What's the Bechdel Test?

I wasn't actually aware of this site, or this test, until a few years ago. It's changed the way I not watch film, but the way I write and how I draw my female characters, though, as i mentioned earlier today, I still get it wrong sometimes.

Take a listen. (It's only 80 seconds long.)

The rules are so simple, and yet so many movies fail them, especially blockbuster films. (Lord of the Rings should get a pass, seeing as how it actually enhances and creates new roles for a couple of the female characters. Tolkien's book has almost no women in it at all, and Jackson took quite a bit heat for enhancing the role of the female characters.)

What's sad is that this test doesn't even indicate how women are being portrayed, and STILL movies fail it.

When I was young, and I mean, like, 28, I conceived of women as how they were portrayed in these shitty action movies, as either being shrewish and cruel or beautiful and dumb. (The whole Whore/Madonna thing.) It took me a long time (and some serious pushing from a few of my female friends) to realize that I was buying something that these Hollywood writers were selling me. (And not just male writers. Nancy Meyers anyone? Ugh.)

But it's difficult to see that kind of prejudice until someone shows you.

So here it is.

-Steve

The Male Brain… and Other Moronic Manuals

My wife and I were browsing through the bookstore this past weekend, when she showed me a book she’d found displayed near the front called The Male Brain by Louann Brizendine M.D. It’s a follow up to Brinzendine’s best seller The Female Brain (which I’d read in doing research for another article). The book claimed to be a “breakthrough of understanding how boys and men think.” In it, we “discover” that the male brain:

-is a lean, mean, problem-solving machine. Faced with a personal problem, a man will use his analytical brain structures, not his emotional ones, to find a solution.
-thrives under competition, instinctively plays rough and is obsessed with rank and hierarchy.
-has an area for sexual pursuit that is 2.5 times larger than the female brain, consuming him with sexual fantasies about female body parts.

Brinzedine uses her experience as a neuropsychiatrist and her male patients at various stages in their life cycle. At every stage; such as the mischievous young boy, the oversexed teenage boy, or the middle-aged man who falls for a younger woman (I obviously fall into this category since my wife is ten years younger than me. Yikes!), she theorizes her patient's behavioural brain patterns, which (she says) are aided considerably by hormones like testosterone ("Zeus") and vasopressin (the "White Knight").

Unfortunately, her “science” is nothing more than pseudo science, her “studies” are either ridiculous or have considerable difficulties (how to interpret fMRI results is an ongoing debate), and all of her patients conform to stereotypes. So then, uh, this is the “breakthrough”?

Shitty pseudo-science texts like this one are dangerous because they’re inherently used to get people to conform. If I were to take her dog-vomit literally, it would be obvious that I was born with a “female” brain. It’s like hearing a mother say “oh, boys will be boys.” Gag.

What it means is that boys will be excused for their behavior and girls will be held to a different standard. What it means is that we’re teaching young girls to accept boys who treat them like garbage because “it’s their nature.”

Bull shit.

This is no different than the release of pre-built pink Legos this past year for girls, because “girls aren’t interested in building. They just want to play!”

My stomach rots when I read this crap because people will think it’s not only true, but it’s inevitable. They’ll see a culture that has allowed men to be assholes and asked something very different of women, and assume it has to be that way because it’s science.

The same thing was being written in the 20th Century about African-Americans. So-called “science” books on their limited capacity. Yeah, so, guess they were wrong about that, eh?

As you work (painfully) through the book, it quickly becomes apparent that Brinzedine has never studied history. (And by study, I mean pick up a single damn book.) If she had, she’d notice that culture, the culture we create in how we segregate and divide people, is all that matters when it comes to gender. Our roles in society are not limited by the chemistry of our brain at birth. It’s such a moronic notion that even mentioning it seems redundant.

I know that this isn’t a typical Monday Encouragement post, but I don’t want you to be fooled by this kind of garbage. You can be whatever you want to be. You have the ability and capacity for it, regardless of gender. If you’re male and you like to dance and you like interior decorating, go for it. If you want to be a cop or a CEO or the president and you’re a woman, do it. Don’t fall for these so-called experts and their manuals that do nothing but exacerbate inequality and labeling.

Neurology has been called the last frontier for science, and while we know more than we did, much of it is still a mystery. We do know that our brain sorts and categorizes an endless sea of information. It’s normal to group ideas and people because that is how our brain works. And Brinzedine has made a career of this, opening up a clinic to explain the differences between the genders based on so-called “neuro-psychiatry”. Unfortunately, she doesn’t even seem to understand the neurological basics about decision making, about how emotion is used in ALL of our decisions, for example, and to suggest otherwise indicates her unwillingness to be honest in her research.

Are men and women different? Sure. But so are people born in different countries. Or from different financial situations. Or from different households. We’re all different. We’re all the same, too. The same struggles, the same heartaches, the same goals. Better to focus on that than using bad research to protect outdated and prejudiced stereotypes that do nothing but divide us even more.

Find what you want and do it, and don’t let someone tell you that you can’t because you’re a girl or a boy, or because you’re white or black or straight or gay. Tell them to stuff it, and if that doesn’t work, send them to me, and I’ll rip them a new one for you.

-Steve

Book Review: World Without End by Ken Follett

Sex in the… 14^th Century Village?

So, what happened?

If I had the opportunity to interview Ken Follett about this sequel to his runaway, 1989 bestseller, Pillars of the Earth, that's what I'd ask him. I know that over twenty years have elapsed between the two books, and that people change, but I'd want to know when he stopped writing novels and started writing religious propaganda.

I still remember discovering Pillars, sometime in the late nineties, on a paperback table in a local Chapters. A few of my friends had recommended it, and after reading the back cover, I decided to pick it up. I hadn't read any of Follett's thrillers, and this story, about a monk and a mason who want to build a cathedral, seemed weighty and ponderous. I figured I'd have to slug through it.

I'd never been so delighted to be wrong. Pillars was a wonderfully crafted story, populated with characters who, if some became types, were written with warmth and affection. That included the main protagonist, Prior Phillip, the honest monk who longed to serve God but was often thwarted by those self-seekers around him, including several of the monks under his care. And while the book sketched a church rife with corruption, it did so according to the characters, not their ideology. The men and women in Pillars were self-aware, but not otherworldly so, and they fit with the book's 12^th Century setting.

So, what happened?

I can't help but ask that question because the disappointment with his follow up is so severe. Pillars of the Earth, in some ways, was a bit of a soap opera, but the melodrama was contained somewhat by the loving care with which Follett described the architecture and the importance it played within town life. Unfortunately, there's no such affection in World Without End. I would say that Follett gets the historical details right, except it doesn't take long to realize that the characters here have been transplanted from a very, very long episode of Sex and the City. The male characters are either cruel or weak, except for the gay monk and any man born with some sort of physical shortcoming. The female characters think and dwell in post-enlightenment, post-feminist, post-modern, post-male, post-digital, post-universal ideas with much confusion and angst. This would make sense, of course, if they HAD been transported back in time. Maybe that's the chapter Follett forgot to write, in which case, the book would make a lot more sense.

The main character, Carrie... errr… Caris, is confused about everything. She's the daughter of one of the town's leading men (one of the few good men in the book, but he also has a deformed leg, so naturally, he's a good guy) and she hates that men can do whatever they want and she cannot. Follett, who clearly thinks that his main character is an excellent feminist who only cares about equality, doesn't realize that he's actually shown what he thinks of feminism by turning her into a petulant, whining brat. Caris also dislikes the church because the monks don't value rational thinking and the only reason the church exists is to keep people down. So, she muses about this quite a lot. She wonders why Reason and logic are not more valued. She never writes these thoughts down, but who knows, perhaps Descartes was thinking about her when he started his own musings on rationalism 150 years later.

Anyway, Caris loves one of the men in the town, Merthin, who's a brilliant engineer but also small and not good looking. (Can you see a pattern here?) He wants to marry her, but she doesn't know what she wants, so she muses more about the fate of women, who seem to have no option but to marry men, all of whom will inevitably lord it over her. All except Merthin, who is quiet and gentle. Still, he's just a stupid man, so Caris bullies him in her moodiness, toys with his emotions, is completely unable to get a grip on her own, and generally treats him like crap. Is this Follett's idea of feminism? Does he realize that he's drawn his proto-female savior as a complete jackass? According to Follett's rendering, she's just a bit confused. That is, what will she do with all this incredible 21^st Century self-awareness? Why couldn't we set the time machine ahead just a little?

Between the musings of our central reporter, err, character, we have the battle of good vs. evil, as revealed in the battle between the nunnery and the priory. Women vs. Men. And the winner is… well, the monks, of course. Those jerks have everything handed to them. The convent is prosperous, and the nuns are all kind and caring. The priory is filled with a bunch of shallow, dim-witted men, who can't figure out why they keep losing money. That statement, by the way, is repeated throughout the book. The monks apparently have no idea why they're losing money. (They never do figure it out.) The nuns do even better however, when Caris somehow recalls a book she read from Italy that reveals a new method of book keeping that allow her to keep track of her assets and liabilities on either side of the ledger, which makes it, like, so much easier to figure out if the convent is ahead. Why, she's the greatest accountant since the guy who got Capone on tax fraud! Oh wait, that doesn't happen until 1933, and here, it's only 1333. Never mind. Oh, and did I mention that Caris single handedly saved her father's business by, you guessed it, single handedly discovering a new way to dye wool. It's all so amazing!

Trouble comes however, when Caris ends up being accused of being a witch, and because she has a mole, you know, down there, she's like, totally a witch. And none of those stupid townspeople will listen because they're all scared and a bit slow. (We did do the nose and hat, but she's still a witch!)The prioress saves her though, by offering Caris a place as a nun. She knows that this angry young rebel doesn't actually believe in God, but the girl is such a good leader. So strong! But even she doesn't know that Caris is not just going to be any nun, but THE GREATEST NUN THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN.

The novel skips ahead a decade, and Caris is now one of the leaders in the convent. No, she doesn't have faith and has no use for God, but she's actually more warm and caring than the rest of the nuns (probably because she knows how stupid the whole God thing is), and the whole town knows it, too! Also, she's super smart, (did I mention what a good leader she is) and it is she who discovers that the prior has stolen the nuns' money to build himself a palace. He refuses to give it back. This is an outrage, of course, so Caris sets off to find the bishop, who is travelling with King Henry III as the English army sweeps across France. No problem. She'll get that money back no matter what.

So she sets out from the convent, and boy, she is really mad. Accompanying her is a beautiful younger nun, Mair, who's also a lesbian and in love with her. They do experience some difficulty when the two of them, alone, cross into France, and discover that the English army has raped and burned the French villages along the coast. Another big problem is that the sexual tension between the two nuns is pretty high, because the two girls have had sex, but Mair really, really loves Caris and Caris still thinks a lot about Merthin, although he's moved to Italy and she's still not sure whether or not she wants to marry him. Merthin is so unfair. Why can't they just keep having sex like they did before? Anyway, that makes it really hard on Mair, who really, really loves her and is so hot. So between the sexual tension and relational difficulties, along with the burned out villages and two massive armies trying to destroy one another, Caris realizes they need a disguise. The two of them dress like men, and manage to fool both the French and the English armies, even though they first must spend a full week on the battlefield helping the French surgeon dress wounds. When she finally gets to confront the king, she is very, very frustrated with him because he just won't listen to her. Typical man! The soldiers however, are gossiping about these amazing nuns, who have somehow travelled across two countries and two armies at war without a scratch, and have also managed to heal their relational difficulties. Thank goodness Caris is so clever!

Meanwhile, back in Kingsbridge, the man she loves, Merthin, continues to startle and amaze the townspeople with his nifty inventions, but hhe has been unable to convince the town to let him use his genius again to help rebuild the church tower. The townspeople, you see, are mostly stupid. (Those 14th Century morons.) Especially the men. So even though Merthin's ideas have literally saved the town from destruction, twice, no one supports him. (Did I mention that Merthin is small and not very good looking?) Thankfully, Caris gets back not a moment too soon, and she shows him what he needs to do to win the town over. There are more obstacles, but Caris overcomes them all. She resigns from the convent, appoints her successor, also manages to appoint the bishop and the prior, and finally decides to marry Merthin, as they become partners as the town's two most influential people. Did I mention that through a large swath of the novel Caris helps the town overcome the plague and is appointed not only as the head of the convent, but the head of the priory as well?

So, Mr. Follett, I know that I'm repeating myself, but what the hell happened?

About fifty pages into this book I started getting angry, but I kept reading in the hopes that I would find the same writer who'd once written one of my favourite novels. When it didn't happen, I kept reading because I knew that I would review it, and I wanted to spare people the fourteen bucks and hours of time reading this narrow minded schlock. The characters in the novel are not actually people, they're excuses for promoting Follett's agenda. Never mind that they have no nuance to them, what really offends is this idea that people are either good or bad. In Follett's case, bad people are those who believe in God, good people choose reason instead of God and treat people in the church as either weak minded or devious. Follett's ideas about feminism are as offensive as those of a fundamentalist, in that while it seems like he's favouring his female characters, what he's really doing is showing you just how silly women are, in his opinion, when they get power.

I'm sorry, but if you haven't figured out that people are not simple, and that religion and gender and sexuality has nothing to do with whether or not a person exhibits admirable qualities, then it's time to stop writing. Or at least, label your work like they do for Muslim fiction and Christian fiction. Just let us know that you're working through an agenda. Or write the chapter with time machine and how Caris was really an assistant on Sex and the City, and wanted to be like Carrie except that she wasn't funny and had no apparent flaws.

In Diana Gabaldon's review of this book for the Washington Post, she called it a morality play. That's one author showing kindness to another. World Without End treats both its characters and readers as idiots, and produces the same smugness Caris exhibits towards the people in her village. If that's what it means to be non-religious, I think I'd suddenly want to go to church. The irony is that Pillars of the Earth was written as a result of Follett's love for cathedrals, with the understanding that such cathedrals were not only a place to inspire majesty and grace, but to unite towns and villages behind a single idea, the acceptance of their own humanity. Twenty years have gone by, and Follett no longer has any use for humanistic ideals about the great possibilities that lie within people or the difference we can make in the world around us. His title reflects as much, and after you finish reading it, you realize that World Without End is not a statement of hope, but the conjoined misery of a rich, old man, who looks around and realizes that no matter what we try to do to make things better, things will never really change, and the world will keep on spinning out its misery.

Zero stars (out of five)

Copyright Stephen Burns 2010

A Misogynist Reviews Mad Men

Hey folks,

"My name is Bill and I'll be sitting in for Steve on this review. He asked me to comment on one of his favourite shows, a period piece called Mad Men that's got the liberals peeing their pants and handing out Emmys as if network television doesn't exist. Before I get to my review, you need to know that Steve and I are friends, but we don't believe the same things. In theological terms, I'm what you call a complimentarian. That's a big word, but basically it means I think men and women are different, and have different roles to play in society. God created us different, and we're just trying to take advantage of those differences in how we think society (and the church) should be run. Steve is an egalitarian, which means he believes men and women are the same. Lord help me, I feel like a retard even trying to explain his position, because it seems so darn silly to me, but he believes that men and women are equally capable in every field. Whether it's running a church or a business, he believes men and women are, well, the same. There, I said it, and I hope he forgives me for feeling a bit tied up when I even think about his position, because it just seems dumb. I mean that in a friendly way, of course.

You also need to know I'm not a big television guy. I like sports, and I don't mind the Dance show my wife insists on watching every week, but I generally don't watch cable shows. Mostly they're an excuse for nudity and swearing and the rest of the liberal nonsense. Like the one about the man and his twenty wives or something. Why would I want to watch a show about a freak like that? No thanks. Or the other one about a gangster and his family, The Sopranos. You remember that one, don't you? That was the show the TV libs were all gaga about before Mad Men came along. Again, why in the world, would a clean living, normal person watch a show about the mob? Ridiculous. I wasn't even gonna do this review when Steve said the show was set in the sixties. It isn't that I'm not interested in fairness, but the world went crazy in the sixties, and some days when I think about it, I just want my country back, you know. But he said it was set in 1960, which is before all the crap started, so I decided I would go along with it.

The show itself is about a bunch of fellas working in the advertising business, just before it became the big business it is today. Season Four opens up in 1964, so I guess four years have passed. Kennedy is dead, and they're working at a new building.

I gotta tell you, the first thing I noticed about the show was how accurate it all was. I wasn't around back then, I'm Steve's age, but from all the pictures and films I've seen, the costumes are bang on. And I have to say everyone looks terrific. None of this baggy saggy look at my arse garbage of today. The men are wearing suits. The women, who look like women, are wearing skirts with their hair done and their makeup in place. For the first five minutes all I could think about was my office this past Friday. Couldn't tell the men from the women. Back then women liked being women, you know. These days, it's like they're ashamed and feel as though they have to look like men to get ahead.

Don Draper (Jon Hamm) is the man in charge. And when I say man in charge, that's exactly what I mean. I would have worked for this guy! He's a big fella who likes the ladies, and they like him back. (I would be a wing man for this guy). He's the creative director and basically the life blood of the firm. His employees all look up to him, but he has a bit of a hard time handling Peggy, who I guess used to be his secretary and has worked her way up to being one of the boys. Watching her there with all those good guys, and how awkward she is sometimes, and so bossy, like she's a big know-it-all, made my stomach clench. Oh, I get it. She's pretty good with the ideas, but she also acts like a man! That part is obvious. An egalitarian would say that she is clearly capable of doing her job, which proves their point. Right. But if she has to be a man to do her job, what happens when every woman starts wanting to be a man? Where does that leave us? What, teaching or nursing or being a secretary wasn't good enough for her? How selfish is that? Oh, and her hair is ridiculous and she's the ugliest one on the show. But that's what happens when a woman tries to be a man. Smart women know this, of course.

The show moves pretty quick, and the actors are all pretty good. They smoke and drink a lot, but there was a lot more freedom back then, before the government got involved in everything. I haven't mentioned Roger Stirling either, Don's partner. Now that guy is funny, and really smart. Every time he says something I find myself agreeing with him. I wish I had a few more buddies as cool as him! I suppose I should talk about Don, the star of the show. Now, Don seems like an all right fella. He seems to agree with rational, normal people about roles in society. But there's something there, something kinda dark, that makes me not believe him when he (rightly) tells a woman to get lost or that he doesn't want a woman present. It isn't that I think he's joined Steve's pink shirted cast of Nancy school girls, but it almost seems as if he doesn't care about men or women. Or that they don't matter because nothing matters. Or something like that.

Anyway, I'm sure that I'll be watching the show again. I liked the costumes and I liked the surety of that society. Oh, I know that it's written by one of the "Nancies" (with a name like Weiner, what do you expect?) but I'm hoping it will remind people how much simpler and more efficient things were back when men were men and women were happy. Hope this helps, everyone."


Thanks, Bill.

-Steve

Authour's Note: Names may have been changed and certain individuals above may not actually exist. But as James Frey says, it's the truth that matters.

The Key to Finding Mr./Mrs. Right… is Selfishness

They were nuzzling each other in the checkout line directly in front of me, to the point where I turned slightly so as not to impugn on their moment. We've all witnessed the embarrassing teenage couples clinging to one another in outrageous public displays of affection, but this couple wasn't young at all. They looked to be in their mid-forties. He was short and balding, the woman even shorter with thick black hair and a tired, happy face. Their son, who looked to be about five, was quietly dragging a foam sword near the cereal aisle, and he responded quickly when his dad called him over and gave him a hug. I couldn't help but smile. This is what we all wanted, I thought. More specifically, I thought about my female friends and their frustrations in finding "Mr. Right", someone who they could count on as a partner and teammate. For all the advances we'd made towards equality, the most chauvinistic portion of our population was young men between the ages of 16-22. What that said about our culture, I could only speculate, but what it meant for young women was less abstract. It meant sifting through a populace that was not only increasingly disinterested in equality, but one in which violence continued to play a major role. Conditions in the church were no better. In some ways, the situation was worse, as young men purporting to be Christians did not seem to perceive a contradiction from their faith and their tendency to raise their hand against their wives. So many of my friends and acquaintances had given up, either marrying someone who was 'okay' or ending up with a man they were not proud to be with. It was better than being alone. Or was it? And why was it so hard for women to find "Mr. Right"? There weren't that many jerks, were there? Or were my friends simply being too picky. Whatever the answer, it was something worth looking into, if only so that I'd have something to say to my friends when they asked me yet again where all the good men had gone.

***

I have a confession to make. I'm happily married. And oh yeah, I've been married before. We were both miserable. Fortunately, my ex-wife met someone great after we broke up and became happily married. So we're both happily married now, just not to each other. I mention that because undoubtedly someone will read this and dismiss it because my credentials are 'impure.' Of course, my credentials are already impure because I'm male, and my advice is (largely)directed towards women. A couple of weeks ago however, I received an email from a reader/friend, who was frustrated by what she'd witnessed in the dating world and in her friends' relationships. "What's wrong with all these men? These so-called Christians are mean, ego-driven and often violent. What do I do?" Her letter touched a chord in me, because it was something I'd seen often the past decade in my work with youth and families. Especially young women in their twenties who were looking to the future. I'd seen the things she mentioned in her letter in my Seminary, supposedly the training ground for young pastors, in everything from the books we were forced to read to the attitude of many of the male students. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that whatever answers I did have were not going to be well received, and in many cases, would upset a lot of people. Would in fact make some people very angry. But I've never been good at hedging, even when it's pushed me into rocky waters.

HARD TRUTHS AHEAD. CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED.

***

Tyndale College University & Seminary is a red bricked building set amidst a series of quiet, rolling streets just north of Toronto. Million dollar homes are the norm in this largely Asian suburb, each house more precisely manicured than the next. About the size of an elementary school, it has evolved into the largest evangelical seminary in Canada, with over two hundred full time students and eight hundred part timers. When I moved to Toronto for graduate studies in the fall of 2007 I wasn't sure what to expect. Having long since given up my patriarchal zealot days of my early twenties – when I would talk about spiritual leadership and men (only)in the same breath – and having witnessed the tragedy of patriarchal tendencies, I was pleasantly surprised by my professors. Coming from a wide variety of Christian traditions, they were almost universally progressive and thoughtful. By the time I'd picked up the textbooks for my course on Leadership, I'd long since given up the fear that I would be subjected to content that promoted a 1950's domesticity and inequality towards women. That ended however, upon my reading of the text, Being Leaders by Aubrey Malphurs. In one of his 'helpful' appendices, he documented two leadership checklists. One for men. One for women. I still remember the way my stomach clutched at my throat upon reading about a woman's 'love for her children' and her 'support for her husband' (among others) as qualities necessary for leadership. There were no such checks for the men of course. For the men, the book listed things such as the necessity of being the husband of 'but one wife' and 'intellectually capable'. Even more disturbing than the book was the reaction by most of the male students, the exception being my best friend and one other, who didn't see anything wrong with the textbook and rolled their eyes when I continued to hammer my professor about it. "It's just a book, Steve. It's not a big deal." The women in the class were split nearly down the middle. When I expressed my outrage at the sexist ideas expressed in Malphurs' work, not a few of them shrugged. They'd seen it a million times. It wasn't THAT big a deal. That was, without a doubt, the saddest part of it all. The women who either refused to see the sexism or had seen it so many times before had given up hope of change.

Hard Truth: So long as we believe that we do not deserve equality in our relationships, we will never find it.

Hard Truth 2: Young pastors and young Christian men continue to be taught that misogyny is an acceptable part of the Christian faith. Unless women recognize that they have to apply their own 'filter' for sifting out men who will look down on them, they will continue to end up in relationships with preening, self-righteous jerks who treat them badly.

Sound harsh? Probably to some men reading this, men who honestly believe that they consider women as equals. Meanwhile, these are the same men who would never accept a female pastor or talk about spiritual leadership in the context of women. (Women should be silent!) They follow self styled leaders like John Piper who counsel women to stay in abusive relationships. Make no mistake, while there are some churches working hard to see equality and teamwork between the sexes, most churches teach male superiority, though they will clothe it with words like "function, not value", or that they are just "following the Bible."(The next time someone says that to you, ask them what they think of slavery. If slavery is not acceptable, although Paul specifically orders slaves to submit, then why are women supposed to be silent?)

Therefore, you need to develop a check list of your own for prospective suitors to answer. Frame your questions around things such as spiritual leadership and gender roles. If he/she shows an inclination towards a set roles for either gender, and believes spiritual leadership is for men, get up and run away. Do not look back. Forget how good looking he is. In five years you will be miserable, if not sooner. Don't ignore the warning signs ('shouldn't women take care of the kids, they're like, made to handle them.") Trust me, you won't regret it.

***

If my wife was twenty pounds heavier I never would have married her.

Sounds gross, doesn't it? Alas, it's true. And she's a size two, sometimes a zero.

What's also true is that if I hadn't lifted enough weights over the years to develop my body so that I can push three hundred pounds above my head, she wouldn't have been interested anyway. We laugh about it, but her interest was peaked as much by my arms as by my smile. (All I can say is thank you, Lord, for getting me to the weight room when I was seventeen.) Yes, her intelligence, kindness, faith and strong sense of self were just as important. But they weren't more important. They still aren't. The same is true for her. In all the church blather about the importance of a woman being 'godly' (whatever that means), and our rejection of the commercialization of sex and female bodies, we bury an important truth: that how we look matters. And not a little. It matters a lot. Being fit not only increases our likeliness to attract others, it speaks to something else, especially in an obese culture like this one. I watch how my wife treats herself, how she cares for herself, how hard she works to stay fit by eating healthy and working out hard, whatever her schedule. I've known a number of women through the years who are looking for a partner, and while they remain smart and kind, they have physically let themselves go. Unfortunately, they've been taught a set of lies, usually by obese men behind a pulpit who hammer away at the importance of 'spiritual' qualities and 'selflessness' without ever telling women that they need to be a little selfish. That they need to focus on taking care of how they look so they can stay independent and strong.

Now when a man says that a woman needs to stay in shape, it comes across, at the very least, as presumptuous, and almost always condescending. Unfortunately, the truth is that a woman who allows herself to become overweight gives up something far worse than simply her conditioning or her ability to choose better looking guys.

We don't think of fitness or being in shape in relation to our spirituality, mainly because we've spent the past two thousand years dividing our body from our mind and our soul. (These are Greek ideas.) But everything we do reflects what we believe, including how we take care of ourselves.

Hard Truth 3: If we're not willing to work hard (and it is VERY hard work) at staying fit, how can we complain when people do not find us attractive?

Hard Truth 4: The irony is that while being fit increases your chance of finding a significant other, you can't make fitness something you do for someone else. It has to be something you do for yourself.

A great part of the appeal in people who are fit are all the traits we unconsciously assign to them. Discipline. Self-control. Strength. Independence. Now these traits may not all be present, and not in every area of a person's life, but there is tangible proof that in least one area, that person is strong and consistent.

Start today by taking control of your life. Insist on creating time in your life for yourself to workout. Learn about eating healthy. Remember, you're not doing this to attract a partner (that's a side benefit), you're doing it for yourself. As a trainer, I've watched women come back into their own as they have taken ownership of their bodies, and consequently, their lives. You do not belong to someone else, and while you may one day share your life with someone, no one owns you. Treat yourself as you deserve, and watch the difference it makes in your life.

***

Waiting on God is difficult, especially when it comes to relationships. Through the years I've met a number of people who insist that God will provide them with a partner, that so long as they keep their faith, their long dreamed romantic relationship, fed through the commercialized Hollywood apparatus, will suddenly appear. The idea saddens me, especially as it relates to my fellow Christians, in so much as it's inherently pagan.

Hard truth 5: The idea that we offer up a sacrifice (our time, prayer, very specific prayer, singing) so that God will mysteriously bring a stranger to our small town, to our closed life, is a great load of bunk and has nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with people manipulating us so they can use us for their own ends.

I hear this a lot in church circles. I have friends who can tell me exactly what they want their wife to look like, or what their husband's accent will be. They have been taught (wrongly) that God answers specific prayer. That God is nothing more than a plaza for us to peruse. Another shopping mall for us to line up and get things. And they'll look you in the eye and tell you that faith is enough. That God will bring so and so just like Pastor Bobby Joe said. Frankly, the whole thing is insulting.

Hard Truth 6: How in the world can we expect to meet someone when we live in the same house, the same small town, with the same people? It's utterly baffling. We expect God to bring someone to us because we are too lazy or too scared or too comfortable to change our geography or go to a different church.

The problem is more perilous if there are children involved, obviously. In which case we have to be as proactive as we can to initiate contact with possibilities. The internet is a good example. I'm not a huge fan of internet dating, but it's better than doing nothing.

I believe that meeting my wife was God ordained. I honestly do. But if I hadn't left Ottawa to take on a new challenge with new people, it never would have happened. I'm not ashamed to admit that originally I'd hoped to meet somebody at Tyndale. Why not? We need to change this mentality that God wants us to be submissive waifs, refusing to move or change unless we hear the voice of Thunder calling from heaven.

Nonsense.

Hard Truth 7: If you want to meet someone new, you have to meet new people. And that means adjusting your life so that will happen.

More than anything, we need to be more selfish. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but we need to do a better job looking out for ourselves if we hope to find someone else. We need to ask prospective suitors difficult questions, ensure that they believe in equality, and then walk away when we realize that they do NOT believe in equality. We need to guard our time selfishly, and stop saying yes to people who will rob us of our chance to be fit and healthy. People will always be grabbing for our time. Don't let them. And finally, we need to stop waiting around for God to do something and MOVE. Be active. Watch God move, but you go first! Our lives are more than relationships, so while it is wonderful to be happily married, your life is so much more than that. Waiting on God does not mean waiting as we would do in a doctor's office. Push forward, follow your passions, and don't get stuck when people try to hold you back. (Because believe me, families love to do this. And Christian men love to do this to women.)Live for God by remembering he created you and is happy with you and has plans for you OUTSIDE OF ANY RELATIONSHIP. Pursue those, and then watch as God brings people alongside you. One of them may even be suitable as a life teammate. Just remember, you have a few questions for them first.

-Steve

God as a Woman?

NOVEL WORD COUNT: 111,313

28 days: Day 6

Psychologists and theologians tell us that our first impression of God is our (human) father. This is especially true in monotheistic traditions, where God is depicted as male. The question, one often ignored, is whether or not this is a good thing.

The problem with the 'father' association is especially poignant in abusive homes, where many children grow up with an image of God that is harsh and cruel. No wonder those individuals have difficulty believing in a loving Creator. Frankly, I've never understood why certain Christians insist on the maleness of God. Their insistence that God, in both the Old Testament and New Testament, chose to be known as male, seems both patriarchal and self-serving. It's here that we see one of the many logistical holes when we take the Bible literally, how we actually diminish Scripture by insisting on a meaning without cultural context. For one thing, Israel's concept of God was radically different than our own, particularly expressed by the idea that Yahweh was 'kadosh', or Holy Other. The Creator was Holy Other than humanity. For the Israelites, YHWH could never be compared to their human father.

In Forerunner, the Creator's identity is primarily feminine. The characters always refer to "Her." After so many months of living in this world, it has become increasingly natural for me. Now for most believers, we understand intellectually that God is neither male nor female, that it is merely a reference point (and yes, I know Jesus was a man) but the implications of our association have been, in many cases, highly destructive. What if we thought of God as our Mother? It neither changes the character or substance of God if we do, and yet it completely alters how we think about God, doesn't it?. If we thought of God as Mother, would we be able to so easily justify the religious wars and violence as we have throughout our history? If we thought of God as Mother, would our first instinct, the instinct of fundamentalists, be to remind people that they are sinners and that God is holy and righteous and wrathful?

The process of writing this novel has altered my ideas about God, and how our perception can be so easily changed by simply changing the gender reference point that we have all grown accustomed to.

Consider this: Studies have shown that complimentarianism, the dominant view of the family throughout the history of the church, leads to more family violence than any other worldview. The patriarchal ideals, the ones preached by men like John Piper and James Dobson, are responsible for widespread abuse, abuse that makes it difficult for many people to reconcile the idea of a loving God with such a nasty father. And yet, those same individuals and churches would be the ones least likely to consider altering our reference point by referring to the Creator as "she". (For the record, I would never use the word 'goddess', which is a misogynistic term that immediately implies 'the female version of the real (male) version'. It's the same reason I refuse to use the term 'actress.')

And yet, after saying all that, it's only through the writing of this book that I have become comfortable with addressing God as 'she'. It just goes to show you, no matter how much we talk about change, it's still uncomfortable, if only because it forces us to address things we thought we'd already worked out.

-Steve

Sex, Virginity and the Law...

Reading the news from around the world can be troubling, but it's a necessary part of examining what we believe. I read a story about a case in France that frankly made me want to throw up into my morning coffee. Here's a summary of the latest news from that case taken off the AP wire. The bracketed comments are my own.

A French court overturned an order annulling the marriage of a Muslim woman accused of lying about being a virgin on Thursday, pending a ruling on appeal expected in September. (It shouldn't have made the mistake in the first place)

The decision adds a further twist to a case that has caused legal confusion and controversy in France.

The marriage was originally annulled last month after a court ruled that the woman had lied over what is called in French law an "essential quality", in this case her virginity. It ruled that the marriage contract was therefore invalid. (This is abominable, and to think it happened in 'secular' France scares the crap out of me)

That ruling was greeted with outrage by feminists and human rights activists shocked that virginity could be considered an "essential quality". (You think?) Some politicians said they were worried that conservative Muslim values were creeping into French law. (No kidding)

The public prosecutor, acting under instructions from the justice ministry, appealed against the ruling, despite objections from the woman in the case, who wanted the marriage to be ended. (This is the sad part of the case, as we worry what will happen to the woman. However, they simply can not let this ruling stand. And I'm glad she wants the marriage to end. If I could talk to her, I would say two things: 1. My friend, you can do better than that jerk and... 2. What were you thinking?)

Thursday's ruling means that the marriage is once again in force until the appeal court rules on Sept. 22. The appeals court could decide that the annulment order should not stand and force the couple to seek a divorce.

***

Before you start wondering why I'm so upset, I want you to think about what the initial ruling actually implied. Imagine your daughter or sister or your friend. She gets married. The husband thinks she is not a virgin because she doesn't bleed on the bed. (Biology 101. A broken hymen indicates nothing when it comes to sex. The hymen can easily be broken through sports or any other sort of activity. I hesitate to even mention that because even mentioning it feels wrong, as if it matters whether to the value of a woman whether she is a virgin or not. By the way, where's the test for the men? Oh, that's right... there isn't one.)

Now your new brother-in-law "discovers" on the wedding night that your sister, in his dull, ignorant mind, is not a virgin. He storms out of the wedding celebrations and brings your sister/friend home and drops her off like a piece of garbage. He then goes to the courts and THEY AGREE WITH HIM?!

In this scenario, the woman is no better than a slave, a piece of meat. The idea of a 'virginity test' is nothing more than misogynistic hate towards women. Anyone who sees it otherwise, I'm afraid, is the one who would be quite comfortable running their own plantation. Despicable.

***

The other aspect to this case is that the court's original decision would have encouraged the already flourishing medical trade in 'hymen reparation'. For those of you who are unaware, there has been a surge of 'hymen reparation' or hymenoplasty from young Islamic women around the world. In this surgery, the doctors essentially sew up the hymen. One surgeon even gives the young women a vial of blood to pour onto the bed, just in case. Gynecologists in Paris report women coming to them for certificates of virginity, and medical tourist packages take women to places such as Tunisia where the surgery is cheaper.

Now I know it sounds absurd for us to even consider that happening in Canada or the U. S., but consider the "abstinence again" campaigns down in the States. A woman 'reclaims' her virginity and dedicates herself to a life of 'purity.' Or how about the creepy Father-Daughter purity balls. Everyone's dressed up like prom goers, the dads in tuxes and the daughters in evening gowns looking all grown up. They dance, they laugh, they giggle. And then father and daughter stand up, holding each others hands, staring into each others' eyes and the girls make these vows as if in a wedding ceremony. (So exactly what are they pledging, you ask?) Here's one example? The girl starts.

"I pledge to remain sexually pure...until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband. ... I know that God requires this of me.. that he loves me. and that he will reward me for my faithfulness. "

And this is what Daddy says in turn:

"I, (daughter's name)'s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come."

This is a fairly common evangelical practice in the U.S. and you can't hear the echoes of 'hymen replacement' from those 'crazy Islamo-Fascists', you should. In both cases we see control clearly in the hands of men, and in the case of the father-daughter purity balls, a little too much incestual contact for my liking. Or as one writer put it:

"To value one’s daughter primarily through proudly talking about the untouched state of her genitals is prurient and invasive. It is demeaning to teach one’s daughter she is a princess only so long as she is obedient and non-sexual. When a girl’s value is tied soley to the presence or absence of her hymen, how can anyone call that a sign of fatherly concern and love?"

***

On a much lighter note, the summer is here, and the abundance of women wearing tight shirts and plunging necklines is back up to summer levels. (Which means 1 out of 2 women) I'd like to say that as a firm believer in, err, women's rights, I happily support their decision to wear whatever they like. So long as THEY know what they are wearing and the affect on the rest of the umm, sometimes slower part of the species.

Case in point. I was standing outside Starbucks talking to an acquaintance when this woman, who was in good shape and about 30, wiggled past us in her heels and plunging v-neck. My friend accidentally turned, forgot to prepare himself, and jerked his head downward in a rather, umm, unsubtle nod as a testament to the woman's err, continuing expertise in the area of self-maintenance. (And perhaps a nod towards her fashion sense as well) She noticed the awkward head bob, and scowled at him through her sunglasses for the next five seconds as she strolled past us. For a second I thought she was going to stop and bop him with her glittering Louis Vachon purse. (I'd be bravely defending him of course, by taking the opportunity to tie my shoes.)

Okay, so this is my comment. Ladies, we men do the best we can in the summer. I think it's only fair that if a man slips up and his eyes drop a little when you put on that extra tiny t-shirt that you cut him some slack. Most of us, like my acquaintance, are not Neanderthals. We probably find you attractive and are horrified by our impoliteness. Fair to say I think, that we're not objectifying you, just admiring the way God made you, and as long as the effort is there, please cut us some slack. If you choose to wear that top (God bless you) you have to know we notice, and so I think you lose the right to scowl on the innocent slip-ups. :) (Some guys are pigs. I get that. In which case I say clobber him with the Louis Vachon purse.)

***

Louis Vachon is not a designer. I know that. Vachon makes those pastry cakes I love, which would be great if I could carry a purse stuffed with cake...

***

Sex is not dirty.

***

I don't have a purse.

***

I'll have another column up in a couple of days, folks. Hope you have a wonderful weekend. Remember to smile and hug someone this weekend. We only go around this planet once.

-Steve

Abortion... and Society's Disdain for Women

About three years ago my friend, a single mom, visited the designated government agency -- yet again -- about the issue of child support. (She hadn't recieved a dime in three years) This agency, created to pursue and if necessary prosecute 'deadbeat dads', was unlike most government offices. It was filled with filing cabinets. The office had yet to 'update' its files to computers. This was no 'backward' country, scrambling to escape its poverty-stricken and war torn past. No, this was in Ontario, a five hundred and thirty billion dollar a year province and the engine behind the so-called socialist Canada. And yet, there were no computers to help keep the files updated so single women struggling to support their children could find out where the father was and what they could do for their share of his support. Her story made me wonder. If it's this bad here, in a country that generally accepts abortion as an ugly if necessary part of our legal system, how is it elsewhere?

For years I've watched the videos, seen the bumper stickers, and listened to the speeches. "Abortion is un-godly! Abortion is murder!" And behind the rallying demagogues Christians have nodded their heads in sage agreement. "Jesus wouldn't be pro-choice, would he? He would have protected the little children, what's wrong with you." And there, at a loss for words and without the experience or understanding to know what I was saying, I nodded and shouted along with them.

I remember a high school debate I had in my Grade Twelve Law class. Me and my partner were against abortion. Our opponents were pro-choice. I rattled the cages with my rhetoric and witticisms, and at the end of the class, my teacher complimented me on my arguments. I recounted the experience to my parents later that evening. It was good to stand solidly on one side of an issue and to know I was right. It made me feel wise and not a little greater then the other peons who were still trying to figure things out.

Unfortunately, that love of 'being right' carried well beyond adolescence. With abortion, there was never anything to discuss. I was against it, in every way. You didn't have to show me the pictures, you didn't have to show me the psychological studies that revealed how damaging it could be to the mother or the violent nature of the operation. I knew it was bad. What puzzled me however, were the people who thought it should be okay. How could they possibly be pro-choice? What was wrong with them?

The answer, of course, was nothing. The answer was that there were more people involved then just the baby. The answer was that while the 'issue' of abortion enraged and ensnarled passions across the continent, mostly everyone forgot about the women. Oh sure, we reassured women from our position that they were doing the right thing, that they would only regret what they had done in the future, that they would live with the guilt for the rest of their life, and heck, we were only trying to help them. And yet, where was that help?

For most young women, that is the unanswerable question? The father can pretty easily do what he wants, and pay minimal -- if any support -- and the mother, well, she's just doing her duty. Once again, the man gets a free pass. And the mother is expected to raise and rear and pay for this child on her own. If we -- as a church -- respect life, why don't we respect the life of the mother? There are lineups at clinics (WE EMPLOY CHILDREN, HOW DISGUSTING!) to prevent young mothers from getting an abortion. Where are those same lineups outside the office that collects support for young mothers? Where is the political and emotional support for single mothers in our churches and in political rallies? Instead, we look at them as if they 'did wrong', without ever calling out the men.

Is abortion really about a woman's right to choose? Of course it is! They certainly aren't getting much help from us. The best we seem to be able to do is put bumper stickers on our car. Maybe it'd be better to stop engaging the rhetoric of an 'issue', and actually help. I know too many single moms... far too many... who can barely make ends meet while their husbands are off exploring their 'new' life.

In these circumstances, it better be a woman's right to choose whether or not she has the baby. No one else cares.

Too often, I hear the chatter of 'raging feminists' destroying society. Mostly this is done by ignorant white males who have never actually read any work by a feminist. I know, because this was me for most of my years through college and beyond. But even the most ardent feminist is not pro-abortion. Of course not. Abortion is traumatic, whether you believe life begins at conception or otherwise. What saddens me is that more often then not, the ones who are pro-choice are actually more humane than those of us in the church, in that they see not one life... but two.

What I love most when I read the Gospels is how Jesus continually flips things. He never sides with an issue, but always considers the lives involved. No one ever gets favored treatment. Not the Jew or the man. And yet, our tendency is just the opposite, isn't it? Give me an issue, and make sure I don't have to see all the details. It sells better, and it 'galvanizes' the church. This bothers me, as it should you, because the last time I checked the church was not running for political office nor was it in the business of marketing itself like some populist television show.
My prayer this week is that we would examine what we believe, and just how those beliefs impact those around us. Are we accepting stereotypes because it's easy? Are we setting up 'groups' to condemn because it's easier than facing our own shadows?

No one thinks abortion is a good thing, but until we support all of human life, a woman should demand the right to choose, if only because we've given her no other choice.

-Steve

Shut up, Woman! Aren't You a Christian?

Why Christian men despise women... And what you can do about it...

We were sitting on the couch, and Jer was leafing through a photo album of his trip to Florida. Heather, his wife, wasn't home. We were due back for class in an hour, but for now, we were content to chill and hang out. He showed me pictures of the beach, and I was nodding along until a picture of him and Heather made me sit up straight.

"You let her wear that?"

"Huh?"

I was almost afraid to look at it.

"Dude, your wife is wearing a bikini!"

He looked at me and laughed, and despite the obvious consternation on my face, he didn't bother pursuing it. He knew better.

At the time, you couldn't have convinced me of anything other than the simple fact that my friend was being loose with his wife. That he should be checking to ensure she didn't act in an inappropriate manner like that. Wasn't he her husband? If I ever married, my wife would never act in that manner, I reassured myself. A bikini? What was this world coming to?

I was twenty-one years old.

14 Years Later

The lecture had finished, and I stood inside the little foyer at the retreat center, pouring myself a coffee and trying not to eat too many cookies. I approached Patricia (all the names have been changed in this blog, but the stories are true) to thank her for her openness in the last session. She'd been a minister for eleven years, and as we talked, she began to share some of her experiences as a woman in ministry.

As an associate pastor, her and her church had put together a joint service with another church. The other church was currently being served by an interim pastor. When they spoke and began to plan the service, it made sense that she would be the one to preach. When the board of the other church found out, however, that a woman would be preaching, they cancelled the service. Patricia, showing great humility, did not force her way into the pulpit. Instead, she demurred, but in every other facet ran the joint service. As she greeted the people in the foyer afterwards, the women were genuinely surprised that she was an actual woman minister. The men, however, did not disguise their disgust, snarling and making snide comments as they exited the building.

This is the environment she has worked in for the past eleven years. Funny, gentle, disarming, educated, Patricia has all the qualities you hope for in a minister. Except she isn't a man.
A friend down in Texas has three kids, and she wrote me recently, telling me how trapped she feels in her marriage. Her husband controls every aspect of her life, he never helps around the house, and he is unwilling to admit when he is wrong, insisting that as a woman her role is to simply forgive and move on. He is a prominent pastor, and whenever she has had the courage to mention it to someone, she is told that he 'is working for the Lord.' That she is to be his helpmate. That she is to deny herself and follow Jesus. She no longer knows who she is, and inside her soul is dying, but she sucks it up because she thinks that maybe this is what God wants for her.

She is a woman.

Another friend recently married. Her family life has been marred by a litany of emotional struggle and abuse, but this man, this Christian man, seemed like a dream. Until she got sick. He has decided that she is not positive enough, and he has walked away until she is more joyful for the Lord. He is commended within his community for being a strong, positive role model. Meanwhile, she faces an uphill battle with a life of unsurety, while he 'pursues the Lord'.

She is a woman.

Another friend recently wrote me about her situation. She has three kids, and hasn't worked since she and her husband married nine years ago. She asked him about work, but he has always discouraged her, reminding her that the first years are important. He also controls her life. She has no bank account of her own, because her husband claims that there should be no secrets within the marriage. When she spends money, he always wants to know why. When she calls or speaks with a man, he wants to know why. He is allowed to speak to whomever he chooses. However, openness is important to the Lord. She bravely tries to live on the compliments of the church. That she is such a wonderful role model, that her husband is very lucky. But lately these comments don't mean very much, because she realizes exactly what she is.

She is a woman.

Over and over, I am besieged this past year of stories from friends and coworkers and colleagues, of women trapped and frustrated by these seemingly loving Christian men they have chosen as their life mates. It is, in a word, heartbreaking.

Especially so because I have been there. That is, I too, once believed as these men believed. That women were designed for a different role. This past month, we were forced to read a textbook on leadership that gave two forms to fill out when examining some things we need for leadership. The form for women did not include any intellectual capacity, and filled with terms like 'loving your children'. It was a harrowing and distasteful read.

At what point did we decide that women were not equal to men? At what point did women simply start accepting it?

We know in our society that men dominate women. One in four women willed be sexually attacked by the time they are twenty, and that is the women who report it. But shouldn't the church be different? How have we turned the ministry of Jesus, who radically upended the view of how women should be treated, and reverted to this idea that everyone is equal... except for women? How have we turned the cultural letters of Paul into a doctrine for this continual, systematic abuse? Had William Wilberforce simply echoed the cry of the confederates, that slavery was in the Bible (the book of Philemon) without understanding the Biblical principle of equality for all, perhaps we would still have slavery today. Most Christians would agree slavery is wrong, but when it comes to women, well, Steve, don't you need to be more moderate?

This past semester, I have been pursued, sent angry emails, called out and castigated for my 'radical' views. I am followed, frowned at, and as I've recently found out, am talked about in churches outside the school. Most of the time, the people who are most upset are men. White males, specifically. But occasionally it is a woman. I don't say this because I am special, but because the nature of what I teach is so... mundane. Women are equal to men. Every person is deserving of our love. Doctrine can be dangerous. Mercy is always first. Isn't that what Jesus taught?

I ask this because, and as this blog is especially painful to write, I have not always thought that way. I, too, once believed that I was better than women. Better than quite a few people, actually. Better than the sinners and God-haters out there, I was always quick to delineate what made me special.

However, only one truth matters.

I am special because God loves me.

So are you.

It doesn't matter that I am a man, or that I am white, or that I am straight. What matters is that Jesus died for me, that there is now no longer black or white, Greek or Jew, male or female.

Except there is...

Because, I am a man.

The truth is that we have embraced this seeming bland form of inequality and hatred within our fold without challenging it. We use doctrine to keep people in place, without addressing the person. Didn't Jesus opppose that?

Dear woman, do you believe that you deserve to be happy? Do you deserve to be treated as an equal? How does God consider you? Has the Bible been used as a hammer to enforce your station? My prayer this week is that you will see yourself as God sees you. Fully equal to every other human on the planet. It is time to stop letting other Christians, especially men, walk over you because you are the 'lesser' of the sexes.

There are men, like myself, who needed to be completely shattered before God could slowly work on my heart. But maybe it starts with you. Maybe it's time we started asking questions and demanding some answers. Why is a man's ministry so much more important than you? Why is it okay that he has freedom to pursue life, when yours is locked into a corner of small expectations?

You are not less than a man. You are fully, deeply, and equally loved by the Creator of the universe, who sent His only Son (supported by women throughout his ministry) to remind you of that.

You are a woman.

May God help you see that this week and beyond, and to no longer take a back seat to anyone who says otherwise.

-Steve