Good Ol’ Boys Clubs, Challenged

Herman Cain reacted angrily yesterday to the candid disclosure of an encounter he allegedly had with one Sharon Bialek some years ago.

Flanked by her attorney, Gloria Allred, Bialek shared the details of an encounter with a powerful man that to many women, probably sounded quite familiar.

If you missed it, she said she had heard Herman Cain speak at an event; she and he sat next to each other during the dinner portion of that event, and she was impressed with his presence and message. When she lost her job at the National Restaurant Association a short time later, her then-boyfriend suggested she meet with Mr. Cain, who was the president of the NRA at that time.

She said she called Mr. Cain and asked if they could meet, and when he said yes, her boyfriend made a reservation for her at a Washington hotel, the location of the NRA. When she got to the hotel, she found that her room was an extravagant suite, not a “normal” room at all. She said she thought her boyfriend had gotten the room to surprise her. Later that evening, she went to dinner with Mr. Cain, and explained her need for a job and how she wondered if he could help her.

It was after dinner that Ms. Bialek alleges that Mr. Cain put his hand on her leg and moved it toward her genitals, and took her hand and moved it toward his crotch. Some time in the course of the evening, Mr. Cain had told her it was he who had upgraded her room (he asked her how she liked it). Ms. Bialek said she was surprised that he had done that, but even more surprised when he allegedly touched her in the car.

He stopped immediately, she says, when she protested, but the incident bothered her. Somewhere in the midst of all this, in the midst of her surprise, she asked him why he would do such a thing, and she says he said, “You want a job, don’t you?” She told her boyfriend about it, and one other person, but did not press charges of sexual harassment. Part of the reason was that she was embarrassed, part of the reason is that she wanted to protect her relationship with her boyfriend, and part of the reason was that she was unemployed at the time. The law is concerned with sexual harassment in the workplace.

Herman Cain has come out swinging, after a week of saying he will not discuss the “false allegations” that are being made about him, but as I listened to Ms. Bialek, I thought two things: 1) she has got to be telling the truth because she knows she will be attacked from every direction, and 2) what she described is so much a common story of women in the workplace.

The “good ol’ boys” have gotten away with a lot over the years, and few people have challenged them. More than once, I have had women tell me of similar encounters they have had with men on their jobs, and they have said nothing because they’ve been threatened. “Tell someone and I’ll get you fired,” I had a couple of women share with me.

Some of the women who have faced this have been high-powered women, on the rise, wanting their ascent not to stop, and others have been in far less glamorous situations. In addition to wanting to save their jobs, the women have been afraid to have their whole sexual history smeared all over the public arena.

Because of their fear, many women have kept their mouths shut, much like many rape victims have done. I have talked with women who have been sexually abused by family members, but stayed quiet because they were threatened, as well as women who have been sexually harassed in their places of work.

Too few women have stepped forward, and so the good ol’ boys clubs have gone on virtually untouched.

Interestingly, the sex scandal at Penn State is blowing up at the same time the Herman Cain situation is getting bigger and bigger. There again, it at least appears that the “boys” of the good ol’ boys clubs have taken care of each other. Why in the world would none of those high ranking college officials go to the police so that the alleged sexual abuse of young boys could have been stopped?

It’s the same mentality. Good ol’ boys sticking together. We saw it in the scandal that rocked the Roman Catholic Church; the priests protected each other. We’ve seen it in the workplace, in churches, everywhere.

Sharon Bialek is a brave one for coming forward. She urged other women to do the same. The only way the tight grip the good ol’ boys have on so much of society, in so many ways, can be broken up is for it to be challenged and exposed. The good ol’ boys have kept a tight rein on what goes on and what is prohibited in this society and indeed, in the world. They have made it difficult for women, for minorities, for anyone, really, to move as easily in this society as do they. So many in our society are afraid to challenge them, but challenge them we must.

Hopefully, Bialek’s experiences will be able to pass the truth test, and hopefully, Bialek herself will be able to handle the onslaught of criticism and disparaging remarks that are sure to come her way. Rush Limbaugh has already started, and there will be more. Ms. Bialek pleaded with Mr. Cain to be honest with what he has done, and “then move on.” She came not as a disgruntled Liberal, but as a proud Republican.

This isn’t about politics for her. It’s about the character of a man who would be president.

How much better it would have been if Mr. Cain had, from the outset, owned up to the fact that he had been accused of sexual harassment, and that he was sorry for any pain he might have caused. That would have been honorable. Everyone makes mistakes, yes?

But to react as he has, and come out fighting as he is, makes me wonder if he has too much pride to own up to his mistakes.

The good ol’ boys clubs have run roughshod over so many people for so many years. It’s high time that they are challenged with a fury and intensity the likes of which we have not seen before.

That is a candid observation.

“Our Blacks?”

Ann Coulter has the ability to get underneath my skin. I admit it.

But she outdid herself this week as she talked about black Conservatives. She was defending Herman Cain, praising him and other blacks who are Conservatives, saying that “our” blacks, meaning black Conservatives, are better than “their” blacks, of course alluding to Liberals.

It sounded horribly crude, racist, ignorant, and vintage Coulter.

“We,” black people, are not owned by any group. The era of us being owned is over, and has been, since the 19th century. We are no longer pieces of property, to be bought, sold or discarded at will. Coulter’s language seems to be ignorant of this reality.

That more African-Americans have been adherents to the Democratic Party since the days of FDR does not mean we are brainwashed, either. African-Americans, as well as working, blue-collar men and women of all races, have tended to gravitate toward the party which has successfully advocated, or seem to have advocated, on their behalf.

The Republicans, again since the days of FDR, have tended not to be so interested in that kind of advocacy.

Make no mistake, African-Americans, as well as working Americans of all races, are not dumb. We recognize that there is “de facto” advocacy and “de jure” advocacy; we know that politicians, whatever their party, will say anything to get elected. They will identify their base, play to it, and then do what they want once elected.

But Coulter, and any other Republican who might be so insensitive to spout such an ignorant statement, is not in the position to 1) refer to any African-American as though he or she are property, and 2) make a judgment call on who is better.

After the election of Barack Obama, there was the hue and cry that racism in America was gone. Most of us knew that was not the truth, but every now and then, someone will say something or do something that brings the reality of our putrid racial reality front and center.

Ann Coulter managed to do that with her outrageously presumptuous, disrespectful statements this week.

Surely, even some Republican will step up and say publicly that she was out of line … because she was.

That would be a candid observation.

Lynching Doesn’t Apply to Cain

I find that I do not like the all-too-casual use of certain words.

During the presidency of Barack Obama, we have heard the words “Nazi,” “communist,” “fascist” and “socialist” used loosely to describe what him and his administration.

And now, this week, we hear the word “lynching” being applied to the debacle that Herman Cain finds himself in.

I am offended.

I was especially offended when Ann Coulter used the word. This woman seems to have no compassion for anything or anyone whom she deems as “Liberal.” But she has no right, as a privileged and bigoted white woman, to use the term “lynching.

What is going on with Herman Cain is politics, pure and simple. Politicians make it an art form to destroy each other on their quest for power. Unlike Coulter, I doubt that the “leak” of Cain’s supposed acts of sexual harassment came from Liberals. I would put money on the leak having come from some frantic Conservative who cannot believe Mr. Cain has moved up as quickly as he has.

But is this a lynching? Do people who use that word know what a lynching was? It was an act of American terrorism, pure and simple, performed primarily on black men by white people who could lynch with impunity, with no fear of reprisal from any level of government.

Fourteen year old Emmett Till was lynched – pulled from his bed in the home of a relative and taken out by white men, who beat him and gouged out one of his eyes before they threw himn in the Tallahatchie River, weighing his body down with a 70 pound cotton gin. Why? Because he reportedly whistled at a white woman.

Sam Hose was lynched, for killing the person for whom he worked in self defense. His owner hadn’t paid him in a year, but Hose wanted some of that owed money and time off in order to go see his ailing mother. His owner – Alfred Crandford – refused. The two got into an argument the next day. Crandford drew a gun on Hose and Hose threw an ax he had in his hand and hit Crandford, killing him. Crandford’s wife later said that Hose had raped her while her husband lay dying. A mob went after Hose and found him …and lynched him…taking the skin off his face after cutting off his ears, fingers and genitals. He was doused with kerosene and set afire, hanging from a tree, while about 2,000 white onlookers watched. Parts of his body, including parts of his heart, liver, kidneys and knuckles – were sold. People defended their action, saying it was necessary in order to protect white women.

So, when someone like Coulter says that Cain is being lynched, my spirit recoils. For Cain himself to even allow that terminology to be used speaks volumes. Cain is going through what any and all politicians risk when they enter the ring. The object of politics, or political campaigns, is to win. Opponents will look for, find and use whatever they can to destroy their opponent. It comes with the territory.

Mr. Cain has stayed away from “the race card” until now, and for him to allow use of this term, “lynching,” is troubling. Now he wants to stand on the fact that he is a black man in America. But guess what? This sexual harassment charge has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with him being a man. Men have been known to sexually harass women, or their actions have been known to be interpreted as such.

He would have come off better owning up to whatever he did, putting it all “out there,” and moving on.

That he didn’t, and resorted to using a word that represents so much pain, injustice and ugliness in American history, is a sad commentary indeed.

A candid observation …

Truth and Hypocrisy

I weary of ignorance and bigotry.

Today, I posted on Twitter that I am angry at Kim Kardashian for making what appears to be a mockery of marriage. Only 72 days ago, she got married in this over the top wedding, spending tons and tons of money ($20 million), only to announce yesterday that she is filing for divorce, citing “irreconcilable differences.”

In my post, I shared that I was angry because marriage is sacred.

That prompted a response from someone who said he was confused. You see, I support same-sex marriages. I have seen same-sex marriages with commitment so deep that is seems almost palatable. From my vantage point as a Christian minister, what is most important is the keeping of vows said before God, not the sex of the people saying the vows.

The sacredness comes in keeping a vow made to God.

I have long said that too many people want a “wedding,” but not a marriage. A “wedding” is a 20 minute to perhaps one hour event; a marriage, however, is a lifetime.

People, especially girls, want “weddings,” because we love the fairy tale spirit and aura surrounding them. We want the white dress, the long train, the veil, and, of course, the gifts. I have seen so many people, and I am talking heterosexual people, plan and participate in “weddings,” only to abandon the marriage shortly thereafter.

What bothers me is the lack of commitment and the lack of respect for God. It is not unlike people putting their hands on a Bible in a court of law and swearing to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,” and then sit down and promptly begin lying.

It makes me sick. That blatant disregard and disrespect for God is the same thing I see when people get married and promise God that they will be with each other, and stay faithful to each other, “til death us do part.”

Please.

It feels like Kim Kardashian only had her elaborate wedding as a publicity stunt. There seems to have been no intention of staying together with her new husband “for better, for worse.” She could have, and perhaps should have, had her wedding performed by a friend with no mention of God at all.

I am not saying that all heterosexual weddings are shams; clearly, that is not the case. But what I am saying is that a vow made before God ought to be sacred. I do not think that God would condemn a same gender-loving couple who married, promised God to stay married no matter what, and actually did it any quicker than God would praise a heterosexual couple who promised to stay together and had no intention of doing it.

I think what God honors is love between people. I think God honors people who take him seriously. Same-gender loving people are condemned by people, not by God.

I refused to engage in a conversation with my social media friend. I am not going to waste valuable energy in an argument which will go nowhere.

But at the end of the day, as I think about a God who demands an obedience which leads to a deep presence of integrity, I don’t think the Kardashian wedding boded well…any more than I think that people who despise gay and lesbian people because they are gay and lesbian sit well in the divine craw. I have no way of really knowing, but I would put my money on my opinion on this one.

That would be a candid…observation.

The Real Revolution

Many years ago, I stood in the hospital room of a young woman, 17 years old, whose arm had just been amputated because of a diagnosis of bone cancer. I naively stood by feeling hopeful. The “problem” had been cut off. But her mother felt no such relief.
“Now the real work begins,” she said.
She was so right. The young woman began chemotherapy and made enough of a recovery to attempt to participate in one last track event and to attend her senior prom. But while she was adjusting to her new normal, her body was doing no such thing.
Her cancer allowed a brief remission, only to come back with a fury and a vengeance, and within a year, this young girl was dead. Her journey to her end was excruciatingly painful; the disease had metastasized everywhere, and she was so in pain that she could not stand even a sheet to touch her body.
I think about that young girl often, but thought again of her this week at the news that Gen. Muammar Gadhafi had been killed. The people of Libya have succeeded in cutting off, amputating, if you will, this dictator who did so much harm to so many for so long.
But the amputation is not the end of the story; it is merely the beginning. Now, as the mother of the young girl with bone cancer shared, “the real work begins.”
. “Libyans aim for multiparty politics, justice, democracy and freedom,” said Libyan Defense Minister Jalal al-Degheili. “The end of Gadhafi is not the aim, we say the minor struggle is over. The bigger struggle is now coming. This will not happen unless all the Libyan people are … united.”
How difficult it is to get people to unite. God and religion notwithstanding, from the beginning of time the desire and greed for power has gotten in the way of humane relationships between human beings. While there is a stated ideal of democracy and justice, those ideals seem very difficult to make materialize and stick.
What the Libyan people will now have to decide is how to unite. What will that mean? Who will shape the definition so that the majority of people buy into the vision? Will “the least of these,” the women, and other marginalized people be figured into the final equation and its desired solution?
Unfortunately, money, or the desire for it, so often compromises the ideal for democracy, if I understand democracy correctly. A democracy is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” That is the ideal.
But the reality is that in most democracies I have studied, the ideal is replaced by a reality which makes it so that most of the power and wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a very few, while the masses are depended upon to support that very few and work to increase the wealth of that same small group of people.
So, there is not a one person dictatorship, but there is a sort of dictatorship nonetheless. The religious ideal of being concerned with and ministering to “the least of these,” and the political ideal to be the voice of the masses of people falls to the wayside.
Though in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus says clearly that we “cannot serve God and Money.” (Luke 16:13, NIV) Interestingly, the word “money” is capitalized, as though it were a person. Indeed, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that corporations are people, implying that the “feelings” and “needs” of the corporations must always be considered.
Even as I write this, in the wee hours of the morning, the coverage on CNN about Gadhafi’s death and the new reality, is swirling around the topic of “money.”
Jesus said, in that same chapter of Luke, that we “cannot serve two masters; either we will love the one and hate the other or visa versa. In “The Message” Bible, Jesus’ words are interpreted this way: “No worker can serve two bosses. He’ll either hate the first and love the second or adore the first and despise the second. You can’t serve both God and the Bank.”
And the word “bank” is capitalized.
As the Libyan people adjust to their new reality, the two bosses will be in the midst of them. It would appear that their now-deceased dictator adored money and power and left God out of the loop, except for ceremonial display. That’s not unusual; that is exactly what I am saying happens in democracies.
God, in the Hebrew scriptures, often railed against truly religious people: “I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them …Away with the noise of your songs: I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, and righteousness like a never-failing stream.” (Amos 5:21-24, NIV)
It’s the people who are being forgotten that God is advocating for. He does it consistently throughout the Hebrew scriptures, especially in the books of the prophets, both major and minor.
The real revolution can actually take place now, as the Libyans work to form a democracy, where “the people” are factored into the new government, with God’s mandate to show compassion for all people being considered a primary tenet of that government.
Will the new Libyan government serve God …or the Bank?
It remains to be seen.
That would be a candid …observation.