A Southerner's Response to Ted

I must admit that I have not listened to very many Ted Talks. But I'll also admit that I've enjoyed what I have heard from them. There are interesting perspectives highlighted and I've walked away feeling that I've allowed myself to indulge in a worthwhile treat.

Which brings me to the the talk posted on Twitter 2/16/14. "We have got to show our sons a new definition of manhood."   http://t.co/Hkx4hLmXHN

I spent a few years working in Men's Ministry. My mother had seven brothers. I'm the oldest of her 4 sons. I have three sons of my own. I spent four years working in college football (in addition to three years playing high school ball). For the last 16 years I've worked for an organization that staffed over 99% by men.

All that to say, I'm familiar with men. I understand the statistics from my ministry days. I'll make no argument about the rate of sexual assaults against women that Colin Stokes makes in the Ted Talk. I'm in full agreement that the state of men in America is sad.

I'm also in agreement with Stokes on the point that men need to be able to work on a team, even one led by women. 

But I want to make a few points from another perspective. 

It's not just my inner Star Wars nerd that was cringing when he shared his concerns about the violence and strong male role models in the 1977 cinema classic. The world is a violent place. Even in Stokes' model of virtue on the Silver Screen, the Scarecrow was torn to pieces before being strewn all over the trail. Later he was set on fire. The raw intimidation the Wicked Witch wielded in Munchkin land belies a level of violence which, while unseen, was very real. And even the villain, the Witch herself going out in a hissing blob screaming in torment, "I'M MELTING!" That's the world you want?

I'm for being selective of my sons' media intake. I like them having strong male role models. Men that are capable of violence under the right circumstances - defense of home, family, friends, freedom, etc. I also want to see men that respect women. I don't mean revering them in some mythical fashion that demeans them. I mean respect their abilities to think, create, work, fight, defend, and be human. This isn't a new paradigm. It's centuries old. It's called chivalry.

It's a concept that has come under fire. Example: women like a certain senator that doesn't like being called "ma'am", being ignorant of Southern or military culture. Bless her heart, she just doesn't understand that if my mama sees me on TV NOT calling a lady "ma'am", I'm going to get my legs striped for me. And I'm almost 40.

You show me a man that says "ma'am", a man that holds a door for a lady, a man that won't sit while a lady stands, a man that doesn't use profanity in front of a lady, a man that will pick something up for the lady that dropped it, a man that respects a lady's spirit and mind as much as (or more than) her body and I'll show you a man that's not a part of the sexual assault statistics that Mr. Stokes shared.

So yes, we need a different paradigm. We need to teach our sons to have a healthy outlook in regard to the female side of the human race. Just as Han and Luke respected Leia at the end of Episode IV; just as Elizabeth I sent her warriors into battle - men who followed her orders and would never speak a word of disrespect towards her; just as Galahad, Bors, and Percival could fight gallantly, achieve glory and remain chaste; we can raise men today - both in fiction and reality - that are strong, brave, and respectful of women.

Oh, it's a different paradigm. But it's not new. 

Birthday

About this time every February I take a moment to honor a legend in American History. This year is no exception.

I am touched by the story of a man born into poverty in a rural frontier and orphaned at an early age. Through hard work, dedication and perseverance he earned an education and began to practice law. He would go on to serve in Congress and eventually be sworn into the Executive Branch on the eve of the greatest of American conflicts. 

Through hardships and pain he persevered through the great Civil War, having failed in every effort to prevent it. For all his intellectual and oratorical prowess, even he agreed that he wasn't much to look at. But no one who has read of his service could doubt his leadership ability was among the best in our nation's history.

You don't think I'm talking about Abe do you?

Happy birthday to congressman, governor, vice-president and true statesman Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia.

If all you know of him is his "Cornerstone Speech", you don't know the half of it.

(By the way, he and Abe were friends. And as a Southern gentleman with good morals, he'd expect me to wish his friend a happy birthday as well. This passage will serve that purpose)

A Conservative Estimate

Conservative.

That word has been on my mind lately. Ok, maybe not the word but the concept. We hear that word a lot these days. It's usually referring to politics but not always.

This is where I don't cite Webster or any other dictionary in regard to the definition of the word. So many others would do that at this point. I'm not faulting someone else for doing so. It's just not my thing. Following a familiar pattern can be conservative but not always. 

In fact, I don't think we need to address what a conservative is. I think that is a a common problem facing Americans today. Too many assume that a conservative is an adherent to the platform of the Republican Party. This line of thinking would lead anyone to believe that a pickup truck with a "Romney/Ryan 2012" bumper sticker would automatically belong to a Conservative. you could follow this line of reasoning that anyone living in reasonable social acceptance in a "Red State" would be a conservative.

However, regardless of what the bumper sticker is on your car says, Wal-Mart is not conservative. Wearing your pajamas to Wal-Mart (or anywhere else further from home than your mailbox) is certainly not conservative. Using profanity in public, or in front of women or children, is not conservative. Coal ash in a North Carolina river is not conservative. Doing anything with the planned intention of offending liberals is not conservative.

These are the sorts of thing my great-grandmother would identify as "common". They are beneath the dignity of a lady or a gentleman. This is not a haughty or arrogant stance. It is a statement of fact about the expectations of someone with "home training". There is no rule or law to force a certain code of behavior because there doesn't have to be. A gentleman is a representative of himself, his family and any other group that he finds himself affiliated with and his behavior reflects on each and every one of them.

So if you climb down out of your pick up truck in your pajamas and use the common tongue to enquire about the overhead contents of your allegedly Oedipal acquaintance on the other side of the parking lot while some poor lady tries to shield her kids from your behavior and get them safely inside, your Republican bumper sticker doesn't make you conservative. It makes you a barbarian with a Republican bumper sticker.

Yes, I understand that you're a "grown man" and that you don't care what the opinions of others matter. I know its a free country and you can do what you want. And you're right about all of that. But a true conservative understands that his "right" or "ability" to do such things never sets him apart from anyone else. That's right, anyone can do those things. But restraint is an art. Dignity is a gift. And there's no rule that says you should lower your standards to behave in a manner that is beneath you.

Other things inaccurately portrayed as conservative: Abraham Lincoln, The Pledge of Allegiance, war & cheap beer.

But those are stories for another day...

The Time is Nye.

Haven't been able to get the words to come together so far this year. I've tinkered with a few posts but nothing has come together like I wanted it to. That's the reason for the hiatus.

Hopefully, this will get me back on track

So let's talk about the big debate tomorrow. I'm a creationist. It's a matter of faith to me. It might look a bit different than some positions you've heard. If you must know, I've discussed it here before. I believe in intelligent design and a finite beginning to our universe.

I'm also a pretty big fan of Bill Nye. He has spent many evenings with me and my son (via YouTube at least) helping us get through concepts that a science textbook just had difficulty communicating to him. I also think he conducts himself with class under the situations I've witnessed.

And so "The Science Guy" heads into the Lions' Den. While I'd like to believe that he will receive a classy and gracious environment, my personal experience leaves me doubtful. I fear a Lions' Den is exactly what he'll find.

Admittedly, I'm unfamiliar with Ken Ham. Therefore, I'll pass no judgement or make no claims for or against him. But I do have some serious concerns about the audience. Especially after Bill was booed for claiming that the moon doesn't make it's own light but instead reflects that light of the sun. I disagree with him that this disproves the creation accounts but I'm not prepared to boo him off the stage over it.

Honestly, I hope I'm wrong. I hope the audience shows up and politely watches the two participants. I hope dignity and etiquette are themes of the evening. I hope two men have an intelligent discussion on the topic of intelligent design. I hope at the end of the debate, they shake hands and walk away with a mutual respect that can come from having been civilized, shared your opinion and allowed another to do the same.

I think our nation needs to see that sort of event. I think we need to remember what that is like.