Here’s a weirdie to end your Friday with:
Couple’s gender secret for baby touches off debate
By LEANNE ITALIE
Associated PressNEW YORK (AP) — Ridiculous or ultra-enlightened? A Toronto couple’s decision to keep the gender of their 4-month-old baby a secret has touched off a sometimes nasty debate over how far parents should go in protecting young ones from society’s boy-girl biases.
Kathy Witterick and David Stocker recently landed on the front page of the Toronto Star, explaining that they hope their third child, Storm, can remain untouched by the connotations of pink versus blue, male versus female, long enough to make up his or her own mind.
The decision has online haters and supporters of the family on hyperdrive. Child development experts, meanwhile, question the impact on the cherubic infant later in life and whether the couple has gone too far in their quest for gender neutrality….
Make up his or her mind about WHAT? I mean, that should be a fairly simple process. The baby is in the bathtub or being changed, looks down, and the mystery is solved. Mind made up. Then the baby can turn his/her full attention to pursuing a legal name change…
Related Posts
The baby has a sex, but gender expectations are what this couple are trying to circumvent. This may be very hard for a traditionalist like you, but as someone of the female persuasion who has had to navigate the very confusing waters of gender post-second wave feminism, I clearly understand what the parents are trying to do. Kudos to them.
Raise her/him in a Skinner Box too!
Well, someone had better make a decision before the baby is potty-trained. He/she will need to use a public restroom sometime in the future.
I’m with Kathryn. Let’s not be so judgemental about people who make somewhat different decisions about how to raise their children. The concept has some merit.
Why did they name the baby? Shouldn’t they have waited and let the baby name itself?
Or they should have named it Neuter.
This one sentence pretty much captures all the components for this exercise in solipsism:
“Kathy Witterick and David Stocker recently landed on the front page of the Toronto Star, explaining that they hope their third child, Storm,”
Different surnames: unmarried couple most likely
Storm: Let’s pick a weird name to show people how cool WE are
front page: We have no real talent but why should that prevent us from getting our moment in the sun?
This will end badly.
Another quote from the news article about their older “son”:
“Five-year-old Jazz, for example, just picked out a pink dress which he loves because it ‘really poofs out at the bottom’ and ‘feels so nice’.”
These are the moron parents who make life miserable for school teachers later on by expecting society to conform to their kooky ideas.
“Mr Stocker is a teacher at a school where lessons are framed by social justice issues. Mrs Witterick is now a stay-at-home mother who practises ‘unschooling’ – that is, home schooling driven by a child’s curiosity rather than a schedule or tests.
The family ‘co-sleeps’ on two mattresses pushed together on the floor of the master bedroom.”
They’re probably pushing for a reality show… “The Audacity of Dopes”
For all those people out there who insist that America is an exceptional nation this incident serves as a test. If you can embrace this as a part of the American spirit, to conduct family affairs as one sees fit, without being judgemental and overtly critical then yes America may very well qualify as an exceptional nation. If, on the other hand, large numbers of people condemn this as something on the lunatic fringe and indeed ostracize this family for their decision, then no America is not yet and exceptional nation.
Um, Bud — these people live in Canada. And what they are doing is both lunatic and fringe. As Doug says, this will end badly — for the child. If the parents are allowed to retain custody . And probably even if they are not. No-win situation at this point…
Hmmm. This is more complicated than everyone seems to be saying. In past years I would have condemned them. Now, not so sure. Look, ultimately they efforts are doomed to failure; whether that results in a spectacular crash or a slow re-evaluation of life and the children’s needs remains an open question.
Yes, they are seeking attention and possibly putting theory before parenting. But Doug, they are a nuclear family, by whatever name. They are trying to raise children. Too many people give up on that.
Every once in awhile, I agree with you, Doug. This is one, pretty much.
If “unschooling” is the movement I’m thinking it is, I abhor it. It is a really bad idea, except for children under 3 – that is their natural style of learning – they need adults to follow their lead and provide linguistic input to whatever they are paying attention to. After that a large part of learning is dealing with adapting to the structure and routine and expectations of the outside world. “Unschooling” completely rejects that premise. I don’t know what will happen to those children when they have to get a job in the real world.
Kathryn, I think I understand what the parents are trying to do, but I think their reasoning is flawed. Children don’t develop in a vacuum. The control in this situation is not lack of input, which seems to be what they are trying to do. I don’t think I’m articulating this well. I think our brains expect to be socialized through exposure to societal norms – if there ends up being a internal conflict there, then how the parents handle and the child negotiates the conflict determines whether you end up with a well adjusted functioning human being on the other end – flexibility and compassion are important in that process. But I don’t think lack of exposure to societal norms is the answer. I don’t think our brains know what to do with lack of input. We need a starting point – right or wrong, and we evolve from there.
I may not have explained that well. Just my opinion.
Uh, Doug–many people are married but have different last names. Many, many…
Look, I’m all for the kind of board the French have that won’t let you name your kid just any crazy name–you do handicap a child with a nonstandard (read: ethnic, particularly African-American) name–it has been shown in studies–
but Storm doesn’t strike me as all that out there–it is a common last name for one thing, like Douglas and Bradley….
It’s amazing that these two are oblivious to the fact this is really all about imposing their thinking/will on the poor kid and not about letting the kid decide.
What’s to decide? He/she is one or the other.
If he/she “decided” to play in traffic, would they just stand there?
I think this is yet another case of the race for 15 minutes of fame. Can a reality show to document their experimentation with the kid be far behind?
How will this end badly? Look at how successfully the Hollywood celebrity kids turned out who were raised in similar conditions.
I find it interesting those on the liberal side here don’t seem to have a problem with this, those on the conservative side see the parents, for who they truly are… unfit morons.
End badly? Children grow up in military households where they are taught to use guns and go out and kill helpless animals. Eventually these same young people go out and hunt down human beings in conflicts against imaginary enemies. Those people may get shor or maimed. Yet those parents are considered normal, even heros. Sheesh people. I expect this kind of narrow mindedness from Brad, but frankly I’m disappointed in libertarian Doug. And by the way it’s irrelevant that this is in Canada. The folks condeming it are the issue not the people themselves.
All I can think is “those parents” and “those parents” are never any fun.
I embrace the fact that I can be just as darn judgmental and overtly critical of dingbats (and anyone else) as I see fit, bud. And I acknowledge that my fellow Americans can be judgmental and overtly critical of me. If that makes America an unexceptional nation, then so be it; but I don’t really think that studying “social justice” and failing to teach your children that certain realities exist in the world qualify people or a nation as exceptional. In my traditional (proudly traditional) opinion, they qualify the parents as failures as well as parents with really bad ideas. (I’m trying to be nice here.) One of the exceptional things about America and a few other nations such as Canada is that in most cases parents are allowed to act just as absurdly as they wish unless the mean old government proves the children are in grave danger.
Idiots like these parents are also a good example of one of the many reasons why people like me will NEVER be libertarians. Please note that liberals and libertarians are getting very close in some of their beliefs. I suppose that several people here will be happy to give us a history of classic liberalism and its many variations, compare and contrast, and so forth.
As for me, I would just like to say that I thank God that He blessed me with parents that had common sense and traditional values—and I feel extremely sorry for the poor kids in that article.
First, Bud really has a HIGH-larious notion of what it’s like to grow up in a “military household.” (Should I feel aggrieved, as a member of a demographic groups toward which Bud is prejudiced? Sorry; it’s not in me.)
What did you find hardest about it, Burl? Me, I’m still traumatized from that time when I was 3 and I had to peel potatoes for a week after I failed to reassemble my BAR blindfolded in less than 3 minutes…
Also, Bud… the reason I mentioned Canada is that you, by way of gyrations I had a little trouble following, thought this was some sort of allegory about THIS country. When it was Canada…
Anyway, here’s the thing: Boys and girls are different. This is not a bad thing. It is a good thing. It is ESSENTIAL to the survival of the species.
Recognizing this, and even embracing it, is not about being “traditional.” It’s not a cultural thing. It’s not a religious thing. It’s about recognizing reality, about understanding the fundamental dynamics of how this species works. If you consider it, say, from a Darwinian point of view, you are even MORE likely to understand the importance of the differences between male and female than if you approach it from a traditional point of view.
The only way you don’t see it is if you are blinded by an ideological trend of the moment. And by “moment” I’m speaking of the last few decades, which is a very brief time in evolutionary terms (evolution and religion have that in common).
I may raise an eyebrow at some of the odd things that adults will do in the name of this and other ideologies, but that’s about it, unless they’re hurting other people.
But to try to twist a child away from nature to ideology is unforgivable. My libertarian friends, this is probably a case in which the state really should step in in loco parentis for the sake of the child. Because these parents are about as loco as they get…
Mark wants to give these parents credit for at least trying. I wonder about that. I wonder whether this is one of those rare cases in which the child might be better off raised by wolves, rather than being subjected to such parental attention…
Let me be clear. I don’t agree with this couple. All 3 of my children were taught at an early age a certain sexual identity. My point is we have to accept differences in the way people think. As a great nation we should tolerate and even try to understand what makes people think and act as they do. It’s easy to accept that some people have different skin color. And it’s becoming acceptable that some folks have a proclivity to be sexual attracted to those of the same gender. So why is a somewhat avant gard approach to child rearing such a subject for ridicule?
Calling them “loco” as Brad does or “moron parents” as Doug does doesn’t really help to view the world in a broad, all-inclusive context. We should strive to accept people for raising their children to use firearms even though it may be an appauling way of life. We should accept that people have differneces in religious beliefs even when there may be evidence that those beliefs are dangerous. Political differences are accepted in our society as part of the process even though folks on both sides of an issue believe their political opponents are misguided. And so too should we accept a difference in how to teach children about their bodies and self-identity even if we choose an alternate approach.
So yes I cannot accept the idea that America is exceptional until we can be tolerant of all ways of life, all beliefs, and all ways of parenting. This is one of those areas where libertarians have it right.
As a lifelong feminist, I don’t believe in holding people back because of gender stereotypes. However, since I’m aware of the world I live in I’m also aware that there are intrinsic gender differences and that to deny this is deny reality. I watch my two cats. No one raised one to play with the dolls and the other to shoot guns. However, even someone who didn’t know cats could guess which was female and which male, without an anatomical review.
I suspect that this parental experiment will fail before too long, done in by simple everyday reality.
Let’s frame this question just slightly different. Should the parenting procedures of this couple be a violation of the law? I would suggest this is not very different from the pro-life/choice conflict.
Brad, the child is four months old. The important thing is to care for the baby, to feed it, change it, interact with it, love and comfort it. Wolves can’t do that. Caring, involved parents can.
Does anyone really believe that this experiment will extend past 24 months? On the other hand, if it does then I will join you in disparaging this misguided parenting – especially the schooling nonsense (biology is biology). However, at this time I’ll withhold judgment.
I don’t know; I have a different opinion of harm; I am much more concerned about neglected and home-schooled children. Both are ways to really stunt a child’s future in this world. Home-schooling has somehow been subverted as traditional when it is actually simply abusive to deprive a child in this way – short of extenuating location circumstances such as sailing around the world or something equally enriching. Let’s talk about these knuckleheaded parents…
@bud
You don’t seem to grasp the concept of libertarianism. I don’t have any problem with these parents raising their children however they choose. My problem stems from the decision to allow their parenting choices to become front page news. At that point, they are inviting commentary from everyone else. Whatever they do behind closed doors (without causing physical/mental harm to their children) is perfectly fine.
But, when you decide to make it “news”, I have to think about why they would be doing that. First, it seems to represent a growing attitude of “look at how off the wall I can be!” Second, I think they are borderline delusional to think that with two other young kids that they can keep the “secret” of their baby’s gender for more than, oh I don’t know, a month — well, unless they keep their kids isolated from interacting with any other humans. Anyone with a five year old like their kid Jazz knows he could blurt out anything at any time. And what pronouns do you use when speaking about your gender free kid? Can they really not slip up and say “He is hungry” or “Give her the toy”?
Plus, I think it’s laughable that these parents think they can allow their kids to choose their gender. Kids respond to the cues given by the parents. You think Mommy here isn’t either openly or subconsciously pushing little Jazz into the girls section at the clothes store? Or saying things like “You don’t have to cut your hair Jazz if you don’t want to. I think you’re extra special for wanting to grow it long.” There’s just as much influencing going on as in any household.
I say it will end badly because there are two likely outcomes: their kids will have great difficulty fitting into society as they grow older or else they will rebel once they hit a certain age and explore ways to act out.
And, anyway, I don’t know what the big deal is. Look at the picture. The baby is a boy. I’d bet $100 on it.
I would however pay a great deal of money to see Mom’s reaction the first time 13 year old Jazz puts a Farrah Fawcett-style poster on his bedroom wall.
@Kathryn
I know there are married couples who do not share a surname. “Many” is a number. Percentage-wise, my experience in the real world says it’s less than 10%.
And now on today’s slate.com is a story about a single 33 year old guy who is trying to see if he can induce lactation via a breast pump.
http://www.slate.com/id/2295405/pagenum/all
He doesn’t have a child but just wants to see if it is possible. Or maybe just get famous for doing something stupid.
Which restroom will it choose? Which locker room will it shower in?
I’m only using “it” because we don’t know if “it” is a “she” or a “he”.
Now, I am not a male chauvinist pig. My wife is a talented computer programmer; but she had a boss who thought that women should be barefoot and pregnant. Her boss was a jerk! He made her life miserable while she was working for it.
There’s a lot of focus on STEM, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math education. Those are high paying fields. We need to encourage all to work in those fields.
bud write: “Calling them “loco” as Brad does or “moron parents” as Doug does doesn’t really help to view the world in a broad, all-inclusive context.”
Maybe, but it sure does simplify what kind of people they really are.
So raising cats and raising children are equally the same? What about raising dogs?
I seriously doubt that a paragraph or two in an AP article accurately describes these parents or their situation. Maybe an effort to increase readership. Bud, thanks for your rational comments.
Just 23 comments on this post. Wonder if we can make it to 83 comments like the “Geronimo, bin Laden, history and popular culture” post? That must be the record, but I don’t visit as often as I used to.
In my military household, we learned how to shoot guns, and in the process, learned how to respect their ability to cause terrible grief.
This story is the equivalent of the weird car-wreck story on the Today Show. Its just weird, they have it on video, so we gawk. Other than that who cares? I don’t think it signals the end times, and with all the kids in this state living in squalor, being killed in infancy by deranged or neglectful parents, I think there are bigger issues.
Mark, I was assuming exceptionally affectionate, CARING wolves…
Don’t be so dismissive. Romulus and Remus did OK. While they may not have done it in a day, they did after all build Rome…
I liked the Swedish couple who said it was cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead. Which I thought was funny, since we all come into the world with a “gender stamp”, just not on our forehead.
Doug–You live in a different universe (Venn diagram speaking) than I do. Most female lawyers in big firms keep their “maiden” names. Most female academics do, too. I only took my husband’s name because it was one of only two requests he’s ever made, and it’s easier to spell and pronounce correctly than “Braun”–which is pronounced the German way, like the color brown.In Buffalo and other German-American heavy regions, that is not a problem, but somehow folks around here can’t handle one syllable, five letters, sounds like a common word. Oy!
If Steve’s last name had been Slachetka or such, you’d be speaking to Kathryn Braun.
OK, I had something to say, but now I’m distracted, trying to imagine “forehead porn”… or at least forehead cheesecake… hubba-hubba, check out the brow on HER…
I think we come into this world with a sex stamp. Gender is socially determined.
I can see Cosmo’s cover story:
“Can a unibrow be sexy?”
I’m not too worried about this kid. The parents probably think they are providing a gender-neutral environment, but once the kid is old enough to notice the differences between male and female, there will most likely be enough gender cues from the parents to invalidate their little experiment. For instance, I’d bet even money that, while both Mommy and Daddy wear pants or slacks a lot, Mommy might wear a dress occasionally, but Daddy never does.
Nick, he’s probably a kilt wearer… never have figured out guys in Columbia wearing skirts in public (or private).
“Five-year-old Jazz, for example, just picked out a pink dress which he loves because it ‘really poofs out at the bottom’ and ‘feels so nice’.”
Good for him, and kudos to the parents for fighting gender stereotyping.
This morning in an opinion piece in the WSJ, the writer (an academic) made this passing reference: “Part of the problem is the political correctness responsible for ‘Gender Studies,’ a politicized major that has its little echoes in many other departments, and that never fails to mislead.”
I sort of thought I knew what he meant about the “little echoes” throughout academe, but I sort of wanted him to elaborate.
Now that I’ve read both Maude’s and Kathryn’s (original) comments above, I don’t think I need any further explanation as to what he meant. It’s astounding the things that people who went to college when I did, and later, will choose to believe… for instance, that a little boy having a liking for a pink dress “which he loves because it ‘really poofs out at the bottom’ and ‘feels so nice'” is some sort of victory over something called “gender stereotyping,” and therefore something to be applauded…
Wow.
Kathryn shared with me, over the weekend, this link that attempts to set the record, um, straight, and make the mom seem less weird. It contains this statement: “…she’s taught her kids to think about gender and identity both critically and sensitively, which is a good thing.”
OK, I get “sensitively,” up to a point. But critically?
Double-you Tee Eff? Or, as Snoop Dogg would say, “Say what, say what?”
What. Utter. Nonsense.
Teaching a 10 year old how to blow the brains out of a defenseless deer is somehow less weird that allowing a child a bit of latitude in how to dress himself? Yet that seems to be the case. It’s all a matter of perspective. What a bizarre world we live in.
Gets readers and comments though!
Brad’s not interested in Congressional politics in Buffalo but gets apoplectic over (admittedly off the wall) parenting by one couple in Toronto?
More, and more serious, damage is done daily to children right here in our home state. Poverty, educational neglect, physical abuse, drug addiction, ignorance, fringe “religious” practices, etc. would all be just as funny – if they were humorous. If we want to yack it up over rediculous parenting, we sit in the middle of a rich pool of possibilities.
@Mark
But you can’t talk about specific parenting issues in South Carolina without running the risk of being labeled a racist.
bud, would you prefer the deer population to explode and have the 10 year old witness a deer die of starvation or disease? A good hunter will not aim for the head, he’ll aim for the spot just behind a front leg where a shot will take out the heart and both lungs. The deer will be dead before he hits the ground.
I have to ask, is bud a vegetarian or vegan?
Who “Parents?”. Are you a “Parentor” if you “Parent?”
ApPARENTly.
[like] What Mark Stewart said.
I need a special emoticon for that one, I’m thinking….
Steven is a typical conservative with a limited ability to see any other solution than the brute force approach of killing, killing and more killing. Seems to me we could trap the deer and sterilize them. It would put people to work and keep down the surplus population.
Doug,
So let’s talk specifics. I have never known you to shy away from a strongly worded statement…
As an outsider, I generally see people apply the racist label when they are offended by the way the statement is made more than the content of the statement. On the other hand, it is also true that speakers seem to have a common problem of associating a given behavior with a racial background without considering whether or not the behavior is more related to socio-economic determinents, let alone the jim crow conditions of the past.
@Mark
There are specific social problems that are significantly more prevalent in the black communities of South Carolina: dropout rates, teen pregnancy, gang violence, homelessness, etc.
Where are the leaders of the black community standing up in public to address those issues? And by addressing those issues, I mean not expecting more government spending to resolve it. Teen pregnancy is an issue that doesn’t cost a dime to prevent. It DOES require setting standards and making people understand that society should not just accept that behavior — especially when it creates a very real burden on those people who have to provide the support.
The message from the politicians and the pulpits should be driven home daily: “If you have a baby while you are still in school, you are a fool. If you impregnate a girl you are not married to nor living with, you are an idiot”. Start calling out the bad behavior instead of just providing assistance after the baby is born.
And here’s some data to support my statement:
SC Teen pregnancy rate (white): 63
SC Teen pregnancy rate (black): 101
SC Teen pregnancy rate (hispanic): 212
Those number are from 2005 per 1000 girls age 15-19. I doubt they are better today.
Was going to stay out of this, but had to agree with Mark’s comment about “more serious, damage is done daily to children right here in our home state. Poverty, educational neglect, physical abuse, drug addiction, ignorance, fringe “religious” practices” etc.
It’s easy to mock these parents and I think they probably are richly deserving of it. But I also grieve for the children of many (not all) so-called “conventional” families that I see all around me here in SC…children who are taken to church every Sunday from infancy, spoon-fed a set of religious beliefs (given no more choice in the matter than Storm is about his/her future) , and raised to “fit in” to the dominant conformist culture particularly prevalent in this region, that is to say a culture which fakes spiritualism but is instead supremely materialistic, espouses the values of the free market above all else as if it too were a religion, encourages consumerism in the place of citizenship, and severely discourages critical thinking. These kids don’t get onto reality TV for us to pity or mock; many of them in fact have grown up to be the political “leaders” with which we are currently saddled, particularly in this region. The externals of their upbringing seem “normal” to us but in their zealous pursuit of the unexamined life, in my mind they are as much to be pitied as “poor” Storm.
Phillip – Well said.
Doug – Did you see my words about the method of delivery? Your first line brought up what is bad in black communities; you went right for it without even trying to establish objectivity. But then your facts belied your statement [it’s hispanics who have a teen pregnancy issue much more than blacks!]. So we can be fair, give me a list of bad parenting practices which seem more prevalent in white households.
And last, do you really believe that a teen is going to care about the hypothetical burden that they might place on an unknown tax-payer if they do something like get pregnant? Come on! Any kid in that situation is not even thinking of the obligation such action will likely put on their own family. You want them to think about you?
You think the preachers aren’t preaching against teen pregnancy? I go to church in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Columbia, and I hear it from the pulpit in church, among the parishioners, and preached in the neighborhood all the time, admonishing the young people not to be having babies! If it only took communicating the message to get teenagers to quit having the babies, the problem would already be solved.
But what really irks me is this: why do white people in the suburbs assume that black or hispanic people support this kind of behavior in general? It’s like people who assume that Muslim leaders are pro-terrorist because they aren’t speaking out against terrorism, when actually, they speak out all the time. It’s maddening.
And it’s often accompanied by the idea that the person talking is the only one willing to “tell the truth” and deal with reality as it really is. In my experience, when I hear that meme starting up, the conclusions drawn are simplistic and not at all in line with reality.
Sorry to rant on you, Doug — I just hear a lot of talk like this from my suburban friends and family, and it gets old.
“Seems to me we could trap the deer and sterilize them. It would put people to work and keep down the surplus population.”
This just gets better and better!!!
Bud, you’ve lived your whole life in the city haven’t you.
Would we use the same unsuccessful sterilization program set up for dogs and cats? Or would we spend millions of tax dollars on studies and grants to develop new strategies?
Note to self – Invent a live deer trap, you’ll make bazillions!!!
I agreed with Phillip that “It’s easy to mock these parents and I think they probably are richly deserving of it.”
I can’t go along with his suspicions about raising children within a traditional, faith-based values system. It’s a very, very hard thing to do successfully, but it’s eminently worth trying to do.
My whole life I’ve heard about how horribly repressive and negative that supposedly is. And I remain unpersuaded. The biggest problem is that we so seldom see people successfully raising kids to embrace such values fully. The things that so many opponents of orthodoxy condemn are generally departures from what is taught, if the faith is taught right.
Perversions of everything, including good things, abound. That includes religion, capitalism, democracy, pretty much anything you can name — including parents’ fervent desire to protect their children from influences they deem harmful.
Come on #84! We can do it.
@SusanG
If the black and Hispanic communities don’t like it, whatever they are doing to stop it isn’t working. Think about it – 1 out of 5 teenage Hispanic girls is getting pregnant. It’s not a data blip, it is a distinct trend.
SOMEBODY is dropping the ball on this and it’s not the white people living in the suburbs. It starts with the individuals families… then the extended families… then the local community and churches.
Until there is a real stigma associated with the behavior and until the safety nets provided by others are removed, what incentive is there to stop kids from having kids?
Look at those birth rates and tell me what the state of South Carolina is going to look like in ten years. And I’m not talking about color – I’m talking about an exploding segment of low income teenagers demanding even more services. It’s unsustainable.
The birth rate data should be a red flag that is the sign of very difficult times coming down the road.
“So we can be fair, give me a list of bad parenting practices which seem more prevalent in white households.”
Ok, I will.
1) Excessive consumerism as Phillip said.
2) Helicopter parenting. Being involved in every aspect of a kid’s life so that they don’t ever have to make decisions, learn from mistakes, or (horrors) fail. I went to my son’s college orientation yesterday and the program lead had to explicitly state that they would NOT provide parents with grades or answer any questions about their performance unless the student signed a paper in his presence. Can you imagine calling a PROFESSOR to ask how your ADULT child is doing in class? They get it all the time now.
3) Over-scheduling activities. Running little Johnny from soccer, to piano, to karate, to cotillion. A symptom of the helicopter parenting.
4) Excessive involvement in the public schools – not in helping teachers do their jobs but in complaining about anything that you don’t like, disputing every bad behavior report, and expecting an a la carte experience.
Oh, and for the record, my wife and I have been guilty of #1, maybe a little but of #2 but only up til high school started, #3 only until it became obvious that it was a waste of time and money, and never #4
Perversions of everything, including good things, abound. That includes religion, capitalism, democracy, pretty much anything you can name — including parents’ fervent desire to protect their children from influences they deem harmful.
-Brad
Absolutely true but the point you miss is that society doesn’t condemn parents for taking their kids to church, participating in capatilism or voting. But just step outside the neat lines of conventional orthodoxy just a tad and lo and behold everyone is screaming about the moronic parents. My point about the deer hunting was simply to suggest that we have come to accept certain norms in our culture, shooting deer, without really examining this can be viewed as extreme by certain cultures. To me it would be completely unthinkable to take my child to a Catholic Church or go deer hunting with him. To me those things are extreme. But culturally speaking those things are regarded as normal while allowing a boy to wear a pink dress is outrageous. To me the 3 things are about equally weird.
“bud says: Teaching a 10 year old how to blow the brains out of a defenseless deer is somehow less weird that allowing a child a bit of latitude in how to dress himself? Yet that seems to be the case. It’s all a matter of perspective. What a bizarre world we live in.”
Agreed.
“The message from the politicians and the pulpits should be driven home daily: “If you have a baby while you are still in school, you are a fool. If you impregnate a girl you are not married to nor living with, you are an idiot” – Doug
I’ve never seen these admonitions addressed to teen boys first. I guess I should just be thankful you included them at all. I’m sick of girls getting all the s__t when we wax and wane over the tragedy of teen pregnancy. Which brings us back to the original topic of gender stereotypes and the roles they play in sexual discrimination.
Well, Maude, as you noted, Doug mentioned, the boy and the girl bear equal responsibility — which makes his comment an odd occasion for you to tee off on people NOT doing so.
And what are these “gender stereotypes,” and what sort of “sexual discrimination” are we speaking of?
I ask because sometimes those terms are used logically, and other times they are not. For instance, you would not refer to the fact that when a man and a woman have sex, if anyone gets pregnant it’s going to be the woman… a “stereotype” or “discrimination”? No, of course you wouldn’t. That’s just biology. And it’s pretty natural that society would rationally develop conventions built around an understanding of that fact. Is THAT “discrimination” or “stereotyping”? I’ve found that in certain ideological circles, the terms are slippery, and take us to odd places.
Recognizing that other people are male or female, and coming to grips with which one is oneself, are essential survival mechanisms, completely independent of politics.
And Bud and Phillip, it is beyond absurd to equate taking a child to church with trying to deny a child’s gender identity. Taking a child to church is (among many other things) actually one rational strategy for trying to instill in both male and female a sense of responsibility that would prevent them from having kids when they shouldn’t.
Trying to manipulate a child’s relationship to the world to the extent of closing off knowledge of something so fundamental as gender is a bizarre personal experiment with another person’s life — a helpless person, entirely dependent upon the people who are doing the experimenting, and almost certainly doomed to some sort of stressful dysfunction somewhere down the line, unless the parents snap out of it.
We KNOW this. Everybody knows this. But some folks get into this “we must not make value judgments” mode that they shut down and deny what they themselves know….
A couple of nights ago, I was watching an old episode of “30 Rock,” and one of the actors on TGS was proposing to step in for another character who didn’t want to do a skit in drag. To let everyone know he was up to the part, he said, “My parents raised me as a girl for 10 years.” Thereby causing the other characters to stare at him as though he had two heads, to which he responds, “What? You didn’t know that about me?”
The joke works because everybody knows, that would not be a good thing…
Now this, on the other hand, is completely nuts. The Mayor of Portland, OR is going to follow San Francisco’s lead and require the city’s health insurance plan to cover sex reassignment surgery as a “simple matter of fairness”.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/05/portland_mayor_sam_adams_propo_1.html
Logically, that would mean everyone who is unhappy with their appearance ought to be able to have a subsidized “correction” made to their body so that they can be the person that they conceive themselves to really be. Good grief!
Now I’m starting to see Brad’s agitation about the Toronto parents…
We are who we are when we are born into this world; we all need to acknowledge that as the basis for what we want to make of our life.
@ Maude and Doug–How’s about adding that there is no 100% certain reversible form of birth control or 100% safe sex, so you’d better not be having sex with anyone you wouldn’t want to have a child with and whom you wouldn’t die for.
I realize for some of our more romantic teens, those are not drawbacks, but all you can do is try!
Thank you, Mark!
And Kathryn — I’m not sure that “anyone you wouldn’t want to have a child with and whom you wouldn’t die for” works. Because at the moment, you hand a sexually excited teenager a form asking those questions, and they will likely tick off “yes” to both questions. And underline it, and put multiple exclamation points after it. Especially the second item, since it’s way romantic.
That’s why, you know, we have marriage. And an engagement. And all sorts of other delaying, cooling-off tactics designed to make someone REALLY think about those things… lots of opportunities to think, “Do I want to SPEND THE REST OF MY LIFE with this person?” Which is a much higher bar than what you propose.
The whole problem with Brad’s argument is that it hinges entirely on his own worldview for establishing normal behavior. Normal can be different things to different people. Expanding this to our society as a whole certain things are normal whereas other very similar behaviors are not. It’s just an historical accident that attending a Catholic Church, drinking coffee and men wearing slacks is normal. Whereas attending a Moonie church, smoking pot or men wearing a dress is abnormal. Once you step back and realize just how arbitrary these labels are then you realize that your own belief system is based on life experience and not on any quantifiable values. I’ve tried many times with Brad but his “normal” world just does not allow for any significant variance. Apparently that is also the “norm”.
Actually, there is such a thing as normal. Just as there is such a thing as good judgment. Of course, those are two different things. One can be quantified mathematically, the other cannot. But they are both quite real.
By the way, being Catholic is not the norm in SC (although, I was shocked to learn some years back, there are more Catholics than Episcopalians — sufficiently shocked that I’m still not sure that figure was right).
I get this a lot from Bud. I’m supposedly this really narrow guy with limited experience and understanding of the world. I, who grew up all over the country and abroad, who was bilingual as a kid, who was raised sorta kinda protestant but in any clearly defined way. As far as religion is concerned, sometimes we went to chapel on Navy bases when one was close by, and those were nondenominational. When I lived in South America, we went to some sort of nondenominational English-language services that were run by a missionary who I later learned was a CIA agent. I attended church youth group activities at Methodist and Baptist churches.
As for being Catholic now — Bud would probably be shocked if he attended my church, particularly at the noon mass that I attend. I got to thinking about that just the other day. I was looking around as the priest — a native of Tanzania — was celebrating the mass in Spanish and English, and thinking how ironic it was that MLK said this was the most segregated hour in American life. I’m looking around at the black, Hispanic, Asian and other congregants (people of Northern European descent were not only a minority, but not even a plurality) and thinking that’s not the case for me. For me, church is almost certainly the most diverse and integrated hour of my week.
Don’t make assumptions…
For me, church is almost certainly the most diverse and integrated hour of my week.
-Brad
Were any of the men wearing dresses? For that matter were any of the men wearing blue jeans. Diversity is in the eye of the beholder.
Bud definalely lives in a different world than I do.
But I suspect even his words are more talk, than action. For I have never met anyone that truly lived their life in a way where they were open to anything and everything and made no judgements on really anything. That would be a disaster.
As evidence – Bud is very judgemental in his own statements in this topic – probably the most judgemental of anyoen on the forum. He throws parents that value taking their children to church totally under the bus.
Well, I am guilty of taking my 3 young children to church each week. I can also promise that I am going to keep doing it- and I also work hard each week to invite more and more to church- and seem to be having good luck doing it.
the ironic thing is- I am sure Bud is likely patting himself on the back about how open he thinks he is to all views.
Brad,
“I get this a lot from Bud. I’m supposedly this really narrow guy with limited experience and understanding of the world”
My experience is the folks that believe they are the most open minded to virtually anything – are typically the most close minded of all.
Reading Bud’s comments- he fits that description well.
Show me where I’m throwing parents under the bus for taking their children to church. This is what is so frustrating. You try to make a point and everything gets twisted around. In it’s simplest terms what I’m saying is that we’ve established norms in this society. Those norms seem perfectly reasonable to those of us who grew up and live in this culture. I’m perfectly ok with anyone taking their kids to church. Some of my best friends take their kids to church. But the normal way should be challenged whenever normal ostricizes someone who does not fit the establishment normal.
Thanks, Barry — and Bud, I’m guessing all of the guys at that Mass were wearing pants, but without going into a lot of details about private people’s lives, that would not necessarily be the case at every Mass at my church.
And blue jeans, or something comparable (cargo pants, shorts) are pretty much the norm. In fact, if there were a plurality of people wearing one particular sort of garment, it would probably be jeans. Anyone who’s been to Mass at a Catholic church in the past 30 or 40 years can probably back me up on this.
I did have one experience, a few years ago, that departed from that norm. Of all the places where I’ve been to Mass since I started more than three decades ago — in Tennessee, Kansas, all over SC, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, London, and probably some places I’m forgetting — I’d only been to Mass in one place where the attire might have been anything close to the picture in Bud’s head. That was the main Mass — at 11 or thereabouts, which tends to be the most heavily attended — at the downtown church in Greenville. It was chock full of white people dressed in a very preppy manner. I remember thinking the women looked like they would have been married to the Mercury astronauts in the early 60s. They were wearing those kinds of dresses (I don’t know what they were called.) No white gloves, but they would not have been out of place.
It was WEIRD… like the Twilight Zone or something… or like a projection from the imagination of some of my friends here on the blog. I mean, I actually went to double-check to make sure I was in a CATHOLIC church, because it didn’t look like it.
I would say it was an Upstate thing, except I’ve attended another Catholic church up there that was nothing like that…
As for, “You try to make a point and everything gets twisted around.” Hey, they could carve that on my tombstone…
I like that i can wear jeans and a t-shirt to any Mass and not be alone. I remember a principal telling us teachers once to wear “church clothes” to an event. I almost laughed out loud. The same thing with the “most segregated hour” bit. To each his own, but I’m grateful to be Catholic. And Saint Peter’s is such a beautiful church.
Just 3 more to go to break the recent comment record.
Leave Bud alone. One may have traveled the world, but you don’t find the cited diversity on Sunday mornings in the vast majority of churches in SC. How about the gender diversity in church leadership especially in the politically oriented, evangelical & the Roman churches? Where is the real racial diversity in our social circles? Let’s get real.
Well, like I said — most of the time, my interactions aren’t nearly as diverse as at my church. Nor are most people’s.
Oh, and this never satisfies the people who complain about that, but most of the people running the church are women — just like at most churches. In fact, what got me to thinking about demographics that particular recent day (not something I normally think about) is that I was thinking about how — in spite of how people who go on and on about priests only being male think of the church — once again, most of the people involved on the altar (readers, Eucharistic ministers, altar servers, etc.) were female. That got me to thinking about other demographics. I realized that among the nine or 10 people in those categories (the number varies based on how many altar servers, and how many Eucharistic ministers, that day), I was the only white male. The one other guy was black. The rest were women, all but one black or Hispanic.
Of course, I know that all that matters to you is the priest. Yep, he was a guy. But he wasn’t a white guy. He’s East African. And yeah, that counts as diverse — especially when he’s saying the Mass in Spanish with his Tanzanian accent. Which was my point.
Anyway, after realizing all that, I started trying to estimate the ethnic makeup of the rest of the congregation, and came up with the observations I made above.
This, by the way, is one of the reasons I’m Catholic. Because the church actually IS catholic — in the original, generic sense of the word: “: comprehensive, universal; especially : broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests (a catholic taste in music)”
Yes, I know, if you are of a certain ideological bent, you HATE the church, and nothing I say will change your mind. Not much I can do about that, no matter how much I tell you about my own experiences in the church. It takes all kinds to make a world…
By the way, j, you keep mentioning the number of comments. Is that a neutral observation, or do you think the number of comments is either a bad thing or a good thing? It’s not clear. I get the vague impression you think it’s bad.
I know one thing — I haven’t had time to post anything new today. During the little bit of time I’ve had to devote to blogging, I’ve been too busy addressing comments on this and other recent threads…
brad– my second paragraph addresses the issue that for many teens, dying and having babies isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
and there are certainly more Catholics than Episcopalians–for one thing, Catholics make a lot more Catholics than Episcopalians do, and I doubt that Episcopalians have ever been the largest denomination in the country–even in Colonial days, English was barely the dominant language–lots of German Lutherans in the mix as well as German Catholics, and a lot of English immigrants were either Catholic (Maryland, Savannah), Dissenters (New England) or just Methodists. You got your Scots Irish Presbyterians, too.
“And what are these ‘gender stereotypes,’ and what sort of ‘sexual discrimination’ are we speaking of?”
Gender stereotypes: Men are strong, don’t cry, aggressive, controlling, rational…
Women are weak, emotional, submissive, irrational…
Add physical appearance expectations. And no, I don’t need to go into detail for someone who has mooned over Christina Hendricks and Zooey Deschanel on his blog.
Same goes for answering the question “what sort of sexual discrimination are we speaking of” from someone who has lived through and witnessed some nasty shit being tossed women’s way. You’re close to my dad’s age and during my lifetime women were not permitted to sit on juries in SC. So now your granddaughters could actually have a jury of their peers and yet you continue to throw out these asinine rhetorical questions and claim that supporting an end to gender stereotyping is “utter nonesense.”
Sad.
@ Bud – “But the normal way should be challenged whenever normal ostricizes someone who does not fit the establishment normal.”
ah, what a great theory, and what a mess.
If someone who truly believes he has to listen to loud, hard rock music every second of the day while wearing a cow bell around his neck showed up at your child’s piano recital, you probably wouldn’t value his freedom to deviate from “normal.”
But, in theory – he could be perfectly “normal” to someone else in attendance- say a 15 year old teenager who is delighted at this interruption and appreciates this visitor.
So you would have to endure his disruption-totally helpless while secure in your openminded zeal of those that are willing to not be “normal.”
As the children that were eager to play their recital piece are told that they recital is cancelled, you could take pride in your advice to them that “we have to be open and appreciate the differences in people.”
@ Bud – you remind me of the “IN A Yugo” song that Rush Limbaugh (I’m not a Rush fan BTW) made popular
(To the tune of “In the Ghetto” by Elvis)
As the snow flies
At a used car lot on the edge of town
A liberal guy and a liberal gal
Buy a Yugo
And they drive with pride
Cause if there’s one thing that this world needs
It’s environmental friends who’ll take the lead
In a Yugo
They say, “people don’t you understand
Those suburbans are ruining the land”
But they’ll wish they had a full size van one day
They point fingers at you and me
They say we’re too blind to see
But do we simply use our heads
And choose another way?
As those small wheels turn
Fifty miles to the gallon
And their knees on their chest
They’re gonna save enough gas
For all of the rest
In a Yugo
Then one day on the interstate
They suddenly lose control
They swerve to miss a baby duck
They’re squashed beneath a produce truck
But they drove with pride…
And as the crowds drive past a little flat car
You know they saved a lot of gas
But they didnt get far
In a Yugo
And as they’re trapped inside
At a used car lot on the other side of town
A liberal guy and a liberal gal
Buy a Yugo….
And they drive with pride…
Brad, the number of comments is a positive observation. When I read many of your posts, I see less than ten or so and they’re the usual suspects. I think it’s great having more individuals making comments which give many more view points and clarifies some obtuse ones. I’m just being a cheerleader. Keep up the good work.
@ Bud “Were any of the men wearing dresses? For that matter were any of the men wearing blue jeans. Diversity is in the eye of the beholder”
You aren’t really thinking open minded Bud. I am disappointed.
Where any of the men wearing trash cans for pants? Or Aluminum Foil? What about sitting in an empty bathtub with wheels on it?
That’s diversity. Not some lame guy wearing a lame dress. Dang, that’s been done a million times.
I presume my last comment was #87!
Brad, I didn’t equate taking one’s kids to church (or mosque, or synagogue) from infancy with this famous couple’s gender-identity experiment. I merely said that, in addition to baby Storm, I also feel sorry for many young people out there in our area who are indoctrinated in various ways (religion being one, political views being another, racial prejudice perhaps a third, and/or in many other ways) from infancy and, most importantly, not learning the skills of skepticism and critical thinking from an early age.
It’s a terribly difficult balance, instilling good behavior and ethical behavior towards one’s fellow man in an occasionally obnoxious toddler (believe me, I’m working on that one right now) while doing one’s best not to quash the natural sense of inquiry of a child. I have many friends who attend church regularly with the kids and have apparently well-functioning families, reasonably happy, so I certainly don’t automatically equate churchgoing with this phenomenon, especially if the main point is to instill moral behavior towards one’s fellow creatures, and to our planet. (Actual question of existence of God is a bigger problem, of course.) At some point, I would imagine, a child developing into a young adult has to come to faith on their own terms, to question it and then to decide for him or herself if this is the path for them. I simply think there are millions of adults out there who have never stopped to question views (religious or otherwise) that were pressed into them from infancy (by the way, that could just as easily be a rigid atheism, too, as well, or orthodox liberal political views) and these adults are crippled in some way by that lack of critical self-examination.
Maude, I did NOT say gender issues were “nonsense.” I asked you to be specific because sometimes people use those terms to posit ideas that ARE nonsense, and I wanted to know what you were talking about.
You mention your Dad. This is him, right? Say hey for me.
Thanks for the cheerleading, J. I could use some. You know, back before I started mediating, back on my old blog (which actually had MUCH less traffic than this one), 100 comments was nothing. Once or twice we exceeded 300 on a post — which, for perspective, matches the record number of letters to the editor ever to come in to The State in a WEEK. But moderation slows things back a bit…
And Phillip, Christianity is an awesome idea. One of these days we’re really going to give it a try, and get it right…
Christianity is not the problem. It’s the churches who push a narrow-minded agenda. How can anyone think when they are told to accept what is recited at the pulpit or burn in hell. No wonder large numbers of people believe the earth is only 6000 years old. Fear will do that to you.
The stereotype that Bud just recited is about as far from anything I’ve ever heard in any church — and I’ve been in all flavors (OK, MOST flavors — I don’t think I’ve ever heard an Orthodox, Congregationalist or Pentecostalist sermon) — as you can get…
Sometimes I think maybe a preacher OUGHT to light into a congregation that way (some of us could afford to be less complacent), but I’ve never heard it in person. You just see that in movies, generally comedies, such as the over-the-top cult preacher played by Ian McKellen in the hilarious “Cold Comfort Farm.”
Believe it or not I used to go to church and that was about all any of the preachers ever talked about. The only exception was to beg for money to build that new wing on the church. Seriously it was all about believing or eternal damnation. Can’t believe church is any different today.
bud says:
“The whole problem with Brad’s argument is that it hinges entirely on his own worldview for establishing normal behavior. Normal can be different things to different people. Expanding this to our society as a whole certain things are normal whereas other very similar behaviors are not. It’s just an historical accident that attending a Catholic Church, drinking coffee and men wearing slacks is normal. Whereas attending a Moonie church, smoking pot or men wearing a dress is abnormal. Once you step back and realize just how arbitrary these labels are then you realize that your own belief system is based on life experience and not on any quantifiable values. I’ve tried many times with Brad but his “normal” world just does not allow for any significant variance. Apparently that is also the “norm”.”
Bud, what you say here is true to an extent but the thing is, this is the world we live in, with all it’s arbitrariness. It’s true that it is arbitrary that in our culture it happened to develop that men wear pants, but that is what developed, and now it has meaning as such. As long as you are living in this culture, it is helpful to be exposed to the norms that rule it. Those babies are going to have to live in this world with all it’s arbitrary already established norms whether their parents like it or not – it just seems cruel to not prepare them for it, which is what it seems to me like they are doing. It is also arbitrary that we happened to develop the particular sequence of sounds that has come to mean “cat” – we could have developed any sequence of sounds and decided it meant a domesticated feline, but we didn’t, we developed “cat”. And now those sounds have meaning as such. You can’t just decide that you would rather a “cat” be a “murgle” and start using that word instead, if you want to actually communicate with people and have them understand you. Likewise, if you want to actually relate to people in your own culture, it helps to be socialized into the cultural norms.
bud says:
June 1, 2011 at 1:53 pm
“But the normal way should be challenged whenever normal ostricizes someone who does not fit the establishment normal.”
I agree with this too pretty much, but I’m not sure it applies to what these parents are doing. These kids aren’t even being given the chance to see if they fit the establishment normal, first. This is more like the parents doing the ostracizing of ‘normal’ than ‘normal’ ostracizing someone that doesn’t fit. I think I would try to raise kids in accord with the culture as much as possible but deal with any mismatch that arises compassionately.
@ Phillip –
Critical thinking is a skill that is learned and has to be developed.
I attend church on Sundays and Wednesday nights at a conservative Christian church. I’m what you would call a “strong believer” and I’m also someone who values my ability to critically think about all sorts of issues.
My closest friends would tell you that “he questions everything and asks questions about everything from all points of view.” I love doing it. I enjoy it. I value it.
Going to church from an early age – as I did – and as my 3 young children do each week is not in any way a detriment to critical thinking. I would put my “critical thinking” up against you or anyone else any day of the week.
That’s a stereotype too – and an incorrect one.
You very well could be – as many do- taking your personal disagreement with someone and simply attacking them for not being able to critically think to the extent you think you do.
@ Bud
“Believe it or not I used to go to church and that was about all any of the preachers ever talked about. The only exception was to beg for money to build that new wing on the church. Seriously it was all about believing or eternal damnation. Can’t believe church is any different today.”
you, my friend, are the King of All Stereotypes without an equal. Congratulations.
Bud, I’m sorry that was your experience of church. My grandmother’s Baptist church in Louisiana had elements like you describe but otherwise my experience of church in Columbia (Methodist) has been a bit more nuanced.
@ Barry– So, critical thinker that you are, how do you reconcile the accounts of creation in Genesis One and Genesis Two?
How do you account for an all-powerful God, who is benevolent, yet allows infants and children to suffer horribly?
I’m just waiting for some of you snake handlers to try and explain dinosaur bones and other things that are more than 3000-4000 years old.
@Kathryn
Sorry, I’m not taking the bait to get into a theological discussion with you. It’s a good attempt to deflect the conversation though. I’ll give you credit for that.
I kind of agree with Bud’s comments. My wife and I gravitated away from our downtown Baptist church to a smaller one closer to home around the time of the 2008 election/recession. There was too much talk in the Sunday School classroom about praying for John McCain to be elected, Obama as Muslim, etc. There was really no room for debating whether God cares a bit about elections. And then the big church services began to take on a frequent discussion of finances, pledges, etc. with bar charts showing how far “behind” donations were during a time when MANY parishioners were out of work. The final straw was a letter sent to our home with a sample document showing how you could modify your will to designate the church as a beneficiary.
No matter what the topic, it always comes down to money and politics.
I give a lot to my church, and I take the deduction, so a bit hypocritical, but I don’t think that most of the church contribution should be tax deductable, except for the truly charitable aspects (feeding the poor, housing the homeless). Too many churches are becoming subsidized day-care centers, conference centers, athletic clubs, and in one prominent downtown church, a coffee shop. Not to mention a way to cover a lot of otherwise small business activities, and they avoid lots of property tax.
@Tim
Amen! 🙂 Churches should pay property taxes. There is no valid argument against it.
Went to the historic St. James’s church in London, and it had a Caffe Nero attached. I stopped and had my tea (normally I’d have had an espresso), with a crumbling bit of banana bread I had wrapped in plastic in my coat pocket, while my wife had a pastry she’d bought at Fortnum’s with her tea.
Hey, they might as well use their churches for SOMETHING over there…
I have a question, and I hope it’s not unseemly, but I burn to know…
Why would anyone sit still for a minute in a Sunday School that is all “about praying for John McCain to be elected, Obama as Muslim, etc.”?
I had the same question about Obama, mind you — how did he sit there all those years with Jeremiah Wright spouting all that stuff from the pulpit?
I don’t know. Stuff like that would make me think “I don’t belong here.” It would be one thing if I had been RAISED in such a church, and felt a lifelong connection to it. Under those circumstances, I might just say “This, too, shall pass,” and speak up against the madness in the Sunday School class. That is, I might take the attitude that this is MY church and I am responsible for the tone…
But if not — if I were, say, like Obama and had NOT been raised in that church or belonged to it for decades and decades — how could I sit still for that stuff? I don’t think I could..
Of course, it would be kind of nice to have a church that HAD Sunday School classes for adults. We don’t. Now there’s something I ought to try to do something about…
” It would be one thing if I had been RAISED in such a church, and felt a lifelong connection to it. ”
I would say 80% of that Sunday School class grew up in the church. Like I said, it was a driving force in why I left. Too much group think, no room for debate.
But then I could also ask why someone would remain in a church that systematically covered up the activities of pedophiles.
You could, if such an observation were relevant and fair. Other than that rather gratuitous and cliched slap at my faith (you forgot to mention indulgences) thanks for answering my question, which was well-intended.
By the way, how’s it going in all those other churches where the incidence of pedophilia is comparable to that in the Roman church?
@brad
That wasn’t a slap at all. It was an honest question – if you attended a church (Catholic or otherwise) where there were documented cases of abuse and a very obvious pattern of cover up, how could anyone “sit still” while that was happening?
I would suggest that those who denied the issue the longest were raised from birth in the church.
It’s the same with PTL and the Bakkers. There were people who were still giving money to those crooks even when the evidence was overwhelming.
That’s night and day. All PTL was about was the money…
… whereas I know ONE fellow Catholic who had any personal connection to what you’re talking about. His uncle (I think — or another close relative) was a victim, in another state.
That’s one too many. But it is just one. And that’s my experience. They say that in combat, each soldier sees a completely different battle, though he is only a few feet from his buddies. With anything as big as the Catholic Church, each person has his or her own experience. Mine has not included being confronted with sexual abuse, or coverups of sexual abuse. My experience has been more typical of the 99 point whatever percent of experiences.
NO ONE involved with PTL was not touched by the drive for money. And everyone had witnessed Tammy Faye’s absurd histrionics…
But if you were a member of a church where there WAS a pattern of abuse and coverup (for example in the Boston area), would you be surprised that people left the church?
“histrionics”
Hooked on Histrionics… for those who have trouble remembering historical events.
@ Barry– Parried right of the Sarah Palin playbook. That’s a critical thinker for you.
Actually, Doug, I AM a member of that church. It’s all one. But I get your point — you mean, how about if I lived in that diocese? Well, I’d be displeased, but then I’m displeased anyway.
And I would understand, intellectually, why some people would leave the church (or do what tends to happen more often, just sort of drift away). But I can’t see doing it myself. Has to do with my concept of what the church is — a 2,000-year-old worldwide institution that is actually more than that, seeing as how Jesus authorized Peter to start it. I became a Catholic because of my understanding that it puts you in communion not only with all Catholics who live now, but with all who have lived, or will live. It’s way, WAY bigger than anything that happens in Boston or any other trouble area where terrible decisions were made. It’s simply a matter of perspective.
Just one such incident is a serious problem. And it’s a problem that arises primarily from the fact that you’ve got a whole institution devoted to the idea that you confess a sin, and you get forgiven. Personally, I’d like to see us go Old School on pedophiles. You know, Inquisition style. But instead, the church has gone WAY too far toward expecting redemption on the part of people who are incorrigible perverts.
Of course, incorrigible perverts emerge among any population of men (and sometimes, very rarely, among women). The reasons that lots of people are particularly alienated from the church about this are, depending upon the individual, one or more of the following: 1) the church is way countercultural with its all-male priesthood that is expected to be celibate, and people tend to blame THAT for these horrible cases; 2) there have been too many cases when forgiveness was chosen over prosecution, and 3) some people didn’t like the church to start with, and this gives them another excuse. Mind you, that third cause only applies to some people. Loads of really devout Catholics have been alienated — particularly if they knew someone affected by one of these cases.
Anyway, just as I see the Boston diocese as part of my church and don’t try to disclaim it, if I were in Boston I’d see the rest of the world as my church as well — and consider the whole, not just the horrific outliers.
@Kathryn
You must be a member of the Lamestream Gotcha Media.
I guess I’m in that third group. I never liked the Catholic Church and the whole pedophila thing (which I think Brad is trying way too hard to minimize) just re-enforces what I already thought of that church. The times I’ve been in a Catholic Church, for funerals or weddings, I just felt very uncomfortable. The whole ornate, overblown and expensive way they do things just seemed so unlike what Christ was about. Didn’t he council a certain understated modesty in life? The Catholic Church with it’s huge buildings and over-the-top attire for it’s clergy just leaves me cold. The whole celebate, male-only priesthood thing seemed unnatural and sexist long before the pedephila scandal erupted.
Frankly I come closer to understanding why the Obamas would sit and listen to Jeremia Wright than I understand Catholic church members. To me church should be something like the modest Unitarian Church. But even they liked to beg for money the times I went there. I guess you have to have it to function. Still, it seems unseemly to devote so much time to the money aspect.
Well Barry at least I can claim to be king of something.
Doug,
Many thanks for your comments re the 2008 election season in church – My experiences too. It’s about money and politics and meeting and keeping the organization going rather the real emphasis on justice & the least of these.
@ Doug –
The Baptist church I go to is rather large (not mega large) but in this down economy with our church actually growing- our staff voted to not accept pay raises for 3 years now, and have taken voluntary cuts to their budgets. They said even with a growing church, it didn’t look right for them to accept raises when so many people are looking for jobs. (It’s hurt several our our lower staff members pretty hard, but they’ve stuck to it).
Our Pastor talks about giving to the church, but only a few times a year. After all, if the members coming don’t give, the local church will close the doors. We have bills to pay too.
and our Pastor never talks politics or who to vote for – even though I know he has strong opinions, like most of us do, personally.
@ Kathryn –
“Barry– Parried right of the Sarah Palin playbook. That’s a critical thinker for you”
Nah. My refusal to discuss theological questions with you or to provide an answer to you has nothing to do with whether I am quite capable of critical thinking-and you know that.
Just as I am fully capable of handing my neighbor’s child $20 for all the candy he can eat, that doesn’t mean I am going to do it.
@ J –
“Many thanks for your comments re the 2008 election season in church – My experiences too. It’s about money and politics and meeting and keeping the organization going rather the real emphasis on justice & the least of these”
My experience is just the opposite of Doug’s. I’d say it’s always wise to be careful about stereotypes.
@Barry
When does actual experience equal a stereotype? It wasn’t like I walked into the church we left for a month or two. We had been members for ten years (and I still think highly of it).
Are you going to tell me the mostly white Baptist churches in South Carolina are not comprised mainly of conservative Republicans? Really?
Brad if you want to be in touch with everyone who was and will be Catholic, then you should have become a Morman… then you’d be in touch with everyone who has ever lived and who will ever live. And you get to spend your days knocking on doors irritating people.
Barry,
My observations are from 68+ years of experiences in many churches not from stereotyping. With a number of relatives in the ministry and close friends who have had decades in church leadership, I have no illusions about the difference between the real and committed ministry “to the least of these” and those caught up in organizational development &/or the church growth movement. How sacrificial of them to say they’ll accept no raises for three years. Ordained ministers have many fed tax advantages of which nominal church members have no idea. I think Doug has a good inclination to tax churches in certain ways.
@ Doug –
“Are you going to tell me the mostly white Baptist churches in South Carolina are not comprised mainly of conservative Republicans? Really?”
I honestly don’t know. I’d guess probably so. As a member of a Baptist church in a city, with parents that attend a small Baptist church in the upstate where I also attend a weekend each month when I visit, I’ve never heard a pastor speak of politics from the pulpit or in a class, meeting, etc.
I can only go on my experience as well- which is different than yours.
I’ve talked politics with fellow church members sitting eating a meal, but I’ve done that at the local Burger King too.
I’ve heard people in a church make political comments, but I’ve heard them take sides on Clemson/USC and other divisive issues too. Didn’t mean we voted on a position or took a stance where the other side wouldn’t feel welcome.
My current Sunday School teacher in a conservative Baptist church in Columbia is an NPR addict who absolutely loves personal, one on one debate about theological topics, etc. He’ll also take Baptists to task as quick as he will a non Baptist, etc. We even have some good discussions in class as well. But Sunday School isn’t debate club either. There are other outlets for that.
@ J –
“My observations are from 68+ years of experiences in many churches not from stereotyping. Ordained ministers have many fed tax advantages of which nominal church members have no idea”
Well, my experiences are from nearly 40 years. So need need to pull out the numbers of years of experience tag.
I think most dedicated church members want the very best for their pastors and if they get some tax breaks, all the better.
I’ve seen my pastor leave more family vacations than I can count in order to drive or fly back home to conduct a funeral of someone he barely knows and doesn’t attend his church but wanted his services. I’ve seen him skip the birth of his own grandchild because a church member’s mother was sick and needed him to visit her in a nursing home 3 hours away. I’ve seen him get up in the middle of the night at least several hundred times to visit a hospital, morgue, counsel a wife whose husband didn’t come home that night and wants a divorce and all sorts of sorted issues. I’ve seen him write personal checks for widows in our church to get their car repaired so they could have something to drive. I’ve seen him pull out his wallet at a grocery store to pay for someone’s tab, that didn’t have the money themselves. Yeah, I understand that’s the job. My pastor knows that better than I do and never complains. He’s certainly not spending any time advocating for himself. He wouldn’t. But I will.
So yeah, I’m personally ok with some tax breaks.
I’ll stereotype now based on my 40 yaers experience – typically the people that do the most whining about churches asking for money, or the ones that 1) Don’t really know what goes on at most churches anyway, but think they do 2) will complain about everything anyway, 3) have never served in a serious leadership position in a church where they were in serious budget meetings, 4) take their personal bad experiences and try to use that to say all churches are the same way.
Barry,
I appreciate that you have a nice guy as a pastor. I have a great priest. That said, I don’t see why a pastor who does something nice and decent gets a pass on paying taxes on compensation for their rent/mortgage, when someone who works at any non-profit and does the same things in the same circumstances does not.
Look at the folks at SisterCare who probably are dealing with stuff I can’t imagine at all hours on a regular basis. And they pay full-boat retail on their mortgages and rents.
Then there are all the ministers who do quite nicely , make multiples of $100k a year, live in McMansions, and still others, who aren’t nice and decent, who run ministries as out and out scams, but hide behind the “cloth” and their perverted use of 1st Amendment rights.
My experience with the Baptist Church is that they certainly do make political statements, usually to endorse some conservative policy or to slam a Democrat. I haven’t been to many Baptist Churches but that’s what I’ve heard on the few occassions I did go.
Have you noticed that a lot of these mega-churches supply their minister/pastor/etc. with a luxury car to drive? All in the name of God by the way.
Barry, I’m so happy for you that have you had such wonderful experiences with your church situation and pastors. You seem to get very upset when others have much different and varied experiences and voice their observations.
@ Tim –
” I have a great priest. That said, I don’t see why a pastor who does something nice and decent gets a pass on paying taxes on compensation for their rent/mortgage, when someone who works at any non-profit and does the same things in the same circumstances does not.”
Tim – I believe they should. Let’s contact our legislators and encourage them in that direction, instead of the opposite?
Work for you?
@ J
“You seem to get very upset when others have much different and varied experiences and voice their observations.”
Not at all. I get aggravated when people have some bad experiences and try to use their personal experiences, whether they be 68 years of experiences or 1 year, to make larger points that throw everyone under the same bus.
@Steven
Some do. Many of those are churches out of the “prosperity gospel” movement which isn’t really denominational in nature.
There are also some mega church pastors out there that don’t accept any salary or items from their churches.
There are plenty of great clergy who perform wonderful services to the community. I’m glad Barry has found someone like that to lead his church.
Folks, the plural of anecdote isn’t data…for you critical thinkers out there.
Barry, we’ll pray for you or light a candle to St Jude! Lighten up and try to put some things into perspective and don’t be so reactive. You may learn something rather than accusing a senior with a different opinion as putting someone under the bus. 😉
Barry,
Each year we subsidize clergy housing to the tune of $600,000,000 per year in the Federal treasury. There are roughly 3 times as many non-profits as churches. If only one person at those gets this, we are into just this subsidy for 1.8 Billion more, for a total of 2.4 Billion.
That’s just the one subsidy. The odd thing, they get to claim that housing cost as part of their social security income.
As for the nice guy mega church preachers, they make their money of of book deals (Ozmint 13 Million; Rick Warren has the highest selling hardback book in US History), seminars and associated business ventures. Forfeiting a salary is a tip of the hat, and in Warren’s case, he gifts back 90% of his salary, and probably gets a nice deduction for it, rather than taking a salary cut to 10% of what he is given. Warren, by the way, is the guy who went apoplectic when Congress was considering eliminating this one little piece of tax code in 2000. He lobbied hard and got his way. These are just 2. Ok, I will throw in (the out and out political) Franklin Graham’s double dipping to the tune of 1.2 Million for working two full time jobs somehow simultaneously. So, please, leave the noblesse of MegaChurch Celebrity preachers off the list.
Every exemption in the tax code is either the result of a kickback to a lobbying group or an attempt at social engineering that always fails.
Amen, Bothers Tim & Doug!
I agree with Doug’s last post, except insofar as a lot of the social engineering hasn’t failed–look at how many homeowners we have compared to 100 years ago–for good or bad….
@Kathryn
And look how many foreclosures we have… why should owning a home be a reason to get a tax break?
Philosophically, I agree with you. Empirically, living with owners and renters, on average, owners seem to be better citizens all around–perhaps because they are more invested in their location, it seems that they participate more in community building activities. They also keep their properties up better.
But are they good citizens because they own homes or do they own homes because they are good citizens? Would taking away the tax deduction make them less likely to do all the things you mention?
Lower the tax rates and remove all the loopholes. Simplify, simplify, simplify.
Even the child credits don’t make sense. I should pay LESS taxes because I have more kids? Why?
Anyone who has ever lived in both rental and owned housing, especially if one has rented after having owned, knows very well that as a renter you just care less about the immediate surroundings, the neighborhood and even the city/town. Renting just feels transient – and that shows in a more apathetic outlook.
Of course, I have seen plenty of homeowners whose property looks as though it is in crying need of an enforceable lease agreement. It amazes me that people seem to
… like the look of parking on the lawn.
As we say around here, “nobody washes a rental car.”
On average, renters are not as invested. There are certainly renters who have showplaces, and owners who have dumps, but on average.
Speaking anecdotally, I know I didn’t think about landscaping or getting involved in community affairs when I was a renter–some of that may correlate with having been younger, but still. I did own a townhouse for a couple of years in my 20s, and sold it and rented for a year, and my attitude and actions certainly changed between the two.
As far as dependent credits–I suppose the theory is that you get some baseline living costs tax-free, and if you have more kids, you likely have higher basic costs of living.
–but then there were the Bush era pandering tax cuts….