The Passion

[DocD83]

Also, you can tell a woman or black person based on purely visual inspection, and unless a Christian is wearing a big cross (and even then, you might not be sure) or sporting lots of Jesus fish, you can't tell them from a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or agnostic.

Yes you can..well, sort of. Because the Christians have the majority most people who see your average nondescript white guy will assume Christian, and usually hit right (though they may argue the semantics in the end you'll wind up some form of Christian).

I'm tempted to rant about why I think Christians are persecuted but I don't think I want the inevitable result of a flame war today.

[druidGirl]

I can bet most of them make over 40 times what I do

First off there's a big difference between persecution and discrimination. Don't confuse the two.

Second, 40 times? I doubt it.

If you're say working at Blockbuster making 7 dollars and hour (and I don't know you so I can't say where you work and even if you do work there, not trying to bash your current job situation) yes, there are women in this county making more money than you, because some women are doctors and lawyers and other such high salary professions. But woman, in professions where salaries are the norm, still get paid less money than men with the same amount of experience and education.

For the first time ever (that's ever, as in the history of the world since human beings have put together places of learning) more women are graduating with higher levels of education than men. This has cause people to freak out. Write books. Put together reports about how this will cause the complete and total fall of the American economy. The reason? Because now, women are starting to become more qualified to hold higher positions in business than men. OH MY GOD! WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IF WE HAVE TO HIRE WOMEN INSTEAD OF MEN TO RUN CORPORATIONS!!! This was a news worth concern about a year ago. Total chaos in the corporate world because they might not be able to hire men because women would be more qualified. Which of course means that American Families will totally disintegrate into nothing (actually concern) because women won't stay home with the kids as much. Women might not even be interested in *gasp* getting married!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you worked in a salary based job, like corporate management, and a woman worked with you with the same (if not more) experience and education, you'd be making more money that she would, simply because you're a man. That's reality.

Ok, I'm done taking this thread off-topic, please continue.

[Lissa]

Actually, I'm gonna respond to the off-topic!

As a woman with a higher education, I'm starting to see a few points about the problems of women in careers.

On the one hand, I worked my butt off for seven years to get the Ph.D that I have. I'm very proud of it, and most days, I love my job. I love working, and I love science.

On the other hand, I'm now married, and someday in the distant-but-not-TOO-distant future I'd like to have kids.

When I started my degree, I was sort of dating a philosophy major. We'd kind of always assumed he'd stay home with the kids. Things didn't work out in a friendly sort of way, but I kind of kept the assumption that with a degree in science I'd make more than my husband. What I didn't count on was marrying someone from my same program, and older than me to boot. He'll likely always make more than me, unless I leave the government (and not for teaching). This isn't an equality thing- this is a type-of-people-we-are type thing. It doesn't bug me in the least.

Anyway, I'm now coming up against a dilemma... what do I do when I do have a kid? Do I give up my career? Do I put a kid in daycare for 50 hours a week (um, no). Do I rely on my mother in law, which isn't really fair?

I've come to the conclusion that it's hard- if not impossible- to "have it all"- be both a great mother and have a high-profile career. It just isn't going to happen. But I didn't think about that at 22, when I started my doctorate.

I don't think the big deal about more women getting higher degrees is so much about who will be running the world, but who will be caring for our families. Not all men are willing to do the househusband thing, although I certainly applaud those who are. And as we see a decline in the manners and morals of our youth, I wonder how much of it is due to the amount of parental attention these kids are recieving. (According to my mother the school teacher, a lot.)

It's not something I thought I'd ever be saying, but if a young girl asked me what advice I had for her, I'm not sure what I'd really say, except that only you can know what works for you and what path in life will make you happy.

Anyway, I think that's more the concern about women getting advanced degrees.

Liss
Wow. That was a bit off-topic. Oh well. Sorry bout that!

[DocD83]

I make essentially zero, so 40 times is accurate. Damn student loans. (I crunched the numbers, and already this year your Blockbuster example has earned many times more than I have. I won't say how many but it's nothing to sneeze at.)

Persecution and discrimination aren't that far apart in definition, and I find the one usually goes with the other.

If you worked in a salary based job, like corporate management, and a woman worked with you with the same (if not more) experience and education, you'd be making more money that she would, simply because you're a man. That's reality.

You have plenty of time to fix that before I get anywhere near management...but until then it is discrimination ("to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit") to say I have anything to do with it, slander ("the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation") to imply I support it, and persecution ("to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : PESTER") for everyone to whine at me as they do about this just because I'm a white male. Do they honestly think that a steady stream of harassment from high school on would make me more likely to pay everyone fairly?

[Magill]

Okay, I'll respond to Lissa's more off-topic-ness.

This is something I'm sure I'll have to deal with in the future. I just wanted to say that I don't think daycare is as evil as some people (I'm looking at you, Dr. Laura) make it out to be. Maybe I'm biased because my stepmother is the director of an amazing daycare program, and I worked there as a substitute teacher during college.

Not all daycares are created equal. I also went to daycare when I was a tot. I think that it can be good to help socialize children (I think a lot of problems today are due to the "cult of the child" and parents' desires to be their childrens' friends rather than parents) and teach them things. This daycare had teachers who all had bachelor's degrees or better, specializing in childhood development. Children were grouped mostly by age, and each week would have a specific theme that would be explored educationally and creatively. They had naptimes (something I really wish I have!) and also plenty of free play. This center was associated with the university, so you had lots of professors and students who brought their children there, and thus a probably more diverse grouping of kids than you might other wise find, but they all seemed to get along great.

Additionally, in one case I think this center may have helped a family get a child treatment earlier than he might have had without it. This was a boy who had been showing pretty classic symptoms of autism ever since he started going there. Whenever his teachers tried to broach the subject, his parents dismissed the possibility. Eventually, they did agree to bring him into a therapist, and he was diagnosed with autism. Without this early intervention and therapy, it might've been years later (once he started elementary school) before he was treated, which could've had drastic effects on his educational future.

I know it would be hard for me to duplicate that kind of environment. And really only in the past 50 years have we expected women to be the sole child-raiser and housekeeper. Back when more extended families lived together, there wasn't such a pressure on the mother and women weren't left alone to be the only adult supervising children.

Off my soapbox now. Lissa, I understand your decisions, and they're yours alone to make (well, probably yours and your husband's). I don't want you to feel like I'm attacking you or your beliefs. I just know some people have some hellish vision of daycare, but there are good programs out there.

[Head Mutant]

When my baby is born, I'm strapping him or her on Caesar's back. He's a verra good babysitter.

[Magill]

I just saw a pretty good post by PoolMan, but now it's gone. What gives?

Oh, I know! It's a conspiracy against white males!

With a big ol' ;D to let you know I'm joking.

[Lissa]

See, there's the solution, right there. I need to get a dog like Caeser. (As long as babysitter isn't being interpretted as "one who sits on the baby.")

I actually agree that there's a place for daycare, and some centers are exceptional. We have some friends who have their son in daycare where the father works (this right there makes a difference, as far as I'm concerned, because at least one parent can see the child during the day), and they're very pleased with it. Their kid seems well adjusted and happy and has a good relationship from what I can tell, so....

What I have more personal issues with is the idea of having a child and then three months later having someone else spend more time than either of us raising the kid. It just seems like, well, why have the kid in the first place, y'know? Like Magill, I'm not attacking people who do use daycare, it's just not something I can easily justify in my mind as a viable option for me. But who knows?

Long time off anyway....

[Magill]

Lissa said:

See, there's the solution, right there. I need to get a dog like Caeser. (As long as babysitter isn't being interpretted as "one who sits on the baby.")

I know I'm wasting entirely too much time at work, but I just had to let you know that this reminded me of a Shel Silverstein poem that talks about just that. Complete with an illustration of a clueless woman sitting down with little tiny baby legs poking out from under her.

I loved reading Shel Silverstein's stuff as a kid. Plus, the man wrote "A Boy Named Sue". Truely a polymath.

[PoolMan]

Magill said:

I just saw a pretty good post by PoolMan, but now it's gone. What gives?

Eh. One of those times where I should have reread what I wrote first. I put up my post, decided I really didn't like it and didn't add much to the conversation, so I erased it a couple minutes later. Didn't think anybody saw it.

But thanks.

[Al]

Although the topic has shifted a bit (to something I really can't comment on), I just wanted to backpedal to the 'persecuted Christian' thing for a sec. While I certainly don't believe that persecuted is the correct word to use -the implications are a little too harsh-, I do believe that Christianity has become one of the very few things these days it is okay to pick on with no fear of reprisal. Catholic Church and pedophile priest jokes run pretty rampant in everything from the tonight show monologue to news magazines, and people don't bat an eye. But change priest to rabbi or God to Allah and suddenly you are making a public apology to the millions of offended people across the world. So persecuted, no, but trampled on? I'd agree with that.

Just wanted to get that off my chest. Back to your regularly scheduled derailment.

Al

[Lissa]

Okay- new vent.

I was just reading an article on Comcast about teens seeing The Passion. (Don't know if you'll be able to see it if you're not a Comcast customer, but....)

www.comcast.net/News/ENTERTAINMENT/XML/1402_Movies/111475f9-2607-4ccc-8b3f-fc05256057d2.html

My favorite quote:

"It looks scary!" the 13-year-old from East Windsor, N.J., says of the film that has some wondering if it's too graphic and violent for young people.

I'm fine with the girl, and quite agree with her, to be honest. But the people wondering if it's too graphic and violent for young people? Um, hello!! Not only is it about a crucifixtion, which is just a nasty way to die, it's RATED R. FOR A REASON. Sheesh.

I also saw at one point someone said she wouldn't recommend it for kids under 10. Wow. That seems like a low age limit to me.

I know with our youth group, they are considering (after seeing it tomorrow night) taking the high school group to see it, but it's already been deemed that the junior high group (ages 11-14) ain't getting anywhere near it, unless their parents want to take them.

Thoughts on younger people seeing this movie?

[Magill]

The only analogous thing I can think of was my high school went to see Schindler's List in a local movie theater. Though I'm pretty sure we had to have our parents sign permission slips. I was a freshman. I saw it through the theater group, too, because our production that year was called The Wall and took place inside the Warsaw ghetto. Anyways--I know I was a pretty mature kid and had discussed this with my parents. But there were kids who were joking around quite a bit (mostly during the scenes when you saw nudity, such as when they're sorting the healthy from the unhealthy at one of the camps).

I imagine The Passion would be similar. Though I don't see schools going (unless they're parochial schools). No matter what age group of kids you pick, there are some who will be able to handle it and some who won't. I'm sure there are some mature middle schoolers who could go and some immature high schoolers who will sit and crack jokes.

[Magill]

Al said:

Although the topic has shifted a bit (to something I really can't comment on), I just wanted to backpedal to the 'persecuted Christian' thing for a sec. While I certainly don't believe that persecuted is the correct word to use -the implications are a little too harsh-, I do believe that Christianity has become one of the very few things these days it is okay to pick on with no fear of reprisal.

I can maybe see that. One of my old university's papers had an article last semester on whether there was an anti-Catholic bias in the media and politics (as a Catholic myself, I don't necessarily think there is one). The only thing I can think of is that it's a bit more acceptable to pick on the majority, especially if one of the majority's members is doing the picking (ew, that sounds gross). That when someone is making a statement about the majority/group in power, it has different implications if they're making the same statement about a minority, especially one that is the subject of other types of harassment. This is a really bad analogy, but I guess the only thing I can think of is that it would come off differently if a Viking fan (I live in Minneapolis) said "Man, the Vikings really suck this year" versus them saying "Man, the Packers really suck this year" (I hail from Wisconsin). Just reading those statements, with the information I've given, to me the first statement seems to be more in a joking manner.

I know it's bad comparing religions to sports teams, but does that make any sense?

You can see the same thing in that men are the only group it's acceptable to make fun of, but I don't like a lot of "stupid man" jokes, so I guess I'm contradicting myself now.

[Uber]

Magill said:

I also think Mel Gibson's directing hit a high point at Braveheart and has been falling since.

Just a note: according to his IMDB listing, this is actually the first movie Mel's directed since Braveheart.

Any, as my ticket is in hand for a showing tomorrow night at 7:15 (after a dinner of yummy Lebanese food that I've been craving for a couple weeks), I'll reserve judgement on this film until tomorrow night. I do go into this movie as a non-religious person, albeit one with a personal spirituality who has made peace with himself. This weekend I thought about going back and reading the old KJB to brush up on it's description of the last days of Jesus, but would like to go into it with a somewhat open mind, so I decided not to. In the end, everyone would do well to understand that this is a movie. I cannot believe that anti-anyone sentiment originates from watching a movie, but that existing sentiment can be brought to the surface.

Now as far as a woman's choice in the workforce, it's a difficult one. My girlfriend and I were talking about it this past weekend, and she gave me a book to read entitled "What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us". Basically we agreed that a woman really has it bad in a career when she wants to have children. She gets pressure from other women to be strong and independent and maintain her position in the workforce after having a child, and pressure from men to go home and take care of the family. Factor into that the record number of homes in the US that are really scraping by as two-income households, external pressures from work for a woman to keep up her obligations there, and the balance of being there for your child enough for the child to really recognize you as mommy and not some nanny, and you've got a pressure cooker for any woman looking to start a family. Life is tough for a lot of people, yes, but this is just my thought on the off-topic topic.