Motivation & Men

This article has me thinking...

Mind The Gap by Lauren F. Winner
Teaser (read the whole thing at the above link):
Gender roles — the concept of how men and women differ (beyond the obvious biology, that is) and, concomitantly, what their roles in church life, the office, and the home should be — have been debated for decades by Christians and non-Christians alike. But when we talk about gender and leadership, we may have been leaving out one crucial fact of contemporary life: Regardless of what we say we think about women and leadership, when it comes to college-aged and 20-somethings, women are leading in all sorts of areas. Let me offer two examples — one anecdotal and one backed up by hard research....
What should the church's response to this be? Well, I hope it's two-fold: First, women should get some applause for the wise way they're stewarding time and all the contributions they make to church and civic life. At the same time, we all need to encourage even young boys to devote more time to civic engagement and less to computer gaming. What we should not do is buy into a discourse that pits men against women, takes competition for granted, and tacitly assumes that only one group — men or women, but never both — can excel in college or take responsibility in church life. All too often, discussions of any kind of "gender gap" polarize conversation. That is, people respond to the news that women outnumber men in college classrooms with panic and decide they need to devote all their attention to helping men out. I'm not sure that any strategies cobbled together in the heat of anxiety, though, will get us very far. Perhaps the church needs to pause and notice the gendered leadership dynamics in colleges and in young adult ministries, and — rather than panic — prayerfully consider how we can affirm and encourage the contributions, leadership and gifts of both men and women. This isn't, after all, a debate about what's good for men versus what's good for women. Instead, it ought to be a conversation about how to create communities, and opportunities for leadership and learning that are life-giving to all of us.

I first ran across this article at the Boundless blog where they are having a discussion about it. Here are some of their thoughts (read the full discussion here):
Ted: ...In all honestly, if you found Winner's article to be offensive, I'd understand why. It tends to make sweeping generalizations about men and about women. The tone is a bit on the cynical side. It offers few legitimate solutions. Why did I publish it, then? Because the facts remain that percentage-wise, women are more involved than men in community leadership roles, at least in university and church. I think that's a real problem. And I'd like to see us discuss this.
Mike speaks a lot about the parent's responsibility: ...As to the solution? The author unfortunately is vague on this point but don't knock her; coming up with viable, concrete solutions is difficult. She criticizes guys spending too much time playing video games, but I don't think video games are the core problem. The core problem is controlling what young men do with their free time. Girls may be naturally more inclined to use it productively, but most boys it seems are not. I believe the most practical and simple solution, at least for the academic realm, is for a parent to exert more of their God-given responsibility to manage their kids' time. That means making rules limiting TV, Internet, video game use, and so on. That also means making rules (e.g., homework done before play) and consequences for not following those rules...

My thoughts: Well, I'm still mulling but I can echo the point of this comment:
Jammy had the following to say on Apr 20 at 5:22 PM:
I don't think Winner is writing about a surprising problem and it isn't new. Movements like Promise Keepers and Muscular Christianity (1900's) have tried to encourage men to purse the ideals of engaged manhood. Honestly though, if I were a man, I would hope that given the resources available to me as a child of God and empowered by His Spirit I'd be able to overcome cultural norms and expectations. I mean, I understand things are tough, but I grew up with out a mother and I refuse to let that keep me from becoming a Godly woman. At what point, will men "man up" and not be conformed to the pattern of this world? Society and the media tell me what I should be everyday, and frankly I fail, but I've another standard for living and being and I know it's more lasting than anything this world has to offer. Shouldn't this be something men are capable of doing too? Collectively and individually?

A couple things that I think I can articulate clearly...
It is hard to live as a godly woman in a world that constantly screams that you are better then men. It's hard to think on 'whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy' (Philippians 4:8) when the world via TV and a million other sources says that men are failures and not worthy of our respect. Our culture does not encourage women to submit to or follow their husbands. It does not teach us to be respectful to our fellow human beings. It is hard to find a balance between being an 'independent woman' and a woman who is dependent on the Lord.
I'm still thinking about what I want to say and how. I'd love to hear your thoughts about this issue - How does it affect you? Do you see this problem in your life? In your church?

More from Miss Cali

Miss California: I stand by gay marriage remark
Finalist’s reply to ‘offended’ Perez Hilton may have cost her Miss USA crown
By Michael Inbar,TODAYShow.com contributor
Being a straight shooter likely shot down any chance Carrie Prejean had of being crowned Miss USA Sunday night. But the Miss California told TODAY Tuesday she’s proud she offered her honest opinion on gay marriage, even as her questioner says she should have kept her politics to herself.
“I’m so proud of myself,” Prejean told Matt Lauer live on the TODAY set. “I wouldn’t change a thing. I knew I had a purpose, and I don’t take back what I said.”
The often bland goings-on at the annual Miss USA pageant took on a decidedly heated political tone when openly gay celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, a pageant judge, asked Prejean: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
Beauty and the blogger
Prejean, then among the final five contestants for the coveted crown, replied, “In my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be — between a man and a woman.”
Prejean’s pointed response raised eyebrows, but didn’t raise her enough votes to put a crown on her head. Judge Claudia Jordan told NBC, “The judges were really against her, they were bothered by her answer.”
Still, Prejean finished first runner-up to Miss North Carolina, Kristen Dalton.
With Prejean saying that she likely would have won had she not spoken so forthrightly, Hilton told TODAY he was “offended that she is still walking around saying that she should have won the pageant.” And he told Lauer Tuesday via Skype that Prejean had no business offering such an obviously divisive answer to a question she could have easily danced around.
“I want [a Miss USA] who is going to be politically savvy, and that means saying things that will make everyone feel welcome,” Hilton told Lauer. “She’s a Christian, but I don’t want her talking about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, because that’s offensive to all of the Jewish Americans, all the Muslim Americans, to all the atheist Americans.
“It’s about balance, it’s about finding the perfect Miss USA, and unfortunately, Miss California was not the perfect Miss USA,” Hilton continued. “I would have appreciated it had she left her politics and her religion out, because Miss USA represents all Americans.”
Sticking to her stand
Prejean found herself in the unlikely position of being a divider, not a uniter, at the NBC-televised pageant — her comments even spurred a dustup between a gay audience member and the mother of one of the contestants.
But she told Lauer she had her eyes wide open when responding to Hilton’s question, saying, “After I answered the question, I knew that I was not going to win because of my answer.”
When Lauer asked Prejean if, given a do-over, she might offer up a more middle-of-the-road response, she replied, “No, I wouldn’t have answered differently.“It’s not about being politically correct; for me, it was being biblically correct,” Prejean explained. “When I’m asked a specific question, I’m going to give a specific answer. I’m not going to stand in the middle. I’m going to take one side or another.”
To thine own self be true
Lauer asked Hilton why he would offer up a political hot potato of a question in the first place, since the Miss USA pageant usually has judges asking questions that allow the contestants to pray for world peace and tell how much they love puppies and kittens.
Hilton told Lauer he believes his question “was very relevant and extremely important,” and noted other contestants, including the eventual winner, were also posed pointed political questions.
Prejean now finds herself in the unlikely position of actually gaining more fame than the new Miss USA, Kristen Dalton of North Carolina. And she told Lauer she plans to use her newfound bully pulpit to encourage others to speak their minds.
“I was true to myself, and I know now I can go out and speak to young people about standing up for what you believe in and never compromising anything, for anyone or anything, even if it is the crown of Miss USA,” Prejean said.

Now this is inspiring to hear - a woman who won't compromise her beliefs in the face of fame, political correctness or personal attacks! She was willing to sacrifice her dream for the Truth. THAT is beautiful!

Speaking Her Mind

Last night I watched the Miss USA Pageant. Maybe it's the little girl in me but I still enjoy watching these pageants. I love seeing the beautiful hair and stunning dresses. And I can't help but be a little envious of these gorgeous women. I definitely exercised today!
Each year I watch, I hope that Miss Nebraska might make it into the Top 10. But sadly, I've never seen it happen. In fact, the same states get picked almost every year. Even though Nebraska didn't make it, I was pleasantly surprised that the Top 15 was more diverse than previous years. Florida, DC, Hawaii and Oklahoma didn't make it. I predicted that Miss California would win because California is one of the standard winners in years past. But J predicted that North Carolina would win and he was right! I think he was just lucky.

Here are some pictures from NYDaily. Or the main Miss USA site. I wanted to post a picture but didn't want to do it illegally. :)

So here are my two major observations/opinions about the show last night...
1. How in the world do they pick the judges? And do these judges really pick the winner? Last night they had some previous beauty pageant girls, some executives I've never heard of and some random celebrities. The celebrities always seem like silly picks. What do Holly Madison, Perez Hilton or Kenan from SNL know about beauty pageants?! There are always some in the line up every year that don't make sense, especially if they're judging on more than which girl they think is pretty.
2. The final question. The topic of the final questions vary from year to year. Sometimes the questions are equally hard without being on the same topic, and other years they are completely unfair. This year they were all political hot button issue questions. And when I say hot button I mean controversial. Poor Miss California choose judge Perez Hilton to ask his question and he asked her about gay marriage rights.

There was really no way for her to answer this question smoothly. This is where I began to wonder if they would be judged on whether they gave the 'right' answer or based on how (poise, confidence) they answer the question. I applaud Miss Cali for speaking clearly and actually answering the question (unlike Miss Arizona) and stating her personal conviction. She's believes marriage is between one man and one woman. The judge, PH about had a fit on camera and I heard he actually did off stage. Miss Cali also did not win but was rather runner-up.

I do not understand how these pageants work. Oh well. I just watch to enjoy the glamor! Do you watch pageants? Did you watch last night? Any thoughts about the night?

Funny Moment

I watched this movie the other night on TV. I admit it's a very dumb movie and really not worth 2 hours but this is my favorite part because it makes me laugh out loud every time!
Check out the scene at minute 3:28 to 3:43.



The dorky little brother just makes me laugh! I hope this at least makes you smile. And if you have a little brother, I'm sure it will remind you of all the dorky and hilarious things he's done. I love my brother - he can always make me laugh! Thankfully he's hasn't done anything like this. He's just a tease. I think the 3 of us kids have a good relationship and great sense of humor! The funny moments that first pop into my head are with Audrey because she has had some great blonde moments. Audrey makes me laugh just by being herself. Alex makes me laugh in a different way that I can't really explain. He just knows what to say or do to lighten my mood. I'm thankful that God blessed me with a fun-filled brother and sister!
What kind of fun filled moments do you have with your siblings?

Encouraging Word

KLOVE's encouraging word today is...

Give all your worries and cares to God, for he cares about what happens to you.
--1 Peter 5:7, NLT

I always need this reminder, especially now as I job hunt. I hope this verse encourages you today too!

Easter

I love Easter!! Here are the highlights...

Church
We had 3 choir songs and they were all a blast to sing. I love Easter music. It's so joyful! And Pastor Tom's sermon was challenging as always.

Family, specifically the babies We have not had babies at family gatherings since I was among the babies or at least the kids. This is Audrey and I holding Camden and Skylar. Camden is about 3 months old and Skylar 6. It was so fun to have them for entertainment!

Food
Sorry no pictures.
Saturday my mom made brisket and we all brought sides. We brought brussel sprouts. They were met with much cynicism but won the hearts of all willing to take a no-thank-you helping. And those that refused totally missed out!
On Sunday we had the standard fare of verenika, onion gravy and ham. And we had cream corn, seven layer salad, zwieback, and deviled eggs on the side. I requested the eggs. No one makes them like Gran! Yum! I still felt full on Monday.

What are your Easter traditions?

Words Again

So how am I supposed to use the right words if the definition is changing all the time?

Webster Redefines Marriage

Posted by Jim_Daly on Mar 20, 2009 8:32:53 AM

Last fall, California voters were given an opportunity to decide whether to expand the traditional definition of marriage to include those in a same-sex relationship. The measure known as Proposition 8 proposed to add this language to the California State Constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Prop 8 sparked a fierce debate as millions of dollars were spent to lobby both sides of the issue. If you lived in the Golden State, you virtually couldn’t turn on the TV, listen to the radio, or read a newspaper without encountering some aspect of the hotly contested topic. When the ballots were counted, Californians voted “Yes” to preserve traditional marriage.
Meanwhile, without fanfare, debate, or an opportunity for the public to weigh in on the issue, WorldNetDaly.com reports a leading dictionary company, Merriam-Webster, single-handedly redefined marriage in their current online edition. The new definition reads: “(1) The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law; (2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage .”
Now, compare that to Webster’s definition of marriage from their 1913 edition of the dictionary: “The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.” Ironically, this early edition included a reference to the King James version of Hebrews 13:4 which says, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” They also cited Matthew 22:2, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son.”
Scripture aside, did you notice what’s missing in Merriam-Webster’s newfangled version of marriage? In addition to expanding the meaning of marriage, their latest definition dropped two key words: “for life.” In other words, Merriam-Webster has stripped a vital aspect of the covenant of marriage, namely, permanence. Interestingly, as recently as 1992, Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary defined marriage as “the institution under which a man and a woman become legally united on a permanent basis” [emphasis added].
According to a report in WorldNetDaily.com, associate editor Kory Stamper of the popular dictionary company explained the reasoning behind this change to one constituent. Stamper said, “In recent years, this new sense of ‘marriage’ has appeared frequently and consistently throughout a broad spectrum of carefully edited publications, and is often used in phrases such as ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘gay marriage’ by proponents and opponents alike. Its inclusion was a simple matter of providing our readers with accurate information about all of the word’s current uses.”
Granted, the meaning of a word can change with time. For example, the word “gay” (which today is frequently associated with those in the homosexual community) was defined in 1913 by Webster as “(1) Excited with merriment; manifesting sportiveness or delight; inspiring delight; livery; merry. (2) Brilliant in colors; splendid; fine, richly dressed. (3) Loose; dissipated; lewd.”
There’s no mention of gay as in “homosexual.” In fact, there isn’t even a definition of the word “homosexual” in that early edition of Webster’s Dictionary. Yes, language usage changes with time. As I see it, here’s the larger question: is the Merriam-Webster company reflecting culture? Or, are they shaping culture by offering this redefinition of the word?
Overwhelmingly, the public has rejected the idea of so-called same-sex marriage. Whenever the matter has been put on the ballot, Americans have voted to preserve the traditional institution and definition of marriage. As such, it strikes me that this change by Merriam-Webster isn’t a small matter. What do you think?