Comments on: Barbara Boxer on Being Authentic

By: Rob

Rob — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:19:03 +0000

Ida, while you’re at it what ever happened to genuineness, congruence, and unconditional positive regard? Were they replaced with hatred of males? Ask Carol and Annie the next time you see them, and tell them their hypocrisy preceeds them. Thanks princess.

By: Ida

Ida — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:41:58 +0000

Carol Gilligan and Annie Rogers, psychologists and professors, taught me about authenticity when I attended HGSE in Cambridge, MA.
Young adolescent girls struggle with it — and are authentic until their voices go underground because it feels safer that way.
If you want authenticity, talk to and 11- or 12-year-old girl. She talks about life as she sees it and feels it. Sometimes, people are too uncomfortable with that and shame girls into going underground. Often it is women who do this. But men are also part of the shaming process.
This is just a small nugget that I learned. Thought I’d pass it on.
Next time you make fun of someone for being real, look at yourself and see what you are trying to hide.

By: Rob Adcox

Rob Adcox — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:25:17 +0000

Touche, Kevin. Did Boxer ever define what she meant by being “authentic”? It sounded like she wanted to use a buzz word and hoped that it would make sense to someone.

By: kevin

kevin — Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:29:14 +0000

Now you’re creeping me out, Rob. And still missing the point.

By: Rob Adcox

Rob Adcox — Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:16:11 +0000

And thanks Kevin for your oh-so-”Christian” sarcasm. I’m sure you put a smile on your prietst’s face when you two share a smoke and cuddle together.

By: kevin

kevin — Thu, 12 May 2005 17:32:45 +0000

Thanks for completely missing the point, Rob. We’re not talking politics here.

By: Rob Adcox

Rob Adcox — Thu, 12 May 2005 16:31:38 +0000

If Barbara Boxer were truly “authentic”, then she would understand that Americans are sick and tired of screeching,snivelling liberals like Boxer, who is now vowing to fight the President over the nomination of NONliberal activist judges to federal benches. The Democrats know that they’re losing power. They also know that they’re losing credibility in the eyes of majority of the American public. Liberal activist courts have become one of the few “havens” for liberals to push their agendas, but you know what? They’re beginning to lose there as well, and Boxer knows it! Barbie’s tough talk means nothing, because she’s worried that her party is losing its grasp on political power, and she’s right. The Democrats are losing and losing BIG. I’m not impressed at all by that idiot Boxer. She couldn’t care less about what the American people want. All she cares about is pepetuating the agenda of the elitist core of her party. Barbara Boxer, you’re a loser. Sit down.

By: kevin

kevin — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 11:43:17 +0000

I think Boxer is saying let’s be authentic–let’s be who we really are, and not force people to conform to certain standards. I think the entire point she was getting at was the Democratic party needs to be more open to faith and stop being the secular party. Her point isn’t that the Democratic party should conform to what’s in (be religious because it’s popular), but that they should be honest about who they are. There are Christian Democrats and the party would be better served if they were honest about that and allowed those Christian Democrats to have a voice.
I think that’s the point Brad is getting at. Let’s not shoe-horn a message onto our church that doesn’t fit–let’s be honest about who we are as a church. In the long run that will be more successful.

By: glenn

glenn — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:53:07 +0000

btw: i do really like your site!

By: glenn

glenn — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:52:06 +0000

ok, let’s look at the issue then. are we saying that being authentic means being all inclusive (i.e., tolerant to all without any demand to conformity [which happens to be a big danger in contemporary church "marketing"])? or, are we saying that being authentic means a gracious acceptance of someone’s individualistic style, flair, approach, etc. as regards to theology, praxis, polity, etc.? boxer is saying that the democratic tent ought to be big and thereby inclusive of the many different stripes of democrats. but what, pray tell, does inclusiveness have to do with authenticity? and even if we construe inclusiveness to mean authentic, authentic to what end, for what means?
let’s talk about it . . . .