[Vision2020] Quinlan/Kirk women/etc.

[keely emerinemix]

No more wearing Birkenstocks, 'cause I really seem to have stepped in it 
yesterday on a couple of fronts.

My applause of Dr. Quinlan's work was intended to affirm his recitation of 
the substance and background of the Trinity Fest.  I felt, and still do, 
that he succeeded in outlining the problems most people would have with the 
speakers and their views.  Further, I think that his main points were to 
outline the Trinity Festival speakers and to call for Dr. White to clarify 
the UI's position on hosting the event, and it was those points I applauded. 
  Unfortunately, I wasn't specific, and it appeared that I was offering 
kudos for his entire analysis, including the three crimes he mentioned 
before talking about Trinity Fest.  I know very little about Wil's murder, 
the burning of the GSA flag, and the two brothers he mentioned, and my 
thanks and affirmation of his work was intended only for that which spoke 
directly to the Trinity Fest comments.  That seemed clear to me, but I can 
see now that it wasn't clear to everyone and especially not to a couple of 
folks who emailed me off-line to protest.

I can't imagine that more than a couple of people in Moscow care at all 
about what I think of Dr. Quinlan's work, but I apparently offended, or 
could have offended, a great many more by commenting on J Ford's view of 
women in the Kirk.  Again, I truly believe that I enjoy greater freedom and 
growth married to a non-Kirker than I would if I were married to a man from 
Christ Church, and it's difficult for me to see that the Kirk's strong 
emphasis on patriarchal hierarchy in the home would result in a great deal 
of openness and freedom for the women therein.  I'm afraid I can't apologize 
for such conjecture, even as I know it can't be proved or disproved.  
However, I see now that the comment was hurtful and insulting to these 
women, and frankly made it sound as though I "have it all" and was thus free 
to hurl pity at them.

For that, I am truly sorry.  It wasn't my intention at all, but the effect 
of what I say is important to me.  To the Kirk woman who emailed me 
expressing her belief that I was prejudiced and spiteful toward Christ 
Church, I apologize -- again,  NOT for believing that patriarchal hierarchy 
results in suppression of women, but for being so flip in trumpeting my life 
as an example of what she and other women are lacking.   IF other women are 
in any way oppressed, that's cause for deep lamentation on my part, not glib 
reminders of how "the rest of us" live.

Finally, I can't apologize for my saying that not all ideas are equally 
valid and that beliefs have consequences, some of which are bad enough that 
we ought to reject the idea behind them.   The alternative to that isn't 
"liberal," it's loony.

Whew.

keely emerine mix

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/