Two Bloggers and Twelve Old Men

OK—here’s what I hadn’t considered. First of all, the people are really nice: friendly, cheerful, and definitely hard working. Second of all, the church keeps you busy, going from meeting to prayer groups to God-knows-what-all. Remember that they had organized everybody so much that they had to declare a special night for everyone just to stay home? Also, the church takes over the smallest details of your life—even down to that famous underwear….

You’ll know by now that I’m talking about the Mormon Church, which fought like Tasmanian devils against marriage equality in California, then backed off and pretended to get more inclusive when Mitt Romney was running for president, and which now is accusing two of its members of—ah, the horror of it all!—apostasy.

Well, it’s a highly charged word in Mormon circles, since the Mormons, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists, believe in the Great Apostasy. You’ll want to know: it’s the belief that everybody and every religion was wrong from the death of Jesus to the birth of their own church.

So what have the two Mormons done to get this label thrust on them? Well, John Dehlin advocates for the rights of LGBT people within the church. Kate Kelly set up a group that advocates for the ordination of women, as well as for increasing the role of women in the church.

Both have gotten letters from their local bishops, advising them that they will be tried and face either disfellowship or excommunication. Disfellowship may take various forms, but excommunication is dire indeed: you are erased from the church as if you had never existed. And though the church doesn’t officially practice shunning, your social calendar will definitely be much lighter. Oh, and all those business contacts? You might be leaving a lot of voice mails, and getting fewer returned calls.

And so for these two, excommunication is a major, and perhaps terrifying, possibility. Consider what one writer had to say:

Mormonism is an "all or nothing" commitment, Rosen explains. "If Pandora's box is opened regarding questioning one policy or mandate, it leads to more, because it's all connected. It's not like other religions, where you can accept some parts and reject other parts. You have to accept the whole kit and caboodle. You have to accept every [church-mandated] 'calling.' You have to go to every three-hour church meeting. If I didn't go [to synagogue] for six months, the rabbi would be like, 'I am so happy to see you.' You can't do that as a Mormon."

Ready for the next paragraph?

Utah has the highest rate of clinical depression out of any state in the country, and the seventh highest suicide rate, according to a report by Thomson Healthcare. Rosen believes the LDS stance on homosexuality contributes to these statistics. One third of her patients are homosexuals who grew up LDS, and many of them were kicked out of their homes.

Well, it’s not surprising that Utah has the highest rate of depression, since wouldn’t you be depressed, attending up to thirty hours of church activities weekly, and having to smile all the time?

Right—that’s unfair, and especially wrong since Dehlin, who is straight, has taken a big risk for those of us who are LGBT. Besides his website Mormon Stories, he also has another site advocating gay marriage. And he’s finishing up his doctorate in counseling at Utah State University—not a particularly easy time to be butting the twelve elderly white male heads that run the church. But you have to admire a guy who can write, as he did in his website:

I believe in many of the central, non-distinctive moral teachings within Mormonism (e.g., love, kindness, charity, forgiveness, faith, hope), but either have serious doubts about, or no longer believe many of the fundamental LDS church truth claims (e.g., anthropomorphic God, “one true church with exclusive authority,” that the current LDS church prophet receives privileged communications from God, that The Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham are translations, polygamy, racist teachings in the Book of Mormon, that ordinances are required for salvation, proxy work for the dead).

So on 7 June 2014, Dehlin got the letter that he must have been dreading. And the following day, Kelly got the letter as well. In her case, the trial will be this Sunday. In Dehlin’s case, it will be 29 June 14.

And while neither one could be criticized for losing some sleep over the matter, Kelly’s case seems to be particularly acute. Consider, for example, that she got a whole group of women together and tried to enter a male-only meeting on the priesthood at the tabernacle in Salt Lake City. Here are her heartbreaking words:

I suppose I didn’t realize until I was at the door and physically barred from entering the Tabernacle just how hopeful I was that we would indeed get in. I told the man who blocked us from entering, “I understand that all men, even men who are not members of the church and have no investment in Mormonism are permitted to attend. I am a returned missionary and a faithful Mormon woman and I would like to listen to the prophet in person.”

He simply said, “this session is actually for men only.”

And as difficult it is to read, it’s infinitely more painful to see the clip below.

I’ll never know—which would have been better, to be (as I am) a non-believer, or to grow up in some faith, have it enrich my life, rage against it when I came out, and then, perhaps, make my peace with it? What I do know is that believing in the church, wanting to be in the church, and then being expelled would be infinitely painful, especially in Utah.

And while I very much hope that these two courageous souls can prevail…

…I’m not putting money on it.

Wow—Those Great Saudi Guys!

OK—it’s only been seen 5,595,531 times on YouTube in the three days that it’s been there, so it’s clear. Iguanas has to step in and lend a hand; check in on the video below, and help this video get this video out there!

So it’s hard to defend the Saudi Arabian treatment of women, but guess what? Here’s a Saudi woman with a defense:

In Saudi culture, women have their integrity and a special life that is separate from men. As a Saudi woman, I demand to have a guardian. My work requires me to go to different regions of Saudi Arabia, and during my business trips I always bring my husband or my brother. They ask nothing in return—they only want to be with me.

The image in the West is that we are dominated by men, but they always forget the aspect of love. People who aren’t familiar with Shariah often have the wrong idea. If you want stability and safety in your life, if you want a husband who takes care of you, you won’t find it except in Islam.

Wow—what a great deal! And what princes these guys are, who only want to be there for their women! The wonder is that—given that they must be exhausted, from all the care that they lavish on their women—they have the energy and desire to have two, three, or four wives. How do they do it?

And what, by the way, is wrong with our Western women, who can fail to see the obvious benefits of this good Sharia system? Consider—every woman has a guardian, who drives her, gives her “permission” to work, study, go places and even visit the doctor. Are our womenfolk so blind? Why aren’t they jumping at the chance?

And the best thing? Women get all this protection as early as nine, which most courts say is the youngest age for a girl to get married. Oh, and don’t think about marrying outside the tribe, because guess what? That’ll get you disinherited.

Even better, if you get a divorce? You won’t get stuck with the kids—who are the property of the father. Oh, and you’ll have to ask your son if you want to remarry. Oh wait—that may not even happen, since the groom will automatically be dealing with your guardian, not you.

Naturally, it takes some work to maintain this system; here’s Wikipedia on the subject:

In 2009, the Saudi Gazette reported that a 23-year-old unmarried woman was sentenced to one year in prison and 100 lashes for adultery. She had been gang-raped, become pregnant, and tried unsuccessfully to abort the fetus. The flogging was postponed until after the delivery.

Wow—postponing the flogging until after the delivery? Is there no kindness these guardians won’t shower on their women? Amazing!

Still people carp. For example, according to Wikipedia, “the World Economic Forum 2009 Global Gender Gap Report ranked Saudi Arabia 130th out of 134 countries for gender parity.” And even in Saudi Arabia, there are critics: here’s Wajeha Al-Huwaider:

The ownership of a woman is passed from one man to another. Ownership of the woman is passed from the father or the brother to another man, the husband. The woman is merely a piece of merchandise, which is passed over to someone else—her guardian ... Ultimately, I think women are greatly feared. When I compare the Saudi man with other Arab men, I can say that the Saudi is the only man who could not compete with the woman. He could not compete, so what did he do with her? ... The woman has capabilities. When women study, they compete with the men for jobs. All jobs are open to men. 90% of them are open to men. You do not feel any competition ... If you do not face competition from the Saudi woman ... you have the entire scene for yourself. All positions and jobs are reserved for you. Therefore, you are a spoiled and self-indulged man.

I’ve a friend, Harry, who once worked for an organization for Latinos. In his time there, the organization was asked to come out in support of a Mexican guy who had started a brawl in a bar. “Fighting in public,” said the lawyer defending the man, “played an integral part in the cultural life of the Mexican male,” or some such thing. Everybody thought about that for a bit…

…until Harry began to sing, “oh give me a home, where the bottles are thrown…”

Which is the way I’m starting to feel about Islam, at least Saudi Arabian-style. Come on, guys, I do my best to be respectful but…

..couldn’t you guys make it a little easier?

Men's Issues

OK, Iguana readers—time to get to work! Get out there and harvest those thistles!

“Marc,” I can hear you saying, “Mondays are hard enough! Please—just cut to the chase and tell us what today’s nonsense is….”

Right—I came upon it by Nicholas Kristof, of The New York Times, who writes frequently about human and sexual trafficking. So today, he was writing about Becca Stevens, an Episcopal priest who over ten years ago started Magdalene, a program to help women get off the streets, get clean, get a job, and get on their feet. Here, taken from the program’s website, are highlights of the program:

▪                For two years, we offer housing, food, medical and dental needs, therapy, education and job training without charging the residents or receiving government funding.

▪                Our six homes function without 24-hour live-in staff, relying on residents to create a supportive community, maintain recovery, and share household tasks.

▪                Women come to Magdalene from prison, the streets and from across the Southeast and the country.

▪                The women of Magdalene/Thistle Farms range in age from 20-50, and many have been sexually abused between the ages of 7-11, began using alcohol or drugs by 13, have been arrested on average a hundred times, or have spent about 12 years on the street prostituting.

▪                72% percent of the women who join Magdalene are clean and sober 2 1/2 years after beginning the program.

 “OK,” you’re saying, “what’s this about thistles?”

Well, how many employers are going to give a job to a person with a hundred arrests? So Stevens hit on the idea of making a little business—it would give the women something to do, teach them skills, and give them a sense of purpose. And she chose the thistle because it grows everywhere—very often it was the only flower in the sites where the women plied their trade.

Which may be a misnomer, suggesting as it does that these women have any control in what they do, or that they do it willingly. The reality is that we have slaves on the streets of America. Consider, as Kristof wrote, the woman in the Magdalene program who came in with 14 tattoos with which her pimp had branded her.

And how did she get onto the streets? Very often, by being abused as a child. And then it’s the familiar story. Suffering, she leaves home, and meets a charming guy, who’s got money. Best of all, he loves her; he treats her like a queen. And then something happens, he becomes enraged, and then he puts her out on the street. Here’s what Kristof says about one woman:

When her pimp was shot dead, she was recruited by another, Kenny, who ran a “stable” of four women and assigned each of them a daily quota of $1,000. Anyone who didn’t earn that risked a beating.

This, of course, assumes that the pimp is operating in the traditional fashion. Increasingly, pimps are going electronic, and using websites to offer women for sale. I’m sitting in a café as I write this, but I have to just go online to view the most common of these sites—basically a “Craiglist” that has everything including humans for sale. I typed in “Madison, Wisconsin” and discovered that there are 25 entries for today alone. Oh, and it’s not even 1PM there.

Still wondering about those thistles? Well, you can support Becca Stevens and her work in a variety of ways. You can grow lavender in your garden (Becca doesn’t say it, but presumably she wants you to send it to her….). You can buy products like body oils, soaps, and candles. You can collect old white clothing for making paper; and yes, you can harvest thistles. Oh, and you can also, of course, just send money.

I can’t help thinking that if you’re a man—there are some other, very simple but very necessary things that you can do. You can stay off the streets, and refuse to hire these women. You can speak out and against those who do. You can stop making jokes about prostitutes, as well as stopping people who do.

I saw a YouTube clip of a trainer who does sensitivity awareness at institutions that have had situations of abuse. He made several—one of which is that as important as it is to empower women (or rather for them to empower themselves), we have to stop defining issues such as prostitution and domestic violence as “women’s issues.” Why? Because guys automatically tune out when they hear the term. And secondly, all of these women have brothers, fathers, uncles. In short, us—men.

So maybe it’s time for men to act. Look, everybody has a smart phone—there are cameras in everyone’s pocket or purse. Why not photograph those men who are out there soliciting sex, and put them on a website—perhaps called predators.com. That way, every mother, sister or wife could check it out every morning over coffee.

Oh, and for any pimp caught?

Time to bring back public stonings?

A Man of God and Catholicism Lite

Three men of God, three men speaking their views on gay people. Which strikes me as a bit odd—has anyone come around and asked Ricky Martin, say, or Anderson Cooper their views on religion? At any rate, we have the pope on record—he’s a sinner, he said, as we all are. And who is he to judge gay people? Here’s his quote, as it appeared in The New York Times:

In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are “socially wounded” because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro, I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.

A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: “Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?” We must always consider the person.

OK—it’s a step. It’s better than Benedict, who tended to couple the word “homosexuality” with the phrase “intrinsically evil,” or the like. And we all took the bait—hey, after all those years of Ratzinger, we’re yearning for a pope who gets it, who starts moving the church forward.

And he certainly seems different—living in the guest house, driving a Ford escort, eschewing the pomp that was Benedict’s lifeblood and focusing on the poor. But how liberal is this pope? Here are his views on women, from the same interview:

I am wary of a solution that can be reduced to a kind of “female machismo,” because a woman has a different makeup than a man. But what I hear about the role of women is often inspired by an ideology of machismo. Women are asking deep questions that must be addressed. The church cannot be herself without the woman and her role. The woman is essential for the church. Mary, a woman, is more important than the bishops. I say this because we must not confuse the function with the dignity. We must therefore investigate further the role of women in the church. We have to work harder to develop a profound theology of the woman. Only by making this step will it be possible to better reflect on their function within the church. The feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions. The challenge today is this: to think about the specific place of women also in those places where the authority of the church is exercised for various areas of the church.

Is it just me, or is anyone else out there confused about that first sentence, and the reference to “female machismo?” I think what he’s saying is something like, “insisting that men and women are equals and should be able to hold the same positions is wrong. Women and men are intrinsically different, and no, dears, no priesthood or God forbid papacy for you!”

And am I the only one who is thoroughly sick of the church’s trotting out Mary every time women raise legitimate questions or demands? Partly because as I understand it, biblically speaking, Mary isn’t an especially likeable character—nor does she seem to figure very prominently in the life of Jesus. Here’s Wikipedia on the subject:

There is also an incident in which Jesus is sometimes interpreted as rejecting his family. "And his mother and his brothers arrived, and standing outside, they sent in a message asking for him^[Mk 3:21] ... And looking at those who sat in a circle around him, Jesus said, 'These are my mother and my brothers. Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.'"

But all this veneration of Mary seems to come with the message: we’re perfectly happy to put you on a pedestal, but not in the priesthood. And notice as well that the pope’s “liberal” views on homosexuality don’t go that far, he hardly comes out and says, “both gay and straight people were made in God’s image, both of their loves are of equal worth, and gay people will have the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals in the Catholic church, including marriage.”

Nonetheless, everybody is jumping on the bandwagon, including the Reverend Timothy M. Dolan, the Archbishop of New York. Here he is, courtesy of The New York Times:

After Sunday Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Cardinal Dolan, who has himself softened his language on homosexuality in the past year, likened the pope to the Yankees’ retiring relief pitcher: “I think he’s our Mariano Rivera. He’s a great relief to all of us.”

Ummmm, this is a guy who said the following to The New York Times during Holy Week this year:

“Well, the first thing I’d say to them is: ‘I love you, too. And God loves you. And you are made in God’s image and likeness. And — and we — we want your happiness. But — and you’re entitled to friendship,’” Cardinal Dolan said. “But we also know that God has told us that the way to happiness, that — especially when it comes to sexual love — that is intended only for a man and woman in marriage, where children can come about naturally.”

Yeah? This sounds suspiciously like all those people whose views are “evolving,” and can’t we say it, at last. “Evolving” simply means not sticking your neck out until it’s absolutely imperative—failure to do so will make you look like a complete hypocrite. Great—now we know that God loves us, as well as the Cardinal, but sex with a person of the same gender is a sin.

The person who gets it? Gene Robinson, who just about caused a schism in the church, when he became the first openly gay bishop. And as you’ll see in the clip below, he doesn’t mince words: we’ve done a lot of damage to gay people, and we’re gonna have to work hard to repair the damage. There’s a reason why LGBT people are suspicious and angry. He comes out and says it to a group of Presbyterians who will be giving out glasses of water at the Gay Pride march later in the day: “You are representing the community of Christians, Jews and Muslims who are 95% of the repression we LGBT people have experienced in our lives.”

Or how about, “you are the oppressor offering the cup of water to the oppressed?” Robinson doesn’t pull the punches, or—perhaps a better image—hesitate to go into the temple and lecture to the money lenders. Nor—from the faces of the stony Presbyterians—is his message better received.

And Robinson is out there, walking the talk—passing out the cups of water to drag queens, scantily-clad boys, street performers, and the just-general-folk who drift by.

For all the talk of not focusing on abortion, homosexuality, contraception—what are we hearing? A sort of Catholicism of Nice—we won’t talk about it, we won’t judge, now come into the church but please, lower your voices, don’t rock the boat, no demands.

Congratulations—the Catholic Church has progressed to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Adventures in Male Philosophy

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Prostitution Day at the Beach

Well, I could tell you that our loopy Congress (gonna have to rethink those caps) has once again voted against the will of the American people, and decided that it’s perfectly OK for government to spy on us. Or how about Syria—over 100,000k have been killed in the civil war there. Or really to rain on your day, how about the fact that in the same day that we all hung by our screens to see British kid named George Alexander Louis, 440 women died in childbirth across sub-Saharan Africa?

“It’s Prostitution Day,” I told Gustavo, the sexy guy from the café, “you’re not going to the bank…”

Nor were we going to the bank, but rather to the beach, and a very good day it was for it. We snailed along at Mr. Fernández’s glacier-in-reverse pace, caught some rays, and sampled some local color, of which there was a very full palette.

We do some things very well, down here, but going to the beach we do either very badly (seen through gringo eyes) or superbly (don’t have to tell you….).

On this particular beach, there are signs posting the rules of the beach. To a gringo mind, one would get to a place, look for a sign, read it, absorb the rules, and follow them. To us?

What sign?

It’s almost a competition—which group of people can violate the most rules. There were the people picnicking outside of the picnic area (1), grabbing beers (2) out of the cooler (3), as their dog (4) chased after a tossed cigarette butt (5). But they were pikers. Most people were scoring at least eight.

There are no barbecues allowed except in the picnic area—of course everybody has a grill. There is no drinking allowed—hey, wanna beer? There is no music, but of course a guy had a boom box in a little red cart—remember them from childhood?—and was blasting reggaetón to half the beach.

“Free music,” I told Mr. Fernández. You gotta go with the flow….

Mind you, nobody is actually swimming. Most people are bobbing in the water, chugging back the beer or the gasolina—a rum drink that comes in a pouch. Men will have 15 extra pounds per decade over 20; women will have 20. Everybody will be shouting, children will be running between your legs, and the smell of charcoal and grilled food will be intoxicating. And yes, people will bring everything to the beach—chairs, the baby crib, the baby, Mamita, large umbrellas, tents, tables to hold the food.

It’s wonderful. We strolled home, bumping into homeless and now toothless Gale, who told us the horror stories of the community—Puerta de Tierra—just next to ours. We gave her some money, chatted for a bit, and moved on.

And now, do I want to read about Syria, contemplate death rates in the developing world, or allow the United States Congress to dampen my psyche?

Forget it—here’s a little known but wonderful cello sonata, by the curious French composer Charles Valentin Alkan….      

The Same Old Bastards....

Well, it’s nothing to be proud about—not now, not then.

“Then” refers to the thirty states that practice forced sterilization of those women who were judged “feeble-minded” or “dim-witted.” It also, in Puerto Rican terms, refers to the Ley 116, of 1937, which established free sterilization clinics throughout the island.

As you can see in the video below, there were historical and economic reasons for the decision. Puerto Rico had been largely agrarian—the advent of the large corporations and King Sugar drove some people off the land and into company housing or cities. Overpopulation was seen as a real threat on an island where the rate of unemployment is substantially higher than in the states. And employers greatly favored sterilized workers—and what was our industry for many years? The garment industry, traditionally a female-dominated affair.

So public health workers went from house to house, putting on the screws. The worst abuse was that, as reported in one 1968 study, one third of Puerto Rican women were unaware that sterilization was permanent. It made sense, in a way: if you could “tie the tubes,” then obviously you could untie them, right? Worse, women were routinely not told of other contraception methods—it was sterilization or nothing.

So effective was the effort that Puerto Rico had the highest rate of sterilized women anywhere—35% in the 1960’s. Eventually, as Dr. Rodríguez Trías states in the clip below, people realized that Puerto Rico was serving as a training area for sterilization programs in the states. She and others banded together and started CESA, the Committee to End Sterilization Abuse.

Yes, thirty other states had eugenics programs and laws permitting forced sterilization—the difference seems to be that the programs in the states tended to be directed at the mentally ill, epileptics, the mentally retarded, though Native Americans seemed to be much more highly targeted. In other words, a normal WASP woman had nothing to worry about; a normal Native American better watch out.

Right—and now?

What Rodríguez Trías says at the end of the clip is chilling. Abortion rights are being chipped away as never before. My own state, Wisconsin, has just voted in a law requiring ultrasound tests to be done and discussed with the expectant mother. Why? Is there any medical reason to do this? Isn’t this more coercion on a woman who is already quite stressed? Since the government is not paying now for abortions, who is going to pick up the bill for the ultrasound? The state? Don’t think so.

So abortion rights are getting ever more flimsy—but what’s happening with sterilization?  Well, the graph below tells the story:

(Graph’s source: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2011/07/21/sterilization-of-women-of-color-does-unforced-mean-freely-chosen/)

The cream bar is American Indian / Alaskan Native, and the grey bar is non-Hispanic white women. OK—but what about Puerto Rican women, both on and off the island? In a study done by Iris López, the situation has gotten no better: this is what Ms magazine said about the matter:

During the U.S. colonization of Puerto Rico, over one-third of all women were sterilized. And today, still, Puerto Rican women in both Puerto Rico and the U.S. have “one of the highest documented rates of sterilization in the world.” Two-thirds are sterilized before the age of 30.

Nor is that all—44% of the women were forced into sterilization by poverty: they wanted children, but could not afford them, or were living in places where crime and gangs made raising children difficult. And yes, many of the women reported that their health care providers didn’t discuss any other alternative besides sterilization for birth control.

And here’s where Rodríguez Trías’ point about birth control versus population control becomes especially true. Population control happens when someone makes a policy and imposes it on (mostly) women or (sometimes) men; birth control happens when an individual freely and knowingly chooses the option best for her.

Two more thoughts—there’s something quite perverse about the conservative ideology. The moment a woman wants an abortion—she can’t, she’ll have to bear that child through hell or high water. But the moment a poor woman or minority woman wants birth control? Sterilization, which is still free in the United States. In both cases, it seems that men almost perversely cannot allow a woman to have control over her body.

Lastly, if 66% of Puerto Rican women are sterilized before the age of 30, don’t we have a word for that?

Genocide?