Helping

So when Ashley told me she wanted to see The Help, I groaned. (I can't remember if it was inward or not.) Like, honestly, I would rather not see another movie about benevolent white people who have no sense of larger structural oppression. I don't need to see a movie about that; I'm around white people who already think that and I see it on tv when I am trying to avoid blatant misogyny.
So I was reading this article which is written for young clergywomen about the same book, and I am so glad someone finally laid a particular set of thoughts out for me that I think I've been circling for awhile but have struggled to articulate. The author writes that "the challenge of living amidst privilege can be that Jesus' teachings are incredibly indicting to our own lives, which is part of what makes stories focused on morals so much more inviting, and so much more tempting, than stories focused on ethics." Although I had never thought about it in terms of this book, I have always found all the prattle of most of my fellow Christians to be disappointingly about living to some vague moral stance more based on things like not having sex before marriage or abortions. I can't even think of a fellow Christian peer who has ever once mentioned structural problems or Jesus's work on said subject. (I had a priest who would give sermons on religious tolerance and women's unpaid and unacknowledged labor, and seriously, that guy was mostly awesome. On the other side of the religious spectrum, I can think of a few atheists who had it together when it came to these kinds of problems.)
I've been meditating frequently on how disappointed I am with other Christians, because I suspect the why is important, and I think this might be a very big answer on the why. Because, ultimately, if we aren't against the forces that cause things like poverty and discrimination, that, honestly, what are we in this religion for? Are we here on earth as Christians because we want to improve our communities or because we need something to make us feel superior? If we focus on ending injustices, we are here for the community. If we focus on morals not only are we going to fall short on what God calls us to do, but we're going to end up tending to our egos and not the flock.
As some other notes, I really like the rest of this article for pointing out some of the difficulties with race. I loved this quote that the author brings up "For the dishonesty upon which a society is founded makes every emotion suspect, makes it impossible to know whether what flowed between two people was honest feeling or pity or pragmatism." In this instance, it is used in the context of race, but could easily be applied to other power structures.

On the Jezebel Outrage

I've been really disappointed by the response people have had to the Jezebel article on the Daily Show's woman problem. 
I should probably start off by saying that I love the Daily Show.  I started watching it when I was about thirteen or fourteen, around 2002.  And I've regularly watched the show ever since, sometimes going years without missing an episode.  At the same time, I've only recently discovered Jezebel.  Even though I don't believe in everything the blog says, I like it.  I like that it's one of the few spaces on the Internet where women are unafraid to say something particular hurts women, and that the commentators are generally funny or interested in positive solutions to these problems.
First, I was really disappointed by the letter the Daily Show's women employees penned on the subject.  The letter did several things.  First, it dismissed Jezebel completely, which was unwise, since it defends the idea that the Daily Show is dismissive of women by being dismissive of a woman's article on a woman-centric blog mostly read by women.  Then it also discussed how there were lots of women who worked for the show, then went on to list them.  This would be fine if the article was about all the people on the show.  The article specifically focused on the writers and on-air talent, and, unfortunately, nothing Jezebel said appears to be a lie, since the numbers (or lack, in this case) are public knowledge.  The letter instead looks like a fearful, rash reaction, since it didn't correctly identify the point of the article.  In not correctly speaking to the problem that Jezebel pointed out, it looks like no one at the Daily Show actually read the article, just heard someone was unhappy and carried on from there. 
It would be easy, at this point, for the Daily Show to correct this problem, though the letter really hurts things.  They could offer to do the interviews which the Jezebel author specifically asked for before the article went to print.  Or, and this would be the smart move here, invite her to spend a week or so at the show's office.  Seriously.  She could blog about her time at the Daily Show office on the Jezebel blog, and then issue a final report after she's spent her time there and had time to consider it.  If it turns out that she still stands by what she said, then the Daily Show can say they wanted to get an outsider's point of view and that they're going to make some changes (which the Jezebel author already pointed to some easy ones.)  If she comes back and says things were fine, then presto! controversy over. 
Even if the Daily Show does handle this better in the future (which, given the sorry state of that letter, I'm afraid they won't), that won't cut down on the rest of the Internet obfuscating this whole thing.  Slate published an article on it that also misses the point and then decides to castrate the blog for asking questions.  The Slate article makes it about Olivia Munn, who is discussed in the Jezebel article because she is the first woman to be hired in seven years.  Seven years.  Jezebel complained that they hired Munn because she is pretty.  She is pretty, and there would be nothing wrong with this if writers on the show hadn't commented that they thought prettier woman did better because they were pretty or if Samantha Bee, the only regular woman correspondent over the recent years hadn't mentioned they were looking for older women, which Munn doesn't qualify as.  Slate took this part of the argument and made it sound in their article like it was the only thing the Jezebel article discussed, which it didn't.  Then it discussed how Jezebel was just trying to stir up controversy, again, dismissing a woman for asking questions about women's representation in media.  Jezebel should just rest its case at this point, because, once again, they're being willfully misunderstood and then dismissed for it.  And for an article that complains about Jezebel's ads, it doesn't mention how Slate has ads as well and in no way above this.  Nor does it mention how the author of the Slate piece left Gawker media, which owns Jezebel, though it does mention she formally was employed by them.
The reactions from some groups has really disappointed me.  There are positive, easy, non-reactionary responses to these issues.  The reactions so far have failed to reach that very high mark.