It likely comes as no surprise to anyone that I support Hillary Clinton for President. I can still be a little perplexed by certain assumptions about my endorsement of her candidacy. For the record, I am a “Nebraska Nice” homegrown feminist who found myself battling gender stereotypes throughout most of my adult life. I never had much success in these strategic engagements, but I am proud of my persistence and courage. I never gave up my personal political and social agenda or willingness to fight for others and causes I support. I accept that I have walked a fine line between activist leader and dilettante. I hope I have demonstrated some commitment, knowledge and intelligence avoiding the latter category. I cannot deny that I ran for 3 political offices mostly because I had a social agenda. I knew I had virtually no chance of winning these races. It was a daunting challenge. The “Year of the Woman” in politics had been declared in 1992. Not seeing much action in Nebraska by 2002 – 2003, I was willing to step up. Whether I even accomplished my personal goals is yet to be determined. For the record, my agenda was to encourage more Nebraska women to run for political office and help them win.

My personal “Herstory” reflects why I admire Secretary Clinton so much. She doesn’t give up. She fights for underdogs like me and causes I believe in. Most importantly, she is so much better at it then I ever was or could be. She truly is the champion I aspired to be. She was identified as a woman leader for my generation at her college graduation – before she even met the former American President who shares her journey!

Hillary Clinton chose to work and learn from a giant in a field I advocated for and followed for decades. Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund, is a accomplished women I greatly admire. Her association with Hillary spoke volumes to me when I first decided to even like the aspiring First Lady. 

One of the bedrock principles I have figured out is that you cannot cherish children by disparaging or dismissing the women bearing so much responsibility for their lives. Hillary Clinton gets that “Women’s Rights are Human Rights” and she has spoken to this reality forcefully and tirelessly throughout the years.

For a lot of reasons, our American political landscape is depicted to emphasize differences over shared values. Hearing “Women’s Rights” unfairly translates and is reduced to a narrow reproductive focus in some circles. This was the dark alley detour of the 20th Century feminism I lived.  It was unavoidable because women do have certain rights that society failed to recognize. Rights that apparently still need to be defended. The U.S. Supreme Court is often the decider of the competing interests. This process can be generational. Along the way, wedge issues erect roadblocks on the path to equality and fairness.

I see “Women’s Rights” as central to the social work and juvenile law cases I pursued. I still want to advocate against domestic violence, child abuse and neglect. These social plagues arise in family and societal settings. Hillary Clinton is my candidate because she prioritizes this policy. She doesn’t just orate on it, she has made the welfare of women and children a central focus of her life’s work. She clearly has vast knowledge and experience in other areas; i.e., foreign policy. Importantly, her policy agenda includes the global struggle for women’s rights. Now that is a revolution I can believe in.

In politics, I perceive a laundry list of unconscious motivations I project onto others. I feel guilty about this, but continue the exercise because it helps identify problems and solutions. For now, I will just remark it has been my experience that successful women are held to a higher standard of achievement. It’s unfair and totally unnecessary; discouraging and sometimes very hurtful. It takes a champion to face setback or defeat and move on. Hillary is the gold standard of resilience and fortitude. She will do everything in her power to get the work done and make our lives better.

If you seek more information or persuasion, and you probably should, I encourage you to visit this website: hillaryclinton.com

There is also a film series MAKERS: Women Who Make America (PBS 2013.) Watching any part of Season One will give you a superpower to see the political world through my eyes: pbs.org/makers/season-one 

MY NEXT QUERY – WHAT’S UP WITH ALL THE ANGRY MEN AND THE WOMEN WHO REALLY LOVE THEM?

Socialization – the process whereby an individual learns to adjust to a group (or society) and behave in a manner approved by the group (or society). According to most social scientists, socialization essentially represents the whole process of learning throughout the life course and is a central influence on the behaviour, beliefs, and actions of adults as well as of children. www.britannica.com/topic/socialization

Socialization refers to the preparation of newcomers to become members of an existing group and to think, feel, and act in ways the group considers appropriate. Viewed from the group’s point of view, it is a process of member replacement. www.asa.org/introtosociology

On my activist journey of over 20 some years now, I encountered a vocal minority of personalities right here in NEBRASKA NICELAND who are really really angry. Some of the concerns they “voice” are of current importance and some of what gets said could be in earnest. I do believe there probably is more to this “phenomena of nature” I witnessed. A good start of any investigation would take me to an entire bookcase stuffed with scholarly texts speaking to various aspects of this topic; psychological, social, historical, biological, geographical, philosophical, spiritual, etc. I really cannot distill all the information I learned and even the little I retained in the few remaining words in this blog post.

You may have noticed how much I like to use examples from my childhood T.V.and film viewing to illustrate my life’s journey and learning curve. It will become immediately apparent why there may be a void in my 50s or 60s vault illustrating the point I am trying to make now. I do, however, have a little exercise to pose my question in a more focused image.

When you read the introductory sentence I posed above do you ask yourself if it should more fairly read: “What’s up with all  the angry men and women…?”  If so, I understand your point. Indeed there are certainly some really angry and vocal women out there. I know this to be true. Please follow my query a bit farther through the entire sentence. Should it also read: “What’s up with all the angry men and women and the women and men who really love them?”  Apart from the lack of a skilled wordsmith, this question seems somewhat adrift.  I can easily track – “What’s up with all the angry men and the women and men who really love them?”  For me, the inquiry falls right off the rails when you alternatively pose – “What’s up with all the angry women and the women and men who REALLY love them?”

Is love, devotion, or even modest affection society’s go-to reaction to a woman’s vocal anger? Is it in our collective conception of Nebraska Nice? Be honest now. This exercise obviously resides in the land of socialized gender roles and stereotypes. Just think about it. Picture a really REALLY angry male politician, a firebrand orator if you will; raging at the establishment. Hear his voice, see the body language, feel the heat and energy build to a powerful crescendo indicting the status quo and demanding change.  Now just try to switch this public oration to a REALLY ANGRY woman’s voice.

“You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension – a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You’re moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You’ve just crossed over into ….” (The Twilight Zone, Opening Narration Seasons 4 -5, 1963-1964.)

Excellent, I found that 60s cultural reference after all!

Join me now on a quick express train ride past our regular cognitive dissonance stop.

An experienced politician, who also happens to be a woman, learns to focus her concentration, energy and arguments with skill and precision. Her experience has taught her to work hard and focus on shared values, common ground and workable solutions. Passion and Pragmatism are not mutually exclusive sets. I know Hillary Clinton is a wise and accomplished leader who does not need me to point this out. This exercise is about you and me, and anybody else who needs to be informed or reminded of societal forces influencing our choices. A significant American demographic of Democratic leaning voters intuitively gets this. Something to consider? 

Just promise me you’ll at least think about it. Yes #ImWithHer #HillYes

The post Yes #ImWithHer appeared first on NebraskaWomen'sConciliationProject.

   Fred C. Stewart and Bertha Tams Stewart

 Harold and “Janny” Stewart

Losing his parents early in life left an indelible imprint on Harold who became a soft hearted and devoted family man. He worked very hard and enjoyed a “few” beers at home in the evening. He wanted and needed to be at home with his family, particularly when his children were young. He was always the parent whose unconditional love I never doubted even when my behavior or life direction disappointed him. He was a man of few words, and this may be why I remember every moral lesson he ever gave to me. His guiding life principle, which he shared with me throughout my life was: “2 wrongs do not make a right!” In my specific case, “Janny, 2 wrongs do not make a right.” Later I heard, “Jan, remember 2 wrongs don’t make a right.”

This simple and profound parental guidance has helped me resolve many moral questions I have faced or pondered on my life’s journey. It has joined some other wise teachings discovered in adulthood.”Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can’t help them, at least don’t hurt them.” H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama.

MY NEBRASKA VALUES 

Society poses some difficult questions needing policy resolution. This is always an opportunity to find consensus or discover a compromise that divergent interests can agree to accept. In such matters leadership really matters. In our politically polarized and special interest funded nation, we struggle with this.

The Death Penalty is one issue that comes to our government policy makers on a regular basis. The Nebraska Unicameral is considering legislation now. A lot of reasons to abandon the Death Penalty naturally present themselves; moral, practical, economic, legal, etc. Our state, however, still appears to be very divided on the issue. Anyone who is interested, and I do think we all could try to be, can find countless sources of information, analysis and discussion. My own ruminations certainly consider if rationality and logic alone point humanity towards a “tipping point”abolishing this form of punishment.

As always, I reflect on the personal journey that brings me to this crossroads. The Protestant denomination of my upbringing has advocated for abolishing the Death Penalty for over 50 years. Not surprisingly if you have been reading this blog, I only discovered this fact 2 years ago. One of the practices I really admire in the Episcopal church is the content and tone of the sermons. The sermons I experienced have not been at all preachy. They did not focus or lecture on politically divisive moral issues. It seems to me that the congregation is free to study and reflect as individuals. We can read The Bible and Book of Common Prayer, and clergy is available to counsel parishioners who struggle with spiritual choices.

My first introduction to the Death Penalty arose on June 25, 1959. Charles Starkweather, age 20 years, was executed by electric chair in Lincoln, Nebraska. He had been convicted of First Degree Murder having killed eleven people during a road trip/killing spree with a teenage girlfriend. The couple were arrested on January 29, 1958. Until the very day he was executed, the story of his violent crimes, trial, appeals, etc., had not really registered on my childhood radar screen. (My parents were pretty careful not to discuss disturbing information in the presence of their 2 daughters.) When the news of the execution came over the radio, I was surprised to hear some cheers in a home where I was visiting. My surprise is likely explained by feelings of cognitive dissonance. I had learned of The Ten Commandments; most likely through a synergy between Charlton Heston and Vacation Bible School. Celebrating the death of another human being just seemed in conflict with my almost10 year old understanding of morality.

I have previously explained, in some detail, how my values are closely connected to movies and T.V. entertainment watched in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. My parents both worked in a small town movie theater in Fairfield, Iowa, where our family lived for 2 years. My younger sister and I watched a lot of movies while Mom and Dad were working. One specific memory connects to the Death Penalty.

Actress Susan Hayward won an Academy Award for a 1958 movie “I want to Live!”  This film was based upon a true story of Barbara Graham who was executed in the California gas chamber in 1955. Coincidentally, this film was shown on cable this past week. I also noted a documentary airing on Nebraska public television. I have these recorded on DVR to watch later. It’s intriguing how these “coincidences” occur. When I was younger I suspected I was clairvoyant. Now, I more maturely understand that when I am reflecting on issues of the day, other entities are doing the same. Anyway, I vividly remember that the Hayward movie trailer left troubling impressions before I even experienced the film sometime in the 1960s. A few things caught my attention. I was shocked to see a woman behaving in the indecent, unscrupulous and aggressive manner portrayed. The possibility that a woman could be executed for a crime honestly stunned me! Socialized gender roles of the day sort of assumed that a “lady” would not commit the various crimes depicted. Furthermore, I clearly understood that “gentlemen” should never strike a woman, much less execute her. Men were seen fighting and punishing others in movies and T.V. all the time. Apparently this was expected. Needless to say, I have since learned otherwise in many respects.

   FLOOR OF THE NEBRASKA LEGISLATURE

Photo courtesy of “Nebraska Unicameral Information Office”

There is vocal and intransigent opposition to sentencing reform that has, to date, governed here in my home state. Recent debates have shown a fascinating contrast in decision making styles. One of my Social Work fueled observations boils down to what looks a lot like personality differences. Some of the vocal opponents to abolition of the Death Penalty, and the elected representatives who passionately argue this point of view, reflect what I have learned to be “authoritarian personality.”

A dictionary definition of authoritarian personality would be: a cluster of personality traits reflecting a desire for security and order (e.g., rigidity, unquestioning obedience, scapegoating, desire for structured lines of authority.) Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012.  I studied both psychology and therapy as a Social Work student. Following my studies, I dove headfirst into a reflection of religious dogma and traditions. I discovered that many spiritual paths were congruent with the Social Work principles I had learned.  One of the touchstones I found along the way was – – Control is an Illusion.

News reports of recent Death Penalty debates at the Nebraska Unicameral likely reveal something about our collective stage of development. I live in Legislative District 15 encompassing Dodge County, Nebraska. We have a brand new State Senator appointed to fill a vacancy arising when our sitting senator was elected to higher office. (With all due respect, please consider the circumstances of a “New Age” of low information voters, and the perennial support for a straight Republican ticket on Nebraska politics.) Recent news has illustrated to me, that in several instances, my newly anointed legislator has not met my inclinations on issues I care a great deal about. In opining on the Death Penalty, he lectured his colleagues and constituents on religious authority, which he presumably believes to be the only governing “Truth.” He also read an account of a particularly gruesome crime. This illustrates to me, aspects of an of authoritarian mindset and a misunderstanding of social comportment and sensibilities. See, Senator Schnoor, L.B. 268, Day 65 Floor Debate April 16, 2015.

When a convicted criminal has committed a particularly heinous and depraved crime, should our only focus be judgment and punishment of the crime and perpetrator? Is there anything else of crucial importance to consider in deciding public policy?

It occurs to me, that humanity is not competent or expected to handle all moral complexities. We are an imperfect species prone to bias and mistakes. We also harshly scorn and even hate others who disagree with us. We sometimes try to take legal rights away from those who offend our personal beliefs. This is not the best way to govern. We have other important considerations to weigh. What does imposing the Death Penalty say about our democratic society? I see much inhumanity in the execution protocols and processes. I also fear confusion, mixed messages and misunderstanding. Our exercise of government authority speaks to us all, including children who will choose our future’s trajectory. How will the status quo affect us?  I appreciate that many look to a higher power for pronouncements on human transgressions. Should our own religious beliefs and faith impose consequences when human judgment so clearly fails us? I am hopeful that Nebraska will join the other states and countries around our planet who have abolished the Death Penalty. If our Criminal Justice system is not working as hoped and needed, I believe we should at least try to fix it.

The post 2 Wrongs appeared first on NebraskaWomen'sConciliationProject.