, “softer” image that Michelle Obama has started to portray. Some of the underlying assumptions with her change in image from a strong career woman to a “more relatable” wife and mother are disturbing to me as a woman…

CNN showed snippets of her recent appearance on The View, where the women discussed whether Barack takes out the trash. The CNN panelists agreed that Michelle’s projecting a wifely, maternal image will be more appealing to voters, since it’s not as intimidating. They thought it best that she play down her own views and successes during the campaign.

It’s saddening when someone with degrees from Princeton and Harvard has to play down who she is in order to gain favor with Americans. (Also, straight out of law school, Michelle landed a job as an attorney for a prestigious Chicago firm.) I know both race and gender are intersecting here, but when will we see the day when it’s not intimidating, masculine, or out-of-the-ordinary to be a successful woman? Why are we still falling prey to the false dichotomy that women are either good wives/mothers or successful in their careers?

I mean, there’s nothing wrong with a discussion about taking out the trash, but the fact that analysts and strategists recommend that Michelle downplay her intelligence, her own opinions, and her career is crazy. I believe it sends the wrong message to women. Granted, we did just witness Hillary Clinton make a run for the candidacy, so we’re making progress, right?!

The gender of God?

A great post and discussion are underway at (fellow Wheaton grad) David's blog, The Fire and the Rose. A few excerpts:

The fact of the matter is that the name “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” has nothing whatsoever to do with gender. God is neither male nor female, because God is not a creature. God is qualitatively different from anything created, and that means the distinctions between male and female, old and young, black and white, have no bearing on God’s being. Even when God takes on the humanity of Jesus, this does not mean God only takes up the male sex. That would be heretical, tantamount to saying that God only died for men, not for women. The humanity of Jesus is concrete, yes, but a concrete universal—the humanity of all people....The only attribute significant in terms of his identity as the Savior of the world is the attribute of “human nature,” not “male humanity.”

Check it out here: On using gendered pronouns for God.