GOOOOOO ---- TEAM!

There was a time, back in the Dark Ages, when I was young and limber and relatively fit. But never was I athletic. I'm very short, have stubby little arms and legs and a center of gravity somewhere near my knees. I'm the opposite of a "natural athlete".

Nonetheless, looking over the possibilities of the social structure in High School, I decided that I needed to be a cheerleader. They were happy, bouncy, wore cute clothes and had all the best boyfriends. They were the top of the heap. So every morning I would roll out of bed early and stretch and jump, practice cartwheels and try oh, so hard, to do the splits. Think about the tightest rubber band you've ever come across. That was me, trying to do splits.

Needless to say, I was eliminated in the first round of tryouts. My humiliation was tempered only by the thought that at least I could run for class president now. That was actually a relief.

You see, I had skills and talents of my own. After years of herding and coaxing three younger siblings, leadership ran in my blood. (Some would call it bossiness.) I read voraciously and understood most of what I was reading, even the hard stuff. I wrote, made good grades, could talk my way out of nearly any trouble. I was a performer ---- acting, singing, playing in band. It was disappointing not to be able to break into the top echelon of high school society, but in the end I realized I never would have fit in anyway.

And that's what got me thinking about politicians this morning. I'm pretty horrified about what's been happening in my state of North Carolina. I don't see any way to interpret much of the new legislation aside from being a slide into a Lord of the Flies state of "every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost." You know, kind of like High School.

It's easy to paint with a broad brush, to target the most obvious figures, the loudest voices, the gaffes and blatant ignorance. But what about the people who came to the General Assembly wanting to do good for the folks back home? Surely there must be legislators in their first or second term who don't hold positions of power, don't have the microphones, and are not idealogues wedded to the good of Party above the good of anything else. I have to believe there are people of conscience in both parties who want to improve things for their constituents and for the good of the state. What are they thinking now?

Do they wish they'd never gotten into this? In the middle of the night, do they question the wisdom of legislation that cuts people off unemployment, people they probably have talked to face to face, knowing that in their district there are no jobs to be had? Do they worry about the children who will be crowded into large classes without access to the tools and books they need? Do they wonder if party discipline is worth more than voting their conscience? Do they ever feel like they're stuck in a nightmare?

I know that it's possible for something to look shiny and wonderful on the outside, but when you open it up it's hollow, or even disgusting --- nothing like what you imagined. We've all experienced that at one time or another, whether it's sending off for the "printing press" on the back of a cereal box and finding out it was a cheap piece of plastic with leaky ink, or whether it's getting a coveted job, only to discover that you're expected to sell defective merchandise or stretch the truth about what you're doing. Have any of our elected officials, here in NC or up in DC, found out that the shiny job is far more tarnished than they thought? And what do you do when that happens?

I have a remarkable belief in the basic, inborn goodness of people. I understand that there are venal, cruel, power-hungry control freaks out there. My good fortune is that I've rarely come across one close up. But I still do believe in the inherent worth and dignity of everyone and that, given the opportunity to live without fear, most people will be peaceable toward others.

What is the fear level in the chambers of government right now? It seems it must be very high.  I'm glad I don't have to live like that. I'm glad I'm in the concert band instead of on the football field. And my hope is that those with the power to impact people's lives, actually to ruin the lives of so many, will listen to the voices that may come in the night. None of us is here for long. The glories on the playing field are quickly gone, no matter how mighty they seem at the time. And in the end we're only left with the voice that asks:

Was I kind?  Did I do more good than harm?

There but for the grace of God...

In the circles I travel, that saying is frequently quoted. Or misquoted.

Oh, they get the words right. "There, but for the grace of God, go I." Sounds real good. Right up there with some of the other shibboleths --- "Live and Let Live"    "Keep it Simple"

What I hear frequently is a sincere paean to the great good fortune of being on the right side of a capricious diety. If it weren't for me and my best bud, God, I'd be just like that poor slob over there. Whew, dodged that bullet. And as long as I keep being good, doing all the right stuff, keep my buddy God happy, I'll be ok.

But that's not it. Take out the clause in the middle and what are you left with?

"There go I."

And that, my friends, is the message. That person, the one I've formed a judgment about because of how she looks or what he says or how he smells or how unfortunate her circumstances of birth, that person IS me. We are the same.

It's odd to me that one would invoke the image of some sort of chess-playing Being to separate us from people we don't want to claim relationship to. Wouldn't it logically seem that any God who keeps me from being (fill in the blank) could just as easily change his mind and throw me overboard on a whim? Or is it, indeed, my placating behavior, my attempts to be perfect in this system of dos and don'ts, that keeps me in the Diety's good graces?

"There go I."

Not thank goodness I'm not her. Thank goodness I know better than to break the law, do drugs, quit my job or yell at a cop. Thank my lucky stars I don't have cancer, my children are good citizens, I was born in the USA, I'm not poor or black or an immigrant or living with AIDS. Whew. God must love me.

 "There go I."

I AM the poor woman with diabetes and three children and no more unemployment. I AM the child soldier, kidnapped into fighting for people who don't care about me. I AM the wife of the CEO who is married to his money.

It's good to be grateful for what I have. It keeps the wants and desires under control and introduces humility into my consciousness. But gratitude tainted with entitlement, with arrogance ---- especially spiritual arrogance --- is not gratitude at all. I'll even cite some of those scriptures people love to trot out to prove a point, (See, I can do it too!) They  have poetically captured it: I am as the lily of the field. The air, sun, soil and rain bless me freely, and all other life as well. I am a lily among lilies. A person among persons. And when I see or hear or touch another person, there go I.

Handmaids, anyone?

I have been trying to keep historical perspective and an inquiring mind when it comes to the so-called culture wars over the past few years. In particular, I'm curious about what seems to be a significant noose-tightening for women. I have a stake in that one!

Does anybody remember Margaret Atwood's book, The Handmaid's Tale? It made quite an impression on me when I first read it 25 years ago. (Could it be that long already?) It was a shivery piece of speculative fiction about the theocratic takeover of the country. It was sobering, but seemed unlikely. If you missed it, give it a read. Not the movie, the book.

Now I have to wonder how just unlikely it is.

Why ARE these self-proclaimed conservatives so hellbent on controlling women's reproductive lives? Rest assured, it's not just abortion. Contraception and even regular gynecological services are on the chopping block as well. If Planned Parenthood were to divest itself of all abortion related activities this minute, I hardly think there would be a change of rhetoric from their opponents. Control of women's lives?

For awhile I thought that men, who are often put off by the ick-factor of women's reproductive health, were simply putting it into the category of "woman problems" that didn't concern them. Sooner or later, I thought, they'd wake up to the fact that it was their wives, girlfriends, daughters and mothers who were affected. Sometime, it would have to occur to them that unwanted pregnancies didn't really begin in the cabbage patch, and would certainly have an effect on their own life plans. Then they would join the women in their lives and rise up to tell the politicos to knock it off. But that hasn't happened. Why not?

I'm not saying all men --- heavens no. I know men personally who are concerned and outspoken. But where are the rest of them? Which makes me wonder more.

Those other famous books about men being from Mars and women from Venus provided popular commentary about the age-old "battle of the sexes" --- grist for the talk shows and loud rhetoric, but how many people, even those who never read them, nodded sagely and agreed that men and women do seem to come from different planets? 

Historical perspective: Among the class of people in the US who spoke for public opinion and set cultural norms during the mid-to-late 19th Century, separation of the sexes became paramount. The "Cult of Domesticity" defined the sphere of women to be the home, while men populated the public sphere. By no means was this universal, especially among the class of people who, by necessity, occupied tenements and isolated farms. But it was the ideal, and it was justified by "Nature" and by the Bible. God proclaimed it, with all the verses trotted out to support that structure. 

Female modesty decreed that while motherhood was the highest attainment for any woman, the means of achieving it were taboo in public and often private discourse. Pregnancy was to be hidden and unmentionable. Women died of childbirth related conditions, but often also of undiagnosed gynelogical diseases because of the shame of seeing a physician about anything so immodest. It was better to suffer and die than endure the shame of a physical examination. Where were the men? Their husbands and fathers? Working. At the club. Fighting in wars. Hunting. Manly pursuits, all, far from the mysterious, somewhat sinister chambers occupied by women and their leaky, messy, unclean bodies. 

It took nearly a century for actively engaged women to achieve the vote. Today, we think that is such a bedrock freedom, guaranteed by the Constitution and innumerable laws, that it cannot be altered. But really? Could not a coordinated effort by determined lawmakers overturn those rights? Laws that are made by man can be unmade as well. Prohibition went away. How about women's rights? Minority rights? Is that the ultimate aim, the hidden agenda of those who now flail away at abortions and healthcare, unions and voting rights, education of the next generation? 

I hope I'm not falling into some sort of conspiracy haze. Anybody got another explanation?