“Thank God it’s Mother-day!” Leslie thought as she wandered past the ice-palace construction site, and down the spacious streets of Washington D.C. She was taking it slow today; she was still getting used to repressive heat of summer city life, having only moved here a couple months earlier in the spring month of Barbara. Her family had been forced to relocate to the capital city so that her ailing mother could have access to a hospital, as all the hospitals and clinics in the countryside had been ordered closed. She could almost see the logic in President Bush’s argument that everyone should come to the capital for treatment. Getting there had been a challenge, since no one in her family had been able to pass the morality test required for a driver’s license. It also didn’t help that both her elderly parents’ pensions had been revoked. Times were certainly rough and not showing any hint of improvement.

It frustrated Leslie even further to think that after coming all this way, the nurses here were hardly nurses anyway, ever since Bush had replaced public health workers with cheaper military conscripts. And she had heard that doctors now took an oath to the president, not the normally universal Hippocratic oath.

Living in the city wasn’t so bad though. There was lots of culture; there was ample government artwork and even a golden statue of the self-declared “Leader of All Americans,” Bush, to be admired. It was actually a shame she hadn’t moved to the city earlier, maybe she could have caught a ballet or an opera before such shows were banned. “Oh well,” she sighed, and continued her walk home.

This tale may sound outlandish, and indeed it is. But such policies would have been a reality if one were living in Turkmenistan during the rule of the late President Saparmurat Niyazov. Niyazov has been criticized as one of the most totalitarian and repressive dictators the world has ever seen, and he was in power a mere two years ago.

Niyazov came to his leadership position in 1992 as the country’s first popularly elected president. Fair enough, except that he was the only candidate. Wasting no time, he declared himself “Turkmenbasy,” or, in English, “Leader of all Turkmen,” only a year later.

Appropriately, in 1994, a plebiscite extended Niyazov’s term eight more years to last until 2002, the justification being that he needed to see to completion a 10-year development plan. Five years later, in 1999, after Niyazov had been in power for 8 of 13 years, a recently elected Parliament declared Niyazov “President for Life.” And by “recently elected Parliament,” I mean that parliamentary elections were held a couple weeks earlier between candidates that Niyazov had hand picked.

It couldn’t be too bad though. That is, as long as Niyazov was doing a good job as a leader, things couldn’t be too terrible. Take for example Niyazov’s improvements in the Turkmenistan educational system. (Presumably) so there could be more books for students in schools, Niyazov decreed that all rural libraries be closed. In support of this decision, he cited that ordinary Turkmen do not read books anyway. Surely having an increased sense of nationalism as his goal, Niyazov made a national epic required reading in schools. Coincidently, though, he was the author of said epic, entitled the Ruhnama. The Ruhnama was a mix of history and offerings of his personal spiritual and moral guidance. He eventually had precepts from his morally guiding literature displayed on the walls of Mosques, right next to suras from the Qur’an. A modest guy, eh?

Furthermore, President for Life Niyazov banned young men from having beards because he thought facial hair was linked to Islamic extremism. He also stopped citizens from owning more than one cat or dog, and proceeded to ban dogs from cities altogether because of their odor.

To elucidate the policies alluded to in the story, while in power Niyazov took the liberty of renaming the days of the week, Friday being changed to “Anna,” which means “mother.” Continuing with this maternal trend Niyazov renamed the month of April to “Gurbansoltan,” the actual name of his mother. He also changed the word for “bread” to his mother’s mellifluous moniker. In 2004 he ordered that an ice palace be constructed outside the capital, and closed all hospitals except those in the capital city of Asgabat. Also in 2004, it was decreed that all licensed drivers pass a morality test, this morality test being based on his Ruhnama. In January of 2006, over 30% of Turkmeni elderly had their pensions terminated or significantly reduced. Regarding the nurses, in 2004, President Niyazov had 15,000 public health workers, such as nurses and midwives, dismissed from their jobs. Less expensive military conscripts were hired in their place, and in November of 2005 physicians were required to swear an oath to Niyazov in place of the usual Hippocratic Oath. Regarding the aforementioned artwork, Niyazov had a twelve meter high golden statue of himself erected in the capital. It even rotated as to always be facing the sun. Apparently, he wasn’t a fan of the performing arts though; in 2001, ballet and opera were banned from Turkmenistan, being cited as unnecessary to Turkmeni culture. Regrettably, before he could get anything else done, Niyazov passed away in December of 2006, at the age of sixty-six.

So you may have heard the phrase “history repeats itself.” For our sake, I certainly hope not. People should be learning from history, not making the same mistakes as people in the past. It is not people’s mistakes that are enshrined in history as so much those of leaders. But here in America we have the privilege of getting to democratically elect our leaders, so a faulty leader is somewhat a reflection on a faulty people. So if your opinion is the right one, and you want to hand-pick the next president, get your hands on a ballot, and get to your picking inside a voting booth. I hope the above anecdote and Turkmeni tale enlighten you to how horribly awry a country and the lives of its citizens could turn if subject to poor leadership. So if it’s not too late get out and vote AND STOP COMPLAINING; it could be so much worse.

Women’s roles can be a super-touchy topic, and conservatives and liberals alike rarely give a good defense of their positions. Conservatives who advocate for women to play a different role than men often come across as advocating the repression of women, while liberals seem to automatically assume that saying there is a difference between the roles men and women play (especially when that word, gasp, submission, creeps into the conversation!) means that women have the less honorable or glorious role and men the dominant role.

With the clamor on this topic that seems to have arisen lately on campus, I thought I would present the opinion of a woman, and a conservative. I originally was just going to record a few thoughts on ‘women’s roles’. I realize, however, that because women would have no need for a role if men had not one either, and because the two are so inextricably interdependent, I must talk about them both. Besides, the arguments seem to always be about women, but, in my opinion, men’s roles have been just as sadly derided and twisted as women’s have been.

Men and women alike have equally vital roles to play to complement each other. Popular culture, though, has stripped both sexes of the honorable parts they should play by insisting that just because the parts are different, one is somehow more demeaning than the other. How ironic that a society that goes to such lengths to ‘celebrate diversity’ should be so scornful of differences!

My thoughts here are in defense of both real manhood as well as real womanhood. Popular culture pretends to liberate women while actually demeaning their value and at the same time shoving men aside as unneeded. Women are told that because they are capable of doing everything a man can do, they should do so. Men are left out in the cold, wondering who needs what they have to offer.

As this has happened, the natural characteristics of one sex have become exalted while the characteristics of the other sex have been ignored. An example that comes to mind is how women’s tendency to be more sensitive and emotional than men has been exalted to absolute ridiculousness rather than given a healthy dose of manly realism. Part of the result is a mushy, feel-good society where the kind of excellent character that remains steadfast for goodness sake rather than the sake of feeling good is rare.

By no means am I saying that a woman is not capable of having excellent character, I only mean that, working as a whole to make up society, each sex need to each be allowed its place to keep the strengths of one sex (like ease of talking about emotions and life, etc.) from turning into weaknesses, which they will inevitably do when not tempered by the strengths of the other sex (like logic, practicality, etc…).

Again, please do not misunderstand my example. Of course, men have emotions and can be good communicators and women likewise have logic. As a whole, however, women have strengths in some areas and men in others, and that is as it should be. They complement each other and should be allowed to do so.

One of the things that made me think of this whole topic, and another example of what I just described, was a Broadway show I saw with a friend last week. The show was Mamma Mia!, and while I enjoyed the music and the humor, I could not help but be a little bothered by the way men were treated in the story. The story is a comedy about a 20-year old girl raised by a single mother who runs a little hotel on an island in Greece. The girl is getting married, and after reading her mother’s diary of the year before she was born, writes letters to three men she decides could potentially be her father and invites them to her wedding. Each ends up figuring out why he got invited, decided he must be her father, and offers to give her away at her wedding. Eventually, the girl decides that she does not really need to know who her real father is and thanks her mother profusely for raising her alone and has her walk her down the aisle. At the altar she decides she does not need to get married after all since she and her fiance love each other and that is enough, and they head off into the sunset apparently happy and in love, but uncommitted.

It might sound like I am nitpicking, but it is in seemingly innocent places like comedy and entertainment where some of the most dangerous ideologies take hold and subsequently become entrenched in society’s mind. Throughout the story, the mother is not in favor of the wedding, in spite of liking her daughter’s fiancé because she thinks her daughter is throwing her life away by committing to him so young. One of the mother’s sisters is an independent woman who looks with scorn on settling down and having kids, and the other sister is a fashionable, beautiful woman who’s been married to three millionaires and is proud of it. To me, each of these women offers the subtle hint that making sure you are in control of your own life and not committing to sharing every bit of it with a man is the safest way for a woman to go.

Additionally, the fact that the mother was promiscuous (as were the men) and that it did not bother any of the men to find out she had slept with the other men, implied that the sexes were there for each there for each other’s sexual pleasure – no bothersome, old-fashioned morality or other such burdensome scruples attached.

Of course, the ending has everyone happy and feeling good and agreeing that a girl growing up without a father as a result of her mother’s promiscuousness is quite acceptable and that the mother should be praised for the good job she did raising her daughter alone.

The Broadway show is not the only place you can see this mentality of independent women and unnecessary men. In the very few minutes of television I pick up every few months, I have seen the same thing. Sitcoms abound with smart, educated, petite women and their overweight, TV-addicted, sex-hungry, not-very-bright husbands. What’s that all about? What would happen if the men were made out to be the good looking, sexy, smart ones while the women were fat, ugly, stupid, and lazy? What an uproar that would cause! Under the guise of women’s liberation, though, men have been relegated to an unnecessary and secondary place and, sadly, I don’t think many of them even know it.

The fact is that men have an intrinsic need to be respected while women have an intrinsic need to be loved. We women want some man to worship the ground we walk on, and plenty of men would probably do it if we made ourselves more worthy of their love and offered them something in return. They want to be respected and honored and to feel like what they are doing is necessary and something they can be proud of and something we will be proud of them for. Move over a little, ladies, and leave room for men to take back a respectable position.

Women, we have a responsibility to men, be they friends, fathers, brothers, boyfriends, or husbands. They need to know they are wanted and that their talents and abilities are something we need and appreciate. And we need to do so genuinely, not patronizingly. Stop shouting to men with actions and attitudes, if not with words, “we don’t need you, all you do is something we could do ourselves just as well. So step aside and let us do it all, thank you very much.” Where is the call for true manhood? Where is the call for men we can trust and lean on?

Admit it girls, we admire a strong, trustworthy, dependable, honest, and kind man. What’s wrong with that? We get all worked up feeling insecure if we admit wanting to be taken care of, but why? We reproach ourselves for such natural feelings and try to prove how capable and strong and independent we are. Meanwhile we do men a disservice and leave them wondering what they are needed for.

The popular little saying that ‘guys are jerks’ is sadly thrown around by women as if it were funny, and I know that there are men out there who really are jerks – lots of them, in fact. And, I know that throughout history, men that are jerks have indeed abused their roles and taken advantage of women and made them objects of their passions or anger or whatever. But, does that mean there is something wrong with the roles or something wrong with those men?

Take heart, girls, not all guys are jerks. And, take heart, guys, women need you to be kind, loving, strong, and manly.

Ladies, we have an immense responsibility. We need to act like ladies and present ourselves as worthy of the love we keep looking for. In this way, we can calmly and quietly demand to be treated with love and value, and at the same time do the immensely important job of helping the men around us step up to the roles they need and want to fill.

I’m here to present to you an issue, to facilitate a discussion, so I thought I’d try something a little different this time around. There is an age-old question, one that hasn’t really been looked at and addressed until now, and it is this: can a woman be put in a role of leadership? The answer is a resounding, “DUH, of course they can!” Although leadership positions have been predominantly male, recently there has been a rise in female leaders. In the corporate world, we see them emerging as CEOs of large corporations (e-bay, Alcatel-Lucent, Sara Lee, Avon, Xerox, HP, etc) with great success. In politics, there have been female Prime Ministers, most notably in England (Margaret Thatcher anyone?) and India, among many other various countries, and in faith, Mother Teresa was a shining example of how to live a life in Christ. Actually, you don’t even have to look further than our own campus’s President, Alice Gast. So what’s the problem?

I personally believe that “behind every great man is a great woman,” a slogan which was used by the feminist movement in the 60′s. But I don’t think it would be a stretch to also say, then, that behind every great woman, there is a great man. It’s the union of the two that makes extraordinary things happen, but it just happens that usually only one person gets the credit. There is a saying, “women need men like a fish needs a bicycle”, but it’s no more true than the stereotypes and jokes we make about women. Actually, I find it rather offensive, being male myself, because both sexes are dependent on each other. Slogans that belittle one sex hardly promote equality, one of the goals of feminists. Taken directly from the Now.org website (National Organization for Women), “[o]ur purpose is to take action to bring women into full participation in society — sharing equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities with men, while living free from discrimination.” It only makes sense that, instead of trying to lower the status of men, they raise the female status. However, that is easier said than done.

So what’s the source of our seemingly patriarchic society? In many opinions, it’s our Judeo-Christian values that we were founded on. But in actuality, the Bible says differently, so let’s debunk a few stereotypes. As you may know, I believe that God created us both in his image (I say “his” because it is grammatically correct to) and together we are the image of God. “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created” (Genesis 5:2). Together they are “adam” (meaning “man” in Hebrew), the image of God. God gave dominion to them both over the Earth, so what happened here? Was it the apple that really condemned the female sex? Well, the answer is yes, but only temporarily. Since I am speaking about the Bible, I might as well point out that, “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (I Corinthians 15:21-22). See that was wiped years ago (about 2000 or so), so why does it seem like women are still so put down in the Bible? Example:

“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.” (1 Corinthians 14:34).

This was written by a man named Paul, as a letter to the Corinthians, but does he really feel this way? He just said before that the slate was wiped clean, so why would he say that women should keep quiet? Before you start screaming hypocrisy, it’s important to note that, later on, Paul commends many women with leadership roles in ministry (Phoebe, Priscilla, Euodia and Syntyche, Junia), so it couldn’t possibly be women in ministry he was talking about. During the context of the time, the Corinthians had very disruptive and disorderly church services; he was merely addressing that issue.

In addition, the Bible talks about women in roles of submissiveness, to the church and to their husbands, and constantly we see that submissiveness as a feminine trait and aggressiveness as masculine. But does that mean women can’t lead? Throughout the Bible, we see God as having both masculine and feminine traits, which makes sense, seeing that man and woman together are in his image. We are all submissive and aggressive, but in different ways and different amounts. Our minds and bodies work differently, but complementary. It’s a hard concept, different but equal, but “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). When evaluating a thing like leadership, sex does not matter; rather it comes down to qualifications. There is a certain mix of traits required to be a good leader, and for some reason society sees that more in males than in females. It’s an old habit not easily broken.

I’ve heard the argument that the world would not respect a female leader, but how many people of the world respect George W. Bush? Female leaders, from what I see, work fine in today’s world, granted they have the right talents. “We have different gifts, according to the grace given to us…if it is encouraging let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do so cheerfully” (Romans 12:6,8).

So really, women can totally handle and, dare I say, belong in leadership roles, if I were to believe the Bible (and I do). Of course, there are arguments that can be made against mine from the Bible, as well, but it’s all interpretation. The Bible says what it does, but it can be twisted and used just like any document (e.g.: the Constitution). Actually, the Bible even talks about this: “[Paul's] letters contain some things which are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). It is completely and totally possible for humans to misapply the Bible (and thus the stereotypes begin that we are all gay-hating anti-abortion women-bashing Jesus-freaks) and that is the completely wrong picture of what God would have us be. To me, what would be awesome is if we actually had a couple (man and a woman) lead this country together. Or maybe that’s a totally awful idea that would just lead to a lot of fighting. But what does Lehigh think here? I doubt my opinion here is going to completely solve the problem once and for all.