Group Markers

My pre-teen years were pretty icky. I felt ugly and awkward, and my school experiences confirmed that: I was a social outcast. I took to faking stomachaches so I could go home when it got to be more than I wanted to deal with.

(This was my first real acting experience. I instinctually knew that to pull that off, I had to be totally committed to the role -- facial expression, physical stance, weak voice . . . I had to be willing to turn down good food offered me, because sick people don't feel like eating . . . I had to be willing to miss activities I wanted to go to, because sick people don't feel like having fun . . . and I played my role well. Apparently, my parents were worried enough about all my stomachaches to take me to the doctor, concerned that I might be under too much pressure or something. Kinda feel bad about that now.)

In any case, this morning for some reason, I was remembering the jeans that suddenly became popular in my late elementary years. They had colorful embroidered designs on the back pockets -- hearts, rainbows, stars, that kind of thing (these were girls' jeans, obviously). The popular girls all had these jeans, and I so wanted them. My mom eventually made a deal with me where she would pay what a regular pair of jeans would cost and I had to make up the difference for these fancy jeans, which I did. Unfortunately, the fancy jeans didn't get me out of the outcast corner.

Those symbolic jeans are interesting to me now. The uniform of the in crowd. Like the colors that gang members flash. Like the jerseys a basketball team wears. We put things on our outsides to identify us with a group. And we all want to be identified with a group.

Now some of these groups are logical. It makes perfectly good sense why, say, all the mothers of young children in a congregation would group up. Or all the recent immigrants from Korea in a certain town. Or all the people interested in knitting or running marathons.

Popular groups at school seem to be a different phenomenon. Sometimes wealth brings them together, or athletic ability, but not always. It's always a mystery to me how the popular kids gets "popular", especially when many of them are not very nice or very well-liked by the rest of the school community. And even more a mystery why everyone else accedes this status to them. I'm sure there are psychological studies about this stuff; I'd love to read them.

I wondered this morning, as I remembered the rainbow-embroidered jeans, whether this cliquish behavior is part of our image-of-God DNA (God is a three-person entity, after all, always existing in community), or if it is a mark of our sinfulness. I suspect it is both, a sinful warping of how God made us. When you look at scripture, God is quite intentional about giving His people instructions for setting themselves apart from the rest of the world, through ritual, behavior, and appearances.

However, they are not to physically isolate themselves from the world. Even the ancient Israelites were to welcome the gentile stranger hospitably and offer them a clear path to join their ranks once they taste and see that the Lord is good. New Testament Christians are instructed to be salt and light to their communities, to be in the world but not of the world.

So, God made us to group up, to identify with a certain people, but not necessarily for protection or for comfort or for our own selfish purposes. We are, first and foremost, made to identify with Him -- and those who identify with Him will necessarily identify with each other (like the spokes on a wheel that are all lined up evenly once they are in right relationship to the center) -- and His people will then minister to the world and draw more folks into a relationship with Him.

It's a good system, when we don't muck it up with frivolous markers like expensive Sunday suits, tattoos (or a lack of), and rainbow-pocketed jeans.

There's a Mystery Afoot!

We've done a variety of interesting birthday parties over the years. The Peter Pan party with the bouncy-house so the kids could "fly". The chef party -- did that one twice. The Blue's Clues party collecting food for the local animal shelter. The overnight makeover party. The arts and crafts party. The backyard carnival party. The Hawaiian luau party. The scavenger hunt. The improvisational film-making event.

Some flew; some flopped (well, they sputtered anyway -- having a good group of friends over makes it hard to flop a party altogether).

But tonight we trek into new territory. Our youngest is all about mysteries, specifically Nancy Drew computer game mysteries. And it occurred to us that the group of friends she was inviting (her class) consisted of three boys and three girls, exactly like the characters in the board game Clue. When is that likely to happen again? So, we try a new adventure tonight: the mystery party.

Each kid was assigned a Clue character with their invitation -- Colonel Mustard, Miss Scarlet,
Professor Plum, Ms. Peacock, Mr. Green, and Mrs. White. To our delight, they seem to be getting into this. They're hunting down costumes and have been finagling all week trying to figure out who everyone's character is (I didn't instruct them to keep it a secret, but they decided to do so and are having fun with that).

We have the whole scenario laid out tonight, with secret information they receive at designated points in the evening, evidence they reveal, questions they need to ask, secrets they want to hide . . . I tell you, this was a complicated ruse to pull together. I'm just praying the mystery works out in the end; my first attempt at something like this, you know.

Last night, we were all about the food. Kiddo wants to have "elegant" looking food, as if this were a fancy affair. But then, we are feeding a bunch of teenagers. So, we have a freezer full of appetizers (mini quiches, potstickers, mini quesadillas, shrimp -- ooh, probably should pick up some cocktail sauce today -- bacon-wrapped scallops, friend mac-n-cheese squares) . . . we'll come up with some fancy French names for it all and set them out on the china in the Formal Dining Room. Cocktails when they arrive (Coke, Sprite, and juice in wine glasses offered on a silver tray). Desserts in the Courtyard toward the end of the evening (mini cheesecake bites, mini cream puffs, and strawberries with chocolate for dipping).

Yeah, we surely have far too much food. I expect to be eating this junk for the next week. But then, they're teenagers. You never know.

And once the mystery is solved and the culprit revealed, they'll play a rousing round of the Clue DVD game . . . and finish up with the Nancy Drew movie if there's time. This party screams my daughter's name, and they'll all know that.

But they will have fun just because they are fun kids and they genuinely enjoy each other's company. What a blessing this class is.

My Daughter Thinks She's Courting

When I got home last night, hubby and our eldest were watching "19 and Counting", the episode I've heard a lot about lately where one of the daughters is starting to court and they're setting up all the rules for that.

Courting is something I'm familiar with now that I've been a part of the homeschooling world for a decade or so. I haven't experienced it, but I'm familiar with it. I've known families who have done it, in a variety of forms, with their kids. But I had other friends who saw this episode and were astonished at the idea.

For her part, my eldest was horrified. She said, "If you ever made me do this, I'd probably leave home." Her biggest beef was the fact that this couple never got to talk alone together. She'd go crazy if she could never talk to her boyfriend alone, she said.

It all led to an interesting discussion, though, about dating and courtship. Because my daughter believes that if you set aside the ultra-stringent requirements about never being alone so there's little temptation to impurity, she thinks dating someone and courting someone is about the same.

Hubby and I disagree with her strongly. Dating is casual. Dating is not focused on a future goal of marriage, at least not by definition. Dating is a form of entertainment -- at least, that's what it has become in our society. People date folks that they would have no intention of marrying, and might date them for years, even getting very physically serious with them.

But apparently, that's not how our eldest thinks of dating. Sure, there are people out there who misuse dating that way, she says. But dating is supposed to be about finding a mate. She's had a couple other boyfriends before this one, and she says that once she realized this was not a guy she was interested in being with forever, she ended the relationship. Essentially, she said, she's always been "courting". She's "courting" her boyfriend now.

First of all, I'm impressed that my daughter has such a mature view of relationships. But secondly, I'm surprised she doesn't realize how unique she is in looking at relationships that way.

I also need to explain to her today (because I couldn't think how to explain it to her last night) what I see as the major distinction between courtship and dating. One doesn't start courting until you are ready to be married. She and her boyfriend are quite aware that they are not ready to be married right now. They have not completed their educations, they have no income, etc. etc. If she was really courting and not dating, they would have held off having any kind of romantic relationship until marriage was an imminent possibility -- because a romantic relationship that goes on and on for years and years without tying the marital knot puts you in a position of being seriously tempted to go too far physically, for one thing.

Plus, it's kind of "playing" marriage. You're "committed" to someone, but not really. You expect a kind of faithfulness from each other without the maturity or intention to be genuinely faithful as faithfulness is defined. Your faithfulness ends when your interest ends . . . and that's not faithfulness at all: that's training for divorce. You really have no right to make claims on another's heart until you're ready to give them a permanent claim on yours.

So, no honey, you're not courting, you're dating. But really, I'm not big on the courting vs. dating debate, mainly because there's a lot of semantics involved. I don't care what name my daughter gives to the current relationship she has with her boyfriend. I care most that she is willing to talk to me about it and take my advice about how to do this relationship in a wise and healthy way, whatever she's calling it.

Parenting . . . if we knew how hard it was before we got into it, the race would die out.

Guess I'm Just a Sorry Excuse for a Modern Woman

A comment thread on a friend's recent FB post prompted me to make the following declarations:

- Although I'm a bit fuzzy on the current definition of a feminist, I'm still pretty sure that I'm not one.

- I don't believe I've ever been in a situation where I have been held back or mistreated simply because I'm a woman. However, this is most likely because I chose a career field that has historically been dominated by women.

- I don't at all doubt that there are women out there who are held back professionally or mistreated simply because they are women. But I also believe there are men out there who are held back professionally and mistreated simply because they are men. Example: I can't tell you how many times over the last twenty-five years my husband has been one of the last couple candidates for a job and lost it to a woman or a minority . . . but it's enough to convince me that it's not a coincidence. And I'm quite tired of television shows portraying all men as either violent sex maniacs or wimpy buffoons dominated by their wives.

- I have no problem with the term "mankind", even though I am not a man. None at all.

- I also have no problem with masculine pronouns being used to refer to a generic person. In fact, I find "s/he" and "his/her" and all their ilk to be quite annoying. They are MUCH more disruptive to effective communication, I think, than just saying "he" and assuming your reader has a modicum of common sense.

- The only time I recall experiencing any direct discrimination for my gender (and even this wasn't really direct) was at a church Hubby and I visited several times when we first moved to Hutchinson early in our marriage. He actually was the one who pointed out to me that women were never asked to pray in the Sunday School class, and did that bother me? (Not really.) When the church had a missionary couple come in to speak for a weekend -- and the men gathered to hear the husband speak of the mission efforts while the women gathered in another room to hear about the country's food and clothes -- that's when we decided to move on in our church search.

- There are a lot of super-conservative Christians that have a lot of super-conservative views on women that I don't agree with.

- That said, I think the Bible teaches that wives are to submit to their husbands, and I agree and do so, to the best of my ability. It's not a question of inferiority and superiority. I am "inferior" to my husband in some aspects, and he is "inferior" to me in other aspects, and we are equal in value before God. It's simply a matter of position; someone needs to be in charge in any organization. I knew when I married my husband that I was hiring a CEO for my family; if I didn't trust him to do the job well, I wouldn't have married him. Rarely has he ever expected me to "submit" to him because we rarely disagree on important matters regarding our family, but I'm prepared to do so. Anyone who uses the Bible to make women doormats has not thoroughly read their Bible.

- Men (as a whole) are physically stronger than women (as a whole). This means that men (in general) are better suited for certain jobs than women (in general). There are many other differences between men and women, and I like my men and women to be different. Again, it does not mean they are different in value.

- I had male OB/GYNs deliver both of my babies -- and I loved them.

- I prefer not to attend a church with a woman pastor. But I don't know that this has to do with Biblical admonitions against women in the ministry -- I think it's just a personal preference.

- I'm still not sure what I think of women in ministry roles as a whole. I had a friend once (a woman Sunday School teacher of a couples class) who believed that the church made a big mistake when they allowed women to take leadership positions in the church because this gave men permission to sit back and stop leading -- which they did. I tend to think there's something to that. I also know that if I were tapped to teach a class at church and I knew that there were several men who would not attend or who would give less credibility to the teaching because of my gender, I would step down and give the job to a man . . . because it is far more important that these men hear the word of God with an open heart than it is for them to get over any misogyny I suspect they suffer from (especially because getting over their misogyny would require them hearing the word of God with an open heart first).

- I was uncomfortable with Sarah Palin running for Vice President because she had young children -- and especially a very young one with special needs -- and I felt she would not be able to give her family the attention they needed if she were Vice President. It did occur to me at the time that it was hypocritical of me not to apply the same standard to men running for office . . . which has contributed to my belief that high-level offices in the national government (President and such) really need to be filled only by people who do not have children at home. Everyone should put their families first, and a President really can't.

- When a man opens a door for me or stands to give me a seat on a bus, it never occurs to me that he is implying that I am incapable in any way. I'm just terribly impressed at his good manners.

- I understand that many women have experienced genuine abuse based on their gender. This is abominable. I also think there are many women (and men) who frankly are just too darn sensitive. There.  I said it.

- Please feel free to call me a "lady". I strive to be one. I think I can tell when you mean it in a pejorative sense, and I'll get over it if you do.

Three Things To NOT Do When a Woman Is Crying (And One Thing TO Do)

I offer this as a service to guys everywhere, particularly you young ones just starting out on this relationship gig. You should be taking notes, gentlemen.

 

1) Don't even think about hinting at “that time of the month.” Seriously. You may be right, but just don't. We know better than you do how crazy our body chemicals make us.  If we don't realize that that is the source of our emotional outburst right now, we will eventually, and your trying to rush that process will only prolong it.

But even more than that, blaming all of our tears on hormones just minimizes the real problem . . . and yes, there usually is a real problem. It's possible that your lady just fell apart into torrential sobs over absolutely nothing, but it's not likely. It's more likely that the hormones simply magnified the reaction to a very real problem that deserves very real attention.

2) Don't try to make her stop crying. At least, on a surface level. When I see a teenage boy with his weepy teenage girlfriend trying to make her laugh to stop the tears . . . or, God forbid, tickling her (seriously, do you have a death wish?) . . . I think, “Yeah, dude, she'll think that's cute and appreciate your effort for a while, but be prepared for the blow-up one day.”

Once again, you have to remember that under the apparent hysterics, there is a real problem. When you minimize that problem, you are minimizing her. It's demeaning. I know you mean well -- so does she, that's why she'll put up with it for a while -- but there comes a point where you look like you aren't interested in the whole woman here.  You're only interested in a happy, pretty plaything that entertains you and responds to the push of a button.  That's not a woman; that's a doll.  Buy a doll.

3) Don't try to fix the problem – at least at first. I realize that sounds COMPLETELY contradictory to what I said in my first two points. And here is where I'll admit some craziness on the part of my gender. Men are fixers; they see a problem, they fix it. Women are not men. Sometimes, we need some wallow time. We need to feel the full emotional impact of what we're dealing with and get a grip on that before we can deal with it. Yes, we will over-do it occasionally and indulge in our wallowing to an unhealthy extent (ladies, you need to recognize this tendency in yourself and work on it so your man doesn't have to attempt the dangerous maneuver of pointing it out to you).

But I'll let you in on an important secret: often, when a woman is not able to get past the emotions of a situation and move on, it's because somebody in her life (currently or regularly in the past) has minimized her emotions so much that she has learned to compensate by exaggerating them. She has to over-react to demonstrate -- to herself and to you -- that her feelings are legitimate.  That SHE is legitimate. Weird, yes . . . but only to a man.

Your woman would probably welcome your suggestions and insight into her situation, but not until she's ready.  Not until she's felt the full emotional impact of that situation.  Not until after you . . .

* DO sit with her and help carry the burden.  Listen. Hold her hand. Affirm how bad things are. Yes, even if you don't quite understand why things are so bad. I'm not saying to patronize and lie . . . I'm saying take the time to understand what this means to her. Did you catch that key word?  UNDERSTAND. Attempt to understand. Women are extremely relational by nature. They won't care to hear your suggestions until they are convinced you really get the problem.  How can you fix things until you understand?

This is hard for men; I get that. But let me give you some encouragement: the more you do this, the less you may need to do this.  The more understood she feels, the quicker she can get through the emotions and be ready for your assistance in solving it all.

Do I hear an "amen", sisters?

Yes, More on Sex

I hate to keep harping on this topic, but it keeps coming up . . .

On a news show the other day, a woman I’d never heard of, who was labeled as a “women’s rights activist”, was asked by the host, isn’t it in society’s best interest to discourage teenagers from sexual activity?  Never mind for now how we do that – that’s a topic for further discussion.  But can’t we all agree that discouraging teenagers from having sex is a good thing?  The women’s rights activist replied, “It doesn’t matter if we encourage or discourage teen sexual activity; they’re going to have sex anyway.”

Did you hear what she said? “They are going to have sex.  Period.  No point in explaining to them the value of waiting or the dangers of indulging.  They cannot or will not hear what we say.  They cannot or will not understand even if they do hear.  They cannot or will not control their sexual urges even if they do understand.  They are going to have sex anyway.” 

I don’t think that’s what she meant to say.  I think she meant to say that there are some kids that are going to have sex anyway, no matter what we do.  And because of that, we need to make sure those kids know how to protect themselves from the dangers of their behavior.  We must make explicit sexual education and condoms available for those kids.

Okay, perhaps I’ll concede that.  But I will add this:  There are also some kids who are willing and capable of hearing, understanding, and applying teaching on abstinence.  In fact, there are some kids who desperately want to hear that they can get have a great relationship with a boyfriend or girlfriend without sleeping with them, that they are not doomed to follow the foolishness of the crowd, that there are ways to maneuver the land mines of a sexually charged society and end up with the kind of relationship they instinctively want to have.  They want to be taught how to do what they're convinced is the right thing, because they don't know how to do it now.  We must offer abstinence education for those kids.

And I get frustrated at the people who insist that abstinence education is only the domain of the church.  Why do we assume that only "religious" kids would be interested?  That the only teenagers who could ever have an interest in dating without going all the way are those who have been taught by their parents or church that they should do this?

Why do we assume that saving sex for marriage is a value we cannot present in a public school without stepping on people’s liberty?  We present values about exercising, abstaining from alcohol and drugs, eating healthy, staying in school, going to college, volunteering in your community, recycling, voting . . . we teach all sorts of values in the public schools. We're not afraid of offending the obese by teaching their kids how to eat healthy.  We're not afraid of offending the high school dropouts by teaching their kids the importance of staying in school.

But sexual abstinence we can't touch.  I really don't get it.

On Maturity

One of my daughters has been hurt by the accusation from certain friends that she is “immature”.  Now, I realize that I’m her mother, and I’m not objective.  And I know she has her faults, as does she.  But I would defy any objective adult to look at my daughter and her accusers and tell me that she is the least mature of the group.

I love this facepalm monkey.

Hubby and I have tried to explain to her that the problem, we think, is how these kids define maturity.   Their definitions have nothing to do with character and everything to do with lifestyle and experience.  My twelve-year-old daughter doesn’t wear make-up and isn’t into fashion and how she looks.  To them, this is a sign of immaturity.  Every "mature" girl they know their age is trying desperately to make themselves as attractive as possible to boys.

My daughter isn’t "boy crazy".  She has crushes on boys, but she doesn’t act silly around them and she doesn’t avoid their presence for fear of doing something embarrassing.  She is a big fan of Max Schneider, a Nickelodeon star, (in fact, she created her own fan blog – give her a thrill and check it out here), but she doesn’t act all kooky and gaga over him.  To her friends, this is immaturity.  Every "mature" girl they know their age is obsessed with boys, because that’s what is supposed to happen when you hit the middle school years and stop being a little girl.

My daughter doesn’t watch "Degrassi" or other shows of a similar nature aimed at kids her age.  She thinks the sexual content of these shows is ridiculous.  Keep in mind, she’s had crushes on boys since she was five, so it’s not like she’s not into the opposite sex yet.  She just doesn't buy into the idea that teenage romance must inherently involve stupidity – and she thinks shows that glorify stupid teenage romances are stupid.  To her friends, this is immature.  Every "mature" girl they know their age longs for the kinds of relationships they see portrayed in such programs and will take any opportunity they get to have one.

Of course, it now occurs to me . . . every other girl that these friends know goes to school.

There's an old joke among homeschoolers: when someone asks, "Aren't you worried about your kids' socialization?" they say, "Absolutely!  That's why we homeschool!"

"Sex Makes You Stupid"

My youngest introduced me recently to a song that her sister introduced her to:  Maroon 5’s “One More Night”.  She was hesitant about the song at first because, she said, the lyrics seemed to be “very inappropriate” (her words . . . obviously introjected from a lifetime with me).  But as she listened, she decided that the lyrics actually had a pretty good message.

But baby there you again, there you again making me love you
Yeah I stopped using my head, using my head let it all go
Got you stuck on my body, on my body like a tattoo
And now I'm feeling stupid, feeling stupid crawling back to you . . .

“I think,” she said, “that this is about how now that they’ve had sex, they're having a hard time leaving even though they realize this is a really lousy relationship.”  Looking at the full lyrics, I think that’s a reasonable interpretation.

And it seems all the more reasonable to me in light of an article a friend recently shared with me titled, “Sex Makes You Stupid”.  The author talks about how sex has a physiological effect of “clouding your vision”, giving you a case of temporary amnesia about certain transgressions and faults in your spouse.  And this is a good thing in a healthy marriage.  When you spend so much time together over many years, it is important to be able to let go of the minor annoyances and missteps.  God "programmed" that little blessing into the sex act to help smooth out the rough places in our marriages.

However, what is a blessing and a bond-enhancer in a marriage can be disastrous in a dating relationship.  Have you ever met anyone who is in a relationship where there are being treated like crap?  And you’ve wondered, why in the WORLD do they put up with this?  Why can’t they see this for what it really is?  I bet you that nine times out of ten, that couple is sleeping together.  Sex clouds your vision.  And you do NOT want your vision clouded during the part of the relationship where you are figuring out if you can trust this person with your heart.

I’m very glad my daughter gets this.  And very impressed that she seemed to get it before I even brought it up.  Not bad for a twelve-year-old.

Dear Teenage Boys

Having a lovely 16-year-old girl in my home has resulted in my being exposed to an interesting array of goofy teenage boys.  Okay, so the goofiness isn’t always a primary quality of their characters, but they definitely have their goofy ways.  I so often find myself wanting to sit these boys down and fill them in on things.  Particularly on the ways of women. 

Of course, I resist the temptation.  I don’t want to be THAT mom.  Both of my girls would probably be mortified.  But I have a blog and can write what I want here, so here goes my lecture:

 

Boys, you stress about the wrong things.  Looks just aren’t that big of a deal.  Yes, get a decent haircut, take care of your skin, pick your clothes with a bit of care, and bathe regularly.  But the girls who refuse to date anyone who is not drop-dead gorgeous are not the kind of girls you want a relationship with anyway -- they will constantly be looking around for a better-looking guy.

Being fit and active is attractive, but wash-board abs are pointless.  Scrap the stupid photos of yourself shirtless in front of the bathroom mirror.  Nobody cares – and again, the girls who do care are not girls you want.

Money – meh.  It comes and goes.  Same with all the material things – cars and such.  Athletic ability is admirable, but no more so than any other ability.  No, I'm not kidding about that.  I know it seems like the jocks get all the attention, but that's just because their ability is out there for display more.

You want to know the number one quality that makes a guy attractive to a girl?  Here it is – the magic formula:  CONFIDENCE.  Not arrogance – that’s something else entirely (don't miss that crucial point).  When a guy is confident . . . when he knows who he is, what he can do and can’t do, what he values, what he believes, where he intends to go in life . . . when he can stand up to criticism without wilting, when he can accept challenge as a welcome opportunity to grow . . . I'm telling you, this is almost irresistible.  I have seen some really homely-looking men fighting off beautiful woman after beautiful woman because of the air of confidence they have around them.  To a woman, they feel solid.  Reliable.  Strong.  Safe.  A rock.  Don’t under-estimate the strong female need for security.

Now, I'm not going to lie to you and tell you that girls your age are mature enough to pick the average-looking confident boy over the arrogant, popular jock.  They are still in high school.  They are still immature.  But I will tell you that they will respect you more, and they will come to you when their arrogant jock boyfriends let them down -- which they always will.  AND, I can almost assure you: once you get to the later college years and beyond, you will have it all over the shallow pretty-boys. 

Confidence is key.  Start building that confidence now -- not by acting confident when you have no reason to be so (that's arrogance), but by doing the legitimate work to become a man whom a woman would want someday.  Get an education.  Figure out what you're good at and get better at it.  Find your weaknesses and work on them.  Have a vision for your future that is realistic and exciting.  Be passionate about something that matters.  Do hard things.  Find an identity that has nothing to do with who's crushing on you.  Know thyself, as Socrates says.  Get to know the God who made you so he can fill you in about what you were made for.

And be patient.  You'll thank me someday.

 

Talking Like a Teenager

Being the language buff that I am, I’m fascinated by the terminology that teenagers are using these days to describe relationships.  It’s a very relevant topic for me, because conversations with my eldest daughter are almost incomprehensible without a good understanding of the current lingo.

For example, when I was in school and a person started a relationship with another person that qualified as a “boyfriend/girlfriend” relationship, we would say that they were “going together”.  Now, even then, when I considered it much, I thought that was an odd way to phrase it.  But that was the term.  A boy would ask a girl, “You wanna go with me?” and she knew exactly what that meant.

Today, however, a couple in such a situation is said to be “going out” -- even back when they were far too young to be dating.  Suzy is going out with Johnny.  Roderick is going out with Elmira.  The first few times my daughter said something like that, I was confused because “going out” to me, in that context, simply means that they are going to go out on a date – there may or may not be any long-term sense of commitment involved there, but best to assume not. 

Monkey facepalm.  Love it.

But oh, no – it is apparently not acceptable with teenagers these days to go on even one date with someone without assuming an implied commitment there.  There is no such thing as casual dating – or going on a date with, say, Suzy this Friday and Elmira next Friday, just because you have some interest in both girls and want to get to know each of them better to see who you might like to pursue a more committed relationship with.  No, no – such a person is a player.

(Now, “player” – I like that term.  Although apparently, it is only used to describe a boy.  A girl who behaves in this way is a “slut” – or less pejoratively, a “flirt” – or on occasion, a “girl player”.  But I digress.)

I haven’t decided how I feel about this new attitude toward dating.  If it meant that they were avoiding going on “dates” and just trying to get to know each other through friendships before making commitments, I would be quite happy with that.  But instead, it seems that they are jumping into committed dating relationships as an effort to get to know someone – only to get to know them and find out that they don’t like them – and so they’re constantly pairing up and breaking up.  No.  Not good.

And then there’s talking.  This is the pre-dating stage that we, in my day, just called “flirting”.  Suzy and Johnny aren’t going out yet, but they’re talking.  Let me tell you, this term opens the door to some ridiculous dialogues.  “Roderick was talking to Elmira.”  “Roderick and Elmira were talking?”  “Yeah, about how Elmira and Julio are talking.”   “Wait – who’s talking?”  “Elmira and Julio.”  “But you just said Roderick and Elmira were talking.”  “No, not talking.  Just talking.” 

*SIGH*  Facepalm.  SMH.  (Yep.  Got the lingo down.)

 

Let's Make a Case for Modesty

I saw this on FB last week and haven’t been able to let go of it.  Dick Gregory reportedly has said, “If I’m a woman and I’m walking down the street naked, you still don’t have the right to rape me.”  Alrighty then.  Duly noted, Mr. Gregory.

And if I have a house full of expensive electronic equipment and leave town for a week with the front door standing wide open, you still don’t have the right to rob me.  And if I take $40,000 out of the ATM, spread it on my dashboard and leave the car in the mall parking lot with the windows open, you don’t have the right to take it.  My stupidity does not justify your evil.  However, my stupidity may still be worthy of mention and rebuke.

I understand Mr. Gregory’s point.  To blame a woman for her rape because she dressed or behaved seductively is inexcusable.  The rapist is to blame for the rape – and he should come under the full penalty of the law regardless of how the woman was looking or behaving.  And if the legal system is allowing rapists to get away with their crime because of the behavior of their victims, this should be changed.  No reasonable human being would argue this.

But is it not worth noting that a woman who chooses to dress and behave seductively in an environment where there are likely to be bad men who will have no qualms about taking that bait she’s offering – laid out on the dashboard with the windows open – well, she’s being stupid!  When did the right to “express your sexuality” become the freedom to flaunt your goods to the world and think that you should never have to worry about bad guys trying to take them without permission?  Nobody else has that “freedom”.  We all know there are bad guys out there and we lock up and protect our goods from them.  We drive defensively – we lock our houses – we pocket our billfolds – and we cover up our boobs.

There’s a line here between freedom and responsibility, and I’m seeing too many feminists dance a little too close to it.

Three Reasons Not To Date

Not to sound all crotchety and super-legalistic (I mean, my daughter dates), but I think it’s unfortunate that most kids these days just jump into the dating scene because that’s what everybody does and they don’t want to look like an undesirable loser.  Allow me to offer some good reasons NOT to date until you’re ready to actually find a spouse.

1) Dating is not a realistic environment in which to get to know someone – or even necessarily to learn about the opposite sex.  On a date, the stated intention is to go out and have a good time together.  You’re separated from others.  There are formulas and expectations for how one behaves on a date.  This is not real life.  The person you become acquainted with is not the real person.

You want to get to know someone?  Spend time hanging out with their family – watch how they treat their parents, their siblings, their possessions.  Work with them – see how they handle responsibility and challenges and difficulties.  Serve with them – find out where their passions lie . . . and don’t lie.  Separate the two goals of romance and entertainment.  Don’t look for romance just to give you something fun to do.  When you've gotten to know someone enough to know they could be "the one", then you can enjoy the romance.

2) Dating essentially trains you for divorce.  At least, dating as it is typically done by young people these days.  Consider:  you “commit” to someone as their boyfriend or girlfriend; you have good times together; and then when it’s getting stressful . . . when it’s not fun anymore . . . when somebody better comes along . . . you break up.  And for many kids, this happens over and over and over. 

How in the world is this supposed to prepare you for a life-long commitment where you may be – and most likely WILL be – required to persevere through trials, hardships, and (worst of all) boredom?  The simple answer is, it doesn’t.  It bruises you and makes your heart tender to the touch – which only complicates later relationships.  (Yeah, I expect some fallout from this one . . . )

3) Dating requires you to focus energy and attention on one person, at a time in your life when there are so many other things that need your focus.  Your teen and young adult years are so important and so valuable.  This is when you are truly discovering your gifts and passions for life.  Honing your skills.  Finding your calling.  Without time-consuming relational commitments (i.e. spouse and family – and boyfriends/girlfriends), you are available to do other important things: volunteer work, career-building, education . . . the stuff that makes you you far more than a romance does.

Besides: doing these things now will make you more romance-able later.  Boys, the best way you can attract a girl is to be confident in yourself and to have good reason for that confidence.  Girls, when the boys grow up and get serious about their women, they’ll want someone with more going for them than good looks and a lot of experience with other boys.  Your dating relationship should NOT define you; you are something else beyond that.  Lay the foundational work of becoming who you were created to be before adding the hard work of growing and maintaining a romantic relationship. 

Don’t read this as a call to strict, all-out “courtship”, as so many homeschoolers do.  I respect kids who choose that path (although I question the wisdom of parents who force it on their kids).  But no, this is a call to living life intentionally – not falling into default mode because you’re following the crowd – thinking about what you want to accomplish with the behavior you are indulging in.  That’s a radical move for a teenager.  Be the best kind of radical.

It's Just Your Ordinary, Run-of-the-Mill Sinfulness, Folks

I expect to arouse some ire with this one.

I have friends who are quite passionate about women's rights and misogyny and such. I simply cannot relate to their passion. Some days, I wonder if I should be worried about myself.

It's not that I don't realize that women have rights that are sometimes violated and that there are misogynistic men in the world. I know about human trafficking -- it's horrific. I know in some places women are literally considered property and objects -- that's appalling. These evils need to be conquered.

But, for instance, the Rush Limbaugh comment. Yeah, the man's a loudmouth jerk sometimes, and he definitely overstepped the line there. But I have a very hard time taking his remark personally as a woman. I don't think he said that because he hates women -- he said it because he's a loudmouth jerk. To everyone.

I honestly can't recall any time in my life when I have felt mistreated, demeaned, or held back in any way because I was a female. Well, beyond little boys believing that little girls have cooties . . . that kind of thing. There have often been things that I wanted to do and couldn't do, but my gender had nothing to do with it. I have felt disregarded or belittled by others, but my gender had nothing to do with it. I have been treated unjustly, but my gender had nothing to do with it. Hearing my friends' rants often brings to mind a conversation overheard in the hallways of the high school I taught in:

"You just hate me because I'm hispanic!"
"No, I hate you because you're a JERK."

Injustice happens in our world . . . and often gender, and race, and sexual orientation, and social class have absolutely nothing to do with it. People behave like jerks not because of who you are but because of who they are.

Again, I don't want to sound insensitive or imply that I don't think bigotry and hatred exist and should be dealt with. But I do want to imply -- no, to state very plainly -- that I think many people are overly sensitive to such things and see a particular brand of focused hatred where plain sinfulness exists. Most men who treat women like crap also treat other men like crap -- they don't respect women because they don't respect anyone, including themselves. They push everyone down in an effort to pull themselves up. They have a much bigger problem than misogyny, and making it all about their hatred of women is making it all about YOU. It's bringing the spotlight on you, the poor oppressed one. It's your own version of pushing them down to pull yourself up.

I'm not a big Oprah fan, but there's a quote of hers that I love: "Excellence is the best deterrent to racism or sexism." Excellence . . . and the kingdom of God. Let's concern ourselves with those two things, and the rest will fall into place.

The Sexes, According To My Daughter

I haven't written for a while -- end of the school year, a fried laptop, and now I'm traveling with the girls to Ohio for a wedding. But my eldest shared in the car yesterday a list she found on her laptop of differences she had noted between her guy friends and her girl friends. I've always thought my daughter has a lot of insight into people -- she reads them well. And here is evidence.

According her my 15-year-old, boys . . .
- Never have final decisions
- Are unobservant, unless REALLY interested in something.
- think about one subject at a time
- love food.
- like compliments, but not cutesy ones.
- are pros at flirting, but can't handle relationships.
- need everything to be obvious, subtle hints don't work. (!!!)
- don't just listen to problems, they solve them.
- only learn from experience.
- jump to conclusions.
- only understand yes or no answers.

Girls, on the other hand . . .
- need a reason for everything.
- have everything connected in their brains.
- crave attention.
- look ahead in relationships, but are very stupid when flirting.
- take everything to the extreme.
- try to analyze every move you make, but get confused.
- cry together over problems, but never get anywhere solving them.
- expect life to be like a TV show or romance novel.

Does anyone else find all this rather accurate and insightful for a 15-year-old? I wish I knew this much about boys at her age. (Of course, having the knowledge and acting on the knowledge are different things . . . )