Categories
Diversity

It’s all about circles

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

When I was creating symbols to use for my categories, I thought about what would best represent the concept of “Connecting’, one of my categories. To me, connecting is when two or more people have a discussion or reach out to one another in some way. This doesn’t mean that the people agree, or disagree. It just means that a connection was made.

Eventually I settled on intersecting circles: circles because we are, first and foremost, individuals, complete and whole on our own; and intersecting because when we interact with each other, we become a part of something bigger – not necessarily better, and not necessarily something positive – but something beyond what we are, alone.

My use of this symbol was pointed out today on a post that has since been removed. The focus of the post was about Liz’s new group weblog focusing on women and technology, Misbehaving.net. My reaction was one of personal hurt and dismay, and I don’t retract either of these honest emotions. However, as they were expressed originally it became more of a “me too, me too!” statement, and that wasn’t the point I had hoped to make. After a series of emails today and time to think about it, I decided to try the post again, but this time with more a story to go with the reaction. The reaction’s still there, but I hope it’s now more nuanced.

Women and technology. This is a subject that has personal interest for me with a degree in Computer Science, and having worked in the field for 20 years. And being a woman, too, of course. When I first started taking computer science way too many years ago, the program had about 8 men for every woman but oddly enough I didn’t really notice this disparity. Or if I did, it was more a matter of the program was very new at the University and women were quite new to the sciences. In time there would be more women in the field. I just knew it.

My professors and fellow classmates at Central Washington University were terrific. Though men outnumbered women, three of the top five students in the program were women.

When I left school I wanted nothing more than to work in research, but only having a BS degree didn’t provide the entre into research positions, so I ended up in a job at Boeing, working as a system support person. My job was to provide application and system support for an HP box as well as yet more primitive PC computers. It was there that I was blooded into the profession by doing a mistype while formatting a specific directory and formatting my boss’ entire machine. Luckily, he had a sense of humor.

The IT group at Boeing Military had a surprising number of women. I was to find that, as the years progressed, the ratio of women to men was much less significant in those days than it is today. However, while I was at Boeing, and in all my Boeing positions, I never once met anything remotely approaching discrimination. Nor did I ever feel odd being a ‘woman in technology’.

I went from the system support position to work on Peace Shield, the defense system that the US military helped fund for the Saudi Arabian air defense. My job there was to write FORTRAN programs to extract critical information about data points in several million lines of code created by three separate companies, and put this information into a data dictionary in order to meet compliance with military guidelines. While not research, the work was challenging. I’d take FORTRAN coding sheets home at night to work through code. Eventually my boss finagled one of the first ‘portable’ computers from Compaq for me to use, though the thing was more hassle than it’s worth. One can only handle so much amber and crashing disks.

From Peace Shield I went to Boeing Commercial into the database group, working into a position, eventually, of lead Data Analyst, and finally Commercial’s Information Repository manager, trained by IBM in this brand new meta technology. Most of the people I worked with in data were women – an odd fact that still tends to exist today.

It was a great job and I met movers and shakers and really learned Data. But I was seduced away by my old research bug. During my work I became acquainted with a group called ALIA – Acoustical and Linguistics Applications. This group was using some of the most cutting edge technology to create applications such as robotic warehouse systems, smart search systems (one of the many Google precoursers, and actually using rudimentary markup languages), and even computer systems used by quadriplegics. I loved the work, I loved my boss – a woman as fate would have it.

Unfortunately, though, we ended up being cut during one of Boeing’s down sizing and I ended up working for Sierra Geophysics – a software company for the petroleum industry owned by none other than Halliburton.

It was at Sierra that I began to realize that being a woman in this field isn’t quite a simple thing. My boss, a man named Jim Bonner, was a wonder and he’s still one of the best people I’ve worked with. The bosses all the way up the line were also terrific. However, within the groups there was a flavor of behavior that was gender based – and this behavior manifested itself with both men and women.

I worked for a female lead who did not get along with the male lead of another small group. However, she did get along with the male lead of the third group – in fact, he could do no wrong. Not even when he was wrong. As for the man antagonistic to my lead, we got along fine. We both collected minerals and he was a geology major turned computer scientist, so we had that in common. Still, when I was assigned to hypertest some of the code, he tried to get me pulled and put his own guy in, saying that his person was ‘calmer’ in difficult situations. Believe me folks, if I was any calmer in those days, I’d have been asleep. My boss saw through the root cause of this ‘request’ and rejected it and basically told him to butt out and go away with his bad self.

Still, I didn’t take it personally. Didn’t impact my job, boss stood up for me. No harm done.

I worked on creating the shell scripts for all of the applications, as well as coding database portions of the application for five different Unix boxes. We used C++, my first exposure to the language, and I liked it. I didn’t like working make files for five different flavors of Unix, though.

Eventually Hallibuton decided we Seattle folks were too uppity for good hard working Oklahoma people and we were all canned. We knew it was coming and we were all extremely uptight. I used to bring in some hard candy and I noticed that people would come by more and more to grab a piece – not for the sake of the candy so much but to get away from their desks. I started adding more candy and eventually filled a drawer with the silliest candies – lollipops and candy necklaces, and buttons, and cinnamon bears. And chocolate of course.

My little candy drawer became the place people would come to when they were uptight, frustrated, and scared about losing their jobs. This was before the dot-com era. Before easy pickings, and losing a job was a pretty scary thing.

When I left, my boss thanked me for the work and for the drawer. He said it was the only thing that kept the lid on at times. My female lead said I was a great worker, but I really needed to become more aggressive and not let the men push me around.

I hope you’re not bored, because we’ve just started this saga, long that it is. But then, the topic is about women and technology. And I am a woman, and this was technology.

Next it was an insurance company and becoming a senior developer, and my first lead position. I led two efforts – one to rewrite the quarterly financial system that failed every run. The second to code the room size automated mailing system the company just bought. The group was half and half – women and men, and there wasn’t a bit of problem being a woman developer there. Not when more than half the actuarials at the company were women, and everyone knows actuarials are the scariest, smartest people in the world. They set the pace for our group.

Standard Insurance company was my last fulltime gig. I was ready to branch out into contracting and did so as an employee for a contracting company. My first gig was at Intel.

What a nightmare. I, from my previously protected position as woman as equal contributor walked into a situation where I had one member of the group talking about sex with me, every single friggen day; and other member of the group calling me names, telling me, to my face, that “women shouldn’t be in this profession – they get hysterical too easily’, and don’t have the brains for it.” I complained to my company, but Intel was too lucrative. I was told to just go along. I finally filed a complaint with Intel’s personnel, and left the position.

The funny thing is, the guy that talked sex all the time was the one that ‘testified’ for me in regards to the complaint I had about the abuse from the other member. He talked for two solid hours of incidents of the abuse I suffered. I was vindicated, but my vindication came at the hands of another person who was guilty of yet another type of abuse.

By the time I left the gig, I was not the same person. It wasn’t that I was treated in the most extreme sexist manner, and with such abuse – it was that my company didn’t believe me, but did believe another abuser.

I went to another gig at Intel and this one was okay. I was only one of two women, but the guys were straight up. Did my job and left.

I went to Nike after that, and the Nike folks were very cool. I know that Nike offshores, and I don’t approve – but they treated me well, and after Intel, I needed this. I also worked some part time gigs during this time – consultant for Multnomah county on a smalltalk feasibility study, converting a desk top application to web based using Netscape’ brand new Livewire technology, coding here, database design there. I even created an Oracle prototype touch screen application for a door factory in Wisconsin.

(Small town in the middle of nowhere – bugs the size of volkswagens and the mainstreet alternated churches with bars. Odd place.)

I had a good reputation in Portland so I was treated with respect wherever I went. Still, I couldn’t help but notice that in all but a few of the places, the ratio of women tended to be anywhere from 4 men to 2 women, to about 20 or so men to one woman. Things were changing. The good old days were dead.

I moved to Vermont and spent a year writing tech books and then to Boston where I went to work at another insurance company. Every group had a good mix of women and men except one – the technology architecture group. There was exactly one woman in this group among all the men. And most of the guys there reminded me of, well, they reminded me a lot of the male tech webloggers I’ve interacted with – both the good and the bad.

What do I mean by this? Well, when I deferred to the group in all things, I was an okay person. But when I disagreed, I became a bitch. I know. I was called a bitch. You see, unlike at Intel, I wasn’t going to be quiet, be good, or be conciliatory. No more candy drawers. I was going to fight back, and I’ve been fighting back ever since.

Good girls might get pats on the head from daddy, but they don’t get respect from hard core techs. It takes skill, but more than that, you can’t give an inch – not an inch because when you do, you’ll never get that inch back. If I had a choice between being liked, or being respected for my technical ability and being allowed to exercise it, I would choose the latter.

It was also in this position that I began to find out that the more technical the position, the closer to the metal, the fewer the women, and the more difficult for women to ‘break’ in.

Other jobs followed: Harvard and Stanford, Skyfish, and odds and ends for companies big and small, but enough about the past.

Now we come to weblogging and I see bits and pieces of my old Boeing group here, and my old jobs at Nike and I think, this is a good thing. But I also see much, way too much, of Intel here.

Lots of great technical guys around here. Could care less if I’m a woman, as long as my code’s sexy. That’s cool – I know where they’re coming from. But I’ve also been called ‘hysterical’ by Mark Pilgrim so many times, I should just tatoo it on my butt. Don’t have to believe me, read it yourself. Want to see what Dave Winer has said? Go to my blogroll, click on the link for his past comments.

I can dig this and I can handle it, but I wanted something more this time – I wanted support from the women. I didn’t want to be the only woman in the group, the only woman close to the metal – the only woman talking tech. But, how many women have been involved in Pie/Echo/Atom? RSS and coding? How many women at the conferences?

Yet when I’ve asked woman for support, it isn’t coming because let’s face it – the guys I take on, the Dave Winers, the Mark Pilgrims, and yes, even the nice guys like Sam Ruby – and Sam is a nice guy, and hasn’t a sexist bone in his body – they mean something here. They have a lot of juice. They are hits, conferences, speaking gigs. The coin of the realm is measured in hypertext links, and the men, well, they have most of the bucks.

No, I’m told that for women to get ahead, we have to be calm, dignified. We have to go along, to get along. We should never call a man on his behavior to his face, but do it in a round about manner, a non-confrontational manner. Above all, we should never be a bitch. Never lose our tempers. Never wipe the mud off our faces and throw it back.

Provide a drawer of candy. Learn to be good little girls, and maybe the boys will let us play.

This leads me back to Liz’s new group, and the smaller inner select group of members. Make no mistake – I was upset about this, and for two reasons.

The first is the group aspect of it, the member’s only aspect. Here’s a group of women who are talking about women in technology and supposedly women being excluded in technology, and the first thing that happens is they create an invite only group that exclude all women’s voices, including the cranky bitches like me.

Oh yes, women like me can still talk on our weblogs but our voices are less likely to be heard because let’s face it: the tech guys are going to find this group of women to be a lot more ‘comfortable’ to work with than someone like me. I’m that bitch – remember?

That leads me to my own personal reaction to not being invited. Yes, I was upset. And yes, I was angry. And hurt. And I did feel rejected because Liz and Dorothea and I have talked about these issues via email when I’ve asked their support in the past. When I tried to share my pain and rejection from the male technical circles. When I tried to explain why I find the word ‘hysterical’ to be so offensive.

Be quiet. Don’t react. Don’t get angry. Don’t fight back. Be good. Be dignified. Go along to get along. Look at the rewards – Tim might let you speak at ETConn, or Clay might ask you to one of his inner meetings. That’s the way for women to break into the technology fields – with dignity and restraint. Not calling the guys on their behavior. Not pointing out the discrepany at conference after conference. Not rocking the boat.

Not fighting back. Not fighting. Not.

Being quiet. That’s how women get ahead in technology, especially here in weblogging – we stay quiet. Even when we write, we’re still quiet. Even when we scream in the privacy of our minds, in frustration and anger, we still stay quiet.

Today I learned how to get ahead with the men in technology and tech weblogging circles. I’ve also learned how to get ahead with today’s new ‘woman in technology’, too.

I wish you luck ladies. I have no doubts you’ll be successful.

Categories
Diversity

Forgive them, they know what they do

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

AKMA wrote a response to my recent Shinto Commandments, in addition to Joi Ito’s writing, and Jonathon Delacour’s commentary on what we discussed.

AKMA is a Minister and a Professor of Theology. More than that, he is a Christian. He wrote:

Among the things I stand for is the premise that the God about whom Scripture and the saints have taught me is God, not in a perspectival or contingent way, but in a thorough, undeniable, absolute way. Not ‘among other gods,’ though I see the interest and functionality of a polytheistic world. I just don’t inhabit a world like that, and it would be false politeness for me to pretend otherwise. That doesn’t mean I want to stamp out other people’s ways of believing, or legislate against them, or get into condescending arguments with them; it just means that so far as it’s given me to know things, I know the God of Abraham to be God in a unique way.

AKMA could not write anything else, not without bringing into question his own beliefs and the Truth behind them, as he knows it. Belief is an all or nothing proposition – if you believe in God in a certain way, no matter how much you respect that others may not agree, you still have to believe your own truth is the Truth. You internalize as fact that there is only one God, and for AKMA, this is the Christian God.

I can understand this. To me, the key difference between AKMA and the “There is only one God and my God is the only right God” that Joi discussed is that AKMA does not insist others believe as he does. He respects each of our right to develop our own Truth, even if it doesn’t agree with his. My interpretation of his writing is that he doesn’t need others to believe as he does to bolster his own sense of what’s Truth. We don’t have to share beliefs to talk, or to co-exist.

At an intellectual level, I can identify with this, but I can also see a breakdown at a more emotional level – if our belief is Truth, then our belief is also Right, and that means all other beliefs are Wrong. Therein likes the conundrum: belief is both an intellectual and an emotional investment; once conversation, or other action, leaves an intellectual plane for an emotional one, a fundamental sense of rightness about one’s beliefs and sense of God or Gods are very much a part of the equation.

In AKMA’s comments, Jonathon acknowledges an individual’s sense of religous Truth, but he also sees the conundrum:

If the God of Abraham is God in a unique way, how are we to regard the other Gods that are worshipped by billions of non-Christians? If the Christian God is God in “a thorough, undeniable, absolute way”, does it follow that these other Gods are partial, questionable, and relative?

Clearly this cannot be resolved by suggesting that all religions share an underlying belief in the same God (or all paths lead to the same destination) since I suspect this propostion would please hardly anyone – apart from myself and a few others.

AKMA wrote something further in his essay, which I think goes to the heart of discussions of this nature, not only online but elsewhere. He wrote:

First, let me note that I am who you’re talking about. I may not agree with everyone to whom you’re referring — surely, surely, surely not with Roy Moore — but I want to make the discussion personal, so that people don’t feel as though they’re deriding an abstract, absent buffoonish blob. In that blob, you’ll find me, doing what I can, standing up as best I can for that which is true.

I respect, admire, and learn from much that some non-Christian traditions manifest and teach. I have no interest in making other people accede to my faith if they don’t acknowledge its truth. That’d amount to more of the haranguing, bullying, arm-twisting, behavior of which the world has seen more than enough. Nor do I write this in order to extract apologies from people who may think they’ve offended me (anyone who’d care enough to worry is someone I already like enough to expect they meant no offense, so there’s no need, honest). I write this because sometimes it seems as though anyone who holds a position such as mine can safely be dismissed as an arrogant, intolerant imperialist; and I hoped to make sure that someone who wanted to hold to that assessment knew to include me therein.

(emphasis mine)

Jonathon responded with Although my natural inclination is to apologize for any offense I’ve given you, I’d rather trust that I fall into the category of those whom you already like enough to realize that no offense was intended. Unlike Jonathon, my first reaction was not to apologize when I read the highlighted sentence. But I was confused by it.

Was the very fact that I did not feel worried enough of what I wrote to think of apologizing to AKMA mean that I’m not the type of person that AKMA would like anyway? Intellectually, I read this as nothing more than AKMA’s assurance that he wasn’t personally offended by anything we wrote, and that wasn’t the reason for his own essay. Emotionally, though, my interpretation gets a bit murkier.

Consider the original circumstances: I did not see my writing in the original essay as a condemnation of Christians, generally, or AKMA specifically. I am writing Truth and to me this Truth is that regardless of any person’s belief, there must be separation of Church and State in this country. I also wrote that if this separation is enforced in Alabama, then it must be enforced universally and consistently across the country; otherwise the act is hypocritical. If I condemned anything, it was this hypocrisy, and Moore’s own religious bigotry, which he tried to enforce using his secular position.

Reading Joi’s and Jonathon’s essays, and comments with each, I could see no overall condemnation of Christianity, but I’m not sensitive to this as an issue. To me criticism of religious fundamentalism is not the same as criticism of religion – but again, who am I to judge?

I can understand AKMA’s interest in putting a face to Christianity in these discussions. However, as we’ve seen in the past, it is the very act of stripping away the abstract, of making these discussions personal, that tips them over the side of the intellectual plane, where conversation can occur, and into the emotional one where Right and Wrong hold sway.

I will think on this discussion the next time I write about religion, and I will be writing about religion again because it’s becoming more and more core to our politics in this country and the world. As someone who cherishes AKMA and calls him “friend”, I will reflect on AKMA being Christian and what he wrote this weekend. However, as a writer my reflection will be momentary, an imperceptible pause in my writing, because my belief, my Truth if you will, allows me no more than that.

Categories
Diversity

Shinto Commandments?

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Long day and I’m working on some things that will take me away from the weblog until next week. Not the least of which is wanting to attend the Japanese Festival at the Botanical Gardens this weekend, thanks to the tip from Jack Such in my comments.

I didn’t know about the Festival but after Jack’s comment, I checked the schedule and there are some fascinating events planned. With the weather improving, I should be able to attend several, either Sunday or Monday, or even both if I can be productive tomorrow and Saturday.

Among the sessions is one titled “Zen”, which I’m assuming is a discussion of Zen Buddhism. I don’t want to guess further than that, because I know little about Japan and each time I make what I think is an accurate statement, I’m almost always proved wrong; so, less said the better. Perhaps next week, I’ll be a little more knowledgeable. If nothing else, sounds like a terrific opportunity for some photos.

I plan on attending the Zen session, as well as the cooking and Bonsai demonstrations, the dances, the traditional tea ceremony, Hinode Taiko (drums), martial arts and theater. I’ll pass on the Karaoke, though. In the evening the Festival is showing Anime films, in addition to providing candlelight walks through the extensive gardens. Doesn’t that sound lovely for a warm summer evening?

Speaking of Zen and Japanese religions, Joi Ito writes on being Shinto, especially in regards to the recent fiasco here in the States about a certain huge cement granite statue of the Ten Commandments in a certain court house in Alabama. (Why do these things always happen in Alabama?)

Frank Boosman also comments on the problem with the “Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me” commandment.

Like I keep saying, all of you “I only have one God, and my God is the best” people seem to be a bit insecure about your God. As Christopher Hitchens says, “The first four of the commandments have little to do with either law or morality, and the first three suggest a terrific insecurity on the part of the person supposedly issuing them.”

As we Shintos like to say, you can put your god over there next to our other gods. While you’re at it, why don’t you get of your high horse and quit defining Good and Evil as Us and Them.

Not everyone agrees with Joi, as you can see from his comments. In particular, Charlie Whipple wrote…If ever anyone defined things in terms of “us and them,” it’s the Japanese.

Move carefully around this issue – as you write visualize your words as walking about, bare ass naked, among opinions prickly as cactus and crowded very, very close. This goes beyond separation of church and state in our country and goes into the culture of religion, of nationalities, as much as the belief of religion. Race, culture, nationality, and religion, all rolled up into one issue.

This will not surprise you, and it’s lowering to me to present such an uncomplex persona, but I must place myself in the camp of those who found the statue to be appalling, not the least of which was Judge Moore’s own admitted bigotry against other religions; explicitly apparent when asked about displaying a statue of the Koran:

Asked on CNN whether he would support an Islamic monument to the Koran in the rotunda of the federal building, Moore replied, “This nation was founded upon the laws of God, not upon the Koran. That’s clear in the Declaration [of Independence], so it wouldn’t fit history and it wouldn’t fit law.”

Freedom of religion aside, Judge Moore seems to have at best a confused notion of law, at worst a completely missing notion of law, and on what principles our laws are based. Islam Judaism, and Christianity all share the same roots, and even much of the same history, and yes, even moral code. And I believe our legal system was not based on the Ten Commandments, and not on Christianity, either.

There is a point missed in all of this fuss about Judge Moore that goes beyond this basically uninteresting man, and the point is hypocrisy. It is hypocritical to prevent Moore from having that really ugly piece of cement granite (I mean, couldn’t they do a better job of the statue?) in the court house when ministers are asked to open sessions of Congress with a prayer, our coins have “In God we Trust”, we swear on the bible in court, we legislate against gay rights, and the Supreme Court opens with “God save the United States and this Honorable Court”.

All in all, I like Joi’s Shinto beliefs, with the concept of there being room for all gods. Yeah, hard to fight about that one.

Categories
Diversity RDF

Accept

My roommate surprised me with a wonderful gift tonight, a movie I’ve been trying to find on DVD for a long time. The movie is “Mr. Baseball” with Tom Selleck. It wasn’t a popular movie, and I doubt you’ve heard of it. It’s also not especially ‘artsy’ but I still love it. *

I wish I could say that I identify with the lovely Aya Takanashi, but to no avail. Her gentle refined sense of acceptance sounds wonderfully peaceful, and is exceedingly elegant, but I never have been one to just roll with the punches. I’m not particularly elegant, either.

No I tend to identify more strongly with Jack, Mr. Baseball. Its not as if I chew tobacco, maintain a rigid inflexibility, have a hairy chest, and am rude to people in their own land, the defining symbols of the protagonist; it’s more a matter of having a strong sense of self, a streak of stubbornness and defensiveness, and not always to the good.

When I say, strong sense of self, this doesn’t mean that I’m not a team player, I can be. My problem, as it was Jack’s, is I tend to play in the wrong teams. And then I’m too stubborn to admit it.

I watched this movie tonight as I thought about some of the discussions I got into this week. Especially the discussions about RDF. This has not necessarily been a great week for my book on RDF/XML because it’s caught up in the very real wars between the XML ‘view source’ people, and those who support RDF and RDF/XML.

I spent two years working on the Practical RDF book, all the time maintaining one firm decision – it was not going to be a book for the Semantic Web adherents; it was going to be a book for just plain folks. For people like me. I lost some respect from the theoreticians with this approach. Not all, but some. I can name you about 20 long-time RDF adherants who could have done a better job covering the theory behind RDF and the Semantic Web.

My book also tends to fall between the cracks – too RDF/XML for some, not enough RDF for others. And the title doesn’t help: who ever heard of combining ‘Practical’ and ‘RDF’? The title itself generates laughter, sometimes with me, sometimes not.

However, I knew that if the Semantic Web is ever going to become real, it’s going to come about because of the same people who created today’s web, and this book is written for those people. Look in a mirror – that’s who created today’s web, and that’s where the Semantic Web of the future is coming from.

Lately, I’ve been spending considerable time with the Alpha Geeks, the P/E/A revolutionaries, and the XML view source people, and there’s just no return for me in this. Smart, dedicated, and too damn stubborn themselves, they’re good people and they make good team members. But they’re not my team. I’m not an Alpha Geek or a P/E/A revolutionary. I’m definitely not an XML view source person.

The technology is important to me, but it’s not a religion. If I support RDF/XML its because I want us to move on and do something with it. What’s more important to me is not that I win wars for RDF/XML; it’s that the technology is accessible and understandable to everyone, not just the Geeks.

I once thought that the disconnect between me and the Alpha Geeks was because they were primarily men, and I was a woman; sometimes the only woman. I realized today that I was wrong – in most cases gender has nothing to do with it. The disconnect is because we come from such different backgrounds, and our focus, interests, and talents are different.

Oh there’s a few pricks who get threatened by any woman smarter than a gerbil, You can recognize them – anytime a woman disagrees with them, they’re either being “hormonal” or “hysterical”. And as we’ve discussed, time and time again, men and women play together differently. But for most of the Alpha Geeks, gender really isn’t the issue. Passion, interest, and focus are, and in these we differ. The differences left me feeling like odd man out, making me defensive, but too damn stubborn to just get out, to realize I need to let go.

It was an epiphany for me, let me tell you. Kick in the pants time.

So, I’m making some changes, starting with closing down the Practical RDF weblog. I’m re-focusing on the …For Poets weblogs. They may not be for everyone, too poetic or wordy by far for many of my Alpha Geek friends and others, but I like them.

*And the noodle dinner scene cracks me up, every time.

Categories
Diversity

Once you start shaking out the socks all sorts of toe fuzzies fall out

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

President Bush has spoken out against gay marriages , a move applauded by religious conservatives in this country and elsewhere. Some would say that he’s doing so in order to keep the loyalty of the fundamentalists within the Republican party. I can’t help thinking that it’s also because he’s trying to redirect conversation away from Iraq, the economy, and other things going bump in the night for him.

His discussion about having White House lawyers find a way of defining marriage to be for heterosexuals only is ludicrous – exactly what does he think he can do with White House lawyers? But I’m saddened to see so much Congressional effort in this regard when we’re faced with so many other issues our elected officials should be focusing on. I guess it’s easier to force one’s way into bedrooms than to face and fix real problems.

The Vatican has also called against gay marriages in this country, issuing a 12-page document on the issue. According to the Kansas City Star’s report on the document:

Gay adoptions “mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development,” it said.

The document calls on Catholic politicians to vote against laws granting legal recognition to homosexual unions and to work to repeal those already on the books.

“To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral,” it said, although it did not specify penalties for Catholics who do.

Considering the Catholic Church’s recent problems with child molestation, one pauses when one reads a document saying that that gay adoptions are doing violence to children. I have to contrast the documented damage that has been done to children in the name of religion and by the religious over the years with such unsubstantiated claims of ‘violence’ on the part of gay parents – where is the proof? The statistics? Where is the documentation?

No, the damage being done ‘to’ the children of gay couples lies primarily in that they are new souls being raised to think for themselves, to question the dogma, to reject the blind reliance on faith, and most of all, to reject the status quo that forms so much of the foundation of the Religious Right.

I sometimes wonder if I support the right for gays to marry because I’m a feminist, or am I a feminist for the same reason I support gays being able to marry, and raise children – people’s potential should not be limited because of antiquated laws and beliefs narrowly interpreted and enforced by those with the most to gain. Too much oppression, violence, and bigotry has been committed in the name of “God”, no matter the names used to represent “God”; and the logic behind most of the oppression just doesn’t make sense.

For instance, where is the harm to society in two gay people being allowed to celebrate their love with a ceremony, as well as being treated as a couple in the eyes of the law? This doesn’t prevent heterosexual couples from sharing the same privilege. It doesn’t force homosexuality on anyone. It’s not going to suddenly make straight kids accept gayness into their lives. Why do we care so much for what happens between two adults who are in love?

The people who are anti-gay marriage remind me of the anti-abortionists – the same moralism, the same sense of ‘righteousness’. The anti-abortionist argue vehemently against abortion, and cry for the unborn children – but if they’re that concerned about children, why are there unwanted children still in this country? Why are there still children desperate for a home, or who are abused, hungry, and neglected? I’ve never understood a group of people who seem to care more for unborn children then they do the ones that are already here, and base their spurious reasoning for their actions on ‘God’.

(A loving God, at that, as they wire yet another abortion clinic with a bomb, or string another gay kid up to die in the desert.)

What started this chain of thought – gay marriage and feminism – wasn’t that Sheila recommended me for inclusion in the Ms. Magazine weblog roll (thanks, Sheila – get better); it was because while reading the reports of our President’s new moral commitment, I was also reading an excellent set of weblog writings having to do with feminism and religion, starting with Alas, a blog’s What to do with those “I’m not a feminist, but…, followed by Noli Irritare Leones, Why I call myself a feminist, and bean at Alas’s response.

In the first essay, bean discussed a really lovely Guardian piece about the truth behind feminism, not the stereotypes. According to Zoe Williams, the author of the Guardian piece, feminists are not, “…the humorless, lentil-eating battle-axe who won’t swallow and the power-dressing, self-seeking career bitch who uses the movement to justify and advance her relentless amassing of cash”. As bean reminds us, it is because of the bad, bad Feminists that we have the right to vote, to read and write, to not be property of some man, and, most importantly, to have control over our own bodies.

Sappho at Noli Irritare Leones answered with why she calls herself a feminist, even though at first glance this may seem to contradict her Christian beliefs:

Why do I call myself a feminist? After all, I’m an actively churchgoing Christian (which some would see as at odds with being a feminist). I have reservations (for men and women) about “free sex” (and lots of people say “feminism and the sexual revolution” as if they were pretty nearly the same thing). I’d like to see a world with fewer divorces and fewer abortions; shouldn’t I then reject feminism as the cause of divorces and abortions?

She cites reasons including gratitude that she may vote, go to school, have the right to use birth control, work in traditional male fields, protection against rape and abuse, and other fruits of early and contemporary feminist efforts (forget about these at times, don’t we?) At the end, the final reason she gives is:

…because as a Christian I believe that both men and women are in the image of God, that both are called to humility, service, and willingness to “wash feet” as Jesus did, and that both men and women are also called to not put our light under a bushel, sometimes to be Priscilla to someone else’s Apollos, and generally to share our gifts.

(The reference to Priscilla and Apollo is based on the biblical story of the 13 year old Priscilla who would not worship Apollo and was ultimately beaten, sprinkled with boiling oil, starved, thrown to the lions and ultimately beheaded for her ‘impiety’.)

What a marvelous way of looking at the issue: God gave you talents, skills, and intelligence – you have a moral duty to exercise them regardless of your sex. This means being a great nurse or stay at home parent, even if you are a boy; or being a great software engineer (ahem), CEO, and President, even if you are only a girl.

Bean from Alas responded to the new thread of feminism and religion, providing the following in addition to other good points:

Feminists believe in the maintaining (or bringing about) legal and financial access to abortions. However, the majority of feminists also want to see a reduction in the number of abortions. The difference between feminists views on reducing this number and conservative views are that for feminists, rather than reducing access to abortions, they simply want to reduce the need for them – through better access to sex education and birth control.

I agree totally. Might surprise people to know that though I’m pro-Choice, I think abortions should be the choice of last resort. I believe women and men should practice safe sex, use birth control, or practice abstinence. However, sometimes these fail, or mistakes are made, or a woman is raped; in which case women have the right to safe abortions, rather than having to depend on some fake doctor with a dirty kitchen table and spoon. They should consider all the alternatives, first; but they shouldn’t be denied any of them.

Certain gay rights supporters might wince that I brought feminism and pro-Choice into a discussion of gay marriage; and there are feminists who will wince because I bring the topic of gay marriage into discussions about a women’s body and her right to control it. However, at the root of both is the question of religion, and people using religion as a hammer to flatten diversity, to punish the different, and to beat down equality. Regarding feminism and gay rights, I can’t see supporting the one without supporting the other – not because I am a blanket liberal and therefore I have these issues that I must believe and support to stay a good stereotypical liberal; but because fundamentally I believe it’s the right thing to do.

When I see religion being used to force government intervention with either, I will speak out. Even if this discussion does make a good topic to sidetrack folks away from talking about Iraq and a certain Presidential address that mentions non-existent nuclear weapons; and rising unemployment; and disenchanted and abandoned service people; amd corporate fraud and lack of accountability; and ‘terror betting’; and a growing health care crises…