Showing posts with label MeToo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MeToo. Show all posts

21 December 2017

On not selling our silence

Christmas blessings!

When my sisters and I were young, and we had been caught in some misdeed, the punishment we feared the most was a caning, administered by our father with a hardwood railing taken from an old crib. The minimum number of blows was ten. I kept a running total of these beatings by penciling tally marks on the inside of my bedroom closet door. We did not suffer in silence like the Spartan boy with his stolen fox; we cried loudly for mercy, dragging the awful proceedings out as long as we could, and then screamed bloody murder during the actual beatings.

On one occasion, both Ellen and I were sentenced to a caning. I can't remember our crime; surely it wasn't as serious as the time we secretly repaired our television with stolen parts (shameful details here), for which we were somehow never punished. Anyway, on this occasion, we raised the usual racket. The next morning, as I walked down the stairs from our apartment, a neighbor met me and asked what all that screaming was about last night. I instantly came up with some innocent explanation, although I don't now remember the cover story. In short, I lied to protect family secrets.

I've thought about that whole episode now and again through the years, but never particularly considered the role of the neighbor. She did not keep silent. In fact, throughout my life, I can think of several times in my growing-up years when a neighbor or relative saved our bacon by not shrugging off some evidence that things within our family were decidedly not ok. The whole drama of my younger sister being taken out of that home under threat of police action was actually based on a neighbor not keeping quiet.





All this came back to me today when I read Robin Mohr's tweet about the hashtag #SilenceIsNotSpiritual. Silence is spiritual oxygen to me, so it's hard to read those four bald words without wincing. But it's also clear what the hashtag is referring to. It's in the same family as Emmanuel Charles McCarthy's constant theme, "Apathy in the face of human suffering is radical evil." ("Behold the Lamb," pdf.)

The silence of the disciple and the non-silence of the truth-telling witness have this in common: both require attentiveness. Both have the same yearning: to know truth, whatever the cost. We train our senses to "regard" our neighbors, our whole world, through the eyes of faith, just as we're learning to regard Jesus.

Attentiveness is important but not sufficient. We remain attentively silent as long as it takes for the truth to begin reaching us, but then we communicate. We do not hide in the silence. The blessings of worship are not private; they're to be made accessible to all who need them, so we learn to provide access to these gospel-order communities of ours, based on a radical commitment to truth. That same radical commitment has to hold when the truth is ugly, when the truth is violence, isolation, bondage.



I heard a startling quotation in this week's Slate podcast about the Watergate scandal. In the bonus segment, Mary McCarthy's book The Mask of State provided this description of John Mitchell in the Senate's Watergate hearing room: "He sat before them stonily, the very picture of a man who had sold his silence."

I have personally not been paid or threatened for my silence, at least not since childhood, but countless people have -- people at the receiving end of violence, assault, harassment. My years as a Quaker denominational worker made me aware of too many cases -- such as the pastor who described how he tried to intervene in a domestic violence situation, but the abusive husband was a friend of the local sheriff. Those cases are precisely when the community needs to support them, not isolate and betray them. If your church doesn't know how, here's one place that has experience educating churches to overcome the wrong kind of silence. Dare we hope that the tide is turning?



Here's a query specifically for us Quakers who cherish silence. Is our culture as conflict-averse as it sometimes seems to me? Does that syndrome interfere with our ability to break silence when necessary?



Also on Slate: evangelical women are speaking out.

Jasmin Morrell on the darkness of the womb: #MeToo and the Black Madonna.
We are not meant, of course, to continually dwell in silence and darkness. But integrating them into the center of our being is one of the ways to access the full breadth of our humanity and our divinity. So often in my own life, silence precedes my ability to give voice to some aspect of my story, and darkness precedes a morning where I am able to begin again because I’ve been renewed.
Steven Davison on the evolution of "inward" and "inner" light. Where does that divine spark or seed come from, and when?

This week's links on presidential accountability and impeachment: If Trump fires Mueller. Top U.S. Democrat warns White House. Impeachment and the case of presidential obstruction.



"When things go wrong, so wrong with you, it hurts me, too."

02 November 2017

Cruelty

Moscow's Wall of Grief, commemorating victims of political repression, was unveiled Monday. (Source.)
Russia's President Putin led Monday's unveiling of the Wall of Grief, the first official national monument to the victims of political repression in the USSR. Perhaps aware of the skepticism of today's human rights defenders in Russia, who charge the president with unleashing a whole new wave of repression, Putin was unusually direct:
Neither talent, nor services to the Motherland, nor sincere devotion to it could help avoid repression [in the Soviet system], because unwarranted and absolutely absurd charges could be brought against anyone. Millions of people were declared ‘enemies of the people’, shot or mutilated, or suffered in prisons, labour camps or exile.

This terrifying past cannot be deleted from national memory or, all the more so, be justified by any references to the so-called best interests of the people.

The history of our country, like that of any other country, has plenty of difficult and controversial stages. People argue about them, discuss them, offering different approaches to explaining various events.

This is a natural process of learning history and seeking the truth. However, when we are speaking about the repression, death and suffering of millions of people, it will only take a visit to the Butovo memorial site or other common graves of victims of repression, of which there are quite a few in Russia, to realise that these crimes cannot be justified in any way.

Political repression has become a tragedy for all our people, all our society and dealt a harsh blow to our people, its roots, culture and self-consciousness. We are still feeling its consequences. Our duty is to not let it slip into oblivion. Remembrance, a clear and unambiguous position and assessments with regard to those sad events serve as a powerful warning against their recurrence.
I quote extensively from his speech, because most of the Western press coverage (example) of the event pays more attention to the skepticism than to the actual event. I'm not necessarily criticizing the skepticism, since it's clear that the space for political activism in Russia has been shrinking continuously since he took over, but it seems patently unfair not to report the guarantee implicit in his speech that the cruelties of Stalinism will not be covered up or repeated.

Stalinist repression represents cruelty on a pervasive, industrial scale. Zooming inward, I reacted with  horror at Manhattan truck terrorist Sayfullo Saipov expressing satisfaction with his actions, regretting only that he couldn't drive farther and hit more people. Cruelty, it seems, is no nation's monopoly.

Another sort of cruelty has been at the center of attention these last weeks: sexual harassment in its most persistent and transgressive forms. Why is the word "cruelty" appropriate here? It just seems the right word to use for any situation where physical or mental pain is inflicted for the satisfaction of the perpetrator. We pacifists might insist that there is no legitimate reason ever to inflict pain, but "just war" reasoning allows proportionate violence when it's, well, just. Violence to assuage paranoia or simply for enjoyment is outside anyone's ethical framework, but it happens, over and over again. My fourteen-year-old sister's murderer faced no threat at all from her, yet he pulled the trigger that blew her stomach away. Cruelty and its delights have been around a long, long time.

Back to aggravated sexual harassment, a cruelty that takes place in the larger context of sexuality, with all its uncertainties and anxieties for those who find themselves at the crossroads of ethical ideals and raw desire. Where are the boundaries, they legitimately ask, especially as culture exalts gratification. Guidelines, etiquette, warnings, second chances for bumblers ... all these devices help us muddle through the typical awkwardnesses of flirtation and courtship, but just don't seem to work when we confront the serial violator.

Elizabeth Bruenig looks directly at this dilemma in her article, "This is why sexual harassment can't truly be rooted out."
Once we exhaust our tools of procedure and persuasion, those who still offend are of a different moral sort. It isn’t clear what to do about them; it never has been. But it seems obvious that we shouldn’t build our public consciousness around their uncommon deficits, or abandon efforts that are generally working (the long-term legal and cultural campaigns against workplace sexual harassment) in favor of procedures designed to do the impossible.
"Hard cases make bad law" goes the saying, and we don't want to descend into a regime of total prudery in a vain attempt to head off the worst cases. Instead, as Bruenig implies, let's do what's already working for the more typical problems. Let's also keep reminding each other -- as Putin attempted to do, whatever his motives -- what cruelty looks like and what it costs society. Let's remove shame from the equation, so that victims regain power, knowing that they can count on our support.

Something in me also yearns to address perpetrators and their spiritual situation. Were they born without an effective conscience, or was that conscience damaged by illness or abuse? Is there room in our discipleship to pray for them, to pray for their release from bondage and the restoration of the image of God in them? If we can't all do this, can it be part of the church's division of labor?

Can we also pray for the healing of memories, and the healing of the world? In Russia, we were often reminded of the persistent echoes of national trauma and the virus of fear that causes so many people to try to live in a cloak of near-invisibility. But as Putin said, every country has its difficult and controversial stages. We are not helpless: let's pray boldly, passionately, and even publicly (according to our gifts and leadings) to exorcise those demons.

When I wrote about #MeToo a couple of weeks ago, I was remembering my own #MeToo moment, around the age of 12, when two guys bigger than me ganged up on me in a bathroom. The sheer number of such experiences challenges us to grow in our awareness of cruelty and bondage, to anchor ourselves in the solidarity of sorrow and joy that we gain from living in reality instead of denial and sentimentality, and to love each other more fiercely in the face of that reality.



A powerful sermon about the most important thing: Becky Ankeny... "On Friday, I started hearing this verse march through my head: whoever comes to me, I will never send away."

Andrei Sabinin talks about what it's like to be a human rights lawyer in Russia.

Stanley Hauerwas asks: The Reformation is over. Protestants won. So why are we still here?



19 October 2017

My heart is breaking. So what?

We left Russia on Tuesday evening. Now we're traveling on Amtrak from New York City to Portland, Oregon. Our train stopped for nine minutes in Charlottesville, where we spent the first two years of our marriage. A lot has happened since then, with us and with Charlottesville.


My heart is breaking with the flood of #MeToo stories from people who've experienced sexual violence and objectification of all degrees. CNN reports a Facebook statistic: "...More than 45% of people in the United States are friends with someone who's posted a message with the words 'Me too'." Seems entirely possible. Just based on people I know, that proportion might actually be low.

But my breaking heart is completely beside the point. The problem is people whose hearts aren't breaking and will not soon be breaking. Many of them don't consider themselves predators, and their behavior is often supported and protected by their surrounding culture, as noted in Teri Carter's article, "Saying 'me too' isn't enough. Women have to stop excusing men." Some no doubt plunge into cycles of offense and remorse, hoping that their remorse counts for something....

Last year, a similar online phenomenon took off in Russian and Ukrainian social networks. Natalia Antonova described the origins of this movement and some of the assumptions it unearthed. She did not express wild optimism about outcomes, but there is a path toward progress:
We are seeing an example of real collective action — not sponsored by any government, not popularised by marketing or television. The very fact that there is such a big controversy, an outcry, criticism, and counter-criticism tells us that quite a lot of people are emotionally invested both in the problem of violence and trauma — and are also invested in public life and public discourse.
Before we protest that the USA (for example) is more progressive on this score than the post-Soviet world, can we honestly say that we never see examples of  the "hypocritical blending of patriarchal and liberal norms" mentioned by Antonova?

One thing that seemed possible in July 2016, the time of Antonova's article, was a woman serving as president in the USA, something that no Russian I spoke with thought would happen in Russia in their lifetime. Most Russians told me that it shouldn't happen, in Russia or in the USA. Of course, for the USA, that moment didn't come to pass.

(But yesterday came the announcement that Ksenia Sobchak plans to run in the Russian presidential election next year! The conventional wisdom so far seems to agree that this is just a way that the Kremlin wants to make the highly stage-managed Putin re-election process more interesting and entertaining. My question: Can Sobchak's candidacy nevertheless have subversive benefits in widening the forums for discussing sexual violence and related topics?)

Back to #MeToo and the chorus of male grief. The sad truth is that the existence of men (and women) who have no desire at all to offend, or are supposedly too nice to offend, or who repent, or who simply have learned how to manage their "needs," hasn't been enough to prevent that "more than 45%" statistic. Our goals should go way beyond expressing sympathy; they should include ending cultures of impunity. This isn't an easy thing to advocate -- my conscience is stabbed by the question, How often have I been given the benefit of the doubt?

Ending cultures of impunity ... what might this imply? How do we get there? For one thing, it would help to have offenders' peers confronting offenders, and for these stories to circulate. I'm reminded of a case I know personally: an alcoholic wife-abuser being confronted by his older brother, himself a recovering alcoholic: "Hey, take it from me, you straighten up or you're going to lose the best thing you have, and I'll want to know the reason why."

Victims' and survivors' dearest ones also have a role to play, especially in cultures where the "boys will be boys" attitude prevails. In theory, we know that love trumps shame, but we need to make that true in every concrete situation where shame smothers the truth. This is especially important where victims end up entering into alliances with their attackers and therefore feel complicit. Again, for cultures that don't value lofty theories, we need stories of families and sweethearts taking shame out of the equation. Let's tell our stories of shame being healed, whether we were the channels of healing or the ones experiencing healing.

What about men? (After all, the majority of offenders, and also the apparent beneficiaries of the prevailing power systems, are men.) Sometimes my inner cynic worries that this arena is just another channel for men to entertain fantasies of heroism, or (given the persistence of sin and addiction) to use a veneer of sensitivity for seductive purposes. But there are concrete steps we can take:
  • Listen, don't rush to fix. Be rooted in grace. Listen, listen some more. Be human! 
  • When women exert leadership, respond positively. That may simply mean getting out of the way without waiting for recognition or credit.
  • Replace the old "men have needs" excuse with active encouragement for any decent efforts to teach young people about sexuality and boundaries. Maybe it's an opportunity for liberals and conservatives to work together -- for liberals to assert the importance of equality, for conservatives to remind us of sin's devious persistence.
  • Other ideas?
One of my biggest frustrations is the lack of attention to sexual discipleship in the church. The resulting harm includes not just violence and harassment, but endless shame, anxiety, hypocrisy, homophobia, and ultimately cynicism, alienation, atheism, ... in total, a lot less joy, intimacy, and long-term pleasure than God intended for us.

I think I understand the reluctance to tackle sexual issues; I don't know about you, but I really don't go to church to talk about sex! That means finding creative ways to confront the old boundaries and allergies that ultimately served oppression, and create new boundaries that put sexual discipleship in proper perspective with other topics of life as believers -- such as financial discipleship, to name another awkward theme.

Think of the rewards of expanding our discipleship education: building a far more rewarding model of whole-life Christianity that doesn't keep two sets of emotional books (one for display at meeting, and the other reflecting our private anxieties and agonies). Think of the evangelistic advantages as well -- inviting skeptical people into a community that behaves as if it actually believes in the abundant life Jesus promises.



A related post from last year: Trust and its erotic dimension. ("Now it gets personal.")



How badly have traditional Christian sexual ethics failed?
In the absence of any concept of consent, patriarchy might have been the best humanity could do to provide a stable social order that somewhat protects vulnerable people from the kind of mayhem we see in Sodom in Genesis 19 and Gibeah in Judges 19. Unfortunately it fails to provide full protection; it just keeps the violence behind closed doors.
Postliberalism for Quakers. (Thanks to @MeetinghouseBP for the link.)

Another view of Ksenia Sobchak's candidacy, from a pro-Kremlin outlet.



"Johnny B. Goode" Russian style.